Posted on 05/23/2008 9:33:55 AM PDT by deport
AUSTIN – Texas Child Protective Services will ask the state's highest court to keep a polygamist sect's children in state custody, following a Thursday appeals court ruling that ordered the youngsters be returned to their homes.
Texas Supreme Court spokesman Osler McCarthy said attorneys for the state called Friday morning and said they'd be "filing an action in this court" later in the day.
On Thursday, a state appeals court ordered many though perhaps not all of a polygamist sect's children returned to their parents Thursday, saying Texas failed to prove they were in physical jeopardy and urgently needed to be separated from their families.
The mere existence of a belief system that may condone polygamy and "spiritual marriages" involving underage girls is not by itself enough evidence to justify the removal of some 460 children from the sect's ranch, said a three-judge panel of the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals.
In their unanimous opinion, Republican judges Kenneth Law, Robert Pemberton and Alan Waldrop said Child Protective Services had to show every individual child was at imminent risk of physical harm and simply had to be swept into foster care. CPS instead offered only sketchy evidence to a trial court last month — and none about whether it explored less intrusive ways of protecting kids, the judges said.
CPS was tight-lipped about its plans late Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
From the get go I suspected there was something not right about this entire episode. Looks like the Courts after looking at the evidence CPS has agrees.
CPS everywhere has become Gestapo-like in their abuse of power. They have insufficient oversight and way too much state power to abuse.
They deserve to be slapped down HARD, and I hope they are.
I am not an FLDS supporter, by the way. I AM a strong supporter of due process and citizens’ constitutional rights.
I would expect an expedited ruling here.
What? CPS really will have to obey the law? Boy that's gonna pizz `em off. < /sar >
Wait till this thing gets to the point of attempting to prosecute people based on the DNA evidence that have taken. Hoo-boy, the State prosecutors are gonna get steamed.
Good. I’m glad they’re constesting this. The police are very often reversed by ideologically-biased courts on child-custody cases - because of course, it’s not the judge that has to go and pick up the beaten body of the child whom he has returned to the parents. The judges get off scot-free and are never held responsible for their bad decisions.
The child, of course, is left completely without defense, but that doesn’t bother the courts.
I would expect an expedited ruling here.
The article alludes as much in that they expect if the court decides to hear the appeal it will be done to minimise the time impacting the children...... And it should be quickly no matter the outcome. This entire process needs to be done within the laws.
What do they mean by Republican judges? They ran for political office as Republican candidates? They were appointed by a Republican? They are registered Republicans? I didn't know following the law is a political occupation.
They ran for political office as Republican candidates?
You got it...... They may have been appointed to the court at first but the must run for election and the race is partisan.
First of all, there's a major difference between "child-custody cases", which are usually disputes between divorcing parents or other relatives, and child endangerment/abuse cases. I will grant that there are ideologically-driven superior court judges that take one side or the other in custody cases (you can have pro-mother judges and pro-father judges, neither is right, they ought to be applying the law), but I don't get where an ideology would come into the endangerment cases. Nobody in the court system is "for" child abuse. Nobody.
The endangerment cases don't originate with the police as a general rule, but with the child protective services. That bureacracy is like any other bureacracy -- once established its primary purpose becomes to perpetuate itself. Too many hacks exploit the system to keep themselves in a regular paycheck, and the system also attracts those who like to exercise power over others.
My own personal observation is that the child protective folks love a high-profile media case. Usually it's more along the lines of a middle class family getting enmeshed in the system through a vengeful neighbor, but this Texas case is just a bonanza for the publicity seekers within the department.
I'm inclined to think that the appeals court is trying to do their job -- child services can't just snatch children away en masse on the basis of rumor, anonymous calls, and evidence that one or two children have been abused. The problem is not so much whether or not there actually IS abuse in this particular case -- just like it isn't the question of whether a warrantless search actually uncovered some contraband. The problem is whether the state is allowed to uncover misdeeds in violation of the Constitution -- because if they're allowed to do it just because their targets are guilty, then the innocent are their next targets.
These folks may be nutty, have some kooky ideas about sex and marriage, they may even be criminal (although as the appeals court observed there's been no actual hard evidence of that yet.) But the State must follow the rules -- otherwise it becomes a police state, and you or I might become the next victims.
Judges here run on a special non-partisan ballot. There's some legal dispute going on right now about just how political their campaigns can be, and what issues they can raise, but as a general rule judicial campaigns are low key and interest only the lawyers.
I’ve posted very little on the FDLS threads, but I’ve followed the case. The parallels to the Duke Lacrosse Frame are striking. That case I am quite familiar with and for which I keep the ping list here on Free Republic.
We found out in the Duke case that nothing in the newspapers and on television and on cable could be believed. The DA, the Durham cops and the Duke U administration FRAMED the three students and tried to lynch them.
That “authorities” will lie in legal proceedings is not arguable. And the self-appointed “watchdogs” of the press are too damn dumb to figure it out.
Judges here run on a special non-partisan ballot.
Well where ever here is it isn’t in Texas. They have a party primary and then a general election. You’ll see LP and I guess sometimes other 3rd party types with a candidate although I can’t name you one nor remember one.
Well said, AAM.
I’m not sure how they could have legally put the men in jail. Can you enlighten me?
susie
The contested judicial election, if there is one, shows up in the primary. The nonpartisan ballot is attached to the back of both party ballots.
Except that in THIS case there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that ANY of the children were being abused. All they have is a phone call by SOMEONE who has not been identified. Read the appellate court judge’s ruling.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2020157/posts?page=20#20
CPS screwed the pooch royally on this one in several areas and far overstepped their boundaries just because they didn’t like what they THOUGHT the FLDS’s belief system was. They treated ALL the families the same even though they weren’t living under the same roof.
If they can do this to one religious group, what is there to stop them from deciding that another group’s opposition to abortion and homosexuality is too far removed from “normal beliefs” and the children should be taken away from every member of that church?
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.