Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: johniegrad

Actually she’ll sign it its the FLDS that refuse.

She wasn’t even mandated to return the kids immediately. The TX appeals ruling stopped short of that.


11 posted on 05/30/2008 5:45:17 PM PDT by festus (Tagline removed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: festus
She wasn’t even mandated to return the kids immediately. The TX appeals ruling stopped short of that.

It was my understanding that there was a 10 day ceiling on returning the children.

13 posted on 05/30/2008 5:49:37 PM PDT by Ingtar (Haley Barbour 2012, Because he has experience in Disaster Recovery. - ejonesie22)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: festus

She will be hearing directly from the Texas Supreme Court in the next round.
It sounds as if the judge is getting advice from Janet “Waco” Reno.


19 posted on 05/30/2008 6:02:14 PM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: festus
festus said: "Actually she’ll sign it its the FLDS that refuse."

It doesn't matter. The custody and the agreements are two different issues. The judge is WRONG to suggest that all 400 or so children must be taken from their parents unless the parents agree to some conditions which obviously have not been based on particular family circumstances.

The judge shouldn't even be involved in the agreements at this time. Each family deserves to hear from CPS specifically why they should agree to some intervention. Then, and only then, if the family fails to convince CPS that the agreement is not warranted and refuses to agree, the judge can consider removing the children from those parents' custody.

The Texas Supreme Court has ordered a complete do-over, but the CPS is making a blanket claim that failure to do whatever CPS demands is sufficient to take the children. The Texas Supreme Court has already ruled that insufficient evidence exists to take the children.

The childrens' lawyers need to go back to the Appeals Court asking for the court to clarify that release of the children is not conditioned upon any agreement. The Appeals Court should then order the children returned and relieve the lower court judge of any further involvement in this case.

38 posted on 05/30/2008 6:34:27 PM PDT by William Tell (RKBA for California (rkba.members.sonic.net) - Volunteer by contacting Dave at rkba@sonic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: festus
Actually she’ll sign it its the FLDS that refuse.

Yeah, she'll sign it under her conditions. But that is not what the higher court ordered her to do. They ordered her to vacate her previous order. She can impose new conditions under a new order, but she'll have to "tailor" that to individual cases. That she seems unwilling to do. It would require evidence, but there seems to be sufficient of that now, in some cases. But she may not want to risk that evidence being challenged.

39 posted on 05/30/2008 6:36:39 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson