This post is my response to my fellow Mormon blogger, Clark’s post over at The Millennial Star. I originally was just going to respond in the comments; however, my comment grew to an entire post sized response, hence my response here.
One of the most difficult sentences of Clark’s post is this one:
However let’s ignore all the legal questions for a moment and ask what we can reasonably infer.
That’s exactly what the State of Texas would like to do–ignore the law or the legal questions for the moment. I’m sorry, but I don’t think we can have a substantive discussion about Texas’ actions by ignoring or leaving out the legal questions or issues. We can and should consider the practical effects and even the philosophical issues involved as well–but just forget the law? Why? I’m sorry, but when the State–any state, but in this case Texas, invades any home and neighborhood in armored personnel carriers with law enforcement armed with automatic weapons, to forcibly remove children from their mothers, fathers and their homes, I want some legal basis for such an invasion. And, the law is what Texas is supposed to rely upon in embarking in such an endeavor.
So, let’s look a the law in question, specifically the Texas Family Law statute allowing the State to confiscate children from their parents:
§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that requests permission to take possession of a child without prior notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under Subchapter C; and
(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child.
This statutue, is the one I believe Texas relied upon to raid the FLDS community and take all their children. Let’s take it one at a time. The first paragraph requires some sworn affidavit. I’ve already discussed this topic and concede that Texas probably had a sufficiently worded affidavit (even though based on hearsay) to remove the one 16 year old minor child to which the affidavit referred.
Could Texas have provided a stronger and more powerful affidavit? Perhaps–if they would have located the complaining witness and actually had her swear out the facts of the affidavit–but they didn’t. And, I doubt from a legal standpoint they would be required to do so. You can read about the facts stated in the affidavit by following the link above. Those facts are important because they must be sufficient to satisfy:
a person of ordinary prudence and caution there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
Well, did Texas meet that standard? Perhaps as to the one alleged 16 year old minor victim. Certainly Texas was justified in entering the FLDS ranch to search for this 16 year old minor, her own children, and perhaps her own siblings, and even her husband, if he were present on the ranch. And, one would think such a person (the 16 year old minor) would be fairly easy to find, i.e., young, with an eight month old baby, several weeks pregnant with child two, and having been beaten as recently as Easter Sunday, and prior to that so severely she had several broken ribs, requiring hospitalization. One would think such a hospital visit would be able to be confirmed by CPS by visits to local hospitals and review of any medical records matching the description of this victim.
What is missing from the facts as alleged in the subject affidavit, are any facts whatsoever relating to some 415 other minor children then currently living on the FLDS ranch. Yet, despite lacking facts sufficient to allow Texas to remove in excess of 400 other children, not the subejct of this affidavit, Texas removed them anyway.
Let’s go back to subsection (3) of the above statute. It clearly states that before removing any child, Texas must make:
reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child.
Did Texas do that? I haven’t read or heard one report about any such efforts Texas made. As far as I can tell Texas made absolutely no effort whatsoever to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child. What might they have done?
Well, another Texas Family Law statute allows for the removal of the perpetrator, rather than the removal of the child:
§ 262.1015. REMOVAL OF ALLEGED PERPETRATOR; OFFENSE.
(a) If the department determines after an investigation that child abuse has occurred and that the child would be protected in the child’s home by the removal of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse, the department shall file a petition for the removal of the alleged perpetrator from the residence of the child rather than attempt to remove the child from the residence.
So, what Texas could have done is to have removed the perpetrator from the child’s home. In this case, it doesn’t appear Texas did that. In fact, it appears from these two code sections that the clear legislative intent of the Texas Legislature was to avoid if at all possible the removal of the child from the home. They want the state to do everything within its power to keep the child in the home, if possible. Why? Well one reason would be to reduce the trauma to the child.
What about the other 400 plus children that Texas forcibly removed from their mothers, fathers and their homes? What reasonable efforts, did Texas take that were consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, in order to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child–or in this case the 416 children? I’m sorry, but, I haven’t read anything suggesting any facts that Texas did anything remotely contemplated by these statutes.
Clark further wrote in his post:
For one we need to remember that one of the main reasons the FLDS set up the Texas compound was because Utah authorities were going after the FLDS using more restrained methods. They were seeking DNA samples and warrants against many men for underage marriages of the sort that have been discussed. (I’d hope those being too swayed by some of Guy’s posts at M&A check out the interview this morning with Mark Shurtleff at Radio West — he confirmed this) Also remember that the former FLDS President, Warren Jeffs, was found guilty as an accomplice to rape for precisely the charges made about the FLDS compound in Texas. Likewise there have been many, many charges of this sort made against the FLDS.
What difference does it make why the FLDS went to Texas? The Texas statutes don’t seem to contemplate that is really a relevant issue to the raid. As to those whom are swayed by my posts here, I think Attorney General Mark Shurtleff’s press interviews support my position more than it does Clark’s. I’ve already quoted the money quote from Utah’s Attorney General:
Still, Shurtleff said he had no plans to conduct a similar mass-scale raid on the polygamous border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
“And do what? Arrest thousands of polygamists in Utah? We wouldn’t have 400 kids, we’d have thousands in our foster care and thousands of their parents in the prison system. It’s not practical to do that,” Shurtleff said. “We were right to focus on abused children.”
The Utah Attorney General’s Office has made it clear that it will not prosecute polygamy as a criminal offense alone.
Instead, it has chosen to focus on child abuse, domestic violence and fraud. Shurtleff has said that he would have liked to have seen more cases prosecuted but did not have the necessary evidence or witnesses willing to come forward.
Polygamy is prohibited, but attorneys say constitutional questions regarding religious freedom could make it too difficult to secure a conviction on plural marriage alone, as is the case with court rulings regarding the rights of consenting adults.
County attorneys in Utah have shouldered the prosecution of polygamists, but the Utah Attorney General’s Office has had involvement and influence on the cases.
Again, there is good reason Utah does not act like Texas did. And, specifically criticizing the Texas raid:
Even now, Shurtleff questions the decision by Texas authorities in removing all 416 children from the FLDS Church’s YFZ Ranch.
“There is that sweeping statement that they’ve concluded as a matter of law that if you’re a child in a polygamous family, that alone means you’re abused,” Shurtleff said. “We’ve never concluded that here.”
That is exactly Texas’ untenable position here. They want all these cases to be treated as one large case rather than the individual cases of each child, which is exactly, I believe, what the Texas statutes require. I don’t think Texas has the facts sufficient to sustain its burden. I don’t think Texas had those facts when it went in with an armed paramilitary force.
I think Clark’s exercise as a philosophical discussion is interesting; but, I think he misses the point when he wants to ignore the law and the requirements necessary to support Texas’ armed invasion. I just don’t see it. I don’t think the invasion was justified.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. I’m not licensed to practice law in Texas; but, I think it is quite telling that neither Utah or Arizona’s attorneys general have adopted the Texas approach and lump all polygamist children into one large whole and ignore the individual, for which the relevant statutes clearly were written. This was a bad idea from the beginning. It’s getting worse with each passing day. I don’t see the advantage to what Texas has done. I see many, many advantages to Utah and Arizona’s approach. I think Texas has bitten off more than it can chew–in a rather large sized Texas portion.
It is a human tragedy. Even if all these children are eventually returned to their mothers, fathers, and their homes, they will likely have been scarred for life. This is why it is a bad idea to ignore all the legal questions, even for just a moment.
Jeff Lindsay over at Mormanity has a very good post on the subject as well.
Janet over at Feminist Mormon Housewives also has a very good post on the West Texas mess.
Dave over at DMI has also weighed in.
April 16, 2008 at 2:38 am
Very strong post Guy. Thanks.
April 16, 2008 at 4:01 am
Again, thank you, Guy.
While the plight of the individual children and their parents is the main thing, I suppose one other thing that irritates me about this is the arrogance and condescension of Texas officials who have appeared before the cameras in the last day or two. They know how to handle these things better than Utah or Arizona; they have struck a blow for — something — not justice, not child welfare — that Utah and Arizona have been too corrupt, too complacent, too timid to do. Shurtliff and his Arizona equivalent have handled the polygamist problem, specifically the FLDS, in the right way: They have built successful cases against Tom Green, Warren Jeffs, the police officers of Hilldale/Colorado City, the public school of H/CC, etc., by identifying the laws they have broken, by finding witnesses (sometimes reluctant ones) and gathering evidence, and by trusting the law enough to prosecute the offenses under and within the law.
Then along comes Texas, gonna show the little boys how the big boys handle things, and look what happens.
Thank you for continuing to cover the story.
April 16, 2008 at 5:58 am
This breaks my heart. It’s obvious that there is no abuse. This is not merely an attack on a single group but an attack on every American. We are no longer a free country when this can happen. I am not a Mormon, but I have had the distinct pleasure of knowing quite a few in college. By and large Mormons are some of the nicest, peaceful, kind, dignified, generous and mostly God and family centered people I’ve met.
I also find it interesting that there is any law regarding marriage at all because the Constitution clearly seperates church and state and marriage is a religious rite.
I hope these nice people get their kids and lives back soon.
April 16, 2008 at 6:19 am
Abnsolutely right: if we abandon the law because we are outraged, then what protection will we have when some official and anonymous critic are outraged over the way the way other Christians raise their children?
This is not about how awful someone’s religion is or how perverse their leader is. It’s about the power of the State to dictate how children are raised.
April 16, 2008 at 6:23 am
I think there’s been an overreaction here.
According to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Marleigh Meisner, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, “said child therapists and the guardians ad litem for the children agreed it was best for the mothers not to remain with the children.
She said that while the children were sad to see their mothers leave, they seem to have recovered. She said she saw some of the kids playing kickball with Texas Highway Patrol troopers.”
The children recover from separation from their parents and play kickball–all in one day!
April 16, 2008 at 6:27 am
Day 13 of the search for Sarah.
April 16, 2008 at 6:45 am
Isn’t that nice they took a mother and baby in the middle of the night? Why couldn’t they wait until the morning? Isn’t that depriving her of sleep? Why did they place her away from the group?
That is amazing they denied her family’s peitition. I hope and pray she is safe~
April 16, 2008 at 7:29 am
Guy, this is excellent analysis. I’ve been following this issue from the beginning, from the T&S, SLTrib, here, and a bit of DesNews.
I am amazed at the boldness of the State of Texas and their blatant disregard for clear Constitutional rights and their own statutes.
Ardis (2), your insight here (and elsewhere) is also spot on.
Last night’s Nightline shoved camera’s in the grieving mothers’ faces (great TV!) — does anyone know if they’ve covered the legality of this raid yet?
Jon
April 16, 2008 at 9:21 am
The point is that by focusing purely on Texas actions your posts have been romanticizing or even offering sympathy to a group of people engaged in quite reprehensible acts. If it were merely about Texas actions that would be one thing. But it is not despite the way you have characterized it.
And, you’ll note, in nearly every place I’ve written I’ve put pretty big caveats regarding Texas authorities.
Once again though let’s ask about the FLDS and their children. Something many seem to be ignoring.
Not necessary if upon entering the facility they see prima facie evidence of other abuse. Now you can dispute that they did see this but you’ve not provided any evidence that they didn’t.
As I’ve said multiple times if it turns out Texas acted improperly I’ll condemn them. However right now we have the condemnations from many here without the evidence for the condemnation. (If you have evidence I’d love to see it because I haven’t yet)
If all the adults in the community are knowingly keeping young women in forceable marriages then they are accomplices to rape. All of them. So are you saying that all the adults should have been removed from the community and the children left alone? Come on. Really?
Now you may disagree that the adults are all knowingly accomplices to rape. And there we’ll have to see how the evidence turns out.
I can but return to my first point and say that independent of the legally admissible evidence to a court case (since we don’t know what evidence Texas has) there is strong reasoning for outsiders to believe that this is the case. That is based upon public evidence (note once again, not criminally admissible evidence) there are strong reasons to believe that the adults in the FLDS compound in Texas are all accessories to rape.
Thus far no one has disputed that evidence. And, since people are continuously conflating issues, let me repeat once more. I’m not saying this is evidence for a court. We don’t know what evidence Texas has. That’s for a court to decide. (And I note that Texas authorities are submitting it for a court – even though people here independent of evidence have already made up their mind it will be a kangaroo court)
???????
What. No. Really? You are saying that?
So if the FLDS went to Texas to avoid criminal prosecution for rape it doesn’t matter?
Wow.
Now legally of course you are right. But that’s irrelevant to how we view things. It’s irrelevant to a court hearing but certainly relevant to how we view the RLDS. Unless you feel that people should only judge others based upon what is decided by a criminal court. (In which case O. J. is still out looking for the real killer)
No doubt. Texas’ actions may well drive the FLDS and similar groups further underground and make future prosecution more difficult. I’m certainly not defending Texas’ strategy here. From what I’ve read Utah and Arizona were much wiser. However to move from “unwise” to the level of rhetoric I’ve seen here is quite a leap.
If we stick solely to whether Texas’ actions were legally justified I’ll simply point out that we can’t decide that without knowing what other evidence Texas gathered. You yourself concede that the original raid was legal. You dispute the removal of all the children but have no evidentiary basis from which to make that judgment. Will you at least concede that point?
April 16, 2008 at 9:30 am
Clark means FLDS, not RLDS; he knows the difference. Don’t anybody, please, jump on us for hypocrisy in asking that LDS be distinguished from FLDS as if we can’t keep everything straight ourselves.
April 16, 2008 at 10:07 am
Clark,
I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting that the FLDS are attempting to avoid criminal prosecution for rape by going to Texas. That may be their motivation, but it doesn’t work. If I commit a crime in New York and I run away to Michigan, I can be arrested in Michigan and extradited to New York to be tried. That is, if Utah or Arizona intended to prosecute them, moving wouldn’t do them a bit of good. (I’m not a criminal attorney, so I don’t know the ins and outs of interstate extradition, but in watching the news, the only issue ever seems to arise where a person commits similar crimes in multiple states, and the states argue about who gets to prosecute first–think the DC sniper case from a few years ago.)
April 16, 2008 at 10:07 am
That was a typo. I think there’s a difference between an occasional typo and the way some media outlets have conflated the LDS church with the FLDS.
April 16, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Marleigh Meisner, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, “said child therapists and the guardians ad litem for the children agreed it was best for the mothers not to remain with the children.”
She has also said previously that the mothers didn’t want to talk to anyone.
She was also involved in the government’s acts at Waco. She is a credible source for sure.
Shurtleff et al success in convictions is due to a jury pool which has an animosity towards the polygamous subculture. I understand it but it taints justice nevertheless.
Because the general public is ignorant of Church policy is no reason to cast aside the presumption of innocence. Yes we all get tired of having to say,
“No the Church abandoned polygamy 118 years ago, so no Mormons don’t have 20 wives” yet the fact that enemies of Church use this misunderstanding to sow discord among the gentile community is I think, in turn, causing too many who are in the UT jury pool to think, “let’s fix those plygs”
April 16, 2008 at 11:19 am
Thank you for this important posting! As a non-LDS (of any stripe) American, I can’t identify with the religious teachings, but I can certainly identify with an overbearing government ripping our Constitutional Rights away. It’s totally outrageous and I stand with these poor people being treated horribly by Texas. I wish there is something I could do to the help these persecuted communities. Not all “outsiders” mean them harm.
April 16, 2008 at 11:22 am
I uphold our Prophet Monson, against Polygamy, and abuse, etc…but I am totally outraged as a convert to LDS church, that Texas did what they did….I do not believe there was abuse, the bed in the temple was probably due to workers resting while working on Temple, and I suggest we all who stand with FLDS do all we can to have the governor impeached and Texas authorities be held accountable for their total disregard for our constitution…It’s those Baptists and evangelicals that want to save the FLDS children, I pray to heavenly Father that LDS families will open their homes as foster parents, and RESPECT the theological views of these children and their parents..if wrongdoing was done, prosecute, indeed, but not the whole group…..My heart is broken for these our Brothers and Sisters and the children of the FLDS Church,. If you ask me, millions of LDS and non LDS are NOW IN THE FLDS CAMP, FOR THEM, and you LDS: how can you possibly be now in the prosecution stance, since your forbears were also poligs? May the Spirit come mightily to defend this people, the FLDS and may we LDS have compassion and LIVE THE GOSPEL, IN WORD AND DEED.
April 16, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Note that it was the Utah Attorney General who suggested this. See the quote over in my post at M*.
I think the reason he said that wasn’t that people couldn’t be extradited from Texas but because it would make evidence gathering much more difficult.
April 16, 2008 at 12:03 pm
To add the other reason was that at the time in Texas some of the marriages were legal whereas they were illegal in Texas.
April 16, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It may have been the Utah AG, but it seems disingenuous to me. Maybe they destroyed evidence; that may be illegal (although if there weren’t an investigation and they didn’t have a duty to preserve it, it may not be).
It certainly isn’t illegal, however, to move somewhere because you like the laws better. There would be no legal problem with a person moving to Nevada because that person likes prostitutes and doesn’t want to break the law. (There are serious, serious moral issues with that move, but it isn’t against the law.)
So, although it is wrong to marry a 15-year-old girl, period, there is nothing legally bad about moving somewhere where it is legal to do so, even with the intent of doing so. That’s why Texas changed their law when the FLDS arrived (which was a good thing, IMO). But, other than spin value, there is nothing actionable about moving from one place, where an action is illegal, to another, where it is legal, in order to act in that way.
(I want to make clear that I’m not arguing against you as much as I’m doubting there was anything substantive behind the Utah AG’s statement; if he wanted to or intended to prosecute, the move didn’t change that in any way. And if the move made gathering evidence more difficult—and there was an investigation going on—I’m sure he could have gotten a court order to prevent evidence from disappearing.)
April 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I think Clark (9) puts it best:
“If it turns out [the FLDS] acted improperly I’ll condemn them. However right now we have the condemnations from many here without the evidence for the condemnation. (If you have evidence I’d love to see it because I haven’t yet).”
Too true. If anyone has any evidence that all 416 children were abused by their parents, please raise your hand.
Jon
April 16, 2008 at 1:10 pm
P.S. How do you make those cute big quote thingies?
Jon
April 16, 2008 at 4:40 pm
It’s only illegal if it is demanded by the State. They destroyed it before the State could demand it. (There are some exceptions for this with regards to financial information — but that doesn’t apply)
The point about the destruction of what could have been evidence isn’t whether it was illegal but what it tells us about the FLDS community.
As I said, the issue in all this isn’t ultimately the legality of some of the things the FLDS did but rather what those actions tell us.
If there were underage women being forced into marriages and the community knew then they are guilty of being accessories to child abuse and for creating an abusive environment for all children whether they were abused individually or not.
Is there evidence to believe that the community knew of underage marriages? Abundant.
Is there evidence to believe the community knew of women who didn’t wish to be married? Abundant.
Is this sufficient to withdraw permanently all the children? Probably not which is why we are having hearings tomorrow.
April 16, 2008 at 4:43 pm
To add by evidence once again I am not talking about evidence before a court. You simply asked if there were evidence.
For tomorrow’s court hearings to be valid the State will need some concrete evidence which they have gathered. Presumably that will be presented. If it is insufficient I hope the children will be released. I see no evidence that it will be anything less than sufficient and considerable reason to suspect that Texas found hard evidence.
If they did not then I’ll join the chorus condemning Texas. But to say, given the evidences we have of FLDS practices, that Texas is guilty until proven innocent is incorrect in my view.
There is due process going on and I think that for all its flaws we have the trust the system until we see it is broken.
April 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm
By using the blockquote tag before and after the part you want set off by the cute quote thingie🙂
April 16, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Did you guys watch the media interviews? That mom was so eloquent, saying that people judge from their own hearts.
April 16, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Clark,
Do you know everything that happens in your neighborhood? There are 700 people living in this community. I can barely keep up with my own kids and family, let alone know what else 690 other people are doing in my neighborhood. There is no way I will ever be convinced that every adult in that community was knowingly hiding evidence or knowledge of crimes being committed.
April 16, 2008 at 5:22 pm
mom2oneson,
which interview (link)?
i find it sad that people assume these FLDS ladies to be uneducated hicks. anytime you see them in interviews they come off as being just like your next door neighbors, not the hillbillies the LDS mainstream and the media would like to paint them as. they are very eloquent, they are educated, and they prove it each time they are interviewed.
April 16, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The mom of the girl who is isolated was on their too, she said CPS is absuing her daughter to get her to claim she made the call.
April 16, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Ben There I did not say she was eloquent to point out my surprise. I was just applauding at what a wise woman she is, when you watch it you will see what I mean.
Except for one the reporters are pretty disrepectful to them, accusing them of being child abusers.
I don’t know if this link will work, if you know how to link it please do so.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7423878&ch=4226713&src=news
There are at least three: It’s a Wonderful Life, We Are Private People, and Polygamist Beg for Their Kids.
April 16, 2008 at 5:40 pm
It’s in the It’s a Wonderful Life interview. I don’t know how to link it, click on the above link and scroll down.
April 16, 2008 at 5:52 pm
mom2, my apologies for not being clearer. I was just stating (in my poorly phrased hasty way) that most people do assume the FLDS ladies to be uneducated hicks. i did not assume you were among those.
thank you kindly for the links, i will go watch those clips.
April 16, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I’d notice if someone had a new wife at church who looked like she just started menstruating.
April 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm
There are 700 people living in this community. I can barely keep up with my own kids and family, let alone know what else 690 other people are doing in my neighborhood.
In Clark’s defense – from what I gather, there were apparently 600-odd people at the ranch, including the 416 children. If you’ve got less than two hundred adults, and each man has an average of three wives–we’re only talking about fifty to sixty men. Word would get around.
April 16, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Oops–botched the blockquote tag.
April 16, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Watching what Texas did to the groups of people living in polygamy is exactly what they should be doing in Utah and Arizona. If the women are 18 or older fine, but they are putting up young girls to be married to men old enough to be their grandfather. This isn’t right and congrats to Texas for doing something about it.
As for the history of the church and polygamy it was done on a limited basis and was ended when it was no longer needed.
They didn’t have 20 wives and over 100 children like the man interviewed.
I honestly believe that the women were strong and and not these whimpy women who cannot speak with any volume to their voices. They worked hard, raised children and obeyed the laws of the land.
The situations we are seeing today are nothing that happened within the church over 100 years ago. This situation needs to be dealt with. I certainly would not want to live in that situation nor would I want my nieces in it either. Young women are to be respected, a partner to the man, equal, not under feet, baby making machine. Having girls marry once they hit puberty to men that could be their grandfather is just wrong.
April 16, 2008 at 8:57 pm
women are 18 or older fine, but they are putting up young girls to be married to men old enough to be their grandfather. This isn’t right and congrats to Texas for doing something about it.
As for the history of the church and polygamy it was done on a limited basis and was ended when it was no longer needed.
They didn’t have 20 wives and over 100 children like the man interviewed.
I honestly believe that the women were strong and and not these whimpy women who cannot speak with any volume to their voices. They worked hard, raised children and obeyed the laws of the land
April 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm
John F, Ardis, Justin, Jeff, Sam B,
Thanks for your comments and insightful analysis. Justin as always the links are great you provide. The over reaction comment gave me a good laugh. Perhaps after the kids are bored playing kickball with the state troopers, they might let them ride in those cool armored personnel carriers–or maybe even hold the automatic weapons.
mom2oneson, I’ve also enjoyed your links, comments and analysis as well.
And, I’ve enjoyed all the rest of the comments as well, even if I’ve disagreed with them. Thanks to all.
April 16, 2008 at 9:01 pm
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/0,5223,695271064,00.html
What does preponderance of evidence mean?
April 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Preponderance means 50.1% rather than by a more stringent standard, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal standard for adults.
April 16, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Thanks for the blog, you are a good man to bring attention to their mistreatment.
April 16, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Clark wrote #9:
It is about Texas Clark, because it is Texas which has removed all children from the compound. My point is not to romanticize but to criticize over reaching government reaction and force to the specific situation as we know it.
I offer sympathy to the rights of an entire group of people, which rights I believe Texas has violated.
Clark continued:
That is not the law in Texas, Clark. I know you want to ignore the law for just a moment, and rely on what you personally believe to be a history of bad acts by either these or other FLDS members; however, that is not what Texas law says.
I’ve already quoted the relevant code sections governing the removal of the children when Texas first went into the ranch, in the main body of this post. All I am saying is that based on the facts which have been published in media reports, and contained in court filings, Texas hasn’t met their burden, in my opinion.
The actual code sections in Texas which govern the possible removal of the other 400 plus children follow immediately below:
§ 262.104. TAKING POSSESSION OF A CHILD IN EMERGENCY
WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.
(a) If there is no time to obtain a temporary restraining order or attachment before taking possession of a child consistent with the health and safety of that child, an authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services, a law enforcement officer, or a juvenile probation officer may take possession of a child without a court order under the following conditions, only:
(1) on 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;
(2) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together 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;
(3) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;
(4) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to
believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse; or
(5) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to
believe that the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, and the use constitutes an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child.
(b) An authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services, a law enforcement officer, or a juvenile probation officer may take possession of a child under
Subsection (a) on personal knowledge or information furnished by another, that has been corroborated by personal knowledge, that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the parent or person who has possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.
All Texas has produced in the media, based on public filings in court is that some law enforcement folks think they saw some girls who appeared to be teen aged girls, and who appeared to be pregnant. Assuming those facts to be true (and no one at this point knows whether they are or not); but, assuming them to be true, at best, in my opinion Texas might be justified in taking those few teen aged girls (at least who they thought were that age–and who they thought might be pregnant).
I know of no other facts that Texas has alleged justifying the removal of all 400 plus children. If you know of any such facts, please reference them with a link if possible.
Now, if Texas takes children without a court order, which it appears they have done here, Texas family law statutes specifically require further petitions to be filed, and a hearing no later than the first working day after the date the the child (in this case the 400 plus children) have been taken. Now, I have read no where that Texas has complied with that particular statute. If you have information Texas has so complied, then please, post that reference with a link to the source. This statute which requires this further filing and hearing states:
§ 262.105. FILING PETITION AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD IN EMERGENCY.
(a) When a child is taken into possession without a court order, the person taking the child into possession, without unnecessary delay, shall:
(1) file a suit affecting the parent-child relationship;
(2) request the court to appoint an attorney ad litem for the child; and
(3) request an initial hearing to be held by no later than the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession.
(b) If the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services files a suit affecting the parent-child relationship required under Subsection (a)(1) seeking termination of the parent-child relationship, the department shall file the suit not later than the 45th day after the date the department assumes the care, control, and custody of a child under Section 262.303.
Clark continued:
Yes, I do disagree. There is no evidence of this, and it is unlikely there will ever be. This is the problem of your general broad brushed arguments on this issue. Not all these children could possibly have been abused or in imminent danger of abuse. I don’t believe that, and I don’t believe the evidence will show that.
Clark continued:
This is simply untrue. You have no such evidence, or even speculation that all adults in this FLDS community are guilty as accessories to rape. The assertion borders on the absurd. It doesn’t count that Warren Jeffs has been so convicted. In fact, just tonight on CNN several of the mothers were interviewed on camera, and at least as to them, they denied knowing about any sex between older men and younger aged women. So, there is some evidence, which if testified to in court and under oath, would contradict your bald and unsupportable assertions all these mothers knew their children were being raped on a regular basis.
Clark continued:
I think Sam B has already adequately addressed this issue. And, the short answer is yes, it doesn’t really matter. You can’t just ignore the law and facts necessary to justify this mass military style invasion resulting in the removal of all these children. It’s not relevant to this case and these circumstances.
Clark continued:
I concede that the original affidavit was likely sufficient to search the FLDS ranch, for that one minor child. I do not concede it was sufficient to justify the armed invasion conducted by storm troopers armed with automatic weapons and riding armed personnel carriers. There was no evidence the FLDS community was violent, at least as to this community in Eldorado.
I have provided you all kinds of arguments, Clark, based on the evidence Texas has presented to the court to justify this raid and the removal of the Children. The state doesn’t get to rely on secret evidence to commence a raid. They rely on what was filed with the court. That filing was made public. I’ve argued the evidence, and I think I’ve done so persuasively. I would also point out that the attorneys general of two states with much greater experience with the FLDS community, than Texas do not agree with Texas’ legal position. I happen to agree with them. So, please your claim I have presented no evidence, is specious.
I am not obligated to produce evidence. Texas is obligated to produce the evidence. They have produced what they filed in court, and I have argued it. If you don’t want to agree with my analysis that’s fine–but it’s untrue to imply I am arguing without any basis or evidence whatsoever.
April 17, 2008 at 5:13 am
Are they going to let the moms still with their kids in court today?
I read before they told them if they left (to go to the legal services) they could not come back. To be with their kids.
FLDS We will continue to fast & pray for your children’s safety. Be assured of our prayers today.
April 17, 2008 at 10:31 am
42 USCA 1983
Pretty much says it all for the aftermath.
April 17, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I don’t agree with the sect. But I worry when the State removes children. This is a two edged sword; a sword that can be used against ‘you and me’.
April 17, 2008 at 6:08 pm
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/
Interesting side note to the discussion, as the facts derail much of the speculation.
April 17, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Texas is a dreadful state.
I lived there (reluctantly) for six years and finally got out.
It is sooooo bad; there is no law there, really.
Locals do what they want–in all circumstances.
So do state and any govt. or powerful authorities.
Having lived in TX–I completely see how this state lawlessness (in the name of the law) took place.
April 17, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Strong response there, in which I agree.
I do have a problem with a part of your post;
“What is missing from the facts as alleged in the subject affidavit, are any facts whatsoever relating to some 415 other minor children then currently living on the FLDS ranch.”
The wording here could leave many concluding who number 416 is!
I’d change that in the psot to 416, as I have not read or heard anything that convinces me who number 416 is!
April 18, 2008 at 9:47 am
Show me the money. Texas is adding to the national debt because of Hillary’s facist book called It takes a Village. As a result every child that is taken into state custody gets a check for $4-8K per child within 24 hrs 416 X 6K = big money. Foster Care Parents will recieve about 600.oo per month. SSI and Medicade will be taped as well as an order for the parents to pay for the privilege.
April 20, 2008 at 3:14 am
It is my understanding that the legal age for marriage in Texas is 16. And marriage younger than 16 is allowed with the written consent of the parents.
The community is being critized and accused of child abuse because the children are being raised to be respectful of God and parents. I would think that the children in the secular world are abused because they are not taught descipline for anyone and of course they are not taught self decipline.
At the first opportunity law enforcement has these children are put in jail.
April 23, 2008 at 11:12 pm
If You really care and want to help, go to- http://www.captivefldschildren.org and fldstruth.org.
April 25, 2008 at 11:26 am
I just have one simple question that I would like an honest answer to. What is the LDS stand on Polygamy? I have been told that the LDS Religion believes this lifestyle will be practiced in Heaven. And how many LDS members would stay in the religion if they new this.
May 12, 2008 at 4:55 am
I am infuriated that our government has allowed this. Are the families that are not polygamist next? There are plenty of 14yr olds that have had children outside of this type of religious background, so should they and their children be placed into custody. And what if the neighbors had suspicion that a child was sexually active and they didn’t report it. Are their children at risk next. This is crossing a line and not a fine one. If I were connected at all, or were to be blessed enough to have money to help these people, I would be first in line. Isn’t there anyone with power or money that believes in the rights of people in this country?
May 15, 2008 at 10:40 am
Be afraid, be very, very afraid. When a state can remove all the children from a community as the Texas government has done at the YFZ Ranch, who is to stop any state from rounding up the children in any community? I am not affiliated with the FLDS religion, but I believe that people should be permitted to worship as they may without the interference of the government. If we can only worship according to the churches acceptable to the government, then there is NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH OF STATE.
By removing these children from a loving and structured home, do we really want to encourage these children to develop the life style of the teenagers today wrapped up in vanity and self-centeredness that is rampant in our society today. Everywhere we see the Brittany Spears’ and Paris Hilton copycats. The FLDS children have mothers who love them, and care for them. They make sure their daughters are modestly dressed, not flaunting their sexuality by wearing suggestive clothing.
The government isn’t rounding up all the teenagers and their parents in the nation who are sexually active and/or pregnant. The statistics are higher in the general sociality than it appears to be at the YFZ Ranch. According to the Department of State Health Services, Bureau of Vital Statistics: 17,323 babies are born to children between the ages 13-17 at the cost of 41 million dollars. Were these children taken into custody and their babies forcibly removed? Were their neighbors rounded up to see if this was prompted in their community? No! The behavior is assumed to be consensual. I believe when all is said and done the state will find that the incident of child abuse is lower than the general population
I feel that Texas has overstepped its boundaries and have caused grave harm and injustice that will be a plaque upon these children and their parents for generations to come. The flagrant trampling upon the FLDS’ Constitutional Rights is appalling.
Shame, shame on Texas for spreading lies as truth and for so many people believing the lies and half-truths being published in the media. Where is the nation’s indignation over this travesty?
May 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm
[…] this saga through the posts and comments over here, you will recall that in prior discussions I highlighted the legal requirements (see also here) that Texas Family Code sections governing the removal of children also mandated […]