Reader comments
37 kids left in FLDS custody case

Joey | 6:09 p.m. Oct. 29, 2008

The "others signs of abuse" the CPS saw that night in the dark were what they claimed to be pregnant teenagers or underage girls with children. There were no pregnant teenagers seen -- what they saw were pregnant adults they mistook for teenagers -- and any underage girls with children, were probably carrying their siblings. And for this mistaken identification, Voss, Long, Doran and co. took the liberty, or pretext, to seize all 462 children and adults from the ranch and detain them indefinitely.

Get back to that night, start at square one. Voss and Co. saw what they WANTED to see, not what was there. BAD FAITH taints an investigation, and all fruits that come from it. And they're still seeing what they want to see, vis a vis the 14 year old virgin they're keeping cooped up in foster care without even a cell phone, all to protect her from someone who's in prison.

nosugrof | 6:49 p.m. Oct. 29, 2008

Judge Walther, Angie Voos and company abused 400+ children. Where is the justice for them?

Gal50 | 8:04 p.m. Oct. 29, 2008

It appears that all that was required of the parents was for them to protect the children from the men marrying underage girls. Some left the ranch; others didn't. All took courses and made commitments to keep their children away from possible pedophiles.

One lawyer said that the only requirement remaining for one of his clients was to finish a course. So, perhaps most of the remaining 37 cases are just about tying up loose ends. One would suppose that the ten or so possible subjects of child sexual abuse are included in that number as well.

Comments continue below

TWO FACED | 1:21 a.m. Oct. 30, 2008

"All took courses and made commitments to keep their children away from possible pedophiles."

That's right. They all agreed to not call upon CPS for any further help (an agency of pedophiles), as well as keep them away from Walmart and public schools. Also some agreed to keep them out of public offices in Texas, where that sort of thing happens all the time.

To Gal50 | 5:05 a.m. Oct. 30, 2008

Just give it up.

There was no mass marrying of underage girls. There was nothing for the vast majority of the children to be protected from - Except the outside world and its cruelty and VOSS, WALTHER, MALONIS, DORAN, CPS especially CPS, ETC. proved how RIGHT the FLDS are to teach about the dangers of mainstream America.

Way to go Texas. You've got a Texas size goose egg all over your face.

nosugrof | 8:26 a.m. Oct. 30, 2008

Statutory rape is a legal fiction. There is no force or agression involved in these cases. Young children are bing deprived of Fathers who have never treated them with anything but kindness. In the name of helping children, CPS is actually hurting them which is typical of them.

Funkydory | 8:32 a.m. Oct. 30, 2008

I can't wait to see what Texas will do with the "bigamy" prosecutions of those FLDS men who have only one wife. Shurtleff marketed Utah's absurd bigamy statute to Texas to help entrap innocent families, and now we'll see it tested in the Courts. Maybe they forgot June 26, 2003 and the 6-3 Lawrence decision decriminalizing all consensual adult, non-commercial private relations. Bigotry creates fools.

zxcvbnm | 5:54 p.m. Nov. 1, 2008

Only 37 innocent children left to gain their freedom.
Now where is the investigation of CPS as promised by Voss?

zxcvbnm | 9:34 p.m. Nov. 1, 2008

As promised by Meisner.

Interloper | 2:12 a.m. Nov. 2, 2008

With all due respect to misdirection, the next big issue will be the trials of the nine FLDS men who have been indicted as a result of evidence discovered at Yearning for Zion Ranch. There may also be more men indicted for alleged sexual abuse of girls young enough to be their daughters and granddaughters. Obviously, the concerns of child protective officials in Texas were not in not baseless.

zxcvbnm | 6:10 a.m. Nov. 2, 2008

Not Baseless....... try that one again.

400+ cases against the children were baseless according to CPS. The removal of the children from the ranch by Voss was baseless according to SCOTEX.

The manipulation of the laws of Texas by hildibrand was illegal (unconstitutional) and the so called evidence has a high likelyhood of being thrown out.
The one child in foster care is there to protect her from a man in prison based on the testimony of two persons who have never been at the ranch.
Noone can unring the bell of abuse suffered by the flds families at the hands of the State of Texas.
Nine men face charges......and are innocent until proven guilty. Thanks to the actions of CPS and the State we may be looking at no evidence.
What a screw up!

Mary | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 2, 2008

I saw a reference on another comment board stating:

"CPS has Instated a rule for girls age 10 and over."
"girls of a certain age are banned from the ranch."

I think I also read the girls cannot live with the father.

Can someone please give me the link to this ruling?
Thank you.

zxcvbnm | 12:35 p.m. Nov. 2, 2008

Crimmins refuses to comment aboot the 10yr olds rule.
It would seem that if such a rule exists it would be in CPS parenting plan papers.
Perhaps some FLDS parents can help with the question.....print the parenting plans and lets see the restrictions.......block out names and let us see the unreasonable restrictions.
It would seem that removing an unconvicted father from his children without charges is a bit of a stretch......but hey.....CPS has pushed the constitution before.

Mary | 7:12 a.m. Nov. 3, 2008

I found the reference I was seeking. It was from an interview from cbs11tv with Ben Barlow. It includes a statement from Ad Litem Susan Hayes, who tells cbs,
"Once the girls become 10 years old the state will no longer alow the fathers to live in the same house."
"Crimmons couldn't confirm that the state would will require the fathers to move."
I cannot find the reference to the girls are banned from the ranch.
Apparently the children are non-suited but the long arm of CPS will continue to rule thier lives.

zxcvbnm | 8:49 a.m. Nov. 3, 2008

If in fact the restriction on the "clients" of Hayes extends to the rest of the families the ability of the Church to run the ranch will be greatly limited.
Without persons to run the business enterprizes and a $420,000 tax bill something will have to give.
Looks like an indirect, or perhaps calculated, affect of the raid will be a destruction of the ability of flds to sustain itself.

realitycheck | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 4, 2008

re - Mary 7:12am

this guy Ben Barlow also stated that it is in their religious doctrine for young girls to marry older men when they reach puberty.

When asked if he knew that was illegal, he stated "why should we stop them if they want to do this?" he stated clearly on camera.

Therein lies the problem - and it's not going away... All the young girls are still in danger, regardless of what you may want to believe.

Crusty | 7:42 p.m. Nov. 5, 2008

Perhaps next CPS should go after people who have documented beliefs such as these:

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn.

If he takes to himself another wife, he may not reduce his other wives food, clothing, or conjugal rights.

I also gave you your master's house and your master's wives, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these!

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.