Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[emmawoodhouse]

19 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Granted it's different circumstances, but when a friend of mine was getting a divorce and her husband was only allowed "supervised" visitation, I learned that at least there, it does not mean any random adult in the circle of family and friends who is willing, available, and acceptable to both sides. Supervision is handled by a trained professional, who is expensive, requiring a retainer and billing hundreds of dollars an hour per visit. I would be surprised if a mandate for supervised visitation handed down by a criminal court is more relaxed, given it's criminal court.

I really hope this is the case! We don't know what this monster is capable of.

[Tuxcat]

27 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

Granted it's different circumstances, but when a friend of mine was getting a divorce and her husband was only allowed "supervised" visitation, I learned that at least there, it does not mean any random adult in the circle of family and friends who is willing, available, and acceptable to both sides. Supervision is handled by a trained professional, who is expensive, requiring a retainer and billing hundreds of dollars an hour per visit. I would be surprised if a mandate for supervised visitation handed down by a criminal court is more relaxed, given it's criminal court.

Well that would be better. The actual court order (posted on reddit) doesn't specify that I can see.

I view the timeline this way.

Molestations at age 14: Apparently dealt with via the church, Gothard and JB. Jill does say in her interviews she had "counseling" but likely that was also done by their church. The family thought he was "cured." They all said it was over and done with and they had moved on. 

TV show: He still was the potential golden boy in their eyes. Looking back he really did function as sort of "Star" on that show - narrating episodes et cetera. He seemed mature for his age.

Cheating and Porn Addiction in Washington DC:  Not against the law by the way. But shocking fo the family and certainly hypocritical given their platform. The aggression as noted by one of his "extra" partners is concerning but again - no charges. At this point I thought, what a loser and wow, these people really are hypocritical. What other secrets are they hiding. Golden Boy was gone.

2019: What the heck is he up to now? Don't believe any of them really. Eh...who cares.

2021: OH MY GOD!!!!!! 

With the revelations  of 2021, it makes his past seem all that more problematic and horrific and really scary because wow, what's been going on.

But without the context of 2021, I just thought he was a big time loser who had serious issues lurking in the past. Most of all they were just hypocrites.  Golden boy was gone and done which I was happy about. Just keep him away and things will be fine.  I sort of imagine some of the family felt the same way.

 

 

[Pingaponga]

4 hours ago, crazy8s said:

The little toll booth office on a corner with a sign that says no keys, titles or cash kept onsite would make me never go there.

Would that mean overnight, or even during "office hours"? Who would go to a car lot where you'd be told "Oh, you want to test drive the Chevvy? I'll get my brother to bring over the keys. Just wait 20 minutes."?

[doodlebug]

13 minutes ago, Pingaponga said:

Would that mean overnight, or even during "office hours"? Who would go to a car lot where you'd be told "Oh, you want to test drive the Chevvy? I'll get my brother to bring over the keys. Just wait 20 minutes."?

Sounds like exactly the sort of halfa**ed operation Josh Duggar would run.  I think someone said that that particular lot was geared towards wholesalers; which I imagine means they tried to sell multiple autos to used car dealers, etc for resale and didn't do much with individuals coming in to buy a car for personal use.

If they were mainly dealing with wholesalers, they probably could make arrangements to deliver the title and keys and get a check.

[crazy8s]

17 minutes ago, Pingaponga said:

Would that mean overnight, or even during "office hours"? Who would go to a car lot where you'd be told "Oh, you want to test drive the Chevvy? I'll get my brother to bring over the keys. Just wait 20 minutes."?

the sign on the front of the toll booth office didn't say overnight or anything - just NO cash titles keys kept on site.

I had forgotten he also got in trouble for operating that lot without a permit when he first opened it

https://radaronline.com/videos/josh-duggar-caught-running-unlawful-business-arkansas/

[emmawoodhouse]

What's more is Josh was allegedly notified of the issue three times before he made efforts to fix the problem. The planning official claimed the fire marshal sent three 90-day notices alerting Josh that it was time to "come into compliance."

 

Typical Duggar arrogance.

[Zella]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

He only went to Jesus Jail that one time in August 2015. After that, he was presumably proclaimed cured of his addiction to porn. So yeah, they trusted him to be alone at the tollbooth car lot. 

 

For some reason, I thought he went more than once. 

How long was he there? 

[emmawoodhouse]

Six months.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Six months.

Thanks! Okay I think what happened is I stopped checking the board at some point during that time, came back, saw he was still there, and somehow internalized that as 2 separate stints rather than 1 long one. 

[merylinkid]

5 hours ago, realityfan26 said:

I'm surprised anyone believed he was working late; doing what? How busy could his lot have been? If it was a last minute customer, I'd think he would have said he was with a customer. 

They "knew" what he was really doing.   But as long as no one checked on him and Anna could say she would know through Covenant Eyes, they didn't have to really KNOW.   As long they didn't really KNOW, they could deny it.   Wilful ignorance.   Which goes over in court about as well asyou expect it does.

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

They "knew" what he was really doing.   But as long as no one checked on him and Anna could say she would know through Covenant Eyes, they didn't have to really KNOW.   As long they didn't really KNOW, they could deny it.   Wilful ignorance.   Which goes over in court about as well asyou expect it does.

One wonders what Smugs told Anna about the raid. He might have convinced her that it had to do with finances. I doubt she had anything to do with finances other than sign paperwork to set up all of those LLCs in her name. Sure, she had a debit card, but I bet she had to bring home receipts. I think it would have been easy to divert her away from porn, especially since Covenant Eyes seemed to be doing such a great job. 

[BigBingerBro]

I'm thinking his explanation to Anna was more along the lines of "Ex-con Guy was looking at porn and they busted him" - I doubt he mentioned CP but I wonder if Anna is smart enough to know that regular porn is not illegal.

Bottom line is that I am sure he blamed everyone but himself and still is.  We shall see if it goes to trial.

[emmawoodhouse]

Yeah, shady ex-con guy had enough access to the desktop to install a Linux partition, Tor, and CSAI. Of course. 😂

[Lady Whistleup]

I think in addition to being Joyfully Available Anna was Joyfully Ignorant and Joyfully Unquestioning.

[emmawoodhouse]

Just now, Lady Whistleup said:

I think in addition to being Joyfully Available Anna was Joyfully Ignorant and Joyfully Unquestioning.

She was raised in the cult to question nothing. 

[quarks]

 

1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

Bottom line is that I am sure he blamed everyone but himself and still is.  We shall see if it goes to trial.

My personal guess is that Josh is going to be facing a lot of pressure from any number of sources to take a plea deal. 

That doesn't mean he will, of course.

[lascuba]

 

4 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I really hope this is the case! We don't know what this monster is capable of.

I actually asked my cousin who works for DCF, and she said that csa materials aren't enough to have children removed, not in our state, at least. They'll investigate, but if there's no evidence that the children were abused or shown those materials, they can't do anything.

[emmawoodhouse]

5 minutes ago, lascuba said:

 

I actually asked my cousin who works for DCF, and she said that csa materials aren't enough to have children removed, not in our state, at least. They'll investigate, but if there's no evidence that the children were abused or shown those materials, they can't do anything.

Can they interview the children? Anna might protest, but can CPS interview them anyway?

[lascuba]

10 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Can they interview the children? Anna might protest, but can CPS interview them anyway?

Yes, they can interview. They don't require parental consent in our state at all, but they might in other states, though many if not all of those that do require consent make an exception if a parent is the one suspected of abuse.

[Nysha]

In my state, unless CPS has some concrete evidence of abuse the parents can refuse to allow CPS to interview the children w/o the parent present. If the school makes a complaint they're allowed to interview them at school, but they're supposed to inform the parent that a claim has been made and their child/ren will be interviewed.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Nysha

[sue450]

the duggars follow the teachings of Bill Gothard which says  "abuse" does not exist....the behavior is "inappropriate" and handled by the church.

   you are to thank your abuser because the abuse made you spiritually stronger

  being abused in any way is considered a badge of honor...Anxiety  PTSD  depression traUMA ...do not exist, if you have these symptoms  YOU ARE  NOT TRUSTING IN GOD.

  men have no control over their urges so if they cheat it is the womans fault  she is to   do sex whenever and how often he wants it

  if a woman wants to work outside the home or go to school  they will be open to spiritual attacks by satan  something really bad will happen (she will be raped or her children may be murdered.

 this is why anna will not leave  this is a CULT not a religion

   they live in a bubble anything in the outside world is bad

 if they ever have the courage to leave they will be shunned by family and friends  and it will take years of therapy to undo the damage this CULT inflicts on people

 

Edited May 10, 2021 by sue450
added paragraph

[andromeda331]

I know the judge is following the law. But there's zero change Josh will follow any of the rules and Anna should not allowed to be the parent in the room when his kids visit. She won't follow any of the rules. He should have remained in jail.

[LexieLily]

The more blatant they are about not following the rules, and more likely than not they will be blatant about it in one way or another, the greater the likelihood he will go back to jail. I give it two weeks or less.

[Tabbygirl521]

8 hours ago, sue450 said:

the duggars follow the teachings of Bill Gothard which says  "abuse" does not exist....the behavior is "inappropriate" and handled by the church.

   you are to thank your abuser because the abuse made you spiritually stronger

  being abused in any way is considered a badge of honor...Anxiety  PTSD  depression traUMA ...do not exist, if you have these symptoms  YOU ARE  NOT TRUSTING IN GOD.

  men have no control over their urges so if they cheat it is the womans fault  she is to   do sex whenever and how often he wants it

  if a woman wants to work outside the home or go to school  they will be open to spiritual attacks by satan  something really bad will happen (she will be raped or her children may be murdered.

 this is why anna will not leave  this is a CULT not a religion

   they live in a bubble anything in the outside world is bad

 if they ever have the courage to leave they will be shunned by family and friends  and it will take years of therapy to undo the damage this CULT inflicts on people

 

I know you’re right. Maybe there’s a slim chance she will consider that Jill broke away and seems to be doing great. 

[Tikichick]

14 hours ago, Zella said:

For some reason, I thought he went more than once. 

How long was he there? 

 

14 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Six months.

And yet how many times did some of his siblings have to attend ALERT and Journey to the Heart? 

[Minivanessa]

16 hours ago, Tuxcat said:

I view the timeline this way.

Molestations at age 14: Apparently dealt with via the church, Gothard and JB. Jill does say in her interviews she had "counseling" but likely that was also done by their church. The family thought he was "cured." They all said it was over and done with and they had moved on. 

TV show: He still was the potential golden boy in their eyes. Looking back he really did function as sort of "Star" on that show - narrating episodes et cetera. He seemed mature for his age.

Cheating and Porn Addiction in Washington DC:  Not against the law by the way. But shocking fo the family and certainly hypocritical given their platform. The aggression as noted by one of his "extra" partners is concerning but again - no charges. At this point I thought, what a loser and wow, these people really are hypocritical. What other secrets are they hiding. Golden Boy was gone.

2019: What the heck is he up to now? Don't believe any of them really. Eh...who cares.

2021: OH MY GOD!!!!!! 

Based on the podcast I've referred to above - available here on YouTube - I have something to add to the timeline.

The narrator is a couple of years younger than Josh. When he was a teenager his parents were fundies and started attending the Duggars' church. He witnessed what happened after Jim Holt lost his Senate race and then was tipped off that Josh, a campaign volunteer, had viewed porn on campaign computers. This would have been in late 2004 or early 2005, when Josh was 16 - 17 years old. The narrator said that Holt lost the race mostly likely because his politics were just not palatable even to the conservative Arkansas voters, but Holt learned of Josh's porn viewing and went ballistic. Decided it was "sin in the camp" that had caused his loss, not his being a sh*tty candidate. 

The matter was brought before the church. It was decided that Josh needed punishment and would be sent out to a country farm/ranch to dig out a pond. By himself. No power tools. The way the narrator described it, it was harsh. Josh had to stay out there, I think in some shed by himself, and NOT talk to anyone. He was given meals to eat but nobody spoke to him, and in the heat of an Arkansas summer he was out there alone, toiling with hand tools clearing the muck and junk out of the bottom of that pond. The narrator said there would be weekly reports to the church on Josh's progress, during which Michelle and the Duggar girls would cry. Oh, and Josh's head was shaved.

I don't know how many weeks that went on, but the narrator said that the timing was awkward because the production company was due to begin shooting another special. The narrator explained that the crews didn't hang out with the Duggars all the time. Instead, there were scheduled shooting days. He talked about doing some volunteer labor on building the TTH and how when the crew was filming, they were directed to do things to look busy for the filming, lol.

So, Josh's draconian stints of being alone digging out the pond, were punctuated by his being brought back home for shooting days. Yep. I assume JB and Meech moved heaven and earth to keep Josh's status re the pond a secret from the producers. They probably threatened dire punishments to any kid who blabbed a word about it, and they may have watched everybody like a hawk when the crews were there. 

The narrator had no idea when he was watching all that happen, about the molestations that Josh had previously admitted to. 

He was kind of astonished by Josh's demeanor on those days when he was brought back into the fold for TV show purposes. He said they'd been sitting in church on Sundays, hearing these dramatic things about how Josh was being punished, with tears from the Duggar females. But when Josh showed up, he was just - chill. Not awkward at all. The narrator said that by the time Josh finished that pond, he'd dropped flab and really toned up. (That didn't last long, lol.)

So, there are the Duggars, filming a special about their oh so special family, without bothering to disclose that oh well, our oldest dear son was cruising porn on a Senate campaign computer and he's out in the country doing a penance worthy of Cotton Mather at his worst. Nah. But the narrator said that Josh is in scenes in that special, and he's bald because they'd shaved his head. 

ETA: The narrator said on the podcast, that he thinks the producers must have known something was going on with Josh. He was around for some of the filming. I don't remember if he expanded on why he thinks the producers had to have known, but it seems to me that they would have noticed the shaved head and I'm sure Josh was also tanned/sunburned from all that pond work. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Jeeves

[JoanArc]

 Very telling that he was digging that pond for looking at porn instead of Molesting his sisters. 

Really can’t wrap my head around going to a church for you loudly proclaim your sins and have a group punish you for them. Isn’t that what God is for? Aren’t you doing his job for him at that point?

[Meow25]

11 hours ago, lascuba said:

 

I actually asked my cousin who works for DCF, and she said that csa materials aren't enough to have children removed, not in our state, at least. They'll investigate, but if there's no evidence that the children were abused or shown those materials, they can't do anything.

My FIL was in child welfare in Pennsylvania for 30 years, and dealt almost exclusively in sexual abuse.  We had a conversation about the Josh Duggar case yesterday, and he said that the children would be interviewed, and IF the warehouse they were living in was ON the main house grounds any minor child living on the property would be interviewed as well.  Now, that is in PA, so Arkansas could be totally different.  He was absolutely shocked that the judge gave him unlimited visitation with just the wife present.  In the cases he saw around here the accused would be granted visits only with a case worker present.  

He's been retired for about 5-6 years, so idk how much has changed.  

[Tikichick]

12 hours ago, lascuba said:

 

I actually asked my cousin who works for DCF, and she said that csa materials aren't enough to have children removed, not in our state, at least. They'll investigate, but if there's no evidence that the children were abused or shown those materials, they can't do anything.

My guess is a public self admission of previous predatory behavior on family members who were minors combined with verified possession of csa and seeking it out on several occasions would also factor in to what DCF can bring before the court in a petition for removal or a requirement for no contact with Josh and the children.    The fact that the admission stretches back to his teen years and his current activities are in the neighborhood of 20 years later is demonstrative of grave likelihood of risk to the children -- particularly if he's in a position where he truly is unable to access an online outlet.

[Kellyee]

Quote

My FIL was in child welfare in Pennsylvania for 30 years, and dealt almost exclusively in sexual abuse.  We had a conversation about the Josh Duggar case yesterday, and he said that the children would be interviewed, and IF the warehouse they were living in was ON the main house grounds any minor child living on the property would be interviewed as well.  Now, that is in PA, so Arkansas could be totally different.  He was absolutely shocked that the judge gave him unlimited visitation with just the wife present.  In the cases he saw around here the accused would be granted visits only with a case worker present.  

They put someone who has been taught her whole life that she must obey her husband and can't tell him what to do in charge of visitation with the children. So is she really going to speak up if he starts to take one of the kids into another room? I have my doubts. 

Just look at the wife of the legal guardian. She has been so isolated and trained that she isn't even comfortable with being alone with a man she's not married to, but now she has one in her house with child porn charges, because her husband has the final say. 

There should be a case worker present when Josh is allowed anywhere near his kids.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tabbygirl521]

1 hour ago, JoanArc said:

 Very telling that he was digging that pond for looking at porn instead of Molesting his sisters. 

Really can’t wrap my head around going to a church for you loudly proclaim your sins and have a group punish you for them. Isn’t that what God is for? Aren’t you doing his job for him at that point?

Or was he really being punished for (in their minds) costing Holt the election?

[Zella]

It's interesting to me that whoever caught Josh looking at porn basically shielded him. Seems like they never reported him to Holt until the "sin in the camp" internal investigation was launched. 

[hathorlive]

51 minutes ago, Zella said:

It's interesting to me that whoever caught Josh looking at porn basically shielded him. Seems like they never reported him to Holt until the "sin in the camp" internal investigation was launched. 

Or worse, that a grown man blames a kid looking at porn for losing an election.  I'm shocked at how superstitious these Christians are.  I'm surprised they don't have a Ouija board out to predict who will sin next.

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Or worse, that a grown man blames a kid looking at porn for losing an election.  I'm shocked at how superstitious these Christians are.  I'm surprised they don't have a Ouija board out to predict who will sin next.

I suspect Holt's campaign staff knew he was a psycho and, without any additional information on Josh, just assumed he was a normal kid doing normal things and were trying to spare him the inevitable explosion.  

Honestly, if I had been the one who caught him and knew nothing at all else about him, we probably would have had a chat about professional expectations, but I don't know that I would have told on him either. 

I've never really heard gossip locally about the Holts. I know some folks who have met him once when he was campaigning--and similar to the people I know who have met the Duggars at campaign events--they said he and his family seemed nice enough. But I feel like that's sort of inevitable at a campaign event where you are trying to convince people to vote for you. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Zella

[Tabbygirl521]

5 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Or worse, that a grown man blames a kid looking at porn for losing an election.  I'm shocked at how superstitious these Christians are.  I'm surprised they don't have a Ouija board out to predict who will sin next.

And why did God punish someone else for Josh’s sin? It is so very perplexing. 

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

And why did God punish someone else for Josh’s sin? It is so very perplexing. 

LOL That is a good point. I suspect in the same way that Josh was the golden boy for the Duggars and their prince that was promised, Holt probably had near messianic views of himself.

I must admit that is something I never thought too much about until reading that AMA with Josh's childhood friend. I know from being around fundies that they can have a high opinion about themselves and their families and their place in the world, but it had never really clicked for me how extreme that can be. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Zella

[lascuba]

 

 

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

My guess is a public self admission of previous predatory behavior on family members who were minors combined with verified possession of csa and seeking it out on several occasions would also factor in to what DCF can bring before the court in a petition for removal or a requirement for no contact with Josh and the children.    The fact that the admission stretches back to his teen years and his current activities are in the neighborhood of 20 years later is demonstrative of grave likelihood of risk to the children -- particularly if he's in a position where he truly is unable to access an online outlet.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that weren't a factor at all. Josh was a minor at the time. By the time police investigated and the family were put in front of a judge, Josh apparently wasn't deemed a danger anymore. It seems obvious to you and me and maybe even individual social workers that the two thing are related, but legally, I'm guessing most family court judges aren't going to countenance removal without evidence that Josh abused a child.

The Duggars' fame and money is also a significant factor, I think. Not they're getting preferential treatment, per se, but there's a spotlight there and they have the means to be lawyered up. DCF is going to tread very, very carefully. They're not going to make a move because Josh is a creep who might abuse his children in the future--they have to have evidence that abuse has already happened.

[Tikichick]

3 minutes ago, lascuba said:

 

 

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if that weren't a factor at all. Josh was a minor at the time. By the time police investigated and the family were put in front of a judge, Josh apparently wasn't deemed a danger anymore. It seems obvious to you and me and maybe even individual social workers that the two thing are related, but legally, I'm guessing most family court judges aren't going to countenance removal without evidence that Josh abused a child.

The Duggars' fame and money is also a significant factor, I think. Not they're getting preferential treatment, per se, but there's a spotlight there and they have the means to be lawyered up. DCF is going to tread very, very carefully. They're not going to make a move because Josh is a creep who might abuse his children in the future--they have to have evidence that abuse has already happened.

Yes, child protective authorities are going to proceed very carefully because they are aware they may only get one bite at the apple or be accused of harassment, malicious prosecution, etc.    But the risk factor assessment will be an important component the family judge has to consider if a petition is brought.   

He may have been a minor and was not prosecuted, but the resistance to treatment of those issues is well known.  The fact that he never faced punishment, never received treatment, has publicly admitted to the conduct and nearly two decades later has been viewing explicit child sexually abusive material does offer substantiation for the claim that his being in the presence of minors can be considered to present a grave level of threat.

[hathorlive]

16 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

And why did God punish someone else for Josh’s sin? It is so very perplexing. 

I have to wonder how god has all this time to punish people for other people's "sins" when he's busy blessing pro athletes with wins and singers for their country music awards.

[MargeGunderson]

5 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I have to wonder how god has all this time to punish people for other people's "sins" when he's busy blessing pro athletes with wins and singers for their country music awards.

God multitasks like a boss.

[Future Cat Lady]

58 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Or worse, that a grown man blames a kid looking at porn for losing an election.  I'm shocked at how superstitious these Christians are.  I'm surprised they don't have a Ouija board out to predict who will sin next.

To me, these types of Christians never take responsibility for anything. Specially if you’re a man.

[MargeGunderson]

White Christian males are at the top of the entitled asshole pyramid. 

[3girlsforus]

I have come to the conclusion that one thing the law gets wrong is it's view of child porn vs the physical act of child sexual abuse. They are treated as different things. Let's just set aside the stuff from when he was a minor. That's legally complicated in and of itself because he was a minor and he was never charged. Even if this was his first arrest with no minor past history, if Josh was arrested for the physical act of abusing a child there would be no question about access to children, even his own. However, since he "only" looked at pictures of someone else doing the abusing, the onus was on the prosecution to prove he would take the step to physical abuse of a child, specifically his children. Because they would have to prove that, a parent's right to see their child (which I also think is something the law sometimes values more than they should) became the driving force. After all, he is forbidden to be around children other than his own. 

I know our judicial system is very hesitant to say 'well you did X so Y could happen down the road', but I think in terms of child sexual abuse, whether you are looking at it or doing it something needs to change in the law that doesn't make one worse than the other in terms of being considered a danger to children. I also think the view needs to change in terms of penalty. "Just" possessing pornography needs to be treated the same as if they touched the child themselves. We've heard lots of posts here of people getting pretty light sentences for this horrific behavior. Jared, the Subway guy, got 15 years but he did physically abuse a child (or many multiple ones) and my impression from the articles I read about it led me to believe it was the physical abuse that made the penalty as high, not the pornography. 

Ok - done ranting now....

[Tikichick]

29 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

White Christian males are at the top of the entitled asshole pyramid. 

Within a limited view, maybe.   There's a lot of competition for the top of that pyramid among misogynists and zealots of many stripes, some not even involving a faith-based belief system.

I wouldn't want to be a female pursuing an education in Afghanistan, especially right now.  Not sure how much I'd want to wander around India just going about my day as a lone female either. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Tikichick

[Natalie68]

21 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Granted it's different circumstances, but when a friend of mine was getting a divorce and her husband was only allowed "supervised" visitation, I learned that at least there, it does not mean any random adult in the circle of family and friends who is willing, available, and acceptable to both sides. Supervision is handled by a trained professional, who is expensive, requiring a retainer and billing hundreds of dollars an hour per visit. I would be surprised if a mandate for supervised visitation handed down by a criminal court is more relaxed, given it's criminal court.

I have a friend that does this for a living.

[Tikichick]

Supervision of child visitation in a divorce action has to be paid for if there are no neutral parties among family members or close friends that both parties agree to and the Court will approve because there is no case worker on the case.  In certain circumstances the Court may require it be held in a therapeutic setting if there is a particular issue causing problems between a parent and child(ren).   That's obviously paid for also. 

Supervision of child visitation in a protective matter can be by a family member if the Court approves, by a case worker from family or human services at their agency offices, or sometimes the Court can order it to be in a therapeutic setting where a mental health provider is designated by the Court to work on issues that are barriers to reunifying the children with the parent(s). 

[Tabbygirl521]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

LOL That is a good point. I suspect in the same way that Josh was the golden boy for the Duggars and their prince that was promised, Holt probably had near messianic views of himself.

I must admit that is something I never thought too much about until reading that AMA with Josh's childhood friend. I know from being around fundies that they can have a high opinion about themselves and their families and their place in the world, but it had never really clicked for me how extreme that can be. 

It occurred to me later that it might be another manipulation tool. A person might be willing to “sin” for their own gratification but maybe it would give them pause to think others might suffer for it? Whatever, this cult is loony. 

[Cinnabon]

4 hours ago, JoanArc said:

 Very telling that he was digging that pond for looking at porn instead of Molesting his sisters. 

Really can’t wrap my head around going to a church for you loudly proclaim your sins and have a group punish you for them. Isn’t that what God is for? Aren’t you doing his job for him at that point?

Regarding the porn only - imagine being that shocked and upset that a 16-17 year old teen boy had been curious enough to look at porn on a computer? Almost all teen boys do this, probably at an earlier age these days. I don’t necessarily think that’s a great thing (mostly because porn is usually completely unrealistic), but that’s the reality. I was the type of kid/teen who was always MORE interested in anything I was prohibited from watching /doing (within limits). My parents were strict about what I could watch on tv, so guess what I watched as soon as they were out or otherwise occupied? By punishing Josh so much for simply being naturally curious about women and porn as a teen boy seems ludicrous and probably added to his dysfunction.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Cinnabon

[mittsigirl]

3 hours ago, hathorlive said:

Or worse, that a grown man blames a kid looking at porn for losing an election.  I'm shocked at how superstitious these Christians are.  I'm surprised they don't have a Ouija board out to predict who will sin next.

I don't consider them to be true Christians-at all. More of a cult than anything Christian-like.

[RedDelicious]

48 minutes ago, mittsigirl said:

I don't consider them to be true Christians-at all. More of a cult than anything Christian-like.

It's so true. And these fundie people like Josh think they can do whatever they want because "only God can judge them". I've been on the receiving end of words like that and it is INFURIATING.