custody given to nancy's family

[justthinking2008]

Jilly,

The indication is maybe KL cannot have children of her own, so she wants someone else's children. At lot of times this is the premise for adoption. People try for years to have children and cannot, so they turn to adoption. I am not saying this is always the reason for adoption, but according to research 75% to 80% of adoptive parents are reproductively challenged.

Jess,

Did you read any of the affidavits in favor of BC, they all say he was a loving parent, and regardless of how passionate the Listers and the Rentz are, these children belong with their father. The one thing I can see they are really passionate about is ruining the relationship BC has with his children, IMO. Also I do not believe those little girls will ever cross the border again, I believe KL will never turn them over no matter what any judge says.

Tarheel,

He did say he loved his wife and he said he loves his girls, please read affidavits and watch deposition, I am not a BC whiner, I do not know if he is the murderer or not, all I know for sure is he has not been charged or named a person of interest.


SG,

As usual well said, I think by the time this case is over there is going to be some sort of strange twist, something that no one has thought of that will prove the murderer, will that be BC, I do not know, unfortunately we will have to wait and see.

 

[chauncey7381]

dear justthinking2008, you were on to something yesterday?

concerning K (emotions & motives)
people often desperately want what they c..'t ....

Gotcha EB. KL wants children and her affliction with Crohns may be the reason she "cannot or will not" due to potential risks.

 

[Jess]

Oh yes, I watched the taped deposition and read all the affidavits. It was an open ended question to which he replied a( I want to see my girls and I believe with some 'prompting' by the questioner, b) to help in the investigation into Nancy's murder.

I BELIEVE those that were at the hearing that nothing negative came up about his parenting skills. Nowhere did I write that I thought Brad was a bad or unloving father. I do think he was unemotional and that just might be his makeup.

If the court orders the girls back to NC and back with their father, I believe that the Rentz's and Listers' will comply.

Time will tell,

 

[chauncey7381]

The indication is maybe KL cannot have children of her own, so she wants someone else's children.

Not just someone elses, she would LOVE to raise her sister's children. NO DOUBT in my mind about that.

Also I do not believe those little girls will ever cross the border again, I believe KL will never turn them over no matter what any judge says.

Would she not be bound by international law to do such. Aren't there custodial laws in place between Canada /USA to prevent that her from not complying with the US ruling.

I think by the time this case is over there is going to be some sort of strange twist, something that no one has thought of that will prove the murderer, will that be BC, I do not know, unfortunately we will have to wait and see.

I believe it will get solved and that it will be a shocker to many. I'm the opposite of Sleuthy Gal, 97% sure Brad Cooper is innocent.

 

[ncsu95]

It appears to me that Brad acted, as he always acted, in the fight for custody of the girls. He used money. Never once did we hear any emotion, an "I love them, miss them, need them," I think to him, the fact that he was paying lawyers,being questioned and submitting to a psych evaluation, was enough.To him, these things proved that he wanted his girls. Maybe this is the only way he knows ?? Family upbringing ??( and perhaps that is how he was with Nancy. He 'gave' her things, but perhaps was not emotionally intimate with her?)

The Rentz's and Listers appear to be passionate, showing all their emotions. However I do believe that they are following the ruling of the judge. I do not believe, no matter what others think, that they are dissing their father.I do not believe that Krista is replacing their mother. why else would Bella ask about Nancy? She knows they are two different people.

How fortunate for the girls that at this time in their lives, they are surrounded by demonstratively loving people. Children have to be shown love -- the words are not enough.

No one knows what the future holds for these little girls . It is all so sad.

Lack of emotion in a public setting doesn't mean jack.

 

[ncsu95]

Hi THL,

I think you mean advocate.

As you know I believe BC likely did the deed, but I do think the state needs to prove it (and I personally want to see what evidence links him to the crime). I'm also a believer in constitutional rights, which is why I can't just say 'fry him.' So you know my viewpoint.

Anyway, a couple of points: the deposition was plaintiff's lawyers asking questions and they controlled what got asked. I don't recall them ever asking BC about his feelings towards anything. If they did, I missed it. He could have interjected his feelings for his daughters I suppose, and he didn't, but neither was he asked.

As you know, he didn't take the stand at the custody hearing; whether that was his call, his lawyers' call or a joint decision I don't know. He did declare in his affy that he "loved Nancy very much" and "wanted the marriage to work." He also talked about the kids and that he told them many times a day, "I love you." So there is 'testimony' there, since affy's are entered into the record and are part of what the judge looks at.

This removal of kids from a custodial parent is a complicated one...not so much if there is abuse or a parent is unfit, because that is a much easier call--in fact, it's a no-brainer. But neither abuse nor unfitness was obvious in this case. It wasn't demonstrated at the hearing, so it would have to come down to what the judge saw in the rest of the materials that made her decide the way she did. When I left the courtroom that day, I thought custody of the kids might well return to BC.

Merging the crime w/parental fitness, before there's been any criminal case movement, seems strange to me...perhaps because that's not the order one normally sees in these situations.

There you go tarheellvr...that is not from a "BC whiner". This is from someone who believes he is guilty...but understands that BC has rights. Also, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not a court of public opinion. It's an absolute travesty that the family court has temporarily taken away his kids.

 

[jumpstreet]

[....] Neither abuse nor unfitness was obvious in this case. It wasn't demonstrated at the hearing, so it would have to come down to what the judge saw in the rest of the materials that made her decide the way she did. When I left the courtroom that day, I thought custody of the kids might well return to BC.

Based on what we currently know (even from folks that we in the courtroom), it seems the judge has either made the wrong (legal) decision, or is privy to information that (even those in the courtroom) weren't privy too.

How about this thought: The judge has no earthly idea whether BC did it or not (even with all the information she has at her disposal). She can either give him the kids, or not. If she gives the kids to the in-laws and she's wrong, the worst that will happen is she'll get reversed on appeal. If she gives the kids to BC and she's wrong (ie, he's the killer, and is potentially never brought to trial, etc), the judge may view this as worse.

While there may be no legal basis for the decision, perhaps the judge is (intentionally) trying to err on the side of 'caution', even if it indeed means (temporarily) doing an injustice to an innocent father. [ She figures if she's reversed on appeal, it wouldn't be her call anyway, and in the meantime, she doesn't have to risk having awarded custody in the wrong direction ]

Regardless, it seems odd to me that the judge gets so long to document the rationale for the decision, but I guess that's the way the crazy "system" works.

 

[justthinking2008]

Not just someone elses, she would LOVE to raise her sister's children. NO DOUBT in my mind about that.



Would she not be bound by international law to do such. Aren't there custodial laws in place between Canada /USA to prevent that her from not complying with the US ruling.





I believe it will get solved and that it will be a shocker to many. I'm the opposite of Sleuthy Gal, 97% sure Brad Cooper is innocent.

For sure she could not get a closer genetic match without having children herself.

She would be bound by law, but if she decides to not comply it can be a long difficult fight for BC and an expensive one, which he can hardly afford at the moment. When custody is returned to BC I think we will then see KL's true motives. I honestly believe she would contend that BC did it even if someone else confessed, in order to keep those kids. I understand removing the kids to begin with after all the media circus and police interviews, I highly disagree with how it was done, that was a circus in itself. IMO by removing the children in such a manner they were trying to make BC look bad, and they succeeded. This whole custody issue has been a well played poker hand IMO. It is crucial to remember that Rentz was a social worker he knows how to remove children from parents.

I am 80% convinced of BC's innocence and 20% on the fence, but what I am 100% sure of is, if he did not kill NC, Wake county is going to be sued to the tune of millions.:Banane27:

 

[SleuthyGal]

There you go tarheellvr...this if not from a "BC whiner". This is from someone who believes he is guilty...but understands that BC has rights. Also, he is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law...not a court of public opinion. It's an absolute travesty that the family court has temporarily taken away his kids.

In family court I don't know that there's any presumption of "innocence," though the burden to prove a parent unfit is on the plaintiffs. The judge obviously felt she had a legal basis for the children to stay with the Rentz/Listers. It doesn't matter how angry/frustrated people get--the judge ruled for now and unless it gets overturned on appeal (if the defense appeals), it's not going to change this round. There will be future hearings, so this is not forever.

 

[justthinking2008]

In family court I don't know that there's any presumption of "innocence," though the burden to prove a parent unfit is on the plaintiffs. The judge obviously felt she had a legal basis for the children to stay with the Rentz/Listers. It doesn't matter how angry/frustrated people get--the judge ruled for now and unless it gets overturned on appeal (if the defense appeals), it's not going to change this round. There will be future hearings, so this is not forever.

Most of the attorney's I have spoken with are most anxious to see the judge's findings in this case. None of them think what she did had any legal basis and feel she is trying to establish new case law.

 

[jilly]

Jilly,

The indication is maybe KL cannot have children of her own, so she wants someone else's children. At lot of times this is the premise for adoption. People try for years to have children and cannot, so they turn to adoption. I am not saying this is always the reason for adoption, but according to research 75% to 80% of adoptive parents are reproductively challenged.

I know what the inference is and I know your position. My question was directed specifically to Eye and his/her 2 posts.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I do find it strange though that there is outcry when people look at the affys and see signs of BC's guilt, but the same people who will outcry at that will then turn around and imbue KL with all kinds of intent (to 'steal'/raise NC's daughters) and they have never met her or her family.

It's ironic that one can have such great imagination when it comes to seeing nefarious actions on the part of NC's family, where no evidence of such exists, but at the same time they cannot imagine BC being involved in his wife's death, even though there is some circumstantial evidence that could at least give one some pause.

What that indicates to me is an inability (or unwillingness) to look at everything (or perhaps anything) with any level of objectivity. Why the lack of objectivity? Close friend of the non-suspect? Inability to understand different perspectives?

I would hope that the one thing everyone could agree upon is that whoever is responsible for NC's murder is properly determined and appropriately punished, even if it's a close friend who did the deed. And if that is not something that is wanted or is tolerable, then I suggest that person or persons have a whole different agenda and justice is not a part of that agenda.

 

[jumpstreet]

The judge obviously felt she had a legal basis for the children to stay with the Rentz/Listers

Most of the attorney's I have spoken with are most anxious to see the judge's findings in this case. None of them think what she did had any legal basis and feel she is trying to establish new case law.

Per my post above, it's not clear at all to me that the judge does in fact, feel there is a legal basis. I wonder if she's just "buying some time" via waiting on the appeal. If an arrest happens between now and then, it's a moot point. If not, then well, at least she didn't take the chance of making the "wrong" decision for the girls. Theory: she feels the kids are in the "safer/better" place in the meantime, even without a strong legal basis whatsoever. She's rather get reversed on this one... than make the "wrong" decision for the girls. It's just a thought.

ETA: Now recalling someone posted that temporary custody decisions can't be appealed? Can anyone confirm whether that's true or not? If yes, then my (completely speculative) theory (as to the judge's thought-process) wouldn't really hold.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Most of the attorney's I have spoken with are most anxious to see the judge's findings in this case. None of them think what she did had any legal basis and feel she is trying to establish new case law.

We'll see if K&B appeal the decision. The judge will be challenged if she attempted to create new case law...though she might not be overturned if such a thing happened, but she will likely be challenged. If a higher court hears the argument and decides to uphold Judge Sasser's decision, will you (all) still think it's unconstitutional/unfair/etc?

 

[jumpstreet]

We'll see if K&B appeal the decision. The judge will be challenged if she attempted to create new case law...though she might not be overturned if such a thing happened, but she will likely be challenged. If a higher court hears the argument and decides to uphold Judge Sasser's decision, will you (all) still think it's unconstitutional/unfair/etc?

If the US Supreme Court ends up hearing it, and agreeing with Judge Sasser, then I would say yes, it would seem to lend some credibility to her decision...

Until then... and especially until we see the rationale... it seems reasonable to want to understand more about her decision.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If the US Supreme Court ends up hearing it, and agreeing with Judge Sasser, then I would say yes, it would seem to lend some credibility to her decision...

Until then... and especially until we see the rationale... it seems reasonable to want to understand more about her decision.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US Supreme court is not going to hear this case. However, there are 2 more levels of courts in NC: the Court of Appeals and then the State Supreme Court. There are no further appeals past the State Supreme Court, and at that level they only rule on judicial error.

 

[PhoneBoothBandit]

I think the opposing testimony from the two psychologists is significant. One implies that Brad is not typically 'angry' but tends to withdraw from emotional experiences... While the other claims that Brad has anxiety issues which manifest into anger.

The fact Brad didn't take the stand holds a lot of weight too. Obviously the Judge had to decide who would be the best caretaker for the children at this time, how is that ever going to be achieved when she can't even heard from Brad? That was a very stupid move IMO.

In deciding what is best for the children she probably relied heavily upon the fact that since their mother was found dead, the children have been in the care of Nancy's family and wanted to enforce some stability there.

I'm eagerly awaiting the findings.

 

[MCDRAW]

We'll see if K&B appeal the decision. The judge will be challenged if she attempted to create new case law...though she might not be overturned if such a thing happened, but she will likely be challenged. If a higher court hears the argument and decides to uphold Judge Sasser's decision, will you (all) still think it's unconstitutional/unfair/etc?

I will still believe it's unconstitutional unless he was proven an unfit parent. Innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't even been arrested yet. It looks like they are going to punish him any way by taking his children away. I say, arrest him, convict him, then take custody away.

 

[momto3kids]

I think the opposing testimony from the two psychologists is significant. One implies that Brad is not typically 'angry' but tends to withdraw from emotional experiences... While the other claims that Brad has anxiety issues which manifest into anger.

The fact Brad didn't take the stand holds a lot of weight too. Obviously the Judge had to decide who would be the best caretaker for the children at this time, how is that ever going to be achieved when she can't even heard from Brad? That was a very stupid move IMO.

In deciding what is best for the children she probably relied heavily upon the fact that since their mother was found dead, the children have been in the care of Nancy's family and wanted to enforce some stability there.

I'm eagerly awaiting the findings.

I feel exactly the same way and said when I left the courthouse he needed to take the stand. There are many times in our lives we don't want to subject ourselves to things that we are uncomfortable with, but this is 1 time if any he needed to do it.

The judge needed to hear what his intentions were for the girls and their future living conditions. Such as...working from home, staying in the same school with their friends, same neighborhood, ballet, etc. This is what KL did and the courts needed to hear it from him....how the girl's were going to be cared for. He didn't do it!

This was his opportunity to show his emotion and tell the courts how much he loved his girl's and wanted them back...He didn't do it!

IMO, it hurt him. I wonder if he knew this would be the decision if he would have taken it on the 16th? It surely couldn't have hurt him any worse than it did with the outcome he got.

 

[PhoneBoothBandit]

You're not found guilty or not guilty in a Family Court in respect to child custody arrangements. In a custody dispute, parents/caregivers can argue emotional abandonment, neglect, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, so on and so forth ... you don't have to be found 'guilty' of those crimes for them to be taken into consideration, because if they are not prosecuted, they remain allegations.

I think the speculation put forth about Brad being Nancy's killer is valid in this case - this case isn't about his guilt, but rather about his ability to be the best caregiver in light of the argument against his parenting abilities. The primary interests in custody cases are the best interests of the children. It's unfortunate that the best interests of the child aren't with their father considering they have lost their mother, however this may not have been the outcome had he took the stand.