Catholic Charities takes in 35 kids seized from polygamous sect

[Breeze54]

Catholic Charities takes in 35 kids seized from polygamous sect

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/605907.html

By CHRIS VAUGHN
Star-Telegram staff writer

Saturday, Apr 26, 2008

FORT WORTH --

Almost three dozen children removed by state officials from a polygamist compound near Eldorado arrived in Fort Worth on Friday afternoon, taking temporary shelter at a former orphanage.

Employees at Catholic Charities' headquarters, on Burchill Road not far from Texas Wesleyan University, have spent the last two days rearranging offices and turning the former St. Teresa's orphanage back into a children's home, said Anne Mason, director of development.

The nonprofit agency is also "in the process of increasing our staff" to handle the additional demands of 35 children, she said.

"Like many of our placements, these children come to Catholic Charities with unique needs," Mason said. "We will take special care to ensure that their privacy is protected, their special needs are met and that while they are in our care they have the safety, security and hope that we believe every child deserves."

The children left San Angelo by bus Friday morning and arrived in Fort Worth about midafternoon. Another group was reportedly taken to the Presbyterian Children's Home in Waxahachie.

They were among the last children from the sect who left the San Angelo Coliseum on Friday for group homes around the state, Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar said.

A total of 462 children are in state custody, he said.

snip-->

In Fort Worth

Catholic Charities operates a 20-bed shelter for children who have been abused or neglected, but that facility is consistently full and could not accommodate more children, Mason said.

"However, due to the significant need in Texas, Catholic Charities made the decision to expand our capacity to provide emergency residential services," she said.

The children will remain in the care of Catholic Charities until foster parents are found, officials said.

What about school?

It is unlikely that the children will start attending public schools in Fort Worth or elsewhere anytime soon, according to Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, who visited Fort Worth earlier this week.

"It's late in the year," he said. "We need to assess the kids."

Clint Bond, a spokesman for the Fort Worth school district, said that if the children remain in Fort Worth, the school district will decide after the assessment whether they should attend regular schools or be in a "more-controlled environment."

"From what we have heard so far, I don't know that (being in the) general population would be right for them at the moment," Bond said.

Staff writers Diane Smith and Alex Branch contributed to this report, which includes material from The Associated Press.

How to help

To care for the FLDS children, Catholic Charities must increase staff overtime and food orders, said Carrie Cappel, a charity volunteer. The best way residents can help is with a financial donation.

To donate toward care for the children:

Online:www.ccdofw.org, click on "donate" and write "emergency shelter" in the comment section.

By mail: Send a check to Catholic Charities, 2701 Burchill Road, Fort Worth, Texas, 76105.

I heard on the news that the number of children had increased when they discovered that 20+ Moms were minors.

Wasn't it originally 419 children? Now it's 462? Yikes! That's a huge increase!

[malaise]

1. They'd better keep the priests away n/t

[Breeze54]

2. Hopefully that won't be an issue and any

caretakers will be screened first. These kids are having enough issue's without that!

I wonder if Texas does CORI screening of people that work with children? I hope so!

[John Q. Citizen]

7. I wouldn't count on it. It would mean someone would have to pay taxes to pay for it.

And for many in TX, taxes are considered to be at least as evil as child abuse.

[mac2]

23. I read where during WWII the Queen took away children

and sent them to Australia. Some parents never got them back or knew where they were. The children were sent to Catholic monasteries where they were abused and used as workers.

It just shows how powerful people don't always make good decisions regarding children.

I try to find the story.

[ruby slippers]

59. here is a link for the story about what you wrote about

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3952.php

[mac2]

66. Thanks.

I remember some parents were demanding answers from the Queen about their children and what happened to them. They were suing, etc. They said they were lied to and their children gone.

Apparently the Brits had been removing poor and poverty children for many years before the war. They sent them as cheap labor and even slavery all over the world.

Our country sent poor and homeless immigrant children on trains from NY City to the West. They were picked at the train. Some got good homes others were used as farm labor. Some had no idea what lay ahead of them.

Children need people to protect and stand up for them.

[fed_up_mother]

53. I'm a former Catholic with plenty of problems with the RCC

but Catholic Charities is not like a proselytizing Southern Baptist group. For instance, our local Catholic Charities lets members of other denominations adopt the kids in their care. Most people who work for Catholic Charities are very progressive. When I worked in our local Catholic food bank, no one was even asked what religion they belonged to.

And I for sure never saw a priest there! Just a couple of progressive nuns - sans habits - and a lot of volunteers.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that these religious groups are being used because they have the facilities to keep larger groups of siblings together.

[mac2]

65. If your church gets government funding for charity they

can't preach and have to hire any person regardless of religion. Many religious groups turn down this money since it violates their separation of church and state agenda. It also removes government interfering in their church business.

RW churches abuse the law and expect tax exemption too.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

74. And many turn it down to keep seperation of church and state

My church which many here would deride wants *nothing* to do with politics and realize that taking government money is a trap for *both* sides as a church has to give up its core mission and the government gets too involved in religion... Please use a more narrow brush when painting people, ok...

[Dorian Gray]

69. Thank you...

Catholic Charities will not require any time of religious indoctrination to provide aid to the kids. They will just do it. Every CC organization I know does great things for the community. Though they have a close relationship with the church, the programs are not usually run by priests (though there are often nuns involved). And they will in no way try to indoctrinate the children.

[mac2]

73. They do great things but can't do it all.

That was proven in the past. That's why we have both tax exempt status (to allow churches to help the needy) and govenment programs (professionals and organizations who care for the homeless, mentally ill, moniotor children in distressed homes,etc.). That system has been distroyed by Bush, Inc. to use it for religious cronyism.

In a time of great need (caused by Bush, Inc.) government programs have been cut. Church and homeless organizations say the need is great but the help is not there.

[CanonRay]

3. Will they secretly baptize them?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

6. Utter crap.

The one thing I, as an ex-Catholic, am proud about the work Catholic Charities does is that it is entirely without religious bias. They do not attempt to convert, they do not preach, it is strictly about what care/service they are doing. Catholicism focuses on good works, not proselytizing.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Yes, exactly

They're likely being used because they don't do that, and b/c they have the infrastructure in place to deal with a situation of this magnitude.

Plenty I don't like about the church I was raised in. But Catholic Charities isn't among them.

[Breeze54]

12. Same here, as a non-participant anymore. Catholic Charities helped

my family once, in our time of need and they didn't preach
to me or do anything like that except offer assistance.

[mac2]

19. That's not true now.

[Breeze54]

21. Yes it is. They don't preach unless

possibly someone is in one of their rehab AA facilities and
then maybe due in part to AA is about seeking a higher power?

Catholic Charities does not preach at their food pantries.

[Gormy Cuss]

31. You may be confusing their adherence to Roman Catholic teachings and proselytizing.

They are clear and open that the services provided can not contradict their dogma. They are also clear that their services are open to all regardless of creed.

Excerpt from the CC code of ethics:

1.13 Religious Identity

a) While Catholic Charities agencies respect the religious beliefs, values and identities of
all individual clients, staff, volunteers and board members, the identity of the agency
is clearly Catholic. As such, agencies adhere to the social and moral teachings of the
Catholic Church.

b) While acting in accord with Catholic Charities religious identity, policies and procedures,
staff shall respect the religious beliefs and values of all clients and shall not directly
or indirectly attempt to proselytize in their interaction with clients.

c) Agencies shall clearly indicate, prior to the creation of any client relationship, that the
agency does not provide services contrary to the teachings of the Church, such as abortion
counseling.

The social workers I know who were for Catholic Charities would walk out the door if asked to promote the church.

[CatholicEdHead]

41. It still is for 90%+ of what they do

If a few Bishops would keep their hands out of it, the mission it is supposed to do will continue. Eventually homosexuals will be welcomed again with open arms and not shunned. Those decisions are made above CC's head.

[Donnachaidh]

9. no - only fundamentalist christians resort to that sort of bullshit

Almost as outrageous an allegation as yours. :sarcasm:

[John Q. Citizen]

4. I find it ironic that the TX courts takes kids from one cult and places them with another.

I mean, the renegade Mormons are under investigation for child abuse and they place them with a group that has been convicted repeatedly for child abuse.

The term "cult" seems to only apply if the group is small enough.

Just saying...

[Breeze54]

8. So you listen to and believe Hagee now? Very telling. ... n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

47. What does Hagee have to say about the situation in TX? You seem to know exacty what his take is.

I haven't the foggiest.

I've never ever heard what he has to say about that or anything else, for that matter.

I'm an agnostic. I haven't been following the TX story very closely, I read maybe two articles on it. And I read what you posted. And I posted what I posted, and I do find it ironic.

Why would you assume to know who I "listen" to?

[Donnachaidh]

11. that's odd -- seeing as how EVERY Christian religion sprang from Catholicism

So basically what you are alleging is that all organized Christian religions are cults?

[High Plains]

33. Hmmm, you said it....

[JerseygirlCT]

38. Well, the orthodox faiths would argue that point, lol

But Protestant churches - yes indeed. Born of the RCC.

[recoveringrepublican]

48. My Greek Orthodox husband would disagree. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

57. And a happy Easter to him tomorrow! nt

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Might have to do with the fact I'm agnostic. I do know that Mormanism also sprang from

Catholicism. They just seem to like their "latter day" saints more than the "prior day" saints.

My favorite aunt was a devout Catholic. She was a wonderful woman, well loved by her friends and family, She had about 60 people, most of them old and dear friends, attend her 90th birthday party, and that's saying something.

So don't assume I'm anti-Catholic per se just because I'm not wholly bought into the TX legal justice apparatus.

And I do find it ironic that they placed some of the children with one religious group who certainly have their own checkered history because they have been removed for now from another group with their own checkered history.

by the way, I haven't near enough real information to say whether the State of TX did the right or wrong thing in this instance. In fact it could be that in some ways they did both the right and wrong thing at the same time.

Have you ever read the history of the group? Apparently, from what I read, most are descendants of a similar group that was similarly busted up by the state, and many of those antecedents were undeniably harmed by their experience with the state.

It's not a black or white issue, and I think we should always be skeptical of the power of the state. Being skeptical doesn't mean the state was wrong or right in this instance.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

76. Mormonism did not 'spring from the rcc'

If anything one might say Presbyterianism but its oo far off Christianity that to say it sprang off of any Christian group is about as descriptive as calling it an off shoot of Judaism (don't let the churches name fool you)..

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

75. You have to be kidding..

Most of my close relatives are RCC, I was raised RCC and when I walked out of the church I was not greeted bya private security force, I did not see any of the girls in my CCD courses pushed into underage marriages. Ill be the first to say that mainline Mormons are not Christians (theologically speaking) but they are *NO* cult because of the people liberty to come and go within the faith or community as they please. Cults exercise a level of control far above what any mainline religion does.

To compare mainstream Christianity with this texas cult is absurd... Its like comparing mainline humanist organizations to pol-pot or that moron professor who thinks killing kids up to two years should be A-OK..

[spoony]

5. (some of) you lot are soooo predictable

I know full well when I click on a thread like this that the majority of responses are going to be glib slams on whatever religion is mentioned, but for crying out loud think up some new jabs, people. If you must show your colours, at least be amusing.

[acmavm]

26. Aren't they? It's almost pitiful, like you can read their little minds.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. I think it's just more simple to write off anything religious

rather than actually delve into the complexities of faith(s). Black and white thinking.

Though I would certainly have hoped for better from people at DU. That sort of binary thinking is more a symptom of the GOP, I thought.

[acmavm]

46. You did? Go to GD: Primaries.

That'll tell you a lot about what to expect from your fellow 'dems'.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. LOL. Sadly, true enough... nt

[CanonRay]

49. I thought "faith" was the complete lack of complexities. You just accept on "faith".

[acmavm]

52. No, the search for knowledge is necessary for faith in the first place. The

continual observation of the our surroundings and the people of this planet (and for me the possibility of life on other planets) keep reinforcing faith. Acceptance does not mean ignorance.

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Oh goodness, no

Not at all!

An expression I've heard rather often at my church and like a lot is "doubt is not the opposite of faith; doubt is the leading edge of faith".

Every single person experiences belief in a different way. And for many, it's anything but simple - at least if you define simple as uncomplicated.

I know there are some who put their faith on like a pair of pants. On, off. Not a great deal more thought given to it, either. But there are also many for whom it is a life-long process, a journey not a destination. And often filled with doubt and questioning and wonder. Those willing to question are those able to really grow.

At some point, in an intellectual way, yes: there is a point beyond which faith cannot be explained by language or logic and there is that leap. For me, that's at: do I believe in God? And when I look carefully, all I can say is yes. And I always have. Cannot reason that out to someone, or offer ontological certitude (to borrow from John McLaughlin, lol). That's where I just do: faith.

But no complexity? Oh goodness, no.

[LanternWaste]

70. In its classical definition

In its classical definition, faith is merely, "trust in that of which we do not have full knowledge". Something everyone-- both the religious and the non-religious practice everyday.

[timtom]

61. I made a sarcastic comment below.

But it was based on recent track history -- NOT because it is this religion or that religion.

[Richard Steele]

68. Got PROJECTION? Few members of this board are more predictable than you, Spoony.

"Glib slams, stale, showing colours & unamusing"-
it's like you're addressing that post to the mirror in your loo.

It's rather sad, actually.

[JanMichael]

13. Why isn't the Church of LDS mentioned in this list?

I would think they, and I mean the one in Salt Lake City, would have a special interest in these children--getting them back into the "real fold," if you will.

[Breeze54]

14. Because it's a story from Ft. Worth, TX

about Catholic Charities and group homes in Ft. Worth? :shrug:

[JanMichael]

17. Well, I went to the LDS' website

and all they have are articles denying any affiliation with the polygamist cult---zero about how they can help the kids.

[kestrel91316]

27. LDS only ever helps their own, AFAIK.

And they don't even necessarily do a good job of THAT. IMHO.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

28. The "real" mormon church is trying to keep this story from

tainting them. The FLDS cult today looks exactly like the "real" mormon church did 125 years ago, and the mormon church leadership in Salt Lake City knows that. It's a potential PR nightmare for the mormon church, and they are incredibly focused on image. Never mind the fact that polygamy is still codified into and an integral part of mormon doctrine.

[High Plains]

34. How can polygamy be a part of Mormon doctrine if they rejected

it 120 year ago?

[uppityperson]

43. FLDS is the extreme Fundamentalist part. Not LDS but FLDS.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

64. They may have rejected it

but it is still a part of mormon doctrine, plain and simple. If they had wanted to make a real statement, the mainstream mormon church would have removed the sections on polygamy from the scriptures.

Men are still promised multiple wives in the after life.

[JNelson6563]

71. You are exactly right

It is astounding what great lengths they will go to in order to protect their image. Some years ago and extremely clever guy (who was raised Mormon and had issues with the church) forged a bunch of documents the church might find embarrssing. They were deemed "authentic" and the church paid for and got devoted members to buy some extremely expensive forgeries to stick away in their vaults (hopefully) never to see the light of day.

Having a large family and striving to achieve wordly success are very important to the Mormons.

It's kind of interesting really. Back when the Mormon church came into being was a big era for the birth of such new religions/sects. The Jehovah's Witnesses came into bing during the same era I believe and they teach the opposite: The end is near, having children will take away from your time in the ministry (aka selling lit door to door) and money you can donate to Bethel (aka JW HQ). Striving for worldly success is a big waste of time and if your service as a JW "suffers" (aka not putting enough time in on door to door sales) you will be socially pressured to see the error of your ways.

Look at the difference in the two churches now. The Mormon's, in spite of the occassional polygamist flare-up, is pretty much an accepted religion in our society. They grow their wealth and power more each day. The JWs are considered a fringe group and are the butt of jokes regarding door to door stuff and have about zero influence on society.

Julie

[mac2]

It's obvious the RWers in Texas want everyone to be their

"Christian" religious group.

[mac2]

15. Why not let the children stay in their religious group

but with families who are sane and lawful? I'm sure they would take them in.

[Breeze54]

18. I think the judge ruled on that....

something to do with this abuse of minor girls is wide spread?

I have no idea if any of these kids have been placed with any LDS groups.

[mac2]

20. Sorry the abuse of girls in not wide spread in Mormon

groups. The religiously insane of every religion abuses girls.

[Breeze54]

22. Not from the stories I've read and watched.

Many ex-Mormons say that it is wide spread.

[mac2]

24. The media talks about Mormons but not other religiously

insane groups...like Evangelical Baptists? Girls and women have no rights and are beaten by their husbands. Girls sexually abused.

In a small TN town one Baptist church put a woman out of their congregation for leaving her husband because he beat her. Maybe the women were worried over a single married woman in their group and the men worried about their wives leaving them?

[Breeze54]

30. Not true. I've heard other churches discussed but the FDLS is in the news right now.

I've posted here at DU about the sexual molesting of children by Christian church members
that aren't Catholic churches. One website states that they have a higher rate of sexual
abuse than any other churches!! Google it and Baptist.

[JerseygirlCT]

37. There absolutely no doubt that discrimination and mistreatment -

including subjugation - of women is a problem in many organized religions. Not all, but it's certainly there.

But what we're talking about with the FLDS is of a whole different magnitude. Which is really frightening.

[mac2]

67. I agree.

Women aren't treated equally in many RW religious organizations.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. You're confusing the LDS (Mormons) with this

off=shoot of many years ago, the FLDS. The LDS church doesn't even recognize these folks, IIRC.

Abuse of women and children is something of a signature of the FLDS. It's inherent in their whole system - central to it, perhaps.

While I disagree with the LDS approach to women, I also disagree with many other church's. The FLDS though, is in a whole different league.

[Marrah_G]

29. because the entire group participates in this behavior

There is no where in the flds where they would be safe.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. I'm not sure those exist.

Perhaps an LDS family - but really, the FLDS is to LDS as say, the Amish, are to a mainstream Protestant church.

The FLDS is a very out-there subset of its original church.

[fed_up_mother]

72. It takes time to run criminal checks, train new foster care parents, etc.

Officials are using various religious groups because they have the larger shelters to keep these siblings together. Most foster homes - of any religious persuasion - can't take in more than a couple of kids.

[mitchum]

16. Out of the frying pan and into the friar

[Gormy Cuss]

32. You're going straight to hell for that pun.

:spray:

[davidthegnome]

58. Made me choke on my cereal

Satan is going to get you

[Beregond2]

25. The ignorance

of the anti-religion nuts on this board never ceases to amaze me. I notice they've been pretty quiet about Reverend Wright since the Moyers interview revealed him as a man whose intelligence, sophistication and compassion make them look like the small-minded bigots they are.

[Breeze54]

40. Here's the link confirming the increase of the number of underage Moms found.

30 pregnancies/babies among FLDS teens -- out of 77 children under 2 overall.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3203171&mesg_id=3203171

[High Plains]

42. I'm not sure just what this link proves.

The age of consent is 16, right? So you can be a teenager and a mother and no law is necessarily broken.

How many babies were born to girls under the age of 16? The article doesn't say.

And remember, up until 2005 (I think), the age of consent was 14. So, we could have an 18-year-old with a three-year-old child, and that wouldn be evidence of a crime, either.

Calling them "underage moms" is misleading, or at least confusing. Under 18? Under 16?

[Breeze54]

45. UNDER AGE means below the age of consent which is 17 in TX now.

I mentioned in my OP that the number of children in custody had changed.

The authorities are the one's not releasing the ages of the underage Moms.

[High Plains]

51. I am confused about the current age of consent.

Is it 16 or 17? I thought it went from 14 to 16 in 2005 in a bid to go after the FLDS?

[fed_up_mother]

54. Age of consent to legal marriage without impediments and parent permission is 16

Age of consent for sex with an adult is 17. More than a three year age difference = statutory rape at the very least.

[girl gone mad]

62. You must have been informed about the laws..

more than a dozen times in these threads. Why do you still feign ignorance?

These children are groomed to have sex with old men. They aren't acting out of free will. This is child slavery that you are condoning.

[Breeze54]

63. Texas (17 yrs old) & Utah (16 yrs old) Age of Consent Laws

Texas Age of Consent Laws

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/11/09/texas-age-of-consent-laws/

The age of consent in Texas is 17 years old; this is the age at which a man or woman may legally consent to heterosexual sex with an adult. Texas has no minimum age of consent for homosexual acts, because the law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Texas age of consent laws, like those of other states, are designed to prevent young people from being sexually exploited by adults. Texas, like many states, permits teens to engage in sexual relations with their peers. While this activity is far from universal, it is common enough that the courts would be unable to handle all the cases, if it were illegal.

In Texas, young people who are at least 14 years old may legally consent to sex with a partner who is not more than 3 years older. So, a 15-year-old boy can have sex with his brother’s 18-year-old girlfriend, but not with the 42-year-old lady down the street. Although in that example, the brother might object strongly, the conduct would not be illegal.

Under the Texas age of consent laws, it is sexual assault for anyone to penetrate a person who is at least 14 years old but under the age of 17, if the offender is more than 3 years older than the victim is. The law includes an exception for married couples. This crime, commonly called statutory rape, carries a sentence of 2 to 20 years in jail.

The age of consent is different in every country and can vary greatly from state to state within the U.S. Several states including Wisconsin, Florida, Oregon and Virginia set the age of consent at 18. A number of other states set the age of consent at 16, including West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Nevada. Two states set the age of consent at just 14 for females, although it is higher for males. Those states are Iowa and South Carolina.

-------------------

Texas Marriage Laws

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2007/11/26/texas-marriage-laws/

snip-->

Both parties must be at least 18 years old to be married without parental consent.

If both parties are 16-17 years old parental permission is required to be married.

If either party is under the age of 16 a court order is required along with parental permission.

---------------------------------

Utah Age of Consent Laws

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/11/09/utah-age-of-consent-laws/

Posted by Tamara

Utah is one of just 8 states in the U.S. that set different ages of consent for men and women. Other states with different ages of consent for men and women are Montana, Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Iowa, South Carolina and Wyoming.

The age of consent in Utah is 16 for women and 18 for men. However, even at that age, there are significant restrictions on legal consent that involve the age of the partner. Like the majority of U.S. states, Utah applies one standard to teens who are consenting to sex with a peer, and another to relationships with someone who is at least 10 years older.

A unique feature of the Utah age of consent laws is that although a woman may legally consent to sex at the age of 16 or 17, that consent is not valid if the partner is at least 10 years older than she is. So, under Utah law, a 16-year-old boy could legally consent to sex with his 25-year-old girlfriend, but not with a 35-year-old stripper. In order to legally consent to sex with a partner who is at least 10 years older, one must be 18 years of age, in Utah.

Utah is among the states that allow teens to legally consent to sex with their peers. A young person who is 14 or 15 years old may legally consent to sex with someone who is less than 4 years older. So, a 14-year-old girl could legally consent to sex with the 16-year-old boy in the previous paragraph, but not with his 19-year-old brother.

The Utah age of consent laws deal exclusively with heterosexual acts. The Utah laws concerning an age of consent for homosexual acts have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme court. Presumably, consent to homosexual acts is at the same age as for heterosexual acts.

Statutory rape is the crime of having sex – even consensual sex – with someone who is unable to legally give consent. In Utah, this crime is technically referred to as “unlawful sexual activity.” Unlawful sexual activity with a minor involves intercourse with someone aged 14 or 15 by a person who is more than 4 years older. The sentence for this crime is up to 5 years in state prison.

A more serious charge under the Utah age of consent laws is unlawful sexual activity with a minor aged 16 or 17, if the offender is more than 10 years older than the victim is. The penalty for this crime is up to 5 years in state prison.

[seabeyond]

77. playing stupid is stupid. just more condoning rape by male. why is it so important to you

to justify, validate the rape of girls?

[uppityperson]

44. I'm glad some are being kept together for a while longer rather than split up

to places all alone. Thanks for the article.
edited for typo

[timtom]

60. Well.

That should work out ok...
:sarcasm:

(I don't usually use emoticons, but I felt it was needed here)