AmyJo wrote:Nor did his wife put up any fight at that point. She let him have the children. Her father was paying for her divorce attorney, and yet she buckled. That speaks for itself she knew they were up to some shady practices.
I have to say that if we are to talk about credibility, then the mother's failure to contest the husband's claim for custody of the children in a state where a Mormon mother is (is she not?) very, very likely to be awarded custody if she seeks it, looks to me like a great, big, flashing buzzing "WTF"?.
It's very strange, whatever else it is.
Idk Chap.... there are other explanations. Perhaps she reasoned that she had been dealing with pressure and relentless abuse from her ex for almost 2 decades by that point. She may have decided that the kids were old enough and that she had little power to do any more good. Maybe she had stayed with him for the good of the kids and had tried her hardest, but 20 years was the extent of the fight she had in her. It seems pretty clear that there is no end to the amount of fighting Karren will engage in. We don't have any information about her perspective.
Jersey Girl wrote:Again, if you don't feel like directing me, it's okay. I'll just continue to plow through the posts and suffer in silence.
I'll track down references in the morning.
What I didn't want was for you to go hunting for links throughout this thread. I'm already doing that by reading it. If the information is in the blog posts, I can try to sift through those. But don't spend too much of your time on me. Chances are that I've already lost the narrative and catching up would be an impossible task. I didn't want to participate without fully understanding what's come to light.
I can live.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
A few questions that I've had on my mind are this:
1. Are the names of the children being discussed in the blog entries (or wherever else they might appear) the real names of the children?
2. Did the children give permission to use their real names as these detailed and highly private details of their lives or is Ron simply making a command decision to do so? I don't see evidence of consent on the part of the children.
3. My impression is that K's psychology has been neglected. I see no evidence that K has been given the benefit of sound therapeutic solutions to assist in helping her process her early experiences. I see that Ron says there wasn't anyone who wasn't biased in Utah. Is there some reason he couldn't take her out of state for treatment or am I suggesting the impossible here?
If answering these questions requires that people have to do too much back pedaling into the thread to address, don't do it on my account. I'm just asking the questions that keep coming back to me as I read.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Mary wrote:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Subornation+of+Perjury
Changing one's mind is not suborning of perjury. What Ron ignores is that the court order in place at the time said that the daughter would be with Jean.
On the evidence Ron has provided, the mother asked that K live with him. Ron complies. Ron makes it known that the kids can go to their mum any time they want. Ron suggests a dinner or some other activity in order to build a relationship with their mum. Ron makes every effort to comply with wife's wishes.
He is then accused of not following court orders and returning K when Jean had actually dropped her off. Are we reading the same documents? Ron feels that both Jean and her lawyer have purposely placed in him a position of being in contempt of the court order. The evidence he has provided suggests that to be the case.
Ron has emphatically claimed over and over that the lawyer suborned perjury. I looked the materials he gave us. It's not true.
Can you understand at least why he considers it to be true.
Just like it's not true that the divorce was out of the blue.
Wow. They had a fiery and rocky marriage and they *pushed each other's buttons*, but that doesn't mean to say that Ron wasn't genuinely surprised when he was served with papers for a divorce. People have rocky marriages that get better, that are worked through. They had a temple marriage.
Just like its not true that Jean "beat McKay, leaving him bloodied and bruised" even though that's how Ron describes it over and over and over again
.
Jean was physically aggressive with McKay as both he and the mother in the phone transcript admit. The mum finds it hard to cope with the boys, on occassion she becomes physically aggressive. She later admits this after denying it. She plays it down. She has a temper. She is on medication. It's a traumatic time for her. But what it shows is that she, like Ron plays down her bad points. She is willing to lie under oath.
Ron is not a reliable witness in this matter, and it's crystal clear that he's repeated his version of the story to McKay so many times that McKay's language and phrasing mimics his father's.
Rubbish. All children's language can mimic the parents, the parents are childrens prime language role models after all. That doesn't mean that what McKay is pointing out is not his sincere reflections and perceptions of the events he describes.
Oh rubbish yourself, Mary. When I say it's not true, that's all I mean. I didn't say Ron doesn't believe it. People believe things that aren't true all the time. The truth is that something happened between Ron and Mary about a year before she filed that caused her to go to her bishop, a "professional" and her father about getting a divorce. Those are Ron's own tape recorded words from about six months before she filed. One of the kids told the therapist there was a lot of fighting between the parents even before the divorce. Ron has convinced himself that there is no explanation for his wife filing for divorce other than it was orchestrated by her father to cover up pedophilia. But the truth is there is evidence of perfectly ordinary reasons for her to want a divorce. Read the transcript of the tape from 2005. Read how he talks to her. Would you stay with a guy who talked to you like that?
If Jean were here telling her story, I'd take a skeptical approach as well. I'd compare her story with the contemporaneous evidence at the time to try and get a feel for how close her story is to what actually happened. I have only a couple of data points -- data points that Ron has carefully selected for presenting to me.
Yes, they had a temple marriage and her father was a GA. How do you think that cuts? I don't place a ton of weight on it, but I think it indicated that things had to be pretty bad before she would go to her GA father and tell him she wanted a divorce from her temple marriage.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Mary wrote:Good grief RI is that your professional opinion.
Are you even listening fo Ron and the kids? The wife drops the daughter off with bags. Arrangements are made to move K out at Jean's request. Dad needs to get bigger House. Jean then changes her mind and attempts to put him in contempt of court via the lawyer. Come on. Please.
Why not start to believe or even take seriously Ron and all three of his kids? They experienced this.
This is what is damning in my eyes too. You can see by the theatrics of Jean and her attorney they were up to no good. It was staged to make Ron look like he was in contempt of court when he was taking full time custody of his daughter with Jean and the crooked lawyer's asking. To turn on him only two weeks later after he had gotten suitable housing for his daughter and her truckloads of furnishings, you can see how orchestrated their attempts were to lay him on the carpet. It wasn't a case of Jean changing her mind. She and her attorney both said she could not handle her daughter. That doesn't change in two weeks. Liars that they are.
As Mary would say, rubbish. People change their minds all the time in hotly contested cases. Here's a woman who has been fighting for custody of her children for almost two years in the court system. Her husband defies court orders that he agreed to and keeps the oldest son with him until he's found in contempt and the court has to order that the kid be picked up and delivered to the mother. The other boy has told the therapist that he deliberately acts out with his mother so that she will send him to live with his father. When the mother does something that the kids don't like, they grab their cell phones to call their father. She thinks the father has poisoned the children against her. I find it perfectly plausible that the mother was torn between her genuine belief that the kids would be better off with her and the fact that she simply could not manage the children, and that she vacillated about what was the best thing to do.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Jersey Girl wrote:A few questions that I've had on my mind are this:
1. Are the names of the children being discussed in the blog entries (or wherever else they might appear) the real names of the children?
2. Did the children give permission to use their real names as these detailed and highly private details of their lives or is Ron simply making a command decision to do so? I don't see evidence of consent on the part of the children.
3. My impression is that K's psychology has been neglected. I see no evidence that K has been given the benefit of sound therapeutic solutions to assist in helping her process her early experiences. I see that Ron says there wasn't anyone who wasn't biased in Utah. Is there some reason he couldn't take her out of state for treatment or am I suggesting the impossible here?
If answering these questions requires that people have to do too much back pedaling into the thread to address, don't do it on my account. I'm just asking the questions that keep coming back to me as I read.
1. Yes.
2. I don't know. We haven't heard anything from the children. (Who are now all adults.)
3. I think the therapist Ron took her to was beginning that process. I don't know whether she continued in therapy after the therapist's report to the court. Ron says that neither he nor his children will have anything to do with the "corrupt" field of psychologists. Something like that.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Jersey Girl wrote:What I didn't want was for you to go hunting for links throughout this thread. I'm already doing that by reading it. If the information is in the blog posts, I can try to sift through those. But don't spend too much of your time on me. Chances are that I've already lost the narrative and catching up would be an impossible task. I didn't want to participate without fully understanding what's come to light.
I can live.
The most reliable information is in the attachments to the blog posts and in the court docket. What we really have are three stories told at different points in time. (1) The story told in 2006-2009 during the divorce proceeding. (2) The story told in 2012 when Ron files complaints against the therapist and his ex-wife's attorney. (3) The story told today in Ron's blog. The story changes over time (as one would expect given how memory works).
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
The answer to Chap's WTF is this: The mother fought for custody for something like two and a half years. The reality was that she could not manage the children. The husband kept the oldest son with him in defiance of court orders for something like a year and a half. At some point, Ron agreed to return the son within 60 days. He didn't. The court had to order that the son be picked up and delivered to his mother. Sometime later, an altercation occurred between the oldest son and his mother that resulted in her calling the police. Ron says she called the police repeatedly. The middle son told his therapist that he acts out with his mother so that she will let him live with his father. She had no control over the daughter, who would leave the house and simply not come back.
The reality was that, for whatever reason, she could not manage those children. I think her attorney understood that, but it took her time to accept the reality of the situation.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:The answer to Chap's WTF is this: The mother fought for custody for something like two and a half years. The reality was that she could not manage the children. The husband kept the oldest son with him in defiance of court orders for something like a year and a half. At some point, Ron agreed to return the son within 60 days. He didn't. The court had to order that the son be picked up and delivered to his mother. Sometime later, an altercation occurred between the oldest son and his mother that resulted in her calling the police. Ron says she called the police repeatedly. The middle son told his therapist that he acts out with his mother so that she will let him live with his father. She had no control over the daughter, who would leave the house and simply not come back.
The reality was that, for whatever reason, she could not manage those children. I think her attorney understood that, but it took her time to accept the reality of the situation.
This also gets really expensive really quick. Who knows what her family's finances were like in order to fight a protracted legal dispute.
When I fought for custody, between lawyers and guardian ad litems, I passed $20k pretty quickly. I think I spent around $30k total to get my kids back. I can't imagine adding kids who would “F” with me into the mix. I'd quit, too.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
When I say it's not true, that's all I mean. I didn't say Ron doesn't believe it. People believe things that aren't true all the time. The truth is that something happened between Ron and Mary about a year before she filed that caused her to go to her bishop, a "professional" and her father about getting a divorce. Those are Ron's own tape recorded words from about six months before she filed. One of the kids told the therapist there was a lot of fighting between the parents even before the divorce. Ron has convinced himself that there is no explanation for his wife filing for divorce other than it was orchestrated by her father to cover up pedophilia. But the truth is there is evidence of perfectly ordinary reasons for her to want a divorce. Read the transcript of the tape from 2005. Read how he talks to her. Would you stay with a guy who talked to you like that?