custody given to nancy's family

[jumpstreet]

This just in-

Citing precedence of the NC custody case, a young midwestern couple have petitioned judge Sasser to award custody to them of the daughter of Michelle Young. "Judge, we can offer this young lady a fine upbringing (and besides, we could use the help of a dependent on our taxes, given the current economy). Until that slimeball JY is cleared, at least award us temporary custody judge... we'll provide her with a fine home in the meantime judge... we promise"...

The hearing is set for later this month...

 

[Anderson]

Shouldn't BC be locked up temporarily (but immediately and indefinitely), until LE and the DA can sort out the root-cause of the crime? Wouldn't that also be in the best interest of the Lochmere neighbors, and the Cary community as a whole?

After all, if he's not fit to have custody (based on suspicion of murder), how can he be fit to remain at large in the community? Shouldn't we play it safe and incarcerate him (at least temporarily), unless he's cleared, and/or can prove himself innocent [ Caveat: any eyewitness who comes forward supporting his innocence will likely be ignored by LE, (again, out of an abundance of caution) while we seek to serve the best interest of society... ]

It only makes sense, right?

See post #35 on the J Sasser Associate thread!

 

[SleuthSayer]

Honesty if LE has *strong evidence* that suggests the surviving spouse was likely responsible for the death of the other spouse, then yes I would prefer seeing the children placed with other relatives until the police are able to clear or arrest the parent under suspicion.

These children need to be protected and have as much security/stability as possible under the circumstances -- and living with a probable murderer (parent or not) who is apt to be arrested and thrown in jail isn't what I call a stable or secure environment.

In this case, I'm trusting that the judge and LE know much more than we do and that the decision was made in the best interest of the children (protecting them and providing stability).

If that's the case, I don't understand the dog & pony show of the hearing last week. If it's going to be decided based on some secret details shared between LE and the judge, why not just save the taxpayers some expense and skip the hearing?

 

[fran]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

Not saying they even can, but not a bad idea, imho. Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many of these unsolved 'wife' murders, missing without a trace, left me for another man BS. IF the guy KNEW he'd be under scrutiny and LE KNEW THEY WERE TOO, PERHAPS there would be more divorces, but less 'wife murders and disappearances.'

Just an observation,
fran

 

[maconrich]

If that's the case, I don't understand the dog & pony show of the hearing last week. If it's going to be decided based on some secret details shared between LE and the judge, why not just save the taxpayers some expense and skip the hearing?

I don't think the decision was based only on unreleased information, and I'm not really sure the judge has access to LE info. So I probably need to revise my statement a bit and just say that she used the available information to make a decision that's in the best interests of the children.

As far as having the hearing or not having it, if it wasn't required by law I wouldn't have had a problem with them skipping it and just extending the existing temporary custody order.

That said, I'm sure we would have more info if BC had opted to take the stand, thus allowing Det. Daniels to do the same, but I understand why he didn't. I don't, however, understand why he didn't work something out with Nancy's family so that the children could remain where they were for awhile longer. I really don't feel it was in BC's best interest to allow the hearing to take place.

Anderson -- TY for the heads up on the #35 post!! I wasn't quite sure what to think till I read that

 

[tarheellvr]

I'm still waiting for that list tarheellvr. You are pretty quick to say there is vast evidence and enough that it goes well past reasonable doubt...so let's hear it. Don't be shy.

While not shy, I am inclined to say if you had/have read the posts on this forum and STILL have to ask me for "a list", you obviously aren't reading what I am.

Also, do you not think LE has MUCH evidence the public isn't privy to??? Your comments regarding why he isn't already in custody says a lot. It's more than obvious they are still in the process of building a case that can be submitted to the GJ......a case that can and will be won in court.

Just face it, BC is guilty as hell......those heavily involved in the case know it and he WILL be arrested. Judge Sasser did indeed take a bold step as the girl's needs were put first because after all, this is a civil case not a criminal case and the prevalent issue is custody and what is best for the 2 children at the present time. Kudos to Judge Sasser......she did her job and did it well!

 

[cygnusx1]

Not saying they even can, but not a bad idea, imho. Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many of these unsolved 'wife' murders, missing without a trace, left me for another man BS. IF the guy KNEW he'd be under scrutiny and LE KNEW THEY WERE TOO, PERHAPS there would be more divorces, but less 'wife murders and disappearances.'

Just an observation,
fran

So what other parts of the Constitution are willing to shred "for the children".

 

[ncsu95]

While not shy, I am inclined to say if you had/have read the posts on this forum and STILL have to ask me for "a list", you obviously aren't reading what I am.

Also, do you not think LE has MUCH evidence the public isn't privy to??? Your comments regarding why he isn't already in custody says a lot. It's more than obvious they are still in the process of building a case that can be submitted to the GJ......a case that can and will be won in court.

Just face it, BC is guilty as hell......those heavily involved in the case know it and he WILL be arrested. Judge Sasser did indeed take a bold step as the girl's needs were put first because after all, this is a civil case not a criminal case and the prevalent issue is custody and what is best for the 2 children at the present time. Kudos to Judge Sasser......she did her job and did it well!

So are you heavily involved in this case and privy to info the rest of us are not? I don't think he is guilty as hell (although he very well may be guilty), and I have serious doubts that he will ever be arrested.

 

[maconrich]

So what other parts of the Constitution are willing to shred "for the children".

???? (as in what are you even talking about??)

 

[TXredhead178]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I share the concerns expressed by others over Judge Sasser's decision this week, and I certainly would not want to see a dangerous precedent being set. That said, I have to wonder if the judge's decisions on custody have been, at least in part, motivated by the possibilty that Bella and/or Katie may have seen or heard something unusual in the early morning hours of July 12, and if so, they might be reluctant to say anything about it while in their father's care. (Wasn't that part of the reasoning for the first temporary custody order?) That, to me, would be a good reason in these circumstances, to continue temporary custody with extended family at this time.

I am very interested in reading Judge Sasser's latest ruling when it's available.

 

[cygnusx1]

???? (as in what are you even talking about??)

SleuthSayer posed the question:

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

To which Fran replied:

Not saying they even can, but not a bad idea, imho.

So if she's willing to automatically have the State take the kids away from those who haven't been charged with a crime, what other parts of the Constitution is she willing to shred.

 

[maconrich]

SleuthSayer posed the question:



To which Fran replied:


So if she's willing to automatically have the State take the kids away from those who haven't been charged with a crime, what other parts of the Constitution is she willing to shred.

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

 

[SleuthyGal]

I have to wonder if the judge's decisions on custody have been, at least in part, motivated by the possibilty that Bella and/or Katie may have seen or heard something unusual in the early morning hours of July 12, and if so, they might be reluctant to say anything about it while in their father's care. (Wasn't that part of the reasoning for the first temporary custody order?)

welcome TXRedhead!

To our knowledge, nothing in the original ex-parte emergency order said anything about either of the kids overhearing anything in the house that night/morning. And it does not appear that this is a reason for the temp custody being extended. There was a lot of stuff for the judge to work with, aside from speculating what the kids may have heard on 7/12.

 

[MCDRAW]

Let me pose a question from a slightly different angle. Would those who applaud this decision be in favor of a North Carolina law which requires that in any case such as this where a mother or father is murdered and the surviving spouse has not been officially "cleared" of the crime, the surviving spouse must surrender custody of any minor children until such time as they are "cleared"?

It seems that if county/state government is going take on the role of protecting children from parents who may have committed a violent crime, it should be applied broadly and evenly with legislation and not limited to children with relatives who can afford expensive attorneys.

Just curious if folks would support the idea of always erring on the side of caution in terms of dealing with children in these types of cases.

I don't support the taking of children away unless they could prove that he had abused the children in some way. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

 

[maconrich]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

oooohhhhh that's the part of the constitution y'all are talking about, duh! :bang:

 

[boxy]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

Parents have constitutional rights. For example, read the ex parte order, page 2 of 3, Findings of Fact #9. "Defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children."

I am still waiting to read Judge Sasser's written order to see what she found to be clear and convincing evidence of abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

 

[SleuthyGal]

"Defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children."

FYI and of interest: at the hearing last week Judge Sasser said, after the plaintiffs rested, and when the defense tried to get the case dismissed, before it was their turn to present, that based on what was presented so far in the hearing, the plaintiffs had (already) proved that the defendant acted inconsistently.... I wrote it down in my notes at the time so I wouldn't forget. So then the judge denied the motion to dismiss and the defense put on their case.

 

[fran]

Fran,

I am not trying to be rude, but how is it you seem to know so much about this case and you are in Southern California. I am not saying you do not have a right to be interested, but what do you know about our area, and the other crimes in this area similar to this one. Most recently a woman was attacked within a few miles of where NC's body was found, she was not killed because her attackers were scared off by someone, this attack happened in daylight. You seem all for stripping constitutional rights from anyone who does not support your point of view, to me this speaks of lynch mob mentality, which IMO is very dangerous.

IMHO, it was a hypothetical question which I gave a hypothetical answer. Of course we can't do this in a blanket sort of way, as it would be against the Constitution.

OTOH, when are these murders and disappearances of wives/mothers going to stop?

This is an opinion forum and it is MY opinion Brad Cooper murdered his wife. Time will tell if LE can prove it.

As for knowing so much about the case when I don't live there? Sorry, my sources are confidential.

JMHO
fran

PS.....I also believe Jason killed Michelle Young and Raven killed Janet Abaroa and Scott killed (still missing) Kelly Morris and .....................well,..........you get the point. NO, I don't think ALL husbands and SOs killed the murdered or missing wife or g/f,...............but MANY unsolved cases it is MOST likely. I'm not on a jury so I can THINK they did it BEFORE a trial....fran

 

[ncsu95]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

If LE has strong evidence, then they should arrest the person and allow them their due process.

If they don't have enough to arrest, then who would determine what "strong evidence" means? Again, we live in a country where people have rights guaranteed to them by the constitution. Part of that right is the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. If they have strong evidence, arrest BC and give him his day in court. If not, give him his kids back. He was not shown to be a neglectful father. He was not shown to be a bad father.

 

[ncsu95]

I'd responded to SS's post with a 'yes' *if LE has strong evidence* - so not a blanket law or anything but as an option in certain cases. But I'm lost on where the constitution comes in??

Again, if there is strong evidence, then make an arrest. But "strong evidence" is a subjective term, and differs based on opinion.