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.
Given the recent overzealous actions by government, I would prefer that they be returned by force.
Guilty. I hate child molesters and their enablers and defenders.
If you have real evidence, CPS would really appreciate a call.
Are you incapable of reading the whole sentence?
I am not wrong. Go READ it again, the WHOLE sentence.
Ya mean this one? With no evidence and/or trial?
LOL.
Real evidence has been posted on this forum, and the molester defenders howled in protest. Did you not see the picture of their leader, who can do no wrong, kissing a 12 year old?
Do you think they object to 12 year old girls getting married when their Dear Leader did it? They worship him! He can do no wrong. Ever.
Maybe they already saw the pictures.
The only real way to judge guilt or innocence on FR!
8^)
This is all starting to sound to me like local authorities ran amuck. I have lived in small towns and sparsly populated counties all my life and I have seen locals cook things up at the coffee shop to deal with folks they think need to be dealt with and they think they are the final authority on what is right and what needs to be done. I am wondering if that is what happened here to begin with and now this judge is playing to the Good Ol’ Boys that run that area. This could get real interesting before all is said and done.
The sad thing is if FLDS needed to be dealt with, it needed to be done properly so it would stick.
You could ask any of those freaks if what Jeffs did, french-kissing a 12 year old, is wrong and they won’t say it was.
And you would argue that they should get their girls back.
Sickening.
Not getting into the discussion of the picture.
I cannot and will not speak for the girls. As I said, if you have evidence, produce it, convict them, and sentence them to whatever punishment you deem fit.
Personally I think they should be shot, but that’s AFTER they are convicted and evidence is what transpired in Texas, not Arizona, not Utah, and damn sure not in the mind of a whacko in Colorado.
No doubt.
The “freaks” are the ones plastering the picture of a minor all over the net, all the while claiming to try and protect her. By your own terms, anyone involved with it is guilty of child abuse and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Yeah, I know I said I wasn’t going there.
Warren's daddy had more than 30 "wives." Warren may have outdone his daddy. As cult leader and "prophet" his glossy color portrait hangs over the beds of all of the girls under his sway.
My point is that until every child can be linked 100% by DNA to a mother AND A FATHER, I would presume them all to have been the product of Warren Jeff's DNA "contribution."
How can any judge send these poor brainwashed children back to be the victims of ritual child rape?
See 53. “Who’s your daddy” is indeed question number one.
Why are you defending this perverted cult of child rapists?
Because they are citizens of this country and have the same rights as you and I. YOU, however, are attempting to convict them without a trial.
BTW see my other post to you.
I have tried to be reasoned in my postings- but I can see where you are coming from. Her early remark something about the women needed to get over it about leaving the babies was pretty telling to me about her professionalism- or lack thereof.
When you don’t even know if these children are the product of rape by Warren “Watch me French kiss my 13 year old wife #35” Jeffs, why do you support sending them back to a cult of child rapists?
That’s what you are doing: supporting child rape.
Very likely.
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.