TX Appellate Court Says "No Dice" on Keeping the Kids

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas, ruled today that the grounds for seizing over 400 children and putting them in temporary custody with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. The higher court found that the Department had not, contrary to the requirements of the Code, presented enough evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of the children; especially not to any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. This ruling only addresses the immediate custody of the children.

What will this mean? Likely, it will occasion the immediate return of the children to their parents. The State of Texas may, nevertheless, continue to pursue the sect for creating unsafe conditions for children, or, for that matter, for polygamy. They may also petition the highest court in Texas to review the decision of the Appellate Court.

As the media continues to carry news on this topic, I hope that both sides of the case will be fairly presented. Willie Jessop, a church elder, and Rod Parker, attorney for the FLDS, have driven the media with their point of view. I'd like to defend the Texas authorities in one problem they have faced in this situation.

Child Protective Services had to revise down the number of underage pregnant girls and underage mothers, finding far fewer than originally claimed. Contrary to FLDS claims of "lying and cheating" by the Department, it was very difficult for Child Protective Services to get a correct count. Initially, the women refused to identify themselves or their children; the women don't have driver's licenses; the children call several women "mother"; and the women look much younger than their actual years, most likely a result of diet. After the DNA testing, the mothers became more forthright about the facts, which allowed the department to determine accurate ages.

We are still left with the question why any parent would willingly keep their child in a household where girls are at risk of a forced marriage to some old codger before the age of 16.

In the long run, perhaps young girls (and boys) will be safer in FLDS compounds everywhere in the U.S. now that it is clear that sexual abuse of young girls won't be tolerated by the State. At least, as an attorney and sexual abuse expert, I hope so.

Comments

[bobbyvassallo]

The shear power and arrogance of the officials in charge will ultimately cause the State of Texas and the county to suffer the biggest judgment in the history of the United States. And, I predict, some lawyer will soon exceed the wealth of Bill Gates. Whether we agree with the lifestyle or not, when does our society condone or accept the forced entry of our neighbors under the slimmest of evidence? I am proud my home state has reversed the lower court, showing someone has come to their senses.

[plex]

"No Dice"

While I am not a fan a government control into the private lives of individuals ... what is the deal? This is one case in which I think they had gotten it right!

The mind control & programming that occurs in these groups and individuals is truly one step short of unbelievable. I am continually amazed at the use of "religion" as means to hide and bury the sexualization of children. I agree with Deborah in my hopes that the media will fairly present this case. Keep up the good work!

[luziannagirl]

Though this case might go away, this issue won't.

In a secular democratic society with the traditions and expectations of public transparency, fairness, and accountability, and protection of citizens under the rule of law, it behooves those who would set up what comes very close to their own private sovereign state, to make sure that behind their walls and gates they are abiding by the laws of the land. Though abiding by laws dealing with taxes and public assistance are important, of supreme importance is the adherence to laws dealing with the safety and well-being of children.

The pendulum of public sentiment is rapidly swinging away from the embrace of religious zealotry, and at some point in the near future, we may be seeing more federal attention paid to many religious groups routinely flouting one law after another.

Assuming the ultimate goal of the leaders of the TX group is not martyrdom a la Waco, or mass ascension into heaven a la Jonestown, they might want to take this opportunity to at least clean up their act regarding child abuse and arranged-marriages.

[montestruc]

Oh the immense difficulty of determination of the number of underage pregnant girls and underage mothers!!!! After all just because one of the women in question is 27, has her birth certificate, presents it to you on the day of the raid, along with her income tax returns, does not prove she is really over 17.

Lady, give it up, YOU WERE WRONG!

THE STATE OF TEXAS WAS WRONG!

~ 3/4 OF THE PEOPLE WHO POST HERE WERE WRONG.

INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY IS THE LAW OF THIS LAND, NOT GUILT BY ACCUSATION.

[jagoneely]

Well, I guess it's back to "Happy wedding! You're 15, time to get raped by your new husband!" Oh, it just gives me chills, the wonderful lives these girls can have!

If only this was tax evasion instead of systematic child-rape. Then the Feds would have them.

Sigh.

[raker]

It's easy to imagine why a parent would willingly keep their child in a household where girls are at risk of a forced marriage to some old codger before the age of 16. Remember the kool-ade drinkers in Jonestown? Remember the people with the buggy eyes and the nikes who departed their human spaceships - or somethng like that. Remember of the Saudi muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Center, ecstatic at the prospect of entering paradise? Think of the generations of boys molested by catholic priests, their parents cowed and timid and afraid to challenge the monsignor about the priests who raped their boys. Witches were hanged. Virgins were thrown into volcanoes. Religion has been making people irrational and inhuman forever.

[kingshmoopy]

I agree with you, raker, to a certain extent. I know that brainwashing accounts for a lot of this, and that the women who have been raised in this cult are completely past the point of reason, often because they were victims themselves.

What I don't understand is why maternal instincts don't kick in? I have 3 children, God help anyone who ever tried to hurt them.

There is an instinct, something that kicks in when you need it to, that tells you something is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is why my husband always trusts me when I say that one of our kids is coming down with a bug even though the child sems fine, it is why he trusted me when I told him our 3-year old didn't have the flu, that something else was going on and we had to bring him to the ER immediately (turned out he had a burst appendix and needed emergency surgery but, of course, he couldn't tell us about his acute pain because he was 3), it is why every fiber of my body tells me to do whatever I need to do in order to protect my children.

Is it possible that these women are so completely brainwashed, beaten down, and victimized that they've been stripped of this most basic and primative instinct? Scary, scary, scary.

[raker]

I know what you mean about knowing something is wrong and taking action to protect your children, but I think there are extreme cases that can't be understood without first-hand knowledge. Hedda Nussbaum was beaten to a pulp by Joel Steinberg for who knows how long, and eventually he killed their daughter. There are endless stories of mothers who pretended not to know that their new husbands were raping their daughters. Fear, insecurity, ignorance, desperation are powerful (de)motivators - worse, I imagine, if an inside-out world is all they've ever known. That's why I think the state is justified to take action to protect these children.

[Trueheart]

"Willie Jessop, a church elder, and Rod Parker, attorney for the FLDS, have driven the media with their point of view. "

Really? What a crock. Why has it been so difficult to read detailed coverage of this case in mainstream media sources? Why have so many pieces been written about hairstyles and prairie dresses and unibrows, rather than expressions of concern for what was happening to 464 children, HALF of whom were under the age of 5 years?

[kingshmoopy]

NPR has had excellent coverage of this case.

[VeggieVeal]

Let the kids go, NOW!

This whole charade is fodder for the Republicans! Do we REALLY want to resurrect the ghosts of Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Get the government out of this now; shades of Clintonian Government!

Only a democrat idiot would want to raise the ugly head of government interference now!

[Uosdwis]

I don't get it, don't they have proof they had sex underage and had KIDS underage? And that doesn't count as abuse? Only in Texas..

[Geoffreys]

No. The law, as it's written, requires the state show that children are in immediate danger before removing them from their parent's home. The court said there is insufficient proof of immediate danger of all 400 children are in immediate danger.

However, there is evidence of sexual abuse of minors and polygamy in individual cases. Those need to be pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And in those cases, there may well be sufficient proof of immediate danger to warrant the removal of siblings.

The state cannot remove all children just because it disapproves of their parents' beliefs. For example, the state couldn't remove all children from Christian Scientist homes because some children don't receive needed medical attention. This is a similar thing. The state was over-zealous.

Likewise, if the law, as written, is insufficient, then it needs to be addressed by the Legislature.

[kingshmoopy]

Well, that is what gets me. It seems that laws should be stronger in order to protect siblings. Obviously it doesn't happen in every case but I've read and heard about a lot of cases where an abused child was removed from the home but other children have been left with the parent--only to have the siblings become victims of abuse.

If there has been abuse in the home shouldn't we err on the side of caution in order to protect children? Better safe than sorry so siblings don't end up sexually abused, beaten, or dead.

But foster care cannot be the end of it, the system must do what it can in order to repair the family by providing intervention, counseling, education, training, etc. for the parents. If parents have not learned to be parents (because they had bad parents themselves, because they are young, because they are addicted, etc.) then you cannot really expect them to be good parents. Parenting is a learned skill, often people who lash out at their kids don't have the tools that they need to be good parents (for any number of reasons). My point is that it cannot end with the court system, the state must do what it can to heal families. Obviously, not possible in all cases but probably possible in many.