Posted on 05/22/2008 10:46:31 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
SAN ANGELO, Texas - A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.
Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.
The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.
Possibly. I think it’s more likely that the Judge and the Sheriff and the CPS people all went to church together and spent time listening to anti-Mormon diatribes in Sunday School, and figured the FLDS were close enough to “Mormon” to be unworthy of constitutional rights or simple human kindness.
When the FLDS nursing mothers were pleading not to be separated from their babies, and the judge blew them off, saying “Mothers all over this country put their babies in day care,” I knew she was biased and rotten.
Do you know when that occurred?
Someone had told me that investigators called Barlow before the raid, but I'm not able to find any articles or documents specifying that.
As I said, I don’t know exactly when. I don’t know whether it was before they executed the first warrant, or after that, but before they took the kids. But I’m pretty confident they knew the first warrant was baseless before they took the kids.
Its not the polygamy the left has a problem with, its the religious connection. If you are willing to push God out of the equation then you can do anything.
That was the exact quote that led me to believe that the FLDS are dealing with a radical feminist who has no respect for family, true femininity or the mother/child bond.
That's next. It's all but certain these mothers will prevail. Texas law is crystal clear on this point. Lacking 'iminent danger', there's no legal justification for taking those kids.
I don't support these people at all. But that doesn't mean they don't have legal rights.
Either the State of Texas should start issuing Indictments for all the stuff they claim has been going on, or they need to start returning these children to their parents.
In spite of all the claims of criminal wrongdoing not one single person who lives in that 'compound' has been charged as of yet with one single crime.
Not one.
If they can get indictments, they need to do it. If not they need to back up or these FLDS freaks are going to have the only solid gold 'compound' in the Country. And it will come courtesy of the taxpayers of the Great State of Texas.
L
call it plural marriage or open marriage or swinging and its celebrated. Call it polygamy and have any reference to God and its condemned.
Women who are homemakers are weak kneed and brainwashed, just shy of being a criminal.
That is the true crime according to the left. Amazing that Texas has morphed into this.
Any other religion that rebukes the left can expect similiar treatment.
I just assumed that that was what she had done with her children, so she just figured that no child was entitled to, or needed, better treatment.
She certainly could be a radical. But she is also an elected judge. That tends to produce inferior quality, and one who will pander to the biases of a particular community, regardless of what the law says. I think the good folks of that part of Texas had pretty much whipped themselves into a frenzy over the FLDS.
You seem to have a strange definition of evidence that only includes things that absolutely prove that a particular crime has been committed.
To get a valid warrant you need to show probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. Not show that a crime had unquestionably been committed.
Investigations often accumulate evidence that a crime may have been committed until they have a body of evidence that as a whole indicates that a crime had probably been committed and defines the crime clearly enough to get a warrant.
When they are not, we are all placed in jeopardy.
The rights of these people have been trampled and they must be restored post haste.
As you say, if they have valid, admissable evidence that can lead to constitutional warrants, indictments, and convictions of criminal behavior, then by all means, proceed. I am 100% in suppor tof that. But do not destroy justice, the system that defends it, and the constituion in an attempt to fish for, dredge up, or manufacture the same because the way these folks lives offens most of our sensebilities.
If they are committing no crime or harm, the free market will ultimately take care of the situation. If they are criminally harming others, then deal with that directly..
Thanks for the link. I have read that. Usually it is better for all if you cooperate with the law. The FLDS sect is very paranoid and afraid of the ‘outside’ world. I’m not excusing their conduct, but I can understand it. It’s a big can of worms.
Well said my friend.
It's been painful to watch the number Freepers who are perfectly willing to throw out Constitutional protections because they don't like the group involved.
It's not only painful, it's downright scary.
Either the Rights of ALL of us are safe, or the Rights of NONE of us are safe. There is no middle ground.
None.
L
Thanks for the correction. I jumped to that conclusion because many of the FLDS people in Texas are from Utah initially (Hilldale/Colorado City) and they do use Medicaid. I made the assumption that they were doing the same thing in Texas without any evidence.
“You seem to have a strange definition of evidence that only includes things that absolutely prove that a particular crime has been committed.”
You’re moving the line. Police don’t prove a crime, they collect evidence and write reports. Courts, lawyers and juries prove crimes.
“To get a valid warrant you need to show probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. Not show that a crime had unquestionably been committed.”
I never said different. In several years of investigation they couldn’t obtain enough evidence of a crime to get a warrant. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.
‘Investigations often accumulate evidence that a crime may have been committed until they have a body of evidence that as a whole indicates that a crime had probably been committed and defines the crime clearly enough to get a warrant.”
Sure they do and yet they were unable to until this anonymous call about a guy they knew wasn’t in the state. The police and CPS are the only people who broke the law here. At least until someone has evidence otherwise.
Major lawsuits coming.
I’m pretty sure they are not a grave threat to America.
I think the hardliners on our college campii are a threat, and these posters have joined ranks with those Leftists.
For all we know the posters ARE the hardliners from colleges across America, their methods are identical.
Don't think it can't happen here. It already has.
The older children were put in foster homes separate from their mothers. All infants under age one were kept with their mothers, regardless of whether their mothers were being classified as minors or adults. And in many cases, mothers being classified as minors who had children older than 1 year were also kept with their children. The news articles re the 2 newborns, which reported that CPS had filed petitions in court to “take custody” of the babies, were just legal maneuvers and in no way were petitioning the court to separate these newborn babies from their mothers. They were establishing legal custody, just as they had previously done with all the children, including the ones under age one who were kept with their mothers.
And what exactly makes you so confident?
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.