Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders FLDS newborn into state custody
Chron.com ^ | May 1, 2008 | MICHELLE ROBERTS

Posted on 05/01/2008 4:44:54 PM PDT by Politicalmom

SAN ANTONIO — A judge ordered that the baby boy born to a girl taken from a polygamist sect's ranch in West Texas be placed in state custody, according to documents released Thursday.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther signed the order Wednesday giving the state custody of the 1-day-old infant born to a teen believed to be 15 or 16 years old.

The girl has claimed to be 18, according to an affidavit signed by Ruby Gutierrez, a Child Protective Services caseworker, but officials believe she is younger and placed her in foster care with other children taken from the ranch.

The newborn is the teen's second child; the first is a 20-month-old boy. The father of both children was identified as Jackson Jessop, 22, but state officials say they don't know his whereabouts.

Child welfare officials now have 464 children in their custody, swept from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado because authorities believe underage girls were forced into marriages and sex with older men. Authorities are also now investigating possible sexual abuse of boys.

Church members have vehemently denied there was any abuse, and civil liberties groups have raised concerns at the sweeping nature of the removals.

Individual custody hearings are set to be completed by June 5.

CPS and law enforcement raided the ranch on April 3 after a girl who was purportedly 16 called a domestic abuse hotline to complain of abuse at the hands her much older husband. Authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.

Regardless, child welfare authorities say 31 of the 53 girls aged 14-17 have children or are pregnant.

Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but the girls who belong to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are not believed to have legal marriages.

FLDS is a breakaway sect of the mainline Mormon church, which disavowed polygamy a century ago.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: childabuse; flds; mormonbashing; ruling; yfzranch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-708 next last
"The newborn is the teen's second child; the first is a 20-month-old boy. The father of both children was identified as Jackson Jessop, 22, but state officials say they don't know his whereabouts."
1 posted on 05/01/2008 4:44:54 PM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYpeanut; the808bass; brytlea; pandoraou812; ricks_place; CindyDawg; Huntress; Pebcak; ...

PING!!

FReepmail to be added to the FLDS Eldorado Legal Case Ping List


2 posted on 05/01/2008 4:45:30 PM PDT by Politicalmom (It's the child abuse, stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Even if she is 18 as she claimed, she was 15 when she got pregnant the first time.


3 posted on 05/01/2008 4:46:33 PM PDT by Politicalmom (It's the child abuse, stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

PURE EVIL. There was no reason to take her baby away.


4 posted on 05/01/2008 4:47:51 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs (Kill them with kindness, then taser them for fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom; colorcountry; Pan_Yans Wife; MHGinTN; Colofornian; Elsie; FastCoyote; Osage Orange; ..

Ping


5 posted on 05/01/2008 4:48:05 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (FLDS.... making babies with children because their God wants earthly bodies for spirit babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

So how does CPS know that the “identity” claimed is the actual identity of the father? DNA of the man and the children? If they don’t know the whereabouts of the father, they can’t match DNA.


6 posted on 05/01/2008 4:50:57 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (FLDS.... making babies with children because their God wants earthly bodies for spirit babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

And if she’s 15, then she was 12.


7 posted on 05/01/2008 4:51:34 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; colorcountry; Utah Binger; P-Marlowe
FLDS is a breakaway sect of the mainline Mormon church, which disavowed polygamy a century ago.

Are mormon church attorneys demanding this caveat be placed by the press on every article published?

8 posted on 05/01/2008 4:53:09 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (FLDS.... making babies with children because their God wants earthly bodies for spirit babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Even if she is 18 as she claimed, she was 15 when she got pregnant the first time.

true!!

9 posted on 05/01/2008 4:53:25 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
Are mormon church attorneys demanding this caveat be placed by the press on every article published?

I would bet on it!

10 posted on 05/01/2008 4:54:38 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
The girl has claimed to be 18, according to an affidavit signed by Ruby Gutierrez, a Child Protective Services caseworker, but officials believe she is younger and placed her in foster care with other children taken from the ranch.

Yep, all the government has to do is say they believe something to be true and it is true.

Just how are they justified in taking this woman's children? Her age?

Is that it, or are the women and girls the victims or the criminals?

Anyone who thinks the governments actions, many of which are illegal, including the original warrant, are justified in this action are communists at heart because they certainly believe in the "ends justifies the means", don't force law enforcement agencies to obey the law, oh, no, self righteousness trumps law and citizens rights every time.

11 posted on 05/01/2008 4:56:26 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
And if she’s 15, then she was 12.

(And he would have been 19 or so--depending on where his birthday falls...So, a likely 19 yo being "set up" with a 12 or 13 yo...sounds like grounds for a statutory rape investigation + accomplice charges for the leader in a position of spiritual trust + the 1 or 2 parents of this girl...people tend to forget the "multiplier" on each of these potential charges)

12 posted on 05/01/2008 4:57:31 PM PDT by Colofornian (What's a planetary compound w/a local god ruling polygamous wives? LDS celestial kingdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume 100% of the men women and teenagers are guilty of child abuse. Everyone of them, knew about or participated in pimping out young girls to older men. How does it help the baby to be removed from it’s mother? Where is the imminent harm?


13 posted on 05/01/2008 4:57:40 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
PURE EVIL. There was no reason to take her baby away.

Except of course, to protect the child - if one cares about such things.

14 posted on 05/01/2008 4:59:30 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Yup, every black child born by a mother under that age of 18 MUST be taken away from her by the government.

I hope you are proud of what you have allowed the government to do.

Do you have idea how this can and will be abused?

Oh well, I have been talking to a wall for several weeks now.

As for the FLDS, I honestly do not give a damn. I worry about taking children away from their parents.

15 posted on 05/01/2008 5:00:19 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drango

Uh, they DIDN’T separate the girl from her children.


16 posted on 05/01/2008 5:01:44 PM PDT by Politicalmom (It's the child abuse, stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom; greyfoxx39; colorcountry; Utah Binger; P-Marlowe
From the article: FLDS is a breakaway sect of the mainline Mormon church, which disavowed polygamy a century ago.

"disavowed" = "no vows." (So a modern Mormon being "married" for "eternity" to multiple women in the LDS temple, which is 100% sanctioned by the LDS Church, involves absolutely no "vows?" Who can provide us with a "script" of a typical LDS temple sealing "for eternity?" I always thought it indeed involved "vows").

17 posted on 05/01/2008 5:01:50 PM PDT by Colofornian (What's a planetary compound w/a local god ruling polygamous wives? LDS celestial kingdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
including the original warrant

When you go to court and prove that, then ping everyone , until then you are the one fabricating things.

18 posted on 05/01/2008 5:02:40 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

Get a grip.

They didn’t separate her from her children. They are ALL in state custody together.


19 posted on 05/01/2008 5:02:45 PM PDT by Politicalmom (It's the child abuse, stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

Protect it from it’s mother? Please. The only reason they’ve given here is that the Almighty State thinks she might not be 18.


20 posted on 05/01/2008 5:02:51 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs (Kill them with kindness, then taser them for fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Drango
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume 100% of the men women and teenagers are guilty of child abuse. Everyone of them, knew about or participated in pimping out young girls to older men. How does it help the baby to be removed from it’s mother? Where is the imminent harm?

In the grooming of the child to be a sex toy. You just assumed in your question that the teen aged girl participated in abuse and your solution is to give her custody of a tiny human being?

21 posted on 05/01/2008 5:03:47 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
From Article:"Texas District Judge Barbara Walther signed the order Wednesday giving the state custody of the 1-day-old infant born to a teen believed to be 15 or 16 years old."

I am hoping the above just means the state has jurisdiction now. It is possible the mother and child were placed together in a foster home. At least I hope so.

22 posted on 05/01/2008 5:04:38 PM PDT by Spunky (You are free to make choices, but not free from the consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

LEL: “PURE EVIL”

I couldn’t agree more. How is the newborn harmed by allowing it to stay with its mother? If actual abuse is proven in a court of law, that is one thing. To rip a newborn from its mother simply because the girl is a member of a religious cult we may or may not agree with is, as you say, pure evil.

Whatever happened to land of the free, even for people we may or may not agree with? Hundreds of thousands if not millions of underage girls are having sex and many are having babies. Shall we seize all children born to underage mothers, since apparently the mere fact they are giving birth is enough to prove a crime (statutory rape) and abuse occurred? I hope not.


23 posted on 05/01/2008 5:04:49 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Member of CRAM - Conservative Resigned to Accept McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Drango
How does it help the baby to be removed from it’s mother?

Red Herring. the judge has already ordered that mothers with children could stay with their children. But this new baby was not included in original order. Just a paper work move.

24 posted on 05/01/2008 5:06:03 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; colorcountry; P-Marlowe; SENTINEL
Who can provide us with a "script" of a typical LDS temple sealing "for eternity?" I always thought it indeed involved "vows").

I'm sure someone can, but why waste the time when it will be zotted in seconds?

25 posted on 05/01/2008 5:06:33 PM PDT by greyfoxx39 (FLDS.... making babies with children because their God wants earthly bodies for spirit babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: calex59

calex59: “Is that it, or are the women and girls the victims or the criminals?”

The young women are the victims here. If this was about anything other than a weird cult, people would be up in arms over a child being taken from its mother. Yet, underage mothers are giving birth all the time. Is that, in itself, cause for seizing the children now?


26 posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:48 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Member of CRAM - Conservative Resigned to Accept McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
They are ALL in state custody together.

Point taken!

They were ALL taken from their families by the government.

RULE #1: If you are a conservative, protecting the family is your first priority. This is the basic unit of our civilization.

27 posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:56 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

Do you have any idea how that wee one could have been abused if left in the fLDS environment? This mother might well have already been trained in “breaking the baby”—which is a polite way of saying torture similar to waterboarding. This isn’t her first child, she probably already knows the technique.


28 posted on 05/01/2008 5:08:09 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Gosh, I would hope so. I hate to see anti-LDS propaganda go unchallenged.


29 posted on 05/01/2008 5:08:12 PM PDT by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Ignorance on full display.
30 posted on 05/01/2008 5:08:23 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39; MizSterious; All

WOW!! Check out the MASSIVE knee-jerking on this thread!!

THE GIRLS ARE ALL WITH THEIR CHILDREN!!!!!


31 posted on 05/01/2008 5:08:37 PM PDT by Politicalmom (It's the child abuse, stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Drango; Politicalmom
For the sake of discussion, let’s assume 100% of the men women and teenagers are guilty of child abuse. Everyone of them, knew about or participated in pimping out young girls to older men. How does it help the baby to be removed from it’s mother? Where is the imminent harm?

Well, for one thing, this decision comes right on the heels of the media report yesterday about 41 known cases of broken bones among the children...this issue has possibly gone beyond sexual abuse to physical abuse...plus judges don't exactly close their eyes to reports of hundreds of children's graves & unmarked graves at the "sister fLDS communities."

32 posted on 05/01/2008 5:09:13 PM PDT by Colofornian (What's a planetary compound w/a local god ruling polygamous wives? LDS celestial kingdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
Making the child a ward of the state means that that they can be separated at any time, for any reason.

Imagine being told that your children were to be considered wards of the state, but that they would be allowed to live with you until further notice. Could you accept that?

33 posted on 05/01/2008 5:10:09 PM PDT by LongElegantLegs (Kill them with kindness, then taser them for fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
protecting the family is your first priority.

That is why the original planks of the republican party include being against polygamy.

34 posted on 05/01/2008 5:10:36 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

It’s amazing how quickly people want to believe the worse about the government when no where in the article did it say they took the baby away from the mother. In fact it clearly stated the mother was also in state custody.


35 posted on 05/01/2008 5:11:03 PM PDT by beandog (Quit serving me mud and telling me it's chocolate pie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Whatever happened to land of the free, even for people we may or may not agree with? Hundreds of thousands if not millions of underage girls are having sex and many are having babies. Shall we seize all children born to underage mothers, since apparently the mere fact they are giving birth is enough to prove a crime (statutory rape) and abuse occurred?

That has been my argument for the last few weeks. I even got banned from Free Republic (after being a member for 10 years) for standing up for American families.

This is wrong!

36 posted on 05/01/2008 5:11:26 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
Imagine being told that your children were to be considered wards of the state, but that they would be allowed to live with you until further notice.

The mother is already a ward of the state. They, the state, has her listed as underage. You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

37 posted on 05/01/2008 5:12:43 PM PDT by org.whodat (What's the difference between a Democrat and a republican????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hunble; LongElegantLegs; Drango; CitizenUSA
Where did you come up with the notion that the mothers were safe?

You did not get that notion from any survivors of childhood sexual abuse in the home, and you absolutely did not get it from any peer reviewed textbooks on sexual abuse used in teaching social workers and law enforcement.

You seem to be exclusively focused on making the mothers happy - to the utter abandonment of the safety of the children.

Here is a textbook I would recommend. It's a bit pricey, but cheap as college texts go. It isn't as long as the page count makes it appear, as 37 pages are references.

Whatever you do, stop trying to push the ludicrous notion that the women in sexual abuse situations are by default safe for the children. If you bother at all to research the subject - You will find that in the real world - they at the very least refused to listen to the child pleading for their help, and often lend tacit approval, or participate in the sexual abuse.

38 posted on 05/01/2008 5:13:34 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

MrEdd: “Except of course, to protect the child - if one cares about such things.”

Ah, for the children—a mantra often used by the left to take away individual liberty. Let us hope the government never receives an anonymous call concerning your children or your children’s children. I’m sure you’ll eventually get them back, of course, but how could you possibly argue against the government seizing them until the messy details are resolved? It’s for the children!


39 posted on 05/01/2008 5:13:37 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Member of CRAM - Conservative Resigned to Accept McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
Except of course, to protect the child - if one cares about such things.

Protect the child FROM WHAT? The mother's breast milk?!

40 posted on 05/01/2008 5:13:59 PM PDT by Excellence (Daughter of the American Revolution, niece of the Civil War (North).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
I do not give a darn about polygamy or the FLDS.

Families have been destroyed by the government. This is what got me upset.

41 posted on 05/01/2008 5:14:00 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
I'm sure someone can, but why waste the time when it will be zotted in seconds?

This is more of a situation like a judge saying certain words are "out of bounds"...but when the prosecution itself opens up an exploration into those very words/terms, then previously establish boundaries by the judge are off.

When the LDS is reported to have "disavowed" polygamy, and there are current vows saying otherwise, then previously established boundaries are "off." (Similar to when a poster declares a thread as a "caucus" but claims are made in the article posted that leave it open to be rebutted.)

42 posted on 05/01/2008 5:14:01 PM PDT by Colofornian (What's a planetary compound w/a local god ruling polygamous wives? LDS celestial kingdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
RULE #1: If you are a conservative, protecting the family is your first priority. This is the basic unit of our civilization.

Statutory rapists who father children with multiple underage wives are not the "basic unit of our civilization." Quite the opposite.

43 posted on 05/01/2008 5:14:49 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
"Imagine being told that your children were to be considered wards of the state, but that they would be allowed to live with you until further notice. Could you accept that?"

In abusive homes, it's done all the time. This cult is one great big communal abusive home.

44 posted on 05/01/2008 5:15:21 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

That’s just stupid. The girl is a ward of the state. How could the baby NOT be a ward of the state? By giving it to the other cultists?


45 posted on 05/01/2008 5:16:11 PM PDT by Politicalmom (It's the child abuse, stupid!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!

President Hillary will be fantastic for some Freepers...

46 posted on 05/01/2008 5:16:20 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

org.whodat: “Ignorance on full display.”

Could you be a bit more specific?


47 posted on 05/01/2008 5:17:57 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Member of CRAM - Conservative Resigned to Accept McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs

Wrong!


48 posted on 05/01/2008 5:18:07 PM PDT by gost2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
"Ah, for the children—a mantra often used by the left to take away individual liberty."

So from this, we can presume that you would prefer to allow a child to be abused, perhaps even to his death, rather than removed from an abusive home? I mean, after all, we can't be doing things "for the children," now, can we?

49 posted on 05/01/2008 5:18:09 PM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LongElegantLegs
Imagine being told that your children were to be considered wards of the state, but that they would be allowed to live with you until further notice. Could you accept that?

Now imagine that you were 15 when you had your first kid, you just had your second, your "husband" is 22 and you are living in a compound in Texas where polygamy is the rule, not the exception. Your husband was picked out for you by the cult leader who is in jail for facilitating rape and you had no say. Could you accept that?

You cannot pretend that this is suburban America where a high school girl got pregnant by a classmate. I don't know why you wish to. Ignoring the basic particulars of the present case to construct scary hypotheticals where all of our babies get taken away tomorrow does not strengthen your argument.

50 posted on 05/01/2008 5:18:41 PM PDT by the808bass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-708 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson