SO, maybe this is a lesson...

TSD · February 2012

When someone is a "person of interest" in this kind of thing, you don't let the children have "supervised visits". Because, really, if they're a person of interest in a disappearance/murder, they're kind of capable of anything, no?

A hatchet? A HATCHET??

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/06/husband-missing-utah-mom-spent-some-time-planning-fire-that-killed-him-sons/

salimoo · February 2012

It's a horrific crime, but I can't fault the social workers. No one could have seen something this bad coming. I feel so badly for the woman who dropped them off. I can't imagine how you come back from that.

mashedpotato · February 2012

innocent until proven guilty. sucks, especially in this case, but that's how it has to be.

boxerfan · February 2012

mashedpotato:
innocent until proven guilty. sucks, especially in this case, but that's how it has to be.

That's what I'm thinking. This story is so unbelievably horrible and sad, but you can't start treating people as guilty before they're actually found guilty. That's just a bad road to go down.

L_Woods · February 2012

I can't imagine how awful that social worker must feel. From all reports it seems that she was doing what she could but it happened to quickly for her to get them help.

dpeugh85 · February 2012

Each state is different, but here the courts put the stipulations on the visits. The SW has nothing to do with it besides implementing the court's stipulations.

Novemberrocks · February 2012

Everything about this story makes my heart ache. Those poor boys lost their mom and then their lives came to a violent end at the hands of their dad. I do question why supervised visits are allowed when someone is being investigated for murder. I also wonder why those visits couldn't have occured in a more secure location.

CaptainSerious · February 2012

It doesn't matter if he hasn't been found guilty. Parents loose visitation rights for far less. If an addicted parent can't get clean, for example, they can't see their kids, regardless of whether they have been convicted of a crime. I understand that the supervised visits were supposed to keep the kids safe, but clearly it wasn't enough. I'm thinking that if you are under suspicion of murder, you are generally not they most stable person in the world, and your visitation with your kids should be closely scrutinized.

mashedpotato · February 2012

CaptainSerious:
It doesn't matter if he hasn't been found guilty. Parents loose visitation rights for far less. If an addicted parent can't get clean, for example, they can't see their kids, regardless of whether they have been convicted of a crime. I understand that the supervised visits were supposed to keep the kids safe, but clearly it wasn't enough. I'm thinking that if you are under suspicion of murder, you are generally not they most stable person in the world, and your visitation with your kids should be closely scrutinized.

but with drug addicted parents they don't take your kids away without proof that you are taking drugs, some sort of drug test or something. There was no proof this guy killed his wife (although he totally did). and I believe the reason he didn't have custody had nothing to do with his wife's disappearance, but the fact that he was living with his kids and father when his father was busted for child porn.

I'm sure Elizabeth Smart's parents were suspected in her disappearance too, at least for a little while. Should their other children have been taken away?

FallinAgain · February 2012

Yeah, it's tragic but you don't get to take kids completely away from someone you can't even arrest for the murder. I do think perhaps a police officer should accompany SWs or supervised visits should be at a neutral location.

CaptainSerious · February 2012

Fair enough, Mashed, but children are taken into foster care without proof of a crime all the time. Granted, it's usually in connection to a suspected crime against children and not adults, but nonetheless, it happens.

mashedpotato · February 2012

FallinAgain:
Yeah, it's tragic but you don't get to take kids completely away from someone you can't even arrest for the murder. I do think perhaps a police officer should accompany SWs or supervised visits should be at a neutral location.

I could go along with that, but honestly I don't think it would make a difference. Once people are that crazy and convince themselves murder/suicide is the best choice I don't think anything would stop them. I'm sure he could have purchased a gun and shot the SW and/or police officer and then the kids and himself. after all, he's got nothing to lose.

TSD · February 2012

I don't know what the answer IS but there has to be a better way. There are too many "too little too late" stories. I don't blame the specific social worker but this is one sh*t ass system. To me it's as bad as not being able to get a restraining order or stronger until someone actually does something to you. Not that I think restraining orders even do much if someone's intent is to maim or kill you but it's all a way flawed system at best.

TSD · February 2012

Maybe when you're suspected of murdering your wife and youre peripherally involved in some child porn thing with your dad, you have to pass some kind of psych eval before having visits in your home with your small children? I don't know- just throwing it out there.

mashedpotato · February 2012

TSD:

Maybe when you're suspected of murdering your wife and youre peripherally involved in some child porn thing with your dad, you have to pass some kind of psych eval before having visits in your home with your small children? I don't know- just throwing it out there.

the court ordered testing for him last week, some sexual phych evalutation that included a lie detector test from what I read. Some say that's when he came up with this plan. It's just so horrific, I hope he burns in hell if there is such a place.

WendyToo · February 2012

CaptainSerious:
Fair enough, Mashed, but children are taken into foster care without proof of a crime all the time. Granted, it's usually in connection to a suspected crime against children and not adults, but nonetheless, it happens.

Yes, children may be removed from a home on suspicion of a crime, but then there is an emergency placement hearing within 72 hours wherein proof must be demonstrated that the removal was necessary and that the state needs to maintain custody.

I agree that supervised visitation should be in a neutral/controlled environment in cases where violence against anyone is a known concern. I understand why they don't though. When I was in a foster home, my parents were allowed supervised visitation and that took place at the social services office. They typically try to do those in home so that it feels more 'normal' for the kids (and in most cases, it is) and allows for more bonding between parent and child.

wingedbride · February 2012

I posted a couple of thoughts on this on ML. My biggest thought really is about how his upbringing affected him. He is definitely a monster for what he did to those kids. And who knows, maybe he did indeed do something to the wife. I cannot say he did or didn't. I could think that he could go crazy knowing that his father, who probably molested and abused him his whole life, killed his wife and caused him to lose his children. But I digress.

The point is, at one point, he was the poor boy that no one helped. And that makes me sad to think that.

SO, maybe this is a lesson...

Re: SO, maybe this is a lesson...

Choose Another Board

Search Boards