Appeals court rules officials acted improperly in removing FLDS children

[maddezmom]

Source: Deseret News


Published: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:14 a.m. MDT

ELDORADO, Texas — An Austin appeals court has ruled that Texas child welfare authorities acted improperly in removing more than 450 children from the FLDS church's YFZ Ranch.
The 3rd Court of Appeals ruled on a legal challenge by a group of FLDS mothers seeking to have their children returned to them immediately.

"CPS was not justified in removing these children," said Cynthia Martinez of the Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid Society, which is representing the mothers. "They did not provide any evidence that the children were in danger, and they acted hastily in removing the children."

It is unclear if the children will be immediately returned to the ranch or what impact this will have on the ongoing status hearings

Read more: http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700228198,00.html

[Squatch]

1. Class-action lawsuit coming in 5...4...3....

Yikes.

[Crazy Dave]

2. I could pick up the phone right now...

...call CPS and make up some imaginary bullshit against one of my neighbors, watch the cops come take the kids away then watch the parents go to court and all kinds of bullshit for six months before they'd get their kids back.

[KSinTX]

3. There's power in numbers

I suspect the ruling came from the force of protest and the allusion of religous interference that came into play here. I'm still on the fence on this one.

[cstanleytech]

4. Except in this case didnt they have

women who had escaped the community saying this stuff was going on and dont they also have evidence that there were atleast a dozen girls who are underage and pregnant?

[Crazy Dave]

17. I've heard two different stories

One of over exaggerated and falsified claims and of course, the very bad and unthinkable side. I just hope justice and truth prevails over political posturing and emotions

[Zachstar]

82. And if they proved you told BS for a reason they can have you jailed.

[Crazy Dave]

116. True but they have to prove that you knew you were lying

This once happened to a co-worker of mine. A neighbor with a grudge against the father and mother made up a bunch of shit saying their daughter came to her saying her dad was molesting her, her mother was on crack, they beat her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone, etc.
Two years, a bankruptcy and a divorce later and even with the state still wanting to believe the worse, the mother finally got custody of her daughter again from relatives.
To this very day the authorities still believe the daughters denial of her father abusing her and her mother doing drugs and the denial of even telling the neighbor anything was out of fear and the mental abuse she must have suffered. That she must have blocked it all out of her mind, yeah that's what happened.
It was easier and more believable to them that the parents were bad than to believe them or prove the neighbor lied or admit they fucked up and destroyed a family and all the people's lives forever.

[alarimer]

5. I guess those kids get to go back to those child molesters then.

This kind of sucks actually.

[uppityperson]

12. Yup. It's ok to molest kids and hide the evidence.

[xioaping]

89. Did you hear what the court said or do you have other information

It said there was no proof, that child protective services had no evidence. What information do you have or was that just your opinion? The CPS has responsibilities. If it is as you believe, then blame CPS for not doing their job as they should. Either way, the kids are better off with their parents than in the foster care system.

[leftyclimber]

6. Short Creek, Round 2.

Every time I hear about this I think of Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, where he talks about the guy who moved to Mexico with his wives because he had received a revelation that he needed to have sex with his daughters starting when they turned twelve. One little girls was twelve at the time Krakauer was writing. Then at the end of the chapter Krakauer starts listing the dates on which all of the other little girls in the family will turn twelve.

My blood runs cold just thinking about it.

[uppityperson]

7. Court: Texas had no right to remove FLDS children

Source: CNN

The state of Texas should not have removed the more than 460 children it took from a polygamist sect's ranch, an appeals court ruled Thursday. In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had appealed the removals, as well as a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody.

"The legislature has required that there be evidence to support a finding that there is a danger to the physical health or safety of the children in question and that the need for protection is urgent and warrants immediate removal," the ruling said.

It continued, "Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue."

The children were removed last month from the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, which is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/

---

looking for more info.

Same story with a tiny bit more...
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9347022

... The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children

The ruling came as judges were signing off on individual custody plans in San Angelo. Shari Pulliam, a spokeswoman for CPS, said the agency had just learned of the ruling and was trying to assess its impact on the children's cases. "Any decision on an appeal will be made later," she said.

[ckramer]

8. Polygamous famiy is American family!

Why don't people realize that?

[uppityperson]

9. Statutory rape is fine!

That too?

[ckramer]

16. Why can't American have more than one wife?

Punish anyone who commit statutory rape.

But there is no logic in denying law-abiding people have more than one wife.

[Marrah_G]

22. It is not about Polygamy

It is about the systematic abuse of children. The denial of real education. The forced marriage of young girls. The abuse, mentally and physically.

This is not adult people making a choice. This is ONE FUCKING MAN giving young uneducated girls to whoever he deems fit for sex and breeding. The families are split up at his will. The girls have no say. The girls do not even understand they have a right to say NO. It is about slavery and abuse.

Please do not mix up Polygamy with this sick fucking cult.

[cali]

69. that's still no excuse to flagrantly violate the consitution.

And that's what the state did.

[Marrah_G]

75. They removed the children pending investigation.

They would do the same if I gave my boyfriend my daughter when she was 14 to impregnate. They would remove all my children from the home pending investigation. Because the compound was a communal home they did the same there. These children have a right to be protected from their parents. Just because abuse is painted with the facade of religion does not make it protected under the constitution.

[xioaping]

90. CPS screws up all the time

and this time.

[fed_up_mother]

67. 1st, this is about child abuse; 2nd polygamy is against the law

IMO, polygamy is inherently anti-feminist, therefore, I don't support its legalization. However, any group of people who want to live together without the benefit of marriage is ok by me. I just don't think that anti-feminist shit needs to be enshrined in law.

[ckramer]

95. What if there is no child abuse, only consenting adults ?

Secondly, law is man-made and can be changed.

When you say "any group of people who want to live together without the benefit of marriage is ok by me," then what's the point in not letting they legally marry?

"polygamy is inherently anti-feminist" doesn't fly with reason and logic.

Marriage protects women and children. Period.

For example, do you think serial monogamous Donald Trump is pro-feminist?

[fed_up_mother]

98. You're confusing libertine ideas with reality

There's not one culture in the world where feminism and polygamy go hand in hand. By it's very nature, it's anti-feminist. Just because a few in this country (relative to the whole) manage to make it work for a while, doesn't mean its beneficial to a progressive society.

And I"m not going to engage in straw man arguments about Donald Trump - although he does hire women in more powerful positions than one would expect in any polygamous culture, so - yeah - I do think he's "relatively" more feminist than 99% of polygamists. Do you really think women would have advanced to the level they have in any culture that practices polygamy?

I'm all for marriage - even promoting marriage, but I'm very, very skeptical of anyone using the "marriage protects women and children" argument when talking about polygamy. How wonderfully patriarchal of you to think so. :sarcasm: I'll tell you what protects women and children - equality, education, good jobs, social justice programs that protect the poor, etc.

And the vast majority of women are not emotionally equipped to handle their husband fucking another woman - I don't care what you call her. It's not supposed to hurt because its "polygamy" - instead of adultery?

That's not human nature for the vast majority of women. Sorry. Polygamy HURTS women and children.

I watched as a young FLDS couple (one man, one wife) was interviewed on the news. It was replayed over and over. They seemed genuinely happy. Then BAM out comes the question about taking another wife, and the look on that woman's face told me everything I needed to know about her. When her husband took another wife, she, too, would turn into another "stepford" wife. I got tears in my eyes just watching her go from happy to scared. And this is a woman who has been brainwashed to think that polygamy is the preferred way. It was so sad. And I've read so many stories from mormon and muslim women to know that - sorry - you can't fool their emotions with the "it's better for women and children" crap.

And by the way, I don't think most men are emotionally equipped to share their wives, either.

As a societal "construct," it's a very bad idea.

[ckramer]

113. Polygamy itself does not necessarily hurt women and children

Like a gay-family, it's different type of family form that our society has long bias against it.

Criminalizing polygamous Americans is unconstitional in my view.

[ckramer]

114. That's your opinion only

"There's not one culture in the world where feminism and polygamy go hand in hand. By it's very nature, it's anti-feminist."




I am pro-women and pro-children. And I just don't see why can't more than one woman share the like of Bill Gates (for example) as husband.

You indicated that women who married into a polygamous family are stupid. I think that's quite contrary to the fact.

Lots of women WANT to do that.

Why shouldn't the law let them?

[gaspee]

102. WTF?

Marriage protects women and children?

Yeah, right.

Marriage turns women and children into the property of men. Period.

[ckramer]

111. No wonder today America has lots of single mothers

It's not good.

[gaspee]

112. You're funny

I wonder how those single mothers got that way? Hmmm... maybe because there are just as many single fathers.

And maybe if those single fathers actually supported the children they created, the mothers of the children wouldn't be poor.

But hey, let's blame it on those damn harlots - daring to have sex when not married!

If men would stand up and take financial responsibility for their actions without having to be coerced into it through marriage -- we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Please, tell me how punching a woman you don't know in the face is assault, yet beating your wife is just a domestic disturbance.

Women and children have traditionally (and still are in a large part of the world) been the property of men. Marriage protects men's property rights and strips women of a lot of their rights.

[bitchkitty]

88. Agreed. It makes great biological sense. n/t

[Marrah_G]

10. Un-fucking-believable

Sentencing them to a life of ignorance, slavery and abuse.

After all they are just females. No big fucking deal if they are denied an education, forced into marriage with old men and kept ignorant of their most basic of human rights.

I am at a loss for words and so incredibly angry.

Next time they will just make sure to keep the pregnant ones hidden better. Next time they will make sure to burn the records.

The destruction of an unknown number of young future lives in on the hands of this judge and I hope they never have another nights restful sleep.

All these lawyers, especially the female one, forget that THOSE girls will NEVER have the opportunity in life that they have had. THOSE girls will grow up to be nothing more then breeder stock for a sick fucking cult.

[cali]

70. Marrah, please read the link I've posted

The judge was right. CPS was wrong. Their actions were unconstitutional on the face of it. In 1984 I was involved in the case in the link. I thought what we were doing was right. I was wrong. Judge Mahady was right.


http://www.twelvetribes.com/controversies/mahady-opinion.html

[Marrah_G]

76. I don't think we will ever agree on this

In my opinion, taking into account the secretive atmosphere of this group and their disregard for our laws unless it suits their need, there was no other way to investigate this. If they took only a few of the pregnant girls and left the rest, and found out through those girls about the abuse, there is every reason to believe that the children would have been taken out of state and CPS would not be able to rescue the other after an investigation.

If those children are returned , with the exception of a few boys, the rest will be condemned to a miserable existence.

I'll read through your link, but perhaps you could give me some background so I know what I am looking at. Were those kids completely shut away from the world, uneducated, unaware of their rights as human beings? Were they cut off from the world without even realizing they have a right to say no to sex? or to not be hit? Were those mothers kept in a state of fear, brainwashed from the time that they were children also?

This case is unlike any other really. In this case, the cult is so established that they do not bring in outsiders, but rather breed their own new followers. There is little chance to get inside and investigate. When people who escape tell their stories nothing is done. They are ignored.

[xioaping]

91. and we will never agree n/t

[musette_sf]

11. in other words

women and children are simply property.

the right to a decent education; to be able to freely exercise all possible options for one's future; to be free to leave the molester cult without threats, stalking, kidnapping; do not apply to property.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[xchrom]

13. well -- i have to eat my words -- fucking children IS ok.

that's going come as a relief to some -- but it shocks the hell out of me.

[ckramer]

18. No. That's not okay

[LeighAnn]

93. Apparently they hadn't been fucked.

Out of the 400 children, the state was unable to show any evidence of any kind that any of them had been fucked.

Pardon the rough street language.

[gaspee]

103. So

The pregnant teens and young teen mothers got that way, how, exactly?

[musette_sf]

14. i can only guess

at who in this group is recommending the article. child rape defenders and women-as-property defenders.

[Marrah_G]

15. I am so unbelievably angry and sad.

May that judge never again sleep one restful night because the blood and ruined lives of present and future children rests squarely on his/her hands.

[High Plains]

19. Some of us argued from the beginning that CPS overreached.

They took every kid out of that community without any particularized evidence they were being abused or neglected. That was wrong, and the appeals court agrees.

[musette_sf]

20. some of us argued from the beginning

that it would be found that many of the children at the rape compound had NO biological parent living there, and that was proven to be true.

denial of freedom IS abuse and neglect.

slavery is against the law. but excommunication of a father and the "reassignment" of the family to a more powerful man is A-OK.

women and children are no more than property.

child rape defenders infuriate me.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. an airstrike would have been an over reaching

everybody knows what goes on there - the girls will be raped over and over again until their mid-20's and the old perverts loose interest and the boys will be slave labor until they are dumped on the side of the road somewhere before their old enough to shave.

[musette_sf]

27. yep

same-old, same-old. Merril must have had a lot of markers he could call in to cause this travesty of justice to occur.

[LeighAnn]

94. Are you talking about Halliburton?

Sounds like what's going on between private US contractors and Iraqis

[uppityperson]

26. JUDGE overreached, not CPS. Link and more info here..

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5796565.html
Texas appeals court ruled today that a San Angelo judge exceeded her discretion when she ordered the state to take custody of more than 460 children from a polygamous sect.

The order by the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin said State District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion when she ordered the children seized and gave her 10 days to vacate her order.

It was not immediately clear whether the order means the children will be immediately returned to their custody of their parents, followers of a breakaway Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[High Plains]

33. Thanks for the correction. The judge, not CPS, erred. n/t

[lumpy]

63. I'm sure the courts know more about what legal rights apply

than the media, forums and blogs in tis case. Without solid proof it was wrong for every child in that community to have been taken away from the parent. All I have to think about is the Waco, Ruby Ridge tragedies to remind me that our individual civil rights must be protected. Because there might be illegalities commitd by individuals in a community does not mean that the whole of the community should be incarcerated or deprived of their rights.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. I am sick of these freaks

I guess it will be another 50 years before anyone works up the nerve to take on these mormon freaks of nature - and in the meantime the so-called "mainstream mormons" will continue to enable this cartel of child molestation.

[musette_sf]

24. the appeals court had to get their decision made

before McSame's veep vetting meeting this weekend. otherwise Mittens The Dog Torturer would have been completely disqualified.

on edit: dog torturing seems to be big with both cults (LDS and FLDS). Jeffs rounded up all the dogs on one of the compounds and had them all killed. including people's family pets.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

29. I can't imagine that

McCain has to pander to the religiously insane - as fucking stupid as most of them are I do believe they recognize that the mormon cult is closer to scientology than any variation on christianity.

[musette_sf]

30. the Mormons are very, very wealthy

and hold a great deal of power in many places. i think high pressure from LDS is no small part of this travesty of justice against these poor women and children.

on edit: looks more and more like a political deal. (1) have to get the taint-by-association off Romney ASAP; (2) Jeffs was sentenced today to 10-life. so it's ALLLLL okay now, Jeffs has been punished, and of course that means that nothing bad will ever happen again to these poor women and children. :sarcasm:

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[gaspee]

104. As long as we have

People, including so called-democrats standing up for the treatment of women and children as property and slaves, we will not see and end put to this.

After all, a MAN'S home is HIS castle :sarcasm: (and everything in it HIS property.)

[uppityperson]

23. JUDGE exceeded her discretion when ordered state to take custody (JUDGE, not CPS0

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5796565.html
A Texas appeals court ruled today that a San Angelo judge exceeded her discretion when she ordered the state to take custody of more than 460 children from a polygamous sect.

The order by the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin said State District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion when she ordered the children seized and gave her 10 days to vacate her order.

It was not immediately clear whether the order means the children will be immediately returned to their custody of their parents, followers of a breakaway Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

28. I was afraid of this

In the end the children are the ones who are going to continue to suffer. Oh, they'll be "monitored" until they're shuffled out of the jurisdiction. :(

[musette_sf]

31. the FLDS has now started

to buy land parcels in Colorado. they have their next fortress planned, on the backs of the young boys they exploit at the building trades for no money. free slave labor, what could be better for them?

[Marrah_G]

32. self-delete

[Beaverhausen]

34. Once again, women and children retain their status as second-class citizens

who exist at the pleasure of men.

Fuck this shit. :mad:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. I guess the message is

If NAMBLA wants to build a compound with a giant cross and dress like puritans they are welcome to molest children in the great state of texas.

[High Plains]

52. No the message is if you want to seize children in the state of Texas,

you better have some specific evidence they are in danger. The state has not so far bothered to do that.

[LanternWaste]

53. No... the message is...

No... the message is if you have a compound and want to break laws and rape children, it's all well and good if you have the money to back it up...

[Marrah_G]

59. ad still somehow manage to have all your wives and kids on food stamps and state health care.

[High Plains]

128. Are ANY of the people at El Dorado on food stamps?

There seems to be a disturbing tendency to impute every sin of the church to each one of its members without bothering to see if that particualr individual is actually involved. Ah, the old broadbrush smear tactic.

[lumpy]

65. People here should be glad that civil rights cannot be abused.

We have to continue to believe that people are innocent until proved otherwise. Group punishment and stripping of legal rights is akin to facism. Hopefully fair courts will have the last say whether laws have been broken instead of agencies or individuals.

[lumpy]

68. Sound like some people here would be willing to give up their

freedom of innocence until proved guilty.

[Igel]

77. Nonsense.

Nobody's saying they want to give up their own rights.

They're demanding that others have their rights stripped away.

Due process, presumption of innocence, all those progressive things only apply to those who know how to use them, to progressives and the Lumpenproletariat that we take under our wing. The rest ... put the subhuman troglodytes into shackles.

Keep the women who petitioned to have their children returned to them free, let them live their lives ... as we see fit. If they disagree, tough.

After all ... we need to do it for the children. :cry:

:sarcasm:

[Beaverhausen]

97. some people here are more knowledgeable about the practices of this group than others

you have heard of Warren Jeffs, have you not?

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Exactly

It's frustrating and disgusting.

[uppityperson]

36. Link to opinion (pdf)...

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0522/20080522_114730_Mandamus%20Decision.pdf

[lumpy]

71. Thanks for posting this. I hope this will help people to

understand the need for court examination of the case and that proof must be provided of allegations made by individuals or agencies.

[Duke Newcombe]

37. Court: Texas had no right to remove FLDS children

Source: CNN

SAN ANGELO, Texas (CNN) -- The state of Texas should not have removed the more than 460 children it took from a polygamist sect's ranch, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had appealed the removals, as well as a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody.

"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the three-judge panel said.

The state's Department of Family and Protective Services "did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," the judges ruled.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html

---

I'm thinking the Texas CPS jumped the gun, and in doing so, put certain of the children there MORE at risk.



Duke

[Buzz Clik]

38. That's a ruling I support.

I have no use for forcing children into marriages and turning them into baby factories at 14 years old, but Texas was way out of line with their approach.

There were many, many alternatives.

[Duke Newcombe]

39. Agreed.

And because of the ham-handed approach that the Texas CPS took, they have effectively re-indangered the children who were at-risk, and screwed up any opportunity for prosecution of any guilty men.


Duke

[lumpy]

72. " screwed up any opportunity for prosecution of any guilty man"

good point.

[unblock]

85. that this has any effect on any subsequent prosecution is not at all clear

removing children in an effort to protect them, even if not technically permitted, is not the same as an illegal search.

it's also not clear what evidence, if any, would be excluded from a trial.


that said, it would have been better all around if proper procedures were followed.

[Marrah_G]

44. I would really like to hear the alternatives.

The cult has a track record of blocking gov access. The cult also has a history of moving people around to avoid the scrutiny of social services and DAs. This was the reason for the ranch in Texas.

If they had not removed the children the children would simply be hidden away elsewhere.

This cult has a very long history of skirting the law, deception, lies, fraud, etc.

I'm willing to listen to your alternatives.

[Buzz Clik]

46. They could have easily isolated the families -- including detention -- where abuse was suspected.

Their approach was to march in and take every child based on a single phone call from an anonymous source. Probable cause is in jeopardy.

Rather than run quickly through on a case-by-case basis (family-by-family), they take every child from every parent, regardless of age of the parent or child. Now, all legal proceedings against the real abusers are threatened.

[Marrah_G]

48. Couple issues though

The children were living in a communal setting and not a family setting. Some of the minors parent's were not living there. The cult was evasive in providing accurate records of who children belonged to.

So how would you split up the families before taking them. How would you contain the families to keep them from going into hiding. How would you stop the parents from instructing and/or intimidating the children while being detained?

It's a very difficult issue and frankly this criminal enterprise should have been shut down a very long time ago. They hide behind religion what is really just organized crime.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Excellent point, and this undoubtedly complicated the approach.

At present, however, it seems that the approach used is not going to hold up in court, and that's a shame for the young girls being abused.

[Marrah_G]

50. Not just the girls though

The boys also. The boys at that ranch were the chosen ones. Boys in the other compounds and towns are routinely pulled from school at a young age and sent to work on construction sites without pay, once they are old enough to be a threat they are thrown out, literally on the side of the road, by so called loving parents. They have to fend for themselves unless they are fortunate to find one of the help groups formed by the boys thrown out before them.

These parents are to indoctrinated to properly care for their children. They are so indoctrinated that if told to leave, a man will just leave. Leave his wives and family, knowing full well they will be split up and given to others. And the women are so broken inside they will just accept the change and then not bat an eye when the new husband wants to marry their young daughters. They know it is wrong but they have no will left in them. It is squashed in their early childhood.

The whole situation is very sick and very sad. It's different from other cults because rather then converting followers, they just breed them. It makes it very difficult to infiltrate or investigate.

[Igel]

78. Your first assertion was addressed.

It underpinned the first judge's decision to have all the children in the compound taken into custody.

The appeals court heard testimony and concluded that the assertion was false. The children were not all living in a communal setting, the court ruled. Since not all the children were treated the same and living in the same conditions, they could not be treated the same and the judge could not assume they all were subject to the same conditions. The court found that there was likely evidence that some children were subject to abuse; since they were not all in the same household, this evidence wasn't justification for taking all the kids into custody.

The SC might disagree. The first judge may decide that *some* kids should be kept in custody, narrowing the case significantly. Of interest to me will be what use is made of evidence from kids that should not have been taken into custody; typically, evidence improperly obtained cannot be used, but I don't know if this is true for CPS-related issues and I might learn something.

As for not having the parents of some minors there, note the mess that Zoe's Ark got in in Chad or Sudan: They took kids that I'd consider orphans from their extended families. But in this case, the fact that some kids' parents had died did not entail their being orphans. I don't know the details of the minors living with the group away from their parents; if they had the parents' permission to be there, and they're not being abused (sexually or physically), it's no longer my concern.

I don't like sexual or physical abuse. But the idea of worrying about education and the like is, I think, still primarily a family concern. I wouldn't like having my kid taken away because somebody thinks I'm teaching him something inappropriate, whether that's a religion, a political philosophy, or some facts--whether Islam or Xianity, conservativism or liberalism, or creationism or evolution. When he's 18, he'll make up his own mind (and I'm willing to venture he'll do that long before he's 18).

[Alpharetta]

40. Puberty? That's as far as their duty to protect goes?

Why would they use the word puberty?

I'm not a lawyer but I thought DFACS protected minors (and some older), not just pre-pubescents.

[Buzz Clik]

41. Actually, state law in Texas goes much farther than that.

It was curious wording, to say the least.

[KSinTX]

43. Yeah, if I read this right

Are they suggesting that they could have taken the post-pubescent girls but would have had to leave the pre-pubescents? And it also seems that emotional well-being does not fall under the CPS mantle. This all seems a bit about religious appeasement more than legalities. I find it very interesting, as well.

UPDATE: Emergency removal is based on PHYSICAL danger. The court ruled in favor of only the 38 mothers in the case, but it expands to all the kids involved.

[Buzz Clik]

47. There are very specific laws in Texas about age, marriage, and sex.

It was clear that some of these "marriages" were unlawful.

I think that the ruling about puberty was more about the physical danger to those who had not reached puberty. Because physical danger had not been adequately established for the pre-pubescent children, the case is now compromised.

I never cease to be amazed that our police never learn that heavy-handed tactics are always frowned upon by the courts.

[enlightenment]

56. It is fascinating to me that the courts use legal

precedent dating back to Marbury v Madison, but ignore precedence of abusive conditions. The FLDS has been pulling this crap for decades and there is ample evidence of what the sect promotes - and under US law, most of what they promote is illegal.

But that doesn't matter, apparently. Unless THIS particular group was caught in the ACT then their belief system can't be used as evidence of abuse. It's heavy-handed.

This is "religious freedom" trumping common sense. The courts allow heavy-handed tactics every freaking day - this time the appeals court took the easy way out. I hope the judge who made the original ruling sticks to her guns until she is forced to rescind the order.

[Buzz Clik]

58. You're talking about guilt by association. That doesn't hold water at all.

[Marrah_G]

60. This is more comparable to being part of an organized crime group

It's not guilt by association but rather community guilt. They live as a large commune, all interconnected, as the families are interconnected, impossible to separate them from each other. The web is too tight. And each member was born into the organization so there is little opportunity to investigate the crimes.

[High Plains]

115. Community guilt.

Isn't that the logic the Nazis used?

Isn't that the logic of destroying Fallujah?

Isn't that the logic the Israelis use when destroying Palestinian homes?

It's an ugly logic.

[enlightenment]

62. Conspiracy to commit a crime is still a crime, last time I checked.

That, in essence, is guilt by association.

Charles Manson was convicted and sentenced (originally) to death for the Tate/LaBianca murders. But he didn't murder anyone. He did preach a belief system that convinced his followers to do his bidding. They were also convicted and sentenced, for doing his bidding.

Warren Jeffs preached a belief system that convinced his followers to do his bidding. His followers do his bidding. Warren Jeffs is in jail. Why can't we arrest and incarcerate every one of his followers?

Why do we have to wait until another child is impregnated - or another child is born with an incurable genetic disease because of in-breeding? The FLDS has never made any secret of what they believe and there is evidence - physical evidence in the form of children with children - that they practice those beliefs.

[lumpy]

73. It was proved that Charles Manson ordered the canyon

(Tate)murders and was present at the Bianca murders although not in the Bianca residence at the time of the murders.

[High Plains]

100. "Why can't we arrest and incarcerate every one of his followers?"

Wow. Gee, I dunno. Why can't we just execute them? Maybe because we have to find them guilty of something first?

[musette_sf]

42. oh, okay,

it's all right to brainwash them with fear, ignorance and lies against all human dignity and human potential from 0 to puberty.

after THAT, then it might be a problem.

:banghead:

[Wilber_Stool]

54. Yes...............n/t

[musette_sf]

74. are you actually stating

that you think it is okay to brainwash, isolate and abuse children from 0 to puberty?

[Wilber_Stool]

86. No, I'm saying that you can.

You can teach your children to hate Jews, blacks, cops, or mail carriers. You can teach them that the sun orbits the earth. This has been litigated to death. Parents have a wide latitude when it come to what they can teach their children.

[slackmaster]

45. The taxpayers of the State of Texas lose again!

:argh:

[harun]

51. As usual my favorite branch of gov't steps in to protect the rights over-

zealous law enforcement want to take away.

Good job courts!

You don't terrorize a whole community because of one unsubstantiated complaint.

[Zachstar]

83. So its perfectly fine for Children to continue to be raped I guess?

And of course once they are returned they will be given some "Extra" incentive to NEVER go near a phone..

WHAT BULLSHIT!! Shame on you!!

[harun]

96. When did the ruling in the court case come down with guilty for rape?

Oh yah, there isn't even a case for that.

Knee jerker.

[cosmik debris]

55. We want our cops to follow the law, don't we? n/t

[Duke Newcombe]

66. Except when the targets of enforcement are people we don't like. Then fuck the law.

Glad that's cleared up. :sarcasm:


Duke

[Zachstar]

81. They followed the law.

When a report of abuse comes in they have to check it out. Turns out there are pregnant children!

There has been research for years about what sickness places like this can be. The evidence is sound.

[cosmik debris]

99. But the court disagrees with you

Are you recognized by the Texas Bar to practice law in this state?

[Zachstar]

117. The supreme court will overturn that ruling and the BS will end.

[Habibi]

57. This is awful.

And may I ask why the Legal Aid society is "representing the mothers"? Isn't the Legal Aid society for folks who can't afford lawyers?

[Marrah_G]

61. Well the mothers legally have no incomes and aren't married

This is how they can milk the system. They get all the aid. The fathers pay nothing.

[Habibi]

64. Yeah, I know.

And there is a lot of wealth in that compound, but the rest of the taxpaying community is getting ripped off again.

[Zachstar]

80. This is horrific! The court just rubber stamped rape and sexual slavery in my view.

What bullshit! THE CHILDREN WERE PREGNANT!!! What MORE do you need!?

[xioaping]

92. If pregnant children is your standard for removal then

CPS better get busy and take a whole lot more children than just these kids. Are you volunteering to be a foster parent?

[Shipwack]

84. Where are the boys?

Where are the boys?

Even if you believe that there is no evidence of children being abused, and no "forced marriages", my question is...

Where are the boys?

Below the age of 14, the boy/girl ratio is about 50/50.

14 and above, girls outnumber boys three to one.

Where are the boys?

How does a community lose one third of its children, without there being abuse?

Were they murdered? Were they dropped off hundreds of miles away like an unwanted puppy? All this to ensure that a bunch of gutless, cowardly old men could have as many women as they wanted, without any competition.

If the disappearance of one third of a community's children is not evidence of child abuse (as well as the unfitness of that community to be allowed to raise children) then nothing is.

[JeanGrey]

87. How terrible. It figures.

[fascisthunter]

101. Texas is One Messed Up State

why is it that cults seem to find a home in this state so often? Is it because money turns a blind eye to them? Seems the state is more stringent with the law when it comes to allowing cults to do what they want, but if an agency technically goes over the line regarding a law, as many here believe, Texas brings down the "Hammer". Ahh the name.... Hammer.

[DeSwiss]

105. Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown out

Source: (AP)

Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown out

By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 23, 3:18 AM ET

SAN ANGELO, Texas - An appellate court decision upended the custody case that sent more than 440 children from a polygamist sect's ranch into foster care, but it's not clear whether the children might soon return home. The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds under Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther now has 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and keep the children from immediately going back to their parents.

The decision Thursday in one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history was a humiliating defeat for the state Child Protective Services agency. It was hailed as vindication by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who claim they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

"It's a great day for Texas justice. This was the right decision," said Julie Balovich, a Legal Aid attorney for some of the parents. She was joined by several smiling mothers who declined to comment at a news conference outside the courthouse.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

---

- "Immediate danger." Seems to me that at least in this case, the definition of immediate and danger is subjective....
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[Dogtown]

106. Stalling action

The complexity of the social structure of this cult precludes the possibilty of demonstrating "immediate danger". The judge has made a bad call, probably due to personal beliefs or fear of being targeted by the machine these people wield.


Horrendous that this nation genuflects to crackpots that shriek "freedom of religion" to camouflage their perversions. These children have been sacfificed on the alter of expedience.

Hopefully this despicable decision will be overturned by a higher court.


Surely the agency can stall imposition until they can mount an appeal.

[raystorm7]

107. The Pedophiles can rejoice! What happens when you let bad Shit like this fester in your backyard.

[Android3.14]

108. Saw this one coming the morning the story broke

This was incompetence from the point the woman allegedly faked the call to the police to this morning's news that the judge threw out the seizure of the children. It will continue to be stupid from here on out.

If there are kids being sexually abused, the incompetence of a law enforcement system that has little regard for civil liberties, careful investigation or due process has condemned those girls to continued abuse and fated the boys to become abusers.

[xioaping]

109. You have it correct

CPS has a responsibility to do their job in a manner that protects children, not puts them back in danger becuase of CPS blunders.

As an aside that I realize you may not concure with, CPS is very prone to blunder and does it often.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

110. A lot of horny old men just started drooling with the prospect of

getting their preteen tail back soon- gonna be a hot time in the ol' compound tonight!

Ruling or not, it's unconscionable to send those children back. I weep for those poor abused fledglings who will never fly- they'll be forever anchored to the nest by all that suffering and horror.

I weep for us all that such a thing could ever be allowed in America- or anywhere in the world.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Zachstar]

118. It is disgusting that even people here are supporting the courts decision.

They do not care in my view that such a ruling is going to put a SERIOUS doubt on abuse calls in the future. They do not care in my view that child abusers are celebrating the decision. They do not care that because of this decision there is going to be a slew of new abuse situations.

But hey screw the women and children eh? They will get to smoke pot for a few more days.

[High Plains]

125. Hyperventilate much?

[Android3.14]

119. It may not be popular, but....

Many social anthropologists think polygamy benefits women and monogamy benefits men. That is, more men have an opportunity to pass on their genetic material in a monogamous society. Women have a better opportunity to breed with a strong healthy male in a polygamous situation, and benefit from the additional social and environmental protection he might provide.

Essentially the argument goes like this, would a woman be better off if she were the fourth wife of George Clooney or the only wife of Rufus T. Puckerstump.

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-ii-why-most-women-benefit-polygamy-an

I'm not qualified to agree or disagree, but it sure makes one wonder.

[fed_up_mother]

120. Breeding. Lovely.

I'm just a brood mare in search of a better stallion.

[Android3.14]

121. Genes. Evolution. Reptilian brain

I don't know about you, perosnally, but forces beyond our control in general drive the human animal. So while you may be bitter at the thought, (and it is a horrible condition for men and women to have the conscous mind yet still be a biological automaton) I suspect much of our interaction is all about pairing with the best available mate in the area.

There was an experiment a few years ago when a bunch of men wore clean white t-shirts for a 24-hour period. Afterwards, the researchers put the shirts into boxes, except for a single opening. They distributed the boxes to a number of women. Half the boxes went to women who had immune systemes that were similar to the male source. Half went to women with immune systems that were very different.

Offspring from a possible pairing between two very differnet immune systems has a greater chance of fighting diseases than the offspring of similar immune systems.

The women who had the t-wshirts of different immune systems reported that the boxes smelled pleasant, and even reminded them of old boy friends.

The control we think we possess is but an illusion.

[fed_up_mother]

122. Disagree

"The control we think we possess is but an illusion."

I disagree. I realize that there are forces of nature beyond our control, but if we are aware of our natures, we can control much about them. Otherwise, you're just saying that every guy who gets an erection looking at a woman is going to have sex with her. :(

[mbperrin]

123. Right. If there were no control, there would be a constant

barrage of men jumping the perfume counter at JC Penney. I just don't see that happening.

Course the old "devil made me do it" is a GREAT excuse to do wrong shit, ain't it?

[fed_up_mother]

124. Yep, only now it's our "genes"

The new devil. :)

Instead, I believe we actually have thought processes that allows us to overcome much of our "natures" in order make better lives for ourselves and those we love and care about.

[Android3.14]

126. Possibly, but research indicates otherwise

From what I have read, the belief we make decisions is probably an illusion created by our brains in order for us to make sense of what has happened while we were reacting instinctively.

That is, we do things for primarily subconscious/biological reasons determined by our genes and the current environment, and then our minds create a story about our decisions, not because we actually make decisions, but to create a cohesive image of the environment so as to better help the organism adapt and survive.

Now I almost believe and definitely hope there is some core bit of the human animal that is a soul/conscience/self, but I suspect that, if it does exist, it has a lot less ability to direct the organism than we might wish. Remember the story "Runaway Ralph"? The mouse sat on a toy motorcycle and was able to make it go by make engine noises. That might be the metaphor for the human experience. We are mice who joyfully believe that we make the machine go, when all the time it is just a story. In a strictly Darwinian sense, an animal that believes it is in control of itself has, perhaps, a greater chance of reproducing than one that does not hold the belief.

If people did largely control themselves so that they would make decisions that were in their best long-term interest, then the women would never have stayed with the FLDS, it would be a waste of time to groom the boys to propagate the meme, and McDonald's wouldn't be the huge monstrosity we visit all the time.

You misunderstand me if you think I am trying to justify the actions of the FLDS. I'm not. I'm just saying that the reasons the women stayed with the FLDS may have more to do with biology than the supposed villainy of the males in the church.

How much of our feminist attitudes, progressive beliefs, and hostility towards the "other" stems from the genetic advantages and disadvantages provided by our parents and the march of events since we started as an infant to use the opposable thumb?

[mbperrin]

127. I agree. But what do I know? I've only got 3 degrees and 2 decades

of experience teaching adolescents.