Former Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax - murder/suicide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is reported they were in the middle of a messy divorce. So awful.

Ugh. Another layer of awful.

In Virginia, you must be separated for a year in order to get divorced and you can live in the same house while being separated (if you move you it can be seen by the court as abandoning your claim to the house, happened to my cousin). Reports are that the couple had started this process so I am not surprised they were both still living in the house.

Fairfax made an accusation against his wife earlier this year that she had physically assaulted him. Apparently she had cameras in the house and after reviewing the footage the police determined the assault claim wasn't valid and there was a scheduled upcoming court date re this incident which could be what triggered the current awful events.

There were 2 teen sons in the house. This is absolutely awful.

I hope this is a wake up call to change the law re: leaving the home. It forces women into staying in a potentially very dangerous situation.

That and the 1 year separation. What is the purpose??
Tragic.

Maryland recently shortened their one year separation requirement to six months if there are no children in the marriage. I think the rationale is that the state has an interest in wanting couples to be sure they need to get a divorce before they do? Not supporting this.

The part they need to change is about "home abandonment." Fine, make people wait, but don't penalize their assets for leaving to do so.

Can someone point me to the Virginia law(s) that make it financially risky to move out of the house before the divorce is finalized? What an insane game of gotcha for a couple in a contentious divorce. I hate everything about this story.

I don’t know the law but a friend of mine moved out of the marital home while her ex was away on a business trip and he claimed she had abandoned the home (as in abandoned her financial claim to the home) and the judge agreed, so the ex got the house and didn’t have to buy her out. This was 10 years ago in NOVA.

That is an outrageous law.

Virginia is incredible regressive when it comes to women's rights in marriage. It would behoove people outraged to call their elected officials rather than blame and express incredulity toward a woman just murdered by her husband.

I’m in blue California and have a close friend in a situation very similar to Cerina’s and the family court system is incredibly stacked against her. There is hard evidence (photos, witness testimony) of abuse and the courts will still give the abusive SAHD custody and she was told she couldn’t leave the house for abandonment reasons, not that she would have because she would never have left her kids. She was only able to leave when her kids were old enough to state their own wishes and even then, the courts bent over backwards to protect custody for dad, so she pays her documented abuser significant child support but his kids won’t stay with him, so he just pockets the money.

The reasoning behind protecting the abusive spouse is far left progressive perhaps, unlike VA, but the practical anti-woman outcome is the same.

Please stop this misinformation. Women are always able to leave. (Men too for that matter.) Women need to face reality and pick a healthy living situation and ideally get rid of bad men before the situation becomes extreme.

What misinformation, exactly? What about a situation I have recounted precisely is “misinformation”?

That abused women have no option other than to stay in the home.

Dp: Of course, they also have the option to leave, and thus lose their rights, money, and possibly their kids. The law should not be forcing this lose-lose situation. What good reason is there for such a law that outweighs the needs to prevent this?

That's the point. There was no law saying that she had to stay.

Y’all don’t understand what “law” is. Virginia recognizes desertion as a basis for granting an at-fault divorce.

I suspect she would be paying alimony as well since Fairfax didn't have any source of income.

That is probably the reason why she was fighting in court. I doubt the house has too much value. It is debts and spousal support that was an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is reported they were in the middle of a messy divorce. So awful.

Ugh. Another layer of awful.

In Virginia, you must be separated for a year in order to get divorced and you can live in the same house while being separated (if you move you it can be seen by the court as abandoning your claim to the house, happened to my cousin). Reports are that the couple had started this process so I am not surprised they were both still living in the house.

Fairfax made an accusation against his wife earlier this year that she had physically assaulted him. Apparently she had cameras in the house and after reviewing the footage the police determined the assault claim wasn't valid and there was a scheduled upcoming court date re this incident which could be what triggered the current awful events.

There were 2 teen sons in the house. This is absolutely awful.

I hope this is a wake up call to change the law re: leaving the home. It forces women into staying in a potentially very dangerous situation.

That and the 1 year separation. What is the purpose??
Tragic.

Maryland recently shortened their one year separation requirement to six months if there are no children in the marriage. I think the rationale is that the state has an interest in wanting couples to be sure they need to get a divorce before they do? Not supporting this.

The part they need to change is about "home abandonment." Fine, make people wait, but don't penalize their assets for leaving to do so.

Can someone point me to the Virginia law(s) that make it financially risky to move out of the house before the divorce is finalized? What an insane game of gotcha for a couple in a contentious divorce. I hate everything about this story.

I don’t know the law but a friend of mine moved out of the marital home while her ex was away on a business trip and he claimed she had abandoned the home (as in abandoned her financial claim to the home) and the judge agreed, so the ex got the house and didn’t have to buy her out. This was 10 years ago in NOVA.

That is an outrageous law.

Virginia is incredible regressive when it comes to women's rights in marriage. It would behoove people outraged to call their elected officials rather than blame and express incredulity toward a woman just murdered by her husband.

I’m in blue California and have a close friend in a situation very similar to Cerina’s and the family court system is incredibly stacked against her. There is hard evidence (photos, witness testimony) of abuse and the courts will still give the abusive SAHD custody and she was told she couldn’t leave the house for abandonment reasons, not that she would have because she would never have left her kids. She was only able to leave when her kids were old enough to state their own wishes and even then, the courts bent over backwards to protect custody for dad, so she pays her documented abuser significant child support but his kids won’t stay with him, so he just pockets the money.

The reasoning behind protecting the abusive spouse is far left progressive perhaps, unlike VA, but the practical anti-woman outcome is the same.

Please stop this misinformation. Women are always able to leave. (Men too for that matter.) Women need to face reality and pick a healthy living situation and ideally get rid of bad men before the situation becomes extreme.

What misinformation, exactly? What about a situation I have recounted precisely is “misinformation”?

That abused women have no option other than to stay in the home.

Dp: Of course, they also have the option to leave, and thus lose their rights, money, and possibly their kids. The law should not be forcing this lose-lose situation. What good reason is there for such a law that outweighs the needs to prevent this?

That's the point. There was no law saying that she had to stay.

Y’all don’t understand what “law” is. Virginia recognizes desertion as a basis for granting an at-fault divorce.

I suspect she would be paying alimony as well since Fairfax didn't have any source of income.

That is probably the reason why she was fighting in court. I doubt the house has too much value. It is debts and spousal support that was an issue.

She was fighting in courts because she's married to an abuser. He wasn't about to settle when he has the opportunity to torture her and truly believed that he would win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

But the money does matter. Because women trying to get out are in a catch-22. If you can't show you can provide a stable home for your kids, that matters for custody too.

Unless and until this country realizes what family court does to women in these situations, it won't get better. And study after study on this issue shows that family court is awful to women in these situations. Ironically one of the premier places where studies on this topic are done is Georgetown Law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is reported they were in the middle of a messy divorce. So awful.

Ugh. Another layer of awful.

In Virginia, you must be separated for a year in order to get divorced and you can live in the same house while being separated (if you move you it can be seen by the court as abandoning your claim to the house, happened to my cousin). Reports are that the couple had started this process so I am not surprised they were both still living in the house.

Fairfax made an accusation against his wife earlier this year that she had physically assaulted him. Apparently she had cameras in the house and after reviewing the footage the police determined the assault claim wasn't valid and there was a scheduled upcoming court date re this incident which could be what triggered the current awful events.

There were 2 teen sons in the house. This is absolutely awful.

I hope this is a wake up call to change the law re: leaving the home. It forces women into staying in a potentially very dangerous situation.

That and the 1 year separation. What is the purpose??
Tragic.

Maryland recently shortened their one year separation requirement to six months if there are no children in the marriage. I think the rationale is that the state has an interest in wanting couples to be sure they need to get a divorce before they do? Not supporting this.

The part they need to change is about "home abandonment." Fine, make people wait, but don't penalize their assets for leaving to do so.

Can someone point me to the Virginia law(s) that make it financially risky to move out of the house before the divorce is finalized? What an insane game of gotcha for a couple in a contentious divorce. I hate everything about this story.

I don’t know the law but a friend of mine moved out of the marital home while her ex was away on a business trip and he claimed she had abandoned the home (as in abandoned her financial claim to the home) and the judge agreed, so the ex got the house and didn’t have to buy her out. This was 10 years ago in NOVA.

That is an outrageous law.

Virginia is incredible regressive when it comes to women's rights in marriage. It would behoove people outraged to call their elected officials rather than blame and express incredulity toward a woman just murdered by her husband.

I’m in blue California and have a close friend in a situation very similar to Cerina’s and the family court system is incredibly stacked against her. There is hard evidence (photos, witness testimony) of abuse and the courts will still give the abusive SAHD custody and she was told she couldn’t leave the house for abandonment reasons, not that she would have because she would never have left her kids. She was only able to leave when her kids were old enough to state their own wishes and even then, the courts bent over backwards to protect custody for dad, so she pays her documented abuser significant child support but his kids won’t stay with him, so he just pockets the money.

The reasoning behind protecting the abusive spouse is far left progressive perhaps, unlike VA, but the practical anti-woman outcome is the same.

Please stop this misinformation. Women are always able to leave. (Men too for that matter.) Women need to face reality and pick a healthy living situation and ideally get rid of bad men before the situation becomes extreme.

You are insane. Leaving doesn't stop abuse. There's a researcher in the UK named Emma Katz who has devoted her entire career to showing just exactly how bad post-separation abuse is, and over there they even have stricter laws against non-violent forms of abuse. In the Commonwealth of VA you pretty much have to be in fear of actual physical injury for pretty much any legal standard (harassment or the protective order standard, for instance) to kick in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some real ogres on this thread.

Mrs. Fairfax is the victim. She likely was trying to do what was best for the kids. So sad.

Remember, at one time she loved him--maybe, she still did. Just proves that if a smart, educated woman cannot figure this out, how can those with fewer advantages?

Yes we know she was the victim. That is totally clear. And maybe this was the inevitable outcome no matter what she did. But I think it is really important for women to know that bad situations can get worse and nothing is worth staying with a spiraling or unstable man. Do what you can to get out even if it means living in a small apartment, your kids switching schools, whatever. Call a lawyer with DV experience and figure it out.

Stop. There is nothing to “figure out” here. She had a lawyer, she had a court proceeding, and the judge was more focused on giving her husband hype talks as if that man had anything good left to salvage, than protecting her.

There is a reason why women in this situation kidnap their kids and go into hiding - it’s because that is your only option. And for a woman who grew up dirt poor, I’m sure she wanted to do all she could to spare her children from that same fate.

She told friends her lawyer advised her she’d risk being found to have abandoned the home if she moved out.

Then she got bad legal advice. There is no legal requirement that you extend the misery of living with someone spiraling for years while a divorce moves forward. Or you prioritize your stability over the prospect that you could lose some equity.

Well, if you want to keep your kids, there is. You keep on glossing over that.

You don’t lose custody of your kids if you move out and get a temporary custody plan.

You are not helping women here.

That means leaving the children alone with a violent abuser. Please be honest about what you are recommending women do here. You are saying abused women should move out, leave their minor children alone with a violent abusive man, and hope for the best with a temporary custody order.

Be very honest about what your recommendation for abused women is here. Don’t hide behind vagueness. And then tell us why you think your plan is a good idea for abused women.

Please be honest about what YOU are saying - women have to stay in the same house even with a dramatic breakdown of the relationship. It’s just not true. It is a difficult situation but there are legal options. Not saying it always works out but the idea of complete lack of power and agency is wrong too. Pick yourself up and get out.

You are twisting and turning to avoid saying with specificity what you are saying women married to abuser should do. So, since you won’t be honest, I’ll say it for you: you are saying that women with children in violent abusive relationships should leave their children with the violent abusers and leave the house, then seek temporary custody after having left the children with a violent abuser. That is your recommendation.

You are free to recommend that course of action, but most mothers, even ones being physically abused, will never leave their children unprotected and alone with a violent abuser.

+1

And how many times have we seen it play out where a father kills his children to hurt the mother? I don’t blame mothers for not wanting to leave their children.

Yup, and Virginia doesn't have a version of Kayden's Law (the Pennsylvania law that was passed in response to one of these situations). In fact very few states do.

[Anonymous]

^^^

And speaking of Kayden's Law, there was a mass shooting including a kid over divorce in Kentucky.

We really, really need a national reckoning on coercive control and domestic abuse and the relationship between those crimes and being willing to commit other crimes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/04/19/louisiana-shooting/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

Primary is not sole; he would have gotten them some of the time. Even if it was 80-20, I wouldn't be willing to leave the kids alone with a man in that state. Plus she probably would have needed to pay for his accommodations, as the sole earner. She may have felt she couldn't, on top of crazy-high legal costs, and her home mortgage. I'm sure she was beyond furious that he refused to get a job, any job to contribute something to the family. So sad for her, she was nearly (mostly) free of him. As many have posted, and other tragic news has shown, the most dangerous time for a woman is when she finally leaves a narcissistic man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

+1. Just to put a more concrete example, he could have refused to consent to the kids being placed in public school, while at the same time refusing to pay a dime toward tuition. So yeah, the money matters. A lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

The news media reported she had primary custody and he is required to do the alcohol tests pre and post visits with the kids as part of their divorce settlement.

His alcoholism must have been very advanced as even with alcoholism this type of agreement is rare.

Alcoholism makes underlying mental health issues worse.

[Anonymous]

The news media also reported that he had accrued $750,000 in debt so I think money issues were part of her thought process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

The news media reported she had primary custody and he is required to do the alcohol tests pre and post visits with the kids as part of their divorce settlement.

His alcoholism must have been very advanced as even with alcoholism this type of agreement is rare.

Alcoholism makes underlying mental health issues worse.

It's also highly correlated with triggering abusive behavior, but studies show even when/if the addict goes into recovery, the abusive behavior doesn't necessarily stop.

[Anonymous]

Why was he in the house if they are separated I think she was trying to minimize financial losses as he was a loser and jobless

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were living in the house that they bought with two incomes, but relying on hers alone. In addition to not wanting the divorce to become at-fault, she may simply have lacked the funds to add a rental to her financial burden. From her perspective, the end was in sight. While he has accusations of sexual assault, there were no incidents of physical violence that she reported to police. She did not appear to have a case to get a protective order. She may not have felt fear of physical harm, or she felt uneasy but had no documented incidents to use to make a case to keep him away from her and her children.

Clearly, from the outside in hindsight we see the signs of fatal violence at the end of a relationship. But there are lots of deadbeat men who don’t kill their wives over a divorce.

I’m sure that was part of it and maybe she had other motives. But this was clearly a spiraling and dysfunctional situation regardless of how it ended. Having been through this and seeing my friends navigate the situation (and also reading DCUM posts about it) the lesson I think women need to hear is that at some point you need to prioritize getting out and establishing one stable home for yourself and your children. The money doesn’t matter.

As has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but the incel troll keeps ignoring, women cannot leave with their children. They have to leave without their children or leave their kids with a violent abuser alone. What you suggest is that women have to make a Sophie’s Choice and most women will not abandon their children with a violent man.

Women can leave with their children, providing the husband some parenting time (50/50 if necessary). Saying that, their children were old enough to voice their preference to stay with the mother.

Since there was no evidence of physical abuse prior to this horrific event, the court surely would have mandated a custodial division that was reasonably generous to him. Would you be willing to leave your kids with a severely depressed narcissistic alcoholic, who showed no interest in caring for them and could potentially have hurt them due to his (misplaced) anger toward her? Come on.

But the news reports say she had primary (maybe even sole) physical custody? However they DID mandate joint legal custody, which is where abuse/control thrives. He could make every single decision about the kids' lives a living nightmare with the wrong parenting plan.

+1. Just to put a more concrete example, he could have refused to consent to the kids being placed in public school, while at the same time refusing to pay a dime toward tuition. So yeah, the money matters. A lot.

And alcohol use disorder is known to make it harder for someone to make decisions due to the damage to the brain and cognition (which yes is partially reversible but not during the time when someone is actively abusing alcohol). Imagine being stuck making decisions with someone whose capability to make decisions is actively impaired whether they're currently drunk or in between binges / episodes.