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.
Yes, of course. And that is because the parents have a legal DUTY to protect their children. I'm not familiar with the legal duty of priests to report crimes. Last I heard there were things such as "spousal privilege", "priest-penitent privilege" and "doctor-patient privilege".
Perhaps there are some people within the FLDS that have a DUTY to others, but it isn't necessarily the case that ALL of the adults have a duty to protect ALL of the children.
Do you have a legal duty to protect your neighbor's children? Do you have a legal duty to protect the children of people who attend the same church you attend?
If you believe that your neighbor is smoking pot, do you have a legal duty to report them? If you fail to do so, does that make you an accomplice to their crime?
Please specify the name you were called.
Well with the FLDS its not a neighborhood its one big family :-)
I only care about the kids. I think this judge knows full well what is going on and is doing her darndest to help those kids! Scream law at me all you want but those people are breaking laws by living the way they do. It needs to be stopped! I’m sick to death of the victims rights being trampled.
I don’t think you understand the problem down there. It wasn’t polygamy, it was forced marriages to children.
Fantasize about that stuff?
Read FLDS tracts?
lol. So if I say I think you act like one of Hitlers jackbooted-thug brownshirts who think they own the court system, I'm not really calling you a name either.
actually it is a situation similar to Bush vs Gore. You have a lower court refusing to comply with the order of a superior court.
The Supreme Court said the Children go back and the CPS is at square one (way to go cps). It is not optional. ONCE the reboot happens THEN CPS can start the whole process all over to have 460 INDIVIDUAL cases to prove the children are in immediate danger AFTER a full evidentiary hearing.
It is the same rule as any other case.
As said earlier, provide proof, get a conviction, and you are free to hang them from the closest mesquite.
Until then, let them go.
“Hmmmm...
The underage teenage pregnant girls, some with more than one child. Fathered by much older men?
No, there’s not as many as previously thought, but they’re still there, and the cult promotes it. Sex with a minor is still a crime. That hasn’t changed.”
OK. I’ll agree with you on that one. However, these people have separated themselves for such a time period that I am just waiting to see how many of the children end up dead, drugged out or raped on the outside “real world”. Prior to getting back with the folks.
Oops.
LOL. Yah but that would be lost on most so I phrase it as i do.
Errr.. no.
You seem to be unclear on the concept of name-calling.
I'll leave you to your delusions & sex cult support.
Beats the hell out of Janet Renos decision in Waco.
Actually my reply you referenced was indeed to a question about polygamy. ;)
But to answer your query, one of the problems that the State has is the changing of age requirement to be married.
in 2005 I understand that the age to marry was 14. Without certain factions in the legislature wanting to GET these people the age would probably STILL be 14. So now the State/CPS has to go through this calculation not only about how old they child was, and when she became pregnant, but what was the status of the law at the time the pregnancy occurred. There is indeed the clause that the mate must not be over 3 years older than the girl, but that sounds to me like a technicality and if the state has to depend on that to build their case, then they have a REAL problem.
Younger than 14? You bet! charge em, indict em, convict em and throw away the key!
But according to the law, not people's wants, wishes, desires and opinions which is a LOT of what I see on FR anymore. People's opinions masquerading as facts and evidence.
this judge will be overruled again
It seems they must have wifi at the compound. :-)
that link you posted does not go to your quote.
can you refresh it please
however, like others here have said, if Jeffs is a perv (he does look like one), that is not relevant to all 468 kids minors here
The problem I have is that marrying at 14 (and yes, the law should be looked at) is flawed in that you are assuming that the parents aren’t involved. If as a minor, this child has no choice but to ‘marry’ (and the question is also if they are older, no technicality, but LAW) a man she doesn’t want to. And I don’t mean ‘the Bible tells us we should...’ crap either.
How many 14 year olds are going to protest being married off when the option is being cast out? This whole operation needs to be investigated and you can’t do that when all the families are together.
I do agree it’s individual rights, but if there were a cult that regularly made child porn, would you be so defensive?
Try this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080530/ts_nm/usa_polygamists_dc_2
It is relevant because he picked these young girls who lived at the ranch in Texas to be his wives.
In your OPINION!
Your opinion does not dictate reality.
They live in different houses and different family units.
And the Appellate court admonished them for treating them as 1 large family instead of the 70 or whatever families they actually are and the Supremes agreed.
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.