Recently, I have been rhetorically sparring with a Texas AAL over the proper role of the courts in CPS cases and whether Texas SCOT justice Harriet O’Neill violated the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct and Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 18b in relation to the FLDS case. Some readers might find the interchange worth reading. I think it demonstrates how far the CPS-family courts system has strayed from the Constitution.
To: AAL
You asked in why I expressed concern about judicial independence in relation to CPS cases. The issue is discussed in these posts:
It’s the Constitution, Stupid!, Folly of Harriet O’Neill,Texas Courts & CPS Collaborate, O’Neill Conflicted, and Texas CPS Collaborator in Chief
To: Kurt
Here’s the directive of the Commission that O’Neill chairs:
The Supreme Court gave the Commission the following nine directives:
develop a strategic plan for strengthening courts and court practice in the child-protection system; identify and assess current and future needs for the courts to be more
effective in achieving child-welfare outcomes of safety, permanency, well-being, fairness and due process;
promote best practices and programs that are data-driven, evidence-based, and outcome-focused;
improve collaboration and communication among courts, the Department, attorneys, and partners in the child-protection community;
endeavor to increase resources and funding needed for improvement, and maximize the wise and efficient use of available resources;
promote adequate and appropriate training for all participants in the child-protection system;
institutionalize a collaborative model that will continue systemic improvement beyond the tenure of individual Commission members;
oversee the administration of designated funds, including the Court Improvement Program (CIP) grants;
and provide an annual progress report to the Court.
The Commission exists to improve the judicial handling of child-protection cases systemically through improvements in technology, attorney and judicial training, and court improvement pilot projects. It has no authority over state agencies or their operational details and does not discuss or consider specific, active cases. The Commission seeks information about systemic improvement through the Commission’s Collaborative Council and other interested parties.
You have said that O’Neill should have recused herself from the Supreme Court decision. I do not see this Commission as any kind of body whose interested in placing more children in foster care. I don’t see the Commission as “on CPS’ side” in an adversary proceeding. Where are you coming up with your position that O’Neill is biased in favor of CPS in every case or that there is any basis for recusal? The Committee is charged with improving the administrative and procedural process, and its goal is improved outcomes for children in the system. I don’t understand how you see that as anti-parent or anti-due process. What did I miss?
To: AAL
Thanks for the note. If it was confusing to you, I would imagine others with less legal training and experience would also be confused. If you could pinpoint the source of the confusion, I would appreciate it. Meanwhile, here’s some material from an article draft that might help explain some of the concern:
The key to the program is to flip the courts — originally intended as checks against raw government power — into CPS “collaborators”. All of this is supposedly justified as necessary “for the children,” as outlined in this O’Neill Commission propaganda piece, Better Courts for Kids:
. . . O’Neill, who spearheaded efforts to form the commission, said no other vehicle brings this many high-level stakeholders together from both public and private sectors. “To champion the needs of children, we must foster collaboration among courts, CPS, and other participants.”
“Foster collaboration among courts, CPS and . . . ” Sounds Utopian. But Utopia has always been a seductive lie. In O’Neill’s Utopia, judges are a “part of the system” and “true partners,” according to Judge Rucker, a member of O’Neill’s Commission:
“As judges, we need to see ourselves as part of the system – as true partners,” said Judge Rucker, who is a member of the newly formed Supreme Court Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families, that now administers Texas’ CIP grants. “Judicial leaders are taking collaboration seriously, and not just every few years when the CFSR comes to town,” he said.
Among other activities, commission members and staff conduct weekly meetings with state-level CPS officials as well as Office of Court Administration staff, Texas Center for the Judiciary staff, and others.
“Part of the system . . . true partners.” That’s how Arthur Andersen auditors saw themselves in relation to Enron. Meanwhile, the role of parents in the “system” is, well, they don’t seem to have any role at all. In ten pages, birth parents are mentioned once in passing as equivalent to foster parents, in this formative Commmission document.
Courts have one role in our republican (small “r”) form of government: to impartially decide legal controversies through adversarial due process. Can they play this role while at the same time acting as a “partner” and “collaborator” with CPS which is a party to every removal case?
To: Kurt
I’ll go back and look at the article that I found confusing .. I think it was the first one you wrote about O’Neill and maybe included some commentary about AAL training .. something I could probably shed some light on actually. About the article below .. again I find it confusing and I am not sure I understand what exactly you take exception to, what you would like to see changed, or what harm has been occasioned. Nothing you mention reveals any indication that cases are being decided with bias or anything other than impartially.
This has nothing to do with courts taking sides with CPS or making it easier for CPS to take children or win in Court. Maybe I’m being obtuse .. help me understand.
To: AAL
I’m doing my best here. I assume you are, too. The key is conflict of interest. The O’Neill Commission — with Justice O’Neill in charge — has said, “we are going to partner with CPS and encourage judges around the State to do the same.” O’Neill’s words are:
“To champion the needs of children we must foster collaboration among courts, CPS, and other participants . . .”
Judge Rucker picks up the refrain:
“As judges, we need to see ourselves as part of the system – as true partners . . . Judicial leaders are taking collaboration seriously . . . “
“Among other activities, commission members (like O’Neill, Specia, Byrne and Rucker) and staff conduct weekly meetings with state-level CPS officials . . .”
The children and CPS are two of three parties in any CPS custody case. The third party — with whom the SCOT expressly does not collaborate or partner — is the parents.
Here’s the question: How can the Supreme Court (or any lower-court judge) simultaneously be
1 a “champion for the children”; and
2 “partner” with CPS; and
3 impartial arbiter, as required by the Code of Judicial Conduct, in CPS cases?
When your working relationship with CPS is so close, you’ve invested so much political and financial capital in “the system,” and you’ve taken such a high profile position as “champion of the children,” why should anyone believe that you can avoid leaning against parents in CPS cases? At the very least, the structure of the deal raises question about independence and impartiality. And, by Code, judges are required to conduct themselves so as to avoid even the appearance of bias.
The “part of the system” and “partner” language, by the way, are eerily reminiscent of how Arthur Andersen described its relationship with Enron. The auditors became a part of the Enron team. Justice O’Neill wants judges (who are in a way, CPS auditors) to become a part of the CPS team.
To: Kurt
Ok, I think maybe the problem is you’re making some assumptions that could be faulty or you’re leaving out an important link in reaching your conclusion. And please don’t take that as an insult or criticism — it could be that I’m the one making assumptions that are faulty, but I want to figure this out. It’s important.
If you can, clear your mind of any preconceived judgments about CPS and its failings. Just think about what CPS is supposed to do as an agency. They are charged with investigating abuse and neglect and using the court system to protect children if their investigation indicates there is a need for protection. No one is going to argue that there are never children who need protection through intervention. CPS is also charged with offering services to children and parents, monitoring the services, establishing and maintaining substitute care, they are responsible for the healthcare and education of children under their care, among other functions. In certain cases, CPS is obligated to conduct a joint investigation with law enforcement.
Much of what CPS does is outside of their role in the courts.
I don’t think this commission has anything to do with helping CPS win in court, and correct me if I’m wrong on that. I think the point of colla boration is getting resources where they can best be used, streamlining the process so that children can have stability and permanence whether it is with their family or in an adoptive home, eliminating backlog and waste, cutting down the number of moves a foster child has to make, shoring up reporting and having more accountability, etc. I think this collaboration process is intended to help children once they are in the system and the whole reason it was created was because the child welfare system is such a cesspool. I see it as a group effort to help CPS do their job better … that’s not anti-parent.
Being a champion of children’s needs is not anti-parent, it’s anti-abuse, and what is wrong with that?
To: AAL
Thanks for your note. No insult taken.
Replace “CPS” with any other agency or party in litigation — IRS, SEC, FCC, EPA, Apple Computer, Human Healthcare or Tom Cruise — the answer would be the same: in order for you and I to continue to enjoy basic freedoms, courts must stay above (or at least outside) the controversies they decide in court. It’s a simple matter of due process and constitutional structure — checks and balances.
We’ve agreed that the “fuzzy” legal definitions of “neglect” and “abuse” demand greater, not less, judicial independence. Now, compound the fuzziness of the law with the high constitutional interests (rights of families, not just children in isolation) to be protected. Due process in such cases needs to be more formal and circumspect than in tax, contract, or securities fraud cases, not less. In such a context, how much due-process leeway is there for courts to “partner,” “collaborate,” or “work with” children or CPS? I think it’s fair to say “none.”
I’ve quoted this piece of the ACLU’s brief before:
Accordingly, courts have singled out for heightened protection that “most essential and basic aspect of familial privacy – the right of the family to remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome power of the state.” “This right to the preservation of family integrity encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and children. It is the interest of the parent in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children, and of the children in not being dislocated from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, with the parent.”
You wrote (with my emphasis):
I think this collaboration process is intended to help children once they are in the system and the whole reason it was created was because the child welfare system is such a cesspool. I see it as a group effort to help CPS do their job better … that’s not anti-parent. Being a champion of children’s needs is not anti-parent, it’s anti-abuse, and what is wrong with that?
It sounds warm and fuzzy to put courts in the role of “children’s champions,” but it’s not. The road to governmental hell is paved with these kinds of fuzzy good intentions.
Courts exist to guard due process — to serve as a firewall between the power of the State and individual citizens of all ages, moms, dads and kids. Courts cannot act as a firewall when they are “partners” with CPS or “champions” of the children.
The child welfare system is a cesspool, in part, because the structure of “the system” breeds corruption. Corruption thrives in the absence of “internal controls” — checks and balances that maximize the likelihood of catching negligence or intentional wrongdoing. Taxes are a cesspool, too, but you wouldn’t dream (I hope) of encouraging the courts to “collaborate” with the IRS in order to collect more taxes.
Harriet O’Neill’s dissent in the FLDS case was tainted by her close working relationship with CPS. She was responsible, in part, for training some of the FLDS AALs (with the help of Charles Childress who has now flipped sides). Having arranged for that training and having sat as Chair of the Commission and a “partner” of CPS, she acted, in effect, as a judge in her own case. She violated Rule 18b in multiple ways. And she is encouraging other judges to do the same.
Training in the abstract is a different matter than training targeted to a particular case or at a particular group of respondents. Basic psychology — the reciprocity and authority principles, among others — involuntarily push the mind of any AAL who was trained by Childress to agree with his proposals in his new role as CPS lead counsel. That’s just the way our minds work.
But since you mentioned it, I would be interested in any insights you have about the AAL training that was funded by the SCOT.
To: Kurt
Well I disagree with your analysis because I dont think the Commission has anything to do with CPS in its role as an adversary before the Court. I think the Commission has to do with the extra-judicial functions of CPS. By your logic, I can never argue a case before a judge I know and like, I can never have a conversation with a judge even if it has nothing at all to do with any cases I’m involved in.
I also disagree because you are starting with the assumption that CPS wants to take as many kids into custody as possible and keep them in foster care. That is not their function and that is not what they do. By law, they have to make attempts to reunify children with families, and I do believe CPS needs help doing its job so as to benefit the whole family and not just children. I think you have an underlying bias also that CPS is usually unjustified in ever removing children.
About the ACLU brief:
Accordingly, courts have singled out for heightened protection that “most essential and basic aspect of familial privacy – the right of the family to remain together without the coercive interference of the awesome power of the state.” “This right to the preservation of family integrity encompasses the reciprocal rights of both parent and children. It is the interest of the parent in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children, and of the children in not being dislocated from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, with the parent.”
That sounds so nice and neat but it starts with the conclusion that the subject children are safe and protected from abuse by the parents in the family. The right to the preservation of the family integrity breaks down when there is suspected abuse. I would submit that a child’s right to protection trumps a family’s right to preservation of integrity as well as a child’s interest in not being dislocated from the parent. Some children need protection .. can we agree on that? How would you have that accomplished without a mechanism for reporting and investigation?
Does CPS get it wrong sometimes? Absolutely, without question. Do courts get it wrong sometimes? Yep. Are there checks and balances to correct the wrong actions of CPS and the wrong decisions of Courts? You know there are, you’ve seen it in action.
To: AAL
Some children need protection, no doubt about it. I have not in any way suggested that we go without “a mechanism for reporting and investigation” of suspected child abuse. Not sure what gave you that impression.
I have only said that whatever the mechanism is, it must live within the rule of law and follow constitutional due process. You seem to be saying the opposite, that mere suspected child abuse suspends family-integrity rights of children and parents along with the rule of law and due process that apply to every other “suspected” crime:
“The right to the preservation of the family integrity breaks down when there is suspected abuse. I would submit that a child’s right to protection trumps a family’s right to preservation of integrity as well as a child’s interest in not being dislocated from the parent.”
I don’t know where you get these rules. Can you point to some legal or moral source of authority to support them? If mere suspicion is all it takes to shelve family integrity (or any other constitutional right), then due process is meaningless.
Sixty days of terrifying separation from father, mother, siblings, children, husband or wife and home was a gross violation of the constitutional right to family integrity of these people. Sixty days is far more than required to inflict lasting psychological and emotional damage. Some of these families will never recover from the trauma. No psych professional worthy of the name would suggest otherwise.
Checks and balances failed miserably in this case — at the 14-day hearing if not in the signing of the search warrant — because Judge Walther failed to follow due process and ignored applicable substantive law. It’s not enough to say “Oh, but the Supreme Court caught Walther’s error after sixty days, so checks and balances worked.” You know, I hope, that this is a bogus argument.
The system failed to deliver what the United States Supreme Court calls the “heightened protection” due these families. What a relief that the Texas Supreme Court caught the error when it did but great damage was already done.
Now, back to O’Neill and Rule 18b. You wrote
“By your logic, I can never argue a case before a judge I know and like, I can never have a conversation with a judge even if it has nothing at all to do with any cases I’m involved in.”
You must realize that this completely distorts the logic of my argument. I’ve said nothing about mere “liking” or “friendship”.
O’Neill was not just a “friend” of an AAL or a CPS attorney. She is the chair of a Commission that has declared itself a “champion” of the children and a “partner” and “collaborator” with CPS in its mission, whatever that mission happens to be. The Commission and each of its members has a professional if not quasi-fiduciary interest in the success of CPS and in whatever the Commission sees as “child protection”. As a partner of CPS in “championing the children,” the Commission has an interest in every CPS case and no Commission member can fairly judge any case in which CPS is a party.
In this particular case, O’Neill personally directed Charles Childress to train AALs for this case and personally approved of the funding for that enterprise. O’Neill’s involvement here went way beyond mere friendship.
My view is that O’Neill needs to decide on a career. Either she is a champion of the children and Chair of the Commission or she is a Supreme Court Justice who honors her oath and the law by remaining impartial — in fact and appearance — in the cases she hears. The same goes for Specia, Byrne and Rucker. . .
To: Kurt
The only way to investigate suspected abuse is by abridging a parents’ right to be free from intrusion. More later.
* * *
I would ask here that readers who wish to comment stick with the issues and avoid ad hominem arguments. If you don’t know the meaning of “ad hominem,” try wikipedia.
{ 133 comments… read them below or add one }
ho 08.11.08 at 2:14 pm
Kurt, if it’s not confidential, may I ask what your email address is.
Thomas Forguson 08.11.08 at 3:00 pm
Harriet O’Neil with her colaboration with the CPS is engaging in a conflict of interest. I call a spade a spade. all the legal reasoning by the ad hominem cannot deny the obvious. The public foolishly believes that increasing the power of law enforcement makes them more effective. There are two problems with this. One is abuse of power such as at El Dorado. The other is investigations tend to become sloppy. Restricting the power of the CPS would discipline their investigations and make them do a better job. It would also protect the rights of innocent parents and children. The best voice for the child is a responsible loving parent. if the parent cannot trusted to do this, no ad hominem can substitute. There was no one to restrain Angie Voss and she abused over 400 children.
Kurt Schulzke 08.11.08 at 3:20 pm
My e-mail is kurt@iperceive.net. It’s on the bio page of the blog, I believe.
Jeny 08.11.08 at 5:11 pm
“To: Kurt
The only way to investigate suspected abuse is by abridging a parents’ right to be free from intrusion. More later.”
This is the sum total crux of the problem with CPS and the child protection racket.
They believe the *only* way to do their jobs is to violate the parental rights of parents and the rights of their children to be with their parents while they “investigate”.
There is a better way. It’s under their nose. They refuse to see it.
Due. Process.
Finding of unfitness in court of law.
Before removal and TPR.
Imagine that.
Jeny 08.11.08 at 5:14 pm
Per Kurt: “My view is that O’Neill needs to decide on a career. Either she is a champion of the children and Chair of the Commission or she is a Supreme Court Justice who honors her oath and the law by remaining impartial — in fact and appearance — in the cases she hears. The same goes for Specia, Byrne and Rucker. . .”
Couldn’t agree more.
coco 08.11.08 at 5:39 pm
Little behind some of the arguments here, but what about cases where someone makes a call, CPS visits, sees a kid bruised, broken and/or bloodied. Don’t they need power for IMMEDIATE removal? And once we allow that judgement call, then we start on a path of more judgement calls, don’t we? There has to be some mechanism for immediate action when called for. Seems like much of the disagreement is when “immediate” it is called for. Most of us feel it WASN’T called for in the FLDS case. Some obviously felt otherwise. Not saying I side with them, just that realistically there HAVE to be times for immediate removal.
kbp 08.11.08 at 5:44 pm
I’ve deleted about 90% of what I would say!
Point out that when “[t]he Commission seeks information about systemic improvement through the Commission’s Collaborative Council and other interested parties”, they need to open the doors and let those “other interested parites” be heard. NOT shut the meetings down whenever a parents sneaks in to listen and be heard, like they did at their last public meeting.
By the time you gotten to the email that included the
“…I can never argue a case before a judge I know and like”, the exchange went out the window.
Actually, if I was to add anything, it would be a challenge for ALL to fund any person that represents PARENTS in any way at the Commission or it’s committees. The structure even limited where any from that side of the fence could participate.
Maybe also ask the AAL to consider WHAT those representing the parents could do to influence how the Directives are reached by that Commission.
kbp 08.11.08 at 5:50 pm
That should read “…challenge for AAL to find”, not “ALL to fund”.
I’m also lost as to why your AAL thinks “the Commission has to do with the extra-judicial functions of CPS.” That sounds like they run the department then.
DeputyHeadmistress 08.11.08 at 6:36 pm
The only way to investigate suspected abuse is by abridging a parents’ right to be free from intrusion.
It has to be probably cause, and NOT mere ’suspected’ abuse.
What determines ’suspected abuse?’ An annoyed babysitter who you fired because she brought her boyfriend to the house can make a couple or three anonymous phone calls and your rights are abridged because you are now a suspected child abuser.
There should not be a special class of crime which permits the government to invade your home on mere suspicion and with less evidence (i.e. none) than any other crime.
By creating this special class of crime which is the exception to every Constitutional protection we have, we have left a back door wide open to government intrusion- as we saw in this case, where the supposed cause of the raid was that anonymous phone call from a mythical abused and pregnant 16 year old- and CPS and Sheriff Doran left her in that risky situation for five days because the FBI seems to have said, “As long as you’re going in there anyway, we want to come along with you.”
It was in either The Child Abuse Industry by Mary Pride or Out of Control by Brenda Scott that I read the account of a CPS worker complaining to her boss that a family would not let her in the house. She was advised- “call in an anonymous tip on the hotline a few more times. When it gets to five, we have probable cause to go in.”
It is outside the rule of Law to abridge the Constitution to investigate suspected abuse when the only reason abuse is ’suspected’ in the first place is anonymous phone calls which can and do come from within the agency itself.
Thomas Forguson 08.11.08 at 6:45 pm
The ad hominem said some of the work of the CPS doesnt always involve work that which involves the court. In our system everything is a matter of judical review. I looked up the wikepedia article ad hominem. It means argument against the person. We are not attacking Harriet O’Neil. We are concerned that her partnership and collaboration with CPS has rendered her incapable of rendering a neutral verdict. Finally, there’s a number of people who feel that, since they something as wonderful as helping children, they no longer have to worry about such things as due process and abuse of power. The tragedy at El Dorado has proven otherwise.
kbp 08.11.08 at 11:47 pm
DHM
Ask Gary Gates about HOW that “suspected abuse” opens doors!
From his case at the 5th Circuit Appeals Court:
“Examples of recognized special needs are:
a principal’s search of a student’s purse for drugs in school; a public employer’s search of an employee’s desk; a probation officer’s warrantless search of a probationer’s home; a Federal Railroad Administration regulation requiring employees to submit to blood and urine tests after major train accidents; drug testing of United States Customs Service employees applying for positions involving drug interdiction; schools’ random testing of student athletes, and drug testing of all public school students participating in extracurricular activities.”
Thomas Forguson 08.12.08 at 3:50 am
I just read an Deseret News article that says the Texas Rangers are investigating 2o cases of sexual assualt and 50 bigamy cases. This witch hunt is getting out of hand. It is time for the good people of this country to get together and stop this witch hunt.
coco 08.12.08 at 5:51 am
Deputy Headmistress,
If “It was in either The Child Abuse Industry by Mary Pride” is the same Mary Pride who does such and excellent job with her magazine and curriculum reviews in the homeschooling community, I’ve seen two vicious examples–in print–of her publicly trying to destroy someone’s business because of their religion (both times they were Mormons). The most recent was in the last year or two. Until then, I was an avid fan, now her credibility is seriously called into question in my mind. Too strong of an agenda to speak clearly.
Joey 08.12.08 at 6:47 am
I would push to get the transcripts or notes from those training sessions with the AALs to see if a smoking gun can be found, i.e. that Harriet’s organization in any way encouraged the AALs to go along with the state’s agenda, whether emphasizing only case law favorable to the state’s case or giving out fallacious information unfavorable to the FLDS. That could explain why the AAL’s were so meek and didn’t object much during the 14 day hearing. You would think, if the training came from the Supreme Court, at least some attention would have been paid to the Constitutional issues at hand. Instead addressing that matter was left up to a relatively neutral third party, i.e. the ACLU. If the Supreme Court of Texas had their guys there the whole time, why didn’t they notice the problems with the obvious lack of Due Process afforded to the individual mothers?–because they were not a neutral third party, as would normally be expected of a high court.
On another note, what’s with the judicial activism coming out of SCOTX? What warranted the little piece in the ruling about the SAPCRs and offering advice to Judge Walther? I thought they were just supposed to rule on the simple matter of returning the kids. Not getting involved in side conversations that were seized upon by the opportunistic Walther. What’s up with that? That’s just more proof of judicial activism coming out of SCOTX.
kbp 08.12.08 at 8:34 am
The training is supposed to be on video. I believe anyone can purchase a copy.
I do not know if anyone around here has, maybe Kurt has it.
JMR 08.12.08 at 9:36 am
The real problem is that the state courts view their exercise in these matters as whether or not to spend federal money to possibly protect a child. The state court is paid for by the state, the state gets money spent on foster from the federal gov. and the increase in federal spending generates more spending and income - and every state in the union, taxes at least one of them if not both. And since court salaries come from taxes, state courts have an unjust interest in using foster care, using it is a win for them almost every time, taxes go up (potentially increasing judges’ salaries), children are protected (not really true but the courts think that its true in every individual case), and the judge won’t be blamed for a bad decision, as the state has no reason to reform them for their actions. Now if these judges were federal judges, there’d be less of an incentive to do use foster care as federal funds would be used on foster care instead of federal courts or anything else and congress might have an incentive to discipline judges for causing excessive spending on foster care.
SKK 08.12.08 at 10:09 am
I dont think state judges are overly anxious to send kids into foster care, nor do I think they go through a tax and federal funding analysis when they decide state custody cases. I do, however, believe that judges tend to be biased in favor of CPS and give them the benefit of the doubt at times when the should require more proof. In turn I think it is sometimes the case that CPS gets too confident that their position will be upheld, and they get lazy about their trial presentation. The Walther 14 day hearing is a perfect example. Unlike some of you, I dont think there was or is any grand conspiracy between Walther and CPS. I dont think they were out to get the FLDS for religous persecution. I think CPS encountered a situation they were not prepared to deal with and soon became overwhelmed ..exacerbated by serious understaffing and constraints on resources, and frusrated further by an unusual amount of non-cooperation between law enforcement and CPS. Instead of narrowing their cases and focusing on the most blatant and provable cases of abuse (underage marriages and pregnancies), they got lazy and just threw all the kids into the mix, confident that they would likely get a favorable ruling. I think they threw their hands up in despair and figured they’d get it all sorted out eventualy. As a result, they didnt even present specific evidence of the children who really did need protection….but they could have. I think Judge Walther gave them the benefit of the doubt …presuming that if CPS is involved and believes all of the kids are in danger then the probably are. Also unlike most of you, I do not have as big a problem with the initial removal because it’s for only 14 days and if there’s not evidence to support the kids being in custody, they’re supposed to be returned. I think the initial orders for removal were fine, and they were done progressively over a period of days and many hours of initial investigation. I think circumstances justified the initial removals but in the intervening 14 days, CPS became aware that they could not present evidence of risk to each of the children and they should not have attempted to retain custody of all of the kids.
My two cents for what it’s worth …and I know it aint much
kbp 08.12.08 at 10:24 am
It’s worth less than two cents.
You ignore most all facts known, including the ruling by the appeals court, upheld by SCOT.
SKK 08.12.08 at 10:38 am
No I’m ignoring nothing ..I’m giving my own personal opinion having sat through the 14 day hearing and having seen how judges interact with CPS in the courtroom.
Thomas Forguson 08.12.08 at 10:54 am
Skk if you sat through that atrocity and still support this injustice., you are truely hopeless. No one can make theblind see.
Thomas Forguson 08.12.08 at 10:58 am
SKK Judge Walther sent 400+ kids into based on virtually no evidence. That’s one judge who had no problems sending innocent children into foster care.
R 08.12.08 at 11:18 am
So you sat through it? What do you think of the false statements made by CPS in the documentation? What do you think of the fact that individual children and families did not get to have their conditions considered?
SKK 08.12.08 at 11:44 am
Whoa .. hold up. How many of you sat through the 14 day hearing? And I think it’s pretty clear from my posts that I dont support what was done.
SKK 08.12.08 at 11:45 am
R - which false statement in which documentation?
Thomas Forguson 08.12.08 at 12:03 pm
I recall one false statement. There was a 22 year old who had a baby while in state custody. AT the hearing Angie Voss said she was 16. Ms.Voss said she determined the girl’s age just by looking at her
SKK 08.12.08 at 12:47 pm
Thomas - I dont recall Voss saying she determined anyone’s age. Maybe said she guessed at age but that is not a false statement. For the most part the testimony was that information could not be established and investigators were given contradictory information which basically rendered all information unreliable. I’ll look at the transcript when I have a chance.
SKK 08.12.08 at 12:50 pm
R - I think due process requires that each parent/child should have been given consideration on an individual basis. I dont think any attorney could honestly say they had no misgivngs about constitutional improprieties at the 14 day hearing
kbp 08.12.08 at 1:12 pm
Even the attorneys that were at the 14 day hearing complained they could not catch all that was going on. Unless you were allowed to sneak in and make a video of all that went on there (which was NOT allowed), the transcripts and records tell more facts about that hearing than you could. Smoke & mirrors.
“I dont think state judges are overly anxious to send kids into foster care”
The RECORDS indicate a problem for any that “don’t think”. From 1995-2006, the state of Texas increased the number of addoptions 324%, while the number of children Texas took into custody awaiting adoption increased from about 6,500 to more than 10,700 from 1999-2006. That does NOT include all taken into Temporary Custody as the CPS searched for MORE!
Those that “don’t think” will NEVER see how the methods of “collaberation” between the judges and CPS, which EXCLUDES any and all representing PARENTS, clearly shows WHO is “anxious” to move the cases along and the results such actions produce.
“nor do I think they go through a tax and federal funding analysis when they decide state custody cases”
No, that is the funtion the judges involved with budgets decide on that produced the results those that “don’t think” will never see.
“…CPS gets too confident that their position will be upheld, and they get lazy about their trial presentation”
Not a problem, the judges that are “anxious” to move the cases along will solve any problems there. There are loads of cases that have shown that, and O’Neill is working hard to help that process along. The “collaberation” and “communication” improvements wil let the TEAM members know exactly what the minimum is that will be needed.
“Unlike some of you, I dont think there was or is any grand conspiracy between Walther and CPS”
Then I’m sure you have simple explanations WHY walther told ALL at the 14 day hearing why they “”still have the final hearing”" to attend to any due process problems and WHY she has ignored 700+ (rumored) pleadings of the parents while attending immediately to any the CPS side brings to the bench.
“I dont think they were out to get the FLDS for religous persecution.”
Then evidently you “don’t think” about any reasons Hilderbran gave for the Codes he introduced, the FIVE DAY delay to save “Sarah”, the fact the warrants obtained COMPLETELY IGNORED the life threatening physical assaults Sarah complained she faced daily, the inaccuracies and spins put forth as evidence to take ALL the children… if you think at all when forming that opinion.
“I think CPS encountered a situation they were not prepared to deal with and soon became overwhelmed”
Possible, but not an excuse. They had the help of the State AG’s office, Local DA’s office, Texas Rangers, Congressmen, multiple law enforcement agencies throughout various counties… and FIVE DAYS to finalize plans that had been going on since before Hilderbran introduced the Codes passed September of 2005. Had they observed the constitutional rights all have, those “good guys” would NOT have been faced with a problem of being “overwhelmed”.
“Instead of narrowing their cases and focusing on the most blatant and provable cases of abuse (underage marriages and pregnancies), they got lazy”
They did NOT have probable cause OR suspicion on record of “underage marriages”. Taking 26 adults into custody as children, including some up to and being as old as 37, does NOT illustrate they were actually seeing factual evidence, but for those not stuck in that “don’t think” mode, it is obvious they wanted to fabricate a GIANT case to please all that did the 5 day planning.
“As a result, they didnt even present specific evidence of the children who really did need protection….but they could have. “
“…but they could have”!!! There is a prime example of the “don’t think” mindset IGNORING what the appeals court ruled AND the SCOT upheld. Even the most recent Affidavits to take children into custody IGNORE what is needed to do such.
“I think Judge Walther gave them the benefit of the doubt … presuming that if CPS is involved and believes all of the kids are in danger then the probably are. “
Thinking now? The higher courts said there was NOT sufficient evidence to rule as she did AND it was walther’s moves that threw due process out the window to reach that ruling which was reversed. A judge cannot just “believe” something is “probably” there to prove the facts needed.
“Also unlike most of you, I do not have as big a problem with the initial removal because it’s for only 14 days and if there’s not evidence to support the kids being in custody, they’re supposed to be returned.”
Then you will not mind if your civil rights are violated for ONLY 14 day intervals, throughout the rest of your life.
“I think the initial orders for removal were fine, and they were done progressively over a period of days and many hours of initial investigation.”
TIME spent on an investigation is NOT the factor that produces evidence which proves a case, it is the evidence itself.
“I think circumstances justified the initial removals but in the intervening 14 days, CPS became aware that they could not present evidence of risk to each of the children and they should not have attempted to retain custody of all of the kids”
It’s your right to “think” what you want, but, again, the higher courts ruled NONE of the children could be held in custody.
That’s why I THINK your opinions there are a couple pennies short of being worth “two cents”.
Thomas Forguson 08.12.08 at 2:03 pm
Skk there have been to many reports that she did exactly that. until somebody actually checked out the birth cirtificates they had seized, the CPS tried to establish the age of these young women by visual inspection.
jj - a desert critter 08.12.08 at 3:19 pm
Thomas
Jesus can and did. That is central to what is going on regardless of the other “legal” issues. They NEED to re-look at religion. We are trying to live like Jesus did, taught and requires to earn our way back to Him. To legislate against religion is not only Anti-Christ, it is Unconstitutional. Let’s go back to God Given Rights!
SKK 08.12.08 at 5:39 pm
jj - how do you feel about 12 year olds being married to 50 year old men and where does that figure into the equation of earning your way back to Jesus? Do you believe that Warren Jeffs speaks the divine word of God? If obedience to Warren Jeffs is holy and desirable, then why all the obfuscation and secrecy …why not live proudly without shame or excuse and take the consequences as they come. History is flled with martyrs, how would this be ay different?
Chai Tea 08.12.08 at 6:09 pm
Read about a case of REAL abuse and then compare it to what Texas CPS refers to as ‘abuse.’
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article750838.ece
This case will break your heart and when CPS had real reason and cause to intervene….they didn’t.
But…they’ll break down the doors of a peaceful people, tear hysterical children from their mothers arms, separate and traumatize what were emotionally, mentally, and physically healthy children - in the name of ’saving the children.’
Just makes me so sick.
Thomas Forguson 08.12.08 at 7:21 pm
SKK, if you want to know why the FLDS is so secretive, read up on the 1953 Short Creek Raid. If there are 12 year old married to 50 year olds , there are very few of them.
Gravitas 08.12.08 at 7:39 pm
As long as CPS is rewarded financially for removing children from birth families and placing them for adoption, there will a huge conflict of interest in THAT system. And therefore, as long as judges consider themselves on the same team with CPS, children’s interests are not being served, at least in the aggregate, by either the courts or CPS.
And as long as statistics show that children are at immensely greater risk of physical and sexual abuse in foster care instead of in their biological parents home, then there is no justification for removing them from their parents. It is a rare case in which removal is justified.
The system is sick and needs not just an overhaul, but replacement. It’s a mess and cannot be tolerated any longer.
April 38 08.12.08 at 7:46 pm
“Also unlike most of you, I do not have as big a problem with the initial removal because it’s for only 14 days and if there’s not evidence to support the kids being in custody, they’re supposed to be returned.” What??? Tell that to a two year old who is sobbing for his mommie. Your 14 days is just two weeks. A two year old’s, or five year old’s 14 days is eternity.
You blow your argument totally when you have no problem removing a young child from his mother for “just” 14 days.
Have you no sense of the trauma inflicted in brutally removing a child for even 24 hours? Young children have no idea that they will be safe, no comprehension of where they are going, nor that they will ever see their mother or father again, nor any concept of the passage of time. They want and need the comfort of their mother’s arms, and nothing will erase the horror of being ripped away from them.
Rip Van 08.12.08 at 7:52 pm
So the child “is supposed to be returned?” And that takes care of it? Give me — no, give the child — a break.
What is she, a lawn mower that didn’t cut the grass? A tee shirt that shrunk in the wash? Or an over-age gallon of milk from the supermarket cooler section? An over-due library book?
A little more humanity, please.
SKK 08.12.08 at 8:09 pm
When there is a need to investigate abuse and neglect on an emergency basis, 14 days is not an unreasonable time for children to be away from his parents… in this case, there were not any two year olds separated from their mothers in the 14 day period, remember? There were no five year olds separated from their mothers in the 14 day period, remember? Mothers were allowed to stay with their children unlike most CPS emergency removals.
Doran Williams 08.12.08 at 9:07 pm
SKK, Please, show some intellectual honesty. There was no need for the 14 day separation, which of course was much longer than 14 days, of the the YFZ kids from their parents. None at all. The separation was unreasonable from the word go.
I doubt that you would be so blase about this had you, as an adult, experienced something similar. Like, for instance, some doofus law enforcement type sees okra growing in your garden, and because he or she is a doofus, jumps to the conclusion that it is cannabis, and goes to a judge who grants that doofus the right to kick in you door and toss your house. Maybe remove your kids [you do have kids, don't you] because you are growing pot in your backyard. Which you were not, of course, but your kids are in foster care for a couple of weeks or more, your house is a wreck, your bank account has been exhausted to pay attorney’s fees. And your friends in the community say “So what. You got your kids back.”
Jeeze.
Chai Tea 08.12.08 at 9:07 pm
Skk, you’ve made an error - the only mothers allowed to stay with their children were the mothers of children under 12 months. One child was going to turn one and the mother won a special dispensation to stay with her child.
And, to a child, an unlimited time frame, which is what the children and mothers believed -IS an eternity. If you read the reports of the Mental Health Workers about how these mothers and children were separated - the mothers were not allowed to even say goodbye to their children or to reassure them about working to be reunited with them. The children were herded in one direction and the mothers were forced to board buses and lied to - that if they would go to a shelter away from the YFZ ranch, they would have a better chance of having their children returned.
THAT is what child abuse and mental abuse of adults LOOKS LIKE!
kbp 08.12.08 at 9:08 pm
That’s a big “NEED” there in that idea.
Of course, by law, this was NOT a case where that “NEED” was present.
able eddy 08.12.08 at 10:15 pm
The non-sequiturs and obfuscations in AAL’s line of argument above are too many to be listed.
“I think circumstances justified the initial removals but in the intervening 14 days, CPS became aware that they could not present evidence of risk to each of the children and they should not have attempted to retain custody of all of the kids”
Either circumstances justified the initial removals, or they did not. If they “could not present evidence of risk to each of the children,” then circumstances did NOT justify their removal.
It is one or the other, friend. … They violated the Constitutional rights of both the parents and the children.
Sorry, it just doesn’t wash.
SKK 08.12.08 at 10:25 pm
Doran -
I already said above that at some point in the 14 days CPS knew they could not present evidence on all of the children and they should have not attempted to retain custody of all of them. In other words, they should have RETURNED them prior to the 14 day hearing rather than try to retain custody. On which day it became clear that they could not present evidence about which children, I dont know.
SKK 08.12.08 at 10:27 pm
Chai Tea — prior to the 14 day hearing mothers were not separated from children, and they were allowed to stay. The 12 month cut off was after the 14 day hearing
SKK 08.12.08 at 10:33 pm
kbp –
You’re wrong. The higher courts did not rule that none of the kids could be held in custody. The higher courts only considered the cases of children of 38 specific mothers whose children were all identified as not being in the high risk group of teenage girls or underage mothers. The courts did not consider any of the other cases. Period. The higher courts did not rule that the initial removal was improper — they ruled that there was not specific evidence of a danger to the children of those 38 mothers.
kbp 08.12.08 at 11:44 pm
As I recall, it was actually 38 + 10 added cases. Even walther knew the ruling addressed the SAME evidence presented for ALL the suits in that en masse 14 day hearing. There was no individual cases addressed at that hearing.
So whether the appeals court addressed 1 or 440 suits, their ruling told the world NONE of the children could be held based on the absence of any evidence presented to support such at the 14 day hearing.
Nobody challenged the initial removal, it was a moot point then. The ruling that applied to the 14 day hearing would have been based on the same information if it had been challenged.
SKK 08.13.08 at 12:50 am
Quit cutting corners kbp …the ruling applied to 38 mothers and their children. 10 more tried to piggyback but those cases were not considered. Read the 3COA opinion again and how specific their rationale is to the specific children of the mandamus mothers. Admittedly the reasoning could be extended to other children but the opinion excludes teenage girls from its rationale.
Thomas Forguson 08.13.08 at 7:06 am
Skk The opinion stated that even if what CPS said were true about young girls being forced into underage, there was no basis for an emergency removal of any children. Get your facts straight.
Kathy 08.13.08 at 8:09 am
Skk said that in most cases children are not allowed to be with their parents during the 14 day emergency removal before the 14 day hearing and that the FLDS mothers were given a privilege from CPS that most mothers don’t get.
I could be wrong, but I suspect that it wasn’t out of the goodness of CPS’s heart that the mothers were allowed to stay with their children. CPS needed babysitters for that many children. Who would they have had to take care of all those kids in the fort if the mothers didn’t go along?
SKK 08.13.08 at 8:52 am
Kathy - having the mothers with the children required more oversight, not less.
And in case it is not perfectly clear, I agree that all the children should not have remained in custody, I agree that the 14 day hearing did not afford due process to parents or children, I agree that Walther gave too much latitude to CPS at the hearing when she should have required more proof, I agree that CPS did not make a case for keeping all the kids in custody, I agree that foster homes can be abusive, I agree that the child welfare system in Texas does not work as it should, I agree that courts tend to be biased in favor of CPS’ recommendations, and I agree that parents usually are under represented or poorly represented and are not given an adequate voice in state custody proceedings.
I also believe there are children with FLDS parents who are in danger and who are being abused and who really need to be removed from that environment. And I believe there are crimes against children that have been committed in the last few years, and tha is intolerable and beyond my comprehension that some folks are trying to excuse it or minimize it .
SKK 08.13.08 at 8:55 am
Thomas - that is not what the 3CoA opinion said.
Kathy 08.13.08 at 9:01 am
Skk, agreed. Crimes against children should never be tolerated, excused or minimized.
Thomas Forguson 08.13.08 at 9:30 am
skk that is what the opinion said. You fail to recognize that crimes were committed against the FLDS involving civil rights violations. There are more things you have failed to consider. 1. There have been no allegations of underage marriages since 2006. You need evidence and not your opinion. 2. Statutory Rape is a legal fiction. I am too honest to give any credence to charges of rape where no force is involved. 3. Let me say it one more time. Until the FLDS arrived in Texas, The state of Texas had no problems with girls as young as 14 getting married. and the Auhorities have left an enormous paper trail establishing that this measure was specifically aimed at the FLDS. 4. If a 14 year old commits a serious crime, that 14 year old will be tried as an adult. If you are old to be tried as an adult, you are old enough to get married. 5. Two things make me very angry. The custody hearings of the 8 FLDS children have rigged by the CPS and their favorite judge who suspended the right of discovery. What makes me very very angry is the fact that Angie Voss and Co. abused 400+ children and its doubtful any of them will ever be indicted for what they did.
Thomas Forguson 08.13.08 at 9:56 am
SKK there’s more to be considered. if a 16 is the first wife she can give consent. If she is the second wife and so forth, she suddenly loses the ability to consent.
SKK 08.13.08 at 3:50 pm
Thomas - I dont understand your comment. Can you rephrase?
kbp 08.13.08 at 9:10 pm
Tam ’*s* wi?ksza ilo?? (bardziej; wi?cej) by? rozwa?any. Je?eli 16 jest pierwsz? ?on? ona mo?e dawa? zgod?. Je?eli ona jest drug? ?on? i t.d., ona nagle traci (gubi) zdolno?? zgadza? si? (zgoda).
Thomas Forguson 08.13.08 at 9:34 pm
SKK, I dont understand the confusion. but i will try. As I
understand the law in the state of Texas, a 16 year old can get married as a first and legal wife with her parents permission. However if this same girl became instead the spiritual wife of a polygamists, the state says she was raped. How can someone give consent in the first example but not in the second?
Joey 08.13.08 at 10:03 pm
Thomas that is a legitimate question, but as I pointed out in my blog regarding the Tom Green SC ruling, in order to get an SC to consider hypotheticals like this, one would need to implicate a Constitutional right, preferably free speech, so that the conversation is forced into a broader context. It must be forced thus, as courts prefer to stick to the details of the individual case, rather than ponder hypotheticals.
I’m making this point in case any FLDS lawyers are reading.
SKK 08.13.08 at 11:48 pm
Thomas –
That is correct, that is the law. The difference I suppose would be in the case of the 16 year old who becomes the legal wife, there is more than just the 16 year old’s “consent” — there is also a parent and a judge who both have to consent and approve. Presumably there would be those two other adults evaluating whether it was the free choice of the girl and whether she has sufficient maturity and is making a fully informed decision.
R 08.14.08 at 5:54 am
KPB: Nie moge mowic polske. Translation, please?
kbp 08.14.08 at 8:52 am
SKK
A 16 YO does NOT need a judge’s approval to marry in Texas, only that of the parents, as I read the law.
******
R,
SKK had trouble with Thomas’ comment in English, so I tossed it up their in Polish to see if that made it any clearer. Luckily Thomas went further and SKK almost got it that time.
Thomas Forguson 08.14.08 at 11:06 am
Skk Most of the complaints of “child rape” against the FLDS involve 16-17 spiritual wives. If parents can consent to a first and legal marriage, why can they consent to a spiritual marriage? The spirit of the law would have been complied with if not the strict letter of the law.
SKK 08.14.08 at 1:52 pm
Thomas - for one thing, being a spiritual 2nd, 3rd, 4th wife is illegal even for adults, so a parent cant comsent for their daughter to enter an illegal marriage any more than they can consent for their child to engage in a prohibited sexual relationship. There is no such thing as a common law underage marriage. The presumption is an underage marriage is not in the child’s interest …only when strict statutory safeguatds are observed (parental approval, judicial approval) can that presumption be overcome. Youre turning the statute and the public policy rationale on its head with your argument.
kbp 08.14.08 at 3:49 pm
In Texas, the need for judicial approval is for under 16 YO, and parental 16 to 18 YO.
HELLO 08.14.08 at 4:20 pm
SKK
The removal of children from their parents in the manner of the YFZ raid whether for 1 day or 14 or 3 months will have a very negative effect, and they will quite probably re-live that horror for a LIFETIME, they aren’t just back to “normal” after they are returned. You are dealing with people here, not dogs, cats, etc. etc. You speak a lot of 12 year olds being married to 50+ year olds, guess what, there weren’t any there, unless you tell age by Angie Voss standards.
Thomas Forguson 08.14.08 at 4:25 pm
skk the individuals may be guilty of bigamy, but the groom should not be charged with rape.
Thomas Forguson 08.14.08 at 4:27 pm
skk most prosecutors charge soemone solely with bigamy. they are afraid of the consitutuional issues.
SKK 08.14.08 at 10:10 pm
HELLO
There were girls who were married to Warren Jeffs when they were 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Some of them had babies while they were still underage. V. K. and B.L.F. come to mind. And there’s M.B. and L.J. B. and M.J. and another M.J. and J.J. and V.N. among others - all married to Warren underage. Many more underage girls married to adult me, but maybe the 12 year olds were only married to Warren. What do you think those men are under indictment for?
It’s not Angie Voss’ fault.
SKK 08.14.08 at 10:15 pm
kbp
Yes ..over 16 can get legally married with written consent of parent and a marriage license. I dont know that theres a minimum age that a judge can approve
kbp 08.15.08 at 12:21 am
Warren does not and did not live on the ranch for quite some time before the raid. Him being charged is not justification for anything the authorities did.
On the age to be married, if you know it then you should comment on it accurately.
SKK 08.15.08 at 1:45 am
kbp -
Why so bitter? Are you trying to shut down discussion or are you just interested in winning a point or do you have a great need to appear smarter and better than others? There are several who disagree with me but manage to maintain a modicum of civility in their exchanges, and you dont see me mocking those I disagree with. What is your purpose in infusing each post with hostility?
Thomas Forguson 08.15.08 at 7:33 am
Skk, Apparently you are relying on CPS for your information. CPS has a history of being inaccurate. To date Warren Jeffs has been charged with only one felony in Texas. It is the fault of Angie Voss that she removed 400+ childre without justification.
kbp 08.15.08 at 8:21 am
Skk
You repeat inaccuracies and/or blow smoke. Correcting such is not being “bitter”.
SKK 08.15.08 at 9:09 am
Like I said …
SKK 08.15.08 at 9:15 am
Thomas - No, I am not relying on CPS for information. You might be surprised. If youare not interested in the truth ….
Thomas Forguson 08.15.08 at 9:49 am
I am interested in the truth. The charges against Warren Jeffs would be the first i would find extremley shocking if true. If you are relying upon Texas law enforcement for information, you are dealing with a source that is not much better than CPS. Throughout this crisis I have learned to treat all accusations against the FLDS with some scepticism. and remember, Rozita Swinton has still not been indicted.
jj - a desert critter 08.15.08 at 10:44 am
In general society we are admonished to teach responsibility. The Lord has had it written that He expects of us that accountability is in place by the time we are eight years old. That means we should have in place a path of correct principles, and an acknowledgment for our own individual self that “I am responsible”; That I have safeguards in place to avoid the very appearance of evil, or sin; That in escence is to be as much like God as possible.
Having said that, I have to ask myself and you: Why do we look to not see religion in its proper place? Why do we suppose that we can look to the letter of the law, especially when it is written with such a standard as we know is not right, the letter of the law that killeth, when the spirit of the law giveth life? We intend to give the children protection because they don’t have a basis for making decisions, and then we want to slap them into prison even at a young age for making choices. Look at the drug issues! How is it that we need so many jails? We don’t want them to make decisions; and then we get mad at them for making decisions; but yet we expect them to “sin no more” and make desicions as early as eight. I am not advocating any “underage marriage”, but I do see that most of the fuss happening is stretching the reality of our own agenda, our own religious preference individually upon others for what we decide everyone else should be.
I disagree that the human (f)law should make the distinction for what was an institution from the Lord before governments were established, to force upon people that in one location on this globe you can live His polygony, and on another you cannot. That you can BELEIVE in His principles for your eternal salvation, but you cannot ACT upon them. In my humble view, the Constitution tried to set that standard, and we have violated that champion as a nation, as a state, as elected governing officials.
May God help us to correct our own errors, return to His ways, and LIVE them. We would have extremely little need of law enforcement, Jails, CPS, Lawyers, and yes courts too if we would just live His ways.
SKK 08.15.08 at 11:08 am
Thomas -
I think you’re in for a shock.
SKK 08.15.08 at 11:09 am
jj
Amen !
kbp 08.15.08 at 11:42 am
Thomas,
I also suspect everything the authorities present to us. But, I try to be careful to not just dismiss all of it.
I will admit that the Warren case does not look well for him. Whatever the outcome, it is not against anyone that lived at the ranch on April 3, 2008.
Of the others charged, if there are any convictions, it does not convict all of the ranch residents through guilt by association. Nor does it justify the corrupt conduct that violated rights, even of any that may be convicted.
An irony here is that IF the evidence would show there were crimes committed (absent complaining victims), the state may have problems keeping it from being suppressed.
If that happens, then who are the criminals that should be held accountable for their conduct?
*****
On that Rozita topic, I anticipate that will be one of the BIG problems the state faces in keeping any evidence gathered from being suppressed.
Any law enforcement agency can tell you WHERE a call from a cell phone came from within hours at the most and Rozita’s (719) 351-0913 number was on record with multiple agencies when she called the new Bridge Shelter FIVE DAYS before the raid!!
Sorry to all if the facts make me sound “bitter”!!
SKK 08.15.08 at 3:23 pm
kbp - on what grounds would the evidence be suppressed? An anonymous call has to be corroborated for probable cause ..that does not mean law enforcement has to do a full blown investigation into every circumstance into the call. It does not mean that they have to exhaust every conceivable manner of verification. It means they have to independently verify enough corroborating information to justify a good faith reliance on the legitimacy of the call. They did do that. They acted in good faith and it’s been determined they had probable cause as evidenced by issuance of the warrant. Case law in Texas is clear on this issue.
So, I dont think the evidence will be suppressed based on an omproper warrant. What other grounds are there?
WC 08.15.08 at 3:36 pm
SKK,
You don’t go breaking down people’s doors and taking thier kids to corroborate probable cause. You have to give citizens the benefit of the doubt and corroborate the legitamacy of the CALL rather than the allegation. The burden of proof is on the law enforcement, not the citizens. They didn’t even know the call was from the Ranch.
Doran Williams 08.15.08 at 4:48 pm
SKK. If you are an attorney, then you are indeed “blowing smoke” about the corroboration of the call from Rozita, or whomever. I challenge you to quote at least one statement in the affidavit of Ranger Long which corroborates the call’s allegation of the commission of a crime.
Please, put this entire matter to rest in the blogosphere by showing the world the language by which the call’s allegation of child abuse was corroborated.
Thomas Forguson 08.15.08 at 5:30 pm
There were two warrants. The first was a number of calls now known to be hoaxes. There is no supporting evidence for these calls. The second was based on almost solely on the fact that a few girls appeared to be underage. Evidence like birth cirtificates and drivers licences were ignored.
Thomas Forguson 08.15.08 at 5:43 pm
Skk, adult young women were sent into foster care as juveniles based on statements made by Angie Voss. Also, Angie Voss claimed that each of the 19 households had an underage mother. That latter was not an estimation but a clear statement.
SKK 08.15.08 at 6:08 pm
Thomas …yes, they did have young women in custody who turned out to be non-minors. Until they were non-suited they were referred to as “disputed minors” because their age was not verified. The testimony was that girls gave different ages and birthdays at different times. As well, parents and children gave contradictory information about themselves and their family relationships in the first days. It seems there was a systemic practice of concealing identifying information and vital facts which cast doubt on all information reported by parents and children. There were suspicions even about birth records that were eventually produced because of the circumstances under which they were produced. Some of the “disputed minors” turned out to be 18 or older, others turned out to be minors after all, but those facts couldnt be determined until birthdays and identities were verified with vital statistics bureaus ..even at that there may be some doubt about ages and identities because of the self-reporting and delayed reporting of unassisted births in Utah. The parents and children who created the confusion (intentionally, I believe) must bear at least a portion of the reponsibility for adults being held as children.
I dont recall Angie Voss saying each of 19 households had underage wives, but do you know that to be false?
SKK 08.15.08 at 6:11 pm
Doran - I never claimed to be an attorney.
Do you have a link to the warrants?
txmom77 08.15.08 at 6:23 pm
SKK:
I seem to recall that all 26 disputed minors were actually adults, according to the information released by CPS after they had to release the children from custody. The numbers of children released were minus the 26 adult women and plus the two infants born to those women.
txmom77 08.15.08 at 6:25 pm
Also according to Utah’s head vital records guy, they never contacted him to verify the information. The only time he was asked about records was a warrant from a PI in Utah asking about 25 couples. So it seems that they didn’t even bother to check the records. Also it doesn’t take over 6 weeks to check that information out, it takes about 2 weeks to get that information forwarded to you.
Thomas Forguson 08.15.08 at 6:38 pm
The “disputed minors” said they presented investigators with birth cirtificates and drivers lisences. The fact that they turned out to be adults gives them a great of credibilty. The claims of deception was made by CPS because of their preconceived ideas of what they expected to find. Txmom77, I believe that 25 of the disputed minors were adults and the last one was a 14 year old who had never been pregnant.
kbp 08.15.08 at 7:07 pm
“Until they were non-suited they were referred to as “disputed minors” because their age was not verified. “
That’s like calling prisoners “guests”, while admitting the paper work says they are prisoners! What do you think that “suit” indicated?
Best non-excuse of the week!!!
Here are the affidavits for the SW’s. Have fun!!
TITLE
And while you’re at it, here are the transcripts for the 14 day hearing. Search for where Voss told os specific false information supplied about names, birth dates or anything. All you’ll find is general claims absent details.
Transcripts 1
Transcripts 2
kbp 08.15.08 at 7:09 pm
Kurt, delete that multi-link post. I’ll split it up here.
******
“Until they were non-suited they were referred to as “disputed minors” because their age was not verified. “
That’s like calling prisoners “guests”, while admitting the paper work says they are prisoners! What do you think that “suit” indicated?
Best non-excuse of the week!!!
****
Here are the affidavits for the SW’s. Have fun!!
TITLE
kbp 08.15.08 at 7:09 pm
And while you’re at it, here are the transcripts for the 14 day hearing. Search for where Voss told os specific false information supplied about names, birth dates or anything. All you’ll find is general claims absent details.
Transcripts 1
kbp 08.15.08 at 7:10 pm
Transcripts 2
jj 08.15.08 at 9:56 pm
I believe collusion has taken root in Eldorado among our fearless (f)law enforcement folks.
SKK 08.15.08 at 10:46 pm
oh brother …
kbp 08.15.08 at 11:21 pm
The same reaction most us had when we read them.
Joey 08.16.08 at 2:46 am
SKK, the authorities were reckless to search over 100 homes on the basis of an anonymous call. If an appellate court can’t see that, then hopefully a Federal court will. If a Federal court won’t, then God help us, cuz were all in trouble.
Thomas Forguson 08.16.08 at 10:54 am
One statement i will add based on the affidavits that no one else has said. A caseworker named Tina Martinez may have supplied false information to Brooks Long. That false information was that the Sara they were looking for had been indentified by another girl.
SKK 08.16.08 at 2:24 pm
100 homes? I thought it was 19.
In either event they didnt conduct the search pursuant to one call. They entered based on the call and conducted interviews, and then obtained another warrant based on their initial investigation. Then a federal search warrant was issued and executed andit remains under seal …the federal warrant makes the issues of the two prior warrants moot.
Thomas Forguson 08.16.08 at 2:45 pm
There were 19 residences. there were more households than than that although less than a hundred. There were over a hundred mothers. The investigation following the first warrnat produced neither the alleged victim nor the alleged perpretrator. That’s where it should have ended.
Doran Williams 08.16.08 at 2:54 pm
skk, you speak with an amazing authority for someone who has “never claimed to be an attorney.”
Either you are an attorney working for the State, or you are a non-attorney, working for the State. In either case, it is obvious that you are here to spread confusion and disinformation.
“They” did not enter the first time based on the call. That is clearly the theory that some want the State to use, in order to avoid the — shall we say — fictional aspects of Ranger Long’s affidavit in support of the first search warrant. I notice you did not accept my challenge to point out the corroboration of the anonymous call.
I think you and your employers are going to have a difficult time explaining why it took five days to “enter based on the call,” and when the State did, they did it with 600 armed men.
That they “conducted interviews” is a damned lie. They tossed the place. They hallucinated preganant teenagers. They had no authority to search the entire ranch. The fruits of that illegal search, in any venue other than a police state, will make invalid the second warrant.
The federal warrant will make the issues of the two prior warrant moot!!!???? Whoooo! That should make everyone laugh.
Try again SKK. Or just get honest with the rest of the world who are reading this: Tell us who you are, what your agenda is, and who is paying you.
Thomas Forguson 08.16.08 at 4:02 pm
Doran Williams, if not interviews, they conducted interrigations. The conditions under which they conducted theses interrigations should raise serious questions about any “information ” obtained.
Pliggy 08.16.08 at 5:25 pm
SKK (the AAL):
“parents and children gave contradictory information about themselves and their family relationships in the first days. It seems there was a systemic practice of concealing identifying information and vital facts which cast doubt on all information reported by parents and children.”
Pliggy:
I don’t know if anyone has adressed this, but there is a logical religious reason why the children gave different names. But I dispute that any ages were given falsely until the children were being ripped from the mothers after the 14 day hearing, at that time 26 mothers stopped disputing the CPS “eyebawls” and stayed with their children.
All of the children in the FLDS claim all of their mothers as mother, and when asked if so and so is their mother they will say “yes” even if that mother is not their biological mother. But if you ask any of them which one is their mother, they would point out ONE. This may get under women of the CPS’ skin because they can’t imagine such unselfishness, but to stretch it to being deceptive is stupid. Really.
When a child is born they are given that legal last name on their birth certificate, and that name is what the law perpetrators were expecting, but not the one many of the children, or mothers gave at first. Some of the children were given new last names by the church when their mothers remarried. That is the name they refer to each other by and likely the one that they originally gave to Child Pilfering Services.
The misinformation was not meant to be disinformation, it was merely misunderstanding by the fearmongers.
SKK 08.16.08 at 6:46 pm
you shouldnt make assumptions that I’m an AAL or about my role. You might be surprised.
SKK 08.16.08 at 7:00 pm
Doran - you’re nutty. I am no one and I sure dont work for the state, and I would point out the corroborating facts, if they exist, but I dont know where to find the warrants ..why I asked if you had a link to them.
kbp 08.16.08 at 7:11 pm
I see someone is stuck on “oh brother…”
…as they ignored reading the links I provided.
There are 19 multi-unit structures.
The initial search warrant showed all as a “single household”, which was another thing the appeals court opinion corrected walther on.
“10. The notion that the entire ranch community constitutes a “household” as contemplated by section 262.201 and justifies removing all children from the ranch community if there even is one incident of suspected child sexual abuse is contrary to the evidence. The Department’s witnesses acknowledged that the ranch community was divided into separate family groups and separate households. While there was evidence that the living arrangements on the ranch are more communal than most typical neighborhoods, the evidence was not legally or factually sufficient to support a theory that the entire ranch community was a “household” under section 262.201.”
kbp 08.16.08 at 7:16 pm
PS - A search warrant is most often NOT going to be of such great detail that you’d see corroborating facts, if they existed. It is the affidavits that must provide such, as I linked in Comment 91, along with the 14 day hearing transcripts in 92 & 93.
SKK 08.16.08 at 7:25 pm
Pliggy - I do agree with you that there were valid reasons for the disputed minors tp give different ages, but it did happen prior to the 14 day hearing and there was testimony about it. I also understand about the different names, but I think some of it was intentional to conceal underage marriages.
kbp - I couldnt open your search warrant link
Doran - “Silver Platter Doctrine”
Doran Williams 08.16.08 at 9:22 pm
The link which kbp provided at comment 90 works just fine. Left cli