Question for FLDS apologists

[pnwmom]

How come it's only the mothers who are hiring attorneys and speaking out? Why aren't the fathers hiring attorneys? Why aren't the fathers fighting for their children?

Is every father in the community guilty of child rape?

[dkofos]

1. YES

[SidDithers]

2. There are FLDS apologists here?...nt

Sid

[Richard Steele]

5. Yup- a disgusting few who swarm every thread in defense of the FLDS child-rapists. nm

[Xithras]

15. I've seen none, though I've been accused of being one.

Some people just cannot grasp the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and "equal protection under the law". There are some here who would seemingly prefer to do away with the arrest and trials entirely and skip straight to the executions. When it is pointed out by some of us that the burden is on the STATE to prove that crimes were committed, and not the other way around, or that all accused criminals enjoy the same legal rights and privileges, no matter the crime, a handful of people here get hysterical and accuse us of somehow condoning the FLDS actions and beliefs, or of supporting child rape. If you dare to point out areas in which the Texas CPS circumvented or skirted the law in this case, you might get accused of being a closet child rapist yourself.

It's a deliberate misdirection to avoid examining the core issue, which is that it's apparently OK with some DU posters to terminate the civil rights of selected Americans based solely on hearsay and incomplete investigations, so long as those Americans are deemed to be sufficiently despicable.

Personally, I don't care who they are. Everyone in this country gets the same rights and the same due process in everything from custody hearings to trials. If that means that I occasionally have to raise my voice in the defense of the despicable, so be it. I'm sure I've made it onto a few Ignore lists over the years...what's a few more? I can think of worse reasons to end up on one.

[pnwmom]

16. I believe in "innocent until proven guilty." But this isn't a criminal action.

This is a custodial action, and that concept doesn't apply here.

Criminal due process laws also don't apply in custody situations, where the safety of the child is paramount.

No one's civil rights have been "terminated." The investigation has just started, and it needs time to be completed. Every child will have an individual hearing by June 5. Until then, the system needs time to work.

By the way, the parents could have speeded all this up -- and possibly avoided having all the children taken away -- if they had cooperated in the first place by naming names and relationships, along with ages. There was no way the CPS could only remove the children in families with underage mothers when it was impossible to separately identify those families.

[Xithras]

17. And that's where I part ways with your line of thinking.

Criminal due process laws also don't apply in custody situations, where the safety of the child is paramount.

In a just, progressive society, due process should apply in all legal proceedings against an individual. I agree that the safety of the child should be paramount, but the onus should be on the government to prove the danger to the individual child BEFORE they are seized. The system used in this particular case amounts to "We're going to assume you're guilty and punish you while we try to figure out what crimes you committed."

I dislike the FLDS and strongly agree that crimes were probably committed on that "ranch", but the fact that the government can raid homes and seize children based on innuendo and hearsay is profoundly disturbing to me.

Here's my big problem. We're there underage pregnant girls on that ranch? Yes. Were there underage girls with children on that ranch? Yes. Were there teenage boys on that ranch? Yes.

Was there any actual DOCUMENTABLE evidence, prior to the raid and seizure, that these particular girls were impregnated by those older men, and not by the younger teens in this compound? No. There's a lot of "well, we know how these people work" logic floating around, but that kind of thinking has justified many incredible atrocities against minorities throughout history. What I want to see is actual evidence. I want to see one of those teen girls come forward, point to an overaged guy, and say "He is my husband and got me pregnant". I want to see a single DNA test linking a newborn child to an underage girl and an older man. That would have been evidence enough for me.

That should have happened before the raid. What we have now are children than have been seized on secondhand rumor, innuendo, and "common knowledge", while the police and CPS investigate to figure out what, if any, crimes have actually been committed. That, to me, is an unconscionable abuse of law enforcement authority.

[uppityperson]

19. There was no DOCUMENTABLE evidence at all about the existence of many people there

No birth certificates, no ss#'s, no documents showing evidence many of the kids even exist. They are doing DNA testing now to see who was fathers of whom, since the mothers and kids don't know and the males aren't saying. Women have come forward and said they were raped and impregnated while they were under legal age.

[Xithras]

22. See, and there is my rub.

They are doing DNA testing now to see who was fathers of whom

If the accusations against these people have a base in reality, and it obviously looks like they may, I have to wonder why these weren't done first? The CPS and police merely needed to go in with a warrant, do some swabbing, and conduct their DNA tests. If the results showed parentage that supported the states claims, they would have had evidence to not only justify the seizure of the children (at least, the tested ones that showed evidence), but also to arrest those involved.

But they didn't do that. There is one indisputable fact at this very moment. The police and CPS cannot look at any one of the hundreds of seized children and say exactly what crime was committed either to them, or by their parent(s). That should be a problematic concept for any progressive.

And no, no women from this ranch came forward. There have been cases elsewhere, in Utah and Arizona, but not from this particular ranch. Again, it's a generality..."Group X has been accused of this crime, and since Group Y is related to Group X, we can assume that Group Y is also guilty of it." Normally, we call that sort of thing "stereotyping". While stereotypes are sometimes grounded in truth, they make a terrible basis for legal actions against people.

[pnwmom]

24. They didn't have the evidence needed to get a warrant to allow them

to go in and start swabbing all the men. You have to have "probable cause" to get a warrant. You can't just say, "one of you may be the father so we're going to swab all of you."

Then were WOULD have been an issue with due process and the rights of accused criminals.

On the other hand, a custody proceeding doesn't require probable cause, because the safety of the child takes priority.

[Xithras]

29. So you're admitting that they were taken without probable cause?

because the safety of the child takes priority.

So you support the seizure of children, without cause or evidence, based on nothing more than hearsay?

Again, that's where we have a wall between our lines of logic. I have NO problem seizing children to protect their safety, but that belief is based on the assumption that there's some sort of actual, firm evidence that the childs safety is actually at risk.

In this case, the seized girls made no accusation, and the police discovered no evidence during the initial raid to support the claim. DNA testing is being done now because it's the only way to establish whether, and to whom, crimes were committed. If you look at the case critically, the evidence simply wasn't there at the time of seizure to support that action.

In my humble, non-lawyerly opinion anyway. Last time I checked, we are still allowed to disagree on things here on DU.

[pnwmom]

31. Yes, probable cause is not required to investigate child abuse complaints.

And investigating often requires removing the child from the home.

The children in this case were not removed based on hearsay. They were removed because when CPS got there and asked to see teenage girls who might be "Sarah," they discovered a number of teen girls who were already mothers or who were pregnant. Then, because the FLDS wouldn't cooperate in naming themselves or their children, it was impossible to sort out who these underage mothers belonged to. A situation that would usually involve only a single nuclear family instead webbed out to all the children in the compound -- because they were living communally and the parents refused to clarify the family relationships.

[piobair]

49. what would you think about going into

most inner city low income areas and removing children from every teenage mother. Most high schools and even some middle schools have daycare for these children. Why aren't these children being removed and the fathers prosecuted?

[Richard Steele]

66. There's a big difference between "unwed teen mother" and "child sex slave". Try again. nm

[Marrah_G]

89. Because the inner city is not a cult where a leader gives teenage girls to old men?

Because an unwed teenage mother is different then a girl bred and raised to be given away as a slave when she hits puberty?

[uppityperson]

36. What pnwmom replied and yes, they did see evidence of pregnant teens.

That let them proceed on with the investigation. CPS can do things like that, and sometimes it ends up being wrong.

[pnwmom]

41. One more point, Xithras. Children aren't property to be seized.

They are individuals who need protection -- and sometimes, unfortunately, they need protection from their own parents.

[LanternWaste]

45. CPS does not need to meet the legal definition of Probable Cause.

CPS does not need to meet the legal definition of Probable Cause to take a child away.

[madmusic]

61. Try this on for size

Arrests still could be made in the case, said First Assistant 51st District Attorney Allison Palmer. The raid, based on the warrant, led to the removal of 437 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ranch, the largest child custody action in Texas history.

"If it were true that the female who identified herself as Sarah is not really Sarah, I do not feel that would be enough to (invalidate) the search warrant," Palmer said.

Palmer used the phone calls as the probable cause necessary to secure the search-and-arrest warrant granted by District Judge Barbara Walther.

"Some events have shaken our belief and confidence in that probable cause," Palmer said.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/24/confidence-in-flds-arrest-warrant-now-shaky-say/

[LanternWaste]

90. However the warrant was not necessary for CPS

However the warrant was not necessary for CPS to come in. All of the references in the story you linked illustrate the warrant was used by and for law enforcement, not CPS. Unless I'm missing something... :shrug:

[riderinthestorm]

20. We don't know that hasn't happened.

""I want to see one of those teen girls come forward, point to an overaged guy, and say "He is my husband and got me pregnant"."

In fact, that probably DID happen - that would have been one of the criteria for removal.

BUT when you are dealing with minors in an investigatory situation - especially sexual assault! - their privacy trumps anything we may want CPS authorities to release for our prurient interest.

CPS can't just willy-nilly decide upon removal. There are protocols and standards that MUST be met before that action can be taken. Your ASSumption that the system hasn't worked, especially in this case, is just flat out wrong. There's links even here on DU to independent watchdog groups that are monitoring this, and even they agree that CPS is going by the book and had grounds for removal.

[pnwmom]

23. One of those groups you mentioned can be found at

www.justiceforchildren.org

Their director, Jim Shields, recently made a statement saying that we need to give the process time, and that the investigation -- and the (temporary) removal of the children -- is warranted.

[Xithras]

25. Even the ACLU has expressed concerns about the case.

The ACLU said it had a representative at the court hearing and the organization was concerned about human rights violations.

"While we acknowledge that Judge Walther's task may be unprecedented in Texas judicial history, we question whether the current proceedings adequately protect the fundamental rights of the mothers and children," Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, said in a written statement.

"As this situation continues to unfold, we are concerned that the constitutional rights that all Americans rely upon and cherish -- that we are secure in our homes, that we may worship as we please and hold our places of worship sacred, and that we may be with our children absent evidence of imminent danger -- have been threatened," Burke said.

The group's courtroom observer, Lisa Graybill, added: "We recognize that this balancing act is difficult, but we are concerned that government may not be complying with the Constitution or the laws of Texas in the execution of its mandate, from how the raids were conducted to whether the current process protects basic rights."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/20/polygamy.sect/

---snip---

I tend to trust the ACLU far more than some talking heads on the Internet.

As for the privacy of the children, ALL of the cases have thus far been open to the public. CPS could close a hearing if they believe that the privacy of a child will be violated, but so far they have not done so. All of the evidence in this case, from a legal standpoint as it relates to their custody anyway, is on the table and available for public examination. There's no "secret evidence" argument to fall back on yet.

[pnwmom]

32. IMHO, that statement is a mild one, for the ACLU.

They are "concerned." Who isn't?

Of course Texas may be making some mistakes. But letting this abuse go on for decades, as has happened in Utah and Arizona, was also a mistake. There may be as many as 100,000 people in this cult. How many children have been abused while we looked the other way? Our systems are imperfect, but shouldn't the children in the FLDS be protected by the same state laws that protect everyone else? And yet how do we do that given the culture of secrecy that they live within? In a culture where even the doctors, police, and mental health professionals work for the Prophet?

[Iris]

48. Right - and the ACLU is just doing what the ACLU is meant to do

which is defend everyone's civil liberties even if it's unpopular. However, if their is abuse going on in that community, I would expect the ACLU to start defending the rights of the victims.

[LanternWaste]

47. Didn't seem as though the ACLU was admonishing the state's actions

Didn't seem as though the ACLU was admonishing the state's actions-- merely giving the state a forewarning to act within the parameters of legal and judicious means.

[pnwmom]

21. It's not my "line of thinking." It's the LAW in Texas and in my state, too.

And there's a very good reason for it. Suppose a real child or teen calls 911 to allege abuse. Should it be necessary to "prove the danger" to the child before CPS can remove the child and investigate? Of course not. To leave a girl who has complained of abuse in the home where she has been living invites retaliation, and is likely to lead to further abuse. At the very least, in the case of FLDS, it could lead to her being shipped out of state, where she would be out of reach of the Texas authorities.

The conditions you set are IMPOSSIBLE. No teen girl would have been allowed off the ranch in order to "come forward" and make an accusation. Even adult women were only allowed off the ranch in groups of threes. And the women aren't naming their husbands and the husbands aren't providing their DNA.

[Xithras]

27. You're deliberately missing the point. A girl coming forward WOULD be evidence.

Suppose a real child or teen calls 911 to allege abuse. Should it be necessary to "prove the danger" to the child before CPS can remove the child and investigate?

Happened to one of my daughters best friends about a year ago. If you don't believe me, search my posting history and you'll find discussions about it. She was being raped by her dad for years. I've seen CPS in action in a case like that and bear them no ill will when a verifiable accusation has been made (verifiable defined simply as "we know who made it").

The thing is, an accusation WOULD be evidence, but there wasn't even a verifiable accusation in this case. There was an anonymous phone call from a girl that the authorities couldn't verify existed, claiming abuse from a man that the authorities quickly verified to be living in another state.

If a child comes forward and says "I've been abused", absolutely then take them out of that environment. If you're looking at a child and it's obvious that they are being physically or sexually abused based on marks or physical trauma, then you again have evidence that supports taking a child during an investigation.

As for the DNA, that's what warrants are for.

[pnwmom]

28. Wrong. It wasn't an anonymous call. It was a call from a female

who gave a name (first, middle, last), an age, , the name of a husband, and her location. Whether or not she existed could NOT be verified beforehand through the sect without tipping them off as to her claims -- which, if she had been real, could have put her in extreme danger.

You're not thinking this through. The woman gave a name, an age, and a location. This obligated CPS to follow up. Once CPS went to look for her, they couldn't find her, but they found other young women who were mothers or pregnant -- which was all the evidence they needed to continue their investigation.

[Xithras]

30. Oh, I'm not disagreeing that they should have continued the investigation.

I have no problem with that. It's only the seizure of the children without evidence, and before the investigation was underway that I have a problem with. Investigate away. Park a cop outside the gate and get an order to prohibit them from leaving. Get DNA tests to establish paternity. There are many things the police could have done to accomplish the same thing without being so jackbooted about it.

Using the standards established by the Texas CPS in this particular case, anyone could have their children seized without reason. Their actions in this one case just went too far, too fast.

[pnwmom]

33. But they had evidence -- all the underage mothers.

That, unfortunately, wouldn't have been enough evidence to force DNA tests on the fathers. Even now, most of the men are said not to be cooperating.

[Xithras]

35. My wife was 15 when she became pregnant the first time.

Is that evidence of a crime? No. Teen pregnancy is not illegal, and the law provides plenty of loopholes in which a minor can become pregnant legally. In the case of Texas law, the police would have needed evidence that the babies weren't sired by the teenage boys living on the ranch before that could have been considered evidence of child abuse.

In my wifes case, daddy was 17, and the relationship was legal under California's Romeo & Juliet statute.

Keep in mind, however, that pregnant teens WOULD have been sufficient evidence to obtain further warrants and continue the investigation, at least far enough to determine whether those pregnancies were legal or not. The police and CPS didn't even attempt to do that in this case.

[uppityperson]

37. I'm confused.

You say "pregnant teens WOULD have been sufficient evidence to obtain further warrants and continue the investigation,at least far enough to determine whether those pregnancies were legal or not. The police and CPS didn't even attempt to do that in this case."

They are trying to determine whether those pregnancies are legal or not. So I'm confused as to your argument here.

[pnwmom]

39. The poster's argument keeps going around in circles.

That's why it's so confusing.

[Xithras]

42. Again, I don't disagree with the investigation, just the methods of the seizure.

My problem is simply the way the children were seized by the state before the state had established satisfactory evidence that a crime had taken place. I don't disagree with either the initial raid or the ongoing investigation. My argument is, and has always been, that it was an improper abuse of power for the Texas CPS to seize the children before they'd established that point.

The state seized the children in order to determine whether the pregnancies were legal. One does not require the other. When they saw the pregnant teens, that would have been sufficient grounds to further investigate to determine whether the pregnancies were legal. If the investigation showed that the pregnancies were not legal, there WOULD have been sufficient grounds for a seizure.

My problem is that the children were seized without a verified complaint from a child, and without any real evidence that a crime was taking place.

Investigate, THEN seize. Not the other way around.

[pnwmom]

84. It was not possible to "further investigate" while the pregnant girls

and underage mothers remained at the ranch.

In that setting, the girls were clearly afraid to talk. They had to be removed in order to have a chance to meet with counsellors. When one child is removed from a family in order to investigate suspicion of child abuse -- which the CPS had, because they could see there were underage mothers -- then all the children from that family are removed. In the case of the FLDS, there are no typical family units. All the children are living together in a communal setting, and the parents were refusing to identify which children belonged to which parents. CPS didn't immediately take all the children -- they only did so as the parents continued to refuse to cooperate.

[pnwmom]

38. The CPS followed the law. You disagree with the law. I don't.

As to the police, they were only there to assist the CPS if needed. It was up to the CPS, not the police, to conduct their investigation.

You keep confusing the functions and evidence requirements of the police and the CPS. They work under different sets of rules.

[girl gone mad]

58. The children were not "seized".

Children are not property. The children were removed for their own safety because they presented with signs of rape and abuse. No special warrant is needed to remove a victim from the scene of a crime. LE would not be able to do its job were that the case.

[LanternWaste]

44. But Due Process, as defined by the state regulations are in fact being adhered to

"In a just, progressive society, due process should apply in all legal proceedings against an individual"

If that were the case, there would have been a few more dead children in Texas when I worked for CPS.

But Due Process, as defined by the state regulations are in fact being adhered to. I think you're referring to attempting to maintain the precise same Due Process in every crime/legal proceeding that comes before the bench.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Please point out where CPS skirted or circumvented any laws.

Please be specific with examples from this case and the law.

Be forewarned, that CPS has the absolute authority to remove all of the children from this compound and hold them during the investigatory phase since they found credible evidence of the allegations during the initial visit. That point is not in dispute and is even acknowledged by watchdog groups that are particularly anti-TX CPS. So please don't rehash that tired saw.

The case is in the investigatory phase. Children absolutely can be removed from the home during that phase even as it is acknowledged that all of the suspects are innocent until proven guilty. Once the state has ascertained what's really going on here, they will bring charges and the children will move into more permanent foster care, or the suspects will be cleared and the children reunited with their parents. The parents are being investigated for serious felonies such as child abuse and as is standard protocol, the children are typically removed.

The adults are blocking the investigation by refusing to provide even basic information like their names. This will delay and hinder the process. That will be THEIR doing - not the state's.

Again, I ask, what laws has CPS broken?

[Xithras]

34. 14th Amendment for one.

Look, this has all been debated to death here already. Read down the other branch of this discussion if you want to see how my opinion on this raid differs from yours. I could retype it all here, or link back to other threads where it's been discussed, but I'm sure you've seen it all.

We have differing opinions on what due process actually means. I'm an absolutist. Apparently you're not. We're not going to change each others minds, and quite frankly it's time for me to go home for the night.

I respectfully cede to everyone their right to hold an opinion different than my own. I only ask that everyone else do the same.

[pnwmom]

40. The 14th amendment applies to criminal cases. This isn't a criminal case. n/t

[madmusic]

51. Uh, wrong

In Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999), for example, a case we litigated, the unconstitutional strip search took place on October 27, 1994. The federal district court denied the social worker’s summary judgment motion for qualified immunity, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling on Aug. 26, 1999.

The Fourth Amendment rights case was originally filed February 24, 1995, by HSLDA on behalf of Robert and Shirley Calabretta in the Eastern District of California federal court, after a Yolo County policeman and social worker illegally entered the Calabretta home and strip searched their three-year-old daughter. The policeman and social worker forced their way in the home over the objections of the mother based simply on an anonymous tip. The tipster merely said she heard a cry in the night from the Calabretta home, "No Daddy no!" After the coerced entry, interrogation of the children, and the strip search of the three-year-old, no evidence of abuse was found and the officials ended the investigation. The police officer and social worker said "thank you" and left.

The Ninth Circuit came down hard against the social workers for violating the 4th Amendment:

We held, years before the coerced entry into the Calabretta home, that even in the context of an administrative search, "owhere is the protective force of the fourth amendment more powerful than it is when the sanctity of the home is involved.... Therefore, we have been adamant in our demand that absent exigent circumstances a warrant will be required before a person’s home is invaded by the authorities." 189 F.2d at 817, quoting Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879, 884 (9th Cir.1990).

The reasonable expectation of privacy of individuals in their homes includes the interests of both parents and children in not having government officials coerce entry in violation of the Fourth Amendment and humiliate the parents in front of the children. An essential aspect of the privacy of the home is the parent’s and the child’s interest in the privacy of their relationship with each other. 189 F.2d at 820.

The precedent is very clear. The 4th Amendment does apply to social workers. This landmark decision of Calabretta v. Floyd, makes it perfectly clear that social workers are bound to obey the U.S. Constitution when investigating child abuse cases. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Circuit settled the social worker question once and for all. No longer can social workers enter a home without either a warrant or probable cause of an emergency. It is a myth that Child Protective Services agencies are exempted from the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against illegal searches and seizures.

------

In addition to the 4th Amendment rights, parents also have "the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children" as guaranteed under the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Supreme Court made it clear that these are, in fact, fundamental federal rights. In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), the Court struck down a Washington state statute that allowed juvenile courts to order third party visitation without any showing of parental unfitness or harm to the child. The Court ruled that this statute deprived parents of a federally protected liberty interest without due process of law.

This affirms a long line of U.S. Supreme Court case starting with Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), and Parham v. J.R., 442 US 584 (1979). The treatment many parents are receiving at the hands of social workers violates parent’s fundamental rights to direct the upbringing of their children.

http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/archive/hearings/107th/sed/capta101701/klicka.htm

Imagine having to quote a home-schooling lawyer to teach the basics of the law at DU. Couple this with the due process rights of a hearing and adequate representation, and CPS can't do anything it damn pleases. Parent have rights.

[pnwmom]

52. Your post is about the 4th amendment, not the 14th. They are different.

This is the 14th, and it doesn't apply in this situation. One, it is not a criminal case (no one is facing criminal charges that could put them in prison), and two, children are not the property of their parents.


1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[madmusic]

53. Oh, jeez

It is hard to read with your eyes closed.

[pnwmom]

54. Read the 14th amendment. I've added it to my post. It doesn't apply.

Just because the 4th amendment applies doesn't mean the 14th does, not in this situation. This is a matter of settled law, not anything new.

[madmusic]

55. All you're doing is proving you didn't even read it.

Because the 14th is at the BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

Again, it's hard to read with your eyes closed.

[pnwmom]

56. You're right, I didn't read to the very bottom of the page. Why did you include

six paragraphs on the 4th amendment first?

But the 14th amendment case that you cited is not related to child abuse investigations. Why don't you cite a single case that says CPS must adhere to full due process before they remove a child during an investigation for child abuse? Because you can't.

[madmusic]

57. You got it backwards

In a majority opinion written by Justice Scalia,<1> the Court, relying on its ruling from DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998 (1989), rejected the plaintiff’s substantive due process claim. In DeShaney, an action was brought against a county department of social services and several social workers for failing to protect a child from beatings by his father that left the child permanently brain damaged. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 191, 109 S. Ct. at 1001. The Court held that substantive due process does not “require the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” In other words, there was no affirmative duty for the State to protect its citizens. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 195, 109 S. Ct. at 1003. The DeShaney Court did not decide if there had been a procedural due process violation, declining to decide whether child protection statutes gave the child an entitlement to receive protective services, which entitlement would enjoy due process protection. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 195 n.2, 109 S. Ct. at 1003 n. 2.

http://www.nelsonmullins.com/news/nelson-mullins-articles-speeches-detail.cfm?id=43

But see this in contrast:

CONSTITUTIONAL
DIMENSIONS OF
PARENT - CHILD
RELATIONSHIP

The right to the companionship, care, custody,
and control of one’s own child is a fundamental
liberty interest far more precious than any
property right. In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 547-
48 (Tex. 2003). Thus, “the relationship between
parent and child is constitutionally protected.”
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054,
2060-2061 (2000) (citing Quilloin v. Walcott, 434
U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549 (1978)). See Holick
v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985) (The
natural right existing between parents and their
children is of constitutional dimensions.). Parents
have the responsibility and the right to direct the
upbringing and education of their children.
Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060.
In fact, “<i>t is cardinal...that the custody, care and
nurture of the child reside first in the parents,
whose primary function and freedom include
preparation for obligations the state can neither
supply nor hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321
U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 442 (1944).
It has been firmly established that the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution protects the
fundamental rights of parents to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of their
children. Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054,
2060. “<T>he Due Process Clause does not permit
States to infringe on the fundamental right of
parents to make child rearing decisions simply
because a state judge believes a ‘better’ decision
could be made.” Id. at 72-73, 120 S.Ct. at 2064.
Children also have a substantial interest in the
proceedings that determine their custody and the
direction of their lives. See M.S., 115 S.W.3d at
547. Both parent and child have a weighty
interest in the accuracy and justice of a decision
affecting their ability to have a relationship with
one another. Id. The State also has an interest in
protecting the welfare of its children, which “must
initially manifest itself by working toward
preserving the familial bond” between a parent
and child unless that parent will not provide a
safe, stable environment. Id. at 548 (citing
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766-67, 102
S.Ct. 1388 (1982)).

While the grant of custody to another or the
limitation of a parent’s access to a child is not
tantamount to absolute termination of parental
rights, the State must tread very carefully when it
infringes upon a parent’s ability to participate in
child rearing. See Troxel, 530 U.S. at 72-73, 120
S.Ct. 2054. Even when it does not terminate
rights, a court that infringes on a parent’s ability
to rear his or her children may also violate the
United States Constitution. Id. at 67, 120 S.Ct.
2054. In addition, the Texas Supreme Court has
recognized that custody determinations between
fit parents can risk a significant deprivation
similar to termination of the relationship. See
Lewelling v. Lewelling, 796 S.W.2d 164, 168 n. 8
(Tex. 1990). The weighty interests of parents,
children, and the State in a just and accurate
decision mandate that “any significant risk of
erroneous deprivation is unacceptable.” M.S., 115
S.W.3d at 549 (emphasis added).

Our government respects fit parents’ abilities to act in
the best interests of their children by applying a
presumption that they do so. Troxel, 530 U.S. at
68, 120 S.Ct. 2054. The United States Supreme
Court has recognized that, in accord with this
presumption, so long as a parent is “fit,” there is
normally no reason for the State to inject itself
between parent and child or disturb that parent’s
rearing of his or her children. Id. at 68-69, 120
S.Ct. 2054. In other words, court interference
with the right of a fit parent to bring up his or her
own child potentially impacts a fundamental right
and may violate the Due Process Clause.

http://www.tex-app.org/advocate/advocate_v18n5.pdf

The first case makes it clear that parents do not have the constitutional right to expect the government to protect them. The second case makes it clear both parents and children do have constitutional rights in the relationship. Because some of the parents in Texas did not receive fair hearings, because they could not be heard individually to present their side, and because some didn't even get fair notice of the hearing as required , their due process rights were violated. There are likely many more violations.

Imagine a mass arrest from a demonstration and the judge finding them all guilty in one hearing and sentencing them all at once without "hearing" any of them individually. No can do. Due process is also proper procedure.

It's no surprise many liberals don't understand this because it was the great divide between the left and the right for a long time. The Left used to say due process was paramount and the government cannot cheat. The Right said, who cares, hang 'em all. The Right won that debate big time. Kicked our ass, in fact.

[girl gone mad]

59. Wouldn't apply in this case.

Most of the children in FLDS don't even know who their biological parents are. They are shuttled in and out of homes in an effort to break all familial bonds.

If anything, the case you cite could be used to argue that the children's constitutional rights are being violated by the leaders of the FLDS.

Further, the case you cite relates to social workers being sued because they did not intervene in time to save a child. There is ample precedent which gives the CPS the right to intervene to protect children from abuse at the hands of their parents or other caretakers.

[madmusic]

60. Oh, jeez

Who the hell argued CPS had no right to intervene? Did you read to the bottom of the page, like, you know, the relevant part. The first case isn't even on point.

It's like talking to MTV. This is scary.

[girl gone mad]

69. The case you cited is not relevant.

Is that simple enough for you?

You think you know more than LE and the judge in this case, but you don't.

Imagine a mass arrest from a demonstration and the judge finding them all guilty in one hearing and sentencing them all at once without "hearing" any of them individually. No can do. Due process is also proper procedure.

No one has been arrested in this case. Victims were removed from harm's way pending a full investigation.

[madmusic]

75. Oh, jeez

It's a contrast. Sometimes in a debate people use a compare and contrast. Sometimes they use ANALOGIES. The first case is to contrast with the later cases (assuming you can make it past the first paragraph).

Do you know what an analogy is? Who the hell said anyone was arrested?

Riddle me this. If a judge had everyone in courtroom for DUI all stand at once and he pronounced them all guilty at once, without listening to any of them, is that due process? Of course not.

That is not due process and there was the same due process violation with the hearing even though no one has been charged for a crime (which, all things considered, supports the FLDS. How come no charges?). Just because it is not a criminal procedure that does not mean there are no due process rights. Of course there are.

Read the parents' emergency stay request here

http://kidjacked.com/pdf/Emergency_Motion_for_Stay.pdf

The hearing on the merits is yet to happen.

[pnwmom]

81. The parents' emergency stay request was denied.

Which is a good indication that their motion will be denied as well. If the judge thought that they had a good chance of succeeding, the emergency stay would have been approved.

[madmusic]

82. Bullshit

You just want to kick your thread back up.

The hearing is in June and the courts usually rubber stamp the CPS. That an emergency request was denied before the writ of mandate could heard means nothing.

BTW, there is a new thread and CPS apologists are welcome. :)

[girl gone mad]

85. due process has not been denied.

the judge came down on the side of proceeding with caution for the sake of the children's safety. No need to rush the kids back into the arms of their possibly abusive parents before the investigation is complete. Parents will have their say. No one is being sentenced to prison so your "analogy" is invalid.

[Guaranteed]

74. Due process applies in ALL cases, ma'am.

Sorry, you're plain wrong.

[LanternWaste]

43. no one posting here can declare a person innocent or guilty

"Some people just cannot grasp the concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" "

We all can-- innocence and guilt may only be determined by a court of law.

What we're doing is entertaining conjecture based on the information at hand.

So what's the big problem with assuming (based on available evidence) that they're creeps and probably did it? Will it affect the trial? Will it affect the jurists? Will it affect the evidence? Will it affect the jury? No.

But maybe I'm wrong-- maybe you could tell me how my opinions that the males of the compound did in fact engage in rape will result in a Guilty verdict if it even comes to trial.

You see-- I know the legal concept. I know about conjecture too. And I happen to see a difference in the two.

[Iris]

72. what I resent is the implication that the children should have been left in a possibly

abusive situation because they adults are innocent until proven guilty. The very idea that temporarily removing these children is somehow a travesty of justice just doesn't sit well with me.

[madmusic]

76. What you resent is the Constitution

Any child in danger could have been investigated and removed while still keeping constitutional protections for the rest of them in tact as the investigations proceeded. That a 1-year-old boy might be "groomed" into thinking he could be polygamous in 15 years and it was an emergency to remove him is just plain fucked up.

Resent it all you want. It's fucked up.

[Iris]

88. No it's not. These people are functioning as one giant family.

When a child in a family in mainstream society has been abused, ALL remaining children in the home are removed.

[uppityperson]

94. That is not why they removed the kids.

CPS has the authority to remove all the kids from a family in suspected abuse cases. This whole compound is one big family, so they have the authority to act as they did.

If you don't like that fact, perhaps a better use of your energies might be to contact them, or to contact your congresspeople (state and or fed) to change the law. Continuing to argue on a forum that CPS didn't have the authority to act as they did, based on why you assume they did ("That a 1-year-old boy might be "groomed" into thinking he could be polygamous in 15 years") gets you correct info, but if you won't read it, won't see it, why bother?

Have you seen this article yet? (I clipped the first paragraph because "looking into possible sexual abuse" means looking into, not that there is, or was, and IMHO is just sensationalistic writing)

ttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat

Earlier, Commissioner Carey Cockerell — in charge of the umbrella Department of Family and Protective Services — told lawmakers 41 children have evidence of broken bones.

The disclosures are the first suggestions that anyone other than teen girls may have been physically or sexually abused. The state has custody of 464 children taking from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in the west Texas prairie town of Eldorado, including a baby born to a teen mother Tuesday

[Iris]

46. The problem is that some here don't think the state should even be investigating.

Somehow they have child rape confused with freedom of religion or the rights of the individual or something like that.

[madmusic]

50. Bullshit

Link to one post that makes that argument and if you can't find one your are either hysterical or a liar.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/child_protection_v_the_constitution_did_removal_of_437_kids_violate_parents/">Child Protection v. the Constitution: Did Removal of 437 Kids Violate Parents’ Rights?

There is an excellent chance there were due process violations.

In related news, http://www.abajournal.com/news/ex_gitmo_prosecutor_testifies_about_push_for_high_profile_and_faster_cases">Ex-Gitmo Prosecutor Testifies About Push for High-Profile and Faster Cases

[Iris]

62. well, since I am not a donating member, I can't search the archives

but there were multiple posts by one person in particular in 2 different threads saying that the state had no right to investigate this situation. And that, imo, is bullshit.

[Richard Steele]

63. Your comment was entirely correct, and everyone following these FLDS threads knows it.

There are 4 or 5 DU members who have been doing whatever
they can to defend the FDLS and attack the investigation.
No matter how ridiculous or disgusting a notion may be,
they'll post it in defense of these child-rapists.

It's well beyond "bullshit", IMO.

[madmusic]

65. Example right here!

Must be MTV or something because so many don't know the distinction between due process and child rape.

Or maybe it's No Child Left Behind's fault.

[Richard Steele]

70. Yes, you certainly are. nm

[madmusic]

71. I am!

Green eggs and ham.

[madmusic]

64. You're right, IF someone said that.

I've not seen that argument anywhere. There have been plenty of accusations that was the argument, but it wasn't, just like this thread isn't.

[Iris]

67. As I stated, if I were a donating member, I'd search the archives and post it here.

But since you don't have that capability, either, I suggest you tone down your insults towards those of us who have seen these things in these threads.

[madmusic]

68. Thanks for the suggestion. n/t

[LanternWaste]

91. There have been quite a few arguments that go just as she described on DU

There have been quite a few arguments that go just as she described on DU in just the last two weeks. I'm surprised that you haven't come across them.

And calling someone hysterical or a liar simply because they came across discussions you may not have is, well... less than noble.

Wow-- you may be in bad mood for whatever reason, but that's hardly reason to take it out on other DU.

And yeah-- I'm kicking the post, too... :evilgrin:

[Zhade]

77. Yeah, I read the title and was like "WTF?"

I have a problem with apologists for the regular LDS cult (but then, all religions are cult that differ only in degree, not kind), but THIS cult?

[neverlander]

3. Most likely they are

Most likely they all are, it is the way of the society. They do not consider it rape or incest as we do. It is their way. I am not agreeing by any means, but in fact it is that way.

[Ian David]

4. Some of them said they didn't know sex with children was illegal.

Seriously.

That's their defense.

[guyanakoolaid]

6. In this country, however, ignorance of the law is not a defense.

I want the mothers in prison, too.

[Ian David]

7. Maybe The Office of Legal Counsel told them it was okay? n/t

[guyanakoolaid]

9. Ignorance is not an applicable defense. They are guilty. Our society disapproves of their pedophilia

If you want to remain ignorant of the law and normal societal values, fine, but you still must suffer our society's justice.

[pnwmom]

10. I'm sure the previous poster was being ironic. n/t

[guyanakoolaid]

11. I'm not sure. It's a good point. These lives and communities were all these people knew, it would be

a strange ethical dilemma if the women had actually gone to a community legal council out of concern that maybe her daughter was too young too be married (and raped), and was told that it was perfectly legal.

[Ian David]

12. Office of Legal Counsel is a department in The White House. n/t

[guyanakoolaid]

14. er, right...

That actually escaped my brain, I was using it as a generic description of an office which has legal counsel. But apart from my semantics mistake, the ethical dilemma is still a valid question. If you called the police, or an attorney, clarifying a question of law and are given erroneous information, how much are you still liable for the crime?

[seabeyond]

26. they had to know it was illegal. they hid it. they lied about it. IF

they didnt know they were breaking the laws, they would not have had need to lie and hide.

but i am with you. ignorance doesnt count.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

78. They hid polygamy

but up until 2005 in texas 14 was the age of consent for marriage...

[uppityperson]

79. For a legal marriage. With parental permission. Which didn't happen.

They knew the law was changed.

Another attempt to excuse away giving 14 yr olds to older men to impregnate. Got it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

92. Not trying to excuse away anything

what they were doing was vile and disgusting and I hope should proper evidence turn up the judge throws the book at them... Still its nice when you can just imply someone who disagrees with you on the legal threshold for pursuing a crime a pedophile so discredit them right?

[uppityperson]

93. I've never called you a pedophile so quit claiming I did.

I am well aware of the difference between pedophilia and statutory rape, and I am sure that you have read my taking others to task for confusing the 2 also.

[Richard Steele]

83. "Polygamy" requires choice & free will. The FLDS hid -CHILD SEX SLAVES-. Different.

nm

[Marrah_G]

86. And they moved the girls there to avoid other states laws.

And then Texas changed the laws and they continued to do it because they felt safe to continue because they were behind walls with armed guards.

This is America and every child has a right to an education and a right to be free from slavery, no matter who gave birth to them.

Also none of these girls are really married.

[pnwmom]

8. The county Sheriff took it upon himself to make contacts at the ranch

and educate them about the age of consent laws.

So that excuse is weaker even than usual.

[Ian David]

13. Maybe they forgot?

No, I'm not serious.

[Frank Cannon]

73. Ah, the "Steve Martin Defense"

I forgot!

[Mind_your_head]

80. The apologists are quite/rather disturbing (to at least *ME*)........

but the fact that they are allowed to "state the(ir) case" and we (readers of DU) can examine it and think about it and then decide/form an opinion is very.......democratic/open-minded/good, imo

[LisaL]

87. Well, maybe you should ask something that is actually true to

get an answer. Where is proof for your claim that fathers aren't represented by lawyers? Just by a brief search of google, I found an article that lawyer representing a father was able to cross-examine at the hearing. Several fathers gave media interviews which I saw with my own two eyes. One was on dateline msnbc, where one father talked about his children and the raid. The other father (also on dateline) was showing the school, and he talked about his son.
Regardless, your claim (if someone doesn't have a lawyer they are guilty) is absolutely absurd.
Sometimes people who do get lawyers are accused of being guilty, because why would they need lawyers if they done nothing wrong?
Now you claim people who dont' get lawyers must be guilty?
So, let me see-one is guilty whether one gets a lawyer or not. One is just guilty.