Texas judge orders the return of polygamous sect's kids to parents

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 6/02/08 | Brooke Adams

[CurlyDave]

SAN ANGELO, Texas -- A Texas judge today signed an order that said hundreds of children seized during a raid on a polygamous sect's ranch must immediately be released to their families. Signed by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, the order provides for parents to retrieve their children from the various foster care facilities where they have been placed beginning today at 8 a.m. and extending through 8 p.m.

[CurlyDave]

Well, more restrictions than they should have, and I think requiring fingerprints is overreaching, but the Judge may be coming to her senses.

[Saundra Duffy]

Meanwhile, the calls that prompted the raid were bogus:

http://www.sltrib.com/contents/ci_9439383

[D-fendr]

I think the state should/could make a convincing case that the children are being put back in the control of, and considered the property of, Warren Jeffs - convicted of accessory to rape of a 14 year old and indicted for other crimes against children.

I understand why the judge put as many restrictions on them as possible - I can’t see this as a family law situation, in other than a very warped sense.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Wasn’t the fake “informant” a mentally ill Obama delegate?

[commonguymd]

Thought crimes and belief systems are not against the law in this country, yet. Illegal acts are.

[palmer]

Not “family law”, just law. If laws were/are broken, they will have to be prosecuted one at a time, not bulk. There’s no such thing as bulk law.

[Walkingfeather]

CPS is in deep crap. They would be best to resolve this as quickly as possible. This is just going to fester.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your replies.

Wouldn’t placing your child under the control of a convicted child rapist be considered endangerment - an illegal act, each individually and not in bulk?

[Navy Patriot]

This is turning out very badly for the county and CPS (not surprisingly).

The judge will probably get whacked again on the heavy handedness of the release orders, and the county taxpayers are about to see the perfect storm of tort litigation.

This ain't over by a long shot.

[palmer]

In a lot of cases the parents have control, not the cult leader. We can’t have the government making that distinction or definition anyway, there needs to be specific laws applied equally to individuals, not to groups.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I think the state should/could make a convincing case that the children are being put back in the control of, and considered the property of, Warren Jeffs

Correct me if I’m wrong — but isn’t Warren Jeffs in jail doing five-to-life? Precisely how are these kids to be considered his property, or under his control, if they’re returned to their parents?

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

>>In a lot of cases the parents have control, not the cult leader. <<

I think that is definitely not the case in the FLDS. Jeffs was convicted of ordering the 14 year old to marry her cousin against her will - the parents acquiesced. Obedience is the primary requirement. They are taught that the children belong to the prophet and he has removed parents, “re-assigned” children many times.

I understand it’s difficulty, but I think the question of “would you do what Warren Jeffs said with your minor children, even if it were...” could and should be asked.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply.

Jeffs makes the decisions and controls the finances from prison through communication with his wives and lieutenants.

The FLDS members still consider him their Prophet and the lives of their children are his to decide.

[commonguymd]

I already made it clear that thought crimes and beliefs are not actionable. What part of law anywhere says it is against the law to have beliefs even if they are unlawful if acted upon? If they act upon an unlawful action based in belief, then the action is actionable. Jeffs is in jail btw. If your child listens to a CD about shooting cops, does that make him a cop killer even if he believes cops are pigs and should be shot? Unless he shoots the cop or has someone shoot the cop, it is not against the law.

[William Tell]

Navy Patriot said: "The judge will probably get whacked again on the heavy handedness of the release orders,..."

I hope so. Every agreement signed by any of these parents were signed under duress, with their children already in custody and the threat to keep them there if agreement was not reached. From what I can see, there is only ONE of over 400 cases which is getting a different treatment.

The lawyers should appeal a second time and the Appeals Court should order all existing agreements to be voided and re-negotiated between CPS and individual families without the unjustified duress of continued state custody.

[deport]

Every agreement signed by any of these parents were signed under duress.

---

They are free to file an appeal about the order vacating the original order taking the children into custody. The order from the Supreme court allowed for the judge to place restrictions.

The order in it’s entirety is here if you care to read it..... Not long but does spell out what can and can’t be done.

http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/flds0602.pdf

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

>>I already made it clear that thought crimes and beliefs are not actionable.

Not thought crimes, actions. Placing your child in the control of a known and convicted child abuser.

The religious beliefs involved are irrelevant.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Jeffs makes the decisions and controls the finances from prison through communication with his wives and lieutenants... the lives of their children are his to decide.

Do you have evidence, or proof, of these statements? If so, please furnish it.

Or are the statements you made just your conjecture or opinion?

[commonguymd]

I repeat again. Jeffs is in jail. In jail in another state. Not running around raping or abusing kids. In jail. For a long time with more pending charges. He is far from Texas and the compound. Not anywhere near it. Not able to abuse the kids. Get it yet?

If they believe he is the messiah and believe that children should have children at 12 who cares, as long as those beliefs are not acted upon. We do not prosecute thought crimes nor prosecute thought crimes based on religion. In your world perhaps, but the US constitution protects us.

[palmer]

They are taught that the children belong to the prophet and he has removed parents, “re-assigned” children many times.

Which may not be a crime. When the cult leader says a particular child (legal definition) must marry an adult, that is a crime. But when a girl has reached legal age and is arranged to marry, that is not. The evidence certainly suggests some crimes took place, but each of those cases must be investigated and prosecuted separately. Anything else is collective punishment, whether or not you agree with the parents or the leader.