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.

---

"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.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Pardon me scooter, your comments are inappropriate, at best.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
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.

---

Whatever it was, family custody issues can get pretty ugly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Pardon me scooter, your comments are inappropriate, at best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
Was she feeding the kids food that is against their religious beliefs?

---

quote:

---

Your comments are also inappropriate.

---

quote:

---

There are allegations that he withheld money. You have already decided he is guilty of withholding money. You have already picked sides.

---

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.

You were out of line and appear hostile to remind's initial post.

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
scooter, in case you forgot, this is the forum wherein we discuss issues from a PRO-FEMINIST point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
You were out of line and appear hostile to remind's initial post.

---

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.

"Why should I give her money? That bitch spends the money on herself."

quote:

---

IMO as long as the kids are being taken care of, and loved, no money should ever be withheld.

---

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]