FLDS/Texas CPS - whose is the greater crime?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Texas is the bigger criminal here. They had no right to stormtrooper their way in based on ONE phony phone call.

Aaaaand, Godwined.

Maybe Dr. Kitten knows if a prank call leads police to a location where a crime is occuring whether it would be considered poisonous fruit.

 

[Dancing David]

Texas is the bigger criminal here. They had no right to stormtrooper their way in based on ONE phony phone call.

Oh, that is right, they couldn't have possibly based it on anything else , could they. How about neglect of the boys they drive from the compound? Everybody is dumber and meaner than you and so they would do something stupid you would never do.

Texas is not a conservative state, it is not a conservative rural county and some activist judge was high on cocaine and issued an illegal warrant. They are all a bunch of mean hearted liberal whackos with no brains or mores.

Meanwhile how many children get the crap beat out of them where you live, how many children over the age of fourteeen are forced to chose between homelessness and having the crap beat out of them?
What evidence do you have that it was based solely upon one phone call?

Any, or just media speculation?

Dream on.

 

[luchog]

Another, barely reported on issue that has cropped up around the FLDS: high prevalence of genetic disorders due to inbreeding.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2005578/posts?page=75

Apparently, the incredibly insular nature of the FLDS has created a huge increase in the incidence of fumarase deficiency among their children. Fumarase deficiency is so rare that barely over a dozen cases were known worldwide prior to the discovery of this hot spot.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Fascinating article - thanks luchog!

I was listening (or reading) to someone talking about why we are not seeing more birth defects, and they said that it hasn't been enough generations of inbreeding yet. But I guess that person was wrong, consider how young these girls are when they have their first child, and continue having babies as long as possible and the curve is off. I'm not sure how a generation is measured, but I think they use 20-25 years as the norm. The FLDS might make that average a little lower, maybe 18-22 years?

Also possible that the babies are dying before age 3 or that the church is hiding these children to keep the state from knowing what is happening?

Shame on Arizona!

Susan

 

[Aardvark422]

What I don't understand, and maybe someone here can enlighten me, is why did it take so long for someone to take action against the FLDS? It's been known for years that communities such as Colorado City and Hildale, and places in Mexico were practicing polygamy and most likely abusing children. Why does it seem like this is the first time anyone has ever said "Enough!"? Is it fear of offending religious sensibilities?

 

[drkitten]

Aaaaand, Godwined.

Maybe Dr. Kitten knows if a prank call leads police to a location where a crime is occuring whether it would be considered poisonous fruit.

I do not know.

My offhand guess would be that it would not -- the state was acting in good faith and had reasonable cause. "Poisonous fruit" usually only applies when the police know or should have known that the action they want to take is barred. The "good faith" exception is covered in case law -- Wikipedia cites United States v. Leon (468 U.S. 902) and Massachusetts v. Sheppard (468 U.S. 981).

But there are Real Attorneys on this board who would be in a better position to answer.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

What I don't understand, and maybe someone here can enlighten me, is why did it take so long for someone to take action against the FLDS? It's been known for years that communities such as Colorado City and Hildale, and places in Mexico were practicing polygamy and most likely abusing children. Why does it seem like this is the first time anyone has ever said "Enough!"? Is it fear of offending religious sensibilities?

IMO I think that it is a difficult answer. Elected officials don't want to appear to be against civil rights or religion. Also they could not act until they had cause. They seemed to have a plan in action when the call came in.

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

OOOOps, this could be a problem.

Originating warrant cancelled:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9133640

This is bad for CPS, however there is the good faith provision for most mistakes. That is bad however if it was the sole warrant or the only warrant issued. However if the police eneter a place in good faith and find a crime in progress, it is not rules out if the warrant is no longer in effect at a later time.

On the other hand

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9056589

"The only thing we can say is we're aware of 20 young girls who became pregnant when they were between the ages of 13 and 16," Van Deusen said. "That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived they were 13, 14, 15, or 16. "That establishes that there was some sexual abuse here," he said.

 

[Legalduck]

My offhand guess would be that it would not -- the state was acting in good faith and had reasonable cause. "Poisonous fruit" usually only applies when the police know or should have known that the action they want to take is barred. The "good faith" exception is covered in case law -- Wikipedia cites United States v. Leon (468 U.S. 902) and Massachusetts v. Sheppard (468 U.S. 981).

But there are Real Attorneys on this board who would be in a better position to answer.

FYI: the term "poisonous fruit" or "fruit of the poisonous tree" generally applies to search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. If law enforcement obtains evidence "A" without lawful authority and its leads them to evidence "B," both items of evidence are inadmissible. For example, NYPD enters a suspect's home without a warrant (or exigent circumstances) and finds documents showing that the suspect has stashed cocaine in several other locations. Under the "poisonous fruit" doctrine both the documents and the cocaine are inadmissible. Of course there are exceptions such as "inevitibility"... ie the police would have eventually found the evidence anyway. Interestingly, several states have found that the doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" does not attach to miranda violations. If police illegally obtain a confession and it leads them to other pieces of evidence, that evidence remains admissibile (though the confession is still out).

 

[The Painter]

Oh, that is right, they couldn't have possibly based it on anything else , could they. How about neglect of the boys they drive from the compound? Everybody is dumber and meaner than you and so they would do something stupid you would never do.

Texas is not a conservative state, it is not a conservative rural county and some activist judge was high on cocaine and issued an illegal warrant. They are all a bunch of mean hearted liberal whackos with no brains or mores.

Meanwhile how many children get the crap beat out of them where you live, how many children over the age of fourteeen are forced to chose between homelessness and having the crap beat out of them?
What evidence do you have that it was based solely upon one phone call?

Any, or just media speculation?

Dream on.

OOOOps, this could be a problem.

Originating warrant cancelled:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9133640

Kind of answered your own question.

So if I make a phony phone call to the cops about you and your kids, and they take (kidnap) your kids and don't let you see them and then put them in foster care (which will screw then up big time) that's OK with you?

 

[The Atheist]

Interesting development.

This bit still disturbs me:

"The only thing we can say is we're aware of 20 young girls who became pregnant when they were between the ages of 13 and 16," Van Deusen said. "That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived they were 13, 14, 15, or 16. "That establishes that there was some sexual abuse here," he said.

Well, it does NOT establish that sexual abuse took place, because until paternity is established, the fathers could have been similar-aged boys, which does not constitute abuse.

I realise that this is extremely unlikely to be the case, but assumptions are being used as facts, which isn't a good thing.

 

[Dancing David]

Kind of answered your own question.

So if I make a phony phone call to the cops about you and your kids, and they take (kidnap) your kids and don't let you see them and then put them in foster care (which will screw then up big time) that's OK with you?

You are just over full or yourself aren't you, is it okay to have sex with a fourteen year old girl if you are a twenty year old man?

Uh huh, and having your brothers driven from your family and getting effed by a man when you are 14 is just grand isn't it.

Like i said, go talk to the homeless kids in NYC, go find out why they are living on the streets. But you are too stuck in your ivory tower to do that. Get involved in reality. So tell me what is a fourteen or fiveteen years old child supposed to do when their family beats the crap out of them. You don't want to know the answer, you are hiding from the answer. Typical conservative shill, repeat your pablum talking points and ignore the suffering of people.

Where are they supposed to go?

Go to NYC, talk to the homeless kids, find out how wonderful our society is at taking care of kids.

Go ahared slam ANCARA because you are too chicken to find out the truth. Act all superior and like you know what you are talking about.

Then get some facts;

How many kids have the crap beat out of them?

How many are raped by their caregivers?

How many are negelected?

then tell me that ANCARA should not exist.

Then tell what is so great about the child abuse at the FLDS.

When the evidence is shown, if that phone call was the only reason for the warrant, then you have something to talk about.

meanwhile go to NYC, find out how many kids have bullet wounds.



I haven't seen evidence that the sole reason for entering the compound was that phone call, tell me have you?

Seriously have you?

Or is the tesimony of the lost boys not enough, or the likely welfare records.

Or do you think that no one else is as smart as you?

You suer act like it. Put up your evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Interesting development.

This bit still disturbs me:

"The only thing we can say is we're aware of 20 young girls who became pregnant when they were between the ages of 13 and 16," Van Deusen said. "That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived they were 13, 14, 15, or 16. "That establishes that there was some sexual abuse here," he said.

Well, it does NOT establish that sexual abuse took place, because until paternity is established, the fathers could have been similar-aged boys, which does not constitute abuse.

I realise that this is extremely unlikely to be the case, but assumptions are being used as facts, which isn't a good thing.

What similar aged boys, all the ones kicked out of the compound?

So the testimony of ex-members just isn't a basis for anything? Sheesh.

Let them get raped because some sceptic is sceptical.

Sheesh.

 

[The Atheist]

What similar aged boys, all the ones kicked out of the compound?

So the testimony of ex-members just isn't a basis for anything? Sheesh.

Let them get raped because some sceptic is sceptical.

Sheesh.

Have we had testimony from ex-members that those girls have been abused by grown men? If so, I haven't seen it, so link please.

I think the stories are almost certainly true, but my preference is that the law operates on facts rather than conjecture, no matter how accurate the conjecture turns out to be.

As far as I understand it, most of the boys who get kicked out have been 14+ - easily old enough to impregnate a girl.

I think the use of the term "rape" is a little heavy, given that the legal age of consent in Texas used to be 13. Did Jerry Lee Lewis rape his wife every time they had sex?

 

[Susan Gerbic]

I think the use of the term "rape" is a little heavy, given that the legal age of consent in Texas used to be 13. Did Jerry Lee Lewis rape his wife every time they had sex?

Excuse me. Did Jerry Lee Lewis's wife agree to marry him? These girls are not asked if they want to marry. The stories from the Ex-FLDS members tell that girls are shoulder tapped and whisked into the church for marriage. Another story I have heard is that when the girl becomes of age (11 was the age for the woman telling the story) her name was entered in a "sweet book" in the church. That meant she was available for marriage.

Children can marry at 16 with consent from parents. Everyone is totally ignoring the fact that the girls are not asking to be married. They are not given the choice. Thus what is happening to them is rape.

Remember the 14 year old girl who was married to her 19 year old cousin is the reason why Warren Jeffs is in jail right now. She begged not to be married. She was told to "stay sweet" and that was her only recourse.

If you interview these women now, they would probably tell you they want to be in the marriage, they wanted to be married, they thank God for their husband. These women may feel love for this man, they may be scared they will go to Hell, they are afraid their children will be taken away, they may feel they will go to jail themselves. We don't know what is actually going on with these women, we might find out in time, but I know it won't be soon.

The bottom line, these little girls are being forced to have sex with men they did not choose, these girls know almost nothing about sex or the complex nature of an adult marriage. These girls are too young, they don't understand and they are being raped, with the permission of the society they live in.

Susan

 

[The Atheist]

Excuse me. Did Jerry Lee Lewis's wife agree to marry him? These girls are not asked if they want to marry. The stories from the Ex-FLDS members tell that girls are shoulder tapped and whisked into the church for marriage. Another story I have heard is that when the girl becomes of age (11 was the age for the woman telling the story) her name was entered in a "sweet book" in the church. That meant she was available for marriage.

As I said, I'm quite sure these things are true, but it's still a presumption unless evidence is given to back it up. So far, I haven't seen that evidence stated. Who's to say that ex-members aren't just grinding axes?

If you interview these women now, they would probably tell you they want to be in the marriage, they wanted to be married, they thank God for their husband. These women may feel love for this man, they may be scared they will go to Hell, they are afraid their children will be taken away, they may feel they will go to jail themselves. We don't know what is actually going on with these women, we might find out in time, but I know it won't be soon.

And in the meantime, 400+ kids have been removed from their parents on largely hearsay evidence. Is that a good thing? If the evidence is so obvious, why has it taken so long to act? This has been going on for years, apparently. That being the case, how come nobody knew until a false complaint was laid?

The bottom line, these little girls are being forced to have sex with men they did not choose, these girls know almost nothing about sex or the complex nature of an adult marriage. These girls are too young, they don't understand and they are being raped, with the permission of the society they live in.

Susan

In many cultures, what is happening is quite normal. Young Indians have no say in who they partner, with the decision made by parents. Is that rape? Sure, societal rules in USA don't work like that, but there are lots of precedents in the world and who's to say who's right and who's wrong? Moral issues are almost never clear-cut.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree for a second with what FLDS has done, but I also believe that when 400 kids are taken into custody, those doing the taking ought to have a water-tight case beforehand. The State of Texas doesn't appear to have ensured that.

 

[The Painter]

You are just over full or yourself aren't you, is it okay to have sex with a fourteen year old girl if you are a twenty year old man?

Uh huh, and having your brothers driven from your family and getting effed by a man when you are 14 is just grand isn't it.

Like i said, go talk to the homeless kids in NYC, go find out why they are living on the streets. But you are too stuck in your ivory tower to do that. Get involved in reality. So tell me what is a fourteen or fiveteen years old child supposed to do when their family beats the crap out of them. You don't want to know the answer, you are hiding from the answer. Typical conservative shill, repeat your pablum talking points and ignore the suffering of people.

Where are they supposed to go?

Go to NYC, talk to the homeless kids, find out how wonderful our society is at taking care of kids.

Go ahared slam ANCARA because you are too chicken to find out the truth. Act all superior and like you know what you are talking about.

Then get some facts;

How many kids have the crap beat out of them?

How many are raped by their caregivers?

How many are negelected?

then tell me that ANCARA should not exist.

Then tell what is so great about the child abuse at the FLDS.

When the evidence is shown, if that phone call was the only reason for the warrant, then you have something to talk about.

meanwhile go to NYC, find out how many kids have bullet wounds.



I haven't seen evidence that the sole reason for entering the compound was that phone call, tell me have you?

Seriously have you?

Or is the tesimony of the lost boys not enough, or the likely welfare records.

Or do you think that no one else is as smart as you?

You suer act like it. Put up your evidence.

Wow, what brought on this rant. How bad were you abused? I'm not talking about child abuse all over the world I'm talking about the opening post topic, "FLDS/Texas CPS - whose is the greater crime?". What the hell does the homeless have to do with this. I think Texas screwed up, and because they did, the case will be thrown out and Texas CPS will face a civil suit. Laws apply to cops too.

You still (in all that ) didn't answer my question.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree for a second with what FLDS has done, but I also believe that when 400 kids are taken into custody, those doing the taking ought to have a water-tight case beforehand. The State of Texas doesn't appear to have ensured that.

Exactly, I agree. That's it in a nut shell.

 

[Dancing David]

Have we had testimony from ex-members that those girls have been abused by grown men? If so, I haven't seen it, so link please.

I think the stories are almost certainly true, but my preference is that the law operates on facts rather than conjecture, no matter how accurate the conjecture turns out to be.

As far as I understand it, most of the boys who get kicked out have been 14+ - easily old enough to impregnate a girl.

I think the use of the term "rape" is a little heavy, given that the legal age of consent in Texas used to be 13. Did Jerry Lee Lewis rape his wife every time they had sex?

The changing statutory definition of what constitutes 'sexual assault' is not the issue. If the law states that the age of consent is 16 and at the time the law was in place there are 13 yo girls who are being spiritually married to a much older man, then that is by the definition of the law 'non-consensual sex'. As such it would then be up to the prosecutor to decide what level of charge to attach to the act.

And while it is very rarely ever followed up on, it is illegal to kick your minor child out of your house (usually prior to the age of seventeen), you can not just tell your fourteen yo that they have to move out because they came home late or were listening to an I pod, that is neglect, it is illegal. It is sometimes followed up on, and often isn't. But that is the law.

Where the US fails completely is that there are very few services (and they are shrinking every day) for homeless teens, teens who are abused by their parents. They are told to either deal with it or live on the street.

And yes, there are women who have written books and done the talk show circuits who say that very young females are being 'married' to much older men in the FLDS.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, what brought on this rant. How bad were you abused? I'm not talking about child abuse all over the world I'm talking about the opening post topic, "FLDS/Texas CPS - whose is the greater crime?". What the hell does the homeless have to do with this. I think Texas screwed up, and because they did, the case will be thrown out and Texas CPS will face a civil suit. Laws apply to cops too.

You still (in all that ) didn't answer my question.

the issue is that ANCRA exists, there are reasons to take children into custody. In this case every body is making abig huge deal of it, because the people are involved in some sort of religous cult, they are white and they act middle class. That is the only reason people are talking about this. If they were a bunch of prostitutes and illegal aliens it would make the news but it would have no legs.
My rant is about the fact that child abuse exists. But because these are god fearing people many people are suddenly concerned. If some porr schizophrenic puts the baby in the oven people don't get all bent out of shape about the other children being taken.
But because these FLDS people are religous there is this juge concern about them, never mind that there are women who have said this is a horrible place to live.
Never mind that they have created a population of homeless males teens (which is neglect).
Never mind that the 16 y.o. girl might have truly existed (if she is in AZ or not).

The issue is that there is plenty of evidence that would support a seizure of minor children and placing them in protective cudtody. CPS (I am not certain of Texas law as I am Illinois law) is charged with the protection of minor children in Texas. There job is NOT to make sure they have an iron clad case before taking children.

There jobs is to determine if there is evidence that supports the notion that child abuse is occuring;
-suspicion of child abuse is all the a report is based upon the credibility of the reporter is not part of the process. The report can be made by anyone.
-after a report is made the basis of possible fact is considered, in Illinois there is a need for possible material evidence that child abuse has occured in the suspected material. In other words there must be reported visible signs of physical abuse, negelect or deprivation. Sexual abuse can be taken as material if it is the report of a witness or the child. That is all that is needed to say that an investigation occurs.

That is the basis ANCRA, that is there is reasonable suspicion that child abuse then the state agency under state defintion is charged with investigation of possible child abuse, the law is very clear, the state agency is charged to investigate all possible child abuse that has a reasonable basis. the law does not say that they are to weigh the possible credibility of the report, the possible evidentiary nature of the evidence of the report or the legal justification for making an investigation.

The burden of the state is to investigate and to protect children, it is not to sit on it's hands when there is a report. there is a standard set by the state as to what constitutes an actionable report, and then they investigate. The burden is on the state to protect children, they investigate first. Then they determine the nature of the evidence in the investigation.

So what happened in this case?

There was a report (and I am assuming a lot of other evidence like all the neglected teen males who were illegaly kincked out of their houses and homes, that is abuse right there, much less thier reports of what is happening) and the report met the standard of action set by the state. that is all at that point, you don't get an evidentiary hearing, the burden is on the state to investigate.

I assume that when CPS rolled up in the white van with the bad attitude dripping off the investigators and radiating like bad stench (I have met these people, some are good, most are arrogant) and they say that they are there to investigate a report of child abuse; what did the gaurds at the compound gate do? Call the elders, what did the elders do? refuse admission to the compound.

What then did the investigators do? they went to a judge and presented the report. Now at this point the judge is charged by state law to do certain things and the standard will vary from state to state. The judge is charged with the protection of children by the law, they must act to prevent child abuse. However they are also charged with making a choice, is the standard met by the report to take action. Again this does not mean that there is the usual evidentiary scrutiny of the materail, it means does the report meet the state standard for an actionable suspicion of child abuse. that is the primary charge and duty of the state at this point.

However the judge at their discretion and quite frequently can examine all reasonable evidence and availaable information in making a determinantion of issuing a warrant. this is not part of ANCRA, it is judicial perogative and judgement. they often do this, they are not charged by ANCRA to do so, but this is their judicial discretion. they often weigh the report and find that the report of suspicion does not warrant action. (In other words the report does not meet actionable standards). They can and often do rule that there is not sufficient evidence that would cause a reasonable person to think child abuse was taking place. In both these cases the warrant is not issued.

But if the judge decides that the report is sufficent to say that a child is possbly being subjected to child abuse (by the suspicion of a reasonable person) then they may issue the warrant. If they in their judcial judgement feel that the overall picture is such that there is a likelyhood that child abuse is occuring then they are charged by ANCRA with protecting the child and may issue the earrant on those grounds.

The standard of habeus corpus is different in these cases because the standard is to investigate when there is a reasonable suspicion of child abuse. Judges often do place a much higher evidentiary standard on these warrants but they don't have to. The law merely states that the state is charged with the duty of investigation when there is a reasonable suspicion or evidence of child abuse.

So the standard can be set by the judge to the reasonable suspicion or they can hold the much higher criminal standard is they do so.

But again the charge of the state is not to decide if the evidence of child abuse is credible, but the burden and charge of the state is to prevent child abuse.
1. To take reports.
2. To investigate reports.
3. To take children into custody when needed.

So thw whole issue of who made the report doesn't matter.

This is often part of the process any way, there is heavy screening of reports, many reports are placed by diverced and seperated parent or garndparents of divircing families. many reports are just pure spite and malice. many reports are from crazy or delusional people. Calls and reports are screened by the action standard. Except for mandated reporters, they are considered to more credible.
When there is an actionable report the state must investigate to prevent child abuse, that is the charge of the law and the duty of the state.
Many investigation occur, some are found 'not indicated', the investigator finds no evidence that child abuse has occued. that is it. No redress by the parent is available. the state has done it's duty and discharged it's obligation.
Not as many investigations are 'founded or indicated' whne they are the children are immedeatly taken into custody.
There is a shelter care hearing, an adjudication and a civil court case.

each one of those has a rising level of evidence and presentation of evidence, the final court case has full evidence, discovery and confrontation of witnesses. However the burden is on the state to investigate and to act to prevent child abuse.

Exactly, I agree. That's it in a nut shell.

But see that is not what the state is charged with, they are not charged with making sure they have water tight case, that is not the standard at all, the standard is as follows.
1. the state will receive reports of suspected child abuse.
2. the state will decide which reports to investigate.
3. the state will take car of children when there is evidence of child abuse.

That is the standard, because otherwise the potential for not protecting children would be high. This is not a criminal proceeding, it is a civil matter where the burden in on the state to investigate and protect.

And believe me, they disrupt the lives of many people and put then through a lot. the court system will always favor those who can afford a private attorney as well.

But the issue in this case is that the FLDS did not cooperate with the investigations, when n that happens then the burden is still on the state to investigate suspected child abuse, it is not to make sure there is evidence to win the case. That would be a foolish standard which would not protect children.

The question is this, would it have been easier for the FLDS to cooperate with the CPS investigator. This may go before the SCOTUS and ANCRA could be overturned, I doubt it.
But that could be the outcome.

The ability to sue successfully against CPS is rather weak as well, there would have to be someone at CPS who went out of their way to fabricate evidence, because the burden is on the state to investigate and protect.

FLDS chose not to cooperate with the investigation and this is the consequence of that choice. But this happens to people every day and in much worse ways, parents can get yanked around by the system. But here is the sad part, our system is failing, it is failing all the homeless teens, it if failing the families, it is not given the resources to do what it could to prevent child abuse and it is not given the resources to care for children in foster care.

 

[Dancing David]

As I said, I'm quite sure these things are true, but it's still a presumption unless evidence is given to back it up. So far, I haven't seen that evidence stated. Who's to say that ex-members aren't just grinding axes?



And in the meantime, 400+ kids have been removed from their parents on largely hearsay evidence. Is that a good thing? If the evidence is so obvious, why has it taken so long to act? This has been going on for years, apparently. That being the case, how come nobody knew until a false complaint was laid?




Don't get me wrong - I don't agree for a second with what FLDS has done, but I also believe that when 400 kids are taken into custody, those doing the taking ought to have a water-tight case beforehand. The State of Texas doesn't appear to have ensured that.

But the state under ANCRA is charged with taking reports of suspected child abuse, investigating suspected child abuse and protecting children.

that is what the law says.

As to why this took so long, well the US is crazy for religion, we can't pledge alleigance to the flag with god in there, you can't run for office unless you go to church. the catholic church has done horrible theings here, many churches do horrible things and people look th eother way.
Why because the US is religion crazy. If you attack religion you attack god. And that is bad.

And the Mormon church is huge out west and religion is pervavsive, that is why we have people trying to say you can't teach evolution, that is why people want there prayer in schools. the US has some people who are crazy for religion.

It is the golden calf, don't touch it. It is the scared relic, don't mess with it.

Don't mess with the church because then God will mess with you.

Fortunatly not everybody is that way, just about 10%, a very vocal and loud and pushy ten percent. They think it is god's will to kill MDs who preform abortions and that god would be happy if we killed all the gay people.