Last week, the Josh Powell story exploded in the media. Powell, of Graham, Washington, was supposed to have a supervised visit with his two young sons. Instead, he slammed the door in the face of the social worker, hacked the boys with a hatchet, and then blew up his house. Powell and the two sons died.
I watched three news shows about the tragedy—Dateline on MSNBC, 20/20 on ABC, and Dr. Drew on HLN (Headline News). All of the programs reflected shock, horror and outrage. Dr. Drew Pinsky did actually call Josh Powell a psychopath. But what struck me about the coverage was that this tragedy was almost predictable. All the warning signs were there, if anyone had a complete picture of what was going on, and if appropriate people had known what they were looking at.
The lessons boil down to three: Knowing how to recognize a sociopath, knowing what sociopaths are capable of doing, and acting on intuition.
Josh Powell, the sociopath
Josh Powell clearly exhibited sociopathic behavior. He first came into public view with the disappearance of his wife, Susan, on December 7, 2009. Josh Powell’s ludicrous story was that he left the family home at midnight to take his two sons, aged 2 and 4 at the time, camping in the freezing desert, and when he returned, Susan was gone. He assumed that she went off with another man.
Before then, however, Susan had confided in several friends and family members that Josh was controlling. He was psychologically and emotionally abusive. Susan was asked why she didn’t take the boys and leave. She was afraid to—Josh had threatened that she would have the boys “over my dead body.”
So where did Josh’s sociopathy come from? It appears to be the classic volatile mix of heredity and upbringing.
Last September, Steve Powell, Josh’s father, was arrested and charged with child pornography and voyeurism. Josh and his sons were living with Steve Powell at the time, which prompted the court to take the boys away from Josh and put them in the custody of Susan’s parents, Chuck and Judy Cox.
But that was just the latest, most apparent display of Steven Powell’s personality disorder. Court documents from the 1992 divorce case of Steven and Terrica Powell indicate that Steven Powell had always been a sexual pervert, and taught his sons to disrespect women.
The documents also reveal that at 16, Josh Powell was already heading down the same path. He threatened his mother with a butcher knife. He killed his sister’s pet gerbil. He attempted suicide. And as Josh grew bigger and stronger, even Steven Powell admitted that he didn’t know how to handle his son.
Read: Divorce documents shed light on Josh Powell’s troubles, on SLTrib.com.
Here’s the point: Based on both documentary evidence of the past, and the abusive behavior Susan Powell disclosed to friends and relatives, Josh Powell was clearly a sociopath. It doesn’t matter how he became a sociopath. All that matters is that he was one.
Sociopaths and custody battles
So what does it mean when one party in a child custody battle is a sociopath? Here’s what courts and child protective agencies should know:
• Despite their proclamations to the contrary, sociopaths do not love their children. They view children as possessions, and they feel entitled to do what they want with their possessions.
• Sociopaths are accomplished actors. They are capable of keeping up a charade of appropriate, even loving, behavior, as long as it suits their purpose.
• In child custody disputes, sociopaths are not interested in the welfare of the children. They are only interested in winning.
• If sociopaths have been violent in the past, chances are good that they will be violent in the future.
• Sociopaths do not want to submit to authority. Some sociopaths would rather lash out violently than submit. Therefore, it seems to me that one of the most dangerous times in a child custody case is when a sociopath loses in court.
Losing a round
I don’t know everything that went on in the custody dispute between Josh Powell and Chuck and Judy Cox, the parents of his missing wife. But from the media reports, I see two glaring problems.
First of all, Josh Powell had just lost a round in the custody battle for his sons.
In a status hearing on February 1, 2012, the court was told that a psychologist who completed an evaluation of Josh believed he had made improvements in his life, because he no longer lived in his father’s home and had been cooperative with visitation requirements. Still, the psychologist had become aware of disturbing information about Josh, and had recommended a psychosexual evaluation. The judge ruled that Josh’s sons would remain with the Coxes, and he was ordered to undergo the evaluation, which would include a polygraph test.
Read Josh Powell to undergo psychosexual evaluation; 2 boys will remain with grandparents, on DeseretNews.com.
Yet the court made no changes to the visitation arrangements. Initially, when the Coxes were first awarded custody, Josh had to see his children at a secure childcare facility. But apparently, because of the notoriety of the Powell case, his visits became disruptive to other families, so Josh was allowed to have supervised visits in his home.
And who was the supervisor? She appeared on 20/20. Although she may have been nice, dependable and competent, she was also a middle-aged, out-of shape woman who would have been no match for a young man if things got ugly. Even Chuck Cox worried about her, and stated on TV that perhaps she should have had extra security with her.
Reunification
The second glaring problem in this case: The court’s goal was to reunite the boys with their father.
The judge reaffirmed this goal in the last custody hearing. The case plan developed by Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) was geared towards reunification of Josh Powell and his sons.
The question is: Why?
Josh Powell was the only “person of interest” in the disappearance of Susan Powell. Rumors were flying that he would soon be arrested for her murder. Josh was known to be abusive. Police in Utah had found disturbing information about him that caused them concern about the welfare of the children. The man was likely dangerous.
DSHS representatives were interviewed by Dori Monson of KIRO-FM radio in Seattle, Washington. They defended their actions and procedures. The bottom line? They were following court orders. Listen to the interview:
[mp3j track=”http://icestream.bonnint.net/seattle/kiro/2012/02/02092012141232_1.mp3″]The main problem, at least in this case, appears to be that judges don’t comprehend how dangerous sociopaths can be, and how court decisions can turn deadly.
Intuition
Many warnings were available in this case, but were not recognized and acted upon. Perhaps the biggest warnings were the gut feelings, the sense of dread, the intuitive fear, experienced by many, many people.
In the TV interviews, several friends and relatives of Susan Powell described being creeped out about Josh Powell. And both Judy and Chuck Cox, the grandparents, said that they had “bad feelings” before that last fateful visitation. Chuck wondered that perhaps the visit should be skipped. Judy felt the same way, but was worried that they’d “get in trouble” if they didn’t send the boys to their father.
Even the two boys didn’t want to see their father on February 5, 2012. But the grandparents did what they thought they should do. The boys went to see their father, and we all know what happened next.
I am not blaming the grandparents at all. They are heartbroken. But perhaps they should have risked “getting in trouble” and kept the boys home. I’m sure they wish they did.
Here’s what we all need to know: Our intuition is designed to protect us. Fear is our friend, and it is based on intuition. If we ever have a really bad feeling about anyone or anything, we should trust ourselves and take appropriate action to get away.
If the court really knew what sociopaths were capable of, and if many people had listened to their instincts, those boys might still be alive.
More about the case
Watch:
A family’s story on Dateline NBC
Steve Downing, the lawyer for Chuck and Judy Cox, talked to local media about his impressions of Josh Powell. He is obviously describing a sociopath.
[youtube_sc url=http://youtu.be/FQhz_aVTnow] [youtube_sc url=http://youtu.be/lSOP4hOXPb4]
Thank you, Donna, for this comprehensive overview of this tragedy.
You mentioned the GLARING PROBLEM in this case: “The court’s goal was to reunite the boys with their father”
This is indeed the #1 problem in custody cases. This is ALWAYS the goal of the court, ALWAYS. They will go to great lengths to accomplish this, even if the parent is not cooperating, they are given chance after chance. DCF is then ordered, by the court, to come up with a case plan, to make sure the parent has every opportunity to succeed. They have no choice but to follow court orders. Until the parent loses Permanent Custody of the child, the parents still have “parental rights” which include the right to “parenting time” or visitation with their child. They also have a right to view any medical or school record of the child and the right to support said child. A parent’s loss of Permanent Custody is viewed by the courts as equal to the death penalty in a capital murder case. Our State Supreme Court states this in every Permanent Custody case they hear and all of these cases can and usually do go the State Supreme Courts.
You ask WHY? That is the million dollar question. This has been the way it has been for years and years. My parents were foster parents over 50 years ago and it was like that then and it still hasn’t changed.
It is so ingrained into the mindsets of the judicial system, I am not sure if they would feel being diagnosed a psychopath would even qualify a person to be unfit to be a parent. They feel, after all, it is their child, they should have the right to parent said child.
Something you did state causes me concern to our readers. Understand, I know exactly where you are coming from and I agree with you 100%, but AGAIN the courts take this very seriously. You stated, “But, perhaps they should have risked “getting in trouble” and kept the boys home.” Yes, that may have prevented their death THAT DAY, but not following court ordered visitation can backfire in a big way. 1) You can be held in contempt of court. 2) Many custody orders/papers state refusal to cooperate with visitation orders automatically gives non-custodial parent custody 3) Will terminate your custody and child will go into state custody. All these things must be weighed VERY carefully before not allowing a visit.
Donna, our grandson refused to speak to his mother or the GAL during a scheduled phone visit and the GAL asked the court to remove the child from our home (the only one he had known for 9 years) and place him in a foster home where he would be encouraged to reunite with his mother who had not had any contact with him for over 5 years. This is why I caution against this.
When a tragedy, such as this one, comes to light, the majority of the public are shocked and horrified that the court, DCF, the police operate in this manner. We who have been through the “system” are all too aware that this is common practice.
I wish I had answers, it sure isn’t from a lack of concern and many years of banging my head against a solid brick wall.
Milo,
Yes, the problem is the courts, and the problem goes to the very foundation of our legal system. Our legal system assumes that “all men are created equal” (with men now including women). Therefore, all people should have the same rights, follow the same rules and be treated the same. Therefore, all parents have the right to enjoy their children.
The legal system does not account for the fact that some people – sociopaths – are profoundly different.
So yes, generally, it is not a good idea to violate court orders, and you can get in serious trouble. But then there is the role of intuition.
In this case, both Judy and Chuck Cox had really bad feelings about sending the children to their father. I don’t know if they used the word “fear,” but they certainly struck me as apprehensive.
So suppose they had not allowed the boys to go to the house that day. What would have happened? Josh Powell would have been sitting there with a house soaked in gasoline. Maybe he would have set it on fire anyway, killing only himself. Or maybe he would have stayed alive, but have been forced to deal with a gasoline-soaked house. It’s unlikely that he could have done that without someone finding out. So, it would be known, or at least suspected, that he had intended to kill his children, and he would never see them again.
Either way, the kids would be alive.
Donna, this whole thing is so disturbing and horrifying that I can’t’ really process how this happened.
When people KNOW that someone is volatile and dangerous and hear concerns about the spath’s “possible” choices, nobody has a right to act surprised when the spath finally acts out their insanity. All of the lamentation and head-shaking in the world will not bring those poor, innocent kids or their mother back.
This whole thing could have been prevented if only our legal system would recognize that all men/women are NOT created equally – there are simply some very, very bad people out there and, regardless of their status as DNA donors, not every one of them “deserves” to be treated as if they have the capacity to be a “good” person.
I have made it crystal clear about my concerns about the soon-to-be-exspath and what he might be capable of, however unlikely. People kill other people over far less that what the soon-to-be-exspath is facing, and Josh Powell is a perfect example of a psychopath literally getting away with murder via depraved indifference.
Changes to “The System” are an imperative, and Judges and attorneys need to start using “sociopath” as a description when they are making these life altering (or, life-ending) decisions to reunite innocent children with individuals who are obviously dangerous. SHAME on the System for allowing this to have happened!!!
You are right Donna, that probably would have saved those boys. I just wonder though, how many other times the grandparents had bad feelings about sending these chiildren to their father.
At one point, we did violate a court order and took our grandson, without custody. Our attorney called the magistrate, told her what we had done and said she could either issue emergency custody to us or jail all of us (including attorney). That day we had found him, age 4, on the street screaming. He had just been in the middle of a terrible domestic violence incident. We really didn’t care what the court had to say at that point – he was coming home with us…. his life WAS in danger.
Again, thank you.
I do think that US courts start from a different mindset with regards to children versus parent rights than for example ours.
For example it’s illegal to anonymously dump a child to be adopted in Belgium and this goes back to the Code de Napoleon, where a child has a right to having a lineage and therefore parents. This was done as a reaction to the habbit of nobles and bourgeois who got girls impregnated and then left them to be disgraced. Whether a bastard child was a bastard didn’t matter from then on for the law, it had a right to its father’s name. So, this was an early industrial law from the point of view of the rights of children: the right to a name, and the impossibility to disinherit a child, unless adopted.
The UK legal system of course lauded everything French and revolutonary and had the opposite law: anonymous dumping and disinheritance is allowed. Having been part of the commonwealth before independence, much of the US law pov is similar to that of the UK.
While they do try to keep a bond in existence between a child and parent after it has been taken away, and keep evaluating whether reunion is possible, we have special child court judges who are de factum the child’s protector. They decide in the best interest for a child, not the parent. Of course, mistakes are still made, but overall a parent has only obligations towards their children, not rights.
My now dead schizophrenic cousin and her son were an example of that. She never got to even take her baby son home, though they kept her and her boy two weeks in the hospital, teaching her how to take care of it. She had visitation rights, but only first at the not-yet-fostered children’s home, and afterwards only at the home of the foster family. After she died, he can now visit my aunt and uncle at their home once every two weeks. But my cousin was deemed untrustworthy to care for a child without supervision and outside of its safe environment. Of course he wasn’t even 1 yet back then. She died before he was one year.
Another difference and consequence from this different pov though is that parents aren’t as free to raise their children say for example in a religion. People can believe whatever they wish to believe, but certain practices can and will be used to argument child abuse for example in our child courts. It has happened with certain practices of religions regarded as sectarian in my country. While parents of course do choose a religion for their children to be raised in, it’s perceived as choosing instead of the child since hte child is not yet in legal capacity to choose for themselves. If it is seen as possibly harming the child though, then child protection often supercedes freedom of religion in such cases.
Freedom of religion is another legal pov in American law that is one of the main pillars. And it’s mostly this, insofar I can perceive socially and historically, that fueled the pov of parents’ rights superceding the rights of children in the USA.
Darwinsmom, you’re in Belgium, right? Perhaps the US should learn more about your system.
Donna, do you think that this case will make a difference in changing the system? I’m curious if there have been any interviews with the judge who decided to reunite the boys with their father. I have not been following the case closely but can only hope the word “sociopath” has been thrown around in the aftermath.
Stargazer – I don’t know about it making a change. This certainly isn’t the first time this has happened.
Since judges don’t often recognize sociopaths, perhaps there should be “consultants” brought in on cases like this to assess the likelihood of the questionable parent being sociopathic. The party with custody (in this case the mother’s parents) should be able to request such a person. Either that or there should be some sort of special training in law school about sociopaths and how to spot them. As you said, the signs were all there if only the right people knew to look for them.
What does it take to have an awareness in this society that all men are NOT created equal? We’ve had so much publicity lately about child molestors and murderers, you’d think this would be a wake-up call. Unfortunately, we are in the dark ages as far as validation for trusting our intuition. In many ways, our society is still patriarchal and values logical linear approach to decision making.
GREAT points Donna….and You know I have wondered if I would under the same circumstances do like the woman who took her kids and went to Holland for sanctuary at the risk of being convicted of kidnapping in the US…after her kids were adults and they came back to the US she was still under indictment, but finally was able to return to US. It is one of those “Catch 22 things” and very difficult to HIDE in these days when IDs are so important.
I realize there are 12 million illegal aliens in the US “hiding” but for a middle class woman and her children to hide without the support of an entire culture is another thing entirely. Especially when the FBI is trying to find her and them.
The “options” for a nurturing parent are few…kill the abusing parent and go to prison for murder, leaving your kids for who knows who to raise, flee and risk going to prison for kidnapping and letting him/her have the kids when you are caught or stay and fight for some kind of “normal” life. Sort of like MiLo is doing, and in the meantime using up all your resources financially and emotionally to try to protect the child.
The parents here at LF who have these horrible choices have my admiration for their stamina and their pluck! I am like you, I hope this makes some changes, but it has happened before and I doubt it will.
Good points and great article!