I really don’t know where I stand . . . I support the right of adults to enter into whatever kind of conensual relationship they want to enter into; and I support the right of adults to choose for themselves the religion they would like to practice; but I really, really hate the idea of underage girls being forced into marriage, and underage boys being forced to leave their families and their communities.
I think if I was put in charge of this whole sorry mess, I would want greater transparency from the FLDS, more interaction with the outside world, and the following guarantees: 1. Nobody is to be forced into a marriage; 2. Nobody is to be forced to stay in the community or to leave it; 3. No marriages - spiritual or otherwise - will take place unless all parties are legally adults. (And yes, I realise that will mean a change in state law, but I’m fine with that.)
Before you tell me that none of that would work, remember, I’m in charge of this whole sorry mess, so this is clearly a fantasy world and normal rules need not apply.
I vote for removal of the children AND their mothers from the FLDS ranch. Why? Because I believe that polygamy is wrong -both legally and morally. Get those women into a battered women’s shelter and their kids to school, and a doctor, and therapy.
Just because my (our) ancestors practiced polygamy doesn’t make it right.
I chose other. They should be handled on a case by case basis. I haven’t seen the evidence, and that leaves me concerned with either choice. I have concerns that we could be sending kids into bad situations.
It seems like the goal of cps is to reunite families and I’ve certainly read of cases that seemed much worse where they put families back together. I don’t like that, but it seems to happen all the time.
The real kicker is that the kids will most likely go back and be worse off than before. They didn’t trust the government before, ummm… well I don’t think this helped.
The kids have just been through major trauma (even abused kids want their moms) and most likely many of these kids weren’t abused.
I don’t know the answers, but it does make me sad.
“I believe that having children out of wedlock is morally wrong. Therefore, I think we should have mandatory birth control for all unwed women.”
If you can’t apply your reasoning to something similar which you disagree with, then it is probably faulty reasoning. I’m just saying . . . .
You certainly wouldn’t like it if someone came into your personal life and told you that you couldn’t make your own decisions about how, whom, and when to marry or indulge in sex. Underage marriage is one thing to deal with, polygamy is another. Let’s not get our wires crossed, here. We can possibly dictate against underage marriage under the umbrella of saying a person is not competent to make decisions when they are so young. We really don’t have the right to say that adult women cannot make the decision to participate in polygamous marriages without also applying that reasoning to a whole plethora of other moral issues - such as out-of-wedlock-children and gay marriage.
I believe that the women in the FLDS church have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that giving their children back to them won’t stop the underage marriages, etc. They should start receiving some major therapy/help before they are allowed custody again.
Having lived near, and interacted with, the FLDS community, I am still puzzled why the children and women are being separated and the media seems to tell us nothing about whether or not Texas is looking into the men.
I loathe polygamy, but if it is a life that someone chooses, so be it. What concerns me is the difficulty of getting out of that life.
But you can’t tell me taking a small child from his/her mother to languish in the state foster care system is going to do any more good. They’re so sheltered from the outside world, just going into that world (even if they’ get into a decent foster program) is going to send the kids into shock.
It makes my heart hurt. There are no easy answers, even as an armchair critic, and it makes me sad.
I think children in the FLDS culture are being raised to break the law–they are raised to participate in polygamy, which is illegal, and the men are raised to believe it is alright to have sex with (or force sex upon) underage girls, as long as they are “married” in the eyes of their church. Female children are raised to believe that as soon as their bodies are capable of having children, they are ready to be married–and they should expect to be married, they should and must submit themselves to their husbands, and if they are unwilling to submit themselves to their husbands they can expect their husbands to rape and beat them. They are told that the outside world is evil and all people in the outside world are evil. They are told that if they leave the compound, they will be forced to cut off their hair, wear immodest clothing, and have sex. Raising children with such beliefs certainly qualifies as deeply emotionally abusive and disfiguring to the psyche of these children. No doubt their mothers believe their church doctrines deeply–what other choice do they have? But those same doctrines are damaging to the lives of their children and create a dangerous environment in which to raise children. Foster care isn’t fun and can be dangerous at times, but I’d certainly take it over this alternative.
Is anyone else a bit tired of the “polygamy is illegal” argument in a cultural environment where a) extra/pre-marital sex is extremely common and not prosecuted and b) everyone agrees that none of the FLDS in question were legally married to additional (if any) spouses?
Return the overwhelming majority of the children to their parents. The state should have ridiculously high hurdles to get over to take kids away, let alone to keep them — I’m not convinced the original removal was proper, but there’s no solid reason to continue now that it’s abundantly clear there’s no immediate physical risk to most of the children. I’m not convinced anyone’s at serious risk of the kind of abuse that warrants putting anyone in jail, even if some of the things going on at that ranch are icky and make me uncomfortable. Heck, half of what goes on in the US is icky and makes me uncomfortable — Style and MTV and Spike and Comedy Central have devoted most of their original programming hours to promoting it.
I also think this “their beliefs are dangerous” stuff to be beyond disturbing. What would we all say if the state had taken Martin Luther King Junior’s kids away from him because he was teaching them to break the law and live in a way that society didn’t approve of? Or is freedom only okay if it produces a result we approve of?
Hmmm should those children be returned to their parents??? They were taken away on the basis of a crank call from Colorado Springs. If there were other reasons (not rumours) that justified this intervention for the “safety and well being” of the children than why cause so much trauma by not having a plan before they removed the children.
I find the entire situation appalling. By the rationale that a crank phone call can have children removed from their homes I think all Texans need to be warry. How many 16 year olds across Texas, that are not FLDS have given birth?
I don’t want any children abused nor any women to live in abusive relationships but disagreeing with how some one else lives doesn’t necessarily constitute abuse
I think this is a legal “flexing of muscles” over the FLDS compound.
They are told that if they leave the compound, they will be forced to cut off their hair, wear immodest clothing, and have sex.
I’m not picking on you AYW. Assuming this is true, I just want to point out the irony here. If the FLDS leave the compound, they think they will be forced to have sex. But, if the teenage girls stay, they will be forced to have sex. Either way, from the perspective of the girls, it must look pretty hopeless in terms of their own decision-making ability.
Lizzy, as a Texan, I am wary. I know of at least two instances when CPS took children away on false accusations. In one case, the family still does not have their children back (one was a baby when she was taken) despite evidence that the accuser was lying. It takes “time” and lots of money to go through the courts to get children back.
I’m not defending polygamy or the abuses that do happen. But, I do find it scary that CPS could go in and take all these children and keep them based on a false allegation and assumptions. I hope they have ample evidence of abuse. Otherwise, I see this as a gross abuse of power.
I think they should leave the ranch and that way of life because from what we have learned there is evidence of sexual abuse as an element of their culture.
The kids do need to be removed from the abusive environment.
From what we have learned from those that have escaped poligamy is that is an abusive manipulative culture which children have no choice and women are virtually owned by men.
To return women and children to that environment would be negligent.
I’m neither a feminist, a Mormon, nor a housewife, so I’m truly a nosy outsider. But I think nearly all these kids should be allowed to go home. Out of 437 kids (they found 21 more yesterday), 5 girls between 16-19 were pregnant, but they’re of legally marriageable age in Texas with parental consent.
IMO the five underage girls who are pregnant or have young children should be DNA tested and if the father is substantially older, the correct charge is statutory rape. (Not for all, of course: One of the ad litem attorneys in the case told me at least one of the five is a seventeen year old whose husband is also 17.)
Not only is the “their beliefs are dangerous” stuff disturbing, quite a few of the beliefs cited by the CPS investigator in court would apply to many monogamous Mormon women. I like and agree with the analogy to Dr. King’s “dangerous” ideas.
Finally, I doubt prosecutors will pursue polygamy charges (actually “bigamy” under Texas statutes) because hardly anyone thinks the SCOTUS ruling from the 1890s that affirmed the constitutionality of polygamy bans will stand up post-Lawrence v. Texas. I’m sure our conservative Texas governor would not like to be the fellow on whose watch bungling enforcement led to legalizing homosexuality AND polygamy.
I’m really glad to have found yall’s site, btw, and am glad you’re discussing this.
Sarah - since you’re tired of the “polygamy is illegal” argument, do you think the laws against bigamy should be repealed? If you do, then you should organize a petition and write to your state legislature and encourage them to repeal the statute. Or you could find a sympathetic polygamous family and try suing the state for violating their constitutional rights. Or, since you bring up Martin Luther King, Jr.’s example, you could organize peaceful protests against the bigamy laws.
The comparison of the FLDS and the civil rights movement is inapposite, however, because the civil rights movement focused on freeing individuals from oppressive, racist laws and traditions. The FLDS leaders are isolating young girls and using their religion to persuade the young girls to having sex at an early age. The civil rights of the FLDS do not extend to abusing women and children, and are a far cry from Martin Luther King, Jr. the heros of the civil rights movement.
gritsforbreakfast - thanks for stopping by! I’ve enjoyed reading your commentary on this issue.
I agree with you that the children should be returned to their mothers while the allegations of abuse are investigated. And I hope the FLDS have retained counsel to file suit against the state of Texas to hold it accountable for any illegal actions committed during the raid and while the children remain in state custody.
If I had to make a bet, I’d say SCOTUS would deny cert and avoid ruling on the constitutionality of state bigamy statutes, however. The sodomy laws at issue in Lawrence v. Texas are distinguishable from bigamy laws because homosexual sex is purely private conduct. The majority opinon in Lawrence specifically carved out “public conduct”, i.e., marriage, from its holding, and so I don’t think Lawrence does the work the polygamous plaintiffs need it to do.
Two years ago, the Utah Supreme Court dealt with a Lawrence based challenge to its bigamy laws in State v. Holm and found Lawrence unavailing to vindicate the polygamist petitioner’s claim that he was engaging in purely private conduct when he “spiritually married” his underage bride while legally married to his first wife. The Texas case raises very compelling issues, regardless, and I’m anxious to see how the courts will address them.
I think all the children should be returned and each case looked at one by one. When abuse is found it should be punished. I think even people we don’t like and don’t agree with deserve due process and justice. There is too much propaganda including false and misleading stories going around to be able to have any idea what the truth actually is.
These kinds of tactics by the state of Texas are reminiscent of the middle ages before we won our civil rights.
I’m astounded that Judge Walther didn’t categorically allow nursing mothers to stay with their young children. Does the judge not understand the biological effects of separating a mother from her breastfeeding child?
The problem with letting the kids go back to their mothers if thier mothers leave the compound is that those women have no real skills to help them survive the outside world. No formal education, no high school diploma, no job skills… And lots and lots of babies. So if you throw them out there with 3-8 kids, very young, and no way to get a job… what happens?
If underage pregnancy is viewed as a sign of abuse, how do we account for these numbers (expressed in terms of underage pregnancies per thousand population):
YFZ ranch - 45 /1,000, assuming the state social workers are correct.
TX, Caucasians - 60/1000
TX, African American - 120/1000
TX, Latino - 145/1000
I can only conclude that the law is being capriciously applied. These people were singled out. Probably every high school in Texas has a teen pregnancy rate higher than the FLDS people, and the sheriff isn’t beating down the door to take them into custody and remove their younger siblings from the parents’ homes.
It makes me ill that nursing babies would be taken away from their moms.
I, too, have been wondering about the statutory rape angle. I haven’t heard much about it. I know almost nothing of legalities, but where I come from, (California), my understanding is that if a guy who is over 18 has sex (consensual or not) with a girl who is under 18 (or vice-versa), he has committed statutory rape. And that IS against the law. Are the statutory rape laws that different in Texas?
Mark IV - I’m sure you can think of some important differences between the FLDS teen pregnancies and the secular Texas teen pregnancies. While we don’t know the facts, I bet the non-FLDS girls weren’t told by their parents that God wanted them to have sex and babies when they turned 16. On the other hand, the non-FLDS girls may have been pressured into having sex by their peers, the popular media, and perhaps even their parents.
So the distinguishing characteristics between the non-FLDS teens and FLDS teens seem to be (1) the FLDS isolation from the broader community and (2) religious beliefs and practices.
While we don’t know the facts, I bet the non-FLDS girls weren’t told by their parents that God wanted them to have sex and babies when they turned 16.
And, you don’t know that all FLDS girls are told that by their mothers. This is exactly the type of hysteria perpetuated by the MSM who also think the FLDS (and some even think the LDS) have sex in their temples. The proof—well of course the fact that there are beds in the temple
So the distinguishing characteristics between the non-FLDS teens and FLDS teens seem to be (1) the FLDS isolation from the broader community and (2) religious beliefs and practices.
Certainly compelling state interests to kidnap all the children and hold them at gunpoint while coercing them to testify against their parents.
Guy - there is much to speculate about here. As we heard in the interview with the FLDS men yesterday on CBS, many of the FLDS adherents apparently were unaware of the laws against marrying young girls. Certainly everyone is interested in returning the children to their homes as quickly and as safely as possible.
You’re right, of course. There certainly are differences. My question is: which environment is actually worse for young women of that age? It just isn’t obvious to me that the young women at YFZ are worse off than their peers, some of whom experience underage pregnancy at 400% of the rate of the FLDS. So the approach the authorities took seems capricious to me, that’s all.
ECS, perhaps the difference between this case and Holm is that all those found pregnant or with children in Texas were all of legally marriageable age, not “underage.” In Texas it’s legal to wed at 16 with a parent’s consent. In any event, I’ve heard third hand that at least one reason they’re going after statutory rape (which is difficult to prove) instead of bigamy (which is easy to prove from the records they seized), is that they’re afraid of Lawrence.
And regarding your last exchange with Guy, for the record, I’m a politically active adult and before this came up I was also unaware of the change in the marriage age! On the other hand, the law wasn’t created explicitly to target me, as it was FLDS. (The bill author brags about it.) Mark is right that the plain language of the law would apply to thousands of other Texas girls, and that FLDS was singled out because of their beliefs. That’s precisely the case made by the CPS investigator in court.
I wish I thought it were true, ECS, that “everyone is interested in returning the children to their homes as quickly and as safely as possible.” I fear that’s not what Texas CPS has in mind at all. Instead they’re aiming for Short Creek II.
As we heard in the interview with the FLDS men yesterday on CBS, many of the FLDS adherents apparently were unaware of the laws against marrying young girls.
This is an interesting aspect of this whole debacle. The law, when the FLDS came to Texas was that minors were allowed to be married at 14 with parental consent. Texas legislators specifically targeted the FLDS community by passing new legislation in 2005, raising that age to 16. See Texas Family Law Code § 2.102
So, before the FLDS came to town, it was just fine with the Texas legislature than young women could be married at 14. But, if you belong to an unpopular, maligned religious group–well the rest is history as they say.
I think we have a difference of opinion as to whether a 14 year old girl (or a 16 year old girl, for that matter) can consent to marriage and sex. With or without approval from their parents.
With respect to Holm - it’s true that the second wife was underage at the time of her marriage to Holm, but the petitioner’s Lawrence-based arguments and the court’s response are applicable to the Texas case.
I think we have a difference of opinion as to whether a 14 year old girl (or a 16 year old girl, for that matter) can consent to marriage and sex. With or without approval from their parents.
I think we have a difference of opinion about whether it is OK for Texas to target a specific group based on religious belief, confiscate their children, and disregard its own due process requirements under the law. I’ve never offered my opinion on whether a 14 year old or 16 year old girl can or should consent to marriage.
ECS,
It’s worth noting that, in my progressive state of New York, it’s legal for a 14-year-old to marry (with, of course, both parents’ consent and the consent of a family court or trial court judge). Like Guy says, that’s not to say it’s right (I’d argue strongly, albeit slightly tongue-in-cheek, that 21 is still too young to marry; by grad school a person may be ready). But the fact remains that Texas changed the law, not because it was a bad law (which it was, and it remains here in NY), but to target an unpopular group.
That’s not to say that they shouldn’t have raised the age of consent. But, like Guy says, whether or not a 14- or 16-year-old can, in fact, consent, in New York and Texas, respectively, they can legally. (And maybe–probably–the age should be raised in both places, but I don’t have the background to make an argument for why, besides the ick factor.)
Heather and others,
I don’t know why you think that these women have no skills and are uneducated. Many of them do, in fact, have college degrees. They could very well support themselves.
I picked “other”. I think that as long as the mothers and fathers are able to demonstrate that they are capable of protecting their children, they should get them back. I am extremely anti polygamy and I think the FLDS is a cult and there is nothing healthy about a cult. So some parents may not be able to get their children back if they fail to demonstrate that they have protected their kids and they are not capable of protecting them in the future.
I, too, am appalled an horrified at how much power cps has. Maybe in this instance a lot of it was justified. But in any instance, it should serve as a frightening reminder that based on ANY allegation (and this one with the FLDS was based on a hoax), cps can take your kids away from you and good luck trying to get them back. Eventually you most likely will but after severe emotional trauma to the children, untold heartache to the parents and extended families, thousands of dollars in legal fees and months (if not years) of time trying to get them back. It flies in the face of “innocent until proven guilty” and “due process”. I don’t even understand how that power is Constitutional. I understand protecting kids and there are those severe circumstances where kids are in imminent danger. But cps gets to take them first before anything else is even run through the courts. No “probable cause” is even necessary. Bit of a thread jack here. Sorry.
I love it when personal interests collide. Lets just say that many of the Mormon “middle road” seem to be in line with Church headquarters on this issue: Wierd polygamists are brainwashing their children and deserve neither the rights or privileges that “normal” citizens enjoy. Physical and sexual abuse should be prosecuted where ever it is in the world. That should go without saying. Defining what is a religion and what is a brainwashing cult is a little harder do. I would expect LDS who teach their kids of modern prophets and golden plates to be a little more sympathetic.
Lulubelle,
Not a thread jack at all IMO. I think you’re right on point.
Comment by cj douglass — April 22, 2008 @ 10:01 am
cj douglass, can you tell me where you got the information about what Church headquarters thinks about this issue? Specifically, “Weird polygamists are brainwashing their children and deserve neither the rights or privileges that “normal” citizens enjoy”
I ask because I’ve been looking for commentary from Church headquarters and have found very very little.
As usual, I was over simplifying. I haven’t heard what Church headquarters has to say about this is particular incident - I was taking my cues from the somewhat unsympathetic tone I’ve heard in the past. Please excuse the hyperbole.
Comment by cj douglass — April 22, 2008 @ 10:11 am
There is a difference between the 16 year old who wants to marry her 17 year old boy friend and gets parental consent and the girl who is forced by her parents into a relationship that IS NOT LEGAL marriage to an older man. One is legal marriage and the other is statutory rape with the parents as accomplices. So, the fact that the girls are over the legal age to marry is a moot point. They are not married. They are just having sex with an older man, which is statutory rape. The fact that the parents know and approve, makes them accomplices. If these men were divorcing their first wife to really marry the girl, it might be legal marriage. But it is legally statutory rape, and the girl is too young to make the decision to marry or not, which is why parents are needed to give consent. These laws were written for teens who fall in lust and have sex and want to marry. The laws on statutory rape were written to protect young women too young to make the choice on thier own from older men who are acting as predators. Is the best interest of the girl the consideration when her parents turn her over to an older man to marry? Are her wishes really respected and does she have the legal protection of marriage? Then it is statutory rape and should be prosecuted.
I voted “other” because I think the children should be returned and then MONITORED very closely to make sure that the statutory rape problem is not covered up and hidden–again. What has happened in these closed communities is that the abuse is kept hidden and authorities are not allowed in to interview the children and prevent statutory rape from becoming “just between consenting adults.” These girls are not adults and they are not married to the man who is having sex with them.
The community also needs to be monitored so that they are getting the education required by law. The fact that these women don’t have even a highschool degree says that the “home schooling” is not being monitored and is not meeting the standards that parents who home school their children are held to. Another violation that needs constant monitoring.
Then there are the “lost boys.” The parents need to be prosecuted for neglect and abandonment when they turn 12-14 year old boys out without proper education. This is illegal and yet they can’t prosecute the parents because they cant’ FIND the parents because they can’t get into the community to do so.
People here and in the other bolgs seem to be trying to simplify things down to polygamy OR child abuse and so we get off into discussions about “well, it is legal for 16 year olds to marry in Texas. This is not marriage. It is statutory rape.
All of the children are in danger because ALL of the children are at risk for being sent away (abandoned in a big city with no resources) or having their parents set up a statutory rape situation for them. All of the children are “at risk” even if they have not already been abused.
ALL of the children of school age are suffering from educational neglect. There is no monitoring of the education they are recieving and all states require that home schooled children be tested with standardised tests. This is not happening, so there is neglect of all of the school age children.
Should the state wait and pull them out at 12?? because that seems to be the age at which one form of abuse or another is common. But their schooling is being neglected now and that is also illegal.
No, I think the only solution is to force the community to open up to outside intervention and make sure that the education the children gets taken care of properly, that all minors who want to marry, are legally married or not having sex with older men and that the teen boys are not abandoned. We need records of the boys and who the parents are so they can be returned and the parents prosecuted for the abandonment.
And athe DNA testing is going to show that many of those children are not with their parents anyway. The children were actually taken away from their parents and taken to the compound to be raised there so they would not have the “corrupting influence” of the outside world as is happening in Utah where they are being forced to open up to authorities a little.
Sam B - thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more specific. I have serious doubts that young girls who have been raised in the FLDS community are able to freely give their consent to get married.
alas- although I agree with you points, I have to say that being “at-risk” is not enough to take a child away from his/her home. I work with a whole school if “at-risk” kids and unfortunately we can’t take them away from their homes just because of what we think might happen or even probably will happen.
Alas, you bring up some good points. I think my problem with calling the FLDS’s beliefs religion (and saying that they care so much about family) is that they don’t actually support families. They send their sons away to be abandoned, and if an adult tries to leave, their spouse and children are “reassigned”. That is putting the “religion” above their families. In the LDS church, we don’t do that. We are not encouraged to leave a spouse who is not a member or who has decided to become less-active.
The difference is in the leadership. I think this is more about power and control than religious beliefs. “Religion” is used to keep the women in line (and men - I read a story about a man whose wife and children were reassigned), but coercion and threats are probably even more effective. If I knew that my children would be taken from me and given to another woman, would I leave? I don’t know. If I did, I would make sure I had a way to take my kids with me.
I think that taking the children away from their mothers and putting them in foster care is fulfilling the mothers’ worst fears. Where are the men? Arrest them and give the children back to their mothers. The problem is that excluding the possible child rape, there really aren’t any other charges that would hold up in court. Perhaps they took all the children as a way to make sure all the parents stick around. But still, I think the damage being done to young children (particularly nursing babies and toddlers) is worse than allowing the young children to stay with their mothers and be monitored. This is all IMO, of course.
#47 - I am not sure if you’ve read Flora or Carolyn Jessop’s accounts - or heard of their experiences. If some of the abuse that they allege is true - my heart aches for everyone involved.
And I can’t imagine a prophet allegedly removing a child from a home to live with other parents - and everyone being okay with that. Or a woman feeling like she has no choices because her husband or the prophet could take away her children at any point and give them to another woman. Or a 14 year old boy that would be abandoned to survive on his own by the community. I’ve read other allegations that I won’t post here.
From the original post, I too answered other. I think we need more information. I honestly don’t think we know everything yet. I’ve read horrible accounts of what could have been going on - and I’m not sure what or who to believe at this point.
I want to say that it’s not right that children (including my children) could be taken away from me and their father at any time for any reason. But there are specific cases where a child is not safe in their home - and that’s why those cps laws exist. How many people have been abused and the abuse ignored and swept under the rug? And, how many have been accused of abuse where none happened?
The whole system doesn’t really work - but I haven’t seen a better answer - one protecting parents and children.
Was the original raid legal? And now, how does everyone pick up the pieces?
And most of all, for me, I wish every case that was as murky as this one had the legal defenses that this one does (where abuse is alleged, children are removed, etc.). I hope justice is done.
Alas, you don’t seem to know Texas laws about homeschooling. The FLDS school their children in a private school and they followed all state laws regarding their education of their children.
They actually went beyond legal requirements.
I do not know where you get the information that none of the women have job skills or diplomas. While I am sure that is true for some of them, we have the testimony in court from one of them that she has an EMT license which she studied for and pursued over her husband’s objections (clearly, she is not as oppressed as CPS is telling us all the women are).
Carolyn Jessop, who fled the group and was married to the man who runs the ranch now went to college when she was 18 (while married to Jessop) and got her degree in education and worked as a teacher while still in the FLDS community.
When a reporter was patronizingly interviewing one of the FLDS women he condescendingly asked her if she’d ever even heard of some historical event (I forget which one, now, but it might have been the holocaust). She told him of course she knew what it was, and surprised him by telling him she had a college degree.
We have five girls in this community who are teens and have children or are pregnant. Every one of them is over 16- that’s old enough to get their own birth control pills in town, or to choose an abortion so clearly the state thinks that’s old enough to make sexual decisions.
We don’t yet know how old the men involved are- and of course, if they are too old, they should be charged with statutory rape. If they are 17, 19, 21 then….?
As for the ‘lost boys,’ not even the state of Texas has claimed that any members of this community have abandoned their boys, so can we please not kidnap their children on the basis of what some other FLDS people in another state did?
Is it too much to ask that whether or not they lose their kids be based on what they have actually done? At this point the only thing that has been proven is that CPS has been wrong when they accused the women of lying about their ages, wrong when they insisted their ‘Sarah’ existed and was on the ranch, and was wrong about girls as young as 13 being pregnant. They have FIVE girls between the ages of 16 and 19 who are pregnant or have children and who have had their medical records submitted as part of CPS’ case.
ECS,
I think that I agree with you on that–although, in all honesty, I don’t think any 14- or 16-year-old (with, I’m sure, some prodigious exception somewhere) in the United States is able to give such consent. Maybe FLDS girls are even less able–I just don’t have any way to know that.
Wow, didn’t expect to be in the least popular demographic! I think that, absent substantial evidence of abuse, the kids should be returned to the ranch with counseling
Of course, the required “substantial evidence of abuse” is going to vary depending on the person with whom you speak. I’m very wary of looking at general American culture (as if there really were such a thing, sigh generalization sigh) as the norm by which all things good and right should be measured. But I’ll go with this one: any sort of non-consensual sexual activity on a systemic level would lend my support to non-return policies. Absent such evidence of systemic abuse, Individual case should be adjudicated individually since painting all FLDS people with the same brush smacks of myopic arrogance and so far as I can tell from my decidedly non-lawyerly position, seriously mess with the law.
I don’t think required bedtimes of 7:30 and wake-up of 4:30 inherently constitutes abuse, nor the absence of trampolines and bicycles. In the popular media there’s been much ado about the “lack of childhood” the kids experience because of they have lots of chores and few toys. I prefer my cultural notions of childhood rather ardently, but can’t condone imposing them on others so far as sleep and chores go–at least (sigh again) to a limit.
I really do not envy those legal minds who have to figure out which of our cultural values to enshrine and enforce in law, nor the social workers who have to navigate the sticky road between competing cultures. Yuck.
Right now the children are being punished, shouldn’t the people the state believes are engaged in criminal activity be punished? It seems so backwards.
Absent such evidence of systemic abuse, Individual case should be adjudicated individually since painting all FLDS people with the same brush smacks of myopic arrogance and so far as I can tell from my decidedly non-lawyerly position, seriously mess with the law.
I don’t think required bedtimes of 7:30 and wake-up of 4:30 inherently constitutes abuse, nor the absence of trampolines and bicycles.
Janet - AMEN to that. I absolutely agree with you.
This is an article I posted on my blog yesterday. It gave me something to think about.
Before You Condemn Polygamy, Realize This
by Polly Hammon
Guest Editorial, 3rd March 2005, St. George Spectrum
Before you ask me to give up my lifestyle, show me that yours works. Show me that a monogamist marriage is sacred, that it works for at least a lifetime. Currently, more than 60 percent don’t. Show me children who don’t fret and worry about “if” and “when” their family will be torn apart.
Show me the strength and support of families. Show me homes filled with the wisdom of the aged, not institutions littered with the lonely and the heartbroken, or show me hallways of hospitals lined with family and friends to celebrate glad tidings or to walk with sorrows. Show me places of safety where I can educate my children, not schoolyards of the alienated and the abandoned. Show me children raised in the stability of family, not the sterility of daycare.
Show me heroes made of sterner stuff than what it takes to dunk a basketball or throw a touchdown. Show me the nightly news without a rundown on the latest from a society obsessed with who is cheating on whom or a marriage commitment that is measured in hours.
Show me women who are not yearning after an illusion created by Hollywood - who are not anxious about the natural progression of life, who don’t fear that each change or wrinkle is a marker of possible abandonment. Show me a society so happy with its choices and fulfilled from living those choices that it hasn’t medicated itself for depression and struggles with addiction.
Show me minds honed by principle and hearts enlarged by love. Show me that your society is willing to love more that its own - that children are not referred to as “stepchildren” or “accidents.” Show me children who are loved and nurtured from the moment of conception, instead of 40 million choices of murder.
Show me a society where motherhood is honored and a woman does not have do what it takes to be “picked” by a male more concerned with the façade of her face than the content of her character. Show me a society that does not abandon its daughters to a singles’ ward with the futile admonition of “Be patient and fill your lives with other things.”
Show me a society where religion provides an unalterable standard and Truth is not for sale or bartered for political expediency - where the words and life of the Savior and other wise men are not just glib recitations but the work of a life eager for the changes and growth wrought by their words upon the soul. Show me a religion that appeals to my intellect and provides the answers to the haunting questions of humanity:
Why am I here? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Show me a society that is willing to allow people the liberties and inalienable rights endowed by our Creator to worship Him at the dictates of our conscience - my conscience sees the works of Fathers Abraham, Jacob, and Moses -rather than a society that commands in the place of our freedoms the Romans’ mandate of monogamy. Contrary to the efforts of some individuals today, neither man nor woman converts a belief at the sword point of compulsion.
Show me these things so that I may worry less about you and that I may know you have some of the joy I’ve known. As for the principles I strive to live by, I love how the living of them invites me to live on a higher plane. If I were to abandon them, how would I greet Mother Sarah or Father Abraham, the Prophet Joseph Smith and countless others? How can I betray my God?
I don’t have television so most of my information about the FLDS situation in TX is from CNN.com. I thought women with children under 5 were still allowed to stay with their children. If the state of TX has removed breastfeeding babies and young preschoolers from their mothers it seems to me that TX is perpetrating more “actual” abuse on this age group than the FLDS have been accused of. How can this happen? My heart aches for all involved. No matter how I personally feel about the situation at the YFZ Ranch (completely sickening, immoral, degrading and dangerous are just a few of my gut reactions) it seems to me that TX has recklessly disregarded due process and has made a bad situation worse.
Please someone tell me the information about mothers and babies being separated is inaccurate.
While you bring up some very good points, do you really believe that the YFZ cult (yes, by definition, it falls under “cult”) offers its believers a real choice? How many of them really have a choice when they know no differently, where they are shut off from the world, where they are taught from birth that women are little more than vessels to bring babies while men can treat women and children any way they wish because they are inspired by God to do so? Wow, that is frightening.
Someone asked where I got my information on the FLDS “religion.” A friend of mine married a young man from one of the more fundamentalist Mormon groups (there are a few around here–and some of the young men who are kicked out come up here). I didn’t aske if it was FLDS in particular, but it was a very fundamentalist group. I also have an uncle (no longer Mormon) who has studied the polygamist Mormon groups very deeply, as has my father. Most of my information comes from reading and watching interviews with Carolyn Jessop and others who have escaped from the FLDS cult.
On a few occasions when I was a kid, I almost went into foster care. The prospect was scary and I didn’t want to leave my friends and familiar surroundings, but I realize now that it would have been much, much better for me if I had. I hear a lot of you saying CPS has too much power, but they are chronically understaffed and underfunded and there is so much they are not allowed to do even if they see abuse going on in front of their own eyes.
I am truly horrified. I hope and pray something can be worked out for the littlest ones, soon. TX should be held accountable for the trauma experienced by ones so young caused by separating them from their mothers. What danger are the children under 5 in?
The big problem we have is that the last time this was tried, the vast majority returned, though many were seriously traumatized. It is a mess, one that leaves me badly conflicted.
At present, the pain is so intense when I listen to people who are involved (ad litems). My heart aches. I’m conflicted. I wish the law were being followed.
The law is being followed. Children can be removed from an environment on the suspicion that the environment is unsafe. It takes a lot more to KEEP the children out of that environment, but not a lot to initially remove them.
I can see the pros and cons of that (#66). On the one hand, if the suspicion is correct, then it helps keep the child safe. On the other hand, if someone overreacts (I know several good parents who have had CPS called on them) or even just makes a false accusation (I know of two people within my ward boundaries this has happened to), it can put innocent parents and their children through he**. (Not sure if the real word there would send the comment into moderation)
I don’t know. In my opinion (and this is not specific to the FLDS case, but to all cases), we are better safe than sorry. It’s better to remove a child from a home for a few days while you check out any accusations and then decide whether or not to precede to put the child into foster care. I was raised in an abusive situation/ I have friends who were raised in abusive situations, but neighbors were afraid to turn our families in because our parents were “good, church-going people” or other families didn’t want to raise trouble in the community. I think leaving children in abusive situations because you are afraid of the effect on the parents/ community is an awful, hypocritical thing to do.
I live in Texas and thought y’all might be interested in seeing an email I received from one of the yahoo groups I belong too. It’s not the first one I have received although this one is the most detailed as to what will happen to the children.
Hi Everyone! My sister, _____ is the executive secretary to ________, who is the
Founder and President of Arrow Child and Family Ministries. Arrow found out today that they
will be receiving 80 -100 permament placement children from the Eldorado Compound from infants
to 11 years of age. These are children that will be placed in Arrow’s care for 1 - 2 years.
More than likely, the parental rights of their parents will adventually be terminated and they will placed
in foster homes and/or adopted out. Arrow is an excellent Christian Foster to Adopt agency. I have
met many of the staff and they are very Godly people.
I am so grateful to Arrow for being willing to take on such a responsibility of caring for these children. These
children will be in a wonderful Christian environment. They will be placed at the beautiful Arrow Retreat Center
in Porter, TX. Arrow is in need of many volunteers of short and long term commitments. The current need that
they have is getting the cabins ready for these children by next Monday. CPS will be out to inspect the Arrow
Retreat Center in Porter next Tues. and everything has to be in tip-top shape. These children are use to a very
clean invironment. (They have not been allowed to be normal children and have been made to work and clean
instead of play.) The cabins have been setting over
the winter and are in need of a good Spring cleaning. Ronna and I were out there cleaning one cabin till 9:30 tonight
and we didn’t even get have way finished. There are seven cabins that have to be cleaned. I will be working at
The Arrow Retreat Center all day on Wed., April 23rd. If there is anyone that can donote anytime this week to
help Arrow clean the facilities and help prepare for these children, please call me at (281… . I am helping coordinate this
project. (No training is needed for this volunteer task. Just wear clothing that you don’t mind getting dirty! Bring old rags
and cleaning supplies if you have them.) Teenagers are welcome to help with this project as long as they are supervised by a parent
or responsible adult. I wouldn’t advise bringing childten under the age of 12 because of the cleaning chemicals and labor involved.
Arrow will need many volunteers to do a number of tasks over the next couple of years. From doing laundry, to cleaning,
cooking, shopping, etc… (My understanding, these volunteer tasks would be at your convenience, whenever you are available.)
They are also in need of long term volunteers that would work directly with the children in 8 hour shifts. There are other
volunteer needs as well. In order to volunteer, you must attend an orientation meeting and some training is involved. To
find out when and where the orientation meetings will be held, you may contact Arrow Chld and Family Ministries at
(281… .
They are also in need of donations. I am attatching a list of items needed if you or your church family can help in any way. I know that their current needs are white twin sheet sets , (200 sets) white towels, wash clothes, hand towels and toiletry items. The list will of course change when they find out the needs of the children they will be receiving. They will need pack-n-plays, high chairs, strollers, car seats, diapers, etc. for the babies.
Right now, they are just worrying about the present needs of preparing for these children.
As far as these children’s education goes, it looks like CPS is coordinating with the University of Texas to have a charter school
on site at the retreat center. This will take place in the Fall. Therefore: Arrow will have to build several new buildings for the school.
I am helping pick-up donations and cooridinate volunteers for Arrow, so please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
More than anything, these children need a lot of prayer. Only God can heal the hurt and sort out the confusion in these children’s lives. Please pray for the staff of Arrow that God will give them strength and wisdom to care for these children. Arrow will have to hire around 75 workers to help
care for these children. Please pray that God sends them just the right people to work with these precious children.
Sorry this is so long. Thank you for taking time to read this.
Re: #71–This is the scariest damn thing I have read in a long time.
Who the hell is this “Christian” group, who made them the authority in raising someone else’s children, who decided that the kids were available for permanent placement, who died and made them God?
Here’s what I think of the ‘err on the side of caution/the children’ argument:
Over and over when you read about CPS cases unnecessarily removing children from their homes, they defend their actions (or other people do it for them) by saying, ‘We must err on the side of caution,’ or ‘on the side of safety,’ or even, most egregiously, ‘on the side of the children,’ making it sound like the children are being sent to summer camp instead of, from their point of view, kidnapped and held against their will in something called foster care.
How did we reach the point where we thought the effects of being yanked from a loving, affectionate, familiar home against your will and placed with strangers with no communication permitted with your parents were so negligible that this was ‘erring on the side of caution?’ Certainly, there are times when this is absolutely necessary. But it’s never ‘erring on the side of caution.’ It is a decision that one certain trauma is better than another possible or suspected trauma. It is sometimes the correct judgment, but so long as state officials and the public view it as a benign, unproblematic, action free of negative repercussions for the children, it will be taken far too often when it should not be.
Human beings rationalize about an extremely emotional topic. Nobody wants to see children abused, so we justify any means to stop potential abuse, even when the means we take can also be abusive and cause exactly the trauma we claim to wish to stop.
Calling it ‘erring on the side of caution’ makes us feel better about the terror we are inflicting on children in order to rescue them. And, again, sometimes that is what must happen. But we shouldn’t tell ourselves fairy tales about it to make us feel better.
I guess so long as we intone, “But it’s all about the children, and we must err on the side of the children” with enough emotional inflection, it doesn’t really matter whether what we’re doing is actually harmful to them or not. Texas cares so much about these children it’s going to abruptly disrupt the breastfeeding of nursing babies, move all the children *at least* five times within a month or so before they are done, separate them not only from their parents, but also their siblings (oh, they give lip service to keeping siblings together, but if all the boys 8 and up are going to one home, and all the children five and under to another, then they are not keeping siblings together), and refuse to offer them any education between the time they took the children and, it seems, sometime in the fall. It’s also going to change their religion, if it can- and that’s ‘erring on the side of caution.’
No, if the state were truly erring on the side of caution, it would have kept the children and their mothers in their *homes* and made the alleged adult persecutors leave. Instead, by not charging any men with any crimes, by not holding these alleged child rapists, they have permitted (even tacitly encouraged) any men who actually are guilty of raping teenagers to escape, to leave the state, to go into hiding so they can do it again- and meanwhile, the children are being traumatized.
Make no mistake- ‘erring on the side of caution,’ when it means wrenching children from all they know, is *not* the trauma free event we’d like to make it be. It is choosing one known and certain trauma over another alleged, and in this case, possibly future trauma. Again, I am not saying that is never, ever necessary. I am saying we should not pretend we are choosing one risk free, happy solution over a possible dangerous one.
And, for what it’s worth, I am not any kind of LDS, I am a conservative Christian, and I am appalled at how these children are being treated by the state.
Stephanie and Jane Scott- I have been hoping that it’s a hoax too, ever since I received it. But I have receievd at least 2 others that are similar but from different organizations in different areas.
This is the most HORRIFIC thing I have read in a very long time. How can this be legal? I have friends who work in social services (not in Texas) who have lamented over cases they have been unable to do anything about. If a parent is an alcoholic or drug addict but manages to provide just the most basic of needs (food, education lodging) then the rest is called a “lifestyle” choice. I also am not versed on Texas law related to children at risk but here the CPS does have the right to remove the children immediately with out the parents permission if they feel it is necessarily but usually a worker is dispatched to assess the situation and may remove the children using police if needed. BUT there also has to be an emergency court hearing within 24 hrs or next business day. The reasons must be presented to the judge and then a seven day period before a court hearing again.
How is Texas managing to do this with out some other legal intervention. I’m not FLDS nor do I necessarily agree with their choices but these people are being trampled over. I am so sickened that theses plans are even being entertained all based on false allegations. It would still be a case of overkill if they were to investigate the allegations in this matter but they are already aware that the allegations they based this on were falsely made.
May we all keep those families particularly the children in our prayers
Heh. I posted this very disturbing letter (#71) and two commenters suggest that FLDS mothers might wish to take note of the story of Jochebed and her baby and consider if there is anything there they might wish to emulate.
There should be no question about it. These children are being abused by their parents! How can people be so blind? This is NOT normal. You see these women walking around in uniforms robbed of their identities and their little girls walking around like tiny versions of them. It’s disturbing. There is a big difference between being a modest woman of god and being a slave trapped in a cult AND forcing your children into it is child abuse. Unless they decided to cut out the part about free agency too. This is pure brainwashing, down to the matching coiffs. I can’t even understand how people would take a neutral stance on this! Every human being in this world, regardless of age has rights. The right to choose, what to believe in. The right to be respected. These kids ARE being sexually abused. Wether we turn a blind eye to it or not. This was happening.
You see these women walking around in uniforms robbed of their identities and their little girls walking around like tiny versions of them.
On the flip side, is a little girl walking around in trampy clothing like her mother being brainwashed, or is she exercising her true identity? Statements like this scare me. In no way do I condone abuse, but I am afraid that if someone else’s definition of abuse includes teaching your children your own values, the state might come after me next. People think all sorts of crazy things about Mormons - even my own sister said she can’t believe any self-respecting woman would choose to be a Mormon when we are so “marginalized” by men. I think the abuse should be real and substantiated before taking all these babies away from their mothers and putting them in some camp. How do we know the values they would be taught there would be any better? (Rape of teenage girls excluded)
I am concerned about how you throw around the word “cult”. Cult is a word that means “a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.”
Using this word in this manner is using it as an epithet, one that I find extremely hurtful when leveled at the LDS church. One that I find disturbing when used in a context of a lack of understanding, or at least an unwillingness to understand.
Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation).
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[1
#82 Normal? What is normal? Clothing, hair, religious beliefs, the amount of chores vs. play does not justify children (esp. nursing babies) being ripped from the arms of their mothers. If there was truly abuse the children who were in imminent danger should have been the only ones removed not every child in the whole community.
Post #71 is the most frightening thing I have heard. The state of TX is inflicting so much trauma on these innocent children. It seems there could be a better way.
WOOT! Nursing babies under 12 months get to stay with their mamas, and babies 12-24 months must be placed in foster homes near their familie, not hundreds of miles away like the rest of the children.:
The judge overseeing the cases of more than 400 FLDS children in state custody said this afternoon adult mothers of infants age 12 months and under should remain with their babies in state custody.
There are 18 adult mothers with nursing babies under 12 months old, according to CPS.
I am so glad those nursing infants under 12 months can stay with their mothers. I wish the judge knew anything at all about the benefits of extended breastfeeding, and my heart aches for the little nurslings, but at least she isn’t sending them hundreds of miles away. What a pathetic situation, where we are grateful that nurslings aren’t sent hundreds of miles from their nonabusive parents when the court’s own witness has said they are not in imminent danger.
Silverrain, please tell me why you only include females in this statement…”Therefore, I think we should have mandatory birth control for all unwed women.” shoulden’t we also make the same requirement of males? They are just as responsible for conception as women are!
As far as the kids being returned, no, they should not be, they are being raised in an illegal situation and that in itsself can be concidered abuse. Much like a child who is raised in a drug dealers home, they learn what they see and continue the cycle. So break the cycle for these kids!
I know of several groups, including LDS, that are sending this email around planning to donate materials and time so I would think that #71 is not a hoax.
As much as well-meaning people think that the FLDS are brainwashed I have often used the same terminology to refer to the very people trying to help them now. I am new to Texas and within minutes of meeting my neighbors, their 12 year old son asked if I knew how to get to Heaven. When I hesitated at his boldness, he assured me that it was ok if I didn’t know, he knew and would telll me how. I then proceeded to tell him my beliefs on how to get to Heaven, then he told me his. I said, “isn’t that the same thing I said.” He was totally thrown and couldn’t go any further with the conversation. I thought wow, he’s been brainwashed and can’t even think for himself.
Drug abuse is against the law. Polygamy is against the law.
But isn’t it funny that what the state witnesses in court testified to had nothing to do with breaking the law and everything to do with belief. CPS’ objection to returning the children to their families is that they will grow up with ‘unhelpful’ beliefs, one of those unhelpful thoughts is that babies are a blessing. Another is that being a wife and mother is the most wonderful thing. I happen to believe both of those things, and I am neither FLDS or LDS. Should I lose my kids because of these ‘unhelpful’ beliefs?.
The thought police are here. Which of us will be next?
#91 - That’s a little better, but IMO, still not enough. I bet there are nursing babies over 12 months, too. I have been trying to wean my 14 month old for a month. It would be devastating to him to be taken from me. Sure, he could survive eating other food, but the emotional toll would be devastating - even if he were within a few miles so I could see him once a day. I have a 6 year old. He would be scared to death to go live in a group home. I just feel sick for these kids. My kids would all be separated from one another in three different locations in a scenario like this.
There were a few quotes from this article that bother me (pardon the sarcasm in my commentary):
“What this is, is when I take possession of a child, I take personal responsibility for that child, and I’d like to know where these children are,” said Walther this afternoon.
Well, I hope she takes responsibility for the trauma they are going through, but I don’t think she really gets it.
The judge also told Banks she wanted the children to be able to exercise their religion and have access to the clothing they desired while in foster care.
Um, isn’t the point that she doesn’t want them to exercise their religion?!? I am sure that the majority of children 5 and under (even 10 and under or older) are going to be SOOO relieved that while being apart from their mothers and siblings, they can still “exercise their religion”.
She said CPS has been stretched “beyond belief” and asked the various parties involved in the case to be patient.
“No one wants to see these children separated from their parents,” said Walther. “In a perfect world, that wouldn’t happen, but this isn’t a perfect world.”
My heart is just breaking for CPS. How sad that they are being stretched beyond belief while families are being torn apart. Please, FLDS children, be patient.
I just saw on the local news (I’m in Houston suburbs) that three dozen of the FLDS kids are coming to a shelter in my county. They were asking for donations of clothing and sheets. The shelter looked very similar to what was being described in #71, and the newscasters said the kids would be arriving in the next few days.
DeputyHeadmistress, I don’t know where the devil you get your information about CPS or about the case in TX. First off, when kids go into foster care, their parents are still allowed to see them, and in many cases, the child is returned to the parent(s) after a brief stint in foster care (depending on whether the parents got their act back together). While the child is under state care, the parents are allowed to have supervised visits with their children anywhere from a few times a month to a few times a week. Once the environment is deemed suitable for children, the children are returned to their parents’ homes and sometimes there are follow-up inspections to make sure the parents are still obeying the rules.
You also said that the children were removed simply because the state deemed FLDS beliefs unhealthy, not because the children were being raised to break the law. In the arguments of the caseworkers, they specifically stated that the children needed to be removed because they were raised to break the law by practicing polygamy. There is a culture of law-breaking in the FLDS compounds beyond polygamy–defrauding the government through false welfare claims and having children as young as thirteen and fourteen work in construction (those aren’t just “chores”). Of course incest and rape are also illegal, but nobody here seems over concerned about that.
Isn’t polygamy defined as being married to more than one person at a time? Are any of these people legally married to more than one person, or even to one person at all? Were people fudging marriage licenses and lying to justices of the peace? If not, this is cohabitation, which is endemic in regular old American society. The summer of love, anyone?
And the reason I brought up Dr. King is that we like him, despite the fact that he was breaking the law — we don’t like the FLDS, see, so instead of teaching kindergarten students to sing the FLDS equivalent of “We Shall Overcome” for the spring play and saying “isn’t it shocking that they put those dads in jail,” we say “grr, they’re breaking the law, they should never be able to see their children again, those dirty creepy cultists!!” I got to play an evil white woman who was happy to see Rosa Parks arrested, when I was in 3rd grade… funny how the lesson I learned was “just because it’s against the law doesn’t mean you get to treat people like dirt — and by the way, they might be right in the end.”
97 “they specifically stated that the children needed to be removed because they were raised to break the law by practicing polygamy”
I think that this argument has been discussed a number of times.
Under this rationale, if a parent was stopped for speeding, the cops should remove all the children in the car into state custody because their parents are teaching them how to break the law. I realize it’s a trivial example, but you’re suggesting punishing the children for the sins of their fathers. The answer is simple: collect evidence and arrest those who are committing crimes and put them through the justice system, not the children and babies.
#97 - First off, when kids go into foster care, their parents are still allowed to see them
No, not true. I know a man here in Texas who has not seen his children since they were taken - not even on their birthdays. His wife is occassionally permitted to see them - and the kids live with family! CPS is extremely restrictive.
Trevor M: I did not call the LDS church a cult. I did call the FLDS church a cult. There are numerous definitions of cult, but here’s one from Wikipedia:
Definition of ‘cult’ according to secular opposition
Secular cult opponents tend to define a “cult” as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities.[26]
While acknowledging the issue of multiple definitions of “cult”,[27] Michael Langone states that “Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership’s demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.”[28] A similar definition is given by Louis Jolyon West:
“A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.” [29]
In each, the focus tends to be on the specific tactics of conversion, the negative impact on individual members, and the difficulty in leaving once indoctrination has occurred.[30]
If the children are hundreds of miles away logistically they wont be able to see the children very often, even IF CPS permits it.
I saw a clip yesterday of the mayor and he said that the “Sarah’s” phone call gave them the excuse they needed to enter the ranch …….” My blood was boiling and I can’t remember exactly if he said to see what was going on or see how many women were there or what but that he acknowledged they were just looking for a reason explains it all to me.
#93–I have no doubt the the email is well-intentioned. But there are hundreds of well-intentioned emails going around that are hoaxes (giving Snopes a purpose in life) I would like to know if there is an original source–a website, a memo, something that makes the point that those taking these children are being told this is a permanent placement. I would not be surprised to learn this is true, but would like some good evidence of it.
Comment by prairie chuck — April 24, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
AYW–I take serious exception to your cavalier assertion that nobody here worries about rape or incest. Hyperbole makes itself useful in making all sorts of points, but to use it in the very implication that a bunch of people shrug off rape simply defies acceptable behavior. As for incest, I imagine there’s a speckly gene pool at that ranch, but unless we’re talking first cousins I believe it’s legal in TX as well as a number of other states.
If you read carefully, you will note that a number of us have stated that solid evidence (as opposed to, say, what runs in *People* magazine) of rape, statutory or otherwise, serves as fully adequate justification for removing the children and placing them elsewhere. (Reported rape certainly justifies temporary removal prior to proof as well, although Texas seems to have completely bunged their handling of scope.) Thus far I’ve read a bunch of salacious rumors and not facts. Should the rumors turn out to be true, then I’d damned well volunteer to house a cadre of the kiddos my own self. I’m no fan of a child of 16 accepting an arranged marriage proposal and then wedding with the approval of her parents (ugh ugh ugh), but under Texas law such a case would not qualify as rape unless the girl endures coercion, such as in the case which landed Warren Jeffs rightfully in prison. If we disbanded by force every community where arranged marriage of mid-age teens happens, we’d be infiltrating the Orthodox Jews, any number of refugee communities, and the Amish on a regular basis. And if you’ve lived in any American inner city, you’re probably aware that it’s not terribly uncommon for teenagers to wed in the absence of undying love there, either. (And if you find construction work unacceptable for kids under 18, you’ll also be disbanding not just the Amish but most working family farms of which I’m aware.)
I don’t like the idea of kids working that hard on a regular basis. I loathe the notion of teenagers getting married and feeling as if it is their only acceptable destiny. I’m pretty sure most people here share my feelings on the subject, seeing as how so many of them have outright expressed such loathing. Nonetheless, disgust at one set of behaviors cannot morally substitute for evidence of other more egregious ones.
AYW–I was pretty harsh. I’m sure you don’t really think we shrug our shoulders at rape. Nothing makes a rape survivor more tetchy than an implication that she doesn’t care about other women. I realize your perspective also comes from a position with past “baggage” regarding abuse and that you, like me, want those children safe.
I’ve worked on a farm–it’s hard work, but it never was full-time construction. Also #100, I stated plenty of other ways the law was broken, not just polygamy. If you’re going to quote me, use the whole quote. Warren Jeffs was originally arrested for fraud, not rape. I’m sorry if it seems like I don’t care about the parents here, but CPS has different rights than the police do, and when the rights of children are infringed upon, it’s my first instinct to protect them. I don’t always naturally suppose that parents are doing what’s best for their children–I tend to be a wee bit suspicious, and I’m sorry if that offends people. It’s true, I have the baggage that comes from living my life and it pervades my opinions.
I feel the children should be returned to their mothers unless abuse is proven against that mother - children need their mothers and shoving these children out into a world they know little or nothing about without their mothers will invariably just damage them even more. I do NOT believe the fathers should be allowed to return to the families or even contact them at this time. This was/is a very patriarchal society with young girls being forced into unwanted marriages - thereby promoting rape/abuse. These are the criminals(the men) - not the women whom are afraid of losing their children to these men and being kicked out of the only thing they have ever known in their life. I cannot in good conscience blame these women as they have never known any difference - being cut off from the outside world, these women most likely didn’t even know they could escape this craziness. While my heart feels immense sadness for the children, I also have pity for the mothers.
I also feel pitty for some of the men who also know no differently and were taught from the cradle how to rule their wives/kids with an iron fist under the guise of priesthood authority and inspiration from God. And while I have a hard time defending any of those perpetuating this lifestyle, kids need their dads just as much as they need their moms. Maybe not in this case. Maybe many of the kids are better off without either. But don’t you think many of those dads ache for their kids and the feeling is likewise?
when the rights of children are infringed upon, it’s my first instinct to protect them.
AYW, I agree with you. We should protect children. It is my first instint, too. Yesterday I drove by a truck talking to a boy THREE times and gave the driver the evil eye just in case he was up to something (he may have been the dad, but I am overly protective like that). However, I disagree that taking these children away from their mothers under assumptions that may be false is actually protecting the children. I think it is doing more harm than good.
My friend is watching another friend’s children while their mother is out of the country for a week. The children have been in their own home with their father or in the homes of close family friends. They have stuck to their routines, worn their own clothes, eaten their own food. And the 3 year old was still crying for her mother a lot of the morning. I can’t even imagine what the FLDS children are going through.
This same friend does foster care. She has been contacted through LDS social services (who was contacted through the state) to see if she will take some FLDS children in. The rules are very strict: they must be homeschooled, they can’t watch t.v. How many people do you think CPS is going to find who want to abide by all these rules? I love my own children, but even I don’t want to homeschool them. Give these kids back to their mothers and arrest the fathers.
I’m really tired of people who call themselves “liberal” because it’s the trendy thing to do. A real liberal would never condone these authoritarian, fascist, cowardly acts committed against mothers and their children!
It is an absolute, basic human right for parents to be given stewardship over their children. It is also a basic human right to espouse religious views and share those views with children.
Yesterday, Texas CPS ripped 13-month old babies off the breasts of their nursing mothers at gunpoint in a dispecable act nothing short of kidnapping.
Are you someone who calls themself a liberal and still cheering-on these thugs? I spit in your face.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 26, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Thanks, sweetie, but I don’t think a “real liberal” would go around spitting at women.
Just to restate my position and protect myself from threats of violence (from the likes of Kelton here), I don’t necessarily think the children should be removed permanently, but I do believe that they should be in a safe place while the state investigates the charges against their parents–as is the norm in such cases. If there is absolutely no evidence of rape, incest, or polygamy, or any other illegal activity, of course the children should promptly be returned to their parents’ houses. Wanting an investigation–and wanting the children to be in a safe place during that investigation–does not make me a fascist, nor does it make me a faux liberal. It makes me a person with some good old common sense.
AYW–maybe real liberals spit at men and women alike, if they feel like spitting, but only if they have poor manners. Not spitting at you just ‘cuz you’re a woman? Nothing liberal about that.
I’m not sure polygamy should be lumped in with rape, incest, or even fraud. Rape and fraud are immoral regardless of legality, inasmuch as they violate another person’s free will. I’m no fan of polygamy, but I’m not ethnocentric or anachronistic enough to argue the same for plural marriage. As others have said, evidence of *any* illegal activity can’t serve as an adequate barometer of when to keep kids away from their parents, or all of us who speed would be in big trouble.
I actually logged on to see if you by any chance have been following the CPS allegations regarding the # of underage pregnancies and what sources you might have for your information, seeing as how your passion hopefully evinces a famialiarity w/a variety of same. . IN the last 24 hours I’ve heard conflicted statistics from CPS, the Texas legal authorities, and a number of media outlets (and that’s one question I admit I simply don’t listen to the FLDS people on, since they’ve admitted that they sometimes lie to protect “doctrine”.) It’s confusing. You or anyone else who has a semingly reliable source, feel free to pony up. I can’t get the NPR interview to link because my computer is being wonky, but it aired yesterday.
Actually, I’ve been sick as a dog, so I’ve been sleeping rather than checking the news. I linked polygamy with the others because it’s illegal and incest/rape tend to occur in polygamous communities–I’m not saying that there is a causal relationship, though.
Here’s an NPR link. I hope it works. it explains why they took 400 children. It also explains why women who stand by when men abuse children are also guilty of abuse.
I don’t write as well as most here so am sometimes unable to succinctly transfer what is in my head to my fingers on the keyboard. I’m giving it a go here though.
I think most people would agree that rape and or incest is abuse and immediate intervention is required. Sex with under age teens while immoral isn’t always illegal (depends on the age and age difference of participants).
Polygamy is illegal but living with or having sex with more than one person with out trying to legally marry is not.
When an allegation of abuse is made it should be investigated. Because an allegation is made does not mean it is valid. If an allegation is made against 1 person, and found to be valid, it does not mean that the neighbours of those individuals are committing abuse.
I know the abuse is considered to be a product of their religious ideology, thus assumingly they all would be practicing it . But that is part of the problem with this whole thing, an awful lot of assumptions and allegations are being made with out much information to back it up.
So if the big worry is 13-16 year old girls being “married” (spiritually or otherwise) then investigate that. I don’t think that warrants removing babies, toddlers and all children.
There is something very very wrong when because of a phone call about abuse (false in this case) that the entire community”s children are removed. There wasn’t even an allegation
false or otherwise involving toddlers. While I admit that the safety and wellbeing of children should be paramount, I can not see it being in a 5 year olds best interest for him/her to be removed from both parents, siblings, home and the only life they have ever know. I think THAT is abuse and causing trauma to them.
The state has reacted in a manner equivalent to the use of a sledge hammer instead of a flyswatter. That makes me wonder how could that many people (or departments ) necessary to carry out that operation have such bad judgment? Impossible I think, so I believe there was a different motive than to protect the innocent children.
I have lived through sexual abuse and don’t condone it or any other type of abuse but I do believe that even if some one does not have the same ideas, religion, lifestyle etc that does not make them wrong.
I am normally a calm and rational with anyone with whom I disagree, but this recent turn of events has forced me to take a hard stand. But I’m going to be charitable and dismiss others’ lack of outrage here as only ignorance.
Common sense will guide you from walking in front of speeding trains, but common sense never rises to the occasion of taking a moral stand.
Let’s review:
The ONLY legal case upon which the Texas CPS stands is that there is a pattern of religious-motivated abuse which has afflicted somewhere between 2 and 20 children at some post-puberty stage of age 13-17 to enter into a marriage relationship.
AND the sole legal argument for removing any child from any home by CPS services? “Imminent danger to the health and welfare of the child“
im·mi·nent ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head
So CPS removed every child over the age of 4 in the initial raid because of imminent danger of entering into these marriage relationships.
But now, with their case being undermined by news of the initial call being fraudulent, and the ACLU along with hundreds of lawyers descending to give legal aid these families while reporters continue to ask ‘why’ and public sentiment turning against them…
They go back and forcibly remove every child between the age of 13 months to 4 years out of the arms of their weeping mothers with the proclamation by CPS spokesperson that ” The only rational and prudent step is to remove all of these children “.
Please tell me, where is the imminent danger to these nursing toddlers?
You cannot say, because THERE IS NONE!!
The ultimate strategy of overthrow throughout recorded history is to target children. The State of Texas and its accomplices are engaged in waging war and the parental bonds of young children and their mothers are nothing more than collateral damage.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 27, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Kelton, I’m happy to see passion on various sides of an issue. Hard stances =also fine. Spitting, cyber or otherwise, just makes it hard to take you seriously. This last comment forwards an argument rather than diatribe and is thus niftycool.
And I side with you regarding nursing babies. Cold turkey weaning a child who is already under significant stress by having all consistent aspects of their life upended seems unnecessary to me since nobody actually asserts the babies are in imminent danger and disrupting their nursing actually *does* introduce imminent danger since some kids can’t or won’t take to bottles. Grrr.
The imminent danger to children? To be raised in a society that condones rape and incest. Survivors who have escaped FLDS compounds tell of being beaten into submission when they did not wish to have sex with their much older husbands. CPS found evidence of harsh punishment for children who disobeyed their parents, thus the children had to be removed. Usually when one child is removed from a home, most or all are removed because that home apparently poses a threat to children.
As for the phone call, CPS’s first duty was to investigate the charges of abuse, not to investigate the phone call itself–that lies in a different domain (more with the police). They found enough evidence of abuse to remove the children. Their removal of the children wasn’t based on the phone call, but based on evidence they found on the compound itself. A CPS investigation isn’t like a criminal investigation–it can’t be discounted because one part is found to be untrue–if there is evidence of abuse, the first priority is to keep the children safe. Isn’t that the way it should be?
AYW, I think we’re defining “imminent” differently. What you describe I’d qualify as “pervasive” and perhaps “insidious” but it does not pose an immediate danger to nursing infants. If the allegations turn out to be true, then obviously those babies would be better off growing up elsewhere–but there has to be some way to not literally rip them away from their mother’s breasts at gunpoint, as the media is reporting was done last week. That’s imminent. Bleargh.
BTW, I happen to believe most of the narratives coming from ex-members of the FLDS faith. Nonetheless, approaching them as entirely credulous while discounting entirely the narratives of those still within the religion doesn’t make a lot of sense. Both camps have rather vivid agendas and neither probably earns huge trustworthy points–and that’s before we even approach the postmodern notion of two perspectives of reality both being true. Think of some of the stuff you may have read by ex-mormons. Some of it is quite true, and quite bad (and some accounts refer to systemic features and others attribute isolated accounts of abuse to the former–how one links the two is dicey). Some of it is total falderal.
Again, I in no way envy any of the legal authorities of folks who work for social services the horror of trying to sort out this mess. It’s the worst sort of nightmare for everyone concerned, and most prominently for the children. I don’t think anyone disagrees with you that keeping them safe should come first. What different people adjudicate as “safe” on the other hand, varies. As does whether or not people are convinced by evidence touted by either side.
Let me restate once again that there’s little I like about the FLDS culture (that I know of, anyhow). But I know people who find very little-to-nothing to like about general LDS culture, or the American obsession with fostering independence in children, either. Entire cultures would condemn common American child-rearing techniques–those things held sacrosanct by CPS (and heck, by me) as downright abusive. They’d probably think my kid is unsafe growing up here. I disagree. There’s just a lot of “slip” between cultures. I still agree that rape–if it is indeed rape–exists as one of those very few “do not cross” lines which cannot be written off by any group as acceptable because of culture. Short of that and some other things I won’t enumerate here, I’m willing to entertain the notion that a cultural disconnect is preventing either side (or, to be more realistic, any of the *many* sides to this thing) is entirely right. Most likely scenerio: we’re all wrong to one degree or another and we really ought to start cutting each other a little slack regarding the others’ intentions.
Do you really think these children should go back? Read this. That’s not normal, people. When a fourteen year old is having children with a man twice her age (or older), it’s not sex, it’s RAPE. I simply do not understand how anyone could justify allowing little children to live in that environment.
This explains about incest in the FLDS culture. Because of the prevalence of genetic diseases that normally occur very rarely, the FLDS church has shown through their own dna and medical problems that they have been inbreeding (on a first-cousin or closer level). Oh, and just for Kelton, I got it from a liberal site so he could know that even liberals disapprove of this stuff.
AYW, I don’t think that anyone really disagrees about the rape or incest. The thing I take issue with is ripping small children from their mothers. The kids don’t understand what is going on. It is traumatizing. In a situation of “imminent” danger, I see justifying that action. Excluding teenagers, I don’t think the children are in “imminent” physical danger. I think arresting and holding the men while DNA and criminal charges are worked out and returning the children to their mothers while the mothers are on probation/monitoring would be more appropriate and healthier for the emotional well-being of the children. Who is really suffering right now? The children.
Our society gives violent sex offenders probation (against my best wishes). We can’t extend that same courtesy who mothers who love their children but who have been brainwashed by the leaders of their cult? I just see a double standard here.
Stephanie,
I am wondering though, what are the odds that once the mother’s get their children back they would high-tail it back to Colorado City and disappear? A majority of polygamist women have shown time and again that their allegiance is to the religion not to any particular spouse.
Also, as feminists we need to realize that we need to take responsibility in cases like this–women who stand by while their daughters, sisters, sister-wives are being abused are PART OF THE PROBLEM. A mother who allows her husband or son (or anyone) to abuse her daughter would also be considered abusive, wouldn’t she? Why would anyone want to allow that kind of mother to raise more kids?
md, what are the odds that some women might realize they have an out of polygamy and choose to take it? Under the threat of abuse and having their children taken from them and given to another sister wife if they disobey, they may have stayed in the sect out of fear. But, if the men are in custody, and the women see they have a clear out, I think some would take it.
I think case-by-case is appropriate, but a blanket permanant removal of all children is overkill. We keep talking about punishing the parents, but it is the CHILDREN who are suffering.
Stephanie, You’re right some of them might see it as an out. I am just wondering though, if that is the case, why we haven’t heard one story of a woman saying, “I am leaving the sect for good, now give me my kids back?” I have just heard so many stories of husbands being kicked out and the wives staying. Wouldn’t that be an out as well?
I agree, a case-by -case is appropriate and the lack therof is one of the worst things about this situation.
AYW (#125)–I’m disgusting by the notion ofa 14 year old having sex with a middle aged man (or anyone–she’s still so young!) but Texas only changed their minimum marital age requirement from 14 to 16 two years ago. 16 still seems ludicriously young to me. Still, CPS and the judges will have to use the law to decide when something was or was not rape. If the weddings in question happened 2 years or more ago, and with the girl’s and her parents’ consent, it was legal. Excessively ookie, yes, but not legally rape.
To paraphrase from *A Man for All Seasons*, we laypeople can reason according to our wits. Courts must reason according to the law. If something isn’t rape under the law, they cannot legally prosecute it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t rape. I have a dissertation chapter about slave rape, which was a legally ridiculous notion at the time but nonetheless quite extant and somewhat pervasive. The very few people who tried to prosecute someone for raping a slave were met with legal vacuum (one nice judge referred to the entire notion of raping one’s own property as “unmeaning twaddle,” the SOB). Cases like that, and like the stuff going on in Texas, are what change the law. Maybe TX will have new laws as result of this mess. But I think part of the reason you and I are talking in circles is because you’re discussing rape as a moral concept and I’m discussing it as a legal one. THe two don’t always dovetail completely, law being a work in progress and all.
addendum: your argument about women lending tacit consent to unhealthy situations can be leveled at any subaltern culture (definately including mainstream Mormonism) by anyone who sees that culture as abusive. Certainly lots of people DO see our faith as inherently abusive. We have laws to serve as speed bumps between incediary mainstream condemnation and minorities. We need the speed bumps. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be lowered with the FLDS (they probably should). I’m just saying that it’s easy to fling about accusations regarding one subaltern group’s ookie behavior without noticing that others would happily level the same against one’s own.
md, I have. I read an article that said that after the raid, some of the mothers asked if they could have their children back if they left the sect for good. The authorities said no. If I can find the link again, I’ll post it.
Janet,
The problem with the argument that the marriage age is 14-16, is that they weren’t legally married and by Texas law sex with anyone (to whom you are unmarried) under 17 is rape. See, that’s a big problem when you don’t bother to register marriages with the state–you get in trouble for having sex with those underage girls you’re “married” to.
The removal as of now isn’t permanent, they are still waiting to sort this out on a case by case basis. If anyone bothered to read the articles I cited, that’s one of the things they said.
I can’t find the one I remember reading, but this article talks about it.
Here’s a quote from the article: “One of your concerns is that they have a mindset. What do they have to do to prove they are amenable to counseling services?” said an attorney questioning Angie Voss, the supervisor.
What if, the attorney went on, her clients were willing to get an apartment, obtain a restraining order against the FLDS husbands or fathers, and would only allow the men to have supervised visitation?
Voss did not directly answer the question, but said, “This population of women have a difficult time making decisions on their own.
It seems like the other one I read was a reporter asking CPS himself, not something that happened in court.
Actually, this statement by Voss is even more disturbing to me than the article I read before. The women can’t have their kids because they “have a difficult time making decisions on their own”? Have they had the ability to make decisions on their own?
If you could link directly to your news sources and not to a blog post, you would be a lot more credible. As it is, the blog is throwing a lot of propaganda in with those stories.
Sorry, I thought about that but didn’t have the time at midnight. You may disregard the blog link if you aren’t interested. The links in the blog are to actual news sources.
Just wanted to pop in and say hi. I’m not Mormon anymore since I don’t
believe the doctrine, but still feel a strong affiliation to the
church through my mother with whom I am very close. I have been so
saddened by the FLDS children and wanted to know what some of you
think of this. It seems that the church should be less concerned with
distancing themselves and offer to help in some way. Many of us do
share ancestors after all. I hope this is not offensive, but I would
love to help these poor women and children in some way.
f anyone bothered to read the articles I cited, that’s one of the things they said.
AYW, you’re once again making unwarrented assumptions about those with whom you disagree, albeit one much less egegrious than your initial accusation that nobody but you seems to care about rape. I have read the articles, and a whole lot more to boot. The problem is that other articles contradict them. It’s confusing and annoying, but I suppose it’s also to be expected in a case so large and messy. A few days ago I found an article where one of the defendent’s lawyers said the judge had decided to look at things case-by-case; about five minutes later I found a quotation from the judge saying she’d deal with it all in a lump. I’ve wisely stopped believing anything is yet completely decided or that any one article touts unfetterered truth.
Good point about not registered the marriages with the State. That’s gotta be a nasty bit of irony for the FLDS leaders who keep pointing to the low marriage age in Texas.
I’m going to bow out of this discussion now, both because it seems to be going nowhere inasmuch as you seem to be largely not interested in considering nuance (common enough with emotional topics; I get that) and because I’m overwhelmed with other stuff in my life right now. I’m sure we all hope the kids will receive decent treatment regardless of where they end up, and I’m sure all of us abhor abuse and work to end it in the ways we see feasible.
As much as I’d like to jump into the discussion of how the FLDS is icky to mainstream America in 2008, I am passionately observing it all because I care when there are egregious violations of civil liberties that have profound and serious consequences to us all. There are some really disgusting sickos in this country, among them are those people who are enthusiatically cheerleading this abuse of government authority. Also, the twisted losers who are making comedy and mockery of the distressed and weary victims on comedy shows and YouTube, etc.
I think the FDLS should reform their faith. If a woman chooses to enter into a marriage where there is more than one wife then she should choose to do so, if not then she shouldn’t be conjoled or harrassed to enter into one. However they should not encourage, force or advise for anyone to marry and especially to under-age children. Polygamy is a serious issue and against the law however it isn’t right to interfere nor expect a religion that has existed longer than society to adapt or change its policies or faith just because mainstream society changes. With certain limitations where it concerns children, most if not all children should be handed back over to their mothers and close relatives and allowed to return to their home(back to the ranch) and then closely monitored for a period of time, in order to satisfy the state that the children are indeed safe to remain in their homes with family. In order for a religious sect to continue with their faith, there has there has to be some order that can correlate with the law outside their faith. As for the men who knowlingly entered into marriage with young under-age girls, should be arrested and prosecuted. There should be no excuse where it concerns children, for ignorance of the law that are indeed upheld. In order for FDLS to continue with their way of life, they need to modify their policies and in case of discrepancies with the law, need to raise the marriagable age to 18, so that there will be no enterferences in their lives and they can live happily, quiet and safe away from the gentiles. They should also make allowances for those who want to enter into a single marriages as well that. Single marriages can also be sacreligiuos as well. And should also make accessible for those who want to leave the faith as well and re-entry.
If the allegations are true, the state should be procesuting on a case by case basis. If they are false, someone please tell me who is going to hold CPS and the state accountable for all the damage they have done to these families? Opps! Sorry about that, but don’t worry, your children are now fine upstanding Baptists and have been saved. So everything turned out all right in the end.
And yes ladies, the emails are real. A multitude of organizations that will get mondo bucks from the Great(?) State of Texas for taking in these poor children are familiar enough with the system to know that unless a great miracle occurs, the children will never be returned to their parents even if no wrongdoing is ever proved. You should get a good look at the number of emails pouring into the state offices with offers to adopt the children and the court hasn’t even begun to hear the custody cases let alone bring a single charge.
I fear for the welfare of these children in the custody of CPS given that CPS has such a wonderful track record of widespread abuse inflicted on those in its care. For those who care to look, it’s well documented……at least up until Perry sealed the most current records from public view.
Perhaps if some of those who scream the loudest about a religion and lifestyle that conflicts with their own would take just a minute to look at the facts of this particular case, and not rely on the media, Nancy Grace or the actions of other polygamist groups, thay might notice that the Constitutional rights that are being trampled, the laws that are being bent and created to persecute this particular group and the Gestapo tactics of the state, if allowed to go unchecked, will have much broader consequences than many of you realize.
Finally, the age of consent to wed in Texas with parental consent was 14 until 2005 when it was raised to 16 with parental consent with open admission by the legislator who led the change that he targeted this particular group and their practices. CPS tosses out ages and numbers, but no real information as to who is legally wed and who is not. They toss us crumbs of inflamatory information while the court holds every cnfiscated document that can prove legal age and marital status of the young women in question. Given that I continually get stopped and carded on possible cerfew violations by the police and have been well over the age where such issues apply for more years than I care to admit, I have little faith in the ability of CPS to judge who is of legal age with what they freely admit is an “eyeball” judgement.
If abuse has taken place, then the state should take action. But to condemn an entire group for what may or may not be the actions of a few is wrong. As long as they are within the law, we have no right to make judgements on how they choose to dress, practice their beliefs and live their lives no matter how much those decisions may conflict with our own. If a young woman wishes to marry a much older man of her own free will, with parental consent and in accordance to the laws of the state they reside in, it isn’t anyones place to judge her decision and no state or law enforcement agency has the legal right to apply the law retroactively.
I vote for returned to their mothers with the contingency that the mother leaves the poligimist ranch and way of life.
Comment by salt h2o — April 21, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Ditto.
Comment by Jill — April 21, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Salt water and Jill,
What is your reasoning that they should leave that way of life and the ranch?
Comment by mami — April 21, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I really don’t know where I stand . . . I support the right of adults to enter into whatever kind of conensual relationship they want to enter into; and I support the right of adults to choose for themselves the religion they would like to practice; but I really, really hate the idea of underage girls being forced into marriage, and underage boys being forced to leave their families and their communities.
I think if I was put in charge of this whole sorry mess, I would want greater transparency from the FLDS, more interaction with the outside world, and the following guarantees: 1. Nobody is to be forced into a marriage; 2. Nobody is to be forced to stay in the community or to leave it; 3. No marriages - spiritual or otherwise - will take place unless all parties are legally adults. (And yes, I realise that will mean a change in state law, but I’m fine with that.)
Before you tell me that none of that would work, remember, I’m in charge of this whole sorry mess, so this is clearly a fantasy world and normal rules need not apply.
Comment by Quimby — April 21, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
I vote for removal of the children AND their mothers from the FLDS ranch. Why? Because I believe that polygamy is wrong -both legally and morally. Get those women into a battered women’s shelter and their kids to school, and a doctor, and therapy.
Just because my (our) ancestors practiced polygamy doesn’t make it right.
Comment by Marie — April 21, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
I think the children should be returned to their mothers ASAP. Let the mothers and children go home and take the men into custody instead.
Comment by ECS — April 21, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
I second ECS.
Comment by Stephanie — April 21, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
I chose other. They should be handled on a case by case basis. I haven’t seen the evidence, and that leaves me concerned with either choice. I have concerns that we could be sending kids into bad situations.
Comment by Tanya Sue — April 21, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
I agree with Tanya Sue
Comment by Sunshine — April 21, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t be sent back.
It seems like the goal of cps is to reunite families and I’ve certainly read of cases that seemed much worse where they put families back together. I don’t like that, but it seems to happen all the time.
The real kicker is that the kids will most likely go back and be worse off than before. They didn’t trust the government before, ummm… well I don’t think this helped.
The kids have just been through major trauma (even abused kids want their moms) and most likely many of these kids weren’t abused.
I don’t know the answers, but it does make me sad.
Comment by me — April 21, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
“I believe that having children out of wedlock is morally wrong. Therefore, I think we should have mandatory birth control for all unwed women.”
If you can’t apply your reasoning to something similar which you disagree with, then it is probably faulty reasoning. I’m just saying . . . .
You certainly wouldn’t like it if someone came into your personal life and told you that you couldn’t make your own decisions about how, whom, and when to marry or indulge in sex. Underage marriage is one thing to deal with, polygamy is another. Let’s not get our wires crossed, here. We can possibly dictate against underage marriage under the umbrella of saying a person is not competent to make decisions when they are so young. We really don’t have the right to say that adult women cannot make the decision to participate in polygamous marriages without also applying that reasoning to a whole plethora of other moral issues - such as out-of-wedlock-children and gay marriage.
Comment by SilverRain — April 21, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
I believe that the women in the FLDS church have been so thoroughly brainwashed, that giving their children back to them won’t stop the underage marriages, etc. They should start receiving some major therapy/help before they are allowed custody again.
Comment by OpaqueDream — April 21, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Having lived near, and interacted with, the FLDS community, I am still puzzled why the children and women are being separated and the media seems to tell us nothing about whether or not Texas is looking into the men.
I loathe polygamy, but if it is a life that someone chooses, so be it. What concerns me is the difficulty of getting out of that life.
But you can’t tell me taking a small child from his/her mother to languish in the state foster care system is going to do any more good. They’re so sheltered from the outside world, just going into that world (even if they’ get into a decent foster program) is going to send the kids into shock.
It makes my heart hurt. There are no easy answers, even as an armchair critic, and it makes me sad.
Comment by Sara — April 21, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
#12
Then we should take children from all the teen moms because they were brainwashed into having sex too!
Those of you who want them all in a shelter–they don’t want to be there. They had that option and turned it down.
Comment by mami — April 21, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
I think children in the FLDS culture are being raised to break the law–they are raised to participate in polygamy, which is illegal, and the men are raised to believe it is alright to have sex with (or force sex upon) underage girls, as long as they are “married” in the eyes of their church. Female children are raised to believe that as soon as their bodies are capable of having children, they are ready to be married–and they should expect to be married, they should and must submit themselves to their husbands, and if they are unwilling to submit themselves to their husbands they can expect their husbands to rape and beat them. They are told that the outside world is evil and all people in the outside world are evil. They are told that if they leave the compound, they will be forced to cut off their hair, wear immodest clothing, and have sex. Raising children with such beliefs certainly qualifies as deeply emotionally abusive and disfiguring to the psyche of these children. No doubt their mothers believe their church doctrines deeply–what other choice do they have? But those same doctrines are damaging to the lives of their children and create a dangerous environment in which to raise children. Foster care isn’t fun and can be dangerous at times, but I’d certainly take it over this alternative.
Comment by AYW — April 21, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
Is anyone else a bit tired of the “polygamy is illegal” argument in a cultural environment where a) extra/pre-marital sex is extremely common and not prosecuted and b) everyone agrees that none of the FLDS in question were legally married to additional (if any) spouses?
Return the overwhelming majority of the children to their parents. The state should have ridiculously high hurdles to get over to take kids away, let alone to keep them — I’m not convinced the original removal was proper, but there’s no solid reason to continue now that it’s abundantly clear there’s no immediate physical risk to most of the children. I’m not convinced anyone’s at serious risk of the kind of abuse that warrants putting anyone in jail, even if some of the things going on at that ranch are icky and make me uncomfortable. Heck, half of what goes on in the US is icky and makes me uncomfortable — Style and MTV and Spike and Comedy Central have devoted most of their original programming hours to promoting it.
I also think this “their beliefs are dangerous” stuff to be beyond disturbing. What would we all say if the state had taken Martin Luther King Junior’s kids away from him because he was teaching them to break the law and live in a way that society didn’t approve of? Or is freedom only okay if it produces a result we approve of?
Comment by Sarah — April 22, 2008 @ 4:31 am
AYW - you seem to have quite a bit of knowledge about the FLDS. Is that personal experience, or just what the media has “reported”?
Comment by SilverRain — April 22, 2008 @ 4:43 am
Hmmm should those children be returned to their parents??? They were taken away on the basis of a crank call from Colorado Springs. If there were other reasons (not rumours) that justified this intervention for the “safety and well being” of the children than why cause so much trauma by not having a plan before they removed the children.
I find the entire situation appalling. By the rationale that a crank phone call can have children removed from their homes I think all Texans need to be warry. How many 16 year olds across Texas, that are not FLDS have given birth?
I don’t want any children abused nor any women to live in abusive relationships but disagreeing with how some one else lives doesn’t necessarily constitute abuse
I think this is a legal “flexing of muscles” over the FLDS compound.
Comment by Lizzy — April 22, 2008 @ 6:47 am
They are told that if they leave the compound, they will be forced to cut off their hair, wear immodest clothing, and have sex.
I’m not picking on you AYW. Assuming this is true, I just want to point out the irony here. If the FLDS leave the compound, they think they will be forced to have sex. But, if the teenage girls stay, they will be forced to have sex. Either way, from the perspective of the girls, it must look pretty hopeless in terms of their own decision-making ability.
Comment by Stephanie — April 22, 2008 @ 6:50 am
Lizzy, as a Texan, I am wary. I know of at least two instances when CPS took children away on false accusations. In one case, the family still does not have their children back (one was a baby when she was taken) despite evidence that the accuser was lying. It takes “time” and lots of money to go through the courts to get children back.
I’m not defending polygamy or the abuses that do happen. But, I do find it scary that CPS could go in and take all these children and keep them based on a false allegation and assumptions. I hope they have ample evidence of abuse. Otherwise, I see this as a gross abuse of power.
Comment by Stephanie — April 22, 2008 @ 6:55 am
In response to #3
I think they should leave the ranch and that way of life because from what we have learned there is evidence of sexual abuse as an element of their culture.
The kids do need to be removed from the abusive environment.
From what we have learned from those that have escaped poligamy is that is an abusive manipulative culture which children have no choice and women are virtually owned by men.
To return women and children to that environment would be negligent.
Comment by salt h2o — April 22, 2008 @ 7:27 am
I’m neither a feminist, a Mormon, nor a housewife, so I’m truly a nosy outsider. But I think nearly all these kids should be allowed to go home. Out of 437 kids (they found 21 more yesterday), 5 girls between 16-19 were pregnant, but they’re of legally marriageable age in Texas with parental consent.
IMO the five underage girls who are pregnant or have young children should be DNA tested and if the father is substantially older, the correct charge is statutory rape. (Not for all, of course: One of the ad litem attorneys in the case told me at least one of the five is a seventeen year old whose husband is also 17.)
Not only is the “their beliefs are dangerous” stuff disturbing, quite a few of the beliefs cited by the CPS investigator in court would apply to many monogamous Mormon women. I like and agree with the analogy to Dr. King’s “dangerous” ideas.
Finally, I doubt prosecutors will pursue polygamy charges (actually “bigamy” under Texas statutes) because hardly anyone thinks the SCOTUS ruling from the 1890s that affirmed the constitutionality of polygamy bans will stand up post-Lawrence v. Texas. I’m sure our conservative Texas governor would not like to be the fellow on whose watch bungling enforcement led to legalizing homosexuality AND polygamy.
I’m really glad to have found yall’s site, btw, and am glad you’re discussing this.
Comment by Gritsforbreakfast — April 22, 2008 @ 7:28 am
Sarah - since you’re tired of the “polygamy is illegal” argument, do you think the laws against bigamy should be repealed? If you do, then you should organize a petition and write to your state legislature and encourage them to repeal the statute. Or you could find a sympathetic polygamous family and try suing the state for violating their constitutional rights. Or, since you bring up Martin Luther King, Jr.’s example, you could organize peaceful protests against the bigamy laws.
The comparison of the FLDS and the civil rights movement is inapposite, however, because the civil rights movement focused on freeing individuals from oppressive, racist laws and traditions. The FLDS leaders are isolating young girls and using their religion to persuade the young girls to having sex at an early age. The civil rights of the FLDS do not extend to abusing women and children, and are a far cry from Martin Luther King, Jr. the heros of the civil rights movement.
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 7:36 am
gritsforbreakfast - thanks for stopping by! I’ve enjoyed reading your commentary on this issue.
I agree with you that the children should be returned to their mothers while the allegations of abuse are investigated. And I hope the FLDS have retained counsel to file suit against the state of Texas to hold it accountable for any illegal actions committed during the raid and while the children remain in state custody.
If I had to make a bet, I’d say SCOTUS would deny cert and avoid ruling on the constitutionality of state bigamy statutes, however. The sodomy laws at issue in Lawrence v. Texas are distinguishable from bigamy laws because homosexual sex is purely private conduct. The majority opinon in Lawrence specifically carved out “public conduct”, i.e., marriage, from its holding, and so I don’t think Lawrence does the work the polygamous plaintiffs need it to do.
Two years ago, the Utah Supreme Court dealt with a Lawrence based challenge to its bigamy laws in State v. Holm and found Lawrence unavailing to vindicate the polygamist petitioner’s claim that he was engaging in purely private conduct when he “spiritually married” his underage bride while legally married to his first wife. The Texas case raises very compelling issues, regardless, and I’m anxious to see how the courts will address them.
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 7:51 am
I think all the children should be returned and each case looked at one by one. When abuse is found it should be punished. I think even people we don’t like and don’t agree with deserve due process and justice. There is too much propaganda including false and misleading stories going around to be able to have any idea what the truth actually is.
These kinds of tactics by the state of Texas are reminiscent of the middle ages before we won our civil rights.
Comment by Claudia — April 22, 2008 @ 8:06 am
I’m astounded that Judge Walther didn’t categorically allow nursing mothers to stay with their young children. Does the judge not understand the biological effects of separating a mother from her breastfeeding child?
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 8:13 am
The problem with letting the kids go back to their mothers if thier mothers leave the compound is that those women have no real skills to help them survive the outside world. No formal education, no high school diploma, no job skills… And lots and lots of babies. So if you throw them out there with 3-8 kids, very young, and no way to get a job… what happens?
Comment by heather — April 22, 2008 @ 8:18 am
If underage pregnancy is viewed as a sign of abuse, how do we account for these numbers (expressed in terms of underage pregnancies per thousand population):
YFZ ranch - 45 /1,000, assuming the state social workers are correct.
TX, Caucasians - 60/1000
TX, African American - 120/1000
TX, Latino - 145/1000
I can only conclude that the law is being capriciously applied. These people were singled out. Probably every high school in Texas has a teen pregnancy rate higher than the FLDS people, and the sheriff isn’t beating down the door to take them into custody and remove their younger siblings from the parents’ homes.
Comment by Mark IV — April 22, 2008 @ 8:27 am
It makes me ill that nursing babies would be taken away from their moms.
I, too, have been wondering about the statutory rape angle. I haven’t heard much about it. I know almost nothing of legalities, but where I come from, (California), my understanding is that if a guy who is over 18 has sex (consensual or not) with a girl who is under 18 (or vice-versa), he has committed statutory rape. And that IS against the law. Are the statutory rape laws that different in Texas?
Comment by meems — April 22, 2008 @ 8:28 am
Mark IV - I’m sure you can think of some important differences between the FLDS teen pregnancies and the secular Texas teen pregnancies. While we don’t know the facts, I bet the non-FLDS girls weren’t told by their parents that God wanted them to have sex and babies when they turned 16. On the other hand, the non-FLDS girls may have been pressured into having sex by their peers, the popular media, and perhaps even their parents.
So the distinguishing characteristics between the non-FLDS teens and FLDS teens seem to be (1) the FLDS isolation from the broader community and (2) religious beliefs and practices.
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 8:36 am
And, you don’t know that all FLDS girls are told that by their mothers. This is exactly the type of hysteria perpetuated by the MSM who also think the FLDS (and some even think the LDS) have sex in their temples. The proof—well of course the fact that there are beds in the temple
Comment by Guy Murray — April 22, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Certainly compelling state interests to kidnap all the children and hold them at gunpoint while coercing them to testify against their parents.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 22, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Guy - there is much to speculate about here. As we heard in the interview with the FLDS men yesterday on CBS, many of the FLDS adherents apparently were unaware of the laws against marrying young girls. Certainly everyone is interested in returning the children to their homes as quickly and as safely as possible.
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 8:59 am
ECS,
You’re right, of course. There certainly are differences. My question is: which environment is actually worse for young women of that age? It just isn’t obvious to me that the young women at YFZ are worse off than their peers, some of whom experience underage pregnancy at 400% of the rate of the FLDS. So the approach the authorities took seems capricious to me, that’s all.
Comment by Mark IV — April 22, 2008 @ 9:09 am
ECS, perhaps the difference between this case and Holm is that all those found pregnant or with children in Texas were all of legally marriageable age, not “underage.” In Texas it’s legal to wed at 16 with a parent’s consent. In any event, I’ve heard third hand that at least one reason they’re going after statutory rape (which is difficult to prove) instead of bigamy (which is easy to prove from the records they seized), is that they’re afraid of Lawrence.
And regarding your last exchange with Guy, for the record, I’m a politically active adult and before this came up I was also unaware of the change in the marriage age! On the other hand, the law wasn’t created explicitly to target me, as it was FLDS. (The bill author brags about it.) Mark is right that the plain language of the law would apply to thousands of other Texas girls, and that FLDS was singled out because of their beliefs. That’s precisely the case made by the CPS investigator in court.
I wish I thought it were true, ECS, that “everyone is interested in returning the children to their homes as quickly and as safely as possible.” I fear that’s not what Texas CPS has in mind at all. Instead they’re aiming for Short Creek II.
Comment by Gritsforbreakfast — April 22, 2008 @ 9:14 am
This is an interesting aspect of this whole debacle. The law, when the FLDS came to Texas was that minors were allowed to be married at 14 with parental consent. Texas legislators specifically targeted the FLDS community by passing new legislation in 2005, raising that age to 16. See Texas Family Law Code § 2.102
So, before the FLDS came to town, it was just fine with the Texas legislature than young women could be married at 14. But, if you belong to an unpopular, maligned religious group–well the rest is history as they say.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 22, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Ditto to Grits comment in # 35.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 22, 2008 @ 9:25 am
I think we have a difference of opinion as to whether a 14 year old girl (or a 16 year old girl, for that matter) can consent to marriage and sex. With or without approval from their parents.
With respect to Holm - it’s true that the second wife was underage at the time of her marriage to Holm, but the petitioner’s Lawrence-based arguments and the court’s response are applicable to the Texas case.
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 9:28 am
I think we have a difference of opinion about whether it is OK for Texas to target a specific group based on religious belief, confiscate their children, and disregard its own due process requirements under the law. I’ve never offered my opinion on whether a 14 year old or 16 year old girl can or should consent to marriage.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 22, 2008 @ 9:39 am
ECS,
It’s worth noting that, in my progressive state of New York, it’s legal for a 14-year-old to marry (with, of course, both parents’ consent and the consent of a family court or trial court judge). Like Guy says, that’s not to say it’s right (I’d argue strongly, albeit slightly tongue-in-cheek, that 21 is still too young to marry; by grad school a person may be ready). But the fact remains that Texas changed the law, not because it was a bad law (which it was, and it remains here in NY), but to target an unpopular group.
That’s not to say that they shouldn’t have raised the age of consent. But, like Guy says, whether or not a 14- or 16-year-old can, in fact, consent, in New York and Texas, respectively, they can legally. (And maybe–probably–the age should be raised in both places, but I don’t have the background to make an argument for why, besides the ick factor.)
Comment by Sam B. — April 22, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Heather and others,
I don’t know why you think that these women have no skills and are uneducated. Many of them do, in fact, have college degrees. They could very well support themselves.
Comment by mami — April 22, 2008 @ 9:56 am
I picked “other”. I think that as long as the mothers and fathers are able to demonstrate that they are capable of protecting their children, they should get them back. I am extremely anti polygamy and I think the FLDS is a cult and there is nothing healthy about a cult. So some parents may not be able to get their children back if they fail to demonstrate that they have protected their kids and they are not capable of protecting them in the future.
I, too, am appalled an horrified at how much power cps has. Maybe in this instance a lot of it was justified. But in any instance, it should serve as a frightening reminder that based on ANY allegation (and this one with the FLDS was based on a hoax), cps can take your kids away from you and good luck trying to get them back. Eventually you most likely will but after severe emotional trauma to the children, untold heartache to the parents and extended families, thousands of dollars in legal fees and months (if not years) of time trying to get them back. It flies in the face of “innocent until proven guilty” and “due process”. I don’t even understand how that power is Constitutional. I understand protecting kids and there are those severe circumstances where kids are in imminent danger. But cps gets to take them first before anything else is even run through the courts. No “probable cause” is even necessary. Bit of a thread jack here. Sorry.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 22, 2008 @ 9:57 am
I love it when personal interests collide. Lets just say that many of the Mormon “middle road” seem to be in line with Church headquarters on this issue: Wierd polygamists are brainwashing their children and deserve neither the rights or privileges that “normal” citizens enjoy. Physical and sexual abuse should be prosecuted where ever it is in the world. That should go without saying. Defining what is a religion and what is a brainwashing cult is a little harder do. I would expect LDS who teach their kids of modern prophets and golden plates to be a little more sympathetic.
Comment by cj douglass — April 22, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Lulubelle,
Not a thread jack at all IMO. I think you’re right on point.
Comment by cj douglass — April 22, 2008 @ 10:01 am
cj douglass, can you tell me where you got the information about what Church headquarters thinks about this issue? Specifically, “Weird polygamists are brainwashing their children and deserve neither the rights or privileges that “normal” citizens enjoy”
I ask because I’ve been looking for commentary from Church headquarters and have found very very little.
Comment by Keryn — April 22, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Sorry Keryn,
As usual, I was over simplifying. I haven’t heard what Church headquarters has to say about this is particular incident - I was taking my cues from the somewhat unsympathetic tone I’ve heard in the past. Please excuse the hyperbole.
Comment by cj douglass — April 22, 2008 @ 10:11 am
There is a difference between the 16 year old who wants to marry her 17 year old boy friend and gets parental consent and the girl who is forced by her parents into a relationship that IS NOT LEGAL marriage to an older man. One is legal marriage and the other is statutory rape with the parents as accomplices. So, the fact that the girls are over the legal age to marry is a moot point. They are not married. They are just having sex with an older man, which is statutory rape. The fact that the parents know and approve, makes them accomplices. If these men were divorcing their first wife to really marry the girl, it might be legal marriage. But it is legally statutory rape, and the girl is too young to make the decision to marry or not, which is why parents are needed to give consent. These laws were written for teens who fall in lust and have sex and want to marry. The laws on statutory rape were written to protect young women too young to make the choice on thier own from older men who are acting as predators. Is the best interest of the girl the consideration when her parents turn her over to an older man to marry? Are her wishes really respected and does she have the legal protection of marriage? Then it is statutory rape and should be prosecuted.
I voted “other” because I think the children should be returned and then MONITORED very closely to make sure that the statutory rape problem is not covered up and hidden–again. What has happened in these closed communities is that the abuse is kept hidden and authorities are not allowed in to interview the children and prevent statutory rape from becoming “just between consenting adults.” These girls are not adults and they are not married to the man who is having sex with them.
The community also needs to be monitored so that they are getting the education required by law. The fact that these women don’t have even a highschool degree says that the “home schooling” is not being monitored and is not meeting the standards that parents who home school their children are held to. Another violation that needs constant monitoring.
Then there are the “lost boys.” The parents need to be prosecuted for neglect and abandonment when they turn 12-14 year old boys out without proper education. This is illegal and yet they can’t prosecute the parents because they cant’ FIND the parents because they can’t get into the community to do so.
People here and in the other bolgs seem to be trying to simplify things down to polygamy OR child abuse and so we get off into discussions about “well, it is legal for 16 year olds to marry in Texas. This is not marriage. It is statutory rape.
All of the children are in danger because ALL of the children are at risk for being sent away (abandoned in a big city with no resources) or having their parents set up a statutory rape situation for them. All of the children are “at risk” even if they have not already been abused.
ALL of the children of school age are suffering from educational neglect. There is no monitoring of the education they are recieving and all states require that home schooled children be tested with standardised tests. This is not happening, so there is neglect of all of the school age children.
Should the state wait and pull them out at 12?? because that seems to be the age at which one form of abuse or another is common. But their schooling is being neglected now and that is also illegal.
No, I think the only solution is to force the community to open up to outside intervention and make sure that the education the children gets taken care of properly, that all minors who want to marry, are legally married or not having sex with older men and that the teen boys are not abandoned. We need records of the boys and who the parents are so they can be returned and the parents prosecuted for the abandonment.
And athe DNA testing is going to show that many of those children are not with their parents anyway. The children were actually taken away from their parents and taken to the compound to be raised there so they would not have the “corrupting influence” of the outside world as is happening in Utah where they are being forced to open up to authorities a little.
Comment by alas — April 22, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Sam B - thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more specific. I have serious doubts that young girls who have been raised in the FLDS community are able to freely give their consent to get married.
Comment by ECS — April 22, 2008 @ 10:41 am
alas- although I agree with you points, I have to say that being “at-risk” is not enough to take a child away from his/her home. I work with a whole school if “at-risk” kids and unfortunately we can’t take them away from their homes just because of what we think might happen or even probably will happen.
Comment by Melissa — April 22, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Alas, you bring up some good points. I think my problem with calling the FLDS’s beliefs religion (and saying that they care so much about family) is that they don’t actually support families. They send their sons away to be abandoned, and if an adult tries to leave, their spouse and children are “reassigned”. That is putting the “religion” above their families. In the LDS church, we don’t do that. We are not encouraged to leave a spouse who is not a member or who has decided to become less-active.
The difference is in the leadership. I think this is more about power and control than religious beliefs. “Religion” is used to keep the women in line (and men - I read a story about a man whose wife and children were reassigned), but coercion and threats are probably even more effective. If I knew that my children would be taken from me and given to another woman, would I leave? I don’t know. If I did, I would make sure I had a way to take my kids with me.
I think that taking the children away from their mothers and putting them in foster care is fulfilling the mothers’ worst fears. Where are the men? Arrest them and give the children back to their mothers. The problem is that excluding the possible child rape, there really aren’t any other charges that would hold up in court. Perhaps they took all the children as a way to make sure all the parents stick around. But still, I think the damage being done to young children (particularly nursing babies and toddlers) is worse than allowing the young children to stay with their mothers and be monitored. This is all IMO, of course.
Comment by Stephanie — April 22, 2008 @ 10:47 am
#47 - I am not sure if you’ve read Flora or Carolyn Jessop’s accounts - or heard of their experiences. If some of the abuse that they allege is true - my heart aches for everyone involved.
And I can’t imagine a prophet allegedly removing a child from a home to live with other parents - and everyone being okay with that. Or a woman feeling like she has no choices because her husband or the prophet could take away her children at any point and give them to another woman. Or a 14 year old boy that would be abandoned to survive on his own by the community. I’ve read other allegations that I won’t post here.
From the original post, I too answered other. I think we need more information. I honestly don’t think we know everything yet. I’ve read horrible accounts of what could have been going on - and I’m not sure what or who to believe at this point.
I want to say that it’s not right that children (including my children) could be taken away from me and their father at any time for any reason. But there are specific cases where a child is not safe in their home - and that’s why those cps laws exist. How many people have been abused and the abuse ignored and swept under the rug? And, how many have been accused of abuse where none happened?
The whole system doesn’t really work - but I haven’t seen a better answer - one protecting parents and children.
Was the original raid legal? And now, how does everyone pick up the pieces?
And most of all, for me, I wish every case that was as murky as this one had the legal defenses that this one does (where abuse is alleged, children are removed, etc.). I hope justice is done.
Comment by aerin — April 22, 2008 @ 10:54 am
Alas, you don’t seem to know Texas laws about homeschooling. The FLDS school their children in a private school and they followed all state laws regarding their education of their children.
They actually went beyond legal requirements.
I do not know where you get the information that none of the women have job skills or diplomas. While I am sure that is true for some of them, we have the testimony in court from one of them that she has an EMT license which she studied for and pursued over her husband’s objections (clearly, she is not as oppressed as CPS is telling us all the women are).
Carolyn Jessop, who fled the group and was married to the man who runs the ranch now went to college when she was 18 (while married to Jessop) and got her degree in education and worked as a teacher while still in the FLDS community.
When a reporter was patronizingly interviewing one of the FLDS women he condescendingly asked her if she’d ever even heard of some historical event (I forget which one, now, but it might have been the holocaust). She told him of course she knew what it was, and surprised him by telling him she had a college degree.
We have five girls in this community who are teens and have children or are pregnant. Every one of them is over 16- that’s old enough to get their own birth control pills in town, or to choose an abortion so clearly the state thinks that’s old enough to make sexual decisions.
We don’t yet know how old the men involved are- and of course, if they are too old, they should be charged with statutory rape. If they are 17, 19, 21 then….?
As for the ‘lost boys,’ not even the state of Texas has claimed that any members of this community have abandoned their boys, so can we please not kidnap their children on the basis of what some other FLDS people in another state did?
Is it too much to ask that whether or not they lose their kids be based on what they have actually done? At this point the only thing that has been proven is that CPS has been wrong when they accused the women of lying about their ages, wrong when they insisted their ‘Sarah’ existed and was on the ranch, and was wrong about girls as young as 13 being pregnant. They have FIVE girls between the ages of 16 and 19 who are pregnant or have children and who have had their medical records submitted as part of CPS’ case.
Comment by DeputyHeadmistress — April 22, 2008 @ 11:06 am
ECS,
I think that I agree with you on that–although, in all honesty, I don’t think any 14- or 16-year-old (with, I’m sure, some prodigious exception somewhere) in the United States is able to give such consent. Maybe FLDS girls are even less able–I just don’t have any way to know that.
Comment by Sam B. — April 22, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Okay, Alas, you don’t know anything about the homeschooling laws in most other states as well:
“There is no monitoring of the education they are recieving and all states require that home schooled children be tested with standardised tests.”
That is totally false.
Comment by DeputyHeadmistress — April 22, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Wow, didn’t expect to be in the least popular demographic! I think that, absent substantial evidence of abuse, the kids should be returned to the ranch with counseling
Of course, the required “substantial evidence of abuse” is going to vary depending on the person with whom you speak. I’m very wary of looking at general American culture (as if there really were such a thing, sigh generalization sigh) as the norm by which all things good and right should be measured. But I’ll go with this one: any sort of non-consensual sexual activity on a systemic level would lend my support to non-return policies. Absent such evidence of systemic abuse, Individual case should be adjudicated individually since painting all FLDS people with the same brush smacks of myopic arrogance and so far as I can tell from my decidedly non-lawyerly position, seriously mess with the law.
I don’t think required bedtimes of 7:30 and wake-up of 4:30 inherently constitutes abuse, nor the absence of trampolines and bicycles. In the popular media there’s been much ado about the “lack of childhood” the kids experience because of they have lots of chores and few toys. I prefer my cultural notions of childhood rather ardently, but can’t condone imposing them on others so far as sleep and chores go–at least (sigh again) to a limit.
I really do not envy those legal minds who have to figure out which of our cultural values to enshrine and enforce in law, nor the social workers who have to navigate the sticky road between competing cultures. Yuck.
Comment by Janet — April 22, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Right now the children are being punished, shouldn’t the people the state believes are engaged in criminal activity be punished? It seems so backwards.
Comment by jjohnsen — April 22, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Janet - AMEN to that. I absolutely agree with you.
Comment by Sara — April 22, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
This is an article I posted on my blog yesterday. It gave me something to think about.
Before You Condemn Polygamy, Realize This
by Polly Hammon
Guest Editorial, 3rd March 2005, St. George Spectrum
Before you ask me to give up my lifestyle, show me that yours works. Show me that a monogamist marriage is sacred, that it works for at least a lifetime. Currently, more than 60 percent don’t. Show me children who don’t fret and worry about “if” and “when” their family will be torn apart.
Show me the strength and support of families. Show me homes filled with the wisdom of the aged, not institutions littered with the lonely and the heartbroken, or show me hallways of hospitals lined with family and friends to celebrate glad tidings or to walk with sorrows. Show me places of safety where I can educate my children, not schoolyards of the alienated and the abandoned. Show me children raised in the stability of family, not the sterility of daycare.
Show me heroes made of sterner stuff than what it takes to dunk a basketball or throw a touchdown. Show me the nightly news without a rundown on the latest from a society obsessed with who is cheating on whom or a marriage commitment that is measured in hours.
Show me women who are not yearning after an illusion created by Hollywood - who are not anxious about the natural progression of life, who don’t fear that each change or wrinkle is a marker of possible abandonment. Show me a society so happy with its choices and fulfilled from living those choices that it hasn’t medicated itself for depression and struggles with addiction.
Show me minds honed by principle and hearts enlarged by love. Show me that your society is willing to love more that its own - that children are not referred to as “stepchildren” or “accidents.” Show me children who are loved and nurtured from the moment of conception, instead of 40 million choices of murder.
Show me a society where motherhood is honored and a woman does not have do what it takes to be “picked” by a male more concerned with the façade of her face than the content of her character. Show me a society that does not abandon its daughters to a singles’ ward with the futile admonition of “Be patient and fill your lives with other things.”
Show me a society where religion provides an unalterable standard and Truth is not for sale or bartered for political expediency - where the words and life of the Savior and other wise men are not just glib recitations but the work of a life eager for the changes and growth wrought by their words upon the soul. Show me a religion that appeals to my intellect and provides the answers to the haunting questions of humanity:
Why am I here? Where did I come from? Where am I going?
Show me a society that is willing to allow people the liberties and inalienable rights endowed by our Creator to worship Him at the dictates of our conscience - my conscience sees the works of Fathers Abraham, Jacob, and Moses -rather than a society that commands in the place of our freedoms the Romans’ mandate of monogamy. Contrary to the efforts of some individuals today, neither man nor woman converts a belief at the sword point of compulsion.
Show me these things so that I may worry less about you and that I may know you have some of the joy I’ve known. As for the principles I strive to live by, I love how the living of them invites me to live on a higher plane. If I were to abandon them, how would I greet Mother Sarah or Father Abraham, the Prophet Joseph Smith and countless others? How can I betray my God?
This article comes from principlevoices.org
Comment by Kalola — April 22, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
I don’t have television so most of my information about the FLDS situation in TX is from CNN.com. I thought women with children under 5 were still allowed to stay with their children. If the state of TX has removed breastfeeding babies and young preschoolers from their mothers it seems to me that TX is perpetrating more “actual” abuse on this age group than the FLDS have been accused of. How can this happen? My heart aches for all involved. No matter how I personally feel about the situation at the YFZ Ranch (completely sickening, immoral, degrading and dangerous are just a few of my gut reactions) it seems to me that TX has recklessly disregarded due process and has made a bad situation worse.
Please someone tell me the information about mothers and babies being separated is inaccurate.
Comment by Carrina — April 22, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Kalola,
While you bring up some very good points, do you really believe that the YFZ cult (yes, by definition, it falls under “cult”) offers its believers a real choice? How many of them really have a choice when they know no differently, where they are shut off from the world, where they are taught from birth that women are little more than vessels to bring babies while men can treat women and children any way they wish because they are inspired by God to do so? Wow, that is frightening.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 22, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Someone asked where I got my information on the FLDS “religion.” A friend of mine married a young man from one of the more fundamentalist Mormon groups (there are a few around here–and some of the young men who are kicked out come up here). I didn’t aske if it was FLDS in particular, but it was a very fundamentalist group. I also have an uncle (no longer Mormon) who has studied the polygamist Mormon groups very deeply, as has my father. Most of my information comes from reading and watching interviews with Carolyn Jessop and others who have escaped from the FLDS cult.
On a few occasions when I was a kid, I almost went into foster care. The prospect was scary and I didn’t want to leave my friends and familiar surroundings, but I realize now that it would have been much, much better for me if I had. I hear a lot of you saying CPS has too much power, but they are chronically understaffed and underfunded and there is so much they are not allowed to do even if they see abuse going on in front of their own eyes.
Comment by AYW — April 22, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
click here “>No, the judge will not allow the nursing moms to remain with their babies.
Comment by Stephanie — April 22, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Sorry, here’s the article.
Comment by Stephanie — April 22, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Stephanie, thank you for the link.
I am truly horrified. I hope and pray something can be worked out for the littlest ones, soon. TX should be held accountable for the trauma experienced by ones so young caused by separating them from their mothers. What danger are the children under 5 in?
Comment by Carrina — April 22, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
The big problem we have is that the last time this was tried, the vast majority returned, though many were seriously traumatized. It is a mess, one that leaves me badly conflicted.
At present, the pain is so intense when I listen to people who are involved (ad litems). My heart aches. I’m conflicted. I wish the law were being followed.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 22, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
The law is being followed. Children can be removed from an environment on the suspicion that the environment is unsafe. It takes a lot more to KEEP the children out of that environment, but not a lot to initially remove them.
Comment by AYW — April 22, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
I can see the pros and cons of that (#66). On the one hand, if the suspicion is correct, then it helps keep the child safe. On the other hand, if someone overreacts (I know several good parents who have had CPS called on them) or even just makes a false accusation (I know of two people within my ward boundaries this has happened to), it can put innocent parents and their children through he**. (Not sure if the real word there would send the comment into moderation)
Comment by Stephanie — April 22, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
I don’t know. In my opinion (and this is not specific to the FLDS case, but to all cases), we are better safe than sorry. It’s better to remove a child from a home for a few days while you check out any accusations and then decide whether or not to precede to put the child into foster care. I was raised in an abusive situation/ I have friends who were raised in abusive situations, but neighbors were afraid to turn our families in because our parents were “good, church-going people” or other families didn’t want to raise trouble in the community. I think leaving children in abusive situations because you are afraid of the effect on the parents/ community is an awful, hypocritical thing to do.
Comment by AYW — April 23, 2008 @ 1:23 am
They should remove those who are abusing the kids.
Comment by LK — April 23, 2008 @ 7:47 am
[…] Feminist Mormon Housewives has a poll up about what should happen to the FLDS Children. Go Vote! […]
Pingback by FLDS.ws » Go Vote In This Poll — April 23, 2008 @ 7:50 am
I live in Texas and thought y’all might be interested in seeing an email I received from one of the yahoo groups I belong too. It’s not the first one I have received although this one is the most detailed as to what will happen to the children.
Hi Everyone! My sister, _____ is the executive secretary to ________, who is the
Founder and President of Arrow Child and Family Ministries. Arrow found out today that they
will be receiving 80 -100 permament placement children from the Eldorado Compound from infants
to 11 years of age. These are children that will be placed in Arrow’s care for 1 - 2 years.
More than likely, the parental rights of their parents will adventually be terminated and they will placed
in foster homes and/or adopted out. Arrow is an excellent Christian Foster to Adopt agency. I have
met many of the staff and they are very Godly people.
I am so grateful to Arrow for being willing to take on such a responsibility of caring for these children. These
children will be in a wonderful Christian environment. They will be placed at the beautiful Arrow Retreat Center
in Porter, TX. Arrow is in need of many volunteers of short and long term commitments. The current need that
they have is getting the cabins ready for these children by next Monday. CPS will be out to inspect the Arrow
Retreat Center in Porter next Tues. and everything has to be in tip-top shape. These children are use to a very
clean invironment. (They have not been allowed to be normal children and have been made to work and clean
instead of play.) The cabins have been setting over
the winter and are in need of a good Spring cleaning. Ronna and I were out there cleaning one cabin till 9:30 tonight
and we didn’t even get have way finished. There are seven cabins that have to be cleaned. I will be working at
The Arrow Retreat Center all day on Wed., April 23rd. If there is anyone that can donote anytime this week to
help Arrow clean the facilities and help prepare for these children, please call me at (281… . I am helping coordinate this
project. (No training is needed for this volunteer task. Just wear clothing that you don’t mind getting dirty! Bring old rags
and cleaning supplies if you have them.) Teenagers are welcome to help with this project as long as they are supervised by a parent
or responsible adult. I wouldn’t advise bringing childten under the age of 12 because of the cleaning chemicals and labor involved.
Arrow will need many volunteers to do a number of tasks over the next couple of years. From doing laundry, to cleaning,
cooking, shopping, etc… (My understanding, these volunteer tasks would be at your convenience, whenever you are available.)
They are also in need of long term volunteers that would work directly with the children in 8 hour shifts. There are other
volunteer needs as well. In order to volunteer, you must attend an orientation meeting and some training is involved. To
find out when and where the orientation meetings will be held, you may contact Arrow Chld and Family Ministries at
(281… .
They are also in need of donations. I am attatching a list of items needed if you or your church family can help in any way. I know that their current needs are white twin sheet sets , (200 sets) white towels, wash clothes, hand towels and toiletry items. The list will of course change when they find out the needs of the children they will be receiving. They will need pack-n-plays, high chairs, strollers, car seats, diapers, etc. for the babies.
Right now, they are just worrying about the present needs of preparing for these children.
As far as these children’s education goes, it looks like CPS is coordinating with the University of Texas to have a charter school
on site at the retreat center. This will take place in the Fall. Therefore: Arrow will have to build several new buildings for the school.
I am helping pick-up donations and cooridinate volunteers for Arrow, so please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
More than anything, these children need a lot of prayer. Only God can heal the hurt and sort out the confusion in these children’s lives. Please pray for the staff of Arrow that God will give them strength and wisdom to care for these children. Arrow will have to hire around 75 workers to help
care for these children. Please pray that God sends them just the right people to work with these precious children.
Sorry this is so long. Thank you for taking time to read this.
Blessings,
_________
Comment by anon — April 23, 2008 @ 8:02 am
Re: #71–This is the scariest damn thing I have read in a long time.
Who the hell is this “Christian” group, who made them the authority in raising someone else’s children, who decided that the kids were available for permanent placement, who died and made them God?
I really hope this is a hoax.
Comment by janescott — April 23, 2008 @ 8:35 am
Here’s what I think of the ‘err on the side of caution/the children’ argument:
Over and over when you read about CPS cases unnecessarily removing children from their homes, they defend their actions (or other people do it for them) by saying, ‘We must err on the side of caution,’ or ‘on the side of safety,’ or even, most egregiously, ‘on the side of the children,’ making it sound like the children are being sent to summer camp instead of, from their point of view, kidnapped and held against their will in something called foster care.
How did we reach the point where we thought the effects of being yanked from a loving, affectionate, familiar home against your will and placed with strangers with no communication permitted with your parents were so negligible that this was ‘erring on the side of caution?’ Certainly, there are times when this is absolutely necessary. But it’s never ‘erring on the side of caution.’ It is a decision that one certain trauma is better than another possible or suspected trauma. It is sometimes the correct judgment, but so long as state officials and the public view it as a benign, unproblematic, action free of negative repercussions for the children, it will be taken far too often when it should not be.
Human beings rationalize about an extremely emotional topic. Nobody wants to see children abused, so we justify any means to stop potential abuse, even when the means we take can also be abusive and cause exactly the trauma we claim to wish to stop.
Calling it ‘erring on the side of caution’ makes us feel better about the terror we are inflicting on children in order to rescue them. And, again, sometimes that is what must happen. But we shouldn’t tell ourselves fairy tales about it to make us feel better.
I guess so long as we intone, “But it’s all about the children, and we must err on the side of the children” with enough emotional inflection, it doesn’t really matter whether what we’re doing is actually harmful to them or not. Texas cares so much about these children it’s going to abruptly disrupt the breastfeeding of nursing babies, move all the children *at least* five times within a month or so before they are done, separate them not only from their parents, but also their siblings (oh, they give lip service to keeping siblings together, but if all the boys 8 and up are going to one home, and all the children five and under to another, then they are not keeping siblings together), and refuse to offer them any education between the time they took the children and, it seems, sometime in the fall. It’s also going to change their religion, if it can- and that’s ‘erring on the side of caution.’
No, if the state were truly erring on the side of caution, it would have kept the children and their mothers in their *homes* and made the alleged adult persecutors leave. Instead, by not charging any men with any crimes, by not holding these alleged child rapists, they have permitted (even tacitly encouraged) any men who actually are guilty of raping teenagers to escape, to leave the state, to go into hiding so they can do it again- and meanwhile, the children are being traumatized.
Make no mistake- ‘erring on the side of caution,’ when it means wrenching children from all they know, is *not* the trauma free event we’d like to make it be. It is choosing one known and certain trauma over another alleged, and in this case, possibly future trauma. Again, I am not saying that is never, ever necessary. I am saying we should not pretend we are choosing one risk free, happy solution over a possible dangerous one.
And, for what it’s worth, I am not any kind of LDS, I am a conservative Christian, and I am appalled at how these children are being treated by the state.
Comment by DeputyHEadmistress — April 23, 2008 @ 8:51 am
I really hope #71 is a hoax, too, because it makes me sick down to the pit of my stomach.
Comment by Stephanie — April 23, 2008 @ 8:51 am
Stephanie and Jane Scott- I have been hoping that it’s a hoax too, ever since I received it. But I have receievd at least 2 others that are similar but from different organizations in different areas.
Comment by anon — April 23, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Regarding the #71 Arrow Ministries, you can go to www dot arrow dot org and get their take on it. (Not a hoax.)
Comment by Researcher — April 23, 2008 @ 9:02 am
#72- Here’sa link to the group:
http://www.arrow.org/news/Eldorado1.htm
And it seems obvious to me that CPS must have told them that the parents’ rights would be terminated. They certainly don’t decide that.
Comment by DeputyHEadmistress — April 23, 2008 @ 9:04 am
Wow - I honestly feel like I am in the Twilight Zone looking at that. This is insanity. It feels so wrong.
Comment by Stephanie — April 23, 2008 @ 9:14 am
This is the most HORRIFIC thing I have read in a very long time. How can this be legal? I have friends who work in social services (not in Texas) who have lamented over cases they have been unable to do anything about. If a parent is an alcoholic or drug addict but manages to provide just the most basic of needs (food, education lodging) then the rest is called a “lifestyle” choice. I also am not versed on Texas law related to children at risk but here the CPS does have the right to remove the children immediately with out the parents permission if they feel it is necessarily but usually a worker is dispatched to assess the situation and may remove the children using police if needed. BUT there also has to be an emergency court hearing within 24 hrs or next business day. The reasons must be presented to the judge and then a seven day period before a court hearing again.
How is Texas managing to do this with out some other legal intervention. I’m not FLDS nor do I necessarily agree with their choices but these people are being trampled over. I am so sickened that theses plans are even being entertained all based on false allegations. It would still be a case of overkill if they were to investigate the allegations in this matter but they are already aware that the allegations they based this on were falsely made.
May we all keep those families particularly the children in our prayers
Comment by Lizzy — April 23, 2008 @ 9:31 am
#73– I wholeheartedly agree.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 23, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Heh. I posted this very disturbing letter (#71) and two commenters suggest that FLDS mothers might wish to take note of the story of Jochebed and her baby and consider if there is anything there they might wish to emulate.
Comment by DeputyHEadmistress — April 23, 2008 @ 10:01 am
There should be no question about it. These children are being abused by their parents! How can people be so blind? This is NOT normal. You see these women walking around in uniforms robbed of their identities and their little girls walking around like tiny versions of them. It’s disturbing. There is a big difference between being a modest woman of god and being a slave trapped in a cult AND forcing your children into it is child abuse. Unless they decided to cut out the part about free agency too. This is pure brainwashing, down to the matching coiffs. I can’t even understand how people would take a neutral stance on this! Every human being in this world, regardless of age has rights. The right to choose, what to believe in. The right to be respected. These kids ARE being sexually abused. Wether we turn a blind eye to it or not. This was happening.
Comment by ISIS — April 23, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
You see these women walking around in uniforms robbed of their identities and their little girls walking around like tiny versions of them.
On the flip side, is a little girl walking around in trampy clothing like her mother being brainwashed, or is she exercising her true identity? Statements like this scare me. In no way do I condone abuse, but I am afraid that if someone else’s definition of abuse includes teaching your children your own values, the state might come after me next. People think all sorts of crazy things about Mormons - even my own sister said she can’t believe any self-respecting woman would choose to be a Mormon when we are so “marginalized” by men. I think the abuse should be real and substantiated before taking all these babies away from their mothers and putting them in some camp. How do we know the values they would be taught there would be any better? (Rape of teenage girls excluded)
Comment by Stephanie — April 23, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
#71–that is chilling. Is there any way we can authenticate the source and accuracy of what’s being said in that email?
Comment by prairie chuck — April 23, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
And if you don’t think we have a culture of conformity, try sending a 13 year old girl to public school dressed ‘funny.’
Go visit one of those schools and notice how much they all dress alike, and see how the ones that really dressing differently are ostracized.
Comment by DeputyHEadmistress — April 23, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Lulubelle,
I am concerned about how you throw around the word “cult”. Cult is a word that means “a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.”
Using this word in this manner is using it as an epithet, one that I find extremely hurtful when leveled at the LDS church. One that I find disturbing when used in a context of a lack of understanding, or at least an unwillingness to understand.
Comment by TrevorM — April 23, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
sorry for the linking problems
Comment by TrevorM — April 23, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Genocide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Genocide (disambiguation).
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.
While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[1
Comment by BOB — April 23, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
http://www.captivefldschildren.org/
Comment by BOB — April 23, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
#82 Normal? What is normal? Clothing, hair, religious beliefs, the amount of chores vs. play does not justify children (esp. nursing babies) being ripped from the arms of their mothers. If there was truly abuse the children who were in imminent danger should have been the only ones removed not every child in the whole community.
Post #71 is the most frightening thing I have heard. The state of TX is inflicting so much trauma on these innocent children. It seems there could be a better way.
Comment by Carrina — April 23, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
WOOT! Nursing babies under 12 months get to stay with their mamas, and babies 12-24 months must be placed in foster homes near their familie, not hundreds of miles away like the rest of the children.:
Finally, the judge shows some sense and compassion-
There are 18 adult mothers with nursing babies under 12 months old, according to CPS.
I am so glad those nursing infants under 12 months can stay with their mothers. I wish the judge knew anything at all about the benefits of extended breastfeeding, and my heart aches for the little nurslings, but at least she isn’t sending them hundreds of miles away. What a pathetic situation, where we are grateful that nurslings aren’t sent hundreds of miles from their nonabusive parents when the court’s own witness has said they are not in imminent danger.
Comment by DeputyHEadmistress — April 23, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Silverrain, please tell me why you only include females in this statement…”Therefore, I think we should have mandatory birth control for all unwed women.” shoulden’t we also make the same requirement of males? They are just as responsible for conception as women are!
As far as the kids being returned, no, they should not be, they are being raised in an illegal situation and that in itsself can be concidered abuse. Much like a child who is raised in a drug dealers home, they learn what they see and continue the cycle. So break the cycle for these kids!
Comment by Apachebrat — April 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
I know of several groups, including LDS, that are sending this email around planning to donate materials and time so I would think that #71 is not a hoax.
As much as well-meaning people think that the FLDS are brainwashed I have often used the same terminology to refer to the very people trying to help them now. I am new to Texas and within minutes of meeting my neighbors, their 12 year old son asked if I knew how to get to Heaven. When I hesitated at his boldness, he assured me that it was ok if I didn’t know, he knew and would telll me how. I then proceeded to tell him my beliefs on how to get to Heaven, then he told me his. I said, “isn’t that the same thing I said.” He was totally thrown and couldn’t go any further with the conversation. I thought wow, he’s been brainwashed and can’t even think for himself.
Comment by anon — April 23, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
Drug abuse is against the law. Polygamy is against the law.
But isn’t it funny that what the state witnesses in court testified to had nothing to do with breaking the law and everything to do with belief. CPS’ objection to returning the children to their families is that they will grow up with ‘unhelpful’ beliefs, one of those unhelpful thoughts is that babies are a blessing. Another is that being a wife and mother is the most wonderful thing. I happen to believe both of those things, and I am neither FLDS or LDS. Should I lose my kids because of these ‘unhelpful’ beliefs?.
The thought police are here. Which of us will be next?
Comment by DeputyHEadmistress — April 23, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
#91 - That’s a little better, but IMO, still not enough. I bet there are nursing babies over 12 months, too. I have been trying to wean my 14 month old for a month. It would be devastating to him to be taken from me. Sure, he could survive eating other food, but the emotional toll would be devastating - even if he were within a few miles so I could see him once a day. I have a 6 year old. He would be scared to death to go live in a group home. I just feel sick for these kids. My kids would all be separated from one another in three different locations in a scenario like this.
There were a few quotes from this article that bother me (pardon the sarcasm in my commentary):
“What this is, is when I take possession of a child, I take personal responsibility for that child, and I’d like to know where these children are,” said Walther this afternoon.
Well, I hope she takes responsibility for the trauma they are going through, but I don’t think she really gets it.
The judge also told Banks she wanted the children to be able to exercise their religion and have access to the clothing they desired while in foster care.
Um, isn’t the point that she doesn’t want them to exercise their religion?!? I am sure that the majority of children 5 and under (even 10 and under or older) are going to be SOOO relieved that while being apart from their mothers and siblings, they can still “exercise their religion”.
She said CPS has been stretched “beyond belief” and asked the various parties involved in the case to be patient.
“No one wants to see these children separated from their parents,” said Walther. “In a perfect world, that wouldn’t happen, but this isn’t a perfect world.”
My heart is just breaking for CPS. How sad that they are being stretched beyond belief while families are being torn apart. Please, FLDS children, be patient.
Comment by Stephanie — April 23, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
I just saw on the local news (I’m in Houston suburbs) that three dozen of the FLDS kids are coming to a shelter in my county. They were asking for donations of clothing and sheets. The shelter looked very similar to what was being described in #71, and the newscasters said the kids would be arriving in the next few days.
Comment by Shelah — April 23, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
DeputyHeadmistress, I don’t know where the devil you get your information about CPS or about the case in TX. First off, when kids go into foster care, their parents are still allowed to see them, and in many cases, the child is returned to the parent(s) after a brief stint in foster care (depending on whether the parents got their act back together). While the child is under state care, the parents are allowed to have supervised visits with their children anywhere from a few times a month to a few times a week. Once the environment is deemed suitable for children, the children are returned to their parents’ homes and sometimes there are follow-up inspections to make sure the parents are still obeying the rules.
You also said that the children were removed simply because the state deemed FLDS beliefs unhealthy, not because the children were being raised to break the law. In the arguments of the caseworkers, they specifically stated that the children needed to be removed because they were raised to break the law by practicing polygamy. There is a culture of law-breaking in the FLDS compounds beyond polygamy–defrauding the government through false welfare claims and having children as young as thirteen and fourteen work in construction (those aren’t just “chores”). Of course incest and rape are also illegal, but nobody here seems over concerned about that.
Comment by AYW — April 24, 2008 @ 1:17 am
Isn’t polygamy defined as being married to more than one person at a time? Are any of these people legally married to more than one person, or even to one person at all? Were people fudging marriage licenses and lying to justices of the peace? If not, this is cohabitation, which is endemic in regular old American society. The summer of love, anyone?
And the reason I brought up Dr. King is that we like him, despite the fact that he was breaking the law — we don’t like the FLDS, see, so instead of teaching kindergarten students to sing the FLDS equivalent of “We Shall Overcome” for the spring play and saying “isn’t it shocking that they put those dads in jail,” we say “grr, they’re breaking the law, they should never be able to see their children again, those dirty creepy cultists!!” I got to play an evil white woman who was happy to see Rosa Parks arrested, when I was in 3rd grade… funny how the lesson I learned was “just because it’s against the law doesn’t mean you get to treat people like dirt — and by the way, they might be right in the end.”
Comment by Sarah — April 24, 2008 @ 4:01 am
97 “they specifically stated that the children needed to be removed because they were raised to break the law by practicing polygamy”
I think that this argument has been discussed a number of times.
Under this rationale, if a parent was stopped for speeding, the cops should remove all the children in the car into state custody because their parents are teaching them how to break the law. I realize it’s a trivial example, but you’re suggesting punishing the children for the sins of their fathers. The answer is simple: collect evidence and arrest those who are committing crimes and put them through the justice system, not the children and babies.
Comment by Researcher — April 24, 2008 @ 7:04 am
#97 - First off, when kids go into foster care, their parents are still allowed to see them
No, not true. I know a man here in Texas who has not seen his children since they were taken - not even on their birthdays. His wife is occassionally permitted to see them - and the kids live with family! CPS is extremely restrictive.
AYW, pardon my asking, but do you have children?
Comment by Stephanie — April 24, 2008 @ 9:23 am
Trevor M: I did not call the LDS church a cult. I did call the FLDS church a cult. There are numerous definitions of cult, but here’s one from Wikipedia:
Definition of ‘cult’ according to secular opposition
Secular cult opponents tend to define a “cult” as a group that tends to manipulate, exploit, and control its members. Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities.[26]
While acknowledging the issue of multiple definitions of “cult”,[27] Michael Langone states that “Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership’s demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders.”[28] A similar definition is given by Louis Jolyon West:
“A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.” [29]
In each, the focus tends to be on the specific tactics of conversion, the negative impact on individual members, and the difficulty in leaving once indoctrination has occurred.[30]
Comment by Lulubelle — April 24, 2008 @ 10:33 am
If the children are hundreds of miles away logistically they wont be able to see the children very often, even IF CPS permits it.
I saw a clip yesterday of the mayor and he said that the “Sarah’s” phone call gave them the excuse they needed to enter the ranch …….” My blood was boiling and I can’t remember exactly if he said to see what was going on or see how many women were there or what but that he acknowledged they were just looking for a reason explains it all to me.
Comment by Lizzy — April 24, 2008 @ 10:39 am
#93–I have no doubt the the email is well-intentioned. But there are hundreds of well-intentioned emails going around that are hoaxes (giving Snopes a purpose in life) I would like to know if there is an original source–a website, a memo, something that makes the point that those taking these children are being told this is a permanent placement. I would not be surprised to learn this is true, but would like some good evidence of it.
Comment by prairie chuck — April 24, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
AYW–I take serious exception to your cavalier assertion that nobody here worries about rape or incest. Hyperbole makes itself useful in making all sorts of points, but to use it in the very implication that a bunch of people shrug off rape simply defies acceptable behavior. As for incest, I imagine there’s a speckly gene pool at that ranch, but unless we’re talking first cousins I believe it’s legal in TX as well as a number of other states.
If you read carefully, you will note that a number of us have stated that solid evidence (as opposed to, say, what runs in *People* magazine) of rape, statutory or otherwise, serves as fully adequate justification for removing the children and placing them elsewhere. (Reported rape certainly justifies temporary removal prior to proof as well, although Texas seems to have completely bunged their handling of scope.) Thus far I’ve read a bunch of salacious rumors and not facts. Should the rumors turn out to be true, then I’d damned well volunteer to house a cadre of the kiddos my own self. I’m no fan of a child of 16 accepting an arranged marriage proposal and then wedding with the approval of her parents (ugh ugh ugh), but under Texas law such a case would not qualify as rape unless the girl endures coercion, such as in the case which landed Warren Jeffs rightfully in prison. If we disbanded by force every community where arranged marriage of mid-age teens happens, we’d be infiltrating the Orthodox Jews, any number of refugee communities, and the Amish on a regular basis. And if you’ve lived in any American inner city, you’re probably aware that it’s not terribly uncommon for teenagers to wed in the absence of undying love there, either. (And if you find construction work unacceptable for kids under 18, you’ll also be disbanding not just the Amish but most working family farms of which I’m aware.)
I don’t like the idea of kids working that hard on a regular basis. I loathe the notion of teenagers getting married and feeling as if it is their only acceptable destiny. I’m pretty sure most people here share my feelings on the subject, seeing as how so many of them have outright expressed such loathing. Nonetheless, disgust at one set of behaviors cannot morally substitute for evidence of other more egregious ones.
Comment by Janet — April 24, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
AYW–I was pretty harsh. I’m sure you don’t really think we shrug our shoulders at rape. Nothing makes a rape survivor more tetchy than an implication that she doesn’t care about other women. I realize your perspective also comes from a position with past “baggage” regarding abuse and that you, like me, want those children safe.
Comment by Janet — April 24, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
I’ve worked on a farm–it’s hard work, but it never was full-time construction. Also #100, I stated plenty of other ways the law was broken, not just polygamy. If you’re going to quote me, use the whole quote. Warren Jeffs was originally arrested for fraud, not rape. I’m sorry if it seems like I don’t care about the parents here, but CPS has different rights than the police do, and when the rights of children are infringed upon, it’s my first instinct to protect them. I don’t always naturally suppose that parents are doing what’s best for their children–I tend to be a wee bit suspicious, and I’m sorry if that offends people. It’s true, I have the baggage that comes from living my life and it pervades my opinions.
Comment by AYW — April 24, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
I feel the children should be returned to their mothers unless abuse is proven against that mother - children need their mothers and shoving these children out into a world they know little or nothing about without their mothers will invariably just damage them even more. I do NOT believe the fathers should be allowed to return to the families or even contact them at this time. This was/is a very patriarchal society with young girls being forced into unwanted marriages - thereby promoting rape/abuse. These are the criminals(the men) - not the women whom are afraid of losing their children to these men and being kicked out of the only thing they have ever known in their life. I cannot in good conscience blame these women as they have never known any difference - being cut off from the outside world, these women most likely didn’t even know they could escape this craziness. While my heart feels immense sadness for the children, I also have pity for the mothers.
Comment by Angel — April 25, 2008 @ 1:11 am
I also feel pitty for some of the men who also know no differently and were taught from the cradle how to rule their wives/kids with an iron fist under the guise of priesthood authority and inspiration from God. And while I have a hard time defending any of those perpetuating this lifestyle, kids need their dads just as much as they need their moms. Maybe not in this case. Maybe many of the kids are better off without either. But don’t you think many of those dads ache for their kids and the feeling is likewise?
Comment by Lulubelle — April 25, 2008 @ 9:55 am
AYW, I think you were talking to #99?
when the rights of children are infringed upon, it’s my first instinct to protect them.
AYW, I agree with you. We should protect children. It is my first instint, too. Yesterday I drove by a truck talking to a boy THREE times and gave the driver the evil eye just in case he was up to something (he may have been the dad, but I am overly protective like that). However, I disagree that taking these children away from their mothers under assumptions that may be false is actually protecting the children. I think it is doing more harm than good.
My friend is watching another friend’s children while their mother is out of the country for a week. The children have been in their own home with their father or in the homes of close family friends. They have stuck to their routines, worn their own clothes, eaten their own food. And the 3 year old was still crying for her mother a lot of the morning. I can’t even imagine what the FLDS children are going through.
This same friend does foster care. She has been contacted through LDS social services (who was contacted through the state) to see if she will take some FLDS children in. The rules are very strict: they must be homeschooled, they can’t watch t.v. How many people do you think CPS is going to find who want to abide by all these rules? I love my own children, but even I don’t want to homeschool them. Give these kids back to their mothers and arrest the fathers.
Comment by Stephanie — April 25, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry, I didn’t mean arrest the fathers. I meant, arrest the leaders who are the ones accused of doing the crimes.
Comment by Stephanie — April 25, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
I’m really tired of people who call themselves “liberal” because it’s the trendy thing to do. A real liberal would never condone these authoritarian, fascist, cowardly acts committed against mothers and their children!
It is an absolute, basic human right for parents to be given stewardship over their children. It is also a basic human right to espouse religious views and share those views with children.
Yesterday, Texas CPS ripped 13-month old babies off the breasts of their nursing mothers at gunpoint in a dispecable act nothing short of kidnapping.
Are you someone who calls themself a liberal and still cheering-on these thugs? I spit in your face.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 26, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Thanks, sweetie, but I don’t think a “real liberal” would go around spitting at women.
Comment by AYW — April 26, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Just to restate my position and protect myself from threats of violence (from the likes of Kelton here), I don’t necessarily think the children should be removed permanently, but I do believe that they should be in a safe place while the state investigates the charges against their parents–as is the norm in such cases. If there is absolutely no evidence of rape, incest, or polygamy, or any other illegal activity, of course the children should promptly be returned to their parents’ houses. Wanting an investigation–and wanting the children to be in a safe place during that investigation–does not make me a fascist, nor does it make me a faux liberal. It makes me a person with some good old common sense.
Comment by AYW — April 26, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
AYW–maybe real liberals spit at men and women alike, if they feel like spitting, but only if they have poor manners. Not spitting at you just ‘cuz you’re a woman? Nothing liberal about that.
I’m not sure polygamy should be lumped in with rape, incest, or even fraud. Rape and fraud are immoral regardless of legality, inasmuch as they violate another person’s free will. I’m no fan of polygamy, but I’m not ethnocentric or anachronistic enough to argue the same for plural marriage. As others have said, evidence of *any* illegal activity can’t serve as an adequate barometer of when to keep kids away from their parents, or all of us who speed would be in big trouble.
I actually logged on to see if you by any chance have been following the CPS allegations regarding the # of underage pregnancies and what sources you might have for your information, seeing as how your passion hopefully evinces a famialiarity w/a variety of same. . IN the last 24 hours I’ve heard conflicted statistics from CPS, the Texas legal authorities, and a number of media outlets (and that’s one question I admit I simply don’t listen to the FLDS people on, since they’ve admitted that they sometimes lie to protect “doctrine”.) It’s confusing. You or anyone else who has a semingly reliable source, feel free to pony up. I can’t get the NPR interview to link because my computer is being wonky, but it aired yesterday.
Comment by Janet — April 26, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Actually, I’ve been sick as a dog, so I’ve been sleeping rather than checking the news. I linked polygamy with the others because it’s illegal and incest/rape tend to occur in polygamous communities–I’m not saying that there is a causal relationship, though.
Comment by AYW — April 26, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
I mean to say, I’ve been sleeping for the past 24 hours. Ican’t even form sentences right.
Comment by AYW — April 26, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Oh hey, I understand illness and a lack of coherance. That’s the bread and butter of my existence. Feel better soon.
Comment by Janet — April 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Here’s an NPR link. I hope it works. it explains why they took 400 children. It also explains why women who stand by when men abuse children are also guilty of abuse.
Comment by AYW — April 26, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
I don’t write as well as most here so am sometimes unable to succinctly transfer what is in my head to my fingers on the keyboard. I’m giving it a go here though.
I think most people would agree that rape and or incest is abuse and immediate intervention is required. Sex with under age teens while immoral isn’t always illegal (depends on the age and age difference of participants).
Polygamy is illegal but living with or having sex with more than one person with out trying to legally marry is not.
When an allegation of abuse is made it should be investigated. Because an allegation is made does not mean it is valid. If an allegation is made against 1 person, and found to be valid, it does not mean that the neighbours of those individuals are committing abuse.
I know the abuse is considered to be a product of their religious ideology, thus assumingly they all would be practicing it . But that is part of the problem with this whole thing, an awful lot of assumptions and allegations are being made with out much information to back it up.
So if the big worry is 13-16 year old girls being “married” (spiritually or otherwise) then investigate that. I don’t think that warrants removing babies, toddlers and all children.
There is something very very wrong when because of a phone call about abuse (false in this case) that the entire community”s children are removed. There wasn’t even an allegation
false or otherwise involving toddlers. While I admit that the safety and wellbeing of children should be paramount, I can not see it being in a 5 year olds best interest for him/her to be removed from both parents, siblings, home and the only life they have ever know. I think THAT is abuse and causing trauma to them.
The state has reacted in a manner equivalent to the use of a sledge hammer instead of a flyswatter. That makes me wonder how could that many people (or departments ) necessary to carry out that operation have such bad judgment? Impossible I think, so I believe there was a different motive than to protect the innocent children.
I have lived through sexual abuse and don’t condone it or any other type of abuse but I do believe that even if some one does not have the same ideas, religion, lifestyle etc that does not make them wrong.
Comment by Lizzy — April 27, 2008 @ 7:54 am
I am normally a calm and rational with anyone with whom I disagree, but this recent turn of events has forced me to take a hard stand. But I’m going to be charitable and dismiss others’ lack of outrage here as only ignorance.
Common sense will guide you from walking in front of speeding trains, but common sense never rises to the occasion of taking a moral stand.
Let’s review:
The ONLY legal case upon which the Texas CPS stands is that there is a pattern of religious-motivated abuse which has afflicted somewhere between 2 and 20 children at some post-puberty stage of age 13-17 to enter into a marriage relationship.
AND the sole legal argument for removing any child from any home by CPS services?
“Imminent danger to the health and welfare of the child“
im·mi·nent ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one’s head
So CPS removed every child over the age of 4 in the initial raid because of imminent danger of entering into these marriage relationships.
But now, with their case being undermined by news of the initial call being fraudulent, and the ACLU along with hundreds of lawyers descending to give legal aid these families while reporters continue to ask ‘why’ and public sentiment turning against them…
They go back and forcibly remove every child between the age of 13 months to 4 years out of the arms of their weeping mothers with the proclamation by CPS spokesperson that ” The only rational and prudent step is to remove all of these children “.
Please tell me, where is the imminent danger to these nursing toddlers?
You cannot say, because THERE IS NONE!!
The ultimate strategy of overthrow throughout recorded history is to target children. The State of Texas and its accomplices are engaged in waging war and the parental bonds of young children and their mothers are nothing more than collateral damage.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 27, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Kelton, I’m happy to see passion on various sides of an issue. Hard stances =also fine. Spitting, cyber or otherwise, just makes it hard to take you seriously. This last comment forwards an argument rather than diatribe and is thus niftycool.
And I side with you regarding nursing babies. Cold turkey weaning a child who is already under significant stress by having all consistent aspects of their life upended seems unnecessary to me since nobody actually asserts the babies are in imminent danger and disrupting their nursing actually *does* introduce imminent danger since some kids can’t or won’t take to bottles. Grrr.
Comment by Janet — April 27, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
The imminent danger to children? To be raised in a society that condones rape and incest. Survivors who have escaped FLDS compounds tell of being beaten into submission when they did not wish to have sex with their much older husbands. CPS found evidence of harsh punishment for children who disobeyed their parents, thus the children had to be removed. Usually when one child is removed from a home, most or all are removed because that home apparently poses a threat to children.
As for the phone call, CPS’s first duty was to investigate the charges of abuse, not to investigate the phone call itself–that lies in a different domain (more with the police). They found enough evidence of abuse to remove the children. Their removal of the children wasn’t based on the phone call, but based on evidence they found on the compound itself. A CPS investigation isn’t like a criminal investigation–it can’t be discounted because one part is found to be untrue–if there is evidence of abuse, the first priority is to keep the children safe. Isn’t that the way it should be?
Comment by AYW — April 27, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
AYW, I think we’re defining “imminent” differently. What you describe I’d qualify as “pervasive” and perhaps “insidious” but it does not pose an immediate danger to nursing infants. If the allegations turn out to be true, then obviously those babies would be better off growing up elsewhere–but there has to be some way to not literally rip them away from their mother’s breasts at gunpoint, as the media is reporting was done last week. That’s imminent. Bleargh.
BTW, I happen to believe most of the narratives coming from ex-members of the FLDS faith. Nonetheless, approaching them as entirely credulous while discounting entirely the narratives of those still within the religion doesn’t make a lot of sense. Both camps have rather vivid agendas and neither probably earns huge trustworthy points–and that’s before we even approach the postmodern notion of two perspectives of reality both being true. Think of some of the stuff you may have read by ex-mormons. Some of it is quite true, and quite bad (and some accounts refer to systemic features and others attribute isolated accounts of abuse to the former–how one links the two is dicey). Some of it is total falderal.
Again, I in no way envy any of the legal authorities of folks who work for social services the horror of trying to sort out this mess. It’s the worst sort of nightmare for everyone concerned, and most prominently for the children. I don’t think anyone disagrees with you that keeping them safe should come first. What different people adjudicate as “safe” on the other hand, varies. As does whether or not people are convinced by evidence touted by either side.
Let me restate once again that there’s little I like about the FLDS culture (that I know of, anyhow). But I know people who find very little-to-nothing to like about general LDS culture, or the American obsession with fostering independence in children, either. Entire cultures would condemn common American child-rearing techniques–those things held sacrosanct by CPS (and heck, by me) as downright abusive. They’d probably think my kid is unsafe growing up here. I disagree. There’s just a lot of “slip” between cultures. I still agree that rape–if it is indeed rape–exists as one of those very few “do not cross” lines which cannot be written off by any group as acceptable because of culture. Short of that and some other things I won’t enumerate here, I’m willing to entertain the notion that a cultural disconnect is preventing either side (or, to be more realistic, any of the *many* sides to this thing) is entirely right. Most likely scenerio: we’re all wrong to one degree or another and we really ought to start cutting each other a little slack regarding the others’ intentions.
Comment by Janet — April 27, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
[…] consider their “Nosy Outsider Poll” that indicates most readers think the children should go back to their parents. Read the […]
Pingback by Mormonism, Las Vegas, Allies, and Others : Elaine Vigneault — April 28, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Do you really think these children should go back? Read this. That’s not normal, people. When a fourteen year old is having children with a man twice her age (or older), it’s not sex, it’s RAPE. I simply do not understand how anyone could justify allowing little children to live in that environment.
Comment by AYW — April 29, 2008 @ 12:34 am
This explains about incest in the FLDS culture. Because of the prevalence of genetic diseases that normally occur very rarely, the FLDS church has shown through their own dna and medical problems that they have been inbreeding (on a first-cousin or closer level). Oh, and just for Kelton, I got it from a liberal site so he could know that even liberals disapprove of this stuff.
Comment by AYW — April 29, 2008 @ 1:07 am
AYW, I don’t think that anyone really disagrees about the rape or incest. The thing I take issue with is ripping small children from their mothers. The kids don’t understand what is going on. It is traumatizing. In a situation of “imminent” danger, I see justifying that action. Excluding teenagers, I don’t think the children are in “imminent” physical danger. I think arresting and holding the men while DNA and criminal charges are worked out and returning the children to their mothers while the mothers are on probation/monitoring would be more appropriate and healthier for the emotional well-being of the children. Who is really suffering right now? The children.
Our society gives violent sex offenders probation (against my best wishes). We can’t extend that same courtesy who mothers who love their children but who have been brainwashed by the leaders of their cult? I just see a double standard here.
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 8:55 am
Stephanie,
I am wondering though, what are the odds that once the mother’s get their children back they would high-tail it back to Colorado City and disappear? A majority of polygamist women have shown time and again that their allegiance is to the religion not to any particular spouse.
Comment by md — April 29, 2008 @ 10:41 am
Also, as feminists we need to realize that we need to take responsibility in cases like this–women who stand by while their daughters, sisters, sister-wives are being abused are PART OF THE PROBLEM. A mother who allows her husband or son (or anyone) to abuse her daughter would also be considered abusive, wouldn’t she? Why would anyone want to allow that kind of mother to raise more kids?
Comment by AYW — April 29, 2008 @ 11:41 am
md, what are the odds that some women might realize they have an out of polygamy and choose to take it? Under the threat of abuse and having their children taken from them and given to another sister wife if they disobey, they may have stayed in the sect out of fear. But, if the men are in custody, and the women see they have a clear out, I think some would take it.
I think case-by-case is appropriate, but a blanket permanant removal of all children is overkill. We keep talking about punishing the parents, but it is the CHILDREN who are suffering.
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Stephanie, You’re right some of them might see it as an out. I am just wondering though, if that is the case, why we haven’t heard one story of a woman saying, “I am leaving the sect for good, now give me my kids back?” I have just heard so many stories of husbands being kicked out and the wives staying. Wouldn’t that be an out as well?
I agree, a case-by -case is appropriate and the lack therof is one of the worst things about this situation.
Comment by md — April 29, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
AYW (#125)–I’m disgusting by the notion ofa 14 year old having sex with a middle aged man (or anyone–she’s still so young!) but Texas only changed their minimum marital age requirement from 14 to 16 two years ago. 16 still seems ludicriously young to me. Still, CPS and the judges will have to use the law to decide when something was or was not rape. If the weddings in question happened 2 years or more ago, and with the girl’s and her parents’ consent, it was legal. Excessively ookie, yes, but not legally rape.
To paraphrase from *A Man for All Seasons*, we laypeople can reason according to our wits. Courts must reason according to the law. If something isn’t rape under the law, they cannot legally prosecute it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t rape. I have a dissertation chapter about slave rape, which was a legally ridiculous notion at the time but nonetheless quite extant and somewhat pervasive. The very few people who tried to prosecute someone for raping a slave were met with legal vacuum (one nice judge referred to the entire notion of raping one’s own property as “unmeaning twaddle,” the SOB). Cases like that, and like the stuff going on in Texas, are what change the law. Maybe TX will have new laws as result of this mess. But I think part of the reason you and I are talking in circles is because you’re discussing rape as a moral concept and I’m discussing it as a legal one. THe two don’t always dovetail completely, law being a work in progress and all.
Comment by Janet — April 29, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
addendum: your argument about women lending tacit consent to unhealthy situations can be leveled at any subaltern culture (definately including mainstream Mormonism) by anyone who sees that culture as abusive. Certainly lots of people DO see our faith as inherently abusive. We have laws to serve as speed bumps between incediary mainstream condemnation and minorities. We need the speed bumps. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be lowered with the FLDS (they probably should). I’m just saying that it’s easy to fling about accusations regarding one subaltern group’s ookie behavior without noticing that others would happily level the same against one’s own.
Comment by Janet — April 29, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
md, I have. I read an article that said that after the raid, some of the mothers asked if they could have their children back if they left the sect for good. The authorities said no. If I can find the link again, I’ll post it.
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
Janet,
The problem with the argument that the marriage age is 14-16, is that they weren’t legally married and by Texas law sex with anyone (to whom you are unmarried) under 17 is rape. See, that’s a big problem when you don’t bother to register marriages with the state–you get in trouble for having sex with those underage girls you’re “married” to.
The removal as of now isn’t permanent, they are still waiting to sort this out on a case by case basis. If anyone bothered to read the articles I cited, that’s one of the things they said.
Comment by AYW — April 29, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Thanks Stephanie, that would be great!
Comment by md — April 29, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
I can’t find the one I remember reading, but this article talks about it.
Here’s a quote from the article: “One of your concerns is that they have a mindset. What do they have to do to prove they are amenable to counseling services?” said an attorney questioning Angie Voss, the supervisor.
What if, the attorney went on, her clients were willing to get an apartment, obtain a restraining order against the FLDS husbands or fathers, and would only allow the men to have supervised visitation?
Voss did not directly answer the question, but said, “This population of women have a difficult time making decisions on their own.
It seems like the other one I read was a reporter asking CPS himself, not something that happened in court.
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
Actually, this statement by Voss is even more disturbing to me than the article I read before. The women can’t have their kids because they “have a difficult time making decisions on their own”? Have they had the ability to make decisions on their own?
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
Here’s a link to another blog that links to articles about some of the children being sick and two possibly missing.
Comment by Stephanie — April 29, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
If you could link directly to your news sources and not to a blog post, you would be a lot more credible. As it is, the blog is throwing a lot of propaganda in with those stories.
Comment by AYW — April 30, 2008 @ 12:03 am
Sorry, I thought about that but didn’t have the time at midnight. You may disregard the blog link if you aren’t interested. The links in the blog are to actual news sources.
Comment by Stephanie — April 30, 2008 @ 7:17 am
Just wanted to pop in and say hi. I’m not Mormon anymore since I don’t
believe the doctrine, but still feel a strong affiliation to the
church through my mother with whom I am very close. I have been so
saddened by the FLDS children and wanted to know what some of you
think of this. It seems that the church should be less concerned with
distancing themselves and offer to help in some way. Many of us do
share ancestors after all. I hope this is not offensive, but I would
love to help these poor women and children in some way.
Comment by carolyn — April 30, 2008 @ 9:06 am
I
AYW, you’re once again making unwarrented assumptions about those with whom you disagree, albeit one much less egegrious than your initial accusation that nobody but you seems to care about rape. I have read the articles, and a whole lot more to boot. The problem is that other articles contradict them. It’s confusing and annoying, but I suppose it’s also to be expected in a case so large and messy. A few days ago I found an article where one of the defendent’s lawyers said the judge had decided to look at things case-by-case; about five minutes later I found a quotation from the judge saying she’d deal with it all in a lump. I’ve wisely stopped believing anything is yet completely decided or that any one article touts unfetterered truth.
Good point about not registered the marriages with the State. That’s gotta be a nasty bit of irony for the FLDS leaders who keep pointing to the low marriage age in Texas.
I’m going to bow out of this discussion now, both because it seems to be going nowhere inasmuch as you seem to be largely not interested in considering nuance (common enough with emotional topics; I get that) and because I’m overwhelmed with other stuff in my life right now. I’m sure we all hope the kids will receive decent treatment regardless of where they end up, and I’m sure all of us abhor abuse and work to end it in the ways we see feasible.
Comment by Janet — April 30, 2008 @ 11:02 am
As much as I’d like to jump into the discussion of how the FLDS is icky to mainstream America in 2008, I am passionately observing it all because I care when there are egregious violations of civil liberties that have profound and serious consequences to us all. There are some really disgusting sickos in this country, among them are those people who are enthusiatically cheerleading this abuse of government authority. Also, the twisted losers who are making comedy and mockery of the distressed and weary victims on comedy shows and YouTube, etc.
Comment by Kelton Baker — May 1, 2008 @ 6:52 am
I think the FDLS should reform their faith. If a woman chooses to enter into a marriage where there is more than one wife then she should choose to do so, if not then she shouldn’t be conjoled or harrassed to enter into one. However they should not encourage, force or advise for anyone to marry and especially to under-age children. Polygamy is a serious issue and against the law however it isn’t right to interfere nor expect a religion that has existed longer than society to adapt or change its policies or faith just because mainstream society changes. With certain limitations where it concerns children, most if not all children should be handed back over to their mothers and close relatives and allowed to return to their home(back to the ranch) and then closely monitored for a period of time, in order to satisfy the state that the children are indeed safe to remain in their homes with family. In order for a religious sect to continue with their faith, there has there has to be some order that can correlate with the law outside their faith. As for the men who knowlingly entered into marriage with young under-age girls, should be arrested and prosecuted. There should be no excuse where it concerns children, for ignorance of the law that are indeed upheld. In order for FDLS to continue with their way of life, they need to modify their policies and in case of discrepancies with the law, need to raise the marriagable age to 18, so that there will be no enterferences in their lives and they can live happily, quiet and safe away from the gentiles. They should also make allowances for those who want to enter into a single marriages as well that. Single marriages can also be sacreligiuos as well. And should also make accessible for those who want to leave the faith as well and re-entry.
Comment by devlin — May 3, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Just thought I would throw in my own two cents.
If the allegations are true, the state should be procesuting on a case by case basis. If they are false, someone please tell me who is going to hold CPS and the state accountable for all the damage they have done to these families? Opps! Sorry about that, but don’t worry, your children are now fine upstanding Baptists and have been saved. So everything turned out all right in the end.
And yes ladies, the emails are real. A multitude of organizations that will get mondo bucks from the Great(?) State of Texas for taking in these poor children are familiar enough with the system to know that unless a great miracle occurs, the children will never be returned to their parents even if no wrongdoing is ever proved. You should get a good look at the number of emails pouring into the state offices with offers to adopt the children and the court hasn’t even begun to hear the custody cases let alone bring a single charge.
I fear for the welfare of these children in the custody of CPS given that CPS has such a wonderful track record of widespread abuse inflicted on those in its care. For those who care to look, it’s well documented……at least up until Perry sealed the most current records from public view.
Perhaps if some of those who scream the loudest about a religion and lifestyle that conflicts with their own would take just a minute to look at the facts of this particular case, and not rely on the media, Nancy Grace or the actions of other polygamist groups, thay might notice that the Constitutional rights that are being trampled, the laws that are being bent and created to persecute this particular group and the Gestapo tactics of the state, if allowed to go unchecked, will have much broader consequences than many of you realize.
Finally, the age of consent to wed in Texas with parental consent was 14 until 2005 when it was raised to 16 with parental consent with open admission by the legislator who led the change that he targeted this particular group and their practices. CPS tosses out ages and numbers, but no real information as to who is legally wed and who is not. They toss us crumbs of inflamatory information while the court holds every cnfiscated document that can prove legal age and marital status of the young women in question. Given that I continually get stopped and carded on possible cerfew violations by the police and have been well over the age where such issues apply for more years than I care to admit, I have little faith in the ability of CPS to judge who is of legal age with what they freely admit is an “eyeball” judgement.
If abuse has taken place, then the state should take action. But to condemn an entire group for what may or may not be the actions of a few is wrong. As long as they are within the law, we have no right to make judgements on how they choose to dress, practice their beliefs and live their lives no matter how much those decisions may conflict with our own. If a young woman wishes to marry a much older man of her own free will, with parental consent and in accordance to the laws of the state they reside in, it isn’t anyones place to judge her decision and no state or law enforcement agency has the legal right to apply the law retroactively.
Comment by Cali — May 4, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
[…] letter was set adrift in the blogosphere (scroll down to comment number 71 et. seq.) sometime around April 22-23 — that is, at […]
Pingback by The Texas Child Grab | Alternative News Sources — May 19, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
[…] letter was set adrift in the blogosphere (scroll down to comment number 71 et. seq.) sometime around April 22-23 — that is, at […]
Pingback by conspiracy theories | Blog Archive | The Texas Child Grab — May 19, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
[…] Comment by anon — April 23, 2008 @ 8:02 am […]
Pingback by GEE GOSH GOLLY; I WONDER HOW THE GESTAPO WILL RULE | Free the FLDS Children - AKA The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society — July 8, 2009 @ 11:26 am