Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago

AP via Yahoo ^ | 5/22/08

[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.

[UCANSEE2]

“They are abusing their power, impacting peoples lives, ruining peoples lives, and breaking the law. Yet you consider retraining to be the answer?”

Do cops do the very same things?

And isn’t ‘training’ or ‘retraining’ the usual result?

[driftdiver]

“But I think if one wants to understand what the CPS had to deal with, one should try walking in their shoes.”

If CPS followed the law they wouldn’t have to deal with it.

[driftdiver]

“But I think if one wants to understand what the CPS had to deal with, one should try walking in their shoes.”

If CPS followed the law they wouldn’t have to deal with it.

[El Gato]

Do you know something that the rest of us don't? Has the State appealed the ruling? 9 days and counting. If the CPS appeal and lose, they will have established a precedent and lose a lot of power, permanently. I don't think that they will take the appeal lightly. Generally when an agency like the CPS appeals a case they like to have a very good case. This is not a good case for them to appeal, important certainly, but dangerous.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Service today asked the state Supreme Court to stay a lower court's ruling that FLDS children were kept in state custody improperly and that they should be returned to their families.

[driftdiver]

“Now *THIS* is an argument I could get behind. *FINALLY!* Someone is using logic! “

So because people have suspicions of them being polygamists they lose all their rights. What happens when CPS comes for your kids?

[Arkinsaw]

You lost me there. Polygamy institutionalizes tribalist patriarchal pagan practices. It creates a surplus of males who become more warlike...and uncontrollable. It's a messy and destructive arrangement on many different levels.

Luckily I said, arguably. Our society, and government, tolerates various adult behaviors that are more or less socially damaging...alcohol consumption, smoking, non-marital random sex amongst various varieties of consenting adults.

I haven't seen hordes of warlike and uncrontrollable polygamists attacking Houston lately so I could reasonably argue that alcohol consumption is more dangerous than polygamy...yet we tolerate it.

The hordes of warlike polygamists does not seem like an overpowering argument as a reason why they are singled out for increased distaste. I posit that its that they have an odd and unapproved religion. Something thats not really a reason to increase government scrutiny or treat them differently than other citizens.

I still can see no reason why polygamy is so much more dangerous than other tolerated behaviors....your argument about generating warlike guys has not convinced me.

[driftdiver]

“Do cops do the very same things?”

yep they do.

“And isn’t ‘training’ or ‘retraining’ the usual result?”

Usually there is no action. That doesn’t make it right.

[Utah Girl]

Yes, I’ve seen those. The FLDS do have their problems. And I wasn’t impressed with the 3 men they dug up to be interviewed a few weeks ago (FLDS men in their late twenties.)

I do feel that Texas was heavy handed in this case. We’ll have to wait and see.

[Arkinsaw]

Do cops do the very same things?

I think its a systemic problem. I think leadership has concentrated on training agents of the government of all sorts to focus on 1) their own safety including using overpowering force to do so...2) stopping any disruption in its tracks including using overpowering force to do so. Safety of officials, and avoiding disruption, are important...but not more important than the fundamental pillars of how government and citizens interrelate in our system. Most public servants do not intend to do bad...most intend to do good...training in what really is good would indeed help.

Liberty used to be the civic religion of the US. You saw Liberty plastered on everything. Its gone out of style a bit in favor of placidness and safety. Training the citizenry and public servants to have a renewed love of liberty can't hurt.

Right now...the alternative is nothing...which is the situation now.

[El Gato]

If they didn't tell the judge...

If it's not in the affidavit, and I don't believe it is, then they officially did not tell the judge.

[UCANSEE2]

Hello. Don’t know if I had the chance to talk with you yet.
Thanks for the opportunity.

---

” Authorities are not permitted the luxury of acting on their feelings. They are supposed to act with logic and reason and within the confines of the law.”

And assuming we are talking about the CPS, they did that very thing.

---

“They *felt* that the parent’s beliefs were a threat to the children and filed their paperwork to that effect. The appeals court said that this was against the law. Period.”

I believe what the appeals court said was that the CPS could not KEEP custody of the children, based on the evidence and the primary claim of overall endangerment.

So, taking the children, and keeping them for (IIRC) three days was completely legal.

---

“In America, we don’t prosecute people for their beliefs. Only for their actions. CPS did NOT cite *actions* as their reasons for taking the children. They cited the parent’s *beliefs” as the crime.”

Yeah, and though I can see why , I think they are on thin ice. Just like the claim that CPS has told the FLDS members that they can’t discuss JEFFS with each other, or the children, as a condition of them being returned.

BTW, CPS has been working on returning the children, even before this appellate hearing.

[UCANSEE2]

“.it’s his/her stupid opinions that I find hilarious and tedious.”

We all take our humor where we can get it.

: )

[UCANSEE2]

“So you support random strip searches?”

Only if they are over 18 and I get to do it (and they are all Vegas Showgirls).

(Just kidding!)

---

In what way would you be able to consider these alleged searches as ‘random’?

It was one of the items mentioned in the affidavit.
It was one of the complaints from Welfare, and CPS, and outside sources.

They were there to FIND if there was any ABUSE.

So, since that is what they were there for, you are saying they shouldn’t be allowed to look?

If I had a warrant to arrest you, and I came to your house, was let in by your ?spouse, then are you telling me I couldn’t randomly search the rooms of the house?

[Arkinsaw]

And assuming we are talking about the CPS, they did that very thing.

Treating all members of a group in this way is problematic. There are other religious groups that have incidences of child abuse. I posit that a CPS agency would not have a policy of taking the children of all members of said religious group away from all the parents based on the known incidences. They would instead prosecute individuals and deal with individual evidence. At least hopefully so.

This religious group is relatively small and powerless and weird and so the action of the government is not seen in the same light as if it had been one of the major religions with sexual abuse problems.

You have to be careful here on precedents that are set. I am not so sure seizing the children of an entire religious group without carefully detailed due process and thought is a good idea...even if the particular one you are going after is seen as pretty weird.

[UCANSEE2]

“If CPS followed the law they wouldn’t have to deal with it.”

They did, they are.

Their ‘evidence’ doesn’t have to meet the same criteria as LE’s.

They took the children legally. The Judge agreed on retaining custody.

Now the appellate court says that Judge’s ruling is overturned.

Blame the Judge , if you want to blame someone.

CPS had the right to take the children and keep them for (IIRC) three days.

[LeGrande]

Maybe I’m a little naive, but if I were a mother, no way would I allow a deception to occur that would result in a government agency taking my children away.

I don't think that they anticipated that the State would take their children, it probably never even occurred to them. I think they were all geared for the men to be taken away. Their responses seem aimed in that direction.

[eleni121]

I doubt if any argument can convince you about the horrors of polygamy...or slavery...or human sacrifice...etc. all religious practices of one sort or another.

You may want to discuss your placid and puky indifference to polygamy with females formerly bondaged in polygamy. They will set you straight.

And you haven't seen hordes of males attacking anything here yet...apart from the insane ones that attacked us on 9-11...they are products of that nefarious practice. But given time and given legitimacy get ready for the fireworks.

[LeGrande]

Every government official, from the lowest level on up, should have Consitutional rights and liberties as the fundamental underpinning of what they do and how they think. They should all be taught, and expected by superiors, to judge their decisions on our fundamental underpinnings and have the healthiest respect for it.

I think you are missing the point about what has been happening here. These are all Civil procedures, where you don't have any Constitutional Rights. You can be compelled to testify against yourself, you do not have the right to withhold evidence. That is what is so nasty about what the State of Texas has done and that is why there are no criminal charges. In a civil case the State does not have the burden of proof, you have to prove that you do not abuse your children. How do you do that?

That is why this is such a terrifying case.

[Marie]

So because people have suspicions of them being polygamists they lose all their rights. What happens when CPS comes for your kids?

Not at all! I meant that this was a rational argument against polygamy (in general) that was based on logic not on feelings. Most people just say "it's disgusting" and leave it at that.

I'm very much against the kidnapping and the false imprisonment of adult women on the part of the government in this case.

[El Gato]

I haven't seen hordes of warlike and uncrontrollable polygamists attacking Houston

Not yet. But the results have been felt in the US. On 9-11-2001, in New York City, Northern Virginia, and a smoking hole in the ground in Pennsylvania.

It cost us a FReeper, probably more than one. But Barbara Olson, political commentator, wife of then US Solicitor General Ted Olson and FReeper, was killed when that plane hit the Pentagon.

It's a surplus of disaffected, and woman less, males that polygamy produces that are the problem. (and threat to sheep and goats everywhere). They make great cannon fodder. (Yes, I know, at least one of the 9-11 hijackers had a western girlfriend, but it's the overall cultural effect, not just individual cases, that counts)

That I don't think they are much of a threat to a Free Republic, as long as the first amendment is enforced and others are free to NOT practice their particular brand of religious weirdness.