Tuesday, May 27, 2008

No 'male sexual perpetrators' identified involving FLDS kids in SCOT case

Here's an interesting line quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune from the CPS' pleading to the Supreme Court regarding FLDS mothers:
"Failure to grant a stay will mean that approximately one hundred twenty-four children will be returned to alleged mothers without any male sexual perpetrators being identified," state attorneys wrote.
I take that as an admission that, for the children whose mothers were covered by the Third Court's ruling, the state has not yet identified a single "male sexual perpetrator" despite six weeks of investigation. How then, is this anything more than an expensive and ham-handed fishing expedition?

I've repeated this ad nauseum, but it's worth pointing out again the four reasons CPS is allowed to seize someone's children in Texas:

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
So if no one alleges FLDS members engaged in meth manufacturing or drug use, the children were physically healthy and well cared for, and weeks of investigation have identified no "male sexual perpetrators," how can CPS justify keeping these kids, exactly?

See The Common Room for much more news on the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup.


Anonymous said...

On the "alleged mothers" characterization, they seemed to be able to match the mothers to the children for visits and the court hearings.

On the "perpetrators not found", how can they be so sure there are any? Especially after they've had a long time to come up with some evidence and seem to be at a loss.

This statement alone is reason to return the children to their parents rather than request a stay of a lower court ruling.

kbp said...

Grits, That was one of my favorites! Doesn't "PERPETRATORS" sound conclusive?

I had just put in a new scanner on my system here and it is a nightmare trying to get it to recognize PDF image so I may transfer it to text. That CPS crew's Writ is a fiction from the introduction, so I'll take the time to type what I'd classify as the Introduction.

"...This case is about adult men COMMANDING SEX from UNDERAGE CHILDREN; about women knowingly condoning and allowing SEXUAL ABUSE OF UNDERAGE CHILDREN; about the need for the Department to take action under difficult, time-sensitive and unprecedented circumstances to protect children on an EMERGENCY BASIS, as expressly authorized by the Legislature and about intermediate court's mandate to return the children without giving the court the opportunity to determine which parents are entitled to possession of which children."

I could write a 2,500 word summary full of reasons why they should not have included any of that, but it speaks for itself!

You know the story is gonna be great with an opening like that!

TxBluesMan said...

Grits, you keep repeating the '4' reasons, but there are actually more than that.

The law on emergency removal under court order (FC 262.102) requires that there be:

1. there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child, or

2. the child has been a victim of
neglect and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare, or

3. the child has been a victim of
sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare.

Neglect and abuse are defined in FC 261.001 as:

1. mental or emotional injury to a child, or

2. causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury, or

3. physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or

4. the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the child, or

5. failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent an action by another person that results in physical injury that results in substantial harm to the child, or

6. sexual conduct harmful to a child's mental, emotional, or physical welfare, including conduct that constitutes the offense of continuous sexual abuse of young child or children under Section 21.02, Penal Code, indecency with a child under Section 21.11, Penal Code, sexual assault under Section 22.011, Penal Code, or aggravated sexual assault under Section 22.021, Penal Code; or

7. failure to make a reasonable effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child, or

8. compelling or encouraging the child to engage in sexual conduct as defined by Section 43.01, Penal Code, or

9. causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing the photographing, filming, or depicting of the
child if the person knew or should have known that the resulting
photograph, film, or depiction of the child is obscene as defined by
Section 43.21, Penal Code, or pornographic, or

10. the current use by a person of a controlled substance in a
manner or to the extent that the use results in physical, mental, or
emotional injury to a child, or

11. causing, expressly permitting, or encouraging a child to use a controlled substance, or

12. causing, permitting, encouraging, engaging in, or allowing a sexual performance by a child as defined by Section 43.25, Penal Code, or

13. the leaving of a child in a situation where the child would be exposed to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm, without arranging for necessary care for the child, or

14. placing a child in or failing to remove a child from a situation that a reasonable person would realize requires judgment or actions beyond the child's level of maturity, physical condition, or mental abilities and that results in bodily injury or a substantial risk of immediate harm to the child, or

15. failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, or

16. the failure to provide a child with food, clothing, or shelter necessary to sustain the life or health of the child, or

17. placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to a substantial risk of sexual conduct harmful to the child, or

18. placing a child in or failing to remove the child from a situation in which the child would be exposed to acts or omissions that constitute sexual abuse as outlined above.

All they have to show in the affidavit for an emergency removal order is any one of the above 18 reasons.

A judge is allowed to consider the fact that other children have been abused (FC 262.102) in making their determination that all children need to be removed.

If you are going to cite something as law, please either be correct or point us to the reference you are using.


Pinkycatcher said...


Basically then that statute should state:

1. there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child, or

2. the child has been a victim of
neglect and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare, or

3. the child has been a victim of
sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare.

4. Anything else that someone can come up with, because emotional harm or abuse can be intrepreted to mean anything at all that a CPS worker wishes.

Also, I dislike the use of 'male sexual perpetrators' as if men are the only people capable of being a perpetrator, they have already assumed that all of these men are slimy polyg's and should not be with their children, but we have no evidence of it or actual cases. And there are no women in this case that have done any wrong, although we've already classified these women as brainwashed.

Why did they have to add the tag male onto it? It's totally unnecessary, sexual perpetrator would have covered everything just fine.

Anonymous said...


If CPS and you get what you want it seems to establish:

If there is a traditional family
a mom
a dad
3 children

Lets say the moms cousin is living in a house ,(known to the parents) ,and it is found that the moms cousin, (unknown to the parents), was abusing the children.

Are parents rights to be terminated.

I understand if the parents knew about it then it would make sense to terminate their rights.

kbp said...


I think many of us see the same thing when we read section 262.201, the reasons CPS is trying to use to maintain custody under.

You point out 4 reasons, but I think those are in the emergency custody portions of the code, used wrongly when they took custody of the children from the ranch.

Doesn't really matter, as the CPS is pushing to make their observations somehow to fit in under the "danger to the physical health or safety of the child and "victim of sexual abuse", which is cover under most all I've read.

My point is just to show a little something to compare 2 or 4 requirements with what Walthers was doind this past Friday in the 14 day hearing for the new born of that 22 YO mother that was listed under disputed age.

"...local attorney Randol Stout, representing the infant, hammered Bradshaw and Jessop over the photos...
Attorneys for the parents objected to the questions, citing the appellate court decision, which said CPS must show immediate physical danger to a child it is seeking to remove.

"I do believe emotional damage is outside the scope of this hearing," Matassarin [Jessop's attorney] said.

Stout responded that the appellate ruling was under appeal.

"As far as I can tell, (the ruling) hasn't changed the Family Code," he said. "Emotional well-being is one of the terms" allowed in making such a decision.

Walther - a former court master who heard solely family law cases before being elected to the bench - agreed with a slow shake of her head.

"I believe it's in the statute," she said."

Now, the 262.201 covers this hearing. CPS has played all it's cards on a mix of physical danger and sexual abuse as the reasons for custody. Nobody I recall has disputed those could be acceptable reasons, if they exist.

Walthers did NOT say the "emotional well-being" could be used as a reason to take custody at this time. It is mentioned in the Permanent custody sections, but not the 262.201 FULL ADVERSARY HEARING section.

I guess she's just flirting with fire after what the 3rd did to her order. It clearly looks like she was inferring that "emotional well-being" was a reason to take custody at that hearing.

I'd have loved to seen what she'd included in her ruling on this hearing if it had not temporarily ended.

Anonymous said...

As a CASA volunteer, I advocated for a child whose parents, as it eventually was discovered, were having sex one night and the child woke up and walked into their bedroom.

That is NOT the way CPS painted the picture, and no amount of testimony by the parents would sway the judge. The case lasted 6 months, until one of the counselors for the child was called to testify. The counselor testified that this instance alledgedly occurred when the child was two, the child only told CPS this story after being coaxed by CPS about 'ever' witnessing her parents having sex and the child recalled hearing her aunt make the statement during conversation several years later, the child had no recollection of the event other than what she had been told. The child was removed from the home after a gym teacher noticed bruises on the child which had resulted from a rollerskating accident. The parents told the CPS investigator they weren't aware of the bruises, the child told the CPS worker how the bruises got there, and several other children who were present at the time of the accident also stated what happened. The CPS worker saw things differently for some reason.

The sexual exposure allegations only appeared after it appeared that the judge might decide the child might be telling the truth about the bruises. The child was 10 when taken into custody, and spent her six months in custody in six different foster placements.

kbp said...


I do not recall any Order for a 262.102.

I do recall they used 262.104.

Your long copy & paste list of definitions for "neglect and abuse" will not apply in this case unless you can find an order that directed action under 262.102.

If you are going to cite something as FACT, please either be correct or point us to the ORDER you are using.


kbp said...

We're missing quite a show!

"CPS had been expected to call at least one and possibly several girls spiritually married to much older men before legal age - including the 13-year-old girl whose photo with sect leader Warren Jeffs as he kissed her deeply on the mouth caused a stir when introduced during the first day of testimony Friday."

Now I wonder if she was Dan's sister or half-sister or ???

kbp said...

The YFZ Spoof"!

Anonymous said...

FC 262.102)
Looks like a wide open invitation to just mess with people. And they did. May be that statute is what caused this whole mess. It looks like a license to act like Nazis.
I guess Texas makes their laws so that are absolutely sure to get a conviction.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, again.

Anonymous said...

I did not have to go through a great deal of consideration
before I started a blog in support of that FLDS group.
Hopefully, this travesty will soon be sorted out, with all of the prejudices and hate exposed for what it is...a bunch of
hypocrites who wish use the law to impose their views and
values on others. Many like to speak about "tolerance"and "diversity"...but only if they can pretend to accept such
concepts for sake of political correctness - while knowing
all the while that these are not their true convictions.
I have tried to make the views I have expressed on my
blog those that would address the hypocrisy and injustice
that is pervasive in this case. I invite you to visit that blog and
tell me why the views I have expressed there are non-sence...especially my post entitled "Smears,Lies,Slander
and Prejudice". www.truetells.blogspot.com:

Anonymous said...

A few days ago an article mentioned that CPS worker were having financial difficulty because they were having to run all around state visiting the children under their supervision....and having to pay for high cost of gas out of their own pockets. Then,the system was backed up in trying to process reimbursement. Blame that on the http:megalomaniac on the bench(Walther) in spreading the kids across the state to thwart visitation by parents. While trying to concentrate all CPS resources on that FLDS group there are genuine child abuse problems that are going unattended. For example:

May 23, 2008
Runaways were prostituted by teen pimps, police testify
A detective likened the enterprise to selling cookies door-to-door. But the real intent was human trafficking and forced prostitution, the officer said.
And the product, she said, was runaway girls. These glimpses into a troubling world of teenage sex, drugs and partying in south and east Fort Worth were made during a court hearing this week which resulted in a teen-age suspect being certified to stand trial as an adult. Three alleged accomplices will be tried as juveniles.
During the hearing, the police detective described a ring of young men who forced runaway 14- and 15-year-old girls into prostitution through beatings, sexual assaults and threats.They found customers by trolling low-income apartment complexes, Detective H. Murtaugh said.
Staff Writer Alex Branch reports html>.

Anonymous said...

I started my blog on behalf of FLDS right after the state's action. I am pentecostal, not mormon. I am not so much a lover of FLDS as I am a lover of the constitution. Any action, under color of law, should begin with an investigation into a suspected wrongdoing and
,then,obtain admissible evidence that may or may not support a prosecution.The latter would best be determined through the mechanism of a grand jury proceeding.

What has happened in this case(in my opinion) has been that CPS has abused the statute(Family Code 262.201) under which they can operate with a much lower threshold of proof than is ordinarily required of either a civil or criminal case. I suppose the legislature trusted that CPS officials would use that statute with integrity - and in a reasonable and prudent manner to achieve the objective of inter- vening to protect the health and safety of a child.

This case, in particular, proves that such legislative trust was misplaced. CPS has been in a conspiracy with other law enforcement agencies to storm that compound using the pretext of seeking a captive minor - which they knew to be a hoax.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Bluesy, all you have done is cite the definition of abuse. Which if any of those do you think applies to FLDS? I don't see one that fits on that list.

E.g., on numbers six and seven, no one has alleged any sex crimes. On number 8, PC 43.01 only deals with deviant sex, again not alleged here. Nobody but Sen. Dan Patrick has accused them of child pornography, and he was full of it; there's no evidence that's occurring. And on number 18, the key phrase is "sexual abuse as outlined above," e.g., the sex crimes referenced by statute earlier in the definitions. No such crimes have been alleged, and CPS has found no "male sexual predators."

Anonymous said...

TxBluesMan said...

Grits, you keep repeating the '4' reasons, but there are actually more than that.

And you keep glossing over the fact that there was no evidence of any violation of any of these codes.


So I don't care how long your list is, no violations were proven.

Pinkycatcher said...


Look at those codes, specifically 2,13, and 15, they can be construed as nearly anything, unless there's another section that adresses the definition of each of those. Those 3 especially are total cockamamey.

Also with the picture of Jeffs in a lot of pictures around their ranch, I live next to a Jewish rabbi, and in his synagogue he has pictures of many past and present key rabbis I have no knowledge of how close to a prophet or equal to Jeffs, but pictures of religious leaders in a religious community is not that strange.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Pinky, the words "neglect" and "sexual abuse" have legal definitions that do not match any activities proven to have occurred at YFZ. As for medical care, my understanding is they have good medical care at the site - I've gotta run now so I don't have time to dig it up, but I saw an interview a few weeks back in one of the Utah papers that interviewed their doctor (after the "broken bones" PR blitz).

I don't see those as nearly broad enough to cover the evidence in the record at court. Certainly not for the kids covered by the state's admission here that they found no "perpetrators."

kbp said...

Broken Bones Interview[s]

Broken Bones 1

Broken Bones 2

Broken Bones 3

Broken Bones 4

Broken Bones 5

Broken Bones 6

don said...

Can some of the lawyerly folks shed any insight as to how long this SCOT circus will last? Appoxiamately?

Anonymous said...

If they're broad enough to cover anything, you'd think they would have met their burden. But even broad statutes don't cover "no evidence."


Pinkycatcher said...

2. causing or permitting the child to be in a situation in which the child sustains a mental or emotional injury, or

13. the leaving of a child in a situation where the child would be exposed to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm, without arranging for necessary care for the child, or

15. failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, or

Does anyone know if emotional abuse has an objective definition, because CPS is just saying growing up with these people is emotional abuse, and with just a subjective definition by CPS they can say that

Anonymous said...

Even digging really deep into this, the only law CPS can point to is still "a substantial risk" of mental harm.

Just being alive does not amount to "a substantial risk". Proof of this risk for infants born into CPS custody has not been and cannot be proven.

Darn it, they have not lived anywhere, except in CPS custody. How can CPS possibly find proof of risk to these babies?

You just have to ask yourself, do all Catholics avoid the practice of birth control? Do all FLDS members practice poligamy and sex with underage girls?

The answer is a resounding no to both questions. The answer to the question, is there "a substantial risk" when it comes to the young children is also no.

Anonymous said...

The definitial of substantial below includes - not imaginary. Remember - no criminal charges have been filed.

sub·stan·tial (sb-stnshl)
1. Of, relating to, or having substance; material.
2. True or real; not imaginary.
3. Solidly built; strong.
4. Ample; sustaining: a substantial breakfast.
5. Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent: won by a substantial margin.
6. Possessing wealth or property; well-to-do.

kbp said...


Here is a search of
in the only the Texas Family Codes you can browse through. You might try doing a word search on every page to speed the process along. Hit the Control and "F" keys to pull up Word Search faster.

Share the results if you find any!

kbp said...

I do not recall if i had shared this.

NYTimes provided a copy of the 3rd's Opinon in editable text (can copy & paste from it)

kbp said...

Good column

Editorials are about the only thing being put out so far today!

kbp said...

Great editorial

Fact based! I sense a trend in the media following the case!

Anonymous said...

For some interesting discussion on "emotional abuse" Google

"IN RE JANE DOE 3" state.tx.us

(there is the majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissent.)

Or for wider results

"emotional abuse" Texas court

Anonymous said...

I believe anything not objective (thus, subjective) in the code is abused in many instances. Someone on sltrib posted that as a teacher, she witnessed CPS have an assembly with all the children and to call if your parents look at you or talk to you with a negative tone--this is crazy! Also, Texas Homeschool Coalition emailed a recent case last week involving several children who ran after their dog who got loose to the front yard. They called after their dog. A woman driving by stopped and told them that they were not to be outside. She called the police. CPS and the police FORCED their way in and took the children (this is on THSC website email from last week) under the pretense (no court order)that the children were in immediate physical danger. Now that CPS knows what lingo to use, they are using it to justify anything. Imagine the trauma! I have heard these stories (even worse like the children in one state who were held at gunpoint by SWAT just because the parents did not think a fall necessitated an ER visit--again subjective complaint from a neighbor)... CPS needs to have definitive OBJECTIVE facts... I feel sorry for all the families ripped up by CPS over anynomous phone calls (violation of facing your accuser) by a vindictive ex spouse or a misunderstanding neighbor--the poor are the biggest victims as they do not have money to fight for their rights and are targeted the most.

Anonymous said...

I am glad that children are well and have not suffered any abuse!

buy viagra said...

I am glad that children are well and have not suffered any abuse! in these times is very hard to trust people with so much evil in the world!