They, of course, have proof. Which is why criminal charges were filed against the people that committed those crimes, right?
Right?
And that makes all of the people in the FLDS ranch guilty too, right?
How about the convicted molesters who wandered in and out of that group and back and forth across state lines?
Ah, guilty by association. So, if your neighbor steals a car we can lock you up without a trial and seize your children?
No one was put in jail, children were moved for their own safety.
Without due process of law, children were seized by the state and placed into custody, then shipped off to state-chosen foster parents and the mother's of said children were enjoined from contacting them. True, it isn't jail. But the state doesn't have to put you in jail to take your liberty.
The children have a constitutional right to be free from abuse and sexual exploitation.
They sure do. But first you actually have to prove abuse and sexual exploitation. We have a process for that. CPS chose not to follow that process.
There were over a half a dozen pregnant minors in the group.
The last I heard this had been reduced to ONE pregnant minor. And that one was suspect.
Now then, how many pregnant minors currently go to school in the Austin, TX public school system? Where is CPS?
(YES the presence/prevalence of pregnant minors is a pretty clear indicator of abuse when no one is trying to prosecute or track down the father.)
All of what you say is true, but first you HAVE TO PROVE THE ALLEGATIONS!
I'm not sure what part of this is eluding you.
Let me make this perfectly clear.
NO CRIMINAL CHARGES = NO CRIME.
NO CRIME = NO STEALING CHILDREN.
That's what I say.
And fortunately, that's what two judges said too.
Not two judges, three in the unanimous opinion of the third circuit court of appeals, and the TX supreme court.
Their was a search warrant issued. The LEO’s moved to execute that warrant. They found and “reasonable cause” to suspect that the children in this communal home had their welfare endangered. They moved on their lawful authority to remove the children from the endangerment. (The families were all in one home near as I can tell, so certain dangers could be considered to be dangers to all including the transient residency of convicted child molesters in this same home which is my point previously. Nothing to do with guilt by association. EVERYTHING to do with protecting the welfare and rights of the minor.)
Two different courts found that the LEO’s reasonable cause was unjustified to the extent of separating the children from their parents and ordered that the children be returned back to their parents. However, even the courts made stipulations on the parents that would have to be abided by for the protection of the welfare of the children.
So while the courts found that there was not enough reasonable cause to separate them from their parents in all cases, there was some sort evidence of continuing threat to the children or else why would they have ordered restrictions on the parents even after the children are returned to their care/guardianship?
These LEO’s have never been tried, never been convicted, never been found guilty of any wrongdoing. They made a judgment call about the safety of a citizen of the state of Texas. The courts found that they made the wrong call. The courts adjusted the call and this investigation is still ongoing with the courts satisfied as to the safety of the children and the protection of their rights in the meantime.
This has never had anything to do with the guilt or innocence of the adults. It has everything to do with the safety and welfare of the children involved. So while as much BS gets tossed around about the “do it for the children”, this one really was done for the the children.
Sometimes the rights of individuals in society conflicts. That's what the courts are there to sort out. In this case the CPS workers were faced with the conflict of the parent's rights to direct the upbringing of their children and the children's right to be free from abuse and exploitation. They tried to resolve the case and made mistakes. It doesn't mean that they should have never went into the compound. It doesn't mean that they were wrong in their judgment that immediate action needed to be taken to protect the children. They just were wrong about separating them from their parents. They could have demanded that the children be removed from any and all endangering situations until the investigation was complete and the various parents would have had to found separate residency by defacto.
Thanks for post #36. Good for you.
I was thinking the other day - Jerry Lee Lewis married a girl who was 13, remember? And he was an adult. Her parents consented. There are so many teenagers having babies. Why did they target these FLDS people with such a vengeance - and all on a false report?