Printable View
and for our European frineds 14 million dollars is about 4 euros these days.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/14/pol....ap/index.html
It wouldnt bother me so much had something got done but it of course didnt. All the children are with there folks and the state of Texas is left with eeg on its face and a lighter checkbook. :wall:
That whole situation sucks. I don't understand how the courts could turn the children back over to the families. I know there is religious freedom in this country but damn.:furious3:
This is why people hate lawyers.
Originally Posted by m52nickerson:
I can't understand how the courts said the state of Texas could go there and take every child from every home with no evidence of wrongdoing.
That whole situation sucks. I don't understand how the courts could turn the children back over to the families. I know there is religious freedom in this country but damn.:furious3:
CR
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Well said. I'm no fan of the FLDS, but they've still deserve the basic rights of citizens and humans. Stealing kids from people cause you don't like the way they live is messed up. Removing kids from abusive situations is one thing, but that kind of mass swipe without evidence and without prompt return was very problematic.
I can't understand how the courts said the state of Texas could go there and take every child from every home with no evidence of wrongdoing.
CR
Ajax
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Yeah, for once I agree with CR. That's insane!
I can't understand how the courts said the state of Texas could go there and take every child from every home with no evidence of wrongdoing.
CR
Originally Posted by :
Tricky situation , they had evidence for five cases , it was a closed community and one element of that communities beliefs is that this sort of crap is not only OK it is ordained by thier prophet .
I can't understand how the courts said the state of Texas could go there and take every child from every home with no evidence of wrongdoing.
There was a reasonable cause to follow that if all the community thought the practice was good then all the children are potential victims of the practice .
And the courts shot down that argument, so they didn't find it reasonable. In fact, they were rather clear cut on that:
Originally Posted by :
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9347022
In its unanimous nine-page decision, the three-judge panel said the Department of Family and Protective Services' case was legally and factually insufficient and 51st District Judge Barbara Walther acted improperly when she ordered about 450 children to stay in state custody.
The court said the state failed in a mass April 17-18 hearing to prove any of its key claims that the sect's beliefs, communal households or underage marriages put every child in the community "in urgent" danger.
"There is simply no evidence specific to [the mothers'] children at all except that they exist, they were taken into custody at the Yearning for Zion Ranch, and they are living with people who share a 'pervasive belief system' that condones underage marriage and underage pregnancy," the court said.
...
But the appeals court ruled DFPS failed to provide, as required by Texas law, "any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety" of children on the ranch who had not reached puberty.
The department also did not prove pubescent girls were in physical danger, the judges said.
DFPS officials testified that five girls who became pregnant at ages 15 and 16 - coupled with an FLDS belief system condoning underage marriage and pregnancy - warranted immediate removal. But that simply wasn't enough, the judges said.
"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the appeals court wrote.
I can't begin to imagine how they could seize 400+ children and give each and every one of them to foster homes across the state without proving any of them were in danger.
CR
Originally Posted by :
Yes very clear cut , doing something that is illegal isn't grounds , it has to be doing something illegal that is also physicaly harmful .
And the courts shot down that argument, so they didn't find it reasonable. In fact, they were rather clear cut on that:
It is quite clear that the authorities screwed up , they should have left the kids alone , just taken the parents to jail instead .
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
Good point, well made. :balloon2:
I can't understand how the courts said the state of Texas could go there and take every child from every home with no evidence of wrongdoing.
CR
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
I would agree to that, provided that there is hard evidence in the cases you mention. I don't know enough about it to lean either way. It certainly seems to be the case that their cult was organised around the principle of abuse, even their temple was built in ways that reflect this. Sick puppies. Of course if you plan to intervene, you have to weigh the consequences of intervention for individual children and parents against the probable risk of further abuse. That's a complex issue.
There was a reasonable cause to follow that if all the community thought the practice was good then all the children are potential victims of the practice.
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
Yep big screw up, it looked to me that it was an attempt to dismantle a budding cult. Sadly the pretext used didnt stand up, as far as I have read no one inside the place has proclaimed abuse publically. (except for the phone call the prompted the raid from an unidentified girl).
and for our European frineds 14 million dollars is about 4 euros these days.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/14/pol....ap/index.html
It wouldnt bother me so much had something got done but it of course didnt. All the children are with there folks and the state of Texas is left with eeg on its face and a lighter checkbook. :wall:
Now perhaps I am just a cynical yankee but given the whole warren jeffs situation in the media and the prior debacle at Waco 15 years ago or so, they probably wanted to preempt what they believed would be a larger problem down the road (which paradoxily they created anyway). Just conjecture on my part, but given the scope of the screw up I find it hard to chalk it up too social services thought they were acting in the kids best intrest.
I guess it comes down to, is social services job to protect children or strengthen families?
But atleast we got a good laught at those wierd looking chicks that were doing all the breeding there. Man, those galls looked like they used elmers glue in their hair!!!:laugh4:
Dave, don't pretend you weren't turned on by their unibrows. I remember you telling me many times in chat that you are a charter member of www.unibrowfetish.com.
The ATF will sort this bunch out in a few years. :yes:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And to add another straw the camel, if all of those children were confiscated (for their own good of course), how many would wind up in a nightmare child services situation?