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.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply:

>>Not able to abuse the kids. Get it yet?

His conviction was for ordering the rape of a 14 year old girl. He need not be present; there are women whose marriage was ordered by him who have never seen him.

The crime he was convicted of can easily occur again. Controlling and being responsible for a criminal act from prison is not that rare. He is not in solitary and has a great deal of communications privileges.

So, the case I’m making is that if a parent willingly gives control of their minor child to a known convicted child abuser (rape and currently indicted for sexual abuse of a child), then, I believe, criminal endangerment has occurred.

I know we disagree here, and I appreciate your courteous replies.

[D-fendr]

I think I understand your point:

There is a difference when the person is of legal age. We are talking here only about minor children.

>>>The evidence certainly suggests some crimes took place, but each of those cases must be investigated and prosecuted separately.

Yes, but a child need not be abused or harmed for the crime of endangerment to have been committed. That’s my argument for what has happened here.

If it is shown that a parent placed their child in the control of someone who has ordered rape, and that they will allow the same crime to be done to their child if Jeffs (or anyone for that matter) wishes - I think that’s a clear and real danger to the child.

thanks for your reply.

[palmer]

Endangerment has to be a very specific threat, not a general belief in or membership in that cult. The parents are members and must abide by the rules which seem to indicate a particular lack of control over their children’s marriage decisions. The endangerment argument is invalid if the bride is 17 or the pair are 3 or less years apart (as I understand it). But endangerment would also be invalid if the threat of marriage is nonspecific (i.e. the parents are simply cult members). That would be collective punishment and highly infringing on freedom of religion.

[D-fendr]

I agree with all these points. They are well-put.

We likely disagree on whether endangerment exists in this case. Obviously I think it does.

As a broader point to my posts here, I think this is the legal argument/case the state should have been making. Perhaps they did more than I know and were unsuccessful.

Taking this position, seeing if their case can be proven under these conditions, I think we both would agree, would at least put the state on solid legal ground and stay far away from questions involving beliefs and religion.

thanks again...

[William Tell]

deport said: "The order from the Supreme court allowed for the judge to place restrictions."

I think we don't agree completely on the significance of the ruling and the Judge's response.

Judge Walther was ordered to release the children, who had been taken unlawfully from the ranch, unconditionally. The first part of the resulting order does exactly that.

The details supplied by the Supreme Court as to what the Judge could further do are not something authorized by the Court, but are authorized by existing law.

You will note that the parents don't have to agree to anything. They only have to identify themselves and the members of their "household" and they get their kids back. (I suspect that the "household membership" information requirement could be challenged and would be found by the higher Courts to be irrelevant to the custody issue. So I think Walther is still wrong on this point.)

The additional requirements are just that; additional. These requirements are not a condition for the release of the children.

Judge Walther was absolutely WRONG about the higher court rulings on Friday. How she became educated as to her responsibility over the weekend is a mystery to me. One Freeper suggested that a call from the Court threatening disbarment could do the job. I thought it might take a citation for contempt from the higher court.

What seems obvious to me is that the parents don't have to agree to anything to get their kids back. Whether, on a case-by-case basis, the CPS might establish that failure to cooperate on the part of some parent justifies state custody of the child is a process that can be carried out NOW, but there is no presumption that lack of cooperation must be met by denial of custody.

[William Tell]

D-fendr said: "His conviction was for ordering the rape of a 14 year old girl."

Is that right? I thought perhaps he had "officiated" at a false possibly polygamous marriage to an underage girl.

I wasn't aware that he wasn't present. Did he order the sexual consummation of the marriage? Or just the marriage?

[pray4liberty]

I don’t think these kids are in any real danger. Statistically, are in more danger of abuse as long as they are in foster care among people they don’t even know. No doubt they want to go home to their families. They’ve been through enough.

[William Tell]

Sorry. I misunderstood you posting. I thought that you were suggesting that Jeffs had not been present.

Please tell me how you know that he need not have been present to be convicted of being an accomplice to rape?

Also, what happened to the girls parents? They would have a legal duty to protect an underage girl. Simply believing that Jeffs is a prophet would not diminish that duty.

It would do far more to end the abuses people are describing if the parents are treated severely for permitting such abuse and not just the religious nut who the parents willfully follow. Even the army teaches soldiers that they are not obligated to obey an unlawful order.

[palmer]

My view is this was a big mistake but we can be thankful that it was not an even bigger mistake and that the rule of law was upheld.

[pray4liberty]

Big mistake is right. I'm willing to bet those children were far more traumatized being kidnapped by the State and placed with strangers for their alleged own good, than the supposedly abusive lifestyle their moms allegedly subjected them to.

The days of being innocent until proven guilty are long gone in America, along with due process of law. This is thanks to "zero tolerance." Proof is irrelevant. If the government says you're guilty, you are.

Unlike Waco, at least these kids weren't burned to death on government orders. I suppose we should be grateful.

[takenoprisoner]

“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.”

You write as if you have inside information about Jeffs and the FLDS. Are you a member or former member of this FLDS group?

[mouser]

You seem to have a fair handle on the law.

Here is my question.

If jeffs can be convicted of accomplice to rape I believe they called it.

Dose his conviction open up other ministers to the same charge if they married a young girl (possibility a legal marriage) who becomes unhappy in the marriage later.

This is based on my belief that if the young lady had not been unhappy at some point she would of not fussed.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your post:

>>>Are you a member or former member of this FLDS group?

Neither and I have no inside information. I was unaware of the group until this happened. I am in Texas and years ago I researched LDS quite a bit, but not this particular offshoot.

Since this event with FLDS, I’ve read or watched pretty much everything available from every source I can, pro and con and in-between, journalism, interviews, books, movies, court transcripts, legal briefs and filings... A lot of it goes back many years.

I consider my opinions well-informed, but admit they are still just my opinions.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your question:

>>>Please tell me how you know that he need not have been present to be convicted of being an accomplice to rape?

It’s a good question, I’ll try to lay out the facts.

It was two points I was making: He didn’t/doesn’t have to be present to order a marriage and he was convicted of being accomplice to rape of a 14 year old girl.

He was tried and found guilty on two counts of rape as an accomplice for his role in arranging a 2002 marriage between a 14-year-old girl.

I saw an interview with the victim. She said she was told she was to be married and she begged Jeffs not to do this. I think it’s clear, she did meet/know Jeffs or was able to communicate with him.

Jeffs is scheduled to be tried in Arizona on sex charges stemming from the arranged marriages of three teenage girls to older men.

Now, whether he was present or would have to be present at such a wedding to be convicted, I don’t know.

The second point was he need not be present to order criminal activity.

There are 6-10 thousand members in three states and Canada; and I’ve read elsewhere from at least a couple of sources that women who never saw Jeffs in person were told they were to marry because the Prophet had decided.

>>>Also, what happened to the girls parents? They would have a legal duty to protect an underage girl.

As far as I know nothing happened to her parents.

>>>It would do far more to end the abuses people are describing if the parents are treated severely for permitting such abuse

A very good point. However, something that struck me in reading about the various prosecutions was difficult it was concerning who was who and where they were and how to find them. Besides their record keeping, they also have members in government positions, and disappear across borders quite easily and quickly.

I don’t know if any attempt was made to prosecute this girls parents. It’s a very interesting question to me. I’ll see if I can find more information and let you know if I do.

thanks for your post.

[D-fendr]

I’ve found out that Jeffs officiated at the wedding, and the girl had conversations and instruction from Jeffs afterward.

Here’s a copy of the warrant for his arrest:

http://www.courttv.com/news/hildale/docs/jeffs_warrant.html?page=1

[Saundra Duffy]

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

Yes. That’s what I read.

[Saundra Duffy]

Warren Jeffs is in prison and I think that’s a good place for him.

[William Tell]

mouser said: "Does his conviction open up other ministers to the same charge ..."

Well, under the same circumstances, obviously it would.

I would look for the judge's instructions to the jury in the Jeffs' case for a deeper understanding of what constituted being an "accomplice to rape" as I understand the charge.

I would guess that convicting a person of being an accomplice to a crime has several challenges due to the fact that the accomplice is not the main perpetrator of the crime. A person might be an "unwitting" accomplice and not even know that a crime was being committed. Such a person is probably not guilty of a crime unless they had some legal duty to perform at which they failed.

For this reason I would consider any parent who knowingly permits their daughter to "marry" below the legal age of consent is guilty of a crime, which might include being an accomplice to the crime of rape if sexual activity was a direct consequence of the "marriage".

Somebody who claimed to have the authority, whether religious or legal, to officiate at a marriage ceremony in such circumstances could also be considered an accomplice, assuming they should have known the age of the girl. In such a case, even if the marriage was invalid, there would be a legal duty to not perform such a marriage. This would assume that sexual activity was an expected consequence of performing the marriage ceremony. If the marriage was just a "spiritual marriage" with no sexual activity, then there might be a defense to a rape related charge.

The only relevance that the happiness or fussing of the "wife" in such cases would have is whether the crime comes to light. The girl has no say in whether she can marry below the age of consent. If the girl is over the age of consent, then the law should presume that she is competent to make the decision. She can change her mind later, but she is expected to bear the consequences of her earlier legal decision.

[William Tell]

D-fendr said: "I don’t know if any attempt was made to prosecute this girls parents."

If not, then that is truly an outrage. The parents have the prime duty to the girl. Finding some religious nutball who will encourage people to do stupid and illegal things will forever be an easy thing to do. The only protection from such evil people is the presumption that responsible people will be just that; responsible.

The defense, "I was just following orders", is not supposed to carry weight when the person knows the order is unlawful.

[William Tell]

D-fendr said: "Here’s a copy of the warrant for his arrest:"

Thanks. This clarifies a question from another poster regarding what it means to be an "accomplice" to rape. The warrant contains: "... acting with the required mental state, ... solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided another to commit..."

Assuming that the conviction followed directly from the charge in the warrant, this would appear to constitute the legal definition of being an accomplice.

At the link you supplied is another account of a male FLDS member who married a 16 year old but was only sentenced to 45 days. That's entirely inadequate to enforce the age of consent laws. People like Jeffs would be less of a problem if the other law-breakers were better held to account.

Such outcomes are similar to the joke we call the War on Some Drugs. Users get a handslap, whereas dealers can be sentenced to life. It makes the whole thing unenforceable.