Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bernard Gui

Susan Cox Powell Trial Ending Live Stream Now

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The evil of Josh Powell and his father was palpable.  It was a major crime to allow Josh Powell to remain free, thus giving him a chance to horribly murder his boys.  Any responsible system would have kept him in jail, or at least have his sons placed in a safe environment.  Child Protective Services (or whatever they call it in Washington State) never has to answer for their negligence or misjudgements.  They hide behind claims of confidentiality.

Like Idaho messed up with Vallow and Daybill.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 

To play devil's advocate - what clear indications were there that the boys were in danger?  What was the evident motive for murdering his boys?  He was a suspect in murdering his wife, but isn't he innocent until proven guilty?  While the state had reason to believe that he was guilty, did they have reason to believe he would kill his kids too?  Not all suspects are guilty and they have rights too. Should all murder suspects automatically lose custody of their children before trial?  Even if he was proven guilty of murdering his wife, most people who kill their spouses don't kill their children too.  Did the state have any reason to believe that he would do that?  I think we were all surprised and shocked at what happened.  Maybe there are details that I am unaware of. 

Except in cases of self-defense, killing a child’s other parent is an act of abuse.   Yes, murderers absolutely should lose custody unless and until they are judged innocent.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Like Idaho messed up with Vallow and Daybill.

Not really.  They were in Idaho maybe a month before being killed with no reason really to check her out at that time.  Kids were already dead before Idaho government got involved.

Now Arizona and Texas (iirc that is where the custody case with Joseph Ryan took place)....

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Both sides finished their summations. Now the judge and attorneys will prepare documents for the jury, and then we'll see what the jury thinks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

To play devil's advocate - what clear indications were there that the boys were in danger?  What was the evident motive for murdering his boys?  He was a suspect in murdering his wife, but isn't he innocent until proven guilty?  While the state had reason to believe that he was guilty, did they have reason to believe he would kill his kids too?  Not all suspects are guilty and they have rights too. Should all murder suspects automatically lose custody of their children before trial?  Even if he was proven guilty of murdering his wife, most people who kill their spouses don't kill their children too.  Did the state have any reason to believe that he would do that?  I think we were all surprised and shocked at what happened.  Maybe there are details that I am unaware of. 

There was plenty of forensic evidence of murder early on, but perhaps not enough to make an arrest or bring someone to trial.  However, the guy who evaluated Josh Powell certainly had adequate reason not to allow his visitation with the boys, yet he recommended visitation (judges typically go along with recommendations).  One of the boys had even told a daycare worker that his mommy was in the trunk of the car when they went on that "camping trip" at midnite.

Moreover, it is not true that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Police make arrests based on probable cause, and prosecutors take matters to trial every day based on the evidence they have.  Why would they accuse innocent people?  When someone is locked up pending trial, there is a good reason why they are locked up, and bail set -- as in the current Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow case.  Yes, a trial must be held to determine the final disposition of the case.  But in the meantime, secure measures must be taken to prevent the accused from fleeing or intimidating or killing witnesses.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/29/2020 at 4:55 PM, MorningStar said:

My best friend worked at the boys' school and she was devastated by their murder. I listened to the Cold Podcast and was absolutely sickened by Josh and his father. 😠 The CPS worker - ugh. If the visits were required, they should have been in a neutral location. The 911 operator screwed up things too. 

I don't think the 911 operator did anything wrong. The social worker was incoherent and had a hard time explaining who she was, where she was, who Josh was, and what was going on. She had to run back to her car to find the address of the home to give the operator. While she was in the car, the house blew up. It was around  20 minutes from the abduction to the explosion.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Traela said:

Except in cases of self-defense, killing a child’s other parent is an act of abuse.   Yes, murderers absolutely should lose custody unless and until they are judged innocent.

 

The testimony given by experts was that murder of a spouse is the most extreme form of child abuse. There is nothing worse.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Traela said:

Yes, murderers absolutely should lose custody unless and until they are judged innocent.

You mean presume they are guilty until proven innocent?

I am talking about suspects that have never even been charged for anything.  Often times there can be several suspects.  Should they all lose custody before any charges?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

My friend talks of seeing the smoke on the way home from church.  She had also had a run in with Steve as he was cutting down the purple ribbons in the neighborhood before the fire.  If anyone is curious about the details of this there’s a very detailed podcast that tells the story.  It’s...disturbing.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, pogi said:

 

 

To play devil's advocate - what clear indications were there that the boys were in danger?  What was the evident motive for murdering his boys?  He was a suspect in murdering his wife, but isn't he innocent until proven guilty?  While the state had reason to believe that he was guilty, did they have reason to believe he would kill his kids too?  Not all suspects are guilty and they have rights too. Should all murder suspects automatically lose custody of their children before trial?  Even if he was proven guilty of murdering his wife, most people who kill their spouses don't kill their children too.  Did the state have any reason to believe that he would do that?  I think we were all surprised and shocked at what happened.  Maybe there are details that I am unaware of. 

Fair set of points.  But it all sucks so it's easy to get upset about it, in hindsight.  I don't really know if there were enough signs to say it was unsafe or not, but I really wish there were and that things were handled differently.  

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Bede said:

When you coming back, dawg?

Tuesday, but then I'm leaving again.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course, it was not the only nor even the major factor in their evil doing. You would need to here the testimony to understand the roll it played. Josh was a returned missionary. He and Susan were married in the temple. The explicit hatred against the Church started before the murder of Susan in Utah and continued afterwards until their deaths in Washington (Steven died from a heart attack shortly after being released from jail for voyeurism and possession of child pornography and Josh killed himself and his boys in his home). They were sick, evil men.

 

I remember following fairly close years back, but have forgotten most of the details.  I think I do recall he was adamantly upset about her going to Church or something, at times.  Control freak seems to be a big problem when it comes to these disasters.  Thanks for the explanation.  What an appalling scene this story was.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, MorningStar said:

My best friend worked at the boys' school and she was devastated by their murder. I listened to the Cold Podcast and was absolutely sickened by Josh and his father. 😠 The CPS worker - ugh. If the visits were required, they should have been in a neutral location. The 911 operator screwed up things too. 

Sister Gui worked at the school, too. I wonder if they knew each other.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/29/2020 at 6:54 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

There was plenty of forensic evidence of murder early on, but perhaps not enough to make an arrest or bring someone to trial.  However, the guy who evaluated Josh Powell certainly had adequate reason not to allow his visitation with the boys, yet he recommended visitation (judges typically go along with recommendations).  One of the boys had even told a daycare worker that his mommy was in the trunk of the car when they went on that "camping trip" at midnite.

Moreover, it is not true that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  Police make arrests based on probable cause, and prosecutors take matters to trial every day based on the evidence they have.  Why would they accuse innocent people?  When someone is locked up pending trial, there is a good reason why they are locked up, and bail set -- as in the current Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow case.  Yes, a trial must be held to determine the final disposition of the case.  But in the meantime, secure measures must be taken to prevent the accused from fleeing or intimidating or killing witnesses.

The visitations in the DSHS facility (a large old home) were ok, but there were inadequate security protections in the building. There are now! Josh really put on a show by bringing toys and science experiments and construction projects, sushi and treats, fawning over the boys, reading them stories, and cooking gourmet meals for them. In real life at home, he reserved the good food for himself.

What was inexplicable is that he was able to convince  the social workers to move the visits to his home....without advising the court.  He put on a similar show in his home visitations. After several visits during which he was observed by a couple of workers, they decided it would be good for the boys. Everything he did was for his own purposes. If they had not allowed the home visits, the boys would be alive today.

One of the reasons the social workers gave for moving the venue to the home was that other families visiting in the facility recognized Josh (he was recognized as the suspect in his wife’s disappearance because of the local and national media coverage) and were uncomfortable with him being there. The Cox’s attorney pointed out that the visits were on Sundays during the Cox’s church services because Josh refused to let them take the boys to church, so there was usually no one else in the building.

One of the state’s attorneys asked the sheriff who observed the visits in the DSHS facility why Josh couldn’t have just  killed the boys there if he wanted to because he brought tools such as a hammer for their projects. The sheriff responded that he was observing them through a one way mirror in the next room and he was armed and only a few feet away and would have ended it quickly. There was no such protection in the home. Only the lone diminutive older female social worker. He easily overpowered her.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, smac97 said:
Quote

Susan Cox Powell was murdered by her husband Josh Powell in Utah. He subsequently  murdered their two sons and killed himself here in South Hill WA. The suit is over negligence by the State in failing to protect the two little boys. He and his father were bitter former- and anti-Mormon sick folks. Their antagonism towards the Church was frequently brought up in the trial. 

Regarding the emphasized portion above, I think we should be very circumspect and cautious.  

I have sometimes complained about news coverage of misconduct committed by members of the Church.  My complaint is that some of these stories place gratuitous emphasis on the individual's membership in the Church, when in fact that membership has essentially no bearing on the misconduct.

By way of illustration as to the above-referenced "gratuitous emphasis," I just came across a story this morning about the band The Killers, the lead singer of which is Brandon Flowers, who is a member of the Church.  Here's the headline (the story has details of alleged sexual misconduct, so be forewarned) :

Quote

Mormon group The Killers launch investigation after sound engineer claims she witnessed drunken girl being by sexually abused by tour crew who were called to dressing room when it was their turn to have sex with her

"Mormon group?"

The story goes on to reference Flowers' religious affiliation )twice) :

Quote

The Killers are launching an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse made by a former sound engineer who claimed that members of the band's crew took advantage of a drugged woman in a dressing room. 

None of the band members, including Mormon lead singer Brandon Flowers, were implicated in the alleged assault in the dressing room. 
...
Speaking to the Dail Mail in 2007, he said: 'I grew up reading all these stories about David Bowie getting loaded in the Seventies. It all sounded so great. Suddenly, I was confronted with those things every day. The women, the drink, the drugs… I’m not going to pretend it was easy to deal with. It was a dilemma for me.

'It was more about drink for me. I mean, being in a band is very much like being a permanent adolescent. So, yes, I’d drink alcohol. People would ask me how all that fitted in with my Mormon faith.

'Well, I happen to belong to a very tolerant gathering. In any case, I’ve put all that behind me now. I’m a clean machine.'

So Brandon Flowers was not implicated in the alleged assault, and even before the alleged incident involving members of his band's crew he had stopped drinking and become a "clean machine."

And yet the both the title of the article and the lede specifically call out Flowers' religious affiliation.

How is The Killers a "Mormon group?"  How is Flowers' religious affiliation germane to the story?

The story is already pretty lurid.  The media outlet still tried to make it more so by adding a tacit "religious hypocrite" vibe, even though Flowers is not implicated in the misconduct, let alone his church.  Not cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

By way of illustration as to the above-referenced "gratuitous emphasis," I just came across a story this morning about the band The Killers, the lead singer of which is Brandon Flowers, who is a member of the Church.  Here's the headline (the story has details of alleged sexual misconduct, so be forewarned) :

"Mormon group?"

The story goes on to reference Flowers' religious affiliation )twice) :

So Brandon Flowers was not implicated in the alleged assault, and even before the alleged incident involving members of his band's crew he had stopped drinking and become a "clean machine."

And yet the both the title of the article and the lede specifically call out Flowers' religious affiliation.

How is The Killers a "Mormon group?"  How is Flowers' religious affiliation germane to the story?

The story is already pretty lurid.  The media outlet still tried to make it more so by adding a tacit "religious hypocrite" vibe, even though Flowers is not implicated in the misconduct, let alone his church.  Not cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks. I’m not sure how this applies to the Powell situation. 

Share this post


Link to post

The trial went to the jury today. A verdict is expected tomorrow. They are asking for a very substantial penalty, but who knows what the jury will do. Win or lose, the Cox family is glad this is coming to a close. If they win a large settlement they have plans to use the money to set up an organization to help victims of child abuse and for several other philanthropic purposes. The money would go into a trust in the name of  Charlie and Braden Powell.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Chuck reminded me of a zinger during the trial (there were many)...when the State attorney asked a witness if Josh could have killed the boys at the DSHS facility, the witness said yes...there were no security protections so he could have used the hammer he brought for his construction products. On cross examination, the Cox attorney pointed out that no child had ever been killed or attacked at a state facility. Then he asked if anyone might have raised an eyebrow had Josh showed up for a visit carrying two gas cans, a lighter, and a hatchet?

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2020 at 8:29 PM, Traela said:

Except in cases of self-defense, killing a child’s other parent is an act of abuse.   Yes, murderers absolutely should lose custody unless and until they are judged innocent.

 

He did lose custody. My understanding is that he had supervised visitation.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Chuck reminded me of a zinger during the trial (there were many)...when the State attorney asked a witness if Josh could have killed the boys at the DSHS facility, the witness said yes...there were no security protections so he could have used the hammer he brought for his construction products. On cross examination, the Cox attorney pointed out that no child had ever been killed or attacked at a state facility. Then he asked if anyone might have raised an eyebrow had Josh showed up for a visit carrying two gas cans, a lighter, and a hatchet?

While there is no open security at most centers there are quite a few people there. Their mere presence could serve as a deterrent. I am not aware of the state's regulations but when someone has supervised visitation it is usually at the caseworker's discretion where the visit takes place.

On 7/30/2020 at 10:33 AM, Bernard Gui said:

What was inexplicable is that he was able to convince  the social workers to move the visits to his home....without advising the court.  He put on a similar show in his home visitations. After several visits during which he was observed by a couple of workers, they decided it would be good for the boys. Everything he did was for his own purposes. If they had not allowed the home visits, the boys would be alive today.

One of the reasons the social workers gave for moving the venue to the home was that other families visiting in the facility recognized Josh (he was recognized as the suspect in his wife’s disappearance because of the local and national media coverage) and were uncomfortable with him being there. The Cox’s attorney pointed out that the visits were on Sundays during the Cox’s church services because Josh refused to let them take the boys to church, so there was usually no one else in the building.

Not inexplicable unless advising the court is policy there for changing the venue. Was going to the house a violation of policy in Washington? Most caseworkers in my state hold out supervised visitation at a neutral location (fast food place or park usually) or at the parent's home as a carrot for good behavior. Most parents try for it. People do not want to meet with their kids in a room with people looking on through a one-way mirror. I felt a little weird watching through those mirrors a few times. Using the rationale that this person is a dangerous well-recognized man as rationale to move out of the center is nuts. Plus the center should not be built in a way that people at the center interact with other visitors. The policy where I am is (or at least was) to put families in the room as soon as they arrive even if the other party is not there yet. 

The "not going to church" thing is shady to me. One of the kid's rights in most states is continued participation in their religious faith. It could be different in Washington.. The father lost parental rights (even if it was still technically temporary) and should not have gotten a say in whether the kids go to church or not. 

Part of me wishes there was a CASA volunteer on scene as maybe another body would have prevented the killing. I would like to think if I was still in that position that I could have stopped it but I might have just added to the guy's kill tally.

I would put more of the blame for the events on the family judge that allowed visitation than the local CPS equivalent but both botched this. Visitation is tied to best interests of the child and to parent's work in the reunification plan. Then again the sad truth is usually CPS has a better grasp on the case than the judge (who has a huge caseload in most areas) and should have pushed for visitation to be disallowed. Maybe they did though and the judge ruled against them? The guardian ad litem (lawyer for the children) should probably have pushed for no visitation as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He did lose custody. My understanding is that he had supervised visitation.

He lost custody after police searched his father's home and revealed the horrible situation in which the boys were living. Visitations at DSHS facilities were allowed later when he moved out and rented his own home.

Quote

While there is no open security at most centers there are quite a few people there. Their mere presence could serve as a deterrent. I am not aware of the state's regulations but when someone has supervised visitation it is usually at the caseworker's discretion where the visit takes place.

The WA DSHS guidelines identify facilities that are allowed. The unsecured home of a parent suspected of murdering his wife is not on the list. The decision to move it to the home was made without permission of the court that issued the terms of the visitations.

Quote

Not inexplicable unless advising the court is policy there for changing the venue. Was going to the house a violation of policy in Washington? Most caseworkers in my state hold out supervised visitation at a neutral location (fast food place or park usually) or at the parent's home as a carrot for good behavior. Most parents try for it. People do not want to meet with their kids in a room with people looking on through a one-way mirror. I felt a little weird watching through those mirrors a few times. Using the rationale that this person is a dangerous well-recognized man as rationale to move out of the center is nuts. Plus the center should not be built in a way that people at the center interact with other visitors. The policy where I am is (or at least was) to put families in the room as soon as they arrive even if the other party is not there yet. 

Anyone with common sense would know that the person visiting the kids who is the only suspect in the murder of their mother and the product of a very bizarre upbringing should be supervised very closely. Visiting them in his unsecured home in the presence of only a middle-aged diminuitive (she is a tiny lady) woman is nuts. The official visiting site (a large old home) had privacy protocols, but seeing someone there while visiting was unavoidable. The fact that the meetings were only on Sundays when hardly anyone was there showed the falsity of the State's claims.

Quote

The "not going to church" thing is shady to me. One of the kid's rights in most states is continued participation in their religious faith. It could be different in Washington.. The father lost parental rights (even if it was still technically temporary) and should not have gotten a say in whether the kids go to church or not. 

Part of me wishes there was a CASA volunteer on scene as maybe another body would have prevented the killing. I would like to think if I was still in that position that I could have stopped it but I might have just added to the guy's kill tally.

I would put more of the blame for the events on the family judge that allowed visitation than the local CPS equivalent but both botched this. Visitation is tied to best interests of the child and to parent's work in the reunification plan. Then again the sad truth is usually CPS has a better grasp on the case than the judge (who has a huge caseload in most areas) and should have pushed for visitation to be disallowed. Maybe they did though and the judge ruled against them? The guardian ad litem (lawyer for the children) should probably have pushed for no visitation as well.

He did have a say about the church attendance. That's why the visitations were on Sunday when the Coxes were in church. He had a lot to say about the Church. His attorney and counselors both warned him that he wasn't helping his cause by railing against the Church, accusing the "Mormon Police" and making his boys afraid of the Coxes and the Church. Part of the visitation conditions was that he stop the vitriol. When he got started with it, he spiraled out of control. He continued to violate that provision, but was not sanctioned for it. Eventually they even allowed him a Wednesday night visit in the home of a pastor friend who later abandoned him when child pornography was found on his computer. That was one of the triggers that pushed him over the edge. 

The State claimed that the family judge ordered the visitations in the home. Part of their strategy was to blame that judge. That was also a headline in the local news after the events. In trial, the State was asked to show the original and subsequent orders and point out where he ordered home visits. That part was nowhere to be found. It didn't happen. That was a lie.

None of the social workers involved with the boys including the GAL (he was not a lawyer) heeded the family's, law enforcement's, counselor's, or teacher's warnings. They did not present anything about home visits to the judge. Since there was no evidence of physical abuse in Utah or Washington which would have eliminated any visitations, he was not considered abusive. The DSHS employees and their contractors were not trained about changes in their own policies and guidebooks that were made to include emotional and verbal abuse in the legal definition of abuse. They were functioning under old guidelines and handbooks. The author of the guidebook testified for the Coxes. The State had no reply other than it takes a long time and a lot of meetings to get everyone up to speed. They had 2 years to do it before the murders. Josh abused Susan and the kids in this way. Had they included this, the visitations would not have been approved. That was negligence at the highest levels of DSHS.  

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2020 at 3:43 PM, Bernard Gui said:

That is the position of the plaintiffs. There were clear indications the boys were in danger and Josh was capable of harming them. At this point, it’s going to be in the hands of the jury.

I'm thinking those indications were: 1) he had killed his wife, which indicated he was capable of murdering someone who was a member of his own family, and 2) he told his children that the person(s) who killed his wife was going to kill them too.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

He lost custody after police searched his father's home and revealed the horrible situation in which the boys were living. Visitations at DSHS facilities were allowed later when he moved out and rented his own home.

The WA DSHS guidelines identify facilities that are allowed. The unsecured home of a parent suspected of murdering his wife is not on the list. The decision to move it to the home was made without permission of the court that issued the terms of the visitations.

I could not find the guidelines. While I am sure "unsecured home of a parent suspected of murdering his wife" is not on the list the "home of the parent" might be. In the states I am familiar with visitation terms are usually not strictly spelled out in the judge's order. 

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Anyone with common sense would know that the person visiting the kids who is the only suspect in the murder of their mother and the product of a very bizarre upbringing should be supervised very closely. Visiting them in his unsecured home in the presence of only a middle-aged diminuitive (she is a tiny lady) woman is nuts. The official visiting site (a large old home) had privacy protocols, but seeing someone there while visiting was unavoidable. The fact that the meetings were only on Sundays when hardly anyone was there showed the falsity of the State's claims.

I agree that they were idiots.

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

He did have a say about the church attendance. That's why the visitations were on Sunday when the Coxes were in church. He had a lot to say about the Church. His attorney and counselors both warned him that he wasn't helping his cause by accusing the "Mormon Police" and making his boys afraid of the Coxes and the Church. Eventually they even allowed him a Wednesday night visit in the home of a pastor friend who abandoned him when child pornography was found on his computer. That was one of the triggers that pushed him over the edge. Part of the visitation conditions was that he stop the vitriol. When he got started with it, he spiraled out of control. He continued to violate that provision, but was not sanctioned for it.

If that is the law in Washington that a parent with no parental rights can forbid going to a religious gathering that is insane. It sounds like the kids were afraid of going because of what their father said.

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The State claimed that the family judge ordered the visitations in the home. Part of their strategy was to blame that judge. That was also a headline in the local news after the events. In trial, the State was asked to show the original and subsequent orders and point out where he ordered home visits. That part was nowhere to be found. It didn't happen. That was a lie.

And a stupid lie. If they had just switched to home visits at the judge's order then the judge presumably has to shift all orders. More likely it was a general visitation order given to the department and they stupidly agreed to do it at the house. Probably charmed them into it. This guy sounds like an example case of a psychopath and not one of the ones that dampens their darker impulses to get by. They are almost universally charming and persuasive. Not an excuse for falling for it but it explains part of the idiocy.

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

None of the social workers involved with the boys including the GAL (he was not a lawyer) heeded the family's, law enforcement's, counselor's, or teacher's warnings. They did not present anything about home visits to the judge. Since there was no evidence of physical abuse in Utah or Washington which would have eliminated any visitations, he was not considered abusive. The DSHS employees and their contractors were not trained about changes in their own policies and guidebooks that were made to include emotional and verbal abuse in the legal definition of abuse. They were functioning under old guidelines and handbooks. The author of the guidebook testified for the Coxes. The State had no reply other than it takes a long time and a lot of meetings to get everyone up to speed. Josh abused Susan and the kids in this way. Had they included this, the visitations would not have been approved. That was negligence at the highest levels of DSHS.  

They don't give the kids a real lawyer?!?!?!?! That is messed up.

I am not sure the abuse thing would be a contributor to guilt if I were on the jury. When kids are pulled from a home previous physical, emotional, or verbal abuse is not usually enough to prevent supervised visits depending on degree of abuse as the goal is usually to get the parents and the kids back together in a non-abusive environment. Part of the parenting plan will be to retrain the abuser to not abuse. Abuse during visits is cause for termination of visitation of course.

While I do not find that last bit convincing I hope the state loses on the other points and I hope they change some of their procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I could not find the guidelines. While I am sure "unsecured home of a parent suspected of murdering his wife" is not on the list the "home of the parent" might be. In the states I am familiar with visitation terms are usually not strictly spelled out in the judge's order. 

Home of the parent is not in the guidelines. Anyone involved in this knew who Josh was and what he was suspected to have done. 

Quote

I agree that they were idiots.

If that is the law in Washington that a parent with no parental rights can forbid going to a religious gathering that is insane. It sounds like the kids were afraid of going because of what their father said.

And a stupid lie. If they had just switched to home visits at the judge's order then the judge presumably has to shift all orders. More likely it was a general visitation order given to the department and they stupidly agreed to do it at the house. Probably charmed them into it. This guy sounds like an example case of a psychopath and not one of the ones that dampens their darker impulses to get by. They are almost universally charming and persuasive. Not an excuse for falling for it but it explains part of the idiocy.

There was no general visitation order change issued by the judge. He was narcissistic manipulative psychopath. He was not charming, but he was persuasive. People felt very uncomfortable in his presence. Everyone knew this except the State, apparently.

Quote

They don't give the kids a real lawyer?!?!?!?! That is messed up.

I am not sure the abuse thing would be a contributor to guilt if I were on the jury. When kids are pulled from a home previous physical, emotional, or verbal abuse is not usually enough to prevent supervised visits depending on degree of abuse as the goal is usually to get the parents and the kids back together in a non-abusive environment. Part of the parenting plan will be to retrain the abuser to not abuse. Abuse during visits is cause for termination of visitation of course.

While I do not find that last bit convincing I hope the state loses on the other points and I hope they change some of their procedures.

The multiple mess-ups are why the Coxes are suing the State. The huge amount of damages they are asking is to force the State to change and if they win the effect will spread throughout the US. The excuse the State gave was that there was no evidence of previous physical abuse. There was such a plan set for Josh, but according to his doctors he was evasive, untruthful, and seemingly incapable of admitting weakness. However, he put on the front of the perfect parent when he was in observable situations. The Coxes warned them about this. The explicit goal of the State was reunification. This also was a reason for the lawsuit. They seem to place reunification above safety.

It will be truly sad if the jury does not find for them. All of this would be for naught.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just read that the jury ruled in favor of the Cox family. Awarded 98.5 million 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...