Polygamous-sect children ordered to stay in Texas custody

[Nadiine]

Not everyone. Some of the posters here still think CPS did the right thing, even though they didn't have evidence. Some here are arguing rape, forced marriage and other kinds of abuse that were not part of the evidence in this case.

Well... on this I have to just take a neutral position - becuz at this point, I don't know WHAT exactly they saw or based their decision on and I'm more leary to hold a position either way based on previous evidence that didn't pan out.

When I know exactly what they did see on their first visit, I could make a decision as to what I'd do or agree with.

I'll go as far as to say, it's nothing I'd do lightly - there better be some serious cause for alarm in it. And, I'd probly go to my superiors to get legal advice or input rather than just make the decision spontaneously on my own & remove 400+ of them.

 

[Crazy Liz]

society is harmed by open legalized immorality - the more that is accepted, the more is opened up for further acceptance and so the cycle continues.

Each boundary and restriction that gains acceptance, the next follow in their place - it continues until all lines of what is moral and right get blurred or rejected altogether.

We already see this happening - and our youth are showing the results.

now now, aren't we a little above this type of personal retaliation?

The revised definition of "closed minded": anyone who doesn't agree with my liberalistic opinions"



Amazing the toleration people push around here yet how rarely it's shown to certain people.

Just to clarify, do you think the state should remove children from their parents if the parents have a liberalistic pervasive belief system?

 

[Nadiine]

Just to clarify, do you think the state should remove children from their parents if the parents have a liberalistic pervasive belief system?

I think they need to crack down on polygamists becuz they are breaking the law and milking the system.

This is how we got in the predicament we're in with illegal immigrants. You can't ignore law - either change it/fix it or enforce it. I don't think random compliance of law by authorities sets a very good example.

IF they'de enforce it, we wouldn't have the numerous kids in the plight they'de be in if they let it continue for decades and THEN decide they need to get active against it.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Well... on this I have to just take a neutral position - becuz at this point, I don't know WHAT exactly they saw or based their decision on and I'm more leary to hold a position either way based on previous evidence that didn't pan out.

When I know exactly what they did see on their first visit, I could make a decision as to what I'd do or agree with.

I'll go as far as to say, it's nothing I'd do lightly - there better be some serious cause for alarm in it. And, I'd probly go to my superiors to get legal advice or input rather than just make the decision spontaneously on my own & remove 400+ of them.

If they saw something that gave them cause for alarm, they should have presented it to the court. The fact that they didn't present anything else reasonably leads to the conclusion they didn't have anything else, since they knew they had the burden of proof under the law.

 

[Nadiine]

If they saw something that gave them cause for alarm, they should have presented it to the court. The fact that they didn't present anything else reasonably leads to the conclusion they didn't have anything else, since they knew they had the burden of proof under the law.

I would never say "if you don't find serious cause of neglect or harm take them all out". That's ludicrous - I wouldn't be ok with it for single homes or compounds.
IF they saw enough alarming things & felt all the kids were in serious, immediate danger, I can understand that & I'm fine with taking them out. But I just don't know all the details.

I still don't want any kids in cultic environments of any religion. But it's a right we have and it does protect us all in some ways. I'd love a perfect world, but then it isn't going to happen until Christ returns & take's charge & judges sin.
Until then, this is what we live with.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think they need to crack down on polygamists becuz they are breaking the law and milking the system.

Actually, they're not breaking the law, except possibly WRT the age of consent. It is the way the anti-polygamy laws are written that allows them to milk the system. I assume by "milking the system" you mean that some of the plural wives and their children qualify for welfare, when legally married wives and their children do not. Ironically, if the law allowed these men to have more than one legal wife, they would not be able to collect welfare.

What kind of crackdown do you propose?

This is how we got in the predicament we're in with illegal immigrants. You can't ignore law - either change it/fix it or enforce it. I don't think random compliance of law by authorities sets a very good example.

IF they'de enforce it, we wouldn't have the numerous kids in the plight they'de be in if they let it continue for decades and THEN decide they need to get active against it.

What law did they not enforce, and how could enforcement of laws have prevented numerous kids in this plight?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I would never say "if you don't find serious cause of neglect or harm take them all out". That's ludicrous - I wouldn't be ok with it for single homes or compounds.
IF they saw enough alarming things & felt all the kids were in serious, immediate danger, I can understand that & I'm fine with taking them out. But I just don't know all the details.

The details are available. A link to the court decision has been posted in this thread. In case you missed it, here it is again:

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

It's not very long. I read it in about 5 minutes. It summarizes all the evidence the trial court received. I'd be interested to know if you disagree with the court about whether or not it was sufficient after you read it.

I still don't want any kids in cultic environments of any religion. But it's a right we have and it does protect us all in some ways. I'd love a perfect world, but then it isn't going to happen until Christ returns & take's charge & judges sin.
Until then, this is what we live with.

ok

 

[mpok1519]

their religion has nothing to do with it; it might be the motivating reasons for their practices which are sick and disgusting, but Texas isn't coming down o them just because they aren't status quo folks; they aren't status quo folks bc theres been abuse of children.

When one uses the psychological power of divine punishment (and I assume all of these women were constantly exposed to the 'wrath of god if you don't consumate marriage with a guy three times your age who can probably remember the original gong shows) or cajolling one into questionable act by the psychological power of eternal salvation for one's soul, it is abuse; mental, physical, and sexual abuse.

Here in the USA, you can worship whatever God you want. You can worship Satan. But as long as you don't sacrafice small cute animals to the devil, you're allowed to do that. You can worship the polygamists' god, but you cannot go around to naive children of other memebers of the church, brainwash them into sex with an older man with fear of hell, or desire of heaven as the silver-tongued way to live out your own twisted fantasies.

God its GROSS!!!!!! shivers~ creepy, ich.

 

[Crazy Liz]

their religion has nothing to do with it; it might be the motivating reasons for their practices which are sick and disgusting, but Texas isn't coming down o them just because they aren't status quo folks; they aren't status quo folks bc theres been abuse of children.

When one uses the psychological power of divine punishment (and I assume all of these women were constantly exposed to the 'wrath of god if you don't consumate marriage with a guy three times your age who can probably remember the original gong shows) or cajolling one into questionable act by the psychological power of eternal salvation for one's soul, it is abuse; mental, physical, and sexual abuse.

Did you read the court opinion?

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

Based on the evidence that was before the court, do you think all 400+ children should have been removed?

Here in the USA, you can worship whatever God you want. You can worship Satan. But as long as you don't sacrafice small cute animals to the devil, you're allowed to do that. You can worship the polygamists' god, but you cannot go around to naive children of other memebers of the church, brainwash them into sex with an older man with fear of hell, or desire of heaven as the silver-tongued way to live out your own twisted fantasies.

God its GROSS!!!!!! shivers~ creepy, ich.

I've seen this rationale used in family court before, as reasoning that children should be raised by a Jewish parent who does not believe in hell, rather than by a Christian parent who does believe in hell. I've seen it used in court as reasoning that the children should be raised by the parent who is living with his girlfriend out of wedlock, rather than by the Catholic parent who takes the children to a church that says this is a sin.

 

[Nadiine]

The details are available. A link to the court decision has been posted in this thread. In case you missed it, here it is again:

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

It's not very long. I read it in about 5 minutes. It summarizes all the evidence the trial court received. I'd be interested to know if you disagree with the court about whether or not it was sufficient after you read it.



ok

K I'm back & forth doing something else, so I'll read it later & reply then.
=)

 

[Maren]

their religion has nothing to do with it; it might be the motivating reasons for their practices which are sick and disgusting, but Texas isn't coming down o them just because they aren't status quo folks; they aren't status quo folks bc theres been abuse of children.

When one uses the psychological power of divine punishment (and I assume all of these women were constantly exposed to the 'wrath of god if you don't consumate marriage with a guy three times your age who can probably remember the original gong shows) or cajolling one into questionable act by the psychological power of eternal salvation for one's soul, it is abuse; mental, physical, and sexual abuse.

Here in the USA, you can worship whatever God you want. You can worship Satan. But as long as you don't sacrafice small cute animals to the devil, you're allowed to do that. You can worship the polygamists' god, but you cannot go around to naive children of other memebers of the church, brainwash them into sex with an older man with fear of hell, or desire of heaven as the silver-tongued way to live out your own twisted fantasies.

God its GROSS!!!!!! shivers~ creepy, ich.

So are you saying we should remove SoF's children since he is such a proponent of hell, and that you'll be heading there if you don't do exactly what he believes?

 

[mpok1519]

if theres evidence that he's using this psychological power to exploit people/children for his own non-intrinsic desires, then, I suppose, yes. But it also wouldn't be removing his children from the threat; it'd be removing the threat away from the children.

 

[Nadiine]

I'd like to know what can be done about these freaks in their compound domains.
Warren Jeff's was thankfully found guilty for what he did... something should be done about all this.
It seems to me that these types of Mormon's aren't just ok with the polygamy, they have their sites set on the VERY YOUNG girls.

(then again, with the way some of the women look.... oh nevermind)

 

[Archer93]

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.

Coming late to the party here but yes, I agree.
As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, in some cultures 15 is a perfectly valid age at which to get married, but that really isn't the issue here.
Being forced into marriage is A Bad Thing- it doesn't matter if you're 15, 25 or 55 it's still a violation of one's own choice.
Otherwise, there's a risk that the age of the 'wife' becomes the issue, rather than her own thoughts on the matter.

 

[SallyNow]

Coming late to the party here but yes, I agree.
As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, in some cultures 15 is a perfectly valid age at which to get married, but that really isn't the issue here.
Being forced into marriage is A Bad Thing- it doesn't matter if you're 15, 25 or 55 it's still a violation of one's own choice.
Otherwise, there's a risk that the age of the 'wife' becomes the issue, rather than her own thoughts on the matter.

Good points. Forced marriages are "A Bad Thing".

However, early teen pregancies are quite risky. Forcing a child who is not quite grown, who is still mentally and physically immature, to become pregnant is a very bad thing.

Yes, we all know that in the past, before we knew better, young teenagers had children. They also had slaves, died from simple illnesses, and died in childbirth.

I think that one really does have to seperate the religion from the actions in the case of the FLDS communitites. The actions are, often, to marry young girls to older men. The actions are also encouraging young girls to get pregnant by those men. But that isn't, according to Texas law, enough reason to remove all the children. The threat that the girls may be made to marry, the emotional abuse they face, the fact that some boys may be forced to leave the community, are not provable facts in the Texas court of law. The state of the education for the children is not a factor they can consider. It's too bad that parents can deny their children an education. But, the state of Texas has a strong movement in regards to parental rights to give any education they please - or outright deny an education - to their children. So, it would be hard to bring that case up in Texas courts.

The government should have acted according to its own laws, or first act to change the laws. Sadly, the current laws might leave some children abused in homes all over the state. That's not unique to Texas.

(please understand, I'm not trying to bash Texas. It's full of wonderful people. I'm just trying to give a viewpoint of how it can look)

 

[Crazy Liz]

I realize the appellate court reversed this decision because of insufficient evidence under the child protection statute, but since we discussed the constitutional issue in this thread, this new TX Supreme Court decision might give some indication of how the FLDS constitutional rights will be viewed by the courts.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7253860