I followed the links back to the post (mine) which I think you said I should read the post after.
I have already responded to the post after that, which was one where you quoted another freeper who had answered my question. I had responded to THAT post when it was made.
Your question was roughly , why take all the children, why not give them back, some of them, just the ones that aren’t victims?
Here is what I have found. As much of it as possible is from the HORSE’S MOUTH.
When a lawyer for one mother complained that she has not been served with a legal notice regarding the seizure of the children, Judge Walther responded that it was difficult for constables “to serve or give notice to a parent when the parent will not give the officers their names or any kind of identification.”
In her testimony, Voss said that some of the children being held were Canadian citizens, although she did not say how many, or their age or sex. She said the children should remain in custody regardless of their citizenship.
Friday’s action followed a confusing session on Thursday during which lawyers in two locations three blocks apart denounced the mass hearing, which is unusual in a Family Court matter, saying it was unfair and benefited the state.
Judge Walther denied their objections, but said all parties would be heard, no matter how long it took. She assured the lawyers for the children and their families, “You have not waived all of your rights.”
The question facing Judge Walther is whether the children on the ranch were abused or whether they are at risk of being abused. Among the difficulties facing authorities was identifying which children were abused. And the judge might have to decide whether the community’s practice of under-age marriage meant the entire culture constituted a danger to children.
Indeed, dealing with a community where children had multiple “mothers” and numerous half-siblings with a single father, the judge might be forced to define what constitutes a family.
“We have to balance the requirement in the statutes that this hearing must be held within 14 days,” Judge Walther said. “It’s not a perfect solution. I wish I could give you a perfect solution. There is not one.”
The broad task faced by Judge Walther is to determine whether the children at the ranch were abused or at risk of abuse. If so, who were they? Was there a pattern of endangerment and under-age marriages that would make the community’s culture itself a danger to the children if they were returned to their parents?
The difficulty of that task is compounded by confusion over how nontraditional families function, with one child raised by many “mothers,” all married to the same man, and a complex tangling of sibling lines.
The subtext of much of the case is whether individual behavior or group behavior is under the microscope.
One lawyer, Tom Vick, who is part of a state judicial effort to recruit volunteers to represent the children, said outside the courtroom that he thought membership in a polygamist sect was not the issue.
“People want to look at this as a religion thing or a polygamy thing,” Mr. Vick said. “It’s about child abuse.”
Legal experts who are closely watching the case say the line is not that clear.
A slightly exasperated Judge Walther continues.
The real issue we haven’t even been able to get to, and the issue is whether or not the court can return these children to their parents. To the extent that you all want to argue about procedure [I’ll let you)] but you need to help me focus on what the issue is: Did the department act on evidence in a way that, based on the light of day, is insufficient for the department to continue to be the temporary conservators? This is a continuation of the emergency process and it is designed to have a little looser procedure, so that the parents are not hampered.
One aspect upon which the judge must rule is a little baffling.
One of the judge’s tasks is to determine whether or not the ranch constitutes a “home” under state law.
Does this mean that if the ranch was not a home, the parent did no wrong in marrying off an underage daughter?