|
Posted on 05/29/2008 9:43:07 AM PDT by MizSterious
---Why a Texas Appellate Court Seriously Erred In Concluding that Texas Child Protective Services Should Not Have Rescued All of the Children at the FLDS Compound
By MARCI HAMILTON
----
Last week, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, issued a very significant – and very seriously mistaken – ruling, In re Sara Steed et al.
The case involved 38 women from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), who challenged the state’s removal of all the children from their FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas when authorities entered on the basis of reports that a 16-year-old girl was being physically and sexually abused.
They presented their dubious challenge as a petition for a writ of mandamus – an extraordinary remedy that is only rarely granted. Yet the court ruled in favor of the women, and against the Texas child protection authorities.
That decision was not just wrong, but wrongheaded – for it applied the opposite approach to questions involving child abuse and religious entities than it should have: the court focused on religious belief while downplaying the actual conduct at issue. Fortunately, the state is now appealing to the Texas Supreme Court, and rightly so.
I wrote about the constitutional issues involving the removal of the children by Texas’ Child Protective Series (CPS) in a prior column. The appellate decision, though, did not address constitutional issues. Rather, it only addressed the Texas law governing the removal of children from their parents. In this column, I will address that separate set of legal questions, and explain why this decision was indefensible.
Why the Decision Was Not Only Wrong, But Premature
To begin, the decision was poorly timed, for two reasons. First, as the state argues in its pending appeal, the judges should have waited for the soon-to-be released DNA results, which are necessary to learn which children belong to which adults – and thus may also reveal provide evidence regarding which children are the victims of or the result of statutory rape. Given the intense intermarriage practices within the organization, the results will also clarify any questions regarding incest.
Such testing was necessary because FLDS members and the medical personnel who attend at their births routinely fail to file birth certificates and, during these proceedings, children and adults alike have been less than forthright about their identities or family relationships. For the court to pretend that it knew with certainty which children belonged to the women who filed the writ is irresponsible, given the facts. Moreover, reaching a decision about which children belong to which parents before DNA results are released only rewards this pattern of deception of legal authorities.
Second, the lower courts had already begun individual hearings to reunite some parents with their children, under CPS family service agreements – thus mooting the appeal with reference to these children. Those lower court judges, with the benefit of individualized evidence, were in a far better position to assess the potential harm to each individual child and to craft terms of reunion in a way so as to protect the children.
In fact, at the time the appellate judges were issuing their decision, those hearings were leading to the release of 12 children to their parents – but those releases, importantly, were based on a careful assessment of the facts for each child. Importantly, too, the children were not permitted to be returned to the compound, and the parents had to agree to ongoing oversight by the state (as would any other parent in similar circumstances).
The Relevant Texas Law Requires Evidence of Danger to the Children, and There Was Copious Evidence of That
There are three criteria under Texas law that govern whether CPS may remove children from their homes. Here is the most relevant language from each criterion, and the language on which the Texas appeals court focused: There must be (1) “a danger to the physical health or safety of the child”; (2) “reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances . . . were made to eliminate or prevent the child’s removal”; and (3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger. . . .”
Let’s begin with the first and third factors, invoking danger to the children. Surely, evidence of ongoing felonies must weigh very heavily here – and there was convincing evidence two had been committed repeatedly in the compound: child rape and polygamy.
Texas law makes polygamy a felony -- with its degree determined by the age of the new, additional spouse. The felony is third-degree if the spouse is an adult, second- degree if she is over 16, and first-degree if she is under 16. (In this respect, then, the anti-polygamy laws significantly reinforce the laws against child sex abuse and make a strong statement about the state’s view of underage marriages.)
Felonies are serious business under Texas law. As a general matter, a first-degree felony is subject to imprisonment "for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years"; a second-degree felony entails imprisonment "for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years,” and a third-degree felony requires imprisonment "for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years." These are the kinds of sanctions one would have thought a court would have taken seriously, but the appellate court actually ignored the law of polygamy as though those felonies were simply beside the point.
Was there enough evidence to state that felonies had been, and were being, committed in the FLDS compound? Absolutely. The lower court had so found, and the appellate court was legally required to accept those findings unless it saw an “abuse of discretion” on the lower court’s part. Here, the lower-court findings, far from constituting an abuse of discretion were well-substantiated.
Based on the sect’s own written records, there were numerous polygamous marriages in the compound, and plenty of marriages between underage girls and much older men. Moreover, even the appeals court acknowledged evidence that “[t]wenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen.” Girls at the compound had told investigators that “there was no age too young for girls to be married.” Evidence indicated that the members of the sect delegate to a single individual – the reigning prophet -- the task of choosing who will marry whom, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the community’s marriage and sexual practices constitute a seamless web as opposed to a collection of independent nuclear families. (While a few one-wife families exist, only younger men are likely to have a single wife, as they wait for the blessing of at least three to get a preferred spot in heaven.)
How the Appellate Judges Trivialized Rampant Sexual Abuse and Numerous Felonies
How could the appeals court ignore such compelling facts and conclude there was no real danger to all of the children? No one will ever know the actual motives of these three Republican judges, but the opinion strongly suggests unthinking deference to claims of religious and parental “rights,” even though those claims do little more than cloak criminal behavior that puts children at risk.
First, the judges treated past felonies as if time had erased them – even though these crimes went unprosecuted and unpunished. For instance, they gratuitously asserted that of the 20 underage mothers (and, thus, statutory rape victims) identified, 15 are now adults. Yet that does not negate that these women were victims of crime, that when the sex occurred they could not legally consent, and that the other 5 continue to be victimized.
This is just another version of the message so many victims of child sex abuse hear: they should just move on with their lives and leave the rest of us alone, an antiquated attitude wholly inappropriate for modern-day judges.
Second, the judges tried to magically convert statutory rape into marital intercourse, citing the rule that if a minor is legally married, she (or he) can have “consensual sexual intercourse.” The problem is that for the underage marriage to be legal, the marriage has to be sanctioned by either parental consent or court order. Where was the proof that either existed here? And even if it did, what of the many polygamous marriages, which no parent or court could sanction, and in which underage girls played a part?
More fundamentally, we must ask what, exactly, led the appellate court to try to justify this many child rapes in such a small community? Or the pervasive grooming of boys to be child rapists? Just how many children have to be sexually abused or groomed to rape in order to pass the appropriate threshold of “danger” according to these judges? I would have thought adult males having sex with 20 underage girls (repeatedly, given that some of them have more than one child) out of this small, close-knit community passed all standards of decency and easily justified bringing all of the children out of the enclave. If not 20, how many?
The Fallacy Behind the Court’s Opinion: Absolute Freedom of Religious Belief Is Guaranteed, But Is Never An Excuse for Crime
The appellate judges chastised the court below for taking into account the beliefs of the FLDS, but the existence of religious belief does not erase the illegality of conduct.
There is an absolute right to believe whatever you want under the First Amendment. No court or other government entity may punish a group for its shared beliefs, whether they be religious or secular.
For example, if a group believed in polygamy and child brides and bemoaned the laws against those practices, but still abided by the law, no legal sanction could be applied. They could proclaim their beliefs in every legislature and from every rooftop, and no one could make them stop. This is one of the great cornerstones of the American experiment with religious liberty.
When such a group crosses the line from vocal objection to legal violation, though, that absolute right disappears. In its place is the rule of law. While religious beliefs are protected from religious discrimination, they are no excuse or defense to the application of laws like those governing marriage, crime, and child abuse.
For this reason, the appellate court should have been focused on the conduct alleged, regardless of the belief that motivated it, and regardless whether belief was mentioned below. Had it focused on that conduct, as was its duty, then the court would surely have been led to the opposite conclusion, and would have upheld the earlier decision approving the removal of all children from this troubling compound.
For those who may still question the belief/action distinction (as I did at one point in my career), I think it is worthwhile to consider the following two hypotheticals, which strongly prove the value of that very distinction (and why CPS acted appropriately when it removed all of the children):
Hypothetical Number One. A group of 100 adults and 400 children live together, in a remote location with little contact beyond their own community. None of them are religious. Rather, they have a secular belief that men live longer if they have sex with multiple women, and especially if they have sex with girls as soon as they start menstruating. A man’s future health is confirmed most clearly by the birth of a child, which means women are forced to produce as many children as possible from adolescence through old age. Within the community’s practices, boys are groomed to be men with multiple spouses and child brides. A single “medical” leader determines which female partners will most improve each man’s health. In short, they practice top-down polygamy and engage in persistent statutory rape. The authorities get a report that a 16-year-old girl is being abused. When they enter and see the underage pregnant girls and the girls with children of their own, which children should they leave behind?
Hypothetical Number Two. A group of adults engages in child prostitution and lives in an isolated enclave. They do not practice polygamy; in fact, the adults do not get married at all. Each adult might sleep with another adult at some point, but never for any period of time that would be recognized by the state as even a common law marriage. They do have as many children as possible, though, to keep the business going. The kingpin determines where the girls are sent after they reach adolescence – most are transported within the United States or up to Canada, and made available for whatever men are interested. Some are kept on the premises for more child-bearing. Girls generate the most income, so boys are either abandoned or they stay within the group, spreading their sperm to as many girls and women as possible, to produce the most children possible. Here, we have rampant child abuse, though no polygamy. Local authorities get a tip that a girl is being abused. When they arrive and find records establishing the above facts, they have to decide which children to take and which to leave behind. Which child would you leave behind? How would you sleep at night if you left one behind?
The Texas courts should be looking at the conduct of the FLDS, just as authorities would in the above scenarios. No matter what they believe, their actions require state intervention for every child involved. Under Texas law (and basic common sense), every child is in danger in both the real sect and in the two hypotheticals, and state officials should be given the latitude necessary to secure their safety. The facts establish that the FLDS is a fundamentally lawless group, which has no respect for marriage laws, rape laws, child abuse laws, or even the legal requirements governing birth certificates. (Others who have escaped from the organization detail welfare fraud and child labor law violations as well.) As currently constituted, they offer no environment for children, period.
|
Just pinging a few who might be interested in the legal aspects of this case...
It’s not. But without some sort of id, and with mothers lying about everything from their names to their ages, you can’t just start handing out kids to whoever asks for one. They HAD to do the testing, or the next complaint would have been from mothers whose kids were given to someone else.
Heck, if we did it your way, all you’d have to do if you wanted a free kid is to put on a “prairie” dress and go ask for one.
One would expect exactly that kind of response from an advocate. It doesn’t mean they’re right. Frankly, I think Hamilton has a little bit more expertise in this area than any of those lawyers.
“Such testing was necessary because FLDS members and the medical personnel who attend at their births routinely fail to file birth certificates”
Somebody please tell me if this is breaking any state or federal law!!!
Can't speak for Utah, but in New York the hospital is legally required to file paperwork on every birth. I'd be really surprised if any state didn't have a similar law.
FLDS Supreme Court Decision Possible Today
5/29/2008
Newsroom
A Texas Supreme Court decision on a state appeal was actually expected Wednesday but instead the high court asked for another legal brief from attorney’s representing the families of 120 FLDS children currently in state custody.
The Third Court of Appeals ruled last week in favor of some of the FLDS families clearing the way for those children to be returned but the state appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court saying in part that if the children are returned the families could leave the state once reunited.
Attorney’s for Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid worked late into the night preparing this latest legal brief that is due to be delivered to the Supreme Court this morning, leading to speculation that the high court might rule today or tomorrow on the issue. Rio Grande Legal Aid spokeswoman Cynthia Martinez isn’t bothered by the long hours. "We are committed to these women and if the state needs a response by 9 they will get a response by 9."
Families are routinely separated, sometimes taken out of state. Children are taken from their mothers and given to other women to raise; entire families (mothers, children) are given to other “husbands” as punishment, and so on.
And yes, you bring up a disturbing subject—the baby graves outside of Colorado City, many of them unmarked, and Flora Jessup has documented the fact that their numbers grow far too quickly for what would be a death rate in normal communities. How did they die? Why? I hope there’s a court case somewhere that will address this, too.
The footnote on page 13 of the ACLU’s amicus brief makes a verying interesting point.
CPS has been floundering around like mad, trying to find a legal basis for what they have done. Let’s hope the Texas Supreme Court is a clear-eyed as the Court of Appeals. I’m somewhat worried because they asked for extra briefing. It should not have been necessary.
Let’s hope the Texas Supreme Court is a clearer-eyed than the Court of Appeals.
First off Flora Jessup has an agenda
Those communities have been there for about 70 to 80 years first as one community then split as two how long has those graveyards been there if for the whole time more distortions.
Could you please post a link I have not seen that yet.
Thanks
What about the TRAINLOADS of dead babies discovered when Ronald Reagan was President, and to which he went and prayed over, circa 1986? Or did the media ever let you hear about that? Of course..the media said those babies did not count!
They were aborted, after all.
The state can’t snatch away a child simply because the parents’ belief system, might at some time in the distant future, lead the child into some bad situation. If that were the standard, it would be sufficient to snatch away probably every child in every housing project in the state. The odds of those kids getting into criminal activity or underage sex are astronomical.
But that’s what Texas has done, then tried to cobble together legal justifiction after the fact.
The only children even arguably in imminent physical danger — and that is the standard — were the pubescent girls.
This would be correct if the First Amendment did not include the phrase "the free exercise" (of religion). Exercise involves actions, not merely speech. To interpret the First as Hamilton would prefer, it would not need the establishment and free exercise clauses at all. The free speech clause would suffice.
Footnote 3, page 13, ACLU Amicus Brief
Idiotic argument. If I start a church that has bank robbing as a sacrament, the law would—and should—intervene. Same with human sacrifice and other illegalities.
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.
