Chuck and Judith Cox file for custody

[Just-a-Guy]

Just a Guy do you think these were written by an attorney? Because last we heard JP didn't have an attorney.

Though it would make sense that after losing at the last hearing that he would go out and get an attorney. If he did this attorney is working fast.

I have no way of knowing. I haven't read them (have they been posted, or links?). The quotes I've seen don't necessarily cry out "written by an attorney". Anyone could write that kind of stuff. I don't think it much matters.

And by the way, attorneys can work really fast...if paid to do so.


ETA: OK, I see one of the links does lead to the at least one declaration (not just an article quoting it, which is what I read before). I'll have a look.

 

[Just-a-Guy]

Just a Guy do you think these were written by an attorney? Because last we heard JP didn't have an attorney.

Though it would make sense that after losing at the last hearing that he would go out and get an attorney. If he did this attorney is working fast.

OK, I read thru the declarations posted via the link in one of the posts above. Just quickly read thru them. The siblings and the mother. In my opinion, these were probably not written by an attorney. They are too "casual" and "anecdotal" and just not very well done. Could be a lousy attorney, I guess. But there is just not what I would expect in terms of the sort of language attorneys tend to use.

My initial thinking in reading the first few (siblings) was that Josh wrote them. And I suspect he did. A couple of them (Michael and Terri) I tend to think may have been written by the individuals themselves. Hard to say.

All just my guess-work. But I think it's all pretty sloppy and desperate sounding. Sounds like Josh's work. I don't find them compelling at all, fwiw.

 

[TrY]

I think the mother is filing on his behalf because she's afraid if she doesn't she'll never get to see her grandkids again if he wins, JMO.

I read the article and I was surprised that Josh's mom would file a declaration supporting her son, especially when he is a POI in the disappearance of his wife Susan Powell. Since Josh's mom has only seen her grandson's once in the whole time since Susan went missing, I do wonder too if Josh is telling his mom that if she doesn't support him in his custody battle, she won't get to see her grandsons.

 

[mysteriew]

I read the article and I was surprised that Josh's mom would file a declaration supporting her son, especially when he is a POI in the disappearance of his wife Susan Powell. Since Josh's mom has only seen her grandson's once in the whole time since Susan went missing, I do wonder too if Josh is telling his mom that if she doesn't support him in his custody battle, she won't get to see her grandsons.

Whether he said it or not, it would be in the air. She lives with Jennifer who has come out against him. He hasn't lived with her in a long time and apparently hasn't visited much. Probably wouldn't take much to break the tie completely.

But she does appear to have tried to be honest. She didn't seem to lie or attempt to avoid the fact that she has only seen the kids once since they moved to Wa.

And never forget that bottom line she is his Mom. And he is her baby. No matter what. So an honest letter I can live with.

 

[mysteriew]

OK, I read thru the declarations posted via the link in one of the posts above. Just quickly read thru them. The siblings and the mother. In my opinion, these were probably not written by an attorney. They are too "casual" and "anecdotal" and just not very well done. Could be a lousy attorney, I guess. But there is just not what I would expect in terms of the sort of language attorneys tend to use.

My initial thinking in reading the first few (siblings) was that Josh wrote them. And I suspect he did. A couple of them (Michael and Terri) I tend to think may have been written by the individuals themselves. Hard to say.

All just my guess-work. But I think it's all pretty sloppy and desperate sounding. Sounds like Josh's work. I don't find them compelling at all, fwiw.

Thank you.

 

[Donjeta]

I haven't read the actual declarations yet because the scribd documents take forever to load on my PC so pardon me if this is a stupid question but did Josh's mother truly write that she thinks the boys are well adjusted because she's seen them once and heard them keep some noise in the background of a telephone call?

Why doesn't she talk to the actual children herself, over the phone? That's what my children and their grandparents do to stay in contact when they can't see each other. They did so even when the children were not very verbal yet.

Is Josh so paranoid he wouldn't let them even talk to the granny?

Two of Alina Powell’s friends, 26-year-old Ana Ramos of Kent, Wash. and 31-year-old Kenneth Bentley of Vero Beach, Fla., filed declarations in support of the Powell family. They testified about visiting the home and called the Powells an "all-American family."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52682501-78/powell-josh-wrote-alina.html.csp?page=2

From Vero Beach, Fla.?? This man has seen the children how many times exactly?

I suppose it doesn't really take much to be an all-American family, if only Daddy agrees not to show his kiddie *advertiser censored* collection to the guests you're all set.

 

[hollyblue]

I just can't get over the fact of SP's "stash" and it still being in the house...especially with JP being under suspicion and them causing such a ruckus about Susan and her journals. Not saying JP is a good person, but I'd be livid if I was him, tbh. Has it finally sunk in with JP? Their logic just boggles my mind. imo

 

[Donjeta]

I just can't get over the fact of SP's "stash" and it still being in the house...especially with JP being under suspicion and them causing such a ruckus about Susan and her journals. Not saying JP is a good person, but I'd be livid if I was him, tbh. Has it finally sunk in with JP? Their logic just boggles my mind. imo

Just about the strongest word he used about his dad's crimes in the declaration was "unexpected". Oh, and maybe "potential future threat", although it's used in a way that it could refer to many other things besides his dad's proclivities. It doesn't sound like he's livid to me but I totally agree with you. Given his situation, even if he's not angry finding out that SP collects images of naked minors he should be mad that SP didn't hide the stash better, causing JP to lose the children as well, at least for the time being.

In other thoughts, do you think he might have told the truth (from his own perspective) when he wrote "I have taken and will continue to take every step possible to mitigate any future threat to the well being of my sons"?

It may be just my mind racing to unintended conclusions but I just couldn't help wondering if he's rationalized Susan's murder in his mind like this. Maybe Susan threatened to leave with the children and not let them see the pervy granddad and he "mitigated the threat" by killing her. All for the good for his sons. Because it would be bad for them to be away from the all-American Powell family. :maddening:

I would like to know what actions he refers when saying he's taken every step possible to eliminate threats to his sons' wellbeing. What on earth does he consider worthy of action if the constant presence of a grandfather with some very worrisome tendencies wasn't a threat in his mind?

 

[sunnydee]

I read the article and I was surprised that Josh's mom would file a declaration supporting her son, especially when he is a POI in the disappearance of his wife Susan Powell. Since Josh's mom has only seen her grandson's once in the whole time since Susan went missing, I do wonder too if Josh is telling his mom that if she doesn't support him in his custody battle, she won't get to see her grandsons.

From my own experience having grown up as a child in a very violent household - my guess is that Josh's mother probably is defending Josh as a father because otherwise people would question how could a mother leave her minor children in the custody of a man like Steve to be raised by him. She is justifying that Josh wasn't affected by his father's behaviors (the same behaviors which led to her divorcing him and fleeing from Washington to get away from him).

My own mother talks about how SHE was the victim of the abusive men she chose to be with. She ignores the sexual, physical and emotional abuse we all endured from her partners. She claims she sacrificed herself, her own safety so "we could have a father" only that none of her boyfriends ever acted in any way like a father - none of them provided financial support, none provided a family environment for us. We were abused every day, until the day we left the household. Time after time, my mother would chose a man, any man over the safety of any of her children.

Josh's mother may not be able to think of how her decision to move out of state, leaving her minior children under the care of Steven may have negatively affected their personality. She doesn't want to believe that Josh is like his father. She probably wants to believe that Steven was a crummy husband, but was a good father to their children none the less.

Otherwise, what kind of person would she be, to have left her children vulnerable to his childrearing? I think her brain requires her to believe that her children were raised well by Steven in her absence.

 

[sunnydee]

Anyone remembers all of the "testimonies" that Josh had on his real estate website about what a great agent he was? He had his friends and relatives write fake letters of support to convince strangers that he had satisfied customers.

These letters testifying to Josh's parenting skills are no more than that - and should not be given much weight since they were written under the duress of showing support for someone who needs help making him look good, since he doesn't have any unbiased evidence of his being a good father.

I would be more convinced by letters by non relatives who have regular contact with him - such as the son's teacher.

 

[sunnydee]

I just can't get over the fact of SP's "stash" and it still being in the house...especially with JP being under suspicion and them causing such a ruckus about Susan and her journals. Not saying JP is a good person, but I'd be livid if I was him, tbh. Has it finally sunk in with JP? Their logic just boggles my mind. imo

I don't believe for a single moment that Josh didn't know about his father's stash, or the fact that he was using a powerful telescopic lens to take photos of his neighbor's recently. A person like that is likely to not only collect the images for his private viewing - but is likely to be speaking to others in a way that shows his character.

Josh shrugs off Steven's talk about Susan being very flirtacious with him. Josh agreed, Susan was very flirtacious and sexually open. Steven shared information about his *advertiser censored* stash, Susan's temple garments and other things with a woman who he had limited contact with. If Steven had such loose lips with an acquaintance - how on earth could Steven had kept his sickness private from Josh or the grandchildren?

Wasn't Josh concern about the strange artwork in the household - a poster with a sword into the genitals of a woman, or the noose with the papermache person? Would not a concern parent asked the owner of these items to keep them in their private room instead of the general living quarters where the children would be viewing them regularly?

 

[LambChop]

From my own experience having grown up as a child in a very violent household - my guess is that Josh's mother probably is defending Josh as a father because otherwise people would question how could a mother leave her minor children in the custody of a man like Steve to be raised by him. She is justifying that Josh wasn't affected by his father's behaviors (the same behaviors which led to her divorcing him and fleeing from Washington to get away from him).

My own mother talks about how SHE was the victim of the abusive men she chose to be with. She ignores the sexual, physical and emotional abuse we all endured from her partners. She claims she sacrificed herself, her own safety so "we could have a father" only that none of her boyfriends ever acted in any way like a father - none of them provided financial support, none provided a family environment for us. We were abused every day, until the day we left the household. Time after time, my mother would chose a man, any man over the safety of any of her children.

Josh's mother may not be able to think of how her decision to move out of state, leaving her minior children under the care of Steven may have negatively affected their personality. She doesn't want to believe that Josh is like his father. She probably wants to believe that Steven was a crummy husband, but was a good father to their children none the less.

Otherwise, what kind of person would she be, to have left her children vulnerable to his childrearing? I think her brain requires her to believe that her children were raised well by Steven in her absence.

I thought the older children chose to be with their father. If they were old enough the judge would have permitted them to stay so JP's mother would not have had a choice in the matter. So that would be different than if she left without them and they had no choice but to stay with their dad. Some children are easily influenced by one parent or the other. jmo

 

[grayjay]

Saying Josh is "a very engaged father" could be putting the best possible spin on what others might see as a very controlling father, too. Even a puppetmaster can make it look like he's engaged and the puppet has freedom to choose.

JMO

 

[RubyBlu]

Declarations and affidavits are almost never written by the person who signed them. I write them all the time for people. You generally come up with what you want the person to say, "interview" the person and try to ascertain whether they will agree with what you want them to say, then type it up based on a balance of the above. A lot of times, they are never even read by the person signing them. That's why much of the time anyone who submits one is subject to direct examination, either in a deposition or in a hearing or at trial. You test their mettle and the extent to which they were telling "the truth".

I have no idea how that works in a custody hearing in Washington State. But I don't think Judge Nelson is anybody's fool. They'll be taken for what they are. Which is not much.

Thanks for the info -- if you don't mind my asking -- are you in the legal profession?

 

[DLT88]

snip


"Our loving and stable family unit" If josh says it enough times he may just start to believe it, as for anyone else, not so much.

I notice that he somewhere picks up buzz phrases and keeps using them over and over again --- much like our politicians do to try and make us believe something. In court he kept saying "It's in the best interest of my sons 'to stay with their father'" I heard "best interest" "best interest" "best interest" mumbling from his mouth to the judge so many times, it made me sick. I hope the tactic made the judge sick, too.

 

[Just-a-Guy]

Thanks for the info -- if you don't mind my asking -- are you in the legal profession?

Yes. And I don't mind at all.

 

[Steely Dan]

Just about the strongest word he used about his dad's crimes in the declaration was "unexpected". Oh, and maybe "potential future threat", although it's used in a way that it could refer to many other things besides his dad's proclivities. It doesn't sound like he's livid to me but I totally agree with you. Given his situation, even if he's not angry finding out that SP collects images of naked minors he should be mad that SP didn't hide the stash better, causing JP to lose the children as well, at least for the time being.

In other thoughts, do you think he might have told the truth (from his own perspective) when he wrote "I have taken and will continue to take every step possible to mitigate any future threat to the well being of my sons"?

It may be just my mind racing to unintended conclusions but I just couldn't help wondering if he's rationalized Susan's murder in his mind like this. Maybe Susan threatened to leave with the children and not let them see the pervy granddad and he "mitigated the threat" by killing her. All for the good for his sons. Because it would be bad for them to be away from the all-American Powell family. :maddening:

I would like to know what actions he refers when saying he's taken every step possible to eliminate threats to his sons' wellbeing. What on earth does he consider worthy of action if the constant presence of a grandfather with some very worrisome tendencies wasn't a threat in his mind?

BBM

I like your interpretation. What I want to know is what he means by he has taken and will continue to take does that mean he knew the environment he was taking his kids to was extremely dysfunctional and he "tried" to guard them against the grossness of his fathers house?

I haven't read the actual declarations yet because the scribd documents take forever to load on my PC so pardon me if this is a stupid question but did Josh's mother truly write that she thinks the boys are well adjusted because she's seen them once and heard them keep some noise in the background of a telephone call?

Why doesn't she talk to the actual children herself, over the phone? That's what my children and their grandparents do to stay in contact when they can't see each other. They did so even when the children were not very verbal yet.

Is Josh so paranoid he wouldn't let them even talk to the granny?



http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52682501-78/powell-josh-wrote-alina.html.csp?page=2

From Vero Beach, Fla.?? This man has seen the children how many times exactly?

I suppose it doesn't really take much to be an all-American family, if only Daddy agrees not to show his kiddie *advertiser censored* collection to the guests you're all set.

I haven't read the letter but from what I've heard so far, it seems her letter was very carefully crafted. It looks like a support letter, but also states some things in a way that may have two meanings. JMO

 

[mysteriew]

From my own experience having grown up as a child in a very violent household - my guess is that Josh's mother probably is defending Josh as a father because otherwise people would question how could a mother leave her minor children in the custody of a man like Steve to be raised by him. She is justifying that Josh wasn't affected by his father's behaviors (the same behaviors which led to her divorcing him and fleeing from Washington to get away from him).

My own mother talks about how SHE was the victim of the abusive men she chose to be with. She ignores the sexual, physical and emotional abuse we all endured from her partners. She claims she sacrificed herself, her own safety so "we could have a father" only that none of her boyfriends ever acted in any way like a father - none of them provided financial support, none provided a family environment for us. We were abused every day, until the day we left the household. Time after time, my mother would chose a man, any man over the safety of any of her children.

Josh's mother may not be able to think of how her decision to move out of state, leaving her minior children under the care of Steven may have negatively affected their personality. She doesn't want to believe that Josh is like his father. She probably wants to believe that Steven was a crummy husband, but was a good father to their children none the less.

Otherwise, what kind of person would she be, to have left her children vulnerable to his childrearing? I think her brain requires her to believe that her children were raised well by Steven in her absence.

I agree that JP's mother may feel some of those feelings and guilt. But we also have to remember there are reports that she did try to fight to get custody of her kids. Reports indicate that there was a very bitter custody battle. But she couldn't overrule the court and some of her kids requested to stay with their father. So even though she might feel some guilt over it, it really was out of her hands.

 

[mysteriew]

BBM

I like your interpretation. What I want to know is what he means by he has taken and will continue to take does that mean he knew the environment he was taking his kids to was extremely dysfunctional and he "tried" to guard them against the grossness of his fathers house?



I haven't read the letter but from what I've heard so far, it seems her letter was very carefully crafted. It looks like a support letter, but also states some things in a way that may have two meanings. JMO

I so agree with that. Most outlined very clearly the limited context of their contact with the family. Then their observations within that limited contact. Probably the least carefully worded seems to have been AP's friends.

 

[UtahMom]

I find it interesting he posted these legal declarations and filings under "Josh" Powell.

Do you usually need to file court paperwork using your full and complete legal name?