CPS laws & such.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by pelagius

So, yes, the state does have some evidence (in the first 3 points) to justify removing some children. But certainly not all the children (certainly not the woman in monogamous marriages or the children of woman where the woman at trial said the would leave the ranch a separate from their husbands to keep their children). I have essentially conceding this and are instead arguing that you have heard some really bad things about the FLDS from sources like Flora Jessop so despite the fact that the state doesn't have the evidence to justify a wholesale removal you support. I find that scary. I only want children removed based on actual evidence presented for the group in question. No one has accused these specific mothers and fathers of close to the things that you suggested earlier in the thread. The worst allegations would have made news. It is unlikely that there main arguments have been misrepresented; it seems silly to fall back on the old line of well, shucks, I am sure this is case were we just don't understand all the things that state argue. Sure, that is almost certainly true by definition but it is also grossly misleading.

In a case where it's nearly impossible to determine where the abuses are occurring, who the main perpetrators are, and who is in danger of future abuse, I fully support the removal of ALL the children until the investigation can be completed.

For the record, my opinion on this issue is based on a belief that:

1. The abuse is likely limited in scope.
2. The abuse is being done by a limited number of adults.
3. The victims & perpetrators will be exceptionally difficult to differentiate from the innocent.
4. Only the facts that I have heard reported on this individual case.


It seems silly, to me, to expect the CPS & state of Texas to be able to single out the guilty from the innocent without some time to investigate and determine which families the children would be safe with.

Further, while that investigation is taking place, it seems silly to me to return the children to a situation where they may be in danger of being abused.



Incidentally, I find the insinuation that I am assuming the entire FLDS membership of wrongdoing insulting. In fact, it is you who are assuming the evidence supporting the removal of the children doesn't exist. Worse, you're making that assumption based on limited knowledge, without even considering the likelihood that some evidences are being withheld to protect the defendants in any forthcoming trials.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by pelagius

So, yes, the state does have some evidence (in the first 3 points) to justify removing some children. But certainly not all the children (certainly not the woman in monogamous marriages or the children of woman where the woman at trial said the would leave the ranch and separate from their husbands to keep their children). You have essentially conceding this and are instead arguing that you have heard some really bad things about the FLDS from sources like Flora Jessop so despite the fact that the state doesn't have the evidence to justify a wholesale removal you support removal because, hey I think their really weird and bad. I find that scary. I only want children removed based on actual evidence presented for the group in question. No one has accused these specific mothers and fathers of close to the things that you suggested earlier in the thread. The worst allegations would have made news. It is unlikely that the states main arguments have been misrepresented; it seems silly to fall back on the old line of well, shucks, I am sure this is case where we just don't understand all the things that state argued. Sure, that is almost certainly true by definition but it is also grossly misleading.

This is not an absurd argument you are making, but I do want to address it because I think it is wrong. Imagine that the community was systematically beating only boys. Imagine the community is systematically starving just the 9 year olds. Imagine a single father is rapes only his teenage girls but not the younger ones. Does the argument that the girls, or all but the 9 year olds or all but the teenagers are safe with that parent or in that community really wash with you? I think it is a very straight forward argument that if the community is ritually sacrificing and cannibalizing boys, that it is not in the best interests of the girls to be there either.

I think people, too, need to keep in mind that the decision that has been made has to be individually reviewed in 60 days. The standard to be met to cause the removal to occur on this preliminary basis is not very high for a reason and that reason is that we err on the side of keeping a child safe. We balance that by causing there to be individual review within 60 days.

Can you imagine if the judge had returned most of the kids to the pedophilia cult on the basis that they weren't old enough to be in any danger? Do people not know who these people are and what they do? I understand the religious freedom impulse and I well understand the persecution complex we as LDS suffer from. But that is not what this is about. I can tell you for a fact that any parent who encouraged their 13 year old to have sex with an older man and then forced or procured that encounter is going to lose not just that kid but all the kids out of the home at least on a temporary basis. The issue of religion is interesting here, but I think it is skewing the issue for some.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Spaz

For the record, my opinion on this issue is based on a belief that:

1. The abuse is likely limited in scope.
2. The abuse is being done by a limited number of adults.
3. The victims & perpetrators will be exceptionally difficult to differentiate from the innocent.
4. Only the facts that I have heard reported on this individual case.

That seems to suggest you agree with me about the evidence that the state presented. The states evidence of actual abuse presented in the trial are points 1-3 that I summarized:

1. 5 girls pregnant between the ages of 16-19.

2. Evidence of 20 underage (less than 18 years old) girls pregnant over a 10 year period from the Bishops record.

3. The Bishops record contains information about a marriage of a 13 year old that was married close to ten years ago.

Where we disagree is the implications. You believe this supports wholesale removal. I don't.

What I didn't like is that you initially supported wholesale removal (when asked by Venkman) based on evidence not presented a trial. It appears now based on your latest post that you don't believe that evidence such as waterboarding of babies or sexual abuse of the boys was needed to justify removal. Instead your arguing that even if only points 1-3 are true, wholesale removal is justified because this is a very difficult situation for the state to sort out. I am fine with that argument. I don't agree with your preferences but at that point its a matter of preferences (short of arguing that a particularly preference would violate due process which I will leave to the lawyers to hash out).

One thing I don't like is how loosely accusations (not by you in general) got thrown around about the FLDS. Yes, there is some probability that these accusations are true. Possibly, Flora Jessop is telling the truth about waterboarding. I am a bit skeptical because that seems like an important thing to mention in the book she wrote a few years ago about why she left the FLDS. However, maybe she just recently remembered that waterboarding occurred.

Also, I do think not having all the transcripts of the testimony is relevant. I don't think it is distorting my understanding of the states evidence. However, I do think it is relevant in the sense that the state argued the the FLDS belief system was abusive. My reading of the trial coverage leads me to believe that they fell way short of establishing that fact but will readily concede that it is possible that the state was far more persuasive then the summaries in the press suggest.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Can you imagine if the judge had returned most of the kids to the pedophilia cult on the basis that they weren't old enough to be in any danger? Do people not know who these people are and what they do? I understand the religious freedom impulse and I well understand the persecution complex we as LDS suffer from. But that is not what this is about. I can tell you for a fact that any parent who encouraged their 13 year old to have sex with an older man and then forced or procured that encounter is going to lose not just that kid but all the kids out of the home at least on a temporary basis. The issue of religion is interesting here, but I think it is skewing the issue for some.

UtahDan, I don't disagree with you in general (note, I do disagree along with MW that the FLDS are a pedophilia cult somehow I didn't notice that when I first read your response). I disagree with the wholesale ruling. Maybe "some" was the wrong word. I do believe that the judge even in the first ruling should have taken the time to hear the exceptional cases. For example, the non-plural marriage families. If those families agreed to move off the ranch and there is no evidence that they married off their teenage girls previously then even in the short-term I think they should keep their kids. There were multiple mothers in plural marriages that agreed to leave the ranch and support themselves but the still had their children taken. If those woman hadn't personally allowed an underage marriage then let them leave the range with their children (with CPS visit, genetic testing, etc,etc). There were so many other options besides the wholesale removal of every child. Maybe in the end most of the children would have still been removed. I would be fine with that. I am just not comfortable given the evidence that CPS could not have found a way to keep any of the families together under any circumstances even in the short term. I didn't like when Voss said in the trial that there was nothing she could imagine that parents could to do to get their children back.

[MikeWaters]

For the people that are throwing around the word pediophilia, when they have no idea what it means, please explain yourselves.

Also explain how it doesn't apply to Joseph Smith.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

For the people that are throwing around the word pediophilia, when they have no idea what it means, please explain yourselves.

That shouldn't be possible, should it?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Also explain how it doesn't apply to Joseph Smith.

Would you also like an explanation as to why it wasn't murder when Nephi slew Laban?

[MikeWaters]

UD, by your use of the word pedophilia, I know you don't know what it means.

You can do a search for my thoughts on Nephi and Laban. Yes, it was murder.

But see, I can say that, because I'm intellectually honest.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

or that they were the victims of sexual abuse.

Glad the government stepped in!

[exUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

MW, I read the reports differently. I thought Perry argued at least based on the news reports and live blogging from the San Angeles paper that the FLDS belief systems was abusive because of what is teaches about polygamy and teenage marriage and because of its authoritarian nature. From the Deseret News:



Also the immediate danger question is interesting. Perry actually said the immediate danger was the following:


So Perry is clearly arguing that the the teachings and beliefs are abuse: emotional and psychological abuse. The immediate danger is abuse. I also like the fact that Perry also admitted that most of what he knew about the FLDS came from news reports and that he only examined a total of three FLDS members.


The state really had to argue this way because in the end the didn't have very much evidence of underage marriage and pregnancy (at least not enough to justify taking 437 children). The state made the accusation in the end of five pregnant girls from ages of 16-19. This may be abuse legally since the FLDS are legally cohabs and not marrying the girls but it doesn't strike me as so far out of line with the spirit of Texas laws which allow marriage with parental permission at 16. Also, the FLDS in generally have responded that in over half of the teenage marriages the girls are married to slightly older teenage boys (at least at the time of marriage). This comes from the Bishops record document.

children being raised in a Sharia lifestyle be taken away from their families?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

UD, by your use of the word pedophilia, I know you don't know what it means.

I understand it to be mental disorder in which a person has acted on sexual urges towards children, or has sexual urges towards and fantasies about children which cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. I see by doing a quick search that some definitions restrict that term to only the prepubescent. If you want to split the hair that sexual contact by an older man is less appropriate with a prepubescent 12 year old than with a sexually mature 12 year old, have at it.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You can do a search for my thoughts on Nephi and Laban. Yes, it was murder.

Good. You already know the answer then. I know you very badly want to box me in to committing to the idea that if these people have acted in appropriately then so did Joseph Smith. To do it you have to put yourself in the box that if it was okay for him it is okay for them. I think you will find that I won't enter the box.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

But see, I can say that, because I'm intellectually honest.

You may be honest, but lets not try to make a silk purse from a sows ear.