Posted on 08/01/2008 5:10:41 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
Sorry, I missed this post.
I don't know anything, but I wouldn't rule out suicide until the autopsy is released. Maybe heart attack? The wording of the announcement is strange.
Do they release autopsies?
“Let me know if you’re ever in this neck of the woods, I’ll make you one.”
Is this house way in the wooded forest, and do you know a guy named the WOLF?
I think it’s up to the family, or other legal rep., especially if it isn’t pertinent to any legal action.
My Dad was born in New Zealand...
Ann Young(ex/wife of Brigham Young) wrote about one case where a man married a woman who had young daughters. Part of the marriage agreement was that the girls would marry him when they were older. The little girls would talk about how someday they would ‘marry Pa.”
Nothing new with the FLDS doing it.
I think in most places the media can get copies of autopsy results. If it were a criminal case, the cops might not let that happen.
I am sure the media in TX will get to the bottom of this.
I don't know how many time this has to be said, but no one has said that the CPS had no right to investigate. They just did not have the authority to presume, without evidence, as you apparently still do even after the Courts found otherwise, that the "environment" was dangerous. Actually a dangerous "environment" is not even the standard; a physical threat to the safety of each child is. And the CPS did not have authority to remove the children short of proving that they attempted the very thing they were ordered to do by the Texas Supreme Court and which they are doing now; namely, investigate while making every effort to keep each child in the child's home.
Out of hundreds of children seized and needlessly traumatized, the CPS has shown that only one removal was justified.
None of this should be construed in any way to condone, approve or attempt to justify or excuse any potential crimes comitted by any of the adults.
Cordially,
“Out of hundreds of children seized and needlessly traumatized, the CPS has shown that only one removal was justified.”
In the case of the indictments, the number of removals justified has gone up to about five or six.
Other than that, I pretty much agree.
Oops. One other thing.
“And the CPS did not have authority to remove the children “
The TXSC overturned the ruling of the Judge, who had authorized CPS to remove the children. So, they had judicial authority when they removed them.
A physical threat to the safety of each child is Actually a dangerous “environment” .
We know that. They had a judicial order from the trial court, yes, so in that sense what they did was not illegal, of course, but in principle the order that they sought and obtained itself was not in accordance with the law. It was in principle that the actions of the CPS were outside the scope of its authority. I'm sorry I didn't make my meaning clearer.
I'll make you a deal. You stop referring to a dangerous "environment" as if it were an applicable legal standard and I'll stop pointing out that the CPS and trial court did not follow the law with respect to the individualized burden of proof for a transfer of custody for each child (with the exception of one child.)
Oh, and the indictments do not in and of themselves justify the removal and transfer of custody of any of the children. The applicable legal standards and burdens on the CPS have not changed, and as far as I can tell their have been no other transfers of custody of any of the other children, save the aforementioned one.
The CPS is doing now what it should have done in the first place.
Cordially,
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.