Yes, I know it is not my business at all, but I cannot help watching the news blurbs during the commercials that occur while I am enjoying my favorite shows. The ones that get me the most fired up are about the Powell family.
have to say that I agree with the judge that took away Josh Powell's children and gave temporary custody to his in-laws. How do I even begin with all of my opinions on this subject? Those boys should have been taken away the minute he moved them in with his father. If there is rampant pornography and voyeurism going on in a home, children should not be anywhere near the place. How could Josh say he didn't know about it? He knew about it when he was a child--so did his sister, who chooses not to be in her father's or brother's lives. Hmmm, that should be the first clue that something is not right in that home.
Admitting on national television that you have had an overly sexual relationship with your daughter-in-law should have been the second clue that children should not be around that man. We did not need a criminal psychologist to tell us that his comments were a transference of his emotions and desires onto her. She caught him peeping at her so they moved to Utah--many states away from Washington. So what does Josh do as soon as she is out of the picture? He moves those boys right back into that home. Third clue.
Steven's wicked smirk just creeps me out; clue four. Anyone who can do and say the things he does with that type of look on his face is just wrong in the head. Josh and Steven refuse to talk to police, but they go on national television and defame someone who is not in a position to defend herself. That is so wrong on so many levels.
Even if Josh had nothing to do with his wife's disappearance he should not have access to his children because his actions after her disappearance. Loving your children does not automatically justify custody. He is not capable of making the right choices about his boys when he places them in close proximity to their grandfather. He had so many other choices, yet he chose the worst one. Being homeless would have been better than living in Washington with a child pornographer. No judge in their right mind would allow him to keep custody of those boys, and removing them may have saved their lives--literally and figuratively.

I've kind of been avoiding all those news stories about this case. Sad and disturbing.
ReplyDeleteYou summed it up nicely. Amen!