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.
What's the next step?
The state has the option to move for an appeal. The next step would move to the Texas Supreme Court, if the state chooses to go that route. The circuit court clearly states its requirement. So the lower court will have to vacate its order granting custody to the state.
Does that mean those kids will go back to the 38 mothers?
Parsing its language, the appellate court is saying to the district court there isn't enough evidence to reach the conclusion you reached. And the district court has been ordered by this court to vacate its orders of taking the children. How the district court chooses to do that is a bit of an open question. Whether the district court says "scratch that" or schedules more hearings--this is an unusual situation. The district court has to issue new orders that are somehow consistent with [Thursday's] opinion.
Where are the children now?
The children are spread all over the state in foster homes and facilities. We've spoken to guardian ad litems [court-appointed guardians] for the children and attorneys for the mothers and fathers. They have been describing what they have been going through, trying to make the rounds across a state as big as Texas. They want to see the children on their birthdays, and there has been a pretty significant problem with access. It's been difficult logistically.
Does it strike you as unusual that the department got it so wrong, according to this court, legally speaking?
The department has a difficult job and a very important job. We recognize that, and the ACLU absolutely recognizes the importance of the department's role in protecting children. We are opposed to child abuse. But various concerns have been raised about the infusion of this number of children into an already overburdened and not entirely successful child-protective system. It's fair to ask those questions.
Are you surprised that the appeals court rebuff was as strong as it was?
The court identified many of the same kinds of concerns that advocates like the ACLU raised. It is a fairly clear rebuke. It is mandating a significant change in the direction of this case by saying these individuals didn't receive due process in those 14-day hearings, and it raises the question of whether they have received due process throughout these proceedings. The hearings have resumed in San Angelo, and the state is presenting service plans for each of the children. Now there are some open questions that have to be answered about those service plans. Are they adequately individualized for each of these children? I would imagine the attorneys for the state and for the parents and children are reconsidering their positions in light of the courts' decisions.
© 2008
Discuss