Parents of missing mom Susan Powell push new custody law
»Play Video
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The parents of a missing Utah mother pushed Friday for changes in Washington state laws on custody cases, saying proposed legislation might have prevented the killing of their two grandchildren.
Chuck and Judy Cox testified before a state Senate committee considering a bill that would restrict or block visitation rights for someone who is the subject of a murder investigation.
They told lawmakers the legislation could have changed the course of the case involving their missing daughter, Susan Powell, whose husband Josh Powell killed himself and their young kids during a parental visit.
"Most likely, they would have officially named Josh Powell a suspect in order to afford Charlie and Braden more protection," Chuck Cox said, referring to the grandchildren. The grandparents had custody of the two children.
Authorities in Utah had long been eyeing Josh Powell in the 2009 disappearance of his wife. Powell killed his children last year when they arrived at his home for a supervised visit.
Utah investigators never publicly declared Powell a suspect but treated him as one privately.
The proposed law in Washington would allow people involved in custody cases to demand information from law enforcement that might be relevant to decisions on visitation matters.
Republican Sen. Pam Roach, who is sponsoring the proposed bill, said it provides more tools for judges to restrict visitation. She noted that some visitations can be limited to just once a month in a public place - not in a private home.
"We need more parameters around our current law to give us a wake-up call and bring us back to common sense," Roach said.
Rick Bartholomew, who testified on behalf of the Washington State Bar Association, said he supported the idea behind the bill but not the implementation.
He expressed concern that some investigations are left open for long periods of time and ultimately lead to the exoneration of parents, which could mean parents would be separated from their kids for extended periods of time, even if they did nothing wrong.
Bartholomew also said the rule requiring law enforcement to turn over details of an investigation during a custody case could harm the murder probe.
The suspect in a murder case could use the tool in order to get a glimpse inside that investigation, he said.
A committee of senators hearing the bill did not take a vote on the measure Friday.
Chuck and Judy Cox testified before a state Senate committee considering a bill that would restrict or block visitation rights for someone who is the subject of a murder investigation.
They told lawmakers the legislation could have changed the course of the case involving their missing daughter, Susan Powell, whose husband Josh Powell killed himself and their young kids during a parental visit.
"Most likely, they would have officially named Josh Powell a suspect in order to afford Charlie and Braden more protection," Chuck Cox said, referring to the grandchildren. The grandparents had custody of the two children.
Authorities in Utah had long been eyeing Josh Powell in the 2009 disappearance of his wife. Powell killed his children last year when they arrived at his home for a supervised visit.
Utah investigators never publicly declared Powell a suspect but treated him as one privately.
The proposed law in Washington would allow people involved in custody cases to demand information from law enforcement that might be relevant to decisions on visitation matters.
Republican Sen. Pam Roach, who is sponsoring the proposed bill, said it provides more tools for judges to restrict visitation. She noted that some visitations can be limited to just once a month in a public place - not in a private home.
"We need more parameters around our current law to give us a wake-up call and bring us back to common sense," Roach said.
Rick Bartholomew, who testified on behalf of the Washington State Bar Association, said he supported the idea behind the bill but not the implementation.
He expressed concern that some investigations are left open for long periods of time and ultimately lead to the exoneration of parents, which could mean parents would be separated from their kids for extended periods of time, even if they did nothing wrong.
Bartholomew also said the rule requiring law enforcement to turn over details of an investigation during a custody case could harm the murder probe.
The suspect in a murder case could use the tool in order to get a glimpse inside that investigation, he said.
A committee of senators hearing the bill did not take a vote on the measure Friday.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7934499/interview-with-the-childrens-administratation-ii-on-relative-care
  HAHAHAHA!! ! Â
This is exactly what I mean by knee-jerk reactionary laws. VERY STUPID, STUPID IDEA!!!!
It will probably pass, because it's such a stupid idea and it will eat away at what little rights we have left after the Patriot Act filled its belly.
Â
I empathize with their lost, but damn it man, think of all the abuse of power this law would create. Think of other people and their children that can be traumatized from such an idiotic law.
Pam Roach. 'Nuff said.Â
If the grandparents want this legislation to grab hold, perhaps the boys' grandfather should stop saying things like, "Most likely, they would have officially named Josh Powell a suspect in order to afford Charlie and Braden more protection."
Â
Meaning what? That IF there was a law saying a suspect of a murder investigation (Josh) has their visitation restricted or taken away, THEN "they" (Utah?) would have made him a suspect of a murder investigation? ... Huh? That IF/THEN is completely backwards in my eyes.
Did anybody notice the part where that guy said that the police might have named Josh a suspect in order to protect the boys?? Doesn't anyone see something entirely wrong with that statement? He's implying that they should name every father the suspect now, even if they don't have enough evidence to name them a suspect. So that people could guilt trip the police.
guilt trip the police into naming people a suspect if they have kids.
 @Rain Gb yes,for outsiders to be able to put pressure on the police would easily cloud an investigation of fairness or impartiality. You can think all you want that Josh killed Susan,but there is no evidence of it.  neither in the house they shared or any where else. Â
 There is a case right now in Bellevue,where a women states she left her son in a car while she went for gas. The boy is gone ,the women is free. There was nothing wrong with the car. The police impounded the car and had not trouble starting when turning the key. by your statement the mother should be charged and found guilty of killing her son.Â
Â
Such a tragedy, that the Cox family had their suspicions that Josh was capable of this, but were powerless to do anything. Just sad all around. Can't imagine their suffering.
Let's say for arugment purposes...your spouse is murdered, you're a suspect. Your children are taken from you for an unspecified time. You're later no longer considered a suspect. You've just lost that time with your children that you can never get back. Now, not only do you have to deal with the menal anguish you and your children are facing from having a loved one murdered, but now you also have to deal with the separation from your children in their time of need. Doesn't sound very smart to me.
I don't think anyone could have forseen this happening. The fact that he killed his kids tells me that this man was on the edge of going over. Perhaps in hindsight the visits should have been in some place other than the man's home. This is one of those cases of how do we protect the children without taking away someone's rights if they haven't been proven guilty of any wrong doing.
The suspect may well HAVE committed the crime, but the burden of proof falls on the Accuser, this time being Law Enforcement. Hence the not guilty plea. No charges filed, and yet the Media, as usual, already has a conviction on the guy. So does the general public as a result.
 @PhunkyMunky Though you are right, the fact that he killed his kids didn't do much to support his claim of being innocent.
 @Bradjj  @PhunkyMunky YEAH YEAH! How about the mother in Bellevue ?  Shouldn't she be in prison for killing her son ?
 @Maynard G Krebbs  @Bradjj  @PhunkyMunky Missing and known dead are two entirely different things.
They remind me of the parents in Midnight in Paris.
Ah, yes, now mere suspicion makes someone a bad parent. Given the number of false imprisonments (let alone false prosecutions, false arrests, and false suspicions), color me skeptical that this would be a good law or precedent. My heart goes out to the grandparents, but they're trying to upend one of the most basic legal presumptions in this country: innocent until proven guilty. Emphasis on "proven".
 @lunayapravda Suspect does not mean guilty.  To delay visitation until he is no longer a suspect would not have hurt anyone and in this case maybe saved their lives.
 @keri555  @lunayapravda You must not be a parent to think that denying a parent access to their child hurts no one.Â
Duh. Â Especially if he is suspected in the murder of their mother. Â Any moron can see it is a huge conflict of interest. Â The safety of the children is what is important also the safety of that social worker should have been of some importance as well. Â She should have had a police escort every visit. Â A man who is under suspicion of killing his wife gets to have time alone with his children and an unarmed WOMAN social worker? Â You couldn't have payed me enough to set foot in that house, one reason is that Josh Powell was obviously a psycho and also his pervert dad. Â God rest the souls of those poor boys, we really let them down by delivering them right to the door of a madman.
I will go with the visitation must be at a neutral location..not the parent's home. If the kids have been removed from the custody of the parent, then they do not need to be having visits at the parent's residence.. This can be applied to anyone who looses custody of their kids.
Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Â End of discussion.
 @ETSubmariner Suspect does not mean gulity.
Â
 @keri555  @ETSubmariner In this case Josh Powell was not charged with a crime. Maybe if the Valley City, UT police got off their duffs it might have been a different story. Like a lot of things there is no cut-and-dried one-size-fits-all solution to multifaceted problems.
 @katiemcc If this and if that, you aren't writing a new law to deal with what happened in this case only, this will be applied to every suspect from here on out.
 @oledawg @keri555 If, after your wife went missing, you then moved with your children to a different state & began living with someone who had pornography (including inappropriate photos of your missing wife) then you betcha! Those kids SHOULD be removed from your custody.
 @keri555 Think about it outside of this case.  If my wife went missing you can believe I would be the #1 suspect, no arrest, no evidence, no charge but you want to remove my kids from my house?  What if I am the suspect for months, you want to tear my family apart at the same time we are dealing with my missing wife, BS!
 @Nic Stevens  @keri555  @ETSubmariner He was a suspect however, and there was an ongoing investigation in which his children may have been witnesses.  Like I said, the kids were safe with the grandparents.  Until things were sorted out and he was no longer considered a suspect, and he could have had a lot to do with clearing his name by simply answering some questions, the kids should have stayed with the grandparents.
 @ETSubmariner It's a shame that guilty people don't plead guilty however.  If the criminals were on the same page as everyone else and not trying to get away with murder it would make that statement or rule much easier.  It's a shame when the laws that are meant to protect the people of this country are the same laws that the protect the criminals.
 @keri555  @ETSubmariner No.... A not guilty plead is telling the Court to prove his guilt. Nothing more. It is still innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, this is not the practice. If you're suspected of something, Police treat you as if you've been tried, convicted, and sentenced. So does the public in general, The burden of proof falls on the accuser. Not the accused.Â
 @PhunkyMunky  @ETSubmariner Like I said he was a suspect and if he wanted to clear his name, all he had to do is answer some questions.  He didn't do that.  A suspect does not mean he is guilty until he was ruled out as a suspect he should have never been able to do what he did.
Most especially, suspect parents should not be offered ANY opportunity to be ALONE with the children if the children are believed to be possible WITNESSES to the parent's crime! Under these circumstances, all visits should be conducted at neutral or even fully-monitored and secure locations with a separate guardian-chaperone for EACH child and the suspected parent should NEVER be allowed even to communicate with the child out of earshot of the guardian-chaperone. No trips to the bathroom together. No shared rides on the roller coaster, Ferris Wheel, etc., Never left alone at the restaurant table. Not even allowed to walk over the the video games without escort. NOTHING!
The blame should be on those morons in UT that (last I heard) are "STILL" investigating the case
 @my2cents I really, REALLY feel for the grand parents/parents here. I really do. This is a case where I'm going to come down on the other side of this issue. As you noted, the police in Utah withheld vital information to investigators and DSHS in Washington state. No murder charge would have been filed in Utah because of some law in Washington - the handling of this case by the police authorities in Utah was deplorable.
Â
Those poor kids just didn't have a chance. Utah withheld information that prevented Washington from making an informed decision. We know that for a fact. Nothing material would change with the passage of this law.
Â
DSHS screwed up by permitting supervised visits at Josh's home when Josh has a long history of being uncooperative.
Â
The 911 operator completely screwed up jerking around with the social worker who did everything she could for almost 8 minutes, and then dragging his feet on the deployment of the police to the home - making response time IIRC 20 minutes or there abouts. Unacceptable.
Â
I really feel for the parents but here is the thing. Last I checked, you are innocent until proven guilty. Not seeing your child is hard not just on the parents, but on the children, even if the parent is a dirt ball. It seems a guideline that supervised visitation at an approved DSHS facility only is the better answer. I've never had the displeasure, but I've been in that depressing government building in Lynnwood and I know the DSHS floor has an armed officer and the people are buzzed in and out.
Â
If you're a suspect of a violent felony crime than supervised visitation - I would think if you're already up on murder charges for killing your spouse, or a child - you're probably not visiting your kids anyway for their own protection.
Â
This idea of a law just seems to fill a hole that doesn't exist. The law would change nothing, Utah, the way supervision was setup, and 911 all played into it. But lets remember who really is at fault.
Â
Josh - burn in Hell - burn in HELL.
 @Howard Beale  @my2cents Well said.Â
Just another law that we cannot afford to enforce. This problem would have never occurred if the guardian adlitem was qualified. None of them are, it take a mere 16 hours of training to work for the court as a guardian adlitem. It is a very poor system, this new ad-on just piles on more rules that will be over looked.
Don't forget the blame the local media deserves in this. KOMO, KING, and KIRO are at the very least partly culpable for pushing that guy over the edge. And yeah, how about proving someone's guilt before restricting their rights!?
 @antiseattle It would seem to me that there are times when the safety of minor persons under the custody of a parent who is an active suspect in a missing persons case (especially where the missing person is the other parent) would be better served to not be under said parental custody. I respect, admire and agree with your defense of rights but in extreme cases prejudice must be considered.
 @Rick4001CS  @antiseattle Innocent until proven guilty.  There are no exceptions to that.
In washington state you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent when it comes to cps/dcfs cases. Unfortunately parents already have absolutely no rights. What is weird is... he seemed to get more visitation than people who have lost their children at birth due to their status as a rape victim. Can anyone say "sexist"?Â
 @antiseattle I'm not ready to go this far if the person is a suspect, especially if they don't have enough evidence to arrest or charge.
I think its a good idea. Even though, we typically view criminal situations as innocent until proven guilty, when it comes to the safety of children, I'd much rather err on the side of caution for their sake.
 @The WA Mama When you make exceptions because of the children realize that everyone is someones child. Those children also will grow up they are harmed by your exceptions you made to protect them.
@The WA Mama --- I wonder if you will still "think its [sic] a good idea" when you are wrongly accused and it's your children and your visitation.Â
@Bianca Since the chances of that happening to me are slim to none since I don't abuse or neglect my kids or live a questionable lifestyle. If I ever was accused of anything, I'm sure it would be resolved quickly. I still stand by my statement.
yep.Â
Here are some facts:
six are 6 times more likely to be killed by fostercare parents than any other part of the population.
Â
out of the 423,000 kids in foster care(I think that was 2008?) 68% of them there were NO ACCUSATIONS of any abuse or neglect. and of the 32% where there were accusations 80% WERE UNFOUNDED!!Â
Â
we put these children in harms way when we put them in foster care. And their are people lying every day.
Â
WA MOMMA----- you say that you don't live a questionable lifestyle. but all it takes is some one to lie.  AND did you know that cps social workers have been known to take away children from parents who own dosile and gentle well trained huskies?? It's barbaric but it's true.
And if a person has their kids taken away from them just for being a suspect (hint: if you spouse dies for any reason, the spouse is immediately a suspect), then the state would be liable for further harming the children, because it will mentally injure the children further. They would not only be dealing with losing a parent forever, but the possibility of losing the other parent just for suspicion. Would you enjoy having your children being taken away from you just because someone decides to accuse you of abusing them? That's all it would take. Just an accusation. Wouldn't even have to be founded. It could be someone that doesn't like you because you're prettier than them. Just some things to think about.
"Chuck and Judy Cox testified before a state Senate committee considering a bill that would restrict or block visitation rights for someone who is the subject of a murder investigation." Um...last time I checked Josh's visitation rights were restricted. He had supervised visits.  Whatever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? Maybe they should focus on the botched investigation that came out of UT. There's where you start, not with the visitation rights of others. Good grief.Â
 @Bianca If I remember correctly he lost his custody battle because of his dad's perverted collection.  So while he was a suspect he still had custody, they botched the visitation procedure and I agree that they need to take a look at those procedures but to trample on our rights because the police want to name you as a suspect isn't right in my opinion.
 @Bianca Lets not forget that on josh powells daddys computer was porn and his dad lived with him
seriously... he was an adult and I never heard of him showing it to the kids... jesus christ people! how did it damage the kids?