Has this been discussed yet? Court grants appeal by FLDS mothers

[Quiver0f10]

 

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745 I wonder if they will give the kids back now and how long it will take?

[lynn]

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745 I wonder if they will give the kids back now and how long it will take?

 

I hope so. I don't like the things I heard about their religion and the way they do things, it is their lives to live. There has to be some other way to protect these children than turning their worlds upsidedown.

[6packofun]

I'm still utterly confused about why none of the men have been charged with anything. The children were made the focus, but I don't think they are the more urgent "victims" and the men continue to hide behind the skirts of their fake wives--still polygamy in my book--so I'm getting ticked off. lol

[Tammy]

and really....I didn't read all the posts in threads before this one concerning the subject. But....weren't most of you 'for' them removing the children? Didn't most of you think the girls had been 'forced' to have children at young ages?

 

I am just trying to remember correctly....It just seemed most on this board were for 'saving' the children or rather for CPS to come into the picture.

 

Or maybe it was the 'men' everyone was against?

 

Enlighten me of what the majority here thinks about the situation.....

 

Tammy

[Robin in Tx]

I am not sure that this is the best news for all the kids, at least not for ones that are forced into early marriage... but I'm hoping that it's good news for most the kids, and I'm pretty feeling pretty selfish here when I saw that it is most definitely good news to me as a Texan. I was hoping that this case didn't set a precedent for extending CPS power to remove children.

[Charon]

and really....I didn't read all the posts in threads before this one concerning the subject. But....weren't most of you 'for' them removing the children? Didn't most of you think the girls had been 'forced' to have children at young ages?

 

I am just trying to remember correctly....It just seemed most on this board were for 'saving' the children or rather for CPS to come into the picture.

 

Or maybe it was the 'men' everyone was against?

 

Enlighten me of what the majority here thinks about the situation.....

 

Tammy

 

 

I think you're right, Tammy. Basically everyone just mindlessly accepted whatever the media (mostly fed by CPS lies) said about the FLDS. They cannot separate the actual factual content of what people say (of which there has been almost none against the FLDS that withstands any scrutiny) from the way they say it. They cannot even tell when a factual claim is being made as opposed to some woman's emotional spin on events and screed against her ex.

 

This whole thing from start to finish was just bull****. These people have done nothing wrong other than be politically incorrect. This action on the part of CPS, the local sherrif and judge Walthers may be close to the most outrageously totalitarian move on the part of a state government against its citizens, yet. And, it turns out these people aren't just not doing anything wrong, but they are almost completely unimpeachable! What really needs to happen but will never come to pass is that all the people involved in terrorizing the FLDS need to do life in a federal prison.

 

You don't just get to make up the law, ladies -- just because you think the FLDS women aren't cool or just because of your neurotic Lifetime Movie moral philosophy. I am ashamed that I have posted here as much as I have in the past (or at all for that matter).

[6packofun]

and really....I didn't read all the posts in threads before this one concerning the subject. But....weren't most of you 'for' them removing the children? Didn't most of you think the girls had been 'forced' to have children at young ages?

 

I

 

 

THAT is my issue! The children of the mothers, regardless of the mothers' ages, are not the main victims here other than being brought up in a closed society that coerces underage girls to "marry" and have sex with men. They will *become* victims, IMO.

 

I have no idea if the law is on the side of those girls who had to have babies because their own mothers are giving them over to the men. It's like familial prostitution. But if their own parents allow the sex, who can say anything? I still think it's morally repugnant, but I doubt anything will be done and those men-pigs will continue to exert their control.

[Testimony]

I know that I am a fool but I was looking at the pictures of those women. They appeared so innocent. The more I saw those pictures the more I kept thinking that something was not right. I could be wrong. I just hope that the children return to their mothers soon.

 

Karen

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony

[Quiver0f10]

I think the CPS was in the wrong and I think this was plain religous persuction and abuse of power. If they find actual real evidence of a crime being comitted, then charge the men involved, but I haven't read a thing @ any charges? I haven't seen or read of any evidence of abuse. I hope those children are returned asap.

 

If we ( being the people) roll over and let this stand as is, then who is going to be next? Me, because I have 10 kids and I am different? Everyone on ths board because we home school? What about those who don't vax? It's a slippery slope.

 

FWIW, I don't agree with the FLDS lifestyle, but that is none of my business and it shouldn't be the governments either unless a real crime is being comitted and they have actual real proof of it.

[Robin in Tx]

I have some of the same sentiments, to be honest. But here's a confession... one of the top executives of CPs in Houston is an old classmate of mine, and he was a pretty good friend, and he is really a nice, nice guy. Seeing him at our (ahem... cough... cough...) 30 year reunion a few years ago reminded me that there are very nice people behind the decision making of CPS, and that they really do want to protect children from harm first and foremost. I know a homeschooling mom who, with the help of CPS, managed to win a fight to adopt a child they had been fostering. So I know they can be nice. And I know they can be supportive of homeschooling. I think they crossed the line here, and I think it's good that technically, CPS's wings were clipped a little with this ruling, but you know what... that must be a very, very frustrating job... to day in and day out deal with abused and neglected children and to want to help them, and for it to be your job to help them, and to have your hands tied and deal with such a negative public image... it would be too much to bear. I couldn't do it, to be honest. But I'm glad someone *is* doing it. I think this whole thing was mishandled, and it needs addressing/correction, but I'm still hanging on to a sliver of hope that the majority of those involved truly were concerned for the kids... there might have been a few who just wanted a chance to bully the group, but I'm hoping those were the minority... people will abuse power when they have it, that's for sure, but I do think that most people in CPS at least start out with it for the right reasons. I hope so.

[PinkInTheBlue]

Ok, clarify this for me, please. You are all saying that if it's ok with the parents that a 12, 13, 15, 17 yr old girl be forced to marry, have sex and have babies with a man, then it should be legal. Is that what I'm understanding? Even if she's been raised in a situation (call it religious, political or whatever) that teaches her that's what she should do and so she agrees, then it's ok. When is it not ok? When they are 10? When they disagree? Do you really think they are permitted to be honest if they don't agree? These are kids here. Yes, the young ones are victims too because they are just being primed for leading the same life.

 

Yes, I still think that in this situation something needs to be done. The main thing that should be done is about the men exploiting this situation and abusing the innocence of these girls. Whether they think it's for religious reasons or physical use, it's wrong. A child is a child and too young to be put in such situations.

 

Any situation that means some 80yr old dirty old man should be GIVEN two young girls as a birthday present is WRONG.

 

And I know, this is just my strong, honest opinion but it's one of the rare times that I can't be opened minded to see how anyone could feel any other way.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I don't think anyone is saying that. They are saying that CPS has not been honest, that there isn't evidence of harm, just allegations, and that the wholesale tearing of young children from their mothers is a cruel thing to do. Also, there is a complete lack of due process and an assumption of guilt without evidence. The whole thing was instigated by a phone call that turned out to be a hoax. I am not saying that there isn't any truth to the allegations, but that CPS used its power inappropriately. Are the 3yos in immediate danger?

 

There was another thread that had a link to an article that put another light on the actions of CPS. I'll try to link to it if I can.

[Robin in Tx]

Jessica, Ellen and Eliana have already expressed my sentiments... I'll just add that I believe that the CPS folks thought that they had to do it this way, or else they'd lose control of the situation because people would leave the state, etc. I think in hindsight, they'll realize this actually weakened their case, especially from a P.R. standpoint, and in cases like this you really need the public backing you up. But how were they to know? This was a tough call. I can't help but wonder if what the officials were trying to avoid was another Waco fiasco... you know, to just sweep in and grab them all before the men had a chance to hide anyone or barricade officials out probably seemed the wise thing to do.

 

I,too, still don't know or understand where the men are. And I don't know for sure that this particular sect of FLDS participated in the early forced marriage that we know has gone on at the other compounds. Maybe it has and if so it should be stopped, but again we really have to consider the possibility of innocence in the absence of any evidence at all.

[Melinda in VT]

I,too, still don't know or understand where the men are. And I don't know for sure that this particular sect of FLDS participated in the early forced marriage that we know has gone on at the other compounds. Maybe it has and if so it should be stopped, but again we really have to consider the possibility of innocence in the absence of any evidence at all.

 

The Texas FLDS group belongs to the same group as Warren Jeffs. Warren Jeffs was the prophet and president of the FLDS until he was convicted on two counts of r*pe as an accomplice. He is currently serving ten years in prison. (Jeffs has apparently resigned as president but not necessarily as prophet.)

[Myrtle]

Jessica, Ellen and Eliana have already expressed my sentiments... I'll just add that I believe that the CPS folks thought that they had to do it this way, or else they'd lose control of the situation because people would leave the state, etc. I think in hindsight, they'll realize this actually weakened their case, especially from a P.R. standpoint, and in cases like this you really need the public backing you up. But how were they to know? This was a tough call. I can't help but wonder if what the officials were trying to avoid was another Waco fiasco... you know, to just sweep in and grab them all before the men had a chance to hide anyone or barricade officials out probably seemed the wise thing to do.

 

I,too, still don't know or understand where the men are. And I don't know for sure that this particular sect of FLDS participated in the early forced marriage that we know has gone on at the other compounds. Maybe it has and if so it should be stopped, but again we really have to consider the possibility of innocence in the absence of any evidence at all.

 

 

Here is the Third Court's Ruling to the Appeal

 

The summary goes something like this....no evidence...no evidence...no evidence...and a chastising over presuming that every member of a religion has identical beliefs and behavior.

[Laurie4b]

I thought the ruling was excellent. The justices focused on the lack of evidence ,the impropriety of CPS taking kids before other less disruptive things had been tried, and the lack of CPS meeting the standard of "immediate harm" before taking custody. Had the appeals court let this go on, it would have set a very, very bad precedent. It's a case that tempts people to bad precedents: as long as a socially unpopular group is the target, and there is the possibility of the reprehensible forced marriage , the public may not see the danger in what the state has done. Bravo for the judges, who have insisted that the law be followed, thus protecting the rights of not only these children and their families, but others as well.

 

From a child's point of view, being "rescued" by CPS is no different than being kidnapped. It is incredibly traumatic, especially for the youngest children. I have worked with kids who were separated from primary caregivers very early and the effects are often permanent and totally debilitating. Knowing that the harm is so great, wise CPS workers and judges remove children only in the most grievous circumstances. In a previous post, I likened removal of kids to chemotherapy. A woman who finds a lump in her breast would be rightfully alarmed if the doctor recommended chemo the next day, with a biopsy scheduled in the next few weeks. We would want to know that the cancer was there before the chemo was started. The potential harm of the cancer has to outweigh the potential harm of the chemo before chemo is justified. In this instance, we had over 400 kids given the equivalent of the CPS version of chemo before the biopsy. I expect that the pyschological damage caused by the state is extensive.

 

That doesn't mean that the state has no interest in protecting underage girls from being forced into marriages. The state most certainly can set an age of consent and see that it is enforced. It can prosecute where that law has been broken. We have found out that the initial call was a hoax, and that the authorities had no other evidence before they forcibly removed over 400 children from their homes. This wasn't an "either/or" situation where the state either had to remove 400 children or leave teenaged girls to be forced into marriage. CPS had several options. They are supposed to only remove if they are concerned about immediate danger (ie if they get a report that a parent has been duck-taping a child to a chair while beating the child, that justifies immediate removal, with a subsequent court hearing within a week. A report of a bruise on the butt does not justify the same action. ) Other than removal, CPS can require parents to sign contracts stipulating to various things: taking parenting classes, not using corporal punishment, no underage marriage. CPS can then require that they be allowed to visit the home and monitor the situation. CPS can also investigate and decide the complaint was unfounded.

 

The children who could have reasonably been thought to be in immediate danger were teenaged girls. If the state had removed only teenaged girls, it would have been possibly justifiable, but other means may have sufficed even for them, such as CPS oversight in the compound. CPS could have actually investigated first, before taking anyone out of their homes.

 

People ask why the men were left alone: it's because a CPS investigation is NOT a criminal investigation. Criminal charges are filed separately. To be convicted of a criminal offense, the prosecution has to have evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." To take your kids from you, there only needs to be "clear and convincing evidence." You are not entitled to a trial by jury, but rather to a ruling by a judge who knows all the CPS workers, etc. In this case, the judge allowed the case to proceed without even that level of evidence.

 

It is actually infrequent that a criminal charge is pressed separately. The men have clearly not been charged yet because the state lacks evidence of a crime. When and if they get it, I don't doubt the men will be charged.

 

Bravo for the Texas appeals court!

[Quiver0f10]

Ok, clarify this for me, please. You are all saying that if it's ok with the parents that a 12, 13, 15, 17 yr old girl be forced to marry, have sex and have babies with a man, then it should be legal. Is that what I'm understanding? Even if she's been raised in a situation (call it religious, political or whatever) that teaches her that's what she should do and so she agrees, then it's ok. When is it not ok? When they are 10? When they disagree? Do you really think they are permitted to be honest if they don't agree? These are kids here. Yes, the young ones are victims too because they are just being primed for leading the same life.

 

Yes, I still think that in this situation something needs to be done. The main thing that should be done is about the men exploiting this situation and abusing the innocence of these girls. Whether they think it's for religious reasons or physical use, it's wrong. A child is a child and too young to be put in such situations.

 

Any situation that means some 80yr old dirty old man should be GIVEN two young girls as a birthday present is WRONG.

 

And I know, this is just my strong, honest opinion but it's one of the rare times that I can't be opened minded to see how anyone could feel any other way.

 

Well I havent seen any proof nor have I seen mention of it on the news. If there is forced under-age marriage then punish the man/men involved. I don't see how taking away ALL the kids solved anything. Nor taking away new born babies from the moms even if they are underage. How many teen girls have babies in the US each and every day? I don't see CPS lining up at the hospital doors to tak those babies away?

[Asma_08]

Ok, clarify this for me, please. You are all saying that if it's ok with the parents that a 12, 13, 15, 17 yr old girl be

 

Was there proof that this happened? They never found any mothers that young. And honestly how can you put 17 yo(can legally marry in tx) in same category as a 12 year old.

 

The whole episode is terrifying. I am a religious minority so I was really interested in this case. The lack of due process is astounding. The fact that they ripped newborn babies from their mothers is absolutely abhorrent and I can't believe people supported it when there was no proof of any wrong doing.

 

Its scares me because it could easily happen to my family. I am obviously Muslim and I have had people (including homeschoolers) look at me with such palpable hatred, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. What does it take for someone to report my family because they don't like my religion, or that our kids can't date, or wear bathing suits or listen to pop music etc? And cps will just act on any unsubstantiated report , they can come and take your children away just because you are outside the mainstream. I am just surprised that so many here supported it because you could easily be in that situation given the hatred of homeschooling in some circles.

 

Sorry, I normally don't like to comment on the controversial threads but this case just really affected me.

[WTMCassandra]

I have been very conflicted by this case.

 

I believe that Warren Jeffs is truly a snake and that these men probably are forcing some underage girls to marry, against the law. I also do NOT like that basically everyone knows they are practicing polygamy, but the state basically can't prove it. That stuff is against the law and flatly unacceptable. I am also steamed that likely the MEN are the perpetrators yet it's really the WOMEN and CHILDREN experiencing almost all of the suffering. Grrrr.

 

For the rest of it, I may not like their lifestyle, but they should have the same freedom to be weird that I do. :D

 

I too wondered, like Quiver wrote in her second post in this thread, if we would be next because we live outside the mainstream. I don't have 10 children, but I have good friends who do. Would some CPS person storm in and say my children are abused because they don't have video games, network TV, or cell phones? :glare: Generalization: Many CPS agents already have a very low opinion of homeschoolers. Robin, I take your point about some people meaning well, but even well-meaning yet non-understanding people can do a lot of damage.

 

The children taken away will not regain their innocence. No court ruling can give that back. What about infants snatched? What if the mother was trying to breastfeed? How will she re-establish that after six weeks? What about toddlers and their anguish? I found that completely ridiculous. Some toddlers can't stand to have their mama leave the ROOM! I can't imagine young children being forceably separated from parents for six weeks without serious emotional repercussions. So now is the state just going to say, "Oops, sorry, here you go," and then everything will be peachy keen?

 

Based on that initial "phone call" I could have seen young ladies from 12-17 gathered for questioning on the premises and safe passage offsite if they felt they were going to be forced to be married underage, but I totally disagreed with the mass removal of over 400 people! Including babies, toddlers, boys, mothers! What a huge mess. And it should have all been over, minimum, when they found out the call was fake. I also agree that CPS should not have the power to remove a whole set of people on a phone call alone, that the situation should be verified, that other measures should be tried first, etc.

 

So while I think CPS seriously overstepped its bounds, neither do I find this group to be the kind of folks that make me say, "I want to get behind you and champion your rights!"

 

I will say that I think I do agree with the appeals court decision. But damage has already been done. Who is going to address that? And, I echo other posters, how can we hold the MEN accountable for things actually against the law?

 

Thanks for stimulating discussion.

[pixelroper]

This ruling indicates, despite the smoke machine haze, some are aware that the Emperor has no clothes! Let's hope it isn't a drawn out fiasco getting him dressed.

 

These children need to be returned.

[tiffanyl]

I am very pleased to hear the ruling on this case!!

 

The fact that CPS did not follow any laws & it played out in front of the America public without much outcry was very worrying to me. We may not agree with their lifestyle at all, but that does not mean that their rights in this country should diminish or dissapear because of that. The fact that there was never any proof shown or arrests made was just unbelievable & unacceptable. Just an anonymous tip was held up as the justification for it all, when the law clearly states that an anonymous tip is NOT enough evidence to remove children from their homes.

 

I really think if this would have worked out as CPS had planned, everyone would have had every right to be concerned that it might be them next. If we all look back we will see that homeschoolers were under attack by cps at the beginning of the movement, not so long ago, that's why HSLDA had to be formed.

 

This is a great ruling for ALL American families today!

 

Now if they can come up with proof that proves a crime was committed and can prove that in court then I'm sure we will all agree that they should be prosecuted. But until now nothing has been proven.

 

 

Tiffany

[Marie in Oh]

As more information is coming out and we are learning that quite a few of these so called child brides actually are adults (wasn't one in her mid-twenties?), I am even more disturbed by the haste and the extremity of the response. Pursuing the allegations was and is an important thing to do, but did not and does not require tearing children out of their homes and, in this case, culture - imnsho.

 

 

I wondered this all along-- that the child brides seemed so as they were so untouched by culture and pretty naive. But yes, one of the young brides was actually 23 years old and despite holding a Texas Driver's Lisence and a Birth Certifucate, they kept her and her children in foster care away from her dh who appeared to be a fairly young man. It doesn't seem like there were many cases of old men and young women-- the young women with several young children appeared to be married to men in their late 20's early 30's.

 

Removal from homes should be reserved for severe, imminent danger of abuse. FOr the young children, that was just not the case. Again, I don't agree with their lifestyle, but CPS went over the top in this case. And I agree, there are some good CPS workers who care about kids out there. But many, so many are 23, fresh out of college, newly indoctrinated with parents are the enemy doctrine, and are out to save the world, one child at a time.

 

On a side note, I am not one who thinks that CPS is out to get me just becasue I homeschool. At least in this area, I know that the sysyem is so overrun with kids that hospitals routinely send kids with evidence of abuse home with parents every day because the system is so overloaded ( i have a friend who works in the NICU at the local children's hospital). My concern is that this FLDS case will set a precident, at least in TX, that shows that religious differences are grounds for removal of children if it is considered abusive. Hopt that makes sense.

[Kelli in TN]

I

You don't just get to make up the law, ladies -- just because you think the FLDS women aren't cool or just because of your neurotic Lifetime Movie moral philosophy. I am ashamed that I have posted here as much as I have in the past (or at all for that matter).

 

What goes on during message board threads is just conversation. We are not setting court precedents. We are not representing our views to the media. We are not influencing the outcome of this case in any way. We are having a conversation. For many of us this is the most diversity we have in our lives. We come here, we throw out our ideas and perceptions, we hear from like-minded people, we hear from people who see it exactly opposite. We learn, we rethink, we come back and converse some more. Sometimes in the back and forth we crack jokes, probably because at the end of the day (or lunch break or that sweet quiet hour before the kids get up) we are just tired and need to crack jokes.

 

Yes, there were some wisecracks about the uncoolness of FLDS dress and hair. We are girls at heart and sometimes we joke around about that. But there is no way that we really ever want decisions made on such shallow reasoning.

 

I don't think you need to lump us together, chide us or make snotty remarks about our philosophy of life. "Lifetime Movie Moral Philosophy"? I don't think so.

 

As to being swayed by the media, WHY do you think we come here to talk about it? We know the media is trying to sway public opinion. We actually WANT a sounding board to bounce our thoughts off of. The fact that the discussions went on is evidence of the desire for more understanding, not less.

 

You have called it wrong on this one.

[Christine]

I wonder if they will give the kids back now and how long it will take?

 

I read an article yesterday saying they had 10 days either to return the children or take it to the TX supreme court.

 

I also read that this only effect 38 of the 200 families (those that appealed), but that the others could "join ship".

 

There was also a blip in there about the number of teens that were originally counted as underage (in the 30s also) being revise to the single digits. . .and that there were a number in the original number that were actually in their 20s! (certainly not underage)

 

*****************************

 

I'm kind of curious (thought just popped into my head), the state is having serious issues and saying it's abusive that these young girls are marrying and having babies so young. (ummm, I'm not agreeing with their religious practices here, this was just a thought that occurred to me.) For this reason the state is claiming abuse and taking the kids away from their parents (that was my understanding of part of this whole dealy-o). So, is the state going to start taking young girls who aren't in FLDS but who are getting pregnant before 16 away from their families?

[Kelli in TN]

I

I'm kind of curious (thought just popped into my head), the state is having serious issues and saying it's abusive that these young girls are marrying and having babies so young. (ummm, I'm not agreeing with their religious practices here, this was just a thought that occurred to me.) For this reason the state is claiming abuse and taking the kids away from their parents (that was my understanding of part of this whole dealy-o). So, is the state going to start taking young girls who aren't in FLDS but who are getting pregnant before 16 away from their families?

 

I believe the reasoning was that the FLDS girls were FORCED into these relationships. That would be a different scenario than the girl who accidently gets pregnant on prom night.

[Renee in NC]

This whole case has really baffled me.

 

The media has made a HUGE deal about teen girls with young children. Ummm, yeah - when did that become a rare thing?!?!? Children are born EVERYDAY to teen mothers where the fathers are adult men! Why aren't they being prosecuted more? (BTW, I was one - my oldest's father is 8 years older than I am and I was 16 when I became pregnant.) Even in the Warren Jeffs case - a 15 year old was married to an 18 year old. Is that really shocking (as far as age difference goes - not even getting into whether she was forced or not)?

 

Polygamy (where the spouses are adults and there is only one state marriage) - who cares? I don't. Last year, a Muslim man lost 2-3 wives and most of his children in a fire in NYC. NO ONE made a big deal over the fact that he was a polygamist. The state only recognizes the first marriage. Are they going to start prosecuting people who live in situations where there are multiple partners but they don't claim to be married? As far as the state is concerned, it is only bigamy/polygamy when one man (usually) has multiple wives that he married LEGALLY!

 

Some immigrant groups in this country routinely have young women marrying adult men and no one is going after them either. Why all the uproar over this one group? Frankly, I think they should simply apply the existing law and apply it UNIFORMILY across all ethnic groups, national groups, and religions - not single out one group, KWIM?

[Renee in NC]

I believe the reasoning was that the FLDS girls were FORCED into these relationships. That would be a different scenario than the girl who accidently gets pregnant on prom night.

 

Has there been any evidence that they were forced? If there is, then they need to prosecute them to the maximum. If older men are marrying teen girls, then prosecute the men, but DON'T punish the victims by taking away their children. Also, make sure that ALL men are being punished for impregnating underage girls - not just those that are FLDS. It rarely gets prosecuted - 20 something year old men with 14-17 year old girls is not a rare thing.

[mommaduck]

Yes, there were some wisecracks about the uncoolness of FLDS dress and hair. We are girls at heart and sometimes we joke around about that. But there is no way that we really ever want decisions made on such shallow reasoning.

 

There are however people on this board that may dress in what would be seen as a similar fashion or an equilivant of modesty to the FLDS that you are joking about. Some of these women also might have similar hairdos (oneness pentacostals come to mind) or cover their heads (muslim, jewish, christian) and have heard wisecracks like these directed their way before as well. Basically, it could be taken offensively.

 

As for it being a "girls at heart" thing, I teach my daughters not to make wisecracks about another's appearance.

 

And unfortunately, there are people that do make decisions and judgements based on such shallow reasoning.

 

Basically, the way certain things are stated or made fun of can hurt other members on the board and cause them to feel targeted.

[Melinda in VT]

This whole case has really baffled me.

 

The media has made a HUGE deal about teen girls with young children. Ummm, yeah - when did that become a rare thing?!?!? Children are born EVERYDAY to teen mothers where the fathers are adult men! Why aren't they being prosecuted more? (BTW, I was one - my oldest's father is 8 years older than I am and I was 16 when I became pregnant.) Even in the Warren Jeffs case - a 15 year old was married to an 18 year old. Is that really shocking (as far as age difference goes - not even getting into whether she was forced or not)?

 

Polygamy (where the spouses are adults and there is only one state marriage) - who cares? I don't. Last year, a Muslim man lost 2-3 wives and most of his children in a fire in NYC. NO ONE made a big deal over the fact that he was a polygamist. The state only recognizes the first marriage. Are they going to start prosecuting people who live in situations where there are multiple partners but they don't claim to be married? As far as the state is concerned, it is only bigamy/polygamy when one man (usually) has multiple wives that he married LEGALLY!

 

Some immigrant groups in this country routinely have young women marrying adult men and no one is going after them either. Why all the uproar over this one group? Frankly, I think they should simply apply the existing law and apply it UNIFORMILY across all ethnic groups, national groups, and religions - not single out one group, KWIM?

 

Google "escape from polygamy" and read some of the news articles about those who used to belong to the FLDS church. I do think this is a very different scenario than teenagers in mainstream culture who get pregnant because of consensual sex, even if it is with an older man. (But I do agree that laws should be applied uniformly and that there may be other immigrant groups in which teenagers are similarly forced into marriages.)

 

In the case of Warren Jeffs, yes, the age difference between the girl and the man wasn't great . . . but he was her cousin and she didn't want to marry him.

 

Having said all that, I still have serious reservations about the raid in Texas, and have from the beginning. I tend to agree with the most recent ruling. If the group has, in fact, modified its practices to the extent that they are not engaging in underage marriages, then there doesn't seem to be much they can prosecute, other than the polygamy itself.

[Christine]

I believe the reasoning was that the FLDS girls were FORCED into these relationships.

 

Has there been any evidence that they were forced? If there is, then they need to prosecute them to the maximum. If older men are marrying teen girls, then prosecute the men, but DON'T punish the victims by taking away their children. Also, make sure that ALL men are being punished for impregnating underage girls - not just those that are FLDS. It rarely gets prosecuted - 20 something year old men with 14-17 year old girls is not a rare thing.

 

I have to agree here. I don't know that any evidence has been shown that anyone was "forced".

 

Polygamy (where the spouses are adults and there is only one state marriage) - who cares?

 

I find it interesting that this hasn't come up "more" as a violation of the seperation between church and state.

 

I realize there needs to be protection offered to young children (particularly girls). But, it seems that if the state "recognized" polygamy. . .well, you'd be affording a touch of protection. (No marriages existing before age 16 say. Or better yet, a law stating that anyone entering into a polygamist marriage, as opposed to a single partner marriage, must be at least 18.)

[Kelli in TN]

I have to agree here. I don't know that any evidence has been shown that anyone was "forced".

 

 

 

.)

 

Well, it does indeed look like there may be a lack of evidence. At the time only the "insiders" in this case would have known for certain if this was built on a solid foundation of evidence or not. The rest of the world just had to wait and see.

 

But you are right, it is looking more and more like there was not so much forced marriage.

 

I was simply addressing the difference between the typical teen pregnancy and what the media represented to the world. If indeed these had been young girls forced to marry without their consent, it would be a different thing altogether than the teen who gets pregnant with her boyfriend.

[Kelli in TN]

There are however people on this board that may dress in what would be seen as a similar fashion or an equilivant of modesty to the FLDS that you are joking about. Some of these women also might have similar hairdos (oneness pentacostals come to mind) or cover their heads (muslim, jewish, christian) and have heard wisecracks like these directed their way before as well. Basically, it could be taken offensively.

 

As for it being a "girls at heart" thing, I teach my daughters not to make wisecracks about another's appearance.

 

And unfortunately, there are people that do make decisions and judgements based on such shallow reasoning.

 

Basically, the way certain things are stated or made fun of can hurt other members on the board and cause them to feel targeted.

 

I actually searched my own name out to see if I had actually made any wisecracks. I might have, but I can't find any. But I do know my own tendency to get caught up in joking around on here, so I am going to go with the assumption that I might have joined in the teasing.

 

If so, it was one of my crasser (is that a word? Okay, it is for now) moments I would gladly take it back. I agree, some homor is not in the best of tastes and the internet makes people invisible and that is unfortunate. If I participated in the joking I apologize, humbly and honestly.

 

But I really do not think there are very many women on here who truly would want to see families split up by something so trivial as differences in culture. I think most people who discussed and debated the case, on both sides of the debate, did so out real concern and caring for the well-being of the women and children.

 

If we have all (as a nation) been misled by the Texas CPS and the media, that is a different issue altogether, but it does not make the goodheartedness of the people looking to understand any less.

[mommaduck]

Kelli, my apologies. I was not assuming that you did or didn't take part in the joking. I was merely addressing the part of your post that I quoted. Simply that we, as a board, should be careful due to the reasoning I gave. That's all ;) I'm glad to hear that there are alot of good people on this board that are open minded rather than the type to jump to conclusions :)

[Testimony]

I think the CPS was in the wrong and I think this was plain religous persuction and abuse of power. If they find actual real evidence of a crime being comitted, then charge the men involved, but I haven't read a thing @ any charges? I haven't seen or read of any evidence of abuse. I hope those children are returned asap.

 

If we ( being the people) roll over and let this stand as is, then who is going to be next? Me, because I have 10 kids and I am different? Everyone on ths board because we home school? What about those who don't vax? It's a slippery slope.

 

FWIW, I don't agree with the FLDS lifestyle, but that is none of my business and it shouldn't be the governments either unless a real crime is being comitted and they have actual real proof of it.

 

I totally and completely agree with everything you said here.:iagree:

[Jill- OK]

If there is forced under-age marriage then punish the man/men involved. I don't see how taking away ALL the kids solved anything. Nor taking away new born babies from the moms even if they are underage.

 

This is the central issue for me (although it took me some time to work it out in my mind); if a crime has been committed, then take away the perpetrator.

 

If you can't do it (lack of proof), then you can't do it.

 

Not that the state of Texas would listen to me, lol, but what I would focus on right now is making underage marriage a more regulated thing. (And I'd encourage every other state to look at doing it, too, so that there's no 'haven' where this isn't a big deal).

 

If one party is a minor, I'd require a statement from the minor (given to some government entity, given the power to investigate) that they weren't being coerced. I'd also try and make sure that coercing a minor into any sort of cohabitation or sexual relationship was treated as trafficking, and punished severely. I know that a plan like that isn't perfect, but the truth is, you're not going to 'save' everyone, and there's no easy way to 'fix' everything that's going on without some serious trampling on rights.

 

In my mind, what they need to do is respect the rights of these people to teach their kids anything they want...and then enact laws to protect the girls while minors, and do everything they can to enforce them. Teaching kids stuff that seems wacky to mainstream society isn't a crime (I do it all the time), but underage marriage against a girl's will is, and rightfully so, IMO. I'm not one who generally supports government interference in individual's lives, even when it involves kids, unless it's something really, really drastic...and I believe that arranging sexual relationships for them against their will (with the girl's consent is different) while they're minors counts as drastic.

 

So, I guess I said all that to say; punish the adults who are committing crimes, and leave the babies and nursing mamas alone.

[Melinda in VT]

If one party is a minor, I'd require a statement from the minor (given to some government entity, given the power to investigate) that they weren't being coerced. I'd also try and make sure that coercing a minor into any sort of cohabitation or sexual relationship was treated as trafficking, and punished severely. I know that a plan like that isn't perfect, but the truth is, you're not going to 'save' everyone, and there's no easy way to 'fix' everything that's going on without some serious trampling on rights.

 

 

I kind of agree with your thoughts on this, but I seriously doubt the ability of the girls to say they aren't being coerced.

[Jill- OK]

...that you're talking about here

Basically everyone just mindlessly accepted whatever the media (mostly fed by CPS lies) said about the FLDS...You don't just get to make up the law, ladies -- just because you think the FLDS women aren't cool or just because of your neurotic Lifetime Movie moral philosophy. I am ashamed that I have posted here as much as I have in the past (or at all for that matter).

...because the original one that I read had some input from at least one person who labelled CPS actions 'religious persecution' (don't know that I agree with that, just reminding you that it was said), and a few posts from someone who was skeptical of the criticism and took issue with the group being branded a 'cult' because of her OWN experience growing up in a religious group that is sometimes labelled as such, and where there were past allegations of child abuse, etc.

[Jill- OK]

I kind of agree with your thoughts on this, but I seriously doubt the ability of the girls to say they aren't being coerced.

 

...how in the world are you going to get inside the head of someone who's being taught something that's within a parent's rights to teach them?

 

Giving them the opportunity to ask for help or making it more of a crime to arrange sexual relationships for minors is probably the best the gov't can do, you know?

 

You can't regulate what parents teach their children, and there's no way to pre-empt the effect of community-think.

 

But I do hear you, about the possible futility of it. It might just give everyone involved a reason to rethink some of the timing of their beliefs, though, and at least give girls a chance.

[lighthouseacademy]

I am LDS NOT FLDS. I have been for 13 years and purposefully and prayerfully chose this religion. I do NOT condone polygamy. However, I "claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according the dictates of [my] conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may."

 

That said, it is not for me to say whether teens are "forced" into marriage at a young age. There was a time in this country where marriage was COMMON between a teen and an older man. These were not forced marriages. That was life. Furthermore, many of these women truly have a desire to live this lifestyle. To them it is not an abusive thing or an abuse of power or submission to men. To them, it is a loving way of life. When the LDS church practiced polygamy, it was only a few that actually practiced it. When the church did away with polygamy (which has been practiced on and off throughout history including the Bible), many WOMEN were sad to see it end. My dh is a descendant of a plural wife. His father sat at her feet and asked her about it. She said that it was hard, but that it was also good. I think part of the good comes from living in a communal society. On a few occasions, I have had the privilege of witnessing first hand what raising children would be like in a society where the women all reached out their wings to the children in the group, where the responsibilities of life were a joint task. I can tell you, it was wonderful! To know that I could put my baby down for a nap without worrying what the 2 yr old was getting into or to put the 2 yr old down without having to hear the baby crying in a playpen or on the floor. I don't agree with what the FLDS practices but I don't think that their choice is all entirely horrid. There are many people who go around and have 2 or 3 families either secretly or overtly and no one takes their kids away!

 

Someone mentioned that we should google escape from polygamy and read about it. I am sure there are some very sad stories out there from some who have left the group. They are VERY outspoken about it. Sadly to leave this religion does cause much pain to the people that leave. However, from personal experience I can tell you that not everything that the person who leaves a religious group says is always actually true. Yes, they once belonged to the group, but that doesn't necessarily make them a credible source of what a group believes or doesn't believe or practices. The person who leaves a group that have been part of for some time, must find things to pull at in order to find peace with himself and to find a way to accept what was and is now. This doesn't have to be a religious group either- it could be school, family, town, etc. The reason for the separation will color the memory of the past either good or bad. So, from that perspective, I would believe that there may be some who are "forced" in to marry but that most probably are not like that.

 

I am glad that the court ruled the way it did. The idea of taking 400 from a community because of one incidence of accused impropriety is ridiculous. If a girl in my neighborhood or community were "forced" to marry an old man, should my kids be taken too? I say, address actual abuse and leave people's religion out of it. CPS has gotten WAY too much power in recent years and it is detrimental to our society. I have known of children being taken from their families because the worker deems the family too big. I have known families to have CPS called because a child refused to wear a coat outside.