30 pregnancies/babies among FLDS teens -- out of 77 children under 2 overall.

[pnwmom]

The babies of underage mothers make up a high fraction of the FLDS sect's babies and toddlers.

The most recent head counts include an additional 25 underage mothers FLDS females at the Coliseum. (Not surprisingly, it turns out that some of the girls were only pretending to be over 18.)

So, with the 5 pregnant girls/mothers they already knew about, that makes 30 -- and there are only 77 children under the age of 2. Thus, a high proportion of these youngest have underage mothers.

I think there are more underage girls among the breastfeeding mothers, but they haven't had the motivation to acknowledge their ages yet (since they are remaining with their babies anyway).

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD908FN1G0

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — The number of children in Texas custody after being taken from a polygamist retreat now stands at 462 because officials believe another 25 mothers from the compound are under 18.

Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says the girls initially claimed to be adults but are now in state custody. Earlier they had been staying voluntarily with their children at a shelter at the San Angelo Coliseum.

The official number of children taken from the ranch controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been rising since a state raid three weeks ago. One reason is that some mothers under 18 claimed to be adults.

Roughly 260 children remain at the coliseum. The others were bused to foster facilities.

http://cbs11tv.com/local/Child.Protective.Services.2.707040.html

According to CPS, 77 of those children are under 2-years-old.

[MichiganVote]

1. No...no problems in that joint....sure....

[kestrel91316]

2. Well, that makes a MINIMUM of 30 counts of statutory rape so far.

When the DNA results come in, expect indictments.

[pnwmom]

4. I doubt that those men will submit DNA. This is going to be an incredibly

long, drawn out mess.

The men won't submit DNA. The mothers won't want to name them. The state will decide then to keep the children -- and the legal actions will go on and on and on.

The only way out of this is for the mothers to realize what is important here -- the children -- but I don't see that happening.

[Diane R]

9. I've said before that the men won't submit to testing. I'll bet the worst offenders are in hiding.

[Richard Steele]

3. How long until DU's "FLDS Apologist Squad" shows up to mire this thread in their BS?

Anybody want to start a pool? I call 8:05 EST. :(

[pnwmom]

5. I edited the OP to compare the numbers of underage mothers

with the number of children under 2 -- only 77.

So underage mothers are clearly producing a good fraction of the babies there. This isn't the usual teenage mother situation, as some DUers have been claiming.

[kestrel91316]

7. I wonder who it will be today? They seem to rotate in and out on about

two-day shifts........

[Name removed]

60. Deleted sub-thread

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

[riderinthestorm]

17. 8:11. You definitely win.

:(

[Richard Steele]

48. No joy in that victory.

I'm continually AMAZED that some of these blatant disruptors
are still here, after the crap they've spouted in these FDLS
threads. :(

[uppityperson]

62. you were off by only minutes.

Getting about ready to start an ignore list. Usually I don't, figuring I can just ignore on my own. But some have nothing new to add and don't seem able to consider anything but their own point of view.

[Richard Steele]

86. Must be getting close to the night of the half-moon.

That's when my "unholy Librul powers" are strongest, you know. :evilgrin:

[Xithras]

6. Or...some are lying

Just have to mention it as a possibility. It's conceivable that some of the younger adult mothers may be lying about their age to avoid being separated from their babies. Biologically there's almost zero difference between a 17 year old and a 19 year old. Heck, my wife could pass for a high schooler until she was about 25 (she was once threatened with arrest by a police officer who didn't believe that her license was real...she looked about 15 when she was 18). You know that many of these women, when they learned that mothers over 18 were to be separated from their children, had to think about lying about their ages.

[pnwmom]

8. They have less motivation than otherwise

since they know that lying now (a) will mean their "husband" will become a target of the investigation and (b) could result in they themselves going to jail.

[Xithras]

11. Perhaps, perhaps not. If they claimed to be 17, no laws would be broken.

The age of consent in Texas is 17. A 50 year old can legally sleep with a 17 year old in that state without violating the law.

It's also been pointed out here that Texas raised the minimum marriage age a couple of years ago. Until 2005 girls could be married off at 14 in that state. Doing the math, it's possible for a 17 year old bride to have a three year old child by a 40 year old adult man in Texas today without anyone having violated any laws. Gotta love the lone star state.

[pnwmom]

12. Age of consent is a different issue. If they falsely claimed to be under 18,

they would be breaking the law. Giving false information in a CPS investigation could violate several laws.

And it sure wouldn't help them in the custody action.

[LisaL]

15. Well, maybe they can't figure all of this out, being raised in isolation

and all.
By the way does the state usually makes a woman name the father, and if the woman says she doesn't know who the father is, the state takes the child?
I don't think so.

[pnwmom]

16. If the state knew the underage mother was lying to protect a serial rapist --

which is what many of these men are -- they could very well decide to prosecute.

And it would be up to a jury to decide if the girl was lying or if she really didn't know who the father was. (Fat chance, in this case.)

[LisaL]

18. Isn't the state claiming it wants to protect the children?

Protect some children by prosecuting them? Now that's a novel idea.

[pnwmom]

19. You were asking about OTHER cases, not this one.

"By the way does the state usually makes a woman name the father, and if the woman says she doesn't know who the father is, the state takes the child?
I don't think so."

But to answer your other question, yes, the state of Texas has said that it's only trying to help the children in this case.

[LisaL]

20. Yey, they are being liberated, I suppose.

I think this story was posted on DU. The mother's boyfriend was sexually abusing her child. They let the mother keep the child under the conditions that she would not see this boyfriend anymore.
I think she continued to see that boyfriend, but that another story.
But that is my understand of what is done even when there is proven abuse. Trying to keep the kids with the family, if possible.
So, why are the FLDS member are treated like they are?
Even assuming there was sexual abuse of teenage girls by some men, why are these women being punished for something they did not do?

[pnwmom]

21. How are they being punished? Which women are you talking about?

No woman has gone to jail.

An investigation is going on. As is usual in CPS cases, the children have been separated from their families. But the FLDS brought a lot of this on themselves by not cooperating in the investigation. When the original pregnant girls were discovered, the FLDS could have named the fathers, but they didn't. Instead, they didn't name the fathers and they often didn't name themselves or their children. Since the families were living in huge group houses, there was no way for CPS to sort out the various family relationships and only separate the children who were most at risk -- the children of fathers who had been raping young girls, or of parents who gave their daughters in marriage to these men. They had to take them all, and conduct DNA tests. Now the burden is on the parents to take their own DNA tests -- if they don't, I can't see how they will get the children back.

Don't forget that some of these children have been "assigned" by Jeffs to live with new "parents" at the ranch. Some of these children came alone from as far away as Canada. Should they just be handed back to the people in Texas? I don't even think their parents in Canada deserve them, since they allowed them to be taken in the first place.

[LisaL]

24. I am thinking that taking someone's children is punishment.

You don't?
And it's a lot of children to be separated from their parents and send far away from home to foster care.
State's shrink testified forster care will be destructive for these children.
Texas foster care also ranks among the worst in the nation.

[pnwmom]

38. They were taken to investigate child abuse, not to punish the women.

Yes, it is a large group, and, as I said, that may be due to their own actions -- refusing to identify themselves or their family members. And with at least 30 underage mothers in the group, the abuse obviously touches many families.

You are twisting what the psychiatrist said. He said that special accommodations would need to be made for these children in foster care -- and special accommodations are being made.

[High Plains]

59. Well, of course it punishes the women to have their children taken.

Whether CPS says so or not.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

66. Wondering where gandalf is. nt

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Richard Steele]

84. I'll say 2 things. 1: Using children as sex slaves is a BAD THING. 2: You should stop defending it.

[pnwmom]

96. Simple and clear.

Well said.

[Richard Steele]

105. Well, it seems pretty simple and clear to me. And to you, and to 99% of EVERYONE EVERYWHERE.

What's UNCLEAR is why anyone would make it their PERSONAL DU MISSION
to spend hundreds of posts grasping at any straw that might possibly
"blur, cloud, or distract people from" the very clear-cut issues at
hand in the case of the child-slave-raping FDLS cult.

(Actually, it's not TOTALLY unclear- there are only a few possible reasons
for such behavior, and we all know what those possibilities are, don't we?)

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[uppityperson]

88. "shut the fuck up unless you can contribute something."? bwahahahhahaha

[pnwmom]

75. And it punishes children to be living with people who ban laughter.

But I guess that's okay with you.

[gollygee]

106. Not everything that makes someone feel bad is a punishment

Punishment is a negative consequence that is done intentionally as a penalty for doing something wrong.

The kids were taken away for their safety during the investigation. Not to punish anyone.

[vanlassie]

57. Why didn't they remove the men? Instead of...

separating mothers and children/babies? The CHILDREN and most definitely being punished!

[pnwmom]

79. The psychologists felt that it would be easier to work with the

children (and cooperative women) in a neutral location.

[Marrah_G]

118. Also the women would have just taken the kids and ran to one of the other compounds

The abuse would just continue

[riderinthestorm]

22. Because as you damn well know, there are other allegations

of child abuse by the mothers, welfare fraud and other serious felonies. Mothers don't get to keep their children with them when it is alleged that they are also perpetrating the abuse and other serious illegal, felonious activities, even if they themselves are minors.

[LisaL]

25. No, I don't know of any welfare fraud allegations or any other

serious felonies. All I know is that those unproven claims have been posted here.

[riderinthestorm]

26. It's obvious you haven't followed anyone's links showing you what's going on

although too many people have tried many, many times to show you, it's obvious you are deliberately trying to remain ignorant.

That doesn't change the nature of the investigation that is actually proceeding no matter how much you want to wear your blinders. You aren't operating from any realm of reality both with the facts of this case or even standard CPS or legal protocol.

[LisaL]

27. Isn't the standard of CPS that people should get individual hearings?

These people were all treated as one family.
They are not one and the same. At least one of these women had said she would leave this sect if they give her the child back.
What is it with one hearing for all these children and people?

[riderinthestorm]

28. If you had bothered to read anyone's links, you'd know that they ARE getting individual hearings

Try again.

By the way, feel free to check in here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3203803

[LisaL]

30. Just shows how un-informed you are.

"The removals came on the same day a Texas appeals court agreed to hear arguments on whether the state can place more than 400 FLDS children into foster homes without giving their families individual hearings."


http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_9039576

[riderinthestorm]

33. The initial hearings were joint. Everything going forward will be individual. Try again. nt

[LisaL]

34. No. You try again.

What did appeals court agreed to hear?

[pnwmom]

40. The appeals court agreed to hear the case next week BUT

also allowed the children to be put into foster care this week.

This very likely means the court expects to affirm the decision to put the children into foster care.

[LisaL]

78. I didn't say it' looked promising.

I said I don't understand why these people are not treated as individuals.

[pnwmom]

100. There will be individual hearings for all the children by June 12.

As I'm sure you know. It wasn't possible to hold individual hearings for 462 children by April 17.

However, unless the parents come forward and identify themselves, they won't be involved.

[pnwmom]

39. And that same court allowed the children to be put into foster care pending

the hearing next week.

[marshall]

119. The people won't identify themselves as individual families

Presumably the DNA will sort them into individual families, and then they can decide about giving them individual hearings.
As it is, they won't give last names and they give various names for their mothers and who knows what they say or know about their own fathers.

[Marrah_G]

29. You are a sick sick individual

[LisaL]

31. I thought I had you on ignore.

My mistake, easily corrected. Never to hear from you again.
Oh the joy.
By the way obviously rules mean nothing here.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Richard Steele]

85. So now everyone who objects to slavery and child-rape is a Nazi? Good luck with that meme.

nm

[uppityperson]

64. Huh. Proving you don't read the links to stories that people post.

Maybe you should go read them. Might be educational. Not knowing because you haven't read what you were given is no excuse.

[saigon68]

47. They are not about to let them play "Hide the Kielbasa" anymore

With 55 year old men fertilizing 13 year old children

[saigon68]

49. From the Polish town of Pulaski--North of Green Bay

Various kinds of Polish kielbasa. From the top: Biała kiełbasa (white sausage) Kabanos (or 'Kabanosy' in plural form) Wiejska kiełbasa

[dysfunctional press]

94. apparently, you're not allowed to hide them in texas anymore...???

:shrug:
did i miss something?

[Xithras]

37. People are known to be illogical when access to their children are at stake.

I'd especially expect a young mother looking at losing access to her infant to be illogical. I'm not saying it's the intelligent choice, but it's understandable and predictable for some to try.

[pnwmom]

42. Come on. Don't you think it is far more likely that these women

pretended to be older than they were so that they wouldn't be taken out of the ranch with the first group of young mothers? Remember, at first the only people taken were a group of twenty or so teenage girls.

[malaise]

35. What about incest? n/t

[Xithras]

36. There are no serious accusations of incest.

Incest, in a legal term, is narrowly defined. In Texas, cousins can marry. Incest in Texas, as in many other states, is defined as sex with your own parent or childred of any degree (i.e. grandparents etc), your brother or sister, your aunt or uncle, or a neice or nephew. While they have some serious inbreeding going on, it looks like they've avoided actually violating the law. Marrying your cousin is legal in Texas. As is marrying your cousins kid. You can screw up your gene pool pretty badly when you do that a few generations in a row, but it's legal.

[pnwmom]

43. Sex between first-cousins, as Jeff arranged in "spiritual marriages",

is a second degree felony in Texas.

The law was changed in 2005 when they raised the marriage age.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:F7NXZqz1GdcJ:www.ndaa.org/pdf/ncpca_statute_incest_july_06.pdf+texas+incest+law+cousin+second-degree+felony&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Tex. Penal Cod. §25.02 Prohibited Sexual Conduct(a) A person commits an offense if the person engages in sexual intercourse

(1) the actor's ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption;
(2) the actor's current or former stepchild or stepparent;
(3) the actor's parent's brother or sister of the whole or half blood;
(4) the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption;
(5) the children of the actor's brother or sister of the whole or half blood or by adoption; or
6) the son or daughter of the actor's aunt or uncle of the whole or half blood or by adoption.

[dysfunctional press]

44. it's almost as if it were written with woody allen in mind...

(2) the actor's current or former stepchild or stepparent;

[LisaL]

46. Oooh. Woody Allen better stay away from TX.

Felony and all.

[pnwmom]

51. It was written with advice and counsel from Utah/Arizona legislators

who were familiar with the practices of the polygamists.

Marriages between men and their step-daughters is also something that has happened in these groups before.

[LisaL]

52. No shit.

In 2004 FLDS moves into TX. In 2005 the law is changed.

[pnwmom]

54. Good for them. No state should allow 14 year olds to marry.

This action was long past due, and I don't care what made them finally do it.

[LisaL]

45. It's a felony in TX now to marry your cousin?

So, what happens when a couple of cousins that are legally married (it's legal in many of the states) move to TX? Would they be arrested and charged with felony?
Just imagine, one day you are legally married (albeit to your cousin). If you move to TX would you become a felon?

[pnwmom]

50. That is already the case in many states. I assume that if you were legally

married in one state, then you would still be in another.

But that doesn't apply to these underage girls, because they weren't legally married.

[LisaL]

53. I dunno. TX says it's a felony to marry your cousin.

So, if you got married in another state (to your cousin) and then moved to TX, are you in fact a felon? How would TX justify not to charge you with felony if it's a felony to marry your cousin?
Is it because you got married in another state?
So, what would then stop the cousins from TX to go to another state to get married and then come back as a legally married couple?
Would TX consider such a marriage legal or a felony?

[pnwmom]

56. I don't know. Got a cousin you want to marry?

Seriously, however, this problem, if it is one, has long existed in this country. Different states have different marriage laws, but they recognize the validity of each other's marriages.

Except, recently, in the case of gay marriages. And THAT is the tragedy -- not laws banning first cousins from marrying.

[LisaL]

58. Why exactly are you against cousins marrying?

The risk of genetic abnormalities to offsprings from such marriage is not much higher than in general population. Meanwhile, people who are known carriers of genetic abnormalities are allowed to marry (even to each other), and they carry a much higher risk of passing those abnormalities to their offsprings.

[pnwmom]

67. It is not much higher BECAUSE it is rare. But when cousin marriage

is common within a community, more and more abnormalities arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_couple

In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report authored by a team of scientists led by Robin L. Bennett, a genetic counselor at the University of Washington and the president of the National Society of Genetic Counselors, which showed that the potential risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins was slightly higher than the risk associated with a non-cousin couple. The report estimated the increased risk for first cousins at 1.7 - 2.8 % over the base risk of about 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40, or of a still younger man (see paternal age). Put differently, first-cousin marriages entail roughly the same increased risk of birth defects as a woman faces when she gives birth at age 41 (roughly 6%) rather than at 30 (roughly 3%). Critics argue that banning first-cousin marriages would make as much sense as trying to ban childbearing by older women. These numbers were reported only for first instances of cousin mating; repeated generations of cousin coupling are thought to increase the risk substantially.

A BBC report<2> found that Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and that one in ten children of cousin marriages either die in infancy or develop a serious disability. Thus Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce "just under a third" of all British children with genetic illnesses.

[LisaL]

73. Then why exactly not go further and prohibit people with

known genetic conditions from marrying, especially each other? Those people in many instances have 25 % chance of passing their condition onto their child. In some cases the combination is lethal and the offspring won't survive at all.
No one would dream of that, because they'd be accused of being like a Nazi.

[pnwmom]

80. This is off topic. I don't care to argue anymore about this. n/t

[LisaL]

82. Because the law was changed, TX could potentially charge these people

with felony (and that is according to what you posted) if in fact they are married cousins, and now you say it's off topic?
Has any couple in TX been charged with felony for this?

[uppityperson]

89. Reading comprehension lesson...

"Then why exactly not go further and prohibit people with known genetic conditions from marrying, especially each other?"

This is off topic.

"if in fact they are married cousins, and now you say it's off topic"

[0007]

110. Thank you for STFU

[XemaSab]

87. Most of these people are probably unaware that they're carriers of genetic diseases

If I was going to get married, and I was told that our offspring would have a high likelihood of genetic disease, I might seriously reconsider.

[LisaL]

91. Oh they are perfectly aware because they have it.

I am talking about people with known genetic defects.
There is no law prohibiting them from marrying.

[Richard Steele]

93. Non sequitur. nm

[uppityperson]

92. Most of the FLDS people, or people with recessive genes?

Most people with recessive genes probably don't know they have them. Most of the FLDS people probably have no idea what this scientific thing is.

My child may have to be tested if has children because of a possible genetic thing from one parent. It would be recessive now, and, if combined with another recessive, may have serious problems for offspring.

[Lars39]

107. A geneticist has spoken to them before,

they chose to disregard his advice.

[snooper2]

112. you just crack me up...

cousin fuckers :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LanternWaste]

109. Full Faith and Credit Clause

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Check it out-- you may learn.

[Xithras]

108. Ah, I didn't know they'd changed it. It's legal here in California

FYI, the rate of abnormalities among married cousins is almost indistinguishable from people who aren't related. Scientifically, the prejudice against cousins marrying was debunked a half century ago. It's mostly a social taboo in the USA...there are many parts of the world where it's perfectly acceptable...and common...for cousins to marry. Heck the United States is the only Western country that still prohibits it, and one of very few that exerts any kind of serious social pressure against it. Those puritan roots run deep in this country.

The prohibition on cousins marrying is actually based on a 14th century Catholic declaration against Consanguinity, which actually banned marriage for people up to 7 generations removed from yourself. That decision wasn't made for scientific reasons, but to break up small, closely related villages that could be resistant to outside authority. By forcing them to bring in new blood from outside of their village every generation, it ensured that half of the village would always be "outsiders" with less loyalty to the village whole.

The reason for the ban was forgotten long ago, but the ban itself has been maintained by churches ever since. While churches still enforce it to some degree to this very day, the U.S. is alone in the west in enforcing it at the government level.

[yardwork]

71. I've read that all the men are called "uncle" by their children.

The implication is that daughters might end up "marrying" their fathers and having children by them.

[LisaL]

77. In our culture some people call each other "brothers."

I hope you don't think that means they are all related.

[uppityperson]

90. reading comprehension: If you don't know who your father is, you may marry him.

[marshall]

117. But that would hinge on the 14 year old being LEGALLLY married to the 40 year old man

I doubt if that's the case here. The man has at most one marriage that is legal, presumably the first one decades ago. All the other marriages are not state sanctioned, only church sanctioned.

[Diane R]

10. Wow. The most important info is that only 7 wanted to return to the ranch, 40 chose not to.

[pnwmom]

13. Are you referring to the mothers who took a bus to San Antonio today?

Some are claiming it wasn't voluntary -- but I hope it is a good sign.

[pnwmom]

14. Okay -- I just found link to your numbers.

Again, I'm not sure how significant this is, since at least one woman was complaining that they had to make a sudden decision and weren't able to consult their attorneys about this.

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_9039576


Darrell Azar, spokesman for the Texas Children Protective Services, gave this count:
- 63 children were moved from the coliseum into foster care.
- 64 women left the coliseum, 17 of them mothers with babies under the age of 12 months. Those 17 women went into some kind of care facility where they could be with their babies.
- 47 women were separated from their children. Of that 47, seven went to the ranch and 40 went to a separate location.
- 260 children remain at the coliseum and will be moved out in coming days.

[uppityperson]

65. Thank you for posting that.

It must just be really hard for these women.

[pnwmom]

72. I'm sure it's a nightmare for them, and very hard for the children.

This is a horribly complicated situation. I wish there were some easy way forward -- but there won't be.

[yardwork]

68. Only seven out of the 64 women returned to the ranch.

[LisaL]

81. The ones who did claim it was because CPS workers

told them they won't see their children if they return to the ranch.
CPS denies the allegations.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9044448

[uppityperson]

95. No, they feared that would happen

2 stories giving opposite news. This one, of the same people, says they feared that would happen, not that it did.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat_397

The women separated from their kids were given a choice to go back to the ranch or a "safe" location. Velvet, one of the women who returned to the ranch, said the others went with Child Protective Services, fearing they'd never be allowed to see their children again if they didn't.

Where the women chose to go has no bearing on the outcome of their custody cases, Azar said. The agency has said staff is working on plans to allow visitation.

You didn't put this part in, from your link:
" Earlier today, CPS spokesman Darrell Azar denied those allegations, saying the separations had no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Velvet said she returned to the ranch because she doesn't trust the CPS, claiming workers had lied to her all along. "

[LisaL]

98. From the link:

"This evening, however, another woman, Ruth, who spoke at the gate to the ranch, said all her children - twins just over 12 months old, and a 2- and 4-year-old - were taken away. Ruth and Velvet also said that CPS workers told them that if they chose to return to the ranch, they would not see their children again."

And I did state that CPS denies this allegation.

[uppityperson]

101. From the link:

"Velvet, one of the women who returned to the ranch, said the others went with Child Protective Services, fearing they'd never be allowed to see their children again if they didn't."

So to which reporter which one did Velvet lie?

[LisaL]

102. These are not contradictory statements.

Reading comprehension, which you so much like to mention, would come handy.
The women could fear they won't see their children because they were told this, no?

[uppityperson]

103. Contradictory.

In 1 she says CPS told her, though they deny it, and she doesn't trust them because she says they lie.

In the other, they said they were afraid. And "Where the women chose to go has no bearing on the outcome of their custody cases, Azar said." Doesn't say CPS told them that, but CPS says it won't affect outcome of case.

[pnwmom]

97. There is no particular reason to trust these women.

Seeing the women talk on TV, they have obviously been coached. This could be what the men are telling them to say.

[LisaL]

99. I guess you can decide on whom you would trust or not.

There could be reasons to not trust people on either side.

[pnwmom]

104. That's true. And that's why we have this legal process.

And in the meantime, these children will be well looked after. Whatever the overall problems they have in the Texas foster system, I have a strong feeling that these particular children -- whose plight is being covered on national TV -- will have very good care. And so does this writer, the Executive Director of Justice for Children:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5729137.html

I spend my days fighting to save the lives of victims of child abuse, so I have a unique perspective on the turmoil of the past few weeks at the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints compound near the West Texas town of Eldorado.

The organization I work for and I have been very critical of the systems (child welfare, criminal justice and the family courts) that we taxpayers fund to protect our children. So make no mistake, I am not a defender of "the system."

That being said, I think that we all need to take a deep breath and allow "the system" to do its work. And I am very hopeful that the children of Eldorado will be well served this time because it is my experience that "what's watched, works." In other words, the cracks, or gaping chasms if you prefer, in our child protective systems will be closed because the whole world is watching.

SNIP

[janx]

115. Velvet and Ruth.

That's TWO women.

Ruth and Velvet also said that CPS workers told them that if they chose to return to the ranch, they would not see their children again.

[musette_sf]

23. yes, out of 47 women

who were still staying with children, **40** chose not to return to Rancho El Molesto.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

the longer they stay away from Predator Central, the more they are able to make their own decisions. wonderful news!

[pnwmom]

41. I hope these women are treated with tender loving care.

Seriously.

I remember Carolyn Jessop saying that what opened her eyes about the cult was when her son was hospitalized, and all the nurses and other caregivers were so kind to them -- belying everything she had been taught about outsiders until then.

I hope these women have that kind of experience.

[horseshoecrab]

55. I hope so too pnwmom

The children and the mothers all need kindness and understanding to get out from under this cult.


horseshoecrab

[yardwork]

70. Plus another 20+ women are staying in another location with their babies.

The way I read it, only 7 out of 64 girls and women returned to the ranch.

[pnwmom]

74. Hmmm . . . I think you're overlooking some women here.

I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure there were more women than that. A bunch of women of older children went back last week. Are you forgetting those?

[yardwork]

83. I'm talking about the group that dispersed most recently. I'm citing the latest news reports.

[0007]

111. I can piss higher than you. No you can't because you can't read.

Who knows the truth?

[uppityperson]

113. what the heck does that have to do with this topic?

[0007]

116. You can read. Figure it out for yourself!

[uppityperson]

121. Oh boy, another cryptic poster who won't clarify.

How fun. Time to mind read and guess again. Then you get to do the eye rolly thing or express offense when I don't guess right. Nope, not playing.

[0007]

123. Go back to your pissing contest!

[uppityperson]

124. Thank you for continuing to kick this topic so more people will be informed.

hugs and kisses to you.

[janx]

114. THIRTY?

This just keeps getting worse and worse...

[Breeze54]

120. I KNEW I had read there was a huge increase in the number.

Thanks for posting this! Yikes! That is so sad for those girls. :(

[newspeak]

122. I've been reading some of the responses here

I volunteered at a women's shelter in Utah and had an incident where a woman came in from a polygamous situation. She came in with nothing but the clothes on her back. This has been over five years ago, so I don't know if things have changed, but back then we attempted to get her aid from the Mormon Church. The church would not help her--I don't know if it was for punishment being with the group or if they were secretly condoning her return. As the woman became older and the man collected young women, she had less conjugal relationship with her husband--the arrangement, as shown on Big Love, was each wife had a day of the week. But then, he would have a revelation that she wasn't praying enough or some other nonsense, so he would deprive her of his company and go to the younger wife. Pretty soon, all of the other wives and, they attempted to turn her children from her, cast her out.

As a child, I was molested by my step father and those on this board who would even defend the use of the children, and they are children, is absolutely repellent. Just because I was barely into child bearing years, does not mean I was not still a child. It was pure torture--I do not care how brain washed they were, or accepting--they are victims of older perverted men. I actually have nothing against polygamy (of course, it is against our laws) when it is between consenting adults who can financially stand on their own and not make a mockery of our welfare system that is meant to aid people, especially women and children who are in financial straights--not to burden it intentionally.

Tapestry is doing all they can, to help those who wish to leave. But, I understand it is hard leaving and some women do not leave because of their children. I believe that the children are used as hostages and used for control--that's why some of the children are sent away--the trafficking of women and children between Canada and the US, should give you a clue on what's going on. If the group perceives a runaway, they will attempt to move that child or woman to another location. This happening in our country is a shame.