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

Skip to comments.

Texas judge walks off bench; when FLDS children will return is unknown
The Deseret News ^ | 5/30/2008 | Ben Winslow and Nancy Perkins

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cpswatch; flds; imspeechless; judiciary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 501-515 next last
To: B.O. Plenty
Now, we have hundreds of families who have been rounded up and put in concentration camps against their wills..

Please don't be ridiculous, they weren't put in concentration camps!

You demean the real horror and evil of people who were in one.

Granted, there is strong disagreement on whether or not the state was in the right to remove them, but they didn't starve, beat, murder, and turn them into slave labor

181 posted on 05/31/2008 6:52:35 AM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Sadly, I do not think DPS will even be reprimanded for this action, regardless of the outcome.

In one case down here, a judge demanded CPS show up in his courtroom and show cause why they should be sent to prison for the death of a child. Still nothing.

Yes, same judge.


182 posted on 05/31/2008 6:56:50 AM PDT by SouthTexas (If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
I am curious. I had always pegged you as strong constitutional supporter, but it now appears that isn't the case.

I have studied cognitive dissonance and I am trying to understand it, as it relates to you. Here are my conjectures; at least one, probably both of your children are daughters, and you feel a strong, justified, protective instinct towards them. You are also a genuinely religious person, again I am guessing, Baptist.

I am sure you are aware of the old technique that is used to unite and control people, create an external threat and vilify that enemy. It is SOP, both the Russians and the US used each other to control their people, both Kennedy and Reagan understood this principle very well. Currently Bush is using this same technique against Moslems. I am not saying that it isn't justified, I am simply pointing out the general principle.

This same technique is used by Religion and government bureaucracies to target activities that they want to control and regulate, like guns, drinking, sex, etc. Often the justification is simple, to protect the children. That is why it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 or 21 to buy a pistol, even though the constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

So now we come to Waco, where we have a cult of child pedophiles, who used the second amendment to defend themselves. What was your position regarding Waco and can you contrast that position, with your position regarding the FLDS? What do you think is the primary difference?

183 posted on 05/31/2008 7:15:45 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: William Tell; P-Marlowe
But, she cannot condition the vacating of her original order to take custody of the children on ANYTHING. The higher court has ruled that her decision was unfounded legally and must be reversed.

And I find it likely that if the judge does impose a unilateral imposition which is identical for all parents, the Appeals Court will strike it down also. The higher courts have already stated that the risks to the children are not all identical. Thus the legal remedies cannot all be identical.

The problem seems to be that the judge does not agree that she has a burden to see evidence to justify any actions by the CPS for any particular family.

I think your analysis is correct, but the question I have is how this language (in red below) in the S.C. order should be interpreted:

The Department petitioned this Court for review by mandamus. Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals’ decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child,”[4] including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court.”[5] The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home[6] and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.[7] The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,[8] and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.[9]

While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department’s motion for emergency relief. The court of appeals’ decision does not conclude the SAPCR proceedings.

As much as I have savaged this judge and the CPS for their unjustified and brutal infliction of trauma on hundreds of young children, I think the judge does have "broad" authority to impose reasonable orders so that the CPS investigation may continue and that any children in physical danger can be protected. I have been saying all along that that is what they could and should have done IN THE FIRST PLACE, instead of taking the most drastic action possible. The question is, can the judge impose these restrictions as a condition of the vacating of the original order?

The larger problem, from the get-go, and as you have correctly pointed out, is that the judge doesn't seem to think she has a burden to see evidence to justify any actions by the CPS for any particular family. If she continues to impose a "one size fits all" regime there are certainly going to be more appeals. For example, is it "reasonable" to require psychological testing of all 465 children?

I would disagree with your prediction that this judge will be removed. As awful as she is, there are probably not grounds for her removal. The Respondents could petition the court for a change of judge but I doubt it would be granted.

Cordially,

184 posted on 05/31/2008 7:31:40 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: BlueMoose
There are no "innocent" men in this child abusing sex slave cult. There are a lot of innocent children.

What court found them guilty ?

Waiting for the answer.

185 posted on 05/31/2008 7:36:32 AM PDT by BlueMoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Legal type question here. By signing the agreement would the parents be incriminating themselves regarding the ongoing criminal investigation? Is there anything in the agreement that could be incriminating?

If that’s the case, I wouldn’t sign squat.


186 posted on 05/31/2008 7:39:23 AM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle
If there is an allegation of abuse, CPS acts and then figures out the facts later. This is SOP.

Sounds like NAZI SOP to me. Where was allegation of abuse in this case?....some mysterious call from a nut in Colorado Springs?.....would it not have been a lot less trouble if CPS had checked out the "allegation" before assulting 400+ people with snipers and tanks, then capturing and locking them up .

I hope that people like you never get in charge of anything, or what's next....putting people in jail because you think that maybe someone might commit a crime sometime?

The lawsuits from this travesty will never end...of course you will not have to pay since you don't live in Texas.

BTW...my sense of history may be weak in your opinion...but I know that your sense of what tyranny is, is really weak....you don't go around capturing and incarcerating 400 people on a shadowy rumor, and then try to save your miserable ass when two higher authorities says you screwed up...

...the lawsuits will never end....

187 posted on 05/31/2008 7:47:32 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Give war a chance......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: antceecee

They can’t hear you.
I think it’s a blood pressure thing.


188 posted on 05/31/2008 7:59:37 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Popman
You tell me the difference between being a prisoner in a concentration camp and being held a prisoner in a presidential suite in a 4 star hotel other than the comfort factor?

You are still a prisoner....not free...controlled by someone else.....living at the whim of your captor.

189 posted on 05/31/2008 8:03:07 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Give war a chance......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl

Taking the law into her own hands..that’s what’s come of this country of legal activism and the infrequent times they are confronted with authority of higher court rulings; they simply ignore them and concoct reasons for not complying. This problem is present everywhere in our legal system. Each party now makes their own rules.


190 posted on 05/31/2008 8:04:24 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Travis, as such a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment I’d expect you would know better than anyone that the Rule of Law is paramount. A populace that doesn’t defend the rights of those with whom we disagree is bound to lose rights for everyone eventually.


191 posted on 05/31/2008 8:04:32 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: B.O. Plenty
You tell me the difference between being a prisoner in a concentration camp and being held a prisoner in a presidential suite in a 4 star hotel other than the comfort factor?

Well for starters, among the obvious, the people held in the presidential suite in a 4 star hotel have access to legal counsel.

I don't reminder if Hitler, Mao, Stalin, PolPot, Kim Jong worried too much if their slave labor wanted attorneys. I could be wrong. < /s >

192 posted on 05/31/2008 8:10:48 AM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: All

http://lonestartimes.com/2008/05/31/flds-gets-walthered-again/

FLDS Gets Walthered Again
by BigJolly | 05/31/2008 8:39 am | Alert moderator

Remember the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, Mike Nifong? Recall that a new word was introduced into the lexicon, “Nifonged“?

Nifonged describes the railroading or harming of a person with no justifiable cause, except for one’s own gain.

There is another term that will be added shortly: Walthered. Here is my initial definition.

Walthered describes the railroading or harming of families with small children with no justifiable cause, except to cover up one’s own incompetency.

Barbara Walther, the podunk West Texas judge that has been slapped down twice for her illegal order allowing the Texas DFPS to snatch up 460 children, threw a temper tantrum and walked out of court yesterday rather than sign an agreement that was reached between CPS and lawyers for the parents and children of the FLDS.

snip


193 posted on 05/31/2008 8:16:21 AM PDT by abb (Organized Journalism: Marxist-style collectivism applied to information sharing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: seanrobins
The FLDS should not be permitted to hide behind “religion” in their abuse of children (where or not the men are married to them)

I don't believe they have used religion as an argument. The complaint is the state hauled off 400 children without cause. They had no evidence and based everything on a phone call from some unknown person.

194 posted on 05/31/2008 8:20:13 AM PDT by gitmo (From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: abb; Diamond

If the Judge unilaterally orders mass relief (CPS supervision, etc), it can - and I would guess, will - be overturned on appeal.

If the parents AGREE to the conditions, what is there to appeal?

So she wants them to agree, that the conditions cannot be overturned.

abb is correct - I wouldn’t sign squat.


195 posted on 05/31/2008 8:21:22 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: patton

And if she doesn’t get her way she stomps her feet and storms out, ultimately dragging the inevitable on.


196 posted on 05/31/2008 8:29:24 AM PDT by commonguymd (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2023187/posts?page=911#911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: patton

I agree that they shouldn’t sign anything - they shouldn’t NEED to sign anything. But I think if they did sign, that there is duress involved.

I mean if I just waltzed in and took your wife or your kids or your dog and said I’d be perfectly willing to give them back provided you sign something, that has NONE of the elements of a validly signed, freely-entered-into contract.


197 posted on 05/31/2008 8:30:26 AM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Popman

You are not wrong..


198 posted on 05/31/2008 8:32:40 AM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Give war a chance......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Puddleglum

Took you this long?


199 posted on 05/31/2008 8:36:13 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: djf

I agree with you - but CPS has folks sign agreements like this daily, and will not return the children until the parents admit guit and agree to treatment.

Courts all over the US allow it.

Perhaps that should be looked into.


200 posted on 05/31/2008 8:36:33 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 501-515 next last

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.

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