Mental Health Workers RIP CPS over FLDS Case

Micah68

Inactive
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5770183.html

May 10, 2008, 10:39PM
Mental health workers rip CPS over sect
Staff complains agency traumatized kids, disregarded mothers' rights


By ROGER CROTEA
San Antonio Express-news

Mental health workers sent to emergency shelters in San Angelo last month to help care for the hundreds of women and children removed from a polygamist sect's West Texas ranch have sharply criticized the Child Protective Services operation, telling their governing board it unnecessarily traumatized the kids.

The CPS investigation of suspected child abuse and its decision to seek state custody of all 464 children punished mothers who appeared to be good parents of healthy, well-behaved and emotionally normal kids, workers said in a set of short and unsigned written reports made at the request of the board after a briefing Tuesday.


Threatened arrests
All nine reports by employees of the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center expressed varying degrees of anger toward the state's child welfare agency for removing the children from their community, separating them from their mothers or for the way CPS workers conducted themselves at the shelter.

A few described ongoing tension between the two groups of social workers, including threats by CPS to have interfering MHMR workers arrested.

"I have worked in Domestic Violence/Sexual Abuse programming for over 20 years and have never seen women and children treated this poorly, not to mention their civil rights being disregarded in this manner," one wrote.

The workers spent several days in San Angelo, some shortly after the April 3 search of the Yearning for Zion Ranch prompted by a sexual abuse complaint, during the chaotic opening of a shelter in the city's coliseum, or in the days leading up to the children's dispersal to foster care facilities across the state later that month.

"The entire MH support staff was 'fired' the second week; we were sent home due to being 'too compassionate,' " one report stated.

The state has argued that enough evidence of "spiritual marriages," pregnancy and childbirth by underage girls at the ranch exists to seek permanent removal of all the children from their parents because of the risk of child abuse.

The compound was built to house members of a breakaway Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

To respond to the allegations, CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said via e-mail: "We have received no complaints from Hill Country MHMR. However, we will be looking into what are obviously very serious allegations, and sharing these allegations with other agencies as appropriate."

The MHMR workers helped staff large shelters in San Angelo where mothers were at first allowed to stay with the children. Only mothers of younger children were allowed to remain after the first few days.

All the MHMR workers described themselves as impressed by the mothers they worked with. Many of them described child welfare workers as high-handed, rude or uncaring toward the mothers and overzealous in their concerns that they might escape or harm their keepers.

Two reported that the CPS workers were friendly and compassionate.

Three reported that CPS workers lied to the mothers; one described it as a tactic to make separating them from their children go easier. Several said the mothers were denied access to their lawyers.

Some of the MHMR workers said the crowded conditions at the shelter allowed upper respiratory infections and chicken pox to spread rapidly and many noted the shelter's other discomforts. One described it as deliberate, a form of coercion to aid the investigation: "The more uncomfortable they were the more CPS thought they would talk."


Needed to communicate
Kevin Dinnin, the president of Baptist Children and Family Services who served as incident commander at the shelter under a contract between his agency and the state, said he couldn't confirm many of the allegations made by the MHMR workers.

"Some of it is unfounded," he said. "Some of it is accurate, depending on your point of view. Were the shelters crowded? Yeah. But it's a shelter. And yes, CPS workers were taking notes and listening. Yes, they were always around. I'm not defending CPS, but it's hard to give people privacy in a shelter."

The CPS and the MHMR staff could have reduced tensions with better communication, Dinnin said.

The written statements were given to the Hill Country MHMR board anonymously because the workers had signed agreements not to disclose what they had seen, said board member Jack Dawson.

"What they saw was so horrendous, they had to report it to the board," said Dawson, a Comal County commissioner. "I have every confidence their stories are accurate. Our people are professionals, with years and years of service in their fields."

Board President John Kite said the entire board was upset by the reports. He said he is trying to get Gov. Rick Perry to meet with the workers.

"We were literally astounded at what they told us," Kite said. "They are trampling all over human decency and those people's civil rights. ... We should not just sit here and let it happen."

Express-News staff writer Nancy Martinez contributed to this report.
 
=



The total ignoring of the Constitutional Rights of the children and their mothers! Even the MHMR who responded to help help the children - and their mothers, was upset by the CPS's MOA. (A total disregard for their Constitutional / Civil Rights.)
 

The Freeholder

Inactive
Seems to me that Texas CPS is growing desperate to prove something--anything--was amiss at the FDLS compound. Not they're they meeting any notable success on that quest. :whistle: And if you can't help them, then you're the enemy too.
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
Seems to me that Texas CPS is growing desperate to prove something--anything--was amiss at the FDLS compound. Not they're they meeting any notable success on that quest. :whistle: And if you can't help them, then you're the enemy too.
14 year old mothers in a controlled familial situation such as the FLDS cult is pretty much "something amiss.

Any mother that really wanted her children back who was not concerned she would be named a party to child rape would not be lying to the state about the identity of her children.

The 5th amendment only protects those who are guilty of a crime per the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada.

I do see those kids having their views of the rest of society changed because of things like television, books, and influences from other children not of the LDS faith that they now have access to that before they were not allowed.





don
 
14 year old mothers in a controlled famial situation such as the FLDS cult is pretty much "something amiss.

Any mother that really wanted her children back who was not concerned she would be named a party to child rape would not be lying to the state about the identity of her children.

The 5th amendmaent only protects those who are guilty of a crime per the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada.





don

Again, the media is LYING about the ages of the women/wives/girls/mothers. The truth is pretty much the opposite of what the media reports.
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
Again, the media is LYING about the ages of the women/wives/girls/mothers. The truth is pretty much the opposite of what the media reports.

Yeah, right.

Perhaps the media is lying about the fact the raids happened in the first place:rolleyes:


Although, the fact of the underage girls with several children was gleaned from sworn testimony in a court of law.....

But then it was reported in the evil media.... Oh buggers:(

Oh look! Something shiney.....




don
 
14 year old mothers in a controlled familial situation such as the FLDS cult is pretty much "something amiss.

Any mother that really wanted her children back who was not concerned she would be named a party to child rape would not be lying to the state about the identity of her children.

The 5th amendment only protects those who are guilty of a crime per the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada.

I do see those kids having their views of the rest of society changed because of things like television, books, and influences from other children not of the LDS faith that they now have access to that before they were not allowed.


Full Timer:

Be so kind as to address MHMR's charges against CPS!

You seem to always 'steer around' the "real subject" matter of these threads.

What is your thoughts concerning the MHMR support personal - and their treatment by the CPS...




don
 

DrJerry

Inactive
Fact: The so-called "underage mothers" ranged in age from 16 to 24. The Texas authorities would not accept Utah Drivers licenses nor birth certificates relying instead on their trusty eyeballs "...it sez here yer 18 but ya only look 12 ta me, so yer a unnerage mother..." http://www.deseretnews.com/...
 
Yeah, right.

Perhaps the media is lying about the fact the raids happened in the first place:rolleyes:


Although, the fact of the underage girls with several children was gleaned from sworn testimony in a court of law.....

But then it was reported in the evil media.... Oh buggers:(

Oh look! Something shiney.....




don

Welp! It seems you always tend to "show your behiney" - pull up yur pants! :xpnd:
 
14 year old mothers in a controlled familial situation such as the FLDS cult is pretty much "something amiss.

Any mother that really wanted her children back who was not concerned she would be named a party to child rape would not be lying to the state about the identity of her children.

The 5th amendment only protects those who are guilty of a crime per the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada.

I do see those kids having their views of the rest of society changed because of things like television, books, and influences from other children not of the LDS faith that they now have access to that before they were not allowed.





don


Sorry old pard; Judge Blackstone's deffinition of the 5th admendment is that it (The 5th Admendment) is the fighting clause in the Constitution! That no one can determine for a person when they should use their 5th admendment rights!

And being protection against being forced to testify against one's self - ONLY THAT PERSON CAN DECLARE IT!
 

spinnerholic

Inactive
I went to the web site, a link I got here but can't find the thread again, and looked at the pictures posted. It was hard for me to deal with. The one thing that kept going around in my mind was the Nazi's rounding up the Jews to haul them off to concentration camps.

There was NO need at all for all the LEO's running around there, armed to the teeth, day after day - for 3 days before finally forcing the women and children into the buses.

The rock hard looks on the faces of the LEO's really got to me. Plenty of photos of one guy especially, wearing bullet proof vest and with a side arm, as the weeping women had to pass him as they left their homes and went to the buses.

Someone's fanny is going to be put through a grinder, with the fine blade, before this is all over. And I really don't believe it's going to the the FLDS people.

I don't agree with their "religion", not at all. And just the thought of an underage child being forced into a "marriage" with an much older man makes my stomach knot. It's flat wrong.

But so is holding a woman, able to prove her age with legal documents. And it's way way wrong to take every single child away from their parents because someone may be raping a child.

Hats off to the MHMR people who had guts enough to speak up about what is happening and how these people are being put through what most of us would feel was pure mental torture if it was happening to us.

The photos showed senseless damage to the homes also. There was no need to kick in and ruin doors and toss the homes as if they were making the biggest drug bust in history. What struck me about the homes in those photos was how clean and neat everything obviously had been before CPS and their Nazi troops turned up.

CPS and the LEO's seem to have forgotten that in this country, innocent until proven guilty is the way it works. The way this was handled is kidnapping, pure and simple.
 

NC Susan

Deceased
Fact: The so-called "underage mothers" ranged in age from 16 to 24. The Texas authorities would not accept Utah Drivers licenses nor birth certificates relying instead on their trusty eyeballs "...it sez here yer 18 but ya only look 12 ta me, so yer a unnerage mother..." http://www.deseretnews.com/...


Lots of girls get pregnant, but at least the Texas mothers care for and nurture their kids.

If you go to the New Jersey kids who are raised in Publik Skool with MSM and TV and peer presure to become the Least that You Can Be you get this:

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/186/story/152759.html



Bridgeton girl, 14, charged with murdering newborn in fairgrounds toilet
By EDWARD VAN EMBDEN Staff Writer, 856-649-2072
Published: Thursday, May 08, 2008

BRIDGETON - A 14-year-old mother has been charged with murdering her baby, who was found dead in the tank of a public toilet, Cumberland County Prosecutor Ron Casella said Wednesday.The girl, a Bridgeton resident, gave birth to the baby boy in a bathroom stall at the Cumberland County Fairgrounds during a Cinco de Mayo celebration Sunday and allegedly removed the lid of a working toilet and hid the living baby inside.
Cleaning crews discovered the body Monday.
The results of an autopsy conducted Tuesday found that the infant was submerged in the tank water and drowned as a result. Casella said an investigation is ongoing to determine whether the mother, identified only by the initials I.S., acted alone in the slaying.
"We're alleging, specifically, that she gave birth in a public toilet, then lifted the tank and put the baby in the working tank where there was obviously water," Casella said.
Casella indicated further review of the case will determine whether the teenager will be charged as a juvenile or an adult.The girl, who Casella said likely was hiding her pregnancy from her family and acquaintances, gave birth at the holiday celebration between 8:15 and 8:30 p.m., he said.
The girl was found sometime Tuesday after police received tips from people within Bridgeton's Mexican community revealing who and where she was, Casella said.
A friend of the girl's family who read about the dead baby contacted the girl's father because he suspected she was the mother, Casella said.
Casella declined to say if the father came forward with the information.
The murder complaint was served to the girl Wednesday, but she was not taken to the county's juvenile detention center for unspecified reasons, Casella said. She is not considered a flight risk, he said.
Casella declined further comment on the location of the girl and the relationship with her family and the father of her child because of her juvenile status.
He said he had feared the efforts of the police might be stymied by an untrusting community, but said he was pleased to find that members of Bridgeton's Mexican community were cooperative.
The Prosecutor's Office worked jointly with the Millville Police Department.
Casella credited Millville Detective Jeremy Millville and Detective Ron Henry from the Prosecutor's Office with ultimately finding the girl.
 
Yeah, right.

Perhaps the media is lying about the fact the raids happened in the first place:rolleyes:


Although, the fact of the underage girls with several children was gleaned from sworn testimony in a court of law.....

But then it was reported in the evil media.... Oh buggers:(

Oh look! Something shiney.....




don

I know FOR A FACT that the media is lying about most KEY issues. This is a test case. They are testing the waters to see if the sheeple stir. I GUARANDAMNTEE you that this will happen again.
 
Here's an op-ed piece that sorely needs to be read, the rest of the article is at the link:

http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/634733.html

Toward a 'third way' for the children of Eldorado
BY JOHANA SCOT AND RICHARD WEXLER
SPECIAL TO THE STAR-TELEGRAM


AP
Ruth, 34, an FLDS member and mother of four children in state custody, becomes emotional during a news conference outside the Yearning For Zion ranch near Eldorado on April 24. She had been separated from her children earlier in the day.
Most-read stories

Turn out the lights, Hillary
Jerry is happy, but Cowboys may suffer
Bedford elects 19-year-old councilman
Gas royalty checks trickling in
Gil LeBreton: Roy's loss of heart leaves him a misfit with Dallas Cowboys


Most e-mailed stories

A wake-up call for Arlington
The Watchdog: Texans in dark about hospital infections
Gas royalty checks trickling in
Capehart, LeBlanc re-elected in Arlington; at-large seats head to runoff
Fort Worth district looks to recruit teachers in California


During the Vietnam War, an American major surveyed the ruins of a village and explained that "it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." That same "logic" appears to be behind the decision of Texas Child Protective Services to take every child from the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, not only from those accused of abusing them but from their mothers as well.

As often happens when the topic is child abuse, the debate about the fate of the children is polarized. Some argue that the state trampled on religious liberty and should leave the families alone; others support the decision to take all of the children and scatter them across the state.

Neither approach helps children. But there is a third way, and it might be the only way to avoid destroying these children in order to save them.

Everyone knows the allegations about the place the children were taken from. Less is known about the harm of the place they went: foster care. Hard data belie the bromides from CPS about how the children are "doing well."

Our jails, psychiatric centers and homeless shelters are filled with former foster children. A study of foster care "alumni" by Casey Family Programs and Harvard Medical School found they had twice the rate of post-traumatic stress disorder of Persian Gulf War veterans, and only 20 percent are "doing well."

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study compared outcomes for 15,000 children in cases where the decision on removal could have gone either way. That study found that even maltreated children left in their own homes with little or no help fared better, on average, than comparably maltreated children placed in foster care.

The trauma is so great that even Texas' own star witness, child psychiatrist Bruce Perry, warned against separating the youngest children from their mothers. But Texas CPS did it anyway.

These rotten outcomes occur even though most people in the system mean well.

Removal from a parent is so inherently harmful that even good foster care often can't undo the damage. And not all foster care is good. The Casey alumni study found that one-third of foster children said they'd been abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. Many other studies have found similar results, and the record of institutions is even worse.

Although the YFZ Ranch raid is probably the largest mass confiscation of children in U.S. history, and a similar raid on the same sect in 1953 might be the second-largest, the third-largest mass evacuation of children probably took place in Illinois in 2004 -- at a faith-based orphanage housing foster children, a place once touted as a model institution, until news accounts revealed that it was rife with abuse.

As former Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn's "Forgotten Children" reports revealed, the landscape of Texas is dotted with isolated "compounds" where children are at risk of abuse -- but they're some of the very places that the state puts children taken from their parents. Had the people running the ranch in Eldorado really wanted to abuse children, they could have simply called the place a residential treatment center -- and Texas CPS would have looked the other way.

Of course, child abuse is not a feature of every institution. Many try to do the best they can for the children in their care. But more than a century of research has found that, no matter how well-intentioned the staff and how pretty the grounds, the act of institutionalization is itself enormously damaging.

It's been argued that the Eldorado children would fare better because the case is being watched so closely by state and national media. But that attention didn't stop CPS from breaking its promise not to institutionalize the youngest children, or from breaking its promise not to separate siblings.
 

LONEWOLF

Inactive
CPS's is breaking the children down in order to break the cycle of the FLDS Religion. To explode the FLDS and destroy it utterly, these "eggs" are to be broken, and the CPS knows it. So does the "judge", Walther. This is preferable to receiving allegations of "abuse". Sentence has already been passed, there is no need to even prosecute the allegedly abusive males. What a sick & twisted process.
 

Rucus Sunday

Veteran Member
I do see those kids having their views of the rest of society changed because of things like television, books, and influences from other children not of the LDS faith that they now have access to that before they were not allowed.

Very disappointing that somebody on this board (ironically) actually thinks this way.
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
I know FOR A FACT that the media is lying about most KEY issues. This is a test case. They are testing the waters to see if the sheeple stir. I GUARANDAMNTEE you that this will happen again.
A test case to see if the "Sheeple" will allow the state to intercede when children are suspected of being abused? The media testing the waters?

It happens every day in every state of the union.

It happened in Madison Wisconson when the mother and her Bishop had the children praying for a 91 year old dead woman to arise from the toilet where her rotting body had sat for 2 months so she could continue supporting them and the church.

It happened in West Texas when the polygamist cult members decided a doctor was not necessary when their 7 year old girl needed surgery so they cut into her themselves and killed her in the process.

I certainly hope it will happen again everytime a parent decides to have sex with his daughter or take her as his "spirit" bride when she is 10 years old.

Test case? What a crock!




don
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
Sorry old pard; Judge Blackstone's definition of the 5th admendment is that it (The 5th Admendment) is the fighting clause in the Constitution! That no one can determine for a person when they should use their 5th admendment rights!

And being protection against being forced to testify against one's self - ONLY THAT PERSON CAN DECLARE IT!

Well you see old pard the Supreme Court of the United States decided that was not the case.

The highest court in our land decided there must be an "articulated real and appreciable fear" that the testimony "'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him" before a citizen could invoke the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination.

See Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada.

While I do not agree with the SCOTUS interpretation in Hiibel it was their decision and carries the weight of precedence.





don
 

tutu

Inactive
I think they just should have removed all the men rather than the children until it was all investigated and figured out. That would have protected everyone and not traumatized the children.
 

DrJerry

Inactive
I think they just should have removed all the men rather than the children until it was all investigated and figured out. That would have protected everyone and not traumatized the children.

But. . . but. . . that would have made sense! :shr:
 

Zulu Cowboy

Keep It Real...
I think they just should have removed all the men rather than the children until it was all investigated and figured out. That would have protected everyone and not traumatized the children.

All of the men DID agree to a plan like this...in fact, THEY are the one's who proposed it!

- - - - - - - - -
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD901SKJ00

"A church lawyer, Rod Parker, said the 60 or so men remaining on the 1,700-acre ranch have offered to leave the compound if the state would allow the women and children to return to the place with child welfare monitors...(snip)..."
- - - - - - - - -

But it was rejected...

And why??

Because it doesn't line up, with the intended purpose of this raid...(to destroy those families, their religion...and their 'independent lifestyle').

How dare they cordon themselves off from the outside world...educate their children at home...grow their own food...pay for everything in cash...have no TV's...Internet...credit cards...or RFID chips???

They are to be dragged, kicking-and-screaming into 'globalized civil society'...whether they like it or not!

Pockets of resistance, set dangerous examples, and will NOT be tolerated!!!

The 'authorities', are making an example out of them...

And they are walking all over the Constitution, to do it.

The judge in this case, should be impeached for her unconstitutional behavior...and the Texas CPS staff, should be summarily fired! IMHO...

This is a true American tragedy...if you ask me. :shk:

Thanks for the link Micah68, I'm putting it up right now on http://www.YearningForZion.com/

Zulu Cowboy
 
Last edited:

Fulltimer

Inactive
Fulltimer said:

I do see those kids having their views of the rest of society changed because of things like television, books, and influences from other children not of the LDS faith that they now have access to that before they were not allowed.



Very disappointing that somebody on this board (ironically) actually thinks this way.

What way? Realistically?

While the deprogramming efforts of youngsters who had joined cults a few years back had a pretty good chance of working they involved kids who had been brought up in a more mainstream religion and then indoctrinated into a cult later.

For these kids who have multi generational programing implanted it will not be particularly effective unless accompanied by very long term counseling.
The best hope is to plant the seed of their individual right to determine their own destiny and allow the normal rebelliousness of teenagers to do the rest.

An authority figure telling those girls that they do not need to spread their legs for their dad or uncle or grandfather in order to get to Heaven will hopefully begin to break the chain of abuse under which their grandmothers, mothers, and sisters have suffered for these many years.

A child that has been abused is more likely to grow up to be an abuser and it does often take generations to stop the cycle.

My Grandfather and I were plowing the garden one time when he removed his shirt and undershirt and I saw for the first time the massive scarring on his back.

I asked him about it and he told me of growing up on the family farm near Elgin Texas and his dad using a horse whip on all his kids when they misbehaved or made mistakes.

He said the worst whipping he got and the one that left most of the scars was because he had forgotten to latch the gate on the corral when he went in to feed the horses and several ran out. His dad tied his hands to a fence post and whipped him until he passed out.
When he married and had children of his own he got a whip to punish them and his wife told him he would never whip them. He said he never did and he allowed his wife, my grandmother, to take care of all the discipline.

What do you think my Great Grandfather would have said if someone from the state had tried to stop him horse whipping his 8 year old son for having left open the gate?

What do you think would happen today if a father decides to tie his son to a fence post and whip him into unconsciousness?

Society has changed and passed laws restricting what was once thought of as parental rights and for the most part it is a good thing. Children are now considered as citizens with rights that are not to be violated, even by their own parents.


don
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
I think they just should have removed all the men rather than the children until it was all investigated and figured out. That would have protected everyone and not traumatized the children.
Child Protective Srevices cannot remove the parents.

That would be the job of law enforcement.

Besides, the mothers who knew of the abuse and the many who participated in the rape of the children through underage "spirit" marriages were just as guilty and just as much a threat to the well being of the children as the men.


don
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
"The photos showed senseless damage to the homes also. There was no need to kick in and ruin doors and toss the homes as if they were making the biggest drug bust in history. What struck me about the homes in those photos was how clean and neat everything obviously had been before CPS and their Nazi troops turned up."

Interesting point---same thing happened in the Elian Gonzalez case; the Feds made sure to break/destroy every religious image in the house (why?) and generally tore up the place, without need except the need to intimidate the people who lived there.
 

tutu

Inactive
I am all about protecting children. (I have been on a citizen, judge appointed Foster Care Review Board for the past 10 years. ) BUT I feel this could have been done differently in order to protect the children and de-program the mothers in the process. ie. tell the men that they need to remove themselves unless.....(the children are taken by force, whatever) Have extensive investigation and counseling with the mothers. Maybe give them a chance to be with their kids in a supervised setting either at the compound or somewhere else. I think they would have all chosen supervised togetherness as opposed to having the children ripped away. Help them to realize that letting their daughters get owned by these men is illegal and, in fact, child abuse. I am sure some of them are so brainwashed that they know not what in the hell they are doing. I don't know exactly what would be the best, legal way to do it but I don't think ripping the kids out of there was in the best interest of the kids.
 

Micah68

Inactive
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/what-does-texas.html
What does Texas church raid say about us?
Before one applauds the roundup at the ‘FLDS Corral,’ we should first look at what’s taking place in the nation outside the Eldorado compound — where anti-cult stereotypes can cause government to forget about some religions’ pesky First Amendment protections.

By Mary Zeiss Stange


The dust is more or less settling around the largest child custody case in Texas history. DNA samples and fingerprints having duly been taken, the 463 children removed by Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) from Warren Jeffs's Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, near Eldorado, have been trundled off to foster care throughout the state. A few nursing mothers are in group home situations with their infants. The rest of the mothers, for whom supervised visitation with their children is being arranged by CPS, await custody hearings to be held by early June.

Any charges of sexual abuse that ultimately emerge from the ongoing investigation will, of course, deserve the most vigorous prosecution. Meanwhile, the case raises some thorny questions, both about how we as a society regard religious "others," and about the role anti-cult stereotypes play in public decision-making. These questions center on the treatment of those mothers and children.

Legal experts are divided on the legitimacy of what Barbara Walther, the presiding judge in the case, off-handedly referred to as the "cattle call" that removed those mothers and children from their home on April 3. The closed federal warrant authorizing the raid relied heavily on phone calls, subsequently alleged to be a hoax, from 16-year-old "Sarah." Flora Jessop, formerly a member of a Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) community in Utah and now an anti-polygamy activist in Phoenix, had told Texas law enforcement that she had received similar calls from a "Sarah." Arguably, the raid was spurred more by negative stereotypes about FLDS and members' practice of polygamy than by a thorough investigation of evidence.

The Mt. Carmel parallel

It isn't the first time this has happened to a religious group in Texas that diverged from the norm on the issue of plural marriage. The YFZ Ranch raid resembled, in some respects, what happened 15 years ago to David Koresh's Branch Davidians in Waco. Then, as in the FLDS situation, alarmed and alarming reports from disaffected former sect members fueled media "exposs" which, in turn, whipped up popular antagonism.

In 1992, CPS had investigated Mt. Carmel and found no indications of child abuse. Yet the following year, after a 51-day standoff, then-attorney general Janet Reno authorized the "dynamic entry" and use of tear gas against the Davidians out of concern, she said, for the children's welfare. The outcome was lethal: 80 Davidians, including Koresh, died in the resulting conflagration on April 19, 1993. When women didn't escape with their children, the FBI blamed the children's deaths on their mothers' failed "maternal instinct."

A similar dynamic was at work in the raid on YFZ Ranch, although it was, as a spokesperson for the Texas Public Safety Department phrased it, more "diplomatic" than at Waco. "Not a shot was fired."

Appealing to anti-cult stereotypes, Time magazine quoted Eldorado Mayor John Nikolauk's description of the women being herded off the so-called compound looking like "zombies, with no expression in their eyes." This description doesn't square with what we subsequently saw of these women on the evening news. Perhaps their glazed expressions had something to do with being rounded up at gunpoint by SWAT teams, backed up by an armored personnel carrier and K9 dog units.

According to Marci Hamilton of the Cardozo Law School, the raid was justified because "There is nothing in the First Amendment that says that any religious group has the right to exist, no matter what they do."

This is true enough. Criminal prosecution is certainly appropriate when, in the name of religion, a clear violation of the law has occurred — as happened in Jeffs' conviction for facilitating the rape of a minor last year. (Koresh was likely guilty of statutory rape. We will never know for sure.) But the First Amendment does not sanction government repression of religious activities about which no clear harm has yet been proven — quite the contrary, in fact.

The FLDS women maintain that no child abuse occurred, that their relationships are spiritual and modeled on being "clean and pure," that they were at YFZ Ranch by choice. All of this is in line with FLDS's theological claim that it is merely adhering to the original Mormon tenets over which the sect split from the larger church (Latter Day Saints/LDS), when it abandoned polygamy somewhat over a century ago.

However, once again the authorities seem to suspect a failure of maternal instinct. A "tip sheet" issued to CPS workers dealing with the case — one source for which is Carolyn Jessop, who is hawking a book about her "escape" from FLDS — warns, among other things, that FLDS mothers may exhibit "learned and enforced helplessness," and a limited cultural mentality. As to the apparent hoax that spurred the raid, CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner says that once authorities were convinced that abuse had occurred, the phone caller's actual existence became immaterial. "Sarah," Meisner explains, is a metaphor for young women subjected to abuse in the compound. "What we did," Meisner told CNN, "was warranted and in the best interest of the children. This is not about religion — this is about keeping children safe from abuse."

A flurry of press releases from CPS notwithstanding, the precise extent of the alleged abuse nonetheless remains unclear.

What gives me pause

What is clear, however, is that there is no objective justification for brushing off the mothers as a bunch of prairie-style Stepford wives, let alone for leaping to the conclusion that mounting an armed raid to take their children away was indeed proper to do on the strength of a metaphor grounded in a religious stereotype.

The feminist in me cringes at rising to the defense of a group so patently patriarchal as FLDS. But it isn't much of a stretch to defend the religious rights of groups with whom one mostly agrees, is it? I, personally, find the kind of spirituality practiced on the YFZ Ranch deeply troubling. I find the pop-romanticization of polygamy in HBO's Big Love equally problematic.

But, both as a feminist and as a scholar of religion, I also recognize that we as a society can applaud the YFZ raid and its potentially dire consequences for hundreds of women and their children, only if we blind ourselves to some other salient facts:


* Across the USA and across class, race, ethnic and religious divides, adolescent girls are becoming more sexually active, at ever-earlier ages. A recently released government study found that one in four teenage girls in this country has a sexually transmitted infection.


* Monogamy may be our societal "ideal," but given the American divorce rate, "serial polygamy" is closer to the norm — often culminating in precisely the pattern practiced by FLDS, whereby the older a man gets, the younger his newest wife is, the pattern originally advocated by Joseph Smith.


* Historians acknowledge a pragmatic link between the revelation that led the Mormon Church to renounce polygamy, and Utah statehood. On this ground, in religious terms, FLDS members are as legitimate in claiming to be "true" followers of Joseph Smith as are, say, those traditionalist Catholics who reject the authority of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.


* Gay marriage advocates have long pointed to parallels between anti-gay marriage and anti-polygamy laws: Both offer privileges to heterosexual monogamy.


* Meanwhile, polygamy and/or adolescent sexual intercourse are socially and religiously sanctioned in a variety of cultural contexts around the world, for example, in some Islamic communities, among the Maasai of Africa and in Papua New Guinea.

Maybe, rather than focusing on the family arrangements of an isolated Texas religious sect, we should be asking ourselves what was wrong with this picture: Even as CPS was herding the last of the FLDS girls off to distant foster care facilities late last month, American Internet users were so eager to see Annie Liebovitz's revealing Vanity Fair photos of 15-year-old Miley Cyrus that the magazine's website crashed.

Mary Zeiss Stange is a professor of Women's Studies and Religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., and a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
 

shadowboxer

Contributing Member
Well you see old pard the Supreme Court of the United States decided that was not the case.

The highest court in our land decided there must be an "articulated real and appreciable fear" that the testimony "'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him" before a citizen could invoke the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination.

See Hiibel v 6th Judicial District Court of Nevada.

While I do not agree with the SCOTUS interpretation in Hiibel it was their decision and carries the weight of precedence.





don


Hiibel was about a stop and identify law that Nevada passed. It allowed a stop to identify and question where a person is going but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by a police officer. So stop misquoting the ruling.The narrow requirements of Nevada's stop-and-identify law meant that it did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. "In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment." Thats the majority opinion quote so your way of base. There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop. Hiibel merely established that states and localities have the right to pass laws requiring people to identify themselves under those conditions. A name is all thats required under most states stop and identify law just verbally given without the need for ID. Texas to my knowledge has no such law.http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol40_1/calland.php A link for those who want a source that has more backing than us laymen.
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
Hiibel was about a stop and identify law that Nevada passed. It allowed a stop to identify and question where a person is going but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by a police officer. So stop misquoting the ruling.The narrow requirements of Nevada's stop-and-identify law meant that it did not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. "In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment." Thats the majority opinion quote so your way of base. There is no federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop. Hiibel merely established that states and localities have the right to pass laws requiring people to identify themselves under those conditions. A name is all thats required under most states stop and identify law just verbally given without the need for ID. Texas to my knowledge has no such law.http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol40_1/calland.php A link for those who want a source that has more backing than us laymen.

Well, that does cover the 4th Amendment arguments but as we see in the dissenting arguments there are 5th Amendment protections at stake in Hiibel as well:
Justice Stevens' dissent harshly criticized the Court's Fifth Amendment analysis, arguing that a detainee's broad right to remain silent in the face of police questioning allows no exceptions, no matter how narrow.[56] According to Justice Stevens, the Fifth Amendment's guarantees extend specifically and equally to all individuals who are targets of criminal investigations and prosecutions, including those persons detained and interrogated on the basis of reasonable suspicion.[57] After declaring that the communication mandated by the Nevada stop and identify statute is "clearly testimonial,"[58] Justice Stevens condemned the majority opinion's assumption that revealing a name will not ordinarily prove incriminating or lead to incriminating evidence.[59] If the majority opinion's assumption were correct, Justice Stevens maintained, then the Nevada stop and identify statute would entail "nothing more than a useless invasion of privacy."[60] Instead, Justice Stevens reasoned, "the very existence of the statute demonstrates the value of the information it demands," and knowledge of an individual's identity often unlocks a considerable assortment of incriminating facts.[61] Consequently, Justice Stevens concluded that Hiibel's silence was fully protected by the Fifth Amendment.

Justice Breyer's dissent,[62] on the other hand, focused mostly on the wealth of Court dicta that either presupposed or clearly stated that laws could not compel detainees to answer the questions of police during a Terry stop.[63] Since this rule "is the kind of strong dicta that the legal community typically takes as a statement of the law,"[64] Justice Breyer argued that


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Top of Page 257 ***

the Court should not needlessly or haphazardly disturb it, especially without evidence that the rule has significantly impeded successful law enforcement.[65] Justice Breyer also contended that the Court cannot draw a principled line between forcing a detainee to reveal his name and demanding that he also divulge his address, driver's license number, or other personal information.[66] In fact, Justice Breyer noted, since the majority opinion acknowledged that compelling detainee disclosures may run afoul of the Fifth Amendment in some special instances, a police officer in the midst of a Terry stop has no way to determine whether or not the disclosures he is eliciting are legitimate.[67] Consequently, Justice Breyer concluded, the Court's unjustified alteration of a well-established rule is both historically and administratively undesirable.


Justices Breyer and Stevens noted that there was a well established rule in interpretation of the 5th Amendment that was being changed.
In Justice Kennedy's majority opinion we see what the SCOTUS now considers the rule on self incrimination.
Finally, Justice Kennedy rejected Hiibel's contention that the Nevada stop and identify statute infringed upon his Fifth Amendment privilege against forced self-incrimination.[47] To be eligible for Fifth Amendment protection, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.[48] Because conveying a name may qualify as a factual assertion, Justice Kennedy refused to decide that the disclosures required by the Nevada stop and identify statute were not testimonial.[49] However, Justice Kennedy held that, at least in Hiibel's case, revealing his name presented no reasonable threat of self-incrimination.[50] Hiibel declined to divulge his name not because of any "real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him,"[51] or because he worried that his name "'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute' him,"[52] but because he believed that "his name was none of the officer's business."



don
 
Last edited:

shadowboxer

Contributing Member
It was a states rights ruling as outlined in Harvard law school constitutional law review. It only affects the rights of citizens whose states pass those stop and identify laws. Texas does not have a stop and identify law. You are cut and pasting wiki about this so go to the link I provided and show me where it says it has force in states that have no Stop and Identify. You cannot because the majority decision clearly regulates this ruling to a narrow state stop and identify law only. Quoting minority dissenting opinions does not make it so. Kennedy's majority opinion strictly defined it as a narrow decision to uphold the rights of states to have stop and Identify laws.
 

shadowboxer

Contributing Member
Brown v. Texas would be more intune as it was about a stop and identify law that comes into affect after a detention. Yet you will not sight it as it was struck down as calling for an id after an unlawful detention. "the Court declared that a Texas stop and identify statute that authorized an officer to demand a detainee's name, even when the initial detention was not supported by specific and objective evidence of the detainee's wrongdoing, created an impermissibly significant risk of "arbitrary and abusive police practices." Struck down by Supreme Court and never reintroduced by Texas in a similar form.
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
It was a states rights ruling as outlined in Harvard law school constitutional law review. It only affects the rights of citizens whose states pass those stop and identify laws. Texas does not have a stop and identify law. You are cut and pasting wiki about this so go to the link I provided and show me where it says it has force in states that have no Stop and Identify. You cannot because the majority decision clearly regulates this ruling to a narrow state stop and identify law only. Quoting minority dissenting opinions does not make it so. Kennedy's majority opinion strictly defined it as a narrow decision to uphold the rights of states to have stop and Identify laws.

I was cutting and pasting from your link and I'm not really concerned (at least in this discussion) of the stop and identify or as I like to call it "Papers Please" demand for identification, but for the definition of the 5th amendment protections.

It demonstrates what the majority of the SCOTUS now consider as necessary for a person to claim 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination when they are speaking to a police officer.

Kennedy said it must be "testimonial, incriminating, and compelled".

So the 5th only protects a person from being forced to testify if he is guilty of a crime or the testimony would lead to evidence that would incriminate him.

That is why in the case of Ollie North when testifing before Congress he invoked the 5th and then was given immunity from prosecution and was compelled to testify.

A person cannot invoke the 5th unless he feels he is guilty of a crime.


don
 

shadowboxer

Contributing Member
Your Fifth Amendment arguement is lacking as in Kennedy's own words, the decision was about Hiibels case alone. Cut and paste from Harvard law review

[Finally, Justice Kennedy rejected Hiibel's contention that the Nevada stop and identify statute infringed upon his Fifth Amendment privilege against forced self-incrimination.[47] To be eligible for Fifth Amendment protection, a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.[48] Because conveying a name may qualify as a factual assertion, Justice Kennedy refused to decide that the disclosures required by the Nevada stop and identify statute were not testimonial.[49] However, Justice Kennedy held that, at least in Hiibel's case, revealing his name presented no reasonable threat of self-incrimination.[50] Hiibel declined to divulge his name not because of any "real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him,"[51] or because he worried that his name "'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute' him,"[52] but because he believed that "his name was none of the officer's business."[53] Furthermore, Justice Kennedy emphasized that, because the Nevada stop and identify statute is narrowly drawn and only forces a detainee to state his name, an essentially "universal characteristic," it will elicit a self-incriminating response only in extraordinary circumstances.[54] If those circumstances ever arise, Justice Kennedy added, then the Court can consider the appropriate remedy.[55]]

This pretty much smashes your Fifth Amendment call as Kennedy refused to say it was not testimonial but rather that Nevada law intervenes requiring it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was cutting and pasting from your link and I'm not really concerned (at least in this discussion) of the stop and identify or as I like to call it "Papers Please" demand for identification, but for the definition of the 5th amendment protections.

It demonstrates what the majority of the SCOTUS now consider as necessary for a person to claim 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination when they are speaking to a police officer.

Kennedy said it must be "testimonial, incriminating, and compelled".

So the 5th only protects a person from being forced to testify if he is guilty of a crime or the testimony would lead to evidence that would incriminate him.

That is why in the case of Ollie North when testifing before Congress he invoked the 5th and then was given immunity from prosecution and was compelled to testify.

A person cannot invoke the 5th unless he feels he is guilty of a crime.


don

A American Citizen can "Invoke" the FGifith Admendment at any time they feel it nessary! They and only they can 'determine' if what they say may be held against them in a court of law...."Git yurself a lawyer - before you say one word to an LEO.. Because anything you say, can, and will be used against you in a court of law...
 

shadowboxer

Contributing Member
We see that in Kennedy's own words it has no bearing outside of Nevada's stop and identify law. He is quoted as saying that his limiting the scope of this ruling to Nevada's law was necessary to carry the day. In other words it was a ruling on an individual state statute not a setting of precedent. We see that in Texas,s case the Court struck down their attempt at a Stop and Identify law.
 

Fulltimer

Inactive
A American Citizen can "Invoke" the FGifith Admendment at any time they feel it nessary! They and only they can 'determine' if what they say may be held against them in a court of law...."Git yurself a lawyer - before you say one word to an LEO.. Because anything you say, can, and will be used against you in a court of law...
If it were only so.

The problem is as a citizen we must now rely on after the fact determinations on whether we are correct and have the right to remain silent.

The CATO institute submitted an Amicus Brief on behalf of Larry Hiibel before the Supreme Court that laid out the privacy and 5th Amendment concerns very well. It is well worth a read before you refuse to answer a police officer's questions and try to use the 5th as protection.

http://www.abditum.com/hiibel/pdf/cato_amicus.pdf

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1
The Cato Institute was established in 1977 as a nonpartisan
public policy research foundation dedicated to
advancing the principles of individual liberty, free markets,
and limited government. Cato’s Center for Constitutional
Studies was established in 1989 to help restore
limited constitutional government and secure those
constitutional rights, both enumerated and unenumerated,
that are the foundation of individual liberty. Toward
those ends, the Center publishes books and studies,
conducts conferences and forums, publishes the annual
Cato Supreme Court Review, and files amicus curiae briefs
with the courts. Because the instant case raises vital
questions about the power of government to stop individuals
who do not wish to be stopped and to demand answers
from individuals who do not wish to speak, the case is of
central concern to Cato and the Center.




don
 
Last edited:
Top