Photo LM Otero/Associated Press
Justice is finally rearing its head in the ugly West Texas raid on the FLDS YFZ ranch. The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that a Texas appeals court has ruled that Texas did not have sufficient evidence to seize all 400 plus children in its ludicrous actions last month:
SAN ANGELO, Texas — It is not yet clear how soon children from a polygamous sect’s ranch will return home, now that a Texas appeals court has ruled child welfare officials did not have the right to seize them.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin has ruled the state did not have sufficient evidence that more than 400 children on the ranch were in immediate danger.
You can read the court ruling here or here: Texas-appellate-court-ruling
In its ruling, the appellate court summarized the evidence upon which Texas relied :
In this case, the Department relied on the following evidence with respect to the children taken into custody from the Yearning For Zion ranch to satisfy the requirements of section 262.201:
* •Interviews with investigators revealed a pattern of girls reporting that “there was no age too young for girls to be married”;
* •Twenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen;
* •Five of the twenty females identified as having become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen are alleged to be minors, the other fifteen are now adults;
* •Of the five minors who became pregnant, four are seventeen and one is sixteen, and all five are alleged to have become pregnant at the age of fifteen or sixteen; (5)
* •The Department’s lead investigator was of the opinion that due to the “pervasive belief system” of the FLDS, the male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse;
* •All 468 children (6) were removed from the ranch under the theory that the ranch community was “essentially one household comprised of extended family subgroups” with a single, common belief system and there was reason to believe that a child had been sexually abused in the ranch “household”; and
* •Department witnesses expressed the opinion that there is a “pervasive belief system” among the residents of the ranch that it is acceptable for girls to marry, engage in sex, and bear children as soon as they reach puberty, and that this “pervasive belief system” poses a danger to the children.
As I, and many, many others have commented in previous posts, this evidence was meager at best, and not likely sufficient to meet the statutory requirement.
The appellate court also listed the undisputed evidence established at the trial court level:
In addition, the record demonstrates the following facts, which are undisputed by the Department:
* •The only danger to the male children or the female children who had not reached puberty identified by the Department was the Department’s assertion that the “pervasive belief system” of the FLDS community groomed the males to be perpetrators of sexual abuse later in life and taught the girls to submit to sexual abuse after reaching puberty;
* •There was no evidence that the male children, or the female children who had not reached puberty, were victims of sexual or other physical abuse or in danger of being victims of sexual or other physical abuse;
* •While there was evidence that twenty females had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, there was no evidence regarding the marital status of these girls when they became pregnant or the circumstances under which they became pregnant other than the general allegation that the girls were living in an FLDS community with a belief system that condoned underage marriage and sex; (7)
* •There was no evidence that any of the female children other than the five identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen were victims or potential victims of sexual or other physical abuse;
* •With the exception of the five female children identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen, there was no evidence of any physical abuse or harm to any other child;
* •The Relators have identified their children among the 468 taken into custody by the Department, and none of the Relators’ children are among the five the Department has identified as being pregnant minors; and
* •The Department conceded at the hearing that teenage pregnancy, by itself, is not a reason to remove children from their home and parents, but took the position that immediate removal was necessary in this case because “there is a mindset that even the young girls report that they will marry at whatever age, and that it’s the highest blessing they can have to have children.”
The appellate court then set forth its ruling and rationale that Texas simply did not carry its evidentiary burden at the trial court level. In other words, Texas was not justified in taking every single child from their mothers, fathers, and homes at the ranch:
The Department failed to carry its burden with respect to the requirements of section 262.201(b). Pursuant to section 262.201(b)(1), the danger must be to the physical health or safety of the child. The Department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relators’ pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a “pervasive system of belief” that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. (9) 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. It is the imposition of certain alleged tenets of that system on specific individuals that may put them in physical danger. The Department failed to offer any evidence that any of the pubescent female children of the Relators were in such physical danger. The record is silent as to whether the Relators or anyone in their households are likely to subject their pubescent female children to underage marriage or sex. The record is also silent as to how many of Relators’ children are pubescent females and whether there is any risk to them other than that they live in a community where there is a “pervasive belief system” that condones marriage and child-rearing as soon as females reach puberty.
Of course, the appellate court is exactly correct in this analysis. This was such an easy finding to make. The fact that Judge Walther did not make the finding speaks volumes of her poor judicial analysis at the trial court level, and frankly I think her level of incompetence in this case. The appellate court immediately picked up on the fact there was absolutely no evidence supporting the allegation that all 400 plus children were in immediate physical danger. They also pointed out that targeting the FLDS belief system was not sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.
The appellate court did not buy the state’s argument that the entire FLDS ranch was one household and that the fact that a few minor girls appeared to be pregnant, or who had given birth necessitated the removal of every child at the ranch:
The Department also failed to establish that the need for protection of the Relators’ children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children. As previously noted, none of the identified minors who are or have been pregnant are children of Relators. There is no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household as the Relators’ children. (10) There is no evidence that Relators have allowed or are going to allow any of their minor female children to be subjected to any sexual or physical abuse. There is simply no evidence specific to Relators’ children at all except that they exist, they were taken into custody at the Yearning For Zion ranch, and they are living with people who share a “pervasive belief system” that condones underage marriage and underage pregnancy. Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the Department contends, (11) there is no evidence that this danger is “immediate” or “urgent” as contemplated by section 262.201 with respect to every child in the community. The legislature has required that there be evidence to support a finding that there is a danger to the physical health or safety of the children in question and that the need for protection is urgent and warrants immediate removal. Id. § 262.201(b). Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue as required by section 262.201.
For those who have followed this saga through the posts and comments over here, you will recall that in prior discussions I highlighted the legal requirements (see also here) the Texas Family Code sections required before children could be removed from their homes and families. These sections also mandated that the state make every effort possible to avoid that drastic measure. The appellate court noted the state made essentially no effort to comply with that statutory requirement. Again, this was a no brainer. Judge Walther failed miserably in her handling of this matter at the trial court level:
Finally, there was no evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the removal of any of Relators’ children. The evidence is that the Department went to the Yearning For Zion ranch to investigate a distress call from a sixteen year-old girl. (12) After interviewing a number of children, they concluded that there were five minors who were or had been pregnant and that the belief system of the community allowed minor females to marry and bear children. They then removed all of the children in the community (including infants) from their homes and ultimately separated the children from their parents. This record does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the Department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children of Relators.
The appellate court concluded its opinion by noting that not only did the state not carry its burden of proof, but that the trial court, Judge Walther, abused her discretion in making the findings and rulings that she did. Judge Walther could and should have returned those children when she conducted what turned out to be a kangaroo court. Judicial Smackdown!
We find that the Department did not carry its burden of proof under section 262.201. The evidence adduced at the hearing held April 17-18, 2008, was legally and factually insufficient to support the findings required by section 262.201 to maintain custody of Relators’ children with the Department. Consequently, the district court abused its discretion in failing to return the Relators’ children (13) to the Relators. The Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus is conditionally granted. The district court is directed to vacate its temporary orders granting sole managing conservatorship of the children of the Relators to the Department. The writ will issue only if the district court fails to comply with this opinion.
The Washington Post (linked below) column quotes Julie Balovich, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid:
In its ruling, the appeals court directed a district court to vacate its temporary orders granting custody of the children to the Department of Family and Protective Services. The department can appeal the decision, however, and attorneys for the mothers said it was not immediately clear when they might be reunited with their children.
“It’s a great day for families in Texas,” said Julie Balovich, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which represents the 48 mothers in the case. “It’s a great day for justice in Texas.”
She told reporters that the appeals court decision gives the trial court 10 days to comply. The decision “covers only the mothers we represent,” Balovich said. Ultimately, however, “I believe that it’s going to apply to all the children and all the mothers,” she said.
In short, this is very much a victory for the FLDS mothers who brought the appeal. More important, it is a victory for due process, which was sorely lacking in this case. It is a victory for the rule of law. It is a victory for the First Amendment. It is a victory for these innocent children who did absolutely nothing wrong, yet were wrenched from their lives, families and homes by the State of Texas because of what their parents believed and practiced as a religion. Let’s hope the children are reunited as quickly as they were yanked away from their mothers by Texasl
Texas Defends Actions:
In a surreal response to the appellate court’s ruling, Texas officials still defend their gestapo like tactics and the removal of every single child from the ranch. From the Salt Lake Tribune:
SAN ANGELO, Texas – Child welfare authorities are defending their seizure of more than 400 children from a polygamous sect’s ranch near here and deciding their next move, following an appeal courts’ sharp rejection Thursday of the removal.
In a statement on its Web site, the Department of Family and Protective Services recounts the evidence it felt showed the children were in danger. But it concludes: “While our only duty is to the children, we respect that the court’s responsibility and view is much broader. We will work with the Office of Attorney General to determine the state’s next steps in this case.”
This is the nonsense Texas’ Department of Family and Protective Service listed on its website today:
The Department of Family and Protective Services removed children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado after finding a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse that puts every child at the ranch at risk.
The very first interviews at the ranch revealed a pattern of underage girls being “spiritually united” with older men and having children with the men. Investigators also observed a pattern of organized deception in those first interviews. Women and children frequently said they could not answer questions about the ages of girls or family relationships. Children were moved from location to location in an apparent attempt to prevent investigators from talking to them. Investigators observed numerous girls who had small children, and girls told us that marriages could occur at any age.
An examination of evidence found at the ranch further confirmed the pervasive pattern of sexual abuse. A Bishop’s Record detailing family relationships listed 13 girls who were ages 16 and 17, including nine living at the YFZ Ranch. All nine of the girls living at the ranch were listed as wives in the document, which was entered into evidence during the 14-day hearing in San Angelo.
Breath taking! They provide shallow conclusions emphatically rejected by the appellate court. And, they still provide absolutely no credible evidence to support those baseless allegations. Despite the CPS chant over and over again of a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse out at the ranch, not one–repeat–not one individual has been charged with any crime. It makes my head spin.
More Coverage:
Grits for Breakfast here and here
Texas concedes 15 mothers adults (Salt Lake Tribune) Oops!
The Local Crank (A Texas Family Lawyer’s Blog)
Appeals Court Supports FLDS (Artemis at Feminist Mormon Housewifes–Thanks Artemis for your posting this over at fMh)
FLDS Justice is Served (Simple Utah Mormon Politics)
Volokh Conspiracy (Follow and read his links–all very good)
Yearning for Evidence (Slate)
Messenger and Advocate 
May 22, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Don’t jump the gun yet with the title, Guy.
If the State appeals (and doesn’t it have to appeal to avoid looking utterly ridiculous), how long will it take to have that appeal heard? I assume (hope), given the circumstances and damage to the kids, that the appeal would be heard expeditiously, but what is the statute concerning timing?
May 22, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Ray is right about the right to appeal–and a likely (and unfortunate) stay of the appeals court’s decision until that appeal is decided–but, what’s really impressive is how fast Guy gets the news out.
I just opened the NY Times online, and saw that it had posted the story “1 Minute ago.” Then I came here, and found that Guy had already posted. I am impressed!
May 22, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I’m very encouraged to know that there is some sanity in Texas. This is a good day for the rule of law.
May 22, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Guy, I hope this moves along expeditiously and that governments everywhere learn from this horrible injustice. I’m not optimistic that they will, but I can still hope.
May 22, 2008 at 1:09 pm
One crucial issue that has seemed very off to me from the beginning was the CPS’s treating the ranch as a single household. I’m glad to see that the appeals court didn’t allow that to stand.
May 22, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Even if there is an appeal can’t the appelate court decide to release the children barring an other reversal?
May 22, 2008 at 1:43 pm
YAY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I hope CPS has not lost any kids and they have not been harmed by those caring for them. 😦
May 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm
What makes this decision even more remarkable, in fact unprecedented, is that the appeals court used the “abuse of discretion” standard of review, which is the standard most favorable to the trial court. For this reason, it is almost unheard-of for a removal order to be reversed on appeal.
May 22, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I’m pleased to hear of the appellate decision. Unfortunately, I guarantee you that somewhere, there’s a religious bigot declaring that the appellate court in question is made up of “activist judges.”
May 22, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Great summary, Guy. It’s pretty clear at this point (to everyone except Texas CPS) that at this point Texas CPS is acting largely in the interest of CPS, not in the interest of the children they keep holding out as justification for their now-reprimanded actions. Those kids are now just pawns of a handful of Texas bureaucrats playing CYA, which is simply a disgrace. It’s too bad the reprimand didn’t issue from the trial judge a month ago. Oh well, that’s what appellate courts are for.
May 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm
The one with the sunglasses in the middle is pretty hot.
May 22, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Guy, I know that the blogs really had nothing to do with bringing about this result, but doesn’t it feel good to have been on the side of the angels with the courts somehow agreeing with us? Parents in unpopular religious communities can breathe easier tonight.
May 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Ray,
Yeah, I modified the title of this post. And, thanks for posting the links on the other threads as well. Great news today. Yes, I’m certain CPS has the right to an appear; however, if I’m making decisions over there at CPS, I’d really want to think this through. In CA, the state supreme court is not required to hear an appeal. I don’t know how it works in Texas. So, if it’s like CA, then their supreme court could either take the appeal and issue its own ruling, or it could simply not hear the appeal, letting the appellate ruling stand. I have no idea how long that process might take in this type of a case. Usually appeals take months, sometimes years; however, here time is of the essence. Families have been torn asunder by Texas’ incredible incompetence, compounded by Judge Walther’s incompetence. So, if there is an appeal, I would think it would be on an expidited basis. Perhaps the Local Crank, if he comes back this way can chime in on the time factor.
But, given what we know of the CPS case, or what little of it there appears to be, I would want to think long and hard about an appeal at this stage.
Mark B,
Well, I think the N.Y. Time is probably a little slow on the uptake. This story had been on the wires for at least an hour, and likely more before I posted on it. Thanks for stopping by though to check in.
Tom,
Yes, some sanity indeed. Long overdue.
Geoff B,
I too hope it moves very quickly. Everyday these families are deprived of each other is the worse kind of torture imaginable.
Clark,
I would tend to say probably not (though I’m not licensed to practice in Texas). Assuming there is an appeal, and if the Texas supreme court heard the appeal, and for some reason reversed the appellate court decision, you would not want to go through the nightmare if removing these kids all over again from their families. So, I would think it unlikely they would release the children pending any further appeal. Texas should finally do the right thing and let these children go.
Crank,
Agreed. It is rare for an appellate court to reverse a trial court based on abuse of discretion. This was a judicial smackdown of gigantic proportion.
Nick,
I think the activist here was Judge Walther, who so blatantly ignored the plain language of the Texas statutes.
Dave, Yeah, it seems to be clear to the entire world, other that CPS which continues to live in its own world–exemplified by their response on their website today.
Ardis,
Yeah, I’m certain blogs had nothing to do with this decision–as it should be. But, it’s a pretty great feeling knowing these families have the hope of being united. I can’t see Texas’ supreme court even agreeing to hear an appeal…but who knows.
May 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I’ve been wondering for days what further news there was. If there had been real proof of abuse I still wouldn’t have been happy about the methods involved but I would have been glad to see it stopped. As Keepapitchinin says, parents in unpopular religious communities can sleep easier tonight. Heaven only knows how long it’ll take to get those kids back from foster care; I hope those families are reunited soon.
As for Texas:
“A Bishop’s Record detailing family relationships listed 13 girls who were ages 16 and 17, including nine living at the YFZ Ranch. All nine of the girls living at the ranch were listed as wives in the document, which was entered into evidence during the 14-day hearing in San Angelo.”
Go back and read your own laws, Texas. Sixteen- and seventeen-year olds can marry with parental consent. The fact that you’ve found these girls to be married proves nothing.
May 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm
think the activist here was Judge Walther, who so blatantly ignored the plain language of the Texas statutes.
I completely agree. There are plenty of people out there, however, who are buying into the media blitz of “eee-vil polygamy cult.” They won’t like the appellate court ruling, and it’s become fashionable of late to shout a lot about so-called “activist judges” whenever someone disagrees with a court ruling—particularly when the person doing the shouting hasn’t the slightest understanding of the laws involved.
May 22, 2008 at 6:58 pm
‘Unfortunately, I guarantee you that somewhere, there’s a religious bigot declaring that the appellate court in question is made up of “activist judges.”’
For most people, the definition of an ‘activist judge’ is any judge who makes a decision they don’t like. The height of this was during the Terri Schiavo debacle when Tom DeLay threatened impeachment on “activist judges” when, in fact, those judges were refusing to be activists and instead strictly interpreted the law.
May 22, 2008 at 10:43 pm
I just found this blog today and am so relieved to know I’m not the only one completely shocked at everything that has happened with this case until today. The media seemed to be completely ignorant to the basic rights of these parents and children. I couldn’t watch anything about this story for the last few weeks because I was so disgusted at their spin. The idea that the state could put children through the ordeal of “foster care” (and rip them away from their mothers) with basically no evidence whatsoever is alarming to say the least. I am grateful that Justice still exists in Texas. Does anyone know if they can sue the state for putting their children through this ordeal for nothing? If they can, they should, just to teach them a lesson.
May 23, 2008 at 6:59 am
PDOE, Texas certainly has not done their homework on this one. Hopefully CPS and other Texas authorities will recognize their mistakes, and refocus their efforts on individual families, if they have the evidence for such investigations–and let the vast majority of these children return home to their families.
May 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
It is good to see that finally somebody has pointed out that this was a ridiculous string of silliness. A legal farce if you will.
Do you think that there is even grounds for the Supreme Court to take this? I thought that the Supreme Court only took cases that had to do with under-defined state law or severely disputed rulings? I suppose the use of the “abuse of discretion” could pull the Supreme Court into the fray?
May 23, 2008 at 9:11 am
I am hopeful these families will be reunited soon. Great news!
Is it just me, or does the picture of the polygamous women remind anyone else of the Agents from “The Matrix”? They all look alike! Scary!
May 23, 2008 at 10:17 am
[…] legal action against the FLDS at Volokh. This after the Texas Appeals Court ruled children must be returned. It’ll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Utah AG Mark Shurtleff wouldn’t say […]
May 23, 2008 at 11:55 am
Is it just me, or does the picture of the polygamous women remind anyone else of the Agents from “The Matrix”? They all look alike! Scary!
What? No comparison to “The Stepford Wives”?
May 23, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Any one know what is the basis of a 10 day delay.
Several blogs and media are quoting each other on this but it does not appear to be in the Appeals court order ( court opinion ) any where.
Here is the courts opinion and Writ of Mandamous:
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=16865
http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=16865
May 23, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Mark N.,
Sorry, I don’t know anything about “The Stepford Wives”. Should I? 🙂
May 23, 2008 at 3:07 pm
TrevorM,
They’ve appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. I know absolutely nothing about Texas state law, however, including whether the state Supreme Court is required to hear cases or not. There are people, however, who seem to lurk around here who have that kind of knowledge; I keep hoping one will pitch in with the answer. Otherwise, Guy’s guess seems as good as any.
May 23, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The Texas judge sounds like he’s about to leap across the bench to strangle the CPS people and I can understand why.
The one with the sunglasses in the middle is pretty hot.
Ahem. Yes.
May 24, 2008 at 6:28 am
[…] The Baptist Reich Welp, I don’t want to re-hash the history of everything that has gone on over in lardeo but here is a link that very cleanly shows what happend in the appelas court last week. Here. […]
May 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm
My family has been victimized by CPS in California. My children were taken without a warrant, court order, or exigent circumstances. I have filed a lawsuit in U S District court in pro per against the police department, DPSS, two police detectives, two social workers and a doctor. My case did not make any headlines and I am now indigent because of the unlawful actions of the police and social workers. I have not seen my children for 2.5 years and I am still appealing the termination of my parental rights. People in this country do not realize the depth to which CPS and the police will go to accuse anyone of child abuse. There is no oversight of the DPSS in California and I am pretty sure in other states as well. The problem is that all too often the parents are not financially able to defend themselves or they are not able to appear in pro per. The unlawful taking of children in the U S is reaching epidemic proportions all stemming from the enactment of Capta. The DPSS get anywhere from 150,000 to 1.5 million dollars in funding for every child taken. From what I have read here and elsewhere this is just business as usual for CPS. They would rather take 100 children unlawfully than to let just one abused child suffer. While I agree that no child should suffer, it is just not right to destroy families with wholesale disregard of the Constitution.
May 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Okay, I’m going to toss in the opposite sentiment. I do not agree that no child should suffer. Now before you all start flaming me give me a chance to support my point.
First off, if we take as axiomatic that “no child should suffer” then we must accept that the state must raise all children. Why? Because all family situations have inexperienced parents who will make mistakes, thereby causing their children to suffer, the differences are only in degree. So the only perfect parent is the “experienced and scientifically proven” state. (Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder, and the state is doing the beholding.)
This is a well explored theme in sci-fi. In that genre it is usually explored as a perfect machine that is required to “protect” humans and in the end either destroys the human race, or puts the entire human race in jail. The fact is, humans are not perfect and ultimate protection of any group inevitably leads to the “Big Brother” governmental philosophy.
Ultimate protection requires we convict people for thinking about committing an act rather then only convicting after the act has been committed. (Waiting until after the act has been committed protects no one. Think about it.) The “thought police” aspect of the Texas situation is what I find most repugnant.
May 27, 2008 at 2:36 pm
On a somewhat related, but slightly different note I am having trouble coming up with any reason that CPS, or family court for that matter, should exist.
I definitely do not condone child abuse, however, as a person of faith I am at a loss for any reason why the government should be involved at all.
I believe that if a parent abuses a child they will have to answer to the Almighty for it. And I firmly believe that it would have been better for them if a mill stone had been hung around their neck and they be drowned to paraphrase Matthew 18:6.
If a parent kills a child then they are a murderer and should be prosecuted as such. Not only that, I believe the child will go to dwell with God while the parent will know the meaning of he**fire. In addition can you imagine the torment on judgment day when the Almighty asks the parent “What of the child I gave to you to raise?” There is no answer that will suffice in that day.
As for the so called “cycle of abuse,” once again my faith informs me, this time that it does not exist. That each person on the Earth has the choice of how they will live their life and can choose not to perpetuate the sins of their parents.
In the end: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord” Romans 12:19.
So for what purpose does CPS exist? It has been shown that except in the most extreme cases of true physical danger to a child, the child is better off in the abusive home then in “the system.” For what purpose does CPS exist? I am aware of many cases of divorcing parents using CPS against each other, cases of doctors using CPS to their own ends, neighbors using CPS to “punish” a neighbor, and total strangers using CPS to attack those with different child rearing practices, different schooling practices, and different religious practices. The threat “do as I tell you or I’ll call CPS and they will take your children away” is a very real one. Why does CPS exist?
The only answer I have been able to come up with is so the devil can wage war directly on the family. Something to think about.
May 28, 2008 at 8:16 pm
You all should be ashamed of yourselves. I wonder how many of you, if you knew you could get away with it,would have sex with a child ,who is absoutely defenseless, not fully grown physically, definitely, not mentally, and is groomed to be a piece of property and a place for a child molester….RAPIST to stick his nasty old penis. This is not about religion!!! I am disgusted with this court.These perverts should be castrated and spend the rest of their lives masterbating behind bars with big old bubu behind them giving back the same treatment they have shown to those KIDS. Shame on the system and all of you for hiding behind “religion”. CPS,I applaud you. Do not give up. Tell the public what they can do to help. Children are innocent little people who deserve respect as human beings,the right to have a childhood, and the opportunity to be more than an object.
May 28, 2008 at 9:22 pm
km, you remind me of the Queen of Hearts:
That might be the way the legal system works in Wonderland, but here in the United States the accused have the right to due process. In other words, the authorities must convict someone in a fair and impartial trial before they punish him.
May 28, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Yet ,not all accused were present nor was any one person punished.I must be in wonderland.
May 29, 2008 at 8:21 am
km, if you are still around, please read all of the comments on all of the threads here dealing with this issue.
NOBODY has defended the FLDS as being able to engage in illegal sexual activity of any kind. Your comment does not reflect what actually is being said here, and it is deeply hurtful to call everyone here supporters of rape and abuse. It simply isn’t true.
If your neighbor or fellow congregationist is abusing their children, would you support CPS in taking YOUR children away from YOU in order to protect them from your neighbor or friend at church? That’s all we are saying.
May 29, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Kids are America’s most precious and most at-risk citizens. With drugs and peer pressure facing them on a daily basis, it’s no wonder that mental illness and drug abuse is at an all time high. Problems facing American children.
May 30, 2008 at 5:33 am
supreme court upheld the appeals court ruling.
May 30, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Rumor has it after DNA testing of the FLDS children the State of Texas released some of the children to their mother’s.
As bus after bus returned to Elderado it was said you could hear the children singing,” John Joseph Jingle Heimer Smith. That’s my name to, and when ever I go out; the people allway’s shout! There go’s John Joseph Jingle Hiemer Smith !” Followed by the song,” Kum bai ya my Lord Kum Bai Ya !”
May 30, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Check out the latest I’ve seen. Walters . . . *sigh*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat
May 30, 2008 at 9:42 pm
well KM, I was wondering how a crooked judge in a crooked little town with a crooked little sheriff could pull of such an act in the name of “being” saved. however, your comment pretty much explains it to me. It shows me that there certainly is people out there who run on emotion and hearsay. who do not uphold the constitution.
why doesn’t adult protective services come take you away for marrying your cousin? see there we all have rights.
September 2, 2009 at 12:52 am
DISGUSTING
January 29, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Wow! I Can’t believe this. I find it interesting that every one jumped on KM who didn’t agree with the thread but not one said anything about the person who believes chirldren who are abused should not worry about the 16+ years they live in abuse because God will take care of the abuser!! Unbelievable, seriously I’m appalled that inteligent Americans can think this way. I would much rather assume you all live on that ranch or a similar one then believe you could be my neighbor or worse my childrens teacher, role model, leader etc…
January 29, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Huh? How do you people FIND these old posts, and why do you bother to leave random, incomprehensible remarks after a quick misreading of a few comments?
At least in kd’s case it isn’t a matter of an “inteligent” American, because kd clearly can’t spell, punctuate, or capitalize, and has no conception of the difference between contractions and plurals. Goodness gracious — you ought to welcome a remedial teacher for yourself, even if it IS one of us.
June 1, 2011 at 3:58 am
[…] Texas Appeals Court Rules FLDS Children Must Be Returned «* •The Department’s lead investigator was of the opinion that due to the “pervasive belief system” of the FLDS, the male children are groomed to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and the girls are raised to be victims of sexual abuse; … 42 Responses to “Texas Appeals Court Rules FLDS Children Must Be Returned”… […]