Posted on 05/28/2008 9:00:37 AM PDT by MizSterious
Not sure, read it in a newspaper article and I am not quoting verbatim. If I get time I will try to find it again.
If CPS has screwed this up so bad and the Texas Supreme court can't find compelling reasons to overturn the appellate court ALL the children are going home. Is that something any of us wanted?
The removal statute is clear. It is not ambiguous. Why are your trying to read into it by combining two different statutes? This is why the Appellate court ruled the way it did according to the Texas law. Are you arbiter over the laws and judge over making new ones up?
Heck if I know on your last question. There is a lot of mind control by way of religion. I think it happens in most religions but this one clearly has power over its followers.
In regards to the first comment I am only relating that people make custody arrangements in all walks of life and it appears from the way these guys are standing behind the “good” wives as they call it, one could say they have an agreement on custody rights.
Happens all the time. Fathers take off and if the mother goes after child support, they garnish wages perhaps. Sometimes the custodial parent files sometimes they don’t. If they go on welfare and can identify or will identify the other parent, the state will go after that person. Sometimes people don’t even know who the father is. Mothers disappear and go on their merry way leaving men to raise children albeit it is less likely. This is reality man. It sucks, but parentage isn’t for everyone and some people just don’t care.
As I read it, they claim the sect lived in a single address therefore they are arguing that if one child was abused that all children could be removed from the household. Problem is that in the initial hearing they admitted different arrangements and the same with visitation. Real tough to say a 3 year old was in imminent physical danger because of “thought” crimes because that isn’t imminent physical danger. Read the removal statute and don’t confuse definitions in defining abuses, but look at the “immediate” removal statute they used. It is very clear and not ambiguous. The only thing I can see happening is if it is defined as one household, whereby they can say that the 4 or 5 cases of sexual abuse potentials would require all chidren removed from the household. It is a stretch, but I see the angle they are taking.
How can a child being abused who doesn’t have the resources nor the ability to report be responsible? I hope you aren’t attributing that to me. I would love for one singer to come forth within the group and spill the beans and testify to the abuse in Texas. So far that hasn’t happened to my knowledge.
Please do not attribute thought, posts, and ideas that are not mine to me anymore. I understand your frustrations for the children’s sake, but again if the CPS had handled this appropriately from a legal standpoint we would be having different discussions. You can not prosecute thought crimes.
I heard he had 180 wifes at last count. I doubt this man will see the light of day after these new pictures. So, now, this is the first sect I have heard of where their leader leads them from prison. In my book it should mean more will end up there. Follow the leader............lets play church.
This reminds me of one of the sister-wifes explaining to her niece before she was getting married to an old guy.........she finalized the explanation of relations by saying.............That makes me my own grandma.
You do not seem to understand the inner system in this compound. People do not live in family style arrangements. They live in groups. Women sleep around in big rooms together and guys come and pick the one they want for the night. When the guys want a new one, they pick a young one and you can not say no. They get married in the matter of one to two days later. This means you can be the victim any time any day. Therefore, thumbs up to removing all since they are all under threat of harm, a good reason for CPS to remove. ALL OF THEM. Now, lets get the guys all gone and let the women stay there with their kids. Now we are talking. Do not let these guys into the community though. Throw them behind another compound and lock the gate and throw away the key. They know how to make their own food.
Why can they not get these guys for practicing child labor. It is against the law too. The kids get up at 5.30 a.m. and go out and work in the fields for their food. After that they are willing to starve them and call it a fast. And what about the numbers of wifes they are allowed and the law could get them for it, but they do not even touch it.
Two men excommunicated by a polygamist sect went to a west Texas courtroom Tuesday to offer themselves as guardians for their children.
“If we can establish I’m not guilty of those things, why can’t I have my children?” asked Arthur Barlow, 59.
He had driven from southern Utah to seek custody of five of his children, who were among the more than 460 children who lived at the Yearning For Zion ranch in nearby Eldorado.
Barlow and Frank Johnson, another father seeking custody of his children, were excommunicated from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Hearings for the children entered their second day in the Tom Green County Courthouse. It was unclear how many other relatives have asked to be considered as alternatives to foster care.
Barlow testified that he was excommunicated four years ago and had never been to the YFZ ranch, where the children were removed last month and placed in foster care around the state after authorities argued that underage girls were forced into marriages and sex.
He said he entered into a spiritual marriage 15 years ago with Esther Jessop Barlow, 35, whom he has known since childhood. He said she is a fit mother, but if the state rules otherwise, he wants custody of the children he hasn’t seen since he was forced out.
Barlow, who has 12 children with another woman, said he did not fight for custody because he did not want the children to be used as “pawns.”
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/628946.html
“Now, lets get the guys all gone and let the women stay there with their kids. Now we are talking. Do not let these guys into the community though”
amen there.
I grew up farming, milking cows at 4:30. I want reparations.
“This is reality man.”
yes, but none of that fits the details of this case.
seriously, how can you be sure? I don’t see them doing anything other than saying if the children can’t be with the mom, they are willing to take them rather than foster care.
How long before mom has them again if they get custody?
Because I am going by the words he said, and not on what you ‘imagine’ his reasons are.
“Maybe they have not wanted contact or pursued contact with the children. Who knows.”
Well, you are half right. They did express that there was a reason they didn’t pursue contact with their children.
They didn’t want to make it any harder on them.
what kind of situation is it where a legal parent who wants custody of their children, cannot use the law to do so, because of being afraid that the person who took them will do something worse to them?
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.