News Texas Polygamist Raid: Unjustified Persecution?

[CaptainQuasar]

Okay, is anyone else starting to look askance at this 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.

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 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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

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 otherwise

The 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 referred 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 worker

so 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 referred 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 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.

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?

 

[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.

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?

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.

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

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."

(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."

(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 [POST=1680559]said there[/POST] 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 referred 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 referred 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