Texas court thumps child-custody case against polygamist sect
Looks like Texas' dramatic action of removing children from parents living in a polygamist sect is in big legal trouble. The Associated Press is reporting that an appeals court says the state had no right to take more than 400 children and this could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in the nation's history. What do you think about that?
Take a look at the whole story by clicking here.
The blog called gritsforbreakfast is also reacting to the ups and downs of the case.
Richard Wexler, who works for child welfare reform, put up a post right away. He's always argued that there needed to be an investigation before children were removed from their families unless the children are in immediate danger. Here is a portion of his opinion:
As is often the case, some of the most telling material is in the footnotes, particularly notes 9, 10, and 11, where the appeals court demolishes CPS' claim that the ranch is one household and therefore if one child may have been abused, all supposedly are in danger. In Note 11 the judges write that "the simple fact, conceded by the Department, that not all FLDS families are polygamous or allow their female children to marry as minors, demonstrates the danger of removing children from their homes based on the broad-brush ascription of every aspect of a belief system to every person living among followers of the belief system or professing to follow the belief system."And, of course, the court stated the obvious. The issue here is removal of children without a hearing or even any real investigation first. That is such a drastic action that legally it can be done only when the danger to the child is immediate. When the allegations involve abuse of teenage girls and "grooming" boys to be abusers, obviously the danger to younger children is not immediate. So there is time to investigate and see if the danger is real – before subjecting children to the clear and present danger of foster care. The question to CPS is: What part of "immediate" don't you understand?
Here is an excerpt from the breaking news story:
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the state offered "legally and factually insufficient" grounds for the "extreme" measure of removing all children from the ranch, from babies to teenagers.The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said.
It also failed to show evidence that more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.It was not immediately clear whether the children scattered across foster facilities statewide might soon be reunited with parents. The ruling gave Texas District Judge Barbara Walther 10 days to vacate her custody order, and the state could appeal.
Comments
I have been following this story for years, long before it became such a popular media subject. I even visited Hilldale and Colorado City and was promptly escorted out of town.
I agree that all of these children should not have been subjected to their removal from their families. But I was not surprised at the action, after all this is Texas. Look at Waco.
Of course we need to help teenagers who are abused but this is not the way to do it. There are new groups in place with the goal of helping these young people. There are many people who want to help and we need to use them.
Posted by: Peggy Lake | May 23, 2008 1:27 PM
wouldn't it have been easier to just arrest the men, effectivly removing the head of the beast?...or is this Texas feminism?
Posted by: swift | May 23, 2008 8:48 PM
I would agree that the men should have been taken out of there in order to do a proper investigation. Unfortunately thezse children are brainwashed to think this is the only way. It is just sick.
Posted by: Jackie Krage | May 25, 2008 5:22 PM