ben54 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:44 pm
It's unclear whether the kids were involved because a shop clerks statement might or might not be true. I don't know. But the corruption of minor charges were dropped, so that really should throw that argument out the window.

I doubt that the shop clerk lied/fabricated that Rochelle had two young girls with her and then it turned out after they found Rochelle she had two daughters of that age.

The charges are not very old, they are nine years old. Rochelle was in her thirties. Normal people know the difference between right and wrong by then. Rochelle didn't shoplift a loaf of bread to feed her kids, she stole a dress and jewelry worth thousands of dollars, and she brought her kids with her to do that. She hit that store on multiple occasions and was also caught selling stuff that had been shoplifted from another local store.

The charges were dropped, but family courts routinely consider evidence about acts for which parties have not been criminally convicted, as they try to determine what's in the best interest of the child. Nick Kannieff hasn't been convicted of beating her up, of course. She can't have it both ways - "consider my evidence of Nick beating me even though he wasn't convicted, but disregard the evidence of my child-involved thievery because I was never convicted."

It's all fair game in family court.

ben54 wrote:

Digg3r wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:28 pm

ben54 wrote:Jesus, it's not like she ran over a nun.
Those are some very old charges and they seemed truthful about the one at least. Maybe the kid didnt know there was a second?
Also, there's no proof the kids stole anything and who knows what kind of position the mom was in at the time. If the worst thing she has on her record is theft from 10 years ago, that ain't too bad.

It's weird that we found out she stole a necklace and everyone's like "case closed"

Involving children in criminal activities is a HUGE problem to overcome in family law. That alone would have her on supervised access only in Australia.

It's unclear whether the kids were involved because a shop clerks statement might or might not be true. I don't know. But the corruption of minor charges were dropped, so that really should throw that argument out the window.

Pretty much anything and everything will be used in family law. This would have definitely been used. As for no conviction, not an issue. Family law tests evidence on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt as used in criminal trials making guilty verdicts much easier to achieve.

As cam nivag points out, she was in her 30's when all this happened. There is very little possibility of using an "immaturity ' defence on that.

I think even more damaging to her case is that she allowed the son to leave the USA after proceedings had already begun. That means, she cannot be trusted in the future to advise the father of travel details etc. On this basis she would have no chance of being ordered parental responsibility.

Digg3r wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:44 am [
I think even more damaging to her case is that she allowed the son to leave the USA after proceedings had already begun.

Right, and not only did she leave the USA during proceedings, she took the kid to live in Cambodia, which most American judges probably view as a backwards, impoverished, war torn hellhole that is totally unsuitable for raising a child.

Mira seems sound and I hope she learns from this that as much as she loves her mom, her mom is a fuck up who acts selfishly and makes terrible decisions and can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

I think a good rule of thumb for how Mira lives the rest of her life should be that whenever her mom says "Mira, I think we should . . ." or "Mira, I want you to . . ." the answer should be "No, mom, that's a terrible idea."

Cannot believe this thread is still of interest to anyone. It just clogs my new posts searches.

Time to close it?

Can someone take this whole discussion down? This is a pointless discussion and no one will solve it except the members of this family in US family court. This dialogue DOES NOT belong on a public site. I found that the mother has a criminal record and is a child molester. I certainly don't blame a judge for removing her custodial rights to an 8 year old boy when she has a history of sexually molesting a 7 year old boy. I just think this whole conversation should be removed. Here's the article: https://ericrocknrollins.wixsite.com/fa ... cy-stories

jimluke wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:24 pm Can someone take this whole discussion down? This is a pointless discussion and no one will solve it except the members of this family in US family court. This dialogue DOES NOT belong on a public site. I found that the mother has a criminal record and is a child molester. I certainly don't blame a judge for removing her custodial rights to an 8 year old boy when she has a history of sexually molesting a 7 year old boy. I just think this whole conversation should be removed. Here's the article: https://ericrocknrollins.wixsite.com/fa ... cy-stories

What's your involvement in this? Are you a member of the God Squad that kidnapped the 8 year old boy?

so you want it taken down and then give a link to provide further info on a subject that had disappeared until you revived it.
hmmmmm

My point is to show that the claims are false and that is why this discussion does not belong on a public site.

prahocalypse now wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:51 pm

jimluke wrote: ↑Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:24 pm Can someone take this whole discussion down? This is a pointless discussion and no one will solve it except the members of this family in US family court. This dialogue DOES NOT belong on a public site. I found that the mother has a criminal record and is a child molester. I certainly don't blame a judge for removing her custodial rights to an 8 year old boy when she has a history of sexually molesting a 7 year old boy. I just think this whole conversation should be removed. Here's the article: https://ericrocknrollins.wixsite.com/fa ... cy-stories

What's your involvement in this? Are you a member of the God Squad that kidnapped the 8 year old boy?

Impossible, we only have one side of the story because aside from creating phony NGO web sites, gaslighting with fake social media profiles, flooding the internet with dubious documents and blabbing to newspaper reporters, the kidnappers have been models of discretion and restraint