january 23 - 31

[Stellagant]

I think the custody suit is also considering what will happen to Cassidy when JY is arrested.

Regzarding the length of time it is taking for an arrest to be made, I would recommend reading "Deadly Dose" by Amanda Lamb. The DA does not jump when investigators feel there is probable cause. He wants the case when he can get a conviction BARD.

The claim is for temporary custody. The Judge can't anticipate an event that hasn't happened and may never happen. A parent doesn't lose parental rights just because they've been arrested. They can designate who their child stays with while they are in jail.

[alterEgo©]

The child is at risk of what? There's no sense of urgency to Fishers' complaint. CY has lived with her dad her entire life and for more than two years since the murder. Fishers' complaint failed to cite even one situation where witnesses observed the child subjected to either emotional or physical distress.

A civil court designation doesn't place CY any more at risk than she was two years ago. I've never heard of a case where a Court has willingly removed a child from her home without evidence the child was in danger. How about you cite one?
Exactly. And how can the Fisher's now claim a PE is warranted when they were mute about Jason's fitness to be a parent for two whole years?

[Stellagant]

I can't predict any outcome at this point. Still too much to be presented by the defense. Case law indicts the difficulty in removing a child from the custody of a natural parent. But it also makes clear that the judge has a wide berth of 'discretion on a case by case basis'.

I'm not sure what tune you are referring to - the dial is still on ROCK. :biggrin:

I think the wrong venue pretty much limits what this judge is going to do. Her choice is going to be dismiss or dismiss.

[Stellagant]

Exactly. And how can the Fisher's now claim a PE is warranted when they were mute about Jason's fitness to be a parent for two whole years?

Their claim is weak and they filed it in the wrong venue but it's all they have. Grandparent Visitation in NC requires a higher bar that they can't meet.

[Cardinal]

So, the hearing in Judge Sasser's court is in a few days. It will be interesting to see what happens. Regardless of what I - or others - think, Judge Sasser is very much in control of the outcome.

[alterEgo©]

I think the wrong venue pretty much limits what this judge is going to do. Her choice is going to be dismiss or dismiss.
Yup.

As pointed out by Jason, the statutes are clear on venue.

And the convience of the defense witnesses who have current info about the life Jason is providing for Cassidy should trump the convience of witnesses with info from over 2 years ago that doesn't even have anything to do with Jason's fitness as a parent.

[alterEgo©]

So, the hearing in Judge Sasser's court is in a few days. It will be interesting to see what happens. Regardless of what I - or others - think, Judge Sasser is very much in control of the outcome.
Absolutely.

Until her decision is appealed that is....

[Cardinal]

Absolutely.

Until her decision is appealed that is....

LOL Let's get past the motions before we talk about appeal!

[alterEgo©]

Whoa. Found a case presided over by Judge Sasser from 2 yrs ago where she tossed an assault case on a venue related issue and Colin Willoughby was not happy, comparing her ruling to something from the bench of Judge Judy. :ohmy:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1088222/

[Stellagant]

So, the hearing in Judge Sasser's court is in a few days. It will be interesting to see what happens. Regardless of what I - or others - think, Judge Sasser is very much in control of the outcome.

Actually, statutes are in control of the outcome. All she'll be deciding is whether to dismiss the motion altogether or to transfer it to another county.

[alterEgo©]

LOL Let's get past the motions before we talk about appeal!

ok :tonguewag: :laugh:

I wonder if the Fishers are going to respond to the motion to dismiss/reassign.

[Tia]

So.......If the two side come up with an arrangement what will it be called? You know, if they agree to something "out of court" or something that is not imposed upon them by a court decision?

Can't they come to an understanding (arrangement, agreement, etc.) "out of court" and then LF could drop her suit?

Yes, a custody or visitation agreement. A temporary order can be written up that day, if BOTH PARTIES agree. Eventually, a formal agreement will be entered into the system which outlines the visitation/custody schedule.

If not, MAYBE a temporary order will be put in place allowing some visitation, then another hearing will be scheduled.

Family court is very complex, nothing like criminal court. I think thats why there is so much confusion here.

You have to have been through it or know someone who has been through it to understand.

In addition, the "best interest of the child" standard is very vague.

[Tia]

It matters because Fishers' request is for temporary custody. Waiting over two years and then claiming the child is at risk because a civil court named her father a "slayer" isn't going to persuade a judge the child must now be removed from the home.

Family court is just not that "cut and dried".

[Tia]

Whatever weight the judge gives it.

EXACTLY!! It all depends solely on the judge. There is no jury. The judge will make a decision based on what is laid in front of him/her that day.

[achristie]

Yup.

As pointed out by Jason, the statutes are clear on venue.

And the convience of the defense witnesses who have current info about the life Jason is providing for Cassidy should trump the convience of witnesses with info from over 2 years ago that doesn't even have anything to do with Jason's fitness as a parent.

I'd have to agree with this, in terms of convenience. Sounds like anyone exposed to the child is a select few; JY's family ( mom, pop, sisters, and the retired teacher and his family), school teachers(maybe dance teachers, according to June). Would it be more cost effective for JY to pay his lawyer fees for travel as opposed to those other people paying? Sounds like it could be. Not to mention they could get out from under Judge Sasser. She's got a thing about the elephant in the living room. I think she is the genesis of it all.:laugh:

MOO Aggie

[Kat4Eagles]

SO WHAT?

Michelle and Rylan are no less dead and Jason is no less of a slayer.

Cassidy deserves better than to be forced to live with a family that is shunned and ridiculed in their entire community.

MOO

Where does it say that the Youngs are shunned and ridiculed by anyone, let alone a entire community?

What happens when all these Transylvanian or Brevardian character witnesses line up to testify to Jason's good parenting skillz, then what?

Last I read that was posted here, was that C was doing well in day care, attending dance classes, going to church, and Daddy was playing bball with his friends!!

Doesn't sound like any shunning or any ridiculing to me.
Got link?
:)

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

Whoa. Found a case presided over by Judge Sasser from 2 yrs ago where she tossed an assault case on a venue related issue and Colin Willoughby was not happy, comparing her ruling to something from the bench of Judge Judy. :ohmy:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1088222/


Nice find,AE, could this make her more hesitant to change the venue in this case though?

There has hardly been any mention of the Cooper case that I have seen, has a trial date been set?

Kat

[catdoc]

Waiting over two years is going to be hard to overcome, imo.

And harder to explain.

And, even harder to justify taking an innocent child away from her Dad.

Kat

Hi ppl---Why did they wait so long???

For the WD suit to be resolved? And did they go to civil court because the criminal case was taking to long?
I don't understand how this man is getting away with killing his wife.

[catdoc]

Was JY found to be the "Slayer" of the unborn child as well as MY?
Will JY be charged with the unborn son's death if he is criminally charged with MY's murder?

Does NC recognize the unborn as a separate individual as regards to murder of the mother?

[Stellagant]

ok :tonguewag: :laugh:

I wonder if the Fishers are going to respond to the motion to dismiss/reassign.

Not much they can say in response other than agree they got the wrong venue and hope the Judge transfers it rather than make them start over.

[Stellagant]

Family court is just not that "cut and dried".

The statutes are fairly cut and dried.

[Stellagant]

Yes, a custody or visitation agreement. A temporary order can be written up that day, if BOTH PARTIES agree. Eventually, a formal agreement will be entered into the system which outlines the visitation/custody schedule.

If not, MAYBE a temporary order will be put in place allowing some visitation, then another hearing will be scheduled.

Family court is very complex, nothing like criminal court. I think thats why there is so much confusion here.

You have to have been through it or know someone who has been through it to understand.

In addition, the "best interest of the child" standard is very vague.

Nonsense. The best interest of the child isn't rocket science. A court does require substantial proof the child is in danger before they remove a child from her home. But first, the court requires the claim to be a legitimate claim and not a ruse for grandparent visitation.

Family court is not all that complex. We have thousands of kids in foster care and they didn't get there without compelling evidence the child's safety was in jeopary.

[catdoc]

My question regarding the state's recognition of the death by murder of the unborn son seems extremely revelant to the custody case.

If JY has been declared the slayer of CY's brother in a civil court then how could it be ignored that JY is capable of killing his own child and has a history of doing so. Not all state's recognize the unborn as a separate murder. Seems more revelant than him being capable of killing his wife. It has been mentioned on this board that killing a spouse does not make a parent unfit (OJ and MW, for example).But a "child killer" would be a different story,I would imagine.

Just something I considered if and when this custody case gets to the appropriate venue. I haven't actually been able to find the WD ruling so I assume it was just for MY.

I agree that JY will agree to anything to maintain his ominous silence.
Good stategy for a guilty man.

[Cardinal]

My question regarding the state's recognition of the death by murder of the unborn son seems extremely revelant to the custody case.

If JY has been declared the slayer of CY's brother in a civil court then how could it be ignored that JY is capable of killing his own child and has a history of doing so. Not all state's recognize the unborn as a separate murder. Seems more revelant than him being capable of killing his wife. It has been mentioned on this board that killing a spouse does not make a parent unfit (OJ and MW, for example).But a "child killer" would be a different story,I would imagine.

Just something I considered if and when this custody case gets to the appropriate venue. I haven't actually been able to find the WD ruling so I assume it was just for MY.

I agree that JY will agree to anything to maintain his ominous silence.
Good stategy for a guilty man.

The WD ruling was only for Michelle:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/12/05/4088144/32274-20081205174636577.pdf

But you make a really interesting point. It's been said that questions can't be asked about the murder because of the WDS ruling.

Sadly, NC doesn't recognize an unborn child as a separate murder, except as a factor in sentencing. But since the WDS ruling didn't include Rylan, I wonder if the point CAN be made that, due to the ruling that Jason killed Michelle, he also killed his unborn son and could be a danger to Cassidy?

[5swab5]

Nonsense. The best interest of the child isn't rocket science. A court does require substantial proof the child is in danger before they remove a child from her home. But first, the court requires the claim to be a legitimate claim and not a ruse for grandparent visitation.

Family court is not all that complex. We have thousands of kids in foster care and they didn't get there without compelling evidence the child's safety was in jeopary.


If being declared the slayer of your wife and by default, your own unborn child doesn't give the Court pause regarding Cassidy's safety, I can't fathom what criteria might.

Many, many households are investigated on behalf of young children every day, but few have the distinction of having a slayer in residence.


MOO

[5swab5]

I'd have to agree with this, in terms of convenience. Sounds like anyone exposed to the child is a select few; JY's family ( mom, pop, sisters, and the retired teacher and his family), school teachers(maybe dance teachers, according to June). Would it be more cost effective for JY to pay his lawyer fees for travel as opposed to those other people paying? Sounds like it could be. Not to mention they could get out from under Judge Sasser. She's got a thing about the elephant in the living room. I think she is the genesis of it all.:laugh:

MOO Aggie

How are all these people going to testify to Jason's child-rearing skills, when all he does is drop Cassidy off. Who pays for her food, clothing, roof over her head, etc?

Jason supporters having to travel? That's a hoot. Pat, Gerald, Kim, maybe Heather and maybe John.

I don't think the First Liar's Club of Brevard will be able to salvage the day.

MOO

[alterEgo©]

My question regarding the state's recognition of the death by murder of the unborn son seems extremely revelant to the custody case.

If JY has been declared the slayer of CY's brother in a civil court then how could it be ignored that JY is capable of killing his own child and has a history of doing so. Not all state's recognize the unborn as a separate murder. Seems more revelant than him being capable of killing his wife. It has been mentioned on this board that killing a spouse does not make a parent unfit (OJ and MW, for example).But a "child killer" would be a different story,I would imagine.

snipped
NC does not have a fetal homicide law so there is no legal basis to put forth the argument you describe.

[alterEgo©]

Was JY found to be the "Slayer" of the unborn child as well as MY?
Will JY be charged with the unborn son's death if he is criminally charged with MY's murder?

Does NC recognize the unborn as a separate individual as regards to murder of the mother?
No, no and no.

[Tia]

Nonsense. The best interest of the child isn't rocket science. A court does require substantial proof the child is in danger before they remove a child from her home. But first, the court requires the claim to be a legitimate claim and not a ruse for grandparent visitation.

Family court is not all that complex. We have thousands of kids in foster care and they didn't get there without compelling evidence the child's safety was in jeopary.

Did I say, anywhere in my post, that it was "rocket science"?

I said the "best interest of the child" standard is vague.

How many here would allow their child to be cared for by a "slayer"? Even if that person were declared a slayer civil court?

[alterEgo©]

I'd have to agree with this, in terms of convenience. Sounds like anyone exposed to the child is a select few; JY's family ( mom, pop, sisters, and the retired teacher and his family), school teachers(maybe dance teachers, according to June). Would it be more cost effective for JY to pay his lawyer fees for travel as opposed to those other people paying? Sounds like it could be. Not to mention they could get out from under Judge Sasser. She's got a thing about the elephant in the living room. I think she is the genesis of it all.:laugh:

MOO Aggie
Jason's motion lists the persons who would testify as to the wellbeing and care of Cassidy. I see no mention of 'the retired teacher and his family'.

Get out from under Judge Sasser because of some elephant in the living room? What elephant are you referring to? Her comment in the Cooper case? Well, gosh, haven't you heard? Jason was ruled the slayer of Michelle in a WD suit so there is no 'elephant in the living room' in this case as there was in the Cooper case.

What exactly is Judge Sasser the 'genesis' of?

[Stellagant]

Did I say, anywhere in my post, that it was "rocket science"?

I said the "best interest of the child" standard is vague.

How many here would allow their child to be cared for by a "slayer"? Even if that person were declared a slayer civil court?

Jason just might agree with you. CY is his child. The parties filing the claim of temporary custody are not her parent; CY isn't "their" child.

[Tia]

Jason just might agree with you. CY is his child. The parties filing the claim of temporary custody are not her parent; CY isn't "their" child.


Sorry! I always forget that we need to be very specific on this board or the discussion tends to veer off in the complete opposite direction!

We all know that Cassidy is not their child, I was asking the question "in general".

To make it easier to understand, I will repharase my question.........

"How many of you would like your neice, little sister, grand child, friends child, neighbor (you get the idea now, right?)......to be raised by a slayer?

How many of you would be okay with ANY child being raised by a slayer?

I hope that is easier to understand! Sorry for the confusion.

[Kat4Eagles]

Not much they can say in response other than agree they got the wrong venue and hope the Judge transfers it rather than make them start over.


Maybe the Fishers were not prepared for Jason to answer the custody suit at all.

Maybe the slayer title is all the justice the Fishers will ever have.

Maybe C is the only grandchild LF will ever have too.

:shrug:

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

If being declared the slayer of your wife and by default, your own unborn child doesn't give the Court pause regarding Cassidy's safety, I can't fathom what criteria might.

Many, many households are investigated on behalf of young children every day, but few have the distinction of having a slayer in residence.


MOO

But, only a slayer by ignoring a wds suit, not a slayer because of any evidence that is so overwhelming, so compelling, so incriminating, that Jason never sees the light of day again.

I guess there are different slayers.

Kat

[5swab5]

Jason just might agree with you. CY is his child. The parties filing the claim of temporary custody are not her parent; CY isn't "their" child.

But they are maternally related to Cassidy and they have been systematically removed from contact with Cassidy since her mother and brother's brutal murders. Unless of course, Jason thought he would get some brownie points or good will out of a visit.
Too little too late for a slayer that returned Cassidy's presents "to sender".

They filed as soon as they had the legal grounds to remove Cassidy from the slayer and his enabling family's household. They are at least trying to see to Cassidy's best interest, which is more than I can say for grandparents that would allow a vindictive son to return a child's presents to her maternal grandmother, unopened.

I applaud the Fishers!

MOO

[Kat4Eagles]

<snipped>


"How many of you would like your neice, little sister, grand child, friends child, neighbor (you get the idea now, right?)......to be raised by a slayer?

How many of you would be okay with ANY child being raised by a slayer?

I hope that is easier to understand! Sorry for the confusion.


This is the same question I have been asking for 2 years now..

How does anyone remain silent, friend, family, LE, whomever, if you believe someone murdered someone, and don't do anything about it?

Then there were allegations that the same child may have been a witness or drugged..

No one did anything.... nothing.
Why?
Because no one cared enough?
Because no one feared enough for her safety?

Until 2 years later, when Jason is automatically named a slayer, for failing to respond to a suit.

Only then, finally, someone does something.
:rolleyes:


Kat

[5swab5]

This is the same question I have been asking for 2 years now..

(snipped)
Until 2 years later, when Jason is automatically named a slayer, for failing to respond to a suit.

Only then, finally, someone does something.
:rolleyes:


Kat


For the umpteenth time, because...unfortunately in N.C. grandparents have NO rights!

Only when the Fisher's attained the "slayer" status against Jason did they have anything concrete to take before a Court to try and get Cassidy removed from Jason's evil clutches.

MOO

[Tia]

And you have received answers over and over. Yes, IMO, they waited for the court to put the SLAYER determination on him to give them the BEST SHOT at gaining custody. They knew it wasn't going to be easy and probably listened to their lawyers. If you think they didn't want to act sooner, I would venture a guess that you are WRONG. Also, you don't know what they have done in the past two years. Just because we don't see something in the news, doesn't mean something didn't happen.

Since the custody suit is going to be tough, they want it to be as solid as possible. Had they gone sooner with less info and no slayer determination, who knows what would have happened? If they did it sooner and lost, it's not like they can turn around and keep trying. I don't believe there are mulligans with these types of things.

It still makes me bewildered that JY supporters do not afford the Fishers the same consideration in the fact that they are listening to their lawyers and following their advice...but it is A-OK for Jason to do it.

I have never seen daily posts asking the question "why didn't Jason do something to help LE?" And if that question is every asked, we are told that "Jason is following his attorney's advice".

That is exactly what the Fisher's are doing and it is very cold to insinuate that they "don't care" on a public message board after the horrors that, IMO, Jason Young has put them through by murdering Linda's daughter and Grandson, Merediths Sister and nephew.

Civil court or not, he has now been declared Michelle's slayer. The Fisher's have a good chance at custody now. Its clear they are following the advice of an attorney.

I am just astounded that there is ZERO compassion for these people.

[Tia]

No confusion on my part. I think Meredith Fisher was involved in Michelle's murder and I wouldn't want her raising my child. Is that clear enough for you?

Wow! Then Jason should be filing a WDS!!!
Or even talking with LE!

[5swab5]

No confusion on my part. I think Meredith Fisher was involved in Michelle's murder and I wouldn't want her raising my child. Is that clear enough for you?

What you make abundantly clear is why there is a need for a rigorous selection process for jurors.

No wonder the DA is taking his sweet time. That certain people can look at all the info against Jason...completely ignore it or make up one excuse after the other and come up with the harebrained conclusion that Meredith is the culprit...Unbelievable!

Laughable, actually.

MOO

[Tia]

What you make abundantly clear is why there is a need for a rigorous selection process for jurors.

No wonder the DA is taking his sweet time. That certain people can look at all the info against Jason...completely ignore it or make up one excuse after the other and come up with the harebrained conclusion that Meredith is the culprit...Unbelievable!

Laughable, actually.

MOO

How does anyone remain silent, friend, family, LE, whomever, if you believe someone murdered someone, and don't do anything about it?

Then there were allegations that the same child may have been a witness or drugged.

Jason did nothing.
Why?
Because he doesn't care enough?
Because he didn't fear enough for her safety?

Even 2 years later, when Jason is a named a slayer.

He still does nothing.

[Kat4Eagles]

For the umpteenth time, because...unfortunately in N.C. grandparents have NO rights!

Only when the Fisher's attained the "slayer" status against Jason did they have anything concrete to take before a Court to try and get Cassidy removed from Jason's evil clutches.

MOO

No, the point is...hammer, is that there was no reason to get involved.
C was fine then and is perfectly fine now.

The reason no one did not intervene, was because there was no good cause to.

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

How does anyone remain silent, friend, family, LE, whomever, if you believe someone murdered someone, and don't do anything about it?

Then there were allegations that the same child may have been a witness or drugged.

Jason did nothing.
Why?
Because he doesn't care enough?
Because he didn't fear enough for her safety?

Even 2 years later, when Jason is a named a slayer.

He still does nothing.


If you think he killed Michelle, what would you like him to do?

Confess?, turn himself in?, and say, "oh, please, by the way
could you take my daughter away."

Kat

[Kat4Eagles]

What you make abundantly clear is why there is a need for a rigorous selection process for jurors.

No wonder the DA is taking his sweet time.
.Unbelievable!

Laughable, actually.

<snipped>

MOO

If the DA is taking his sweet time, your words, it is not because he/she wants to.
It is because they do not have enough evidence to do anything else.

Kat

[caffeinated]

If you think he killed Michelle, what would you like him to do?

Confess?, turn himself in?, and say, "oh, please, by the way
could you take my daughter away."

Kat


Sounds like a very honest thing for him to do for a change...new year new revelation for him

[Tia]

If you think he killed Michelle, what would you like him to do?

Confess?, turn himself in?, and say, "oh, please, by the way
could you take my daughter away."

Kat


Go back and read. I was responding to Swabby's post.

[Tia]

Sounds like a very honest thing for him to do for a change...new year new revelation for him

But then he'd go to jail.............

And those who post that Meredith murdered Michelle.........well now come on, do you think Jason would sit back and "take the wrap" for her? Do you think he would allow himself to be named Michelle's Slayer?
Risk losing Cassidy?

NO! He'd be telling everyone he could, INCLUDING LE and his attorney.

Come on now...........GMAB!

[Stellagant]

Wow! Then Jason should be filing a WDS!!!
Or even talking with LE!

Why would Jason file a WDS? MF doesn't have assets, does she?

Why can't LE solve this case without Jason's help?

[Tia]

Why would Jason file a WDS? MF doesn't have assets, does she?

Why can't LE solve this case without Jason's help?


Why doesn't Jason want to help LE?

[Stellagant]

No, the point is...hammer, is that there was no reason to get involved.
C was fine then and is perfectly fine now.

The reason no one did not intervene, was because there was no good cause to.

Kat

It's my opinion the only reason Fisher is trying to intervene now is because she wants visitation and is apparently of the belief whatever she wants, she's going to get.

[5swab5]

No, the point is...hammer, is that there was no reason to get involved.
C was fine then and is perfectly fine now.

The reason no one did not intervene, was because there was no good cause to.

Kat

Once AGAIN (sigh) you completely missed the point.

Linda had nothing, zip.nada.zilch to go to court with until Jason was declared a slayer.

While it is true that you can sue anyone for anything, if you can come up with the filing fee..... once in Court, you have to have something...besides I think "so and so" did "so and so".

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

And Cassidy is most certainly NOT perfectly fine, she has been sentenced to an entire lifetime without her mother. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

MOO

[Tia]

Once AGAIN (sigh) you completely missed the point.

Linda had nothing, zip.nada.zilch to go to court with until Jason was declared a slayer.

While it is true that you can sue anyone for anything, if you can come up with the filing fee..... once in Court, you have to have something...besides I think "so and so" did "so and so".

I don't know how much simpler I can make it.

And Cassidy is most certainly NOT perfectly fine, she has been sentenced to an entire lifetime without her mother. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

MOO

Your last paragraph brought tears to my eyes. I truly cannot imagine how anyone can think that Cassidy will ever be fine. Her mother was murdered, her baby brother murdered and her father named the "slayer".

She will NEVER be "perfectly fine".

[jerry50]

It's my opinion the only reason Fisher is trying to intervene now is because she wants visitation and is apparently of the belief whatever she wants, she's going to get.

If Linda was of the belief she could get whatever she wants I think she would prefer having her eldest daughter raising her two precious children will all of her teeth intact in her mouth.

[alterEgo©]

For the umpteenth time, because...unfortunately in N.C. grandparents have NO rights!

Only when the Fisher's attained the "slayer" status against Jason did they have anything concrete to take before a Court to try and get Cassidy removed from Jason's evil clutches.

MOOBut being ruled a slayer is not sufficient to terminate parental custody.

They have to prove he is unfit.

Did he just become unfit cuz all the allegations made by the Fishers were from incidents that happened before Michelle was murdered and only describe how lousy of a husband he was.

[alterEgo©]

Why doesn't Jason want to help LE?Because everything you say will be used against you.

[5swab5]

But being ruled a slayer is not sufficient to terminate parental custody.

(snipped)

IF being named a slayer isn't enough for the courts to sit up and take notice, pray tell, what do you think it would take?

Children are removed all the time when the parents are accused of beating a child or not feeding it properly.

Jason has been deemed the slayer of Michelle and Rylan. What could possibly be worse?

MOO

[alterEgo©]

IF being named a slayer isn't enough for the courts to sit up and take notice, pray tell, what do you think it would take?

Children are removed all the time when the parents are accused of beating a child or not feeding it properly.

Jason has been deemed the slayer of Michelle and Rylan. What could possibly be worse?

MOOIf being named a slayer was enough then all the character issues mentioned in the Fisher's complaint would not have been necessary.

Jason was not named a slayer of Rylan. Like it or not, NC does NOT have a fetal homicide law.

Being named a slayer only proves to the court that he has acted in a manner inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as a parent and makes the 'best interest of the child' doctrine kick in.

Yes, parents lose their children when they beat them or deprive them of food. There is no allegation in the Fisher's complaint that Jason has ever harmed, let alone beat, Cassidy or that he is not providing her with food.

The courts will only interfere with custody, especially when a natural parent has custody and a 3rd party is requesting it, when the natural parent is proven to be an unfit parent. And like it or not, being named the slayer of the other parent does not automatically equate to unfittness.

[Stellagant]

If being named a slayer was enough then all the character issues mentioned in the Fisher's complaint would not have been necessary.

Jason was not named a slayer of Rylan. Like it or not, NC does NOT have a fetal homicide law.

Being named a slayer only proves to the court that he has acted in a manner inconsistent with his constitutionally protected status as a parent and makes the 'best interest of the child' doctrine kick in.

Yes, parents lose their children when they beat them or deprive them of food. There is no allegation in the Fisher's complaint that Jason has ever harmed, let alone beat, Cassidy or that he is not providing her with food.

The courts will only interfere with custody, especially when a natural parent has custody and a 3rd party is requesting it, when the natural parent is proven to be an unfit parent. And like it or not, being named the slayer of the other parent does not automatically equate to unfittness.

I think some posters here really are clueless about how reluctant courts are in removing a child from home. In this case, a grandmother goes to court with two-year-old examples that Jason was a poor husband and nada about his role as parent, she doesn't interject a sense of urgency and it was filed in the wrong venue. What an incredible waste of the court's time, imo.

[5swab5]

(snipped)

Jason was not named a slayer of Rylan. Like it or not, NC does NOT have a fetal homicide law.

(snipped)


It doesn't matter to me whether N.C. technically recognizes Rylan as a human being or not.

Nothing will change the fact, that the slayer of Michelle snuffed out Rylan's life too.

I seriously doubt that logic will be lost on the Courts.

MOO

[alterEgo©]

It doesn't matter to me whether N.C. technically recognizes Rylan as a human being or not.

Nothing will change the fact, that the slayer of Michelle snuffed out Rylan's life too.

I seriously doubt that logic will be lost on the Courts.

MOO
It doesn't work that way swabby. The courts are not going to apply a nonexistent law. The most they can do is mention that Michelle was pregnant.

[Stellagant]

If Linda was of the belief she could get whatever she wants I think she would prefer having her eldest daughter raising her two precious children will all of her teeth intact in her mouth.

Or did Linda want to raise her daughter's children for her?

Linda reminds me of Virgi Arthur, who tried and failed to get custody of Dannilynn.

[Cardinal]

It doesn't work that way swabby. The courts are not going to apply a nonexistent law. The most they can do is mention that Michelle was pregnant.

I understand the legalities, AE. But I still think it's pertinent that Jason has been found to have killed Michelle, Michelle was pregnant, so in the process of killing Michelle, Jason killed his child.

I don't see how that can be kept out of the custody matter.

JMO

[catdoc]

It doesn't matter to me whether N.C. technically recognizes Rylan as a human being or not.

Nothing will change the fact, that the slayer of Michelle snuffed out Rylan's life too.

I seriously doubt that logic will be lost on the Courts.

MOO

Sadly, it makes all the difference. In court, the unborn child's murder will not be recognized. He has not murdered a child, according to the law of NC. I believe CA changed it's laws regarding the murder of an unborn after Laci and Conner.

Before the WDS, the Fishers had no grounds whatever to sue for custody. It took 2 yrs to get that but before I doubt an attorney would have even tried.

Of course, he is an unfit father. Not only did he brutally kill the child's mother but didn't he leave a toddling Cassidy with her mom's body.? Alone?

Noone capable of committing murder of a child's mother is fit to raise that child. However I do not believe the court will be able to apply such common sense and the laws protect only Jason's rights, including his parental rights.There might be some guestion if it were not for his family's support of them both financially since there is some question as to whether Jason works or actually provides anything.

I think the courts hands will be tied, even though it is morally wrong.

How far along was Michelle's pregnancy?

[alterEgo©]

I understand the legalities, AE. But I still think it's pertinent that Jason has been found to have killed Michelle, Michelle was pregnant, so in the process of killing Michelle, Jason killed his child.

I don't see how that can be kept out of the custody matter.

JMOThat Michelle was pregnant can be brought up. That an unborn child was murdered/killed cannot.

"Right now they recognize my daughter's murder. But they don't recognize my unborn grandson's murder or as a person, for that matter," said Blaine.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1573111/

[alterEgo©]

Sadly, it makes all the difference. In court, the unborn child's murder will not be recognized. He has not murdered a child, according to the law of NC. I believe CA changed it's laws regarding the murder of an unborn after Laci and Conner.
snipped
CA aleady had a fetal homicide law on the books, it is because of it that the DA sought the DP in the Peterson case . More than one murder was committed, which was one of the factors in determining if the death penalty could be sought.

[Cardinal]

That Michelle was pregnant can be brought up. That an unborn child was murdered/killed cannot.

"Right now they recognize my daughter's murder. But they don't recognize my unborn grandson's murder or as a person, for that matter," said Blaine.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1573111/

I understand the technicality, AE. But bringing up that Michelle was pregnant when Jason is deemed to have killed her is the same thing, IMO, as saying that Jason killed the baby she was carrying.

What kind of parent does that make him?

ETA: Also, Jason is deemed to have killed Michelle, which means he is deemed to have left Cassidy alone with her mother's body for hours. What kind of parent does that make him?

[catdoc]

CA aleady had a fetal homicide law on the books, it is because of it that the DA sought the DP in the Peterson case . More than one murder was committed, which was one of the factors in determining if the death penalty could be sought.

8/31/08 Unborn Victim's of Violence Act

Congress commemorated the slain California woman by passing the controversial Laci and Conner's Law and creating a new federal crime of killing an unborn child.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/51153.html

[catdoc]

My computer froze up before I could finish my last post.

I stand corrected. The Laci and Conner law took 5 yrs to pass and is a federal law. JY could be prosecuted on a separate FEDERAL crime of causing the death of an unborn child by killing the mother.

Note: Women's Right's Activists opposed this bill. Also it has not yet been tested but if you check out the link above the first test case may be in NC.

[Kat4Eagles]

IF being named a slayer isn't enough for the courts to sit up and take notice, pray tell, what do you think it would take?

Children are removed all the time when the parents are accused of beating a child or not feeding it properly.

Jason has been deemed the slayer of Michelle and Rylan. What could possibly be worse?

MOO

So, in other words, the fact that the child may have witnessed a murder, been left in the home unattended, and may have even been drugged during the act of murder, means nothing to a court to remove the child or get someone's attention.

It has to be accompanied by the word slayer.

Then everyone gets involved.

Got it.!!

:rolleyes:

Kat

[Tia]

I understand the technicality, AE. But bringing up that Michelle was pregnant when Jason is deemed to have killed her is the same thing, IMO, as saying that Jason killed the baby she was carrying.

What kind of parent does that make him?

ETA: Also, Jason is deemed to have killed Michelle, which means he is deemed to have left Cassidy alone with her mother's body for hours. What kind of parent does that make him?


Anything mentioned in Linda's suit will be addressed, to what extent, I don't know. But her "complaint" will have to be heard.

Its impossible to dissect this type of suit since it is very different from criminal court.

They could walk in, the judge could say "you were named Cassidy's mother's slayer in a civil judgement, on those grounds, custody will be issued to Linda Fisher"-or not.

No matter what anyone here says, the fact is, the outcome of a custody case is NEVER easy to figure. The judge may simply ignore the "slayer" issue, (I can't imagine that-if the judge is following the "best interest of the child standard), but it COULD happen. I think we all have to be prepared to be surprised.

[Cardinal]

Anything mentioned in Linda's suit will be addressed, to what extent, I don't know. But her "complaint" will have to be heard.

Its impossible to dissect this type of suit since it is very different from criminal court.

They could walk in, the judge could say "you were named Cassidy's mother's slayer in a civil judgement, on those grounds, custody will be issued to Linda Fisher"-or not.

No matter what anyone here says, the fact is, the outcome of a custody case is NEVER easy to figure. The judge may simply ignore the "slayer" issue, (I can't imagine that-if the judge is following the "best interest of the child standard), but it COULD happen. I think we all have to be prepared to be surprised.

I agree, Tia - I don't think anyone can call this one. We can all have our opinions, but none of them matter.

JMO

[catdoc]

Anything mentioned in Linda's suit will be addressed, to what extent, I don't know. But her "complaint" will have to be heard.

Its impossible to dissect this type of suit since it is very different from criminal court.

They could walk in, the judge could say "you were named Cassidy's mother's slayer in a civil judgement, on those grounds, custody will be issued to Linda Fisher"-or not.

No matter what anyone here says, the fact is, the outcome of a custody case is NEVER easy to figure. The judge may simply ignore the "slayer" issue, (I can't imagine that-if the judge is following the "best interest of the child standard), but it COULD happen. I think we all have to be prepared to be surprised.

Exactly sums it up. The " best interest of the child" is the guideline and is totally up to the interpretation of the presiding judge. It really depends on whose side is she on. I believe If she is convinced Jason is Michelle's killer she will remove the child from his custody. If she is not convinced, or believes JY's family will be better custodians, then she'll leave things as they are.

[Tia]

I agree, Tia - I don't think anyone can call this one. We can all have our opinions, but none of them matter.

JMO


Exactly. None of us can even attempt to predict the outcome of this suit.

The "slayer" status will, IMO, have an effect on the custody ruling, if it doesn't, our family court system is in worse shape that I thought.

[Tia]

Exactly sums it up. The " best interest of the child" is the guideline and is totally up to the interpretation of the presiding judge. It really depends on whose side is she on. I believe If she is convinced Jason is Michelle's killer she will remove the child from his custody. If she is not convinced, or believes JY's family will be better custodians, then she'll leave things as they are.

I could not have said it any better catdoc! That is exactly the way family court works. Its sad, but very true.

[cognac]

***snipped respectfully for space***
But being ruled a slayer is not sufficient to terminate parental custody.



Would you be able to provide some 'case authority' to back up this statement of yours?

[alterEgo©]

I understand the technicality, AE. But bringing up that Michelle was pregnant when Jason is deemed to have killed her is the same thing, IMO, as saying that Jason killed the baby she was carrying.

What kind of parent does that make him?

ETA: Also, Jason is deemed to have killed Michelle, which means he is deemed to have left Cassidy alone with her mother's body for hours. What kind of parent does that make him?
Obviously, it's not the type of behavior that wins any awards. The question is how much weight the court will place on that in determining, 2 years after that incident, what is in Cassidy's best interest.

Yes, it is saying the same thing Card - but it's not something that can be said in court and it is not something that can legally factor into any decision made by the court.

[Tia]

Obviously, it's not the type of behavior that wins any awards. The question is how much weight the court will place on that in determining, 2 years after that incident, what is in Cassidy's best interest.

Yes, it is saying the same thing Card - but it's not something that can be said in court and it is not something that can legally factor into any decision made by the court.

Also, we don't know what else has gone on in those two years. Maybe, for all we know, Jason and Linda had and informal agreement. We have pictures to show that both Linda and Meredith have seen Cassidy. So, maybe she never thought Jason murdered Michelle until more info was passed on to her by LE. Maybe Linda never ever wanted to think that he murdered Michelle. Maybe once more info came out, and Linda started to believe Jason killed Michelle, she felt compelled to file the WDS and the custody suit?

[alterEgo©]

Would you be able to provide some 'case authority' to back up this statement of yours?

Mary Winkler

[alterEgo©]

Also, we don't know what else has gone on in those two years. Maybe, for all we know, Jason and Linda had and informal agreement. We have pictures to show that both Linda and Meredith have seen Cassidy. So, maybe she never thought Jason murdered Michelle until more info was passed on to her by LE. Maybe Linda never ever wanted to think that he murdered Michelle. Maybe once more info came out, and Linda started to believe Jason killed Michelle, she felt compelled to file the WDS and the custody suit?
That's possible, Tia.

It's also possible LE told them long ago who they thought killed Michelle and a once supportive MIL and SIL started recalling incidents that shed Jason in a very poor light that only added to the pile of suspicion. It's clear the WDS was filed when it was because the SOL had almost tolled. Since that filing I have read about other WDS suits filed way beyond the 2 yr SOL that were permitted to go forward because the defendant withheld info that prevented the plaintiff from being able to prove the defendant was the killer.

[alterEgo©]

snipped
No matter what anyone here says, the fact is, the outcome of a custody case is NEVER easy to figure. The judge may simply ignore the "slayer" issue, (I can't imagine that-if the judge is following the "best interest of the child standard), but it COULD happen. I think we all have to be prepared to be surprised.
That's just it Tia, the slayer ruling 'automatically' makes 'the best interest of the child' analysis determine custody.


In Petersen, this Court held that natural parents have a constitutionally protected interest in the companionship, custody, care, and control of their children. Absent a showingof unfitness or neglect, this interest must prevail in a custody dispute between a parent and a nonparent. Id. at 403-04, 445 S.E.2d at 905.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=2001/&invol=032-01-1

However, the more I read, the more I think I may be interpreting some of the rulings incorrectly and may have mistated the law previously.

[alterEgo©]

Thus, in order for a non-parent to assume custody of a child over a natural parent, the non-parent petitioner must first prove by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that the parent has forfeitedhis constitutionally protected status, then, second, the non-parent must prevail against the parent at trial under the “best interest of the child” standard. Cantrell v. Wishon , http://www.precydent.com/imgs/composition/0out.gif 141 N.C. App. 340 (http://www.precydent.com/citation/141/N.C.+App./340), 342- 43, 540 S.E.2d 804, 806 (2000).
http://www.precydent.com/citation/NC+App/03-1532

Where a parent has acted ina manner inconsistent with his or her constitutionally protected custody right,that right must give way to a "best interest of the child" analysis under G.S.[section] 50-13.2(a). Id.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=appeals99/appeals1019/&invol=penland

[Stellagant]

My computer froze up before I could finish my last post.

I stand corrected. The Laci and Conner law took 5 yrs to pass and is a federal law. JY could be prosecuted on a separate FEDERAL crime of causing the death of an unborn child by killing the mother.

Note: Women's Right's Activists opposed this bill. Also it has not yet been tested but if you check out the link above the first test case may be in NC.

No, Michelle's murder isn't under federal jurisdiction, it is under state jurisdiction and will be prosecuted by the State of NC.

[alterEgo©]

Would you be able to provide some 'case authority' to back up this statement of yours?
My bad. And my apologies.

§ 7B‑1111. Grounds for terminating parental rights.

(8) The parent...has committed murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child. The petitioner has the burden of proving any of these offenses in the termination of parental rights hearing by (i) proving the elements of the offense or (ii) offering proof that a court of competent jurisdiction has convicted the parent of the offense, whether or not the conviction was by way of a jury verdict or any kind of plea. If the parent has committed the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child, the court shall consider whether the murder or voluntary manslaughter was committed in self‑defense or in the defense of others, or whether there was substantial evidence of other justification.

(b) The burden in such proceedings shall be upon the petitioner or movant to prove the facts justifying such termination by clear and convincing evidence

http://tinyurl.com/bxwbmo

[Stellagant]

Anything mentioned in Linda's suit will be addressed, to what extent, I don't know. But her "complaint" will have to be heard.

Its impossible to dissect this type of suit since it is very different from criminal court.

They could walk in, the judge could say "you were named Cassidy's mother's slayer in a civil judgement, on those grounds, custody will be issued to Linda Fisher"-or not.

No matter what anyone here says, the fact is, the outcome of a custody case is NEVER easy to figure. The judge may simply ignore the "slayer" issue, (I can't imagine that-if the judge is following the "best interest of the child standard), but it COULD happen. I think we all have to be prepared to be surprised.

A custody claim must first be filed in the correct venue before anything is heard.

[alterEgo©]

My computer froze up before I could finish my last post.

I stand corrected. The Laci and Conner law took 5 yrs to pass and is a federal law. JY could be prosecuted on a separate FEDERAL crime of causing the death of an unborn child by killing the mother.

Note: Women's Right's Activists opposed this bill. Also it has not yet been tested but if you check out the link above the first test case may be in NC.
Which of the 60 Federal crimes covered under Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Laci and Conner's Law) would Jason be charged with?

[Stellagant]

Also, we don't know what else has gone on in those two years. Maybe, for all we know, Jason and Linda had and informal agreement. We have pictures to show that both Linda and Meredith have seen Cassidy. So, maybe she never thought Jason murdered Michelle until more info was passed on to her by LE. Maybe Linda never ever wanted to think that he murdered Michelle. Maybe once more info came out, and Linda started to believe Jason killed Michelle, she felt compelled to file the WDS and the custody suit?

For the past two years, LF has been whining about visitation and now you want to put forth the suggestion she had some type of "informal agreement" with Jason?? GMAB. I think the woman immediately after the murder proclaimed loudly to whomever would listen that Jason was responsible and there is no shortage of witnesses who will testify to it. Why would he want his child to visit a person filled with such vindictive hate directed at him and why do you believe a Court is going to disagree with his decision?

[cognac]

My bad. And my apologies.

§ 7B‑1111. Grounds for terminating parental rights.

(8) The parent...has committed murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child. The petitioner has the burden of proving any of these offenses in the termination of parental rights hearing by (i) proving the elements of the offense or (ii) offering proof that a court of competent jurisdiction has convicted the parent of the offense, whether or not the conviction was by way of a jury verdict or any kind of plea. If the parent has committed the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child, the court shall consider whether the murder or voluntary manslaughter was committed in self‑defense or in the defense of others, or whether there was substantial evidence of other justification.

(b) The burden in such proceedings shall be upon the petitioner or movant to prove the facts justifying such termination by clear and convincing evidence

http://tinyurl.com/bxwbmo

Thank you. I was just coming back to say I didn't see the connection with the Winkler case. Winkler testified that she had been mentally and physically abused by her husband for years and as a result was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

After reading your post, it's obvious why Winkler got custody.

[Cardinal]

My bad. And my apologies.

§ 7B‑1111. Grounds for terminating parental rights.

(8) The parent...has committed murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child. The petitioner has the burden of proving any of these offenses in the termination of parental rights hearing by (i) proving the elements of the offense or (ii) offering proof that a court of competent jurisdiction has convicted the parent of the offense, whether or not the conviction was by way of a jury verdict or any kind of plea. If the parent has committed the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child, the court shall consider whether the murder or voluntary manslaughter was committed in self‑defense or in the defense of others, or whether there was substantial evidence of other justification.

(b) The burden in such proceedings shall be upon the petitioner or movant to prove the facts justifying such termination by clear and convincing evidence

http://tinyurl.com/bxwbmo

Wow, AE. Does the slayer ruling constitute a court of competent jurisdiction? Could Jason's parental rights be terminated?

[Silsbee]

From AE's earlier link... Speagle Vs Seitz (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=2001/&invol=032-01-1#)

In this case, defendant was acquitted of all criminal charges relating to the murder. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the applicable standard of proof in child custody cases is by a preponderance, or greater weight, of the evidence. Jones v. All American Life Ins. Co., 312 N.C. 725, 733, 325 S.E.2d 237, 241 (1985). Preponderance of the evidence is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Although defendant was acquitted in the criminal trial, evidence of her involvement in the murder of the child's father was highly relevant in the subsequent custody case and could possibly have been proven usingthe lower standard. Thus, the trial court should have considered all relevant, admissible evidence relating to defendant's role in Speagle's murder.

It is also interesting to note that OJ was awarded custody of his kids because the original trial court refused to hear evidence regarding the murders. The appeals court made the following statement...

“As a matter of case law, as well as common sense, the question of whether one parent has actually murdered the other is about as relevant as it is possible to imagine in any case involving whether the surviving parent should be allowed any form of child custody.” Simpson v. Brown, 67 Cal. App. 4th 914, 925-26, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 389, 395 (1998). The relevance of this type of evidence in child custody cases is clear, and such evidence is paramount.

The appeals court overturned the ruling that gave OJ his kids. The Brown's and OJ eventually reached an agreement because the children wanted to stay with their father.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/06/local/me-65481

Sils

[Silsbee]

Wow, AE. Does the slayer ruling constitute a court of competent jurisdiction? Could Jason's parental rights be terminated?


Other areas of North Carolina law find such evidence highly relevant. For example, the “slayer” statute, N.C.G.S. § 31A-4 (1999), prevents a murderer from acquiring the testate or intestate property of a decedent he willfully and unlawfully killed. Likewise, the principle that a person may not benefit from his or her own wrong prevents a parent from sharing in the wrongful death proceeds in an action brought by the child's estate, based upon the parent's negligence. Carver v. Carver, 310 N.C. 669, 675, 314 S.E.2d 739, 744 (1984); see 2 James B.McLaughlin, Jr. & Richard T. Bowser, Wiggins: Wills and Administration of Estates in North Carolina § 203 (4th ed. 2000). It would be incongruous for evidence of a party's participation in a murder to be relevant in property and estate cases but not be relevant in child custody cases where one parent is accused of killing the other parent.

Bolding is mine. I think he might have something to worry about Card.

Sils

[catdoc]

No, Michelle's murder isn't under federal jurisdiction, it is under state jurisdiction and will be prosecuted by the State of NC.

Are you saying that the federal law "Unborn victims of Violence" would not apply. Say JY is found not guilty or never brought to trial for MY's murder. Could he not then be tried under this new law in federal court?

My admittedly meager understanding of the new law is that it makes the murder of the unborn a SEPARATE crime. That's why I thought it could be tried separately, even if JY were found not guilty of MY's murder in state court. Kinda like another bite at the justice apple.

[alterEgo©]

Are you saying that the federal law "Unborn victims of Violence" would not apply. Say JY is found not guilty or never brought to trial for MY's murder. Could he not then be tried under this new law in federal court?

My admittedly meager understanding of the new law is that it makes the murder of the unborn a SEPARATE crime. That's why I thought it could be tried separately, even if JY were found not guilty of MY's murder in state court. Kinda like another bite at the justice apple.
No, Jason has not even been remotely accused of any felony for that law to apply.

[alterEgo©]

Wow, AE. Does the slayer ruling constitute a court of competent jurisdiction? Could Jason's parental rights be terminated?
The statute clearly states 'convicted' and he was not, by definition, convicted.

[alterEgo©]

From AE's earlier link... Speagle Vs Seitz (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nc&vol=2001/&invol=032-01-1#)



snipped
Sils
What's interesting about Speagle v Seitz is that they claim the burden of proof is the preponderance of evidence, yet the statute for terminating parental rights clearly states the burden is 'clear and convincing' evidence.

[catdoc]

No, Jason has not even been remotely accused of any felony for that law to apply.

My bad. I see now that the original crime against the mother has to be in the context of a federal crime or in a federal jurisdiction.

[Stellagant]

Bolding is mine. I think he might have something to worry about Card.

Sils

I don't think JY has a thing to worry about. The only "evidence" the Judge considered in the wrongful death case was the investigator's opinion...an opinion that is not admissable as evidence at criminal trial.

[Cardinal]

Bolding is mine. I think he might have something to worry about Card.

Sils

Hi, Sils. Based on the cites you and AE have provided, I think he might have something to worry about too.

[Jules2]

I don't think JY has a thing to worry about. The only "evidence" the Judge considered in the wrongful death case was the investigator's opinion...an opinion that is not admissable as evidence at criminal trial.


Gosh, if he doesn't have anything to worry about then he should have had no problems talking with LE this whole time in order to help find who ever was responsible for taking his loving wife and unborn child away from him.


Why was it he clammed up from the get go, again?


IMO

[Stellagant]

Gosh, if he doesn't have anything to worry about then he should have had no problems talking with LE this whole time in order to help find who ever was responsible for taking his loving wife and unborn child away from him.


Why was it he clammed up from the get go, again?


IMO

He clammed up because his attorney told him to. His attorney has had experience with LE attempting to railroad innocent men.

[Silsbee]

What's interesting about Speagle v Seitz is that they claim the burden of proof is the preponderance of evidence, yet the statute for terminating parental rights clearly states the burden is 'clear and convincing' evidence.

Good Catch.

Bennett v. Hawks (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040703-1.htm)
The order in the instant case does not indicate which standard of proof the trial court applied in consideration of plaintiff's constitutionally protected status as a natural parent. This is critical because while the general standard of proof in child custody cases is by a preponderance of the evidence, Speagle v. Seitz, 354 N.C. 525, 533, 557 S.E.2d 83, 88 (2001), our Supreme Court announced in Adams and reiterated in David N. that where the natural parent's constitutionally protected status is at issue, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence.

EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND CONVINCING (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e045.htm) - The level of proof sometimes required in a civil case for the plaintiff to prevail. It means the trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what I am getting from all of this is that they will need more than the default judgment in the WDS to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

[BSNBREVARDNC]

He clammed up because his attorney told him to. His attorney has had experience with LE attempting to railroad innocent men.


OR....His attorney has experience with guilty men and knows that they can't help themselves by talking.

[Cardinal]

Good Catch.

Bennett v. Hawks (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040703-1.htm)


EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND CONVINCING (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e045.htm) - The level of proof sometimes required in a civil case for the plaintiff to prevail. It means the trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what I am getting from all of this is that they will need more than the default judgment in the WDS to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

Despite my earlier question to AE, there is no filing to terminate Jason's parental rights - only for custody.

What do you think is going to happen, Sils?

[Cardinal]

OR....His attorney has experience with guilty men and knows that they can't help themselves by talking.

I had that same thought. :)

[Leanne Weich]

I think it is becoming clearer that Linda's lawyers have given her good advice and, despite what some of Jason's supporters would have us believe, the ruling in the WDS will definitely be relevant to this case. Thanks to all who took the time to research this.

[Cardinal]

I think it is becoming clearer that Linda's lawyers have given her good advice and, despite what some of Jason's supporters would have us believe, the ruling in the WDS will definitely be relevant to this case. Thanks to all who took the time to research this.

That does seem to be the case, doesn't it?

[Tia]

Good Catch.

Bennett v. Hawks (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040703-1.htm)


EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND CONVINCING (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e045.htm) - The level of proof sometimes required in a civil case for the plaintiff to prevail. It means the trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what I am getting from all of this is that they will need more than the default judgment in the WDS to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

The Fisher's aren't looking to termintate Jason's parental rights, are they? They are looking for custody.

You are right Silsbee, it takes a lot to terminate parental rights. And Linda would then have to adopt Cassidy.

[Tia]

Despite my earlier question to AE, there is no filing to terminate Jason's parental rights - only for custody.

What do you think is going to happen, Sils?


Oops! Sorry Cardinal, I didn't see you responded to this until after I did!

[Cardinal]

Oops! Sorry Cardinal, I didn't see you responded to this until after I did!

Not a problem, Tia. We agree again. :)

[Stellagant]

Good Catch.

Bennett v. Hawks (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040703-1.htm)


EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND CONVINCING (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e045.htm) - The level of proof sometimes required in a civil case for the plaintiff to prevail. It means the trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what I am getting from all of this is that they will need more than the default judgment in the WDS to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

If you read NC Statutes re: terminating parental rights, you'll see that neither Linda Fisher or Meredith Fisher have a legal basis to challenge Jason's parental rights. All they managed to muster is a lame claim for temporary custody filed in the wrong venue.

[Stellagant]

OR....His attorney has experience with guilty men and knows that they can't help themselves by talking.

cite me a case where an innocent man who has remained silent has been arrested. Thanks.

[Silsbee]

Despite my earlier question to AE, there is no filing to terminate Jason's parental rights - only for custody.

What do you think is going to happen, Sils?

Hi Card,

The bottom line on third party rights to custody and visitation is that there is a paramount right of biological parents to have custody of their children. Thus, absent a finding that parents (i) are unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail over the rights of third parties in an initial custody determination. Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994).

If Linda wants custody how is she going to get it without attempting to prove he is unfit, thus terminating his parental rights?

Sils

[Cardinal]

Hi Card,

The bottom line on third party rights to custody and visitation is that there is a paramount right of biological parents to have custody of their children. Thus, absent a finding that parents (i) are unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail over the rights of third parties in an initial custody determination. Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994).

If Linda wants custody how is she going to get it without attempting to prove he is unfit, thus terminating his parental rights?

Sils

As I understand it, Linda can get custody without Jason's parental rights being terminated. And based on the references you and AE have brought to the board, that could happen, IMO. I think the WDS ruling, finding Jason to be Michelle's slayer, is going to be really significant.

JMO

[Tia]

If you read NC Statutes re: terminating parental rights, you'll see that neither Linda Fisher or Meredith Fisher have a legal basis to challenge Jason's parental rights. All they managed to muster is a lame claim for temporary custody filed in the wrong venue.

I thought in NC it can be filed anywhere? Jason is just requesting a COV, right?

[Tia]

If you read NC Statutes re: terminating parental rights, you'll see that neither Linda Fisher or Meredith Fisher have a legal basis to challenge Jason's parental rights. All they managed to muster is a lame claim for temporary custody filed in the wrong venue.

They aren't trying to terminate his parental rights. Where did you get that idea?

[Tia]

As I understand it, Linda can get custody without Jason's parental rights being terminated. And based on the references you and AE have brought to the board, that could happen, IMO. I think the WDS ruling, finding Jason to be Michelle's slayer, is going to be really significant.

JMO

You are absolutely correct. And, if the Fisher's get custody, he may want to consider terminating his parental rights himself, (but even that is a hard task), otherwise he will most like have to pay support to Linda and Meredith.

[Cardinal]

You are absolutely correct. And, if the Fisher's get custody, he may want to consider terminating his parental rights himself, (but even that is a hard task), otherwise he will most like have to pay support to Linda and Meredith.

Wow, I hadn't thought about Jason having to pay child support if Linda and Meredith get custody.

Linda filed her custody action under GS 50A, which isn't county-specific. But even if the Judge decides it needs to be filed in Transylvania County, I'm sure Linda can easily refile in that county.

JMO

[Tia]

Wow, I hadn't thought about Jason having to pay child support if Linda and Meredith get custody.

Linda filed her custody action under GS 50A, which isn't county-specific. But even if the Judge decides it needs to be filed in Transylvania County, I'm sure Linda can easily refile in that county.

JMO


He may, if Linda files for it.

[Cardinal]

He may, if Linda files for it.

Somehow, I don't think Linda would. Of course, Cassidy's social security benefits would be switched to Linda/Meredith if their suit is successful, but, unlike some, I don't believe this is about money for them.

[Tia]

Somehow, I don't think Linda would. Of course, Cassidy's social security benefits would be switched to Linda/Meredith if their suit is successful, but, unlike some, I don't believe this is about money for them.

I agree. I think its about removing Cassidy from a named "slayer".

[Cardinal]

I agree. I think its about removing Cassidy from a named "slayer".

The civil court has ruled that Jason killed Michelle. 2 years notwithstanding, how could they not file for custody in light of that?

I'm still willing to reserve judgment on whether or not Jason did indeed kill Michelle. But then, Michelle wasn't my daughter. If she were, I would be doing exactly what Linda is doing.

JMO

[Silsbee]

As I understand it, Linda can get custody without Jason's parental rights being terminated. And based on the references you and AE have brought to the board, that could happen, IMO. I think the WDS ruling, finding Jason to be Michelle's slayer, is going to be really significant.

JMO

I don't know Card - All of the cases I read today were based on terminating the natural parent's rights. What did you read that makes you think she can get custody without terminating his parental rights?

According to Linda's lawsuit she is attempting to terminate his parental rights.

Fisher v. Young (http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/4090063/?navkeyword=michelle+young)
"The defendant is not a fit and proper person to have care, custody and control of Cassidy. By his conduct as set out herein, the defendant has acted inconsistently with his Constitutionally protected status as the biological parent to Cassidy"

After reading all of this I'm not convinced the ruling of slayer will be enough since it is based on the lowest burden of proof. The court requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. I don't think the other points Linda raised in her suit will rise to the level needed to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

[Silsbee]

They aren't trying to terminate his parental rights. Where did you get that idea?

It's in her suit.

Sils

[Cardinal]

I don't know Card - All of the cases I read today were based on terminating the natural parent's rights. What did you read that makes you think she can get custody without terminating his parental rights?

According to Linda's lawsuit she is attempting to terminate his parental rights.

Fisher v. Young (http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/4090063/?navkeyword=michelle+young)
"The defendant is not a fit and proper person to have care, custody and control of Cassidy. By his conduct as set out herein, the defendant has acted inconsistently with his Constitutionally protected status as the biological parent to Cassidy"

After reading all of this I'm not convinced the ruling of slayer will be enough since it is based on the lowest burden of proof. The court requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. I don't think the other points Linda raised in her suit will rise to the level needed to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

I've said before that I don't know much about custody law. Your reading of the suit could be right, but I thought it was just about custody.

As for the burden of proof, something tells me that the slayer ruling isn't all of the evidence Linda's attorney will present. Until we see that, I can't say whether or not it's clear and convincing.

Have a good evening, everyone. :seeya:

[Tia]

It's in her suit.

Sils


I have to look again. I thought she was asking for custody. Terminating his rights and custody are totally different things. Linda can have primary physical custody of Cassidy while Jason's parental rights remain intact.

[Tia]

I don't know Card - All of the cases I read today were based on terminating the natural parent's rights. What did you read that makes you think she can get custody without terminating his parental rights?

According to Linda's lawsuit she is attempting to terminate his parental rights.

Fisher v. Young (http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/4090063/?navkeyword=michelle+young)
"The defendant is not a fit and proper person to have care, custody and control of Cassidy. By his conduct as set out herein, the defendant has acted inconsistently with his Constitutionally protected status as the biological parent to Cassidy"

After reading all of this I'm not convinced the ruling of slayer will be enough since it is based on the lowest burden of proof. The court requires a higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. I don't think the other points Linda raised in her suit will rise to the level needed to terminate Jason's parental rights.

Sils

Totally different things Silsbee. I even think that termination of parental rights is even a totally different type of suit.

[Silsbee]

Totally different things Silsbee. I even think that termination of parental rights is even a totally different type of suit.

What do you mean Tia? By stating that Jason acted inconsistently with his Constitutionally protected status as CY parent they are asking the court to terminate his parental rights.

If I am misunderstanding this concept please explain it cause I am by no means an authority on custody issues.

Sils

[Silsbee]

I have to look again. I thought she was asking for custody. Terminating his rights and custody are totally different things. Linda can have primary physical custody of Cassidy while Jason's parental rights remain intact.


But on what basis can she get custody without terminating his rights?

Sils

[Tia]

What do you mean Tia? By stating that Jason acted inconsistently with his Constitutionally protected status as CY parent they are asking the court to terminate his parental rights.

If I am misunderstanding this concept please explain it cause I am by no means an authority on custody issues.

Sils


No, I see what you are saying! I didn't think she was going for a termination of his rights, just custody. If it was listed as you just wrote, I think you would be right.

Its not that family law is hard to understand, its just that it varies so much state to state....that is why it is difficult. I am no pro as far as NC family law. I know what I know based on my state.

I know, if Linda went straight for termination of Jason's parental rights, without him being convicted of Michelle's murder, she would have a very hard time. Now, if she is simply requesting custody, she would have a good chance based on the WD suit.

[Silsbee]

I've said before that I don't know much about custody law. Your reading of the suit could be right, but I thought it was just about custody.

As for the burden of proof, something tells me that the slayer ruling isn't all of the evidence Linda's attorney will present. Until we see that, I can't say whether or not it's clear and convincing.

Have a good evening, everyone. :seeya:

LOL - I could be totally wrong about this! I guess my thinking is that it will be up to Linda to prove to the court that Jason killed Michelle based on a higher standard than what was used to rule him a slayer in the WDS. You're right we don't know what evidence she may have and whether it will meet the standard. I just don't think the slayer ruling alone will determine the outcome.

Sils

[Tia]

But on what basis can she get custody without terminating his rights?

Sils


Say you and your hubby (I imagine you are a woman), divorce and had children together under 18 years of age, you would file for PHYSICAL custody (the kids live with you), he would have visitation and its usually standard that you both have "legal custody"...meaning school, religion, any issues with the kids would have to be agreed on by both of you. (this is what I believe Linda is asking for).

Your reasons for filing would be something like: the children lived here their whole lives, they go to school here, etc........ and if your husband was named a slayer in a WDS, you could add that reason as well. In Linda's case, she will base it on his past behaviors, I assume she can back them up, Cassidy's transient status, and the WD Suit.

Although YOU would have full physical custody, your ex-husbands parental rights would still be intact. He would therefore be responsible to provide child support and meet whatever schedule was set by the courts as far as visitation, etc........

Termination of parental rights is very difficult. Even if your husband decided he wanted to terminate his parental rights so as not to have to pay child support, its highly unlikely a judge would allow that to happen.

Basically, getting custody, on the grounds that I believe Linda to be filing, is a piece of cake compared to terminating Jason's parental rights.

I hope that made sense!

[Silsbee]

No, I see what you are saying! I didn't think she was going for a termination of his rights, just custody. If it was listed as you just wrote, I think you would be right.

Its not that family law is hard to understand, its just that it varies so much state to state....that is why it is difficult. I am no pro as far as NC family law. I know what I know based on my state.

I know, if Linda went straight for termination of Jason's parental rights, without him being convicted of Michelle's murder, she would have a very hard time. Now, if she is simply requesting custody, she would have a good chance based on the WD suit.

I guess that's the part I don't understand. How can she just go for custody without terminating his rights? The cases that I read states that a non parent must show the bio parent is unfit. To show that he is unfit she must show that he acted in a manner that is "inconsistent with his Constitutionally protected status..."

The WDS could be used to show he acted in a manner inconsistent... but the burden of proof that he killed Michelle is higher when terminating a parent's rights than they are in a WDS. So if that is the case then the ruling alone will not determine the outcome of this case.

I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it because it makes sense in my head. :biggrin:

Sils

[Silsbee]

Say you and your hubby (I imagine you are a woman), divorce and had children together under 18 years of age, you would file for PHYSICAL custody (the kids live with you), he would have visitation and its usually standard that you both have "legal custody"...meaning school, religion, any issues with the kids would have to be agreed on by both of you. (this is what I believe Linda is asking for).

Your reasons for filing would be something like: the children lived here their whole lives, they go to school here, etc........ and if your husband was named a slayer in a WDS, you could add that reason as well. In Linda's case, she will base it on his past behaviors, I assume she can back them up, Cassidy's transient status, and the WD Suit.

Although YOU would have full physical custody, your ex-husbands parental rights would still be intact. He would therefore be responsible to provide child support and meet whatever schedule was set by the courts as far as visitation, etc........

Termination of parental rights is very difficult. Even if your husband decided he wanted to terminate his parental rights so as not to have to pay child support, its highly unlikely a judge would allow that to happen.

Basically, getting custody, on the grounds that I believe Linda to be filing, is a piece of cake compared to terminating Jason's parental rights.

I hope that made sense!

Thanks Tia, that does make sense but it is my understanding that Linda has no basis for custody unless she terminates Jason's rights because she is not CY bio parent.

Sils

[Tia]

I guess that's the part I don't understand. How can she just go for custody without terminating his rights? The cases that I read states that a non parent must show the bio parent is unfit. To show that he is unfit she must show that he acted in a manner that is "inconsistent with his Constitutionally protected status..."

The WDS could be used to show he acted in a manner inconsistent... but the burden of proof that he killed Michelle is higher when terminating a parent's rights than they are in a WDS. So if that is the case then the ruling alone will not determine the outcome of this case.

I hope this makes sense to anyone reading it because it makes sense in my head. :biggrin:

Sils

It makes sense.

I think the WDS, and the fact that Linda is Cassidy's grandmother, not mother, make this specific custody case all that much harder to understand and to try to apply the "usual rules" to.

[Tia]

Thanks Tia, that does make sense but it is my understanding that Linda has no basis for custody unless she terminates Jason's rights because she is not CY bio parent.

Sils


Right! Terminating his rights will be hard. Unless he is convicted of murdering Michelle........but filing for custody will be much easier due to the WDS.

[Kat4Eagles]

Right! Terminating his rights will be hard. Unless he is convicted of murdering Michelle........but filing for custody will be much easier due to the WDS.


I hope when Wednesday comes, everyone involved is thinking of C and the already traumatic experiences she has encountered in her short life.

If the Fishers were to somehow win, can LF take her to NY?

I think we will see some kind of compromise with the Fishers and the Youngs, maybe the Judge will set up some guidelines for them to work within.

Should be interesting, unless it gets postponed.


Kat

[enigma™]

I hope when Wednesday comes, everyone involved is thinking of C and the already traumatic experiences she has encountered in her short life.
If the Fishers were to somehow win, can LF take her to NY?
I think we will see some kind of compromise with the Fishers and the Youngs, maybe the Judge will set up some guidelines for them to work within. Should be interesting, unless it gets postponed.
Kat

There are no winners in a custody case, unless both parties are willing to be flexible. The SLAYER has already proven, by his actions, that he is unwilling to be flexible, unless it will benefit him personally. My kind of parent...

And before anyone begins to berate me about this post, please tell me what part of returning any and all Christmas/birthday/holiday gifts shows that he is being flexible. That was a deliberate act of trying to shut the Fisher's out of Cassidy's life. The SLAYER has only shown an ounce of humanity when he thought it would benefit him. He is not only a loser, he is a murderer, and I, for one, cannot wait for justice to be served in this case. MUO

[Kat4Eagles]

There are no winners in a custody case, unless both parties are willing to be flexible. The SLAYER has already proven, by his actions, that he is unwilling to be flexible, unless it will benefit him personally. My kind of parent...

And before anyone begins to berate me about this post, please tell me what part of returning any and all Christmas/birthday/holiday gifts shows that he is being flexible. That was a deliberate act of trying to shut the Fisher's out of Cassidy's life. The SLAYER has only shown an ounce of humanity when he thought it would benefit him. He is not only a loser, he is a murderer, and I, for one, cannot wait for justice to be served in this case. MUO

I understand your impatience.
When I was following the SP case, the 4 months it took to find Laci's body and have Scott arrested, seemed endless.

I can only imagine what it would be like if I thought Jason was guilty, and the delay lasted this long. (going on 27 months this week)

But to be fair, (which I know we can all be) how could Jason accept gifts even on behalf of C , from the Fishers, knowing they were calling him a murderer or a slayer behind his back?

Wouldn't that be hypocritical on his and the Young's part?

Kat


QQ Kingbuff?

[achristie]

I understand your impatience.
When I was following the SP case, the 4 months it took to find Laci's body and have Scott arrested, seemed endless.

I can only imagine what it would be like if I thought Jason was guilty, and the delay lasted this long. (going on 27 months this week)

But to be fair, (which I know we can all be) how could Jason accept gifts even on behalf of C , from the Fishers, knowing they were calling him a murderer or a slayer behind his back?

Wouldn't that be hypocritical on his and the Young's part?

Kat


QQ Kingbuff?

Are you kidding me? Did the gifts include notes that said "Merry Christmas Daddy killed Mommy?" Of course they didn't. The gifts had NOTHING to do with him. Hypocritical on his and the Young's part to accept because LF called him a slayer behind his back? How is that any different from JY and the Youngs inferring that LF and MF killed MY behind their backs? Your weak argument cuts both ways, my dear.

MOO Aggie

[Barbara2]

I understand your impatience.
When I was following the SP case, the 4 months it took to find Laci's body and have Scott arrested, seemed endless.

I can only imagine what it would be like if I thought Jason was guilty, and the delay lasted this long. (going on 27 months this week)

But to be fair, (which I know we can all be) how could Jason accept gifts even on behalf of C , from the Fishers, knowing they were calling him a murderer or a slayer behind his back?

Wouldn't that be hypocritical on his and the Young's part?

Kat


QQ Kingbuff?

And if he is guilty of killing his wife and son? What would you say then?

[enigma™]

(snipped - bandwidth thingy)

from the Fishers, knowing they were calling him a murderer or a slayer behind his back?

Kat


Were they? Please provide a link to your allegations.

[Stellagant]

Hi Card,

The bottom line on third party rights to custody and visitation is that there is a paramount right of biological parents to have custody of their children. Thus, absent a finding that parents (i) are unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally protected paramount right of parents to custody, care, and control of their children must prevail over the rights of third parties in an initial custody determination. Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994).

If Linda wants custody how is she going to get it without attempting to prove he is unfit, thus terminating his parental rights?

Sils

Sils, there are unfit parents with children in foster care but the majority of those parents still retain their parental rights and are eventually re-united with their children. Only in cases where the court decides the unfit parent is permanently unfit do they terminate parental rights.

[kingbuff]

Still up? Just wondering who is responsible for investigating Linda and Meredith? Could a judge give them control of a child without knowing their background?

[kingbuff]

Never did see how it was done with the Cooper children. Did the judge order an investigation of the Canada kin? Could Cassie's dad, or Cassie's grandmother or aunt ask the judge to investigate Linda and Meredith before granting custody?

[enigma™]

Never did see how it was done with the Cooper children. Did the judge order an investigation of the Canada kin? Could Cassie's dad, or Cassie's grandmother or aunt ask the judge to investigate Linda and Meredith before granting custody?

Suffice it to say, there apparently has been an extensive background check on the SLAYER. If he has anything on the Fisher women, I imagine he willl bring his file to court on 2/4/09 (or whenever the actual case is heard) to refute any allegations against him. It is incumbent on the defense to refute allegations of the prosecution. It would be a great day in NC to hear the SLAYER speak to defend himself. I do not believe I will ever see that day, though.

[Stellagant]

What do you mean Tia? By stating that Jason acted inconsistently with his Constitutionally protected status as CY parent they are asking the court to terminate his parental rights.

If I am misunderstanding this concept please explain it cause I am by no means an authority on custody issues.

Sils

Not quite. The Fishers claim is asking the Court to take immediate custody of the child. If the Court agrees, the Sheriff must remove her from her home and put her in the State's care.

[kingbuff]

Were they? Please provide a link to your allegations.

I'm a link. Linda did call Jason a murderer. But that's no reason to return the Christmas gifts....that would be a base, low-minded action I would associate with base, low-minded people. The Youngs are not that.

Maybe there was another reason the gifts were returned....if they were. But that's just speculation. I don't know the other reason or reasons.

[Stellagant]

Still up? Just wondering who is responsible for investigating Linda and Meredith? Could a judge give them control of a child without knowing their background?

A Judge wouldn't immediately give Fishers custody of the child. She'd have to go into foster care while the state conducted an investigation into the home where she lives now and the Fishers' home.

[kingbuff]

Suffice it to say, there apparently has been an extensive background check on the SLAYER. If he has anything on the Fisher women, I imagine he willl bring his file to court on 2/4/09 (or whenever the actual case is heard) to refute any allegations against him. It is incumbent on the defense to refute allegations of the prosecution. It would be a great day in NC to hear the SLAYER speak to defend himself. I do not believe I will ever see that day, though.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I asked what you know about an investigation of anyone who wants custody of a child. Does the judge order a thorough investigation or does the father attempt it?

[enigma™]

I'm a link. Linda did call Jason a murderer. But that's no reason to return the Christmas gifts....that would be a base, low-minded action I would associate with base, low-minded people. The Youngs are not that.

Maybe there was another reason the gifts were returned....if they were. But that's just speculation. I don't know the other reason or reasons.

The problem is, they were returned, which, in your words, makes the Youngs base and low-minded people. Thank you for your input.

I can only speculate that your speculation of the Fisher's calling the SLAYER a murderer is just that, speculation. I do not believe you were there to witness that. MUO

[enigma™]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I asked what you know about an investigation of anyone who wants custody of a child. Does the judge order a thorough investigation or does the father attempt it?

I am so sorry your reading skills lack comprehension. There was nothing that could be deemed obtuse in my response. Please re-read. It is incumbument upon... (just to give you a hint where to begin).

[kingbuff]

A Judge wouldn't immediately give Fishers custody of the child. She'd have to go into foster care while the state conducted an investigation into the home where she lives now and the Fishers' home.

So, you think the judge would order an investigation of the home of a potential custodian. How about the person(s) seeking custody? Would the judge order the police to investigate their backgrounds?

[kingbuff]

I am so sorry your reading skills lack comprehension. There was nothing that could be deemed obtuse in my response. Please re-read. It is incumbument upon... (just to give you a hint where to begin).

It is incumbent on the father to investigate the person seeking custody? And if the father doesn't malign that person, the judge assumes that person is ok and gives the child away? Seems dangerous to me but you seem to know something about custody cases.

[Stellagant]

Never did see how it was done with the Cooper children. Did the judge order an investigation of the Canada kin? Could Cassie's dad, or Cassie's grandmother or aunt ask the judge to investigate Linda and Meredith before granting custody?

There are several parts to the process in my state. First, the court must rule the child belongs in the state's custody. Some posters seem to not be aware that it's entirely possible if the Judge decides to take custody, Cassidy will first go into foster care while her current living arrangement is investigated.

The Cooper situation was different in that it was an emergency basis. But, even then, the Sheriff's office removed the children from their father based on concerns he was suicidal and he had a history of losing his temper in front of the children. Cooper did raise issues about the quality of care the children would receive if living with their maternal grandparents and he agreed to allow them instead to live with their maternal aunt but there is no question those little girls were emotionally traumatized when police took them away.

[enigma™]

It is incumbent on the father to investigate the person seeking custody? And if the father doesn't malign that person, the judge assumes that person is ok and gives the child away? Seems dangerous to me but you seem to know something about custody cases.

Your immediate problem is you project what people put out there to be a problem in their personal lives. It is not always so, however they may know things due to relationships with others.

The SLAYER can malign away, but if he does not have the paperwork, or people, to back it up, he could be held in contempt, sued for slander or worse. Be careful what you wish for, more often than not, it backfires. Judges do not assume anything, they deal in facts presented and the law. You should attend a local court hearing to get a grip on the judicial system. It will help you comprehend what is bulldozing the SLAYER's way.

[kingbuff]

There are several parts to the process in my state. First, the court must rule the child belongs in the state's custody. Some posters seem to not be aware that it's entirely possible if the Judge decides to take custody, Cassidy will first go into foster care while her current living arrangement is investigated.

The Cooper situation was different in that it was an emergency basis. But, even then, the Sheriff's office removed the children from their father based on concerns he was suicidal and he had a history of losing his temper in front of the children. Cooper did raise issues about the quality of care the children would receive if living with their maternal grandparents and he agreed to allow them instead to live with their maternal aunt but there is no question those little girls were emotionally traumatized when police took them away.

Seems strange to me. The judge took those children and gave them to people the judge didn't know? The grandmother and aunt were not investigated? Maybe they sell dope for a living? Or deal in child porn? So the other poster may be correct when she says the father would have to investigate? Weird.

[Silsbee]

Not quite. The Fishers claim is asking the Court to take immediate custody of the child. If the Court agrees, the Sheriff must remove her from her home and put her in the State's care.

But if they want custody don't they have to prove Jason is unfit, etc.?

How can the court agree if the don't prove their case?

Sils

[kingbuff]

Your immediate problem is you project what people put out there to be a problem in their personal lives. It is not always so, however they may know things due to relationships with others.

The SLAYER can malign away, but if he does not have the paperwork, or people, to back it up, he could be held in contempt, sued for slander or worse. Be careful what you wish for, more often than not, it backfires. Judges do not assume anything, they deal in facts presented and the law. You should attend a local court hearing to get a grip on the judicial system. It will help you comprehend what is bulldozing the SLAYER's way.

OK. I think most fathers could not do a thorough investigation of someone seeking custody. I know I couldn't. I should think that would have to be done by the police as ordered by a judge.

I think the father in this case has chosen to remain silent and doubt he would malign anyone anyway.

[Stellagant]

So, you think the judge would order an investigation of the home of a potential custodian. How about the person(s) seeking custody? Would the judge order the police to investigate their backgrounds?

There are guidelines the Judge has to abide by when he takes custody of a child from a parent. Absolutely the Judge would order personal background checks. But, I don't believe the Judge would order an investigation into the actual home of a potential custodian unless an investigation of the child's current home and environment indicates it is unsafe for her to continue to live there and he decides she shouldn't.

Even if that unlikely decision is made in this case, the most beneficial temporary placement would be with Heather for a variety of reasons. The State tries to keep children near their home. Removing a child to a strange home in a city hours away from her family, school and doctors would be undesirable and Judges don't do it unless they have no other choice.

[Silsbee]

A Judge wouldn't immediately give Fishers custody of the child. She'd have to go into foster care while the state conducted an investigation into the home where she lives now and the Fishers' home.

Why would she have to go into foster care? Jason is her biological parent and his rights are protected. The burden of proof is on the Fisher's to prove to the court he is not fit to raise his daughter.

Sils

[enigma™]

OK. I think most fathers could not do a thorough investigation of someone seeking custody. I know I couldn't. I should think that would have to be done by the police as ordered by a judge.

I think the father in this case has chosen to remain silent and doubt he would malign anyone anyway.

So, what you are saying is, the SLAYER will be indulging the court in whatever the verdict will be? The SLAYER will not present a case to maintain custody of his child? That is truly a WoW moment. I understand, somewhat. I cannot see why he would hold onto the last reminder of Michelle and Rylan. I almost understand his reason not to fight to keep Cassidy, if that is the path the SLAYER pursues. It still boggles the mind, though. MUO

[kingbuff]

But if they want custody don't they have to prove Jason is unfit, etc.?

How can the court agree if the don't prove their case?

Sils

If the Fishers withdraw their action they won't have to prove anything. I don't know that they will, but it seems to me they have a weak case. Do you think the police urged the Fishers to do this in order to get Jason to talk?

[kingbuff]

So, what you are saying is, the SLAYER will be indulging the court in whatever the verdict will be? The SLAYER will not present a case to maintain custody of his child? That is truly a WoW moment. I understand, somewhat. I cannot see why he would hold onto the last reminder of Michelle and Rylan. I almost understand his reason not to fight to keep Cassidy, if that is the path the SLAYER pursues. It still boggles the mind, though. MUO

I'm not saying he will remain silent. He has so far. Maybe he has another way of protecting Cassie.

[Stellagant]

Seems strange to me. The judge took those children and gave them to people the judge didn't know? The grandmother and aunt were not investigated? Maybe they sell dope for a living? Or deal in child porn? So the other poster may be correct when she says the father would have to investigate? Weird.

When a state takes children into protective custody, it has to conduct a background investigation of those the state gives their placement to.

The Judge took custody of the Cooper children and gave them to relatives on an emergency basis but there were subsequent hearings and Cooper himself agreed to allow them to stay with the aunt.

[Silsbee]

If the Fishers withdraw their action they won't have to prove anything. I don't know that they will, but it seems to me they have a weak case. Do you think the police urged the Fishers to do this in order to get Jason to talk?

You know I guess that could be a possibility. I know everything you say can be used against you but if that were the case what exactly do they think he could say that would help their case?

Sils

[Stellagant]

Why would she have to go into foster care? Jason is her biological parent and his rights are protected. The burden of proof is on the Fisher's to prove to the court he is not fit to raise his daughter.

Sils

It's a several-step process. Yes, the Fishers have to persuade the Judge that Jason is an unfit parent and the child is at risk if she remains in his care. But, even if they are successful, the Judge has to first take a child into state custody before he can place her anywhere else.

So, the next step is the Judge would order Jason to take a psych examination and also order a CPS investigation of CY's home. That takes time and the Judge can't risk leaving her there.

After all investigations are complete, the Judge has to then decide to continue temporary state custody of CY or not. Anybody could apply to have her placed in their care temporarily.

[Stellagant]

It is incumbent on the father to investigate the person seeking custody? And if the father doesn't malign that person, the judge assumes that person is ok and gives the child away? Seems dangerous to me but you seem to know something about custody cases.

No, the state investigates any third party seeking custody. After all the senseless deaths of children in foster care or day care, the guidelines are more stringent than ever. Most states do extensive civil and criminal checks on anyone who wants take care of someone else's children.

[Stellagant]

I'm not saying he will remain silent. He has so far. Maybe he has another way of protecting Cassie.

The Fishers have to prove he's an unfit parent and CY shouldn't remain in his care. The burden of proof is totally on them. He doesn't have to say much of anything at all. Rules of civil procedure prevent the questioning to serve as a fishing expedition.