Polygamous-sect children ordered to stay in Texas custody

[Maren]

Someone pointed out to me today that we have a double standard with how we treat teenagers. If they break a law, then typically society wishes to see the teenager punished as if they are adults. Yet when it comes to a decision of the teenagers, we suddenly claim they are completely incapable of making an adult decision.

So, in the case of a 15 year old girl in the compound, she is unable to consent to get married. Yet, there is a 15 year old boy in Utah facing felony charges because he transmitted nude pictures on his cell phone. There was also the 15 year old girl charged with child pornography statutes because of pictures she took of herself and transmitted them to people she knew or met online. And then there is the case of the 17 year old boy who was in prison for receiving oral sex from a 15 year old girl.

While I agree a 15 year old is not mature enough to marry, why is it old enough to punish them as adults for making immature decisions about sex? It appears to be a huge double standard.

 

[wanderingone]

Someone pointed out to me today that we have a double standard with how we treat teenagers. If they break a law, then typically society wishes to see the teenager punished as if they are adults. Yet when it comes to a decision of the teenagers, we suddenly claim they are completely incapable of making an adult decision.

So, in the case of a 15 year old girl in the compound, she is unable to consent to get married. Yet, there is a 15 year old boy in Utah facing felony charges because he transmitted nude pictures on his cell phone. There was also the 15 year old girl charged with child pornography statutes because of pictures she took of herself and transmitted them to people she knew or met online. And then there is the case of the 17 year old boy who was in prison for receiving oral sex from a 15 year old girl.

While I agree a 15 year old is not mature enough to marry, why is it old enough to punish them as adults for making immature decisions about sex? It appears to be a huge double standard.

I agree there's a problem with that logic, I don't think it's necessarily relevant in this situation. While I think 15 is too young to get married I think that the issue here with these groups is not only underage marriage, it's forced under age marriage, these girls aren't making the decision to be married, they are being told to whom and when they will be married. It's not a choice.

 

[psalms 91]

We have a confused society with confused laws at this point. Obviously there should be one age where the line is drawn for adulthood. The Jewish had it and just about every society does. This country goes to much on feeling and not enough on common sense. I am not for what was going on there but lets face it until we as a society can send one message instead of many not only to the adults but also to cjhildren as well, anyone seen TV lately? Movies? If we can get back to core values and beliefs and enforce them accordingly thenm perhaps there might be hope but alas that is not going to happen, it is going to get worse according to the bible.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Seems the appellate court in TX agreed there were problems with this action.

http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=16865

 

[Nadiine]

We have a confused society with confused laws at this point. Obviously there should be one age where the line is drawn for adulthood. The Jewish had it and just about every society does. This country goes to much on feeling and not enough on common sense. I am not for what was going on there but lets face it until we as a society can send one message instead of many not only to the adults but also to cjhildren as well, anyone seen TV lately? Movies? If we can get back to core values and beliefs and enforce them accordingly thenm perhaps there might be hope but alas that is not going to happen, it is going to get worse according to the bible.

I so agree. We know what works to clean up society, but that would mean using God's standards which this world just will not tolerate.

 

[Nadiine]

I agree there's a problem with that logic, I don't think it's necessarily relevant in this situation. While I think 15 is too young to get married I think that the issue here with these groups is not only underage marriage, it's forced under age marriage, these girls aren't making the decision to be married, they are being told to whom and when they will be married. It's not a choice.

good points there

 

[Nadiine]

Someone pointed out to me today that we have a double standard with how we treat teenagers. If they break a law, then typically society wishes to see the teenager punished as if they are adults. Yet when it comes to a decision of the teenagers, we suddenly claim they are completely incapable of making an adult decision.

So, in the case of a 15 year old girl in the compound, she is unable to consent to get married. Yet, there is a 15 year old boy in Utah facing felony charges because he transmitted nude pictures on his cell phone. There was also the 15 year old girl charged with child pornography statutes because of pictures she took of herself and transmitted them to people she knew or met online. And then there is the case of the 17 year old boy who was in prison for receiving oral sex from a 15 year old girl.

While I agree a 15 year old is not mature enough to marry, why is it old enough to punish them as adults for making immature decisions about sex? It appears to be a huge double standard.

I thought I'd mention 1 thing here - the reasoning I've heard for the trying a child as an adult is mainly when the crime is SO brutal or heinous, that they need to punished further or longer than juvenile laws would give them.
I do understand that logic if used. Not all crimes or things underage kids do is so evil compared to others.

 

[gengwall]

Justice Ginsburg, with her 13 yo age of consent position, would just love this. I'm making the call. If this ever turned into something the SCOTUS reviewed, she will write the opinion (either majority or minority depending on how it comes down).

 

[Crazy Liz]

No Liz your right, we should return all the children so they can return to their incestous marriages and rape.

What is wrong with you?

The same thing that's wrong with Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop of the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin, apparently. The reasons I was concerned were precisely their reasons for overturning the order.

 

[Crazy Liz]

We don't know. Are you willing to leave them in the compound where they almost certainly will be victims of incest and pedophilia? <staff edit> Do you not understand that leaving them there is the same mistake Colorado officials made last year? <staff edit> <staff edit> We all have posted the facts and links to the facts that prove the children are in danger. <staff edit>

As the Court of Appeal decision shows, there was no such evidence presented in this case. I'm glad the courts don't act on the kind of hysteria we saw in this thread last month, or at least once they did, there was a more objective court willing to look at the evidence.

 

[gengwall]

As the Court of Appeal decision shows, there was no such evidence presented in this case. I'm glad the courts don't act on the kind of hysteria we saw in this thread last month, or at least once they did, there was a more objective court willing to look at the evidence.

Of course, IisJustMe did not have this opinion in hand when making those comments.

People really need to understand how child protection statutes work, especially the one invoked in this case. The state needs to have three things happen in order to do what they did.

1. There was a real, immediate danger to the physical health and safety of the child. Potential danger is not sufficient and future danger is irrelevant.

2. The need to remove the child to protect them from this danger is urgent.

3. The department has to exhaust all other possible solutions, levaing removal as the last resort. It can't be done as a knee jerk reaction without exploring solutions that will keep the children at home.

The court found that the stae failed, and failed miserably, on all three of these requirements.

 

[Morcova]

The same thing that's wrong with Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop of the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District at Austin, apparently. The reasons I was concerned were precisely their reasons for overturning the order.

No those people actually waited for an investigation first, when you heard about this your first leap was to return the children before any investigation.

So it's dishonest to claim you and the above mentioned folks have anything in common.

 

[CaDan]

It seems the "investigation" found there was even less evidence than originally alleged.

 

[Crazy Liz]

No those people actually waited for an investigation first, when you heard about this your first leap was to return the children before any investigation.

So it's dishonest to claim you and the above mentioned folks have anything in common.

Actually, I questioned the action based on reported facts that were precisely what the Court of Appeals found.

 

[CaDan]

No those people actually waited for an investigation first, when you heard about this your first leap was to return the children before any investigation.

So it's dishonest to claim you and the above mentioned folks have anything in common.

Sorry, the dishonesty was on the part of the Department, which has pretty consistently lied about the facts of the matter.

The Department lied about the number of pregnant women under 18.

The Department lied about the age of some women.

More importantly, as the Texas court held, there simple was not sufficient evidence of particular harm to justify the action in the first place. The results of the precious 'investigation" are irrelevant to that determination.

Go read the court's opinion, which lists the actual evidence in this case. Then go back and read the speculative posts made by you and others a month ago. Perhaps you should consider "revising and extending" your prior remarks.

 

[Nadiine]

As the Court of Appeal decision shows, there was no such evidence presented in this case. I'm glad the courts don't act on the kind of hysteria we saw in this thread last month, or at least once they did, there was a more objective court willing to look at the evidence.

Oh now it's "hysteria" LOL PuhLeeeeeeeeeease.
(oh the drama of it all) hehee

We aren't involved IN the process w/ a 24hr. hotline to police hdqt's - contrary to what gets reported to the press, we aren't privy to the direct reports to know WHAT is actually true or not. How can we know? You can't either for that matter.

No I don't recant my statements (to CaDan) or my stance. When it comes to those cult compounds, with the history they have - if they are given enough reasonable cause for suspicion, then I HOPE they sweep in like cartoon superhero's & save someone's day if they need rescue from such a dysfunctional place.

I can't help it if they lied - nor can I know if they did, but I support them moving in if there's enough cause.
IF there isn't enough cause then obviously NO they should not. I think it's real simple and straightforward.

IF there wasn't just cause to remove kids, they shouldn't have. IF there was, they should have.
I consistently keep and stand by that standard in every cult compound situation.

 

[Nadiine]

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?

PS this was your OP - it was based on authorities taking kids away
ONLY DUE TO BELIEFS & PRACTICES OF THEIR RELIGION....

Obviously its wrong to remove kids due to parent's religion alone. But when that religion is used to abuse and harm children, then the law does need to step in.
The issue becomes WERE THEY ABUSED. And I go back to my previous post points as to where I stand on that.

Child welfare agencies DO remove kids from homes that are harmful or dangerous for children - they do it often but usually as a last resort.
I've seen cops warn a father about not having enough food in their kitchen and the place being so dirty that if he didn't clean it up & get food in the house for them that they'de call child svcs. & have them removed.

Yes they DO go in & take kids out of homes regularly - I see nothing wrong with that when there's enough cause. No cult compound should be exempt (religion is nothing we stand behind to break laws). We don't exempt religion from our laws.

 

[PetersKeys]

The state authorities didn't just raid the compound for fun or because of the religious beliefs of the mormon sect. It had everything to do with protecting the children from alleged abuse. Its only right that the children remain in state custody until everything is figured out.

You realize there are plenty of gay couples where the child is in potential and alleged abuse. If your for gay marriage your gonna have to be for polygamous marriages, otherwise you look like an enourmous hypocrite with double standards.

 

[LouTheWicked]

PetersKeys, don't try to derail the thread.

 

[gengwall]

Oh now it's "hysteria" LOL PuhLeeeeeeeeeease.
(oh the drama of it all) hehee

We aren't involved IN the process w/ a 24hr. hotline to police hdqt's - contrary to what gets reported to the press, we aren't privy to the direct reports to know WHAT is actually true or not. How can we know? You can't either for that matter.

No I don't recant my statements (to CaDan) or my stance. When it comes to those cult compounds, with the history they have - if they are given enough reasonable cause for suspicion, then I HOPE they sweep in like cartoon superhero's & save someone's day if they need rescue from such a dysfunctional place.

I can't help it if they lied - nor can I know if they did, but I support them moving in if there's enough cause.
IF there isn't enough cause then obviously NO they should not. I think it's real simple and straightforward.

IF there wasn't just cause to remove kids, they shouldn't have. IF there was, they should have.
I consistently keep and stand by that standard in every cult compound situation.

Wow! I sure hope you sing the same tune when YOU are the victim of some government agency that simply has "enough reasonable cause for suspicion" about some part of your lifestyle that they don't like. I have serious doubts whether you understand how the law and constitution work in this country. Read the statute and the opinion, then see if you think the department's actions were not only justified but legal.