Posted on 05/10/2008 7:06:46 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Texas child welfare attorneys say children were removed from the YFZ Ranch and should not return there because its residents live as one big family and all have the same dangerous belief system. The agency that has taken legal custody of 464 children sent its response Thursday to a petition from dozens of Fundamentalist LDS Church mothers. The petition asks the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals to order Judge Barbara Walther to return the children to their mothers.
"The community has one common belief system that young girls are called on to be wives and no age is too young to be married," wrote Texas Department of Family and Protective Services attorney Michael Shulman. Some adults and children at the ranch described it as "one large community," even though there are several houses at the complex.
"All of the women are called mothers to all of the children in the home, and the children call each other brothers and sisters," the response states.
When a victim of abuse is found inside a home, child welfare investigators have concerns for all of the children in that home. The court filing also states that a polygamous environment "would make a 15- or 16-year-old child highly vulnerable to individuals who are willing to exploit them and take advantage of their child-like qualities."
Previous court rulings have determined that it isn't necessary to prove that a parent personally abused their own child in order to show that a child is in danger, the court documents state.
Texas officials say several teens at the ranch were either pregnant or had children when they were underage. As for the boys and younger children, the agency argues says they are still in danger if allowed to continue living in that environment.
The new filing refers the appeals court to testimony from child psychiatrist Bruce Perry, who described an "unhealthy" belief that it's OK to have sex with and marry young women. "This pervasive practice and belief creates an environment that develops people who have a high potential of replicating sexual abuse of young children as a part of their belief system," the court document states.
"Part of the danger to the boys is that their belief system requires that they follow the prophet," it also stated.
The original petition, filed on behalf of 38 women by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, also argued that an April 17-18 adversary hearing for the children was improperly held "en masse" instead of holding hearings for each individual child. But the agency says the actions of the parents forced the judge to hold the single hearing.
"It is the department's contention that (the mothers), by their conspiracy of silence, purposefully confused the identity of the children, which forced Judge Walther to conduct the proceedings as she did."
The new court papers claim the FLDS women have no legal standing to have the judge reverse her ruling because they have "repeatedly declined" to even identify their children and the fathers.
The document says neither the court nor the child welfare agency should "be forced to play guessing games when the safety and well-being of these children are at stake."
The agency argued in the court filing that all the mothers had an opportunity, through their attorneys, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses during the April 17-18 hearing. To hold individual hearings would have taken weeks or even months and would have been an "extraordinary waste of judicial resources."
In removing the children, attorneys for the mothers say the judge failed to consider less restrictive options such as ordering the men ("the alleged perpetrators of abuse") to leave the ranch or ordering mothers and their children to live elsewhere during the investigation.
The agency argues that if the state does not have physical custody of the children, what's to prevent the mothers from leaving the state with them? It also asks how the court could know for certain which child legally belongs to whom.
As "the largest child protection case documented in the history of the United States," DFPS or, CPS as it is commonly called, said the sheer numbers of FLDS children prevented them from pursuing other options it might have considered in a more typical case.
As for possible temporary restraining orders against men at the ranch, DCFS says that wasn't practical. "How could the department have identified the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators when the evidence demonstrated that the entire male and female population at the YFZ Ranch had been enculturated into the belief that underage marriage was sacrosanct?"
The Court of Appeals could rule on the issues in the petition or may hold a hearing to consider arguments.
I am not defending the perverts, you know...
I have legal issues with what has occurred.
If you wish to charge someone with statuatory rape, shouldn’t you at least be able to establish that the sex occurred, and that the victim was underage?
If you can’t prove those things, what is the case?
“I am not defending the perverts, you know...”
What I have seen is a lot of miscommunication.
For example:
What you meant: “I am defending the rights of the perpetrators, as well as the victims.”
What was heard: “I am defending the perverts”
Simple mistake, happens all the time.
“If you wish to charge ......”
“If you can’t prove those things....”
“I have legal issues with what has occurred.”
********
OK. You said, WHAT HAS OCCURRED.
Taking the children into custody, and conducting hearings for each ‘unit’ of children, has nothing to do with CHARGEING and PROVING anything.
IF you are talking about the LE making charges, and the proof of age consideration, then it is easy.
Birth certificate, or latest accepted medical techniques to determine age of a human being.
As of yet, no exact figures have been released on the exact age of all the females at the compound, and some of them never will, unless it is used by the LE in an arrest warrant.
Right now, the CPS doesn’t have to prove anything.
The women and men, and children do.
If you want to argue that there is no case, without being able to prove the age of one particular child, you miss out on the point that there are 400+ children.
P.S.
If you don’t get a weapons lock on this, you aren’t worth your weight in gold.
“Right now, the CPS doesn’t have to prove anything.
The women and men, and children do.”
What a dork I iz.
Last post was to you.
“Do you know how to read “
How does patton think you are able to respond to the posts?
It’s pretty hard to use FR if you can’t read.
OH, and the ‘can’t use a search engine’ was really funny, considering the extensive referencing org.whodat does on the threads.
correction:
“you aren’t worth your weight in carbon credits.”
Does not matter what it is as long as it reports the “news”.
BTW, patton can read too.
If you don’t have a birth certificate, you can’t get a driver’s license, or a job.
Why do some of these children not have something that all Americans have had for, well, longer than I’ve been alive?
Guess what?
A “body” can look mature without having a mature “mind” to go with it.
Pretty sickening how you ONLY care about the boys.
“If you wish to charge someone with statuatory rape, shouldn’t you at least be able to establish that the sex occurred, and that the victim was underage?”
Scott Peterson was charged with murder, and they didn’t have proof (the body) for a long time.
David Westerfield was convicted of rape and murder, and they never proved the rape part occurred.
We know for sure Jon Benet was raped with a wooden stick, but no one was convicted.
Ok, you think that statutory rape and prostitution is fine, you think that stalkers should be left alone, you love strip clubs and pornography, and now you are spreading a VICIOUS unsubstantiated rumor about President Bush.
I’m sensing a troll, here.
BTW, the CPS has come the the conclusion that there is only one man who is guilty of all the sex with a minor charges.
In most of the cases of pregnant underage girls, both the girls themselves, and the mothers have given the same exact name for the person responsible.
His name.......... NOT SURE.
(the hero of the movie IDIOCRACY).
They are going to prove it. There hasn’t been a trial, yet, you know.
Anyway, pregnant 13 year olds, and a fifteen year old girl with TWO children is pretty good evidence.
Good catch, LOL
OH, I don’t know. He(she) had a lot of good arguments there.
(I was only doing it for my book research on child porn....I mean hookers)
(Most Republicans aren’t obsessed with sex. Now I want to talk about....)
Although not a one of them had anything to do with this case.
Actually, that's not true. And I think it will be shown that the CPS has over reached. I believe individual custody hearings will be held starting June 5th. That's when the rubber begins to hit the road. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I think I'm the only poster on these threads to admit to having ever investigated Crimes Against Children. Lemme tell ya, you don't get those cases as a mark of esteem from your agency, believe me. It's gut wrenching nasty puky work ... more than a few guys ended up with Mr. Barleycorn as a partner.
As part of your training, ya get to see the NAMBLA film - actually video. "Nuff to make ya wanna puke" ... there's these White Male Adults, sitting in a panel -all professional like - discussing a eight year old's anus being able to hold an adult penis?
That's for starters! It's goes down hill from there.
Moi is not a prude, I'm one of the few posters here who believes Nevada has the best answer to the worlds oldest profession - No - not elect them to Congress - but put them into regulated and inspected facilities.
And to read so-called conservatives even thinking for a nanosecond that it's Okay for these creeps to operate?
So I'm going to slip over to a free trade thread before I get banned......
I don’t know whether it’s true, but it is what they said. It’s qouted in the article.
Well, they certainly got more than they bargained for.
Interesting being one of the mildest words to use.
Just imagine what we will see happen , in the media, on TV talk shows, and right here on F.R. when the JUDGE denies returning some of the children to the ‘mothers’ who try to claim them.
You may actually see one of the ‘mothers’ show some emotion and ‘tear-up’ for the cameras.
You’ll see these statements, “The government won’t let me have the child I was raising back. You know,....him...whatever his name is.”
Another good example of your fine research and referencing. No doubt!
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.