Stolen Children Removed Illegally

[Drew1776]

Just saw this

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_...ygamist_retreat

What wonderful news. Anyone associated with this raid deserves extreme punishment.

[K-Mac]

I am not too quick to judge on either side of this case. When the men from the church were interviewed on TV, they sounded far less than innocent to me, by their own admissions, and I've heard conflicting reports about the evidence the state may or may not have. And who's to say you can trust the court system with it? One court says there are problems, one doesn't. We all complain about the courts all of the time, including the highest court in the land, so how do we know to trust the judgment of this court over the other? I think the press really fudged the facts on this sensational story to get ratings and the state was in a damned if it does, damned if it doesn't kinda situation. Not to mention that the whole thing started with what has turned out to be a bogus phone call reporting sexual abuse to the police. I have no idea where truth and justice lies in this case and I'm not sure any of us have heard all the facts or been made aware of all the evidence, if any. Based on what I have seen, it sounds like both church members and the state are guilty to me.

Edited May 22, 2008 by K-Mac

[DavidOdden]

I am not too quick to judge on either side of this case.

The point is that the law does not permit the unilateral forceable removal of children without a court order, except in case of immediate danger, which did not exist. The question is not whether there were "problems", the question is whether such an action without objective legal review is proper, and of course it was not.

[K-Mac]

So if a 16 year old girl calls police and says she's being sexually abused, the police go to her home (in this case, a compound where many families share living quarters) and find evidence that underage girls are indeed married to adult men, the police should just walk away? If such a thing were occurring, I would see that as grounds for immediate removal. Why leave her in the home another night to suffer sexual abuse?

Also, do you really think that the officers/authorities (many of which have children at home) on the scene were really so callaused to just start ripping kids from their parents without any evidence? I mean, most police officers I know or talk to are better people than that. Sure, there are bad apples in ever bunch, but c'mon.

Edited May 22, 2008 by K-Mac

[DavidOdden]

So if a 16 year old girl calls police and says she's being sexually abused, the police go to her home (in this case, a compound where many families share living quarters) and find evidence that underage girls are indeed married to adult men, the police should just walk away?

This is a purely emotional argument. The use of force is supposed to be under the objective control of law. If there clearly is immediate danger, the law allows immediate action. If there is no clear evidence of immediate danger, the matter is supposed to be dealt with according to proper legal procedures, and not by armed social workers.

[K-Mac]

I fail to see how that's an emotional argument, but anyway, if there is evidence of underage children being married to adults, my question still stands; should the police not have removed the children immediately? Is that not an "immediate threat"?

[DavidOdden]

I fail to see how that's an emotional argument, but anyway, if there is evidence of underage children being married to adults, my question still stands; should the police not have removed the children immediately? Is that not an "immediate threat"?

No, because they removed all children, regardless of marriage or evidence.

[K-Mac]

If you are correct in your assessment that there was no evidence, I would agree with that. But if there was any evidence that a child was being abused, and you've got a bunch of families in a shared living space, I think it would be irresponsible to not remove all children under that roof.

And again, I'm not saying the authorities are completely innocent here. I feel that both sides are guilty of rights violations, but since it's nearly impossible for anyone outside of the investigation to know exactly what is going on and so much conflicting evidence has been put out in the press, I think it's ignorant to assume that the authorities just made it all up.

[sanjavalen]

Dallas Morning News has more today.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin said Thursday that the state failed to show the youngsters were in any immediate danger, the only grounds under Texas law for taking children from their parents without court action.

I agree with Kelly that with all the conflicting stories put up, it would have been prudent to wait until something a little clearer came out. I certainly found it incredulous that the State had, in such a short time, somehow found that 440+ children were in immediate danger of physical harm and/or sexual abuse. But I wanted to wait until something more came out - this seems to settle the issue pretty quickly.

My honest guess is that the investigators found out how creepy that whole place was and seized on any excuse they could to get those kids away from that awful place. That is something I can certainly sympathize with and I am not completely happy that the kids are shortly to be back in a crazy fundamentalist brainwashing compound. However, as long as the kids are not being physically abused in some manner, then the state cannot justly take any action.

It IS tempting to just lump the whole group together as some undifferentiated "crazies" mass, and in dealing with them that would likely save you a whole lot of time since I'd put money on all of them being boring, irrational human beings. However, in fact they are all individuals, and individuals have rights of due process.

IF the state establishes at some point that the cult leadership officially endorsed and promoted child sexual abuse, those leaders ought to be held accountable for that. In addition, anyone who did that in the compound - regardless of whether or not it was encouraged - should be arrested and put in jail for their crimes.

In conclusion and as a reminder that "the principled is the practical," after the state took 440+ kids away from every family in the compound, we can say goodbye to any chance of the people in there cooperating and ever finding out if someone has actually been abused. If you thought they were being uncooperative before, they will be ten times as uncooperative now.

Good job, CPS.

Edit:

So if a 16 year old girl calls police and says she's being sexually abused, the police go to her home (in this case, a compound where many families share living quarters) and find evidence that underage girls are indeed married to adult men, the police should just walk away? If such a thing were occurring, I would see that as grounds for immediate removal. Why leave her in the home another night to suffer sexual abuse?

This argument isn't an emotional argument at all, David. It's 100% true. If a bunch of people are voluntarily living in the same quarters as someone who you have evidence (which you can present to the court) of sexually abusing children generally, that would be grounds for immediate removal of all the kids living in the same home as the person who you are investigating.

The problem is threefold:

1) Not every family lived in the same place. I'm not even sure if they had general quarters.

2) The form of sexual abuse that seems to be accused here is marriage of underage children (and, presumably, sexual abuse that follows.) This is a very specific form of abuse that would justify only the removal of the "spouse."

3) Obviously, according to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin, no such evidence - apparently for ANY of the kids seized - was ever taken.

As another point, it wasn't the cops who made the call to seize the kids, it is Child Protective Services, who in the few times I've ever dealt with them have been universally irrational, crusading idiots. Remember the guy who got his kid taken away for accidentally serving him an alcoholic beverage? Same deal.

Edited May 23, 2008 by sanjavalen