wrote:
I mostly agree with you. The catalyst for this raid was so flimsy, if not phony, that the whole thing has become a joke. And now they've blown any chance of bringing up any legitamate charges against them.
Let's be clear. More than half of the girls age 14-17 (that would be underage) were either currently pregnant, or had at least one child already. What more evidence do you need of abuse than that? Plus, isn't polygamy itself a crime? So let's not pretend that there was no abuse or crimes being commited here. There was.
However, this particular call (if it even happened) should have been investigated on it's own merit, which would have called for a knock on a door and some questioning before being dismissed.
Let's be clear. More than half of the girls age 14-17 (that would be underage) were either currently pregnant, or had at least one child already. What more evidence do you need of abuse than that? Plus, isn't polygamy itself a crime? So let's not pretend that there was no abuse or crimes being commited here. There was.
However, this particular call (if it even happened) should have been investigated on it's own merit, which would have called for a knock on a door and some questioning before being dismissed.
23 May 2008 07:19:59
Lucente wrote:
AverageGuy,
I am not so willing to concede that there was abuse or criminal activity. From what I heard yesterday, of the 31 girls the state accused of being underage, at least 15 of them were actually adults. I am not sure if that means the other 16 were younger than 18 or have yet to be determined, but regardless, I am not so sure that 16 pregnant teenagers equates to abuse. And how old were these teens? If they were 17 or even 16, it becomes even less of an abuse case. And of those, how many were actually married? Many states permit the marriage of teenagers with parental consent. Some states go as low as 14. Also, it would depend on the age of the fathers. How many of the fathers were also teenagers or young adults?
I guess what I am saying is that there are still a lot more questions than answers and these are basic questions that should have been answered before a single child was kidnapped by the state.
As far as polygamy goes, their is no crime if there is no actual marriage by the state. And the state never claimed it was raiding the compound because of polygamy and never charged or even intends to charge anyone with polygamy. That would be very difficult to prove.
But, you are right, this raid was ill-conceived and may have harmed the state's chances to bring any charges at all.
~tjl~
I am not so willing to concede that there was abuse or criminal activity. From what I heard yesterday, of the 31 girls the state accused of being underage, at least 15 of them were actually adults. I am not sure if that means the other 16 were younger than 18 or have yet to be determined, but regardless, I am not so sure that 16 pregnant teenagers equates to abuse. And how old were these teens? If they were 17 or even 16, it becomes even less of an abuse case. And of those, how many were actually married? Many states permit the marriage of teenagers with parental consent. Some states go as low as 14. Also, it would depend on the age of the fathers. How many of the fathers were also teenagers or young adults?
I guess what I am saying is that there are still a lot more questions than answers and these are basic questions that should have been answered before a single child was kidnapped by the state.
As far as polygamy goes, their is no crime if there is no actual marriage by the state. And the state never claimed it was raiding the compound because of polygamy and never charged or even intends to charge anyone with polygamy. That would be very difficult to prove.
But, you are right, this raid was ill-conceived and may have harmed the state's chances to bring any charges at all.
~tjl~
23 May 2008 13:01:17
wrote:
I was SO relieved at the decision of the Texas Appeals Court. For really simple reasons. I in no way thought it was right for the government to go in and take those children without a shred of evidence. To me, some pregnant girls and a call from and 'unknown caller' is not evidence enough to remove 400 some children from their families. In all reality it's not even enough to remove one. It's not actual evidence. I still don't see how it was allowed in the first place. I hope the children are returned to their birth mothers while they continue on with the investigation. Another thing I can't believe, is that the courts were already taking steps to legally remove the children from the mothers custody permanently. It blows my mind at how evil some people can be. The whole thing scares the heck out of me because if this isn't overturned or done properly, it sets a precedence across the country for the government to come in and take anyone's children just because they don't like the way they're being raised, or just flat out don't like the people.
23 May 2008 14:05:38
Lucente wrote:
Izzy,
I think you hit on the heart of the problem. This occurs every day across the USA. Lower-court judges in many case simply rubber-stamp requests by state and police agencies. They are not properly applying the law. That is why I am glad the appeals court, in addition to overturning the lower-court ruling, actually rebuked the judge for her lack of judgment.
I am afraid our judiciary is becoming less and less independent from the other branches. And that spells disaster.
~tjl~
I think you hit on the heart of the problem. This occurs every day across the USA. Lower-court judges in many case simply rubber-stamp requests by state and police agencies. They are not properly applying the law. That is why I am glad the appeals court, in addition to overturning the lower-court ruling, actually rebuked the judge for her lack of judgment.
I am afraid our judiciary is becoming less and less independent from the other branches. And that spells disaster.
~tjl~
23 May 2008 14:35:58
wrote:
The state of Texas is claming abuse give me a break. I think that there is probably much less abuse in the, Compound, than there is is the average home . Why do they call it a Compound? It sounds like a prison camp. I think they use that word to try and convince the rest of us that it is a bad place. The average or normal children not living in the compound are exposed to soft porn on TV, violent video games, listen to music degrading women and glorifing killing cops, subjected to government mandates as to what schools can teach children and are at risk from another child walking into the school and shooting other students.
What a shame, another example of others claming to have the best interest of the "Children" , to impose what they think is normal and the way you should live.
What a shame, another example of others claming to have the best interest of the "Children" , to impose what they think is normal and the way you should live.
23 May 2008 15:03:58
Lucente wrote:
Scant,
Absolutely right. You could easily argue that allowing your children to watch prime-time TV, play violent video games, watch Rated R movies and eat an unhealthy diet of Big Macs and the other things you mentioned is abuse.
That is what happens when the state thinks it can impose its idea of "normal" on the rest of society.
I say leave them alone.
~tjl~
Absolutely right. You could easily argue that allowing your children to watch prime-time TV, play violent video games, watch Rated R movies and eat an unhealthy diet of Big Macs and the other things you mentioned is abuse.
That is what happens when the state thinks it can impose its idea of "normal" on the rest of society.
I say leave them alone.
~tjl~
23 May 2008 15:11:53
wrote:
Lucente,
I agree leave them alone. What about the German Babtist and Menonite community living in Allen Co. They dress much like those in Texas, but without the big hair. Not saying they hold the same religous views, they dont. I think there is a certian bias against people who live differantly than most.
Just heard you on the radio, enjoyed hearing you and thank you for your service to our country
. I have been a live long Republican, but they have walked away from what they used to be. I am much more interested in the Libretarian Party and want to find out more about Bob Barr the likley Libretarian Party nominee for president. Many of my friends feel they way I do.
I agree leave them alone. What about the German Babtist and Menonite community living in Allen Co. They dress much like those in Texas, but without the big hair. Not saying they hold the same religous views, they dont. I think there is a certian bias against people who live differantly than most.
Just heard you on the radio, enjoyed hearing you and thank you for your service to our country
. I have been a live long Republican, but they have walked away from what they used to be. I am much more interested in the Libretarian Party and want to find out more about Bob Barr the likley Libretarian Party nominee for president. Many of my friends feel they way I do.
23 May 2008 16:17:26
wrote:
A lot of talk here about, SOME of the girls were 16-17, and that makes it somehow OK that they were given in marrage to 50 somethings. Lots of talk about SOME of the girls were old enough.
Yes the phone call was lie. Same lady made other false claims in the past. So on it's face the warrant was not valid.
HOWEVER: If even ONE girl, (and I suspect there are more) was 12-13-14, and given in marrage to older men (which no one has disputed) and she was REQUIRED to carry out ALL dutys of a wife, (which no one has disputed) then SOMETHING has to be done. PERIOD.
In a close knit sect like this, everyone knows everyone elses buisness. People KNEW that at least SOME young women were being abused and turned a blind eye. Anyone who KNEW and did nothing is guilty. Its my experiance that if you find one pile of dog doody in the back yard, you will find more if you keep walking, even if you choose to close your eyes and ignore it, its still on your shoes and it still stinks. Same thing with this sect. I don't deny them the right to WORSHIP in their own way. But ABUSE of CHILDREN in the name of GOD is not worship. And that is NOT debatable. That does not not mean that I believe the end justifys the means in every case. BUT sometimes it does. I like things in black and white, but have come to the conclussion that the world is mostly gray. If you take the stance that it was only a few girls being raped (and thats what it is) is OK ,then our society is even sicker than I thought.
Yes the phone call was lie. Same lady made other false claims in the past. So on it's face the warrant was not valid.
HOWEVER: If even ONE girl, (and I suspect there are more) was 12-13-14, and given in marrage to older men (which no one has disputed) and she was REQUIRED to carry out ALL dutys of a wife, (which no one has disputed) then SOMETHING has to be done. PERIOD.
In a close knit sect like this, everyone knows everyone elses buisness. People KNEW that at least SOME young women were being abused and turned a blind eye. Anyone who KNEW and did nothing is guilty. Its my experiance that if you find one pile of dog doody in the back yard, you will find more if you keep walking, even if you choose to close your eyes and ignore it, its still on your shoes and it still stinks. Same thing with this sect. I don't deny them the right to WORSHIP in their own way. But ABUSE of CHILDREN in the name of GOD is not worship. And that is NOT debatable. That does not not mean that I believe the end justifys the means in every case. BUT sometimes it does. I like things in black and white, but have come to the conclussion that the world is mostly gray. If you take the stance that it was only a few girls being raped (and thats what it is) is OK ,then our society is even sicker than I thought.
24 May 2008 03:57:10
wrote:
Tom, and others,
If being a Libertarian means you fight the good fight against tyranny and oppression, does that mean you fight for the rights of this sect to tyranize and oppress the children there?
If Joe Blow thinks God has told him to adopt 25 kids from Korea, and finds another person to follow him, and they adopt them, bring them home and build a fence, and put a cross in the yard, and begin teaching them that sex, or robbery...whatever...is OK, and the kids never know any better, does that make it OK too?
Now I know you well enough to expect a twist here on this question but I want to know.
Does being Libertarian mean you fight for the rights of those that wish to oppress and tyranize?
I don't know where you shop, but I prefer a place that keeps it's apples and oranges seperated.
AAAAAAA the sound of bumping heads in the morning. Ain't it GREAT?
If being a Libertarian means you fight the good fight against tyranny and oppression, does that mean you fight for the rights of this sect to tyranize and oppress the children there?
If Joe Blow thinks God has told him to adopt 25 kids from Korea, and finds another person to follow him, and they adopt them, bring them home and build a fence, and put a cross in the yard, and begin teaching them that sex, or robbery...whatever...is OK, and the kids never know any better, does that make it OK too?
Now I know you well enough to expect a twist here on this question
but I want to know. Does being Libertarian mean you fight for the rights of those that wish to oppress and tyranize?
I don't know where you shop, but I prefer a place that keeps it's apples and oranges seperated.
AAAAAAA the sound of bumping heads in the morning. Ain't it GREAT?
24 May 2008 04:34:14
wrote:
Danimal,
I don't think anyone is denying that some of the girls were abused, I don't. Think those responsible should be tried and jailed for any wrong done. Alot of wrong has been done over the centuries in the name of God. I object to the State of Texas going in and clearing out all the children over a fake call. Why not find the underage girls and those who abused them, not take all the kids away and say, were not giving them back.
I could maybe argue the same with the Catholic church, well documented that many priests were abusing childern and the leadership didn't do much about it untill the heat was really turned up. There were many that knew this but tried to keep it quiet, untill the victimes had the courage to come forth. Shouldn't the state come in and take away all the childern from those parents in the Catholic church and say were protecting the childern, of course not, thats crazy. I think there were indead some wrong going on, but to rip families apart, no way. I think all of this reaction steams from that group living and dressing in a manner much different than most of socitey. Give the kids back and punish those who did the abusing. Thought of something yesterday, if this place was so bad whay aren't the women and men jumping at the chance to get out of that place, now is the time to do it. I haven't heard of one person wanting to leave. Danimal I think we are probably on the same page on this.
I don't think anyone is denying that some of the girls were abused, I don't. Think those responsible should be tried and jailed for any wrong done. Alot of wrong has been done over the centuries in the name of God. I object to the State of Texas going in and clearing out all the children over a fake call. Why not find the underage girls and those who abused them, not take all the kids away and say, were not giving them back.
I could maybe argue the same with the Catholic church, well documented that many priests were abusing childern and the leadership didn't do much about it untill the heat was really turned up. There were many that knew this but tried to keep it quiet, untill the victimes had the courage to come forth. Shouldn't the state come in and take away all the childern from those parents in the Catholic church and say were protecting the childern, of course not, thats crazy. I think there were indead some wrong going on, but to rip families apart, no way. I think all of this reaction steams from that group living and dressing in a manner much different than most of socitey. Give the kids back and punish those who did the abusing. Thought of something yesterday, if this place was so bad whay aren't the women and men jumping at the chance to get out of that place, now is the time to do it. I haven't heard of one person wanting to leave. Danimal I think we are probably on the same page on this.
24 May 2008 12:42:57
Lucente wrote:
Scant,
Thanks for listening in. I am also a lifelong Republican and am still registered as a Republican. I tend to vote Republican most of the time except when there is a Libertarian candidate.
I love Bob Barr. I liked him when he was in the House as a Republican and if he gets the Libertarian nod this weekend, he is definitely getting my vote. Though in the unlikely event that Ron Paul decides to launch an independent campaign, I would have to think hard about for whom to vote.
As far as the ranch, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Your Catholic analogy was good. Heck, the Catholic Church lets second-graders drink wine, should we raid all the Catholic schools and seize all the children?
Also, I don’t know if there was any abuse going on there. It seems the more that comes out, the more that I believe the state acted criminally. Half of the pregnant girls they claimed were underage were in fact adults. And the state has yet to identify a single teenager married to a much-older man. I think they acted on rumors and innuendo and are struggling today to try to justify their actions.
And it is telling that most of those women interviewed can’t wait to move back to the ranch.
~tjl~
Thanks for listening in. I am also a lifelong Republican and am still registered as a Republican. I tend to vote Republican most of the time except when there is a Libertarian candidate.
I love Bob Barr. I liked him when he was in the House as a Republican and if he gets the Libertarian nod this weekend, he is definitely getting my vote. Though in the unlikely event that Ron Paul decides to launch an independent campaign, I would have to think hard about for whom to vote.
As far as the ranch, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Your Catholic analogy was good. Heck, the Catholic Church lets second-graders drink wine, should we raid all the Catholic schools and seize all the children?
Also, I don’t know if there was any abuse going on there. It seems the more that comes out, the more that I believe the state acted criminally. Half of the pregnant girls they claimed were underage were in fact adults. And the state has yet to identify a single teenager married to a much-older man. I think they acted on rumors and innuendo and are struggling today to try to justify their actions.
And it is telling that most of those women interviewed can’t wait to move back to the ranch.
~tjl~
24 May 2008 13:47:08
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
I don’t think anyone is saying it is OK to abuse children. I am simply saying the state better have evidence that a child was abused before seizing that child. The state has yet to provide one example of a teenager being married to a 50-something man let alone 400-some cases of abuse. If one girl was 12-13-14 and married to a older man against her will and made to perform wifely duties, then yes, take that girl. But not her neighbors. But, as I said, the state has yet to prove that any of those girls were ever abused.
Being libertarian (I am a small “l” libertarian. The capital L is for members of the Libertarian Party, to which I do not belong) means fighting the good fight against tyranny and oppression regardless of who is doing it. However, it also means that you can’t use the force of law arbitrarily just because you THINK abuse might be taking place or to force others to live as you want them to live.
The whole teen marriage thing is tricky. There are states where it is legal to marry a 14-year-old if the parents consent. So why would it be wrong in the case of this sect if the marriage was voluntary and the parents agreed? We can argue all night whether a 14-year-old is capable of making that decision, but some governments in the United States thinks they can with their parents’s counsel. So it is a hard sell, I think, to claim abuse just because a young girl marries an older man. However, as I said before, the state has yet to provide a single case where that occurred so that argument is moot, anyway.
~tjl~
I don’t think anyone is saying it is OK to abuse children. I am simply saying the state better have evidence that a child was abused before seizing that child. The state has yet to provide one example of a teenager being married to a 50-something man let alone 400-some cases of abuse. If one girl was 12-13-14 and married to a older man against her will and made to perform wifely duties, then yes, take that girl. But not her neighbors. But, as I said, the state has yet to prove that any of those girls were ever abused.
Being libertarian (I am a small “l” libertarian. The capital L is for members of the Libertarian Party, to which I do not belong) means fighting the good fight against tyranny and oppression regardless of who is doing it. However, it also means that you can’t use the force of law arbitrarily just because you THINK abuse might be taking place or to force others to live as you want them to live.
The whole teen marriage thing is tricky. There are states where it is legal to marry a 14-year-old if the parents consent. So why would it be wrong in the case of this sect if the marriage was voluntary and the parents agreed? We can argue all night whether a 14-year-old is capable of making that decision, but some governments in the United States thinks they can with their parents’s counsel. So it is a hard sell, I think, to claim abuse just because a young girl marries an older man. However, as I said before, the state has yet to provide a single case where that occurred so that argument is moot, anyway.
~tjl~
24 May 2008 14:06:56
wrote:
Lucente,
Its been a struggle latley to decide to look for another party who I can go with. Republican party has gotten so far away from the Reagan conservative movement that I identify myself with. I only agree with President Bush on two things, his tax cuts and fighting terroist who want to kill Americans, other than that Iam dissapointed.
Yes, I want to start seeing some hard proof of abuse at the ranch. So many of those who think they know what is best invoke the phase, "Were doing this for the CHILDREN." Iam forty something and live in a small town close to Lima where there are alot of young boys and girls play and ride there bikes. They are so cute, but I dare not try to say much or get to know my neighborhood kids cause I don't want someone saying or calling officals acusing me of being a preditor.
Its been a struggle latley to decide to look for another party who I can go with. Republican party has gotten so far away from the Reagan conservative movement that I identify myself with. I only agree with President Bush on two things, his tax cuts and fighting terroist who want to kill Americans, other than that Iam dissapointed.
Yes, I want to start seeing some hard proof of abuse at the ranch. So many of those who think they know what is best invoke the phase, "Were doing this for the CHILDREN." Iam forty something and live in a small town close to Lima where there are alot of young boys and girls play and ride there bikes. They are so cute, but I dare not try to say much or get to know my neighborhood kids cause I don't want someone saying or calling officals acusing me of being a preditor.
24 May 2008 14:43:19
Lucente wrote:
Scant,
The worst term in U.S. politics today is: "It's for the children."
~tjl~
The worst term in U.S. politics today is: "It's for the children."
~tjl~
24 May 2008 20:55:39
wrote:
Members of cults rarely want to leave them, that doesn't prove that there's no abuse, it only proves that they're also mentally abused.
It's also important to point out that the former leader of this sect is currently in prison for arranging marriages between older men and little girls, along with rape and incest. You can't tell me that the LEADER of this sect was the only bad apple. This poor fella who wears "simple clothes" and "looks different" was arrested driving a Cadillac Escalade with 55 grand in his pocket.
This isn't a Christian group, it's a prostitution ring, and if you believe any different, you're kidding yourself. The girls were not allowed to find spouses their own age, there were none to choose from. They kicked out the teenage boys once they turned 18, so there would be no competition in de-flowering the girls.
It's also important to point out that the former leader of this sect is currently in prison for arranging marriages between older men and little girls, along with rape and incest. You can't tell me that the LEADER of this sect was the only bad apple. This poor fella who wears "simple clothes" and "looks different" was arrested driving a Cadillac Escalade with 55 grand in his pocket.
This isn't a Christian group, it's a prostitution ring, and if you believe any different, you're kidding yourself. The girls were not allowed to find spouses their own age, there were none to choose from. They kicked out the teenage boys once they turned 18, so there would be no competition in de-flowering the girls.
27 May 2008 18:05:08
wrote:
aveguy IMO you missed the point and most of the facts. While doing alot of guess work, and assumptions. IMO the govt had no right to take the children. And the court agrees.
28 May 2008 09:07:10
wrote:
dan,
I agree completely. As you can read in my first post, I think the situation warranted nothing more than a knock on a door, and a quick look around. The whole thing was completely botched, and is an injustice.
I just refuse to pretend that everything is hunky-dory at that place. It's not. Bad things do happen there.
I agree completely. As you can read in my first post, I think the situation warranted nothing more than a knock on a door, and a quick look around. The whole thing was completely botched, and is an injustice.
I just refuse to pretend that everything is hunky-dory at that place. It's not. Bad things do happen there.
28 May 2008 11:09:16
wrote:
AG IMO we dont know what happened or not, so "bad things" is just a guess?
What laws were broken, and how do you know this?
What laws were broken, and how do you know this?
30 May 2008 08:35:43
wrote:
It isn't up to me to prove that laws have been broken, that's up to the police and the prosecutors. In this case they failed to do so, and I agree with the outcome. In the past they have successfully prosecuted the leader for trafficking in child spouses, rape, and incest. He was their leader, and they have made no claim that they have changed their practices 180 degrees since his incarceration. Call it a guess if you want, that's fine. I'm guessing bad stuff still goes on there.
30 May 2008 11:34:34
wrote:
even weird people have some rights... it bothers me more that the government came in with tanks and with force resembling the military on civilian land. No one is debating that these people aren't weird, it is the methods the government used to take care of the situation that most object to. It opens a can of worms that would trample on the civil liberties of everyone the government deems to be "wrong". This is the USA not China.
30 May 2008 11:39:35
wrote:
I'm sure you've been busy with the little one, so you haven't had time to post an update, but the kids are going home for now. Yippie ! Liked I said before, I'm only against the government on this one because they had no evidence and if allowed to take those children just because, they would then set a precedence for the whole of our country. And the gov. would then be allowed to take children away for unfounded accusations, they don't like how they're being raised, or they just don't flat out like the people. Those justices need a one way ticket to heaven. God bless them all for seeing the whole picture.
30 May 2008 15:25:40
Lucente wrote:
AverageGuy,
I think you are believing government propaganda. It seems to me that most, if not all, of the accusations against the members of this religion have proved to be untrue. The state has yet to produce one girl forced to marry a much older guy. A state appeals court and the state Supreme Court both ruled that the state was out of line in seizing the children.
Finally, one bad leader in more than a century does not mean the rest behave that way. That is akin to accusing all Catholics as child molesters because a few priests engaged in that practice.
~tjl~
I think you are believing government propaganda. It seems to me that most, if not all, of the accusations against the members of this religion have proved to be untrue. The state has yet to produce one girl forced to marry a much older guy. A state appeals court and the state Supreme Court both ruled that the state was out of line in seizing the children.
Finally, one bad leader in more than a century does not mean the rest behave that way. That is akin to accusing all Catholics as child molesters because a few priests engaged in that practice.
~tjl~
05 June 2008 01:11:51
Lucente wrote:
Live Free or Die,
Absolutely right. I am shocked by the use of armored vehicles by local police agencies. That was certainly overkill, especially given the fact that in more than a century, the sect has never been violent and never collected guns as far as the authorities knew. They simply saw an opportunity to use their shiny toys.
~tjl~
Absolutely right. I am shocked by the use of armored vehicles by local police agencies. That was certainly overkill, especially given the fact that in more than a century, the sect has never been violent and never collected guns as far as the authorities knew. They simply saw an opportunity to use their shiny toys.
~tjl~
05 June 2008 01:15:25
Lucente wrote:
Izzy,
I am with you here. I am completely disgusted by the judge's behavior in this manner. She seems to be on some sort of crusade.
~tjl~
I am with you here. I am completely disgusted by the judge's behavior in this manner. She seems to be on some sort of crusade.
~tjl~
05 June 2008 01:35:08
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Common sense ruling in polygamist raid case
Two members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints hug outside the Tom Green County Courthouse Thursday, May 22, 2008, in San Angelo, Texas. An Austin, Texas, appeals court ruled that the state had no cause to take their children. (AP Photo/San Angelo Standard-Times, Brian Connelly)
Read The New York Times article here.
Finally common sense is beginning to prevail in the raid on the 1,691-acre Yearning for Zion ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Eldorado, Texas. I feel vindicated. After my column on the subject ran, I received a lot of flack here, in the paper and on The Lima News forums for my position that the state was wrong in seizing those children. Some of that opposition even came from lawyers who should have known better.
Now, a Texas appeals court said the state was wrong. This is significant because the appeals court would not generally get involved in such a case unless the state's case was extremely weak.
Also, as I have said all along, officials are finally admitting that the alleged call from a 16-year-old "victim" may have been a hoax. It would not surprise me to ultimately learn that there was no such call at all or that someone from the State Department of Family and Protective Services made the call as a pretense to getting a warrant.
I am also glad that the three-judge panel criticized District Judge Barbara Walther, for approving the children's removal based on such flimsy evidence of abuse.
Since the raid, the state has acted in a most brutish manner: separating the children from their parents, sending them to foster homes hundreds of miles away, and leveling unfounded accusations at the members of the church. Turns out that most of the mothers who the state accused of being underage were, in fact, adults. Then, just this week, the department returned the ranch with police wanting to get in without a warrant to look for more children to seize. Now, even after cooler heads have prevailed, the department is insisting it acted appropriately and insinuated it would seek to continue the legal battle to prevent having to return the children to their parents.
If children are abused, the state has a duty to move to protect that child. However, no one benefits from overzealousness in the exercise of that duty. The home is a castle and the familial relationship is sacrosanct. The state should never be permitted to violate either without extremely compelling reasons. Moreover, the state should never be allowed to arbitrarily seize children who have not been abused and are in no imminent danger of being abused.
While it is looking like the children will be soon reunited with their parents, the damage is done. It will take a long time before the children recover, if ever, from the abuse heaped on them by the state of Texas.
Those scars will be slow to heal.
category | Big Government
author | Lucente