Reader comments
FLDS custody hearings moved up a month

Melvin | 12:27 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Interesting story, but why is it in the Utah section of the newspaper?

sakeneko | 12:49 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

This might not be an "emergency" removal, but it looks as if somebody in the judge's office thinks there's some urgency about it. :/ After reading the paperwork submitted to the judge, I don't blame them.

Removing 400+ kids immediately was overkill, and I'm glad the Texas Supreme Court agreed and sent the kids back to their homes. However, I do not believe that the information in these court filings is false. Conspiracy theories abound, of course, but most are nonsense. So far I have seen no signs of actual evidence to shore up any that surround this case.

I just hope that Texas can do the right thing by these kids, who did not ask to be born into this situation. :/ Their needs should be paramount, but kids in cases like this often end up going from bad situations to worse in foster care.

choice2 | 1:35 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Does anyone REALLY believe that these girls are in danger of being married. I think they would be lying if they say so.

This is more persecution. The younger girls and the boys definitely are in no danger.

Comments continue below

Joey | 2:17 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

What is a "non-emergency removal"? If it's not an emergency, whey do the kids have to be removed? Can CPS justify taking children from parents in that case? Marleigh talks about child removals like they're no big thing, happens every day. Well if you were a parent and had a child removed for some vague reason having to do with your religion and associates, how would you feel? Does Marleigh Meisner even understand how much pain her agency puts these families through?

R | 2:33 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

32 cases dropped, 408 to go. And most, if not all, will stay with there parents, even if this drags on as long as the Short Creek affair.

Choice2: Well, given that CPS have had no problem lying in this affair, and given that no underage marriages have taken place [AFAIK] since Jeffs was arrested, I think that's an obvious conclusion.

realitycheck | 2:57 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

yes, choice2 - most of us DO think these kids are in danger. Of being married tomorrow? no. Of being married to their uncle or stepfather later? Certainly. And since you seem to not understand... that's just sick. No teenager should be forced to marry a relative, or anyone else for that matter.

But since the "prophet" decides who people will marry, it's pretty much up to him. And Jeffs seemed to like inter-marriages.

On that note, Jeffs is going to stay in jail for a long time. You will need to pick a new prophet. There appears to be no testing or proof required to get the job. I would like to submit my application.
As my platform, I will guarantee no one will ever have to marry someone that they haven't chosen themselves, no underage brides, and anyone that wants to go off to college can do so. Red is ok, no long johns in the summer, and if you have a bunch of children you'll have to get a second job and support them. (I'll flip-flop on that last one during the interview process. We'll need the state's money to send all the kids to college.)

A | 3:30 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

The families are not working with CPS and that in and of itself gives CPS a reason to take them back. The concern is for children who's family have a history of underage marriages. Most of the girls of the 8 have been married. One of the girls is not married has not seen her biological mother in 3 years since moving to YFZ to live with her uncle. The two boys are part of a family with underage marriages. I can see why CPS would want them too since the mother is not willing to protect her daughter.

Thomas | 4:21 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

The chlidren are in no danger. especially the boys are in no danger. This is about showing them who's boss. The CPS is a rogue agency who must be brought under control.

CPS logic | 4:54 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

"The two boys are part of a family with underage marriages. I can see why CPS would want them too since the mother is not willing to protect her daughter."

-------------

You can see why CPS wants the boys, because the mother won't protect her daughter, ie, sign away her rights? If you bend over that far to understand CPS logic, you'll fall over. The fact is, CPS wants ALL the children; they've proven that much already. And protecting them has nothing to do with it. They're protecting their jobs, not the children.

Gal50 | 5:50 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

This is a much better hearing date. The other one seemed too far away.

Why is Warren so eager to ruin children's lives by forcing them to marry old men and then he's absolutely silent when it comes to this matter. Since the FLDS seem to follow his every wish, why not order these men to leave the homes of these children so the children don't suffer a second removal?

Prior to the return of the children, the FLDS stated that the men were willing to move out so the children could be returned. A few months later we have the same situation whereby children are going to be in CPS custody because they are around men who appear to have committed child abuse. How come the FLDS now wants the men around and the children back in CPS custody? Have they changed their minds? Is this just a test case? Are they waiting for a court order? Do they think the appeals court is going to rescue them and they will get to have children around child abusers? Why are they willing to sacrifice the well-being and happiness of their children?

Momof3 | 6:15 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

If you can't/won't protect one child, it would be unfair, and neglectful, on CPSï¿½s part to assume you could/would somehow protect the other ones. This is not about religion or a corrupt government agency. This is about grown men convincing little girls God wants them to submit to rape and incest.
If a poor child in a bad neighborhood gets pregnant at 15, we assume she has crappy parents and we shake our heads at how bad parents raised a child that now will probably continue the cycle. The FLDS fenced themselves in, posted armed guards at the boarders, to keep the poor, innercity kids' influence out of their community. They did not do this to protected their children's purity, but to make sure no one ever tells them that God does not want children raped, married before their childhood ends and denied a proper education in order to cook, clean and serve perverse old men who abuse people's love of God to achieve their own pleasure.
To me, the only thing worse than denying someone their freedom of religion, is jeopardizing everyone else's religious freedoms by using yours for a front for criminal activities.

A | 8:41 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

"You can see why CPS wants the boys, because the mother won't protect her daughter, ie, sign away her rights? If you bend over that far to understand CPS logic, you'll fall over. The fact is, CPS wants ALL the children; they've proven that much already. And protecting them has nothing to do with it. They're protecting their jobs, not the children."

If the mother is not willing to protect her daughter then there is chance that she will not protect her sons. The FLDS has a long history of forcing young men out of the community and often its the parents that leave the young men by the highway. Do your research and you will see that this is true.

A | 9:06 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

Oh by young men I mean boys around the age of 15 or 16. They have no means to support themselves and no one to take care of them.

Joey | 11:06 p.m. Aug. 8, 2008

So far the accusation is the mother won't protect her daughters, and where's the proof of this? That she won't sign a piece of paper, a promise to CPS essentially that she could easily break at any time? The only reason CPS wants her to sign is so they can use that paper against her later in a criminal trial. That's it. She's already verbally promised she won't marry her daughter off. What else do you want? The girls and boys have a right to see their fathers, who are not convicted of anything.

At this point CPS is just being used as a tool for acting on the widespread bigotry aimed at the FLDS. Most everyone basically assumes these FLDS members are guilty of something, whether they're guilty by association, or guilty by ancestry, or guilty based on what they *might* do in the future. No one knows whether these particular mothers will give up their daughters and force them to have sex underage. There's no proof it's happened and certainly no proof it will happen. It's unbelievable how family courts take kids on such scanty evidence. It's like the inquisition.

Anonymous | 9:43 a.m. Aug. 9, 2008

"She's already verbally promised she won't marry her daughter off. What else do you want?"

The women are brainwashed and so are the men. If they are told to marry their daughters off then they will. The piece of paper will allow CPS to pressure future legal action if and only if the girls are married in the future. CPS can not use it for things that happened in the past. CPS is making all the parents sign it, not just the ones with underage marriages.

As for the evidence, I think that the pictures of Warren Jeffs kissing a 12 year old is pretty good proof and so are the diary's of the leaders and members. Not to mention the 10 underage moms. I think that this is proof enough.

This is not about religion. This is about the law. The law states that a girl under the age of 17 can not consent to have sex with someone who is more then 2 years older then her. Most states have similar laws to protect the children. Having a period dose not make a girl an adult.

zxcvbnm | 12:24 p.m. Aug. 9, 2008

17 is the age of consent in Texas......At 17 you can have sex with any consenting adult, married or not.
Jeffs is in prison and no threat to anyone and from what has already been printed many of those 10 underage teens with children were fathered by jeffs. If the guy ever gets out of prison the State will not allow a convicted sex offender near any child.
Future harm to any child on that ranch by Jeffs has been delt with.

gretchen | 8:04 p.m. Aug. 9, 2008

THANK YOU, MOMOF3!!!

I would like to know WHEN the general public is going to understand : the flds' MAIN BELIEF is:
1. BEING PART OF A POLYGAMOUS "MARRIAGE" IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLEASE GOD/EARN HEAVEN. THAT'S THE BIGGIE!!!!

now let's try real, real hard to grapple with that, ok, boys and girls?

THAT MEANS: 2. kids of the flds are taught FROM DAY ONE that they can NEVER, EVER please God, etc etc etc IF THEY ARE NOT POLYGAMISTS by some point.

THIS INVOLVES: 3. ejecting excess males by whatever means, whenever necessary

4.ruthlessly inculcating every female baby with the "reality" that they MUST become a "wife" (concubine, technically) and also: 5.main part of THAT : MAJOR CHILDBIRTH ACTIVITY. THEY TEACH GIRLS TO WANT TO CONCEIVE, give birth, as many times as possible in whatever span of life they may have.
No other real value for girls.

Now, boys and girls, this is just the tip of our iceberg ... any of you realize anything yet? (e.g., statutory rape=totally nothing to flds.. sex with very young girls=obeying God=helping girls to obey God)

Next lesson: Man never landed on moon. Evil lie from evil world.

zxcvbnm | 1:03 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008

The US Supreme Court has ruled that you can't restrict belief systems of religions.

The church has a right and the parents have a right to teach their children their belief system.

Next Lesson: Believeing that man did not land on the moon is as much a threat as teaching children that the earth is 6000 years old and dinasaurs roamed the earth with man. But hey....the religions that teach creationisn to their children aren't faceing tanks.........yet.

Anonymous | 4:54 a.m. Aug. 10, 2008

There havent been any allegations of underage marriages since 2006. it is puzzling why any children are in danger of anything in 2008. CPS has dome enough damage. Leave the children alone.

x foster child | 7:39 a.m. Aug. 11, 2008

I would rather take my chances in a foster home then having to "KEEP SWEET," or listen to tapes on Warren Jeffs saying how you won't get to heaven, etc. over and over and over again. This is called brainwashing. they are the Lost Kids.. I see FLD's as a sex ring of old geezers and stepford wives having kids, ripping off the goverment in the name of religion! Yeah let's save the kids, I spent 12 years in foster care, and there not all bad, just some. Thank God for some decent people that helped me along the way, taught me right from wrong, and that I have rights as a person in this society,and freedom to think for myself. I've read two books written by x wives of this group, and it blows my mind these women have shared husbands, and married their precious daughters off to cousins,80 year old men, and fail to protect these kids, sons and daughters from such a thing. That their medical, schooling and family structure has been lacking from wanting to avoid all outsiders for were thought of as the enemy.. what a crock.. save all the children not just these few..

nosugrof | 4:58 p.m. Aug. 11, 2008

x foster child comments are typical of the hate directed against these people. There have been no underage marriages since 2006. Under the FLDS, you dont have to be polygamous to get to heaven. It brings exaltation in heaven. Message to all you hatemongers. Stick to the facts.

Jane | 2:08 a.m. Aug. 12, 2008

The fact is that CPS moved in on an unverified complaint. They should have traced the call first. CPS has no overseeing authority in any state, not just Texas. No perjury punishments for falsifying documents are ever metted out against CPS. Obviously they don't all tell the truth. How many of the social workers have received punishments from the judge for the lies they told?

I applaud any mother who stands up for what she believes is right for her children reguardless of her religion. They shouldn't be forced to sign any paperwork that 'legitamizes' CPS's false allegations. Some CPS workers say that believing in God at all is having 'magical thoughts' and makes one unfit as a parent. It is not for the American Governments to decide our religions, it is for the American people.

I don't know much about the FLDS, but I do know being Cathloic doesn't make me any more or less fit to raise children without fear of persecution from the people paid by my taxes. That money could have been much better spent in a more diplomatic and less traumatizing investigation- after the allegation had been verified and substaniated, which it never was.

laws not religion | 7:33 a.m. Aug. 13, 2008

Our topic is about laws, not religion, great remarks gretchen, also momof3 . NOSUGROF your off the mark, way I read it there's no hate, no hatemongers around, and who's discussing religion, were talking laws and underage children.

Anonymous | 12:27 p.m. Aug. 13, 2008

Dear Jane.

You should brush up on "discovery law".
The warrant was 'legal'. Even if you didn't like it.
Anything found under a valid warrent IS admissable for further findings of law in court.

Legal Point | 12:34 p.m. Aug. 13, 2008

LNR:

It doesn't matter what religion you are.
If you have taken a minor (0-16 yrs) for a wife or have given one under the ruse of "authority" to your buddy, you have performed child endangerment and your are as guilty of child rape, under the law as any child molester IN THIS COUNTRY.

Jane | 9:59 p.m. Aug. 13, 2008

Mr. Anonymous,

You are assuming that the warrant was actually issued, not presumed to be issued. You are also assuming that in the first sweep CPS found enough discoverable evidence to remove more than 400 children. Some investigation.

The debate about the enforceablity of this warrant will likely go on for years. I know what discoverability is. Obviously the Texas State Supreme Court agreed that the evidence wasn't discovered to remove the children.

It's not a matter of whether I like it, its a matter of it not being legitamized after the fact.

This could have been settled without traumitizing 400 plus children and the huge financial burden to other needy government programs.

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.