0
Zipp0

FLDS Update. Yep, Texas fucked up.

Recommended Posts

One onf the "underage" mothers is 27 years old. I guess clean living makes you look younge?. Also, several other of the "underage" girls are actually adults, undermining claims of widespread abuse. This raid will cost Texas $30 million, and even more after 400 lawsuits.

I just knew Texas would fuck this up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/21/national/main4112735.shtml

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One onf the "underage" mothers is 27 years old. I guess clean living makes you look younge?. Also, several other of the "underage" girls are actually adults, undermining claims of widespread abuse. This raid will cost Texas $30 million, and even more after 400 lawsuits.

I just knew Texas would fuck this up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/21/national/main4112735.shtml



Your double standard of evidence is amusing. You expected absolute proof before action could be taken on the part of the children (who, I might add, were largely unclaimed by any parents at the time of the raid, essentially making them orphans until known otherwise), yet if any of the mothers thought to be underage were not, you seem to assume the whole case was boggled. :S

Thus far, I haven't read anything to indicate that the authorities did not do right by the kids.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

One onf the "underage" mothers is 27 years old. I guess clean living makes you look younge?. Also, several other of the "underage" girls are actually adults, undermining claims of widespread abuse. This raid will cost Texas $30 million, and even more after 400 lawsuits.

I just knew Texas would fuck this up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/21/national/main4112735.shtml



You might look at the age of the children involved and take the mother's age (today) and by simple subtraction, many of the mothers were under-age either at the time of conception or birth of the child. Another thing... where are the fathers? Only a small number of fathers have stepped forward. CPS, stepped in because of an anonymous phone call. What if, they hadn't responded? Had they said; 'it was just an anonymous call and didn't respond, what would the reaction be to that? So far, no criminal charges have been filed. The case(s) are still, in the invetigative stage. Texas has not 'fucked-up' just yet.


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to CNN right now, Texas had no right to take the prepubescent children. They did not demonstrate that there was any immediate danger to the health or welfare of these children. From what I've heard of the case thus far, I think I agree with the court's ruling.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to CNN right now, Texas had no right to take the prepubescent children. They did not demonstrate that there was any immediate danger to the health or welfare of these children. From what I've heard of the case thus far, I think I agree with the court's ruling.

Blues,
Dave



Looks to be a real Catch-22 in that regard, as jcd said up-thread.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to CNN right now, Texas had no right to take the prepubescent children. They did not demonstrate that there was any immediate danger to the health or welfare of these children. From what I've heard of the case thus far, I think I agree with the court's ruling.

Blues,
Dave



Yep -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

According to CNN right now, Texas had no right to take the prepubescent children. They did not demonstrate that there was any immediate danger to the health or welfare of these children. From what I've heard of the case thus far, I think I agree with the court's ruling.

Blues,
Dave



Looks to be a real Catch-22 in that regard, as jcd said up-thread.



Not really...he was talking about having absolute proof of guilt. I'm talking about having substantiated suspicion and/or probable cause. You can't just take some kids because they might later be subject to abuse. You should have to show that the potential is real and so immediate as to justify action without a trial. If the potential only exists some years in the future, normal adjudication should be required prior to action.

Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree - but where do you draw that line?

If you get all the kids out and it turns out to be a false alarm, everyone says 'they went too far' (Zippo, above). If you don't get the kids out and it turns out to be true, then 'they didn't go far enough'.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't disagree - but where do you draw that line?

If you get all the kids out and it turns out to be a false alarm, everyone says 'they went too far' (Zippo, above). If you don't get the kids out and it turns out to be true, then 'they didn't go far enough'.



The court just drew the line for you.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't disagree - but where do you draw that line?



That seems to be a question that's still unresolved. Per the article cited above there still 23 assumed underage mothers in state custody (because they won't give ages or names). How many does it take?

Another linked article from the same source notes that "... many fathers have refused DNA testing, worried that the state might try and prove they fathered children with underage girls and press criminal charges.”

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote




That seems to be a question that's still unresolved. Per the article cited above there still 23 assumed underage mothers .......



I suppose I don't have to remind you about the old saying about assuming? So far, many, if not most of the Texas CPS assumptions have been invalid, and a court has ruled that they violated Texas law.

As I said from the very beginning, they handled this completely wrong.:|

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAving not had the opportunity to actually read the court's opinion, I got this quote from the Yahoo news article posted by Zippo:

Quote

The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said.

It also failed to show evidence that more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.



The first point - no imminent danger. This means that the evidence was insufficient to show it. Not necessarioy that there was NO imminent danger, just not enough proof. So, they should have taken it before a judge and got a court order authorizing the taking of the children. The court said that the CPS and Rangers just takign the kids did not pass legal muster.

The second point - apparently there is only evidence about 5 being abused. It sounds like the court is saying that each of these kids should be treated as individuals. If there is evidence that 5 are being abused, then one would think those five should be removed.

I'd compare it to a police sweep of a housing project. Let's say there is evidence that there are 5 juvenile actively selling drugs in a housing project, and they get their names. Knowing there must be more juveniles involved in drug dealing there, the police sweep the complex and take into custody everybody there between the ages of 10 and 19.

There is a BIG problem with that. It's the thing about "guilt by association." Our police shouldn't be involved with taking everybody who may possibly be involved.

That's really the tough thing.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with that court's ruling and suspect that an appeal may already be in process.

The Texas Rangers and CPS acted reasonably and did the right thing, imo.

Unresolved illegal behavior remains including but not limited to the 23 suspected underage girls with children who have not revealed their ages, the "fathers [who] have refused DNA testing, worried that the state might try and prove they fathered children with underage girls and press criminal charges,” and criminal sexual abuse, which you may be able to discount and dismiss for whatever your personal reasons are, I won't.


/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Texas Rangers and CPS acted reasonably and did the right thing, imo.



They may very well have done the right, in once sense. The problem is, they may very well have done the right thing illegally. We must look at the rules, and the rules are there to protect even those suspected of child abuse.

Quote

Unresolved illegal behavior remains including but not limited to the 23 suspected underage girls with children who have not revealed their ages



Indeed. This is a serious problem. If even ONE of them is an adult, then there is a problem. Imagine one who is 25 with three kids, ages 4-1. She's done nothing wrong, is in custody, and separated from her kids.

The rules on governmental intervention are dignitary in nature. Let us not harm the dignity of the innocents in order to get to the guilty.

Quote

which you may be able to discount and dismiss for whatever your personal reasons are, I won't.



I don't dismiss it any more than I dismiss the wrongful acts of a government. I've helped people who have been on the wrong side of a government trying to protect them. I've helped people accused of being wrongdoers who did nothing wrong.

I cannot simply tolerate that.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We must look at the rules, and the rules are there to protect even those suspected of child abuse.



I agree and that's why I would support an appeal, working through the rule of law ... as the Texas Rangers and CPS have been over the last 2 months.

The difference here is that you are not advocating for proecting child abusers, even suspected ones, and discounting protection of minors who happen to largely be girls.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read me:
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=16865

Some selected quotes:
Quote

Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children is an extreme measure. It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of the children involved. However, it is a step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary. See id. (4)

Section 262.201 further requires the Department, when it has taken children into custody on an emergency basis, to make a showing of specific circumstances that justify keeping the children in the Department's temporary custody pending full litigation of the question of permanent custody. Unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of each of the requirements of section 262.201(b), the court is required to return the children to the custody of their parents. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201(b).


Quote

In this case, the Department relied on the following evidence with respect to the children taken into custody from the Yearning For Zion ranch to satisfy the requirements of section 262.201:

•Interviews with investigators revealed a pattern of girls reporting that "there was no age too young for girls to be married";

•Twenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen;

•Five of the twenty females identified as having become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen are alleged to be minors, the other fifteen are now adults;

•Of the five minors who became pregnant, four are seventeen and one is sixteen, and all five are alleged to have become pregnant at the age of fifteen or sixteen; (5)

•The Department's lead investigator was of the opinion that due to the "pervasive belief system" of the FLDS, the male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse;

•All 468 children (6) were removed from the ranch under the theory that the ranch community was "essentially one household comprised of extended family subgroups" with a single, common belief system and there was reason to believe that a child had been sexually abused in the ranch "household"; and

•Department witnesses expressed the opinion that there is a "pervasive belief system" among the residents of the ranch that it is acceptable for girls to marry, engage in sex, and bear children as soon as they reach puberty, and that this "pervasive belief system" poses a danger to the children.


In addition, the record demonstrates the following facts, which are undisputed by the Department:

The only danger to the male children or the female children who had not reached puberty identified by the Department was the Department's assertion that the "pervasive belief system" of the FLDS community groomed the males to be perpetrators of sexual abuse later in life and taught the girls to submit to sexual abuse after reaching puberty;

There was no evidence that the male children, or the female children who had not reached puberty, were victims of sexual or other physical abuse or in danger of being victims of sexual or other physical abuse;

•While there was evidence that twenty females had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, there was no evidence regarding the marital status of these girls when they became pregnant or the circumstances under which they became pregnant other than the general allegation that the girls were living in an FLDS community with a belief system that condoned underage marriage and sex; (7)

There was no evidence that any of the female children other than the five identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen were victims or potential victims of sexual or other physical abuse;

•With the exception of the five female children identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen, there was no evidence of any physical abuse or harm to any other child;

•The Relators have identified their children among the 468 taken into custody by the Department, and none of the Relators' children are among the five the Department has identified as being pregnant minors; and

•The Department conceded at the hearing that teenage pregnancy, by itself, is not a reason to remove children from their home and parents, but took the position that immediate removal was necessary in this case because "there is a mindset that even the young girls report that they will marry at whatever age, and that it's the highest blessing they can have to have children."



Quote

The Department argues that the fact that there are five minor females living in the ranch community who became pregnant at ages fifteen and sixteen together with the FLDS belief system condoning underage marriage and pregnancy indicates that there is a danger to all of the children that warrants their immediate removal from their homes and parents, and that the need for protection of the children is urgent. (8) The Department also argues that the "household" to which the children would be returned includes persons who have sexually abused another child, because the entire Yearning For Zion ranch community is a "household." See id. § 262.201(d)(2).



Quote

Finally, there was no evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the removal of any of Relators' children. The evidence is that the Department went to the Yearning For Zion ranch to investigate a distress call from a sixteen year-old girl. (12) After interviewing a number of children, they concluded that there were five minors who were or had been pregnant and that the belief system of the community allowed minor females to marry and bear children. They then removed all of the children in the community (including infants) from their homes and ultimately separated the children from their parents. This record does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the Department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children of Relators.


That's the thing. There was no evidence of any danger whatsoever to boys or prepubescent girls. And they were all taken.

That is my problem. The taking of every last one of them, despite there being no danger to most of them. Even though there was ZERO evidence of abuse or even threat of abuse for all but five of them.

That five number is a big number, and they should be handled appropriately. But the other 440 or so should not be treated as if that were the case. Yeah, a six month old boy is in danger of sexual abuse. Let's take him because these people are freaks.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


you may be able to discount and dismiss for whatever your personal reasons are, I won't.

/Marg



No personal reason, other than the fact that the state took all of the kids without justifying it legally. Anytime the state take 468 kids from anyone over a prank phone call, I worry.

As I have said before - maybe there is some abuse, but prosecute those cases, not an entire group - and have proof, not heresay and rumour. If individual abuses were documented and adjudicated individualy, there could have been some progress. All this did was ensure no raids for another 50 years.

Way to go, Texas.:|

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you know what the age of consent is in Texas? 16 and 17 y/o girls here in Arkansas can have sex with anyone they choose to.

It sounds like there are more than 5 who were likely victims of abuse, though only 5 were pregnant. I'd guess any girl who had reached puberty was at significant risk of being sexually abused. Sounds like they're the ones who most needed protection.
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Age of consent in TX is 17, but it's considered an affirmative defense if the age difference is 3 years or less and no force/duress is used (i.e., a 16 yo girl can legally have sex with a 13 yo boy if she doesn't force him into it......) The TX statute excludes husband/wife relationships in re the age of consent. AFIK TX allows marriages at 18 w/o parental consent and at 16 with. Some states allow kids to marry as young as 13 under certain circumstances, so if a happy couple were to move from one of those states (NH is one) to Texas, they would be excluded from prosecution. It's doubtful that very many people from the FLDS ranch, even ones age 18+, were legally married though.
---------------

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

We must look at the rules, and the rules are there to protect even those suspected of child abuse.



I agree and that's why I would support an appeal, working through the rule of law ... as the Texas Rangers and CPS have been over the last 2 months.

The difference here is that you are not advocating for proecting child abusers, even suspected ones, and discounting protection of minors who happen to largely be girls.

VR/Marg



You have been proven wrong, and an appeal will prove you wrong agian!!!!!!!! ;);););) When the feds turn your life inside out, who will fight for you??????;)

And you never did tell me how full of water the room is!:D:D:D:D:D

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Texas supreme court just ruled the kids must be returned.

Everything is bigger in Texas, even fuck ups!



This isn't the first time that CPS here in Texas has jumped the gun. For awhile, I thought, there just might be a case here. The way it was all handled though, any 'case', just went down the toilet.
At Warren Jeffs' trial, his (now grown) nephew, testified that Jeffs hand sexually molested him on several occasions when the nephew was 8-yrs. old. Fortunately, Jeffs is in prison.
This particular case in Texas, was just handled wrong,


Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you know what the age of consent is in Texas? 16 and 17 y/o girls here in Arkansas can have sex with anyone they choose to.

It sounds like there are more than 5 who were likely victims of abuse, though only 5 were pregnant. I'd guess any girl who had reached puberty was at significant risk of being sexually abused. Sounds like they're the ones who most needed protection.



How can you say it was abuse? These girls could have done what many young girls do with young boys when no one is looking, everyone had the chance when they were young teens and some took it and got preggo. That can and will happen with people.....and I suspect many opps for that on a big ranch with hundreds of horny teens.;) Think again.;)

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Texas law enforcement didn't fuck up as much as CPS did. Then again my opinion of that agency has been VERY low for a few years now. They won't intervene in cases with young (under 5yr old) children in a household that is violent, selling crack cocaine and with hard core drug use in the house. Even after each parent is arrested for reasonably major drug offenses Texas CPS takes no action. They simply state they send back a pleasant letter that states "thank you for your concern..." and "the department has decided through our investigation not to take any further action." Basically that Texas CPS believes that it would be traumatic to remove those young children from an incredible unhealthy and dangerous situation.

Now CPS has blown their yearly budget on something that probably needed to be done, but was done incorrectly and we're going to be left with more children who desperately need help who won't get it. Furthermore, other state agencies will suffer as well due to the soon to be announced and impending budget crisis.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0