Discussion in 'Nancy Cooper' started by CW, Oct 19, 2008.
Continue posting here please.
These appear to be the relevant statutes with regard to custody.
Criteria for custody (looks like (a)(3) was used in this case).
Custody hearing. The burden is on the state (plaintiff in this case?) and carries the high bar of clear and convincing evidence.
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.
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.
Thanks for posting this Boxy!
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.
"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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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."
Thanks for the reminder, DW!
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.
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.
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 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.
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!!
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.
Separate names with a comma.