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.

[Gondring]

Thanks!

[television is just wrong]

this case will serve to be interesting. wonder what will happen when we start dealing with polygamist 3rd world immigrants who marry a spouse who is a citizen to gain entry of their spouse from the other country and the rest of their family?

don’t laugh, I’ve seen this a lot.

[driftdiver]

‘Since I stated that already, why do you keep dodging the question?’

I’m not dodging the question. I said if they have a warrant they can search where and for what the warrant states. period end of story. CPS workers think they don’t need warrants and are free to do anything they want.

[Gondring]

And if I am looking for your daughter, then can I not search the rooms randomly?

If by "randomly," you mean in haphazard order, then you're fine. If you mean "other than where is indicated in the warrant," than no.

[ElkGroveDan]

Yes I’ve heard similar terrifying stories. I have a lawyer friend who did some prpbono work for a victimized family - same story a troubled teen making things up to get back at parents.

[eleni121]

It’s frightening that some freepers who post here actually want to give these moonbeams a free pass on polygamy and child abuse.

I could resign myself to accepting it in some place like Yemen of some other Godforsaken muslim territory but right here in the US...millions of US citizens shudder at the lunatic trivial justifications for FLDS you and your Liberaltarian cohorts post.

Apparently child abuse and rape is accepted under the law, as long as it takes place gradually over the years - secluded by high fences and walls and done by inbred men - and the stepford wives dress up like haloween pioneer women.

[eleni121]

... polygamist 3rd world immigrants who marry a spouse who is a citizen to gain entry of their spouse from the other country and the rest of their family...

---

They are already here. And depending on how liberal infested courts rule in this sordid case the scenario ges worse...lots worse - because all the “wives” will come here, not wait in Yemen til the kiddies are grown.

For ex. This is what happens now-—Muslim Yemeni “Americans” citizens - 2nd and 3rd generation who have multiple wives in yemen and who go back once a year to impregnate. When the kiddies over there are 17-18 they bring them here to start the whole cycle over again..how long will it take until this country has been overcome by inbred Muslims...not long.

[Arkinsaw]

It’s frightening that some freepers who post here actually want to give these moonbeams a free pass on polygamy and child abuse.

See, this is another logical fallacy. If an opponent is opposed to what the government did and how it acted...then that, by definition, means the opponent wants to give a free pass to child abusers.

A person supports due process. Due process slows punishment of criminals. Therefore all people who support due process desire slow punishment of criminals.

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? Do you make even any attempt to avoid those? Your posts are full of them.

People tend to appeal to logical fallacies when they are losing debates and don't have logical rebuttals or are unfamiliar with the actual facts and defenses of their positions. A lot of times because they are basing their entire position on emotion, gut feelings, or because they think its what they are supposed to believe, without having explored the actual position they are defending.

This is all about civil and criminal law, limitation on government, individual rights, civil liberty, freedom of religion, individual versus group prosecution, Bills of Rights, property seizure, due process, equal protection, and most of all FACTS.

It has nothing to do with who you think are wimps or libertarians, or what your "feelings" are. "Government by feelings" is not the basis for a Free Republic.

[Eva]

They ask for the information before talking to the callers and tell them that they are required by law to ask for the information. Most people would not proceed past that little discussion if they did not want to give the information. Actually, the person on the phone recommends that the caller call 911 themselves if they are reporting an actual crime.

[eleni121]

You fall flat on your face when you refer to freedom of religion under the Constitution. And your silly individual vs collective point falls flat too. Ignorance of the law cannot be used to justify allowing crimes to happen. There is no arugment that can flow from those premises. There is no premise. It is what it is. Bogus.

These FLDSers and their aclu defenders are hoodwinking you and others into thinking fldsers can enjoy their jollies and destroy lives based on some crackpot psychobabble...and exploit the first amendment to do it. They cannot.

Instead they can be punished for their crimes. And they will.

[Arkinsaw]

You fall flat on your face when you refer to freedom of religion under the Constitution.

You make a simple assertion as if asserting it is all that is required to make it so. You are not even making an effort to do anything but assert.

And your silly individual vs collective point falls flat too.

Another simple assertion (and characterization) with zero meat behind it. Just showing up may be 90% of life, but just asserting is not 90% of debating.

Ignorance of the law cannot be used to justify allowing crimes to happen. There is no arugment that can flow from those premises.

Not sure who tried to make an "ignorance of the law" argument. Non-sequitur or strawman, not sure which.

There is no premise. It is what it is. Bogus.

Thought-terminating cliche

These FLDSers and their aclu defenders are hoodwinking you and others into thinking fldsers can enjoy their jollies and destroy lives based on some crackpot psychobabble...and exploit the first amendment to do it. They cannot.

Thats a hard one to translate, but it contains the assumption that I and others have been hoodwinked to believe that FLDS'ers can destroy lives and enjoy their jollies...which is a major twisting of what I and others position.

I am assuming the "crackpot pychobabble" is referring to our logical arguments about individual rights, due process, etc. If thats the case then thats nothing more than another assertion about our position with no backing in your statement as to why it is "psychobabble".

Instead they can be punished for their crimes. And they will.

On an individual basis with evidence and due process sure. But the approach so far taken is more likely to lead to less punishment than if they had dealt with them as individual cases..

[abb]

"Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!"
"How do you know she is a witch?"
"She looks like one."

[Arkinsaw]

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.

[Arkinsaw]

I am gonna give you the last word on this one. I'm not really here for endless argument and I suspect neither of us will be convincing the other.

We can at least agree that there is an underlying issue that the government has a valid interest in investigating but that we disagree on the manner.

[Carry_Okie]

There is no legitimate statistical justification for the existence of CPS

[driftdiver]

“millions of US citizens shudder at the lunatic trivial justifications for FLDS you and your Liberaltarian cohorts post.”

So you support suspending the Constitution anytime or just when FLDS does something?

“Apparently child abuse and rape is accepted under the law, as long as it takes place gradually over the years”

Child abuse or rape are never acceptable. If they’ve happened for years then you should have some proof, no?

“the stepford wives dress up like haloween pioneer women.”

Perhaps the only crime of which there is evidence.

[UCANSEE2]

So, did the LE search anyplace they didn’t have in their warrant?

[UCANSEE2]

“CPS workers think they don’t need warrants and are free to do anything they want.”

---

CPS had to go before a judge to get the search warrant, and then again to keep the children in protective custody.

So, how is that being able to just ‘do’ anything you want?

[driftdiver]

“So, how is that being able to just ‘do’ anything you want?”

There are many cases of CPS going well beyond legal boundaries. In this case they lied to get a warrant. They’ve held children from their parents without any legal justification and continue to fight to keep kids from their parents.

IF the men are breaking laws then take them. If women are helping then take them. Some evidence before separating families would be a earth shattering idea.

[FR_addict]

Here are the laws and the filings:

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08039101.pdf

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08039102.pdf

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/08039103.pdf

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/About/News/2008/2008-04-28_chronology.asp

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm