Why a Texas Appellate Court Seriously Erred

Last week, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, issued a very significant – and very seriously mistaken – ruling, In re Sara Steed et al.

The case involved 38 women from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), who challenged the state’s removal of all the children from their FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas when authorities entered on the basis of reports that a 16-year-old girl was being physically and sexually abused.

They presented their dubious challenge as a petition for a writ of mandamus – an extraordinary remedy that is only rarely granted. Yet the court ruled in favor of the women, and against the Texas child protection authorities.

That decision was not just wrong, but wrongheaded – for it applied the opposite approach to questions involving child abuse and religious entities than it should have: the court focused on religious belief while downplaying the actual conduct at issue. Fortunately, the state is now appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, and rightly so.

I wrote about the constitutional issues involving the removal of the children by Texas’ Child Protective Series (CPS) in a prior column. The appellate decision, though, did not address constitutional issues. Rather, it only addressed the Texas law governing the removal of children from their parents. In this column, I will address that separate set of legal questions, and explain why this decision was indefensible.

To begin, the decision was poorly timed, for two reasons. First, as the state argues in its pending appeal, the judges should have waited for the soon-to-be released DNA results, which are necessary to learn which children belong to which adults – and thus may also reveal provide evidence regarding which children are the victims of or the result of statutory rape. Given the intense intermarriage practices within the organization, the results will also clarify any questions regarding incest.

Such testing was necessary because FLDS members and the medical personnel who attend at their births routinely fail to file birth certificates and, during these proceedings, children and adults alike have been less than forthright about their identities or family relationships. For the court to pretend that it knew with certainty which children belonged to the women who filed the writ is irresponsible, given the facts. Moreover, reaching a decision about which children belong to which parents before DNA results are released only rewards this pattern of deception of legal authorities.

Second, the lower courts had already begun individual hearings to reunite some parents with their children, under CPS family service agreements – thus mooting the appeal with reference to these children. Those lower court judges, with the benefit of individualized evidence, were in a far better position to assess the potential harm to each individual child and to craft terms of reunion in a way so as to protect the children.

In fact, at the time the appellate judges were issuing their decision, those hearings were leading to the release of 12 children to their parents – but those releases, importantly, were based on a careful assessment of the facts for each child. Importantly, too, the children were not permitted to be returned to the compound, and the parents had to agree to ongoing oversight by the state (as would any other parent in similar circumstances).

The Relevant Texas Law Requires Evidence of Danger to the Children, and There Was Copious Evidence of That

There are three criteria under Texas law that govern whether CPS may remove children from their homes. Here is the most relevant language from each criterion, and the language on which the Texas appeals court focused: There must be (1) “a danger to the physical health or safety of the child”; (2) “reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances . . . 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. . . .”

Let’s begin with the first and third factors, invoking danger to the children. Surely, evidence of ongoing felonies must weigh very heavily here – and there was convincing evidence two had been committed repeatedly in the compound: child rape and polygamy.

Texas law makes polygamy a felony -- with its degree determined by the age of the new, additional spouse. The felony is third-degree if the spouse is an adult, second- degree if she is over 16, and first-degree if she is under 16. (In this respect, then, the anti-polygamy laws significantly reinforce the laws against child sex abuse and make a strong statement about the state’s view of underage marriages.)

Felonies are serious business under Texas law. As a general matter, a first-degree felony is subject to imprisonment "for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years"; a second-degree felony entails imprisonment "for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years,” and a third-degree felony requires imprisonment "for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years." These are the kinds of sanctions one would have thought a court would have taken seriously, but the appellate court actually ignored the law of polygamy as though those felonies were simply beside the point.

Was there enough evidence to state that felonies had been, and were being, committed in the FLDS compound? Absolutely. The lower court had so found, and the appellate court was legally required to accept those findings unless it saw an “abuse of discretion” on the lower court’s part. Here, the lower-court findings, far from constituting an abuse of discretion were well-substantiated.

Based on the sect’s own written records, there were numerous polygamous marriages in the compound, and plenty of marriages between underage girls and much older men. Moreover, even the appeals court acknowledged evidence that “[t]wenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen.” Girls at the compound had told investigators that “there was no age too young for girls to be married.” Evidence indicated that the members of the sect delegate to a single individual – the reigning prophet -- the task of choosing who will marry whom, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the community’s marriage and sexual practices constitute a seamless web as opposed to a collection of independent nuclear families. (While a few one-wife families exist, only younger men are likely to have a single wife, as they wait for the blessing of at least three to get a preferred spot in heaven.)

How the Appellate Judges Trivialized Rampant Sexual Abuse and Numerous Felonies

How could the appeals court ignore such compelling facts and conclude there was no real danger to all of the children? No one will ever know the actual motives of these three Republican judges, but the opinion strongly suggests unthinking deference to claims of religious and parental “rights,” even though those claims do little more than cloak criminal behavior that puts children at risk.

First, the judges treated past felonies as if time had erased them – even though these crimes went unprosecuted and unpunished. For instance, they gratuitously asserted that of the 20 underage mothers (and, thus, statutory rape victims) identified, 15 are now adults. Yet that does not negate that these women were victims of crime, that when the sex occurred they could not legally consent, and that the other 5 continue to be victimized.

This is just another version of the message so many victims of child sex abuse hear: they should just move on with their lives and leave the rest of us alone, an antiquated attitude wholly inappropriate for modern-day judges.

Second, the judges tried to magically convert statutory rape into marital intercourse, citing the rule that if a minor is legally married, she (or he) can have “consensual sexual intercourse.” The problem is that for the underage marriage to be legal, the marriage has to be sanctioned by either parental consent or court order. Where was the proof that either existed here? And even if it did, what of the many polygamous marriages, which no parent or court could sanction, and in which underage girls played a part?

More fundamentally, we must ask what, exactly, led the appellate court to try to justify this many child rapes in such a small community? Or the pervasive grooming of boys to be child rapists? Just how many children have to be sexually abused or groomed to rape in order to pass the appropriate threshold of “danger” according to these judges? I would have thought adult males having sex with 20 underage girls (repeatedly, given that some of them have more than one child) out of this small, close-knit community passed all standards of decency and easily justified bringing all of the children out of the enclave. If not 20, how many?

The Fallacy Behind the Court’s Opinion: Absolute Freedom of Religious Belief Is Guaranteed, But Is Never An Excuse for Crime

The appellate judges chastised the court below for taking into account the beliefs of the FLDS, but the existence of religious belief does not erase the illegality of conduct.

There is an absolute right to believe whatever you want under the First Amendment. No court or other government entity may punish a group for its shared beliefs, whether they be religious or secular.

For example, if a group believed in polygamy and child brides and bemoaned the laws against those practices, but still abided by the law, no legal sanction could be applied. They could proclaim their beliefs in every legislature and from every rooftop, and no one could make them stop. This is one of the great cornerstones of the American experiment with religious liberty.

When such a group crosses the line from vocal objection to legal violation, though, that absolute right disappears. In its place is the rule of law. While religious beliefs are protected from religious discrimination, they are no excuse or defense to the application of laws like those governing marriage, crime, and child abuse.

For this reason, the appellate court should have been focused on the conduct alleged, regardless of the belief that motivated it, and regardless whether belief was mentioned below. Had it focused on that conduct, as was its duty, then the court would surely have been led to the opposite conclusion, and would have upheld the earlier decision approving the removal of all children from this troubling compound.

For those who may still question the belief/action distinction (as I did at one point in my career), I think it is worthwhile to consider the following two hypotheticals, which strongly prove the value of that very distinction (and why CPS acted appropriately when it removed all of the children):

Hypothetical Number One. A group of 100 adults and 400 children live together, in a remote location with little contact beyond their own community. None of them are religious. Rather, they have a secular belief that men live longer if they have sex with multiple women, and especially if they have sex with girls as soon as they start menstruating. A man’s future health is confirmed most clearly by the birth of a child, which means women are forced to produce as many children as possible from adolescence through old age. Within the community’s practices, boys are groomed to be men with multiple spouses and child brides. A single “medical” leader determines which female partners will most improve each man’s health. In short, they practice top-down polygamy and engage in persistent statutory rape. The authorities get a report that a 16-year-old girl is being abused. When they enter and see the underage pregnant girls and the girls with children of their own, which children should they leave behind?

Hypothetical Number Two. A group of adults engages in child prostitution and lives in an isolated enclave. They do not practice polygamy; in fact, the adults do not get married at all. Each adult might sleep with another adult at some point, but never for any period of time that would be recognized by the state as even a common law marriage. They do have as many children as possible, though, to keep the business going. The kingpin determines where the girls are sent after they reach adolescence – most are transported within the United States or up to Canada, and made available for whatever men are interested. Some are kept on the premises for more child-bearing. Girls generate the most income, so boys are either abandoned or they stay within the group, spreading their sperm to as many girls and women as possible, to produce the most children possible. Here, we have rampant child abuse, though no polygamy. Local authorities get a tip that a girl is being abused. When they arrive and find records establishing the above facts, they have to decide which children to take and which to leave behind. Which child would you leave behind? How would you sleep at night if you left one behind?

The Texas courts should be looking at the conduct of the FLDS, just as authorities would in the above scenarios. No matter what they believe, their actions require state intervention for every child involved. Under Texas law (and basic common sense), every child is in danger in both the real sect and in the two hypotheticals, and state officials should be given the latitude necessary to secure their safety. The facts establish that the FLDS is a fundamentally lawless group, which has no respect for marriage laws, rape laws, child abuse laws, or even the legal requirements governing birth certificates. (Others who have escaped from the organization detail welfare fraud and child labor law violations as well.) As currently constituted, they offer no environment for children, period.

I would guess if she’s going to do that she’ll have to get on the stick. My son is getting married in El Dorado this summer and I figured this stuff would all be done with by then, but heck, we may have a ringside seat...
susie

I bet then, that they won’t be able to get the kids out of TX, and now that they’ve had them in custody, it will be difficult/impossible for them to lie and say such and such a child was never here, or never existed.

What a messy situation.

susie

Actually, the good news from this, would seem to be that now the state knows exactly which kids are there, or should be there. If they return them with an order that they cannot be moved out of the state (I would think and hope they would do that), then it will be difficult for them to lie and say no such child exists or lives here.

susie

By her logic we should lock up all university professors or all residents of New York City because we cannot prove that they are "all" innocent. Wait, maybe .......

You know, you really may have something there....

susie

This resets it back to square one.

Unfortunately for many of the young children who were seized at gunpoint, separated from their mothers and shipped all over the state, it will never again be square one. For young children, being separated suddenly from their mothers and siblings can be the most terrifying thing imaginable. Even the most zealous CPS worker bees know the absolutely devastating impact that separation trauma can have on young children. They write reams about it and most of them will do whatever they can to avoid it.

It's bad enough if the FLDS does it to children, if the reports of it are true, but to have the State do it under color of law when less drastic measures were readily and obviously available to them as prescribed by the law, as the S.C. pointed out in its Opinion, is shocking to the conscience.

Cordially,

"Frankly, I think Hamilton has a little bit more expertise in this area than any of those lawyers."

Should Texas dispense with the 9 Texas Supreme Court Justices and replace them with Marci? The Supreme Court ruled that the appellate decision was correct, did it not?

The indictments should be easy, now. Soon, the DNA evidence will be returned. That, and they can use the Bishop’s Records.

There’s also the fact that some of the cowards have run away, abandoning rather than standing with their children and the mothers of those children.

Cowardly men rape and run.

but to have the State do it under color of law when less drastic measures were readily and obviously available to them as prescribed by the law, as the S.C. pointed out in its Opinion, is shocking to the conscience.

Shocking indeed. But those of us who tried to point that out were accused of supporting polygamy, pedophilia, child abuse of the worst kind, and various other sundry acts of bad taste.

Some people simply cannot get it through their thick skulls that we either ALL have Constitutional Rights or NONE of us do. There is no middle ground.

Never has been.

Never will be.

If the State can do it (snatch away their kids with NO legal authority to do so) to these FLDS freaks, they can do it to US. And eventually they will.

So thank God the Texas Supreme Court slapped these CPS morons down. Texas Law already provides means for these kids to be rescued, assuming they need to be. CPS knows that.

They have no one to blame but themselves for this mess.

The indictments should be easy, now.

Yep. Lots of folks at CPS should be very, very nervous. Not only are the liable Criminally for their behavior, they're also liable Civilly for their reckless disregard of the FLDS members Civil Rights.

That, and they can use the Bishop’s Records.

Those 'records' will never be introduced as evidence. Not unless they can find the person who actually wrote them and compel him or her to testify as to their accuracy in an open Court, under Oath, and subject to cross examination.

And the odds of that happening are remote in the extreme.

Bad logic. Slavery as part of sharia law predates our 13th, 14th, Amendments. For that matter, even older are the regulations for selling your children into slavery in the Old Testament.

As the Professor writes, you may believe anything. You may not infringe on the inalienable rights of others in the name of religion.

...your 'expert' was full of crap.

Why? Because a state supreme court ruled otherwise? Judges, and juries, ARE NOT infallible; some of their decisions are outrageously wrong, and those who disagree with these bad decisions are NOT full of crap.

Remember the jury that declared OJ Simpson not guilty? Were THEY full of crap or were the great majority of Americans who believe he is?

Whether it's a judge, a panel of judges, or a jury, for whatever reason, sometimes their judgements are dead wrong.

You are mixing the CPS actions - all supported by Judge Walther’s warrants, so there’s no risk of criminal and little or none for civil charges - and the evidence found by the Sheriff, the Texas Rangers, and the FBI. The Supreme Court only addressed removal of all the children from the cult compound. As erroneous as the 6 out of 9 decision was, it does nothing to erase the crimes or to make the evidence collected by law enforcement (as opposed to CPS) invalid. All that evidence, including the Bishop’s Record, was legally obtained and will stand in a court of law. There’s also the testimony given to the courts by Suzanne Johnson and others, which backs the Bishop’s Record.

25 years first offense for child rape (death sentence is possible for repeat offenders), 5 years to life for the first degree felony of polygamy with a child. Texas law is quite clear.

As erroneous as the 6 out of 9 decision was

Actually it was 9 out of 9. Even the dissents acknowledged that CPS was way out of bounds. But why let facts get in the way.

But let us continue.

make the evidence collected by law enforcement (as opposed to CPS) invalid. All that evidence, including the Bishop’s Record, was legally obtained

Really. Interesting assertion since there's been exactly ZERO litigation regarding it yet. That 'record' will never see the inside of a Courtroom. Mark my words.

25 years first offense for child rape

Not nearly long enough if you ask me. But lets not get ahead of ourselves.

The usual procedure is to get an Indictment from a Grand Jury. Since one of those hasn't even been empaneled yet it's more than just a little premature to talk about prison sentences.

And you can thank CPS for screwing this one up so badly it's highly likely that no one will ever be prosecuted. That's the real tragedy here.

"They presented their dubious challenge as a petition for a writ of mandamus – an extraordinary remedy that is only rarely granted. Yet the court ruled in favor of the women, and against the Texas child protection authorities."

The above argument from the author is called an appeal to emotion (or a bow to authority right or wrong), rather than law. That a petition for writ is rarely granted is not per se reason-enough to deny a new one...ergo, such an argument is meaningless.

Yet it was the author's *first* point!

Very weak...intellectually and legally vapid.

"That decision was not just wrong, but wrongheaded – for it applied the opposite approach to questions involving child abuse and religious entities than it should have: the court focused on religious belief while downplaying the actual conduct at issue. ... I wrote about the constitutional issues involving the removal of the children by Texas’ Child Protective Series (CPS) in a prior column. The appellate decision, though, did not address constitutional issues. Rather, it only addressed the Texas law governing the removal of children from their parents."

Can any thinking person see the author's self-contradiction above?!

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.

Why a Texas Appellate Court Seriously Erred In Concluding that Texas Child Protective Services Should Not Have Rescued All of the Children at the FLDS Compound