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.
bookmarked
There were 24 children burned alive at Waco and please remember Bill Clinton’s Janet Reno was told there was sexual abuse going on with the Branch Davidians.
I remember the law enforcement tactics during the Branch Davidian stand-off - they tortured those people including the children - and finally broke in with a tank.
For God’s sake, FReeper, are you justifying what the government did to the Branch Davidians? Are you justifying the illegal raid on the FLDS, rounding up all of the innocent children at gunpoint?
What Judge Walther is doing now is not "granting other appropriate relief". She is dictating to the CPS what the conditions must be and she is doing so as a CONDITION of vacating the prior order.
Nothing that the judge is doing NOW generates any new evidence that justifies continued custody of the children by the state. The CPS could have included in their arguments to the Appeals Court that lack of signed agreements justified taking the children into custody. But they didn't, as far as I know, and even if they did it does not mean that the evidence for taking the children is any stronger.
Judge Walther can do just about anything she wants EXCEPT ONE THING, and that is to fail to vacate the custody order. I maintain my belief that she will be slapped down hard and soon.
Patton and I are negotiating the proper terminology. I’m tending toward “Armored Personnel Carrier, Fully Tracked, Amphibious - But NOT a Tank®.”
LOLOL - actually, that term is exactly correct. And funny.
Yep, I know, it would be wrong to call it a “tank” . . . but those tracks got me confused . . . and the military-looking guys with machine guns . . . My husband says in World War I they’d have been called a tank. Silly me.
Also true: it'll break the crap out of any gate you're likely to put in its way.
It'll carry armed troops up to and through your front door.
It'll serve to underline the "who is in charge here?" issue based on big and ugly.
Of course, the belted 7.65 isn't quite as impressive as Ma Deuce - but who cares about that at short range?
There are legitimate legal issues concerning the extent of her discretion in this case due to its unique nature and the apparent dearth of evidence relating to any particular child. The Texas Family Code wasn't designed to govern group exercises like this one. I tend to think restrictions imposed on individual families based solely upon their membership in a particular group will be closely scrutinized by higher courts, even when the group shares beliefs which are inconsistent with state law.
Whatever order the court signs will be subject to appeallate review.
What the court should NOT do is to delay the signing of a new order. If she does delay, the Court of Appeals will mandamus her to act.
Oh, please don't misunderstand me, I'm no fan of Texas Foster care system.
My post was in response to the ridiculous point another poster made that those children were put in concentration camps
We have an agreement! So let it be written. So let it be done.
“Armored Personnel Carrier, Fully Tracked, Amphibious - But NOT a Tank®”
“. . . and the military-looking guys with machine guns . . . “
Uh, no. Thay have, at best, M16’s.
Assault rifles.
See, this is where folks get upset - when the press, or the DNC, says we have to confiscate the “evil-looking machine guns.”
Never mind that they are not, in fact, machine guns.
You see? Just as I have a vested interest in not letting CPS sieze all the kids in a mass trial, I also have a vested interest in not letting the BATFE sieze all the black rifles, because “they look scary.”
That is an honest position, isn’t it?
“It’ll serve to underline the ‘who is in charge here?’ issue based on big and ugly.”
There, that’s where they got me thinking it was a tank.
P.S. Secretly, in my heart, I still know IT WAS A TANK!!!!!!
What belted 7.65? Point to one. My eyes are getting old, maybe I just missed it.
Deal. ;)
You know how to make it lose a track, for about $5, right?
Really embarassing, when the JBT’s have to get out a break track in the middle of a raid, don’t you think?
Your eyes are better than mine, looks like an M16 variant just over the driver’s head.
PS: I only drove around or rode in ‘em, sometimes, but the rest of the post stands.
Oh, excuse me, I said it looked like a tank and those looked like machine guns sticking out the top aimed at the ranch children by military looking men.
I had it all wrong. It was not a raid at all. It was a church picnic staged by Baptists. Sorry.
“It was a church picnic staged by Baptists. Sorry.”
Actually, it does seem to be something staged by ... oh, nevermind.
It should be policy that all LEO’s at all levels, local, state, and federal, be familiar with the Constitution of these United States. They should be instructed and tested for their knowledge on it. ( Afterall, they do swear an oath to defend it from enemies, both foreign and domestic.) At the least, they should know a little about it. Problem is, few of them have ever read it, much less understand what it means. Yet it was written in plain ole English so all who can read and comprehend could readily understand it. It was purposely written this way.
Then it should be policy that all LEOs at all levels carry a copy in their pocket while on duty.
When I was in the Marines, we all took an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States. We were also instructed that if we willingly and knowingly obeyed an unlawful order, we would be held accountable along with the superior who issued the unlawful order. The same should be true for all civilian LEOs.
The raid at Waco was unlawful. Those agents went in there armed and dangerous knowing full well there were innocent men women children and infants in that dwelling. They obeyed an unlawful order handed down by Janet Reno. Then along comes the fbi to clean up the mess the atf made. Well we all know how they cleaned it up with their scorched earth policy...another unlawful order obeyed by LEOs.
The raid of the FDLS was unlawful. The Texas Supreme court has said so. All those LEOs involved obeyed an unlawful order. They should all be held accountable. But like Lon Horiuchi at Ruby Ridge, and the agents at Waco, they will most likely get medals for their bravado in face of “grave” danger.
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.