Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[NC_Mom_Next_Door]

So if someone isn't a person of interest, hasn't been charged, what's the basis for a Judge for the child custody case to looking at the elephant in the room?
I don't think that the elephant is something she is
supposed to be concerned with.

Usually these kinds of questions about rulings etc are handled by the defendant/d's attorneys, usually on appeal.
However, a complaint /request for investigation against Sasser for general abuse of power/violation of constitutional right to trial by jury was filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission on Friday.

 

[Jess]

Usually these kinds of questions about rulings etc are handled by the defendant/d's attorneys, usually on appeal.
However, a complaint /request for investigation against Sasser for general abuse of power/violation of constitutional right to trial by jury was filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission on Friday.

By who ???????????

 

[Anderson]

Usually these kinds of questions about rulings etc are handled by the defendant/d's attorneys, usually on appeal.
However, a complaint /request for investigation against Sasser for general abuse of power/violation of constitutional right to trial by jury was filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission on Friday.

Wow. That is news. Do you have a link? Or did I just miss a media report? Interesting.

 

[Jess]

Are you going to tell us who filed ?? has it been reported anywhere ?? Is it just because of this custody hearing ?? DO TELL !!!!

 

[boxy]

Usually these kinds of questions about rulings etc are handled by the defendant/d's attorneys, usually on appeal.
However, a complaint /request for investigation against Sasser for general abuse of power/violation of constitutional right to trial by jury was filed with the NC Judicial Standards Commission on Friday.

This doesn't seem to fall into the definition of judicial misconduct under the purvue of NCJSC.
http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/JudicialStandards/FAQs.asp#14
A complaint could have been filed, but seems unlikely to be going anywhere and, in any case, is confidential during the investigation phase at least.

Q. What is judicial misconduct?
A. Judicial misconduct is any violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which may include, but is not limited to, the following:

* failure to perform duties impartially and diligently
* failure to dispose promptly of the business of the court
* allowing family, social or political relationships to influence judicial decision-making
* conflict of interest
* expressions of bias based on race, gender or ethnicity
* rude, abusive and otherwise improper treatment of parties, counsel, witnesses, etc.
* communicating improperly with only one side to a proceeding
* excessive use of intoxicating drinks or drugs
* commenting on or interfering with a pending or impending case
* improper election campaign conduct
* criminal behavior

Judicial incapacity is a disability which is, or is likely to become, permanent and which interferes with the performance of judicial duties. It can be a physical or mental disability, which may include, but not be limited to, the following:

* alcohol or drug addiction
* senility
* physical illness
* mental illness

Judicial misconduct does not include:

* rulings on the law and/or the facts
* matters within the discretion of the trial court
* rulings on the admissibility of evidence
* rulings involving alimony, child support, custody or visitation rights
* sentences imposed by the court
* believing or disbelieving witnesses

 

[momto3kids]

By who ???????????

Most likely another move by K&B. Who else would have reason to file such a complaint?

 

[boxy]

What has changed since the Emergency Ex Parte Order? Looking through that order at the findings of fact, it's interesting to see which of these have held up upon further scrutiny, which are in dispute, and which have been proved incorrect.

1. Plaintiffs Garry and Donna Rentz are citizens and residents of Alberta, Canada. Plaintiff Krista Lister is a citizen and resident of Ontario, Canada.
2. Defendant is a resident of Wake County, North Carolina, and has resided in North Carolina for at least six months prior to the institution of this action.
3. Defendant is the biological father of the minor children, Isabella Cooper, ("Bella") born on February 23, 2004, and Gabriella ("Katie") Cooper, born on July 23, 2006.
4. Plaintiffs Garry and Donna Rentz are the biological father and biological mother of Nancy Cooper, the deceased biological mother of the minor children and the deceased wife of Defendant. Plaintiff Lister is the identical twin sister of Nancy Cooper.
5. Neither Defendant nor Plaintiffs are United States citizens. Plaintiffs Garry and Donna Rentz are the maternal grandparents of the minor children. Plaintiff Lister is the maternal aunt of the minor children.
6. On the afternoon of July 12, 2008, a neighbor reported to the Cary Police Department that Nancy Cooper was missing. Defendant Cooper never reported his wife as missing and never contacted the Plaintiff Rentz's to inform them of her disappearance.
7. On the evening of July 14, 2008, Nancy Cooper's body was discovered in an outdoor location by a third party. An autopsy was performed and her death has been classified as a homicide.
8. Defendant attempted suicide as a teenager and threatened to commit suicide in the winter of 2008.
9. Defendant has acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children.
10. Plaintiffs Garry and Donna Rentz have a close and loving relationship with the minor children. They have spent time with the minor children in North Carolina and in Canada, have spent holidays with the children, and have frequent telephone contact with the children.
11. Plaintiff Garry Rentz previously served as the executive director for Alberta Social Services (AKA Children's Services) tor five years in Alberta, Canada. The Rentz's have been married for forty-three years and have a stable home for the children.
12. Plaintiff Lister has a close and loving relationship with the minor children. She has spent time with the minor children and has had daily telephone contact with the minor children. Plaintiff Lister has spent time with the children many times at her own home and at the children's home.
13. North Carolina is the home state of the minor children and this Court has jurisdiction over the matter of custody pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50A"3.
14. Plaintiffs are fit and proper persons to have physical and legal custody of the minor children and the children's best interest would be served by vesting their physical and legal custody in Plaintiffs.
15. Considering the special facts of this case, particularly that Defendant has a history of emotional instability and the intense scrutiny currently faced by Defendant as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation of Nancy Cooper's murder, there is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in Defendant's custody and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State of North Carolina by Defendant for the purpose of evading the jurisdiction of North Carolina courts.
16. The minor children's best interests require entry of this ex parte, emergency custody order awarding custody of the children to Plaintiffs pending further orders of the Court.

1 through 5 are not in dispute.

6 is also not in dispute, however, BC asked a neighbor to call the Rentz and it is not clear to me that even if BC had not communicated with them through an intermediary that that would be of significance to determining either custody or whether he killed NC.
7 is not in dispute.
8 appears to not be true. The plaintiffs certainly have not provided anything beyond hearsay in this regard as far as I know.
9 is clearly in dispute but appears to be more a conclusion than a particular fact.
10 to 13 are not in dispute as far as I can tell.
14 and 16 are again conclusion that are in dispute.
Several parts of 15 appear to not be true. BC has a history of emotional instability; not proven. "There is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in Defendant's custody [based on what?] and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State [based on what? Might not the Rentz's and Listers decide not to return the girls if they think they will return to BC's custody?]"

With the clarity of retrospection, Judge Sasser's Ex Parte order does not appear to be well founded. There are very few facts behind the conclusions and some of those appear to be untrue. For example, she comes to the conclusion that BC has "acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children" after a sole and mistaken statement that BC attempted suicide and threatened suicide in 2008.

 

[ncsu95]

What has changed since the Emergency Ex Parte Order? Looking through that order at the findings of fact, it's interesting to see which of these have held up upon further scrutiny, which are in dispute, and which have been proved incorrect.



1 through 5 are not in dispute.

6 is also not in dispute, however, BC asked a neighbor to call the Rentz and it is not clear to me that even if BC had not communicated with them through an intermediary that that would be of significance to determining either custody or whether he killed NC.
7 is not in dispute.
8 appears to not be true. The plaintiffs certainly have not provided anything beyond hearsay in this regard as far as I know.
9 is clearly in dispute but appears to be more a conclusion than a particular fact.
10 to 13 are not in dispute as far as I can tell.
14 and 16 are again conclusion that are in dispute.
Several parts of 15 appear to not be true. BC has a history of emotional instability; not proven. "There is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in Defendant's custody [based on what?] and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State [based on what? Might not the Rentz's and Listers decide not to return the girls if they think they will return to BC's custody?]"

With the clarity of retrospection, Judge Sasser's Ex Parte order does not appear to be well founded. There are very few facts behind the conclusions and some of those appear to be untrue. For example, she comes to the conclusion that BC has "acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children" after a sole and mistaken statement that BC attempted suicide and threatened suicide in 2008.

Thanks. I hadn't actually seen the emergency order. It goes as I thought that the emergency order was done without any evidence and was based on NCs families view of things at the time. BCs children should never have been taken from him, and they should be returned to him.

 

[news247]

What has changed since the Emergency Ex Parte Order? Looking through that order at the findings of fact, it's interesting to see which of these have held up upon further scrutiny, which are in dispute, and which have been proved incorrect.



1 through 5 are not in dispute.

6 is also not in dispute, however, BC asked a neighbor to call the Rentz and it is not clear to me that even if BC had not communicated with them through an intermediary that that would be of significance to determining either custody or whether he killed NC.
7 is not in dispute.
8 appears to not be true. The plaintiffs certainly have not provided anything beyond hearsay in this regard as far as I know.
9 is clearly in dispute but appears to be more a conclusion than a particular fact.
10 to 13 are not in dispute as far as I can tell.
14 and 16 are again conclusion that are in dispute.
Several parts of 15 appear to not be true. BC has a history of emotional instability; not proven. "There is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in Defendant's custody [based on what?] and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State [based on what? Might not the Rentz's and Listers decide not to return the girls if they think they will return to BC's custody?]"

With the clarity of retrospection, Judge Sasser's Ex Parte order does not appear to be well founded. There are very few facts behind the conclusions and some of those appear to be untrue. For example, she comes to the conclusion that BC has "acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent to the minor children" after a sole and mistaken statement that BC attempted suicide and threatened suicide in 2008.

As concerns # 6 - if BC didn't ask one of the friends/neighbors/whatever to call NC's family - how did that person get the phone number(s) to call them? Were the friends/neighbors so close to NC that they knew her mom, dad and sister's phone numbers?

And, # 8 - NC's family stated that Brad had attempted suicide as a teen and also in 2008 - but they offered no proof to back up their affidavit? So....does this mean that Judge S. relied on this false info when she ordered LE to pick up the children?

And - just in general - why no consideration of the LE officers who actually picked up the children (those 4 who filed affidavits) and described their (the girls) trauma during that? Or, was there testimony about that, and just not reported by the media?

 

[jilly]

Thanks. I hadn't actually seen the emergency order. It goes as I thought that the emergency order was done without any evidence and was based on NCs families view of things at the time. BCs children should never have been taken from him, and they should be returned to him.

I don't agree with this ncsu95.

The Plaintiffs alleged that BC was mentally unstable; that he had attempted suicide once and talked about it another time. The mother of the children had been found murdered. The Judge properly took into account - what was in the best interest of the children? Best to err on the side of caution don't you think? Any Judge, under the circumstances would have made this Order imo. Based on the allegations, those children were at risk.

Besides, this Order wasn't signed in stone. She made it on July 16th and she set a hearing for the 25th - only 9 days later. As you know, BC appeared on that date and consented to a further 3 months.

Here's what the Judge said:

Considering the special facts of this case, particularly that Defendant has a history of emotional instability and the intense scrutiny currently faced by Defendant as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation of Nancy Cooper's murder, there is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in Defendant's custody and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State of North Carolina by Defendant for the purpose of evading the jursidiction of North Carolina courts.

 

[news247]

I don't agree with this ncsu95.

The Plaintiffs alleged that BC was mentally unstable; that he had attempted suicide once and talked about it another time. The mother of the children had been found murdered. The Judge properly took into account - what was in the best interest of the children? Best to err on the side of caution don't you think? Any Judge, under the circumstances would have made this Order imo. Based on the allegations, those children were at risk.

Besides, this Order wasn't signed in stone. She made it on July 16th and she set a hearing for the 25th - only 9 days later. As you know, BC appeared on that date and consented to a further 3 months.

Here's what the Judge said:

Considering the special facts of this case, particularly that Defendant has a history of emotional instability and the intense scrutiny currently faced by Defendant as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation of Nancy Cooper's murder, there is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in Defendant's custody and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State of North Carolina by Defendant for the purpose of evading the jursidiction of North Carolina courts.

i see your premise...however, didn't what she did allow the Lister family to take the girls outside of the "jursidiction of North Carolina courts"- sure, the order states they are to remain in the jurisdiction - but what's to say they can't get that changed by a Canadian judge - the girls are far away, in a different country.

I don't know - I just don't like the idea of courts being able to take away children with no proof of a person's guilt - IMP, monitoring by the CPS would have been plenty. Even NC's own family members and friends stated that they had seen no evidence of abuse by Brad to his children (in this current hearing).

 

[news247]

LOL - one more thing, since I'm posting (which I rarely do) - I really wonder where T/S got the full 911 recording (as opposed to the one released to the public) - BC's attys didn't have it - so where did T/s get it, unless directly from LE.

"IF" they (T/S) got it from LE (which seems kinda self evident, imo); then I am really disturbed IF LE is giving info to NC's parents and not to BC - what about the discovery laws? OH.....yeah - LE doesn't have to comply w/discovery until BC is named a suspect, right?

I seriously have no clue if BC killed NC - imo, if he did, he has a spot reserved for him in hell and rightly so.

The thing that keeps drawing me back to this case, is this custody issue. I just do not believe that the State of NC has the right to do this.

You can read in the newspaper everyday - some little child is found dead, CPS was investigating, worked to keep the family together, and despite all odds of the child's safety, CPS kept the family "together"

Also in NC, Jason Young's daughter remains with him - IMO - there actually might be some evidence against JY - yet, NC did not remove his child from him.

why now - in this case? what don't we know?

and IF the judge has inside info not shared with BC's attys - that's just plain wrong - so i hope that's not true.

ok - rant over for the night

 

[SleuthyGal]

I really wonder where T/S got the full 911 recording (as opposed to the one released to the public) - BC's attys didn't have it - so where did T/s get it, unless directly from LE. "IF" they (T/S) got it from LE (which seems kinda self evident, imo); then I am really disturbed IF LE is giving info to NC's parents and not to BC - what about the discovery laws? OH.....yeah - LE doesn't have to comply w/discovery until BC is named a suspect, right?

This was discussed in court by the judge. There was apparently a form that one fills out that allows an entity (like the lawyer) to get a full copy of a 911 call. T/S apparently filled out this form and obtained whatever signature was needed, and was able to get the full recording. K&B either didn't fill out the form or didn't submit the correct form...either way the judge made it clear that this is not discovery and there was no burden for T/S to provide this full recording to K&B since they could have obtained a full copy themselves from the same place. LE is NOT keeping information from the defense and only supplying it to T/S. It's a FORM that has to be filled out. However, Howard Kurtz sure did whine about it and the judge was none too happy because this had been whined about before, apparently 2 or 3 times. But there was no conspiracy to keep a full recording from the defense. They simply didn't follow whatever the correct process was to obtain said recording (which is what the judge explained to them).

It was the judge's legalese for "ya snooze, ya lose."

 

[jilly]

i see your premise...however, didn't what she did allow the Lister family to take the girls outside of the "jursidiction of North Carolina courts"- sure, the order states they are to remain in the jurisdiction - but what's to say they can't get that changed by a Canadian judge - the girls are far away, in a different country.

I don't know - I just don't like the idea of courts being able to take away children with no proof of a person's guilt - IMP, monitoring by the CPS would have been plenty. Even NC's own family members and friends stated that they had seen no evidence of abuse by Brad to his children (in this current hearing).

With the ex parte order, the Judge allowed the children to be taken to Canada for their mother's memorial. BC must have consented to the children returning to Canada when he entered into a Consent Order on the 25th. The grandfather had worked for Social Services in Canada. I'm sure he would have been aware of his options with respect to filing for custody. I would imagine the fact that the girls are US citizens had something to do with it.

Regarding the CPS - I would think that going to Court was the fastest route.

In response to one part of your post above, I don't think you can call what info the Plaintiff's gave to the Judge as being false. They swore out affidavits according to their information and belief. It doesn't appear that they had any documentation or witnesses at the Hearing to corroborate their allegations. They did, however, file an Intent to offer Statements of Unavailable Declarent' (namely, Nancy) prior to the Hearing. The rules of evidence are much more relaxed in Family Court.

 

[AmarilloByAM]

news247 -
Major dittos from me on what you've written here (like anyone cares what I think ).

 

[Star12]

Google has no results for "The best interests of the children is the guiding star."
I looked through the North Carolina statutes and found nothing relevant. I'm obviously looking in the wrong place but don't know where else to look. Almost everything that comes up in google is about custody of children of divorcing couples. I would find it very helpful if someone had a relevant legal reference or two.

Sorry, it actually is 'polar star' - and it's case law.

See In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 109, 316 S.E.2d 246, 251 (1984) (“[T]he best interest of the child is the polar star.”);
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Id. at 430, 614 S.E.2d at 384.
This Court also addressed the prejudice the respondent suffered and stated, “ecause our polar star in these proceedings is the best interests of the child, we must presume prejudicewhere, as here, a child was not represented by a guardian ad litem at a critical stage of the termination proceedings.” Id. at 431, 614 S.E.2d at 385.
~~~~~~~~~~~
We finally note that whereas our juvenile code has as its polar star the best interest of the child our criminal code is guided by its goals of protecting the public, reforming the defendant, and holding the defendant accountable for his bad actsin a way serving as a deterrent. The due process requirements of the two codes are distinct. There is no greater State interest than that of protecting its children. In enacting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b2)(4) our legislature clearly made a choice to err on the side of caution by making N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b2)(4) a mandatory condition, and one that does not permit exceptions for the defendant's own children. We hold that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b2)(4) is a valid condition on these facts, and does not violate defendant's due process rights, as it is reasonably related to the goals of sentencing and probation: Namely, protecting the public, assisting the offender toward rehabilitation, and providing a general deterrent. This assignment of error is without merit.
~~~~~~~~~~
For, as between natural or adoptive parents, '[t]he welfare of the child has always been the polar star which guides the courts in awarding custody.'" Id. at 207, 581 S.E.2d at 49-50 (quoting Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 619, 501 S.E.2d 898, 899 (1998)).

 

[SleuthyGal]

One thing that really struck me sitting in the courtroom that day and listening to the judge and the various arguments and procedural issues:

People (the public at large, including chat boards) speculate wildly about how things work in a courtroom, how decisions are made, there are assumptions at every turn, but a lot of it (these assumptions/speculation/opinions) is simply incorrect, and is not reflective of reality in a courtroom. I don't know if it's all the TV shows showing legal procedures (which are not accurate) or what, but it was a day well-spent just to see the process up close.

Maybe Mom can give her opinion if she noticed this too, but I was paying attention to things the judge said, how she referred to case law, procedural books, etc. Everything has a basis for a ruling; the judge is not just deciding because they feel a certain way.

And then coming back to the forum to read all the posts, it really hit me that we citizens are woefully ignorant about how the legal profession/the courts/the judges all of it...how it actually works. TV shows just don't capture it; a few hours of Law & Order is not reality.

It is nitty gritty, splitting hairs at times, and tedious, but cases are argued on that level and are argued based solely on case law and precedent and procedure. And when lawyers don't do something they should have done for their client the judge will tell them in no uncertain terms that it's their own fault (not some wild conspiracy by the jurisdiction, as we bloggers sometimes like to imagine).

 

[news247]

This was discussed in court by the judge. There was apparently a form that one fills out that allows an entity (like the lawyer) to get a full copy of a 911 call. T/S apparently filled out this form and obtained whatever signature was needed, and was able to get the full recording. K&B either didn't fill out the form or didn't submit the correct form...either way the judge made it clear that this is not discovery and there was no burden for T/S to provide this full recording to K&B since they could have obtained a full copy themselves from the same place. LE is NOT keeping information from the defense and only supplying it to T/S. It's a FORM that has to be filled out. However, Howard Kurtz sure did whine about it and the judge was none too happy because this had been whined about before, apparently 2 or 3 times. But there was no conspiracy to keep a full recording from the defense. They simply didn't follow whatever the correct process was to obtain said recording (which is what the judge explained to them).

It was the judge's legalese for "ya snooze, ya lose."

aaahhhhh. ok - see media did not report fully on this issue (at least those articles that i read didn't)......THANKS! i'm a little less hot under the collar now

ummmm - kinda continues to sound like TS is running legal circles around BC's team, at least to me, that's the way it sounds.

 

[jmflu]

One thing that really struck me sitting in the courtroom that day and listening to the judge and the various arguments and procedural issues:

People (the public at large, including chat boards) speculate wildly about how things work in a courtroom, how decisions are made, there are assumptions at every turn, but a lot of it (these assumptions/speculation/opinions) is simply incorect, and is not reflective of reality in a courtroom. I don't know if it's all the TV shows showing legal procedures (which are not accurate) or what, but it was a day well-spent just to see the process up close.

Maybe Mom can give her opinion if she noticed this too, but I was paying attention to things the judge said, how she referred to case law, procedural books, etc. Everything has a basis for a ruling; the judge is not just deciding because she feels a certain way.

And then coming back to the forum to read all the posts, it really hit me that we citizens are woefully ignorant about how the legal profession/the courts/the judges all of it...how it actually works. TV shows just don't capture it; a few hours of Law & Order is not reality.

It is nitty gritty, splitting hairs at times, and tedious, but cases are argued on that level and are argued based solely on case law and precedent and procedure. And when lawyers don't do something they should have done for their client the judge will tell them in no uncertain terms that it's their own fault (not some wild conspiracy by the jurisdiction, as we bloggers sometimes like to imagine).

I wish this could be posted everywhere to stamp out ignorance that catches like wildfire and spreads to people vulnerable to believing whatever they read from some poster that sounds convincing.

 

[SleuthyGal]

media did not report fully on this issue

This is why you can't use the media reports as gospel. They report on tiny snippets of what goes on in the courtroom--they just try to hit the 'hottest' items since their space and time is limited.

Without reading a full court transcript word-for-word or attending in person, you will never get the full picture and most of the nuances will be unknown to you ... unknown to everyone who wasn't there.

What it taught me was to NOT make any assumption about what is happening in a courtroom; if you're not there listening and watching or reading a full transcript afterwards, you don't know; you can't know. You only hear the outcome of rulings that get reported (and hopefully they get reported correctly), but you don't hear the full arguments and cited case law around those rulings, nor the judge's sometimes very detailed comments. And that is the very heart of what goes on in those courtrooms day in and day out.

It made me realize that probably 75% or more that gets bandied about on chat boards is wrong...laughably wrong. People make assumptions and run wild with them and then project their opinions, but it has no bearing on what actually happens in a courtroom nor what actually gets argued by lawyers or responded to by judges.

The only way to close that gap--a gap that we all encounter-- is to take an opportunity to sit in a courtroom at some point when you can watch some public proceedings going on to get the full picture of your jurisdiction.