Why did Judge Walther send Merrianne Jessop back to fostercare? Not, it appears, for the girl’s welfare. After reading Brooke Adams report last night on the tearful separation of Merriane from her mother, I am satisfied that my earlier characterization of Walther as a modern Madame Defarge is spot on. The woman is a heartless bully who hurts people because she can.
I have yet to hear an explanation from any quarter as to why Walther could not simply have imposed the same regimen on Merrianne — keeping her father away — that she imposed on Merrianne’s 11-year-old brother. The emotional and psychological cost, on the entire family including Merrianne, of tearing her from her mother and siblings is simply not justified by the facts presented.
I would also like to hear some coherent argument in support of the claim that it is more damaging to the welfare of a 14-year-old girl to make babies with a 35-year-old male than with a 16-year-old one. And failing such an argument, why has the State of Texas determined to selectively use CPS removals as a prophylactic against “underage” sex in the FLDS community in contrast to all others? The only possible explanation is that this is an unconstitutional, religiously-inspired vendetta.
And don’t anyone tell me this was a difficult decision for Walther. She has been waiting to pounce on these people since having her fanny paddled by the Texas Supreme Court back in May.
Excerpts from Adams’ report:
When an FLDS mother called to tell her 14-year-old daughter a judge had ordered her back into state custody, the girl cried steadily over seven hours.
“Just me? Only me?” she asked her mother before dissolving into tears.
Barbara Jessop is breaking her silence to describe the traumatic Tuesday separation from her daughter. The teen - allegedly married to sect leader Warren S. Jeffs in 2006 - is the only FLDS child now in state care.
A videotape of her transfer in a state building parking lot shows the girl crying and holding her mother as Child Protective Services workers stand nearby.
A state attorney successfully argued Tuesday that Barbara Jessop, 55, had failed to show she would protect the 14-year-old, citing in part allegations of past physical abuse and her refusal to answer basic questions in court - including giving her children’s names.
The state’s ongoing criminal investigation made her silence necessary, her attorney said. . . .
“As a free American citizen I chose to partake of the rights of the Constitution under the Bill of Rights and remain silent,” she said.
Jessop was in San Angelo for Tuesday’s court hearing. She made the three-hour drive to the family’s apartment in Converse with less than an hour to spare before her daughter was taken by CPS workers at 7 p.m.
The video, taken by a relative, shows the girl clinging to her mother, sobbing, in a vehicle parked outside a state building. Two CPS workers hovered beyond the open passenger door and a handful of Texas Rangers were nearby.
“Mother, mother, please don’t let me go,” she cried. “Mother, mother, don’t let them take me. They’re not nice.”. . .
That may be the understatement of the decade.
Barbara Jessop was allowed a monitored telephone call Thursday with her daughter, who “couldn’t talk through her crying. I told her we need to be strong and that we were doing all we could to turn it around and come get her,” she said.
My guess is that the next step will be the indictment of Merrianne’s mother, Barbara Jessop, as Texas continues it’s pogrom against the FLDS.
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 8:44 am
Kurt,
There was plenty of evidence that the child would be in danger if left with Barbara. As you are aware, she refused to answer 53 of 56 questions, including the names of her children. While no inference can be made of the right to remain silent in a criminal case, that is not true in a civil case.
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 8:52 am
TBM,
If failure to answer 53 of 56 questions was enough to remove Merrianne, it was enough to remove all of Barbara’s kids. There’s nothing in the record that I know of that suggests that Merrianne was in any sort of immediate danger. Her “husband” is in prison. The Church has committed not to perform further underage marriages. Infidelity is simply not practiced at the Ranch.
A TRO and supervision should have been sufficient to handle any residual, delusional safety concerns. Removing Merrianne was spiteful overkill.
And I repeat: There’s no rational way to explain the selective use of CPS removal against the FLDS as opposed to the abundant population of unwed mothers in Texas.
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 8:54 am
In fact, it is more than fair to say — given abundant statistics of atrocities inflicted on foster kids — that Merrianne is now at greater risk of sexual assault than she was before CPS took her into custody. This whole charade is just laughable, in a black-humor kind of way.
April 38 08.22.08 at 9:03 am
What Kurt says above is absolutely true. Children put in foster care are at vastly greater risk of sexual abuse. If they remain in foster care for any length of time, those children will almost certainly become victims of sexual and/or physical abuse. It goes with the territory. Just taking her away at all is psychological abuse, committed by the state, i.e. Judge Walther. She is the devil personified. She is Snow White’s evil Stepmother, sending around poisoned apples.
R 08.22.08 at 9:06 am
TBM: What constitutes “plenty of evidence” that one child in a family is in danger but the others aren’t?
Hugh McBryde 08.22.08 at 9:11 am
I concur Kurt. The notion that someone would bed the primary FLDS “prophet’s” wife in such a closed community is so ridiculous as to be utterly discounted.
They had to take someone back to prove that at least in theory, their idea of a poison environment was valid. A failure to do so would be an admission that the original premise for taking the children was wrong.
60 days prior to the order, I said that Texas would move to take children back. About two weeks away from that deadline they tried for 8 kids. Exactly 60 days later, they ordered Merrianne into custody. The brutality is astounding. She is the most sexually protected girl at the ranch.
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 9:18 am
TBM —
I guess what I should have said is, “What evidence are you aware of that Merrianne would “be in danger” so as to truly justify removal as the only option? I’ve seen nothing in the record that supports it. If you have more info, please share it.
K
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 9:19 am
Kurt
I’m willing to concede that foster care isn’t necessarily a better situation than the one she was in.
I know enough about these cases to know that Barbara probably could have avoided this situation. Most likely, there was a deal offered to Barbara where CPS would have temporary custody but the child would remain in Barbara’s possession subject to a number of restrictions. Barbara rejected either the temporary custody, the restrictions, or a combination of both.
The primary reason I say this is that everyone else made deals to keep their kids. Yes, maybe, Barbara’s behavior was so egregious in the eyes of CPS that they were gunning for her. Again, I’m skeptical because everyone else was able to keep possession of their kids.
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 9:20 am
kurt
It really wasn’t about current danger, it was about future protection.
kbp 08.22.08 at 9:21 am
TBM
What “plenty of evidence” can you point out to us, beyond the “beliefs” MAY create a more immediate danger for under aged brides than it will for those future sexual perpetrators Voss convincingly described to walther and half of the wanna be reporters at the 14 day hearing?
marttie 08.22.08 at 9:22 am
No suprise here. The state trying to justify taking the children at the ranch in the first place. These children are going to grow up and be against law enforcement and government.
R 08.22.08 at 9:32 am
Future protection from what?
rikitikitavi1 08.22.08 at 9:35 am
Barbara was never offered parenting classes, counseling, or anything. No offer was made for CPS to be TMC with the daughter remaining in her possession, either. They were after her because of Carolyn. CPS claims Barbara was never available for them, missed appointments & things like that. These are standard CPS lies when they screw up–blame the parents.
It always amazes me that the FLDS, like Barbara, are always having to provide rock-solid evidence of what they say is the truth, yet Carolyn can get up on the stand & spout off lies like her waterboarding myth (not mentioned in her book & never mentioned until it was revealed this was happening in Iraq & Gitmo) & everyone believes her as if she were speaking Gospel.
My bet is that Carolyn wanted this girl back in foster care so she could get the chance to “save” her & write another book to make more money.
Bob 08.22.08 at 10:36 am
It is often said that the law is an ass, and that when one goes into the law one often leaves common sense behind. This matter with Merrianne is evidence of both of the above.
The issue is what is best for Merrianne. Period.
Walther, with her comply or die personality, has made a judgment call saying that what is best for Merrianne is to force her out of her loving family to live with people not of her faith or culture, because her mother has not proven she will be safe.
This reversal of normal American notions of justice by putting the burden of proof on the accused is typical of child protection philosophies and is intended to go that extra mile to protect children. However, it can be, and often has been, misused.
The goal should be to do what is best for the child. And, to do this, many factors need to be considered: What does the child want? What do the parents want? Is there really any danger?
The child should not be a pawn in the government’s game to persecute a distinct people as seems to be the case here.
Frankly, this is the same sort of thing that was done to the American Indians, the Aborigines in Australia and Canada and to many other peoples as well.
What the state has done in these cases is to say that the state–founded on particular religious and world views–knows best, and that all distinct peoples must conform to the ways of the state. “Why, them little Injun chil’ren is bein’ mistreated, boy, they’s runin’ around in them there loin clothes. We has to take them and put them in Christian schools and give them proper clothes, haircuts and religion, to save them.” “Why, them there Branch Davidian people is mistreaten’ them kids, boy, we hear rumors. We has to rush in there with tanks to save ‘em.” And so it goes. When will we ever learn?
The law to protect children cannot be applied mechanically across the board but must look at individual circumstances. To do otherwise is to use the law to actually do more harm than good. Yes, if a child is covered with bruises and burn marks and if there is evidence that the parents aren’t properly caring for the child, then CPS should step in. But, that’s not what is going on in the FLDS.
And, when it comes to applying laws to minority groups and religions, the culture and mores of those groups and religions must be taken into account and the culture and the mores of the majority should not be used to bludgeon them into submission.
A little common sense will go a long way to do the right thing by Merrianne and the FLDS folks.
Hopefully, a higher court will have a better understanding of the intent of the law and the philosophy behind it and soon return Merrianne to her loving family where she belongs. Walther is being unreasonable in this particular case and is harming the child with her ruling. In this case, the law that is an ass needs a good kick in the ass.
kbp 08.22.08 at 10:39 am
Any that have read my recent comments should have noticed I’d asked Ron whether the tools provided with a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Removal of Alleged Perpetrators could have been used to eliminate the one single (fabricated) danger the CPS present in the Merrianne hearing.
As I went back to refresh my memory on the exact wording of the SCOT Opinion - in an effort to show how any private examinations of the girls would not actually be a Sexual Assault, more of a ‘legal crime’ under the temporary custody orders - I ran across a little something of interest.
The SCOT Opinion was very specific in telling walther that she COULD “…order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home” (Id. § 262.1015)
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 10:48 am
kbp,
I think that what you are failing to grasp is that Barbara is the perpetrator that is handing off her young female children right and left to adult men.
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 11:14 am
kbp
You’re mixing apples and oranges. The SCOT of Texas was talking about things to prevent emergency removal.
Read Brooke Adam’s story about the removal. You have a 14 year old crying for her mother. You have an emotional 14 year old who is suffering from separation anxiety. Now tell me honestly, is this a person who should have been married to a 50 year old 2 years ago?
It’s all about the likelihood that Barbara will repeat the same act she did in the past. So far, I see nothing from Barbara indicating she made a mistake in wedding a child who cries “Mommy, mommy” to a 50 year old felon.
Joey 08.22.08 at 11:23 am
I don’t know how CPS workers sleep at night. This is an outrage. Taking a girl from a loving home, because of an unauthenticated photograph? Some love notes? It’s time to raise the burden of proof requirements in child removal cases. There’s no proof this girl was ever sexually molested or in danger of being sexually molested, other than assertions of some low-level CPS workers. These CPS civil case hearings are a joke, and make a mockery out the protections afforded us under the Bill of Rights. I’d call what just happened here cruel and unusual punishment of both the mother and the daughter, and neither has been convicted of a crime yet. When will this stink reach the Supreme Court; it’s been going on for too long. What’s it going to take a revolt? CPS has stuck to raping the disenfranchised so far. I guess they’ll turn to the rest of the population when they run out of disenfranchised victims. When multitudes of regular folks start losing their kids to the CPS abuse mills, maybe then there will be sufficient outcry. But I fear something very insidious is blocking these peoples voices. You have to look hard to find them but they’re there and they numerous, and they are being raped by CPS every day. see fightcps.com. What I want to know is who’s behind this terrorism within our borders? Who’s suppressing these parents voices? Is it getting to the point where keeping ones kids becomes a numbers game? I birth 6 kids knowing that 2 will go to CPS, so I birth extra. It’s the child tax on the poor. Two will go to the government to give to some lesbians who waited too long to have kids, so needed to adopt. CPS needs inventory. Is that what this is all about? WTF America??
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 11:42 am
rikitiki
Either you’re sorely mistaken or you’re lying. CPS is obligated to provide services to Barbara.
Crusty 08.22.08 at 11:51 am
The state of Texas, Texas CPS, and this case will endanger thousands of children across the US for decades to come. By the time this case ends the abuses of justice will be so great that, in order to protect innocent families from over zealous and irresponsible government agencies, new laws will be passed placing greater restrictions and limits on CPS and similar agencies across the nation. These laws will make it far more difficult for the legitimate work that CPS should be doing. The loss of respect and trust for these agencies by citizens and others within government may do even greater harm.
Thomas Forguson 08.22.08 at 11:52 am
Ron the way Judge Walther conspired with CPS to fix the hearing by suspending the right of discovery. No one what facts might have altered the outcome that were deliberatley left out. It is my belief that Merriane Jessop was sealed to Warren Jeffs, but is not actually married. I have seen no evidence that Warren Jeffs had sex with Merriane Jessop.
Crusty 08.22.08 at 12:00 pm
TBM, for thousands and thousands of years millions of girls across the world got married at about 13 or 14. Were all of their parents perpetrators? As recently as 2001 Texas was issuing legal marriage licenses to 12 and 13 year old brides and just in 1970 issued 51 such legal marriage licenses. Were all of their parents perpetrators? Was the state of Texas a perpetrator for issuing the marriage licenses? Was a Baptist church and it’s pastor who conducted a marriage ceremony in 1970 for a 13 year old girl and 34 year old man a perpetrator?
How on earth can we say that something that for thousands of years and up until just a couple of years ago even in Texas was not only legal, but celebrated, is now criminal and so atrocious that parents should be jailed and kids thrown in to foster care?
jj - a desert critter 08.22.08 at 12:35 pm
As you are aware, she refused to answer 53 of 56 questions, including the names of her children. While no inference can be made of the right to remain silent in a criminal case, that is not true in a civil case.
Blackmail is fine in Barbara’s court? And FORCING a girl against her wishes? Just changing the definitions of a few technical words, and providing lots of INK and TV to abuse the public mind makes it HONEST and RIGHT? This is UNJUST!
a cricker critter 08.22.08 at 1:00 pm
Anything on public record in a civil case can still be used in the criminal case texas is conjuring up. Barbara Jessop did the right, although painful, thing
M.E.
kbp 08.22.08 at 1:10 pm
TBM
Barbara was not “the perpetrator” that the state used as a reason to take Merrianne. I notice you do not explain to us what the danger was that Barbara did not work to keep Merrianne safe from. The state dd not identify marriage as the danger, it was the “ranch” and “Merrill”.
****************
Ron,
You say “apples and oranges”….
Are you telling me what I said was NOT available to eliminate the specific problems the state identified as creating a need for “safety”?
Is it not within the states power to use those tools to eliminate what they say is the danger Barbara must provide “safety” from, so that it actually shows there was an effort to NOT remove the child from the home?
kbp 08.22.08 at 1:14 pm
…and besides, SCOT was talking about “orders” that could be used under 262, the same code used in this hearing.
So it is not “apples and oranges”.
Crusty 08.22.08 at 1:36 pm
Kurt (or others knowledgeable), what is the burden of proof in these situations? Is it that CPS makes an allegation and then the burden of proof is on the parent or other accused to prove them wrong? Or is the burden on CPS to prove that there is imminent danger? If the latter and the judge treats it as the former what recourse is available in Texas?
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 1:39 pm
kbp
Your assignment so that you don’t look like a no-nothing internet blow hard is to compare and contrast Texas Family Code section 262.107 with Family Code Section 262.205.
If you still want to come back with your asinine arguments after educating yourself, then we can have a discussion.
rikitikitavi1 08.22.08 at 1:59 pm
Yes, CPS is “obligated” to provide services, but that doesn’t mean they actually do, especially if they don’t like the parents. They often do things like setting & then cancelling appointments or not naming a provider for a particular service that they say the parent needs. Then they sail into court & tell the judge how “uncooperative” the parent is & so they deserve to lose custody of their children. On top of this, they refuse to return phone calls, then say the parent can’t be reached by phone when in fact they’ve been trying for days (weeks even) to get in touch with their caseworker.
Ron you are a fool if you think CPS never ever lies or falls short of its obligations. They do so everyday & are never EVER held accountable for it. They’d rather torture & traumatize a 14 year old than admit they screwed up.
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 2:20 pm
rikitiki
What made you think that I believe that CPS never lies or falls short of its obligations?
I don’t think they really wanted to get this child back into custody. I think the mother forced the issue. Whether that was due to poor legal advice or her own stupidity is what I’m trying to figure out.
Kurt Schulzke 08.22.08 at 2:24 pm
Ron in Hou –
The published reports (wasn’t there, can’t say for sure) are that CPS argued for removal of at least the 11-year-old boy and the girl. Are you suggesting that they were lying to the court (wouldn’t be the first time) about their desire to get them back in custody?
K
IN THE KNOW 08.22.08 at 2:28 pm
“Ron in Houston { 08.22.08 at 9:19 am }
Kurt
I know enough about these cases to know that Barbara probably could have avoided this situation. Most likely, there was a deal offered to Barbara where CPS would have temporary custody but the child would remain in Barbara’s possession subject to a number of restrictions. Barbara rejected either the temporary custody, the restrictions, or a combination of both.”
Typically, you would be correct. In the 2 of the 4 cases Monday, this arrangement (known as “monitored placement”) was offered and agreed to by the parties. In the 3rd case, which involved Dr. Barlow’s children, the State refused to negotiate until after the Barbara Jessop hearing, when Judge Walther removed the girl but not the boy. The case against Dr. Barlow was substantially weaker, and presumably CPS became concerned about their ability to prevail. Finally, with respect to Barbara, CPS refused to negotiate. In the weeks leading up to the hearing, Barbara was offered only two options: relative placement or foster care. CPS rejected her choices for relative placement. Barbara’s lawyer thus appropriately argued that CPS failed to make reasonable efforts to keep the child in the child’s home (one of the two prongs CPS had to prevail upon to obtain custody) since neither alternative offered to Barbara involved the child remaining in the home but Judge Walther found otherwise.
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 2:32 pm
crusty
CPS must prove by sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or
eliminate the need to remove the child from the child’s home; and
(2) allowing the child to remain in the home would be
contrary to the child’s welfare.
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 2:37 pm
In the Know
You sound like you’re “In the Know.” I could definitely see CPS saying either relative placement or foster care.
CPS refuse to negotiate? I’m shocked.
kbp 08.22.08 at 3:03 pm
discussion.
Thanks Ron,
Maybe we are on different pages, as I thought I was still on the same page I’ve been on for quite a few comments. I am completely lost how section 262.107, on hearings for children taken in emergencies, or Section 262.205, on hearings for children not in state custody, has much to do with the topic I have been on.
I’ll stick with being “asinine” and let the more the knowledgeable one specifically tell me IF;
1. it is NOT the objective to keep the children in the house,
2. a TRO will not work,
3. the Removal of Alleged Perpetrators could not be done, and
4. then quote to me - one with less knowledge on the codes - exactly why that is the case.
I’ve ASKED numerous times if 1, 2 & 3 were available and NOBODY has told me they were, not nor shown me the reason they could not be used or would apply in Merrianne’s suit (the most recent hearing).
Maybe if you could address #’s 1-4 above, we’d all understand things better.
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 3:06 pm
kbp
Read the comment from In the Know. CPS pretty much put Barbara to a choice - relative or foster care. In other words, they weren’t going to let her daughter stay with her. Since she couldn’t find an acceptable relative, it went to hearing and now the daughter is in foster care.
kbp 08.22.08 at 3:16 pm
I knew what the result was and the affidavits and news reports on the hearing had showed me how it was to be accomplished.
So I will assume 2 & 3 above were available to achieve 1 and that the state just skipped past them.
Evidently it was determined that disapproval of Barbara’s sister Carole, because her living at the “ranch” was sufficient reason for walther to disallow her as a candidate, all ignored the options provided in 2 & 3, mainly because 1 was NEVER an option really looked into.
rikitikitavi1 08.22.08 at 4:43 pm
The rejection of Carole because she lives at the Ranch is a red herring. Many families have been there since the children were returned & the FLDS made arrangements to have someone at the gate at all times in case of “unannounced” visits by CPS. CPS & CASA were out at the Ranch making home visits at various times & obviously found nothing wrong with those other families, so why wouldn’t they let the poor child stay with her aunt there?
Ron in Houston 08.22.08 at 5:37 pm
rikitiki
Sometimes the either/or of relative or foster care isn’t really an either/or. I’ve had cases where we’ve put forth a number of relatives only to have each one shot down for various reasons which didn’t make much sense.
Was Barbara in a real either/or? Maybe if she had an apostate relative.
BLAH 08.22.08 at 6:33 pm
MAYBE THERE SHOULDN’T BE AN “EITHER/OR” IF THE CHILD IS NOT IMMINENT DANGER. IDIOTS. BARBARIANS.
rikitikitavi1 08.22.08 at 6:50 pm
Ron, of course, CPS was never really looking for a relative placement. Just like they never really were trying to work with Barbara at all. They just wanted to get their mitts on Barbara’s daughter so they could turn her over to Carolyn. I know Carolyn is rejoicing that this young girl is being tortured & traumatized by CPS.
jj - a desert critter 08.23.08 at 12:07 pm
TxBluesMan { 08.22.08 at 10:48 am } kbp,
I think that what you are failing to grasp is that Barbara is the perpetrator that is handing off her young female children right and left to adult men.
Here is a typical of the iceberg flaw the law flaunts regularly; a singular incident multiplied volumously where that single unknown incident is maliciously attacked as evil where there was no evil present. Barbara didn’t hand her off to men right and left!
Edwina 08.23.08 at 8:25 pm
I don’t even want to think about the agony of Merrianne and her mother in the weeks leading up to this, or in the final moments before and after her removal. I would rather have a child die in an auto accident than see them taken by CPS, where they die a death of a thousand cuts.
Fractious 08.23.08 at 8:28 pm
Joey’s questions are well taken. CPS does need “inventory” to supply to lesbians and other adoptive types; that is how CPS earns its keep, stealing the children and selling them. When WILL this become a U.S. Supreme Court case?
TxBluesMan 08.23.08 at 9:30 pm
jj,
Barbara gave away more than one daughter, and I wasn’t talking about her giving M. away to multiple men.
B.J. Jessop was married to an adult male, Isaac Steed Jeffs as a child on 11/10/2003.
M. Jessop was married to an adult male, Warren Steed Jeffs as a child on 7/27/2006.
Two daughters, two underage marriages.
In addition, Merril Jessop’s assigned daughter by Lydia, S. Jessop, was married to Abram H. Jeffs on 10/5/2005.
I could also add the cases where she was aware of her adult sons marrying underage girls.
Joey 08.23.08 at 10:54 pm
She shouldn’t have her kids taken away unless she’s convicted of something. Otherwise she’s being punished for future crimes, just like in Minority Report.
Bambi Buchowski 08.24.08 at 6:28 am
Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten the proper method of determining the legitimacy of state action. The FUNDAMENTAL assumption in cases like this should be that the family/parents are right, and that the state is wrong.
From there, once the state has proven by clear and convincing evidence that children are not safe with their families (overwhelming the fundamental assumption), remedies may be considered.
The state is not a parent. It has no inherent right to direct the raising of children or what should be done with them. This is not like two parents, one the biological parent, the other being the state, debating what should be done with children. The state is an outsider, and interloper having no greater interest than any stranger off the street. Absent clear and convincing evidence of on-goring abuse and probable danger, the state is an illegitimate and evil intruder when it undertakes to intrude on the sanctity of the family.
State officials acting illegitimately, as the Texas authorities appear to be doing, should be treated the same way as any other home-invaders or kidnappers. Imagine how you might respond if a group of strangers showed up and tried to take your children. THAT is how the minions of the state should be treated. Because they are acting under the power of the state, they should be held to an even higher standard.
I believe that in cases where state officials act ultra vires to kidnap children from their families, the perpetrators and conspirators should be sentenced to as any other kidnapper would - up to and including life in prison or death. In any case, they should be rebuttably presumed to be liable for each and every injury suffered by anyone related to their illegal actions.
Such an outcome would restore the proper citizen-state balance of power.
(Note: The Texas Supreme Court determined that holding the children was illegal. How then, could seizing the children have been legal? And knowing that it was illegal to take the children, are the state operators any different from any other person who steals children from a family?)
CurioiusTexan 08.24.08 at 10:07 am
“In a case with more than 140 mothers and 400 children, all of whom have lawyers, we maintain, and hope to show at the hearing on Sept. 4, that formal discovery … is virtually impossible,” he wrote.
Charles Childress, CPSs newly appointed Attorney
Shouldn’t everything be put on hold until due process is possible?
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 11:03 am
Joey,
Civil law and criminal law are not the same.
Joey 08.24.08 at 11:54 am
I know. Civil law is unconstitutional because people are punished harshly without the full protections of Due Process, such as a jury trial, facing an accuser, and double jeopardy protections.
Julie 08.24.08 at 3:31 pm
“State officials acting illegitimately, as the Texas authorities appear to be doing, should be treated the same way as any other home-invaders or kidnappers.”
———–
Is that a legal opinion? I mean, is it okay if I shoot them?
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 8:19 pm
Joey, clearly you do not understand what due process is, nor what the difference is between civil and criminal law. SCOTUS doesn’t have a problem with it, nor do other appellate courts. Since they are the ones charged to interpret the Constitution, I think that I’ll defer to their judgment rather than yours.
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 8:54 pm
Txbluesman you do not understand due process. you support due process.
Joey 08.24.08 at 9:56 pm
Was Barbara Jessop and her daughter harshly punished or not? That’s the question for the SCOTUS. If they were, then they were deprived of their rights, and deserve all the protections of Due Process that criminals get, IMO. That means a higher burden of proof, among other things. I’m not an expert in our legal system, but I know injustice when I see it.
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 10:41 pm
Thomas, you are 1/2 correct. I do understand due process, and I do support it. Our due process procedures in child abuse cases have been vetted and have passed muster with the Federal Court system.
Joey,
There is no Constitutional requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in child abuse cases. Nor should there be. You claim injustice - I claim abuse.
What makes your claim more important than mine? Why should we bend over to your idea of how the system should be?
The Constitution guarantees our State the right to determine its own form of government, establish our own laws, and provide for our own system of justice.
What gives you the right to change it? Who made you the head dictator?
Joey, if you want to change Texas laws, you might try moving here and working within the system instead of whining about it on a blog.
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 11:07 pm
Txbluesman has the ElDorado kidnapping of over 400 children passed muster?
CurioiusTexan 08.24.08 at 11:16 pm
Speaking of Due Process:
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=8344390
Cockerell refused to talk publicly. Crimmons did.
Call came in 29 March. As a Priority I report, CPS is supposed to investigate within 24 hours. Instead, Crimmons states that CPS notified law enforcement that they were going in.
Crimmons: “Law enforcement then asked us, asked CPS, to delay the intitiation of the investigation until there could be a plan.”
5 Days later CPS/LE raid the ranch, not with a search warrant, but with a court order.
Reporter asked, “Was there any clue in that five day period, that that phone call could have been a hoax?”
Crimmons replied, “No, we didn’t know it was a hoax and we don’t typically have time nor are we focused on the authenticity of a call when it come into our hotline.”
In other words, we ignored the law, which states that CPS must follow up with the reporter to validate authenticity, then take action within 24 hours. Had they followed procedure, they would have figured out in short order that the call was a hoax.
Crimmons: “We considered this a single household even though it was a very big household and the setting was obviously unique. We considered every child in this household and at the address at risk.”
Why? What evidence was there for this assumption? Did the alleged reporter state that ALL children were at-risk? Was her husband beating ALL the children? Did CPS even have jurisdiction to begin an investigation based on the fact that the reporter claimed to be 16 and married? According to law, she was not considered a minor under those circumstances.
That was the first incident of CPS and Law Enforcement flagrantly violating law.
Rep Naishtat, on the committee that overseees CPS, “There’s something called due process rights and you can’t deprive children, or families, or anyone in this country of their due process rights. And that was a big mistake.”
A mistake that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The fact that Crimmons would make such comments publicly demonstrates that he is either genuinely ignorant and incapable of the responsibilities his job entails, or he’s covering for CPS. Perhaps both. And, I imagine he expected full support from the public.
Crimmons…. that’s real close to Criminal.
CurioiusTexan 08.24.08 at 11:18 pm
Cockerell refused to talk publicly. Crimmons did.
Call came in 29 March. As a Priority I report, CPS is supposed to investigate within 24 hours. Instead, Crimmons states that CPS notified law enforcement that they were going in.
Crimmons: “Law enforcement then asked us, asked CPS, to delay the intitiation of the investigation until there could be a plan.”
5 Days later CPS/LE raid the ranch, not with a search warrant, but with a court order.
Reporter asked, “Was there any clue in that five day period, that that phone call could have been a hoax?”
Crimmons replied, “No, we didn’t know it was a hoax and we don’t typically have time nor are we focused on the authenticity of a call when it come into our hotline.”
In other words, we ignored the law, which states that CPS must follow up with the reporter to validate authenticity, then take action within 24 hours. Had they followed procedure, they would have figured out in short order that the call was a hoax.
Crimmons: “We considered this a single household even though it was a very big household and the setting was obviously unique. We considered every child in this household and at the address at risk.”
Why? What evidence was there for this assumption? Did the alleged reporter state that ALL children were at-risk? Was her husband beating ALL the children? Did CPS even have jurisdiction to begin an investigation based on the fact that the reporter claimed to be 16 and married? According to law, she was not considered a minor under those circumstances.
That was the first incident of CPS and Law Enforcement flagrantly violating law.
Rep Naishtat, on the committee that overseees CPS, “There’s something called due process rights and you can’t deprive children, or families, or anyone in this country of their due process rights. And that was a big mistake.”
A mistake that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The fact that Crimmons would make such comments publicly demonstrates that he is either genuinely ignorant and incapable of the responsibilities his job entails, or he’s covering for CPS. Perhaps both. And, I imagine he expected full support from the public.
Crimmons…. that’s real close to Criminal.
Joey 08.24.08 at 11:20 pm
TBM, thank anyways. I’ll just let SCOTUS override the CPS laws. They’re out of hand all over the U.S. The blood is in the streets. The women and orphaned children cry out for justice. People are afraid to take their kids in public for fear they’ll be reported to CPS. We shouldn’t have to live in fear in our own country. The high courts have already raised the burden of proof on committing those deemed by a civil court to be mentally insane. Why not raise the burden of proof on taking someone’s children? It’s said that that is the civil justice system’s equivalent of a death penalty to a mother. To them, and to those of us watching, it’s like a dagger to the heart.
Chai Tea 08.25.08 at 5:17 am
TBM, I can’t understand why anyone with underage children would choose Texas as a place to live. They are definitely putting themselves at risk of unsubstantiated criminal charges and their children at risk of abuse by the CPS/justice (loosely called), and foster care if they do.
Not enough money in the world for me to move within 3 states of TX.
Jeny 08.25.08 at 12:37 pm
“Chai Tea { 08.25.08 at 5:17 am } TBM, I can’t understand why anyone with underage children would choose Texas as a place to live. They are definitely putting themselves at risk of unsubstantiated criminal charges and their children at risk of abuse by the CPS/justice (loosely called), and foster care if they do.
Not enough money in the world for me to move within 3 states of TX.”
I just turned down an opportunity to transfer to a new position within my company in the DFW area for this very reason.
Even though a transfer would put me within 2 hours of family currently living in TX (whereas where we live now, we have no nearby family). Even though I would be able to work remotely from home 90% of the time, and even though it would involve a big raise, I said no.
NO WAY. Not until my children are over age 18 (in 5 years). Texas is NO place to live if you have minor children in your home. I could never take a chance of ticking off a neighbor, colleague or whomever, or doing something that might prompt someone who had a beef with me to place a (false) anonymous call to CPS claiming abuse which could result in my beloved children’s removal. Not with Texas’ very anti-parent/child record.
My children are my life–they are everything to me. I could not stand losing them. I couldn’t stand losing them to the hell of foster care, nor to death. I truly don’t think I would survive.
So, NO WAY to Texas (and I actually *love* the state, I’d love to live there one day–but it will be when my kids are grown).
Jeny
Jeny 08.25.08 at 9:02 pm
Kurt–looks like you missed one of my posts to “await moderation” after being posted on the blog for hours.
;))
Check your e-mail, please.
Best,
Jeny
MGK-Mike, the Giant Killer 08.25.08 at 10:41 pm
Hey!
The issue here is vindication. Texas Rangers, CPS, CASA, Barbie, Malonis, Gov. Perry, G.(General) Bush, and Mormon Corporate-(the farm club for alphabet soup agencies, pulling favors for the 10 most wanted boys), FBI, CIA, ATF, all need a scape goat to grant them solace for a horrific wrong they have all taken part in, something that should never have taken place on US soil.
If they can get just one (or a hundred) indictment(s) from a bigoted Grand Jury, follow up by one(or a hundred) child(ren)(Merrieanne)placed in foster care by a modern Witch of Endor, process one(or a hundred) for a conviction, through a similarly bigoted court system, having jury, judge and all stagehands misinformed and pumped full by the media brain(less) programmers, i.e., jealous ex-wives, hookers, agendized book purveyors, then it will all go towards validating their ‘hatred’, aka, deprivation of rights, toward a peace loving and near-perfect people of faith, who, through no fault of their own, assumed that America is good, America will eventually protect the innocent, America will be just.
They claim to ‘do it for the children’, but who do they imprison? Merrieanne! I thought they said she was the victim. Can you expect more from the Barbie?
Justice and what is right had no part in her procedure. Lack of back bone to stand up and make things right after a flagrant personal mistake and a corrective wake-up call from the Texas Supreme Court is malfeasance of office. For those with her through all this, her accomplices, it’s correctly called conspiracy.
I say, this is a clear violation of the hate-law legislation as ratified by the very lawyerly foxes themselves. What sanctions or punitives are available to the citizenry to totally prevent the landed gentry from this heinous behavior? Where is the consequence for ‘Breach of the Public Trust’? Their Prophet Joseph Smith stated the one weakness our Constitution had was a failure to properly punish those corrupting the public trust.
The legislature in their omnipotent magnanimity have placed statutes enough on the books, such that at any time, any place, government enforcers have an article number to use, much as an artist with his pallet of colors to choose from, to efficiently put any one away for awhile, if not forever. Any-and-all who have any-or-all to do with such process are party to the corrupting of the founding father’s intent and purposes, and their sacrifices for country.
Take plea bargaining for instance. Attorneys know it well! It sets justice aside, and works like this: By threatening someone with a hundred charges, and the “we can let you off easy if you will just plead guilty to a lesser (even if it, too, is a phony) charge”, using the coercive manipulation of justice, it corrupts all involved because it is only for establishing blame in a proud society, getting another ‘C” on their resume’, with no interest in true justice.
Attorneys get their money, and their guy-he pled guilty, didn’t he? And he is spared the life sentence that was the max penalty if you added up all 100 charges. Wow, is he ever relieved. And the frat boys smugly smile and nod to each other in their quiet moments together, as they wash our rights down the drain of corruption called “justice system”. Such behavior is literally treasonous. Yet it is participated in, self righteously, by almost all public defenders. The term of public servant has lost its meaning, and, for certain, its luster.
The government growth industry where all entities have to justify their existence by growing their budgets each fiscal period, have no desire to disenfranchise themselves, shut down operations, even when ‘good’ (term used loosely) people are just doing their job! All, for a mess of potage. And they think they are justified in ‘going after the money’ of such a humble, hard working and diligent religious group-FLDS.
What the hell were we thinking when we left the foxes in charge of the henhouse? So, they harvest a chicken now and then. So, they encroach on rights here a little, and there a little. What is the big deal? It wasn’t me, and the people are odd. As has been true for all persecuted, trusting and faithful people down through history, these people should also be defended by any of us who value freedom.
You. Yes, YOU! Don’t kick back in your easy chair, now, and just accept a feeling of edification from these words. Are you going to allow them to vindicate their unjust intent, using the awesome power of what was a grand country to perpetrate their lies and abuse the very ones they claim to protect?
Do Something!
Joey 08.25.08 at 10:55 pm
There’s nothing they (FLDS) can do. I’ve already advised all true believers to go underground or scatter and flee to the hills. The time of the great tribulation is here…as far as I’m concerned. The rest of us believers (in truth and freedom), just better not have children or form any relationships, because the government likes to tax and regulate those things, and will use them or turn them against you. Anything that’s dear to you, they want.