Polygamous-sect children ordered to stay in Texas custody

[TexasSky]

Liz,

Did they give you any training in child psychology before they allowed you to mediate?

31% of women in prison report having been sexually abused as children.

95% of teenage prostitutes were sexually abused as children.

Long term effects of child sexual abuse include fear, inability to trust, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, inappropriate sexual behavior, low self-esteem, greater tendency towards substance abuse, difficulty forming close relationships. (Browne & Finkelhor).

Adult victims of childhood sexual abuse report problems in interpersonal relationsips associated with underlying mistrust. Fear, mistrust, ambivalence hatred and a sense of betrayal towards all family members. (Tsai and Wagner).

Young girls who are forced to have sex are three times more likely to develop psychiatric disorders or abuse alcohol and drugs in adulthood than girls who are not sexually abused. Sexual abuse was also more strongly linked with substance abuse than with psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders were from 2.6 to 3.3 times more common among women whose CSA included intercourse, and the risk of substance abuse was increased more than fourfold. (Kenneth Kendler).

Among both adolescent girls and boys, a history of sexual or physical abuse appears to increase the risk of diordered eating behaviors, such as self-induced vomiting or use of laxatives to avoid gaining weight. (Neumark-Sztainer)

Many women and men who were subjected to sexual abuse during childhood suffer long-term disturbances to the psyche that may include nightmares, flashbacks, and can result in a sense of extreme emotional numbness. Victims of sexual abuse may actually develop a smaller hippocampus, the part of the brain that deals with short-term memory and possibly the encoding and retrieval of long-term memory. (Caused by the brain being flooded with certain hormones during the abuse).

Diassociation and PTSD are higher.

There is a higher incident of migrains, pelvic disorders and problems with sexual ograns, asthma and arthritis in victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Depression is higher.

Self Mutilation is higher.

Self-esteem is lower.

Panic attacks are higher.

Isolation is higher.

The dynamics of an incestuous family fit this cult totally.

"Heavy use of denial, minimization, and rationalization."
"Rigid, closed family."
"Secrecy"
"Social isolations with the pretense of solidarity to outsiders."
"Lack of communication."
"Distortion of family roles."
"Often the male has a presumption of entitlement as head of the household."
Suicide and attempted suicide rates are higher.

 

[Ginny]

Other challenges are families with half brothers and sisters, as well as reports of marriages between first cousins.

I think that once all the testing is over, the family tree presented will be an interesting one at that.

If you can, click on the above link and watch the video "The Question of Polygamy". It is an interview with three women that live at this compound. This was aired this past Sunday. Listen carefully when the journalist asks about very young children marrying. The lady that responds in the most depressing manner/tone you have ever heard says "we are very happy here" Yeah, I'm seeing it. You're absolutely beaming, lady. Then they also condone children marrying.

 

[ladyt28]

<staff edit>

As a former Children's Foster Care worker for the state of Michigan, I agree 100%. CL - you come across as having such a bias against removing children that you cannot be trusted to consider all aspects of potential risk. Are you hired by the court or by a parents advocacy group?

I asked you under what circumstances you would find removal to be appropriate - you have yet to answer that. I also want to ask exactly what kind of training you've had. What exactly is your "success" rate? I know that when I did reunited a child with the mother/parents, I kept a close eye on if that child ever returned to the attention of CPS.

 

[Crazy Liz]

<staff edit>

I'm not sticking up for a pedophile just because I wonder whether the state of Texas took the right action, and wonder how much of a role religious prejudice played in the whole action.

I simply see the situation as more complex. I don't know why everyone else here sees it so simplistically, as if each person over age 18 in this entire group is a pedophile, and each child, from newborn infants to teenage boys and girls is being sexually molested. Do you really believe all the children are being molested? Do you really believe all the adults are pedophiles?

If you believe all the adults are culpable, the only basis on which to reach the conclusion this applies to ALL the adults there is religious belief.

When we begin to make judgments that particular religious beliefs are harmful to children to the degree of removing them from their homes, we start running into danger. Would you take the children away from my Anabaptist ancestors because they refused to baptize them? There have been periods in European history in which Jewish children were taken from their parents if a Christian nanny was able to baptize them. When the government begins to make judgments about whether someone is fit to parent based only on their religion, I become concerned. Is all concern for religious freedom unjustified?

 

[Crazy Liz]

As a former Children's Foster Care worker for the state of Michigan, I agree 100%. CL - you come across as having such a bias against removing children that you cannot be trusted to consider all aspects of potential risk. Are you hired by the court or by a parents advocacy group?

I asked you under what circumstances you would find removal to be appropriate - you have yet to answer that. I also want to ask exactly what kind of training you've had. What exactly is your "success" rate? I know that when I did reunited a child with the mother/parents, I kept a close eye on if that child ever returned to the attention of CPS.

On the contrary. I am cautious about removing children from their parents. It is the other participants in this thread who seem to be biased in favor of removing them.

It's more complicated than just saying the parents are all pedophiles and the children are all in immediate danger.

 

[ladyt28]

and who exactly said that Liz? People HAVE been pointing out the complexities and stating why they felt it was right to remove ALL of these children. YOU seem to be the one who refuses to acknowledge how this situation differs from your view of trying to link this to religion and religion alone. These people were hiding behind a false pretense of religion to engage in gross pedophilia.

You are painfully obvious in how selective you are in responding to different posts - why do you refuse to answer how much training you've had or exactly who it is that hires you? And don't you find it odd that no one else in this thread has supported your take on this matter? Face it Liz, you are so biased that you simply cannot see the danger here. Next time you want to accuse any of us here with a bias, hold that up to yourself first.

 

[immersedingrace]

I'm not sticking up for a pedophile just because I wonder whether the state of Texas took the right action, and wonder how much of a role religious prejudice played in the whole action.

I simply see the situation as more complex. I don't know why everyone else here sees it so simplistically, as if each person over age 18 in this entire group is a pedophile, and each child, from newborn infants to teenage boys and girls is being sexually molested. Do you really believe all the children are being molested? Do you really believe all the adults are pedophiles?

If you believe all the adults are culpable, the only basis on which to reach the conclusion this applies to ALL the adults there is religious belief.

When we begin to make judgments that particular religious beliefs are harmful to children to the degree of removing them from their homes, we start running into danger. Would you take the children away from my Anabaptist ancestors because they refused to baptize them? There have been periods in European history in which Jewish children were taken from their parents if a Christian nanny was able to baptize them. When the government begins to make judgments about whether someone is fit to parent based only on their religion, I become concerned. Is all concern for religious freedom unjustified?

comparing baptism to child abuse/sex abuse/rape is ridiculous at best. When a mother who knowingly allows someone in her home who is abusive either physically or sexually, she is culpable and at risk of losing her children. Child Protective Services would look at the RISK to the child in determining the RISK of abuse. In Pennslyvania there is a rish matrix which you complete every six months at MINIMUM for EVERY CHILD you are legally involved with and even when you're not legally involved (despite popular belief of the general public CPS does not ALWAYS take children out of homes). Often times, it's more frequent than that. We used the Washington Risk Matrix (pg 73) in determining whether to remove a child from the home or not. I would be willing to stake my life that the CPS workers in Texas used that or a similar risk matrix to determine whether or not these children needed to be removed. If not, they'll be open for law suit. I would also be willing to stake my life on the fact that these children's trauma of being temporarily separated from their families for an investigation would be less traumatic than being abused. If the investigation turns up no abuse, the children will be returned home with or without monitoring. If the parents don't cooperate, then the risk to the kids will again be assessed and action taking. If it's determined that these children are being or have been abused or at imminent risk of being abused they will be placed in state care on a more permanent basis with the hope that they can either be returned to their families in the future after they've left abusive situations or placed for adoption. These kids deserve to have a non abusive home. This communie most likely is not it.

 

[Chajara]

You know what, it DOES suck that these kids had to be removed from their home and their mothers. But you know what else? It could have all been prevented. If these people had not been allowing their children to be married off to older men to be forced into a cycle of sex and pregnancy, then guess what? They'd still be with their mothers.

If the mothers would cooperate with police and CPS, they'd have their kids back sooner as well, I'd wager. But they're not cooperating. They're putting their stupid religious beliefs ahead of their childrens' welfare. And the men are just as bad, telling them what to tell the cops and what to keep quiet about (just about everything.)

It's sick. I'm sorry, but if I knew of a household with 6 children where the parents believed in literally beating them with a rod like the Bible says, and I had the power to take those kids away so they couldn't be beaten black and blue, I'd do it. Same with this. They're not in a neighborhood where everyone's living separately with nothing in common except a block party every 4th of July. They're in a COMPOUND sharing a religion that explicitly condones young girls being married off to old men to become their sex toys/babymakers. That's why ALL the kids were taken away. The caretakers all believe in this ritual abuse, and what's worse, they're not cooperating with authorities.

I don't see how it gets any more complex than that. Sure, I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of those women doing everything they can to get their kids back because they want out of this lifestyle. To those, I say give back their kids and help them get integrated into normal society. To the rest, well, quite frankly, screw them. They're not fit to be parents anyway for letting this crap go down in the first place.

The real tragedy is that since it's a rare state that bothers to cough up enough dough for CPS, these kids are going to have a hard time, especially considering they don't even come close to knowing what's normal. Perhaps someone should set up an account for donations to go to, so they can pay more social workers and take more time to screen foster parents. I'd say that's a hell of a lot better than leaving another 12 year old girl to be dragged by the arm to one of those disgusting beds and deflowered by some dirty old man, wouldn't you?

 

[IisJustMe]

<staff edit>

I'm not sticking up for a pedophile just because I wonder whether the state of Texas took the right action, and wonder how much of a role religious prejudice played in the whole action.

I simply see the situation as more complex.

It isn't that complex, and it is amazing to us that you don't see it, especially given your vocation. There is no rationale for leaving a child in a place of danger. As long as they are in that compound, they are in danger. How can you not see that?

I don't know why everyone else here sees it so simplistically, as if each person over age 18 in this entire group is a pedophile, and each child, from newborn infants to teenage boys and girls is being sexually molested. Do you really believe all the children are being molested? Do you really believe all the adults are pedophiles?

No, but until you know who the pedophiles are, you don't leave the children in an environment whnere the pedophile(s) can gain access to them. As a court-appointed mediator you know that. <staff edit>

If you believe all the adults are culpable, the only basis on which to reach the conclusion this applies to ALL the adults there is religious belief.

I don't know about your state, but the states I've practiced in lay responsibility for child endangerment at the feet of any adult who has legal responsibility for the child and could intervene for the child's protection and fails to do so. You should know that. Leaving the child in the compound where known pedophilia occurs in the guise of religion would make the state culpable under it's own laws. <staff edit>

 

[CaDan]

/me wonders how many people posting in this thread would be crying about how unfair it was if I hit the ban button on them right now for their flames?

 

[Pogue]

Closed fo review.

 

[Pogue]

Thread has been re-opened following extensive clean-uppage, courtesy of praying.

Please keep this rule in mind when posting:

Flaming, baiting, trolling, or feeding trolls is not allowed. This also applies to groups. In other words, play nice, don't hurt others, nor call them names.

If the flames get out of hand, the thread will be closed indefinitely.
Thank you!
-Pogue

 

[Ginny]

There are children that are taken out of homes frequently due to possible risks of safety (physically/ mentally) and well being in regards to the child. Because of the risk of safety for the child in a foster home, I feel we cannot argue keeping a child in a home where the risk is certain vs. taking the child out and putting them in a home where risk is not even in question. The debate is trading one thorn for a rare "possible" another.

The debate at hand in this thread is not about religion. It was questioned in the OP, but I feel the majority (but one) feel that this is not a religious issue. If raping and/or physically assaulting another individual is the true practice of a religion, then (OP) should we question changing the law so that one can live according to his/her faith? Of course not. With that being said, this is not a question about religion, but about individuals breaking the law.

Is it true that foster parents can commit the same crime that a biological parent? Yes, but it is unethical and sickening to even think for a moment that the law should leave a child in an abusive home b/c they may or may not be abused in the next home they are moved to.

 

[Crazy Liz]

<staff edit>

As a former Children's Foster Care worker for the state of Michigan, I agree 100%. CL - you come across as having such a bias against removing children that you cannot be trusted to consider all aspects of potential risk. Are you hired by the court or by a parents advocacy group?

I have never been hired by a court or by an advocacy group. I am retired now, but when I did this work, I was hired by families involved in litigation.

I asked you under what circumstances you would find removal to be appropriate - you have yet to answer that. I also want to ask exactly what kind of training you've had. What exactly is your "success" rate? I know that when I did reunited a child with the mother/parents, I kept a close eye on if that child ever returned to the attention of CPS.

I don't know what you mean by "success" rate.

 

[Crazy Liz]

comparing baptism to child abuse/sex abuse/rape is ridiculous at best. When a mother who knowingly allows someone in her home who is abusive either physically or sexually, she is culpable and at risk of losing her children. Child Protective Services would look at the RISK to the child in determining the RISK of abuse. In Pennslyvania there is a rish matrix which you complete every six months at MINIMUM for EVERY CHILD you are legally involved with and even when you're not legally involved (despite popular belief of the general public CPS does not ALWAYS take children out of homes). Often times, it's more frequent than that. We used the Washington Risk Matrix (pg 73) in determining whether to remove a child from the home or not. I would be willing to stake my life that the CPS workers in Texas used that or a similar risk matrix to determine whether or not these children needed to be removed. If not, they'll be open for law suit. I would also be willing to stake my life on the fact that these children's trauma of being temporarily separated from their families for an investigation would be less traumatic than being abused. If the investigation turns up no abuse, the children will be returned home with or without monitoring. If the parents don't cooperate, then the risk to the kids will again be assessed and action taking. If it's determined that these children are being or have been abused or at imminent risk of being abused they will be placed in state care on a more permanent basis with the hope that they can either be returned to their families in the future after they've left abusive situations or placed for adoption. These kids deserve to have a non abusive home. This communie most likely is not it.

This is exactly my concern. These children were removed before any risk matrix or other evaluation technique was applied to any of them, simply upon the allegation that the religious teaching of this group puts adolescent girls at risk and trains boys to become perpetrators. At least that is all I've seen in the news stories.

If such a risk matrix had been applied, we would have very different evidence, and we would have different children's risk situation evaluated differently. For example, why remove a child under age 4 from their mother's custody if she is willing to leave the compound and stay with her children? Even breastfeeding mothers who offer to stay in a place approved by CPS are not going to be allowed to stay with their children if the mother is over 18. Only mothers under age 18 will be allowed access to their children. How would such mothers be endangering their breastfeeding babies?

I read the risk matrix, and I read the news stories. I don't see how you could stake your life that such a process was used, based on the news stories and upon the refusal even to consider some arrangement where babies can stay with mothers who agree to whatever terms are placed on them.

 

[Crazy Liz]

As a court-appointed mediator you know that.

To correct another one of your erroneous assumptions about me, I never said I was court-appointed.

This is the second or third time you have judged me based on your own assumptions, rather than on what I have said. Do you think a habit of making judgments on the basis of assumptions is helpful?

 

[ladyt28]

What I meant by success rate was were the children who were returned ever removed again for the same reasons? Out of 200+ families that I worked with, many were reunited with their parents - only 2 families ever had those children removed again - one found yet another pedophile boyfriend and the other went off of her medications for mental illness (for schizophrenia).

I was also very successful in finding safe and appropriate relatives for placement as I strongly believe that children should remain with family whenever possible and appropriate. I'd bet big money that few if any of these families shared the kind of information needed to do that as the only safe relatives would have been those who did not agree with the practices of that "religion". Regardless of it being a relative or a licensed foster home, I watched over them like a hawk - no child on my caseload was going to go through as bad or worse while in care - the abuse and neglect was going to End, Period.

Were they all reunited? Sadly, no. I busted my behind in getting the parents to overcome whatever brought their children into care - I owed those children 150% of everything I had. Many of the parents just fell off of the radar - I could not find them no matter where I looked. Some refused to give up their drug use or pedophile boyfriends. Many looked their child in the eye as they signed off their parental rights and left the courtroom with the man who raped the child. Quite a few also had the attitude of "it's my kid and I'll do whatever I want to with it" (usually referring to beating the child - and I mean BEATING - not just a simple spanking).

 

[Crazy Liz]

There are children that are taken out of homes frequently due to possible risks of safety (physically/ mentally) and well being in regards to the child. Because of the risk of safety for the child in a foster home, I feel we cannot argue keeping a child in a home where the risk is certain vs. taking the child out and putting them in a home where risk is not even in question. The debate is trading one thorn for a rare "possible" another.

It is interesting that you describe yourself as "refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils." Can you explain why you think this judgment is different from voting?

The debate at hand in this thread is not about religion.

I think religion plays a huge part because it is the religion itself that is alleged to be dangerous to these children. Otherwise, how is it even a danger to breastfeeding babies to receive nutrition from a mother who has these beliefs?

It was questioned in the OP, but I feel the majority (but one) feel that this is not a religious issue. If raping and/or physically assaulting another individual is the true practice of a religion, then (OP) should we question changing the law so that one can live according to his/her faith? Of course not. With that being said, this is not a question about religion, but about individuals breaking the law.

I agree the allegation is that individuals broke the law, and this religion teaches a morality that goes against the law. The wholesale removal of all minors from their parents simply is not consistent with any rational balancing of the risks. What risk is there to a breastfeeding baby to be with his mother? If you compare that to the risk of such things as attachment disorders that can result from putting such a young infant in institutional care, I simply fail to see how the risks have been balanced for each child.

Is it true that foster parents can commit the same crime that a biological parent? Yes, but it is unethical and sickening to even think for a moment that the law should leave a child in an abusive home b/c they may or may not be abused in the next home they are moved to.

You are advocating a balancing of risks. So am I. So far, no balancing of risks has taken place here. Most of the posters in this thread think the children should be removed from their parents before any risk assessment is done. As the CPS worker who has posted here has told us, normal procedure is to assess and balance the risks before removing a child. Certainly after two weeks in the arena, social workers could have come forward and said the risks of separating infants from their breastfeeding mothers might be greater than the risks that those babies will be abused by their mothers before any further investigation can be done.

Apparently, the state's first action was to remove the adolescent girls. If the state had decided to do only that much pending a further investigation, I think the action would bear some relation to the immediacy of the risk. The only justification for removing younger children was the danger of being indoctrinated into a particular religion. When religious indoctrination in and of itself is judged by the government to be dangerous, we run into major First Amendment issues. Such issues will take months, if not years to sort out. Last time a FLDS community was raided and all the children removed (back in the 50s, IIRC from the news stories) the children were returned after two years. Removing all the children before beginning a risk evaluation process that, because of the religious and constitutional complications, is going to take a long time to sort out poses the greatest risk to the youngest children - the very children who are at the least risk if allowed to be with their mothers.

 

[flicka]

I have to disagree that this is a simple situation. It goes beyond whether anyone is being abused or molested. The bottom line is that multi generations have been/are being born and raised in an closed environment that prevents them from ever knowing what their basic rights as US citizens really are and instead are forced to live and believe in a world created entirely by a handful of power hungry men. I find that appalling and unacceptable.

All of these people need to be deprogrammed.

 

[immersedingrace]

This is exactly my concern. These children were removed before any risk matrix or other evaluation technique was applied to any of them, simply upon the allegation that the religious teaching of this group puts adolescent girls at risk and trains boys to become perpetrators. At least that is all I've seen in the news stories.

If such a risk matrix had been applied, we would have very different evidence, and we would have different children's risk situation evaluated differently. For example, why remove a child under age 4 from their mother's custody if she is willing to leave the compound and stay with her children? Even breastfeeding mothers who offer to stay in a place approved by CPS are not going to be allowed to stay with their children if the mother is over 18. Only mothers under age 18 will be allowed access to their children. How would such mothers be endangering their breastfeeding babies?

I read the risk matrix, and I read the news stories. I don't see how you could stake your life that such a process was used, based on the news stories and upon the refusal even to consider some arrangement where babies can stay with mothers who agree to whatever terms are placed on them.

There are rules that need to be followed before a child can be removed from a home. There are also confidentiality rules when dealing with children. If it turns out these rules weren't followed, ther will, without doubt, be lawsuits. I don't think that the state of Texas, or any other state, would be willing to risk that. Nor do I believe they're going to release such confidential information to the press. Having worked behind the scenes I know there is much going on that they are not telling us because quite frankly, it's not our business. It's the buisness of the families, who, if they want us to know, will tell us.

Again, having been a CPS worker, I know all the paperwork that goes into risk assessment, investigations, removing children from their homes, going to court for Protective custody and going to court for legal &/or physical custody and all the physical and emotional work that goes into those things as well. If you've never worked in CPS, you can't possibly even have a clue to all that goes on behind the scenes. Not by any means saying the process is perfect because I have MANY, MANY gripes with the system but that risk matrix (or similar one) MUST by LAW be done.