FLDS mother wins court victory...a small one, though

Micah68 · May 17, 2008

FLDS mother victorious in court

60-day status hearings on children start Monday

[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial]By Ben Winslow[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,Arial]Deseret News[/FONT]
Published: May 17, 2008
SAN ANGELO, Texas — Pamela Jeffs Jessop's eyes sparkled and she smiled as she walked out of the Tom Green County Courthouse Friday.
"I love to be with my children," she said meekly.
The 18-year-old has secured a few more rights over her newborn baby than other members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church have over their children, her attorneys said Friday.
Jessop was in court for a hearing over the custody of her baby boy, born April 29. It was to be an adversarial hearing, where Texas child welfare officials entered evidence of abuse and sought to retain sole custody of her baby.
"We have reached an agreement," said Eric Tai, a lawyer for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. He announced in court, "The department will be a temporary conservator of baby boy Jeffs. Since the mom is under 21, she will be placed with both of her children in a place to be determined."
Jessop also was named a possessor and a conservator over her child, said her attorney, Natalie Malonis.
"It's a rather large victory," Malonis said Friday. "A possessor and a conservator under the family code has certain rights that, as far as I know, none of the other (FLDS) parents are enjoying right now. She has rights to information and rights to participate in the child's life — and those are enforceable rights."
But Jessop's battle to win custody of her two children is just beginning. As she sat in court, she was served with papers by a constable, notifying her of the upcoming status hearings for her children.
Texas Child Protective Services workers were expected to file family service plans in court late Friday, outlining what parents must do to be reunited with their children.
"The judges will be looking at the plans of service. There will be discussion regarding what the agency and parents are trying to do together in an attempt to have the children safely returned to the parents' care at some point," said Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the government agency.
The hearings, which will involve five judges and nearly all of the time for courthouse employees, are scheduled to begin Monday. Texas child welfare authorities have 464 children in state custody from the raid on the FLDS Church's YFZ Ranch. The children currently are being housed in foster-care facilities scattered across the state.
The raid began April 3 when someone claiming to be a 16-year-old girl called a family crisis shelter hotline here and said she was pregnant and in an abusive polygamous marriage to a 49-year-old man. When authorities responded, they said they found evidence of other abuse, although the person who made the call was not identified.
That led a judge to order the removal of all of the children from the ranch. Authorities are still investigating if the original call was a hoax.
In family service plans obtained by the Deseret News, Texas CPS officials allege there is a culture on the YFZ Ranch where girls grow up to become child brides, and boys grow up to become sexual perpetrators.
Judge Barbara Walther on Friday presented a new concern for attorneys to wrangle over as they prepare for the hearings. She worried about lawyers representing children — even those no longer deemed to be children — and adults within the FLDS community at the same time, which could potentially raise conflict-of-interest issues.
"If you have one, you can't have the other," the judge said, citing Texas court rulings about attorney conflicts.
With such deeply intertwined families coming from a communal-style living environment, the attorneys realized the potential problems as the custody case moves forward. One attorney told the judge it could pose a significant problem for the entire case.
Mary Golder, appointed to represent five FLDS children in state custody, said she has worked hard to build relationships with her clients.
"These people do not trust us on a good day and to have to find somebody else ...," she told the judge. "I'm the 'evil gentile.' I'm used to being called that."
At the same time she presented the problem, Judge Walther seemed to have found the solution. She left the bench while attorneys huddled over the proposed solution.
"The guardian ad litems are willing to waive a conflict with the understanding that if problems arise, they will be addressed," said Debra Brown, the court-appointed Special Advocate in the case. "We will ask attorneys not to represent mothers and their children or adults and their sister wives in one family unit."
Hundreds of lawyers have volunteered their time to represent the FLDS mothers and children.
"Ideally in any case, you want a different lawyer for everybody," said Golder. "This is just such a unique case all the way around."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/1,5620,700226749,00.html?printView=true

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

So, the Constitution is still the law of the land and those folks are getting Due Process after all.

Does this mean all the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the mouth, hysteria about the end of our freedom and liberty and the State of Texas seeking to destroy all non mainstream religions is over?

don

Micah68 · May 17, 2008

Wrong.

ONE mother got one small victory. Her children are still being deprived of their liberty and pursuit of happiness with no evidence of abuse whatsoever...as are all the rest of the church.

What she won was the right to information about her children and the right to participate in their lives..something it clearly states all the other mothers do not have....rights that should never have been taken without proof and due process.

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

Micah68 said:
Wrong.

ONE mother got one small victory. Her children are still being deprived of their liberty and pursuit of happiness with no evidence of abuse whatsoever...as are all the rest of the church.

What she won was the right to information about her children and the right to participate in their lives..something it clearly states all the other mothers do not have....rights that should never have been taken without proof and due process.

Ahh

Then let the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the mouth, hysteria continue then

don

fruit loop · May 17, 2008

Yes, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

These folks should never have had their kids seized in the first place.

AND! They can still lose their children. Are you not reading other threads? Adoption agencies around Texas are poised ready to swoop in and seize those little commodities.

People untouched by adoption don't realize what a huge INDUSTRY it is. They claim to be non-profit, but that is utterly false. Adoption is BIG MONEY. Fees for a healthy infant AVERAGE around twenty thousand dollars! To adopt a child under ten is around 14 grand!

The agencies claim these fees are for "the birthmother's medical expenses" which is also false. They take those girls to the Texas Department of Human Services to file for Medicaid, and many of the birthmoms in fact have private health insurance. Prenatal care doesn't cost the agencies one dime.

The birthmother gets NOTHING. She cannot be paid anything, because that would constitute "baby selling" and is illegal under Texas law. Even her living expenses cannot be covered unless she is living in "foster care" on agency grounds. (And the Gladney Agency requires that they work while living at its agency).

So where does that 20 grand go? To the agency for "processing fees" and "social worker fees" and attorney fees. Some agencies employ their own attorneys on staff, which means they are getting a commission for each adoption. In the meantime the agency is also getting contributions from donors and federal money grants for facilitating adoptions.

The increased abortion rates and percentages of unwed mothers who keep their babies are NOT the only reason for long agency waiting lists. Many couples just can't afford adoption, and others mortgage homes or take out loans to cover the expense.

Adoption is big business in Texas, and only the very rich can afford to purchase children. The birthmothers lose out entirely...they're only the babymaking machine.

Sooth · May 17, 2008

Authorities are still investigating if the original call was a hoax.

Clearly “The Authorities” are not investigating a thing. The caller has been identified. The caller was a mentally disturbed woman from Colorado. Both “The Authorities” and Carolyn Jessup have voice tapes of the caller. Pretty easy to compare. Even in Texas.

Then we come to the part where the State will determine where mom and her children will be placed because she is under 21. I wonder if this should apply to the three other mothers who are under age 21 in Texas.

"The department will be a temporary conservator of baby boy Jeffs. Since the mom is under 21, she will be placed with both of her children in a place to be determined."

Then we come to the part where the mother gets a “rather large victory” according to her attorney. Mom now has “enforceable rights”. Mom has rights to information and the “right” to participate in the child’s life. Gosh. Mom can “participate” in the child’s life. Participate. Given that CPS will be the temporary conservator of baby boy Jeffs and will be in charge, this sounds like visitation rights for mom if that.

Jessop also was named a possessor and a conservator over her child, said her attorney, Natalie Malonis.
"It's a rather large victory," Malonis said Friday. "A possessor and a conservator under the family code has certain rights that, as far as I know, none of the other (FLDS) parents are enjoying right now. She has rights to information and rights to participate in the child's life — and those are enforceable rights."

Texas child welfare authorities have 464 children in state custody.

The State of Texas has kidnapped and falsely imprisoned 464 children. That much is rather clear.

Coming to a neighborhood or home near yours soon. Think it can’t happen to you? Did you know that home schooling is now illegal in California.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721703,00.html
On Feb. 28,the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles released a ruling that all children must be taught only by credentialed teachers. O'Connell's opinion makes it clear nothing will change right now — at least while the child abuse case that resulted in the ruling is pending appeal to the state Supreme Court.

And how many other laws are you breaking in your state? Not that “The State” needs a reason.

Sooth

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

fruit loop said:
Yes, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

These folks should never have had their kids seized in the first place.

AND! They can still lose their children. Are you not reading other threads? Adoption agencies around Texas are poised ready to swoop in and seize those little commodities.

No, I am not reading all the wild eyed rants. When there is actually something new I do read it but for the most part it has been simply the same old B/S spouted over and over and over.

As far as the adoption angle I would think these at risk children would not be the prime candidates for the very rich to "purchase".

With the rampant inbreeding between these two families and the genetic diseases that gives rise to I would think the "Very Rich" would be looking elsewhere.

don

Teeja · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer said:
Ahh

Then let the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the mouth, hysteria continue then

don

Yes, no doubt you will continue to post on threads like this, Don.

fruit loop · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer, the adopters won't know where the kids came from, unless they get the older kids who are old enough to tell them.

NO IDENTIFYING INFORMATION CAN BE EXCHANGED BETWEEN BIRTH AND ADOPTIVE FAMILIES, OR GIVEN OUT BY FACILITATORS OF ADOPTIONS BY LAW.

This includes the so-called "open" adoptions. Yes, the mom and parents can meet....but a social worker MUST be present to ensure that no identifying information is exchanged, such as last names, phone numbers, or addresses. This is law, even if both the parties want it otherwise. Those "letters and photo exchanges" that can be done through the years must be done through an intermediary. (Adopters send the photos/letters to a social worker, who then forwards them to birthparent).

The adopters will be provided with unidentifying background information and a health history, if known, on the child and his birth family. It is not unusual for the adopters to be told that all this is unknown, or even to be given a history that is falsified. Ask Jane, another TB2K member, what happened with her adopted children; she was given a health history that was completely fabricated and the social workers later admitted that they had lied in order to place the child. She was told that there was no history of either mental illness or behavior problems with the child and his parents (false).

The adopters won't know where the child came from. They likely won't care; they're too thrilled to finally have a placement and their dreams of a family fulfilled. They'll be baffled when their child reacts with hostility or rejects them.

So you'll end up with adoptive parents who may be victimized as well, by the system.

Mzkitty · May 17, 2008

Last night, on 20/20, they did a segment on the 14 year old girl forced to marry her first cousin, and the story of what sent Jeffs to the slammer.

You can't tell me that stuff still isn't going on to this day.

:dvl2:

breezyhill · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer said:
So, the Constitution is still the law of the land and those folks are getting Due Process after all.

Does this mean all the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the mouth, hysteria about the end of our freedom and liberty and the State of Texas seeking to destroy all non mainstream religions is over?
don

don, I sure hope so.
breezyhill

oops · May 17, 2008

ok...I've missed something in all the legal shenanigans in this mess...why the 21 yr age stipulation on this woman?...

Sooth · May 17, 2008

fruit loop said:
Adoption is big business in Texas, <snip>

What I picked up from another related thread stated that Baptist Family and Child Services is a contracting nonprofit agency.

What clicked when I read this was the televised reports showing the Baptist buses and the Baptist church transporting transporting all those kids off the FLDS compound, housing them and transporting them to foster homes across the state.

A contracting nonprofit.

I had assumed on seeing this that this was being done out of the goodness of their Christian hearts. Now it comes out that they are contracted by CPS or the State of Texas.

Fruit Loop, you seem to have knowledge of the workings in those parts. Would appreciate any light you could shed on this.

Sooth

fruit loop · May 17, 2008

Sooth, read the post above.

All adoption agencies are "non-profit" on paper, because if they weren't, they'd be involved in baby-selling, which is illegal.

They get around this by charging exorbitant fees for home visits, applications, legal fees, (supposedly) birthparent medical expenses (in reality these are paid by medicaid), legal fees, and such.

They can collect charitable contributions from donors as "non-profits" plus they get federal grants for facilitating adoptions from foster care.

Some kids in the Baptist system aren't free for adoption.....lots of girls are placed there by their parents for being "wayward", or by the state into foster care. I know the ones in the Austin area live in a system of cottages at one site, with houseparents. The state collects child support from some of the foster kids' parents to pay for their care, plus foster parents are paid a stipend by the state for support. And, again, federal money is involved.

fruit loop · May 17, 2008

mzkitty, if you read Carolyn Jessop's own book, you'll find that the weirdness started with Warren Jeffs and his father, Rulon Jeffs.

Prior to this era, she admits that girls were free to pick their husbands and the average age for marriage was in the 20s, as normal society,and that sect members lived pretty normal lives, with tv sets and secular music and such.

Rulon Jeffs was a pervert, and became borderline senile after he had a stroke. It was he who began the forced marriages and the child marriages. Warren Jeffs carried this on as well as cracking down on what colors sect members could wear, banning CD players and certain toys, video games, etc. He also required that girls be entered into his registry and decided who and when people married.

Sooth · May 17, 2008

fruit loop said:
Sooth, read the post above.

All adoption agencies are "non-profit" on paper, because if they weren't, they'd be involved in baby-selling, which is illegal.

They get around this by charging exorbitant fees for home visits, applications, legal fees, (supposedly) birthparent medical expenses (in reality these are paid by medicaid), legal fees, and such.

They can collect charitable contributions from donors as "non-profits" plus they get federal grants for facilitating adoptions from foster care.

Thanks. Read again with better understanding. Quite a racket. Quite a shame. Doing the work that American Mothers and Fathers won't do (or so they would have us believe) with the full complicity of the courts. Why does it always have to devolve to follow the money? And the kids lose once again.

Sooth

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

fruit loop said:
All adoption agencies are "non-profit" on paper, because if they weren't, they'd be involved in baby-selling, which is illegal.

They get around this by charging exorbitant fees for home visits, applications, legal fees, (supposedly) birthparent medical expenses (in reality these are paid by medicaid), legal fees, and such.

They can collect charitable contributions from donors as "non-profits" plus they get federal grants for facilitating adoptions from foster care.

But...when I argued against GW Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" I was called an atheist and Anti Christan.

With those Fed Gov dollars comes Fed Gov control. It is a double edged sword. While the church can use those grants to expand their influence they are then forced to preach to the agenda of whoever happens to be in control of that government.

don

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

oops said:
ok...I've missed something in all the legal shenanigans in this mess...why the 21 yr age stipulation on this woman?...

There's a good question.

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

oh wait, I seem to recall there being some provision for keeping young adults in protective custody or fostering through age 21. You'd turn 18 and have no where to go with nothing.

That's how they are allowing her to stay with her kids while they remain in custody.

Adding this:

Jessop was in court for a hearing over the custody of her baby boy, born April 29. It was to be an adversarial hearing, where Texas child welfare officials entered evidence of abuse and sought to retain sole custody of her baby.

What does that mean? There was abuse or there wasn't or it isn't that black and white on an individual basis because the Judge is considering the practices of the group?

Dennis Olson · May 17, 2008

I've said before that CPS has no intention of giving those children back to their mothers, EVER. They will do whatever it takes to keep them.

And FT, I think you need to go back in the closet and beat off to the picture of the teenie-bopper (over 18 of course!) you must have taped to the wall. Your own psycho-sexual issues are becoming ever-more evident as you continue posting about this debacle.

JMHO - YMMV

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

Dennis Olson said:
I've said before that CPS has no intention of giving those children back to their mothers, EVER. They will do whatever it takes to keep them.

And FT, I think you need to go back in the closet and beat off to the picture of the teenie-bopper (over 18 of course!) you must have taped to the wall. Your own psycho-sexual issues are becoming ever-more evident as you continue posting about this debacle.

JMHO - YMMV

ok, I'll go there, well part way there, I can't get a visual on FT in the closet, sigh!

If the whole point of going into the FLDS compound was to break up the group and save the children from the polygamist lifestyle they are being raised in, or sell them to the highest bidder, and CPS believes that lifestyle is abusive, and the Judge overseeing the process believes the lifestyle is abusive and grants all their requests -- when and how is there a challenge to the ongoing civil process that would result in anything other than eventual adoption, knowing that polygamy remains illegal?

oops · May 17, 2008

thx saz...that makes more sense...

as for the quote you pulled ...who knows...but I seriously doubt the court is attempting to claim the baby has been subject to abuse...cause if so...then they have only two choices...it was abused in their custody/under their supervision...or it lends more credence to this being solely based on group belief...or did I miss a choice in sifting this one?...

Dennis Olson · May 17, 2008

Sassy, the issue all along for those of us that believe in the Constitution, is that the ENTIRE series of events was either deliberately staged by TPTB, or at the VERY LEAST triggered by a HOAX phone call. All subsequent activities by TPTB are, IMO, completely illegal and unconstitutional. One CANNOT have "legal proceedings" spring from ILLEGAL ACTIVITY on the part of TPTB.

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

Nope oops,

I don't think you missed a choice.

Pretty much, the young mother is free to go but she can't take her kids with her, and she can stay with her kids, but it's not at the Ranch and the father can't be with her.

I think that will pretty much be the case for the others finding themselves in this situation and within this age group, because with young children you can't really make a case that as a mother you did nothing to stop them from being abused.

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

Dennis Olson said:
Sassy, the issue all along for those of us that believe in the Constitution, is that the ENTIRE series of events was either deliberately staged by TPTB, or at the VERY LEAST triggered by a HOAX phone call. All subsequent activities by TPTB are, IMO, completely illegal and unconstitutional. One CANNOT have "legal proceedings" spring from ILLEGAL ACTIVITY on the part of TPTB.

Nodding Dennis, I understand that, so if that's indeed the case, how do you stop it or reverse it, since there are two processes going on, the civil and the criminal?

Dennis Olson · May 17, 2008

I have no answers. And as I've said on earlier threads, THANK GOD that I'm not an officer of the court involved with this case. I'm just outraged at the way this entire debacle has gone down. This was essentially Waco without gunfire. While I am pretty much certain that there was SOME degree of underage sexual activity, and that SOME of the men are guilty of it, THOSE MEN need to be jailed and prosecuted. Not almost 500 children ripped from their mothers FOREVER while the men walk away.

The entire thing shows as much foresight and competence as Bush's Iraq war.

:kk1:

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

Dennis Olson said:
I have no answers. And as I've said on earlier threads, THANK GOD that I'm not an officer of the court involved with this case. I'm just outraged at the way this entire debacle has gone down. This was essentially Waco without gunfire. While I am pretty much certain that there was SOME degree of underage sexual activity, and that SOME of the men are guilty of it, THOSE MEN need to be jailed and prosecuted. Not almost 500 children ripped from their mothers FOREVER while the men walk away.

The entire thing shows as much foresight and competence as Bush's Iraq war.

Dennis,

THAT is why I think CPS is structured the way it is and has the authorities that it does, whether any of us like it or not, I don't think anyone answers their door and says oh goody, CPS is here, I'll fix some coffee!

The men would require different standards of evidence and proof to charge with anything and prosecute, in the meantime, absent a witness or someone willing to testify, the children would remain in the abusive environment and continue to be abused.

You can't get it in this setting without stomping on their Constitutional rights and due process -- enter CPS and their mandates, which have nothing to do with the men, only the children and protecting them, and the standards of evidence and burdens of proof are less.

It may well be a side-stepping, I'm not saying that it isn't, but we all have those same rights, mothers/fathers/children and our kids aren't property.

Everything else aside, CPS is going to have to produce some underage teenage mothers and they are going to need the ages of the fathers to show sexual indecency, absent that, interviews revealing that the girls believe any age is ok to be given/appointed in marriage falls apart, that only leaves polygamy itself for CPS to base its mass removal on.

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

Dennis Olson said:
I've said before that CPS has no intention of giving those children back to their mothers, EVER. They will do whatever it takes to keep them.

And FT, I think you need to go back in the closet and beat off to the picture of the teenie-bopper (over 18 of course!) you must have taped to the wall. Your own psycho-sexual issues are becoming ever-more evident as you continue posting about this debacle.

JMHO - YMMV

Well, Dennis I am not the one defending the child molesters and argueing the children must be returned to the father's control until the situation is sorted out.

So, how old is that girl in the picture in your closet?

While I am pretty much certain that there was SOME degree of underage sexual activity, and that SOME of the men are guilty of it, THOSE MEN need to be jailed and prosecuted. Not almost 500 children ripped from their mothers FOREVER while the men walk away.

I consider the mothers who allowed this type of abuse to continue being visited upon their daughters just as despicible as those so called men.

don

Teeja · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer said:
Well, Dennis I am not the one defending the child molesters

Don, the misleading accusation that we are "defending child molesters" is getting a bit old...

As a general rule, if you're trying to be funny or cute by spouting B.S., you don't keep shouting the exact same B.S. time and time again in all these FLDS threads...

Can't you come up with something a bit more creative? :shr:

The cuteness of your ignorance wore off about 8 FLDS threads ago.

:rolleyes:

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

Here's this, it gives some updated information and additional details, as well as clues to where the state is heading:

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=9295315&siteId=297

Hearings begin Monday
Attorneys want FLDS children treated as individuals in court
Texas officials claim sect supports systemic abuse

By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune

Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:05/17/2008 04:50:07 PM MDT

Posted: 3:49 PM- Cases for seven children from one family, five from another and at least two fathered by polygamous sect leader Warren S. Jeffs are among those set for court Monday as the next phase begins in the largest child welfare action in United States history.

In all, attorneys for at least 35 children or their parents will converge on the Tom Green County Courthouse in San Angelo, Texas, for the first day of mandatory status hearings that continue through June 4.

Judge Barbara Walther, who in mid-April ordered the state to take custody of some 463 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has enlisted four other judges to help handle what are supposed to be routine updates.

However, attorneys frustrated by Walther's decision to treat the children as a group in April and later refusal to hear individual motions for their clients say they will make those arguments now at the status hearings.

"If individual children were wrongfully swept up in this raid because they have been neither abused nor neglected, the ongoing injustice to them is an unnecessary and indescribable tragedy," said Polly R. O'Toole, a Dallas attorney who represents one child.

"Systemic abuse."

Some attorneys are outraged by identical family service plans crafted by Texas Child Protective Services for each child.

"They are still relying on the 'one household' theory," objects Laura Shockley, a Dallas attorney who represents a minor of disputed age and several other children.

The plans describe physical, sexual and emotional abuse the state says children taken from the sect's YFZ Ranch experienced.

That evidence: a "large number" of girls ages 14 to 17 who have children or are pregnant; "several" instances of broken bones that are suspicious for physical abuse or neglect; "possible" sexual abuse of young boys; apparent exclusion of older boys from the ranch; a "pattern of deception" in disclosing family relationships; and concerns about the children's homeschooling.

The department has said that 31 of 53 girls ages 14 to 17 are pregnant or mothers but has not released specifics. The group includes five teenagers and 26 women whose ages are in dispute -- two of whom the state now agrees are adults.

Pamela Jessop, who gave birth April 29 to her second child, was listed as "15 or 16" in a May filing related to taking custody of her newborn. A different document, filed in April, had said she was 18, as officials now acknowledge.

They also agree Louisa Jessop, who gave birth last Monday to her third child, is 22years old.

Both women are in monogamous marriages and their attorneys say none of the state's allegations fit their situations.

But the state, as laid out in the service plans, maintains that the couples and other FLDS parents "have chosen to be members of a community that appears to support systemic abuse of children." And CPS workers have the backing of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who praised them last week for handling the complex case "professionally and compassionately."

Fighting for individual treatment.

The plans lay out a year-long process for being reunited with their children, identifying dozens of issues the parents must address. The plans warn that failure to cooperate could result in their children being placed in permanent state custody or put up for adoption.

Rene Haas, a Corpus Christi attorney and former district judge, said nothing in the en masse hearing before Walther or in the allegations laid out in the service plans pertains to her clients, Joseph and Lori Jessop, ages 27 and 25. They are the monogamous parents of three children ages 1 to 4.

"In this situation we don't have any immediate harm to the little children but they were taken anyway," Haas said, criticizing the mass removal of children.

"There were ways to effect change in this organization that did not include harming these children," Haas said.

Haas is among the attorneys who have had success getting some concessions from judges outside of Tom Green County. She was able, for example, to get daily visits for the couple with their children and to bar the state from separating Lori from her youngest son, who turned 1 on Thursday and is still nursing.

Walther had ordered that mothers could stay with nursing children only if they were younger than 12 months.

No quick homecoming.

While some attorneys plan to mount challenges during the status hearings, they concede chances any children now in group homes and shelters across Texas will be returned to their parents is unlikely.

"Anybody that has that hope is dreaming a good dream," Shockley said.

She said some disputed minors have been questioned during the past week by CPS and Texas Rangers without approval of their attorneys. The questions appeared aimed at building criminal cases and centered on ages and relationships among household members, she said.

"It is an absolute constitutional atrocity," she said.

She also believes the questioning is perhaps as a prelude to classifying more of the girls as adults or "aged out" foster care placements.

brooke@sltrib.com

The Flying Dutchman · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer said:
So, the Constitution is still the law of the land and those folks are getting Due Process after all.

Does this mean all the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the mouth, hysteria about the end of our freedom and liberty and the State of Texas seeking to destroy all non mainstream religions is over?

don

"In you fondest dreams FT! This has only begun, and there is one ][uulva lot that still has to be addressed - on the subject of ripping the Constitutional Right from approximately 700 persons.

Then we'll get to the illegal detention of adults - with out charges. Their belongings being seized with no fourth amendment protection. The various violations of their fifth admendment rights...

The statement that some of the women might get their children back - If they denounce their religion; a first admendment right - breached by a gov. enity sworn to make no laws concerning religion...

Nop! It is just beginning Pard. And some "good ole boys" down here in Texas will be busy addressing law suits for years to come...

The Flying Dutchman · May 17, 2008

SassyinAZ said:
Nope oops,

I don't think you missed a choice.

Pretty much, the young mother is free to go but she can't take her kids with her, and she can stay with her kids, but it's not at the Ranch and the father can't be with her.

I think that will pretty much be the case for the others finding themselves in this situation and within this age group, because with young children you can't really make a case that as a mother you did nothing to stop them from being abused.

Lady SassyinAZ;

Would you pleas show me where I can find the article STATING that criminal charges have been brought against anyone? Or is this another "GUILTY UNTILL PROVEN INNOCENT?"

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

The Flying Dutchman said:
"In you fondest dreams FT! This has only begun, and there is one ][uulva lot that still has to be addressed - on the subject of ripping the Constitutional Right from approximately 700 persons.

Then we'll get to the illegal detention of adults - with out charges. Their belongings being seized with no fourth amendment protection. The various violations of their fifth admendment rights...

The statement that some of the women might get their children back - If they denounce their religion; a first admendment right - breached by a gov. enity sworn to make no laws concerning religion...

Nop! It is just beginning Pard. And some "good ole boys" down here in Texas will be busy addressing law suits for years to come...

Those women will never get their children back as long as they stay in the Yearning For Zion Ranch.

I was really surprised when convicted child molester Warren Jeffs decided on Texas as his next site of underage sexual perversions.

Texas would not be my first choice if I were he. Those folks in Texas do not take kindly to "Different" folks like the North American Man/Boy Love Association or the FLDS.

Don't Mess With Texas is more than just a slogan. Texans take child molesting as an offense against nature.

don

Fulltimer · May 17, 2008

The Flying Dutchman said:
Lady SassyinAZ;

Would you pleas show me where I can find the article STATING that criminal charges have been brought against anyone? Or is this another "GUILTY UNTILL PROVEN INNOCENT?"

It is still not necessary for the CPS to prove criminal wrong doing in order to remove children from an abusive home.

Not in Texas or any other of the 50 states.

don

The Flying Dutchman · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer said:
Those women will never get their children back as long as they stay in the Yearning For Zion Ranch.

I was really surprised when convicted child molester Warren Jeffs decided on Texas as his next site of underage sexual perversions.

Texas would not be my first choice if I were he. Those folks in Texas do not take kindly to "Different" folks like the North American Man/Boy Love Association or the FLDS.

Don't Mess With Texas is more than just a slogan. Texans take child molesting as an offense against nature.

don

I am glad that you have such a dependable crystal ball FT; must be nice, while you are peering into the future. Look to see what I'll be doing - right after I answer your 2nd post just above this one.

The Flying Dutchman · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer said:
It is still not necessary for the CPS to prove criminal wrong doing in order to remove children from an abusive home.

Not in Texas or any other of the 50 states.

don

FT there has been such a magnitutde of ignoring the Constitution that the CSP will be in from of a Federal Court as well as the LEOs who where involved.

Look at the reas tof the posts - on this and the other FLDS thread on main. There you will find that the Sheriff himself said that they ALL KNEW that the warrent was Bogus! Before they went out to that ranch

FWIW dept Judge Walters is a County Judge and up for election come this November - so there was no Federal Warrent! But a warrent issued by a County Judge; to be served in another county!

Get It? Each county has their own County Judges! Why didn't the County Judge in Eldorado, Tx handle the case; and issue the warrent? - It was in their county. Not in Tom Green county...

Tell me now, that the whole thing doesn't read like something the Three Stooges" might act out............

Dennis Olson · May 17, 2008

IMO, Warren Jeffs is a scum-sucking PoS who should have been taken out and shot. Would'a saved the taxpayers a butt-load of $'s.

fruit loop · May 17, 2008

Fulltimer, go get a blow job, or celebrate national masturbation month. You need to loosen up and maybe then you'll come to terms with reality.

There is no proof that there is, or ever was, any abuse perpetrated on the kids who were swept into custody - at least by their parents. Their rights are certainly being abused by the state.

You can't arrest someone because they MIGHT commit a crime down the road.

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

The Flying Dutchman said:
Lady SassyinAZ;

Would you pleas show me where I can find the article STATING that criminal charges have been brought against anyone? Or is this another "GUILTY UNTILL PROVEN INNOCENT?"

There isn't any, the civil investigation isn't complete yet and the civil process is seperate from the criminal one, if charges are ever brought.

SassyinAZ · May 17, 2008

The Flying Dutchman said:
FT there has been such a magnitutde of ignoring the Constitution that the CSP will be in from of a Federal Court as well as the LEOs who where involved.

Look at the reas tof the posts - on this and the other FLDS thread on main. There you will find that the Sheriff himself said that they ALL KNEW that the warrent was Bogus! Before they went out to that ranch

The Sheriff did not, he's not that stupid.

He said he didn't have any probable cause for a warrant based on information provided to him by his informant, his informant of 4 years.

However, since most of you will only consider one "side" of the issue, no one bothered to read the rest of his statement, which was CPS was their probable cause, the Ranger verified to the best of his ability the information that was provided. You'll have to check with the LEO types, but I'm pretty sure that is SOP.

FWIW dept Judge Walters is a County Judge and up for election come this November - so there was no Federal Warrent! But a warrent issued by a County Judge; to be served in another county!

There's been references to a federal warrant, sealed since the beginning, I've no idea who issued it. Also reports of at least 2 federal agents entering the temple when it was searched.

That would be 3 warrants altogether, only 2 of which are available for viewing.

FLDS mother wins court victory...a small one, though

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Veteran Member

Inactive

On the Beach

Inactive

I give up.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Inactive

Inactive

Veteran Member

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive

Chief Curmudgeon

Inactive

Veteran Member

Chief Curmudgeon

Inactive

Inactive

Chief Curmudgeon

Inactive

Inactive

On the Beach

Inactive

Deceased

Deceased

Inactive

Inactive

Deceased

Deceased

Chief Curmudgeon

Inactive

Inactive

Inactive