Jackson Jambalaya

These folks know no limits.

And now Bill Featherhead gets involved.....

I wish they would leave that poor boy ALONE. They are only using him to get back at each other...It is sick.

What do you mean "leave that poor boy alone"?

Karen Irby gave birth to that little boy. Gayle gave birth to Karen. Of course they want to keep him near and not off with the father's brother in another state.

Karen Irby and her mother may not have the money that Stuart Irby has, but I think the love and attention he would receive from them would far outweigh anything Stuart or his brother could offer.

Not everyone seems to have this child's best interest at heart. I have little doubt that the mother does and always will. He needs his mother.

God forbid that his Stuart should be his role model. Who would be around to bring attention to possible beatings that leave bruises deep enough for a doctor to alert authorities? Who would turn a blind eye?
He will be much older when Karen is released from prison, but he will have grown up having known her through visits and her love for him. All of this will be re-enforced by his loving granny.

This cannot be accomplished by "leaving the boy alone."

Nanna and Stuart are the wrong ones to be watching over this child. Leave him with the family he is with now. Both Nanna and Stuart want to drag him into a legal battle to satisfy their own selfish needs to one-up the other.

Give the kid a chance, that is what it looks like he will have under the care of the current family.

So 11:54: a young boy should grow up without a male figure in his life?

The way I see it, Nanna raised KI. Not too good of a referrence. KI stayed with SI for an easy moneyfilled lifestyle. Not too good of a referrence. SI is an egotistical, abusive fool. Not too good of a referrence. I do not know his brother nor his wife but of the parties discussed here probably the best place for him. KI, Nanna, and SI have proven not to be capible or none of the above would be in the situation they are in now. Period.

totally agree 1:46.

KI mom pushed her to get married so she could ride the gravy train. If she gets custody, she also gets the money to care for him. DUH!!

KI didn't turn out great and her sister had been on the outs with MOM for years.

Maybe SI needs to get testimony from Karen's previous husband as to her character and then even some of KI friends who have had run ins with MOM. Even EX boyfriends have something to say about this woman.

SI brother is a great man along with his wife. They need to leave Graham with them because they have raised 5 or 6 kids all who are great. Uncle UJoe is a great role model. Ask anyone!

Featherston is back??? He represented Karen in her divorce from Bounds. He was with her the night she was drunk and attacked a woman and her daughter at Schimmels. The word was he represented her for free during the divorce. Makes you wonder why?

Maybe he still wants to date her in jail

Kingfish said: "So 11:54: a young boy should grow up without a male figure in his life?"

It appears that the boy had a male figure, his father, in his life up until his life fell apart.
Just because a male figure is present does not mean that it is a healthy environment for the boy.
God only knows what the child witnessed and heard during his lifetime thus far.

Sure, it is best that a child have both a mother and father while growing up, but it is not always the best. Even male relatives or friends can be iffy in a lot of cases.

Stuart Irby is obviously mentally sick. It's been a year and half since the wreck, and he still has not recovered. Chances are at his age he may never recovery enough to assume complete care and responsibility for his young child. Considering these circumstances, it seems to me that Karen, the child's Mother, should have some say in who takes care of her child since his Father can't because of mental problems.

Stuart Irby can't have it both ways. Too sick to be interviewed or testify, too sick to take care of his child, but not too sick to make all decisions for his child.

The child belongs to Stuart and Karen Irby not to the Irby family. If Stuart is sick mentally then the decisions concerning the child should be left up to his Mother not to the Irby family as it seems to be now.

Some of you seem to think that Karen Irby and her mother are vile people. I take it that you have factual evidence to support this?

I would not know Karen or her mother if they were standing in front of me. Well, since I've seen photos of Karen in the paper I might recognize her.

The factual evidence I use to form my opinion of Stuart comes from legal documents about his involvement in a divorce proceeding, plus police reports concerning his actions in domestic issues and child abuse. I've read these things online. They exist. What you say about Karen and her mother comes across as speculation or perhaps even personal issues.
What verifiable evidence do you have that would support your opinion of Karen and her mother?

I would really like to know as would others who don't know either of them.

Well at least SI can hand down his brand new Porsche to Graham one day. He's got that going for him.

3:07 has obviously not paid attention or they would know the background on Nanna and KI. Whatever. I have personally seen KI in full swing. The comments she has made in public about her 'body parts' making her living were totally disgusting. Thank God I've never been aflicted with the money hungry bug. She asked for it and she got it in my opinion. Now the fact that she stayed IN it after the abuse of her daughter triples the disgust. She deserves her fate, her children did not deserve her. This in no way takes away from my thought that SI should be right along with her. I always thought they deserved each other and felt sorry for the children. But the fact remains that one being a fool and the other being an idiot doth not parents make. And as far as Nanna... my mama would have beat the holy soup outta me if I'd have ever acted like KI long, long ago. Not to mention she'd live under a bridge before she'd accept benefit from me acting that way. Nanna now, she does not hold the same values obviously.

Having grown up with the Irbys, I wish I could talk. But I won't. But I will say that the saddest part of this whole situation, is how Stuart's wonderful mother, Bitsy, has been forgotten. And all the good work and charitable contributions given through her name and by her, have made Jackson such a better place. Lastly, Stuart does read this blog and your comments. Trust,

I have heard nothing but good about Mrs. Bitsy. All we as parents can do is raise our children with values and morals. A part of which is making them accountable for their actions. Once they are grown they make their own choices and decisions. Personally think SI is mentally ill. And, if you look back into the family tree you may find someone else who 'walked to his own beat' shall we say as Bi-polar is passed down, not always thank goodness, but I'm pretty sure SI is not the only one. Now, the severity does vary from person to person and tends to progress with age. But back to the point, Mrs. Bitsy's good deeds will never be diminished by the acts of her fully grown son. Anyone who links the two in that respect is not worthy of worrying about.

5:56 Regardless of anything you have said, the poster is right. You seem to forget the child belongs to both Karen and Stuart Irby not to the Irby family, and while you personally don't like Karen, many people who know Karen would say in a minute she dearly loves her children and was a good Mother. What the poster is saying is if Stuart is unable to make decisions because of his mental health, then Karen, the child's Mother should make the decisions for her child not the Irby family for Stuart.

Info for 1:46 2:24 5:36. Although one might post as anonymous, the courts can require the website owner to provide the identity of a person if the court deems it worthy.

"Make it clear when you are stating your opinion," says Donaldson,
"Always state the facts that your opinions are based on just to be safe.
You probably won't lose a libel or defamation lawsuit if you can back up
what you write with solid facts."

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/defamation-in-cyberspace.html

the flaw in your premise is I have to know who is posting comments, which I usually don't. Got it, you overbred country clubbin' punk? Go make threats somewhere else.

6:27 So if a crack head and a murderer have a child and the murderer is in prison we should let the crack head make the decisions for the child? Lordy you must work for DHS.

6:35 unless I'm mistaken every post on this blog is an opinion unless noted otherwise, ie: 'she told me X or he told me Y' with the actual quote stated. I love the KI and SI camps! They are so entertaining when they are not being totally illogical. I guess my Daddy is right, some people couldn't catch, trap, or buy logic.

And don't you just love people fussing about anonymous posting while posting anonymously? ;)

635. In MY opinion, based upon your anonymous and somewhat veiled threat, you, kind sir or madam are a shit-eating, inbred, blowhard, piece of shit for humanity, scumbag. But then, that's just MY opinion based upon my previous experience with assholes like you online. I also reserve the right to revise, amend, retract, or otherwise change my mind about you should new information come to my attention. Have a blessed and glorious evening.

Did I get that right? I'd hate for some court to find that I didn't properly cite the basis for my opinion.

There is such a thing as IP addresses that appear when accessing web sites, though posting anonymously.
"The First Amendment protects the right to free speech and anonymous free speech. But it doesn't offer the right to libel someone, anonymously or otherwise.

A Texas circuit court judge served up a reminder of the amendment last week when she ordered an online news aggregation site to turn over any potentially identifying information it has on 178 people. They had anonymously posted allegedly defamatory comments on the site about two individuals involved in a sexual assault case."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/159393/web_site_ordered_to_unmask_anonymous_posters.html

This is not a matter for public consumption. Nobody's opinion here means squat. Hopefully, this will end in the best interest of the child. PERIOD.

I can just picture the courtroom now: Judge: Why are there 500 people in the waiting area? Baliff: Sir, these are all the people who stated on the internet that they've heard KI and/or SI act an ass and/or fool in public and they've been summoned to testify and/or defend theirselves.

Does the term 'smoke/fire' ever enter the picture?

"""So 11:54: a young boy should grow up without a male figure in his life?"""

It happens all of the time, KF. It's not a castastrophe. He know his grandmother a whole lot more than two strangers. Obviously his father isn't capable. And he would be near his sibling. And he would be near his mother.

Looks like Nanna is looking for some sort of KF info, threats to find anonymous posters? That fits with Stuart's filing of her "poison".

8:05, that doesn't make sense. If someone is trying to catch fish they don't disturb the water beforehand.

First of all some on here seem to forget the child belongs to only two people his parents, Stuart Irby and Karen Irby.

If Stuart Irby is mentally competent to make decisions about his child's well-being, then he should also be able to personally appear in court next month to answer questions and explain to the judge why he isn't living with the child and why he decided to let his son live with his brother's home in Little Rock, AR. No more hiding behind lawyers.

If Stuart is still says he is too sick to appear, then the Mother's wishes for where her son lives should be honored.

August 21, 2010 3:07 PM

FACT: Karen is in jail for killing two people. She admitted this in open court.

FACT: Stuart is not incarcerated

FACT: Suart is rehabilitating through therapy.

Go ahead and give your opinion on those FACTS.

August 21, 2010 9:19 PM

Did you sound like Nanna and Stuart? Belongs to or did you mean owns? Get a freaking clue. This is about money and Nanna/Karen.

And you Madison women on here are obviously above the rest of us, God forgive you. You will have to answer for your forked tongues you speak out of both sides of your mouthes with.

10:10. No, you get a clue. Not everything everyone does is about money. Both Karen and her Mother think it would be better for the child be around their family where he was raised and his sister. Karen's Mother has had a close relationship with Karen's son since he was born and is more than qualified to provide a loving, stable, caring home for the child along with assuring he can spend time with his sister. The Irbys just because they have money doesn't automatically make them qualified for anything. If Stuart is too sick a year and eight months after the wreck to appear in court to answer this petition, then he is too sick to make decisions about his son. This is why the child's Mother's wishes have to be considered.

August 22, 2010 1:20 AM

Still clueless 1:20 AM? Looks that way.

Nanna said some pretty nasty things to this child to poison a relationship (according to the filing) that takes precedence over...

1. Nanna
2. Incarcerated mother

Did you bother reading it? It actually reads like a custody issue in a nasty divorce. I should know, I made a conscious effort NOT to let my divorce degenerate into the pit of mud slinging and OWNERSHIP that one side seems particularly set upon pursuing. Who filed first?

Did anyone miss the request for child support? If she is altruistic, and its not about money, why ask for it? Looks pretty bad in my opinion for Nanna. She should have said she is not requesting child support. That would appear altruistic and in the best interest of the child.

All families have problems, but I'm so thankfull I've never had the pleasure to meet any of the Irby family. Sounds like maybe a curse is upon them and if there was no money, well......

Wait a minute. Just because the Grandmother requests support for her grandchild and his medical and education expenses to be paid for by his millionaire Dad that makes her a horrible, horrible person? Of course not. The Dad can and would be expected to pay for his child's expenses if he can't personally provide care for his child himself. Did it ever dawn on any of you hate the Grandmother people that Stuart is providing the exact same thing the Grandmother asked for to his brother to provide care for his son now?

3:43. All I can say about Nanna asking for child support is this: When I asked for my 2 step sons from their blood mother, I knew the only way I'd get them was to NOT ask for ANY support. No, I am not rich. No, I was not even comfortable at the time. BUT I DID know that if they were to have a prayer in Hell it was with me. SO. I decided I'd forgo asking for one thin dime just to get them. THAT'S how sure I was that I was their only prayer. IF NANNA was THAT sure I'd say maybe so. But since I HAVE been in that exact same position and with as little as I had, I chose the children over asking for support. THAT is what you call wanting the best for the child. I knew if I asked for support it would be drug out for months maybe years that those children did not have to waste. So by the skin of my teeth I made it thru and so did they. AND BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK IT... NO THEIR FATHER DID NOT HELP. As a matter of fact, he was Bi-polar so not only did I have these children to take care of he couldn't financally help. When my youngest step child turned 16 I filed for divorce. That child stayed with me then and is still with me today and absolutely NO support from either bio parent. See, that's what you do when you love a child and want the best for that child. So, when Nanna decides she wants the child without support, talk to me again.

And one more thing before I get off my soapbox... IF KI was so danged worried about what is best for her children she should have left the sick bastard when she found out he had abused her daughter. If my daughter ever stayed with a man after she knew he'd hurt one of my grandkids I'd disown her and take the child. And like the above poster asked: If a crackhead and a murderer have a child and said murderer is in jail should we listen to the crackhead for guidance on what is best for said child? KI did not think about her children before she went to jail and apparently neither did Nanna so why in God's name should anybody care what they think now? Is it stated anywhere that the uncle and his wife are not fit for any reason? If not, so be it. You do not have to be direct blood of a child to love that child more than the direct blood. Don't believe me? Go to any children's shelter and look around fool! Just because you have a bio child does not in any way mean you automatically know what is best for that child. It just means you SHOULD. Words are cheap, actions speak volumes.

Funny none of you old broads won't comment on her statements made public in SI's filing.

And let this be said. A father is just as good as any mother. As a father, I've been told, if you forgo child support the court will view your petition as altruistic in the light of f-d up circumstances. So are you saying its different for Nanna and women? Or, are you saying the system is F-D up?

So the next question that must be asked....

Why did Karen agree to have her daughter go back with her ex-husband who she (if the papers are right) abused her? Why doesn't Nanna have her daughter?

If I'm wrong KF, please correct me.

I do not care one whit if it is father, mother, or indian chief. I've known many fathers that should have dumped the mothers and kept the kids. If SI and uncle/wife was as bad as Nanna says she would not be worried about the money. She'd be worried about that boy. And one other thing for future referrence if anyond here has the misfortune of going thru a divorce... NEVER, EVER talk bad about the ex in front of the children as they didn't pick them YOU DID. If Nanna does feel the way she must have said about SI she should never ever say ANYTHING to the child. HE didn't pick his mother nor his father. And from what I gather, she was all for the father when she was seeing dollar signs.. Oh wait.. she apparently STILL IS!

3:43 Well, good for you that you thought you should not ask for child support, but honestly the children you wanted to raise obviously didn't have a multi-millionaire Mother who would have had no trouble whatsoever helping with her child's expenses. There is nothing at all wrong with Gayle Lang asking for support for her grandchild from his Father who can easily provide the support.

You also asked was it stated anywhere that the uncle and his wife are not fit for any reason? I know of no reason, but the exact same thing can also be said about Ms. Lang. I have heard nothing or read nothing that makes Ms. Lange not fit either. However, Ms. Lang isn't wealthy and her name isn't Irby, but she is the child's Grandmother and has been very involved in his life since the day he was born.

9:07PM READ THE FILING. You are obviously mis-informed about Nanna.

8:24, what other goals do you have in life besides trying to disparage the daughter and grandmother?
I'll bet you could talk the ear off an elephant! You haven't left much on this old bone to gnaw. Where ya headed next?

Child support is for THE CHILD.

While I have admiration and sympathy for the grandmother who sought custody without asking for support, I respectfully suggest it is the child's interest to seek support. You could agree to placing that support into a trust fund of some sort. In the end, when you aid the parents in avoiding all responsibility ,the child eventually see the parental rejection as complete. Please consider going back to court to seek support.

A bad parent is a bad parent, whether that parent is male or female. KF,the notion that a boy needs a male role model or a girl needs a female role model, may be " ideal" but there's more than a little research to show that children can succeed quite well with surrogate role models as long as those models are positive. It doesn't have to be the biological parent.

One good parent and one bad parent can have a mixed result that depends on whether the strength of the good parent has more influence than the trauma/rejection/indulgence inflicted by the bad parent on the child's development.

I don't think many of those blogging know the " cast of characters" in this sad drama very well as there are many false assumptions based on public personas and public information that is misleading.

I would caution that just because someone has a positive public image, is likeable and charitable, doesn't mean they have good parenting skills. Nor does failure of a child always mean that good parenting skills were absent. Drugs via peers, inherited mental disorders etc, can affect how a child turns out.

I recently spent a Saturday with Gayle and Graham. Gayle is a wonderful Nanna!!!! Graham loves her dearly, and is very attached to her both physically and emotionally. Every chance he had he jumped into her lap for a hug. There is no way that he has the same type of attachment to Joe and Diane. He has simply not spent a significant amount of time with them. I am sure that they are also kind and nurturing people like Gayle, but Graham does not know them like he does his Nanna and his Sister. This is a no brainer!!! He needs to be with Gayle. He is a very smart and sensitive child who has been torn away from everything he has ever known! My heart is breaking for him right now. I know for a fact that he is suffering emotionally, and is desperate to be with his Nanna. By the way, not once have I heard Nanna say anything negative to Graham about Stuart or the Irby family. She is too busy taking both Parker and Graham for snow cones, taking them swimming, taking them on playdates with their friends, and taking them to visit Karen. Graham needs his Nanna, his sister, and to see his mom. This is just my humble opinion as someone who cares about Graham.

7:36. I did read the filing, but I'm not like you. I don't believe everything I read. Also, if you think the child hasn't heard some unkind remarks about Karen's family from the Irby family and their friends when he has been around them you are living in a dream world.

What I guess I don't get is some people thinking because a family has money and certain last name that it makes everything they say the truth, and everything they do just wonderful. I have seen Karen's Mother described as just a horrible, vile person yet not one person has produced factual verifiable evidence to support the bad things they have said about this woman. Has she been in trouble with the law? Has she assaulted a neighbor or friend? Does she do or sell drugs? Steal? Beat children? Arrest records? Court records? Where's the proof this woman is just so horrible that she is unfit to take care of her grandchild? Stuart Irby in his court filing said he has allowed the child to visit with his Grandmother and spend the night with her on several occasions. He obviously doesn't feel she is unable to care for his child does he?

You just don't get it. My position is that neither of them are really good for the child at this time as evidenced by the filing(S). BOTH are playing this out in the courts. Nanna filed first, Stuart responds, Nanna ups the ante, can't wait for what is next.

Your cheerleading for Nanna is really over the top.

12:58, your apparent hostilty towards Nanna is over the top.

If the shoe doesn't fit, STOP WEARING IT!

The ONLY side anyone should be on is Graham's.

Even if Nana is a wonderful,nuturing person,a risk with most grandparents raising the grandchild is that their health will fail or worse, they will die and the child will experience another loss.

A parent, however awful ,is part of his or her child's self identity. The child needs a realistic understanding which includes seeing whatever positive qualities that parent and his extended family have and understanding how that parent came to be damaged if that is the case.

If either side is telling Graham the other side of the family is without redeeming qualities, they are telling the child that half of who he is is bad.

Both SIDES need to find a way to let Graham know his family. They do not need to deprive Graham of any family member or constant person who loves and cares about him. I expect Graham is missing his primary hired child giver in Jackson.

It is often difficult for a child to just move with his family and familiar objects of home intact under the best of circumstances. This is not the best of circumstances.

His father has changed dramatically. His mother and sister are physically absent. He is with people with whom he had minimal contact in unfamiliar surroundings. That MAY be the best that can be done, but IF there has not been an HEROIC effort to help this child maintain contact with his sister, mother and grandmother, a child of this age sees that as rejection and abandonment.

I hope those making decisions for Graham are educating themselves by reading the massive available literature on the ways a child of this age sees his environment and reacts to traumatic changes. I hope they are not doing what is convenient or self serving.

The parents have already let him down by NOT thinking of Graham first the night of the accident. If they had, it never would have happened.

That is why the Court should probably appoint a guardian ad litem, who will have the best interests of the child at heart.

Kids need to be in a household with a male and a female. It is very difficult to raise children on your own. I know from first hand b/c I did it for years. Boys need a strong male role model and that has been proven especially when the boy becomes a teenager.

Graham is in wonderful care with Stuart's brother and hats off to Stuart for getting help to become better!

No matter what any of you say about Stuart, he did the right thing by taking his son with him and putting him in a stable environment. If he would have left him in Jackson with Gayle or nanny, you all would be bitching about that. I can see the posts flying up right now....

Graham's relationship with his mother will be very limited no matter where he resides due to the fact that she is behind bars. Not a lot of bonding going on with a mom who will have limited visitation with her son. She should have thought about that before she flew out onto Old Canton Road that night and drove drunk.

Jackson is not the place for Graham to be raised. He deserves a new start in a new city and Nana can always move to help raise Graham.

Stuart doesn't owe Nana anything and good luck with Nana trying to get custody. Graham is exactly where he needs to be and Karen is exactly where she put herself.

I cannot believe the anger you all still have. Karen is locked away and Stuart is able to do whatever he wishes. Karen has a good family that is very capable for caring for Graham and Parker for that matter. Why would you fault Gayle for asking for support in caring for him? The Irby's should want what is best for him. Just because he lives with Irby family does not mean he is being raised by them. Has anyone checked to see if there is a Nanny or a full time babysitter? Gayle is a loving Grandmother and has a very supportive family behind her that loves both of those children also. They have all been involved in their lives and I would think the Irby Family knows that. Gayle and her family are down to earth people that enjoy being together. Both of the children would have cousins they could visit and enjoy time with normal family! Why would anyone not want that for their children? Keeping him away from Gayle is just another way to maintain control!

8:54 sez: "Stuart doesn't owe Nana anything and good luck with Nana trying to get custody. Graham is exactly where he needs to be and Karen is exactly where she put herself."

...and another elephant ear hits the ground!

Does Nana have a spouse?

Where is Karen's bio father?

She may qualify for visitation, but getting custody of Graham, isn't a wish she may get. Karen behind bars for 18 years, Stuart trying to get better and aunt AND uncle helping with Graham....what's so wrong with that pic?

Were Karen and Stuart supporting Gayle or assisting her financially?

He's in a two parent home right now with an aunt and an uncle who are young and willing to help Stuart while he tries to get better. I don't believe the Irby's would keep Gayle from seeing Graham and who says Graham living in ARK is forever.

Talk about selfish people??? Karen caused all this and now the Irby's are willing to help pick up the pieces and try to do what's best for Graham. All of you throwing stones at the Irby's need to shut up!

If that were my child, I would have him away from Jackson real quick.....don't forget about all the charges Karen has filed against Stuart the past 90
days. I'm sure it's awkward for all involved.

The anger will never end with this tragedy.

Everybody's laughing

According to 9:29, he/she thinks there should be no anger left!

Everybody's happy

Karen's bio father is from Gulfport, don't know if he is still there or not. He was nice guy, but not from any money or social standing whatsoever. Just plain folks, so to speak. He was in the courtroom the day she was sentenced. Recognized him on the TV.

Quando para mucho mi amore de felice corazón

R U the "Sun King?"

KF--Pogue/Dedousis/Karen Irby settled. And look who is paying for Irby's debts. fishy fishy fishy. If Mary Jones killed someone in my family, I darn sure wouldn't be looking into ways I could help out Ms. Jones...