Texas Supreme Court Challenges Incest Taboo Scoop/Collins [View All]

[autorank]

Link: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00436.htm

Texas Supreme Court Challenges Incest Taboo

Saturday, 31 May 2008, 3:41 pm
Column: Michael Collins


Justices of the Texas Supreme Court

Court Contra Culture?

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The Texas Supreme Court just struck a blow at the foundation of civilized society - the incest taboo. On April 28, 2008, the Court overturned a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services finding that removed 130 children from a religious cult compound set up by a convicted sexual abuser. The court found that child protective authorities had not shown a sufficient danger to prohibit the children residing with their parents at the "Yearn for Zion" facility founded by Warren Jeffs, "prophet" and leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS). The Court argued that there were a number of options (counseling, etc.) available to protective services before separation could be justified.

Please note that the FLDS cult is not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon Church). FLDS members would be subject to http://tinyurl.com/5jssvl ">automatic excommunication from the Mormon Church due to their participation in polygamy.
.
Based on a request for help from the FLDS facility, Texas protective services workers found that forced marriage of adolescent girls 17 and under to adult males’ decades older was an accepted practice. There was strong concern about incestuous combinations in these polygamous "spiritual" marriages. As a result, a lower court ordered DNA tests for all involved at the cult's Texas compound. There were other findings of grave concern according to the head of family and protective services Carey Cockerell. These included possible sexual abuse of young boys.

Snip


"Yearning for Zion" Compound, Eldorado, Texas.
Randy Mankin, "Eldorado Success" Permission to reproduce

Snip/

Fundamentalist LDS sect leader Warren Jeffs' behavior has been the subject of law enforcement attention for years. He made the FBI's most wanted list for "sexual assault on a minor." Apprehended by Utah authorities in 2006, Jeffs was convicted of two counts of "rape as an accomplice." This entailed Jeffs' role in the marriage of cousins, a 13 year old female and 19 year old male. He is now serving ten to life for those crimes.

Other cases proceed against Mr. Jeffs. In Arizona, he is on trial charged with arranging the marriage of two teenage girls to male relatives; Jeffs is currently seeking dismissal on a technicality. He argued that Arizona law only covers incest between adults -18 years or older. Thus, the 17 and under teen marriages he arranged to male relatives didn't qualify.


Founder and proclaimed prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. From the FBI's "Most Wanted" list

Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is an active opponent of polygamy. Up for reelection this year, he’s chosen to run again despite numerous death threats made against him due to his strong position defending children’s and women’s rights. He was disappointed but "not surprised" by the Texas Court ruling. Based on Texas law, his prediction on the return of the children is understandable.

The law used to remove the children from the compound is clear. Child abuse is outlined in Texas statutes 261.001 DEFINITIONS. Note the emphasis on protection from "mental and emotional injury" as a child's right:

"Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person: A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning; (B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning;" etc.

Snip

The statute on parental rights of reunion was the basis for the Court's ruling that upheld the return of the children to their parents. Among the other evidence, the Court failed to find numerous pictures of Jeffs kissing under aged children persuasive enough to defer the reunions.

The Per curium (for the court) ruling noted that the: "Thirty-eight mothers petitioned the court of appeals for review by mandamus, seeking return of their 126 children. The record reflects that at least 117 of the children are under 13 and that two boys are 13 and 17." Given the propensities established by their former leader’s conviction in Utah and the photographs of Jeffs’ with children, the risks seem more than apparent.

Absent the findings of DNA testing which would establish with certainty any incestuous marriages, the question of incest as an accepted practice in the compound cannot be ruled out. Yet the court chose to return all of these children to an environment that violates the most fundamental laws of society – intimacy with minors and incest. It did this by focusing on the reunion requirements of Texas statutes, "physical" safety, rather than the risk for "mental and emotional injury," the emergency discovered by protective service workers.

Snip

The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court is an assault on widely prevailing standards of conduct and common sense. Every person "of ordinary prudence and caution" would say: Get the children out of there immediately; keep them away until an investigation is completed and their safety is assured!

As a result, the ruling creates the potential for a huge public backlash. This Texas Supreme Court is, after all, is supposed to be a law and order court, one noted for its conservative doctrine. Where in conservative doctrine can you find any support for this type of decision? Where in any doctrine, but the most offensive and bizarre, is there a justification?

What safety does the law offer to any of us if this type of decision can be rendered and upheld?
How can the concurring justices remain seated on the Court after making a decision that results in the return of children to an environment that may well represent a center for deviance beyond the ability of most to comprehend?

Where’s the competence?

Where’s the justice?

Where are the children?

END
Permission to reproduce in part or in whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article