Deseret News | Texas judge walks off bench; when FLDS children will return is unknown

Reader comments
Texas judge walks off bench; when FLDS children will return is unknown

Page:
1
2
Next >

G | 6:27 p.m. May 30, 2008

Is there any chance this judge could be dismissed for her lack of professionalism?

John Lambert | 6:28 p.m. May 30, 2008

Judge Walther has gone over the top. She is demanding actions without even having a hearing. She seems to miss the fact that the Texas Supreme Court ruled that she had not provided proper rulings.
What in the world is this judge doing. She overthrows a deal brokered by CPS. She seems to be acting as prosecutor. This is not the proper role of a judge.

Who's the Boss | 6:32 p.m. May 30, 2008

Judge Barbara Walther is not going to be pushed around by any Austin appeals court or the Texas Supreme Court --- she RULES in West Texas

She's going on "vacation" and the kids can wait till she gets back

Comments continue below

Concerned about the children | 6:31 p.m. May 30, 2008

This judge is just embarrassing herself. Very child like to leave the parties up in the air on such a important hearing. You don't make a vague ruling and then run away before clarification.

Ken Goddard | 6:34 p.m. May 30, 2008

Good up to date reporting. Hurray for the judge. She has ample leeway to protect those horribly indoctrinated children.

Tired of all this | 6:36 p.m. May 30, 2008

Don't be fooled by Judge Walther she definately knows what she is doing!!Just because you don't agree with her doesn't mean that she is in the wrong{she does know law}

Walthers and SCOT | 6:37 p.m. May 30, 2008

SCOT left loopholes for Walthers and CPS to do anything they please short of keeping the children--even TPAs. SCOT is on the Permenant Committee for DPFS...figures...They had to follow the law but still left the door open for CPS to still condemn these parents. I hope Walthers looses her seat by election or by force... They are using these children as dangling carrots to get the parents to do a song and a dance to get them back. CPS was wrong and they must give them back with no strings attached..no classes or psych evals. There was no abuse other than MAYBE 5 girls that they could at least dig up--and trust me CPS can make nothing look like something so that is impressive of the FLDS...a few dirty dishes=neglect to CPS.. Now CPS needs someone to TPR to them ASAP and remove all the foster children due to abuse and neglect. What CPS did was abuse and they would remove someone elses child in a heartbeat if they did what CPS did...like that toddler strapped in a stroller for 24+ hrs with no food, water, and a clean diaper. They would not tolerate that out of anyone else.

Questions | 6:39 p.m. May 30, 2008

Who is going to sign the agreement for all the disputed minors? When do they get released?

One parent should not sign for one child (say a teenager about 17 & 1/2). Then appeal that decision.

Also, I seem to remember that if the lower Court doesn't comply - the parties can petition the Appellate Court to force the judge to sign. (Can't the Appellate hold the lower court in contempt?)

G | 6:43 p.m. May 30, 2008

"She has ample leeway to protect those horribly indoctrinated children."

Actually, she has no leeway at all.

She could have vacated her previous order and saved face, but if she does not the higher court will vacate her order for her.

I'm wondering if she's on the brink of some sort of breakdown. I would not expect that sane, well-grounded judges would simply walk out like that. It reflects poorly on Texas, the justice system, and the legal profession, as if she were in some sort of reality tv show and not a court of law.

transplant | 6:46 p.m. May 30, 2008

Did she really go on vacation? Seriously? If so That ought to be enough time for the DNA results. Children ought not to returned to people who are not their parents without written permission from their parents to have custody. I don't get CNN so I don't know how true it is that not all the kids are going back. I'm assuming that the underage mothers are not. The reports so far are not very informative.

Agreed | 6:54 p.m. May 30, 2008

I agree, Ken. The judge knows full well that even with legal stipulations to keep the kids where they can be monitored it is likely they will disappear as soon as they are returned. At least if she puts as many restrictions as she is legally allowed on them there is some chance for follow-up. She is protecting those kids to the best of her ability, good for her.

More Than We Know... | 7:03 p.m. May 30, 2008

While this custody battle plays out with CPS and parents known and ...unknown. There is also a criminal investigation going on against particular individuals at the FLDS Ranch.

"...A criminal investigation into abuses at the FLDS property has been quietly progressing..."

So...there are reasons not to let children return to parents who are being investigated for sex with underage children of both sexes. Makes sense as the Judge has the total picture. We and the Press do not. The local paper had published an order of the court stating how many, more than half? of the children had one or two unknown parents or unknown names.

WOW! | 7:07 p.m. May 30, 2008

Soon you shall all see that "Protecting the Children" is the last thing this judge has in mind. The children have been abused by CPS since the day they were taken, and evidence is coming forth soon to show America that CPS needs to go down, along with their bought off judge.

Barry | 7:11 p.m. May 30, 2008

Shortly the first damage claims and lawsuits will begin to be filed in Federal Court. The actions of the CPS and indeed this judge will be used by a host of different attorneys to claim perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in "reparations"...the FLDS positions are indeed individualized (ie children suffering various different problems, adult women being misclassified as underage, mothers denied access to sick children, several children requiring hospitalization for illness/sickness caused by the removal and living conditions, adult monagamus males being deprived of their children, all exacerbated by the DPS breaching its own regulations (children scattered across state, siblings separated, etc...), and of course both the Supreme Ct and Appeals Ct validating that all was outside of DPS' charter and authority...these suits will likely total into the hundreds of millions of dollars (and of course all will ask for attorneys fees as well); because of the different types of individuals the best might be 4-5 different class actions (if not hundreds of individual suits). This will play out over several years. This alone is what attracted hundreds of attorneys to volunteer at the early stages...

Doug S | 7:16 p.m. May 30, 2008

"More Than We Know", if Judge Walther knows more than we do about any ongoing criminal investigation, there is no standard by which she should not be removed from the bench. Judges do *not* participate in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, and do not have an "inside track" on the confidential goings-on at the DA's office.

Judge Walther needs to re-read the Supreme Court's decision unless she wants to be bench-slapped with a writ of mandamus. She has authority to impose additional restrictions, but she does *not* have authority to link those restrictions with the return of the children to their families in some kind of tit-for-tat fashion.

The kiddies go home to their mothers first. THEN Judge Walther can impose whatever orders she feels like regarding travel restrictions, protective orders, confiscation of cell phones, prohibitions on the reading of the Book of Mormon, or whatever else she thinks she can get away with.

Interloper | 7:43 p.m. May 30, 2008

Judge Walther is right. The Texas Supreme Court explicitly said she can impose conditions on the FLDS parents who remove their children from state custody. The court focused on not having the children taken out of the jurisdiction of Texas courts particularly.

I think she should finalize her order and leave it to the discretion of individual parents whether they choose to agree with the conditions.

wrz | 7:45 p.m. May 30, 2008

"Children ought not to returned to people who are not their parents without written permission from their parents to have custody."

The appellate court said the children were improperly taken and are to be returned. They were taken without regard to who's child was who's and should be returned in that same fashion. Load them on the Baptist buses and return them to their homes. Period.

IA | 7:48 p.m. May 30, 2008

Walther has egg all over her face. She is only trying to get this over without becoming the dumbest judge ever to make decisions from the bench...too late.

Polly | 7:49 p.m. May 30, 2008

The judge sounds to be doing typical judge/lawyer games; however . . . as a parent and not a lawyer, I know that children, especially infants and toddlers, and the beautiful mother-infant oneness bond with very young infants, can get extremely messed with by month- or two-month (and even shorter) separations. A weekend for the judge is years or decades for those infants and those bonds. Get those children back NOW; there is risk of permanent, serious harm from extending these separations.

Betty | 7:54 p.m. May 30, 2008

It is unbelieveable to me that anyone would not think that these children will grow up and sue the state of TX for mental anguish!! Let them go home. Prosecute the offenders NOT the VICTIMS.

Interloper | 7:57 p.m. May 30, 2008

""More Than We Know", if Judge Walther knows more than we do about any ongoing criminal investigation, there is no standard by which she should not be removed from the bench. Judges do *not* participate in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, and do not have an "inside track" on the confidential goings-on at the DA's office."

Nonsense!

Not only are the civil and criminal investigators in Texas sharing some of the same evidence, material is being shared among the three states of Texas, Utah and Arizona. Since Judge Walther issued search warrants for YFZ Ranch, she is knowledgeable about at least some of that evidence. As we know from the introduction of the Lolita pictures in one custody case, that material can be damning. The judge, knowing what she does, is being careful to craft rules that will protect the children returned to YFZ Ranch as much as possible.

I hope that Judge Walther is writing her order and will make a public Monday.

Judy | 7:58 p.m. May 30, 2008

The supreme court said that other methods of investigation and protection could be put in place and that is up to the district judge. That is what she is doing. The FLDS was not exonerated; the court only said that the evidence did not show that the boys and pre-pubescent girls were in imminent danger of sexual abuse and thus should not have been removed as the first step. THis is not the end to the CPS investigation. THe investigation continues and that is why the parents of the 300+ are being asked to sign, as the first group of mothers did. If these other parents don't want to sign, they can appeal it and see if they can get the investigation closed down.

Interloper | 8:00 p.m. May 30, 2008

I hope that Judge Walther is writing her order and will make it public Monday.

Interloper is wrong | 8:04 p.m. May 30, 2008

The Supreme court upheld the third district court of appeals ruling, Walther must follow the order of the appeals court. Third district appeals gave Walther time to vacate her ruling or promised to do it for her.

Re G | 8:06 p.m. May 30, 2008

She may or may not have to be dismissed on Monday the attorneys will be back at the appeals court requesting that Walthers honors the appeals courts decision.
The appeals court will of course demand this and it may very well move back to the Texas Supreme court again.
I hope this will not be the case and the children will be returned by Monday

Only option | 8:08 p.m. May 30, 2008

The only route Walter can take is individual adversarial hearings for each child before she could put restrictions on them, if she follows the ruling of the appellate court. Not the other way around. She is pushing the envelope any way she can.

Doug S | 8:13 p.m. May 30, 2008

Interloper:

Umm, judges sign warrants based on the affidavits of complaining officers--but again, those affidavits become public record.

If the DA or CPS didn't put it in the affidavit prior to obtaining the warrant (or present it at the subsequent hearings in the presence of opposing counsel), Walther shouldn't know it.

Doug S | 8:31 p.m. May 30, 2008

I'll reiterate: if Walther knows anything we don't know, it's because she's indulged in ex parte communications with the prosecution--a big judicial no-no in every state.

Interloper | 8:31 p.m. May 30, 2008

The Supreme Court of Texas set parameters for the trial judge (Walther) in handling the case. It said that removal of all the children was not justified. BUT, that restrictions on travel and custody guidelines based on children for whom there is evidence of abuse are. It is not the high court's intention that she just hand the children over to anyone alleging to be a parent without exercising some control on behalf of the state. The appeals court is also subject to the findings of the Supreme Court. It cannot tell Judge Walther to release the children without restrictions without coming in conflict with the higher court.

Furthermore, the requirements the judge is imposing are normal procedure. The FLDS members are acting, typically, as if they deserve better treatment than other citizens of Texas.

As for Judge Walther's knowledge of evidence not yet public, she knows what was sought in the search warrants and what evidence CPS could have presented if the hearings had continued. That is more than enough to influence her decisions about restrictions.

Doug S | 9:17 p.m. May 30, 2008

Interloper, as I said, I agree that Walther is free to put whatever restrictions on that she wants. But note the wording of the opinion:

". . . but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care."

The opinion says "short of". Not "in exchange for". Walther can impose additional restrictions if she wants, but she cannot make the return of the children contingent on the parents' making any kind of pledge. She "must vacate" her boneheaded custody order--no ifs, ands, or buts.

If the parents violate the restrictions later, the state can bring their noncompliance to the court's attention and they can seek state custody for the children of noncompliant parents--in hearings giving due process to each child individually (or, at minimum, each set of parents--no more mass hearings in kangaroo court).

But for now, the kids go home.

Re Judge Walther's knowledge being "more than enough to influence her decisions"--that's a far cry from "the judge has the total picture; we and the press do not"; wouldn't you agree?

Interloper | 9:29 p.m. May 30, 2008

Duh! How can there be sanctions for violating restrictions if, as you claim, Judge Walther is not free to impose restrictions before releasing the children? She is doing what the Texas Supreme Court wants her to -- sending the kids home, but trying to assure their safety during the investigative process.

Ultra Bob | 9:38 p.m. May 30, 2008

It would be a good thing for your readers if the Deseret News would identify this judge as one of liberal or conservative philosophy.

Doug S | 9:44 p.m. May 30, 2008

Interloper, you misunderstand (and I've been unclear). She can impose restrictions now--but she can't them to the return of the children. She can't hold onto the kids until they've gone through psychological testing, or until they've been photographed, or until the parents have agreed to sign some document. The state had no right to have those children in the first place, and it cannot now use its illegal custody of the kids as a bargaining chip to exact additional concessions from the parents.

See the difference?

Doug S | 9:46 p.m. May 30, 2008

Oops--make that "she can't *tie* them to the return of the children".

Christina | 9:49 p.m. May 30, 2008

Thank You Judge!! Everyone needs to get together and call to keep these children from harm.

Red | 9:58 p.m. May 30, 2008

Ultra Bob: "It would be a good thing for your readers if the Deseret News would identify this judge as one of liberal or conservative philosophy."

She is of "biased" philosophy.

She doesn't trust FLDS folk.

I suspect she's been poisoned by sensational exposes and innuendo.

Unfortunately, she seems to feel that the fix is still in, that she can do her part to destroy what she sees as an unacceptably aberrant lifestyle.

Cory | 10:05 p.m. May 30, 2008

How in the world can you say that the children are in harms way? The judge is not keeping them from anything. You have obviously not been around polygamy. Not all parents are out to hurt their children. The judge has overstepped her boundaries and should stop this legal game and return the children to their families.

Arrest the Judge | 10:33 p.m. May 30, 2008

This lady has some serious issues and lacks respect for the rule of law. Like one attorney said there was no evidence entered that warranted the addition of these extra provisions and the Supreme Court had issued a clear directive to the lower court. All of the attorneys were stunned by the ruling because it was not based on law, wasn't consistent with the higher court ruling and wasn't based on any new evidence.

This Judge doesn't have the right to require any additional provisions or require the children's families to abide by additional provisions before doing as the higher court directed. The attorneys also had a right to know what the Court's ruling was and it is really strange when attorneys would ask:

"What did she say?"
"Do We have another hearing?"
"What did she order?"

Having read this article myself it seems to me that this lady thinks she is above the law and doesn't have to account for her actions and that is why she messed up the first time and now the attorneys may have to go back to the Supreme Court and it may be necessary to have this Judge arrested to enforce the law.

Protect the kids! | 10:48 p.m. May 30, 2008

The judge did the RIGHT thing. Maybe she saw the photos of Warren Jeffs intimately kissing the 12 year old girl and realized what is in store for the rest of the young girls forced to live the perverse FLDS lifestyle.

Judy | 10:51 p.m. May 30, 2008

This Judge I hope stays on vaction for a long time these kids should never be returned to the FLDS Ranch ever. The Texas Supreme Court was totally out of there mind on there ruling to return these kids. What ever happen with the DNA testing with kids and parents? I am sure if that was done the REAL truth would come out about those people and those poor little kids.

Judge is blackmailing parents | 10:54 p.m. May 30, 2008

Interloper is wrong. The Supreme Court didn't say that a refusal to sign an agreement or to abide by the terms of an agreement warranted keeping all of the children in state custody. The Court does have the right to impose provisions upon the parents to keep the children safe but such provisions cannot result in the continued custody of the children when the Supreme Court ordered their return.

This Judge is required to return all the children to the custody of their parents regardless of any such agreement. Failing to abide by the agreement could result in individual reviews of each of the children's status after they return home and then the children could be returned to state custody for failure to abide by an agreement.

A Court does not have the unilateral authority to remove over 400 children without individual review of their cases and Courts don't have the right to unilaterally prevent the children from returning to their homes based on a one size fits all agreement. The Court is attempting to blackmail the parents saying "we illegally removed your children but we will not return them until you agree to X, Y and Z."

Southern Utah Resident | 10:57 p.m. May 30, 2008

This case is far from over. Now that the perversion in the FLDS community led by the convicted felon and confirmed pervert Warren Jeffs is out in the open public scrutiny will NOT allow this to continue.

Where is the justice for the young girls that are raped by the old men?

Where is the justice for the young boys that are abandoned in the streets?

Where is the justice for blatant welfare fraud that takes place in this community?

Obey the law! | 11:01 p.m. May 30, 2008

Protect the kids: "The judge did the RIGHT thing. Maybe she saw the photos of Warren Jeffs intimately kissing the 12 year old girl and realized what is in store for the rest of the young girls forced to live the perverse FLDS lifestyle."

Did the Judge see the parents kissing their 12 year old children? Did the Judge personally verify that the parents believed the same things that Jeffs is teaching? Do you believe everything that a Bishop, Pastor or Priest teaches? Or even the Pope of the Catholic Church? Or the Prophets of the LDS Church?

When a Catholic priest is seen kissing a 12 year old boy do we go into a predominately Catholc town and remove all the children because they are all Catholics? Your entire position is based on their associations with those who have broken the law and that isn't how the legal system operates contrary to what you think.

This Judge's actions are illegal and a violation of the FLDS's constitutional rights. People have the right to due process and equal protection under the law. This act isn't just illegal but it amounts to kidnapping. Each child and their parents are individuals.

Arrogant Judge | 11:04 p.m. May 30, 2008

This judge is apparently frustrated that she's been ordered to return the children. It would appear that she's stepping as close as possible to forcing the hand of the Court of Appeals who said they'd force her to release the children. I hope they do - and in the process, I hope the people of Texas see and clearly understand that this renigade judge needs to be voted out. Plain and simple...the higher courts both gave her orders to return the children immediately, and she must think she's above that requirement because look where the kids are. Just because Warren Jeffs is a sick, twisted and disgusting man who preys on young girls, that doesn't mean all FLDS parents are abusing their children. I don't agree with poligamy, but I do not see how one alleged phone call from an underaged girl is sufficient evidence to take all the children away from every parent. It's sad to see such abuse of what should be a protective agency. What makes us all nervous about DCFS is that their zeal to protect often borders on the zeal to control, and that's not what this country is about.

The Big PIcture | 11:15 p.m. May 30, 2008

The judge is "stonewalling" here, People!! Maybe Texas DCPS is working to get criminal charges filed and they need more time to pull this altogether. The FLDS are not who they say they are. They have used religion to their own de-vices. The abuses that were observed are being re-evaluated and needed to be filed separately from what I can tell, that was the fly (glitch) in the "ointment. The error in throwing every one in one action was the only fault, not that there were no probably cause to remove the children in the first place. It is a fiasco no doubt. Until those new filings can be done in a timely manner, those children need to STAY in custody to be protected. Get IT??? Go for it Judge Walther, we the rest of us will have to wait to see how this all plays out. It sounds like these FLDS are all flight risks. If something doesn't go their way and they get in hot water, they flee.

I am going to make a phone call | 11:18 p.m. May 30, 2008

It's time to make a phone call about the Catholics in Boston and watch as the state of Massachusetts moves in and takes all the children in the Archdiocese so that they can investigate later the factual validity of the allegation.

Did you know that their is a pedophile priest in the Archdiocese of Boston and their are parents among his congregation who are selling their children for sex to the Priest and the Catholic Archbishop of Boston. Let's go in and take all the children of the Archdiocese and investigate my allegation later and determine which parents aren't selling their children for sex. If they are able to prove that they aren't we will return their children but we will impose restrictions on them as we continue to investigate my allegation.

Stop Here | 11:21 p.m. May 30, 2008

I hope we can do whatever it takes to prevent these children from being returned to the religious prison camp. Compound, I guess, is the proper term.
If our society works, religion needs boundaries. Boundaries before what happened in this place are acceptable.
Period.

Jeanne | 11:34 p.m. May 30, 2008

If DNA testing has been done on the children and parents, can't CPS establish a family tree. Simple investigative work would establish if any abuse has occured, and by whom.

The Supreme Court acted correctly. The judicial dance by Judge Walther is unexcusable.

Lets remember that the term "innocent until proven guilty" was one of the founding principles of this country. At this point, the system has failed these children. They need to be returned immediately.

Would this happen to Mormon Ward | 11:47 p.m. May 30, 2008

Stop Here: "If our society works, religion needs boundaries. Boundaries before what happened in this place are acceptable. Period."

You have no proof that all of these parents are pedophiles or have harmed their children or even agree with all of their religion's teachings I guess that your religion's teachings fall within the limits and doesn't need to worry.

I guess we have freedom of religion so long as it falls within the approved religion of the majority and if it doesn't well then the government does have the right to base its decisions on religion.

If you are FLDS and your leaders molest children your children will be taken because you belong to the same religion but if you are Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu and your religious leaders molest children you can feel safe because you belong to a respectable religion. For example between 1999 and 2002 the Hosanna Church in Louisiana was led by a pastor and his wife who not only led their Church but also headed a child sex ring. Louisiana didn't go in and take all the children of the members or former members because their pastor and members molested children but FLDS are different.

Gal50 | 12:05 a.m. May 31, 2008

CPS must have continuing access to that ranch for as long as the FLDS owns the ranch.

People readily acknowledge that 20 females on that ranch have been likely subjected to statutory rape. Five are still minors and fifteen are adults. When the ages of the children belonging to the 15 adult females are subtracted from the age of the adult females, it can be determined that these women were raped providing they were in a state with laws similar to current laws in Texas.

How many men raped these 20 women? It seems Jeffs will be charged with four of the rapes. That leaves 16 more rapes performed by some of the 75 men in the compound. So, apparently these men have abandoned the compound and new men are now operating the compound. If 20% of FLDS men tend to be rapists, one could conclude that most likely the compound will always be occupied by child rapists and that the children may return to live among child rapists. It is extremely important therefore that CPS have continuing access to this compound to ensure that either there are no girls over ten or no men in the compound.

Page:
1
2
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.