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]
It seems that is all boils down to if you’ve never yourself had a personal experience with a sociopath, how do you believe they exist? I just don’t know how to get the word out in a way that people will understand and believe, particularly with the spaths who have a really good mask. This goes for judges, social services, etc. Jerry Sandusky was granted the right to see his grandkids? Wow. This is pretty discouraging. It is human nature to just take someone on their word. You don’t automatically assume that there are people for whom every word is a lie. You put a sociopath on the stand – you are already giving them the benefit that they can/are likely to tell the truth. Or that if they were lying, it would be obvious (which it usually isn’t).
I don’t know what the answer is, but I hope one can be figured out.
(I just did the dreaded thing of typing a response then must have hit a wrong key and it disappeared… so if it reappears and this is a repeat, I am sorry!)
I have come to feel bitterness and mistrust towards the State because of what happened to me and what has happened to others.
Part of the problem comes in, when people believe themselves to be experts and capable of discerning the truth. I think, honestly, very few people are capable of spotting psychopaths/sociopaths.
Maybe the answer is to hire ONLY people who have been victimized by sociopaths, to be a part of the court system including CPS caseworkers. 😉
Or I imagine someone like Peter Falk in Columbo, because he was really, really good at getting the criminal to unmask themselves. Course that’s just my fantasy.
I also wish that people *would* take sides more, or be willing to say that evil does exist, and it isn’t just a matter of different perspectives, or equal parenting rights no matter what.
And here’s another thing: we divorced 12 years ago, and for the first 10 years after the divorce, I did my utmost to FACILITATE a relationship between the kids and their father. They often refused to go see him, or cried in leaving me, and I was doing what I thought I was supposed to be doing. (I still feel guilty for my part in this). I made excuses for him. I would say, “I’m sure he didn’t mean it. Your father loves you.” I said crap like that — yes, I did! I meant well. I thought that it would be healthier for them to grow up, not knowing how their dad had treated me, and that maybe they would never find out. If I never told them.
But when the one daughter slit her wrists and had a crisis and suddenly refused to go to his house or speak to him or anything, that is when I woke up. And I stopped supporting his parental rights. I decided I would not “interfere” in their relationship with their dad, but I also decided I would not encourage or facilitate it, either. So I allow her to refuse. If push comes to shove and we ever have to go to court over this, I’ll fight hard for her right to refuse. But time is on our side, now, thank goodness.
I regret how I handled it earlier. I didn’t know then what I now know about sociopaths.
and so, if it took me that long to figure it out… how long can it take people who only see the mask?
You know there are so many movies out there about real bad guys – Batman, No Country For Old Men, Natural Born Killers…..fill in your favorite…..you’d think this would osmose into the minds of the public that there really are bad people. We are bombarded with the good vs. evil theme in the media all the time.
You are right, Stargazer. Though I don’t see too many movies… aren’t the villains mostly pretty obvious?
What are some good examples of movie villains who are not serial killers, just plain “upstanding citizens” for all appearances, who take their masks off only at home?
You know the best movie I think about psychopaths is “there will be blood” well, that and Gaslight, but the ones who are sort of sneaky about it rather than wearing “black hats”–when I was a kid that was the way you told the bad guys was they wore black hats and the good guys wore white hats (really!) in the cowboy movies. LOL Not that simple though in real life, the bad guys cover up their evil with a mask of kindness many times.
Too many people though don’t realize that there is EVIL in this world, they don’t want to realize it I thik because it would scare them to realize they are surrounded by EVIL people and it can happen to them.
OH YES, Oxy, you are right — There Will Be Blood is a GREAT movie.
You know one thing I noticed about that movie which was very interesting to me, was that there were no female actors except as background to the males. Ordinarily, females express a lot of the emotions, but in this particular movie, only the males expressed emotion. I remember the one scene where the lead comes into the house to talk to one of the men, and the women literally fade into the background . I mean, the lighting suddenly puts them in shadows and they cease to do anything interesting, except there only as background. This is true for the entire film. Not a single female expresses any emotion whatsoever.
But that is aside from the spath part of the story. A very well done, interesting portrayal. Thanks for reminding me!
And yeah, but Gaslight was so long ago! It endures because it is brilliant. But can’t we have some new movies about this type of thing? I’d love some…
I am sure there must be some newer movies,, but I don’t watch a lot of the films that are “current” I prefer a lot of the older films, and the ones I can get the DVD for $2 at the flea market. LOL
My son D recommended “There will be Blood” to me and when Ii got done watching it I went WTF!~!!!!!???? That guy was a psychopath, and the last part where the preacher and the businessman were both “losers” it was really really eye opening.
The War of the Roses, too, was a “comedy” but at the end I saw that they were both psychopaths and I almost cried. I laughed my arse off throughout the movie but at the end….it was no longer funny and I realized it never had been.
Comedy is someone else’s tragedy…from slipping on a banana peel and falling to the War of the Roses type stuff….what a shame that we laugh only at other people’s pain.
Great article, Donna. It fuels my fire about my own continued “intuition” regarding my husband’s ex-wife and her current husband (2 sociopaths) raising children and in the process destroying them. Yet, the “system” gives them both a “pat on the back” for a job well done in a recent custody trial and allowed them to continue to be the custodial parents of my stepson.
Our case involves so much tragedy and enormous warning signs of danger and the judge threw it all out as “hearsay”, the “Free” lawyer used by my husband’s ex-wife distorted the truth, lied and fabricated facts in her sociopathic client’s favor and the children remain in their custody.
If anyone here has never heard of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”, research it. It explains it all in cases like this. The Josh Powel scenario is a case of a sociopathic father, but there are countless sociopathic, vile, evil, controlling, manipulating and dangerous custodial mothers out there who use their control “as the custodial parent” with more time with the child to manipulate (as is the result in the majority of divorces) to destroy the childs’ relationship with the father and in the process destroy the child, and, right now the system is not accountable for allowing this to continue
The Josh Powell story is incredibly disturbing and upsets me terribly. The system has to change in how their failure to recognize sociopaths who are raisin children.
It’s been years since I saw War of the Roses, but I have often thought of that movie to describe an old relationship with a guy I lived with. Had we stayed together, we probably would have killed each other. I will have to see it again to see if I think they were both sociopaths. I certainly think being around certain people can BRING out sociopathic tendencies that we didn’t know we had.
Oh, and when I mentioned the Batman movies, I was referring to the evil villians Batman (Superman, Spiderman, etc.) were fighting – not Batman himself, who is the hero not afraid to fight evil. I’m sure the fact that he had to cloak himself to be in his full power has some sort of connotations, too.
In my humble opinion, I believe the courts’ view of parents rights to their children stems from the time when women and children were considered property of their husbands and fathers. “Rights to one’s children” is about rights to one’s chattel.
What about the children’s rights to their safety and well-being? Or the US Constitution talking about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
As for the courts understanding about sociopathy, that isn’t going to happen anytime soon. We recently tried to get restraining orders against my mother, sister, and niece for stalking, but the police and courts thought that we were out of our minds for getting upset over such nice sentiments, despite the manipulation screaming off the pages. The police told us three times that there isn’t any law against sending a card. I finally stood up for us and responded, “There is if it isn’t wanted and these people have been told to leave us alone.” Then the cop tried to throw us off by seeminglin wondering aloud, “I wonder if there are even any stalking laws in this state.” I snapped, “There are stalking laws in all 50 states.” Pointless. Stupid on my part. They weren’t interested in hearing anything; I was an annoyance and a troublemaker.
If I am deciphering things correctly, the courts and police are only capable of identifying the bad guys when they look obviously nasty and after committing horrendous crimes. Until then, they haven’t done anything wrong and they have their rights, too.