Jump to content
IGNORED

BRADRICK! Divorce Part 2


Destiny

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

1. Their "counselor" is some dude at Westside Baptist Church. a) :pb_rollseyes: and b ) aren't the Browns/Bradricks pretty hardcore Calvinists? 

The Browns are Reformed Baptists, so it's okay for them to be Calvinists as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 579
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

Supervised visitation is so much more than "You made poor choices".  Supervised visitation is "We think you are a danger to children and shouldn't be allowed to watch them".  

In my experience, supervised visitation has been exactly as you've described.  Courts do a LOT to keep families intact, even when children actually want limited time with one of their parents (that was the case in the divorce I mentioned upthread).  I've known a lot of people who've wanted more protection for their children and were unable to get it.  That he can only skype with them every other week is also a big red flag.  Hope the kids can make it out of this mess with as much of their spirits intact as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Georgiana I'm surprised at the supervised visitation as well, but I am wondering, if Kelly requested it and Peter was willing to go along with it, would a judge even need to be involved in making the determination?

I'm just beginning to wonder if Peter is still believing the "being gay is a mortal sin" line despite participating in same sex relationships. If so, maybe he is going along with all of this out of shame, self-hatred, and the misguided belief that he is protecting his children? I just kept getting that nagging feeling while reading through the paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me or does it seem that quite a lot of adults who were homeschooled in very rigid and legalistic homes act out sexually as adults?  It seems many kids go through a normal and mutually harmless sexploration and perhaps theirs was delayed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, the passive-aggressive FB post from Doug that implied hypocrisy on Peter's part just up and disappeared today. 

Hi, Doug and Beall! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I'm just beginning to wonder if Peter is still believing the "being gay is a mortal sin" line despite participating in same sex relationships. If so, maybe he is going along with all of this out of shame, self-hatred, and the misguided belief that he is protecting his children? I just kept getting that nagging feeling while reading through the paperwork.

Also, are the Browns, Kelly's and perhaps even Peter's own family's feelings of shock and disapproval are possibly feeding into this, exacerbating Peter's feelings of shame / sin that he's signing off without any fight on the custody / visitation arrangements?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

@Georgiana I'm surprised at the supervised visitation as well, but I am wondering, if Kelly requested it and Peter was willing to go along with it, would a judge even need to be involved in making the determination?

I'm just beginning to wonder if Peter is still believing the "being gay is a mortal sin" line despite participating in same sex relationships. If so, maybe he is going along with all of this out of shame, self-hatred, and the misguided belief that he is protecting his children? I just kept getting that nagging feeling while reading through the paperwork.

My understanding from reading the documents is that this plan is being set forth by Peter and Kelly (and their lawyers of course), in agreement, and they're just asking the judge to sign off on it. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

 

1. Their "counselor" is some dude at Westside Baptist Church. a) :pb_rollseyes: and b ) aren't the Browns/Bradricks pretty hardcore Calvinists? I'm very surprised at this choice.

 

Well...Calvinists can be Baptist, too (http://vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html - 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, anyone?) and for a lot of fundies, having an appropriately Christian focused counselor can be more important than minor theological quibblings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

My understanding from reading the documents is that this plan is being set forth by Peter and Kelly (and their lawyers of course), in agreement, and they're just asking the judge to sign off on it. 

That's how it came off to me as well, though I don't have any legal experience and so wasn't sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

@Georgiana I'm surprised at the supervised visitation as well, but I am wondering, if Kelly requested it and Peter was willing to go along with it, would a judge even need to be involved in making the determination?

I'm just beginning to wonder if Peter is still believing the "being gay is a mortal sin" line despite participating in same sex relationships. If so, maybe he is going along with all of this out of shame, self-hatred, and the misguided belief that he is protecting his children? I just kept getting that nagging feeling while reading through the paperwork.

It's possible.  However, judges REALLY don't like to grant supervised visitation.  It is a massive restriction on one of the parents, and in some cases can cost the state a pretty penny if the parent needs state assistance in providing an adequately supervised environment.  

Judges will and do alter settlements a couple has agreed upon if they do not believe they are appropriate.  I've seen them order alimony when BOTH parties fought against it because the judge disagreed with their assessment on it being fair ("I don't care.  You owe her money, and you are going to pay her.").  I have a hard time believing that the consensus of the couple ALONE would be enough to motivate a judge to sign off on something so major as this.  In that case, the more likely outcome would be a judge telling them that if THEY BOTH PRIVATELY AGREED he needed supervision with the kids, they could both PRIVATELY SET UP  every visit to be supervised, but that the state would not be involved in that restriction.  

Court ordered supervised visitation is so much more than just "a person has to be there".  Generally the supervisors have to be appropriate and vetted, they have specific restrictions on them, they have to sign documents to be placed on file with the courts, etc.  That's extra work for the courts.  Courts don't take on extra work just because this couple has private concerns about homosexuality.  

Plus, the courts favor longevity.  If this were just a private agreement, there would be a good chance that down the line, one party would fall OUT of agreement with this restriction...which would mean they would have to take this back to court.  Whereas, if it is not necessary, they could have supervision for as long they think they need it and then modify it ON THEIR OWN when it's no longer required.  

So while it is certainly POSSIBLE the judge just signed off on what they privately agreed upon, I think it is more likely that the court had sufficient motivation to sign off on supervised visitation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MrsFoxx said:

Well...Calvinists can be Baptist, too (http://vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html - 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, anyone?) and for a lot of fundies, having an appropriately Christian focused counselor can be more important than minor theological quibblings.

Not to get too sidetracked on theology, but I don't really get how the Calvinist idea of the elect squares with the Baptist emphasis on evangelism and theology of anyone being able to be saved. (Not doubting the truth of what you're saying, it just doesn't make sense to me.)

I just hope their Christian focused counselor is a good one, with a real, legitimate education and training. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Not to get too sidetracked on theology, but I don't really get how the Calvinist idea of the elect squares with the Baptist emphasis on evangelism and theology of anyone being able to be saved. (Not doubting the truth of what you're saying, it just doesn't make sense to me.)

I just hope their Christian focused counselor is a good one, with a real, legitimate education and training. 

It's complicated. Escapee from that particular brand of fundie myself. :-)

And to your second point, I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHOA!

I did not know that about supervised visitation. Ohmymy .

Also, what some are saying about Baptist/Calvinist. Over at The Wartburg Watch there are all kinds of stories about "Calvinistas" taking over the SBC, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

My understanding from reading the documents is that this plan is being set forth by Peter and Kelly (and their lawyers of course), in agreement, and they're just asking the judge to sign off on it. 

 

 

This is the preferred method for divorces in almost any state, I believe.  Certainly in WA.  If you don't need the courts, don't involve them!

But agreement alone is not enough to get a judge's signature unless the judge ALSO agrees with the proposed plan.  And yes, they usually do.  But not always.  This is super important, actually, because in cases like this where one party could extort the other party via threats of revealing secrets if their divorce demands are not met (or, more frequently, abusive situations where the abuser tries to leave their victim with nothing and the victim nominally consents) the court needs to step in and protect the party being victimized.  You can add non-conventional clauses, sure.  But one sided clauses are almost always met with resistance.  Penalization of one party is met with resistance.  

We have here an INCREDIBLY lopsided custody situation.  WA doesn't like those.  

Now, COULD they have gotten a sympathetic judge who took their religious concerns into account?  You bet!  But it is more likely that there were good reasons for the inequality in the custody order that caused the judge to see this as being in the best interest of the minor children.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a sad thought but there's always the possibility that Pete didn't even want to see them more. He certainly wouldn't be the first father to ditch their family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ladyamylynn said:

It's a sad thought but there's always the possibility that Pete didn't even want to see them more. He certainly wouldn't be the first father to ditch their family. 

This is very true.  However, in this case, a judge would be LESS likely to order the visits be supervised without cause.  The courts want to encourage Peter to stay in the lives of his kids because his kids deserve a relationship with their father.  

I think it's hard to understand how HUGE of a hassle supervised visitation is until you've lived with it.  Before my aunt had it imposed, I considered it to play out like a minor annoyance.  But no, it's a massive imposition on the parent, their families, the kids, and the ex.  It's a ton of work to coordinate, and a lot of parents who have supervised visitation ordered against them eventually stop seeing their kids because they can't handle the burden.  It does discourage visitation, and the courts are generally invested in ENCOURAGING parental involvement.  

It's definitely a "prove it" step.  You fucked up.  Big.  Real talk: we're considering whether your kids would be better off without you in their lives.  Now, you need to PROVE that you love your kids so much that you will do just about anything to have them in your life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I'm not sure about WA, but that's a fairly liberal area, generally speaking.  What could have compelled the judge to make such orders?

Past experience. Especially if it was a judge in Pierce County, which is not at all liberal and the location of a horrific murder-suicide that actually did involve supervised visitation. It's a very long and complicated saga, but if you are curious, search deseretnews.com or google  "Josh Powell". But I warn you, the accounts of what happened are very disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, danvillebelle said:

IF Scottie counseled Bradrick! about dealing with feelings towards men, I think he did it from his own experience.  I really, really think Scottie is gay.

I think this is a valid theory.  OK, my son.  Struggling with same sex attraction is not unusual.  I too have dealt with it.  Diligently praying away the gay and marriage to a Godly maiden like my perfect daughter will cure you.  As it did me, the wonderful Scott Brown.  And my daughter has been raised to be so innocent and ignorant of all that stuff.  She's an inferior female and we don't have to worry about her questioning your temptations by Satan.

2 hours ago, MamaJunebug said:

I'm unable to find it now but a fascinating article told about a seemingly devout young Chasidic couple who have 5 or 7 children after marrying very young, and now the couple -- by  mutual agreement -- swing their little hearts out. 

They live in fear of getting caught and being shunned forever by family, but their way of life is worth it to them at this point. 

 

Well, yes.  But that arrangement requires enormous trust and mutual liking (if not platonic love)  before it can succeed.  Peter is ... unlikable.  By many accounts.  He has been described by insiders as an arrogant bully more times than I can count.

41 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

 

I'm just beginning to wonder if Peter is still believing the "being gay is a mortal sin" line despite participating in same sex relationships. If so, maybe he is going along with all of this out of shame, self-hatred, and the misguided belief that he is protecting his children? I just kept getting that nagging feeling while reading through the paperwork.

I think that is very possible.  Given the indoctrination, he could consider himself as a danger to his children and have gone along with everything Kelly (and Scott) demanded.  If he has had sex with men he is damned.

26 minutes ago, JemimaPuddle-Duck said:

My understanding from reading the documents is that this plan is being set forth by Peter and Kelly (and their lawyers of course), in agreement, and they're just asking the judge to sign off on it. 

Me too.

I defer to all the people from WA state who say it doesn't work like that there.  However, I live in a very liberal state too.  We still have a few bad apple judges that would throw the book at a cheating gay husband.  And a few that would just agree to the terms in front of them.

I don't think Peter was ever very involved with the children.  He may not even care about visitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody else feeling beyond sad, reading this? Maybe even a little guilty?  Well, takeaway for me is: I can't imagine Kelly has ever had so much "sole discretion" in her entire life. I'm hoping the stresses of this experience strengthen her; help her to see that she has agency as a human person, genitalia be damned; and that her parents, brother and brother-in-law back off from treating her like an idiot child who can't be trusted to make a decision on her own. 

For Peter?, ohmymy....he needs a miracle and I sincerely hope he gets one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly hope that Kelly will be able to make decisions regarding her future and that of her children.    Since she is back home with her parents, I can see her being under the umbrella of her father's authority again.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ladyamylynn said:

It's a sad thought but there's always the possibility that Pete didn't even want to see them more. He certainly wouldn't be the first father to ditch their family. 

Sadly, I suspect that Peter could be susceptible to just chucking it all.  IDK, but given personal accounts reports that he's a real jackass in person, he seemed woefully clueless about his wife's welfare, hell, he didn't seem that he cared that deeply about her (his comments during their courtship / engagement about not telling her he loved her were very weird), recognizing his mentor's feet were of clay and VF's fall,  and having to earn a living in the real world for a family of 8 was too much for him.   I can see him taking the easy way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first divorce document file link in the previous thread comes up as "file deleted" for me.  I didn't see anything in the other three files (they are all forms) that indicated Peter's indiscretions. 

I have a different take on the supervised custody arrangement and this is in the Idle Speculation category.  If reprobate Peter has left the fold, even to the point of being an unbeliever, the supervised custody means that he can't ever discuss his current beliefs with his children.  Rather than being a supervisor, the person who is with Peter is there to function as the Thought Police for Christian Mental Purity. If so, this leaves Kelly remaining solidly in the Patriarchal camp as a True Believer. 

9 minutes ago, JMO said:

Do we know how this all came out? @Palimpsest?  Did someone discover him or did he come out and tell Kelly?

I hope, and I mean this sincerely, that she didn't find out by way of an STD.  One of the first things I did when I found out that my ex had left me for another woman was to pay a visit to Planned Parenthood for testing. All clear, phew!

Fortunately, the divorce documents said that neither of the parents(!) were pregnant.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Black Aliss said:

Past experience. Especially if it was a judge in Pierce County, which is not at all liberal and the location of a horrific murder-suicide that actually did involve supervised visitation. It's a very long and complicated saga, but if you are curious, search deseretnews.com or google  "Josh Powell". But I warn you, the accounts of what happened are very disturbing.

To be fair, outside of King and Snohomish counties, WA tends to be extremely and often reactionary conservative.  It's just that so much of the population lives in those two counties that they easily carry the state (along with some help from a few purple counties).  

Every so often, Eastern WA gets fed up with us cancelling out their votes all the time and makes noise about wanting to join ID or otherwise secede from WA.  It never happens, because we remind them that we don't play that. Protecting you from the votes of the sand people is one of the many, MANY services Seattle provides to this country.

You're welcome, America.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was the gist of the passive-aggressive snark that Doug Phillips AKA DougWP Is A Tool posted on FB recently and has since deleted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.