Custody

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SleuthyGal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
piedmontmom said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
fran said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jaydee0158 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SleuthyGal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
mollymalone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Did anyone notice that the date for reviewing the latest custody order is October 13?.....Brad and Nancy's wedding anniversary.
 
raisincharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...
It appears that it could have been. Does anyone know what kind of services Interact provides? Or is it mainly counseling?
 
mollymalone said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
raisincharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. But why subpeona the children's Pediatrician as well?
 
mollymalone said:
I agree with that. But why subpeona the children's Pediatrician as well?
Click to expand...

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?
 
mollymalone said:
I agree with that. But why subpeona the children's Pediatrician as well?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Oh right! BC attending dr visits. Hadn't thought of that one.
 
raisincharlie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 81 more.
Total: 4,267 (members: 82, guests: 4,185)

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
4,185
Total visitors
4,267
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,547
Messages
17,970,805
Members
228,806
Latest member
Linnymac68$
Back
Top