Posted on 05/23/2008 5:11:24 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
That case reinforce something I taught my daughter: when you come to the attention of the authorities, they are reluctant to ever let you out of their sight. When you come under the full power of the authorities, they are reluctant to release you, for their very power comes by being able to have custody.
My wife's charity had student interns from a nearby university. Some are studying to be social workers and need internships as part of the program The bulk of the students in that program are liberal and hostile to Christians and their values. These are people on their way into the child welfare bureaucracy, where that attitude festers especially when combined with the power to seize and control the lives of families.
Now add into that mix a growing number of homosexual men who see the foster care system as a way to expand the rights of homosexual couples to be both foster parents and to adopt children. They are supported by an increasing number of other bureaucrats who see no difference between gay and not gay, and who increasingly view someone who is repulsed by gays as a person who is unqualified for the very same roles in the lives of children.
But as i understand it, Texas law specifically carries the word "immediate" in order to control people like CPS as in the child must be in "immediate danger" in order to be taken from the parents.
Something that isn't going to happen for 10-15 years, is hardly immediate and that's the basis of the courts ruling.
There's been plenty, I mean PLENTY of people around FR ready to hang or worse, every guy in that compound, on the basis that he might be a child rapist, raping 14 yr olds like a madman.
Snipped.
Wow, that is one major smack-down to CPS, for the courts to come out in such strong language, this case is mostly over. One key point is that the FLDS children and their parents were due a “Full Hearing” before the 14 day mark. Texas better get ready to open their checkbook for the civil rights lawsuit. 1 hearing for all of the them didn’t count. I would expect the Texas Supreme County to deny CPS’s appeal and will not stay the Appeal’s court ruling.
I agree this topic has witnessed extreme hyperbole (on both sides). I don’t understand why we can’t just disagree on a topic, and yet still be decent and thoughtful people. I don’t think many people here either think adults raping minors is ok, nor do I think many people here are in love with the govt. Both of those accusations are pretty over the top. And we probably all agree on more than we disagree on. :)
susie
You maybe correct about the Supreme Court not taking the appeal. I really don’t have a feeling one way or the other except to say I’d lean your way based upon the fact it was a unamimous decision of the three judge panel. Had it been split then I think it would have offered a better chance of the appeal being accepted. This court does have a history of being reversed but I’m not sure that will be the case here.
I haven’t been in favor of hanging anyone (at least not yet!) but I also have seen those on the *other side* (against the children being removed) saying we should arrest the men. I don’t think that can legally be done.
It may well be that the judge overstepped her bounds, I’m not a lawyer. I have read opinions on both sides that made sense. It will remain to be seen what the courts will do. I don’t know much about the 3rd court of appeals, but on first blush, they don’t sound like crazies (like the CA 9th circuit court that is always issuing something wacky and getting slapped down!).
I think probably the thing that bothers me the most in this entire mess was seeing the virtiol that many Freepers have against anything the govt does, and especially if CPS is involved. While I don’t think the govt is always right (and am often railing against them because I think the govt who governs least governs best) and I think CPS has done some pretty crummy things, I also think this was potentially a case where they really did need to do something. They may have handled it badly. It will remain to be seen.
Lastly (sorry to be so windy!) I find it funny that we tend to glom right onto court decisions that support what we think, and then talk about the stupid courts when we disagree with them! So, I don’t think that just because one court said something it’s the last word. Heck, a judge started all of this, so clearly they can be wrong.
susie
You could be right, but I actually heard the total opposite on Fox this afternoon (as I was leaving) from one of their resident legal experts. Can’t remember his name, but I think he was a judge. I think smart and thoughtful people can disagree in this very thorny case.
susie
And what's your address ~ I bet the fire department would be happy to know that YOU DON'T NEED THEM!
You'll notice that just before the Appellate decision they went out to the gate and were denied entry.
The state is appealing this particular opinion. I predict that it will, in part, fail because "reasonable efforts" were prevented by actions taken by the F(lds), a corporation that owns the site through "The Trust".
That'll give the state all it needs to take down "The Trust", at least in Texas and dispose of the property.
I live in a city block where most of the parents would rather commit an honor killing than have that happen. Don’t you?
this makes no sense.
But the appeals court said the state acted too hastily in sweeping up all the children and taking them away on an emergency basis without going to court first.
Now a fire would be a clear immediate danger.
Guess you forgot that.
It's big government man ~ come down there ~ mess in your stuff ~ put out your fire, and who are they to say you don't need that fire eh?./sarc.
Do what?
Kindly prove that assertion with the names, addresses, and the names of the Churches these 'foster parents' attend.
And while you're doing that for me, try this little thought experiment:
"Those kids were specifically put into strong LIBERAL homes BECAUSE of the beliefs of the parents."
Roll that around in your head for a bit and get back to me.
L
i ONCE HAD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT COME TO MY HOUSE BECAUSE MY NEIBHER CALLED THEM. I WAS COOKING IN ON MY DECK AND SHE THOUGHT THE STEAM WAS SMOKE. THEN THEY WANTED ME TO PAY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FIRE. I ONLY NEED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEN THERE IS A FIRE. DO YOU GET MY POINT ?
That's what it smelled like.
Anyway it turned out it was some people from a very primitive part of Cambodia.
They'd been put in the apartment by State Department resettlement experts.
What they'd done was start a fire on the parquet floor to cook beans in a pot.
They did not know how to use electric lights or a gas stove.
We were all happy the fire department came when called. Wasn't our fire either!
But there was a fire. My point is I don’t need the fire department because some one is having a night mare.
Just curious, on what do you base your own judgments and opinions? Are you a person of faith (such as Catholic, Jewish, Jehovah Witness or LDS) or a person of secular humanist persuasion? You indicated that you do not like judgmental faiths? What nonjudgemental faith do you prefer?
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.