Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

wandeljw wrote:

Cases where children are abused in an institutional setting are less common.

That's a bit of wishful thinking.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Cases where children are abused in an institutional setting are less common.

That's a bit of wishful thinking.

true

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Thomas wrote:
squinney wrote:
As a world, we have to have standards. Some of those standards cannot be opted out of for any reason. Just as we do not tolerate female mutilation now that it is known to happen in some sub-cultures, (or canibalism or any number of other behaviors) we shouldn't ignore or amend laws to allow a sub culture to marry off little girls to old men.

Fair enough. And since the problem is child brides, as you said yourself in your earlier post, I have no problem with the state removing the brides, and maybe the girls in immediate danger of being "married" off. But how do you get from there to removing all the 400 children in the compound? How is that not way excessive?

Cases where children are abused in an institutional setting are less common. The Texas case is even more unusual because of the high number of children involved. I do believe it is normal to remove all children from a setting alleged to be abusive.

According to the articles at the beginning of this thread, this is a case where "a" (meaning one) 16 year old called a shelter and claimed that her husband had been abusing her. That justifies the police entering the compound searching it for the 16 year old, her child, and her husband, and seizing them if they find them. But what justifies rounding up everyone and seizing all the children in the compound?

Dyslexia or dlowan can give a more authoritative explanation than me. I had the impression that when an entire setting is accused of institutional child abuse, all children in that setting are removed for their protection.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Thomas wrote:
squinney wrote:
As a world, we have to have standards. Some of those standards cannot be opted out of for any reason. Just as we do not tolerate female mutilation now that it is known to happen in some sub-cultures, (or canibalism or any number of other behaviors) we shouldn't ignore or amend laws to allow a sub culture to marry off little girls to old men.

Fair enough. And since the problem is child brides, as you said yourself in your earlier post, I have no problem with the state removing the brides, and maybe the girls in immediate danger of being "married" off. But how do you get from there to removing all the 400 children in the compound? How is that not way excessive?

Cases where children are abused in an institutional setting are less common. The Texas case is even more unusual because of the high number of children involved. I do believe it is normal to remove all children from a setting alleged to be abusive.

According to the articles at the beginning of this thread, this is a case where "a" (meaning one) 16 year old called a shelter and claimed that her husband had been abusing her. That justifies the police entering the compound searching it for the 16 year old, her child, and her husband, and seizing them if they find them. But what justifies rounding up everyone and seizing all the children in the compound?

My understanding is that this is not how it happened.....as I understand it, an investigation began, which is alleged to have turned up concerns about a number of minors, and that during this investigation the decision was made to remove all the children.

I am personally able, I think, to see all sides of this argument...and what I am struck by is the enormous difficulty of investigating fairly but thoroughly in such situations. Hell, it is excruciatingly difficult investigating and intervening in child abuse (especially sexual and emotional) in ANY situation.

I suffer in my analysis from being unfamiliar with the way things are done in the USA, or Texas. I see complaints from people that the state is too interventionist, and it is hard for me to form any kind of informed opinion re this and whether it is the usual child protection dilemma of "damned if you do and damned if you don't...and whatever you do nobody is happy", which is just the normal background for any child protection agency, or whether, indeed, the authorities in Texas have behaved unwisely.

The system here appears to me to be rather different from what I gather is the norm in the USA, but I find myself unconsciously thinking about this situation based on my knowledge of how things work here, for which I apologize.

Thing is, investigation of abuse in cults has, to my knowledge, often (if not always?????) gone badly. I would think that this is partly because of the enormous difficulties presented by the circumstances, as well as possible prejudice or lack of competence on the part of investigators, and possibly because there is no good body of knowledge and research about how to go about making such investigations effectively, and minimising harm while doing so.

This has not meant that some of the accusations which might have been deemed hysterical, and which did not result in prosecutions, were not apparently (judging from what many children who are now adult are saying about child abuse in cults such as the Children of God) well founded.

I think black/white arguments in this field are naive in the extreme.

There is generally no perfect way to proceed....there is more a least bad way to proceed, weighing up risks and benefits in the most balanced and rational way one can. I make no claim to know whether this was done in this case.

Taking children away from parents not alleged (with reasonable cause to believe the allegations may be well supported enough) to have abused them during investigation is an enormous step, with the potential to do great harm.

However, I think simply assuming, based on such imperfect knowledge of the facts as ALL of us here have (my view of the likelihood of really accurate media reporting in this and other complex alleged abuse cases, based on experience, is such that I discount a great deal of what is being written, but anyhoo) that in this case it is quite unjustified is as foolish as simply assuming that it is totally justified.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Thomas wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
Thomas wrote:
squinney wrote:
As a world, we have to have standards. Some of those standards cannot be opted out of for any reason. Just as we do not tolerate female mutilation now that it is known to happen in some sub-cultures, (or canibalism or any number of other behaviors) we shouldn't ignore or amend laws to allow a sub culture to marry off little girls to old men.

Fair enough. And since the problem is child brides, as you said yourself in your earlier post, I have no problem with the state removing the brides, and maybe the girls in immediate danger of being "married" off. But how do you get from there to removing all the 400 children in the compound? How is that not way excessive?

Cases where children are abused in an institutional setting are less common. The Texas case is even more unusual because of the high number of children involved. I do believe it is normal to remove all children from a setting alleged to be abusive.

According to the articles at the beginning of this thread, this is a case where "a" (meaning one) 16 year old called a shelter and claimed that her husband had been abusing her. That justifies the police entering the compound searching it for the 16 year old, her child, and her husband, and seizing them if they find them. But what justifies rounding up everyone and seizing all the children in the compound?

Dyslexia or dlowan can give a more authoritative explanation than me. I had the impression that when an entire setting is accused of institutional child abuse, all children in that setting are removed for their protection.

I don't know that there is any pro forma.

I don't know how common such investigations are, and my knowledge does not include such investigations.

As I have said earlier on this thread, the principle here is that an alleged abuser (and here allegations have to meet quite high criteria even to be investigated) is not permitted contact with the child during the investigation. This is done to minimise the chance of the child being influenced by that person, and to minimise risk of further abuse.

Normally, this means the alleged abuser, if living or working with the child, lives elsewhere, or ceases to work where the child is (or is suspended from child contact work while the case is investigated).....NOT that the child is removed, unless there is only one parent/carer.

If both parents/carers etc. are accused of abuse, then a child would likely be placed, either with relatives or in care.

If a carer is not accused of abuse, but there is evidence that they would attempt to influence the child's statement about their partner etc, then again a child may be placed in care....but this is seen as a BIG step.

The principle is to cause the least amount of disruption to the child as possible within the limits of keeping the child safe.

In reality, as I said earlier, one just struggles with the least worst option..... there's little good anywhere in the whole damn situation.

That's if there is any investigation.

Currently, here, we have the child welfare agency so understaffed that even some Tier 1's (which is top priority) are not being actioned. And that's just the start of the problems, but don't get me started.

0 Replies

The body of law in most US states commonly called "children's code" is, at best, vague and generally leaves the evidence/criteria up to the courts to determine legitimacy of charges. This, I believe is intentional. On the other hand, in my experience it is far too common for children to suffer more trauma at the hand of institutional care givers such as foster care, group homes and residential child care facilities than they would have if they remained in the family home which elicited the abuse/neglect charges in the first place. As one 9 year old once told me "I'd rather be beaten by my father than by a stranger" It is, as Dlowan points out a thin line of judgement as to what is in the best interests of the child.
Don't get me started either.

0 Replies

I am grateful to dlowan and dyslexia for providing a more realistic perspective.

0 Replies

For these kids being forcibly removed from their way of life and from the people they know as their parents is in and of itself trauma. We have full knowledge of this before the fact, because the kids removed during the last raid on a polygamy cult were studied in depth. Is is partly because it became clear that these kids were greatly traumatized by the state's actions that since that time until now states have refused to go down that road again. The state of Texas should have considered adopting the credo "first do no harm". There were other ways available to the state to get to the bottom of what abuse was taking place without traumatizing all of the kids in the cult. The sad fact is that the state officials simply did not care enough about these kids to consider other options, or moving at a slower pace, or studying what went wrong at short creek and attempting to avoid the same mistakes. These officials had it in their head that they knew best, and come hell or high water they were going to do things the way they wanted to do them. Procedures must be followed damn it, what they do to people is besides the point.

0 Replies

How omniscient of you hawkeye, is it boring to know as much as you do without facts to substaniate your opinions?

0 Replies

Children who are abused by their parents or other family members seldom want to leave them. It's the only home and the only family they have known and despite the abuse they feel loyalty towards them.

They are traumatized while living there, and they are traumatized when
removed from the home. However, if the parents cannot provide a safe
haven for their children, the authorities have to step in as advocates for
the children to make sure they won't suffer further abuse.

With a safe environment i.e. foster families and appropriate counseling,
these children have a chance to get through this trauma. Having the
children stay with the abusers, won't change anything.

The problem I see here in this thread is that the definition of child abuse
is different from one person to another. hawkeye, Thomas, ebrown and
fishin' are much more lenient towards the definition as wandel, dlowan,
squinney, dyslexia and myself.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

How omniscient of you hawkeye, is it boring to know as much as you do without facts to substaniate your opinions?

If you have a problem with what I have said collect your arguments and your evidence and let's settle this out back.

0 Replies

<snort>

be careful what ya wish for, buckwheat...

RH

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

The problem I see here in this thread is that the definition of child abuse
is different from one person to another. hawkeye, Thomas, ebrown and
fishin' are much more lenient towards the definition as wandel, dlowan,
squinney, dyslexia and myself.

It would be just as valid to say that wandel, dlowan,
squinney, dyslexia and Calamity or much more tolorant of the abuse of individual rights than hawkeye, Thomas, ebrown and
fishin are.

Some of us are getting darn tired of loosing rights because someone says that we need to "protect" safety. Nothing is safe in life, but freedom is a darn nice thing to have and I for one don't want to give it all away in the pursuit of something that does not exist...safety.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Some of us are getting darn tired of loosing rights because someone says that we need to "protect" safety.

Yes I can understand that and you can voice your opinion and you can
defend yourself. Children however are helpless, they need us to protect them and to step in when we (society) feel they're in danger.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Children who are abused by their parents or other family members seldom want to leave them. It's the only home and the only family they have known and despite the abuse they feel loyalty towards them.

They are traumatized while living there, and they are traumatized when
removed from the home. However, if the parents cannot provide a safe
haven for their children, the authorities have to step in as advocates for
the children to make sure they won't suffer further abuse.

With a safe environment i.e. foster families and appropriate counseling,
these children have a chance to get through this trauma. Having the
children stay with the abusers, won't change anything.

The problem I see here in this thread is that the definition of child abuse
is different from one person to another. hawkeye, Thomas, ebrown and
fishin' are much more lenient towards the definition as wandel, dlowan,
squinney, dyslexia and myself.

Actually, I am more arguing from a rule of law basis. The law is clearly being broken in that compound, and I think bottom line is we need laws re this stuff.

I think this is an enormously complex situation, and I fear very much that the kids will suffer more trauma from the removal than from what they have been experiencing in the cult......(and, like DYS, I have enormous, sad, weary cynicism about what quality of care they may be receiving whilst in care..).....but I don't think I know anywhere NEAR enough to venture an informed opinion.

Personally, I abhor these situations in which kids are enculturated in some tiny, opaque universe, especially if their education IS only in what the cult wants them to know...and I think that qualifies as psychological abuse, never mind the sexual stuff, which is what people tend to get het up about and focus on. (Mind you, I am not saying that sexual abuse does not have extremely serious consequences).

But......my abhorrence does not abuse define.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Children who are abused by their parents or other family members seldom want to leave them. It's the only home and the only family they have known and despite the abuse they feel loyalty towards them.

They are traumatized while living there, and they are traumatized when
removed from the home. However, if the parents cannot provide a safe
haven for their children, the authorities have to step in as advocates for
the children to make sure they won't suffer further abuse.

There is a lot more to it than loyalty. An abused child knows their "position in the pack" within the abusive environment. That's not ideal by any means but removing them from their home is completely disorienting.

Quote:

With a safe environment i.e. foster families and appropriate counseling, these children have a chance to get through this trauma. Having the children stay with the abusers, won't change anything.

The fallacy here is that foster care is no safer than where they were. Everyone would like to think that it is but if you read through the numerous studies from each state you'll find that on average, 1 in 4 children is sexually abused while in the State's care after being removed from their home and as many as 60% can expect to be mentally or physically abused while in foster care.

Quote:

The problem I see here in this thread is that the definition of child abuse
is different from one person to another. hawkeye, Thomas, ebrown and
fishin' are much more lenient towards the definition as wandel, dlowan,
squinney, dyslexia and myself.

IMO, the difference isn't so much in the definition of what is or isn't abuse but in whether the State can (or should) remove children form their homes while they are trying to figure out if there is any abuse at all.

The State of TX standard requires the threat of imminent physical harm before removing the child. While I think sexual and physical abuse would certianly count in that I don't see how "they have weird religious beliefs" or "they repress women!" does.

Those other issues may very well fall under the category of neglect or be considered abusive but they don't rise to the legal standard that State has set for removal at this point. If those allegations are founded then the State can remove the children from their homes when they've proven the charges - not just alledged them.

This goes back to Squinney's earlier comments about whether or not "we" have a say. The people of the State of Texas created the law that creates the breakpoint for when "we" have a say in how someone else's child is raised. That standard applies to State agencies as well as parents.

0 Replies

Fair enough dlowen. In your opinion, what should have been done
resp. how should the authorities in Texas have handled it correctly?

We know about the bogus phone call, and we know that, once the child
protective services investigated, there was abuse, sexual abuse and
possibly other abuse - not with all 400+ children but with some.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

CalamityJane wrote:
Children who are abused by their parents or other family members seldom want to leave them. It's the only home and the only family they have known and despite the abuse they feel loyalty towards them.

They are traumatized while living there, and they are traumatized when
removed from the home. However, if the parents cannot provide a safe
haven for their children, the authorities have to step in as advocates for
the children to make sure they won't suffer further abuse.

There is a lot more to it than loyalty. An abused child knows their "position in the pack" within the abusive environment. That's not ideal by any means but removing them from their home is completely disorienting.

Quote:
With a safe environment i.e. foster families and appropriate counseling, these children have a chance to get through this trauma. Having the children stay with the abusers, won't change anything.

The fallacy here is that foster care is no safer than where they were. Everyone would like to think that it is but if you read through the numerous studies from each state you'll find that on average, 1 in 4 children is sexually abused while in the State's care after being removed from their home and as many as 60% can expect to be mentally or physically abused while in foster care.

Quote:
The problem I see here in this thread is that the definition of child abuse
is different from one person to another. hawkeye, Thomas, ebrown and
fishin' are much more lenient towards the definition as wandel, dlowan,
squinney, dyslexia and myself.

IMO, the difference isn't so much in the definition of what is or isn't abuse but in whether the State can (or should) remove children form their homes while they are trying to figure out if there is any abuse at all.

The State of TX standard requires the threat of imminent physical harm before removing the child. While I think sexual and physical abuse would certianly count in that I don't see how "they have weird religious beliefs" or "they repress women!" does.

Those other issues may very well fall under the category of neglect or be considered abusive but they don't rise to the legal standard that State has set for removal at this point. If those allegations are founded then the State can remove the children from their homes when they've proven the charges - not just alledged them.

This goes back to Squinney's earlier comments about whether or not "we" have a say. The people of the State of Texas created the law that creates the breakpoint for when "we" have a say in how someone else's child is raised. That standard applies to State agencies as well as parents.

"That's not ideal by any means but removing them from their home is completely disorienting."

Yes it is, but a lot of kids I work with, while disoriented upon removal, and highly traumatised by it, also feel immense relief and gladness that they are no longer being hurt.

As I said, there's not a lot of good in this area, but there is some least bad.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

There is a lot more to it than loyalty. An abused child knows their "position in the pack" within the abusive environment. That's not ideal by any means but removing them from their home is completely disorienting.

I disagree, and obviously most states do so too!

Quote:

The fallacy here is that foster care is no safer than where they were. Everyone would like to think that it is but if you read through the numerous studies from each state you'll find that on average, 1 in 4 children is sexually abused while in the State's care after being removed from their home and as many as 60% can expect to be mentally or physically abused while in foster care.

I will research your claim that 1 in 4 children are sexually abused in
foster care. Other countries have orphanages, why where they abolished in the US?

Quote:

IMO, the difference isn't so much in the definition of what is or isn't abuse but in whether the State can (or should) remove children form their homes while they are trying to figure out if there is any abuse at all.

How do you figure out abuse while the children are still at home?

Quote:

The State of TX standard requires the threat of imminent physical harm before removing the child. While I think sexual and physical abuse would certianly count in that I don't see how "they have weird religious beliefs" or "they repress women!" does.

The State of TX has not removed the children due to their mothers being repressed or due to their religious beliefs.

Quote:

Those other issues may very well fall under the category of neglect or be considered abusive but they don't rise to the legal standard that State has set for removal at this point. If those allegations are founded then the State can remove the children from their homes when they've proven the charges - not just alledged them.

This goes back to Squinney's earlier comments about whether or not "we" have a say. The people of the State of Texas created the law that creates the breakpoint for when "we" have a say in how someone else's child is raised. That standard applies to State agencies as well as parents.

It is not so much of how someone else's child is raised, as it is that
there is a norm, a standard of what children should learn during their
educational years. As far as I know, it is against the law to not educate
your children through either home schooling or public venues.

All the children at the TX ranch were taught the "bible" only. They have
no knowledge of the grade appropriate education that is required by
law. Even home schooled children are subject to state testing in various
subjects. I highly doubt that these children were included in such testings.

And yes, it is a form of child abuse if you neglect resp. deny your children a decent education that is accredited by a public education board.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Fair enough dlowen. In your opinion, what should have been done
resp. how should the authorities in Texas have handled it correctly?

We know about the bogus phone call, and we know that, once the child
protective services investigated, there was abuse, sexual abuse and
possibly other abuse - not with all 400+ children but with some.

I guess my position all along here has been "I'm damned if I know how it should have been handled."

What I DO know is that I DON'T know nearly enough to either criticise or support the authorities. I am just thinking "thank heavens this cup did not fall to me."

One of the dilemmas is that people are saying the kids ought not to have been removed while the investigation was done.....and the media tells me the authorities attempted to investigate without doing so.

However, how is a child living with their alleged abuser going to feel freely able to talk about what has been happening in their lives?

For starters, one can assume they are very likely to be put under pressure, either implicit or covert, to say only what the cult leaders want them to say. It is hard enough for kids to talk about anything their parents/powewrful adults do that they feel uncomfortable with, without living with that parent while being asked to do so. Kids here are almost never interviewed while having contact with the alleged abuser.

I guess one possibility would have been that the men implicated were given alternative accommodation while the kids were interviewed.

However, from what I gather (and as I understand to be normal in such situations) ALL, or almost all, the adults are in agreement with what has occurred in relation to the children. Therefore, how likely is it that non-implicated men, mothers and other women in the group will also be influencing the children and what they are saying? Pretty goddamn likely, I would say. After all, they presumably believe that whatever has occurred is god's will, and what believer wishes to have themselves, or those they love, or at least have been taught to look up to, in trouble for doing god's will? (Which, as far as I know, it appears to have been back when this god....I assume it is basically the judeo-christian god they worship????....was first invented.)

Another issue seems to me to be a cost/benefit thing. Not to mention all the reasonable concerns expressed here re how we balance state vs parental vs children's rights in all this. Guess what? I don't believe we'll EVER be able to do that perfectly.....again we can only humbly and mindfully do our best to do what is least worst.

How likely is it that (except where there is physical evidence that adult men in the cult have been having sex with minors) any of the allegations will "stick"?

If such a massive and traumatic intervention cannot achieve any benefit to the children, is it worth traumatising them? (Remember, we do not KNOW if all the kids are unhappy being removed, by the way...some may be experiencing different feelings).

However, that would be an argument for never touching cults, and we know (or at least numbers of the now adult kids raised in them tell us this) that in some cults there is serious abuse with enormous effects on the kids who experienced it.

I am wondering if a lot of the expertise re what would be helpful might lie with the adults who experienced abuse in cults as kids.

I am also wondering if there IS a body of knowledge developing re intervention in these situations? Do you guys have any "experts" coming out of the woodwork and discussing what has occurred in what seems to be a rational and reasonable way?

I know I have no knowledge at all about good and well-supported practice in suchg a field.

0 Replies

Polygamists: Authorities Prepare For the Worst in Texas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know