FLDS teen gives birth to boy as state officials stand by

[mood*ring]

Teen mother is under 18.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080430/D90BRNKG0.html

the teen mother will remain with her newborn son in a state foster care facility.

[LLaFren]

Where does the mother say the girl is 18? I missed that part, help!

oops, found it here:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9103069

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by DixieDarling
I hope they don't rip this young mother and her child apart. If the girl IS under 18 (her mother says she is 18), then I think they should find a foster home for both her and her child to be together. I don't think there should be a custody hearing. The child is hers. He should remain with his mother. [/*]

Last I heard, the plan was to keep them together. It was stated that a child born to a ward of the state automatically becomes a ward of the state, as well.

I'm very curious about how the girl's mother knew she went into labor.

[dsmith]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/

Sect's doctor mum about ranch clinic
Here's what's known about Dr. Lloyd H. Barlow:

He's licensed to practice medicine in Utah, in Arizona and - since June 2005 - in Texas.
He has no disciplinary actions against him in the states in which he's licensed to practice.
He operates a medical clinic at the YFZ Ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints.

Barlow operates a medical clinic there, according to an affidavit submitted by Texas Ranger Sgt. Leslie Brooks Long.

"It is nothing more than what you would expect in a rural town," Barlow said.
A physician has a heightened duty to report suspected child abuse under Texas law, he said. Professionals must report it to authorities within 48 hours.

Anyone who suspects but doesn't report child abuse can be held liable for a Class * misdemeanor, according to the Department of Family and Protective Services. A Class * misdemeanor is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine up to $2,000.

wonder why he has never reported any abuse of these young women prob ally enjoyed all the hoopla he was given when a girl was born

[tisamystery]

The new mother already has a 16 month old child.

[Roux]

Catching up on last night's thread, I thought that essiemadge made a very good point -- if it is true that this new mother has a monogamous relationship with her husband who is 22, why hasn't the FLDS PR people had him in front of the cameras? Perfect opportunity to display one of their self-described wholesome, happy families.

Oh, I know. Cause it isn't true!

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Roux
Catching up on last night's thread, I thought that essiemadge made a very good point -- if it is true that this new mother has a monogamous relationship with her husband who is 22, why hasn't the FLDS PR people had him in front of the cameras? Perfect opportunity to display one of their self-described wholesome, happy families.

Oh, I know. Cause it isn't true! [/*]

Or because that 16 month old child was conceived before the girl was of legal age. Or because there was no actual legal marriage license issued.

I'll allow that it's possible that there are young men who haven't "earned" their second or third wives, yet.

[Freebird]

Originally posted by DixieDarling
I hope they don't rip this young mother and her child apart. If the girl IS under 18 (her mother says she is 18), then I think they should find a foster home for both her and her child to be together. I don't think there should be a custody hearing. The child is hers. He should remain with his mother. [/*]


Yet it's ok to rip the kids from the older mothers?

[Freebird]

This kid needs to be given up for adoption so it and the teen mother can both have a normal life.

[Cellar Rat]

I don't care what anyone says or lies about anymore. DO THE MATH, people!!! If she is legitimately 18 years old now and already has a 16 month old chid she was the victim of statutory rape, at best.

Again, I have to ask. WHERE are all the 14-17 year old boys in this sect??? The statistics defy probability. In the 14-17 year old age group there are over 50 girls and less than 20 boys. It defies probability and reason. They are either shipping them off or killing them off. The pedophile old men in charge are not passing out the pubescent girls to the teenage boys. They want them for themselves. It's disgusting institutionalized sexual abuse. I hope someone could prove me worng, but the evidence just keeps piling up.

[LLaFren]

Originally posted by tisamystery
The new mother already has a 16 month old child. [/*]

She's 18 just gave birth, has a 16 month old, hmm, let me see if my math works

16 month old+9 month pregnancy=2years, girl was 16 when she concieved the first child

Is 16 legal or illegal in TX?

[Mitzy2]

Originally posted by LLaFren


She's 18 just gave birth, has a 16 month old, hmm, let me see if my math works

16 month old+9 month pregnancy=2years, girl was 16 when she concieved the first child

Is 16 legal or illegal in TX? [/*] In this case it appears to be as her alledged husband is 4 years older than her. Though I doubt there will be any legal ramifcations if they are legally married. If it can be proven the girl is 18, Texas Auth are going to have to let her and her baby go ! JMO

[cloe23]

Originally posted by Texanne
I think I must be "google challenged", because I cannot find the report from some time back about the effects of pregnancy on the body of a young girl. I just remember reading that the teenage body is not quite ready for the stress of childbirth. I can only imagine the stress of bearing a child per year on a still developing body. But, without the link to back me up, I guess I will have to let it go. [/*]

I gave birth at 17yrs. and again at 19yrs. Giving birth and motherhood was easy for me, my natural instincts kicked right in and I was a good mother. It was the part the got me pregnant that has forever scared me, father being 9yrs my senior.
Now at the age of 13yrs -15yrs I can't imagine, I am sure these girls have no clue what is happening to them. IMO

I will look for a link too:read:

[cloe23]

Originally posted by cloe23


I gave birth at 17yrs. and again at 19yrs. Giving birth and motherhood was easy for me, my natural instincts kicked right in and I was a good mother. It was the part the got me pregnant that has forever scared me, father being 9yrs my senior.
Now at the age of 13yrs -15yrs I can't imagine, I am sure these girls have no clue what is happening to them. IMO

I will look for a link too:read: [/*]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy

Teenage pregnancy is defined as a teenage or underaged girl, usually within the ages of 13 and 19, becoming pregnant...

[Freebird]

Originally posted by MarchHare1


if they intend on raising their daughters to be brood mares at the grand old age of 13, and their sons to be child molesters, or simply abandon them, and allow them to be exiled when they become competition for the females in the herd, by the older males...then yes. [/*]


Why wouldn't we have the same problem with the teen mothers?

[dicee]

Originally posted by Bratlings
The girl probably was not a child, but an adult. But now when they figure that out they will rip a newborn from it's mother. How heartbreaking! This is wrong! :flamemad:


"Texas says baby’s mom not a sect minor
Child welfare officials tell judge Tuesday she is an adult "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24601179/ [/*]

ITA...now they take the baby away.

[walton]

Makes me angry to Brat. I live in a small community. 20-30 thousand and I in all my years have never come across any adults that didn't have some form of identification.

[evalles]

The other one they had classified as a minor, showed them a driver's license and birth certificate that proved she was 22.
It's scary, not all 18 year olds have picture ID and they refuse to accept the birth certificates.
How many others do you think they're mis-classifying as minors.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by walton
Makes me angry to Brat. I live in a small community. 20-30 thousand and I in all my years have never come across any adults that didn't have some form of identification. [/*]

If she had a photo ID that proved her over 18, why didn't she show it in the first place?

She already had one child... I wonder if she was underage when that one was born, and she lied to either protect the father of that child, or to be able to stay with her child.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Texanne
I think I must be "google challenged", because I cannot find the report from some time back about the effects of pregnancy on the body of a young girl. I just remember reading that the teenage body is not quite ready for the stress of childbirth. I can only imagine the stress of bearing a child per year on a still developing body. But, without the link to back me up, I guess I will have to let it go. [/*]


Because their bones are not fully grown yet teen mothers are @ very high risk for bone depletion. They are @ a higher risk for pregnancy induced hypertension. The babies are in the high risk category too.

http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/teenpregnancy/index.shtml
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1159.asp
http://www.essortment.com/all/teenpregnancyh_ryot.htm

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles
The other one they had classified as a minor, showed them a driver's license and birth certificate that proved she was 22.
It's scary, not all 18 year olds have picture ID and they refuse to accept the birth certificates.
How many others do you think they're mis-classifying as minors. [/*]


Even if she is 18 now the fact remains that she was severly underaged when she got pregnant with her 16 month old child.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Cellar Rat
I don't care what anyone says or lies about anymore. DO THE MATH, people!!! If she is legitimately 18 years old now and already has a 16 month old chid she was the victim of statutory rape, at best.

Again, I have to ask. WHERE are all the 14-17 year old boys in this sect??? The statistics defy probability. In the 14-17 year old age group there are over 50 girls and less than 20 boys. It defies probability and reason. They are either shipping them off or killing them off. The pedophile old men in charge are not passing out the pubescent girls to the teenage boys. They want them for themselves. It's disgusting institutionalized sexual abuse. I hope someone could prove me worng, but the evidence just keeps piling up. [/*]


<<Texas

If you are 14 to 17 years of age, you will need to show your birth certificate or some license, certificate or document issued by this state or another state, the U.S. or a foreign government.(Drivers license, military ID, passport or baptismal).


Both parties must be 18 years or older,(14-17 requires parental consent).


Both parties must provide their social security number or state they have one.


Both parties must provide all information as required on the application and as requested by the clerk.


Both parties must take the oath printed on the application and sign the application in the presence of the clerk.
http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/legal_age_of_consent/index.shtml >>

[juliekan]

this girl turned 18 in April. doesn't she have another child, and if so, how old would she have been when that child was conceived?

OOPS just saw the answer to my question...that's what I get for reading backwards!!

[Details]

However - they aren't married legally. And a legal marriage has protections - not the least of which is that both the man and the woman show up in a public place, where she declares that this is her free intention, as does he, and her parents say, in an open place under no constraint nor threat of any force, that they approve.

Big difference between that, and being told you are assigned to a man, off to the temple, and you are handed over to your new owner - no one other than cult members around, no one to support a protest, no way to call the police, no way to say No.

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Even if she is 18 now the fact remains that she was severly underaged when she got pregnant with her 16 month old child. [/*]

The fact remains that she was classified as a minor in order to increase the number of pregnant minors, per the state's agenda.

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


The fact remains that she was classified as a minor in order to increase the number of pregnant minors, per the state's agenda. [/*]

The "fact" remains...give me a link to their agenda...prove it.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by lotty


The "fact" remains...give me a link to their agenda...prove it. [/*]

That poster didn't post a 'fact', only an opinion. That poster might want rethink they way they use the words 'the fact remains'. It is not a fact, it is a presumption on that person's part. An opinion only.


hiya lotty :seeya:

[lotty]

Originally posted by KatyDid


That poster didn't post a 'fact', only an opinion. That poster might want rethink they way they use the words 'the fact remains'. It is not a fact, it is a presumption on that person's part. An opinion only.


hiya lotty :seeya: [/*]

:seeya: Hiya Katy
I love the JMO IMO MOO IMHO!

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings


The survivors are not the gospel either, they have their own version and that is individual to them. It could very well be biased, how would we know? Still survivors of one group does not indicate what is happening in others, and furthermore does not mean is happening to every kid.

It is absolutely ridiculous to refer to people including children as, "herds" and to not respect their rights as citizens. The Constitution protects our rights to raise our own children and each and every one of those children who are abused should be removed and each and every child who is not being abused or in danger of being abused should stay! [/*]

Then all these survivors are in cahoots with each other, even the ones that died as Joseph Smith's wives. Their stories have the same overtones of the current survivors.

Check out Oprah today if you can. Elissa Wall will be on with a special report from Lisa Ling. Elissa's story is the same as all the other survivors.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Not every Holocaust survivor knows or knew what was happening in other camps, not every person raped knows what happened in another. The point is the story is not and will not ever be one size fits all. [/*]

They all have the same leader...

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Not every Holocaust survivor knows or knew what was happening in other camps, not every person raped knows what happened in another. The point is the story is not and will not ever be one size fits all. [/*]

I guess these women are all in cahoots with each other, even the ones that died in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Yes, they are all individuals, but their stories have the same tone about them. They were all abused physically and psychologically.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings



It does NOT matter! There are people in that group who have only one wife and have no intentions of taking on another. All of Jim Jones followers had the same leader too. They didnt all murder, and commit suicide did they? [/*]

The exception, not the rule?

Even in their own written and taped teachings they profess polygamy as the ONLY way a man can get to heaven. The only way a woman can get there is through marriage to these men.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings



To you they all have the same tone, I dont nor does anyone else know enough facts about the Texas situation to make as many judgments as you do. :no: [/*]

Was I making judgments about the Texas compound, or the FLDS practices in general?

I think the latter.

:punch:

[Details]

When every last survivor tells the same story, to decide that they all must be liars tells a story - but not about the survivors.


All the 13 year old boys. All the girls escaping after rape. All the husbands forced out so their wives could be redistributed. So many people to decide to ignore because - why?

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
First of all, you are assuming that all of what you said in your post is true. Unless you have personal experience in these groups, I find it hardly doubtful that you have an accurate understanding of any of their practices. Dont forget so fast that these facts are mostly reported by news agencies who have a vested interest in the public watching or buying. The more controversial depiction the more money made.

Secondly, how do you know they were never legally married? They could have been... they might be now... we cant take the media nor CPS for the gospel in this case. ... [/*]Uh huh. Can't take the media, CPS, court records, FLDS records, FLDS escapees, FLDS throwaways, trial evidence, statistical evidence, pregnant teenagers, current FLDS member interviews, etc. - can't believe anyone - other than the FLDS - and not all of the FLDS - you have to omit their own statements about underage marriage to believe what you are saying here. Boy - that's a lot of people to not believe, to choose to leave children in danger because unless there's videotape you won't believe it.

How we know they aren't legally married - because if they were it'd be trivial to find that out - marriage records are not secrets - the state would not have had to go into their own records to find out who was married to who. Also because FLDS's own records show that they aren't legally married - when the 14, 15, 16 year old child is a second wife, there's no such thing as a legal marriage, even if you think it's OK to force such a child to marry.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
...The Constitution protects our rights to raise our own children and each and every one of those children who are abused should be removed and each and every child who is not being abused or in danger of being abused should stay! They did not do that, they just made one decision for everyone. Some of those women have only boys, and CPS themselves admits they were not being abused. [/*]You need a link for both of these. Where does the Constitution protect our rights to raise our children? I'm not aware of a single thing about children in there. And something protecting our rights to abuse our children is definitely not in there. Freedom of religion is - but that means that the laws are to be the same for all - not that religion is an excuse to break laws.

And where do you see CPS admitting that the boys were not being abused? I sure haven't seen that - I've seen the opposite - suspicious broken bones, 36 missing boys, and some issues with documented sexual abuse - even if they aren't saying it's a parent, is it something the parents allowed, ignored? Of course there's the other bit of abuse - the boys are being groomed to become pedophiles. Just as the girls are being groomed to become pedophile victims.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
No, They actually believe that God speaks to & guides their Prophet. Who are any of us to decide if its true or not? But it is a religious belief no matter how crazy we see it. As long as no one is being forced & underage I'm OK with what they do.

Now if you had been Abraham and God had told you to sacrifice your only son would you have done it? Would you have called him crazy for following that instruction? [/*]Are you saying child sacrifice is OK with you, if done by religion? Just to be clear here.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
They have marriage certificates, they have birth certificates, they even have state ID's that are not being accepted! [/*]Link?

I haven't seen a single report of a marriage license anywhere - and I read every article I can find on this case. So I don't believe you.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



They have marriage certificates, they have birth certificates, they even have state ID's that are not being accepted! [/*]

Am I wrong? Marriage certificates are public record, aren't they?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by lotty


Am I wrong? Marriage certificates are public record, aren't they? [/*]

You are correct. Maybe their documents couldn't be validated.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No [/*]

Are you positive...I thought marriage and divorce records are public information.

Marriage certificates issued and divorces granted are listed in the newspapers here. :confused:

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Holy chit :eek:

Whole different animal here. [/*]

Me too GGW!
I would want more than a mere mortal man's word before I did anything that nutty.

Notice Jesus never made those requests during his lifetime. He was the last blood sacrifice.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by lotty


Are you positive...I thought marriage and divorce records are public information.

Marriage certificates issued and divorces granted are listed in the newspapers here. :confused: [/*]

They are. I found mine online.

All I had to do was send the court money for a copy.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No, You can only receive confirmation of one having been recorded or not. [/*]

It depends on the state, you can get a copy of the marriage license on my state's online site.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
No, You can only receive confirmation of one having been recorded or not. [/*]That's public. Should be no trouble to prove if a marriage certificate was recorded or no.


However, also in my experience, you are wrong. My marriage record is a public record. Anyone could request the information.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I am sure...

You can not go search marriage records in Texas, you can only request proof that one was filed or not. You must know the names, and ages and county to get a confirmation letter but you will not get the actual certificate or a copy of it. [/*]

If you pay them the $8 for the copy they will send it to you. I got my copy that way before we traveled to Europe.

All I did was search my name in the Houston, TX county court records.

It was no problem at all. Easy as pie. I'm sure gov officials have much better access to those records than I did. Should be even easier for them to validate documents.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Are you saying child sacrifice is OK with you, if done by religion? Just to be clear here. [/*]

The post says if those involved are adults.
If they're all adults, it's none of anybody's business who they're sleeping with or how many.
I didn't see anything stating that child sacrifice was ok. Did you ?
Child sacrifice is evil and illegal.
Adults having multiple sex partners is just immoral, IMO.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


If she had a photo ID that proved her over 18, why didn't she show it in the first place?

She already had one child... I wonder if she was underage when that one was born, and she lied to either protect the father of that child, or to be able to stay with her child. [/*]

There are multiple links regarding the state's position that anything provided could be forged.

[evalles]

Originally posted by lotty


The "fact" remains...give me a link to their agenda...prove it. [/*]

Well, why do you think they would tell the world she was a minor when it wasn't true ?

[evalles]

Originally posted by KatyDid


That poster didn't post a 'fact', only an opinion. That poster might want rethink they way they use the words 'the fact remains'. It is not a fact, it is a presumption on that person's part. An opinion only.


hiya lotty :seeya: [/*]

I thought it was fact that she was 18.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Well you would be wrong because in Texas you can not! Further you are assuming that all of these people were born in Texas, some were born in Arizona or Utah where you can get absolutely NO information. [/*]

:confused: I did 2 years ago in TEXAS. Houston to be exact.

I posted it upthread. It was a piece of cake.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Bratlings



To you they all have the same tone, I dont nor does anyone else know enough facts about the Texas situation to make as many judgments as you do. :no: [/*]



ITA. It's nice to hear from someone with common sense.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
You need a link for both of these. Where does the Constitution protect our rights to raise our children? I'm not aware of a single thing about children in there. And something protecting our rights to abuse our children is definitely not in there. Freedom of religion is - but that means that the laws are to be the same for all - not that religion is an excuse to break laws.

And where do you see CPS admitting that the boys were not being abused? I sure haven't seen that - I've seen the opposite - suspicious broken bones, 36 missing boys, and some issues with documented sexual abuse - even if they aren't saying it's a parent, is it something the parents allowed, ignored? Of course there's the other bit of abuse - the boys are being groomed to become pedophiles. Just as the girls are being groomed to become pedophile victims. [/*]

Her you go.
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).


The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).

The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).

Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).

Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).

Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).

Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .

The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).

Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977

These are just a few.
The link has a lot more.

http://www.childrensjustice.org/cases1.htm

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I dont know where you all are from but it is legal for a 16 year old to get married in all of the Midwest states around me, to any age man she chooses and a court grants her emancipated (Which is very easy to get once you have had a baby), or her parents sign to allow it. There are also no laws about her getting pregnant at that age either. In fact just last a week or so ago there was an article in the Chicago tribune about how the hospitals often notify CPS about even very young teens (as young as 12,13,14) who give birth to babies and they do not even bother to investigate unless it was rape or incest.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-trice_05may05,0,5732857.column [/*]



they do not even bother to investigate unless it was rape or incest.

That is the key phrase. In the eyes of the law these very young teen girls were raped since they were not legally married to the men who fathered their children & they were below the legal age of consent (18). Even with parents signing for 16 year olds it can still be considered rape if the girl is not the first wife & the marriage is not legal.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Listen, Maybe in your State you can. What part are you not understanding about "closed record" States? BOTH Utah and Arizona are a closed record state and will not even verify a marriage or birth for you unless it is you or your child. I can not go get a copy of your marriage certificate in Texas, but I can get verification of its existance and even then it is not a legal document. [/*]

Listen, what part do you not understand. You said you couldn't do it in Texas. I said I DID it in Texas. Went online to county records, found my name, sent them my $8 and they sent me a notarized copy of my marriage license. Never once did I talk about Utah or Arizona. You are the one that said it couldn't be done in Texas. Well, 2 years ago I did it online from Colorado and got a copy of my Texas marriage license.

:shrug:

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



First of all, you are assuming that all of what you said in your post is true. Unless you have personal experience in these groups, I find it hardly doubtful that you have an accurate understanding of any of their practices. Dont forget so fast that these facts are mostly reported by news agencies who have a vested interest in the public watching or buying. The more controversial depiction the more money made.

Secondly, how do you know they were never legally married? They could have been... they might be now... we cant take the media nor CPS for the gospel in this case.

As long as CPS puts out press releases of "teen has baby" but cant tell us an accurate age or even an age range they are playing to our emotions because they know we will assume she is on the low end of the teen spectrum and be outraged. They will site privacy etcetera but I think its funny they can give us so many details when it supports their agenda! Until they stop playing games they shouldnt be trusted. They have yet to prove anything in a court of law and the standard of proof is MUCH lower in juvenile court, every one of our protections as parents is in question and everyone should be watching this case closely because when they take a boy who is clearly not in question of being abused they are trampling constitutional rights. You may arge that you would never let your child marry someone at that age or join a group like this but it is irrelevant. [/*]


I find the article believable because I watched the trial of Warren Jeffs. I heard the testimony of how these female children are raised & married. I heard about the life style & this birth is consistent with that testimony. I have heard others, both male & female, who have escaped or been kicked out tell of the life style & again it is consistent. You are assuming this baby will be separated from its mother without any evidence to support that. In fact the evidence so far is that the baby will remain with the mother even tho he is a ward of the state.

[evalles]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Listen, what part do you not understand. You said you couldn't do it in Texas. I said I DID it in Texas. Went online to county records, found my name, sent them my $8 and they sent me a notarized copy of my marriage license. Never once did I talk about Utah or Arizona. You are the one that said it couldn't be done in Texas. Well, 2 years ago I did it online from Colorado and got a copy of my Texas marriage license.

:shrug: [/*]

And you did it for yourself. You got a cerified copy of YOUR records.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


The survivors are not the gospel either, they have their own version and that is individual to them. It could very well be biased, how would we know? Still survivors of one group does not indicate what is happening in others, and furthermore does not mean is happening to every kid.

It is absolutely ridiculous to refer to people including children as, "herds" and to not respect their rights as citizens. The Constitution protects our rights to raise our own children and each and every one of those children who are abused should be removed and each and every child who is not being abused or in danger of being abused should stay! They did not do that, they just made one decision for everyone. Some of those women have only boys, and CPS themselves admits they were not being abused. [/*]


The Constitution protects our rightst to raise our own children? Please show me where in the Constitution it says that.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings


2.102. PARENTAL CONSENT FOR UNDERAGE APPLICANT. (a) If an applicant is 14 years of age or older but under 18 years of age, the county clerk shall issue the license if parental consent is given as provided by this section. (*) Parental consent must be evidenced by a written declaration on a form supplied by the county clerk in which the person consents to the marriage and swears that the person is a parent (if there is no judicially designated managing conservator or guardian of the applicant's person) or a judicially designated managing conservator or guardian (whether an individual, authorized agency, or court) of the applicant's person. (c) Except as otherwise provided by this section, consent must be acknowledged before a county clerk. (d) If the person giving parental consent resides in another state, the consent may be acknowledged before an officer authorized to issue marriage licenses in that state. (e) If the person giving parental consent is unable because of illness or incapacity to comply with the provisions of Subsection (c) or (d), the consent may be acknowledged before any officer authorized to take acknowledgments. A consent under this subsection must be accompanied by a physician's affidavit stating that the person giving parental consent is unable to comply because of illness or incapacity. (f) Parental consent must be given at the time the application for the marriage license is made or not earlier than the 30th day preceding the date the application is made."


Am I missing something here? Does it say ANYWHERE in this law in the State of Texas that the husband must be a minor also? Or not over a certain age? Or even that she cant have children at age 14 legally afterwards? [/*]

So, it is simple right, if a man is legally married to more than one...Bingo! Bigamy!

Do you know by chance how many years a man and woman have to cohabitate in Texas before they are "Common Law" married?

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


The Supreme Court said in the 1977 case of Moore v. East Cleveland that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition." In a newer ruling they rules that it is not specifically protected by the Constitution but should have been and could not have been forseen. In fact 4 of the current Supreme justices agreed that "parental rights were “fundamental,” meriting the highest level of constitutional protection."

But while were at it...

Many things that ARE very well protected by the Constitution are also not listed in it specifically.


http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html [/*]


No, no you have that wrong. What you listed is protected in that specific case by the Supreme Court & the Supreme Court is NOT the Constitution.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


For the record I am done providing you with links while you keep stating ridiculous assertions about statistics of FLDS marriage and age of birth until you provide a link. And I am still waiting for one that shows these court records that you are privy to in these juvenile cases that no one else is.




http://www.abajournal.com/news/young_children_removed_from_texas_ranch_not_abused _states_expert_says/#When:17:08:00Z


Young Children Removed from Texas Ranch Not Abused, State’s Expert Says [/*]


Your link is invalid.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Your link is invalid. [/*]

I tried to open it too. I was wondering what the date on it was since they have recently found history of broken bones with many of the children.

Also wanted to know if this is a first look analysis and if any psychological testing has been done.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No, You can only receive confirmation of one having been recorded or not. [/*]


In the state of Texas all you have to do is pay the required fee & you can get a copy of marriage, death, birth certificates.

http://www.co.jefferson.tx.us/cclerk/20060413_opr_filing_fees.pdf

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



again SO WHAT? Did you also know that in many states cheating on your spouse is illegal? Should everyone lose their kids because of that too? I guess so according to the lynch mob here. :rolleyes:

There is no amount of years in Texas that you must live together.

What makes a common law marriage?

* A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

First, you must have "agreed to be married."
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp [/*]


Texas does not recognize common law marriages @ all.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/texas/index.shtml

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by warhorse46



In the state of Texas all you have to do is pay the required fee & you can get a copy of marriage, death, birth certificates.

http://www.co.jefferson.tx.us/cclerk/20060413_opr_filing_fees.pdf [/*]

Yep, I did it online, no identification, nothing...just asked for it, sent the money and they sent me a copy of the marriage license I requested. Harris County, TX. They never asked me once who I was or why I was requesting the document.

Thanks warhorse

:seeya:

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I find it believable also, in THAT GIRLS situation. Sorry that is not enough to just go kidnapping 416 kids for me. If it is enough for you then let us hope no one makes any crank calls to CPS on anyone in your family because with this bravery they wont be staying for tea and cookies long enough for you to deny it! [/*]



Havng been a nurse in the Maternal/Child area for decades I have had the opportunity to work with CPS on cases. So I have first hand experience of how the Texas CPS (and APS) operates. And when they suspect abuse or neglect by the parents they will not leave children in their care while investigating. This case is in the investigation stage. Until they can get it all straightened out on what child belongs to which parents they are in their rights to remove all of the children. The parents are prolonging the situation by not complying with requests.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Bratlings


That is only the record, not the actual certificate which i said many times! [/*]

I got a copy of my actual marriage license with the notary stamp. All I had to do was request it, send the money and they sent me a copy.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Is the state website wrong then? :lol:

http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp [/*]

I think Warhorse meant to say that there's no need to apply for a license for a common law marriage. ;)

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46




Havng been a nurse in the Maternal/Child area for decades I have had the opportunity to work with CPS on cases. So I have first hand experience of how the Texas CPS (and APS) operates. And when they suspect abuse or neglect by the parents they will not leave children in their care while investigating. This case is in the investigation stage. Until they can get it all straightened out on what child belongs to which parents they are in their rights to remove all of the children. The parents are prolonging the situation by not complying with requests. [/*]

CPS wouldn't suspect anything unless a doctor or.... nurse called them.
Have to call in the troops alot ?
What hospital is that ? I want to make sure none of my family or friends in Texas take their children there.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


That is only the record, not the actual certificate which i said many times! [/*]


Of course it is not the original! None of us are saying that. But it is an official copy of the original & is legal.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Of course it is not the original! None of us are saying that. But it is an official copy of the original & is legal. [/*]

You are correct warhorse, it is a legal document. I verified that in case I should have to use it at any time.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I dont care what your experience is, the law states clearly that they can not take a child because of suspected abuse. There must be some proof. Their only proof at the time they did it was supposed minors that were pregnant (whom some are actually adults) and a prank phone call.


* there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child;
* the child has been the victim of sexual abuse;
* the person with possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance and the use constitutes an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child; or
* the person with possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamines.


http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/parentguide.asp#willcpstake [/*]

They have to have probable cause, you are correct. And there was/is probable cause a mile deep in this case.

[Katprint]

Originally posted by Bratlings
2.102. PARENTAL CONSENT FOR UNDERAGE APPLICANT. (a) If an applicant is 14 years of age or older but under 18 years of age, the county clerk shall issue the license if parental consent is given as provided by this section. <respectfully snipped>[/*]

I think this has changed. My link says "(a) If an applicant is 16 years of age or older but under 18 years of age ..."
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/2.102.00.html

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles


CPS wouldn't suspect anything unless a doctor or.... nurse called them.
Have to call in the troops alot ?
What hospital is that ? I want to make sure none of my family or friends in Texas take their children there. [/*]


And in the state of Texas it is against the law for a medical care giver NOT to call CPS if abuse is suspected. So no matter what hospital your friends or family in Texas take their children too, if there is evidence of abuse they will be reported to CPS. Even if that evidence is simply something the child says, an anonymous phone call, the body language of a child or parents.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Katprint


I think this has changed. My link says "(a) If an applicant is 16 years of age or older but under 18 years of age ..."
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/2.102.00.html

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

You're right, it changed right after the FLDS moved to Texas.
A couple years ago Texas didn't have a problem with 14 year olds having sex as long as they had the proper license.

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46



And in the state of Texas it is against the law for a medical care giver NOT to call CPS if abuse is suspected. So no matter what hospital your friends or family in Texas take their children too, if there is evidence of abuse they will be reported to CPS. Even if that evidence is simply something the child says, an anonymous phone call, the body language of a child or parents. [/*]

Hospitals call CPS because of body language ? Do they have some special body language reading skills ?

God help us.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by KatyDid


You are correct warhorse, it is a legal document. I verified that in case I should have to use it at any time. [/*]


Exactly. I got my grandson`s birth certificate to send to his mom when he started school. They never asked me any questions. I simply paid the fee, told them the name of the mother, the date of the child`s birth & the sex & within about 15 minutes I had a copy of it that had the state & county seal on it.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles


Hospitals call CPS because of body language ? Do they have some special body language reading skills ?

God help us. [/*]


Body language tells way more than spoken words some of the time. Pretty self explanatory when a parent reaches for a child, the child screams, dodges & runs to the furtherest corner away from the parent.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



again SO WHAT? Did you also know that in many states cheating on your spouse is illegal? Should everyone lose their kids because of that too? I guess so according to the lynch mob here. :rolleyes:

There is no amount of years in Texas that you must live together.

What makes a common law marriage?

* A: Three elements must be present to form a common law marriage in Texas.

First, you must have "agreed to be married."
Second, you must have "held yourselves out" as husband and wife. You must have represented to others that you were married to each other. As an example of this, you may have introduced you partner socially as "my husband," or you may have filed a joint income tax return.
Third, you must have lived together in this state as husband and wife.
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/dro/common_law.asp [/*]
Sorry, I was just asking because my state does not have common law marriage.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Exactly. I got my grandson`s birth certificate to send to his mom when he started school. They never asked me any questions. I simply paid the fee, told them the name of the mother, the date of the child`s birth & the sex & within about 15 minutes I had a copy of it that had the state & county seal on it. [/*]

Yep, same here. They never once asked me if I was the person listed on the marriage license, why I needed it, nothing. My copy has all the seals and signatures on it too.

[Details]

Originally posted by warhorse46
The Constitution protects our rightst to raise our own children? Please show me where in the Constitution it says that. [/*]It doesn't.

There's some case law quoted above - but it refers to the ability of the parents to care, nurture, etc. and the fact that the state cannot take the children without due process - nothing saying you have an undeniable unconditional right to raise your own children. In fact, the opposite holds true - protecting children's Constitutional rights are often what cause the state to need to remove a child from their parent.


Oh - and a common law marriage is not good enough for underage sex - the law about underage sex refers to a marriage license, being married already - not that you are accepted, AFTER the sex and living together - as married.

Yes, they had a 14 year old age limit once - and before it was lower than that. When there was the prospect of this low limit being used, the law was changed, since it was an obvious anachronism. 14 year olds should not be having sex - but hey, lots of old dumb laws stay on the books until someone realizes they are there - laws against interracial marriage, the typical one of requiring women drivers to have a flagman ahead of them, etc. They don't get used, and when someone points them out, they get removed.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Details
It doesn't.

There's some case law quoted above - but it refers to the ability of the parents to care, nurture, etc. and the fact that the state cannot take the children without due process - nothing saying you have an undeniable unconditional right to raise your own children. In fact, the opposite holds true - protecting children's Constitutional rights are often what cause the state to need to remove a child from their parent.


Oh - and a common law marriage is not good enough for underage sex - the law about underage sex refers to a marriage license, being married already - not that you are accepted, AFTER the sex and living together - as married. [/*]

TY Details. I appreciate it.

[lotty]

I'm satisfied.

http://www.dallascounty.org/department/countyclerk/marriage-license.html

[Details]

Dang - lost the whole post. OK - nope, you're wrong. First - case law works off of our entire legal system - every law ever passed. Those quoted cases may or may not have been about the constitution - but they didn't give any constitutional right. In fact - the link you provide - which - wow - quite the group you've got here - all about stopping gay marriages, and control of your children - that link is a bunch of theorizing - but it does say - In the most recent parental rights decision by the Supreme Court (Troxel v. Granville), Justice Scalia made it clear that he is a political supporter of the concept of parental rights. He believes that this right is an inalienable human right and was included within the Ninth Amendment's declaration of reserved rights. However, because parental rights are not explicitly stated in any constitutional language, Scalia voted to deny parental rights the status of an enforceable constitutional right...
Justice Souter wrote a separate opinion saying that parents have rights, but not fundamental rights. This means he holds a low view of parental rights.

As we already noted, Justice Scalia said that parental rights were not protected because they are not explicitly in the Constitution.

Justice Stevens held that parents do not have the right to override state legislative decisions of this nature—which is consistent with Stevens' overall anti-tradition, anti-religious perspective.

Justice Kennedy believed that modern family life was too complicated to be run simply by parents and he advocated a “balanced” approach, which is consistent with Kennedy's general anti-traditional theories.

Accordingly, we have only three current Supreme Court justices (including Thomas) who sided with a strong view of parental rights in this most recent decision.
http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/default.asp

Nice link indeed.


As to the rest - "Requirements for Underage Applicants (Age 14 -18): Family Code 2.103

* Family Code Section 2.401 (c) (1-2) states that "A person under the age of 18 may not be a party to an informal marriage, and may not execute a declaration of informal marriage."
http://kaufmancountyclerk.com/iml.htm

Which really is so obvious I didn't think a link was necessary - but there you go. I mean, really, really obvious - if a common law marriage would work, every pedophile in the world would claim one.

Oh yeah - and the age is 16 - with, and only with, parental consent, right there in the office (except in extrarodinary circumstances). Just like I said. I see you've already accepted that correction.

[LisaM22]

I am just glad all these people were not in the room with her - jmho

[xray ra]

Originally posted by lotty


TY Details. I appreciate it. [/*]

Hey Details: Hey Lotty:seeya:

Just got my puter back from the geek squad today and catching up!!!

I see we have attracted a few more T's.

I have to go back upthread alittle I'll be back:)

BTW: IMO!!!!!!!

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Details,

Funny you only quoted the minority decision, and what would the minority decision matter?

Please point me to the law or right that allows abortion or homosexuality since we both know those are rights NOT in the Constitution but thus far Constitutionally protected.

So your theory is BS! [/*]Since the link you posted points out that the 'majority' was only 4 of the 9 justices, and that 2 of those justices have since left the Supreme Court - seemed to me that was the more relevant opinion to look at. That's the opinion of the link you gave, and I agree. If we look back in time, once upon a time the Supreme Court thought there was no right to abortion, voting for women, and lots of other things that since the Supreme Court has ruled the opposite way.

And since Supreme Court justices agree with me - I think I'm in good company when I say there is no unconditional parental right in the Constitution. We've extrapolated some degree of parental rights - but even your link says it's not in there, several Supreme Court justices who have spent their lives on the Constitution say it isn't in there - I think that I'm good in saying it isn't in there. Nor should it be, since a parent's rights are counterbalanced by their children's rights, so there is no way you could have an unconditional parents right. Some degree, to the extent that it is in the best interest of the child - sure. But nope, nothing past that.

[lotty]

Originally posted by xray ra


Hey Details: Hey Lotty:seeya:

Just got my puter back from the geek squad today and catching up!!!

I see we have attracted a few more T's.

I have to go back upthread alittle I'll be back:)

BTW: IMO!!!!!!! [/*]

:seeya: It's like Christmas...good to see you.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
That is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned because I never stated they were common law marriages to begin with. Furthermore, I never said a child had entered into one. I only answered a question and provided a link in regard to common law marriage.


My argument has always been that they are legally married if at all, youre arguing the wrong point with me. [/*]Nice try!

Good backpedal - but if you can't back up your "Stop pretending" - maybe you should just admit it. I was right, I knew the law, not pretending. You said I was. If common law wasn't part of your issue, maybe you should have said that instead of pretending I was wrong.


They aren't married. All of your objections have been addresed - the records are freely available, and no, there is no alternative form of marriage this could be, since common law marriage -obviously - doesn't apply to the underage. The cult would naturally be screaming it to the heavens and media anyway, if they did have marriage licenses (not possible for most anyway - there is, even in Utah, no such thing as a marriage license for multiple wives - the first wife, yes, second and beyond, no.)

[Details]

Including the laws that today give CPS the absolute right to do what they did.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Details
Nice try!

Good backpedal - but if you can't back up your "Stop pretending" - maybe you should just admit it. I was right, I knew the law, not pretending. You said I was. If common law wasn't part of your issue, maybe you should have said that instead of pretending I was wrong.


They aren't married. All of your objections have been addresed - the records are freely available, and no, there is no alternative form of marriage this could be, since common law marriage -obviously - doesn't apply to the underage. The cult would naturally be screaming it to the heavens and media anyway, if they did have marriage licenses (not possible for most anyway - there is, even in Utah, no such thing as a marriage license for multiple wives - the first wife, yes, second and beyond, no.) [/*]

:D :beer:

[xray ra]

Originally posted by KatyDid


:beer: [/*]

:biggrin: Hey Katy ITA

What a joke. If they have marraige licenses they will be to the first wife who is already in her mid-thirties. All the other "marriages" are shams.
I say, let the DNA falls where it falls.
Also, I would hope the CPS would come to the aide of my children if I was an abuser. Or if I was stupid enough to allow an abuser to live in my house.
Too bad the "brilliant" minds of the founders of the YFZ ranch failed to anticipate the little problem of having their whole community listed under ONE address.
Hehe!:chicken:

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
No nice try on your part! Backpedaling would suggest I changed my mind about something but I did not! Maybe you should just admit that you are unable to comprehend basic Supreme court decisions.... [/*]And now a dodge - you said I was pretending to know what I was talking about on common law marriages - not on supreme court decisions. Common law marriage law was just what I said it was. And you said, "You interpret law now as a side job? How would you know what it means and what came first? Stop pretending!"

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Not necessarily. I have heard they often marry then divorce before marrying another as a way to manipulate the bigamy laws. [/*]Link?


Not only have I not heard that in quite extensive reading on the FLDS - a divorce would give the first wife rights to 50% of the property - not something they'd be likely to want to go through the courts.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by xray ra


:biggrin: Hey Katy ITA

What a joke. If they have marraige licenses they will be to the first wife who is already in her mid-thirties. All the other "marriages" are shams.
I say, let the DNA falls where it falls.
Also, I would hope the CPS would come to the aide of my children if I was an abuser. Or if I was stupid enough to allow an abuser to live in my house.
Too bad the "brilliant" minds of the founders of the YFZ ranch failed to anticipate the little problem of having their whole community listed under ONE address.
Hehe!:chicken: [/*]

Hiya xray :seeya:

HeHe!!! I loved that little flub too...the one address.

ITA about the DNA!

[xray ra]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Not necessarily. I have heard they often marry then divorce before marrying another as a way to manipulate the bigamy laws. [/*]

OoooKaayyyy!! You have heard.......... !! Now I believe you,
j/k

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by xray ra


OoooKaayyyy!! You have heard.......... !! Now I believe you,
j/k [/*]

:D

That kinda sounds like the media when they say they have a source.

I've been following this mess since Warren Jeffs ran, got captured, was tried and found guilty.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anything written on these people divorcing to remarry. Mostly what I've read is they think they are above the law and there is no need to divorce for the purpose of remarrying.

[Details]

Christian Polygamy... blah blah....Cool - except that it's not FLDS, and thus has no bearing at all on this case. Now, if you looked at FLDS links (hint - search bleeding the beast) - you'd see their plan is to legally marry the first for the tax break, and let the rest go on welfare as single mothers with an unknown baby daddy.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
My point still stands! You are no law interpreter! In regard to any subject. [/*]Yeah. I'm just a random individual who is correct about the laws when you are not, who has opinions on Constitutional law that are the same as the Supreme Court justices.

Obviously - I am able to interpret the law at least as well as many judges appointed to the Supreme Court. I think that goes some.

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Not necessarily. I have heard they often marry then divorce before marrying another as a way to manipulate the bigamy laws. [/*]



How does one get "spiritually divorced"?

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Not necessarily. I have heard they often marry then divorce before marrying another as a way to manipulate the bigamy laws. [/*]

Please understand this is merely a recollection...I'll hunt down the link later. The only place I recall reading where the first marriage is generally not a civil affair is in Bountiful, BC. Where the practice of not civilly marrying the first wife was introduced due to the influx of females from the AZ strip. Short Creek wives, I guess, were generally not first wives in Canada. This was so that they could meet immigration requirements. As always, JMO/IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by walton




How does one get "spiritually divorced"? [/*]

LOL! I have no idea, but if the word "divorce" enters my world. He better be ready for every part of marriage to be done! I don't play house!hammer

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



LOL OK you guys want links, then I provide them and then you say they dont exist. Again dont bother asking anymore, because I wont provide them. Then you can be blissfully unaware of how ignorant you are. [/*]

truthbearer?

We are not laughing at you... we are laughing with you.


Trust me on this one Bratlings. I honestly don't believe that there are any ignorant posters on this board. I know deep down that you didn't really mean that.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
...(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651. Pp. 5—8.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html


Did you get this part yet?
including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children [/*]Now - to this - when you read that link you provided, you see at the end that the justices did not find any such unlimited right. Only that Washington had failed to find a sufficiently compelling reason to override the parent - not that there is no reason possible to override - merely that in this instance it was not sufficiently considered.

In addition - you'll note the title of the clause? "Due Process" - not saying that you have these rights, but rather that you have the right to due process in regards to all those areas. CPS evaluation is due process. Judicial review is due process. All of this has happened, and continues to happen, as is the proper and due process for this case.


This paragraph in particular establishes that the Supreme Court is not considering whether ALL such decisions must involve a showing of harm or potential harm (which, by the way is the standard CPS used, so this decision does not even apply to them - it applies to statutes that do NOT require a showing of harm or potential harm before a parent's decisions are overridden), but merely to this one "sweeping" measure.Because the instant decision rests on §26.10.160(3)’s sweeping breadth and its application here, there is no need to consider the question whether the Due Process Clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation or to decide the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
LOL OK you guys want links, then I provide them and then you say they dont exist. Again dont bother asking anymore, because I wont provide them. Then you can be blissfully unaware of how ignorant you are. [/*]The link you say you provided is not the link requested - you provided one that discussses a completely different groups methods.

If you'd been on this board long, or if the links thread was still around, you could read some nice links about the FLDS method. Or you could search them out. Because they don't say what you claim they do.

[xray ra]

Originally posted by Bratlings



My point still stands! You are no law interpreter! In regard to any subject. [/*]


I have never had to report a poster before, but there is a first time for everything. I'm just glad you didn't start the thread.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Just because I pointed out something new doesnt make it untrue. Try to learn something.:rolleyes: [/*]Cool. So I guess you'll accept if I prove my points about the FLDS by posting practices of the Catholic church?

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Just because I pointed out something new doesnt make it untrue. Try to learn something.:rolleyes: [/*]

I have...back in the '80's my dad worked road construction in the AZ strip. He was there, he came back with all kinds of interesting tales of the Hopis, and the FLDS. I am so greatful for the internet, over the many years I have learned a lot. I found these wonderful posters last year during Warren Jeffs trial. This has to be one of the most educated groups I have found out there...except for some journalists who have been following this for many years. The FLDS is not a simple "black and white, no grey" group. There is far more here than meets the eye. I wish the links thread was still up...it was very informative. For now I will end with the fact that we all have freedom of religion, the right to believe anything we want...we do not however have the freedom to practice our beliefs if they are against the law. United States v. Reynolds

As always JMO/IMO

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/index.html

PROVO, Utah (CNN) -- A jury in the U.S. state of Utah has found an avowed polygamist guilty on four counts of bigamy.

Tom Green, 52, a self-professed "fundamentalist" Mormon who lives with his five wives and 29 children near Trout Creek, 125 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, had testified that he married the women in a spiritual sense.

The defense focused its efforts on parrying prosecution charges that Green married teenagers, divorced them


You can apologize any time. :rolleyes: [/*]

Not so fast....

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy679.html

"In the spiritual sense, yes, because of the commitment and obligation we have," Green said. ''In a legal sense, they are simply ladies who live next door who have had children with me in the past.''

He pointed out that the women have not asked to be released from him - the equivalent of a divorce in a plural marriage - though they've had "six years to do whatever they wish."

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Yes, I did! How can you see a decision plain as day that says, "parents have a fundamental right" and say that they have no rights guaranteed by the Constitution?


BTW I am not whomever Truthbearer is. I am exactly who I say I am, and I dont switch names to post. I never have. [/*]

I was referring to your link to Truthbearer. com or whatever it is called. A group of people that are using Religion to justify breaking the law. I wasn't calling you truthbearer.

It doesn't matter what Religion a person is, it doesn't give them the right to abuse Children. Or for that matter abuse anyone.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/05/19/utah.polygamy/index.html

PROVO, Utah (CNN) -- A jury in the U.S. state of Utah has found an avowed polygamist guilty on four counts of bigamy.

Tom Green, 52, a self-professed "fundamentalist" Mormon who lives with his five wives and 29 children near Trout Creek, 125 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, had testified that he married the women in a spiritual sense.

The defense focused its efforts on parrying prosecution charges that Green married teenagers, divorced them


You can apologize any time. :rolleyes: [/*]Congrats - you found one! I'll accept the link that this guy did it - doesn't prove that all did - nor does it make the link about Christian Polygamists you posted and defended so hotly accurate nor relevant.


Of course, you can find plenty of links that say the opposite - and not just about one individual.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/zion-raid-the-ranch-has-not-yet-revealed-all-its-secrets-808370.html
In fact, the FLDS has long had an overt policy of trying to sting the government for everything it can – in the form of food stamps, tax breaks and subsidies. An FLDS member will generally declare his first marriage and take the tax benefit, then let his subsequent wives claim welfare as unemployed single mothers.
And more - this one from someone who has lived there, done this:
http://www.childbrides.org/taxes_Pres_bleed_beast.html

I found a ton more - but they're mostly the same. It's a known and established practice.

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



WRONG again!!


"¶3 Some of the women entered into licensed marriages with Green.
The remaining women participated in unlicensed ceremonies, after
which they considered themselves married to Green. Green avoided
being in more than one licensed marriage at a time by terminating
each licensed marriage by divorce prior to obtaining a license for a
new marriage.(4) Green then continued his relationships with each of
the women he divorced as if no divorce had occurred."

http://www.courttv.com/news/polygamy/docs/greendecision.pdf


LEGAL marriages, and those he didnt legally marry he considered spiritual. He only had 5 wives but he was charged with 4 counts of bigamy! Gee how could that be if he legally divorced 4 of them? [/*]

from the Rick Ross link:

Green's biggest challenge now may be crafting an ongoing relationship with those three women without falling afoul of Utah's unique bigamy statute.

Green said he would avoid future bigamy allegations by residing only with his legal wife. The law defines bigamy as marrying, cohabiting or purporting to be married when you already have a spouse - acting as a married couple.

[Details]

Found some more great links - a Larry King show on this with several great guests:http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14603/flds-warren-jeffs-makes-fbis-10-most-wanted-list

And here's another great link - a wonderful summing up of the FLDS issues. http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/polygamous.htm

[walton]

Originally posted by lotty


I have...back in the '80's my dad worked road construction in the AZ strip. He was there, he came back with all kinds of interesting tales of the Hopis, and the FLDS. I am so greatful for the internet, over the many years I have learned a lot. I found these wonderful posters last year during Warren Jeffs trial. This has to be one of the most educated groups I have found out there...except for some journalists who have been following this for many years. The FLDS is not a simple "black and white, no grey" group. There is far more here than meets the eye. I wish the links thread was still up...it was very informative. For now I will end with the fact that we all have freedom of religion, the right to believe anything we want...we do not however have the freedom to practice our beliefs if they are against the law. United States v. Reynolds

As always JMO/IMO [/*]

Lotty you ought to have your dad put some of those stories on paper. Or have your dad tell them again and record them. He had to have seen/heard an awful lot.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
...We disagree on whether it is abuse for a teen 14 years old prior to 2005 or 16 years old now to marry a man of any age without force. [/*]We do indeed!

How do you define force? How about, "You'll go to Hell and burn for eternity if you don't comply"? Or knowing the alternative is this:The catalyst was horrible enough. In 1998 a sixteen-year-old girl was ordered by her father to marry an uncle twice her age. Twice she tried to run away, but was caught. She went for help to her mother for help, who promptly returned her to her father. The father then took her to a remote ranch, beat her savagely, and left.

The girl limped five miles down a dirt road until she reached a truck stop and dialed 911. Juab County Attorney David Leavitt, brother of the gov_ernor, filed charges and won convictions of the uncle for incest and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and of the father for abuse.http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/polygamous.htm

Nor is it a marriage - not by me. Not because of polygamy - but because a wife is "reassigned" to a new husband whenever the prophet likes. If you can be "reassigned" - you aren't a wife, you are a concubine.

[KatyDid]

From the mouth of one of Tom Green's 'former' wives.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2007/08/tom-green-parole-hearing.htm

"Here is what she had to say:

I am a victim of Tom Green's religoius beliefs, his lifestyle and his actions.

My mother took me to live with Tom Green when I was 12. He was married to my mother and my sister. Soon after I began living in his house he began preparing me to be his plural wife, which preparation included sexual abuse of me.

I sought protection of the state of Utah as a 13-year-old girl. After a few months of foster care I was given back to Tom Green largely because the state of Utah did not understand or have the courage to deal with the practice of polygamy.

I trusted that the state of Utah would protect me but I was wrong. A short time later Tom married me. I was 14 years old at the time. I had five children with Tom, as his fifth wife. It was not the life I chose but the life I was dealt."



more of her story at the link...

[lotty]

Originally posted by walton


Lotty you ought to have your dad put some of those stories on paper. Or have your dad tell them again and record them. He had to have seen/heard an awful lot. [/*]

I think I will do just that, for many reasons. He means an awful lot to me. I can't imagine what these children (FLDS) grow up with as fathers...even if they mean well, you can only work so many hours a day, and spend so much time with your children. The best father (FLDS) would seem to be spread far too thin. As always JMO/IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by KatyDid
From the mouth of one of Tom Green's 'former' wives.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2007/08/tom-green-parole-hearing.htm

"Here is what she had to say:

I am a victim of Tom Green's religoius beliefs, his lifestyle and his actions.

My mother took me to live with Tom Green when I was 12. He was married to my mother and my sister. Soon after I began living in his house he began preparing me to be his plural wife, which preparation included sexual abuse of me.

I sought protection of the state of Utah as a 13-year-old girl. After a few months of foster care I was given back to Tom Green largely because the state of Utah did not understand or have the courage to deal with the practice of polygamy.

I trusted that the state of Utah would protect me but I was wrong. A short time later Tom married me. I was 14 years old at the time. I had five children with Tom, as his fifth wife. It was not the life I chose but the life I was dealt."



more of her story at the link... [/*]

:rose: For all of these girls, that are not ready for these decisions...and for those that feel they must go against their conscience to remain in the only world they know.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
My children were taught this too about lying, and yet they still do it. :shrug:


How do you explain that? They know it also applies to salvation but still they sin. :shrug: [/*]And the girls are taught that about marriage, and some of them still resist - but there's nothing they can do to stop it.


You really taught your kids lying once means you burn in Hell forever? Wow.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



LINK? YOU know this as fact again, how? [/*]
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9251450
Former under-age polygamous bride tells all in book
Elissa Wall launched the case against Warren Jeffs
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/14/2008 07:48:43 AM MDT

The book's fulcrum is Wall's 2001 arranged marriage at age 14 - despite her objections - to her cousin Allen Steed, then 19.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
LINK? YOU know this as fact again, how? [/*]Ummm - duh - because they said so? Yeesh - read up on the links! Or look at the story I posted - what - half an hour ago? Or the court case that put Jeffs in prison? Or what the FLDS children themselves say?

Take your pick.

[Details]

One person? I listed several sources. And they all tell the same story of what living in the FLDS is like. All of them were victimized by the same person as controls the Texas compound.

Wall is a good one because it's a court case - so all of the testimony (and - guess what - it wasn't only her testifying about cult life, married life, etc.) was under oath and on the record. There's several great books, for something thorough, and interviews and stories from a huge number of people - including current cult members - if you like bulk. And there's the testimony and documents presented for this court case as well.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Seriously, this is pathetic that you & Details keep repeating one persons story as fact for 416 kids that woman probably doesnt even know. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/*]

Ummm well she said one of the mothers at the compound YFZ in Eldorado, TX is her cousin! Talk about pathetic...since "she probably doesn't know any of them"...I'll bet you probably know all of them.

[walton]

Originally posted by lotty


I think I will do just that, for many reasons. He means an awful lot to me. I can't imagine what these children (FLDS) grow up with as fathers...even if they mean well, you can only work so many hours a day, and spend so much time with your children. The best father (FLDS) would seem to be spread far too thin. As always JMO/IMO [/*]

My dad died one year. My mother the following. My oldest brother the third and another brother the fourth.

To see what they saw is wisdom gained. jmo

Hopefully one day you'll share what he shares.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



From your own link!


Wall was stunned to learn from Jessop that she was to be married at age 14.
All of her sisters had been 18 when they wed, except for one that married at 17.


"I hadn't heard of anyone getting married at fourteen for some time," she writes.


Does that mean it doesnt happen often at all? I think so! [/*]

That was 2001, Warren took over in 2002 and if you research them he was accelerating things, including underage "marriage."

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Seriously, this is pathetic that you & Details keep repeating one persons story as fact for 416 kids that woman probably doesnt even know. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/*]




http://www.bankingonheaven.com/

[Details]

From the trial to determine if the kids should be kept or returned:But that focus, at least in testimony on behalf of the state, was that FLDS members without question follow directives from religious leaders, including allowing underage girls to "spiritually" wed older men. Some young women, state investigators testified, said that it was a "blessing" to have children and no age was too young for a spiritual union.

.... Under cross-examination by the state's attorney, Merilyn Jeffs' answers became measured and slow, and were given with some reluctance. Although she testified that she has a 19-year-old sister who is married, she said she didn't know when the marriage took place.

When the attorney asked if she knew how her sister was married, she replied, "After it's done, they come and we congratulate them." When asked the age of her sister's baby, she said, "I estimate 2." She also said she has another married sister and said, "I believe she is 18."http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271967,00.html?pg=2

Right from their own mouth. Although there are plenty of others - including the interview where FLDS threatened the interviewer that he'd better not broadcast it after a little too much truth came out.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
..."I hadn't heard of anyone getting married at fourteen for some time," she writes.


Does that mean it doesnt happen often at all? I think so! [/*]Ah - so it's OK sometimes? And the pedophiles must be safe so long as they get their 14 year old sometimes? How often is OK to you, to select a random child and hand them over to have sex with an adult?

[lotty]

Originally posted by walton


My dad died one year. My mother the following. My oldest brother the third and another brother the fourth.

To see what they saw is wisdom gained. jmo

Hopefully one day you'll share what he shares. [/*]

I'm sorry for your loss.
My mother and my brother died a year apart, the rest of my family is very important to me, I was pretty young when they died and both very suddenly.

You know I will.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
They are not a cult, dont be disrespectful of another persons religion just because you dont agree with their beliefs. That is just wrong! :no: [/*]They're a cult. And it wouldn't matter if their beliefs were in Godiva chocolate and the immaculate softness of kitten fur - if they've got the marks of a cult, they're a cult.

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Seriously, this is pathetic that you & Details keep repeating one persons story as fact for 416 kids that woman probably doesnt even know. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: [/*]

http://www.childbrides.org/sara.html

Hammon said her father began abusing her when she was about 5. This was the same father who would deliver stern Sunday sermons on purity, propriety and, above all, unquestioning obedience of wives to husbands, children to parents and everyone to the prophet. "I knew it was wrong," she said. "... But they were all doing it."

[lotty]

Originally posted by walton





http://www.bankingonheaven.com/ [/*]

Yes ma'am, even Winston Blackmore said on LKL that Warren was told to stop the under age marriages, by the churches lawyers.

It's out there all you have to do is look.

[walton]

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=954721e8-1fce-4*42-989e-5f07138dc186


Words from their Prophet. His picture is hanging on their walls.

At times, Jeffs tells his followers that he is speaking to them after getting direct guidance from God.

"I'm just a damn soul, damned soul," he said.

"I was immoral with a sister and a daughter when I was younger, so the Lord showed me I'm one of the most wicked men on the face of the Earth since father Adam's time," Jeffs said on Jan. 24.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings


I do not doubt she is related to someone or all of them for that matter since they marry in their group. But she did not live in Texas, she lived in the Utah group as far as I know. [/*]

Huh? If they can move an 18,000 sq ft building overnight and make it disappear, people wouldn't be a problem. These people are moved around everywhere. That's why so many on the Bishops list were listed as Short Creek for the their residence and are now in Texas. South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, British Columbia CA and Mexico...oh yeah, Idaho, Montana...

As always JMO/IMO

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Well then Elissa Wall must be a liar, because she says that a marriage at age 14 was something she couldnt even think of happening for some time. :shrug:


Or Maybe every group is and every girls experience is quite different. [/*]Wow - so quick to call an abused girl a liar. You just look for any excuse, don't you. Even deciding that a 2 year old Elisa Wall should be able to remember Hammon's marriage in 1989.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
So then according to you that would make Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics and Wicca cults too then.


Disclaimer: And all the rest too, those cults not mentioned are no less important to the definition. [/*]No - they do not fit the definition of a cult.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
How do you know he was not getting direct guidance from God? [/*]If he was is child rape OK? Just like sacrificing your son is OK, if it's for God?

[walton]

Originally posted by Bratlings



How do you know he was not getting direct guidance from God? [/*]

Huh?

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Not at all, I was contrasting the two stories by pointing out to you that both could be quite truthful and completely contradict each other. Nice try though at twisting my words.:no:

What in the world are you talking about? I never said any such thing! :no: [/*]Sure you did - you're questioning her story because you see this other girl married at 14, and Elisa said she couldn't imagine that. However - you missed that the other girl was married when Elisa was 2 years old - so Elisa's story was in no way inconsistient with the other girl's story.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Sorry! I forgot you are the one who determines what everything means and forces it down our throats as the gospel, while completely disregarding any other opinions... what is your cult called again? [/*]I'm not - the dictionary is. Common definitions are. A cult is a group characterized by extreme views, isolation from society, and following a single charismatic leader. None of the groups you listed are isolated from society, to take just one of the standard, dictionary, criteria for a cult.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Yes it is inconsistent because you maintain that forced child marriage is common place. [/*]I do? Where did I say that I believed that child marriage has been commonplace since 1989? I believe it is commonplace in present day FLDS. And all of the records back that up. All of the information from inside the cult says that the current leader, Jeffs, was the one who changed the way the cult behaves, younger and younger girls, reassigning, and plenty of other issues. And he became head of the cult in 2002, although he had a lot of power for the last few years before that.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
:lol: I dont see anything extreme about their views. Again "extreme" is subjective like everything else you have decided is fact. [/*]There's a shock. Nothing extreme about polygamy (while I don't mind that, it is extreme - incredibly few believe in that). Nothing extreme about forcing a 14 year old girl to marry. Yep, nice and moderate people.

[juliekan]

Wow where is Eva....? she might be a relief from Brng....
Hey Eva :seeya:

[lotty]

Hiya Julie :seeya:

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
What is, "All of the information"? What "records back that up"? Where are these links?

You dont have all of the information, nobody does because they are a very private group. What you are doing is judging the ENTIRE group on a handful of peoples stories of thousands of people. [/*]Nope. I'm judging Jeffs and his priesthood - based on not only stories from hundreds (just look at stats of lost boys, the stories of the men expelled - 20 in one group not long ago - expelled but their wives and children are kept and given to another man, let alone the women who escape), but also statistical evidence, and their own little logbooks of marriages and births. All those other thousands - Jeffs controls what they may and may not do, and those who are good and honorable are thrown out if male, unable to do anything if female.


The links have been posted plenty. You haven't read, that I can tell, what has been posted so far - that will lead you to more than enough if you read them.

[juliekan]

:seeya: Bratlings is uh...has uh...well uh...interesting point of view from an FLDS? Actually sounds true to what we have read about FLDS.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



What is, "All of the information"? What "records back that up"? Where are these links?

You dont have all of the information, nobody does because they are a very private group. What you are doing is judging the ENTIRE group on a handful of peoples stories of thousands of people. [/*]

So discard what the people who are no longer members say? Why?

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Thats right, and you said it! It is not based upon any facts you can prove, it is based upon your opinion. And you havent posted any links because there are no statistics on polygamy... are there? :lol: [/*]

Oh honey, you just want us to do the work...one link will keep you busy all night

http://rickross.com

Just go to today's cult headlines and start reading...and get back with me in a week or so ;)

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Thats right, and you said it! It is not based upon any facts you can prove, it is based upon your opinion. And you havent posted any links because there are no statistics on polygamy... are there? :lol: [/*]

Wasn't Jeffs on the FBI's ten most wanted list? Hasn't he already been found guilty of accomplice to rape? Isn't he coming up for a trial in AZ? Did I miss something?

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
What is extreme about it? AGAIN how would you know this that "incredibly few believe in that"? AGAIN where do you get your information?

LINKS? [/*]You think it's OK for a 14 year old to marry? Here - I'll tell you exactly what's extreme about it - no link needed.

This is America (should I link to an atlas?). We have a democracy - politicians are elected by a majority of the people (OK, a Republic) - should I link here to an elementary school political science text? Politicians make laws (per Schoolhouse Rock). Thus, any law made indicates that at the least, a majority of Americans do not strongly oppose it. Pedophilia is not only against the law, it is strongly prosecuted, new laws, stronger laws are put on the books all over the place, national systems to protect children at risk have been added. There, alone, is proof of how much pedophilia is extreme.


If you need a further link - go to Google, get a poll on how many would consider the death penalty for pedophiles. Pretty good evidence it's extreme. The one and only crime other than murder that the death penalty is even considered for.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Bratlings


Thanks! So is your perspective of your cult, exactly what I have heard about it. :beer: [/*]

After you read the site I posted above (rickross.com), please come back and explain what this means. Don't worry, God willin' and the creek don't rise I'll be here in a week.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No I believe what they said happened to them. I said I dont believe that is common place throughout all polygamists or that it is acceptable to all of them. [/*]

Oh, see I don't discuss polygamy, just FLDS.

If you are free and a legal adult...whatever floats your boat, just don't slap me with an oar on your way down stream. See I thought this was an FLDS conversation, I didn't realize this was just general polygamy.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Thats right, and you said it! It is not based upon any facts you can prove, it is based upon your opinion. And you havent posted any links because there are no statistics on polygamy... are there? :lol: [/*]What does polygamy have to do with anything? No one is going after anyone for polygamy. It's for child abuse. Jeffs and his priesthood have, provably, caused an underage girl to be raped, documented evidence for many more in Texas. That's no opinion - that's fact.

What statistic do you want on polygamy? You want proof that most don't believe in it - take a look at the number of marriages that involve more than one person. It'd be easy to see - any system where each guy gets two women means a huge population of unmarried men unable to get one wife. You don't see that.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Bratlings



:lol: No statistics there either! [/*]

OK I even took Evelyn Wood speed reading in college and there is no way you even had time to scroll down one page of that site in that amount of time :read: please :read:

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
No I believe what they said happened to them. I said I dont believe that is common place throughout all polygamists or that it is acceptable to all of them. [/*]Then you don't read. Their leader, Jeffs, is the one who explicitly forced it on Elisa Wall - and many others, per their stories - and worse.

This isn't about all polygamist - this is about FLDS. Jeffs is the unconditional, sole leader of FLDS. What he says goes. You dispute - you lose your home, wife, and children.

[lotty]

Somewhere I read there were a couple of professors doing a 3 to 5 year study on polygamy, I will definitely be looking up that. Not that it matters to me.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
WOW no one ever told me that polygamy only involved 14 year old girls? So what happens when they turn 15 then? What if they are 18 when they get married as 2nd or 3rd wife then they are not polygamists? [/*]Didn't think you were really reading. Thanks.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I did and the FLDS is not even a sub topic, but looking under Mormons still there are NO statistics. Nice try! [/*]

Check all sites listed for polygamy...FLDS is many of the sites...

are you sure you can read? I'm sure you didn't read a single thing, but are espousing there were no statistics. Just maybe a little math anxiety with the stats? :) If you're that dead set on not reading I might find the sites and FEED you the statistics, but from your other posts I figure you would just barf if I did.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
One persons personal experience does not speak for the beliefs of thousands of others. You already stated your "opinion" and stated it as fact about one hundred times, come up with something new already. :rolleyes: [/*]You're looking for something new? I will when you will. How about you actually read the rickross site, and prove it by telling us about one or two stories on there.

Just for something different.


And - until then - I'll keep repeating - it's not one person, it's many. It's not just Elisa - she's just the most recent one to have her case proven in court to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. There's the other girl whose story you wanted to use to make 2 year old Elisa a liar, there's a few books by several people, there's a few hundred lost boys, there's the husbands, there's even the current FLDS members who every here and there in the media accidentally tell the truth.

[Details]

Originally posted by juliekan
...If you're that dead set on not reading I might find the sites and FEED you the statistics, but from your other posts I figure you would just barf if I did. [/*]No reason to FEED - as they say - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. It's all a choice - more than enough information has been posted, plenty of links, and quotes from them for those who don't care to click through and read the whole story.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Details
No reason to FEED - as they say - you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. It's all a choice - more than enough information has been posted, plenty of links, and quotes from them for those who don't care to click through and read the whole story. [/*]

Amen sister! I'm tired of posting sites that the argumentatives won't even :read: I'll check out their sites...when they occasionally post something to go with their opinion...;)

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
It does NOT matter if it is a thousand people, they can not speak for everyone elses beliefs and every other groups practices. If that were the case Elissa Wall could be testifying against every man in every group as evidence. But she cant... WHY? Because it is her own experience and not evidence of anyone elses experience.


Until you get that you will be on "mute", maybe one of your judgmental cronies could let me know when you have expanded your thought process to include anything else and I will be happy to listen again. [/*]It does matter - because it was not some random man accused of rape, it is the cult's leader who controls, according to both ex-FLDS, and current FLDS, every bit of their existience.

And - as I said - she's only one of many. And they matter - because they ALL TELL THE SAME STORY. If you looked up a few thousand ex-Catholics - you might find one or two with a story of abuse, and most to say that life was good, nothing is bad about the religion. But EVERY ex-FLDS member that has ever spoken says the same thing about the FLDS.

[Details]

Closing your eyes and refusing to read proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's your choice.

[juliekan]

:beer: and

:yawn: icon

:seeya:

[Details]

Funny. Per FLDS members - nearly none finish high school. Lost boys come out undereducated for their age, the girls all say the same. We had a fun poster before who posted the damning statistic that in a given year, .24% of foster care girls became pregnant. For FLDS - it's 58%. Even taking 4 years of foster care (the years for ages 14-17) - you get 1% versus 58%.

I always love that stat - comparing foster care children to the general population. Yeah, let's compare children with good homes to children abused by their parents until they have to go to a foster home. A real comparison is to compare abused children who do and do not go to foster care. As I said last time this false comparison was brought up - you could look at the crime rate of nuns versus the general population, and come to the conclusion that a black robe will solve all of society's problems. Or compare the death rate of NICU babies to all babies and decide NICU is killing babies.



I don't see the point of those stats - to say that pedophilia and child abuse is OK if you graduate high school? Or should we look at the stats of percenage of prisoners who were abused as a child.


Oh - and that 80% - I suspect all the stats are about equally reliable - this study seems to contradict that no little bit - says the percent is more like 8 to 18% (Federal versus State prisions). Having a parent who abused alcohol or drugs was an even better predictor of whether they'd go to prison. And look at the abuse stats.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gBHljEPxDk0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=percentage+inmates+foster+care&source=web&ots=ulzbJJzb1S&sig=TF0VKWxgkM5U5-vYIwlZOSEP2zg&hl=en#PPA17,M1

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by Bratlings



It does NOT matter if it is a thousand people, they can not speak for everyone elses beliefs and every other groups practices.
[/*]

<snipped>

Do you think that rule applied to all of Jim Jones' followers? How about David Koresh's followers - or the members of Heaven's Gate?

If you were referring to the average person in this country, belonging to a mainstream church, I could agree with your statement. But as soon as religious cult comes into the picture - all of that goes out the window.

FLDS members DO share the same beliefs. If they did not, they would not BE FLDS. They would either leave on their own or get kicked out. And what they believe is that if the prophet says it, it is the same as if it was spoken by God. No ifs, ands or buts. To NOT go along would be the same as defying God. It is hammered into them from the moment they are born - disagreeing with Warren Jeffs results in them first being told they are doomed to h#ll - if that doesn't get them in line & into compliance, they are culled out.

If you don't know anything more, you should at least know that.

JMO

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Funny. Per FLDS members - nearly none finish high school. Lost boys come out undereducated for their age, the girls all say the same. We had a fun poster before who posted the damning statistic that in a given year, .24% of foster care girls became pregnant. For FLDS - it's 58%. Even taking 4 years of foster care (the years for ages 14-17) - you get 1% versus 58%.

I always love that stat - comparing foster care children to the general population. Yeah, let's compare children with good homes to children abused by their parents until they have to go to a foster home. A real comparison is to compare abused children who do and do not go to foster care. As I said last time this false comparison was brought up - you could look at the crime rate of nuns versus the general population, and come to the conclusion that a black robe will solve all of society's problems. Or compare the death rate of NICU babies to all babies and decide NICU is killing babies.



I don't see the point of those stats - to say that pedophilia and child abuse is OK if you graduate high school? Or should we look at the stats of percenage of prisoners who were abused as a child.


Oh - and that 80% - I suspect all the stats are about equally reliable - this study seems to contradict that no little bit - says the percent is more like 8 to 18% (Federal versus State prisions). Having a parent who abused alcohol or drugs was an even better predictor of whether they'd go to prison. And look at the abuse stats.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gBHljEPxDk0C&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=percentage+inmates+foster+care&source=web&ots=ulzbJJzb1S&sig=TF0VKWxgkM5U5-vYIwlZOSEP2zg&hl=en#PPA17,M1 [/*]

Here's a stat.. 100 % of the time, based on your posts, you feel the only statistical data that is accurate is that which you post

[evalles]

Originally posted by juliekan


OK I even took Evelyn Wood speed reading in college and there is no way you even had time to scroll down one page of that site in that amount of time :read: please :read: [/*]

Do you now determine what is required reading ?
This link doesn't mention anything in regards to the 464 children in state custody.

A lot of nerve to give an order and expect it to be followed.
:no:

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
Here's a stat.. 100 % of the time, based on your posts, you feel the only statistical data that is accurate is that which you post [/*]Actually - that 1% (pregnancies in foster care) was from the statistics you posted. So, seems that 100% is incorrect.

Hmm - two sources - one bunch of links with all kinds of foster care doom and gloom groups as the sources, the other a book of statistics and research done on prisons. I do indeed think the unbiased, non-agenda-driven source is more accurate. That's why I went looking for it.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Actually - that 1% (pregnancies in foster care) was from the statistics you posted. So, seems that 100% is incorrect.

Hmm - two sources - one bunch of links with all kinds of foster care doom and gloom groups as the sources, the other a book of statistics and research done on prisons. I do indeed think the unbiased, non-agenda-driven source is more accurate. That's why I went looking for it. [/*]

Again, accurate if it fits your agenda and your bias.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
Again, accurate if it fits your agenda and your bias. [/*]Ah - changing your position now? You said I only believed stats I personally posted. When I showed that I was trusting one you posted - oops - you just dodge around that.

Funny.

My agenda is the truth, my bias is to protect children from abuse - I've no problems with either of those.

[Details]

Nope. No one was ordered to read anything. A poster was pointed to a website as a good source of statistics, came back almost immediately claiming there were no stats on the website. Since obviously they didn't look, given the size of the website - people did indeed laugh.

Someone else did suggest that maybe you look what is in a link before you claim to know what is and is not in there. I know I've seen plenty of articles linked from rickross about this cult. And directions were given to the relevant section for links relevant to this case.


Can't you stick to what people actually say? Or do you have to make things up to make your points?

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by evalles


This is what she ordered the poster to read..
Welcome to the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey
[/*]

<snipped>

Word to the wise for you - you need to post the link if you are going to quote from it.

(just thought you should know)

[evalles]

Originally posted by Mimi428


<snipped>

Word to the wise for you - you need to post the link if you are going to quote from it.

(just thought you should know) [/*]

The link is above and was given by another poster.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Nope. No one was ordered to read anything. A poster was pointed to a website as a good source of statistics, came back almost immediately claiming there were no stats on the website. Since obviously they didn't look, given the size of the website - people did indeed laugh.

Someone else did suggest that maybe you look what is in a link before you claim to know what is and is not in there. I know I've seen plenty of articles linked from rickross about this cult. And directions were given to the relevant section for links relevant to this case.


Can't you stick to what people actually say? Or do you have to make things up to make your points? [/*]

This is what the poster actually said.

Oh honey, you just want us to do the work...one link will keep you busy all night

http://rickross.com

Just go to today's cult headlines and start reading...and get back with me in a week or so
**** Nope. No suggestions here, just go to it,start readin, get back to me in a week.

That's what she said, and I'm stickin' to it.

[Details]

No order there. Just a suggestion.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Really? Because I find it VERY hard to believe they are doing any of that without a court order, and I highly doubt that any judge is accepting evidence of solely "body language." I think the truth is you dont know very much at all about how the system works. [/*]


Go back & reread my post. I never said body language was the sole evidence observed & reported. I think the truth is you either have a reading comprehension issue or you are trying to twist my words into something they are not. The former you must deal with on your own, the latter will not work. I know well how both the medical system & the CPS system works. Have had to testify in hearings & court in CPS cases as to what I heard, observed, etc.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings


You still havent provided not one single link to back up all your so called statistics and fact. [/*]


It is not the law in Texas now that 14 year olds can marry.

<<Under 18:

If you are between 16 and 17 years old, you may apply for a marriage license in Texas only if you have written parental consent on an official form in the presence of the county clerk or if you have received an order from the Texas district court authorizing your marriage.
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/p/texas.htm >>

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Then maybe we should consider what the new Justices would decide. Which we cant do and that isnt how it works. That case stands as guidance for deciding all law in regard to parental rights until the Supreme court decides to reconsider it. Which they will not do until they need to clarify a case that is outside the scope of what has already been decided. They do not just wake up one day and decide to change prior laws. [/*]


You are exactly right, the case law is a guideline, nothing more. It is not an amendment to the Constitution, it does not give any rights to anyone. So the Constitution does NOT guarantee any parental rights.

[Details]

Originally posted by warhorse46
You are exactly right, the case law is a guideline, nothing more. It is not an amendment to the Constitution, it does not give any rights to anyone. So the Constitution does NOT guarantee any parental rights. [/*]What was interesting is that that case was explicitly declared to be about infringement on parental rights WHEN there was no abuse alleged - and declared to only be about how sweeping the given law was. It was a pretty narrow ruling.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by KatyDid


:D

That kinda sounds like the media when they say they have a source.

I've been following this mess since Warren Jeffs ran, got captured, was tried and found guilty.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anything written on these people divorcing to remarry. Mostly what I've read is they think they are above the law and there is no need to divorce for the purpose of remarrying. [/*]


All I have heard is the women get "reassigned", nothing about any divorces.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by warhorse46



All I have heard is the women get "reassigned", nothing about any divorces. [/*]

Well, there wouldn't be, if they weren't the first, legal wife. No legal marriage, no need for a legal divorce.

I'm still reading Stolen Innocence, the book written by Elissa Wall (the young woman who testified against Warren Jeffs). She discusses her mother being reassigned. There was no divorce, since her mother was a second wife. Her mother was just ordered to pack up her kids and drive to another community, where she was reassigned to "Uncle Fred" Jessop.

There's some very interesting info in the book... When a woman and her children are reassigned, the FLDS teaches that God changes the DNA and blood of the children to match their "new" father. They are expected to never speak of their old father again, to act like he never existed.

That's ALL kinds of creepy.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


Well, there wouldn't be, if they weren't the first, legal wife. No legal marriage, no need for a legal divorce.

I'm still reading Stolen Innocence, the book written by Elissa Wall (the young woman who testified against Warren Jeffs). She discusses her mother being reassigned. There was no divorce, since her mother was a second wife. Her mother was just ordered to pack up her kids and drive to another community, where she was reassigned to "Uncle Fred" Jessop.

There's some very interesting info in the book... When a woman and her children are reassigned, the FLDS teaches that God changes the DNA and blood of the children to match their "new" father. They are expected to never speak of their old father again, to act like he never existed.

That's ALL kinds of creepy. [/*]

OMG~~what an unbelievable statement about the DNA changing. It just shows how sheltered these people are from the real world truths.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


Well, there wouldn't be, if they weren't the first, legal wife. No legal marriage, no need for a legal divorce.

I'm still reading Stolen Innocence, the book written by Elissa Wall (the young woman who testified against Warren Jeffs). She discusses her mother being reassigned. There was no divorce, since her mother was a second wife. Her mother was just ordered to pack up her kids and drive to another community, where she was reassigned to "Uncle Fred" Jessop.

There's some very interesting info in the book... When a woman and her children are reassigned, the FLDS teaches that God changes the DNA and blood of the children to match their "new" father. They are expected to never speak of their old father again, to act like he never existed.

That's ALL kinds of creepy. [/*]

What a silly teaching! That dna can just magically change to match the new father! Just shows to what lengths they will go to practice their criminal behavior IMO.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Obviously you have no respect for organized religion or the teachings of Christ. Therefor do not bother directing any more twisted religious interpretations at me.:rolleyes: [/*]


Uhhh, could you point out the specific teachings of Christ about marrying multiple females, about many of those females minor children, about uprooting women & children from one home & reassigning them to another man & home. I admit to not being a very religious person so I must have missed those teachings of Christ.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



:lol: I dont see anything extreme about their views. Again "extreme" is subjective like everything else you have decided is fact. [/*]

So you don`t think it is extreme for men to have multiple wives @ the same time? So you do not think it is extreme for the cult to teach its members it is right for men to "marry" underage minor girls & father children by them? So you don`t think it is extreme for the cult to reassign women & children to other men @ will?

<<<Main Entry: 1ex·treme
Pronunciation: \ik-ˈstrçm\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin extremus, superl. of exter, exterus being on the outside — more at exterior
Date: 15th century
1 a: existing in a very high degree <extreme poverty> *: going to great or exaggerated lengths : radical <went on an extreme diet> c: exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected <extreme weather conditions>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/extreme >>>

[P Kay]

Originally posted by warhorse46



Uhhh, could you point out the specific teachings of Christ about marrying multiple females, about many of those females minor children, about uprooting women & children from one home & reassigning them to another man & home. I admit to not being a very religious person so I must have missed those teachings of Christ. [/*]

:shrug: I missed 'em too

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



No I believe what they said happened to them. I said I dont believe that is common place throughout all polygamists or that it is acceptable to all of them. [/*]



This is a discussion about the FLDS, not all polygamy. What two or more consenting adults do together is of absolutely no concern to me. But when it involves a minor child it becomes a crime & that does concern me. That is what is being investigated, child abuse, not their religious practices between ADULTS.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



:lol: No statistics there either! [/*]



You are wanting statistics, well give us statistics to support your claims to the opposite.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



One persons personal experience does not speak for the beliefs of thousands of others. You already stated your "opinion" and stated it as fact about one hundred times, come up with something new already. :rolleyes: [/*]



If it was just one person then I would agree with you, however it is way more than just one person speaking out. And all of their information is the same even tho they come from different compounds. Same story just a change of names plugged in.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles


Here's a stat.. 100 % of the time, based on your posts, you feel the only statistical data that is accurate is that which you post [/*]


Apparently you have not read this thread, it is Brattlins that is asking for statistics, Details just provided them for him/her.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Details
What was interesting is that that case was explicitly declared to be about infringement on parental rights WHEN there was no abuse alleged - and declared to only be about how sweeping the given law was. It was a pretty narrow ruling. [/*]

It was a very narrow ruling addressing just that specific issue, in that one specific case, not some wide sweeping amendment to the Constitution like the poster wants us to believe.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Soldiermom08


Yes, good to keep that in mind. Unfortunately the child abuse is so directly tied to their practice of having multiple wives that its hard to think of one without thing of the other. I can't honestly make the statement that what they do together is not my business, because not only the child abuse, in many forms, but also because of the 'crime' of the 'leaders' to brainwash these women...women don't have to live like that. I feel bad for them. Even as they lie and cover up, as bad as I think that is, I know that they don't know any different. And thats sad. [/*]


I understand your point. But some of the adult women have college degrees which has put them in touch with the outside world so they do know of a different lifestyle & choose to stay in the FLDS lifestyle.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Details has NEVER provided any on FLDS or polygamy. :rolleyes: He just keeps making references to them as if they do and providing links that offer nothing. Its all a scam. [/*]



Obviously you have not read what Details has posted then because he/she posted a long post with statistics. Where are your stats supporting your claims that I asked for?

[xray ra]

hey everyone:seeya:

Where did our LINKS thread go? I thought CW had made it a STICKY!!!!
It would seem many questions here have been answered multiple times and the links thread would be very VERY useful. Especially to some of our newer posters!!!

Nice to see you again Warhorse!! I hear it's been pretty hot out there in my old neck of the woods!!!!:)

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by xray ra
hey everyone:seeya:

Where did our LINKS thread go? I thought CW had made it a STICKY!!!!
It would seem many questions here have been answered multiple times and the links thread would be very VERY useful. Especially to some of our newer posters!!!

Nice to see you again Warhorse!! I hear it's been pretty hot out there in my old neck of the woods!!!!:) [/*]

Hiya xray :seeya:

Our links thread disappeared a couple of days ago. Just went poof. Shame too since there were so many valuable links there. Now the links get stuck in the dailys.

[Details]

Originally posted by Bratlings
Details has NEVER provided any on FLDS or polygamy. :rolleyes: He just keeps making references to them as if they do and providing links that offer nothing. Its all a scam. [/*]You weren't asking for stats on FLDS - the discussion was about prison populations and foster care - and I provided those stats. A nice link too - formal study in an online book. You never clicked it - did you?

What stats you are looking for on the FLDS I don't know - I've posted links to all kinds of information on them. And I've provided a link numerous times to the most interesting stat - the 36 vanished boys. I've used evales's stat and CPS's stat to compare the percentage of underage pregnancy in foster homes versus FLDS - which one are you speaking of?

[xray ra]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I meant to say NEVER provided any links "for" statistics. [/*]

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use the word NEVER!!!!
:no:
You would have to go back and read all the links from day one.

Trust me (or not) Details has been on this board since the beginning of April and has posted abundant links. Take your pick, but you MUST :read:

[walton]

Originally posted by xray ra


Didn't your mother ever tell you not to use the word NEVER!!!!
:no:
You would have to go back and read all the links from day one.

Trust me (or not) Details has been on this board since the beginning of April and has posted abundant links. Take your pick, but you MUST :read: [/*]


:beer: I couldn't have said it any better.



I started a link thread.

[xray ra]

All I have to say is WOW.
And BTW, I have noticed some shouting on the board. Wonder what that is all about?:biggrin:

[evalles]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Details has NEVER provided any on FLDS for polygamy. :rolleyes: He just keeps making references to them as if they do and providing links that offer nothing. Its all a scam. [/*]

You're right. Any statistics are compared to the FLDS situation and any statistics on FLDS are speculative because nobody has any factual figures.

[Details]

Sure stats exist. And I've posted those, as have others. From memory, it's 426 kids at the compound, in those from 0 to 13 years of age, the genders are split almost precisely 50/50. In those from 14-17 - there are 53 girls - and 17 boys. There's your statistics. They've been linked a ton of times, by me and others. And it's one of the more interesting stats. Of those 53 girls, per CPS reports, 58% are pregnant or have children.

Lots of good stats. Some of the other links you haven't clicked have more interesting stats about how many lost boys, how many show up on one person's doorstep per week, how many made a demonstration a few years ago to try to get some help and recognition, etc. And there's the more individual stories of cast out fathers trying to get any access to their stolen children, lost wives.

[LLaFren]

Hey guys....

STAY on thread, or we risk being shut down!:no:

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Sure stats exist. And I've posted those, as have others. From memory, it's 426 kids at the compound, in those from 0 to 13 years of age, the genders are split almost precisely 50/50. In those from 14-17 - there are 53 girls - and 17 boys. There's your statistics. They've been linked a ton of times, by me and others. And it's one of the more interesting stats. Of those 53 girls, per CPS reports, 58% are pregnant or have children.

Lots of good stats. Some of the other links you haven't clicked have more interesting stats about how many lost boys, how many show up on one person's doorstep per week, how many made a demonstration a few years ago to try to get some help and recognition, etc. And there's the more individual stories of cast out fathers trying to get any access to their stolen children, lost wives. [/*]

CPS stats ? They're classifying children as adults and claim they don't really know who anybody is or how old they are.
They're disregarding birth certificates and state ID's.
The last I heard the count was at 464 kids. They were all removed because 30 teenagers are or have been pregnant ?
And this isn't for sure because they claim not to know how old the kids are.

Supposing that the maybe 30 girls were victims of abuse, the took 464 kids because 13.94% got pregnant & might have been abused.
So, if that turns out to be correct over 86% weren't abused.
The Wall girl said that she knew nothing about sex until she was 14. If this is true, these small children had never suffered.....til' now.


Again there's no way of knowing if these figures are accurate because we don't have all the facts.

[xray ra]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Me too! this has got to be a record on these boards that people could continue to insist that there are statisics on flds or polygamy and not provide them! But I know you cant, and so do you.... so give it up already. :rolleyes: [/*]

Absolutely not!!!

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by xray ra


Absolutely not!!! [/*]

What are the specific stats being requested?

[xray ra]

IMO JMO ect..... I just stated that I thought there was alot of shouting going on here:lol:

[xray ra]

Thanks, Walton for starting a new links thread. I know all the hard work you have done for the past 6 weeks. I find myself going back thru the info from time to time.

I have a question. Does anyone know whether it is illegal in the state of Texas to marry a first cousin? What would constitute a violation of the incest laws?

After the DNA results are in, do you think some of these children may be the offspring of 1st or 2nd cousins? TIA

Thanks,:)

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by walton



:beer: I couldn't have said it any better.



I started a link thread. [/*]

Thank you for starting the thread Walton. I am trying to resurrect some of my bookmarks. I need my regular computer though. Hopefully this weekend I can get it hooked up.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by xray ra
Thanks, Walton for starting a new links thread. I know all the hard work you have done for the past 6 weeks. I find myself going back thru the info from time to time.

I have a question. Does anyone know whether it is illegal in the state of Texas to marry a first cousin? What would constitute a violation of the incest laws?

After the DNA results are in, do you think some of these children may be the offspring of 1st or 2nd cousins? TIA

Thanks,:) [/*]

http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=texas

As of September 1st, 2005, the state of Texas no longer accepts marriages between first cousins. In fact, the language of the new law now deems first cousin as felons! The civil marriage laws and criminal laws were amended.

:seeya:

[KatyDid]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274456,00.html

Changes in Texas law applicable to polygamy

Texas law makes it:
A first-degree felony for marrying a child younger than 16 and a second-degree felony for marrying a child 16 and 17.

A class A misdemeanor for a person to give consent for an underage marriage if they are not the parent, managing conservator or guardian of the applicant

A third-degree felony for a person to who knowingly conducts a marriage ceremony of a minor whose marriage is prohibited by law

A class A misdemeanor for knowingly providing false, fraudulent or otherwise inaccurate information regarding identity or age under this section

Illegal to marry a former or current stepchild, stepparent or cousin by blood or by adoption

So a person cannot 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


Source: Texas Legislature analysis

[xray ra]

Originally posted by KatyDid


http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=texas

As of September 1st, 2005, the state of Texas no longer accepts marriages between first cousins. In fact, the language of the new law now deems first cousin as felons! The civil marriage laws and criminal laws were amended.

:seeya: [/*]

Rut Roh!!!!! for the FDLS and YFZ ranch members.
And from your next post it sounds like the criminal charges against these men and women are going to take years to sort out!!!!

[Roux]

Originally posted by Bratlings



Polygamy or FLDS [/*]

Inasmuch as polygamy is illegal and the FLDS live segregated from society I would image that any statistics would be few. How could any statistical studies be done with these people since they are so secretive?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by xray ra


Rut Roh!!!!! for the FDLS and YFZ ranch members.
And from your next post it sounds like the criminal charges against these men and women are going to take years to sort out!!!! [/*]

Yeppers...some multiple charges in their for some of those men. Probably the men who have skipped town and are no where to be found.

[Roux]

Originally posted by Bratlings


You are absolutely right, they do not exist but some here keep insisting that they do and that is no problem except some posters keep citing them as proof of something. :shrug: [/*]

Sorry, I thought you were the one who desired statistics. Most of us are willing to accept the accounts of those who have left the cult, as well as the numerous reports done by the media over the past few years.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Roux


Inasmuch as polygamy is illegal and the FLDS live segregated from society I would image that any statistics would be few. How could any statistical studies be done with these people since they are so secretive? [/*]

There may be some statistical information in the records confiscated by Texas LE. In fact, there is information about the number of wives, children, head of household, etc.

There are stats out there, but there is not just one statistical study that covers every element of the FLDS or polygamy.

:)

[walton]

Originally posted by xray ra
Thanks, Walton for starting a new links thread. I know all the hard work you have done for the past 6 weeks. I find myself going back thru the info from time to time.

I have a question. Does anyone know whether it is illegal in the state of Texas to marry a first cousin? What would constitute a violation of the incest laws?

After the DNA results are in, do you think some of these children may be the offspring of 1st or 2nd cousins? TIA

Thanks,:) [/*]

I am not sure about the laws of Texas concerning first cousin marriages.

As far as these children being the offspring of 1st or 2nd cousins. yes.

I'll try to add a few more links each day. I am afraid that there is more to this whole story that we have yet to learn or confirm. :(

[evalles]

SAN ANTONIO -- When Texas child welfare authorities released statistics showing nearly 60 percent of the teen girls taken from a polygamist sect's ranch were pregnant or had children, they seemed to prove what was alleged all along: The sect commonly pushed girls into marriage and sex.

But in the past week, the state has twice been forced to admit "girls" who gave birth while in state custody are actually adults. One was 22 and claims she showed state officials a Utah birth certificate shortly after she and more than 400 minors were seized from the west Texas ranch in an April raid.

The state has in custody two dozen other young mothers and others whose ages are in dispute. If most of them also turn out to be adults, it would be a severe blow to the state's claim of widespread sexual abuse.

If it turns out the other 24 disputed minors are adults, the number of actual 14- to 17-year-old girls with children could drop to as low as five or six. That would amount to about one-fifth of the girls that age found at the ranch - substantially higher than the average rate of teen pregnancies in Texas but a far cry from 60 percent.

http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/648290.html

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Bratlings

Statistics are a collection of quantitative data , On their own they are not statistics. Until they have all of it, it will never be a statistic. [/*]

I was quoted once the line:

There are lies, d@mn lies, and statistics.

Can't remember where it originated from... but it was quoted to me by my statistics professor. He was pointing out that you needed to be VERY careful when quoting statistics, because, depending on how you included or excluded data, you could make statistics say anything you wanted.

A pregnant teenage girl isn't a statistic... it's a tragedy.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles
SAN ANTONIO -- When Texas child welfare authorities released statistics showing nearly 60 percent of the teen girls taken from a polygamist sect's ranch were pregnant or had children, they seemed to prove what was alleged all along: The sect commonly pushed girls into marriage and sex.

But in the past week, the state has twice been forced to admit "girls" who gave birth while in state custody are actually adults. One was 22 and claims she showed state officials a Utah birth certificate shortly after she and more than 400 minors were seized from the west Texas ranch in an April raid.

The state has in custody two dozen other young mothers and others whose ages are in dispute. If most of them also turn out to be adults, it would be a severe blow to the state's claim of widespread sexual abuse.

If it turns out the other 24 disputed minors are adults, the number of actual 14- to 17-year-old girls with children could drop to as low as five or six. That would amount to about one-fifth of the girls that age found at the ranch - substantially higher than the average rate of teen pregnancies in Texas but a far cry from 60 percent.

http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/648290.html [/*]

We'll see how it plays out. Given that the young ladies where changing their names and ages during interviews, I'm not surprised a few adults were mistaken for children. It's quite likely some of them understated their ages at least once in order to be taken along with the children so that they could be with them and work against CPS and LE from within.

Five or six pregnant girls is still five or six more than there should be.

[Rainkiss]

For those curious:

First Cousin Marriage Laws (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm)

A simple yes/no listing of which states permit first cousins to marry.

\
Arizona: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children. Half cousins, yes.
Utah: First cousins, yes, only if they are over a certain age or cannot bear children.
Texas: No.

I've just finished "Stolen Innocence," be Elissa Wall. She never attributes it to the fact that she was married to her first cousin against her will, however, she miscarried I believe it was no less than four children during her marriage, and bore no living children with him. After leaving him, she had two healthy children (so far) with her new husband. First cousins marrying is a dangerous genetic game, and there are a lot of children paying the price for it.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


We'll see how it plays out. Given that the young ladies where changing their names and ages during interviews, I'm not surprised a few adults were mistaken for children. It's quite likely some of them understated their ages at least once in order to be taken along with the children so that they could be with them and work against CPS and LE from within.

Five or six pregnant girls is still five or six more than there should be. [/*]

But far less than they claimed. I think the state is making excuses, they knew who she was and how old before the classified her as a minor. Apart from the claims, I'm not sure there was even a significant number that were "changing their names."
I wouldn't be surprised if there were only a few and CPS decided that they were all lying.

[LLaFren]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


I was quoted once the line:

There are lies, d@mn lies, and statistics.

Can't remember where it originated from... but it was quoted to me by my statistics professor. He was pointing out that you needed to be VERY careful when quoting statistics, because, depending on how you included or excluded data, you could make statistics say anything you wanted.

A pregnant teenage girl isn't a statistic... it's a tragedy. [/*]

Rainkiss, it was Mark Twain

"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain

And I agree, a pregnant teenage girl is a tragedy

LL

[Rainkiss]

Thanks, LLaFren, didn't have time to look it up.

Bratlings, have you read "Stolen Innocence," by Elissa Wall?

I'd half-expected, when I picked the book up, to find it a condemnation of the FLDS. It isn't. It's a fascinating insight into what it's like, growing up in the culture. She talks about how it feels to have her mother "reassigned" to another man, and the kind of pressure the "priesthood" can lever to force consent to a marriage.

She talks, very rationally and calmly, about the kinds of issues that come up when you have multiple wives in a family, and the power struggles that occur, particularly when a new wife is added to the mix. (Her own mother was a second wife, and she remembers the third being placed with her father.) She talks about the amount of control the prophet (first Warren Jeff's father then him) had over their lives and marriages.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Bratlings

No I havent read it, but I was wondering during 20/20 where was her loyalty to her cousin/husband. He may have been an adult but these people were so sheltered and raised their entire lives really knowing very little about the law and outside morals and opinions that he would not necessarily no any better than she did. If that is the case I wonder how she could actively work to send him to prison. I wonder if he did not treat her well, that caused her to feel indifferent to what happens to him.
*bandwidth snip* [/*]

His trial is upcoming. I didn't see the interview, but from what I gather from the book, she knew him for several years, and they never got along. Kid stuff, but he pulled some nasty pranks on her. When she found out she was going to be married, it was hard... when she found it it was HIM, she was terrified. She begged for more time, and for ANYBODY but him.

If half of what she wrote in her book is true, he needs to be locked up. The poor girl had been told her whole life to treat boys like "poisonous snakes," not touch them, then she got tossed into bed with a young man she loathed and was told that if she didn't "submit to him, body mind, and soul," that she was damned to hell... and so was her mother, since she obviously hadn't raised her right. (Not in so many words, but the implication was there.) The poor girl didn't even know what he was doing to her.

[lotty]

Originally posted by Bratlings



I meant to add... and knew it was illegal/wrong to marry a first cousin too. [/*]

In court, ignorance of the law is no defense.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Bratlings

He needs to be locked up for kid stuff pranks? You havent named anything that warrants that unless he knew it was illegal/wrong to marry her at 14. [/*]

No, he needs to be locked up for forcing a 14 year old girl to have sex. Sorry, I'm not going to retype the whole book.

Amazon.com Link (http://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Innocence-Polygamous-Becoming-Breaking/dp/0061628018/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211112675&sr=8-1)

Amazon has it marked down to around $16 at the moment.

I'm not going to repost it here, it makes me sick.