Reunification of Families

[LegendadryPerc]

The example I gave above, of practicing polygamy being ileagal, but believing and teaching the priciple of polygamy being declared by the supreme court, protected by law, was actually a case where Brigham Young had his own lawyers prosecute polygamy to test and see what would happen. That was the answer, and I believe that was when the church said stop practicing polygamy.

As far as I understand, from quotes from President Monson about behind the iron curtain, etc. The church says to follow the law. We don't baptize people in countries where it is ileagal, but first try to change the law. Thus wonderfull things happen, like the fall of the iron curtain. That is why we need to take legal steps to protect the law that BELIEVING and teaching a priciple cannot and must not be against the law in the promised land. God is giving the USA the privelidge of being established here because they are are a free country. If we do not defend (through legal and peaceful means) the most basic of all freedoms, the freedom to believe (not even to act, just to believe), the USA has no right to be established here.

[Canuck Mormon]

I just saw this and had to share:

Deseret News | Appeals court rules officials acted improperly in removing FLDS children

It seems the court of appeals has overturned the CPS's case.

[Bookmeister]

I just got done reading the Appellate Court's opinion and believe that it is a proper reading of the law and facts in this case to date.

The basics are these: 38 families filed the mandamus action with the appellate court arguing that CPS had failed to prove that the children of these families were in any "physical danger" of abuse so imminent that the only remedy was the immediate removal of the children from their parents. CPS also failed to look for any means of protecting the children short of removal from their families, as required by Texas state law.

So it came down to this; CPS didn't show any evidence that the children of these 38 families were in any immediate danger of physical injury or abuse, or that CPS had made any effort to protect these children in any other manner except to take them away from their parents. CPS acted incorrectly and the District Court was wrong in allowing the children to remain in the custody of CPS.

Sounds like a pretty straightforward decision.

The Appellate Court granted the Writ of Mandamus (the request by the parents to return their children to them) but are holding it in abeyance so that the District Court has the chance to have individual hearings for each of these children to determine the facts in that particular child's case.

This is not unusual, although my personal opinion is that the Order should have directed the children to be returned immediately, and at the same time required the parents to remain in the State of Texas and keep the Court informed as to their location (this keeps the parents from getting their kids and skipping out before final decisions could be reached).

I would expect to see, eventually, that most of the parents and children are reunited. Of course, by then, the amount of emotional harm done to the children could be pretty significant, which will result in more suits against CPS and the State of Texas.

On the other hand, all these legal actions are clearly designed to comply with the "Lawyer Full Employment Act".

[LegendadryPerc]

The Appellate Court granted the Writ of Mandamus (the request by the parents to return their children to them) but are holding it in abeyance so that the District Court has the chance to have individual hearings for each of these children to determine the facts in that particular child's case.

This is not unusual, although my personal opinion is that the Order should have directed the children to be returned immediately, and at the same time required the parents to remain in the State of Texas and keep the Court informed as to their location (this keeps the parents from getting their kids and skipping out before final decisions could be reached).

On the other hand, all these legal actions are clearly designed to comply with the "Lawyer Full Employment Act".

I really apreciate your insight on this. You seem better able to decifer the legal wording than I am. What does this mean, though? What is abeyance, and what does that mean as far as the individual hearings go, and what does it mean as far as reuniting parents with children?

Thanks.

I like your personal opinion much better than whatever this "abeyance" seems to mean.

[Bookmeister]

Perc...the appellate court is holding the enforcement of the writ to let the kids go home for 10 days to give the District court, which issued the original order, time to issue those orders itself. Sorry, sometimes I get carried away and start using lawyerspeak.

What it means, though, is that the kids either have to go back to their parents in ten days (the ten day period generally will begin the day AFTER the order was issued, but not always) unless the district court finds (presumably after another hearing for each individual child) that each child was in immediate physical danger AND that no other lesser method of protecting the child was available to CPS ("lesser" meaning something other than taking the child away from his or her parents).

Hope that helps.

[LegendadryPerc]

Thanks (I'm glad you know lawyer talk, as I don't, and it's so nice to have someone that can explain it to me. - I can figure out the obvious stuff, but I don't have the right vocabulary...)

So basically it is back to the 14 day hearing theory, except for it is now 10 days. Is that right?

So the "plan" hearings that have been going on this week. What happens to them? Does it differ if a child has already had theirs or not?

Thanks so much!

Are you a lawyer?

[Moksha]

Perc...the appellate court is holding the enforcement of the writ to let the kids go home for 10 days to give the District court, which issued the original order, time to issue those orders itself.

Will they be required to return the linens for the Temple beds as well?

[Bookmeister]

Moksha, two thoughts.

First, my guess is that the bedsheets will be held while the Texas authorities have them tested for DNA and such. The purpose will be to see if criminal charges can be brought alleging sex with underage females.

Second, why in the world would anyone want those sheets back in the first place? LOL

[Bookmeister]

I imagine that the court will just review each of the individual 38 cases. Unless there's some evidence specific to a particular case, the court has ten days to sign orders returning the children to their parents.

However, CPS will have ten days in which to file for a review of the appellate court's decision by a higher court, and they will no doubt seek a stay (a delay) from the reviewing court (if the court to which CPS appeals decides to actually have a hearing) of the appellate court's order to let the kids go.

Since the appellate court decision was Per Curiam, which means that the entire appellate court panel agreed with the decision, I'd be surprised if a higher court would reverse the appellate court. In my mind, it would be proper for the higher court (and here my presumption is that the higher court would be the Texas supreme court) to deny any CPS appeal.

The currently scheduled hearings have been postponed while the district court makes it's decision. Any decisions already made by the district court in individual cases will probably remain in effect until, most likely, the child's family asks the court to revise the decision based on the appellate court order.

Finally, my job options were to be either a lawyer or a sax player in a house of ill repute. I got fired from the sax playing job, so....................

[LegendadryPerc]

lol

The sheets are one of the many things that irks me about this case. What in the wold does dna on temple bed sheets have to do with proving a case? Maybe it's just the big deal they made about the bed ileagal acts were supposed to have happened on, being in the temple. If they thought it happened in a bedroom, would they take those sheets for dna too? It all seems so rediculous/obviously sensationalizing it. (maybe you have better words for it - but it doesn't seem like a sane act of getting evidence)

Thanks so much for your insight.

So, to speculate, does what the paper stating why they were originally removed http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/affidavit.pdf limit what evidence CPS can come up with for individual cases? Like, since, as I understand it, the paper states that the kids were removed because of the culture and belief system, could CPS come up with a new reason now, or do they pretty much have to stick to their flawed reasoning - which thankfully hasn't stood up in court. (thankfully because I think it's pretty scary to live in a democracy if "the people" can decide if your beliefs are good enough to be allowed to have or not)

So, you mentioned that your idea would be to give the children back immeadiately, with orders preventing them from leaving texas, etc.

How would the courts have gone about doing this? Are there reasons they decide one way in some cases and another in others?

Thanks so much!

[Bookmeister]

Wow!

Okay, what the newspapers say or report has nothing to do with what evidence CPS can produce. CPS isn't limited like that (and neither is anyone else). So if CPS has other evidence, they can produce it in the district court, not the appeals court. Any appeal of the appellate court's order will be limited to the evidence produced in the district court at the time of the original hearing. All an appeal of the appellate court order can do is argue that the appellate court's decision was somehow legally flawed.

This doesn't mean that they can't file for another hearing in district court, supported with additional evidence they didn't have the first time.

Another important thing to remember is that the appellate order only applies directly to the children of the 38 mothers involved. To overturn or reverse that order with regard to any one of those children, CPS will have to show, in individual hearings, that a particular child is in danger of immediate physical abuse. That is, the only children CPS can argue over in an appeal of the appellate court order are those 38 + children.

So, unless CPS can successfully argue that the appellate court's decision was wrong, the only way to challenge the order would be to go back to court for each child and produce sufficient new evidence to show that each, or any, of these 38+ children is in immediate danger.

Hopes this helps.

[Fiannan]

Interesting news commentary:

Texas Polygamy Case Based on a Lie - Yahoo! News

If this indeed totally blows up in the face of CPS, FLDS parents sue and win huge settlements from the taxpayers of Texas, and considering the governor's statements in regards to this could it be that this could cost the governor his job? The voters will take out their frustration on somebody and he is, after all, the one ultimately responsible for what the state law enforcement agencies are up to.

[LegendadryPerc]

So if the children were returned imeadiately, instead of this 10 day thing, then CPS wouldn't have been given a chance to present evidence of abuse, that they didn't already present. (if there is any) Is that right?

- with such a controversial case as this, I think the governors chance of being reelected was thrown out the window a long time ago.

[Bookmeister]

Perc...naw, EPS could get another hearing and present any evidence they either didn't show at the first hearing or that has been discovered since then...or, if the district court dismissed the case, then CPS could refile and bring forth all this new evidence.

[Moksha]

So what about the generations of Child Brides and Castoff Boys yet to be born? Will the justice system turn a blind eye to them if the Appeals Court decision is upheld?

[LegendadryPerc]

I'll let those who know law better answer exactly what CPS still can and can't do...

My opinion of this whole case is that you can't fight a belief with physical force. You can fight action with action, but belief itself must be fought with belief. One of the many reasons I have been horrified by CPS's actions in this case, is that if there was any of the aleged thing going on, they have treated those they were "saving" in such a way as to almost garentee nobody would come forward and say, "I wanted out." They have enforced any taught belief that the outside world was cruel and controlling, that might have been taught. I have heard, and believe the saying contains much truth, that there is nothing to make you want to do something, like forbidding it! I think this must doubly apply to a religious belief one feels is unjustly oppressed.

I have the habit of always trying to see a situation from the other guys perspective. I can all too well understand where the FLDS are coming from. In order to understand the difficulty some have with sympathizing with them, I must substitute "child bride" and "abandoned teenagers" with something I find as disturbing as many people seem to find these things. (don't want to get into an arguement about whether specific aspects of their beliefs are as evil as everybody says, I think there was already a thread on that, and don't have anything to add to it - or maybe I'm just calmed down now that it looks like justice has been done.) So if I substitute an idea I find abhorent, like abortion, in, then I have to really look at how prejudice I am against freedom of beliefs.

If abortion was ilegal, and some obscure religion lived off by itself, so it's children didn't know about abstinance, chastity, contraception, and they taught their kids that if they got preg. before a certain age, abortion was the right thing to do. Even if they glorified being having "relationships" when kids weren't wanted. Would it be effective to declare that they could not believe this was ok, and could not teach it, or have literature or movies, etc. that said it was good? What if they kicked young girls who refused to have abortion out? What if there were rumours that they even forced abortions on girls? When girls denied it and said they wanted abortions, how could we expect them to believe otherwise, raised like that?

Where would we draw the line? Would we ban abortion glorifying material from the whole country, or just from those involved in this religion? Should we do it? Would it be effective? Would it be right? Would it be safe to do so in a democracy, where the abortion laws could change again?

I guess I truely have great sympathy for strong religious beliefs. I have discovered just how strong my religious beliefs are. I do not like telling people how strong they are, because it scares people. Our society believes it's OK to have beliefs, as long as they don't overshadow societies definition of "common sense". Nephi killing Laban even though he didn't want to, is an example I've heard used numerous times to fault religion. If someone is willing to go against the law, to even shed the blood of a man, because they believe God told them to, then that is taking religion "too far". That is when religion is no longer safe. Abraham and Isaac, is another. Religion is OK, as long as it doesn't go too far. As defined by society, my religious beliefs go too far. If God told me to, I would do those things.

I agree that it is morally wrong to kick people out of a society and teach their families to reject them if they do not give their all to a religious belief. I do not know what the answer is. You cannot force someone to accept another person in their hearts. And who would want to have their families forced to keep them, when their families did not want to. Forcing everybody to be kicked out at an earlier age, seems like a worse solution. Like "saving" somebody from blackmail, by making good the threat now, so they won't have to worry about it later.

[KosherXMorg]

So what about the generations of Child Brides and Castoff Boys yet to be born? Will the justice system turn a blind eye to them if the Appeals Court decision is upheld?

Wow, it's like you have ignored facts me and others have brought to everyone's attention:huh:

"Generations of Child Brides" Where? What proof? Ah yes, Flora and the gang.

"Lost Boys"? Ha! Read this...

"The blog below is written by a young man who is a former FLDS member. It is quite good and is worth subscribing to. The address is below.

FLDS View

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2008

Lost and Found "Boys"

Beginning late 2002 to mid 2003 there was a split in the FLDS church. Winston Blackmore, the Bishop in Canada was demoted, and his brother Richard was asked to be the Bishop. Winston then held a gathering in Canada announcing he would not step down and his brother and about half of the residents joined his new church. There was a few from the Colorado City area who also agreed with Winston, and among them was Doug Cook. Doug Cook was a tile contractor who had just recently split up with his wife. Doug had a few young men working for him when he left the FLDS, among them were two of my brothers. They were all at least 18 except Doug’s own sons. He rented a house in the town of Hurricane, about 20 miles from the FLDS towns of Hildale and Colorado City. This became the first “Lost Boy” party (safe?) house. Literally dozens of boys, some as young as 13, would catch a ride down to this house every night. I don’t know what they were doing to gain such recognition, but the Hurricane police department got rather tired of going over there. Although this was not the only place to disappear to, it was well known by many parents who drove down there every night looking for their sons and sometimes daughters.

If a girl leaves, she “escapes” If a boy does he is “kicked out”

Over the next few months I went there twice to pick up my sister Fawn, and look for some of my minor aged nephews who had caught a ride with my brothers and their friends. Later Doug moved his house and crew to St George. Other older guys got thier own place, but my brothers nephews, and their friends lived at Doug's. The “Lost Boy” term was invented by Dan and Shem Fischer. Dan Fischer a wealthy dentist and former member, and his younger brother Shem who had just recently left the church, paid these guys to come to Salt Lake for a party, and on July 31, 2004 they all gathered on the steps of the Capital building. Most of them, including my brothers, were rather embarrassed and to this day refer to being called a “Lost Boy” as an insult.

One month later Dan Fischer got six of the young men to sue Warren Jeffs and the United Effort Plan (the trust the people of the FLDS held their homes and property in) I am really grateful that my brothers refused to be a part of the lawsuit even when their friends were. Thanks for not hurting your parents more, guys!

The Six “Lost Boys” were: (ages in 2oo4)

Richard Gilbert (19) – Whose parents had left the FLDS several years earlier

Richard Ream (21) – Who joined the church headed by Winston (truck driver)

Walter Fischer (2o) – Who was asked out of the house for advances to his step sister

Don Fischer (18) – Walters’s younger brother, both worked for Doug Cook

Dean Barlow (18) – (Can’t remember him, lots of Barlow’s :>)

Thomas S Steed (18) – Whose parents had left the church several years before

There were quite a few minor boys in the news articles about the “Lost Boys” but none were included in the lawsuit because their parents would have made them come home. Most of the underage boys I saw were living with their older brothers. One of my sisters did give custody of her 15 year old son to one of my uncles who had left the church long ago. I am sure there are others like him, but I don’t know them. She got tired of chasing him home, and let him go.

I want to address the ridiculous story that these guys were “kicked out” to reduce competition for brides. I am sorry, I am laughing just to type this. If it wasn’t all over the news I would think it was a cartoon. If these guys wanted to compete for the girls, they sure didn’t try very hard. All you had to do was obey the doctrines of the church. I am sure some men in the FLDS have as many wives as they do because there weren't enough young guys who would settle down and obey the church doctrines. Two of my brothers are now married to young ladies who left the FLDS, and one (I hope) is getting married soon. Be a man, Brig!

Now I don't have any criticism for the Diversity Foundation that Dan Fischer has created, nor the charity schooling that he is doing for some of these guys, but the lawsuit was like suing their own parents. I think that was awful, and led (among the other three lawsuits paid for by Dan Fischer) to the siezure of the UEP Trust and all of the homes on it."

Wake up people! Do you homeschool? Your next.

[Fiannan]

Wake up people! Do you homeschool? Your next.

That is for sure and if you teach your children that heterosexuality is the ONLY thing acceptable to God then just wait 'till that becomes a hate crime.

[Fiannan]

SAN ANGELO, Texas - One watchdog of the Texas child-welfare system called last week's status hearings for FLDS parents highly unusual.

"In every single hearing I heard it was rubber-stamping and not caring what the Texas code says about family service plans," said Johana Scot, executive director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin.

Scot is a former court-appointed special advocate volunteer who has spent the past four years helping parents navigate the state's child-welfare system. She spent two days sitting through hearings in San Angelo last week.

Her conclusion: The process has been altered and parents shut out.

Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Family and Protective Services, said Monday she could not comment on Scot's criticism of the process.

Watchdog criticizes FLDS hearings - Salt Lake Tribune

[LegendadryPerc]

Thanks so much for posting that about the lost boys.

[Moksha]

Wow, it's like you have ignored facts me and others have brought to everyone's attention:huh:

You are ignoring many years of their history. Child Brides and Castoff Boys have been in the news for years long before this YFZ ranch episode.

[Moksha]

Did anyone see the 48 Hour special by CBS, about FLDS polygamy tonight?

Here is a link to the preview video: CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

It will probably be shown again this summer.

[LegendadryPerc]

I find the news an extremely unrealiable source. This guy who claims he is an ex-flds member may be a complete hoax, but is about as realiable as the news. As Bookmeister said, what the media says or doesn't say doesn't have any affect on the court. I agree with him that at least it shouldn't (and hopefully doesn't) - so we are back down to the courts testifying that it was the beliefs (not just actions) that were abusive. A ruling that personally attacks me - for I too have unpopular beliefs.

[KosherXMorg]

You are ignoring many years of their history. Child Brides and Castoff Boys have been in the news for years long before this YFZ ranch episode.

Noooo, rumors of Child Brides and Lost Boys (yes, Lost Boys) have been in the news, feed by FLDS apostates.

Little Ms. Wall, who committed adultery with a disgruntled ex-FLDS man who was older then her husband, admits in her new money-making scheme, er, book, that when she "found out" she was getting married at 14, she was suprised because she hadn't heard of anyone getting married that young in a long time and that all her friends were 17- 18 when they got married.