FLDS/Texas CPS - whose is the greater crime?

[The Atheist]

Doesn't a couple of days and some evidence-gathering make a difference to what looked like a cut-and-dried case of cult-wide abuse.

Some relevant data in the meantime:

The initial call was almost certainly a hoax by a woman with a long history of mental illness.

No married women presently at the compound were under legal age for marriage in Texas.

The state's own psychologist admits that harm will come from the removal:

Bruce Perry, a child psychologist, testified that the traditional foster care system could be destructive to children taken from the sect's ranch. But he also testified that the children could be at risk if they are returned to the ranch.

"could be destructive" vs "could be at risk"?

[Edited in] Then factor in:

A child protective services supervisor acknowledged Thursday that the majority of children taken during a raid on an FLDS ranch showed no signs of physical or sexual abuse but should still remain in state custody because they are “at risk.”

It appears that underage sexual abuse has happened at the FLDS compound, but I fail to see how the law can work that a completely different child can be removed from its parents because someone else has committed abuse.

It seems to me that the Lone Star may have gone just a little bit far for a change.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

It appears that underage sexual abuse has happened at the FLDS compound, but I fail to see how the law can work that a completely different child can be removed from its parents because someone else has committed abuse.

I heard that with Texas law, in a household all children can be removed if there is evidence of one child being removed, even if the other children have not been harmed. I guess the idea is that there is potential for harm, and/or the child witnessing the crime can cause harm to the child.

Boy that was wordy....

For example, a child in a household where drugs and gangs are being allowed may not be participating in the drugs or gang activities, but they are at harm for doing so later.

Listening to the women cry about losing their children is truly sad. But once you listen to the ex-FLDS women and the reporters that have been following this group for some time, you understand that these mothers are being held up to the cameras to gain sympathy. Also the women are being coached by their leaders and husbands. Punishment awaits them if they don't toe the line. Also they really want their children back, and admitting that it is common for young girls to marry old men is not going to get their children back anytime soon.

Where are the fathers? Why aren't they demanding their children back?

After much thought, I totally support the use of DNA to decide who is the parent of who. I do not think they will have much luck forcing the men to give up their DNA. The mothers, Yes.

What I want to know is how do they explain finding this bed in the church. One man (not living on the ranch) said it might be for the caretaker. But one ex-FLDS woman said that it was used to consummate the marriage in God's house. Depending on high up the ranks you are in the church, you may be asked/or allowed to watch the rape. I think that a simple picture of the room and bed could easily show which is more likely, a caretakers bed or a rape bed? Or maybe another option?

Susan

 

[The Atheist]

I think the fathers have probably been told to STFU, given that a number of them may be facing charges.

I agree with what you've written and I don't question the legitimacy of the action, I just wonder whether a great deal more harm may be done by the mass removal than another option.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Isn't the reason there are "no married women under the legal age for marriage" in the compound because the men don't/can't legally marry their second/third/fourth wives - they take them as sister-wives outside of formal state sanctioned marriage...

 

[The Atheist]

Isn't the reason there are "no married women under the legal age for marriage" in the compound because the men don't/can't legally marry their second/third/fourth wives - they take them as sister-wives outside of formal state sanctioned marriage...

I don't know.

The actual facts are few and far between and disputed at this stage. May have to wait until more comes to light.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Isn't the reason there are "no married women under the legal age for marriage" in the compound because the men don't/can't legally marry their second/third/fourth wives - they take them as sister-wives outside of formal state sanctioned marriage...

I suppose the laws concerning multi-marriages address the issue of a man having multiple women living under his care, and having his children and calling him husband, but not legally married to him.

Personally I don't care how many wives he has, nor do I think most of the world cares. But what we are talking about is not adult women making the decision but girls being forced into it. In our society this is called rape and being held against your will.

I have heard several people comment that nothing is unusual about a 13 year old having a baby. I would contend that in a normal society a percentage of girls would indeed be pregnant. The percent would be very small compared to the percent in the FLDS ranch. That number has not been released, but I would suppose that when the number is released it will be high at least 5%.

400 kids, suppose 200 are girls, suppose half are able to have children. I have read some stories that say several of the girls are visibly pregnant, and several girls have had babies. That is several + several = at least 6. That is about 6%. I know that is a lot of supposes, but we still don't know yet.

I have school age kids and they do say they have heard of girls being pregnant at their school. But this is not the norm, far less than 1%. It stands out because it is so odd.

Let the DNA testing begin!

Susan

 

[The Atheist]

I have school age kids and they do say they have heard of girls being pregnant at their school. But this is not the norm, far less than 1%. It stands out because it is so odd.

Haha! Lucky.

We have schools with classes solely for mums returning to school. My son's former 14-year old girlfriend had a 42-year old grandmother. Having sex at 14 ran in the family, but apparently condom usage didn't. Until this generation, thankfully - my son, 15 at the time, got given a large boxload by the school counsellor.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

We have schools with classes solely for mums returning to school. My son's former 14-year old girlfriend had a 42-year old grandmother. Having sex at 14 ran in the family, but apparently condom usage didn't. Until this generation, thankfully - my son, 15 at the time, got given a large boxload by the school counsellor.

We have lots of school-age mothers in my area. What I am talking about is a percentage. There seems to be a lot because they stand out. I contend that the percentage is low when you consider the entire population of possible teenage mothers.

My 17 year old son has been dating the same girl for about 3 years. Her parents were 16 when she was born, (and since divorced & remarried) her grandmother was 16 when she had her oldest child. Heck I am almost the same age as her grandmother.

I had a girl work for me that was 16 with 2 children (I think the oldest was 3). Her mother was only about 33. I also had another young woman of 16 that worked for me who was also a mother of 2 with 2 small children. I don't know what her parents ages were.

With that said, that is just two young women who have worked for me in the last 25 years. I have had maybe 100+ women working for me in that time period and those are the only ones I can remember. So about 2%.

My son has only had one girlfriend so I can say the sample size is rather small in that case. But 100% if you look at it from other perspectives.

I just thought of another one with two small children and I think she was 17, so my percent is now at 3% if I only had 100 employees.

Susan

 

[drkitten]

We have lots of school-age mothers in my area. What I am talking about is a percentage. There seems to be a lot because they stand out. I contend that the percentage is low when you consider the entire population of possible teenage mothers.

Statewide statistics for Texas put the birthrate for mothers age 15-19 at 6.3%; the equivalent numbers for the USA as a whole is about 4.1%. The numbers have improved slightly but not substantially over the last five years.

If 6% of the 15-19 year olds at the FLDS ranch are in fact pregnant, they're doing slightly better than their secular peers. Which just goes to show what a hell-hole of a place Texas is.

Now, having said that -- I have no idea even where to look for stats for 13 year old pregnancies, and there's a huge difference between a 19 year old teen mother and a 15 year old one.

 

[RandFan]

Good thread TA. I don't know but I'm becoming increasingly concerned.

 

[Kestrel]

Statewide statistics for Texas put the birthrate for mothers age 15-19 at 6.3%; the equivalent numbers for the USA as a whole is about 4.1%. The numbers have improved slightly but not substantially over the last five years.

If 6% of the 15-19 year olds at the FLDS ranch are in fact pregnant, they're doing slightly better than their secular peers. Which just goes to show what a hell-hole of a place Texas is.

The 6.3% number for Texas is the total number of children born to mothers in the 15-19 range divided by the number of mothers. Since a pregnancy only lasts 9 months, 6% of the girls in this age range being currently pregnant indicates a birth rate that is several times the 6% figure.

Now, having said that -- I have no idea even where to look for stats for 13 year old pregnancies, and there's a huge difference between a 19 year old teen mother and a 15 year old one.

You might try digging around in the CDC data.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

The 6.3% number for Texas is the total number of children born to mothers in the 15-19 range divided by the number of mothers. Since a pregnancy only lasts 9 months, 6% of the girls in this age range being currently pregnant indicates a birth rate that is several times the 6% figure.

Either I'm starting to doze off on a lazy Sunday. Or you lost me with the end of your statement. Please put that in lazy Sunday speak.

Susan

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Which just goes to show what a hell-hole of a place Texas is.

Hey now! ... but you're right, those statistics are disgusting.

 

[Kopji]

Good topic TA.

Forgive my rant. I am skeptical of the government showing up with "we are here to help you" signs. I have not much love for what these people do, but am a little empathetic for who they are as people, raised in an isolated sect of Mormonism.

This event has several aspects that Texas should answer for with careful documentation and evidence. In the US, citizens are normally innocent until proved guilty in court. Even in Texas, there will be a day in court which includes evidence.

So far, Texas justice seems oddly quaint and naively inept. (someone from Arizona should know about that) Their marriage and child abuse laws were extensively changed in 2005, and yet the Judge seems honestly overwhelmed by the results of their actions. They've had two whole years to think about this and plan it out.

Texas is at least guilty of being recklessly callous and insensitive to the state of these mothers and children. Being raised in an isolated religious sect is not against the law, or the Amish better watch out. (In fact, the Amish as just as abusive of their children, if not worse than FLDS.) But the Amish are quaint and colorful Christians, not evil Mormons like these people. Woohoo! Go Baptists.

If aliens descended from space and took away your kids, leaving you a note to appear on Mars to answer for your crimes - that would be close to this event. If the spaceships had FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH written on them, you might want to shoot at them as it took off.

My current expectation would be that if the ineptitude does not change, either most kids will be quietly returned in a few months, or violence will break out. Having this resolved in the best interest of the children seems rather remote.

Some little snippets of internet wisdom on this topic:

Age of marriage was ok before 14, before Texas law changes in 2005 made it 16:
Many other changes were made involving procedures for suspicion of child abuse.
The text of the Texas law changes are here:
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/leg2005/bills/sb00006f.htm#4.01
Changes in color, I always like that.

An interesting site that describes itself as "Post Mormon" bloggers:
http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=292#comment-12843

Some bloggers are feeling a little more uneasy about this. Like, if children can be taken under false pretenses, who might be next? There is a suggestion that polygamy should be legal and then regulated is interesting.

A thread with some Catholic posters wondering about the comparisons with their own faith:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2621684&trail=56

They crack me up more than a little. Catholics talking about what to do with authoritarian religious cults. -snort- Insensitivity to massive irony must cause some kind of mental damage but I'm not sure what it is yet. (The Catholic Church's position is that 14 years marriage for girls is fine, but it can be older if some places like their wives older.)

On the Endowment or consummation Rooms in Temples:
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/view.php?bn=exmobb_recovery&key=1207911421&newest=1207911421
This is that hubub about sex in the temples, like, they invented it or something.
I think this post is by ex-Mormon Steve Benson. Just an observation, but something exmormons have in common is a really dry sense of humor. Buried in the text is mention of a dress that was stolen during Temple endowments, and a drunken party after Joseph Smith told the participants that the wine they were drinking was consecrated so that they could not become drunk from it. Sweet Jesus that's funny.

Anyway, general giggles at religion aside. My current feeling is that it is not helpful to define either side's actions in terms of "crimes". It may turn out that there were crimes committed, but they should be defined by physical evidence and testimony.

More immediately, I don't see why the women and children could not be returned 'home' if the men were removed until the abuse issues were resolved.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

I have been interested in cults since I was a little girl and found out that there were people who were not Southern Baptist or Catholic <<shock>>

I have been following this story as best I can. My newspapers are not reporting on it, and I don't watch TV and don't get CNN anyway. So I am getting it from here and there on the Internet.

With that said I have been thinking a lot about this topic. And thank you TA for starting a thread where I can think out loud.

Texas is at least guilty of being recklessly callous and insensitive to the state of these mothers and children. Being raised in an isolated religious sect is not against the law, or the Amish better watch out. (In fact, the Amish as just as abusive of their children, if not worse than FLDS.) But the Amish are quaint and colorful Christians, not evil Mormons like these people. Woohoo! Go Baptists.

I was just thinking about this. I have a sister who lives in Millersburg, Ohio this is right next to Berlin which is Amish central. I have visited her several times, and listened to her and her friends tell stories about these people. Some of the stories are exaggerated I'm sure. But one main thing is very clear. The Amish are really nothing like the FLDS.

Amish are very open, you can walk up to them and have a conversation, be served by them in restaurants, shop with them, attend auctions ect... They are everywhere and are not hiding behind locked gates with guns drawn. Amish do not like having their pictures taken and I'm sure they are sick to death of the same jokes over and over.

My sister works with several Amish men, they are very wealthy, most of the heads of household are millionaires. The children are told to sow their wild oats before they are 18 and choose to join the church. From what I understand they do not marry before this age, and many families encourage some of their children to NOT join the church. This way the parents have access to cars and such they wouldn't have if everyone was in the church. Amish kids join gangs, and fool around and are just kids. They work hard and give their paychecks to dad on payday, some go to school, ect.

None of this sounds like the FLDS. I doubt the Amish are looking over their shoulders. One thing is VERY clear, the Amish are big business. The town my sister lives in has a very nice new library, nice streets, ect... and very low taxes. This is because the Amish bring in tourists.

The problem with the FLDS is that they are totally secretive. We can only guess and imagine what they are doing behind closed doors. Even if they were just practicing their religion and not abusing anyone, keeping everything secret may be their downfall. The gossip starts and the next thing you know the state has itself all worked up and pressured to do something.

I don't know how this is going to turn out in the end, but there is no harm in shinning the light on these people. Its kinda like having the Olympics in China, they have to clean up their act if they want to appear to not have human right violations.

Susan

 

[The Atheist]

Thanks, some good stuff there.

I wasn't aware of the changed law; that may well impact upon the "evidence".

 

[Kopji]

The Quaint and Friendly Amish

Children are to attend school through the eighth grade. After that they are expected to work on the farm or in the home. A parent may find them a job which will bring in additional income for the family.

School subjects are reading, writing, arithmetic, and English. No sciences.

And I should add, art or music are mostly forms of evil.

Any Amish person who has taken the church vow, and who has been found guilty by the church or bishop of breaking one of the Ordnung rules, can be punished by the shun.

They and Scientoligists could party together.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnung

 

[casebro]

Re: the genetic testing.

Seems to me that an eight year old child with a 20 year old mother is proof of abuse- with a built in proof of paternity/abuser. Isn't that the crux of this debacle?

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Seems to me that an eight year old child with a 20 year old mother is proof of abuse- with a built in proof of paternity/abuser. Isn't that the crux of this debacle?

Seems this way to me also. Wonder how far back they can go. If a 50 year old mother is proved by DNA to have a 45 year old son/daughter can they prosecute the father? Or maybe they can show the pattern of this happening for years. Also it can be used against these people when they say that aren't aware of underage marriage going on when they themselves had a child at 15.

One of the wisest pieces of advise I ever received is from a judge. I was 18 and on the jury of a he said she said. The judge said that if you know that one person is lying to you (and they have been warned very seriously not to lie) then you can throw out everything they say.

Susan

 

[drkitten]

You might try digging around in the CDC data.

Thank you very much. That source was very helpful. The most recent data I could find was from 2002 and suggested a birth rate of 1.3/1000 girls ages 10-14; the corresponding national rate is 0.8.

How many of the 10-14 year olds are pregnant in the FLDS? Do we have data on that yet?