Court: Sect children to return to their parents

[Quiver0f10]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24878696

 

I am so glad they decided on this!

[Scarlett]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24878696

 

I am so glad they decided on this!

 

Really? Hmmm.........I guess I haven't been following it that closely....but I was a little surprised they are being returned.

 

Did anyone see that disgusting picture of Warren Jeffs and his 12 year old 'bride.'? Ugh.

[swellmomma]

I am glad they are. WHile I do not agree with Polygamy not all those children were being abused. There was one family interviewed on dateline or something like that that I watched earlier this week, that were fully monogamous and loving. In the raid 3 of their children were seized, the mom was pg. They seized the baby when she delivered weeks after the raid. It was also found that many of the girls they thought were underage were actually 18-20 years old, they just looked young. I can see that happening, at 20 when I was pgr I looked to be between 14-16 years old, now at 30 I have only just recently stopped being Id'd to buy lotto tickets etc. I think the real issue was not child abuse I think it was religion. The call that sparked all this was deemed false, a prank and as a result 440 kids were apprehended because their dads had many wives, it's ridiculous

[readwithem]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24878696

 

I am so glad they decided on this!

 

I am too Jean. I've been reading "Escape" and while her situation was so tragic and heartbreaking, the *one* thing she had that returned her love was her children.

[Scarlett]

I am glad they are. WHile I do not agree with Polygamy not all those children were being abused. There was one family interviewed on dateline or something like that that I watched earlier this week, that were fully monogamous and loving.

 

This may be true....but I just can't help but wonder why such a family would choose to live on such a compound.

[Scarlett]

I am too Jean. I've been reading "Escape" and while her situation was so tragic and heartbreaking, the *one* thing she had that returned her love was her children.

 

I don't understand what you are saying. That because the 'one thing the women have is the love of their children' they should be returned to an abusive situation? Any of those women, like Carolyn Jessup, could leave now and get their children easily. Of course now I guess they can stay and get their children.....sad to me.

[Laurie4b]

I never did figure out how the photo of Warren Jeffs was relevant. He doesn't live there. He's in jail now. He is not a threat to any of the children. I know he is still technically the "prophet." That photo was used to take custody of a newborn. Huh?

 

The Supreme Court ruling didn't say that CPS couldn't intervene to protect the children. They still can. But protection doesn't automatically mean removal from the home. It is considered a last resort for two reasons: 1) Because removal is extremely traumatic for the children. As someone who worked in children's mental health and education for at risk kids for years, has had 3 foster kids, and been a guardian ad litem (a volunteer who advocates for the child's best interest in court cases where CPS has removed a child), I can tell you that many of those 400 children are now deeply scarred--some permanently, by the unlawful actions of CPS. The youngest ones are the ones who will bear the brunt of the episode. 2) This may surprise you, but back when I was serving as a guardian ad litem, research had come out that showed that children were MORE likely to be abused in foster care than in the homes they were taken from. Yup. You read that right. As I said, I'm a former foster parent and I'm not knocking all foster parents, but foster care is a last resort. The state doesn't/can't do a good job of monitoring or screening foster parents. The same thing happens in group placement. Our first foster child was taken from his mother because her boyfriend beat him. Sounds awful, right? He was then physically abused in five foster placements including one religious group care setting in much the same wayas he was abused at home. One group care setting and our home were the only two he was not beaten in. The whole time he was with us, he yearned for home. Now that he's an adult, he lives near bio mom and dad. Was he "rescued?"

 

In addition to being more likely to be abused, kids in foster care are more likely to use drugs, get arrested, get pregnant while minors, etc. than a comparative cohort who were left with their parents. (ie using cohorts that were similar in the reported abuse by the parent, and then following cases where the kids were put in foster care as a result, or left with their parents)

 

Besides removal, the state can do many things. The first thing that should have been done was investigation. TX took a "Shoot first, ask questions later" approach. They could have asked the men to voluntarily leave and left the women and children in place while they investigated, for instance. They have to make a case for each kid. You can't do "class action" child removal. If you're a church goer, for instance, and someone in your church is found to have abused their kids, yours should not be taken "just in case." The last report I read, they had actually found 5 (out of 464 children) cases of pregnant minors, or minors who were mothers. Who the fathers were is not yet established. (They may be adults, but they could be teenaged boys. We suspect, but we don't know.) The state's argument for taking little tiny children away from their mothers was that they would be groomed to be abusers or child brides. The state has other options: they can monitor things in the compound, and if that is refused, THEN they can remove kids. They can require counseling. They could require parents to sign a notice saying they would not allow their daughter to be married until she was 18. Etc. In short, they had many choices that would have allowed them both to protect any kids who needed protecting and that would have prevented the horrific harm they themselves have now inflicted on those children.

 

Also, this is both sad and scary, but you can't trust everything you hear from gov't agencies. I've sat in court and watched a child abuse "expert" parse words Clintonesquely to convey a meaning other than the truth. She had the best interests of the kid in mind, I'm sure--from her point of view, but she didn't tell the truth and she happened to have been wrong in that case. A social worker absolutely lied on the stand in a case I was involved in. Given that TX made the decision to take the kids, they are now going to want to justify it to keep themselves from looking bad. It is not hard at all to interfere with the memories of little kids. In fact, you have to take steps to avoid influencing the memories if you are a therapist.

 

I, for one, am glad for the judges in TX who stand for the law.

[Robin in Tx]

YEah, I posted about this a few minutes before Quiver. The Texas Supreme Court overturned the state's appeal.

[Jennifer in MI]

I never did figure out how the photo of Warren Jeffs was relevant. He doesn't live there. He's in jail now. He is not a threat to any of the children. I know he is still technically the "prophet." That photo was used to take custody of a newborn. Huh?

 

The Supreme Court ruling didn't say that CPS couldn't intervene to protect the children. They still can. But protection doesn't automatically mean removal from the home. It is considered a last resort for two reasons: 1) Because removal is extremely traumatic for the children. As someone who worked in children's mental health and education for at risk kids for years, has had 3 foster kids, and been a guardian ad litem (a volunteer who advocates for the child's best interest in court cases where CPS has removed a child), I can tell you that many of those 400 children are now deeply scarred--some permanently, by the unlawful actions of CPS. The youngest ones are the ones who will bear the brunt of the episode. 2) This may surprise you, but back when I was serving as a guardian ad litem, research had come out that showed that children were MORE likely to be abused in foster care than in the homes they were taken from. Yup. You read that right. As I said, I'm a former foster parent and I'm not knocking all foster parents, but foster care is a last resort. The state doesn't/can't do a good job of monitoring or screening foster parents. The same thing happens in group placement. Our first foster child was taken from his mother because her boyfriend beat him. Sounds awful, right? He was then physically abused in five foster placements including one religious group care setting in much the same wayas he was abused at home. One group care setting and our home were the only two he was not beaten in. The whole time he was with us, he yearned for home. Now that he's an adult, he lives near bio mom and dad. Was he "rescued?"

 

In addition to being more likely to be abused, kids in foster care are more likely to use drugs, get arrested, get pregnant while minors, etc. than a comparative cohort who were left with their parents. (ie using cohorts that were similar in the reported abuse by the parent, and then following cases where the kids were put in foster care as a result, or left with their parents)

 

Besides removal, the state can do many things. The first thing that should have been done was investigation. TX took a "Shoot first, ask questions later" approach. They could have asked the men to voluntarily leave and left the women and children in place while they investigated, for instance. They have to make a case for each kid. You can't do "class action" child removal. If you're a church goer, for instance, and someone in your church is found to have abused their kids, yours should not be taken "just in case." The last report I read, they had actually found 5 (out of 464 children) cases of pregnant minors, or minors who were mothers. Who the fathers were is not yet established. (They may be adults, but they could be teenaged boys. We suspect, but we don't know.) The state's argument for taking little tiny children away from their mothers was that they would be groomed to be abusers or child brides. The state has other options: they can monitor things in the compound, and if that is refused, THEN they can remove kids. They can require counseling. They could require parents to sign a notice saying they would not allow their daughter to be married until she was 18. Etc. In short, they had many choices that would have allowed them both to protect any kids who needed protecting and that would have prevented the horrific harm they themselves have now inflicted on those children.

 

Also, this is both sad and scary, but you can't trust everything you hear from gov't agencies. I've sat in court and watched a child abuse "expert" parse words Clintonesquely to convey a meaning other than the truth. She had the best interests of the kid in mind, I'm sure--from her point of view, but she didn't tell the truth and she happened to have been wrong in that case. A social worker absolutely lied on the stand in a case I was involved in. Given that TX made the decision to take the kids, they are now going to want to justify it to keep themselves from looking bad. It is not hard at all to interfere with the memories of little kids. In fact, you have to take steps to avoid influencing the memories if you are a therapist.

 

I, for one, am glad for the judges in TX who stand for the law.

 

Thank you for this Laurie! What an interesting (and disturbing)perspective. I grew up in a family that took in foster kids. My parents adopted three of them. It's such a sad system.

 

God bless you and your family.

[Moxie]

I never did figure out how the photo of Warren Jeffs was relevant. He doesn't live there. He's in jail now. He is not a threat to any of the children. I know he is still technically the "prophet." That photo was used to take custody of a newborn. Huh?

 

 

 

I think that the relevance is that his picture is in every room of the compound as someone that they look up to. It is relevant because those were wedding pictures to be proudly passed around and displayed. People saw that Warren married a 12 year old and either thought it was great or at least put up with it. They can't say that it was a secret he was keeping.

 

And I don't buy for one single minute that those girls who look so young are actually 20 years old. I think that there are a lot of women lying to the authorities about their age.

[Guest Shanna]

Its.about.time.

[Mamasteff]

The court may have said they have to go back to their parents, but because their parents have been lying and teaching them to lie, there is no reasonable way to return the children to their rightful parents.

 

"Besides removal, the state can do many things. The first thing that should have been done was investigation. TX took a "Shoot first, ask questions later" approach. "

Actually, I understand that TX has had an "inside informant" for a while and with the information they had they were ready to move when it looked like they had enough evidence.

 

"They could have asked the men to voluntarily leave and left the women and children in place while they investigated, for instance."

No, they can't do that. That is not the way CPS works. Children deemed to be in danger are removed.

 

"They have to make a case for each kid. You can't do "class action" child removal. If you're a church goer, for instance, and someone in your church is found to have abused their kids, yours should not be taken "just in case." "

Not quite the same thing - they all lived on the same property, at the same address. They didn't just belong to the same church - legally they all have the same "street address," which makes it less "class action" and more "living in the same place."

 

"The state's argument for taking little tiny children away from their mothers was that they would be groomed to be abusers or child brides. The state has other options: they can monitor things in the compound, and if that is refused, THEN they can remove kids."

 

As I stated above, apparently they WERE monitoring things on the compound.

 

It is interesting to see how all this plays out. I am not saying one side or the other is "right" - as in most instances, I think that there is wrong on both sides of the issue, and truth is somewhere in between.

[Scarlett]

:iagree:

 

I don't see how the FLDS can have it both ways....communal living but then insist on being treated as individual families.

[Marie in Oh]

And I don't buy for one single minute that those girls who look so young are actually 20 years old. I think that there are a lot of women lying to the authorities about their age.

 

Many were reported to have valid Texas driver's lisences and the authorites still did not believe them. I will argue that not being of the world will affect how one looks. No makeup, long hair, old style dresses and pinefores. This would affect their appearance of looking younger than they really are.

[Laurie4b]

The Appeals Court and the Supreme Court of Texas both held that the state had not met their responsibility to have taken less restrictive actions prior to removing the children. If they had been monitoring at the compound, that means that they would have already done an investigation of each case and concluded that monitoring would be enough to ensure compliance.

[LizzyBee]

And I don't buy for one single minute that those girls who look so young are actually 20 years old. I think that there are a lot of women lying to the authorities about their age.

 

I heard the opposite, that they were lying to say they were younger than they were, in order to stay with their babies.

 

I was given a children's menu when I went out for my 25th birthday. That was a little extreme, but lots of people look a few years older or younger than they are.