The disputed minors
In the beginning, there were 26 women whose ages were disputed. Texas Child Protective Services said they were minors; the women said they were adults.
The state took the 26 women whose ages were disputed, added them to five teenagers it had identified and came up with a total of 31 girls ages 14 t 17 who were pregnant or mothers.
Well, we're down to 24.
In the past two weeks, CPS has agreed that two women it deemed teenagers are actually adults.
Pamela Jeffs Jessop was one of them. She gave birth to her second child, a son, on April 29. The state immediately claimed custody of him.
In the court filing, the state identified Pamela and listed her approximate age as ''15 or 16 years of age.''
It identified her husband as Jackson Jessop, age 22.
Now, here is one thing interesting about that.
Pamela was one of the 20 women identified by CPS investigator Angie Voss during the April 17-18 hearing has having been a minor when she gave birth to her first child.
Pamela is listed on a chart Voss prepared and introduced as evidence during the hearing before Judge Barbara Walther. It shows her date of birth as 12/9/1989, which Voss used to calculate that Pamela was 16 when she gave birth to her first son on Aug. 1, 2006.
Which also means that Texas CPS already knew, before it classified her as a disputed minor and petitioned for custody of her child, that Pamela is 18.
A bishop's record, dated March 28, 2007, and confiscated by the state shows Pamela as then being 17 -- also making her an adult by the time of the raid.
Nevertheless, Texas included Pamela in its group of 26 pregnant and/or mothering minors.
Hmmm. Interesting. Did the state keep Pamela solely to get jurisdiction over her newborn son?
And is that why the state kept Louisa Jessop and classified her as a disputed minor? She gave birth on Monday. On Thursday, the state acknowledged she is 22. An adult.
But Voss listed Louisa on her ''20 minors'' chart, too.
In fact, Voss listed Louisa twice on the chart.
In one entry, Louisa is listed as having a birth date of April 4, 1986; in the other entry her birth date is shown as either April 3 or April 4, 1986.
A copy of Louisa's birth certificate, issued by the state of Utah, shows her birth date is April 3, 1986.
Either way, using the state's chart or the birth certificate, the math comes out the same. She is 22.
In one entry on the chart, Louisa is listed as having four children. In the other, she is shown as having five children.
Louisa actually has three children, including the newborn. The oldest is four, born when she was 18. The other child is 2.
But the state's chart shows her as being the mother of a girl named ''Mattie'' who was born on Sept. 24, 2000.
One entry shows Louisa has having been 14 when she gave birth and 13 when she conceived Mattie; the other shows her as having been 15 at the child's birth and 14 when she conceived.
The state used that miscalculation to its full advantage to talk about girls as young as 13 getting pregnant.
The state took the 26 women whose ages were disputed, added them to five teenagers it had identified and came up with a total of 31 girls ages 14 t 17 who were pregnant or mothers.
Well, we're down to 24.
In the past two weeks, CPS has agreed that two women it deemed teenagers are actually adults.
Pamela Jeffs Jessop was one of them. She gave birth to her second child, a son, on April 29. The state immediately claimed custody of him.
In the court filing, the state identified Pamela and listed her approximate age as ''15 or 16 years of age.''
It identified her husband as Jackson Jessop, age 22.
Now, here is one thing interesting about that.
Pamela was one of the 20 women identified by CPS investigator Angie Voss during the April 17-18 hearing has having been a minor when she gave birth to her first child.
Pamela is listed on a chart Voss prepared and introduced as evidence during the hearing before Judge Barbara Walther. It shows her date of birth as 12/9/1989, which Voss used to calculate that Pamela was 16 when she gave birth to her first son on Aug. 1, 2006.
Which also means that Texas CPS already knew, before it classified her as a disputed minor and petitioned for custody of her child, that Pamela is 18.
A bishop's record, dated March 28, 2007, and confiscated by the state shows Pamela as then being 17 -- also making her an adult by the time of the raid.
Nevertheless, Texas included Pamela in its group of 26 pregnant and/or mothering minors.
Hmmm. Interesting. Did the state keep Pamela solely to get jurisdiction over her newborn son?
And is that why the state kept Louisa Jessop and classified her as a disputed minor? She gave birth on Monday. On Thursday, the state acknowledged she is 22. An adult.
But Voss listed Louisa on her ''20 minors'' chart, too.
In fact, Voss listed Louisa twice on the chart.
In one entry, Louisa is listed as having a birth date of April 4, 1986; in the other entry her birth date is shown as either April 3 or April 4, 1986.
A copy of Louisa's birth certificate, issued by the state of Utah, shows her birth date is April 3, 1986.
Either way, using the state's chart or the birth certificate, the math comes out the same. She is 22.
In one entry on the chart, Louisa is listed as having four children. In the other, she is shown as having five children.
Louisa actually has three children, including the newborn. The oldest is four, born when she was 18. The other child is 2.
But the state's chart shows her as being the mother of a girl named ''Mattie'' who was born on Sept. 24, 2000.
One entry shows Louisa has having been 14 when she gave birth and 13 when she conceived Mattie; the other shows her as having been 15 at the child's birth and 14 when she conceived.
The state used that miscalculation to its full advantage to talk about girls as young as 13 getting pregnant.
39 Comments:
Ouch.
Sounds like CPS is grasping at straws to make their case stick.
No, it sounds like CPS is CREATING straws to grasp at.
OK everyone, it's time for civil disobedience. The only way we are going to get these elected numbskull's attention is en masse.
It's time we marched on Austin to the capitol and rally against this un-American travesty!!!!!!!!! We need some of the 1960's political and demonstration savvy and rock this state government and bring it to its knees. Let's aim for 10,000 petitioners agreeing to stand up for the rights of every day Americans! How does July 4 sound? A day to honor freedom earned by the blood of thousands of revolutionaries; freedom that no longer exists in our own borders; liberty that is no longer a characteristic of the United States of America.
Sign up America! Let's march! Let's take back our nation; one nation indivisible under God! Are we a nation of men or mice? Indicate your willingness to defend freedom by signing "yes to July 4 independence" on these blogs. 10,000 strong!!! I'll be there for the rights of the children.
Gotta agree with Zookeeper on this one, CPS really is creating the straws it's using.
Wow!
Could it be that the girl LIED about her age so she could stay with her kids?
An FLDS man admitted that the FLDS women "lied through their teeth (about their ages) in order to stay with their children."
Oops, sorry, I just rained on your parade, didn't I?
It sounds more horrible if the "State" lied about their age rather than the FLDS women...
Gigi, I doubt that she lied as it is already proven that from the very beginning she and her husband were giving documentation of her age (22).
The horrific part of this was that no matter what the people of FLDS said or did, CPS was going to use it, twist it and lie about it.
However, if someone were to take everything from YOU, then tell you that if you lie to them they won't rape you, but if you're truthful, then they'll rape you until you bleed to death - what would you choose? I guess I would personally choose life in that moment. Thank the Lord you have not had to live through that fear in life yet, guessing in some sick, horrific game of "lose-it-all" if the truth or a lie will save you and your entire family.
Rape is a pretty equal analogy to this case, sadly enough.
http://freetechildrenaction.blogspot.com/
Wait a minute. CPS said from the outset that they couldn't get a grip on the documented or real ages and family relationships. They said they SAW what LOOKED like teen abuse, couldn't get cooperation(and got duplicity) in sorting through the ages OR the family relationships, and so ended up making "best guesses" and taking everybody. It doesn't seem that anyone claimed that there has been anything but a lot of confusion.
I personally believe, and it's only a belief, that they began by thinking Sarah was going to turn up somewhere in the group of young women, and then saw and heard other things that disturbed them. They originally said that they were also investigating children being trained to become the abused or abusers.
At any rate, I don't find the changing count to be either unusual or especially valid, since an official count hasn't been established in court and that's the only place it will matter.
The FLDS has to be held accountable for non-cooperation and duplicity in attempting to thwart the investigation of Sarah. And none of this is to say that CPS is without its flaws. But I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt until everything comes out in the wash.
I can see where there was confusion except in the case where they listed the name and date of birth of the eighteen year old. It seems like they weren't confused about her age at all. They accepted her age as true when it suited them. When her age doesn't get them what they want they become 'confused' about it and need to look into it further. Funny that not until she's given birth and they have taken custody of her newborn do they gain clarity on the subject.
Same thing with the 22 year old. They were just stymied about her age despite having state issued identification on both women until they had their babies and then were able to decide they were indeed adults and release them.
Like I've posted before I've seen how CPS operates over the years and this is par for the course.
I hated David Koresh. I despise these beast bleeding child abusing FLDS but I also believe in dioe process.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Texas is in for one whopping lawsuit paid for by the taxpayers. When they get done the FLDS are going to own 10 counties in Texas
First, comparing a mother’s lie (if such happened) so she could stay with her child is a big leap from perjury and submitting false records to a court.
The CPS attorney could have problems if they knowingly allowed a false statement of material fact to be made in a court.
For any that want to create theories about the CPS looking for “Sarah”, they must first close their eyes to all we know that shows saving “Sarah” never was the objective in this raid.
There is no law about being “held accountable for non-cooperation”. That evidently comes from the mindset that does not believe in constitutional rights. If there was such, it should apply to those making comments that ignore the facts.
Wasn't it known in court that ages were disputed and lied about from the very beginning? So I don't see how it could be called "submitting false documents" when the FLDS was submitting false claims all along.
If you guys come on here and say that you believe every single one of the girls in question DID NOT conceive under the legal age, then I might be persuaded by your arguments.
The state used that miscalculation to its full advantage to talk about girls as young as 13 getting pregnant.
It is amazing that the public can get so excited over the idea of teenage girls getting pregnant when there are well over a half million unmarried teenage girls who get pregnant every year in the US.
The public seems unconcerned that millions of teenage girls are chemically or surgically altered to avoid pregnancy or to kill the fetus.
And although the public seems endlessly titillated by imagining "underage girls" having sex with "old men" they don't seem to give any thought at all to the men who impregnated 750,000 teenage girls last year. Who are these men? Are they men who cherish these girls, respect the gift of life, take responsibility for the offspring they have engendered? Do they know and respect the girls’ parents? Do they join the family or are they simply stray dogs?
If it is sexual abuse for a teenager to marry an older male and begin bearing and raising children under his care and support, do we even have the words to describe the way our mainstream society treats its young girls?
angus,
Of the half a million teen pregnancies you talk about, I'm guessing most of them occurred because the girl chose to be sexually active and, a. had little or inaccurate information about birth control, or, b. saw it as a 'way out' of her existing life.
Some, relatively few, occur as a result of rape and/or incest.
To say that society is ignoring all, or other, teen pregnancies at the expense of zeroing in on the FLDS group in El Dorado is both unfair and untrue. A tremendous amount of effort goes into stemming this tide, every year. Some efforts are effective. Some are not. But they are there. They are focused. And they have existed, in one form or another, for a long time.
I think one of the primary differences we are seeing with the FLDS group is the seeming group approval of the phenomenon.
Although I must say, as more and more folks from the FLDS engage in this dialogue, the more we are seeing that the prevalence of very young teens having babies is nothing like the naysayers would have one believe.
None the less, and irrespective of the prevalence in the larger world/society, etc., we know too much about the negative impact on the body when a female becomes pregnant at a young age to ignore a group that endorses the practice.
In fact, arguments like you make are one of the reasons that this has become an imperative. Whether you are, or are not, an FLDS member, you are making what you believe is a rational justification for a bad practice. And you are not alone. That is what is frightening to so many.
Does good care and nurturing reduce the risk factors? Absolutely! Do those aspects make it acceptable? Absolutely not!
Would most young women make choices other than to have a child at a young age if true options were open to them? Options that were realistic and supported? The rsearch tells us "Yes".
Can we go into pockets of rural poverty, or inner city poverty, where the rates of teen pregnancies skyrocket, and make sweeping changes that allow room for these choices, in one fell swoop? If we could, we would have done so, long ago. Perhaps with a new president who prioritizes eradicating poverty and its attached problems, we can make some meaningful changes. However, that isn't the issue.
With a closed community such as the FLDS, we can impact on a bad practice in a comprehensive way.
The issue is determining the best way to implement the components of change that will allow it to be true, comprehensive, measurable, and sustainable. The issue is not one of determining whether institutional acceptance of young to mid-teen pregnancy is right or wrong. The fact that it is wrong has been predetermined.
This need to develop a relationship with the FLDS and move toward change is an abject necessity, irrespective of any legal issues pending. Irrespective of the rightness, or wrongness, of how all this became part of the public dialogue. Its reality is undeniable, ergo our responsibility to act exists. It is how we act that is at issue. Not if we act.
"First, comparing a mother’s lie (if such happened) so she could stay with her child is a big leap from perjury and submitting false records to a court."
You're right. In the first instance, it can contribute to losing her children so that the discrepancy can be investigated. In the second, she would be subject to legal action.
"The CPS attorney could have problems if they knowingly allowed a false statement of material fact to be made in a court."
Not in these circumstances, where the very issue is that they are seeking to determine the true and documented facts and do not assert that they have same.
"For any that want to create theories about the CPS looking for “Sarah”, they must first close their eyes to all we know that shows saving “Sarah” never was the objective in this raid."
I disagree. A couple of days ago, I posted a link to an editorial written by the mayor of San Antonio. He described his lack of concern on the first day of the raid that there was anything out of the ordinary in the search for Sarah. Then, he described getting word on the second day that they might have to accommodate 100 - 150 children. It was on the third day he got word that there would be four times that number and he had to scramble for a facility.
This indicates to me that the raid truly began as a small scale CPS investigation.
"There is no law about being “held accountable for non-cooperation”. That evidently comes from the mindset that does not believe in constitutional rights."
It depends on the nature and circumstances of the non-cooperation. In this case, it contributed to all the children being taken away, in order to determine child abuse. Like it or not, our judicial system has determined that the procedures used by the various state CPS are completely constitutional. Abusing our children is not a constitutional right.
The CPS is OUT OF CONTROL. It is a juggernaut that is totally out of control. Our government is symbolized by checks and balances the way the Fore Fathers wanted. What checks the CPS?
They may as well be called the Gestapo because their abuse of power without check is just as bad.
The CPS is in deep doo doo!
LET THE LAWSUITS BEGIN!
LAWYERS OF AMERICA UNITE! TEXAS IS A RICH STATE AND HAS PLENTY OF MONEY FOR THE TAKING. I IMAGINE MOST MOTHERS WHO GET THEIR CHILDREN BACK WOULD BE VERY GENEROUS TO THEIR ATTORNEY!!!
HANG 'EM HIGH!
"The FLDS has to be held accountable for non-cooperation and duplicity in attempting to thwart the investigation of Sarah. And none of this is to say that CPS is without its flaws. But I think we need to give them the benefit of the doubt until everything comes out in the wash."
GADS FLORA YOU ARE BRAINWASHED...
Any lies told by mothers was to protect their children. Any lies told by the CPS (and they are PLENTIFUL) were told TO FURTHER THEIR BIGOTED AGENDA!
SEE A SHRINK WOMANKINE (OR SHOULD I SAY FLORA JESSOP?). YOUR HATRED WILL JUST BURN YOU UP AND MAKE YOU NOTHING TO EVERYONE.
"In the end, Eldorado ranch is simply a pedophile ring" by Ellen Goodman
http://tinyurl.com/639lq7
Womankine
Though you are inaccurate according to the Family Codes, it could have only involved 29 mothers and her children. CPS still falls short if that is the reason used.
You're trying to revise the "circumstances" as far as "knowingly allowed a false statement of material fact to be made in a court". Until you know of additional identification that was submitted, which in itself produced the reason for the reclassification as an adult, what I stated is accurate.
The save Sarah crusade! The CPS and Sheriff claimed there were many more residents than they expected. I have no idea if they planned to take all the children before the raid, but there are many questions you need to answer before you can believe the raid was all about saving Sarah:
1) Why did it take FIVE DAYS to save the PREGNANT child that had her life endangered by being left unprotected from another of the many physical assaults one of which had even put her in the hospital?
2) Why was a charge relating to the PHYSICAL ASSAULTS absent from the arrest warrant for Dale Barlow, as that was a life threatening situation and the SEXUAL ASSAULT of a CHILD that had born his child already is much less worrisome?
3) Could there really be a Sarah that would indicate a DOUBLE MURDER case?
4) If Sheriff Doran verified in a phone call that Dale was NOT at the ranch, prior to executing the warrants, why would he storm in with 13 CPS workers, 700 warriors, helicopter and an armored military carrier all to find a victim of PHYSICAL ASSAULTS, while Sarah's life was not in danger?
I really like your stating "[i]n this case, [non-cooperation] contributed to all the children being taken away, in order to determine child abuse. "
Lets repeat it 3 times so it will be true:
"in order to determine child abuse",
in order to determine child abuse,
in order to determine child abuse.
Have they determined it yet? If you think they have, fill me in on it and the "immediate" danger that meets all 3 prongs required in the Family Code, in all 464 individual suits if you would please.
There are four instances they can take a child:
1. an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child
2. the child has been the victim of sexual abuse
3. the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance
4. the parent or person who has possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Which of these apply, in all 464 INDIVIDUAL suits?
Maybe we should add a fifth!
5) Noncooperation of any parent justifies taking ALL children with various households of a strange community "in order to determine child abuse" because the abuse of a child children "is not a constitutional right".
Well, she-cow, the way I see it, you are a co-conspirator in this whole charade. You were fully aware of the nut case that made the initial call, yet you pandered to her insecurity for your own selfish gains by listening to her nonsensical ramblings instead of letting the world know it was a hoax. You still remind me of the cow only content to spread crap wherever it goes. You need some serious de-programming; you are one brainwashed child in need of a lot of counselling in order to get a hold of what's ever left of your meager existence. What a lonely life to only have yourself to confide in. You poor soul.
rericson:
You just presented a classic example of a liberal who cannot see the forest for the trees, and what’s more, you wrote your piece in response to my criticism of such narrow-minded bias.
See how easily you dismissed the 750,000 pregnant teenagers in our society with the pathetic excuse that a “tremendous amount of effort goes into stemming the tide”? You make short shrift of those pregnant teenagers as you and the Texas authorities turn your attention to a tiny handful of married, pregnant teenagers, their husbands, parents, and their church!
That is three-quarters of a million pregnancies in girls between 15 and 19 years of age in one single year in your country, rericson, and you think someone is working on it? The CPS, you think? The Texas Rangers?
Have you ever heard of the CPS policing abortion clinics where over two hundred thousand teenage girls will kill their unwanted offspring each year? What do you think would happen if a CPS worker demanded the name and age of every girl who comes into Planned Parenthood seeking an abortion? Not just her name and age, but the name and age of the man who impregnated her? (about 80% of the partners of pregnant teens are adult males) And how about her neglectful parents – wouldn’t it be in the interest of protecting children to remove their other children from the home while someone investigates the environment that led to a teenage pregnancy?
You cite the problem of “group approval” by the FLDS of teenage pregnancy and motherhood among their members, as if our mainstream society does not approve of the millions of mainstream teenage girls engaged in pre-marital sex. Our society not only approves of teenage sex, it promotes it! Sex education is simply a covert way of promoting teenage sex because no matter what warnings are expressed; their effects are totally cancelled by teaching “safe sex”. All public clinics as well as many schools distribute birth control - no questions asked. Pregnancy? No problem, safe, confidential abortion is available.
The implicit message to teenagers from parents, teachers, social service agencies, and the media is that WE EXPECT YOU TO HAVE SEX BEFORE YOU ARE MARRIED. That is a powerful message, rericson, and they all get it.
I'm afraid that I don't understand the argument you are trying to make in the first two paragraphs or which part of my response you are referring to, kbp.
1) I've never read exact reasons but can postulate a few. Although this is longer than usual to get the necessary warrant(s), the circumstances were unusual. Law enforcement seemed to be concerned that there could be violence, perhaps even another Waco, as is evidenced by the fact that they went in with a tank and armed forces. I should guess it took some time to round up the forces and lay a gameplan. And there may also have been attempts to investigate the call and try to get information on Sarah and Barlow from other states. They may also have had to round up more resources, in terms of CPS personnel.
2) I don't know. But if they felt sure of Sarah's age, they may have felt that sexual assault was a charge that was more easily substantiated and prosecuted and would provide the opportunity to find evidence and built a case for physical assault. Law enforcement will often get a warrant for causes that they think make it easiest to get the warrant and search for any evidence of wrongdoing.
3) I don't understand what you're talking about.
4) Possibly because Doran didn't believe what he was told. The strength of the law enforcement merely means that they didn't know what to expect. Remember Waco.
I may not have made myself clear. I take it as a given that they removed the children from endangerment but plan to investigate and determine abuse or MORE abuse, if that qualifier makes my point more clear.
I've not read the seminal docs, the Family Code gives TX CPS the right to take children, not only if they are currently being abused but if it is deemed there could be future abuse. I have read, but not from a primary court doc that they are citing Section 262 of the Family Code.
The investigation is to determine the extent of the abuse and to determine future actions. From the latest article, it looks as if there is a laundry list.
The reason they took all the children away, is because they defined the "home" as the entire compound and all individuals in it. This is certainly due, in part, to
the fact that the FLDS were moving children and trying to blur the lines between families.
So defining the "home" is being disputed and it's something that will require the justice system to sort it out.
I honestly don't see the point in trying to second-guess the details of a case that has had the details placed under gag order by the judge who is involved.
Some, relatively few, occur as a result of rape and/or incest.
Sadly, no. Anywhere from 40 to 70 percent, depending on the state or the source of the study (Planned Parenthood's Guttenmacher has the lower figure) of teen pregnancies are the result of an adult male getting under-aged girls pregnant- sexual assault in Texas.
"An effective strategy to combat teenage pregnancy must address the issue of male responsibility, including statutory rape culpability and prevention. The increase of teenage pregnancies among the youngest girls is particularly severe and is linked to predatory sexual practices by men who are significantly older."
"It is estimated that in the late 1980's, the rate for girls age 14 and under giving birth increased 26 percent."
"Data indicates that at least half of the children born to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men. Available data suggests that almost 70 percent of births to teenage girls are fathered by men over age 20."
"Surveys of teen mothers have revealed that a majority of such mothers have histories of sexual and physical abuse, primarily with older adult men."
"Pregnant teenagers have experienced a higher than average incidence of sexual assault. The vast majority of babies born to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men, not teenage boys."
Texas leads nation in under-aged births, and 24% of the state's teen births in 2004 were not the girl's first delivery."
"a 1992 report of a Washington State study of 535 teen mothers revealed that first pregnancies of 62 percent of the participants were preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape. The mean age of their offenders was 27.4 years ("Sexual Abuse as a Factor in Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment," 24(1) Family Planning Perspectives 4, Jan./Feb. 1992)."
· A 1986 study of 445 teen mothers in Chicago reported that 60 percent claimed they had been forced to have an unwanted sexual experience, with a mean age for the first incidence of abuse being 11« ("The Prevalence of Coercive Sexual Experiences Among Teenage Mothers," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 4:204 (1989).
· The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that over 40 percent of mothers aged 15-17 had sexual partners three to five years older; almost one in five had partners six or more years older. With teen mothers in the 15-17 age range, 49.2 percent of the fathers were between ages 20 and 29 (Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1995).
· The National Center for Health Statistics reported that based on 1991 data, almost 70 percent of babies born to teenage mothers were fathered by men 20 years of age or older (Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1991. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, vol. 42, no. 3, Supplement 9. National Center for Health Statistics, Sept. 1993).
· A 1990 study of births to California teens reported that the younger the adolescent mother, the greater the age gap with her male partner. For example, among mothers aged 11- 12, the average age of the fathers was nearly 10 years older (California Resident Live Births, 1990, by Age of Father, by Age of Mother, California Vital Statistics Section, Department of Heath Services, 1992).
· The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1994 that in the 12 states with sufficient information to distinguish juvenile from adult rape victims, the the majority (51 percent) of female rape victims were under age 18, more than twice their representation in the nation's population. In the three states that kept data on relationships between victims and offenders in rape cases with victims ages 12-17, a full 20 percent of perpetrators were identified as family members, while 65 percent were acquaintances or "friends"
Planned Parenthood is often complicit in this and enables adult men to hide their crimes. It also breaks the law by refusing to report child abuse when under-aged girls come in, and by encouraging them to lie about the ages of their abusers.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07051504.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/dec/05121602.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20712
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlmbcbqrK5Y
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56860
Although I agree that teen pregnancy is a problem, that's some pretty old data that you're citing, Head/Zoo: 1986 is 22 years ago. And your newspaper sources will never be credited as legitimate. They all present slanted views.
The issue central to the FLDS statutory rape charges is being missed here. It is the concern that young women are being systematically programmed by parents to become victims and that young men are systematically being groomed to be predators and that they are being forced into these situations. These are also individuals without access to alternative ideas and lifestyle choices and protective agencies or proper education.
kbp, this link is to the original affidavit regarding the raid on Zion and should answer your question as to the specifics of Statute 262, by which CPS took the children.
I would cut and paste, except it's in .pdf format. It looks as though there were charges of immediate danger to the health and safety of children AND children as victims of neglect and sexual abuse.
http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf
It amazes me how folks create "fluff" around issues. Or ignore the actual issues, all together.
There are several distinct issues going on here. And they are not dovetailed, or even similar.
Additionally, to cite larger systemic, societal problems, and our collective failure to remedy them, as some sort of justification, or mitigation, for the issues involving the FLDS is ridiculous. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
There is no denying that teenage pregnancy is a major problem across our society. We can argue the causitive factors until the cows come home. It is what it is. There is also no denying our recognition of its scope and impact on society and individual lives. The few studies cited in another post (irrespective of their being dated or inaccurate)create prima facia evidence of both our acknowledgment and our view that it is problematic.
However, simply because we have been less than successful in steming this tide, overall, it does not relieve us, or the members of the FLDS from addressing and stemming the practice within the group.
Open, candid dialogue is the place to start.
How folks get to that place where open, candid dialogue can happen is a primary issue.
The issue of the legality of the "invasion" is irrelevant to the issue of how to begin to end the practice of teenagers within the FLDS group becoming pregnant. Certainly, and most importantly, young teens. But it is also important to address teens, in general in the group, and their ability to make informed choices.
Efforts to get to that discussion, and maximizing the probability of it being successful, are grossly undermined when members of the group constantly and publically justify the practice. That is exactly what Angus is doing in this dialogue. And it is harmful to his end-goal of allowing life to return to some sort of normal status at the ranch.
The fluff needs to be eliminated from the dialogue.
The issues need to be treated distinctly, and not rolled together.
And FLDS members and their supporters need to recognize who their friends are and stop demonizing everyone. Again, do unto others.....FLDS want to be treated as individuals in the instant case. Many have said that all should not be punished for the transgressions of a few. Seems like perhaps all outsiders should not be judged by the flaws, biases, and faults of a few.....
And, by the by, Headmistress....there are far better, more current studies to cite than those you selected.....
most of what you have posted are dated and narrow...
You might want to look on the OJJDP, SAMHSA, CDC, Center for Children in Poverty, Child Welfare League, sites as a starting point for more accurate information....
Wandering around the OJJDP site is a learning experience unto itself....lots of good information about trauma, the downside of aggregate living in residential centers, etc....as well as links to recent data on teen pregnancies, the impact, and the causes.....
Then, just for fun, folks might want to do a little research of their own into the phenomenom called "differential association"....as it is a strong factor in the behaviors we are seeing...from every perspective....this is, all by itself, a sociologist's dream come true.....
Seriously, doing a bit of reading about differential association may help folks to understnad the roots of many of the behaviors we are seeing...both the FLDS and the CPS/authorities......
Womankine,
I occasionally wonder if you even realize what you say in your comments. The original affidavits apply to a single person to save, Sarah, and a single person to possibly arrest, Dale Barlow.
Lets go to "statute 262", it's actually Family Code 262.104 that applies:
"...personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child; (keep that 'IMMEDIATE DANGER" in mind through your reading of my comment)
What DANGER listed in the code there was IMMEDIATE for any other than the 29 POSSIBLE victims of sexual abuse nobody had complained of within those 29?
1. an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child
2. the child has been the victim of sexual abuse
3. the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance
4. the parent or person who has possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Elsewhere, as an excuse for FIVE DAYS PLANNING and the massive army you're stuck on "Waco", so I'll use it. There was NOT supposed to be a plan that required removal of masses in this situation, BUT there was such a plan at WACO. Next you're stuck with the lame excuse Voss gave us of being worried about all the men and armored equipment as the reason for removal of the first group of children. I guess it included the unarmed FLDS men she said had night vision goggles so the 65+/- of them could overtake Sheriff Doran's little army of SEVEN HUNDRED.
The plan to takeover all of the compound was clearly in place, Sarah and Dale were just the excuse he had been waiting for and he told the world that in his press interviews. Sheriff Doran, the CPS, and all of their co-conspirators put that plan together prior to arrival at the ranch.
Now step back and look at the alleged crimes reported and think again about 'IMMEDIATE DANGER".
Say one alleged victim called police to report they had recently been hospitalized from a beating, were worried about it enough to call multiple times, had been PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED often, was pregnant during the beatings and this looked as though the life of TWO (her AND the unborn child) were in life threatening 'IMMEDIATE DANGER".
Now another called to say they were a 16 YO that had been raped by their husband who was the father of one child and another on the way, so there looks to be a sexual assault charge that can be made based on PAST acts.
One of those two situations is 'IMMEDIATE DANGER", while the other is not.
Which of the two situations can you WAIT FIVE DAYS to attend to?
What excuse could one give for overlooking that IMMEDIATE DANGER?
Next they tell us they're worried about the IMMEDIATE DANGERs of babies that will become either sexual abuse victims or sexual predators within the next decade of so!
Just keep convincing yourself that it was all in good faith and now they're holding all the babies and their siblings "in order to determine child abuse".
"It's early in the GAME..."
Allison Palmer, ADA
Rericson
"The issue of the legality of the "invasion" is irrelevant to the issue of how to begin to end the practice of teenagers within the FLDS group becoming pregnant."
I can't or won't dispute what you say there as it deals with pregnant teenagers, though "teenager" is open to legal and illegal acts that produce pregnancies.
I will point out that the "legality of the "invasion"" is relevant to any possible criminal charges, any convictions that make it relevant to some of the PERMANENT custody rulings, corruption in the system handling this mess and is certainly relevant in a possible civil complaint the YFZ residents may file.
Just posting this in case the comment was directed at anything I had posted here.
kbp...
I absolutely agree with what you are saying...
I just think it is important to keep the issues distinct.....
One set of issues are purely for the courts and the court minions to decipher and deal with...
then there is another whole set of issues that are simply about culture and lifestyle choices....and those are the aspects of this that can, and should be dealt with seperately from all the legal stuff....
when the dialogue crosses back and forth between the two "camps", or sets of issues, it gets so emotionally charged it becomes impossible to start to develop concensus...
And all of that is fine for here...on a blog...problem is, it is the way people behave in the real world and it really bogs down progress....
Sorry if I wasn't clear...
Rericson,
It is easy to mix all the issues at times, occasionally where they do not apply, but the BIG PICTURE I see is most of the issues show us a corrupt system at every level, trying to hide behind distorted facts, as they violate the rights of many.
I see you doing great at pointing out how the process being used can be more damaging to the children than many other solutions ignored.
kbp, I just don't buy that there is solid evidence of your conspiracy theories. Sorry, it makes perfect sense to me that the Texans were just trying to avoid going in and being......killed and that they understood it might take physical force to find Sarah.
I have no doubt that they planned to lock down the entire compound. I see it as being necessary, if they believed they were going in for one person. And I also have no doubt that a five-day period was necessary to make sure they could effectively search for and take custody of Sarah. What kind of rationale assumes that the warrant(s) could be obtained one day and the next day one CPS worker and a couple of cops could walk into this compound and get anything accomplished? If you understood the way the system works, you'd be impressed that they pulled the raid together in five days.
As for the reasons the CPS gave for taking all children, I am assuming that the reasons in the initial affidavit were still operant, as they released statements to the effect that they believed Sarah would be one of the girls in the group that appeared to be underage mothers.
Immediate danger doesn't mean that there must be a man standing over a young girl or boy with his pants unzipped. It can mean any situation where there is sexual abuse occurring. A child programmed to be an abuser or victim, which constitutes "being" abused, would qualify as an immediate situation.
I think it's interesting that 22 years old is outdated for womankine, when the only 13 year old pregnant woman CPS apparently has was pregant in the 1990s. The point is- we have a serious double standard, making it obvious that the real issue here really is religion.
IF these same young ladies were getting pregnant while they were pierced, tattooed, and in public school, nobody would be screaming about it.
Headmistress....
Some folks are screaming about it...loudly, with all their might......
Comparing the two is doing an 'apples and oranges' comparison....
And it diminishes your argument, generally....
There is lots of attention and lots of effort to decrease, and hopefully, eventually eliminate teen pregnancy in the larger society....
It clearly hasn't been enough...it is a horrible problem.....and often the screams for change and funding and help fall on deaf or powerless ears...but once in awhile, a program comes up that really does make a difference...and we call that 'promising practice'....
But none of that has anything to do with helping to shift some of the behaviors of the FLDS....
The fact that the practice is, perhaps, already shifting is good....that it started shifting long before Texas CPS decided to get involved is also good.....
CPS has made some horrific decisions and some very undeseving people have gotten hurt by that....
If you want to try to end the continuing atrocities, try to frame your arguments in ways that are actually applicable to the instant issues...
Don't do apples and oranges...it undermines your efforts....
And please, please understand that I am saying this to try to help...not hinder.....
Recognize the limitations of this venue and don't spend one iota of energy being defensive toward anything I've said.....I really do want to help...if only to put forth ideas.....
Womankine,
I did not initiate the conspiracy theories, Sheriff Doran told us about them himself.
You look to have difficulty reading the codes involved and are selective about what you read in the affidavit.
On the codes, there is only one of the four reasons that can be met and it would only apply to the infamous 31, or 29 or 24 pregnant or the yet-to-be-determined number involving teenagers. Well short on the balance of the children in custody.
Voss testified she knew of these teens living in all households, then calls it one household. How convenient!
Go back and read what day Long spoke with the shelter personnel that took the Sarah call which told of the life threatening beatings she encountered often.
It was April 2 when Long interviewed employees of the New Bridge Family Shelter, one day before the raid when he claims to have spoken with them, certainly after arrangements had to have been started to get all 700+ from various agencies, a helicopter and armored miltary equipiment lined up. Do you think the person[s] that took Sarah's called at the shelter ignored reporting the life threatening beatings she told of when they first reported the calls?
The Sheriff, CPS, First Assistant District Attorney Allison Palmer, Texas Attorney General office, inside informants and Judge Walthers were involved in some way from the start, by admission or record.
That does not happen in ONE day.
You're stuck with ignoring facts and rewriting laws for your take on what has went on.
I understand the codes and am trying to explain to you, kbp, that all 463 of the children could be taken into custody under immediate endangerment due to sexual abuse.
I agree that calling the compound one "home" is controversial. However, the fact that the FLDS were moving people around; erasing wristbands; had children unable to name their parents; formed barriers to the search as united family leaders; and have both first and last names that are commonly used by others; will contribute to the defense of doing so.
The call from Sarah came in on Mar 29th and, according to standard hotline policies and procedures(they all stand charged with the same responsibilities or cannot call themselves a hotline), the proper authorities had to be notified immediately. That would mean that law enforcement and CPS were notified on that date, regardless of when there were formal affidavits taken or formal and documented interviews conducted. You can count on the fact that there was some form of communication: phone, fax, e-mail, etc, before April 2.
You're grabbing at straws, kbp. There aren't enough facts to support the conspiracy theorists. At least, not at this time.
Regina:
"Culture and lifestyle choices" do not entitle one to commit a felony.
"...call from Sarah came in on Mar 29th and... law enforcement and CPS were notified on that date..."
Thank you, makes my point perfectly.
:)
No. It played your game change-the-point. You have no point. Only a handful of straws being generated by a network of bored bloggers.
Post a Comment
<< Home