Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[jmflu]

Even if this were NC's wish, the children had TWO parents. NC's wish is only part of what would need to be considered if she were still living.

But the very reason he should have no say is because he took her say away from her.

 

[raisincharlie]

I've been wondering about this too... exactly how do we know they aren't in current danger with the in-laws??

Some may say that it would be preposterous to think so... as the in-laws haven't been charged with a crime, nor have they been named persons-of-interest, nor has anyone testified that they have observed them be unfit guardians..., or acted violently towards the girls, and they obviously love them and would keep their best interests at heart... so surely, the girls are safe with the in-laws, right?

But wait... hmmm... come to think about it, all of the above statements can be made about BC as well! Wow!

Why not err on the side of caution, and give the girls back to their biological father until this mess is sorted out?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...26282-Oct._2_affidavit_of_Dr._Huzar_Altay.pdf

 

[rwesafe]

This may be a crazy question, but it was just a thought I had...do you think there's any chance at all that NC may have said BC was a fit father in the separation papers to "appease" him and get him to sign? It sounded like she was really anxious to start her new life and if she had claimed he wasn't a fit father, he could have held up the process even longer. Maybe she thought that once the separation went through and she moved back to Canada, he wouldn't be too hard to deal with due to the distance between them.

Not saying this is what happened, but just wondering out loud...

I guess that depends on which side of the fence you are sitting on. Some here feel that he does not really want his kids at all, this whole custody dog and pony show is an attempt to secure a defense should he ever be arrested and tried.

Personally, no I don't. I don't think any mother who had real, true, honest, heartfelt, concerns that her children would be harmed would have a legal document drawn up ensuring his custody of the children knowing that if she violated the terms of the agreement she could be held liable in a court of law...but that is JMO.

 

[rwesafe]

But the very reason he should have no say is because he took her say away from her.

You don't know that.

 

[raisincharlie]

A Canadian Bank/USA thing? Perhaps it just take more time?

SG - according to the court ruling - there were to have been two weekend visits before the hearing yesterday. Seems to me a long time has transpired, plenty of time for a check to have cleared, especially a cashiers check. Like a majority of things relating to Brad and money - this doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[jmflu]

The best interests of the children were stability and privacy. They've lost both.

I disagree. I think they have FOUND stability. Did you read everything about how they are living now?

How could they have been stable, here with BC?? None of the neighbors want anything to do with him, and even if they were to look beyond their suspicions for the sake of the girls, he probably would not let them because of the affidavits. He is living under a microscope. They go to school, other children will say things to them, cruel things, about what they have heard. They come home, they are raised by he and his mother.

Good God.

 

[jmflu]

This may be a crazy question, but it was just a thought I had...do you think there's any chance at all that NC may have said BC was a fit father in the separation papers to "appease" him and get him to sign? It sounded like she was really anxious to start her new life and if she had claimed he wasn't a fit father, he could have held up the process even longer. Maybe she thought that once the separation went through and she moved back to Canada, he wouldn't be too hard to deal with due to the distance between them.

Not saying this is what happened, but just wondering out loud...

I've thought that, too. Because from what we are hearing, she didn't tell anyone ELSE that.

 

[jmflu]

Neither psychologist believes he is suicidal.

But that's referring to now, isn't it?

It doesn't speak to when he threatened to commit suicide in the past, and it doesn't speak to if he loses custody and gets arrested for Nancy's murder.

 

[jmflu]

You don't know that.

But what matters is that this is a very real possibility and perhaps very close to being proven and if there is ANY chance... why risk it? When they can be safe and loved with other family until this is all cleared up.

 

[jmflu]

Welcome, Amarillo!

And NCSU, I am sorry for what you have been through.

I guess that I never really thought about there being people who believed that even if a father murdered a mother, he still had rights to raise his children.

Now maybe I understand why so many people think he should have his children back.

 

[ncsu95]

But what matters is that this is a very real possibility and perhaps very close to being proven and if there is ANY chance... why risk it? When they can be safe and loved with other family until this is all cleared up.

Because it might never be cleared up. Not all murders are solved.

 

[jmflu]

Because it might never be cleared up. Not all murders are solved.

That is very sobering.

 

[rwesafe]

But what matters is that this is a very real possibility and perhaps very close to being proven and if there is ANY chance... why risk it? When they can be safe and loved with other family until this is all cleared up.

Because the possibility that he did not do it exists and it is harmful to the relationship for children not to be with or at least heavily exposed to their biological father. I think this case could create a very dangerous precedent. It is unethical, IMO, to snatch the children away from a parent who has not been charged, named a suspect or even a POI. You better damn well arrest me and show just cause for doing so before you take my baby away from me.

 

[jmflu]

Because the possibility that he did not do it exists and it is harmful to the relationship for children not to be with or at least heavily exposed to their biological father. I think this case could create a very dangerous precedent. It is unethical, IMO, to snatch the children away from a parent who has not been charged, named a suspect or even a POI. You better damn well arrest me and show just cause for doing so before you take my baby away from me.

I understand your stance, but you are coming at it from the point of view of someone who probably would put their children's needs first, not someone who would murder their mother.

And we aren't just talking about neighborhood gossip here. You probably have that, and maybe only that, with a lot of murders. BC is most certainly a person of interest, whether he has officially been named one or not. There must be a reason they have not named him a POI. And it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't have enough suspicious things, if not evidence, to do so.

 

[rwesafe]

There must be a reason they have not named him a POI. And it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't have enough suspicious things, if not evidence, to do so.

That does not really make sense.

 

[jmflu]

That does not really make sense.

I missed lunch.

 

[raisincharlie]

That does not really make sense.

It makes perfect sense with respect to criminal law. No LE or DA is going to name anyone until they either have to, or they are prepared to arrest, or have arrested because of discovery laws.

 

[ncsu95]

Because the possibility that he did not do it exists and it is harmful to the relationship for children not to be with or at least heavily exposed to their biological father. I think this case could create a very dangerous precedent. It is unethical, IMO, to snatch the children away from a parent who has not been charged, named a suspect or even a POI. You better damn well arrest me and show just cause for doing so before you take my baby away from me.

Exactly. If they have evidence, arrest him, convict him, and put him under the jail. Then give custody of his kids to someone else.

 

[rwesafe]

I understand your stance, but you are coming at it from the point of view of someone who probably would put their children's needs first, not someone who would murder their mother.

And we aren't just talking about neighborhood gossip here. You probably have that, and maybe only that, with a lot of murders. BC is most certainly a person of interest, whether he has officially been named one or not. There must be a reason they have not named him a POI. And it has nothing to do with the fact that they don't have enough suspicious things, if not evidence, to do so.

It makes perfect sense with respect to criminal law. No LE or DA is going to name anyone until they either have to, or they are prepared to arrest, or have arrested because of discovery laws.

Well, then it makes sense that he will not talk to them, because I would not either if you did not a)name me as POI b)name me as a Suspect c)Arrest me.

 

[ncsu95]

It makes perfect sense with respect to criminal law. No LE or DA is going to name anyone until they either have to, or they are prepared to arrest, or have arrested because of discovery laws.

Kelly Morris's husband has been named a person of interest.