FLDS/Texas CPS - whose is the greater crime?

[Susan Gerbic]

I listened to an interview today where they discussed the pictures of Warren Jeffs with the 12 year old girl. The caption on the pictures said, "our first anniversary" which would have made her 11ish at the time of their wedding.

The jist of the interview with the reporter was that (in the reporters opinion) the State is making the argument that Warren Jeffs is/was the leader of the people at this compound, the policies he put in place were the marriage of underage girls to much older men. This is systemic of the entire community. Jeffs had no need or wish to hide his 11 year old bride, this kind of marriage was considered acceptable by the community. The reporter stated that CPS should not have to wait until the child has been harmed before taking them from the community, but before the harm. Pictures like this one with Warren Jeffs (and she eluded to Texas having other evidence) are clear indicators that there is likely harm to the children in this community.

Beth - I love to read your comments. I am not that far away from you in this. I do not want the children harmed by being removed from their mothers and siblings. It would rip my heart out if the state took my children away from me. The pain these mothers and children must be feeling is horrible. I am not certain that CPS had the evidence to take these children away, I can only hope that they are withholding what they have in order to prove their case by law.

We also have to remember how this all started. They got this call (what is up with the woman who made the call, they are keeping quiet about her) and they believed the call, they went in and did what they had to do, pull everyone out. It did not help matters that no one can prove who belongs to whom. The mothers and the children lied over and over about their names and ages. It is difficult to return children and babies when they don't know who they belong to. Now that the children are removed, it will take time to sort it out, Texas is being cautious.

Also remember that they uncovered a document in the church discussing mass suicide. Imagine walking into your neighborhood church right this minute, how likely would it be that you would find such a document? Do you think that is normal? Would you leave your children in the care of such people?

This community should be treated as one family unit. What happens in one household happens in all the others. Look at the dress code, look at the hair, are these people all following the same set of rules? Do you see any individuals at all anywhere? Do you see the color red in that community anywhere? Warren Jeffs is in court in Arizona right now, many of his followers are sitting in the trial looking at him with love and obedience. That is not against the law, but it shows that these people support him, they would carry out his wishes, even if his wishes harm their children.

As I said before, these people can not protect their children from harm, therefore they should not be allowed to parent these children.

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

I see a number of issues, besides my ranting:

-the state from statute has a burden to investigate suspected abuse
-by standard of law and administration there is a threshold for state intervention

-the decision to take all the children into custody was most likely not the best

-the decision to not cooperate with the investigation was not the best

The nature of the report of suspected abuse is not taken into consideration in making an investigation. The statute states that reports of suspected child abuse will be investigated and sets the criteria for which will be investigated. As mentioned before most reports are not investigated unless there are marks, extreme neglect, and substantial risk to the child or sexual abuse.

The investigation was/is a mess, you have the state having to get a warrant to enter the compound, and antagonism is always high in these cases to begin with. However this is a civil matter that can lead to criminal charges, so the standard is lower for investigation than a court room trial of a criminal case.

While it is still suspected that there originating phone call was specious, and that is often true. The statute does not state that the credibility of the report of suspected abuse is a factor. The statute states that the state must investigate the report if it meets the statutory limit for investigation.

The basis for taking children into custody is not based upon the report but upon the evidence found during the investigation. There is no poison fruit or extension of Miranda here, although I am sure that egregious ill will would abrogate some cases.

Which brings us to this juncture, the state made an investigation legally, the state went before a judge and asked that the children be taken into custody.

1. The state made a decision to take all the minors into custody, which given the secretive nature of the defendants may have been the only course they felt they could take. How to know which child is from which parent when there is a suspicion of lying?

2. The state should have begun to return children to parents much sooner. If they could establish that the parents had not had any spiritual marriages of underage children or allowed their children to engage in underage marriage.

3. The state claims this was very hard to do, which seems credible.

4. The decision to not cooperate with an investigation is one all citizens are entitled to make. Unfortunately these civil investigations by administrative law are often governed by the capricious nature of humans. Not cooperating can often lead to retaliation by the agency.

5. The defendants could have made, and some have made a decision to cooperate with the investigation. Those who can show that they have no underage marriages in the family or from their family should have their children returned immediately.

6. There should be a large body of evidence to support claims on both sides as to the age of children once the identity has been established.

7. Now that the case has proceeded past adjudication, the court has a much stronger role in the interpretation of administrative law and the evidence in the case.

It seems likely to me that as they determine the ages of minor people and who is the parent of whom that there will be more reunification of families.

However as it is found that people obstructed justice , if they did, then that has very serious consequences, especially regards a parents willingness to protect their child. If it turns out that they can identify young children who were born to underage women then that will have substantial consequences for the families involved.

 

[Dancing David]

State asking for stay until identity of parents established, parents argue it has been:

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700229945,00.html?pg=1

 

[Dancing David]

SCOT rules children should go home:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9417661?source=rss

In its brief opinion, the court decided by a six-to-three justice majority that "we are not inclined to disturb the Court of Appeals' decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."

The state Supreme Court, however, found that Texas' family code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care or shelters. For example, the lower court could have issued a restraining order barring the children from being taken out of state or ordering the removal of any perpetrators from their homes, the justices said.
The high court said Walther must vacate her temporary custody order, but she can grant other steps to protect the children.

So the remedy to the situation was excessive when other remedies exist.

yahoo has same story different particulars

something different

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled last week that the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and had offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.

So five only, seizure was excessive.

 

[nightwind]

Texas CPS

"By the time it is all over, the greatest damage to the children in this case will be that done by Texas law enforcement, and Texas CPS."

 

[Kaylee]

This community should be treated as one family unit.

I agree with you. But not for these reasons:

What happens in one household happens in all the others. Look at the dress code, look at the hair, are these people all following the same set of rules? Do you see any individuals at all anywhere? Do you see the color red in that community anywhere? Warren Jeffs is in court in Arizona right now, many of his followers are sitting in the trial looking at him with love and obedience. That is not against the law, but it shows that these people support him,

But for these reasons:

they would carry out his wishes, even if his wishes harm their children.

As I said before, these people can not protect their children from harm, therefore they should not be allowed to parent these children.

As I understand it, the church's elite, not the parents, decides who marries whom and when, and which boys get abandoned. If the parents try to protest they get thrown out of their homes which are owned by the church.

There have also been many reported stories where the church leaders decide to "reassign" wives and children. Church leaders decide this, not the husbands or the wives. Clearly in this cult, autonomous families where the adults make independent decisions do not exist.

While this has been documented in other states, I suppose it was difficult for the state attorneys to prove this without cooperation in such a short time frame -- but I'm still very disappointed in the supreme court of Texas' decision.

 

[nightwind]

CPS

Certainly the Supreme court made the correct decision in the case. In fact this was a no brainer from the start. Although I am sure the "witch burners" (who have never met a child who hasnt been abused) will be upset.

Just one example of many screw ups by the Texas CPS who is known for this sort of thing. But there hasn't been a witch burning in a while I guess.

Hoping that these families get back together soon, and I do hope it will be possible to file some hefty lawsuits in this case. This would have had to have been a very traumatizing situation that these families have been put through.

I am ashamed and disgusted by the inept handling of this case both by law enforcement and the joke of an organization called Texas CPS. Let's you see how effective a false allegation can be, and how gullible people are.

This is just another shameful chapter of Texas inept justice system, which hopefully will come to a close soon.

At least our court system saved them, before they started trying to find tunnels under the church, satanic ritual abuse, etc. Sheesh.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm, some snippets, very short stories

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/694908.html

A week after 440 children from a polygamist sect were reunited with their parents, a majority still have returned to the Yearning for Zion Ranch in West Texas.
Child Protective Services spokesman Patrick Crimmins said 178 children are living in 33 households in the San Antonio area and 143 children are living in 30 households at the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado.
The remaining 19 children are scattered across Texas, but Crimmins said CPS officials are not providing more details about their whereabouts to protect their privacy.

http://conchovalleyhomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=6301

Investigators say things were bad and still being investigated at the ranch.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

I want to know what they decided was that bed they found in the church. No news of that since they found it.

I want to know about the paper that was found in the safe discussing cyanide gas or cyanide pills.

I want to know about the woman who made the call, what is up with that?

Why so many more girls than boys?

Why are these women on food stamps and welfare when the fathers are living in their households?

What about the "lost boys" what about all the odd broken bones in these young boys?

Why is there just silence...?

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

The food stamp thing is easy. If you are unmarried then you might be roomates, as a state they don't make a distinction. You get less benefits than if you lived a lone but you get benefits based upon the total number of people living in the household and the total earned income, minus SSDI and SSA which counts as earned income, but not SSI which doesn't.

So the situation is analogous in the eyes of the law to one married couple and their kids and a bunch of non related single mothers and thier familes living in the same house hold.

I doubt that the benefits per child are that great but if you got thirty they add up. (except for the medical care for almost free.)

 

[Susan Gerbic]

So you mean that even if the father is living in the household with his 5-30+ children, they are able to get welfare and food stamps? They can prove that he is the father because his name should be on the birth certificates, plus they could always look at the DNA.

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, it vaies from state to stae. the fact that there are two biological parents is not an issue in recieveing benefits in Illinois, it varies by state as well but the basic formula is the same

Total family income (earned including all sorts of theings)-'living expense' (which were set in 1965 and don't relect realit - (aid factor x number of children and working adults)=benefit available as percentage of maximum allowance of food stamps and or cash assistance.

So you take total income subtract a really pitiful amount for living (set in 1965) and then minus a magic amount for the total number of dependants (children and mothers of children not excdeding 5 year TANF limit)= The greater the deficit then the higher the percetage paid out on each dependant in relation to the highest payment.


The marital status of the people is immaterial, it is a poverty reduction programs meant to decrease starvation and malnutrition.

So yes they are likely to get x amount of food stamps per child and a much smaller amount of cash assistance per child, plus the Medicaid benefit for all children if they fall below the 'poverty guideline'. Moms will get medical and food stamps until they reachy the five year TANF max out.

Not profitable for most people.

 

[nightwind]

Law enforcement, needs to spend their time tracking down true law breakers, and deal with the real nasty characters in our society, rather than wasting time with this sort of case.

And Texas CPS, simply needs to be done away with. They are as useless as the mammary glands on a male swine.

 

[Susan Gerbic]

Law enforcement, needs to spend their time tracking down true law breakers, and deal with the real nasty characters in our society, rather than wasting time with this sort of case.

And Texas CPS, simply needs to be done away with. They are as useless as the mammary glands on a male swine.

Ahhh so your okay with child rape, and child abandonment. Nice to know. I suppose we better go after those horrid weed smokers instead.

Susan

 

[Dancing David]

Law enforcement, needs to spend their time tracking down true law breakers, and deal with the real nasty characters in our society, rather than wasting time with this sort of case.

And Texas CPS, simply needs to be done away with. They are as useless as the mammary glands on a male swine.

Great, so you would say it is okay to beat your child, rape, choke, starve and deprive them of medical care and food.

Ah, chattel slavery.

 

[Dancing David]

1994 DoJ

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt

Under 12 75,600 5.3% 1.6
12-14 87,100 6.1 7.8

Age, then number then percentage then rate per 1,000

Also from source

8%, by a parent, child, sibling, or other relative.

So lets say that are distributed throughout the four categories then 2% are inflicted by parents ( a likely low value)

We get 75,600 x .02= 1,512
And 87,100 x .02= 1,742

Or 3,254

Now that is assuming that parents inflict only 25% of ER related reported injuries on children.

What if that is
50% 6,908
75% 9,762

Now what rate of under reporting do you want to give by ER staff suspecting it was an intentional injury At 50% rate of parental infliction

1/5= 34,500
½= 12,816

But what is the ratio of abusive events that lead the child to actual go to the ER? (at 50% again)

1/5 Underreporting

1/5 go to ER 172,500
½ go to ER 64,500

½ under reporting

1/5 go to ER 66,000
½ go to ER 25,632


Now there is another factor you have to consider, I am being very generous in underestimating all sorts of thing, the under reporting by ER staff of suspected intentional violence, the ratio of ER visits to very violent acts and I have not even added the factor of number of acts of violence to potential trip to the ER.

When you factor those in you can get amplifications from 5-100 (on the low side), much less all the other factors that lead to undereporting.


So anywhere from 15,000 parent inflicted injuries or 300,000 that require a trip to the ER.


Hmmm?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf
DoJ 2005 pg 46 63,000 by parent on child

and what again is the under reporting?

 

[casebro]

Oh boy! This thread is getting close to 160 posts, we won't have to keep seeing the opening line "Now down to 17 alleged underage mothers held in custody," every time we come by for an update.

 

[Dancing David]

Close CPS , that is a great idea:
From the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/HealthyChildren/

Child Maltreatment is a significant public health problem in the United States. Approximately 905,000 children are confirmed by Child Protective Services each year as being abused or neglected. These confirmed cases, however, represent only a fraction of the true magnitude of the problem. Most cases are not reported and child maltreatment remains a largely hidden problem.

Facts at a glance (note the 900,000 include same person different incident)
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/CM_Data_Sheet.pdf


health and Human Services 2006
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/index.htm
From ABC news

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5171807&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5063664&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4873347&page=1


others
http://www.sanmarcosrecord.com/local/local_story_165113059.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/06/14/20080614abandonedkids0614.html
http://www.news-bulletin.com/news/80769-06-11-08.html
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8493207
http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/man_pleads_guilty_to_child_abuse/5637/
http://www.foxcarolina.com/news/16558198/detail.html?rss=gsaa&psp=news
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=416334&Category=9&subCategoryID=
http://www.neoshodailynews.com/news/x222985900/Pair-bound-over-for-trial-in-child-abuse-case

 

[Dancing David]

Small story:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/State_could_take_eight_sect_children.html

The petitions for state conservatorship, or custody, of six girls and two boys were filed after CPS caseworkers said they could not get their parents to sign what is known as a “safety plan,” which requires parents to promise to keep the child safe and meet certain requirements, such as handing over the child’s parentage and medical documents.

In these cases, it appears CPS is asking for the children to be removed because they were residing in homes where underage marriages had taken place or the parents refused to sign a document guaranteeing the girls would not be placed in an underage marriage.