Joshua Davis Case: New Child Taken Into CPS Custody

The case of Joshua Davis has taken a turn: CPS has reportedly taken custody of the newborn child. What does this mean?


It means that a judge signed on this recognizing that both parents pose serious risk of immediate harm to the child, based upon a sworn affidavit of information from CPS investigators and case workers.


Even though they have not been charged in Joshua's disappearance, a judge was presented with enough information to conclude that this child would also be in danger.  News story:


In the meantime, Child Protective Services has taken custody of the baby born to Joshua's parents, Sabrina Benitez and Joshua Davis Sr.

Benitez, who was pregnant at the time of Joshua's disappearance, must wait 90 days after giving birth to take a polygraph test.

Thursday marks the end of that waiting period, and Benitez said she hopes to take the test in the morning.


Nancy Grace had covered this case and the mother spoke via telephone. Note that Statement Analysis follows in bold type.


GRACE: Let`s take a listen to what the mother had to say.

BENITEZ (via telephone): We were all in the house. There was nine people in the house. I was sitting on the bed watching "Toy Story" with my baby. He was wandering from our room to the living room, where the other family members were. When I realized about 10 minutes that it was unusual my baby hadn`t been back in the room to come get a toy, come watch the movie, I jumped up and I ran to the grandfather`s room, where there was another baby that my baby was interested in and asked if he was in there. When the grandfather`s girlfriend told me he hadn`t been in there, so I ran out to the living room and I asked everyone if they`d seen the baby. We started searching, but there was no signs of the baby. I ran out of the house and everyone started looking, and we called the police about 10 minutes because we realized we had no -- nowhere to -- where we hadn`t found him.

This is the first open statement we have for analysis. Regarding what happened the mother speaks and beings in the first person plural, "we". This is unusual unless she is with the family, speaking for all of them. We are unable to determine if she is speaking for herself (making the "we" inappropriate) or if she is speaking for others in the room with her.


Where a subject begins the statement is very important. In this first sentence, the subject wants us to know that others were in the house. Note the sensitivity about others in the house as she repeats it, but with the number in the house (9).  This is added information for emphasis.  


We should question if  the mother is 'spreading around' the possible guilt or responsibility for Joshua's disappearance.   It is important to her.  We must ask, "why is it important to her?", so much so, that it comes early in her statement, and it is repeated. 


Note that the inclusion of her body position ("sitting") is an indication of tension at this point of the statement.  When someone gives the body position of 'sit, stood, standing, sitting, etc', it is an indication of tension at this point in the story.  The focus, therefore, of tension should be at this time when she was on the bed with the baby.  


Note that the mother said that she realized that it was unusual that her son hadn't returned to the room, she "jumped up", which suggests urgency. She didn't simply get up and look for him, but she "jumped" up, likely because she knew there was something wrong at that point.  Why wouldn't she just get up and see where he was?  


The "jumping up" tends to add the dynamic of an emotion at the logical place. 


 If this is, indeed, a description of an emotion, placed here, in the perfect place, it is an indicator of deception.   It may be, however, truthful, in that she did jump up, and was frantic, but is not telling us what caused her to behave this way.  Her child not coming back into the room does not sound like a reason to jump up, but rather to simply get up.  


We should be concerned that this is deceptive.  


With eight other people in the home, why would she assume that there was an urgent need for her to "jump" up and find her son?  


It is likely that more happened at this point than her realizing that "the baby" hadn't come back into the room.  Is this a fabrication based upon truth?  Did something happen that caused her to, indeed, jump up, but not as she wants to make it sound? 


Note also that she doesn't use her son's name, but refers to him as "my baby" until the point that she talks to "the grandfather's girlfriend", and then he becomes "the baby." The change in possessive pronoun to article is important and should be explored.  


There is a process of which a parent/child relationship goes through where there is abuse.  The absence of a name is concerning.  


Note that the grandfather is not "his grandfather" but "the grandfather". 


The fact that he is named, as well as his girlfriend, is significant.  He is not "grandpa" or any term of endearment.  


It is "the" grandfather and the "jumping up" that is sensitive to the subject.   


If the grandfather did something to cause her to jump up, he is not addressed, but his girlfriend is.


The addressing of Joshua's grandfather as "the" grandfather suggests distancing language and police should focus their interviewing on the grandfather in question and the mother and learn what the relationship between them was like. 


Did something, like an accident, happen to the child and the parents have arranged for the child to be removed from the home?


We need more statements for analysis in this case, but it is apparent that Child Protective Services have been able to give enough information to a judge to prove that the newborn is at risk of serious harm in the hands of the parents.