Texas Appellate Court rules against CPS

Ok, fine, ignore Supreme Court decisions, gotcha.

I'd say go ahead and cite the Supreme Court decision in question when you start the thread. ;)

I'd actually be interested (though I may not participate much, as I'm not particularly objective on the subject)...I guess I would have assumed that since nearly every state (every state?) enforces stat-rape laws, and we have one at the federal level, that there isn't a Supreme Court decision striking them down. Or another one that could be used to do so. Because those laws have been around for a while, and I'd figure it'd have been settled by now.

But since pretty much every state has and enforces stat-rape laws at the moment, I'd say the discussion of whether they are valid is probably best left out of this thread and is probably the basis for its own discussion.
 
Age of consent is not a factor in this case since it is plainly spelled out in TX law. There is no real and legitimate way to debate around that.

As for the communal home issue, I think I tend to agree with the court on this one. At least the way things stand right now. From the accounts I have been seeing on TV and reading from past members that have "escaped" the cult it seems that there are clear and separate household dynamics. There seems to be a defined family unit in most cases. It may not be a traditional one (the father is not usually the natural father of all the children though because they tend to trade off and move on) but the basic structure is there. It seems that children to not move from home to home...the fathers do.

I do agree with the way that CPS dealt with it in the beginning though due to the simple fact that the members of the cult were being completely uncooperative and CPS had no way to establish family connections, custody, or home structures. The courts decision is based on greater information due to the fact that members have begun to cooperate in matters of declaring parentage and custody. Whether the information they are providing is fact or fiction remains to be seen.
 
So, a quick question (and the only significant logical flaw I'm finding in the decision):

While there was evidence that twenty females had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen, 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 girls were living in an FLDS community with a belief system that condoned underage marriage and sex;[7]

The footnote goes on to explain that (obviously) it's not a sexual assault to be with a minor spouse if legally married. But is the state expected to prove a negative in this case? What "evidence" are they expected to present that the girls weren't legally married at that point? Wouldn't it be on the girls (and their husband) to provide a marriage license? I'm under the impression that most of these marriages aren't legal (because, due to either age or polygamy, they can't be), so this part seems a bit silly.

It sounds at most like this is at most simply a technical failure on the part of the state (failing to get a statement from the mothers as to their marital status, and follow up on the legal status of that marriage).

EDIT: Also, I'm too busy to quote the other relevant portion (and I closed Adobe), but something to to the extent of teen pregnancy not necessarily being grounds for removal from a home. I think this is where the belief system of the FLDS church (which is well known, and the reason it's former head is in prison) comes into play. It may not be routine in every case for a pregnant teen to be removed from home, but I'd say in the context of this sect it's perfectly appropriate if she's not able to name an appropriately aged (within 3 years) partner...or legal spouse...as the father.
 
Texas Supreme Court Weighs In...

Texas Supreme Court: Return FLDS children to parents

By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/29/2008 06:17:30 PM MDT


Updated: 6:17 PM- SAN ANGELO, Texas - The Texas Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the state must return some 130 children taken into state custody following an early April raid on a polygamous sect's West Texas ranch. However, the decision likely will affect about 320 other children from the ranch who now are living in foster homes and shelters throughout the state, attorneys for their parents said. By a six-to-three majority, the justices decided that a district court judge improperly removed the children, like their parents members of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The ruling was met with jubilation by parents and attorneys representing the families. Maggie Jessop, whose children are in state custody in two cities, said she had waited anxiously for such an outcome. "I just feel very thankful that the Supreme Court would have a righteous decision," said Jessop, who moved from the ranch to San Angelo midway between her daughter's and son's shelters in San Antonio and Amarrillo.

Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Families and Protective Services, which had asked the court to rule in its favor, said the agency was "disappointed but we understand and respect the court's decision and will take immediate steps to comply. Child Protective Services has one purpose in this case - to protect the children. "Our goal is to reunite families whenever we can do so, and make sure the children will be safe," Meisner said. "We will continue to prepare for the prompt and orderly reunification of these children with their families."

The high court, which released its decision at 4 p.m. Central time, found that 51st District Judge Barbara Walther had ruled improperly to take the children into state custody and upheld a subsequent decision by the Third Court of Appeals that the children should be returned. In its brief opinion, the court said "we are not inclined to disturb the Court of Appeals' decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."


Kevin Dietz of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid said he would work with the courts and Child Protective Services, a division of DFPS, to do what's in the best interest of the children. "Right now, that means reuniting these families," he said. DFPS had argued the appellate decision left it unable to guard the children's safety from what it had deemed imminent danger of sexual and physical abuse due to the FLDS practice of polygamy. The state contended that the FLDS condoned marriages of underage girls to men and groomed its boys to continue the practice.

In early April, Walther authorized the raid and subsequently ruled the children would remain in state custody. The state Supreme Court, however, found that Texas' family code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care or shelters. For example, the lower court could have issued a restraining order barring the children from being taken out of state or ordering the removal of any perpetrators from their homes, the justices said.

That said, CPS still can work with the parents when the children are in their care to insure their safety and well-being.

The high court said Walther must vacate her temporary custody order, but she can grant other steps to protect the children. "While there are other important fundamental issues in the case regarding parent rights, it is premature of us to discuss those issues," the justices added.

Immediately after the ruling, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid send an e-mail with this headline: "Supreme Court to CPS: send these children home." Said Dietz: "It's great to see that the court system is working in the interest of justice. These mothers have never given up their fight to bring their families back together."

Dan Barlow, a former mayor of Colorado City, Ariz., and a father of four children in state custody in Abilene, said, "I hope it will all work. I'm thankful and I want those children back with their mothers. It is the right thing to do."

brooke@sltrib.com, jlyon@sltrib.com

Tribune reporter Julia Lyon contributed to this report.

Link: http://origin.sltrib.com/news/ci_9417661
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: The State of Texas now has to bring evidence of individuals breaking the law; as it should be required to. Likely, much of the evidence obtained in the raid will be disallowed, on "fruit of the poison tree"; exactly how much is thrown out remains to be seen. And, cutting legal corners may make it more difficult to prosecute guilty parties. Perhaps future .gov agents will learn their lesson from this?

Re: Polygamy in general. Along with recent legal decisions involving gay marriage, this case may roll back laws regarding polygamy between consenting adults. Practically speaking, simple polygamy was only prosecuted if fraud was involved; i.e., if a person takes a second spouse without divorcing and not informing the new spouse. Some have cited case law saying that ALL polygamy is technically illegal; perhaps statutes will be adjusted to reflect actual practice?
 
You know, there were those who vehemently defended all action by CPS as righteous and legal just a short time ago. There was so much knee-jerk reaction and emotion involved that anyone who even mildly suggested that CPS and the government at large was WRONG was instantly branded a child molester sympathizer.

All along, most said that NONE agreed with any type of child abuse, just the way that CPS and their cronies trampled rights, and abused people with their methods. I hazard to say that some of these parents and children have been seriously traumatized by the overzealous and illegal actions of CPS, and the damage done may never heal. Odd how so many that screamed that CPS was right, and no rights were being abused, and that any who questioned them were all dirty child molesters have changed their tune. Odd how, now that someone with some sense of right and wrong has ruled against CPS, that maybe they were wrong? Maybe an oversight committee is in order to reign in the abuses of CPS and others against our rights in the future?

Anyway, who is going to pay this $7 MILLION price tag?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/03/flds.price/index.html?eref=rss_us

Maybe the CPS agents that ignored the LAW and did whatever the hell they wanted should should help foot the bill? Yeah...that'll happen. I feel sorry for the honest citizens of these Texas communities who will have to foot the bill for this giant Charlie Foxtrot.....
 
Please, I would hope rational adult people would be above such extreme slippery slope statements based on nothing more than rampant paranoia.

Yeah, Playboy insinuated that I was paranoid when I pointed out that the "for the children" excuse is used to justify abuses. Looks like the old saying is proven correct-

"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that no one is out to get you."
 
Hummmmmm! Let see! There was 460 kids removed from there home. Out of them there seems to be 3 or 4 cases pending.



You know, there were those who vehemently defended all action by CPS as righteous and legal just a short time ago. There was so much knee-jerk reaction and emotion involved that anyone who even mildly suggested that CPS and the government at large was WRONG was instantly branded a child molester sympathizer.

How About That? I don't think the CPS went over the Top! I think the went BERZERK!!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top