Court Says Texas Illegally Seized Sect's Children

[Gary Allan]

Hopefully, we can keep the watershed comments within guidelines

Court Says Texas Illegally Seized Sect's Children

HOUSTON — A Texas appeals court ruled on Thursday that the state had illegally seized up to 468 children from their homes at a polygamist ranch in West Texas. The decision abruptly threw the largest custody case in recent American history into turmoil.

.....

The court said the record did “not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation would have eliminated the risk.”

It said that the evidence of danger to the children “was legally and factually insufficient” to justify the removal and that the lower court had “abused its discretion” in failing to return the children to the families.

.....

The appeals judges who ruled, Chief Justice W. Kenneth Law and Justices Robert. H. Pemberton and Alan Waldrop, all Republicans, said removing children from their homes was “an extreme measure” justifiable only in the event of urgent or immediate danger.

Instead, the court said, the state argued that the “belief system” at the ranch condoned under-age marriage and pregnancy and that the whole ranch functioned as a “household” in which sexual abuse anywhere threatened children in the entire community.

But in reality, the judges said, there was no evidence of widespread abuse, and they faulted the district judge, Barbara Walther, for approving the children’s removal based on insufficient grounds.


Full text/article NY Times - registration required to view

 

[Tempest]

I tend to agree with this but I have not seen the states evidence as to the danger that the kids were in.

Will be very interesting if this goes to the Texas supreme court and even the US high court.

 

[Steve S]

Hopefully the moms sue the life out of the people involved for the crimes the government people commited.

 

[Gary Allan]

I often wondered if I was in such a position to sue for this type of thing if I could name the person who did it as a co-defendant. I think it would provide much satisfaction to waive all punitive awards if you get to ruin the life of the person who ruined yours.

Make their overzealous nature be their downfall and ruin. It would be a very strong lesson to those who think that they can hide behind an office or feel masked by a corporation (agency -whatever).

 

[javacontour]

If they thought the kids were in danger from the men, some or all, why remove the children, taking them away from their homes? They were not the suspects. Remove the suspect men, not the kids.

Good gravy. What were these clowns thinking when they took hundreds of children?

 

[Shannow]

They were thinking that they could get away with it, and show that they are doing something.

It's way harder to rescue the children that are in REAL trouble (as evidenced by poor little things dying of starvation locked in their bedrooms, dying of methadone overdoses because it keeps them quiet).

 

[MikeR]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
If they thought the kids were in danger from the men, some or all, why remove the children, taking them away from their homes? They were not the suspects. Remove the suspect men, not the kids.

Good gravy. What were these clowns thinking when they took hundreds of children?


"They" were CPS, not law enforcement. They witnessed information that indicated that there was systemic child molestation going on at this hellhole. There were pregnant children there.

This was within their power and responsibility to remove these children from immediate danger.

 

[TooManyWheels]

I think the problem here is that the situation does not lend itself to a partial solution. The state may not have done a great job of proving that underage sex with adult men was a way of life, but there have been several examples that it does go on.

Given that, how is the state supposed to stop a systemically corruptive practice, while sparing those who are not involved? Especially since the sect members are indoctrinated not to trust outsiders.

I have very mixed feelings here. On one hand, I thought the state way overreached in the Waco Branch Davidian episode, about fifteen years ago. In a similar vein, I really, really dislike the state deciding which religions it will condone and which it will not tolerate. On the other hand though, in this particular case there seems to have been abundant evidence, even at a distance, that very socially harmful things were going on with this sect, to both the girls who were retained in the compound, and the boys who were kicked out to fend for themselves in the adult world.

At some point, people's individual beliefs tread onto the basic human rights of others, and on balance I think that was the case here. While the method of resolution seems over the top, I don't see much alternative given the pervasiveness of the problem.

If this had been a bordello with children present and participating, and no religious overtones, the resolution would have been crystal clear. I don't see how things should be different just because there is no cash exchanged, and a certain group of men has brainwashed gullible women that it is something of a higher significance.

 

[Gary Allan]

I don't think there's any argument that the elder men were real creeps. The objection that I raised in the whole affair is that the state removed all the children even though the men had fled the compound to avoid prosecution. The mothers, who you may consider former or present victims, were then given no way out. They either had to submit to the state's declaration that they were abused and were seeking protection from abuse, or they were to be returned to the compound without their children.

So, be forced to leave your home and admit that you're a victim ..or have your children taken from you. Not much of a choice between door #1 and door #2. Kinda like a forced confession to being an accomplice to a crime to stay out of jail.


Hang the elder men for all I care. I'll help.

I don't endorse the practice of polygamy. Just keep in mind that not all polygamists are part of some cult like group. They may not belong to any group at all. They don't have "Stepford wives" and don't drive their male offspring from the nest when they pose competition for Chester the Molester's next target. They may be living in a twin home near you where the apparent family lives next door to the single mother with children. The women will probably be thoroughly modern and socially active and civic minded. They may be hiding in plain sight.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: MikeR

"They" were CPS, not law enforcement. They witnessed information that indicated that there was systemic child molestation going on at this hellhole. There were pregnant children there.
This was within their power and responsibility to remove these children from immediate danger.

Exactly...end of story-nobrainer.

This whole situation...is a Cornucopia of unimaginable insanity. Hard to begin to understand where to start.

Easy for us to sip our coffee in the sterility of our little environment and throw stones at the poor bstards that had to sort it all out. For anyone to think there was not abuse at the highest level here...I'll stop now.

 

[javacontour]

I'm not saying there wasn't abuse.

I'm saying the wrong folks were taken out of the homes.

Take the men, not the kids.

If CPS had a case, then why not take the men and have the prosecuted?

 

[oilyriser]

They had a couple on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, who was celebrating their 75th wedding anniversary, and he commented that they would have been put in prison today for what they had done. They started dating when she was 15 and he was 17.

Do not to a Google search for "trobriand islands" and "yam festival"

 

[CivicFan]

What's up with Texas and nut case religious sects? Why are they so attracted to Texas?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
For anyone to think there was not abuse at the highest level here...I'll stop now.


Don't stop ...and I have yet to see where anyone said that there wasn't abuse (show me).

..but none of those also sipping coffee have yet to provide a plausible reason why the victim (former perhaps) mothers were separated from their children ONLY if they sought protection from abuse when no men were present at the compound.

I'll do this pony style for those who keep tap dancing around the facts

No men = no abusers

Supposition in alternative view: But the women may have also been abusers.

Yet, by the mere admission of perception of abuse ANY of the women would have been allowed to remain with their children.


Why would you punish abused mothers if you truly see them as victims as well? This hardly seems to be a sensible reaction if you truly view the men as the creeps that they are. We all sensibly object to what these men did in the name of spiritual mandate, but we see all kinds of maladaptive behaviors that use some doctrine to keep them going. I've yet to see anyone who desires and endorses the punishment of the victims in the ordeal.

 

[MikeR]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I'm not saying there wasn't abuse.

I'm saying the wrong folks were taken out of the homes.

Take the men, not the kids.

If CPS had a case, then why not take the men and have the prosecuted?


But that's not the way the system works. CPS is not a law enforcement agency. They do have the power to remove children from situations of abuse and immediate physical danger. And the possibility of a blaze of glory standoff/Kool-Aid/applesauce scenario certainly played into their decision to take all the children, including the younger children and the boys.

Legal charges will follow, through the proper channels.

Seriously, we're not talking about a state agency busting in for no reason and stealing someone's kids and immediately terminating their parental rights. After a complaint of sexual abuse of a minor, CPS removed these children from an abusive scenario. Many children were pregnant, and church doctrine indicated that they were impregnated by older men.

It will all go through the courts, which is happening now. Unfortunately religious freedom is a powerful alibi in Texas, even in the face of what these men have done to these children.

 

[MikeR]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
For anyone to think there was not abuse at the highest level here...I'll stop now.


Don't stop ...and I have yet to see where anyone said that there wasn't abuse (show me).

..but none of those also sipping coffee have yet to provide a plausible reason why the victim (former perhaps) mothers were separated from their children ONLY if they sought protection from abuse when no men were present at the compound.

I'll do this pony style for those who keep tap dancing around the facts

No men = no abusers

Supposition in alternative view: But the women may have also been abusers.

Yet, by the mere admission of perception of abuse ANY of the women would have been allowed to remain with their children.


Why would you punish abused mothers if you truly see them as victims as well? This hardly seems to be a sensible reaction if you truly view the men as the creeps that they are. We all sensibly object to what these men did in the name of spiritual mandate, but we see all kinds of maladaptive behaviors that use some doctrine to keep them going. I've yet to see anyone who desires and endorses the punishment of the victims in the ordeal.


Do you mean the women who were impregnated as minors but now are adults with children who are minors?

CPS would see this as a "failure to protect" issue. Although the mothers may have been victims themselves, CPS (by definition) could only remove children from what they perceived as unsafe conditions. The mothers who were present, whether they were victims of previous abuse or not, had failed to protect their children from systemic abuse.

It's an ugly scene all around, and there are certainly no winners. CPS just had the responsibility to make a spot decision on these kids' safety, and in my opinion they did the right thing.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Do you mean the women who were impregnated as minors but now are adults with children who are minors?


I don't really care when they were impregnated. Why would that make a difference in my perception of them being forced to admit abuse to be with their children? I'm talking about adult women.

Help me rationalize this:

Option #1: You get to go home without your children

Option #2: You get to stay with your children ONLY if you admit to being abused (with the backdrop implication that you have to make the state's case for them in implied admission that abuse, whether real or imagined, occurred with the separation from your children being he leverage).

AGAIN, these are whacko men here ..but the low blow strong arming with naive women in regard to their children has some serious ultrablind authoritarian rings to the tone.

We are still a nation of principles, are we not? These instances are what erodes your basic rights. The extremes. So now it can be standard practice to make perfectly happy people (in some other situation that isn't this whacked out) "confess" to abuse to get from authorities what they need NOW??

Yep, just like Vic Morrow in The Glass House. "Hey kid, it's either me ...or them three. I'll try and be gentle on you".

 

[MikeR]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Do you mean the women who were impregnated as minors but now are adults with children who are minors?


I don't really care when they were impregnated. Why would that make a difference in my perception of them being forced to admit abuse to be with their children? I'm talking about adult women.

Help me rationalize this:

Option #1: You get to go home without your children

Option #2: You get to stay with your children ONLY if you admit to being abused (with the backdrop implication that you have to make the state's case for them in implied admission that abuse, whether real or imagined, occurred with the separation from your children being he leverage).

AGAIN, these are whacko men here ..but the low blow strong arming with naive women in regard to their children has some serious ultrablind authoritarian rings to the tone.

We are still a nation of principles, are we not? These instances are what erodes your basic rights. The extremes. So now it can be standard practice to make perfectly happy people (in some other situation that isn't this whacked out) "confess" to abuse to get from authorities what they need NOW??

Yep, just like Vic Morrow in The Glass House. "Hey kid, it's either me ...or them three. I'll try and be gentle on you".


The children of women who admitted to being abused were not taken?

Unless all of the CPS claims are false, these judges (who, in Texas are elected and are partisan) sent all of these children back into an environment where men "wed" and molest young girls (and boys are abandoned and left homeless to keep the ratio of older men:girls more favorable to the elders). And there's polygamy. "Danger" is relative, but would you call a community that holds child molestation as one of its core beliefs and actively, systemically practices such abuse as an imminently dangerous place for a child?

If a single young girl shows up pregnant by an older man, they did the right thing to immediately remove these children. Unfortunately, due to Texas' status as America's most cult-friendly state, we may never know.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
The children of women who admitted to being abused were not taken?


All children were taken. Mothers were only given the option to be with them (in whatever milieu the state provided) if they sought protection from abuse. How hard is this to see as a forced situation? Am I really seeing something that really isn't there?

AGAIN, - DIVORCE YOUR OPINION OF THE MEN (that are in exile and in hiding and NOT THERE). Public execution for them SEE?? SEE?? SEE??? Kill them! Fillet them!! Boil them in oil!!

...but I can see you haven't bothered to read more than allows you rhetorical stature .. so, why should I bother?

Just condone the state removing children from their mothers in a house that is of no further risk to them.

 

[oilyriser]

title needs to be changed to:

assembly says state surreptitiously seized sex sect's scions