Posted on 04/24/2008 3:01:56 PM PDT by Politicalmom
25 mothers taken from FLDS ranch now believed to be minors
SAN ANGELO, Texas — Twenty-five mothers staying at a shelter for children taken from a polygamists' compound are now believed to be minors.
Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says the girls initially claimed to be adults but are now believed to be under 18. The girls are in state custody.
The discovery takes the number of children taken from the ranch controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to 462. The number has been climbing since the state swept all the children off the ranch nearly three weeks ago.
Of the children taken into custody, roughly 260 remain at the San Angelo Coliseum. The others were bused to foster facilities around the state.ate.
Oh, I see.
As long as you are enabling, explain why the men of the compound lied to a Texas Ranger and said there was nobody with the name “Sarah” on the compound. Just another mix up in names?
Oh, I see.
As long as you are enabling, explain why the men of the compound lied to a Texas Ranger and said there was nobody with the name “Sarah” on the compound. Just another mix up in names?
Oh, I see.
As long as you are enabling, explain why the men of the compound lied to a Texas Ranger and said there was nobody with the name “Sarah” on the compound. Just another mix up in names?
I may not agree with their position on things (and I don’t) but any time YOU think YOU are the speech police and that YOU can decide who’s voice has value, that shows that YOU are not right.
You can’t devalue these children just because you don’t like their parents.
Such a good point, I posted it four times.
I don't know why you posted this 3 times....
Who is enabling? I do hope you are not accusing me of something here.
FYI, there was not any one named Sarah Jessop on the YFZ ranch.
Furthermore, BEFORE the warrant was served, the sheriff spoke on the phone with Dale Barlow and KNEW that he was not at that ranch and never had been.
They went in anyway.
The situation that I am addressing is the rule of law. It is there to protect us from the government.
Some of y'all who don't care about the legality of this situation need to rethink your positions.
If the women of this cult loved their children, they wouldn't turn the teenage boys out on the street with no skills, money or training and tell them never to come back. Sorry. Not buying it.
So, in your mind, 25 underage moms with no real teenage boy presence on the compound and you're taking a laissez-faire approach? And if, in the year it takes to litigate this mess, another 10 or 20 or 30 young girls are raped, then what? "Whoops! Sorry. We were trying to make sure you were with your mom. Dangit. We did not see that coming!"
Are you against the prosecution of statutory rape?
OK, so you get a 911 call saying George is being murdered at the Pizza Hut,
You call Pizza Hut,
they say no one named George is there.
What do you do?
(I know what the law says).
Secondly,
You go to the Pizza Hut and yeah, no one named George is being murdered, however, in the storeroom, a 14 year old girl is being raped by her father.
What do you do?
And, you discover that all the employees of this Pizza Hut are children of the owner, the rapist.
What do you do?
IOW,
if the warrent was approached in good faith with belief that there was a risk, without solid evidence to the contrary, everything that has happened is valid and within the law.
And every day more evidence comes out that gives the ‘raid’ (I think rescue) more and more validity.
You, however, seem to have such a contempt for the government and dislike of anything resembling foster care, that any horror going on at that compound is OK, because they (the owners) were free to do it....
I think you should spend some time doing research on how these FLDS sicko’s raise their children.
Did you know that the FLDS are not allowed to be affectionate to any of the children? (no hugging, no kissing, etc.)
When a child is upset they are ignored and are punished when they show emotion.
Of course we value these children! That’s why they were removed!
And what parents? I keep getting the idea you see Laura and her sisters being ripped screaming from the arms of a sobbing Ma and Pa Ingels.
Instead, you had a pack of children who couldn’t point out who their mother was, no clue who their father was, and mothers who wouldn’t or couldn’t ID their own kids (unless they were still babes in arms). Krikey, you had kids shippped in from Canada there!
Toss in no teenage boys in puberty present, the pregnant underage mothers and you have a place of horror for children. Of course they were removed. What sane person would leave them there?
A mother’s primary job is to protect her children, even against their father.
These mothers (sadly due to conditioning) failed.
You chose to devote your time and passion to the Jeffs team, but when someone asks you for a link to the article you don’t have to use that as an excuse to send us to Jeffs cult web site, and if that is the only source for your argument then at least pluck out the specific page that the article is on.
I still don’t know what the source was for your post in 101.
“Now, if I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will correct me.”
You’re not wrong, just not very certain.
“The DNA tests will show whether...” “If not,...” “May already have been...” “Could lead to criminal charges.”
If...maybe...whether...could.
Meanwhile, 400 kids taken from their families by the state.
How do we know that the kid is afraid of the CPS workers? Could the child have been terrified by something else? Something that happened to the child before CPS showed up? You assume a lot here while not allowing others to assume that underage pregnant girls is proof of statutory rape. Why do you feel so comfortable assuming on defense of this cult and lambaste others for assuming against it?
So every child's biological mother and father were at the "ranch"? You seem very sure of that. Link?
Not ANY circumstances. But I will say the standard must be set very high.
That wasn’t written by a child.
We don’t even know that it happened. I don’t see how it could, since no FLDS were present.
What families?
The children were not able to identify any parent. There were pregnant females who appeared to be very underage.
No parent could (or would) identify which child was theirs. There is documented evidence of children shipped in from other compounds as far away as Canada. No teen boys were present, cast out by said families.
So what familes?
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.