Posted on 05/24/2008 7:29:58 PM PDT by TheDon
Texas Supreme Court justices ended the day Friday by sending for the trial record in the polygamist sect custody case from the Third Court of Appeals, an indication that the justices will spend the weekend grappling with the legal issues surrounding state custody of well more than 400 children.
Meanwhile, the parents of 12 of the children are enjoying a reunion after state authorities in San Antonio on Friday temporarily released the children of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' embattled YFZ Ranch families back to their parents pending the outcome of an action in district court there.
Rod Parker, spokesman for the some of the parents, said it is further proof the state's case is unraveling.
"It validates what we said all along," Parker said, speaking late Friday afternoon from an airport in Utah. "I'm very pleased to see the first children come home."
CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said she cannot comment on the 12 children leaving state custody.
The week began with 60-day hearings in San Angelo and ended with a flurry of rulings and motions in higher courts.
Thursday, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin issued an opinion in response to a filing by legal aid attorneys representing some YFZ parents that would have effectively released nearly all the children back to the custody of their parents.
The state struck back Friday, filing a motion for emergency relief from the appellate order. The Child Protective Services motion said the appellate court acted "in excess of its power." The agency asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's ruling.
Texas Supreme Court spokesman Osler McCarthy said he expects the court to act on this emergency relief request "fairly quickly."
"They could do it in briefs, they could hold a hearing or they could deny it," McCarthy said. "All three are possibilities."
The sect, which split decades ago from the mainstream Mormon Church, practices a form of plural marriage involving spiritual unions not intended to be officially recognized. It is accused of a having a culture of child sexual abuse.
Evan Pierce-Jones, a member of Hennington, Butler and Jones in San Angelo, represents Leland Keate, one of the fathers of three of the children who for the time being will live with their parents.
He said a hearing for application of writ of habeas corpus was scheduled for Friday, but was rescheduled for June 9. Such documents order that a person in custody be brought before a court and place the burden of proof on those detaining that person to justify the detention.
The children will live with their parents, Leland and Linda Keate, at least until that date or pending the outcome of the appeals. "They are very excited," he said.
The CPS request, not technically an appeal of the Third Court's ruling, says the three justices overstepped their bounds by ordering 51st District Judge Barbara Walther to vacate her mid-April order granting temporary custody of some 450 sect children. The request argued that returning the children at this point would be problematic because DNA testing has not determined which children belong to which parents.
Later Friday, the legal aid lawyers filed their response to the state's request, characterizing the identity argument as a "red herring" and stating that the children "are being subjected to continuing, irreparable harm every day they are separated from their parents."
The response says the practical effect of the appeals court order would be to allow the children to go home while CPS continues its investigation.
McCarthy said late Friday the justices had sent for the trial record, an indication that they will work through the weekend.
The Department of Family and Protective Services earlier issued a statement defending the raid, saying it removed the children "after finding a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse that puts every child at the ranch at risk."
"Child Protective Services has one duty - to protect children. When we see evidence that children have been sexually abused and remain at risk of further abuse, we will act," the department said.
Sect members said they were elated at the initial ruling but expected an appeal.
The ruling, in perhaps the largest child custody case in U.S. history, hammered the state for removing the children. Technically, it applied only to the children of 48 mothers named in the appeal, but the ruling was broad enough to cover nearly every child swept up in the weeklong early April raid.
The appeals court said the state acted too hastily in sweeping up all the children and taking them away on the broad beliefs of the Mormon splinter sect.
"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 there is no evidence that this danger is 'immediate' or 'urgent,' " the court said.
"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," the court said.
The court said the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.
After the appellate ruling on Thursday, the status hearings in San Angelo were canceled indefinitely. During those hearings, of the 31 people the state initially said were underage mothers, at least 15 were reclassified as adults. One mother is 27.
The state has struggled for weeks to establish the identities of the children and sort out their tangled family relationships. The youngsters are in foster homes all over the state, with some brothers or sisters separated by as much as 600 miles.
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.