Judge grants temporary custody of Powell children to their maternal grandparents


Return To Article
  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:33 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Oct. 3, 2011 11:28 p.m.

    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.

  • gomomgo Blackfoot, ID
    Sept. 30, 2011 3:50 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    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.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 9:23 a.m.

    krissy: You don't like that the church teaches good things to our youth?

  • gilham Holladay, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    >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.

  • murray19 Murray, UT
    Sept. 30, 2011 6:54 a.m.

    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.

  • krissy Sterling, VA
    Sept. 30, 2011 6:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 10:41 p.m.

    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.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 9:23 p.m.

    with 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 school then.

  • murray19 Murray, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 8:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 29, 2011 5:45 p.m.

    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.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 5:40 p.m.

    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 killer.......

  • bobosmom small town, Nebraska
    Sept. 29, 2011 3:52 p.m.

    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.

  • estudiante GRAND RAPIDS, MI
    Sept. 29, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    On the other hand, we can probably rule out Chuck and Judy Cox as the murderers. The boys should be safe with them.

  • estudiante GRAND RAPIDS, MI
    Sept. 29, 2011 3:08 p.m.

    While I'm no fan of Josh, it seems reasonable that he would prefer foster care over people who believe he committed murder.

  • Mr. Bean St. George, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 2:15 p.m.


    "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.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 1:10 p.m.

    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 unjust!

  • David B. Cedar City, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Sept. 29, 2011 11:47 a.m.

    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 go exactly?

  • Andermart Pullman, WA
    Sept. 29, 2011 11:44 a.m.

    re: murray19

    The 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 way?

    Sept. 29, 2011 11:03 a.m.

    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!

  • murray19 Murray, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 10:11 a.m.

    RE: Rifleman

    Let 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!

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 29, 2011 9:49 a.m.

    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?)

  • wrz St. George, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 9:47 a.m.


    "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)

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    Dektol: It isn't a matter of the grandparents liking the father. The fathers, dad has committed crimes that involve children.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Sept. 29, 2011 9:35 a.m.

    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.

    Sept. 29, 2011 8:52 a.m.

    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!

  • Anne26 West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Sept. 29, 2011 7:49 a.m.

    "Families can be together forever" except when grandparents with more money and public opinion doesn't like the father.

  • Dadof8 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 7:42 a.m.

    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?

  • Mamacita3 Albuquerque, NM
    Sept. 29, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    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!

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 6:57 a.m.


    All speculation. The law requires facts and evidence, not speculation.

  • GAmom Athens, GA
    Sept. 29, 2011 6:43 a.m.

    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.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Sept. 29, 2011 6:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Sept. 29, 2011 6:03 a.m.

    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".

  • tll Ogden, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 5:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Larry Willard, UT
    Sept. 29, 2011 4:59 a.m.

    This Judge is over stepping his Bounds, The Men always gets it in the end.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    Sept. 28, 2011 11:16 p.m.

    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???

  • snowman Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 10:39 p.m.

    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.

  • Resolute Voice Deseret, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 10:37 p.m.

    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.

  • murray19 Murray, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 9:38 p.m.

    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 was asking/telling!!

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Sept. 28, 2011 9:11 p.m.

    I think that if his kids know anything, they will talk. I think his dad might talk in order to get a lighter sentence.

  • thpslc Holladay, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 8:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 8:28 p.m.

    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.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 8:00 p.m.

    Karma ...got to love it eh Josh?

  • lisa`1234 Layton, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 7:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 6:58 p.m.

    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.

  • formerUT Osawatomie, KS
    Sept. 28, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    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!!!

  • mammalou Somewhere in the USA, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 6:27 p.m.

    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.

  • kd84128 WVC, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 5:28 p.m.

    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.

  • SundanceKid27 OREM, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 5:25 p.m.

    "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.

  • Millsap fan Taylorsville, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:31 p.m.

    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.

  • club_soda DALLAS, TX
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:22 p.m.

    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.

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

    @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?

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Silly Rabbit Small Town, USA, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:12 p.m.

    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...........

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Wyclif OREM, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 4:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 3:57 p.m.

    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.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    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!

  • guswetrust Cebterville, Utah
    Sept. 28, 2011 2:59 p.m.

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

  • guswetrust Cebterville, Utah
    Sept. 28, 2011 2:57 p.m.

    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.

  • mammalou Somewhere in the USA, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 2:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Kami Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 28, 2011 2:32 p.m.

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

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 2:13 p.m.

    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?

  • wrz St. George, UT
    Sept. 28, 2011 12:33 p.m.

    "...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.