quote:Texas Children's Protective Services spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner said the separation was made Monday after they decided that children are more truthful in interviews about possible abuse if their parents are not around.
How does CPS go about making this kind of decision?
Leaving aside the studies CT is citing (which I am slightly familiar with), it seems pretty logical to me. A child is a whole lot less likely to want to say something they perceive as negative about a parent with a family member there -- even if it is a different one.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very briefly, this is a summary of my overall position in this matter:
I think that investigating the matter is the right thing to do. As corollaries to that, I acknowledge that such an investigation usually involves removal of children from reasonably suspected imminent danger when present and that what we have read in the media is consistent with such a concern being reasonable in this case (consistent with, but not "establishing that there was abuse," mind you). That is, what has happened is both consistent with due process under law and typical for what I know of investigations where the issues raised are quite serious and justified concerns. I don't know for sure that the issues were such in this case, and I don't know that they were not -- but I suspect that pursuing the investigation in this way by following the due process in this case was the right thing to do.
I am also worried about the highly charged and almost inevitably prejudicial environment in which this case is playing out. As I noted before, I don't think pure objectivity is possible here -- it would certainly be an ideal, but I doubt it is within human possiblities to reach that ideal. I do believe all involved should try their best to do so, though, here and elsewhere.
I am worried that the authorities may have done the right thing (if that is the case) in the wrong way or for the wrong reasons. I don't know that they did, and what I know so far is consistent with either doing it all right or doing it pretty much all wrong, or any middling combination thereof. But this concern is at the forefront of my mind, and I plan to watch carefully, ask questions in my own mind and of others, and pursue accountability insofar as I can have an effect on the general discourse.
Mostly, I grieve for the kids, and I also grieve for the mothers. This is a bad, bad situation, no matter how you slice it. The law may have been broken [witness pregnancies below the age of consent] and (I think) it is likely that a concern about imminent danger was justified, but it is a hard, hard thing to go through, regardless of the truth of the matter. I do think this is likely the way it had to play out in order to determine the truth of the matter and keep children safe, but that does nothing to minimize the heartache, fear, and trauma of that process.
I still think it's the right thing to do. Horrible, but the least of all the actual alternatives, which (IMO) are worse.
I still await -- carefully, critically, watchfully -- for appropriate accountability to be established regarding the process as a whole in this case, regardless of the outcome of it. I expect it to be established in a timely fashion, even if not immediately. If that doesn't happen, I intend to put my voice into a call for it.
posted
I agree with CT, except perhaps on the issue of immediate danger to the majority of the children. By a strict definition of pedophilia, these men are not pedophiles - they do not have sex with prepubescent girls, rather they take as "wives" adolescents which are capable of bearing young. Unless there is evidence that younger children are being so abused, I doubt the claims of reasonable suspicion of immediate danger to any of the male children and any pre-pubescent girls.
I worry about lasting emotional harm to these children caused by a separation that may not be reasonably justified.
I am also aware that I have only a tiny picture of the whole picture. Hopefully when more information becomes available, it will become clear that the decisions being made today are the right ones, but if they are not, then some time down the road, after the damage has been done, is *not* the time to start trying to figure out what to do about it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious if anyone is considering the following as causing lasting emotional harm: - being raised with the understanding that marrying multiple women (including adolescents below the legal age of consent) is acceptable behavior
I realize that it in and of itself is not a situation of "immediate danger" but in the long run I could potentially see it as reason (with sufficient proof) to intervene. I'm in no way shape or form an expert (so I'm sure CT and/or Dag could provide better guidance on this issue) but I'm wondering if this kind of thing is included in the CPS regs.
Alternately, say it wasn't underage marriage, but was instead some other illegal activity that was fostered by the parents/community... If the parents were consistently teaching the kids that grand theft auto was an acceptable activity would that be cause to intervene? (even if the kids aren't actually being arrested for stealing the cars yet?)
I'm asking this mostly as a point of curiosity, but also because I think there is valid reason to be afraid of the mental/emotional/ethical well-being of those kids who aren't directly involved in whatever abuse is taking place, and it doesn't seem that said concern has been addressed much in this discussion.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even the worst of the allegations have not indicated any prepubescent sexual abuse, so the removal of 5- and 6-year-olds seems unconscionable.
Not long ago there was a thread in which child molesters were being reviled as the world's worst monsters, and "appropriate" punishments were being suggested. I entered the thread to point out that most children are molested by their own parents or by trusted adults, such as relatives, teachers or child care workers, and that punishing the molester would necessarily result in trauma for the victims. That said, I don't mean to say that the molesters shouldn't be punished, or that it is healthier to leave the victim with their molester in order to prevent that trauma.
Child molestation usually begins with a process known as "grooming" of young children. Molesters attempt to:
1. Instill in their victims the idea that they, as adults, are trustworthy, and to develop a close relationship with their victims.
2. Instill distrust in other adults. The molester doesn't engage in illegal physical contact until they have a sense of confidence that their victim will not tell the truth to outsiders.
3. Reinforce in their victims the idea that sexual behavior is normal, encourage curiosity, and provide children with an outlet for sexual curiosity, usually with the adult serving the role as a sexual mentor that is responding to the child's sexual interests. These sexual interests usually manifest themselves at about the time of puberty, and the child often feels that they are at fault, because after years of grooming, it is they that initiate physical contact.
While so many on this thread are claiming that there has been little or no evidence to support removing children from their parents in this case, I have to wonder which articles you've been reading. The evidence is that girls have been systematically taught from earliest childhood that by the time they are of child bearing age (about 13) sexual relations with middle age men is normal, and in fact, a religious responsibility. Aside from the call from a victim who described being choked and beaten while being raped, there is the physical evidence that numerous girls in this compound had born children well before they had reached the legal age to give consent, and that these girls were living in polygamous relationships in which the husband is a middle-aged man.
Then there is the evidence of a bed within the temple. This is evidence that this cult has essentially made child molestation into a sacrament. Testimony from other women who've escaped from the cult gives evidence of grooming carried out by its adult members, on all the children. Yes, there is evidence that the 5 and 6 year olds are bing groomed for sexual molestation.
quote:One of the greatest harms caused by the use of such rumors against religious minorities - and they have been used extensively against my own religion - is that it causes people to doubt situations where such abuses actually occur and for people to circle wagons around the abusers. We certainly saw this within the Catholic Church.
This is an amazing statement, I give Dag a lot of credit for making it.
Much has been made in this thread of the confusion between the FLDS and LDS churches, and yet it appears that in a forum frequented by LDS members, there is considerable sympathy for the perpetrators of child molestation, to the point of accusing those who are attempting to protect children from that molestation of being "heavy handed." Such sympathies add to the confusion. It would be easier for outsiders to make the distinction between these two religions if LDS posters were able to maintain Dagonee's objectiveness with respect to this situation.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious if anyone is considering the following as causing lasting emotional harm: - being raised with the understanding that marrying multiple women (including adolescents below the legal age of consent) is acceptable behavior
In 1955, the Utah Supreme Court held that the mere presence of a consensual polygamous relationship supports a finding of neglect even absent any finding that children lack adequate medical care, clothing, or schooling or are not well behaved or alcohol-abusing. In Re State In Interest of Black. Edit: the court upheld the state taking custody of the children from the father and mothers.
The reasoning was that the state has an interest in stopping the propagation of polygamy and attempting to limit number of children who must receive government resources. The court held that a bright line rule against polygamy will prevent the court from having to intrude to make individual determinations about whether a particular polygamous relationship is good or bad. The court also pointed out that the continual commission of a felony in front of one's children teaches them to violate the law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be easier for outsiders to make the distinction between these two religions if LDS posters were able to maintain Dagonee's objectiveness with respect to this situation.
I'm not LDS.
I also realize that my words here are of limited effect. I'm concerned about the well being of these children and whether the remedy may in some cases may be worse than the disease. I'm not attempting to influence the policies of the CPS agents, I'm merely expressing my concern in an informal environment where a discussion on the topic has been started.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, I was concerned about that when I wrote my post. I don't make any attempt to remember who belongs to what religion, so unless it's specified in the thread, I'm sort of forced into generalizations sometimes. Nevertheless, I felt the point needed making, so I tried to word it without specifying anyone in particular.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:it appears that in a forum frequented by LDS members, there is considerable sympathy for the perpetrators of child molestation, to the point of accusing those who are attempting to protect children from that molestation of being "heavy handed."
Please explain why you seem to feel that finding fault with CPS' efforts [EDIT]is showing support for perpetrators of child molestation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence is that girls have been systematically taught from earliest childhood that by the time they are of child bearing age (about 13) sexual relations with middle age men is normal, and in fact, a religious responsibility.
I haven't seen this from the AP articles I've been reading.
quote:Aside from the call from a victim who described being choked and beaten while being raped, there is the physical evidence that numerous girls in this compound had born children well before they had reached the legal age to give consent, and that these girls were living in polygamous relationships in which the husband is a middle-aged man.
Haven't seen this either from the AP. It could be there-- but a large part of the problem is that the state doesn't appear (as far as I can tell) to have released any information about why these kids were taken from their homes-- other than the very nebulous, 'They were in danger of being physically and sexually abused.'
quote:Then there is the evidence of a bed within the temple. This is evidence that this cult has essentially made child molestation into a sacrament.
The bed itself is evidence of a bed in a room. I'm assuming they found material on the bed that confirms that sexual relations were being carried out on the bed. I'm not sure of the extent of the technology of such tests-- can they determine the age of participants?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: that girls have been systematically taught something along those lines in communities such as that one came out repeatedly during Jeffs' trial. He helped teach such ideas and he arranged marriages in the fulfillment of such ideas, and he has been convicted of doing so in one case (a 14 year old girl with a 19 year old boy). He is set to be tried again for more instances of arranging marriages with such young girls (three more, I think).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again I'd like to point out that the news articles have cited not only sexual abuse but also evidence of physical abuse. Even if prepubescent children were not be sexually abused, they may have been physically abused. In fact based on what I know about several polygamous groups, I think its likely that the group encouraged severe corporal punishment of its children. At this point that is just speculation but it is no more unfounded than the speculation that there was no abuse of the younger children.
I also agree with CT on almost every point of this issue.
I understand why the very idea that CPS agents can come into a home and remove children without prior due process (emergency situations) is terrifying to parents. Even though I do not have children of my own I think I can understand why good parents find the whole idea terrifying. This is the stuff of nightmares.
But I also think that those fears are blown out of proportion in comparison to the reality and have been fueled by sensationalized stories that occasionally make the news.
I have both worked with children who've been abused and have close friends and family who've had vengeful neighbors report them to CPS repeatedly out of spite. I can imagine how horrifying it must be to have CPS agents show up at your door once, let alone over and over again. Yet in all these cases, CPS came in saw that there was no grounds for complaint and left. I think good parents can have high confidence that their child won't be taken away without just cause and due process.
About 10 years ago my father was on a committee in the Utah State legislature reviewing exactly this issue. At that time in the state of Utah when CPS removed children from a home under "emergency circumstances", the case was required to be presented for review before a judge within 24 hours (I may be misremembering the time, it could have been 48 hours). The parents were allowed to be present for this hearing with counsel. In over 99% of cases, the judges who reviewed the cases found that removal was justified. In fact the number of cases in which a CPS worker visited a home and decided not to remove a child who was shortly thereafter seriously injured were ten times more common than the incidence in which a child's emergency removal was found to be unfounded.
Although prior judicial review was not required, judicial review was required and performed in a very timely manner for all cases. Parents had the opportunity to hear the charges, have counsel and present their side of the story before the judges. And in those judicial reviews, it was very very rarely found that the CPS workers had removed a child that wasn't actualy at risk. The data just don't support the idea that CPS workers are commonly overly aggressive in removing children from homes.
When a CPS worker goes into a home where there are accusations of abuse, they can err in two ways. They can take a child who isn't actually at risk or leave a child in a dangerous situation. In fact the statistics indicated that CPS (in Utah) was far more likely to err by leaving a child in a dangerous situation than the alternative. This was the exact opposite of the perception in the community.
I understand that this system isn't perfect, but there really are children who need to be removed from an abusive and dangerous home situation. I feel very strongly that we as a community have a responsibility to our protect our children even if that sometimes means removing them from their parents. I wish we had a better solution to this problem, but I can't think of one.
My willingness to presume that the Texas CPS had cause to remove all 400 children, is based on my knowledge of what goes on in CPS Utah. So far nothing in this case indicates that the Texas CPS is violating due process. As I said initially, I am anxious to see whether the proper reviews are done. Because of the extraordinary circumstances, I can see justification for stretching the normal time line for the review, but not by very much. I hope that CPS will work towards returning these children to their mothers as soon as the mothers are able to demonstrate their ability to provide them with a safe living environment. That is normal CPS procedure and I strongly hope it is followed in this case.
Right now I see no reason to presume that something wrong has been done. I am also not presuming that everything is justified and will be watching to see that due process is completed.
Of course, due process being done doesn't often make the headline news and I am living a long long way from Texas so I sincerely hope someone closer is keeping a better eye on things than I will.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be easier for outsiders to make the distinction between these two religions if LDS posters were able to maintain Dagonee's objectiveness with respect to this situation.
I'm not LDS.
On the other hand, I am LDS. So please don't presume that this discussion is breaking down along religious lines.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My comment was addressed to Glenn and I was more or less making the same point you were.
I also wanted to emphasize that there was at least one LDS poster here who wasn't biased in favor of the FLDS group.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the people questioning why they are removing the younger children from the compound. . . assuming that this group does, in fact, force 13 year old girls to marry older men, what would you have CPS do with the girls who have not yet reached that age? Leave them there, and come in once a year to clear out the ones that are approaching the age of being married off, and hope you time it right? Leave all the children who are at least 5 years away from being married off and hope that you get justification for another warrant before too many of them have been raped?
It's certainly not an easy situation, but if there is reason to believe that underage girls are culturally expected to have sex in this community, I can't see justification for allowing any female children to remain in the community until the charges are investigated and resolved. Likewise physical abuse and children of any gender.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:For the people questioning why they are removing the younger children from the compound. . . assuming that this group does, in fact, force 13 year old girls to marry older men, what would you have CPS do with the girls who have not yet reached that age?
Let them stay with their mothers, in supervised custody if necessary, until the relationships of the children and women could be determined and individual custody hearings could be held. Basically, maintain the status quo of a couple days ago.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless the moms are preventing the kids from talking to the agents. Remember, these mothers have been brought up to distrust outsiders as well.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably because I am LDS, the idea of just polygamy doesn't bother me at all. In that way, there might be a bias. However, forcing a child into a marriage is wrong. Excommunicating 14 year old boys in order to mantain the unequal gender ratio is wrong.
I think that one thing you have to keep in mind with the raid is that no one knew what to expect. Texans remember Waco and don't want that to happen again. The mindset going into a cult compound is not that they will be able to do a several week investigation. Let's say they took half the kids and then the group went crazy and did a jonestown. Or got guns and hunkered down. Better to take the kids and return them then risk them being killed. Also, the kids lived in dormitory style housing, making it very different from an apartment building.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette, I think this is an interesting sentence:
quote:Probably because I am LDS, the idea of just polygamy doesn't bother me at all.
I don't think being LDS generally translates to not being bothered by the idea of polygamy. In fact, I think it's an issue that *really* troubles a lot of LDS folks, even when only considering the historical participation of the LDS church and excluding any current practice of it by other groups. I don't mean to say they consider it wrong; rather I mean to indicate that they find it extremely difficult to understand and reconcile with other beliefs and experiences regarding marriage.
When it's something extrinsic to a group one identifies with - something somebody else might do but not us - I think it's actually easier to shrug off.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also wanted to emphasize that there was at least one LDS poster here who wasn't biased in favor of the FLDS group.
I don't think anyone here is biased in favor of the FLDS group.
I certainly hope not, but wasn't that the implication of Glen's original comment?
(First, I just finished recovering my computer from a crash, and it's my bedtime, so this will be short)
Yes, and implication is the right word. My comments were entirely based on an impression from the overall tenor of the thread, not from any specific person's attitude or response, which is why it's pointless to respond to Scott R's question. The early discussion of confusion between LDS and FLDS has to do with the public's impression of the two religions. I was merely pointing out that as an outsider, some comments on this thread could be taken as evidence of LDS sympathy for FLDS, which would tend to undermine the distinction. I thought it would be an important thing to consider, especially for people who are trying to maintain the distinction.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, that sounds a lot like the "aid and comfort" language which we hear right-wingers use against people that are critical of the administration. Regardless of my own religious affiliations that really rubs me the wrong way.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For anyone who disagrees with how Texas has behaved, help with a petition to send a message. edit: should work now. I think.
You seriously want people to sign this?
quote:We, the undersigned, urge Texan authorities to free the innocent women, children, and other members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church who are currently being detained. We demand that the Constitutional rights of the innocent be preserved, and that due process be served. As individuals are innocent until proven guilty, we call upon the Texas Governor to intervene in this matter and allow the women and children to return to their homes peacefully. We also demand an apology, most especially from the Texas CPS, for the heinous acts of aggression displayed in these recent events.
It's one thing to express doubt about the actions of the CPS. It's another to leap to the conclusions inherent in this petition. Especially after you admitted that "there is little to no proof" that "bounds have been overstepped" and that "the authorities are [not] doing everything 'by the book.'"
Assuming you haven't come across additional proof since you posted that on Tuesday, I'm frankly disgusted.
A petition urging that the rights of those involved be respected, that independent counsel investigate thoroughly, etc. is one thing. Labeling the removals "heinous acts of aggression" and asking that the children be sent back when you admit there is little or no proof that CPS overstepped its bounds is quite another.
quote:I don't think anyone here is biased in favor of the FLDS group.
Occasional certainly strikes me this way, and has from his entry into the thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, people have signed it so I guess the answer to your question Dagonee is yes I do expect people to sign the petition. Yes again I am biased in favor of the FLDS group and others like them. Let people be prosecuted as individuals and not as a group, otherwise you are nothing more than a persecutor.
I always thought the above sentiments were liberal (knowing Dagonee is not one) ideals based on tolerance. For those in the minority that is double. Wait, these are religious conservatives. They don't count. I am surprised this hasn't happend to the Amish. There are stories coming out about them that touches on everything other than polygamy.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let people be prosecuted as individuals and not as a group, otherwise you are nothing more than a persecutor.
You've admitted that you have little or no proof this has happened here, yet your petition is in absolute terms.
quote:I always thought the above sentiments were liberal (knowing Dagonee is not one) ideals based on tolerance.
It is the fact that you co-opt those sentiments, and attempt to deny them in those that are withholding judgment pending actual evidence, that disgusts me.
quote:For those in the minority that is double. Wait, these are religious conservatives. They don't count.
Again, you've admitted there's little or no proof that this action was based on the fact that these people were religious conservatives.
Beyond that, I've done more concrete things to advance religious freedom - and specifically for religious conservatives - than you have. It's people like you - with your rants about upcoming holy wars against atheists and your condemnation of actions as discriminatory in the face of an admitted lack of proof - that make it difficult to convince others that there are specific instances where the rights of religious conservatives are infringed.
quote:I am surprised this hasn't happend to the Amish. There are stories coming out about them that touches on everything other than polygamy.
And the underage sex. Don't forget that.
Perhaps the fact that there are numerous conservative religious sects that don't attract law enforcement attentions should clue you into the possibility that there's more to this than religious persecution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, people have signed it so I guess the answer to your question Dagonee is yes I do expect people to sign the petition. Yes again I am biased in favor of the FLDS group and others like them. Let people be prosecuted as individuals and not as a group, otherwise you are nothing more than a persecutor.
What you don't seem to understand Occasional is the concept of withholding judgement when their is a lack of evidence. I AM concerned that their may have been an element of religious bigotry in this case and that CPS workers and even courts may have acted out of religious bias rather than real evidence of abuse.
But I am also concerned that these children were truly in a dangerous physically and abuse environment. There is nothing in what has been publicly released that I would consider evidence supporting the former hypothesis.
If your petition had expressed concern that religious bigotry may have been involved and requested assurance that each case be evaluated individually on its merits, requested openness in the proceedings, and requested that more details of the accusation be made public to quell concerns that the state had overstepped its bounds, I would have signed.
But your petition doesn't do that. Your position jumps to judgement assuming without any basis in established fact that the state has acted out of religious bias rather than on evidence of physical and sexual abuse. You demand that these children be returned to their mothers without even bothering to find out whether such an act might put them in physical danger. That is both prejudiced (i.e judging based solely on preconceived ideas rather than an evaluation of the facts) and irresponsible.
Its people like you that give everyone concerned about the protection of religious rights a bad name.
[ April 17, 2008, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that the allegations include physical abuse and from the sketchy newspaper articles, some of the kids showed signs of physical abuse, I strongly oppose the petition saying to send those children back to that situation until the charges have been investigated. I would be willing to sign something like what the Rabbit described.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The petition strikes me as being awfully presumptuous regarding the innocence or guilt of those involved. Since I fear that I've been bunched into the "sympathetic to the FLDS church" side of things here I want to make it clear that I don't support this petition.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Occasional certainly strikes me this way, and has from his entry into the thread.
I'm glad someone religious said it, I admit that I was going to say it, but was wondering whether someone would say that I said it only because I was an atheist and biased *against* Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Glenn, that sounds a lot like the "aid and comfort" language which we hear right-wingers use against people that are critical of the administration. Regardless of my own religious affiliations that really rubs me the wrong way.
quote: Since I fear that I've been bunched into the "sympathetic to the FLDS church" side of things
Let me make it clear that I didn't bunch anybody in particular into any side of things. I intentionally chose not to use names, and in fact, I specifically didn't look back into the thread to find out who said what, because I didn't feel that anyone here was truly supportive of the FLDS, only that it was valuable to hear how this discussion might be perceived.
As to "giving aid and comfort," I'm not suggesting that anyone shouldn't voice their opinion, only that sometimes we don't realize what affect our words might have.
A guy once asked me "are we good friends?" I thought it was a loaded question and asked for clarification. He said: "If you had a booger hanging from your nose, would you want me to tell you about it?"
I told him yes, and he told me that my linen pants were virtually transparent. I needed to know that.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always thought the above sentiments were liberal (knowing Dagonee is not one) ideals based on tolerance. For those in the minority that is double. Wait, these are religious conservatives. They don't count. I am surprised this hasn't happend to the Amish.
You are bizarrely committed to having pretty much no idea what you're talking about.
But at least you're sure you want to be outraged about something, whether or not you have to make it up to be outraged about it!
So, good luck with that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do lawyers for a two year old determine what is in the best interest of their client? How big is the risk of such a lawyer becoming an extension of the prosecution (or state), rather than an advocate for the child?
I disagree with Occasional's statement that the FLDS are religious conservatives. They are not-- they are fundamentalists, with all the negative connotations to the word. I'm fairly certain that the the state is NOT bound to protect the rights of a religion who holds that something illegal is an inherent doctrine. That is, if a church defrauds someone in the name of God, its illegal, even if it is religious.
I don't know if the state was prejudicial in its actions-- I suspect they were. Their prejudice may not, however, remove culpability from the FLDS. If Jeffs' doctrine of pedophilia was being practiced at Yearning for Zion, then there should be no protection for the perpetrators or facilitators.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do lawyers for a two year old determine what is in the best interest of their client? How big is the risk of such a lawyer becoming an extension of the prosecution (or state), rather than an advocate for the child?
Lawyers for children in these situations are notorious for annoying both the state and the parents - in other words, not acting as a mouthpiece or extension of either. Individual cases, of course, will vary.
quote:ere's a great breakdown of the applicaple Texas law and the likely ways that it was broken when the 415 children were seized
The problem is that it applies a small subset of the facts to a small subset of the law. Informing the use of these statutes are regulations and case law which have a significant effect on what the law actually means.
As an example, there are hundreds or thousands of cases that help define what "probable cause." Any analysis of the fourth amendment is meaningless as a means of determining if a particular search is legal without accounting for those cases.
Not all of them have to be read for any given situation. However, some case research must be done to even begin to answer that question.
In child welfare, the word "neglect" is defined within each state by hundreds of cases. It's likely that the phrases "immediate danger" and "physical health or safety" are as well.
quote:Yet, despite lacking facts sufficient to allow Texas to remove in excess of 400 other children, not the subejct of this affidavit, Texas removed them anyway.
It is not at all clear that they lacked the facts sufficient to allow Texas to remove the 400 children. It is only clear that this one affidavit lacked such facts. More facts were developed. What they were, we don't know. Whether they were sufficient, we don't know. But this statement is not supported by the facts presented before it.
quote:I don’t think Texas has the facts sufficient to sustain its burden. I don’t think Texas had those facts when it went in with an armed paramilitary force.
Which is fine, as long as he admits that he has no way of knowing what facts Texas has at this point.
We should be clear about a couple of other things, too:
1.) There is nothing untoward about relying on hearsay in an affidavit in these situations. It is extremely common - most likely, it is the norm.
2.) The hearings are being held now to determine the custody of the children. This is due process.
3.) Even if some or all of the children are ultimately sent back to the compound, it does not mean per se that the emergency custody was unlawful. Similarly, even if the children are all sent to foster homes, it does not mean per se that the emergency custody was lawful.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the more interesting snipets from that online chat.
quote:Absolutely we were brainwashed. Over generations of this lifestyle it was not a low level brainwashing. This particular cult have found methods with mind control where they actually use a high level programming method that involves pain to program a person
I wish she had been more specific. Brainwashing is a highly controversial idea. But unless I misunderstand, they are using physical pain likely on the very young as a method of indoctrination.
This is consistent with previous reports that some of these groups encourage severe corporal punishment of children. I am very interested to see if any more information comes out about this through the hearings that are in progress. If (and note this is a big if) this church is torturing young children as a method of indoctrination then I could see more than sufficient cause to isolate all these children from both mothers and fathers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.
But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.
"This is a population of women who appear to have a problem making a decision on their own," Voss said.
YES, I think it's terrible if what she says is true.
But I don't know that acting as BeliefPatrol is really what CPS is for.
Here's what a witness said, and what I tend to agree with:
quote:Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said courts have generally held that a parent's belief system cannot, in itself, justify a child's removal. He said, for example, that a parent might teach his child that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but only when he helps the child buy pot does he cross the line.
"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't" take the children, Volokh said.
About corporal punishment (indirectly):
quote:Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.
I guess allegations is different from 'evidence.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the interview with Carolyn Jessop posted on CNN (video version), she makes specific allegations of child abuse against her husband, who is still in a position of power. I think we really need to wait and see before any judgements can be made.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.
D*#@N, This is what people have feared. If this is indeed the grounds on which the children were taken into custody the the Texas CPS has indeed overstepped their bounds.
I'm trying to decide whether or not there are any cases where a parents beliefs might be so dangerous as to warrant removing children. Maybe if the cult practice human sacrifice of some children when they reached that age of 14, but I suspect that in that extreme of a situation all the adults would end up in prison making it a moot point.
There might be a gray area here between what constitutes teaching their children their religion and grooming victims for sexual exploitation. I'd have to know more details about what the sect actually does to and what sexual predators commonly do to judge.
But even if I could imagine a case where parents teaching their children their beliefs amounted to abuse, I can not possibly see how that could justify emergency removal of the children. Certainly the children were not in immediate danger.
Like scholarette says, this was only one testimony and it is worth looking at the whole body of evidence before arriving at a judgement. This, however, is a very damning testimony.
This really pisses me off not just because of the religious persecution involved (although that is of concern) but also because it will make it harder to prosecute these rapists. I think that there is a growing body of evidence that these people do abuse their children and their teenagers and that something needs to be done about. This kind of action will make it that much harder for anyone to intervene even when there is strong evidence of abuse. It is also likely to make these groups more closed and more secretive and more likely to abuse.
In many respects, I think what's going on in these groups is a direct result of legal persecution of their religion that has been going on for generations. Because their religious practice are illegal, they have become secretive closed societies that operate in an underground world. The groups share many aspects with organized crime gangs. Once you have lost respect for the law, it becomes easier to violate more and more laws.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wish she had been more specific. Brainwashing is a highly controversial idea. But unless I misunderstand, they are using physical pain likely on the very young as a method of indoctrination.
She's probably using brainwashing as a catchall term for the overall system of mental and social conditioning and purposeful isolation. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the overall social conditioning is also punctuated with some rather obscene compliance motivation techniques hidden from sight.
Also hey guys I really want to know about the initial caller to the police who sparked this whole thing. If they don't start releasing more details about this mystery person can we start assuming that it may have been a poser call?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
