FLDS/Texas CPS - whose is the greater crime?

[Susan Gerbic]

Originally Posted by The Atheist
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.

Axes could very seriously may be being ground. One woman has written a book and is getting a lot of publicity, I wonder how high her moved has moved up on Amazon since this occurred. They could be lying, or stretching the truth, or some other avenue. I am totally with you on this and as the fantastic stories are told, in my mind I am thinking this is just too far-fetched to be true.

What have we seen in the legal sense from these ex-FLDS people. Almost nothing? One man who was an "lost boy" has sued Warren Jeffs, before Jeffs was captured. The young man is suing with other "lost boys". They said they didn't want to prosecute their families, because it was Jeffs that forced them out, their parents were forced to go along with it or risk being thrown out themselves.

We know that a 14 year old girl was behind Jeffs being caught and sentenced.

I hope (but don't know) that more ex-FLDS will come forward as the abused did when the Catholic scandals started hitting the news. They probably hid the abuse as they didn't think anyone would believe them, or didn't think people would be interested in their story.

I don't think 60% of the little girls being pregnant (or already had babies) in a very controlled closed society is hearsay evidence. I think that is obvious.

And as for taking the children from the mothers, I think of situations where the man of the household is harming the children and the mother is not able to protect the child. This is what is happening here (or seems to be happening) the women are totally controlled and "seem" to be abused themselves (it may even show they were children when they had their first babies) so we have to wait and see.

These FLDS children are not going into mainstream foster homes, they are with probably well screened Mormon families that were trained how to deal with this situation.

Because we see little coming from Texas why do you assume that this will be reversed? We don't have the DNA back yet, and that will be a giant piece of evidence used against the FLDS. I think Texas is wonderful, they must feel amazing pressure to get their critics off their backs and tell the world what they actually have found. But they are suppressing that information for now in order to not harm their case.

Susan

 

[The Atheist]

I don't think 60% of the little girls being pregnant (or already had babies) in a very controlled closed society is hearsay evidence. I think that is obvious.

Yep, it's evidence, but until further investigation, it's only evidence of them having had babies.

These FLDS children are not going into mainstream foster homes, they are with probably well screened Mormon families that were trained how to deal with this situation.

Wow, that's an amazing inference from no information at all. 400 kids placed in appropriate foster homes in a matter of days? The rest of the world needs to catch up to Texas!

Because we see little coming from Texas why do you assume that this will be reversed? We don't have the DNA back yet, and that will be a giant piece of evidence used against the FLDS. I think Texas is wonderful, they must feel amazing pressure to get their critics off their backs and tell the world what they actually have found. But they are suppressing that information for now in order to not harm their case.

Susan

Yep, in the fullness of time, all will no doubt be revealed.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yep, it's evidence, but until further investigation, it's only evidence of them having had babies.

And that alone can be evidence of a crime in texas.

This is the texas statutory rape law

Sexual assault for anyone to intentionally or knowingly penetrate a person under age 17, other than his spouse. The actor has an affirmative defense if he is not more than three years older than the victim, who is at least age 14

link

So any one who was pregnant before the age of 14 is evidence of a crime, period.

 

[drkitten]

And that alone can be evidence of a crime in texas.

This is the texas statutory rape law

link

So any one who was pregnant before the age of 14 is evidence of a crime, period.

Actually, before 17.

"Affirmative defense" is rather a technical meaning that basically boils down to "the state will assume that a crime has been committed and it is the perp's responsibility to prove the contrary." (It's a legal shifting of the burden of proof -- for example, the state does not have to prove that a killing was not in self-defense; if you claim self-defense, YOU need to provide the evidence.)

If someone wants to claim that it was not rape/sexual abuse because the perp was under 17, the state is under no obligation to pay attention until such time as evidence can be provided.

 

[Dancing David]

I wonder how crow bakes up in a hat?

Having worked with DV victims and children I am a staunch advocate for ANCRA and my prior statements still stnd
a. the state has a burden to investigat suspected child abuse
b. the state has an obligation to take temporary custody of children when evidence of child abuse is found in the investigation
c. Texas has a law unlike other states about an abusive enviroment

Long story short the ACLU (one of my faves, along with PFAW and AI) has raised concerns in this case:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/35123res20080502.html

"Although the original search warrant identified only one case of suspected sexual assault, law enforcement officials have now taken into custody all of the approximately 462 children formerly residing at YFZ. The available evidence now suggests that the original call that served as the basis of the warrant was probably made by someone who had never resided at YFZ and that the accused “husband” was at the time residing in Arizona (and may never have lived at YFZ). "

"Although all of the facts are not yet known, the governing principles are well-established:

First, children have a right not to be abused (sexually or otherwise) nor forced into marriages by their parents or by any other person.
Second, parents have a constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion and to raise their children in their own faith.
Third, children and parents have the right to be together unless it is determined, applying the proper legal standards adopted by the state and consistent with the United States Constitution, that temporary or permanent removal is necessary. Children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state’s disagreement with a group’s thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise.
Fourth, all persons, including children, have the fundamental right to due process of law. Due process rights for both potential victims and parents accused of neglect or abuse must be respected, and the law must afford each family notice of and the opportunity to contest allegations related to custody in a timely manner. "

"Based upon news reports and other available information, the ACLU has serious concerns that the state’s actions so far have not adequately protected the fundamental rights at stake. Specifically, the ACLU is concerned that:

The initial raid at YFZ was prompted by a single allegation of abuse now reported most likely to have been made by someone who never resided at YFZ. Law enforcement officials have since removed every child who was living at the ranch, regardless of age or sex, and the state has justified that decision, in part, by explaining that all children at the ranch were at risk because they were exposed to FLDS beliefs regarding underage marriage. Religion is never an excuse for abuse. But, exposure to a religion’s beliefs, however unorthodox, is not itself abuse and may not constitutionally be labeled abuse.

Parents have been separated from their children without individual, adversarial hearings and without particularized evidence that they ever engaged in abuse or were likely to engage in abuse.

Children from YFZ have since been dispersed around the state, compounding the harm of forced separation of children – particularly infants – and their parents.
Court-ordered DNA testing has been ordered for all children without having any specific evidence that the parentage of all children was actually in dispute. Parents have been pressured to consent to DNA testing if they wish to be reunited with their children who were forcibly separated from them.

State officials have an important obligation to protect children against abuse. However, such actions should not be indiscriminately targeted against a group as a whole – particularly when the group is perceived as being different or unusual. Actions should be based on concrete evidence of harm and not based upon prejudice against religious or other communities.

Under these circumstances, it is essential for Texas officials to provide fair judicial proceedings that respect the constitutional rights of all involved – children, parents, and religious communities – while ensuring at the same time that children are protected against abuse where there is credible evidence of such abuse."

 

[a_unique_person]

I was just listening to this on the radio

Carolyn Jessop reveals what life is like when your born into a religious sect which practices polygamy.

from here http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/outlook/index.shtml

Very interesting. Forced marriages, imprisonment, domination. The local police were part of it too. This woman managed to escape after 30 years.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, that is probably part of the judge's decision to issue a warrant, not exactly what the law states put within the judges perogative.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Firstly, this is NOT about religion, it is about rape and abuse.

Secondly, how do you release children back to parents if you don't know who the parents are? What, do you just want to assign kids to whoever claims them?

What is going on with prosecutions concerning abandoning teen age boys?
Where are all the missing boys that should make 50% of the children, but aren't?
Why are so many girls pregnant and/or mothers?
Why are these men allowed to father children and then use state money to support them?

They say that if the ACLU does not piss you off from time to time, and other times you support them then you aren't paying attention. This time they are on my bad side.

Until the state knows who belongs to whom, and how old they are we will just have to wait. And right now the children are in the best place possible.

Gosh people, are you thinking this through? The situation Texas is in right now has never happened to them before, they are doing the best they can with a spotlight on them. Give them a break. Do you want these kids to move back in to their compound so they can have a siege? Didn't they find some kind of poison document? Or maybe you want them to practice their story until everyone is telling the same thing?

I heard from a friend that Warren Jeffs is on suicide watch, but can't find anything else out. Anyone else heard this?

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

What I do is go to yahoo news and enter FLDS in the news searcg there, here is the suicide watch,

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkugs...p://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9159693?source=rss


You will note that the ACLU statement is acreful about the use of the word 'available' regards evidence and that they say that rape and abuse are intolerable, they just state that religous prejudice should not be a factor.

The ACLU often annoys me , but then i look at the FOIA requests they make regards the 'war of terror' and I forgive them.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

What I do is go to yahoo news and enter FLDS in the news searcg there, here is the suicide watch,

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTTkugsC...3%3fsource=rss


You will note that the ACLU statement is acreful about the use of the word 'available' regards evidence and that they say that rape and abuse are intolerable, they just state that religous prejudice should not be a factor.

The ACLU often annoys me , but then i look at the FOIA requests they make regards the 'war of terror' and I forgive them.

Thanks DD that looks like a good site of news I haven't read yet.

I agree with the ACLU that religion should not enter into it. The ACLU spoke at one of the TAMS and I was sold on this group, then they did something I thought was very stupid (can't think right now what it was).

I just don't see Warren Jeffs as the suicide type. But then again it has got to be very horrible sitting in a cell like that with more hanging over you. My mom is in a rest home, just went in this week and should be out in a couple weeks. I wheeled her around tonight and we passed a room where the healthier people were sitting at tables waiting for food. They were just sitting around, not talking to each other, not even looking at each other. It was so sad. I can just imagine how horrible that is, it must be even worse to sit in a jail cell 23 hours a day, alone.

Not really feeling sorry for this horrible man, just that I can understand how miserable he might feel right now.

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

Well, when I did crisis intervention about 10-15% of the calls were to the jail. People often feel pain over the consequence of choices, and suicide is generally motivated by a desire to escape pain. Jail is worse than a nursing home, you can't do anything when you want. I don't know if a rest home is the same or if it is more of a retirement housing situation.

Older people should not be so segregated, here in the US it is a matter of cost. Integrated supported settings would be better. I hate high rises full of bored, cranky and lonely older people even more.

 

[luchog]

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.

As I recall from my reading, and unfortunately I don't have the article handy, there have been a few cases of FLDS communities avoiding official notice for a considerable amount of time. In some cases, their insularity simply precludes local government from finding out anything about their actions. In one case, however, (and I don't recall if this was the Texas case or a different one), the local officials were sympathetic, and a few turned FLDS members themselves. So they turned a blind eye to the abuses, and managed to deflect casual inquiries for quite some time.

 

[Dancing David]

The other issue is one of the extreme distance from any other habitation, they are often in 'ranch' country and you near neighbor is over the horizon. And gosh, official tolerating religous shenanigans! Who would have thought, after all they aren't islamofascists or feminazis.

 

[Dancing David]

here is the latest;

there will be a round of hearing, i don't know hoe the system works in Texas

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,5143,700226177,00.html

So this may be similar to 'adjudication' in Illinois where the parents/guradian are informed of the nature of thhe evidence which will be used to determine if there will be a case. cases can also be dismissed at this point in Illinois, although usually a judge will do so earlier.

it lloks as though it is like an adjudication and not, goals for the return of children will be discussed.

now note that 'giving up religion' will be discussed.

If the issue is that your children are in an abusiveenviroment (in the eyes of the court) IE the Yearning for Zion compound, then you can keep your religion, you just can't return the children to the ranch. If you are also told that you may not encourage or support the marriage of underage children or have sex with them, then you can still keep your religion. You just have to provide the level of support the court requires in your actions.

So the issue is not does your religion allow you to break the law, but does following the law require you to change your behavior or renounce your religion.

 

[Dancing David]

here we go:
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/lo...=f0f08023-c3d0-45c4-847d-67c5f7753e10&rss=991

Note please one important facts!

These are standard practices! These are not being done to just these people because of their religion!

It is standard practice to HAVE to identify all memebers of a household and all people living in the household. This is tue for almost all cases where the state takes protective custody of children. ALL THE TIME THIS HAPPENS, not just these people.


And there are plenty of people who can't return to live with their spouse if they want to keep custody of the children IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. It is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of 'some' husbands having sex with underage women.

You can not say it is a tenant of your religion to break your children's arms and have them return to live with you, you can not say that it is a tenant of your religion that you choke you children as a form of discipline and have them return to you.

So why is it okay to say "I have sex with underage women as part of my religion" and then to be told "You can't go back there".

This is standard practice, it is not about religion, it is about behavior!

Abandoning their religion and husbands may be the only way that FLDS mothers will be reunited with their children. Texas official issued new rules, Thursday, that dictate what the mothers will have to do before the state will return the 464 children.

The plan says that the mothers will have to prove that they have provided the children with “a home free of persons who have, or will abuse the children.”

Texas officials consider many polygamist husbands as abusers.

On top of that, Texas officials will have to know every person living in any building where any of the children live. This would make customary polygamist communal housing impossible.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

here we go:
http://www.kutv.com/content/news/loc...753e10&rss=991

Excellent!

Finally they are talking about the lost boys. I find it odd they can't find any lost boys in Texas? Maybe because they have been in Texas so little time and because the people selected to go to this ranch were pre-selected, so the boys were probably already removed.

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

Al ittle more

http://bigcountryhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=9902

They are staus hearings, very different from Illinois, i don't know when they will get to the point of determing if the evidence is sufficient to keep the kids in custody, maybe that was the last hearings, which sounded moree like the shelter care hearings in Illinois.

Maybe that was the determinig hearing wehere evidence was presented and confronted that they had last time.

 

[Dancing David]

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700227301,00.html?pg=1

Ah, now you can all be welcome to the secrets of DCFS/CPS, everybody gives lip service to preventing child abuse , but nobody wants to pay taxes. So we have teens who can face rape and beatings or be homesless, and nobody cares, until this mainstream cult gets nailed. There are still homeless teens everywhere, why aren't there more stories about them? Because they are "those people". But "these people", they are not those lazy shiftless no accounts like "those people".

If you are twelve years old, then no state wants to pay to help you, especially if you have dark skin and are male. And all those mealy mouthed anti-abotion people, do they adopt crack babies, no. Do they adopt disabled babies, no.

But god forbid you should cut the military budget to provide people with safe housing, food and education. Build more prisons, check. Build more arms, check. Slash welfare spending, check. Blame the poor, check.

Feel sorry for this white people because they are mistreated by CPs, where were you last year, where were you the year before that?

Ah, poor babies they get the same treatment as everyone else.

Where were these hypocrites before, the services are the same as they ever were, but because these are some sort of priviledged few we are to feel sorry for them.

They are just like every one else.

Every one talks about fighting child abuse but no one wants to pay for it. I don't think the foster parent who kept her wards in cages got this much press in Utah.

They don't care except for themselves. Too bad, they could be getting better treatment but hey, VAWA and VACA have been cut by the current administration, all social service budgets are cut because they happen to "those people" well now the shoe is on the other foot and we are supposed to feel sorry for "these people" because they are being treated just like "those people".

An ounce of concern yesterday...

Weep for all the children how are torn up and apart, but no one gives them press. Weep for all the parents who don't get help. weep for all the saddness in the world, not just when it happens to someone who looks like your 'average amarican', a white religous kook.

 

[Beth]

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700227301,00.html?pg=1

An ounce of concern yesterday...

Weep for all the children how are torn up and apart, but no one gives them press. Weep for all the parents who don't get help. weep for all the saddness in the world, not just when it happens to someone who looks like your 'average amarican', a white religous kook.

Thanks for the link. I've been trying to follow this story.

I think your accusations of bigotry are misplaced though. This story isn't attracting interest because they are white children. It's attracting attention because there are so many of them. It's more like the difference between weeping for all the strangers who died in automobile accidents versus those who died in a plane crash.

I don't know what the best resolution to this problem is. I agree that the underage "marriage" thing is a serious problem. But I don't think that taking away small children from their mothers without any more evidence of abuse than what has been presented to date in the news articles is appropriate. Doing so is harmful (might I even call it 'abuse'?) to those children who are not in danger of the sexual abuse which spurred the investigation and does seem a legimate concern. Why did they not limit the removals to those who are in actual danger of the abuse being investigated, i.e. only the teenaged girls? What evidence of other types of abuse do they have to justify all the removals?

I'll continue following the story to see if evidence of abuse of small children turns up in the hearings.

Further, if CPS finances are strained due to too many abused children and not enough funds to provide help, this sort of stunt on their part does not inspire confidence that given more money they would help more children.

 

[Dancing David]

Hiya Beth,

I am soap boxing a lot here, people ignore social services until it effects them. Every one who is going on about the cost of Medicaid forgets that most of them will have family who receive it if they ever end up in a skilled nursing facility for an extended period.

What you say is true that there is concern about this case because it is large, but I really feel that there is nore to it than that.

I have seen the beast on the outside, and done battle with it face to face. I have had to make calls, I have also been the support person for many a client who had children taken into custody by the beast. But the system is needed, the underfunding is not caused by the amount of cases, it is caused by state governments that don't care. In Chicago there are so many kids who should be taken into custody but aren't it boggles the mind. But the state legislature (Illinois second in corruption but we WILL be number one) cuts funding very year. Foster parents get a miserable stipend like almost $575/month, unless they happen to be a grandparent or other family member, then they get squat for a stipend. (Funny that, since it is the preffered placement, family placement.) And there is a serious shortage of people willing to be foster parents, there is an amazing shortage of any other sort of placement at all (outside of foster parents). And so here in Illinois we have call-line workers who try to avoid taking a report. We have kids who are at serious risk of harm, but they are twelve or older and not sexualy abused, so guess what, no case. No care of this minor.

The issue is that there are sooo many more children who are NOT served by the system, that is why I am on the soap box.


But these people in TX, they are treated just like everybody else in the system. they are not being abused and they even get to have their kids placed in friendly Mormon homes, something that doesn't happen to most foster kids. They get to complain about all sorts of things and people listen to them. I wonder if that happens for native americans and othet low socio economic people in TX? They sure don't get the headlines.

And again, what would have happened if the Keepers of The Compound had cooperated with the investigation?

What would have happened then?

What if they had let the CPS investigators in? (Instead of doing it the hard way.)

There is a strong likelyhood that they would not have found the minor who is alleged to have been the basis of the call. And perhaps, there would not be a case at all.

It sucks but the system is always underfunded, having your kids taken into custody really eats poop, catching a case is like death for some people. I am just amazed however that people are so concerned for the families, which they should be, however they are getting better treatment than most people.

I also chose an article from a Mormon paper, so maybe that is what has me bent. My bias and bigotry.