Polygamous-sect children ordered to stay in Texas custody

[Crazy Liz]

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).

My work usually did not involve children who had been removed from the custody of both their parents.

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).

I have not in any way criticized your work. I only mentioned that I have also had some experience with the family court system, mostly a different branch of it than the one you work in. I'm sure you work very hard and do a great job. I wish it were apparent that the Texas CPS was being as careful, rather than removing children wholesale without any individual risk assessment, but rather on the judgment that what endangered them all was religious indoctrination. All the children are at risk for religious indoctrination. Not all of them are at risk for physical abuse, at least according to any of the evidence that has been reported in the news media.

 

[elman]

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.

I agree and I am certainly for protecting the children. They seem to have known for years what was going on there. Why are they just now protecting the children? It should have been done sooner, before there were four hundred plus children to protect.

 

[Crazy Liz]

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.

You're right. I don't know what all goes on behind the scenes. I do know there was a court hearing that apparently was open to the public, which is unusual in cases where the state removes children from their parents' custody.

I do not see how it is possible that the kind of risk analysis you describe was done before the removal.

In the case of an infant girl, let's acknowledge there is a risk that, without intervention, she will be abused 12 years from now. With the risk that remote, isn't an intervention short of removal more appropriate?

 

[SallyNow]

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — The more than 400 children taken from a ranch run by a polygamous sect will stay in state custody and be subject to genetic testing to sort out family relationships that have confounded welfare authorities, a judge ruled Friday.

What do you think about taking children away from their parents only because of the beliefs and practices of their religion?

When those practices include child abuse, forced marriage, spousal abuse, rape, statutory rape, pedophelia, denying children an education, and even incest resulting in severe birth defects, then yes, those children should be taken away from their parents.

When an entire community is based on the principles listed above, what is the government supposed to do? Hope it gets better? It isn't getting better, it's getting worse.

And here are the obligatory links:
A great primer on FLDS communities:
from CBC.com
And one from the Vancouver Sun
From religoustolerance.org

On FLDS treatment of children:
From the BC Civil Liberities Association and the BC Teachers Federation
CNN on the Lost Boys
A Guardian article on the lost boys
Reassigning children (from Canwest News)

On teen pregnancy (a common FLDS practice)
From womenhealthmatters
March of Dimes
From who.org

 

[immersedingrace]

In the case of an infant girl, let's acknowledge there is a risk that, without intervention, she will be abused 12 years from now. With the risk that remote, isn't an intervention short of removal more appropriate?

Actually, NO. As I mentioned, and believe others mentioned, if a parent stays with a husband or boyfriend who has been known to be a pedophile the child is at imminent risk of abuse. CPS does not allow children to stay at imminent risk. The children of pedophiles, regardless of the age of preference for said pedophile, need to be removed from the pedophiles access. If the mother chooses the pedophile over the child then she will lose custody of her child as well.

(Crazy Liz, you mentioned a "CPS worker who has posted here", which I assume you mean to be me. I am a FORMER CPS worker. I did that job for 3 1/2 years too long and realized it was not for me. In fact turned down the job in another county when they offered me more money. Believe me, it takes a very DEDICATED person to do that job for long. Just wanted to set the record straight.)

 

[Crazy Liz]

I agree and I am certainly for protecting the children. They seem to have known for years what was going on there. Why are they just now protecting the children? It should have been done sooner, before there were four hundred plus children to protect.

As I understand the history, this is in part an unintended consequence of legal and religious moves that started well over 100 years ago. The US Supreme Court decided in the 1880s, I believe, that polygamy was unconstitutional. The LDS church backed down and changed their doctrine, but some dissidents withdrew.

If you go through the history, each time a government agency took action to try to interfere with their polygamous practices, the group isolated itself more and more, and its leaders became more and more controlling. It was after the children were returned the last time that the rules became stricter and stricter. That is when they began requiring the women to wear distinctive clothing. It was only a few years ago that they stopped allowing women a say in their marriages and began allowing only arranged marriages.

Of course, we can't apply hindsight to go back and fix things, but it appears that if the government had tolerated polygamy for Mormons, it would have largely died out on its own a long time ago, as it does in all polygamous societies. Even where polygamy is allowed, the vast majority of men have only one wife. With boys and girls born in roughly equal numbers, polygamy can't be maintained on a large scale for very long.

However, by living as outsiders having less and less interaction with society at large, this group became more and more cult-like over time. The proposal I've seen posted here for reversing the trend seems to be to remove every baby from these families as soon as it is born, so there can never be a next generation. What happens when the government orders children to be removed from their parents at birth? See Exodus 1-4.

I've also seen proposals that all these people be deprogrammed. Of course, we know that is impossible.

So what else is there?

ISTM, actions aimed at re-integrating these people into the larger society without provoking such strong reactions would make more sense. What has been tried on this front?

I actually think, given what has already been done, allowing the mothers to keep custody pending further investigation, so long as they did not expose their children to abuse, would be a good start. Some mothers will probably decide to leave. What good does it do to send the mothers back to the compound without their children? The mothers staying outside the compound with their children would seem more beneficial in breaking the cycle. Some mothers would choose to go back with their husbands rather than stay with their children, but some will not, if given the opportunity. Children who are wards of the state can be placed with a parent upon conditions. I don't understand why such a placement option is not even being considered in this situation.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Actually, NO. As I mentioned, and believe others mentioned, if a parent stays with a husband or boyfriend who has been known to be a pedophile the child is at imminent risk of abuse. CPS does not allow children to stay at imminent risk. The children of pedophiles, regardless of the age of preference for said pedophile, need to be removed from the pedophiles access. If the mother chooses the pedophile over the child then she will lose custody of her child as well.

(Crazy Liz, you mentioned a "CPS worker who has posted here", which I assume you mean to be me. I am a FORMER CPS worker. I did that job for 3 1/2 years too long and realized it was not for me. In fact turned down the job in another county when they offered me more money. Believe me, it takes a very DEDICATED person to do that job for long. Just wanted to set the record straight.)

These rules create a definition of pedophilia that has some problems, in that the girls married here would be considered marriageable adult women in many societies, both past and present.

In the modern West there are many good reasons to delay marriage. Adolescence, a period after sexual maturity but before the person is considered socially an adult, is a rather recent phenomenon in history, and there are also many problems with lengthening adolescence. In some Western societies, such as Italy, adolescence has legally been extended to age 30 because younger adults so often can't find jobs, and so continue to need to be supported financially by their parents. For most Americans, shortening adolescence so much as in the FLDS and lengthening adolescence so much as in Italy both seem quite bizarre. However, calling a person a pedophile because his society does not recognize a lengthy adolescence confuses sociological fact with psychological disorder.

I think when a whole society recognizes a shorter adolescence it is probably not technically correct to label all the people in that society as pedophiles. But then again, I'm not a psychologist. Perhaps someone who is could explain what a diagnosis of pedophilia entails, and how psychologists view people living in societies that consider adulthood to begin at an earlier age.

 

[SallyNow]

These rules create a definition of pedophilia that has some problems, in that the girls married here would be considered marriageable adult women in many societies, both past and present.

In the modern West there are many good reasons to delay marriage. Adolescence, a period after sexual maturity but before the person is considered socially an adult, is a rather recent phenomenon in history, and there are also many problems with lengthening adolescence. In some Western societies, such as Italy, adolescence has legally been extended to age 30 because younger adults so often can't find jobs, and so continue to need to be supported financially by their parents. For most Americans, shortening adolescence so much as in the FLDS and lengthening adolescence so much as in Italy both seem quite bizarre. However, calling a person a pedophile because his society does not recognize a lengthy adolescence confuses sociological fact with psychological disorder.

I think when a whole society recognizes a shorter adolescence it is probably not technically correct to label all the people in that society as pedophiles. But then again, I'm not a psychologist. Perhaps someone who is could explain what a diagnosis of pedophilia entails, and how psychologists view people living in societies that consider adulthood to begin at an earlier age.

Actually, as the links I've already posted show, sexual maturity is later than is commonly thought. Menstration is not the key; physical readiness is. There are dangers in pregnancies in women younger than 18 that are not shown once a woman is fully developed. That problem may also be part of why so many women died in childbirth in past centuries.

Here are the links again:
On teen pregnancy (a common FLDS practice)
From womenhealthmatters
March of Dimes
From who.org

And, of course, there is the problem of isolation: FLDS communities isolate themselves from the general public. This is causing very serious birth defects (the links can be found in my previous post, scattered among the other topics)

The past is not always a good indicator of what is good or right in society. That is certainly the case with very early marriage.

Some of the girls have been allegedly married off as early as 13, with no choice in the matter. No choice to say "no" to sex with their husbands; no choice at a different path in life. This is repulsive to most in the developed world. It is taking the fundemental human rights of a person.

 

[immersedingrace]

These rules create a definition of pedophilia that has some problems, in that the girls married here would be considered marriageable adult women in many societies, both past and present.

In the modern West there are many good reasons to delay marriage. Adolescence, a period after sexual maturity but before the person is considered socially an adult, is a rather recent phenomenon in history, and there are also many problems with lengthening adolescence. In some Western societies, such as Italy, adolescence has legally been extended to age 30 because younger adults so often can't find jobs, and so continue to need to be supported financially by their parents. For most Americans, shortening adolescence so much as in the FLDS and lengthening adolescence so much as in Italy both seem quite bizarre. However, calling a person a pedophile because his society does not recognize a lengthy adolescence confuses sociological fact with psychological disorder.

I think when a whole society recognizes a shorter adolescence it is probably not technically correct to label all the people in that society as pedophiles. But then again, I'm not a psychologist. Perhaps someone who is could explain what a diagnosis of pedophilia entails, and how psychologists view people living in societies that consider adulthood to begin at an earlier age.

Regardless of psychological definitions, we are talking about the United States of America not Italy and not Africa and not Uraguay and not Iraq and not India, etc, etc, etc. and the United States of America tells us what is sexual abuse or child abuse. Since we're not talking about any other country, there is no problem. Just because the rest of the world does something, doesn't mean it's correct, even when we are the minority. We are bound by US laws. If those sects do not wish to live by US laws, they should go elsewhere. While living here, they are bound by our laws and no matter how distateful that is to you, or anyone else it is the reality. They would do better to lobby for law changes rather than breaking the law because they feel like it.

BTW, in the United States of America the DSMIV defines pedophilia here. Prepubescent can go as late as 16 or 17 in some cases (maybe later). From what I've read, some of these 16 year olds already have children, making some of those men IMO, pedophiles, regardless of DSMIV.

 

[keith99]

Regardless of psychological definitions, we are talking about the United States of America not Italy and not Africa and not Uraguay and not Iraq and not India, etc, etc, etc. and the United States of America tells us what is sexual abuse or child abuse. Since we're not talking about any other country, there is no problem. Just because the rest of the world does something, doesn't mean it's correct, even when we are the minority. We are bound by US laws. If those sects do not wish to live by US laws, they should go elsewhere. While living here, they are bound by our laws and no matter how distateful that is to you, or anyone else it is the reality. They would do better to lobby for law changes rather than breaking the law because they feel like it.

BTW, in the United States of America the DSMIV defines pedophilia here. Prepubescent can go as late as 16 or 17 in some cases (maybe later) but from what I've read, some of these 16 year olds already have children thereby, making some of those men pedophiles.

Do you know what puberty is? Does that give you a clue what prepubescent means? Do you see how funny that makes your argument about young women having children as evidence of pedophilia based on hte DSM IV?

 

[immersedingrace]

Do you know what puberty is? Does that give you a clue what prepubescent means? Do you see how funny that makes your argument about young women having children as evidence of pedophilia based on hte DSM IV?

I was giving the DSM definition for crazyLiz's benefit, not my own. My personal definition, which is significantly different, is what I based my opinion on. I think the DSM definition needs to be revised.

 

[ladyt28]

Children who are wards of the state can be placed with a parent upon conditions.

I can only speak for Michigan - this proposal is not possible here. "Wards of the state" either means that parental rights have been terminated by the court or the parents have signed off on their parental rights - that child will never be placed with them......ever. A "temporary ward of the court" could be placed with a parent upon conditions. I know it's splitting hairs but that's the nature of legalities.

 

[Ginny]

Here is a site for the FLDS that was just started to help the children.

And this latest news is not going to help this case.

In other parts of the story...
At a meeting Wednesday afternoon, Walther and the state's Child Protective Services Division agreed that 18 mothers with breast-feeding babies that are 1 year old or younger will be allowed to stay with their children in the homes where the children are placed.
Also, 23 mothers with 28 children ages 1 to 2 years will be allowed to stay in the same towns as their children.

 

[psalms 91]

Why is noone debating the individual rights of the children and the parents? How would you like it if someone said (small town of your choice) that child abuse was going on and they emptied the town of all the women and children to sort it out rather than investigate individual cases as they should do. This is a trampling of individual freedoms and rights and if Texas is allowed to get away with it and you support then dont holler when it spreads and other government agencies decide that they can trample our rights as well

 

[comana]

Why is noone debating the individual rights of the children and the parents? How would you like it if someone said (small town of your choice) that child abuse was going on and they emptied the town of all the women and children to sort it out rather than investigate individual cases as they should do. This is a trampling of individual freedoms and rights and if Texas is allowed to get away with it and you support then dont holler when it spreads and other government agencies decide that they can trample our rights as well

Why do people keep trying to compare this isolated cult compound to an average American neighborhood or small town?

 

[psalms 91]

Why do people keep trying to compare this isolated cult compound to an average American neighborhood or small town?

Maybe because it was/is a seperate community and not a family home. What they have done there is whiolesale and violates every principle of individual freedom. I would agree if they had investigated individuals but to remove a whole community? I could compare that to the Nazis, think abiout it.

 

[Nadiine]

polygamy is illegal.

I'd have to throw some blame on the Police & other law enforcement FOR NOT ENFORCING THE LAWS OF THE STATE.

This wouldn't have compounded to such a level if it were properly dealt with earlier on. This lack of enforcement continues in Utah where they just turn a blind eye to people breaking the law.

We see the same problem that's compounded by not following laws with the illegal alien problem that America has now created.
If they would have contained it earlier on, we wouldn't be in the bigger mess later. Why make laws if they're going to be ignored?
Either allow it, or enforce what's there. This is just a consequence of another wrong that allowed another wrong to escalate into trouble.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Because legally the men only had one wife and many concubines outside the compound. Inside the other women were viewed as wives but legally, outside the compound they were only concubines since the law doesn't recognize more than one marriage. Thats how they got welfare, or I heard they were on welfare for single women with many kids.

 

[comana]

Maybe because it was/is a seperate community and not a family home. What they have done there is whiolesale and violates every principle of individual freedom. I would agree if they had investigated individuals but to remove a whole community? I could compare that to the Nazis, think abiout it.

A community with families that endorsed polygamous marriages to underage girls. If they were taking up these relationships with only legally consenting girls this would be a different situation.

Since this is an isolated and uncoopertaing community it is a bit difficult to evaulate the safety of the children while still in the compound.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I was giving the DSM definition for crazyLiz's benefit, not my own. My personal definition, which is significantly different, is what I based my opinion on. I think the DSM definition needs to be revised.

If my reading is correct, Texas only raised the age of consent for marriage to 16 after this group moved to the YFZ ranch. Does your definition of pedophilia change whenever a state changes its age of consent? Is it dependent on where the person lives, or on whether the girl's parents or a judge has given permission for the marriage (as provided by law in some states for girls under 18)?

I think your argument that the DSM definition of pedophilia should be changed is inconsistent with your argument that every child in a home with a pedophile is in danger. My husband's grandmother was under 18 when they got married. Does that mean he was a pedophile and therefore a danger to his children and grandchildren?