Texas Appellate Court rules against CPS

[FireMax]

I just got finished re-reading the original thread. I can't count the number of times it was inferred that people who disagreed with the Texas Dept. Of Children Protective Services were supporting rapists. There was so much emotion from people in that thread. So many people wanted to judge the case before it was even a few days old. Yikes.

Here are some of the most interesting quotes from that thread. There was a lot to choose from. They are not in any particular order. The old thread can be found here... http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289156

Firemax
Not a single person in this thread has argued in favor of the guilty going free. Not a single one.

ZeroJunk
Do you think the Texas authorities are stupid enough to get in to a national daily news event case that will be turned over by the courts?

homefires
Yep

seeker_two
As a former TX CPS investigator, I have to agree.....

Toybox99615
I guess it is time for all of us to face the facts: the government officials in Texas are involved in a gigantic conspiracy against these people. Everything is complete fabrication. The State of Texas is involved in a social engineering project to eliminate the practice of religion. The failure of the State to convict the church members before they terrorized all the children is proof there is no evidence in the case.

Apparently you have no faith in the criminal justice system.

Playboypenguin
Snatching? You choice of wording does very little to cover you personal bent on the situation and your desire to color it as something it does not appear to be in reality. I do not see people being taken forcibly.

Playboypenguin (April 14th)
I missed that part where the case seems to be falling apart.

firemax
It just seems that, in this thread anyway, if one takes a different opinion than the authorities, then they are damning the children to hell and to be raped, etc. etc., ad nauseum. I'm all for protecting children, as most of the people who do not agree with the authorities most certainly are. ...there are questions which should be raised and which have been raised. The onus should always be on the government to explain and verify the validity of their actions. I don't think that is a standard which is too high or extraordinary and I don't think raising such questions indicates a person who is excusing unlawful behavior.

juancarlos
Well, not hell so much...just the rape.

PlayBoyPenguin
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and defends child molesters with baseless claims of unconstitutionality, blatant emotional manipulation, and inaccurate historical references. Then it is a vile child molester defending duck. No matter how you chose to rationalize it or what agenda you want to wrap it up in.

Playboypenguin
Now you have crossed the line and started defending child molesters.

PlayBoyPenguin
Wow...another article full of "mights", "coulds", and "maybes." I love how low your threshold of proof is when it comes to searching for reasons to start defending child molesters.

Playboypenguin
Wow, the parts of that text you chose to highlight is really alarming and very telling of your personal bent which is apparently more important to you than the safety of the children. It is very easy to see your personal bias and how you find it more important than seeing to the safety of the underaged persons involved.

ZeroJunk
PBP is exactly right about this. it's interesting that so many of you are so anti-authority that you demonize them when they are doing something that any sane person would think is correct.

tyme
This issue is a real mess.

PWK
Will the right thing be done or will law enforcement continue with this charade of justice? My guess is the latter.

incendiumX
The governent has no authority, NONE to do this to these people. Nowhere in the constitution does ti give them the right to break up religions whos principals they dont agree with.

ZeroJunk
It seems hard for some of you to believe, but in this situation the "authorities" may be right.

 

[Al Norris]

I started this thread because new info was available.

When I closed the other thread, I said:

Feel free to open another thread, when and if new information becomes available... New information does not include rehashes of stuff we've already seen and read.

Let me add, that the shrillness of the other thread will not be carried over to this one. Capische?

Certain members had best tone their screaching down, immediately.

 

[homefires]

I started the mess! It was my attempt to see if the constitution was being stomped on! Yep the thread got twisted into four different folds.

There is obviously some bad people out there! There was no reason for the Powers to be to take control of 400 and some kids, mother , fathers Yes Fathers lives! I suggest the next time you go hunting for monsters, you look at the monster within!!

The law has it place! I think it over stepped it's ground in this case. Some of you called me the what for saying I condoned the molestation of little girls. That was not my question. Killing the messenger is not going to get you any place.

Put down your pitch forks and shut up and color! You learn a lot more by listening then you do by yelling!
:barf:

 

[elza]

I am always amazed at the people (usually the same ones) that are experts on a state, the state laws, and the various state entities when they don’t live there or have any first hand knowledge.

Here’s a quick poll for the CPS supporters:

1) How many of you live in Texas?
2) How many of you have seen CPS operations first hand?
3) How many of you have had actual dealings with the Texas CPS?

I can raise my hand on all three! Trust me; the CPS is nothing to brag about.

I got turned into the CPS when our son was 5 years old. Due to a specific set of circumstances I knew who the complainant was. Not that I would have been told by the CPS. The identity of a complainant is protected. Even if I had been required to go to court. Even if it had cost me a fortune in legal bills and proved the complaint was false the name is never divulged. I was fortunate in that I knew the name. I made it clear that I would go public in a very noisy manner in regards to their shoddy methods and they backed off rather quickly.

I asked them about the number of bogus complaints they receive. I was told that it happens all the time and that they are quite aware of the problem but they have to investigate any way. I then asked them why they don’t go after the people that file false complaints. I was met with a cold stare.

Yeah, I’m real impressed with the Texas “anything to make a headline” CPS.

 

[toybox99615]

I'll stand by my previous statement

Toybox99615
I guess it is time for all of us to face the facts: the government officials in Texas are involved in a gigantic conspiracy against these people. Everything is complete fabrication. The State of Texas is involved in a social engineering project to eliminate the practice of religion. The failure of the State to convict the church members before they terrorized all the children is proof there is no evidence in the case.

Apparently you have no faith in the criminal justice system.

The court deciding the the 400 children did not prove any conspiracy on the part of the State of Texas. It only proves they made a wrong decision in removing the children. The decision does not prove the State of Texas is engineering any kind of elimination of religion. And finally there still has been no determination as to the State and its concerns for the actions of the adults.

The issue is far from over IMHO. Until I see the entire issue droped by the State of Texas I'll continue to expect the day in court provong the guilt or inocense of those involved.

 

[STAGE 2]

These people are not fit to raise children in accordance with the mores of our society.

Assuming arguendo, that all the marriages were done in accordance with state law (because we still do have that pesky little thing called the presumption of innocence) what does it matter what the "mores" of our society are.

Its not against the law to have a 'cult'. So while I personally disagree with what these people do, if they want to go out into the desert and have 42 wives what business is it of mine, or yours.

 

[kjm]

Elza.
I live in Texas. I know of CPS, and I likewise concur with your assessment. They're about as useless as the Attorney General. They seem to operate under the principle of act quickly, gather facts later. Now in a case where the life of a child is at stake, as in all law enforcement, I believe you follow that rule. Even if they seized my child under the belief that there was immediate, mortal danger to my child, I would understand.

That being said, I agued this point on the thread that got closed. I argued that just because it is a weird, brainwashing cult that could be in multiple violations of the polygamy laws does not make it a threat to the health or lives of the children. I was ridiculed mercilessly about it by many of the people who are now applauding the appellate courts rather tardy action. I remember the Branch Davidians and am gratefull that Janet Reno was not the head of the Department of Public Safety a few months back.

That being said; get these kids back to their homes quickly.

As an aside, the FLDS YFZ ranch has requested 400 voter registration applications from the county clerk. If that doesn't send a shock to the system, I don't know what will. In that county, I can't imagine that they won't be able to elect whomever they wish. They had never participated in politics before now, and now I bet they will with a vengeance.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I live in Texas. I know of CPS, and I likewise concur with your assessment. They're about as useless as the Attorney General. They seem to operate under the principle of act quickly, gather facts later. Now in a case where the life of a child is at stake, as in all law enforcement, I believe you follow that rule. Even if they seized my child under the belief that there was immediate, mortal danger to my child, I would understand.

I generally place right alongside murder, so I'd say the sexual abuse of a child is just as much a concern as the death of one.

That being said, I agued this point on the thread that got closed. I argued that just because it is a weird, brainwashing cult that could be in multiple violations of the polygamy laws does not make it a threat to the health or lives of the children. I was ridiculed mercilessly about it by many of the people who are now applauding the appellate courts rather tardy action. I remember the Branch Davidians and am gratefull that Janet Reno was not the head of the Department of Public Safety a few months back.

Again, the violations of the age-of-consent laws were more a concern than polygamy laws. And I'd say sexually abusing underage girls is a threat to their health.

Though I'd agree that the tactics of CPS in this case were more heavy-handed than necessary. Specifically removal of children who were not, based on the allegations involved, in any danger (specifically girls and boys nowhere near puberty, though others as well). Some portion of the children could easily have been returned pending further investigation. This doesn't mean I think the initial raid was unjustified, or that all the actions taken were unjustified.

Seems like this ruling largely just pulls the actions of CPS from here out back in line with evidence actually presented. The whole "protecting children from immediate danger" argument only works for so long, and CPS pushed their hand way too far.


One part of the ruling I specifically disagree with is their dismissal of the ranch as a communal home, and thus a single household. I can't see that, given the nature of both the living arrangement and their culture. It's still a valid conclusion, I suppose, just not the one I'd have drawn.

 

[STAGE 2]

This doesn't mean I think the initial raid was unjustified, or that all the actions taken were unjustified.

Acting solely on an anonymous phone call from a know uncredible source isn't unjustified? Pray that the ATF doesn't adopt such a SOP.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Acting solely on an anonymous phone call from a know uncredible source isn't unjustified? Pray that the ATF doesn't adopt such a SOP.

Good thing they didn't do that, then.

 

[kjm]

Uh- the age of consent in Texas depends upon whether or not you have parental permission as it is in many states. There was no proof or evidence that this was occurring. An annonymous tip traced to Colorado is hardly evidence. Once the state realizes that it has been duped, it should return the children post-haste.

I remember when Waco burned that whole mess was mostly about the Federal Government enforcing child molestation laws (a state crime), and some hearsay about machine guns which never materialized that the Sheriff stated that the Branch Davidians did not have.

At least Texas gets it right more often than the FBI and ATF, but our AG and CPS divisions are somewhat pitiful and possibly staffed by some very imbarrassingly stupid bureaucrats.

 

[Wildalaska]

I think someone needs to find the appeals court decision, (I havent been able to yet).... engaging in a discussion without it is fruitless.

WildmightbesomeinterestingstuffthereAlaska ™

 

[JuanCarlos]

Uh- the age of consent in Texas depends upon whether or not you have parental permission as it is in many states. There was no proof or evidence that this was occurring. An annonymous tip traced to Colorado is hardly evidence. Once the state realizes that it has been duped, it should return the children post-haste.

Do you have a link to some Texas statutes I haven't seen? Last I checked, the age of consent for sex in Texas has absolutely nothing to do with parental consent. The age for marriage does (18 without, 16 with, under 16 requires court order) but not sex. The age of consent for sex is 17 in Texas, and the exceptions are for marriage (legal marriage, mind you) or if the older party is less than three years older...but the latter is an affirmative defense.

Or am I wrong here? I'd be interested in cites to the contrary.

I think someone needs to find the appeals court decision, (I havent been able to yet).... engaging in a discussion without it is fruitless.

Here's a Link (PDF)

EDIT: I've not read the entire thing yet, just portions. Can't say I agree with all of it, but at the same time much of it is pretty reasonable. I'd of course be interested in your take on it, and I think anybody looking to discuss the issue at this point gave it a once-over.

EDIT: And there is, indeed, some interesting stuff in there.

 

[Wildalaska]

I hope everybody reads it carefully, as I just did.

WildtherearesomeinterestingpointsmadeAlaska ™

 

[JuanCarlos]

I'd say a primary point made, as I mentioned, was the rejection of the ranch as a communal home. That was a primary assumption I was arguing under in the previous thread, and a primary argument of CPS in removing all the children. I'd still say it is not on its face an unreasonable argument, but nor would I say the court is unreasonable rejecting it.

I guess this is why we have courts and lawyers and what not.

Obviously with this point settled many (most?) of the state's actions become much more difficult to defend. Not all, though. And I'll reiterate that even assuming it is a communal home (which I still defend as not having been unreasonable) that still would not have justified all of the state's actions (to me, that is).

There are some other good points in there too, of course, but I'll hold off on saying more until I've read it completely.

 

[miboso]

The age of consent

Hey, a woman, even a young girl, has a right to do what she wants with her body. Or so I have been told, ad nauseum. What's the big deal (so long as we are talking consensual here)?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Hey, a woman, even a young girl, has a right to do what she wants with her body. Or so I have been told, ad nauseum. What's the big deal (so long as we are talking consensual here)?

That the law states that a girl can't consent to sex at that age? If you really want to get into a discussion of the validity of stat-rape laws, I'd suggest you start a thread...for the sake of this discussion, I'd say it's best to accept them as a given.

 

[miboso]

Ok, fine, ignore Supreme Court decisions, gotcha.

 

[LostOne]

Statutory rape should only exist for large age differences between the two individuals.

IE a 16 year old and 18 year old cant really be compared to 16 and 40.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Statutory rape should only exist for large age differences between the two individuals.

IE a 16 year old and 18 year old cant really be compared to 16 and 40.

I agree, as do most states. For instance, Texas makes exceptions for differences of three years or less.