The court could return the children under court ordered conditions that would carry the weight of the law. I've been thinking, if I were the judge, I might consider returning the children if conditions were met. Here's a few of my thoughts. maybe others could add to the list. I think
-Mothers and Children would be interviewed by social workers in private so that they could be made aware of what options they have. Shelters and assistance would have to be available for any of them who wanted to get out of the group. It's imporatant that each one be interviewed individually in private. They are not free if others of the group can observe them.
-No child would be returned unless it's been proved who the parents are. Only the biological parents could take custody.
-The mothers would have to show that they are educated to the High School level. If not then I'd require them to enroll in a public school and graduate before their children would be released from foster care.
- The parents, both mother and father, if any, would be ordered to be truthful in their dealings with the court. These little games they are playing where kids pretend they don't know who their real parents are and the mothers tell contradictory stories shouldn't be tolerated.
-The children would not be allowed to leave the state, unless specifically allowed by the court. There is a history of disappearing into the fog, or into Mexico or wherever. Those are more games that should not be tolerated.
-The children would be required to enroll in regular public schools. Keeping them uneducated and isolated should be seen as another form of abuse.
-Parents and children would be required to undergo counseling and therapy as needed.
-Parents would be identified by DNA testing. Fathers would be required to support the children to the extent that they can.
-If any child was abandoned both parents would be prosecuted for child abandonment.
Full Version: What conditions should be imposed for kids return?
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Apr 20 2008, 12:02 AM) |
| I've been thinking, if I were the judge, I might consider returning the children if conditions were met. |
I like your ideas Cactus , espcialy the one about the mothers education , even though these are good thoughts it comes across as a part time effort .
There should not be any halves about the children's needs . Your ideas to me would serve the wants of the parents but come short of the needs of the children .
If Texas removed these children for the sake of the children then any decision made should be only for the children's sake .
These kids need to have a identity and self worth of their own that extends beyond both the physical and mental walls of a compound they have been raised in by their gate keepers , their church "leaders ".
I feel strongly Texas should sent them all back to a life that is controlled by fear, loss and shame or take them completely away from this life if you ever want these children to adjust to a life out side of these metal and physical barriers .
There can be no halves about this , there is no middle ground or compromise for the children's sake . Haven't we seen enough of that already in Utah and Arizona ? Well I have , way too much .
It's kind of funny . . . .
I lived in this town called Colorado City . . . . . and the powers that be were really controlling. Told us when to get counseling, what level of education we should have and controlled that education. If they thought we were thinking for ourselves and trying to act on our own, we usually got "talked too."
Sound oddly familiar to what you are suggesting here, Jim.
Personally, I think ALL OF THE CHILDREN should be giving back to their parents. I think the courts should enforce the law. If an underage marriage has happened, that case should persented to the courts and dealt with accordingly.
Demanding that mother have a certain level of education to get her child back is just plain mean as hell. Since when has the government had the right to say what level of education is acceptable for motherhood. I'm a systems engineer on a corporate network of 2500 people and I'm a high school drop out. That is supposed to disqualify me as a parent?
Why should these people be treated as criminals as group? Because some of them married underage?
One of things that continues to divide this issue is that people like you think they have to right to make up rules that apply to the pligs, but cannot, is not, and would not be enforced on the American population.
A young boy died last week because his sitters refused to give him any to drink for a week. It was obvious and nasty neglect on the part of the mother would leave her child with such idoits. But did the state go in take all the of children in the neighborhood. I'm sure that entire place was filled with such idiots, otherwise how could even one of them be so stupid? Was the mother charged and her other children taken away? Did they do a DNA test to make sure who the dad was?
One news network said that the family shouldn't look like a wreath. I nearly laughed out loud. The biggest crime these people have committed is their openness. I would bet you a thousand dollars that many of the inner city neighborhood family trees would look at a wreath after a DNA test.
Another idiot video taped himself forcing a 2 year old to smoke a bong. Did the government go into every home known to smoke pot and take the children and start making demands?
My complaint all along has been that government has not been fair with these people. They make these, "Our way or the high way" rules that are insufferable. Just like this case here. A hoax call comes in, young women are found to be pregnant so every child is take from the compound.
If these children were truly in danger . . . . the danger for about 5000 other children just got much worse. People will probably run again and hide their families in different locations.
I've heard the talk about conditions. I think if the court makes one condition, short of maybe stay put for a while, they are making a huge mistake. You cannot go in take children in a hoax and then demand conditions for return. If a child has been abused and that courts prove it, that child shouldn't be returned to the people under any conditions, unless those conditions strictly related to stopping the abuse. Such as, daddy cannot sleep in the same house, or regulary check ups by a doctor.
But any conditions such as, must get more education, must leave the cult, must swear of Warren Jeffs, must promise to give up other rights would be the worst thing that could happen.
I lived in this town called Colorado City . . . . . and the powers that be were really controlling. Told us when to get counseling, what level of education we should have and controlled that education. If they thought we were thinking for ourselves and trying to act on our own, we usually got "talked too."
Sound oddly familiar to what you are suggesting here, Jim.
Personally, I think ALL OF THE CHILDREN should be giving back to their parents. I think the courts should enforce the law. If an underage marriage has happened, that case should persented to the courts and dealt with accordingly.
Demanding that mother have a certain level of education to get her child back is just plain mean as hell. Since when has the government had the right to say what level of education is acceptable for motherhood. I'm a systems engineer on a corporate network of 2500 people and I'm a high school drop out. That is supposed to disqualify me as a parent?
Why should these people be treated as criminals as group? Because some of them married underage?
One of things that continues to divide this issue is that people like you think they have to right to make up rules that apply to the pligs, but cannot, is not, and would not be enforced on the American population.
A young boy died last week because his sitters refused to give him any to drink for a week. It was obvious and nasty neglect on the part of the mother would leave her child with such idoits. But did the state go in take all the of children in the neighborhood. I'm sure that entire place was filled with such idiots, otherwise how could even one of them be so stupid? Was the mother charged and her other children taken away? Did they do a DNA test to make sure who the dad was?
One news network said that the family shouldn't look like a wreath. I nearly laughed out loud. The biggest crime these people have committed is their openness. I would bet you a thousand dollars that many of the inner city neighborhood family trees would look at a wreath after a DNA test.
Another idiot video taped himself forcing a 2 year old to smoke a bong. Did the government go into every home known to smoke pot and take the children and start making demands?
My complaint all along has been that government has not been fair with these people. They make these, "Our way or the high way" rules that are insufferable. Just like this case here. A hoax call comes in, young women are found to be pregnant so every child is take from the compound.
If these children were truly in danger . . . . the danger for about 5000 other children just got much worse. People will probably run again and hide their families in different locations.
I've heard the talk about conditions. I think if the court makes one condition, short of maybe stay put for a while, they are making a huge mistake. You cannot go in take children in a hoax and then demand conditions for return. If a child has been abused and that courts prove it, that child shouldn't be returned to the people under any conditions, unless those conditions strictly related to stopping the abuse. Such as, daddy cannot sleep in the same house, or regulary check ups by a doctor.
But any conditions such as, must get more education, must leave the cult, must swear of Warren Jeffs, must promise to give up other rights would be the worst thing that could happen.
The first condition should be that children only be returned to their parents and legal guardians. The DNA testing is a start in this direction. Without getting straight answers about whose children are whose, it's hard to believe any documentation provided at this point. I saw one FLDS mother saying she wants to be reunited with her own five children and the other six she's responsible for. I don't know about just turning eleven kids over to her without any questions.
The thought of requiring a certain level of education doesn't sit quite right with me. I understand what you're proposing, but I was raised my grandparents who had elementary educations and that didn't make them poor parents.
The thought of requiring a certain level of education doesn't sit quite right with me. I understand what you're proposing, but I was raised my grandparents who had elementary educations and that didn't make them poor parents.
Hippiemama,
I don't think that returning children to their legal guardians or parents is a condition. Perhaps to say, it wouldn't right to say, "Hey, 419 children, come over join your 116 mothers." That would be reckless.
But the state is responsible for that mess. Obviously the children aren't go to sucker for, "would you please point out which one is your real mother?"
This is a humpty-dumpty story, where all the kings horses and all of the kings men can't put it back together again.
But to another point you mentioned. What if say a woman is watching 5 children that came from Colorado City? The child might have been removed because of cultish brainwashing. . . . . but the true parent probably knows where the child is. In a court, could a case be made? Wouldn't it amount to the same as mommy and daddy said I could stay with Aunt Sally?
I was wrong about one thing. Apparantly the state of Texas has been in communication with this group. I was wanting a clip where a sheriff was saying that in Texas, a girl can get married at 14 with parantal consent. Obviously, none of this girls got married without a parent there.
I dislike girls getting married that young, but obviously Texas had an issue with it and had to make that age as low as it is.
I'm very curious how Texas is going to make a case with this.
I don't think that returning children to their legal guardians or parents is a condition. Perhaps to say, it wouldn't right to say, "Hey, 419 children, come over join your 116 mothers." That would be reckless.
But the state is responsible for that mess. Obviously the children aren't go to sucker for, "would you please point out which one is your real mother?"
This is a humpty-dumpty story, where all the kings horses and all of the kings men can't put it back together again.
But to another point you mentioned. What if say a woman is watching 5 children that came from Colorado City? The child might have been removed because of cultish brainwashing. . . . . but the true parent probably knows where the child is. In a court, could a case be made? Wouldn't it amount to the same as mommy and daddy said I could stay with Aunt Sally?
I was wrong about one thing. Apparantly the state of Texas has been in communication with this group. I was wanting a clip where a sheriff was saying that in Texas, a girl can get married at 14 with parantal consent. Obviously, none of this girls got married without a parent there.
I dislike girls getting married that young, but obviously Texas had an issue with it and had to make that age as low as it is.
I'm very curious how Texas is going to make a case with this.
| QUOTE (Cactus Jim @ Apr 20 2008, 07:02 AM) |
| The court could return the children under court ordered conditions that would carry the weight of the law. I've been thinking, if I were the judge, I might consider returning the children if conditions were met. Here's a few of my thoughts. maybe others could add to the list. I think -Mothers and Children would be interviewed by social workers in private so that they could be made aware of what options they have. Shelters and assistance would have to be available for any of them who wanted to get out of the group. It's imporatant that each one be interviewed individually in private. They are not free if others of the group can observe them. -No child would be returned unless it's been proved who the parents are. Only the biological parents could take custody. -The mothers would have to show that they are educated to the High School level. If not then I'd require them to enroll in a public school and graduate before their children would be released from foster care. - The parents, both mother and father, if any, would be ordered to be truthful in their dealings with the court. These little games they are playing where kids pretend they don't know who their real parents are and the mothers tell contradictory stories shouldn't be tolerated. -The children would not be allowed to leave the state, unless specifically allowed by the court. There is a history of disappearing into the fog, or into Mexico or wherever. Those are more games that should not be tolerated. -The children would be required to enroll in regular public schools. Keeping them uneducated and isolated should be seen as another form of abuse. -Parents and children would be required to undergo counseling and therapy as needed. -Parents would be identified by DNA testing. Fathers would be required to support the children to the extent that they can. -If any child was abandoned both parents would be prosecuted for child abandonment. |
Right on. I'm with you on every point.
| QUOTE (chaster @ Apr 22 2008, 10:33 AM) |
| Right on. I'm with you on every point. |
Requiring that they attend public schools. . . . . .
That is inconsistent with what is required of other Americans. Children can be home schooled, but the Education Department is overseeing the testing of the child. This is done by many different people for different reasons. Most often because the parent doesn't trust the government. . . . . . .
Requiring that they get counseling. . . . . .
This one really bugs me. If this was an abuse case where there was anger management issues, KNOWN cases of incest, neglecting the child so they unclean, put in harms way, etc, I might understand. But this isn't about that. The children are actually very well tended. Any counseling would amount to brainwashing on the part of CPS.
If a child was abandoned. . . . .
None of the children at the YFZ Ranch were abandoned. They were kidnapped. However, I agree that it is possible that some children where there at YFZ without their real parents. But that doesn't make them abandoned. If a child is sent to summer camp, or boarding school, is that child abandoned?
Hey Chaster, How have things been?
| QUOTE (Self Proclaimed Greatness @ Apr 22 2008, 08:37 AM) |
| Hippiemama, I don't think that returning children to their legal guardians or parents is a condition. Perhaps to say, it wouldn't right to say, "Hey, 419 children, come over join your 116 mothers." That would be reckless. But the state is responsible for that mess. Obviously the children aren't go to sucker for, "would you please point out which one is your real mother?" This is a humpty-dumpty story, where all the kings horses and all of the kings men can't put it back together again. But to another point you mentioned. What if say a woman is watching 5 children that came from Colorado City? The child might have been removed because of cultish brainwashing. . . . . but the true parent probably knows where the child is. In a court, could a case be made? Wouldn't it amount to the same as mommy and daddy said I could stay with Aunt Sally? I was wrong about one thing. Apparantly the state of Texas has been in communication with this group. I was wanting a clip where a sheriff was saying that in Texas, a girl can get married at 14 with parantal consent. Obviously, none of this girls got married without a parent there. I dislike girls getting married that young, but obviously Texas had an issue with it and had to make that age as low as it is. I'm very curious how Texas is going to make a case with this. |
Leaving my children with a trusted friend or family member without properly assigning legal guardianship would be abandonment. If a situation arose where my children were removed from that trusted friend or family member's home due to allegations of abuse, the court would want documentation proving the adult's right to my children. My children saying, "It's okay, mommy knows I'm here" would not be enough to release them. I think the same standards should be upheld in this case. Fair is fair. Doing right by kids is doing right by kids.
My understanding of the Texas age of consent is this - Warren specifically chose Texas for YFZ because of not in spite of the age of consent laws when the FLDS bought the property and started construction. Once the local politician (I'd have to go look up if it was a Senator or what office he held) found out YFZ was part of FLDS, he worked to immediately change state law to move the age of consent for marriage from 14 with parental permission to 16.
And, if women are raising other people's children, how does that guarantee to me that no teenagers were married without their parents present?
| QUOTE (Self Proclaimed Greatness @ Apr 22 2008, 06:21 PM) |
| Hey Chaster, How have things been? |
Oy Vey. Everybody's in a band but me. It's just like puberty all over again. I can't get laid, musically speaking, for the life of me.
But enough about me. What do you think about me?
| QUOTE (chaster @ Apr 23 2008, 09:45 AM) |
| But enough about me. What do you think about me? |
All in all, I think you are an upstanding sort of guy. I really like that you are active in saving the world and the world of pligs though raising awareness of environmental issues.
Thanks for being here.
John
One of the things that I would like to ask . . . . even there don't seem to be replies. . . . .
What about religious freedom. I know, I know, we killed this horse and buried it a long time ago.
I keep resisting the public's opinion of us because I don't think they really believe that we are in it for the religion. Every thinks that Joseph Smith was a dirty old man trying to get his rocks off on a couple of young girls. I don't live polygamy, and think that I would rather kill myself then to attempt it, but I believe there are valid spiritual issues that valid it the long run.
The human spirit (for those of us that believe in such a thing) has infinite potential. Pligs are just another group trying to find their way. To have people come by and say, "the religion is based on abuse" is insulting. Sure abuse happens, but outsiders make it sound like if you opened the gates, everyone would go running to freedom.
Frankly, since being on the outside, I think children are morely to be neglected. The difference is what we "deem" normal. Sending your child off to school, where almost daily sex scandals are reported would be considered abuse in my book. Sending your child to school where other kids, not of simaliar values might bring guns, drugs, sexy clothes, porn, or other vices that you have very little control over I think is abuse.
More and more boys and girls are encouraged to date, test drive each other sexually, and try a few others before deciding to commit. More and more relationships are based on sex and friendships then a commitment to a common life plan.
I've said a hundreds times. We have different values, different goals. We don't feel like anyone gives a shit. Instead of saying, "follow Americans, we notice you have an issue to abusing children, marrying young girls, can we help you improve your society" You just want to tear us down, with no regard about what is good about us.
People say this isn't about polygamy, but actions talk louder then words. I think it is injustice that America expects these people to be perfect when America is far from it.
What about religious freedom. I know, I know, we killed this horse and buried it a long time ago.
I keep resisting the public's opinion of us because I don't think they really believe that we are in it for the religion. Every thinks that Joseph Smith was a dirty old man trying to get his rocks off on a couple of young girls. I don't live polygamy, and think that I would rather kill myself then to attempt it, but I believe there are valid spiritual issues that valid it the long run.
The human spirit (for those of us that believe in such a thing) has infinite potential. Pligs are just another group trying to find their way. To have people come by and say, "the religion is based on abuse" is insulting. Sure abuse happens, but outsiders make it sound like if you opened the gates, everyone would go running to freedom.
Frankly, since being on the outside, I think children are morely to be neglected. The difference is what we "deem" normal. Sending your child off to school, where almost daily sex scandals are reported would be considered abuse in my book. Sending your child to school where other kids, not of simaliar values might bring guns, drugs, sexy clothes, porn, or other vices that you have very little control over I think is abuse.
More and more boys and girls are encouraged to date, test drive each other sexually, and try a few others before deciding to commit. More and more relationships are based on sex and friendships then a commitment to a common life plan.
I've said a hundreds times. We have different values, different goals. We don't feel like anyone gives a shit. Instead of saying, "follow Americans, we notice you have an issue to abusing children, marrying young girls, can we help you improve your society" You just want to tear us down, with no regard about what is good about us.
People say this isn't about polygamy, but actions talk louder then words. I think it is injustice that America expects these people to be perfect when America is far from it.
| QUOTE (hippiemama @ Apr 22 2008, 01:57 PM) |
| Leaving my children with a trusted friend or family member without properly assigning legal guardianship would be abandonment. |
Are you serious? So every child that goes to summer camp, boarding school, spend the summer with Uncle Bob, goes on international education programs must have legal guardianship papers signed over to the supervising adult?
I've never heard of such a thing. Perhaps a note from the parent to provide medical assistance, but actually guardianship? That usually takes lawyers and court filings.
Yes I'm serious. It's how the real world works. Your comparison to a short vacation or summer camp is silly really. The kids at YFZ weren't there for a week or two. They were there to be raised and schooled and cloistered.
When my sister wanted to leave her school aged son with my mother, they most definitely had to assign legal guardianship to my mom. When my friend drove my daughter to summer camp out of state, we had papers drawn up and notarized giving my friend temporary medical and legal rights while my daughter was in her care to protect all of us. Why shouldn't the FLDS have to follow the same rules everyone else does?
Another thought, just having birth certificates and social security cards may not prove much. My son was born at home. I was allowed to fill out the paperwork for his birth certificate at town hall without showing them a baby or any other proof of his existence. I was allowed to put whatever names I wanted for mother and father. Once I had a birth certificate in my hand, I could get a social security card. Any documentation the FLDS does have proving parentage needs to be backed up by the DNA tests before they can be validated, in my opinion.
When my sister wanted to leave her school aged son with my mother, they most definitely had to assign legal guardianship to my mom. When my friend drove my daughter to summer camp out of state, we had papers drawn up and notarized giving my friend temporary medical and legal rights while my daughter was in her care to protect all of us. Why shouldn't the FLDS have to follow the same rules everyone else does?
Another thought, just having birth certificates and social security cards may not prove much. My son was born at home. I was allowed to fill out the paperwork for his birth certificate at town hall without showing them a baby or any other proof of his existence. I was allowed to put whatever names I wanted for mother and father. Once I had a birth certificate in my hand, I could get a social security card. Any documentation the FLDS does have proving parentage needs to be backed up by the DNA tests before they can be validated, in my opinion.
| QUOTE (Self Proclaimed Greatness @ Apr 23 2008, 10:26 AM) |
| Are you serious? So every child that goes to summer camp, boarding school, spend the summer with Uncle Bob, goes on international education programs must have legal guardianship papers signed over to the supervising adult? I've never heard of such a thing. Perhaps a note from the parent to provide medical assistance, but actually guardianship? That usually takes lawyers and court filings. |
SPG, don't know if you saw it, but I posed the question on the Texas blog about giving the State a mandate of protection, having the effect of making us property of the state.
I got a real blast of crap over it, but don't you think this little scenario adds some weight to that question?
uncaduff,
I'm not sure I follow you. No, I didn't read the Texas Blog. I tried, it's too confusion for my mind.
Why would we want to be property of the state?
I'm not sure I follow you. No, I didn't read the Texas Blog. I tried, it's too confusion for my mind.
Why would we want to be property of the state?
| QUOTE (hippiemama @ Apr 23 2008, 01:21 PM) |
| Any documentation the FLDS does have proving parentage needs to be backed up by the DNA tests before they can be validated, in my opinion. |
I'm still concerned about the "validating parenthood" thing.
It sort of violates the idea of privacy. Though it probably wouldn't happen in this community, what if one of the wives was having an affair with the milkman? All of a sudden her "personal" secret is published all over the world. Headline: Wife swapping polygamious cult!! I can assure you a large number of people in the country should wonder who their dad is.
If the government went through the nation "validating parenthood" there would be some broken hearts and many sighs of relief. Again, I'm asking the government apply their brand of justice to the entire country. Instead it likes, "Oh goodie, pligs, lets raid their homes, steal their children, and then look for more ways to invade their privacy."
It's amazing what people will do when they think they are right.
I do hear your concern. I'm not always thrilled with how society and DCFS and courts handle issues regarding custody and abuse and children as well as custody and visitation. However, my point remains that the FLDS are not really being held to different standards than others dealing with The System.
If a commune of polyamorous hippies was raided due to child abuse allegations & the authorities were unable to get straight answers about which children were born to which adults I would surely expect the same standards (DNA matching) to be used before releasing the children back to their community.
If a commune of polyamorous hippies was raided due to child abuse allegations & the authorities were unable to get straight answers about which children were born to which adults I would surely expect the same standards (DNA matching) to be used before releasing the children back to their community.
| QUOTE (Self Proclaimed Greatness @ Apr 24 2008, 06:29 AM) |
| uncaduff, I'm not sure I follow you. No, I didn't read the Texas Blog. I tried, it's too confusion for my mind. Why would we want to be property of the state? |
well John, it seems most people didn't get my point ether. I wanted to get some discussion going about the nature of government, about unintended consequences, when we imperfect humans give other imperfect humans power over us.
I like to think of a "standard perfect government" to compare too. now, my being imperfect myself, will make my ideas less than perfect, but nevertheless, heres my Idea of the "standard government". in simple form, it would be Christ's summation of the Ten Commandments, "love God,and your neighbor as yourself" if everyone did this, we would have the proverbial "perfect government". But since everybody don't do this we have to "hire others to protect us from the bad guys". Now, my minor point, if, after hiring these guardians of the public tranquility, we dam well better give them some public oversight or they will become our masters rather than servants.
now to my major point; and it concerns the church, ( meaning the church in a general sense). any Church, I think , when all the esoteric BS. is stripped away, can be defined as A congregation of people who have appointed overseers to keep them from sin.
now if this congregation gives these "overseers" the unlimited power to define sin, without input from said congregation, well in short you have Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite &etc.
now to me, this is what has happened at YFZ. you have unrestrained power in the Church committing offenses, and those offended, speaking out. then you have the State, with in my opinion poorly restrained power, and possibly some political motive,
attempting to address said offenses.
I think that both sides of this argument have valid points, so far be it from me to try to solve it or even argue that there aren't offenses on both sides. nevertheless, I think it's our civic duty to speak out against what we think isn't right on both sides of the issue.
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Apr 24 2008, 04:02 PM) |
| well John, it seems most people didn't get my point ether. I wanted to get some discussion going about the nature of government, about unintended consequences, when we imperfect humans give other imperfect humans power over us. I like to think of a "standard perfect government" to compare too. now, my being imperfect myself, will make my ideas less than perfect, but nevertheless, heres my Idea of the "standard government". in simple form, it would be Christ's summation of the Ten Commandments, "love God,and your neighbor as yourself" if everyone did this, we would have the proverbial "perfect government". But since everybody don't do this we have to "hire others to protect us from the bad guys". Now, my minor point, if, after hiring these guardians of the public tranquility, we dam well better give them some public oversight or they will become our masters rather than servants. now to my major point; and it concerns the church, ( meaning the church in a general sense). any Church, I think , when all the esoteric BS. is stripped away, can be defined as A congregation of people who have appointed overseers to keep them from sin. now if this congregation gives these "overseers" the unlimited power to define sin, without input from said congregation, well in short you have Warren Jeffs, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite &etc. now to me, this is what has happened at YFZ. you have unrestrained power in the Church committing offenses, and those offended, speaking out. then you have the State, with in my opinion poorly restrained power, and possibly some political motive, attempting to address said offenses. I think that both sides of this argument have valid points, so far be it from me to try to solve it or even argue that there aren't offenses on both sides. nevertheless, I think it's our civic duty to speak out against what we think isn't right on both sides of the issue. |
Duf, you're sounding like one of us liberals. On the one hand this and on the other hand that. Well done. I think you're on the right track with that thinking.
Yeah, where does religious freedom end and an overriding interest of society at large begin? It's a fuzzy line.
Cactus Jim, though, drew one distinct line in the sand. A line in the sand has to be drawn - oh heck, I don't mean to be a ditto head of Jim, but he just so put it on the money:
Nobody gives a crap about their stupid religion or how many consenting adults they screw, but they can't treat kids this way. Anyone who does should be prison bound.
| QUOTE (hippiemama @ Apr 24 2008, 08:50 AM) |
| If a commune of polyamorous hippies was raided due to child abuse allegations & the authorities were unable to get straight answers about which children were born to which adults I would surely expect the same standards (DNA matching) to be used before releasing the children back to their community. |
So would I. I would be happy if they were to the same standards. . . . . . but has a hippie commune ever been raided? Personally, I love hippies, but now that I think about it, why are THEY NOT being raided? Surely smoking the weed is illegal and lending to the corruption of minors.
I live in an area where I am assured by young people that "EVERYONE" in school has tried pot. Now how come these kids aren't being ripped away for parents failing to protect them?
It's fine to say that IF you were raided, you'd expect the same treated. But as far as I know, this is the first and only communities that has been raided like this.
And by the way, statistics show that 1 in 4 girls has been sexually aggressed against by the time she is 18. That means, raped, molested, harassed, etc. A full 90%+ of those cases are believe to be by a close family member.
Now take any community in the nation and say, "1-in-4 in that community has been sexually abused and you would be right." Same study says that 1-in-9 boys get the same. Now, we know that we had about 10 girls that were underage, which makes a 1-in-40 ratio so far.
If the state finds another 90 children that have been sexually abused, that would put them at the national average. Given the lack of state supervision, even if that number goes to 1-in-2, instead of 1-in-4, I think there should be allowances. If the cases are bad, such as rape, persistent abuse, etc, obviously things have to be looked at. But again, if you are going to go into a community, take all the children and interview them for sexual abuse, lets do that in NY, or DC, Hollywood and get a baseline of what is "normal" in the US. Walking out of there and claiming, "AH UH, 1-in-4 children were found to be abused" is not fair, because that is true of any community.
Do you see my point? IF YOUR COMMUNITY WAS RAIDED you could expect the same thing. Yes, you would, and you get the same result, if not worse. But your community hasn't been raided.
I hear you. I really do. But you don't hear me. If this listening and understanding only goes one way, I'm not interested in participating for long. Maybe I'm best off being a quiet lurker.
My community has not been raided, but I do have family experience with DCFS, foster care, abuse allegations, DNA testing, assignment of legal guardianship, and such like that. And I in fact do know children removed from their parents as a result of illegal hippie activity. One of the children taken into custody just happened to be a guest in the home when the cops showed up. It took months for the innocent mother to be allowed to take her child home again. In your passion it feels like you keep dismissing my experiences and the similarities faced by our friends and families. You want to focus on the differences. Well, if that's the standard, you win. Hippies may be freaky and bizarre and misunderstood, but the FLDS trump that hands down.
The FLDS children in Texas are not the first or only children taken into DCFS custody due to abuse allegations. They are not the first children to have genetic testing required to determine who their parents are. They are not the first children removed from every aspect of life they've ever known. They do seem to be the largest group of children ever taken, but that doesn't invalidate the reasons nor does it prove unfairness.
My community has not been raided, but I do have family experience with DCFS, foster care, abuse allegations, DNA testing, assignment of legal guardianship, and such like that. And I in fact do know children removed from their parents as a result of illegal hippie activity. One of the children taken into custody just happened to be a guest in the home when the cops showed up. It took months for the innocent mother to be allowed to take her child home again. In your passion it feels like you keep dismissing my experiences and the similarities faced by our friends and families. You want to focus on the differences. Well, if that's the standard, you win. Hippies may be freaky and bizarre and misunderstood, but the FLDS trump that hands down.
The FLDS children in Texas are not the first or only children taken into DCFS custody due to abuse allegations. They are not the first children to have genetic testing required to determine who their parents are. They are not the first children removed from every aspect of life they've ever known. They do seem to be the largest group of children ever taken, but that doesn't invalidate the reasons nor does it prove unfairness.
| QUOTE (uncaduff @ Apr 24 2008, 09:02 AM) |
| I think it's our civic duty to speak out against what we think isn't right on both sides of the issue. |
Well, I think I understand your point, Uncle Duff. I agree. See, I'm subject to megalomania from time to time, (symptom of a buried inferiority complex.) I like to day dream about if I had all the power and stuff.
I hate child abuse, but Nature/God people the ability to reproduce. When does a group get to "Take Control of that Ability?" In other words, when talking with people about Pro Life / Pro Choice, I go Pro Choice. I say that it is wrong for even God to demand that a woman give birth if she doesn't want to. It goes against what I believe in. So when does the majority get to say to a minority, "we are revoking your right to reproduce and we taking your children?" Do not those people then be "subjects?"
And for what reason? Yes, we have many people in jail. As a group, we have taken killers, thieves, and such and revoked their rights to interact with society. Now, if a thief wants to go into the wilderness and not steal shit and does not interact with soceity, is that not better then locking him up and feeding him?
But what was these people's crime against society? America rejected them, refused to accept them as citizens, but then suddenly in the name of the children raids the community and calls them all criminals. America rejected this group, when did they assume the right to protect their children?
That is part of what makes me crazy about the Warren Jeffs case. He was convicted as an accomplice to rape, but no charges were made against the rapist. Where was the accountability? If there was a rape, but God, convict the rapist too.
The people we hire to watch over us have sought to become our guides, teachers, and authority. You are right, that is how Warren Jeffs got into power. Authority should be questioned, no matter what. Just because the State had the Authority doesn't make it right, Warren Jeffs taught us that.
In the end, we are individuals trying to live together. If we don't want to be part of the group and don't brother it, why should they dominate us? For the state to claim that they own those children is stealing. To say those children are Americans and deserve protection is to admit the parents are Americans too. However, America has been no different than the LDS church. If America could deny the FLDS were Americans, they would.
| QUOTE (hippiemama @ Apr 24 2008, 01:23 PM) |
| I hear you. I really do. But you don't hear me. If this listening and understanding only goes one way, I'm not interested in participating for long. Maybe I'm best off being a quiet lurker. |
Damn, I'm sorry, Hippie Moma.
I thought I was listening to you, but maybe I didn't. I understand the government didn't invent CPS for the FLDS.
I'm not saying that wasn't abuse. CPS may have some real cases. But scale of it does smell of unfairness. I guess I wouldn't be here if I didn't think so.
I am saying they took a massive action based on what seems like hoax. And instead of saying, "whoops" they are go ahead with the case. And if they do find that 25 percent of these children were abused. . . . what are they going to do? Take them all? Yes, it is not fair. Communities do have issues with abuse. Based on the number of the children and closeness of families, there is no way for fairness to be applied to this situation.
I don't know TX law, but conditions will be there. Most departments in most states have case workers that create plans for the children in an effort to re-unify them. There are a few exceptions that call for a non-reunification case plan but for the most part, the department must make "reasonable efforts" to keep the children with the parents and offer services and referals for them. Termination of parental rights requires making a very strong case that it would not be in the best interest of the child to return the the child. And it takes a long time, there are appeals, etc. The next best choice would be placing the relative with a suitable relative. Even if they leave out state.
| QUOTE (thebroomrider @ Apr 24 2008, 03:59 PM) |
| I don't know TX law, but conditions will be there. Most departments in most states have case workers that create plans for the children in an effort to re-unify them. There are a few exceptions that call for a non-reunification case plan but for the most part, the department must make "reasonable efforts" to keep the children with the parents and offer services and referals for them. Termination of parental rights requires making a very strong case that it would not be in the best interest of the child to return the the child. And it takes a long time, there are appeals, etc. The next best choice would be placing the relative with a suitable relative. Even if they leave out state. |
oops. I meant child returned to the parent. Educational requirements are sometimes, but not always put into the case plans. As long as the parents work their plans to satisfaction, the kid goes home.
I think what would be best would be to take all these kids away from that cult permanently. But I know CPS tries to work with families if at all possible. The reason I put education for the mothers as a condition is these people have built up a very restricted society within our larger society. Ignorance and isolation are part of the tools they've been using to keep the women and kids suppressed. They aren't aware of the freedom they are entitled to and they aren't able to leave anyway with no eduction or job skills. Ignorance, in the sense of lack of education, needs to be broken as part of any effort to break the cycle of abuse. So I don't think that requiring them to show at least a high school level of understanding is out of line.
Nobody in any CPS will ever release a kid to anyone without proof that they are indeed a parent or quardian. What we've done with the grandkids is we made out a Power of Attorney. That allows us to keep the kids under our care and seek medical care if needed but doesn't remove their mother's rights. But for these polygs, when they come in playing stupid games, lying about who the parents are and laying about names and the usual crap they've been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of law enforcement since early Utah days, they just put up a lot of red flags for the CPS workers. If it was me under those conditions I wouldn't even consider returning a child to them without DNA proof of parentage.
Nobody in any CPS will ever release a kid to anyone without proof that they are indeed a parent or quardian. What we've done with the grandkids is we made out a Power of Attorney. That allows us to keep the kids under our care and seek medical care if needed but doesn't remove their mother's rights. But for these polygs, when they come in playing stupid games, lying about who the parents are and laying about names and the usual crap they've been trying to pull the wool over the eyes of law enforcement since early Utah days, they just put up a lot of red flags for the CPS workers. If it was me under those conditions I wouldn't even consider returning a child to them without DNA proof of parentage.
I'm really not that easily chased off and I really do appreciate the dialog here. Honestly I do often give greater (or different) weight to the words and opinions of the participants here who were raised in polygamy and the FLDS. I try to be a good listener so I can learn and understand better. I'm still not quite sure why I'm so driven to learn about and understand, and I hope I'm not just a voyeur or someone craning my neck for a better view of the accident.
The whole hoax aspect of the original calls prompting the raid is unsettling. But if the calls were believable at the time they came in, I don't see a problem. The children from the ranch have not been taken into custody because of the calls, but because of what they witnessed. Again my argument is that this is the way child protective services work.
I'd like to share a little story of my recent life with you. It may not have relevance or bearing, but then again it may. A couple of months ago six police officers showed up on my doorstep with a search warrant for my twelve year old son's room looking for firearms. When they asked if they could come in, what was I going to say? They had a warrant. The only contraband found in my son's room were some soda pop cans and candy wrappers. When the police were here they said the warrant was issued because the middle school principal had received an anonymous email saying my son threated to bring a gun to school and shoot E. Later that day I called the school to talk with the principal and make sure the anonymous email containing the false allegation would be investigated. The principal told me the email was NOT anonymous, it came from a parent of another student. Even though the parent who sent the email is known to be a troublemaker who is way too involved in her child's life and even though the parent is known to be unstable (all the principal's words, not mine) the school had to follow their protocol which was to turn the email over to the police. Their protocol was to show the judge whose protocol was to issue a search warrant.
I surely have a right to be outraged that the sanctity of our safe home was breached because of a vindictive lie. I can feel exposed and fearful. I can be amazed at how easy it is to have someone investigated in an extremely invasive way. I can also feel thankful that my local authorities have experience and practice with a matter such as this so they're better prepared if a REAL situation presents itself. I can be appreciative that parents and adults are taken at their word. I can be thankful my community takes proactive steps to protect its members. And, if the police had found a dangerous or abusive situation in my home I would totally have expected my children to be removed, even if the basis for the search was later found to be invalid. It was believable enough at the time. Erring on the side of caution is not always the correct path.
Like I said, this doesn't have much bearing on what conditions should or should not be imposed for the potential return of the FLDS children to their families. I agree with Jim that I wouldn't return any of these children without DNA proof at this point.
The whole hoax aspect of the original calls prompting the raid is unsettling. But if the calls were believable at the time they came in, I don't see a problem. The children from the ranch have not been taken into custody because of the calls, but because of what they witnessed. Again my argument is that this is the way child protective services work.
I'd like to share a little story of my recent life with you. It may not have relevance or bearing, but then again it may. A couple of months ago six police officers showed up on my doorstep with a search warrant for my twelve year old son's room looking for firearms. When they asked if they could come in, what was I going to say? They had a warrant. The only contraband found in my son's room were some soda pop cans and candy wrappers. When the police were here they said the warrant was issued because the middle school principal had received an anonymous email saying my son threated to bring a gun to school and shoot E. Later that day I called the school to talk with the principal and make sure the anonymous email containing the false allegation would be investigated. The principal told me the email was NOT anonymous, it came from a parent of another student. Even though the parent who sent the email is known to be a troublemaker who is way too involved in her child's life and even though the parent is known to be unstable (all the principal's words, not mine) the school had to follow their protocol which was to turn the email over to the police. Their protocol was to show the judge whose protocol was to issue a search warrant.
I surely have a right to be outraged that the sanctity of our safe home was breached because of a vindictive lie. I can feel exposed and fearful. I can be amazed at how easy it is to have someone investigated in an extremely invasive way. I can also feel thankful that my local authorities have experience and practice with a matter such as this so they're better prepared if a REAL situation presents itself. I can be appreciative that parents and adults are taken at their word. I can be thankful my community takes proactive steps to protect its members. And, if the police had found a dangerous or abusive situation in my home I would totally have expected my children to be removed, even if the basis for the search was later found to be invalid. It was believable enough at the time. Erring on the side of caution is not always the correct path.
Like I said, this doesn't have much bearing on what conditions should or should not be imposed for the potential return of the FLDS children to their families. I agree with Jim that I wouldn't return any of these children without DNA proof at this point.
| QUOTE (hippiemama @ Apr 25 2008, 08:45 AM) |
| The principal told me the email was NOT anonymous, it came from a parent of another student. Even though the parent who sent the email is known to be a troublemaker who is way too involved in her child's life and even though the parent is known to be unstable (all the principal's words, not mine) the school had to follow their protocol which was to turn the email over to the police. Their protocol was to show the judge whose protocol was to issue a search warrant. |
Has this individual been charged with filing a false report? Law enforcement has a responsibility to protect kids from violence at school AND protect families from wackos making false reports. Man, i'd be steamed if someone did this to my kid!
Hey, Cactus Jim. May I quote some of your comments at a blog site of our local paper?
I hope so, cause I done it already. So, if the answer's no, I'm sorry.
http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2008/0...xt#blogcomments
I hope so, cause I done it already. So, if the answer's no, I'm sorry.
http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2008/0...xt#blogcomments
| QUOTE (Lara Avara @ Apr 25 2008, 10:06 AM) |
| Has this individual been charged with filing a false report? Law enforcement has a responsibility to protect kids from violence at school AND protect families from wackos making false reports. Man, i'd be steamed if someone did this to my kid! |
I think it was handled by issuing a stern warning for it not to happen again. I've made peace with that. The alternative is to fight the validity of the warrant. I'm not ready to make those kind of waves in this small town. The police who came to my house were very professional and kind. I did make sure the school left all mention of this off my son's permanent school record. We used the experience as a lesson about always being able to stand behind your words and actions.