2012.02.07 - 911 Tapes Released

A Megaphone is what is used in many hostage situations. The point here is that time constraints pretty much eliminated that possibility.

In addition to the Court's ruling to maintain the "visitation plan," of a man who had just been told that the only way a change in custody would take place would be revisited after he completed the necessary court-ordered psych evals, was the fact that the State's Department of Social & Health Services somehow believes that it was A-OK to send a contracted worker into such a volatile situation.

Why is it that DSHS would send a contracted worker versus an employee who has had at least 4 or 5 years education and training to "supervise" any Court-ordered visitations...no less send such a worker to supervise those of a suspected murderer? It's just unbelievable.



Social Workers (workers with BSWs, MSWs and LCSWs, whose focus is youth and families) are specifically trained. They are educated/trained. They are taught to be skeptical of a parent or guardian's behaviors, actions and to read between the lines. Through coursework in Human Growth and Development, specifically childhood development and through repeated dealings with all types of family arrangements and guardians they are familiar with the many childhood attachment disorders. They learn that children, no matter how extremely abused, will often want to be with their abusive parent/guardian. It is very common but that does not mean that the parent has the interest of the child as his priority. Social Workers are trained to see these subtle nuances. A contracted worker who is required to go through a 20 hour course on foster care, who is physically out paced by 5 and 7 year olds and who could be so easily overpowered, by a man (suspected of murdering a woman...his wife) who was half her age should never have been sent to supervise any court-ordered home visits.

Denying custody to a natural parent is not done in a vacuum. The courts do not do this on a whim. There is typically ample evidence or suspicion before a child is taken away and then kept out of the family home and away from their natural parent/parents. At the very least, the supervisor/worker must keep that at the forefront of their mind. The courts have deemed this parent, for the time being, as unfit. The courts have continued to require supervision. So, in the court's view, there is some reason to believe that the parent or guardian requires supervision. Yet, DSHS thinks it fine to send the least skilled/trained/educated/prepared workers out on their most dangerous cases (court-ordered supervised visitation) and at the home of the court deemed unfit parent, to boot. Now, does that make any sense?
 
A Megaphone is what is used in many hostage situations. The point here is that time constraints pretty much eliminated that possibility.

In addition to the Court's ruling to maintain the "visitation plan," of a man who had just been told that the only way a change in custody would take place would be revisited after he completed the necessary court-ordered psych evals, was the fact that the State's Department of Social & Health Services somehow believes that it was A-OK to send a contracted worker into such a volatile situation.

Why is it that DSHS would send a contracted worker versus an employee who has had at least 4 or 5 years education and training to "supervise" any Court-ordered visitations...no less send such a worker to supervise those of a suspected murderer? It's just unbelievable.

Social Workers (workers with BSWs, MSWs and LCSWs, whose focus is youth and families) are specifically trained. They are educated/trained. They are taught to be skeptical of a parent or guardian's behaviors, actions and to read between the lines. Through coursework in Human Growth and Development, specifically childhood development and through repeated dealings with all types of family arrangements and guardians they are familiar with the many childhood attachment disorders. They learn that children, no matter how extremely abused, will often want to be with their abusive parent/guardian. It is very common but that does not mean that the parent has the interest of the child as his priority. Social Workers are trained to see these subtle nuances. A contracted worker who is required to go through a 20 hour course on foster care, who is physically out paced by 5 and 7 year olds and who could be so easily overpowered, by a man (suspected of murdering a woman...his wife) who was half her age should never have been sent to supervise any court-ordered home visits.

Denying custody to a natural parent is not done in a vacuum. The courts do not do this on a whim. There is typically ample evidence or suspicion before a child is taken away and then kept out of the family home and away from their natural parent/parents. At the very least, the supervisor/worker must keep that at the forefront of their mind. The courts have deemed this parent, for the time being, as unfit. The courts have continued to require supervision. So, in the court's view, there is some reason to believe that the parent or guardian requires supervision. Yet, DSHS thinks it fine to send the least skilled/trained/educated/prepared workers out on their most dangerous cases (court-ordered supervised visitation.) Now, does that make any sense?
No sense whatsoever. Gross negligence by the State of Washington DSHS. I 100% agree.
 
No sense whatsoever. Gross negligence by the State of Washington DSHS. I 100% agree.

I would love to know if the judge knew that a trained and experienced Child & Family Social Worker or CPS Worker was not overseeing these visits. In addition to the 2 or 3 years of coursework in Social Work, (BSW, two years and MSW three years) Social Work students must complete two and sometimes three long term field placements (basically, on the job training) in their specific area of concentration.

Why is the State of Washington, DSHS, sending out the least skilled people to supervise the most difficult cases?

The above is all In My Educated Opinion.
 
I would love to know if the judge knew that a trained and experienced Child & Family Social Worker or CPS Worker was not overseeing these visits. In addition to the 2 or 3 years of coursework in Social Work, (BSW, two years and MSW three years) Social Work students must complete two and sometimes three long term field placements (basically, on the job training) in their specific area of concentration.

Why is the State of Washington, DSHS, sending out the least skilled people to supervise the most difficult cases?
It is apparent they failed to recognize it as very high risk case. It is baffling as to why, given that the 'average joe' on the street could recognize the situation had all the ingredients for disaster. But this is nothing new for DSHS..it's a broken system. We read about dead kids everyday that should have been protected but were not. They are continually sent into the lions den by DSHS. I am disgusted.
 
http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/SH559026/VD55170303/2020-210-sins-of-the-father (start at 15:32)

One thing that struck me in the 20/20 episode and the taped phone interview with the DSHS rep was when she stated the agency's primary goal, in this case, was family reunification.

Why do these agencies put the horse before the cart? I will never understand...I've heard all the arguments...but after more than a quarter of a century of hearing this worn out school of thought...perhaps it is time to revisit child custody and child welfare. If a parent is deemed unfit to parent their own child then why is it always the State's first goal to reunite the family? State Courts, nationwide, and the Federal Government have stated that the main goal, in child welfare cases, is to do what is in the best interest of the child. Yet, so many agencies continue to default to the practice of putting the parents wishes before the welfare of the child/children.

It is MOO, that parents should have a limited amount of time and chances to prove that they can comply with court orders and prove that they are fit and capable of parenting their children, without any attempts by said parent to manipulate the established court orders to fit their schedule, wishes, etc. A parent who is unwilling to follow the court orders to a "T" is, IMO, thumbing his/her nose at authority.
 
So according to you, we shouldn't have even tried to stop him??? And it was a fire, not an explosion...

Things in the house exploded - did you read any of the articles? Also please don't attribute false statements to me. What I said was: sirens blaring would not have saved the boys. Simple as that.
 
not to get in the middle of an ongoing debate, but I just wanted to voice my opinion that I don't think this was at all a hostage situation. As disgusted as I am with the 911 operator's attitude, he isn't the first one to come across as rude, and I don't think it would have mattered anyway. Hostage situations usually happen when someone is trying to get something they want. Josh didn't want anything. He knew he was going to lose those boys forever and the truth about Susan was probably going to come out soon. He was simply backed in a corner and took the coward's way out with no intention of letting anyone talk him out of it. That's just my :twocents: for whatever it's worth.
 
I can't even put my head around any of this.

Lord, please help the family and friends! Hugs to Kiirsi.

I lurk here quite often and drawn mostly to crimes against sweet innocent children. At times (like this) I'm just sickened and my heart aches so much.

And I wonder why I subject myself to the horrificness of it all and why I don't look away. The only reason I can come up with is... these poor children don't have the choice to look away. They endure so much... some dying and some surviving.

I pray for all these tiny victims and their loved ones!! I will not look away.
 
http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/SH559026/VD55170303/2020-210-sins-of-the-father (start at 15:32)

One thing that struck me in the 20/20 episode and the taped phone interview with the DSHS rep was when she stated the agency's primary goal, in this case, was family reunification.

Why do these agencies put the horse before the cart? I will never understand...I've heard all the arguments...but after more than a quarter of a century of hearing this worn out school of thought...perhaps it is time to revisit child custody and child welfare. If a parent is deemed unfit to parent their own child then why is it always the State's first goal to reunite the family? State Courts, nationwide, and the Federal Government have stated that the main goal, in child welfare cases, is to do what is in the best interest of the child. Yet, so many agencies continue to default to the practice of putting the parents wishes before the welfare of the child/children.

It is MOO, that parents should have a limited amount of time and chances to prove that they can comply with court orders and prove that they are fit and capable of parenting their children, without any attempts by said parent to manipulate the established court orders to fit their schedule, wishes, etc. A parent who is unwilling to follow the court orders to a "T" is, IMO, thumbing his/her nose at authority.

The primary goal of CPS is reunification in pretty much all of the cases as far as I can tell. Which makes no sense to me either, and doesn't always ends well for the child.
 
I have worked with child protection organizations, and the reason that reunification is usually the goal is that there has been quite a bit of research showing that in most cases it leads to better outcomes for the child. Most parents who have their children removed from their custody are not evil - they are people struggling with problems in their lives such as mental illness, poverty, lack of parenting skills, immaturity, etc. With some help, many of them are able to bring their children home and provide good care for them. (And of course, we never hear about all of these cases!)

There are others who should never have their children back. The problem is that sometimes the professionals involved can't always figure out which is which. At least where I live, a lot of this is done according to a checklist, and I suspect that on paper Josh may have looked okay (no previous criminal record, no history of abusing the children, etc.). I don't think there is a place on most of these checklists for "suspected of murdering children's mother."

Tink
 
I have worked with child protection organizations, and the reason that reunification is usually the goal is that there has been quite a bit of research showing that in most cases it leads to better outcomes for the child. Most parents who have their children removed from their custody are not evil - they are people struggling with problems in their lives such as mental illness, poverty, lack of parenting skills, immaturity, etc. With some help, many of them are able to bring their children home and provide good care for them. (And of course, we never hear about all of these cases!)

There are others who should never have their children back. The problem is that sometimes the professionals involved can't always figure out which is which. At least where I live, a lot of this is done according to a checklist, and I suspect that on paper Josh may have looked okay (no previous criminal record, no history of abusing the children, etc.). I don't think there is a place on most of these checklists for "suspected of murdering children's mother."
Tink

Ah, yes, the infamous checklist. And why do you think they have that checklist in the first place? Well, it's to ensure they meet all the compliance requirements of their oversight (federal) agency. DHHS? So, when that oversight agency comes in and says, "How do know your meeting all our requirements?" they can pull out that checklist and show the auditors/investigators that they did everything they were supposed to do. Generally, having a completed checklist mitigates many other questions by the oversight agency. Often it works unless the oversight agency digs deeply (which doesn't happen too often).

I'm an auditor by trade so these types of checklists matter a lot to us. Of course, I'm sure, in this case things will end up being examined very closely

IMO
 
I have worked with child protection organizations, and the reason that reunification is usually the goal is that there has been quite a bit of research showing that in most cases it leads to better outcomes for the child. Most parents who have their children removed from their custody are not evil - they are people struggling with problems in their lives such as mental illness, poverty, lack of parenting skills, immaturity, etc. With some help, many of them are able to bring their children home and provide good care for them. (And of course, we never hear about all of these cases!)

There are others who should never have their children back. The problem is that sometimes the professionals involved can't always figure out which is which. At least where I live, a lot of this is done according to a checklist, and I suspect that on paper Josh may have looked okay (no previous criminal record, no history of abusing the children, etc.). I don't think there is a place on most of these checklists for "suspected of murdering children's mother."

Tink
Presumably, those parents meet the requirements set forth and court ordered in a timely fashion. But, I know for a fact that in some and actually many cases, the parents manipulate the rules, procrastinate on deadlines, complain about having to meet with counselors, social workers, reschedule family meetings and outings, etc and if they make even the slightest effort the court will allow this to go on for years!

Lines have to be drawn because parents who really want to do a good job will be there to jump through every legal hoop along the way. Those that can't, won't and/or don't fulfill the necessary requirements must be given hard and fast deadlines. It is cruel to keep the kids bouncing in and out of one home to the next. And, sometimes it is their own home. They get sent home only to be pulled out time and time again and only to be sent back into the same chaotic environment. It's often a never-ending revolving door. It needs to stop. This type of instability breeds it's own problems. It is not good for any child and it is not good for society either.

Parents who lose custody of their children and especially those that are deemed a possible threat, of any kind, to their children (which is why a Judge orders only supervised visits) must be given a set number of months and chances...not years...to comply and not given endless "second" chances. I, for one, am sick of this system!
 
One gallon of gas vaporized is the equivalent of three sticks of dynamite," Wood said.

On that Sunday, the boys and the woman who supervised the court-ordered visit arrived at noon. The boys were happy, she has said, because their father told them he had something special for them.

Wood outlined the chain of events after Powell shut the door in the supervisor’s face:

"The little boys come in. He takes them to the back and hits them with the hatchet. Josh Powell scatters gas. He walks around the house, tossing it on the walls and floor. He puts the five-gallon gas can by the front door. He sits with the other can between his knees."

He lit a flame.

"It was an explosion, not a fire," Wood said.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-powell-used.html?storylink=twt#storylink=cpy
 
"If we had gotten someone there, firefighters or police officers, we’d have dead firefighters or police officers,” Wood said. "If the court had done something different and awarded custody to the grandparents, we’d have dead kids and dead grandparents."

The residents wanted to know that the boys did not suffer.

There was soot in their windpipes, Wood said, which meant they were still breathing at the time of the explosion. But he believes they were unconscious after their father hit them, and did not suffer.

Powell was fully aware when he triggered the explosion, and died where he sat.

"He committed the most evil act," Sanders said. "And he gave them the greatest gift, which is to be in their mother’s arms."

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-powell-used.html?storylink=twt#storylink=cpy
 
After the explosion, detectives searched a Powell family storage unit. In it, they found water and sealed buckets of dried foods, including beans.

"Tons of food," Sanders said.

"Also gas cans," Wood said. "We believe he got the gas from the storage shed."

The two cans found at the house were like the cans in the shed, he said, and there is evidence Powell had researched the explosive properties of gasoline.

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-powell-used.html?storylink=twt#storylink=cpy
 
Thank you, Dr. Fessel... I came here to post a link to that very article. It gives answers to a lot of the arguments that are going on here.. I also posted a link to it in the media thread... It seems that a lot of the folks who attended that meeting had the same questions we all have had and have argued about..
 
I have worked with child protection organizations, and the reason that reunification is usually the goal is that there has been quite a bit of research showing that in most cases it leads to better outcomes for the child. Most parents who have their children removed from their custody are not evil - they are people struggling with problems in their lives such as mental illness, poverty, lack of parenting skills, immaturity, etc. With some help, many of them are able to bring their children home and provide good care for them. (And of course, we never hear about all of these cases!)

There are others who should never have their children back. The problem is that sometimes the professionals involved can't always figure out which is which. At least where I live, a lot of this is done according to a checklist, and I suspect that on paper Josh may have looked okay (no previous criminal record, no history of abusing the children, etc.). I don't think there is a place on most of these checklists for "suspected of murdering children's mother."

Tink

bolded by me.

Makes you wonder how they could have ignored the fact that "Josh is the most likely POI in the strange disappearance of his wife" plus a lot of other telling details... :(
 
What was he going to do with all the dry food?
 
"He committed the most evil act," Sanders said. "And he gave them the greatest gift, which is to be in their mother’s arms."

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-powell-used.html?storylink=twt#storylink=cpy

I agree that JP committed the most evil act - filicide. But I disagree that he gave them the greatest gift. The greatest gift is Life, and to be able to live life and be all we were born to be. JP destroyed his children's lives. He robbed them of the opportunity to live their lives here on earth. JP did not give them a gift. I understand Sanders' sentiment, but I must say that I don't agree with it.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
1,780
Total visitors
1,968

Forum statistics

Threads
589,973
Messages
17,928,555
Members
228,027
Latest member
Sarahlm8627
Back
Top