Redstate

I couldn't help but laugh when I read the assessment of of the situation by cranky old Texan.

In these situations I always try to include as much humor as possible, seeing as I need the cheering up.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/2008/04/fiasco-in-eldorado.html

I found this while compiling the Appendix, I figured some people might want to see the original.

Be warned, he's a rabid Democrat

"Be warned, he's a rabid Democrat"

I resent that remark! I've had my shots! Besides, I've often said that if a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, than a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.
Anyone who's ever been a lawyer in a CPS case (as opposed to, say, a law student with a student edition of the Family Code) wasn't surprised that the initial removal was granted. They almost always are, because there's usually not enough time to investigate the charges or do a home study on relatives, and judges tend to err on the side of caution (which is also the reason that protective orders are almost always granted). I think Cicero quoted me as saying the only time I've seen a removal denied in nearly 10 years was a case where I demonstrated that the CPS caseworkers perjured themselves in their affidavits. So much about this case violates basic rules and operating procedures of CPS that I'm starting to think they weren't the ones calling the shots. For one thing, CPS doesn't need a warrant. For another, CPS would've removed the alleged perpetrators (the husbands) and left the wives and children in place. And CPS NEVER allows parents to just "ride along" when they do a removal. More likely, this was a law enforcement operation (as evidenced by the HUGE number of LEO's there, including APCs from Midland SWAT; CPS has nowhere near that kind of pull). Unfortunately, CPS is left holding the bag for a case that will have statewide repercussions (we don't have nearly enough CPS caseworkers or foster families to handle a huge influx like this all at once).

I guess that make those of us who have been both mugged and arrested into libertarians?

(Yeah... I'm cursed).

Interesting thought there.

I've felt that at the very least there was a preplanned idea of how to deal with the FLDS that was just waiting for an incident to get going.

It sounds from your opinion that this is very likely the case.

I still don't care much for the CPS officials in this case. Every time I see one on TV I get the impression of that teacher who enjoyed the domination she had over the students. They may be trapped into being the front man, but they needn't be so enthusiastic about it.

What do you mean CPS doesn't need a warrant? CPS certainly does need a warrant or probable cause to enter or inspect a home. CPS workers must respect the fourth amendment rights of those being investigated and the workers are trained to know this.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

in most states anyway. Just like DV laws, child abuse laws have a presumption that abuse occured if there is a complaint. You kinda get your Constitutional rights back if they try to charge with a criminal offense, but they can just walk in and take the kids. Just as the cops can come in and haul you away on the naked assertion that you made a woman fearful. The baby went out with that bathwater a long time ago. Some of this stuff needs a good Constitutional challenge, but so many times the potential challenger is not a very wholesome character and it just hasn't happened.

In Vino Veritas

Try standing up to them when they are at your door and see how far you get.. they violate parent's rights all the time and basically have immunity. They lie and coerce or just enter without permission. Unless parents have a lawyer CPS are bullys just like we are seeing with TX. I'm guessing most parents waive their rights and let them in out of fear or they are lied to or don't even know their rights. The parents who have the hardest time are the ones with special need kids, they have no rights.
Every parent should have a tape recorder with fresh batteries in their purse and their lawyer's phone number in their cell.
Two good articles for moms and dads:
http://www.nathhan.com/howtosocial.htm
http://www.nathhan.com/socialworker.htm

There is a nice poster at messenger and advocate explaining CPS things if you want to read it.

Apparently not. In Mary Roe v CPS, the Fifth circuit upheld a district ruling that in non-emergency cases, CPS workers are bound by the Fourth Amendment.

http://www.hslda.org/legal/state/tx/20010716roevcps/default.asp

When an allegation is made, CPS is required to investigate but an allegation alone (especially an anonymous one) doesn't give them the right to enter a private home.

And there have been a number of cases where CPS workers were successfully turned away at the door (albeit with the help of a lawyer).

What does that mean? Isn't it the government that people are protected from?

I think that at least sometimes they claim that there's an emergency that requires the children to have a right to be rescued, so they don't need a warrant to go in and kidnap the kids.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm sorry; I was a little imprecise there. CPS (or any other government agency, except of course Homeland Security) needs a warrant to search your home. However, CPS does NOT need a warrant to remove your children, just an affidavit stating they have a reasonable belief that the children's present environment might be a danger to their physical or emotional well-being. Does that sound sufficiently vague? It is, but it's not CPS' fault. The Legislature writes the rules and to the extent the Texas Legislature cares about children at all (which isn't very much, other than as props at a photo op) they will err on the side of the government, even in an allegedly conservative state like this one.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

The legislature doesn't err on the side of government. The legislature err's on the side of the safety of the children.

They assume government is competent and empowered to decide and care for the safety of children, which of course any cursory examination of the world of foster care will show to be at best a debatable proposition.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Are you denying that the government doesn't have the inherent power to decide, in some circumstances, that the state is a better ward for the child than their family? Futher, the government is competent. The system is far from perfect and I am not saying it is perfect. But the legislature acts in hoping to protect the best interest of the child with the interest of the parents to raise the children as they see fit. It is a delicate balacing act, but to think that the legislature acts for anyother reason than the safety of the child is just plain foolishness and the type of nonsense conservatives get ripped over.

We're getting a little far afield of the topic, so I'll just end by saying that no one who has ever seen a session of the Texas Legislature would ever describe it as "competent."

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

As someone who has worked in the lege and watched it, I would argue that getting one of the largest economies in the world funded in 140 days shows some competence. While the Texas legislature has its moments of just straight up hilarity, it could be much much much worse.

Good grief...

That is not what I said. And you know what I meant.

Or did you forget that government only source of power is the consent of the governed?

We have given the government power to terminate parental rights in some circumstances. I do not see how any of that means that the government is not still bound by the restrictions that we place upon government in our Constitution which is the embodiment of what powers we have actually consented to delegate to the government.

As for the government being competent....

We lets just I'm not going to listen to you anymore.

My grandfather always used to say:

"People are just no damn good"

And nothing has ever led me to believe this is any less true of people in government then people in general.

Inherent is "involved in the constitution or essential character of something." Once the government is constituted, such as it has by the good people of Texas, it has the inherent power to protect the safety of the children.

No one has said that the government is not bound by constitutional restrictions. In this case, they have not violated anyone's constitutional rights. You can try to say otherwise but the facts don't bear out your claims. Cf. a supposed sixth amendment violation.

While the State could have done some things better in this case, they have acted to protect children from child abusers and their enablers.

"My grandfather always used to say:"

My grandaddy used to say the same thing. Actually so did my granny (great grandmother) but she usually phrased it, "The white man is just no damn good," but that's a whole 'nother story.

I'm amazed at the level of State-apologetics going on here. This is NOT a case of, "golly gee willickers, maybe a few things could have gone more smoothly," it's actively violating DFPS standing rules and procedures, it's over-using the coercive power of the state like using an elephant gun to take out a fly. And, for the benefit of any commenters who might be law students who haven't yet taken ConLaw NO ONE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF ANYTHING. No one has even been arrested, much less indicted. These children were removed on a bald supposition that some person or persons unnamed MIGHT have committed SOME crime. Actually, it's worse than that; the Court's finding was that SOME person or persons unknown MIGHT have been "present" when SOME crime MIGHT have been committed. And the State's "expert" testified that everything he knew about the case he got from television. Y'all might be willing to grant the state that kind of unfettered power, but I'm sure as hell not, nor will I give them the benefit of any doubt.
Dang, Cicero, I'm starting to sound like a crusty old conservative, aren't I? Well, it's like I always ask my Republican brethren, "Would you be comfortable with Hillary Clinton wielding the sort of unitary executive power you claim George Dubya has? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified enthusiastic 'yes,' then I put it to you that NO President should have that sort of unchecked authority."

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

Since I believe that thinly veiled shot is at me b/c of my screen name. It is an old name and now I am a member of that august organization, the Texas Bar...

Is it your contention that a child cannot be removed from the home before there is an arrest or conviction of a crime? If so, that is a pretty amazing stance to take.

Then what reason is there to remove the child?

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

There is a different standard for arrest than removal of children from the home. So while you have enough to get the removal of the home, you may not have enough to get the arrest. Further, there seems to be a criminal investigation running parallel to the child removal investigation.

The question is: "Why?"

If there is no cause for an arrest then what cause is there for removal?

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

The standard is different. Why? Because the Legislature has decided as much. The State still have to prove up a case for permanent removal but for temporary removal the standard is lower. Further, you remove while the investigation is on going in order to protect the children. If you arrest quickly after arrest you have sixth amendment speedy trial issues starting to crop up. So for the safety of the children is to remove and investigate.

2L is correct. The standard for removal is VERY low (reasonable belief that the current environment could endanger the child's physical or emotional well-being), nowhere near the standard in a criminal case. And in the vast majority of CPS cases, no one is EVER arrested. In fact, your parental rights could be terminated without you ever having been indicted for a crime, much less convicted. However, there is no such thing as a right to a speedy trial in Texas. And given that CPS cases must be concluded in 12 months (with a possible 6 month extension), it is entirely possible that your parental rights could be terminated and THEN you are acquitted of the crime which formed the basis for termination. In fact, I had a CPS caseworker tell me to my face that she didn't care if my client was acquitted of abusing his step-daughter; SHE knew he had done it and therefore they were proceeding to terminate the mother's rights. Fortunately, the judge saw things somewhat differently.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

THAT is why the standards need to be the same.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

If you're prepared to have more dead/abused kids, then sure. If the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," then kids will pretty much only be removed AFTER they've been abused so badly their lives are absolutely shattered. Or they're already dead. It's damned hard to prosecute child abuse cases, too. For one thing, the victim may be too young or too traumatized to testify. The parents, even the non-abusing spouse who may have been abused herself, is often reluctant to testify. This is a tough area of the law; give the State too much power and you get abuses like this. Limit the State's power too much, and you wind up with dead kids. I don't pretend to know all the answers here. Maybe if the judges were more willing to scrutinize DFPS and hold them to account, then I could be more comfortably with the current "reasonable belief" standard.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

What if the source of the complaint be looked at and kept in mind when they investigate. A grandmother ticked off about the kids going with the non-custodial parent for Christmas dinner should not be viewed the same as a pediatrician or nurse or teacher. If they would make people go down in person to file a complaint or have someone go to their office like you do with a police report that would cut back on the false reporting. CPS could also first check online to see if they are in the middle of a divorce or other family law type of case.

Is there any standard at all? Don't they have to show specific things to back up their recommendation? That thing last week was like hocus pocus, the expert got his info from television and the other lady was guessing their ages. If CPS had said they called the psychic hotline it would not have suprised me after reading the court blog.
If she would have said, I interviewed name in her bedroom on x/x/08 at 2:15, name seemed hesitant but she shook my hand and smiled and offered me to sit on her bed, name stated she was 13yo, her due due on 5/1/08, she stated "It's a boy" while showing me her u/s pictures in her scrapbook or here is name's med record there is a visit to antepartum that shows..., so judge there is a pregnant 13 yo but that wasn't what happened she said she just looked and guessed AND it was accepted, I don't understand that. Physicans have pages and pages of observations and they still get torn apart in court.

"The legislature doesn't err on the side of government. The legislature err's on the side of the safety of the children."

Oh, yes, clearly. That would explain why the Legislature consistently underfunds CPS, public schools, MHMR and other agencies that serve children, why Texas leads the nation in children without health insurance and why the Legislature cut off or curtailed health care coverage to hundreds of thousands of children under SCHIP, a move that actually cost the State money since we lost out Federal funding share. Obviously, based on the empirical evidence, the Texas Legislature's primary concern is the children.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

When dealing with abuse of the children, the legislature's concern is the welfare of the children. That is why they fund CPS and all those agencies. They may need more money, but saying because they are supposedly underfunded that the legislature doesn't care about the children is nonsense.

If you want to see where the piss in a boot part comes in

and at times like that, you just have to say, "that's what he said."

lesterblog.blogspot.com

As the FLDS has clearly pissed in Texas' boot.

I just don't think their doing a very good job at pouring it out.

Those women making the rounds on the TV news shows Wednesday morning did nothing to change people's preconceptions about the allegations. I'd like to avoid being specific on this one but I thought it was a very ill-advised PR move on the part of the FLDS lawyers.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

More likely the women told the men they were going to do it because they thought it would help, and the men probably acquiesced.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I think not saying anything would have been worse.

They didn't look that great, but I think more openness is a good thing.

I've updated to include that.

I had almost finished the "Appendix" with my round up of links when I hit the wrong button on my browser and now it's all gone.

*bang head against the table*

The local Catholic hopsital has a picture of the bishop in every area including antepartum, L&D, mother-baby, newborn nursery and the NICU.
Go to a mainly polish area in a section of Philadelphia and count how many pictures of JPII you find in their living rooms and stores! The Catholic bishops in the US have been involved with covering sex crimes and embezzlement and the investigation is still going on. JPII was well respected so it's ok to plaster his pic all over and name schools after him. What is the difference between that and the FLDS having Mr. Jeffs on their walls?

The difference is that Warren Jeffs is a freak and the Pope is not.

That said, I get your point that simply having a picture of a religious leader should not be used as evidence against someone- for example to suggest that they lack the capability of making choices.

It still gives me the willies- but not liking the FLDS and opposing the violation of proper legal procedure is not mutually exclusive.

In the piece that I saw the woman looks pretty much drugged. What a space cadet!

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

My reading of the testimony is that they have a total of 5 girls who are 16 who are pregnant, and only one report of a girl younger than 16 who is pregnant, and the source of that information seems to be rather... less than certain.

By all means take these girls into protective custody- I do not see how this fact justifies the blatant disregard for Constitutional rights.

we know from Jeffs how these "messiahs" pick the young women and "marry" them or "give" them to another old pervert....if ONE young child is saved from ONE old man than it is justified....again they are GROOMING these young girls not teaching them the word.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Surely the breaking up of innocent families can not be justified on the grounds that one child was saved.

If that is the case then no family in America is safe.

That is why I suggest removing the girls who are actually in danger rather then seizing all of them on the grounds that some of them need to be saved.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

You know, I'm certainly not a fan of the FLDS, but I would venture a guess that almost every big city public school has several children under the age of 16 pregnant every year.

Where is the outrage? Why aren't these grooming institutions being shutdown and the children rescued? The only difference is that the public school girl is likely to be shuttled down to the planned parenthood mill to have her soul ripped out.

There is outrage at pregnant children in public schools. However, the schools don't make it policy to violate the law. The proper thing to do would to go after the father of the child.

Go after the men who impregnated the 16 year olds.

It looks like they have a case against 5 men.

But have they done that? No.

Instead they have seize all the children from the entire community.

Because that's what these parents are doing by enabling those predators to impregnate their children.

I will believe in the pure intent of government intervention when I see inner-city neighborhoods raided and the children of teen-age welfare mothers removed from an environment where they are exposed to rampant immoral behavior, drug use, the threat of drive-by shootings, etc. At least the FLDS children for the most part HAVE fathers that acknowledge them and try to care for them, and loving mothers who are not drugged out and incapable of giving them reasonable care.

Help Bulgarian orphans. Visit www.oneheart-bg.org.

claim his 13-16 yrs olds bride's child....it makes him a :cough: man. What is happening in the inner cities is a crises and the government is consistantly dumping money to attempt to fix it and children are removed when there is abuse going on...if someone tells the authorities.....all of you men on this site who want to continueu to use the religious freedom argument on this issue feel free but this woman isn't buying the kool-aid those perverts in TX are selling under the guise of religious freedom.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

You know full well that teachers are required by law to report child abuse. We are not talking about kids fooling around behind the bleachers, we are talking about statutory rape. Get it through your skull.

Are you trying to tell me it's better for a 15 year old girl to be groomed for underage sexual activity by the secular culture in a public school, become pregnant by an irresponsible 16 year old boy, get shuttled down to the abortion mill, then go off to college to have 6 different sexual partners by the time she's 22 than it is for her to be married at the age of 15? What's legal isn't always what's moral.

You know, it is only recently that we've decided there should be an artificial minimum marrying age, and I suppose that's because mainstream society can't quite figure out how to raise kids to be psychologically and mentally mature by the time they're physically mature anymore.

old is mentally ready for that.....do you have kids? I believe we set the artificial minimum so perverts could not subvert our children....this is not the wild wild west where young women married to have many children to work the farm.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I do have kids, and I am also not naive enough to think that we, in the last 100 years, have become so much more enlightened than the people who for thousands of years of human history have gone before us.

Married at 15 to an older man has not been uncommon in human history. Men could not afford to marry young, so would work and build up the resources needed to support a family. Young women did not have this consideration, and could marry early. Mary and Joseph were a good example of this. I feel that I am on fairly solid ground asserting that Joseph was not a 'pervert'.

Just because mainstream American girls are no where close to being mature enough mentally, emotionally, or psychologically by the time they're mature physically doesn't mean that it's not possible. In fact, I would say that the last 100 years is the historical aberration.

Don't confuse cultural norms with right and wrong.

and have his baby? This is not Jesus's time and these young ladies are not Mary....nice straw man though.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

In 1947 my mother 16 and father 18 were married and no she was not pregnant. They were hard working farmer/ranchers who raised six kids to be lovers of God and Country and are all tax paying productive citizens who raised families of their own.

So Jaded, I guess I don't need to tell you what I think of your standard that my father was a pervert that should have been jailed.

Obviously Texas has the right to set a minimum age for marriage.

I support the enforcement of those laws- including against the FLDS men who have violated it.

However it is a big leap from that to arguing that anybody who disagrees with the new law is abusing their children.

I mean, there are people who believe that using marijuana should be legal. Are we going to go seize the children of people who believe that?

I mean, those kids might grow up to be potheads! Surely that is child abuse.

Doesn't anybody see that the arguments being made by CPS here could be used against any group whose beliefs are unpopular.

My father is not a Christian so I know this. *Some* think we are all like brainwashed and we all love GWB. It's weird to listen to but if you listen to them you can hear it. I'm not kidding here, call evangelicals "fundies" LOL. Jerry Falwell and Warren Jeffs and the Pope and Jim Jones and Pat Robtertson all belong to the same church that we all attend in their view. We are all grouped together in their mind and anything religious is NOT good.
I am sick over these kids being put in care away from their moms but even if you don't care about those kids you should care about their rights being violated just for yourself because some people who are not Christian often see us all as one.

talking about 16 to 18 yr olds now was I? NO I was talking about 13-15 year old girls being married off to 30 to whatever age year old perverted men....but keep telling yourself that we are discussing two teenagers and somehow you will be able to sleep tonight.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

crap. The girl that made the call that started this whole mess was supposed to be 16 so don't say we haven't been talking about 16 year olds.

As to the age of the man, once he reaches the age of 18, legally it doesn't matter if he is 18 or 80.

in the context of what Jaded was pointing out.
And she was not calling your dad a pervert.
An 18 year old male and a 16 year old girl are vastly different than a 16 year old girl and a much older 30+ man.
And you know it. My daughter, at the age of 16, may well date a BOY of 18. But I fear for the 30+ year old man, with another wife and a few kids, that dare cross the threshold of our home asking to take her on a date.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just a typical, small town, white girl...

Two points. In his day most 18 year olds were MEN more than most 30 year olds are today.

Also most 16 year olds were young women more than lots of our 30 year old "girls" are today.

Read the things they wrote and talked about and you see what I mean.

First of all, I believe I was quite clear in my support of the prosecution these men under either the bigamy statues or statutory rape laws.

I do not see how these things justify the actions taken by the state. Guilt does not deprive a man of due process rights.

Also, it is usual to consider someone innocent before convicted.

Additionally, the conviction of a crime does not typically end parental rights. If a man is convicted of fraud, are his parental rights severed? Is he not allowed to make provisions for his children's care (such as sending them to live with a relative) before going to prison?

Also, should not each family be treated separately under the law? At least one of the mothers in the court room is in a monogamous marriage, and was married at age 20.

The state has not charged them with bigamy, nor has it charged anyone with anything. Instead it has argued that the mere belief that 16 year olds are ready for marriage is abusive in and of itself.

This raises the issue, can the state declare this about any belief that it does not like?

Please educate yourself on this issue and you will see that Texas has acted terribly. The only reason people are supporting it is because we don't like the people who have been deprived of their rights.

hire Janet Reno as AG? Texas is going to regret this.

hire Janet Reno as AG? Texas is going to regret this.

Have ANY charges been filed? Is anyone being prosecuted for anything? To my knowledge the answer to both of these questions is "No". And it seems frightening that the state can take 400+ children without even charging anyone with a crime.

To my knowledge, no one has been charged with a crime yet. However, there is nothing scary about removing children from an abusive place. If a child is being, for example, raped, he/she should be removed from the premises ASAP and there should not be a situation where the child is left in a dangerous place just because charges have yet to be filed.

"being prosecuted because they violated the state laws of Texas against bigamy, sexual assault, endangerment of a child, etc."

No, the state made it clear today that in the states view the mere religious belief that a girl is old enough be permitted (not required, permitted) to marry at age 16 is abuse.

Not only is it abuse, but it is an immediate danger requiring the emergency removal of the child prior to the formal trial terminating the parental rights.

You don't see how that touches on the 1st Amendment freedom of religion?

You are not disturb that such an argument is taking place instead of providing evidence of actual actions of abuse in each household?

"There is no first amendment violation by taking their cell phones away. That is just silliness."

Preventing communication with the media with threats of being separated from their children is not a 1st Amendment freedom of speech issue?

Now maybe the court has excuses it can offer, but surely this touches on freedom of speech.

In re marriage

There is no first amendment issue. The states can set there own marriage laws, within reason, and the state of Texas has decided that you cannot, under any reason, be married when younger than 16. Such laws are constitutional as the day is long. The states position is that the cult is marrying them off before the age of 16, which it is pretty clear they are, and that is against the laws of Texas. Now, when they get married the men will consumate the marriage. Now considering there are girls under the age of 16 who are pregnant, Texas' belief is not unreasonable.

There is just no first amendment religion issue.

In re cell phones

Once again, there is no speech issue. The order was given to prevent witness tampering and the client/lawyer relationship. The state of Texas has temporary custody of the children and if the parents inside the shelter were using the cell phones to tamper, coerce, scare, intimidate, etc. the children then such an action is not only prudent but constitutional. The mother can claim the reason that the phones were confiscated is because they spoke to the press, but that doesn't make it so. Further, the mother are still free to speak with whomever they please. The state doesn't have to facilitate that speech. Any claim of a violation of speech is just silliness.

The police received a warrant allowing them to search house to house an entire neighborhood.

Now in my post I state that I can see the reasons this is necessary, but surely this is not normal procedure, and I think considering the enormity of the warrant that the affidavit should been a little less perfunctory.

It is completely normal for a situation like an entire compound such as this. It isn't overbroad.

Actually my understanding is that Texas law does require individual hearings.

Furthermore your statement that everything would be the same is simply wrong.

At least one of the mothers is in a monogamous marriage, was married at age 20, and neither of her daughters are being abused- except for being exposed to the parents religious beliefs, an argument I find fraught with danger. Should her family be treated the same as all the others?

One of the underage girls is 17 and is married to a 17 year old boy. Should they be treated the same way as all the others?

Every individual has a right to equal protection under the law and to due process. Surely this means you can not hold one person accountable for the actions of someone else merely on the grounds they share a religion and a neighborhood.

The violations of due process does not end there though. The judge grouped the children together by age and gender and then told the attorney's representing each group to get together and select a spokesperson who would then ask their "two best questions" of each witness.

That doesn't strike you as violations of due process? It did the attorneys there who objected enmasse to these rulings.

I am sympathetic to the difficulty of so many separate trails, but conveniences of the government are not high on my priority list when it comes to Constitutional rights,

I can find nothing in the Family Code, CPRC, or the Tex. R. Civ. P. which requires an individual hearing.

Every single adult in the facility is an accessory in the litany of crimes being perpetuated in that compound. See Tex. Penal Code § 7.02. While the mother may not have raped the child, she "act[ed] with intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offense."

There may be a few individual circumstances which they judge should know about, that is why the people can have lawyers to tell of the individual circumstance. When 99.8% of the evidence is going to be same for every single potential trial, a single large trial is the best way to go.

Finally, there is no violation of due process. Is it unwieldly sometimes? Sure. Is it perfect? No. But is a fine way to get these prelimiary hearings done.

A civil matter...

The state accuses a family of abuse and uses this to justify taking their children from them. That sounds like it's not really your typical civil matter either... in many ways it's a criminal matter isn't it? I mean the state is depriving you of your children- something it can not do with out due process.

The mother is with her children in a government facility. She is not allowed access to a phone. If she leaves the facility to talk to a lawyer she will not be allowed to return to her children. The lawyer is not allowed entry into the facility.

That sounds like a simple case of the government denying a person the right to counsel- and just before a hearing deciding if she will retain custody of her children.

You are going to justify that by arguing it isn't a criminal matter and so the mother does not have the right to counsel?

This was a civil hearing. There was no threat of jail time and therefore there is no sixth amendment trigger. The sixth amendment applies to criminal trials only. The government doesn't have to give anyone counsel and is not preventing them from seeking the advice of counsel.

There is no US Constitutional right to counsel in all cases. There is only a constitutional right to counsel in cases where there is a possibility for jail time. The sixth amendment is not an issue here.

You can wax all poetic about constitutional this and that and make good policy arguments about whether they should get counsel. That, however, doesn't mean they are entitled to counsel. Here, the government is not denying them counsel.

Jail time as the exclusive method of punishment is recent innovation, and so can not be read back into the meaning of the 6th Amendment.

Deprivation of one's children seems to me a severe enough punishment as to make the denial of counsel a serious issue, if it is truly the level of punishment that triggers the 6th Amendment.

I find it more likely that when ever the state is acting against and individual in the majesty of the state (rather then as a party to a civil suit) then the 6th Amendment applies. I am not a lawyer, but I can't help but feel that if the court can deny you counsel in a hearing that determines if you get to keep your children, then there is a serious hole in our constitutional protections.

The threat of jail time is, basically, the trigger for someone's sixth amendment right to counsel. You get arrested for a misdemeanor and the only potential penalty is a fine. Then you have no right to government provided counsel under the sixth amendment if you go to trial.

The sixth amendment, in no way, is implicated in this civil hearing. Further, the sixth amendment government right to counsel applies to indigent defendants. These FLDS members are not indigent. There is just no way that the sixth amendment applies here.

The parents of the children have gotten counsel. There is no sixth amendment violation.

n/t

No, it is the truth. You can try to read rights into the sixth amendment that aren't there, but that'd make you believe in a living constitution.

Adjusted from 4 years ago when Texas law allowed marriage at age 14 with parental permission and at age 16 without.

Now I making it clear that I support the right of Texas to set minimum marriage age laws and to enforce them.

I will support them in enforcing them against the FLDS here.

However, while these may be the argument Texas is making in the press, they are not the arguments Texas is making in the courts.

I am concerned about the arguments they are making in the courts. As they are arming the state with the power to seize the children of anyone who holds a belief the state finds abusive.

You are correct that it isn't the governments job to decide when its permissible to pass on their beliefs to their own children. But this isn't about beliefs, it's about abuse. There are a number of kids in this group that at the young ages of 13 and 14 years old are being offered up to middle aged men as wives.

And don't get me wrong, I think what Texas authorities have done has probably crossed the line. I agree that they've bent the rules. Part of me hates that, but part of me realizes that it might have been the only option to save some of these kids from abuse. I don't believe these groups are setup for religion, I believe they are setup for power trips and sex. I believe they shelter and indoctrinate these kids so young so they won't fight back. They are broken at a young age and taught to obey their masters.

This isn't about religion, it's about a systematic and continuous abuse of children. Children who have no one to speak up for them. No one to look out for them. While I agree that the State's tactics have been questionable, I think it is time that someone started looking out for these kids (as their parents are not).

My reading of the court hearing is that what you say is occurring can not be proven to be as widespread as people are claiming, and so they have decided to simply make up a new justification based on the fact that we don't like their religion.

It has nothing to do with religion. They don't like seeing 13 year old girls handed off to middle aged men for sex. If this wasn't a religious compound and instead just some random people doing this to little girls, it would have been raided a long time ago. The State's sensitivity to the religious aspect of this case has probably allowed the abuse to go on longer than it should have. Their religion has helped them, not hurt them in this.

At least according to what CPS said in court.

They are saying that belief alone- even if they don't practice it- is sufficient to take children away.

I find that disturbing.

If they said: This 16 year old is pregnant, she should be in state custody I could agree with you.

I still think it's tricky. They are saying the belief puts the children in danger.

What if there was a sect that believed in sacrificing children. They found 5-10 children who had been sacrificed. Would the State then have the right to take away the rest of the children for fear of abuse? Or just punish those involved in the sacrifice?

The same goes for when the State finds that a child has been sexually or physically abused by a parent. They don't just take the child who was abused away, they take all the children from that parent away for their safety.

It seems you only want children to be taken away if they have been abused. Not if they are in danger of being abused.

There is no evidence that it is.

These children are not being sacrificed or ritually handed over for sex abuse.

FLDS girls are married when they are believed mature enough. Now Texas is saying the age should be 18 (with 16 for those with permission).

The FLDS apparently think that 16 isn't too young, but most of them seem to be getting married at age 18 to 20.

CPS is arguing that the possibility that a 4 year old girl might at some future time be married at age 16 (despite this not being a required part of the FLDS faith) as reason to remove her from her home and family.

Why aren't any less drastic means of addressing the situation being used?

Surely if we arrest and jail all the men who impregnated these 16 year olds the FLDS will get the message that whatever they believe the state insists that girls must be 18 before marriage.

That seems a response that is best suited for protecting these children from future abuse.

Taking someones children away based on what the government thinks they might do in the future is a dangerous power to give the government.

Not to mention as one of the attorneys pointed out in his objection, his client was being held as guilty of a culture, without any evidence presented that they participated in that part of the culture.

Apparently 40% of the FLDS are monogamous. (According to the expert testimony by a man who's area of study are Mormons and all the different splinter groups).

That was a shocking fact I didn't know.

They do not sound nearly as homogeneous as the news media portrays them.

I have to say, you have built up quite a straw man in this whole argument, and it comes up in a phrase you use. You state "FLDS girls are married when they are believed mature enough." The term "are married" is the issue here. This is not a case, as described elsewhere, of a 16 and 17 year old following their deeply-held religious convictions, falling in love, and getting married. This is a group of mothers and fathers deciding that their 16 year old (or younger or older) daughter must marry a man chosen for her. She does not get a say in the matter and has no real option of just walking away.

This is not a case of religious persecution by Texas, it is a case of persecuting young girls in the name of religion. Focus on the conduct, not the claimed justification and it isn't really a hard case at all.

The fact that some state-paid attorney who I would suspect barely gets paid enough to make it into middle class has trouble parsing the argument in court doesn't surprise me or trouble me a great deal.

young girls then explain to me why they are keeping a couple of hundred boys from their parents.

A few responses:

1) I have never done child custody/child abuse type cases and don't live in Texas, and so I don't know how the law is written, much less Texas procedure. So I didn't comment on the process issues raised. However, it wouldn't surprise me if the law provides that if there is evidence of abuse in the home then all children must be removed pending a court hearing. This might be a very imperfect solution and may seem totally unnecessary here given the nature of the alleged abuse, but if that's what the law says then the CPS people may feel they have no choice.

2) I suspect the entire episode is not an easy one for the authorities. They are facing a situation that goes far beyond their resources, they have hundreds of uncooperative witnesses and they likely have little documentary evidence to sort out the facts. Given the situation, I find it hard to criticize their conduct.

3) Putting the law aside because it wouldn't allow it without criminal charges against the men, I would have preferred to see them remove the adult men from the compound and let the mothers and children stay there. Less interruption for the kids. But what should happen and what the law will allow don't allways coincide.

As you put it in #3,

CPS rejected that as unacceptable

The men even offered to allow child welfare monitors to stay with the women and children too.

That is the first thing should have happened from the call. Usually women are "assisted" to file an order of protection, file for temp custody and support if it's an issue of spouse abuse and start the divorce process. Sometimes a woman & kids will stay at a shelter for a few days until he gets served and "cools down" but the man has always has to go.
That is what irritated me in the beginning people were saying they were abused as justification for the state's actions. Well if that is the case why weren't they being treated like other domestic violence victims.

Well, because if the allegations against the men are true, the women are criminally culpable as well for being accessories.

Additionally, the State is still investigating this. The State has constantly said that the kids are not being cooperative and part of the reason, they believe, is because of the adults from the compound with them.

So, you remove the kids from the compound and while you allow some women to come along, you don't have as many so it is easy to separate the kids from the adults for interviews and the such. Further, as testimony was given, the compound is something 1,700 acres. There is no way that the state could secure such a large parcel of land without calling out the National Guard.

of 13-year olds handed over to older men for sexual purposes. Do you know this happened commonly or is it just a rumor in the media?

A child welfare worker testified that some girls as young as 13 had children. They also testified that at least 5 girls who are under 18 are pregnant or have had children. DNA testing is being done to determine biological connections.

Basically an 8 year old child told them that a 16 year old has 4 children.

Working backwards, that means that the girl must have been pregnant at least by age 13.

However, the 16 year old herself say she only has one child.

The 8 year-old could easily be counting the 16 year-old's step children as children of sister wives can refer to the sister wife as "mother".

It doesn't really matter, as 13 or 16 the girl is too young and the father of her child should be prosecuted.

What I don't get is why don't they just take the 16 to 18 year olds who are pregnant or with children into custody, do their DNA testing, and then arrest the fathers. That would make sense to me, and would clearly tell the FLDS that underage marriage would not be permitted.

Why seize all 416 children?

the message you think they will "suddenly" get this time....and why do you think the 8 yr old is wrong couldn't the 16 year old be lying?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

What can be explained by stupidity."

An old quote that I know I messed up, but the core point is there. Remember, we Are talking about the testimony of an 8 yr old. I need more proof than just that.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

cicero

Because the authorities are trying to stamp out the FLDS, child marriage and polygamy in their state.

Pretty simple concepts there and I am glad that the state of Texas is being as aggressive as they are.

Now, why don't you turn your investigative research into what forms of welfare fraud and other forms of cheating the tax payer is going on with the FLDS cult, I'd like to hear how you spin that set of facts into a story of religious persecution.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Your argument neatly shows why I am so upset with the state of Texas.

To repeat myself:

"Just because we think a group is distasteful does not mean that all methods should be tolerated in the suppression of that group. We must ever be wary of arming the government with tools and weapons that might someday be turned on us. We can not always assume we or reasonable people will always be in control of the government."

I am appalled that Americans are reasoning the way you are above.

somehow the comparison just doesn't work for me.

David

I think the HBO series "Big Love" is an undercurrent here. Perhaps that's a better reference.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

The one talking about cutting down all the laws to get at the devil.

I think that dialog applies very well here.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Because the State felt the other children were in danger.

As I stated above, what if this was a group that believed in child sacrifice? They then sacrificed 5-10 children. Would you be opposed to taking the other children out of the group? These kids have no one looking out for them and the State is doing what it can. This isn't about religion, it's about a group that has systematically raped children and made it part of their culture.

The news reports?

The state's on "expert" witness admitted on the stand that news reports were his source of information on this "culture".

The actual expert who has studied the FLDS said this is not a major part of their culture.

Maybe we all ought to form a lynch mob, shoot all the FLDS adults and burn their homes down.

That'll put an end to it.

BIG difference.

Until the DNA tests come back, they really have no evidence of statutory rape (let alone any violent crime).

And just so we remember the difference "Rape" is a sexual act forced on an unwilling participant through force or threat of force.

"Statutory Rape" is a sexual act between one person over the age of consent and one person under it. It is, in other words, a purely artificial boundary.

These children were removed on accusations of statutory rape (not made by the "victims") and bigamy. Not rape/sexual assault. Not child abuse or neglect or drug use. And bigamy has nothing to do with the welfare of the children.

Now, granted, Cicero does not go far enough in what he would countenance. Removing the "5 pregnant girls" is not enough, if you have probable cause. Removing those 5 and every other child of the accused rapists is what was needed. Removing 416 children because of 5 assumed underage, pregnant girls who are assumed to have been impregnated by adults...

...Besides, whatever happened to "Presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I am going to respond just to this:

My daughter goes to a private Christian school. If one of the children calls and says that her parents beat her with a rod because her parents said the Bible told them to, would the state be justified to round up all the children in the school, separate them from their parents for days or weeks while they trolled through the children looking for other crimes that might have been committed by those weird Christians? Based on some of the comments I've read here, the answer would seem to be 'Yes'.
------------------

That is just a ridiculous analogy. There would be no way that the police could even think about talking to you about your daughter if that had happened.

The reason you say it is ridiculous is because you think that any reasonable person can see the difference between normal Christians and the FLDS.

We are not so sanguine about the future reasonableness of the government and would prefer to keep their methodology restricted, regardless of the party being investigated.

No, the reason he says it is ridiculous is because it is obvious to anyone with half a brain that the school in question is a loose affiliation of families who operate independently of each other, and the FLDS compound is far more tightly integrated. They all live on the same property, for crying out loud.

As 2L has demonstrated, your accusations of constitutional violations are pretty heavily trumped up. Religious freedom does not give anyone the right to violate the law. The first amendment guarantees that congress cannot make a law that infringes upon religious freedoms; it does not guarantee that you can flagrantly violate existing laws by invoking that right -- if you want to do that, the proper method is to challenge the law in your defense. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the laws being violated are entirely constitutional, and therefore your argument holds no water.

2L has proven no such thing instead he his avoid the points I am making and changing the subject to the fact that bigamy is against the law and that therefor statutory rape charges apply.

I agree! In fact in my post I point this very fact out and express admiration for the cleverness of the idea- and support for the prosecution of the men who have impregnated these young girls.

I seems to me that CPS should keep these pregnant young women in their custody, do their DNA testing, and then arrest these men and send them to jail to send a message to the FLDS that their religion is no excuse for violating the law.

Instead CPS has taken the explicit position that simply holding FLDS religious beliefs is abusive. Let me say that again. Simply believing that 16 year olds are old enough to marry is, according to CPS, abuse. Not just abuse- it puts children in immediate danger.

I know of no case were the Supreme Court has said it is alright to prosecute someone for their beliefs. You can surely prosecute someone for acting on a belief that requires breaking the law, but if there is no action, and merely belief- surely the government can not punish you for believing the wrong way.

Do you not see the inherent danger to all religious beliefs by this precedent?

If simply believing something can be abusive, what is to prevent our religious beliefs from being targeted.

You people in the Red States might feel safe, but here in the Blue states we have reason to worry. I have heard liberals say openly that they think CPS should take children away from evangelicals because they are abusing their kids by teaching them to be bigots. You haven't heard such an argument?

Under the logic the CPS in Texas is using- they could do that!

Do you understand now why I am so upset. It has nothing to do with trying to place the FLDS beyond the reach of the law. I am simply arguing that the law needs follow the Constitution in the prosecution of these offenders.

You don't really understand what CPS is saying. They are saying look, we have these kids who we know have been abused. We have the beliefs of the cult which encourage such abuse. We have the fathers and mothers who either abused or contributed to the abuse. It is unsafe to leave the kids with the parents who abused the children. It isn't that difficult and it isn't an unreasonable position. You don't leave children in a place where they are likely to be abused.

CPS is not saying that just because the cult has some stupid beliefs we are taking away the children.

Further, as you have said you aren't a lawyer, I am. There are no US Constitutional problems with what is going on. You can claim as much and try to force a round peg in a square hole on supposed constitution issues.

"CPS is not saying that just because the cult has some stupid beliefs we are taking away the children."

That is exactly what I see CPS say inside the courtroom.

I suggest people go to the links I have provided, read the testimony, and decide for themselves which of us is correct.

Why is the state holding the girl from Canada who happened to be visiting her grandmother at the time of the raid? There is no reason whatsoever for her to be in custody here.

The Home School Legal Defense Association has more trouble with the CPS in Texas than in any other state. That includes California which requires a call to DFS every time a child goes to the ER.

The anti-poligamy law was passed in 1862. Want to do a little research on why that law was passed and who was the intended target? Have we been in violation of The Constitution for the past 144 years?

The Supreme Court also allows women to kill their unborn babies. The court hardly has a perfect record defending The Constitiution.

http://deseretnews.com/video/1,5563,326,00.html

Sorry I missed this question earlier.

I've added this to the Appendix

Point me to a cite where the Supreme Court said that the State can't remove children from the home for fear of their welfare, vis-a-vis sexual assault? That is what this is about. Not that the State of Texas doesn't like the FLDS and their beliefs, but rather the children are in danger and that there is evidence of abuse of the children. Therefore the State has the duty to remove the children from the dangerous situation. The State has shown, in the eyes of the judge, that is there is an imminent threat of harm to the children. That justified the original removal and justifies the continued removal. Troxel is of no value.

The State got a neutral arbiter to issue a warrant, search and arrest, for the original search and seizure and the State got a neutral arbiter to continue the holding of the children (the latest hearing). Texas isn't acting all on its own here. It has followed the procedural steps it must to remove the children from the home. Additionally, there will be more individual hearings on each children by, I belive, June 5.

The sixth amendment doesn't apply at arrest. As stated in Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, the rights granted by 6th and 14th Amendments “mean at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him, whether by formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” 430 U.S. at 398. Further, that under the Constitution, not looking at any applicable state law, I am pretty damn sure that if I am arrested and charged with a crime that does not have the threat of jail time I have no right to government provided counsel. See Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972); Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979).

The State is getting the DNA tests to find out who is related to who. The children and parents are being uncooperative, and may not actually know, and the State needs this so they can keep families together.

Finally, there has been no hearing on terminating the parent/child relationship. There has only been a hearing on keeping the children in the custody of the state for the time being. The Judge has said that by June 5 there have to be individual hearings for each child and that the parents have the right to counsel for those hearings. The parents/children will get their day in court to contest the states findings.

What they have are accusations and presumption of abuse. Until the DNA comes back, they have no evidence.
For all we, or the state of Texas know, those girls were impregnated by 14 or 15 or 16 yr old boys.

Unless you have found some evidence we've all missed...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

That is the point. There is a credible claim of harm against the children. So that gives the State the power to remove the children from dangerous situation until they can get it all figured out.

It doesn't have to be against all 416 children. Are you seriously going to tell me that if there was sexual assault against five, for discussions sake, children, that it is okay to leave children in that situation?

The FLDS reportedly violated the laws of the state of Texas, that is what it is about. The Supreme Court allows the States to place some restrictions on fundamental rights, such as marriage. The State of Texas has determined the proper age of marriage and that you can only have one legal wife. Texas has also set a minimum age of consent for sex. If the FLDS beliefs conflict with the laws of the state of Texas, the FLDS is SOL because such laws are constitutional. That is what this is about, not that the FLDS have some crazy, IMO, beliefs.

That contradict the laws. You can't prosecute beliefs.
The question is whether they Acted on those beliefs.

Right now they are being punished for their beliefs. Not their actions.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

According to a neutral magistrate, the state has made enough of a showing to justify removing the children from the custody of the parents.

The State can interfere with a groups religious beliefs. The groups can practice their religious beliefs up to a point. Here, they have passed the point of acceptability. The Supreme Court has held that laws against bigamy, reasonable restrictions on marriage (and you can't tell me a minimum age ins't reasonable), and then a minimum age of consent for sexual activities are permissible.

Second - The state has given plenty of rights to the parents and children for the preliminary hearings. Now, if they continue the mass heard hearing for permanent termination that would be completely unacceptable. But that is not the states plan. There will be individual hearings for the children with the parents having counsel. The State can classify a group carte blanche in the interim to get everything straight.

Third - The state has a very compelling interest in seperating the kids from the mothers. The first of which is that if there is sexual assualt going on, the mothers are accessories to that crime and directly, and I mean directly, contributed to such assault. So I can't get that worked up with removing children away from people who enabled sexual assault. Secondly, there is an investigation going on and it has been shown that the children will speak more openly when the parents, potential criminals, aren't present.

Fourth - There is no doubt that it springs from the Fifth and Sixth. My original point way back when was that the Sixth was not at issue here. As pointed out by the District Judge up there, she has said that the parents get counsel under the Fifth for the hearing. Does custodial interrogation include CPS workers or just LEO's? I don't know.

Bigamy - Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled that laws against bigamy are Constitutional? That was my understanding. Further, what problems with the statutory rape argument? You really think that the Supreme Court will hold that because someone's religion says that having sex with children is okay they are going to hold that is okay? I highly doubt it.

Look, there is no real good way for the State to have done this. Could they have done something different? Probably, looking back as a MMQB. But considering what we knew about the FLDS pre-search and removal, what we seem to have found out post-search and removal, the State needed to step in here. Don't get me wrong, I have no love for the DA's office. In fact, I like it when the DA gets slapped down for being arrogant SOB's. But to take the attitude that the State is gleefully, intentionally and with malicious intent is trying to trampel on the rights of the mothers, fathers and children is just plain wrong.

"But to take the attitude that the State is gleefully, intentionally and with malicious intent is trying to trampel on the rights of the mothers, fathers and children is just plain wrong."
Last I heard, the position was that they were attacking a religious group they didn't agree with and the trampling of rights of mothers, fathers, and children was just collateral damage. And it is because of said collateral damage that we need to slap down the state as fast and as hard as possible to prevent a recurrence. Not to mention reduce the State's arsenal. CPS, no matter how you look at it, has too much power.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

You heard wrong. The State is trying to protect children who may have been abused. Until the state can determine one way or another on the abuse they are erring on the side of the safety of the children.

They are seperating them so the kids will tell the truth without the coercive presence of a parent present.

"They are seperating them so the kids will tell the truth without the coercive presence of a parent present."

Bit late for that now, isn't it? After they've ALREADY let parents come along with kids AFTER removal (which is completely contrary to DFPS policy, btw; if you have to remove a child, then by definition its too dangerous to let the parent around), then kicked them out, then invited some of them back in. And besides, normally DFPS removes the alleged abuser, not the victims. And besides, if DFPS hasn't already done forensic interviews on the children (and they haven't), then the kids' testimony is hopelessly contaminated anyway. And finally, how much "truth" do you think they are going to get out of infants? Remember, originally they were going to separate the infants from the mothers, too. So this after-the-fact rationalization does not wash.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

CPS policy, I'd like to see a CPS policy which was written for the removal of 400+ children. This is a extraordinary case and as such they had to modify SOP to deal with the situation. Further, the mother isn't the alleged abuser, it is the males. While, the mothers, I'd argue, would be accessories, they aren't the real danger at the moment. Finally, the situation with determining who belongs to who and how old people are is still fluid, so they may have come upon more evidence that showed that these mothers and children need to be separated.

"This is a extraordinary case and as such they had to modify SOP to deal with the situation."

Hmmm, where have I heard this rationalization before? Let me think...

"Further, the mother isn't the alleged abuser, it is the males"

Precisely my point. So why didn't they evict the relatively small number of adult men and leave the women and children in an area that was already secured with a fence and a gate? And provide them with services there? Which is what they normally do. Surely it would've been easier, and certainly less traumatic to the children, than hauling 400+ innocent victims (or innocent victims and "accomplices," if you prefer) off to a 140 year old cavalry fort and leaving 60 guys on an empty ranch.

"so they may have come upon more evidence that showed that these mothers and children need to be separated"

Then why weren't they nice enough to share this "evidence" with the judge or the lawyers or anyone else for that matter. Perhaps it is "secret" evidence.

http://thelocalcrank.blogspot.com/

Obviously you are totally ignorant of the coercive interrogation techniques CPS is famous for using on children. Coercive and abusive. And a violation of the civil rights of both child and parent.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

Why are you assuming that the state is getting them to lie rather than the state is finally getting the mothers to tell the truth? The latter is far more probable than the former, especially when you take into accound the FLDS actions of lying to date.

2L I am assuming the state is getting them to lie ecause CPS has a history of lying to parents and using threats and intimidation to get parents to sign forms, to let them in their home, interview their kids, sign off their rights, deny counsel, CPS has a history of lying in court too. They also seemed to lack proof of their allegations against the FLDS until more of these underage moms appeared.

Using seperation from their babies is an old trick to manipulate women. Monday the the judge says no adult moms can stay with their babies, more underage moms suddently appeared, and then later they allow babies under 12 months to remain with adult mothers. It just seemed too coincidental. Why the change so quickly from moms leave babies at 6 weeks old to moms and babies under 12 months can stay together.
I see what you are saying but CPS has lied during this whole event too and has a long history of not only lying but manipulating parents.

They took into custody any mother who said she was 18 or older but whom they didn't believe.

Considering the fact that they have already refused to accept government documents as proof of age or identity, this means they could technically grab any woman they want...

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up

No, it doesn't make sense. There are no reliable records stating how old the mothers are. So CPS has to rely on a person telling them their age. CPS may have come upon information which let them pin down the age of some of the mothers, making them underage mothers.

The government issued documents aren't good enough for the government when it comes to proving identity or age...

Exactly what defense do these people have? None.

"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up