Texas Court Rules In Favor Of FLDS

[JohnnyMack]

Says the state had no right to take the children:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html

Not a huge surprise in my mind.

[Sooner_Havok]

Says the state had no right to take the children:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/22/flds.ruling/index.html

Not a huge surprise in my mind.

Man, I was torn on that. I don't think the Gubment should be made into a nanny state, but if those young girls were in fact being forced to marry men in the 30's and 40's at the age of 14...

It was a lose lose situation from the get go:(

[Viking Kitten]

The state's Department of Family and Protective Services "did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," the judges ruled.

This bugs the living crap out of me. Does this set the precedent that as soon as little girl gets boobs she's fair game for a bunch of old pervs under the guise of freedom of religion?

[Sooner_Havok]

This bugs the living crap out of me. Does this set the precedent that as soon as little girl gets boobs she's fair game for a bunch of old pervs under the guise of freedom of religion?

Sadly, I'm afraid so:(

[r5TPsooner]

I don't care what happens to the kids as long as the parents quit raping tax payers.

OK, maybe I care about the kids a widdle bit.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Waiting for the megabucks lawsuit in 3...2...1.

They should pass a law that they can't collect welfare for the "non-married" wimmen and chil'run...

[C&CDean]

It's funny how some people want the state in some people's bedrooms some of the time...

[Sooner_Havok]

It's funny how some people want the state in some people's bedrooms some of the time...

That is funny isn't it

[yermom]

It's funny how some people want the state in some people's bedrooms some of the time...

as long as we are talking about people above the age of majority, i could care less what happens in some cultist's bedroom


although, that number is a bit arbitrary

really, i can't see that much wrong with polygamy

why is it any different than someone with 3 baby mamas?

[mdklatt]

as long as we are talking about people above the age of majority, i could care less what happens in some cultist's bedroom


although, that number is a bit arbitrary

really, i can't see that much wrong with polygamy

why is it any different than someone with 3 baby mamas?

Playing Devli's Advocate, the difference is that one situation would be sanctioned by the state. I see no practical difference between any two adults entering into a civil union or whatever you want to call it, but there's a difference between 2 and more than 2. How many people can realistically share custody of a kid? What about power of attorney? Say there's one husband and three wives, and the husband is in a coma. Do all three wives have to agree on pulling the plug or does one of them have authority over the other two? These are solvable problems (just write everything into the "contract"), but it is more complicated.

[OUHOMER]

I was torn this situation as well. Dont want to see kids abused or underage girls or any girl being forced into marriage or the the bed.

but i think the court made the right decision.

I can not believe a crank call did all of this. State should have had more proof

[yermom]

Playing Devli's Advocate, the difference is that one situation would be sanctioned by the state. I see no practical difference between any two adults entering into a civil union or whatever you want to call it, but there's a difference between 2 and more than 2. How many people can realistically share custody of a kid? What about power of attorney? Say there's one husband and three wives, and the husband is in a coma. Do all three wives have to agree on pulling the plug or does one of them have authority over the other two? These are solvable problems (just write everything into the "contract"), but it is more complicated.

IMO it should go back to freedom of religion. it's legal to live with as many women you want, and have sex, kids, etc... the difference is that for their religion to say it's ok, they have to be married in the eyes of their religion

if the government would recognize multiple marriages then they couldn't apply for welfare 3 times, etc...

as for power of attorney, etc... let the lawyers figure that one out. i could really care less if Obadiah's wives need a quorum to unplug his comatose ***.

[stoopified]

Man, I was torn on that. I don't think the Gubment should be made into a nanny state, but if those young girls were in fact being forced to marry men in the 30's and 40's at the age of 14...

It was a lose lose situation from the get go:(True.

[mdklatt]

Apparently, the ruling had a lot to do with procedural screwups.

http://www.slate.com/id/2191009/


Earlier today, attorneys for Child Protective Services confirmed that 15 of the 31 "child" mothers placed in foster care were actually adults. One is 27. A 14-year-old removed as a child mother apparently has no children. The state had raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hotline saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband, but that girl has not been found.

[AlbqSooner]

Man, I was torn on that. I don't think the Gubment should be made into a nanny state, but if those young girls were in fact being forced to marry men in the 30's and 40's at the age of 14...

It was a lose lose situation from the get go:(

The Court's ruling was mostly procedural. The State had the right to go into court and present evidence that the kids should be taken from their parents. The State did not do that. Instead, the State chose to go in and take the kids - all of them from their parents immediately without any hearing whatever prior to interfering with the parent/child relationship. The Court held that under Texas law, the State cannot take the children prior to a hearing unless the children are in IMMEDIATE or EMINENT danger of harm by being left in the situation.

While I feel that the ALLEGATIONS of activities supposedly taking place in that compound were heinous, it turns out that there is not evidence to support those allegations. Even if we assume those allegations to be true, the majority of children removed were age 5 or less. There were no allegations that any of the 5 and under kids were being subjected to marriages, sexual activity or abuse. The Court decision seems the prudent course.

[Curly Bill]

I thought from the start that the state of Texas had overstepped it's authority, seems that happens with the gubmint sometimes.

Note: this does not excuse what's been going on there, though I could not care less if a man wants more then one wife and the women are fine with it as well. Wrongdoing on the part of the peeps inside that compound does not make it OK for the state to engage in it's own wrongdoing. IMO

[John Kochtoston]

Waiting for the megabucks lawsuit in 3...2...1.



Doubt it. Sovereign immunity would probably either entirely prevent the case, or limit possible damages so much that not many lawyers would take it.

[85Sooner]

Made that call when it happened and they could not produce the accusant.

All evidence gathered will now be inadmisable

[TheHumanAlphabet]

as long as we are talking about people above the age of majority, i could care less what happens in some cultist's bedroom


although, that number is a bit arbitrary

really, i can't see that much wrong with polygamy

why is it any different than someone with 3 baby mamas?

I agree to a point here...I don't think the state should pay welfare to any person with multiple babies when they are doing nothing to improve their situation or stop themselves from procreating. Same goes to the spiritual plural marriages where the guy has no means to provide for his extended families. I bet that would reign in the FLDS and like minded plural marriage societies.

A sane person wouldn't keep having multiple babies when they knew they had to support them. So, this isn't eugenics - perhaps we should monitor who has babies and who has to pay for them...I realize this is treading on an intrusion government fine line...

[47straight]

Doubt it. Sovereign immunity would probably either entirely prevent the case, or limit possible damages so much that not many lawyers would take it.

SI is waived for the guv'mint "1983" (21 U.S.C. section 1983 I think) civil rights lawsuits. The code specifically allows recovery of attorney's fees. This is what funds 2/3 of the ACLU.