Texas polygamist raid

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, is anyone else starting to look askance at this Texas polygamist (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5682336.html) raid thing? There's been a couple days of reportage on this now and still no journalists are stepping up to the plate with explicit reasoning concerning what justifies taking 401 children away from their parents.

Taking a child away from his or her parents is a pretty drastic step and obviously "The parents are polygamists!!111!" is by no means sufficient justification to do that. My hope is that this is all just sloppy journalism but it looks mighty suspicious to me that they're now unable to find the girl who made the phone call. Particularly when that phone call is being paraded around as if it amounts to justification to take the other kids.

Warren Jeffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Jeffs) is obviously a bad guy but this is too serious a step to be taken without well-thought-out and well-articulated justification, it's an action that would be very prone to guilt by association and religious discrimination. And even if the doctrine of this fringe Mormon group was fundamentally illegal - which no one seems to be in a hurry to demonstrate - that still isn't grounds to take the children of the religious adherents. Frankly it seems pretty unAmerican to me.

Especially since Mormonism is the only religion in the history of these United States which has had a government Extermination Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order_(Mormonism)) issued against it, which wasn't overturned until 1976, we ought to be treading more carefully around actions which amount to religious persecution if they're unjustified. Personally I'm inclined to think that if this was a group of hippie free-love polygamists, or a group of Muslim polygamists, this action would not have been as gung-ho and cavalier and blithely covered as it appears to have been.

[lisab]

It does seem extreme...

But I can see it from the authority's point of view, too.

I saw an interview of a woman who left this offshoot of the Mormon church several years ago. Her story of abuse was pretty shocking. She painted a picture of a closed society where the men, the older men, had all the power. Women were not allowed to make their own life choices, and not allowed to talk to people outside of their society. She said there was rampant child abuse. Girls are routinely forced to marry older men.

Granted, this is the one-sided story from one person.

Given the nature of this closed society, how were the authorities supposed to procede? The girl who made the call deserves the same protections as any 16-year-old girl.

But I can see your point. And I have no problem with polygamy per se, as long as the people who choose to live that way are adults. And that's the crux of the problem: how true is it that the female children are forced to marry older men?

Also, as I understand the story, they didn't take just the children; they took their mothers, also.

In the interest of full disclosure, my dad was raised Mormon. It didn't "take." But as I grew up we had a lot of contact with the Mormon church. I have no issues with mainstream Mormonism.

[jimmysnyder]

it looks mighty suspicious to me that they're now unable to find the girl who made the phone call. Particularly when that phone call is being paraded around as if it amounts to justification to take the other kids.

I don't understand all facets of this thing. However, the accusation she makes is a serious one and the authorities have no choice but to investigate.

The dayslong raid on the sprawling compound built by the now-jailed Jeffs was sparked by a 16-year-old girl's call to authorities that she was being abused and that girls as young as 14 and 15 were being forced into marriages with much older men.
MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440)
Is the purpose of this sect is to provide children as sexual objects to adults? It sounds like it.

[CaptainQuasar]

My point is, I'm wondering if the girl who supposedly made the phone call even exists at all. Given the information that has surfaced so far the phone call being fabricated (with or without the knowledge of the authorities) seems just as feasible to me as the idea that she is subject to some sort of Mafia-style sequestration by this fringe Mormon church, which is a theory I have heard advanced on the news (with basically no supporting evidence).

Thanks for the MSNBC link jimmy, it's much more informative than many of the reports I've seen.

lisab - there isn't a single Mormon church. The LDS headquartered in Salt Lake City is the largest one but it's one of many.
[EDIT] re-reading your comment, you obviously realize this, sorry. Based on the name these guys sound like an offshoot of the LDS but there are other churches too that grew up from the early post-Joseph-Smith community that developed separately from the Utah LDS.

As far as how the authorities were supposed to respond - they should be a lot more explicit about why they're separating the children from their families - so many of them! - rather than just mentioning the single phone call and the criminal acts of a few people who happen to be coreligionists of these families. If there's sexual abuse going on that obviously needed to be stopped but I'm concerned that authorities had an itchy trigger finger over this. Child sex abuse is definitely just about the paramount crime below murder (probably worse than murder in some people's eyes and I might go along with that) but the thing is that persecution of an entire religion is pretty far up there too, especially under Really Bad Things the Government Does.

As far as I'm concerned the Mormons are pretty whack but ever since I read about the Missouri Extermination Order I've taken more notice of how societal condemnation of them is a bit overdone and in many cases unjustified or prejudicial. "Ha ha, silly Mormons" is one thing but taking their children, unless it's done with a rock-solid justification and completely by the book, is right out, and it seems pretty clear to me that at least the public explanation of this action did not receive due attention from the authorities who planned this raid.

[CaptainQuasar]

I'm also curious, if anyone comes across it, whether the 401 kids are all of the children in the community.

I really hope I'm wrong to question this, that it's really stopping child abuse and not the equivalent of invading an Amish or Mennonite community and taking all their children.

[lisab]

I really hope I'm wrong to question this, that it's really stopping child abuse and not the equivalent of invading an Amish or Mennonite community and taking all their children.

No, I don't think it's wrong to question the authorities. After all, ideally "the authorities" are simply the eyes, ears, and hands of all of us.

I see both sides of this...it's extreme to remove all the women and children, but since it's such a closed society I don't know how else the authorities could deal with this.

Amish and Mennonite societies aren't mainstream but they're not closed, as far as I know. We have a few Mennonites here in Seattle, they send their kids to public school.

[CaptainQuasar]

Amish and Mennonite societies aren't mainstream but they're not closed, as far as I know. We have a few Mennonites here in Seattle, they send their kids to public school.

There are some Amish and Mennonite communities that are like this. I visited a Mennonite community in Montana once that was a self-contained farm and a group of large buildings that were a communal residence, like this place in Texas, where they had their own school. I believe some Amish communities in Pennsylvania are like this as well. (Though many of the Amish are private land owners and private businessmen who simply have a tight-knit community.)

[TVP45]

Children and Youth Services (or whatever the local names are) in most localities have, by law, a prime directive: protect the children. In most cases, this means that, if there is an allegation of serious harm (pedophilia counts), they immediately remove the children, then investigate. It doesn't matter if it's 400 FLDS children or 1 Baptist child.

And, most Mennonites are quite mainstream. Except for the Old Order ones who wear distinctive clothing and drive buggies, it's very difficult to even distinguish most Mennonites.

[Gokul43201]

Given the information that has surfaced so far the phone call being fabricated (with or without the knowledge of the authorities) seems just as feasible to me as the idea that she is subject to some sort of Mafia-style sequestration by this fringe Mormon church, which is a theory I have heard advanced on the news (with basically no supporting evidence).If you think that sequestration and abuse of women is a rarity amongst fundamentalist Mormons, I'll be happy to provide you with links that demonstrate how far this is from the truth.

Here's a recent piece: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24008870#24008870



PS: In the words of a Child Protective Services spokesperson:
"We had enough information to show a judge that many of these children had in fact been abused and others were in jeopardy."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004333934_poly08.html

[Art]

From what I have read there is no evidence of systematic child abuse. So far there seems only to be the one case involving the guy Barlow. Unfortunately every social grouping has it's share of pedophiles so at first sight it does seem a little over the top to seize every child in the community because of one rotten apple.

If that scatter gun approach, where the many are assumed to share the criminality of the few, was adopted in main stream society there wouldn't be a child in the country left living with their parents.

It doesn't matter if it's 400 FLDS children or 1 Baptist child.and therein lies the difference. If it was a baptist child only that one would be taken into care not the entire community's children.

[BobG]

Children and Youth Services (or whatever the local names are) in most localities have, by law, a prime directive: protect the children. In most cases, this means that, if there is an allegation of serious harm (pedophilia counts), they immediately remove the children, then investigate. It doesn't matter if it's 400 FLDS children or 1 Baptist child.


I don't think this falls in the normal realm of Children and Youth Services. For your more normal situations, an allegation of serious harm to one child doesn't result in a search warrant to search an entire town and remove every child in the town.

An allegation of an underaged runaway being forced into prostitution wouldn't result in an entire neighborhood being searched, let alone an entire city.

I'm not sure whether the action is right or wrong, but even attempting to compare this to anything "normal" is fruitless. (In fact, using El Dorado as a precedent for actions in more "normal" communities would be extremely disturbing.)

[BobG]

From what I have read there is no evidence of systematic child abuse. So far there seems only to be the one case involving the guy Barlow. Unfortunately every social grouping has it's share of pedophiles so at first sight it does seem a little over the top to seize every child in the community because of one rotten apple.

If that scatter gun approach, where the many are assumed to share the criminality of the few, was adopted in main stream society there wouldn't be a child in the country left living with their parents.

and therein lies the difference. If it was a baptist child only that one would be taken into care not the entire community's children.

I think they have a slightly different definition for pedophile than the rest of the country. They might not rape pre-pubescent girls, but their acceptable age for marriage is lower than 18.

In other words, Barlow isn't unusual and isn't even considered a pedophile within their own community.

[Art]

I'm a little concerned by some of the comments coming from Marleigh Meisner. They smack more than a little of zealotry

"We are dealing with many victims, and of course, the setting is different than we're accustomed to," said Marleigh Meisner, spokeswoman for CPS. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23964357/

Victims??? There has been no evidence presented so far that any crime has even been committed much less who the victims are and yet she seems to have jumped past all due process in announcing all the children are victims.

And this doesn't fill one with confidence either

Children's Protective Services spokesman Marleigh Meisner, who said she was also involved in the 1993 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440 What a disaster that turned out to be.

She comes across as one of those 'all men are rapists' type of feminist.

[TVP45]

This may in fact be Texa size over-reaction, but the removal (they were not seized) of the children is in line with what happens everyday across the US following an allegation (Note: in most locales, it only requires an allegation to trigger this). As a society, most of us decided long ago that the safety of children warrants a several day suspension of adult rights.

[Art]

This may in fact be Texa size over-reaction, but the removal (they were not seized) of the children is in line with what happens everyday across the US following an allegation (Note: in most locales, it only requires an allegation to trigger this). As a society, most of us decided long ago that the safety of children warrants a several day suspension of adult rights. The US Court of Appeal and Supreme Court says otherwiseThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it best, "The government's interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse, but also protecting children's interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents." Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (1999).
snip
The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987).

If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.
http://www.hslda.org/research/docs/200404020.asp

[lisab]

Here's an article I refered to in an earlier post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009286/

Again, it's just one woman's story. But since it's a closed society, that may be all the insight we're going to get.

The part where she talks about what sounds like waterboarding infants made me cringe. I wonder, was it widely practiced, or just that one sadistic b@astard?

[TVP45]

Calabretta v. Floyd makes it clear that child protective workers can't do this without a warrant, except in an emergency. In Calabretta, there was a significant period of time (I think more than a week) between the allegation and the home entry.

In this vein, you might find the Texas law relevant:
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5250.asp

And, by the way, I should disclose a personal bias. I consider sex with a child, say under sixteen, by an adult to be deserving of the death penalty. That point of view colors anything I post.

[Art]

Calabretta v. Floyd makes it clear that child protective workers can't do this without a warrant, except in an emergency. In Calabretta, there was a significant period of time (I think more than a week) between the allegation and the home entry.

In this vein, you might find the Texas law relevant:
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5250.asp

And, by the way, I should disclose a personal bias. I consider sex with a child, say under sixteen, by an adult to be deserving of the death penalty. That point of view colors anything I post.First federal constitutional law trumps state law and in the case cited it says except under exceptional circumstances a warrant is required and that warrants cannot be issued on the basis of anonymous calls. If an anonymous call is insufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant then it is definitely insufficient to claim emergency intervention. Also from your link or on information supplied by another source and confirmed by the workerso where was the confirmation??

I agree pedophiles are a blight on society but that doesn't justify discarding due process.

[Art]

Here's an article I refered to in an earlier post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009286/

Again, it's just one woman's story. But since it's a closed society, that may be all the insight we're going to get.

The part where she talks about what sounds like waterboarding infants made me cringe. I wonder, was it widely practiced, or just that one sadistic b@astard?Or is she just trying to sell her book??

In a newspaper article she also claimed nobody can leave the community - ever. And yet she's living proof that statement was at the very least an exaggeration.

[TVP45]

Calabretta is about a warrantless entry after a significant time period. It has nothing to do with this case.

In your second quote, did you notice the "or"?

[jaap de vries]

First of all the children and women are not forcefully removed but and are free to go back which many of them probably will. This is not a religion but a cult and the main definition of that is power over people, usually women.
Now, in almost any other cult you can see that this power over women/children creates abuse also on other areas. I am sorry but I think the authorities are handling it very well so far, they are very carefully and do not wait until its too late and the people start drinking cool aid or put themselves on fire.

[Evo]

Okay, is anyone else starting to look askance at this Texas polygamist (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/5682336.html) raid thing? There's been a couple days of reportage on this now and still no journalists are stepping up to the plate with explicit reasoning concerning what justifies taking 401 children away from their parents.There seems to be some misunderstanding, 133 mothers left VOLUNTARILY WITH THEIR CHILDREN and are all staying TOGETHER at a location provided by the authorities.

Some 133 women left the ranch voluntarily with the children and were being housed at a historic fort here while authorities conduct interviews. Dressed in ankle-length dresses with their hair pinned up in braids, the women milled about Monday as the children played on the fort's old parade grounds

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat.

[Art]

First of all the children and women are not forcefully removed but and are free to go back which many of them probably will. This is not a religion but a cult and the main definition of that is power over people, usually women.
Now, in almost any other cult you can see that this power over women/children creates abuse also on other areas. I am sorry but I think the authorities are handling it very well so far, they are very carefully and do not wait until its too late and the people start drinking cool aid or put themselves on fire.Hmmph someone else who doesn't believe in due process. The old 'Kill them all and let God sort them' out seems very medieval these days. :rolleyes:

If the children are free to return to their parents who in turn are free to return to the compound then why is the CPS in the process of placing the children with foster parents? :confused:

[lisab]

First of all the children and women are not forcefully removed but and are free to go back which many of them probably will. This is not a religion but a cult and the main definition of that is power over people, usually women.
Now, in almost any other cult you can see that this power over women/children creates abuse also on other areas. I am sorry but I think the authorities are handling it very well so far, they are very carefully and do not wait until its too late and the people start drinking cool aid or put themselves on fire.

Good point. Imagine that this were to come to a point of mass homocide / suicide (as cults sometimes do). If it was revealed that a girl had made a despirate call for help some months previous, all hell would break loose.

The authorities would certainly have some 'splaining to do.

[Art]

Good point. Imagine that this were to come to a point of mass homocide / suicide (as cults sometimes do). If it was revealed that a girl had made a despirate call for help some months previous, all hell would break loose.

The authorities would certainly have some 'splaining to do.Anybody can 'imagine' anything no matter how farfetched which is why it is important to follow the law.

If the law proves to be inadequate then change it but to simply ignore it is a very dangerous slippery slope to start down.

[TVP45]

Hmmph someone else who doesn't believe in due process. The old 'Kill them all and let God sort them' out seems very medieval these days. :rolleyes:

If the children are free to return to their parents who in turn are free to return to the compound then why is the CPS in the process of placing the children with foster parents? :confused:

There was a warrant. Due process was followed.

There was a court order giving CPS temporary custody. You are confusing short-term foster care with long-term foster parents.

[Art]

There was a warrant. Due process was followed. I've already provided a link to a Supreme Court ruling that anonymous tip offs are insufficient to justify a warrant.

There was a court order giving CPS temporary custody. You are confusing short-term foster care with long-term foster parents. :confused: There was a suggestion the children had not been separated from their parents I was pointing out that was not the case in which context whether the separation is short term or long term is irrelevant.

This whole business seems to me to smack of a fishing expedition by the Texas CPS led by a zealot.

[CaptainQuasar]

If you think that sequestration and abuse of women is a rarity amongst fundamentalist Mormons, I'll be happy to provide you with links that demonstrate how far this is from the truth.

I am in no way saying it's impossible that the girl exists and is sequestered - all I'm saying is that the reportage I've seen of that theory seems to have little basis in facts and that there's little citation in general of facts or specific allegations that would appear to justify taking the children of a set of families based upon those families' religious beliefs. If cheerfully fact-free speculation is the order of the day in this case then it would be appropriate to also wonder, as I have above, that perhaps the phone call may have been a fabricated pretext to invade that community.

I am sick of government officials overly impressed with their own valiant righteousness sloppily fabricating pretexts to invade places. If you think that's a rarity I'd be happy to provide my own links.

Now it's quite possible that it's both a fabricated phone call and a case of genuine widespread child abuse in the community; but in that case the individuals fabricating the phone call have seriously screwed up the possibility of justice being done in this situation (and probably damaged the welfare of the children involved), will have hardened the resolve of fundamentalist Mormons that the beliefs of wider society are prejudicial and persecuting, and will probably have jeopardized the welfare of children in future situations like this. As long as we're wildly speculating about the guilt or innocence of the players involved here.

[Evo]

I've already provided a link to a Supreme Court ruling that anonymous tip offs are insufficient to justify a warrant.Art, did you read the link he posted to The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Emergency Removal Without a Court Order

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5250.asp

:confused: There was a suggestion the children had not been separated from their parents I was pointing out that was not the case in which context whether the separation is short term or long term is irrelevant.The mothers and children are together while the authorities are trying to determine what is happening at the FLDS compound and if it is safe for them to return.

[lisab]

I've already provided a link to a Supreme Court ruling that anonymous tip offs are insufficient to justify a warrant.



In the eyes of the law, is a call from a victim considered an "anonymous tip"?

[CaptainQuasar]

There seems to be some misunderstanding, 133 mothers left VOLUNTARILY WITH THEIR CHILDREN and are all staying TOGETHER at a location provided by the authorities.

Evo, if you're worried about misunderstanding of the facts here you're only increasing the misunderstanding with that statement. The mothers (who I didn't mention in the statement you quoted) left voluntarily, yes, but the children are in state custody whether or not they're with some of the mothers:

"Officials on Monday announced that 534 women and children — more than twice as many as had been earlier reported — were removed from a polygamist compound and that all 401 children have been placed in state custody because a judge deemed them in imminent danger of physical abuse."

(NBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440))

I would infer (without having seen any definite statements in regard) that not all of the children have a parent with them.

[Art]

Art, did you read the link he posted to The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Emergency Removal Without a Court Order

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5250.asp

The mothers and children are together while the authorities are trying to determine what is happening at the FLDS compound and if it is safe for them to return.Evo did you read the link I posted? As I have already stated the Constitution trumps state law as upheld by the US Supreme Court.

A source told KXAN Austin News an emergency e-mail went out to foster families across the state Friday afternoon, asking for volunteers to help house some of these girls. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23964357/

They are in the process of being forcibly separated from their parents.

[CaptainQuasar]

The key thing about the children being in state custody, rather than their leaving the community being a voluntary matter, is that it means that the mothers who left may simply have wanted to stay with the children, rather than having their own desire to leave the community.

Like I said above the journalists covering this story are not being very clear or digging very deep. This story is being spun to play on emotions, not to investigate or inform, and facts are taking a back seat to sensationalism as is so often the case these days.

[Evo]

Evo, if you're worried about misunderstanding of the facts here you're only increasing the misunderstanding with that statement. The mothers (who I didn't mention in the statement you quoted) left voluntarily, yes, but the children are in state custody whether or not they're with some of the mothers:

"Officials on Monday announced that 534 women and children — more than twice as many as had been earlier reported — were removed from a polygamist compound and that all 401 children have been placed in state custody because a judge deemed them in imminent danger of physical abuse."

(NBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440))

I would infer (without having seen any definite statements in regard) that not all of the children have a parent with them.The mothers and children are in state custody together at that fort.

[CaptainQuasar]

The mothers and children are in state custody together at that fort.

From what I've been reading the presence of the mothers sounds as if it's entirely voluntary and that they could return to the community if they wished.

What jaap said there about the children being free to return to the community, right before your initial comment, is not true.

[TVP45]

The girls are not being forcibly separated from their parents. They are being placed in temporary foster care, if that care can be found. This is standard procedure all across the US; it is done everyday in many cities. It is not a four-alarm fire.

A useful link for factual information about this is
http://www.window.state.tx.us/forgottenchildren/ch01/s0101.html

[BobG]

Here's an article I refered to in an earlier post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009286/

Again, it's just one woman's story. But since it's a closed society, that may be all the insight we're going to get.

The part where she talks about what sounds like waterboarding infants made me cringe. I wonder, was it widely practiced, or just that one sadistic b@astard?

Or is she just trying to sell her book??

In a newspaper article she also claimed nobody can leave the community - ever. And yet she's living proof that statement was at the very least an exaggeration.

More likely is that her story recounts the lifestyle of a Mormon community somewhat accurately even though a lot of the details tend to be exaggerated or distorted. Ex-members of socially isolated groups tend to have a need to justify how they could endure such a "bizarre" lifestyle for such a long time without rebelling or escaping. I wouldn't consider every detail as being reliable. The lifestyle part is compelling enough to keep someone in this type of group, especially if they were raised in this group. That would be hard for the average person to understand, hence the tendency towards exaggeration in order to gain more acceptance in their new environment. A victim is easier to accept than someone dumb enough to live for years under bizarre conditions.

In fact, even if there is a legitimate victim that called for help, I wouldn't count on her coming forward. It's entirely possible that she had second thoughts and now she isn't all that excited about having her entire life suddenly change, especially when she sees that her call resulted in her entire town being invaded and in all of the children being removed by outsiders.

[CaptainQuasar]

It is not a four-alarm fire.

Somehow I don't think you'd agree with that statement if you were one of the parents or one of the children. Were you ever taken away from your parents when you were a little kid? I was not but I seriously doubt that a warrant makes anyone feel any better.

This seems to me something much more damaging to the children, much more resource-consuming, and much more prone to injustice than, say, a police watch stationed in the community would have been. I mean, they're going to move all of those kids - who people have pointed out have lived very sheltered, insular lives and are going to find an army fort or a foster home quite alien - out of their homes and into foster homes across the state "for their own good"? Because foster homes are always so safe, of course. No child has ever been abused or has died in a foster home, have they?

Does that seriously sound reasonable to anyone or anything like the best way to handle this situation? Seems to me that with this being all of the children very localized in a single community there were probably quite a few other options besides taking the kids out of their homes. But somehow I doubt any other options were investigated or we would probably have heard about it by now. I bet anything else would have required a lot of paperwork. This sounds to me more like the interests of a self-important bureaucracy at work rather than the best interests of the children.

If this was a government taking children away from a community of Native Americans or Australian Aborigines or Tibetans in the same circumstances instead of Mormons I believe some people might not find this quite as kosher and acceptable. (At least I hope some wouldn't.) This is very clearly something that has lots of potential to be a matter of religious persecution and it does not appear that there has been any attempt at all on the part of the government officials to ensure that it is not or at least explain why it is not. If nothing else that makes this a poor job.

(P.S. I'm not saying that this is the same thing as what's going on in Tibet, just that it really needs to be recognized that, widespread criminality or not, this is a case of a large, dominant culture forcing its will en masse on a smaller, minority culture. It's the lack of any attention to that which is ringing alarm bells for me.)

[Evo]

Evo did you read the link I posted? As I have already stated the Constitution trumps state law as upheld by the US Supreme Court.Art, this hasn't been challenged in a higher court.

[BobG]

Art, this hasn't been challenged in a higher court.

True. It was the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, not the US Supreme Court, that ruled that probable cause (and a warrant) were required to search a home in the case of suspected child abuse.

The US Supreme Court case that was cited, Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987), stated probable cause (and a warrant) were not required to search the house of a person on probation. The US Supreme Court case detailed why a person on probation deserved only "reasonable grounds" vs "probable cause" and why limitations that would be applied to the public at large didn't apply to convicted criminals still serving their sentence via probation.

The US Supreme Court case cited would be pretty oblique support for this case since the mention that probable cause should normally apply was only made in passing. If anything, it establishes a precedence that probable cause isn't an absolute standard that always applies no matter what.

The Ninth Circuit ruling that probable cause does apply to child abuse cases is pretty standard, though, since accusations of child abuse are a fairly common part of child custody battles. They normally do need more than just a phone call from someone whose identity can't be verified or whose reliability is suspect.

In other words, the call could have been made by one of the El Dorado residents that had become uncomfortable about their new neighbors and felt something had to be done to get authorities to look into what was going on out there. I don't know what other reasons they had to go out there, but a phone call alone wouldn't be enough to take every child in town into protective custody.

[Art]

Art, this hasn't been challenged in a higher court.Do you mean this specific case?

The ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court are binding on lower courts so once the SC decided under the 4th Amendment anonymous tips are not grounds for a warrant as they do not meet the legal requirement for 'probable cause' all lower courts throughout the land are supposed to follow that ruling whatever the individual details of the case in question.

It is not enough to have information that the children are in some form of serious danger. The evidence must also pass a test of reliability that our justice system calls probable cause.
snip
HR. v. State Department of Human Resources, 612 So. 2d 477 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992); the court held that an anonymous tip standing alone never amounts to probable cause. The Calabretta court held the same thing, as have numerous other decisions which have faced the issue directly.
snip
The Fourth Amendment itself spells out the evidence required for a warrant or entry order. No warrant shall issue but on probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has held that courts may not use a different standard other than probable cause for the issuance of such orders. Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987).

If a court issues a warrant based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip, the warrant will not survive a judicial challenge in the higher courts. Anonymous tips are never probable cause.

This was the essence of the decision in the case of H.R. v. Alabama. In that case, the social worker took the position that she had to enter every home no matter what the allegation. from my earlier link.

So although you or others may dislike the SC's interpretation of the 4th Amendment the fact remains legally you cannot obtain a warrant on foot of an anonymous tip and if you do you will probably find any evidence gathered using the warrant will be deemed inadmissible in any ensuing court case.

[Gokul43201]

Here's an article I refered to in an earlier post:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24009286/

Again, it's just one woman's story. But since it's a closed society, that may be all the insight we're going to get.No, it's not. Almost every other year, there's a news story/interview with a woman who finally escapes from a Mormon enclave after several previous failed attempts. And they recount similar accounts of abuse and imprisonment.

[Evo]

Do you mean this specific case? Yes, in this case. It may be overturned if they cannot find the girl to prove she called. If they find her, it's not anonymous.

[Art]

Yes, in this case. It may be overturned if they cannot find the girl to prove she called. If they find her, it's not anonymous.lol That's why I called it a fishing expedition.

Still I'm pretty confident the way the law works getting corroboration after the event does not make a warrant that was invalid when published valid later.

[mheslep]

...And, by the way, I should disclose a personal bias. I consider sex with a child, say under sixteen, by an adult to be deserving of the death penalty. That point of view colors anything I post.You'd apply to, say, an 18 yr old (legal adult) female with and a 15.5 year old male?

[Evo]

lol That's why I called it a fishing expedition.

Still I'm pretty confident the way the law works getting corroboration after the event does not make a warrant that was invalid when published valid later.Until this is challenged and overturned in a higher court, what they did is legal. For now.

Appropriate circumstances for removal are when both of the following are met:

· There is no time to obtain an emergency court order. See: 5240 Court-Ordered Removal After an Emergency Ex Parte Hearing.

AND

· Conditions exist that include one or more of the following:

· There is an immediate danger to the physical health and safety of the child. The danger may come from any source, such as the child, another person, or the physical environment. During an emergency or full adversary hearing, when determining whether there is a danger to the physical health or safety of the child, the court may consider whether the child's household includes a person who has either sexually abused another child or seriously injured or killed a child through abused or neglect.

[mheslep]

No, it's not. Almost every other year, there's a news story/interview with a woman who finally escapes from a Mormon enclave after several previous failed attempts. And they recount similar accounts of abuse and imprisonment.Im not clear how you logically single out Mormons there. Everyday there's a report / story of a woman who finally escapes abuse, Mormon or no.

[mheslep]

Art, did you read the link he posted to The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Emergency Removal Without a Court Order

http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_5250.asp


One of the Tx removal requirements levied on the state:
Prepare for an Emergency Hearing: The court must hold the emergency hearing on or before the first working day after the child is taken into possession. If the court is unavailable on the first working day, the hearing must take place on the next available working day, but no later than the third working day after the child is taken into possession. If the hearing is not held within these time limits, the child must be returned to the home.
Thats a pretty good in lieu of a warrant.

[Art]

Evo Two points; You really should check out the binding role of precedents in the US and secondly the law you are quoting 'Emergency Removal Without a Court Order, has absolutely nothing to do with this case as it applies to removal of children without a warrant whereas in this case there was a warrant. It is the legality of that warrant based on the SC's interpretation of the 4th amendment in relation to probable cause I believe is suspect. If the warrant is deemed defective then all evidence ensuing from it is likely to be deemed 'tainted' and so inadmissible in a court of law.

[Evo]

Evo Two points; You really should check out the binding role of precedents in the US and secondly the law you are quoting 'Emergency Removal Without a Court Order, has absolutely nothing to do with this case as it applies to removal of children without a warrant whereas in this case there was a warrant. It is the legality of that warrant based on the SC's interpretation of the 4th amendment in relation to probable cause I believe is suspect.There is a hearing set for tomorrow.

Attorneys for the church and church leaders filed motions asking a judge to quash the search on constitutional grounds, saying state authorities didn't have enough evidence and that the warrants were too broad. A hearing on their motion was scheduled for Wednesday in San Angelo.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

My understanding is that there were warrants for The judge did release copies of a new search warrant she signed at 10 p.m. on Sunday. It authorized searches of all buildings, temples, temple annexes, places of worship, vaults, safes, lockboxes, locked drawers, medical facilities, structures, places and vehicles at the ranch.

Without naming a specific person, Walther also gave officers permission to seize various records and items related to girls under the age of 17 who have been married to older men.

The list includes prenatal and birth records; marriage records; wedding photos; electronic storage devices of all types that might include images of girls with their purported husbands; family Bibles or books listing similar information; medical records; bed linens, undergarments, hair fibers, bodily fluids, blood and clothing; video cameras; and cell phones.

An affidavit explaining why the state moved to take custody was filed for each child late Monday, but 51st District Judge Barbara Walther had not yet decided whether they could be released under Texas law. Unless I'm missing it, they used the Texas Child Protection laws to take custody and was not part of a warrant.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8847458?source=rss

[Art]

Unless I'm missing it, they used the Texas Child Protection laws to take custody and was not part of a warrant.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8847458?source=rssChains of evidence are critically important in law. If one link in the chain fails all subsequent links are ruled invalid.

We can assume evidence from the original search is to be used to obtain custody orders for the children but if the warrant which allowed that original search is found to be invalid for the reasons I gave above then any evidence obtained through it cannot be presented in court and so the state will be left without a case.

Of course it is quite likely the DA and CPS know they are on thin ice but perhaps they are banking on the wheels of justice moving very slowly and if they can drag this out to the SC by the time the Morman community win their case the children will all be adults anyway :smile:.

The reason I'm somewhat uneasy about this whole affair is because some years ago in the UK there were two pediatric consultants Dr Marietta Higgs and Dr Geoffrey Wyatt who went on a mission to find abused children.

They were allowed to run amok for years during which time with the help of a compliant local Social Services dep't they had hundreds of children taken into care until finally following accusations against parents who had clout in the community there was an investigation into their methods and behaviour.

It transpired during the inquiry by other leading child abuse experts and headed by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss their approach had been more akin to the Salem witch trials than good medical practice, indeed some of their diagnostic methods and behaviour bordered on child abuse itself and the two doctors were subsequently mildly disciplined. After new reviews the vast majority of the children were returned to their parents with an apology :rolleyes:.

Some of those children had been separated for years from their siblings and their parents which must have had a terrible effect on the children's development not to mention the pressure on their parents and their relationships.

The First Victims of the Cleveland Child Abuse Scandal

Posted on: Saturday, 24 February 2007, 18:00 CST

By SUE REID

PRETTY and fashionably dressed, the two young sisters look the very embodiment of confident modern womanhood.

In fact, Lindsey and Paula's lives have been almost too shocking to comprehend.

For these are the two girls who were at the centre of the Cleveland child abuse controversy that rocked Britain exactly 20 years ago.

Raised by a loving family, they were the first victims of the 1987 scandal when hundreds of parents in the North-East of England were wrongly accused of the worst crime imaginable: molesting their own children Lindsey and Paula Wise are speaking out today for the first time. They want the world to know exactly what happened to them on the say-so of a maverick paediatrician called Marietta Higgs and other child doctors in the hope that their story will stop such a travesty ever being repeated.

The girls, now 23 and 22, were taken from their devoted parents, Barry and Linda Wise, and put in foster homes. They escaped adoption by a whisker.

They spent their youngest years in the hands of the state instead of their family. Like the 119 other children ensnared in what was Britain's first and biggest abuse scandal, they were interrogated by social workers and endured a battery of the most intimate examinations by doctors.

As a toddler Lindsey was photographed or examined for signs of sexual abuse 17 times, according to her own medical records. In fact, it may have been many more - she will never know. For, mysteriously, the official files on the Cleveland debacle, provoked by Dr Higgs's blind faith in an unproven medical technique to prove child abuse, have since been destroyed.

Now Lindsey and Paula Wise plan to take legal action against those they allege ruined their young lives. This week they asked police in Middlesbrough, where they both live with their parents in a neat terraced house, to investigate their cases.

They acted after the admission on Monday by the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, that mistakes were made in Cleveland.

Sir Liam, coincidentally the medical officer in charge of the Northern Regional Health Authority covering the area in 1987, confirmed that the medical technique used by Dr Higgs and her acolytes was unreliable.

By looking at and probing a child's bottom, Dr Higgs believed she could see if there was Reflex Anal Dilatation - or RAD.

She insisted that the existence of RAD - originally devised to detect homosexual abuse - showed if a child had been interfered with. Today it is known that RAD can appear in any boy or girl quite normally and spontaneously.

After a long fight through the courts, 80 per cent of children taken in Cleveland were returned to their innocent parents. Yet the damage was done.

Many were traumatised. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/852413/the_first_victims_of_the_cleveland_child_abuse_scandal/index.html

So it is best to have a healthy skepticism in the face of zealots.

[CaptainQuasar]

Evo's last couple of links there have considerably more information in them than the stuff I was seeing in the early morning and the last couple of days. Good job tracking them down, Evo.

[CaptainQuasar]

Interesting comment (http://166.70.44.77/comments/read_comments.asp?ref=8847458&PageIndex=8) on the Salt Lake Tribune site:

I have read numerous posts from people who are appalled at the way the investigation is being conducted. While I agree not enough information has yet been released, having a legal background, I have a little bit different perspective on what I see happening.

The 911 call gave authorities cause to enter the compound without a warrant under what the law allows as “exigent circumstances,” which is to ascertain the safety and welfare of a possible victim of a crime. During the search for the victim, if evidence of other criminal activity is found, the police have a duty to act.

For example, if a woman reports that she is being beaten, and the police arrive only to be met at the door by a man who denies the claim, the police have the right to enter the residence despite his protests, to ascertain if there are any victims of abuse. During the warrantless search for a possible victim, if evidence is uncovered relating to another crime (i.e. drugs) in plain view, the officers may seize the evidence and make the appropriate arrest. In a warrantless search however, the law does not admit evidence that for example, might be found concealed in a dresser drawer while officers were tasked with locating a person.

It’s important to understand how investigations relate to search and seizure laws. Having said that, my understanding is that the Texas authorities actually went to a judge and obtained a warrant to enter the compound and search for the girl that placed the call. This was an additional (but possibly unnecessary) protective step presumably due to the sensitive nature of entering the large, closed compound. It is also probable that authorities were able to ascertain with the caller that there was no immediate threat of danger prior to being able to obtain a warrant. Judges can and do issue emergency protective orders based on affidavits, 24/7. Still, the scope of the search at that time would have been narrow.

On the first day, during the search for the victim, 18 girls were removed into state custody and placed into foster care. The legal action that authorities took regarding these 18 was different than was taken with the other children who were removed the same day. Other children were removed and detained during the investigation to determine their welfare. Because of how this case is unfolding, it stands to reason that during the investigation to locate the 16 yr old caller, these 18 girls were probably pregnant minors (or teen mothers) who were suspected or determined to be victims of adult sexual abuse. Armed with information from the initial investigation, the judge has been issuing warrants further increasing the search radius to locate more victims and evidence, and expanding the search to include records of marriages and births. Warrants are definitely specific in nature, but a judge may expand the scope depending on what information the investigation reveals.

Removing abused or neglected children to ensure their safety and welfare happens in homes all over the country. Once an allegation of abuse or neglect has been received, the state has a duty to investigate. If the possibility exists that the allegation may be true, then the state is liable for leaving a child in their current circumstance until it is determined that the environment is safe. This holds true with siblings of victims, who have not been victimized themselves, but might be at risk. Unfortunately, due to the sheer numbers of children, this is a large task that has appalled many people.

Additionally, not all those taken from the compound are considered at risk. Allowing the adult women (presumably mothers) to voluntarily leave the compound and go with the children is very unusual. This is normally not allowed when the state removes children from homes, and speaks to the fact that authorities are at least attempting to accommodate the children’s transition with some degree of sensitivity.

The investigation is a large undertaking, but the fact that 18 girls were removed and placed into legal custody the first day, makes me think that we might see arrest warrants forthcoming at least regarding these cases. It also explains why as the investigation continues and new information is uncovered, the judge is further expanding the scope of the warrant. While it may be true that authorities have not yet located the girl who placed the original call, it’s no doubt a moot legal point now. The way this case is unfolding, it sure makes it look like when officers entered the compound the first day, they discovered evidence leading them to believe there was abuse involving those 18 girls.

Just my take on what appears to be happening in Texas. It will be interesting to see what evidence if any, does eventually come to light. I really can’t see the judge expanding the scope of the warrant if there was absolutely no evidence from the initial investigation. Such an act would have serious consequences for not only the judge, but the state of Texas.

[russ_watters]

Im not clear how you logically single out Mormons there. Everyday there's a report / story of a woman who finally escapes abuse, Mormon or no. It isn't Mormons per se (any more*), its just that this particular sect doesn't have a name we can refer to. But the fact that the leader of the sect is in jail for crimes that are an integral part of what this sect does makes me incredulous to why they hadn't broken it up already. Yes, it is allowable in the US to break up a religious group that practices illegal activities. Your beliefs are protected, but your religion is not a shield from the law.

*Clearly, there is still a lot of sympathy for these illegal activities within the Mormon Church. Today polygamy and child marriage are not officially sanctioned by the church, but they are an integral part of the history.

[CaptainQuasar]

A note on child marriage and history: because arranged and political marriages have been common almost everywhere, child marriage is actually pretty universal in history. Certainly in Europe it wasn't uncommon for a young teenage girl to be married to a man decades older than her and I think it wasn't entirely uncommon in the U.S. until a century ago or so. Check out these modern marriage ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age) at Wikipedia and note that many countries permit marriage at ages younger than 16, many allow it at any age in the case of pregnancy.

So this isn't a particularly Mormon practice historically, is what I'm pointing out.

[jaap de vries]

From what I've been reading the presence of the mothers sounds as if it's entirely voluntary and that they could return to the community if they wished.

What jaap said there about the children being free to return to the community, right before your initial comment, is not true.

I said children AND women (read their mothers). They are not under arrest so if no illegal activity will be proven in the church I don't see why they would not be allowed to return.

Now I worked for the salvation army for one year in Amsterdam so I know a thing or two about the effect of systematic abuse. That's why I think it is correct for the authorities NOT to trivialize the 911 call especially with prior knowledge of this community and other communities like these.

[CaptainQuasar]

I said children AND women (read their mothers). They are not under arrest so if no illegal activity will be proven in the church I don't see why they would not be allowed to return.

My impression has been that the women accompanying the children has been voluntary, yes. But I don't think the situation with the children is a matter of what the children want to do and I think that once children are in state protective custody the matter can be more complex than simply whether something illegal has occurred - that's why the phrase "best interest of the children" is used rather than CPS talking about crimes or evidence. It's great that you don't think there's any reason why they shouldn't be returned but it's interesting phrasing that despite citing your experience below you've avoided saying what you think Texas CPS will do.

I'm no expert on these matters, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the concept of an "unfit parent" has many more dimensions than simply whether the parent has committed a crime or not. The mandates governing CPS will now compel them to thoroughly consider the fitness of the parents before returning the children to their homes, independently of the events leading up to the children entering state custody.

I don't think it's the case that the families can be certain everything will necessarily go back to normal for each child who hasn't been abused (even if that can be proved unambiguously). That's obviously the ideal situation but a process has been set in motion now where each child's best interest, as judged by CPS, takes precedence over the particulars of whether commission of a crime can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - the "day in court" for a potentially unfit parent is different from the day in court for someone accused of a crime. (but again, I'm not a lawyer or social worker or anything, please correct me if their situation is more certain than this.)

Now I worked for the salvation army for one year in Amsterdam so I know a thing or two about the effect of systematic abuse. That's why I think it is correct for the authorities NOT to trivialize the 911 call especially with prior knowledge of this community and other communities like these.

You're using prejudicial language here. Proposing that the authorities better inform the public of the basis for their actions in this case, or suggesting that there may have been possible courses of action other than taking all the children of an entire community into custody away from their homes, is in no way a recommendation that the authorities should trivialize a 911 call. No one has called for the police or CPS to trivialize 911 calls and in fact much of what I've said has been about the sorts of questions journalists should be asking about all this.

[TVP45]

You'd apply to, say, an 18 yr old (legal adult) female with and a 15.5 year old male?

I acknowledge that there is a gray area in there; I did not want to get into an infinite hair-splitting argument over a "sliding scale". And, of course, I forgave Jerry Lee Lewis.

[TVP45]

I have some secondary exposure to the local child protective system and have some knowledge of what happens.

Abused children are often ruined (there is no other appropriate word) for life. In addition, there is the phenomenum social work researchers call "shadow effect" where an act of abuse continues to diminish the quality of life of several generations after the original abuse.

I also occasionally seen mothers (rarely fathers - perhaps that tells a tale) who have had their children taken into temporary custody without sufficient reason. They are often pissed off at social services. Some hold on to that for years. Otherwise their lives return to normal.

Recognition of the obligation of the governing authorities to protect children, including forcible removal, dates from the very beginning of the Republic. If this case is one of unsubstantiated allegation, everyone will get their lives back, albeit with a big inconvenience.

[russ_watters]

A note on child marriage and history: because arranged and political marriages have been common almost everywhere, child marriage is actually pretty universal in history. Certainly in Europe it wasn't uncommon for a young teenage girl to be married to a man decades older than her and I think it wasn't entirely uncommon in the U.S. until a century ago or so. Check out these modern marriage ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age) at Wikipedia and note that many countries permit marriage at ages younger than 16, many allow it at any age in the case of pregnancy.

So this isn't a particularly Mormon practice historically, is what I'm pointing out. Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?

[Art]

Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?It appears so as it seems in Hawaii it is still 15 with parents' consent and pretty much universally throughout the other states 16 with parents' consent

[BobG]

Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?

Depends on whether the girl is pregnant or not. New Hampshire and New York allow marriage as young as 14, but you need parental consent and judicial consent (the usual reason for consent being pregnancy). West Virginia and some other states have similar laws for marriage of kids under 16, even if they don't specify an age.

That's a little different than what's going on with the FLDS folks, though.

The only reason for an exception is for the same reason so many other countries allow exceptions. They don't meddle into the affairs of the different tribal groups that inhabit their borders, escpecially if those groups have little interaction with mainstream society. That's also the only reason something like this has been tolerated for so long.

I think it's more like the situation CaptainQuasar talked about concerning Native American groups, Aboriginal groups, etc than a situation where the state laws for marriage ages are applicable.

[CaptainQuasar]

Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US?

I was hoping to come up with harder data with examples of extreme difference in age (though remember, the marriage Warren Jeffs is in jail over is a 19 year old groom and a 14 year old bride - not as extreme as what's been said about the anonymous caller, a 14 or 15 year old to a 50 year old man) but I didn't have any luck finding specific studies on it, unfortunately. There are lots of copies of marriage registers online too but that's too much data to pore through. I did find this interesting book from 1889 that gives marriage laws by state:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wQoAAAAAYAAJ

For age of consent I came across lots of 14's, a couple of 13's, and a 12 - Idaho, I think - while browsing through it. I didn't find anything forbidding marriage based upon difference in age, nor difference in age being ground for divorce (though either party being drunk at the time of the marriage is grounds for divorce! :wink:) but an interesting thing was a couple of states required parental consent only if both the bride and groom were under a certain age - presumably that means if one of them is older parental consent wasn't needed?

Some of the archaic-sounding language is amusing by modern standards - marriage is not permitted if one of the parties is "idiotic or moronic".

[jimmysnyder]

Human life used to end quicker. In those days it made sense for girls to marry and bear children as soon as possible. Those days are gone here in the US.

[mheslep]

I acknowledge that there is a gray area in there; I did not want to get into an infinite hair-splitting argument over a "sliding scale". And, of course, I forgave Jerry Lee Lewis.And I wouldn't usually nit pick, but as soon as you sign on to the death penalty it seems to me you lose any slack in the argument; then you very much carry the burden of precision.

[mheslep]

It isn't Mormons per se (any more*), its just that this particular sect doesn't have a name we can refer to.
Yes that was my take; I wasn't even clear that these clowns (Jeffs) were really Mormons in the eyes of leaders of the CLDS. Just taking up the name doesnt make it so.
But the fact that the leader of the sect is in jail for crimes that are an integral part of what this sect does makes me incredulous to why they hadn't broken it up already. Yes, it is allowable in the US to break up a religious group that practices illegal activities. Your beliefs are protected, but your religion is not a shield from the law.

*Clearly, there is still a lot of sympathy for these illegal activities within the Mormon Church. Oh? I've havn't seen evidence of that. CDLS is very open about the repressive roles they assign to women, but I don't see where they sympathize with child marriage.
Today polygamy and child marriage are not officially sanctioned by the church, but they are an integral part of the history.Polygamy perhaps. Child marriage, real child marriage ala Jeffs - I'm unaware of any collusion with the CDLS there. As for their history, thats guilt by association w/ the past.

[TVP45]

And I wouldn't usually nit pick, but as soon as you sign on to the death penalty it seems to me you lose any slack in the argument; then you very much carry the burden of precision.

I agree with you in my head. But in my gut I absolutely loathe "short-eyes" and I suppose I'm irrational about it. If I were ever on a jury in such a case, I would ask to be excused because I don't think I could render a fair verdict.

[BobG]

It isn't Mormons per se (any more*), its just that this particular sect doesn't have a name we can refer to. But the fact that the leader of the sect is in jail for crimes that are an integral part of what this sect does makes me incredulous to why they hadn't broken it up already. Yes, it is allowable in the US to break up a religious group that practices illegal activities. Your beliefs are protected, but your religion is not a shield from the law.

*Clearly, there is still a lot of sympathy for these illegal activities within the Mormon Church. Today polygamy and child marriage are not officially sanctioned by the church, but they are an integral part of the history.

I'm not sure how integral polygamy is with the Mormon church. They practiced it for about 60 years. Supposedly, they only intended to suspend polygamy until Utah became a state, hoping to reinstitute the practice once state laws would pre-empt federal territorial laws, but, since banning polygamy was made a prerequisite for statehood, the idea of reinstituting polygamy became moot to most of the church. So, you might be right that there's a lot of sympathy for the practice (or at least some), even if it hasn't been practiced by mainstream Mormons for over a hundred years.

The arranged marriages of children isn't an integral part of Mormon beliefs since only two or three of the polygamous sects practice arranged marriages and/or allow children to marry. If anything, this particular group has become even more extreme and more separated from mainstream Mormonism since the group split in two around the first Short Creek raid around 1950 (moderates joined one group and extremists joined the other group).

[russ_watters]

It appears so as it seems in Hawaii it is still 15 with parents' consent and pretty much universally throughout the other states 16 with parents' consent I'm not going to split hairs over where the line should be. Use an easy example: Warren Jeff's (the founder of the cult in question) is in jail right now for arranging a marriage of a 13 year old girl.

[Art]

I'm not going to split hairs over where the line should be. Use an easy example: Warren Jeff's (the founder of the cult in question) is in jail right now for arranging a marriage of a 13 year old girl.lol split hairs!!! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child!! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question Has it ever been an accepted practice in the US? The answer is yes and still is.

[russ_watters]

Yes that was my take; I wasn't even clear that these clowns (Jeffs) were really Mormons in the eyes of leaders of the CLDS. Just taking up the name doesnt make it so. Well it kinda does - they are every bit as Mormon as Presbyterians are Christian. They are a break-away group. As for their history, thats guilt by association w/ the past. Again, since the group in question is a break-away group, it is clearly relevant. In fact, I could see a good argument for saying the breakaway group is more Mormon than the "official" church, since it is the official church that changed their policy and the breakaway group wanted to keep it the same. Oh? I've havn't seen evidence of that. CDLS is very open about the repressive roles they assign to women, but I don't see where they sympathize with child marriage.

Polygamy perhaps. Child marriage, real child marriage ala Jeffs - I'm unaware of any collusion with the CDLS there. One of the articles linked earlier talked about such sympathy. I'll go back later and figure out which one.

[russ_watters]

lol split hairs!!! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child!! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question The answer is yes and still is. The other special circumstances about permission are non sequiturs as well (things like the fact that they typically have limits on the difference in age are conveniently ignored here) and the key word is permission. In the case we're discussing here, these kids are being forced.

What this cult is doing is not standard operating procedure in the US and afaik, never has been.

[russ_watters]

Regarding sympathy for polygamy in Utah, a google finds lots of articles. Here's one from 2006: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209474,00.html

Here's an interesting site: http://www.pro-polygamy.com/

Note: A line is often drawn between polygamy and child marriage. The pro polygamy website has this as its slogan: Freely-consenting, adult, non-abusive, marriage-committed
POLYGAMY
is the next civil rights battle. But the fact of the matter is, they need that part in there because polygamy has been historically connected to child marriage. IMO, it is an enabler and it seems to me that Jeffs' fundamentalist cult exists for the purpose of pedophilia*.

I'd even extend it to say that the Mormon religion itself encourages (or used to, but the text of the book remains even if they no longer follow it) older men to marry much younger women: The revelation, in part, held that, "If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another ... then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him." http://www.childbrides.org/history_sanantonio_polygamy_stirred_anger.html

*[edit] By the strict definition, most of the girls in question were probably "sexually mature" and thus don't fit the definition for pedophilia, but at the very least, as this website puts it: By today's definitions, when it comes to the pathology of pedophilia, Joseph Smith would probably not be considered a true pedophile. That doesn't mean however, that he wasn't a lecherous scumbag who would stop at nothing to bed any young woman who captured his fancy. http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon253.htm
But note also the age of Joe Smith's wives and the changes in age of menarche over the past 150 years.

[drankin]

All I can say is, being married to one woman is difficult enough. Why would one want to double the trouble? :)

[Art]

The other special circumstances about permission are non sequiturs as well (things like the fact that they typically have limits on the difference in age are conveniently ignored here)What limits are imposed on age differences in marriage in the US? Do you have a link to support this claim? and the key word is permission. In the case we're discussing here, these kids are being forced. Allegedly!! Or do you have proof??

[jimmysnyder]

All I can say is, being married to one woman is difficult enough. Why would one want to double the trouble? :)
They get 5 to 10 for having several wives. I only have one wife, and I got life.

[BobG]

lol split hairs!!! By anyone's definition a 15 year old is a child!! And per the info supplied by BoBG under certain circumstances some states allow kids as young as 14 to marry.

In answer to your question The answer is yes and still is.

That's taken a little out of context.

I'm sure you can find instances where a 40-year-old man was allowed to marry a teenager. I even know one instance where a high school swim coach married one of the high school girls on his team and her parents were proud of it - at least publically.

That's not the intent of allowing exceptions to the age of consent and someone like that high school coach was at least as likely to face charges of statutory rape as to be the son-in-law of proud parents (as it was, his teaching career was effectively finished even though no criminal charges were filed against him).

The intent is to take into the account the inevitable pregnancies that result from teens having sex with other teens.

There's a big difference between allowing for exceptions to the law and making something the preferred policy.

I have a few doubts as to how this group should be handled, but I don't have any doubts that this group is just plain wacko.

[Art]

That's taken a little out of context.

I'm sure you can find instances where a 40-year-old man was allowed to marry a teenager. I even know one instance where a high school swim coach married one of the high school girls on his team and her parents were proud of it - at least publically.

That's not the intent of allowing exceptions to the age of consent and someone like that high school coach was at least as likely to face charges of statutory rape as to be the son-in-law of proud parents (as it was, his teaching career was effectively finished even though no criminal charges were filed against him).

The intent is to take into the account the inevitable pregnancies that result from teens having sex with other teens.

There's a big difference between allowing for exceptions to the law and making something the preferred policy.

I have a few doubts as to how this group should be handled, but I don't have any doubts that this group is just plain wacko.The point is US law does allow for the marriage of children and as far as I know with no age discrepancy stipulations. In the case of Hawaii there doesn't seem to be any requirement other than the parent's consent for a 15 year old child to get married.

Personally I think even if the marriage of a 14 year old is allowed because the girl made a serious error of judgment and became pregnant allowing her to marry so young simply compounds the error.

[Gokul43201]

Art, how do you say that the caller was "anonymous"? I thought she called 2 different places (the cops and a local shelter), and identified herself to both places. I have no idea how many of the "inmates" of this compound even have any identification documents. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that most women lacked proper identification.

Also, I believe what forced the police to remove all the children from the location was that they found many underage girls showing signs of pregnancy.

[lisab]

There's a lot of discussion about "age of consent." The "consent" part of that phrase refers to consent to legal marriage. These aren't legal marriages...the media are using the term "spiritual marriage" when refering to these unions between an older man and numerous young girls.

If the allegations are true, it's simply older men having sex with underaged girls. That's illegal, period.

[BobG]

There's a lot of discussion about "age of consent." The "consent" part of that phrase refers to consent to legal marriage. These aren't legal marriages...the media are using the term "spiritual marriage" when refering to these unions between an older man and numerous young girls.

If the allegations are true, it's simply older men having sex with underaged girls. That's illegal, period.

They're "spiritual marriages" because the law won't recognize more than one marriage for a person. If they do have more than one 'legal' marriage, then they're charged with bigamy.

Which leads to something that would be considered at least a semi-scam: if the law won't recognize the additional marriages as legal, then the second, third wife, etc are eligible for welfare benefits as unwed mothers.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Court docs say there was a bed in the temple used for underage sex. Also information that there was a cult informant inside for 4 years!

[quadraphonics]

The arranged marriages of children isn't an integral part of Mormon beliefs since only two or three of the polygamous sects practice arranged marriages and/or allow children to marry.

This is an important distinction. I'm not that bothered by it if a crowd of consenting adults want to call themselves "married" and have a family. But these sects are quite obviously motivated by some kind of freaky sex and power trips, hence the total control of children and females, and the forcing them into marriage as soon as they hit puberty. The idea obviously being to lock them into a marriage and children before they become mature enough to question the influences of the middle-aged males controlling their lives or, worse yet, form romantic attachments to boys ther own age.

The other problem is that such male-dominated polygamist societies (i.e., where each man takes multiple wives) inevitably produce an excess of males that can't find a wife, who are then ostracized from the society once they reach adolescence. The fact that these people will abandon their own male children in order to prevent them from competing with middle-aged (and older) men for the sexual attentions of young girls has me convinced that they're child abusers, rather than simply leading a misunderstood-but-basically-decent lifestyle.

[Evo]

When authorities finally gained entrance to the three-story building, no one was inside.

But on the top they found beds allegedly used by husbands after they married underage girls on the top floor of the temple.,snip>

The discovery of the marriage beds in the temple was revealed Wednesday as troopers completed their search of the grounds of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080410/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_127

[rewebster]

it all sounds like the Taliban

[Art]

Sect's Moms Separated From Older Children
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 04/15/2008 01:25:04 AM MDT

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Texas officials who took 416 children from a polygamist retreat into state custody sent many of their mothers away Monday.

Of the 139 women who left the compound with their children, only those with children age 4 or younger were allowed to continue staying with them, said Marissa Gonzales of Children's Protective Services.

"It is not the normal practice to allow parents to accompany the child when an abuse allegation is made," she said. http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_8925775

The state wants to put ALL of the 416 children either in foster homes or up for adoption.

And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.

[TVP45]

No, you have either misread or distorted the newspaper story (Which hardly qualifies as a primary, or even secondary, source to begin with). MANY of the children are being separated from their mothers; the state will attempt (there is a long and detailed legal process) to place SOME of the children (those who will have been found to have been abused) in foster homes or place them for adoption. You should know that the alleged abuse victims are older children and that there is little likelihood of quickly placing ANY of these. Nationwide, there are up to 100,000 (the number is fuzzy since there is a mixture of public and private agencies) older children already approved for adoption or placement and many of these will simply age out of the system without ever being placed. The demand for placement far outstrips the supply of suitable homes, so little happens quickly. Everybody wants cute infants; few people want teenagers with baggage.

[Art]

No, you have either misread or distorted the newspaper story (Which hardly qualifies as a primary, or even secondary, source to begin with). MANY of the children are being separated from their mothers; the state will attempt (there is a long and detailed legal process) to place SOME of the children (those who will have been found to have been abused) in foster homes or place them for adoption. You should know that the alleged abuse victims are older children and that there is little likelihood of quickly placing ANY of these. Nationwide, there are up to 100,000 (the number is fuzzy since there is a mixture of public and private agencies) older children already approved for adoption or placement and many of these will simply age out of the system without ever being placed. The demand for placement far outstrips the supply of suitable homes, so little happens quickly. Everybody wants cute infants; few people want teenagers with baggage.Please substantiate your assertion I misread or misrepresented the article. Having attacked me you then attacked the source so how about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7348079.stm

[chemisttree]

And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.

I've heard that the call was to Child Protective Services from one source and to 911 in another source. Do you think a recording of the call exists? I haven't heard of any recordings in this case. It sure would clear things up if the recording were played on the news, eh?

[TVP45]

Please substantiate your assertion I misread or misrepresented the article. Having attacked me you then attacked the source so how about the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7348079.stm

I did not attack you. I disputed your claim that ALL the children were to placed in foster homes or placed for adoption. The story, which is badly written, carries no byline, and has no independent substantiation, does not support your assertion of ALL.

I seldom listen to the BBC; I'm not sure why I would attack it.

I am quite willing to be found wrong in this matter, but I do ask that it be done with facts.

[Art]

I did not attack you. I disputed your claim that ALL the children were to placed in foster homes or placed for adoption. The story, which is badly written, carries no byline, and has no independent substantiation, does not support your assertion of ALL.

I seldom listen to the BBC; I'm not sure why I would attack it.

I am quite willing to be found wrong in this matter, but I do ask that it be done with facts.You obviously misread what I wrote. I said the state WANTS to take all the children into care, hence the court case, not that it will necessarily be allowed by the court to do so.

If they didn't want to take all of the kids into care then they wouldn't have them all on the docket.

[TVP45]

If I misunderstood you, I apologize. I quite agree that the state wants to keep all the children in temporary custody.

[Alfi]

Court docs say there was a bed in the temple used for underage sex. Also information that there was a cult informant inside for 4 years!

Are court docs in the public domain? I would love to read how the court describes a bed in a temple.

Also information? From where? Same court docs?

My only other question is; do these 'cults' pay taxes?




This has been an interesting read. My thanks to all the participants.

[Evo]

Are court docs in the public domain? I would love to read how the court describes a bed in a temple.

Also information? From where? Same court docs?

My only other question is; do these 'cults' pay taxes?




This has been an interesting read. My thanks to all the participants.I posted the link here. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1684170&postcount=84

[Alfi]

But on the top they found beds allegedly used by husbands after they married underage girls on the top floor of the temple.

ah .... thanks Evo....

Alleged by the reporter, or by whom?

... but I was more looking forward to court papers rather than speculation by a writer for profit.

[Gokul43201]

And Gokul if you can find a link identifying the 'girl who called in the complaint' please provide it.This is a little old, but I just read it now.

I heard this on the radio more than a couple times, that the girl gave her name, to the authorities and the name of her husband. Being the alleged victim of a sexual assault, her name can not be revealed by authorities.

[russ_watters]

It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

That's probably enough to keep people out of jail for abuse, but it is probably not enough to keep that cult in business.

[TVP45]

It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

That's probably enough to keep people out of jail for abuse, but it is probably not enough to keep that cult in business.

If the authorities acted in good faith, a fraudalent call does not invalidate the search warrant.

[russ_watters]

If the authorities acted in good faith, a fraudalent call does not invalidate the search warrant. Really? I guess I figured that since their probably cause was not really probable cause, anything they found would be 'poisoned fruit'. I'm not a lawyer, though - I just watch too much Law and Order.

[TVP45]

If you do watch Law and Order, then may recall the episode in which Lt. VanBuren's old superior, now an executive at a Wal-Mart lookalike, provided information that led to a search. The search was invalidated when it appeared he had provided false information with VanBuren's knowledge. When it was determined she did not know the information was bad, the search results were readmitted. I hate to base legal stuff on TV, but I believe that principle generally holds.

[lisab]

Really? I guess I figured that since their probably cause was not really probable cause, anything they found would be 'poisoned fruit'. I'm not a lawyer, though - I just watch too much Law and Order.

That's what I thought too, Russ, but a reporter said that if the authorities acted on good faith (and it appears they did), and since the crimes involve child abuse, that the evidence will stand. That makes sense; I can't imagine the law allowing child abuse to continue because of a technicality.

[russ_watters]

If you do watch Law and Order, then may recall the episode in which Lt. VanBuren's old superior, now an executive at a Wal-Mart lookalike, provided information that led to a search. The search was invalidated when it appeared he had provided false information with VanBuren's knowledge. When it was determined she did not know the information was bad, the search results were readmitted. I hate to base legal stuff on TV, but I believe that principle generally holds.
Lol, I guess I missed that episode! I looked around for some info in this, but I didn't find anything concrete enough. #3 here seems to apply, though, so I'm still unsure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule#Exceptions_to_the_rule
That's what I thought too, Russ, but a reporter said that if the authorities acted on good faith (and it appears they did), and since the crimes involve child abuse, that the evidence will stand. That makes sense; I can't imagine the law allowing child abuse to continue because of a technicality. Those are two separate issues - the police may or may not be able to prosecute past crimes based on a tainted search, but they can certainly stop ongoing and future crimes. They can't prosecute for a possible future crime though, obviously. That's why I said in post 99 that this bad intel could keep them out of jail (I'm unsure now), but it certainly would not get them their kids back if the authorities think they are in danger.

[CaptainQuasar]

It appears that the 911 calls may have been fraudulent: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/18/polygamy.fri/index.html#cnnSTCText

I forgot to come back here and say I TOTALLY CALLED IT!!! Wheee-hoo! :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Yeah, them being unable to find the girl, then deciding to take all the kids in the town was just a little bit suspicious... Thank you, U.S. media, for swallowing all that hook, line, and sinker... I hope some justice gets done in this case, rather than something that drives Mormons further away from the mainstream and endangers more kids (and establishes some history of modern religious persecution in the U.S.).

[CaptainQuasar]

Four days after that story was reported and CNN who reported it still have the photo of the guy the fake caller accused at the top of their page for the FLDS:

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/fundamentalist_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter_day_saints

[russ_watters]

So this is fun: 31 of the 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 either have children or are currently pregnant. It could get worse: it appears that the FLDS officials may be lying about the girls' ages to make them older to avoid the legal issues. That's still being worked out. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-28-polygamist-girls_N.htm

[Gokul43201]

I forgot to come back here and say I TOTALLY CALLED IT!!! Wheee-hoo! :biggrin: :rolleyes:

Yeah, them being unable to find the girl, then deciding to take all the kids in the town was just a little bit suspicious...I think your argument is still flawed. The rationale for removal of the children was not based on the phone call, but based on the observation of pregnant minors. Unless I'm mistaken, the warrant granted on the basis of the call was only for the purposes of searching the ranch, not for taking custody of children. And Texas law permits taking all children from a home if there is suspicion that any one child in the household has been abused.

[lisab]

Medical exams and reports by the children indicate that at least 41 children have had broken bones in the past.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24388249/

Forty-one percent had broken a bone...how does this compare to the general population? Seems high to me.

Then again, I doubt these kids have ever spent time watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web. Maybe they've done activities that are more hazardous (we used to call it "playing").

[Evo]

I think your argument is still flawed. The rationale for removal of the children was not based on the phone call, but based on the observation of pregnant minors. Unless I'm mistaken, the warrant granted on the basis of the call was only for the purposes of searching the ranch, not for taking custody of children. And Texas law permits taking all children from a home if there is suspicion that any one child in the household has been abused.Exactly.

[Gokul43201]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24388249/

Forty-one percent had broken a bone...how does this compare to the general population? Seems high to me. If it's 41 out of the 450 odd children, that's more like 9%, but they don't yet have records for all the children.

Also disturbing is that about 60% of underage teens are either pregnant or have conceived in the past. That, I'm sure, is way above the national average.

[Evo]

If it's 41 out of the 450 odd children, that's more like 9%, but they don't yet have records for all the children.It also depends on what bones were broken and if the breaks seem normal for a fall or blunt force or unusual breaks. Or maybe I watch too many crime shows.

Also disturbing is that about 60% of underage teens are either pregnant or have conceived in the past. That, I'm sure, is way above the national average.That's WAY above. And considering they all live together, there's just no way to brush that aside.

[lisab]

If it's 41 out of the 450 odd children, that's more like 9%, but they don't yet have records for all the children.

Also disturbing is that about 60% of underage teens are either pregnant or have conceived in the past. That, I'm sure, is way above the national average.

Aaaaah...you're right; it is 41, not 41%. That's different...doesn't seem out of normal range to me.

60% of underage girls moms or moms-to-be...yep, that's not normal!

[russ_watters]

Then again, I doubt these kids have ever spent time watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web. Maybe they've done activities that are more hazardous (we used to call it "playing"). They've probably also never played organized sports, though.

[IMP]

The court of appeals in Austin just ruled in favor of the families. Now they just need to charge the morons who took all those kids with kidnapping...

[Gokul43201]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html

"Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may some day have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue."
...
Later, flanked by some of the FLDS mothers represented in the case, Balovich explained that authorities considered YFZ ranch one household, an assertion with which the appeals court did not agree.

Therefore, proving there was abuse in one household did not mean the state could apply that behavior to the entire ranch.

[Art]

It is good to see common sense prevailed. If you were to randomly pick any sink estate in the UK and investigate how the kids are treated you would find far worse and more plentiful cases of abuse and I suspect the same would be true with their US equivalents but to suggest in consequence all children from lower working class homes should be taken into care would be unrealistic to put it mildly.

I wonder will Texas now be liable for a hefty damages payout??

[Gokul43201]

It is good to see common sense prevailed. If you were to randomly pick any sink estate in the UK and investigate how the kids are treated you would find far worse and more plentiful cases of abuse and I suspect the same would be true with their US equivalents but to suggest in consequence all children from lower working class homes should be taken into care would be unrealistic to put it mildly.I didn't know that the authorities raided all the Mormon neighborhoods in the country and took away their children!

To my knowledge they found evidence of abuse at this one ranch and took only the children that were in that particular compound. They apparently failed to convince the judge that the entire ranch should be treated as a single household.

[Art]

I didn't know that the authorities raided all the Mormon neighborhoods in the country and took away their children!

To my knowledge they found evidence of abuse at this one ranch and took only the children that were in that particular compound. They apparently failed to convince the judge that the entire ranch should be treated as a single household.Which is akin to the analogy I gave of the likely result of treating all of a sink housing estate as a single household.

[russ_watters]

To my knowledge they found evidence of abuse at this one ranch and took only the children that were in that particular compound. They apparently failed to convince the judge that the entire ranch should be treated as a single household. Given the nature of the FLDS organization, I still think there is a letigimate argument to be made there, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the law. I think there is a decent chance this ruling may be overturned.

In an effort to build a parallel, consider what would happen if a gated community at a country club made its own school on the grounds (rich people need to indocrinate their kids too). At the school, the kids were abused. What could be done about it?

[lisab]

I look at this situation through the eyes of the local authorities -- they had little choice but to take the course they did. Wow, they were in a tough spot! I think they were very courageous.

[Gokul43201]

Which is akin to the analogy I gave of the likely result of treating all of a sink housing estate as a single household.I don't know what a sink estate is but it sounded like you were saying the entire lower working class was being treated like a household, not just one sink estate.

[Art]

I don't know what a sink estate is but it sounded like you were saying the entire lower working class was being treated like a household, not just one sink estate.A sink estate is a British council housing estate characterised by high levels of economic and social deprivation. Many are no-go areas for the authorities and the children are practically feral hunting in packs.