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: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.

[Anonymous]

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

How could they not? Handling the mortage on her own must have been tough, in addition to all other expenses, legal fees, and servicing that much debt. Poor woman.

[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.

We need to stop allowing alcoholism as an excuse or reasoning to be irresponsible. I see this all the time at work and other legal things we should remove it as a medical condition as it's used to legally justify low work performance and martial issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bs he's a loser always was and should be in prison

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is this what we call "alcoholism" now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could there be processes that get guns temporarily confiscated during family law proceedings if there has been red flag behaviors like alcoholism and fights? Just getting rid of the easy access might help in situations like this.

Virginia has red flag laws. But someone has to feel comfortable making the report without fear of retaliation. The person responsible for half your kids' tuition and the mortgage - you comfortable reporting on them?

She was a dentist, FFS. Of course she could afford to walk away, rent a small apartment, either cover kids' tuition by herself or put them into public school for a period of divorce. This is really bothers me - according to the article, she knew he purchased the gun in 2022. She knew for at least several months he was heavy drinker. She knew that he does not value human lives. Why was she staying in the same house with him?

You really, really don't understand abuse, the addicted family system, or the cost of divorce, do you.

Even if her lawyer charged her $150,000+ for divorce, she certainly can afford it.

You're vile. You have no idea what her personal financial circumstances are and your non stop criticism of her is disgusting. You have NO clue. It's clear you're a misogynistic jerk who hates women so step off.

We have an idea how much she was making, we have a rough idea how much she was spending. She chose to put the kids into expensive private schools and on expensive travel teams, while she could have secured a small apartment for herself and children in a good school district. She certailiy could afford it. Instead, she kept up with appearances. If you are in danger, you should always put your and your children safety first.

Ever thought that by doing the very thing you suggest it could have provoked him sooner to kill her?

There is no safe haven from a control freak misogynist.