Posted on 04/26/2008 9:19:01 PM PDT by Howdy there
Sunday, April 27, 2008
After a long night interviewing children inside a polygamist ranch near Eldorado, Child Protective Services caseworkers made a crucial decision as the police-backed raid entered its second day.
They took 18 girls, from 6 months to 17 years old, into emergency custody on April 4, a Friday, because they felt their living conditions were unsafe — initiating a sequence of events that led to the removal of all 462 children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch and headlines around the globe.
Did Texas go too far? That question will probably be debated for decades, and not only because of its implications for religious freedom and the limits of government power.
Families were ripped apart. Children, including some who had to be pried from a parent's leg, were scattered into foster care across Texas — though state District Judge Barbara Walther relented last week and allowed children younger than 1 year to remain with their mothers in shelters.
The law allows Texas to take emergency custody when a child's health or safety is in immediate danger — but to balance that power, CPS must seek approval from a district judge by the next business day. In the Eldorado case, that was Monday, April 7.
That day, CPS investigators reported to Walther that they had found several pregnant and apparently underage girls at the isolated West Texas ranch where girls are groomed to become "wives" to older men. The underage marriages were condoned by the girls' parents, CPS officials said.In Texas, sex with someone younger than 17, when the partner is more than three years older than the victim, is considered sexual abuse.
Walther not only approved the emergency removal of the 18 girls, she also agreed that CPS needed to take custody of every child at the Eldorado ranch, which is run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon splinter group also known as the FLDS.
Robert Doggett of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which represents about four dozen of the mothers in the sect, questioned the wisdom of separating all the young children from their parents.
A 6-month-old boy, he said, is not in immediate danger of indoctrination into what CPS has characterized as a widespread practice of forcing underage girls to have sex with older men in "celestial," or spiritual, marriages.
For such children, "how in the world could the judge have found imminent risk of physical harm?" Doggett asked. "Courts are supposed to be a check on the government. That system has totally broken down."
SNIP
Was it legally admissible evidence presented in a court of law during a trial?
Thank you for informing me that I am hysterical.
And yes I am part of some conspiracy to utilize facts and reasoning so as to promote the lifestyle of some group of wackos located in a State I have never been to.
I am a lawyer by trade and am ideologically a libertarian by nature. Perhaps then my concerns arise not out of hysteria or out of some clandestine plot to promote rape, bigamy, inbreeding, and abuse but out of concerns for due process and freedom.
Naaahhhh, I couldn’t be on the up and up because then it might mean someone has a legitimate point of disagreement with you.
All I know is that the testimony was given duing the original hearing before judge W.
Did she have proof of the identity of “her” child?
Did she originally lie about her name and that of “her” child?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD9099B5O0
Here is the article. (snip)
Church members said that not all of them practice polygamy, and some form traditional nuclear families. One sect member whose teenage son is now in foster care testified that she is a divorced single mother.
One FLDS member who did testify said she and her husband and their three children form a traditional family and live in a separate house from other sect members. An FLDS expert who testified at the hearing and a former member of the sect say only about half the marriages in the sect are polygamous.
And of course, THIS woman is completely credible, but all the government workers lied on the stand about EVERYTHING.
How about a link to support your post okay.
"those of US"???????
You've been here since 1998?
Why is your sign up date this? Since Mar 30, 2007
What was your previous screen name?
Apparently the judge did heard the testimony but didn't think it carried enough weight to change the temp custody undertaken by the CPS... They don't practice but live amongst the polygamy practitioners with their children. Are their female children subject to the rules of being married as a spiritual wife?
This is becoming a bore. Who were you?
What was your screen name? Leaving and coming back doesn’t count. Sorry. You are a 2007 :’)
Howdy,
March 30th of 2007. What was the hot topic then? You probably got squelched or banned when discussing some hot topic.
It happened to me during the ann coulter perfected jew debate. I got myself squelched while under the handle of structured chaos. I hope this is not cause for admin to ban me. I mean if you post long enough eventually you run afoul of an admin that takes particular exception to what you’ve said.
Well I hope you all hear from me again.
admin?
does count!!
Does not.
This is weird!
What happened to Howdy there?
You asked him and the admin asked him what his previous handle was. Since then utter and complete silence has fallen upon the boards.
Howdy there has said nothing. Not a peep.
This is strange. In fact no one but me is posting. Have I been squelched? Please let me know you can see this.
thx,
paranoid
Where did Aragon go?
Good question! My question: what if the "bridegroom" were already married to someone else?
I’m here, arggggg,
This is like some twilight zone, except it’s not fun.
If you can hear me let me know.
To grab him another girly-girl because the first five are getting old?
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.