Polygamy caller found

[_asbestosman]

I believe abuse is obvious here, regardless of the source of the original or subsequent calls. If underage children are being engaged in sexual activity, religion or no religion, that's abuse. And taking all the children is appropriate until they get it sorted, particularly when the mothers were playing shell game with the children.

The more I read the more I think you're right, except for one thing. That evidence needs to be obtained legally. Hopefully this phony caller was not the original caller and hopefully the state followed the law and hopefully privacy rights were not trampled before evidence was collected. If that isn't the case, the abusers will probably walk away free--ether that or we suddenly get to live in a place where privacy and probably cause don't mean anything anymore. Privacy for abusers? No, I'm against it. Privacy for innocent citizens? Absolutely! How to tell the difference without removing privacy in the first place? Well, that's what the law is there for--or at least it used to be.

[_the road to hana]

I believe abuse is obvious here, regardless of the source of the original or subsequent calls. If underage children are being engaged in sexual activity, religion or no religion, that's abuse. And taking all the children is appropriate until they get it sorted, particularly when the mothers were playing shell game with the children.

The more I read the more I think you're right, except for one thing. That evidence needs to be obtained legally. Hopefully this phony caller was not the original caller and hopefully the state followed the law and hopefully privacy rights were not trampled before evidence was collected. If that isn't the case, the abusers will probably walk away free--ether that or we suddenly get to live in a place where privacy and probably cause don't mean anything anymore. Privacy for abusers? No, I'm against it. Privacy for innocent citizens? Absolutely! How to tell the difference without removing privacy in the first place? Well, that's what the law is there for--or at least it used to be.

The FLDS have a long history of underage marriages and pregnancies. That in itself ought to be probable cause.

[_The Nehor]

The FLDS have a long history of underage marriages and pregnancies. That in itself ought to be probable cause.

That would be a slippery slope.

[_the road to hana]

The FLDS have a long history of underage marriages and pregnancies. That in itself ought to be probable cause.

That would be a slippery slope.

Key word there is ought.

[_asbestosman]

The FLDS have a long history of underage marriages and pregnancies. That in itself ought to be probable cause.

That would be a slippery slope.

Key word there is ought.

So if my family has a history of drug abuse, ought that be probable cause to search me too?

Yes, I think the FLDS are likely guilty of child abuse. I'm just not ready to throw away everyone's rights all in the name of stopping abuse disguisting as I find abuse to be.

[_moksha]

When everything is settled, will they have to get new sheets for the beds when they rededicate the Temple?

[_the road to hana]

The FLDS have a long history of underage marriages and pregnancies. That in itself ought to be probable cause.

That would be a slippery slope.

Key word there is ought.

So if my family has a history of drug abuse, ought that be probable cause to search me too?

That's actually a false analogy.

Yes, I think the FLDS are likely guilty of child abuse. I'm just not ready to throw away everyone's rights all in the name of stopping abuse disguisting as I find abuse to be.

Perhaps. I'd rather err on the side of the children, and protecting them.

Countless people went to their deaths in World War II when others were only hearing "rumors" that it might be happening. (And please, don't anyone invoke "Godwin's Law" on me.) My own view is that if a religious group has known established practices and principles that are in violation of state or federal laws, and abuse is a part of that, they forfeit their own rights in the process.

[Guest]

The best thing they should have done was just a huge sweep through the area with social workers and detectives interviewing the children. In California sometimes they have sweeps through entire neighborhoods with probation,parole, police, child welfare and welfare fraud. Then there would could be detentions on some cases on the spot or some could be left in the home with further visits. To pull 20 year old Sister Jones's three kids who are 3, 2 and 1 because every other kid is being pulled is crazy and civil suits can/should follow. There are problems with siblings and half siblings and those living under the same roof. For example - in California if a child is taken out of the home for physical abuse or sexual abuse all the other children can be taken out of the home too.


(j) The child's sibling has been abused or neglected, as defined
in subdivision (a), (b), (d), (e), or (i), and there is a substantial
risk that the child will be abused or neglected, as defined in those
subdivisions. The court shall consider the circumstances surrounding
the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the age and gender of each
child, the nature of the abuse or neglect of the sibling, the mental
condition of the parent or guardian, and any other factors the court
considers probative in determining whether there is a substantial
risk to the child.

the legislature in California added this too:

It is the intent of the Legislature that nothing in this section
disrupt the family unnecessarily or intrude inappropriately into
family life, prohibit the use of reasonable methods of parental
discipline, or prescribe a particular method of parenting. Further,
nothing in this section is intended to limit the offering of
voluntary services to those families in need of assistance but who do
not come within the descriptions of this section. To the extent that
savings accrue to the state from child welfare services funding
obtained as a result of the enactment of the act that enacted this
section, those savings shall be used to promote services which
support family maintenance and family reunification plans, such as
client transportation, out-of-home respite care, parenting training,
and the provision of temporary or emergency in-home caretakers and
persons teaching and demonstrating homemaking skills. The Legislature
further declares that a physical disability, such as blindness or
deafness, is no bar to the raising of happy and well-adjusted
children and that a court's determination pursuant to this section
shall center upon whether a parent's disability prevents him or her
from exercising care and control. The Legislature further declares
that a child whose parent has been adjudged a dependent child of the
court pursuant to this section shall not be considered to be at risk
of abuse or neglect solely because of the age, dependent status, or
foster care status of the parent.
As used in this section, "guardian" means the legal guardian of
the child."


that is why this gets so messy because family A should be able to get family preservation services while maybe family B does not but if they both live under the same roof then you might have to look how the courts ruled in previous cases like this.



for futher information: (for california)

http://www.cwsl.edu/content/faculty/WEL ... 300300.pdf

[_asbestosman]

That's actually a false analogy.

Well, I apparently don't understand so please enlighten me.

Perhaps. I'd rather err on the side of the children, and protecting them.

Even if its another Satanic Ritual Abuse witch hunt where innocent people are hurt? Sorry, but I can't agree.

Countless people went to their deaths in World War II when others were only hearing "rumors" that it might be happening. (And please, don't anyone invoke "Godwin's Law" on me.)

It's a fine point, so I'm not gonna complain. It's just my understanding that there was sufficient cause for people (or at least governments) to know. I'm completely in favor of governments spying on each other. So why am I in favor of governments spying on other governments but not one its own citizens? Because I do not want to live in a police state. I expect other governments to be mum about anything they spy on me doing unless it's actually dangerous to the world. I cannot trust that local authorities wouldn't abuse those powers. Besides, spies are generally loathe to admit they're spying or otherwise disclose the extent of their spying. In a police state, they flaunt the fact that you're being monitored.

My own view is that if a religious group has known established practices and principles that are in violation of state or federal laws, and abuse is a part of that, they forfeit their own rights in the process.

Religion has nothing to do with it for me so I'd have to first strike that from your statement. I might also strike the word principles from there since I believe that it's fine to disagree with the government so long as you do not break the law in doing so (I disagree with the government about the legality of marijuana, but I don't have any and in fact I don't want any). Other than that, yes it sounds reasonable, but the law needs to allow it first (if it doesn't already). It also needs to reasonably be able to determine that a group has established practices that are illegall all without the state itself violating privacy to obtain this information.

It's that whole "reasonable cause" thing that we're quibbling about.

[_the road to hana]

In an even more bizarre twist to this story, apparently Rozita Swinton, the woman from Colorado Springs, Colorado, that is suspected of making the fradulent calls, is a pledged Obama delegate in the state of Colorado.