BRADRICK! Divorce Part 2

[MamaJunebug]

24 minutes ago, AlwaysExcited said:

And Kelly as well. 
 

Absolutely Kelly as well. 

But absent some very real miracles, i fear both are quite stranded from any real, accepting, constructive love. 

Real, conditional, restrictive & proscriptive  "love" -- that, they've got in truckfuls. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I have a theory on the manly man wide stance.

Fundie girls are taught be modest and discreet, not to do anything that may cause a "brother to stumble". This is especially true with the skirts only crowd.  Therefore girls stand and sit with legs and knees together -- no calling attention to the evil crotch area,

Fundie boys are taught to be manly men, to reject any and everything that might be remotely construed as the least bit feminine,  So if standing/sitting  with legs together = feminine, legs apart = manly.

Thus the wider the stance, the more manly the man. DPIAT, Bradrick!, Scottie, etc,

it's either that or they are all trying to show off their crotches and the outlines of their peens.

(Brain bleach ... stat)

[formergothardite]

One son in law a pedo, now, perhaps two

@Andrew, would you mind clearing up what you meant by this? Who do you think the second pedophile is and why? Are you meaning Peter?

[andrew]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

What have I missed? 

The Bradrick's daughter married one of the I think it was a Barth boys who were hangers on. Andy Barth. He molested their kids and is finishing 5 years on his 10 year sentence in Texas. Now this one involved in something haywire and I don't know how many female 'regrets' at still at home waiting for dad to fall in love with their husbands. YUK!  And the last we knew the youngest son seemed escaped the harness of the Bradrick Herd. This is the result of pride. It takes no prisoners.

10 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

One son in law a pedo, now, perhaps two

@Andrew, would you mind clearing up what you meant by this? Who do you think the second pedophile is and why? Are you meaning Peter?

Yes, according to all the information and the RCW the events maybe sexual child abuse. I hope not but there it is. I am sure they would consider that more 'sinful' than acting out homosexually. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[formergothardite]

14 minutes ago, andrew said:

Now this one involved

Who do you mean by "this one". Peter? What would make you think he was a pedophile? I'm still all confused. 

14 minutes ago, andrew said:

This is the result of pride.

I would think that some of this is a result of the fundamental Christian beliefs they were raised with. If Peter is bisexual, having anti-gay crap crammed down his throat would screw him up big time, don't you think?  In some way I pity him because of having grown up like that. Imagine what he could have been if he had been raised in an accepting home. Of course, there is no excuse for cheating on your wife and the way he treated Kelly was terrible. His treatment of Kelly most likely stems from being raised to think that Kelly needs to be submissive just because he has a penis and the weird courtship process. 

edit: I see your response. I thought that the divorce papers said there were no signs of abuse? 

[Lurky]

Of course, it's time for the usual internet warning that just because someone says they know people/are someone etc online, doesn't mean they are - so of course be sceptical of anything without sources

[andrew]

21 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Who do you mean by "this one". Peter? What would make you think he was a pedophile? I'm still all confused. 

I would think that some of this is a result of the fundamental Christian beliefs they were raised with. If Peter is bisexual, having anti-gay crap crammed down his throat would screw him up big time, don't you think?  In some way I pity him because of having grown up like that. Imagine what he could have been if he had been raised in an accepting home. Of course, there is no excuse for cheating on your wife and the way he treated Kelly was terrible. His treatment of Kelly most likely stems from being raised to think that Kelly needs to be submissive just because he has a penis and the weird courtship process. 

edit: I see your response. I thought that the divorce papers said there were no signs of abuse? 

I am talking about what the law referenced says. In order to get a visitation of this nature something serious had to occur. Under the RCW one of those events is abuse of a child. That is what I mean.

Trust me here we may not know what is up. These folks can circle the wagons in a heart beat. Sorry for the confusion. And to the gal who put up the generic warning I imagine someone might come on and tell tales but it seems a fools errand to me. 

 

[formergothardite]

4 minutes ago, andrew said:

And to the gal who put up the generic warning I imagine someone might come on and tell tales but it seems a fools errand to me.

Oh folks tell tales all the time. It is foolish because eventually people realize that the stories aren't making sense, but people do it. Razing Ruth is probably the most famous one around here. She pretended to have been raised in IBLP and got away with it for years before people caught on that she was making the whole thing up. 

So we tend to take everything with a grain of salt. It isn't personal against you, just that too many times people have come here saying they are someone or know someone and it ends up they are just a person who makes stuff up on the internet. 

[Jencendiary]

10 minutes ago, andrew said:

I am talking about what the law referenced says. In order to get a visitation of this nature something serious had to occur. Under the RCW one of those events is abuse of a child. That is what I mean.

Trust me here we may not know what is up. These folks can circle the wagons in a heart beat. Sorry for the confusion. And to the gal who put up the generic warning I imagine someone might come on and tell tales but it seems a fools errand to me. 

 

We're a pretty well-known site on the internet, an established hub for information about the fringe Religious Right and Dominionist politics on top of Christian Patriarchy. So, we get our fair share. Google "Razing Ruth."

[Dark Matters]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

Yes.  It is getting confusing. I'll just add, only Peter and Kelly know what happened.  All the rest is speculation and rumor. 

And I'm still confused about @andrew is getting at. But I'd love it if he answered my questions.

 

I'm beginning to get a weird feeling about him.

[Jencendiary]

19 minutes ago, Dark Matters said:

I'm beginning to get a weird feeling about him.

I generally discount any Random Newbie With Dirt out of pocket. I want reddit AMA level receipts.

 

[Anonymousguest]

If there were signs of abuse, it would elevate things to a level beyond divorce agreements. I think the fact that there are no charges and no court rulings available tells us this is a divorce agreements the parties involved decided on. If there was proof he molested his children (or others) he would be prosecuted. 

It's a more likely scenario that Peter believes what he did was wrong and is willing to subject himself to church discipline and counseling, and the accountability of not being alone with the children. 

[GenerationCedarchip]

4 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

I've honestly never understood why they act like it's such a radical, "counter-cultural" thing to have kids in worship services. Hell, back in the day, we just called it "being Catholic." I can't even tell you how many times my parents had to drag one of us into the lobby to avoid a scene. Billions and billions. 

I've never worshipped in a Catholic church, but I can understand why some in evangelical churches would see it as "counter-cultural" to have little ones in worship.  I love keeping my kids with me in service, but I've been to churches where kids are expected or even required to stay in the nursery. More and more churches are doing away with nursery and children's church or they're downsizing them. LIke I said above, I've never been part of a specifically NCFIC church, but I'd wondered if that trend was influenced by the group.

[nelliebelle1197]

4 hours ago, andrew said:

I am talking about what the law referenced says. In order to get a visitation of this nature something serious had to occur. Under the RCW one of those events is abuse of a child. That is what I mean.

Trust me here we may not know what is up. These folks can circle the wagons in a heart beat. Sorry for the confusion. And to the gal who put up the generic warning I imagine someone might come on and tell tales but it seems a fools errand to me. 

 

No, this is NOT TRUE. The parenting plan is clear that they DECIDED on supervision. It was not mandated.

[Pastors Daughter]

13 hours ago, Mrs. Bean said:

In the available divorce files it specifically marked that there are no reports of abuse of any kind. 

 

Quite right. The Parenting Plan clearly states under #1 that this is a voluntary proposal and not a court order as well as #3 that neither parent has any kind of (abandonment, neglect, child abuse, domestic violence, assault, or sex offense) problems.

Careful, @Andrew   You're spreading a very serious rumor here without stated knowledge. You did say earlier that you hadn't seen Peter since he was 9 years old.

[Rinny512]

I'm still surprised Peter filed for divorce even if he did have multiple affairs with men and women. If he's under church discipline and listening to them, he's probably repented and does feel guilty. Why would this conservative church be okay with him filing  for divorce? Most ultra-conservative churches wouldn't let that happen, and not so quickly. So it's either a positive sign on the churches side (not so likely) or a way for scott to have total control over his grandchildren? It's just not making sense to me knowing what these people believe about divorce. 

[nelliebelle1197]

22 minutes ago, Rinny512 said:

I'm still surprised Peter filed for divorce even if he did have multiple affairs with men and women. If he's under church discipline and listening to them, he's probably repented and does feel guilty. Why would this conservative church be okay with him filing  for divorce? Most ultra-conservative churches wouldn't let that happen, and not so quickly. So it's either a positive sign on the churches side (not so likely) or a way for scott to have total control over his grandchildren? It's just not making sense to me knowing what these people believe about divorce. 

Kelly probably wanted out.

[Lurky]

Re the BRADRICK! emergency response stuff. Anyone know why it was so important that it was only for CHRISTIAN MEN! ?  Like, would they only support each other, and not go to, I dunno, a neighbourhood with a lot of Jewish or Hindu people?  if it was a real, properly trained organisation (I know, big IF), why would it matter if what guy over there who has great skills and wants to help believes?  Let alone a (gasp!) woman with useful skills?

It's ridiculous!  In a real emergency, none of that should matter - only that everyone is being directed by the proper disaster relief organisers, and doing good not inadvertently making everything worse....

[Howl]

I'm fascinated that Brackrick! is being restored rehabilitated made new fixed up brainwashed repaired under church discipline.  This is something that many disgraced church leaders  (I'm talking about you, Mark Driscoll and you, Doug Phillips) have simply blown off.  To go through this crap, he must be sincerely contrite*, right?  Kelly is back home sheltering under the patriarch's umbrella.  A marriage has died, but neither of them have escaped their toxic upbringings.  Sad. 

*Contrite in a "Satan chooses to bring down the best, someone caused you to stumble" patriarchal kinda way. This is an NCFIC church, right?

ETA: I wonder if Kelly had any say at all in any of this.  The patriarchal NCFIC players (Bradrick! Scottie! NCFIC Elders! are firmly in place.)  This is patriarchy on steroids.  It would not surprise me in the least if all the decisions were made by males and Kelly had to abide by those decisions.   

And last, I decided  to stop speculating on Peter's sexuality and his sexual activities, especially concerning children.  No. Just no.  I encourage all y'all to do the same. 

[Cleopatra7]

39 minutes ago, Lurky said:

Re the BRADRICK! emergency response stuff. Anyone know why it was so important that it was only for CHRISTIAN MEN! ?  Like, would they only support each other, and not go to, I dunno, a neighbourhood with a lot of Jewish or Hindu people?  if it was a real, properly trained organisation (I know, big IF), why would it matter if what guy over there who has great skills and wants to help believes?  Let alone a (gasp!) woman with useful skills?

It's ridiculous!  In a real emergency, none of that should matter - only that everyone is being directed by the proper disaster relief organisers, and doing good not inadvertently making everything worse....

I think the idea behind Bradrick! had to do with this VF notion of manly Christian men risking their lives to save weak women and children. However, like most VF inspired things, it appears to have just been a front for homoerotic dress-up games, assuming it even got that far.

[crawfishgirl]

I don't think that it was Andrew who initially mentioned the sexual orientation issues.  Palimpset made a post at the end of the last thread with the following info.  Since that thread closed shortly after the post, it may have been missed, so I copied her post below:

 

Quote

As the divorce papers are finally public, I've been sitting uncomfortably on some insider information for a few weeks.  I was not asked to keep it confidential but I chose not post it here because:

Although the sources seemed very reliable the info was 2nd or third hand.

Some of it was really inflammatory and information that, if true, Kelly almost certainly wants to keep private.

It was, and still is, not clear to me how much was exaggerated in an effort to bring Peter down.  Peter has pissed off the VF crowd and Scott Brown by confronting Doug Phillips.  "Morally unfit" in Fundieland, or to some judges,  isn't necessarily what I consider "unfit" to be around children, although I think cheaters are absolutely disgraceful.

So, and still leaving out unnecessary and inflammatory stuff, and possible Fundie salacious gossip and exaggeration (don't ask):

Peter Bradrick is a vile hypocrite.  Kelly has been deeply wronged.

It appears that Peter Bradrick has been leading a double life for years.  

He has apparently admitted to cheating with both men and women - which explains the "no girlfriend or boyfriend" in the visitation agreement.

Mileage may vary on this, but if Peter Bradrick is bi-sexual or gay that is not a moral failing in my book.  Being bi or gay in the VF circles must, as we all know, be incredibly hard.  So must be being forced to hide your sexual orientation.  Being bi or gay does not render you unfit to be around children unsupervised, although many of his former friends probably think so.

Peter Bradrick is a disgrace but he seems to have come clean on a lot of this in court.  He had better keep up with the child support and alimony payments.  It is the very least he can do.

Poor Kelly.

 

[MamaJunebug]

1 hour ago, Howl said:

I'm fascinated that Brackrick! is being restored rehabilitated made new fixed up brainwashed repaired under church discipline.  This is something that many disgraced church leaders  (I'm talking about you, Mark Driscoll and you, Doug Phillips) have simply blown off.  To go through this crap, he must be sincerely contrite*, right?  Kelly is back home sheltering under the patriarch's umbrella.  A marriage has died, but neither of them have escaped their toxic upbringings.  Sad. 

*Contrite in a "Satan chooses to bring down the best, someone caused you to stumble" patriarchal kinda way. This is an NCFIC church, right?

ETA: I wonder if Kelly had any say at all in any of this.  The patriarchal NCFIC players (Bradrick! Scottie! NCFIC Elders! are firmly in place.)  This is patriarchy on steroids.  It would not surprise me in the least if all the decisions were made by males and Kelly had to abide by those decisions.   

And last, I decided  to stop speculating on Peter's sexuality and his sexual activities, especially concerning children.  No. Just no.  I encourage all y'all to do the same. 

All of these points, all X 10,000.

"Scottie Brown is in control of this, always has been" -- my educated guess after watching this for the last several weeks. 

Yep, Westside Baptist Church of Bremerton, WA, is listed on the NCFIC network. 

https://ncfic.org/network/profile/6498

Peter is still under Scott's gnarled and bony thumb. Kelly , as someone said earlier, has never been out from under it since the unfortunate situation of her adoption. 

 

[nokidsmom]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I think the idea behind Bradrick! had to do with this VF notion of manly Christian men risking their lives to save weak women and children. However, like most VF inspired things, it appears to have just been a front for homoerotic dress-up games, assuming it even got that far.

Agree on this.  Per the promo video, it appears that Peter may have been involved in some emergency response efforts and Bradrick! was based on those experiences plus perhaps a bit of VF Titanic influence (save the women and children) thrown in.  It seemed to be a lot of chest pounding because it appears they never got involved in any emergencies, despite the disaster ticker on the site.   If they had, they would have humble bragged talked up their achievements efforts for all it was worth, so my guess they didn't get anywhere near an actual emergency.   Or if they did, they were turned away, something they would never admit to.

 

43 minutes ago, MamaJunebug said:

"Scottie Brown is in control of this, always has been" -- my educated guess after watching this for the last several weeks. 

ITA.  The more I read of Peter's "church discipline" and the fact it's under an NCFIC church involved with Scottie, it seems that they would be discouraging a divorce, because of their beliefs.  However, given Scottie's involvement and influence, I suspect he has a strong hand in this.   I have long suspected that DPIAT's fall severely strained the relationship between Peter and SB (hence the move to WA) and I think Scottie has found a way to get rid of his son-in-law, who has proved to be a disappointment perhaps on many levels, and his daughter back to where she belongs: under his protection along with her kids.   Kelly might not have had any say or if she did, it was highly "influenced" by Daddy.

 

[nausicaa]

21 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

ITA.  The more I read of Peter's "church discipline" and the fact it's under an NCFIC church involved with Scottie, it seems that they would be discouraging a divorce, because of their beliefs.  However, given Scottie's involvement and influence, I suspect he has a strong hand in this.   I have long suspected that DPIAT's fall severely strained the relationship between Peter and SB (hence the move to WA) and I think Scottie has found a way to get rid of his son-in-law, who has proved to be a disappointment perhaps on many levels, and his daughter back to where she belongs: under his protection along with her kids.   Kelly might not have had any say or if she did, it was highly "influenced" by Daddy.

 

Do you think Kelly will stay at her parents' house for the rest of her life? I'm just wondering what her situation will be like long term once the smoke clears. Obviously right now she's probably just trying to keep her head above water, and with six little kids, moving back to her parents' house seems a reasonable idea.

But in Scott's theology, is she now permanently a child? Unable to remarry, and so according the patriarchal rules, under her father's control?

[slickcat79]

I never saw the court documents, but here are relevant dates if they weren't mentioned.

IANAL, legal people correct me if I'm wrong.

Yesterday was ex parte action by the judge. This is basically the judge signing off on things that are currently agreed upon, without either party contesting. This would usually be a temporary order too.

Future action on the case is not scheduled until May 19th. Guessing entirely here, but I believe that a trial date would only be set if the parties involved were not in compliance with the current orders, or they can't agree on permanent conditions. So it's possible that custody and support arrangements will change. Also possible that they will stay exactly as they are, with no need for a trial. IIRC, most divorce cases don't go to trial.

https://linxonline.co.pierce.wa.us/linxweb/Case/CivilCase.cfm?cause_num=17-3-00135-9