I was watching another segment on the polygamist case in TX

[lynn]

and find it very disturbing that we always see the mother's saying the children need their mother's. If there is nothing odd going on within this group why aren't the mother's saying The children need their families, their parents, their mother and father, grandparents? Why aren't the fathers being men and being seen in front of the camera's saying the children need to their families? if their is nothing wrong?

[mommaduck]

Because they are trying to take the focus off the men and their type of family situation. So they are focusing solely on the mother/child relationship.

[Claire]

I find some of the language the women use interesting. For example, when the one mother was showing the camera around the house she said something like "This is where my mother sleeps with two of her daughters." It struck me as odd she didn't say "two of my sisters". I assume this is because the family relationships are very different from what we are used to.

[Whisperlily]

I find some of the language the women use interesting. For example, when the one mother was showing the camera around the house she said something like "This is where my mother sleeps with two of her daughters." It struck me as odd she didn't say "two of my sisters". I assume this is because the family relationships are very different from what we are used to.

 

I read somewhere that the children call all of their father's wives "mother." Perhaps it wasn't her own biological mother she was referring to? I also read that other than their father, all men in the compound are referred to as "Uncle." I'm assuming that is why it is so difficult to sort out who is related to whom, and how. They probably don't even have "our" way of labeling relationships straight in their minds, as it would be foreign to them, too.

[Leta]

Because they are trying to take the focus off the men and their type of family situation. So they are focusing solely on the mother/child relationship.

 

I agree. I think it's pretty savvy PR move, myself, but it makes me angry at those men for not bearing some of the public burden that their wives have been carrying.

[Sara R]

I think it's because of CPS' actions, the children are suffering and not the fathers. Children, especially little ones, do need their mothers. If the government wants to punish the fathers, then they should do so instead of removing hundreds of children from families on the basis of a call that turned out to be a hoax.

[beansprouts]

If the government wants to punish the fathers, then they should do so instead of removing hundreds of children from families on the basis of a call that turned out to be a hoax.

 

A hoax? What have I missed?

[Marie in Oh]

I think it's because of CPS' actions, the children are suffering and not the fathers. Children, especially little ones, do need their mothers. If the government wants to punish the fathers, then they should do so instead of removing hundreds of children from families on the basis of a call that turned out to be a hoax.

 

:iagree:I think all the fathers need to be strung up and put in jail-- the ones at least that are practicing polygamy or have underaged wives. I think there are some young men who have been separated from their families who are innocent as of yet-- meaning they only have one wife. However, I do not think these women are much at fault. They are living out their lives the way they have been taught is the only way to eternal life. I think the crimes need to be tried in courts and the children need to be returned to ther rightful mothers (which I realize will be difficult to figure out). What a mess. But I do feel sorry for the mothers and children. I can't help it.

[MelaniePA]

A hoax? What have I missed?

 

I've read that it has come out that the phone number that was used to report the abuse, was also used to report abuse in another case that was found to be false. I'll try to find a link.

 

http://www.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/04/25/NEWS-USA-POLYGAMISTS-ABUSE-DC/ this link only talks about it briefly, not the article I read before. I'm having a tough time finding the exact article I read.

[snickelfritz]

call that turned out to be a hoax.

 

I did think that they had found situations of underage girls married to older men and with their own children (so, child abuse.)

 

I *think* that as long as the search was initiated and the warrant obtained on good faith, that any evidence found can be held against them.....even if it doesn't back-up the reason they went in. Right????

[Sara R]

A hoax? What have I missed?

 

The original call was made from a cell phone linked to a Colorado woman with no connection to the FLDS

[MelaniePA]

The original call was made from a cell phone linked to a Colorado woman with no connection to the FLDS

 

Thanks. That link is very similar to the one I was searching for.

[beansprouts]

The original call was made from a cell phone linked to a Colorado woman with no connection to the FLDS

 

This is definitely someone with issues.

 

But did CPS raid the commune and remove 400 children based on this one person's testimony? They must have other evidence.

[snickelfritz]

At what lengths are we comfortable with our government going to, in order to protect the innocent?

 

I am convinced that these(FLDS) children and women and boys are being abused and the whole thing makes me sick. But, it seems like it could be a slippery slope to people thinking that homeschooling or conservative religion or anything that isn't "normal" are abuse and everyone needing to worry about a single phone call that removes children.

 

I'm glad I don't have the job of sorting this all out.

[beansprouts]

BTW Sara R your avatar is very cute :-) Did you take the photo?

[beansprouts]

I am convinced that these(FLDS) children and women and boys are being abused and the whole thing makes me sick. But, it seems like it could be a slippery slope to people thinking that homeschooling or conservative religion or anything that isn't "normal" are abuse and everyone needing to worry about a single phone call that removes children.

 

 

 

There is a difference between legal and healthy alternate choices and oppression and abuse. Polygamy is illegal and so is sexually and physically misusing children.

[Sara R]

Was there any evidence of girls under age 16 with their own children? The legal marriage age in Texas with parental permission is 16. It used to be 14 until Texas changed their law specifically because of the FLDS moving in. Granted, polygamous "marriage" is illegal in any case, of course. But the existence of such a law seems to say that teen pregnancy doesn't necessarily equal child abuse.

 

Even if you do call teen pregnancy abuse, then only the children in immediate danger of such abuse should have been removed (teenage girls). Forcibly removing all children from loving parents is very damaging to a child. CPS should realize that and seriously and humbly consider whether their "cure" is worse than the disease.

 

The only good reason there was to remove all children was because they are being taught the values of their society. Some of the arguments I've read in favor of the Texas raid could just as easily be used against homeschoolers. "They're indoctrinating their children and teaching them weird things and protecting them from the outside world." These arguments could be turned against any of us. So proceed with caution.

[st_claire]

I think CPS taking all the kids away is very very wrong. From what I've heard, they have found no evidence at all of abuse or underage marriage. If I missed something, please let me know.

 

 

I think that if consenting adults choose to live a polyamorous lifestyle, than that is up to them, and no business of the gov. Thus I don't think polygamy should be illegal. And if said consenting adults chose to raise their children to accept poly relationships as the standard than I think that's also up to them and no business of the gov. That being said, if those adults are committing any crimes which hurts someone else (for example, some crimes that have been associated with these groups are statutory rape, child abuse, and welfare fraud) then I have a big problem with those adults and I think the gov should intervene. But from what I've heard, this group hasn't done those things.

 

 

Regardless of what the parents have done, I also am upset by how the gov is treating these children. Keeping them in a big sports complex is not a good way to care for children. They must be so scared and confused. I really feel for these kids.

[Sara R]

which is why Arizona and Utah have "allowed" it to go on. I used to live about an hour away from Colorado City, and read a book about the history of their town.

 

Some history for you: In 1953 Arizona government had a raid of their town (google "Short Creek raid"). The fathers were jailed; the mothers and kids (who were *not* separated if I recall correctly--at least not the young ones; can't remember all of the details now) were placed in foster homes in the Phoenix area for about 2 years. There was a huge public outcry against the separation of families and people thought the cure was worse than the disease. I guess it was a more family-friendly time.

 

And all that didn't destroy polygamy. The mothers believed it too, and they taught their children to believe it. As we all know, mothers have powerful influences on their children. After everyone was out of jail, they went back to Short Creek (the name of the town back then) and life went back to their version of normal. And after the black eye Arizona's government received from this, they were a lot more hesitant to act.

 

The FLDS learned an even greater distrust of government that they passed along to their children (and really, can you say they were wrong?) They and their children are learning similar lessons all over again.

 

I think the only way to permanently destroy their society would be to remove all babies and children born from their homes and place them in foster care. But that seems even more evil than polygamy to me. And I understand that it meets the technical definition of genocide. It wasn't too long ago that Indian children were placed in white homes because it was supposed to be better for them.

[momto3]

My heart goes out to the little children the most. Can you imagine your nursing baby or young toddler being taken away without an explanation? I do not see how it could have hampered the investigation to allow the mothers to be with their young children. They are the main ones being hurt in all of this.

[beansprouts]

Why does a 50 year old man want a 16 year old girl for his wife? On what common ground could they base a relationship, let alone a marriage? How can they be compatable partners in making the decisions involved with raising and managing a family? Can a 50 year old man truly respect the viewpoint of someone so much younger than he? What would they talk about? Wouldn't he find a relationship with someone in the same stage of life more fulfilling?

 

And what about her? Does she want to be married to a man who could be her father, a man who likely will never see her as an equal? Or would she rather be with the cute 18 year old boy who respects her mind and understands her as a person, and can share her dreams?

 

I am not saying this required government intervention, I don't know the answer. I am just saying that I don't get it. :confused:

[beansprouts]

My heart goes out to the little children the most. Can you imagine your nursing baby or young toddler being taken away without an explanation? I do not see how it could have hampered the investigation to allow the mothers to be with their young children. They are the main ones being hurt in all of this.

 

I don't know why they won't restrain the fathers, but allow the children to be with their mothers.

[snickelfritz]

Polygamy is illegal and so is sexually and physically misusing children.

 

I am secretly glad that *someone* made a call that got some intervention in THIS case.

 

But, I took a Biomedical Ethics class with a professor who was a master at picking a situation where no-one agreed with a course of action. Gradually, he would change details until people started switching sides and he would get the whole class agreeing the opposite way. So, I see the slippery slope in things.

 

I don't know why they won't restrain the fathers, but allow the children to be with their mothers.

 

I think, for older childrenm, there was manipulation of information. But, that wouldn't apply to a baby. My 5 year old and 2 1/2 year old would be a MESS if they were taken from me. My oldest would never take a bottle, when she was nursing.

[Laurie]

First, I don't understand why all the children were taken. If CPS was so concerned about teenage mothers and possible sexual abuse, why didn't they remove all the teenage girls and let the younger children stay with their mothers? Then they could still proceed with their investigation without TRAUMATIZING all those children.

 

I haven't been following this case closely, but I just don't understand why suddenly a government agency is acting so high-and-mighty about issues of paternity, etc. I haven't heard that CPS is also going to Hollywood or other communities where it's not unheard of for men to father children with more than one woman. Why does it only draw scrutiny, scorn, and public outcry when the father actually lives under the same roof with all the women and children?

 

If the children were living in filth, malnourished, etc. then I'd feel differently. But to traumatize all those children by ripping them away from their mothers and then subjecting them to what has to be extreme culture shock by putting them into foster homes just doesn't seem right to me. Not unless CPS is also going to start raiding some Hollywood mansions and taking some celebrity children into protective custody!

[amy g.]

Some of the children are being fostered down the street from me.

My dad just drove by, and saw 15 TV trucks trying to get a picture of the kids.

 

To me, that is even more abuse.

[beansprouts]

First, I don't understand why all the children were taken. If CPS was so concerned about teenage mothers and possible sexual abuse, why didn't they remove all the teenage girls and let the younger children stay with their mothers? Then they could still proceed with their investigation without TRAUMATIZING all those children.

 

You see - that is why I wonder if there is more information than we know.

 

Not that I have a huge amount of faith in CPS...

[Claire]

Was there any evidence of girls under age 16 with their own children?

 

When CPS went into the compound, they were able to identify 10 girls who were underage and pregnant, underage with a child, or underage and pregnant and with a child. Yesterday I read online that an additional 25 or so girls were identified as underage and pregnant or with a child. Since CPS was working to keep underage mothers together with their children, teens who had initially said they were 19 or 20 admitted they were underage. That's why the number of children removed from the compound has risen.

 

Granted, polygamous "marriage" is illegal in any case, of course. But the existence of such a law seems to say that teen pregnancy doesn't necessarily equal child abuse.

 

The "marriages" to older men were not legal marriages. Certainly underage teens can get pregnant by other underage teens. However, that does not appear to be the case here. It seems pretty clear that legal-aged men are having sex with underage girls outside of legal marriage. That is statutory rape.

 

Even if you do call teen pregnancy abuse, then only the children in immediate danger of such abuse should have been removed (teenage girls).

 

CPS rules dictate that if one child in a family is at risk of abuse, then all children in the family need to be removed until the investigation is complete. It does not matter if the abused child is a teenager and the other children are younger. The situation in the compound was complex because individual families could not be identified. It was like one large family.

 

It is also highly likely that abuse to younger children did occurr. Here, for example, is a video clip of Carolyn Jessop who describes water torture of babies. (This description is at the very end of the clip.) It's very possible that children other than teen girls were being abused.

[Sara R]

Was there any evidence of girls under age 16 with their own children?

 

When CPS went into the compound, they were able to identify 10 girls who were underage and pregnant, underage with a child, or underage and pregnant and with a child. Yesterday I read online that an additional 25 or so girls were identified as underage and pregnant or with a child. Since CPS was working to keep underage mothers together with their children, teens who had initially said they were 19 or 20 admitted they were underage. That's why the number of children removed from the compound has risen.

 

But is "underage" under age 16, or ages 16-17? Also, the fact that some mothers changed their ages doesn't really establish whether or not they are really underage. There's very little more powerful than a good mother's attachment to her child, and I'm sure it would motivate any mother who could get away with it to say she was underage even if she wasn't. They probably don't even think the lying is wrong, compared to the prospect of sending their babies to live with strangers. It would be like lying to the Nazis about the Jews living in the attic.

 

Granted, polygamous "marriage" is illegal in any case, of course. But the existence of such a law seems to say that teen pregnancy doesn't necessarily equal child abuse.

 

The "marriages" to older men were not legal marriages. Certainly underage teens can get pregnant by other underage teens. However, that does not appear to be the case here. It seems pretty clear that legal-aged men are having sex with underage girls outside of legal marriage. That is statutory rape.

 

Of course polygamous marriage illegal and wrong, whether or not it's over age 16 or 18. So jail the fathers. Don't remove children from loving mothers.

 

Even if you do call teen pregnancy abuse, then only the children in immediate danger of such abuse should have been removed (teenage girls).

 

CPS rules dictate that if one child in a family is at risk of abuse, then all children in the family need to be removed until the investigation is complete. It does not matter if the abused child is a teenager and the other children are younger. The situation in the compound was complex because individual families could not be identified. It was like one large family.

 

These kinds of rules from CPS are dumb. I don't see why CPS thinks temporarily removing a child from a home while they complete an investigation for 6 to 18 months is a risk-free action that's fine to do if someone is only "at risk" of being abused. Removal from home is traumatic for kids and families. Why risk causing worse pain than you are trying to prevent?

[Claire]

But is "underage" under age 16, or ages 16-17? Also, the fact that some mothers changed their ages doesn't really establish whether or not they are really underage. There's very little more powerful than a good mother's attachment to her child, and I'm sure it would motivate any mother who could get away with it to say she was underage even if she wasn't. They probably don't even think the lying is wrong, compared to the prospect of sending their babies to live with strangers. It would be like lying to the Nazis about the Jews living in the attic.

 

 

 

Of course polygamous marriage illegal and wrong, whether or not it's over age 16 or 18. So jail the fathers. Don't remove children from loving mothers.

 

 

 

These kinds of rules from CPS are dumb. I don't see why CPS thinks temporarily removing a child from a home while they complete an investigation for 6 to 18 months is a risk-free action that's fine to do if someone is only "at risk" of being abused. Removal from home is traumatic for kids and families. Why risk causing worse pain than you are trying to prevent?

 

But is "underage" under age 16, or ages 16-17? My understanding of Texas is that underage is under age 17.

 

Also, the fact that some mothers changed their ages doesn't really establish whether or not they are really underage. True, but it's equally possible they're telling the truth.

 

Of course polygamous marriage illegal and wrong, whether or not it's over age 16 or 18. Actually, polygamy isn't necessarily illegal.

 

So jail the fathers. I think this will happen. First they have to identify the fathers.

 

Don't remove children from loving mothers. I don't like removing children from mothers either. I don't think CPS has a choice, though, given the way the laws are written. Part of the reason the laws are written this way is to ensure that children are kept safe while the truth is dug up in the investigation. It's quite possible for an apparently "loving mother" to try to hide abuse in order to preserve the family, and to encourage her children in the same way. I think that's what CPS encountered when they initially housed the mothers with their children. They discovered some mothers coaching their children to lie.

 

The children suffer either way.

[Cheryl in NM]

I wanted to post some of my thoughts on this thread.

 

I think polygamy is wrong. That said, it's my understanding that polygamists only have 1 legal marriage and the rest of marriages are sactioned by the church (FLDS), but not the government. That would mean that leagally they would only have 1 marriage (in a state that doesn't have common law marriage). That would make polygamy as we know it and as practiced in most cases in the US legal.

 

Teen pregnancy is not illegal and is not a sign of abuse. That said, a teenager being pregnant by someone over the age of consent is statutory rape. Sometimes teens get together and have consentual sex though. Of course, it's my understanding that these girls were impregnated by men much older than them. Of course that is wrong.

 

I agree that the younger children should be left with their mothers, even if the mothers are training them that their lifestyle is just. 400 children is just too many to place and I believe the majority of those children were not abused. I think they should have removed all the men since they are the actual offenders. Even if the mothers preach this way of life the mothers cannot impregnate the girls.

 

All of that said, I think that as long as the women are entering into "marriage" of their own free will the polygamists should be left alone. We don't have to like polygamy or think it's right, but I don't think polygamists should be persecuted. I don't think that abuse should be overlooked or allowed.

 

My gut feeling in this case, and of course I have no facts, is that these people are being prosecuted for their religious beliefs. Again, I don't believe their religious beliefs about plural marriage are moral or right, but who am I to judge them?

[Whisperlily]

I agree with most of what you said St. Claire...

 

While I think having more than one wife is morally wrong (that's my personal opinion), they legally are only married to one woman. The other "wives" are basically "mistresses" in the eyes of the law. If they are truly treating this case on a legal basis, the polygamy issue is not something they will prosecute. If so, they would have to prosecute men in mainstream society who have affairs. Legally it is the same thing.

 

But not when it comes to forced "marriages" or even willing "spiritual marriages" that by legal definition constitute statutory rape. There are underage mothers in the group, and I do believe they have evidence that the fathers of the children born to the underage mothers are adults.

 

Of course the courts are not releasing all information that has been gathered to the general public, so we can assume there's much more to the story than what we're hearing... but I also believe that there has been documentation of physical abuse as well as the underage marriage problem.

 

My heart does go out to the children. Most of them probably have no idea what is going on. I don't know about their child-rearing philosophy, and whether child abuse as discipline is a consideration, but other than the young marriage issue, statutory rape, and (allegations) of physical abuse of young brides... which we can assume may have been out of the norm, and an isolated prosecutable incident... But we can also assume that most of the children have no idea what goes on in the marriage bed, and their lives are not ruled by that aspect of their religion... other than having an "extended family" and are probably horribly confused by this turn of events.

 

ETA: I walked away and didn't post this for several hours after I typed it. I see that others have already mentioned the things I have above... Just thought I'd mention that, in case you all thought I'd ignored the other responses. Going back to catch up now...

[Claire]

I agree with much of this.

 

In terms of the "marriages", I have no problem with polygamous marriages among consenting adults. I *do* have a problem with statutory rape. Minors are not allowed by law to enter into contracts, including marriage contracts. Religion does not change the laws concerning statutory rape.

 

To me, this is a prosecution of child abuse, not a prosecution of religious beliefs. FLDS members are free to believe that no age is too young for marriage. They just cannot act on this belief if it constitutes child abuse (which is what statutory rape is).

[Cheryl in NM]

To me, this is a prosecution of child abuse, not a prosecution of religious beliefs. FLDS members are free to believe that no age is too young for marriage. They just cannot act on this belief if it constitutes child abuse (which is what statutory rape is).

 

I agree with you partly. These young women should not be coerced or forced to marry anyone, let alone a much older man. But, in mainstream America, parents can sign for a minor to get married. Young marriage is not just an FLDS thing. I agree that sanctioned statutory rape is wrong and should be dealt with legally.

 

Please know, I'm not defending these creepy fathers, just religious freedom while it is within our laws.

 

edited: Also, if this were merely prosecution of child abuse, why did they remove every single child, even the non-abused? The reason I think it's persecution is because they took ALL of the children. Teaching religious views IS NOT abuse.

[Whisperlily]

 

edited: Also, if this were merely prosecution of child abuse, why did they remove every single child, even the non-abused? The reason I think it's persecution is because they took ALL of the children. Teaching religious views IS NOT abuse.

 

I think the official released reason is that there is an environment that is creating perpetrators and victims of child abuse. I think there is a clause... someone will know better than I do... allowing the removal of children from a home that is encouraging/fostering future abuse. The thought being... these children are in danger of future abuse, or becoming abusers.

[Sara R]

But is "underage" under age 16, or ages 16-17? My understanding of Texas is that underage is under age 17.

 

Nope, like I said above in Texas one can legally marry at the age of 16 with parental consent. It used to be 14 until just a few years ago when they changed the law because of the FLDS moving in.

[Whisperlily]

Nope, like I said above in Texas one can legally marry at the age of 16 with parental consent. It used to be 14 until just a few years ago when they changed the law because of the FLDS moving in.

 

But... most of these girls are NOT legally married to the older men. Therefore, if there is parental consent given, in a spiritual marriage, that makes the parents conspirators of the stautory rape, doesn't it?

 

And the legal age of consent is still 18 years... outside of legal marriage, right? So anyone under 18, who is not legally married to the older men are still considered victims of statuorty rape.

[Charon]

First, I don't understand why all the children were taken. If CPS was so concerned about teenage mothers and possible sexual abuse, why didn't they remove all the teenage girls and let the younger children stay with their mothers? Then they could still proceed with their investigation without TRAUMATIZING all those children.

 

I haven't been following this case closely, but I just don't understand why suddenly a government agency is acting so high-and-mighty about issues of paternity, etc. I haven't heard that CPS is also going to Hollywood or other communities where it's not unheard of for men to father children with more than one woman. Why does it only draw scrutiny, scorn, and public outcry when the father actually lives under the same roof with all the women and children?

 

If the children were living in filth, malnourished, etc. then I'd feel differently. But to traumatize all those children by ripping them away from their mothers and then subjecting them to what has to be extreme culture shock by putting them into foster homes just doesn't seem right to me. Not unless CPS is also going to start raiding some Hollywood mansions and taking some celebrity children into protective custody!

 

 

This whole thing is a sham from start to finish. There are like 5 girls from 16 to 19 that are possible cases of all this baby-raping-bs that CPS has been trotting out. It is not illegal to marry a 16 year old. This is not a cult. And, the women are not brainwashed just because they do not buy into a whole bunch of modern liberal ideas surrounding gender issues. And, raising their children not to buy into a bunch of politically correct solcial crap is not abuse. This is nothing more than a bunch of feminists and liberals trying to make up de facto laws.

 

At least look at the other side of the story:

 

http://www.captivefldschildren.org/

 

Personally, I have a lot more in common with the mormons than CPS or the guys running around in fatigues with assault rifles terrorizing a bunch of Laura Ingallses and their children. This is sick. And, the only thing sicker than the fact that CPS did this is the fact that the media and the public at large are going around repeating the bald faced lies that CPS is promulgating as well as speculating a whole litany of their own BS about "what must be going on" and "very disturbing things" they have noticed.

[Ahwahnee]

The ends do not justify the means!

 

Someone calls an abuse hotline(CPS) to say your husband is having inappropriate relations with your daughter. The only real evidence is an anonymous phone call. CPS takes your child because she is 16 and pregnant. The CPS declares you are keeping your children from the rest of society by only allowing them to visit with like minded people from your church and homeschooling groups.

 

Next they take the rest of younger children. They isolate the children and interrogate them separately to ensure they provide factual stories. The CPS will be scrutinized and embarrassed if the stories prove false. Your 16 year old is going through the normal process of growing up. Attorneys provided by the state “help†your children be socialized in a normal manner. Your friends are not allowed to foster the children because they are like minded people and cannot be trusted.

 

During this time your husband and you cannot see your children, because you may influence them. The rest of your church and homeschooling friends’ children are taken because they have similar beliefs.

 

This is not the American way. The government is taking our freedoms. These tactics are not based on: you are innocent until proven guilty.

 

There has to be a better way. CHILD ABUSERS MUST BE PUNISHED; however we must not give up our freedoms to make the capture of criminals easier for law enforcement. However the FLDS sect’s raid evolves from here, families will be destroyed and children will be hurt. The cure may be worse than the disease.

 

This whole situation is very sad. Let’s pray for a wise and loving resolution for the children and families involved. (Oops! This prayer is not sanctioned by the State.)

[Sara R]

But... most of these girls are NOT legally married to the older men. Therefore, if there is parental consent given, in a spiritual marriage, that makes the parents conspirators of the stautory rape, doesn't it?

 

And the legal age of consent is still 18 years... outside of legal marriage, right? So anyone under 18, who is not legally married to the older men are still considered victims of statuorty rape.

 

 

I don't know whether or not they were officially married to the older men or not. They may have been. Maybe the men legally divorced the earlier wives.

 

Even if they weren't legally married (because of the polygamy thing), marriage is legal for 16-year-olds in Texas with parental consent. I don't see how it's worse for a 16-year-old to be "married" (even if their version of marriage looks much different from ours) than to be a single mom. At least there is a father in the child's life and they have a comparatively stable home life compared to a typical single teenage mom.

[Barb_]

The ends do not justify the means!

 

There's the rub. Your whole post was excellent, but this one line goes to the heart of the situation.

 

Barb

[Claire]

It's highly unlikely the teen girls were legally married to the older men, and parents can give consent only to legal marriages. Parents who give consent to statutory rape are complicit in the illegal act.

[beansprouts]

Nope, like I said above in Texas one can legally marry at the age of 16 with parental consent. It used to be 14 until just a few years ago when they changed the law because of the FLDS moving in.

 

Why did they have to change the law?

[Mom2GirlsTX]

It's highly unlikely the teen girls were legally married to the older men, and parents can give consent only to legal marriages. Parents who give consent to statutory rape are complicit in the illegal act.

 

I totally agree with Claire above.

The Judge ruled they should stay in state care because evidence of abuse has been found. Charges have not been filed because they are still doing interviewing/DNA testing, etc. I am glad these kids are getting helped.

[pixelroper]

added

Why did they have to change the law?

 

according to a source I posted in the last thread on this, they changed the law from 14 to 16 b/c this FLDS group was building there.

[Claire]

Nope, like I said above in Texas one can legally marry at the age of 16 with parental consent. It used to be 14 until just a few years ago when they changed the law because of the FLDS moving in.

 

This is true for couples who seek a marriage license from the state of Texas.

 

In the case of the FLDS girls who are under 18 and pregnant or have a child, it is highly unlikely that a marriage license was ever sought. If the man was 18 or over, this is statutory rape.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion over the word "marriage". Being married in a religious ceremony does not necessarily make a marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

[Moxie]

I thought the moms with young kids had a choice of staying with the kids or going back to the compound; did I mis-hear something?

 

Melissa

[Nestof3]

I read somewhere that the children call all of their father's wives "mother." Perhaps it wasn't her own biological mother she was referring to? I also read that other than their father, all men in the compound are referred to as "Uncle." I'm assuming that is why it is so difficult to sort out who is related to whom, and how. They probably don't even have "our" way of labeling relationships straight in their minds, as it would be foreign to them, too.

 

Sounds like what we just read in SOTW about the aborigine Australians.

[Nestof3]

I think all the fathers need to be strung up and put in jail-- the ones at least that are practicing polygamy or have underaged wives. I think there are some young men who have been separated from their families who are innocent as of yet-- meaning they only have one wife. However, I do not think these women are much at fault. They are living out their lives the way they have been taught is the only way to eternal life.

 

Yes, but have not the men been taught since birth that this is also the correct way to do things? Why are the men more guilty than the women?

[st_claire]

It is also highly likely that abuse to younger children did occurr. Here, for example, is a video clip of Carolyn Jessop who describes water torture of babies. (This description is at the very end of the clip.) It's very possible that children other than teen girls were being abused.

Carolyn Jessop is from a different group, correct?

[Nestof3]

Why does a 50 year old man want a 16 year old girl for his wife?

 

Because (1) Most 16 year olds look better than most 5o year olds

 

and (2) because most 16 year olds can have babies where as many 50 year olds cannot

 

What would they talk about? Wouldn't he find a relationship with someone in the same stage of life more fulfilling?

 

 

There are men who couldn't care less about talking and such things. Also, many men get bored with their wives. If it were not so, pornography would probably not be so common.