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

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?

Yea, I'd say he left a really big clue when his wife went missing. But to legal system it didn't matter because police couldn't make the case ( at least so far).

I can think of so many cases right off the top of my head. Little Ayla, who was constantly seen with Bruises, Arm in sling, but still allowed to be with her Father and now she's missing. Another sore subject is FCA, she can have another child. Can you imagine that poor child if it survives, but nothing is stopping her from getting pregnant again. the list goes on and on... Sky's wacky Mother who cared more about cleaning her house than her own children. Made them stay outside so as not to dirty the carpet. She is still walking free and could easily get pregnant again. It's just disgusting!!

We must draw the line in favor of the safety of the child. Always.

Kimster said:

Should the boys have been visiting Josh Powell?

Where do we draw the line?

Click to expand...

Snipped and BBM: Good Question ... wish I had the answers ... but the drawing of the lines should start now ...

I can think of one example : Michelle Parker who is missing -- her twins.

Why did the Judge allow these young twins to be with their father Dale -- who HAS BEEN NAMED a "suspect" in Michelle's disappearance -- AND -- Dale has a criminal record !

Michelle's mother -- IRRC, her name is Yvonne -- should be banging on the Judge's door asking that Dale have no visitation -- after what happened to Susan's boys.

If the "parent" wants the rights to see their children -- fine -- tell LE what they REALLY KNOW about the person that is "missing" ... hmmm ... don't see it happening ...

MOO ... and sorry for the rant ...

We must be mindful that THIS case is unique. Even though many of us can say that there were signs and that they are not surprised at this tragic outcome and so forth, the fact remains that the courts do indeed try to ensure the welfare of the children first & foremost. It is a delicate balance, further complicated by statutes and codes in different localities not to mention the facts as known in any case. Anomaly cases don't change the laws either, as well they shouldn't.

That said, and speaking as a former social worker from decades ago, I believe that supervised visitation should dictate a neutral venue in cases classified such as THIS one should have been from the get-go.

Like most if not all of you, I have gone thru stages of shock, unbelievable sadness, insomnia, and finally major anger about this horrific end result.

Discussion about changes in the law/system/procedures might have to wait a few days until cooler heads prevail...at least for me.

~jmo~

Chuck Cox: ‘Too many warning signs’ regarding Josh Powell

From the above-referenced article:

Cox said that while he thought everyone did what they were supposed to do under the law, he wished the supervised visit had been at a neutral location, instead of Powell’s home.

...and then, this:

Cox said he warned police, social workers, lawyers and anyone else who would listen that he felt Powell might try something desperate.

“We felt that if he – Josh – felt that there was no hope -- that he was losing, or was gonna end up in jail or something – that he would do something very desperate and could possibly harm the children or take them with him in a murder-suicide thing,” Cox said. “Well, there you go.”

shana said:

We must be mindful that THIS case is unique. Even though many of us can say that there were signs and that they are not surprised at this tragic outcome and so forth, the fact remains that the courts do indeed try to ensure the welfare of the children first & foremost. It is a delicate balance, further complicated by statutes and codes in different localities not to mention the facts as known in any case. Anomaly cases don't change the laws either, as well they shouldn't.

That said, and speaking as a former social worker from decades ago, I believe that supervised visitation should dictate a neutral venue in cases classified such as THIS one should have been from the get-go.

Like most if not all of you, I have gone thru stages of shock, unbelievable sadness, insomnia, and finally major anger about this horrific end result.

Discussion about changes in the law/system/procedures might have to wait a few days until cooler heads prevail...at least for me.

~jmo~

Click to expand...

BBM
It really isn't though. There are scores of children who have met miserable fates as a direct result of court findings. Many of those cases can be found here. I followed Susan's, Venus, Summer's and Michelle's stories because it so easily could have been me.

Family reunification is the primary goal for family courts and in many states shared parenting is still presumed to be in the best interest of the child(ren). I have gone into great detail over my own custody battle and my fight to keep my children safe from their father. Despite overwhelming evidence of psychiatric disorders and a well-documented history of domestic violence I did not even have the benefit of a guardian ad litem until I petitioned the court to move half a world away. The GAL had to ensure that relocation was in the best interest of my children - because the father also had parental rights - but there was no one listening to my concerns that he would/could harm them until I asked to move.

The court initially granted unsupervised visits because I (apparently) fell into the ill-conceived notion of a spiteful spouse. At this time he was awaiting trial for a firearms violation! When he attempted suicide in front of his 12 year old daughter the court ordered family supervised visitation. After he plead guilty to drugging and raping his 14 year old niece the judge finally rescinded visitation.

Mine was not an anomaly case but it was an issue of his testimony versus mine. Jhessye Shockley was not an anomaly case. The Skelton boys were not an anomaly case. Christopher Barcenas and Ethan Stacy were not anomalies. It happens every day in any courtroom of America.

Parents who are awarded custody of their children are penalized if they refuse to send their children to an abuser for visitation. Parents who have had their children removed are allowed reunification if they dot I's and cross T's. All, supposedly, in the "best interests" of a child. I was forced by the court system, designed to protect my children, to send them to a man who was abusive, had stated he hated them to several people, and wanted to hurt me as much as possible. It is on angel's wings my children were not harmed but certainly not due to the legal rulings.

Though it will increase costs exponentially and violate some privacy I believe there should be a mandated psychiatric evaluation and filicide risk assessment before the issuance of any custody orders.

This is a website dedicated to the memory of children who died while under the protection of social services: http://suncanaa.com/in_memory_

That website alone, in my opinion, is clear and ample evidence we have a system that just isn't working.

I watched some of the coverage on JVM last night and Wendy Murphy who is an ex prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes had this to say.

MURPHY: You know, Jane, there is no excuse. I wish I could say it`s a rare event. The family court system in this country is a mess. Abusive men are far more likely to win custody over protective mothers than are non-abusive men. And you know why? Because the abusive ones, especially with the help of jerk fathers, make up stories about the mothers, like the junk we just heard from that nitwit. They make crazy claims: the mother`s crazy. The mother is poisoning the well. Parental alienation syndrome.

Let me be very clear here. If I were practicing regularly in family court, I would be in jail, because I have seen judges do this too often. "Oh, the guy seems nice. OK, he`s a little abusive to the mother, but he`s a good father. I`m going to send the kids over."

Click to expand...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/06/ijvm.01.html

While I understand the concepts of constitutional rights and innocence until guilt is proven.......FGS!

Either we need to rework our laws where there is a suspension of certain 'rights' while being considered a suspect or POI, especially in cases where domestic violence, sexual/child abuse or drugs are at issue......OR......we need to rework our laws where the police have just and LEGAL cause to hold a suspect while performing the investigation.

Our Constitution was put in place to PROTECT our rights. It isn't perfect. And when we, as citizens see that there is a GREAT problem emanating from it's wording or interpretation, then it is up to us to CHANGE it.

Too much consideration is given to the perpetrators of these crimes against women and children and virtually NONE to the victims. I am so effing sick of LE not being able to do a search or make an arrest in time to prevent another innocent baby from being rape and/or beaten to death!

I am so sick of CPS having to consider the rights of so called parents when allowing visitation and custody. NO! Eff that! With kids, it oughta be ONE strike and you're out! Why aren't children afforded the same considerations as these arsehats who harm them?

If you are charged with animal cruelty, you can't ever own another dog. But the law has no problem returning human babies back to the inhuman monsters who abuse them over and over until, too often, we are searching landfills or swamps for tiny broken bodies.

I am so flipping mad right now I can't see straight! Why does it take so long to prosecute these wastes of oxygen? Why do they deserve another chance but those poor babies don't?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although our case was not as severe, I can attest to what BritsKate is saying. As another protective parent, I faced the same issues. If Susan had talked to an advocate or attorney, she was likely made aware of this too.

You think that if you leave, you can just go to court and testify truthfully and present the evidence and that you will get help, but that's not reality in a LOT of cases.

The Battered Mother's Custody Conference convenes every year in Albany, NY. The leading experts on DV and child custody get together with moms on the front lines and hear stories, exchange ideas and plan for the future. You can't hear these same stories over and over and not realize that there is a widespread problem. We are not protecting children. We send women the message that as a society we're very aware now of DV, and that it's okay to leave, there is help for you. The truth is that YOU can leave, but your children can't. And if you leave, your children will likely be left to fend for themselves with the abuser during visitation without you there to protect them.

DV Leap is an amazing non-profit in Washington working on these very issues. Their appellate briefs are worth reading. Here is their website:

http://www.dvleap.org/

Kimster, a while back I had mentioned Lundy Bancroft, who is one of the leading experts on these issues, as a possible radio show guest. Given the current discussions, maybe this is worth revisiting. Barry Goldberg or Mo Hannah or anyone from DV Leap would be able to talk about this subject also. Just a thought if we want to examine this issue more.

Here's hoping that someone in government puts forth a bill that prevent any adult having contact with their children, as long as they are a suspect, a POI or even a non-cooperating party in a missing persons or murder investigation. Children's best interests are NOT served by allowing such adults to retain custody, or even have visitation. If the adult is fully cooperative and does everything asked by LE to try to clear their names, fine. JMO

RR0004 said:

I just wish in light of all that they DID know that they acted in the best interests of the children.
I have read that the Coxes gave permission for a home visit...but (IMO) this should never have been a consideration with the Court. A "no discussion" kind of arrangement. Personally, I believe he should have been denied visitation considering all that WAS KNOWN...but hindsight is always the best sight.

Click to expand...

Im not sure how true that is, there are so many articles right now with some inaccuracies. I have been watching the Coxes interviews and I get the feeling they resigned themselves to certain things were going to happen and these visits were one of them. They did not want this.

cluciano63 said:

Here's hoping that someone in government puts forth a bill that prevent any adult having contact with their children, as long as they are a suspect, a POI or even a non-cooperating party in a missing persons or murder investigation. Children's best interests are NOT served by allowing such adults to retain custody, or even have visitation. If the adult is fully cooperative and does everything asked by LE to try to clear their names, fine. JMO

Click to expand...

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.

Anakerie said:

I see everyone discussing all the signs that "someone" should have seen in JP so that he could have been prevented from doing the dastardly deed he did.. But, WHO could have seen ALL of the signs that everyone is listing out BEFORE Sunday? From what I'm reading, he was in contact with a lot of people before Sunday, but none of them connected all the dots.. How could any one of them even SEEN all the dots to connect?

We're Monday morning quarterbacking something ghastly that happened on Sunday and I don't see how any one person could have prevented JP from murdering his boys and committing suicide in such a horrific manner. Please enlighten me if anyone has an answer?

Click to expand...

I agree. His plan was to murder those children and I'm sure he had planned it for a quite some time. If the courts couldn't stop him from seeing his children, I don't think anyone could regardless of what ones intuition was. It would not hold up in family court. Sadly, the Cox family tried and the law failed them.

Powell, despite being the only person of interest in the case, had refused to cooperate with detectives. For that reason and many others, Chuck Cox said he thinks the deaths of his grandsons could have, and should have, been avoided.

“There were too many warning signs that were known, but due to legal limitations, were unable to be acted upon,” he said. “So we ended up where we ended up.”

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crime-law/chuck-cox-too-many-warning-signs-regarding-josh-po/nHWNk/

Irish_Eyes said:

Kimster, a while back I had mentioned Lundy Bancroft, who is one of the leading experts on these issues, as a possible radio show guest. Given the current discussions, maybe this is worth revisiting. Barry Goldberg or Mo Hannah or anyone from DV Leap would be able to talk about this subject also. Just a thought if we want to examine this issue more.

Click to expand...

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

Pensfan said:

Here's more warning signs for domestic violence and therefore, a potential for a domestic homicide:
-he had intense anger which could be seen in his blog which was removed from the internet
-very controlling personality,
-isolated his children (from their grandparents),
-abusive to at least one family member (Susan),
-blamed others for his problems,
-grew up in an abusive home, and
-many people had a gut feeling that he might kill his children

Click to expand...

I'll add to that:

- He had recently lost custody of the boys
- He had recently been court-ordered to undergo a psychosexual evaluation
- He was a POI in the disappearance/likely homicide of his missing wife
- His support system had recently disintegrated with the arrest of his father
- According to reports, his children had begun to talk about what they remembered regarding the night their mother went missing

There were warning signs aplenty.

Here's what an expert in the field has to say on the matter:

Singer believes experts should have realized the court orders could push Powell to the brink, and because of that, reconsidered his visitation with his kids.

"Before we make our orders and demands which will provoke a crazy person," says Singer, "we need to take a step back and decide what is our plan."

http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=138831984&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10212

Unfortunately, in my family, both on my side and on my in-laws' sides, we have had situations where children have had to be removed to foster care, or one parent has lost unsupervised contact with their children due to illegal behavior. We have been fortunate in that the system has, while seeming to lag at time, worked. In other words, I don't think any kids were returned to parents who were unfit. Some remained in foster care, others were adopted by other family members, and, happily, after years of substance abuse treatment, some were able to return to their biological parents.

I guess we have been very lucky. No abused child has been returned to their parent. However, I do know we have had some abused children who were never removed in the 1st place. :-(