Comments about ‘Judge grants temporary custody of Powell children to their maternal grandparents’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 28 2011 11:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
St. George, UT

"...and that he shot footage of two young neighbor girls as they took baths and sat on the toilet."

People frequently take pictures of kids on the toilet... and sometimes they sent them to America's Funniest Home videos.

"He also grew emotional as he described the failure of the 'general public' to look for his wife: 'That, your honor, is deeply hurtful to me.'"

Too funny... Perhaps Josh could help out a little by cooperating with law enforcement.

Clearfield, UT

To wrz | 12:33 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011

Maybe law enforcement should have refrained from setting him up for the fall without having evidence to back up their position. If you recall the article at the FoxNews website soon after Susan Powell went missing, Josh Powell met with law enforcement AND allowed them to interview his older son -- the one who would be able to describe what happened.

Or are you saying that he should "cooperate" by confessing to a crime he did not commit?

Bountiful, Utah

I think that Josh Powell is going to become rich when he sues over law enforcement removing his children.

Somewhere in the USA, UT

Kami | 2:32 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011
Bountiful, Utah
I think that Josh Powell is going to become rich when he sues over law enforcement removing his children.

Wow, really. They were removed because he directly or indirectly put them in harms way by allowing them to be in the home of his Father who is being held on child pornography crimes. Child pornography is a crime, and they are children, that sounds like a no brainer to me. I would hope that all children would be removed from any home where there were suspected crimes being committed, especially if they crime involves kids.

Cebterville, Utah

The general public has spent more time looking for Susan than Josh and he claims they have not helped search for her and it has been hurtful to him. He also states he has not seen seen any illegal pornography in his father's home. But what about pornography in general. Children should not be around any porn. Once again his stories don't add up.

Cebterville, Utah

Kami - Josh will be in pirson by then. Get your head out of the sand.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

How can a judge remove parental rights in this situation?

Josh has not been accused of any wrongdoing.

He has not been charged with any crime at all.

Being a "person of interest" is NOT grounds for losing one's parental rights.

There is no evidence that Josh knew anything about his father's criminal behavior.

I have even read comments that Josh doesn't have a job, so the kids should be taken away.

Since when is being unemployed grounds for losing your children?

Others have said Josh did not react to Susan's disappearance the way Ed Smart reacted to Elizabeth's disappearance.

How is that a crime?

Josh says Susan ran off with another man. Their marriage was not a happy one. If that is true, why would he do anything other than let her go? Why would he show love and care for a woman who left him with two kids?

This situation stinks to high heaven. The court and law enforcement better proceed with extreme caution. Unless there is more justification than has been reported and more evidence against Josh (not Steven) than has been revealed, this is a major law suit just waiting to happen!

Clearfield, UT

If there is any interest at all in the legal community to keep those children's memories of what happened the night their mother disappeared untainted, the children should not be placed with their grandparents.


The judge did good. Those boys need a good home and the Cox family provide a good, stable choice. Now Josh will have time to go look for his wife without worrying about those children.

West Valley, UT

I don't understand how a judge could revoke the custody rights of a man who has not been convicted of a crime.

Isn't it innocent until proven guilty?

I've yet to see proof.

Silly Rabbit
Small Town, USA, UT

Well to all of you people out there that think tha the law has no grounds to step in and take these two children away from thier father. Well we do not know what evidence the police have, we just do not know.

This father would rather have his sons with foster parents that he does not know then family that he knows loves his children, red flag right there. It seems he does not want his children around anyone that his children are comfortable with.

I think in the next week or so some more evidence will come out on Susan's death and Josh will run, at least he will not have his children now...........

West Valley, UT

I'm just waiting for these kids to hit their teens and decide they want to sue the state because they have been "traumatized for life" by all this nonsense. That should be good for a couple million bucks.

West Valley, UT

@mammalou: " he directly or indirectly put them in harms way by allowing them to be in the home of his Father who is being held on child pornography crimes."

So, should we remove any children who have entered this home, whether or not their parents knew about the photos? We do not yet know if Josh knew about this material or not, but somehow he deserves to lose his children. Why doesn't this apply to everyone?

How about the parents who "allowed" their children to be photographed? Pretty ludicrous isn't it? If you don't know about someone's bad actions then how can you be punished for allowing them to occur?

Bountiful, Utah

guswetrust | 2:59 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011
Cebterville, Utah
Kami - Josh will be in pirson by then. Get your head out of the sand.

guswetrust -- you may want to educate yourself a bit, rather than look like a fool. We are talking about constitutionally protected rights here -- rights that prison inmates do not lose. Any evidence the government collects AFTER removing the children from this father's home may not be used to justify the government's action here.


For those asking about "innocent until proven guilty":

Child protection cases require a much lower standard proof than criminal cases. Criminal cases require "beyond a reasonable doubt". Child protection cases require "preponderance of the evidence" (about 50/50 chance) that maltreatment occurred for someone to lose temporary custody of their children. Josh is currently under investigation for voyeurism and child porn. If over the next 3 months they can't find that Josh is guilty of any crimes, Josh ought to get his kids back following some requirements by the court. Obviously, if he's found guilty then we'll see all of his parental rights terminated.


The presence of pornography in the home and Josh's sister's experience of growing up with her father watching pornography when she was present is enough for Child Protective Services to remove the children. Children are removed from homes for less than that. Josh's dad is a very sick man and who knows how/if this damaged Josh. Dysfuntional adults often causes dysfunctional children who then become dysfunctional adults. Early exposure to pornography, sex can really mess things up.

I feel sorry for these children. Children are always the ones who bear the brunt of bad decisions and misfortune. I hope the authorities do what is in the best interest of the children.

Millsap fan
Taylorsville, UT

This guy rubs me the wrong way and though he hasn't been convicted yet, those kids deserve a better place to live than with Josh.


"He also grew emotional as he described the failure of the "general public" to look for his wife: "That, your honor, is deeply hurtful to me."

Why is it our fault that she hasn't been found? Why haven't you done anything to find her Josh.


Did you all miss the paragraph about the mentally disabled brother running around the house and answering the door NUDE?
I'm assuming the next sentence was about said brother taking pix of people's legs w/o their knowledge but it's unclear from the sentence structure whether it's Josh taking those pix.
Either way, there's a whole lot of stuff going on in that house that young boys shouldn't be around.
FIFTEEN computers? That's a lot of porn.

Josh has been adamant that the Cox's don't even speak to the kids because he's afraid the boys will tell what they know and put Josh behind bars with Daddy Dearest.

The walls are about to come tumbling down.

Run, Josh, Run.

Somewhere in the USA, UT

Jack-P | 4:13 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011
West Valley, UT

I guess I missed the part about any parents allowing their children to be photographed. The article I read said the people that were photographed were unaware the pictures were being taken. There is plenty of evidence that others have long been aware of Steve Powells problems. I can't think of many parents that would allow their children to be in the home of such a pervert.

It is a parent 1st job to protect their children and not put them in any situation that could be harmful. Sometimes, that means you err on the side of caution. Josh Powell was well aware of his Father's issues, if not, then there is something wrong with him which in itself is grounds. If the pictures were just of adults I might feel different, but they specifically said there were young children involved which makes it an unsafe environment.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments