Posted on 05/24/2008 7:29:58 PM PDT by TheDon
The Child Protective Services motion said the appellate court acted "in excess of its power."
That's rich...
BTTT
CPS vs. FLDS.
If only they could both lose.
As far as I’m concerned, Texas is acting tyrannically and so the Texas State government has no right to function, except to undo the damage it has caused. If these children are not returned, the Texas State government has no right to exist.
They originally had 31 alleged underage mothers. Now it’s down to 5 alleged underage mothers. I can’t wait to see how this ends
Amen, brother.
I bet there are some unhappy SC justices.
I pray that all the children get returned to their parents.. even if they have 4 mommies.. I don’t think thats a bad thing.. now having said that.. I’m not for statutory rape, or child abuse, or welfare fraud, or child brides.. but I’m not against one man loving and marrying as many adult women as he pleases.. its better than serial monogamy or having affairs.. yet society accepts these things as “normal”. Polygamy in and of itself is not a religion, it’s not abusive, it isn’t exclusive to FLDS or Muslims or any relgion, it’s not about sexual excess.. its about love.. and anyone who wants to research the truth about it can do so.. and not just by finding anti-polygamy websites. Flame away.
I’m awe struck. Do you have....never mind. I don’t want to know.
That 'immediate' in there is VERY important.
I may be wrong of course, but I believe that Texas state law says that the only reason that children can be taken away from their parents is due to "immediate danger" to the child's health and safety.
These children were in no immediate danger and I think the Supremes are going to rule in favor of the FLDS.
Better not ask...........
Just imagine the monetary damages that the state will have to cough up for this illegal raid, after it is all said and done. I imagine lawyers are lining up, even as I write this, to sue the CPS for their abuse of power.
The FDLS mothers need to get in touch with the equivalent of the lawyers who took down Big Tobacco. The FDLS women need to sue the state of Texas big time. They haven’t been found to have been living off welfare, but with the lawsuit proceeds, will be living well off the rest of their lives.
With so-called gay marriage back on the books in MA and CA, it can't possibly be that long before bigamy gets the same treatment and right behind that, polygamy.
At one time, slavery was legal, now it's illegal. At one time Jim Crowe laws were legal, now illegal. At one time, just 2-3 years ago, the age to marry in Texas was 14, now it's 16.
A lot of laws change with the political fashion.
actually it includes immediate danger of abuse, which is defined in this statute:
261.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Abuse" includes the following acts or omissions by a person: (A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning; (B) causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning; ---------- (E) sexual conduct harmful to a child's mental, emotional, or physical welfare, including conduct that constitutes the offense of continuous sexual abuse of young child or children.... (F) failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child; (G) compelling or encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct as defined by Section 43.01, Penal Code; (H) causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing the photographing, filming, or depicting of the child if the person knew or should have known that the resulting photograph, film, or depiction of the child is obscene as defined by Section 43.21, Penal Code, or pornographic; Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code; (4) "Neglect includes: ------ (iv) placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to a substantial risk of sexual conduct harmful to the child; or (v) placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to acts or omissions that constitute abuse. The code includes any persons involved/responsible in the child's care, not necessarily just the parents.
With the cult's group living arrangement, this will likely apply to every child. Certain evidence was unavailable to the appeals court, but I imagine the Supremes will get it.
This is Texas we are talking about:’)
Do SC justices in TX stand election?
I’m not going to flame you, but thanks for posting that. It will give others here a little insight...
susie
Looks like it (I had to look it up)http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/
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.