FLDS women's lawyers seek return of children
The petition alternatively asks the 3rd Court of Appeals to order the men to leave the YFZ Ranch and allow the children to return, or order mothers and their children to live elsewhere.
"The trial court could order the men — the alleged perpetrators of abuse — to vacate the ranch, or it could order the women to live elsewhere with the children during the pendency of the investigation," says the petition filed by attorneys for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid.
The appeal also suggests the court has the option of issuing protective orders against the men preventing any contact with the women and children.
The petition, amended from a previous request that was denied by the upper court, asks justices to reverse Judge Barbara Walther's decision to have all 464 children removed from the ranch of the Fundamentalist LDS Church.
"This case is not about whether (the state) is entitled to investigate allegations of child abuse," the petition states. "This case is about whether (the state) may deprive mothers of possession of their children without evidence that the mothers pose an immediate physical danger to the children."
The petition states Walther failed to meet three criteria the law requires to remove children from parents. The Department of Family and Protective Services must return the children unless it can prove the following:
• That there was a danger to the physical health or safety of a child caused by the parent, and remaining in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child.
• The urgent need for protection requires immediate removal of the child, and reasonable efforts are made to prevent the child's removal.
• Reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of continuing danger if the child is returned home.
The appeal states DFPS did not produce any evidence of abuse or neglect except for 16 children. And while the April 17 adversary hearing was designed to consider each child individually, the court instead ruled "en masse" on behalf of all the children.
The only proof of the first criteria was a report of five teenagers under 18 who were or had been pregnant and several other women who had first had children when they were 16 or 17 years old, the court document states. That information came from testimony and a "bishop's record" that listed the names of residents of 37 households, seven of which listed a "wife" at the age of 16 or 17.
Recent comments
Interesting how the world views polygamy as an immoral crime. Our...
John | May 20, 2008 at 1:08 a.m.
You can't prosecute somebody's belief system just their actions...
Thomas | May 1, 2008 at 10:01 p.m.
It is time to wonder if those who vehemently condemn the most here...
Bob | May 1, 2008 at 8:27 a.m.
