tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post1062452635186841161..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Why won't Texas officials admit YFZ call was hoax?Gritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger101125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-18883688631036969262008-05-14T10:12:00.000-05:002008-05-14T10:12:00.000-05:00Thanks for the clarification on the law, both TX a...Thanks for the clarification on the law, both TX and Grits.<BR/><BR/>It would be interesting to see that charge made, especially if she's still married to the father. I also wonder what state this happened? It is more likely to be Utah or Arizona than anywhere else.<BR/><BR/>It's also hard to see how this could have been used to bolster the state's attempts to justify removing the children of every family on the ranch- many of these parents are in their twenties- they would have been minors themselves when it happened.<BR/><BR/>And if she is actually married to the father, I suppose the state would use DNA results to charge him instead of her testimony, whether or not she's willing to support the state in such an effort.<BR/><BR/>Brooke Adams has had a closer look at the papers than any of us, so far as I know, and she took more time to look at them than the judge did before she made her ruling. She says that the 20 cases of girls in their teens who are or who have been pregnant that the state is relying on are numbers arrived at by including cases such as this one and a number of others over the last ten years. <BR/><BR/>And I have to wonder how many of those are also adults, like the first two who gave birth.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69153711234942457832008-05-14T09:14:00.000-05:002008-05-14T09:14:00.000-05:00I believe, Bluesman, they actually eliminated the ...I believe, Bluesman, they actually eliminated the statute of limitations in "Jessica's Law" last year, which created the new crime of "continuous sexual abuse of a child," or something to that effect. That's a 25 year mandatory minimum on first offense, death sentence on the second. But the law also contemplates a complaining victim, with the longer statute of limitations to give time for supposed "found memories," etc.. Here's a <A HREF="http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/05/final-deal-on-jessicas-law-could-keep.html" REL="nofollow">post that rounds up</A> most of my coverage of that bill.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-64514236026813306522008-05-14T08:57:00.000-05:002008-05-14T08:57:00.000-05:00kbp, headmistress,If I recall correctly, the statu...kbp, headmistress,<BR/><BR/>If I recall correctly, the statute of limitations for Sexual Assault of a Child is 10 years past the 18th birthday of the victim.<BR/><BR/>If that is correct, then the 13 year old mother would be 18 in about 2002, and the state could bring charges against the father of the baby until 2012.<BR/><BR/>I'll try to remember to look it up later.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-64699190547347642512008-05-11T20:20:00.000-05:002008-05-11T20:20:00.000-05:00Headmistress,I tried to check all the ages of daug...Headmistress,<BR/><BR/>I tried to check all the ages of daughter against mothers, where I could determine that.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10370153083138879422008-05-11T16:00:00.000-05:002008-05-11T16:00:00.000-05:00Kbp, I gave only a cursory glance at the adults mo...Kbp, I gave only a cursory glance at the adults mothers and their children. I haven't taken the time to go over the ages of all adult mothers and their children in detail- if there's a 31 year old mother with an 18 year old daughter listed, maybe that's it?<BR/>The Trib has also reported several times that the one 13 year old was from 1997 (meaning the statute of limitations is up, I think).Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68141016552150617512008-05-11T15:53:00.000-05:002008-05-11T15:53:00.000-05:00kbp, Thanks for the link to the article. I've been...kbp, Thanks for the link to the article. I've been hoping someone would come forward and tell what was going on in there. I hope more will follow their lead. More than that, I hope that they will be heard and that something will be done!Kathy Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06412919295132405429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41844210904041714042008-05-11T15:12:00.000-05:002008-05-11T15:12:00.000-05:00Mental health workers rip CPS over sect Staff comp...<A HREF="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5770183.html" REL="nofollow">Mental health workers rip CPS over sect</A> <BR/><I>Staff complains agency traumatized kids, disregarded mothers' rights</I>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-71379058492655070442008-05-11T13:47:00.000-05:002008-05-11T13:47:00.000-05:00TRLA's Reply...Page 22 of PDF (Identified as 16 on...TRLA's Reply...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Page 22 of PDF (Identified as 16 on the Reply)<BR/><I><B>4. The proof regarding girls under 15 is also insufficient.</B><BR/><BR/>"...(2) a notation in the "bishop's record" that a 13-year-old girl had conceived a child.... <BR/><BR/>The second piece of evidence, the bishop's record notation, is similarly equivocal. Based on the evidence, the only indication is that this took place years ago, and therefore it may not represent the beliefs or practices of any current mother who lived at the YFZ Ranch. </I><BR/><BR/><BR/>This has me baffled. TRLA's Reply leaves me to believe there is something in the Bishop's Record that indicates a 13 YO conceived at some point in time within those records. The <A HREF="http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/BishopsList.pdf" REL="nofollow">Bishop's Record</A>, which is identified as "Petitioners Exhibit 4" on page 44 of the PDF certainly does not clearly show that record.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14349119429123586722008-05-11T11:05:00.000-05:002008-05-11T11:05:00.000-05:00Headmistress,Sorry, I had not read your comment be...Headmistress,<BR/>Sorry, I had not read your comment before my last post.<BR/><BR/>Absent a copy of the Temp. Order, we are uncertain if Walthers based it on the ramblings by Voss on those "beliefs".<BR/><BR/>I see the Department's strongest argument of concern being subject to whether or not the Appeals Court determines the YFZ Ranch is a SINGLE HOUSEHOLD, therefore just one big happy home in which all living there are family, so the court would most likely then see that "a person of ordinary prudence and caution" may find there was sufficient evidence to meet Section 262.201(d).<BR/><BR/><B>Section 262.201(d)</B><BR/><I>(d) In determining whether there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child, the court may consider whether the household to which the child would be returned includes a person who:<BR/>...(2) has sexually abused another child. </I><BR/><BR/>It still reads to me like the (d) has to meet (b), but going back to the "single home" topic, it might be easy for it to at least meet the first 2 of the 3 prongs required there, and the 3rd is open to judgment supported by the various, changing excuses Voss gave.<BR/><BR/><B>Section 262.201(b)</B> in part:<BR/><I>(1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child which was caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child;<BR/> <BR/>(2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and reasonable efforts, consistent <BR/>with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to eliminate or prevent the child's removal; and<BR/><BR/>(3) reasonable efforts have been made to enable the child to return home, but there is a substantial risk of a <BR/>continuing danger if the child is returned home.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6624432746616939782008-05-11T10:24:00.000-05:002008-05-11T10:24:00.000-05:00From TRLA's ReplyPage 15 of PDF (Identified as 9 o...From TRLA's Reply<BR/><BR/><B>Page 15 of PDF (Identified as 9 on the Reply</B><BR/><BR/>While addressing the <I>"heightened standard of proof to remove children",</I> TRLA points out a misfire by the Deparrtment [CPS], where it had argued cases cited relating to custody termination being a liberty interest should not apply because TEMPORARY custody evidently does not violate any liberty, so that TEMPORARY means no harm, no foul. <BR/><BR/>It's a bit confusing because the Department promotes their idea on the "household" (ranch) being classified as a SINGLE HOME, in which <I>"the household... includes a person who... has sexually abused another child"</I> [Section 262.201(d)], so they are apparently claiming the 3 requirements of Section 262.201(b) are met that way, while TRLA points to "EACH child" (emphasis added). <BR/><BR/>If the ranch is actually a single HOME in the eyes of the Appeals Court for some reason (A big IF which I see as THE key factor in this debate), then the records indicating any children under 17 that are pregnant or with child and NOT legally married appear to meet the requirements that allow temporary custody. Then it's an argument more of what is fact versus what is supposition, which I am uncertain if the Appeals Court will consider, and the "each child" falls by the way side because they are family within that home.<BR/><BR/>It was interesting how TRLA started addressing this liberty issue by noting: <I>"More disturbing than the Department's misstatements of key facts in it's response..."</I> followed later with; <I>"Despite the testimony of its own witness, the Department [CPS] apparently views the temporary removal of a child is of little harm to anyone, and therefore the requirements of Section 262.201(b) can be met with mere INNUENDO, SUPPOSITION AND EXTRAPOLATION, rather than actual evidence as to EACH element of Section 262.201(b) for EACH child removed.</I> (emphasis added)<BR/><BR/>On page 16 of PDF (Identified as 10 on the Reply), TRLA appears to cite a case from the 2nd Circuit that looks dead on. I'm uncertain that if the Appeals Court decides this is a single home case, classifying all them as a family or group, how or if the case can be cited later in future suits by the CPS. It would certainly open the door to condemn groups! Need legal wizards on it for a better review than I can make!<BR/><BR/>Rather ironic I'm setting aside time to read some of this on Mother's Day!<BR/><BR/>kbp<BR/>(trouble with the blogger sign in today??)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-40065223381314203022008-05-11T07:52:00.000-05:002008-05-11T07:52:00.000-05:00kbp, the State's pleading will make it hard for CP...kbp, the State's pleading will make it hard for CPS to deny that they are taking children out of a "home" based upon the religious beliefs of the parents. <BR/><BR/>The State of Texas has admitted that it is interfering in the constitutionally protected parent-child relationship by making an additional unconstitutional interference with freedom of religious belief. The State's position should make all religious bodies in this State take notice and get on the phone to their elected Reps and Senators. Muslims in particular should be alarmed, as should Jews who practice ritual genital circumcision of baby boys. Baptists, historically very sensitive to State interference with religious freedom, should be alarmed.<BR/><BR/>I really don't expect the 3rd Court of Appeals to sustain the State on the removal of children on the basis the State has asserted. It is just too much interference with religious beliefs. On the other hand, appellate courts in general tend to find some grounds to sustain a trial court's judgment, so maybe the 3rd Court will find some other reason in this case to sustain the trial judge.<BR/><BR/>I hope the bloggers who have been following this will emphasize as frequently and as widely as possible that the State of Texas, acting through CPS, is now vetting the suitability of parents to keep their children based upon the religious beliefs of the parents. I know of no other instance in Texas history when religious beliefs have been grounds for taking kids away from their parents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74853321686080858192008-05-11T00:09:00.000-05:002008-05-11T00:09:00.000-05:00From the state's response:Page 7Five entries in th...From the state's response:<BR/><BR/>Page 7<BR/><I>Five entries in the “Bishop Records” PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT 4 reveal the following:<BR/>snip <BR/>The “second to last one” was thirteen years old when she conceived a child.</I><BR/><BR/>I snipped 2 - 15 and 2 16 YO's that were to have conceived also. I then went over that Exhibit 4 again and have no clue where they are getting these records listed in this response. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Page 34<BR/><I>All of the 468 children were removed from one compound on the YFZ Ranch, and the investigation revealed that the FYZ Ranch, for all intents and purposes, was essentially one household comprised of extended family subgroups. The community has one common belief system that young girls are called on to be wives and no age is too young to be married. ...Although the YFZ Ranch complex contains several houses, it is one large community. Ms. Voss indicated that this investigation was analogous to other investigations in that when one victim is found in a home, the investigator will have concern for all of the children in that home. <B>In this case, since the ranch was considered one large home</B> or community, Ms. Voss had concerns for all the children there.</I><BR/><BR/>Still stuck on the NEED to classify the ranch as a single home. So much more to respond to, but I'll wait.<BR/><BR/>Went to son's college graduation all day, so I hope to read TRLA's reply tomorrow.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10201202278306636972008-05-10T18:30:00.000-05:002008-05-10T18:30:00.000-05:00Can't recall if I had shared this here.YFZ Ranch B...Can't recall if I had shared this here.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://web.sccn2.net/flds/" REL="nofollow">YFZ Ranch BIG Photo Album</A>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63685532286505592202008-05-10T16:40:00.000-05:002008-05-10T16:40:00.000-05:00Headmistress"Claims that FLDS teen pregnancy rates...Headmistress<BR/><I>"Claims that FLDS teen pregnancy rates are higher than anywhere else, but also claims that there is a currently pregnant 13 year old."</I><BR/><BR/>First, the "anywhere else" rates mean didley squat.<BR/><BR/>Second, the source for that 13 YO pregnancy is show to be the <A HREF="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5737904.html" REL="nofollow">Chron;</A> <BR/><I>There also is one pregnant 13-year-old, "but most are in the 15 and 16 range at the time they conceived," Azar said. "Some teens have multiple children.</I><BR/><BR/>Note the BS method of inserting the quotation mark in a manner that leads many to believe the <I>"one pregnant 13-year-old:</I> is actually a quote of Azar from the CPS? Total spin there. Yellow journalism at it's best.<BR/><BR/>A "looksy test" at best is my guess, if Azar even said it. <BR/><BR/>I do plan on emailing and questioning the reporters, which I have been in contact with on other topics. I can't believe I missed this article. :(kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-5824707455786839142008-05-10T16:22:00.000-05:002008-05-10T16:22:00.000-05:00lowery.shirley, I doubt this is a land-grab deal. ...lowery.shirley, I doubt this is a land-grab deal. More likely a Baptist deal. Though $ could be an issue it would take something concrete to go there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82537873481610775552008-05-10T16:05:00.000-05:002008-05-10T16:05:00.000-05:00Thanks, Doran. I like looking at different approac...Thanks, Doran. I like looking at different approaches to the same problem.<BR/><BR/>Beowulf,<BR/><BR/>"Mineral rights are separate from surface rights. Who owns the mineral rights may indeed be the $64K question."<BR/>You are so right. It all begins on the surface and without access so whatever is beneath the surface will stay beneath the surface. This is too big a job for those slanted wells that suck all of the good stuff from underneath your neighbor.SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-42241464926112592622008-05-10T12:43:00.000-05:002008-05-10T12:43:00.000-05:00RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPON...<A HREF="http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/05/051008_trla_response_steed.pdf" REL="nofollow">RELATOR'S REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S RESPONSE TO AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-6614607319343363972008-05-10T11:58:00.000-05:002008-05-10T11:58:00.000-05:00And here is Steed's response to the state:http://a...And here is Steed's response to the state:<BR/><BR/>http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/05/051008_trla_response_steed.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-676824284122033942008-05-10T11:54:00.000-05:002008-05-10T11:54:00.000-05:00REAL PARTY IN INTEREST’S RESPONSETO AMENDED PETITI...<A HREF="http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/05/051008mandamus_response_steed.pdf" REL="nofollow">REAL PARTY IN INTEREST’S RESPONSE<BR/>TO AMENDED PETITION FOR MANDAMUS</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-50770974333617583032008-05-10T11:46:00.000-05:002008-05-10T11:46:00.000-05:00Here is the state's response to Steed:http://alt.c...Here is the state's response to Steed:<BR/><BR/>http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/pdf/05/051008mandamus_response_steed.pdf<BR/><BR/>Would appreciate if someone could link it - I don't know the htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79043169514779908642008-05-10T11:10:00.000-05:002008-05-10T11:10:00.000-05:00Polygamists Are Asked About Fostering Children[Uta...<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/us/09cnd-polygamy.html?hp" REL="nofollow">Polygamists Are Asked About Fostering Children</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>[Utah’s attorney general]Mr. Shurtleff and [Arizona’s attorney general]Mr. Goddard agreed that Texas had been forced into the position of a mass raid by the secretive, command-down structure of the Eldorado leadership and the demonstrated willingness by the F.L.D.S., they said, to flout child-marriage laws.</I><BR/><BR/>Are these two postulating that the raid was the fault of the FLDS? If so, is this speculation on their parts, or do they have information indicating Texas's prior and unsuccessful attempts to avoid raiding the compound? If the latter, it would certainly help those still trying to rationalize the massive law enforcement action. Of course, admitting that would diminish the already questionable credibility of the 'Saving child Sarah' warrant. It could perhaps even cast that warrant in the light of being a small part of a conspired act to run these people out of the state.<BR/><BR/>It appears, on the surface, as if Texas (as defined by the AG's of Utah and Arizona) has been trying to find some way of getting rid of 'these people' for a while. It most likely began when they first came to town, since that's about when the local sheriff began investigating them. It's quite likely that many of the county residents were becoming dissatisfied with the sheriff's ability to deal with this plague and were seeking alternatives in the sheriff job position. With many (if not all) of the FLDS adult males being hard working, industrious individuals, it's even possible that after they had built their 'compound', that they began taking their cement trucks and building skills into town, obtaining construction jobs from those who were previously being awarded those jobs. There are a number of potential reasons (other than specific religious beliefs) that caused the local townsfolk discomfort. These townsfolk were probably demanding (well, we know they were definitely urging) the sheriff to do something about the situation much sooner than this raid. It's difficult to believe that an elected official will search for a solution to a 'problem' for 4 years, and not be able to find a solution. It's also not difficult to believe that an elected official could fabricate a solution as time began to run out, and his potential job security depended on such a solution.<BR/><BR/>To the topic of this specific blog title, "Why won't Texas officials admit YFZ call was hoax?", the answer is to be found in the actions prior to the raid, not the actions after the raid. After is where the media and legal focus resides now, because it's news worthy. Prior is where the focus needs to be, because it's justice worthy. Sealing Swintons prior court cases and secreting her away (whether encouraged or assisted) are mighty suspicious indicators that someone doesn't want anyone else finding out what went on beforehand. Engineering a solution in such a way as to leave many 'empty chair' escape routes clearly takes time and considerable contemplation. This case is full of 'empty chairs', from Sheriff Doran, to Ranger Long, to Mrs. Voss, then Mr. Azar, and an ever expanding multitude of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-26345496981770888132008-05-10T11:00:00.000-05:002008-05-10T11:00:00.000-05:00Lowrey.shirley wrote: "The real prize to be obtain...Lowrey.shirley wrote: "The real prize to be obtained is the land. Prime hunting? Gas? Oil? Somebody knows."<BR/><BR/>Mineral rights are separate from surface rights. Who owns the mineral rights may indeed be the $64K question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14958384522457564482008-05-10T09:21:00.000-05:002008-05-10T09:21:00.000-05:00Oh, and Texas is going to immunize the children- a...Oh, and Texas is going to immunize the children- although their parents and Parker say some of them have been immunized already:<BR/>""It appears to be a totally unimmunized population," said Patrick Crimmins, department spokesman. "We're the legal parents of the children and we would like for them to be immunized." "<BR/>I don't like the practice I've read about where the 'Prophet' reassigns families and fathers. But I don't see Crimmins reassigning 464 children to the parental care of CPS as an improvement.Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8082478884184420252008-05-10T09:20:00.000-05:002008-05-10T09:20:00.000-05:00RE: "since we now know they had no 'inside' inform...RE: "since we now know they had no 'inside' informant, but only an exFLDS 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?"<BR/><BR/>B.I.N.G.O. and Bingo was his name-oh!Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85464662745916468442008-05-10T09:17:00.000-05:002008-05-10T09:17:00.000-05:00Kbp, I wish you'd put all your comments, including...Kbp, I wish you'd put all your comments, including links, up on a blog. IT would make it easier to find them again when I want them.=)<BR/><BR/>Has anybody seen <A HREF="http://flds.bravehost.com/pregnancy_stats.html" REL="nofollow">this?</A><BR/>Claims that FLDS teen pregnancy rates are higher than anywhere else, but also claims that there is a currently pregnant 13 year old.<BR/><BR/>Regarding ranger affadavits- didn't Ranger Long also state on an affadavit that there was a bed (or beds) where an informant told them that over-aged men have sex with brides under 17? And since we now know they had no 'inside' informant, but only an exFLDS 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?Headmistress, zookeeperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071449326819510530noreply@blogger.com