Deseret News | Search continues for FLDS men; Texas agency feels vindicated

Reader comments
Search continues for FLDS men; Texas agency feels vindicated

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 1:39 p.m. July 23, 2008

I see that the Texas agency that perpetrated what the Texas Supreme Court ruled was an egregious abuse of authority lacking in legal basis is still interested more in defending its abuse of civil rights rather than actually protecting anyone. It is all well and good to indict men believed to have committed crimes connected with underage sexual relationships. To say that this somehow justifies summary imprisonment of innocent victims of these practices, and tearing babies and small children away from their mothers, shows that the agency is just as abusive of women and children as any of the men involved, and ought to be indicted as well.

Concerned | 2:10 p.m. July 23, 2008

Raymond, I feel really sorry for you. Those children were not imprisoned, they were being protected from mothers who are more concerned about their salvation than their childrens safety. It was sad to see the young children removed from their mothers because young children don't understand the situation but these mothers are not good mothers (and need to face a consequence for their participation in this horrible abuse). A good mother would fight an army to keep their child from being assaulted and these women encouraged it! Those children deserve better.

Grandpa Phil | 2:17 p.m. July 23, 2008

I agree completely Raymond.

Comments continue below

Ah Hem.... | 2:36 p.m. July 23, 2008

For your information CPS does not imprison anyone. When people are not cooperating with the investigation and telling lies as in different names each time anyone talks to them, and giving different ages than what is obvious it makes it necessary to take action. Have any of you started reading the transcripts that are on iperceive.net or com? It is painfully obvious that the attorney's were making motions immediately therefore impeading the progress of the evidence available.

When there are allegations of sex abuse in a home all children are removed. What made this case particularly bad is the fact that this is an entire community that is condoning sexual abuse of children. All of the adults involved must at least be charged with failure to report child abuse.

Anonymous | 2:34 p.m. July 23, 2008

raymond, you and your gramps need to get real

zxcvbnm | 2:39 p.m. July 23, 2008

CPS may feel "Vindicated" however the Texas Supreme court ruling stands. CPS broke their own laws.
Six persons indited after the "imprisonment" of 450 persons and a raid complete with tanks, helicopters, and swat teams is hardly a great accomplishment. 14 million bucks to gain evidence that may be thrown out given the circumstances surrounding the pretense of conducting the raid and charges based on laws specifically targeting the Church may bring more Supreme court rulings before this soap opera is finished.
You can't unring the bell........and you can't paint the CPS as some white knight rideing to the rescue of some damsel. CPS was a tool used to circumvent the laws of the state.

Spredbury | 2:50 p.m. July 23, 2008

I hope those accused of abuse are sentenced to the max if the state proves its case. But there are so many other issues that the state and CPS must address. I think most will agree that CPS over reacted and may have caused much more harm than they prevented. Just think of all the children that were traumatized by the actions of CPS. Every time I think about the crying children being forcibly separated from their mothers I just want to cry myself. I just want CPS to address the treatment of the FLDS mothers and children while the FLDS members were being held in the San Angelo coliseum. These allegations were made by state mental health workers brought in by CPS to help with the care of FLDS mothers and children. Ms Meisner said over a month ago that there would be an investigation into these allegations. Abusers of children must be held accountable even if they are state employees. If they are not true CPS should say so, but if any of them are true CPS should explain how itself and say what they are doing to make sure they will never happen again.

Grandma Emma | 2:52 p.m. July 23, 2008

I agree with you completely concerned 12:10pm July 23rd

Anonymous | 3:28 p.m. July 23, 2008

I am amazed at how easy it is to pass judgment on CPS, especially when most of what you are basing your judgment on is nothing more than reporting by various news agencies. When will people realize that news reporters make their news reports to catch people's attention. I know first hand how they can take an event and make it much more than it really was. That is their job - selling news. None of know exactly what the facts are and unless you personally know people from the FLDS faith, you can't begin to comprehend how brainwashed those women and children really are. I can only feel sorry for them for allowing themselves to become so brainwashed. Other than that, they are now receiving the consequences of their choices and it is difficult to feel sorry for them. For the children to be removed from their parents (mothers) is the only hope we have of trying to change their thinking and thus this way of living. FLDS is NOT a religion. It is a CULT. It consists of a bunch of horney old men who can't be faithful to one woman. They live like this to justify it.

realitycheck | 3:57 p.m. July 23, 2008

Did Texas do the right thing in removing all the children from YFZ ranch? No, probably not. Any child under 10 should have probably been left, but given how much the FLDS attempted to confuse the ivestigation, the CPS probably felt they had no choice.

Did they take all the children out of spite? NO - they had legitimate concerns for all the children. You really think CPS wanted to take the children, knowing how much bad press it would generate? Don't be stupid. They remember Waco, and the last thing they wanted was for some of the children to stay and there be a stand-off later that puts them in jeapordy. Don't forget, religious fanatics are a scary bunch, as seen in Waco.

I would agree that all the parents, especially the moms, that had any knowledge of the underage marriages, should be charged with failure to report child abuse. That would send a real strong message to the FLDS followers. No jail time - the kids need their moms - but a good long probation period would work well to re-emphasize that you can't just ignore child abuse issues simply because they are done "for religious purposes".

Doug S | 3:55 p.m. July 23, 2008

I dunno if the grand jury is done hearing evidence yet, but consider the numbers at this stage.

We apparently have, now, four counts of sexual assault, one of bigamy, and four of failure to report.

If all of these accusations are true, they boil down to four instances of sexual assault (none of which were reported) and a guy who slept with a woman who was not his legal wife. This, in a community of four hundred-odd children.

Thus, at best, Texas has established that a child on the YFZ ranch had a 1/100 chance of being a victim of sexual assault. Remember, nationwide, the odds are one in four for boys, and one in six for girls.

So, Texas is approximately 1/20 of the way towards showing that the level of child sex abuse at YFZ was even on par with the national average.

Seems to me it's a little early for CPS to start crowing about "vindication".

Joe | 4:09 p.m. July 23, 2008

So CPS feels vincdicated by the indictment of 5 men?!!! Unbelievable! You ripped over 450 children from the arms of their parents!!!! For 5 indictments? What you did is infinitely worse than anything the FLDS have done. I would much rather be raped, statutorily no less, than have my kids illegally kidnapped from me in broad daylight as sanctioned by the government that is supposed to protect my rights. For the indictment of 5 men?

We are talking about serious human and civil rights violations here. I hope any crimes that actually the FLDS actually commmitted get prosecuted, but Texas CPS is far from vindicated. They are the worst people in this entire mess.

G | 4:23 p.m. July 23, 2008

Finding predators on the ranch isn't terribly surprising. But it doesn't "vindicate" CPS. They were still wrong in seizing all the children.

Txmom | 4:24 p.m. July 23, 2008

Realitycheck
I just wanted to share something with you. My neighbor is a CPS investigator, she talks with the kids. She even told me that it wasn't so much the FLDS lied to CPS agents as much as the agents got confused by all of the last name changes and they thought they were being lied to. Does that make sense? So Ashley was a Jeffs at birth and her dad got kicked out and now she's a Jessop from her new dad and she gets married and now she's a Barlow. She told CPS she was Ashley Barlow, I mean Jessop, I mean Jeffs.

Thomas | 4:27 p.m. July 23, 2008

It is astounding that CPS feels vindicated. These poor children will be scarred for the rest of their lives by what the CPS did to them. Indict Angie Voss.

To Doug S | 4:28 p.m. July 23, 2008

These 4 cases are open and systematic abuse by grown men who "married" underage girls. The national statistics of children being abused includes many cases when it was a single incident of abuse, which does substantial damage but is different than parents giving the child to the abuser in "marriage ". We have no idea of how many FLDS children are abused by fathers, uncles, brothers etc (in other words, ordinary awful abuse like in the rest of America) because that wasn't the focus of the investigation. You can't justify what happened in this community by claiming it is worse elsewhere. Elsewhere, people don't condone what they are doing by believing it will lead to their and the children's salvation. Most abusers are wracked with guilt, but not in the FLDS--they glorify it and claim that it is constitutionally protected as a religious freedom and so the abused child is all the more damaged by abuse that it is not recognized as abuse. I hope these girls grow up and sue the FLDS like thousands have sued the Catholic Church (which merely looked the other way, but didn't promote this deviate behavior.)

willy steel | 4:50 p.m. July 23, 2008

Raymond you are right on with your comments. Notice: We live in a country where due process is the rule not "raids on citizens" that think different than mainstream. Yes, kidnapping kids is unlawful imprisonment whether government or anyone else unlawfully hauls away a child. I suspect many of you are uneducated in the law therefore you substitute feelings, Fox News bites and TV lawyer programs for truth.

Doug S | 4:55 p.m. July 23, 2008

Correction to my previous post: the statistics are one in four for *girls*, and one in six for *boys*.

Realitycheck: Come now. Texas CPS knew darned well there would be no violence. A cursory Google search would have told them that the FLDS had never, ever, through over fifty years of government harassment, resisted violently. Not when Barlow went to jail; not at Short Creek; not when Jeffs was convicted. The goons in riot gear and the APCs were a photo-op designed to influence future jurors, just like the stories of incinerators and the deliberate misrepresentation of a first-aid manual as "cyanide documents".

CPS took the kids because a) its institutional culture breeds a guilty-til-proven-innocent attitude, b) it was an opportunity to justify a budget expansion, and c) it is staffed primarily by individuals who hold Joseph Smith and the religious movements he sparked in complete and utter contempt.

awesomeron | 4:55 p.m. July 23, 2008

So the Cowards are now on the Run their running and hiding like Ben Laden. They bring Sexual Terror on little girls and when brought to accountability run and hide. I hope that anyone that aids them in any way is also held accountable to the fullest extent of the Law. P.S. If you think these people are some how victims you need serious help. Even if the Texas Court made the Brave Hero Judge return the Children, that does not take away from the fact that enough evidence has been to indite these individuals. They has apparently broken Serious Laws and although some have only one count, one good count is enough. More if there are more, can be added later. So in Jail, Very High Bail.

uncannygunman | 5:07 p.m. July 23, 2008

Seems like a little self-vindification to me!

Thomas | 5:11 p.m. July 23, 2008

Most of these accusations appear to involve 16-year-olds not 6 year olds. There was little risk to the substantial majority of the children. If there was need to take action, there are less drastic things measures that could have been taken. The CPS could have required adult males to leave pending the outcome of the investigation or they could have placed monitors at the Ranch and not have thrown those poor children into that concetration camp at Fort Concho.
A few more things to consider. A 16 year old can get married with her parents consent if she is a first wife. But if she is the second, etc. the state says she is a victim. Furthermore, until 2005 after the FLDS moved to West Texas, the state of Texas had no problems with 14 year olds getting married.
Furthermore, if any juvenile shoots somebody they become adults. In this country, there are 3000 people doing life without parole for crimes committed when they were juveniles. If you are old enough to do adult time, why are you not old enough to get married?

realitycheck | 5:12 p.m. July 23, 2008

to Txmom 4:24pm

well, that just goes to show what happens when a culture (that's longhand for "cult") allows families to be kicked out and re-assigned. I understand taking your husband's name so you have that and a maiden name - but if your own dad is kicked out and you're "reassigned" then don't take the new guys name. He's just some guy that did a favor for the "prophet" and got paid in people instead of currency....

transplant | 5:20 p.m. July 23, 2008

Re:Doug S; good point "girls sue" however there are no deep pockets here. The Trust if not broke now soon will be after these court cases. I doubt that this group will exist when these girls are adults.

Doug S | 5:21 p.m. July 23, 2008

To: "To Doug S"

I don't justify what has happened. But I maintain that if a documented 25% abuse rate would not constitute "vindication" for infringing on *all* parent-child relationships within a community, than surely a documented 1% abuse rate does not provide such vindication.

I'm not sure where you get this idea that the focus of the investigation was the *reporting* of the abuse, rather than the abuse itself. I doubt the county district attorney would agree with you.

"Open and systematic abuse"? I don't discount the possibility (we'll see as the investigation and court proceedings move forward), but at now we have painfully little evidence for that except for a universally-acknowledged prank phone call and a handful of bitter women who are currently making scads and scads of money through the book and movie deals that recent events have enabled them to negotiate.

realitycheck | 5:24 p.m. July 23, 2008

i just wondered... if Texas charges the mothers that were aware of the abuse with failure to report it, and they were to get say 30 days in jail - would the state give them the same dresses they wear today, or would they have to wear jumpsuits (which are just as modest)? And would they be able to get their hair to stay up even without all the hairspray? (I don't think they allow hairspray in jail).

Just curious.....

realitycheck | 5:47 p.m. July 23, 2008

the FLDS are getting all the "due process" they can handle, willy steel.

and what happened with the kids is no different than someone being arrested and then released for lack of evidence. Since when is that "kidnapping"?

Doug S | 6:33 p.m. July 23, 2008

Realitycheck:

Umm, how about when the "affidavit of probable cause" underlying the warrant was fraudulent, and the person making those statements knew or had reason to know the statements were false?

G | 6:35 p.m. July 23, 2008

"and what happened with the kids is no different than someone being arrested and then released for lack of evidence. Since when is that "kidnapping"?"

So "what happened with the kids is no different from someone being arrested".

I agree completely. The kids were arrested.

Thanks realitycheck.

R | 6:39 p.m. July 23, 2008

That's the thing, Thomas: she was legally allowed to get married. A couple legal forms filled out, and it would magically have been considered non-abusive.

arvie | 6:49 p.m. July 23, 2008

all these women think THEY have to obey the husband. HE can not do wrong. A lot of the comments in here are from people that do not know anything what is going on in the FLDS. If you were in it or close to it you know that every women does WHATEVER the husband says. They live in a world that we can not believe that exists. The women are NOT allowed there own opinion. They are just sexslaves, property to there husbands

willy steel | 7:01 p.m. July 23, 2008

realitycheck:
So, let me see if I understand you right. They arrested the children en mass, no due process here, with a questionably legal warrant,turning them over to strangers to be held for future processing when the government could extract confessions, blackmail the mothers and steal DNA for evidence and that is "due process"? realitycheck stop sniffing flds hairspray! Purposeful, unlawful detainment is kidnapping and its disingenuous to give the courts a pass on this one.

zxcvbnm | 7:10 p.m. July 23, 2008

Arrest by definition is "the restriction of movement"
The women and children had their movement restricted.
Blacks law dictionary pretty much confirms the fact that they were arrested.

Walk away from a cop that wants to talk with you and you are resisting arrest......and yes....even if you were not breaking any laws the act of walking away from the cop is resisting the restriction of movement.
You don't have to say a word to the cop but you can not walk away from him until the officer says you may leave.

Rita | 7:26 p.m. July 23, 2008

They could have just told the kids, you are moving to another place. You will have a new dad and family, and your name will be changed to ----/
Just like they relocated the kids in the middle of the night at the compound.
Oh by the way rita, you will be getting married at 8 oclock this evening as soon as you get the dishes done, get your wedding dress on.

Yeah Texas | 9:41 p.m. July 23, 2008

So only five men were arrested for sexual assault, between them how many underage girls do suppose they raped because they were spiritual wives? It could be several hundred. That sounds like vindication to me.

So are all foster children under arrest? Am I under arrest when I have to wait in the line at the dmv?? Am I under arrest if costco blocks off off part of the store have I been arrested, seems like they are restricting my movement. Is it stealing if I have to pay for a ticket that I received for speeding?? I did not ask for the ticket, and I dont want them to take my money.

The above paragraph sounds about as stupid as all you fdls lovers claim that cps did.

Child PROTECIVE Services. Get a clue

from GA | 10:54 p.m. July 23, 2008

Both sides appear to have abused children. FLDS in the name of religion. CPS in the name of the law. Please join me in praying that the true abuses will be brought to light and appropriately prosecuted.

Invoking the Ghost of Waco | 1:26 a.m. July 24, 2008

In an earlier post, someone referred to the Waco incident. I think it was in pretty poor judgment to do so, since it was pretty well established, that it was the FBI that caused the conflagration, not the Branch Davidians. Of course, you could say that their hoarding firearms was what caused the debacle, but again, as in the FLDS case, I don't want to defend the crime, but I do want to criticize the way the suspects are treated.

Check it.

Grandpa Phil | 8:02 a.m. July 24, 2008

Anonymous at 3:28. Some of us do not rely on news accounts to form our opinion of CPS. Some of us have CONSIDERABLE experience dealing with CPS abuses. My wife and I spent 5 years as foster parents to over 200 teenage foster daughters and saw first-hand what CPS did to families and children and how vindictively they went after anyone who DARED to object to their gestapo practices. I don't agree with some of the tenets of the FLDS religion but I respect their right to practise their religion within the bounds of public law. In return, I expect public and constitutional law to be applied to them if and when they break any laws. People who use the term "cult" in their posts flaunt their personal agenda and bias (bigotry). If you want to be listened to, give us an objective argument. Personally, I object to a lot of things that realitycheck says but I respect his opinion because I respect his motives. We butt heads often but the respect is there. IF CPS feels "vindicated" by the indictment of 5 me, they have a SERIOUS learning disability. Let's see how many of the charges bring a conviction.

Sugar Momma | 10:07 a.m. July 24, 2008

I hope Merrill Jessop and Willie Jessop are included on that indictment list. I've been waiting for this kind of news. Finally, we're getting somewhere.

Frimble | 12:40 p.m. July 24, 2008

The mainstream media need to investigate Natalie Malonis (the ad litem for Teresa Jeffs). As recently as 2005, there was a hearing in a custody battle between Malonis and her ex-husband. CPS investigated Natalie Malonis. Natalie lost the right to have any overnight custody of her own children due to suspicion of drug abuse and serious mental illness. This is a matter of pulic record and is very relevant to this case.
Deseret News: Go look into Natalie Malonis' background. There is a reason she is the ONLY ad litem behaving as she is behaving that reason has nothing to do with concern for her client. Sadly, Natalie is a very, very disturbed woman who should not be practicing law, much less representing any child.

Grandpa Phil | 2:03 p.m. July 24, 2008

Sugar Momma, sorry to bust your sour bubble but Willie is not on the list. He had nothing to do with what Warren Jeffs did. The actions of Warren Jeffs is at the center of these indictments. It will be interesting to see what actual convictions come from it, especially considering the questionable availability of tainted evidence from the raid. If those indicted are guilty of a crime, I will be in the front of the crowd calling for their crucifiction, AFTER THEIR CONVICTION. If the Grand Jury was biased due to its venue and those they called to testify (why in the world would they call the Utah AG to testify?), there will, very likely, be few, if any, convictions. If these indictments fizzile out like the CPS allegations did after the raid, I will likely donate to the FLDS legal fund to help pay for the attorney's the FLDS will get to sue the State of Texas and CPS for everything they've got. CPS feeling "vindicated" is a little premature but that is nothing new for them. They had the FLDS guilty of gross abuse long before the Texas Supreme Court slapped their hand and returned the kids.

Who are they? | 9:08 a.m. July 25, 2008

"The names of the five others cannot be released until they are in custody."

And why not? Or is this just intimidation, the state saying that it might be anyone, hoping they'll all go into hiding? And in the meantime, they'll try to find some real evidence that they can actually use in court.

Grandpa Phil | 11:40 a.m. July 25, 2008

As soon as the names are announced, all five will be convicted in the news and courts of public opinion. Then, when charges start falling to the wayside like water off a duck, the "vindicated CPS" and the police will start back-peddling again and find a way to tapdance out of another debacle. If there is substance to the charges, I hope justice is done but there are just too many questionable variables here to predict anything. Considering the Texas track record so far, I'd say the odds are on the FLDS side.

What Do You Think | 11:33 p.m. July 27, 2008

What, Do You Think? If you had the opportunity, Would you see any different than what is in your mirror? Have you opened up your heart to God, and gave Him your all? He did say Love the Lord your God first. What is salvation then? Is it not keeping ALL of God's laws? and finally dwelling with Him? These people are doing that. Are you? Why do you want then to be their judge, and jury, before really reviewng the facts?
What do you? THINK first.

Accurate Portrayal | 11:41 p.m. July 27, 2008

However, since it's being published by the media ... what appears publicly is not necessarily an accurate portrayer of the facts. Alan can discuss whatever he wants in whatever way he wants, but that certainly doesn't make it accurate. This young lady is being controlled and manipulated and exploited and improperly influenced. My greatest desire is to get her out from under that," she said

An undersatement! Seems to be a lot of inaccuracy thrown around as facts lately.

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.