Texas Polygamist Raid: Unjustified Persecution?

[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

 

[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=rss

Chains 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 .

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 .

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 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 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 [POST=1680559]said there[/POST] 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 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! ) 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".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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 doesn't 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, that's 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.