Texas Supreme Court upholds ruling that children should be returned to parents at polygamist ranch.

[Poll_Blind]

Source: CNN

Breaking at top of CNN Web Page: Texas Supreme Court upholds ruling that children should be returned to parents at polygamist ranch.

CNN - Texas high court: Removal of sect kids 'not warranted'

MSNBC - Sect children to return to their parents

Houston Chronicle - Texas high court says sect kids should go back

USA Today - Texas court: Return kids to polygamists

KLTV, TX - CPS Loses Appeal To Texas Supreme Court Over Polygamist Children

Some related pictures, but not taken today:



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/i...

---

PB

[truthisfreedom]

1. Not like we didn't see this coming.

Sigh. What a totally f-ed up investigation.

[Faygo Kid]

2. The pics of Warren Jeffs kissing 12 year olds did it for me.

It's a cult. Perhaps this is just the price we pay to live in a free society, but I draw the line at abuse of children.

I can only hope that those deer-in-the-headlights mothers with the sing-song voices got out enough - just enough - to realize that they have got to protect their children.

That's all that's left, I guess.

[endarkenment]

11. The courts decided you actually have to have probable cause

before taking kids from their parents. Where there is actual evidence of child abuse the children will be protected by the state agency.

[pnwmom]

21. And how do you obtain evidence and protect children when

people can live in a community where outsiders are barred, insiders are kept from freely exiting, no public schools are allowed, doctors are employees of the sect, etc. ?

There are no easy answers to this situation.

[endarkenment]

The already have probable cause against a small number of people

and those children will remain wards of the state. What they cannot do, as the courts rightly decided, is to then go and take everyone else's kids, 'just in case'. You are correct, there are no easy answers in a society that values human rights.

In the Jeffs case, for which he is in jail for a long time, his child bride came forward and provided the information required to put him away. This recent episode was provoked by another such event from the supposedly impenetrable community. The theory that this community is so closed that we have to throw away the constitution is demonstrably false.

[pnwmom]

56. The Jeffs case doesn't prove what you think it does.

It didn't take place in the closed compound of the ranch, and it wasn't a child bride of Jeff's.

A teenage girl, Elissa Wall, escaped from one of the FLDS dominated towns in Arizona or Colorado -- still a challenge, but not on the order of escaping from the closed compound in Texas. She claimed that Jeffs had forced her, at age 14, to marry her 19 year old cousin. Jeffs was sentenced to prison for assisting in the rape by forcing her to marry her cousin.

I haven't seen anything that says what will happen to the girls in the Zion compound who are underage mothers or otherwise at real risk - just the news reports that imply that ALL of the children will now be sent home. And I still wonder how -- in such a closed community -- we can ensure that the preteen and teenage girls will now be safe.

[High Plains]

28. The Texas Supreme Court thinks there are ways:

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/m...

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. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child”,<4> including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court”.<5> The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home<6> and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.<7> The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,<8> and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.<9>

[pnwmom]

58. How do you order the removal of an alleged perpetrator when very few

of the women agreed to name their husbands?

[LisaL]

61. I guess you can tell all the men to get off the property.

There were way less men than either women or children.
Seems a lot more simple to tell the men to get off the property than taking over 400 kids from their mothers.

[pnwmom]

65. I wonder whether that would be considered within the bounds of the law. n/t

[jberryhill]

82. CPS can also supervise the children *on* the compound

Supervision of parents is not unusual.

I know I've asked a bunch of times, and don't follow this story obsessively. While I certainly understand what goes on in this cult, was there really no specific allegation of abuse here?

(and, no, pictures of Warren Jeffs do not demonstrate an incident of abuse involving anyone in Eldorado. Our criminal justice system doesn't address 'categories of people' but addresses individuals)

[uppityperson]

66. Wouldn't you have to prove they were a danger first?

[musette_sf]

68. well, we all know that going after the men

does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect the women and children. Warren Jeffs is in jail, but his rotten paedo and abuse scheme under the banner of "heaven" (or "Zion") went on without abatement, until CPS tried to rescue the children.

on edit: and WHERE is the prodigiously virile abuser Merril Jessop? with the number of children on the paedo ranch to whom he is biological father, along with the number of children there to whom he is "replacement" father, fully 100+ of them must be "his".

[LisaL]

74. And what does removing children from the women do to the women?

Appeal was filed on behalf of the mothers. They want their children back.
It seems simple enough.

[musette_sf]

77. you were talking about removing perpetrators.

i said it did nothing.

now you're trying to change the subject. no good.

[uppityperson]

79. yup. good luck and hope you have patience here.

I'm done talking with the supporters.

[musette_sf]

80. it's frustrating

they won't answer questions. i know how the CPS workers must have felt.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

3. the title should be:

Texas Supreme Court: Child Molesters Welcome in Texas

[skooooo]

4. The state messed up how they presented this to the courts...

I blame them.

[raystorm7]

6. Texas Supreme Court: Back to the Pedo Rape farm they must go!

[PSPS]

5. Aren't those DNA tests due back soon?

Maybe that will be sufficient to get this going again. I remember that Arizona had trouble getting local law enforcement to arrest Jeffs because members of the sheriff's department were sympathizers or members themselves. I wonder if that is playing a role here.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0527081...

[FreeState]

8. DNA test dont change the law - you cant take children without proof they are or will

be abused. Texas screwed up big time - they should have only taken children that fit the criteria set by the law. Now unfortunately for the children they must wait to hopefully be removed from the ranch lawfully.

[pnwmom]

23. They could have just taken children from families with pregnant girls and

known abusers. Problem was, the mothers at the ranch mostly weren't identifying their own children OR their husbands. So how was CPS supposed to determine which children were at heightened risk?

[LisaL]

30. Well, I guess Supreme Court just didn't buy that argument.

CPS was trying to argue they didn't know which child belonged to whom.
Sorry, didn't work.

[uppityperson]

76. "it's unclear which child belongs to which parent"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/?...
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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426814.stm
So far, 168 mothers and 69 fathers of the children have been identified - reflecting the polygamist practices of the sect - the Associated Press news agency reports.

More than 100 children have still not been matched with mothers.

[uppityperson]

45. CNN clip:dissenting judges said pubescent girls should've been removed...

The three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed 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," wrote Justice Harriet O'Neill.

[fascisthunter]

7. "You May Molest Children as You Will"

[jberryhill]

9. Possibly Stupid Question Here

I don't at all question that this is an abusive cult.

Did the Texas CPS have any evidence of child abuse other than what is generally known about these people?

What I mean is, did the Texas CPS identify any individual underage person that they could identify as having been subject to sexual acts by an adult?

When they made the decision to move on these people, they should have expected that the action would be challenged if they didn't have hard, specific evidence of something having happened in Eldorado, Texas. I can't believe they didn't.

[Poll_Blind]

14. I'm not an expert on the case, but I didn't think they did. n/t

PB

[jberryhill]

19. Damn /nt

[pnwmom]

24. I read that they had 8 underage girls ready to testify for CPS

in the case of the Rulon Jessops children. But the parents agreed to leave the baby in state custody for the time being, with the agreement that the hearing end without the testimony of the girls.

[musette_sf]

10. since Texas only recently (<25 years ago)

rescinded the law where a man could justifiably kill his wife if he found her in flagrante delicto (or even just seeming like flagrante delicto), we see that Texas still thinks women = property.

[New Dawn]

12. I guess they decided that because...

They don't care about prison rape, or Iraqis getting raped, then why should they care about young Texas girls getting raped too?

[medeak]

13. Salt Lake tv news channels are orgasmic

"BIG WIN FOR POLYGAMISTS"

[Poll_Blind]

22. See, this is why I think I would freak out living in a place like Salt Lake.

  I don't know if I could take it. Like living in an Outer Limits episode.

PB

[uppityperson]

48. Yup. some

here are also.

[medeak]

72. story above dubya's visit

LOL!

[Prophet 451]

15. I was afraid of this

The investigaters were so anxious to get the kids out of there (for reasons I agree with) that they played fast and loose with the rules of law. Bad as the decision is, the Texas Supremes, as far as I can tell, didn't have much choice.

[JonQ]

16. Morally the wrong decision

there is no doubt that some if not most/all of the women in these compounds were abused. However, legally it was the correct decision.

Kind of like when they let a killer go because an overzealous cop didn't follow the rules, you hate to see it happen but in general those rules are a good thing.

The authorities screwed up and now kids are going to have to suffer, all around tragedy. And in all likelyhood they'll either relocate or refuse to allow authorities in for followup investigations.

[atreides1]

38. It was the Lawful Decision

The rule of law has to be followed, morals have little to do with this decision. They made the right decision based on the law as it is written.

While I agree that there is a possibility that abuse has taken place, without actual evidence I cannot say without a doubt that most/all of the women were abused. I can only guess, and guessing don't make it so!

Also, you're allegation that now the kids are going to suffer, is about as accurate as Saddam having WMD's.

[Poll_Blind]

17. Sorta reminds me of the ending of "Chinatown" n/t

PB

[pleah]

18. Good.

They should never have been taken without probable cause in the first place. This was wrong from the very beginning. If the cops were allowed to this to them, without proper evidence, what is going to stop them from doing it to ANYBODY else. I understand that there may have been some abuse, but you cannot just take EVERYONE in hopes you get the right ones.

[Poll_Blind]

20. I agree. And with JonQ's comment above. n/t

PB

[harun]

64. I agree as well. You can't take peoples children away w'out serious

serious evidence.

[High Plains]

25. From the opinion:

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/m...

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. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child”,<4> including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court”.<5> The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home<6> and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.<7> The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,<8> and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.<9>

[madmusic]

26. ACLU to Texas: Don't mess with the Constitution, assholes

Read ACLU's brief (pdf):

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/080391...

Read the parents' brief (pdf):

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/ebriefs/08/080391...

There are some facts in there and it is clear why they won.

When the Constitution wins, we all win.

[Poll_Blind]

27. "When the Constitution wins, we all win." Ya got that right.

  It's tough for some to divorce themselves from their emotional response to an issue which eclipses the farther-reaching implications in a more mundane context.

PB

[madmusic]

33. What gets me is the either/or

Either we trash the Constitution or the abuse will go on. Bullshit. CPS had a million choices and every choice they made was wrong. They could have confirmed identity and age of any pregnant minors and taken them. Then investigate.

What really gets me is the praise of the trashing of due process of law. Without due process, we have neither Constitution nor country. Due process, and nothing else, is the gear that spins the Constitutional clock. Without it, we live in the Twilight Zone. What is scary is that so many would be fine with that... unless Bush is doing it.

Many in this thread are still saying, "Down with the Constitution!"

It is clear that DUers and those on the left who value civil liberties have to keep one eye on the left and the other eye on Bush.

[LisaL]

CPS also held some adult women as "disputed minors."

In several cases CPS now admitted the women were older than 18.
I really have no idea as to what right does CPS have to hold an adult.
Of course holding adult women as disputed minors really got the statistics of pregnant minors up.

[Poll_Blind]

42. Yes, but this is a broader problem. It's "My justice" vs "The Greater Justice".

  When "My justice" and "The Greater Justice" intersect, it's happy land. When "My Justice" conflicts with "The Greater Justice", people are more than willing (usually) to throw "The Greater Justice" out the window.

  I don't think there will ever be a time where the objective rule of law is venerated by more than a handfull (metaphorically speaking).

  The reason? Critical thinking is, to most, a mysterious and upsetting concept. It is not taught in school, or very lightly touched on. And frankly, ignorance or fear of concepts like critical thinking or empirical science have and will always benefit those who would enslave us through our ignorance.

  Which, to go off on a tangent, is why humanity itself is pretty much unchanged as a species. People have the same conflicts, false beliefs, etc., that they did 2,000, 3,000 years ago. Sure, the clothing and technology and sometimes religion changes, but the history of our species seems to unnervingly repeat because there are some higher concepts which just don't seem to catch on.

  If humanity survives that long, there will be a lawman on some gigantic glittering space station- who is still trying to prevent the lynching of the accused before trial.

And so it goes...

PB

[uppityperson]

46. How do you confirm ages and identity without investigating?

[LisaL]

55. Do you think CPS should be able to grab you from the street if

you look young?

[uppityperson]

57. How do you confirm ages and identity without investigating?

Can you give me an answer or simply attack with another question?

[LisaL]

59. Well, let me make it real simple. How about looking at birth

certificates?

[uppityperson]

62. And if there were no birth certificates, how do you confirm ages and identity without investigating?

Can you answer that question? Here is another.

You do realize that this is part of the problem here, don't you? And I just noticed, I was originally asking madmusic and lizzy answers. Huh.

[madmusic]

69. Hi uppity!

The CPS rejected some identification like driver's license and birth certificates and then accepted them later in court. That is how so many of the mothers who were adults were labeled as minors. As the briefs argue, identity was not really an issue because the court proceeded as if knowing who the parents were. The State contradicted itself and the briefs argue Texas didn't try to adopt that position until the appeals court ruled against them. In other words, they had no problem knowing who was who until their case started falling apart.

But even if they had trouble identifying actual minors at first, they could check ID and any flagrantly false identification that might justify taking the pregnant minor that had adult ID could be checked. CPS didn't try to do anything to keep the children and their mothers together though the law requires they at least try. CPS, with all its law enforcement resources, could have had any documents checked for forgery rather than taking children (and adults they eyeballed as children) before knowing for sure. State law requires some effort by CPS to keep the children/mother together if possible. It didn't even try while it gathered evidence. It can't take the children and then investigate.

CPS will probably do now what it should have done all along.

[fascisthunter]

29. Well... there it is

I do not like what this cult does to children, but the law is the law.... I see taking the 450 children from their parents without enough evidence was stupid. It probably did more harm than help this case.... what get's me angrier is these sick and twisted men are gonna get away with it.

[Poll_Blind]

31. Just wait until the lawsuits start coming in. And they're likely going to win 'em, too.

  They'll be able to branch out.

PB

[fascisthunter]

35. real dumb

the tax payers will be paying for it too

[LisaL]

32. The law is the law. There were little children taken from their

mothers. Because in 10-15 years they might get married under 18? That is not immediate danger of abuse, as far as I (and appellate court) can tell.
And studies show that separation of children from their parents can have long-lasting negative consequences.

[fascisthunter]

34. Just a Question: What if it were a 12 Year Old Girl?

You wouldn't consider that abuse?

[LisaL]

36. Let me just put it this way.

As appellate court stated, FLDS people didn't live in one household. And they didn't all held the same beliefs on when it's appropriate to marry. And they didn't all marry under 18. So, in my view, even in case of the 12 year old, each case needs to be looked at by household.

[fascisthunter]

37. You Didn't Answer My Question

[LisaL]

39. I just did. I can not tell you what should be done in case of an

abstract 12 year old, because in my view each case should be looked at individually, by household. What else do you expect me to say?

[Lars39]

41. By household....see there's a problem...most everybody was housed

dormitory style, not 2 parents and children in their own house.

[LisaL]

52. Not true. They didn't all live in the same house.

Some were monogamous families living in separate dwellings.

[Lars39]

81. I said "Most everybody", which doesn't mean all.

[fascisthunter]

63. "abstract"....?

because outside of a court room, people do express opinions and express moral judgment.

A 12 year old human is not abstract at all, not to me, maybe in the confines of a courtroom, but not outside of one and certainly not on DU in general.

I find that dodge odd. Just be honest....

[musette_sf]

67. people who think women and children are chattel

would have little problem looking at any human woman or child in an "abstract" manner. actually more telling than "odd"

[LisaL]

73. It's the mothers who filed for an appeal.

Which you apparently ignore, as your comment about treating women like chattle doesn't make sense. How does taking their children from them helps these women? Do tell?

[musette_sf]

75. the women who are owned by the men.

who think they will go to hell if they do not obey the man perfectly.

who will be outcast from the community if they dare question the man.

they did what they were told to do by their owners. doing anything else could result in NEVER seeing their children again.

how does:

(a) removing children from their birth parent because Rulon and Warren told the parent to leave and "repent from a distance" and

(b) removing children from their birth parents completely and relocating them to YFZ,

help these women? do tell......

[Pastiche423]

40. And I'll bet you she won't

[musette_sf]

51. that would be "she" n/t

[musette_sf]

53. i'm sure all of the children

(a) removed from their birth parent because Rulon and Warren told the parent to leave and "repent from a distance" and

(b) removed from their birth parents completely and relocated to YFZ,

really appreciate all of your concern about their pain

[jberryhill]

83. Actually.... those children won't be going anywhere

...because even if CPS is ordered to return a child to her "parents" or even her "mother", then whomever shows up to claim that child is going to have to be able to show that they *are* the parent.

And therein the problem lies.

For the TX Sup. Ct. to say "You have to return the children to their parents" and for any child to be returned to anyone, there is a significant step in there that you seem to be overlooking.

And that's how this ruling really creates a catch-22 for the cult.

[musette_sf]

84. i realize that. actually the whole case

is about to expose the slime under the rocks. the kids will be returned... when the DNA tests are complete... TO THEIR PARENTS. and THAT information is going to be very, very different from the lies and half-truths that the cult women have been telling. and THAT information is going to be very, very interesting.

[jberryhill]

85. Agreed - this is far from over

Even if CPS *knew* they didn't have enough to take the kids, they must have known that the real trick for the cult was going to be claiming the kids back.

[uppityperson]

87. Yup. It will be interesting to see what DNA test say, but aren't they just for kids/moms?

Did they do DNA testing on the men?

[musette_sf]

89. Uncle Warren just got swabbed

i wonder if they got Uncle Merril, or if he's in a "house of hiding", as the Bishop's List likes to call it.

[uppityperson]

90. Uncle Warren Jeffs? Found some info in article from april...

Did he do it again?

4/23/08
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272972,00....

One man who has done it before and is again being ordered to give a DNA sample is Warren Jeffs. His name is among the long list of parents from whom the judge is seeking DNA samples. Jeffs is currently incarcerated in the Mohave County Jail in Kingman, Ariz., where he faces criminal charges accusing him of performing child-bride marriages.

"He had to give DNA samples upon being booked into our jail," said Mohave County Sheriff's spokeswoman Trish Carter, adding that she did not know if Texas authorities would be able to get that sample or must require a new one

[musette_sf]

92. swabs were taken yesterday

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/30/texas.polygamists/i...

evidently they decided they needed a new one.

[uppityperson]

93. Thanks. This is an interesting line from the story...

"He was accused of using his religious influence over his followers to coerce a 14-year-old girl into marriage with her 19-year-old cousin." Thinking of those who have said he can't have any impact any more, being in jail.

[uppityperson]

94. Found an article on why.

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700230555,00.html

Fundamentalist LDS Church leader Warren Jeffs is accused of "spiritually" marrying more underage girls in a search warrant seeking his DNA.

"Warren Jeffs sexually assaulted a 12-year-old child ... on or about July 27, 2006, in Schleicher County, Texas," Kingman, Ariz., police officer Dennis Gilbert wrote in the warrant. A copy of the warrant was obtained by the Deseret News on Friday. The warrant's affidavit was co-signed by David L. Boatright, the chief of the criminal investigations division for the Texas Attorney General's Office. A DNA sample was collected from Jeffs at the Mohave County Jail in Kingman, Ariz., on Thursday. It included a pair of cheek swabs and digital photos of the process.
(clip)
Affiant has learned from investigators that Warren Jeffs 'married' two other children at the YFZ Ranch in addition to his purported marriage to (named removed) and (name removed)," Gilbert wrote. Records seized from the YFZ Ranch also indicate Jeffs married a 14-year-old while at the FLDS property, the affidavit said. A marriage in April 2005 suggests another girl was 12.

"Based on all of the above, affiant believes that Warren Jeffs has committed the felony offense of sexual assault of a child," Gilbert wrote, adding that Texas authorities were seeking DNA samples to help determine whether Jeffs fathered any children born to underage mothers...

Donate to DU and give valentine hearts to your friends! Click here.

[Beaverhausen]

43. and once again, women and children lose

there is nothing constitutional about abuse.

[uppityperson]

44. Bit from CNN-Dissenting, unlikely kids will be returned soon(DNA),"broad authority" to protect kids

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/?...

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.

And even if the children do return to the YFZ Ranch, the case may not be over. The justices noted that Texas law gives the district court "broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care." Examples of those conditions might be a court order saying a child must remain in a certain geographical area or an order removing an alleged perpetrator from the child's home, the district court said.
(clip)
The three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed 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," wrote Justice Harriet O'Neill.

Donate to DU and give valentine hearts to your friends! Click here.

[madmusic]

70. Maybe, but that doesn't mean they have to stay in the state's custody

While the court exercises its broad authority. Other news reports say the children, or most of them, will be returned soon. CPS will still be in control though.

[jberryhill]

86. But CPS cannot release the kids to anyone other than the kids' parents

...and that's the interesting wrinkle here.

It's like the police running a "lost and found department for seized cocaine" - You want your cocaine back, just show up and say it's yours.

You know what I mean?

You can't send a 20 year old woman in to "pick up her child", if that woman doesn't have the right DNA. And when a 17 year old woman shows up with the right DNA, then we have an interesting situation.

[uppityperson]

47. The ruling only concerns 124 children of the 38 mothers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426814.stm

(clip) The ruling only concerns 124 children of the 38 mothers, but attorneys say the reasoning behind the verdict can be applied to the removals of all the children from the ranch.

Correspondents say the case, which began with a raid on 3 April, has been marked by confusion.

So far, 168 mothers and 69 fathers of the children have been identified - reflecting the polygamist practices of the sect - the Associated Press news agency reports.

More than 100 children have still not been matched with mothers.

Donate to DU and give valentine hearts to your friends! Click here.

[cornermouse]

49. Texas "supreme" court just cast their vote in favor in child sex abuse.

They might as well rescind the laws against it.

And to all you who are huffing and puffing about "they didn't have cause or proof", let me remind you that even after they had the children and mothers removed from the compound they were having trouble identifying the names and parents of the children. They certainly weren't cooperating while in the compound.

[Poll_Blind]

50. The law attempts to be objective. To those swept up in the subjective emotion related to...

...an event, it may often seem that a great travesty has been done.

  Your assertion that the court(s) favor child sex abuse are abhorrent and highlight your ignorance of what the concept of "The Rule of Law" is really about.

  It's relieving that the closest you will likely ever come to being part of the legal system is as a juror.

PB

[cornermouse]

54. When the law protects cults that abuse their children, its' time to work on the law.

[Poll_Blind]

60. I applaud anyone willing to work to change the law to their liking, even if it is not to mine. n/t

PB

[madmusic]

71. I heard this rumor about Wiccas, Should I make an anonymous call?

Signed,

Woman from Colorado pretending to be a teen.

[SunDrop23]

78. Home of George W. Bush. Enough said.

[depakid]

88. Nothing coming out of Texas suprises me

My guess is that one of the reasons that so many religious nuts and cults operate there is due to the nature of the state AND its culture.

[uppityperson]

91. Here is Dissenting Opinion...

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/m...

Justice O’Neill, joined by Justice Johnson and Justice Willett, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In this case, the Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence that “there was a danger to the physical health or safety” of pubescent girls on the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch from a pattern or practice of sexual abuse, that “the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal” of those girls, and that the Department made reasonable efforts, considering the obstacles to information-gathering that were presented, to prevent removal and return those children home. Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b)(1)–(3). As to this endangered population, I do not agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the Department to retain temporary conservatorship until such time as a permanency plan designed to ensure each girl’s physical health and safety could be approved. See id. §§ 263.101–.102. On this record, however, I agree that there was no evidence of imminent “danger to the physical health or safety” of boys and pre-pubescent girls to justify their removal from the YFZ Ranch, and to this extent I join the Court’s opinion. Id. § 262.201(b)(1).

Evidence presented in the trial court indicated that the Department began its investigation of the YFZ Ranch on March 29th, when it received a report of sexual abuse of a sixteen-year-old girl on the property. On April 3rd, the Department entered the Ranch along with law-enforcement personnel and conducted nineteen interviews of girls aged seventeen or under, as well as fifteen to twenty interviews of adults. In the course of these interviews, the Department learned there were many polygamist families living on the Ranch; a number of girls under the age of eighteen living on the Ranch were pregnant or had given birth; both interviewed girls and adults considered no age too young for a girl to be “spiritually” married; and the Ranch’s religious leader, “Uncle Merrill,” had the unilateral power to decide when and to whom they would be married. Additionally, in the trial court, the Department presented “Bishop’s Records” — documents seized from the Ranch — indicating the presence of several extremely young mothers or pregnant “wives”<1> on the Ranch: a sixteen-year-old “wife” with a child, a sixteen-year-old pregnant “wife,” two pregnant fifteen-year-old “wives,” and a thirteen-year-old who had conceived a child. The testimony of Dr. William John Walsh, the families’ expert witness, confirmed that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the age of “physical development” (that is, first menstruation) as the age of eligibility for “marriage.” Finally, child psychologist Dr. Bruce Duncan Perry testified that the pregnancy of the underage children on the Ranch was the result of sexual abuse because children of the age of fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen are not sufficiently emotionally mature to enter a healthy consensual sexual relationship or a “marriage.”

Evidence presented thus indicated a pattern or practice of sexual abuse of pubescent girls, and the condoning of such sexual abuse, on the Ranch<2> — evidence sufficient to satisfy a “person of ordinary prudence and caution” that other such girls were at risk of sexual abuse as well. Id. § 262.201(b). This evidence supports the trial court’s finding that “there was a danger to the physical health or safety” of pubescent girls on the Ranch. Id. § 262.201(b)(1); see id. § 101.009 (“‘Danger to the physical health or safety of a child’ includes exposure of the child to loss or injury that jeopardizes the physical health or safety of the child without regard to whether there has been an actual prior injury to the child.”); cf. Tex. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987) (affirming the termination of parental rights for “endanger . . . the physical well-being of child,” and holding: “While we agree that ‘endanger’ means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family environment, it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffers injury. Rather, ‘endanger’ means to expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize.”). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Department met section 262.201(b)(1)’s requirements.

Notwithstanding this evidence of a pattern or practice of sexual abuse of pubescent girls on the Ranch, the court of appeals held — and the Court agrees today — that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding temporary conservatorship to the Department because the Department failed to attempt legal steps, short of taking custody, to protect the children. Based on the language of section 262.201 of the Family Code, I disagree. Subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of section 262.201 require the Department to demonstrate that “reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child’s removal,” Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b)(2), and that “reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home,” id. § 262.201(b)(3). The Court suggests, consistent with the mothers’ arguments in the court of appeals below, that the Department failed to adequately justify its failure to seek less-intrusive alternatives to taking custody of the children: namely, seeking restraining orders against alleged perpetrators under section 262.1015 of the Family Code, or other temporary orders under section 105.001 of the Family Code. Id. §§ 262.1015, 105.001.

However, the Family Code requires only that the Department make “reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances” to avoid taking custody of endangered children. Id. § 262.201(b)(2). Evidence presented in the trial court indicated that the actions of the children and mothers precluded the Department from pursuing other legal options. When the Department arrived at the YFZ Ranch, it was treated cordially and allowed access to children, but those children repeatedly pled “the Fifth” in response to questions about their identity, would not identify their birth-dates or parentage, refused to answer questions about who lived in their homes, and lied about their names — sometimes several times. Answers from parents were similarly inconsistent: one mother first claimed that four children were hers, and then later avowed that they were not. Furthermore, the Department arrived to discover that a shredder had been used to destroy documents just before its arrival.

Thwarted by the resistant behavior of both children and parents on the Ranch, the Department had limited options. Without knowing the identities of family members or of particular alleged perpetrators, the Department could not have sought restraining orders under section 262.1015 as it did not know whom to restrain. See id. § 262.1015. Likewise, it could not have barred any family member from access to a child without filing a verified pleading or affidavit, which must identify clearly the parent and the child to be separated. See id. § 105.001(c)(3) (“Except on a verified pleading or an affidavit . . . an order may not be rendered . . . excluding a parent from possession of or access to a child.”). Furthermore, the trial court heard evidence that the mothers themselves believed that the practice of underage “marriage” and procreation was not harmful for young girls; the Department’s witnesses testified that although the Department “always wants kids to be with their parents,” they will only reunify children with their parents after “it’s determined that know and can express what it was in the first place that caused harm to their children.” This is some evidence that the Department could not have reasonably sought to maintain custody with the mothers. Thus, evidence presented to the trial court demonstrated that the Department took reasonable efforts, consistent with extraordinarily difficult circumstances, to protect the children without taking them into custody. Id.

The record demonstrates that there was evidence to support the trial court’s order as it relates to pubescent female children. Although I agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody of male children and pre-pubescent female children to the Department as temporary conservator, I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to the demonstrably endangered population of pubescent girls, and to this extent would grant the Department’s petition for mandamus. Because the Court does not, I respectfully dissent.



______________________

Harriet O’Neill

Justice





OPINION DELIVERED: May 29, 2008


<1> Although referred to as “wives” in the Bishop’s Records, these underage girls are not legally married; rather, the girls are “spiritually” married to their husbands, typically in polygamous households with multiple other “spiritual” wives. Subject to limited defenses, a person who “engages in sexual contact” with a child younger than seventeen who is not his legal spouse is guilty of a sexual offense under the Texas Penal Code. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)–(b). Those who promote or assist such sexual contact, see id. § 7.02(a)(2), or cause the child to engage in sexual contact, see id. § 21.11(a)(1), may also be criminally liable.

<2> The Family Code defines “abuse” to include “sexual conduct harmful to a child’s mental, emotional, or physical welfare” — including offenses under section 21.11 of the Penal Code — as well as “failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child.” Tex. Fam. Code § 261.001(1)(E)–(F). In determining whether there is a “continuing danger to the health or safety” of a child, the Family Code explicitly permits a court to consider “whether the household to which the child would be returned includes a person who . . . has sexually abused another child.” Id. § 262.201(d).