Reader comments
Texas appeals to state Supreme Court in FLDS case
139 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Texas | 1:24 p.m. May 23, 2008
Texas did not learn from Lawrence V. Texas and are revisiting it again with
Polygamy and not homosexuality. The State Supreme Court will affirm the Court
of Appeals and it with go to the U.S. Supreme Court with polygamy as a religious
right. Couldn't the cowboys of TX have just played with their bulls
instead? Now the country will have legalized polygamy. ugh!
getreal | 1:25 p.m. May 23, 2008
Good work CPS. I do believe we may have a lot of FLDSer on this blog. You want
your little girls home, do you? How may of you would go into dangerous
neighborhoods, work 50 hrs a week, make life and death situations, work with
those on drugs, mentally ill and violent for less than 40 thousand a year? This
FLDS is not all CPS does. For every one child death you see, there is another
hundrend a live because CPS protected them.
As far as this appeal.. not surprised. Protect those who abuse and break the law, not the children. Why don't you learn a little about this cult? Do a little reading maybe before you spout off? These children have no hope if they are returned. Ask the "lost boys" or any woman who has escaped this so-called religion.
As far as this appeal.. not surprised. Protect those who abuse and break the law, not the children. Why don't you learn a little about this cult? Do a little reading maybe before you spout off? These children have no hope if they are returned. Ask the "lost boys" or any woman who has escaped this so-called religion.
To ypman | 1:25 p.m. May 23, 2008
What abuse are you talking about? CPS workers did
not have enough factual evidence to support their claim, a claim based on religous bigotry, intentional
false allegations, fraud, and innuendo.
The issue is more complicated and no sexual abuse
conviction or immediate endangerment has been
proven against any of these people.
not have enough factual evidence to support their claim, a claim based on religous bigotry, intentional
false allegations, fraud, and innuendo.
The issue is more complicated and no sexual abuse
conviction or immediate endangerment has been
proven against any of these people.
Comments continue below
Another Potential CPS Problem | 1:30 p.m. May 23, 2008
It appears that a Chief of Police in Texas has been accussed of soliciting sex
from an underage girl. Wasn't it policemen who raided the YFZ Ranch?
Maybe they were rounding up these kids for their own perverted purposes? If I
were a member of the law enforcement community in Texas, I would now be afraid
that CPS could show up at my door at any time to take my children. Guilt by
association is a dangerous concept.
ypman | 1:31 p.m. May 23, 2008
Abuse does not have to be physical or sexual it can be emotional. These adults
are free to live however they want but do not bring children into it. All of
the people that seem to think these children are just being raised in some kind
of throwback to the good old days just do not want to admit the truth.
It is also my understanding that this ruling was issued before the completion of the CPS investigation. I just hope the Texas Supreme Court upholds CPS and allows them to keep trying to protect the children.
It is also my understanding that this ruling was issued before the completion of the CPS investigation. I just hope the Texas Supreme Court upholds CPS and allows them to keep trying to protect the children.
COSMO | 1:33 p.m. May 23, 2008
Ah! the "Cult of Empire". History just keeps on repeating, and nobody
seems to read the books.
Oh well! what's another hundred million wasted?
Oh well! what's another hundred million wasted?
Colorado | 1:35 p.m. May 23, 2008
It's interesting how so many of you find "polygamy" in and of
itself, so evil and repulsive. I'm not excusing the wrongs of the FLDS
regarding under aged girls being forced into these relationships; nor, the
turning out of their young boys (how much of that is true, we don't yet
know); but, our repugnance to polygamy is because of our cultural differences.
Look at the prophets of the Old Testament who had many wives and concubines -
which was sanctioned by God. I don't pretend to understand the concept,
but assuming the scriptures are for the most part true, I accept it. The issue
with the FLDS is that like many other biblical practices, Satan enters into the
hearts of men and and creates an evil counterfit.
get real | 1:39 p.m. May 23, 2008
What abuse? Really? The 13 year old girl that gave birth several weeks ago? The
other teen moms? The prego teens? I know teen preg is common, but it is usually
by a peer, not a father figure. The boys who made sexual abuse out cries? The
multiple broken bones? Child labor? Where do you get your news? The FLDS
website?
LDS (do you mean FLDS?)
What evidence do you have that CPS workers molest children? What an awful thing to say about people who devote their lives to protecting children.
LDS (do you mean FLDS?)
What evidence do you have that CPS workers molest children? What an awful thing to say about people who devote their lives to protecting children.
JonDo369 | 1:44 p.m. May 23, 2008
CPS has no case.
A hoax phone call (admitted by the CPS).
There is no welfare abuse.
(You can verify these with a quick Internet search)
No formal charges of any kind:
Abuse? No
Polygamy? No
Just the TX CPS trying this case in the 'court of public opinion', and the media trotting out disgruntled former members airing their grudges.
The most CPS may have are pregnant 15-16 year olds, or those who gave birth at 15-16. But I don't recall ever hearing of such a case where the child was taken from the mother! And now, the number of those is already half and seems likely to continue to fall.
Percent of USA births to unmarried women? 36.9% in 2005
Birth rate for ages 10-14? 0.7 per 1000 in 2005 (6,700+)
Birth rate for ages 15-17? 40.5 per 1000 in 2005 (133,000+)
(I'll leave it to y'all to verify these stats - easy enough.)
So where's the outcry about that?
Looks to me like this will be an expensive mistake - for the taxpayers. But I'm not holding my breath that any state CPS will really reform or improve.
A hoax phone call (admitted by the CPS).
There is no welfare abuse.
(You can verify these with a quick Internet search)
No formal charges of any kind:
Abuse? No
Polygamy? No
Just the TX CPS trying this case in the 'court of public opinion', and the media trotting out disgruntled former members airing their grudges.
The most CPS may have are pregnant 15-16 year olds, or those who gave birth at 15-16. But I don't recall ever hearing of such a case where the child was taken from the mother! And now, the number of those is already half and seems likely to continue to fall.
Percent of USA births to unmarried women? 36.9% in 2005
Birth rate for ages 10-14? 0.7 per 1000 in 2005 (6,700+)
Birth rate for ages 15-17? 40.5 per 1000 in 2005 (133,000+)
(I'll leave it to y'all to verify these stats - easy enough.)
So where's the outcry about that?
Looks to me like this will be an expensive mistake - for the taxpayers. But I'm not holding my breath that any state CPS will really reform or improve.
to:so we do nothing | 1:45 p.m. May 23, 2008
What happened at your school was NOT texas CPS.
getreal | 1:49 p.m. May 23, 2008
I'm sure we can find a Chief of Police in every state that has been
involved in something. Come on, you can do better than that. Again, open your
eyes. At least do a little research to find out what the FLDS really is. i hope
Texas continues to fight for these children.
a reminder | 1:53 p.m. May 23, 2008
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when
the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally
alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil minded rulers. The greatest
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning
but without understanding."
-Justice Louis D. Brandeis
-Justice Louis D. Brandeis
ah-hem | 1:54 p.m. May 23, 2008
a case this big MUST be ruled on by the highest court in the state...DUH!, thats
why it had to be appealed to a higher court and then appealed to the supreme
court.
i told all you FLDS defenders yesterday not to cheer too loud yesterday!
now get back to work!
i told all you FLDS defenders yesterday not to cheer too loud yesterday!
now get back to work!
Terry | 1:55 p.m. May 23, 2008
Absolute power corruptes absolutely..........
DC | 1:57 p.m. May 23, 2008
To: get real
You don't appear to have read the Appellate Court opinion. The court found there was no evidence -- not no "credible" evidence, but no evidence at all -- of a 13 year old girl who gave birth at the ranch. I don't know where the falsehood got started and I'll refrain from blaming it on CPS. It is enough to say that it is false. Of the 400 to 500 children seized, the court found evidence that there were 5 pregnant teens. But there was no evidence given at all about the age of the fathers. According to the facts the CPS was willing to state in court and the findings of the court itself, you have no basis at all (unless you believe every piece of repellent bigorty you hear on the internet or Nancy Grace) to say any of the things in your post. There is not only no evidence for any of them, but most of them have not even been *alleged* by CPS. You are vilely slandering a group of people you have never met, and you seem to have no shame in doing it.
You don't appear to have read the Appellate Court opinion. The court found there was no evidence -- not no "credible" evidence, but no evidence at all -- of a 13 year old girl who gave birth at the ranch. I don't know where the falsehood got started and I'll refrain from blaming it on CPS. It is enough to say that it is false. Of the 400 to 500 children seized, the court found evidence that there were 5 pregnant teens. But there was no evidence given at all about the age of the fathers. According to the facts the CPS was willing to state in court and the findings of the court itself, you have no basis at all (unless you believe every piece of repellent bigorty you hear on the internet or Nancy Grace) to say any of the things in your post. There is not only no evidence for any of them, but most of them have not even been *alleged* by CPS. You are vilely slandering a group of people you have never met, and you seem to have no shame in doing it.
ypman | 1:56 p.m. May 23, 2008
Just because they are only legally married to one but spiritually married to
several doesn't mean it is not wrong, it is.
It is amazing the number of comments on this board about not only Texas CPS but in general making most state CPS departments out to be evildoers out to harm children. Have that many of you really had dealings with them so that you can make these comments.
My experience as a person who must report abuse from time to time as part of my job is that just like other state agencies they are usually underfunded and understaffed and would not have taken this on if they did not really feel that children were in danger. As for me I hope this is a new trend and they will continue to be proactive in protecting children.
It is amazing the number of comments on this board about not only Texas CPS but in general making most state CPS departments out to be evildoers out to harm children. Have that many of you really had dealings with them so that you can make these comments.
My experience as a person who must report abuse from time to time as part of my job is that just like other state agencies they are usually underfunded and understaffed and would not have taken this on if they did not really feel that children were in danger. As for me I hope this is a new trend and they will continue to be proactive in protecting children.
Thomas | 1:58 p.m. May 23, 2008
Im hoping for a miracle that the CPS will have the decency to leave the children
alone.
krs | 2:01 p.m. May 23, 2008
Way to go CPS!!! Prote4ct the innocent children,and keep pushing forward
Concerned | 2:08 p.m. May 23, 2008
I can't beleive people out there think it's alright, to let these
children grow up in these conditions and think it's alright. What is wrong
with everyone! It's not alright to have children when your still a child,
never mind the incest involved. In the world we live in now, is it not our
responiblilty to look out for those who can't. Taking these children away,
is giving them a chance at a real life. Because living where they were is just
one man's idea of "controlling life". The women (mothers)
obvisiously don't care about anything but themselves, or are to scared to
do anything about it. Some of them have probably been there since they were
little girls - and have no clue what real life is all about, only what they have
been told!
It took Texas... | 2:13 p.m. May 23, 2008
to make FLDS the good guys.
Re "Concerned" | 2:31 p.m. May 23, 2008
Who are you to say what people can and can't do? You do not have any right
to tell people that they can't believe certain things, and just because you
don't like a group's religious beliefs does not mean that you can tell
them not to teach those beliefs to their children. It does not mean that the
children don't have a real life because they do things different than you
would.
Stop trying to control other people because they're different from you. You don't need a permit to have children in this country, and no one needs your permission to have or raise a family either.
The question of sex with underage girls is obviously illegal should be addressed on an individual basis, and those individuals who are guilty should be punished. But in this country, you can't punish an entire group because some have committed crimes. And in order for you to have freedom, at times you must allow others to believe and do things that you disagree with or that you wouldn't do.
So stop being so judgmental.
Stop trying to control other people because they're different from you. You don't need a permit to have children in this country, and no one needs your permission to have or raise a family either.
The question of sex with underage girls is obviously illegal should be addressed on an individual basis, and those individuals who are guilty should be punished. But in this country, you can't punish an entire group because some have committed crimes. And in order for you to have freedom, at times you must allow others to believe and do things that you disagree with or that you wouldn't do.
So stop being so judgmental.
Red | 2:32 p.m. May 23, 2008
Kathy Baumgarten: "Okay folks, either polygamy is illegal, or it
isn't."
You're right, Kathy. And in Texas, it isn't illegal.
See for yourself: find the Texas legal code on-line (it's there; I just don't have the URL handy). The web-page has a search function. Search for "polygamy;" ZERO HITS.
"Polygamy" isn't a term that's even used in the Texas legal code!
DC: "Yes, we must all obey the law[s] -- but not those that are unconstitutional."
But, even if a law is absurd on its face, if it's on the books, and you violate it, you should realize you risk arrest, trial, and (possibly) punishment. Unfortunately, one man's "absurd" is another's "obviously correct."
No one should expect open violation of a law, even a bad or possibly unconstitutional law, to be ignored.
Unfortunately, CPS is asking for a lot more slack than they're willing to cut. They apparently want everyone to overlook the laws they themselves violated in their zeal to "protect the kids."
You're right, Kathy. And in Texas, it isn't illegal.
See for yourself: find the Texas legal code on-line (it's there; I just don't have the URL handy). The web-page has a search function. Search for "polygamy;" ZERO HITS.
"Polygamy" isn't a term that's even used in the Texas legal code!
DC: "Yes, we must all obey the law[s] -- but not those that are unconstitutional."
But, even if a law is absurd on its face, if it's on the books, and you violate it, you should realize you risk arrest, trial, and (possibly) punishment. Unfortunately, one man's "absurd" is another's "obviously correct."
No one should expect open violation of a law, even a bad or possibly unconstitutional law, to be ignored.
Unfortunately, CPS is asking for a lot more slack than they're willing to cut. They apparently want everyone to overlook the laws they themselves violated in their zeal to "protect the kids."
You could have walked.... | 2:33 p.m. May 23, 2008
CPS could have ridden themselves of a giant problem. Instead they intend to
waste more money and injure these children further. Five underage girls with
babies is hardly a pervasive pattern. Certainly not good enough to justify the
removal of 400+ children from their parents.
They are just digging their grave deeper. CPS you could have walked away, but now you will cost TX more money.
They are just digging their grave deeper. CPS you could have walked away, but now you will cost TX more money.
re: Colorado | 2:46 p.m. May 23, 2008
Colorado wrote:
"...but, our repugnance to polygamy is because of our cultural differences. Look at the prophets of the Old Testament who had many wives and concubines - which was sanctioned by God."
Maybe YOUR repugnance to polygamy is cultural differences. My repugnance to polygamy is that it's completely disgusting to think that your husband is having sex with another woman and then coming to you for some. Not just the emotional part of "sharing a husband" but the cooties. Sick!
"...but, our repugnance to polygamy is because of our cultural differences. Look at the prophets of the Old Testament who had many wives and concubines - which was sanctioned by God."
Maybe YOUR repugnance to polygamy is cultural differences. My repugnance to polygamy is that it's completely disgusting to think that your husband is having sex with another woman and then coming to you for some. Not just the emotional part of "sharing a husband" but the cooties. Sick!
DC | 2:49 p.m. May 23, 2008
To Red:
Just to be clear (and I don't think we're really on a different side of the issue here), I didn't say that people who violate an unconstitutional law shouldn't expect the state to try to enforce that law. I was merely saying that such an enforcement action can and should be challenged on constitutional grounds.
And I think it misses the point a little to say that the word "polygamy" doesn't appear in the Texas statutes. Texas law does prohibit multiple marriages, without using the word polygamy, and the Texas legislature has tried to make that applicable to FLDS practice by defining "informal" marriage to include FLDS practices, even if they don't involve formal marriage. I expect a prosecutor will try to enforce that prohibition against some adult FLDS couples. And while I believe that the Supreme Court would uphold a law that prohibited multiple formal marriages, I think a law tailored to prohibit informal sex between consenting adults of a particular faith simply because that couple believes they are "spiritually married" will have a pretty tough time withstanding constitutional challenge.
Just to be clear (and I don't think we're really on a different side of the issue here), I didn't say that people who violate an unconstitutional law shouldn't expect the state to try to enforce that law. I was merely saying that such an enforcement action can and should be challenged on constitutional grounds.
And I think it misses the point a little to say that the word "polygamy" doesn't appear in the Texas statutes. Texas law does prohibit multiple marriages, without using the word polygamy, and the Texas legislature has tried to make that applicable to FLDS practice by defining "informal" marriage to include FLDS practices, even if they don't involve formal marriage. I expect a prosecutor will try to enforce that prohibition against some adult FLDS couples. And while I believe that the Supreme Court would uphold a law that prohibited multiple formal marriages, I think a law tailored to prohibit informal sex between consenting adults of a particular faith simply because that couple believes they are "spiritually married" will have a pretty tough time withstanding constitutional challenge.
bhparkman | 2:52 p.m. May 23, 2008
So, Texas didn't have their case together. It's just another broken
bureaucacy run by incompetent elitists, against a community run by their own
corrupt elitists.
I'm not suprised. This is an important election year. There has to be casualties to keep tyrranical political parties alive, or we might just have our liberty back!
And those wannabe dictators can't have that! They'd have to get real jobs!
Release the kids, and us citizens will take care of it through our own methods of social and economic pressures; politics seems to had failed from human weakness. Again!
I'm not suprised. This is an important election year. There has to be casualties to keep tyrranical political parties alive, or we might just have our liberty back!
And those wannabe dictators can't have that! They'd have to get real jobs!
Release the kids, and us citizens will take care of it through our own methods of social and economic pressures; politics seems to had failed from human weakness. Again!
Hey Red | 2:56 p.m. May 23, 2008
You might want to do a search on Bigamy. It's a Class A Misdemeaner in
Texas.
Think!!!!! | 3:08 p.m. May 23, 2008
FLDS just want their children. The CPS has had 45+++ days to prove ANYTHING but
have not. Proud state of TEXAS, just give the children back and start loving
your own children as much as the FLDS love theirs. Then there would be no need
for CPS at all.(If there was ever a need for an abusive system anyway.)
One Wonders | 3:14 p.m. May 23, 2008
I thought the Texas AG was going to be the one to appeal on behalf of CPS, but
now it seems like CPS is handling their own appeal. Anyone know any more about
this?
In other news, three FLDS couples in San Antonio have just be awarded temporary custody of their children.
In other news, three FLDS couples in San Antonio have just be awarded temporary custody of their children.
realitycheck | 3:16 p.m. May 23, 2008
what I find amazing is that the FLDS are screaming for justice and the
constitution and bill of rights, yet they withold all of those rights from
everyone in their group except the men. So they want their rights but the women
have none.
Also, is it as obvious to everyone else as it is to me that, after 100 years of hiding, they are very good at using anything at their disposal to get their way? Anyone notice how adept they are at taking others' simple easy-to-understand statements and twisting them for their own uses? But they've had to come out and do it a lot lately so it's pretty obvious now.
And where are all the dogs in Colorado City buried? Anyone know? I'd like to give them a proper burial. People that would kill all the innocent dogs in the city on the "prophet's" orders are psycotic enough to do anything.
I feel bad for the kids. They'll end up going back next year and have to escape on their own. It's possible but not easy. Good luck to them.
Also, is it as obvious to everyone else as it is to me that, after 100 years of hiding, they are very good at using anything at their disposal to get their way? Anyone notice how adept they are at taking others' simple easy-to-understand statements and twisting them for their own uses? But they've had to come out and do it a lot lately so it's pretty obvious now.
And where are all the dogs in Colorado City buried? Anyone know? I'd like to give them a proper burial. People that would kill all the innocent dogs in the city on the "prophet's" orders are psycotic enough to do anything.
I feel bad for the kids. They'll end up going back next year and have to escape on their own. It's possible but not easy. Good luck to them.
Bruce | 3:19 p.m. May 23, 2008
In 2004 alone (because they won't release any newer stats) Texas CPS had 63
cases of rape of children while in their "care". Many of those were
against children LESS THAN 3 YEARS OLD. That's not mentioning the abuse,
neglect, and even death cases that get worse every year.
Follow the money.
CPS wants a budget increase. Each one of these kids were going to be money in the coffers through adoption.
To the tired old "polygamy is against the law" crowd. These spiritual marriages do NOT constitute polygamy in Texas. The members don't hold themselves up as being married in public, just among themselves, so Texas can't press that. There are NO polygamy crimes that are prosecutable. Get over it and find a new mantra.
"We're concerned about the children"...What a bunch of bull. That evil agency should not exist another day in this country.
Follow the money.
CPS wants a budget increase. Each one of these kids were going to be money in the coffers through adoption.
To the tired old "polygamy is against the law" crowd. These spiritual marriages do NOT constitute polygamy in Texas. The members don't hold themselves up as being married in public, just among themselves, so Texas can't press that. There are NO polygamy crimes that are prosecutable. Get over it and find a new mantra.
"We're concerned about the children"...What a bunch of bull. That evil agency should not exist another day in this country.
Silver Fox says... | 3:21 p.m. May 23, 2008
TX Mom & Lawyer | 12:26 p.m. May 23, 2008
"I'm sure if the kids are returned, Warren Jeffs will take full credit...too bad Jesus didn't return when he and one of his wives were arrested without their long underwear on!"
Well TX Mom here's a chancing that you might be a good Pastor's wife, you know your husband gets paid to teach about how to live a Christ-like life. Maybe you and he can have a good laugh this evening and chuckle about how you defamed those miserable FLDS.
You'r hateful rhetoric is disheartening. As a educated person you should know better. Maybe you went to a good Baptist law school?
"I'm sure if the kids are returned, Warren Jeffs will take full credit...too bad Jesus didn't return when he and one of his wives were arrested without their long underwear on!"
Well TX Mom here's a chancing that you might be a good Pastor's wife, you know your husband gets paid to teach about how to live a Christ-like life. Maybe you and he can have a good laugh this evening and chuckle about how you defamed those miserable FLDS.
You'r hateful rhetoric is disheartening. As a educated person you should know better. Maybe you went to a good Baptist law school?
oh, get real | 3:22 p.m. May 23, 2008
if this were minorities and hadn't been hid for so long , as indeed is
illustrated by the fact that here in Draper ..there exist a whole lot of polys
and everyone just acts like ostriches..hey I say don't try to circumvent or
whitewash the crap...if i can't practice it and i fought for the country
..got a silver star...i know sure in the heck do these people think they are..i
didn't go to war for these people and I am glad to beg to differ..now if
they are so holy they can create their own laws ..then i say i don't want
to follow their man made law either!
YOU JUST CAN'T "ROUND THEM UP" | 3:26 p.m. May 23, 2008
WRONG: The Texas CPS has no right to go into INDIVIDUAL homes and take children
and just "ROUND THEM UP LIKE CATTLE".
If they have known sexual abuse in INDIVIDUAL homes CPS needs to act -- otherwise they are out of order.
WRONG: The FLDS need to STOP this underage marriage practice.
If they have known sexual abuse in INDIVIDUAL homes CPS needs to act -- otherwise they are out of order.
WRONG: The FLDS need to STOP this underage marriage practice.
Cleophus | 3:32 p.m. May 23, 2008
yes... get the brides back to their mommies just in time for the summer wedding
season! the grooms aren't getting any younger ya know!
Writ | 3:37 p.m. May 23, 2008
I just read the Petition for Writ of Mandamus the Texas CFS filed this
afternoon.
Even to these untrained eyes, it appears to be a desperate scream in the wind. Their main argument can be boiled down to this--that the appellate court could only over-turn the lower court's decision if there were no facts presented which could be construed to support the lower court's decision. Because CFS's Voss testified that "...any child in that environment could not be safe," CFS had thus presented facts that all children were in imminent danger of physical abuse.
Also amusing was their reliance upon the 'they all call each other brother and sister' shtick for justification of using a one household approach instead of actually quoting Texas law on the determination of household status (as the appellate court had.)
They're knee deep in their own stench, and their sense of smell has failed them.
Even to these untrained eyes, it appears to be a desperate scream in the wind. Their main argument can be boiled down to this--that the appellate court could only over-turn the lower court's decision if there were no facts presented which could be construed to support the lower court's decision. Because CFS's Voss testified that "...any child in that environment could not be safe," CFS had thus presented facts that all children were in imminent danger of physical abuse.
Also amusing was their reliance upon the 'they all call each other brother and sister' shtick for justification of using a one household approach instead of actually quoting Texas law on the determination of household status (as the appellate court had.)
They're knee deep in their own stench, and their sense of smell has failed them.
Texans for constituonal rights | 3:36 p.m. May 23, 2008
Sounds to me like cps is on this board, get real sounds like one of em, for
sure.
Ing | 3:38 p.m. May 23, 2008
Just a note, since a couple of commenters have asked:
The Appeals Court decision in favor of 38 FLDS mothers and the motion filed by the Texas CPS to protest that decision are both available at the upper right of this page.
Everyone here has their own feelings about the FLDS and the Texas CPS, and that's fine.
However, I suggest that we all read the legal documents that the Deseret News has provided, and take a look at this situation based on the evidence that the CPS provided to the court. (They're not long, less than 10 pages each.)
It seems clear to me from reading these documents that the CPS hasn't met the basic standards of the law in siezing all those children. They're relying on some impossibly broad assumptions, and the appellate court has seen that.
I'd be interested to know what other people think about the ACTUAL court decisions that are here for us to read.
The Appeals Court decision in favor of 38 FLDS mothers and the motion filed by the Texas CPS to protest that decision are both available at the upper right of this page.
Everyone here has their own feelings about the FLDS and the Texas CPS, and that's fine.
However, I suggest that we all read the legal documents that the Deseret News has provided, and take a look at this situation based on the evidence that the CPS provided to the court. (They're not long, less than 10 pages each.)
It seems clear to me from reading these documents that the CPS hasn't met the basic standards of the law in siezing all those children. They're relying on some impossibly broad assumptions, and the appellate court has seen that.
I'd be interested to know what other people think about the ACTUAL court decisions that are here for us to read.
myste | 3:41 p.m. May 23, 2008
ap just reported 12 kids to be returned pending higher court ruling!
FINALLY!
FINALLY!
to Bruce 3:19pm | 3:44 p.m. May 23, 2008
Could you provide the stats of how many children CPS had in their system in
2004? 63 cases of abuse is 63 too many, but if they had several thousand in the
system being protected from familial abuse then they saved thousands of children
from abuse....
any possibility you could look at the good they do rather than the less than one percent problem?
The amount of abuse in FLDS measure way over 1%....
any possibility you could look at the good they do rather than the less than one percent problem?
The amount of abuse in FLDS measure way over 1%....
Anonymous | 3:47 p.m. May 23, 2008
"ap just reported 12 kids to be returned pending higher court
ruling!"
That's great news. May God bless these families and let's pray for the rest.
That's great news. May God bless these families and let's pray for the rest.
One Wonders | 3:49 p.m. May 23, 2008
Is this the end for CPS?
"An agreement has been reached in San Antonio between attorneys and DFPS to release 12 children to their parents under minimal supervision until the Texas Supreme Court rules on the 3rd court of appeals decision," Teresa Kelly wrote. "The families will be housed in and around San Antonio at undisclosed locations. This includes the three children of Joseph Steed Jessop, Sr., and his wife, Lori. The agreements were reached prior to a scheduled hearing today in San Antonio District Court over the Jessop�s children." --Rene Haas
"An agreement has been reached in San Antonio between attorneys and DFPS to release 12 children to their parents under minimal supervision until the Texas Supreme Court rules on the 3rd court of appeals decision," Teresa Kelly wrote. "The families will be housed in and around San Antonio at undisclosed locations. This includes the three children of Joseph Steed Jessop, Sr., and his wife, Lori. The agreements were reached prior to a scheduled hearing today in San Antonio District Court over the Jessop�s children." --Rene Haas
Re: to Bruce | 3:57 p.m. May 23, 2008
"Could you provide the stats of how many children CPS had in their system
in 2004?"
Those stats come from Carole Strayhorn, Texas Comptroller in a report drawing attention to the inefficiency of that agency. It is ugly.
Local law enforcement should be trained better in handling these sort of complaints because that agency has proven it is totally imcompetent.
That's not 63 cases of abuse...that's 63 cases of RAPE....there were many, many more cases of abuse.
Check it out....it's sick.
Those stats come from Carole Strayhorn, Texas Comptroller in a report drawing attention to the inefficiency of that agency. It is ugly.
Local law enforcement should be trained better in handling these sort of complaints because that agency has proven it is totally imcompetent.
That's not 63 cases of abuse...that's 63 cases of RAPE....there were many, many more cases of abuse.
Check it out....it's sick.
DC | 4:29 p.m. May 23, 2008
To Writ:
I have in fact read the CPS petitions to the Supreme Court. You note that the documents look desperate to your untrained eye. My eye is trained -- I am an experienced lawyer with about a quarter of a century at one of the largest law firms in the East Coast, and I completely agree with you. Those documents represent some of the worst legal work I have ever seen in 25 years. The arguments are completely inadequate. It's possible the Texas Supreme Court could find a way to let CPS retain custody of the teenage girls even despite the lousy lawyering of the appeal, but no adequate argument for keeping the rest of Judge Walther's opinion intact has even been articulated. Given this, most of the kids are surely going home.
I have in fact read the CPS petitions to the Supreme Court. You note that the documents look desperate to your untrained eye. My eye is trained -- I am an experienced lawyer with about a quarter of a century at one of the largest law firms in the East Coast, and I completely agree with you. Those documents represent some of the worst legal work I have ever seen in 25 years. The arguments are completely inadequate. It's possible the Texas Supreme Court could find a way to let CPS retain custody of the teenage girls even despite the lousy lawyering of the appeal, but no adequate argument for keeping the rest of Judge Walther's opinion intact has even been articulated. Given this, most of the kids are surely going home.
Sharon | 4:32 p.m. May 23, 2008
Larry King asked a FLDS woman on his show...how many kids she has...she said,
7..Larry King asked about her husband,...she said, she was not married.
MY QUESTION...why was she not excommuicated for having children out of wedlock?
Now, if, the father of her children..is the husband of another woman....why is he not excommuicated for adultery ?
MY QUESTION...why was she not excommuicated for having children out of wedlock?
Now, if, the father of her children..is the husband of another woman....why is he not excommuicated for adultery ?
realitycheck | 4:34 p.m. May 23, 2008
The problem is that the child protection laws weren't written to hold a
community such as FLDS to account. The laws require the Texas DFPS prove
"immediate" danger to the physical health and welfare of the children
that requires "urgent" removal.
Girls are taught from birth that they are to be the servants of men -- their fathers, their husbands and their prophets. They are taught to "keep sweet" and give themselves "mind, body and soul" to whichever man is their priesthood head. They learn early on that the more children they have, the greater their heavenly glory.
Boys face the prospect that soon after puberty they will be encouraged or forced out of the community, or they will grow up to be criminals, practicing polygamy in the name of God and possibly becoming sexual predators by accepting without question any child brides they are assigned.
For both boys and girls, there is no chance to dream of anything beyond what the prophet tells them. And that is INHERENTLY ABUSIVE.
The United Nations has decried the practice of polygamy as antithetical to equality rights, human rights and the rights of the child.
I'll take CPS over FLDS any time.
Girls are taught from birth that they are to be the servants of men -- their fathers, their husbands and their prophets. They are taught to "keep sweet" and give themselves "mind, body and soul" to whichever man is their priesthood head. They learn early on that the more children they have, the greater their heavenly glory.
Boys face the prospect that soon after puberty they will be encouraged or forced out of the community, or they will grow up to be criminals, practicing polygamy in the name of God and possibly becoming sexual predators by accepting without question any child brides they are assigned.
For both boys and girls, there is no chance to dream of anything beyond what the prophet tells them. And that is INHERENTLY ABUSIVE.
The United Nations has decried the practice of polygamy as antithetical to equality rights, human rights and the rights of the child.
I'll take CPS over FLDS any time.
to Sharon | 4:50 p.m. May 23, 2008
I will tell you why an unmarried woman with children is not excommunicated in
the FLDS Church. They aren't as bigoted as you think they are, and even
more, they aren't as bigoted as you.
G | 4:50 p.m. May 23, 2008
"The United Nations has decried the practice of polygamy as antithetical to
equality rights, human rights and the rights of the child."
Polygamy is not the issue at hand. You'd be more convincing if you would just stick to the CPS allegations and not make up your own.
Polygamy is not the issue at hand. You'd be more convincing if you would just stick to the CPS allegations and not make up your own.
to Sharon 4:32pm | 4:59 p.m. May 23, 2008
she was married "spiritually" and she has a husband, who has other
wives, of which only one is legally his wife. That's how they get around
the laws. Of course you wouldn't expect her to admit that on national TV,
would you?
Re: petition | 5:01 p.m. May 23, 2008
Abuse of discretion generally is a pretty difficult thing to show, given that
you need to demonstrate that the court flat out misapplied the law to the facts,
or that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the decision.
Yet after reading the "statement of facts," I am having trouble identifying anything other than hearsay or statements of pure opinion. The first two pages of it are almost entirely irrelevant. The testimony of the experts is an analysis of the FLDS beliefs, not evidence of abuse.
The sole factual statement is the cite to the "Bishop Records" which mention five girls who conceived when younger than 18, but the statement does not say when or where the conceptions occurred, or whom they were by. Since the issue before Walther was whether there was evidence to support IMMINENT abuse, not ANY abuse, it does look like the Appeals Court was correct to say there was no such evidence in the record. This is presuming, too, that underage sex is prima facie evidence of child abuse, which seems like a questionable assumption.
Yet after reading the "statement of facts," I am having trouble identifying anything other than hearsay or statements of pure opinion. The first two pages of it are almost entirely irrelevant. The testimony of the experts is an analysis of the FLDS beliefs, not evidence of abuse.
The sole factual statement is the cite to the "Bishop Records" which mention five girls who conceived when younger than 18, but the statement does not say when or where the conceptions occurred, or whom they were by. Since the issue before Walther was whether there was evidence to support IMMINENT abuse, not ANY abuse, it does look like the Appeals Court was correct to say there was no such evidence in the record. This is presuming, too, that underage sex is prima facie evidence of child abuse, which seems like a questionable assumption.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Bluffdale police issue to be decided 12:46 p.m.
- Atom smasher catches 1st collisions 12:25 p.m.
- 5 Americans detained in Pakistan 12:18 p.m.
- Man defends self with scraper 12:11 p.m.
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill 12:08 p.m.
- Stocks turn mixed 12:06 p.m.
- Palin tickets still available 11:33 a.m.
- BYU devotional: 'God loves you' 11:24 a.m.
- LDS engineer, 48-core chip 11:24 a.m.
- Witness defends report on Mitchell 11:15 a.m.
- Snow brings big chill
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Expert calls Mitchell delusional
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Five players miss Jazz practice
- Yet again, we learn BCS is a big joke
- Ranking the bowl games
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
283 - Letters: Global warming a lie221
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall174
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil144
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax125
- George lost in rivalry hatefest120
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Revive full food tax?97
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
@Redshirt It seems they didn't print my first response. To summarize:...
Nowhere is more Palin than Utah. Palin is moving forward among conservatives...
PLEASE don't label me a racist. I am not. I have friends of many races and...
Utah 4 real? Is utah still a state? michigan is has more bottom line 7...
Most Americans would not call themselves intellectuals, yet they want a forum...
I don't mind reading about all the good things LDS people do. But I DO...
the coaches pick the players and they vote different in the Dnews and the...
@Sloan naysayers: Didn't you know that Todd and Houdini think the Jazz...
workin theses boards hard. playin it as a big joke,
Whittgate? Do tell. Apparently you have more information than the Provo...
Advertisements