Panel No. 2 from St. George
The second panel consisted of service providers who serve the polygamous communities. They included Elaine Tyler of the Hope Organization; Gary Arnold of Arizona Department of Economic Security; Greg Smith of the Mohave County Sheriff’s Department; Michelle Benward of New Frontiers for Families; Shannon Price of the Diversity Foundation; and Donnalee Sarda of Defenders of Children.
Here is what one presenter said during the discussion and in a brief interview afterward:
Michelle Benward's organization operates a home for Lost Boys, the FLDS teens who have left or been ''urged out'' of the community.
She said that currently there are 14 teens in the home. Benward said that since July she has had direct contact with another 100 teens ages 14 to 24 from the FLDS community.
The No. 1 reason the teens give for leaving the community, Benward said, is that they did not want to live the religion. But others are kicked out of their homes for trivial reasons.
Among them: A boy whose parents left him in St. George with $5 in his pocket in December because he had gone to an unapproved movie.
Benward said many of the teens she is working with have been severely traumatized by events in Texas. She also said that most of the teens come from loving families whom they miss terribly.
She asked the media to avoid asking the teens about issues that are likely to retraumatize them, such as sexual abuse.
Benward is typical of the small organizations that have formed to support people leaving polygamy: She operates on caffeine and prayers. Her funds are meager and, without an infusion, she may have to shut down her effort to help the Lost Boys.
Here is what one presenter said during the discussion and in a brief interview afterward:
Michelle Benward's organization operates a home for Lost Boys, the FLDS teens who have left or been ''urged out'' of the community.
She said that currently there are 14 teens in the home. Benward said that since July she has had direct contact with another 100 teens ages 14 to 24 from the FLDS community.
The No. 1 reason the teens give for leaving the community, Benward said, is that they did not want to live the religion. But others are kicked out of their homes for trivial reasons.
Among them: A boy whose parents left him in St. George with $5 in his pocket in December because he had gone to an unapproved movie.
Benward said many of the teens she is working with have been severely traumatized by events in Texas. She also said that most of the teens come from loving families whom they miss terribly.
She asked the media to avoid asking the teens about issues that are likely to retraumatize them, such as sexual abuse.
Benward is typical of the small organizations that have formed to support people leaving polygamy: She operates on caffeine and prayers. Her funds are meager and, without an infusion, she may have to shut down her effort to help the Lost Boys.
30 Comments:
Umm...that "boy" that says he got "dropped" off and left...is actually an 18 year old man who stole his parents vehicle to cruise to town and meet some party friends. When the parents tracked him down they took the vehicle back. Because he didn't want to return with them...they left this ADULT MAN with his buddies.
Boy. It seems to be the FLDS pattern to blame the victim. There are plenty of other Lost Boys who tell tales of being out of the house as young as 16 and left destitute and then treated as dead. This is not the isolated incident that Ms Adams would like to make it.
I know this is a blog, but I find this a shameful posting for someone calling herself a reporter. You've written the piece to make it sound as if most boys choose to leave because of their problems with the religion.
To use the phrase "urged out" is disingenuous enough to call it a lie. A kid left in a town with $5 has been - choose one - expelled, kicked out, rendered destitute, banished.
Minimizing the problem may be a terrific job of pandering to the polygamous community, but it does nothing to advance the sad situation of the young people or acknowledge patterns of abuse....or show a shred of objectivity that a good reporter should have.
One alternative view of the Lost Boys here:
http://tinyurl.com/5ruupj
WomanCow,
How is it that you feel to criticize Brooke, when she has done eon's more research into it than you, and presents some facts on both sides, rather than the bullsh0t by disaffected boys who have an ax to grind? I can give you blogs of boys who feel it the deepest insult to be called a lost boy. I know some of them personally and they cringe when you even bring it up? There IS two sides to each story, why are you so insistent on your hate side. I feel very sorry for you, and will pray that someday you can be touched by the warmth and love of a true and charitable God.
Perhaps, and I say 'perhaps' because I have no concrete knowledge or data to support my argument...but perhaps...
the incidence of young men/boys leaving is not a lot higher than other parts of society....
Late teens/young adulthood is a time of rebellion...a time of being oppositional....and males, often more so than females, who, even in our larger society, are "programmed" to be more docile, more forgiving and accepting, are often more rash in their decisions....
And the male ego, often laden with testosterone, can be very ugly in its confrontations....
I'm betting many a mother has cried painful tears over confrontations between fathers and sons...both male egos....when they are stomping and demanding and pushing each other's buttons...and when the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher until the one in power puts the other out....
And that scenerio is not unique to the FLDS....
When my son was 17 he kept pushing and pushing....challenge after challenge to my authority...finally I told him to get out...(it was summer and I knew he had friends he could go to)....it wasn't because I didn't love him...it was because he needed to understand that I make the rules in my house...NOT HIM...well, low and behoe...he was back in a few days, with the police...who informed me that I couldn't throw him out because he was a minor...that if I didn't let him back in, they would charge me with abandonment....needless to say, I let him back in...
But I stripped his room, including removing the door....and life at home was quite unpleasant until he came to terms with the rules....
He is now 28 and tells me it was the best lesson I ever taught him....
I'm not saying it is the same for all of the young men of the FLDS...but I'm guessing that more often than not, there are some very "normal" stories involved in the departures....
There are many, many 'stories' from the Amish community involving 'rumspringen'(sp?)
One of the problems these young men face is that they are ill equipped to maneuver in the outside world....and that goes to the education process within the community....getting young people ready for college or jobs is something that needs to be improved....
If a young person leaves, they should leave with the ability to navigate without a whole host of social services having to step in...
Womankine, do us a favor and change your handle. Comparing yourself to a "cow" is an insult of immense proportions to the beef and dairy industries. I have worked around cows most of my life and have seen very few animals as irrational as your commentaries prove you to be.
Oops! I do remember one old gal that caused me a lot of grief. She would come into the milk parlor with crap on her udder and her tail every single milking and take great delight in spreading crap around wherever she went, including into the milker's faces. We remedied that problem by cutting her tail off, but she still liked the warm sensation of fresh manure and continued to have a filthy udder. Didn’t matter how much effort we made to keep the stalls clean and dry, this old gal always looked for the crap to roll around in, even though every other cow remained clean.
Another thing about her was she was she was always “bulling” but wouldn’t “catch.” She had every opportunity in the world to be a very productive animal, but just preferred instead to be miserable. We finally found a use for her: turned her into hamburger.
U-h-h Come to think of it, keep the handle. There is a similarity after all.
I will always take all the sincere prayers that anyone wants to offer, loht.
When you advocate being touched by a true and charitable God, do you mean the same true and charitable God that prompts men to demean a woman and call her a 'cow'? Or the same true and charitable God that prompts men to defend rapists and to blame a fourteen-year-old, when she is raped?
Is that the same true and charitable God that you claim to have an intimate relationship with?
Womankine...Nobody has EVER defended ANY rapists. But many have said there may be more to the story than FLDSexers and FLDS Bashers have to say!
The parents no more want their boys out bumbling along in life than you do, they want their sons to be "grow" to be decent, honest and industrious (something you seem to think they can only "grow" to become if they are allowed to do whatever they please, first!...I beg to differ) and that means the boys abiding by their rules while they are living in the home.
womankine...Do you have children? If so, do you require they live by your rules in your home? What do you do to "make" them do what you say? And if they absolutely will not obey, what do you do????
by the by...in response to the "tinyurl" link here's a link to consider
http://fldsview.blogspot.com/2008/05/few-questions-from-bored.html
Womankine:
If you find Brookes reporting shameful, why do you read it? Brooke was right on saying most boys left because of problems with the religion! Isn't that why you left?
,,
,
,
,
OOPS
Blame the victim! 18 yr old steals car, undecover Plyg parent tracks him down using GPS, recovers car, doesnt press charges..
WOW I am SO impressed.
SAY - Why is the yFZ boy -girl teen ratio so whacked compared to the under age 10 demographic???
Do they steal cars when they are 14 too? Do they shoot at the guard in the tower as they bust out of the gate?
Enquiring minds NEED to know.
..
.
.
Come on, you aren't listening here: We wouldn't demean a "cow" by calling it a "woman." Got it?
Now womankine, because you got screwed around in your growing up years and had rough time as a teen ager and felt abused in your household, that doesn't mean every FLDS family should be stereotypically branded in a like manner. You, Carolyn and a few other malcontents live by the motto of "misery loves company" thinking in some odd way that if everyone else suffers like you did, your past miseries and plights are somehow eased? That is warped thinking gal. Grow up and forgive.
But quit labeling every FLDS family as abusers just because you witnessed abuse in your home. Did you visit every home in Short Creek? Did you personally witness the rampant abuses you keep spouting to the world about? The media believes you because the FLDS have a policy of keeping quiet and NOT responding to every complaint sent their way. And you know they will not challenge your lies and so you continually spout off about your life, making the world think it is how all FLDS members live their's. Nothing could be further from the truth.
MOO!
It is interesting to note the aggressiveness that the FLDS posters here have towards women. I think that it is quite telling. In fact their tone says far more than their words and it quite nicely supports all that Carolyn Jessop, Brent Jeffs and others have had to say.
Not that they are the same, however, there are some comparisons to be drawn between this mess and the debacle in the Roman Catholic Church with so many instances of priests sexually abusing young people.
The biggest difference is that the priests did not commit their abuses in the name of the Church, or God.
No one called for the closing of the Roman Catholic Church. Many called for changes. Change in how young men are screened for the priesthood. How they are monitored. What kind of psychological services are made available....and changes to create a more open relationship with the bishops and others who have oversight of the parish and teaching priests.....
Even the staunchest critics of "The Church" were, and are, quick to say it is not all priests, not every parish, not the whole Church....they quickly talk of all the good in the Church....
It would be ludicrous to call for the end of the Catholic Church....
It should be seen as equally ludicrous to call for the virtual end of the FLDS, and other similar sects. We should also be as quick to point out the good....and the fact that it isn't every member who is abusive...Despite the tenets of the FLDS being in a fundamental way 'against the law'...i.e. polygamy.....that particular set of tenets are against man-made laws which are subject to change, and have wide criticism, in general....
On the other hand, the "abuse" of young persons sexually is another story, altogether....fortunately that aspect of illegal behavior enjoys widespread support for change....and scrutiny...
Perhaps we need to stop lumping both into one set of criticisms....
And perhaps we need to take note of the good...
I watched an interview of a FLDS family on CNN last evening and it was striking how "normal" this family is....I kept wondering 'what the hell ae we doing in this family's living room?'...why do they have to somehow prove they are normal??????
Why do they have to prove that their children are healthy?????
We all know the issues...why aren't we focusing on how to have some sort of mutually agreeable resolution to the real issues?????
We don't challenge the legitimacy of the Catholic Church? or the 'goodness' of the average priest.....
We challenge some policies that allowed the sexual abuse problems to happen and stay hidden...and we focus on remediation and monitoring...
Why aren't we doing the same for/with the FLDS??????
aloysius,
your premise is full of crap!!!!!
I have been on this blog for a long time....and others, from time to time, where the FLDS are 'subject'...and never, not once, have I been bashed by someone who has made themselves known as part of, or in support of, the sect. And I have often been very critical. I have had discussions where there is disagreement, certainly. But never, ever, have I been treated disrespectfully. And, I am very much female. There have been times where FLDS members and supporters have not agreed with Brooke Adams and I have never seen anything but respectful disagreement and criticisms.
Perhaps what you are percieving as sexist agression is really more a case of "fight fire with fire"?????
Perhaps the individuals j that are being treated a bit more agressively just happen to be female, and the agression is because of their behavior and not their gender???
Just something to think about....
Read the postings, rericson. You haven't read one that bashes men or launches an ad hominem against a male on the blog or calls his sexuality or sexual organs into question. However, there's an entire string of postings devoted to doing that to women. Interesting that the same people engaged in woman-bashing, also support polygamy.
Hmmmmmm. Could it be that the problem could be in the polygamy system, where men are not used to being challenged by women? Or don't even think much of abusing them. Because YOU ARE READING VERBAL ABUSE.
And are you telling me that the great advocate of "mediation" also advocates personal attacks on blog members? There's something that we call that in other college classes and it's "spout mediation only when it serves your purposes" or "hypocrisy". Kind of like the person who spews mediation talk in long and boring post after long and boring post and then kicks their kid out of the house........without mediation.
The only reason that you've not been verbally abused, is that you are a polygamy/FLDS apologist and a woman who puts a lot of energy into "keeping sweet" but calls it mediation.
Pat,
Methinks you wear several hats...or names....*smile*
And me also thinks you look for anger and arguments where there are none....
As I recall, the only two folks to regularly get blasted here are you and txbluesman....And I think that is, perhaps, because you both seem so very biased and fixed in your presentation(s)...
Actually, blasting is perhaps a strong word to use concerning txbluesman...he tends to be, at least, polite...ergo most of the criticisms he recieves are also modulated in their tone, if not content.....
I think the term "polite discourse" is one that has missed you, and your alter-egos, completely......
"Mediation", by the way, is your term, not mine.....all I have ever advocated here for is "talk"...getting to 'the table' and talking....negotiating and talking....coming to concensus on as much as possible.....
And I'm sorry you find me boring. Perhaps you find everyone not willing to either cowtow to you, or outright fight with you 'boring'. It's something you might want to bring up for discussion with your therapist. There are some really good interventions for that phenomenom...active listening skills amongst them.....*sweet smile*
One more thing, Pat......
You don't know me from Adam....nor do you know my reputation, or what the antecedents were surrounding the specific decision to toss out one of my sons....
You make broad, sweeping statements without accurate information or any knowledge base, whatsoever....
I am the last person who would ever be considered as 'keeping sweet'....
I have been a staunch, loud, often angry, always honest, unwavering advocate for children and their families for twenty-odd years now....
I play in local, state, and federal sandboxes....I am both hated and respected, I have earned both....and I regularly chew up and spit out folks like you who are nothing more than loud mouthed idealogues with personal agendas masqurading as something you are not, and can never hope to be.....
You are nothing but a trouble maker who thrives off of other's misery and needs to create a place for yourself that feeds your troubled, poor self-image....
Sweetheart, I am not one you want to tangle with. I don't 'keep sweet'!!!!!!......try playing honestly, and fairly, and using your real name...as I do mine....and we'll see who comes out smelling 'sweet'....
again, I offer you my 'sweetest smile'
Regina
It will come as no surprise that I agree with aloysius and pat. The attitudes toward women that are expressed on this blog are pretty shocking. It can't reflect well on the practice, when people identify themselves as polygamists or polygamist supporters.
rericson, I enjoy reading your well thought out comments. It's gratifying to know there are some who can think through this mess rationally. I appreciate your compassion and willingness to view the FLDS community as humans with feelings. I personally believe they do love their children.
That said, it seems to me that no matter how a few of us on a few blogs feel about this issue, the State of Texas is determined to terminate these people's parental rights and any other rights they may have without due process. There's no way they can defend themselves. They've been convicted in the minds of the State and there seems to be nothing that they can do to get their children back.
I don't agree with child abuse and I don't agree with the worldview of these people, but I think what's been done in Texas is an outrage and a travesty! These children are being taken because of what their parents believe. Who will be next?
These children are being taken because of what their parents believe.
If it's found that the children were taken because of what their parents believe, then the children will be returned. That would be a clear violation of religious rights.
However, people are not allowed to break laws, no matter what their religious beliefs. Or otherwise abuse children. If TX can prove its case in those regards, then I agree that the children will not be returned or at least not returned without strict conditions being met.
Thanks Regina,
I try to be polite, but I will state that I have very firm positions, some of which I don't consider appropriate for negotiation, mediation, or discussion. In many cases, there is no need for discussion, other than to inform people that this is what we expect and that they will be held accountable for meeting those standards.
In a vast majority of cases, that deals with the law.
Don't get me wrong - if a group of people, including those in support of polygamy, can legally get the law changed, then that is fine. But as far as stating, like Shurtleff did, that we won't enforce laws, to me is the wrong way to approach the issue.
You (in the generic, not the specific sense) can do this by 1) getting the legislature to change the law, or 2) get the law declared invalid by the courts.
Other than those two options, we believe that you should obey the law and if you don't, you should be prepared for the consequences.
Some of the people here don't agree with that position, so I get 'blasted,' not that it changes my beliefs or position...
Kathy,
The children are being protected because of what has been done, the specific acts committed, including Bigamy, not their religious beliefs.
They can believe anything they want, but they are prohibited from certain actions. So far the evidence seems to indicate that they have committed various felonies, and now they want a free pass.
It ain't going to happen in Texas, and as I opined in my blog Coram Non Judice, Shurtleff has possibly thrown away any possibility of having any meaningful input into the actions of Texas.
All we expect and require is that the FLDS obey the law. If they don't want to do so, then the consequences are on their heads, not ours.
Txbluesman,
Every state has laws on the books that are dated, and no longer meet the needs of the people of that state. Most states do not go through their laws with any kind of regularity specifically looking for those outdated laws for purposes of eradicating them...there is just too much else to be acomplished in any given legislative session...
Ergo, every state has its share of laws that are ignored, or not enforced.
This is particularly true concerning laws attempting governance over one's sexuality, or sexual practices.
I haven't looked it up recently, but I do believe there are still states that have laws making homosexuality illegal....not long ago there were states with laws on the books requiring that only the 'missionary' position be used...
Get my drift?????
It may not be politically correct to have public hearings or discussions about the potential legalization of polygamy in many areas of this country...on the other hand, it may very well be one of those laws that it is prudent to ignore, as long as those violating the law aren't also abusing and violating other laws that do hurt individuals or abuse public dollars.....
As for any actions that hurt individuals.....well, that's a 'horse of a different color'.....and those laws need to be strictly adhered to....An individual's liberties end where the next one's begin....
Multiple 'Spiritual' marriages don't infringe on anyone....they may offend some person's sensibilities, but then purple cars offend mine...so what?.....forcing a child into sexual relations hurts that child and the others around her/him....and force can be anything from subtle coersion to physical force....it is wrong....the existing laws are not strong enough in many of our 'books'....
How one upholds what laws, and to what degree, must be tempered by common sense, prevailing circumstance, desired outcomes, and needs of the community....
If our desired 'end result' is to have safe, happy, thriving children and families...to preserve and protect that seminal foundation of American community life, then it seems to me that we have to keep that end goal in sight as we decide what, when, and where to prosecute....and assume a 'whatever it takes' mentality to bring some peace and harmony to this community, at the same time protecting the interests of the children...and preserving the family unit...
That takes a lot of good will and flexibility.....
Strict constuctionists do best remaining in their armchairs...
*sweet smile*
Some fairly knowledgeable people have postulated that the TX authorities will not prosecute the polygamy(although I understand that it's illegal in TX), but will instead concentrate on the alleged child rape; for prosecutions, as well as reasons for CPS intervention.
I'm unclear. Do you agree or disagree, TXBluesMan?
Regina,
I would agree with you about outdated laws, except for one thing that makes this case different.
The Texas Legislature looked at the Bigamy statute in 2005, and amended it to the current version. In addition, they provided a definition of spouse in Chapter 21 (Sexual Offenses), removal of spousal privilege in bigamy cases, added an enhancement to Sexual Assault for statutory rape in a bigamous relationship, provided for it being an offense to conduct a marriage ceremony of a minor (including a spiritual marriage), prohibiting underage common law marriage, etc.
You are asking us to ignore a law that was recently reviewed and updated, by representatives of the people of our state.
Why should we?
Don't we have a right to establish the criminal and civil laws of our own state under Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution?
This is what the people of our state want, and they passed it into law within the last 4 years. With an intervening election, if the people didn't like the law, it would have been repealed.
I'm sorry, but the only thing to talk about is how to obtain compliance, not whether it should be enforced.
Common sense should tell them that if we just passed the law, we mean to enforce it.
txbluesman,
I wasn't aware of the fact that Texas had just revised its laws concerning bigamy, polygamy, etc.
None the less, I certainly hope that a. most of the folks have covered their legal butts, and b. any jurists hearing these cases have a wide berth.....and lots of discretion....
Let's not compound the problems by being overly zealous....
Save that for for any future infractions of the age of consent after an agreement for future behavior and monitoring is struck....
Thanks for the info on the update of the bigamy law, TXBluesman. I did not know. I did know that the laws concerning child rape were recently updated.
Yeah, TxBM, we wouldn't want to actually PUNISH lawbreakers by being overly zealous now, would we? Let's just slap those nasty old men rapists on the hands and send them home to rape some more little girls.
It sounds like Tx is serious to me, it doesn't like either polygamy or child rape, and means it when they say they are going for permanent custody of the FLDS kids.
Regina,
We are not looking to be overly zealous, and enforcing criminal laws against certain types of felonies is not being too zealous.
Each offense has a punishment range. The defendant can have the jury decide the punishment, or the judge.
On regular bigamy, the range is 2-10 years. They can also get probation. It will vary. If they cooperate, then they'll likely be able to go home on probation, with certain conditions. If they don't, they'll probably do time.
The enhanced bigamy is similar, with a range of 5-99 years or life.
The most common enhanced bigamy sentence I have seen runs about 15 years or so, meaning that they'll be out in about 4 years.
Note that most of these are jury sentences, so I wouldn't count on a jury of Texans being very sympathetic.
I know what the sentences will run on the sexual assault of a child (statutory rape) charges, and you really don't want to think about that - it will be a while before they get out, and they have to serve at least half the calendar time sentence to be eligible for parole.
I think that the FLDS have made a very severe miscalculation if they believe that we will handle it in any manner that is close to how Utah or Arizona handle (or fail to handle) it.
.
.
TxBluesman
"Common sense should tell them that if we just passed the law, we mean to enforce it."
-
But see here now, you are thinking that the FLDS would ever use common sense. Oh my heck, they dont even use "Horse Sense"..!!!!
===================
TBM:
"I think that the FLDS have made a very severe miscalculation if they believe that we will handle it in any manner that is close to how Utah or Arizona handle (or fail to handle) it."
Ya mean, they cant take Law enforcement incompetence with them..?
What ever happened to the old "hiding in the bushes" trick.? It doesnt work in Texas..?
8^o
.
.
Post a Comment
<< Home