FLDS Children

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by RachelRose


Carol, we don't impose this on anyone else. Approaching 1/2 the children born in the US are born to unwed mothers - and I'm sure a significant number don't know who the dad even is. When their children get removed for obvious abuse, no one insists they name and DNA test a dad.

We need to be fair here. The way we treat those not involved with FLDS is so far out of bounds with the way we are trying to treat the FLDS families.

We really need to be careful - to treat EVERYONE equally - and give them the same respect everyone else gets. [/*]

You are absolutely correct.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Soldiermom08


So right!! Bet they suddenly remember who is who when they are told to come and get the kids!!

Seriously, this is the ONLY way these people should be allowed to take a child back "home". We can't just hand over children to people who SAY they are the parents but have no proof, can we? The wrong child could end up in a family...we couldn't have that!!
Wonder how many mothers will even recognize their kids? Am sure all those kids know is their old matronly caretaker. They might not recognize their moms either.

Do we have the right to interfere with a religious group that has practices very far off to the left of what everyone else considers weird, possibility illegal, and probably immoral? At what point does it become "our business" and we have a right to step in?
And if we step in, how much force are we willing to use? Will we go as far as removing people from the religious group for their own safety? And who will determine that?

I think they need to be asking these questions and alot more because this is going to come up again. And again. And it will be another radical group, doing something else we don't like or approve of.

jmo [/*]

It doesn't matter. The court has ruled that all the kids were unlawfully removed. That means CPS doesn't have the right to demand anything.
I was wondering, since Carolyn Jessop was a member of these children, how did she know they were hers?

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


There are some pretty scary people on here.
:patriot: [/*]

There are some pretty scary people everywhere.

:patriot:

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


This country was not founded on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Pedophile. Practice of religion was not intended to include brainwashing, pedophilia, or following a mortal man straight to he!! if that's where he's walking. [/*]

You throw that kaka out there like you have evidence to prove it.
If CPS doesn't, I don't figure you do either.
You're just throwing those inflammatory comments out there with nothing to back them up.
This is what the state did to these mothers. They know that they can get away with lies and breaking the law, as long as they say it's to protect children. Who can argue with that ?
There have to be laws to protect families from out of control gov't agencies,and this has to be done for the children. I don't understand how you can't see that the state is the abuser in this case.

[wandering]

Originally posted by Carmona


I can't believe Americans want to deny people from practicing their religion. They have no understanding as to why this country was founded. :eek: [/*]Child abuse is not a religious practice. It's against the law.

[wandering]

Originally posted by SillyMe


That is right but under the State of Texas' own manual, statutes, and laws they have no evidence of it. The appeals court said so too. [/*]I already posted what I heard on NG, that the state can appeal the ruling.

On LKL now...

[evalles]

Larry King has the parents on.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by wandering
I already posted what I heard on NG, that the state can appeal the ruling.

On LKL now... [/*]

You are correct wandering. The fact they can appeal the decision has been discussed all afternoon on the news channels.

The filing with the appeals court represents only 38 of the 160 or so mothers.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Anything and everything can be appealed but that does not mean the Texas supreme court will agree to hear the case, or change anything. [/*]

Doesn't mean they won't either. :lol:

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


What was inflammatory about my remark?

You want evidence to prove that our founding fathers did not have the likes of Warren Jeffs (or David Koresh, or Jim Jones) in mind when they wrote the laws of this nation?

This is wild, even for you. [/*]

The holy pedophile ?That's inflammatory, with nothing to show that these children were abused.

Our country was founded on freedom. Remember the liberty and justice for all ? Warren Jeffs is paying for his crimes. That's the American way.
It's sad when it becomes "wild" to expect a little evidence before the removal of 465 children.

[evalles]

Originally posted by SillyMe


That is right but under the State of Texas' own manual, statutes, and laws they have no evidence of it. The appeals court said so too. [/*]

And I agree with the appeals court. :patriot:

[Justiceguy_1977]

Originally posted by litchfield29


Wrong! In the FLDS it's a religious practice.

my opinions [/*]

and against of law..

they can't hide behind Religon to abuse children

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by Carmona


so do I..:beer: :patriot: [/*]

hammer

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



What is abuse? What you say is abuse? [/*]

:cuss: hammer :flamemad:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by Carmona


Using such a violent icon to express your opinion???

and you dare sit in judgment of others.

Do you have any kids? :eek: [/*]

yep, little alien babies ! :biggrin:

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by SillyMe



I agree we should enforce the laws...

Lets start with the laws on religious freedom and from there move on to the laws that state you have to have evidence of abuse to remove the children. [/*]


Religious freedom does not give the religious person the right to violate any law. All it does is give any person the right to choose which religion they wish to participate in or not participate @ all. It takes away the ability of the government to dictate a religion or religious belief.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles
Remember when I posted this last night and someone else posted some meaningless definitions ?



§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that
requests permission to take possession of a child without prior
notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a
person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to
satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical
health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of
neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical
health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under
Subchapter C; and (3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the
circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal[0] of the child.

__________________________________________________ __
In the decision, the Court ruled that CPS failed to provide any evidence that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily in removing them from their families. According to the Court, “The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department’s witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger.”

And..
Furthermore, the court said, CPS did not make any reasonable effort to determine if measures other than removal would have reduced the perceived risk to the children. [/*]


You seem to still be having difficulty grasping this concept. A law, a code & a statute are basically the same thing. They are all laws. A code is NOT a definition.

Law is the black letter law, the words that are written. Its a general reference to, as in "the Law"

Statute refers to a specific state or federal law passed to address a specific issue. E.g, the statute dealing with first degree murder, gun posession, hate crime, etc.

The Code refers to the whole body of statutes of a state. E.g., The Texas Criminal Code, The California Code of Criminal Procedure.

<<code
n. a collection of written laws gathered together, usually covering specific subject matter. Thus, a state may have a civil code, corporations code, education code, evidence code, health and safety codes, insurance code, labor code, motor vehicle code, penal code, revenue and taxation code, and so forth. Federal statutes which deal with legal matters are grouped together in codes. There are also statutes which are not codified. Despite their apparent permanence, codes are constantly being amended by legislative bodies. Some codes are administrative and have the force of law even though they were created and adopted by regulatory agencies and are not actually statutes or laws.
See also: law statute
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=221&bold=|||| >>

<<statute
n. a federal or state written law enacted by the Congress or state legislature, respectively. Local statutes or laws are usually called "ordinances." Regulations, rulings, opinions, executive orders and proclamations are not statutes.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2010&bold=|||| >>

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46



You seem to still be having difficulty grasping this concept. A law, a code & a statute are basically the same thing. They are all laws. A code is NOT a definition.

Law is the black letter law, the words that are written. Its a general reference to, as in "the Law"

Statute refers to a specific state or federal law passed to address a specific issue. E.g, the statute dealing with first degree murder, gun posession, hate crime, etc.

The Code refers to the whole body of statutes of a state. E.g., The Texas Criminal Code, The California Code of Criminal Procedure.

<<code
n. a collection of written laws gathered together, usually covering specific subject matter. Thus, a state may have a civil code, corporations code, education code, evidence code, health and safety codes, insurance code, labor code, motor vehicle code, penal code, revenue and taxation code, and so forth. Federal statutes which deal with legal matters are grouped together in codes. There are also statutes which are not codified. Despite their apparent permanence, codes are constantly being amended by legislative bodies. Some codes are administrative and have the force of law even though they were created and adopted by regulatory agencies and are not actually statutes or laws.
See also: law statute
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=221&bold=|||| >>

<<statute
n. a federal or state written law enacted by the Congress or state legislature, respectively. Local statutes or laws are usually called "ordinances." Regulations, rulings, opinions, executive orders and proclamations are not statutes.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2010&bold=|||| >> [/*]


Do you not grasp that these three things are the basis of the FLDS winning the appeal. Did you read the order.
I'm not comparing codes or definitions, comprende ?
They ruled that there was not an immediate or urgent risk and that there were no efforts made to keep the children in the home. This is exactly why I said the state did the wrong thing, and like it or not, the appeals court agreed with me.

[zone]

Originally posted by SillyMe



That is because you are the only illogical person suggesting we delete and/or change part of the US Constitution.:rolleyes: [/*]

ITA...I think government overstepping it's bounds is more serious then whatever cults do.

[zone]

Originally posted by Carol25
Shouldn't this go through all of the appeals before these children are disturbed again? [/*]


If we weren't concerned with disturbing them 6 weeks ago,then why be concerned with it now?

[evalles]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Who said it gave anyone the right to break the law? You come in here, make stuff up and respond as if your some authority on something NOBODY EVER said! [/*]

I doubt you'll get a response. After making all these ridiculous charges, the started a thread called FLDS pro CPS because they can't handle rational comments.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Carmona


I guess you missed the Appeals Court ruling. CPS was found to have broken the law, not their victims. [/*]

Most of us weren't surprised.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by evalles


I doubt you'll get a response. After making all these ridiculous charges, the started a thread called FLDS pro CPS because they can't handle rational comments. Should we visit ? [/*]

Well, it is only 2 people posting to each other as far as I can see.

[Jan Powell]

If it is true that this ruling is considered a "scathing opinion" will the TX SC uphold the current ruling for the lower courts to vacate?

If the opinion is written based on (settled family) law, will any potential political fallout sway their opinion?

We'll see if the justices of the court are really justices or politicians, IMO. It'll also be interesting to see if the AG responds with something new that we haven't heard yet.

Will it be used as an exit strategy in a case that apparently has come somewhat unwound (and also would stop the bleeding financial costs over the next year)?

I think the AG will ask for a stay to keep the kids in foster care and the SC will grant the stay and then rule later on the law. JMO

[zone]

Originally posted by evalles


Most of us weren't surprised. [/*]


I kinda expected the COA to rule like this when it came clear there was no "Sarah".

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by grammybear
I don't know what all is going to happen with all of these children. But I do think that the 38 cases that were ruled on today were cases that were absolute cases where the children did belong to these mothers.
As far as the rest I still have great concern for these children. I have not heard where the 100 some odd children have been linked to any parents and what about the other children that are pregnent or have had children while under age.

Everybody can use their big words and argue and argue about the rights of the parents but what about the rights of the children to be raised in a violence or abuse free enviroment.
No matter how these cases go these children are going to be the big losers.
My heart aches for these children. They should be loved and cherised for who they are, not what they are going to pay back or do for the cult. Yes I said cult. One man has had control over this group and still continues to control from prison.

It will be years before we will see the damage that has been done to these children in regards to abuse whether it be sexual, physical or mental. I do not have any answers for these children but I do know that the FLDS are using religion as their reason for abusing these children. It is a really sad world we live in to have children used to reproduce and hard laborers. I have not heard any of these so called parents saying anything about the rights of these children and that truly breaks my heart.

jmoo [/*]

yep, i agree with you. A :rose: For The Children

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by zone


ITA...I think government overstepping it's bounds is more serious then whatever cults do. [/*]

i dont.

[zone]

Originally posted by johnielee333


i dont. [/*]


I guess you wouldn't care to be dragged fron your home and locked up for no reason.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by zone



I guess you wouldn't care to be dragged fron your home and locked up for no reason. [/*]

i was but i dont hold it against anyone. they were just doing their job.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe


Did you like it? Think it was fair? Want it to happen again? And again and again with more frequency? [/*]

it happened twice to me.

[zone]

Originally posted by johnielee333


i was but i dont hold it against anyone. they were just doing their job. [/*]


Guess you think the Nazis were just doing their job.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe


Did you like it? Think it was fair? Want it to happen again? And again and again with more frequency? [/*]

if you knew me in person, you would know that i am all about children's rights & their safty even tho i have never had children.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by zone



Guess you think the Nazis were just doing their job. [/*]

nope.

[evalles]

Originally posted by SillyMe
You know what is interesting that I believe Texas' original intention was to scare the FLDS and set an example. They might have been genuinely concerned about this poor girl, "Sarah" even. Instead what I believe they did was turn this into Constitutional law battle, and the truth is that is MY ONLY stake in this. I really couldnt care less about polygamy, their parents or Texas. [/*]

Everyone should be worried about what was allowed to happen.

Many people aren't aware that this is common practice in the family courts. Most parents don't have the money to fight them.
I wish this case would change that, but I don't think it will. It will make a lot of people more aware that they're not as safe as they thought they were.
I'm with you, this has never been about defending the FLDS for me.
I do disagree with you on the "sarah" issue. I think they knew the calls weren't legit, which is why they got in there a few days before Swinton was arrested. LE was already investigating her.
Based on the way these children and their mothers were treated at the shelters, I have a hard time believing they can be genuine about anything.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by johnielee333


if you knew me in person, you would know that i am all about children's rights & their safty even tho i have never had children. [/*]

If that was the case then you would be all about keeping families together in all but the most extreme cases. IMO

[walton]

Originally posted by zone



Guess you think the Nazis were just doing their job. [/*]


:no:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe


You didnt answer the question... how would you feel about it happening a few more times with increasing frequency? Because that is exactly what will happen if our laws are ignored. [/*]

if i was a kid again & the state took me away from my mom again,i would still believe they were doing their job. now let me tell you that i do blame my aunt for screwing around with my dad & my mom finding out & my mom was very mad at my aunt(her sister). my aunt told lies on my mom when i was 11 & 12 yrs old & the state believed her at first but then didnt & my mom got us back. this happened twice in a yrs time.

[zone]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Then you are not normal. Kids do not rationalize.[/*]


ITA

[evalles]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If that was the case then you would be all about keeping families together in all but the most extreme cases. IMO [/*]

My opinion too.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



OK so you think the children have no rights about being ripped away from their parents without proof then? [/*]

now you are twisting. all children have all rights but sometimes they need to be with adults to let them know that they have rights not to be abused & explain what abuse is, to them.
and there is proof of abuse within the FLDS.

[walton]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Then you are not normal. Kids do not rationalize. [/*]


:no:


You are out of line.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Then you are not normal. Kids do not rationalize. [/*]

Oh, I do not know about that. I always rationalized. I was a very empathetic kid and always wanted to understand other people and why they did the things that they did. Now, I never had CPS take me from my family, but, I lived with my crazy parents until I couldn't take it anymore and ran away from DC to Saint Louis to be with my grandparents. I never really blamed my parents for being crazy. IMO

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


If that was the case then you would be all about keeping families together in all but the most extreme cases. IMO [/*]

no, because to me any kind abuse of children is extreme. its all abuse. children are to be love & cared for. theyre not there for you to use them as whipping posts,punching bags,slaves or any other abuses. i'll tell you , mental abuse can be as bad as any other abuse, maybe even worse sometimes.

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333


now you are twisting. all children have all rights but sometimes they need to be with adults to let them know that they have rights not to be abused & explain what abuse is, to them.
and there is proof of abuse within the FLDS. [/*]

And, there is proof of abuse within CPS, but you want the kids with them. I don't think CPS is qualified to explain abuse since they don't seem to know what it is.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Then you are not normal. Kids do not rationalize. [/*]

youre right, i'm not normal, im an alien ! :biggrin:

i didnt rationalize as a kid. i rationalize as an adult. when i was a kid, i just went with the flo & listened to my mom,her lawyer & my other aunt. sure it made me sad but i got over it.

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333


no, because to me any kind abuse of children is extreme. its all abuse. children are to be love & cared for. theyre not there for you to use them as whipping posts,punching bags,slaves or any other abuses. i'll tell you , mental abuse can be as bad as any other abuse, maybe even worse sometimes. [/*]

Do you not agree that there should be guidelines that have to be followed before children are removed from their parents ?

Some feel that spanking is abuse. Do you think that a child that gets a swat on the butt every once in awhile would be better off with total strangers ?
Johni- in most cases, people need to be with family, even if that family isn't perfect. I think that kids lose something when they don't have that connection.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by walton



:no:


You are out of line. [/*]

thanks walton but its ok. i can handle it. let who ever wants to say what they want to say. it doesnt bother me. but again, thanks walton. :patriot:

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333


youre right, i'm not normal, im an alien ! :biggrin:

i didnt rationalize as a kid. i rationalize as an adult. when i was a kid, i just went with the flo & listened to my mom,her lawyer & my other aunt. sure it made me sad but i got over it. [/*]

How did it affect your mom ?

[walton]

Originally posted by johnielee333


thanks walton but its ok. i can handle it. let who ever wants to say what they want to say. it doesnt bother me. but again, thanks walton. :patriot: [/*]


:) If ya need anything. I am here.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by johnielee333


no, because to me any kind abuse of children is extreme. its all abuse. children are to be love & cared for. theyre not there for you to use them as whipping posts,punching bags,slaves or any other abuses. i'll tell you , mental abuse can be as bad as any other abuse, maybe even worse sometimes. [/*]

Do you understand then, that removing a child from their home is traumatizing and abusive, not to mention the abuse that almost always takes place while children are in state custody. I understand that your heart is in the right place, but, you must understand everything involved before advocating child abuse to prevent other child abuse. Removing a child from their home should always be the absolute last resort. IMO

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



So because it worked out for you that means its OK for every kid to go through unnecessarily or not? [/*]

nope, not if theres no proof but there IS PROOF OF ABUSE WITHIN THE FLDS. .

[zone]

Originally posted by johnielee333


nope, not if theres no proof but there IS PROOF OF ABUSE WITHIN THE FLDS. . [/*]


Have any links proving that?

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


Do you not agree that there should be guidelines that have to be followed before children are removed from their parents ?

Some feel that spanking is abuse. Do you think that a child that gets a swat on the butt every once in awhile would be better off with total strangers ?
Johni- in most cases, people need to be with family, even if that family isn't perfect. I think that kids lose something when they don't have that connection. [/*]

yea well kids lose something when they are with their own parents sometimes too. i believe LE & CPS did the right thing at the moment they did it because they did see young girls pregnant when they first went in. then all the other stuff followed. like i said before, if the mothers & fathers really want their children back then they should completely get away from the FLDS for good. hopefully that will help stop the abuse of these children. the FLDS's way of life is not good.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


How did it affect your mom ? [/*]

well i dont know because my mom held things in from us kids.
but after i was an adult she did tell me that it angered her that her own sister could be so crule.

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333


yea well kids lose something when they are with their own parents sometimes too. i believe LE & CPS did the right thing at the moment they did it because they did see young girls pregnant when they first went in. then all the other stuff followed. like i said before, if the mothers & fathers really want their children back then they should completely get away from the FLDS for good. hopefully that will help stop the abuse of these children. the FLDS's way of life is not good. [/*]

If these kids, and I mean these kids were abused, why in every case over the last few days did CPS themselves say there was no evidence of abuse ?

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by evalles


How did it affect your mom ? [/*]

my mom was a very sweet,loving,caring & kind woman. she was the best mother anyone could have. she didnt abuse or neglect us kids in any way shape or form. she loved us kids more than life itself. she was always there whenever anyone needed her.
my aunt is another story but i still love her.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by walton



:) If ya need anything. I am here. [/*]

:) :patriot:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



I am not joking here... What is that abuse? Please specifically state what you think is abuse in the FLDS homes. [/*]

mental,sexual & Physical. i will go into it later. i have to get off here.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe



I bet it would just hurt her to the core if she knew you were siding with your aunt then after what your family was put through. [/*]

twisting.

[evalles]

Originally posted by johnielee333


well i dont know because my mom held things in from us kids.
but after i was an adult she did tell me that it angered her that her own sister could be so crule. [/*]

My sister played a huge role in my case, it wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been for her. She is also the most screwed up mother to her own children that I've ever known. I will never speak to her again, I will never put my smaller children at risk by allowing her to play any part in their lives. The fact that family was involved made it so much more painful. I lost more than just a year of my teenagers life, my other two didn't understand why mommy was depressed and didn't feel like doing things with them. My husband felt ignored and we had a few rocky months. I had to worry about losing my job due to all the time off. When children are taken and parents are falsely accused it affects every part of their life. Imagine, every court date thinking it's gonna be over, and then not being able to speak in court and the family court judge making incomprehensible decisions.
It can destroy a family and cost them pecious time with their children that they will never get back.
IMO, this is the reason they need a darned good reason to take someone's child.
I'm not telling you this to gain sympathy, only to show you how many aspects of a families life is affected if the wrong decision is made.

[evalles]

I'm goin' to bed. Night.

[Silent Ears]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Thanks for sharing this but an important issue you left out is how impossible it to prove a negative. How do you prove you didnt do something that a social worker says you did and even the child denies happened? [/*]

hey when the child gets PG. DNA says it all.No proof needed

[evalles]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Thanks for sharing this but an important issue you left out is how impossible it to prove a negative. How do you prove you didnt do something that a social worker says you did and even the child denies happened? [/*]

You can't. It seems like it's a lot harder to prove innocence than guilt. Kind of like some of the posters, they believe what they want to believe in spite of the facts. If there's no evidence to show that you did it, what evidence are you going to have that you didn't.
You probably know that this is widespread, other cases just don't get enough press. Why else would Judge Waltham think she could get away with it? She likely does it all the time.
You're not listened to in court. The 72 hour hearing is a joke as we learned in this case. In most states there's an adjudication hearing where they have to prove you did whatever you're accused of or they have to let your kids go. The closest thing in Texas was the show cause hearing after 14 days. If I understand the process in TX, based on the parent handbook, they never have to prove a parent did anything- there is no adjuducation hearing and they can keep these kids indefinitely.

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by SillyMe


No I am not twisting it, you said it is acceptable if it is in the interest of the child, I have no doubt your aunt would say thats is what she thought she was doing.... The same thing the state of Texas would say. Which you said is OK. [/*]

no, my aunt told my mom,my other aunt & my mom's best friend that she would get even with my mother because my mother caught my dad & aunt in bed together. my mom was very hurt by my dad & aunt so she told my aunt that she wasnt any sister of hers. so my aunt told lies on my mom. my aunt knew full well of what she was doing. she is not a nice person but my mom still loved her & yes, i still love her too but like my mother, i dont trust her either & actually nobody does. i was not siding with my aunt,believe me. my mom knew how i felt about it all before she passed away.

[lady]

There is too much evidence of child rape/molestation to exonorate these people. They didn't have enough proof, but I still think they are sick and digusting. IMO

[FREEMORE]

I don't think the parents should get these children back. It just appears that nothing good is coming from the sect to prepare these young people for life. It is so sad.

[evalles]

Originally posted by SillyMe


Exactly, I too wished that this case would open some congressional eyes about the abuse of power CPS often shows, but now I think the issue is so blown up about supposed child abuse that the issue will be lost. This message board is a good example of people who are seriously lacking in the knowledge of their rights and others, and as long as there is no awareness Congress wont have to deal with it. It is just scary for me to contemplate that the people who post here and advocate less rights could possibly be a fair representation of our society. I sure hope that is not true.:shrug: [/*]

From your lips to God's ears.

[KatyDid]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9347022

It is not yet clear how soon FLDS children could return to the YFZ Ranch. Possible scenarios:
* The ruling by the 3rd Court of Appeals goes into effect immediately. If 51st District Judge Barbara Walther does not vacate her order putting the children in state custody, the appeals court will release the children.
* Meanwhile, the Department of Family and Protective Services could decide to comply with the appellate ruling, sending some or all of the children back.
* The agency could instead seek a stay.
* It may also, within 15 days, seek a rehearing before the appeals court. That appeal could be narrowed to only children it believes can be proven to be in danger.

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by Texanne


Barf. It is not about an American's right to practice their choice of religion. It is about a bunch of abusive, child molesters using religion as an excuse to "bed" young innocent girls and turn them into brood mares. It is about keeping them "imprisoned" behind walls to be sure they do not learn of their AMERICAN rights of choice. What goes on between adults is one thing...but raising a young girl to think that she has no choices in life, and that some evil man has the right to tell her who she will be "given" to is wrong, it is sick, it is evil...and it is a cult. I am sickened by those posters who defend such a life for little girls. Their agenda is suspect. Are they part of the cult themselves? Are they people who lost their own children because they abused them? Inquiring minds want to know. [/*]

None of your guesses applies. I defend these people's right to practice their religion.

[KatyDid]

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/23/news-has-eldorado-concerned/

News has Eldorado concerned
By Jayna Boyle (Contact)
Friday, May 23, 2008

ELDORADO - The news that the children might soon return to the YFZ Ranch near here brought an unhappy reception from the ranch's neighboring community.

Eldorado residents expressed skepticism that evidence of abuse is lacking. Some said they won't be welcoming the sect members - who are scattered across the state trying to stay with their children - back to Schleicher County with open arms.

Gabe Rodriguez said no one likes the idea of children being taken from their parents, but he said he is wary of allowing the children to return so soon.

"Let's do the job right," he said. "It's a long, drawn-out process, but we're there. Let's finish the process."



More at the link.

[Roux]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


None of your guesses applies. I defend these people's right to practice their religion. [/*]

Do you know the practices of their religion? Haven't you seen, read, heard the stories of those who have left the cult? If you defend their right to mentally and physically abuse women and children, well I guess that's your opinion.

With all due respect, there are some posters who have not been reading the numerous links that have been posted and IMO they are not fully aware of the scope of this situation. It would not surprise me if some of them have not followed this from the beginning and are simply reacting to the court's ruling yesterday. It's not as simple as some seem to think.

[Mandysmom]

I'll admit that I haven't read all of the links, I'm still trying to catch up.

I'm torn between the idea of the CPS just taking kids without any proof of immediate danger of abuse or proof of abuse.

I'm still sorting it out as I go along. I don't think just swooping in and taking the kids was a great idea.

I thought I had read where the men had offered to leave the compound and let the women and kids stay, but they were turned down.

Was that true?

[evalles]

Originally posted by Texanne
I am sickened by those posters who defend such a life for little girls. Their agenda is suspect. Are they part of the cult themselves? Are they people who lost their own children because they abused them? Inquiring minds want to know. [/*]

____________________________________________

Why don't you call the appeals court judges and ask them what their agenda is.
After you ask them if they're part of a cult or, are themselves child abusers, they'll know they did the right thing.
Inquiring minds want to know why you think it's ok for the state to violate the rights of it's citizens and break their own laws.

[Cat2007]

Originally posted by Mandysmom
I'll admit that I haven't read all of the links, I'm still trying to catch up.

I'm torn between the idea of the CPS just taking kids without any proof of immediate danger of abuse or proof of abuse.

I'm still sorting it out as I go along. I don't think just swooping in and taking the kids was a great idea.

I thought I had read where the men had offered to leave the compound and let the women and kids stay, but they were turned down.

Was that true? [/*]

I have no idea, MM, BUT if that would have happened, I am pretty sure there would have been vehicles there to take the women and children to another location PRONTO. That is what FLDS does, move people around, and the people involved have no say whatever. :(

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by Roux


Do you know the practices of their religion? Haven't you seen, read, heard the stories of those who have left the cult? If you defend their right to mentally and physically abuse women and children, well I guess that's your opinion.

With all due respect, there are some posters who have not been reading the numerous links that have been posted and IMO they are not fully aware of the scope of this situation. It would not surprise me if some of them have not followed this from the beginning and are simply reacting to the court's ruling yesterday. It's not as simple as some seem to think. [/*]

With all due respect I've been following this case from the beginning.

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by Cat2007


I have no idea, MM, BUT if that would have happened, I am pretty sure there would have been vehicles there to take the women and children to another location PRONTO. That is what FLDS does, move people around, and the people involved have no say whatever. :( [/*]Thanks, Cat. I have been trying to stay up on this but am far behind on my reading.

If only half of what I have read is true though, I would opt for them to remove the kids too.

:seeya:

[evalles]

Originally posted by Cat2007


I have no idea, MM, BUT if that would have happened, I am pretty sure there would have been vehicles there to take the women and children to another location PRONTO. That is what FLDS does, move people around, and the people involved have no say whatever. :( [/*]

You feel that this justifies CPS breaking the law ?
The "people" involved shouldn't have a say unless they have more evidence than a few pregnant teenagers.
They might be in your neighborhood next.

[Carol25]

I wonder if the Texas legislature is working on some new laws at this time that would strengthen children's rights such as public schooling, innoculations or something that would find the FLDS in clear violation of.

There would be other paths for the government to go after them for such as welfare fraud, mandatory census count where as proof of legal status of children's legal parent or guardianship is proven, something. Of course, as others have said, once the children have been returned, they will disappear anyway.

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by evalles


You feel that this justifies CPS breaking the law ?
The "people" involved shouldn't have a say unless they have more evidence than a few pregnant teenagers.
They might be in your neighborhood next. [/*]Did they have any evidence of these teens being pregnant by the older men in the compound?

Or do they have to wait until they give birth to do DNA testing? I wouldn't think the teens being pregnant in itself would justify removing them, but if it is found to be that they have been impregnated by these older men, I would.

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by Carol25
I wonder if the Texas legislature is working on some new laws at this time that would strengthen children's rights such as public schooling, innoculations or something that would find the FLDS in clear violation of.

There would be other paths for the government to go after them for such as welfare fraud, mandatory census count where as proof of legal status of children's legal parent or guardianship is proven, something. Of course, as others have said, once the children have been returned, they will disappear anyway. [/*]I have no idea about Texas, but here in Alabama, parents can refuse innoculations on the basis of religious beliefs.

[Cat2007]

Originally posted by Mandysmom
Did they have any evidence of these teens being pregnant by the older men in the compound?

Or do they have to wait until they give birth to do DNA testing? I wouldn't think the teens being pregnant in itself would justify removing them, but if it is found to be that they have been impregnated by these older men, I would. [/*]

When they are in the compounds, the girls and boys can hardly have contact at all. The girls are taught the boys are "snakes" (no link--someone posted that). So I think they could only get pregnant by the man they were "given" to. JMO

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Cat2007


When they are in the compounds, the girls and boys can hardly have contact at all. The girls are taught the boys are "snakes" (no link--someone posted that). So I think they could only get pregnant by the man they were "given" to. JMO [/*]

Good Morning Cat :seeya:

You are correct. The whole idea is these girls are virgins given to the predominately older men.

I am busy writing my letter to the three justices in Texas.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Mandysmom
I have no idea about Texas, but here in Alabama, parents can refuse innoculations on the basis of religious beliefs. [/*]

True, but it was widely stated that "some" of the FLDS kids had already had their shots. Wasn't for religious beliefs, just simple neglect, or a desire not to have the kids listed on any official medical records, IMHO.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Mandysmom
Did they have any evidence of these teens being pregnant by the older men in the compound?

Or do they have to wait until they give birth to do DNA testing? I wouldn't think the teens being pregnant in itself would justify removing them, but if it is found to be that they have been impregnated by these older men, I would. [/*]

You're right, it wouldn't justify it, which is why the appeals court had to rule as it did.
Not even the almighty CPS can tell who the baby's daddy is on sight.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles



Do you not grasp that these three things are the basis of the FLDS winning the appeal. Did you read the order.
I'm not comparing codes or definitions, comprende ?
They ruled that there was not an immediate or urgent risk and that there were no efforts made to keep the children in the home. This is exactly why I said the state did the wrong thing, and like it or not, the appeals court agreed with me. [/*]



Don`t try to lie you way out of it. You specifically stated the codes were just definitions & that is not true.

<<Remember when I posted this last night and someone else posted some meaningless definitions>>

I caught, challenged & won your incorrect claim.

Yes this court did rule in favor of the defendants but this is just the first rung of the appeals ladder, this ruling can be appealed to higher courts.

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


None of your guesses applies. I defend these people's right to practice their religion. [/*]

At what point do you think the line is drawn between practicing religion & practicing abuse?

Their religion demands that every person show slavish obedience to their prophet. It also demands that women & children show slavish obedience to the male elders. Adult males who are in good standing with Warren Jeffs are 'rewarded' by being given multiple females to impregnate & control. Adult males who fall out of favor with Jeffs are typically & routinely forced out & all the women assigned to them are re-assigned to males still in Warren's favor.

In the several years I have read & heard of this particular group, I have yet to read of anyone who has been able to state ANY thought, much less commit any action contrary to the teachings of Warren Jeffs AND remain with the group.

If those severe constrictions were only applicable to adults, that would be one thing. We could stand back from afar & view them in the same light as the unfortunate members of the Heaven's Gate group. They were misguided enough to commit mass suicide on the orders of their 'leader', but there were no children among them.

What do you believe the state's obligation is to these minor children? Nothing? Something? Anything? Is it reasonable for the FLDS members to say "hey, none of your business what my name is, when I was born, who my parents & children are - my religion says I don't have to provide that information to you" ? Where should the state send the 100 children they currently house for whom they have no complete identification?

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46




Don`t try to lie you way out of it. You specifically stated the codes were just definitions & that is not true.


<<Remember when I posted this last night and someone else posted some meaningless definitions>>

I caught, challenged & won your incorrect claim.

Yes this court did rule in favor of the defendants but this is just the first rung of the appeals ladder, this ruling can be appealed to higher courts. [/*]

I challenged the entire case and won.

My point was that the definitions had nothing to do with the basis for removal unless you argue that what they alleged in court didn't fit any definition of abuse.

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


True, but it was widely stated that "some" of the FLDS kids had already had their shots. Wasn't for religious beliefs, just simple neglect, or a desire not to have the kids listed on any official medical records, IMHO. [/*]I've been reading about the lack of birth records and that is just crazy.

So they don't go to the health dept. and just file for religious exemptions? They just refuse to get the shots?

Do they even take them to doctors at all? I know I'm behind and asking lots of questions. so feel free to tell me to go read. LOL

:seeya:

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Carol25
I wonder if the Texas legislature is working on some new laws at this time that would strengthen children's rights such as public schooling, innoculations or something that would find the FLDS in clear violation of.

There would be other paths for the government to go after them for such as welfare fraud, mandatory census count where as proof of legal status of children's legal parent or guardianship is proven, something. Of course, as others have said, once the children have been returned, they will disappear anyway. [/*]

Oh, no ... now you want to force innoculations?? Force public schooling?? This is getting asinine. IMO

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by grammybear
I also think there will be some eyes opened after this situation. The whole world is watching and they had better get down to the bottom of what is going on. Here in Utah a few years ago a boy of 12 was diagnosed with cancer I believe under his tongue. His dr told the parents to start radiation and they did not want to do that. They had been searching out other types of treatment. They told the dr they were researching alternatives. The doctor called the state and reported them for abuse for not getting the medical care he wanted to do.. Well the state did get involved and took this family to court. They went to Idaho to keep the boy from receiving radiation. The parents were held in contempt of court and when the judge talked to the boy he told the judge he would not agree to the treatment. He said that he felt his parents knew what was best for him.
He did receive alternative treatment and he is just fine now.
Because of this situation the father quit his job and they moved out of state which I did not blame them for.

We are going to find good and bad in all cps workers. The ones to really watch out for are the ones who have a god complex.

I am not saying all the workers are right or wrong, but I think egos get in the way of doing the right thing for these children.

jmoo [/*]grammybear what a wonderful post! It is about the children, not the adult's egos. And there are always good and bad in every situation.

No one is right 100% of the time, but they don't want to admit when they're wrong.

:seeya:

[Carol25]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


Oh, no ... now you want to force innoculations?? Force public schooling?? This is getting asinine. IMO [/*]

Well, I know that if children are not going to school, they have to see a judge. And if everyone was doing home schooling, we would have a lot of ignorant people walking around.

If we didn't have innoculations, there would still be polio and a many sick people and less people! Children HAVE to have their shots to be admitted in school.

As a teacher, I know that some children who have been alerted to CPS for abuse by the school are suddenly "home schooled."

[Cat2007]

Originally posted by Mandysmom
I've been reading about the lack of birth records and that is just crazy.

So they don't go to the health dept. and just file for religious exemptions? They just refuse to get the shots?

Do they even take them to doctors at all? I know I'm behind and asking lots of questions. so feel free to tell me to go read. LOL

:seeya: [/*]

They have their own doctor (FLDS) on the compound.

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Carol25


Well, I know that if children are not going to school, they have to see a judge. And if everyone was doing home schooling, we would have a lot of ignorant people walking around.

If we didn't have innoculations, there would still be polio and a many sick people and less people! Children HAVE to have their shots to be admitted in school.

As a teacher, I know that children who have been alerted to CPS for abuse by the school are suddenly "home schooled." [/*]

Everyone has the right to home school their children. The children I know that are home schooled have tutors for various subjects and are often more well educated than their private or public schooled counterparts. No one has to get innoculations to attend school. Most states have at least 5 separate exemptions. IMO

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by Carol25


Well, I know that if children are not going to school, they have to see a judge. And if everyone was doing home schooling, we would have a lot of ignorant people walking around.

If we didn't have innoculations, there would still be polio and a many sick people and less people! Children HAVE to have their shots to be admitted in school.

As a teacher, I know that some children who have been alerted to CPS for abuse by the school are suddenly "home schooled." [/*]Children may be exempted from shots if they have a medical or religious exemption. I used to issue them to the parents.

Polio has for the most part in this country been iradicated. There are children who have bad reactions to the live polio vaccine. There have been adverse reactions to the DPT and MMR vaccines as well.

And what do you base your assumption of home schooled kids being "ignorant". Some of the brightest and smartest are home schooled.

You have to have a curriculum approved by the state here in order to home school. And it's just as tough if not tougher than the public school curriculum.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by SillyMe



Who said it gave anyone the right to break the law? You come in here, make stuff up and respond as if your some authority on something NOBODY EVER said! [/*]


I have been here since this case started weeks ago, did not just come in & yes people HAVE said the freedom of religion DOES allow the child abuse to continue. Perhaps you are not aware that the Judge stated the exact same thing I did---freedom of religion does not give anyone the right to violate any laws.

[Carol25]

Originally posted by FurthurBB


Everyone has the right to home school their children. The children I know that are home schooled have tutors for various subjects and are often more well educated than their private or public schooled counterparts. No one has to get innoculations to attend school. Most states have at least 5 separate exemptions. IMO [/*]
I can only go by where I taught. So we may both be right. Children in kindergaten always were delayed in first coming to school because of shots. They would meander in for a couple of weeks after school started.

[Mandysmom]

Originally posted by Cat2007


They have their own doctor (FLDS) on the compound. [/*]Thank you Cat.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by zone



I kinda expected the COA to rule like this when it came clear there was no "Sarah". [/*]



That has not been proven yet. They are still investigating.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by KatyDid
In the court's decision:

None of the minors who are pregnant have been identified as children of the women who filed the appeal.

Are they some of the 100 who have not been claimed by a parent? [/*]

Sorry if this has been asked already...if none of the minors who are pregnant are children of the women who filed the appeal, are any of those minors sister-wives to the women who filed the appeal?

[FurthurBB]

Originally posted by Carol25

I can only go by where I taught. So we may both be right. Children in kindergaten always were delayed in first coming to school because of shots. They would meander in for a couple of weeks after school started. [/*]

What? Where do you teach? I have three children and every one of their kindergarten class was there on the very first day.

[Carol25]

Originally posted by Mandysmom
Children may be exempted from shots if they have a medical or religious exemption. I used to issue them to the parents.

Polio has for the most part in this country been iradicated. There are children who have bad reactions to the live polio vaccine. There have been adverse reactions to the DPT and MMR vaccines as well.

And what do you base your assumption of home schooled kids being "ignorant". Some of the brightest and smartest are home schooled.

You have to have a curriculum approved by the state here in order to home school. And it's just as tough if not tougher than the public school curriculum. [/*]

Yes, you are right about home schooling bring out some of the most well educated students. But I am talking about if most or all of the country did this. Not all parents are that equipped or disciplined enough to handle this task.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by evalles


I challenged the entire case and won.

My point was that the definitions had nothing to do with the basis for removal unless you argue that what they alleged in court didn't fit any definition of abuse. [/*]



And my point is that Codes are not definitions as you stated they are. Codes are laws. The authorities are bound by Codes just as they are by statutes. They are basically the same thing.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Sorry if this has been asked already...if none of the minors who are pregnant are children of the women who filed the appeal, are any of those minors sister-wives to the women who filed the appeal? [/*]

Most probably, but the sister-wives would NEVER admit that, since polygamy is illegal.

Good Morning Ladyhawk :seeya:

[Roux]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


With all due respect I've been following this case from the beginning. [/*]

I wasn't directing my comment directly at you, however I don't remember you participating in the discussion. Maybe you did and I don't remember.

But if you have been following this case from the beginning and you can still say that you defend the FLDS religion, I am at a total loss to understand. Why do you think it's okay to force girls and women into marriage, re-assign wives and children to another man, abandon teenage boys, etc., etc. Many of their "practices of religion" are against the law.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Most probably, but the sister-wives would NEVER admit that, since polygamy is illegal.

Good Morning Ladyhawk :seeya: [/*]

Question..If Polygamy is illegal, then why has those men that are documented on the "Bishop's List" to have 6-10 or more wives not been charged? There seems to be proof of that particular complaint.

LMS:confused:

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Most probably, but the sister-wives would NEVER admit that, since polygamy is illegal.

Good Morning Ladyhawk :seeya: [/*]

Hi Katy:seeya:

They might not have to admit it....it may be listed on documents already taken as evidence. That one Bishop's list we've all seen is not necessarily the only one.

[Cat2007]

Originally posted by RachelRose
Carolyn Jessup reacts to yesterday's ruling, and a comment that the kids in foster care are acting out.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5797658.html [/*]

She sounds so calm and is a good speaker. I almost cried thinking of her breaking down yesterday when the news reached her. She has worked to hard to help her family and others. That is heartbreaking to me. I can't understand how anyone could doubt this woman.

[Casecase]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


Question..If Polygamy is illegal, then why has those men that are documented on the "Bishop's List" to have 6-10 or more wives not been charged? There seems to be proof of that particular complaint.

LMS:confused: [/*]


Long time lurker, first time poster on this topic.

Do these people register their marriages with the state? If they don't, can they really be considered polygamists and breaking the law, or are they technically just men with one legal wife and a bunch of mistresses? The cases of bigamists that I've seen prosecuted are ones where someone has been "legally" married more than once, as opposed to being just "spiritually" married.

IMO

[lotty]

Originally posted by Casecase



Long time lurker, first time poster on this topic.

Do these people register their marriages with the state? If they don't, can they really be considered polygamists and breaking the law, or are they technically just men with one legal wife and a bunch of mistresses? The cases of bigamists that I've seen prosecuted are ones where someone has been "legally" married more than once, as opposed to being just "spiritually" married.

IMO [/*]

This has been my question for a while, every time I bring it up, it seems to go off on a different tangent. My home state does not have common law marriages or whatever they are called. I am not speaking about minors, I am speaking about adults. Texas does have "common law marriage" and I am not sure how this figures in. JMO/IMO

Could this be why the women will not name their husbands? I know presenting yourself as married, has something to do with the law in Texas? Wish I had time to find the link that is already posted. JMO/IMO

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


Question..If Polygamy is illegal, then why has those men that are documented on the "Bishop's List" to have 6-10 or more wives not been charged? There seems to be proof of that particular complaint.

LMS:confused: [/*]

That is the big puzzlement, isn't it. My guess is because it is hard to prove. Unless, like Elissa Wall and others, these women come forward, file charges and testify, LE would have a hard time proving it. As for the documentation on the BL, would that have to have witnesses to back up that all the women listed lived with the man, called him husband, father, etc.?

I wish I knew the answer to that one.

Maybe walton, lotty or grammybear can answer it better than I.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Hi Katy:seeya:

They might not have to admit it....it may be listed on documents already taken as evidence. That one Bishop's list we've all seen is not necessarily the only one. [/*]

I agree with that. I think there may be other documents that have not been made public.

I wonder if the documentation would need witness testimony to validate its purpose and and accuracy. Just a thought I have about it.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Good morning, friends :seeya:

Just wanted to throw in an announcement and/or reminder here that in the interest of keeping the discussion alive without risking locked threads and banishment, another FLDS children thread was started yesterday evening.

If things get heated here with regard to the rights of the children vs. the rights of the parents (for lack of a better description), please feel free to join the discussion on the other thread, entitled 'FLDS Children - Pro CPS.'

Thanks and happy posting! :patriot: [/*]

Thanks GGW :seeya:

[Carol25]

Texas will appeal.

[lotty]

Originally posted by KatyDid


That is the big puzzlement, isn't it. My guess is because it is hard to prove. Unless, like Elissa Wall and others, these women come forward, file charges and testify, LE would have a hard time proving it. As for the documentation on the BL, would that have to have witnesses to back up that all the women listed lived with the man, called him husband, father, etc.?

I wish I knew the answer to that one.

Maybe walton, lotty or grammybear can answer it better than I. [/*]

I did find this...running out of time this morning.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by RachelRose



I don't think anyone doubts her story - and her experiences. This is such an enormous group of people, there are some who are abused and some who are cherished, and I think we need to view this society in that context - everyone is an individual, and some will have bad stories to tell. Others, will enjoy their lives and want to stay. [/*]

Exactly. Carolyn's husband Merill would have been a first class jerk whether he was a Catholic or a Baptist as well. His FLDS affiliation didn't make him what he was. I read her book.

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by Mimi428


At what point do you think the line is drawn between practicing religion & practicing abuse?

Their religion demands that every person show slavish obedience to their prophet. It also demands that women & children show slavish obedience to the male elders. Adult males who are in good standing with Warren Jeffs are 'rewarded' by being given multiple females to impregnate & control. Adult males who fall out of favor with Jeffs are typically & routinely forced out & all the women assigned to them are re-assigned to males still in Warren's favor.

In the several years I have read & heard of this particular group, I have yet to read of anyone who has been able to state ANY thought, much less commit any action contrary to the teachings of Warren Jeffs AND remain with the group.

If those severe constrictions were only applicable to adults, that would be one thing. We could stand back from afar & view them in the same light as the unfortunate members of the Heaven's Gate group. They were misguided enough to commit mass suicide on the orders of their 'leader', but there were no children among them.

What do you believe the state's obligation is to these minor children? Nothing? Something? Anything? Is it reasonable for the FLDS members to say "hey, none of your business what my name is, when I was born, who my parents & children are - my religion says I don't have to provide that information to you" ? Where should the state send the 100 children they currently house for whom they have no complete identification? [/*]

First of all, I don't believe FLDS as a whole practices abuse. I believe there are isolated incidents, just as there are isolated incidents outside the FLDS, and in other religions.

What is the state's obligation? Well seeing as how this whole fiasco started off because of a hoax phone call......I don't know exactly how I feel about that now. They should send the children back where they came from. And yes, I do think it's reasonable for FLDS members to refuse to give the state any info they don't feel like. I do not think it is their business.

I believe this will go down in history as a VERY sad and VERY wrong action on the part of the state of Texas. I saw the ruling coming, I really did.

There was NO "immediate danger" to 400+ children.

How despicable!

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Hiya Katydid,

Litchfield actually set it up. Twas getting a bit U.G.L.Y. here yesterday evening so we thought it was a good plan.

Things seem relatively civil this AM. ;)

:seeya: [/*]

I noticed that.

Great plan!

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


Exactly. Carolyn's husband Merill would have been a first class jerk whether he was a Catholic or a Baptist as well. His FLDS affiliation didn't make him what he was. I read her book. [/*]

It gave him the protection to be who is is under the guise of religion. They've been getting away with it for over 100 years. What better place to be than in a religious cult that promotes the lifestyle Merill so obviously cherishes.

[Carol25]

FLDS case going to Texas Supreme Court.
http://www.wfaa.com/?IQ_ID=683345

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Carol25
FLDS case going to Texas Supreme Court.
http://www.wfaa.com/?IQ_ID=683345 [/*]

Hallelujah!!!

Thank you for the post Carol :seeya:

[johnielee333]

Originally posted by Texanne


Barf. It is not about an American's right to practice their choice of religion. It is about a bunch of abusive, child molesters using religion as an excuse to "bed" young innocent girls and turn them into brood mares. It is about keeping them "imprisoned" behind walls to be sure they do not learn of their AMERICAN rights of choice. What goes on between adults is one thing...but raising a young girl to think that she has no choices in life, and that some evil man has the right to tell her who she will be "given" to is wrong, it is sick, it is evil...and it is a cult. I am sickened by those posters who defend such a life for little girls. Their agenda is suspect. Are they part of the cult themselves? Are they people who lost their own children because they abused them? Inquiring minds want to know. [/*]

:beer:

[SavannahStar]

Originally posted by Carol25
FLDS case going to Texas Supreme Court.
http://www.wfaa.com/?IQ_ID=683345 [/*]

They'll lose there as well, I have no doubt.

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by SavannahStar


They'll lose there as well, I have no doubt. [/*]

I think the SC will give a stay to the state to keep the kids for further investigation, at least until the DNA testing is completed.

And then I think the SC will let the appeal stand on this group of 38 mothers. The state lost on everything according to the opinion. I don't know other than a temporary stay how they can overturn the ruling.

The Gov, AG, HEW and CPS are too heavily invested in this not to continue the fight at least temporarily.

[spirit07]

from the article...


[CPS showed that 20 sect females had become pregnant between the ages of 13 and 17. The judges said 15 of them now are adults. The five who remain minors "are alleged to have become pregnant at the age of 15 or 16," the judges said.

They said, though, that "there was no evidence regarding the marital status of these girls when they became pregnant or the circumstances under which they became pregnant other than the general allegation" that the sect "condoned underage marriage and sex...

... The agency posted to its web site a statement saying child-abuse investigators found "a pervasive pattern of sexual abuse that puts every child at the ranch at risk." It said sect records listed "as wives" nine girls who are 16 and 17 and who until last month lived at the ranch.]


My question, could the DNA results help support this pervasive pattern of abuse. I'm a little confused on what could possibly be used as support. Yesterday, in the other thread, someone implied that either the Polygamy was not illegal or maybe they were saying it had no legal bearing on the child abuse allegations/was not a consideration in this case.


From the article, again...

[Ben Bistline, a Utah-based author and former sect member who left the breakaway Mormon group voluntarily, predicted that the children with monogamous parents would probably return to the ranch, while those living in polygamous households would be forced to scatter.

Those afraid of being arrested will leave with their families," he said. "They'll just come back here, or go to another compound in Colorado City, in South Dakota, in Idaho."]


So, are 'those afraid of being arrested', afraid there will be polygamy charges proven through DNA and records?

[evalles]

Originally posted by lady
There is too much evidence of child rape/molestation to exonorate these people. They didn't have enough proof, but I still think they are sick and digusting. IMO [/*]


There is too much evidence, but not enough proof ?
Please explain.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by RachelRose
From the article above, 5 of the girls became pregnant at the age of 15 or 16. I wonder if they don't know whether it was 15, or 16, or if they're lumping all five together.

16 is legal, 15 isn't. It matters, what the law says. [/*]

Rachel, what do you mean by 16 is legal?

[Mimi428]

Originally posted by RachelRose



I don't think anyone doubts her story - and her experiences. This is such an enormous group of people, there are some who are abused and some who are cherished, and I think we need to view this society in that context - everyone is an individual, and some will have bad stories to tell. Others, will enjoy their lives and want to stay. [/*]

Some who are cherished? What is your definition of 'cherished'?
Can you name THREE who are/were 'cherished', by your definition?

To me, a 'cherished' person is honored for the human being they are. They are treasured & loved & respected. There is NO FEMALE MEMBER of the FLDS that will EVER achieve that state. By their OWN beliefs, women do not even have enough worth to find their own way to heaven! They must be CALLED to heaven BY A MAN. They are subjugated, marginalized & their value to the FLDS is related directly to their ability to produce offspring. OBEDIENT offspring.

Will you also expand on how it is you perceive the members of the FLDS to be 'individuals'? They may each possess one body, but they are not allowed individual thoughts or actions. They are brought up from birth to believe & to blindly follow each & every thing their prophet dictates.

If the prophet says today they are ALL to wear blue - they all WILL wear blue. If the prophet says tomorrow that no one shall ever wear blue again, that it is the color of the devil, that every piece of blue clothing should be burned - they will burn every piece of blue clothing. If the prophet says the next day that his new revelation is that he, personally, defeated the devil & that the color blue is now exalted & should be worn by everyone, every day - guess what? They will ALL FOLLOW HIS ORDERS & DO WHAT HE SAYS.

THAT is the very essence of this group. That they are NOT individuals. They are NOT allowed independent thoughts or actions. They are instructed, led & controlled every minute of their lives. Those who are the most favored in Warren Jeffs' eyes are given permission BY WARREN JEFFS to carry out his orders & control those underneath them. But should any of them ever fall out of his favor - they will be given the boot & the next slavish toadie will take their place. They are not following a benevolent leader - they are subjects of a physically, emotionally mentally & spiritually abusive man who rules their lives with threats of harm in this life AND in his/their version of the hereafter.

I am shocked that you do not realize that. How in the world have you missed the huge amounts of information that are known, verified & documented about this group?

JMO

[evalles]

Originally posted by warhorse46




And my point is that Codes are not definitions as you stated they are. Codes are laws. The authorities are bound by Codes just as they are by statutes. They are basically the same thing. [/*]


The code you mentioned was pertaining to definitions of abuse which are very broad.
You were right that it is part of Texas Code, I found it in the child welfare manual and erroneously assumed it was part of CPS policy.
The basis for removal that I posted is very specific and the appeals court ruled that they didn't meet the burden of proof to take these kids.

[cloe23]

hi all:seeya:
Sorry if this has been posted before, but...... I was wondering if any of the LDS Children's attorneys have swapped sides? They are the ones that we can and should depend on. JMO
Cloe

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Rachel, what do you mean by 16 is legal? [/*]

16 is only legal with the written approval of the parent. It has to be filed with the state. I seriously doubt any legal document exists since most of these underage girls are spiritual wives.

I am curious how many of these underage 'wives' in state custody are part of the 100+ children who have been unclaimed by a parent.

[Jan Powell]

Originally posted by cloe23
hi all:seeya:
Sorry if this has been posted before, but...... I was wondering if any of the LDS Children's attorneys have swapped sides? They are the ones that we can and should depend on. JMO
Cloe [/*]

The attorneys would not be allowed to swap sides even if they wanted too.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Mimi428


Some who are cherished? What is your definition of 'cherished'?
Can you name THREE who are/were 'cherished', by your definition?

To me, a 'cherished' person is honored for the human being they are. They are treasured & loved & respected. There is NO FEMALE MEMBER of the FLDS that will EVER achieve that state. By their OWN beliefs, women do not even have enough worth to find their own way to heaven! They must be CALLED to heaven BY A MAN. They are subjugated, marginalized & their value to the FLDS is related directly to their ability to produce offspring. OBEDIENT offspring.

Will you also expand on how it is you perceive the members of the FLDS to be 'individuals'? They may each possess one body, but they are not allowed individual thoughts or actions. They are brought up from birth to believe & to blindly follow each & every thing their prophet dictates.

If the prophet says today they are ALL to wear blue - they all WILL wear blue. If the prophet says tomorrow that no one shall ever wear blue again, that it is the color of the devil, that every piece of blue clothing should be burned - they will burn every piece of blue clothing. If the prophet says the next day that his new revelation is that he, personally, defeated the devil & that the color blue is now exalted & should be worn by everyone, every day - guess what? They will ALL FOLLOW HIS ORDERS & DO WHAT HE SAYS.

THAT is the very essence of this group. That they are NOT individuals. They are NOT allowed independent thoughts or actions. They are instructed, led & controlled every minute of their lives. Those who are the most favored in Warren Jeffs' eyes are given permission BY WARREN JEFFS to carry out his orders & control those underneath them. But should any of them ever fall out of his favor - they will be given the boot & the next slavish toadie will take their place. They are not following a benevolent leader - they are subjects of a physically, emotionally mentally & spiritually abusive man who rules their lives with threats of harm in this life AND in his/their version of the hereafter.

I am shocked that you do not realize that. How in the world have you missed the huge amounts of information that are known, verified & documented about this group?

JMO [/*]

Can you name three of the children that are now in state custody that were abused ? Or even three cases ?

[cloe23]

Originally posted by Jan Powell


The attorneys would not be allowed to swap sides even if they wanted too. [/*]

TY, so if they find this too invasive and extreme must keep their mouths shut and either quit or lie?
Cloe:confused:

IMO there would not be so many attorneys involved if this wasn't a true finding of child abuse.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Ladyhawk


Hi Katy:seeya:

They might not have to admit it....it may be listed on documents already taken as evidence. That one Bishop's list we've all seen is not necessarily the only one. [/*]

Except, the appeals court ruled the seizure was illegal. I don't know if they'll be able to use that in a criminal case.

[evalles]

Originally posted by cloe23


TY, so if they find this too invasive and extreme must keep their mouths shut and either quit or lie?
Cloe:confused:

IMO there would not be so many attorneys involved if this wasn't a true finding of child abuse. [/*]


There are so many attorneys because each child has to be represented, and they volunteered from all over the country.
They represent the child's best interest, and most say the kids should go home.

[warhorse46]

Originally posted by cloe23
hi all:seeya:
Sorry if this has been posted before, but...... I was wondering if any of the LDS Children's attorneys have swapped sides? They are the ones that we can and should depend on. JMO
Cloe [/*]


Can`t do that, that would be a conflict of interest.

[spirit07]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Spirit - I could be confused, but I believe the FLDS are more concerned that DNA will prove unmarried sex with minor children. [/*]

If the girls referred to in the article claim they were spiritually married, even if they claim they wanted to, but were not of legal age for an adult to have sex with, then I assume the guy can still be charged?

It's ok for 16 year olds to marry as the law stands now right? But only if a legal marriage. And, maybe some of these were married or got pregnant before the law was changed - working backward to when Texas changed it's law and the ages of the girls when married or impregnated (at least I think this was changed, but I can't remember what year). So, I am very curious to see if they can verify at what age these young women became pregnant.

Also, I think the DNA tests would be all they could use in some of these cases to prove the father both lived on the compound and had other wives (not a legal marriage). Well, ok, they have their work cut out for them since the FLDS is not being forthright in all of this although it would be difficult to claim a father with multiple wives did not live at the compound because of the DNA tests - which they do not have results yet.

Can polygamy charges could be brought even if these girls were barely of legal age? I'm not sure this is relevant to the child custody hearing although I think it should be if possible.