Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

It is the difference in how Catholics (a mainstream religion) are treated from this "fringe" group that is the problem.

Quote:

It is the difference in how Catholics (a mainstream religion) are treated from this "fringe" group that is the problem.

imo there is at least ONE difference :

catholics live amongst the general population and don't keep their children and women on "ranches" surrounded by walls .

Quote:

It is the difference in how Catholics (a mainstream religion) are treated from this "fringe" group that is the problem.

imo there is at least ONE difference :

catholics live amongst the general population and don't keep their children and women on "ranches" surrounded by walls .

Texas makes deal with FLDS couple
(By Ben Winslow, Deseret News, May 27, 2008)

SAN ANGELO, Texas ?- A deal was struck today involving a 14-day-old baby caught up in the raid on the Fundamentalist LDS Church's raid on the YFZ Ranch.

The deal was announced in court this morning after a 2 1/2 hour delay. The hearing would have called numerous child witnesses, attorneys said, including a 13-year-old girl who Child Protective Services authorities suggested last week was a child bride of church leader Warren Jeffs.

The deal gives Texas CPS sole conservatorship over the baby and appoints the parents, Dan Jessop and Louisa Bradshaw (Jessop), as temporary possessors. The deal also delays the hearing until the Texas Supreme Court decides what to do about hundreds of other children still in state custody.

Bradshaw will stay in a San Antonio shelter with her baby. Her two other children who are in an Austin foster care facility will also be placed with her.

The baby boy was born while his mother was in state custody. CPS workers considered Bradshaw a "disputed minor." After the baby's birth, however, CPS declared the mother an adult but sought to have the child placed in state custody along with the more than 450 other FLDS children.

"I feel good about it," Dan Jessop said as he walked out of the courtroom. "It's one step closer to my family being together."

Jessop's attorney, Pat Matassarin, said the agreement was reached in a "collective effort."

Matassarin said she filed a motion to continue the hearing when she learned that numerous witnesses, including the 13-year-old in question, were expected to testify.

"Part of what was brought up last week is beyond the scope of this hearing," she said, referring to photographs showing the girl at age 12 kissing Jeffs in a manner that Texas CPS lawyers described as "how a husband kisses a wife."

Two pieces of evidence were submitted to the court. Texas CPS lawyer Ellen Griffith said one was a marriage record dated July 26, 2006, and another dated Dec. 14, 2003.

The 2006 record was sealed by the judge. However, the date is similar to the date written on the photos of Jeffs kissing the girl. that were entered into evidence.

The 2003 record is presumed to be Dan and Louisa Jessop's marriage record.

Meanwhile the Texas Supreme Court has yet to rule on CPS' challenge to last week's Texas 3rd Court of Appeals ruling that the children should be returned to their parents.

Both sides jockey Texas Supreme Court with sect case filings
(Staff Report, San Angelo Standard-Times, May 27, 2008)

Arguments continue to pile upon arguments in the polygamist sect's child custody case.

In a filing today, the state Child Protective Services agency argued in favor of maintaining custodial possession of the roughly 450 Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints children out of concern that the parents could take them out of state if the children are given back to their mothers.

CPS today filed its reply with the Texas Supreme Court in an attempt to further bolster its contention that the court should not allow a large number of the children taken into state custody in the early April raid on the Schleicher County ranch to be returned to their parents.

On May 22, the Third Court of Appeals in essence told the state it had 10 days to give back custody of the children of more than 40 mothers from the ranch. The ruling, handed down in response to a writ filed by attorneys for the mothers, was sufficiently broad to have encompassed all but a handful of the children the state had removed.

The state on May 23 filed with the Texas Supreme Court to have the appellate ruling stayed. Attorneys for the mothers filed a response the same day, and the state has now filed a reply to that response.

The high court has yet to speak on the issue.

The attorneys for the mothers contend that the state has presented no evidence of child abuse against their individual clients, and the appeals court agreed that the evidence presented to date fails to meet the legal threshold for immediate removal.

CPS, in asking the Supreme Court for a stay, argued in part that it could not be conclusively established which children belong to which parents. The mothers' attorneys replied that denying the stay would only have the effect of allowing the children to remain with their parents while the CPS investigation continues.

In its reply to that, however, CPS warned that returning the children could result in the parents fleeing the jurisdiction with them. The agency argues that allowing the appellate order to stand could harm the investigation in several ways, including the return of 124 children to their mothers "without any male sexual perpetrators being identified."

Activities continued in court today.

CPS on Tuesday's hearing
(Brooke Adams, Salt Lake City Tribune, May 28, 2008)

A cloak of silence that has surrounded the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services lifted briefly after a custody hearing for the 2-week-old infant of Louisa and Dan Jessop was put on hold.

The department has issued this statement:

''We are pleased that the baby shall remain in the state's care.

''Investigators have been able to go through more of the documents found at the ranch and that means CPS has even more evidence detailing family relationships, including marriages of underage girls. It is clearer than ever that children were at risk of sexual abuse at the ranch.

''We were prepared to present that evidence to the court [Tuesday]. We do not know if the parents or the FLDS agreed to a quick solution in this case in order to avoid the public disclosure of that evidence.''

Texas Supreme Court asks for responses by tomorrow morning
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
SAN ANGELO, Texas -- The Texas Supreme Court has asked attorneys representing nearly three dozen mothers from a polygamous sect to answer the state's bid to overturn an order returning their children.
The supreme court was already considering the narrow issue of whether to stay the ruling, which was issued a week ago by the Third Court of Appeals. It found a trial judge improperly kept some 450 FLDS children in state custody.
Now, the supreme court is giving attorneys for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA) a deadline of Thursday at 9 a.m. to respond to the state's broad appeal of that ruling.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services also filed a second petition Wednesday with the state supreme court seeking a stay and a ruling on an identical decision from the appeals court in favor of an additional three mothers.
The court gave Legal Aid of Northwest Texas until Thursday morning to file an answer to that petition.
The news may mean no decision will come this week on the state's appeal.
DFPS contends the Third Court of Appeals erred when it found evidence for keeping custody of all children from the YFZ Ranch was lacking and that 51st District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion in making that order.
The children, whose parents are members
of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, are currently in shelther facilities across Texas.
Earlier this week four sets of parents were allowed to join their children in temporary housing while the legal arguments play out.
Meanwhile, status hearings to review family service plans that list what parents must do to regain custody of their children are on hold.
The state says in court documents filed over the past week that it can not match children to their parents until it gets the results of DNA samples taken in April.
Janece Rolfe, a spokeswoman for the Texas Attorney General's office, said Wednesday the results are expected by the next of the week - next week at the latest.
Laboratory Corporation of America, based in North Carolina, is processing samples from about 500 people affiliated with the sect. Each test costs about $100, she said. The state is picking up the tab.
DFPS has said in court filings it does not know the identities of most children's parents. The DNA results will solve that mystery, it says.
TRLA attorneys call that argument a "red herring" because the state matched children and parents for status hearings that began May 19.
The firm, as well as parents' attorneys, say many FLDS members provided accurate names, dates of birth and documents supporting the information when first questioned by investigators after the April 3 raid on the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado.
Investigators said they found evidence of abuse at the ranch that justified removal of all children. They also said parents and children engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" that made it difficult to figure out family relationships.
Rolfe said the lab will provide reports linking children, mothers and fathers, if their samples were provided, to Walther. Reports also will be provided to attorneys for the state, parents and children, she said.

First, Why don't you credit adult women the rights or the ability to make decisions for themselves and their families (for this group, but not for Catholics)?

i'm all for ALL PEOPLE making FREE decisions for themselves !
but i believe that many of the women on the ranch had been deprived of making THEIR OWN free decisions by their leaders and so-called "husbands" .

Yes the isolation of this group is a difference... but it does not mean they cease to be human beings, nor does it mean they lose their civil rights.

the women and children certainly are HUMAN BEINGS , but were often NOT treated as human beings by their leaders and husbands .


My position is that they should have investigated the reports of abuse. My issue is with the tragic, excessive way they chose to respond. The Texas Child Protective Services screwed up not by taking their responsibility to protect children seriously, but by refusing to accept that these were human beings.

perhaps they did act excessively . however , i wonder what the public reaction would have been if the CPS would have dragged their feet and ignored the abuse ?
i remember how long it took for members of the catholic church to come forward and report the abuse - many were grown men and women before they had enough courage . even then , the catholic authorities played a game of DENY ,DENY , DENY !
(remember how the priests were shuffled around to make identifucation more difficult ?)

They would have done a much better job at protecting the children had they acted reasonably without bigotry.

i have trouble seeing how "bigotry" was involved here - but am willing to admit that i do NOT know the whole story .

Nun Who Worked To Expose Sex Abuse Dies

BOSTON, May 20, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Sister Catherine Mulkerrin, who pressed Roman Catholic church leaders in Boston to warn parishioners about priests who had been accused of sexually abusing children, has died. She was 73.

Mulkerrin died Saturday at Bethany Health Care Center in Framingham after a 24-year battle with cancer, said Sister Joanne Gallagher, spokeswoman for her religious order, the Sisters of St. Joseph in Boston.

Mulkerrin "was a gentle, caring woman with a wonderful sense of humor which those who knew her saw manifested in many ways," the order said in a statement.

As assistant director of the Boston Archdiocesan Office for Victims of Abuse from 1992 to 1994, Mulkerrin received allegations of clergy abuse and dealt directly with victims. She once said she heard allegations against more than 100 priests during that period.

Many of her memos to supervisors were later released as part of lawsuits filed against the archdiocese by alleged victims.

"I know I sound like a broken record," according to a memo from Mulkerrin that was released in 2002, "but we need to put in church bulletins: `It has come to our attention a priest stationed here between 19XX and 19XX may have molested children - please contact ... ."'

She said archdiocese leaders ignored her repeated concerns that priests accused of sexual abuse were allowed to return to parish work without the kind of supervision she had recommended.


"I expressed concern, consternation. What are we thinking of? What are you thinking of?" Mulkerrin said in a deposition released April 8, 2003, about her conversations with Bishop John McCormack, who handled sexual abuse complaints involving priests as an aide to Cardinal Bernard Law, then head of the archdiocese. Law resigned in 2003; McCormack became bishop of New Hampshire in 1998.

She said in the deposition McCormack told her he was trying to address her concerns. He later said through a spokesman he was following policy but acknowledged making mistakes during his time in Boston.

"She really confronted the Archdiocese of Boston six years before the sexual abuse scandal broke out. ... I think that she was incredibly brave to do that," said Sheila Boyle, 60, who received a settlement from the church after she was abused by a now-defrocked priest. "It took a tremendous amount of guts to do that at a time when no one really knew the breadth or scope of crisis was."

The clergy abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. Pope Benedict XVI repeatedly addressed the issue on his U.S. visit in April. He also met privately with five victims and Law's successor as archbishop, Cardinal Sean O'Malley.

Mulkerrin became a nun in 1955, working as a teacher and college librarian. She served six years as president of her order in Boston, resigning after her cancer diagnosis in 1984. She later began working for the Boston Archdiocese.

i'm all for ALL PEOPLE making FREE decisions for themselves !
but i believe that many of the women on the ranch had been deprived of making THEIR OWN free decisions by their leaders and so-called "husbands" .

i'm all for ALL PEOPLE making FREE decisions for themselves !
but i believe that many of the women on the ranch had been deprived of making THEIR OWN free decisions by their leaders and so-called "husbands

the women and children certainly are HUMAN BEINGS , but were often NOT treated as human beings by their leaders and husbands

perhaps they did act excessively . however , i wonder what the public reaction would have been if the CPS would have dragged their feet and ignored the abuse ?
i remember how long it took for members of the catholic church to come forward and report the abuse - many were grown men and women before they had enough courage . even then , the catholic authorities played a game of DENY ,DENY , DENY !
(remember how the priests were shuffled around to make identifucation more difficult ?)

Many child-welfare experts across the nation, who have as a group watched the high-profile Texas case closely, say the raid on the polygamist ranch diverged sharply from the recommended practices both in Texas and elsewhere in the country.

They say a growing body of research supports the contention of the mothers that forceful removal can have both significant short-term and long-lasting harm, particularly for younger children. Some studies have found that the wide-ranging effects include anxiety, extreme distrust of strangers and, in the future, higher rates of teenage pregnancy and juvenile incarceration.

[...]

Some experts in Texas state law and procedure say the state not only violated minimum national standards, which are written into the Texas Family Code, but they also violated due process considerations. These were essentially the findings of the appeals court.

"They made no effort to keep the children there at the ranch," said Johana Scot, executive director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin, which helps advocate for the rights of parents who have had their children taken into foster care.

"And even worse, they did not give the families individual hearings, which they are also required to do by the code," Ms. Scot said. "They've really botched this."

[...]

Steven D. Cohen, a senior associate at the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, a national child-advocacy organization, said that while he could not say whether Texas officials acted improperly in taking the children from their mothers, he did think that they had violated numerous standards of best practice widely used elsewhere.

"Breaking all of the ties to several parental figures and siblings, and taking them to a remote and unfamiliar place raises many red flags about trauma and its effect on children," Mr. Cohen said

Experts say younger children, who often do not have a sense of the passage of time, can be particularly hard hit by such separations. About 100 of the children removed from the sect were 2 years old or younger.

Shelly Greco, a court-appointed lawyer for a 14-month-old girl removed from the ranch, says the child had been up crying uncontrollably many nights because she was so abruptly weaned.

I also add that if that is America's position then it might be time to outlaw Christianity, because until the bible is repealed Christians believe that women should submit to men, and men are to take care of their wives.

perhaps hawkeye feels that christian women MUST submit to their husbands - no matter what . i haven't met any of them amongst our friends or in our neighbourhood - but i have lived for over 50 years
in ontario/canada and that is certainly not a good place to ask women to SUBMIT to their husbands . :wink:

Justice O'Neill, joined by Justice Johnson and Justice Willett, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In this case, the Department of Family and Protective Services presented evidence that "there was a danger to the physical health or safety" of pubescent girls on the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch from a pattern or practice of sexual abuse, that "the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal" of those girls, and that the Department made reasonable efforts, considering the obstacles to information-gathering that were presented, to prevent removal and return those children home. Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b)(1)-(3). As to this endangered population, I do not agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the Department to retain temporary conservatorship until such time as a permanency plan designed to ensure each girl's physical health and safety could be approved. See id. §§ 263.101-.102. On this record, however, I agree that there was no evidence of imminent "danger to the physical health or safety" of boys and pre-pubescent girls to justify their removal from the YFZ Ranch, and to this extent I join the Court's opinion. Id. § 262.201(b)(1).

Evidence presented in the trial court indicated that the Department began its investigation of the YFZ Ranch on March 29th, when it received a report of sexual abuse of a sixteen-year-old girl on the property. On April 3rd, the Department entered the Ranch along with law-enforcement personnel and conducted nineteen interviews of girls aged seventeen or under, as well as fifteen to twenty interviews of adults. In the course of these interviews, the Department learned there were many polygamist families living on the Ranch; a number of girls under the age of eighteen living on the Ranch were pregnant or had given birth; both interviewed girls and adults considered no age too young for a girl to be "spiritually" married; and the Ranch's religious leader, "Uncle Merrill," had the unilateral power to decide when and to whom they would be married. Additionally, in the trial court, the Department presented "Bishop's Records" ?- documents seized from the Ranch ?- indicating the presence of several extremely young mothers or pregnant "wives"[1] on the Ranch: a sixteen-year-old "wife" with a child, a sixteen-year-old pregnant "wife," two pregnant fifteen-year-old "wives," and a thirteen-year-old who had conceived a child. The testimony of Dr. William John Walsh, the families' expert witness, confirmed that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accepts the age of "physical development" (that is, first menstruation) as the age of eligibility for "marriage." Finally, child psychologist Dr. Bruce Duncan Perry testified that the pregnancy of the underage children on the Ranch was the result of sexual abuse because children of the age of fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen are not sufficiently emotionally mature to enter a healthy consensual sexual relationship or a "marriage."

Evidence presented thus indicated a pattern or practice of sexual abuse of pubescent girls, and the condoning of such sexual abuse, on the Ranch[2] ?- evidence sufficient to satisfy a "person of ordinary prudence and caution" that other such girls were at risk of sexual abuse as well. Id. § 262.201(b). This evidence supports the trial court's finding that "there was a danger to the physical health or safety" of pubescent girls on the Ranch. Id. § 262.201(b)(1); see id. § 101.009 ("?'Danger to the physical health or safety of a child' includes exposure of the child to loss or injury that jeopardizes the physical health or safety of the child without regard to whether there has been an actual prior injury to the child."); cf. Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Boyd, 727 S.W.2d 531, 533 (Tex. 1987) (affirming the termination of parental rights for "endanger[ing] . . . the physical well-being of [a] child," and holding: "While we agree that ?'endanger' means more than a threat of metaphysical injury or the possible ill effects of a less-than-ideal family environment, it is not necessary that the conduct be directed at the child or that the child actually suffers injury. Rather, ?'endanger' means to expose to loss or injury; to jeopardize."). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Department met section 262.201(b)(1)'s requirements.

Notwithstanding this evidence of a pattern or practice of sexual abuse of pubescent girls on the Ranch, the court of appeals held ?- and the Court agrees today ?- that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding temporary conservatorship to the Department because the Department failed to attempt legal steps, short of taking custody, to protect the children. Based on the language of section 262.201 of the Family Code, I disagree. Subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3) of section 262.201 require the Department to demonstrate that "reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child's removal," Tex. Fam. Code § 262.201(b)(2), and that "reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home," id. § 262.201(b)(3). The Court suggests, consistent with the mothers' arguments in the court of appeals below, that the Department failed to adequately justify its failure to seek less-intrusive alternatives to taking custody of the children: namely, seeking restraining orders against alleged perpetrators under section 262.1015 of the Family Code, or other temporary orders under section 105.001 of the Family Code. Id. §§ 262.1015, 105.001.

However, the Family Code requires only that the Department make "reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances" to avoid taking custody of endangered children. Id. § 262.201(b)(2). Evidence presented in the trial court indicated that the actions of the children and mothers precluded the Department from pursuing other legal options. When the Department arrived at the YFZ Ranch, it was treated cordially and allowed access to children, but those children repeatedly pled "the Fifth" in response to questions about their identity, would not identify their birth-dates or parentage, refused to answer questions about who lived in their homes, and lied about their names ?- sometimes several times. Answers from parents were similarly inconsistent: one mother first claimed that four children were hers, and then later avowed that they were not. Furthermore, the Department arrived to discover that a shredder had been used to destroy documents just before its arrival.

Thwarted by the resistant behavior of both children and parents on the Ranch, the Department had limited options. Without knowing the identities of family members or of particular alleged perpetrators, the Department could not have sought restraining orders under section 262.1015 as it did not know whom to restrain. See id. § 262.1015. Likewise, it could not have barred any family member from access to a child without filing a verified pleading or affidavit, which must identify clearly the parent and the child to be separated. See id. § 105.001(c)(3) ("Except on a verified pleading or an affidavit . . . an order may not be rendered . . . excluding a parent from possession of or access to a child."). Furthermore, the trial court heard evidence that the mothers themselves believed that the practice of underage "marriage" and procreation was not harmful for young girls; the Department's witnesses testified that although the Department "always wants kids to be with their parents," they will only reunify children with their parents after "it's determined that [their parents] know and can express what it was in the first place that caused harm to their children." This is some evidence that the Department could not have reasonably sought to maintain custody with the mothers. Thus, evidence presented to the trial court demonstrated that the Department took reasonable efforts, consistent with extraordinarily difficult circumstances, to protect the children without taking them into custody. Id.

The record demonstrates that there was evidence to support the trial court's order as it relates to pubescent female children. Although I agree with the Court that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody of male children and pre-pubescent female children to the Department as temporary conservator, I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as to the demonstrably endangered population of pubescent girls, and to this extent would grant the Department's petition for mandamus. Because the Court does not, I respectfully dissent.

Harriet O'Neill
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: May 29, 2008 Supreme Court of Texas