Pattern of minority age females pgnant at FLDS compound

[elizabeth]

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html Very unfortunate. It would appear that this went beyond one incident as previously believed.

[Sara R]

Thanks for the link. I would want to have it broken down by age (14 is different than 17), and I would also want to know how many mothers lied and said they were underage because otherwise they would have been separated from their babies.

[pixelroper]

"A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant."

 

This doesn't tell us anything. It could be 31 that are 16 & 17 and the remainder (22) are 14 & 15.

 

" "It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," he said."

 

Yes a pattern of having children young which may or may not be illegal and is certainly one of their religious beliefs which they seem to be up front about all along.

 

Nobody has been charged w/anything either. They also do not mention anyone under 14- can we assume there was no evidence those under 14 were abused?

 

added: There is no reason for them to be so vague, unless the reality would hurt their case publicly. They haven't specified much, except their "concerns." This is what is really bugging me, they are not being strait.

[TracyR]

This is such a tough subject. They did a thing on Dateline about the FDLS familes last night . My husband said it was a sad attempt at making people sympathize with them. Its just a sad case .

[Ravin]

It wouldn't surprise me if some of the girls turned out to be 18+ lying to stay with their babies.

 

But consider...a 16 yo with a several-month-old baby was probably 15 when she got pregnant. And a 14 yo. with a baby...

 

I see two issues here. One is the completely arbitrary age-of-consent laws in TX. You can be married at 16, but not consent to sex with a man more than 3 years older until 18 (or to same-sex relationships of any kind until 18), unless, presumably, he is your legal husband.

 

Though TX is a common-law state, presumably common-law marriage doesn't apply to under-18yo.'s, nor to polygamists. If not for the polygamous nature of them, the "spiritual marriages" of the FLDS would certainly fall under the purview of common law marriage.

 

Am I the only one who can see a certain amount of cultural relativism might be reasonable here? Or that it's unreasonable to have such arbitrary age-of-consent laws? Why is it okay to be sixteen with a nineteen year old, but not fifteen with an 18 yo.?

 

And can they prove that the girls didn't get pregnant in Canada, where they CAN legally consent?

 

And it bugs me that they can take kids without pressing any criminal charges. That's always bugged me about CPS, though.

[RebeccaC]

Once they connect the DNA dots there may be a lot of criminal charges filed. They took DNA from just about every one including the men and if the DNA of the babies of underage girls match the DNA of older men it is a good bet that charges will be filed. What they want is strong evidence that older men were s*xually abusing or s*xually using young girls. Once they have the DNA and connect the dots it will be hard for these guys to squirm out of the statutory r*pe laws :glare:

[Danestress]

My understanding is that these girls are not legally married. Parents can't just consent to a "spiritual" marriage which basically is no marriage at all, legally.

 

And further more, parental consent still requires the consent of the girls - real, consent - not consent under duress or threat. Based on what I have heard from women who have left the sect, I think there is some real concern that while parents may have consented, many of the girls were reluctant.

 

It just makes me *sick* to think that 15 year old girls have their arms twisted into having a sex with old men when they aren't even married, have no legal right to alimony or division of property if they leave. They have nothing.

 

But anyway, unless these were legal, licensed marriages, they are probably criminal on the part of the men. And it's not just one or two. Yikes.

[Reya]

Um. Let's see. This a society which:

 

-Throws out the majority of males when they reach their teens in order to ensure a good supply of women to exploit--um, I mean MARRY--for the minority remainder.

 

-REASSIGNS women like property or hunks of meat whenever a man is thrown out on a whim, with no say on the part of the women. (Hmm, beginning to look more like prostitution than marriage to me.)

 

-Actively interferes with not only the father-child bond but the mother-child bond by making the children regard all their father's wives as mothers even though they may be divided up and separated from them on the leader's whim.

 

-Requires girls to marry, at puberty, whomever the leadership decides they should, distributing their nubile young bodies to largely much older men as rewards. (NO functioning sane society does this. Even the most repressive societies allow the FAMILY to choose the spouse of their children.)

 

-Uses the fact that the "spiritual wives" have no legal standing to terrorize and intimidate them into submission, if years of brainwashing from infancy doesn't do the trick.

 

-Teaches the families to exploit the welfare system to get benefits for the "single" spiritual wives.

 

-Requires that all property be owned not by any individual man or woman but by the leadership so that they may also redistribute that as they see fit, removing not only the control over the self of women but also the control over property of anyone who isn't at the top of the heap for the manipulation of the corrupt and degenerate elite.

 

-Actively instructs its people in an aggressive, antisocial stance in which stealing, cheating, or otherwise obtaining through trickery or deceit funds from the state--that is, THE REST OF US--is strongly encouraged in order to support their lifestyle of suppression and exploitation. (Please take a look at the materials used in the public FLDS town in Utah!)

 

There is nothing redeeming about this group. It doesn't matter that the women love their babies. Many abusers love their children--physical and sexual abusers, both. What matters is that the women will stand with the leadership when their sons are kicked out and will teach their daughters that they must allow themselves to be handed around like prostitutes or else they risk eternal ****ation. This is EVIL. Yes, the women are victims themselves, but they are victims busy victimizing a new generation. Just because you were sexually abused doesn't justify the sexual abuse of your children--the pattern MUST be stopped.

[pixelroper]

"A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant."

 

This is an official statement. If you look at it carefully all they are saying for sure is there are 53 girls between 14 & 17 in state custody. And I agree we do not know how many may be lying in order to stay w/their children. As I said before this is vague, why not tell the exact numbers? 31 are pregnant or have children, if a girl turned 14 at the end of 2004, married, got pregnant, she wouldn't be 18 until the end of this year. Her marriage would have been legal in 2004, in 2005 the law changed to 16. They can't prosecute her or the father based on current law. The number 31 still tells us nothing as to how many are what age, which they give the range 14-17. Maybe 30 have children and one is pregnant. Maybe 2 have children and 29 are pregnant. This is not right, in fact it is outrageous to me. They took 460+ children and still have them, currently they are being placed in foster care and the like, Good Grief, all without a "real" victim in need of justice. In any group there is the chance of bad eggs, I'm not sure of the stats, but say we do have a "bad egg" FLDS member/s: Does that justify this treatment for all of them?

 

According to other reports all of the members have birth certificates, the judge refuses to consider them b/c they could have been falsified. Well, in most places here, a birth certificate is the only proof a person has. To cross the Canadian Border I need one, my driving license is just a valid picture ID to go with it, and I needed my birth certificate to get my driving license. What else are they can they use for age? They do not have an expert to scrutinize the birth certificates?

 

As a homeschooler, I am aware of a certain amount of animosity towards homeschooling, so someone decides they do not like my decisions and think it opens my dd up to abuse that the system can't prevent b/c she isn't in it (the point that the judge in the CA case was making). They can make a fake call claiming something horrible and CPS marches in. They can take her for an unspecified amount of time while they dig around for actual evidence to charge me or dh with? Do you think I'm making a big stretch?

 

Initially I heard of 12 yos being raped, and all kinds of unpleasant acitivties have been stated (waterboarding babies??? no proof of that either). That just adds to the public disgust, and is speculation spin. It doesn't mean any of it has actually happened. I realize there have been real cases of abuse and they have been addressed in court.

 

Why isn't anyone considering husband abuse. Most men I know(while very much loving their wife) would consider more than one wife a nightmare. I am serious.

[pixelroper]

There is nothing redeeming about this group.

 

There is nothing redeeming about many groups here, IMO, but that isn't how our legal system is supposed to work.

[pixelroper]

To whoever is finding my analogy to hs shameful. I really do see a slippery slope here. The CA case had a judge ruling homeschooling illegal b/c of abuse.

 

It is shameful that they took 460 children based on a phoney phone call for help.

 

The whole thing is shameful. I am not condoning the FLDS lifestyle, this is being painted with a very large brush and I really think that homeschooling is vulnerable to the same.

 

I feel horrible for the children.

[Claire]

Have you by any chance read any of the books written by people who have left the FLDS? I have just started reading Escape by Carolyn Jessop (yesterday, as a matter of fact) and highly recommend it -- not for literary value, but informational value. I think the actions of CPS are much more understandable in the light of this kind of information. Even if half of what Carolyn Jessop writes is embellished, and I personally doubt that, this situation is far outside the limits of being a religious rights issue or a homeschooling issue. It really is about systematic patterns of abuse.

[Kate CA]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/polygamist.retreat.ap/index.html Very unfortunate. It would appear that this went beyond one incident as previously believed.

 

There is no question in my mind that this was not a one-incident event. This article (and accompanying disturbing "wedding" picture) lists in detail all kinds of abuses (human and otherwise) the FLDS are known for.

 

I am not at all certain that TX has handled this case legally--only time will tell what they truly "have" on this particular group--but I do feel something had to be done. Was this the right avenue for the littest ones--the ones not at risk yet for "spiritual marriage?" I kind of don't think so, but there is no way to know that at this time. My heart goes out to the children--none of this is their fault.

[Ellie]

There is nothing redeeming about this group. It doesn't matter that the women love their babies. Many abusers love their children--physical and sexual abusers, both. What matters is that the women will stand with the leadership when their sons are kicked out and will teach their daughters that they must allow themselves to be handed around like prostitutes or else they risk eternal ****ation. This is EVIL. Yes, the women are victims themselves, but they are victims busy victimizing a new generation. Just because you were sexually abused doesn't justify the sexual abuse of your children--the pattern MUST be stopped.

 

:iagree: Yup, that would be exactly how it looks to me, too.

[Kathy in MD]

There is no question in my mind that this was not a one-incident event. This article (and accompanying disturbing "wedding" picture) lists in detail all kinds of abuses (human and otherwise) the FLDS are known for.

 

 

 

law enforcement agencies that affect non-members. One may infer that if a non-member brought charges of wife abuse or other things most of American society consider unacceptable and illegal, the non-member charges would be ignored at best.

 

There have been cases (non-FDLS) in recent years where judges with really warped views let criminals off because of those views. (one case being where a man accused of raping a 3 [three] yo, pleady she asked for it because she was squirming on his lap AND THE JUDGE AGREED with him!)

[pixelroper]

Have you by any chance read any of the books written by people who have left the FLDS? I have just started reading Escape by Carolyn Jessop (yesterday, as a matter of fact) and highly recommend it -- not for literary value, but informational value. I think the actions of CPS are much more understandable in the light of this kind of information. Even if half of what Carolyn Jessop writes is embellished, and I personally doubt that, this situation is far outside the limits of being a religious rights issue or a homeschooling issue. It really is about systematic patterns of abuse.

 

No I haven't, I've only read excerpts that have been posted by news sources. But I have read other books by people who have left religious groups, these groups practice here in the states and are represented by far more individuals than make up the FLDS. These people have claims which are just as disturbing. I'm purposely not naming these titles as I do not want to start anything more than what is being discussed. Which for me is that CPS has yet to substantially validate their reasons for removing 460+ children from their home. And they continue to provide only vague open ended comments to justify their actions. The OP provided a link, I wanted to point out that while CPS may be able to draw clear conclusions they certainly are not being clear enough for me. That is troubling.

 

Are we not supposed to err on the side of an individual's rights? Our whole justice system is based on this-- Innocent until proved guilty.

[pixelroper]

I see them erring on the rights of the children involved. I get the impression they don't really matter to you.

 

I need to avoid these threads in the future. The lengths some here will go to in an effort to defend the sick actions of others is depressing.

 

Or read more thoroughly. I have repeatedly stated where I stand in regards to FLDS practices and beliefs, as well as repeatedly stated that I felt horrible for the children.

 

I am questioning the authorities actions.

[beansprouts]

I need to avoid these threads in the future. The lengths some here will go to in an effort to defend the sick actions of others is depressing.

 

I really don't think that is happening here. Some simply have not seen enough evidence to convince them that legal action - the trauma of ripping children away from their families - was justified. Personally, I think CPS knows more than they're telling, but I don't blame these ladies for wanting to give the benefit of the doubt.

 

I can say with all confidence that not a single person here would condone child abuse.

[Kathy in MD]

I see them erring on the rights of the children involved. I get the impression they don't really matter to you.

 

I need to avoid these threads in the future. The lengths some here will go to in an effort to defend the sick actions of others is depressing.

 

wholesale removal (instead of surgical removal) of any children, FDLS or otherwise, from their homes. I think it's on the super long FLDS thread.

 

She's not coming from it from an infringement of parents' rights or a theoretical view. She is looking at it only from the child's point of view and has statistics to support her discussion. She has a lot of experience and I trust her to get her facts right. It opened my eyes to many of the problems of removing **all** the children, especially the youngest, just in case they might be abused.

[Scarlett]

My first thought when I heard what the State of Texas had done (removed ALL the children) was 'wow! That took some guts on their part, because EVERYONE will be going over the legalities of this with a fine tooth comb.'

 

I was right about that it seems.

 

I'm not sure it is likely that those girls are lying about their ages, because to put themselves underage when DNA testing is going to prove paternity will make things very sticky for those 'fathers'.

 

Also, I haven't heard this discussed much lately, but early on a LE agent told the press that they had had an informant inside the compound for 'years'. So I am confident they know more than they are telling. Supposedly they knew things for a long time that they didn't have grounds to act upon---until that phone call. And even though it appears to have been a bogus call, LE acted in 'good faith' that it was a GOOD call and therefore they were still with in their legal rights to investigate fully.

 

This group lives a mostly communal life, so it makes sense to me that they would take them all. How could they have possibly sorted out who was who and all of that without taking all the children?

 

I also believe those mothers love those children...that alone isn't a good enough reason to let go on what is almost certainly going on. I agree with whomever said that the pattern must be stopped.

 

And yes, people leave religious groups and then tell lies about how horrible it was 'inside', but this does seem different to me. For one thing, we can see so much of the wrongness of the situation. It doesn't look like one thing and is actually another....it looks... creepy.

[Scarlett]

"Of those 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range."

 

This is disturbing, considering the claims that so many teen boys are forced out.

[Reya]

Why isn't anyone considering husband abuse. Most men I know(while very much loving their wife) would consider more than one wife a nightmare. I am serious.

 

Oh, PLEASE.

[Reya]

There is nothing redeeming about many groups here, IMO, but that isn't how our legal system is supposed to work.

 

Um. Our legal system isn't here to protect children?

 

To keep girls from forced sex and, yes, rape at WAY too young?

 

To keep boys from being thrown out as children because they might be sexual competition?

 

To prosecute tax evasion and welfare fraud? (Now that Utah isn't shielding their own corner of the cult...)

 

Yeah. It's SUCH a shame that those poor children were taken away from their abusers.

[beansprouts]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixelroper

Why isn't anyone considering husband abuse. Most men I know(while very much loving their wife) would consider more than one wife a nightmare. I am serious.

 

Oh, PLEASE.

 

 

Actually, my dh has often made the observation that these men who practice polygamy must be OUT OF THEIR MINDS!!!

 

Trying to lighten the mood a bit :001_smile:

[Reya]

Actually, my dh has often made the observation that these men who practice polygamy must be OUT OF THEIR MINDS!!!

 

Trying to lighten the mood a bit :001_smile:

 

It's only funny if you've never had contact with polygamist societies. Women have so little status that the idea that they could negatively affect a man in such a way is ridiculous in such a context. He should beat her, see. Or kill her for shaming him. That'll teach her to open her mouth.

 

And that's why it really isn't funny.

[beansprouts]

It's only funny if you've never had contact with polygamist societies. Women have so little status that the idea that they could negatively affect a man in such a way is ridiculous in such a context. He should beat her, see. Or kill her for shaming him. That'll teach her to open her mouth.

 

And that's why it really isn't funny.

 

I know that now. Our joking was based on our own understanding and experience with marriage, not the reality of oppression. I am sorry if the comment seemed insensitive.

[Reya]

I know that now. Our joking was based on our own understanding and experience with marriage, not the reality of oppression. I am sorry if the comment seemed insensitive.

 

The problem isn't that it's a joke, *period*. Joking is a way of handling all kinds of situations--including "inappropriate" jokes.

 

What disturbs me so much is that that seems to be the standard mainstream American response to this kind of society. It's just like saying, "Marrying preteens! Who would want a useless, emotional 13-y-o as a wife?" Or maybe, "Female genital mutilation! Who would want a wife without a cl------?" They're such an ugly institutions--even in the warm-and-fuzzy, but-I-love-my-sister wife/husband/traditions incarnation--that I think it's something we should think about before cracking the most most common joke, if that makes sense.

 

I'm not offended or anything. I just wish people would think about it a bit first--about what kind of assumptions go into those jokes. It's almost a good thing that our society has so empowered women that such an existence is incomprehensible and so meaningless that it's a subject for jokes. But we're not the only society out there!

[Claire]

Wow.

 

You know, another thing about that article is how suspect their birth and death certificates are, given the very closed nature of the society and lack of independent oversight. Makes me wonder if some of the children in the compound were from other compounds and not with their biological parent or parents. CPS had no way, at the time, of determining who was the biological parent of which child. According to people who have left the FLDS, wives can be re-assigned to new husbands by the prophet, and children can be taken away from their biological mother and given to a "sister" wife. This means that children could potentially end up in households without even one biological parent present.

 

Also, CPS must have realized that any children left at the compound would be at risk of being moved elsewhere. Without a protective order or restraining order of some kind (and I suppose that would have to specifically name the children being protected, which they couldn't do since they couldn't be sure of which children belonged to which biological parents), it would be legal to move a child.

[Robin in Tx]

Reya, this is completely off topic, but I am so curious... I think I remember you from the old boards a while back, and I'm wondering if you're the same person. The person I remember was a very accomplished young woman who was a published author, and who had one (I think) younger child, and who had pretty much done more in her high school years than I've done in my entire life! If you are that person, the main thing I remember about you is that every time you described what you regularly accomplished in a single month or two I had to go take a nap! LOL

 

Okay, okay, I know you're not in the mood for joking right now and sorry for hi jacking the thread, but self deprecating humor is my specialty :).

 

Just curious if you're the same gal, because she disappeared.

 

Robin

[yinne]

I read in one report that there were children at the Texas compound whose parents were not there. I also heard about a father who had left the FLDS and didn't realize that his children were in the Texas compound. He headed to Texas to see if he could get custody.

 

Yvonne in NE