Court: Texas had no right to remove FLDS children

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
SAN ANGELO, Texas (CNN) -- The state of Texas should not have removed the more than 460 children it took from a polygamist sect's ranch, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had appealed the removals, as well as a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody.

"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the three-judge panel said.

The state's Department of Family and Protective Services "did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," the judges ruled.

"The legislature has required that there be evidence to support a finding that there is a danger to the physical health or safety of the children in question and that the need for protection is urgent and warrants immediate removal," the ruling said.

Don't Miss
Read the ruling -- PDF
It concluded, "Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue."

The children were removed last month from the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, which is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy.

The sect is linked to jailed "prophet" Warren Steed Jeffs.





figured this would happen. teh whole case is going to get tossed.





UPDATE:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...polygamists/index.html

ANGELO, Texas (CNN) -- Texas officials had no right to remove about 460 children from a polygamist sect, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday

The Texas Supreme Court agreed with a lower court's ruling, that the state's Child Protective Services division did not present ample evidence that the children were being abused.

The state said it removed the children last month from the Yearning for Zion Ranch near Eldorado, Texas, because in interviews with those living there, officials found what they called a "pervasive pattern" of sexual abuse through forced marriages between underage girls and older men.

The high court ruling could clear the way for the children to be returned to their families. The sect subscribes to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy.

"We are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals' decision," the ruling said. "On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted."

/snip



guess thats it.

still going to take a while. since they need to figure what kid belongs to who.

 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,591
87
91
www.bing.com
Ok so kids pre-pubescent kids are not in danger. Thats not sayig much.

I still think every male adult on the compound is going to go down for multiple accounts statutory rape.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Train
Ok so kids pre-pubescent kids are not in danger. Thats not sayig much.

I still think every male adult on the compound is going to go down for multiple accounts statutory rape.

i would hope so. but doubt its from this raid.


but the whole raid is suspect. i wouldnt be shocked when everything gets thrown out.

this is just the start.

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Yay, now they can go back to being molested by creepy old men. Allegedly.

yeap. maybe next time they will do there job and invistagate Before runnng in and raiding the place.

 

FeuerFrei

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2005
9,144
929
126
Good. :) Texas did overstep its authority.
Hooray, for the judicial system. Checks and balances are the bomb yo.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Good. :) Texas did overstep its authority.
Hooray, for the judicial system. Checks and balances are the bomb yo.

Yup.

The Texas taxpayers (such as myself) are going to get hammered with lawsuits though :(

One of the women CPS took into custody turned out to be 27. As an adult and held against her will, she'll probably be able to file a kidnapping charge.

Plus the raid cost something like $5 million to conduct. The state was going to auction off the ranch and use the proceeds to cover costs. Seems less likely to happen now.

 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Good. :) Texas did overstep its authority.
Hooray, for the judicial system. Checks and balances are the bomb yo.

Yup.

The Texas taxpayers (such as myself) are going to get hammered with lawsuits though :(

One of the women CPS took into custody turned out to be 27. As an adult and held against her will, she'll probably be able to file a kidnapping charge.

Plus the raid cost something like $5 million to conduct. The state was going to auction off the ranch and use the proceeds to cover costs. Seems less likely to happen now.

yeap. one of the main girls they were saying htey were saving (14 yr old) who they were clailming to be pregnant was not. child services refused to remove her from the list (among others) until the girls lawyer took them to court.



 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Wow, rare to see that kind of good ruling in the modern political environment. Not that I support all of what was going on down there, but the whole thing stank to high hell of government abuses. Bravo.
 

maziwanka

Lifer
Jul 4, 2000
10,415
1
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Train
Ok so kids pre-pubescent kids are not in danger. Thats not sayig much.

I still think every male adult on the compound is going to go down for multiple accounts statutory rape.

i would hope so. but doubt its from this raid.


but the whole raid is suspect. i wouldnt be shocked when everything gets thrown out.

this is just the start.

exactly
 

GRIFFIN1

Golden Member
Nov 10, 1999
1,403
6
81
It wouldn't surprise me if the worst abuse these children ever go through was caused by the State of Texas trying to "protect" them.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/...flds.mother/index.html

ELDORADO, Texas (CNN) -- An 18-year-old who gave birth in state custody after she was incorrectly seized in a raid on a polygamist sect ranch says the state kept her in foster care in an effort to seize her baby.

Pamela Jessop said authorities knew how old she was when they raided her home on the Yearning for Zion Ranch, which is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"I gave 'em my name. I gave 'em my age," Jessop said. "I was honest. Showed 'em my birth certificate and they acknowledged it, that I was 18."

The ranch is owned by the FLDS, a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy. State child protection workers say they have found evidence that girls as young as 13 were forced to marry older men and bear their children.

The state apparently agreed that Jessop was not a minor. A caseworker signed a statement saying Jessop gave her age as 18. Her birth certificate says so, along with a "bishop's list" collected as evidence from the sect's records. iReport.com: What do you think about the case?

There was also no denying she was weeks away from giving birth to her second child. And that, she believes, is why she wound up in foster care.

"They kept me all this time to get my little baby," she said.

Despite the evidence, the state placed her on a list that said she was a minor.

Texas officials denied that Jessop showed them any documents demonstrating she was 18. They also said she was happy to remain in foster care because she was allowed to stay with her 1-year-old son.

For more than a month, the state said, Jessop never asked to leave.

She said, however, that she asked them why they were keeping her "a hundred times at least."

When she went into labor, Jessop said what should have been one of the happiest days of her life turned into one of the worst.

"One of the most stressful, feeling like hawks were all around me, trying to snatch my baby the minute I shut my eyes or laid him down," Jessop recalled.

She said foster care workers were in the delivery room with her. Shortly after his birth, the baby joined her in foster care.

Jessop's attorney said she sees a pattern among FLDS clients, one in which the state ignores hard evidence and classifies adults as minors.

"They put them on that list so that they could continue to have them in custody so that they could either question them in connection with their investigation without attorneys present or, in the cases of women who are going to deliver their babies while in state custody, so they can get the babies," said attorney Andrea Sloan.

The state said any disputed minor who proves she is an adult is released.

After Jessop gave birth, she went to court and a judge ruled she was an adult. She was released from state custody. State officials said the hearing was the first time they had seen her birth certificate.

Jessop's two children remain in foster care, and she has been allowed to remain with the baby.

Jessop stands by her story, and her attorneys say they are considering a federal lawsuit against Texas officials for violating her civil rights.





sheesh. seems like every day now something else is comeing out about how the state screwed up.

she proved to them she was 18 and they still kept her in foster care. then tried to take her baby.

the state is looking to a few nasty lawsuits out of this.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
^

Yea that was nto one sided :roll:


"officials said the hearing was the first time they had seen her birth certificate."
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

Yea that was nto one sided :roll:


"officials said the hearing was the first time they had seen her birth certificate."

if this was the First or only story of teh state keeping ADULTS in custody as minors i would agree. but its not. there have been something like 30 of them.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,120
19,442
136
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

Yea that was nto one sided :roll:


"officials said the hearing was the first time they had seen her birth certificate."

Yeah, it's tough to buy into what a brainwashed cult member has to say without a massive grain of salt. Rock salt.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

Yea that was nto one sided :roll:


"officials said the hearing was the first time they had seen her birth certificate."

Yeah, it's tough to buy into what a brainwashed cult member has to say without a massive grain of salt. Rock salt.

Brainwashed or not, they still have civil freaking rights.

Would you feel differently if the state of Texas had raided a fundamentalist Atheist compound? Or Buddhist?

Leave religion out of this; this a travesty of justice akin to Waco and Ruby Ridge*. Thankfully nobody died as a result.

* Note that I do not defend Branch Davidian or Randy Weaver's belief systems. That doesn't change the fact that their civil rights were violated, and people at both places were essentially murdered.
 

xeemzor

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2005
2,599
1
71
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Good. :) Texas did overstep its authority.
Hooray, for the judicial system. Checks and balances are the bomb yo.

Yup.

The Texas taxpayers (such as myself) are going to get hammered with lawsuits though :(

One of the women CPS took into custody turned out to be 27. As an adult and held against her will, she'll probably be able to file a kidnapping charge.

Plus the raid cost something like $5 million to conduct. The state was going to auction off the ranch and use the proceeds to cover costs. Seems less likely to happen now.

Wouldn't the state have sovereign immunity to lawsuits?
 

Raizinman

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2007
2,355
75
91
meettomy.site
Past court rulings has stated that even if there is no harm at the present time, the court must take into consideration the possibility of future harm. If it didn't, we would always have to wait until a child is actually harmed before it could do anything. If the court can see that older children are or have the possibility of being harmed, the court will not wait, and will remove the younger children.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: XMan


* Note that I do not defend Branch Davidian or Randy Weaver's belief systems. That doesn't change the fact that their civil rights were violated, and people at both places were essentially murdered.

I agree...
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Good. :) Texas did overstep its authority.
Hooray, for the judicial system. Checks and balances are the bomb yo.

Yup.

The Texas taxpayers (such as myself) are going to get hammered with lawsuits though :(

One of the women CPS took into custody turned out to be 27. As an adult and held against her will, she'll probably be able to file a kidnapping charge.

Plus the raid cost something like $5 million to conduct. The state was going to auction off the ranch and use the proceeds to cover costs. Seems less likely to happen now.

yeap. one of the main girls they were saying htey were saving (14 yr old) who they were clailming to be pregnant was not. child services refused to remove her from the list (among others) until the girls lawyer took them to court.

Did they even find the girl that made the call that started this whole thing? Every "fact" that they've claimed has been disproven so far. It was the equivalent of someone reporting a child molester in a sub-division and Child Services taking every child out of there because of the claim. Amazing.
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: Raizinman
Past court rulings has stated that even if there is no harm at the present time, the court must take into consideration the possibility of future harm. If it didn't, we would always have to wait until a child is actually harmed before it could do anything. If the court can see that older children are or have the possibility of being harmed, the court will not wait, and will remove the younger children.

From the news clippings I read, its "immediate harm" -- like the appeal court has said regarding the FLDS case, future harm may happen, they are not sure, but there were very little evidence of "immediate harm".

If the courts use "future harm" without a through investigation, then everyone's kids can be taken away. A lot of family will be broken. With little due diligence, a lot of these broken families maybe proven to be a mistake. Future harm takes time to determine.

For instance, a kid is being beaten and raped by his family. There is ample evidence of this -- bruises, friends statements, kid is afraid of parents, etc. This is "immediate" harm. The kid will be removed from family and justifiable so.

However if a kid is with a parents who are recovering alcoholics, but the parents have "promised" to "sober" up. The kid may not be in immediate harm.. Hence more evidence is need and the kid is allowed to stay with his parents.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Fritzo
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
Good. :) Texas did overstep its authority.
Hooray, for the judicial system. Checks and balances are the bomb yo.

Yup.

The Texas taxpayers (such as myself) are going to get hammered with lawsuits though :(

One of the women CPS took into custody turned out to be 27. As an adult and held against her will, she'll probably be able to file a kidnapping charge.

Plus the raid cost something like $5 million to conduct. The state was going to auction off the ranch and use the proceeds to cover costs. Seems less likely to happen now.

yeap. one of the main girls they were saying htey were saving (14 yr old) who they were clailming to be pregnant was not. child services refused to remove her from the list (among others) until the girls lawyer took them to court.

Did they even find the girl that made the call that started this whole thing? Every "fact" that they've claimed has been disproven so far. It was the equivalent of someone reporting a child molester in a sub-division and Child Services taking every child out of there because of the claim. Amazing.



there was no "girl". teh call was made by a women (well guess thats a girl) in Colorado who was not at teh compound. The guy they claimed raped her was Not even in the state.

IF they would have done a little investigating they would have found that out.

so far we know.

-There was no "girl" that called that was raped
-the man who sopposedly "raped" the caller was NOT in the state
-Many of the "underage" girls are in fact adults
-a few of the "pregnant" girls are not or ever been pregnant.

Originally posted by: xeemzor
Wouldn't the state have sovereign immunity to lawsuits?

not in cases such as this. they knew they were adults. they still held them against there will.

The state, child services etc are in for a rough time.

When the FLDS fight the legality of the raid they will win. Right now they been trying to get the children back. its just a matter of time before its all thrown out.



 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
63,120
19,442
136
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
^

Yea that was nto one sided :roll:


"officials said the hearing was the first time they had seen her birth certificate."

Yeah, it's tough to buy into what a brainwashed cult member has to say without a massive grain of salt. Rock salt.

Brainwashed or not, they still have civil freaking rights.

Would you feel differently if the state of Texas had raided a fundamentalist Atheist compound? Or Buddhist?

Leave religion out of this; this a travesty of justice akin to Waco and Ruby Ridge*. Thankfully nobody died as a result.

* Note that I do not defend Branch Davidian or Randy Weaver's belief systems. That doesn't change the fact that their civil rights were violated, and people at both places were essentially murdered.

I missed where I brought up religion or whether I felt the raid was justified?