Sunday, May 11, 2008

Wishing a Happy Mothers Day to FLDS Moms

This Mother's Day, take a moment to think about the mothers and kids from the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado who've been separated from each other by the state of Texas, and perhaps give a prayer that, by Father's Day, CPS has separated any actually allegedly abused kids from those where the state just dislikes their parents' religion, and returned the rest to their families, as about 75% of Grits readers appear to favor in the ongoing reader poll.

Otherwise, Happy Mothers Day to FLDS Moms, and to every other parent, spend just a moment today to consider what you really think is the right thing to do in the Eldorado case.

RELATED: From the Houston Chronicle, Mental health workers rip CPS over traumatized kids, disregarding mothers' rights.

74 comments:

rl said...

"I am an FLDS woman, and I am entitled to the same rights as you"

by Maggie Jessop

So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it.
However, I may not have it within my psychological or emotional capacity to communicate appropriately due to the widespread "fact" that I belong to an uneducated, underprivileged, information-deprived, brainless, spineless, poor, picked-on, dependent, misled class of women identified as "brain-washed." But, I'll give it my best shot.
I have the right to freedom of speech. Why haven't you heard from me before? I am a mother. That is my privilege, my career and my duty, and it keeps me pretty busy. I like it that way.
Up until now, I have left it up to the government to protect my right to be a mother. I have never been guilty of intentionally breaking the law, never been in a courtroom, never even spoken to an attorney.
In the face of the holocaust going on, most people want to know the truth, right? Well, do you get truth from liars? Come on, John Doe-Head, do you revel in crude and erroneous sensationalism? What kind of a person are you, anyway? Isn't it better to get the truth from those who really know?
If someone is different, people get suspicious, perhaps even jealous, and assume the worst. Interesting. I have broken no law. I have never abused my children. I have injured no one in the choices I have made. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I am entitled to the same rights as you are. I expect the freedom to worship God after the dictates of my own conscience, and believe all men, and women, should be free to do the same.
Put yourself in my shoes, because you and your children could be next. You think you are safe because you belong to the public? I am denied my rights because I am alien? Frankly, they are dead wrong. I am just a normal person. I have eyes and ears, not to mention a big mouth, and I have a heart to feel my way through life, and I have a brain to reason and choose.
They take my children because my beliefs could damage them years from now? How ridiculous can they get?
I used to think anyone in this country was innocent until proven guilty, but, no, I am guilty because the media and the government and the religious bigots think or say or hear or suspect I am immoral and abusive. Good grief!
They say we are dangerous to society because we follow one man. Do we, indeed? Yes! His name is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Get out your scriptures, all you sanctimonious judges and prove where I have broken a single law of God; and after that, since He comes first, prove where I have broken a law of this land.
OK, I admit, I got a speeding ticket once about 25 years ago, but I repented of that, and I haven't had one since. What else have I done?
You mean they have my children in state custody because of what I believe? What an incredible outrage.
Who is brainwashed, after all, may I ask? Excuse me, please, but I feel completely indignant that authorities in the state of Texas would insult my level of intelligence, however minimal it may be, and label me a half-wit when I have witnessed hundreds of numbskulls lower themselves so pathetically, responding without conscience in blind obedience to orders from the Gestapo. And they call me brainwashed? Amazing.
I believe the truth shall be known and right will prevail. In the meantime, I continue to lug around my gargantuan briefcase as I search for my children. That briefcase really ought to be a diaper bag.
My day planner ought to be filled with ideas for a day of improvement with my children, for nothing is more joyful than witnessing the development of a child from heaven, nothing more pleasant than watching a beautiful bud of the rarest flower on earth blossom into a picture of loveliness, a precious bloom in the garden of life, nourished by that eternal element of unconditional love, a gift from our Eternal Father, which He makes available to His children through the instrumentality of unselfish motherhood.
My pillow really ought to be a sacred place where I can rest my weary head after a satisfying day of interaction with precious children, not a sponge of sorrow to mop the tears of a childless mother.
Ask your questions about the most misunderstood people on Earth. Seek the truth, and we will answer with truth. Just ask.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9211573

Kathy said...

To all the FLDS mothers,

I believe what has been done to you is an outrage. This morning I couldn't hold back my tears as I thought of your heartache and grief. I have been and will continue praying for you and your children. I pray that you will be comforted and given strength to bear this burden. I pray that the truth will be told and that this terrible injustice will end for you.

lowery.shirley said...

Mother's Day, without our children, is a time for tears,
In Feb I lost my beloved 24 year old and her unborn baby son to the super bug. How does one learn to stop being a Mom?
I cry for myself, for the FLDS mothers and all mothers who are just trying to survive this day.

kbp said...

Happy Mother's Day to all of them, and I wish the best for the children also.

<<< !!! >>>

Mental health workers rip CPS over sect
Staff complains agency traumatized kids, disregarded mothers' rights
...The written statements were given to the Hill Country MHMR board anonymously because the workers had signed agreements not to disclose what they had seen, said board member Jack Dawson.




May the sun shine on ALL this Mother's Day, and in the days that follow.

kbp said...

Link for article posted above
I am an FLDS woman...

Fred said...

Another version: Mental health staffers blast state care of sect kids

Anonymous said...

"Clarification on Individual Hearings
A lot of media coverage has implied that parents will have another shot at challenging the state's evidence and fight for their custody at individual hearing scheduled to occur before June 5th. This is not true. The court has stated that these hearings will be limited to the status of each child's placement -- the issue of removing the children will not be revisted. " \



From http://sites.google.com/a/trla.org/eldorado-media-updates/Home

Anonymous said...

Clarification on Individual Hearings continued: Does that mean the kids are gone for good?

kbp said...

Maybe this will help for Mother's day;

Five of the nine Board of Trustee members at Hill Country Community Mental Health - Mental Retardation Center:

Judge Pat Tinley

Judge Herb Senne

Judge Jim Barden

Judge Wayne Brascom

Judge Nick Gallegos

kbp said...

Anon
Does that mean the kids are gone for good?

NO

It means that unless the appeals court say differently, they're prolly there 6 months to a year before it is settled.

Anonymous said...

First, happy Mother's Day to all mothers.

Second, to the mothers of FLDS children, though it may not be a comfort to you to hear it during this challenging time, happy Mother's Day to you as well. Being held at arms length from your child in time of need, when they cry out for only you to help, is one of the worst pains a parent can endure. My sympathies to you and your children.

Third, the reports from the MHMR workers will most likely prompt a new round of CPS disinformation and media campaign to continue discrediting FLDS members and now the additional foe. This ugly matter just keeps getting uglier.

kbp said...

Oil Rig on YFZ Ranch

Another shot of oil rig

Anonymous said...

At least they can take solace that their minor daughters are not {currently} being forced into sexual relations in legally unmarried unions with men old enough to be their fathers.

kbp said...

That "solace" you noted could very well cover legal marriages.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Anonymous, so far it appears to me that the majority of them had that very solace when their children were with them at home.
Adult women are being treated as minor children and held against their will, forbidden to see their husbands.
Over 400 children have been severely, deeply, perhaps irreparably traumatized by the way CPS has handled this. Don't you think it's a bit counter-productive to abuse and emotionally scar 400 children to save five?

kbp said...

Maybe for Mother's Day the DFPS will reconsider their Safety Plan When Removing an Alleged Perpetrator From the Home that TRLA pointed out to them in their Reply to DFPS's Reponse!

Betty Lou Thelma Liz said...

kbp,

I believe that rig is on a property that adjoins YFZ.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe for Mother's Day the DFPS will reconsider their Safety Plan When Removing an Alleged Perpetrator From the Home that TRLA pointed out to them in their Reply to DFPS's Reponse!"


They chose not do it because there was no way of securing that compound, with a guard tower several stories high and a gate so that no one could escape , not to mention it was " a very scary environment" .The case workers wanted to interview the children in an environment that didn't seem so scary and dangerous.

Fred said...

Child protection law and the FLDS: There's a better way

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Oh, please, 8:47! Of course it was a "very scary environment," there were hundreds of cops there in helmets and body armor, many with machine guns, helicopters overhead, an armored personnel carrier. I'd be scared too.

Now, if they'd gone in with a couple of deputies and a CPS worker looking to interview the individual complainant or people identified based on specific information from an investigation, maybe it wouldn't have been so scary, and it would have made sense to follow regular procedures.

Perhaps if they'd gone that route, they wouldn't have needed to wait four or five days while they gathered up the manpower for the raid, leaving the supposed victim (who we now know, and they should have known, was a hoaxer) in danger in the interim.

Anonymous said...

The State of Texas is wrong. They have done the wrong thing.

The damage is done.

I see no excuse for dragging this out even another day let alone 6 months to a year.

CPS and DFPS need to return these children to their parents. If CPS won't do the right thing, the Judge in this case should issue an injunction against the actions of CPS and return these children to their parents - now.

Then and only then the legal issues can be hashed out.

The Judge should act in the best interest of the children.

30% of children in foster care in Texas are abused, these children are better off with their parents. There will be plenty of time for the law to figure out what to do before the vast majority of these children are married.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to see those who describe the ranch as a fortress designed to keep outsiders out and also prevent insiders from escaping, in the same breath claim it was unsecurable. It would seem the ranch would be the perfect place to house the mothers and children during an ongoing investigation.

TxBluesMan said...

Anon 9:32

It is your opinion that the State of Texas is wrong.

Others, including the judge that signed the order for emergency removal disagree.

You call for the judge in this case to issue an injunction against the actions of CPS, and ordering the return of the children.

That is not going to happen. Do you really expect the same judge that issued the order removing the children, and that found that there were grounds for CPS to continue hold the children would reverse her own orders?

The judge is acting in the best interest of the children, as she sees it. Many people agree with her, myself included.

Grits and others disagree. Until a higher court(s) rule on it, we won’t know how the legal issues will play out.

But to believe that Judge Walther will order the return of the children at this time is not looking at the issue realistically.

To the FLDS mothers – I honestly wish you a happy mother’s day, and hope that you will change your actions that have endangered your children, so that you may be reunited with them.

Stephen said...

The Houston Chronicle article is something.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/planetlawschool/message/23865

is another discussion of it.

kbp said...

Betty,

The 2 pic's are described as "Oil Rig with new oil!!" & "Oil rig about 200 yards west of compound" on this page of pictures.


There are 2 more pic' HERE and HERE, both found at THIS PAGE, and described as "Oil Rig - 200 yards west of FLDS on neighbors place", & "Oil Rig - expanded On neighbors place."

I found another pic described as "Finishing Well 3", which does not resemble the "new oil" well noted in the 6/16/05 pictures.

The "expanded" looks identical to the 2nd pic, so maybe it is on the neighbor's property. Google's aerial looked old, and Mapquest would not zoom in close enough to determine what was the well ;ocation.

kbp said...

My effort to look up the address for an aerial search up brought another question. (I had a good idea where it was, but couldn't recall the address to start the image search with.)

Why was it that the Public Notice simply identified the parents of "CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THE YFZ RANCH, ELDORADO, SCHLEICHER COUNTY, TEXAS"?

This same process of using only "YFZ Ranch" was in the typed affidavit of 4/06/08 for emergency custody, the petitions, DNA testing order, the Orders for Investigation of Child Abuse, Special Advocate, the Placement of Children AND all the pleadings filed by attorneys representing the children or parents that I have seen.

Why no address for the ranch or any of the addresses for the households on that ranch?

An especially big "WHY NOT" from the attorneys representing the parents?

There were 2 exceptions to that pattern in the original handwritten affidavits of 4/03 & 06/08 which did include "YFZ Ranch, located at 2420 County Road 300 (Rudd Road), Eldorado, Texas, 76936", so I guess at least the first Search Warrants had narrowed down that location to a 1,700+/- acre ranch all apparently know by a name.

*****

Another observation in my review of the documents; the order to take the cell phones ID'd a couple of attorneys, but no individuals or groups. Completely absent information on WHO to take the phones from. Must have been in the motion from the 2 "coordinating" attorneys that were to represent some of the children. the 2 that asked for ALL phones to be confiscated. Strange!

kbp said...

TBM was on the money with; "...That is not going to happen. Do you really expect the same judge that issued the order removing the children, and that found that there were grounds for CPS to continue hold the children would reverse her own orders?

Knowing all that particular judge has been involved with so far in this case, and what many suspect she might have helped with beyond what we are certain of, only a fool would dream of her reversing her own order (one we can't seem to find a copy of!).

Now, posting something like; "...To the FLDS mothers – I honestly wish you a happy mother’s day, and hope that you will change your actions that have endangered your children, so that you may be reunited with them", gives the look of being all warm and fuzzy, but I'd bet dollar to donuts they really appreciate it if you particularized the ALLEGED "actions that have endangered [THEIR] children", all 468 of them going by the SIXTH count by the CPS as best as I've been able to keep track of ALL of them.

;)

kbp said...

TBM

While on the Walthers topic, I ran across the copy of the Order for Placement which Walthers DID sign and date APRIL 21.

I'm still hoping someone familiar with the legal procedures in Texas will explain how TRLA had that Order of the 22nd and then

** POOF! **

the Appeals Court received the Order for Temporary Custody dated the 21st, but evidently NOT signed, all to SURPRISE the good ole boys & girls at TRLA.

I'd be happy to repost my entire summary and question, if you missed it.

kbp said...

EXCUSE ME!

It is "...the Order for Placement which Walthers DID sign and date APRIL 22"

Not the 21st.

The Local Crank said...

"Does that mean the kids are gone for good?"

No, these hearings are statutorily required for DFPS to report on the status of the children ("Status Review Hearings"). There will eventually be a Permanent Placement Hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to keep the kids in the system while the investigation goes forward. That's an entirely different animal from the "Removal Hearing" that was such a zoo. The attorneys for the kids and the parents can also request hearings to modify the plan to increase visitation or even return custody. I have filed these from time to time in cases where DFPS was dragging their feet on the investigation. In one instance, I had to get the judge to ORDER DFPS to perform the random drug tests on the parents that DFPS itself had requested but never done.

doran williams said...

Tx, you said:

"The judge is acting in the best interest of the children, as she sees it. Many people agree with her, myself included." You agree with the Judge that it is in the best interest of most (400+) of the Eldorado Kids that they be taken from their families, traumatized by the State of Texas, and sent off to live in far away places with Baptists, so as to make them into proper Christians.

You have also said: "My grandfather and his brothers were taken from their families and sent to Indian Schools, like Haskell and Carlisle to make them 'white' Indians....Other ancestors in the Choctaw tribe took the trail of tears....I know very well the abuses that my people suffered."

It is staggering, inexplicable, that you cannot or will not see that the Judge's actions against the Eldorado Kids is of the same quality and nature as the actions against your ancestors. The two -- these exercises in wretched excess by government bureaucrats -- arise out of the same White, self-centered, cultural egomania. The Kids from the YFZ Ranch have been sent on a trail of tears just as certainly as your ancestors were.

You have also written: "I have already said that I don't know the facts of this [Cedric Benson] case and therefore can't really comment on it." Yet your lack of knowledge about the FDLS case hasn't slowed you down in the least about commenting about that case, or supporting the Judge on the "merits." With the exception of those 20 or so individual cases of 14-17 year old girls being in bigamous marriages, you cannot identify specific acts of abuse or neglect against the remaining 400+ children at the YFZ Ranch.

{I think it fair to point out that even though on this Blog you "...don't know the facts..." of the case and can't, therefore, comment on it, your ignorance of facts didn't keep you from commenting snidely and suggestively about the Benson case on your own Blog.}

So, what motivates you to agree with the Judge that it was in the best interest of all those other kids to subject them to the terror they have gone through? Why was it not similarly in the best interest of your grandfather and his brothers to be treated as they were?

Have you seen the Chronicle article about the MHMR workers' outrage at the way CPS has treated the Eldorado Kids?

Are your opinions a function of your hindsight with regard to your ancestors, and your lack of foresight with regard to the Kids?

I try my best to avoid searching for deep-seated psychological injuries to explain why an individuial acts as he or she does, particularly when I haven't met the individual or had a chance to talk. So I'll avoid that here.

On the other hand, I don't mind pointing out what I have observed in the past with people, sometimes friends, sometimes acquaintances, sometimes clients: It is that some people who have been dreadfully injured by fate, society, government, history, or other people become so bitter, so sour, so much into "victimhood," that they lose the abilities and talents of compassion, understanding, and even sympathy for others who get treated in similarly shabby ways.

I've known people who have had property condemned by government subdivisions for public purposes, who are still mad and disillusioned years later. They have hardened themselves to such an extent that they don't give a damn that someone else is being similarly treated. "Hell, they took our place, so what if they take theirs."

I have been communicating with a person about the Eldorado Debacle. That person is, or claims to be, a rape and incest survivor. That person is prepared to believe the most outrageous rumors about what went on at the YFZ Ranch: mass rapes, men impregnating their own daughters, beatings. You name it, that person will believe it. And if you or someone else can't come up with some horrible story, that person will confabulate stories and believe those stories to be true.

I've noticed what appears to be a lot of this kind of thing in comments here and elsewhere. Along the lines of "Screw the fundamentalist mormons; they did it to my grandfather, who cares if they do it to mormons."

Bitterness, a sour outlook on life, holding grudges for generations, disregarding the hurt done to others, particularly t children....these things are not good for one's physical health nor for one's spiritual development.

Anonymous said...

How ironic that the photo includes a mother and daughter who are wives of the same man.

To be fair, though, the daughter was married to him first.

The mother married her son-in-law because of a Warren Jeffs reassignment.

Do we get to see a photo of any of the fathers who were separated from their families by the FLDS prophet on Father's Day?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Warren Jeffs is already in jail, 5:54. Are you saying the alleged reasssignment justifies taking these women's kids from them? Why? Even if you're right, I don't see what one has to do with another. In fact, I wonder what the estranged father in question would think about that sentiment? I doubt he'd agree the kids are better off with CPS than their mom(s).

Anonymous said...

Don't you think that the nature of some of the marital relationships at YFZ has a bearing on why CPS made the determination that they did?

I'm positive that you're right -- this particular father would prefer his children and grandchildren not be in the custody of the state and that they be with their mothers.

Perhaps there are others like him that now feel empowered to claim the paternal rights that were taken from them.

Find out who this father is -- you're a reporter -- and maybe you'll see that Warren Jeffs personally (incarcerated or not) has a lot to do with this particular family's legal predicament.

rage said...

doran: Those aren't his ancestors any more than they are mine, that's why he doesn't care. He's probably just enough indian (like me) to put it down on a college application to try to get a scholarship. He's lying.

kbp said...

Our Headmistress had asked some questions, I'd set aside in my "To Check" notes, due to the fact they raised suspicions about HOW some of the details included in an affidavit may have come into play or been obtained. (I split the 2 ?'s out of a single paragraph and numbered them for convenience.)

1) "Regarding ranger affidavits- didn't Ranger Long [the "Affiant] also state on an affidavit that there was a bed (or beds) where an informant told them that over-aged men have sex with brides under 17?"

2) And since we now know they had no 'inside' informant, but only an ex-FLDS member who had never even been inside an FLDS temple or on the ranch (same thing, since the only FLDS temple is the one on the ranch), then doesn't that indicate that, at best, he was incredibly slopping with his sourcing, and that he possibly lied?"

The Affidavit in question is the 2nd one here

On page 6 of the PDF it states; " On April 5, 2008, while conducting a search..." at the "Temple" the "Affiant observed... beds. On one of the beds within the temple, Affiant observed that the bed linens were disturbed as if the bed had been used and Affiant OBSERVED A STRAND OF HAIR believed to have come from the head of a female. Affiant believes the strand of hair belongs to a female because Affiant has seen numerous males residents at the Suspected Place and Premises and all of the males observed by Affiant wear their hair shorter than the strand of hair observed by Affiant."

The Affidavit then provides a multitude of third-hand+ hearsay that paints quite a narrative about under 16 YO's married, pregnant and/or having children (including one in which a girl under 16 YO that has 4 children!), before telling of Sheriff Doran's secret informant;

"Affiant has been advised by Schleicher County Sheriff Doran that Sheriff Doran has worked with residents at the Suspected Place and Premises over the past four years, Sheriff Doran advised Affiant that he has learned from the residents at the Suspected Place and Premises that the residents all belong to the religious group the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (hereafter referred to as FLDS). On April 6, 2008, Sheriff Doran advised Affiant that, over the past four years, Sheriff Doran has worked with a confidential informant who is a former member of the FLDS; that the confidential informant has provided Sheriff Doran with information regarding the FLDS on more than twenty occasions over the past several years and, that on each occasion, the informant was proven to be reliable, true and correct; that the confidential informant has continued to provide Sheriff Doran reliable information as recently as April 5, 2008; that, on April 5, 2008, the confidential informant advised Sheriff Doran of the following: that the adult male FLDS church members over the age of seventeen engage in the practice of marrying multiple wives, at the time of the marriage, the bride is often under the age of sixteen years; and that the temple at the Suspected Place and Premises contains an area where there is a bed where males over the age of seventeen engage in sexual activity with children under the age of seventeen."

Now, the answer to question 1 is an easy YES, the Affiant, Leslie Brooks Long, told all that beds were observed. I searched up a few more details to include here.

- The Affidavit was sworn to at 10:12 PM, on Sunday, April 6, 2008;

- The Temple was searched late on Saturday, April 5, 2008;

- Sheriff Doran now evidently how less knowledge than Long told of in the Affidavit (INTERVIEW below);

INTERVIEW
Mankin: " It’s been reported that a bed was found on the top floor of the temple and there have been implications that it might have been used for consummating marriages moments after the ceremony.

Doran: " I wouldn’t know about that.

Mankin: " Actually, I heard a couple of reports that there were two beds found. Is that accurate?

Doran: " I’d say that was an accurate statement.


So Long tells of what Doran tells of what the informant told was a bed that overaged men used to "engage in sexual activity" with underage teens, but in the interview Doran denies knowledge of such. Maybe skating off by qualifying that knowledge being limited to SEX only, not including any on whether marriages were consummated there. Knowing many may find out he'd talked with Dale Barlow PRIOR to executing the initial SW, he might have been thinking his idea of violating civil rights AFTER finding probable cause could have been stretched too far in this case, so it was best to avoid some topics.

Back to question 2, the "sourcing" is a given when classified in any negative manner. So many layers of hearsay leading up to multiple suppositions that the suspicion of what that bed may be used for was a novel in itself before the warrant was signed off on by Walthers.

As for whether or not Long "possibly lied", it looks like quite a trail for any one to believe the Affidavit was written in "good faith", but I doubt anything will ever come of it even if there was evidence Long purposefully lied. We do need to remember this is the second search warrant, so if the first passes the smell test, this one will fly through with no problems.


An interesting point I came across on page 8 is where Long mentions a document (Bishop's Record?) that details a man married to "over twenty wives" and then stating "...with no record of divorce or death of a spouse". Walthers has told all there are boxes and boxes of records, with the CPS attorney noting greater than "100,000" documents in the recent Response to TRLA's Writ.

How the he!! could anyone know whether or not there are such records on April 6th? Sounds like this Affiant knows more about ALL those documents than that attorney.

kbp said...

Anon 7:27
"Don't you think that the nature of some of the marital relationships at YFZ has a bearing on why CPS made the determination that they did?"

Only if they inaccurately classified all homes within the YFZ Ranch as a single household. Then it's still a stretch. In a worst-case-scenario, it should still not have effected any more than those children within the "household" in which any "marital relationship" was in question and the result should have been to follow the guidelines and actual codes they were allegedly enforcing.


I'm positive that you're right -- this particular father would prefer his children and grandchildren not be in the custody of the state and that they be with their mothers. Perhaps there are others like him that now feel empowered to claim the paternal rights that were taken from them.

We'll patiently wait here for you to provide a credible source that shows any "paternal rights that were taken from" any men within the church using unlawful conduct.



Find out who this father is -- you're a reporter -- and maybe you'll see that Warren Jeffs personally (incarcerated or not) has a lot to do with this particular family's legal predicament.

What "legal predicament" are you talking about?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

7:27, you appear to know much more than I'm likely to find out about the situation investigating insinuations from anonymous blog comments, why don't you just spit out what you're trying to get at? (With sourcing, please. We have nothing but your say so that the woman's mother didn't just move in with her daughter after a divorce.) Reacting to KBP's questions would be a good start.

Also, I'm all for fathers who weren't on the ranch intervening to ensure their own parental rights. I hope that's happening.

However, if you're right that the "nature of some of the [adult] marital relationships" was a reason DFPS took the kids, they were woefully beyond the scope of their authority! There are only four reasons DFPS can seize a child:

1. an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child,
2. the child has been the victim of sexual abuse.
3. the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance,
4. the parent or person who has possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Notably, non-traditional (or rather, ultra-traditional) family structures or strange religious beliefs are simply not on the list of reasons the state can take your kids. That appears to be exactly what happened, though. best,

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

So, let me get this straight.
I've known of men who left their wives for other men, and women who left their husbands for other women, and one former friend who left his wife for a 19 year old girl who didn't even speak English (and he didn't speak her language, either, and his oldest child was 17), and a man who came home from a short tour in the Phillippines and told his wife 'pack your stuff and get- I got engaged to a bar girl last week,' and none of these were reason enough to prevent the state from giving those parents partial and in some cases full custody- but somehow, in the FLDS it's different?
Anonymous says that the FLDS children and mothers were 'reassigned' to other families, and this is really, really, really horrible (I'd agree that it's not something I admire)- so horrible that the ONLY remedy to this is to.... reassign the children to foster care, which is even less permanent or stable than the FLDS living arrangements.

kbp said...

Good article here, mentions Walthers ID'ing the raid as the "cattle call".

I'm certainly glad for her to have made the USAToday!

I'm sure her kids and grandchildren can brag about it for years to come.

kbp said...

Good Morning America
"“I’ve seen my two daughters once. I haven’t seen my sons,” said Nancy Dockstader. “It’s been 37 days since I’ve seen my sons. It’s because they don’t have a caseworker — they say if they don’t have a caseworker, we can’t see them.”

"...authorities said they would make every effort to keep sibling groups together when they were put in foster care pending investigations and court proceedings."

"They say their daughter is 23; CPS officials say she is 16. Nancy Dockstader said she has provided officials with a birth certificate and that her daughter has a valid Texas driver’s license showing that she is 23, but state officials have said they don’t believe her."


The media is NOT getting any better for Texas lately.

(Videos also at this link)

TxBluesMan said...

Doran,

I agree that they should be removed, I disagree that they should be traumatized and can’t think of anyone that wants them to be, and I vehemently disagree that they should be given any religious instruction that conflicts with their own religious beliefs. An idea solution would be for secular shelters to be available, but since there not, we are having to make do with what is available.

I also disagree that the actions in my ancestors case and the current situation are the same. One can clearly be distinguished from the other. In the case of my ancestors, this was a pure case of genocide, an overt case where Pratt’s plan was to “kill the Indian, save the man.” In no case were the removals of Native Americans from their tribe conditioned on the accusation of child abuse or other violations of the law. Those removals were intended solely to distroy the Native American culture.

You also compare the Benson case to the FLDS case, and again, they can be distinguished. The affidavidits, search warrants and returns, and other court documents for the FLDS case are available. In addition, the presence of pregnant minors is prima facie evidence of sexual assault of a child, and the Bishop’s Records provide supporting evidence of bigamy. In the Benson case, there is not prima facie evidence of intoxicaton, resisting, etc. If, as CPS contends in its latest filing, the YFZ is considered to be one household, then the removal of all the children is within the guidelines of the Family Code.

You also mentioned that I posted an article to my blog – which I freely admit to, and to which I pointed out on the Benson thread on this blog. I also said that dependant on what came out from the witnesses, I could change my original position of supporting the cops to agreeing that it was uncalled for.

I’m not going to comment on your theories of pyschological injuries and hardening of feelings except to state that this is not the case in my situation. Most people that know me know that I am an easy-going guy, that I enjoy life, that I believe that one makes their own decisions and faces the consequences of those decisions (and in taking responsibility for one’s own position, the opposite of ‘victimhood’), and that since you have to make your own life, you should be happy.

I have not read the Chronicle article, but will.

Rage,

You are an idiot. I can document my Native American blood, have a CDIB from BIA, and before I moved to Texas, lived on the rez. My father’s family still lives in Indian Country in Oklahoma, and I have cousins on the rez in both Wisconsin and Michigan.

You can believe what you want – it makes no difference to me, nor does it affect who I am.

If you only want to be a wantabe, that’s your issue, not mine. I can’t think of any Native Americans that I know that would propose using a racist screen name like you did, and it wouldn’t surprise me that an Anglo would attempt to pass off himself as an Native American to get at their scholarship monies – the Anglos have a long and undistinguished history of doing so, so if you want to self-identify as a thief, as you apparently have done, be my guest.

Anonymous said...

How is your invisible friend the god-fairy working out? Really helped ya eh?

Stop selling your kids as sex slaves any maybe the State won't need take them away. Sheesh boo freaking hoo.

This whole affair is costing me a bunch of tax money because you and your sister-wife all have the same husband. What next, people marrying their pets? Bunch of perverts!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

bluesman, the stuff about pregnant teens being prima facie evidence of abuse is getting tiresome for me, fwiw. I took my grandbaby to the park this weekend and saw two girls I know for a fact were under 18 who were pregnant just on the way there and back.

Should DFPS now declare my neighborhood a single household and seize every child who lives in it? By your logic, yes.

Also, for reasons I stated above, bigamy is simply not one of the 4 reasons for which DFPS is authorized to remove kids from their homes, no matter how many times you repeat the charge or imply it makes them unfit parents. I don't personally think it will be prosecuted at all because the warrant was bad, IMO, but in any event the allegation has no bearing on whether the kids should have been seized.

kbp said...

TBM

Isn't a pregnant teen only one 4 factors that must be met to show evidence that there was a crime?
- Pregnant or has child;
- Conceived while under 17 YO;
- Not legally married; and
- Conceived with a male greater than 3 years her senior.
(IIRC on the age, maybe from another state)


It's becoming very clear that you agree the classification of the YFZ Ranch as one household is correct. If that isn't accurate, then it sure looks like you wish it were, so CPS will have the authority to determine what they want to do with ALL the children.


..and I evidently thanked Grits for making that word verification easier too soon. I have not hit it correct the first try today.
;)

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Just to mention it, other than enabling it in the first place (without it the comment spam is horrendous) I have nothing to do with how the word verification operates. Blogger for the past few weeks has been revamping its inner workings to combat comment and blog spam, and they clearly haven't gotten all the kinks out yet. :-(

William said...

I don't see how the YFZ could be considered one house anymore than a subisidized/government hand out apartment complex could. Yes, it's owned by one entity, but there are multiple individual family units living in it. To me that's just a stupid justification for the taking of every child.

The Local Crank said...

While I usually disagree with TXbluesman, I have to agree with them on this: the situation faced by his Choctaw and my Cherokee ancestors (tho' most of mine were Old Settlers and avoid nunna daul tsunyi, the Trail of Tears) is really not comparable to the YFZ case, no matter how much I dislike the State's actions here. Hell, Indians weren't even considered HUMAN BEINGS under US law until Ex Parte Standing Bear in 1879. In the case of NDNs, it was the official policy of the Federal gov't, not an effect but the stated, statutorily desired result, to bodily exterminate all NDNs or failing that destroy their culture, language, religion and civilization. There has to be a collary to Godwin's Law involving comparisions to what NDNs endured. Unless the US gov't has formally outlawed your existence and legally established you as vermin, then there is no comparison. I'll argue 'till I'm blue in the face that the YFZ children and mothers have had their constitutional rights trampled, but at least they had constitutional rights to begin with.

doran williams said...

Tx. It will be difficult -- strike that -- impossible for anyone to check your bona fides as a Native American and easy going guy as long as you hide behind that nom de plume.

You are either deeply into some kind of weird denial, or else you suffer from some sort of attention deficit disorder, or maybe you just have a hidden agenda vis a vis FLDS and/or CPS. Whatever it is, you continue to ignore facts, you continue to ignore the absence of facts, and you continue to misrepresent critical, necessary facts about this case.

As we all know, the only "evidence" of abuse to all those kids other than the 20 or so involved in bigamous marriages, was the self-serving testimony of a couple of CPS employees/hired witnesses that the other kids were being taken because of the religious beliefs of their parents.

The affidavit you continue to rely upon was not evidence in the 14 day "circus" hearings. Why do you keep trying to pimp that affidavit as evidence?

You agree with the Judge's removal order, but you don't agree with traumatizing the kids. Good grief! The two are just opposite ends of the same short rope.
That is like saying you accept lightning but you oppose thunder! "In an ideal situation, we would have pretty lightning but no scary thunder."

By the way, I just saw a short blurb on Fox News. Some additional papers in the so-called Bishop's Records have been found. One that Fox showed on the tube had the "head of family" identified as txbluesman. Some jerk with 5 teen-age wives and 18 kids. Us lawyers, you and I, know that such records are hearsay and inadmissable in a well-run court. But there you go.....if it says txbluesman is the perp, then it must be true. Right???

doran williams said...

Crank, just to clarify what I meant, I did not compare the FLDS removal to the original Trail of Tears or any of the other attempts at genocide involving Native Americans. What I compared were the actions of the ruling class toward each group. Read it again:

"It is staggering, inexplicable, that you cannot or will not see that the Judge's actions against the Eldorado Kids is of the same quality and nature as the actions against your ancestors. The two -- these exercises in wretched excess by government bureaucrats -- arise out of the same White, self-centered, cultural egomania. The Kids from the YFZ Ranch have been sent on a trail of tears just as certainly as your ancestors were."

kbp said...

How about a compromise?

The FLDS resemble a small tribe, a culture the authorities are trying to end by taking the youth and letting it die a slow death?

I have not seen any on either side of the fence deny that the plan has always been to exterminate them, get them folks that dress weird out of their backyard.

Any that would disagree are blind or simply do not want to admit it.

kbp said...

I just came across a blog that tells the 23 or 16 YO mother just gave birth.

It did not have any source linked though.

I guess this weeks hearing won't help the father to be there now.

TxBluesMan said...

Grits,

Since it is tiresome to you and this is your site, how about if we agree to disagree on that issue? I’m willing to stop pointing out that piece of evidence if you are willing to acknowledge that there are people that honestly believe that there is evidence of abuse, not of all the children, but of some of the children. I believe that you have acknowledged that in the past, but I can’t tell if your position has changed. I hope that we can continue this discussion or debate; I have enjoyed it and hope that our disagreement will not end it. You do of course have the right to decline, and if you wish, to silence me on your site. I would hope that you would not, but it is your site.

Sexual assault of a child is a legitimate reason to remove a child (your #2, above). Bigamy is just a separate felony charge.

Kbp,

To prove sexual assault of a child you merely have to show that the child is under the age of 17 and is pregnant. The other factors that you mention are an affirmative defense to prosecution, not an exception to prosecution. In the later, you have to negate the exception to prosecute. In the former, the issue of the affirmative defense must be presented at trial by the defense and proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Note that in most cases, a prosecutor will not proceed with a case if there is a strong affirmative defense, but he could if he wanted to.

On your later post, I have not seen any plan to exterminate the FLDS, nor can they be realistically compared to the hundreds of Native American tribes, or the genocide of over 150 years that was waged against these tribes.

Crank,

Thanks – even though we usually disagree, I appreciate the support on this issue.

Doran,

True, it will be impossible to prove. You can either believe me or not. I know who I am and what my heritage is, and I am content with that.

You mention hearsay – you must surely be aware that a personal record of the defendant may be admitted, such as an IRS return, etc. This is well established, black letter law. This is something that can be confirmed and authenticated by handwriting analysis, etc.

To all,

Let’s see what happens.

The Local Crank said...

"What I compared were the actions of the ruling class toward each group. Read it again:"

"The FLDS resemble a small tribe, a culture the authorities are trying to end by taking the youth and letting it die a slow death?"

No, sorry, still not the same. Not even close. The FLDS are human beings who have rights under the Constitution and (I believe) those rights are being violated. NDNs were considered vermin, had no legal rights not even the right to be alive, and were hunted down like wild animals under the statutory authority of the United States government through the agency of the US Army. Using overwrought hyperbole diminishes rather than strengthens your argument. As for TXbluesman's bona fides,I don't play "redder than thou" particularly since I am a thin blood myself. He knows what a CDIB card is, knows (and if he's really an NDN loathes) the BIA. Given that he has kin in Wisconsin and Michigan and lived on a rez, I'd imagine he's Menominee or Chippewa, maybe Potawatomi. Good enough for me.

kbp said...

BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, BIG, imo

This looks like it could become very expensive for TEXAS!

It's an entirely new "game" now.


"A mother... held as a minor in state custody gave birth Monday...

State officials acknowledged the mother may be an adult...

spokesman Patrick Crimmins acknowledged Monday that the mother is among 27 girls whose ages are in dispute...

officials were reviewing documentation for those who claim they are of legal age...

"They just wanted to keep the mother in custody until they could get the baby," Rod Parker said...

"[The baby will] likely stay in state custody even if his mother is an adult. Like other mothers of children under one year, she would be allowed to stay with him in a foster-care facility, Crimmins said.




If this baby is the child of a monogamus couple, both legal adults, I have no idea what the state can claim that would allow them to keep it. No idea at all, beyond they just do as they damn well please evidently.

doran williams said...

Tx. Of course I know about the hearsay rule and the requirement of authenticity. I pointed these out to you about two weeks ago when you were virtually (?) waving the Bishop's Records around and claiming they proved something or the other. The point is, they have not been authenticated, and the author-ship of each family record has not been established. Yet you continue to rely on them as being proof of the matter asserted therein. That is a great big leap.

I mean, if a guy has 6 wives, is it too much of a stretch to suggest that he might have had one of them fill out the form? And which one? And how good (accurate) was that person's knowledge? Lots of opportunities to keep those records out in each and every civil and criminal case in which the State tries to use them.

If her majesty the Judge will just follow the rules of evidence, that is.

I congratulate on the occasion of your admittance that there is not evidence of abuse of all the children. You continue to insist that all the children should have been and rightfully were taken from their parents, even though there was no evidence of abuse in all those families. Why? On what principal or statute do you base that conclusion?

Fred said...

This case reminds me more of the Internment of the Japanese during WWII.

The SCOTUS approved with Korematsu v. United States (1944).

tx, your speech on responsibility is a good one. The problem is it too often lead to cases like this, where some don't have to take responsibility because they are not guilty, and yet they are supposed to submit because the government says so. Why does it say so? Because people are supposed to take responsibility.

doran williams said...

kbp. You are right. This is big. Check me if I'm incorrect, but in order to take a kid into custody without a hearing, CPS has to show some kind of imminent harm to the child. Isn't that going to be kinda, sorta, embarrassing to do, seeing as how Mom has been in custody of CPS? And what will they do at the 14 day hearing? I won't be able to go to sleep tonight, just thinking of what CPS' affidavit will look like.

And what County will the hearing be in? Do you know?

Please link us to the emergency removal petition and affidavit when you find them.

Thank you so much for keeping up with this stuff.

I hope this Mom, her child and the Father sue every damned CPS and DPRS employee who has had anything at all to do with kidnapping her. In Federal Court. Where it will or could, as you say, cost the State and the bonding agents a huge amount.

Oh, Tx, in case you are paying attention, who will take responsibility for this latest outrage?

doran williams said...

The Salt Lake Tribune is reporting online that a Travis County Judge has issued a temp injunction prohibiting CPS from driving the new baby and the mom to San Antonio! Mom's lawyers are claiming CPS wanted to move the hours old baby, at night, the approximately 80 miles, so they could file a custody suit in San Angelo. Nice people, those CPS guys.

kbp said...

Doran
"Check me if I'm incorrect, but in order to take a kid into custody without a hearing, CPS has to show some kind of imminent harm to the child."

Your talking about the 262.102. EMERGENCY ORDER AUTHORIZING POSSESSION OF CHILD, with it's 3 conditions required and the hearing at 14 days.

Without looking, I'd guess there is some rule that allows them to have custody of children born to children in custody, which makes sense. Most the time those in that situation probably need to be kept.

In this situation, the papers were filed last week, with birth certificate, a Texas Driver's License and some other ID document the husband said.

If there is ever any testimony released, I can't wait to see just how many in custody actually lied about their names and/or ages to see how justified the judge was when she ruled the ID's could NOT be used.

kbp said...

Any proud Texans out there?

;)

"Austin Judge Darlene Bryne granted a temporary restraining order to prevent the Texas Department of Family and Protective services from moving Louisa Jessop and her newborn to San Antonio

...Parker said the plan to move the mother and infant was a "forum shopping maneuver" that would have allowed the state to file custody papers on the baby in San Angelo.
"Why else would they move a 6-hour-old baby halfway across Texas in the middle of the night when they have dozens of FLDS children in shelters in Austin?" Parker said.
Texas DFPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said the agency would not comment on the issue.."


There's a first, a NO COMMENT from the CPS.

Hat tip to Doran

The Local Crank said...

'Parker said the plan to move the mother and infant was a "forum shopping maneuver" that would have allowed the state to file custody papers on the baby in San Angelo'

For those of you unfamiliar with Texas politics, Austin/Travis County is the semi-official State Liberal Reservation, so I just bet DFPS didn't want to file there.

kbp said...

BABY IN STATE CUSTODY!

"State welfare workers today took custody today of a newborn whose mother is a member of a West Texas polygamist sect."

It is very common for criminals to get themselves in more trouble covering up their crimes.

I'm seeing lots of CYA in this case by those I consider to be THE criminals. If any of us were to do what has been done in this case, that "good faith" BS would be no shield in the courts.

I'm starting to believe that even if there are Sexual Assault charges that come out of this mess, such were lesser crimes than many at the ranch have been forced to endure as a result of conduct by the authorities.

I can't be certain what the actual motives for all this mess were, maybe just some small ideas that grew over time. All the little bad acts committed against these folks have certainly grown into some really big problems.

Those hour long calls to the shelter planted a seed that rooted well as soon as all the good ole boys came together. Total up all their little moves to keep it rolling is sure looks like a conspiracy.

If the state somehow gets their hands on this new born, I have absolutely no doubt a 1983 will fly right past the summary motions.

It's a given no state employees will get in trouble, so I'll think of a better ending for this soon-to-be released film:

The church will tear all the buildings down, cash their judgment check, drill for oil, pay lower property taxes and allow a national gay club to promote free camping on the ranch.

Anonymous said...

I'm fairly sure that CPS can take into custody the newborn child of a parent that has been determined to be a danger to their previous children. That's where the sticky wicket is in this specific instance; have the parents of this child been determined to be a danger to their previous children? Not yet they haven't, they haven't had their individual hearing yet to make that determination. The state merely has temporary custody of a woman who is more than likely an adult, which would vacate that temporary custody order for the mother.

CPS's attempt to get the child into San Angello jurisdiction was most likely to keep the entire case under the thumb of one judge they know is sympathetic to their cause. It is the same reason CPS argued against having multiple judges hear the 14 day hearing(s). Although their actual argument was multiple hearings with different judges would be logistically difficult because of the State witnesses and evidence were the same in each case.

It is possible that CPS may indeed lose their battle in Austin, and not be allowed to take custody of this child. However, in a little more than a week, the individual hearings will begin, and as soon as this families case has been ruled upon that the parents did endanger their other children, CPS can then claim custody of the newborn. Unless... The parents hurridly sign a voluntary custody transfer over to someone else outside of the YFZ ranch. They can then regain custody of their child after the ordeal is over.

kbp said...

...so ashamed of being a Texan
"
"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health...

Chairman John Kight said he wants state legislators and the governor to hear the employees' stories. "You have damaged these children for their lives," he said. "This is an agency that looks like it's gone out of control." A Texas CPS spokesman acknowledged the allegations were "very serious" and said they are being investigated...

A boy estimated at age 3 walked along a row of cots asking for someone to rock him after he was separated from his mother, one employee wrote. Two CPS worker trailed the youngster taking notes but not helping him...

After the separation, a baby was allegedly left in a stroller with no food and water for 24 hours and ended up in a hospital, according to another statement..."

Anonymous said...

Gritso Ratso Rizzo said:

"I took my grandbaby to the park this weekend and saw two girls I know for a fact were under 18 who were pregnant just on the way there and back."

That is a tired argument too, as those 18 year olds were more than likely impregnated by someone CLOSE to their own age, someone of their own choosing, someone that the "sacred religious fathers of the church" did not force them to marry and have sex with under duress"

Duh. That's the difference.

And I do hope the fathers who were thrown out of the church and whose families were reassigned do file intervenor suits for their rights and bring some more of this out into the open.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Your statement that the kids were "more than likely" impregnated by someone near their own age tells the whole tale, 6:23. CPS had no more way than I did to tell who impregnated FLDS women when they went on the compound looking for Dale Barlow. They saw pregnant girls, they seized their kids, then looked for evidence afterward. I fail to see much difference in the scenarios beyond the public's general dislike for the FLDS faith tradition.

kbp said...

"...when they went on the compound looking for Dale Barlow."


ROFLMAO!

kbp said...

CPS stopped in effort to remove baby, his mother
"...The judge said the mother and the three youngsters will remain in Travis County until after a hearing Thursday on Mr. Jessop's request that another district judge in Austin, Darlene Byrne, order his wife and children released from state care."


Another polygamist sect mother in custody gives birth
This article is completely absent details on what CPS tried to do. It has become quite obvious that Ms. Langford's reporting has it's own meta narrative to share, but she's been limited to the "disputed teens lied to us" claim of late. I'm sure she'll be the first to share with us all the forged documents those liars used to TRY and prove they were adults!


Second sect baby born into Texas state custody
"State officials... said they were trying to determine her true age."

"CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins... said officials were reviewing documentation for those who claim they are of legal age."


That makes all of us feel better, knowing the state is trying here (LOL!!). Anyone seen reports on how they are "trying"?



"It's early in the game..."
Allison Palmer, 1st ADA

I wish all comment strings had "signature" tools.
I'd use this quote.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Texas health dept stats show that state wide 1 in 40 girls between the ages of 13-17 have a baby.

Even if the 13-15 year olds did get pregnant by a teen, that's still illegal in Texas, isn't it? And it's simply not true that the vast majority of teen pregnancies are fathered by teen boys.

In California, 70 percent of teen pregnancies are by adult men. The *most* conservative estimate anywhere is 40 percent.

rage said...

They saw pregnant girls, they seized their kids, then looked for evidence afterward.

Except that they were ready to seize everyone there from the start. It's not ilke they went in looking for one guy, saw some pregnant girls, and said "Whoa Nellie, get all the local Baptist church buses you can find and help us here." They showed up with the buses from the start, evidencing their intention from the start.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Anonymous, here's some more data which will explain why I find the "but our astronomically high teen pregnancy rate is different, because OUR teens get pregnant by other teens instead of nasty old men" response old, tiresome, and completely out of touch with reality:

# The increase of teenage pregnancies among the youngest girls is particularly severe and is linked to predatory sexual practices by men who are significantly older."

# "It is estimated that in the late 1980's, the rate for girls age 14 and under giving birth increased 26 percent."

# "Data indicates that at least half of the children bom to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men. Available data suggests that almost 70 percent of births to teenage girls are fathered by men over age 20."

# "Surveys of teen mothers have revealed that a majority of such mothers have histories of sexual and physical abuse, primarily with older adult men."

more here

TxBluesMan said...

Crank said:

"He knows what a CDIB card is, knows (and if he's really an NDN loathes) the BIA"

Loathes is such a mild term for what I feel for BIA. It's not just the Indian Schools, it the blood quantum issues (which means each tribe will eventually become extinct, as part of the BIA plan), Corbell v. Kempthorne where now the Dept of the Interior wants to keep Indian Trust funds, the repeated attempts to violate treaties, the distribution of land so that the tribes could be cheated out of even their reservation lands, etc. I can go on for hours about the Boss Indians Around group in Washington.

In addition to the Menominee, Ojibwe (Chippewa), and Potawatomi, you left out Odawa (Ottawa), Oneida, Mahican (Stockbridge-Munsee) and Ho-Chuck (Winnebago) tribes.

Anonymous said...

I like to play Asda Story, because I like its name, also I like Asda Story gold. My friend told me that she would buy Asda Story money for me, and I was so happy. I do not like to go shopping, because it always spends a lot of money, but I never hesitate to buy Asda Story Gold. You can buy cheap Asda Story gold; it is so easy and convenient.