Posted on 05/29/2008 7:49:27 PM PDT by TheDon
SAN ANGELO, Texas - The Texas Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the state must return some 130 children taken into state custody following an early April raid on a polygamous sect's West Texas ranch.
However, the decision likely will affect about 320 other children from the ranch who now are living in foster homes and shelters throughout the state, attorneys for their parents said.
By a six-to-three majority, the justices decided that a district court judge improperly removed the children, like their parents members of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The ruling was met with jubilation by parents and attorneys representing the families. Maggie Jessop, whose children are in state custody in two cities, said she had waited anxiously for such an outcome.
"I just feel very thankful that the Supreme Court would have a righteous decision," said Jessop, who moved from the ranch to San Angelo midway between her daughter's and son's shelters in San Antonio and Amarrillo.
Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Families and Protective Services, which had asked the court to rule in its favor, said the agency was "disappointed but we understand and respect the court's decision and will take immediate steps to comply. Child Protective Services has one purpose in this case - to protect the children.
"Our goal is to reunite families whenever we can do so, and make sure the children will be safe," Meisner said. "We will continue to prepare for the prompt and orderly reunification of these children with their families."
The high court, which released its decision at 4 p.m. Central time, found that 51st District Judge Barbara Walther had ruled improperly to take the children into state custody and upheld a subsequent decision by the Third Court of Appeals that the children should be returned.
In its brief opinion, the court said "we are not inclined to disturb the Court of Appeals' decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."
Kevin Dietz of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid said he would work with the courts and Child Protective Services, a division of DFPS, to do what's in the best interest of the children.
"Right now, that means reuniting these families," he said.
DFPS had argued the appellate decision left it unable to guard the children's safety from what it had deemed imminent danger of sexual and physical abuse due to the FLDS practice of polygamy. The state contended that the FLDS condoned marriages of underage girls to men and groomed its boys to continue the practice.
In early April, Walther authorized the raid and subsequently ruled the children would remain in state custody.
The state Supreme Court, however, found that Texas' family code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care or shelters. For example, the lower court could have issued a restraining order barring the children from being taken out of state or ordering the removal of any perpetrators from their homes, the justices said.
That said, CPS still can work with the parents when the children are in their care to insure their safety and well-being.
The high court said Walther must vacate her temporary custody order, but she can grant other steps to protect the children.
"While there are other important fundamental issues in the case regarding parent rights, it is premature of us to discuss those issues," the justices added.
Immediately after the ruling, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid send an e-mail with this headline: "Supreme Court to CPS: send these children home."
Said Dietz: "It's great to see that the court system is working in the interest of justice. These mothers have never given up their fight to bring their families back together."
Dan Barlow, a former mayor of Colorado City, Ariz., and a father of four children in state custody in Abilene, said, "I hope it will all work. I'm thankful and I want those children back with their mothers. It is the right thing to do."
How did someone on here get the notion that 13-year=olds were pregnant - I mean in this community, not America at large. We know all over the U.S. there are pregnant 13-year-olds.
The lady made a very interesting remark that needs looking into and verifying. I sounds true enough but they should verify it nevertheless. She stated that 140 women (I think that was the number) were being held in a large room with two restrooms.
Nothing like treating people like other two-bit countries, maybe worse! I think she said at Ft. Concho, which would have facilities like she described. Outrageous.
So that’s what we do in this country, round them up and put them in a concentration camp. At least this time we didn’t incinerate them. I’ll never forget the hysterics about Waco: “But there’s child abuse!!” Yeah, sure was, but the ATF, FBI, TXDPS took care of that by killing them all once they were trapped.
The Founders had absolutely no use for the Mohammedans who practiced polygamy. And they would have had no use for the mormons either.
She is a drama queen. Polygamy is AGAINST THE LAW
You really need to check your facts before you issue your opinions.
What these guys do is they marry their first wife in a state-sanctioned ceremony.
All others are married in the eyes of the church, but there is no secular marriage license.
This situation is perfectly legal. Couples living together without marriage has been accepted for decades. How many guys do you think are on FR right this minute who have separated from their wife and have a live in girlfriend before the divorce is final. As far as the law is concerned, this is exactly the same situation.
I am not saying it is right or wrong, I am just commenting on its legality.
You really need to read what polygamist cults do before you issue your opinions.
Polygamy is a crime (if the State slides down the slippery slope of recognizing religious ceremonies) between spouses, not between parents and children.
You could jail adults guilty of polygamy if you first had a trial and conviction, but to separate children from parents based on an alledged crime between spouses goes over the line.
To seize the children, the State must show imminent physical danger to the kids. That physical "danger" can't be supported by a mere polygamy charge...there has to be more.
If there was more, then the kids would be protected by the State. If there wasn't more evidence, then the kids would be protected by the parents.
Pretty simple concepts...if you keep emotion and religious bias out of the legal equation.
see post 5
There are quite a few folks around here for whom that is impossible. More than one is quite willing to begin wholesale hangings of every adult who lived there without bothering with anything as cumbersome as a trial.
I'm quite curious as to how the State of Texas intends to prove that polygamy was actually practiced here, as well as how Texas legally defines polygamy.
Is it two adult women living in the same house with one man? Do they have to have evidence that some sort of ceremony took place and that the man had sex with both of them at some point?
If there's only one State issued marriage certificate and the rest are 'spritual' marriages, the it would appear to be impossible for the State to meet the required burden of proof.
Now if these freaks were dumb enough to get multiple State Marriage certificates that's another matter. But somehow I don't see that as having happened.
L
Eight "girlfriends" and 20 kids without divorcing?
None I hope.
I believe that’s done by recognizing common law marriages.
Want to bet you can't find numerous examples of this in any inner city?
A few years back, I vividly remember a case of some guy who escaped from prison, and managed to get 12 women pregnant in 9 months of being "on the run".
There weren't any marriages involved.
You don’t know much about Jeffs and the FLDS.
Where are the fathers?
No such thing in my State. Texas may be different though.
That guy would also be a poor example of granting custody of children to.
Now imagine the children were released to the control of a man convicted of assisting the rape of a 14 year old and is facing trial on incest and sexual conduct with a child.
I don’t think any Freepers we know resemble this scenario.
Texas is different; common law holds when you act as father and present yourself as father. There’s no doubt they fathered the children, told others they were the childrens father and had many wives who had these children who considered these men their husband.
Unless Jeffs “reassigned” the children to different fathers and mothers, which occurs often.
The main one’s confused about who their parents are are the children. Whose parents, by the way, are taught that their children belong to Jeffs.
I don’t see how “family” law begins to apply here.
Sorry, should have been: common law holds when you act as married and present yourself as married for a set period of time, I forget how many years.
All of which makes one wonder what they were thinking when they drafted a comprehensive First Amendment. Why didn't they make exceptions for polygamists?
1. The process from beginning to end will take 3 to 6 months before returning children to mothers.
2. Civil settlements? Doubtful. There is public outcry against lifestyle. But they will have to figure out what to do with placement, so most likely they will return.
3.As long as DFPS is operating in accordance to guidelines set by state of Texas, criminal charges doubtful to hold.
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.