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]
I have an idea of a place to start. It goes along with Star’s consultant idea. Actually, on most custody cases there is either a CASA worker, a GAL and/or a Court Investigator. Most of the courts/judges take the reports of these workers very seriously and usually follow their recommendations. They all must complete training courses. If only we could get Donna’s material and mental health professionals that “get it” like Dr. Leedom’s expert opinions into the training – call it just what this topic is called -Lessons from the Josh Powell inferno – how to recognize a psychopath and their masks ???????
This would be helpful in several ways. GAL’s are often in private family practice/custody law practices, so they become aware even in their private practices. These are also the people who go on to become JV and Family Court Magistrates and Judges.
Let’s somehow get to the people who do have the Judge’s ear. We could all do our part by uncovering cases in our own area’s that have had horrific outcomes and even our own stories. That could be put into the material to make it “close to home” examples.
Make sure these people understand not only the “red flags” but the importance of looking at credibility when it is a case of he said/she said.
Just saw this – Judge gave Jerry Sandusky right to visit his grandchildren. OMG, never mind it is hopeless…..
MiLo,
Remember though the GAL you had who was herself we believe psychopathic at the worst or just GREEDY at best and she manipulated the whole thing in order to increase her FEES.
So that’s part of the problem…these people should not be compensated by how the process goes at the very least, they should be salaried.
Of course Judges are salaried as well but get off on the POWER they wield, so salaries wouldn’t fix the entire problem of having psychopaths in these positions but maybe it would help some at least.
I think we can always learn from each other’s system… I wouldn’t mind the 3 criminal offence rule here 😉
But I can see a whole uproar being started from our pov superceding the freedom of a parent to raise their child in any type of religion they choose to claim to be a religion, which is regarded as a parental right in the UA. I can see parents go to the supreme court of justice over it and win it for that reason alone. I think it’s one of the main reasons why courts focus more on parental rights than children’s rights. In any social debate I’ve had on another forum the past ten years regarding court cases involving custody, this was the most often cited reason, even if it wasn’t part of the custody case.
In our system, raising a child is an obligation, insofar a parent can raise their child to be a socioally adapted person who is able to make a life on their own in society once they’re 18. That sounds logical and pragmatical, but it opens the door of child courts protecting a child from being raised with morals and lifestyle very much different from society’s expectations. And that would provoke even a bigger debate than health care I’m sure in the US.
Practically, I think the US could start with having separate child courts, and perhaps a systematic diagnozing of disorders (which our courts should do as well) with parents.
I do remember Oxy, I thought maybe this would show HER red flags as well, probably not.
I did have three really good GAL/CASA workers though. I had one terrible court investigator and two really good ones.
I think Judges often have “God” complexes and do things just to prove they can. ie. Judge that just ruled Sandusky could have visits with his grands. Ok, those parents (Jerry’s kids) should be charged with neglect/child endangering for taking them to see their grandfather. IMO
Milo,
I think part of it is the “innocent until proven guilty” mind set in our country (and that is a good thing, BUT….) Also, the “social status” set of rich people versus poor. If Sandusky wasn’t rich he would not have bail, that’s a fact….even if he WAS rich he might not have bail if he was not high social status, so it is the “OJ thing” I think, even though there isn’t much doubt truly that he is guilty, he gets all the status and perks of the innocent until convicted. Even then I am sure that sandusky can stay out of prison for years and years with his fancy lawyers and his money. He is old enough now he may avoid it entirely if he keeps up his delay tactics long enough. The public’s interest dies down and that is what he is counting on. Old Joe took the “easy way out” at his age I think. I don’t doubt that his death was hastened by the stress of it all and the loss of his “idol” status.
Unfortunately as we well know, spaths get into higher positions of control, power and influence in courts, as attorneys, military, political, etc. and when you get a BAD ONE you are stuck with the results.
Education of the rest of the folks though might be a help in weeding out some of these bad eggs.
Oh, but this hits very close to home and is hard to read…
I have decided on the approach of lying low, doing the Gray Rock and hoping to just wait it out. One of my kids is almost 18. The others have just a couple years to go.
The one daughter who has refused contact with her father… well, that has sparked his threatening us with court, accusations of parental alienation, threats of a custody hearing and “reunification therapy” and of course that would include several months of her living with him exclusively to help with the “reunification.”
He manages to sound sane and “hurt” and sad and all, and everyone buys it! The kids and I know differently, because we see ALL sides of him — not just the public mask.
And that is the problem! How on earth would a court “expert” no matter how well trained, ever be able to “spot” a psychopath? Some may be obvious… but others are very, very good at those masks and at making the safe, nurturing parent appear crazy or doing parental alienation. At the very least, their “hurt parent” act (yes, it is an act… it is about winning, as you said) creates DOUBT in the minds of the court/decision makers, and sets off a whole cascade of hoops for the safe parent to jump through, threats of taking the children away to a foster home if the kids refuse to see/speak with their spath parent, etc.
You see, I know for a fact if my daughter were forced by the court to live with her father for even ONE NIGHT (or be taken from me forcibly to go to a foster home) (for NO REASON, I might add, as she and I are indeed very close and she wants to live with me; I have always allowed her the choice to change her mind and go back to her dad… she just doesn’t want to. She is afraid of him) — I know for a FACT she would run away!
I think, for her safety and wellbeing, I need to just stay “out of trouble” with the courts and hope that time takes care of this…
Yes, you had better believe I lie low and try to just wait this out. I DO NOT TRUST THE SYSTEM. Not one bit!
I honestly think, if “training” of GALs, etc. ever happens… I truly hope that one of the things they are trained in is to look for the agitation and fear in the one parent, with the corresponding calm, smiling, suave demeanor of the other one. THAT should be a red flag. One parent appears nuts and unstable, and the other one appears unruffled and “hurt.”
And… I don’t think I ever appeared “nuts.” But I did speak earnestly and honestly and “with feeling” about the abuse we had endured from him. And I don’t think they believed me.
(my ex-husband also has this neat trick of countering every single truthful accusation I make about him, with an IDENTICAL, lying accusation about ME!). That creates doubt in the minds of the State decision makers.
“well, SHE hit me TOO!” (no, I never did)
I ended up feeling so stupid, like I was caught up in one of those “he said, she said” things except I was the only one telling the truth. Only he and i would know the truth. I knew I was telling it. What did he think? Maybe by the smirk on his face and the increasing distress on mine, someone should have figured it out.
20years ~ I hear what you are saying. First, I think you are very smart in “gray rock”, even if you have to be “fake” civil/nice to him. It sure beats the alternative. It’s like “Don’t stick a pin in it’s eye, it will become angry”
About the credibility, he said/she said – usually spaths have told so many lies, in all areas of their lives, that there is documented proof of some of these lies. If the court official is shown proof of previous lies, that should be looked at as a credibility issue. Don’t believe ANYTHING they say, because they are proven liars. You would think that court officials would view credibility as a “no brainer”, but they don’t.
I hope your “couple of years” speeds by with any further court intervention. I know how you just feel so “out of control” when this happens. Some stranger is deciding the future of “your kids”, it just isn’t right.
20 years, you have some VERY VALID POINTS….how is the professional, however well trained, to know which one is the liar ans which one is the nurturing parent? Look at Bernie Madoff for example…and who on earth would have believed Sandusky was a pedophile?
It is scary and takes the wisdom of Solomon to decide who is the “real mother” and that is not an easy thing to come by (the wisdom)