Reader comments
This won't be 'another Short Creek'
166 comments | Read story
Re: got it BACKWARDS | 9:48 a.m. April 28, 2008
The actions in Missouri and Nauvoo were state-sanctioned mob actions.
Phil | 9:56 a.m. April 28, 2008
Why is desnews publishing this. This evidence can never be used in criminal
court.
Comments continue below
transplant | 9:56 a.m. April 28, 2008
What due process are you talking about? The women went voluntarily with the
children. The men are still free on the ranch as they always have been. The
women who returned to the ranch are just as free. To establish that the
children were not kidnaped, their DNA was taken in order to be returned to their
rightful parents. No one has been arrested for "due process" to take
place. If it is found that sexual abuse has occurred THEN there will be
charges brought and due process will proceed. "Oh what a tangled web we
weave when first we practice to deceive" It's nobody's business
why they bought the land. They didn't have to deceive the community. But
they did. It's their tangled web. They are responsible for this whole
horrible mess. A ye sow so shall ye reap.
Abe | 10:04 a.m. April 28, 2008
How do you collect welfare for a child if you don't have a birth
certificate to prove it's your child?
Tom | 10:05 a.m. April 28, 2008
When this mess gets sorted out I hope that any laws broken by the raiding Texas
authorities will be enforced and violators prosecuted just as throughly as they
are attempting to prosecute the FLDS for their crimes. My LDS grandmother spoke
harsh words about polygamists when I was a child, but I know that she would have
hated seeing nursing children pulled from their mothers and deprived of good
nutrition, regardless of the crimes of the children's fathers and
complicity by the mothers.
To Ace Ventura | 10:12 a.m. April 28, 2008
I lived in Texas until I was 23. I'm not an apologist for anyone, but
I'm a critical thinker and I'm objective, and I have yet to see any
evidence of anything illegal at the YFZ ranch. I see the CPS repeatedly claiming
they have evidence, but utterly failing to produce it. They've released a
document with three women on it they think are pregnant. One turns eighteen in a
couple months, so her pregnancy cannot at all be illegal. Another is only
presumed to be pregnant because she refused to take a pregnancy test. Another
was underage when she gave birth to her first child over a decade ago in another
state. A lot of people here are condemning the FLDS because they assume a priori
that they're guilty. I would say I'm glad those people aren't
running the government, but it appears most of the officials in Texas are the
same way, and that's abominable. Once this gets out of the hands of
Texas' frontier justice courts the United States is going to come down hard
on those abusive CPS workers and Judge Walther.
Denise | 10:13 a.m. April 28, 2008
I agree that this whole thing could have been better. Rather than removing the
women and children and leaving the men, the MEN should have been rounded up and
taken to jail. In most states you can hold someone for 48 hours on suspicion
alone. They got the call (yes, now a Hoax, but good enough for the raid) and
they could have picked up all the men on suspicion of committing a crime,
witnessing a crime, being party to a crime. etc. They would have them all
fingerprinted, pictures taken, etc.
They could have left the women and children at the Ranch. CPS could have had a presence there. Plain-clothed Law enforcement could have stayed there. They are spending over a million dollars on the rounding up and caring for the kids. They could have paid for people to remain at the Ranch to oversea it.
Doing it the way they did... now they have older children even MORE upset and convinced the "outsiders" are evil. They have women who might need help seeing the state as the enemy. And the men, well, the men who most likely did wrong are gone with the wind.
They could have left the women and children at the Ranch. CPS could have had a presence there. Plain-clothed Law enforcement could have stayed there. They are spending over a million dollars on the rounding up and caring for the kids. They could have paid for people to remain at the Ranch to oversea it.
Doing it the way they did... now they have older children even MORE upset and convinced the "outsiders" are evil. They have women who might need help seeing the state as the enemy. And the men, well, the men who most likely did wrong are gone with the wind.
Matthew | 10:25 a.m. April 28, 2008
Still waiting to see the State of Texas' case of all this abuse people are
refering to.
If the State of Texas can't abide by the law, then why should the FLDS be expected to?
If someone broke the law, arrest them. Oh, no evidence for a criminal prosectution? No problem, we can just kidnap all their children and that solves everything, NOT. Unless you are willing to admit that your strategy is to use genocide.
If someone broke the law, put up or shut up. Don't hide behind a smoke screen of "protecting the children." Those preadolesent children were much safer a YFZ Ranch than they are in foster care. Perhaps a case could made for removing girls aged 11 through 16 (mind you the case hasn't been made). All the rest of those children were in no danger and were much better cared for than the average Texas child.
This about religion, plain and simple.
I hadn't realized what a hold the Nazis had on Texas.
If the State of Texas can't abide by the law, then why should the FLDS be expected to?
If someone broke the law, arrest them. Oh, no evidence for a criminal prosectution? No problem, we can just kidnap all their children and that solves everything, NOT. Unless you are willing to admit that your strategy is to use genocide.
If someone broke the law, put up or shut up. Don't hide behind a smoke screen of "protecting the children." Those preadolesent children were much safer a YFZ Ranch than they are in foster care. Perhaps a case could made for removing girls aged 11 through 16 (mind you the case hasn't been made). All the rest of those children were in no danger and were much better cared for than the average Texas child.
This about religion, plain and simple.
I hadn't realized what a hold the Nazis had on Texas.
brear rabit | 10:28 a.m. April 28, 2008
I have no problem with Texas values or their dedication to keep it traditional.
I just don't like the selectiveness of the enforcement. I've been to
the multi level apartments in Texas towns and most other large cities in every
state in the union. Talk about co-habitation!!! These kids don't evan know
who their father is and few of them have the same father. And talk about girls
being mothers! And I will gurantee who is paying for all of their housing,
utilities, clothes, health care and what education they do get. I would say evan
if the FLDS are getting a little welfare, as a business man I'd take the
FLDS any day. Don't try to tell me that this was done for the sake of the
children. 400+ compared to the thousands in the situation described above not of
FLDS orentation but none the less indoctrinated and imprisoned by tradition and
poverty.
CONCERNED | 10:35 a.m. April 28, 2008
GETTA TEXAS, LAWS ARE FOR EVERYONE NOT JUST SOME OF US... WAY TO GO...
HeatherD | 10:44 a.m. April 28, 2008
It's kind of weird that they haven't taken the men away. I mean, if
there's all this abuse going on, wouldn't they take away the
criminals?
Unless, of course, very little abuse has been going on, they don't have enough evidence to take away the men, and the CPS has broken the law big time...we'll just have to see.
Unless, of course, very little abuse has been going on, they don't have enough evidence to take away the men, and the CPS has broken the law big time...we'll just have to see.
To: transplant | 10:48 a.m. April 28, 2008
My understanding (from legal sources within Texas) is that at the 14-day
hearing, each child and each parent had the right to question CPS individually
to establish if the state's actions were merited in the case of their
individual. Judge Walther did not allow this to happen. Therefore, you have
numerous writs of habeas corpus being filed trying force Texas to bring the
individual children before a judge so that it can be determined if they are
being wrongfully detained.
It does not matter how hard it is for the state to ensure due process to each individual. Texas has an obligation to ensure it.
It does not matter how hard it is for the state to ensure due process to each individual. Texas has an obligation to ensure it.
Hoosier | 10:50 a.m. April 28, 2008
I think that if need be, Governor Perry of Texas can and will call on that
former Texas Governor, George Bush to get some federal help to protect the Texas
CPS and do what is necessary to prosecute the flds leaders. If I were an flds
leader I would think of taking a long vacation in a country that does not have
an extradition treaty with the USA.
To: got it BACKWARDS | 11:02 a.m. April 28, 2008
The Jackson County mob met in the Independence Courthouse. The leaders of the
mob included Samuel D. Lucas, judge of the county court; Samuel C. Owens, county
clerk; John Smith, justice of the peace; William Brown, constable; and Thomas
Pitcher, deputy constable. Lilburn W. Boggs, lieutenant governor of Missouri,
abetted the mob's actions.
Though appearing sympathetic, Governor Daniel Dunklin was either unable or unwilling to take any effective action to deal with the mob.
Of course, the situation in Texas is different. The actions there do not come near to the nefarious illegalities of Missouri and Illinois. However, when legal authorities do not uphold their oaths to follow the constitution (ensuring rights and due process), then to whom do the innocent go for redress? This story has a long way to play out, and some of the state's excesses will hopefully be addressed and corrected to the extent possible.
You were unnecessarily judgemental (and somewhat incorrect) when you referred to the previous comments about Missouri and Nauvoo as "perverse".
Though appearing sympathetic, Governor Daniel Dunklin was either unable or unwilling to take any effective action to deal with the mob.
Of course, the situation in Texas is different. The actions there do not come near to the nefarious illegalities of Missouri and Illinois. However, when legal authorities do not uphold their oaths to follow the constitution (ensuring rights and due process), then to whom do the innocent go for redress? This story has a long way to play out, and some of the state's excesses will hopefully be addressed and corrected to the extent possible.
You were unnecessarily judgemental (and somewhat incorrect) when you referred to the previous comments about Missouri and Nauvoo as "perverse".
mypc46 | 11:07 a.m. April 28, 2008
Ask yourself..if our kids were such bad parents and we raised them, why are we
now relative caregivers? The kids grew up and rejected our values, and now we
are trusted to clean up the mess our grandkids were raised in. The schools
taught tem to not relyh on God and report your parents for abusing you. CALL 911
and it got out of hand. So many false reports. I saw these children take better
care of than most folks ever do. Since when do we need to rescue kids from
parents. Just for they beliefs of the church.Have you noticed the rescues we did
overseas? And no cps there.Big Brother is watching you. How about texass get a
new slogan..no door or family left unbroken.
insanangelo | 11:22 a.m. April 28, 2008
Cougar: that is why CPS has checks and balances, why every child is appointed an
attorney and a guardian (CASA). The State has their position that they portray
to the Judge, the Attorneys job is to represent to the Judge what the child
WANTS, and CASAs job is represent to the Judge what the child wants and NEEDS.
The parents have the opportunity to have attorneys appointed or can retain them
on their own. CPS may have the power to remove (with a Judges order), but once
that happens there are many others that do not work for CPS who get involved.
To: insanangelo | 11:36 a.m. April 28, 2008
However at the 14-day hearing, the children's (and the parents')
representatives were not permitted to individually address the judge and
question CPS. They were forced to work as groups, so individual differences in
circumstances did not come forward. I understand that their is a monogamous
couple that lives on the ranch in their own home. Their young children were
also taken. Another divorced, single woman with a child lived there. These
people had no chance in that hearing to bring out their unique circumstances.
I'm hopeful that much of this gets worked out over time, but how do you repay the innocent children (all of them) and parents (some of them) for the time lost, the trauma caused, the health issues, etc.? The checks and balances on CPS in this case have been far too weak.
I'm hopeful that much of this gets worked out over time, but how do you repay the innocent children (all of them) and parents (some of them) for the time lost, the trauma caused, the health issues, etc.? The checks and balances on CPS in this case have been far too weak.
call'um like I see'um | 11:44 a.m. April 28, 2008
Texas FLDS is a case of government acting legally and with moral authority to
protect children from depraved abusers.
Missouri and Nauvoo were the Saints suffering religious persecution of the vilest kind.
They are in no way comparable or similar.
To compare the FLDS abusers to those early Saints does an gross injustice to the memory of the Saints.
To use the moral currency earned by those early Saints to defend FLDS is PERVERSE.
It is also unfair to LDS members to draw such comparisons.
Missouri and Nauvoo were the Saints suffering religious persecution of the vilest kind.
They are in no way comparable or similar.
To compare the FLDS abusers to those early Saints does an gross injustice to the memory of the Saints.
To use the moral currency earned by those early Saints to defend FLDS is PERVERSE.
It is also unfair to LDS members to draw such comparisons.
Greywolf | 11:50 a.m. April 28, 2008
What Harvey Hilderbran did is also illegal and ruled unconstitutional by the US
Supreme Court.
ROMER v. EVANS
On May 20, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Amendment 2 to
Colorado's State Constitution. Voter-approved in 1992, the amendment
was titled, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or
Bisexual Orientation."
The Court's majority declared Amendment 2 unconstitutional because it
was an "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people; it had
"impermissibly targeted" homosexuals.
ROMER v. EVANS
On May 20, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Amendment 2 to
Colorado's State Constitution. Voter-approved in 1992, the amendment
was titled, "No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or
Bisexual Orientation."
The Court's majority declared Amendment 2 unconstitutional because it
was an "impermissible targeting" of a "class" of people; it had
"impermissibly targeted" homosexuals.
Re :Matthew | 11:52 a.m. April 28, 2008
Leaving the children at YFZ would have been better for the children?? Sure,
Better for the flds male leaders and the complicit mothers, but hardly better
for the children. If you have an environment that is harmful to children you
remove the children from that environment. If you left 11 year old girls there
would you go back in in 2 years when they are 13? By then the girls would have
been sent to Colorado, South Dakota, British Columbia to be marrie off as the
4rth wife to some 50 year old man. Better to get the all of the chilldren out of
there. GO TEXAS..
bombadil | 11:56 a.m. April 28, 2008
"They should have reviewed our history. ... I am surprised they didn't
check it out here. We're tougher on crime and a little
no-nonsense."
"The message from Texas is that we're not going to allow older men to sexually assault or commit rape of minors or marry minors here... I think our law enforcement and our agencies are doing right."
Interesting. So, all the children can be pulled because of one apparently fake phone call. If there have been crimes committed, more power to them. But the lack of selectivity and heavy handedness would make the third reich proud. The tax payers in Texas better hang onto their wallets. This one is going to end up costing them a bit. The other point is- now that the texas authorities have acted unilaterally, you know they know that their jobs are on the line if they can't produce crimes- lots of them. It will be interesting to see what is fact and what is fiction.
"The message from Texas is that we're not going to allow older men to sexually assault or commit rape of minors or marry minors here... I think our law enforcement and our agencies are doing right."
Interesting. So, all the children can be pulled because of one apparently fake phone call. If there have been crimes committed, more power to them. But the lack of selectivity and heavy handedness would make the third reich proud. The tax payers in Texas better hang onto their wallets. This one is going to end up costing them a bit. The other point is- now that the texas authorities have acted unilaterally, you know they know that their jobs are on the line if they can't produce crimes- lots of them. It will be interesting to see what is fact and what is fiction.
Re:Not Surpriesed 4:48 am | 11:56 a.m. April 28, 2008
You feel that when a bad law is detected it should not be changed to protect
innocent children. Can't you see a difference between the young girls that
are running around the streets of Dallas and Houston getting pregnant and A
group that controls these girls from birth and FORCES them to submit to
molestation by old perverts. I am proud of Mr. Hilderbran, Texas and Proud to be
a Texan.
Re:JohnJ | 12:05 p.m. April 28, 2008
The others that married at 14 were prior to the change in the law. And the Key
word is "Married" in Texas that is between one man and one woman and
performed after receiving a "marriage license". And if they are under
the age of consent, which is now 16, the parents must be present, consent and
show proof of the childs age. NONE of this has been done by the FLDS with their
"spiritual marriage". They take a young girl of whatever age they deem
appropriate and FORCE her into a relationship with a man that is old enough to
be her grandfather. That my friend is wrong and the perverts should go to jail.
I think they will before it is over.
get real | 12:09 p.m. April 28, 2008
"Texas FLDS is a case of government acting legally and with moral authority
to protect children from depraved abusers."
Legally and with moral authority? That's debatable.
Depraved abusers? yeah whatever.
Legally and with moral authority? That's debatable.
Depraved abusers? yeah whatever.
Unconstitutional | 12:09 p.m. April 28, 2008
Harvey "helped pass legislation strengthening the states marriage laws IN
RESPONSE to the FLDS Church presence in his state."
Is this not religious persecution:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Is this not religious persecution:
UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
My thoughts | 12:09 p.m. April 28, 2008
I don't like the way some evanalicals raise their kids at all. Nope.
Can't have that. So, I want the big megga churches raided this weekend,
and all the children under the age of 20, taken away, until it can be sorted out
who the parents REALLY are. In my case, DNA would not work, as all my kids are
adopted. But heck, I'm not (thanfully) in Texas where the rule of law is
flouted for the sake of the dominent religion.
G | 12:16 p.m. April 28, 2008
"Can't you see a difference between the young girls that are running
around the streets of Dallas and Houston getting pregnant and A group that
controls these girls from birth and FORCES them to submit to molestation by old
perverts."
No, because consent laws don't recognize a difference. The politics are the only difference: raid an abortion clinic and your political career is over. Attacking a compound belonging to religious "weirdos" that make their neighbors nervous is a good way to get the Evangelical vote next election.
No, because consent laws don't recognize a difference. The politics are the only difference: raid an abortion clinic and your political career is over. Attacking a compound belonging to religious "weirdos" that make their neighbors nervous is a good way to get the Evangelical vote next election.
So | 12:17 p.m. April 28, 2008
let me get this straigth , when your own prophet is in jail w/out bail...for
rape, then there's 14-16 year olds running around on yeah right a
RANCH...sounds more like the chicken ranch to me, then everyone is crying
foul...and i have asked before where can i contact these guys missionaries in
all fairness as i am a laminite..who these guys claim wrote the BoM...to get to
the truth and nothing but the truth!
To: call'um like I see'um | 12:23 p.m. April 28, 2008
I was not comparing the FLDS to the early saints. I was comparing the actions
of Texas to the actions of the authorities in Missouri and Illinois. I'm
in no way defending the FLDS. Unfortunately, I believe that Texas will now have
trouble prosecuting anybody, and I would like to see them prosecute the evil
perpetrators within the FLDS.
You seem to be saying that it is okay for the state to act in way they see fit as long as they (and the public) are "sure" that they are going after the bad guys. That may result in stopping some abuse in this case, but where do you draw the line? If the state can take any actions they see fit (constitutional or otherwise) based on their own moral compass, there will be innocents harmed in the future.
The "good people' of Jackson County thought they were right to take their actions against us (and they clearly weren't). The State of Texas thinks they're right to take the actions they have against the FLDS (and to some extent, they likely are). But the ends don't justify the means.
And please, there is no need to shout.
You seem to be saying that it is okay for the state to act in way they see fit as long as they (and the public) are "sure" that they are going after the bad guys. That may result in stopping some abuse in this case, but where do you draw the line? If the state can take any actions they see fit (constitutional or otherwise) based on their own moral compass, there will be innocents harmed in the future.
The "good people' of Jackson County thought they were right to take their actions against us (and they clearly weren't). The State of Texas thinks they're right to take the actions they have against the FLDS (and to some extent, they likely are). But the ends don't justify the means.
And please, there is no need to shout.
Re: So | 12:27 p.m. April 28, 2008
The FLDS don't have any missionaries. That's another part of the
scriptures they don't follow. One of many.
William F. Butler | 12:29 p.m. April 28, 2008
First of all, I am not defending the FLDS -- I disagree with their theology and
most of their social customs. I am, hoever, offended by the actions of the CPS
and law officials. They have overstepped their bounds and this has turned into a
travesty of justice.
People have said CPS followed the laws and did the right thing. Here is a question than. The hoax caller claimed to have been beaten several times and to have been taken to the hospital with bruised or broken ribs. In other states it is a law to report possible abuse when someone is brought to the hospital with questionable injuries. Therefore, there should have been a record that both CPS and law officials could have checked to verify the claim made by the hoax caller.
There is no evidencee that was done -- I personally think they were just waiting for some excuse to raid the compound. That is not justice, that is trampling on basic civil rights because the FLDS do not conform to the majority white, evangelical Protestants. That is where this action has not been to protect the children but to go after the FLDS with a vengeance.
People have said CPS followed the laws and did the right thing. Here is a question than. The hoax caller claimed to have been beaten several times and to have been taken to the hospital with bruised or broken ribs. In other states it is a law to report possible abuse when someone is brought to the hospital with questionable injuries. Therefore, there should have been a record that both CPS and law officials could have checked to verify the claim made by the hoax caller.
There is no evidencee that was done -- I personally think they were just waiting for some excuse to raid the compound. That is not justice, that is trampling on basic civil rights because the FLDS do not conform to the majority white, evangelical Protestants. That is where this action has not been to protect the children but to go after the FLDS with a vengeance.
Rachel | 12:32 p.m. April 28, 2008
This whole situation is scary. Sure polygamy and sexual abuse are wrong and
against the law, but the way that Texas is handling this is frighteningly
similar to the days of Mormon persecution in the 1800s. I agree that it's
a little fishy that the Texas government didn't see fit to change the law
about the legal age of marriage until it was aimed at a particular religion.
It also scares me that CPS has so much power...people are now guilty until proven innocent.
It also scares me that CPS has so much power...people are now guilty until proven innocent.
Belzeebub's flunky | 12:34 p.m. April 28, 2008
You are free to resent the Evangelicals and Baptist to your heart's content
but when you let that resentment seduce you into defending FLDS then you are
throwing in with the worst kind of evil, and it will rub off on you.
It seems like too high a price, but that may just be me.
It seems like too high a price, but that may just be me.
Doug S | 12:35 p.m. April 28, 2008
"By God", Harvey? *"BY GOD"*?
Tells me all I need to know about Texas politics.
Tells me all I need to know about Texas politics.
Ekim | 12:36 p.m. April 28, 2008
Go Texas. Finally a State with some guts.
Eric v. K. | 12:40 p.m. April 28, 2008
I admire the restraint of the FLDS parents, and they are saints if they maintain
their restraint. I wouldn't blame them if they turned to violence, though.
After all, that's what the Founders did.
about MO mobs | 12:43 p.m. April 28, 2008
Joseph Smith was incarcerated for burning down a printing press when they were
about to expose his polygamy. Ultimately vigilante justice murdered him. This
action is VERY different, so I do not understand why so many bring up Joseph
Smith or the LDS church save that both consider J.S. their founding father.
Polygamy was not the issue to either though both actively participate(d) in that
form of marriage. Joseph Smith died because he destroyed property not his own.
The FLDS are in trouble because they chose not to obey the law and marry
children away, against their will, and sometimes to close relatives. Leave
Joseph out of it!
Mink | 12:54 p.m. April 28, 2008
For heaven's sake, there is a lot of "if you're not with me,
you're against me" thinking on this board. If you don't stand
and applaud Texas without reservation, then you're some kind of flunky for
the FLDS.
Well, I for one, don't buy into that kind of thinking. What you have here are a large number of innocent children and, likely, some innocent parents. The FLDS have abused them and now the State of Texas is abusing them.
If you hate the FLDS, then, hey, "GO TEXAS". If you hate government interference, then the FLDS are just a bunch of religious people being destroyed by Texas.
Neither one of these is true. The FLDS have become increasingly strange and dangerous. Actions need to be taken to enforce the law, and ensure that they understand that breaking the child abuse laws, no matter when they were inacted, will not be tolerated.
However, the state also has the obligation to ensure constitutional rights and settled law are followed as they take action. Texas has not done this. And don't take my word for it; numerous legal experts have raised serious concerns about the actions of Texas.
Well, I for one, don't buy into that kind of thinking. What you have here are a large number of innocent children and, likely, some innocent parents. The FLDS have abused them and now the State of Texas is abusing them.
If you hate the FLDS, then, hey, "GO TEXAS". If you hate government interference, then the FLDS are just a bunch of religious people being destroyed by Texas.
Neither one of these is true. The FLDS have become increasingly strange and dangerous. Actions need to be taken to enforce the law, and ensure that they understand that breaking the child abuse laws, no matter when they were inacted, will not be tolerated.
However, the state also has the obligation to ensure constitutional rights and settled law are followed as they take action. Texas has not done this. And don't take my word for it; numerous legal experts have raised serious concerns about the actions of Texas.
shout it from the rooftops | 12:55 p.m. April 28, 2008
The practices of FLDS make it unlikely any solution will involve a satisfying
clear cut legal "knight in shining armor". It will be a messy drawn
out struggle, not for the squimish or faint of heart.
The stakes are so high for the children, however, that then ends are worth the means.
There are lots of examples for comparison if one wishes to discuss state over reach that actually might have a passing resemblance to events in Texas; the Missouri and Nauvoo mob actions do not.
The stakes are so high for the children, however, that then ends are worth the means.
There are lots of examples for comparison if one wishes to discuss state over reach that actually might have a passing resemblance to events in Texas; the Missouri and Nauvoo mob actions do not.
gal50 | 12:58 p.m. April 28, 2008
Glad to see the applicable Texas law printed.
The reason Texas used to allow 14 year-olds to marry was because the kids were pregnant, single-parent offspring faced discrimination and the divorce rate was low. The FLDS intended to use this law to encourage its 14 year-old girls to marry, have sex and give birth. That wasn't the intention of this law and the reasons for this law no longer existed, so it was changed.
When two stupid 14 year-olds are hot for each other and as a result one gets pregnant, that is not a CPS issue. A CPS issue is when an adult male engages in a predatory relationship(sex)with an underage girl. There is an imbalance of power.
"Imminent harm" applies directly to the teens in this sect and clearly justifies their removal. In this case, twenty underage girls had babies or fetuses. The mothers, fathers and "marriage" partners are not acting in the best interest of their children. Because of this, for each underage girl, her parents' and her "husband's" children are removed. It's standard practice. The siblings of the girl who died of treatable diabetes have been removed from their praying, anti-medicine parents too.
The reason Texas used to allow 14 year-olds to marry was because the kids were pregnant, single-parent offspring faced discrimination and the divorce rate was low. The FLDS intended to use this law to encourage its 14 year-old girls to marry, have sex and give birth. That wasn't the intention of this law and the reasons for this law no longer existed, so it was changed.
When two stupid 14 year-olds are hot for each other and as a result one gets pregnant, that is not a CPS issue. A CPS issue is when an adult male engages in a predatory relationship(sex)with an underage girl. There is an imbalance of power.
"Imminent harm" applies directly to the teens in this sect and clearly justifies their removal. In this case, twenty underage girls had babies or fetuses. The mothers, fathers and "marriage" partners are not acting in the best interest of their children. Because of this, for each underage girl, her parents' and her "husband's" children are removed. It's standard practice. The siblings of the girl who died of treatable diabetes have been removed from their praying, anti-medicine parents too.
Re: shout it from the rooftops | 1:03 p.m. April 28, 2008
You are clever in your board names - I'll give you that. "The ends
are worth the means" is the battle cry of either the oppressed or the
oppressor. Which is Texas?
Robert F. O'Roark | 1:04 p.m. April 28, 2008
To about MO mobs:
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I would suggest that if you really think Joseph Smith was killed for destroying other people's property then you should do some more reading and studying of Mormon history. Smith's death was the result of a number of factors, the least of which was the actual destruction of the press (which, I might add, took place in other towns in antebellum America -- so Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo city council had precendent for their actions).
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I would suggest that if you really think Joseph Smith was killed for destroying other people's property then you should do some more reading and studying of Mormon history. Smith's death was the result of a number of factors, the least of which was the actual destruction of the press (which, I might add, took place in other towns in antebellum America -- so Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo city council had precendent for their actions).
For me | 1:05 p.m. April 28, 2008
I will forever associate FLDS with child abuse.
Re:gal50 | 1:09 p.m. April 28, 2008
You said it perfectily. It eludes me why there are so many people commenting on
here that cannot see what is so clear. I can only assume it is due to a
prejudice that has formed due to some kind of an endoctrination that has occured
in their lifetime.
Re2: shout from the rooftops | 1:14 p.m. April 28, 2008
"The ends are worth the means" is also contrary to the admonition to
"obey, honor and sustain the law."
And you don't need to follow up with a statement about FLDS lawbreaking. Of course, they are lawbreakers of the first order - polygamy (or adultery, take your pick), underage marriages, illegal restraint...
True also that they have brought this upon their own heads. But I will never shout "GO TEXAS", when Texas's tactics are legally questionable at best.
And you don't need to follow up with a statement about FLDS lawbreaking. Of course, they are lawbreakers of the first order - polygamy (or adultery, take your pick), underage marriages, illegal restraint...
True also that they have brought this upon their own heads. But I will never shout "GO TEXAS", when Texas's tactics are legally questionable at best.
worth the price | 1:15 p.m. April 28, 2008
Just because the means are messy doesn't make them illegal or oppressive.
fear not to act | 1:23 p.m. April 28, 2008
I understand the concerns expressed about due process etc etc, however the usual
pattern is for the lawyers to dicker and grow rich while the victims continue
to suffer.
If Texas' tactics are "questionable" then I saw take the kids and run and let the lawyers dicker after the fact.
The magnitude of the wrong and the helplessness of the victims suggests a more proactive approach vs endless legal wrangling.
If Texas' tactics are "questionable" then I saw take the kids and run and let the lawyers dicker after the fact.
The magnitude of the wrong and the helplessness of the victims suggests a more proactive approach vs endless legal wrangling.
Doug S | 1:30 p.m. April 28, 2008
In point of fact, neither the Nauvoo Expositor building nor the press itself was
"burned" by Smith or the Nauvoo authorities. The press was destroyed
with a sledgehammer and the type scattered in the street (the same as was done
to the Mormon press in Independence, Missouri--except the Nauvoo action was done
by city authorities and after a protracted hearing of the City Council).
The Expositor's publishers, William Law and Robert Foster, set fire to the building after the city authorities left and then hightailed it to Carthage where they spread the story that the Mormons had destroyed the building as well as the press. Unfortunately for them, a Nauvoo policeman discovered the fire and it was extinguished before any significant damage was done to the structure. Anyone who had bothered to come to Nauvoo to follow up on Law and Foster's story would have found the Expositor building still standing, and for the most part undamaged.
The Expositor's publishers, William Law and Robert Foster, set fire to the building after the city authorities left and then hightailed it to Carthage where they spread the story that the Mormons had destroyed the building as well as the press. Unfortunately for them, a Nauvoo policeman discovered the fire and it was extinguished before any significant damage was done to the structure. Anyone who had bothered to come to Nauvoo to follow up on Law and Foster's story would have found the Expositor building still standing, and for the most part undamaged.
Re2: gal50 | 1:30 p.m. April 28, 2008
It is not "standard practice" (even in Texas) to remove all children
in all cases of abuse. According to my research, CPS has the option of removing
none, some or all children, depending on the circumstances. They are expected
to apply the "imminent harm" rule to all children they remove. So,
explain how the "imminent harm" rule applies to the monogamous couple
with young children (not close to 12) who lived on ranch property in their own
house? (And according to the Texas lawyers represnting them, such a couple
exists.)
I'm glad they removed all girls ages 12-17. I'm sure some of the boys and younger children should have been removed, but I don't think they'll be able to justify the removal of all the children of all ages from all parents. That's like using howitzer to kill a bear - unnecessary, overreaching and abusive of power.
I'm glad they removed all girls ages 12-17. I'm sure some of the boys and younger children should have been removed, but I don't think they'll be able to justify the removal of all the children of all ages from all parents. That's like using howitzer to kill a bear - unnecessary, overreaching and abusive of power.
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.
Harvey Hilderbran
Related content
- Alexa Joel had 'devastating heartbreak' 10:56 a.m.
- Actress got close to the president 10:55 a.m.
- Scuffle doesn't stop 'Wicked' in Ohio 10:54 a.m.
- Swine flu toll includes a few pets 10:52 a.m.
- Mistake vs. repeat affairs probed 10:49 a.m.
- Overweight pets have health problems 10:46 a.m.
- Eastwood, Freeman back in 'Invictus' 10:44 a.m.
- Party security? Come down South 10:43 a.m.
- Treasures: From Paris with porcelain 10:41 a.m.
- Nature themes popular in decor 10:40 a.m.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Psychologist: Mitchell schizophrenic
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
236 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall186
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil147
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax140
- Max Hall wants to look ahead121
- Palin signs books, chats with fans117
- Revive full food tax?101
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill99
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
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
Roland Kayser | 9:08 a.m. England's traffic fatality rate is lower than...
Husband took two preschoolers on impromptu camping trip in the winter? A...
So Sick of the Establishment and their expensive parties with their little...
Bathing nude?!? I've never heard of such a thing! That's just crazy!
WOOWH!! HONORABLE MENTION. RIGHT ON!! :)
Stop with the racism accusations. It's not racist to disagree with the...
Wow, one of the Flash major sponsors is also saying it was just in good,...
Ah yes- spreading the wealth- in a very appropriate way. So unlike the...
Winning the BCS Trophy is like winning the Nobel Peace Prize......you claim...
'Sometimes pagans, you make me sick.' - 9:21a 'Pagan - sometime you make me...
Advertisements
Well established child custody law requires that a "reasonable person" would conclude that "imminent harm" is likely to occur unless the children are removed. Was there "imminent harm" present for the nursing babies, toddlers, etc.?
I want Texas to apply its laws, but the state is also obligated to operate within the law. Otherwise, there are no safeguards. The FLDS are no exceptions to the law - and neither is the State of Texas.