Posted on 05/23/2008 5:11:24 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
AN ANGELO, Texas An appellate court decision upended the custody case that sent more than 440 children from a polygamist sect's ranch into foster care, but it's not clear whether the children might soon return home.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds under Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.
Texas District Judge Barbara Walther now has 10 days to release the youngsters from custody, but the state could appeal to the Texas Supreme Court and keep the children from immediately going back to their parents.
[snip]
Child-protection officials argued that five girls at the ranch had become pregnant at 15 and 16 and that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex with older men and groomed boys to enter into such unions when they grew up.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I would still like to see the distribution of kids by age and sex.
Watch it there, fella. You might just bring down the wrath of the gubmint-lovin' FReepers onto yourself.
Just remember: Upholding the rule of law = agreeing with pedophilic rape.
/s
Most Republicans and most Democrats agree with the proposition that "rules were made to be broken", and what they fight over is which rules, and by whom.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the People against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." (Noah Webster)
“Then everything includes itself in power, Power into will, will into appetite, and appetite, a universal wolf, so doubly seconded with will and power, must make perforce a universal prey, and at last eat up himself” (Troilus and Cressida, I-3)
_________________________________________________________
I would like to see the ratio of 15-16 year old girls at the ranch that get pregnant compared to the 15-16 year old girls in the rest of the state that get pregnant.
LOL, I rather see this whole FLDS affair as a testing of the waters to see whether government agencies in the future will be able to get away with taking away the kids of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians who "are in danger because of religious indoctrination". Start with the fringe group, and once that works, move your way in to the groups with more members.
What's amazing is the number of short-sighted FReepers on here who were just fine with the gubmint taking away over 450 kids from their parents, on what appears to be spurious charges of statutory rape. I mean come on, the Texas CPS had one girl who was 27, provided an Arizona driver's license right at the start, but ignored it all and called her a "child" so that they could push their case.
These same FReepers, 15 years from now, will be squawking to high heaven when it's their own kids being taken away on some spurious charge because the gubmint has decided that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists just aren't raising their kids right, and that indoctrinating them in their religious beliefs is child abuse. And guess what? Those FReepers won't have any room to complain, since here and now, they are accommodating the same thing, just like a bunch of Frog collaborators in occupied Paris.
If somebody did this who didn’t have a CPS badge, they’d call it what it is.
Kidnapping.
It all started with a false police report from out of state. The only “evidence” the state had was/is rumor and innuendo. And the state trampled all over the Constitution in its efforts to be PC.
And now you tell me some judge threw the whole thing out? What was he thinking?
“Start with the fringe group, and once that works, move your way in to the groups with more members.”
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
Bull crap. The kids were specifically put into strong Christian homes BECAUSE of the beliefs of the parents rather than put them into just any foster home.
This is also a couple of weeks old. But it is the latest I remember seeing that gave the breakdown in ages:
Salt Lake City Tribune, April 29, 2008:
There are a total of 463 FLDS children - 250 females, 213 males - in state custody in Texas. Here is a breakdown of that count: * 0-2: 101, 49 females, 52 males * 3-5: 99, 46 females, 53 males * 6-9: 131, 68 females, 63 males * 10-13: 62, 34 females, 28 males * 14-17: 42, 27 females, 15 males * Disputed age: 26 females, now classified as 17 or younger. * Two boys who turned 18 while in state custody also have voluntarily chosen to stay with younger boys. Source: Texas Child Protective Services
I believe the 15 which are now known to be adults were part of the 26 for which age was disputed. That leaves 11, with no way of knowing if the CPS was wrong about them as well.
There is another sect that allows multiple wives and abuses children. Nothing is being done to them.
I think you need to add to the equation, the number who are married.
“Bull crap. The kids were specifically put into strong Christian homes BECAUSE of the beliefs of the parents rather than put them into just any foster home.”
Right. And the Evangelical Christians who staged this whole thing got to decide just what was a “strong Christian home”.
“Bull crap. The kids were specifically put into strong Christian homes BECAUSE of the beliefs of the parents rather than put them into just any foster home.”
Right. And the Evangelical Christians who staged this whole thing got to decide just what was a “strong Christian home”.
These children were taken from their parents not on the grounds of having been raped or abused, but on the basis of the beliefs of the FLDS.
That’s the justification given by the CPS that was shot down by the appeals court yesterday.
You can’t use someone’s beliefs to justify taking children away.
The children have to have been hurt or in imminent danger of being hurt to justify taking them.
CPS is flat on its face in this case.
Its shocking to think that someone’s belief system should be used as an excuse by government to seize children.
America is not a country where what people believe should be criminalized. Actions that hurt others should be a crime, but not what people believe.
“”I would like to see the ratio of 15-16 year old girls at the ranch that get pregnant compared to the 15-16 year old girls in the rest of the state that get pregnant.””
The only difference is that those girls in the rest of the state receive no support for their children except from the government because it takes a government village to raise a child to worship the state.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
In re Sara Steed, et al.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM SCHLEICHER COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O NPER CURIAM
This original mandamus proceeding involves the temporary custody of a number of children who were removed from their homes on an emergency basis from the Yearning For Zion ranch outside of Eldorado, Texas. (1) The ranch is associated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), and a number of families live there. Relators are thirty-eight women who were living at the ranch and had children taken into custody on an emergency basis by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services based on allegations by the Department that there was immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the children.
Relators seek a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to vacate its temporary orders (2) in which it named the Department the temporary sole managing conservator of their children. (3) Relators complain that the Department failed to meet its burden under section 262.201 of the Texas Family Code to demonstrate (1) that there was a danger to the physical health or safety of their children, (2) that there was an urgent need for protection of the children that required the immediate removal of the children from their parents, or (3) that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the children's removal from their parents. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201 (West Supp. 2007). Without such proof, Relators argue, the district court was required to return the children to their parents and abused its discretion by failing to do so.
Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children is an extreme measure. It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of the children involved. However, it is a step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary. See id. (4)
Section 262.201 further requires the Department, when it has taken children into custody on an emergency basis, to make a showing of specific circumstances that justify keeping the children in the Department's temporary custody pending full litigation of the question of permanent custody. Unless there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of each of the requirements of section 262.201(b), the court is required to return the children to the custody of their parents. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201(b).
In this case, the Department relied on the following evidence with respect to the children taken into custody from the Yearning For Zion ranch to satisfy the requirements of section 262.201:
In addition, the record demonstrates the following facts, which are undisputed by the Department:
The Department argues that the fact that there are five minor females living in the ranch community who became pregnant at ages fifteen and sixteen together with the FLDS belief system condoning underage marriage and pregnancy indicates that there is a danger to all of the children that warrants their immediate removal from their homes and parents, and that the need for protection of the children is urgent. (8) The Department also argues that the "household" to which the children would be returned includes persons who have sexually abused another child, because the entire Yearning For Zion ranch community is a "household." See id. § 262.201(d)(2).
The Department failed to carry its burden with respect to the requirements of section 262.201(b). Pursuant to section 262.201(b)(1), the danger must be to the physical health or safety of the child. The Department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relators' pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a "pervasive system of belief" that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. (9) 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. It is the imposition of certain alleged tenets of that system on specific individuals that may put them in physical danger. The Department failed to offer any evidence that any of the pubescent female children of the Relators were in such physical danger. The record is silent as to whether the Relators or anyone in their households are likely to subject their pubescent female children to underage marriage or sex. The record is also silent as to how many of Relators' children are pubescent females and whether there is any risk to them other than that they live in a community where there is a "pervasive belief system" that condones marriage and child-rearing as soon as females reach puberty.
The Department also failed to establish that the need for protection of the Relators' children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children. As previously noted, none of the identified minors who are or have been pregnant are children of Relators. There is no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household as the Relators' children. (10) There is no evidence that Relators have allowed or are going to allow any of their minor female children to be subjected to any sexual or physical abuse. There is simply no evidence specific to Relators' children at all except that they exist, they were taken into custody at the Yearning For Zion ranch, and they are living with people who share a "pervasive belief system" that condones underage marriage and underage pregnancy. Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the Department contends, (11) there is no evidence that this danger is "immediate" or "urgent" as contemplated by section 262.201 with respect to every child in the community. The legislature has required that there be evidence to support a finding that there is a danger to the physical health or safety of the children in question and that the need for protection is urgent and warrants immediate removal. Id. § 262.201(b). Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue as required by section 262.201.
Finally, there was no evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the removal of any of Relators' children. The evidence is that the Department went to the Yearning For Zion ranch to investigate a distress call from a sixteen year-old girl. (12) After interviewing a number of children, they concluded that there were five minors who were or had been pregnant and that the belief system of the community allowed minor females to marry and bear children. They then removed all of the children in the community (including infants) from their homes and ultimately separated the children from their parents. This record does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the Department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children of Relators.
We find that the Department did not carry its burden of proof under section 262.201. The evidence adduced at the hearing held April 17-18, 2008, was legally and factually insufficient to support the findings required by section 262.201 to maintain custody of Relators' children with the Department. Consequently, the district court abused its discretion in failing to return the Relators' children (13) to the Relators. The Relators' Petition for Writ of Mandamus is conditionally granted. The district court is directed to vacate its temporary orders granting sole managing conservatorship of the children of the Relators to the Department. The writ will issue only if the district court fails to comply with this opinion.
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop
Filed: May 22, 2008
1. The Department removed over 450 children from their homes on the Yearning For Zion ranch over the course of three days. This proceeding does not involve parents of all of the children removed.
2. The temporary orders reviewed in this proceeding were issued following the hearing held April 17-18, 2008, and were signed the week of April 21, 2008.
3. Because temporary orders in a suit affecting a parent-child relationship are not subject to interlocutory appeal under the family code, mandamus review is appropriate. Dancy v. Daggett, 815 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex. 1991); In re Vernor, 94 S.W.3d 201, 210 (Tex. App.--Austin 2002, orig. proceeding).
4. Section 262.201 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
(a) Unless the child has already been returned to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession and the temporary order, if any, has been dissolved, a full adversary hearing shall be held not later than the 14th day after the date the child was taken into possession by the governmental entity.
(b) At the conclusion of the full adversary hearing, the court shall order the return of the child to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian entitled to possession unless the court finds sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child which was caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child;
(2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child's removal; and
(3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the child is returned home.
. . . .
(d) In determining whether there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child, the court may consider whether the household to which the child would be returned includes a person who:
(1) has abused or neglected another child in a manner that caused serious injury to or the death of the other child; or
(2) has sexually abused another child.
Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 262.201 (West Supp. 2007).
5. One woman is alleged to have become pregnant at the age of thirteen. She is now twenty-two years old.
6. This number has fluctuated. It will likely continue to fluctuate somewhat as disputes regarding the age of certain persons taken into custody are resolved.
7. Under Texas law, it is not sexual assault to have consensual sexual intercourse with a minor spouse to whom one is legally married. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a), (c)(1), (2) (West Supp. 2007). Texas law allows minors to marry--as young as age sixteen with parental consent and younger than sixteen if pursuant to court order. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 2.101 (West 2006), §§ 2.102-.103 (West Supp. 2007). A person may not be legally married to more than one person. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.01 (West Supp. 2007).
8. The Department's position was stated succinctly by its lead investigator at the hearing. In response to an inquiry as to why the infants needed to be removed from their mothers, the investigator responded, "[W]hat I have found is that they're living under an umbrella of belief that having children at a young age is a blessing therefore any child in that environment would not be safe."
9. The Department's witnesses conceded that there are differences of opinion among the FLDS community as to what is an appropriate age to marry, how many spouses to have, and when to start having children--much as there are differences of opinion regarding the details of religious doctrine among other religious groups.
10. The notion that the entire ranch community constitutes a "household" as contemplated by section 262.201 and justifies removing all children from the ranch community if there even is one incident of suspected child sexual abuse is contrary to the evidence. The Department's witnesses acknowledged that the ranch community was divided into separate family groups and separate households. While there was evidence that the living arrangements on the ranch are more communal than most typical neighborhoods, the evidence was not legally or factually sufficient to support a theory that the entire ranch community was a "household" under section 262.201.
11. The simple fact, conceded by the Department, that not all FLDS families are polygamous or allow their female children to marry as minors demonstrates the danger of removing children from their homes based on the broad-brush ascription of every aspect of a belief system to every person living among followers of the belief system or professing to follow the belief system.
12. The authenticity of this call is in doubt. Department investigators did not locate the caller on the ranch.
13. The children referred to are those children reflected on Appendix I to Relators' reply brief and who are still in the custody of the Department.
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.