Custody

[SeriouslySearching]

Please post any links and discussions to the custody issues here including the affidavits provided. (Also post new links in the Media links thread!) We know this is a separate case, but the overlapping ramifications going towards the criminal case in this matter are very important.

Custody Petition:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/17/3222032/20080717103017508.pdf

[KTaylorsc]

One thing I noticed in the custody petition is #6 says that a neighbor reported Nancy missing.

Was the friend that reported Nancy missing a neighbor? I thought that I had read somewhere that the friend lived about 4 miles away?

[jilly]

Brad will be asking that the children be returned to him.

A judge awarded Nancy Cooper's family, which lives in Canada, temporary custody of the children until a hearing on the matter, scheduled for 9 a.m. Friday.

Kurtz said in an interview that aired Tuesday on Canadian Broadcasting Company radio that his client did not consent to the order.

"Brad loves his children. He is a very, very good father. And he is going to ask the court to return them to his care," Kurtz said.


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3248238/

[RoughlyCollie]

Boy, for someone who probably just met BC, that lawyer sure knows his client well.

If anything happens to those kids in BC's care, if he gets them back, the lawyer will be backpedaling real fast.

Respectfully,
RC


"Brad loves his children. He is a very, very good father. And he is going to ask the court to return them to his care," Kurtz said.


http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3248238/

[jilly]

Boy, for someone who probably just met BC, that lawyer sure knows his client well.

If anything happens to those kids in BC's care, if he gets them back, the lawyer will be backpedaling real fast.

Respectfully,
RC

I know. Hopefully Nancy's parents have got some concrete evidence because I've got a feeling he'll get his children back. If I was him, I'd consent to a temporary custody order for a month to see where this investigation goes.

Say if he was arrested, I wonder what he would do with the children. We haven't heard anything about his family...well maybe a brother that was supposed to be on his way to see him. Father in Europe, I believe.

[mollymalone]

I heard on Fox today that he didn't even show up to the custody hearing the first time and neither did his lawyer. My dh asked "did he even get notified?" I of course, said, if the children had to be physically turned over to the grandparents, and they were in his physical custody I would say that he knew about the hearing and was notified of it in advance.

Question is, if that's true and neither one showed at the hearing, why didn't he or an attorney show up?

[Sewing_Buddy]

I know. Hopefully Nancy's parents have got some concrete evidence because I've got a feeling he'll get his children back. If I was him, I'd consent to a temporary custody order for a month to see where this investigation goes.

Say if he was arrested, I wonder what he would do with the children. We haven't heard anything about his family...well maybe a brother that was supposed to be on his way to see him. Father in Europe, I believe.

Do you think Nancy's family will even bring the girls back to the states? I think they will do just about anything to make sure the girls don't have to go back to their father...considering the circumstances.

[RoughlyCollie]

It is my understanding that this was an emergency ex-parte hearing. This means the other side is not notified in advance of the hearing. That is why there is a follow-up hearing on Friday, 7/25, at which both sides will be present.

Respectfully,
RC



Question is, if that's true and niether one showed at the hearing, why didn't he or an attorney show up?

[RoughlyCollie]

If I were in Nancy's family's shoes, I would figure out a way to keep the kids no matter what the judge says on Friday. Yeah, it would be illegal, but I'd look at it as protecting the girls. I would not be surprised if Nancy's family firmly believes that BC murdered Nancy. If that's the case, in their position, I would figure keeping the girls out of the clutches of a murderer would trump obeying a court order to give the girls back to him.

If I were the judge, I'd take the matter under advisement and schedule a further hearing in 2-3 months. That would solve the problem: give the cops time to arrest BC (if they can) and protect the kids in the meantime.

My husband said he would hide with the kids so no one could find him to give him a court order to return the kids to BC. That's his way of (technically) avoiding not obeying a lawful court order -- he can't avoid what he doesn't know about.

Respectfully,
RC

Do you think Nancy's family will even bring the girls back to the states? I think they will do just about anything to make sure the girls don't have to go back to their father...considering the circumstances.

[macd]

According to WRAL tonight, according to BC's lawyers, BC will fight for custody at the next hearing.

If I were NC's family, I would follow the advice of my lawyers, but my instinct would be to keep the kids in Canada (they are there this week for services).

[jilly]

Do you think Nancy's family will even bring the girls back to the states? I think they will do just about anything to make sure the girls don't have to go back to their father...considering the circumstances.

Ya know....that did cross my mind. The only reason I think he will bring the children back is because he is a reputable person who at one time was the Director of Child Services in Alberta. I would expect that he would play by the rules.

That being said, he must have known this was a long shot of getting full custody at this time soooo.......maybe he's got some tricks up his sleeve.

[mollymalone]

It is my understanding that this was an emergency ex-parte hearing. This means the other side is not notified in advance of the hearing. That is why there is a follow-up hearing on Friday, 7/25, at which both sides will be present.

Respectfully,
RCThank you for the explanation RC!

[mollymalone]

Ya know....that did cross my mind. The only reason I think he will bring the children back is because he is a reputable person who at one time was the Director of Child Services in Alberta. I would expect that he would play by the rules.

That being said, he must have known this was a long shot of getting full custody at this time soooo.......maybe he's got some tricks up his sleeve.I sincerely hope so.

[fran]

This is all part of the process. I think everyone, including Nancy's parents knew Brad would fight for custody. Whether he really wants the kids because they're one of his personal possessions, or if he's just trying to get them, go through the motions, to make himself look less culpable for Nancy's untimely death, only BRAD knows the answer.

Who knows what will happen. The judge could either give them back to Brad, very possible, IMHO,............or................Brad could be arrested when he shows up to court!:eek:

:waitasec:I go for door number 2!I know innocent until proven guilty, but they need to start the process somewhere! Arrest THAT man! ;)

JMHO
fran

[mollymalone]

Since Brad is a Canadian citizen residing here only because of work, the children are Canadian citizens, and Nancy was also, could Nancy's parents file in Canada for custody? Would any hearing there have any bearing on the status of the children or will it be entirely a matter for the N.C. court due to their current residency in N.C.?

Presumably the Judge gave them temporary custody while the investigation is ongoing. Perhaps b the time the other hearing rolls around there will be further developments in the case or the Judge will have new information on his desk to show why they should have full custody.

[Topsail Girl]

Since Brad is a Canadian citizen residing here only because of work, the children are Canadian citizens, and Nancy was also, could Nancy's parents file in Canada for custody? Would any hearing there have any bearing on the status of the children or will it be entirely a matter for the N.C. court due to their current residency in N.C.?

Presumably the Judge gave them temporary custody while the investigation is ongoing. Perhaps b the time the other hearing rolls around there will be further developments in the case or the Judge will have new information on his desk to show why they should have full custody.

Both girls were born in Cary and both would be American Citizens, right? Could they also be Canadian Citizens?

[Jess]

I believe that the girls would have dual citizenship. I'm not sure, but I think the parents would also have to register their births in Canada.

But I am quite sure that the passports in question would be American. No child travelling without both parents can cross the border without a notarized letter of permission from the absent parent.

[carolinalady]

I believe that the girls would have dual citizenship. I'm not sure, but I think the parents would also have to register their births in Canada.

But I am quite sure that the passports in question would be American. No child travelling without both parents can cross the border without a notarized letter of permission from the absent parent.

I'm pretty sure this is correct.

[fran]

I believe that the girls would have dual citizenship. I'm not sure, but I think the parents would also have to register their births in Canada.

But I am quite sure that the passports in question would be American. No child travelling without both parents can cross the border without a notarized letter of permission from the absent parent.

It would be wonderful if the grandparents could file for custody in Canada.

I would like that. :)

Let's see what develops tomorrow. Today I'm sure Nancy's family is quite preoccupied. :(

JMHO
fran

[jilly]

It would be wonderful if the grandparents could file for custody in Canada.

I would like that. :)

JMHO
fran

It would be a bit easier if the girls were born in Canada that's for sure but since they have dual citizenship...who knows, maybe they'll try.
This talk about having the solicitor removed...personally I don't see a problem with her representing Nancy and now the family in this matter.
Didn't someone say that the lawyer used to be a Family Court Judge. I would think that she knows what she's doing.

[Magister]

Boy, for someone who probably just met BC, that lawyer sure knows his client well.

In reality, I'd venture that Brad's lawyer has at least met him, unlike the majority of people...


Of course Brad is planning to fight for custody and his lawyers are going to try every legal trick in the book because it's in their client's best interest.

If Nancy had already agreed to a joint arrangement, then that would have to be taken as her wish and it implies that Brad also wanted responsibilty for his children.

As of right now, he hasn't been charged, arrested or convicted of anything and under the law, his rights should win. Though, perhaps because this is such a high profile case and because several of the factors cited in the petition remain true, but possibly temporary, I fully expect the judge to continue the case for a month or another couple of weeks, with Brad's permission.

And, Brad's public motivation to agree would be because the children are better protected from the media glare and public slanders against their father, if they're shielded in another country; His private motivation would be because, whether or not he is guilty, any future possible defense wouldn't be served by him testifying on the record.

Again, right now, I expect a continuance because not only would it be better for the kids, but it'd serve Brad for the reasons cited and it'd serve the grandparents because under the current situation, Brad would most likely win.

[piedmontmom]

Apologies, this is the thread I need to be posting in relative to custody. I'm hot and bothered...well, just a little. I was prompted to reply to some comments about the custody in other threads.

What bothers me about custody is that I tend to think NC didn't think Brad was a safety concern relative to their girls. Reason being, if she was concerned about him with the girls, then why would she have continually left them in his care while she jogged/trained for her half marathon? And , in particular, on the eve of her death, why would she have left the girls with him while she was at this party? If I thought my husband would harm my kids I wouldn't have left them alone with him...especially when the situation would have been at its heigtened stage. Seriously, how can her family dispute this?

[piedmontmom]

On another note...I am bothered by comments in his rebuttal affadivit, regarding Mrs. Rentz and her alleged repeated car accidents. So many that even her sister supposedly wouldn't allow her own kids to be alone with her.

Listen, if he is found guilty then they should not be with him. CLEARLY. But I'm also bothered by his description of how they came into custody, meaning the night that armed police had to pick up the girls without the Rentz's there. I guess that can all be checked out...so if it happened as he described I find that apalling, especially since he was on his way to meet up with them at Bullwinkles. (Aahh, come to think of it, this place looked closed down the last time I drove by it...hmmm).

[fran]

Listen, if he is found guilty then they should not be with him. CLEARLY. But I'm also bothered by his description of how they came into custody, meaning the night that armed police had to pick up the girls without the Rentz's there. I guess that can all be checked out...so if it happened as he described I find that apalling, especially since he was on his way to meet up with them at Bullwinkles. (Aahh, come to think of it, this place looked closed down the last time I drove by it...hmmm).

:eek:

Whyyyyyyyy,,...................he wouldn't have lied on an affidavit would he?:confused:

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.:rolleyes:

Maybe he didn't know they closed down. just showin' I can be fair about this and see both sides

JMHO
fran

[RoughlyCollie]

I agree with you on this. I would not leave my kids alone with my husband if I thought they would be harmed in any way.

Even if BC did kill NC, that does not mean he will hurt his kids. Previously, I thought that the kids would be better off with NC's family until the case is resolved because I thought BC was a killer. Now I'm not so sure, although I think the odds favor that he is. We really don't know about any evidence that he is a killer.

The problem with this custody situation is that bridges have been burned. If Brad keeps the kids, will he want NC's friends and family to help out, especially if he did not kill NC and if he was not as bad as he has been portrayed?

Before this happened, it is possible that BC would have welcomed the help of these people and they could keep an eye on things. Now, if he gets custody, that may not happen.

If I were in BC's shoes and I were innocent and some (or many) of the things that were said about me were either untrue or misrepresented, I wouldn't want to be around any of those people.

I hope he is factually innocent of the murder and that he is not as bad a person as is being portrayed in the affadavits.

Respectfully,
RC

If I thought my husband would harm my kids I wouldn't have left them alone with him...especially when the situation would have been at its heigtened stage. Seriously, how can her family dispute this?

[Sewing_Buddy]

What bothers me about custody is that I tend to think NC didn't think Brad was a safety concern relative to their girls. Reason being, if she was concerned about him with the girls, then why would she have continually left them in his care while she jogged/trained for her half marathon? And , in particular, on the eve of her death, why would she have left the girls with him while she was at this party? If I thought my husband would harm my kids I wouldn't have left them alone with him...especially when the situation would have been at its heigtened stage. Seriously, how can her family dispute this?

I don't think Nancy believed Brad would kill her or physically harm the children....and if her parents had even a clue that he could be so violent, I don't think they would have let her return after the Hilton Head vacation. IMO Brad exhibited many narcissistic traits but the killing was an "argument gone bad" after Nancy got home from the social gathering.

[piedmontmom]

:eek:

Whyyyyyyyy,,...................he wouldn't have lied on an affidavit would he?:confused:

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.:rolleyes:

Maybe he didn't know they closed down. just showin' I can be fair about this and see both sides

JMHO
fran

This made me smile. BTW, I have always thought posters here to be fair. It is afterall a discussion, but it is quite civil.

Yeah, those that know me well can tell ya...I always look both sides. Grew up that way...there were many times I would have wanted more support from my parents...like in highschool "yeah, he is a jerk for doing that to you" vs. well, what did you do to add to this, you have to look at your actions as well.

I am married to someone that can do no wrong in his mothers eyes. And yeah, a part of me, as a mother, thinks it should be so. OK. I'm rambling and my reality is calling to me. Have a great day.

[stillblv]

Apologies, this is the thread I need to be posting in relative to custody. I'm hot and bothered...well, just a little. I was prompted to reply to some comments about the custody in other threads.

What bothers me about custody is that I tend to think NC didn't think Brad was a safety concern relative to their girls. Reason being, if she was concerned about him with the girls, then why would she have continually left them in his care while she jogged/trained for her half marathon? And , in particular, on the eve of her death, why would she have left the girls with him while she was at this party? If I thought my husband would harm my kids I wouldn't have left them alone with him...especially when the situation would have been at its heigtened stage. Seriously, how can her family dispute this?

I think we have to look at what could happen now, rather than what they thought before Nancy was killed.

They may be very afraid for the children's safety; if they are convinced that he killed Nancy they have to be worried that he might do himself, his daughters, or all of them in. It happens all the time in these kinds of situations.

[fran]

Just in case anybody is here that didn't catch it.



http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3280910/

Nancy Cooper's family keeps children until October

The two sides met in the judge's chamber for about 75 minutes before reaching the decision, which keeps the children in the care of their grandparents and aunt in Canada for 75 days. The hearing was continued until Oct. 13.

[carolinalady]

On another note...I am bothered by comments in his rebuttal affadivit, regarding Mrs. Rentz and her alleged repeated car accidents. So many that even her sister supposedly wouldn't allow her own kids to be alone with her.

Listen, if he is found guilty then they should not be with him. CLEARLY. But I'm also bothered by his description of how they came into custody, meaning the night that armed police had to pick up the girls without the Rentz's there. I guess that can all be checked out...so if it happened as he described I find that apalling, especially since he was on his way to meet up with them at Bullwinkles. (Aahh, come to think of it, this place looked closed down the last time I drove by it...hmmm).

Originally Posted by fran


Whyyyyyyyy,,...................he wouldn't have lied on an affidavit would he?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.

Maybe he didn't know they closed down. just showin' I can be fair about this and see both sides

JMHO
fran

Just an FYI (as I've gone to Bullwinkles only to have found it closed), their website says it is regularly closed on Mondays and Tuesdays (http://www.bullwinkles.com/hours.html). I need to look back to see the original custody date.

[Magister]

:eek:

Whyyyyyyyy,,...................he wouldn't have lied on an affidavit would he?:confused:

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya.:rolleyes:

If he were knowingly lie on an affidavit, he'd be commiting perjury. And, if he's ever subjected to a criminal trial over the death of his wife, if he were to take the stand, the prosecutor would be able to say; "Why should this jury believe you, since you've previously lied under oath?". Thus, anything that he'd like to say or any defense that he'd like to mount would simply go out the window.

[carolinalady]

So, the Ex Parte hearing was 7/16, a Wednesday.

I guess someone could call Bullwinkles to verify that it was closed that day.

Also, it sounds like the police met BC at Bullwinkles (based on BC's motion to dismiss), so I guess they could also verify that it was closed.

[Crazy Canuck]

I am really surprised that the judge is going to allow the grandparents to keep the children with them in another country for 75 days. I haven't heard anything that I thought would cause him to lose his kids. Here in Canada you have to do pretty bad stuff before they will remove your kids. Its kind of sad but thats the system here. There are parents who would make Brad look like an angel that are raising their kids.

All i can think is that the judge knows something that we don't. I thought the point about the judge not wanting to risk it was a good one however, has this ever happened in any of the other missing wives/suspicious husband cases? Does Drew peterson have his kids? Surely, those kids are at a great risk from him. Everyone knows he is a murderer - what judge could sleep at night knowing they left kids with him?:mad:

I really think Brad may be aware that he is about to be arrested and the cops just don't want the public to know yet.

[carolinalady]

July 25 statement on behalf of Brad Cooper regarding custody case

http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/3282901/

[carolinalady]

I am really surprised that the judge is going to allow the grandparents to keep the children with them in another country for 75 days. I haven't heard anything that I thought would cause him to lose his kids. Here in Canada you have to do pretty bad stuff before they will remove your kids. Its kind of sad but thats the system here. There are parents who would make Brad look like an angel that are raising their kids.

All i can think is that the judge knows something that we don't. I thought the point about the judge not wanting to risk it was a good one however, has this ever happened in any of the other missing wives/suspicious husband cases? Does Drew peterson have his kids? Surely, those kids are at a great risk from him. Everyone knows he is a murderer - what judge could sleep at night knowing they left kids with him?:mad:

I really think Brad may be aware that he is about to be arrested and the cops just don't want the public to know yet.

It doesn't sound like the judge heard any additional testimony in the case. We've seen the loads of affidavits that were filed. In the end, it sounds like BOTH parties agreed to some things (& probably made concessions, too) and the judge gave his OK.

[jilly]

Just in case anybody is here that didn't catch it.



http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3280910/

Nancy Cooper's family keeps children until October

The two sides met in the judge's chamber for about 75 minutes before reaching the decision, which keeps the children in the care of their grandparents and aunt in Canada for 75 days. The hearing was continued until Oct. 13.

Thanks Fran! Just got home from work and figured I'd have to wade through 20 pages to find out! Appreciated!:)

I'm happy with the outcome today. Looks like Brad agreed with my earlier post :wink: and even extended the time.

#5 07-22-2008, 05:39 PM
jilly
Shhhhhh - Peppurr's sleeping Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,486

If I was him, I'd consent to a temporary custody order for a month to see where this investigation goes.


I am happy regarding the outcome today.It was the right thing to do considering the circumstances. I'm also relieved because it says to me that Brad has probably put the best interests of his children ahead of any ill feelings he has towards the inlaws. I'll give him that - unlike the way Jason Young has denied his mother-in-law access to her grandaughter just because she thinks he's guilty of murdering her daughter.:furious:

[panthera]

Just in case anybody is here that didn't catch it.



http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3280910/

Nancy Cooper's family keeps children until October

The two sides met in the judge's chamber for about 75 minutes before reaching the decision, which keeps the children in the care of their grandparents and aunt in Canada for 75 days. The hearing was continued until Oct. 13.
It seems to me that Brad must have agreed to this arrangement, so I don't see it as unfair to anyone and am glad the judge didn't have to make the decision. There hasn't been an arrest made in Nancy's murder yet, and it's still quite possible Brad did it. This will keep the children out of harm's way and in a loving home until LE has more opportunity to investigate her death and if it turns out Brad isn't arrested, then the children could be returned to him. The best place for them right now is with Nancy's family, imo. :)

[panthera]

Just wanted to post some important highlights of the agreement ~

Under the terms of the settlement, the children will be allowed contact with their father a minimum of four times a week via telephone or Web cam for a minimum of 15 minutes.

Both sides also agreed to two supervised weekend visits before October in which Brad Cooper will be allowed to see his children for a maximum of four hours each day.

Other conditions of the settlement include:

Counseling for the children to begin as soon as reasonably possible.
Keeping the children out of a vehicle driven by Donna Rentz. (Brad Cooper stated in his affidavit that she was not a safe or reliable driver.)
Keeping the children away from dogs. (Brad Cooper stated in his July 23 affidavit that one of his daughters is allergic to dogs.)
Neither side is allowed to talk about the circumstances surrounding Nancy Cooper's death or the pending custody case.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3280910/

[raisincharlie]

I sure am curious as to why Brad super dad would ever agree to this 75 day extension of custody. He came out swinging in those affidavits and today he whimps out and agrees to this - for what reason?

I am also curious as to why a judge would even consider this, unless he has a whole lot more to look at than affidavits from both sides with a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims in them. Something is missing from this picture or possibly the judge is seeing a much more detailed picture to allow this man's children to be taken from him. 75 days - wow, supervised visits only - wow.

Just can't figure why super dad agreed...he says he has proof. :crazy:

[SleuthyGal]

My theory: he didn't want to be subjected to a forced psych evaluation because of what might be uncovered by that. I don't know why I think this would be the main point of contention, but I think this would worry him and his lawyer.

[raisincharlie]

My theory: he didn't want to be subjected to a forced psych evaluation because of what might be uncovered by that. I don't know why I think this would be the main point of contention, but I think this would worry him and his lawyer.

I agree that would be part of it. I wouldn't want to submit to that either to be honest. I also wonder since Interact was served with a subpeona to partake of this hearing if maybe BC was taken back and had no idea why Interact may have been subpeona'd. I also wonder since the grand parents subpeona'd the children's pediatrician if there was a reason he didn't want to hear from them either.

One thing I did notice on the Memorandum of Judgement - he may have got his wish to have Alice Tubbs removed but he ended up with someone much more formidable - Wade Smith himself signed off on the agreement on behalf of the Grand parents. Heavy hitter.

[fran]

This made me smile. BTW, I have always thought posters here to be fair. It is afterall a discussion, but it is quite civil.

Yeah, those that know me well can tell ya...I always look both sides. Grew up that way...there were many times I would have wanted more support from my parents...like in highschool "yeah, he is a jerk for doing that to you" vs. well, what did you do to add to this, you have to look at your actions as well.

I am married to someone that can do no wrong in his mothers eyes. And yeah, a part of me, as a mother, thinks it should be so. OK. I'm rambling and my reality is calling to me. Have a great day.

FWIW, and just so everyone knows who copied my post, I did respond to this earlier today but for some reason it's not here?:confused: Maybe it got lost when we were going on and off line, or maybe it was the post I was in the middle of when we went down. Whatever, I had to leave and it got lost.:eek:

After going through stuff today, I saw where Brad said he talked to Nancy's family and he agreed to let them see the children. He said they agreed to meet at Bullwinkles.

IMO, he did NOT know they were closed. It was NOT a lie, he just didn't know.

When he arrived and saw them closed, he called them on the cell phone and they said something to the effect, it was ok, they'd come there anyway and they could still meet there.

The next thing he knew, LE was surrounding his car and took the children. Nancy's parents were NOT there. Just LE.

He's concerned because they sent LE and didn't show up themselves. Looking at both sides, I understand his point of view. The parents took a heavy hand and used it.

OTOH, I see her parent's view too. They just lost their daughter to murder, they THINK he did it, he had THEIR grandchildren, they were FEARFUL and wanted to just take the little ones to safety.

or...........they were afraid of him.

Either way, it's a sad situation. Neither side wins. Brad lost his wife and daughters (temporarily), Nancy lost her life, Nancy's parents lost their child.

Sadd, sadddddd, sadddddddddd.
No winners her folks,
No one wins,
Sad,
fran

[Jaydee0158]

FWIW, and just so everyone knows who copied my post, I did respond to this earlier today but for some reason it's not here?:confused: Maybe it got lost when we were going on and off line, or maybe it was the post I was in the middle of when we went down. Whatever, I had to leave and it got lost.:eek:

After going through stuff today, I saw where Brad said he talked to Nancy's family and he agreed to let them see the children. He said they agreed to meet at Bullwinkles.

IMO, he did NOT know they were closed. It was NOT a lie, he just didn't know.

When he arrived and saw them closed, he called them on the cell phone and they said something to the effect, it was ok, they'd come there anyway and they could still meet there.

The next thing he knew, LE was surrounding his car and took the children. Nancy's parents were NOT there. Just LE.

He's concerned because they sent LE and didn't show up themselves. Looking at both sides, I understand his point of view. The parents took a heavy hand and used it.

OTOH, I see her parent's view too. They just lost their daughter to murder, they THINK he did it, he had THEIR grandchildren, they were FEARFUL and wanted to just take the little ones to safety.

or...........they were afraid of him.

Either way, it's a sad situation. Neither side wins. Brad lost his wife and daughters (temporarily), Nancy lost her life, Nancy's parents lost their child.

Sadd, sadddddd, sadddddddddd.
No winners her folks,
No one wins,
Sad,
fran

While I don't like the way the grandparents handled taking physical custody of the kids, I think the girls are where they need to be, considering. Out of the glare of the media and away from the scene. Guilty or innocent, BC is in no shape (emotionally) to take care of two small children at the moment, and I would hope he welcomes the help.

[raisincharlie]

While I don't like the way the grandparents handled taking physical custody of the kids, I think the girls are where they need to be, considering. Out of the glare of the media and away from the scene. Guilty or innocent, BC is in no shape (emotionally) to take care of two small children at the moment, and I would hope he welcomes the help.

It is possible that either the judge or LE advised that taking the children this way was how it was going to be done. The judge had some powerful reason to remove those children, there was a statement Brad might flee, perhaps both the judge and LE had some reason to believe a confrontation between the parties might get out of hand. I'm not ready to blame the grand parents - it may have been totally out of their hands.

[raisincharlie]

Just an addition to clarify the custody requirements:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1154731.html

Until then, Bradley Cooper can spend only 16 hours with the girls, under the watch of the staff at a visitation center in Wake County for parents that courts deem unable to be alone with their children.

[raisincharlie]

My theory: he didn't want to be subjected to a forced psych evaluation because of what might be uncovered by that. I don't know why I think this would be the main point of contention, but I think this would worry him and his lawyer.

Perhaps this had something to do with it as well:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/story/1154731.html



Taking the stand Friday would have put him in a firing line of questions from lawyers for his wife's family.
And if he had declined to answer certain questions about his wife's death, it could have reflected poorly. In civil cases, if a witness invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a judge is allowed to infer that he might have been involved in the crime raised by the question, said Cheryl Howell, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Institute of Government.

[maconrich]

Had this in the wrong thread:
I'm going to give Brad a thumbs up -- might be the only time I'll do it... But coming to agreement with Nancy's family, ending the custody slamming and letting the girls stay put for now is something that I sincerely believe is in the best interest of the children. So for that I'll give him credit (and obviously the same to Nancy's family).

BUT raisincharlie I do believe you hit it spot on:
Taking the stand Friday would have put him in a firing line of questions from lawyers for his wife's family.
And if he had declined to answer certain questions about his wife's death, it could have reflected poorly. (snip)

[mollymalone]

Thank you for those links raisincharlie. I suspect when his lawyer realized Brad would be facing certain hard questions that would affect him in a criminal trial IF he's charged, he advised Brad to go with the agreement pronto.

IMO there has to be compelling reasons for a Judge to order supervised visits and for a Pediatrician and Interact to be a part of all of this. Although, perhaps the Pediatrician was there in regards to the children's health and well being and not because he'd abused them. We may never know unless he's charged and this gets to a trial. It may be that Interact can rebut some of Brad's accusations against Nancy and tell a Judge her side of things. It will no longer be Brad's words taken as gospel since she can't speak for herself since she did talk to them and others.

Edited to add: Regardless of all that, reaching an agreement was in the children's best interests.

[raisincharlie]

Thank you for those links raisincharlie. I suspect when his lawyer realized Brad would be facing certain hard questions that would affect him in a criminal trial IF he's charged, he advised Brad to go with the agreement pronto.

IMO there has to be compelling reasons for a Judge to order supervised visits and for a Pediatrician and Interact to be a part of all of this. Although, perhaps the Pediatrician was there in regards to the children's health and well being and not because he'd abused them. We may never know unless he's charged and this gets to a trial. It may be that Interact can rebut some of Brad's accusations against Nancy and tell a Judge her side of things. It will no longer be Brad's words taken as gospel since she can't speak for herself since she did talk to them and others.

Edited to add: Regardless of all that, reaching an agreement was in the children's best interests.

One has to wonder if Nancy had contacted Interact even if just to talk. I suspect there is a definitive reason Interact was served with a subpeona. I also think it may be possible Interact was total news to BC.

[Sewing_Buddy]

Did anyone notice that the date for reviewing the latest custody order is October 13?.....Brad and Nancy's wedding anniversary.

[mollymalone]

One has to wonder if Nancy had contacted Interact even if just to talk. I suspect there is a definitive reason Interact was served with a subpeona. I also think it may be possible Interact was total news to BC.It appears that it could have been. Does anyone know what kind of services Interact provides? Or is it mainly counseling?

[raisincharlie]

It appears that it could have been. Does anyone know what kind of services Interact provides? Or is it mainly counseling?

Here's the link:

http://www.interactofwake.org/

[mollymalone]

Here's the link:

http://www.interactofwake.org/Thank you!

[mollymalone]

Here's the link:

http://www.interactofwake.org/Thank you!
Edited to add: After perusing the site, it's likely her contact with the organization wasn't done on a whim. Either she knew of them or someone pointed her in their direction.

[raisincharlie]

Thank you!
Edited to add: After perusing the site, it's likely her contact with the organization wasn't done on a whim. Either she knew of them or someone pointed her in their direction.

I don't know if Nancy had contact with Interact however, the subpeona, which was issued by the Rentz's lawyer rules out IMO a simple testimony to define abuse. A subpeona suggests to me some kind of record or confirmation of contact was being pursued.

[mollymalone]

I don't know if Nancy had contact with Interact however, the subpeona, which was issued by the Rentz's lawyer rules out IMO a simple testimony to define abuse. A subpeona suggests to me some kind of record or confirmation of contact was being pursued.I agree with that. But why subpeona the children's Pediatrician as well?

[SleuthyGal]

I agree with that. But why subpeona the children's Pediatrician as well?

To get some kind of statement on if either of the kids had any kind of marks on them, or bruises that weren't properly explained or something that their pediatrician might have noticed?

[raisincharlie]

I agree with that. But why subpeona the children's Pediatrician as well?

I haven't heard who subpeona'd the pedi but it could have been either side and most likely to confirm if BC actually attended DR appointments as he claimed in his affidavit. I'm not certain but I do not believe a Dr can be compelled to break patient / Dr confidentiality. Not certain of that though.

[SleuthyGal]

Oh right! BC attending dr visits. Hadn't thought of that one.

[carolinalady]

I haven't heard who subpeona'd the pedi but it could have been either side and most likely to confirm if BC actually attended DR appointments as he claimed in his affidavit. I'm not certain but I do not believe a Dr can be compelled to break patient / Dr confidentiality. Not certain of that though.

I think it would've been for this reason, too. I wouldn't think it would break confidentiality to say that Dr. has or has not met BC.

[Tink56]

This is my first post, but I, too, have been reading for several days.

I spent a little bit of time comparing the affidavits of Nancy's friends with Brad's rebuttal. It was interesting the way in which he tried to pick them apart, but in the process I think he revealed quite a bit about his personality.

(BTW, I agree with the rest of you who see that it is apparent that BC and NC were opposites and probably were not a good match for marriage.)

I wanted to see what assertions Brad did NOT rebut. Here's my hurried list of the things he did not address:
1. The affair with Heather--he claims it was a one-time indiscretion and the only time he strayed, despite the claims of other affair. It interesting that Heather supposedly told Nancy about some of the other affairs. I wonder if NM was such a "good friend" that she told Nancy's neighbors and Nancy all about Brad.
2. The name calling--in front of the children and neighbors (He briefly addresses this when he says that, "They both said things they regretted."
3. He doesn't deny that he followed Nancy and Krista and spackled the walls after they painted.
4. Several other posters have mentioned how Brad minimizes his manipulation of the money and the amounts. He slips into his rebuttal that he changed the day he gave Nancy the money from Monday to Friday, which would have left her without funds for a number of days.

He also says that he gave Nancy 80% of the family funds remaining after he paid the re-occurring expenses. He gave Nancy $1,200/month (which is really about $280/wk considering 4.3 weeks/month). He said that he used the remaining 20% for lunch, gifts for the girls, credit card bills, etc. This is probably one of the most ludicrous assertions he makes--that's $300/month or about $70/week. Something is seriously wrong with his calculations. There is no way he could have done all he said with this amount!
5. He doesn't respond to the assertions about the recent outing with his parents.
6. Brad continues to be rather clever in his rebuttal presentation. He leads the reader to believe that he always gave Nancy the money, but the email he cites is dated April 22nd.
7. Brad doesn't deny changing the date he wanted Nancy and the girls to leave for Canada.
8. Brad doesn't deny that he told Nancy to exchange the foreign money if she needed extra cash.
9. Brad's web site obviously negates his comments about not training since June 2007. Perhaps he was prevaricating on the site???
10. Brad doesn't deny that he did not inform Nancy about canceling the credit cards and removing her from the bank account before he did it.

Regardless of the things Brad says he is now doing, and Nancy's friends agreed he had become more attentive during the last 2 months, he still exhibited a pattern of disinterest and actions motivated by anger and cruelty. It's really sad to see a marriage disintegrate to this extent.

A couple of things about which I'm curious include why Brad would borrow from his 401K to pay off the credit cards. Isn't this type of borrowing taxed at a high rate? Couldn't he have taken a second trust deed on the home?

And, can the affidavits in a Civil trial be used in a criminal trial?

If the documents can be used in a criminal trial, the information and misinformation could have a significant impact on a circumstantial evidence case.

[CyberPro]

This is my first post, but I, too, have been reading for several days.

< Delicately snipped for space>

A couple of things about which I'm curious include why Brad would borrow from his 401K to pay off the credit cards. Isn't this type of borrowing taxed at a high rate? Couldn't he have taken a second trust deed on the home?

And, can the affidavits in a Civil trial be used in a criminal trial?

If the documents can be used in a criminal trial, the information and misinformation could have a significant impact on a circumstantial evidence case.

Welcome from a fairly new member!

Excellent post and very good observations. If this is typical for you, I will be looking very forward to reading your posts!

I also wanted to comment on your mention of the borrowing against the 401k. AFIK, this is not taxed at a high rate. Some companies, like mine, allow you to take a loan against your 401K, and pay it back from payroll deductions. Financial advisors will usually advise against this, using the reasoning that you are removing the loan amount from the growth of the market during the time the loan is active, but if the market is not performing well, it might be some of the least expensive money you can obtain. Since you are paying the loan back, with interest, and most of that money goes back into your account, it is not treated as a withdrawal from a 401K, so it is not subject to normal tax rates + 10% withdrawal penalty.

CyberPro

[Tink56]

Thanks for the good reply and welcoming comments.

I had forgotten about "borrowing" from the 401K. Certainly, this year is probably a time of limited growth in most of those funds. And, they were planning to repay the loan from the sale of the house. Makes sense. Welcome from a fairly new member!

Excellent post and very good observations. If this is typical for you, I will be looking very forward to reading your posts!

I also wanted to comment on your mention of the borrowing against the 401k. AFIK, this is not taxed at a high rate. Some companies, like mine, allow you to take a loan against your 401K, and pay it back from payroll deductions. Financial advisors will usually advise against this, using the reasoning that you are removing the loan amount from the growth of the market during the time the loan is active, but if the market is not performing well, it might be some of the least expensive money you can obtain. Since you are paying the loan back, with interest, and most of that money goes back into your account, it is not treated as a withdrawal from a 401K, so it is not subject to normal tax rates + 10% withdrawal penalty.

CyberPro