Some simply refuse to acknowledge he murdered his wife and dumped her body in a drainage ditch. Why this is so difficult to concede is curious. Even after he finally admitted it, they still refuse to believe the truth and believe Brad needs to be coddled and protected. There are no and will be no "do overs." He signed away his rights, fully informed and in agreement with what he was doing, and he signed away his parentage too. He is a murderer, he said so himself. Those facts will never change. It won't change in the U.S. and it won't change in any other country.
Finally, no one in their right mind would ever want children to be around or anywhere near a murderer, yet that's what some continue to hope for and insist will happen...that children who now know the truth -- that their father brutally killed their mother and admitted it, will want that murderer in their lives and this murderer should be in their lives, even from behind prison walls. Crazy and irrational simply knows no bounds.
I'm not ready to forget that the motive presented by prosecutors is that Brad wanted to prevent Nancy from taking the children away from him.
"During his trial,
prosecutors said Brad killed Nancy because he was angry she planned to divorce him and move with their two daughters to Canada."
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/brad-coo...n-2008-murder-of-wife-1.2018284#ixzz3FCD3WZxl
Today, the opposite is argued: that Brad has no interest in having a relationship with his own children. We can't have it both ways. Either he didn't care about his children, and Nancy's wish to take his children away from him was of no concern, or he was so angry that Nancy wanted to take his children away that he murdered her. The court appears fickle when there is such a radical shift in the interpretation of facts.
In Canada, no one is put in a situation where they must choose between retaining custody of their children, or spending a year in prison. I do not believe that the courts will uphold a foreign custody decision made under those circumstances. Specifically, in Canada, custody decisions can only be made in the context of a divorce application, and never in the context of a murder sentence.
This is how custody works in Canada:
"The following Twenty-Three Commandments are extracted from the almighty Parliament of Canada's Divorce Act, and from a variety of legal decisions that have since given different twists to the words of that Divorce Act.
1.
Thou shalt not receive a custody order under the Divorce Act unless it is part of a divorce application. Sounds simple enough but you'd never believe the things people try to get away with!
4.The court will look at one and only one thing when deciding where to place a child in the aftermath of a family's divorce breakup: the
best interests of the child.
7.The court shall
not take into consideration the past conduct of a spouse in determining custody unless the conduct is relevant to the ability to parent.
16.Thou shalt disregard the preference of a child under the age of nine in deciding custody. The wishes of a 9-13 year old child is important but not necessarily persuasive. The older a child gets, the more relevant is the child's preference.
The 14 year old write-eth his or her own ticket unless nuts.
20.
Divorce Act custody orders are never set in stone and can be varied where there has been a change in circumstances "such as warrants a variation of custody having regard only to the best interests of the child."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResourc...ivorce-Act-The-Twenty-Three-Commandments.aspx
Even if it is argued that this was not a custody decision, but rather a decision to give up parental rights, it was still made in the wrong context per Canadian law.