Even Polygamists Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
No matter what one thinks of their lifestyle, residents of the Yearning For Zion Ranch deserve to get their children back — for now.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
More than six weeks ago, over 400 children were taken away from their parents at the Yearning For Zion ranch in Eldorado, Texas. The ranch is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and housed about 700 members of the sect until the raid in April.
When I first heard about the raid, I applauded the efforts of protective services. As a parent, all I could imagine was my teenage daughter being forced to live in such an environment, where, according to the authorities, there was a pervasive atmosphere of subservience and sexual indemnity for the girls.
But the more I read about the story, the more I became alarmed at the way the state had acted. My tune abruptly changed from “how could they” in regards to the leaders of the sect and the mothers, to “how could they” in regards to protective services. Instead of imaging my daughter living in such a rigid and archaic environment, I was now imagining her being snatched from my life by overzealous “advocates” who presume they know what is happening to her or what will happen to her within my house.
So I was relieved when a state appeals court ruled on Friday that officials of the State Department of Family and Protective Services had no right to take the children away from their parents and scatter them across the state in foster homes.
Child protective services, based on a phone call that is now presumed to be a hoax, had raided the compound and seized the children, who they thought were in harm’s way. There was a presumed guilt of child abuse, sexual abuse and sexual servitude among other things, as well as a risk of future danger to the children, who ranged in age from infants to 17. Child-protection officials argued that five girls at the ranch had become pregnant at 15 and 16 and that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex with older men and groomed boys to enter into such unions when they grew up.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to warrant giving custody of the children to the state, and that the department failed to establish that there was any imminent danger to the children.
The appeals court said the state acted too hastily in sweeping up all the children and taking them away on an emergency basis without going to court first.
They were right.
The fact that some of the children had given birth or were pregnant had been the major concern of CPS; however, the ages and marital status of the girls was never ascertained (the age of consent in Texas is 17; you can marry if you are under 18 and have a court order).
And it’s not like they went in and found the teens who were pregnant or had given birth and took them away. They took all the children. Over 400 of them, including nursing infants. They considered the entire ranch as one household and thus, took all the children away.
Texas has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the U.S. Why isn’t child protective services going into all those households and removing the pregnant teens from their parents? There is obviously some kind of permissiveness going on in those homes where the teens did not receive the education necessary to know how to prevent pregnancy. They might get pregnant again. Swoop in and take them away from their parents, because they might end up in the same situation again. Is that a stretch? Maybe, but it seems to me that the zealousness of Texas protective services overruled their ability to figure out how to determine fact from truth. Or maybe they didn’t even care to do that in the first place.
Whether it be an alternate lifestyle or religion, there are many people who are, in a way, persecuted for living what they believe.
While I may not condone or even understand how the people inside Yearning For Zion Ranch lived or the basis of their religion, I still think they deserve the decency of getting their children back until there is legal evidence of the accusations. We have laws for a reason. We need to maintain a sense of civilized order when it comes to judging the lives of others and sanctioning them for how they live their lives. We can’t circumvent or ignore our laws just because we think we are saving someone from danger, especially if that danger is only presumed. Doing that turns us into an uncivilized nation with a warped sense of right and wrong, and an imbalance in who declares those rights and wrongs.
The adults of the YFZ ranch certainly may have put their daughters in harm’s way, and they may have set the young males up to be sexual predators; if the facts are all laid out, then I say, yes - go right ahead and take away those specific children who were put in those situations.
But to rush in and take all the children, without backing laws, without clear knowledge that there was actually a dangerous situation imminent, or that there was a clear future danger, is to make a mockery of the system we , as a civilized country, worked so hard to put in place.
This is why the decision of the court of appeals should be applauded, rather than the seizing of the children.
Now it is time to do the right thing, as the appeals court has stated, and get these children back to their parents until the true legal issues can be sorted out, and to hold accountable those officials who acted recklessly in taking the kids.
We need to punish those who did wrong, not those whom we think might have done wrong.
Michele Catalano lives, writes, and takes photographs on Long Island.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
215 Comments
Alice Roddy:Thank you, Michele.
May 25, 2008 - 4:18 am David Thomson:Without evidence that the babies, toddlers, and other small children under the age of reason were in danger, to rip them from their parents and the security of their homes was, itself, an act of abuse.
Our politically correct culture targets white Christians. This nonsense in Texas would have never occurred if these people possessed dark skins. Try to imagine Muslims treated in such a manner.
May 25, 2008 - 6:36 am Roy:Great article.
May 25, 2008 - 6:55 am Letalis Maximus, Esq.:I have amazed at the civility of the people of the Yearning For Zion community when their children were taken from them.
The State of Texas has done more to traumatize these children, then anybody at YFZ.
Give the childen back to their families while the legal system investigates their cases.
It is called “due process,” Texas. We don’t do guilt by association in America.
Oh well, as Glenn Reynolds pointed out, as least Texas (unlike the United States Government led by that paragon of civil rights, Janet Reno), didn’t just burn them all to death.
May 25, 2008 - 8:13 am TexasDude:The ones mocking the system are the cultists on that ranch!
May 25, 2008 - 8:27 am Les Nessman:“The ones mocking the system are the cultists on that ranch!”
Maybe so. But that doesn’t justify the Authorities mocking the system by taking the kids away without due process. Otherwise you’re just trading one cult for another.
May 25, 2008 - 8:53 am Bob:The fact is that polygamy will soon be legalized (by court fiat) everywhere in the US. The only question is, What are the limits to the kinds of marriage permitted? Incest no doubt follows (first cousin marriage was common in Britain and its offshoots until recently). Also until recently, child marriage as young as 13 was permitted in some states, and the Muslim minimum age is 9.
May 25, 2008 - 8:55 am mark:The removal of these children has had one positive effect - it has exposed Child Protection Social Workers to public scrutiny.
I am not in favour of polygamy; I am, however, in favour of freedom of religion (assuming the kids are safe). The actions of the Texas protective services department are abhorent. Heads should roll in that department.
May 25, 2008 - 9:10 am A.M. Mallett:At the start, I have to state that I find the religion of this sect in Texas to be non-Christian and I have no affiliation for their beliefs. However, there is a standard of reasonable due process that needs to be observed here. This entire operation had a bad air about it with wild accusations and innuendo flying through the media at the very start. To step in and seize 400 children with no evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the parents involved, the State took upon itself the right to violate it’s own legitimate protective concerns. Each of these parents deserves an apology and their children returned immediately.
May 25, 2008 - 9:13 am Jay Lee:Now, we also have the allegations of underage marriage to deal with along with arranged polygamous relationships. This is a touchy matter. In large segments of this world, arranged, young marriages are the norm. While I certainly oppose that, I do recognize that religious freedoms entail the right for religious freedoms that I do not agree with. If a teenager is married against her will, then let’s deal with that reality. If a teenage wife is content with her marriage, then let’s also observe the religious rights of that young woman to her marriage. It was not that long ago in our civilized histories, that young women were expected to be married before they reached our current age of consent. The mother of our LORD, Jesus Christ, was a young teenager herself.
It’s time to deal with the actual allegations and evidences and not the innuendo and shrill emotionalism of the likes of Nancy Grace and company.
You don’t understand the issues very well. Your information is based on misleading and superficial reports from the media. just to take your largest point that the children should be returned to their parents, there are more than 120 children who can’t be returned to their parents because the baby farm doesn’t know who the parents are. Who do you return them to? The same men who have impregnated 11 year olds? Society should be protected from extremists that exploit the weak. This is an example of where the government is doing the right thing BEFORE this nightmare gets worse for these children.
May 25, 2008 - 9:24 am Luana Hofeling:I agree the damage that has been done to the children is enormous by the cps. I don’t understand why the country is not up in arms. OK, I get it, we don’t like the dress, don’t like the hair, certainly don’t like the religion. They (the FLDS) have made a mockery of my religion (LDS) and I think that is one reason the cps went after them because they thought it was LDS (I mean driving them away in Baptist church buses!). But have some heart for the children. They are loved and cared for by their parents. Can you honestly say they are receiving any level of love from the foster parents? Investigate what you will, but leave the children with their parents until you come up with a reason to take any of them.
May 25, 2008 - 9:29 am Lynn:Check out IPerceive.net form more information.
I agree with TexasDude 100%. Polygamy is illegal in the United States so what they do to get around our laws is use the term “spiritual marriage” for the young females. They also use confusion with the children by not revealing to them who their biological parents are. I saw and interview on Fox News where one of the women forgot her tongue and said that they were afraid there children would be exposed to people of other faiths who would try to convert them “like the Jews”. We do not want these “cults” to become common in our country, or any other people who practice multiple marriage will find a willing home here which in my opinion would be “bad” for this country. I also think that “spiritual marriages” should be illegal, or in fact marriage being anything other than one man and one woman.
May 25, 2008 - 9:32 am aaron:This is not a unique cirscumstance and is illustrative of what most fathers commonly experience during custody disputes:
YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHTS THAT WILL BE HONORED, RECOGNIZED, OR ENFORCED.
This happens everyday to fathers across the nation. The only difference here is that this time it caught the public’s attention due to the extravagance of the circumstances.
May 25, 2008 - 9:58 am Sue:Jay Lee, YOU don’t understand the issues very well. This is about due process - a fundamental right of our land. Furthermore, name one 11 year old who was pregnant at the YFZ Ranch. Perhaps you need to educate yourself a little more before making spurious accusations.
May 25, 2008 - 10:25 am daddyquatro:Jay Lee,
I’m afraid it’s you who do not understand the issues.
Texas laws states that, in order to remove a child from the custody of its parents, the state must show…
1.There is a danger to the physical health or safety of the child.
2.That there was an urgent need to immediately remove the child for their protection.
3.That the department made resonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need to remove the child.
The state failed on all three points.
May 25, 2008 - 10:50 am Luana:If there were specific criminal acts committed, (and there probably were) then the state should investigate and prosecute those acts. By no stretch of law or imagination was the state justified in removing ALL the children from their parents.
Lynn, don’t you understand that we are importing muslims with 4 wives and multi children who will be schooled in “honor killing.” Gee I do think that is a worse scenerio, but are we doing anything to them -NO! Is the government saying anything about them? NO!
May 25, 2008 - 10:55 am daddyquatro:Of course marriage should be 1 man - 1 woman, but let obama in and when you get gay marriage how are you going to stop all the rest?
BTW, Michele.
May 25, 2008 - 10:55 am CaptDMO:Thanks for using the correct word “ranch”. It’s so much easier to demonize a bunch of people who live in a “compound”.
Geeze, armed personell stormed in and just started taking people away, based on a
bit of propaganda later found to be “inconvenient”.
The courts that were previously ignored consequently pronounced the action illegal.
Yet these folk have not IMMEDIATELY been
reunited, nor have criminal “abuse of authority”, or kidnapping arrests been made.
Sound familiar?
To ALL gum’mint action apologists in this matter, just keep on prattling. YOUR ox is next, and no one left, remotely capable of helping, will care.
May 25, 2008 - 11:05 am michele:Jay Lee: I think you need to do some research on the issue.
The same men who have impregnated 11 year olds? There is no EVIDENCE that any 11 year olds were impregnated. If that is the case, do not return the children who were, if the allegations prove true, forced to have sexual relations with men. Do not punish the entire sect because of the actions of a few.
This is an example of where the government is doing the right thing BEFORE this nightmare gets worse for these children.
Lynn, you said: We do not want these “cults” to become common in our country, or any other people who practice multiple marriage will find a willing home here which in my opinion would be “bad” for this country. I also think that “spiritual marriages” should be illegal, or in fact marriage being anything other than one man and one woman.
This is not the kind of country where only the people you “want” here can be here. There are many people who have opposing views to yours, or who maybe are afraid of other religions, or believe in spiritual marriage - would you want all their children taken away from them? What about people who have common law marriages? What about gay people who adopt children? Do you not want them in “your” country, or would you take their children away from them just because they don’t subscribe to your beliefs, even if you had no evidence that any of the children were in harm’s way?
That kind of thinking frightens me. How can you want to give anyone the right to take action before a crime has been committed, juts because you think one MAY be committed in the future?
May 25, 2008 - 11:32 am Ten:What aaron said about family law in general. At the root of both issues — the totalitarian nature of divorce/custody policy matches that of American CPS — are opportunistic zealots using legislatures for fun and profit.
In the case of the former, it’s feminists and in the latter, it’s moralists. Either way, it’s unconstitutional. Constitutionally, Lynn gets it dead wrong.
May 25, 2008 - 11:39 am Dave in Texas:Think you got it right Michele. This thing has been a goat screw from the beginning.
Something needed. Not this.
my .02
May 25, 2008 - 11:57 am DoesNotMatter:No, they don’t.
Religion is for adults to embrace, not for children to be indoctrinated in.
Their particular brand of incestous perversion is just magnifies why that is so.
May 25, 2008 - 1:03 pm Mark in South Texas:The local paper, the Eldorado Success, had an attachment on their website about a month ago. It was called, simply, the Bishop’s List. This pdf file was basically an internal census that the YFZ families submitted to their bishop annually to help him keep track of the FLDS membership. Let’s look at one of the families outlined in the list.
Wendell Loy Nielson, age 67, has twenty one (21) wives, the youngest six still in their twenties. His list of children still at home consisted of fifteen sons and twenty two daughters. The daughters were all under the age of fifteen. The youngest child was six months old.
So let’s summarize. Just since his 45th birthday, Mr. Nielson has fathered at least 37 children. This list does not include those daughters already paired with other husbands or the excess sons that have probably been booted out of the flock. It’s highly likely that some of his wives were also his nieces and possibly his own granddaughters. Family trees do not spread very wide with this bunch.
Folks, this is an abomination any way you look at it. These people aren’t just another harmless Luddite sect like the Amish or the Mennonites. There are pathological deviancies at work here that have to be confronted. Now Texas CPS may have made some mistakes but, by and large, I heartily support their actions.
One final note: In another decade, if left unchallenged, the FLDS in Schleiber County will be untouchable, much like they already are in Colorado City, AZ. They will have a voting majority in the county and be in a position to take over the county government and the school district. Once that happens I predict that we will look back on the events of 2008 as an opportunity lost. This will be the last best chance we have to get the leadership of the FLDS in Texas to reform their ways.
May 25, 2008 - 1:31 pm TBlakely:Lol, I wonder what the Department of Family and Protective Services and various state apologists will say when the first FLDS girl gets pregnant in foster care.
May 25, 2008 - 1:35 pm TBlakely:Lots of demonizing and accusations but precious little proof.
May 25, 2008 - 1:42 pm Lynn:michele: Read carefully: It is AGAINST THE LAW in this country to practice polygamy. That is one man with multiple wives or one women with multiple husbands. As Texasdude says: The ones mocking the system are the cultists on that ranch!…and I agreed with him. In the eyes of the law a man in these cults have one wife and the rest of the the young girls are not legally married to them. The cultists marry one female under our law then call the rest of the unions “spritual” convincing very young, brainwashed, isolated girls to partake in these so called “marriages”. They also hide their wrongdoings by raising the children not knowing who their real parents are therefore keeping them under their control. They can’t have too many males in their cults either or they become unbalanced with too many males and not enough females (worldwide births average 50% male 50% female). Now if the law finds that the children shouldn’t have been taken …so be it, but that does not negate my point. Too bad you are “frightened” by my expressing my opinion. Wait until “Marriage” becomes more then the traditional one man, one woman, you’ll be gnashing your teeth when you see what kinds of “marriages” people will come up with. Finally not once did I say “My Country” but I will say that I am glad it is not exculusivly “Your Country” because we would probably not be allowed to have opinions or the freedom to express them because it would “frighten you” poor baby…..
May 25, 2008 - 1:48 pm michele:Mark: First, understand that I don’t agree with polygamy or underage marriage. That’s not the issue at hand here. The issue is over 400 children taken away from their parents without EVIDENCE of harm.
You can’t support ripping kids from their mother’s arms just because you don’t like the way the people live, their religion or their beliefs, if there is no reason to believe - and in this case there is no proof - that the children are in any danger.
There are many people out there who believe that Catholicism or Judaism or Buddhism are abominations. There are people who think it is an abomination that children are raised atheist, or raised by two females or just ONE female or male. We can’t just go in and take these children from their parents because a certain sector of the population believes they are being raised wrong. There has to be proof and evidence that something unlawful is going on, or that the children’s lives or future are in danger.
You really have to see the forest for the trees here.
May 25, 2008 - 2:00 pm Mike O:Sorry, but I ALWAYS doubted the wisdom of the CPS actions. Here in Texas, they have shown a nasty habit of jumping to conclusions early. The correct answer always was to haul away the knowm polygamous males, and the older girlds for review, while leaving everyone els where they were. with some case workers moving to the ranch for review of the children’s environment.
May 25, 2008 - 2:01 pm Darleen:Jay Lee
When are you going to start advocating the wholesale removal of children from single moms in the inner city? Obviously those children are being raised in a pervasive atmosphere of illegal (unmarried, underage) sex. Or children of gangbangers (atmosphere of ‘the law is just for chumps’) or the children of any convicted felon? (let’s just wait for the kids to show up to visit mom or dad at the prison, then snatch ‘em up, hold them hundreds of miles from their relatives and threaten those relatives that if they don’t sign blank check plans they’ll never see their kids again)
Texas CPS refused to honor the driver’s licenses and birth certificates many of the FLDS members presented as ID and ended up declaring a dozen or more young women “minors” — in a Nifong-style play to the media that they had “dozens of underage girls pregnant or mothers”. And bigots like you bought it.
Those young adult women … including a 27 y/o! … were illegally imprisoned for six or more weeks.
I hope the Federal civil rights lawsuits are being penned right now and that these women end up owning that county lock-stock-and-barrell.
You ought to educate yourself, too, on the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3, in regards to bills of attainders.
feh.
May 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm daddyquatro:Mark in ST,
May 25, 2008 - 2:02 pm Darleen:http://www.myeldorado.net/graphics/BishopsList.pdf.
There, was that so hard?
Repugnant? Absolutely!
Illegal? Maybe.
Explain to me the difference between Wendell Loy Nielson and an NBA star with baby-mommas scattered all over the country?
Once again: If crimes can be proven prosecute and remove the children. But the state does not have the right to remove ALL the children just because we find the lifestyle of their parents “an abomination”.
I also think that “spiritual marriages” should be illegal
You realize, of course, that would make shacking-up illegal. With 45% of the women pregnant today being unmarried, how much money do you want to put into prosecuting them?
May 25, 2008 - 2:05 pm michele:Lynn, being frightened of your opinion and being frightened by you expressing it are two different things. I am all for freedom of expression and your right to voice your opinion, no matter how it may differ from mine.
And yes, polygamy is against the law. But as you say, spiritual marriage is not a real marriage in the eyes of the law, so of they are only legally married to one girl, and spiritually married to the rest, how is that breaking the law. Please note that I am NOT condoning this, I am merely trying to explain that there is no evidence any laws were broken in regards to the children.
Please see what daddyquatro said in his most recent comment. THIS is the crux of the issue here, not the religion itself, not polygamy.
May 25, 2008 - 4:12 pm Bob Agard:“hold accountable those officials who acted recklessly in taking the kids.”
May 25, 2008 - 4:29 pm Lynn:It will never happen. It never does.
Darleen: A man “spiritually married” to multiple woman or a woman “spiritually married” to multiple men should be illegal. A man “shacking up” with multiple woman or one woman, or a woman “shacking up” with multiple men or one man although perhaps immoral and even illegal in some states would be literally impossible to enforce. Like I said before, in my opinion “Marriage” should be between one man and one woman. Now I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that a pregnant woman “shacking up” with a man, after a certain amount of time, the arrangement is considered a “common law” marriage in order to protect the child(ren) and spouse if one or the other decides to leave, so that they can seek child support, alimony, or property and asset division under the law. Men “shacking up” with multiple woman or woman “shacking up” with multiple men after a certain amount of time should not be considered “common law marriages”.
May 25, 2008 - 4:53 pm griefer:nope, michelle.
The judge in the case is only required to hold “sincere belief” that a crime has been committed before issuing warrants.
The DNA evidence acquired is like fingerprints. The state can use it to prove their case.
Shortly after the FLDS moved in, Texas legislated laws specifically criminalizing childrape and childmarriage. Sexual contact with a 16 or 17 year minor is a first degree felony.
CPS may have set their net wide, but no child has yet been returned, correct?
and, only 38 families are involved in the appellate ruling.
Religion IS the crux of the issue.
Polygamy is a base tenent of the FLDS religion.
The patriarchy daddies cannot achieve heaven without at least 3 wives.
right?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Unless there is judicial activism or a constitutional amendment, polygamy cannot be made illegal.
May 25, 2008 - 4:53 pm griefer:The FLDS patriarchy daddies just take additional “spiritual wives” anyways.
so of they are only legally married to one girl, and spiritually married to the rest, how is that breaking the law.
michele, the law, Texas law, is broken if that 16 or 17 year is impregnated.
May 25, 2008 - 4:55 pm griefer:and that is what the DNA will show.
Actually, this a states rights issue.
We don’t much care for the polygs out here in the West.
When the FLDS moved into Texas, the state legislature criminalized childmarriage and childrape, by enacting laws that made sexual contact with a 16 or 17 year old minor a first degree felony, performing a marriage involving a minor a class A misdemeanor, falsifying age a class A misdemeanor, etc.
May 25, 2008 - 5:03 pm griefer:So a 16 or 17 year old girl involved in a “spiritual” marriage, is not REALLY married, and therefore her “husband” or “statutory rapist” as we might say is liable for prosecution under Texas law.
When are you going to start advocating the wholesale removal of children from single moms in the inner city?
Darleen, that is bullshit argument, as we already discussed.
May 25, 2008 - 5:05 pm A.M. Mallett:Social services takes kids away from bad moms every day.
But social services couldn’t get a toe into YFZ because those kids weren’t visably abused.
Some of the pro state people in here better keep in mind we have a communist sympathizer running for President whose spiritual mentor for the past 20 years has been teaching him that the mainstream orthodox Christian church is wicked. Sacrifice your own children for the “cause” and get out of my backyard.
May 25, 2008 - 5:20 pm lily:each of the spiritual marriages are supported by our tax dollars. FDLS families collect welfare for all those extra wives and children. Each time the guy gets another wife that other wife files for welfare
May 25, 2008 - 5:23 pm Ten:Each of the FDLS members should be charged with welfare fraud.
Heh. Welfare is fraud, lily.
May 25, 2008 - 5:31 pm Christoph:Hear, hear, A.M. Mallet! While unlike yourself, I am not a religious person, I found your logic and intellectual honesty refreshing.
May 25, 2008 - 5:39 pm Christoph:“each of the spiritual marriages are supported by our tax dollars. FDLS families collect welfare for all those extra wives and children”
They don’t actually, at least not in this community. With the exception of some senior members on Social Security, none of the FLDS members in Texas is on welfare. Not. One.
They built a 20.5 million dollar temple, not counting 19-residences, the land, and all the land’s upkeep. You don’t think they did this on welfare, do you?
May 25, 2008 - 5:42 pm Christoph:lily, none of the FLDS members in this community in Texas were on welfare. Not. One.
A few senior members were collecting Social Security benefits as is their right.
They built a 20.5 million dollar church on their property, 19 residences, and maintained all of the above beautifully. They didn’t even seek the local tax free status they could have as a religious organization. They certainly didn’t do all this on welfare.
Might I suggest you reexamine your facts to see if your conclusion is warranted?
May 25, 2008 - 5:45 pm Christoph:lily, FDLS (whoever they are) members in the Texas YFZ community did not collect welfare. Not one person in the entire community did, unless you count some seniors receiving social security.
They did, however, build a 20.5 million dollar temple on their property, beautifully maintained, and build 19 residences, all without applying for a local tax break for being a religious organization.
They certainly didn’t do this on welfare.
May 25, 2008 - 5:47 pm Christoph:lily, FDLS (whoever they are) members in the Texas YFZ community did not collect welfare. Not one person in the entire community did, unless you count some seniors receiving social security.
They did, however, build a 20.5 million dollar temple on their property, beautifully maintained, and build 19 residences, all without applying for the local tax break for being a religious organization.
They certainly didn’t do this on welfare, don’t you agree?
May 25, 2008 - 5:48 pm Christoph:Sorry about the multiple posts, rephrasing on the same topic. My comments seemed to have been eaten up by this blog’s Askimet spam filter, and I didn’t think they would go through. I was just trying to get ONE through.
May 25, 2008 - 5:49 pm Britt:It’s absolutely sickening that Texas is returning these children to that environment. These kids and women have been brainwashed into believing that women are nothing more than breeding machines.
May 25, 2008 - 5:58 pm michele:Whether or not it’s been proven that these people have sexually abused their children, they still should not be allowed to expose children to cult life. It’s an unhealthy situation for children especially, and not exactly healthy for adults, either. All the evidence needed to remove these children from their ‘parents’ is that their ‘parents’ belong to a cult that lives in an isolated community with strict orders not to speak to ‘outsiders’. They’ve been brainwashed into beliveing that it’s not just okay, but right, for a girl as young as thirteen or fourteen to ‘marry’ a man old enough to be her father, then spend the rest of her life giving birth until she can no longer conceive.
I have an uncle whose wife and five children belong to a cult (not FLDS), and it’s been tearing my family apart. My uncle no longer has contact with the rest of the family, because, apparently, ‘god’ told their cult leader that all we wanted to do was convert him to satanism or some such thing. My five cousins will never lead lives where they have any personal control over themselves, and neither will their children when they have them, either.
This decision from the Texas court system makes me ashamed to live in this country.
“michele, the law, Texas law, is broken if that 16 or 17 year is impregnated.
and that is what the DNA will show.”
Perhaps so, griefer. And if it does, then laws were broken. They should deal with this one child at a time, one family at a time. My point of contention is taking away over 400 kids from their families because they “heard” that four or five teenagers got pregnant. Meanwhile, there was no proof laws were broken. They took ALL the kids because they “thought” something was going on with a few. That’s what scares me and it should really scare anyone who cares about due process.
May 25, 2008 - 6:03 pm michele:All the evidence needed to remove these children from their ‘parents’ is that their ‘parents’ belong to a cult that lives in an isolated community with strict orders not to speak to ‘outsiders’
You might as well be talking about the Amish. How do you separate a cult from a lifestyle from a religion? And if you take the kids away on this basis, do you comb through every cult that exists in America today and take all their children away?
Again, I do not condone polygamy or sexual abuse of children or anything like that. I condone due process, especially when it comes to taking nursing infants away from their mothers.
May 25, 2008 - 6:10 pm Christoph:Britt, it isn’t what their religion believes or not, it’s what they practice. Apparently there isn’t much in the way of official teaching on when young people marry and it’s largely left up to individual families. Be that as it may, they have to follow the law of the land where they live.
The Catholic church teaches they will accept marriages with females as young as 12 and males as young as 14… although they’ll recognize marriages of people YOUNGER than these ages if they’ve gone through puberty.
These marriages would clearly not be allowed in the United States. So the Catholic church’s teachings on them is irrelevant. Besides, the Catholic clergy follow the law in the United States ad, indeed, the FLDS clergy are required to do.
We don’t take children away from Catholics because of this Catholic doctrine and we shouldn’t take children away from FLDS parents for it either.
If they practice it and there is evidence to that effect, then regardless of what — if any — faith tradition they hold, the law will be enforced.
You would punish people because of their beliefs, which specifically is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution. Basically, you don’t believe in freedom of Religion, and freedom of thought.
You’re entitled to your view — because of the Constitutional protections you despise.
May 25, 2008 - 6:26 pm Christoph:“This decision from the Texas court system makes me ashamed to live in this country.”
Then go emigrate to a country that doesn’t have freedom of religion, freedom of thought nor of conscience. There are several.
May 25, 2008 - 6:28 pm transcended:As far as I am concerned, I don’t blame the CPS for any of it. I blame the adults at the center of a patriarchal, demeaning to women, religion in which men rape underage girls. All in the name of God. This kind of “cultism” that preys on the young, sexually, and in many cases brutally needs exposure. You’re all missing the point of protecting children if you don’t get it.
These cults need to be forced to be transparent. If there is nothing to hide, then why hide.
May 25, 2008 - 6:41 pm Christoph:“These cults need to be forced to be transparent. If there is nothing to hide, then why hide.”
Stalin would be proud.
May 25, 2008 - 7:37 pm Don:This is what the cops used to do when they wanted to arrest gay guys having sex 30 years ago.All they needed was someone saying that sex was going on there and they kick down the door with no proof.It is funny how what defines a degenerate in one generation becomes normal in another.Humans never remember history.My grandparents had sex at 13 her and he was 17 and had a baby .Today he would be labeled a pervert or in jail,amazing.
May 25, 2008 - 7:50 pm Don:With gay marriage being accepted in the US and legal I dont see how the court system can refuse plural marriage for much longer.In my opinion its more natural than the other.I think this opens up a whole range of new marriages that people will want to have in the future and I dont know how legally you will be able to stop them from doing so.Can you say ‘Wilber’!
May 25, 2008 - 8:02 pm EricPWJohnson:Michelle,
I feel you are a victim of a careful misinformation.
the facts as they really are outweigh unfortunately - the materials your sources have been giving you
CPS is not a fully funded and staffed law enforcement body.
The 3rd court of appeals in Austin is a liberal body much like that whacko court of appeals in San Francisco, before you give them any creedence or legitimacy, The 3 of Austin almost always upholds judgements in conservative political suits such as the thrown ouut charges against our senators and the non-existence charges against Tom Delay who still has’nt gone to trial after being indicted eons ago.
Facts - none of the parents would cooperate - in a case of child rape - in most states that’s an automatic felony booking.
Fact several of the underage girls are pregnant (so its a smaller number but a statistically large number) - the appeal court stated until the DNA is back they cannot assume everyone did it. (yes they can and it will be overturned in the Texas Supreme Court)
Fact - a underage girl cannot give consent to marriage in Texas - this keeps getting overlooked
Fact - this has nothing to do with LDS, Mormons, the constitution, apple pie, emotionalism, this solely has to do with a group of people - destroying records, physically interfering with a law enforcement investigation, and participating in the act of possible charges of transporting minors across state lines for immoral purposes, kidnapping, sexual assault, conspiracy, and just about 200 other federal and state offenses.
We cannot afford to wrap ourselves in the words of our Patrick Henry’s in a case of gross gross misconduct of the most henious sort - and as far as saying that there is a double standard in the projects and the ghettos - you are completely wrong - in one’s and two’s those parents who prostitute their children are convicted in Texas constantly and consistently. Its just that those parents do not have 3 PR CONSULTING FIRMS hired to spin this unthinkable act.
May 25, 2008 - 8:05 pm Don:I live in houston and my best friend is from Nigeria.There are 50,000 nigerians in Houston.My friend tells me that they all get wives that they buy back home and since they are muslims perform clidectomies on them before bringing them back to the US.The papers here have mentioned it a few times but have no proof.My friend is not married yet and acts totally normal.I have asked him if this is what he plans on doing and he says he will be married to a traditional Nigerian girl and he is not even muslim.Itold him he was sick to do this and he shrugs it off and tells me that nigerian marriages last forever not like ours .So I guess that means yes.
May 25, 2008 - 8:19 pm Christoph:I agree that your grandparents were perfectly normal and decent, Don.
It’s amazing that throughout most of human history, people began having sex shortly after beginning puberty (with individual variation, others starting each year after that)…
… that our foundational religions: Judaism and Christianity sex was practiced at or around that time, and that even Mary alleged mother of Jeus would have married between 13 and 15…
… and people still begin having sex at that age to this age…
… however, they are disuaded from marrying because we need more education now than we used to…
… and somehow now it is a great evil if a person begins having sex sometime around puberty.
I didn’t. I was almost 19. I’ve also known people who had sex at 12 and they’re fine. I know someone who was raped at 11 and she was destroyed. It really depends on the situation.
Why, I ask Christians, is God so incredibly incompetent he made puberty at a young age if we’re not to have sex for 5-10 years after it? Is that reasonable?
Why I ask secularists if every mammal on the planet has sex shortly after puberty, is it immoral for us to do so?
Was Don’s grandfather really a pervert? Was his grandmother a brazen hot-to-trot little hussy?
Or… were they normal and our modern society — with massive premarital sex and STDs and abortions and 50-60% divorce rate — the one which has forgotten what life is about?
Which is, incidentally, largely love, sexual attraction, marriage, and the desire to have and raise children?
And that desire doesn’t necessarily begin at age 25.
I don’t expect any kind of logical or intellectually honest answer most people. I’m just posing it rhetorically.
May 25, 2008 - 8:21 pm aloysiusmiller:This whole situation has me in a quandary. I hate the child marriage, teenage son abandonment and the welfare fraud (beast bleeding) of these polygamists. Even if the FLDS practiced polygamy without the abuses I would still find it seriously objectionable. Men and women cannot properly rear children when they are not committed exclusively to each other. I think all the specific cases against the FLDS need to be relentlessly and vigorously prosecuted.
But I will be the first to admit every parent’s right to rear children according to their own doctrinal and ideological beliefs and the attack on the FLDS is one step away from an attack on me and my conservative Christian beliefs and lifestyle. It won’t be long before they come looking to take children away from parents who teach their children that a homosexual or promiscuous lifestyle is wrong.
The state needs to carry on the fight against specific abuses but the wholesale lockup of these children on the most fraudulent and flimsy grounds is an embarassment to the state of Texas.
May 25, 2008 - 8:34 pm Pat:Here is a different thought on the specific alleged sexual grooming of the boys and girls.
There are a lot of teenage girls in the United States having sex. Out public school system teaches them to go ahead and have sex and here is the way to do it safely. Yes, as long as you are “mature”, you can choose to have sex with whomever you want and with as many as you want as long as they are not over 18 years old. Once the young woman reaches that magical age of 18, she can then have sex with gramps if she wants to. Furthermore, she needs not worry about getting pregnant because she can always get an abortion.
What does the FLDS teach their young women? That the greatest way to serve God is to become Mothers! Boys are taught that it is their duty to become fathers and support the mother(s) of their children and the children.
Hence, the FLDS are committing sexual abuse by teaching their girls that the highest honor a woman can achieve on earth is to become mothers and their boys to become fathers irregardless of the polygamy.
Meanwhile, those of us who are living and working outside of those FLDS compounds and have children are trying to teach morals too. However, the state is teaching our young women to become whores and sluts and our young men to become users of the young women without any responsibility for their co-action.
May 25, 2008 - 8:41 pm Christoph:“welfare fraud”
What welfare fraud in this community in Texas? No one in that community was on welfare. At all. They didn’t even apply for a local tax exemption for being a religious organization.
May 25, 2008 - 9:02 pm John D:“michele, the law, Texas law, is broken if that 16 or 17 year is impregnated.
and that is what the DNA will show.”
What makes you think that DNA collected under a invalid warrant will be allowed into court.
I am not really upset about this “cult” or religion or whatever you want to call it. But this action on the part of CPS is typical.
Here in Oregon, about 10-12 years ago we had CPS trying to take custody away from a single mother because she was giving the baby 2% milk. That’s how stupid they get.
I doubt that the milk was the actual factor. More likely the mother did not show the proper deference to the CPS worker.
I have talked to Sheriff’s Deputies who complained about the workers pushing their way into people’s houses without warrants or invitations. CPS workers using leading questions to interrogate children about their parents. Just a whole lot of problems with CPS regarding probable cause, warrants and due process in general.
They have their own courts, which are not open, they have special judges in a lot of places and if they have any oversight at all, it is by groups that are made up of current and former CPS workers or sympathizers in so-called advocacy groups.
It is pretty scary when you look at it. Texas is not the only State with a CPS like this. Most CPS are the same. Hopefully the publicity on this case will cause other states to look at what their CPS units are doing and how they are doing it.
May 25, 2008 - 9:06 pm NomNomNom:They lied about the purpose of the building when it was under construction. This was grounds for a search warrant.
May 25, 2008 - 9:31 pm Hugh McBryde:Welcome to the fight, what took you so long?
May 25, 2008 - 10:06 pm farshooter:Ms Catalano: You are a day late and a dollar short on this one…make that six weeks late and a million words short. You have a bully pulpit and failed miserably in using it…or not using it.
So it took an Appeals Court decision a month and a half downstream to finally get your attention on this one. Sounds a bit jaded, doesn’t it? How long did it take for the Davidian Massacre in Waco to grab your eye? A couple years?
But to give you the benefit of the doubt, with all the good, juicy stuff going on between our three candidates, perhaps you simply missed it. Pity that, if true.
The blood is finally heavy in the water and all the media sharks — including a couple of the conservative ones — are now circling the CPS idiots. YOU, Ms Catalano, and your sometimes shallow-thinking compadres are the ones who have allowed and empowered the Child Protective Services NATIONWIDE to commit atrocities like this on an almost daily basis. All it took was to remain silent — six weeks of silence and 460 children are scattered across Texas like dry leaves. Maybe they will experience their first taste of life in foster homes…I pity them and sure hope they get back home unabused, sexually AND mentally.
I have personally reviewed case files - literally measured in feet — of CPS abuses documented by competent, unbiased, and objective federal investigators throughout this country. Instances abound of CPS brownshirts receiving third-hand reports of perceived abuse and going ballistic; instant home invasions without benefit of a search warrant - but with police escorts “for safety”. A warrant was considered unnecessary and unneeded since no criminal prosecution was intended and it was only to confirm the allegations of abuse and, in any case, to remove the child[ren] from the home for their “protection”.
These CPS-Nazis MUST be brought under control.
May 25, 2008 - 10:12 pm transcended:there is a huge difference between a 14 year old girl having a 14, 15, 16 year old boyfriend who as teens have things in common, who have crushes on each other and a 14 year old girl being forced to “spiritually marry” (in other words be raped) an old man she doesn’t care about or even like in order to breed more children for a religion she has been indoctrinated to accepting? Why rob a young child of her youth that is all so short for all of us to begin with? Adulthood is forever it seems. Really, just whom does this cult benefit? Am I wrong in suggesting that the entire point to YFZ is about nothing more than sex for men with multiple young wives and then breeding as many children with them as possible? Do they give to charities? what good works do they perform outside their compound for the good of their neighbors. What exactly IS their ideology? And under WHAT religious veil does YFZ exist that it has the pleasure of being tax exempt. My point being what would possibly deter a cult who worships satan from also being tax exempt? Seems to me that Satanists ought to also enjoy the same benefits and any other cult that has a lightbulb goes off in their collective heads.
I first got my period when i was 11. Boys can get erections as early as 8 years old. Does that means either of us are capable of the responsibilites that come with sexually relationships? Or possible parenthood?
It comes down to the saying: Just because we can - should we? That goes for both voluntarily and INvoluntarily.
As far as Stalin goes, who more than warren jeffs ran his compound under Stalin-like rule? When children are at risk, as they have consistantly been within these polygamous cult compounds, then yes, they should be transparent. forcing “spiritual” marriages which is nothing more than freedom to rape minors by adults is something that needs transparency by chidren’s agencies.
May 25, 2008 - 11:26 pm Darleen:Men and women cannot properly rear children when they are not committed exclusively to each other.
Um… so when are you taking away the kids from all the divorced, single and gay parents out there?
May 26, 2008 - 12:11 am Darleen:EricPWJohnson
No, Eric, you are the one misinformed. Who told you the parents were not cooperating? Texas CPS? The ones that called the ID’s presented by many ADULT women “fake”, called them “liars” then imprisoned them for six weeks as “minors”? The CPS that can’t tell a 27 y/o from a 16 y/o?
THAT fact?
Sir, your credibility on this issue is the same as Texas CPS or Nifong
Zilch.
May 26, 2008 - 12:14 am Christoph:EricPW, don’t talk to me about “Facts” when you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about:
“The 3rd court of appeals in Austin is a liberal body”
The three judges who ruled were the conservative wing of said court, all (Texas) Republicans, and included the court’s chief justice.
Your other “Facts” are incredible too, as Darlene has pointed out.
May 26, 2008 - 2:10 am michele:farshooter - you think that just because I wrote about this week, this is the first time I’ve heard about it? I’m new to PJM, but they have addressed the issue before, with other writers.
Eric - the 3rd court shouldn’t be considered legitimate because they are liberal, according to your views? Whether you agree with them or not, they still uphold the law of the land. Dismissing what they rule because they are too liberal for you is ridiculous.
You also need to review the age of consent laws in Texas. A 16 year old is not a minor if married to their partner. Also, a 16 year old may marry in Texas if the parents give permission. While 16 and 17 year olds marrying older men and having children by them may be morally reprehensible to you, it is not illegal in that state. So far, CPS has yet to provide any proof that any minors were pregnant at the time or had children already.
aloys: Men and women cannot properly rear children when they are not committed exclusively to each other.
Really? Single parents can’t raise their kids properly? What would you propose to do about that?
May 26, 2008 - 2:37 am DoesNotMatter:@DaddyQuatro
In a democrazy, if 50,0001% of the people that the state should do x and vote so, then the state can do so.
That’s why there are safeguards against that, which by nature of being time consuming to change, afford the state protection against storms of public opinion.
@Christoph
““This decision from the Texas court system makes me ashamed to live in this country.”
Then go emigrate to a country that doesn’t have freedom of religion, freedom of thought nor of conscience. There are several.”
Where is this freedom of religion and freedom of thought for their children ? Oppressed, beaten over the head in the name of tolerance and thrown into river of “They pretend to believe in god, so I have to defend them”.
May 26, 2008 - 3:59 am John:The court’s decision emphasizes the difference between a free society and a police state: In a free society, the government must obey its own laws.
Furthermore, if the state is empowered to act based on potential harm, versus actual or imminent harm, then nobody’s civil rights are of any consequence at all.
May 26, 2008 - 5:09 am griefer:A 16 year old is not a minor if married to their partner. Also, a 16 year old may marry in Texas if the parents give permission.
Michelle, you are missing the point.
May 26, 2008 - 5:20 am griefer:A “spiritual” marriage is NOT a legal marriage. Texas enacted LAW specicifically targetting the practice of polygamous, “spirit” marriages.
A spiritual marriage is nothing more than ceremonial, institutionalized, statutory rape in the FLDS IF THE CHILD IS UNDER 18.
Again michelle, the judge that wrote the warrents is only required to hold “sincere belief at the time” in the evidence. So the origins of the tip off dont matter. At least not for the DNA evidence.
Possibly, the court just wanted to hold the children long enough for DNA samples, so that TEXAS LAW COULD BE ENFORCED. It is a class A misdemeanor to give false information, and by all reports the FLDS were even switching nursing babies to different mothers, giving false information, and refusing to give information. A lot of the children did’t even know who their fathers actually are.
The whole community practiced duplicty in obscuring the identities of the perps, the actual patriarchy daddies with minor “spirit wives”. Perhaps if the members of the community had told the truth, only the perps would have been taken into custody.
I guess we will never know that.
Please note all. You do not know all the facts. Also note, not a single child has been returned, only 38 families are involved, and the CPS are appealling to a higher court.
May 26, 2008 - 5:32 am griefer:transceneded
the girls are forced to marry young because otherwise some of them will run away when they reach puberty.
It is about children being chattel, essentially.
Michelle, you might like to goggle “lost boys FLDS” to see what happens to the excess boys.
May 26, 2008 - 5:38 am aloysiusmiller:The polygs are very good at exploiting the system.
Exiling a 14 to 21 yearold boy that been raised in a cult compound with no marketable skills and little formal education is cruel but not illegal.
The FLDS patriarchy daddies just drop the boys off in a big city where they become the instant prey of pimps and drugdealers.
Christoph (9:02)
The Texas group may not have been receiving any welfare but their support base in Utah/Arizona is notorious for its reliance on welfare to support their polygamous lifestyle. Do you think that the Texas group was financially supported only by its Texas members?
May 26, 2008 - 5:46 am griefer:What makes you think that DNA collected under a invalid warrant will be allowed into court.
Professor’s Volkh’s commenters already discussed the DNA evidence. In the US it doesn’t matter how it was collected, it is still useable, like fingerprints.
It may be argued about, but it will certainly be allowed in.
Possibly CPS is arguing to hold the kids until the DNA samples are processed.
Darleen is a children-as-chattel person, I see a lot of you are as well.
May 26, 2008 - 5:53 am michele:Tell me pray, where do the rights of the children not to be held as chattel trump the rights of parents to breed them for a purpose and hold them in indentured servitude?
where do the rights of the children not to be held as chattel trump the rights of parents to breed them for a purpose and hold them in indentured servitude?
What about the rights of nursing infants to not be taken from their mothers based on what might have happened to about five girls out 400? Again, there very well may have been terrible wrongdoing going on there. But why treat everyone as criminals? How can you punish people before you know if a crime was committed? Do you not understand the ramifications of letting that happen?
May 26, 2008 - 6:18 am griefer:And Darleen, it is certainly possible that the 22 and 27 year olds looked very young, and since almost everyone was lying CPS simply didn’t believe them until it was too late.
May 26, 2008 - 6:21 am michele:Like the boy who cried wolf.
You argue that it is defensible that the mothers lied to CPS in an attempt to keep their children.
If they had told the truth, only the perps would have been arrested, and ALL the rest of the mothers could have kept their children.
Even if there is ONLY ONE raped minor, it is still a crime.
AFAIK, the truth is always the best policy.
That is how i was raised.
By the way, several children were returned to their parents yesterday, including a baby who was born to a 22 year old mother who was in state custody.
May 26, 2008 - 6:21 am Christoph:“The Texas group may not have been receiving any welfare but their support base in Utah/Arizona is notorious for its reliance on welfare to support their polygamous lifestyle. Do you think that the Texas group was financially supported only by its Texas members?”
I dunno. I have no evidence otherwise. They could be running cocaine for all I know, tax evading, or hiring out the “lost boys” in a secret Russian brothel. But without evidence, I presume they are innocent. And I don’t do guilt by association, certainly not in another whole state.
May 26, 2008 - 6:39 am Christoph:“statutory rape in the FLDS IF THE CHILD IS UNDER 18″
Please try to get your facts right. As of 2005, it’s 17. Before that, it was 15.
May 26, 2008 - 6:41 am Christoph:“it is certainly possible that the 22 and 27 year olds looked very young”
Wow, they must have lived a hard, abusive lifestyle to look so much younger than their biological age… so much so even their government issued ID wasn’t accepted.
May 26, 2008 - 6:44 am EricPWJohnson:Michelle
Again you are the victim of spin and misinformation - Texas is THE ONLY STATE - thats grants a single county - power over the ENTIRE STATE.
Austin elects a DA who is the ONLY DA in the entire state who can impeach, bring charges against any elected Lawmaker in Texas. Austin also elects the 3 of Austin ehich is the only court that can overturn cases against the state government (despite the fact that there are other districts in the state with their own appeallate courts) This was written in by the Liberal Democrats in the revised 1971 state constitution as a purely politcal power grab - its not up for debate.
No the 3 of Austin has had is special circumstances challenged as state law over this court as the only appeals court that can hear appeals against the state of Texas - this is being challenged. It gives the voters of Austin County - and Austin County only - the power to elect their hometown liberal Judges to in effect control the State which this court has tried and tried to do - and look they have been quite open about it - had Ma Richards raided this compound those parents would be doing hard time right now (which is probably where the are heading except Republicans do believe in due process)
Its the constitutional equvalent of saying only Supreme Court Judges can be elected in Rhode Island - so please keep this in mind its not your ordinary court of appeals - it has no lege never has - never will - allways overturned - its like automatic
May 26, 2008 - 6:53 am EricPWJohnson:Michelle
The 3 of Austin is a special appeals court that is the only court that can overturn all of the of Texas State judges in cases against the government not just the ones in their district. They are only elected by Austin County and are only accountable to the voters of that one county.
Same for the DA of Austin County, He/She is the only one who can investigate any elected state official in Texas, not just the ones from Austin County but all of the state.
This was a political manuever put in the state constitution by the Democrats in 1971 to consolidate their power as the writing was on the wall that conservatives were taking over Texas (hey they wrote this - I’m not making it up they were PROUD OF IT)
IIs the equivalent of Delaware being the only state that can vote in Supreme Court Judges.
So when we look at the 3 of Austin no one loses a belch - notice that the State Supreme Court is in no hurry to heqr the case - everyone is in custody where CPS thinks they should be
May 26, 2008 - 7:05 am EricPWJohnson:thanks Michelle - I realize that this is an unusual case - but don’t read too much into the 3 of Austin - the investigation is going foward (people are still not cooperating) and so the DNA testing has to be done on a scale never ever planned for in US History
But the even money is they are all going to jail- even those who did not directly act they had the knowledge and supported the commune so they are tacitly involved
It will be years decades until this is solved - costing the taxpayers millions of millions of dollars
May 26, 2008 - 7:10 am Luana:They never intended to take the men. They were after the children!
May 26, 2008 - 7:10 am Luana:I have seen the cps in my state go after a wonderful, caring judge who wouldn’t bend to their will and get him removed from the bench.
Can the state guarantee that these children will not be sexually abused by foster care? Where did they come up with that many foster families all of a sudden? What investigating has been done on them? Prosecute the perps, but leave the children with their mothers.
It is exactly true that the gov wants children of 13/14/15 to have sex, but to make sure condums are available and are handed out at school.
Let’s have a little humanity about the children being ripped from their home and newborns taken from their mothers!
I think the next group to loose their kids will be the home schooled children (just look at what cal tried). Then we can think of all the groups/cults - Amish, etc., because we don’t know what they are being taught. Then maybe your children.
I don’t like the way they dress. I don’t like their hair. I think warren jeffs is a devil and I’m glad he’s in jail.
But texas has done more to damage all of these children than all the polygs together.
Sorry, don’t know what you mean.
May 26, 2008 - 7:12 am griefer:christoph:
Texas enacted a law making sexual contact with a 16 OR 17 year old OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE a first degree felony.
A spiritual marriage IS NOT A LEGAL MARRIAGE.
sry for caps, but can’t you read?
Texas explicitly criminalized the childrape and childmarriage practices of the FLDS when they moved in 4 years ago.
michele, 12 out of 400, right.
May 26, 2008 - 7:18 am griefer:christoph, many of the indoctrinated breeders quite enjoy the compound life.
that isn’t the point.
Why should CPS have believed those women when everyone else was lying?
And EricPWJohnson is right.
The state of Texas also criminalized giving false information and performing fake marriage ceremonies involving minors. It is also illegal to have knowledge of a crime and not report it.
The community is complicit, either perps, accomplices or enablers, so the community must suffer.
Luanna you are a dope.
May 26, 2008 - 7:29 am michele:Like the state really wants to expense all that money.
The state is just trying to prevent child abuse and criminal activity, and incidentally to make polygamy noncost-viable in Texas.
States rights, dig?
We don’t care for polygs out here in the West.
We’d like to deal with them as we have tradionally dealt with lawbreakers.
By ridin them out of town on a rail.
Griefer, I was responding to someone who said none of the children were released yet. Yes, 12 out 400. Obviously, that’s 12 children who should never have been taken from their parents. 12 too many, in my eyes.
May 26, 2008 - 7:38 am Jim in California:Sadly, this case in Texas of CPS agents running amok and trampling the rights of parents and children is not unique.
It is just the biggest and most widely publicized case. This same thing goes on everyday in every state in the union and the public never finds out about these bureaucratic atrocities because family courts are closed to public scrutiny “to protect the children”.
May 26, 2008 - 7:55 am Darleen:griefer
Again, who said the women were lying? Why are you taking anything Texas CPS is saying as credible in light of the demonstrable lies they have told to the media? Not one of their allegations have held up to scrutiny.
and you keep dragging other FLDS groups into this case. That is irrelevant. Texas has only jurisdiction over the Texas group and only those crimes committed in Texas. In other words, Texas has no jurisdiction over a 30 year old woman on the ranch who has a 14 y/o son or daughter since the conception of that child took place in another state.
You might like to consider, too, that bills of attainder are specifically banned in the US Constitution, so declaring this who group of people “criminal” for the alledged crimes of a few is suspect on those grounds, too.
And as far as the age of consent, if the law is being selectively applied … ie, they’ve raided 19 separate households holding them collectively guilty because of a lifestyle … but they aren’t enforcing the same law by raiding a few blocks of a neighborhoods where pregnant teens are, or busting down the doors of Planned Parenthood for providing contraception and abortion to girls under 18 (being an accessory to underage sex, as CPS is accusing FLDS mothers of), then again, we have demonstrative proof that Texas is not in this for the good of the children but to use the power of the state to harass and drive out people they don’t like.
Indeed, I submit that CPS has little concern for the FLDS children because they hate the FLDS parents so much. They have inflicted real harm on children of a very tender age.
Why does this bother me? Because I’m a mother and because I work in the judiciary system and have a real dedication, appreciation and respect for the rule of law and DUE PROCESS.
Texas CPS has raped due process.
May 26, 2008 - 7:56 am Anonymous:griefer, I realize I am wasting my time in posting this, but your disdain for due process and belief in RETROACTIVELY enforcing laws places you in rather unseemly company.
May 26, 2008 - 7:57 am Darleen:We don’t care for polygs out here in the West.
Well, thank you for being a honest about your bigotry.
You might like to look at the US Constitution again.
May 26, 2008 - 7:59 am joel:thiefer, I realize that I am wasting my time by posting this, but your destain for due process and belief in enforcing laws retroactively places you in rather unseemly company.
May 26, 2008 - 8:02 am Jim in California:Griefer: DNA collected under an illegal warrent would be admissible because the standard rules of evidence we all know about do not apply.
The rules of evidence we are familiar with apply to criminal court, not family court.
There is no such thing as excluding illegally obtained evidence in family court.
May 26, 2008 - 8:08 am griefer:michele, it is impossible to criminalize polygamy in the US, because of “spiritual marriage”.
We can only criminalize polygamy when it is forced on minors.
The community lied as a group. So they will be prosecuted as a group.
Presumption of innocence is invalid in child abuse cases.
May 26, 2008 - 8:14 am griefer:haha, darleen the child-owner.
the system is working, this is America.
May 26, 2008 - 8:30 am griefer:What I think, what you think doesn’t matter.
It is what the courts think and how they interpret the law that counts.
Jim in Cali
May 26, 2008 - 8:33 am woman:google Shortcreek Raid.
that was the biggest.
Failed, sure, but unlike the state of Arizona, the state of Texas has teh DNA.
I’m sure, from what you said, that you would be happy to have them take the entire group out just like texas did to the branch dividians. Way to go! I’m glad I don’t live in texas, cause you might not like me either. I just hope all the texans aren’t like you.
May 26, 2008 - 9:03 am Lynn:Did you drive one of the baptist church buses?
Darleen: If you appreciate the honesty of griefer and wish to call it bigotry when he wrote: We don’t care for polygs out here in the West.
May 26, 2008 - 9:14 am michele:You might appreciate the honesty of Warren Jeffs who has said, “The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth.”
Will griefer have to start a cult before you defend him?
Lynn, you are misunderstanding both Darleen and myself. Neither of us our defending the cult or their lifestyle. We are defending the concept of due process.
May 26, 2008 - 9:30 am woman:You know warren jeffs is locked up and he is where he needs to be. He is the devil in all of this. I hope someday they (the polygs) wake up to the fact. But I agree with Michele and Darleen, it isn’t about them it’s about the legal process.
May 26, 2008 - 9:51 am transcended:Again read IPerceive.net for another perspective.
“A 16 year old is not a minor if married to their partner. Also, a 16 year old may marry in Texas if the parents give permission.
Michelle, you are missing the point.
A “spiritual” marriage is NOT a legal marriage. Texas enacted LAW specicifically targetting the practice of polygamous, “spirit” marriages.
A spiritual marriage is nothing more than ceremonial, institutionalized, statutory rape in the FLDS IF THE CHILD IS UNDER 18.”
That is it in a nutsack.
how many of these young women and children who are given away in these “spiritual marriages” even WANT to be with the men they are told to “spiritual marry?”
The entire basis in which the “spiritual marriage” (which is not a marriage in the legal sense at all and therefore primarily rape) is cohersion of more females of any age after their onset of puberty for the purposes of breeding. If you cannot call that such, abuse then we have missed the definition altogether in lieu of pointless parsing.
The pre-pubescent children are at just as much risk of the same fate in a few years if these practices are allowed to continue. And ignorance isn’t a reasonable defense.
Have the fathers of any of these children even submitted DNA yet?
May 26, 2008 - 9:58 am Lynn:michele: And I am defending the State of Texas and its’ right to enforce the laws for age of consent and laws of marriage. They were forced to take ALL of the children because the cult practices deceit in order to BREAK the LAW. They are hoping you will be blinded by the weeping mothers longing for their children when as a matter of fact some of those children will be given to old men while they are under the age of consent and some of those boys will be put in the street because they will interfere with the balance of power within the cult (more men than woman). Other states and their taxpayers that have turned a blind eye to the practices of these cults are now paying a heavy price. You defend the cult by calling those with a different opinion a bigot, so I felt it necessary to point out that you both are defending a CULT of BIGOTs. Calling someone a bigot is NOT defending due process.
May 26, 2008 - 10:18 am Darleen:Lynn
my beef in this case is not about a creepy cult. Hell’s bells, I’m 53 and came of age in the hippie era of communes, back-to-nature cults, group “marriage”, people emigrating to Israel to join kibbutzim, etc. I’m also aware of American history … from Amish to Shaker to Jehovah’s Witness to Pentacostal to Scientology. And in all of that, the US Constitution is specific that you cannot criminalize beliefs, only behavior AND you cannot selectively enforce it because that abridges the rights of individuals to be equal before the law.
You bleat about Texas’ “states” rights. But it no more can specifically target FLDS then it can target gays or blacks or Jews. Deal with it.
Is it a perfect system? No. There ain’t no such thing. But American law assumes the parents are doing the best by their kids unless evidence to the contrary is presented, and that evidence better be of a clear and imminent threat. Texas CPS has failed, spectacularly, on this claim.
I’ve mentioned Nifong for a reason. I see huge parallels between the rape hoax in the Duke Lacrosse case and in this rape hoax in the FLDS. IE the alledged perps were immediately tried in the media with “facts” made up out of whole cloth by the prosecutors in both cases. Outside of each case is a lasting harm because honest prosecutions will be harder against real rape/child abuse.
YOu know how bad this is? A brother of one of the EVIL EVIL Texas FLDS women traveled from out of state to the hearings to lend support to his sister .. and the bailiff at the courthouse listed him as the father of his sister’s child and he suddenly found himself in the middle of a case that had nothing to do with him! How fubar is that?
And as I said before, if the age of consent in Texas is now 18, show me all the felony filings against 18 y/os having sex with their 17 y/o boy/girlfriend from non-FLDS groups. Show me Texas shutting down Planned Parenthood for giving contraceptives and abortions to anyone under 18.
If you can’t then you have Texas CPS violating the civil rights of this group. Period.
Again, creepy is not illegal and I hope the Texas FLDS ends up owning that county.
May 26, 2008 - 10:43 am Darleen:darleen the child-owner
What are you? Jr. high?
Get over yourself.
May 26, 2008 - 10:45 am griefer:This is not about due process.
This is about the state of Texas’ federalist right to enact its OWN LAWS.
If you are so worried about “due process” and the rights of the lying childraping FLDS, durleen and michele, why don’t you make a nice safe haven for the polygs in your state?
We are gonna do our level best to get them out of ours.
May 26, 2008 - 10:46 am Darleen:btw Lynn
griefer has every right to be a bigot. It’s indecent, but not illegal. What griefer doesn’t have a right to is to deprieve other people of their rights based on his bigotry … just as Texas CPS has done.
Beliefs and behavior. Learn the difference.
May 26, 2008 - 10:47 am michele:Lynn, I never called anyone a bigot.
May 26, 2008 - 10:49 am griefer:But it no more can specifically target FLDS then it can target gays or blacks or Jews
But the state of Texas can specifically target childrapists, childabusers, and predators that fakemarry underage children to middleaged men.
May 26, 2008 - 10:59 am Darleen:It is merely conincidental that those perps are also FLDS patriarchy daddies, hehe.
Durleen, you’re a creepy old FLDS apologist.
take griefer’s remarks and substitute “gay” for “polyg” and its clear than griefer, like Texas CPS, is using “think of the chhhiiillldddrreeen” as a figleaf.
May 26, 2008 - 11:00 am griefer:shorter durleen:
May 26, 2008 - 11:02 am griefer:It is fine for the FLDS patriarchy daddies to force minors into fakechild marriage and statutory rape and breeder servitude, because Planned Parenthood gives contraceptives and abortions to anyone under 18.
nope durleen, Texas is just attempting enforce its LEGALLY ENACTED laws.
And the DNA will allow prosecution of the guilty and the return of children to the innocent.
Too bad they didn’t tell the truth.
May 26, 2008 - 11:07 am Darleen:Guess what? if just a SINGLE childrape case is proven by the DNA, the state will be vindicated.
lolz.
just noticed this one:
Presumption of innocence is invalid in child abuse cases
Ok, here this
“I believe griefer is a child abuser. Now, please go out and pick up griefer’s children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, cousins and any other child griefer has any contact with and ship them off 100s of miles away for at least a year. No evidence? I don’t need no stinking evidence. It is up to griefer to prove his/her innocence.”
yeah, that works.
May 26, 2008 - 11:08 am Darleen:griefer
Texas can criminalize behavior, but it cannot selectively enforce that law.
For instance, it cannot send it’s police out to only give speeding tickets to blacks and not give speeding tickets to whites.
In the same way it cannot remove pregnant teens from the FLDS ranch without prior hearing while never removing pregnant teens from non-FLDS homes without prior hearings.
Due process, meshugghana.
May 26, 2008 - 11:12 am Darleen:griefer
if a police department went into a neighorhood and kicked down the doors of 19 homes, ransacked them, removed everyone and forbid them from returning, confiscated all documents, diaries, journals, videotapes and what all from those homes, then found one pot plant in one house, would all the other police behavior been “vindicated”?
Uh, no. You are woefully ignorant of due process and case law.
Back to school with you!
May 26, 2008 - 11:18 am transcended:1. “spiritual marriage” does not equal a legal marriage. Under Taxas law a willing 16 year girl may LEGALLY marry with her parents consent - OTHERWISE it is considered rape if the male adult has sex with her.
2. these women are FORCED into “spiritual marriage” i.e., SEX with adult males. Why does everyone think Jeffs is behind bars. He set up the bogus marriage with a minor girl and adult male cousin she DID NOT want to marry. How mny MORE girls had been given away to sexual bondage by this cult leader who kept lowering the age of the girls to be given to these men?
3. every female child born on that compound was in danger of the same fate due to the ideology of the cult mastermind.
Conclusion: CPS was correct in taking the children away as both these mothers, fathers, and leaders of this cult were in the business of abusing these kids. First, mentally, by indoctrination. Second, physically, by forcing the girls to carry out the sexual relationships with men against their will. Thirdly, impregnating them, purposefully.
Thank goodness the CPS puts the safety of children first, over the immoral ideologies of the cult’s adults. More of these compounds should be investigated in the same way. Abuse your children - you loss the right to be a parent.
May 26, 2008 - 11:31 am griefer:durleen, duh, there weren’t 19 homes.
there was one commune.
so yeah.
look, eric said it….this case will wind on for years. some of the children will get to go back…some will never go back to their bio mother. some of the perps will serve.
hopefully the FLDS will all go canada afterwards.
“n the same way it cannot remove pregnant teens from the FLDS ranch without prior hearing while never removing pregnant teens from non-FLDS homes without prior hearings.”
May 26, 2008 - 11:44 am transcended:prove it, durleen.
kids get removed from unsafe homes everyday in Texas.
it really sounds like you are an apologist for the patriarchy daddies, durleen.
Are you a mormon perhaps?
Darleen<
You simply do not care about the children of this compound. You’d rather put the rights of the masterminds (compound’s adults) of this cult, in which their only claim to fame or higer power is to groom young girls to have sex with and be bred by, adult men (men and male cousins whom they probably wouldn’t entertain the idea of ever being with in the REAL WORLD) than allow the girls to have a chance at a life other than sexual bondage.
This coumpound was one entire inbred, intermingled family. Stop trying to paint it as regular neigbourhood in which no one even KNOWS their neighbour, let alone is related to all of them or shares a cultish leader amoung them. For pete’s sake. Their surnames were either Jessop or Jeffs. What are YOUR neighbours last names, if you even know them? You lose.
May 26, 2008 - 11:44 am Darleen:transcend and griefer
I doubt very much you have any connection to reality
I’ve processed hundreds of child abuse cases…REAL ones, including dead-baby cases.
I’m quite comfortable with how the law works and that due process trumps bigoted vigilantism every time.
You don’t care about the children here one bit. The ranch was not “one household”. That was the first deliberate error of law CPS made. It was the only thing they could hang their illegal seizure of 400+ kids on. They have violated the civil rights of every adult they imprisoned as a minor and Federal civil rights cases are going to be filed.
griefer has to keep spinning and lying … the appeals court was quite clear that the CPS had violated its own policies in not holding placement hearings first before raiding the ranch with armored SWAT vehicles and automatic weapons. Griefer says children are removed “every day” from unsafe homes, yet doesn’t link to any comparable case in that county of a child removed from a home with no prior hearing based merely on the lifestyle of the parents. Show me a case of a child removed from a home where a grandparent or uncle or aunt is a convicted felon. Show me a case of a pregnant teenager removed from her parents’ home because they didn’t stop her from having sex with her 18 or 19 y/o boyfriend.
PROVE that Texas CPS acted in a legal way, with accordance of their own policies.
YOu can’t.
May 26, 2008 - 12:03 pm Darleen:Stop trying to paint it as regular neigbourhood
You’ve never been to the inner city, have you?
But I can see why CPS would rather raid a ranch of people dressed in funny clothes from Little HOuse on the Prarie … they don’t shoot back like gangbangers might.
Tell me, when’s the last time CPS rounded up all the children with gangbanger mom and dads and shipped them 100s of miles away?
You don’t support rule of law, you support rule of feelings, and if the feeling is “icky” then THEY DON’T DESERVE THEIR CHILDREN!
YOU are more scary than the Texas FLDS.
May 26, 2008 - 12:07 pm Darleen:btw
google Michael C. v. Gresbach (opinion issued 5/19/08) and learn that social workers do not have qualified immunity when they violate the civil rights of children and parents using “abuse” as an excuse.
May 26, 2008 - 12:26 pm Luana:griefer:
May 26, 2008 - 12:55 pm Christoph:You are also ignorant because they are not MORMONS. Idiot!
You must be a huck supporter.
“Texas enacted a law making sexual contact with a 16 OR 17 year old OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE a first degree felony.”
For goodness sakes, griefer, dude, I was hoping my previous comment — and all the news coverage of this point — would be enough to make you do someo research and educate yourself. You seem to care about this issue and it would have only taken you a couple minutes like googling:
age of consent texas
But no. You just repeated the exact same thing, with capitals to boot, without taking the interim step to fact check.
So hey, I’ll do the same thing and reiterate it in caps because I’ve read the actual statute and double checked other sources and, quite frankly, I can’t be bothered to do it again after doing it so many times.
THE AGE OF CONSENT FOR SEX IN TEXAS IS 17. THE AGE OF MARRIAGE WITH A PARENT OR COURT’S PERMISSION IS 16, AND 18 WITHOUT PARENTAL OR COURT PERMISSION.
Wow. That was easy. And if you doubt me… google:
age of consent texas
May 26, 2008 - 1:09 pm Christoph:“This is about the state of Texas’ federalist right to enact its OWN LAWS.”
As Texas has pointed out, griefer, you have no connection with reality at all. The Texas 3rd court of appeals ruled that CPS violated Texas statutes.
“durleen, duh, there weren’t 19 homes.
there was one commune.
so yeah.”
This is the exact opposite of what the Texas 3rd court of appeals found. If your position was true, it would make 700 people one “household” living in 19 houses one household. It would also mean if some group, call them the Baptists, bought an apartment building and rented it out to another group, call them low income seniors, it would mean that a search warrant on apartment 204 to be served on Ms. Smith would also give police the right to search Mr. and Mrs. Hajid’s apartment 842.
And you’re entitled to that view. The court said, “Uh-uh.”
May 26, 2008 - 1:25 pm Christoph:Luana, they are Mormons. Not the same group of Mormons as the LDS church, but different followers of the book of Mormon who had a schism with the LDS and formed the FLDS.
Catholics may not like Protestants being called Christians, but they are. Christianity has gazillions of splinter groups… LDS Mormons who added a whole other ream of scriptures to the Christian Bible, who believe faith now demands wearing certain undergarments with Masonic symbols on them, and who once claimed not to be Christians, but instead to be “Saints”, now get upset when people don’t people don’t call them “Christians”.
LDS Mormons have a lot less in common with other Christian faiths than FLDS Mormons do with LDS Mormons.
So the FLDS want to be considered Mormons, and they are. If the LDS don’t want to recognize that, so be, just the same as if Baptists don’t want to recognize LDS members as Christians, which is their right.
And no, I’m not a Huck supporter.
FYI, the term “Mormon fundamentalist” was coined in the 1940s by LDS Church Apostle Mark E. Petersen.
May 26, 2008 - 1:46 pm griefer:dur, chris, durleen, the apellate’s court ruling is bein apealled.
and, also, fakemarriage, ie POLYGAMY is not marriage.
so a 16 yr in an FLDS fakemarriage is actually a victim of childrape.
Luann, the FLDS self-indentify as mormons. They SAY they are mormons.
The Texas 3rd court of appeals ruled that CPS violated Texas statutes.
in removing ALL the children.
and that ruling is being appealed to a higher court, and only 12/400 have been returned.
DNA test results will allow Texas to enforce its own laws.
again, what’s ur interest durleen?
May 26, 2008 - 1:58 pm griefer:are u secretly an FLDS patriarchy daddie?
And…guess what else? the decision could be appealled allthe way to the supremes, right?
May 26, 2008 - 2:03 pm transcended:meanwhile, the state continues to process the DNA so that they can enforce Texas law against childrape and child fakemarrige.
darlene: “You’ve never been to the inner city, have you?”
Oh obviously by “inner city” you mean the blacks? So black people are somehow more despictable than these white cult members? And who’s the bigot? Inner cities contain many families with many ethnicities and my bet - many different surnames, of whom do not live in a cult under the repressive strictures of ONE ideology and its ugly veil of religious freedom. Are you perhaps attempting to suggest that when blacks abuse their own kids CPS doesn’t step in and take their kids away just as quickly? If not, what on earth is your point.
Furthermore, you’re an idiot. A cultist compound in which all 1000+ adult members are practicing cultists (since no outsides need apply) who live under the control of one man who hands out females like prise cattle and whose rule of law is the rule of the land inside this oppresive compound.
Let’s face it, this mess of 400 children was created by the whom? It is an exception, rather than a rule. The laws that protect children from idiot and abusive parents should take lead over protecting the parents rights to abuse them. Jeffs sits and rots in jail for ennacting HIS laws that spit in the face of Texas’ legal age of consent. HIS cult laws and your excusing it and them spits in the face of a humanity that attempts to do the right thing in ending sexual slavery and totalitarian dictatorships in every other country but our own.
Get your head out of your as5.
May 26, 2008 - 2:14 pm transcended:To whomever said they can go to Canada, THEY don’t even want these these freaks.
May 26, 2008 - 2:16 pm Christoph:Darleen, griefer is saying some incredibly illogical things. You have to wonder what its role is and weather it’s legitimate or trollish.
FYI, in the first sentence of the article, Wikipedia says:
“A griefer is a player who plays a game simply to aggravate and harrass other players. Griefing is a form of emergent gameplay.”
It goes on to say:
“Griefers differ from typical players in that they do not play the game in order to achieve objectives defined by the game world. Instead, they seek to harass other players, causing grief.”
Perhaps griefer’s behaviour and the above definition is mere coincidence. It would, however, explain a lot:
“griefer has to keep spinning and lying …”
May 26, 2008 - 2:20 pm transcended:darlene,
Holy hannah what a jerk. lol.
“Icky” feelings? Since when has rape of minors and having to submit to “marrying” a man not of your own choosing been reduced to an “icky” feeling? No, no, no dear. Not an “icky” feeling. These are crimes against human beings.
What is going on inside your deranged head my dear. Jesus Christ woman, do you even listen to yourself? Because that is basically what you’ve done.
Dearest Darlene, i do think it’s time your retired from your line of work.
May 26, 2008 - 2:26 pm griefer:some linkage for the stubbornly ignorant.
http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/release.php?id=1210
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/fa.toc.htm
(c) A person under 18 years of age may not:
May 26, 2008 - 3:01 pm griefer:(1) be a party to an informal marriage; or
(2) execute a declaration of informal marriage under
Section 2.402.
(d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or
execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is
presently married to a person who is not the other party to the
informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as
applicable.
hahaha….you know how Hannibal Lecteur only ate the Rude?
I only grief the Stupid.
May 26, 2008 - 3:53 pm Christoph:griefer, you are stuck on stupid.
As you know, I said the age of marriage in Texas without parental or court consent is 18, 16 with parental or court consent. As you also know, I said the age of consent in Texas for sex is 17. I even told you how you could learn this for yourself, and twice you have not done so.
Since you are too lazy / trollish to do so, here is the statute:
§ 21.11. INDECENCY WITH A CHILD. (a) A person commits an offense if, with a child younger than 17 years and not the person’s spouse, whether the child is of the same or opposite sex,
the person:
(1) engages in sexual contact with the child or causes the child to engage in sexual contact; or
(2) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:
(A) exposes the person’s anus or any part of the person’s genitals, knowing the child is present; or
(B) causes the child to expose the child’s anus or any part of the child’s genitals.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the actor:
(1) was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex;
(2) did not use duress, force, or a threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and
(3) at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62 had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section.
(c) In this section, “sexual contact” means the following acts, if committed with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person:
(1) any touching by a person, including touching through clothing, of the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a child; or
(2) any touching of any part of the body of a child, including touching through clothing, with the anus, breast, or any part of the genitals of a person.
(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a felony of the second degree and an offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a felony of the third degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 472, ch. 202, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 1981; Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 1028, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1415, § 23, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 739, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Source: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000021.00.htm
May 26, 2008 - 5:28 pm griefer:Let me make this simple for u, chris.
It is not possible to criminalize polygamy.
Even a constitutional amendment to the constitution of the US would still allow “spiritual marriages”.
So Texas explicitly criminalized the practices of polygamy that involve minors.
Texas is entitled to enforce state law.
They enforced state law by raiding YFZ and taking the children.
Now there will be DNA evidence that will prove at least SOME of the FLDS patriarchy daddies are guilty of criminal acts. Felonies.
The appellate court has contested the decision…..CPS has moved to countermand the orders thru a higher court.
I have to wonder why you and durleen are so invested in this.
May 26, 2008 - 7:51 pm Darleen:It is a states rights issue.
So just sod off, kk?
Oh obviously by “inner city” you mean the blacks?
My oh my, Lynn, thanks for revealing again your inner bigot.
I say “inner city” (as in urban setting) and you immediately think “black”.
you and griefer seem to be one in the same in thinking it is ok to persecute and deprive anyone associated with the FLDS regardless of whether or not they actually committed any crimes because, yes, you think their belief system is “icky.”
I don’t give a fig whether or not my neighbor dresses funny and is a follower of the Church of Jediism (a newly recognized religion in England). But you? You’d be calling in hoax calls to CPS to harass your neighbor out of the area.
See, I’ve seen people like you before. People who believe they can selectively use the law, or make up the law as you go on because you feel threatened by anything you don’t agree with.
Lynn, seek help.
May 26, 2008 - 8:28 pm Darleen:Since when has rape of minors and having to submit to “marrying” a man not of your own choosing been reduced to an “icky” feeling?
When the charge of child rape is unsubstantiated against a whole group of people.
Might as well say Obama is guilty of terrorism because his father was moslem. Gonna take his girls away?
May 26, 2008 - 8:31 pm griefer:durleen….you totally don’t get it do you?
May 26, 2008 - 8:34 pm Darleen:we aren’t against the FLDS– we are against systemized childrape and child fakemarriage.
And we find it extremely creepy that you aren’t.
griefer
As I said above, I’ve worked on many cases of REAL child abuse. Texas CPS illegal actions makes cases of REAL abuse harder because they have destroyed any credibility.
Just like Nifong (I notice you keep ignoring that one of prosecutorial misconduct).
As the 7th Circuit says in Michael C. v. Gresbach, opinion issued 5/19/2008 (hey last week!), is that social workers cannot violate the basic 4th Amendment rights of children and parents just because they “suspect” abuse. They must have a “warrant, probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances.” Everything Texas CPS workers lacked. And the icing on the cake in that opinion is that it held social workers do NOT have qualified immunity in such a circumstance.
Bring ON the lawsuits against Texas CPS!
May 26, 2008 - 9:50 pm griefer:Nifong was a prosecutor.
Not a judge or social worker.
irrelevent.
And, the case is bein appealed to a higher court.
Only 12 children have been remove