Posted on 08/18/2008 1:25:04 PM PDT by wolfcreek
State seeks to return eight children to foster care.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Thanks for posting the article.
I found these points to be interesting.
The issue, like it was in the earlier decision to seize the sect’s children, is “whether the children are in any immediate danger simply because their parents choose to raise them in this religion,” Parker said. “The substance of what they’re doing here is fundamentally the same.”
Yep. The fact someone is messing with someone's religion and the fact that someone is the GOV.
If you and I took it upon ourselves to remove those children from the *Ranch*........??
If the "religion", as defined by the "prophet" forces underaged girls to "marry" men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers, then yes, those children are in immediate danger.
I am enjoying watching you ‘Christians’ support the States ruling on what is acceptable religious practice : )
It’s more a question of what are unacceptable criminal practices, isn’t it?
We "Christians" as you call us do not have child rape as a key part of our religious practice. Are you saying that you think such behavior is perfectly acceptable as long as it hides by claiming it is done in the name of religion? If not, then what's with the attitude?
“If you and I took it upon ourselves to remove those children from the *Ranch*........?? “
We did remove those children. Who, after all, is the government?
Yep religions vary drastically in what is an acceptable practice and what isn’t, don’t they. I wonder what practices would be okay to ban? I wonder if rape, torture, beheadings, other forms of murder as defined in the criminal codes, etc would be allowed in the name of religion?
I agree.
However, the opposition question is why did they take the male children.
There is, of course, an obvious answer.
Attorneys remain in talks this afternoon on possible agreements in two of four cases brought by the state's Child Protective Services agency in the ongoing FLDS custody case.
The four cases, which now encompass seven children, were filed by CPS two weeks ago, with hearings scheduled to begin this morning. After a recess to determine the feasibility of agreements in each of the cases, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther granted delays in two of them and commenced hearing arguments in a third.
"We're hopeful that we will have an agreement reached in this case," said CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner, "and that the judge will have an agreement" to sign.
Meanwhile, arguments began in the case of two children, whose parents are ranch leader and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints bishop Merril Jessop and his wife, Barbara Steed Jessop.
Barbara Jessop sat in the courtroom as her attorney, San Angelo lawyer Gonzalo Rios, peppered Walther with objections to dozens of documents CPS attorneys introduced as evidence.
The documents - bishop's records, marriage certificates and pictures recovered from the sect's temple annex at the Schleicher County compound - were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure, Rios said.
"This evidence was gained illegally," he said. "At best, there's a question about whether a legal search warrant was issued."
The warrant authorizing law enforcement and CPS to raid the ranch starting on April 3 was based on phone calls now believed to be a hoax.
Walther overruled the objection, questioning how Jessop could have standing to dispute the seizing of documents not contained in her home.
end snip
-----------
Lurker, this is where your 'defective in the extreme' may begin to get some play and eventually work it's way up to the SCOT......
Thanks.
Maybe they don’t believe in safe sects. ;)
Exactly the point I've been trying to signal to some of our [more than slightly confused] FReepers.
Even though they are never completely what we want them to be, our system of government is designed to do just what they did, take children out of homes that appear to be neglectful or abusive.
My ex-wife had the unique chance to view one of the younger boys who was in a group of children who came to a center in Austin.
Even at the age of 4, he had complete authority and control over the girls in the group. He had a special diet and special clothing. He had been trained to believe he has the master.
I suppose at the price of these children’s lives and minds, some FReepers would rather we left the FLDS be?
” . . . our system of government is designed to do just what they did, take children out of homes that appear to be neglectful or abusive.”
APPEAR to be? Constitution be darned. Thank goodness for the TX supremes; otherwise all the kids would still be in foster homes.
ENOUGH with the BS, Texas!!!
It is interesting to hear from someone with actual ‘experience’ with these children.
The more info, the better.
Some FReepers, in about the same mix as ‘some of the public’.
Here is my question. If this raid had occurred upon some ‘cult’ other than one related to the LDS, do you think there would be the same opposition to the ‘raid’?
Why limit it to Texas?
What about the state getting involved in other ‘religious/isolated/mind-control’ type communities?
Surely the state has no business getting involved in this case either:
1 Mind Ministries Cult Member Ria Ramkissoon Charged in Sons Death
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=56187&cat=14
5:16 pm update.........
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/aug/18/flds-hearing-recessed-for-possible-deals/
The wife of the leader of the YFZ Ranch this afternoon pleaded the Fifth Amendment more than 50 times during a hearing in which she was seeking custody of two of her children.
Barbara Steed Jessop - wife of ranch leader and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints bishop Merril Jessop - refused to answer a series of questions, from as mundane as how much her husband earns each month to as pointed as whether she witnessed a marriage of an underage girl to an older man.
“I stand on the Fifth,” Jessop repeated after nearly every question asked by Jeff Schmidt, attorney for the state’s Child Protective Services agency.
She first invoked the amendment, which allows a suspect in a criminal investigation to refuse a question when the answer may be self-incriminating, when Schmidt asked her for a third time whether her children had spent a night in their residence without her since they were returned to her custody in June.
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.