Posted on 06/13/2008 1:43:26 PM PDT by TLI
A week after 440 children from a polygamist sect were reunited with their parents, a majority still haven’t returned to the Yearning for Zion Ranch in West Texas.
Child Protective Services spokesman Patrick Crimmins said 178 children are living in 33 households in the San Antonio area and 143 children are living in 30 households at the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado.
The remaining 19 children are scattered across Texas, but Crimmins said CPS officials are not providing more details about their whereabouts to protect their privacy.
Under the court order signed last week by District Judge Barbara Walther, families cannot change their address without first giving CPS a one-week advance notice, cannot travel more than 100 miles without giving a 48-hour notice and cannot leave Texas.
Rod Parker, an FLDS attorney based in Salt Lake City, said Tuesday that many mothers have opted to stay away from the Eldorado compound on the advice of their lawyers.
Crimmins also said CPS will be evaluating information from DNA tests that are still being returned to a San Angelo court.
“When we get the results, we’re going to review them to see if they will help us in any ongoing abuse and neglect investigations,” Crimmins.
He also repeated that CPS officials reserve the right to interview children, parents or other individuals if necessary.
BILL HANNA, 817-390-7698
Thanks for posting the article.
It would seem not much has changed.
I think this article is being deliberately misleading.
I remember reading on one of the FLDS websites that ‘all the children are with their mothers’. So if that is true, what are they actually saying here.
Note the use of the word ‘households’.
Also note the line that says ‘most of the mothers have not returned to the LDS compound on the advice of their attorneys’.
So what I think they are actually saying is that the MAJORITY of mothers and children (i.e. HOUSEHOLDS) are still living elsewhere and not at the compound.
Yep. Sure is quiet in here when it seems like CPS is moving so slow it is making the news. Do ya reckon it has been ten days yet?
The author can not do math.
178 children + 143 children + 19 children = 340 children.
His accounting is short 100 children. So the ‘remaining 19 children’ is a tad off.
another one, where the title is not borne out by the srticle.
Good point. If the kids are back and not at the ranch I wonder how much of this is being footed by the taxpayers?
Read it again. CPS is not moving slow. The kids ARE back with their parents.
“A week after 440 children from a polygamist sect were reunited with their parents”
What the article is actually saying
“a majority still haven’t returned to the Yearning for Zion Ranch in West Texas.”
is just that the parents the children are with have not gone back to ‘yearning for Zion’.
Big deal. I would go stay somewhere else too.
It is not the author saying that, it's CPS.
"Child Protective Services spokesman Patrick Crimmins said..."
“The author can not do math.”
I wonder if that author’s paycheck has the same kind of ‘math’?
Still, the whole article is much ado about nothing.
Yeah.
Had it said “SOME”, instead of “MOST”, it would have seemed to match the contents of the article better.
But, you know.... To a Journalist, words, and their meanings, are not an important aspect when crafting an article, and title. (/sarc)
Probably. I wonder what’s up with the other 100 kids?
“So what I think they are actually saying is that the MAJORITY of mothers and children (i.e. HOUSEHOLDS) are still living elsewhere and not at the compound.”
That is, of course, very possible too.
If that were to be true, then:
Why would the ‘media’ (a local Texas Newspaper website) feel constrained to having to ‘couch’ the concept of the ‘news’ in such a confusing way?
“Do ya reckon it has been ten days yet?”
Since you mention a specific figure, I will rely on you to explain what the figure refers to.
Correct. The TITLE is misleading.
They slip in the truth in the first paragraph, but the title makes your mind skip over the information.
Interesting that they did that. I just emailed the author regarding CPS math. I bet a buck he left something out of the article.
“I would go stay somewhere else too.”
I agree.
I think some, or many, are doing so because it is the wisest thing to do, and the most logical.
Many of the parents went in search of their children, and temporarily ‘relocated’ already, while the custody hearing and APPEAL/SC hearings finished up.
They’ve already spent money to be near their children, and It is probably safer and simpler to stay where they are.
That still proves nothing.
What might end up becoming part of the criminal case is how many refused to return to the YFZ Ranch, because they never want to return, and they are willing to testify.
We will have to wait and see if there are none, a few, or many of those ‘families’.
Just like the evidence, arrests, etc. We have to wait.
Maybe that’s why the numbers in the article don’t add up.
“Probably. I wonder what’s up with the other 100 kids?”
I’m thinking that might be risky to assume. Especially with the seeming contradictory nature of the title vs. the article contents.
Then again, maybe the author is trying to ‘catch’ the attention of the intelligent readers, and pass on a subliminal warning.
: )
(I.E. I have no clue)
“Child Protective Services spokesman Patrick Crimmins said...”
You are quite correct.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Wonder why he’s leaving out 100 children?
I saw you emailed the author. Good thinking.
The Writ of Mandamus originally stated 468 (numbered page 4). It's possible that what, about 18 of them were not minors. That makes 450, (page 1) which is also mentioned in the Writ.
They are still ten short?
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.