Posted on 04/24/2008 9:19:02 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
As hundreds of children taken into state custody from a polygamous religious sect settle into their new foster homes, their temporary caregivers are careful how they introduce them to a whole new world.
First rule: no TV yet.
Foster homes and shelters across the state are scrambling to accommodate 437 children who have until now lived a largely isolated life on the Yearning for Zion Ranch, a sprawling 1,700-acre compound in West Texas.
"These kids don't know who the president is. Don't know that we're at war. Don't know who Elvis was, don't know who the Beatles were," said Bobby Gilliam, director of the Methodist Children's home in Waco, Texas, where some of the children will be staying.
-SNIP
The 50 girls who will be coming to the Methodist home in Waco will be woken up at the crack of dawn and given chores similar to what they did on the ranch. It will take time before they are ready to mix with other children and watch TV, Gilliam said.
Social workers are also being given a list of dos and don'ts for how to deal with children who may not have ever seen television and who were raised in a culture that the state says encourages underage girls to marry older men. Sect members deny the allegation.
Among the rules: don't ask about their religion, don't press if the children avoid eye contact and don't allow them to use cell phones.
Judge Barbara Walther, who ordered the children kept in temporary state custody, said that siblings should be kept together, that babies younger than 1 should stay with their mothers and that breast-feeding mothers with children between the ages of 1 and 2 should be allowed to live near their toddlers.
-SNIP-
The children are being housed until they have individual status hearings. Some children could be placed in permanent foster care. Some parents who have left the sect may win custody, while some youngsters may be allowed to return to the ranch in Eldorado.
Nice touch on quoting what I was asking another person. your “spin cycle” must be set to “lunatic.”
Can you please obfusicate just a little more while dodging the request? I love the smell of smokescreen in the afternoon!
Or didn't you notice.
This is the State of Texas at work.
Or didn't you notice.
This is the State of Texas at work.
If that is what they meant, I agree they did a poor job of saying it.
It would have been clearer, and conveyed a lot more information, if they had credible knowledge that some ex-cult members were petitioning to get custody of the kids, and that they were going through the DNA process and might gain custody if they are shown to be the parents.
I presume that is what you are saying you believe they meant.
Thank you for the extra information.
If you think about how the sentence structure usually is in a case like this, you expect when reading that the “action” specified in the center will be some action the parents take in order to show they should get custody.
So, for example, “Parents who have shown they did not abuse their kids may get custody”, or “Parents who have completed parental counselling may get custody”, or “Parents who have served their sentence and were not charged with abuse may get custody”.
So I wasn’t expecting the phrase to indicate instead the current STATE of a parent, I was expecting to be a condtion they meet.
I actually think your explanation makes a lot of sense.
“Moms, do you have something that will satisfy this request?”
Looking... One particular video clip I’m looking for was the one where Carolyn Jessop was interviewed that was posted very early on in this scenario. I haven’t been able to find it.
Carolyn Jessop - Escaping from the FLDS
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jJAvqc5u9KM
OUTSIDE LOOKING IN (Interview of ex-FLDS member...male)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003232/posts
My Life in a Polygamist Compound
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2003504/posts
FLDS Prophet’s Nephew Testifies and Speaks Out Against Sexual Abuse Inside Compound
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2003838/posts
Certainly I oppose the act of taking someone’s kids from them. Those who are found guilty of this should be punished. And the parents who had their children kidnapped should get them back.
I’m rather confused on one point though. These parents you refer to have left the cult, which means they no longer subscribe to the control of the group.
And legally, it seems obvious that they have a right to their children, or (if the other parent is still in the cult) have a right to petition a court for custody rights.
In fact, I see no legal impediment to such a case. So why didn’t these parents, who left and want their children, just file a suit to get them? Why did they have to wait until this raid?
It’s a real question — I’m curious. Maybe they did — unlike apparently some of you, I had no interest in this group before, and so I don’t “remember” what things were like there.
This might work as well.
Polygamist ‘prophet’ to serve at least 10 years in prison (Jeffs)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/20/jeffs.sentence/index.html
Likely they’d say that was staged, too. They’re not going to believe the media, no matter what it says, unless it’s that the caller was a hoax, then it’s as if it came from God Himself.
Your standard?
How is your standard any better a choice that the government's?
Well, then, read up before you post and you won't look so foolish.
A keyword search of FLDS will take you to virtually all the threads pertaining to the case.
If you knew anything about the FLDS and Warren Jeffs, you'd understand why TX acted the way it did. It was way overdue.
It is first necessary to identify the children before the questions of custody may be addressed.
The F(lds) is the agency that mixed everybody up. The state of Texas is unraveling things first.
We don't know all the petitions that have been prepared but not yet filed but there have been news interviews wtih some of the former members who are affected.
and you continue to do your best to condone what happen in TX
Not discernable from your posts. Which amendment is sexual abuse of children permitted under?
Well, except, again, for your proneness to judge inner motivations in a shotgun way ("bitter"), I actually have to acknowledge that at least you defended yourself well (well, minus the "lockstep" Hitler-type reference, that is).
I think it's fair of you to point out that there's reasonable points of divergent thought such as your definition vs. DelphiUser's.
(Your same argument, however, doesn't apply to TChris and Killermedic's "lectures." Both were either frowning upon non-LDS posters (TChris) or lecturing about proper distinctions when there's confusion in the LDS camp already about how to label, distinguish or not distinguish, etc...I mean, how can they assume that there's an "orthodox" understanding of these labels when even their own camp doesn't recognize it? Or their own "lectures" somehow only seem to be geared at the eyes of non-Mormons (vs. equal-opportunity recipients--whether they be LDS or not).
I've always known these groups were connected one way or the other, but they were a bit slippery. They do try to keep things private. With the internet in place their every slip up ends up on a hardrive somewhere and I find it.
I might even have enough material now to identify who it was got involved to pass on the ancient Gypsy custom of dropping your kids (the boys) off for the Gadje to raise until they were of age. Eastern European orphanages have always traditionally been filled to the brim with Gypsy kids.
There's gonna' be a picture somewhere that shows me what I'm looking for.
FYI: “lockstep” has nothing to do with Hitler. You’re thinking of “goose-step.” “Lockstep” has no Nazi overtones whatsoever.
(And, parenthetically, from an earlier thread: “cowtail” isn’t the word you were looking for. The verb, I believe, is kowtow.)
I’m so happy that I finally met your high standards of “defending myself well.” You have no idea how much I cherish your approval.
Of course, if I am “defending” then are you “attacking”?
Frankly, you’re going to label us according to YOUR opinion no matter what we say or do, and I doubt very much that the labels will be accurate, so I’ve given up on trying to change or clarify.
Enjoy your Mormon sniping. If you ever comment on a non-LDS thread, please ping me. It’s be refreshing to discuss something else with you for a change.
What exactly IS your fascination with this First Born church? Most of us have never heard of it, yet you’ve spent 50 years following it. Why? Are you writing a book?
I’ve meticulously avoided discussing the actual beliefs of this group. I plan to continue to do so. The law is no respector of religion, and the only thing that matters is whether any thing they practice violates the law.
I’m certainly not discouraging you from doing whatever you like. Just explaining why I’m not participating in that aspect of the discussion.
On this one CYTD, we agree. What's up with this muawiyah??
It seems muawiyah thinks the Church of the Firstborn is associated with Mormonism via the LeBaron Cult.
Just because LeBaron just so happened to name his crazy cult the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Time.
I'd like to see anyone else who sees a connection to Joseph Smith or Brigham Youn and the Church of the Firstborn.
From the Salt Lake Tribune:
http://extras.sltrib.com/specials/polygamy/PolygamyLeaders.pdf
But, muawiyah’s homepage says the COTFB began in the early 1700’s????
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.