Posted on 05/29/2008 9:43:07 AM PDT by MizSterious
You're kidding, right?
I can’t recall the number of children that were removed, but if it was 400, and only 38 women are involved having children returned, then that would mean each woman had 10 and 1/2 children. If some of these women or teenagers are only 14, 16, 18, etc., I think that is impossible for one of them to have that many.
You are correct as I see it and I agree.
The big problem is the state has presented no evidence about physical or sexual danger to any one child just to the group as a whole because of their beliefs.
There is what the case hangs on can you use danger to a group not the individual.
Maybe she can write a book about how the court was wrong.
Maybe if Mr. Jessop had been more truthful, Texas would have known how deep the water was. Instead, he lied, telling the sheriff that only 120 people lived on the compound, not 600+.
Would you please cite the source of your information that there were 700 LEOs and tanks. Thank you.
Thats’ fine for kids born in hospitals
It would apply in this case as well:
“Such testing was necessary because FLDS members and the medical personnel who attend at their births routinely fail to file birth certificates” (emphasis mine)
Or go on John Stewart again.
so how long ago did he ask him
The sheriff has spoke about flying over taking pictures.
I would think taking pictures from the air should give you an idea how many there is.
Also the sheriff has stated he has been out to ranch 3 or 4 times in last year seems he should have some idea of how many were there from that. Heck most Leo types claim to be a trained observer.
so how long ago did he ask him
The sheriff has spoke about flying over taking pictures.
I would think taking pictures from the air should give you an idea how many there is.
Also the sheriff has stated he has been out to ranch 3 or 4 times in last year seems he should have some idea of how many were there from that. Heck most Leo types claim to be a trained observer.
She ignores the Statutory burdens of proof required of the CPS with respect to each child, and she ignores the Statutory requirement that the CPS meet its burden of proof with respect to each child within 14 days of the taking of each child:
"Second, the lower courts had already begun individual hearings to reunite some parents with their children, under CPS family service agreements – thus mooting the appeal with reference to these children. Those lower court judges, with the benefit of individualized evidence, were in a far better position to assess the potential harm to each individual child and to craft terms of reunion in a way so as to protect the children."
That's what the trial court was SUPPOSED to do with respect to each child within 14 days. Apparently that little statutory prescription doesn't mean anything to Marci.
Here she simply assumes in a conclusory manner evidence not adduced at trial with respect to each and every child:
every child is in danger in both the real sect and in the two hypotheticals, and state officials should be given the latitude necessary to secure their safety. The facts establish that the FLDS is a fundamentally lawless group, which has no respect for marriage laws, rape laws, child abuse laws, or even the legal requirements governing birth certificates. (Others who have escaped from the organization detail welfare fraud and child labor law violations as well.) As currently constituted, they offer no environment for children, period.
The CPS appeal is as pathetic as this article. If the S.C. sees it the way I do, The CPS is going to lose at the S.C. level, too. Their appeal consists of a lot of flailing around and more impromptu excuses for their own monumental screw-up. They are still reprehensibly using hundreds of young children that they have traumatized and continue to traumatize to do nothing other than stall for time.
Cordially,
The “abandonment/neglect” issue of the boys has never been part of this. Rather, the argument was that the FLDS were “grooming” the boys to be sex offenders by telling them it was okay to enter into “marriages” with underage girls.
I hope so too--they need to direct the State to file criminal kidnapping charges against the CPS goons.
If they disagree with you they are not clear eyed?
susie
Separately on Thursday, the ACLU of Texas filed a brief supporting the parents’ claim and raising concerns that parents were not given an opportunity to be considered individually in the chaotic two-day custody hearing that resulted in the children going to foster care.
http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/670723.html
The law is pretty clear but not followed.
Are you sure? I know it’s required for kids to have a SS number for their parents to claim them as dependents when filing an income tax return, but but that’s not the same thing as being required to have one, period.
Because the statute is so clear. If they come down differently than the Court of Appeals it will be because they are so determined to get a particular result that they are willing to stretch the language of the statute beyond any reasonable interpretation.
Two questions in regard to your post. Would you then be against laws against polygamy? (I may have misunderstood what you said, but I take you to mean you think it’s wrong to legislate against religious values—please clarify if I misunderstood).
Second, are you also then, against laws that disallow say, homosexual marriage?
susie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.