Posted on 06/10/2008 8:51:53 AM PDT by abb
“They found and “reasonable cause” to suspect that the children in this communal home had their welfare endangered. “
1. TX SC ruled it was many homes, not one.
2. TX SC ruled there was no “reasonable cause.”
Ready for round 233?
;)
The Texas SC found enough reasonable cause to impose continuing restrictions on the parents so to say they found NO reasonable cause is wrong.
I haven’t seen where they rules that it was many homes and not one. If you can site that point it would be valuable to the thread for sure. At any rate whether the “possible” danger was in one home or common across many homes the Texas SC still found that the reasonable cause was there to restrict the parents (including baring at least SOME of them from returning to the compound with their children). And the perception of a single home was evident in the actions taken by the CPS. So they were overruled. They submitted their findings to the court when called and the court made the necessary adjustments.
Not quite.
The TX SC did not impose continueing restrictions - they concurred with the 3rd TX CT of Appeals, that judge Walther could have imposed restrictions, as opposed to romoving the children.
They did, however, find thad she (Judge Walther), “had abused her judicial discretion” when she removed the children.
In Judge speek, they said she broke the law flagarantly.
If you read the 3rd CT opinion, they said the Ranch was not one home. The TX SC agreed - so you have to read both.
The TX SC did not bar anyone from returning to the ranch with the children - Judge Walther, after the TX SC slapped her down, barred ONE girl from returning to the ranch, as it appears she was actually raped by some old fart. She also issued a restraining order, that the old fart may not get anywhere near the ONE underage girl. First thing that Judge Walther did in this case, that was actually legal, and I support her on this one.
CPS perception that it was a single home was, in fact, ruled in error - the only court that agreed with them was Judge Walther, and - as I said - the TX SC has said she was full of it, when she did.
Irrelevant of which court brought the restrictions their ARE still restrictions. You are arguing with me about my response to someone who was arguing with me about ...etc etc etc...
The point is their is no constitutional crisis here.
The CPS workers determined certain things.
The first court concurred with all or virtually all of their findings.
Other courst (including the Texas SC) over ruled most of the first courts rulings.
The investigation continues and the are restrictions in place to protect the children (whether the ywil be successful or not nobody knows - as with many things in life).
It ain’t over and the fat lady hasn’t sung.
Me? I’m still glad the CPS acted, mistakes and all. They did their job and they did the vast majority of it right. I’m also glad the court system did and IS working out the issues.
“They did their job and they did the vast majority of it right”
I don’t think what you think I said is what I meant to say, so let me try again.
THE TX SC RULED THAT CPS, and Judge Walther, NOT ONLY GOT EVERY STEP WRONG, but that they also broke the law in doing so. They ruled that even the JUDGE broke the law.
So which part you think CPS, or the Judge, got right, is beyond me.
That’s not what the court ruled.
Which court, in which ruling? Link, please.
You link.
List every step and list where the SC ruled that that step was illegal. Show where the SC used the term “illegal” or “broke the law”.
Where ? I have seen no degree of toleration for child rape here on FR.
Sigh. The 3rd Circuit cout of appeals ruled that the jude “abused her discretion”, in their ruling. To you and me, that means, “broke the law.” I sat down with a Judge in VA last weekend, to confirm that - he said yep, that is exactly what it means.
The TX SC upheld - that means they concurred, she broke the law. The VA Judge also confirmed that ruling.
So, you need the TX SC majority opinion - I will get that for you, after this post - and you need the 3rd Circuit opinion. You go find that one.
That seems about right for an estimate of the number of threads on this case.
How are you and your family? Hope all is well.
I assume you saw the news on the Texas Gov. Mansion.
I read they have video of one of the perps, so far.
I’m leaning more towards a union contractor, as that seems to be one of their M.O.’s.
But, who knows. Could have been some adolescents who thought it would be funny to see firetrucks.
All is well, here - tornado last week lightlly grazed us in VA, the one today in NY missed our cabin. ;)
The mansion thing is sort of sad. What idiot would do that? Flippin’ jerk.
Hey, you got a ling to the 3rd CoA decision? I don’t have one handy.
In this case, the Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence that “there was a danger to the physical health or safety” of pubescent girls on the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch from a pattern or practice of sexual abuse, that “the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal” of those girls, and that the Department made reasonable efforts, considering the obstacles to information-gathering that were presented, to prevent removal and return those children home. Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b)(1)–(3).
Wrong ruling.
abb, help me out, here - I need a link to the 3rd CoA decision.
1) I’m sorry your judge friend is wrong.
2) I’m not going to look for the 3 CT ruling. This is your trail of accusation and I am not doing your foot work. Besides, all you did on SC case is post what someone else had already posted earlier in the thread.
3) Again, there is no constitutional crisis to any of this. The system is working. It’s a long way from over.
Evidence presented in the trial court indicated that the Department began its investigation of the YFZ Ranch on March 29th, when it received a report of sexual abuse of a sixteen-year-old girl on the property. On April 3rd, the Department entered the Ranch along with law-enforcement personnel and conducted nineteen interviews of girls aged seventeen or under, as well as fifteen to twenty interviews of adults. In the course of these interviews, the Department learned there were many polygamist families living on the Ranch; a number of girls under the age of eighteen living on the Ranch were pregnant or had given birth; both interviewed girls and adults considered no age too young for a girl to be “spiritually” married; and the Ranch’s religious leader, “Uncle Merrill,” had the unilateral power to decide when and to whom they would be married. Additionally, in the trial court, the Department presented “Bishop’s Records” — documents seized from the Ranch — indicating the presence of several extremely young mothers or pregnant “wives”[1] on the Ranch: a sixteen-year-old “wife” with a child, a sixteen-year-old pregnant “wife,” two pregnant fifteen-year-old “wives,” and a thirteen-year-old who had conceived a child.
The testimony of Dr. William John Walsh, the families’ expert witness, confirmed that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the age of “physical development” (that is, first menstruation) as the age of eligibility for “marriage.”
How LOW does that age go?
There is another thread on FR where a girl (not related to the FLDS case) was raped, and has consequently had a child.
Apparently, she had already had her first ‘menstruation’.
Right? Now, the girl is 10 years old.
According to the doctrines of Warren Jeffs, she would be good to go for a child-bride.
Therein lies the problem.
The LAW states a specific age, and the FLDS members don’t believe in the law, nor even know what the Law is.
I say that because they have even stated so publicly.
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.