PDA

View Full Version : Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16 #2


CW
10-19-2008, 05:26 AM
Continue posting here please.

Thread #1
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73264

boxy
10-19-2008, 08:54 PM
These appear to be the relevant statutes with regard to custody.

Criteria for custody (looks like (a)(3) was used in this case).
7B‑503. Criteria for nonsecure custody.
(a) When a request is made for nonsecure custody, the court shall first consider release of the juvenile to the juvenile's parent, relative, guardian, custodian, or other responsible adult. An order for nonsecure custody shall be made only when there is a reasonable factual basis to believe the matters alleged in the petition are true, and
(1) The juvenile has been abandoned; or
(2) The juvenile has suffered physical injury or sexual abuse; or
(3) The juvenile is exposed to a substantial risk of physical injury or sexual abuse because the parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker has created the conditions likely to cause injury or abuse or has failed to provide, or is unable to provide, adequate supervision or protection; or
(4) The juvenile is in need of medical treatment to cure, alleviate, or prevent suffering serious physical harm which may result in death, disfigurement, or substantial impairment of bodily functions, and the juvenile's parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker is unwilling or unable to provide or consent to the medical treatment; or
(5) The parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker consents to the nonsecure custody order; or
(6) The juvenile is a runaway and consents to nonsecure custody.

A juvenile alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent shall be placed in nonsecure custody only when there is a reasonable factual basis to believe that there are no other reasonable means available to protect the juvenile. In no case shall a juvenile alleged to be abused, neglected, or dependent be placed in secure custody.

Custody hearing. The burden is on the state (plaintiff in this case?) and carries the high bar of clear and convincing evidence.
7B‑506. (b) At a hearing to determine the need for continued custody, the court shall receive testimony and shall allow the guardian ad litem, or juvenile, and the juvenile's parent, guardian, custodian, or caretaker the right to introduce evidence, to be heard in the person's own behalf, and to examine witnesses. The State shall bear the burden at every stage of the proceedings to provide clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile's placement in custody is necessary. The court shall not be bound by the usual rules of evidence at such hearings.

The criteria for termination of parental rights includes murder of the other parent. This is the only criteria that appears to have been alleged in this case.
7B‑1111. Grounds for terminating parental rights.

(a) The court may terminate the parental rights upon a finding of one or more of the following:

(8) The parent has committed murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent or other child residing in the home; has aided, abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter of the child, another child of the parent, or other child residing in the home; has committed a felony assault that results in serious bodily injury to the child, another child of the parent, or other child residing in the home; or has committed murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child. The petitioner has the burden of proving any of these offenses in the termination of parental rights hearing by (i) proving the elements of the offense or (ii) offering proof that a court of competent jurisdiction has convicted the parent of the offense, whether or not the conviction was by way of a jury verdict or any kind of plea. If the parent has committed the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent of the child, the court shall consider whether the murder or voluntary manslaughter was committed in self‑defense or in the defense of others, or whether there was substantial evidence of other justification.

Best interests of the child
Consideration of the best interest of the child (the polar star) seems to be considered after adjudication finds a reason to terminate parental rights.
"After the trial court has determined grounds exist for termination of parental rights at adjudication, the court is required to issue an order of termination in the dispositional stage, unless it finds the best interests of the child would be to preserve the parent's rights."
I have not found a reference to using this as a standard before disposition.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2002/unpub/011216-1.htm

Anderson
10-19-2008, 10:16 PM
Thanks for posting this Boxy!:)

boxy
10-19-2008, 10:43 PM
This 2005 NC Supreme Court decision has the best description of the relevant laws I have come across so far. Below is a portion that describes child custody proceedings. Note that an allegation of abuse, neglect, or dependency must first be proved by clear and convincing evidence before consideration of the child's best interest in the dispositional stage.

B. ARTICLES 2 THROUGH 10_CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS

The General Assembly's explicit desire to preserve parent-child relationships and protect children explains the fluidity of child custody proceedings under Articles 2 through 10 of Subchapter I. These proceedings afford the trial court multiple opportunities to consider and reconsider whether a child is abused, neglected, or dependent, and if so, who should have custody. They also give parents time to correct the deficiencies that led to the child's removal. Essentially, there is no such thing as a “final” custody order, only the most recent one. Custody proceedings are initially a two-stage process. (See footnote 5) At the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court makes a threshold determination regarding the state's right to intervene. DSS mustprove abuse, neglect, or dependency by clear and convincing evidence, a higher evidentiary standard than that typically applied in civil actions. (See footnote 6) Id. 7B-805. If the evidence substantiates the allegations, the court enters a written order reflecting its findings and proceeds to stage two, the dispositional hearing. Id. . 7B-807. Otherwise, the court dismisses DSS's petition with prejudice and, if the child is in DSS's custody, releases him to his parent. Id.

Should a dispositional hearing be necessary, the court receives evidence and makes a discretionary decision concerning custody. (See footnote 7) N.C.G.S. 7B-901. Specifically, it enters a written order directing one of the dispositional alternatives available under N.C.G.S. 7B-903. Id. 7B-901, -903 (describing dispositional alternatives that include dismissing the case or granting custody to a parent, relative, or DSS). This decision and any subsequent custody determinations are based on the child's best interest. Price v. Howard, 346 N.C. 68, 79, 484 S.E.2d 528, 535 (1997) (“Where [a parent forfeits hisconstitutionally protected status], custody should be determined by the 'best interest of the child' test mandated by statute.”).
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/opinions/2005/417-04-1.htm

DogWood
10-20-2008, 03:08 PM
"It appears it could be some time before a ruling is made public in the custody battle over murder victim Nancy Cooper's children.

Eyewitness News has learned that some evidence brought up at last week's hearing -- evidence like video and audio recordings of Web camera calls between Brad Cooper and his children -- may still need to be copied and made available.
Even then the legal process of issuing a ruling with details both sides have hashed out could take days. That may be why the judge in the case has allowed the Cooper children to return to Canada with Nancy Cooper's identical twin sister, Krista Lister."

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6459028

SleuthyGal
10-20-2008, 04:02 PM
I bet the judge is going to go through all 7 hrs of depos, not just the 2 hrs bookmarked by the plaintiffs. Plus all those affys, the kids' webcam visits..it's a lot of material to cover and I was surprised that she thought she could make a ruling at the end of Thursday's hearing. I think it's a good sign that she's taking her time and reviewing everything. That also tells us that she sees evidence and has to weigh it, and is considering the best interests of those kids, not just the rights of the remaining parent.

Maja
10-20-2008, 08:46 PM
"It appears it could be some time before a ruling is made public in the custody battle over murder victim Nancy Cooper's children.

Eyewitness News has learned that some evidence brought up at last week's hearing -- evidence like video and audio recordings of Web camera calls between Brad Cooper and his children -- may still need to be copied and made available.
Even then the legal process of issuing a ruling with details both sides have hashed out could take days. That may be why the judge in the case has allowed the Cooper children to return to Canada with Nancy Cooper's identical twin sister, Krista Lister."

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6459028

HYPOTHETICAL: Krista & Jim keep kids in Canada despite court ruling for BC to regain custody? What happens? Or, perhaps it may take the Judge a LLLOOONNNGGGG time to make a decision...who tells her when she needs to have a decision?

garner_nc
10-20-2008, 09:24 PM
They are an extradition county so I would think Canada laws would enforce the courts ruling. I would assume Krista and Jim could be charged with kidnapping, arrested and kids returned to BC.

boxy
10-20-2008, 11:01 PM
HYPOTHETICAL: Krista & Jim keep kids in Canada despite court ruling for BC to regain custody? What happens? Or, perhaps it may take the Judge a LLLOOONNNGGGG time to make a decision...who tells her when she needs to have a decision?

I believe state law indicates the length of time between the hearing and the time the ruling must be entered. Can't remember what it is for sure but don't think it's longer than 30 days.

Maja
10-21-2008, 12:10 AM
They are an extradition county so I would think Canada laws would enforce the courts ruling. I would assume Krista and Jim could be charged with kidnapping, arrested and kids returned to BC.

Yeah, good point Garner. I was just thinking the cost of airline tickets to/from Calgary has to be crazy high when the family could have stayed with NC's friends awaiting verdict versus purchasing what may turn out to be 4/6 tickets (two of which may be one-way) from Canada to NC (North Carolina) in the event the judge rules by 21 Oct. I believe the family had insight the decision would take a LONG time, or they just decided to leave for good. Just inside thoughts...

jmflu
10-21-2008, 09:16 AM
Yeah, good point Garner. I was just thinking the cost of airline tickets to/from Calgary has to be crazy high when the family could have stayed with NC's friends awaiting verdict versus purchasing what may turn out to be 4/6 tickets (two of which may be one-way) from Canada to NC (North Carolina) in the event the judge rules by 21 Oct. I believe the family had insight the decision would take a LONG time, or they just decided to leave for good. Just inside thoughts...

Didn't someone say the judge had to decide within 30 days or something?

My thought was that Jim had to get back to work, and the kids needed to get back into their routines, and they would come back whenever they were called...

Anderson
10-21-2008, 09:22 AM
Yeah, good point Garner. I was just thinking the cost of airline tickets to/from Calgary has to be crazy high when the family could have stayed with NC's friends awaiting verdict versus purchasing what may turn out to be 4/6 tickets (two of which may be one-way) from Canada to NC (North Carolina) in the event the judge rules by 21 Oct. I believe the family had insight the decision would take a LONG time, or they just decided to leave for good. Just inside thoughts...

The children live with Krista and Jim in Eastern Canada. The Rentzes would be travelling from Edmonton. There is no reason to think that the family will not come back when the decision is made.

DogWood
10-21-2008, 12:44 PM
Momto3 linked this yesterday so I'm not so sure about the 30 day time frame.

"Sasser could rule as early as Tuesday on the matter, although there is no time frame in which she must decide."

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3777172/

jmflu
10-21-2008, 12:58 PM
Momto3 linked this yesterday so I'm not so sure about the 30 day time frame.

"Sasser could rule as early as Tuesday on the matter, although there is no time frame in which she must decide."

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3777172/

Thanks for the reminder, DW!

boxy
10-21-2008, 02:34 PM
Momto3 linked this yesterday so I'm not so sure about the 30 day time frame.

"Sasser could rule as early as Tuesday on the matter, although there is no time frame in which she must decide."

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3777172/

7B-506(d) If the court determines that the juvenile meets the criteria in G.S. 7B‑503 and should continue in custody, the court shall issue an order to that effect. The order shall be in writing with appropriate findings of fact and signed and entered within 30 days of the completion of the hearing. The findings of fact shall include the evidence relied upon in reaching the decision and purposes which continued custody is to achieve.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_7B/Article_5.html

Am I reading this wrong?

sunflowers
10-21-2008, 06:28 PM
7B-506(d) If the court determines that the juvenile meets the criteria in G.S. 7B‑503 and should continue in custody, the court shall issue an order to that effect. The order shall be in writing with appropriate findings of fact and signed and entered within 30 days of the completion of the hearing. The findings of fact shall include the evidence relied upon in reaching the decision and purposes which continued custody is to achieve.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_7B/Article_5.html

Am I reading this wrong?

That's how I read it. It seems to me that this is exceedingly complicated for how to determine what's in the best interest of the children & in keeping with the law.

It is *NOT* in the best interests of the children to move back to their father if he is going to be arrested & go through a murder trial. Regardless of his guilt, if he is arrested & goes through a trial, he won't be in a position to provide the best care for the children.

Also, it would not be in the children's best interests to live with Krista for 4 months, get settled & into a routine, then live with Brad for a certain amount of time, get settled & into a routine, and then risk the complication & almost certainty (IMHO, of course) of their father being arrested & going through an exceedingly stressful, difficult trial.

If there's a high likelihood that Brad will be arrested & if iit were possible legally, which I believe might be if Judge Sasser is privy to any confidential LE information, it would be best for the girls to stay where they are---continuing therapy, routine of preschool, dance, friends, whatever.

i don't think Brad wants them anyhow, & certainly isn't in a position to focus on their care right now---first he needs to get through this mess.

I think his lawyers want him to have custody because it'll look better & somehow might help his image as they prepare for the real possibility of Brad being arrested.

I'm also surprised that neither psychologist was asked to conduct a forensic evaluation---a lengthy & indepth eval---many psyc tests (vs just 3), interviewing family members, etc so that they could be an expert witness on the subject of whether Brad could effectively parent at this point in time.

ncsu95
10-21-2008, 06:41 PM
That's how I read it. It seems to me that this is exceedingly complicated for how to determine what's in the best interest of the children & in keeping with the law.

It is *NOT* in the best interests of the children to move back to their father if he is going to be arrested & go through a murder trial. Regardless of his guilt, if he is arrested & goes through a trial, he won't be in a position to provide the best care for the children.

Also, it would not be in the children's best interests to live with Krista for 4 months, get settled & into a routine, then live with Brad for a certain amount of time, get settled & into a routine, and then risk the complication & almost certainty (IMHO, of course) of their father being arrested & going through an exceedingly stressful, difficult trial.

If there's a high likelihood that Brad will be arrested & if iit were possible legally, which I believe might be if Judge Sasser is privy to any confidential LE information, it would be best for the girls to stay where they are---continuing therapy, routine of preschool, dance, friends, whatever.

i don't think Brad wants them anyhow, & certainly isn't in a position to focus on their care right now---first he needs to get through this mess.

I think his lawyers want him to have custody because it'll look better & somehow might help his image as they prepare for the real possibility of Brad being arrested.

I'm also surprised that neither psychologist was asked to conduct a forensic evaluation---a lengthy & indepth eval---many psyc tests (vs just 3), interviewing family members, etc so that they could be an expert witness on the subject of whether Brad could effectively parent at this point in time.

That's a pretty strong statement to make. I disagree completely though. These are his kids. I also doubt that there is a "real possibility of Brad being arrested." My guess is this crime will go unsolved.

jilly
10-21-2008, 06:50 PM
7B-506(d) If the court determines that the juvenile meets the criteria in G.S. 7B‑503 and should continue in custody, the court shall issue an order to that effect. The order shall be in writing with appropriate findings of fact and signed and entered within 30 days of the completion of the hearing. The findings of fact shall include the evidence relied upon in reaching the decision and purposes which continued custody is to achieve.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_7B/Article_5.html

Am I reading this wrong?

I don't know Boxy. Seems to me what you have linked does not relate to what's going on here. I'm wondering if this would be under some Family Law Statute.

Anderson
10-21-2008, 07:08 PM
That's a pretty strong statement to make. I disagree completely though. These are his kids. I also doubt that there is a "real possibility of Brad being arrested." My guess is this crime will go unsolved.

I believe that Sunflowers is making a reference to something very specific. At one point BC told NC to take the kids and go back to Canada. Brad then changed his mind. At that point he did not seem very interested in the kids. Check the probable cause affidavit. He may well have changed his mind now. Who knows?

There is a possibility that BC will be arrested. It is by no means definite, but there is a possiblity.

Very nice to see you posting again Sunflowers!!

tarheellvr
10-21-2008, 07:56 PM
That's a pretty strong statement to make. I disagree completely though. These are his kids. I also doubt that there is a "real possibility of Brad being arrested." My guess is this crime will go unsolved.

I think he will indeed be arrested.....as will Jason Young. People want these cases solved quickly and most of the time they don't move that fast.

Ann Miller thought she was home free, but she is finally paying for her horrendous deed. IMO BC will too along with JY.

Just the Fax
10-21-2008, 08:00 PM
It seems to me , if Judge Sasser wants to consider the possibility Brad is a killer when deciding the custody issue, the CPD and the DA should share some details of their investigation and give her a confidential indication of where their case against him stands. After all, she is a sworn Wake County district court Judge. If they feel the preponderance of the evidence points to his guilt, he should not be allowed custody of those 2 little girls.

SleuthyGal
10-21-2008, 08:02 PM
Thank you for posting those statutes, Boxy. I've got a lot to learn on this subject.

SleuthyGal
10-21-2008, 08:06 PM
It seems to me , if Judge Sasser wants to consider the possibility Brad is a killer when deciding the custody issue, the CPD and the DA should share some details of their investigation and give her a confidential indication of where their case against him stands. After all, she is a sworn Wake County district court Judge. If they feel the preponderance of the evidence points to his guilt, he should not be allowed custody of those 2 little girls.

Hey JTF! How you be?

To your knowledge, can the DA (legally) share his case info with Sasser without it happening through testimony in open court by witnesses on the stand? I was confused why Stubbs said she would 'prove' that the defendant was 'the only suspect' but then didn't call anyone to the stand who could verify that for the court. I didn't understand promising something and then not delivering on that promise. I thought for sure she would call Det. Daniels to at least verify a couple facts, but nada.... :confused: And something Mom and I batted around for awhile afterwards...if Judge Sasser is determined to not ignore the 'elephant in the room' and feels she needs to decide if BC was involved or not or might be involved, then I don't know how she would be able to do this without knowing what's in LE's hands in terms of evidence and results of testing, etc.

Just the Fax
10-21-2008, 08:10 PM
Hey JTF! How you be?

To your knowledge, can the DA (legally) share his case info with Sasser without it happening through testimony in open court by witnesses on the stand? I was confused why Stubbs said she would 'prove' that the defendant was 'the only suspect' but then didn't call anyone to the stand who could verify that for the court. I didn't understand promising something and then not delivering on that promise. I thought for sure she would call Det. Daniels to at least verify a couple facts, but nada.... :confused:


Hi SG, that was my question. I too am puzzled why the Judge can't review the CPD's evidence to help her decide if Brad Cooper likely killed his wife.:confused: I guess it is like a wrongful death suit filed before a criminal trial. It is up to the plaintiff to 'prove' their case and not up to the Judge to make an independent evaluation of the evidence.

SleuthyGal
10-21-2008, 08:14 PM
Okay thanks! You reinforced my confusion on this point :wink: Because while the plaintiff and defense attorneys have conducted depos, and put witnesses on the stand, and have highlighted inconsistencies in the version of affy's from BC and his statements, they have nothing to show regarding the criminal aspects of the case because they are not privy to that info. So there's nothing they could really show that would prove any forensic link, for example, since none of that info is released. Nor anything on those computer hard drives or any of it. Talk about cart before the horse here! I am surprised that Sasser took on this burden to try and determine involvement or not in a crime without having access to all of CPD's evidence files. Hmmmmm. A tall order, indeed.

SleuthyGal
10-21-2008, 08:19 PM
I think he will indeed be arrested.....as will Jason Young. People want these cases solved quickly and most of the time they don't move that fast.

Ann Miller thought she was home free, but she is finally paying for her horrendous deed. IMO BC will too along with JY.

I like your positive thinking tarheel! It took what, 4 years, for Ann Miller to finally get convicted? JLY is almost up to 2 years free since Michelle's murder. Patience sure is a virtue; I've got to get some. But it's important the right person be charged for a crime and that there be no 'rush to judgment.' And in the NC case it's vital that the Judge take her sweet time to make the correct decision for the Cooper kids.

Just the Fax
10-21-2008, 08:28 PM
Okay thanks! You reinforced my confusion on this point :wink: Because while the plaintiff and defense attorneys have conducted depos, and put witnesses on the stand, and have highlighted inconsistencies in the version of affy's from BC and his statements, they have nothing to show regarding the criminal aspects of the case because they are not privy to that info. So there's nothing they could really show that would prove any forensic link, for example, since none of that info is released. Nor anything on those computer hard drives or any of it. Talk about cart before the horse here! I am surprised that Sasser took on this burden to try and determine involvement or not in a crime without having access to all of CPD's evidence files. Hmmmmm. A tall order, indeed.

I have been out of the loop on this case. Was it determined why the detective filed an affidavit saying BC's statement was inconsistent with his deposition ? It seems that is inserting investigative evidence direct from CPD to the civil case

SleuthyGal
10-21-2008, 08:33 PM
I have been out of the loop on this case. Was it determined why the detective filed an affidavit saying BC's statement was inconsistent with his deposition ? It seems that is inserting investigative evidence direct from CPD to the civil case

I've read nothing that answers the question of 'why' Daniels wrote the affy; my assumption is that Stubbs requested one of him and Bazemore gave her okay, as long as the scope was limited to not compromise their investigation (and it was very limited in scope, I'd say). But, it did provide just enough corroboration on 2 points: inconsistent statements between police interview, affys and depo testimony, and that BC has not been fully cooperative with police. Note that Daniels did not say what exactly was inconsistent in BC's statements--only that there are inconsistencies.

cygnusx1
10-21-2008, 09:19 PM
I will concede that the kids are in a better place, at least until his state of limbo is resolved and most likely beyond.

I will not condone the manner in which they arrived there. Had the Rentz's not come in with guns blazing they might have avoided the media circus where their daughter's dirty laundry has been aired in public. Had they been patient and offered Brad help and support, he most likely would have taken them up on their offers to take care of the girls and we would have a lot less to talk about. It would have been much better for everyone involved. The girls would not have been ripped from their fathers arms by men with guns and the public would not have learned of the Cooper's financial woes and marital problems; at least not until the murder trial.

sunflowers
10-21-2008, 10:27 PM
I believe that Sunflowers is making a reference to something very specific. At one point BC told NC to take the kids and go back to Canada. Brad then changed his mind. At that point he did not seem very interested in the kids. Check the probable cause affidavit. He may well have changed his mind now. Who knows?

There is a possibility that BC will be arrested. It is by no means definite, but there is a possiblity.

Very nice to see you posting again Sunflowers!!

Thanks, Anderson, for welcoming me back. And thanks for clarifying my remarks with the background info. That's what I was referring to---for quite awhile (Mar-April or so), Brad planned on Nancy moving back to CA & taking the kids, and appeared---much as it seems inexplicable to us--totally fine with this decision. Even planned on paying for private school for them. Then, he changed his mind at the end of April (I believe that's the right time period) around the same time he met with his attorneys. At that point, I believe, is when he became opposed to the move, opposed to the girls going to Canada to live or visit, & took the girls' passports.

From my perspective, I believe that his attorney basically said, "Are you crazy?" to him about letting Nancy move to CA with both girls. That's an attorney job---to give legal advice that is in the best interest of the client. Letting Nancy move to CA with the girls wasn't in Brad's best interest, from an attorney or therapist's position. I'm conjecturing that his attorney highly advised against it, & recommended removing the girls' passports or having each parent have 1 passport. An attorney worth their salt would help the client understand that custody is permanent & letting them move to CA is permanent, and you want to think through this decision more clearly. The attorney is hired to represent their client, and that's what I'm envisioning happened.

That's why I said---perhaps not phrased as best I could---that I didn't think Brad cared about the girls. i think he has cared to the best of his ability, but from all of what I read early on, it appeared that he wasn't close or emotionally connected with the girls (perhaps didn't know how, perhaps lack of interest). Out of the country (France) for a few weeks, and never calling home to even just talk with the girls.

So, my point about Brad's "wanting" custody is that I believe it's attorney-driven. At this point, he may indeed want to learn how to be actively involved & emotionally connected with them.

For Judge Sasser to have originally determined that temp custody should go to the Rentz family, she had to have had some belief based on something besides hearsay that Brad might have murdered Nancy. Don't believe she could have made that judgement based on the suicide ideation or attempts, unless those were documented & not just hearsay.

I was appalled to hear how the girls were transferred from Brad to the Rentz's via police officers. Not very well thought out or executed, & horrible for the children. Extremely frightening, I'm sure.

Anderson
10-21-2008, 11:00 PM
Thanks, Anderson, for welcoming me back. And thanks for clarifying my remarks with the background info. That's what I was referring to---for quite awhile (Mar-April or so), Brad planned on Nancy moving back to CA & taking the kids, and appeared---much as it seems inexplicable to us--totally fine with this decision. Even planned on paying for private school for them. Then, he changed his mind at the end of April (I believe that's the right time period) around the same time he met with his attorneys. At that point, I believe, is when he became opposed to the move, opposed to the girls going to Canada to live or visit, & took the girls' passports.

From my perspective, I believe that his attorney basically said, "Are you crazy?" to him about letting Nancy move to CA with both girls. That's an attorney job---to give legal advice that is in the best interest of the client. Letting Nancy move to CA with the girls wasn't in Brad's best interest, from an attorney or therapist's position. I'm conjecturing that his attorney highly advised against it, & recommended removing the girls' passports or having each parent have 1 passport. An attorney worth their salt would help the client understand that custody is permanent & letting them move to CA is permanent, and you want to think through this decision more clearly. The attorney is hired to represent their client, and that's what I'm envisioning happened.

That's why I said---perhaps not phrased as best I could---that I didn't think Brad cared about the girls. i think he has cared to the best of his ability, but from all of what I read early on, it appeared that he wasn't close or emotionally connected with the girls (perhaps didn't know how, perhaps lack of interest). Out of the country (France) for a few weeks, and never calling home to even just talk with the girls.

So, my point about Brad's "wanting" custody is that I believe it's attorney-driven. At this point, he may indeed want to learn how to be actively involved & emotionally connected with them.

For Judge Sasser to have originally determined that temp custody should go to the Rentz family, she had to have had some belief based on something besides hearsay that Brad might have murdered Nancy. Don't believe she could have made that judgement based on the suicide ideation or attempts, unless those were documented & not just hearsay.

I was appalled to hear how the girls were transferred from Brad to the Rentz's via police officers. Not very well thought out or executed, & horrible for the children. Extremely frightening, I'm sure.

I agree Sunflowers. Everyone forgets about the period when BC had no time for NC or the children. All of his time was spent on the MBA, Ironman, trips to France, boat show trips, trips to the closet and so on. BC told NC to go back to Canada with the children and that was the plan. Your theory about the attorney may well be the case. Then suddenly Brad wants to slow down the separation process and he starts making lists for himself: the kids favorite food and color and a reminder to get (or check on?) life insurance on the other side of this paper. NC and HP found this list very disturbing. So do I. In KL's affidavit we learn that NC was very worried about BC's ability to take care of the children.

BTW, the 75 thousand dollar life insurance policy that BC stands to collect was a major theme in the Canadian coverage. Do we know when he bought the insurance policy? I gather that Brad hasn't collected yet, because it is not appropriate at this time (because of Nancy). Could it really be because BC is being investigated for murder? Hmmm. . . I suppose that BC hopes that this money will go towards the legal bills eventually. Later, when it is more appropriate.

cygnusx1
10-21-2008, 11:11 PM
If BC was afraid of having to pay alimony, child support, school, etc, murdering NC was a strange way of getting out of it. If he didn't want the kids, murdering her was a strange way of getting rid of them.

Skittles
10-21-2008, 11:13 PM
BTW, the 75 thousand dollar life insurance policy that BC stands to collect was a major theme in the Canadian coverage. Do we know when he bought the insurance policy? I gather that Brad hasn't collected yet, because it is not appropriate at this time (because of Nancy). Could it really be because BC is being investigated for murder? Hmmm. . . I suppose that BC hopes that this money will go towards the legal bills eventually. Later, when it is more appropriate.

Brad talks about this in his deposition. $75,000 is the default spouse insurance amount under the Cisco plan. From the way he talks about it he's had this insurance on Nancy for years. Search for "insurance" in my deposition index thread and go listen.

Anderson
10-21-2008, 11:29 PM
Brad talks about this in his deposition. $75,000 is the default spouse insurance amount under the Cisco plan. From the way he talks about it he's had this insurance on Nancy for years. Search for "insurance" in my deposition index thread and go listen.

Thanks Skittles. The list (also discussed in the deposition) that BC made suggests that life insurance was on his mind recently. I suppose that bothers me.

Anderson
10-21-2008, 11:35 PM
If BC was afraid of having to pay alimony, child support, school, etc, murdering NC was a strange way of getting out of it. If he didn't want the kids, murdering her was a strange way of getting rid of them.

I agree. Murder is never a completely rational thing, though. Of course I understand that he MAY not be responsible for the murder. And, of course I would only want to see Brad charged if there is evidence that demonstrates that he did this.

ncsu95
10-22-2008, 01:01 AM
I agree Sunflowers. Everyone forgets about the period when BC had no time for NC or the children. All of his time was spent on the MBA, Ironman, trips to France, boat show trips, trips to the closet and so on. BC told NC to go back to Canada with the children and that was the plan. Your theory about the attorney may well be the case. Then suddenly Brad wants to slow down the separation process and he starts making lists for himself: the kids favorite food and color and a reminder to get (or check on?) life insurance on the other side of this paper. NC and HP found this list very disturbing. So do I. In KL's affidavit we learn that NC was very worried about BC's ability to take care of the children.

BTW, the 75 thousand dollar life insurance policy that BC stands to collect was a major theme in the Canadian coverage. Do we know when he bought the insurance policy? I gather that Brad hasn't collected yet, because it is not appropriate at this time (because of Nancy). Could it really be because BC is being investigated for murder? Hmmm. . . I suppose that BC hopes that this money will go towards the legal bills eventually. Later, when it is more appropriate.

It was offered through his benefits with Cisco. Pretty standard. My company allows me to have a $100k on my wife. In general, with a stay at home mom situation, the earner should have about 10x their salary in life insurance and 300-400k on the stay at home mom. This will allow them to maintain the current lifestyle of the kids (school or nanny, or whatever). He was actually under-insured for her.

water_dancing
10-22-2008, 04:50 AM
Thanks Skittles. The list (also discussed in the deposition) that BC made suggests that life insurance was on his mind recently. I suppose that bothers me.

When I look at this, I would be interested in knowing the context of it. It is possible that BC was referring to needing to check HIS life insurance when he put it on that list-they were deep in debt, they had 2 young kids, and BC was the only one working. Is it possible that BC attended a seminar at work where life insurance was discussed? Did he speak to a financial planner about their debt and life insurance was something that person asked about? It is also possible when he spoke to the divorce lawyer it was suggested having HIS life insurance at a certain level would look better in a custody situation.

I think there could be several plausible explanations for checking on life insurance. An HR person at Cisco may have more information about what he was check and if he made any attempts to increase coverage.

momto3kids
10-22-2008, 08:46 AM
It was offered through his benefits with Cisco. Pretty standard. My company allows me to have a $100k on my wife. In general, with a stay at home mom situation, the earner should have about 10x their salary in life insurance and 300-400k on the stay at home mom. This will allow them to maintain the current lifestyle of the kids (school or nanny, or whatever). He was actually under-insured for her.
Are you saying your company offers 10X or a company should offer this? My husbands company has unbelievable benefits and his only offers 4x. I just have never heard of 10x.

ncsu95
10-22-2008, 09:07 AM
Are you saying your company offers 10X or a company should offer this? My husbands company has unbelievable benefits and his only offers 4x. I just have never heard of 10x.

No, my company offers 5x. I'm saying the proper level of life insurance a person needs is 10x there salary (based on Dave Ramsey guidelines).

Skittles
10-22-2008, 11:50 AM
When I look at this, I would be interested in knowing the context of it. It is possible that BC was referring to needing to check HIS life insurance when he put it on that list-they were deep in debt, they had 2 young kids, and BC was the only one working. Is it possible that BC attended a seminar at work where life insurance was discussed? Did he speak to a financial planner about their debt and life insurance was something that person asked about? It is also possible when he spoke to the divorce lawyer it was suggested having HIS life insurance at a certain level would look better in a custody situation.

I think there could be several plausible explanations for checking on life insurance. An HR person at Cisco may have more information about what he was check and if he made any attempts to increase coverage.

Yes. Also his lawyer would need information on his life insurance (amounts and beneficiaries) for estate planning if he were doing his will. One other reason to have life insurance on the list is if he needed to change the beneficiaries, e.g. if one of them died.

shack
10-22-2008, 11:54 AM
Yes. Also his lawyer would need information on his life insurance (amounts and beneficiaries) for estate planning if he were doing his will. One other reason to have life insurance on the list is if he needed to change the beneficiaries, e.g. if one of them died.

Or if they divorced.

Skittles
10-22-2008, 12:39 PM
Or if they divorced.

Right, the post I quoted mentioned the divorce attorney, so I didn't put it in my list.

No matter what, Brad and Nancy needed to do something with the beneficiaries. As it stood Nancy was primary beneficiary on Brad's insurance and Bella was second. They really needed to set up a trust or something that took both girls into account in case both parents died.

Topsail Girl
10-22-2008, 01:50 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3792769/


Judge grants temporary custody to Nancy Cooper's family

DogWood
10-22-2008, 01:51 PM
A Wake County judge has given temporary custody of two girls to the family of their murdered mother, according to the family's lawyer.

"We are grateful that their mother's family will retain temporary custody of Bella and Katie," said attorney Alice Stubbs in an email. "But we cannot release any details until a written order is entered."

http://wake.mync.com/site/Wake/news/story/11632/custody-given-to-nancy-coopers-family/

Topsail Girl
10-22-2008, 01:54 PM
Dogwood and all - Chris at NBC17 started a thread for this topic. Just an FYI

tarheellvr
10-22-2008, 03:08 PM
Thank you Judge Sasser!!!

Nancy's girls can remain in Canada where they belong!