Peter Bradrick files for Divorce

[nokidsmom]

 

19 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

This really is a mess of a situation and should be cautionary tale #1 for the SAHD movement.

She was the paragon of SAHD hood, never mind no real education/work/life experience, being allowed to be her own person, she was under her Daddy and her life was dictated by him.

She made the so-called perfect marriage, never mind that her welfare took a back seat to her husband's manly adventures and child bearing / rearing.

And now she's in this situation.  She's really been screwed over.  I hate to see someone's entire life be a cautionary tale but maybe it might just wake up some young woman somewhere (and maybe her parents too) about the SAHD-hood pitfalls because Kelly has fallen into just about all of them.

[gustava]

16 minutes ago, ophelia said:

No, of course no names of victims!! I think this is something we all agree on. But without naming them it would be like

Asshole A // 8 victims // sentenced to 5 years // rape, incest

Asshole B // 3 victims // sentenced to 3 years // whatsoever

and that has something very cold IMHO.

Josh Duggar/possibly 5 victims/served 6 months in Jesus jail.  Never went to court.

[Bethella]

1 hour ago, Lurky said:

I genuinely think we should have a pinned list for Fundy scandals, next to Arrows for the Quiver and Unmarried Fundies.  Can we compile one and start it up, or would that be too much?

I can add it to the lists I maintain. But I probably won't even mention victims, just the crimes convicted/accused of and people can google if they want to know more.

[Lurky]

Oh, of course not mentioning the victims, @Bethella, @ophelia, @JermajestyDuggar - I was thinking

Name, short details, punishment if any, link to info

@Bethella I'd love it if you could add it to the list - I don't know many, though.  I guess we need an old-time-FJ type to remind us - @Palimpsest, do you know of Fundy abuse scandals?

[Destiny]

I genuinely think we should have a pinned list for Fundy scandals, next to Arrows for the Quiver and Unmarried Fundies.  Can we compile one and start it up, or would that be too much?

Put it together and pm me the link and I'll pin it.

[Palimpsest]

44 minutes ago, Lurky said:

Oh, of course not mentioning the victims, @Bethella, @ophelia, @JermajestyDuggar - I was thinking

Name, short details, punishment if any, link to info

@Bethella I'd love it if you could add it to the list - I don't know many, though.  I guess we need an old-time-FJ type to remind us - @Palimpsest, do you know of Fundy abuse scandals?

On one level - too many.  On another level - only a few of them.  The tip of the iceberg.  I tend to take a scattershot approach and only follow a few areas or families on FJ.  I think many of us "specialize" because we don't have time to keep up with everyone.  For example I never followed the S'Mortons until the Alan Smith case.  

ETA, I saw that another thread had already been started.  Taking the rest there.

[JermajestyDuggar]

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

On one level - too many.  On another level - only a few of them.  The tip of the iceberg.  I tend to take a scattershot approach and only follow a few areas or families on FJ.  I think many of us "specialize" because we don't have time to keep up with everyone.  For example I never followed the S'Mortons until the Alan Smith case.  

ETA, I saw that another thread had already been started.  Taking the rest there.

It's definitely the tip of the iceberg. That's why these scandals are so scary. Because for every one that comes out, ten are kept secret. I'm just pulling those numbers off the top of my head, but we know statistically that most rapes and sexual assaults go unreported. So the number I gave isn't all that crazy.

[Black Aliss]

20 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

Oh, SURELY no other woman's father fell in love with him and arranged for them to get together! 

SURELY no other woman found him sessy---a father of six with no education and only real estate commissions to live on?! Naaah.  Couldn't be. 

Could it? 

I hope we find out!

Right, like you never took one look at those ears and thought what great handholds they'd make.

ETA: I'll show myself to the prayer closet now.

[iEscaped]

I'm a longtime lurker, but have a few pieces of info I figured I should share.  FYI, by means of an introduction, I was in a family that was somewhat close to the inner-circle of VF, the Botkins, NCIF, etc. Been to DWP's and the Botkin's house, knew most of the connect families, etc. 

• Nathaniel Darnell is not an attorney, although he tries to make it appear that way. He got his J.D. from an online university which has a 3% pass rate for the bar, and shockingly, he never passed the bar! :'D  And knowing Nathaniel, I have no doubt he already has his eye on Kelly. But I can guarantee she would rather be single the rest of her life than be married to a twit like Darnell.
• I pulled the divorce filing from the court records, and it definitely looks like Bradrick! did something that hasn't been uncovered publicly yet. He agreed to give Kelly full custody of the kids with supervised visitation once every other month, and Skype calls every other week. Definitely not something you would agree to if Kelly didn't have something on Pete.  
• Also found this little gem:
  "Visits with children will under no circumstance include any significant other/girlfriend/boyfriend joining Peter."

Divorce documents:

https://dropfile.to/PSNtUtK
https://dropfile.to/zNB9vqE
https://dropfile.to/CuCgSgJ
https://dropfile.to/BR6fcyR

[ViolaSebastian]

I laughed at the fact that the e-mail he listed was John@BibleDirectionForLife. I'm a bad person. 

Phew, $1,250 to Kelly for spousal support and $1,353 for the kids. 

Kelly is also the sole decision-maker regarding the children. Old Peter must have really screwed the pooch...

[DomWackTroll]

5 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I laughed at the fact that the e-mail he listed was John@BibleDirectionForLife. 

You beat me to it, VS! I thought, "Or... maybe not." 

I'm astounded that he can only speak to the kids once every two weeks! My goodness, what has he been up to? 

And I don't know whether "significant other/girlfriend/boyfriend" is just standard legalese or if it's a dainty morsel that we should be taking note of. 

[Georgiana]

Supervised visitation?  That's a big deal.  Supervised visitation is generally only awarded when one party did something really bad.  Something that makes the court question whether the kids are safe with this person. 

To give a perspective, my aunt got TEMPORARY supervision imposed because she mixed pills with alcohol while the kids were with her. 

Its more of a headache for everyone (Kelly included) for the visits to be supervised.  Judges are loath to sign off on it unless it's really necessary.  It rarely happens unless NEEDED. 

The bottom line: there is a compelling argument that Peter cannot be safely left alone with children, even or especially not his own. 

[Cleopatra7]

23 minutes ago, ViolaSebastian said:

I laughed at the fact that the e-mail he listed was John@BibleDirectionForLife. I'm a bad person. 

Phew, $1,250 to Kelly for spousal support and $1,353 for the kids. 

Kelly is also the sole decision-maker regarding the children. Old Peter must have really screwed the pooch...

The terms of visitation are so punitive that it really makes you wonder went down. Obviously, the divorce must have been more than just two strangers marrying each other and growing apart. Given all the fundie scandals that have happened over the past year, each more lurid than the last, what could have possibly gone down in Casa Bradrick that would result in this kind of agreement?

[DomWackTroll]

You know, I'm thinking that perhaps I was wrong when I said that Kelly's locked-down Facebook page will tell us nothing. A few days ago, she posted a new profile photo of her and Geneva and it was "Loved" by Susan Bradrick and Stephen Bradrick and "Liked" by Andy and Emily Bradrick. 

That's telling us something. 

[Tangy Bee]

1 hour ago, iEscaped said:

I'm a longtime lurker, but have a few pieces of info I figured I should share.  FYI, by means of an introduction, I was in a family that was somewhat close to the inner-circle of VF, the Botkins, NCIF, etc. Been to DWP's and the Botkin's house, knew most of the connect families, etc. 

• Nathaniel Darnell is not an attorney, although he tries to make it appear that way. He got his J.D. from an online university which has a 3% pass rate for the bar, and shockingly, he never passed the bar! :'D  And knowing Nathaniel, I have no doubt he already has his eye on Kelly. But I can guarantee she would rather be single the rest of her life than be married to a twit like Darnell.
• I pulled the divorce filing from the court records, and it definitely looks like Bradrick! did something that hasn't been uncovered publicly yet. He agreed to give Kelly full custody of the kids with supervised visitation once every other month, and Skype calls every other week. Definitely not something you would agree to if Kelly didn't have something on Pete.  
• Also found this little gem:
  "Visits with children will under no circumstance include any significant other/girlfriend/boyfriend joining Peter."

Divorce documents:

https://dropfile.to/PSNtUtK
https://dropfile.to/zNB9vqE
https://dropfile.to/CuCgSgJ
https://dropfile.to/BR6fcyR

You Rock!!

[ChunkyBarbie]

1 hour ago, Georgiana said:

Supervised visitation?  That's a big deal.  Supervised visitation is generally only awarded when one party did something really bad.  Something that makes the court question whether the kids are safe with this person. 

To give a perspective, my aunt got TEMPORARY supervision imposed because she mixed pills with alcohol while the kids were with her. 

Its more of a headache for everyone (Kelly included) for the visits to be supervised.  Judges are loath to sign off on it unless it's really necessary.  It rarely happens unless NEEDED. 

The bottom line: there is a compelling argument that Peter cannot be safely left alone with children, even or especially not his own. 

Agreed. My cousin's ex was abusive to her and did drugs, yet because he never did it around the kids, she wasn't able to get supervised visitation. Children need fathers, even ones who are shitty husbands and losers, according to the judge. 

Peter, Peter, Peter. I'm giving you the stink eye. 

[DomWackTroll]

Am I the only one whose imagination is running wild? I ask because this is what the inside of my brain looks like right now: 

 

[ChunkyBarbie]

3 minutes ago, DomWackTroll said:

Am I the only one whose imagination is running wild? I ask because this is what the inside of my brain looks like right now: 

 

I actually saw someone start to have a temper tantrum in LV once years ago. Security was on him in seconds. It was amazing, he must have been showing signs and was being watched. It was Secret Service fast.  

[VVV]

3 hours ago, iEscaped said:

I'm a longtime lurker, but have a few pieces of info I figured I should share.  FYI, by means of an introduction, I was in a family that was somewhat close to the inner-circle of VF, the Botkins, NCIF, etc. Been to DWP's and the Botkin's house, knew most of the connect families, etc. 

• Nathaniel Darnell is not an attorney, although he tries to make it appear that way. He got his J.D. from an online university which has a 3% pass rate for the bar, and shockingly, he never passed the bar! :'D  And knowing Nathaniel, I have no doubt he already has his eye on Kelly. But I can guarantee she would rather be single the rest of her life than be married to a twit like Darnell.
• I pulled the divorce filing from the court records, and it definitely looks like Bradrick! did something that hasn't been uncovered publicly yet. He agreed to give Kelly full custody of the kids with supervised visitation once every other month, and Skype calls every other week. Definitely not something you would agree to if Kelly didn't have something on Pete.  
• Also found this little gem:
  "Visits with children will under no circumstance include any significant other/girlfriend/boyfriend joining Peter."

Divorce documents:

https://dropfile.to/PSNtUtK
https://dropfile.to/zNB9vqE
https://dropfile.to/CuCgSgJ
https://dropfile.to/BR6fcyR

I nominate this for best first post ever.

[Marian the Librarian]

iEscaped, whoever you are, welcome to FJ. 

[ladyamylynn]

 

Quote

"Visits with children will under no circumstance include any significant other/girlfriend/boyfriend joining Peter."

 

 

[WonderingInWA]

I can't read the documents posted and refuse to download them due to potential viruses.  Can someone copy and paste here so there is no need to download?

[Fundiewonder]

If Peter's agreed to these terms, and if his family is still supporting Kelly, then he screwed up badly. It's not just the stress associated with having 6 kids under 10 and probably a limited income.

As a parent, I can't imagine any circumstances that would induce me to agree to let my young children move across the country and only see them for a few days every other month. He's either agreeing because he knows he wouldn't win more by going to court, or he's checked out of the family and doesn't want the responsibility.

He's probably going to have to live with his parents to pay that alimony and child support. Gonna be difficult to bring the significant other/boyfriend/girlfriend to Chez Bradrick. And I wish I knew if that phrase is standard legalese!

If he's been a good dad, I feel sorry for the kids. No matter what we think of him, they'll miss him. If he hasn't been a good dad, and his treatment of them is a reason for the supervised visitation, then he's just a horrible person.

I notice manchild Tsantles is one of the supervisors for his visits. None of Kelly's sisters are listed, but her brother and mother are.

The truth will come out on this, no matter how he tries to hide it.

 

 

 

[Howl]

10 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

You know, I'm thinking that perhaps I was wrong when I said that Kelly's locked-down Facebook page will tell us nothing. A few days ago, she posted a new profile photo of her and Geneva and it was "Loved" by Susan Bradrick and Stephen Bradrick and "Liked" by Andy and Emily Bradrick. 

That's telling us something. 

I bet they all adored those kids and miss them terribly, and likely Kelly had a good relationship with the various in laws. 

And SKYPE every other week?  It's a guaranteed way to make sure the kids get further emotional distance from their dad over time.  SKYPE is free and effortless.   If Peter's "sin" is something the larger world is OK with, but is unforgivable in fundy-land, #sad.  

[FeministShrew]

A close friend of mine ended up with supervised visitation because the marriage counselor he and his now ex-wife went to testified that he admitted to depression and occasional suicidal thoughts in couple and individual therapy sessions. (He's also an anime nerd & collected replica anime swords & katanas, which his wife was able to convince the court made him dangerous, and that did not help.) Their daughter was less than a year old, and the judge decreed only supervised visits every two weeks, and the supervision had to be by a licensed social worker (there is actually a facility in that town that provides space and a social worker for $25 an hour). This was in NC.
The divorce dragged on for a few years, but when it was finally settled the supervised visitation was removed and he got standard visitation. He was in therapy during that time and his therapist had to testify that he was not suicidal or dangerous.
Now, though I didn't think it was a fair situation, he did take the separation and divorce hard, and though things were blown out of proportion a little, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Just last fall a little girl was murdered by her dad during a visitation in a similar situation.
Come to think of it, I have a gay friend who isn't allowed to see his little girl at all because of his "questionable lifestyle" is a bad influence. He tried to fight it but got nowhere. Welcome to South Carolina.

TL:DR: Sometimes judges are extremely cautious and supervised visitation is given "just in case." I've heard of judges around here mandating supervised visitation because one of the parties committed adultery and so was considered "morally unfit." 

 

Also, my divorce papers included a stipulation that neither of us could have a "paramour" around the kids. I think it's standard.
Didn't stop their dad from moving his married girlfriend in.