Brad Cooper Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder of Nancy Cooper

[JusticeFever]

I do not believe the plea bargain agreement was Brad's idea.

Of course it wasn't. The Rentz's most likely wanted this included as part of the plea deal, and when it was presented to Brad he accepted it with a counter offer of a 1 year lesser sentence. At this point, a year closer to being free means everything to him, and what good is he to the girls or anyone, if he is behind bars?

Gessner used this an oppportunity to make his feelings known, which is fine, but wouldn't it have made more sense if the Judge addressed the actual charges against him.

Strange, strange, plea hearing. JMO

JMO

 

[tarheellvr]

Landonsmom said it all....it's over. As to the plea deal, pleas are worked on by defense attorneys and the DA's office. The Rentz's were consulted with , as was BC, but to say they wanted or demanded this or that in the agreement is ludicrous. Again, here we are with some defending a monster who has admitted killing his wife. Defending someone who took away forever the mother of his children makes me sick to my stomach. He killed her. He admitted it. He took the plea agreement.

I hope he spends the next 6 or 7 years in absolute hell. I hope he never lays eyes on Nancy's children ever again. I hope when they are adults, they spit in in face for killing their mother. I hope they hate him with every ounce of their being. They have parents now, they have, IMO, for the first time in their lives a father who loves them unconditionally, loves their mother, and treats everyone in the household with respect. I'm grateful they willnever have to listen to BC's berating screaming ever again. Lucky girls they are.....lucky indeed!

 

[JusticeFever]

Prison sentences are not supposed to be predicated on whether the inmate has children. It is the most ridiculous thing I've seen come out of N.C. and they have a reputation for the ridiculous. The number of re-trials is ridiculous.

JMO

I have never seen anything like this plea deal, it was kind of surreal.
Maybe they are trying to clear up all these cases before the new DA steps in.

 

[borndem]

Landonsmom said it all....it's over. As to the plea deal, pleas are worked on by defense attorneys and the DA's office. The Rentz's were consulted with , as was BC, but to say they wanted or demanded this or that in the agreement is ludicrous. Again, here we are with some defending a monster who has admitted killing his wife. Defending someone who took away forever the mother of his children makes me sick to my stomach. He killed her. He admitted it. He took the plea agreement.

I hope he spends the next 6 or 7 years in absolute hell. I hope he never lays eyes on Nancy's children ever again. I hope when they are adults, they spit in in face for killing their mother. I hope they hate him with every ounce of their being. They have parents now, they have, IMO, for the first time in their lives a father who loves them unconditionally, loves their mother, and treats everyone in the household with respect. I'm grateful they willnever have to listen to BC's berating screaming ever again. Lucky girls they are.....lucky indeed!

Beautifully and well said, tarheellvr! Good post!

See you at the next one!

 

[thefragile7393]

Glad to see this resolved. Another Abaroa sadly....apparently in this state and in Florida you can do all sorts of stuff and get a light sentence or no sentence at all. At least he has some jail time. At least he has a past that will follow him forever. No one forced him to do anything-all these choices were his own. I don't feel sorry for him at all for his choices. He did this to himself. Good-bye for a while Brad.

 

[otto]

Obviously my post didn't apply to you since you don't have an issue with judges making comments in general and my post was specifically about that. Others do have issues, and have stated so in the past. I included the Spader judge's comments to show just how pointed and brutal some judge's comments can get vs what we've seen in this particular state, which is pretty tame by comparison.

Gessner's comments had to do with Brad's willingness to give up his children and that's what he commented on and only what he commented on. Had nothing to do with the overturned conviction, but that the defendant would choose to take a year less in jail in exchange for giving up the kids. I heard several parents say similar things when they learned he did that.

What strikes me as odd is that the whole issue of custody is a non-issue, yet the judge wants to make it an issue. By the time Brad is released from prison, his daughters will be of an age where they have a say regarding where they live. That is, they can choose the parent. It makes no difference whatsoever whether Brad has custody or not. If the Judge knows anything about Canadian law, he knows that. Perhaps it's also true in NC law. The judge made the comment only because he wanted to incite the types of comments we are seeing here. We are supposed to think that any person that gives up custody of their own children is a bad person, but even if Brad retained custody, it would only be on paper, nothing more.

 

[otto]

I do not believe the plea bargain agreement was Brad's idea.

There's no way that Brad suggested that he give up custody in exchange for a reduction in sentence. That had to come from Nancy's family. That is something they wanted, whereas Brad knows that it makes no difference to him.

 

[Madeleine74]

It absolutely makes a difference to the parties involved and it was an issue (for Brad too). Nancy's sister & brother-in-law wanted to legally adopt the children. In order for that to happen, Brad had to give up all parental rights to the children and thus it became a part of the agreement negotiated. There were custody attorneys involved (Alice Stubbs was in the courtroom during the hearing so clearly she was involved in it). Brad had his lawyers on his side negotiating. Making sure the children are safe and away from him legally was more important to the Rentz family than seeking revenge. The parents are elderly now and going through another trial would certainly take a toll. Now the children will be adopted and upon release Brad will have zero claim to them nor will he be allowed to contact them. They'll also still be minors when he gets out. He is no longer their father.

As for the judge--he is allowed to have his own feelings about the case; there is no law that precludes a judge from making statements to a defendant during sentencing. In fact, most judges in most murder cases make statements to the perps right before they sentence them. And that has existed long before there was such a thing as the Internet or social media.

 

[otto]

It absolutely makes a difference to the parties involved. Nancy's sister & brother-in-law wanted to legally adopt the children. In order for that to happen, Brad had to give up all parental rights to the children and thus it became a part of the agreement negotiated. There were custody attorneys involved (Alice Stubbs was in the courtroom during the hearing so clearly she was involved in it). Brad had his lawyers on his side negotiating. Making sure the children are safe and away from him legally was more important to the Rentz family than seeking revenge. The parents are elderly now and going through another trial would certainly take a toll. Now the children will be adopted and upon release Brad will have zero claim to them nor will he be allowed to contact them. They'll also still be minors when he gets out. He is no longer their father.

As for the judge--he is allowed to have his own feelings about the case; there is no law that precludes a judge from making statements to a defendant during sentencing. In fact, most judges in most murder cases make statements to the perps right before they sentence them.

Brad's daughters are not prevented from having contact with their own father. They can contact him any time they want. Custody documents make no difference. What would prevent Brad from contacting his daughters? Custody doesn't mean that someone has, or has not, the right to communicate with others.

Paperwork doesn't make someone a father. As for the judge, he should keep his personal opinions out of the courtroom.

 

[Madeleine74]

Otto, you're wrong.

Brad's daughters are minors. They do not contact him. He killed their beloved mommy and they know it. There's no relationship between them. Brad legally cannot contact the girls. They are now no longer his daughters. He legally gave them up; he has no rights to them at all, and while they are minors he can be barred from contacting them. This is not like an open adoption. There is no contact. Once the girls are adults it will be up to them to choose. Wonder how he'd react if his eldest daughter eventually, when she was an adult, confronted him with the very simple question, "Why did you kill my mom & dump her body like trash?"

 

[thefragile7393]

Exactly right. No, once parental rights have been severed in any adoption any and all contact has to be approved by the new guardians/parents. And guarantee you Nancy's fam won't allow that.

 

[otto]

Otto, you're wrong.

Brad's daughters are minors. They do not contact him. He killed their beloved mommy and they know it. There's no relationship between them. Brad legally cannot contact the girls. They are now no longer his daughters. He legally gave them up; he has no rights to them at all, and while they are minors he can be barred from contacting them. This is not like an open adoption. There is no contact. Once the girls are adults it will be up to them to choose. Wonder how he'd react if his eldest daughter eventually, when she was an adult, confronted him with the very simple question, "Why did you kill my mom & dump her body like trash?"

After Brad is released from prison, there is nothing to prevent his daughters from contacting him, or to prevent him from contacting his daughters. Custody has nothing to do with communication. If the children are 8 and 10 today, they will be 14 and 16 when he is released. Children can make their own choice about which parent they want to live with at the age of 14. Custody papers are meaningless at that point.

I'm pretty sure that if either child asks Brad why he killed his wife, he will tell them that he didn't kill her - that he was facing life in a US prison and the plea bargain was the only way to ensure that he was released from prison before he was dead. The children can look at the court case and see that there were serious problems with the trial. They would ask themselves what they would do in a similar situation: take their chances with a faulty court system, or make a deal and get out of the country as soon as possible. They might come to the same conclusion ... they are, after all, his daughters.

 

[otto]

Exactly right. No, once parental rights have been severed in any adoption any and all contact has to be approved by the new guardians/parents. And guarantee you Nancy's fam won't allow that.

Girls can be rather rebellious and determined at the ages of 14 and 16. I don't think that they will necessarily listen to anyone that tells them they're not allowed contact with their father.

 

[Madeleine74]

After Brad is released from prison, there is nothing to prevent his daughters from contacting him, or to prevent him from contacting his daughters. Custody has nothing to do with communication. If the children are 8 and 10 today, they will be 14 and 16 when he is released. Children can make their own choice about which parent they want to live with at the age of 14. Custody papers are meaningless at that point.

You don't know what you're talking about in this situation. There is legal paperwork. He cannot contact them as minors and yes there is something that prevents him from doing so. The legal paperwork he signed where it dissolves his parental status. The children will never live with him as minors, they are no longer his children. This isn't a custody agreement he signed, this is a dissolution of all parental rights, forever. Legally he is no longer their father. He gave up the kids. After the girls are adults they can decide if they want contact or not.

 

[otto]

You don't know what you're talking about in this situation. There is legal paperwork. He cannot contact them as minors and yes there is something that prevents him from doing so. The legal paperwork he signed where it dissolves his parental status. The children will never live with him as minors, they are no longer his children. This isn't a custody agreement he signed, this is a dissolution of all parental rights, forever. Legally he is no longer their father. He gave up the kids. After the girls are adults they can decide if they want contact or not.

I understand what you're saying and I do know what I'm talking about. The difference is that I think the paperwork is meaningless for two reasons. First, after the age of 12, the child's wishes trump the wishes of adults. Secondly, the fact that this decision was made by a foreign court under duress will give it little validity. That is, Brad was given a choice of giving up custody, or spending another year in a foreign prison. Clearly the decision can be viewed as having been made under duress.

"When determining child custody in Canada a judge will consider items such as:

• First and foremost the best interest of the children.
• The parent-child relationship and bonding.
• Parenting abilities of each individual.
• Each parent’s mental, physical and emotional health.
• The typical schedule of both parents and children.
• Available support systems of each parent (for example, help and involvement of grandparents or other close relatives).
• Sibling issues. Generally, brothers and sisters will be kept together, but under some circumstances it may be necessary to consider separating them.
• Care arrangements before the separation. Who was the primary care giver?
• The child’s wishes. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is often appointed by the court to help in determining the child’s wishes. Once a child turns 12 years of age, his or her wishes to live with one parent or another are usually respected by the courts.

When determining child custody the past behavior of a parent will not be taken into consideration by the courts, unless their behavior reflects directly on the individual’s ability to act as a parent."

http://divorce-canada.ca/child-custody-in-canada

 

[calgary123]

I understand what you're saying and I do know what I'm talking about. The difference is that I think the paperwork is meaningless for two reasons. First, after the age of 12, the child's wishes trump the wishes of adults. Secondly, the fact that this decision was made by a foreign court under duress will give it little validity. That is, Brad was given a choice of giving up custody, or spending another year in a foreign prison. Clearly the decision can be viewed as having been made under duress.

"When determining child custody in Canada a judge will consider items such as:

• First and foremost the best interest of the children.
• The parent-child relationship and bonding.
• Parenting abilities of each individual.
• Each parent’s mental, physical and emotional health.
• The typical schedule of both parents and children.
• Available support systems of each parent (for example, help and involvement of grandparents or other close relatives).
• Sibling issues. Generally, brothers and sisters will be kept together, but under some circumstances it may be necessary to consider separating them.
• Care arrangements before the separation. Who was the primary care giver?
• The child’s wishes. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is often appointed by the court to help in determining the child’s wishes. Once a child turns 12 years of age, his or her wishes to live with one parent or another are usually respected by the courts.

When determining child custody the past behavior of a parent will not be taken into consideration by the courts, unless their behavior reflects directly on the individual’s ability to act as a parent."

http://divorce-canada.ca/child-custody-in-canada

I'm not sure what the argument is about as I haven't been following, but, Brad is not a "parent" in the eyes of the law once he consents to an adoption. While the children are minors, frankly, even if they wanted to live with him, it wouldn't happen. As a non-parent he has no rights. Brad could not get custody, or even access, he's not eligible.

Once they turn 18 they can do whatever they want. Until then, its safe to say Brad will have no contact with them as long as the family does not want it to happen.

 

[MyBelle]

After Brad is released from prison, there is nothing to prevent his daughters from contacting him, or to prevent him from contacting his daughters. Custody has nothing to do with communication. If the children are 8 and 10 today, they will be 14 and 16 when he is released. Children can make their own choice about which parent they want to live with at the age of 14. Custody papers are meaningless at that point.

I'm pretty sure that if either child asks Brad why he killed his wife, he will tell them that he didn't kill her - that he was facing life in a US prison and the plea bargain was the only way to ensure that he was released from prison before he was dead. The children can look at the court case and see that there were serious problems with the trial. They would ask themselves what they would do in a similar situation: take their chances with a faulty court system, or make a deal and get out of the country as soon as possible. They might come to the same conclusion ... they are, after all, his daughters.

I agree with you, Otto. Plus, the NC dept of corrections encourages families and children to maintain contact whether it be by personal visitations or phone calls. I don't know where anyone got the idea that they would not be allowed any contact with each other.

http://www.doc.state.nc.us/Publications/2006handbook.pdf

 

[otto]

I'm not sure what the argument is about as I haven't been following, but, Brad is not a "parent" in the eyes of the law once he consents to an adoption. While the children are minors, frankly, even if they wanted to live with him, it wouldn't happen. As a non-parent he has no rights. Brad could not get custody, or even access, he's not eligible.

Once they turn 18 they can do whatever they want. Until then, its safe to say Brad will have no contact with them as long as the family does not want it to happen.

What would happen if he applied to the Canadian courts to have visitation with his children after clearly articulating that the only reason that he relinquished custody was because he was facing a year in a foreign prison if he refused?

 

[calgary123]

What would happen if he applied to the Canadian courts to have visitation with his children after clearly articulating that the only reason that he relinquished custody was because he was facing a year in a foreign prison if he refused?

The problem is you refer to them as his children. Biologically, yes, but in the eyes of the law, not at all. I'm not going to say 100% he has no chance, because there always is a chance, I suppose. But having sworn before a foreign court that he killed the children's mother? He would have no credibility before a Canadian court if he said he didn't do it. His prior sworn statement would be admissible. He could say all he wanted, he will not be believed.

 

[MyBelle]

I understand what you're saying and I do know what I'm talking about. The difference is that I think the paperwork is meaningless for two reasons. First, after the age of 12, the child's wishes trump the wishes of adults. Secondly, the fact that this decision was made by a foreign court under duress will give it little validity. That is, Brad was given a choice of giving up custody, or spending another year in a foreign prison. Clearly the decision can be viewed as having been made under duress.

"When determining child custody in Canada a judge will consider items such as:

• First and foremost the best interest of the children.
• The parent-child relationship and bonding.
• Parenting abilities of each individual.
• Each parent’s mental, physical and emotional health.
• The typical schedule of both parents and children.
• Available support systems of each parent (for example, help and involvement of grandparents or other close relatives).
• Sibling issues. Generally, brothers and sisters will be kept together, but under some circumstances it may be necessary to consider separating them.
• Care arrangements before the separation. Who was the primary care giver?
• The child’s wishes. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is often appointed by the court to help in determining the child’s wishes. Once a child turns 12 years of age, his or her wishes to live with one parent or another are usually respected by the courts.

When determining child custody the past behavior of a parent will not be taken into consideration by the courts, unless their behavior reflects directly on the individual’s ability to act as a parent."

http://divorce-canada.ca/child-custody-in-canada

I don't believe this is nearly the legal slam-dunk some are believing it to be. If the situation was reversed and an American citizen imprisoned in Canada was required to give up his parental rights in order to return to the United States a year earlier, of course the American parent would do so if he knew his children were already safely in America. It's a no brainer.

JMO