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

[~n/t~]

Most states do not have specific laws regarding child custody, supervised visitation or how visits are conducted, several legal experts say.

Instead, judges empowered with a high degree of discretion determine who gets custody, what losing custody means and where and when supervised visits occur.

"The trend has been for every state to give judges broad discretion to protect children," said Randall Kessler, chairman of the American Bar Association's family law section. "I can't imagine that the judge had any concern that the father would do this or the judge wouldn't have allowed the children to see him."

While most legal scholars agree that judges need leeway to consider the facts of each case individually, at least one group is asking for more concrete laws in governing custody battles.

"The current standard — 'in the best interest of the child' — we believe is very vague and subjective," said Sheila Peltzer, president of the Charlotte, N.C.-based Kids Need 2 Parents advocacy group. "Judges have too much discretion."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/parent...arks-questions-about-child-custody/53003130/1

 

[marlame]

I'm not sure if this as been posted on websleuths:

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-lawmakers-call-for-dshs-supervision-changes-20120207,0,1127948.story

Josh Powell, had twice weekly visits with his kids at a neutral location --a "safe house". Josh complained about a lack of quality time with his sons and that they had to share toys with other children who were also using the facility. Josh Powell rented a house and Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) determined it was all right for the boys to visit him there instead of the at the "safe house".

JMHO...DSHS made a fatal error in ever allowing the location switch for supervised visits.
DSHS failed those 2 little boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only hope the exposure on this case prompts some serious changes in protecting children. lease:

I am just so sad... my heart breaks for the Cox family.

 

[Cubby]

"The current standard — 'in the best interest of the child' — we believe is very vague and subjective," said Sheila Peltzer, president of the Charlotte, N.C.-based Kids Need 2 Parents advocacy group. "Judges have too much discretion."

Most of these advocacy groups are based around circumstances which exist denying a parent access without valid reason. Very limited visitation or parenting time for the non custodial parent and a lack of enforcement of custody orders when one exists.

They have a valid purpose, no doubt, because false allegations are flung far too often and there is little repercussion for the custodial parent denying access when the courts allow it.

I don't necessarily know that this 'advocacy group' out of North Carolina has much to offer by way of this particular case. IMO, they are taking advantage of a horrific tragedy to get their groups message across.
I find that as tactless as psychic's who prey upon the parents of missing children, or the family and loved ones of any missing person.

 

[tomkat]

Should the boys have been visiting Josh Powell?

Joy Silberg, a psychologist who specializes in child protection and abuse cases, says courts often place more value on parental rights than a child’s safety – or see them as equal concerns, when in her view, the parental rights should be secondary.

“I have situations where the child has disclosed very clear disclosures about a parent, or terror at being near a parent … and the judge still orders a child to go [to visitation] because the parental right is seen as having so much more power,” says Dr. Silberg.

While she doesn’t know all the facts of the Powell case, she adds, “it’s hard for me to believe that this was completely out of the blue and that no one knew he was this destructive. People usually leave clues.”http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0...ty-Should-boys-have-been-visiting-Josh-Powell

I'm not a Christian Scientist, but I think this article is bringing up a lot of the same issues that we've been questioning in the threads.

Where do we draw the line?

UM, Common sense SHOULD PREVAIL!!! If a parent is a possiblesuspect, suspect or person of interest in a murder case, there should be some lines drawn very clearly! Those poor children hacked to death and blown up by their father. Then the poor social worker has to live with that too! I guess no one saw the notes soon enough to contact the social system??

 

[CHERIE.T]

I have no answers or suggestions. I only wish things were done differently. The children's safety and the children's rights should always come first. The boys murders should be a big wake up call to CPS, states gvt, etc.

imho

 

[CHERIE.T]

UM, Common sense SHOULD PREVAIL!!! If a parent is a possiblesuspect, suspect or person of interest in a murder case, there should be some lines drawn very clearly! Those poor children hacked to death and blown up by their father. Then the poor social worker has to live with that too! I guess no one saw the notes soon enough to contact the social system??

Ya, common sense and top priority, I agree.

bbm-imho

 

[tomkat]

I'm not sure if this as been posted on websleuths:

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-lawmakers-call-for-dshs-supervision-changes-20120207,0,1127948.story

Josh Powell, had twice weekly visits with his kids at a neutral location --a "safe house". Josh complained about a lack of quality time with his sons and that they had to share toys with other children who were also using the facility. Josh Powell rented a house and Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) determined it was all right for the boys to visit him there instead of the at the "safe house".

DSHS made a fatal error in ever allowing the location switch for supervised visits. DSHS failed those 2 little boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only hope the exposure on this case prompts some serious changes in protecting children. lease:

I am just so sad... my heart breaks for the Cox family.

Mine too...........all involved with surely suffer some repercussions from all this and hopefully many will learn from it. HOw stupid to move and allow a possible murder suspect to have any rights. Did anyone see this guy in court? He looked HORRIBLE, he looked suicidal! SO DANG SAD and sickening this case is !!!!!!

 

[the seeker]

Not only was JP a POI, the children were possible witnesses to a crime, which is evident by the remarks they made. When it became evident they may KNOW something about the actual crime, due to remarks that were made. An emergency court order should have been put in place to cease and desist visitations. That is the very least that should have been done.

I think we need a new law.

 

[tomkat]

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.

Yes, FIRST and LAST mistake!!!!!! How SAD!!

 

[Kimster]

I'm not sure if this as been posted on websleuths:

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-lawmakers-call-for-dshs-supervision-changes-20120207,0,1127948.story

Josh Powell, had twice weekly visits with his kids at a neutral location --a "safe house". Josh complained about a lack of quality time with his sons and that they had to share toys with other children who were also using the facility. Josh Powell rented a house and Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) determined it was all right for the boys to visit him there instead of the at the "safe house".

JMHO...DSHS made a fatal error in ever allowing the location switch for supervised visits.
DSHS failed those 2 little boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only hope the exposure on this case prompts some serious changes in protecting children. lease:

I am just so sad... my heart breaks for the Cox family.

Every day I read something about this case that makes me feel like Josh is coming back from the grave to punch us all in the stomach again.

This is the punch for today, IMO.

 

[DLT88]

I'm not sure if this as been posted on websleuths:

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-lawmakers-call-for-dshs-supervision-changes-20120207,0,1127948.story

Josh Powell, had twice weekly visits with his kids at a neutral location --a "safe house". Josh complained about a lack of quality time with his sons and that they had to share toys with other children who were also using the facility. Josh Powell rented a house and Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) determined it was all right for the boys to visit him there instead of the at the "safe house".

JMHO...DSHS made a fatal error in ever allowing the location switch for supervised visits.
DSHS failed those 2 little boys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can only hope the exposure on this case prompts some serious changes in protecting children. lease:

I am just so sad... my heart breaks for the Cox family.

Yes, they did!!! So that's who made the decision. I feel he rented that house with the purpose of having a place to do this murder-suicide. I also believe that even if he had been given custody back, he still was planning this murder-suicide because he killed Susan and they were closing in on him. When he was denied custody, I wonder if he thought "oh darn. It's going to be harder now to do my plan." So all his VM's about not being able to live without his sons is garbage! Boo hooo. I was all about JP and them closing in on him.

 

[wenwe4]

Not only was JP a POI, the children were possible witnesses to a crime, which is evident by the remarks they made. When it became evident they may KNOW something about the actual crime, due to remarks that were made. An emergency court order should have been put in place to cease and desist visitations. That is the very least that should have been done.

I think we need a new law.

I so agree with you but I am not sure how it would translate into a new law. Unfortunately, for child protection issues - Washington is an "imminent harm" State which essentially translates 'is the child going to die in the next 24 hours'. DCFS (CPS) would argue that there are many reasons why they must provide supervised visits.

*Federal law requires visitation between parents and their children (in the least restrictive environment) The only time that parents are refused visits are if they have perpetrated sexual abuse against that child, the parent is in jail, or if the parent does not follow through with their court ordered services.

*Josh was never charged with a crime, has no criminal record, and although he is a "suspect or POI" in a crime does not negate his parental rights to visits with his child.

*Once the child(ren) are placed into foster care the clock begins to tick. The parents have one year to ameloriate the issues that brought the child into care. If the parents make progress toward their court ordered services and comply with their requirements, the State must work toward reunification between the parent and child(ren). CPS must return the children within the one year or follow through with termination of parental rights. The idea behind this is that children cannot wait forever for their parents to get their act together. Therefore, the State is obligated to work towards finding a permanent home for them if the parent doesn't make progress within the year.

The judge ordered visits in the home despite reports of Josh attending one counseling session. (IMO this is not sufficient for counting as "progress" toward reunification)

 

[Isabelle]

Children have no rights!

 

[concentric]

Let me say first, that I am posting this not being privy to any prior postings. I have not been diligently following this case because there were others that I was working on.

When I heard Ann Bremner (sp?) speak on Nancy Grace, that really struck a chord with me. She talked about what defense lawyers for fathers frequently cite as an issue: that there is a supposed "parental alienation" caused by mothers.

I call BS on this in many, many cases.

If anything, most mothers would protect their children with every fibre of their being.

This is what I believe Susan did.

Perhaps Josh was jealous?

Think about what he said in the message. "I can't live without my sons."

Did he say, "I can't live without my wife, and my sons? No. Apparently, he had no remorse or caring for what happened to his wife. That is very suspicious and telling.

So, can anyone tell me what would be his motivation for killing his wife?

And, then, of course, we have his "father"...

 

[wenwe4]

Let me say first, that I am posting this not being privy to any prior postings. I have not been diligently following this case because there were others that I was working on.

When I heard Ann Bremner (sp?) speak on Nancy Grace, that really struck a chord with me. She talked about what defense lawyers for fathers frequently cite as an issue: that there is a supposed "parental alienation" caused by mothers.

I call BS on this in many, many cases.

If anything, most mothers would protect their children with every fibre of their being.

This is what I believe the Susan did.

Perhaps the father was jealous?

Think about what he said in the message. "I can't live without my sons."

Did he say, "I can't live without my wife, and my sons? No. Apparently, he had no remorse or caring for what happened to his wife. That is very suspicious and telling.

So, can anyone tell me what would be his motivation for killing his wife?

And, then, of course, we have his "father"...

I think what he meant to say was "My Sons will not live without ME!" and he didn't mention his wife . . . he made sure she didn't live.

 

[concentric]

I think what he meant to say was "My Sons will not live without ME!" and he didn't mention his wife . . . he made sure she didn't live.

I agree so much with you.

Susan seemed filled with light and love. You can see it when she is in photos with her sons.

Did Josh suspect that Susan was messing with his father, because his father had an obsession with her?

That's what I'm thinking. He blamed her for his own father's perversions, and other imagined "infidelities."

He blamed her.

That's JMO.

 

[grammieto5]

Children have no rights!

This is soooo true!! Back in the 90's I was a CASA for Clark County, Nevada, for two years. I saw the judge, I still remember his name, time after time after time return the kids to the biological father, who was abusing the children, there was soooo much proof these children where being abused by this father, but the judge kept ordering them returned!!! Very sad! I'm wondering if the judge in this case is being investigated. What more did the judge who ordered these children to have "supervised" visits with JP need. Just the fact that he needed to be surpervised is a sign, add that to everything else. I do believe JP is responsible for the murder of these two little boys, but I can't help wonder what if the judge had not ordered them to do these visits :-( What if the judge had let these boys stay safe with their Grandparents ????

 

[21merc7]

I agree so much with you.

Susan seemed filled with light and love. You can see it when she is in photos with her sons.

Did Josh suspect that Susan was messing with his father, because his father had an obsession with her?

That's what I'm thinking. He blamed her for his own father's perversions, and other imagined "infidelities."

He blamed her.

That's JMO.

Which generally turns out to be the blamer of imaginary infidelities is the one that was having infidelities. Wanting out of the relationship, responsibilities, and any acknowledgement of such if these infidelities were of a very sensitive nature. If found out, would lead to violence to keep it concealed. (Ie. Josh didn't like women.)

 

[marlame]

Let me say first, that I am posting this not being privy to any prior postings. I have not been diligently following this case because there were others that I was working on.

When I heard Ann Bremner (sp?) speak on Nancy Grace, that really struck a chord with me. She talked about what defense lawyers for fathers frequently cite as an issue: that there is a supposed "parental alienation" caused by mothers.

I call BS on this in many, many cases.

If anything, most mothers would protect their children with every fibre of their being.

This is what I believe Susan did.

Perhaps Josh was jealous?

Think about what he said in the message. "I can't live without my sons."

Did he say, "I can't live without my wife, and my sons? No. Apparently, he had no remorse or caring for what happened to his wife. That is very suspicious and telling.

So, can anyone tell me what would be his motivation for killing his wife?

And, then, of course, we have his "father"...

BBM
What could be a possible motivation for killing Susan? In my opinion I think Josh did it due to various factors...
-He was severly damaged by a sick and twisted childhood environment
-Courtesy of his father Steve Powell...Josh's childhood was saturated with *advertiser censored* and ill-treatment of women.
-Tragically, he never overcame the effects of being raised by deivant father
-Josh was damaged and evil
-Perceived threats; she could expose him or his father's dirty secrets
-Possessiveness; if she left him he could no longer control her

I do believe it was a deliberate act...Just as deliberate as the killing of his innocent children.

 

[Isabelle]

Does anyone know or has it been written that the visit on Sunday was the first at the home Josh rented?

He got away with what he has done by being a sociopath extraordinaire!