I have tried to gather a few articles together to give info, so if anyone wants to look and not have to search through a huge thread, here you are. I am not going to debate the merits of this case since I have other things to focus on today, just trying to present some info here. If anyone else has articles they would like to add, that would be nice also.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5798346.htmlState agency to appeal ruling on sect children's seizure(clip)
The ruling orders state District Judge Barbara Walther, who approved the mass removal from parental custody, to rescind her order. If the state appeals the ruling to the full appellate court or the Texas Supreme Court, the children could remain in state custody until it's resolved, legal experts said.
(clip)
Though the suit was filed on behalf of 48 mothers seeking the return of their children, legal experts said it likely would apply to other parents in similar circumstances. Rod Parker, a spokesman for the sect, said he expected attorneys for other parents to file paperwork this week to ensure they "get the benefits of this ruling." The 3rd Court ruled the same way Thursday in a separate case involving three FLDS mothers a mother of daughters, one with sons and one who gave birth last week and was alleged to be an underage pregnant mom, but whose lawyer says actually is 22. "I think it's going to be hard to say the proof-problem that the state ran into here wouldn't be applicable to (all the parents whose children were taken into state custody)," said Dallas lawyer David Schenck, representing the three.
(clip)
Observers said it was possible that Walther could amend her original order, possibly to ensure that post-pubescent girls remain in state care. "The order might leave room for some tailoring in special circumstances," said Scott McCown, a former judge who now heads the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin.
(clip)
McCown said the appeals court didn't say children could not be removed from their families, only that Walther had overstepped her authority with an emergency order. If the children are returned to their parents there's a risk they'll be moved to another state, Canada or Mexico and be outside the reach of Texas law, he said. "One of the real dangers is flight, and the court doesn't address that at all," McCown said...(more)
Analysis from PBS
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june08/sectkids_05-22.htmlPolygamy Ruling Raises Legal Debate on State Power(clip)
JESSICA DIXON, Southern Methodist University School of Law: The legal justification in this case was that a teenage mother called a referral line and stated that she had been physically and sexually abused by her spiritual husband, who was significantly older than her. And upon further investigation, CPS found that there were several girls who they thought were underage who were pregnant and had children under the age of 17. Where we are now is that the Court of Appeals has stated that at least 38 of these mothers, the order of the court should be dismissed or vacated, and that the children should be returned to their parents. It should be noted, however, that all of the mothers were not part of this appeal. It was only 38 of the mothers.
(clip)
JESSICA DIXON: Well, one thing that jumps out is that the court stated that one of the reasons that CPS testified that there was a removal was because of the persuasive belief system in the sect that basically groomed males to be sexual perpetrators and females to be victims of sexual abuse. And in the opinion, the court stated that it wasn't just the belief system that it existed, but it was the imposition of that belief system on the children in that particular family. So it spoke volumes with regard to how a belief system can affect children and whether parents can raise them with the particular belief system and how that affects whether the parents should have custody of that child.
The other thing that jumped out was that it talked about immediate and continuing danger to a child. And in this case, as you stated before, many of these children are infants. And so they haven't reached the age of puberty, which was the concern of the state, as far as these children becoming victims of sexual abuse. And it basically went forward to say that these children were not in any immediate danger and the state could not remove children, stating that, well, in some years or in years to come in the future, the child would be in danger. There needed to be some danger that was imminent in order for these children to be removed from their parent.
(clip)
JESSICA DIXON: The state could appeal. They could file a motion for rehearing with the Court of Appeals or they could petition the State Supreme Court. I'm not sure whether or not this case -- well, the ruling was conditional, and so it did speak to just the relators, or the 38 women. But the problem that the state will have is that they filed this case and all the mothers are under one order. So all the mothers and all the children, all 440 children are under one particular cause number and one case only. So if they vacate that order -- that means that the order is -- it would seem to me that it would be vacated for all of the children. But there are some children that have outcried, and the state could go ahead and file additional petitions to try to maintain custody of those children who have made outcries of physical and sexual abuse....(more)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
