If the state is going to remove all chidren on the basis of 1) the religion accepts polygamy and 2) there is evidence of forced marriages and/or marriages under the age of 18. THEN why didn't Texas round up all the Muslim famlies in the state? Because they would heve been hugely denounced, but the social workers thought they could get away with travesty.

Well, if there was a marriage and the woman was under the legal age, or it was under coersive conditions, or it was polygamous, then the state agencies are duty bound to go after that particular marriage, not the religion. They got a call stating that there was systematic child abuse, forced under-age marriage and forced polygamy. They didn't raid the place to look cool. And if they got a call about Muslim compound doing the same thing, they would kick the doors in just as readily.

It doesn't matter---the fact of it all is THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR THE STATE TO DO IT. Just like most else this country is doing thats illegal people are just acting like sheep and following where the goverment leads them and saying ok. Americans have lost all their balls thats why we are the laughing stock of the world today.

I do not agree with almost anything this administration does. Howerver, I do agree with these particular judges and everyone else involved in this for caring about the well being of these brainwashed abused children. Thankfully we have people who care enough to get involved in somthing that is wrong instead of looking the other way because it may be infringing on someones rights. What about the right for the children not to be raped?

QBE, you forget to mention that the phone call was a prank call made outside of the state... a basic phone trace would have revealed that the call was a fake, the Gov't deliberately chose not to find out where that call came from. 'good faith' only qualifies if you took every reasonable effort to make sure the information was correct, a phone trace would not be unreasonable, the police acted recklessly and without real evidence. I want the child molesters to be thrown in jail, but I wont pretend for a second that our Constitutional, and other legal rights only exist when the Gov't feels like it, or I find the people that had their rights trampled on are people I sympathize with.

Why all the fuss, they're only women and children. Its not as if they were real people---men.

"THEN why didn't Texas round up all the Muslim famlies in the state? Because they would heve been hugely denounced, but the social workers thought they could get away with travesty."

The FLDS was a safe target for the State of Texas to vent their intolerance on.

It could be argued there is a difference between "arranged marriages" and what the State of Texas claims happens at YFZ. In the US, most people who come from cultures where marriages have been, traditionally, arranged can say no.

"I do agree with these particular judges and everyone else involved in this for caring about the well being of these brainwashed abused children."

The state children services and the law enforcement officials who started this thing out did not respect the rights of the either the children or the adults at YFZ. They acted in what the appellate court says was an illegal manner and took over 400 children away from their parents without cause. This is not how this country is supposed to work.

Just because you don't believe the same as another person or choose to live in a different manner doesn't mean they are brainwashed.

"Thankfully we have people who care enough to get involved in somthing that is wrong instead of looking the other way because it may be infringing on someones rights. What about the right for the children not to be raped?"

What you are advocating is the that the government should ignore the constitution, civil rights, statutory laws and hundreds of years of common law and just do what they think is right. And, hey, since it is "for the children" it is ok to massively violate a persons inherent human and civil rights. I think there is a name for this - totalitarianism.

There was no evidence anyone was being raped. They should have gotten that information before they showed up the YFZ with automatic weapons, a tank and hundreds of armed men. Instead they relied on a call from a non-existent complaintant that could have been easily disproved.

In answer to this and from now what, the constitutional guarantees that you're looking for will be in effect when the cases are thrown out or when the state govt gets sued. As for good faith measures, I was unaware that the state suppressed efforts to investigate the source of the call. Some of the screw ups in the situation can also be expected because in some cases the mothers were considered children too, so how do you reunite children with parents when you're finding parents for the mother. I believe that some mothers were well past childhood (someone mentioned a 27 year old woman being put into a foster home?) and were put into the system, and that should be investigated and punished where applicable.

That said, there were girls who were having children below the age of legal marraige and consensual sex with adult men. That is statutory rape, It was systemic as the marriages were arranged in conjunction with the leadership of the compound. Additionally, where the marriages were polygamous, the marriages are sacramental only, and not valid before the state. The state, having been called in, will only act on what it sees as valid before the law. How do you reunite families that are part of a model that is banned by law? Some of the mothers had job skills, but some didn't. What then?

They were able to exist in a social order that is illegal in the U.S. and is enthical in a dozen ways. The corrective action for the situation was executed so badly that it will cause additional misery on its own. We both don't like the method of correction. But the situation before hand was worse than the corrective action. I don't think we agree there.

I, generally, agree with you, except for the last bit...

If the milieu, polygamy, was a legal problem for the Texas authorities, why didn't they arrest and prosecute the participants? Fact is, very few people would get behind a mass arrest for bigamy. Furthermore, the Texas authorities tried that, before, and came out with eggs on their faces. So, they went after the "children" in the compound - including a 27 year old - because just about anyone will tolerate just about anything, no matter how egregious, in the name "of the children."

The general attitude of people posting to this forum is that any violation of anyone's rights is "justified" because of the conditions the children were living in. Yet, no one, (including the state of Texas), has been able to document any of these, so called, unsafe living situations that they claim were harmful to the children. Instead they make vague and ambiguous statements about possible, future abuse, which may or may not ever occur.

The epitome of the state's fallacy is the state's claim that the male children are being "groomed" to continue polygamy - with the insinuation that they will - that's in the future - abuse females sometime in the distant future. Not may, "will." In truth, if there is a danger of harm to the male children in the compound, it is that they will expelled from their homes and communities without any support. Yet, the state chooses to focus on the extremely remote possibility that they will commit statutory rape in some far, distant future unless they are immediatly, and with extreme force, removed from their mothers.

Let's not even discuss the fact that the constitution prevents the state from becoming involved in the practice or establishment of religion.

And, doesn't it sound like the ultimate in incompetence to mistake a 27 year old for a minor? And isn't it the ultimate expression of chutzpah to treat a 27 year old as a minor, despite her insistence she was 27? On top of the fact this whole fiasco was started by a hoax telephone call.

Since this article was written, the State of Texas has, predictably, decided to try to sell their bogus bill of goods to the Texas Supreme Court. They have asked for a stay of the lower court's order to, immediately, release the seized children. The higher court has declined to issue such a stay. In the normal function of the court, unless there is a substantial risk of irrevocable harm in the enforcement of the lower court's order and a substantial likelihood that the petitioner will prevail, such stays are granted. Since the court did not enjoin the lower court's order, it is reasonable to believe the higher court does not believe there is not a substantial likelihood that the State of Texas will prevail upon appeal.

The State is going to get its butt kicked when it gets to the Texas Supreme Court. That's just what's going to happen. They botched this so badly it's insane.

And the trouble of it is that they had biological proof of statutory rape in that a young teenager gave birth, and proof of negelct by the forced expulsions. They had oodles of proof of domestic abuse by way of coersion so that any child who wanted off could have pointed to it and gotten aid from the State. Whether or not that's going to get remedied now is anybody's guess.

I would also count on a class action suit.

But if the kids can get out of that environment, get a support network, and get away from the elders, at least some good has happened.

"The State is going to get its butt kicked when it gets to the Texas Supreme Court. That's just what's going to happen. They botched this so badly it's insane."

I agree...

"And the trouble of it is that they had biological proof of statutory rape in that a young teenager gave birth,"

Why didn't they arrest anyone for statutory rape? Why haven't they identified a case, or cases, where they claim that statutory rape occurred? One must believe, (and I know it is difficult considering how unprofessionally they acted) that, if they had evidence of statutory rape they would have managed to arrest those suspects. It might have given a slight patina of legality and sensibility to this fiasco. Instead, they did nothing but remove the children.

"and proof of negelct [sic] by the forced expulsions."

What forced expulsions? If you are referring to the "lost boys," there has been no mention, or any evidence presented, of that practice by the FLDS who were at the YFZ compound.
"

"They had oodles of proof of domestic abuse by way of coersion [sic] so that any child who wanted off could have pointed to it and gotten aid from the State."

If this is so, why haven't they presented such "proof" to the court? Because they don't have any.

"Whether or not that's going to get remedied now is anybody's guess.

If one looks at the way allegations of child abuse, (even if they are false), are handled in this country, there is no doubt that some of the children will not be returned to their parents. Actually, given the attitude and actions of children's services in this case, (refusing to return the children, even in the face of a legitimate court order), it is highly unlikely children's services will act based upon the court's decision without strong prodding.

"I would also count on a class action suit."

Wouldn't work. ~400 plaintiffs isn't enough to certify a class. Most states, (I am not sure about Texas), have provisions that hold children's services and their employees immune from civil lawsuits in situations like this.

"But if the kids can get out of that environment, get a support network, and get away from the elders, at least some good has happened."

That is your belief, but it is not the law.

The first and fourteenth amendments to the constitution - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "due process," ensure that the government cannot and will not intervene with the religious beliefs of any citizen. Including the FLDS.

In this case, it is clear that many people don't like the FLDS. However, the constitution was written to protect the rights of all. Even if those people are in the minority. Just because some don't agree with the religious beliefs practiced by the FLDS doesn't mean the government can run roughshod over them. In fact, it is illegal for foster parents to try to change the religion of the children in their care. Another law that is being flaunted by the State of Texas...