Posted on 05/23/2008 3:59:55 AM PDT by familyop
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — A Texas appeals court said Thursday that the state had no right to take more than 400 children from a polygamist sect's ranch, a ruling that could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the state offered "legally and factually insufficient" grounds for the "extreme" measure of removing all children from the ranch, from babies to teenagers.
The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said.
It also failed to show evidence that more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.
It was not immediately clear whether the children scattered across foster facilities statewide might soon be reunited with parents. The ruling gave Texas District Judge Barbara Walther 10 days to vacate her custody order, and the state could appeal.
FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said sect members feel validated, having argued from the beginning that they were being persecuted for their beliefs.
"They're very thrilled. They're looking forward to seeing the children returned," he said.
The appellate decision technically applies only to 38 of the roughly 200 parents who challenged the seizure. But their lawyer, Julie Balovich of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, said she expected attorneys for all the other parents to seek to join the ruling.
"It's a great day for Texas justice. This was the right decision," said Balovich, who was joined by several smiling mothers who nonetheless declined to comment at a news conference outside the courthouse here.
Every child at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado was taken into state custody more than six weeks ago, after Child Protective Services officials argued that members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and groomed boys to become adult perpetrators. Only a few dozen of the roughly 440 children seized are teenage girls; half were under 5.
The appeals court said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as an individual household and that the state couldn't take all the children from a community on the notion that some parents in the community might be abusers.
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the court said in its ruling.
The court said that although five girls had become pregnant at age 15 or 16, the state gave no evidence about the circumstances of the pregnancies. It noted that minors as young as 16 can wed in Texas with parental consent, and even younger children can marry if a court approves it.
Balovich said the appeals court "has stood up for the legal rights of these families and given these mothers hope that their families will be brought back together."
CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said department attorneys had just received the ruling and would make any decision about an appeal later.
"We are trying to assess the impact that this may have on our case," he said.
Even before Thursday's ruling, the state's allegations of teenage girls being pushed into sex appeared to be deflating.
Of the 31 sect members CPS once said were underage mothers, 15 have been reclassified as adults — one was 27 years old — and an attorney for a 14-year-old girl said in court that she had no children and was not pregnant, as officials previously asserted.
Five judges in San Angelo, about 40 miles north of Eldorado, have been hearing CPS's plans for the parents seeking to regain custody. Those hearings, which began Monday, were suspended after the appellate ruling Thursday.
The custody case has been chaotic from the beginning. The hearing in which Walther ruled that the children should all enter state custody ran two days.
Hundreds of lawyers crammed into a courtroom and nearby auditorium, queuing up to voice objections or ask questions on behalf of the mothers who were there in their trademark prairie dresses and braided hair.
CPS has struggled with even the identities of the children for weeks and scattered them across foster facilities all over the sprawling state, with some siblings separated by as much as 600 miles.
The sect children were removed en masse during a raid that began April 3 after someone called a domestic abuse hot line claiming to be a pregnant abused teenage wife. The girl has not been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.
The FLDS, which teaches that polygamy brings glorification in heaven, is a breakaway of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago. Members contend they are being persecuted by state officials for their religious beliefs.
Even if I personally would disagree that it is beneficial, one should not legislate opinion. Which is what this law is, since there is no real danger to anyone involved over the already pointed out similar circumstances listed by others above that remain perfectly acceptable to some and completely legal. ie. The legality of unwed mothers, divorced couples, etc and so on. If I was to support legislation making those actions illegal I would be vilified, and rightly so, as that is their choice, their freedom.
To further clarify that position, since no more harm can exist from a polygamist relationship that would be beyond the already pointed out examples that are currently legal, it would stand to reason then that the current laws regarding polygamy are a case of opinion made into law. Most certainly they cannot based on any real evidence that polygamy would be harmful to anyone at the least. This opinion then was applied to law as we have seen done with so many opinions.
To go past that bit of annalist indulgence and on to another; it would also probably be better for a child to grow up in a home with a father, regardless of how many wife's that man might have, then to have none in the home at all. Statical evidence would back that claim. Which would imply that polygamy in and of itself is even less harmful to a child's stable development then a fatherless home. Something which again, is perfectly legal yet probably immoral. One could argue that as well, these fathers are faithful men, regardless of how many “wife's” they might have if they cherish the family and put them above all others. Again, something much better then the examples listed that are legal which allow a man (err. or woman) to walk away and forsake his own. (or her own, so I don't get yelled at by the wife, yes I only have one, just one, never more. I am not insane.) The point is, if one was to claim the illegality should stand based on it being “harmful” to someone in particular it would be a flawed argument from the start. Which means then if not harmful to another, again opinion has been legislated and a freedom trampled on.
To rephrase the long drawn out above, laws regarding polygamy would be legislated opinion that abridge a freedom, that like our other rapidly disappearing freedoms cannot and should not be defined in a court of law as passable or not based on nothing more then the preconceived notions of whatever judge is at the helm. The stripping of de facto freedom to be defined by a court system that does not work for the people but against in most instances is one of the most heinous activities that can be observed today.
Also, even though again, I may not support these particular peoples choice here they broke no law when engaging in said polygamy. As I understand it, one marriage is state issued, the others, were before God. The only person then they should have to answer to for their choice should be God alone, not the state, as they complied with their rules. If the state wants to play God, thats even worse then just simply denying freedom to others, thats a recipe for disaster on many levels. (ie. see abortion, denial of right to life of an unborn human)
Btw, I seem to remember several of the most devout holy men that were loved by God being mentioned in the Bible as having several wife's, wife's they loved and cared for, am I mistaken on that? Because if not, the argument presented that polygamy is immoral because the Bible would forbid it is also a flawed argument, as it was never stated as such in anything I have ever read.
Kudos for that post. A huge number of people here do not get that concept. They may flame you mercilessly until nothing is left but ashes.
Ho-lee cow. Somebody over at the ol’ AG’s office in Austin has got some ‘splainin’ to do. Ouch.
I’m pretty sure DownInFlames was being sarcastic.
I disagree. I don’t think the state has any right to seize people’s children on any pretext. If abuse is occurring, the State has the obligation to file charges against the abusers — not to arbitrarily seize children for an indefinite period pending investigation.
Ideally, abuse should be handled on a personal level. Hypothetically, I know that if I found out that my brother or sister were abusing their kids, CPS would be the least of their worries. (Note: my siblings are wonderful, loving parents who adore their children.) The same goes for my neighbors and friends: my policy is “if you hurt your kids, I will hurt YOU”, and I know they’d do the same to me were I a filthy child abuser. There are some things I will not tolerate, and child abuse is one of them.
That being said, I think local sheriffs should be the ones in charge of checking up on child welfare, not the State. The sheriff lives in the community, knows the people involved (or can find out about them), and has daily access to the suspect(s). If an abuse claim is made, it is far easier for the local sheriff to investigate the matter than the State AG in Austin. And if abuse is occurring, it’s far more likely that the Sheriff can justly see to the safety of the kids and the punishment of the abusers than can the state bureaucracy.
Anyway: I detest the FLDS cult and all they stand for, but they have the right to practice their nutball religion so long as they are not breaking any law in so doing. In this case, it appears that the State has violated that right, and now all of us citizens of the State will have to pay for the mess they made — along with the cult’s future victims, of course.
Pathetic.
That being the case; I owe DownInFlames an apology.
Brilliantly written.
There may be no criminal case(s). If the young woman is 16 and is married to an 18 year old young man, it is my understanding that there is no crime to prosecute. Marriage with parental consent is legal.
If you are aware of a statute that makes it a crime to be underage and pregnant, please share the link.
I have to go with normy on this one... Did these people actually go to the state and get multiple “STATE marriage licenses”? My bet is they performed a non legally binding cerimony within their own church, THUS did not break the state law of polygamy. “IF that is the case and I do not know that anything I have said is true” Then not only did the state go in and take these children they did so under the guise and told the court to receive the warrents that their was polygamy going on.
IF the state obtained warrants under deliberate fraud against the court.... PEOPLE ARE GOING TO JAIL. I mean serious jail.
I'm not the student of the Bible my wife is so I asked her about the Biblical opinion of polygamy. She tells me that the Bible actually takes no position on the subject, instead recounting the lives of various men who did have more than one wife.
Natural law knows NO moral principles. Just as an airplane doesn't have to check local littering regulations before falling out of the sky and messing up the landscape men (and this has been mentioned frequently in this thread) can utterly disregard the legal requirements before fathering children out of wedlock. Indeed, men are basically herd animals, perfectly willing and capable of maintaining a stable of women. In some cultures it's called a "harem." Even in our relatively blue-nosed culture it happens. I know of at least two such families and they're perfectly happy even though they have to jump through a few extra hoops to get medical insurance. They're not even Mormons...
These folks ARE living in our community -- it is called America. Just because they are behind walls that YOU don't like, their rights are not taken from them.
"These are folks stranded in a fortress like cult--miles away from freedom, by an organization that teaches such abuse is normal and good."
What would you have us do ... round them all up and de-program them until their beliefs suit you? The cameras have shown these women in San Angelo at the courthouse, and they have been traveling hundreds of miles to visit with their children. One set of parents has to travel a total of more than 700 miles to see their 4 children which are all in different cities. They don't appear to be 'stranded' anywhere.
I agree. Clearly, if you lie enough to confuse the issue (who is what age, which kids belong to whom, etc) and you have an issue that seems about religion, you will likely be able to do whatever you want.
However, just because one appeals court has thus ruled, I don’t know that this is over.
susie
I keep reading those types of arguments on this topic, but I have to say, it’s silly on its face. There are clear reasons to look at the ranch as *one family*. It is much more like several families living in a large home, and in that case I suspect if there was sexual abuse of one child all of the children would be removed from the home.
However, it appears this particular court agrees with you.
susie
No, I'm disputing that the state, through it's laws, can convey legitimacy or illegitamacy to a religion.
I presumed we were discussing religion from a human perspectve, because from God's perspective it is God that legitimizes a religion, and it is the STATE that is illegitimate if if makes law that usurps the will of God.
But you seem to suggest that by "illegitimate", you simply meant incapable of legal practice, rather than meaning a religion that isn't really a religion.
When the perp lives in the home and the mother knows about and does nothing to stop it....
susie
When the perp lives in the home and the mother knows about and does nothing to stop it....
susie
“We do know for certain that the FLDS has, as a fundamental doctrine, the deliberate breaking of the laws against polygamy.”
No, we don’t know that for certin. They have religious “marriages” but not legal marriages, with licenses and so forth. So they aren’t breaking bigamy laws.
No constitutional rights were at issue in Afghanistan.
No, really, it’s more like living in a house with a person who abuses their kids. You would probably be likely to get yours removed as well, although you may well get them back.
susie
What I couldn’t believe was that idiot female judge. She really seemed like a dim bulb on a power trip.
What really sealed it for me was when the nursing mothers were pleading to have their babies with them, and she blew them off, saying “Women all over this country leave their babies in day care.” When she said that, I was sure she was completely biased. Probably goes to church with the CPS harpies that planned this whole thing.
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.