Parental rights vs. child safety (Was there any reason Josh was awarded visits?)

[jjenny]

I am not sure that "crazy person" is a legal definition. I think they are following the letter of the law, but sometimes the law is an *advertiser censored*. I can name quite a few cases where it's obvious the person shouldn't have custody of children or visitation and yet they are still allowed because that is the letter of the law.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Thank you Irish! Is this suggestion already in the Websleuths Radio forum?

I had e-mailed Tricia about Lundy Bancroft, but not the other names.

 

[sorrell skye]

I am not sure that "crazy person" is a legal definition. I think they are following the letter of the law, but sometimes the law is an *advertiser censored*. I can name quite a few cases where it's obvious the person shouldn't have custody of children or visitation and yet they are still allowed because that is the letter of the law.

There is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. Judges have lee-way when making decisions that affect people's lives & safety, and they also take into consideration the input from various sources, including, but not limited to: CPS, LE, the DA's office, GALs, and custodial family members (see the Kyron Horman case for an example of that).

This custody dispute was not the run of the mill custody battle. It involved a missing person's case (which has now been officially labeled a murder investigation). Rubberstamping supervised visitation - and especially allowing that visitation to occur in the POI's home - should have never happened.

Regarding the psychosexual eval:

"Either he refuses to take to take it and he loses custody of his children, or he takes it and reveals information that will cost him custody of his children," says [Pierce County Prosecutor] Lindquist.
http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=138831984&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10212

Hindsight be damned. There were sufficient reasons to have prohibited visitation in foresight, if those with the authority to make the right decision had done so.

 

[passionflower]

JVMitchell talking about how wrong the system is.
Has a mom on that had to hand her 2 sons over to X who was
known to be bi-polar and he did suicide and killed her 2 sons on a weekend visitation......

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Some of you may remember seeing Katie Tagle on Dr. Phil talking about the murder of her son Wyatt. After Wyatt's father threatened to kill the baby Katie sought a restraining order from a judge who refused to uphold it, saying "I think I know which one of you is lying."

Here is her story in detail:

http://www.hidesertstar.com/news/article_2ba8c37e-e6ee-5f2c-8285-1ac551e84ed4.html

This is what protective parents (or in the Cox's case and others, grandparents) face on a daily basis. Few cases have such tragic outcomes, but many many children are subjected to continued abuse because judges don't take seriously the threat of violence.

 

[dr dona]

an idea that could be implemented nationally which could benefit and protect our children is for the courts to give the most weight in child placement issues to the recommendation of an attorney ad litem who is assigned to protect the rights of the children. The Florida judge totally ignored that attorney's recommendation that the twins should be placed with the maternal Grandmoither. This is unacceptable!!!!!! The opionion of the attorney ad litem should be followed!!!!!!!

 

[gitana1]

My heart breaks for them. They knew, their intuition was right. They could see the signs but, the courts, judge did not use common sense.

1) Being the only suspect in a missing wife/murder suspect was the biggest red flag of all
2) father for having child *advertiser censored*
3) noose in house
4) naked brother roaming around
5) Josh's behavior (hostile/unstable)

I wonder if the judge even reads the case dockets?
We gotta push harder for victim's rights esp. children!

I actually think the judge didn't everything she thought she could do to keep him from harming his kids. I have never seen a judge order a psycho-sexual eval in a case before. They are very, very rare. I feel this judge worried greatly about him but felt her hands were tied by the constitution which protects the rights of parents to their children and the rights of suspects and defendants, much more than than it protects the rights of children to live. At least that is how it is interpreted.

I do think she could have done more (and I would have. I would have taken the risk of having my ruling overturned) but frankly, given the current legal climate, the Coxes were lucky to have custody at all. Remember folks, the coward retained custody of his kids, even though he obviously murdered his wife, for TWO YEARS after that murder. Anything more the judge may have done would likely be appealable. And that is a problem.

True sociopaths wouldn't care...IMPO, not one iota.
I did wonder if Casey would be outraged by this story, if it would sicken her the way it does us...but I don't think she would bat an eyelash. It doesn't, afterall, have anything to do with her.

Yes, but why wouldn't they care? If they thought it was a possibility that they could spend the afterlife in hell, why wouldn't that scare them? Do you think it's because their brains don't work the way the rest of ours do? No genuine love or emotion for others, so maybe they cannot give creedence to spiritual beliefs that many feel originated from, or are counted on due to, emotions like grief, love, loss? I don't know.

Slippery slope, imo. Define "cooperating". 2, 5, 10, 25 interviews with LE ? 90% of the time POI's do cooperate with LE until evidence and or a body is found.

We have to remember, narcisissts think this is all a game. Heck, look at Scott Peterson. I know he didn't have children but he cooperated with LE, he gave interviews, he attended vigils (albeit talking to his lover pretending to be in Paris) but nobody knew at the time.

It means nothing, imo.

My feeling is that we create a presumption in the law that custody should not go to POI's or suspects. A presumption is rebuttable. They could rebut it by undergoing psych evals, by the results of an investigation by a team of committed investigators reviewing the facts, the suspect's behavior and history, to determine the likliehood that the POI committed a crime, etc.

Of course, many will say that such would infringe on the suspects right to not incriminate themselves. And that would be true to some degree. But I think the child's right to live should trump the suspect's rights. They wouldn't have to rebut the presumption but they would have to choose. (Of course, if they were really innocent, yet being railroaded, that would be awful, but I think we should err on the side of caution and on the side of the kids).

I am not sure that "crazy person" is a legal definition. I think they are following the letter of the law, but sometimes the law is an *advertiser censored*. I can name quite a few cases where it's obvious the person shouldn't have custody of children or visitation and yet they are still allowed because that is the letter of the law.

There is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. Judges have lee-way when making decisions that affect people's lives & safety, and they also take into consideration the input from various sources, including, but not limited to: CPS, LE, the DA's office, GALs, and custodial family members (see the Kyron Horman case for an example of that).

This custody dispute was not the run of the mill custody battle. It involved a missing person's case (which has now been officially labeled a murder investigation). Rubberstamping supervised visitation - and especially allowing that visitation to occur in the POI's home - should have never happened.

Regarding the psychosexual eval:

"Either he refuses to take to take it and he loses custody of his children, or he takes it and reveals information that will cost him custody of his children," says [Pierce County Prosecutor] Lindquist.
http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=138831984&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10212

Hindsight be damned. There were sufficient reasons to have prohibited visitation in foresight, if those with the authority to make the right decision had done so.

Yes. I agree with you. See, Kyron's case shows that a judge can decide to trump the parent's rights. It is difficult but even now, it can be done. In criminal court, reasonable doubt is the standard. That is not the standard in family court. It is "best interests of the child" which allows for much more wiggle room. For example, in California's supervised visitation order form it states: "Evidence has been presented in support of a request that contact of the [Petitioner] with the minor children be supervised, based on allegations of..."and there there is a list, like sexual abuse, violence, "other", etc., that judge can check off, depending on the circumstances of the case. The form ends stating that "the court finds the best interest of the children mandates that visits be supervised."

There is nothing there that states evidence proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

I think that judges are gun shy because of the constitutionally supported rights of parents to their children and because of the rights of suspects against self-incrimination, the criminal presumption of innocence, etc. But family law courts, dependency courts, they do have leeway. I believe we need to make policies that give those judges the green light, that let them know whose rights need to be paramount. Policies that clarify that the best interests of children should always trump their parent's rights.

To me, this was an eventuality. The system did not do enough to protect those little boys.

 

[ozazure]

Definitely safety should come first. Especially with technology such as skype, a relationship can be maintained inexpensively, completely monitored, and the child's physical safety is protected, if not their emotional.

I understand there has to be a certain weight of evidence before charges are laid. I do wonder if sometimes now LE waits longer on the hope of physical evidence from forensics because that has "lifted the bar" of expectations and if in previous decades pattern of conduct and unusual behaviour before and after a disappearance were given their due weight.

Are there peer reviewed studies about when a parent is likely to be homicidal, or homicidal/suicidal? I assume there is. I really do feel for the parents who have been suspects when their partners or children are murdered or missing and it turns out they are innocent. I assume however that it is statistically rare for this to occur. So much more often the suspicion is warranted. Innocent until guilty in the courts, but when it comes to the kids, the midnight camping trip should have been the last time he was in the care of them alone IMO.

 

[gitana1]

Not admissible in criminal court but this was a child custody case. I am pretty sure they could make him to take a poly if he wanted custody of his kids back.

That's sort of right. They could not make him take a poly but they could tell him that if he didn't, he would not get his kids back.

Same thing with drug testing or psych exams in general. A person can say no but then they are unlikely to prevail in their custody case.

Criminal court and family court are vastly different. What is inadmissible in criminal court does not always apply in family court.

The way the results would come in here would be in the context of a psychological evaluation report. So, the report would be considered by the judge, along with any recommendations. The things found in the report are not stand-alone evidence, like polygraph results. Instead, what the psychologist determined based on his or her interpretation of the report, would be considered testimony.

The problems with this is that i don't think one psychologist is enough. Polygraphs and psych tests like the MMPII are interpreted and often that interpretation is impacted by the biases of the interpreter.

I have seen that in my own cases. In one, my client was tested and came out without any kind of psychological problems of any kind. I knew that was false. But, that is how the psychologist interpreted the results. The interpretation is subjective, not objective. I had worked with the guy for several years and knew he was crazy. A good person, but nutty, very disordered. Yet, he came out clean.

That's how casey anthony managed to come out without a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder when the hired guns evaluated her. Subjective analysis.

And clearly, the psychologist who earlier evaluated the coward in this case, was wrong. According to the Coxes, he or she said that the coward was not a risk to the children's safety. Yeah, right.

So that's why I prefer a team, in serious cases like this where there are murder allegations, etc. But we have to be willing to pay for that.

 

[gitana1]

It doesn't seem as though he was a "person of interest" in any way to the Utah PD or the WA PD. Just as they weren't following him when he rented a car, they weren't monitoring his bank accounts, they weren't keeping him under surveillance when he rented a house he couldn't afford and gave away his kids' possessions, and bought large quantities of gasoline in gas cans, they had never searched his storage unit, and they had no adequate supervision set up to protect the boys from a possible murderer.

Were they waiting for him to put up a billboard? Call up and confess?

I am in shock. Really he wasn't being monitored or watched this whole time?
Who is in charge of this investigation? I think there needs to be an internal investigation of the LE, and courts over this.
You got to kidding? You get in more trouble with a DUI.

Was this a money thing? I mean, I know the state of Washington nixed a one strike law for child molesters due to cost. Tailing a guy for two years is very expensive. I don't know. I know from watching sporadic, sudden searches that they really wanted to rattle the coward's cage and really wanted him. I just can't tell if they were inept or not. At least right now.

I just feel that there was at least enough evidence for them to alert social services and for social services to have come in right away and yanked custody. But apparently CPS doesn't think that all the evidence pointing so clearly at the coward, supported a possible risk to Charlie and Braden. So, what does constitute a risk? I'd be more apt to call CPS inept because so often, they are.

 

[x_files]

Was this a money thing? I mean, I know the state of Washington nixed a one strike law for child molesters due to cost. Tailing a guy for two years is very expensive. I don't know. I know from watching sporadic, sudden searches that they really wanted to rattle the coward's cage and really wanted him. I just can't tell if they were inept or not. At least right now.

I just feel that there was at least enough evidence for them to alert social services and for social services to have come in right away and yanked custody. But apparently CPS doesn't think that all the evidence pointing so clearly at the coward, supported a possible risk to Charlie and Braden. So, what does constitute a risk? I'd be more apt to call CPS inept because so often, they are.

yes, I agree CPS does seem to be underfunded and lack proper training. I really hope there's an internal and thorough investigation.
I guess we are all in shock and angry and want answers. I would love to see a law about visitation vs safety in murder investigations.

 

[Cubby]

gitana1,

Thank you for your responses on this thread. I came here to ask if anything would have been different for these boys if LE had been more forthright about their 'internal POI/suspect' in Susans disappearance. Your posts helped me clearly see the family courts had enough leeway already without needing LE to make their POI/suspect public.

:sigh:

 

[wenwe4]

There are quite a few issues in play here . . .
#1) Josh was never charged or suspected of doing anything illegal in Washington State, therefore I highly doubt any LE (in Washington) was following him or watching him.
#2) CPS and LE have completely different legal processes. LE in Utah did not want to press charges against him as they have one chance to make it stick.
#3) The CPS allegations in Washington were allowing the children access to graphic and/or pornographic material on the computer and access to Gpa (RSO?). The court ordered a psycho-sexual eval and to follow recommendations.
#4) Utah CPS did not place these children into fostercare when they thought Josh had something to do with Susan's disappearance (and/or death). There was not a "courtesy supervision of the case" between Utah CPS and Wash CPS, therefore I do not believe both State CPS agencies were working together for the boys.
#5) CPS workers are often well trained . . . in documentation, civil rights, court procedures, legal definitions, etc. They are NOT psychologists and IIRC one Psychologist stated they did not feel Josh was a threat or danger to his children.
#6) No CPS worker can "trump" a Psychologist's professional opinion nor can they force the court to do anything. They can only make recommendations to the court based upon evidence.
#7) The CPS issues in Utah (ie: taking the children "camping" in 14 degree weather) and CPS issues in Washington (ie: inappropriate content on computer, access to Gpa. The LE issues in Utah - missing and presumed dead Wife/Mother. The LE issues in Washington . . . . .(?)

CPS in Washington State has taken a huge financial hit over the past 3 years. . . . rarely are services offered to families anymore as the State is financially broke (only tax is sales tax in Washington - sales are down due to economy therefore State is broke).

 

[Isabelle]

The judge would have done better to allow supervised visitation, AFTER pschosexual exam was done. Does anyone know who the judge on this family matter is?

 

[mysteriew]

I actually don't have a problem with the boys having had court ordered visits with their father. Sometimes kids need those in order to develop their own internal resolution of their history. As long as those visits were supervised.

I do have a problem with allowing those visits to take place in an uncontrolled environment. Allowing those visits to take place in an uncontrolled environment or an environment controlled only by Josh endangered those children as surely as would allowing Josh unsupervised visits.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I actually think the judge didn't everything she thought she could do to keep him from harming his kids. I have never seen a judge order a psycho-sexual eval in a case before. They are very, very rare. I feel this judge worried greatly about him but felt her hands were tied by the constitution which protects the rights of parents to their children and the rights of suspects and defendants, much more than than it protects the rights of children to live. At least that is how it is interpreted.

I do think she could have done more (and I would have. I would have taken the risk of having my ruling overturned) but frankly, given the current legal climate, the Coxes were lucky to have custody at all. Remember folks, the coward retained custody of his kids, even though he obviously murdered his wife, for TWO YEARS after that murder. Anything more the judge may have done would likely be appealable. And that is a problem.



Yes, but why wouldn't they care? If they thought it was a possibility that they could spend the afterlife in hell, why wouldn't that scare them? Do you think it's because their brains don't work the way the rest of ours do? No genuine love or emotion for others, so maybe they cannot give creedence to spiritual beliefs that many feel originated from, or are counted on due to, emotions like grief, love, loss? I don't know.



My feeling is that we create a presumption in the law that custody should not go to POI's or suspects. A presumption is rebuttable. They could rebut it by undergoing psych evals, by the results of an investigation by a team of committed investigators reviewing the facts, the suspect's behavior and history, to determine the likliehood that the POI committed a crime, etc.

Of course, many will say that such would infringe on the suspects right to not incriminate themselves. And that would be true to some degree. But I think the child's right to live should trump the suspect's rights. They wouldn't have to rebut the presumption but they would have to choose. (Of course, if they were really innocent, yet being railroaded, that would be awful, but I think we should err on the side of caution and on the side of the kids).





Yes. I agree with you. See, Kyron's case shows that a judge can decide to trump the parent's rights. It is difficult but even now, it can be done. In criminal court, reasonable doubt is the standard. That is not the standard in family court. It is "best interests of the child" which allows for much more wiggle room. For example, in California's supervised visitation order form it states: "Evidence has been presented in support of a request that contact of the [Petitioner] with the minor children be supervised, based on allegations of..."and there there is a list, like sexual abuse, violence, "other", etc., that judge can check off, depending on the circumstances of the case. The form ends stating that "the court finds the best interest of the children mandates that visits be supervised."

There is nothing there that states evidence proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.

I think that judges are gun shy because of the constitutionally supported rights of parents to their children and because of the rights of suspects against self-incrimination, the criminal presumption of innocence, etc. But family law courts, dependency courts, they do have leeway. I believe we need to make policies that give those judges the green light, that let them know whose rights need to be paramount. Policies that clarify that the best interests of children should always trump their parent's rights.

To me, this was an eventuality. The system did not do enough to protect those little boys.

All of this is why I think I should be the treasurer of the Committee to Elect gitana1 to Bench....or maybe even the Senate....

 

[Nixie]

I think grandparents deserve more rights. I know the Cox's had custody but they still had to go to court and fight for it repeatedly and Josh still received visitation. They should have had more power over the welfare of their grandchildren especially with their daughter not able to fight for her boys. You see it a lot where grandparents are willing to step up and provide stable and loving homes for children but the courts always what reunification with the parents. Grandparents in good health and who have a stable home should have the right to raise their grandchildren and set boundaries between the parents if criminal acts are involved. I don't think grandparents should just be able to take kids away from their parents, but in cases where so much is suspected like this one Josh should have had to jump through a lot more hoops to even see his children. There should have been mandatory therapy sessions with the family and a armed guard before it was even considered. I know it isn't the law but imo it should be. Children sometimes need to be protected from their parents and other relatives. Biology shouldn't trump a loving stable home ever no matter what the circumstances! Josh never showed the ability to give his boys the stability they needed he lived with his father who was charged with child *advertiser censored*. His brother was unstable and he had his children around all of that until a court told him not to. Common sense would tell most people not to have your children in those situations. All of this on top of the fact his wife disappeared under suspicious circumstances. The grandparents should have had the right to raise the boys no questions asked. Josh should have had to do way more then get a good attorney to get visitation.

Cases like this drive me crazy because I went through it has a child. My grandparents fought so hard for me and my father always won because he was the parent not because he was fit or because I wanted to be there. CPS and the courts knew some of what went on but kids feel a loyalty to their parents so even in situations where they know things aren't right it is difficult to stand up to your parent. It is even more difficult when children realize they can't because their parents have the right to parent even if they are not doing it well.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

I have no idea why the judge allowed s.v. at JP's home after he only attended one, that's right ONE, of the counseling sessions that was ordered last fall. That is a big red flag to me and also indicates that JP wasn't complying with the judges order from the previous hearing. (don't have a link but the info is in the Coxes file for Custody thread)Red flag for me.

I was very concerned with about JP's decline in physical appearance at last weeks hearing. His appearance had changed remarkably since last fall when he and SP went on that show that looked to be filmed in a park.. (The show where they slandered Susan, the Coxes and discussed her journals)
Big Red flag for me.

There were red flags in 2009 also where Susan's friends and family in Utah told anyone who would listen about Josh's abuse directed at Susan and disturbing behavior.(this was after her disappearance) He also left the boys at home alone once when the boys were toddlers, which is neglect.
Red Flag for me.

http://www.examiner.com/headlines-i...rts-say-controlling-behavior-a-red-flag-video

MOving to WA into his dad's compound and isolating the boys from their maternal grandparents.
Big red flag.

JP and SP showing up at the parking lot last summer/fall where Susan's family and friends were handing out flyers to confront the Coxes in public. Why be confrontational to the Coxes about keeping Susan's name out there? She is Charlie and Braden's mother, there was no cause for a reasonable person(s) to react in this way.

Okay, I'm gonna get off my soap box now but IMHO, there were plenty of red flags along the way. I commend the Coxes for fighting so hard for fighting for custody of those precious boys. We need changes in the system to protect our children. It takes a village.

MOO

wm

OT Thank you gitana1 for all the info you have shared with us! xoxo

 

[Cubby]

I actually don't have a problem with the boys having had court ordered visits with their father. Sometimes kids need those in order to develop their own internal resolution of their history. As long as those visits were supervised.

I do have a problem with allowing those visits to take place in an uncontrolled environment. Allowing those visits to take place in an uncontrolled environment or an environment controlled only by Josh endangered those children as surely as would allowing Josh unsupervised visits.

BBM. I fully agree. As for the supervised visits. I have given that a great deal of thought over the past day or so since this news broke. I honestly think whether the supervised visits occured in a controlled environment or not, Josh would have been hell bent on a murder suicide.

I really believe Josh would have gone through with a murder/suicide scenario in which a great many more persons would have been maimed or killed had these visits occured in a controlled environment. I've imagined anything from a Columbine type situation, or even perhaps a controlled envirornment such as which occured between Solomon Metalwala and his daughter M in a restaurant. In which case Josh would have obtained a weapon illegally or concocted some other means to kill himself and his boys. Or perhaps a suicide by cop type situation.

Outside of Josh being imprisoned, I don't see how this situation could have been avoided once Josh made up his mind to go through with killing himself and his children.

Even if it was known he was suicidal, a suicidal person could easily lie to professionals indicating they are not a danger to themselves or others gaining the freedom they seek to carry out their plan.

The only other option I see outside of Josh being imprisoned, is involuntary commital to a mental institution, in which case I see as a long shot as well.

:sigh:

 

[Cubby]

All of this is why I think I should be the treasurer of the Committee to Elect gitana1 to Bench....or maybe even the Senate....

Amen! gitana1 would have my vote too!