Reader comments
Texas makes deal with FLDS couple
82 comments | Read story
Dagwe | 11:44 a.m. May 27, 2008
This case will end in the US Supreme Court asking for that court ruling on
freedom of religion.
realitycheck | 11:57 a.m. May 27, 2008
wow - Dan Jessop really didn't want his 13 yr old sister to testify that
she is married to Warren Jeffs. Guess he finally figured out that if he'll
let his sister marry at 12 then he's not as good a parent as he suggests.
Comments continue below
Thomas | 12:01 p.m. May 27, 2008
Reality you are unreal. This is grounds for an investigation. It presents no
grounds for the standard of eminent danger of abuse. It does not justify the
legalized kidnapping of over 400 children.
Deal? | 12:04 p.m. May 27, 2008
A "deal" from any Government is a "no deal".
One of the biggest lies - "I'm from the Government & I'm here to help you!"
One of the biggest lies - "I'm from the Government & I'm here to help you!"
Finally | 12:10 p.m. May 27, 2008
I agree with "realitycheck"--Dan Jessop must have really been scared
of the potential testimony in order to make a deal with CPS about anything.
This thing is looking more and more like a mafia ring rather than a religion...I
think the truth will begin to come out little by little and this image that the
FLDS would have us believe--that they're just law abiding citizens
exercising their religion, will be seen for what it is--hogwash.
watch your government | 12:12 p.m. May 27, 2008
When one persons rights are denied, everyone's rights are endangered.
Justthefactsmaam | 12:22 p.m. May 27, 2008
My a) above, of course, is referring to the credibility of the 'so-called
parade of witnesses.'
If that parade was worth a plug nickel, wild horses wouldn't have kept Texas CPS from NOT CAVING and NOT handing those kids over to the mother. Instead, they would have GLEEFULLY gone into court and put on their PARADE.
Only an idiot thinks they have won when they have LOST their primary objective; full control of the children and a MASSIVE LOST of the degree of previous control that they had previously exerted.
What MOTIVATION could have caused Texas CPS to ACCEPT SO MUCH LESS than what they already had IF they had such a great 'parade of witnesses.'
Only logical answer is that they were afraid the parade of witnesses would BLOW UP IN THEIR FACES just like everything else has for them in this fiasco.
If that parade was worth a plug nickel, wild horses wouldn't have kept Texas CPS from NOT CAVING and NOT handing those kids over to the mother. Instead, they would have GLEEFULLY gone into court and put on their PARADE.
Only an idiot thinks they have won when they have LOST their primary objective; full control of the children and a MASSIVE LOST of the degree of previous control that they had previously exerted.
What MOTIVATION could have caused Texas CPS to ACCEPT SO MUCH LESS than what they already had IF they had such a great 'parade of witnesses.'
Only logical answer is that they were afraid the parade of witnesses would BLOW UP IN THEIR FACES just like everything else has for them in this fiasco.
What? | 12:25 p.m. May 27, 2008
Dan jessop is one step closer to getting his family back. Not the other way
around.
If CPS had a real case, you think they would have allowed the children to go to Mom? No way.
CPS in Texas is losing their shirts, skirts and anything else the wind has blown up.
If CPS had a real case, you think they would have allowed the children to go to Mom? No way.
CPS in Texas is losing their shirts, skirts and anything else the wind has blown up.
SLIPPERY-SLOPE | 12:31 p.m. May 27, 2008
==
TO AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS TO AVOID CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENTS
QUOTE: �Glen Lavy says that the California Supreme Court?s legal reasoning could be applied to polygamous marriages and [FLDS] POLYGAMIST CUSTODY CASES. [A week earlier, I used the same reasoning AGAINST the Texas CPS arguments: the polygamist children�s slippery slope argument.] QUOTE LOS ANGELES TIMES with my comment added.
==
TO AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS TO AVOID CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENTS
QUOTE: �Glen Lavy says that the California Supreme Court?s legal reasoning could be applied to polygamous marriages and [FLDS] POLYGAMIST CUSTODY CASES. [A week earlier, I used the same reasoning AGAINST the Texas CPS arguments: the polygamist children�s slippery slope argument.] QUOTE LOS ANGELES TIMES with my comment added.
==
Interesting | 12:38 p.m. May 27, 2008
I find it fascinating that very little of this makes its way to the major Texas
papers, such as the Houston Chronicle. People in utah seem to be much more
concerned with the day to day events unfolding in this case. And just reading
the comments here, it appears that many Utahns have already made up their minds
that the FLDS is in the right--not all but certainly quite a few. HMMMMM Maybe
Utah needs to finally cut itself loose from polygamy and the culture that it
breeds. I am not LDS, but if you honestly believe God doesn't condone
polygamy anymore, stop defending it and stop defending its results. And
yes--kicking out boys and marrying young girls off to older men ARE results of a
culture of polygamy. At least Texas has the guts to stand up to this.
Re: watch your government | 12:38 p.m. May 27, 2008
"When one persons rights are denied, everyone's rights are
endangered."
Tell that to the FLDS children, hypocrit!
Tell that to the FLDS children, hypocrit!
JFH | 12:43 p.m. May 27, 2008
Hey, watch your government: When one person's children are abused while the
government looks the other way, it puts all our children at risk. I guess we
should just all shrug our shoulders and say it's OK in the name of freedome
of religion.
re: Thomas | 12:42 p.m. May 27, 2008
Thanks, good comment!
The Rock | 1:14 p.m. May 27, 2008
This is a very difficult case.
My great grandfather had 3 wives (but only two mother-in-laws as he married sisters) and went on a mission to the southern states to avoid prosecution on polygamy charges. One of his companions was Heber J. Grant.
The US Supreme court ruled that we have the right to believe what we want, just not practice polygamy.
The first amendment reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So much for the free exercise part.
Forced marriages; however, do not constitute free exercise of religion.
We have seen laws changed (changing the marriage age from 14 to 16) an apparent hoax phone call that started the whole thing, a mass kidnapping of over 450 children just because they thought some kids were being abused and there was a suspected religious theme.
Oh well, I am pleased I am not dealing with this...
My great grandfather had 3 wives (but only two mother-in-laws as he married sisters) and went on a mission to the southern states to avoid prosecution on polygamy charges. One of his companions was Heber J. Grant.
The US Supreme court ruled that we have the right to believe what we want, just not practice polygamy.
The first amendment reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
So much for the free exercise part.
Forced marriages; however, do not constitute free exercise of religion.
We have seen laws changed (changing the marriage age from 14 to 16) an apparent hoax phone call that started the whole thing, a mass kidnapping of over 450 children just because they thought some kids were being abused and there was a suspected religious theme.
Oh well, I am pleased I am not dealing with this...
Anonymous | 1:19 p.m. May 27, 2008
the thing is that there is no proof that all or even any of the children have
been abused at this point. It kind of is like if your neighbor down the street
abused his kids the state came and took all of the kids from the neighborhood
because they must be abused too.
just wondering | 1:25 p.m. May 27, 2008
How much is all this costing the taxpayers?
VA gal | 1:33 p.m. May 27, 2008
I have to agree with Justthefactsmaam. If CPS had anything on this couple they
would have kept the two kids. They would not have bent one inch.
As far as it being his little sister that married Warren Jeffs, being related to idiots or criminals does not make you one. If Warren Jeffs is the nightmare that he is made out to be then there is very little this man could have done to prevent his sister from marrying Jeffs. So not much of an argument there.
We don't take the children away from the mom if the dad is charged with child abuse of children outside his own. So I don't see how Warren Jeff's marriage has anything to do with this baby. I know many disagree but that is my opinion and I don't live in Utah and am not FLDS.
As far as it being his little sister that married Warren Jeffs, being related to idiots or criminals does not make you one. If Warren Jeffs is the nightmare that he is made out to be then there is very little this man could have done to prevent his sister from marrying Jeffs. So not much of an argument there.
We don't take the children away from the mom if the dad is charged with child abuse of children outside his own. So I don't see how Warren Jeff's marriage has anything to do with this baby. I know many disagree but that is my opinion and I don't live in Utah and am not FLDS.
Sam Hampton | 1:39 p.m. May 27, 2008
I agree that the state of Texas must involve itself if the FLDS are indeed
violating the state's laws against marriage (and sexual relations with) 14
y/o girls. That said, it is quite alarming that any government can trample all
over citizens' due process rights, which the FLDS case involved--it calls
into question the legitimacy of state action. In addition, I do not agree that
the state has any right to interfere in the contractual/marital arrangements
amongs consenting adults unless they can prove that the state has a compelling
interest--for example, it might be proven that incestuous relationships can
promulgate genetic problems. I don't even agree that the state should
license marriages at all, lest the state interfere in private relationships,
with the family, etc.
Anonymous | 2:11 p.m. May 27, 2008
The fact is that CPS should be verifying abuse and then taking the children, not
the other way around. You don't pull all the children and place them in
foster care and then figure out whose in harm's way. To me, this article
just supports that not all 450(?) kids were/are/will be abused.
I'm sure the Texas Supreme Court will find similar cause and support the Appeals Court.
I'm sure the Texas Supreme Court will find similar cause and support the Appeals Court.
Ing | 2:17 p.m. May 27, 2008
I don't think the people who seem pro-FLDS support polygamy.
Religious persecution is something that a lot of people in Utah identify with. Utah was founded by people who were driven out of the settled parts of the US for their religious beliefs, and that history is as much a part of the state mindset as the Alamo is for Texas.
Add to that the fact that people still associate Mormonism with polygamy even though the religion disavowed the practice more than a hundred years ago and will instantly excommunicate anyone who goes that direction, and the Utah interest is understandable.
I think the Utah interest in this is not really sympathy for the FLDS--every Mormon person I know thinks they're crackpot heretics--it's a reaction to seeing an entire religious community's children taken by a government agency that seems to have the attitude that it doesn't have to justify itself to anyone.
I say stop the polygamy, but don't punish the children. A lot of people think the FLDS don't deserve to keep their children...but maybe the children don't deserve to lose their parents. I think the state of Texas can do better than victimizing hundreds of innocent children.
Religious persecution is something that a lot of people in Utah identify with. Utah was founded by people who were driven out of the settled parts of the US for their religious beliefs, and that history is as much a part of the state mindset as the Alamo is for Texas.
Add to that the fact that people still associate Mormonism with polygamy even though the religion disavowed the practice more than a hundred years ago and will instantly excommunicate anyone who goes that direction, and the Utah interest is understandable.
I think the Utah interest in this is not really sympathy for the FLDS--every Mormon person I know thinks they're crackpot heretics--it's a reaction to seeing an entire religious community's children taken by a government agency that seems to have the attitude that it doesn't have to justify itself to anyone.
I say stop the polygamy, but don't punish the children. A lot of people think the FLDS don't deserve to keep their children...but maybe the children don't deserve to lose their parents. I think the state of Texas can do better than victimizing hundreds of innocent children.
NANTZ | 2:25 p.m. May 27, 2008
Defenders,.....You need to go back and read the entire story, not just the
headline! What part did you not get?.....They just signed over, legal custody to
the state, as temp. poss. is almost nothing in terms of custody. Their attorney
must have really feared the evidence about to be brought, and grasped at the
best deal they could get. The headline should read,- FLDS COUPLE ACCEPTS DEAL
FROM TEXAS
Gal50 | 2:39 p.m. May 27, 2008
Just to respond to some of the comments here, the state did verify abuse by
finding underage girls married to older men and with children which indicates
statutory rape. The adults on the compound were not able to accurately identify
the family members of the girls and so all of the children were taken until it
could be determined which families were involved in abuse. The children were of
no help determining abuse as they couldn't identify their biological
mothers and fathers.
Some people erroneously compare this situation to one household on a block committing abuse, followed by CPS removing all of the children living on the block. Families on a block are not ruled by a fascist leader whereas it seems these FLDS families may be. We need to look at the dictates of Warren Jeffs and see what percentage of adults conform. Did anyone wear red on the compound? Were there any pets, toys or non-religious books? According to the bishop's report, all of the mature families save maybe one, practiced polygamy, so it seems that the families are very conformist and that their daughters are all at risk for underage marriage.
Some people erroneously compare this situation to one household on a block committing abuse, followed by CPS removing all of the children living on the block. Families on a block are not ruled by a fascist leader whereas it seems these FLDS families may be. We need to look at the dictates of Warren Jeffs and see what percentage of adults conform. Did anyone wear red on the compound? Were there any pets, toys or non-religious books? According to the bishop's report, all of the mature families save maybe one, practiced polygamy, so it seems that the families are very conformist and that their daughters are all at risk for underage marriage.
NANTZ is right | 2:41 p.m. May 27, 2008
You are correct--the parents signed over SOLE CONSERVATORSHIP to Texas, and they
are just TEMPORARY POSSESSORS. Folks, that means these parents AGREED to let
CPS have legal custody of their kids, as long as the kids could, at least for
now, stay with the mom at the shelter AND, not insignificantly, there would not
be a hearing with testimony which would have involved Jeffs and his
"alleged" child bride. They were trying to avoid the testimony that
would be given during the hearing.
Justthefactsmaam | 2:45 p.m. May 27, 2008
Perhaps you need to go back and re-read everything about this case frm the very
beginning.
CPS *already had* sole conservatorship.
Prior to today the Jessop's didn't have anything. Not even temporary possession.
Now they do have temporary possession.
Who won? Who lost? Who caved?
CPS caved. CPS lost. CPS has less than what they had before. Jessops have more than what they had before.
Pay attention. I know it's hard for you. ;)
CPS *already had* sole conservatorship.
Prior to today the Jessop's didn't have anything. Not even temporary possession.
Now they do have temporary possession.
Who won? Who lost? Who caved?
CPS caved. CPS lost. CPS has less than what they had before. Jessops have more than what they had before.
Pay attention. I know it's hard for you. ;)
Sick at heart | 2:52 p.m. May 27, 2008
Hey, what ever happened to the polygamy law? It seems to me that the law alone
would be enough to start in helping protect these children -- so why "no
enforcement" attitude? At least Texas is trying.
By the way, if the lawmen came into the Zion compound and went case by case as suggested with questions first, etc. after the first family was being interviewed, all the rest would flee. So there you are, back to square one. This seems like an obvious result to me. Why not you?
I know a polygamist who told me of a mother who listened to her 14 year old daughter just screaming being (raped) by a much much older man in the next room and she did nothing. What a dilemma these little ones are in. One can't tell me this is OK in the name of religion.
I will bet many who have posted here who are against Texas are FLDS.
So sad for these little ones who are the victims -- and many not even knowing it because they are born into this practice and being groomed. Who is to help them if everyone turns a blind eye?
By the way, if the lawmen came into the Zion compound and went case by case as suggested with questions first, etc. after the first family was being interviewed, all the rest would flee. So there you are, back to square one. This seems like an obvious result to me. Why not you?
I know a polygamist who told me of a mother who listened to her 14 year old daughter just screaming being (raped) by a much much older man in the next room and she did nothing. What a dilemma these little ones are in. One can't tell me this is OK in the name of religion.
I will bet many who have posted here who are against Texas are FLDS.
So sad for these little ones who are the victims -- and many not even knowing it because they are born into this practice and being groomed. Who is to help them if everyone turns a blind eye?
To Justthefactsmaam | 2:56 p.m. May 27, 2008
You need to get your facts straight--either that or you're purposely
twisting them. Are you FLDS by chance? The evidentiary hearing had not yet
been conducted. By agreeing to this, the Jessops said they do not challenge the
state's sole custody so that there would not be a hearing--that's a
huge difference from what you're saying. Yes, they got temporary
possession, but only the mother gets to stay with the children at the
shelter--it's not like they let them all go back to the ranch together.
It's interesting to me that many folks keep saying there are no facts or
evidence presented, but the second they try to produce some, it's deal
making time. The story also says that it was the Jessops' attorney's
motion to continue the hearing. I'm speculating a bit here, but my guess is
because she didn't want to risk CPS's introducing evidence that would
be damning to her clients. CPS caved because they didn't want to risk the
evidence being excluded. So they made a deal that they could all live with.
Jonathan Wurst | 2:59 p.m. May 27, 2008
Did you guys notice the caveat emptor - the agreement depends upon the State
Supreme Court decision? If the State rejects the stays and appeal, then the
kids are going home (unless the State says a portion have to remain in custody
such as the young teenage, unmarried women.
Re "Finally | 12:10 p.m." | 3:03 p.m. May 27, 2008
You need to put this into perspective.
You said [I think the truth will begin to come out little by little and this image that the FLDS would have us believe--that they're just law abiding citizens exercising their religion, will be seen for what it is--hogwash].
Whether their beliefs are "Hogwash" or not is irrelevant. This is a legal proceeding. It isn't about whether their church is true or not. That SHOULD be irrelivant is far as the legal matter goes. We should NOT try to use the legal system to prove/disprove someone elses belief system. The court needs to limit itself to "Legal" issues, not deciding if a person's religious beliefs are Hogwash or not.
Texas also needs to try to get beyond their religious motivations in this case... or the whole thing is eventually going to backfire on them and EVERYONE involved is going to be worse off because a few people in CPS lost persepctive and turned this abuse case into a religion motivated witch-hunt.
You said [I think the truth will begin to come out little by little and this image that the FLDS would have us believe--that they're just law abiding citizens exercising their religion, will be seen for what it is--hogwash].
Whether their beliefs are "Hogwash" or not is irrelevant. This is a legal proceeding. It isn't about whether their church is true or not. That SHOULD be irrelivant is far as the legal matter goes. We should NOT try to use the legal system to prove/disprove someone elses belief system. The court needs to limit itself to "Legal" issues, not deciding if a person's religious beliefs are Hogwash or not.
Texas also needs to try to get beyond their religious motivations in this case... or the whole thing is eventually going to backfire on them and EVERYONE involved is going to be worse off because a few people in CPS lost persepctive and turned this abuse case into a religion motivated witch-hunt.
nantz | 3:14 p.m. May 27, 2008
Re; JUSTHEFACWHATEVER, NOW PAY ATTENTION,....this couple does not comprehend
how hard it will be to ever regain full custody of their children. Now they will
have to challenge the state of Texas, and prove in court that, "it's
in the best interest of the child" to transfer full custody to the parents
in a court of law. This will only be allowed to be heard after the parents can
prove that there has been a signifacant change in their circumstances, such as
to care for the children in a safe envirement, support, home studies, schyco
eval., ect. Before, the state may have just returned them after the Supreme
Court ruling, no questions asked. The evidence must have startled their
attorney!
kgil | 3:19 p.m. May 27, 2008
I am finding that my own pagan community is watching this case very closely to -
in response to the person saying only UTAH was watching it.
Pagans have had CPS take their children just for their religion, and also put in plans that the children could not be taught their parents religion. I do not know of any form of neopaganism with illegal tenets, however.
So I think, IMO, that people USED to religious persecution - that see it for what it is - are perhaps all more interested in this case, mainly because the children were taken from THE GROUP as a group action, and the initital hearing was for the entire group - and because CPS alleges it is THE RELIGION that causes the abuse, and that the religion MUST NOT BE PRACTICED.
Just my opinion. I'm sure the FLDS are guilty in pockets, but I hate to see innocent individuals trampled on and prejudged.
Pagans have had CPS take their children just for their religion, and also put in plans that the children could not be taught their parents religion. I do not know of any form of neopaganism with illegal tenets, however.
So I think, IMO, that people USED to religious persecution - that see it for what it is - are perhaps all more interested in this case, mainly because the children were taken from THE GROUP as a group action, and the initital hearing was for the entire group - and because CPS alleges it is THE RELIGION that causes the abuse, and that the religion MUST NOT BE PRACTICED.
Just my opinion. I'm sure the FLDS are guilty in pockets, but I hate to see innocent individuals trampled on and prejudged.
Stop it! | 3:20 p.m. May 27, 2008
Stop the inbreeding--NOW!
realitycheck | 3:21 p.m. May 27, 2008
re - Thomas 12:01pm
I have no clue how you could say that. Dan Jessop lives in the same BUILDING as a number of these children, yet he has no problem with his 12 yr old sister being married to a convicted sex offender. He said as much.
And you don't think that's grounds for pulling the children?
Let's hope the Supreme Court is not as naive as you.
I have no clue how you could say that. Dan Jessop lives in the same BUILDING as a number of these children, yet he has no problem with his 12 yr old sister being married to a convicted sex offender. He said as much.
And you don't think that's grounds for pulling the children?
Let's hope the Supreme Court is not as naive as you.
John Lambert | 3:23 p.m. May 27, 2008
My respect for Judge Walther has gone to zero. Any judge who uses
"y'all" in a statement made from the bench should be inpeached.
realitycheck | 3:26 p.m. May 27, 2008
those of you that think this is a great win for FLDS, you couldn't be more
wrong. You really thinl Texas wants to take care of all these kids? No way.
But they don't want them to go back to that compound full of sex predators.
They would have pulled the men if they could have, but the law doesn't
work like that. (If they had pulled the men in, do you really think less people
would be screaming about civil rights?)
The state just wants the kids to be safe. If they could negotiate that all kids go back to the mothers but away from the fathers, they would do it in a second.
The state just wants the kids to be safe. If they could negotiate that all kids go back to the mothers but away from the fathers, they would do it in a second.
HD | 4:05 p.m. May 27, 2008
Regarding the photographs introduced into evidence last week that showed a
12-year-old girl kissing Jeffs in a manner that lawyers for CPS described as
"how a husband kisses a wife", this is very relevant to the entire
situation as this is one more piece of evidence of what is happening.
Rod Parker, the Salt Lake City attorney acting as a spokesman for the FLDS Church, should be sensored by the court for his comment that this picture has nothing to do with the current case. Have any of you ever seen an adult hold a 12 yr old girl and kiss her in this fashion. While I support legal representation for the FLDS, Rod Parker does not or cannot see the truth of what is going on. If we are looking for the truth then Rod Parker should step up and call these things what they are and represent his clients with class and dignity. He makes this situation look worse with his slant on the facts.
Rod Parker, the Salt Lake City attorney acting as a spokesman for the FLDS Church, should be sensored by the court for his comment that this picture has nothing to do with the current case. Have any of you ever seen an adult hold a 12 yr old girl and kiss her in this fashion. While I support legal representation for the FLDS, Rod Parker does not or cannot see the truth of what is going on. If we are looking for the truth then Rod Parker should step up and call these things what they are and represent his clients with class and dignity. He makes this situation look worse with his slant on the facts.
Justthefactsmaam | 4:26 p.m. May 27, 2008
3rd Court of Appeals not only said NO EVIDENCE, but they said NO EVIDENCE 5
times.
On one page.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
On one page.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
NO EVIDENCE.
10 pm tonight on CBS | 4:33 p.m. May 27, 2008
I'm sure the FLDS doesn't want you to, but you all may want to watch
the 48 Hours show on tonight. It will explore FLDS and shed some light on what
we are up against.
By the way, I find it appropriate that the Utah Attorney General calls FLDS the "American Taliban".
By the way, I find it appropriate that the Utah Attorney General calls FLDS the "American Taliban".
Last Kiss | 4:39 p.m. May 27, 2008
to HD
If I ever catch someone kissing my kid like warren Jeffs did that young girl, I can guarantee you folks, that it would be his last kiss, as well as his last day on earth.
If I ever catch someone kissing my kid like warren Jeffs did that young girl, I can guarantee you folks, that it would be his last kiss, as well as his last day on earth.
m | 5:22 p.m. May 27, 2008
I saw the picture as well - very creepy. I don't care if they practice
polygamy but I care very much when they marry underaged girls. GO Texas. I
hope they don't rush into returning the children, at least the adolesant
girls, because in my mind everyone of them is in danger and both parents are to
blame.
Stunned | 5:32 p.m. May 27, 2008
This whole mess has me stunned. I am so saddened for the children in this whole
situation. I am also amazed that laws and rights are being trampled on. The
first law that is being ignored is the practice of polygamy. Why aren't
these men all arrested? Why are the children being arrested instead--their
rights are completely neglected? I believe Texas, Utah, Canada, etc. should
make a clean sweep and arrest all polygamous men, rather than trying to work
with them to find out if they are abusing their families. If our society has
these laws on the books they should be enforced. This enormous child abuse
case/cases should have little to do with religious freedom, but rather with
obeying the laws of the land.
P.S. I too, thought the pictures of Warren Jeffs with a young girl was outrageous. That picture alone explains why we have laws against polygamy and underage marriage.
P.S. I too, thought the pictures of Warren Jeffs with a young girl was outrageous. That picture alone explains why we have laws against polygamy and underage marriage.
CPS blackmail | 5:39 p.m. May 27, 2008
Typical CPS tactic � bad cop good cop routine; Round-up all
the children then later use these children as leverage. CPS knows parents will
do almost anything to get their children back. This so called
�good deal� is nothing more than
blackmail. Don�t think for one minute any government agency
that collectively kidnaps children under false pretense - sensational events
that they imagine might happen in the future - is your friend. Alleged
perpetrators should be prosecuted individually. CPS has a job but this
�know all� �do
all� agency wears blinders doing it.
Interloper | 5:48 p.m. May 27, 2008
The Jessops were given a sop. All three of Lori's children can stay with
her at a shelter. The only difference between her and other mothers is that she
is getting to live with her children over the age of one. The state maintains
actual custody of all of the children. Dan's situation is more
interesting. He is supposedly party to the sop but doesn't actually have
possession of the children at all. Furthermore, his DNA is doubtlessly being
cross-referenced to see if he has other children among the young girls. (Yes, I
know that the Jessops say they are monogamous, but that doesn't mean it is
true.)
Mad Granny | 6:01 p.m. May 27, 2008
We need to hang on here---we still do not know all the evidence that was found
in their temple.From what I understand there was alot of damming evidence and if
the court is allowed to continue I feel quite sure that it will be hair-raising
to the ones that say they don't believe that there is any proof of abuse.
Oh bythe way YA'LL is the TEXAS way!!Live with it.
wyogirl | 6:22 p.m. May 27, 2008
I agree with others - It was the Jessop's lawyer who didn't want the
state evidence shown. I'm sure her lawyer explained what it would take to
get the kids back - they knew it would be extremely hard. They risked it to
protect Warren Jeffs and others like him.
CPS and Judge Walthers allowing this woman to be with her children does not prove that they caved, it shows that they are not the heartless Nazi's that some have accused them of being.
Hypothetical: If Charles Manson had a commune with a bunch of his relatives and friends living there together, raising each others children, teaching them that Manson is "perfect" and teaching them to accept the fact that they will either become like him one day, or become one of his victims would we want the state to protect those kids or give them back to their mothers? I know that these FLDS were not accused of murder, but child rape isn't far from it in my mind. They testified that Jeffs is "perfect" in their minds. They
CPS and Judge Walthers allowing this woman to be with her children does not prove that they caved, it shows that they are not the heartless Nazi's that some have accused them of being.
Hypothetical: If Charles Manson had a commune with a bunch of his relatives and friends living there together, raising each others children, teaching them that Manson is "perfect" and teaching them to accept the fact that they will either become like him one day, or become one of his victims would we want the state to protect those kids or give them back to their mothers? I know that these FLDS were not accused of murder, but child rape isn't far from it in my mind. They testified that Jeffs is "perfect" in their minds. They
What we have | 6:24 p.m. May 27, 2008
Is some perv. kissing a kid. Ok. Jeffs is presently in Jail. You know where he
is BRING CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
But return the children to their rightful parents. Prosecute abuse. But don't be the abuser yourself, state of Utah.
FYI. If this was really such a 'bombshell', why did the state let the mom and dad (who is the brother of the girl in the photo), to have their kids back - even if they are still wards of the state? The parents have the kids in their physical custody. In my book, that tells me their 'evidence' is pretty week.
But return the children to their rightful parents. Prosecute abuse. But don't be the abuser yourself, state of Utah.
FYI. If this was really such a 'bombshell', why did the state let the mom and dad (who is the brother of the girl in the photo), to have their kids back - even if they are still wards of the state? The parents have the kids in their physical custody. In my book, that tells me their 'evidence' is pretty week.
Brooke | 6:27 p.m. May 27, 2008
In my opinion, the Poligamy Laws are unconstitutional.. Look down your block
and see how many people live together without being married. I don't like
the deterioration of the family unit any more than anyone else but no one
prosecutes unwed mothers or those who cause them. What go on in behind closed
doors is not my business. If for religious reasons, the FLDS chose to raise
their children to believe that marrying young and having lots of children and
teaching them that Poligamy is God's Plan I say it 's their right.
Claire | 6:36 p.m. May 27, 2008
CPS pulls stuff like this in CA all the time! Their usual stunt is to tell
parents that if they insist on a trial to fight the abuse allegations then they
will not be permitted to see or speak with their children until after the trial,
which would be in about 6-9 months or more. The other option is to waive your
right to trial and go along with CPS and you can see or speak to your child
later that same day. Now, when you are dealing with an infant, which would you
choose?? I think this TX case and the agreement is similar. The mother wanted
to stay with her infant and was willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure
that would happen, regardless of her legal rights or how it may affect her legal
standing.
One Wonders | 6:38 p.m. May 27, 2008
Let's see, Jeffs kissing a young girl - very bad. But isn't Jeffs in
prison for the last several years? So how is that evidence for emergency
removal of the children from all the mothers? Jeffs is in prison, not at
"the ranch", return the children.
Shouldn't FLDS create a panel of elders to provide guidance to the "prophet"? Maybe this panel of elders could provide a marriage policy that would keep the group out of trouble with he exterior community.
In the meantime, the children should be returned to their parents (fathers and mothers) immediately. Any cases of child abuse should be prosecuted in a court of law within the normal rules of evidence.
The CPS personnel should be chastised severely for their actions in this case. They should only remove children in true emergencies.
Shouldn't FLDS create a panel of elders to provide guidance to the "prophet"? Maybe this panel of elders could provide a marriage policy that would keep the group out of trouble with he exterior community.
In the meantime, the children should be returned to their parents (fathers and mothers) immediately. Any cases of child abuse should be prosecuted in a court of law within the normal rules of evidence.
The CPS personnel should be chastised severely for their actions in this case. They should only remove children in true emergencies.
A1A | 6:47 p.m. May 27, 2008
Everyday, CPS removes babies from homes where one or both parents are drug
addicts. Don't these parents love their children? Yes. Has it been
proven that they are endangering their children? Well, obviously they are
making bad decisions and usually they hang out with law breakers. So, their
babies are taken away.
Well, parents living on this compound have made bad decisions. They have photos of their supreme leader, a convicted felon in almost every room. The Jessops listen to false prophets and most certainly hang out with some folks that break the law. (Even though their friends aren't convicted yet.) So, innocent children shouldn't be exposed to religions run by convicted felons and their unindicted co-conspirators.
Makes sense to me.
Well, parents living on this compound have made bad decisions. They have photos of their supreme leader, a convicted felon in almost every room. The Jessops listen to false prophets and most certainly hang out with some folks that break the law. (Even though their friends aren't convicted yet.) So, innocent children shouldn't be exposed to religions run by convicted felons and their unindicted co-conspirators.
Makes sense to me.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Former Flash center suffers stroke 11:46 a.m.
- Chavez ally's bro. linked to scandal 11:37 a.m.
- Jobless vie for holiday sales work 11:30 a.m.
- Handmade ornament collection 11:28 a.m.
- Queen tells paparazzi to back off 11:26 a.m.
- Romanians vote for president 11:19 a.m.
- Gender balance in science 11:14 a.m.
- Chinese target global market 11:03 a.m.
- Jazz upset by Wolves 11:02 a.m.
- Wolf recovery at crossroads 10:54 a.m.
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- George lost in rivalry hatefest
- Snowy roads cause accidents, delays
- Tiger's SUV, personal life are a wreck
- BYU basketball: Cougars crush Dons
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
311 - Letters: Liberal because LDS249
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing202
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage128
- George lost in rivalry hatefest109
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- Harpring's NBA career is over94
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony93
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
RE: proudyewt | 10:20 a.m. Dec. 6, 2009 Ironic, that you conveniently...
This will NEVER happen. First, there are political motivations for...
Amen to what Anne at 11:21 a.m. said. How can it be that quarterbacks in...
It is sad how misinformed on facts a lot of you are. I am ashamed of some of...
Don't worry about Tiger's image because he sure does't. He is laughing all...
Yes, domestic terrorist. That is what these nuts are indeed!
We can barely afford the power we pay for now. We turn off all our lights,...
Yes @mark, and you did not respond to any, not one, of Greenfyre's challanges.
First of you must know nothing about sheep dogs - they can not train the dogs...
Yes to a few specific provisions but very much a no to this rancid bill and...
Advertisements
So much for "No proof! Send the kids home!"