Well at least the Texas Supreme Court got something right in ordering the Judge to return the children. Just like the Texas Appeals Court told the judge to do. CPS workers across the country have way to much power and they need to be curtailed. Yes polygamy is illegal under the law, yes child molesters should be castrated and hung along major highways but there was NO PROOF, and certainly no proof beyound a reasonable doubt that this was going on. The authorities in Texas blew this whole case apart where if they would have proceeded methodically they could have made a case that would have stood up on appeal. I had always questioned how they could take all the children, sorta like coming into your small town and saying, Pete 5 streets over is a child molester so for the children's safety we are going to remove all of them from this town. And for bigger towns, the anology would be an apartment complex that has one of those low life scums living in it. Now we wait for the other shoe to drop when the parents of the kids make the town pay for all the psychological trauma allegedly inflicted on the kids, and themselves by the actions of the town in illegally removing them. Bunch of real brainiacs down there. Must be where Bush got his "smarts".
‘About-Face’
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
In Texas, what is the test for removing a child on an emergency basis?
The Department of Family and Protective Services is required to demonstrate first that there is a danger to the physical health or safety of the children being removed. Second that there is an urgent need for the protection of the children such that the immediate removal from the parents was necessary. Third, the department has made reasonable efforts to find other alternatives to removal from their parents.
So what went wrong?
The court found that the department had failed to produce at the 14-day hearing in April adequate evidence that these specific children of the 38 moms were in physical danger, that there weren't other alternatives and that the state was justified in saying the problem was urgent.
Who were the 38 moms?
These are the mothers who are being represented pro bono by one of the legal aid organizations, Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. These are not all of the moms whose kids were taken away, but I don't know what percentage of the total number of moms the 38 moms represent.
What were the due-process issues?
The court raised the same issues that the ACLU and many advocacy groups had identified when the hearings occurred. We were concerned about whether adequate due process had occurred with these families. People were concerned whether the beliefs of the families were at issue in the decision to remove the children. The court's decision repeatedly talks about the state's references to the families' beliefs as inadequate evidence to justify removal on this scale--absent evidence that the children of these women were in fact in physical danger. And the court recognized that the parents have a constitutionally protected right to freely exercise their religion and to raise their children in their own faith. Obviously, no parent has the constitutional right to abuse a child, but the court found that at least in the case of these 38 women, the state had not met its burden.
The court criticized the evidence the state used to justify the removal. One was the idea that all the children were in danger whether or not there was any danger in their home because the state considered the entire Yearning for Zion compound one big household where danger was present. That's unusual, isn't it?
It is unusual. But in fact there are a variety of situations where people do live cooperatively, on farms and ranches, in all different religions. But the court found what a lot of observers had said during the trial: the state seemed to call the entire facility one household when it suited them and not to when it did not suit them. I think the court identified that inconsistency and basically said in this decision you can't have it both ways.
Similarly, the removal was based on the idea that the group's "pervasive set of beliefs" in making young girls marry somehow endangered all the children, including the boys and the younger girls. The court took issue with that, didn't it?
That's a profound concern of the ACLU, and the court absolutely took issue with that. Because the fundamental principle here is the idea that beliefs are the same as action. Or that beliefs can be found dangerous as opposed to action. If the state has that kind of leeway to criminalize thoughts and beliefs, or if not criminalize, make civil penalties [like removing children] for those thoughts, you can imagine the influence that would have on freedom of religion. Some of the evidence put forward by an expert on the FLDS was that in this religion girls come of age when they reach puberty. That idea unto itself is not unique to this religion or this culture around the world.
The court pointed [out] that there was no evidence of child abuse per se, in the sense of individuals attempting to harm or have sex with children. At least, not in the children of these 38 mothers whose evidence was before it. And the court noted that the number of two dozen young females who may be pregnant and underage may be significantly smaller than the state has reported.
Discuss