From Deseret News archives:
Texas keeps FLDS kids
Ruling: More hearings, DNA tests for children
The decision, for now, validates the actions of the state's child welfare agency but infuriates FLDS members.
The ruling followed a marathon two-day hearing unprecedented in the nation's history of child-custody cases, featuring hundreds of lawyers, reams of paperwork and the issue of protecting children balanced against religious freedom.
Following the ruling, the sadness in the eyes of the children's mothers spoke volumes about their disappointment.
"It's awful," said one mother leaving the courtroom. "Why don't people stand up and say something about this?"
Another mother, echoing that sentiment, said, "This is ridiculous."
But Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said the custody issue boiled down to one thing: abuse.
"We've said all along there are no winners in this situation. ... We emphasize in particular with the mothers. But this case is not about religion. This is about keeping children safe. We believe what we found is systemic abuse of children."
The Texas judicial system will now schedule individualize status hearings for all 416 children to be completed by June 5. In addition, DNA tests to determine paternity and maternity of the children were ordered to be conducted. A criminal investigation is ongoing by the Texas Department of Public Safety.
For now, the majority of the children remain housed in two facilities in town while foster care is arranged. Two dozen boys are being housed at a state-contracted boy's ranch 400 miles away outside Amarillo.
Friday's ruling keeps the case alive for the agency but also sets the stage for a number of anticipated appeals stemming from the hasty nature of a case that disposed, for now, the future of 416 children in less than 24-hours of legal proceedings.
But under Texas law, the state has to hold a custody hearing within 14 days of when a child is removed from a parent's custody and care. The raid on YFZ occurred April 3.
Many attorneys, at the conclusion of the hearing and before Judge Barbara Walther issued her ruling, objected to the way the proceedings were handled, saying their clients didn't get an "individual hearing."
"The law has certain requirements and it doesn't say 'except when it's hard,'" one attorney argued.
The judge told the courtroom she hoped she never again in her life would have to preside over a hearing of this magnitude.















