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

Skip to comments.

Sweep of polygamists' kids raises legal questions [Children of Monogamous FLDS also taken]
AP ^ | 04 25 08 | MICHELLE ROBERTS

Posted on 04/25/2008 8:38:08 PM PDT by Howdy there

The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect's ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep - from nursing infants to teenagers - is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family's children.

Church members said that not all of them practice polygamy, and some form traditional nuclear families. One sect member whose teenage son is now in foster care testified that she is a divorced single mother.Snip

CPS officials have conceded there is no evidence the youngest children were abused, and about 130 of the children are under 5. Teenage boys were not physically or sexually abused either, according to evidence presented in a custody hearing earlier last week, but more than two dozen teenage boys are also in state custody, now staying at a boys' ranch that might typically house troubled or abandoned teens. Snip

Two teenage girls are pregnant, and although identities and ages have been difficult to nail down, CPS officials say no more than 30 minor girls in state custody have children.

Snip

Constitutional experts say U.S. courts have consistently held that a parent's beliefs alone are not grounds for removal.

Snip

One FLDS member who did testify said she and her husband and their three children form a traditional family and live in a separate house from other sect members. An FLDS expert who testified at the hearing and a former member of the sect say only about half the marriages in the sect are polygamous.

Snip

(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: flds; jeffs; ploygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-360 next last
To: SouthTexas

Thanks for your comments!! :-)


41 posted on 04/25/2008 9:43:26 PM PDT by Howdy there
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I hope some good will come out of this. I do think there is a double standard going on. These kids and the mothers are being treated better than the kid that is removed and might only make the local news.IMO

That said, I like the way the court and CPS is responsive to their needs. Maybe now we can raise the bar for the others.

42 posted on 04/25/2008 9:43:33 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Selmore

I’ve been wondering that too.


43 posted on 04/25/2008 9:44:22 PM PDT by Tammy8 (Please Support and pray for our Troops, as they serve us every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Howdy there
Had just about given up on posting on the subject.

Decided to stay mellow tonight and watch hockey. It's in overtime now. LOL

44 posted on 04/25/2008 9:46:54 PM PDT by SouthTexas (If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

At least 10 girls are pregnant, one is 14. 30 to 40 of the mothers are under 18. And the men are not even brave enough to claim their children as theirs - they’re standing by, letting the “wives” they won’t claim, either, try to undo all the confusion of denials and name changes that first day.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-polygamists_23tex.ART.State.Edition2.4682227.html

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695273381,00.html


45 posted on 04/25/2008 9:48:41 PM PDT by hocndoc (http://www.LifeEthics.org (I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

An attorney for FLDS families in Texas today challenged the state’s claim of a pervasive pattern of underage girls having children, saying the state’s own documents show that just two teenagers in custody are pregnant.

Snip
Of the three teenagers listed as pregnant, Parker said, one is about to turn 18 and another refused to take a pregnancy test, he said.

“That leaves us with one,” he said. Based on that list, Parker said, “I challenge the CPS to come forward with the pregnant minors.”

Chris Van Deusen, a CPS spokesman, said, “The only thing we can say is we’re aware that there are 20 girls who became pregnant, and they were between the ages of 13 and 16.

“That’s not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time theyconceived, they were 13, 14, 15 or 16,” he said. “That establishes that there is some sexual abuse here.”

Parker said the 20 minors the state has identified either as pregnant or mothers actually had children over a 10-year period.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2007220/posts?page=1


46 posted on 04/25/2008 9:57:59 PM PDT by Howdy there
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

“I think the next question that should be asked is, is home schooling child abuse? There seems to be little difference between that and indoctrination which seems to be the primary charge in this case.”

What an incredible statement. Now all will understand where you’re coming from. Worried about parents passing their values on to kids, huh?

But I’m sure you have no problem with the indoctrination meted out in government schools?


47 posted on 04/25/2008 9:59:10 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Howdy there

“The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect’s ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.”

The first paragraph is a complete fiction.

The State of Texas has no intention of taking ALL the children away from their families, permanently.

I notice that later on in the article, the author even mentions that this is ‘temporary’.

I guess that’s good newsmanship. Put a lie in the first paragraph, and the truth later in the article. Most readers never get past the first paragraph, or two. Especially if they agree with the writer’s opinion.


48 posted on 04/25/2008 9:59:48 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I reserve the right to misinterpret the comments of any and all posters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howdy there

There’s a lot of crying going on on the part of the mothers and their children.

Why am I reminded of the World War II movies where the Nazi’s come in and rip the Jewish children from the mother’s arms as they are rounded up? Children to the gas chamber, mothers who can work to the slave labor camps. Or the movie, Sofie’s Choice.

Separate the mothers and children from the men if you must to prevent physical and sexual abuse, but separating a mother from her young children? It’s criminal in itself and has no place in America.

And we will see more of this under Hillary or Obama and their collectivist/Marxist ideas when the individual and the rights of parents are secondary to those of the state. JMO.


49 posted on 04/25/2008 10:00:51 PM PDT by CedarDave (I'm a bitter small-town American; what I want from my government are lower taxes and less regulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc; SouthTexas

Hi yall. There has to be a middle ground where our rights are protected but children can still be taken out of dangerous situations.


50 posted on 04/25/2008 10:01:42 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg; Howdy there
You were just waiting for the opportunity to post that weren’t you? I doubt anything will happen to these kids.

Just a bit of psychological trauma; nothing serious. /s

51 posted on 04/25/2008 10:04:12 PM PDT by CedarDave (I'm a bitter small-town American; what I want from my government are lower taxes and less regulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
Hey there CD!

You would hope, but sadly it doesn't seem to be happening. What are your thoughts on CPS wanting to remove nursing infants from their mothers? The judge said no.

52 posted on 04/25/2008 10:07:49 PM PDT by SouthTexas (If you are not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Will88
But I’m sure you have no problem with the indoctrination meted out in government schools?

I am sure that the State doesn't have a problem with their own indoctrination. That is my point, apparently in Texas it considers indoctrination not coming from them to be child abuse and they will physically take the children to indoctrinate them "properly'.

The screws are tightening : (

53 posted on 04/25/2008 10:08:07 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Whose fault is that?


54 posted on 04/25/2008 10:08:07 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
occasionally frowned upon

But frequently praised and promoted in movies, TV and song.

55 posted on 04/25/2008 10:09:00 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (Obsessive Ex-Mormons: They can leave the Church, but they can't leave it alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg
There has to be a middle ground where our rights are protected but children can still be taken out of dangerous situations.

Seems like no middle ground for any of these 462 children. At least the state didn't make the nursing mothers give up their children and hand them breast pumps.

56 posted on 04/25/2008 10:09:19 PM PDT by CedarDave (I'm a bitter small-town American; what I want from my government are lower taxes and less regulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SouthTexas
I think the judge is a smart lady and hopefully more parents in the future will be given the option of staying with their kids under supervision instead of separating them.
57 posted on 04/25/2008 10:10:54 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Once again...I have to ask...who is really responsible for this?


58 posted on 04/25/2008 10:12:28 PM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

Well, IMHO the state of Texas stepped in it with both feet, tracked the mess across the carpet and wiped the shoes off on Grandma’s new curtains.

There’s gonna be hell to pay.


59 posted on 04/25/2008 10:12:33 PM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_9060445

Texas appeals court cancels hearing on relocation of FLDS children
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 04/25/2008 10:20:48 PM MDT

Posted: 10:06 PM- SAN ANGELO, Texas - A Texas appellate court has canceled a hearing set for Tuesday that sought to challenge a district judge’s decision to send children removed from a polygamous sect’s ranch to group and foster homes throughout the state.
The Third Court of Appeals said Friday that Tom Green County Judge Barbara Walther’s order to move the FLDS children beyond a five-county area met statutory requirements. The Texas RioGrande Legal Aid wanted the higher court to stop the relocation of the children, which were completed today.
The court left intact a second petition filed by the legal aid society that argues the judge did not have sufficient evidence or hold proper hearings before deciding to keep the children in custody. The children were taken earlier this month in a raid on a ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The three appellate court judges gave the state’s Department of Family and Protective Services until May 2 to respond to that petition, but has not yet set a hearing date.


60 posted on 04/25/2008 10:12:58 PM PDT by I.D.E.A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-360 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