Nightingale 0 #176 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteOf course they do. They are protected from search and seizure without due process. They had their day in court and got due process. Also, it's a practical matter. Since the kids won't tell them who their parents are, and the parents won't ID their kids, the state needs to know who to return the child to. Hmm...I thought they needed probable cause related to a crime, not just "due process", but this is your arena, not mine. Blues, Dave The children aren't suspects, so probably all that's required is the consent of whoever currently has custody of them, in this case CPS. Under the Texas code, CPS can bring an action to "adjudicate parentage", and then the court can order DNA tests as evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #177 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteOf course they do. They are protected from search and seizure without due process. They had their day in court and got due process. Also, it's a practical matter. Since the kids won't tell them who their parents are, and the parents won't ID their kids, the state needs to know who to return the child to. Hmm...I thought they needed probable cause related to a crime, not just "due process", but this is your arena, not mine. Blues, Dave The children aren't suspects, so probably all that's required is the consent of whoever currently has custody of them, in this case CPS. Under the Texas code, CPS can bring an action to "adjudicate parentage", and then the court can order DNA tests as evidence. So the children aren't suspects, but they're subject to the search and seizure. I guess I just don't understand how it works. If the cops came to me and told me I wasn't suspected of any crimes but that I was subject to mandatory DNA testing anyhow, I'd call foul, and I'd at least have the opportunity to resist in court. It doesn't sound like these children have that option...the cops say give us some of your DNA and they have to even if they know who their parents are (or at least as much as they want to). Meh, I think the whole thing is whacked. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #178 April 22, 2008 You could tell the cops no. Children don't have the same rights as adults. Their parents, guardians, or the court can consent to something on their behalf, because they are not mature enough to decide in the eyes of the law. They have court appointed advocates to make sure their interests are represented. Can you imagine the mess if the state returned a child to someone who wasn't that child's parent? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #179 April 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteOf course they do. They are protected from search and seizure without due process. They had their day in court and got due process. Also, it's a practical matter. Since the kids won't tell them who their parents are, and the parents won't ID their kids, the state needs to know who to return the child to. Hmm...I thought they needed probable cause related to a crime, not just "due process", but this is your arena, not mine. Blues, Dave The children aren't suspects, so probably all that's required is the consent of whoever currently has custody of them, in this case CPS. Under the Texas code, CPS can bring an action to "adjudicate parentage", and then the court can order DNA tests as evidence. So the children aren't suspects, but they're subject to the search and seizure. I guess I just don't understand how it works. If the cops came to me and told me I wasn't suspected of any crimes but that I was subject to mandatory DNA testing anyhow, I'd call foul, and I'd at least have the opportunity to resist in court. It doesn't sound like these children have that option...the cops say give us some of your DNA and they have to even if they know who their parents are (or at least as much as they want to). Meh, I think the whole thing is whacked. Blues, Dave The government is doing nothing but terrorizing these people to no end and they are abusing the current laws to do so. And too, they are being housed in an arena with police to keep them in there. It looks more like a concentration camp complete with Nazi Brownshirts-they are really wearing brown uniforms!!!!!!! It is only a matter of time before the mothers who are with their children, the children who have not seen their parents and the guards start to get tired and frustrated. I suspect the women will be ones to resist first. I guess we will see women in prairie dresses on TV take a beating they will not soon forget. This is a sign of the times as to what will be coming in the future. I am so happy they did not go in there like Waco and kill all of them. But then again, this was a local cop raid, not Federal. They will try to use the DNA “evidence” against the adults no doubt. I wonder how that will play out? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #180 April 22, 2008 Quote You could tell the cops no. Children don't have the same rights as adults. Which is what I asked in my original question, i.e. whether children were subject to constitutional protections. (or at least that's what I meant to ask...I haven't gone back to see how I worded it). Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #181 April 22, 2008 Quote Quote You could tell the cops no. Children don't have the same rights as adults. Which is what I asked in my original question, i.e. whether children were subject to constitutional protections. (or at least that's what I meant to ask...I haven't gone back to see how I worded it). Blues, Dave The government has taken custody of the children and has waived the children’s rights in what they think is good faith decision making on behalf of the child. They have taken the decision away from the parents. All too easy to do in the state of Texas. Or at least in the case. Sometimes it is used justly, and sometimes not. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #182 April 22, 2008 Quote Which is what I asked in my original question, i.e. whether children were subject to constitutional protections. (or at least that's what I meant to ask...I haven't gone back to see how I worded it). Yes, children do have Constitutional protections - right to personhood; right to existence free from sexual, physical, or extreme mental abuse; and right to not be forced into marriage as a minor, to not be forced to have sex as a minor, etc. In this case, the State laws are also at play or more prominent, where the explicit prohibitions to abridgement of those rights are delineated. If there is probable cause, i.e., based on material seized during execution of the search warrant or based on observations during execution of the search warrant, then the children (or adults) may be compelled to give DNA evidence. The State is arguing that they are acting in the interest of the children, rather than attempting to use DNA evidence against them, which would be the case for some of the adults. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #183 May 6, 2008 From the new data, it appears in wasn't all 50 year old men marrying 14 year old girls. It seems to be pretty far from that, actually. Most of the kids will likely head home in June. http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9165683 -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #184 May 6, 2008 I found this snippet interesting Quote Until 2005, Texas allowed girls as young as 14 to marry with a parent's permission; in September of that year, the age was increased to 16. In Texas, residents can legally consent to sex at age 17. So, a parent can marry off their kid at 16 but the kid can't legally consent to sex until they're 17? Does the spouse become the legal guardian of the 16 year old when they're married and does that give him/her the right to consent for their underage spouse? Or can a spouse be arrested for having sex with the underage spouse?I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #185 May 11, 2008 So now that the FLDS men are not being arrested and charged by the dozens for all the things the media and government was dreaming up, where do you now stand on you point of veiw? Did the government do right? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
