Where does it end?

raves, rants, reviews and recounts of life in middle America

2008/5/1

@ 02:21 PM (2 months, 23 days ago)

My sister and I have been having an interesting discussion about the whole FLDS child-sex scandal that seems to have disappeared from the front pages since Jeremiah Wright stepped up to claim his 15 minutes. I'm tossing out some of my thoughts and asking you all to chime in with what you think. This blog has been a great sounding board in the past and I always come away with a new perspective.

My sister thinks that the state of Texas acted as it should have in removing the all of the children from their homes. I kind of disagree. I am of the mind that evidence should preceed such a traumatic course of action. When the state CPS entered the community and found underage pregnant girls, they should have conducted an investigation. Since the FLDS people were uncooperative in the Q&A they had no alternative but to remove the pregnant girls to verify that they were victims of statutory rape. Unless there were allegations or visible evidence of abuse against the prepubescent children, I don't know why they should have been removed from their mothers and relocated. Yes, yes, I know that more than half of the girls between 14 and 17 have either had or are expecting children. I'm not suggesting that this is acceptable. What I am saying is that you don't traumatize the younger children based on what might happen or what happened to another. You don't remove children from a community because the community at large is rampant with illicit activity. There wouldn't be a child left in the inner city if we held to that standard.

I actually heard one Div. of Family Services representative on CNN say that the absence of toys in the compound was a form of emotional abuse. He announced, as if we'd all find this completely appropriate, that the toylessness constituted a lack of stimulation. I don't know about ya'll but if CPS busts down my door to see if I have enough playstation games or the right kind of books, some poor social worker is going to come to a full understanding of the 2nd amendment.

I've also heard the idea tossed about on Nancy Grace that since this closed FLDS society may be complicit in the whole child-bride/statutory rape business, all of the parents should lose their children and be charged as accomplices to this gross and heinous crime. I'm wondering where this kind of logic will end? I don't want to be responsible or punished for the crimes of my neighbors, do you? My best friend in high school got pregnant our junior year and her boyfriend was 21. No one filed charges. Her doctor didn't ask questions. Since a large percentage of the girls in the school were mothers or were pregnant, I doubt if the counselors or teachers even noticed. Division of Family Services never knocked on her door. No one asked if her mom knew Darnell - of course, she did. She knew they were dating and yet no one removed my friend's younger sister from the home or filed charges against my friend's mom.

Of course, I understand that the presumption in this Texas case is that there is systematic and institutional abuse - but I also remember that others have claimed people like you and I are systematically abusing our children every Sunday morning and most Wednesday nights. And I'm just not sure I trust the government to establish appropriate parameters of parenting. If a lack of toys is considered abuse, it's absolutely foreseeable that a parent smoking in a car with children present could be charged with child endangerment. How about those awful parents who feed their children fast food - first we tax them, then we outlaw the marketing on t.v., and the next thing you know... your kid's in foster care. It's an oversimplification but it's what has happened and continues to happen with cigarettes, isn't it?

Seems like I've strayed from statutory rape, huh? In the FLDS case, all the overaged fathers should face charges. And mothers and children should have routine home inspections until it is clear that this child-bride business is a thing of the past. As far as the polygamy goes, well, unless there are actual bigamists among them, the FLDS can call their version of swinging or shacking up whatever they want to and it's not going to bother me. So long as we don't stoop to legitimizing the behavior, they can do whatever in their own homes. If you are going to hold everyone to the standard of no extramarital sex, there are going to be a lot more people in jail that the couple of hundred at ElDorado. And if, as seems to be a major concern with some of the on air analysts, the issue of abusing the welfare system bothers you - think about how many Jerry Springer guests have several "babies' daddies" and are swiping their EBT cards all over town.

Again, I'm not defending these people, I'm just wondering how the law is going to be applied equally when others are committing the same acts but don't live in communes.

I heard of another case very close to me that illustrates an even graver concern. The 3rd grade daughter in from a loving family with no history, or even allegation, of abuse was found dead in the home. No immediate cause of death was determined. DFS removed all the siblings from the home and placed them in foster care. Eventually, with the help of determined lawyers and some wiser-than-the-coroner M.D.s, the couple regained custody of their children after it was shown that the child had a seizure and the death was caused naturally. Apparently, grieving the loss of their child wasn't enough, the state decided that since they had no explanation for her death - it must be the parent's fault. Sound crazy? Consider the case of a West Virginia woman who was forced to share custody with her daughter's babysitter. Or the case of a new mother struggling with a sick baby who was falsely accused of Munchausen by proxy and lost her baby to DSS. How about the parents (guessing they are Jehovah's Witnesses?) who refused a blood draw on their 6 week old and then the sheriff showed up on the door step and took baby Joel away.

When I think about what is happening in Texas, I wonder where the line is for government intervention. Were two year olds really in danger in the compound? Nursing babies? There weren't allegation of abuse for those children, were there? Were they removed for lack of toys or the probabilty of being raised in a kooky environment? Were they removed to prevent future abuse by men who ought to be in jail before they even come of "spiritual marriage" age? Isn't that kind of Minority Report? What do you guys think?

Comment(s) »

This case made me so wish Rommelney was in McCain's place.
Freedoms die incrementaly - that way nobody is supposed to notice.

Comment by Dugg— 2008/05/01 @ 02:38 PM — (Reply)
The latest reports are that 41 of the 464 children have "historical" broken bones. Past injuries that means - my own family has a higher percentage than that :-( One of my four broke a bone - that puts us at 25% - hope they don't come for me...

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/01 @ 03:48 PM — (Reply)
I fear that anyone (the person who called has made hoax calls before) who makes a phone call can cause the government to become too intrusive

to some extent this happens to homeschool parents already

but if there was abuse the authorities in Texas needed to take action in this instance

There is another good discussion going on here.

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/01 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Hello people....there are not even records regarding who some of the childrens' parents are. Have you read the list and see how many names are EXACTLY the same. Something has been going wrong there for a long time.

There is no doubt that similar government actions have not been taken where Monday morning quarterbacking seems to make it obvious there should have been.

However, this one is easy. Are the kids better off there or outta there. Obviously outta there. Hopefully at some point they will be able to live something close to a normal life.

Sometimes overthinking something results in confusion. Hillary Clinton anyone?

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/01 @ 05:02 PM — (Reply)
Underthinking is a problem, too, Ed.

The specifics of this case are troubling indeed but setting legal precedent for grabbing children without legitimate allegations and putting them in foster care, conducting DNA swabs, etc... that's not a precedent we should live with.

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Martin Niemoeller

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/02 @ 10:06 AM — (Reply)
First the "wise cracks"...
FLDS....sound like some kinda STD...."Maam you have FLDS, heres some penicillin and a shot in the hiney"...lol

Sooooo Cate 25% breakage rate huh?....Well i'm calling CPS, and FS, ASAP, Cause I'm a S.O.B......LOL

Now for the serious stuff
The whole situation is a big can of worms. CPS has a crappy job.....Do nothing catch hell, do something catch hell, go overboard catch hell, don't do enough catch hell, if a child gets hurt or worse catch hell....Ive seen the good bad and ugly side of CPS as a nurse working in the ER...Im not sure if I hate them or love them....case by case basis is how I deal with them......As for grabbing them all at once, I can see why they did that....In the medical feild we call it shotgun medicine, a person with little to no known history presents to the ER looking REAL bad, we hit them with damn near every test we can think of and do it fast, because of the "Unknown" factor, and hope one of the test can help us diagnose....Im sure that principle was involved with the raid, grab them all and sort it out later in a controlled manner, so as not to miss something dire.....Now I didn't say it was an "good" thing but I do understand the rationale...even if I didn't like it...Regardless of how weird or sick I may think that place and lifestyle is....I do feel sympathy for the scattered families, those poor kids are scared as hell, there is some in an area I know, (ill leave it at that).....Now as for the "daddys", if they are doing what the media says they are doing......they need a good long prison sentance in a general population, as known "chesters"...some of those poor girls are kids themselves and now they are mothers?....My god in heaven....that makes me sick to my stomach.....riff

Comment by riffran— 2008/05/10 @ 01:25 AM — (Reply)
Riff - If by shotgun medicine you mean a battery of tests, fine. That would be the equivalent of a thorough investigation.

If by shotgun medicine, you mean intervening with a variety of powerful drugs in the hopes of hitting the target, no thanks. What if one of those drugs kills someone or puts them into a coma?

Is shotgun medicine reserved for extremely bad cases where someone's life is at stake and there is no other way to get information about the cause? That was most definitely not the case in Texas. Those children could have been interviewed in isolation on site. DNA tests could have been run while they remained with their families.

What if these children are more scarred by foster care than by the lives they were leading in the compound?

I'm just thinking that CPS reacted the way they did because of the aversion we all have to the practice of polygamy. I get that, I really do. But I don't want the government to suddenly decide they don't like me and to have legal precedent to take my children away pending the completion of a fishing expedition.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/12 @ 05:05 PM — (Reply)
Exactly miss Cate...a battery of test....and yes I do feel they were a "bit" overzeolus...(sorta like a klansman is a "bit" rascist...lol)..It should have been handled differently...those kids are going to be scarred for a long time....riff

Comment by riffran— 2008/05/12 @ 09:26 PM — (Reply)
ooops I forgot....AMEN sister..... on the 2nd amendment referance...a man's/woman's home is his/her castle....Come into my castle, be respectfull and on good behavior...The same applies for me and my behavior.....riff

Comment by riffran— 2008/05/10 @ 03:13 AM — (Reply)
well riff when this is sorted out I'm sure we'll find a lot of overblown nonsense by the media.

I'm not condoning child abuse but so far it's all hearsay that hasn't been proven in court

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/10 @ 09:41 AM — (Reply)
Underthinking? Sure I would suppose that would apply to those who believe having no idea who the parents are of what children, a dozen children having the same name, no records regarding inbreeding is OK.

The above items are FACTS. Who here is OK with those FACTS?

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/10 @ 04:51 PM — (Reply)
Ed - if there are no records, then you are making a huge assumption about inbreeding. The absence of evidence is not evidence. As far as not knowing who your parents are.... is there a law against that? A lot more men would belong in jail than those in El Dorado.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/12 @ 04:12 PM — (Reply)
Why do at least a dozen young women have the identical first and last names?

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/12 @ 04:50 PM — (Reply)
hey ed you have heard of innocent until proven guilty right?

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/12 @ 03:03 PM — (Reply)
We're not talking criminal law here EB. From what you know, were the kids better staying there?

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/12 @ 03:11 PM — (Reply)
We know they were fed, clothed, schooled and that Texas CPS lost two of them once they took custody. We saw their bedrooms on CNN and just from eyeballing it, I'd guess they had more than the required number of sqft/child demanded of foster care.

Even if it turns out that all of these kids were being abused, it is still completely unacceptable to remove children prior to an investigation where there is no evidence or believable allegation. With that kind of basis for intervention, every family is suspect and the burden to prove guilt becomes the burden to prove innocence.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/12 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)
from what you know are they better off being away from their families? All we know is what the media tells us and what I do know after dealing with the media on several occasions is that they rarely get their facts straight.

Wouldn't it be awful Ed if charges of rape and molestation didn't stick because the 'probable' cause the government used was flawed.

As one person said :

"If the action of the government was illegal and we justify it, we are justifying the very government intrusiveness the American founders tried so hard to protect us from. "

It may be hard for you to fathom but homeschoolers face these intrusions all the time. If the government can take children away because a deranged person who had never visited the place makes a phone call, who is next? and what becomes the behavior necessary for the government to make such an intrusion?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/12 @ 07:04 PM — (Reply)
"No evidence or believable allegation" ?????

THE ALLEGED PARENTS DID NOT KNOW WHO THE PARENTS WERE OF WHAT CHILDREN.

To fear that this horrendous case is precedent for some agency swooping in and snatching your kids borders on paranoia.

I suppose no other governments have the right to do anything about the veritable murder presently being done in Myanmar.

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/12 @ 04:49 PM — (Reply)
the feds raided on nothing more than a prank phone call...

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/12 @ 06:33 PM — (Reply)
Yep. Just plain paranoia.

Don't get me wrong, Ed. I don't believe these bureaucrats are any more likely than the ones on Capitol Hill to be independently proactive. I do believe, however, that the will respond to whatever scurrilous charge is leveled with the course that demands the least amount of paperwork and provides the most in federal funding.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/13 @ 11:11 AM — (Reply)
Newsflash: I'm am reversing position and actively studying the benefits of polygamy.

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/12 @ 05:36 PM — (Reply)
If I could but make one marriage happy How could I ever expect to duplicate my efforts for each of the others ? NO I can not. I will therefore NOT work so hard ever but for one this time and hope to get it right !

Comment by jim— 2008/05/12 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
I'm not advocating polygamy nor child abuse Ed but they broke no polygamy laws because they had only one legal marriage and the rest were 'spiritual' marriages. Don't get me wrong I don't believe in having more than one wife but really it's nothing more than a married person sleeping around. Hardly illegal.

Innocent till proven guilty Ed unless of course you think the media has the right to try these people in the court of public opinion, I suggest we wait until the court case convenes.

and yes I am concerned about an overreaching government.

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/12 @ 06:38 PM — (Reply)
I'll stick with my ONE wife thankyou.....Iv'e seen Big Love on HBO....lol....riff.....oh and cate, your probably right about "polygamy" being an influence........riff

Comment by riffran— 2008/05/12 @ 09:57 PM — (Reply)
LOL, Riff.

Even if I could train more than one husband ;-) who wants to???

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/13 @ 11:13 AM — (Reply)
A "SPIRITUAL WIFE" ????? Now thats a new one on me ! I could go along once with "SOUL MATE" .....Now thats real... but...Wouldnt spiritual wife be like saying the wife I never had but "COULD UV" ????? If only I wouuld uv waited, If only she would uv told me B4 ???? Isnt this the "BACKGROUND" for that "ZWINKIE" thing, Where people can live out a "FANTASY" life and have "SEX" with as many "PEOPLE" as fantasy will allow ? I personaly think it is human to be sexually over active but that is where one must be born again ! To shed the "MORTAL COIL"........

Comment by aza spade— 2008/05/13 @ 01:35 AM — (Reply)
I'm agreeing with you Aza in that I don't think it's right to have more than one wife 'spiritual' or otherwise, BUT it is not illegal to sleep with someone other than your wife...

Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/05/13 @ 10:55 AM — (Reply)
Too many are still confusing the gospel and the government.

They are vastly different institutions are growing more different on a daily basis.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/13 @ 11:14 AM — (Reply)
I don't agree with what they were doing but I don't agree with almost anything that anyone else is doing either and if anyone's gonna be telling anyone about how to act it sure as hell shouldn't be Bohemian Grove attending, freemason, secretly satanic, child molestors of the government.
I can only say for sure that if THEY give a damn at all - there can only be some ulterior motive.

Comment by Dugg— 2008/05/13 @ 12:03 PM — (Reply)
UPDATE: Mother of newborn taken into CPS custody is NOT a minor.

The money quote: The San Angelo Standard Times reports that CPS is continuing to seek custody of the baby.

So CPS admits to putting out false info about the mother who gave birth last month in custody. They find she is an adult and yet THEY STILL WANT TO REMOVE HER CHILD FROM HER.

How is that legal? Constitutional?

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/13 @ 12:57 PM — (Reply)
The INTERNAL record keeping of the birth dates and parents of HUMAN BEINGS in that compound is the reality. No way can you legitimately spin this as the government's fault.

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/13 @ 04:30 PM — (Reply)
Ed,

Didn't you say there were no records???

Here's a fact: They have an adult postpartum woman and her infant in custody. They KNOW the parentage of said child. Now unless that baby has been abused in the last 15 days since his birth, the government has absolutely no right holding that child in custody.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/14 @ 05:30 AM — (Reply)
Furthermore, if they've held her and her child in custody, she ought to file charges for wrongful imprisonment and kidnapping. If there ever was a case for unlawful detention, this is it!

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/14 @ 05:37 AM — (Reply)
Correct. I said there were no records. Therefore how can you possibly justify YOUR claim that the government knew this woman was not a minor?

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/14 @ 05:54 AM — (Reply)
Ed-

Texas CPS assumed guilt (assuming the woman was a minor) and released that presumptive info (later proven false) prematurely to the media. This comes from the Breitbart article linked above.

I don't have to justify anything - I'm not breaking into people's homes, falsly guessing their age like some really bad side show carnie and then taking their children from them.

Imagine the audacity of someone coming into your home saying "You just look too da*n young to be a mother" and then getting a court order for DNA testing. Justify that.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/14 @ 10:41 AM — (Reply)
Again, this is not a criminal case so "guilt" or innocence (not something you have apparently considered) is not what is involved.

Let's take a look at REALITY

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/14 @ 02:59 PM — (Reply)
By the same means as they took the rest !

Comment by jim— 2008/05/13 @ 02:52 PM — (Reply)
Freedom of religion . What does it mean, Exactlly ?

Comment by jim— 2008/05/13 @ 02:53 PM — (Reply)
Just for the record, Jim, I don't really think this is about freedom of religion.

I do think it is about government overreaching and the complete trampling of rights designed protect individuals from the state.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/14 @ 05:24 AM — (Reply)
That happens everyday here in America. Somewhere, somehow, and to someone. Whose next ? Interestingly enough though, I just read about the college campus' of America being little social/commie camps over at the Blog for the one called Doc @ the Truth. He has a good take on the college campus' turning out little hitlers. I am inclined to agree and believe these graduates are the ones working for texas CPS Units. hummm Perhaps now we all know where these Nutz come from !

Comment by jim— 2008/05/14 @ 05:15 PM — (Reply)
Jim - I think you are right. Our freedom will be sacrificed on the altar of "the best interest" and we have whole generations that believe that's okay.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/15 @ 06:30 AM — (Reply)
I think thier are those amoung us that dont know what it means . The sqauds of law enforcement get an order sent down to them from a court judge. A judge who has been convinced by a District Atorney who believes a crime is or has been comitted. A warrant is issued and an assault begins by force to capture and hold for trail to answer to the charges as specified by the judge issuing the order.

Comment by jim— 2008/05/13 @ 02:58 PM — (Reply)
The trail challenge by defense should be : based on the fact that the initial contact was based on a prank phone call 1. That the compound was a private facility founded on religious practices 2.

Comment by jim— 2008/05/13 @ 03:01 PM — (Reply)
scrutiny by law enforcement should only be to rule out weather or not a murder had taken place. if the resolve is negative no murder took place the next scrutiny should focus on child abuse. If abuse includes that practice which involves a minor then yes an adult must answer to the question of who inflicted the abuse to the child.

Comment by jim— 2008/05/13 @ 03:04 PM — (Reply)
But then I over analyse things.

Comment by jim— 2008/05/13 @ 03:06 PM — (Reply)
I asked my wife if I could "marry" a few 14year olds, when I turned 50....all she said was "sure", and then started cleaning the deer rifle.....If I quit posting all of the sudden please watch for me on forensic files.....rofl.....riff

Comment by riffran— 2008/05/14 @ 07:16 PM — (Reply)
What Caliber might we be on the watch for ? Ruger 7mm ?

Comment by jim— 2008/05/14 @ 07:31 PM — (Reply)
Hell no we have a 30.06.....plenty of knockdown power.....lol...riff

Comment by riffran— 2008/05/14 @ 10:20 PM — (Reply)
The verdict is in.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/22 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)
I was trying to leave ed a yahoo story on that very same thing Cate....one wonders when the children will be returned to their parents?

Comment by elmers brother— 2008/05/22 @ 06:23 PM — (Reply)
My guess is the kids will stay where they are pending appeal. It's clearly a case where reasonable minds may differ. The trial court had one opinion, the first level appellate court had another and it will be interesting to see where the next level appellate court lands.

Comment by Ed— 2008/05/22 @ 06:29 PM — (Reply)
The appellate court of 3 judges offered a unanimous decision, Ed. The lower court was a single judge. Who knows, though?

Interestingly, the lawyer for the FLDS moms spoke out on Larry King Live and said that all that had been presented by CPS was evidence of 2 underage pregnancies. One girl was 17 - legal age in Texas with parental consent. The other was 16 - a clear violation - and her baby's father was 20 years old. Hardly the creepy image that Nancy Grace and the Texas CPS have painted.

The same LKL segment showed a young FLDS mother who was 20 or something and had shown her birth certificate to the CPS investigators. She was still held and placed in foster care, described in papers as a "disputed minor" until after she gave birth. The judge looked at her birth certificate and released her but, you guessed it, CPS has the baby. They even held a 27 year old woman who they knew wasn't a minor until she gave birth.

The more facts trickle out, the worse it looks for CPS. Certainly, the "imminent danger" reasoning would force the release of these newborns.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/24 @ 12:16 PM — (Reply)
Appellate court decision was upheld.

Not only was there no evidence of real abuse presented. There was no evidence of impending physical danger or urgent need to protect these kids.

Imagine that.

Comment by Cate— 2008/05/30 @ 06:46 AM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment

Name

E-mail

URL

Notify me on new comments.

— reply to this comment.

Your Comment

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image: CAPTCHA
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
The line and paragraph breaks automatically