Polygamist Sect Wants Their Kids Back

[3113]

Opinions?

SAN ANGELO, TEXAS -- The largest child custody case in U.S. history got off to a chaotic start Thursday as hundreds of attorneys representing 416 children seized from a polygamist compound jumped up all over the courtroom to raise a barrage of objections.

"We're not going to have people jumping up and down," state District Judge Barbara L. Walther said as attorneys attempted to file motions and object to the manner in which the hearing was being handled. "I wish I could give you a perfect solution, but there is not one," she said after an attorney argued that each individual child should have the opportunity to present evidence in his or her case. "Give us a chance to get things going and see if this will work."

Yet after barely 40 minutes, attorneys watching the proceedings through closed- circuit TV in a nearby building began to shout that they were not able to view copies of the first exhibit. After an hourlong recess during which a bailiff distributed copies to the other room, the hearing resumed with scores of attorneys still waiting in line to read the documents. The logistics of determining the fate of such a huge number of children proved cumbersome throughout the day. More than 350 attorneys had come from across Texas to represent children, and others represented the parents. The state's Division of Child Protective Services is seeking to strip the parents of custody and place the children in foster homes or up for adoption.

Attorneys for the state agency allege that the children were sexually abused, or at risk of sexual abuse, at the remote YFZ Ranch run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The hearing, which by state statute must be held within 14 days of the children being removed from their homes, is supposed to determine whether the children, who range in age from 6 months to 17 years old, will remain in temporary state custody or return to their families. Ordinarily, each child would have an individual hearing, but the state is seeking to handle all 416 children as a single case, arguing that the sexual and physical abuse at the ranch was systemic.

"This is probably the biggest child custody action that's ever taken place in the United States, and it's also one of the most complex," said Peter N. Swisher, a professor at the National Center for Family Law at the University of Richmond. "Any evidence of child abuse has to be investigated as a matter of state law. . . . And it has to be conducted on an individual basis because the facts are going to differ from child to family."

The process of outlining individual cases, attorneys said, is complicated not only because of the unprecedented volume of cases, but because of the complicated tangle of relationships within the YFZ Ranch, and the inhabitants' suspicion of outsiders. Two weeks after the children were seized, some attorneys complained that they had not been able to meet the children they were assigned to represent. And many who have met their clients said the children would not reveal their ages, their names or their parents' names. Scores of children have the same last name -- Jessop, Barlow or Jeffs -- but it is unclear if or how they are related. Susan Hays, an attorney who traveled from Dallas to represent a young female, said that she had not been able to find the father of her client or any documentation. "All I have to go on is what the mother says," she said. "That's it."

In an attempt to overcome some of the barriers involved in dealing with the sect, state attorneys on Thursday asked the court to order DNA testing that might determine each child's parents. The judge has not ruled on the motion. By the end of the nearly 12-hour hearing, no decisions had been made on the fate of the children, and only three witnesses had testified. One witness, a Department of Public Safety sergeant, Danny Crawford, testified that he discovered a church bishop's records listing the names and ages of members of about 38 families, some with 16- or 17-year-old wives. Texas law does not allow girls younger than 16 to marry, even with parental approval. Another witness, child welfare supervisor Angie Voss, offered more details on what investigators found at the ranch.

Some women may have had children when they were as young as 13, she said, and at least five girls under 18 are pregnant or have children. During cross-examination, attorneys repeatedly questioned why investigators had decided to remove boys and babies from the ranch. Voss said that she believed the boys were groomed to be perpetrators and that the babies should not be returned to the ranch only to be abused 10 years from now. "I believe it is not safe for any child to return to the ranch, because the adults I've spoken with expressed belief they aren't doing anything harmful to their children," Voss said. "They are living under an umbrella of belief that having children at a young age is a blessing. "Any child in that environment cannot be safe."

Toward the end of the day, there were some signs that the case might move more quickly. After a continuing barrage of objections -- many making the same point -- Walther ordered a short recess to allow attorneys to coordinate their objections and then asked them to start with "your best objection from each side."

"No objection, your honor," an attorney responded, to loud cheers throughout both rooms.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-04/37992783.jpg

Some of the moms there. What is with the pastel color and those hair-dos?

 

[rgraham666]

If the kids aren't being abused physically or sexually I don't see why they can't stay with their parents.

But that's for the courts to decide.

That picture is rather creepy though. Are they clones?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

If the kids aren't being abused physically or sexually I don't see why they can't stay with their parents.

But that's for the courts to decide.

That picture is rather creepy though. Are they clones?

Kind of like the Amish or Quakers, many polygamist sects dress in conservative ways for religious reasons.

 

[tickledkitty]

I notice they're not just wearing pastels, but all shades of blue and lavender, although that may be a coincidence.

 

[3113]

I notice they're not just wearing pastels, but all shades of blue and lavender, although that may be a coincidence.

And light green. Easter-egg colors? Maybe an Easter thing?

 

[cloudy]

Anybody seen their television interviews besides me?

They're scary - really scary. Blank eyes.

*shudder*

 

[tickledkitty]

And light green. Easter-egg colors? Maybe an Easter thing?

No yellow or pink or peach? No warm colors. Only cool. Hmmm...

 

[amicus]

Anybody seen their television interviews besides me?

They're scary - really scary. Blank eyes.

*shudder*

~~~


Yeah, Cloudy, I have been watching all of it, non stop from the beginning, including a Larry King special and a Greta van Susteran piece, along with whatever other coverage is available and it surely is disturbing in many ways.

There have also been scattered interviews with women who have escaped the FLDS compounds and they relate a horrifying story of child abuse, both physical and sexual and mental.

All of that is bad enough and many will have opinions, but to me, most ominous is the heavy hand of government in forcibly removing over 400 children from their mothers.

This whole thing is so extremely complicated, for example: many of the children have no birth records and no last names. There are questions as to whether many of the mothers were ever legally married to the men that fathered the children.

I see more than blank looks on the faces of the women, I see grief and loss at being separated from their children.

I suppose I will add a political chord here by just asking what the minimum age for marriage in the Muslim world under Sharia Law?

I am also confused at the lack of feminist commentary pertaining to the entire situation of polygamy and under age marriage.

I am not convinced that the State should have the power to determine marriage age in any event, while at the same time I am concerned about young girls being forced into an arranged marriage without choice, whatever the religious mantra dictates.

Amicus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Anybody seen their television interviews besides me?

They're scary - really scary. Blank eyes.

*shudder*

I thought about "The Stepford Wives" and I think most other people did too. When asked about their husbands or marriages, they just dummied up. When asked about children being sexually abused, they said something like "Not that I know of", as if to say they had never seen any pregnant young girls.

A lot remains to be determined. I don't like the idea of taking children from their parents either, but when it is necessary to prevent abuse of the chiuldrenm, it must be done.

 

[SweetWitch]

What I find horrifying about this whole process is that they took over 400 children into "protective custody", yet the perpetrators are allowed to walk free. I haven't seen a lot of the reporting on this situation, but from what I can tell, the only ones arrested are the children. What about the abusers?

 

[3113]

What about the abusers?

Well, the children weren't "arrested" but taken into "protective custody." And a good thing, too. You need to interview the kids with no parents around to find out just who the abusers were. They can't arrest the abusers until they get evidence of who they were.

 

[3113]

You know, it does occur to me that Texas has been pretty smart here. I mean, imagine you're a cult leader looking for a place for your new compound, where you and all your followers and wives can live and do whatever you like to each other and your kids without any interfere from anyone.

Which state would be best....hm. Not Texas!

The Lone Star state is going to be getting less cults moving there, I think.

 

[meg1]

the last news story i heard was that the "16" year old girl who called in and turned them in might be a woman in her 30's who is known for making crank calls to the police....

hate that someone makes crank calls to the police, on the other hand, this time i think she did a good thing....they all say that the girls have a choice and aren't forced to do anything, but with the way they are raised, they have absolutely no way to deny their parents anything

 

[SweetWitch]

Well, the children weren't "arrested" but taken into "protective custody." And a good thing, too. You need to interview the kids with no parents around to find out just who the abusers were. They can't arrest the abusers until they get evidence of who they were.

I don't agree with how this was handled. They've had evidence on those people for some time. Even the son of their "leader" came forward to give evidence. The kids have been torn from everything they've ever known, shoved into a world that they've been taught to fear since birth and now believe that they are destined for eternal damnation. And still these men--and women, in some cases--walk around free, hiring the best lawyers money can buy from funds they cheated the government and citizens out of through fraudulent practices.

The children are terrified, shoved into barracks-type housing and told that those people they trust most, their own parents, are bad, evil and horrible. How would any of us process all that?

All I'm saying is that it could have been handled differently. It should have been handled differently.

And what of the mothers who had suffered the fate the state is trying to save the children from? They were once those kids, forced into marriages, giving birth at young ages and told it was their duty. Now they suffer the grief of losing their babies and not knowing how to cope and certainly not equipped emotionally to deal with all this. Their world has been torn apart and they can't even reassure their own children.

All of them are victims of a religious sect and leaders that rule with an iron hand and groomed them in obedience and "sweetness". And those leaders are still free to terrorize.

 

[Lalah]

So how would you have handled it then, SweetWitch?

 

[SweetWitch]

I don't know, Lalah, but I think I would have started by removing the real problem from the homes first. There are known criminal deviants out there, running loose in society.

Any number of us could come up with 101 answers to that question, dear, but the outcome would not be a pretty one. Brainwashed women, terrified children and men raised to believe that they have the power of God over their families cannot possibly have a happy ending.

 

[Lalah]

But shouldn't the first priority be to protect the children and removed them from the danger zone?

 

[Stella_Omega]

It would have been nice to see all of the adult men taken into "protective custody" first, I agree. You might hear some of the women give more accurate testimony, knowing they weren't going home to Big Daddy.

I can't help but imagine how blank my own eyes would be, if I were missing my children.

 

[Lalah]

I suppose they didn't have enough yet to justify arresting all the adults. How big is this community? If they have 400 children it must be really big.

 

[SweetWitch]

It would have been nice to see all of the adult men taken into "protective custody" first, I agree. You might hear some of the women give more accurate testimony, knowing they weren't going home to Big Daddy.

I can't help but imagine how blank my own eyes would be, if I were missing my children.

My point exactly. It's their money and power that keeps them free and the kids and moms can only cry in pain. It's a travesty.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I suppose they didn't have enough yet to justify arresting all the adults. How big is this community? If they have 400 children it must be really big.

It doesn't have to be all that big, since the women tend to have children early and often. Some of the older girls in protective custody may well be the mothers of some of the younger children. There aren't that many men, because that's the way polygamy works in a cult like this. Most of the men are kicked out at 18, virtually uneducated, and are on their own.

I think of everybody as being victims except for the men who are there, and even they have been raised to believe this is the right way for things to be.

ETA: I can't help wondering: Why don't they track down the men who have left and ask them about things? They would have no reason to protect anybody and they would have ways to know about the inner workings.

 

[amicus]

There are further FLDS compounds still in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Idaho, it said on the news tonight. Are they going to rescue the children there also?

If not...why not?

Assuming this is a constitutional legal effort in Texas.

Amicus...

 

[3113]

All I'm saying is that it could have been handled differently. It should have been handled differently.

I think you're being a Monday Morning Quarterback. It's easy to say it could have been handled differently or better after the shit has hit the fan and the police have done what they felt they ought and should do given the circumstances. You weren't in the field, they were. This was what they did, and maybe it was their only or best option given the laws, situation, etc.

And I'm sorry, but I have a lot less fucking sympathy for moms who probably can't be trusted with kids--they may well be victims too, but the way it works is that if the kid has been abused, both parents lose said kid and then have to prove that they're worthy of getting said kid back. That's how it works. You may feel that's fucked up, and you may be right--but it's not like they made up a new rule for these particular women. I know. Happened to my sister-in-law. Her kid got hurt while with a baby sitter, abuse was suspected, and she lost him for a short while and had to go to court and prove that he wasn't abused and that she was worthy of getting him back.

I'm damn sorry about the trauma to the kids--but that's the system. Again, you can say the system is fucked up and it shouldn't be done like this ever, but that's the way it's done. For these folk and everyone else.

 

[SweetWitch]

I think you're being a Monday Morning Quarterback. It's easy to say it could have been handled differently or better after the shit has hit the fan and the police have done what they felt they ought and should do given the circumstances. You weren't in the field, they were. This was what they did, and maybe it was their only or best option given the laws, situation, etc.

And I'm sorry, but I have a lot less fucking sympathy for moms who probably can't be trusted with kids--they may well be victims too, but the way it works is that if the kid has been abused, both parents lose said kid and then have to prove that they're worthy of getting said kid back. That's how it works. You may feel that's fucked up, and you may be right--but it's not like they made up a new rule for these particular women. I know. Happened to my sister-in-law. Her kid got hurt while with a baby sitter, abuse was suspected, and she lost him for a short while and had to go to court and prove that he wasn't abused and that she was worthy of getting him back.

I'm damn sorry about the trauma to the kids--but that's the system. Again, you can say the system is fucked up and it shouldn't be done like this ever, but that's the way it's done. For these folk and everyone else.

Hey, you asked for opinions. That was mine, nothing else. Just an opinion. I'm sorry you didn't like it. But you asked.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Hey, you asked for opinions. That was mine, nothing else. Just an opinion. I'm sorry you didn't like it. But you asked.

And there's nothing wrong in her defending her opinion, and 'attacking' yours, although I don't think she was attacking your opinion exactly.

Thinking through different ideas and opinions is how we try to make good decisions in the future. When a thread just becomes a vehicle for everyone to simply spout off their half-baked notions without challenge, it may as well be a dimly lit wall somewhere in a neighborhood where everyone has a black hoodie and a can of spray paint.