I'm sorry, but this isn't the first post I've seen speculating that dad was all-wise and mom was clueless.
I don't think that's fair.
For all we know, maybe when the killer started to have more behavioral problems, mom was the one who really got the picture and dad was the one in denial, and that's why they divorced? Where's the evidence that it was her way or the highway? That's just mean IMO.
And in any event, if Dad was the one who aw clearly that his son needed expertise way beyond what they could provide, why didn't he fight on his son's behalf, rather than--again, as far as we know--just turning the kid over to the mom and turning his back on the situation to the point that he hadn't been in contact for two years?
I just don't understand the mom-bashing here when so few facts are known. :banghead:
ETA: And the one undeniable fact that we know is, Mom had the kid in her home. Dad didn't.