Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

[boxy]

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?

Yes, Judge Sasser included this apparently false information as a finding of fact in the order, meaning that she found this to be true. I certainly don't know the ins and outs of legal rules but at least in some circumstances findings of fact are not subject to appeal. Probably of little significance here as the temporary custody hearing appears to be reviewing the case de novo. Still, it's rather sobering that a finding of BC being an unfit parent was preceded by this one finding of fact that turns out to be false.

 

[news247]

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.

but she also allowed the girls to leave the country to live with their grandparents, albeit a temporary basis - still, the little girls are out of the country, and out of BC's reach - the legal manuvers will take years, the little girls will never have another relationship with BC - and that is sad, imo. Again, if he is arrested and convicted - the little girls will suffer. if he is arrested and aquitted - he still will never re-gain custody of the little girls - it will be so many years down the road IF he does, they won't remember him or want a further relationship - they are just too young, they will forget. And i think that is what the Rente's/Listers are counting on - it's sad, the little girls will suffer the most, and they already have too much to bear, IMO

Regarding the CPS - I would think that going to Court was the fastest route.
was the cps involved prior to the ex parte order? i don't know if they were. i don't remember that tho.
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.

but see....to me, it WAS false if they had no proof - which evidently, they didn't - if they had it, it would have been produced to the court during this hearing, no?? i can certainly be wrong....just seems to me that if proof was there - they would have offered it up. So since they did that filing, then DID they "offer statements of unavailable declarent" as respects the suicide issue? IIRC, Mr. R answered no, to that issue

 

[SleuthyGal]

BTW, it's the exact same thing with law enforcement and other city/county public jurisdictions. They follow policy and procedure and that can be confusing and maddening for us lay people who think they're acting like something out of the wild west in the 1800's during the gold rush.

Things get checked by lawyers working for the city/county...they can't just make it up as they want (though yes, there have been some situations where a police officer or other city employee in some jurisdictions around the country have not followed their own procedures...and there are internal review boards and legal consequences of misbehavior). But here in Wake County...there is less of that because the system has not only checks and balances but the officials in charge keep a tight rein on that.

So it's easy for any of us to say that LE is out to 'get' BC just because...but that's actually not true. They have to be able to make a clear and convincing case or it goes nowhere. They have to follow the rules or it will get thrown out later in court. If they don't gather the evidence or there isn't enough evidence, then no charges are filed. Simple as that. In Wake County the burden is very high as that's the way the DA runs this ship.

 

[news247]

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.

ITA! the OJ civil trial transcripts and the Scott Peterson trial transcripts paved the way to my beliefs in those cases.....altho i held an unpopular position in both cases, i was comfortable in my beliefs, based on reading the actual testimony.

 

[jmflu]

ITA! the OJ civil trial transcripts and the Scott Peterson trial transcripts paved the way to my beliefs in those cases.....altho i held an unpopular position in both cases, i was comfortable in my beliefs, based on reading the actual testimony.

What does ITA mean?

 

[SleuthyGal]

I certainly don't know the ins and outs of legal rules

This is where we all (we forum posters) go wrong. Because the legal rules are the basis of everything done by a judge. They have to be able to point to every decision and prove why such a decision was made, legally. And no, they're not always right.

Still, it's rather sobering that a finding of BC being an unfit parent was preceded by this one finding of fact that turns out to be false.

He wasn't found to be unfit...this was an emergency situation with custody transferred temporarily pending a hearing, which was scheduled 9 days henceforth. The custody arrangement agreed upon on July 25th had nothing to do with the judge--it was between the two parties.

If you don't like the fact that the Rentz' retained custody from July 25th on, then you need to hold BC and his team accountable as they willingly entered into an agreement to keep the kids in Canada until the Oct hearing.

 

[news247]

BTW, it's the exact same thing with law enforcement and other city/county public jurisdictions. They follow policy and procedure and that can be confusing and maddening for us lay people who think they're acting like something out of the wild west in the 1800's during the gold rush.

Things get checked by lawyers working for the city/county...they can't just make it up as they want (though yes, there have been some situations where a police officer or other city employee in some jurisdictions around the country have not followed their own procedures...and there are internal review boards and legal consequences of misbehavior). But here in Wake County...there is less of that because the system has not only checks and balances but the officials in charge keep a tight rein on that.

So it's easy for any of us to say that LE is out to 'get' BC just because...but that's actually not true. They have to be able to make a clear and convincing case or it goes nowhere. They have to follow the rules or it will get thrown out later in court. If they don't gather the evidence or there isn't enough evidence, then no charges are filed. Simple as that. In Wake County the burden is very high as that's the way the DA runs this ship.

For the most part, I believe what you are saying - it's just hard to forget Nifong from NC and the DNA labwork in Houston, TX, plus now, almost weekly or monthly we see another exoneration from the Dallas, Tx DA's office - sometimes, it's just hard to believe ordinary citizen's rights are being protected.....and now we are seeing children ripped away from their parent (the affidavidits from those 4 LE officers just really got to me, it was so sad to think of how those poor little girls must have been so frightened - THAT just did NOT need to happen, IMO) with only gossip and innuendos.

i know the focus should be on NC - she is the one who lost her life. but the little girls have still long lives to live - focus must now change to them. I think KL and JL are too biased to have them. - ALL JMO only.

 

[news247]

What does ITA mean?

i totally agree

 

[boxy]

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.

That is what she wrote in the ex parte order. You'll note it begins with the her particular reliance, in part, on the false finding of fact that BC has a history of emotional instability.

Based on the allegations, those children were at risk.

Allegations are just that, allegations. Many of the other allegations made by the plaintiffs were not included by the judge in the written order. The judge was the finder of fact and in retrospect, in my opinion, she got it wrong.

Best to err on the side of caution don't you think?

No, best for a judge to follow the law. Not clear that was done, or at least done well, in this case.

 

[SleuthyGal]

it's just hard to forget Nifong from NC and the DNA labwork in Houston, TX, plus now, almost weekly or monthly we see another exoneration from the Dallas, Tx DA's office - sometimes, it's just hard to believe ordinary citizen's rights are being protected

If you had a coworker who didn't follow the rules at work, broke company policy, etc, etc, would you want and expect to be painted with the exact same brush as your coworker? Would that be fair? Should your actions at work be judged because of what some Enron employees did several years ago? Well that's the same logic that is getting applied to both North Carolina, Judge Sasser, and the CPD and Wake County DA.

Nifong =/= Willoughby. North Carolina =/= TX. Nifong broke the law and was prosecuted for it.

You're assuming Judge Sasser made her decision on only "gossip and innuendos" and I think it's unfair to say that since you were not in the the judge's chambers, didn't hear the legal pleadings, did not see the paperwork the judge saw, etc, etc. Again, if one is not *there* one doesn't know...one can only speculate...and that speculation is often incorrect.

The judge made it perfectly clear that she is looking at the interests of the children--I don't think anyone sitting in that courtroom walked away thinking "nahhhh she's just going to decide this based on whatever she feels in the moment."

So why, I wonder, do we (continue to) speculate and assume that's exactly how legal decisions are made in general, and in this case in particular, when it isn't, never has been, and never will be?

 

[momto3kids]

After sitting all day in Judge Sasser's courtroom I truely feel she is going to render a decision based on the best interest of the girl's, and not for a moment she is going to be bias in her decision.

After lunch Sasser told the court JWB affidavit would not be allowed for evidence. Stubbs really wanted this to be used against BC, but did not win the arguement.

Sandlin asked for the case to be dismissed at this time.

Sasser told the court the plaintiff's had established and displayed or shown BC acted inconsistent.

Motion denied!

This was certainly 1 organized courtroom. Everyone had the same huge 3 ring binders, all pages in sleeve covers it appeared and they all stayed on the same page. Amazing IMO

 

[jilly]

Boxy - I disagree with you. I think the Judge got it right on the ex parte. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

 

[boxy]

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.”);

[snip)

Thanks. I'll have to pour over this a while.

 

[boxy]

After lunch Sasser told the court JWB affidavit would not be allowed for evidence. Stubbs really wanted this to be used against BC, but did not win the arguement.

Did you hear the reason for excluding the JWB affidavit?

 

[boxy]

Boxy - I disagree with you. I think the Judge got it right on the ex parte. We'll just have to agree to disagree!

So it appears, at least for now.

 

[ncsu95]

but see....to me, it WAS false if they had no proof - which evidently, they didn't - if they had it, it would have been produced to the court during this hearing, no?? i can certainly be wrong....just seems to me that if proof was there - they would have offered it up. So since they did that filing, then DID they "offer statements of unavailable declarent" as respects the suicide issue? IIRC, Mr. R answered no, to that issue

It would be hard to offer proof of this at that time. They were in town because she was missing. Not sure what kind of proof they could have provided.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Did you hear the reason for excluding the JWB affidavit?

The judge did not say the exact reason, though both sides argued a variety of points in the morning session as to why it should or should not be admitted.

 

[momto3kids]

Did you hear the reason for excluding the JWB affidavit?

No. Stubbs asked before any witnesses were called to be allowed to enter it and Sasser had several questions about it. Stubbs said it would prove BC lies per his depo. After lunch Sasser came back and denied the motion. She said she saw the clip of BC deposition is all she said.

 

[momto3kids]

Grand Jury hearing Monday. Is there a chance Sasser is waiting to see if any developements happen?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Grand Jury hearing Monday. Is there a chance Sasser is waiting to see if any developements happen?

With Wade Smith intimating the DA could move the case in...ohhh...maybe 2 years? I don't think she's waiting for Monday's Grand Jury, no.