Mickelson Case: GA coverup cont.,

[_Res Ipsa]

by the way, I have to say that I am very curious as to how he obtained a "covert" recording of a conversation between his soon-to-be ex-wife and her attorney. If I tried that kind of crap, I'd lose my license.

I'm curious as well. But even if he obtained it legally "somehow", what he did with it seems criminal. He should have turned it over to the judge.

I agree. If his story is true, then he blackmailed an attorney into throwing her own client under the bus. It will be interesting to see exactly what he considers to be "suborning perjury."

[_Starbuck]

Thanks Brad. Ok AmyJo, I think it is clear that Mr. Karren is lying about having had full custody of his children. It is time to come to Jesus and for you to admit the truth to yourself as well.

Well, I wouldn't come to a final conclusion without seeing that 2009 divorce decree. Here is his story:

Kathleen McConkie pushed numerous times for contempt of court on trumped up charges, using various low-life ploys. On her last attempt (to be detailed in the releases), and I caught her in suborning perjury with Jean Mickelsen Berger, with a covert recording. To avoid losing her license, McConkie called a meeting to settle with me. I pushed for custody. It was technically called Primary Custody, but was no different than full custody in that children resided in my home full time, did not participate in parent-sharing time, nor did their mother press to enforce it.

I don't think he ever says that a judge awarded him this "full custody" in a decree. He may be saying that he got his wife to agree regardless of what any court papers said. He's not really clear on something that should be able to be stated pretty clearly. But the court docket certainly doesn't look consistent with his story.

by the way, I have to say that I am very curious as to how he obtained a "covert" recording of a conversation between his soon-to-be ex-wife and her attorney. If I tried that kind of crap, I'd lose my license.

ETA: McConkie didn't just try for contempt of court -- he was found in contempt of court.

How does a party keep custody if the courts decide otherwise? Wouldn't that put a party in contempt?

[_Res Ipsa]

How does a party keep custody if the courts decide otherwise? Wouldn't that put a party in contempt?

If neither parent complains, the court is unlikely to know that the custody order isn't being followed.

[_Rosebud]

How does a party keep custody if the courts decide otherwise? Wouldn't that put a party in contempt?

If neither parent complains, the court is unlikely to know that the custody arrangements aren't being followed.

And in most cases less complaining would indicate that parents are doing a better job of working together for the good of the children. Unless there are current, substantiated safety issues, the more complaining parents are doing the more an indication of a credibility problem. It's pretty hard, frankly, to force teenagers to live with a parent they don't like. Ultimately, competent teenagers have the power to choose regardless of how much money their parents spend fighting. Unless a parent uses shackles -- in which case there would be a valid, current, substantiated safety issue.

I feel very sorry for these kids, even as adults. It seems to me they'd be better off getting away from both their parents, their extended family and all of Mormonism in hopes of finding a peaceful, "normal" life in the real world. This is seriously messed up.

[_Starbuck]

With Ron now posting all this, if he does not have legal custody, why in the world would his ex not go for contempt? Strange things are afoot at the circle K.

[_Res Ipsa]

With Ron now posting all this, if he does not have legal custody, why in the world would his ex not go for contempt? Strange things are afoot at the circle K.

At least two of the three children are now over 18. The girl at the center of all this is 19 or 20. There may be no children to have custody of.

[_Rosebud]

With Ron now posting all this, if he does not have legal custody, why in the world would his ex not go for contempt? Strange things are afoot at the circle K.

At least two of the three children are now over 18. The girl at the center of all this is 19 or 20. There may be no children to have custody of.

A 19 or 20-yo girl is susceptible to being dragged into a fight that is bigger than she is without really having the life experience to give full consent. Just like it's harmful to advise kids that age to marry, it's harmful to advise them to sacrifice their privacy for the good of the world, or whatever Karren might be doing. Give her another decade to grow up. Sheesh. She's too young to be anything besides a pawn.

[_Res Ipsa]

You'll get no argument from me, Rosebud. I think your take on this mess is pretty sensible.

[_Rosebud]

You'll get no argument from me, Rosebud. I think your take on this mess is pretty sensible.

Well, thanks. Generally speaking, those who accuse me of not being sensible have incentive to discredit me or are afraid of something.

[_Res Ipsa]

Did a little more digging to lean about terminology in Utah divorces. Here is some information I found to be helpful: http://utahlegaladvocate.com/child-custody/

This information shows a way that Karren's story could be consistent with the information in the court docket. First, although Karren talkes about "full custody," that is not an accurate legal term for child custody in Utah. At one point, he says the actual term is "primary custody." The technically correct term in Utah seems to be "sole custody," but it also seems that "primary custody" and "sole custody" are used interchangeably.

Utah splits custody into two parts: physical and legal. Physical is where the child lives. Legal is who makes decisions. Joint legal custody is generally presumed. A parent has "sole" custody if the chid resides with that parent more than 253 days per year. In that case, the other parent is entitled to what is called "parent time."

So, it is possible that the original decree awarded Karren sole physical custody, but also awarded joint legal custody. If that is true, Kerran's 2012 motion for "full custody" could have been a motion to change the joint legal custody into sole legal custody. If that is true, his story is completely consistent with the court docket. In other words, with the new information, I don't think the court docket undermines Karren's story in any way.

The docket makes it clear that there was no trial over custody. Karren and his ex agreed to a custody arrangement. As is typical, the agreed order was signed off on by a Court Commissioner. The docket indicates the Commissioner asked each of them on the record whether they agreed, which they did. Generally, when the parties agree (and there is no evidence of abuse, etc.), the Commissioner will sign. So there is nothing inconsistent about Karren being in contempt earlier in the process and his eventual award of sole physical custody.

The original decree is publicly available. Since I'm cheap, I'll likely wait to see if he produces a copy.

This doesn't change my opinion on not trusting what Karren says without corroboration.