Texas Supreme Court Challenges Incest Taboo Scoop/Collins

[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

[blondeatlast]

1. I've often wondered how there could NOT be any incest involved in this.

It started with two men and has blossomed to over, what, 400 in the Texas sect alone?

But God forbid we should let consenting adults get married to each other--that threatens my straight marriage... :sarcasm:

[autorank]

2. Really

Yep, they'll blame everyone but the creeps who do it and the truly creepy judges.

Who could tolerate these guys in 'polite' company after abandoning these children like this
when they had the power to free them?

[roguevalley]

8. Lord, has texas lost its minds?

[Me.]

3. The Question I've Had Throughout This Debacle

Isn't polygamy illegal? Why is it allowed to go on? Enforce that law and the other problems go away.

[blondeatlast]

4. They don't legally marry.

They enter into "spiritual partnerships" not recognized by the governments.

[lightningandsnow]

22. I hate to sound like an FDLS apologist, but...

I think they should be convicted of whatever they're guilty of - rape, child abuse, extortion, whatever else. Not polygamy. I feel like saying all they did wrong was have more than one wife, when they did such horrible things, almost trivializes their crimes. Plus, it's insulting to all the people who are in consensual, egalitarian non-monogamous relationships with consenting adults. A lot of people are polyamorous, swingers, or in open relationships, and that doesn't mean they go around beating their seven 13-year-old wives. Having been in non-traditional relationships myself (although I'm naturally more monogamous), I can't fathom putting someone in jail simply for having a sexual relationship with more than one person at a time (or only charging child abusers with that, as if being non-monogamous is the only thing they're guilty of.)

[blondeatlast]

29. It's simply not possible to convict them of polygamy since the "marriages"

were PURPOSEFULLY not legally recognized.

They are married in the eyes of theri church but not in the eyes of the law.

The multiple marriage thing is fine by me--the statutory rape and abandonment of the young males--you better believe I have a problem with that.

[reprehensor]

5. Creepy.

Super creepy. It must have been weird for these culties to meet real people with uncooked brains.

[autorank]

7. You know, I hadn't thought of that

The exposure of the evacuated children foster families would have to create a real set of
contradictions. They probably had a lot more flexibility, etc. I'd like to hear more about
that.

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. They envy us our freedoms, you know.... The Iraqis could learn from Mr Jeffs,

couldn't they, Messrs justices?

If they weren't judges, I imagine they could become liable for prosecution for being accessories before and after what perverted acts may now take place against those children.

It's like the UK, Mike, you never know when it's hit rock-bottom. You are always surprised that each new enormity is exceeded the next day.

[autorank]

9. The judges as "accessories before and after the fact"

That is the precise wording - which I missed - but will use in a response at a few other forums where
the snarks have shown up - you know, the "skeptics" who say they have to be returned because nothing
was proven.

Of course, the purpose of child protective legislation and functions is to secure the child's safety
given a reasonable suspicion that abuse is taking place. It's a cult. The cult leader engages is
convicted of sexual abuse and child rape. And the child protective workers found evidence on site
of broader implementation of the "Jeffs paradigm" for child rearing. Any child subject to that,
the underage girls, plus any child exposed to that environment, is at risk. Yet that wasn't enough
for the "accessories before and after the fact."

Thank you for the elegant phrasing!

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Well, Mike, I just think it might be the specific term for the breach of the law that

appears to me to be concerned here, though I'm not a lawyer. I'm very pleased that you find it apt. As I say, it strikes me that way. As I read recently, sexual penetration by way of rape/paedophilia is, in most cases, tantamount to murder. The poor victim's life can become deranged, their future happiness, taken away from them.

While those justices are the very people who should be standing as the children's last line of defence against such predators.

[windoe]

10. What a surprise

all the evidence points in another direction. I have never understood how cults can be legal, they are not religions by any stretch of the imagination. Public backlash indeed, hopefully.

[autorank]

11. If it's illegal, just call it something else

There is more than enough evidence here to have a strong suspicion that child abuse is taking place on a major scale. That argues to take the kids out and investigate and also to take them all out, since the activity is harmful to both children victimized directly and vicariously. But hey, we just thought it through. The judges get paid to be total nitwits and call it law.

I'm hoping this will be a starting point to respond to the garbage these courts are putting out.

[Thothmes]

16. How are they not religious

[Wizard777]

12. CPS is guilty of mental or emotional injury to a child.

being forcefully (at gun point)taken from their parents is one of the most traumatic things a child can experience. So who protects the children from CPS?

[Phred42]

13. Those Wackey Texas Republicans

They have a different definition of 'FAMILY VALUES' down there, dont' they!?


And - they' against GAY MARRIAGE!

Republicans are loosing what little bit of their minds they had left.



:popcorn:

[autorank]

15. It's the 'leets

The judges and politicians live in this nether world of doing whatever they want. We see it all the
time here. Parry and his crew have been virtually unchallenged for years. Now we'll see what happens
when a few of these judges are up for election in 2008. I'll bet the people of Texas from all political persuasions send the Court a message.

Wasn't it Dan Quayle who said: "A mind is a terrible thing to lose."

[Phred42]

24. Here's to hopin'

:toast:

[autorank]

25. Maybe a break

The Judge overruled by the Texas Supremes, has to turn over the kids after normal procedures are
completed. Well, nothing is normal for the cult - they won't produce ID or something simple like that
(you know, prove that they're the parents).

Judge is not amused:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3372661&mesg_id=3372661

Which means the Texas Supreme Court gets another chance to do the right thing or show their back
side again. If they do, the next headline will be:

Texas Supreme Court Affirms Sacrifices to Molech

:toast:

[Phred42]

28. They don't have to show ID to get the kids - but have to show ID to Vote?

:spank:

[autorank]

30. rofl

OK, I give;)

[uppityperson]

17. Regarding Warren Jeffs, checking into other stat rape charges against him

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700230555,00.html
Fundamentalist LDS Church leader Warren Jeffs is accused of "spiritually" marrying more underage girls in a search warrant seeking his DNA.

"Warren Jeffs sexually assaulted a 12-year-old child ... on or about July 27, 2006, in Schleicher County, Texas," Kingman, Ariz., police officer Dennis Gilbert wrote in the warrant. A copy of the warrant was obtained by the Deseret News on Friday. The warrant's affidavit was co-signed by David L. Boatright, the chief of the criminal investigations division for the Texas Attorney General's Office. A DNA sample was collected from Jeffs at the Mohave County Jail in Kingman, Ariz., on Thursday. It included a pair of cheek swabs and digital photos of the process.
(clip)
Affiant has learned from investigators that Warren Jeffs 'married' two other children at the YFZ Ranch in addition to his purported marriage to (named removed) and (name removed)," Gilbert wrote. Records seized from the YFZ Ranch also indicate Jeffs married a 14-year-old while at the FLDS property, the affidavit said. A marriage in April 2005 suggests another girl was 12.

"Based on all of the above, affiant believes that Warren Jeffs has committed the felony offense of sexual assault of a child," Gilbert wrote, adding that Texas authorities were seeking DNA samples to help determine whether Jeffs fathered any children born to underage mothers...

[lightningandsnow]

23. Ewwww.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

18. Just wait till the DNA tests come back.

I'm assuming they can't return the children until the DNA tests are completed to establish incest.

One girl was on 60 Minutes who had escaped several years ago. She had been forced to marry her first cousin when she was 15. She said she had four miscarriages. This would indicate to me that there were serious genetic defects present in she and her cousin.

She later married an unrelated man and had two healthy children.

[autorank]

19. You're a logical, thinking person

And you would assume that no return would be thinkable before DNA was complete.

But that's not the case. For 130 of the children, the word is go back now, no delay. This
move makes it easier, according to observers, to get the other 327 back to the compound as
well. That, among many things, is why this is so outrageous.

We re truly in the most decadent period of our history when this decision can be handed down
and the judges remain untouched by public criticism. The media is now playing "skeptic."
It's just dreadful.

But good point. That's what we all think, unless we're art of the cult that runs things.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. Yeah, I try to be logical.

I have a biology degree and a law degree.

But I still think they should not return the children, any of them, until the DNA tests come back.

The trial judge in the case refused to sign the agreed order on Friday afternoon. She may well accept more conditions that the families must agree to, as asked for by CPS, before she signs the order.

[autorank]

21. Thanks for that info on the trial judge

Good for her. Hope she sticks it to those Supremes.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to allow reunions.

But necessary means it precedes the reunions.

Those judges :dunce: need to take Logic 101.

[LisaL]

26. TX supreme court haven't challenged any incest taboos, because

incest allegation has never come up as to why CPS removed the children.

[tomreedtoon]

27. When did Texas outlaw incest? A couple months ago?

Seems to me, whenever I speak to someone that is overly and chauvinistically proud of Texas, that incest has been a going business there for decades. Long before Woody Allen made it acceptable for Manhattanites.