Good point. If they are on a fishing expedition, how would they know if there was even a crime?
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.
BTTT
That’s irrelevant to protecting the children.
Then maybe you should be hollering at the State of Texas and the CPS as they did something differently.
In 12 to 18 months under the time frame prescribed by Texas Family Code we’ll know what the outcome will be. Until then it’s only pontificating on the net.
If they believe that your belief system involves abusing children then...yeah
Any dad that does not teach his son what “jail bait” means before the kid turns 18, is neglecting a big part of his “life” education that could cause his son some serious jail time.
Good point. If they are on a fishing expedition, how would they know if there was even a crime?
They have 31 underage girls who are or have been pregnant. they have multiple children who have no documentation but who do not seem to be the children of any adults at the compound. The existence of a crime is established, as is a pattern of child abuse. But all the details are not yet known.
If the mothers were allowed to have custody of the children, on or off the ranch, the first children to disappear would be those who have a parent outside the cult who is likely to try get custody.
Yes, when the belief system involves committing illegal acts. I wouldn't want to see it any other way. If we find a bunch of Muslim extremists running a private school where their children are taught from preschool onwards that their goal in life should be to blow themselves up and kill infidels in the process, I don't think we should have to wait until the explosions and murders start being committed by children from that particular school before we take the children away from the parents.
Sorry, but a tax on strip joints doesn’t seem like the best example. Frankly, I think states have the right to run their state, and if the people of TX want to have a $5 tax on strip joints, then they should have it. If the people of TX disagree, then they will throw the rascals out of office, but I don’t think it’s the business of the courts. Then again, I’m a firm believer that in most cases, the legislatures should legislate, and not the courts.
But, that case has zero to do with the case in hand, and to whine that someone we don’t agree with used the phrase “it’s for the children” every time anything involving children comes up is not helpful in the least.
susie
Excellent post!
Thank you for posting the article.
I found it strange, while reading this article.
Every sentence in it, I could go back and find an almost duplicate copy of on the FLDS threads.
You are certainly knowledgeable about worldwide age of consent laws....
susie
Well see where the Strip Club fee finally winds up after the appeals process is completed. If necessary I’d guess the Legislature could amend the statue to meet the courts objections.....
........
The Texas Entertainment Association has attempted to stop collection of the fee, arguing that some clubs would be forced into closure by the expense. The group was turned down last month by the 3rd Court of Appeals.
In the ruling on constitutionality, state District Judge Scott Jenkins said the $5-per-patron fee is unconstitutional because the state failed to link the First Amendment-protected activity to programs being funded by the tax. He halted collection of the tax at that time, but the ruling was automatically stayed when the state appealed.
.....
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA050608.8B.stripclub0506.3c9a0bb.html
It’s the DESERET NEWS, and honestly, it’s hard to tell.
They usually have good informative articles, and don’t ramble on with opinion.
They also include a lot of information that is damning to the FLDS.
This article was surely slanted towards support of the Judge’s statements.
However, they may be biased, but also very clever.
Since most media sites want to screw with you just to keep you coming to their site, I don’t trust just one source.
When the daily thread comes up, if you google the title, you can see that the same article is carried by a multitude of media sources.
Each one has done a little editing, and that’s why I read enough of them, so I can separate the wheat from the chaff.
We have a number of people here who see the gov't totally out of line, while others say "let's watch and see what happens".
But we really need to have all posters either agree or disagree with this statement: Do you believe the State has the right/duty or obligation to allow cults to raise children, particularly females from birth to believe their to be sex objects for adult males. It would kind of cut down on the b/s we've seen on these threads?
And that question is the bottom line: "Do ya thinks little girls should be _________" Yes or No?
Every thing else is pure smokescreen :^(
I never understood the name ‘Planned Parenthood’.
None of the people who go there, do so to become a parent.
They do so avoid it.
‘Avoiding Unplanned Parenthood’ would be more apt.
“A propaganda paper owned and operated by Mormons, who’s founder who practiced the raping of young girls as an old old man.”
That may be, but in reading the article, It really had nothing good for FLDS. Or is that your point? That they are condemning the FLDS?
“They also don’t like the fact that they believe the male is the head of the household, and that they’ve never seen television.”
Or books, or a newspaper, or a swingset, or a slide, or a school.
They are not even allowed to have the right to the same level of education that the rest of the children in our country are.
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.