Posted on 05/30/2008 6:40:22 PM PDT by Utah Girl
The devil was in the details.
Discussions about a proposed order involving the return of children taken from the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch broke down late this afternoon when attorneys for the families wanted to review proposed changes with their clients.
Judge Barbara Walther announced the attorneys had better get all of their clients' signatures before she would sign the agreement and abruptly left the bench late this afternoon.
A lawyer for the families, Laura Shockley, said she expected attorneys would return to an Austin appeals court Monday to push for an order returning the children. It was the 3rd Court of Appeals that said Walther should not have ordered the children to be removed from the ranch and warned that if Walther failed to act, they would do it for her.
Lawyers for the families said that an agreement had been tentatively reached with Child Protective Services when they walked into court earlier today. Walther, however, expressed concerns about the proposed agreement and called an hourlong recess. She then returned to the bench with her own proposed order.
That led to concerns from many family attorneys who raised objections and questions on behalf of their clients.
The judge added additional restrictions to the the agreement, including psychological evaluations and allowing CPS to do inspections at the children's home at any time. Several of the more than 100 attorneys in the courtroom and patched into the hearing through phone lines objected to the judge's additions.
"The court does not have the power, with all due respect, to enter any other order (other than vacating)," said Julie Balovich of the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid over the telephone. She argued that no evidence justifying the additional restrictions had been entered as evidence before the judge.
After reviewing the appellate court decision, Walther returned to the bench and announced she believed the Supreme Court's decision upholding the appellate court decision gave her the authority to impose whatever conditions she feels are necessary.
"The Supreme Court does say this court can place restrictions on the parents. I do not read that this decision says that this court is required to have another hearing to do that. You may interpret that however you choose."
With that, the judge abruptly left the bench, saying she would await any submitted orders.
Immediately, attorneys in the courtroom and over the phone, expressed confusion.
"What did she say?" one attorney asked.
"Do We have another hearing?"
"What did she order?"
No additional hearings are currently scheduled. The judge signed no orders that would allow for the release of any children.
Lawyers for CPS left the courthouse declining to speak about the hearing.
"I'm going to do what the court directed," said CPS attorney Gary Banks.
Warren has nothing to do with the case at hand. They need to bring evidence against THESE parents regarding THESE children. How dense are you?
Stalling tactics and power trips are seldom good law, and never reasonable.
Um Warren Jeffs, the Living Prophet of this cult is in jail for doing just that. These people worship at the feet of Warren Jeffs. Hell when Warren Jeffs suddenly decided that dogs were evil, they all immediately got rid of their dogs rather than defy him. This group is EVIL.
The CPS jerk who thought all this up will probably get a promotion.
Cordially,
Say it again Sam.
Translation: she punted. She was trying to “do over” her original ruling via a weasel words attempt.
She was embarraged by the TX supreme court slapping her so she tried to save face.
Since she did not actually DO anything, she can’t be appealed again. (or so she hopes) Given that these children are not being returned to their parents by a “stunt” I think an emergency petition on some sort of mandamus MIGHT (about 10% chance) happen.
This is not about law or the children, this is about her ego after a reversal on appeal.
You convict people on the crimes of others very often?
Also... just because Jeffs was a predator does not assume that all FLDS men are predators. The courts need to give due diligence to finding proper evidence to condemn other FLDS men.
If they all are predators then bring on the evidence of this crime. I have not seen them submit any evidence and the constant (ad nauseum) posting of Jeffs molesting the child bride does not constitute evidence against THESE families.
That is like saying Al Capone had nothing to do with all the bodies that were piling up in Chicago.
These people don't dare go to the bathroom without permission from Warren Jeffs, and if he tells a parent to turn their daughter over to him or one of his Apostles, it will be done, whether that girl is 9 or 90.
How dense are you?
Right now this is not a criminal case. This is a Child protection case. The state's duty to protect children from being abused and molested sometimes overrides the parent's right to take them home and abuse them.
If CPS had found even one raped child the photo would be number one on google.
I think they may all have the same DNA
Given that the State Supreme Court has ordered that the children go back to their families, your contention is nonsense.
An order from an appellate court and the supreme court is sufficient justification for returning the children.
Plus, I seriously doubt that the DNA results will ever be used in court. The process used to get them was based on a faulty warrant, they are the "fruit of the poisoned vine" and can not be used in any criminal prosecution.
People condemn Catholics based on the dictates of their Pope. Your condemnation of this group is no different.
You cannot have a system of justice if you decide you can condemn and vilify those you do not like en masse.
How would the DNA tests prove sexual abuse? Remember only 6 fathers have submitted DNA. Have you thought this through?
I will tell you right out that I am not defending FLDS in any way shape or form. If they are guilty of what they have been accused of they need to be severly dealt with. I am defending the Constitution and those people have rights just like you and I. If they don’t then neither do we.
You wrote a book about the government abusing authority to go after firearms- there is at least one thing I cherish more than my right to own firearms. That is my children- who are grown now- and my grandchild. You of all people should understand that if the government- local or CPS or under any color can remove children without following the law, rules, and proceedures in place to do such a thing to FLDS; and it is allowed to stand- then it can be done to each and every one of us. It’s called precedent and it is one of the ways things are drastically changed in this country. Usually for the worse.
There is a system in place to protect the children of FLDS and all the other children in this country- it wasn’t followed for whatever reason. Your anger should be directed at those that dropped the ball here, not those defending the Constitution.
Please think about this.
They are citizens of the United States of America and have the right to vote.
Did that part of the civics classes you took in High School not register?
Since you know so much about SOP maybe you can tell us what evidence the CPS produced within the 14 day limit imposed by the law (not just "later") demonstrating with respect to each child what efforts the CPS made to prevent each child's removal from the child's parents.
Cordially,
You still need evidence or have you not read the court ruling?
You don't understand this cult. Additionally the pope isn't likely to tell a 12 year old girl that she must marry her 19 year old first cousin. The Pope is not a demented sex maniac who is in charge of running a sex trade with 13 and 14 year old girls. The analogy is quite weak. This is a sequestered cult. Catholicism is an open religion.
To compare the two is ridiculous.
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.