Breaking: deal to return Texas sect kids to parents has collapsed

[CatWoman]

seems the moms didn't want to show proper ID and agree to take parenting classes.

[blondeatlast]

1. How many of the moms are even old enough to give legal consent to anything?

They are just children themselves and have been brought up to believe the authorities are tools of Satan.

This is all so very tragic.

[soothsayer]

15. i really don't think there was proof of any of those allegations.

whole thing was a cluster-eff.

[roguevalley]

38. 31 of the 'mothers' are under 15. 31. no proof? One had a baby

when they were taken into custody. but don't let that stand in the way of your point. Texas appears to uphold the idea that incest is an 'accepted practice'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3368352#3368366

[cbc5g]

41. Seems many here do too, its sad and its sick..forced marriage, forced religion

And some think the ACLU should be defending them? WTF is wrong with these people? Does a Jonestown have to happen again before they STFU?

[Wizard777]

67. We simply refuse to drink the kool aid being passed around on these threads.

They are innocent until proven guilty and we want proof. Sound long standing democratic principles. We don't have the Bush like ability to just see the evil in people. That's why we want the proof. many of you sound just like the freepers that had seen the WMD's in Iraq. This is pretty much going the same way. Many of the allegations CPS has made have been proved to be false. But if you just can't live without kool aid. There's always Free Republic.

[Wizard777]

66. The one that had the baby was 27 and CPS refused to accept her drivers license as proof of age.

[CatWoman]

73. link please?

[Wizard777]

79. All the links I have to the stories are now comming up 404.

They may be archived. News papers will provide articles free on line for a week or two. Then after that you must pay to access them. I tried. But you can always google to bring yourself up to speed.

[LanternWaste]

80. I've googled it and still fail to see any stories

I've googled it and still fail to see any stories indicating that CPS refued her license as proof of ID. Maybe you can direct us to the actual websites that had these stories at one time...?

[Wizard777]

82. These are the links I had to the stories.

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/nationworld/story/244462.html|Sect mother of newborn not a minor, Texas concedes>

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5778015.html">CPS concedes sect mom was 18 when she gave birth

I may have confused the age. I'm looking for the one they were holding as a minor that was in her late 20's. I've seen two different ages given for her 27 and 28. I think she's one of the pregnant ones. But I went with 27 to give CPS the benefit of the two ages given. They have enough problems as is.

[Wizard777]

83. This is odd.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5793538.html">This is supposed to be a story about CPS admiting minors were adults. It comes up on dogpile as that too. But it's not mentioned in the story. The original story seems to have been replaced with this one.

[Wizard777]

85. I FOUND ONE!

http://www.islamnewsroom.com/content/view/502/52/">This one says she was 22 and had a birth certificate.

This is the third age I've seen for this girl. One first story I read about her at a hearing to establish that she was an adult. She aked the judge why CPS refused to accept her drivers license as proof of age. But either way it's an official document issued by the state. This isn't from teh bishops record. Which is also legal for ID under Texas law.

[Wizard777]

87. This one is from the blog of a reporter following the story.

http://www.4thefamily.us/Disputed_FLDS_minors"> You can follow the link to the original blog. For more stories on this by Brooke

Apparently CPS's perjury can be proven. They knew these girls were adults when they went into court and claimed they were minors.

[FreeState]

2. Link?

Not on CNN or Google news yet... if the court ruled they had no right to take the kids how can they force them to take any classes yet alone agree to anything?

[El Supremo]

3. Here is one.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/053108dntexpolygamistsect.44c30e11.html

AUSTIN – An agreement to reunite children removed from a West Texas polygamist ranch with their parents fell apart at the last minute on Friday, after a district judge and attorneys for the religious sect sparred over the details.

The courtroom drama followed four hours of negotiation on a plan that would’ve returned the youngsters to the Yearning For Zion ranch starting on Monday, as long as their parents agreed to keep them in Texas and fully cooperate with child welfare investigations.

Now, it’s unclear when the children will go home – and how soon a new compact can be reached.

State District Judge Barbara Walther wanted to place additional restrictions on the parents and give state child protection workers more authority to monitor the families....

[CatWoman]

4. Deal to return sect children to parents collapses

Texas court earlier ruled kids to returned; talks between sides hit snag

SAN ANGELO, Texas - Negotiations between Texas officials and a polygamist sect hit a snag Friday evening, delaying an agreement to return more than 400 children to their parents, NBC News reported.

A Texas judge refused to sign an agreement ordering the return of polygamist children after attorneys for their parents objected to changes she sought.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther wanted to place additional restrictions on the parents and give state child protection workers more authority to monitor the families.

Walther said she would sign the order after the parents, all members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, agreed to those terms.

Recent developmemnts followed the state Supreme Court ruling that children would be returned beginning Monday.

Under the ruling, the children won't be able to leave Texas but they will be allowed to move back to Yearning For Zion Ranch, where child-welfare officials have alleged that underage girls were pushed into spiritual marriages with older men. The parents say there was no abuse, and two courts ruled that the state overstepped its authority in removing all children from the ranch, from infants to teenagers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24887140/

[FreeState]

8. Thanks! n/t

[cbc5g]

5. One thing I havn't gotten yet ... where are the young boys, old women and old men of the sect?

It's like they don't exist. All I've seen are middle aged men, middle aged women and young girls.

[CatWoman]

6. Cheney hunts near their ranch

:)

[blondeatlast]

9. Bad, bad, Catwoman.

I LOVE it! :rofl:

[cbc5g]

10. ROFL!

I just don't get the people defending them. It's like Jonestown without the cyanide drink and with lots of perverted old man young girl sex. It was set up for men who don't want to get caught on "To catch a Predator". So they fence themselves off, brainwash the women into believing they will go to Heaven for believing, and then have their way with the little girls.

[CatWoman]

11. hehe

:hi:

[TaffyMoon]

27. Maybe He Has A Few Kiddie Wives There, Too.

[DS1]

37. awesome

:thumbsup:

[CatWoman]

62. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

coming from you, I must say I'm honored!!

:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

7. The young boys are "escorted" off the ranch (happens in AZ as well).

The old farts resent the competition.

If you want to read some good web stuff on the Jeffs' AZ camps, go here. Bommersbach has followed this story as an investigative journalist for decades.

http://www.janabommersbach.com/

[CatWoman]

12. I just got "Escape", by Carolyn Jessop

heck, just reading the jacket and the intro has me completely shocked and disgusted!!!

[Loki]

13. I read it two weeks ago

I couldn't put it down. The Texas Supreme Court needs to read it. Also, if you can find it, rent the documentary "Banking on Heaven" done by two women filmmakers on the FLDS Polygamous sect in Colorado City who moved to the YFZ ranch in Texas. We cannot continue to ignore this cult.

[DiverDave]

65. I've been asking the same

question since this whole thing started...just about the boys, though.

After hearing about young boys tossed out on the street with nothing but the clothes on their backs, then this...
A rumor ( big rumor) is that they been getting 'disappeared' so the older "men" would have less competition.

So, yes, WHERE ARE THE YOUNG BOYS??

[hokies4ever]

14. Why would they consent?

You don't negotiate a plea deal after a judge rules in your favor. Plus we all know that the proper ID and parenting classes were just strings to keep them attached to the Texas judicial system. At least their lawyer is earning his money.

[RB TexLa]

16. No governmental agency is going to hand over children to anyone without being provided

identification. I wouldn't think that part had to be a part of any deal.

[Wizard777]

26. Couldn't CPS return the kids to the addresses they took them from?

Doesn't CPS know who they took them from? The order was pretty clear. They have to return the kids to their parents. They didn't say anything about after ID or DNA tests. I don't see why CPS should be given the benefit of confusion they wrongfully created. Besides if CPS doesn't think the children belong to the parents. That's up to them to prove.

[RB TexLa]

43. Really you think the state should just hand the child over to anyone saying they are the child's

parent? That's all it should take in your opinion someone walking up saying I'm "Jane Doe" give me my son "John Doe." And based on them having the names right the state should then hand the child over.

It's not a matter of proving who the parent is, it's a matter of the person claiming to be whoever proving they are who they say they are.

[Wizard777]

45. Shouldn't CPS have a record of who they took what children from?

If CPS doesn't have documentation of who they took the kids from. They how will they file any abuse charges against that individual? They can simply say, You didn't take that kid from me. It would be up to CPS to prove that they did.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

60. Even if they did have a record,all that would have is a name and address

You need an ID to verify a name, and you can't just drop a kid off at a house (legal reasons, because what if the people in the house aren't the kids parents?) without knowing that the parent (as proven by matching an ID to the name) is there to accept the kid.

[RB TexLa]

64. Of course they do, and that person has to provide proof they are who they say they are

or anyone who knew the names of a parent and a child in the matter could walk up and say "I'm Sue, I'm here to get my kid Jan." You would honesty just hand the kid over?

[johnnycatt]

17. where is the ACLU??

On important things like this, they are nowhere to be found!

They should be standing up for either the moms or the kids, but they choose neither!

jay

[Gold Metal Flake]

18. johnnycatt

I use Gritty Kitty.

[johnnycatt]

19. why should they have to take "parenting classes"?

Do welfare moms having their 4th kid with a third father have to take sex education classes or parenting classes?

Raising kids in poverty is the greatest crime of American civilization.

[CatWoman]

20. um

because they need them?

[EOTE]

21. Maybe so they'd stop fucking their kids?

I know that sounds like a lot to ask. I'd get working on creating a new profile. I'm not sure how long this one is going to last you.

[EOTE]

22. Seeing your posts make me smile.

Knowing that you fear for your party's chances so much this fall that you'd take so much of your prescious time to support them anonymously. I hope you enjoy it as well. I appreciate it more than you know.

I salute you, sir. :patriot:

:yourock:

[greenbriar]

23. boy you are just full of the RW talking points

aren't you

[EOTE]

24. He likes to think of himself as a "rugged individualist"

[uppityperson]

25. Aw, but it's so cute to play with.

Search shows me someone we may not get to play with long.

[New Dawn]

28. I agree, all of his posts sound right-wing.

[blondeatlast]

29. Because said "welfare moms" don't make a religious practice of letting old men knock up

their 11 year old daughters?

Love to play with 'em before the kill, I do.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

31. Aw, johnnycatt returned to its litter box. Bye.

[blondeatlast]

32. He littered poorly. Damn, I didn't even get to play with him much. nt

[truedelphi]

39. Why don't you simply go to the ACLU website

Once there you will read this:


ACLU Files Brief In Texas FLDS Case Saying State Can't Separate Families Based Solely On Beliefs (5/29/2008)


Brief Highlights Due Process Rights Of Families

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone] or 2666; [e-mail]

AUSTIN, TX – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas today filed a friend of the court brief with the Texas Supreme Court opposing a petition from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) to retain custody of the children of 38 mothers from the Yearning For Zion Ranch (YFZ) in Eldorado, Texas.

Last month, TDFPS seized more than 400 children during a raid on the YFZ Ranch, where individuals affiliated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) resided; the children have since been dispersed to foster facilities across the state. In its brief supporting last week's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of a Texas appellate court, the ACLU asserts that the state's only evidence of harm was general allegations related to the parents' "culture," "belief" and "mindset." Further, before the state may deny a mother access to and custody of her child, the U.S. Constitution and state law require the mother be assured of due process of law – including a fair hearing, individualized consideration of the evidence, and proper application of state law.

"Children and parents have the right to be together..."

[uppityperson]

40. That poster is TS'd.

disrupted poorly it did.

[truedelphi]

54. That particular TS will get no flowers from me.

What an annoying, annoying poster.

[WolverineDG]

30. Hide & watch what happens on Monday then

The mothers agreed to those terms; it was the judge who refused to sign the order that was agreed to by all parties, including CPS.

dg

[Melissa G]

63. Hey there, Wolvie. What was the Judge's problem with the order?

:hi:

[WolverineDG]

69. She wanted to add a list of restrictions & requirements

for which there was no evidence in the record to support. Not sure where she got her order, because she had told all the attorneys to work together on an agreement (which they did). But, when she came back out on the bench, she said she was only going to sign HER order, which was completely different than the one the attorneys had all worked out together.

So anyway, watch what happens on Monday. Should get interesting.

dg

[Melissa G]

72. Thanks for the update, Wolvie, and thanks for all your hard work

taking care of this challenge. :hug::thumbsup:

[WolverineDG]

75. I'm glad to see that there are some here on DU

who still appreciate those who fight to uphold the Constitution. :hug:

dg

[uppityperson]

34. Seems showing ID and signing personally is a good thing since that's been the argument all along

Not treating them as a group, but individuals. So, show ID, and sign individually.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004449351_poly31.html

Reuniting the children with their parents starting Monday had been expected after the Texas Supreme Court ruling Thursday that the state's seizure in April had been overly broad and was not supported by evidence of sexual abuse.

Friday's hearing before Walther, convened to arrange for the release, snagged over the ground rules. Among other things, Walther said the 38 mothers who filed the complaint that led the Texas Supreme Court to reject the state's seizure must personally sign an agreement their attorneys and state child-welfare officials proposed.

[Wizard777]

35. They are placing condition on the return that exceed what is ordered.

If CPS cannot return the children to the people they were taken from. If I were the Judge. I would put the CPS agents in jail until other agents figured who they took the children from and return them. The court order invalidates the seizure. CPS needs nothing more than two question to reunite these families. Is this your child and is this your mother? A yes to both and they return the child.

[uppityperson]

36. I can't read the reply, but bet it has something to do with not needing to ID parents..

since that is what I wrote about and the reply is to. Or else it is another one of those replies because of which I am lowering my stress level and have little time for anymore.

If the game is being played "keep it individual", as it has been, then yes, it is necessary to individually ID each parent before releasing a child. Send the kids back to the parents, make sure it is the right parents.

[Wizard777]

42. No they can simply return the children to the compound and let them straighten out CPS's mess.

They took the kids from the compound en masse and should be returned to teh compound en masse. CPS has refused to accept drivers licenses from what they were calling pregnant teens trying to prove they were adults. CPS is trying to impose proceedures as a means of defying the court order.

[Fleshdancer]

46. With the assumption that the parents still live there?

So CPS can just start dropping kids off at random houses and apartments because that's where their parents lived before?

[uppityperson]

47. I find it funny that those who have argued for individual treatment now complain of that.

At least that is what I am reading to your replies to ignored. Good luck, my patience ran out.

[Wizard777]

51. Let me put it to you like this. The order is against CPS not the FLDS.

So the onus is on CPS not the FLDS. If CPS cannot find a way to return the children to comply with the order. It's CPS that will be cited for contempt. Not the FLDS. So ultimately if CPS doesn't want to sit in jail. It's up to them to find a way to return the children. With or without the parents help.

[madmusic]

68. Are you playing dumb or is it for real?

You know damn good and well they know who is is who and ID is not the issue here. The issue is that she tried to extend the conditions under another blanket ruling without evidence again as if they was no high court ruling! The CPS knew better, the parents' attorneys knew better. Only the judge was in la-la land. Lawyers are usually able to sign the agreement for their clients but the judge threw a temper tantrum. All this did was make the parents scramble all over the state to sign the agreement. They won't have to show ID to their attorneys before signing it.

[uppityperson]

84. I do find it funny that those who have argued for individual treatment now complain of that.

No, they don't know which kids are genetically related to which moms. That is why they did DNA testing. And of course they want to release each child back to his or her correct parent.

I am amused by those who have been hollering "treat them as individuals" who now are complaining of the need to release each individual child to her or his individual true parent, not to the group. "OMG! Each parent has to sign! Why can't they just return the kids to the ranch to whomever is there!!!" Wanting it both ways, adamantly, amuses me.

Edited to add that you are not on ignore yet, unlike the trifecta.

[Fleshdancer]

44. I have to prove my child is my own just to leave Chuck E Cheese

I can't understand why anyone would be upset by this. I can understand getting mad about the parenting classes, but showing ID to pick up your kid?? It's silly to think CPS would suddenly start handing kids over to adults without checking ID.

[Wizard777]

48. Okay how do you prove to the Rat that your child is your child?

Is there a Chuck E DNA Lab in the back? Do you take their birth certificate and have the foot prints matched? Surely they don't let you walk out of there with a child because you say that's your child and the child says your their parent.

[Fleshdancer]

49. Chuck would run into massive lawsuits if they didn't have a system in place for this

For the rat, my UV stamp number has to match the one my daughter has on her arm. For traveling, I need much more to prove I'm the parent. I have to show ID to take my kid out of school early. I had to show ID to take her out of daycare when she was younger. All of these things are done to make abductions harder and this is a good thing.

If, heaven forbid, CPS removed my child for fear of abuse, I would hope they would ID me before giving her back. Could you imagine if they gave my child to someone else? That's a lawsuit begging to happen.

[Wizard777]

50. Actually they can be sued either way.

Their noble intentions would not shield them from charges of false imprisonment for holding the child against their will or the will of the parents.

[Fleshdancer]

52. Ok, so they're damned if they ID, and they're damned if they don't ID?

If you're screwed either way, why not go in the direction of making sure the right people get the right kids?

[Wizard777]

53. Not really. As a restaurant they have no legal obligation to do this.

But they have taken this upon themselves. So they now have inherited liability with their self assumption of responsibility. Their corporate rules to reduce that self assumed liability cannot trump the law. A parent failing to ID their child to the Rat's satifaction can also have the employees arrested on criminal charges ranging from Kidnapping to false imprisionment. In some states preventing someone from leaving is kidnapping.

[uppityperson]

55. One would hope that they make sure kids go back to the right parents.

I my child was removed from a situation due to fear of abuse, I sure as hell wouldn't want them released to anyone but me or other parent. Guess I'm funny that way though? Looks like you are also.

[Disturbed]

56. Seems like these women don't want their children back as

they kept "crying" that they did. Strange that there were never any actual tears from them.

[uppityperson]

57. I have been musing the bit where "it will take time to get sigs as they are spread out"

You know what I think? I think that most anywhere that has any of these kids, and the adults are hanging around, has access to a FAX machine. At least, I assume TX has fax's. Seems like posturing, imho.

[Fleshdancer]

59. I can confirm that we do indeed have fax machines down here

and many of us actually know how to use them too! :D Seriously though, even if they didn't have fax machines, they have lawyers who do. As for everyone being "spread out", well TX is a big state, but not big enough to keep me from being where ever I had to be to sign whatever was needed to get my kid back.

I'm curious about the DNA testing. Do you know if CPS is still going forward with that?

edited for clarity

[uppityperson]

61. article dated 5/29/08 says next wk

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9404134
"Texas child welfare officials have said in court documents filed over the past week that they cannot match FLDS children to parents without test results from DNA samples taken in April.
Janece Rolfe, a spokeswoman for the Texas Attorney General's office, said Wednesday the results are expected by next week.
Laboratory Corporation of America, based in North Carolina, is processing samples from about 500 people affiliated with the sect. Each test costs about $100, she said. The state is picking up the tab."


Found more on Warren Jeffs also, they took his DNA again this wk, looking at more statutory rape charges.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700230555,00.html

Fundamentalist LDS Church leader Warren Jeffs is accused of "spiritually" marrying more underage girls in a search warrant seeking his DNA.

"Warren Jeffs sexually assaulted a 12-year-old child ... on or about July 27, 2006, in Schleicher County, Texas," Kingman, Ariz., police officer Dennis Gilbert wrote in the warrant. A copy of the warrant was obtained by the Deseret News on Friday. The warrant's affidavit was co-signed by David L. Boatright, the chief of the criminal investigations division for the Texas Attorney General's Office. A DNA sample was collected from Jeffs at the Mohave County Jail in Kingman, Ariz., on Thursday. It included a pair of cheek swabs and digital photos of the process.
(clip)
Affiant has learned from investigators that Warren Jeffs 'married' two other children at the YFZ Ranch in addition to his purported marriage to (named removed) and (name removed)," Gilbert wrote. Records seized from the YFZ Ranch also indicate Jeffs married a 14-year-old while at the FLDS property, the affidavit said. A marriage in April 2005 suggests another girl was 12.

"Based on all of the above, affiant believes that Warren Jeffs has committed the felony offense of sexual assault of a child," Gilbert wrote, adding that Texas authorities were seeking DNA samples to help determine whether Jeffs fathered any children born to underage mothers...

[LisaL]

71. Are you playing dense?

The problem is with obtaining all the signatures quickly. The attorneys for FLDS were hoping to have it all done on Friday, so the children can be returned starting Monday. They are also apparently not sure as to what their clients are supposed to sign, as the judge wants to impose restrictions on the original deal.

[opihimoimoi]

58. 12 year old brides??? This whole affair is Sick....Texas must make sure of what they do

to the kids....insuring their safety and well being..

then,....What do you do with peeps brainwashed over a long period of time...the kids...a lifetime of brainwashing???

I say we ship all the men to Tasmania...lottsa sheep....

Rehab in Hawaii for the women/kids....

[CTyankee]

81. Hey, I hear ya. But I would feel sorry for the sheep...

Oy.

[LisaL]

70. Your claim is misleading.

The judge wanted to impose additional restrictions, then left the courtroom without signing the deal.
http://www.star-telegram.com/national_news/story/673170.html
Now, where does it say the mothers didn't want to show IDs, or refused to take parenting classes? But what else is new around here?

[CatWoman]

74. I repeated the claim, word for word, at it was broadcast at MSNBC.

And there is a link upthread to the MSNBC story that says the very same thing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3366227&mesg_id=3366295

[WolverineDG]

76. Lizzy, thanks for trying

but some people here would rather burn the Constitution than bother their beautiful minds about the impact this case will have on everyone's rights once it is all over.

dg

[CatWoman]

77. i'm not trying to "burn" anything

I just reported what I heard on the news.

I suppose I do have a certain revulsion at the thought of 12 year old girls being raped by 50 year old men, however.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

86. "Statutorially" raped.

Me too.