Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

Such extraordinary incompetence at DPS must be responded to with dismissals at the very top, and such disdain for the principles of civil liberties, the rule of law, and due process from the governor must be met with political death.

Quote:

Such extraordinary incompetence at DPS must be responded to with dismissals at the very top, and such disdain for the principles of civil liberties, the rule of law, and due process from the governor must be met with political death.

Such extraordinary crap; DPS acted solely and only with a order from a Judge. DPS does not and cannot act outside the laws of the state of texas as enacted by their state legislature.

Concerned that the community had a culture of polygamy and of directing girls younger than eighteen to enter spiritual unions with older men and have children, the Department took possession of all 468 children at the Ranch without a court order

Quote:

Such extraordinary incompetence at DPS must be responded to with dismissals at the very top, and such disdain for the principles of civil liberties, the rule of law, and due process from the governor must be met with political death.

Such extraordinary crap; DPS acted solely and only with a order from a Judge. DPS does not and cannot act outside the laws of the state of texas as enacted by their state legislature.

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

Such extraordinary incompetence at DPS must be responded to with dismissals at the very top, and such disdain for the principles of civil liberties, the rule of law, and due process from the governor must be met with political death.

Such extraordinary crap; DPS acted solely and only with a order from a Judge. DPS does not and cannot act outside the laws of the state of texas as enacted by their state legislature.

Sorry Dys. But in this particular case, hawkeye is right and you are wrong. The Texas Supreme Court states the opposite in the very first paragraph of its opinion:

The Texas Supreme Court wrote:

Concerned that the community had a culture of polygamy and of directing girls younger than eighteen to enter spiritual unions with older men and have children, the Department took possession of all 468 children at the Ranch without a court order

Source: Fishin's link

The point is a Judge gave the order allowing protective services to take temporary custody of the children, this was NOT an independent decision of Childrens Protective Services.

§ 83.001. REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY EX PARTE ORDER.
(a) If the court finds from the information contained in an
application for a protective order that there is a clear and present
danger of family violence, the court, without further notice to the
individual alleged to have committed family violence and without a
hearing, may enter a temporary ex parte order for the protection of
the applicant or any other member of the family or household of the
applicant.

Such extraordinary crap; DPS acted solely and only with a order from a Judge. DPS does not and cannot act outside the laws of the state of texas as enacted by their state legislature.

That's because theologically liberal Christians, men or women, have stopped being Christians long ago. They're just in denial about it, falsely believing that a Christian is a desirable thing to be. But hawkeye is right: if you accept the Bible as the standard of what's Christian, Christians clearly have to be anti-emancipation. You'd also have to be pro-slavery too. Not to mention creationist.

I really do think hawkeye is closer to the truth than you are, hamburger. But keep in mind I'm an atheist -- so when I say that someone isn't a Christian, or has ceased to be one, I usually mean that as a compliment.

I can speak to this one from experience... when I was religious, my community (as many conservative Christian churches do) taught that women should submit to their husbands.

The thing is... the women in this community fully believed and taught this. All of them were there voluntarily (being adult women with all of the rights and legal protections of modern western society). Many of them were well-educated with professional jobs.

In our diverse free societies, there are a fair number of women who believe and choose to live this way. I know many people who live decent fulfilled lives.

Why do you think it is a good idea to deny women the ability to choose this lifestyle?

dyslexia wrote:

§ 83.001. REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY EX PARTE ORDER.
(a) If the court finds from the information contained in an
application for a protective order that there is a clear and present
danger of family violence, the court, without further notice to the
individual alleged to have committed family violence and without a
hearing, may enter a temporary ex parte order for the protection of
the applicant or any other member of the family or household of the
applicant.

You are amazing...two superior courts have ruled that the original judge got the law wrong....and you still claim that the law was followed. CAre to explain why you are more of an expert on Texas law than the appellate and state supreme courts are??

yes certainly I am amazing in that I can read, the fact that 2 superior courts ruled that the original judge got it wrong proves that the original judge got it wrong. I am not here to defend texas child protection services but you seem only intent in critiquing sans merit . BY TEXAS LAW child protective services did what they should have in that they got a court order for the custody of the children in question SIGNED by a judge (whether or not you approve of backwater judges).

Most of these things get signed pro forma....you do know that right???

Quote:

Most of these things get signed pro forma....you do know that right???

bulllshit; btw CPS are not cops.

dyslexia wrote:

Quote:

Most of these things get signed pro forma....you do know that right???

bulllshit; bad CPS are not cops.

CPS getting a judge to sign an order removing your kids (if you have any) and a cop getting a judge to sign your arrest warrant is pretty much the same process. If you are going to let CPS get away with misleading a judge on the law and on the validity of the action that they want to take then you must allow the police to do the same thing. They will, and that is why you should be pissed when CPS gets away with violating the process as they did.

I spent 30 years in child protective services.

BTW, I spent 30 years in child protective services.

dyslexia wrote:

BTW, I spent 30 years in child protective services.

Then you should be first in line to condemn the actions of the Texas CPS, as they violated the law and they brought dishonor and disrespect upon all of those in the field who do act responsibly and do follow the law. All CPS workers are for a long while going to be associated with their incompetent colleagues who acted in Texas.

hawkeye10 wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

BTW, I spent 30 years in child protective services.

Then you should be first in line to condemn the actions of the Texas CPS, as they violated the law and they brought dishonor and disrespect upon all of those in the field who do act responsibly and do follow the law. All CPS workers are for a long while going to be associated with their incompetent colleagues who acted in Texas.

I find it difficult to condemn anyone without a solid basis of fact. Just what law did CPS violate?
The next time I read in the papers or see on CNN about the abused/beaten/dead child I will think of you.
Now, that being said, if you want to debate the issue of "anti-cultism' and the inherent bias demonstrated against them, that might make for an interesting conversation.

The point is a Judge gave the order allowing protective services to take temporary custody of the children, this was NOT an independent decision of Childrens Protective Services.

In the Texas Supreme Court decision, the three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed that the state had no right to remove the young boys from the ranch but that the district court did not err in electing to remove pubescent girls from the ranch and keep them in state custody.

The pubescent girls are "demonstrably endangered," Justice Harriet O'Neill wrote.

Just to keep confusion among those that are omniscient in condemning CPS, it ain't all clear even to the Supremes.

Quote:

In the Texas Supreme Court decision, the three dissenting justices said in an attached opinion that they agreed that the state had no right to remove the young boys from the ranch but that the district court did not err in electing to remove pubescent girls from the ranch and keep them in state custody.

The pubescent girls are "demonstrably endangered," Justice Harriet O'Neill wrote.

PLEASE NOTE "the district court did not err" rather than something like CPS did err. Damn, I hate it when CPS workers are not as knowledgeable as the Texas Supreme Court Judges.