SEATTLE State authorities can expect tough questions about whether more might have been done to protect a missing Utah woman's two children, who died along with their father after authorities say he ignited his home in an inferno Sunday.
Josh Powell was a person of interest in his wife's disappearance. Why was he allowed to meet with his sons at all? Why weren't more precautions taken, such as requiring that supervised visits be at a neutral site rather than at his home?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46283211/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TzAWZ8XOV2A
Good... I'm glad they will be expected to answer some tough questions. Like we have seen all too often, someone dropped the ball here with these 2 little ones and in the end it was the innocent and helpless who paid for it. I'm SICK of this happening time and time again in cases where parents murder their children. If the parents won't protect these kids, and the state won't protect them... THEN WHO WILL? :furious:
BBM: I agree ...
I was wondering : is this Judge elected -- or -- appointed ?
If elected, I predict he will lose next go round ... and If it is an appointed position, how long is the appointment ?
TIA !
Here's the thing: The creep (I will not say his name), was allowed to maintain custody for two years after he obviously murdered his wife. The ONLY reason custody was taken was because of his father's voyeurism/child *advertiser censored* collection, which was found during a search warrant. So, while the beast's status as a person of interest clearly played into the judge's decision to some degree, it was not the reason the kids were taken and so it was not the main factor in how visitation was awarded.
After my initial horror and anguish has morphed (over night) to a more reasonable, pit-in-the stomach anger and sadness, I can see how it all played out in the court system, a bit more clearly. I think the judge actually did feel he was a threat and was issuing some of the strongest court orders, trying to limit his ability to regain custody, that I have seen, when his constitutionally presumed innocence is taken into consideration.
I had not been on websleuths for a few days and thus, I did not know this coward was ordered to undergo a psycho-sexual eval before a return of child custody to him was considered. A psycho-sexual evaluation is very intense. It is more intense than a regular psych eval. It is also very, very rare.
The fact that the judge ordered it actually speaks to her fears about the murderer, and that she was doing whatever she thought she could do, to prevent him from regaining custody or unsupervised visits.
In the end, I tend to agree with those who say this was not the judge's fault. In a real sense, her hands were tied to a large degree and any order she issued could be heavily scrutinized and overturned if she was not careful.
I think the system has a flaw. I think the rights of children are non-existent when compared with the rights of suspects, defendants, and parents in general. The "best interests" of the children laws are supposed to cover the rights of children but so often, they do not.
I think, for example, that there should be a presumption against child custody to a POI or suspect. Unless they are willing to undergo investigations and evaluations to prove child custody to them is not a risk, they should not have the kids. I think that can be done is such a way as to protect their right against self incrimination to some degree, but where it doesn't, the child's right to life and to safety and sanity should trump the POI's right against self-incrimination! We need to re-balance whose rights are more important in our country. As of now, children have few rights and theirs are clearly less important than those of criminals. That has to change. It has to.
.. shown on the left side of the screen.
