Texas high court: Sect kids wrongly taken

[Wretched Excess]

Texas high court: Sect kids wrongly taken

SAN ANGELO, Texas (CNN) -- Texas officials had no right to remove about 460 children from a polygamist sect, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

 The Texas Supreme Court agreed with a lower court's ruling, that Child Protective Services did not present ample evidence that the children were being abused.

The state said it removed the children last month from the Yearning for Zion Ranch near Eldorado, Texas, because in interviews with those living there, officials found what they called a "pervasive pattern" of sexual abuse through forced marriages between underage girls and older men.

The high court ruling could possibly clear the way for the children to be returned to their families. The sect subscribes to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy.

"We are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision," the ruling said. "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."

 The court's 6-3 ruling came in the case of 38 mothers who had appealed the removal of their children, but attorneys in the case have said the reasoning behind the court rulings can be applied to the removals of all the children from the ranch during the raid, which began April 3.

About 460 children were removed, although 20 were later found in court to be adults.

It's unlikely the children will be returned to their homes soon because it's unclear which child belongs to which parent. A DNA testing order by the district court is incomplete.

More

[rich_t]

Personally, I think the Texas Supreme Court got this one right.

[Miss Mia]

Children removed from polygamist ranch could be going home

06:41 PM CDT on Thursday, May 29, 2008

By Robert T. Garrett and Emily Ramshaw / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN — Children removed from a West Texas polygamist ranch could be heading home within days, after Texas’ highest court today ruled against the state in a massive child custody case.

The Texas Supreme Court said in an unsigned opinion that Child Protective Services’ removal of children was “not warranted” because the state hadn’t proved the children were in immediate danger and CPS didn’t fully explore alternatives to removing them.

The Supreme Court said that state District Court Judge Barbara Walther of San Angelo still has tools at her disposal to protect kids, even if she releases all of the more than 450 children.

The high court pointed to laws allowing her to issue orders to prohibit a child from being removed from a specific geographic area and force “removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home.” Concealing a child or fleeing to thwart a child-abuse investigation also is illegal, the court’s opinion said.

It was unclear when and exactly how Judge Walther would comply with the orders from the higher courts.

Sect attorney Rod Parker said the parents from the Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado are eager to go to shelters across the state and pick up their children but that they don’t have the right of way yet. He said they’re urging Judge Walther to vacate her orders on Friday morning so they can bring the kids home.

“The ranch is home. That’s where they want to go,” Mr. Parker said.

He said he expects the state’s investigation to continue in some form, even after the children are returned home.

Sect elder and spokesman Willie Jessop said he expected sect members to do everything asked of them to bring the children home.

“Give us an opportunity,” he said.

CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said the agency, while disappointed by the court ruling, would “respect the court’s decision and will take immediate steps to comply.”

Mr. Crimmins said CPS “has one purpose in this case — to protect children” and that it would prepare for “prompt and orderly reunification of these children with their families,” while working with Judge Walther to both obey higher courts and “ensure the safety” of youth from the ranch.

He wouldn’t say if CPS would ask Judge Walther to keep some children in state custody or put restrictions on their families, such as orders banning movement of the children. State lawyers had said in briefs filed with the court that there is a high risk the families would flee the state.

“It’s too early to tell exactly what our specific next step will be,” Mr. Crimmins said.

The nine-member Supreme Court agreed with an appellate court that Judge Walther abused her discretion by keeping the children in CPS custody. However, the Supreme Court went even further.

It didn’t simply criticize CPS’ failure to tailor evidence to each sect child at hearings in mid-April, it blasted the original mass removal of the children. Even lawyers for mothers who brought the case had said in briefs that they didn’t question that CPS acted in good faith in the early days of its investigation.

“Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals’ decision,” the Supreme Court said. “On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted.”

Last week, a three-judge panel of the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals ruled that CPS swept the children into foster care with only scant evidence that they were immediately at risk of physical harm and urgently had to be separated from their families. The three judges said CPS failed to show each child was in jeopardy, especially boys and very young girls. It said the law requires CPS to show it made “reasonable efforts” to protect youths with an action less sweeping than removal.

This afternoon, while the Supreme Court said it would not overturn that opinion, it revealed some internal disagreement.

Justice Harriet O’Neill, in a separate opinion joined by Justices Phil Johnson and Don Willett, said CPS had presented at the April hearings enough evidence that “pubescent girls” were at risk of being sexually abused for a person of ordinary prudence to think their removal might be warranted, as the law requires.

But the three justices said the trial judge’s decision to keep the children in state custody was wrong because of CPS’ “failure to seek less-intrusive alternatives to taking custody of the children: namely seeking restraining orders against alleged perpetrators … or other temporary orders.”

The court’s ruling leaves state lawyers with little avenue to keep the children in state care.

CPS investigators, who say they have “uncontroverted” evidence of young girls being forced into sexual relationships and so-called “spiritual marriages” with adult men, may try to establish a high risk of sexual and physical abuse in selected cases – particularly those involving underage mothers.

But the majority of the sect’s children, who have been held in state custody since April, would probably have to be returned to the Yearning for Zion ranch. The Supreme Court’s decision seems to settle a two-month drama over the fate of the children – an unprecedented custody battle that pitted heartsick parents against distressed welfare workers, and captivated observers across the nation.

Lawyers for sect families said CPS made “snap judgments” and showed little concern for the children, who have been held in state custody since April. Sect spokesmen say the state has painted all members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — even monogamous couples and young children — with a broad brush, and is targeting them for practicing an unpopular faith.

CPS investigators say their efforts were stymied by a code of silence that made gleaning information from sect members next to impossible. They say women and children misled authorities — by changing names and claiming each other’s kin as their own — to create confusion.

While CPS said it is waiting on DNA test results to establish which men have fathered children with underage females — and couldn’t narrow the scope of its removal until it has that information — the lawyers for sect mothers said in a response brief that “the Department could have required all men to leave each household.”

[RobJohnson]

That is messed up.

The children were clearly in danger.

[Wretched Excess]

Personally, I think the Texas Supreme Court got this one right.

if they are marrying off 15 year old girls, rich, something had to be done.

In the Texas Supreme Court decision, the three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed that the state had no right to remove the young boys from the ranch but that the district court did not err in electing to remove pubescent girls from the ranch and keep them in state custody.

The pubescent girls are "demonstrably endangered," Justice Harriet O'Neill wrote.

FLDS leader and "prophet" Warren Jeffs, 52, is in a Utah prison, serving two consecutive terms of five years to life after being convicted on two charges of being an accomplice to rape in connection with a marriage he performed in 2001. He also faces trial in Arizona on eight charges, including sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy.

[Wretched Excess]

merging the BN and GD threads.

[rich_t]

Personally, I think the Texas Supreme Court got this one right.

if they are marrying off 15 year old girls, rich, something had to be done.

In the Texas Supreme Court decision, the three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed that the state had no right to remove the young boys from the ranch but that the district court did not err in electing to remove pubescent girls from the ranch and keep them in state custody.

The pubescent girls are "demonstrably endangered," Justice Harriet O'Neill wrote.

FLDS leader and "prophet" Warren Jeffs, 52, is in a Utah prison, serving two consecutive terms of five years to life after being convicted on two charges of being an accomplice to rape in connection with a marriage he performed in 2001. He also faces trial in Arizona on eight charges, including sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy.

There are a lot of "ifs" in this story from what I have read about the issue.  I am all for taking care of kids but I don't want the state to be able to freely overstep it's bounds either.  In this case the majority of the Texas Supreme Court clearly feels that the state was in error.

[Wretched Excess]

Personally, I think the Texas Supreme Court got this one right.

if they are marrying off 15 year old girls, rich, something had to be done.

In the Texas Supreme Court decision, the three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed that the state had no right to remove the young boys from the ranch but that the district court did not err in electing to remove pubescent girls from the ranch and keep them in state custody.

The pubescent girls are "demonstrably endangered," Justice Harriet O'Neill wrote.

FLDS leader and "prophet" Warren Jeffs, 52, is in a Utah prison, serving two consecutive terms of five years to life after being convicted on two charges of being an accomplice to rape in connection with a marriage he performed in 2001. He also faces trial in Arizona on eight charges, including sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy.

There are a lot of "ifs" in this story from what I have read about the issue. I am all for taking care of kids but I don't want the state to be able to freely overstep it's bounds either.  In this case the majority of the Texas Supreme Court clearly feels that the state was in error.

well, yeah.  clearly.  that is where the issue lies, no doubt.  there is also no doubt that teenage girls were being married off, and alarmingly young girls had been, and were then, pregnant.  so, what's your play here?  screw what the texas supreme court did for the moment, what does YOUR sense of morality tell you is the compelling issue?

[rich_t]

WE,

This thread is about the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court and that was the aspect I was responding to.  My own personal sense of morality isn't strictly relevant to the thread. 

But since you asked, I will try to answer honestly.

From what I have read and heard reported, I think at least some of the kids should have been removed for their own safety.  Do I think the state should have removed all 400 plus?  I honestly can't answer that.  I don't have all of the evidence that the state had at the time they made their decision.  I'd like to think that they merely erred on the side of caution, and if so, I can't fault their desire to protect the children.

[Wretched Excess]

WE,

This thread is about the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court and that was the aspect I was responding to.  My own personal sense of morality isn't strictly relevant to the thread. 

But since you asked, I will try to answer honestly.

From what I have read and heard reported, I think at least some of the kids should have been removed for their own safety.  Do I think the state should have removed all 400 plus?  I honestly can't answer that.  I don't have all of the evidence that the state had at the time they made their decision.  I'd like to think that they merely erred on the side of caution, and if so, I can't fault their desire to protect the children.

thank you.  that was all I was driving at.

this has happened before, though, so it must be me.  I get a lot of blank stares (metaphorically speaking) when I go off in
search of the moral basis for a law, or question the established foundation for something or other.  I realize that those aren't
exactly ultra-paleoconservative philosophical approaches to a given issue, but it's a discussion board.  it's not like we are going
to usurp the authority of the texas supreme court if several of us tend to agree that they made a boneheaded decision.

[rich_t]

WE,

This thread is about the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court and that was the aspect I was responding to.  My own personal sense of morality isn't strictly relevant to the thread. 

But since you asked, I will try to answer honestly.

From what I have read and heard reported, I think at least some of the kids should have been removed for their own safety.  Do I think the state should have removed all 400 plus?  I honestly can't answer that.  I don't have all of the evidence that the state had at the time they made their decision.  I'd like to think that they merely erred on the side of caution, and if so, I can't fault their desire to protect the children.

thank you.  that was all I was driving at.

this has happened before, though, so it must be me.  I get a lot of blank stares (metaphorically speaking) when I go off in
search of the moral basis for a law, or question the established foundation for something or other.  I realize that those aren't
exactly ultra-paleoconservative philosophical approaches to a given issue, but it's a discussion board.  it's not like we are going
to usurp the authority of the texas supreme court if several of us tend to agree that they made a boneheaded decision.

I kinda knew what you were driving at when you asked me what my personal sense of morality was concerning this issue. 

I still maintain that the Texas Supreme Court made the correct ruling.

They were not and should NOT rule on the morality of the situation IMO.  They correctly ruled on the actual text of the state laws. Again IMO.

That is their job.

[Wretched Excess]

WE,

This thread is about the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court and that was the aspect I was responding to.  My own personal sense of morality isn't strictly relevant to the thread. 

But since you asked, I will try to answer honestly.

From what I have read and heard reported, I think at least some of the kids should have been removed for their own safety.  Do I think the state should have removed all 400 plus?  I honestly can't answer that.  I don't have all of the evidence that the state had at the time they made their decision.  I'd like to think that they merely erred on the side of caution, and if so, I can't fault their desire to protect the children.

thank you.  that was all I was driving at.

this has happened before, though, so it must be me.  I get a lot of blank stares (metaphorically speaking) when I go off in
search of the moral basis for a law, or question the established foundation for something or other.  I realize that those aren't
exactly ultra-paleoconservative philosophical approaches to a given issue, but it's a discussion board.  it's not like we are going
to usurp the authority of the texas supreme court if several of us tend to agree that they made a boneheaded decision.

I kinda knew what you were driving at when you asked me what my personal sense of morality was concerning this issue. 

I still maintain that the Texas Supreme Court made the correct ruling.

They were not and should NOT rule on the morality of the situation IMO.  They correctly ruled on the actual text of the state laws. Again IMO.

That is their job.

your opinion is what I am after.  I can read and understand the actual texas law;  that's not worth discussing.  it is what it is.

but what do you think "morality" is? 

I think it is nothing more than the rules that govern individual behavior and obligation.  my definition has nothing to do with naughty bits.

[rich_t]

WE,

This thread is about the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court and that was the aspect I was responding to.  My own personal sense of morality isn't strictly relevant to the thread. 

But since you asked, I will try to answer honestly.

From what I have read and heard reported, I think at least some of the kids should have been removed for their own safety.  Do I think the state should have removed all 400 plus?  I honestly can't answer that.  I don't have all of the evidence that the state had at the time they made their decision.  I'd like to think that they merely erred on the side of caution, and if so, I can't fault their desire to protect the children.

thank you.  that was all I was driving at.

this has happened before, though, so it must be me.  I get a lot of blank stares (metaphorically speaking) when I go off in
search of the moral basis for a law, or question the established foundation for something or other.  I realize that those aren't
exactly ultra-paleoconservative philosophical approaches to a given issue, but it's a discussion board.  it's not like we are going
to usurp the authority of the texas supreme court if several of us tend to agree that they made a boneheaded decision.

I kinda knew what you were driving at when you asked me what my personal sense of morality was concerning this issue. 

I still maintain that the Texas Supreme Court made the correct ruling.

They were not and should NOT rule on the morality of the situation IMO.  They correctly ruled on the actual text of the state laws. Again IMO.

That is their job.

your opinion is what I am after.  I can read and understand the actual texas law;  that's not worth discussing.  it is what it is.

but what do you think "morality" is? 

I think it is nothing more than the rules that govern individual behavior and obligation.  my definition has nothing to do with naughty bits.

My opinion you wanted...  My opinion you got....

For the most part I agree with your concept of morality, but with one minor and IMO very important change:

I think it is nothing more than the "self-imposed" rules that govern individual behavior and obligation.

True morality can not be legislated, but Lord knows various folks have sure tried to over the centuries.

[Wretched Excess]

WE,

This thread is about the ruling of the Texas Supreme Court and that was the aspect I was responding to.  My own personal sense of morality isn't strictly relevant to the thread. 

But since you asked, I will try to answer honestly.

From what I have read and heard reported, I think at least some of the kids should have been removed for their own safety.  Do I think the state should have removed all 400 plus?  I honestly can't answer that.  I don't have all of the evidence that the state had at the time they made their decision.  I'd like to think that they merely erred on the side of caution, and if so, I can't fault their desire to protect the children.

thank you.  that was all I was driving at.

this has happened before, though, so it must be me.  I get a lot of blank stares (metaphorically speaking) when I go off in
search of the moral basis for a law, or question the established foundation for something or other.  I realize that those aren't
exactly ultra-paleoconservative philosophical approaches to a given issue, but it's a discussion board.  it's not like we are going
to usurp the authority of the texas supreme court if several of us tend to agree that they made a boneheaded decision.

I kinda knew what you were driving at when you asked me what my personal sense of morality was concerning this issue. 

I still maintain that the Texas Supreme Court made the correct ruling.

They were not and should NOT rule on the morality of the situation IMO.  They correctly ruled on the actual text of the state laws. Again IMO.

That is their job.

your opinion is what I am after.  I can read and understand the actual texas law;  that's not worth discussing.  it is what it is.

but what do you think "morality" is? 

I think it is nothing more than the rules that govern individual behavior and obligation.  my definition has nothing to do with naughty bits.

My opinion you wanted...  My opinion you got....

For the most part I agree with your concept of morality, but with one minor and IMO very important change:

I think it is nothing more than the "self-imposed" rules that govern individual behavior and obligation.

True morality can not be legislated, but Lord knows various folks have sure tried to over the centuries.

and there, in a nutshell, you have the very definition of natural liberty.

and of course it can't.  THAT is why the family unit is so critical.  but, thanks to "the great society" and
the "sexual revolution", both of those concepts are extinct.

[Wretched Excess]

well, you can also toss in there the fact that the liberal establishment has had control of the
educational system for 40 years . . . .

[rich_t]

well, you can also toss in there the fact that the liberal establishment has had control of the
educational system for 40 years . . . .

That certainly hasn't helped.