Disputed minors, a continuing story
The five-judge panel dispatched with about 40 status hearings for the FLDS children today, and in between all the blah-blah there were a few interesting developments. I am going to break these up into separate posts.
The state agreed today that two more disputed minors are actually adults. Merilyn Barlow is 18 -- which is exactly what she told CPS back in the good old Fort Concho days. She even provided a birth certificate to prove it.
Merilyn was listed on Angie Voss' 20-minors chart, too, the one used to support the ''pervasive pattern'' argument during court proceedings in April. The chart listed Merilyn with a DOB of 1/7/1990. So she was 18 the day Voss testified in court.
Merilyn gave birth to her son Robert on Dec. 30, 2006, a week before she turned 17.
The state listed her on the chart as being 15 at conception and 15 when she gave birth. Oops. I get 16 and 16 when I do the math.
She also is listed on a Bishop's Record document that the state provided as evidence in the hearing. Dated 3-25-2007, it shows her as 17.
Yep.
The other disputed minor now identified as an adult is Sarah Cathleen Jessop Nielsen, who is 18 -- information available to the state both in Voss' chart and a Bishop's Record.
On Voss' chart, there is this notation about Sarah: ''DOB 3/27/1990; Bishop's Record shows her 16 on 3/24/07.''
Point being, apparently, that she was 16 when she conceived her child, who was born in May 2007. The Bishop's Record shows it was the first child for Sarah and her husband, who is 20 or 21 now.
So, let's see: 26 minus 4 leaves 22.
There are now 22 ''girls'' in the disputed age category.
The state also ''unsuited'' the case involving the fictitious ''Sarah Jessop Barlow,'' the girl who supposedly made the call for help that triggered the April 3 raid on the YFZ Ranch. She's not real and now there is no case on the books involving her.
So perhaps the real count is 21, but it is hard to say since the state refuses to offer any clarity on the whole disputed minor issue. For instance, how about a year by year breakdown of the girls ages 14 to 17 who are pregnant, mothers or both?
Please?
The state agreed today that two more disputed minors are actually adults. Merilyn Barlow is 18 -- which is exactly what she told CPS back in the good old Fort Concho days. She even provided a birth certificate to prove it.
Merilyn was listed on Angie Voss' 20-minors chart, too, the one used to support the ''pervasive pattern'' argument during court proceedings in April. The chart listed Merilyn with a DOB of 1/7/1990. So she was 18 the day Voss testified in court.
Merilyn gave birth to her son Robert on Dec. 30, 2006, a week before she turned 17.
The state listed her on the chart as being 15 at conception and 15 when she gave birth. Oops. I get 16 and 16 when I do the math.
She also is listed on a Bishop's Record document that the state provided as evidence in the hearing. Dated 3-25-2007, it shows her as 17.
Yep.
The other disputed minor now identified as an adult is Sarah Cathleen Jessop Nielsen, who is 18 -- information available to the state both in Voss' chart and a Bishop's Record.
On Voss' chart, there is this notation about Sarah: ''DOB 3/27/1990; Bishop's Record shows her 16 on 3/24/07.''
Point being, apparently, that she was 16 when she conceived her child, who was born in May 2007. The Bishop's Record shows it was the first child for Sarah and her husband, who is 20 or 21 now.
So, let's see: 26 minus 4 leaves 22.
There are now 22 ''girls'' in the disputed age category.
The state also ''unsuited'' the case involving the fictitious ''Sarah Jessop Barlow,'' the girl who supposedly made the call for help that triggered the April 3 raid on the YFZ Ranch. She's not real and now there is no case on the books involving her.
So perhaps the real count is 21, but it is hard to say since the state refuses to offer any clarity on the whole disputed minor issue. For instance, how about a year by year breakdown of the girls ages 14 to 17 who are pregnant, mothers or both?
Please?
76 Comments:
In any event, the important thing that this article shows is that they were statutorily raped (i.e., Sexual Assault of a Child), just as CPS has been saying.
BTW, the statute of limitations is 10 years past the victims 18th birthday.
Were the 'husbands' in court? If not today, they will be soon...
Look Blues Man,the state's case i shaky and getting shakier by the day. Apparently,you score low on reading comprehension.
Yeah, OK...
Keep believing that...
TBM
The father is only listed for one of the two, but all looks legal there so far.
I know you wanna, but don't run and buy two ropes for a double hangin' just yet!
I think I'll save this comment! ;)
Merilyn
- Age 18 YO
- Conceived child at 16 YO
- Father / Husband unknown
- Age difference unknown
- Plural marriage unknown
Cathleen
- Age 18 YO
- Conceived child at 16 YO
- Husband age 20-21
- Age difference 2-3
- Plural marriage unlikely
Kpb, I think the chances are good that Merilyn's husband is a good candidate for charges- if they can find him. Going by the Bishop's list, he was in his late fifties and she is one of about 1/2 a dozen wives.
The difference between her case, that of Sarah Cathleen, Lori Jessop, Merilyn Jeffs, the Dockstaders, and Louisa Jessop just highlights why it would have been much more just and reasonable to treat each family on an individual basis.
Brooke, I have also wondered why the state won't break down it's 14-17 year old categories. What if there are no 14 year olds represented in the 'minor mothers' category? What if they are all 17?
It seems likely to me that they are all older, or the state would be willing to break it down.
Another question I have- in the reports I could find of today's hearings, the only case I can recall where the siblings weren't split up to the four winds was a child who had no full blood siblings. Does anyone know of any examples of the state actually keeping siblings together?
Blues, question- I though you or Grits told me I was wrong about the statute of limitations for this charge- that it had no statute of limitations? Did I remember wrong, or is that a newish law, and these crimes happened before?
the important thing that this article shows is that they were statutorily raped (i.e., Sexual Assault of a Child), just as CPS has been saying.
Why is that the important thing? Nobody has disputed the existence of some cases of abuse, some of us have even specifically mentioned both these cases as probable and possible examples of that when the Bishop's List came out.
What else has CPS been saying? That they were minors. That Louisa Jessop was a minor. That Merilyn Jeffs was a minor. That the reason for this confusion was because the women all lied (but they obviously didn't, since CPS had their correct information at the time of the first hearing). That Louisa Jessop's child was the minor child of a minor child even though they knew better. That if they went to a shelter they could keep their children. That they believed Sarah was real. That they were still investigating whether or not it was a hoax. That they found evidence of broken bones, etc, etc.
Careful zookeeper, blueboy's a native Texan and cannot process multiple thoughts simultaneously. Ask your questions again, slowly, distinctly but only one question at a time. We are dealing with a discriminating bigot here, characterized by the ability to process only single thoughts at a time -- all negative.
The more sense you make, the more irrational he becomes. Poor Gramps. Really had a deprived childhood.
Age of consent and marriageable age are state laws, as is the age difference required to prove statutory rape. It would seem that where a child was conceived, and whether or not the parents had given permission for marriage before sexual intercourse took place would be critical factors.
The following is a 'cut and paste' from the CPS web site. It is the EXACT and NARROW parameters under which there can be removal of a child from his/her home.
1.there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;
2.the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;
3.the person with possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance and the use constitutes an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child; or
4. the person with possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamines.
Now I'm having a hard time matching this very narrow set of circumstances with the removals....
Okay...let's give CPS 'reasonable belief' that any and all teenage girls are at 'immediate' risk.....
So how many is that?????
Where is the immediate risk for all of the other kids?????
Hell, by these standards, a parent can be an actively using heroin junkie, as long as their heroin use doesn't interfere with their ability to cae for their child, their drug use is not cause for removal of the child....it may be cause for services...but it isn't cause for removal....
So, I can sorta...and I meann SORTA...see cause to remove any young female who has reached puberty but is below the age of consent in Texas.....
But that leaves a whole lot of other children.....Who by the State's own admission appeared healthy, happy, well mannered...etc.....
There are no allegations of abuse of those children.....
Hell, I've been reading through all of the pages on the State's sites concerning children...and CPS...and it seems to me that Texas has gone to great lengths to convey that keeping a child in their home whenever possible is the best course....that removal is the last recourse...
Even right below the circumstances for immediate rremoval there is a section that says if your child is removed, you will be asked to provide the names of three people who can care for your child(ren) while you recieve services....so, in keeping with nationally prescribed practice standards, Texas looks to make familial placements, first, when a child has to be removed....
So, contrary to txbluesman's assertions, the great state of Texas, by it's own actions is guilty of the worst type of hypocracy.....
Again, using the standards set forth above, taken directly from the CPS site...which is taken, by the way, directly from the language of the law....A parent could be running a brothel in her home, but if it doesn't negatively impact on the child, it isn't cause for removal.....
I hope, at the very least, that as each hearing is conducted over the next few weeks, each and every atty. makes sure to get these issues into each child's record....
That irrespective of the rote nature of the service plans being presented, that each atty. asks, on the record, about very specific alternatives that could be in place...
And when questioning CPS workers who will testify, I hope each atty questions 'common practice'...and what service plans can look like...what they look like in other families.....
I hope they ask questions about beliefs about 'stay at home moms'....ask questions about how often a mother is expected by the service plan to get a job if the family's financial needs are being adequately met without the mother working outside the home?
Ask the CPS worker to specifically address the prevailing belief about family integrity...ask what they have been taught in their training...ask questions about cultural competency training specific to the culture of the FLDS...ask who has done the training and if, to their knowledge anyone who is currently a part of that community has been brought in as a consultant to develop the training...ask these questions of the admins if not the direct care workers...
Get on the record, in case after case, questions and responses to standards of practice.....
Get on the record what the admins understanding of 'best practice' is.....
Get on the record why best practice, or even good practice standards, have not been expected or applied to these families....
Ask about Family Group Decision Making...ask why it isn't being applied here....
Ask about 'strengths based planning' and why it isn't being applied here....
And the FLDS may want to consider making some counter offers for service plans....
Building individual homes on site at the ranch, rather than the large, communal living arrangments....
Changing the education program at the ranch...offering to enroll the children in the public schools...and offer to work with the public schol district to develop an anti-bullying component in all the schools as well as help in understanding the culture of the newly enrolled students...
Offer to develop, immediately, a sex education program for all adolescents at the ranch.....
Offer to develop, with CPS, a reporting and ongoing interviewing process for all of the children and other members of the community....
Offer to cooperate in the prosecution of any members found to have actually committed sexual abuse of children...develop a Community statement of practice and guiding principles regarding care of children....
Contract with an independant social service agency to conduct ongoing monitoring...contract with a mental health provider to addess any current needs for members of the community to deal with PTSD or other mental health issues....
Be proactive in setting up standards and expectations internally that will show that you are not in denial of the problems that have come to light and are taking proactive steps to address those problems in a responsible way....
Even if the lower courts reject these actions, it establishes a record for appeal.....
Getting EVERYTHING on record is so, so important!!!!!!!!!!
Your lawyers work for you.....but even the best of lawyers are often not savvy in how to present a case concerning child welfare....they know the law...but they don't know the system.....
You need a child welfare system savvy consultant to work with the lawyers in developing strategy and defining what and how to get specific elements into the record....
You simply don't understand the legal application of immediate endangerment.
The compound was treated as being one "home". When there is immediate danger to one child in a home, all can be removed. CPS was also making a case for all children being qualified as being sexually abused and in immediate endangerment. If they had not been physically violated, they were being trained to be victims or perpetrators.
Heroin use or running a brothel is absolutely a cause for removal because both are illegal. As people keep trying to explain to you, breaking the law is cause for removing children from a home.
It isn't that I don't agree with you, Head/Zoo that in a normal situation it would be better to divide the compound into individual units.
I simply don't know how CPS could have accomplished that without pursuing the current path. Even if, with the help of DNA, they manage to match a man with all wives and children, then you have the issue of multiple families living under one roof. And you have the further complication of the community acting in concert to obfuscate family lines.
womankine,
Once again, you are spewing forth inaccuracies....
CPS is not a law enforcment entity...
If they go into a home and witness criminal activity, they can, and probably should, report it to law enforcment, but only if, and unless, those activities are endangering a child, or children, is their occurance justification for removal.....
Criminal activity is not in an of itself reason for removal...READ the law...
Believe me when I tell you....there are all sorts of folks with active, open cases with CPS who daily engage in criminal activity, and CPS workers are well aware of that....often assisting in finding a family member to care for the children when the occasional arrest occurs....and they don't remove the child or children based solely on the criminal activity....it would be both cost prohibitive and bad for the kids....
CPS workers are trained to do strengths based planning...
If a kid is healthy, doing well in school, has friends and activities in their community, is well nourished....then CPS sees this as success...irregardless of whether the mother is a functional alcoholic or not....get it??????
Life ain't perfect.....
Wake up and smell the dumpsters.....
I ran a program on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, a long time ago, for kids at serious risk of dropping out of school...we did all sorts of school and city based stuff, but we also did camping in New Jersey...and in the summer we had family camping...in our daily programming we had specific break times where the parents and kids were apart...this was to allow time for the parents who were addicted to take care of their business away from the kids....
Which was better; forbidding drug use, thereby eliminating 50% of the parent participants, or making unspecified private time, thereby allowing all the kids and parents to have a really great time with each other, as families, in the country...creating some great memories and role modeling for their futures??????
In the same program, when the kids got in the vans to go to Jersey, they had to put their weapons in a box that was locked in a safe for the weekend...on Sunday evening when they left the vans they could reclaim their weapons...
Which would be better; calling the cops, having them arrested, alienating them from our program, and probably furthering their quick path into a life of violent crime, or...allowing them their weapons, in their lives away from us, gaining their trust, and having a chance to impact on them in a way that would allow them to choose to not carry weapons or engage in a criminal life?????
Life is full of lesser of evils choices....and all we can do is hope that, at the end of the day, we have made some positive difference in some lives....or call it quits, hang up our bleeding hearts and open antique stores in small, affluent towns, or some such other life choice....
kbp,
How is it legal? The only Merilyn shown on the Bishop's Record on that date is Merilyn Keate, whose 'spiritual' husband was in his 50s at the time of conception. Surprising me not at all, guess who wasn't at the hearing? He is facing a first degree felony - 5 to 99 or life...
As to Sarah Cathleen Nielson? The Bishop's Record shows a 3 year difference - if it is more than three years, he has no defense. If it is under 3 years, he can still be charged, but could bring up the difference at his trial. Remember that the 3 year clause is not an exception to prosecution, but an affirmative defense which requires the defendant to bring it up in court.
Headmistress, you are correct, there is no statute of limitations on Sexual Assault of a Child - I forgot that they had changed the law in 2005.
Regina,
If you look at the judges Order for Emergency Removal, you'll find that the grounds cited were 'immediate danger.' Since it is one household, if you find one (1) child that has been sexually abused, that provides the grounds to remove all of the other children in the household.
You also speak of the need to hire child welfare consultant - the mothers are certainly free to hire anyone they want - but the state is not going to pay for it, and neither CPS or the judge is likely to give the consultant much weight.
I was glad to see you call for the parents to cooperate with criminal investigations - but I have yet to see any such cooperation on the part of the mothers. I imagine that it will take charging several with Bigamy to get them to roll over on the abusers....
txbluesman...
There is controversy that will likely have to be decided on appeal concerning the justification for treating the netire community as one household. However, that was then, now is a different issue....there is ample room and resources to make physical changes to the community to allow for individual residences, either as seperate houses or as distinct apartments within some of the existing large structures....
Again, there is flexibbility if one chooses to be flexible....and it is within the constraints of the law...
As for hiring a consultant, I wouldn't want to see any public money pick up that tab....I believe it is something that the representatives of the FLDS adults should have available to them without any, even appearance of, compromise....and the courts wouldn't hear from the consultant...just like they don't hear from jury consultants...the attys would have the expertise of the consultant to assist in determining strategy and questioning for the establishment of the record in these cases that will undoubtably be heard on appeal....
Cooperation is a two way street....I haven't seen any attempts to seperate the wheat from the chaff, either....
And cooperation can have many faces....perhaps moving toward a community where this can never happen again, because the community agrees that it is wrong is an equally honorable path to start down....
Perhaps there need to be a number of approaches, in tandem....
Perhaps CPS needs to distinguish itself from law enforcment....seems that, perhaps, the lines have gotten a tad blurry in this instant case...
rericson that was very well said. You must be educated...
I think if the CPS can get off the 'lump em all together' runaway train and get back to treating them like individuals (as the law REQUIRES) then the tyrrany will end.
I am not sure if there was abuse at YFZ or not, but I am sure there was abuse by the CPS.
If there is abuse, the current path the CPS is on will only make things worse for the children.
If there is NOT abuse, the current path the CPS is on will only make things worse for the children.
If you want to work with parents to the betterment of the children then remember the key words of the sentence is "WORK WITH PARENTS", not against them.
The compound was treated as being one "home". When there is immediate danger to one child in a home, all can be removed.
But it is not one home, and the only reason it was treated that way was to form the excuse for removing all children from the home. CPS started with the result it wanted and worked backward to come up with the pretense for taking all children.
The fathers are the heads of their individual households, as the Bishop's List and their religious beliefs and practices attest. Households had separate entrances with separate doors, and some residences were single family.
Some, like the larger houses appear to be more like a duplex of fourplex. Didn't each family have its own kitchen and sleeping arrangements?
I also doubt that breaking the law is legal cause for CPS to sweep in and remove all children from the home, but even if it were, monogamous couples lost their children in this action, not just practicing polygamists. And if law breaking is legal cause for removing children, then why aren't the children of illegal aliens all be removed from their homes and placed in foster care? Tax evaders? The upper class folks who don't pay the social security taxes for their live-in nannies?
Regina,
In a case, like this one, where sexual abuse is alleged, CPS is required by law to conduct a joint investigation with law enforcement.
Again, I have yet to see the FLDS make any commitments to change illegal practices or to cooperate with law enforcement.
Where are the fathers?
Why did the judge have to admonish an FLDS mother that her religious beliefs do not entitle her to violate the law?
This will play out, there will be arrests, and the FLDS parents can either comply with the law or have their rights terminated by a jury of Texans...
"If they go into a home and witness criminal activity, they can, and probably should, report it to law enforcment, but only if, and unless, those activities are endangering a child, or children, is their occurance justification for removal.....
Criminal activity is not in an of itself reason for removal...READ the law..."
You're wrong, although it will depend upon the specific state and its laws as to specifics. States can require CPS to report any and all illegal activity, except for, perhaps, certain misdemeanors, and many place workers under penalty of disciplinary action, if they do not.
Child abuse or neglect can occur by virtue of parents merely committing illegal acts, without the child being included in the acts or endangered. So the bank robber, the prostitute, and the heroin addict are all subject to having their children removed. Again, the specifics of these laws can vary among states.
Cut and pasted from CPS site;
CHILD WELFARE OUTCOMES
A hallmark of the CFSR is the focus on outcomes rather than services and processes. Services and processes are important; however, we want to learn what happens as a result of these services, i.e., the outcomes! We will be focusing on the following outcomes:
Safety Outcomes
Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect.
Children are safely maintained in their own homes whenever possible and appropriate.
Permanency Outcomes
Children have permanency and stability in their living situations.
The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.
Well-being Outcomes
Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children's needs.
Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs.
Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.
Found another interesting little tid bit...
Normally when children are placed in out-of-home placements through child welfare, a big portion of the money to pay for that placement comes from Federal Title IV E dollars...
So I went to the Administration for Children and Families web site and looked up requisites for Title IV E money...
one of the primary requirements is that children be treated on a 'case by case' basis....so looks like the great state of Texas gets to foot this bill all by it's lonesome...
here is a cut and paste from ACF's web page;
. Question: Please explain the rationale for the policy of requiring judicial determinations to be explicit, made on a case-by-case basis, and so stated in the court order and provide guidance on how to satisfy this requirement.
Answer: The basis for this policy can be found in the legislative history of the Federal foster care program. The Senate report on the bill that became Public Law 96-272 characterized the required judicial determinations as "... important safeguard[s] against inappropriate agency action..." and made clear that such requirements were not to become "... a mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal funding..." (S. Rept. No. 336, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1980)). We concluded, based on our review of States' documentation of judicial determinations over the past years, that, in many instances, these important safeguards had become precisely what Congress was concerned that they not become.
States have a great deal of flexibility in satisfying this requirement. For example, the court order may reference the facts of a court report, related psychiatric or psycho-social report, or sustained petition as a mechanism for demonstrating that judicial determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. If the State can demonstrate that such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis through a checklist then that is acceptable also.
Source/Date: Preamble to the Final Rule (65 FR 4020) (1/25/00)
Legal and Related References: 45 CFR 1356.21 (d); S. Rept. No. 336, 96th Congress, 2nd Session 16 (1980)
TBM,
I am lost how you come up with the charges you're working so hard to put together.
Merilyn Barrow
Do we know that Merilyn Barrow is actually Merilyn Keate?
Page 5 of the Bishop's Records shows a Merilyn Keate, age 17, as of 3/25/07.
Merilyn's DOB is 01/07/90, so the date/age fits.
Was Sexual Assault of a Child w/Merilyn committed in Texas?
The earliest record we have of her being at YFZ (if she is Keate) shows she was above the age of consent on that date. Absent a Bigamy charge, it looks to possibly be an adulterous affair that is acceptable in Texas, actually promoted the way the Consent and Marriage laws are written (LOL twice).
Sarah Cathleen Nielson
Page 5 shows:
Sarah Cathleen Nielson (DOB 3/27/1990) 16 YO as of 03/24/07;
Luke Jeffs Nielsen 19 YO as of 03/24/07; and
They are a monogamous couple.
So at the minimum, they are husband and wife by a common law marriage.
I have no doubt she would have had parental consent.
What you posted shows you're looking to add boatloads of suppositions to create cases in which defendants will be required to prove their innocence in. You started out hangin' two, then next one with another on a maybe and now it looks to me as if you're stuck with two empty hangin' ropes as I read the records and you try to string 'em up until you're proved wrong.
And if you take the time to check the Bishop's Records, can you explain to me how the units of housing described as "Duplex", "Apartment" and various other SEPARATE households will be ignored IF the records are even allowed in?
If the record is accepted, the YFZ Ranch is NOT a single household, unless Texas can prove that "community beliefs", after disallowing individual variances reported, establishes a SINGLE HOUSEHOLD.
Trthfully, with you being an attorney, it surprises me that you do not question the SINGLE HOUSEHOLD, but instead use it often to justify your position on the child custody topic.
Instead of saying 'you're wrong,' can somebody please cite a Texas statute that specifically includes something like 'parents have broken a law,' as cause for CPS to remove children and place them in foster care?
Why did the judge have to admonish an FLDS mother that her religious beliefs do not entitle her to violate the law?
Because the judge was completely oblivious to the implications of her signing off on such a vague agreement which leaves her at the mercy, not of the law, but of the whims of CPS and whatever psychiatrist CPS chooses.
I would have said exactly the same thing in similar circumstances- and it would not be because I was planning on breaking the law, but because I could not make an open-ended promise to do whatever some flake from CPS gets a bee in her bonnet about making me do CPS has tried to bring up homeschooling as an issue already, and that is patently NOT illegal in Texas.
It is not illegal to be a stay at home mom to my kids, but CPS clearly is planning on insisting that all these mothers have to be in the work-force. I doubt she's worried about her religious beliefs breaking the law as much as she is worried about CPS requiring her conformity to a homogenized, white bread, urban culture.
My husband is a law enforcement veteran of 20 years. At least in our state illegal activity of the parents does not qualify the children for immediate removal from the home. That happens to be one thing that really gets to my hubby is having his hands tied and having to walk away and leave small children in the home with a crack-head parent and not a damn thing he can do about it.
headmistress,
I agree with you....removing children because of suspected illegal activity of the parent(s) is apparently 'common practice' and not specifically part of Texas Statute or regulation......I have gone through everything I can find and can find nothing, what so ever, saying it is prima facia grounds for removal...
I also asked a friend of mine who is an atty in Austin and even though she is a tax and bankruptcy specialist, she is unaware of anything beyond common practice...and, she further says it varies from county to county...so it is not even statewide common practice, it is more 'local discretion'....
also, bluesman...by the by....from my friend I am hearing that your 'law and order' position that you postulate as being that of the 'majorityof Texans' is completely inaccurate...word is, most attys are appalled by this entire debacle and embarrassed for their state....which is one reason why there is no shortage of counsel for the children, or their parents.....and, unlike many child welfare cases, most of the representing attys do not see a conflict of interest in representing both children and adolescents and representing parents...
rericson: Although long winded at times, I have enjoyed the better part of your thoughts expressed in your blog commentaries. But might I offer a word of advice: Don't stoop to the level of the Texan-bigot-man. He is a prejudiced, bigoted, narcissistic individual, and the more rational evidence you provide to prove your point, the more illogical and irrational his rants become. You cannot change the heart or mind of a bigot. It is in their mindset to persecute and hate a minority or other group of people, and it controls and guides their thoughts and actions. Save your breath. You cannot change his thinking. Don't try, and don't DEMEAN yourself be dropping to his level. A wise man once said, "Convince a man against his will and he is of the same opinion still."
Be an advocate for fairness, constitutional freedoms, justice, equality and civility, but don't be perturbed by small egotistical viewpoints. (or at least don't let on that he "got your goat.")
"Be tough old paddle. Be strong canoe."
anon...
point well taken!
Thing is, when the bluesman waxes ridiculous, it gives me an opportunity to get ideas out there. I keep thinking that even if I'm not a terribly good writer, I know I'm a really good advocate, and lots and lots of folks meander through this blog....many never posting, just reading...so I figure if I can plant ideas...maybe one or two of them may be helpful to the children, their parents, or their counsel.....
I know I won't change the bluesman....but he certainly isn't the only person in this parade who harbors like opinions....or some of them...so maybe...just maybe....
Sorry I'm so long winded....
on a less wordy note....I've often written about using "Family Group Decision Making"....well, in my journey through more of the CPS web site, I cam on a set of policy papers that are as recent as January '08. This page specifically says that CPS "prefers to use the FGDM process in permanancy planning for children in substitute care"..
here is the address....
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/cps/files/cps_pg_6437_3.asp
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
once more...http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/cps/files/cps_pg_6437_3.asp I don't know if it is going to cut this off again....all I can do is try...it's worth reading....
If it cuts it off again, I'll post a blog on my own page with the link in it....
Sorry....but understanding what Family Group Decision Making is, the fact that Texas CPS not only uses it, but promotes it as 'best practice' is a really important thing...it needs to be asked about in every hearing...and requested that the judges order it....
The basis for removing a child, in a situation where parents are involved in illegal acts, may well be common practice. However, common practice is always based on law. And before I continue, let me re-iterate what I made clear from my previous post, which is that parents can be subject to(meaning may be but are not always in every situation or place); that it may not intiate "immediate" endangerment and removal; and that the laws vary from state to state and, yes, the common practice may vary within states.
I think that what is confusing to you is that, just as in the case of Sec 262 and the removal of the FLDS children, you want the law to spell it out more literally than it does, or, in this case, read, "an illegal act is a grounds to remove a child". I don't know that you will find such a clear line in code, but this basis for removing children can often be justified by the state code definitions of abuse or neglect.
It is based on the assumption that mental or emotional abuse to a child can occur because the potential exists for a child to be assimilated into a criminal lifestyle or mindset, whether the child has committed or been involved in a crime. So a child growing up with the potential to believe that robbing banks is acceptable, or the norm, can be removed so as not to be mentally or emotionally impaired in their development or psychological functioning. AGAIN. It doesn't mean all CPS in all states will remove the child or use this specific law to justify it, or that the abuse definition will use the exact terms and wording.
I don't know if TX will invoke the use of family code in regard to the illegal act of polygamy. I believe they have the legal basis, but haven't been able to find the how or if it fits into removal. There does seem to be an allusion to it in today's article by Brooke. It is something that may come more clearly onto the radar after psychological testing, which is normally necessary, in order to determine psychological harm or mental or emotional impairment or sexual abuse.
In some states, children can be removed from parents involved in illegal acts under the code definition of neglect. In still others, there will something more specific, in or after definitions in the code.
Regina,
Title IV E dollars will help pay for this – the 60 day hearings meet the requirement of looking at it case-by-case, CPS is presenting a recommendation of the steps required to reunite the family, the court orders an appropriate plan, etc.
As to the majority of Texans comment – first, attorneys are not all Texans, and second, it is an inherent conflict of interest to represent both the parent(s) and to act as a guardian ad litem for the child. The GAL is supposed to look out for the best interest of the child, which may differ from the interest of the parent, which is why a GAL is always appointed. Of course, the attorneys wanting to represent both are those representing the parent… Think of what your response would be if it were suggested that there was no conflict of interest in the CPS attorney and the GAL being the same lawyer – after all, both are looking out for the welfare of the child…
Kbp,
Merilyn Barrow Keate – how do you get “absent a Bigamy charge” out of that? She and Keate show to be in Texas for over a year, are listed on the record as husband and wife (along with the other 5 wives). That’s pretty clear cut and dried. She was 17 at the time, so although she was a minor as far as marriage goes, she was an adult as far as criminal responsibility goes. In Texas, one becomes criminally responsible for their actions at age 17. This means Merilyn can be charged with Bigamy, as they were in Texas at the time and represented themselves as husband and wife and Keate was already married.
Sarah Cathleen Nielson – could not enter into a legal common law marriage until 3/27/2008, so there is not a spousal defense based on a common law marriage. Unless there is a marriage license or a court order from another state, they were not legally married (as there is no record in Texas of a parental consent affidavit filed with the county clerk), and Nielsen could be charged. She may have had verbal parental consent, but unfortunately that means absolutely nothing in Texas.
Headmistress,
As I mentioned before, look at the Family Code §262.102, which states that the court may order the removal of a child or children if there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child or children have been victims of neglect or sexual abuse. It further states that a court may consider whether the household includes a person who has sexually abused another child.
This, not the sections that y’all keep quoting listing the four reasons, is the legal basis for the removal of the children.
As to concerns you mention about the admonition by the judge? He was completely within his rights to so warn the mother of the relevant law. The mother has the right to believe whatever she wants, but it is clear, black letter law that actions in furtherance of those beliefs may be punished if they are illegal.
Rericson- to post extra long links you can do two things.
Go to shorterlink.com, and follow the directions (just paste your link in the right blank, click enter, and they'll give a nice, tidy, short link to the same site).
the other way is to learn the html code for it, which I do know, but I apparently cannot figure out how to type it out without confusing the blogsite.
txbluesman...
fact is, there are several attys acting as GAL for one or more children and are also representing parent(s) of other children....
Conflict is only present if one atty acted in capacity of GAL for a child and also tried to function as counsel to that particular child's parent...
My point was that even the existing cross-over might, under other circumstances present a dilemma for someone concerned with, if not ethics, at least with being able to strongly advocate both sides of a coin...but here there doesn't seem to be the flip side...at least not from many folks perspective....
and I'm sure you can trace your lineage back to the early frontier days of your great state, howere', that doesn't give you a monopoly on calling yourself a Texan.....
And it sure as hell doesn't entitle you to speak for the rest of your fellow Texans....
headmistress...thank you so much...
Here's the shorter link 'they' gave me....
http://shorterlink.com/?4LCG2P
Regina said:
doesn't give you a monopoly on calling yourself a Texan.....
And it sure as hell doesn't entitle you to speak for the rest of your fellow Texans...
Maybe not, but it is sure as h**l more of a right to speak as a Texan than you have.
My point on the lineage was to point out that your lineage means absolutely nothing to this argument.
I would like to ask you a question - outside these boards, how many Texans have you spoken to about this? 5? 10? 25?
I can guarantee you that I have spoken with well over 100, and the overwhelming response has been to protect the children and send the criminals to prison.
This, not the sections that y’all keep quoting listing the four reasons, is the legal basis for the removal of the children.
And there were many households where no such abuse had occurred. The only way Texas justifies this is by the preposterous redefinition of community.
As to concerns you mention about the admonition by the judge? He was completely within his rights to so warn the mother of the relevant law. The mother has the right to believe whatever she wants, but it is clear, black letter law that actions in furtherance of those beliefs may be punished if they are illegal.
Did you miss the part where I was responding to your question? You demanded to know why the judge had to remind that mother that she had to obey the law, as though that was the only way to interpret her willingness to abide by the CPS service plan so long as it did not conflict with her beliefs. You are simply dead wrong in your assumption that the only reason she said what she said because she planned on breaking the law.
There are many, many ways that CPS could impose requirements and restrictions on those mothers that be against their religion without their religion requiring them to break the law.
Most of the parents' attorneys have been pointing that out.
I am a Texan, and in Austin, we all say let those kids go home. Do not speak for all Texans.
Hey Tex!
You vultures of a feather truly do flock together. You're living proof of that, because this legal representative has spoken to over 1000 who all believe that a great unconstitutional travesty has been committed by the grand ol' gal Texas.
Now if you can condescend to dig yerself outta that pigeonhole of yers, and talk with real folks that ain't made outta the same hang-em first fabric that yer made of, you jest might get a more accurate taste of how MOST Americans feel about this charade, and how many will treat you with the disdain of the charlatanism you really exhibit thar pardner!
Regina said:
there were many households where no such abuse had occurred.
Except that it's only one household, as you pointed out...
You are simply dead wrong in your assumption that the only reason she said what she said because she planned on breaking the law.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were in the court and could see her demeanor, hear the tone of her voice, etc, as the judge did. I'm sure that he just went off on her and admonished her for no reason, that their was no defiance in her voice, no appearance of resistance...
Of course, I could look at it logically, like the appellate courts will, and determine that the judge could see all of those things and determine that it was appropriate to admonish her. Since there wasn't an objection by her lawyer, it would seem that there could be a basis for the judges remarks.
Txmom,
Although I never claimed to speak for all Texans, I noticed you decided to speak for all Austinites... It's funny, but the 5 or 6 guys I spoke to in Austin were all for protecting the children from the abusers...
But I guess that they don't count, since they don't agree with you...
Anon,
You're close to illiterate, and clearly an idiot, so I won't waste my breath on you...
rericson:
You posted a list of things the FLDS women could offer to do help get their children back:
1. Building individual homes on site at the ranch, rather than the large, communal living arrangements.
2. Changing the education program at the ranch.
3. Enrolling the children in the public schools.
4. Developing a sex education program for all adolescents at the ranch.(This suggestion deserves another post in response)
5. Reporting to the CPS and allowing them to conduct ongoing interviews of everyone.
6. Developing a community statement of principle and practice for the care of children.
7. Inviting ongoing psychological monitoring of the members.
8. Admitting the “problems that have come to light” (“problems” as defined by the CPS).
9. Offering to cooperate in the prosecution of anyone who has abused a child. , (This of course means “abuse” as the CPS defines it. It also implies that members would protect someone they knew to be a child abuser.)
I nearly choked when I read that list, rericson, for I can see now that you are blind to the real motives behind the raid on the YFZ ranch.
The persecution of the FLDS is a large scale drama that illustrates the lesson of authoritarian control for all those who are disenchanted with mainstream society and who think they can opt out. The message is for the thousands of Americans who deplore the unwholesome atmosphere in which they must raise their children.
The real targets of the Texas raid are Americans who would be homeschoolers; parents who reject television movies and video games; those who are disgusted with sexual libertinism, fashion, pop music, and vulgar language; sceptics who would question medical authority by opposing vaccines, psychotropic drugs, and medicalized childbirth; the devout who would build their lives on religious belief and submit to religious authority; midwives and the women who chose homebirth and breastfeeding; and the health-conscious Americans who reject processed foods and work to restore a traditional approach to food; and perhaps most heretical of all: those who believe that bearing and raising children is a woman's most important role in life.
If the FLDS took your suggestions listed above, rericson, it would amount total capitulation to an illegitimate, authoritarian control.
The message in this Texas drama for ALL of us is that we must submit to the will of the state and to the omnipotence and omnipresence of the culture of Mammon. You cannot opt out, or your children will be taken and your lives destroyed.
There are some really nice aerial photos taken of the ranch at this site:
http://web.sccn2.net/flds/04-29-08.htm
There are no less than 12 separate residential buildings. Some of these are reported to be duplexes or apartments. Each has a large yard area around and separate driveways, etc.
I can't figure how on earth CPS could claim this is one 'common' household. You'd have to be completely mental to look at the photos and say it's one household.
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/
Go to 1121
TBM
I said:
"Absent a Bigamy charge, it looks to possibly be an adulterous affair that is acceptable in Texas, actually promoted the way the Consent and Marriage laws are written (LOL twice)."
Absent = an exception, without, none present...
The Bishop's Records do not tell us she is who you and the CPS wish to assume she is.
Those records do NOT show a Merilyn "BARROW" Keate.
That looks desperate for you to post such FALSE information. Especially after I so kindly point out all the pages relevant to assist you in looking at the records.
On the "informal marriage" of Sarah Cathleen Nielson, you are correct on the problem there, as she was under 18 YO.
We still need to note the earliest record of her being at the ranch is 3/24/07, pregnant then with a child born within 2 months. Doesn't look like evidence the child was conceived in Texas.
You still look to be ZERO for two today, and the CPS is ZERO for 9 or 10 of the "disputed" victims over the past two days.
Save your ropes for another day. They are still looking for a crime.
..unless your hangin' 18 YO girls without evidence.
Appreciate you pointing out the "informal marriage" age limits. Now, how about that Bishop's records on the Single Household topic and the Custody Order date that was inquestion on the TRLA filing at the appeals court?
You keep avoiding those topics and I am uncertain why.
OH YEAH!
THANK YOU BROOKE!
TBM
I forgot to mention that you do not know if Sarah Cathleen Nielson is greater than 3 years younger than the father of her child.
The record showed him as 19 when she was 16.
texas blues man... the article shows these women were married or at least were pregnant when underage...I am sure you can prove the jurisdiction where it occured too...making all your speculation interesting but probably moot..
Angus....
Again, this method of communicating has serious limitations...particularly not being able to go back and forth immediately....and not being able to "read" the face of the person one is speaking with....not being able to 'see' that what I am saying is being heard diffeerently than I intended....
The "list" i rattled off is nothing more than that...a list.....
ideas to develop...some may, ultimately, make sense, others may be chucked....
The bottom line is that one thing that could potentially move things along is to step back, look at things a bit more objectively...and see what changes could be made that would move things toward a 'place' where the FLDS maintains its dignity and right to practice their rreligion, and CPS gets off their backs...or the courts are satisfied and orders them off....
I think as you read my suggestions...and that's all they are....you read one thing, and perhaps I meant another...
Like sex education...you got all sorts of up in arms over that one..or so it seemed...
to me, sex education can take many roads...one could picture it as a whole, mixed group of teens in one room getting a lesson on the birds and the bees...or it could be an adult who knows how to teach young people sitting with two or three young ladies or young men and having a discussion, maybe several discussions, to assure that they are understanding both the biology of their bodies as well as the emotional changes that puberty brings...
Or it could look entirely different from either of those scenerios...point is, it has been said that adequate sex education doesn't exist...often until right before marriage....so if CPS and the courts see this as one little bit of the pie that is problematic, be proactive in changing it so it is no longer an issue...
Simply write up how it willl be addressed...that creates a formal process as opposed to something that appears to be happenstance...
Same thing with the psychological needs...over andover we see mothers, fathers, children being traumatized....acknowledge that this is a problem that is going to have to be dealth with....and be in control of who you engage with, rather than be told who you will engage with.....talk to folks who have court acceptable credentials....create a contract with them to work with the community to address any of the psychological/psychiatric needs that may arise as a result of this mess....
That way, when the court puts it forth as something they want to see, you already have it in place....make sure you go to an organization that has available comprehensive services from a psychiatrist on board, to a psychologist, to at least master level clinicians....
the relationship with a provider agency is very different if you go and create the working relationship rather than CPS or the courts ordering it....
If public school truly isn't an option, take a look at approved home school curriculums and adapt yours to meet those standards...
All I'm saying is, be proactive in anticipating what the demands will be, figure out how those demands can be met while preserving your integrity to your faith....
Reality is they've got your children....
Your lawyers can fight them forever until there is some sort of resolution...but as individuals, you want your kids back NOW...so pick your battles...
Let the lawyers do the fighting...you do what you can to get the children back....
And, yes, if it turns out that there is anyone who is actually assaulting children sexually...and I mean things like a father sneaking into a daughter's bed at night to diddle....or a person in authority using that authority to force a clandestine tryst or two...if someone like that exists...that hurts people...and you as a group should do whatever it takes, including cooperating with law enforcment, to make sure that behavior is stopped...
I never said let "them" define the parameters of offenders/offenses...I said when sexual abuse occurs cooperate in its prosecution....
Anyway, the list was a starting point for discussion...because you're right, I am not a part of your community....You folks need to define your own list...
the important thing is to be proactive in anticipating what will be required and taking the reins to maintain control of the changes....
Hope this makes my thinking a little clearer....I'm sorry I'm not terribly good in this millieu...
and I'm really sorry I can't spell or type very well...*smile*
rericson:
"If public school truly isn't an option, take a look at approved home school curriculums and adapt yours to meet those standards..."
There are no approved homeschool curricula in TX. There are a few *subjects* required to be taught, but curricula is not required.
Angus......
One other thing...and I think this is important...
where I said "admitting problems that have come to light"...
You read it as my recommending that you, not you personally, but 'you', the group, admit to the claims of CPS...what I meant was very different....
You can set a very different tone, especially in how the outside community hears you, by doing things like issuing a statement, or having a spokesperson say....
something to the effect...and this is just an IDEA....a starting point to discuss....*smile*...
"Because of the horrible things that have happened over the last few weeks, we have come to realize that perhaps, had we done things differently, some of this could have been avoided. We have a long history of persecution in this country. Most of it based in 19th century fears. Consequently, we have become very leery of outsiders. We have kept to ourselves, minded our own business, and not interacted with others, out of fear.
If there is a silver lining to be found in this atrocity that is happening to our families, it is learning that many of you, our neighbors, are warm, wonderful, non-judgmental folks. It is our loss that we didn't reach out to you sooner. We have found that there are people all over this country who are willing to stand by our side....
No matter what ultimately happens, we want each of you who has helped us to know how truly grateful we are. We want each of you to know how sorry we are that we mis-judged you."
That kind of thing goes a long, long way in creating allies. In strengthening the resolve of those who are standing up in your defense....in shifting public perceptions....
It's just one little piece in a set of pieces you can put together.....
Just food for thought....
melanie...
thank-you....
I'm learning...*smile*
ramblings of a plural man and wwjd?, The DFPS Handbook is the guide for agency policies and procedures. 1121 will be used going forward in implementing the service plan, however, it is not the reason that the agency initially defined the entire compound as the "home".
That judgment was based on Texas Family Code 262, under the section regarding emergency removal of a child. The applied definition of "home" is being challenged and I'm sure that there will have to be a definitive court ruling on it.
I disagree with you, Angus, regarding the broad hidden agenda of Texas, in raiding Zion. I simply don't believe that they want to target homeschooling or alternative medicine. I read an early article claiming that authorities had been ordered to keep "hands off" of the homeschooling issue. Please note that there is a homeschooling association legal rep attending the court sessions.
Regina has listed a good list for the parents to adopt. Nice to see that you are now embracing the notion of cooperation by parents, Regina.
I will be surprised if TX demands public schooling and don't know that the parents need to offer it. I do believe TX might demand a more demanding curriculum and high school completion.
The number one thing that TX is concerned about, that is not on this list, is that the FLDS cease teaching their children that early marriage is an acceptable practice. In other words, CPS will have to be assured that sexual abuse victims and perpetrators are not being created.
They may also make demands regarding teaching children to live in polygamy. We'll have to wait and see what develops, in that arena. And it will be interesting to see how they handle the teaching of racism.
womankine
once again you're twisting my words and their intent.
What I am promoting is picking one's battles...finding middle ground whenever possible.....and doing whatever it takes to get the children out of the physical hands of CPS.....
The rest can be fought in the courts forever and a day....
But the children need to be with their own families....
It's not any different cooperation than what I have been advocating and you have been criticizing, Regina. Pick their battles. Cooperate with the goal of keeping or getting their children.
One battle to pick was not with CPS when they initially entered the compound and attempted to establish ages and family relationships and the truth of the living situation. Cooperation, from the outset, would have helped their ultimate goal to stay/get their children.
"One battle to pick was not with CPS when they initially entered the compound and attempted to establish ages and family relationships and the truth of the living situation...."
That's not a battle, they were detained at the ranch, could not leave, in custody, did not have to provide all you'd like for them to have, but...
Should they have offered birth certificates in triplicate, rather than just single copies that were either provided OR confiscated then?
The source of all that non-cooperation BS is the CPS, specifically Voss.
Quite a source there, as most all her lies and half-truths are being exposed with each new status hearing.
Point out all the FACTS they withheld that the CPS had to investigate to uncover.
Okay, I'm done for now. Keep spinning & twisting the facts.
Wisconsin v. Yoder:
The U. S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Yoder in a 7 to 0 decision, although Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent. The Court found that,
"the evidence showed that the Amish provide continuing informal vocational education to their children designed to prepare them for life in the rural Amish community. The evidence also showed that respondents sincerely believed that high school attendance was contrary to the Amish religion and way of life and that they would endanger their own salvation and that of their children by complying with the law."
And,
"...sustained respondents' claim that application of the compulsory school-attendance law to them violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment."
US Supreme Court already ruled that a State can't require a religious group to conform with compulsary education requirements.
A side thought this brought up was that religious freedom does not STOP where the law begins. For me not sending my kids to school after the eighth grade would be illegal. Where it is a religious tenant to do so religious freedom kicks. So say the "Supremes".
I actually do hope Texas tries to bring bigamy charges. It would be a great way to challenge the bigamy laws as nconstitutional. All the recent re-writes of the bigamy statutes by these states is clearly an attack on a religious tenant of specific religious groups.
Until they start charging 'separated' men who move in with another woman for bigamy (which it would be in a strict reading of the statute) along with people who do it due to religious beliefs they're not fooling anybody.
Do we know that high school education is contrary to FLDS religious principles, wwjd? I don't believe it is. They have some members who have attended college. I know that one has completed med school and is the doctor for the sect. Therefore, Wisconsin vs. Yoder would not apply.
I have heard a lot of discussions regarding whether polygamy charges will be filed. There are plenty of legal minds who do not want to go that route, because they believe it could lead to legalization.
"Point out all the FACTS they withheld that the CPS had to investigate to uncover."
1. Birth dates of all compound members
2. Both birth parents of all children
3. Marriage dates and legal status of marriages
You have 10 women so far who gave dates of birth and provided state issued identification on the day of the raid. CPS asked their ages and the women told them their ages and provided documentation to prove it.
CPS didn't like the answer.
Now a judge has ruled they were telling the TRUTH. The names and ages the "girls" gave CPS during the raid were, in fact, their real names and ages.
What part of this are you not understanding? Why are you still insisting they were not cooperative in providing the information CPS asked for?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3172279
For everyone asking where are all the men??
This site has a bunch of photos (140 or so)and there are several photos of *gasp* FLDS men coming and going from the court house.
I guess that's another unfounded bigoted belief against the FLDS disproven.
1. Birth dates of all compound members
INACCURATE
2. Both birth parents of all children
PROVES WHAT? THERE WAS ZERO ABUSE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT RECORD.
3. Marriage dates and legal status of marriages
IRRELEVANT INFORMATION
Besides, there is only record of one that refused to tell who the father of her child is, and that was after the raid. They were interrogating the children at the raid.
Why are you still insisting they were not cooperative in providing the information CPS asked for?"
1. CPS and law enforcement had to have acceptable legal documentation for birth dates for ALL women, men, and children in the home, in order to determine statutory rape or sexual abuse of a minor. They also had to have acceptable legal documentation of all females within a certain age range, in order to determine if Sarah was in the home.
If the FLDS could not provide proper legal documentation at the first hearing, there is no reason to believe that they were able to present it prior to that time, during the raid.
2. CPS and law enforcement had to have both birth parents identified via legal documentation and be able to match them with all children and have children's ages in order to determine statutory rape or sexual abuse of a minor.
3. Not irrelevant info. Necessary to determine statutory rape or sexual abuse of a minor.
Absent having legal documentation that would stand up to court requirements, CPS was left to determine ages by appearance and other means, until legal documentation that would stand up to court requirements, could be presented. And to order DNA tests in order to chart families and parentage.
An age "told" to someone does not qualify as valid legal documentation.
CPS asserted the FLDS could not provide proper legal documentation at the first hearing, there is no reason to believe that they were able to present it prior to that time, during the raid. that they were being thwarted in determining family relationships, paternity, and other information. I've never read that they accused the FLDS of not verbally giving proper ages, merely that they had to have more documentation regarding ages.
My impression, but it is only that, is the FLDS was trying to hide the details and nature of the polygamous relationships.
CPS themselves admitted within the first couple of days that the FLDS had provided birth certificates, etc. for the 'teenaged mothers' but that CPS suspected thy 'might' be counterfiet so were not accepting them as evidence of age until they'd been able to determine they were real? The only reason the FLDS weren't able to "offer 'proper' ID" is because CPS set it up that way by refusing to accept their legally issued state identification.
http://www.boycott-texas.org/
wwjd?, I have never seen a detailed and official reason as to exactly what documentation was provided for each and every person(I was not under the impression that legal documentation was provided for each individual), but the court, itself, found it unacceptable.
There had to be something amiss for the court to rule it unacceptable. In the end, that's all that matters. The court will have standards that anyone must abide by. Especially when they are looking at statutory rape.
I believe they were all lumped as a group in the beginning and just this month even had an opportunity to be heard individually in front of a judge. So no, no judge looked at their documentation and declared it fake. CPS did that.
By the way, did you see the news report this morning:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9343001
The youngest of the girls CPS claimed was pregnant - the 14 year old is not even pregnant. Just like I said CPS's case turning to smoke in their hands. There goes their age range of 14-17 year olds. By the way she passed a pregnancy test but CPS refuses to ammended their record and continues to claim an age range of "as young as 14 years old".
Also interesting is that the judge told her attorney her pregnancy result was irrelevant to the case before him. Ineresting that a judge would think the pregnancy of a 14 year old girl who MAY be in custody due to sexual assault is an irrelevant detail to whether she should be returned to her mother.
Mom has a good lawyer who argued with the judge and was able to get it into the court record (and therefore out to the public) that the girl passed a pregnancy test (or would it be failed the test?) AND that CPS refuses to change her status.
I don't disagree that they are being treated as one home and, from my viewpoint, it would have been preferable if that was not the case. However, I don't honestly see how that would be possible with the lack of info and unclear family lines and interwoven community life.
Walther looked at documentation that was presented by the FLDS to CPS. There were discrepancies, more than that I do not know, except that a blogger in this space stated that there were two conflicting pieces of birth info for one female and that invalidated all. If that was true, then it wouldn't be unusual for the judge to rule to take some more time to get better documentation.
I read the article. It doesn't matter to the case if there is no pregnant 14-year-olds. It does matter if there were any girls impregnated in the age range that qualifies for statutory rape by men in the age range for statutory rape. Same goes for the fact that it doesn't really matter if girls are re-classified as adults. What matters is at what age they were impregnated and by whom.
I don't see how there can be judgments made until all the facts are presented to the court and that will still take a while.
You don't have to answer, wwjd?, but I'm interested to know how you feel about young girls being pressed into marriage. Even at 16 or 17.
I don't mind answering Womankine. I feel that nobody should be pressed into marriage whether they are 16, 36 or 60. I guess the question is what is pressure and what is force? How many parents have told their kids in the days before their weddings they just had cold feet and encouraged them to go through with the wedding reminding them that invitations have already gone out and how much money they've spent? What is pressure and at what point does it become undue pressure or force?
The state used the high number and the low ages to support their claim of "pervasive" sexual abuse. It does matter that the young age they claimed is not true and it matters that the high number of underaged girls has dwindled down to a handfull. It matters that the girls are adults because it changes the age they had their first child.
It's not just about there being some cases of sexual abuse/statutory rape. CPS made made it about the number and young ages of victims by rounding up the whole group on claims that the abuse was pervasive in that group. Pervasiveness requires large numbers.
CPS got their warrant to snatch 465children based on their evidence of pevasiveness of sex abuse within the community. That evidence turning out to be false absolutely is relevant to the issue at hand.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html?iref=nextin
In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had appealed the removals, as well as a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody.
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the three-judge panel said.
Now isn't that what the FLDS and those of us who support them have been trying to tell you this whole time????
I'm thinking the Jessop woman who has been hounding these people and saying horrible things about them without any proof needs to account for her part in this.
This meets all the elements of a slander or defamation tort. She made statements to the authorities that are proven to be untrue that resulted in provable losses to these people. I think all of the proceeds from her book should be given to the FLDS families in Texas. Her book sales are through the roof since that raid ... which she helped to instigate.
My suspicious nature tells me there's more to the connection between Jessop and the fruit loop from Colorado that made the fake call. How would she know what town the FLDS were in down in Texas? It's not like they'd been in the national spotlight down there or anything.
Jessop, on the other hand had made a point of tracking them down and keeping tabs on them.
Hmmm ... crazy lady makes fake phone calls to Jessop (who had been in the national spotlight) ... Jessop figures out it's a very convincing hoax after several calls ... crazy lady makes fake call to shelter in Texas that just happens to be in the jurisdiction of authorities Jessop has been "working with" for several months.
I say the next warrant to come out should be for both Jessop and the crazy lady's telephone records.
Now isn't that what the FLDS and those of us who support them have been trying to tell you this whole time????
What you may say carries the weight of opinion based on facts as you know them, just as what I say carries the weight of opinion based on facts as I know them. The court carries the weight of the law, and I respect it and accept it.
Re Carolyn. Libel is very difficult to prove. Slander is near impossible. Her publisher's lawyers took the time to vet and change names, when they needed to. People have the right to tell their life stories, as they see them.
It would be different if there is proof that she perpetrated a hoax in any way, and attempted to deliberately mislead.
I find no comparison between a teen being impressed into an arranged marriage with someone she may not even know, and a bride, who has chosen a mate, getting cold feet before the ceremony.
Post a Comment
<< Home