Posted on 04/25/2008 1:46:26 AM PDT by Pebcak
AUSTIN - An appeals court rejected pleas from the mothers of more than 400 children seized from a polygamist sect to immediately stop authorities from busing their kids to far-flung foster homes, but it agreed to hear arguments in the case next week.
(Excerpt) Read more at gosanangelo.com ...
Well, Nanny, if you had clicked on the link, you would have seen that I made NO COMMENTARY, but posted the entire article from the State of Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Your "I would have presumed", "so I thought", "this article and your commentary suggested" comments lead me to agree with your statement, "I think it's important that we get the facts straight before making commentary about what it means."
I’m not in denial, and it’s not legal hairsplitting. Jessop proves women in the cult can be protective mothers and given their own children, and nothing has proven that every family living in the community had personally committed abusive acts.
So it is reasonable to assume that when this is all over, at least SOME of the children will be reunited with their parents.
It worked for Carolyn Jessop, why not others?
Absolutely. That’s why you see these girls and even women flipping. I believe more will continue to do so daily. Some will no doubt eventually turn State’s evidence.
I guess you have to put yourself in their place. If you go to a shelter and not back to the ranch, if Texas falters you are really going to catch it.
As they see the State of Texas and her citizens stand firm, I believe they realize we mean to and will get this thing done.
It worked for Carolyn Jessop, why not others?
One would hope that this situation would be the impetus for more than a few mothers leaving the cult. I would place my own wager on "<10" being the number, probably "<5". But we can hope.
But those women should only receive their children after having left the compound. And remain under the supervision of CPS until they have established some sort of normalcy in the outside world.
“As they see the State of Texas and her citizens stand firm, I believe they realize we mean to and will get this thing done.”
And so will Jeffs and the rest of the cult leaders see their little posts of underage gold disappear from their futures.
stupid question.
Maybe some women DO know who their kids are and are able to keep track of them. So what?
The post I was responding to said the woman didn't know. It generalized to all the women the state that some women are alleged to be in. Since the problem with this case is that every specific act alleged has been generalized to the entire group, I think it's critically important to point out that each mother is an individual, each kid is unique, and the law requires that each be handled based on what is known about those individuals, not what generally happened or happened to some other person.
If they take your child, reassign it to another woman and then transfer her and the child to another place, she could run into them years later and never know it’s her child.
Yes, if they do that, you may have trouble telling (although there is anecdotal evidence that children separated near birth and raised in adoptive families somehow seem to feel "connected" to their birth parents). You may need DNA tests to verify.
Same if she’s separated from her child from birth. If there’s several infants born at the some time, they were raised in a group, like a litter.
That's an allegation. I'll take it as a hypothetical as your previous statement.
If you’re handed any old child out of the group to nurse and it’s a different one each time, no way would you be sure which one is yours.
Again, true. IN fact, some women have left hospitals with the wrong child. Again, you might need DNA to figure out which child is yours.
You need to get a much better grip on reality.
Here is where you got lost. You presented two hypotheticals, as assumptions for some conclusion -- at least that's how logical arguments are formed. But having presented two excellent hypotheticals, you then made no conclusion, instead jumping to an ad hominen attack.
I presume you wanted to take your hypotheticals and assert that they were in fact reality, that your "if" statements would become truth.
The problem with that is Jessop. Jessop was part of the cult. She had 8 children in the cult. She left the cult. She took her 8 children.
Those are all facts. They form the predicate to my argument.
If Jessop knew who her children are, then it is possible for women in the cult to know who their children are.
That's the if-then part of the argument.
So, if Jessop is telling the truth, and the 8 children she took were really hers (in other words, she didn't kidnap someone else's kids -- and for this argument let's assume she's not a kidnapper), then other women know who their children are.
Why on earth would you ever consider defending the kind of lifestyle this group embraces?
Nothing I said in the referenced post offers or even hints at a defense of a lifestyle, a lifestyle I neither spend much time researching, nor that I care about.
I said that some of the women could know who their children are. Jessop did. That has nothing to do with defending a lifestyle.
You’ve done everything you can to cloud the issue and cast doubt on what’s coming out about this group.
If what is "coming out" is that every mother is clueless as to who is their children, I'm glad I'm casting doubt on it, because that would be a statement with no basis in evidence.
As to clouding the issue, there are a myriad of issues here, and there is a group here that is dragging us all through all of them willy-nilly, with the result that few people have any idea what the issues are.
On the other hand, there is a specific court case, and in that case there are specific events and occurances. In THIS thread, the "issue" is that mothers are now being separated from their children.
Someone, in reference to that, said the mothers don't know who their children ara. I said that such a statement is not grounded in fact, and that Jessop is a counter-example.
I believe that is right on the issue of this thread. It has nothing to do with what happened at the compound, or what their lifestyle is, or what their founder did.
Yes, it's time for "spring cleaning" in Western states. It's time for residents of Utah and Arizona to "step up to the plate" & let its law enforcement officials hear your voices.
I mean, here is where Mormon and non-Mormons could come to an agreement to act in concert.
(If anyone has a Utah/AZ LDS ping list...this is where for once, some agreement could come about if we were to see such Mormons lead the way in advocating general action)
The first line of your post was your own words. The remainder was from the web site.
I was hopeful that you at least would be able to answer my questions about the facts, since you seem to be keeping track of them.
That’s why I expressed what I THOUGHT the facts were, and asked if I had them correct.
You seem to have found it easier to ridicule than to provide the answers.
Were the 40 women moving to be close to their kids? Someone yesterday said they weren’t being taken from the kids, but were offered a chance to move nearby. I don’t remember what thread that was from, or who said it. I didn’t question the veracity of their statement, but I was hopeful you would know if it was the truth or not.
Were the 25 women who are know known to be minors also mothers? I thought yesterday one of the articles said that 25 mothers were found to be minors, but this article just said “girls”, not “mothers”. Do you know?
I hope that made it easier for you to identify the questions. If you don’t want to bother answering, that’s fine. It seemed your purpose on the threads was to provide facts for people, so I thought I’d ask for some.
Do you know if Carolyn Jessop had CPS monitoring her after she left?
No. If I did, I would have looked it up, read what it said, and if I was right I would have said “Yesterday they said”, instead of saying “I thought yesterday they said”.
If nobody else remembers anybody posting something about the mothers being relocated close to their children, then I guess I’m remembering wrong.
Although it seems like a pretty curious detail for me to just remember if it didn’t actually come up already. It was offered in response to someone complaining about the kids being taken from their mothers, as a defence of the CPS and showing how hard they were trying.
I do not know that. However, there is a clear difference between a woman who leaves the cult of her own volition and one who is driven to it to retain custody of her child. If the child is in future danger from the cult, it would serve the interests of the child to try to ensure that she did not immediately return to the cult once she regained custody.
Other than Carolyn Jessop and her husband, are there any other reports of babies being waterboarded?
If I am understanding the meme correctly, it was difficult for Jessop to “escape”. THe thought is that other women would want to get out, but were afraid or didn’t have the opportunity.
This raid gives them that opportunity. So it seems that if a woman, now given the opportunity, takes advantage of that opportunity, her situation would be considered similar to that of Jessop, and would be treated the same.
Except of course that the other women may not have confessed to having watched their children be abused.
Boy, a SYNOPSIS is commentary now! CW, I don’t have time to waste with you.
You can understand whatever "meme" you'd like. She left. She did not go back. I wouldn't have been opposed to having her aided by any number of social services, governmental or otherwise, in her transition back into normal society. I think some of these women would think that they can say, "We're leaving, give us our kids back" and then be allowed to have custody of their kids again only to return to the cult.
Have at it.
Speaking of that, what is the status of children born at the ranch in the interim?
So you are not on the threads to provide facts. I’ll find someone else who is.
Be my guest, and in the meantime, please point us to the INFORMATIVE THREADS, NOT POSTS, that you have posted.
And this is the rub...as far as I can see, LDS' response has been really weak over the past two weeks, if not outright sympathetic to YFZ (in a low key way).
You don’t want facts. If you did you could find them out yourself. You’re not stupid just arrogant. You were the same way during your support of Romney, one of the reasons I had a hard time supporting him. I remember several days ago you arguing to the effect that if only several children were being abused wouldn’t it be better to leave them there, since they were already being abused, until it was determined who was abused, instead of taking all the children. That told me all I need to know about you.
Don’t tell me in a close organization like this that even if all the children weren’t being abused those that lived there knew who was. So is it okay to turn a blind eye to it because it’s not your children?
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.