Reunification of Families

[Alaskagain]

Constitutional issue: Amendment 1.

"Deseret News | FLDS women's lawyers seek return of children

"When asked whether [CPS agent] Voss would consider allowing mothers to stay with their children if they agreed to leave the ranch, she said it wouldn't be acceptable unless they disavowed their belief, according to the petition."

They have to DISAVOW their belief of what? polygamy? modern day prophets? that a woman’s highest calling is to be a wife and mother? that the husband is the leader of the home? that marriage can be eternal? Book of Mormon is true? personal revelation? Anything that doesn’t agree with the Southern Baptists? that the Bible is holy scripture? in Jesus Christ, our Saviour? in Heavenly Father?

What would you do if you had to make that choice?

There is a lot of hysteria out there on the internet, but two blogs I have found to be enlightening and logical are: The Common Room, and Grits For Breakfast.

I encourage all to read, all to think, all to pray, and all to act as their conscience dictates.

[Moksha]

If a woman had a boyfriend who consistently abused her children, would it be unreasonable for the court to ask her to get rid of her boyfriend?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Of course not Moksha but this is making the assumption that the religion equals child abuse.

[Moksha]

Of course not Moksha but this is making the assumption that the religion equals child abuse.

No, I think it is just realizing that abuse is part and parcel of this particular brand of polygamy.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Has that actually been proven though? This is what I am not clear on.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I haven't been following the story closely, but wouldn't requiring somebody to disavow their beliefs violate the First Amendment? Why were the children separated from their mothers in the first place? Was there also abuse going on? If so, I can understand separating the children from their abusers, for their safety, but beliefs are not abuse.

DH

[Alaskagain]

If a woman had a boyfriend who consistently abused her children, would it be unreasonable for the court to ask her to get rid of her boyfriend?

No, that would be reasonable, Moksha. A woman whose boyfriend or husband abuses her children should NOT stay with him.

[Elphaba]

Has that actually been proven though? This is what I am not clear on.

Hi Willow,

Below are some links that discuss the child abuse that people who have escaped say is rampant the FLDS sect.

Here are some links you might be interested in:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,645197055,00.html?pg=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elissa-wall/warren-jeffs-flds-church_b_102195.html

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_37/b3698209.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/08/polygamy/

http://www.polygamy.org/media.shtml

Contrary to most people, I applaud the state of Texas. It has no history of polygamy, which colors Colorado, Arizona's and Utah's law enforcement, even when they see crimes committed by the FLDS.

So when Texas came into investigate the compound, it had no history of polygamy to stop it from doing what Utah should have done long ago. It immediately saw abuse of children, and called in CPS.

The obvious abuse was of young women, many married to older men, being pregnant or having alread had a baby at appalingly young ages. It is against the law for men to have sex with underage women, and their parents are obviously NOT protecting them from this abuse, and intead are complicit in it.

Then there are the young men who are thrown out of the compound as there are too many of them, and they compete with the older men. What parent could let their young son be thrown out, with nothing! They are called the "Lost Boys," and some of the first groups thrown out are having a very difficult time with their sense of abandonment, as well as difficulty adjusting to the real world. Others, however, have adjusted well. Nevertheless, it is appalling to me to think a parent would do this, and more importantly, these parents are NOT protecting their children.

Further investigation gave evidence of physical abuse as well at the Texas compound. One of the links below explains how Jeffs would abuse the children at the high school where he was principal.

My viewpoint is based on the fact that I know what it is like to have an authority figure force you into sexual acts. I also know what it is like not to have your parent protect you from abuse.

Obviously there is a huge difference, as these young women, and their parents, believe they have been chosen by God to marry these men. It doesn't change the fact that it is abuse, and rather than giving their children away, their parents should be protecting them this abuse.

I do not take the trauma of children being separted from their mothers lightly, far from it. There just is no good answer here. They could allow all of the mothers and children to reunite, but obviously that would result in more child abuse, and CPS would be rightfully negligient for allowing this to happen.

So the only option CPS has is to remove the children from their homes until it can determine who is in danger and who is not.

Those whose parents are not going to put their children in these predicaments will have children who are traumatized once reuinted. However, children are resiliant, and with the love of their parents, they will heal.

I suspect that ultimately, the only answer will be for CPS to keep a keen eye on the families once they get most of the children reuinted with their families. If it comes in and sees a young girl pregnant, it will take action. However, these people know how to hide from the outside world, as evidenced by one interview I saw of the mothers whose children had been taken away. They lied, adamantly insisting there was no abuse, when every single person who has escaped tells stories of the abuse, and for most of them, it was horrendous.

Child abuse is child abuse, whether commanded by God or not. And it is a crime for a good reason. It destroys childrens' mental well-being, many for their entire lives.

I applaud Texas for doing what Utah would not.

Elphaba

[ztodd]

I think there is probably more to the abuse than just marrying of under-age women. If the parents give consent, then it's not illegal from what I understand. But if there is physical abuse, that's a different matter.

added:

Is being forced into marriage by your parents illegal?

Once married, does that make it harder or impossible to claim rape or sexual abuse from your spouse?

[Elphaba]

I think there is probably more to the abuse than just marrying of under-age women. If the parents give consent, then it's not illegal from what I understand. But if there is physical abuse, that's a different matter.

Says someone who was never a 13-year-old girl forced into having intercourse with a man.

I am sorry for being rude, but the notion that a man forcing a young teen to have intercourse with him is not as bad as "real" physical abuse, is insane.

All of this talk about the "legal" age is maddening.

Nothing magical happens to young girls once they hit the "legal" age. If the girl is in Texas, and it is legal to marry at 13, but then she travels to another state, where the legal age is 16, does she suddenly regress to a little girl, who, if a man has intercourse with her, will be traumatized by the abuse?

No she does not. She is a young girl whatever the "legal" age, and this argument only perpetuates the abuse these young girls are forced into, with their polygamist parents' consent.

If you want to know if a man having intercourse with a 13-year-old girl physically or emotional hurts the girl, I guarantee you, it does hurt, and I guarantee you it is going to hurt for the rest of her life.

I understand the polygamists' beliefs make it slightly different, because she has been raised to understand she will be married off to someone. But it does not matter, because once she is in that bedroom, and this "someone" is having intercourse with her, she IS being abused.

I wish I could get more graphic, because I do not think people here realize WHY this is abuse. So do me a favor and picture your 13-year-old niece, grandaughter, friend, or daughter, in that bedroom as a man is in the midst of intercourse, and then tell me it does not hit you what is really happening to her.

I assume, in our world, you and others here agree that when a 13-year-old girl is forced to have intercourse with her uncle, if he is caught, he is going to be convicted of a serious and heinous crime, and no one would condemn his conviction.

So why is it that when polygamist men have intercourse with their 13-year-old "wives," the effect on these girls is somehow different? Why isn't everyone here as outraged for this young girl as you would be for the young girl who was raped by her uncle?

Is being forced into marriage by your parents illegal?

Good question.

Once married, does that make it harder or impossible to claim rape or sexual abuse from your spouse?

Not according to the law, at least outside of the compound.

However, even in the "real" world, getting a judge and jury to believe you is another story.

Bottom line, forcing a young girl to have intercourse with a man, regardless of her "legal" standing, is sexual assault and severe child abuse. And wherever these girls are, the thought that no one is protecting them from such assault is obscene and immoral. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

Elphaba

[Fiannan]

Contrary to most people, I applaud the state of Texas. It has no history of polygamy, which colors Colorado, Arizona's and Utah's law enforcement, even when they see crimes committed by the FLDS.

So by your reasoning, if indeed some "crime" was taking place these states leders should be indicted as co-conspirators?

So when Texas came into investigate the compound, it had no history of polygamy to stop it from doing what Utah should have done long ago. It immediately saw abuse of children, and called in CPS.

No, they responded to what appears to be a hoax caller.

The obvious abuse was of young women, many married to older men, being pregnant or having alread had a baby at appalingly young ages. It is against the law for men to have sex with underage women, and their parents are obviously NOT protecting them from this abuse, and intead are complicit in it.

Three years ago the age of consent was much younger. In some states you can marry someone who is 13 or 14 -- and that is true of many countries. If you have a beef with the age thing I suggest you form a PAC and lobby for the age of consent to be raised to 18 nationwide.

Then there are the young men who are thrown out of the compound as there are too many of them, and they compete with the older men. What parent could let their young son be thrown out, with nothing! They are called the "Lost Boys," and some of the first groups thrown out are having a very difficult time with their sense of abandonment, as well as difficulty adjusting to the real world. Others, however, have adjusted well. Nevertheless, it is appalling to me to think a parent would do this, and more importantly, these parents are NOT protecting their children.

Here I have to agree with you. The FLDS should have learned from the ancient Muslims and send these young men out with a mission to convert women and marry them before returning. Think of how large their group would be by now if that was their policy.

Further investigation gave evidence of physical abuse as well at the Texas compound. One of the links below explains how Jeffs would abuse the children at the high school where he was principal.

Hope you aren't referring to the allegation of how many had broken bones before the age of 18 since I believe Willow shot that down with pointing to the fact that their averages were below the national average.

My viewpoint is based on the fact that I know what it is like to have an authority figure force you into sexual acts. I also know what it is like not to have your parent protect you from abuse.

So these women were pimping out their kids? Pretty serious charge.

I do not take the trauma of children being separted from their mothers lightly, far from it. There just is no good answer here. They could allow all of the mothers and children to reunite, but obviously that would result in more child abuse, and CPS would be rightfully negligient for allowing this to happen.

Yep, nail those mommies -- but yet no arrests of the alleged male abusers?

So the only option CPS has is to remove the children from their homes until it can determine who is in danger and who is not.

Those whose parents are not going to put their children in these predicaments will have children who are traumatized once reuinted. However, children are resiliant, and with the love of their parents, they will heal.

Did you read what you wrote before you punched the submit button?

I suspect that ultimately, the only answer will be for CPS to keep a keen eye on the families once they get most of the children reuinted with their families. If it comes in and sees a young girl pregnant, it will take action. However, these people know how to hide from the outside world, as evidenced by one interview I saw of the mothers whose children had been taken away. They lied, adamantly insisting there was no abuse, when every single person who has escaped tells stories of the abuse, and for most of them, it was horrendous.

Again, if you define abuse as an arranged marriage then your terms are supported. Also, how did these women escape? Did they run through mine fields? Have to dodge bullets? Or did they just pack up and leave?

Child abuse is child abuse, whether commanded by God or not. And it is a crime for a good reason. It destroys childrens' mental well-being, many for their entire lives.

I applaud Texas for doing what Utah would not.

Elphaba

So I want to get this straight, if any country or state allows 14 year olds to marry are these nations guilty of supporting child abuse?

[Alaskagain]

There is one adult woman of 30 or so, who stated she was 13 when she got married, in another state. There were two pregnant wives, both of whom have given birth. Both of legal age. There remains one girl who is suspected to be pregnant, her age has not been released. She has refused to submit to a pregnancy test by the state. No specific information has been released on how many young ladies under the age of 17 are mothers.

I applaud action by the state against child abusers when it is based on fact and the rules of due process are observed.

However, those items are not for discussion here. Board administrators have requested "When another thread is starting, I encourage you to present a fact or report or something concrete about the FLDS CPS raid and then discussion should remain on topic for that particular presentation."

The issue is: Can the state require a person to disavow their religious beliefs?

I imagine the FLDS will have to dissect the difference between their official doctrine, and mere counsel by religious authority. And where does personal revelation come in?

If the government told you to disavow your belief system or lose your family, what would you do? Is there room for compromise?

As always, the LDS church is not affiliated in any way with the FLDS.

[ztodd]

I think there is probably more to the abuse than just marrying of under-age women. If the parents give consent, then it's not illegal from what I understand. But if there is physical abuse, that's a different matter.

added:

Says someone who was never a 13-year-old girl forced into having intercourse with a man.

I am sorry for being rude, but the notion that a man forcing a young teen to have intercourse with him is not as bad as "real" physical abuse, is insane.

No problem, I totally understand your feelings. That's actually the point I was making, was that there was probably more going on than just marriage to underage girls- there was probably also sexual abuse. And I agree that 13 is probably too young for a girl to be responsible enough to give informed consent.

You're right- the bottom line is that forcing someone into sexual relations is wrong and terrible and should always be illegal and dealt with harshly- especially forcing it upon children who are not yet of responsible age.

[Fiannan]

Again, I am going to ask, are states and nations who allow famles to get married at 14 (with parental consent) contributing to child abuse? Are religions that had leaders who married young women in some way questionable? Are parents who would allow their 14 year old to get married and feel their religion is okay with it in some way contributing to child abuse?

[WANDERER]

The trial starts Monday? according to the news. I think people will be watching carefully to see whether due process takes place. The petition was submitted May 1st?. From what I understand the children have been fostered out all over the state and that the summons was published in the newspapers as the parents are scattered all over the state...but this is according to the newspapers which don't always report accurately. As obviously some are not. What the clauses are for the reunification of families (which will be read at the trials) I would like to know.

[KosherXMorg]

Elphaba-

That you are fairly out of touch with the situation is obvious from your post full of stereotypes and rumormongering from angry FLDS apostates. If the moderators allow I would like to post articles giving the other side of the story.

[KosherXMorg]

There is one adult woman of 30 or so, who stated she was 13 when she got married, in another state. There were two pregnant wives, both of whom have given birth. Both of legal age. There remains one girl who is suspected to be pregnant, her age has not been released. She has refused to submit to a pregnancy test by the state. No specific information has been released on how many young ladies under the age of 17 are mothers.

I applaud action by the state against child abusers when it is based on fact and the rules of due process are observed.

However, those items are not for discussion here. Board administrators have requested "When another thread is starting, I encourage you to present a fact or report or something concrete about the FLDS CPS raid and then discussion should remain on topic for that particular presentation."

The issue is: Can the state require a person to disavow their religious beliefs?

I imagine the FLDS will have to dissect the difference between their official doctrine, and mere counsel by religious authority. And where does personal revelation come in?

If the government told you to disavow your belief system or lose your family, what would you do? Is there room for compromise?

As always, the LDS church is not affiliated in any way with the FLDS.

The girl your referring to did finally agree to a pregnancy test and it came back negative so they proceeded to test her 5 more times each time with the same result, but good 'ole CPS still thinks she's pregnant.

[Alaskagain]

The issue is: Can the state require a person to disavow their religious beliefs?

If the government told you to disavow your belief system or lose your family, what would you do?

Would you sign a piece of paper promising not to uphold the tenets of your religion in your home so that you could get your kids back? And if so, would you live by that promise, or would you pretend to live by that promise?

(And if off topic answers are posted, I invite the Moderators to close this thread.)

[ztodd]

The issue is: Can the state require a person to disavow their religious beliefs?

If the government told you to disavow your belief system or lose your family, what would you do?

Would you sign a piece of paper promising not to uphold the tenets of your religion in your home so that you could get your kids back? And if so, would you live by that promise, or would you pretend to live by that promise?

(And if off topic answers are posted, I invite the Moderators to close this thread.)

No the state cannot. Or at least they should not.

It depends what they mean by disavow my beliefs. Which beliefs? What would I need to do to disavow them?

I would fight it, but if that were the ultimate choice, I would probably sign the paper. Then I would do what I felt accountable to God to do, not what I felt accountable to the state to do. Which might end up being the same thing after much fasting and prayer.

[ztodd]

Again, I am going to ask, are states and nations who allow famles to get married at 14 (with parental consent) contributing to child abuse? Are religions that had leaders who married young women in some way questionable? Are parents who would allow their 14 year old to get married and feel their religion is okay with it in some way contributing to child abuse?

No- as long as:

- the young person agrees to the marriage

- the young person is rightly deemed accountable

- the young person is fully aware of the action being taken

- the young person is not being forced into any sexual action or any other action

I do think that most of the time 14 is too young, but there might be exceptions.

[Bookmeister]

The only way all of this mess will be sorted out is with individual actions. By that, I mean that each child and his or her family will have to have their own individual case, separate from all of the other 400 plus children involved. This became very apparent when the Texas judge tried to have a group hearing at the beginning of the action.

Thus, each case will have to make the following determinations: who the child's parents are, whether the child has been abused either physically or emotionally, if the child has been abused, the nature of the abuse and who the abuser(s) are, the nature of any treatment required for any abuse, and whether the child can receive effective treatment for any provable abuse while in the custody of his or her parents?

This means that each case will require some sort of paternity/DNA determination regarding parentage (which is actually pretty expensive to do), evaluations by the state to determine whether a child has been abused, evaluations by the child's parents to determine if the child has been abused (which gets into the whole "dueling experts" question) and, if there's evidence of abuse based on the legal standard of either "preponderance of evidence" or "substantial evidence" (depending on which standard applies in Texas), then the various experts will argue again about the type of treatment appropriate for the child.

My experiences with CPS in my own state suggest that CPS caseworkers cannot imagine that they may have over-reacted, rushed to judgment, or in any way have made an error. Each CPS caseworker will also think that his or her recommendations to the court should not be challenged in any way (after all, they're the experts and they, and only that, have the "best interests" of the child at heart).

I have no doubt that among the many recommendations made by CPS workers to the court there will be a demand that the parents cease interacting with other FLDS church members and especially the leadership. I believe (although the court will make it's own decision) that the court can make this a requirement of returning children to their parents ONLY IF there is substantial evidence that the FLDS church invited and participated in the abuse of each individual child.

This means that each case will take several months, at a minimum, to resolve. If the court takes any other route other than individual cases, the state of Texas will spend millions of dollars in various appellate courts and suffer millions more dollars worth of damages. CPS will the target of multiple lawsuits alleging violations of civil rights, abuse of process, and so forth. If I were the Texas Attorney General, I would expect to have to build a separate division with the AG's office just to deal with the fallout from this mess.

As for the polygamy question, I just remember an old mountain man rule I heard once..."Never trade for anything that eats".

[LegendadryPerc]

I think there is much confusion as to what is meant by "disavow your beliefs". This Free the Children - Action has several links to what was actually said in court, court documents, etc.

The reason given by the court for the children to remain in CPS custody was that being exposed to the parents beliefs was, in and of itself, abuse. That is the only reason they could justify taking all the children, not just the young girls. They blatantly said that it wasn't whether the parents followed the beliefs or not, but whether they believed them. The supreme court, as I understand it, ruled a long time ago, that a belief does not excuse you from following the law. If you are polygamous and there is a law against polygamy, then having a belief that polygamy is good, whether that belief is religious or not, does not excuse you. The Supreme court, however, said that the law has no control over whether you believe it or not. This is what is clearly being violated by Texas CPS. They are calling the belief itself, not the actions, abuse. This isn't a case of promising not to have teenage girls get married, and having CPS watch your family closely to make sure it doesn't happen. This is a case of CPS supported by Texas govt., saying you cannot have your children back unless you don't beleive this. You cannot teach it as priciple, etc. Although we have no idea what the controversial marriage age will be in 10 years when some of these kids become teenagers.

"The CPS witness, asked why it's not safe to return the children to their mothers, replies that adults who live on the ranch believe they aren't doing anything wrong to their children, that the practice of children having children is part of their culture and belief system."

LIVE FROM THE COURTHOUSE: Updates on FLDS custody hearing : Local : gosanangelo.com

In one hearing, CPS officials acknowledged taking copies of the Book of Mormon from FLDS children. "And CPS is now going through those Books of Mormon, looking for marginal notes and censoring anything that they, quote, ‘disapprove of or find inappropriate.' And I think that that is wrong," Parker said.

CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins says it may only be one case where authorities removed pictures and teachings of Warren Jeffs from some scriptures, then gave the books back. He says, "We obviously don't have any quarrel with the Book of Mormon, or the Bible, or the Koran." He says the problem is when children are reading the words of a convicted sex offender like Warren Jeffs.

ksl.com - Motion to have judge removed from case dismissed

Now, I understand controversy over practicing beliefs. I believe in laws that would restrict the practice of the belief that abortion is OK. But there is no question in my mind as to laws that restrict believing something, having that belief written down, however horrible the rest of us think it is, and communicating to our own children what we believe. (abusive methods of teaching should be stopped, but the FLDS have not been officially acused of any) This is the ultimate of openly admitting an attack on freedom of religion. (but of course it's ok because that religion is so bad.)

I cannot imagine anything more horrible than choosing between my beliefs (not just acting on them, but even believing them) and my children. I would choose my beliefs.

[Canuck Mormon]

I may be wrong here but, didn't the original Pilgrims leave England because of religious persecution? Is it not stated in the Constitution that everyone has the freedom of Religion? If this is the case, then it is unconstitutional for the Judge to demand such a thing, is it not?

[Alaskagain]

Thanks for all the answers so far. I cannot imagine being in that position. Mostly, because I generally abide by the law - but my religion asks me to do that. What if a tenet of the LDS church suddenly became illegal?

I found this address given by J. Brent Walker at the Congress on Religious Liberty held in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It is entitled "Church and State in the USA: Promises and Challenges” and was given on April 28, 2008. It is a very good statement (MO), and the organization to which he belongs is the: Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty

"The first sixteen words of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two clauses require government to be neutral towards religion—neither helping nor hurting religion, but turning it loose to allow people of faith to practice their religion—or not-- as they see fit, not as government wants them to." (emphasis added)

Now, this is not a court decision, so it has not legal weight. This is one man's opinion.

I am still poring through lds.net gospel library for statements by the authorities regarding this. Most results for a search of "first amendment" seem to deal with the no prayer in schools court decision and separation of church and state. (Anybody else know of a talk that would apply? Other than the obvious statements of abiding by the laws of the land.)

[Fiannan]

Article of Faith number 12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

For example, polygamy was taken away because it was illegal. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, but Church leaders constantly made a distinction between following constitutional principles and laws based on them as opposed to laws not based on either constitutional principles or the Gospel. That's why Church leaders openly defied the US government on polygamy as long as they did.