Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

I've lost the thread of what the point of this particular argument is about.


I assume we all agree that there is a level of abuse of children in care that is unacceptable

I would also assume that we acknowledge that all, or nearly all (assuming the investigation and court process to be imperfect, and that some children are in care because of deaths or other unavoidable absence by caregivers) the children in foster care were abused prior to their being placed there.

Can anyone remind me of how this particular argument relates to the thread?

I would be surprised if this were an individual decision by Miss Voss or anyone else. I would have thought that she was the court spokesperson for the department.


Are you assuming that it was an individual decision, in which case what evidence do you have, or are you arguing that it is normal practice for removal decisions to be made by one person without consultation in Texas? If you are arguing the latter, I would be interested to see what evidence you have for that as well.


Once again, I am not saying that you are wrong, but it is so utterly counter to all child abuse investigation practice that I am aware of, that I am not prepared to believe it without some evidence.

Child Protective Services caseworkers investigate reports of child abuse or neglect in order to determine whether any child in the referred family has been abused or neglected. In addition, caseworkers assess critical areas of individual and family functioning to determine whether any child in the referred family is at risk of abuse or neglect; and initiate protective services for children who need protection.

To determine whether any child in the family has been abused or neglected and is still at risk of abuse or neglect, the investigative worker may interview family members and appropriate collateral sources. At the end of the investigation, staff must assign a disposition to each allegation identified for the investigation. Dispositions include the following:

Reason-to-believe. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, staff conclude that abuse or neglect has occurred.
Ruled-out. Staff determines, based on available information, that it is reasonable to conclude that the abuse or neglect has not occurred.
Unable To Complete. An "unable to complete" investigation is one that cannot be concluded and assigned another disposition because the family could not be located to begin the investigation, or the family was contacted but subsequently moved and could not be located to complete the investigation or the family refused to cooperate with the investigation. CPS policy outlines several required actions the caseworker needs to complete with the "Unable To Complete" disposition.
Unable-to-determine. Staff concludes that none of the dispositions specified in [1 through 3 above] is appropriate.
Administrative closure. Information received after a case was assigned for investigation reveals that continued Child Protective Services intervention is unwarranted.
The worker must also determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a child will be abused or neglected in the foreseeable future. There are two alternatives.

The worker concludes that the children are not at risk if
(a) no significant risk factors have been identified, and abuse or neglect has not been found to have occurred in the current investigation; or

(b) the family appears willing and able, through use of family and community resources, to deal with risk factors in their lives in such a manner as to ensure the safety of the child(ren) for the foreseeable future. If the worker concludes that the children are not at risk, then the case may be closed.

The worker concludes that the children are at risk of abuse or neglect if:
(a) the worker has identified significant risk factors, and

(b) the family appears unable or unwilling to utilize family and community resources to deal with the risk factors in a manner that will ensure the safety of the child(ren) for the foreseeable future.

If the worker concludes that the children are at risk of abuse or neglect, then the worker may recommend:

services to address the problem,
open the case for family based safety services or
file a petition to initiate civil court action to protect the victim.
Actions could include removal of the children from the home and possibly termination of parental rights.

Thanks.


Do you have an actual position on:

"whether or not these particular children are better off in the State's care or in their normal homes."?

NOT permanently, of course, because the whole abuse issue is moot....but do you have a firm position on their removal during investigation?

dlowan wrote:

I would be surprised if this were an individual decision by Miss Voss or anyone else. I would have thought that she was the court spokesperson for the department.


Are you assuming that it was an individual decision, in which case what evidence do you have, or are you arguing that it is normal practice for removal decisions to be made by one person without consultation in Texas? If you are arguing the latter, I would be interested to see what evidence you have for that as well.


Once again, I am not saying that you are wrong, but it is so utterly counter to all child abuse investigation practice that I am aware of, that I am not prepared to believe it without some evidence.

She is one of serveral hundred investigation supervisors for the state child agency, and she made the call ...they still gun sling in Texas.

Quote:

Child Protective Services caseworkers investigate reports of child abuse or neglect in order to determine whether any child in the referred family has been abused or neglected. In addition, caseworkers assess critical areas of individual and family functioning to determine whether any child in the referred family is at risk of abuse or neglect; and initiate protective services for children who need protection.

To determine whether any child in the family has been abused or neglected and is still at risk of abuse or neglect, the investigative worker may interview family members and appropriate collateral sources. At the end of the investigation, staff must assign a disposition to each allegation identified for the investigation. Dispositions include the following:

Reason-to-believe. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, staff conclude that abuse or neglect has occurred.
Ruled-out. Staff determines, based on available information, that it is reasonable to conclude that the abuse or neglect has not occurred.
Unable To Complete. An "unable to complete" investigation is one that cannot be concluded and assigned another disposition because the family could not be located to begin the investigation, or the family was contacted but subsequently moved and could not be located to complete the investigation or the family refused to cooperate with the investigation. CPS policy outlines several required actions the caseworker needs to complete with the "Unable To Complete" disposition.
Unable-to-determine. Staff concludes that none of the dispositions specified in [1 through 3 above] is appropriate.
Administrative closure. Information received after a case was assigned for investigation reveals that continued Child Protective Services intervention is unwarranted.
The worker must also determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that a child will be abused or neglected in the foreseeable future. There are two alternatives.

The worker concludes that the children are not at risk if
(a) no significant risk factors have been identified, and abuse or neglect has not been found to have occurred in the current investigation; or

(b) the family appears willing and able, through use of family and community resources, to deal with risk factors in their lives in such a manner as to ensure the safety of the child(ren) for the foreseeable future. If the worker concludes that the children are not at risk, then the case may be closed.

The worker concludes that the children are at risk of abuse or neglect if:
(a) the worker has identified significant risk factors, and

(b) the family appears unable or unwilling to utilize family and community resources to deal with the risk factors in a manner that will ensure the safety of the child(ren) for the foreseeable future.

If the worker concludes that the children are at risk of abuse or neglect, then the worker may recommend:

services to address the problem,
open the case for family based safety services or
file a petition to initiate civil court action to protect the victim.
Actions could include removal of the children from the home and possibly termination of parental rights.

http://handbooks.tdprs.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/investigation.asp

dlowan wrote:

Thanks.


Do you have an actual position on:

"whether or not these particular children are better off in the State's care or in their normal homes."?

NOT permanently, of course, because the whole abuse issue is moot....but do you have a firm position on their removal during investigation?

I think they would have been better off if they had been returned to their homes.

For one thing, because of the environment they've been in, IMO, they are probably at higher risk for abuse than the average child taken into the system. These are kids with zero "street smarts".

If necessary (and again, IMO, it probably would have been in this case) the males over say... age 15/16 should have been told to leave the compound for the duration and Child Protective Services should have sent their people into the compound and kept people in there 24/7.

If the adult women were/are also a problem then I would have preferred that they remove ALL of the adults and from the compound and staff it with CPS personnel to monitor the children. I'd rather see the adults moved than the children.

IMO, the children should have been the LAST people to be removed. Given their lack of exposure to the outside world they would have still had famaliar surroundings even if all of the adults were removed. Right now they don't have either their parents or their homes/belongings...

I think that is a reasonable position.


I wonder if it was considered? I would have thought so, but you never know.


A problem I can see immediately though, is whether or not staff would actually have been available to provide such a service.


Here, for instance, no staff would be available....unless you took them from all the residential care places where kids were currently being looked after, leaving those kids uncared for.


Here, again, to ask welfare case-workers to do it would mean critical loss of ability to investigate other alleged abuse (and remember, a lot of that is physically critical stuff, where children have injuries) plus god knows what happening to case-workers' own kids and a major industrial relations storm.

I have seen this happen in situations where a family of kids were removed and there was literally nowhere to put them....staff briefly did shifts in the motel where the kids were, until carers could be found, but it was a total nightmare in many ways.

We recently considered it in a case here....but there was insufficient medical evidence to justify it.


If it were logistically possible, it sounds like a possibly good option, though.

dlowan wrote:

I think that is a reasonable position.


I wonder if it was considered? I would have thought so, but you never know.


A problem I can see immediately though, is whether or not staff would actually have been available to provide such a service.


Here, for instance, no staff would be available....unless you took them from all the residential care places where kids were currently being looked after, leaving those kids uncared for.


Here, again, to ask welfare case-workers to do it would mean critical loss of ability to investigate other alleged abuse (and remember, a lot of that is physically critical stuff, where children have injuries) plus god knows what happening to case-workers' own kids and a major industrial relations storm.

I have seen this happen in situations where a family of kids were removed and there was literally nowhere to put them....staff briefly did shifts in the motel where the kids were, until carers could be found, but it was a total nightmare in many ways.

We recently considered it in a case here....but there was insufficient medical evidence to justify it.


If it were logistically possible, it sounds like a possibly good option, though.

When I said "CPS staff" what I envisioned would be CPS staff supervising a crew of people. I would assume they'd bring in medical staff, teachers, etc... but they'd all be taking direction from CPS. They might only have one case worker there at night along with nurses, and registered care providers, etc... Most of what they'd be doing would be day-to-day care (baths, meals, cleaning, school, etc) so caseworkers wouldn't be needed for that.

As it is right now it has to be a logistical nightmare for CPS. They've got 462 people scattered all over the state that they have to track. Someone has to be tracking where those kids are, telling the foster families when the kids need to be at appointments (interviews, evals, medical, etc...), court dates, etc... Having all of the kids in one place would seem to be easier to me.

I guess it can get ugly either way. As far as I know there aren't any mobile "SWAT" teams for these sorts of things. They don't happen often enough to justify them.

"then the worker may recommend:

services to address the problem,
open the case for family based safety services or
file a petition to initiate civil court action to protect the victim.
Actions could include removal of the children from the home and possibly termination of parental rights."



Looks to me as though it is possible that one worker may RECOMMEND such actions.....but I am not seeing evidence that a SINGLE worker may actually take removal action alone.

I'm not saying they definitely cannot........but they would be very atypical if an actual action of such significance is taken alone.


Court action alone would need, I would think, extensive consultation with the department's lawyers etc.


Frankly, if a single worker had made the decision to remove these kids they would be professionally insane, even if they were allowed to. Anyone with the brain the size of a pea would know what a stir the action would cause and the most basic survival instinct would be telling you to consult widely and well. That is clearly not evidence that it DIDN'T happen that way, but your evidence is not persuasive to me yet.

There were clearly a number of people investigating and I think it a far more likely scenario that discussions would have been happening not just between the people investigating, but way up the chain.



Here, such crucial discussions involve front-line workers, senior workers, senior medical and psycho-social staff within the forensic medical and psych-social specialty services, and police, at the least...unless there is a critical reason to believe the child is in imminent danger of physical harm, or the child has injuries which the parents/carers will not consent to be treated/investigated....even then crisis discussions are normal, by mobile phone, at the site, with other workers.

In very complex cases lawyers would also be involved, if harm was not immediately manifest.


Not that this is necessarily how things are done in Texas, but it is more normal practice.

The caseworker normally completes the investigation in 30 days. As a result of the investigation, the caseworker will decide if:

abuse or neglect occurred; and
the child is at risk of abuse or neglect.
If it has been determined that the child is at risk of abuse or neglect, the caseworker will decide if:

immediate safety services are needed; and
ongoing treatment services are needed to reduce the risk of abuse or neglect.
The caseworker will get approval regarding these decisions from his or her supervisor and then will inform you about them

SAN ANGELO, Texas - A Texas Child Protective Services investigations supervisor who led the initial foray into a polygamous sect's ranch testified today that she had first consulted a psychiatrist who has done extensive research into religious cults and the sister of the Utah woman whose testimony led to the imprisonment of sect leader Warren S. Jeffs.
Angie Voss said in a San Angelo court today that she talked to psychiatrist Bruce Perry of Texas and Rebecca Musser. She is a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose West Texas ranch was the subject of a days-long raid earlier this month.

Musser is the sister of Elissa Wall, who testified in a Utah court last year that she was 14 when Jeffs arranged for her to marry her 19-year-old cousin over her objections. Jeffs was convicted of rape by an accomplice and sentenced to prison. He also awaits trial in Arizona on other charges of arranging marriages for teen-aged girls.

IMO, the children should have been the LAST people to be removed. Given their lack of exposure to the outside world they would have still had famaliar surroundings even if all of the adults were removed. Right now they don't have either their parents or their homes/belongings...

The children and families need to get to be known for their individual strengths and vulnerabilities ... They need an environment that is respectful and loving but is open and allows them to make their own choices."

When asked which option would be best for the children ?- a return to the ranch, placement in the foster system or remaining in the coliseum where they are now ?- he said none were acceptable.

He said to return to the ranch would be detrimental, even for the young boys because it is a "special place, it reinforces their beliefs

dlowan wrote:

"then the worker may recommend:

services to address the problem,
open the case for family based safety services or
file a petition to initiate civil court action to protect the victim.
Actions could include removal of the children from the home and possibly termination of parental rights."



Looks to me as though it is possible that one worker may RECOMMEND such actions.....but I am not seeing evidence that a SINGLE worker may actually take removal action alone.

I'm not saying they definitely cannot........but they would be very atypical if an actual action of such significance is taken alone.


Court action alone would need, I would think, extensive consultation with the department's lawyers etc.


Frankly, if a single worker had made the decision to remove these kids they would be professionally insane, even if they were allowed to. Anyone with the brain the size of a pea would know what a stir the action would cause and the most basic survival instinct would be telling you to consult widely and well. That is clearly not evidence that it DIDN'T happen that way, but your evidence is not persuasive to me yet.

There were clearly a number of people investigating and I think it a far more likely scenario that discussions would have been happening not just between the people investigating, but way up the chain.



Here, such crucial discussions involve front-line workers, senior workers, senior medical and psycho-social staff within the forensic medical and psych-social specialty services, and police, at the least...unless there is a critical reason to believe the child is in imminent danger of physical harm, or the child has injuries which the parents/carers will not consent to be treated/investigated....even then crisis discussions are normal, by mobile phone, at the site, with other workers.

In very complex cases lawyers would also be involved, if harm was not immediately manifest.


Not that this is necessarily how things are done in Texas, but it is more normal practice.

Quote:

The caseworker normally completes the investigation in 30 days. As a result of the investigation, the caseworker will decide if:

abuse or neglect occurred; and
the child is at risk of abuse or neglect.
If it has been determined that the child is at risk of abuse or neglect, the caseworker will decide if:

immediate safety services are needed; and
ongoing treatment services are needed to reduce the risk of abuse or neglect.
The caseworker will get approval regarding these decisions from his or her supervisor and then will inform you about them

http://handbooks.tdprs.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/parentguide.asp

Voss is a supervisor, not a worker, she had the authority to on her own petition the court for removal, as she did. I expect that the notified a superior, but the front line supervisors make the call. In such an unusual case as this, both in size and circumstance, the system in texas will ill suited for the job. The decision required more brain power than one supervisor who consulted with one former FLDS member and one psychiatrist who may orm may not know a thing about polygamist cults. Perry seems to be chosen because he worked with some of the Branch Davidian kids, but what that has to do with polygamy I don't know. I suppose to Voss a cult is a cult is a cult. I would have hoped that if Voss was thinking about traumatizing 400+ kids by throwing them into foster care that she might have taken the time to talk to at least one expert on polygamy cults so that she might have a clue about what she was looking at, there are several....but no can do.

Quote:

SAN ANGELO, Texas - A Texas Child Protective Services investigations supervisor who led the initial foray into a polygamous sect's ranch testified today that she had first consulted a psychiatrist who has done extensive research into religious cults and the sister of the Utah woman whose testimony led to the imprisonment of sect leader Warren S. Jeffs.
Angie Voss said in a San Angelo court today that she talked to psychiatrist Bruce Perry of Texas and Rebecca Musser. She is a former member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose West Texas ranch was the subject of a days-long raid earlier this month.

Musser is the sister of Elissa Wall, who testified in a Utah court last year that she was 14 when Jeffs arranged for her to marry her 19-year-old cousin over her objections. Jeffs was convicted of rape by an accomplice and sentenced to prison. He also awaits trial in Arizona on other charges of arranging marriages for teen-aged girls.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_8957324

She may or may not have consulted enough...but she certainly didn't make the decision all by herself, as you first said.


Again, you appear to be unable to grasp that the polygamy does not appear to be the focus....it is the allegation of unlawful sex with minors, and the contention that there is a culture leading to and supporting the disposition of young girls legally incapable of giving informed consent to adult men for marriage/sex.

Did Texas go too far in polygamy case?
(By Chuck Lindell, Corrie MacLaggan, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, April 27, 2008)

After a long night interviewing children inside a polygamist ranch near Eldorado, Child Protective Services caseworkers made a crucial decision as the police-backed raid entered its second day.

They took 18 girls, from 6 months to 17 years old, into emergency custody on April 4, a Friday, because they felt their living conditions were unsafe ?- initiating a sequence of events that led to the removal of all 462 children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch and headlines around the globe.

Did Texas go too far? That question will probably be debated for decades, and not only because of its implications for religious freedom and the limits of government power.

Families were ripped apart. Children, including some who had to be pried from a parent's leg, were scattered into foster care across Texas ?- though state District Judge Barbara Walther relented last week and allowed children younger than 1 year to remain with their mothers in shelters.

The law allows Texas to take emergency custody when a child's health or safety is in immediate danger ?- but to balance that power, CPS must seek approval from a district judge by the next business day. In the Eldorado case, that was Monday, April 7.

That day, CPS investigators reported to Walther that they had found several pregnant and apparently underage girls at the isolated West Texas ranch where girls are groomed to become "wives" to older men. The underage marriages were condoned by the girls' parents, CPS officials said.In Texas, sex with someone younger than 17, when the partner is more than three years older than the victim, is considered sexual abuse.

Walther not only approved the emergency removal of the 18 girls, she also agreed that CPS needed to take custody of every child at the Eldorado ranch, which is run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon splinter group also known as the FLDS.

Robert Doggett of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which represents about four dozen of the mothers in the sect, questioned the wisdom of separating all the young children from their parents.

A 6-month-old boy, he said, is not in immediate danger of indoctrination into what CPS has characterized as a widespread practice of forcing underage girls to have sex with older men in "celestial," or spiritual, marriages.

For such children, "how in the world could the judge have found imminent risk of physical harm?" Doggett asked. "Courts are supposed to be a check on the government. That system has totally broken down."

But several child advocates and experts in family law are sympathetic to Walther, who determined that the environment at the ranch was not safe for anyone younger than 18 because children were groomed to become either potential victims or abusers. Investigators also found evidence of physical and emotional abuse among the children, CPS spokesman Darrell Azar said.

"We are confident that we found an overwhelming amount of evidence showing not only specific abuse against specific children, but a pattern of abuse that endangered them all," Azar said. "There was no way to limit the risk in that environment. The only choice was to remove them."

Sect members deny the abuse allegations.

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the FLDS, contends that the state has essentially said that "if you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."

But Scott McCown, a former district court judge, said religion appears to play little or no role in the allegations about practices at the Eldorado ranch.

"No religious belief held by an adult justifies any kind of child abuse," McCown said. "No religious belief allows an adult to have sex with an underage girl."

The decision to separate the Eldorado ranch children from their parents, like all CPS cases, was made after weighing competing traumas to the children: Was it in their best interest to be separated from their families or to return to a potentially harmful situation, said McCown, who made similar rulings for 10 years in Travis County before retiring in 2002 to lead the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin.

"Often that means you're weighing what's the least harmful," McCown said. "You are faced with lots of complex, difficult questions."

Austin lawyer Dicky Grigg, who is representing a 2-year-old girl now in foster care, said it is too early to determine what course will be least harmful for his young client.

"I can see the state ?- and the judge sided with the state ?- saying that this is a dangerous place and an unsafe place for these children because underage girls are being sexually molested. There was certainly evidence introduced presenting that," said Grigg, one of hundreds of lawyers from across the state who is representing the sect children for free.

"But I can understand the flip side. Most of these children, like the young babies, there is no evidence whatsoever they were under any threat of being physically or sexually abused," Grigg said. "You're removing children because 12 or 14 years down the line, they are going to be sexually molested?"

One thing is undisputed.

"It's fraught with sadness," said Austin lawyer Tom Ausley, who is representing a 4-year-old boy.

Though Mormon church founder Joseph Smith reported in 1843 that God commanded plural marriage as a path to the highest level of heaven, the church disavowed polygamy in 1890. Several sects, including the FLDS, split with the main church and continued to practice polygamy.

Members of the FLDS, which is based in two towns on the Utah-Arizona border, went to West Texas in 2003 after increased scrutiny from law enforcement officials in those states. Led by Warren Jeffs ?- who was convicted in Utah in 2007 of being an accomplice to rape because he arranged a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and her older cousin ?- the group built multifamily homes, a temple and other buildings at the Yearning for Zion Ranch.

Though Texas law enforcement officials monitored the ranch from a distance, the child welfare case did not begin until a San Angelo family violence center received repeated calls ?-which officials are investigating as a possible hoax ?- from somebody who identified herself as a 16-year-old ranch resident named Sarah.

In the March 29 and 30 calls, Sarah said she had an 8-month-old baby and another child on the way. She identified the father as a well-known, 50-year-old sect member and said the man beat her, breaking several ribs on one occasion.

The crisis center contacted CPS, which is required by state law to promptly investigate any credible report of child abuse or neglect.
Based on Sarah's information, which placed her in no immediate danger, CPS assigned a relatively low priority to the calls, which gave the agency 72 hours to respond.

CPS also contacted the Schleicher County sheriff because Sarah said she was the victim of a sexual assault. In Texas, it is a felony to have sex with a person younger than 17 if the perpetrator is more than three years older than the teen. (Sex with any child younger than 14 is considered aggravated sexual assault.)

With a small department, Sheriff David Doran called on the Texas Rangers to help plan entry to the 1,691-acre ranch, an area that few outsiders had visited since the sect purchased the land in 2003.

Over the next three days, the Rangers gathered dozens of heavily armed officers ?- officials refuse to say exactly how many ?- including sheriff's deputies, state troopers and even game wardens. Unsure what kind of reception to expect, the Rangers also lined up ambulances, police dogs and the Midland County sheriff's armored personnel carrier.

The coordinated, massive response led to a perception that there had been prior planning by the state.

"Were we aware that this group was there? Of course we were," said Azar, the CPS spokesman. "No one really knew what was going on in there. We weren't standing by, hovering outside, waiting for something to happen. We did what we always do: assess a report when it comes in."

State Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville whose district includes Eldorado, speculated that law enforcement and CPS probably had a loose plan in place. Hilderbran remembers talking to CPS officials about the ranch in 2005, when he worked to pass a bill targeted at the sect that raised the legal marriage age with parental consent from 14 to 16. The bill passed.

"I think they had a plan on the shelf," he said. "They dusted it off and updated it" in the days after the abuse report.

A Texas Department of Public Safety official said any planning would have been informal.

"I'm sure various law enforcement agencies talked amongst themselves about the setup of the ranch and how, if something happened, how law enforcement would need to get in," DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said. "We're in the business of trouble-shooting. We think about things before we need to."

Ausley, the Austin lawyer, met his 4-year-old client two weeks ago. The boy, accompanied by his mother in the San Angelo Coliseum, said less than 10 words, Ausley said.

"He's precious," Ausley said. "I've got 10 grandchildren. He could look like one of mine, but he's had an entirely different life."

After passing through several layers of security to enter the coliseum ?- where children and mothers were housed before the kids were sent into foster care last week ?- Ausley said he saw several pregnant mothers inside who "appeared to be 14, 15, 16 years old. Under our system, a child that age cannot give consent to sexual contact."

He added: "The pause that you get is this: Has the blanket been thrown too widely? Is it in the best interest for a 3-month-old ?- or even a 1-year-old or 2-year-old ?- to be taken away from their mother and be transported somewhere else?"

Doggett, the lawyer representing FLDS mothers, said it is unfair to assume that any problems at the ranch apply to all families.

"Some of them may be bad apples," he said of the parents. "And those children absolutely should be removed. But we don't represent any of those people."

When a CPS investigator finds evidence of abuse or neglect in a home, the agency has three basic options ?- remove all children, remove some children or keep the family intact while working with the parents to improve the situation at home. That could include parenting classes or counseling.

Leaving children behind, even those not directly affected by abuse, is rarely an option for fear of creating more victims, McCown said. In addition, he said, the FLDS investigation involves significant allegations of sexual abuse in a community with ties to similar enclaves outside of Texas.

"One fear is that any children that you don't remove will be themselves abused, and the other fear is that any children you don't remove will be whisked out of the state, which both puts them at risk potentially and impedes an investigation," he said.

Leaving the Eldorado ranch families intact was not a viable option, Azar said. Investigators found clear evidence of a pattern of sexual abuse, including 20 girls who had been impregnated between the ages of 13 and 16 and boys who were being indoctrinated to become adult perpetrators of sexual abuse, Azar said.

On Friday, state authorities finished moving all 462 children into group homes and children's shelters across the state, including the Baptist Child & Family Services youth ranch in Luling. The number of children is higher than the state's initial estimate because some of the youths were originally believed to be adults.

FLDS mothers described a chaotic, heartbreaking separation.

"My two oldest were just terrified, and they clung to me saying, 'Mother, mother, we want to go with you,' " said Ruth, her voice breaking as she began to cry. She and other FLDS members declined to give their last names, fearing that it would affect their custody cases.

"There are no words to describe how it was," said Velvet, a mother who was forced to leave her 13-month-old. "We've been staying up nights to watch over the children because we didn't know what would happen."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Contributor Ben Stein has polygamy on his mind this morning … and children.

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

May I ask a question? What the heck is going on in Texas with the kids caught up in the polygamy ranch disaster?

Look, I am not a fan of polygamy. For one thing, it's all any man can do keeping up with one wife. For another, it's against the law in this country.

But the polygamists that have been in the news have been operating for decades. The authorities knew about it, and them. They didn't do a thing about it for all those years!

Then, on a totally unsubstantiated telephone call about sex abuse - which apparently did not come from anyone even connected to the polygamist compound - the state closed down the compound, and (what is totally incomprehensible) took the small children of the settlement away from their mothers and fathers.

Why? What crime had the kids committed? Why are they being dealt the most drastic punishment imaginable - separation from their mothers and fathers - for no known reason?

The state of Texas has not found one single crime against these children yet. Even if they do find one or two, how can that be a reason for taking dozens, maybe hundreds of children away from their mothers?

The kids are the victims here - not of the parents, but of the incredible, unbelievable cruelty of the state of Texas authorities. If there is evidence of cruelty by the families to these kids, where is it?

Look, I am a huge fan of Texas. I have many friends there and love being there. But what is the attorney general of Texas doing? This is an Orwellian nightmare. For no reason except what looks like a crank call, the lives of these children have been turned upside down and into a screaming horror movie.

Can't someone say the obvious here? That in this case, it's not the Mormons who are the criminals, it's the government of Texas.

Governor Perry, wake up and give those kids back to their mothers until you have some compelling, proven reason to do otherwise. What your state is doing here is Gestapo tactics pure and simple.

Ben should stick to game shows.

my point is that my point of view is not that of a lone whack job.....

SAN ANGELO, Texas - An attorney for FLDS families in Texas challenged the state's allegations of a "pervasive pattern" of underage girls having children, saying the state's own documents show just three teenagers in custody are pregnant.
Of those girls, one will turn 18 in a few months and another merely refused to take a pregnancy test, said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing families at the YFZ Ranch. "That leaves us with one," he said.
Parker also said Friday that one state document includes a woman whose first child was born more than a decade ago. He said he based his statements on a copy of a list created by an investigator for Texas Child Protective Services. ". I challenge CPS to come forward with the pregnant minors," said Parker.
Investigator Angie Voss submitted the chart last week during a two-day court hearing to bolster the state's contention that all children at the ranch were at risk of abuse. The state removed 462 children from the Eldorado ranch, owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, earlier this month. The last children were moved out of the San Angelo Coliseum and Wells Fargo Pavilion on Friday. The children are now in group and foster homes across Texas.
The count of children in custody rose again Friday after CPS determined that 25 girls who claimed to be adults are actually minors, said spokesman Chris Van Deusen. That group may overlap with the 20 listed in the court document as pregnant or as mothers, he said.
"The only thing we can say is we're aware of 20 young girls who became pregnant when they were between the ages of 13 and 16," Van Deusen said. "That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived they were 13, 14, 15, or 16. "That establishes that there was some sexual abuse here," he said.
Van Deusen said the court document may not include minors identified as pregnant or mothers since the court hearing. He also said he could not talk about investigative results that haven't been made public in court or otherwise.
One CPS document reviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune lists just three pregnant teenagers. The court document, also reviewed by The Tribune, includes women who became mothers before the FLDS' move to Texas or before the state raised the age of marriage, with parents' permission, from 14 to 16 in 2005. The chart does not indicate whether the women are legally married or the ages of the children's fathers.
Among them: One woman, now 30, listed as having given birth to her first child in 1993 when she was 14. A reference to this situation was made by a CPS investigator without explaining when the pregnancy occurred during the two-day court hearing in which Judge Barbara Walther made her decision to keep the children in state custody. Parker said one CPS list shows some of the minors in state custody are or are about to become adults. One girl sent to a Baptist emergency shelter turned 18 nearly two weeks ago, he said.
"They need to let those people out," Parker said. Parker also refuted CPS' description of an orderly, calm separation of mothers and children at the coliseum. He said it was "complete pandemonium."
As the children, all younger than 5, figured out what was happening, they started screaming and CPS workers had to pry many away from their mothers. "This is inhuman. This is un-American," said Parker, who also said a civil rights lawsuit is possible.
He also said CPS assured nursing mothers they would be able to take breast milk to their infants but, as of early Friday, had been given no information on where the children had been taken. They also were told sibling groups would be kept together. Thirteen children from one family were sent to five locations, he said.
All the FLDS men and many women, some of whom returned Friday, remain on the ranch. "There is a real singular mind-set at the ranch right now to get these children home," he said.

...Among them: One woman, now 30, listed as having given birth to her first child in 1993 when she was 14. A reference to this situation was made by a CPS investigator without explaining when the pregnancy occurred during the two-day court hearing in which Judge Barbara Walther made her decision to keep the children in state custody. Parker said one CPS list shows some of the minors in state custody are or are about to become adults. One girl sent to a Baptist emergency shelter turned 18 nearly two weeks ago, he said. ..