DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Texas Supreme Court Rules Sect Children Should Be Returned

Court: Sect children should be returned to parents
By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago

SAN ANTONIO - In a crushing blow to the state's massive seizure of children from a polygamist sect's ranch, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that child welfare officials overstepped their authority and the children should go back to their parents.

The high court affirmed a decision by an appellate court last week, saying Child Protective Services failed to show an immediate danger to the more than 400 children swept up from the Yearning For Zion Ranch nearly two months ago.

"On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted," the justices said in their ruling issued in Austin.

The high court let stand the appellate court's order that Texas District Judge Barbara Walther return the children from foster care to their parents. It's not clear how soon that may happen, but the appellate court ordered her to do it within a reasonable time period.

The ruling shatters one of the largest child-custody cases in U.S. history. State officials said the removals were necessary to end a cycle of sexual abuse at the ranch in which teenage girls were forced to marry and have sex with older men, but parents denied any abuse and said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Every child at the ranch run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the west Texas town of Eldorado was removed; half were 5 or younger.

CPS officials said they were disappointed by the ruling but would take immediate steps to comply.

"We are disappointed, but we understand and respect the court's decision," the agency said in a written statement.

FLDS elder Willie Jessop said parents were excited about the court's decision but would remain apprehensive until they get their children back.

"We're just looking forward to when little children can be in the arms of their parents," he said. "Until you have your children in your hands, there's no relief. But we have hope."

Standing outside the Texas Supreme Court building with attorneys for the families, Martha Emack, mother of a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old, echoed that sentiment.

"I'm happy (when) all the children are back to their mothers and we're home," said Emack, whose children have been staying at an Austin children's shelter.

The case before the court technically only applies to the 124 children of 38 mothers who filed the complaint that prompted the ruling, but it significantly affects nearly all the children since they were removed under identical circumstances.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled last week that the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and had offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.

The FLDS, which teaches that polygamy brings glorification in heaven, is a breakaway sect of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.

Roughly 430 children from the ranch are in foster care after two births, numerous reclassifications of adult women initially held as minors and a handful of agreements allowing parents to keep custody while the Supreme Court considered the case.

Texas officials claimed at one point that there were 31 teenage girls at the ranch who were pregnant or had been pregnant, but later conceded that about half of those mothers, if not more, were adults. One was 27.

Under Texas law, children can be taken from their parents if there's a danger to their physical safety, an urgent need for protection and if officials made a reasonable effort to keep the children in their homes. The high court agreed with the appellate court that the seizures fell short of that standard.

CPS lawyers had argued that parents could remove their children from state jurisdiction if they regain custody, that DNA tests needed to confirm parentage are still pending and that the lower-court judge had discretion in the case.

The justices said child welfare officials can take numerous actions to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care, and that Walther may still put restrictions on the children and parents to address concerns that they may flee once reunited.

Link

Good ruling IMO....you don't just take kids from their parents because you disapprove.

Really...if someone had tried to take one of my kids away, I would have killed someone and then died trying to kill the next, or next, or next... even knowing that would have supported their position.

Nobody is getting one of my kids unless I am dead.

This is one of those stories that is hard to comment on.

However, I have to say that while the charges were horrendous, I have often wondered if groups---cults---religious sects-----whatever you want to call them------are subjected to unfair treatment because they are non-conformists.

In fact, as much as I hate to admit it........it seems the government and its agencies seem to be the "ugly" parties when there are conflicts.

Please, don't misconstrue my message. I am not saying raping teenage girls is okay. Not even close. What I am saying is that I think many charges are are made-up in regards to dealing w/these types of people.

I say..........leave them the hell alone as long as everyone there is there on their own free will. I'll probably draw a lot of flak for that, but I'm sorry..........I can't help but feel that the "dirty" party is not the commune itself.......but the people that persecute them.

I fully understand and agree.

It is easy to be labeled a non-conformist,. and easier all the time...and that is what disturbers me.

This country was founded by non-conformists..

I also agree with the ruling. I may not agree with the lifestyle, but there are many things that go on in society I don't particularly care for or agree with. Child services has an incredibly tough job but they can't go around snatching kids just because they "think" they know something. I know there's a fine line there and they always have to weigh on the side of caution, especially when it comes to children, but it sounds like they were way off base when it came to the "facts" they were working with when they went in.

I also happen to think that the "State" is capable of enforcing any law that allows them to advance an agenda. In this case, anti-polygamy. Having said that, I would not be surprised to find there is ongoing abuse, but the state has to prove it before they can enforce it. That is what separates the USA from any third world dictatorship. Unfortunately, because law enforcement is dealing with a closed and secret society like the polygamists, it is extremely difficult to gain access to obtain proof or find those who are willing to testify. Most members have nowhere to go and face anything from beating and banishment to threat of death for speaking of the inner workings outside the clan.

As Vers alluded to,I'm torn. I thought I saw on one of the news blogs today that they had pictures of one of the adults kissing a child. That disturbs me. When I first read about the story, I said to myself, "good for Children Services". My feelings were that it was better to worry about the safety of the children above all else. Then again, a part of me says that no matter how horrific things MIGHT be there, the rights of those involved can't be ignored. If so, then what's the next step in taking away rights in the name of "safety"? It's a tough situation and I have such mixed emotions about it. I hope f there is abuse going on, that everything is done properly to get the kdis out of there. At the same time, this is one of those cases where you hate the situation, but must remember that America is what it is because of freedom and rights. It's not easy at times, but it's the way it has to be no matter how much I hate the situation.

I'm all for enforcing laws when evidence gained legally points to criminal activity. If there is illegal activity going on at the compound, the state has just shot themselves in the ass by acting in haste. If I remember correctly, they initially had someone willing to discuss the inner workings but through haste may have blown any chance they had of properly gathering evidence and building a case. So much of this smacks of overzealousness whether through good intentions or otherwise.

I understand what you're saying and I agree. It just doesn't take that sick feeling out of my stomach for the kids though, as I'm sure it doesn't for you.

I have got to wonder about the Governor and the AG of Texas when they let their subordinates grab bus loads of kids and don't do due diligence and have the proper evidence to show the judges..

Gawd did these incompetent Texas schmucks drop the ball or what?

They not only dropped the ball, but put the kids they were trying to protect in (allegedly) harms way again.

Quote:

---

However, I have to say that while the charges were horrendous, I have often wondered if groups---cults---religious sects-----whatever you want to call them------are subjected to unfair treatment because they are non-conformists.

---

All you have to do is pair the words "religious" and "cult" together and the authorities go into panic mode.

It does seem odd doesn't it that the more "enlightened" we become, the more we say we are understanding and open to new ideas and different ways of life, the more afraid we become of those who are not like us.. it just doesn't make sense to me.