Posted on 05/22/2008 10:46:31 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan
SAN ANGELO, Texas - A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.
Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.
The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.
Since no one has been charged or indicted for any crime, there are no perpetrators in the legal sense. And now there may never be, even if some are guilty of crimes, because CPS, the local sheriff and the local judge overreached their authority. So if there are no perpetrators how can "they" have had Due Process or not?
But even accused child rapists and killers are accorded due process in this country. It's in the Constitution. Amendments IV, V, VI, VII and VIII of the US Constitution, and several sections of Art. 1 of the Texas Constitution.
Anyway, It's definately something that needs to be looked into. Do they need volunteers? How can the public help improve care? We are always going to have kids that need homes. Would more non profit group homes be a better option? We used to have a lot of orphanages but they were considered too institutional.
Might not be a bad time for the Feds to play their hand.
I agree that it's huge hypocrisy, and I am not one to condemn polygamy. Well, multiple wives, perhaps...I mean, if a guy is dumb enough to want more than one wife, do we really want his genes passed on so much?!?!
;-) On the other side of it, the FLDS does use government aid (Medicaid, etc.) They call it bleeding the beast. I do resent my tax dollars going to care for men who basically just um, procreate all the time.
I resent this a GREAT deal.
I do not like the FLDS or many of their practices. My criticism of how this was handled is not support for much of what they do.
Funny thing about the anti-rights crowd...they can't get their stories straight.
I was told that it's definitely armored...because the FLDS folks were so dangerous that it was needed!
BTW, did you note that they brought it in from another county? Had to bring it in from 150 miles away...but then again, this was a rush, rush emergency...no time to confirm facts, you know.
It seems to work out very well for the children; in one case, one "wife" stays home with the baby while the other works...giving a stay-at-home-mom AND a two-income family.
The posters who are not aware of how many 14 year old girls are getting pregnant by older men are just plain ignorant about the realities of America in 2008 (well, for decades). In fact, in certain cultures of America, the young girls are fair game for older relatives.
Well not quite. The State took legal custody of those newborns, both born to adult women. However they allowed the mothers to stay with the children, as long as they too stayed where the CPS put them.
I love one upmanship. On of my great grandfathers was 60, a widower with 11 children who married a 16 yr old girl. They produced 8 more children. She remarried at 45 upon her husband's death at 89.
The 31 minors with children has been reduced by the state to 5, 4 of whom claim they can prove they are 18. The one remaining is 17 with a 1 yr old child.
Never bring a pitch fork to a gun fight.
Actually the state presumes that if you were married to the child's mother at the time they were born, that you are the father. I'm not sure about Texas law, (Even though I've lived in Texas for 31 years, and my younger daughter was born here, its not been something I've needed to know) but in some states, it's even irrelevant if you are or not, and in others you must prove you are not, rather than that you are.
They did, for all the kids over two, except those whose mothers were assumed to be underage themselves. Funny the state didn't have any problem assuming which children went with which mothers for that purpose. Hmm.
That varies from state to state. In some states what you say is true. In others the presumption can be disproved, by DNA or other means. (incompatible, that is impossible, blood types for example)
I guess it is fairer to say that is the common law presumption and I believe I had heard of some states making statute law different post DNA.
The Nancy Grace Crew.
Be careful of multiple personalities.
Opinions are not facts. Facts are required to take children from their parents. Only in cases where their is obvious *imminent* danger, may the children be taken away without an adversarial due process court proceeding. And even in those cases, such a proceeding must be held within a very short period of time. That time period sort of defines what is meant by "imminent*. It's less than 6 weeks, I believe it's two weeks.
Anyone happen to notice the cowards calling people vicious names throughout the last two months are noticeably absent from this thread. Cowards. Some of them are carrying on bashing non-approved religions as if this whole issue never occurred. The flds issue was never about the children, never for a moment for the sick, twisted, demented mob of idiots. It was about religion and “the children” so to speak was used as a springboard to attack, defame, and slander good posters asking questions. Serious hypocrites.
And some of these women who were supposedly pregnant at 14 or 15, could have been legally married, in Texas at least, before the law was changed from 14 to 16. I don't recall anything to indicate that they checked the marriage records. The 16 year olds could be legally married even after the September 2005 change to the law. that is why the mere presence of pregnant teenagers, or those who appear to be teenagers, is not sufficient to assume that child sexual abuse has occurred. It is probably sufficient to do further investigation into that possibility. But absent *imminent* danger it's not enough to take children out the same household, let alone out of the same community.
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.