Judge in FLDS case walks off the bench;

[_bcspace]

I want the deck stacked heavily against the FLDS.

Even if it's unconstitutional? Who is Rozita Swinton and are her claims valid? If there are other claims, why didn't the Texas cps act on those instead?

I want TBMS to stop their love affair with the FLDS. There's not one redeeming feature about the FLDS in Texas.

They are not being persecuted for their crimes (yet to be proven in this case by the way) but rather, for their beliefs. There are many who automatically think that plural marriage means abuse.

As for your concern for the FLDS's civil rights, did you object when your Church publically fought against the Equal Rights Amendment for women?

Was it in the constitution? Should it be in the constitution? Apples to oranges here.

Did you object when your Church preached against civil rights for blacks prior to Pres. Kimball's reversal of the priesthood ban?

Any doctrinal statements on that?

Are you now objecting to your Church's attacks on the civil rights of gays and lesbians?

There has been no such attack.

If not, then the only minority group whose civil rights you're worried about are those of the FLDS.

Strawman.

[Analytics]

I want the guilty men arrested and sentenced to jail

Me too, but . .

for their belief system which includes beliefs which cause them to violate the law.

not for that.

There's not one redeeming feature about the FLDS in Texas.

That is probably true.

They deserve everything that happens to them.

Can you say "witch hunt"? I knew you could. I just love mob mentalities because it's so much more convenient than having to follow pesky laws.

As for your concern for the FLDS's civil rights, did you object when your Church publically fought against the Equal Rights Amendment for women?

I don't think I was alive back then.

Did you object when your Church preached against civil rights for blacks prior to Pres. Kimball's reversal of the priesthood ban?

The reversal happened the year I was born.

Are you now objecting to your Church's attacks on the civil rights of gays and lesbians?

I believe that the government should keep out of all marriages and that the government should not be used as a tool to declare which relationships are legitimate.

[_truth dancer]

uote]Hey: TD - I don't think that if any of the above were possible that the appellate court or supreme court would have interfered with what was going on - DNA tests can be done very quickly and I'm sure there are people that are cooperating as that is the quickest way to get the kids back home. As to the five where they have evidence of sexual abuse those kids are not going anywhere and I'm sure that criminal investigations are going on in those cases too.[/quote]

Hey Tumult,

I'm not sure what you mean, "any of the above were possible?" Can you clarify a bit for me? :-)

I totally understand the appellate court's point... that they didn't look at each individual situation. It is basically true in a sense, OTOH, this group doesn't exist like individual families in individual homes... not by a long stretch. (One couple was trying to make the case that they live independently but then they admitted that they share a kitchen, laundry room, dining room, and living room. In other words, in the dorm/home they had a bedroom and possibly a bathroom to themselves). :-( So CPS had to take in account not only the child's parents but all the people who reside in the home that included a (for all intents and purposes), known child predator.

I also am not quite sure how cooperative the families are. For a few examples, the young couple who had their children returned to them couldn't remember who lived in their home and the guy, under oath "didn't know" if his sister was spiritually married to WJ, which she is. These people don't seem to willing to acknowledge their illegal (not to mention disgusting) behavior. In other words, the only ones who would be willing to be honest and forthcoming with information are those who have not engaged in illegal activity, do not live in the home of a sexual predator, have not been the victim of a sexual predator, have not facilitated or allowed child abuse of any kind, and/or do not know of a sexual predator in their compound. This doesn't leave too many FLDS folks.

Back to my point. in my opinion, CPS was stuck. They simply had little choice but to remove the children until they could sort out the mess. IF the FLDS cooperated they could have worked through each individual case but this was not even a remote possibility at the time. We all know this. The court knows this and all those folks who are supporting the FLDS know this as well. All the children and sexual predators would be long gone in about thirty seconds given half a chance. As it was, documents were being shredded as law enforcement entered the compound. Another hour or so and even the Bishop's record would have been destroyed. Even the children were not answering questions but "pleading the fifth". So I ask, what was CPS supposed to do?

Does anyone think they should have just allowed the people to leave, destroy documents, take the children and disappear into oblivion to continue to be abused by these sexual predators?

My best guess is, if the courts could go though (with complete information) each situation individually, and come up with a plan for the particular situation of every child, there would be some cases where families could be reunited under clear and specific guidelines, and the children could be safe. But without DNA information, and/or the willingness of families to be honest and open it seems nearly impossible.

The problem is, for them to be open and honest means several men and possibly women most likely will be prosecuted.

Let's remember who it is that caused this situation. NOT CPS, but the abusers, sexual predators, and sick adults who allow their children to be abused.

It reminds me of some men I have worked with who were angry that they had to come to counseling. Therapy was part of their probation requirements and they occasionally would express their anger about it. I would have to remind them that if they didn't beat up their wives they wouldn't need counseling. It wasn't the police, the judge, or me who caused the problem but THEIR behavior.

Similarly, if the FLDS didn't abuse children, if they didn't allow sexual predators to have at their girls, if mothers didn't allow men to use their young girls, NONE of this would have happened.

~dancer~

[_karl61]

tumult and styleguy is now karl61 - sames as at MAD I didn't know what a sock puppet was when I came over from MAD

I agree that the whole thing possibly had to happen the way it did due to the reports that people were not cooperating. I agree that people living in a dorm like situation can create a big problem if one of the men in that dorm "married" a minor. But I don't know how they did this without filing on each child individually. In california when you file it's usally list the children in the family for example:

Kathy doe - 1-10-98
Katy doe 1-10-99
Karl doe 1-10-2001
Kurtis doe 1-10-2002

then in the petition you would say - minor kathy doe, katy doe, karl doe and kurtis doe's mother, Karen doe resides at 1234 main st.

if there is more than one father than each father is listed. if Kurtis doe's father's identity and whereabouts are unknown those issues are separate for each child.

it would go slow and you can add counts and make amend the petition to include new counts but then it's on a family by family basis. This should have been a major year long preparation working with the CPS attorneys and possibly former children's court judges to do it right - if it was done right then it would be a family by family basis.

one count of the petition could be the exact identity and whereabouts of child so and so doe is unknown.

One thing I am sure that happened since the detentions would that women came forward and said I am the mother of these children. The only thing to do after that is put her on the stand and have her swear under oath who the children are and who the father (s) of the children are/is. If they lie then they have a perjury charge and jail time and that can be a cps case since the mother is in jail and there is no one to care for the children. There are ways to do it right but based on people not cooperating at the beginning the initial filings could have been done on behalf of doe children.

In one California county there are twenty one court rooms going full time monday throught friday hearing about twenty to thirty cases a day (each case regarding one mother and her children). You can see that if they filed on each child that this could have been done on a family by family basis. You could start with counts saying the child's mother's exact identity and whereabouts are uknown and go from there.

[_Sethbag]

Silly me for thinking that the Texas Supreme court might know what it's talking about. They obviously don't care about the safety of the children.

It doesn't need to be so melodramatic. Have you read the opinion? I have. It references the very specific requirements of the statute that allows for immediate removal of the children, and those words require evidence of impending, immediate danger of physical or sexual harm to the children. If you can't provide evidence of immediate danger of physical or sexual harm to the children, you can't take them immediately.

But the ruling also mentioned that the CPS can impose lesser orders and restrictions while the case is being investigated.

I agree with what TD said, but the Texas Supreme Court ruled the way they did because of very specific language in the statute that required immediate danger, and the CPS couldn't demonstrate that.

Now, as the investigations progress, it may well be that they can demonstrate longer-term danger, and if they can get some convictions of men who f****d 13 year old girls, they can impose restrictions on them from living with the children, etc. There is still a lot that the state can, and probably will do. This isn't over by a long shot. This ruling just means that most of the children will be back living at the ranch while the investigations unfold. The FLDS are far from off the hook, here. This is one tactical victory in a war which they almost surely will lose.

[_asbestosman]

Have you read the opinion? I have.

So have I, and even though I do not have the credentials to argue for or against it, I agree with what that opinion stated.

But the ruling also mentioned that the CPS can impose lesser orders and restrictions while the case is being investigated.

I agree with those lesser restrictions and hope all of them will be exercised as necessary to protect the children (keep the alleged abusers away, etc.)

There is still a lot that the state can, and probably will do.

And I hope they do it too.

This isn't over by a long shot. This ruling just means that most of the children will be back living at the ranch while the investigations unfold. The FLDS are far from off the hook, here. This is one tactical victory in a war which they almost surely will lose.

And I hope the FLDS lose that war too--at least the guilty ones (I assume more than just Jeffs is guilty).

I'm not cheering for the FLDS. I am merely concerned that we exercise proper caution for the rights of all people including those I do not like. No, abusing children is certainly not a right, but there are standards that should be met before we tear children from the arms of mothers--what the whole Texas Supreme court ruling was about. I am fine with having those children be removed permanently if that is what the law dictates for their safety.

[_truth dancer]

I agree with what TD said, but the Texas Supreme Court ruled the way they did because of very specific language in the statute that required immediate danger, and the CPS couldn't demonstrate that.

Yes, this is the problem.

I wish the specific language allowed for some extraordinary circumstances which I think this case definitely had.

From the moment CPS first took custody of the children, I felt that this specific issue would be a problem OTOH, I do not know how anyone in their right mind would do something different given the circumstances. In fact, as I said, I think CPS has no choice. I have gone round and round trying to figure out another way they could have handled the situation given the circumstances and I really can't come up with one given the lies and deceit of the FLDS community.

Regardless, I hope the courts put some really restrictive guidelines on the FLDS as they go through the individual cases.

Another issue, who is guilty?

Not only are the sexual predators guilty but all adults who participate, facilitate, aide the sexual abuse.

This means many of the mothers are felons as well. WE ALL KNOW THIS.

It is not just a matter of removing the male rapists, because clearly some mothers have been unwilling to protect their children from sexual abuse.

And, even young children are in danger if their parents allow one of their daughters to be raped by an older man.

Outside of the FLDS community, if CPS came across a home where a couple sold their twelve year old daughter to be a sex slave to some older man, I guarantee ALL THE CHILDREN IN THE HOME WOULD BE REMOVED. The FLDS community is no different. So why shouldn't CPS remove all the children of parents who allow their daughter to be sexually abused by an older man.

Why do some apologists give the FLDS a free pass because their sexual abuse is based in religion?

~dancer~

[_truth dancer]

but there are standards that should be met before we tear children from the arms of mothers--what the whole Texas Supreme court ruling was about.

You make it sounds like CPS tear children away from the arms of great mothers.

NO, CPS takes children away from parents who abuse them and do not keep them safe.

Mothers and fathers who allow their young daughters to be raped are felons. Parents who raise their children in the home of a known sexual predator put their children at risk. There may be some debate as to how exactly CPS should have managed the situation but let's not pretend these are great parents with a normal sense of decency, concern, and care for their children.

There ARE standards unfortunately the language of the law does not allow exceptions for those situations where the parents lie, deceive, and will not be forthcoming with basic information that helps CPS workers know what children are in fact in imminent and immediate danger.

~dancer~

[_bcspace]

NO, CPS takes children away from parents who abuse them and do not keep them safe.

This does not appear to be the case here according to the Texas Supreme Court. And I daresay that nationwide, a significant number of cps takings are not justified.

[_asbestosman]

Why do some apologists give the FLDS a free pass because their sexual abuse is based in religion?

I wouldn't know since I'm not giving them a free pass and I've made no excuses for them based on their religion.