The Grand Jury Discussion about the possible Reasons for Seating a GJ

[BeanE]

My understanding is he actually did get phone contact.
But, I do not know why he was denied supervised visitation. I'd have to review the court file and the judge's comments. Fact is, it is rare not to give if even supervised visitation. Rarer yet is to deny a mother visitation of her infant without real proof of possible harm. In any event, one case - the Stewart case - has no bearing at all on this one. Except for the fact that Stewart tried. He even tried for custody after his wife went missing, knowing he was a "person of interest". TH did not try at all.

No, the phone contact was earlier on, before Venus went missing. When he tried for supervised visitation or phone after Venus went missing, it was denied. He got nada.

 

[rnmif]

Thanks for responding Wondering

I think there is speculation that if she had fought and "stuck her foot in her mouth" that she could be worse off (for a later trial). But really, just how can you stick your foot in your mouth if you are really innocent -- squeaky clean?

You are so right...she is at ZERO contact with her daughter, and I just don't get it. Gitana seemed to be fairly gobsmacked (or perhaps I should say "moved") about this too and I highly respect her opinions and experience, but I should not speak for her. She is a professional who gets what professionals can do to help parents in this situation, I best leave it to her to help us understand further about her thoughts etc.

Terri appears to have opted not to walk in and say, "Woah, wait a minute here folks, don't be messing around with my contact with my child over garbage thoughts on your part." I have to wonder "why" and can only come up with THERE IS A REASON she knows she cannot cut down "probable cause." I can only guess that she has given her attorney reason to believe that she is not squeaky clean. BUT...we have more to learn, I am confounded.

Unfortunately the RO was based on the MFH info and Kyron being missing. Both speak to state of mind, the later speaks to capacity to harm a child.

Until she has been cleared, nobody is going to restore her contact.

Removing a child from parental custody is a lot easier than you think. There isn't much threshold for initial removal, and can be held beyond the initial investigative period on very little evidence in order to allow a more thorough investigation.

There is a reason there is such focus on false allegations against foster parents and why retention of foster parents is such a sticky wicket. That's not the only reason, but it's a large chunk of the reason.

 

[rnmif]

Again, Kaine would have had to present more than hearsay evidence at the RO hearing.

Not an emergency RO.

 

[gitana1]

No, the phone contact was earlier on, before Venus went missing. When he tried for supervised visitation or phone after Venus went missing, it was denied. He got nada.

Oh yes, I understand. However, by then, there was a ton of evidence against him like the mother's statements that he would try to kill her, her past RO petition, etc. There is no evidence we know of against TH at this point, that has been released. Unless Kaine could actually get LE to testify and provide the court with evidence, TH would get contact with her child and it would be unlikely, IMO that he could secure an RO. Again, TH has failed to even try.

Unfortunately the RO was based on the MFH info and Kyron being missing. Both speak to state of mind, the later speaks to capacity to harm a child.

Until she has been cleared, nobody is going to restore her contact.

Removing a child from parental custody is a lot easier than you think. There isn't much threshold for initial removal, and can be held beyond the initial investigative period on very little evidence in order to allow a more thorough investigation.

There is a reason there is such focus on false allegations against foster parents and why retention of foster parents is such a sticky wicket. That's not the only reason, but it's a large chunk of the reason.

In juvenile dependency cases, (where kids get taken by the state due to abuse/neglect allegations), that may be true. In fact, I have seen kids removed based on allegations of an angry friend or family member.
But that is not so in family law cases. I've been practicing almost exclusively family since 2002 and my experience is that you need a lot of evidence to take custody from a parent. Not just unfounded allegations.
Sure, there are exceptions to the rule around the country. But those exceptions do nothing to explain why TH failed to try.

 

[grandmaj]

Wrinkles started a great conversation which deserves it own thread. And this way here we can keep the Grand Jury appearance thread a little bit more on the who's who of appearances.

Thanks Wrinkles. I answered your post in the other thread and I agree with you. You may always discuss what you wish..... OK within reason :floorlaugh: :blowkiss:

 

[grandmaj]

Wrinkles started a great conversation which deserves it own thread. And this way here we can keep the Grand Jury appearance thread a little bit more on the who's who of appearances.

Thanks Wrinkles. I answered your post in the other thread and I agree with you. You may always discuss what you wish..... OK within reason :floorlaugh: :blowkiss:

 

[wondering1]

This is not the thread for it, but I am very curious as to why two different fathers of two different children felt they could say "no" to Desiree and she was unable/unwilling to challenge them.

It's possible, if not likely, that the de facto custody arrangements that were worked out between her and the fathers were likely as good as it was gonna get after a court battle that would have been expensive and possibly futile, and certainly not the way to work out custody if other amicable options are available. Sometimes an amicable compromise is better than an adversarial *win.* And who knows what her financial resources were like. My divorce/custody dispute cost many tens of thousands of dollars, and had a lot of collateral costs additonal to the straight dollars. I have always considered myself fortunate to have had the means to afford it. Sahm's often don't have to worry about that, since their husband foots the bill for attorneys' fees, too. I wonder is the custodial moms taking issue with DY are in that camp -- because I think that can definitely change your perspective.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Suspect or not, she has not been convicted nor even arrested. A court, IMO would give her, at the least, visitation rights. A child that age needs her mother, to at least see her mommy once per week or so and know her mommy is still around and loves her.
Again, Kaine would have had to present more than hearsay evidence at the RO hearing. Statements that LE gave him probable cause are not at all enough to get an RO and have custody taken. But TH did not bother to force him to submit his evidence.
Thus, she failed to contest the RO and failed to fight in any way for any custodial and/or visitation rights to her child, setting a precedent via creating a status quo that will make a later award of primary custody to her, incredibly difficult to get. Just like DY did not fight to change the custody orders after she let Kaine have custody when she got sick. Because it is very hard to change the status quo once it's established without a significant change in circumstances justifying such a change.
I see no honest reason for TH to have given up without a fight at this point.

Above BBM. Thanks so much gitana for always speaking such important and noteworthy facts, issues, or stances of our judicial system. I for one appreciate you and your knowledgable(and interesting) posts.

The portion that is BBM ^Above^ was something I knew and have stated on multiple occasions here in this forum but unfortunately have not had the resources to back up such statements leading to my "repeating" of this and "repeatedly" being struck down and told was infact not true..

So, I am so verry happy that you(who does have the knowledge, education,a nd training to "back up" this)decided to post this specific point.. I will not once again "repeat" my statement but rather will just post that snipped portion that I have bolded in your above post..

begin snip~
Again, Kaine would have had to present more than hearsay evidence at the RO hearing. Statements that LE gave him probable cause are not at all enough to get an RO and have custody taken. But TH did not bother to force him to submit his evidence.~ end snip

Again much THANKS gitana

 

[TxLady2]

I haven't seen any discussion about the reasons for the grand jury in this thread. It's all about Terri not fighting for custody.
Am I missing something?

 

[For The Kids]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular view, but...Desiree, even after regaining her health and remarrying, did not attempt to regain custody of her children from their fathers. Those of us who have not lost custody can't imagine why any parent wouldn't fight for custody. But there are reasons which make it impractical, at least temporarily.

Maybe Desiree simply put what she thought was best for her child before her own needs. However unlike Terri Desiree did make sure that she saw her child still...UNLIKE Terri..

 

[Curious Me]

I haven't seen any discussion about the reasons for the grand jury in this thread. It's all about Terri not fighting for custody.
Am I missing something?

Same question here. I think there's another thread about the Grand Jury. ?