Some FLDS kids reuinted with parents (article, link)

[uppityperson]

Article is 15 hrs old, so can't post in LBN.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD90RVK5O0

Texas appeals sect ruling, lets 3 families reunite

State child welfare authorities on Friday appealed a stinging court ruling that said their seizure of more than 440 children from a polygamist sect's ranch was unjustified, but they also agreed to reunite 12 children with their parents while the case moves on. The agreement narrowly specifies 12 children, some of whose parents had filed a motion with a state district court in San Antonio for their release from state foster care.
(clip)

CPS agreed to allow the parents to live with their children in the San Antonio area under state supervision, said Teresa Kelly, a spokeswoman for Haas. The families cannot return to the Yearning For Zion ranch, where they lived before the raid.
(clip)

CPS said in its appeal to the Texas Supreme Court that the appeals court was wrong to say that the vast majority of children at the ranch did not face the sort of extreme danger state law requires for them to be removed without a court order. The agency cited evidence it said showed that the church pushed teenage girls into spiritual marriages with older men. "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," the state agency said in its appeal.
(clip)

State officials said in their Supreme Court filing that it would be impossible to return all children covered in Thursday's ruling because they have not determined which children belong to which parents, and DNA tests were incomplete. The appeals court ruling technically applies only to the 38 mothers who filed the complaint...(more of course)

And to finish up with the pictures of Warren Jeffs and a 12 yr old "friend" because yes, I am uppity and opinionated.

[Duke Newcombe]

1. All because Texas CPS couldn't. follow. the. freeking. law.

Now the FLDS are martyrs all over again, and the old men may get to put the sexin' to their underage honeys again, RealSoonNow.

:wtf:

Duke

[Wizard777]

2. Don't forget Biased!

It looks like your disappointed all those kids aren't being abused.

BTW, Warren Jeffs is no longer at that Ranch. He has no relevence to this action. Shere Bias.

[uppityperson]

3. Looks like you are still jumping to conclusions and spelling poorly.

What do you think about that kiss? You have nothing to say about these kids getting back to parents except to jump to a conclusion and spell poorly. Huh.

[Wizard777]

4. It's late. I'm old. I'm tired. I've got conversations on three other screens.

I really don't care about spelling. I'm going for the point. Just like Thomas Jefferson. Why don't you go correct Thomas Jeffersons misspelling in the Constitution. Is that why you think it's invalid? He misspelled a few words. Spelling is no indication of intelligence. Jefferson couldn't spell to save his life. Sometimes he would misspell the same word three differnt ways in the same document. A brilliant man none the less.

As for the kiss. It's not my bag. I think it's repulsive. Ick.

[uppityperson]

5. Good for the kiss response. Still nothing like "glad those kids are getting back w/parents".

(now me talking for me) I do hope the best for everyone involved there. I wish peace and happiness for all.

Edited to add, thanks for the recommend, if it was you. I would like others to be able to see and keep up a bit on this as it continues. Too often it is "OMG!" for a couple days then hohum.

[Wizard777]

10. You're welcome.

Personally I think kids are always better off with their parents. ALL parents tend to raise their kids they way they were raised. With a few improvement of course. The people that vow to not raise thier kids the way thier parents raised them. They're the ones that usually have that traumatic awakening. After trying so hard for so long not to do anything like thier parents. One day they realize their just like them. It hits them like a ton of bricks. I've seen that too many times.

[pnwmom]

14. You don't have to raise your children the way you are raised if you are

conscious of the patterns in the family and choose another way. It's not inevitable. My husband and I deliberately chose to go in a more thoughtful direction.

And I don't think "kids are always better off with their parents." Some definitely aren't.

[Wizard777]

17. I know what you mean.

My parents were way ahead of their time. Everyone in the neighborhood got their but busted for every little thing. I would have to do something really stupid to get my butt busted. My parents thought the other parents abused their kids. But the other parents thought my parents were neglecting me and letting me run wild. Who was right? To each their own. I don't believe in a uniform code of parenting. Like I said before. There are some kids that will not do something simply because you tell them not to. There are other kids that with their little brothers brain hanging out the side of his head. They still can't understand why they shouldn't do that. That's exactly why a uniform code of parenting doesn't work for everyone. Kids are every bit the unique individuals they will be as adults. If not more so. Because of this some parents need some leeway. That other parents might not need. People tend to mellow with age. Conform and try to fit in. Even the Hippies grew up and became the establishment.

[pnwmom]

18. Your parents were right, not the abusive parents.

Parents who beat their children are taking the lazy way out. It takes much more self control and patience to discipline children in a thoughtful way, but it can be done. And it is the better choice for ALL children. You can't teach children to be good, loving people by brutalizing them. (Children who survive abuse to become good and decent adults usually do so because OTHER good and decent adults offered them an alternative model to their parent's abusive one.)

[Wizard777]

19. But that's just it. It wasn't abuse. This is why I say that.

I saw everyone of those kids grow up and Thank their parents for loving them enough to do that for them. It's like the parable of the vine. It's a wounding to their betterment. That's why it's not abuse. Also I think it's not abuse until the person says it abuse. Be it a wife or a child. It's not abuse until they say it's abuse and that's when it has to stop and it has to stop right freakin' NOW! But not until they say it's abuse.

It was the same with the RCC abuse. It was the kids that were saying it was abuse. I excoriated the church for it. They were deviating from their doctrines. I excoriated them with their doctrine. That's where I'm torn. I can't do that with the FLDS. They are not deviating from their doctrine. They are adhering to their doctrine. It's the government that is trying to force them to deviate from from their doctrine. I have yet to hear that this is "abuse" from the people themselves. But once THEY say it's abuse. For those people absolutely it must stop and it must stop right freakin' NOW! But not until they say it's abuse.

They same with the Fakirs. They subject themselves to things people would call abusive. But they willingly subject themselves to these punishing feats. That is where it ceases to be abuse and becomes a test of endurance. The Fakirs can do some amazing mind boggling things. The Whirling Dervishes frequently break a leg twirling on stilts. But they heal and go right back to it. They get a spiritual charge out of these things. As as gruesome as what they do may appear to you. You cannot deprive them of that. That's where you deprive them, You make them less of a spiritual being, and therefore you spiritually abuse them.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. The problem is that children that are abused don't realize at first that they are. Does a 3 year old

know what abuse is and have the power to stop it? Eventually the children who are abused will start equating abuse with love. There are very few abused children who don't love their parents. Does that still make abusing them right? One of the worst things about child abuse (besides the awful original crime)is that it is the gift that keeps giving, unless the abused realizes that violence is not love.

As to what is part of a religious doctrine... I really dislike using this example, and it's not an attack on Muslims, but I must go to an extreme as an illustration. According to Sharia Law, if a woman commits adultery, her punishment is stoning to death. Do you think that we should allow stoning to be carried out because it is part of a religious doctrine?

[uppityperson]

24. Not all abused "kids grow up and Thank their parents for loving them enough to do that for them. "

There are a lot of abused kids that turn around and do as their parents did, abuse their kids. I once helped a 3 yr old get the help needed to not only treat the black eyes and broken arm, but to be placed in a positive and supportive situation AWAY from parents that did that. The child wanted to go back to parents, cried when wasn't able to.

This child was willing to go back and be abused, but we adults in our wisdom saw it as abuse and didn't allow that. It is difficult for a child to be able to get out of an abuse situation because they are dependent upon the adults who are abusing them, very difficult.

Comparing an adult who voluntarily stresses their body to a child, or a wife, or a husband, who is stuck in a psychologically abusive situation is foolish. More DV assistance is needed, more womens/mens shelters are needed, DV laws are needed to help those who are unable to help themselves. I guess those women who were unable to leave an abusive situation until they were killed weren't really being abused, or were like people seeing spiritual enlightenment through voluntary physical suffering?

I would recommend you visit a DV center, or a womens shelter and listen as it might be enlightening. Sometimes it is difficult to understand why people stay in abusive situations until you spend enough time with them, are open minded enough to see and hear their stories.

It might help you get past the belief that until a victim is vocal, they really aren't a victim or deserving of assistance.

[uppityperson]

26. Look at this article not just as FLDS, but in general about abused people

"I think it's not abuse until the person says it abuse. Be it a wife or a child. It's not abuse until they say it's abuse "

What they write here, what I have selectively pulled out, is common amongst abused people, both kids and adults. I post this not just about FLDS, but to perhaps enlighten about why you cannot wait for the abused to say they were abused before acting. Again, not to argue this about FLDS case, but providing some good explanations about abused people's thinking.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-polygamists_25tex.ART.State.Edition2.467ff56.html

(clip)"These are people who have been taught from the cradle that outsiders are bad, that government is evil, until they fear us more than they fear their abusers," said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff.
(clip)
"Based on both the children's and women's repeated deceptions, lies, and misinformation, the trial court had no reliable evidence" on the identities of the children or their parents, the state's attorneys wrote. The appellate court's ruling last week centered on a general lack of evidence. This comes as no surprise to Mary Mackert, a former FLDS member who, as a child in a polygamous family, was taught that her behavior could determine whether her father ended up in jail. She is in Texas because of her interest in the children.
(clip)
"You didn't think of it as lying. It's your duty and your responsibility to protect those who are living the principle," Ms. Mackert said. "They're going to lie to protect their prophet, and the head of their family. They'll do anything under the banner of religion."
(clip)
Religious leaders also make investigators' work harder by shuttling people across state lines, Mr. Brower said. Often, he said, people of interest simply "disappear" – making something as simple as serving a subpoena incredibly costly. When investigators get too close, Mr. Brower said, sect leaders order entire families to turn in their photo albums, birth certificates and other records to be hidden or destroyed.

[pnwmom]

28. No, it's abuse, pure and simple. People may want to believe that physical

brutality wasn't abuse, that it somehow "worked," because otherwise they will have to deal with an anger toward their parents that may be too much to deal with -- they'd rather decide it wasn't abuse and continue it on with their own children.

Any normal healthy child first confronting physical abuse will be shocked and BEG to have it stopped -- immediately. It is the parents' reaction -- to continue, even perhaps to make it worse -- that teaches the child that pleading won't help. That's why they're not screaming for it to stop -- they've been taught that that will only make things worse.

Many people from older generations have recognized that physical discipline WAS abusive and that it wasn't a sign that their parents loved them, just that their parents didn't know any better (or had lost control). Your parents were among those who recognized abuse for what it was. Good for them.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

119. Wise post, but its wasted here..

To some *any* physical discipline is the same as abuse..

[pnwmom]

122. I feel sorry for your little angels.

I hate to think about how you might be keeping them angelic.

My father kept us in line by bullying us, physically and emotionally. But it only worked till we were adults. We all moved away when we grew up, so we didn't have to have much contact with him after that except by phone. (Out of some sense of filial obligation, I called him once a week). We all went to his funeral, though. The priest asked us to give him good memories that he could talk about and we all just looked at each other. The priest was clearly surprised, because my father was an active leader in the church and everybody there thought he was great. But we, the four who knew him best, couldn't think of anything worth mentioning.

If you rely on physical discipline with your kids, you might end up like my father. You'll have kids that have learned to get along with you by being "sweet" and well behaved, just like the FLDS kids. But when they're adults, they won't have to put up with you any longer. Maybe, when they're around you, they'll fake their feelings out of habit. Maybe you won't mind that they're just used to feigning affection for you.

Or maybe they'll just fly out of your orbit. It's too early for you to know because your children are still dependent on you. But that won't last forever.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

123. Your ignorance about my kids

and your holier than thou attitude about the way you parent are nothing new...

[pnwmom]

124. I'm not pretending to know anything about your kids, except that they're

not grown up yet. And until they are, you won't know how well your methods have worked or whether your bonds with your children will survive any negative experiences with physical discipline.

But I am questioning your support of the poster who said this:

"Everyone in the neighborhood got their but busted for every little thing. I would have to do something really stupid to get my butt busted. My parents thought the other parents abused their kids. But the other parents thought my parents were neglecting me and letting me run wild. Who was right? To each their own."

Any parent who would agree that physical discipline should be anything but a rare exception could end up like my father. But you'll keep telling yourself that your methods are working because it's so much easier than being patient and thoughtful and exercising self-control.

[uppityperson]

23. This is where we disagree radically, though agree with some.

"I think kids are always better off with their parents. " You have a more positive view of "all" parents than I do. But then I have worked with abused kids whose parents have beaten them, psychologically abused them, sexually abused them. No, kids are NOT always better off with their parents.

I do agree that MOST people end up copying how they were raised, with things coming out that they really wanted to avoid.

One problem I see in what you write is the superlatives (or perhaps the word is modifier?) of "all, always, not to do anything" as use of those usually negates the point you are trying to make as infrequently are those "alls" right.

Do you have kids?

[Wizard777]

45. I say that as a general rule of thumb.

It's a rule and therefore has exceptions. It is those exceptions that establish it as a rule. Because a rule without exception is a law.

[Marnieworld]

15. Jefferson didn't write the Constitution

Just sayin'.

[Wizard777]

16. He was the Scribe. It's his handwritting and his spelling.

He wrote the document. But he did not compose the text of the document.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. TJ was not the scribe for the Constitution

http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html

The Constitution was written in 1787 in the manner of the day - in other words, it was written by hand. According to the National Archives, the version we are most familiar with today was penned by Jacob Shallus, a clerk for the Pennsylvania State Assembly. In the document itself are several words which are misspelled. Far from the days of spell checkers and easy edits, these misspellings survive in the document today.

[Wizard777]

30. That's interesting. When I was in school waaaaay back in the 1930's.

We were taught it was Jefferson. We were also taught that Betsy Ross made the first flag. Sometime around the 70's. My God children started telling me it wasn't Betsy Ross. It was Mary Pickersgill. Huh? Oooookay. I guess I'm just another victim of the public school system. But Jefferson also had problems with spelling. They have letters and documents he wrote. He would misspell a word three different ways in the same document. I'm wondering if Shallus is like Pickersgill. George Washington contracted(so to speak)Betsy Ross to make the first Flag. Besty Ross had Mary Pickersgill make the flag. But because Betsy Ross had the contract. She got all the credit for making the flag. I'm wondering if the samething happened with Scribing the Constitution. Jefferson got the contract and had Shallus do the actual work.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. Thomas Jefferson was in Paris from 1785-1789 and couldn't have had anything physically

to do with the Constitution which was completed in 1787. He was Ambassador to France at the time.
One of my favorite facts about TJ is that he wasn't a Christian but a Deist as was Ben Franklin and a few other of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. It makes the Wrong Wing Christians sound silly when they claim that the US was created as a Christian nation.

BTW...You might have learned the same thing in a private school if that's what they wanted you know know. My oldest son is 21 and youngest is 17 and every now and then I have to give them little history lessons that their school failed to give them.

Interesting tidbit that you have on Besty Ross. At least she didn't outsource the creation of the flag to China as we do now. ;)

[Wizard777]

40. I think Mary Pickersgill was from Maryland.

I know she made that famous flag that "was still there" flying over Ft. Mc Henry that Francis Scott Key Immortalized in the Star Spangled Banner. He used the melody to an english drinking song, To Anacreon In Heaven. Or did my teacher lie to me about that too? I'm feeling a bit disillusioned right now. :crazy:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

47. OK, after a little research. Betsy Ross did sew the first American flag in 1776, the year

that Mary Pickergill was born in. Mary was born in Philly and moved to Maryland as a child. She moved to Baltimore after the death of her husband, and did sew the flag that flew over Ft. McHenry. She had learned flag making from her mother, who sewed all types of flags during the Revolution.

Mary went into flag making and became one of the earliest successful business women of our nation. She was also a philanthropist.

[Wizard777]

49. AHA! I have some God Children to call.

Thank You! I'm gonna enjoy this.

Ancient History is more of my thing. Especially the ancient history of the Persian Empire. Cyrus the Great. Often imitated. But never duplicated.

[uppityperson]

35. Jefferson may have had problems spelling, but you, wiz, are no Jefferson.

[Wizard777]

42. Well Duh! I'm the Wizard.

See, it say so at the right of my post.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[murielm99]

8. Now I get it!

You were homeschooled by the FLDS! That explains your spelling, and your appearance only in threads about these sickos.

[musette_sf]

41. or maybe taught at Alta "Academy"

that fine bastion of non-study run by child molester and rapist Warren Jeffs.

[Wizard777]

43. Your wrong. I'm all over this board.

In fact for a while I stopped posting to FLDS thread because of intense viscious personal attacks that the mods wouldn't do anything about. That was when most people were going bat shit crazy like a bunch of freepers that had seen the WMD's in Iraq. This is pretty much going the same way. CPS very well may come out of this with nothing. I can hardly wait to see their Plan B. Sooooo. :eyes:

[Beaverhausen]

27. A photo of Warren Jeffs adorns the wall of every room in the compound

He is their prophet. Why do you say he has no relevance? You are seriously ignorant of the practices and beliefs of this sect.

[pnwmom]

34. More than that, he is in their view the sole representative of Christ on earth.

And, in the view of the sister-in-law of one of his twelve year old wives, he is "perfect."

[cbc5g]

6. Forced religion is vile and I feel sorry for all those kids and abused women n/t

[uppityperson]

7. That too. I wish peace and happiness for them. eom

[cbc5g]

9. Same....its hard to tell them they are wrong if they are happy

But I just can't see how anyone can construe underage marriages to older men who impregnate them as being OK.

[pnwmom]

12. It's hard to believe that these robotic, almost voiceless women are happy.

Their words say one thing, their bodies, another.

[pnwmom]

11. She's more than a friend. She's a "spiritual wife."

And what do you think about that little tummy bulge?

A picture of the "anniversary" card is here.

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/23/hearing-includes-photos-of-sect-leader-kissing/

[uppityperson]

25. I know. It was dry sarcasm, why it was in quotes.

I see the same picture as in my OP, are 3 picts there. If there is another, could you please post it? I can't say definitely about the tummy bulge as it may be just stiff cloth poofing out, though could be her actual body. I don't know. That kiss goes way beyond my comfort zone as to how adults should act with minors. Way beyond it. And no, I don't care if she is smiling. There is a reason for statutory rape laws.

That photo is the anniversary one, right? With the bulge? I can understand why this would raise more questions about her being pregnant, so far I haven't read info about her other than she is in state custody and has had an exam. I guess she must have menstruated at least once in order to be "spiritually married" to him, so it is a possibility. Even if she isn't, it is wrong. "spiritually married" my ass, this term seems to imply no physical contact and that picture tells me differently.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9374637
"For now, the photographs of Jeffs are being used in just one case - that of Louisa and Dan Jessop's son. The state's challenge is unchanged: It must show their infant is in urgent danger and there is no option but to keep him in state custody, separated from his father and siblings, ages 3 1/2 and 1 1/2 . "

[pnwmom]

33. The term "spiritual marriage" doesn't imply no sex -- it is simply

the word they use for all their marriages that aren't legal. Since they can only have one legal marriage, all the rest that a man has are "spiritual marriages."

Those are the only photos I've seen.

[uppityperson]

36. Since polygamy is illegal, this is how they get around it.

You have 1 legal wife and another/other "spiritual" ones. I got it. I guess that for some fundies, once a man has sex (willing or not) with a female, she becomes his property, unless she is already the property of another man.

"spiritual" means a different thing to me and, I expect, to you also.

[pnwmom]

51. In this case "spiritual marriage" is more akin in meaning

to "ritual sex abuse."

Yuk. No, it isn't the usual meaning of spiritual for me either.

[musette_sf]

38. i noticed the baby bump

and it is quite clear in two of the photographs.

no, the material of the dress is not "tenting". that is the outline of that poor child's belly.

disgusting.

[Wizard777]

44. Then why does the "baby bump" appear to be triangular or pyramidal?

What freakin' planet are you from? Here on earth human "baby bumps" have a curvature. They're more spherical.

Also FLDS women make their own clothes. They make their dresses to include room for pregnancy. They don't run out and by maternity clothes. To them clothes just for maternity is wasteful and that's a sin.

[pnwmom]

54. It doesn't look triangular or pyramidal to me. But everything would depend

on how stiff the material is.

And we're not talking about an adult woman, but a small girl. Why would you design clothing for a tiny twelve year old with space for a pregnancy?

[uppityperson]

57. Because the "women" dress conservatively, like most Fundamentalists.

Usually the reason is to avoid having the men see their bodies since women are the "origin of sin" and the men can't control themselves, which would be rather twisted reasoning here.

[Wizard777]

66. In the bottom left picture it is. In the other the material appears to be laid over to the side.

First of all I don't know for sure that the girl is 12. Probably for the same reason a public school would give her a condom. Except the FLDS doesn't believe in contraception. Who knows? Maybe she's not scheduled to get her next dress until she's 18 or even 21. They make durable good too. They don't buy a new wardrobe every year. Your not going to see their kids crying that they can't wear last years 250.00 sneakers to school this year and they can't go to school until they get the new pair of 300.00 sneakers.

[uppityperson]

70. Jessop ID'd her as 12. What does a condom or expensive sneakers have to do with this?

"Probably for the same reason a public school would give her a condom." wtf?
Whose kids, except for a few extremely spoiled ones refuse to go to school until they have $300 sneakers?

And wtf does this have to do with this case?

[Wizard777]

72. "Jessop" That's like about half of them. The other half are Barlow.

Could you be a little more specific.

It's the reverse of birth control. They aren't trying to prevent it they're facilatating it. It has nothing to do with the case. It has to do with the Dress.

"Why would they give a 12 year old a dress with room for prenancy?"

Because she's going to be wearing it long beyond 12. Try to keep up with the WHOLE conversation. It's a real good way to keep yourself from taking things out of context.

[pnwmom]

77. Jessop, the BROTHER of the girl. He knows how old his own sister is,

and his attorney didn't object.

[uppityperson]

79. Try it again.

Here is a link to the answer I gave elsewhere in this topic about Jessop saying that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3337387&mesg_id=3340574

Here is the link to the article the pictures are from:
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/23/hearing-includes-photos-of-sect-leader-kissing

I didn't ask why they would give a 12 yr old a roomy dress. Try to keep up with who you are replying to. It's a good way to make sure you don't quote at the wrong person.

You seem to be saying a roomy dress is because they assume she will grow. That makes sense and I'm not the one having issues with the dress.

What does a condom or expensive sneakers have to do with this?

"Probably for the same reason a public school would give her a condom." wtf? Because, like the dress, she'll be wearing it long after she's 12? What public school does this? (Hence, the "wtf".)
Whose kids, except for a few extremely spoiled ones refuse to go to school until they have $300 sneakers? And wtf does this have to do with her wearing this dress?

[pnwmom]

75. Girls who haven't already had their growth spurt can grow half a foot between

12 and 18. It's ridiculous to assume that a girl who is still pint-size would be expected to wear the same dress at 18.

[LisaL]

80. This girl's is in the state's custody.

They've given her a physical exam.
Which means the state knows what state she is in.
I have no idea as to why you are assuming pregnancy or anything of the sort.

[uppityperson]

81. Have they publicized her preganancy or non-pregnancy state?

Or have they complied with privacy regulations and not done so? What makes you assume she isn't pregnant?

[LisaL]

84. If they are so concerned with her privacy, why did they release this

photo?
Hello?
You don't think that if this girl was pregnant, we would know all about it?

[uppityperson]

88. You won't answer. Got it. Ever hear of HIPPA and/or minor's right to privacy?

You assume she isn't pregnant because of privacy laws saying they can't say. And here I thought you were the one advocating for the FLDS. Huh.

[LisaL]

91. Look. Maybe you missed it. But CPS has been counting

their pregnant minors, and even some adult women as pregnant minors. Have you not read anything on this case?
So, what HIPPA laws?

[pnwmom]

106. Many of those "disputed minors" identified THEMSELVES as minors,

when they didn't want to be separated from their children. So CPS needed time to sort that all out.

[pnwmom]

90. Legal authorities often withhold incriminating evidence until they are ready

to use it. No criminal charges have even been brought yet, so there is no reason for them to do so.

The photos on Friday came up in a particular custody case involving the brother of the girl in the photos. That was a logical time to release those photos. Other evidence will be brought forth when appropriate.

[Wizard777]

95. What they don't do Discovery in Texas? You can't whip out any surprises in court.

That's a big no no. Withholding evidence is grounds for a mistrial.

[pnwmom]

98. You keep confusing custody actions with criminal trials.

There is no criminal action at this time. If there is evidence that will be used in criminal trials, then it will come out then, after charges are filed, as the discovery laws require it to.

And by the way, not all states have "open discovery" laws in criminal cases, unfortunately. I don't know what the law is in Texas.

[Wizard777]

102. Once again you cannot keep due process out of any court.

Not even family court. See my post on Lawyers are crying foul.

[pnwmom]

108. And once again, there are different rules for custody, other civil, and

criminal actions.

But aside from that issue, not every piece of evidence would apply to every case. The bottom line is, the state has no obligation at this time to release every piece of evidence that it has thus far collected. Evidence will come out as the cases, custody and/or criminal, are built. But not before.

[Wizard777]

111. No not really. There are different burdens of proof for criminal and civil cases.

But due process applies to both.

[pnwmom]

114. Discovery law is a criminal matter, not a custody matter. n/t

[Wizard777]

115. It's an evidentiary matter.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Rules+of+evidence">Rules of evidence

Prevailing in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence in the given venue. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction. One reason to have a lawyer, among others, is that he or she should be familiar with the rules of evidence. If one were allowed simply to tell the court what one knew to be the truth, and how one knew it, one might prevail. However, the rules of evidence may prohibit one from presenting one's story just as one likes.

Notice the words "family court." That is where these hearings are being held. So, one more time! You cannot keep due process out of any court. Not even traffic court.

[pnwmom]

117. I never said there was no due process in family court. I said, and you agreed,

that the rules -- including discovery -- are different in family court than in criminal court.

And there is no reason for the state to release every bit of evidence or possible evidence related to more than 460 custody cases and an unknown number of potential criminal cases that it has collected at this time.

[Wizard777]

118. I did not agree. The burdens of proof are different. Not rules of evidence or discovery.

RULE 101. TITLE AND SCOPE
(a) Title. These rules shall be known and cited as the Texas Rules of Evidence.

(b) Scope. Except as otherwise provided by statute, these rules govern civil and criminal proceedings (including examining trials before magistrates) in all courts of Texas, except small claims courts.


There is no exemption for family court listed. So the rules of evidence apply including discovery.

[pnwmom]

121. And where does it say that every bit of evidence that the state has collected

related to every member of the FLDS has to be released NOW?

[Wizard777]

126. They only have to present what they will be using in the custody hearing.

They have to present it in advance of the hearing with suficient time for analysis and preperation of defense or retort. The same applies to the defense with any evidence they will be presenting.

[pnwmom]

128. That's what I said in the very beginning.

"The photos on Friday came up in a particular custody case involving the brother of the girl in the photos. That was a logical time to release those photos. Other evidence will be brought forth when appropriate."

The lawyers for the FLDS aren't claiming that they were surprised by the photos or that they weren't notified about them in advance. They're just claiming that the photos are irrelevant.

But just because OTHER evidence and OTHER photos haven't been put before the public yet (in this or other cases) doesn't mean they don't exist. Time will tell.

[Wizard777]

131. I agree. They are irrelevant. all they prove is that Jeffs kissed a girl.

I haven't read Texas criminal code on sexual offenses. But they usually deal with genitalia. I don't think a lip to lip kiss constitutes a sexual offense. Usually you have to have the genitalia involved in some way before you can have a sexual offense.

[pnwmom]

133. You agree with the FLDS. I don't. n/t

[Wizard777]

116. CPS is going to get tore up on Texas Rules of evidence. Especially Rule 610

RULE 610. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR OPINIONS
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced.

[pnwmom]

125. Read more carefully. It's not admissible for that one specific purpose.

". . . for the purpose of showing . . . the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced."

In other words, you can't say, "this person is a member of FLDS so s/he is a religious nut."

Or, "this person is a good Christian so s/he must be telling the truth."

But evidence connected to religious beliefs may well be admissible for other purposes, particularly when the leader of a cult arranges marriages and is in prison for the felony offense of arranging the marriage of a child to an adult.

[Wizard777]

130. Right and I absolutely expect CPS to try to use their religious beliefs to impeach their credibility

Or other FLDS members that testify as character witnesses.

[pnwmom]

134. There's no evidence that they've done that so far. n/t

[pnwmom]

89. She might have been in the photos, but they were taken

long enough ago that she wouldn't be anymore -- especially with Warren Jeffs in prison.

[Wizard777]

92. They are just about out of Pregnant minors. Many if not all have turned out to be adults.

[LisaL]

93. And they report on all of those.

[uppityperson]

97. I'm done here tonight. As before, we are not going to change anything for each other.

Off to watch tornadoes. 1 quick question though as I am curious, thought most everyone knew what HIPPA was and it turns out not. Do you? I'll check back tomorrow. Tornado watch is calling.

[LisaL]

99. I know what HIPPA is. I also know CPS has been counting

all the pregnant minors and some adult women as minors. So, it appears HIPPA doesn't apply to CPS.

[pnwmom]

87. Only because someone else noticed the strange way her dress pouches out,

and I agreed that it did.

With or without a pregnancy, the pictures are disgusting.

[NeedleCast]

13. Poor Kids

They'll never know any other way. Makes me sad.

[madmusic]

20. The crumbling case

What will Walther do, given yesterday's appeals court ruling?

Here's a question: The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had all the power in the world to structure status hearings held this week in any order it wanted. It kept telling us, the media and the public, that there were 31 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who were pregnant, mothers or both.

Now we know the truth: There are only five girls in that group. All but one are or will be 18 this year. One gave birth when she was 17, three when they were 16. One is pregnant.

I kept asking the state for a breakdown by age of the 31 girls, the 60 percent, it claimed were pregnant or mothers. They refused weeks ago and still haven't done it.

Now we know why.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/05/crumbling-case.htm

Family law is about the best interests of children, and nothing about what was happening in San Angelo was benefiting his clients, Winward said.
So he told the judges about the Keate family and how 51st District Court Judge Barbara Walther's ''global decision'' effected them.
Rulon was 22 and Lorene 20 when they married 10 years ago. None of their children, who range in age from 9 to 18 months, were born in Texas. And the Keates haven't been here long, either.
They moved to the ranch last summer, after Rulon gave up a $50,000 a year job as a programmer for industrial robot systems in Las Vegas.
They left Sin City for the ranch, which they describe as an experiment in simplifying life.
He began to work as a carpenter and drywaller. She took care of the children.
''As of April 2008, the Keate family was happy and never felt freer in their lives,'' the letter says.
Then came the raid. Now, their children are in shelters across Texas: Amarillo, San Antonio, Liverpool. Rulon has never been allowed to visit his children.
And Lorene?
''The department has torn apart this innocent family and banished a mother of six to life on the Texas roads where she drives hundreds of miles each week to visit her children for an hour at a time,'' Winward wrote.
On Tuesday, the department told Lorene she would be unable to visit her 8-year-old and 5-year-old for the next three weeks because caseworkers were too busy testifying in San Angelo.

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/05/down-rabbit-hole.htm

[pnwmom]

29. You forgot the 12 year old who became a spiritual wife to Jeffs in 2006,

the one in the photos and in the "anniversary" card that were entered into evidence on Friday. If she hasn't had a baby, that's because Jeffs went to prison. Lucky for her.

We'll find out more when the DNA results come back. Some of those older "sisters" may turn out to be younger "mothers."

[madmusic]

37. So you want to throw Rulon and Lorene under the bus

Because of an old picture though the man in it is in prison? They weren't even on the ranch then!

That's what makes the raid supporters so dangerous.

[Duke Newcombe]

48. Rights, schmights...

When it's "those" people we don't like, fuck civil liberties, being secure in your person and possessions, due process. Didn't you get the email?

Duke

[pnwmom]

65. When it comes to children,

"fuck civil liberties. Didn't you get the email?"

Adults own children and should be able to do whatever they want to them without anyone else interfering.

:sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

69. Backwards again. When it comes to civil liberties...

fuck children.

I put the "fuck" word here so as to not offend any who might just read subject lines. Religion does not give anyone the right to harm others, or to break the law.

[pnwmom]

74. You're right.

And that F word isn't "me" anyway. So I edited to put the quote in quotes, thanks to you.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

120. False choice

All that was required was due process to protect the kids..

[pnwmom]

52. Did I say that? No. On the other hand, it is a worthwhile question.

The picture isn't that old -- it was from July 2006, before Jeffs went to prison.

Rulon is the brother of the 12 year old. He certainly knew that Jeffs was "marrying" his sister -- that would be considered a great honor among those pathetic people. And his wife, when asked to testify about what she thought about the photos, said that Jeffs was "perfect."

So what do you do about parents raising their children in a cult where the felon-prophet arranges all the marriage, is free to arrange marriages between adults and children, and is considered "perfect" -- the sole representative of God on earth -- by his followers?

Or parents like Rulon and Lorene who are living in the same communal situation and sharing child-raising with Merrill Jessops and his wives, who have been implicated in baby-water-boarding? Don't you think THAT situation should be carefully investigated?

I don't know what the answers are. Texas may have overstepped and made mistakes that will only make things worse. But that doesn't make what the sect does to children and women okay. That doesn't make child abuse or mind control okay, no matter how nice the lodge buildings are or how unprocessed their foods.

[LisaL]

71. Well, I guess if you are CPS, you hold the 22 year old as

minor until she gives birth, and then you take custody of an infant?

[pnwmom]

78. If you had evidence to believe that the baby could be water-boarded

then it would be a good idea.

It would all depend on the circumstances, but any baby living in the same home as Merrill Jessop and his wives would be at risk.

[LisaL]

83. There you are with water-boarding again.

Louise has two older children.
Has she been accused of causing any physical damage to those children?
No.

[pnwmom]

94. I believe Carolyn Jessops, Merrill Jessops ex-wife. And so did the courts,

when she became the first ex-FLDS to win custody of all of her children.

Water-boarding isn't something that leaves marks. And it isn't something that Louise herself necessarily would have done to her children. But she was living with and sharing child-raising duties with the wives of Merrill Jessops, and they HAVE been implicated in this, by Carolyn Jessops.

[LisaL]

101. Oh give me a break.

If CPS has any concern about water-boarding, why aren't they asking Louise these questions, instead of showing her photos of Jeffs?

[pnwmom]

103. This isn't over yet. n/t

[Wizard777]

110. I think you are misrepresenting this by calling it waterboarding.

For this to be waterboarding. A cloth would have to be placed over the infants nose and mouth. Then water poured over the cloth. Then when the baby tried to inhale. They would suck droplets of water from the cloth into thier lungs. Any amount of water in the lungs will cause painful spasm of the lung to expell the water. If you do not have water entering the lungs. Then it's not waterboarding per se.

What about that yuppie craze in the 80's? Swimming infants. They would place their infants in a pool, let them go under water, and swim to mommy. Some non-yuppies were afraid the infants would drown. But infants have a reflex that causes them to automatically close thier mouth and hold their breath when they go under water. Because of this involuntary response. It would be very difficult if not impossible to actually waterboard an infant under the circumstances described. But if there is no water going into the lung. This is not waterboarding per se. You are being dishonest in refering to it as that.

[uppityperson]

135. True. Waterboarding is a specific kind of torture, holding infant's head under running water

is a different type. Putting a crying infant's head under running water to make it stop crying is wrong.

[Wizard777]

136. First of all. Any baby that cries excessively should be taken to a doctor.

If the doctor can find no medical reason for the excessive crying. It's just a baby with a bad temperament. I don't think invoking a involuntary response to stop the cry is necessarily abuse. They would be protecting the child from injury from excessive vocalization. Like nodes, nodules, and even ruptured vocal cord. For them to allow a baby to scream and cry until busted a vocal cord and spit up blood would be neglect. I'm not sure doping up the baby would be better than that.

[uppityperson]

137. Putting a baby's head under running water does not equal abuse.

Gotcha. That is not simply "invoking an involuntary response to stop the cry". Blowing into a baby's face does that, running water over there face goes way beyond that.

You are saying there are only 3 choices, let a baby scream until it busted a vocal cord, dope it up, or run water over its face.

You say running water over a baby's face is fine, no issues with the possibility of aspiration, no issues with anything about it.

Incredible.

[Wizard777]

140. That's bull crap. the only involuntary response to wind would be the closing of the eyes.

Actually that can become a semi involuntary response. Because they could override the closing of the eyes. Like with blinking. No there is no chance of asperation because of the involuntary reponse to water. Just like with the yuppies swimming babies. They submerge the entire baby under water and let go of them. The baby closes it mouth, hold it's breath, and swim to them. All of this is instinct. You don't seem to have a problem with this. But Yuppies aren't the FLDS. They can try to drown their babies if they want to. I think your bias is showing again.

[uppityperson]

141. I don't want to call you ignorant. I really don't.

I also don't want to have to continue pointing out you jump to conclusions and then tell me how I feel about things based on those conclusions.

But as a mother and a nurse of over 30 yrs, my knowledge and experience show me you are.

[Wizard777]

96. That's false imprisionment.

[LisaL]

109. The disputed minors who turned out to be adults

might have civil rights case against the state.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5800274.html

[Wizard777]

112. By the time this is all over. Texas might have to file for bankruptcy from the civil suits.

It could easily cost them billions.

[cbc5g]

32. There are communes that they can go to where children arent married to old men n/t

[cornermouse]

39. Disgusting pictures.

I don't know what his sentence is, but I hope he's in prison for life.

[Disturbed]

46. Jeffs claimed that this girl is his sister.

Does anyone on this board believe that?

The TX authorities over reached on this but criminal investigations will still
be in progress regarding the FLDS in TX.

[Wizard777]

50. I'm even more disturbed by that. EWWWWW.

[LisaL]

56. Well, I hope you are less disturbed now becaue Jeffs hasn't

said the girl was his sister.

[Wizard777]

62. That's good to know.

I should have know better. If you have nothing good or truthful to say about the FLDS. Then just say the first sick thing that pops into your mind. That seems to be the route some are taking.

[LisaL]

63. Well, that seems to be the case.

That girl is a sister of the man whose case was being heard, not Jeffs.
Jeffs is in prison, serving 10 years to life.

[pnwmom]

53. One of those pictures is from an "anniversary" card with the couples' names

on it.

Maybe Jeffs didn't realize that.

Or maybe he thinks that incest makes it okay? How revolting.

[LisaL]

55. The "anniversary" card with the couples' names- is

Jeffs with a different female. And at different date. The anniversary card is of Jeffs with a female named Loretta. It's dated in 2005. The photo with the girl is dated in 2006.
Also, Jeffs didn't claim the girl was his sister. Authorities know who the girl is, and she is in state's custody.
I've seen nothing published at all indicating Jeffs ever said anything about this at all.

[pnwmom]

58. Lovely. So he's had multiple baby-brides. n/t

[LisaL]

59. How do you know how old Loretta is?

As far as I know, CPS hasn't made an issue of her age.
Which leads me to believe she probably is of age.

[pnwmom]

60. You can see from the pictures that she's tiny.

They brought up the other girl because she's the sister of the man whose case was being heard. I wouldn't speculate anything about why the age of the other girl hasn't come up yet. Friday was the first day of the new hearings.

[LisaL]

61. The wife of a man whose case was heard is also very short.

CPS held her as a minor until her child was born, even though she is 22.

[pnwmom]

64. I've seen her, and she didn't look that young or tiny to me.

She could have been 15 or 16, but she didn't look 11 or 12.

[uppityperson]

67. Jessop did, not Jeffs

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/23/hearing-includes-photos-of-sect-leader-kissing/

Most shocking was the state's release of a picture from summer 2007 showing imprisoned sect leader Warren Jeffs, now 52, deeply kissing a then-12-year-old girl, the aunt of the infant born May 12 whose custody was the subject of the hearing.

Rulon Daniel Jessop, the girl's brother and the infant's father, said he sees nothing wrong with his children being in the same house with underage "sister wives" of much older men. "It seemed a little wild to me," Jessop testified, "but you see a lot more wild things driving down the streets of the city at night. I do not consider a girl kissing a man sexual abuse."

Jessop identified the girl, who is listed in FLDS bishop's records as being born July 3, 1994, and is shown in pictures dated July 27, 2006, as his sister.

This one is the anniversary picture of Warren and Loretta:

[pleah]

68. What I want to know is

how does this picture of Jeffs, have anything to do with all the children that were ILLEGALY taken from their homes? :shrug:

[Wizard777]

73. They're just trying to establish guilt by association.

[pleah]

76. That is what I have thought all along.

:hi:

[Wizard777]

100. The mothers aren't even allowed to mention his name or talk about him around the children.

Even if they ar related to him. If one of the kids ask, How is uncle Warren? They can't open their mouth.

So they are also being denied freedom of speech. This is turning into an all out assault on the First Amendment by Texas. By what authority does CPS issue a gag order?

[pnwmom]

104. He's been convicted of child rape charges. That's standard procedure in

those kind of cases.

[LisaL]

105. Is it really?

When have you ever heard of such a thing in any other case?

[pnwmom]

107. That's what the Texas authorities have repeatedly said. I haven't followed

other child rape cases there.

It makes sense, though. Why wouldn't people want to shield children from contact with and positive discussions about a convicted child abuser?

[Wizard777]

113. They can't have contact with Jeffs. In case you haven't heard he's in prison.

That might be a proceedure if Jeffs had specifically sexually abused the children. Got any proof of that? For a child that was not specifically abused by him to not be able to talk about him. Even if they are related to him. Makes little sence.

[pnwmom]

127. Very funny. Jeffs has been convicted of a child rape offense. It doesn't matter

that he didn't carry out the physical rape himself. He's a felon because he assisted in the rape by performing the fake marriage and instructing the child to submit to her assaulter.

The children in the sect deserve to be protected from his communications, including the tapes where he spews his directives.

[Wizard777]

129. Jeffs is not communicating with the children.

The PARENTS cannot even say to their children that Jeffs is a child raping pervert. They cannot mention his name in any way. That's a violation of the first ammendment. The only speech that is not protected speech is criminal speech. Not everything said about Jeffs is a crime. Anything said about jeffs that is not a crime must be allowed.

[pnwmom]

132. You claim that this is a violation of the First Amendment, but that's all it is:

your claim.

[uppityperson]

142. Claims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3337387&mesg_id=3344009

Wild.

[pnwmom]

85. No, they're trying to establish what kind of parents the Jessops are.

How far they go in supporting Warren Jeffs, the felon in prison for assisting in child rape. And the wife's answer is that Warren Jeffs is "perfect."

[pnwmom]

82. The little girl in the photos is the sister of a man whose case was heard

last week. The photos were entered into evidence in that case. And he and his wife were questioned about how they felt about the situation, how they reacted to those kissing photos. His wife said that as far as she was concerned, Warren Jeffs is "perfect."

That does say something about their judgment as parents, IMHO. Anything that the felon/prophet Warren Jeffs does or tells them to do is right, because he is "perfect."

[uppityperson]

86. The father of the infant in the case also said this...

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/may/23/hearing-includes-photos-of-sect-leader-kissing

Rulon Daniel Jessop, the girl's brother and the infant's father, said he sees nothing wrong with his children being in the same house with underage "sister wives" of much older men. "It seemed a little wild to me," Jessop testified, "but you see a lot more wild things driving down the streets of the city at night. I do not consider a girl kissing a man sexual abuse."