- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
It would promote more accurate reading.
Court Says Texas Illegally Seized Sect's Children
- Thread starter Gary Allan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: 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.
And that is what appears to be the problem. The system wasn't/isn't working in this case. Now I agree that it's a tough situation.
But given that what we've heard is that the "authorities" gave the mothers the choice to leave the compound with their children, or have their children placed in foster homes in the near term tells me they didn't think the mothers were a threat to the children.
So then why take the children when you can ask the fathers to leave?
If CPS can't do it, then get the police involved. Police ask fathers and husbands to leave all the time when there are DV allegations, and if they leave, things cool off, and if not and they get mouthy, then there is something provable one can charge the reluctant man with.
But to farm out hundreds of children, away from their mothers, whom by all indications are not threats to the children, instead of taking the men out of the picture until they can determine which men, if not all of them, are the abusers.
If they can't do something like that, then there is something wrong with the decision.
I can't believe that if they had the evidence that you said they did, that they couldn't find a judge who could issue a court order for the men to be removed for 30,60 or 90 days until the matter could be sorted out.
Originally Posted By: MikeR
CPS is not a law enforcement agency. They do have the power to remove children from situations of abuse and immediate physical danger.
But CPS works WITH LEO's, so why not work with them instead of just "going it alone" here?
Originally Posted By: MikeR
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.
Given that CPS could just roll up here seems to indicate that an armed standoff was not too much of a concern. After all, CPS was able to cart off with hundreds of people. Doesn't seem a standoff was a real concern given the relative ease they took the mothers and children for "processing."
Originally Posted By: MikeR
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.
Which means a judge could just as easily ordered the men away for 30,60, or 90 days while this was being sorted out instead of separating the mothers from the children.
Originally Posted By: MikeR
After a complaint of sexual abuse of a minor, CPS removed these children from an abusive scenario.
If I recall correctly, and anonymous complaint, and no ID of who made the call. It could be fear, or it could have been a jealous teen who didn't care for the poligamy. The poligamy and teen "marriage" is sick indeed, lest you should think I'm discounting the seriousness.
However, there is something to be said for the shadowy nature of how the allegation was made.
Originally Posted By: MikeR
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.
It will be messy indeed. As one who practices faith, I hate seeing religion being used by some as a lever to control others. The children are used and abused, and many of those watching will paint with broad brushes blaming men and the religious, all men and all those with religious beliefs with broad brush strokes in the gender/culture wars.
Nobody wins, except the lawyers and the TV news outlets.
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.
And that is what appears to be the problem. The system wasn't/isn't working in this case. Now I agree that it's a tough situation.
But given that what we've heard is that the "authorities" gave the mothers the choice to leave the compound with their children, or have their children placed in foster homes in the near term tells me they didn't think the mothers were a threat to the children.
So then why take the children when you can ask the fathers to leave?
If CPS can't do it, then get the police involved. Police ask fathers and husbands to leave all the time when there are DV allegations, and if they leave, things cool off, and if not and they get mouthy, then there is something provable one can charge the reluctant man with.
But to farm out hundreds of children, away from their mothers, whom by all indications are not threats to the children, instead of taking the men out of the picture until they can determine which men, if not all of them, are the abusers.
If they can't do something like that, then there is something wrong with the decision.
I can't believe that if they had the evidence that you said they did, that they couldn't find a judge who could issue a court order for the men to be removed for 30,60 or 90 days until the matter could be sorted out.
Originally Posted By: MikeR
CPS is not a law enforcement agency. They do have the power to remove children from situations of abuse and immediate physical danger.
But CPS works WITH LEO's, so why not work with them instead of just "going it alone" here?
Originally Posted By: MikeR
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.
Given that CPS could just roll up here seems to indicate that an armed standoff was not too much of a concern. After all, CPS was able to cart off with hundreds of people. Doesn't seem a standoff was a real concern given the relative ease they took the mothers and children for "processing."
Originally Posted By: MikeR
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.
Which means a judge could just as easily ordered the men away for 30,60, or 90 days while this was being sorted out instead of separating the mothers from the children.
Originally Posted By: MikeR
After a complaint of sexual abuse of a minor, CPS removed these children from an abusive scenario.
If I recall correctly, and anonymous complaint, and no ID of who made the call. It could be fear, or it could have been a jealous teen who didn't care for the poligamy. The poligamy and teen "marriage" is sick indeed, lest you should think I'm discounting the seriousness.
However, there is something to be said for the shadowy nature of how the allegation was made.
Originally Posted By: MikeR
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.
It will be messy indeed. As one who practices faith, I hate seeing religion being used by some as a lever to control others. The children are used and abused, and many of those watching will paint with broad brushes blaming men and the religious, all men and all those with religious beliefs with broad brush strokes in the gender/culture wars.
Nobody wins, except the lawyers and the TV news outlets.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Ah ..my (potential) bad here. I've reviewed what I could. I'm basing my assertion that no men were there on the CNN film on site interview with some of the mothers. They indicated that no men were in the compound. They may have meant "NOW" as in during the taping.
This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner.
This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner.
"This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner."
Because this is what the state does, it forces people to agree with it's agenda, yes, I was abuse; Yes, I'm an alcoholic; Yes, I need help,...etc."
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner."
Because this is what the state does, it forces people to agree with it's agenda, yes, I was abuse; Yes, I'm an alcoholic; Yes, I need help,...etc."
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Ah ..my (potential) bad here. I've reviewed what I could. I'm basing my assertion that no men were there on the CNN film on site interview with some of the mothers. They indicated that no men were in the compound. They may have meant "NOW" as in during the taping.
This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner.
Because the mothers failed to protect their children from an unsafe situation and in fact contributed to the children's endangerment by participating in and teaching the sexually predatory "norms". Without evidence that the mothers tried to protect (or remove) these children from the environment, CPS will see a "failure to protect" issue.
Is there another way for the women to demonstrate that they tried to protect their children without claiming/seeking protection from abuse?
Ah ..my (potential) bad here. I've reviewed what I could. I'm basing my assertion that no men were there on the CNN film on site interview with some of the mothers. They indicated that no men were in the compound. They may have meant "NOW" as in during the taping.
This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner.
Because the mothers failed to protect their children from an unsafe situation and in fact contributed to the children's endangerment by participating in and teaching the sexually predatory "norms". Without evidence that the mothers tried to protect (or remove) these children from the environment, CPS will see a "failure to protect" issue.
Is there another way for the women to demonstrate that they tried to protect their children without claiming/seeking protection from abuse?
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Ah ..my (potential) bad here. I've reviewed what I could. I'm basing my assertion that no men were there on the CNN film on site interview with some of the mothers. They indicated that no men were in the compound. They may have meant "NOW" as in during the taping.
This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner.
This is the question I have been asking myself from day 1.
Also, I agree with the defense attorneys on this, there seems to have been a total lack of due process. It seems there were some men around at the time of the grab, those men that were part of non-plural marriages that were living in the community had their families torn apart simply from association with the group in general. Where were the individual investigations of the family prior to the drastic action of violating the rights of a family in which no apparent abuse was occurring? It appears there were none (investigations). Many modern people decry the actions of the state in the past where actions are taken against them simply because they belong to a certain class or group, yet these same people have been saying that the states' actions in this case where wholly right? I fully agree with this appeals court decision and have been waiting for someone to get it right.
There seems that there may have been some abuse by some of the community in which underage females may have been wed to men in plural marriages and impregnated. But due to the states handling of this case and the sensational type reporting of this case it is very hard to determine how widespread or pervasive the practice may have been.
I have been in congregations where the pastor had numerous extra-marital affairs, but it did not mean that the congregation as a whole supported extra-marital affairs. Do I accept that in this case that the church has an ingrained policy of abuse to EVERY child and underage minor of every family in this congregation because the state says so or the talking heads on the nightly (non)news show says so? No. It may be and it may not be, where is the preponderance of evidence? That is what I will believe. If not then next I think they should start raiding Mennonite farms in S. Dakota or Amish farms in Pennsylvania.
Who says that they don't practice plural and underage marriages?
Why should we take their word for it that they don't?
Ah ..my (potential) bad here. I've reviewed what I could. I'm basing my assertion that no men were there on the CNN film on site interview with some of the mothers. They indicated that no men were in the compound. They may have meant "NOW" as in during the taping.
This doesn't alter the fact that women were required to seek protection from abuse ..as in validating it for the state ..or they were to be separated from their children.
Many of you may look at this as some "technicality" ..but confront some (almost) Amish type with a whirlwind event, remove them from their world, and give them the choice between being a liar (in their view) or being separated from their children ..and you create a no win moral dilemma where there is no right choice.
Why couldn't the state keep the mothers and children together WITHOUT the mothers claiming/seeking protection from abuse???? This is the question that no one seems to have the ability to get a grip on and address in any defensible manner.
This is the question I have been asking myself from day 1.
Also, I agree with the defense attorneys on this, there seems to have been a total lack of due process. It seems there were some men around at the time of the grab, those men that were part of non-plural marriages that were living in the community had their families torn apart simply from association with the group in general. Where were the individual investigations of the family prior to the drastic action of violating the rights of a family in which no apparent abuse was occurring? It appears there were none (investigations). Many modern people decry the actions of the state in the past where actions are taken against them simply because they belong to a certain class or group, yet these same people have been saying that the states' actions in this case where wholly right? I fully agree with this appeals court decision and have been waiting for someone to get it right.
There seems that there may have been some abuse by some of the community in which underage females may have been wed to men in plural marriages and impregnated. But due to the states handling of this case and the sensational type reporting of this case it is very hard to determine how widespread or pervasive the practice may have been.
I have been in congregations where the pastor had numerous extra-marital affairs, but it did not mean that the congregation as a whole supported extra-marital affairs. Do I accept that in this case that the church has an ingrained policy of abuse to EVERY child and underage minor of every family in this congregation because the state says so or the talking heads on the nightly (non)news show says so? No. It may be and it may not be, where is the preponderance of evidence? That is what I will believe. If not then next I think they should start raiding Mennonite farms in S. Dakota or Amish farms in Pennsylvania.
Who says that they don't practice plural and underage marriages?
Why should we take their word for it that they don't?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
Because the mothers failed to protect their children from an unsafe situation and in fact contributed to the children's endangerment by participating in and teaching the sexually predatory "norms". Without evidence that the mothers tried to protect (or remove) these children from the environment, CPS will see a "failure to protect" issue.
Is there another way for the women to demonstrate that they tried to protect their children without claiming/seeking protection from abuse?
Sorry ..just doesn't flush. It's a forced confession to allow you to be assigned a status of innocent combatant.
That is, if abused indeed occurred to any/all of the children the claiming/seeking of protection is indifferent to the mother's "failure to protect".
In fact ..it is ONLY the mothers that admit to "failing to protect" that got to stay with their children.
You're either missing something ..or you're not explaining yourself in a way that I can understand.
I'll do this (again) pony style:
(I'll extend the implication for demonstration purposes)
Did sexual child abuse occur with your knowledge?
No: Okay you're removed from your children and cannot be with them because you don't admit that such things occurred.
Yes: Okay, because you were aware of sexual child abuse, and didn't come forward, didn't protect from/prevent sexual child abuse, you get to be with your abused, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, children.
HOW, IN THE WORLD, DOES THAT SIT IN A RATIONAL REALM IN YOUR MIND????
Because the mothers failed to protect their children from an unsafe situation and in fact contributed to the children's endangerment by participating in and teaching the sexually predatory "norms". Without evidence that the mothers tried to protect (or remove) these children from the environment, CPS will see a "failure to protect" issue.
Is there another way for the women to demonstrate that they tried to protect their children without claiming/seeking protection from abuse?
Sorry ..just doesn't flush. It's a forced confession to allow you to be assigned a status of innocent combatant.
That is, if abused indeed occurred to any/all of the children the claiming/seeking of protection is indifferent to the mother's "failure to protect".
In fact ..it is ONLY the mothers that admit to "failing to protect" that got to stay with their children.
You're either missing something ..or you're not explaining yourself in a way that I can understand.
I'll do this (again) pony style:
(I'll extend the implication for demonstration purposes)
Did sexual child abuse occur with your knowledge?
No: Okay you're removed from your children and cannot be with them because you don't admit that such things occurred.
Yes: Okay, because you were aware of sexual child abuse, and didn't come forward, didn't protect from/prevent sexual child abuse, you get to be with your abused, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, children.
HOW, IN THE WORLD, DOES THAT SIT IN A RATIONAL REALM IN YOUR MIND????
Originally Posted By: jmac
Also, I agree with the defense attorneys on this, there seems to have been a total lack of due process. It seems there were some men around at the time of the grab, those men that were part of non-plural marriages that were living in the community had their families torn apart simply from association with the group in general.
If they had been members of a local visible minority group, the media would have been up in arms the very next day.
Also, I agree with the defense attorneys on this, there seems to have been a total lack of due process. It seems there were some men around at the time of the grab, those men that were part of non-plural marriages that were living in the community had their families torn apart simply from association with the group in general.
If they had been members of a local visible minority group, the media would have been up in arms the very next day.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
This is from Al ..who maybe hasn't figured out that he posted in the wrong thread
Quote:
1. CPS investigates all complaints concerning child abuse that fall within certain criteria. (its a requirement). All of those criteria are not public information.
As they should.
Quote:
2. CPS Performs an investigation and delivers it to the courts.
As they should. No problem.
Quote:
3. CPS has the power to immediately protect the child from a hostile environment until the court makes a decision, if that was the original mandate.
As they should. No problem.
Quote:
4. CPS will error on the side of caution (protecting the child).
As they should. No problem.
Now how does this alter the fact that mothers had to admit to failing to protect their children (aka: admitting that they were in fact abused) in order to be with them??
Quote:
1. CPS investigates all complaints concerning child abuse that fall within certain criteria. (its a requirement). All of those criteria are not public information.
As they should.
Quote:
2. CPS Performs an investigation and delivers it to the courts.
As they should. No problem.
Quote:
3. CPS has the power to immediately protect the child from a hostile environment until the court makes a decision, if that was the original mandate.
As they should. No problem.
Quote:
4. CPS will error on the side of caution (protecting the child).
As they should. No problem.
Now how does this alter the fact that mothers had to admit to failing to protect their children (aka: admitting that they were in fact abused) in order to be with them??
They just showed some of the women from this family on TV. They all look the same!
The news media is saying now a lot of them were on welfare, as single moms.
The news media is saying now a lot of them were on welfare, as single moms.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
(aka: admitting that they were in fact abused) in order to be with them??
Those cult guys were pretty sharp. They have the good taxpayers of Texas paying for their harems.
(aka: admitting that they were in fact abused) in order to be with them??
Those cult guys were pretty sharp. They have the good taxpayers of Texas paying for their harems.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
It's not uncommon to raise a family on the public dole. All 100% above board. One of my son's classmates had 5 kids raised on the state. He even paid child support. It was far cheaper than marrying her and having to house, feed, etc. 5 children. He wanted a stay at home mother ..so she did. Since you only get two years of welfare after a baby ..you have another baby every 2 years.
You can do this with any number of women you please. I'm pretty sure the % they take out of your check goes down with each child. All you have to do is not marry them and not reside with them.
It gives the term "family values" a whole new meaning.
You can do this with any number of women you please. I'm pretty sure the % they take out of your check goes down with each child. All you have to do is not marry them and not reside with them.
It gives the term "family values" a whole new meaning.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
They all look the same!
Well, if you isolate the herd long enough, that tends to happen.
(visions of some of the places I've seen)
"Where I come from ..we're all related"
They all look the same!
Well, if you isolate the herd long enough, that tends to happen.
(visions of some of the places I've seen)
"Where I come from ..we're all related"
A guy who breeds like rabbits, named Warren of all things, is now in prison. I can just see the other inmates talking with him...
A:What are you in here for?
WJ: I had a hundred wives, and fathered 300 children
A: Kewl!
A:What are you in here for?
WJ: I had a hundred wives, and fathered 300 children
A: Kewl!
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It's not uncommon to raise a family on the public dole. All 100% above board. One of my son's classmates had 5 kids raised on the state. He even paid child support. It was far cheaper than marrying her and having to house, feed, etc. 5 children. He wanted a stay at home mother ..so she did. Since you only get two years of welfare after a baby ..you have another baby every 2 years.
You can do this with any number of women you please. I'm pretty sure the % they take out of your check goes down with each child. All you have to do is not marry them and not reside with them.
It gives the term "family values" a whole new meaning.
What a far sighted policy.
It's not uncommon to raise a family on the public dole. All 100% above board. One of my son's classmates had 5 kids raised on the state. He even paid child support. It was far cheaper than marrying her and having to house, feed, etc. 5 children. He wanted a stay at home mother ..so she did. Since you only get two years of welfare after a baby ..you have another baby every 2 years.
You can do this with any number of women you please. I'm pretty sure the % they take out of your check goes down with each child. All you have to do is not marry them and not reside with them.
It gives the term "family values" a whole new meaning.
What a far sighted policy.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Yeah ..I know. Just like we were told tax cuts were going to give us a robust economy and the horn a plenty would spew forth bounty for all.
Nothing ever quite turns out the way you expect it to.
Nothing ever quite turns out the way you expect it to.
Taxes? Now there is thread shift.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Taxes? Now there is thread shift.
Quote:
What a far sighted policy.
Yeah ..I know what you mean
Taxes? Now there is thread shift.
Quote:
What a far sighted policy.
Yeah ..I know what you mean
- Status
