Posted on 05/01/2008 4:44:54 PM PDT by Politicalmom
SAN ANTONIO — A judge ordered that the baby boy born to a girl taken from a polygamist sect's ranch in West Texas be placed in state custody, according to documents released Thursday.
Texas District Judge Barbara Walther signed the order Wednesday giving the state custody of the 1-day-old infant born to a teen believed to be 15 or 16 years old.
The girl has claimed to be 18, according to an affidavit signed by Ruby Gutierrez, a Child Protective Services caseworker, but officials believe she is younger and placed her in foster care with other children taken from the ranch.
The newborn is the teen's second child; the first is a 20-month-old boy. The father of both children was identified as Jackson Jessop, 22, but state officials say they don't know his whereabouts.
Child welfare officials now have 464 children in their custody, swept from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado because authorities believe underage girls were forced into marriages and sex with older men. Authorities are also now investigating possible sexual abuse of boys.
Church members have vehemently denied there was any abuse, and civil liberties groups have raised concerns at the sweeping nature of the removals.
Individual custody hearings are set to be completed by June 5.
CPS and law enforcement raided the ranch on April 3 after a girl who was purportedly 16 called a domestic abuse hotline to complain of abuse at the hands her much older husband. Authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.
Regardless, child welfare authorities say 31 of the 53 girls aged 14-17 have children or are pregnant.
Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but the girls who belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are not believed to have legal marriages.
FLDS is a breakaway sect of the mainline Mormon church, which disavowed polygamy a century ago.
Well now I would like for Wendell Loy Nielson to prove he supported all those children himself without any bleeding of the beast. If he didn’t then he shouldn’t collect on them IMHO. Seems like these pervs have it all figured out. Scammers.
Apparently pedopolygaphilia is more popular than any of us could have guessed.
I’ve been wondering about that too Bass. Most aren’t newbies though and have screen names several years old.
All I can say is...that since this broke I have mumbled “do what” I don’t know how many times. As bad as it seems some Freeper posts have been more shocking IMO.
Those same “monogamous” women engaged in the same dishonest behavior of refusing to identify or misidentifying their children in order to confuse and divert investigators.
That is why they did not get their children returned to them. In order for the court to return their children, they really needed to turn up at the hearing with a lawyer, their childrens birth certificates and their monogamous husbands. They chose non-cooperation and the results were predictable and inevitable.
Amish have no such a religion fetish. Maybe some locals just don’t want you to do it as they might feel uncomfortable -like a person was making them a freak show item or something.
I got a video from the library that was a documentary on the Amish people and their lifestyles, for a homeschool lesson for my son and daughter long years ago. The video interviewed Amish persons for the video and showed their farms and homes and them going about their business and play.
My daughter and son in law lived near a community of them in Indiana and bought goat milk from a farm run by Amish folk, when her son was allergic to cow milk.
We also ate with daughter and son-in-law at a restaurant run by Amish people, in a small Indiana town near them, when hubby and I visited them, once.
Or even evidence of basic rationality. A denial from one of the accused equals evidence that allegations were never made. No need to investigate there. If they deny it why they weren't even accused.
I must really be emotional, because I can't find any substance in that. Maybe I am just a bitter person, clinging to my religion and guns.
And somehow that still equates with *knee jerk* government, bad...evil...wicked....never do anything right...
No mention that, yeah, maybe if the cultists hadn't lied about so much, things would have turned out differently. No acknowledgment that the cult could maybe, possibly have done something wrong in this whole scenario; somewhere between the polygamy and rape of minor girls and lying and duplicity in dealing with the authorities.
Like the authorities couldn't tell they were being lied to? Like people really were so stupid that they thought they could snow them with these kinds of blatant tactics? Like they thought the authorities wouldn't mind being lied to and would let it go? And then they're surprised at the consequences?
Instead we get people actually defending them and then wondering why they're called child rape apologists.
I guess if they're so clueless about the rest of this situation, it's no surprise that they don't understand the apologist part either.
There is a difference between passion and emotionalism. I have a passion for protection against an overbearing state.
Perhaps you would do well to extend the courtesy of assuming that the people to which you are posting have a passion for protecting children rather than assuming that they are simply emotionalism gone wild.
The state did not take the baby away from its mom; it placed the baby into state custody. Mom and baby are together, as are all the moms and babies under one year-old.
I can’t call it stalking, because I haven’t broached the suject with her.
I just don’t like off-color jokes in email.
Ahem... she’s my brother’s wife. And I never see the woman, she lives very far away. We never speak on the phone, because we really aren’t friends. My brother loves this woman and I don’t want to hurt her feelings. Sigh.
On the other hand, I would become angry when I learned of the things she shared with my mother, and now my aged uncle is receiving the same garbage. I’m embarassed for my sister-in-law. She should KNOW better.
I’m not an innocent in this world, by any stretch of the imagination. However, I try to stay away from this type of humor.
I may use the blocking feature, as you suggest. It dampens my spirits when I read her emails.
Thanks for the update.
You assume you were could write. You're wrong on both counts.
You seem to be making a ludicrous attempt to assert that mothers automatically love and protect their children. That they will put the child's welfare above some allegiance to a cult, or to some stud, or to an addiction to drugs.
Thousand of people just on this one site just on this one site have life experiences that disagree.
Text books for law enforcement and therapists who deal with child sexual abuse and the aftermath universally disagree.
I disagree too. That wasn't my experience, nor that of many who freep on every thread relating to child rape.
This is your sentence:
I had assumed you were could read.
I surely am glad there were at the time no activist judges in Minnesota.
A child belongs with his parents or parent regardless unless they are proved morally, intellectually or mentally unfit to raise the child. Throughout most of history girls (women) had children beginning at age 14 or 15 in and out of marriage. No one ever claimed they could raise these children better than the parent or parents.
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.