It is much, much better to put children with relatives they know than in foster
care. Josh clearly does not have the best interests of his children in mind.
In child custody cases suspicion of wrong-doing is enough for intervention.
This especially applies if the children were kept in a home where they was child
pronography. I am gald I do not have wrz as a neighbor. It is
disturbing that some people think invading the privacy of children in their
neighborhood is acceptable and even funny. It is criminal voyerism.
It does my heart good to know that those little boys are with loving
grandparents tonight. I have feared for them being raised in the Powell
household. I have always believed that if Josh Powell's alibi was true, that
alone was child neglect and endangerment, taking a 2 year old out in that
weather in the middle of the night to such a remote location, more than 100
miles from home in a blizzard, to make s'mores.
After the dust finally settles from all of this I have to think there is a
broken home along with many broken lives that may never recover. A mother that
disappeared and a father that has been under suspicion for just about
everything. The two innocent little boys didn't deserve any of this and maybe it
would be better to put them in a good home where they can start over and have
the chance at a normal life.
krissy: You don't like that the church teaches good things to our youth?
>krissy | 6:19 a.m. Sept. 30, 2011>Sterling, VA>The strange
quirks of Josh aside, I feel his frustration with the children >being placed
with his in-laws.Well as a father, maybe he should have been more
aware of what was going on in his own home and that his boys were most likely
exposed to the weird sexual stuff his father was/is doing. You are a father,
you are responsible for your child's welfare.>The Coxes obviously
fit the public persona of "good people". They are strong >Mormon,
they must be! So, being Mormon means that your are not "good
people". Come on, give me a break. Let the boys be with their
grandparents. >I would not want my young children taken to the
LDS church either. I don't >agree with what is taught and I don't care for
the way the culture >influences our youth. Okay, that's YOUR
opinion. You forget that Susan would most likely want he boys to go to church.
Ute Alumni:How did you get that from my logic? We are talking about
religion not education. There is a law that you have to send or home school your
children. There is no law that says that a parent has to have his kids involved
in any religion. My point is that the kids are kids until 18, when they turn 18
they are considered grown up and have the agency to make whatever choice they
want. Most kids are controlled by their parents or at least they should be.
The strange quirks of Josh aside, I feel his frusteration with the children
being placed with his in-laws. Obviously these people do not like him and
believe he has murdered their daughter. There were probably bad feelings
between them long before Susan went missing. Not once have I seen them together
with Josh. The Coxes obviously fit the public persona of "good
people". They are strong mormon, they must be! Josh is in-active, he was
judged the first day Susan was gone. I would not want my young
children taken to the LDS church either. I don't agree with what is taught and
I don't care for the way the culture influences our youth. Given public
opinion against Josh, I can only imagine what his children will be exposed to
there. Things became so bad for Josh in Utah with the media and
public opinion that he had to leave. It was a public lynching. It still is.
I've followed this story for years like everyone else, and I hope
there are answers soon too. That the person(s) guilty of taking Susan away from
her family are punished. When "gut feeling" and "personal
revelation" is moot.
If you read the article Powell junior is also part of the porn investigation so
yes the judge has every legal right o remove the children.
murray19with your logic, let's let the kids decide if they want an
academic education when they turn 18. If they do at that time, they can go to
Rifleman, Andermart:You may be both right but as of now you are
wrong. He hasn't done anything wrong that he has been charged with. Hopefully
the kids do turn out great and they may be better off with someone else, but
that can be said with a lot of kids and parents. But the facts are the facts as
of now. All we all are doing is gossiping because no one know for sure that is
willing to admit or come forward. To bad being is good parent is not a
requirement to having/making a child.
murray19 | 10:11 a.m. Sept. 29, 2011 "If the dad doesn't want them to
worship that is his right as their father"There is a very real
possibility that the maternal grandparents may be give permanent custody of
these boys, and based on what the police are saying Josh may be finding himself
behind bars where they restrict objectionable kinds of reading material. In
either case these boys would be exposed to concepts of morality. Who knows,
they may even achieve Eagle Scout awards.
Leno once joked that OJ was searching every golf course in florida for the
killer of his wife..Same could be said of Josh!Josh has
more time now to search every porn website in the world looking for his wife's
Till Josh can find a place of his own the kids need not be exposed to their
grandfather's porn addiction. The grandpa needs some help.
On the other hand, we can probably rule out Chuck and Judy Cox as the murderers.
The boys should be safe with them.
While I'm no fan of Josh, it seems reasonable that he would prefer foster care
over people who believe he committed murder.
@Dutchman:"Big government run amuck (sic)!"It
appears Josh and his father are the ones who've gone amok. As well as the
brother."What right has the government to take his kids away
based on accusations?"And if the accusations prove to be
accurate? What then? Better that the kids be removed until things can be
sorted out and the truth established."Josh has not been charged
or arrested of anything."He is the prime person of interest...
much of which is based on strange conduct by not only Josh but his father and
handicapped brother as well. Plus the fact that Josh refuses access to the kids
by the their grandparents, Mr. & Mrs. Cox. What's up with that? "There is no evidence he abuses his kids."There is
suspicion he abused the kids' mother. Strong evidence including his refusal to
cooperate with law enforcement over the disappearance of his wife.
Big government run amuck! This is scary! I don't like Josh Powell anymore than
anyone else but come on! What right has the government to take his kids away
based on accusations? Josh has not been charged or arrested of anything. There
is no evidence he abuses his kids. If law enforcement can remove kids because
someone in a home is viewing porn on a computer then big government might as
well remove kids from homes where the parents take kids to the library and maybe
some adult in the library is viewing porn on a computer. This is insane and
This is really a sad case for the children but I am happy with this judge doing
the right thing here by placing them with the grandparents and not a foster
home.In a couple of other posts I read since when is it legal to remove kids
when the parents are unemployeed? It's called child endangerment! If he can't
pay the bills and buy food the kids are definately in danger.Then there's a
possible psych evalulation of the father,that to can get the kids removed. Right
now it's about what's in the best interest of the children and I wish them well.
The brother is mentally challenged. He is also the same gender as the boys. If
they were nieces I could see this being more of a issue. I don't think the same
critical brush needing to be applied to the brother as grandpa and dad. Nothing
sinister has been suggested relating to the brother. If anyone knows someone
with special needs they know how challenging clothing can be. To them it's like
wearing an itchy burlap sack. Or the concept of getting dressed being more
important that answering the door as soon as it's knocked on can be hard to
grasp. And Josh moved the family there. How dare he suggest to remove the
brother from the house. Get a place of your own. Your brother is the one will
the real need of assistance from parents in adulthood. Though given how awful
the dad is maybe he would be better served out of the home. But where would he
re: murray19The children's mother strongly wanted the children to be
raised in the LDS Church. The children's father, Josh, strongly disagreed. Then
she went missing. How strange. With her out of the way, should he now get his
Kami and foxtrot and whomever, if you think the judge has to have reason to take
children away from a father (in a divorce), you know nothing about the divorce
courts! They may be getting better, but I belonged to a father's rights group
in Utah and the stories go on and on and on, and the father's lost. The payment
of child support was enforced, but visitation - Never! So I'm sympathetic with
fathers, but the safety of the children has to be paramount. I still want to
know if the two men in the house worked. Did Josh work? Did the oldest boy go
to school? And whoever said above that people take pictures of children on
toilets and send it to a Funniest Home Videos - needs to get their head on
straight. They take pictures of their own children, not a neighbors without
consent. Get a clue!
RE: RiflemanLet them worship how when or what they may. Thay
includes not worshiping if thats what they want. If the dad doesn't want them to
worship that is his right as their father. When they turn 18 they can make their
own choice. Until then the parent is in charge like it or not!
Re: Moderate | 6:58 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011"The kids should have been
placed in a neutral foster home"Yes, I agree with Josh. There
is a very real danger the Grandparents may, gasp, expose their grandchildren to
family prayer and other religious horrors. No child should have to be subject
to such punishment. (Is sarcasm notation needed?)
@Furry1993:"Or are you saying that he should
"cooperate" by confessing to a crime he did not commit?"He should cooperate by explaining why he took his two kids, 2 and 4, camping
at midnight in below freezing temperatures. He needs to be very specific about
where he went, did he take/use a tent, food, sleeping bags, etc. He also should
cooperate by explaining where he took the rental car for 200 miles, and why.
The very fact that he refuses to cooperate is justification enough to remove the
kids.----------------------@A Scientist:"How can a judge remove parental rights in this situation?"The guy (Josh) is a prime suspect in the disappearance of his wife. His
father (who is jailed now but might be released soon) has had possible child
pron in the home. Further, his handicapped brother who lives in the home, has
appeared at the door naked. (as reported in the DN)
Dektol: It isn't a matter of the grandparents liking the father. The fathers,
dad has committed crimes that involve children.
If the children were in foster care and not staying with extended relatives not
having lost parental rights he can ask the court to abide by his relgious
preferences or lack of. If the court ordered the grandparents to abide I hope
they do abide because they could lose any chance of custody should dad's rights
be permanantly terminated. I actually think it's the church community that he
doesn't want the children exposed to. Most have a formed opinion. The
grandparents can't control what others say in front of the children. The
children were not removed in relation to the disappearance of his wife. It's all
about grandpa right now.
Funny how he has an order that the grandparents can't say anything negative
about him but what has he been doing for over a year? This is such a joke! If
his sister knew about his dad, if his mother knew about her husband, if it's in
the divorce papers, if there are 15 computers in the home, what in the heck do
you people who are upset about the children being taken away think? Then the
grandparents can't take them to church? What a joke! Thank heavens the court
finally looked at the circumstances in the home!
The article states that there was a poster in the home of a woman with a knife
stabbed through her. It sounds like the men in this home are into some pretty
hard stuff, that might not be considered "illegal" but is dark and
violent non the less. I'm glad these young boys have been removed from the home
and are with their maternal grandparents; the judge did the right thing.
"Families can be together forever" except when grandparents with more
money and public opinion doesn't like the father.
There are various standards in the law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is used in
criminal cases. In civil cases the standard can go as low as preponderance of
the evidence. So if 51% of the evidence, in the mind of the judge or jury, says
an action occurred then they are allowed to decide it as such. From a purely
civil, custody, stand point taking Josh's kids away from him has little to do
with Susan's disappearance even though the Cox's can allege that all they want.
The judge's decision was based on the fact that Josh is being investigated, and
there was sufficient evidence to say that his actions posed a danger to his
children at this point. The judge's decision has everything to do with the
environment surrounding those children. If Steven Powell's addiction to
pornography was so widely known among his children why even take the chance of
exposing your kids by moving in with dad. I have no idea where Teri lives, but
if his mom disapproved of her ex husbands habits and behaviors so vehemently to
divorce him why not move in with her?
Anytime there is child porn in a home the children must be removed! We live in
a sad society when we think they should stay!
Snowman,All speculation. The law requires facts and evidence, not
Here is a question I have. Josh said that if it meant getting his boys back he
would move his brother out of the home and if his dad was released he would also
be moved out. In fact didn't it say the dad's stuff was already packed up? But
isn't this the dad, Steve's, home? And wasn't Josh and his boys living there
out of the "goodness" (sarcasm) of his dad's heart? Just another
weird little thing.
They were removed because he put the kids in harms way reasonably knowing they
were in harms way. And it is suspected he is involved with the stuff grandpa's
charged with.He should have lost custody temporarily and been asked
to work toward reunification with the help of the state's DCFS department for
taking them camping in freezing temperatures in the middle of the night, car or
tent either is a bad decision and dangerous.He may still get custody
of the boys again. If the grandpa did all that is suggested Josh may
have also been harmed as a child. In a way he may be a victim. This could very
well be the boys future too if history allowed to repeat.
Re: Kami | 2:32 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011 I think that Josh Powell is going to
become rich when he sues over law enforcement removing his children"It was a judge and not law enforcement who gave temporary custody of
Susan's children to her parents.To win a lawsuit a jury would have
to agree with Josh ..... and that just isn't going to happen. The younger son
pointed to his mother's chest in a picture and said "owie".
So who answers a knock at the door nude? If you don't have "enough time to
put on clothes" then you don't answer the door. Illegal porn as opposed to
the legal kind? He would rather his children live with strangers instead of
their grandparents these next few weeks? Everyone is, once again, lying. He is,
once again, being honest and forthright. Blaming the public for not helping look
for his wife? This guy creates his own reality that suits his needs. On the
other hand, this is the first time I've seen him show real emotion. He didn't
act this way when his wife disappeared. Not in any way, shape, or form.
This Judge is over stepping his Bounds, The Men always gets it in the end.
15 computers? Good heavens, that is not normal. But we know that they can
figure out when someone has logged in. I am sure they will have Steve's work
schedule and if there was porn viewed while he was gone, then it is one of the
two boys. I didn't know that there was a brother who has mental challenges, I
do not have a problem with that, I do have a problem if he is comfortable enough
to answer the door in the nude, that is not healthy for little boys to be
around. These little boys will not be having to tell the grandparents anything,
they are going to be in councling and if there is anything to be found out, the
professionals will know how to do that so as not to cause damage to these little
boys. So all this time Josh has said she ran off, then last week when his daddy
was arrested, he said she committed suicide, sounds like he is getting
desperate. Why would someone have 15 computers in their home???
A Scientist: 1. The children were removed from a dangerous situation.. 2.Josh
is the person of interest in the disappearance of his wife. Not only that, his
father has been arreasted for having child porn on his computer. 3. He lost the
children because of his father. 4. He had to have known about his father. His
sister knew from the age of 10. 5.
None of us knows with 100% certitude what happened in this whole mess. I for one
will be glad when this whole affair is over. All the participants, the police,
judges, lawyers, media, and most of all the family nauseate me. Lets refocus
here for a moment with some observations.Does anyone know what
happened to Susan because the evidence that the media has isn't saying. Has she
been found because the media has been quiet. How does removing the children help
because the media hasn't pontificated. Has anyone been officially charged in ANY
court because the media has been pretty silent.I thought so. The
silence is deafening.
My kids haven't been traumatized and if i were to ask them about something that
happened 3 months ago they wouldn't remember. If i was to tell/ask them about
something I can almost guarantee that they would start to remember whatever I
I think that if his kids know anything, they will talk. I think his dad might
talk in order to get a lighter sentence.
Oh come on people! Josh's sister remembers daddy putting in "videos"
with nude scenes, when she was a very young girl. The divorce papers from
Steve's wife paint a very ugly picture of a sick man. And for some reason Josh
had no idea?Kami, the one person who I'm sure has "educated them
self" is the judge. Why did Josh want the kids to go to Foster
Care instead of their grandparents? Any parent who isn't trying to save their
butts, would know that Foster Care would not be better than loving grandparents.
Re: Moderate | 6:58 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011 "The kids should have been
placed in a neutral foster home"The children know their
grandparents and are comfortable there. If they know something about their
mother's death I hope the children sing like song birds.
Karma ...got to love it eh Josh?
Kids were in the home of a suspected child pornographer and voyeur. Kids are in
the home of a mentally disabled grown man with clothes issues. The children are
going to be removed on this basis alone. They will assume that others should
have been aware of the possible exposure. There is also a high possiblity of
other child related crimes. Child porn rarely stands alone it usually leads to
sex abuse. Grow up people we live in a educated world that has this in it.
Combine that with a perfectly normal mother now missing that the husbands dad
said He was messing with and you have a strangely forgiving son living with his
known porn addicted father. (Sorry about that sentence structure) This is what
your defending? WOW. I would say that the system is working perfectly.
The kids should have been placed in a neutral foster home.Look for
the kids to make a "revelation" in the next few weeks that sounds like
a well-coached story. Children as pawns... sad.
Although I completely agree with the judge removing the boys (because of the
porn and CHILD PORN being in the house--and their father keeping them in the
same house) bringing up the man's brother with intellectual disabilities is a
really inappropriate argument!!! The boys should NOT be removed because he has a
brother with a disability who "may or may not" always be fully
clothed!!! My grandfather had Parkinson's, and near the end of his life was not
always fully clothed--supporting members of our families with special needs is a
PART OF BEING A FAMILY--not a reason to "remove" children. Adults
sometimes need physical help--and even little kids can understand this. There is
nothing wrong with that!!! But--removing them on the basis of the
child porn found in the house--I have no problem with THAT!!!
Jack-P | 4:13 p.m. Sept. 28, 2011 West Valley, UTI 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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
@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?
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.
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...........
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.
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.
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.
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!
Kami - Josh will be in pirson by then. Get your head out of the sand.
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.
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.
I think that Josh Powell is going to become rich when he sues over law
enforcement removing his children.
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?
"...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.