tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post2556502966582746166..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: The civil liberties watchdog that didn't barkGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22668519432887422682008-05-27T09:07:00.000-05:002008-05-27T09:07:00.000-05:00Here's an interesting question I saw posed on one ...Here's an interesting question I saw posed on one of the comment sections on some article (I think at GoSanAngelo):<BR/><BR/>If the writ of mandamus stands up, how does that affect the state in regards to the physical examinations they did on a lot of the kids? If it stands up that the state had no right to take those children, then they equally had no right to make them submit to full, private physical exams. I'm thinking they could really be culpable there.Melaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17835000810958783854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-22968168791190469952008-05-26T17:24:00.000-05:002008-05-26T17:24:00.000-05:00FredI'll be the devil's advocate here!!!The point ...Fred<BR/><BR/>I'll be the devil's advocate here!!!<BR/><BR/>The point made at Beldar is one I've mentioned quite a few times in a discussion elsewhere. <BR/><BR/>Beldar mentions what 262.201 requires; "danger to the physical health or safety of the child". Then Beldar goes on to comment on 161.001, and how "emotional well being" can be a factor considered in permanent custody.<BR/><BR/>Beldar really says little about what and why SCOT would or would not reverse the 3rd, not anything we have not already seen.<BR/><BR/>Justice Harriet O'Neill is BIG, BIG into child care topics from what I'm finding. I believe it would be very easy for her, or any of the justices, to look at 262.201 and say "safety of the child" was a separate issue from the "physical health" when the legislature worded the code. I'd guess she'll want oral to get her remarks into the records.<BR/><BR/>It could then be claimed to show that "emotion" is certainly a "safety" issue the legislature had considered. They did not identify any situations specifically that fall under "safety", so we need to look further into what they do consider to be of concern within other areas of the Family Code.<BR/><BR/>My search of "emotion[al]" in Family Code pulled up 30 hits in a google. I did not count how many times it was written on the pages it hit on. That certainly opens the door to say "emotion" is a "safety" factor that the legislature had in their minds when they passed the code.<BR/><BR/>Why would it be grounds to take permanent custody and then be disallowed as a concern for a child's safety in any other situation? While one could argue the inclusion of emotion within the permanent hearing area is so that it is not overlooked or ignored, the criteria for temporary custody should be less stringent than permanent.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-70531732558346952032008-05-26T15:37:00.000-05:002008-05-26T15:37:00.000-05:00One group that comes to mind is the HSLDA - these ...One group that comes to mind is the HSLDA - these families aren't HSLDA members, mind, but the potential precedents of this case could be of interest to them. I would be interest in hearing what they have to say.Lucillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03225011724349777456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82827887749137590812008-05-26T15:16:00.000-05:002008-05-26T15:16:00.000-05:00An interesting analysis of the law at the BeldarBl...An interesting analysis of the law at the <A HREF="http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2008/05/beldar-on-volok.html#c116341018" REL="nofollow">BeldarBlog</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-37412229654620084522008-05-26T14:12:00.000-05:002008-05-26T14:12:00.000-05:00"With that in mind, I recall the Texas CPS plans r..."With that in mind, I recall the Texas CPS plans revealed to us their goal was some time sooner than 12 months. IIRC, it was September of this year (correct me if I'm wrong here!)."<BR/><BR/>The 1st mother who had a hearing has a possible reunification date of Sept. 2009. I could be wrong as well but their written plan doesn't mean squat if it isn't being followed.<BR/>I have also been watching that 12 month timeline. I see that as a date when the state gains more power. My heart sinks when I see a resolution put off until a date after that first anniversary.SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-66795286059876918622008-05-26T13:19:00.000-05:002008-05-26T13:19:00.000-05:00dmarks,Though if you look at the right, the only c...dmarks,<BR/><BR/>Though if you look at the right, the only civil liberties group that has the caliber (no pun intended) the resources, and the man power to go toe to toe with the ACLU, is the NRA, and that is solely a one issue group. Lot's of the lesser groups (I'm sure anyone can rattle off a couple) really don't have the resources for something this big, they can only really go on an individual case with their help. <BR/><BR/>The only civil liberties group that can put enough pressure on this whole case is the ACLU. <BR/><BR/>On another note, have you read the ACLU's intrepretation of the second amendment? It makes no sense what so ever. I hate second amendment state's rights advocates. I'm overall for state's rights, but the second amendment doesn't say that.Pinkycatcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01364196090276576278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-25278178297168268862008-05-26T12:32:00.000-05:002008-05-26T12:32:00.000-05:00While looking over the Texas Appleseed, a non-prof...While looking over the <A HREF="http://www.texasappleseed.net/" REL="nofollow">Texas Appleseed</A>, a non-profit that <I>"promotes social and economic justice for all Texans"</I>, I came upon a <A HREF="http://www.texasappleseed.net/1HZ601!.pdf " REL="nofollow">PDF report </A>addressing foster care issues in 2007. <BR/><BR/><BR/>That report tells how care is controlled by state AND federal guidelines, in which the process works to seek permanent custody after the 12 month time span the child is in the system (in custody I believe). <BR/><BR/><BR/>The federal goals, which states follow somewhat by submitting some sort of plans that show they abide by the goals (qualify for federal money), is more directed at resolving PERMANENT custody than reuniting families.<BR/><BR/>With that in mind, I recall the Texas CPS plans revealed to us their goal was some time sooner than 12 months. IIRC, it was September of this year (correct me if I'm wrong here!).<BR/><BR/>One has to wonder if the CPS / court's instructions to <I>sign OUR plans and we'll work out the individual details later(!)</I> is some sort of rush to produce failure for all that do not follow these "plans".<BR/><BR/>It was reported that <A HREF="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700228905,00.html" REL="nofollow">not all the attorneys</A> trusted the CPS enough to advise their clients (parents) to sign those "plans".kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-67591276050347137172008-05-26T04:39:00.000-05:002008-05-26T04:39:00.000-05:00That's the ACLU for you. Sometimes it fights again...That's the ACLU for you. Sometimes it fights against Constitutional rights (in its involvements in frivolous suits to censor individuals' speech at times when the speech is religious.... very anti-First Amendment) and sometimes it ignores Constitutional rights (such as that pesky 2nd Amendment). In other matters, such as affirmative-action cases, the ACLU sides with those who want the government to punish people for having the wrong skin color (without any sort of due process or consideration for civil liberties). For a good example of that, see California's Civil Rights Initiative fight, in which the ACLU strongly argued for the government to treat people differently solely on the basis of skin color. Thankfully, the racists lost that fight.<BR/><BR/>So it is no surprise they are silent on YFZ. The so-called "civil liberties watchdog" sometimes chews on the very Constitution, and other times sleeps while burglars come and pillage the house.<BR/><BR/>The right-wing groups similar to the ACLU are no better, also opposing civil liberties at times (like the ACLU does) or pointedly ignoring assaults on them (like the ACLU does). I've given up looking for an actual "civil liberties watchdog" that consistently protects Constitutional rights, due process, freedom of speech, politically-incorrect parts of the Constitution (such as the Second Amendment) and is not so politically biased.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43888712765025576622008-05-25T21:11:00.000-05:002008-05-25T21:11:00.000-05:00Kbp:The DMN article would be funny if the possible...Kbp:<BR/><BR/>The DMN article would be funny if the possible consequences weren't so grim.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-14715788244482308462008-05-25T19:06:00.000-05:002008-05-25T19:06:00.000-05:00Beowulf1723 As my post reflects, all I got from it...Beowulf1723 <BR/><BR/>As my post reflects, all I got from it was humor.<BR/><BR/>It was balanced fill in I guess.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-57592056901615795702008-05-25T17:30:00.000-05:002008-05-25T17:30:00.000-05:00RE: the DMN article mentioned by kbp at 0401PM:Rel...RE: the DMN article mentioned by kbp at 0401PM:<BR/><BR/>Religious leaders? What religious leaders? None were named in the article. Let's see some names and <I>bone fides</I> in that subject.<BR/><BR/>A persecuted minority lying to authorities? This is new? I guess the authors never herd of the <A HREF:="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrano" HREF="" REL="nofollow">Marranos</A>.<BR/><BR/>Next thing you know the <I>DMN</I> will run some variant of the infamous "Wanted Poster" from the 22Nov63 issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-69693004779771363952008-05-25T16:25:00.000-05:002008-05-25T16:25:00.000-05:00Grits,Speaking of saying "pedophile" to get the mo...Grits,<BR/><BR/>Speaking of saying "pedophile" to get the moral high ground, Sen. Dan Patrick has been saying that on the airwaves since this thing started. He had the idiot McCown on his radio show shortly after the raid, repeating every wild eyed rumor out there.<BR/><BR/>This past Friday, he actually said, on air, that this could be a child pornography ring; otherwise, how could they afford to pay $400,000 a year in property taxes. It was in the time frame between 5:10 and 5:25 on 5/23/08.<BR/><BR/>I was shocked.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06594817339745502333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-31696873535570376002008-05-25T16:01:00.000-05:002008-05-25T16:01:00.000-05:00State officials faced culture of lies, religious e...<A HREF="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-polygamists_25tex.ART.State.Edition2.467ff56.html" REL="nofollow">State officials faced culture of lies, religious experts say</A><BR/><BR/>Could that be what started this?<BR/><BR/>It was just plain and simple, a LIARS challenge for the CPS, and NOBODY has ever beat them at their own game!<BR/><BR/>...and <B><I>"It's early in the GAME..."</I></B>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-2455090727275342442008-05-25T15:43:00.000-05:002008-05-25T15:43:00.000-05:00PinkyThey have to spend their own money until the ...Pinky<BR/><BR/>They have to spend their own money until the CPS can hire more help to spend excessively over budget at a faster pace.<BR/><BR/>All to $ave $arah!<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><I>"It's early in the GAME..."</I> <BR/><BR/>Allison Palmer, ADA</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41761864460639049012008-05-25T15:26:00.000-05:002008-05-25T15:26:00.000-05:00CPS workers are paying for their own expenses at t...<A HREF="http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/662601.html" REL="nofollow">CPS workers are paying for their own expenses at the moment</A>Pinkycatcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01364196090276576278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-28278991708967639592008-05-25T15:12:00.000-05:002008-05-25T15:12:00.000-05:00Ben Sargent's cartoon in today's (25 May 08) Austi...Ben Sargent's cartoon in today's (25 May 08) <A HREF="http://www.statesman.com/" REL="nofollow"><I>Austin American-Statesman</A></I> is spot-on. (I don't have a direct link; go to the <I>A A-S</I> site, and click on the drawing of Sargent to go to the cartoon.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-78146914848735813262008-05-25T14:25:00.000-05:002008-05-25T14:25:00.000-05:00kbp:All too often the issue is not what rights doe...kbp:<BR/><BR/>All too often the issue is not what rights does a child have, but instead is -- does a child have the capacity to waive those rights?<BR/><BR/>If a 12 year old girl is arrested for a criminal offense, she has the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning. Almost all law enforcement people I've ever encountered in defending juveniles recognize these rights and are careful to explain them to arrested juveniles. <BR/><BR/>Those same law enforcement people will then be nice to the kid, and ask questions, and pretty soon the kid will give an incriminating statement.<BR/><BR/>When the kid's attorney objects to the State's use of the statement, on the grounds that the kid at that age does not have the capacity to make a knowing waiver of the right to be silent, or to have an attorney present, the presiding judge will ALWAYS (unless the kid is obviously retarded) over-rule the objection and make a finding that the kid did make a knowing waiver. One of our judges did that in one of my cases where I asked the juvenile if she knew what "waive" meant in the context of waiving her right to be silent. After an extended period of silence, she held up her hand and waved at me.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the State of Texas instructs us that a sexually active girl who is 16 years and 11 months old does not have the capacity to consent to sex with a boy or man, as a matter of law.<BR/><BR/>It is such inconsistencies as this which should instruct us all that there is little, if any, rationality in much of our law. Our statutes are all too frequently the result of the collective biases, ignorance, stupidity and venality of our legislators. This is best seen in the context of juvenile law and child sex abuse statutes where, as demonstrated above, a 16 year old is assumed not to have the capacity to screw with someone, while a 12 year old is assumed to have the capacity to screw herself by making an unwise statement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53606208676141609032008-05-25T14:08:00.000-05:002008-05-25T14:08:00.000-05:00I think I said this before in response to another ...I think I said this before in response to another post, but it needs repeating.<BR/><BR/>This is one of the major problems: children have <I>no real rights or responsibilities as an adult, but he may be charged as an adult if suspected of a crime</I>.<BR/><BR/>Here in Austin an <I>11 year old</I> was charged with capital murder in connection with the death of an infant left in her care. She got off on a technicality. Why weren't the parents charged with neglect for leaving the infant in the care of someone who couldn't care for her properly? You'd have to ask the DA that.<BR/><BR/>(Scott, do you have any posts on this charlie-foxtrot of Earle's?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-46430713328857964512008-05-25T14:03:00.000-05:002008-05-25T14:03:00.000-05:00CP$How can the CP$ increase the pace of spending m...<A HREF="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5800902.html" REL="nofollow">CP$</A><BR/>How can the CP$ increase the pace of spending money that exceeds budget restrictions without spending hire more employees to help manage and increase excess spending?<BR/><BR/>OH MY! The problems they're facing!<BR/><BR/><BR/>(Blogger is having some sort of Sign In problem?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-86861238218467066752008-05-25T13:59:00.000-05:002008-05-25T13:59:00.000-05:00Anonymous writes:"I wish that one simple phrase co...Anonymous writes:<BR/><BR/>"I wish that one simple phrase could be struck from the laws books immediately or replaced with something more quantitative. That phrase is "best interest of the child". The phrase is ambiguous, qualitative, and fraught with peril..."<BR/><BR/>I don't know that there is a quantitative alternative, but there is a good qualitative one. Most NCCPR reports on state systems, including our report on Texas, end with this recommendation:<BR/><BR/>In all places where it appears, the phrase “best interests of the child” should be replaced with the phrase “least detrimental alter-native.”<BR/>Currently, almost all state laws involving custody of children are liberally sprinkled with the phrase “best interests of the child.”<BR/> But that is a phrase filled with hubris. It says we are wise enough always to know what is best and capable always of acting on what we know. In fact, those are dangerous assumptions that can lead us to try to fix what isn’t broken or make worse what is.<BR/> More than thirty years ago, Albert Solnit, Joseph Goldstein, and Anna Freud, proposed an alternative phrase. They said “best interests of the child” should be re-placed with “least detrimental alterna-tive.” <BR/> “Least detrimental alternative” is a humble phrase. It recognizes that whenever we intervene in family life we do harm. Sometimes we must intervene anyway, because intervening is less harmful than not intervening. But whenever we step in, harm is done.<BR/>The phrase “least detrimental alter-native” is a constant reminder that we must always balance the harm that we may think a family is doing against the harm of intervening. It is exactly the shot of humility that every child welfare system needs.<BR/><BR/>Richard Wexler<BR/>National Coalition for Child Protection Reform<BR/>www.nccpr.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-52611115723918906192008-05-25T13:52:00.000-05:002008-05-25T13:52:00.000-05:00lowery.shirley said... It seems that government ca...<I><B>lowery.shirley </B>said... <BR/>It seems that government can do as it wishes with our children. And, with the Patriot Act, government can do as it wishes with adults. Is this how freedom works?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>No, this is how apathy works, and freedom fails.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-42886259988396635572008-05-25T13:49:00.000-05:002008-05-25T13:49:00.000-05:00It seems that government can do as it wishes with ...It seems that government can do as it wishes with our children. And, with the Patriot Act, government can do as it wishes with adults. Is this how freedom works?SBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771426407793750051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-73058553848784991932008-05-25T13:43:00.000-05:002008-05-25T13:43:00.000-05:00Will signing abuse papers come back to haunt FLDS?...<A HREF="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700228905,00.html" REL="nofollow">Will signing abuse papers come back to haunt FLDS?</A>kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24939277531477742192008-05-25T13:05:00.000-05:002008-05-25T13:05:00.000-05:00"The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel ClauseCase ...<I>"The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel Clause<BR/><BR/>Case closed!"</I><BR/><BR/>Those that enforce Family Codes evidently see that one differently. <BR/><BR/>I'm not up well on the rights a child has, but it seems to be a mix of certain rights the child has combined with rights their parents hold for them.<BR/><BR/>Of the cases that I've read up on that touched on this topic I must admit were at times confusing. I often see problems mentioned of children interrogated without a parent present, but have never dug deep enough to determine if that is a violation of rights. If it is, it would show the parent holds the right of the child, not the child itself.<BR/><BR/>It is a topic I would like to see someone professionally qualified on let us know what case laws have provided to determine when and what rights a child has.<BR/><BR/>Maybe Mr. Wexler can touch on this topic some?kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-41672921415195417372008-05-25T11:29:00.000-05:002008-05-25T11:29:00.000-05:00Anonymous said...It seems that the ACLU has forgot...Anonymous said...It seems that the ACLU has forgotten that children have the same rights as adults under the U.S. Constitution.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said...Childern don't have the same rights as adults. For instance, can children vote? No. Case closed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yeah they do have the sane rights as adults..Where does it say that children DON'T have the same rights as adults? The U.S. Constitution applies to children on the following: <BR/><BR/>The First Amendment: Freedom of speech<BR/><BR/>The Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Searches and Seizures<BR/><BR/>The Fifth Amendment: Self-incrimination Clause<BR/><BR/>The Sixth Amendment: Right to Counsel Clause<BR/><BR/>Case closed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com