Judge says FLDS children will stay in custody, orders DNA tests

The Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 04/19/2008 | Brooke Adams and Kristen Moulton

[ricks_place]

SAN ANGELO, Texas - In a swift end to a trying, emotional hearing, a Texas judge said Friday night that 416 children are better off in state custody than with their parents, who belong to a controversial polygamous sect.

If the parents are ever to get their children back, they will have to provide a safe environment, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther told about 75 mothers and fathers of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The Texas Child Protective Services used just four witnesses to persuade the judge that a polygamous community where underage girls sometimes marry is a threat to all children.

The ruling came two weeks after authorities raided the sect's ranch nearEldorado and five years after the FLDS, based on the Utah-Arizona border, expanded to western Texas.

CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the department will move fast to place the children in foster homes or in customized arrangements as recommended by a psychiatrist who told the judge traditional foster care would be "destructive." She added that children will be placed with relatives only if appropriate.

FLDS women sat motionless inside Walther's courtroom as she issued her ruling. Afterward, they huddled with attorneys, listening as the decision was explained, somber but showing no anger.

Inside the City Hall auditorium one block away,

[the808bass]

They can charge the men with specific crimes, but the kids belong with their mothers, who have done nothing wrong at all.

Incorrect. If a mother allows a child to be in a dangerous environment, she will not be allowed to get her child back without removing herself from the situation. This happens a thousand times a day across the country.

Mom gets new boyfriend. Boyfriend is a convicted sex offender. DFS says "Hey, can't have a convicted sex offender in the house with your kids. Make a change or lose your kids." Happens all the time. But you knew that, too.

It is not a busybody to protect those who cannot protect themselves. That is the essence of American liberty. It is what makes our country great.

You have some personal anger on this subject. I'm sorry for that. I hope that gets better for you, honestly. If you'd prefer to not discuss this with me, that's fine. Or if you'd rather do it over Freepmail that's fine as well.

[JasonC]

And therefore, if no one says they were abused in any way, it is proof they were, because absence of evidence is evidence of presence, especially if we are smearing somebody professionally. It is just ludicruous. It would support jailing you for any lurid fantasy of any third party who chooses to smear you.

[the808bass]

They establish that underage marriage is common there, believably so. They do not establish that it is a "rape cult",

By underage marriage, you mean marriage of teenagers to well-advanced adults? In their forties? We may have a different definition of what the problem is, then. If you mean that they establish that teenagers are marrying teenagers, they establish nothing of the kind. To the contrary, they detail countless examples of teenagers being given to much older men. That is rape. As these marriages are not just accidental accretions to the theology, but are the reason for the cult's very existence, it is not at all improper to label it a rape cult. It's quite accurate.

Try "Under the Banner of Heaven." It's relatively a quick read.

[JasonC]

"a dangerous environment" - now the essence of American liberty is for the state to be able to do whatever it likes to anyone, by first merely alleging that their environment is dangerous. And yes, busybodies pretending to protect people who *don't want to be protected, except from such busybodies*, are Nazis. If anyone there is oppressed, they will come tell you about it, with specifics. This whole thing supposedly started with such a legit basis, now that has been entirely abandoned and instead we are treated to this no specific allegation witchhunt by self appointed crusading Nazis. It is ludicruous, and it will collapse of its own stupidity and arrogance and high handedness.

[the808bass]

And therefore, if no one says they were abused in any way, it is proof they were, because absence of evidence is evidence of presence, especially if we are smearing somebody professionally. It is just ludicruous. It would support jailing you for any lurid fantasy of any third party who chooses to smear you.

Yes, you make a good point. But given the previous actions that have been established as common to cult, given the obfuscation of children's names and ages (which they have been coached in), and given the presence of pregnant teenage girls, it's not a huge leap to remove the kids for investigation.

If Texas is wrong, it will help pay for a massive compound the likes unseen in our country. Rest assured of that. I don't think that's the likely outcome. I will be happy to eat crow if they are exonerated.

[JasonC]

No, it is not quite accurate, because the smear of "rape" is deliberately being used equivocally, to suggest a serious crime of violence and lack of consent, when all that is happening is a minor difference in mores occasionally, and no, it isn't "the whle reason for the cult's existence", that is transparently to practice polygamy, which isn't violent rape. Instead we have people who are ideologically opposed to polygamy, conducting religious persecution of a dissenting sect, by smearing them all as violent rapists. Which is transparent buncomb, because the supposed victims aren't running for rescue, except from the crusading "rescuers".

[the808bass]

"a dangerous environment"

Do you disagree that having a sex offender in the same home is a dangerous environment?

[JasonC]

No, you won't. And no, it won't. It will smear to the last. But the kids will be returned to their mothers, because they have done nothing wrong. And all the ridiculous pretence that they deserve to lose them because they tolerated an "unsafe environment", which is the purest statist and Nazi kidnapping scheme, will collapse utterly, the moment a jury not a judge hears the *women*, instead of the spinning social worker Nazis.

[the808bass]

No, it is not quite accurate, because the smear of "rape" is deliberately being used equivocally, to suggest a serious crime of violence and lack of consent, when all that is happening is a minor difference in mores occasionally

If you are not legal age to give consent, you cannot give consent legally. It is rape. It should be rape. The theology of the group demands that the girls "consent." That is coercion. Also, the definition of rape. (sniff, sniff - I smell something, the picture is becoming clearer)

[JasonC]

I think any world with people like you in it is a dangerous environment, I think the state of Texas is a dangerous environment, with lots of kidnappers walking around proud of themselves in broad daylight is a dangerous environment, and I think the kids will go right back to their mothers five minutes after such mothers are allowed on a witness stand.

[the808bass]

the moment a jury not a judge hears the *women*, instead of the spinning social worker Nazis.

I take it you're not from Texas. And I take it you think the women will perform better in the witness stand than the ones picked to appear on TV did.

Gotta run. Feel free to continue to post angry posts about Lacanian whatevers and Nazis at me. I'll answer them at my leisure.

[the808bass]

I think any world with people like you in it is a dangerous environment, I think the state of Texas is a dangerous environment, with lots of kidnappers walking around proud of themselves in broad daylight is a dangerous environment,

We'll put you down as non-responsive. I'll take that as a bit of confirmation.

[JasonC]

Demanding consent isn't coercion, it is the opposite, because it depends on consent. Real coercion doesn't ask - see the state taking the kids - see, they didn't ask the parents if they wanted that to happen, that's *coercion*.

And no, voluntary underage sex isn't violent rape, and everyone pretending it is to smear others is a Stalinist practicing Orwellian Newspeak. You will notice the charge of actual violence and coercion is always right there too, to ensure the listener makes the leap from a modest infraction of mores that happens in half the schools in the country daily, is the smear kind instead. Then when pushed to prove it, they retreat to the lighter charge, and then pretend they are the same because, look, same letters! It is Stalinish agitprop nonsense and it has been played too many times to fool people again.

[JasonC]

Hardly.

[nomorelurker]

I keep seeing comments about the state somehow being liable here for it’s actions. I am no fan of the state’s actions, but barring some evidence of a conspiracy to deprive of civil rights, I do not see any state civil liability. I may think they have pushed the law to the limit, made legal or factual errors, but the state pretty much has immunity here. It would take something along the lines of a connection between LEO or CPS with the woman who made the false calls, prior to her making the calls. Should a court simply decide at a later date that some or all of the children go back to parents and/or there are no criminal convictions the state does not have any liability. Such is the power of the state.

[William Tell]

JasonC said: "And I believe anyone recklessly smearing these people is guilty of libel. "

That's a very interesting point. The women of the FLDS group that have had their children taken away, are an identifiable group of people and their reputations can certainly be harmed by comments on this thread.

If the FLDS is engaging in illegal polygamy, then that might well protect those who libel them, since proving libel might well open them up to further investigation. But lacking that concern, anybody who accuses these women of condoning rape could find themselves having to prove their charges or pay up. It is unlikely, I think, but those on this thread who are so eager to see the laws enforced need to keep in mind the various laws protecting peoples' reputations.

[William Tell]

marajade said: "In this case though you have 50 year old men impregnating minors, which is statutory rape."

As a matter of law, it is NOT statutory rape if the man is legally married to the woman.

[longtermmemmory]

here is the problem.

who is whose child?

was consent IN WRITING given?

also remember nobody under 18 may participate in a common law (aka informal marriage) consent or otherwise. (per texas law)

That makes this case all about sexual relations of the under 18 year olds.

I am surprised the judge made a blanket finding. However this is only tempered by the “for now” part pending the DNA results.

also people need to keep in mind we have TWO case tracks here.

We have the criminal case(s) and the child protective sercices case(s).

[William Tell]

longtermmemmory said: "... also remember nobody under 18 may participate in a common law (aka informal marriage) consent or otherwise. (per texas law)"

Does that mean that a marriage which qualifies as a common law marriage in another state becomes invalid if the couple move to Texas?

Also, do you know whether a marriage in a state which permits marriage at 14 with parental consent is recognized as legal in Texas? For that matter, are there still states which permit marriage at 14 with parental consent? Or has the age limit been raised to 16 or above everywhere in the US?

[William Tell]

longtermmemmory said: "We have the criminal case(s) and the child protective services case(s)."

Which extremely complicates the matter of gaining the cooperation of the legal wives of any of the men who may come under suspicion. The immunity from compulsion to testify protects such women and it would be improper to use the children as a wedge to violate that privilege.

Anybody who is married should be quite concerned about what treatment the spouses get in this case. We could well see spousal immunity disappear altogether. People who hate polygamy run the risk of giving up something that might later be of great value to themselves.

Even limited immunity for children or parents would probably be worth considering. Forcing children to provide evidence against parents can have a lasting effect. The reason for having immunity laws is to recognize the conflict of interests that people have in protecting their own families, even to the extent of protecting family members from just punishment.