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 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,321-1,331 next last
To: ElkGroveDan

bttt


861 posted on 05/22/2008 7:46:00 PM PDT by Guenevere (If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Well it's pretty hard to know who's "married" to whom and how many wives the various men had when the FLDS shredded most of the documentation.

Here is a story about that "shredded" documentation: Records Reveal Sect's Family Network

Hand-scrawled records taken from a polygamist sect are helping untangle the spider-web network of family relationships at the Yearning For Zion ranch, where some husbands had more than a dozen wives.

An Associated Press analysis of the records, which authorities seized in a raid last month, show that by the time a girl reached 16, she was more likely to be married than to live as a child in her father's household. The same was not true for boys.

I guess their shredder didn't work very well :-)

btw, there is something wrong about records seized by police in a criminal matter being released to be analyzed by the AP, without regard to the legality of those records.

Imagine if the police raided your house looking for something, and took all your tax records and gave them to the AP to analyze.

Continuing:

The records, released by court officials last week, include 37 families totaling 507 individuals. At the time the lists were written from March through August of 2007, most of the people were living at the YFZ Ranch, though others were in homes along the Utah-Arizona line
...
FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said the records indicate that many sect members "are either monogamous couples or adult couples, and that incidence of underage marriage is actually not very prevalent."
...
The records are each labeled "Father's Family Information Sheet, Bishop's Record," and appear to be a kind of church census, with wives and children listed below the male head of household. The age and location of each individual is included, though some are incomplete.
...
The records, taken from a safe in an office at the ranch, were among the truckload of documents, computer disks and family Bibles seized from the ranch during a six-day search for records that showed underage marriages. Parker said he was unsure how complete the records are or what purpose they served
I hope this helps disabuse you of the notion that we have no records from the compound, or that these records were mostly shredded.
862 posted on 05/22/2008 7:49:04 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I guess we get to wait and see. If the state of Texas had evidence of child abuse, then they should have acted on it. But to take children out of an environment where they “might” be abused several years down the road is just wrong. The appeals court was right, there was no immediate danger to most of the children.

As I was driving home this evening, the commentators were saying that not all of the parents were in on this suit. So not all of the children will be covered by it. I’ll bet there are some phone calls going on right now with the rest of the parents trying to find lawyers.

It is a can of worms all the way around. Do I believe there was abuse going on at FYZ? Yes, there were young teenage girls being married to much older men. But the state of Texas has to prove it, not just allege it. And so far, the phone call has proven to be a hoax, the 14 year old girl the state says was pregnant is not, many of the women the state has said were minors actually turned out to be in their twenties (and have had proof all along.)

And I foresee that if those women/families get their children back, they’ll be out of Texas in days.


863 posted on 05/22/2008 7:49:38 PM PDT by Utah Girl (John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: Domandred; UCANSEE2
The link we are talking about is below. I posted it, was immediately accused of supporting pedophilia and worse, and UCANSEE2 came to my aid in the fight against these zealots.

End result, WE both got banned for a few hours, until the Mods got the truth of the matter.

Link is directly below and, if you look at my statement in the posting of the article, I was concerned at that early stage about the Gov’t overreaching and trampling on rights. It appears my concerns were justified.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2000649/posts

864 posted on 05/22/2008 7:52:14 PM PDT by TCats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

If you are referring to my post about the M113 last night, you misunderstood it.

Want me to get it for you?


865 posted on 05/22/2008 7:52:44 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: TCats

LOL, me in that thread: “Oh noes someone has multiple screen names! Sheesh you two are retarded.” - Domandred


866 posted on 05/22/2008 7:54:39 PM PDT by Domandred (McCain's 'R' is a typo that has never been corrected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"I was actually called a mod."

Damn.

Guess I got off light.

867 posted on 05/22/2008 7:54:47 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Yes, really. :)

It’s really a mixed bag for me. Polygamy is against the law, no doubt about that. In our society today however, it seems that some can be married and have children, have affairs and have children from those affairs, and hey, what’s the big deal? But if the man marries a second wife and pledges to support her for life, then hey, it’s off with his head. (Please don’t think I am condoning multiple wives, I’m not.) I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy.

On the other side of it, the FLDS does use government aid (Medicaid, etc.) They call it bleeding the beast. I do resent my tax dollars going to care for men who basically just um, procreate all the time.


868 posted on 05/22/2008 7:54:48 PM PDT by Utah Girl (John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: CatherinePPP
If the police went in there for no reason at all, or if they took away children without any evidence of crime and abuse, then I might agree with you, but I don’t see how this is any different than when the police raid a bunch of illegal immigrants and get complained at over it. They DID break the law and they have to take their own responsibility for that.

They didn't follow the law when they took people's children away from them.
Which is why their case is falling apart.

Cps broke the law by not following it.
Time for them to take responsiblity for their actions.
869 posted on 05/22/2008 7:54:48 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: deport

I hate to be dumb as a box of rocks, but, is this what the parents sent to court? Or what the court determined? If it isn’t what the court determined... is that on this thread somewhere?


870 posted on 05/22/2008 7:55:36 PM PDT by exhaustedmomma (McCain: You don't have to love him, you just have to fall in line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

Quoting myself (I am vain that way ~)

Actually, it is an M113 APC - an army surpluss POS that our troops refused to ride in in VN.

The hull is aluminum, it burns when lit, and provided less ballistic protection than a dirt berm.

On the upside, they make great snow cats!

Also, they are used world-wide for yard dogs - utility vehicles in railyards and such.

So calling it a tank is more than a little silly.

A tank has a main gun, more armor, etc., etc.

FReepers are picky about these things. ;)

(Watch - someone will correct my facts about the APC)


871 posted on 05/22/2008 7:55:59 PM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

I do like Ben Stein’s take on things.

I was driving home late Tuesday night and listening to the radio. The hosts had 2 polygamist women on the show. It was very strange. They were dressed normally (no prairie dresses.) But they were not forthcoming about their lives at all. They wouldn’t even tell what their beliefs were. They were very evasive when answering the questions.


872 posted on 05/22/2008 7:59:19 PM PDT by Utah Girl (John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: Flo Nightengale

Yep, I said it!

“The only abusive thing I see going on here is with cults like the Texas CPS and our government. They have become corrupt, inept, intrusive and punitive”.

In addition, I said this!

“Make no mistake, this government behavior, activities and conduct has not been overlooked or missed by most Americans that are capable of critical thinking”.


873 posted on 05/22/2008 8:01:45 PM PDT by dragnet2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl

Well, when your lifestyle is essentially illegal, you are going to be careful about what you say.


874 posted on 05/22/2008 8:04:26 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I just found this information from the ruling of the appeals court.
This is a big blow to Judge Barbara Walther who authorized the seizure. She's been given 10 days to vacate her original orders. The state could appeal today's ruling, so it's not clear when the kids will return to the YFZ Ranch.

875 posted on 05/22/2008 8:12:43 PM PDT by Utah Girl (John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: patton

Not unless you are the one who said it was used for rattlesnake defense.


876 posted on 05/22/2008 8:15:51 PM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; CatherinePPP

Note that I was responding to CatherinePPP’s post, not the ruling. I recognize the difference, and realize that despite what the Founding Fathers intended, the current state of government power aided by inappropriate SCOTUS rulings might very well allow an oath about hearsay about hearsay as sufficient.


877 posted on 05/22/2008 8:19:36 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Too little too late.


878 posted on 05/22/2008 8:19:45 PM PDT by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diogenes ghost

The rattlesnake defense guy posted to me that he could arrange for criminal trials in this case if I so desired...I think he was over medicated by this time .


879 posted on 05/22/2008 8:28:59 PM PDT by crazyhorse691 (With McCain around we can proudly proclaim, WE ARE SO SCREWED)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
They wouldn't divulge their religious beliefs. They said they believed in the fundamentalist religion (code word for practicing polygamy.) But then they were asked if they had a prophet. Big long silent pause. Well, no, kind of sort of not. They were asked things about their religious doctrine that they couldn't answer. Here is the link, the whole interview is interesting and odd. Scroll down to Polygamy 101. The Nightside Project
880 posted on 05/22/2008 8:31:32 PM PDT by Utah Girl (John 15:12, Matthew 5:44)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 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