Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago
AP via Yahoo ^ | 5/22/08

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: betterthancrispy; biggovernment; constitution; cpswatch; cultists; donutwatch; duplicate; fascism; feminism; firstamendment; flds; freedomofreligion; governmentnazis; jeffs; kidnapping; longdresses; mobrule; molesters; mormon; patriarchy; polygamy; property; ruling; statistapologists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,321-1,331 next last
To: Soliton

Who stated this?


381 posted on 05/22/2008 2:35:50 PM PDT by atruelady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
You are probably referring to Wenatchie, WA. It was by far the biggest and scariest of the day care abuse cases that were a kitchen industry for several years.

Those bogus cases paved the way for CPS legislation around the country, giving petty bureaucrats extra-legal powers that have destroyed countless families....and will continue to do so.

Cuz it's for the children, you know.

382 posted on 05/22/2008 2:36:33 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Bushwacker777

You are waist deep in ignorance. Both was happening.


383 posted on 05/22/2008 2:37:22 PM PDT by atruelady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: deport
The court system will work this out. I’m not sure what the Criminal Court of Appeals would have to do with a Civil case and so far nothing has been done regarding criminal indictments/charges/arrest/etc.

Well, this whole mess has both criminal and civil aspects. The children were taken into state custody when evidence of abuse became apparent while the state was in the process of serving a warrant on reported criminal child abuse.

384 posted on 05/22/2008 2:38:44 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (1984 was supposed to be a warning not an instruction manual!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: svcw; Saundra Duffy

When you talk about someone it’s customary to ping them.


385 posted on 05/22/2008 2:38:49 PM PDT by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: atruelady
"I don’t think that is radical at all to teach kids that homosexuality is wrong. It is wrong and the comparison to this situation is not even on the same page with the pedophile child-rape circus going on."

Try keeping up with the various 'hate crime' legislative attempts to make statements against homosexuality illegal. They will eventually succeed and then it won't matter what you think. It only matters what your gov't thinks. Ah, but that was the whole point, wasn't it.

386 posted on 05/22/2008 2:39:01 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: donna
My apologies. From day one i've been wondering what happened to these people's parental rights, rights against unreasonable search and seizure, privacy rights and more.

These people's rights set the precedence for me and my families rights under similar circumstances.

387 posted on 05/22/2008 2:39:27 PM PDT by HeartlandOfAmerica (Don't blame me - I voted for Fred and am STILL a FredHead!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
It says the CPS improperly treated the ranch as a single household, and that the abuse was limited to girls in a certain age bracket.

There was no evidence presented of any abuse of any of the children. The Appeals Court pointed out that even potential hypothetical abuse alleged by the CPS would have applied only to girls in a certain age bracket. No abuse has been proven, and none of families who filed the appeal even had children who could have fallen into the category of the hypothetical allegations.

388 posted on 05/22/2008 2:39:39 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: webheart

Government is really in no position to protect every child from abuse, or even death. It is the obsession with preventing every harm that leads to the erosion of our liberties.

The old adage is that bad things happen to good people.

Some people expect that government can make that adage false.


389 posted on 05/22/2008 2:39:49 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: atruelady; CharlesWayneCT

When you talk about someone it’s customary to ping them.


390 posted on 05/22/2008 2:39:49 PM PDT by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: conservativeinferno

It was not the US gov’t. It was the state of Texas.


391 posted on 05/22/2008 2:40:06 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Who has been charged and did the State know the call was fake before petitioning for the warrant?
I will bet no one gets charged because it will be proved that the state knew the call was bogus before petitioning the judge. Caller ID usually tells the area code.
All Suspects Are Innocent Until Proved Otherwise In A Court Of Law!
392 posted on 05/22/2008 2:40:21 PM PDT by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
The actions weren't based on evidence you saw, the actions (warrant) was based on what the Texas Rangers saw and documented in their affidavit.

No....the actions were based on an anonymous "tip" from a lunatic in Colorado.

393 posted on 05/22/2008 2:40:34 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Oh, asked questions, huh? And when were they supposed to do that, when they tried to before the whole seizure operation and was told by the pedophiles to go pound sand?

The ranch recently disallowed investigatior access to the ranch when the WOMEN who are not at the ranch anymore told them there are more children still out there not accounted for in the group who left in the initial raid.


394 posted on 05/22/2008 2:41:02 PM PDT by atruelady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: donna

Meaning what exactly?

Anyone who says these people have more rights than raped children would surely sing a different tune if it was their daughter or granddaughter.


395 posted on 05/22/2008 2:42:11 PM PDT by atruelady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
No....the actions were based on an anonymous "tip" from a lunatic in Colorado.

The children weren't removed because of that tip. The children were removed after the Texas Rangers and a DFPS agent went in to investigate the tip. They interviewed the children and others there and then based on what they witnessed and from the interviews, requested the warrants to remove. Documents posted in post #334.

396 posted on 05/22/2008 2:42:35 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan
Not that I approve, Texas CPS will argue in appeal that sufficient evidence does now exist (fruit from the poisoned tree) and they should retain custody.

Eventually, this will be a USSC case.

397 posted on 05/22/2008 2:43:12 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

“Explain taking a newborn baby away form its mother
No newborn babies have been taken away from their mothers”

Oh yes they have and it has been reported in the press.


398 posted on 05/22/2008 2:43:12 PM PDT by Bushwacker777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: atruelady
You with the stupidity award for the most ridiculous comparison of all... Sad to be you.

Thanks for the award. Do I get a trophy?

But if this is the way that "a true lady" from Texas treats other people, then I shudder for the future of our society. Apparently in your haste to post dozens of messages supporting the unlimited power of the state to violate parents' rights, you've forgotten that "a true lady" treats others with respect and consideration.

399 posted on 05/22/2008 2:43:41 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama
Aw, just some old words written by some dead white guys....

Heck, I still don't understand the constitutional argument of confiscating property before a sentence. To many people that puts me in bed with criminals and drug dealers.

Our founders clearly understood that some bad people were going to get away with mischief but even so that was far more desirable than an imperial government.

But then "sentence first - verdict afterwards" seems to be the "modern" standard. How far we have fallen. We worship government far more than anyone ever worshiped King George.

400 posted on 05/22/2008 2:44:19 PM PDT by Proud_texan (Election 2008: What Clayton Williams said)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 1,321-1,331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson