Murdered woman's family gets custody of children
Fri, 2008-07-18 06:19
#1
remind
Murdered woman's family gets custody of children
Fri, 2008-07-18 06:19
#2
remind
quote:
A North Carolina court has granted the Edmonton-based parents and twin sister of Nancy Cooper temporary custody of the slain woman's two children.Cooper, 34, who was born and raised in Edmonton, was reported missing by a friend last Saturday. Her body was found Monday night near her home in Cary, N.C.
...In the petition, the family alleges Brad Cooper had been having an affair and had been yelling at his wife and belittling her in front of the children in the months leading up to her disappearance.
They also allege he withheld money from Nancy, a stay-at-home mother with no other source of income, forcing her to borrow money from her family to buy groceries for the children.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/07/17/edm-custody-cooper.html]"Considering the special facts of this case, particularly that defendant has a history of emotional instability and the intense scrutiny currently faced by the defendant as a result of the ongoing criminal investigation of Nancy Cooper's murder, there is a substantial risk of bodily injury to the children while in defendant's custody and that the children may be abducted or removed from the State of North Carolina by defendant for the purpose of evading the jurisdiction of North Carolina courts," the judge said in his written ruling.[/url]
The comments at the CBC website and at Edmonton CTV were very split on whether the parents should've have gotten custody, or whether the children should've remained in their father care. In fact, one person suggested the father was well within his rights to withhold money from her, as we do not know why he was and he could've had good reason.
WTF? IMV, there is NO reason to withhold money for buying food, or in fact for any reason, she was a stay at home mom.
And hell yes, her parents and sister should have custody. Moreover, hey must have provided proof to the courts that they had been sending their daughter money for food.
Moreover, why did HE not advise the police she was missing? Why did a friend have to report it?
Fri, 2008-07-18 06:30
#3
You go remind! Maybe they'll send Nancy Grace after the guy so she can do a number on him like she did on Melinda Duckett.
[img]http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/news/060925/nancy_grace.jpg[/img]
![http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/news/060925/nancy_grace.jpg[/img]](http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/news/060925/nancy_grace.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!
Fri, 2008-07-18 06:43
#4
remind
Pardon me scooter, your comments are inappropriate, at best.
Fri, 2008-07-18 07:29
#5
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Pardon me scooter, your comments are inappropriate, at best.[/b]
Agreed.
What, if any, politics or larger issues are connected with this case? Is a criminal investigation of the husband taking place?
Fri, 2008-07-18 08:12
#6
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]WTF? IMV, there is NO reason to withhold money for buying food, or in fact for any reason, she was a stay at home mom.[/b]
Was she feeding the kids food that is against their religious beliefs?
Whatever it was, family custody issues can get pretty ugly.
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Pardon me scooter, your comments are inappropriate, at best.[/b]
Fair comment. Your comments are also inappropriate. There are allegations that he withheld money. You have already decided he is guilty of withholding money. You have already picked sides.
Fri, 2008-07-18 09:07
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
[b]Was she feeding the kids food that is against their religious beliefs?[/b]
If she was, then it would apparently be against [b]HIS[/b] religious beliefs. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
[b]Your comments are also inappropriate.[/b]
No, in fact they were not, if that is what her family are stating, and proving to the courts satisfaction at this time, I would believe them in a second, over any of his protestations, otherwise.
quote:
[b] There are allegations that he withheld money. You have already decided he is guilty of withholding money. You have already picked sides.[/b]
As I stated above, there must have been compelling evidence that was the case, amongst other factors, or the NC courts would not have ruled the way they did.
And as for your accusations that I have already picked sides, I would say if that is the case, then by the same standards you use, you apparently have too. Only you have less to base yours on than I do.
Fri, 2008-07-18 10:01
#8
scooter, in case you forgot, this is the forum wherein we discuss issues from a PRO-FEMINIST point of view.
You were out of line and appear hostile to remind's initial post.
Perhaps you need to stay out of this discussion.
Fri, 2008-07-18 11:42
#9
remind
[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2008-07-18 11:45
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]scooter, in case you forgot, this is the forum wherein we discuss issues from a PRO-FEMINIST point of view.[/b]
[sounds of head being smacked] I did forget.
Fri, 2008-07-18 11:52
#11
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]You were out of line and appear hostile to remind's initial post. [/b]
Yes, I concur with you Stargazer, it was hostile, but I am very glad that he went on to further illuminate deeply held sexist, if not misogynist, beliefs. This type of thinking needs to be exposed and addressed.
That anyone could believe that a person has a right to withhold food money, as the sole family money earner, because the other person in the relationship does not agree, or chooses not to comply, with the sole money earners religious eating habits is mind boggling.
It indicates absolutely no belief in equality rights, freedom of conscience and action, and a streak of inhumaneness. Say nothing of thinking it is okay to exploit a woman for her labour, child birth and rearing, without even giving food in return.
Fri, 2008-07-18 12:17
#12
Unfortunately I've heard of things like this happening all too often. Common things I hear when father's withhold money from the woman are like this:
"Why should I give her money? That bitch spends the money on herself."
These same fathers proclaim to be good fathers. IMO as long as the kids are being taken care of, and loved, no money should ever be withheld.
Fri, 2008-07-18 12:43
#13
remind
Yes, I have heard that all too often too. But believing food money for the family should be withheld is beyond belief.
And this fellow, from the Op, seemed singularily focused upon himself. He has a website all about himself, and his ironman training and competition, no wife or family included. Plus, he even went on a trip to Europe last year without the family, with another group of people, and not for the purposes of work and he had pictures of them on his website, though.
Fri, 2008-07-18 12:44
#14
quote:
IMO as long as the kids are being taken care of, and loved, no money should ever be withheld.
Agreed. Even when they aren't, the money shouldn't be withheld. It's not for non-custodial parents to arbitrate child welfare (esp. in a self-interested mode).
Unfortunately, this type of behaviour is enabled by the law in the name of so-called "fathers' rights" aka "joint parental authority", and it's about to get much worse. Both the Cons and the Grits are poised to reform divorce legisation in a way that would take acknowledgment of custody - who does the work - out of the law altogether.
[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Fri, 2008-07-18 12:48
#15
Martin, that's disturbing. Do you have any idea what or when they are changing the laws? Will money be the deciding factor? If so, expect many poor women to lose their kids.
Fri, 2008-07-18 13:04
#16
Many will lose their kids, and many more will find themselves in a state of virtual serfdom with their ex calling the shots as he wishes...
Divorce legislation has been up for review for some time - with very scary proposals put on the book by a joint committe report entitled [url=http://www.owjn.org/issues/custody/reflect.htm]"For the Sake of the Children"[/url] in 1998 - but Liberal governments fell before amendment proposals (taking custody out of the law) could come to a vote.
Check out the Ontario Women's Justice Network's 2004 assessment of the situation: [url=http://www.owjn.org/custody/july04.htm]Custody and Access: Changes Threaten Women and Children[/url], a piece written at a time when we still had a Liberal government. (Conservative Party positions on this issue are worse.)
Another good reason to dissuade people from ever voting Harper.