And where were they supposed to be living? In the suburbs with 2.3 children each and practicing serialized legal polygamy? Is their lifestyle really worse than that found in the inner city? Or many 3rd world countries? I don't know. Growing up and living in the same community and lifestyle you were born into hardly seems like just cause to remove your kids from your custory.
And if the investigator is ethical they are to interpret based upon the state statute, in Illinois poverty and culture are not grounds for taking custody. Living homeless (as a temporary thing and even long term) is not grounds as long as you:
-don't beat your kids
-don't use your kids for sex acts or gratification
-provide for the welfare of your kids (food, adequate shelter, medical care, school)
-protect them from harm by the 'reasoanable person'standard.
The issue is if having women (or men) be forced into marriage at an age that is defined by law as illegal is against the law.
the execultion of the protection of the children in a mass sweep is unique to this case. And somebody thought it was part of Texas statute. Although it was probably intended to be used against 'immoral' people, like satanists, hookers and drug addicts.
I agree that the forced marriages of young women are a problem, but I think what was done was far beyond what was necessary and justifiable. As personally distasteful as we find their practices in regard to youthful marriage, they are not particularly unique cultural practices.
Yes and no, the statute sets an age limit for consent.
While there has been speculation and anecdotal evidence regarding their abandoning many of the boys, the evidence for that is, well, disputable.
How so, where is that evidence?
I think the harm done by the state of Texas through their forcible removal of the children from their homes is in excess of the harm they were trying to prevent. My rule of thumb for supporting governmental interventions of that sort is that they be appropriate and effective. This doesn't seem to have been either.
Um, ANCRA is imporatant, the statute stands, the effectiveness comes from a lack of funding and ethics.
I think there should be a grand jury for cases involving child custody. having worked against the system and with the system, that is the greatest gap.
There is no external check to the intervention, so it depends solely upon the etheics of the people and then the court system. A review of the evidence between the shelter care hearing and the custody hearing would be very helpful.
But the real issue is a lack of support, I think that we need to care for minor children better than we do. i am not sure which system would be best, but providing shelter, food and educational supports would go a long way.
How many 14 year olds have to choose between the street and being beat up?
No, it doesn't make it right. But it does mean that the morality of intervening in their lives against their will is questionable. When the government action seems to have done more harm than good and when I hear on the news that the women felt they were lied to in order to get them out of the compound and when they separate breastfeeding mothers from their babies on such flimsey evidence ... I can't support that. I don't want my government intervening in people's lives in such a heavy handed manner on no more evidence than a fake phone call.
Yes but how many people are being hurt, how many are not being cared for?
I am not saying that such heavy handed sweeps are the solution.
But if the seventeen minors do turn out to have been forced to marry and engage in intercourse before the age of consent then it is a matter of statute.
