Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[raisincharlie]

There isn't any bickering or fighting between the parents now, so that is of no substance to the current custody decision. Besides, if that was a legal standard to remove children from their parents, the orphanages would be overflowing. What you are really saying is that BC is being looked as for the murder of NC. That elephant didn't get proven by the preponderance of the evidence at the hearing based on what has been reported.

Do you think that RZ, and MH, and Dr. Ghould removed the elephant based on their testimony and cross examination ?

 

[boxy]

Are you saying it didn't get proven that they are looking at BC for the murder?

The preponderance of the evidence did not show, in my opinion, that BC murdered NC.

 

[raisincharlie]

The preponderance of the evidence did not show, in my opinion, that BC murdered NC.

Where you in the courtroom and did you hear all of the evidence for both sides ? I didn't ask if he murdered her , I asked if the elephant was removed, the one cited by the judge before hearing any testimony.

 

[boxy]

Do you think that RZ, and MH, and Dr. Ghould removed the elephant based on their testimony and cross examination ?

No, the elephant is still there, but it's not in musth.

 

[Anderson]

I guess the same way we called her loving....

Clearly NC and BC had a bad relationship. I hope that we have established that. Lets try to remember that NC is not here to defend herself, okay?

RWESAFE, I do understand that you really want BC to have his kids back no matter what and that is admirable of you, in a way. Not everyone holds your opinion, although many seem to on this board.

The real questions are related to his ability to be a good father. If BC starts cooperating in the murder case and he is cleared, then he may have an opportunity to prove that he can be a great parent. However, there has been a stumbling block for him (whether guilty or innocent) related to the three points below.

Unfortunately for Brad, he may not get a chance to prove that he is a great father because NC was murdered. a)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that he may have been responsible for the murder. b)Many people (even if you are not one of them) are concerned that if he was responsible that has implications for how he may act in a domestic situation with those children. c)Many people who know him (even if you are not one of them) really believe that BC has always had the tendency to be controlling and abusive.

If NC had not been murdered, then he would have had the chance to be a part time Dad. I am sure that BC loves the kids, but he has not had the opportunity to spend much time with them as the primary caregiver. I do not see any evidence of a strong network of support. His family did not even take the stand to give him support yesterday.

Because of point a, b and c (above in bold), BC is in this position. This does not mean that he is guilty (although he may be). However, it does mean that the Judge needs to proceed with caution, and she appears to be very sensitive to this.

BTW, I would think that many people (although you may not be one of them) would hold that murderers should not raise their children (this is related to your earlier post where you suggested that it was proper that OJ bring up his children, no matter what the outcome was). I know many people that have been raised by relatives and they have turned out to be wonderful people. I just hope that the girls are given a chance to have a good life. Many children never recover from abuse from their early years.

JMO

 

[boxy]

Where you in the courtroom and did you hear all of the evidence for both sides ? I didn't ask if he murdered her , I asked if the elephant was removed, the one cited by the judge before hearing any testimony.

My opinion is subject to revision based on further information from the hearing. What is the legal standard for the elephant? As I understood the judge's statement, she would need to decide if she thought BC had killed NC, not whether he was a suspect. Perhaps I need to reread her statement.

 

[tarheellvr]

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.

You're so right IMO.....those little girls have indeed found stability as well as love, devotion, and a family who puts their needs before ANTHING else in their
lives, even the hardest thing of all...dealing with Nancy's death/murder.

I still go back to the beginning when Nancy's family was first awarded temporary custody. There was some reason, some big reason, they obtained custody in the first place. If a parent has one iota of suspicion regarding the death of their mother, any child should not be living with him.

To uproot those precious children now would/will be the cause of serious emotional upheavel. They are settled. They are loved. They are taken care of with the best of care. Their needs are put first. They are bonding with Jim and Krista. They are wanted by Jim and Krista. They are receiving the proper help in dealing with their Mother's death. Can I answer yes to these statements regarding BC? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

Yes, I think he killed Nancy. Yes, I think he is cold, calculating, controlling, and deceitful and probably the saddest of all, I personally don't think he sincerely loves those little girls the way a father should....his actions haven't shown me that at all. Most of all, he took their Mother from them and this act was the cruelest, most heartless thing he could EVER do to thim.

I hope and pray the judge sees his true colors and sees what's best for Nancy's girls.

I know I'm not alone in my feelings.................

 

[ncsu95]

So doesn't that bring us around to our original point of, people keep saying he hasn't even been "named" a POI, so this that and the other... when it doesn't really matter whether he has been named one or not. People are using that argument to try to convince others that it is even less probable he is guilty because he has not been named anything.

No they aren't. This thread has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence with regards to NC's murder. This thread is regarding custody of his kids.

 

[ncsu95]

Well, the irony is right there in your post. How can we call him loving?

Nobody did. And she wasn't loving either considering she cheated on him first and trashed him to her friends. Neither one of them were people I'd care to associate with.

 

[boxy]

Clearly NC and BC had a bad relationship. I hope that we have established that. Lets try to remember that NC is not here to defend herself, okay?

Let's also remember that NC is not here to explain herself or take responsibility for her words and actions, OK?

 

[ncsu95]

So, even though it's obvious he is a suspect, or at least a POI, even though they are not saying so, and calling him a biscuit is the same as calling him a POI in your eyes... as long as they go ahead and officially call him something, keeping the kids feels more justifiable?

They can call him a POI or a suspect....but unless they arrest him, they need to give him his kids back.

 

[tarheellvr]

One other thing I want to say is what this whole custody thing is REALLY about.....2 innocent little girls and WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.
Their father's rights or lack there of are in a much lesser category IMO. What the REAL issue here is what is best for those little girls.

If the judge looks at that issue only, she will make her ruling with the children's welfare her top priority. And as I said earlier, if there is even ONE SHRED OF suspicion regarding BC, she won't allow those little girls to live with him. IMO there is INDEED one shred of suspicion....there is a mountain of suspicion.

 

[tarheellvr]

They can call him a POI or a suspect....but unless they arrest him, they need to give him his kids back.

The foremost issue is NOT BC....it is those little girls. The hearing is about THEIR needs, not their murderous so-called father.

 

[boxy]

Where you in the courtroom and did you hear all of the evidence for both sides ? I didn't ask if he murdered her , I asked if the elephant was removed, the one cited by the judge before hearing any testimony.

Upon rereading the elephant statement, it appears Judge Sasser refers to evidence that BC murdered NC, not whether he is a suspect.

"The elephant that sits in the room is that if there is evidence that Mr.Cooper is in any way responsible for his wife's death, that's certainly relevant in the custody case," she said.

http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/3751368/

Anyone know the legal basis upon which the judge must base her decision? Is there a state statute or case law that addresses this?

 

[ncsu95]

The real questions are related to his ability to be a good father. If BC starts cooperating in the murder case and he is cleared, then he may have an opportunity to prove that he can be a great parent. However, there has been a stumbling block for him (whether guilty or innocent) related to the three points below.

BC will never be cleared unless or until someone else is arrested. He has provided statements to the police (although none since mid July) and did a 7 hour deposition where he detailed his activities from the morning. The police have access to that deposition. So they have his side of events. BC does not have to prove his innocence (if he is innocent). I'm not sure that he could if he tried (if he is innocent) because its his words versus their opinion. How on earth could he prove it? There are phone records, receipts, emails, etc., that back up his statements. But there is no way he can conclusively show that he is telling the truth. That's why in a criminal case, it's the prosecutions burden to prove guilt instead of the defendants burden to prove innocence. It's sometimes impossible to do, even if you are in fact innocent.

 

[boxy]

One other thing I want to say is what this whole custody thing is REALLY about.....2 innocent little girls and WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM.
Their father's rights or lack there of are in a much lesser category IMO. What the REAL issue here is what is best for those little girls.

If the judge looks at that issue only, she will make her ruling with the children's welfare her top priority. And as I said earlier, if there is even ONE SHRED OF suspicion regarding BC, she won't allow those little girls to live with him. IMO there is INDEED one shred of suspicion....there is a mountain of suspicion.

Is that the legal standard for this decision? If so, please provide a reference.

 

[boxy]

The foremost issue is NOT BC....it is those little girls. The hearing is about THEIR needs, not their murderous so-called father.

You should probably add a qualifier to your libelous statement.

As I understand the legal issues, it is about BC because the parent is presumed to be the best person to have custody of children. Unless BC is shown to be an unfit parent, the default decision is to return custody to him.

 

[Anderson]

Let's also remember that NC is not here to explain herself or take responsibility for her words and actions, OK?

Your point is taken. However, sometimes there is irrelevant information posted about NC and that is what I object to. Let me explain.

I agree that it is sometimes necessary to find other witnesses with first hand information to back up NC's postion, but only when it is related to evidence relevant to the custody hearing (or the murder). It may be necessary to have some knowledge of the state of their relationship, but only as it is relevant to the legal issues. And we have established that they had a bad relationship.

However, if statements are made about her character for absolutely no reason, except to imply 'she is just as bad as Brad', as many posters do, then I see absolutely no reason for it. It is not relevant. NC is not on trial. NC is the victim here. I want people to remember that. And I would hope that other posters would also be sensitive to that distinction.

JMHO

 

[ncsu95]

If NC had not been murdered, then he would have had the chance to be a part time Dad. I am sure that BC loves the kids, but he has not had the opportunity to spend much time with them as the primary caregiver. I do not see any evidence of a strong network of support. His family did not even take the stand to give him support yesterday.

So if my wife dies in a car accident, I should have to go through a custody battle to keep my daughter because she is the primary caregiver as a stay at home mom?

You guys keep arguing this...but this custody battle is not about his fitness as a parent. If it was, he would have been given custody yesterday. Go back and look at what MT3K said when she got back. She said:

"Did I feel anything jumped out against BC to not being a fit parent? NO"

And this is from probably the person who is most sure of his guilt on this forum. So this isn't about his fitness as a parent. It's about the belief that he killed NC. If NC had died that day in a car accident, you would not be making the claims about him being not ready to be a full time dad or having a support network. You'd think it was a travesty that his kids were taken from him. Well I think it was a travesty that his kids were taken from him. If he is arrested, my opinion will change.

 

[ncsu95]

I just hope that the girls are given a chance to have a good life. Many children never recover from abuse from their early years.

JMO

There has been absolutely no evidence AT ALL that he has abused his children. NONE.