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

[Irish_Eyes]

SBM

According to this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ore-killings/2012/02/09/gIQA88LF2Q_story.html



Griffin-Hall refers to Elizabeth Griffin-Hall, the social worker who was supervising the visits.

There are plenty of studies that show that children do better with continuing contact with their family of origin, even if they were removed due to proven child abuse. If the well being of the children is worthy of consideration (and I believe it is), then arranging for regular visitation was most likely to be in their own best interests.

Yes, there is a risk that a tragedy like this will happen if there is visitation, even supervised visitation. But the reason why tragedies like this make headlines is because they are so rare. For every Charlie and Braden, there are tens of thousands of children in foster care that benefit from having regular contact with their parents.

I'm not exaggerating, btw. In 2009, there were approximately 423,773 children in foster care:

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.pdf#page=3

There is always a trade off in considering acceptable risk. The example I look at is traffic fatalities. In 2009 33,808 people died in traffic accidents. Anyone who is willing to get into a motor vehicle is tacitly saying that this is an acceptable level of risk.

So, yeah, if I had been the judge in this case, I would have ordered supervised visitation as well because it was most likely to be in Charlie and Baden's best interests to visit their father.

Thanks for your perspective on this. I think it's good that we're all having this discussion.

Some points I would offer:

I haven't studied much about children in foster care, but it makes sense that they would have benefits from continuing relationships with their family of origin/primary attachment figures when they can do so safely. However, Braden and Charlie were not being faced with the prospect of traditional foster placement...they had the closest thing they could have to continuing contact with Susan through their relationship with the Cox family. If there were any benefits to their continuing contact with JP, clearly, there were also terrible consequences.

I struggle so much with WHY JP was allowed to take those visits to his home. He was a person of interest in the death of his wife! And unlike criminal courts, the standard of evidence in family court is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but by a "preponderance of the evidence." That means that, weighing all known factors, what is most likely in the best interest of the children? I don't see how, with what was known, it could have been deemed in the best interest of the children to move from the supervised center to Josh's home.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Thanks for your perspective on this. I think it's good that we're all having this discussion.

Some points I would offer:

I haven't studied much about children in foster care, but it makes sense that they would have benefits from continuing relationships with their family of origin/primary attachment figures when they can do so safely. However, Braden and Charlie were not being faced with the prospect of traditional foster placement...they had the closest thing they could have to continuing contact with Susan through their relationship with the Cox family. If there were any benefits to their continuing contact with JP, clearly, there were also terrible consequences.

I struggle so much with WHY JP was allowed to take those visits to his home. He was a person of interest in the death of his wife! And unlike criminal courts, the standard of evidence in family court is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", but by a "preponderance of the evidence." That means that, weighing all known factors, what is most likely in the best interest of the children? I don't see how, with what was known, it could have been deemed in the best interest of the children to move from the supervised center to Josh's home.

About one quarter of the children in foster care are actually with biological relatives. It still benefits the vast majority to have whatever contact they can have with their family of origin.

From the social worker's observation that Charlie and Braden seemed to her to enjoy contact with their father and at least one of them had expressed a wish to live with him again, it sounds like they actually did benefit from contact with him (until the last time, obviously).

I think if one single person had had all the known information about Josh Powell, particularly his activities in the last week (giving away the toys, etc), it would have been completely obvious to the judge that visitation should be discontinued.

But no one had all the information and without it, I don't think any judge could have predicted this. Keeping in mind that even in family court, judges can only rule based on the information presented in court, not on anything they may read in the media, etc.

It's a tricky balance to strike, protecting children and preserving the families of the innocent. It is a system devised and operated by human beings and there will be inevitable failures, on both sides and in both directions. Frankly, I doubt that there is any possible way to make a perfect decision in every single case.

In dealing with family court, a lot of weight seems to be given to the ability to follow directions. Josh Powell had kept up with his visitation schedule and his lawyer made a reasonable argument for supervised home visitation (that his notoriety meant his children were at higher risk of invasion of their privacy).

This sounds morbid but in one sense I'm actually glad that Powell was granted supervised home visitation. I believe he intended to kill Charlie and Braden, no matter what. If they had been in the visitation centre, how many bystanders would he have also killed? How many already traumatised children would have witnessed the horror?

 

[Irish_Eyes]

Family court is somewhat unpredictable and inconsistent, as many domestic violence survivors will tell you. I know we've seen other cases where visitation was strictly supervised, or even halted altogether (Horman case for example), and while those children may have lasting effects from the loss of a parent in their lives, at least they have their lives.

Josh may have still tried to kill his children in a supervised setting. Or he may not have if he felt there was too much risk that he would be caught before he got to put his plan into action. Even if he had decided to try, you're right that it could have been worse, but it's also true that it could have been better....perhaps he would have been caught trying to sneak a weapon in. I just think those boys would have had a better chance at a supervised center, or with no visitation at all.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Family court is somewhat unpredictable and inconsistent, as many domestic violence survivors will tell you. I know we've seen other cases where visitation was strictly supervised, or even halted altogether (Horman case for example), and while those children may have lasting effects from the loss of a parent in their lives, at least they have their lives.

Josh may have still tried to kill his children in a supervised setting. Or he may not have if he felt there was too much risk that he would be caught before he got to put his plan into action. Even if he had decided to try, you're right that it could have been worse, but it's also true that it could have been better....perhaps he would have been caught trying to sneak a weapon in. I just think those boys would have had a better chance at a supervised center, or with no visitation at all.

The Horman case is one that troubles me because I am still on the fence as to who the perpetrator may be.

Rather than go into the details of that case, I'd offer the Fox family case. Riley Fox's father, Kevin, was charged after an extorted (and distorted) confession; he was imprisoned for 8 months, given inadequate legal representation and separated from his family.

Sadly, the marriage did not survive the strain of what happened. Riley Fox's brother has been said (by his mother) to still be suffering the effects of his father's imprisonment.

My reading of Josh Powell obviously differs from yours. I really do believe he was intent on murder-suicide. I don't think this was in any way an impulsive act that could have been changed by small changes in the circumstances.

He would not have needed to sneak a weapon into a supervised centre. Since he would have known approximately when his children would be there, all he would have had to do is be waiting in his vehicle in the parking lot for their arrival.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

The Horman case is one that troubles me because I am still on the fence as to who the perpetrator may be.

Rather than go into the details of that case, I'd offer the Fox family case. Riley Fox's father, Kevin, was charged after an extorted (and distorted) confession; he was imprisoned for 8 months, given inadequate legal representation and separated from his family.

Sadly, the marriage did not survive the strain of what happened. Riley Fox's brother has been said (by his mother) to still be suffering the effects of his father's imprisonment.

My reading of Josh Powell obviously differs from yours. I really do believe he was intent on murder-suicide. I don't think this was in any way an impulsive act that could have been changed by small changes in the circumstances.

He would not have needed to sneak a weapon into a supervised centre. Since he would have known approximately when his children would be there, all he would have had to do is be waiting in his vehicle in the parking lot for their arrival.

Oh, no, I agree with you about Josh. I think he was hellbent on doing this. But partly because he had an opportunity.

However, you bring up an excellent point about the parking lot. I got chills when I read that, and you're right, that's probably EXACTLY what he would have done. Or shown up at the Cox's, God forbid.

 

[concentric]

Family court is somewhat unpredictable and inconsistent, as many domestic violence survivors will tell you. I know we've seen other cases where visitation was strictly supervised, or even halted altogether (Horman case for example), and while those children may have lasting effects from the loss of a parent in their lives, at least they have their lives.

Josh may have still tried to kill his children in a supervised setting. Or he may not have if he felt there was too much risk that he would be caught before he got to put his plan into action. Even if he had decided to try, you're right that it could have been worse, but it's also true that it could have been better....perhaps he would have been caught trying to sneak a weapon in. I just think those boys would have had a better chance at a supervised center, or with no visitation at all.

------------

I agree with you.

JMO: He needed to isolate those boys and have them under his control, to carry out what he determined was his individual/independent right to do with his "own" children.

So, no, I don't think he would have killed them in a public place.

 

[GrainneDhu]

Oh, no, I agree with you about Josh. I think he was hellbent on doing this. But partly because he had an opportunity.

However, you bring up an excellent point about the parking lot. I got chills when I read that, and you're right, that's probably EXACTLY what he would have done. Or shown up at the Cox's, God forbid.

I think he was more angry and more unstable than anyone realised. What exactly he wanted, I do not know but I wouldn't rule out that revenge was his primary or among his primary motives.

There is always a trade off between security and practicality. For instance, it's definitely dangerous to ride in any vehicle but in order to keep food on the table, a roof overhead, tend to health, etc, the vast majority of us decide that the risk of a vehicle accident is lower than the risk of starving, dying of exposure or of an untreated medical condition.

I find myself troubled about something the Cox's lawyer said. In this article:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/53465945-78/powell-downing-steve-ely.html.csp

their lawyer says:

Chuck and Judy Cox were asked to do certain things on particular dates and specific locations, said Steve Downing.

Among those actions: a honk-and-wave staged at a shopping center near the home where Powell lived with his father Steve, two siblings and his young sons.

"They were extraordinary in how they sort of set the Powells up to explode and do these bizarre things," said Downing, a Tacoma attorney. "You could see the pressure build. . . . It drew him out and it never seemed to stop after that."

I'm troubled because he describes a deliberate process of escalating pressure on a man who had custody (at the time) of two small children and was unofficially suspected of killing his wife.

On the one hand, there is the pursuit of justice. On the other hand, there is the welfare of two innocent children who had no real say or choice as to their living conditions.

I'm not saying that pressure and frustration justifies child abuse because it absolutely does not. But here in the real world, it is well known that outside pressure on a potentially abusive parent can escalate the risk of child abuse.

This is another of those tricky balance things: how far should LE go in the pursuit of justice and under what conditions?

 

[SilkySifaka]

I think he was more angry and more unstable than anyone realised. What exactly he wanted, I do not know but I wouldn't rule out that revenge was his primary or among his primary motives.

There is always a trade off between security and practicality. For instance, it's definitely dangerous to ride in any vehicle but in order to keep food on the table, a roof overhead, tend to health, etc, the vast majority of us decide that the risk of a vehicle accident is lower than the risk of starving, dying of exposure or of an untreated medical condition.

I find myself troubled about something the Cox's lawyer said. In this article:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/53465945-78/powell-downing-steve-ely.html.csp

their lawyer says:



I'm troubled because he describes a deliberate process of escalating pressure on a man who had custody (at the time) of two small children and was unofficially suspected of killing his wife.

On the one hand, there is the pursuit of justice. On the other hand, there is the welfare of two innocent children who had no real say or choice as to their living conditions.

I'm not saying that pressure and frustration justifies child abuse because it absolutely does not. But here in the real world, it is well known that outside pressure on a potentially abusive parent can escalate the risk of child abuse.

This is another of those tricky balance things: how far should LE go in the pursuit of justice and under what conditions?

I am more than troubled, I am infuriated. How DARE LE use those boys to make Josh more unstable than he already was. Put pressure on him no problem, through police work. Don't start playing games with his children using them as pawns to pressure him because they can't look after themselves!!!!!!!

They KNEW he had visits, supervised visits yes but to deliberately ramp up his anger at his sons and the Cox's was inexcusable. He didn't know LE was making them do this, he obviously was going to blame the grandparents and the kids.

What did they think, it would get to much for him and he would confess? Hardly. If he was going to blow there was just one direction...the kids and the grandparents. I think te Cox's are only alive because he wanted them to feel the pain of the children dying..otherwise he would have murdered them altogether. And if there were no visits, he would have anyway

ETA and he had custody himself during part of that time!!!! OMG I hate to think how those boys might have been punished for the Honk and Wave thing when they got home. I am disgusted

 

[wenwe4]

I could see where the defense could argue that since Josh has been having visits in his home for a while (few weeks?) and this information coming to light about the images on his computer from some 2 years ago. What truly failed these children in the very beginning was Utah CPS not picking them up initially (IMO). Utah had more evidence of failure to protect the children from the get go. 1) taking toddlers camping in single digit weather in the middle of the night - has a tough time passing the "best interest of the children" test. 2) Mommy's missing, in the trunk, camping, in the mines, . . . . . . .Daddy is POI.
3) Daddy has animated child *advertiser censored* and incest on his computer. Utah withheld it for 2 years!!!!! (cps in Washington was not aware)
4) Daddy angry w/extended family for searching for Mommy . . . won't allow kids to talk or see pictures of Mommy . . . not recognizing the children's grief and loss process. Dad had no compassion or empathy for loss of Susan (either for boys, extended family, or self).


Washington State only picked up the kids after stumbling upon Steve Powell's sick and twisted stuff on the internet and computers. Essentially, the most Washington State had in the way of CPS intervention would be Josh's failure to protect the children from the environment @ Gpa' Steve's house. There were "theories" and "speculation" but no real evidence provided by Utah to Washington that the children were in danger in Josh's care.

 

[cocomod]

What ticks me off is that DFS had visits scheduled for a neutral environment, but they allowed the visits to change to his home because it was such a high profile case. It had become difficult for DFS to keep having the visits there, so THEY put these children in danger?!!! This is just unbelievable!!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/josh-powells-computer-parent-child-incest-images-police/story?id=15555337

Because of Powell's notoriety in the case about his missing wife, officials decided to move the visits to his home.

"Josh Powell was recognizable, as were the children. And that could also be disruptive to visits that are occurring with other families," Gilbert said of the decision.

I just wonder about this. If the judge ordered supervised visitation, how could the department just unilaterally decided to move the supervised visits to his home? I guess they had the "power" to make this decision, but it seems like a dangerous decision to make because it was "difficult" for them to have it in their building because of his notoriety.

 

[KatieLeigh]

Why were his kids ever removed from him in the first place?
The original cause was he had *advertiser censored* on his computer. The ACTUAL cause was because investigators and the Cox's were trying to USE THE CHILDREN to make their case. This is the third such instance of something similar in less than a year. Someone brought up the Florida case, which yes, Dale Smith exhibited far more "violent behavior" than anything ANYONE SAW here, no matter what any of you "think". But the fact is HE DIDN'T ABUSE HIS CHILDREN and to this day, hasn't and the Judge followed the law.
JP had been tried and convicted in the disappearance of his wife by the media and the public. Since they've been unable to make a case against him they now take his children and I can pretty much guarantee how THAT went. He was convinced to sign a parenting agreement (which means he's automatically considered "guilty" of child abuse), told he had to do x,y and z and then his children would be returned to him. He goes back into court and now, not only is he being portrayed as a murderer, but he will also be found to be a sexual deviant whether he actually IS or not. He went into that courtroom having done everything that was requested of him, there is absolutely no evidence that he has EVER abused his children, he was completely confident that his boys would be returned to him....and met with that. The fact is, had the courts, the Coxs' and LE not tried to use these kids to make their case, they would probably still be alive today. JP has been under intense scrutiny (which I won't disagree, he MAY have killed his wife)and there has not been ANY evidence that he abused his children. I've read threads like this all over the internet and I'll ask you the same as everyone else...when are people going to look at the FACTS and stop trying to make up things to fit into what they "think"? How many more children have to die before people realize you DO NOT USE CHILDREN!!!!
Another thread on here discussed the sudden "evidence" LE had on a computer that has been in their possession for TWO YEARS. Only ONE person, that I saw (and I admit, I've read HOURS of posts about how awful JP is so I didn't go through every post because they were all the same)questioned that fact. Nor did anyone address that issue. It was very disappointing since I felt that, based on the site name, I would see more discussion of facts and less emotional sensationalism. I don't believe for a SECOND that this is true. And if it is, shame on LE.
The fact is, CPS/DHFS whatever you want to call them does this ALL THE TIME. Snatch up someone's children and then continually hold them and make up whatever they want to fit what they "think". Go ahead and tell me that the following story is an exception and not the rule. I can give you thousands more;
http://liftingtheveil.org/wade.htm
And even thousands more than THAT wherein parents have simply had to suffer whatever abuse they feel like dishing out because the courts are "secret" and this agency can blatantly lie, file false reports, pay psychiatrists and therapists to skew the story however they want, violate civil rights... basically they can do WHATEVER THEY LIKE and no one will do a thing about it. Because your social security pays them about 7.9 billion a year to do it.
I, unlike many opponents of CPS, do NOT believe they should be abolished, reformed or anything else. I DO believe they need to follow the law. And, as I saw suggested here, if people think a law should be made that anyone who is a POI or Suspect in murder they should not be allowed to have their children...attempt to get that law on the books. It'll never happen because we have prisons full of people that are innocent simply because when LE can't get the facts, they make them up. And if a child is found to have been raped or abused and they can PROVE it was the parents then it's moved to criminal courts, exactly where it should be. If it's NOT, then I'm very suspect of the "facts" that CPS is providing.
Now go ahead and blast me for UNDERSTANDING what he was feeling. I most definitely am defending his innocence in the disappearance of his wife because what I THINK doesn't have any bearing on the law. His own attorney in the child dependency court has said he was railroaded and his children were being used. I think HIS opinion will quiet and he won't be standing up for him because of what happened because if the TRUTH is not popular, it will go away quietly if the man wants to keep his job (exactly what we saw in the Samaan-Fay incident). Though there are many attorneys making millions these days because they are starting to take on this agency. Again, taxpayer dollars but, by all means, don't put responsibility where it should be, just keep posting about how horrendous it all is and allow it to happen again.

 

[KatieLeigh]

I apologize in advance. I see, in continuing reading that there are at least SOME posts that explore the facts surrounding "child abuse".

 

[DairyGirl]

Oh, no, I agree with you about Josh. I think he was hellbent on doing this. But partly because he had an opportunity.

However, you bring up an excellent point about the parking lot. I got chills when I read that, and you're right, that's probably EXACTLY what he would have done. Or shown up at the Cox's, God forbid.

You know, that is what I have thought. If he couldn't have the boys in his own home then he may have done something at the Cox's home, maybe killed them all and then himself. I assume he knew where they lived and he was free to come and go as he pleased. I really think the only reason this wasn't his first option is because he wanted to torture the Cox's as much as possible and he knew that living without their precious grandchildren would be worse then death to them.

 

[DLT88]

Oh, no, I agree with you about Josh. I think he was hellbent on doing this. But partly because he had an opportunity.

However, you bring up an excellent point about the parking lot. I got chills when I read that, and you're right, that's probably EXACTLY what he would have done. Or shown up at the Cox's, God forbid.

I thought the same thing. I could just picture him showing up at the Cox house -- demented as heck -- if he was denied visitations until after his court-ordered tests. I could see him blocking exits and setting fire to that house after he doused it with gas in the middle of the night. I don't know how his suicide part would go, but I fear he would have taken Chuck and Judy out, too, if he was denied visitations. If only he could have been arrested for something sooner. They arrest for free speech these days, maybe he should have tried that -- except that he didn't care about anyone else besides Josh so I don't know. If only if only if only if only

 

[DairyGirl]

Why were his kids ever removed from him in the first place?
The original cause was he had *advertiser censored* on his computer. The ACTUAL cause was because investigators and the Cox's were trying to USE THE CHILDREN to make their case. This is the third such instance of something similar in less than a year. Someone brought up the Florida case, which yes, Dale Smith exhibited far more "violent behavior" than anything ANYONE SAW here, no matter what any of you "think". But the fact is HE DIDN'T ABUSE HIS CHILDREN and to this day, hasn't and the Judge followed the law.
JP had been tried and convicted in the disappearance of his wife by the media and the public. Since they've been unable to make a case against him they now take his children and I can pretty much guarantee how THAT went. He was convinced to sign a parenting agreement (which means he's automatically considered "guilty" of child abuse), told he had to do x,y and z and then his children would be returned to him. He goes back into court and now, not only is he being portrayed as a murderer, but he will also be found to be a sexual deviant whether he actually IS or not. He went into that courtroom having done everything that was requested of him, there is absolutely no evidence that he has EVER abused his children, he was completely confident that his boys would be returned to him....and met with that. The fact is, had the courts, the Coxs' and LE not tried to use these kids to make their case, they would probably still be alive today. JP has been under intense scrutiny (which I won't disagree, he MAY have killed his wife)and there has not been ANY evidence that he abused his children. I've read threads like this all over the internet and I'll ask you the same as everyone else...when are people going to look at the FACTS and stop trying to make up things to fit into what they "think"? How many more children have to die before people realize you DO NOT USE CHILDREN!!!!
Another thread on here discussed the sudden "evidence" LE had on a computer that has been in their possession for TWO YEARS. Only ONE person, that I saw (and I admit, I've read HOURS of posts about how awful JP is so I didn't go through every post because they were all the same)questioned that fact. Nor did anyone address that issue. It was very disappointing since I felt that, based on the site name, I would see more discussion of facts and less emotional sensationalism. I don't believe for a SECOND that this is true. And if it is, shame on LE.
The fact is, CPS/DHFS whatever you want to call them does this ALL THE TIME. Snatch up someone's children and then continually hold them and make up whatever they want to fit what they "think". Go ahead and tell me that the following story is an exception and not the rule. I can give you thousands more;
http://liftingtheveil.org/wade.htm
And even thousands more than THAT wherein parents have simply had to suffer whatever abuse they feel like dishing out because the courts are "secret" and this agency can blatantly lie, file false reports, pay psychiatrists and therapists to skew the story however they want, violate civil rights... basically they can do WHATEVER THEY LIKE and no one will do a thing about it. Because your social security pays them about 7.9 billion a year to do it.
I, unlike many opponents of CPS, do NOT believe they should be abolished, reformed or anything else. I DO believe they need to follow the law. And, as I saw suggested here, if people think a law should be made that anyone who is a POI or Suspect in murder they should not be allowed to have their children...attempt to get that law on the books. It'll never happen because we have prisons full of people that are innocent simply because when LE can't get the facts, they make them up. And if a child is found to have been raped or abused and they can PROVE it was the parents then it's moved to criminal courts, exactly where it should be. If it's NOT, then I'm very suspect of the "facts" that CPS is providing.
Now go ahead and blast me for UNDERSTANDING what he was feeling. I most definitely am defending his innocence in the disappearance of his wife because what I THINK doesn't have any bearing on the law. His own attorney in the child dependency court has said he was railroaded and his children were being used. I think HIS opinion will quiet and he won't be standing up for him because of what happened because if the TRUTH is not popular, it will go away quietly if the man wants to keep his job (exactly what we saw in the Samaan-Fay incident). Though there are many attorneys making millions these days because they are starting to take on this agency. Again, taxpayer dollars but, by all means, don't put responsibility where it should be, just keep posting about how horrendous it all is and allow it to happen again.

So basically it is LE's, the Cox's and Children's services fault that Charlie and Braden are dead? That they drove JP to the brink and he felt he had no option? Sorry, I'm not buying it. You must not have children or grandchildren or you would know that you do anything, anything, to protect those children from danger and I don't know who could be more dangerous then a man who killed his wife. No, he hasn't been convicted, or even arrested, but anyone with a lick of sense knows he did it. And of course, all of the fears that everyone had about him were true. He is a murderer and his children were in danger with him. No one can argue that. It is a fact now but it was always a very real possibility and one that everyone in mankind tried to prevent.
No one is saying that suspects of crimes should be prevented from seeing their children but the children's safety should always come first and if you are going to make an error in judgement make it on the side of protecting the children. Even if I were suspected of a crime and I knew I was innocent I would want what was best for my child and I would understand the need to keep them safe and I would use my time to do whatever I could to clear my name. JP did none of that. If he had to have access to his kids it should never have been at his home. Huge mistake that everyone can see now.
I always believe in innocent before guilty except when it comes to the welfare of children. Then I think it's okay to proceed on the chance of guilt and do what is necessary to protect innocent children, while still preserving some of the parents rights to see them.
BTW, if they were so hellbent on using the kids to force his hand, why was he allowed to keep custody of them for nearly 2 years? You would have thought they would have railroaded the kids away from him long before that if they abuse their power so much. He kept custody of his kids, much like Dale Smith, because it was the law but they did absolutely what was right in finding a reason, any reason, to get them away from him. Again, time has proved this was what needed to be done. It's too bad that they didn't have to foresight to thoroughly go as far as they needed to to protect them. And now we are mad at them for dropping the ball when you are saying that they went too far in the first place to take them away from him. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[cocomod]

Josh Powell did not do everything he was ordered to do by the judge. He was ordered to undergo therapy; and he only attended one session. Do we know why he quit? Nope, but I can guess - Probably because the therapist told him he was majorly messed up; and he needed extensive therapy to overcome his addictions and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father SP.

Noone is completely to blame in this situation with the exception of Josh Powell. However, to EVER give him an excuse that he was "pushed" into it will forever be a mistake. Not ONE adult EVER has ANY excuse to kill a child. NEVER!

 

[octobermoon]

Josh Powell did not do everything he was ordered to do by the judge. He was ordered to undergo therapy; and he only attended one session. Do we know why he quit? Nope, but I can guess - Probably because the therapist told him he was majorly messed up; and he needed extensive therapy to overcome his addictions and the abuse he suffered at the hands of his father SP.

Noone is completely to blame in this situation with the exception of Josh Powell. However, to EVER give him an excuse that he was "pushed" into it will forever be a mistake. Not ONE adult EVER has ANY excuse to kill a child. NEVER!

BBM

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thank you for this post.

 

[Irish_Eyes]

The boys were with Josh for a long time after Susan disappeared. It's not as if the next day that CPS took them, it was well over a year later.

We had another case here on WS recently, Gail Palmgren. There were things about her disappearance that made her husband look strongly suspicious. At one time Gail's sister even filed a petition for custody of the kids. Ultimately, the children remained with their father. At no time was there ever any evidence though that his home environment was inappropriate for children. (By the way, it turned out that Gail was in a tragic car crash and was right there in their little Tennessee town the whole time....her vehicle was concealed in foliage off the side of a mountain.)

This case was different. The concerns they highlighted were the schizophrenic brother answering the door naked, an explicit poster hanging in the home, and the images on the grandfather's computer who also lived in the home, which included inappropriate footage of other children taped without their knowledge. If there was no suspicion of murder, these things probably would not have come to light, but they did. And because they did, irrespective of Susan's disappearance, they had to act.

I don't believe for one second that the Cox family wanted custody of the children for the purpose of making a case against JP. I believe they wanted their grandchildren with them because the environment they were living in was unhealthy and they loved them and were concerned for their safety.

I am aware that CPS makes mistakes. I know there have been several high profile cases of children with genetic disorders being mistaken for abuse victims, for example. However, I do think that the majority of children under CPS custody are there because they truly were in untenable and unhealthy situations. And in this case, ultimately CPS was right. The children WERE in serious danger. Many parents have lost or have been at risk of losing custody of their children. It takes a special kind of evil to KILL your children, just so that no one else can have them.

 

[hollyblue]

Irish Eyes, I don't want to deflect from SP's thread, but Gail's husband had a high price attorney who had his own PI, who a few days before the "consented" search of both properties...promptly removed the computers and kept them in their possession. Driving to another state to do so no less...and then making the statement if data was deleted from them...then it was deleted. "oh well, 'shrug'" We have no idea what may have been on them.....but the attorneys didn't want it known...that's for sure. I still think about and worry for those children. Granted Matt was no where near an SP, and he had some smart cookies for lawyers.

I always want to ask why TN LE didn't serve a search warrant, because to me, the probable cause was a missing mother as well. What other reason (probable cause) would WA LE have had on SP's house?

 

[KatieLeigh]

Correct, they left the boys with him for TWO YEARS and when they couldn't make their case, they moved to that level. His children were completely safe with him for TWO YEARS and would have continued to be had they not done what they did.
"No, he hasn't been convicted, or even arrested, but anyone with a lick of sense knows he did it. And of course, all of the fears that everyone had about him were true. He is a murderer and his children were in danger with him. No one can argue that."
As I said, there's prison's full of people that "anyone with a lick of sense" put there because they KNOW they did it. Luckily there are still people in our country (though few in number obviously)who believe in innocent until proven guilty.
As I said, you can make anything be TRUE as you believe. They certainly did in this case and at the cost of two young boys lives. So, as I said, keep believing that way and continue using kids to "make yourself right". As other posters have said, there is really no way, short of locking JP up, that they could have prevented him from doing what he was going to do. And I will ALWAYS argue that those children were NOT in danger and should not have been removed You keep wanting to err on the safety of the children, well why didn't they then? I'm all for protecting children that have a need to be protected. I DO NOT condone LE or any other agency using children to try to prove their point or taking children from parents and THEN trying to build a case of abuse. For that matter, this whole sexual deviant testing thing, why wasn't that ordered as part of the plan when they were first removed and the children KEPT from him until it was completed? Because they knew damn good and well he didn't sexually or otherwise abuse his children. What they didn't know (but really should at this point)is some people push back.
So for all of you to be right, we need to just allow Govt to follow the Wade model of investigating. Mays well change our name to United States of Korea...