Custody Hearing - Scheduled for 10/16

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SleuthyGal

SleuthyGal

Former Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1
Since Chico has requested individual threads for topics at least twice today... no time like the present to follow her instructions.

It would be nice to discuss the issues affecting tomorrow's scheduled custody hearing, which should be a biggie, unless all parties meet privately and hash out another temporary arrangement like they did on July 25th.

What do you think are the odds that tomorrow will be a private arrangement between the parties and will not involve the judge?
 
I just wrote this for the general thread and it was closed as I tried to submit:

Wow. Pretty significant development today! I have read through most of the posts, but not all. I suspect that this was probably covered. I see that many posters have suggested that this may be a case of mistaken identity. That is possible. I remember learning about witness accounts not being very reliable. Perhaps LE has already discounted this witness account, but perhaps it is still part of their investigation. IDK.

As you know, I don't know much about these things, but it seems to me that this woman's sighting was recorded by LE. It also seems to me that this information would be part of their investigation, so in a way it is not surprising that there is a witness(seemingly unconfirmed) that we don't know about. LE is not sharing information related to their investigation.

There may be other witnesses that have possibly passed on information to LE. I would imagine that is the case. Who knows what we will learn? Some witness accounts will be credible and some of them will not.

THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES ARE NOT REAL AND DO NOT EXIST TO MY KNOWLEDGE: It is possible that there were witnesses that saw BC driving down the road just after 4 am, NC being dragged into bushes at aroung 8am, BC taking something out of his trunk and then being spotted and driving off at about 5:30 am, NC having breakfast with a friend at JJive at around 9am, BC getting his car washed at around 1pm, NC coming home after the BBQ at around 3am, BC buying more tide at 1:30pm . . . . . You get the idea.

The point is that we really don't know what information is going to come out. Will we ever know all of the details of the investigation? I gather from RC's comment that there will be a detective witness tomorrow. Who knows what will come out there? I suspect that it will be very interesting.
 
SleuthyGal said:
Since Chico has requested individual threads for topics at least twice today... no time like the present to follow her instructions.

It would be nice to discuss the issues affecting tomorrow's scheduled custody hearing, which should be a biggie, unless all parties meet privately and hash out another temporary arrangement like they did on July 25th.

What do you think are the odds that tomorrow will be a private arrangement between the parties and will not involve the judge?
Click to expand...

I was thinking before this list affidavit that the Judge would probably extend the temporary custody. She did indicate today that the decision is still for temporary custody. My opinion is still that he deserves to have the kids with him until such time as he is charged with her murder. I'm interested to see what the judge has to say about the latest affidavit. It definitely adds doubt to the whole thing.
 
Anderson said:
I just wrote this for the general thread and it was closed as I tried to submit:

Wow. Pretty significant development today! I have read through most of the posts, but not all. I suspect that this was probably covered. I see that many posters have suggested that this may be a case of mistaken identity. That is possible. I remember learning about witness accounts not being very reliable. Perhaps LE has already discounted this witness account, but perhaps it is still part of their investigation. IDK.

As you know, I don't know much about these things, but it seems to me that this woman's sighting was recorded by LE. It also seems to me that this information would be part of their investigation, so in a way it is not surprising that there is a witness(seemingly unconfirmed) that we don't know about. LE is not sharing information related to their investigation.

There may be other witnesses that have possibly passed on information to LE. I would imagine that is the case. Who knows what we will learn? Some witness accounts will be credible and some of them will not.

THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES ARE NOT REAL AND DO NOT EXIST TO MY KNOWLEDGE: It is possible that there were witnesses that saw BC driving down the road just after 4 am, NC being dragged into bushes at aroung 8am, BC taking something out of his trunk and then being spotted and driving off at about 5:30 am, NC having breakfast with a friend at JJive at around 9am, BC getting his car washed at around 1pm, NC coming home after the BBQ at around 3am, BC buying more tide at 1:30pm . . . . . You get the idea.

The point is that we really don't know what information is going to come out. Will we ever know all of the details of the investigation? I gather from RC's comment that there will be a detective witness tomorrow. Who knows what will come out there? I suspect that it will be very interesting.
Click to expand...

Great post. Bottom line... there remains a ton more that we don't know, that what we do... despite all the custody-hearing driven information out there.
 
Does anyone know what time they go to court?
 
With the potential of Detective Daniels taking the stand and Brad himself being required to take the stand - I believe there will be a continuance of the Rentz's maintaining custody and this will be once again decided between the parties and out of the judge's oversight.

K & B and Sandlin/Davidian were given the perfect save face out today when the judge did indeed quash the subpeona's for the investigation records.
 
I'm betting they will likely settle on a new/extended temp custody arrangement like they did on July 25th.
 
SleuthyGal said:
Since Chico has requested individual threads for topics at least twice today... no time like the present to follow her instructions.

It would be nice to discuss the issues affecting tomorrow's scheduled custody hearing, which should be a biggie, unless all parties meet privately and hash out another temporary arrangement like they did on July 25th.

What do you think are the odds that tomorrow will be a private arrangement between the parties and will not involve the judge?
Click to expand...

That's a good question....I would imagine with todays witness both sides strategizing as hard as they can.
 
raisincharlie said:
With the potential of Detective Daniels taking the stand and Brad himself being required to take the stand - I believe there will be a continuance of the Rentz's maintaining custody and this will be once again decided between the parties and out of the judge's oversight.

K & B and Sandlin/Davidian were given the perfect save face out today when the judge did indeed quash the subpeona's for the investigation records.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that. Yes, the perfect save face out. It will be very interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
 
Question: Is tomorrows' hearing (in theory) intended to determine permanent custody?
I thought 'yes'. I thought that the August hearing was going to do that, but the parties themselves met (outside of court), and decided a temporary arrangement.

Certainly tomorrow, the parties may themselves meet (outside of court), and renew the temporary arrangement. If they don't though, could the judge herself just renew the temporary one (that the parties opted for earlier), without giving a reason? Wouldn't she need some basis for it (if she were ordering it over objection of one party or the other)?

Seems like today, she was quoted as saying the hearing tomorrow was to decide temporary custody. If true, I guess I missed when it became a hearing to decide temporary custody vs permanent. If it's only to decide temporary custody... when is the hearing to decide permanent custody?

Let's say BC wants the kids returned, but the judge says "wait another 3 months"... wouldn't she need to give a basis? The obvious basis would be "so we can see if you are arrested by then" of course. However, surely there's some reasonable limit to how long a custody judge could keep a non-named suspect or non-named POI in a 'holding-pattern' when it comes to his children.

All this is with the assumption that the parties don't agree out of court. If they don't, then what reasons might the judge offer to renew the temporary arrangement, and for how long. [ Why not make it 5 years... just to give LE plenty of time? ]
 
jumpstreet said:
Question: Is tomorrows' hearing (in theory) intended to determine permanent custody?
I thought 'yes'. I thought that the August hearing was going to do that, but the parties themselves met (outside of court), and decided a temporary arrangement.

Certainly tomorrow, the parties may themselves meet (outside of court), and renew the temporary arrangement. If they don't though, could the judge herself just renew the temporary one (that the parties opted for earlier), without giving a reason? Wouldn't she need some basis for it (if she were ordering it over objection of one party or the other)?

Let's say BC wants the kids returned, but the judge says "wait another 3 months"... wouldn't she need to give a basis? The obvious basis would be "so we can see if you are arrested by then" of course. However, surely there's some reasonable limit to how long a custody judge could keep a non-named suspect or non-named POI in a 'holding-pattern' when it comes to his children.

All this is with the assumption that the parties don't agree out of court. If they don't, then what reasons might the judge offer to renew the temporary arrangement, and for how long. [ Why not make it 5 years... just to give LE plenty of time? ]
Click to expand...


I don't recall if it was already said or not, but I wonder if the judge will base any of her decision on the psych evaluation that he had...if it is even complete, IIRC, it was not final last week during the depositions?
 
SleuthyGal said:
tomorrow is for determination of temporary custody.
Click to expand...

What does that mean exactly? (Sorry (and thankfully I guess) - don't fully understand how custody battles work).

Under what circumstances are 'temporary custody' typically awarded?
Why wouldn't tomorrow's hearing be to decide permanent custody?
Does that mean that even after tomorrow, there will need to be another hearing to decide permanent custody?
 
SleuthyGal said:
tomorrow is for determination of temporary custody.
Click to expand...

I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room. IF BC isn't guilty
it doesn't seem like the justice system is serving him very well.
If you google Judge Deborah Sasser it looks like she's been wrong before.
 
Bob&Bob said:
I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room. IF BC isn't guilty
it doesn't seem like the justice system is serving him very well.
If you google Judge Deborah Sasser it looks like she's been wrong before.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that's a dangerous road to go down. No one is perfect, even judges. All we can speak to is their integrity.
 
jmflu said:
Gosh, that's a dangerous road to go down. No one is perfect, even judges. All we can speak to is their integrity.
Click to expand...

So if someone isn't a person of interest, hasn't been charged, what's the basis for a Judge for the child custody case to looking at the elephant in the room?
I don't think that the elephant is something she is
supposed to be concerned with.
 
Bob&Bob said:
I just don't understand how the custody judge is going to be
deciding about the elephant in the room
Click to expand...

Agreed. If the parties don't decide themselves to settle it out of court (probably the judge is hoping desperately for that this evening!), then it will be very interesting to see how the elephant is handled.
 
Bob&Bob said:
So if someone isn't a person of interest, hasn't been charged, what's the basis for a Judge for the child custody case to looking at the elephant in the room?
I don't think that the elephant is something she is
supposed to be concerned with.
Click to expand...


I can't claim to know the law here. It just seems that if she weren't allowed to be doing what she is doing, someone would have prevented her from doing it.

Do we really expect a judge to determine custody for these children without considering WHY she has to determine it in the first place??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 201 more.
Total: 3,846 (members: 202, guests: 3,644)

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
3,644
Total visitors
3,846
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,821
Messages
17,959,611
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top