Posted on 05/30/2008 5:34:10 PM PDT by festus
SAN ANGELO, Texas - A plan to begin reuniting parents with more than 400 children removed from a polygamist group's ranch has been thrown into doubt because a judge and the families are clashing over proposed restrictions.
Texas District Judge Barbara Walther has refused to sign an order restoring custody to the parents until they agree to more restrictions than state child-welfare officials have proposed.
Walther was directed by an appeals court to reverse her ruling last month putting all children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch into foster case. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court's decision Thursday and rejected the state's argument that all the children were in immediate danger from what it said was a cycle of sexual abuse of teenage girls at the ranch.
I think it’s a bit of both, but then INALE. :)
That said, the requirements of using a confidential informant require said informant to be know to LE and known to tell the truth.
I don’t think they had a clue to who this “woman/girl” was, but if they did, as some reports have towards, it makes it all the worse.
Thanks for the info Flo.
I find it interesting that this was amended the same time that the age of consent was raised. I wonder what parts were amended.
Then the women can decline to participate.
Tell me, how do you think you would feel the day your wife took another husband?
Don't have one, don't intend to have one. Tried that for 3.5 decades or half my life expectancy. Still don't know why.
Physicians, other health care workers and teachers are some people that have a duty to report *suspected* child abuse in Texas.
Never said there was. I just have a preference for statutory provisions.
Clearly citing the district Judge for contempt is well within the power of the courts above, as would be ordering her arrest on contempt. ('d pay good money for a video of that arrest. :)
Vacating the order directly themselves, I would think would be within their power, but as a procedural matter, I don't *know* that it is. Ditto directly ordering CPS to release the children.
Humblegunner pro government and anti constitution? ROTFLMAO!
We disagree on this issue, (I think, it's hard to tell exactly what he thinks on the "due process" issue) but I certainly would never characterize my friend that way. And neither would you if you really knew him.
Not bringing criminal charges is "trying"? Besides criminal charges and such fall outside the purview of CPS. The Texas Rangers, the local Sheriff and other law enforcement, including the local DA and Texas Attorney General. So far, no charges from them.
CPS may have queered that deal by going in based on a fake phone call, which even a little investigation would have shown to be fake, thus poisoning any evidence obtained, either under their warrants or those obtained (on the same information) by the Texas Rangers.
There was a specific court order, from the same Judge of course, to take the DNA. It doesn't appear to be in the form of a warrant though, but I'm not up on the legal differences. At least it doesn't say it's a warrant, as those issued for search and arrest in this case do.
The ostensible purpose of the DNA testing was not to establish the ID of the persons tested, but rather the parental relationship. Now fingerprints might not be required, but you'd need some way to tie a particular sample to a particular person. For which purpose I would think photos would be sufficient.
I would think that vacating the order directly would almost have to be among the things they could do, given the possibility that the lower court might do as we have seen; that is, fail to carry out the order of the higher court.
In the infamous Miller Decision, the US Supreme Court "reversed and remanded" the case before it. They could have simply ordered the original court to reverse its own decision.
The way the Texas Appeals Court did it, it gives the original judge an opportunity to explain the legal ruling. Otherwise, the judge would simply announce the ruling, perhaps with no explanation. The Texas Appeals Court, I think, was just doing the polite thing, but Judge Walther didn't realize that she is BOUND by that decision. I find it hard to believe what she is doing and has claimed.
I think Bush v. Gore had an element of this. The US Supreme Court provided guidance to Florida initially, I think, and the Florida Supreme Court didn't take the hint. After the Florida Supreme Court effectively refused to recognize the law, the US Supreme Court made the ruling itself.
Liberals in general seem to be so hung up on being "fair" that they are willing to change or bend the rules whenever those who make the rules decide that fairness argues for the change. But they seem totally blind to the idea that sticking to the rules agreed to initially is the way to be fair.
First the Judge and the CPS unlawfully take custody of all the children. Then, because they did so with no regard to which families are affected, they make the claim that the only way to establish parentage is to demand DNA samples from everyone involved, including those who might be incarcerated and subject to criminal prosecution.
The date on the order is April 18, which was AFTER the taking of the children. Had such an order been lawful prior to the taking of the children, then it would have constituted a blanket order to test everybody on the ranch, with few names associated with the order. That would have been too obviously unjustified by the lack of evidence.
The Appeals Court has ordered the return of the children without the benefit of DNA testing. Once the children are returned, the presumptive rationale for obtaining the DNA disappears, bringing into question whether the CPS can continue to hold the DNA information.
The Judge and the CPS basically bet their all on the idea that the DNA testing would prove that crimes have been committed. If it does not, there is going to be hell to pay.
Does (soon-to-be-ex)judge Barbara Walther know the meaning of CONTEMPT OF COURT?
I believe the next major step will be Ms. Barbara Walther going to jail until she signs the order releasing the children, for contempt of court for failing to follow the ORDER issued to her by TWO higher courts.
I do not believe she is considered a judge with any power whatsoever once she is an inmate in the county jail for CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Burn in HELL MS. “JUDGE” BARBABA WALTHER!
(While I do not support the FLDS in any manner whatsoever, I do find this judge’s actions to be highly illegal and it is warranted that she be jailed for refusing the order of the higher two courts until such times she signs the order and following that, she needs to be suspended while the process to remove her from the bench proceeds forward.)
By the time they are mature enough to realize they made a mistake, they have a couple of kids, a sixth grade education, and no friends in the outside world. :(
What does she not understand about HER RULING IS OVERTURNED, not overturned until but you can still make some tweaks to it...
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.