1. The court simply ruled that the kids should not have been taken at that point, not that the FLDS is innocent of anything. In other words, the investigation will most likely continue and the state can begin making a better evidence-based case leading to real prosecutions.

2. The court's decision is wrong in its own right:

"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger,"

Well I certainly beg to differ. The witnesses described a belief system that mandates forced marriage and sexual abuse including statutory and physical rape. There may not be evidence that each of those children was in imminent danger, but there is plentiful evidence that most of those children will face eventual danger. The witnesses have described the FLDS to follow a belief system that is explicitly criminal (though polygamy is just a red herring here).

Certainly the case of Warren Jeff's conviction provides further evidence that FLDS belief system is dangerous to its younger women.

This is a case of people being raised with pre-modern beliefs and thus subscribing to a pre-modern idea of what is permissible or not. The victims themselves may not see themselves as such - thus is the nature of a cult. Thats why this case has been difficult to collect evidence for: most victims are not forthcoming because they don't consider themselves victimized.

So, jwschmidt, do you believe that all Muslims should be arrested and have their children taken away? It is legal in the religion for men to hit women, to have multiple wives, and they do not believe in the whole age 18 thing. How about Catholics? Should all priests be arrested because some molested children? Sorry, but this would be a very dangerous precedence to set, basically giving the gov't the right to say that a religion is not legal.... They could even ban atheism using the same argument because atheism encourages immoral activity! If you believe that this was a legal argument that you could accept, I hope you don't value your privacy, or right to religion (or lack of one)

The concept of imminent danger verses eventual danger is a good one.

How about this example; A gay 15 year old child has Catholic parents. These parents tell him being gay is evil and that he is NOT to use condoms EVER because that is also against the religion.

This child is now facing eventual danger IF he follows his parent's religious teachings. Should the state take this child from these parents?

This concept of eventual danger might be too fluid to use as a basis for removing a child from their parents.

Yeah that quote isn't clear but it seems to mean imminent and significant danger even though it doesn't come out and say it obliquely. Otherwise parents could have there kids taken away for giving them a path because that puts them in some amount of physical danger or driving with them in a car.

If the standard to remove a child from custody is imminent danger, and you're saying there wasn't evidence proving that it existed - how was the court wrong?

Did the state's attorney even make the "eventual danger" argument? I'm doubting they did, as it would likely concede that they couldn't prove that it was imminent.

patron002:

So, jwschmidt, do you believe that all Muslims should be arrested and have their children taken away? It is legal in the religion for men to hit women, to have multiple wives, and they do not believe in the whole age 18 thing. How about Catholics? Should all priests be arrested because some molested children? Sorry, but this would be a very dangerous precedence to set, basically giving the gov't the right to say that a religion is not legal.... They could even ban atheism using the same argument because atheism encourages immoral activity! If you believe that this was a legal argument that you could accept, I hope you don't value your privacy, or right to religion (or lack of one)

Thats an inconsistent arguement, because I never argued that people who aren't participating in illegal behavior should be arrested. If it is happening then you arrest the molesting priests and abusive husbands. There is ample evidence that abuse was happenign in the FLDS community, and every indication that everyone was involved in some way (this was a closed community, after all).

And belief is absolutely legally permissable evidence in cases such as this. For example, if a woman flees her husband because he is beating her, and claims that her daughter is being beaten as well, then she has legal precedent to bring charges against her husband and remove her daughter from his custody. If, in addition to evidence of the original abuse, she makes the case that he does so in part because of his religion (or personal philosophy of some sort), and he admits that abuse to be part of his personal convictions, then that is simply more, legitimate evidence that danger is present and that the daughter should be removed from his custody.

Its not a precedent that might be set, its part of how investigations and the law currently function.

As for the imminent\eventual debate, I don't think that those terms where of interest to the court (If they where, please correct). It was just a question of plain old regular "danger" - was it present or was it not? Based on all available evidence, those kids where in a community that permitted\required sexual abuse. That to me is plainly dangerous, whether imminent or not.

I understand that there are other legal reasons (which are legitimate) as to why the court made their decision, but the claim that there was no evidence of danger was simply not among them.

just to followup, if someone were to leave the FLDS community but still retain all their beliefs, but NOT be engaged in abuse (i.e., have an adult wife, not be forcing their kids to marry, not allowing them to be sexually abused, not engaging in incest) then there's no problem, as there is no harm.

The belief system is not harm in and of itself, it is just evidence that harm may be taking place. But it wouldn't stand on its own as a reason for any legal action, obviously.

"I never argued that people who aren't participating in illegal behavior should be arrested."

Did you even read your post? You argued "eventual danger" because "witnesses" say the FLDS follow a belief system that is "explicitly criminal." So, you are advocating a position where the mere existence of a belief is criminal, whether or not a crime has occurred. As a result, you advocate the removal of children because something *might* happen.

"If it is happening then you arrest the molesting priests and abusive husbands. There is ample evidence that abuse was happenign in the FLDS community, and every indication that everyone was involved in some way (this was a closed community, after all)."

There was no evidence that the children were in "imminent danger," the standard required to remove the children from their parent's custody. What may be happening in the "FLDS Community" is not relevant.

Where is the "every indication" that "everyone" was involved in the abuse you allege occurred? The appellate court didn't agree with you. And you haven't presented anything other than hearsay to make me believe what you said is true.

"And belief is absolutely legally permissable evidence in cases such as this. For example, if a woman flees her husband because he is beating her, and claims that her daughter is being beaten as well, then she has legal precedent to bring charges against her husband and remove her daughter from his custody. If, in addition to evidence of the original abuse, she makes the case that he does so in part because of his religion (or personal philosophy of some sort), and he admits that abuse to be part of his personal convictions, then that is simply more, legitimate evidence that danger is present and that the daughter should be removed from his custody."

Wow, what convoluted reasoning. "Belief" unsupported by evidence is not evidence, it is opinion. If we allow what you advocate, then we upset the entire concept of our criminal justice system. In our system, you can't substitute opinion for evidence.

If religious beliefs could be considered as "evidence" of imminent danger, then something objectionable can be found any religious belief system. Simply believing in a "supreme being," it could be argued, is irrational and, under your standards, a reason to believe the children of parents who believe in any religion are a danger to their children.

"Its not a precedent that might be set, its part of how investigations and the law currently function."

Perhaps you should do some reading about the constitution, about the state laws of Texas and common law. What you advocate is not "part of how investigations and the law currently function." I am not saying that, the Texas court of appeals is.

"As for the imminent\eventual debate, I don't think that those terms where of interest to the court (If they where, please correct)."

Texas law requires that a child must in imminent danger in order for the state to remove a child from his parents. The appellate court held there was no "imminent danger," therefore the action of children's service was illegal.

If you didn't know whether imminent or eventual danger was the standard for action by children's services in this case, why have you put forth arguments in support of the theory of "eventual danger"?

"It was just a question of plain old regular "danger" - was it present or was it not? Based on all available evidence, those kids where in a community that permitted\required sexual abuse. That to me is plainly dangerous, whether imminent or not."

Fortunately for the rest of us, you don't make decisions about other people's rights, as you seem to have little respect for them. Your claim that "those kids where [sic] in a community that permitted\required sexual abuse" is hearsay. Hearsay is inadmissible. In our society, we don't criminalize people for something that might happen.

"I understand that there are other legal reasons (which are legitimate) as to why the court made their decision, but the claim that there was no evidence of danger was simply not among them."

The law requires direct evidence of imminent danger before it can act to remove children from their parents. In this case, there was no direct evidence of imminent danger to the children. So, the state's removal of the children was illegal and completely unjustified. Nothing else was necessary for the court to make its ruling.

Doc, you ask if I read my own post, but after your response, I'm not even sure that YOU did. Everything you wrote seems to assume that I said that belief, by itself, was enough grounds for prosecution, which I did not.

But that aside, you are making a few other mistakes both in understanding what I said, as well as understanding the facts of this case.

1. There is no hearsay anywhere in this FLDS case. Warren Jeffs is in prison because it was proven, through eyewitness testimony, that he forced a girl to marry and promoted a community policy of sexual assault on young girls. In that trial, it also became known that the FLDS followed his authoritarian rules, and that the very thing he went to prison for was the NORM. now, that isn't legally admissable in this case because it technically only applied to Warren Jeffs, but the evidence was established then.

Furthermore, the FLDS don't deny it. They just say that the girls are willing to go through with all of it, but they haven't claimed that early marriage\sex doesn't happen, just that they don't consider it abuse. There is no hearsay about whats going on.

2. If texas law does indeed require "imminent" danger, then ok, the court may not have technically been wrong. But again, its the technicalities here that are keeping the FLDS safe, not the realities. For example, you say that we don't criminilize people for things that "might" happen, well, there is no "might." Ask the FLDS, they will tell you that in their community girls will be married and get pregnant before the age of consent. Thats essentially a guarantee, because its the rules of the community: their beliefs.

3. You seem to think that when I say "beliefs" I am referring to abstract beliefs, like convictions or values. Obviously in this case I am not talking about that, but about their RULES. In that community, belief in polygamy and young marriage translates into rules enforcing polygamy and young marriage. Its policy. Its intent. And that makes it evidence.

4. As I clarified in my followup post, belief alone is not sufficient evidence of anything. You can't prosecute someone for a crime when motive is your ONLY piece of evidence. But once you have a more serious portfolio of evidence, then motive becomes an essential piece of evidence in making the case. Thats what is happening here. If they "believed" in child marriage but didn't practice it, it wouldn't matter. But they DO practice it, and thus their belief is indicative that they're going to keep doing it.

5. This particular issue, belief, is not what the court rested its decision upon. That was based upon the relatively shoddy work of the texas investigators in that some women had been abused, but some hadn't - they botched the operation because they couldn't prove abuse for every single child. For legal reasons, the court was obligated to send them back. Ok.

The court is still "wrong" however, regarding their rationalization that there is no danger. A more realistic reading of the case would read: While the court recognizes that the FLDS ranch may represent a potentially dangerous environment for these kids, the state has not fully followed the protocols of investigation to take this action at this time.

- Now, we've talked about whether the state of texas made the case that there is "danger" or not. What do YOU think? Do you seriously believe that the kids should be allowed to live in that environment? I'll relinquish on the legal technicalities - the court did what it had to do because the rules of investigation do need to be followed. But the common-sense of this case is right in front of our faces. I fail to see how anyone could make a rational arguement that the FLDS community is not a dangerous place for children.

Agreed to some extent jwschmidt, but a warrant has to have some limits. They got a call from one "15 year old" that resided in colorado springs and has a long history of prank calling police about various disturbing activities and has actually served time in prison for it. A simple phone trace would have revealed that the woman calling was from colorado, not texas, and a little research would have revealed that she was a serial prank caller. The warrant should probably have not been issued at all, but if issued should have been fairly narrow. Furthermore, the argument that because it was a 'closed' community they are all responsible is probably common sense, but not dignified by the law. If this were the case, the man and woman in an abuse case should always both be arrested, I mean, thats a closed environment as well, two people living in one house with children... The problem is that, while it would be great to make the exception just this one time, in the future this could very well be used to hold an entire family guilty for one family members crime.

This is what happens when you try and deal with cults. And the FLDS is certainly one by anybody's definition. Crimes are committed, but it is much more difficult to determine who is involved, who aided and abetted, and who simply was a bystander. When the environment is so all-encompassing, its difficult to determine where individual responsibility lays.

This is why police need to build a very specific case and do a lot of legwork when they prepare to prosecute. Obviously, they did not do that in this case. My purpose in posting was to point out that even though the police botched this by conducting this raid and not properly backing it up, that makes little difference when considering the question of whether or not FLDS life is safe for kids or not.

But I still think what happened was justified. If a man abuses his daughter, the state can come in and take that daughter away. What happens if there is also a younger sister, who may or may not have been abused? They will most likely take her too, because the pattern of abuse is apparent. What happens to the mother? Thats trickier, because she didn't engage directly in the abuse. Usually, you would expect mothers in these situations to be bystanders who are unable to help their kids. In the FLDS's case, it seems apparent that the mothers saw nothing wrong with what was going on (Again, this is why their beliefs are relevent to the case). While that doesn't mean mothers should be arrested (and they weren't), I see no reason to say that they constitute responsible parents who deserve their kids back.

"1. There is no hearsay anywhere in this FLDS case. Warren Jeffs is in prison because it was proven, through eyewitness testimony, that he forced a girl to marry and promoted a community policy of sexual assault on young girls. In that trial, it also became known that the FLDS followed his authoritarian rules, and that the very thing he went to prison for was the NORM. now, that isn't legally admissable in this case because it technically only applied to Warren Jeffs, but the evidence was established then."

Do you know what "hearsay" is? Jeffs was convicted on direct evidence. That he said, (which is the definition of "hearsay"), that the FLDS "followed his authoritarin rules," (if he even did say this), does not make it true. You are saying that we should deprive people of their constitutionally guaranteed rights because of something that Jeffs - whom you admit is a criminal - said or believes. The last part of your argument on this point doesn't make sense - in one instance, you say what Jeffs said isn't "legally admissable" [sic] in the matter of the children, but that it "established" evidence that was legally admissible in the matter of the children.

BTW, Jeffs was convicted of two counts of being an accomplice to rape. He was not convicted of "forc[ing] a girl to marry" or for promoting a "community policy of sexual assault on youn girls."

"Furthermore, the FLDS don't deny it. They just say that the girls are willing to go through with all of it, but they haven't claimed that early marriage\sex doesn't happen, just that they don't consider it abuse. There is no hearsay about whats going on."

So, what a "group" or members of a "group" says establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, what is happening in that "group"? This is not direct evidence it is hearsay - that part about "they just say" really torpedoed the "no hearsay" part of your argument. If we followed your reasoning, if the aforementioned "group" or members of a "group" stood up and denied that "early marriage\sex" happened, then we should believe them.

"2. If texas law does indeed require "imminent" danger, then ok, the court may not have technically been wrong."

I will interpret this statement to mean that you now understand the state must have direct evidence that the children they seized were in imminent danger. Thank you.

"But again, its the technicalities here that are keeping the FLDS safe, not the realities. For example, you say that we don't criminilize people for things that "might" happen, well, there is no "might." Ask the FLDS, they will tell you that in their community girls will be married and get pregnant before the age of consent. Thats essentially a guarantee, because its the rules of the community: their beliefs."

Yet, here, you put forward the belief that the fact "FLDS... [says] ...that in their community girls will be married and get pregnant before the age of consent" constitutes "essentially a guarantee" that children will be abused. This PURE HEARSAY. This does not constitute direct evidence. In our system of jurisprudence, the State of Texas is required to have DIRECT EVIDENCE that the children are in imminent danger, before acting. You are saying, what someone "says" is justification for the states actions, when it clearly is not.

"3. You seem to think that when I say "beliefs" I am referring to abstract beliefs, like convictions or values. Obviously in this case I am not talking about that, but about their RULES. In that community, belief in polygamy and young marriage translates into rules enforcing polygamy and young marriage. Its policy. Its intent. And that makes it evidence."

This, again, is hearsay. Even if a group has "rules," (and, in this case, there are no written "rules"), that does not mean everyone in that group follows those rules to the letter. If our system of justice allowed this to be considered "evidence," it would be guilt by association.

All religious beliefs are, by definition, abstract. The speakers for the FLDS may say that underage marriage is "policy" and/or "intent" of the FLDS, (they haven't, they are much smarter than that), yet our form of jurisprudence does not allow one to have the beliefs of their leaders to be used as DIRECT EVIDENCE against them.

Direct evidence would be, for example, the testimony of a competent person that they were a contemporaneous witness to the alleged illegal behavior. They would not be testifying about what someone said, but, rather, what they - the witness - actually witnessed. There has been no such witness in this case.

"4. As I clarified in my followup post, belief alone is not sufficient evidence of anything. You can't prosecute someone for a crime when motive is your ONLY piece of evidence. But once you have a more serious portfolio of evidence, then motive becomes an essential piece of evidence in making the case. Thats what is happening here. If they "believed" in child marriage but didn't practice it, it wouldn't matter. But they DO practice it, and thus their belief is indicative that they're going to keep doing it."

What constitutes the "more serious portfolio of evidence" that you claim is present in this case? Even if this "more serious portfolio of evidence" existed, it would apply only person it directly demonstrated violated the law - arguably, statutory rape and/or bigamy. Not the entire FLDS.

Who is the "they" that "DO practice it"? If there is direct evidence that the "they" you are referring to committed a crime, that evidence could be used against that person. That one "believes" something and that some other person may have committed a crime, does not mean b both have or will commit the same crime. When evidence of others' criminal activity becomes evident, then this direct evidence can be used against the person[s] who committed a crime.

Otherwise, to use statements by some as the "direct evidence" to implicate all members of a group is "guilt by association."

"5. This particular issue, belief, is not what the court rested its decision upon. That was based upon the relatively shoddy work of the texas investigators in that some women had been abused, but some hadn't - they botched the operation because they couldn't prove abuse for every single child. For legal reasons, the court was obligated to send them back. Ok."

In this paragraph, you are saying the State of Texas' failed to gather direct evidence that proved the children removed from their parents at YFZ were in "imminent danger," as required by law. Further, you acknowledge that it is this lack of direct evidence made the seizure of ALL of the children unlawful.

In other words, what I have been saying all along.

"The court is still "wrong" however, regarding their rationalization that there is no danger."

You are entitled to your opinion of the actions of the appellate court. However, the court didn't say there was "no danger" to the children at the YFZ compound. They said there was no direct evidence of the imminent danger to children that is required by law before the children can be removed from their parents' custody. So, I have to wonder what you base your opinion on...

"A more realistic reading of the case would read: While the court recognizes that the FLDS ranch may represent a potentially dangerous environment for these kids, the state has not fully followed the protocols of investigation to take this action at this time."

What I have been arguing from the beginning. Also, completely inconsistent with your insistence that "hearsay" is "evidence" that can be used to establish that the children were in imminent danger.

"Now, we've talked about whether the state of Texas made the case that there is "danger" or not. What do YOU think?"

I believe in the system of justice that is laid out in the constitution of the United States. These laws REQUIRE direct evidence, not hearsay, before they can be used to deprive an American citizen of their constitutional rights. In this case, there was no direct evidence that the children removed from YFZ were in imminent danger of abuse, as required by the law.

I believe that the United States government and government of the several states must act within the law. This is a nation of laws, (well, okay, less so than before the Bushies came into power), not men.

"Do you seriously believe that the kids should be allowed to live in that environment?"

What I believe is immaterial. What can be proved by direct evidence is material. There is no direct evidence that the situation the children seized at the YFZ compound were in put them in imminent danger of abuse. Therefore, I believe there is no justification for the seizure of the children by the State of Texas.

Generally, no, I don't believe children should be left in an environment where they will be in imminent danger of abuse. However, in this case, there is no direct evidence of imminent danger to the children.

Another person's religious beliefs are none of my business. Once we start picking and choosing which religions will be protected by the constitution, we are on a slippery slope towards making religious persecution a state function.


"I'll relinquish on the legal technicalities - the court did what it had to do because the rules of investigation do need to be followed."

Thank you for conceding my point.

"But the common-sense of this case is right in front of our faces. I fail to see how anyone could make a rational arguement that the FLDS community is not a dangerous place for children."

That, my friend, is your opinion. An opinion that does not constitute direct evidence. And an opinion that you, in a free society, have the right to.

I misstated something in my last post. I meant to say -

"While the court recognizes that the FLDS ranch may represent a potentially dangerous environment for these kids, the state has not fully followed the protocols of investigation to take this action at this time."

What I have been arguing from the beginning. [I have not been arguing that the court believes the conditions at YFZ "represent a potentially dangerous environment."] Also, completely inconsistent with your insistence that "hearsay" is "evidence" that can be used to establish that the children were in imminent danger.

...lacking any real evidence, introduces even more totally irrelevant items they consider "evidence" of wrongdoing at YFZ compound that put the children living there in "imminent danger" before they raided the place - with automatic weapons and a tank, (talk about imminent danger, who's going to protect these children from the over-enthusiastic cops)...

<link>

I hate to tell them, but pictures of Warren Jeffs with several different females, who's ages cannot/have not been confirmed is not evidence that the children at the YFZ compound were in "imminent danger" as required by statute in Texas. It further demonstrates that Texas' childrens' services is either incredibly ill-informed of the rules of evidence or completely unconcerned with them.

Jeff's may, more may, not have molested the pictured women. However, it is without contradiction, that he couldn't have been molesting the children that were at YFZ when the State of Texas showed up with automatic weapons and a tank to "save" them. He was already in jail for crimes against two females not living at the YFZ compound at the time of the raid.

Seems like desperation on the part of the State of Texas - or should we say, the Fascist State of Texas.

Now, all we have to do is wait for the State of Texas to lose its appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. I predict this will happen within the week...

Today, the Texas Supreme Sourt upheld the findings of the lower court.

The State of Texas was wrong and illegally removed the children. No evidence of imminent risk of harm...

Here's a link to the NY Times article-

<link>