I was watching another segment on the polygamist case in TX

[*anj*]

All across this country ever day, children are removed from homes where the father or some other man in the home is the abuser. The mother is told that if she will arrange living conditions where that man will not have contact with the children then she may have her children back.

 

I think that this is an excellent point. Imagine if we found out that in Hartford, CT there were 30 female gang members living in close quarters and they had 150 children between them, but there were only 5 adult men. Imagine if it was discovered that 5 of the mothers were under the age of 18, yet even these had a couple of children apiece. And there were stories of strange initiation rites circulating both within and without that included coerced "marriages" and so on.

 

What would we think?

What would the public outcry be like?

How did you react when you read the phrase "gang members"?

Is it possible that maybe we're a little more empathetic to "the poor mothers" when they just look like Amish women?

 

I'm not striking out at anyone in particular. I don't even remember who has said what in this thread anymore. I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate and challenge all of us to ask if there's any chance we're less critical of these women because they don't have tattoos and gold teeth and bandannas.

Talk amongst yourselves! ;)

[Twinmom]

All across this country ever day, children are removed from homes where the father or some other man in the home is the abuser. The mother is told that if she will arrange living conditions where that man will not have contact with the children then she may have her children back. In this case, the mothers are unable or unwilling to do that. I hope the state will offer them safe haven to keep their kids, although I think it will be difficult for the authorities to know if the women can be trusted because they are very brainwashed IMO.

 

This is an excellent point. In my experience as a TX social worker, I've seen that many mothers whose children are actively being abused are unable to ensure a safe environment for the kids. Not all the moms, but an extremely large majority. Once confronted with their choices, these moms would work out an arrangement with CPS or the prosecutors supposedly ensuring that the abuser remain away so that the child could return home. However, they would either have an inability to make it happen (domestic violence, battered women's syndrome) or an unwillingness to make it happen (but I LOVE him!). Invariably, the situation worsens because the abuser saw that he "got away with it," since all but the really egregious cases he'd get probation and the mom would have let him return home. I'd see the kids again in 6 months to a year at my shelter, or they'd be out on the streets trying to make it on their own because they'd lost faith in the system. So sad.

 

The reality is that most of these kids will be going back to their mothers eventually, whether the homes are abusive or not. Sadly, that's just the reality of life in child welfare. In order to have an involuntary termination of parental rights, there has to be overwhelming evidence...evidence that is often hard to find or maintain until trial. The fact that there was even enough evidence to remove such a large number during the investigatory phase tells me that they definitely have evidence of abuse, but it is probably not enough to keep the whole group placed. I'm personally impressed that they've managed act so aggressively against such a secretive group...it is a huge undertaking on their part. The kids they can gather enough evidence on will have parental rights terminated...the rest will go home until "next time."

 

Please be well aware that FLDS has a lot of money and a lot of experience playing the media game to their advantage. Their website and recent new stories only prove my point...they have become very media savvy in order to protect their lifestyle. Don't be fooled. This is a group of people under the influence of a very charismatic, powerful and intelligent leader whose main aim is to protect his right to abuse children. I personally consider Texans lucky to have a CPS system savvy and gutsy enough to find a way to step in...the system is highly flawed and it is easier just to walk away than to intervene in such a quagmire as FLDS. This isn't about an alternative lifestyle...it is about the children and their right to be free from sexual exploitation by their elders.

[Cheryl in NM]

I think that this is an excellent point. Imagine if we found out that in Hartford, CT there were 30 female gang members living in close quarters and they had 150 children between them, but there were only 5 adult men. Imagine if it was discovered that 5 of the mothers were under the age of 18, yet even these had a couple of children apiece. And there were stories of strange initiation rites circulating both within and without that included coerced "marriages" and so on.

 

What would we think?

What would the public outcry be like?

How did you react when you read the phrase "gang members"?

Is it possible that maybe we're a little more empathetic to "the poor mothers" when they just look like Amish women?

 

I'm not striking out at anyone in particular. I don't even remember who has said what in this thread anymore. I'm just trying to be the devil's advocate and challenge all of us to ask if there's any chance we're less critical of these women because they don't have tattoos and gold teeth and bandannas.

Talk amongst yourselves! ;)

 

A big difference here is that gangs are all about violence and crime. While the FLDS live in a way that mainstream America doesn't agree with they stand for family values. Some of their religious views are just skewed. I think America, as a society, can relate more with gang members than god-fearing sects (for lack of a better word).

[cricket1178]

 

: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.

 

This statement "The men are at fault, but the women arn't" is ridiculous. The men are only living what they were taught as well. I guess it is okay to be a drug dealer if your parents were because that is what you were taught?

 

Not trying to be snippy, just my opinion. The women have allowed the crime of polygamy. Allowing it is the same as doing it imho.

[Ahwahnee]

More information.

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080425/D9095CA81.html

 

It looks like all of the FDLS are not the same.

[Sara R]

I agree with you. From everything I've read, I think the women really believe it too. I think there are ways out if you want out. I know when I drove through Colorado City, a very small town of just a couple thousand, the town had a community college extension office. The town is too small for one on its own; the state must have provided it so the people could have access to higher education and a broader perspective.

 

Also, this isn't the first time a raid like this happened. Like I mentioned above, this happened back in 1953. The reason why polygamy persisted after a 2-year separation of fathers from everyone is that the mothers and children were not separated. The mothers taught their children even in the absence of the men and while separated from their town living in Phoenix-area foster homes.

 

I think only justification for permanent separation of children from parents in this society is if it was determined that polygamy was so harmful to kids that the destruction of their religion and way of life was necessary. Separating the kids from the adults ought to do the trick--but maybe not, if the kids are as close knit as you say. There could be some true believer older kids who pass it along the ideas to the younger kids.

 

But I don't think there's enough evidence of danger in this case to warrant total destruction of their society. You've got polygamy, and you have 16-year-olds entering into polygamy in a state where monogamous marriage is legal at that age. There may be some coercion going on to get all of this to take place, but that's difficult to prove.

[Sara R]

Please be well aware that FLDS has a lot of money and a lot of experience playing the media game to their advantage. Their website and recent new stories only prove my point...they have become very media savvy in order to protect their lifestyle.

 

What is your evidence? I don't think they have much money. Colorado City was a very poor dusty desert town when I drove through 6 years ago, and they have all of those children to care for. Maybe they have pooled what money they have to pay for lawyers. I would too if my kids were taken away.

[Kathy in MD]

A big difference here is that gangs are all about violence and crime. While the FLDS live in a way that mainstream America doesn't agree with they stand for family values. Some of their religious views are just skewed. I think America, as a society, can relate more with gang members than god-fearing sects (for lack of a better word).

 

Polygamy, forced marriage and kicking teen boys out without proper training for making it in the world are not what I consider family values.

[Scarlett]

What is your evidence? I don't think they have much money. Colorado City was a very poor dusty desert town when I drove through 6 years ago, and they have all of those children to care for. Maybe they have pooled what money they have to pay for lawyers. I would too if my kids were taken away.

 

The organization could very well have a lot of money and the people be poor--I'm thinking a large majority of their money goes to the church.

[Twinmom]

What is your evidence? I don't think they have much money. Colorado City was a very poor dusty desert town when I drove through 6 years ago, and they have all of those children to care for. Maybe they have pooled what money they have to pay for lawyers. I would too if my kids were taken away.

 

I don't profess to understand all the ins and outs of the FLDS financial situation, but there has been a lot in the news about the prices paid for the compound land (in the millions...bought under the pretense of establishing a hunting lodge for executives) as well as the trust that Jeffs supposedly pulled cash out of to finance the Eldorado compound. There has also been a lot in the news about military contracts awarded to FLDS owned companies, etc. Have you seen photos of the ranch? There are some amazing buildings there, put up really fast...seems to me that there would have to be some cash behind the group to accomplish this.

 

I did a quick search on articles about this... I haven't read them all as my inlaws are here, but will put them here for you to draw your own conclusions from. Personally, I think it is true that the rank and file folks don't have a lot of cash in their pocket, but the larger organization is flush and the leaders are adept at both hiding finances and deflecting media scrutiny.

 

HTH!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/17/polygamy.pentagon/index.html

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/33510.html

 

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy862.html

 

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:nXQ7A98BCW0J:www.myeldorado.net/YFZ%2520Pages/YFZ040104.html+eldorado+FLDS+ownership&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

[Cheryl in NM]

Polygamy, forced marriage and kicking teen boys out without proper training for making it in the world are not what I consider family values.

 

I agree with you. But their religious beliefs are polygamy and arranged marriages. I don't know how they justify kicking out teen boys. Arranged marriages have been around for centuries, actually, so has polygamy. I don't agree with either, but that doesn't give me the right to take children out of that situation or to not allow those adults to have children. The polygamists I lived near did not kick out the teen boys (I don't believe they were FLDS though).

 

Even all of the things you mentioned above are not as bad as violence and crime just for the sake of violence and crime. That is all gangs are about. Do you really think that the FLDS are worse than or the same as gangs?

[Cheryl in NM]

The organization could very well have a lot of money and the people be poor--I'm thinking a large majority of their money goes to the church.

 

I don't know the actual FLDS principles, but if they are truly living what Joseph Smith taught, they live by the Order (I beleive that's what it was called). That is where all wealth is common wealth. No one person owns anything; it all belongs to the Church.

[Sara R]

I don't know the actual FLDS principles, but if they are truly living what Joseph Smith taught, they live by the Order (I beleive that's what it was called). That is where all wealth is common wealth. No one person owns anything; it all belongs to the Church.

 

Yes, there's some trust that owns everything. It's called UEP, or the United Effort Plan. In front of all of the houses (unfinished, without siding), there were signs that said "Property of UEP."

 

I still don't see where they would be getting the money from, unless they are getting rich converts. There wasn't any industry. Maybe some of them owned some land in town (an hour away) and sold when there was a real estate boom. Maybe some of them worked construction in that town. I don't think welfare fraud pays all that well ;) Note: I've read that there isn't evidence of welfare fraud in Texas; "just" Utah and Arizona (which is where Colorado City is, not in Colorado. Named for the Colorado River probably).

[Laurie4b]

My experience in children's mental health, where we saw a lot of abuse cases was that, indeed, it is quite common for only one child in a family to be abused. It is often due to particular qualities of that child: he is the one who looks like the father, she is the first born, he has special needs (and therefore is much more frustrating than the others), etc.

 

The trauma suffered by removal of children from a home is catastrophic; whatever was going on there had better be catastrophic as well. The removal does not have to be long-term for the trauma to have permanent impact. Removing kids "just in case" means the state is doing what it knows is harm to prevent what it may or may not have evidence is occurring. The younger the child, the less time for the trauma to have permanent effects. For age 2, a couple of weeks can do it. Kids who have disruptions of primary caregivers before they can verbalize and remember things are the most vulnerable. (This can happen absent CPS intervention, when a mother gets sick, for instance, and children are passed between relatives during mother's care. )

 

The trauma that I'm speaking about is from the removal from the primary caregiver; I'm not even including the additional traumatization that can occur in foster care settings, whether individual families or group care. There are many caring foster care parents (we've had two foster children ourselves); however, statistically, the rate of being abused is higher in foster care than in biological families. There are some foster families who do it "for the money" and who don't give a rat's behind about kids. Again, I'm not knocking the good foster families. We need them. But not all is chocolate and roses in the foster care world.

 

Placement into foster care is analogous to chemotherapy. You don't administer chemo to prevent cancer. Chemotherapy does harm to the body. It can cause other cancers down the road. You administer it, knowing the harm it causes, only when you're sure there is cancer, and when the gain you will get outweighs the harm caused.

 

I see no reason whatsoever that the authorities could not have left the younger children in the care of their mothers until they sorted through more of what was actually going on. The mothers and children were together under the supervision of the authorities.