This isn't good for CPS, when the State's Star Expert Witness/Pshrink and Cult Expert says the FLDS kids would suffer in State Foster Care...

As the Judge stated... "What do I do with these kids"????

It could be a split decision----only the non pregnant "married" girls and their children and the "married" pregnant girls under 17 stay in State Custody while the rest go back.

"Perry testified that the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth.

"Obedience is a very important element of their belief system," he said. "Compliance is being godly; it's part of their honoring God."

Perry acknowledged that many of the adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he played with them. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, "I have lost sleep over that question."

Under questioning, Perry also conceded the children would suffer if placed in traditional foster care.

"If these children are kept in the custody of the state, there would have to be exceptional and innovative programmatic elements for these children and their families," he said. "The traditional foster care system would be destructive for these children."

At that, dozens of FLDS parents applauded.

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said courts have generally held that a parent's belief system cannot, in itself, justify a child's removal. He said, for example, that a parent might teach his child that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but only when he helps the child buy pot does he cross the line.

"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't" take the children, Volokh said."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...rticle=1&cat=0

GrayBeard Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:My question is why wasn't this compound shut down a long time ago. This group continues to live outside the law as it pertains to marriage and children. It's wrong, sick, and the men involved should be locked up for being child molesters/rapists.

Not that I am trying to defend these people (as it sounds as if they are altogether wacko), but it wasn't that long ago that girls got married very young. It certainly isn't the culture today, but then again, from the pictures it doesn't look like these cult members are living in the here and now with their amish-style clothing, etc.

I was flipping through the channels last night when I saw an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" that reminded me of this group. In the episode Mary gets engaged at 13.5 years old, however, Charles says they need to wait until she is 15 to actually get married. The guy had turned down going to college to be a farmer and get married, which I guess means he was at least 18.

While what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. If it is against the law now, it is against the law.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say for arguments sake that the U.S. tomorrow made being a Christian against the law. Would that mean you would stop, because the U.S. government said so? I would have to think that if you believed in something enough to dress like someone from the 1800's, move out to the middle of nowhere and give essentially all your money to the church, that a little thing like the government saying that anyone under 18 can't get married isn't really going to have a whole lot of impact on the way you live your life.

WMD Owl Wrote:As the Judge stated... "What do I do with these kids"????

It could be a split decision----only the non pregnant "married" girls and their children and the "married" pregnant girls under 17 stay in State Custody while the rest go back.[/color]

That may be a reasonable decision. Even more reasonable would be to castrate all of the males and send all of the "husbands" off to Huntsville. BTW, in case anyone thinks the boys are in line to be treated as kings in a cult like this - they're apparently treated like **** and then run off once they're old enough to be attractive to the girls. How do you think they maintain the male to female ratios...

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:[quote=blah]While what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. If it is against the law now, it is against the law.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say for arguments sake that the U.S. tomorrow made being a Christian against the law. Would that mean you would stop, because the U.S. government said so?

What about virgins - can we go back to sacrificing virgins? Does the constitution matter?

blah Wrote:I would have to think that if you believed in something enough to dress like someone from the 1800's, move out to the middle of nowhere and give essentially all your money to the church, that a little thing like the government saying that anyone under 18 can't get married isn't really going to have a whole lot of impact on the way you live your life.

Surprisingly, the same effect can be seen amongst drug dealers and other gangsters. It never has an impact on your life until the police show up.

If it is found that the authorities initiated this complaint in order to establish probabale cause for a search, would everything they found become "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

Fo Shizzle Wrote:If it is found that the authorities initiated this complaint in order to establish probabale cause for a search, would everything they found become "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

Yes, unless they can show inevitable discovery (which is doubtful). My guess is they didn't make it up. It was probably an ex-member which I think is what CNN said it was. I think the police did the right thing. They had probable cause. After Waco, an overwhelming force was needed to avoid a shootout.

I'm really glad the court appointed a bunch of attorneys as guardians ad litem. The attorneys will decide what is in the kids best interest, not their brainwashed parents or the kids themselves.

I45owl Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:[quote=blah]While what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. If it is against the law now, it is against the law.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say for arguments sake that the U.S. tomorrow made being a Christian against the law. Would that mean you would stop, because the U.S. government said so?

What about virgins - can we go back to sacrificing virgins? Does the constitution matter?

I don't know that I would necessarily equate your above example with what they are doing. In the above someone is literally dying. Although the state obviously disagrees, I would think that the sect would argue that they aren't actually "hurting" anyone.

Sure the Constitution matters, but at the end of the day, would you let the country you live in dictate how you lived your life if it was something you truly believed in or thought was a ridiculous law? Many states still have sodomy laws on the books. That doesn't seem to stop homosexuals (and even heterosexuals) from engaging in anal sex. Prohibition was once on the law books. It is illegal in most states to visit a prostitute. It is illegal to practice any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia. Russian parliament recently tried to ban all Jewish groups because they are "extremist". Some U.S. states had laws pertaining to segregation. (What turned Rose Parks from being an uppity ****** law breaker into a hero? Answer: law changes and public opinion). At one time it was against the law for women to vote.

blah Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:[quote=blah]While what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. If it is against the law now, it is against the law.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say for arguments sake that the U.S. tomorrow made being a Christian against the law. Would that mean you would stop, because the U.S. government said so?

What about virgins - can we go back to sacrificing virgins? Does the constitution matter?

I don't know that I would necessarily equate your above example with what they are doing. In the above someone is literally dying. Although the state obviously disagrees, I would think that the sect would argue that they aren't actually "hurting" anyone.

Sure the Constitution matters, but at the end of the day, would you let the country you live in dictate how you lived your life if it was something you truly believed in or thought was a ridiculous law? Many states still have sodomy laws on the books. That doesn't seem to stop homosexuals (and even heterosexuals) from engaging in anal sex. Prohibition was once on the law books. It is illegal in most states to visit a prostitute. It is illegal to practice any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia. Russian parliament recently tried to ban all Jewish groups because they are "extremist". Some U.S. states had laws pertaining to segregation. (What turned Rose Parks from being an uppity ****** law breaker into a hero? Answer: law changes and public opinion). At one time it was against the law for women to vote.

Most of your examples are consensual conduct which is why they aren't illegal. Prohibition got overturned, so did sodomy laws (they may be on the books, but they can't be enforced because of the supreme court ruling), and right to religion/association is protected by the constitution. Polygamy might one day be legal, but that's not what this case is about. This is about 50 year old men having sex with 14-16 year old girls who are brainwashed into thinking they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't marry the old guys. People under 18 don't have the capacity to consent like an adult does. Texas is doing the right thing.

Jugnaut Wrote:

blah Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:[quote=blah]While what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. If it is against the law now, it is against the law.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say for arguments sake that the U.S. tomorrow made being a Christian against the law. Would that mean you would stop, because the U.S. government said so?

What about virgins - can we go back to sacrificing virgins? Does the constitution matter?

I don't know that I would necessarily equate your above example with what they are doing. In the above someone is literally dying. Although the state obviously disagrees, I would think that the sect would argue that they aren't actually "hurting" anyone.

Sure the Constitution matters, but at the end of the day, would you let the country you live in dictate how you lived your life if it was something you truly believed in or thought was a ridiculous law? Many states still have sodomy laws on the books. That doesn't seem to stop homosexuals (and even heterosexuals) from engaging in anal sex. Prohibition was once on the law books. It is illegal in most states to visit a prostitute. It is illegal to practice any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia. Russian parliament recently tried to ban all Jewish groups because they are "extremist". Some U.S. states had laws pertaining to segregation. (What turned Rose Parks from being an uppity ****** law breaker into a hero? Answer: law changes and public opinion). At one time it was against the law for women to vote.

Most of your examples are consensual conduct which is why they aren't illegal. Prohibition got overturned, so did sodomy laws (they may be on the books, but they can't be enforced because of the supreme court ruling), and right to religion/association is protected by the constitution. Polygamy might one day be legal, but that's not what this case is about. This is about 50 year old men having sex with 14-16 year old girls who are brainwashed into thinking they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't marry the old guys. People under 18 don't have the capacity to consent like an adult does. Texas is doing the right thing.

I don't disagree that the girls should be given the choice. However my point was that at one time most of the above either were or are illegal. Did the acts themselves become different over time or did public opinion change over time?

As recently as the 1940's the average age for marriage for girls in India was 13. Now the average is almost 20.

How many people were killed by incendiary projectiles and fire?

...oh wait, wrong administration.

blah Wrote:

Jugnaut Wrote:

blah Wrote:

I45owl Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:[quote=blah]While what you are saying may be true, it is beside the point. If it is against the law now, it is against the law.

I hear what you are saying, but let's just say for arguments sake that the U.S. tomorrow made being a Christian against the law. Would that mean you would stop, because the U.S. government said so?

What about virgins - can we go back to sacrificing virgins? Does the constitution matter?

I don't know that I would necessarily equate your above example with what they are doing. In the above someone is literally dying. Although the state obviously disagrees, I would think that the sect would argue that they aren't actually "hurting" anyone.

Sure the Constitution matters, but at the end of the day, would you let the country you live in dictate how you lived your life if it was something you truly believed in or thought was a ridiculous law? Many states still have sodomy laws on the books. That doesn't seem to stop homosexuals (and even heterosexuals) from engaging in anal sex. Prohibition was once on the law books. It is illegal in most states to visit a prostitute. It is illegal to practice any religion other than Islam in Saudi Arabia. Russian parliament recently tried to ban all Jewish groups because they are "extremist". Some U.S. states had laws pertaining to segregation. (What turned Rose Parks from being an uppity ****** law breaker into a hero? Answer: law changes and public opinion). At one time it was against the law for women to vote.

Most of your examples are consensual conduct which is why they aren't illegal. Prohibition got overturned, so did sodomy laws (they may be on the books, but they can't be enforced because of the supreme court ruling), and right to religion/association is protected by the constitution. Polygamy might one day be legal, but that's not what this case is about. This is about 50 year old men having sex with 14-16 year old girls who are brainwashed into thinking they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't marry the old guys. People under 18 don't have the capacity to consent like an adult does. Texas is doing the right thing.

I don't disagree that the girls should be given the choice. However my point was that at one time most of the above either were or are illegal. Did the acts themselves become different over time or did public opinion change over time?

As recently as the 1940's the average age for marriage for girls in India was 13. Now the average is almost 20.

I think a lot of it is a result of Supreme Court. Probably more so than public opinion. Look at the civil rights movement. The court was the first to act, then public opinion followed. The age of consent is definitely a culture thing though. The US has picked 18 for whatever reason and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.

My opinion? Any man or group that wants and pushes their men to put up with more than one woman at a time is not to be trusted.

RebelKev Wrote:My opinion? Any man or group that wants and pushes their men to put up with more than one woman at a time is not to be trusted.

Kev...Are you trying to defend the Bush Admin. for its blunders?

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Kev...Are you trying to defend the Bush Admin. for its blunders?

What the hell does that have to do with the topic? Bush is a polygamist?

As far as blunders, there have been blunders. However, I'm thinking your definition of his blunders and mine are two, totally different animals.

RebelKev Wrote:How many people were killed by incendiary projectiles and fire?

...oh wait, wrong administration.

Whoops...I responded to the wrong post...This post prompted my question of you defending the Bush Adm.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Kev...Are you trying to defend the Bush Admin. for its blunders?

What the hell does that have to do with the topic? Bush is a polygamist?

As far as blunders, there have been blunders. However, I'm thinking your definition of his blunders and mine are two, totally different animals.

Polygamist?...no...dumb***..yes

From Jugnaut:

Quote:I'm really glad the court appointed a bunch of attorneys as guardians ad litem. The attorneys will decide what is in the kids best interest, not their brainwashed parents or the kids themselves.

Oh yeah, this is great. The attorneys will now determine what is in the best interest of the children, and how much time it will take. I predict it will be exactly proportional to the amount of $$$ they can bill and they can get from the government.

This is just a legal feeding frenzy.

TomorrowHerd Wrote:From Jugnaut:

Quote:I'm really glad the court appointed a bunch of attorneys as guardians ad litem. The attorneys will decide what is in the kids best interest, not their brainwashed parents or the kids themselves.

Oh yeah, this is great. The attorneys will now determine what is in the best interest of the children, and how much time it will take. I predict it will be exactly proportional to the amount of $$$ they can bill and they can get from the government.

This is just a legal feeding frenzy.

Actually, the lawyers are all working pro bono from the State Bar of Texas Family Law Section.

The big expense is that is it costing the State of Texas over $20,000.00 per day for food, housing, etc. to keep over 400 kids in CPS custody. Under the Texas Family Code, the parents of the child are supposed to pay this expense. Since the parents are part of the collective, then the FLDS property can be sold to pay the bill. I expect the legal action to start collection will begin this week.

There goes your compound. Want to buy some property in El Dorado?

An interesting little twist, the compound is going to undergo DNA testing to determine parentage of all these kids. Apparently, wives are shuffled around if someone leaves the community.

When the welfare of children is at stake, you don't need to have probable cause to take the children into protective custody, just a reasonable suspicion of abuse. A bunch of preggers 16 year olds does that. Now they might not be able to prosecute the men who "married" these girls, because of the invalidity of the search, but the protection of children is highest on the scale of permissible government intervention. Remember it takes a village. No matter what, its a mess.

The problem is that the members aren't being cooperative... and perhaps some of them can't. The kids don't know who gave birth to them, much less who the father was. Determining exactly who is and isn't the natural child of whom is apparently a challenge... so who is legally allowed to make decisions for the child?? And while parents can consent to marriage before 18, I believe that under 15, that isn't the case in Texas (I could be wrong). Cultural issues aside (the argument was made in the hispanic population in Houston a few years ago) The law is the law,.. and yes... in the pure hypothetical, if they outlawed Christianity, many of us would be comitting crimes. A more realistic example would be changing the drinking age. Years ago, during a change in the drinking age, I was able to legally drink for 1 day, then I had to wait a year to do it again... legally.

Even so, parents can't make "bad" decisions for their kids just because they are parents. They can't marry their child to an already married man... and I doubt they could marry them to a 50 year old man. Honestly, what is the legal, moral or overriding reason to rush?? Its a fairly closed community. Nobody is going to get transferred or move. If it is arranged anyway, and the girl has little or no choice... then why does it matter WHEN it happens??

I know I'm preaching to the Choir here... but making obtuse arguments for the sole purpose of trying to extend REASONABLE arguments (like letting a 17yr old girl marry her 18 year old boyfriend before he gets shipped off to war) to unreasonable ones (because a 50yr old man thought his 18 yr old 3rd wife was getting "too long-in-the-tooth to have babies") or trying to tie state decisions into a national debate doesn't make one look smart, or liberal, or open-minded, or fair, or whatever quality one is trying to present. It simply makes one look like they want to argue about everything.... which is generally the quality people hate most in Lawyers.

CPS and the State of Texas is handling this according to the law. Of course, I doubt the law was written envisioning 400 kids and however many parents with a convoluded family tree, not to mention birth/marriage records... but the inconvenience to these families is of their own doing. I know people who can trace their family trees back for generations. I guarantee that there are people on that compound who can accurately describe the familial relationships... but they refuse to. The price is that the state must remove the children from the care of people who MAY have committed crimes who cannot or will not provide proof of their relationships to the children.