january 23 - 31

[alterEgo©]

Does anyone have an opinion as to what the Fishers might say in their response to the motion to dismiss/reassign on venue?

In some jurisdictions, the judge follows the case. I couldn't find one way or another if NC judges in NC do. Anyone know?

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Does anyone have an opinion as to what the Fishers might say in their response to the motion to dismiss/reassign on venue?

In some jurisdictions, the judge follows the case. I couldn't find one way or another if NC judges in NC do. Anyone know?

I have no idea about the judge following the case, AE, but I'm not aware of a situation where that has happened. And I honestly think part of the COV motivation is to get this out of Sasser's courtroom.

As for the response from the Fishers, the best reason I can think of is that both their attorney and Jason's attorney are in Raleigh, and a COV would inhibit the caliber of their representation. I probably didn't say that well, but it's been a long day!

JMO

[Kat4Eagles]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Does anyone have an opinion as to what the Fishers might say in their response to the motion to dismiss/reassign on venue?

In some jurisdictions, the judge follows the case. I couldn't find one way or another if NC judges in NC do. Anyone know?

I don't know, but none of this should even be happening.
C belongs with Jason, and Jason should decide all the rest.
No one has bothered to interfere before this, no one was all that
concerned either.
Leave things the way they are, until or unless there is a real arrest.

Kat

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Kat4Eagles

I don't know, but none of this should even be happening.
C belongs with Jason, and Jason should decide all the rest.
No one has bothered to interfere before this, no one was all that
concerned either.
Leave things the way they are, until or unless there is a real arrest.

Kat

It's under the court's jurisdiction at the moment, Kat. We have to believe they'll do what's best for Cassidy.

Goodnight

[Kat4Eagles]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

It's under the court's jurisdiction at the moment, Kat. We have to believe they'll do what's best for Cassidy.

Goodnight

I know that, Card, but the case could be completely dropped.

If the Fishers were to take C away from Jason, she could suffer immensely, and could also grow up to resent them for it.

She is at such a vulnerable age.

Kat

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by Kat4Eagles

I know that, Card, but the case could be completely dropped.

If the Fishers were to take C away from Jason, she could suffer immensely, and could also grow up to resent them for it.

She is at such a vulnerable age.

Kat

In your opinion, why would Cassidy "suffer immensely" if she were removed from the Young household?

The same case could be made that she "suffered immensely" when she was whisked away to Transylvania and Henderson Counties, so far removed from her friends and Michelle's family. A case could also be made that Cassidy has not had a stable, steady home since being moved to the mountains and has been denied a relationship with her maternal family.

Who knows how this, coupled with being left alone with her murdered mother, has affected her?

[achristie]

Originally Posted by Kat4Eagles

I know that, Card, but the case could be completely dropped.

If the Fishers were to take C away from Jason, she could suffer immensely, and could also grow up to resent them for it.

She is at such a vulnerable age.

Kat

Sadly, in the end, I believe she will grow up to resent her father for murdering her mother and unborn brother. And she will suffer immensely, sweet child that she is. It's all wrong.

MOO Aggie

[achristie]

Originally Posted by Kat4Eagles

I don't know, but none of this should even be happening.
C belongs with Jason, and Jason should decide all the rest.
No one has bothered to interfere before this, no one was all that
concerned either.
Leave things the way they are, until or unless there is a real arrest.

Kat

I was a firm believer from the start that the child was better off with her father. She had already suffered tremendously from the sudden loss of her mother and needed some sense of stability . I was never concerned about her safety after the fact because he could have easily done away with her when he murdered his wife. My sense is that the Fishers felt the same way before they realized they would be denied access or have limited access to Cassidy. That is why they never bothered to interfere. I think they had their concerns, but for the child's sake, chose to lay low. They placed their wants and needs aside for her. I think they were more than willing to leave things the way they are until an arrest . But as you have repeatedly stated this has taken waaay too long! They have had enough. They want to be a part of Cassidy's life. They want to keep her mother's memory alive and share the one part of MY that lives and breathes. Who can blame them?
I certainly can't.

MOO Aggie

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by achristie

I was a firm believer from the start that the child was better off with her father. She had already suffered tremendously from the sudden loss of her mother and needed some sense of stability . I was never concerned about her safety after the fact because he could have easily done away with her when he murdered his wife. My sense is that the Fishers felt the same way before they realized they would be denied access or have limited access to Cassidy. That is why they never bothered to interfere. I think they had their concerns, but for the child's sake, chose to lay low. They placed their wants and needs aside for her. I think they were more than willing to leave things the way they are until an arrest . But as you have repeatedly stated this has taken waaay too long! They have had enough. They want to be a part of Cassidy's life. They want to keep her mother's memory alive and share the one part of MY that lives and breathes. Who can blame them?
I certainly can't.

MOO Aggie

There is also the possibility that the evidence that Michelle's killer tried to drug Cassidy was not revealed to LF/MF until recently. They could have had their concerns, like you said, and kept them to themselves for private reasons, but no real basis for a custody suit until this information was shared with them.

I, too, had never thought that Cassidy was in danger due to the fact that she was left alive. However, after reading of the possibility that Cassidy MIGHT have been drugged that night, I had to think that the killer may have tried to end her life, too.

IMO

[achristie]

Originally Posted by Allyson

There is also the possibility that the evidence that Michelle's killer tried to drug Cassidy was not revealed to LF/MF until recently. They could have had their concerns, like you said, and kept them to themselves for private reasons, but no real basis for a custody suit until this information was shared with them.

I, too, had never thought that Cassidy was in danger due to the fact that she was left alive. However, after reading of the possibility that Cassidy MIGHT have been drugged that night, I had to think that the killer may have tried to end her life, too.

IMO

I agree, Allyson. I think the Fishers needed time to absorb the full impact of things. I also believe that they had the child's interests at heart from the very beginning. Little did they know they would be denied access. IMO the Young's brought this on themselves. It didn't need to go this far, but it is what it is.

MOO Aggie

[Lindsey]

I wish we had a pediatric mental health professional on this forum but we don't. I hope there will be one involved in the custody suit tho before any decisions are made about Cassidy.

JMO

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Does anyone have an opinion as to what the Fishers might say in their response to the motion to dismiss/reassign on venue?

In some jurisdictions, the judge follows the case. I couldn't find one way or another if NC judges in NC do. Anyone know?

??? Good Question.

-Both attorneys are in Wake Co.

-Jason has a residence in Wake Co.

-Linda maintains a residence in Wake Co, Meredith resides at this residence

-Jason is not employed (that we know of) and therefore not prohibited from making the trip to Wake Co.

I am just guessing, obviously. I have no idea if these responses would have any merit.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Allyson

??? Good Question.

-Both attorneys are in Wake Co.

-Jason has a residence in Wake Co.

-Linda maintains a residence in Wake Co, Meredith resides at this residence

-Jason is not employed (that we know of) and therefore not prohibited from making the trip to Wake Co.

I am just guessing, obviously. I have no idea if these responses would have any merit.

As stated in Jason's motion, the location of the parties is not at issue - the location of the minor child is.

Jason does not have a residence in Wake Co, he has investment property and he does not live on that property.

It doesn't matter where counsel resides/practices in a venue or convience of witnesses issue.

It's not Jason's convience at issue - it's the convience of witnesses that is at issue.

[Allyson]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

As stated in Jason's motion, the location of the parties is not at issue - the location of the minor child is.

Jason does not have a residence in Wake Co, he has investment property and he does not live on that property.

It doesn't matter where counsel resides/practices in a venue or convience of witnesses issue.

It's not Jason's convience at issue - it's the convience of witnesses that is at issue.

That could be a split, then (witnesses). There will be several witnesses for both sides who will be inconvenienced by travel.

I do think it was a pretty slick move by Jason to get a "job" at about the same time the COV was filed IF he does indeed have a job.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Allyson

That could be a split, then (witnesses). There will be several witnesses for both sides who will be inconvenienced by travel.

I do think it was a pretty slick move by Jason to get a "job" at about the same time the COV was filed IF he does indeed have a job.

Slick move or not, it's not his convience under consideration, it's the convience of witnesses.

I would think the court would place great weight on testimony from witnesses that can attest to matters in the last 2 years as they pertain to Jason's fitness to be a parent and Cassidy's behavior (happy, sad, withdrawn, etc). These recent issues should have more bearing in determining what is in the best interest of the child than stories from years ago.

The court will use past behavior to predict future behavior - but I haven't been able to pinpoint a frame of time that constitutes 'past' (2 yrs, 10 yrs, 13 mos,). So that prolly means it is determined on a case by case basis at the court's descretion.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

It's not Jason's convience at issue - it's the convience of witnesses that is at issue.

My bad.

Jason's convience is indeed an issue before the court.