Manley provided extensive observations about Powell’s parenting,
writing that he had an “excellent level of engagement with each son”
and that he had a “positive loving bond” with them.
Still, he recommended that Powell’s visits with the boys continue to be supervised
“until he can omit emotional, controversial, and polarizing topics” from conversations with them.”
Was all that mattered to the judge in this case the “emotional, controversial, and polarizing topics” Powell discussed with his sons?
Did it not matter to this judge that there was clear and convincing evidence of serious issues having to do with Mr. Powell’s activities apart from his sons?
Those other activities are what mattered the most. They were the red flags, the lights and the sirens pointing to the danger those two young boys faced while “bonding” with Mr. Powell – supervised or not.
This is the same dynamic found in nearly all cases in which children in “high conflict” “custody battles” are eventually killed.
As long as minor children do not have the discernment to know when they are in danger and as long as children don’t have the right to speak for themselves in family court, family court judges do not have the right to take chances for these children and risk their lives.
The judges in these cases can’t walk away after the children have been killed and say, “Oh well.” if they would not also allow their own children to “visit” with anyone with a history like Mr. Powell’s history.
A jury trial of peers and professionals in all “high conflict” custody cases might be the solution. So might civil and criminal lawsuits against those responsible for the hundreds of thousands of fatalities in our family courts thus far.
Thanks to The News Tribune for publishing Josh Powell’s psychological evaluation.
Now the public can see the kinds of lights, sirens and red flags the family court could not see.