The state is going to keep all those kids separated from their families — even the breast-feeding infants — and the local daily is cheering them on. Clearly, no one on that board has any experience with the kind of incompetents who run CPS.
But this morning one of their editorialists points out some uncomfortable facts, e.g., that “CPS found no girls at the YFZ Ranch who were married younger than 16, that all the pregnant girls (5 out of 437 kids) were 16 or older, and that the allegations of forcible rape turned out to be false, generated by a prank call from Colorado.” As Scott Henson put it: “[O]nly five girls between age 16-19 were found pregnant or with children — probably about the same ratio you’d find if you rounded up all the kids in my neighborhood.” And a much smaller ratio than you’d find in any public housing complex, I’d bet.
40 comments
I’m no lawyer – but if what got them the warrant for the raid in the first place is false, then shouldn’t all the evidence gathered from here on out be inadmissible if this ever does go to court?
Bethany, you’re on the right path for a criminal matter — that doctrine is called the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” But this isn’t a criminal matter, it’s a CPS matter, where we don’t let the facts interfere with the truth. Innuendo and supposition are acceptable surrogates for actual facts rights in CPS proceedings. There was more justice doled out in Soviet kangaroo courts than in many CPS matters.
Beth & Wes:
I’ve wondered that same thing… and Wes, I agree with you: CPS doesn’t let little things like the truth and facts get in the way of doing something “for the good of the children”. Or at least for something that THEY believe is for the good of the children.
By the way, this question has been answered by CPS, and their answer, straight out, was “it doesn’t matter”:
————
Stephanie Goodman, chief spokeswoman for all of Texas’ social services agencies, said she doesn’t know if the calls that prompted CPS’ sweep were a hoax.
“It doesn’t matter,” Ms. Goodman said. She said that while the calls “got us to the gates, it’s not what caused us to remove the children.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/041908dntex.77f866a7.html
What a land of liberty we live in. A nutcase from Colorado calls in to a religiously motivated “rescue mission” directed at the YFZ folks, and–without even bothering to look at the phone records to see if the calls were legitimate–the state charges in with machine guns and armored vehicles, kicking in doors, ransacking files, and invading every inch of the people’s homes, breaks up families, loses track of the kids that they’ve confiscated and warehoused, promises to keep kids from their parents for months without any demonstration of risk to the children, and the f***ing media licks its lips, passing along every sensationalistic sex-related rumor or allegation they can get their hands on as fact, without bothering to substantiate it (or retract when they turn out to be wrong).
Prediction: When the facts are known, there will probably be a few dinky prosecutions for “gray area” sex offenses. So far, all the girls with kids appear to be 16 or older, which makes them old enough for marriage, with parental consent. And something marriage-like is what was going on there. If they were legally married, they get dinged for bigamy–assuming, after the principles set out in Lawrence vs. Texas, that those laws are even constitutional. If they weren’t legally married, then they get dinged for indecency with a child (in cases where the girl was under 17).
Does the possibility of three or four second-degree felony convictions justify the spectacle, the breaking up of a great number of families, and the commitment of law enforcement, prosecutorial, and judicial resources we’re seeing here?
I see your prediction, and raise it a couple of appeals based on the fact that the evidence used to convict was tainted.
There is a precedent for this, you know: In 1953, in Arizona. Slate magazine has an article about it, and this is what caught my attention:
“In 1953, Arizona law-enforcement officials descended on the Short Creek community on the Arizona-Utah border and took nearly 400 Mormon fundamentalists, including 236 children, into custody.
“Two years later, nearly all of the men, women, and children had returned to their town–and the already largely separatist fundamentalists further withdrew from the world, taking with them the lessons of the raid. The raid became a community reference point, underscoring the evil intentions of the outside world and the need to remain cut off from its influences.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2189274/
And there’s also this – apparently they have their own version of the Underground Railroad if necessary, too.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iW6PnDxQ21RehOBytg12xtDPjCTQ
Ummm, isn’t some midlle-aged man having sex with a 16 or 17-year old girl still against the law?
Sixteen, yes. Seventeen, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America
And not with a sixteen year old either, if they’re married with the consent of a parent (as is surely the case with the YFZ relationships) or judge.
Rawlins @ April 22nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
The working model these days is that it’s ok to ‘err on the side of prudence’ when it comes to ‘protecting children’. Sounds nice on paper when one is between red lights returning to the office listening to ‘The Ticket’. But in the real world, burning down the village to eliminate the roaches that may or may not exist is not only stupid but in any measure unconstitutional. This Neo-American terror of ’someone’ saying ’something’ about ’someone’ about sex and children becoming a flash fire that burns everything within geo radius is to me scarier than Al Qaeda.
There is no proof of the original “anonymous 16 year old” (who called from Colorado(?), no where near the ‘compound’) thus making the entire premise of this case situation suspect on a good day.
I could right now anonymously call the police and report that a 16 year old on my street told me she was being sexually pimped by her Dad and Mother and they would both be in jail and later probably prison, and the remainder of their children seized into custody and farmed out into a nightmare foster ‘care’ system where abuse is probably more rampant than it was at the so-called ‘compound’.
Bethany, 17 is legal if the male is no more than 20.
Gerbils, these 16 year olds are not legally married, only “spiritually” married.
if I recall reading the news reports correctly 16 year-olds *can* be married (and therefore have sex) with parental consent, in Texas.
And this discussion is why nobody in their right mind would ever work for CPS. You are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don’t.
I went out with a young lady years ago who worked for CPS. It didn’t last very long. Every time I called her on the phone in the evening she was sitting there crying about work.
I hope she found something else to do, because at the time she didn’t drink. The job had driven her to smoke, as I recall.
ChuckE, take a look at Section 21.11(a) of the Texas Penal Code. Sex with a 17 year old is legal, period, regardless of the age of the adult sexual partner. 21.11(b) makes it an affirmative defense if the defendant was no more than three years older than the victim (who would be 16 or younger). (21.11(b)(1) also builds in an anti-gay qualification, in requiring that the defendant be of the opposite sex of the victim. It’s ok for young straight people to have consensual sex, but a felony for gays.) Bethany is right.
You mistakenly assume that “legal marriage” is synonymous with ceremonial marriage. Texas recognizes informal (or common law) marriages, which do not require any state involvement. The state does prohibit informal marriage for persons under the age of 18, which once again pinches some of the YFZ people between the bigamy statute (which precludes them from having a ceremonial marriage) and the indecency with a child statute (despite the fact that all of the elements of an informal marriage have been complied with).
Okay, Trey, what about this? Another issue with these charming cult members…they apply for and get medical benefits, food stamps, and other aid payments for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th wife, etc. Indications are that the forms are full of fraud. If the women are good enough to be spiritual wives, then pay for your own freaking children. The FLDS call this “bleeding the beast.” Don’t know if there are media reports (yet) about this, but my uncle works for Health and Human Services in Austin.
The “incompetents” at CPS earn less than DISD teachers, bear an enormous responsibility, face daily the worst our society has to offer, and burn out fast. If Texans weren’t so tightfisted about paying for social services, maybe we would be able to keep caseworkers on the job long enough to become skilled.
When it comes to removing kids, CPS is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
Did you know journalists can do ride-alongs with CPS caseworkers? Give it a try some time then tell us how easy the job is.
I have a cousin that was a CPS social worker, burned out after 18 months. Cried everyday for three years. She says you can’t imagine the horrors they see.
I was telling someone today – this case really does have me conflicted. It’s easy to generalize, easy to assume, but the thing is – this is not an easy circumstance at all, period.
Legally, it’s shaky on so many levels. I think it all comes down to – as so many other cases I’ve seen shot to flames – on the fact that just checking on the genesis of that outcry might’ve saved a lot of this heartache. Do those children need to be out of that situation? Yes. Go to Google News and search FLDS Texas, and look at the stories from the year 2007, for instance, back when Warren Jeffs was being tried.
But this was not the way. One more day to suss out this outcry wouldn’t have hurt – that ranch certainly wasn’t going anywhere.
That being said, the in the trenches, CPS caseworker has a pretty thankless job. Rarely do we here about the success stories – and I know they’re out there.
The fact that working for CPS is difficult (which I don’t doubt) or that CPS workers are “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” (probably true) is irrelevant to whether they’re acting properly in a given instance.
OK-so it’s not that I don’t respect what you all are trying to say but has everyone forgotten that this is a polygamist cult! And polygamy is still a crime in this country!!
These children are being brainwashed into believing that this type of lifestyle is acceptable and normal, when in fact it is not. It’s not NORMAL for a 40-year-old man to marry a 16-year-old-girl, especially when he has 10 other wives. This is ridiculous. They finally find a way to maybe save some of these children and all you people are forgetting some of the other facts.
This is the same group led by Warren Jeffs who was in fact convicted on two counts of being an accomplice to rape for coercing a 14-year old-girl into marriage with her 19-year-old cousin. And that was their “prophet”! This is wrong and it’s sick. And while CPS may have it’s problems, it’s no better than being brainwashed, raped and forced into marriage with sick old men.
Oops! At the end I meant, it might be better than being brainwashed, raped and forced into marriage with sick old men
I don’t think it is irrelevant. Child abusers are extremely secretive by definition. It’s rarely clear at the outset what is happening–figuring it out takes a time, skill and finesse.
I have no opinion yet on this case but I do know how difficult, thankless and miserable the caseworker’s job is and I get tired of hearing them maligned. Most of them take on the job because they have enormous hearts. They leave the job because they can’t afford–financially and emotionally–to keep it. We therefore perpetually have inexperienced caseworkers doing this incredibly difficult job.
Full disclosure: I have been involved with a nonprofit called Greater Texas Community Partners for many years. The mission of GTCP is to provide support to caseworkers to stem the tide of burnout and keep our children safe.
I admit to not following this too closely, but the 50-year-old-abusive-husband married to a 16 year old girl was almost certainly a hoax. Kristin, You refer to the Warren Jeffs incident, but it was a 14 year old and a 19 year old. While I don’t condone the particulars – coercion, marrying relatives, etc. – a 14 year old having sex with a 19 year old could be found in any town in Texas. The idea of very young girls married to middle aged men seems like a rallying cry. I’d like to know the actual numbers and compare that to society at large.
What is normal today was abnormal in earlier times, and vice versa. There are a lot of people that quietly ignore the laws of the state and country because they believe those laws to be wrong. These people did it as a group, and so they are an easier target.
But not too long ago in Texas, gay sex was still outlawed. Anybody want to endorse a roundup of all gay bar attendees? Probably not. If the government has no business in the bedroom, it has no business in any bedroom.
I don’t endorse anything that these people have done, but in order to prevent them from doing it, we surrender a huge amount of freedom. Based on one phone call, the population of a small town had all their children taken away and their entire lives subjected to national scrutiny. How good would any of us look under that microscope. And I’m sure we’re only hearing unbiased, purely accurate reports, right.
Kristin, has anyone shown a lack of awareness that the YFZ community practices polygamy? Your alarmist rhetoric and exclamation points add nothing to the discussion.
There are a lot of things in the world that aren’t “normal.” The question is whether the government can or should prohibit them. It may not be normal for an 80 year old to have sex with a 17 year old, but it is perfectly legal. It may not be normal for a legally married couple to have an “open marriage,” where each partner has casual sex with whomever he or she chooses, but it is legal. You might not think it normal for two people of the same sex to engage in sexual relations, but–after the US Supreme Court very recently struck down the Texas law forbidding such activities as unconstitutional–it is perfectly legal.
Whether something is normal or, in your personal moral judgment, “wrong and sick” has no bearing on the legal and policy issues involved.
Kristen… don’t believe anyone here. Go and read Grits for Breakfast’s take as of today. The shite will certainly hit the west Texas windmills before this fiasco is over.
“Until yesterday, Texas Child Protective Services thought it had seized 21 fewer kids from a West Texas polygamist compound than were actually in its custody. The new total of seized children is 437. In other words, CPS lost these children for the last two weeks, and only just now figured out they were in custody.
So there were no “lost boys” associated with the YFZ polygamist ranch, according to court testimony, but CPS lost some of them after they were taken away.
This ridiculous news raises several questions: First, would it be accurate to assume that these 21 children have not received their mandatory 14 day hearing which the other 416 got (in minimalist, perfunctory fashion) last week? Since the judge refused to give individual hearings and grouped everyone together, maybe she’ll say it won’t matter. But CPS is now holding more kids than the court gave it permission to seize last week.
Second was enough food, clothing, medical supplies and other necessities being delivered if you didn’t know how many kids you’d taken?”
And there’s more:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/btw-judge-we-found-extra-21-kids-now.html
Secret Lives of Saints
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/04/secret-lives-of-saints.html
Are FLDS Women Brainwashed
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/04/are-flds-women-brainwashed.html
What We’re Not Talking About, Part I: Other Issues With the FLDS
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-were-not-talking-about-part-i.html
I have a real problem with the State’s action on this case. Something is real wrong with this. These people are human not cattle and they do have a religious belief right or wrong. In this Country there is separation of Church and State.
If you’re brainwashing a 16-year old girl that their salvation is somehow at stake if they do not “marry” the old guy, I suppose you could call that consent. I don’t consider it consent, but that’s just my humble opinion.
This place also seems to consider teenage boys to be disposable, so they can keep proper polygamist ratios. I don’t think that’s a healthy environment for an adolescent at all.
And I think Kristin’s point that polygamy is illegal is a perfectly valid point. Just because they don’t have marriage licenses for the additional wives doesn’t get them off the hook.
All that being said, so far it doesn’t look like the state did their homework on this. I would prefer to see a well-crafted case against this sect.
Funny how I never see those so quick to criticize CPS in a hurry to do the job themselves. Yeah, there’s a very good chance that if human beings are involved, there will be screw-ups. Massive ones, even. Of course if you’ve ever seen a 4-year-old with an open skull fracture, or 12-year-old pregnant with her own father’s child, you might be a little quick on the draw, too.
Raising a kid with specific beliefs about sexuality and relationships is “brainwashing”? Then CPS has their work cut out for them as they proceed to liberate all the kids who are brainwashed into believing that they’re going to hell if they masturbate, have premarital sex, or happen to be gay.
Gerbils, I don’t really know why you keep bringing this back to the homosexual issue. I’m not against homosexuals in the slightest, in fact, one of my best friends is gay, but all of that is really besides the point. I feel as if you’re taking my comments personally. Oh, and just so you know, there are some here who feel my comments are worthy of this discussion. Sorry, but let’s be honest. I don’t know any 17-year-old who would willingly marry an 80-year-old, unless maybe there was some money involved. Just a joke, but seriously. Despite your ignorance of the fact that the 14 year old was infact pushed into a marriage she didn’t want to be in, have you ever stopped to consider that this probably happens to the rest of them? Why do you think the women don’t want to give their last names? Because many of them are married to the same man and they probably have been since they were children. They weren’t given a choice. Oh, and where ARE all the men during this? They’re supposed to be the strong ones caring for their family and instead they stay in the shadows like cowards letting their wives deal with the cameras and police. Why? Because they know that what they’re doing is wrong-bottom line. And before you preach to me about legality-the fact is that polygamy is illegal, oh, and so is marrying a minor (unless you have your parents consent, but since all these people are in cahoots with each other anyway, they probably sign the documents when they are still toddlers) But between you and me, I don’t really care if two grown adults want to have an open marriage-honestly, I don’t care about these people being polygamists all that much. I think it’s nuts, but whatever, I’m not doing it. What I do care about is the fact that these people breed to create new child brides for the older men. That, Gerbils, is what is wrong and sick. (See, no exclamation points this time
I’m sorry Kristen. But you sound like a person with nothing but an agenda against polygamy for whatever reason.
I will agree that it is immoral to raise a girl to believe she’s naught but a sex object. It doesn’t matter if she’s a child in the YFZ compound or she is the daughter of Joe Simpson.
I also believe that it is immoral to raise a young lady up believing her role in life is to produce babies. I really don’t see any difference between the YFZ and the likes of Rod Dreher when it comes to this. There’s a lot more to life than making babies. Mostly raising them to become better people than their parents were.
So when you go off on YFZ raising these poor little girls up to become religious sluts for old men I wonder where you were last week when the Playboy search for young ladies with killer bods to pose nude for men of all ages.
Bottom line, what is the difference between YFZ’s mission statement on women and the mission statement of America on women? And would you agree that it’s the mothers in our society that are dressing up their little girls like sluts and not necessarily the fathers?
Would you agree that the mother who dresses up her darlin’ daughter like a slut on the prowl is at least as bad if not worse than the mother in the YFZ compound that is raising her daughter to be a polygamist?
More interesting to me, which is the more prevelant and has more of a detrimental effect on the bulk of young girls in our society?
So when I look at your screaming about those poor little girls I have to wonder what’s up with you. Is it the monochrome monostyle dresses and hair or what?
Whoa that filter is sensitive! I didn’t use a bad word, really. Think, “Someone who Loves the University of Texas Sometimes.”
Gerbils, raising a child to believe that they must marry an older man who has _chosen her_ to be his spiritual bride and bear his children at the risk of her eternal soul is brainwashing, yes.
And I also agree with Kristin that neither homosexuality nor open marriages (and I do not mean to equate the two at all – I don’t understand open marriage relationships) are none of the state’s business, and none of mine.
But when minor children are involved and are being raised to be sex slaves and teenage mothers, I think the state has an obligation to intervene.
Harvey, I don’t feel that I have an agenda against polygamists. I thought I made it pretty clear in my comment that I don’t care what they do. I may not understand it or agree with it personnally but it’s their lives. I take issue with the children. And I don’t know why you think I was “screaming,” I was trying to lighten the mood with a little humor. And yes, I do think the mother’s who dress up their daughters and parade them around as little “whores” are in the wrong too. Does that make you feel better? Whatever, you feel what those people are doing is okay and that’s your choice. I see them breeding children to marry off and, to me, that’s wrong. End of story. And I know this can just go back and forth, but I’ve stated my point and that’s that.
Seems to me that one of the problems in thinking about this matter is that it’s easy to paint with a broad brush. Jody, your points are well taken, but not relevant here: I don’t think there are any allegations of open skull fractures or incestuous pregnancies _in this case_. No good person is in favor of either of those things.
The problem is that we cannot use a parade of horribles to judge in specific cases. Justice is not, and can not, be decided 416 cases at a time; it has to be, and can only be, determined on a case-by-case basis.
Just wait and see what comes out of the going investigation of this scet. Children are being abused and used. The state is in the process of gathering all the needed facts and when it is finished all you who are crying foul will have to shut up. Most of the men from the scet have left and will not be back. I say good. Take this scet and go back to Utha where the state looks the other way and allows this sin to be commited time after time. If they don’t want to follow the laws in Texas then they can and I hope they do leave.
Our society accepts a child living with mom & stepdad. Dad is remarried, stepdad has an ex-wife and kids. The kid is surrounded by half siblings, step siblings, and full siblings. Sounds just like FLDS. CPS loves to play “God.”
You know I feel for both these children and the parents. I feel that some of the things that they are teaching their children are wrong but that is their choice. However I think that they know they shouldnt marry a 16 year old girl. The age they used to marry was 21 then lowered to 18 and then 16 and that it may now sit at 14 or 15. I do find something wrong with this practice and hidding it under a religion doesnt make it any less against the law. If this is what they are teaching their children is right then they are teaching them to be sexual victiums and preditors. I would like to know what else is going on inside that compound. I have looked on the net and still have a few books to read but so far I have not found what their actual beliefs are? Marrying multiple young women is not the only thing this cult is about.