Deseret News and San Angelo Standard Times report that Texas CPS has filed to put eight FLDS children (six girls and two boys) from four families back into foster care on the grounds that “their mothers have refused to limit their contact with men involved in underage marriages.”
More information about the alleged relationships between the eight children and the “men [allegedly] involved in underage marriages” is provided by the San Angelo Standard Times. Funny how that word “allegedly” is so easily discarded in reports about the FLDS. DNA is questionable in anthrax cases but not in FLDS ones? What isn’t clear is how the boys could possibly be in danger of abuse. I don’t think anyone has alleged that the FLDS marry off boys at a young age.
At the same time, CPS “asked to ‘non-suit’ 32 children where there was no evidence of any underage marriages or the families agreed to take the appropriate steps to protect their children:”
“We are concerned about the welfare of these eight children,” said Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for Texas Child Protective Services. “In this particular case, we have determined that although we have tried to work with the families, we have found in these particular cases, these children do not have a protective parent who is willing to ensure their safety.”
A judge in San Angelo, Texas, set a Sept. 25 court hearing to consider the requests to remove the children. Meisner said they would not move to take the children away immediately. . . “
We are still in the midst of our investigation and we are trying to conduct this investigation as was recommended by the supreme court,” Meisner said. “We’re looking at these cases on an individual basis.”
Interesting that CPS has decided not to remove the children immediately. I take this as an admission, finally, that under the law, CPS did not have sufficient information to justify taking the kids on an emergency basis back in April.
Also noteworthy is Meisner’s attitude toward the Texas Supreme Court. The Court did not “recommend” that CPS behave itself. It ordered the agency to do so. That Meisner views the Court’s order as a “recommendation” is a disturbing signal that CPS continues to see itself as a partner or collaborator with the Supreme Court, not as an agency subject to Supreme Court rulings.
More at the Standard Times.
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
kbp 08.05.08 at 4:52 pm
“Good guys” = Drop suits that shouldn’t be going on anyway.
“Bad guys” = You can’t see your Father anymore, we charged him…
Doran Williams 08.05.08 at 5:16 pm
Admission of mea culpa: It is so easy for me to coach the AAL for the mothers and fathers of the eight kids from the confort of my home.
Having admitted that, here is what I think such attorneys need to do tomorrow. First, tonight they need to draft motions for a discovery plan for their individual cases, and an appropriately liberal order. FAX or email to opposing counsel, Mr. Childress. Early, early tomorrow, get on the road to whatever courthouse Judge Walther will be in, or at her office, and present the motion. Park outside in the hall if necessary. Get her to either sign it or not. If not, head for Austin and the 3rd Court of Appeals.
It will be impossible to properly litigate this current move without full discovery.
I would also file a motion for sanctions against Mr. Childress. He had to have knowledge of the likelihood, or certainty, of these motions to remove when he made his exparte approach to the Judge last week. File a grievance against him, also, for his actions.
If any of the males parents involved have been indicted, the problem for their lawyers in the removal cases is severe. Those indicted parents probably should not take the witness stand in the removal cases.
On the other hand, all the state has at this point are allegations of mis-conduct. They have to prove it by clear and convincing and/or a preponderance of the evidence. Expect to see some of the State’s criminal case evidence come out at these hearings.
Object to the parenting plans. Has CPS given the mothers any evidence at all that the fathers actually do present a danger, or is it just the hysteria of CPS mavens driving the case.
And soon, as soon as the dismissal orders are signed, file suit in federal court on behalf of those parents and children whose cases are being non-suited.
Wow. Look for this to get really lively and nasty.
Chai Tea 08.05.08 at 5:36 pm
My heart breaks for the children. They probably haven’t recovered from being kidnapped at gun point the first time around…now the state is going to continue their abuse of them.
DeputyHeadmistress 08.05.08 at 5:37 pm
Tiny detail of no significance- six plus four equals ten. I think it’s 6 girls and 2 boys. All of them are over five.
Hugh McBryde 08.05.08 at 5:41 pm
I predicted this move, in this time frame.
http://hughmcbryde.blogspot.com/2008/06/will-texas-move-to-take-kids-back-in-60.html
Thomas Forguson 08.05.08 at 5:41 pm
6 +4 =10. Somebody has to reign. CPS has to stop being concerned about these chlidren.They have done them enough damage.
txmom77 08.05.08 at 5:49 pm
Lawyers a question…
San Angelo’s paper has the court filing and they attached the marriage certificates. They look like a document made up on a word file. For one underage bride it just lists her name and that is it. No birthdate, no parents named. No one signed anything. Would that hold up in court?
Chai Tea 08.05.08 at 5:52 pm
Will the FLDS parents be able to sue the foster homes and CPS when their children really ARE abused in the ’safe’ homes the children are sentenced to.
I just love that ‘reassignment’ of families is evil and wrong when a religious leader in the FLDS does it, but applauded by the world when a government agency demands it.
God help these children…their life is about to become a living hell.
BTW - the Headline says 10 GIRLS, but the article talks about 6 girls and 4 boys…
CPS can’t even figure out gender now, let alone numbers.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 5:54 pm
Doran,
First, Judge Walther is on vacation, the motion was set for hearing by a Visiting Judge.
At this stage the standard of proof is a preponderance, not clear and convincing…
Apparently, this time they have their ducks in a row, along with some damming statements by Dr Lloyd Barlow and one of the underage ‘brides.’ I’ve got a little more info on my blog.
Chai Tea 08.05.08 at 5:55 pm
quote from san angelo paper: “Three of the eight children - two boys and the 14-year-old girl - are children of ranch leader and sect bishop Merril Jessop, who is accused of fostering and participating in an atmosphere that condones underage marriage.”
So these kids are being removed because of what their father believes. Were they actually ABUSED?
Seriously….
Where are the lawyers? oh…that’s right. We’re talking about Texas where the lawyers lap each other’s feet.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 7:02 pm
No child has yet been removed.
The FLDS mothers won’t protect the children, so CPS has made a motion to gain custody. Read the affidavits.
They are summarized on my blog, but basically the parents are refusing to cooperate.
Would you want to place your children with a registered sex offender? That’s what one of the mothers wanted to do.
Some of y’all said to remove the abuser. One of the mothers refuses to move away from the abuser or to move the children away, and the father is under indictment. CPS is not going to leave children in that situation.
They have records of multiple underage marriages.
They have a witness of physical abuse, and coerced underage marriage to the ‘prophet.’
You wanted them to take all the steps, well, be careful what you wish for…
kbp 08.05.08 at 7:05 pm
I will point out, once again, ALL motions filed by the state make it into the media within minutes, if not PRIOR to the actual filing with the clerk.
kbp 08.05.08 at 7:07 pm
I see that TBM has transformed those indicted into “registered sex offender[s]“!
While you dig up the source for that claim, grab that quote of Teresa also!!
txmom77 08.05.08 at 7:22 pm
TexasBluesMan-
I agree with you one three of the motions. The one I don’t get is against the doctor. He is charged with failure to report abuse. That’s it. Yes, 7 years ago he married a 16 in Utah, but in 2001 you could get married at 14. I don’t see how what happen 7 year ago affects today. I mean he isn’t married to a 16 year old now so he hasn’t broken the law in Texas. I don’t get why he wouldn’t be allowed near his children or even allowed to call them on the phone. Is that a normal procedure for someone who doesn’t report abuse?
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 7:43 pm
Kbp,
You might want to read the motion, supporting affidavit and attachments in Cause 2833. The affidavit asserts that Kelly Fisher has been convicted of Sexual Conduct with a Minor, and a Google search supports that. LOL, should I cut and paste it here, so it’s convenient for you? Plus, that’s messed up - what mother in her right mind, while under a CPS investigation, would suggest sending her kids to live with a sex offender?
Txmom,
The affidavit also showed his marriage to a 16 year old girl and the fact that he has 4 wives, in addition to feeling that abuse allegations should be handled by the church. He is a licensed professional, and received explicit education on what the reporting requirements are, but decided not to comply. In addition, the mother has refused to comply or to sign a safety plan.
txmom77 08.05.08 at 7:48 pm
You didn’t answer my question. He is charged with failure to report abuse, how is CPS justified in keeping him away from his family? That is what I was asking. Do all doctors who do not report abuse need the leave the family home? Yes he has 4 wives, not a CPS issue, yes one was 16 years old, but they were married in Utah in 2001 and it was legal to do so. How can CPS say to stay away from your children?
I understand the other ones, I don’t get that one.
TxBluesMan 08.05.08 at 7:56 pm
Don’t know - but I would assume it was based on his participating in underage marriages and supporting the abuse of other minors by failing to report it.
They wanted to keep kids away from Merril Jessop too, and he is yet to be charged.
Kurt Schulzke 08.05.08 at 8:42 pm
And I would say, “It’s baloney.”
kbp 08.05.08 at 9:21 pm
TBM
I still have not found ANYTHING even close to showing the mother wanted to “children with a registered sex offender”.
Why don’t you quote it, if you know how.
DeputyHeadmistress 08.06.08 at 12:02 am
in addition to feeling that abuse allegations should be handled by the church.
Whoa. That’s not even close to what I saw reported..
There are many churches where the first place one would go to report domestic abuse would be church leadership. This is a crime? Or is because he is a doctor, and so required by law to report abuse? But the Dallas News story reports it this way:
He’s asked what the young woman could do in the event of abuse, and it seems to me he’s saying one of two things, neither of which seem like CPS issues to me. He’s either saying, “She wouldn’t have to do anything because our church elders would see it and act before it got that far…” or he’s saying, “SHe go to the church leadership first and they’d take care of it before the state needed to.” In the case of the first, it may well be naive, or self-serving, but it doesn’t seem to me to be, on its face, evidence of a crime. In the case of the second, he’s answering the question about what the young women in his community would do- and they’d go to their church authorities first.
And TBM, you keep saying this is only about obeying the law for you- but then you bring up the marriage to the 16 year old as proof this man shouldn’t be allowed near his children. Since 16 was legal at the time and place the marriage occurred, why should it be used against him here and now?
TxBluesMan 08.06.08 at 12:22 am
Kbp,
The statement on the Sex Offender deals with Kelly Fisher, convicted in Arizona in 2004 of Sexual Conduct with a Minor and Conspiracy to Commit Sexual Conduct with a Minor. This is from Cause 2833, in the affidavit of Ruby Gutierrez in support of the Motion for Conservatorship.
Headmistress,
Dr Barlow has a specific requirement to report abuse, including the sexual assault of a minor. If you read the entire paragraph in context, he is stating that the ‘elders’ would handle abuse problems, and then immediately states that he has delivered babies born to minors ‘many’ times. In Texas, a pregnant minor is prima facie evidence of abuse, but he did not report it - not once. It’s obvious from the evidence thus far that the church elders did not take care of the abuse - on the contrary, they continued the practice of underage marriages.
What do you call it when their so-call prophet is marrying 11 and 12 year old girls?
I can see very clearly why CPS would be concerned about Dr Barlow.
Also, did you note that he has four wives? Thats 3 counts of a felony offense….and was noted in the affidavit along with the marriage of a 16 year old.
kbp 08.06.08 at 2:28 am
Thanks TBM!
You’re still spinning !!!
I just wanted you to confirm it was the son-in-law that was NOT identified as living in the same house as Bernice.
I’d even feel safe guessing that Kelly and the alleged “victim” was are still together.
Lets be clear here what the claim was about that REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER:
Bernice lives in Ruidoso, New Mexico
663 miles away
Kelly lives in Hildale, Utah.
You can’t even tell the truth when there is a fact that MIGHT support your position just a pinch, you have to twist it and lie about it.
WTH is the reason you do that so often?
I knew you’d have troubles if I asked for a quote.
txmom77 08.06.08 at 7:44 am
Also does anyone know that the age of consent in Utah is 16, so a 16 year old can consent to having sex with an adult. Also in 2001, the whole FLDS law about having sex with someone under 18 when they are your spiritual wife is against the law wasn’t a law yet. So in Jan of 2001 when Barlow “married” his 16 year old “wife” in Utah he was not breaking a law. She could consent. How is that a crime? Also the fact of having four wives would be a matter for the courts not CPS. They are reaching with Barlow and his wife knows it.
CurioiusTexan 08.06.08 at 8:12 am
“In Texas, a pregnant minor is prima facie evidence of abuses….”
Really? Texas leads the nation in teen births.
Are the children of those teens placed in foster care?
Are their mothers required to sign “safety plans” and/or take parenting classes?
Are DNA sample taken from the child to assist in identifying the father?
Are all the doctors who delivered those babies required to report it for investigation or loose their families?
Are birth certificates issued for children of under aged girls “red flagged” upon issuance for investigation?
If not, then why?
Smells of prejudice and selective enforcement of the law.
Jeny 08.06.08 at 10:33 am
“CurioiusTexan { 08.06.08 at 8:12 am } “In Texas, a pregnant minor is prima facie evidence of abuses….”
Really? Texas leads the nation in teen births.
Are the children of those teens placed in foster care?
Are their mothers required to sign “safety plans” and/or take parenting classes?
Are DNA sample taken from the child to assist in identifying the father?
Are all the doctors who delivered those babies required to report it for investigation or loose their families?
Are birth certificates issued for children of under aged girls “red flagged” upon issuance for investigation?
If not, then why?
Smells of prejudice and selective enforcement of the law.’
Great questions. We’ll see if we ever get answers.
Agree. Smells of anti-FLDS prejudice and bigotry, and selective enforcement of the law.
Jeny
DeputyHeadmistress 08.06.08 at 11:15 am
If you read the entire paragraph in context, he is stating that the ‘elders’ would handle abuse problems, and then immediately states that he has delivered babies born to minors ‘many’ times. In Texas, a pregnant minor is prima facie evidence of abuse, but he did not report it - not once
I did read it in context. He was asked what recourses a young woman would have in the event of abuse. He said something about the church leadership taking care if it first. “First’ implies a second- not a claim that this is the only option. There is nothing in that question about what he would tell a girl if she reported abuse to him- that question doesn’t involve him personally at all. He’s asked what he thinks the girls would do and he answers that- you can’t turn that into an admission that he would never report abuse.
And the statement about delivering babies to minors many times isn’t quite accurate either. The CPS worker says he was asked if he had ever delivered (or seen? Can’t recall, the implication was professionally) any babies to girls UNDER 18. The CPS says he responded ‘many times’. We aren’t given a transcript or recording, and CPS spins things in fascinating ways- but at any rate, 17 is the legal age of consent. And No, a pregnant 17 year old is not prima facie evidence of abuse, as the higher courts pointed out already
You might have something if the question had been ‘have you delivered babies to girls 16 and under?’ But that’s not what CPS asked..
What do you call it when their so-call prophet is marrying 11 and 12 year old girls?
Creepy.
As for his being guilty of felonies because of those bigamous marriages- he’s never been charged or convicted, and I don’t know if they were felonies at the time the marriages occurred, nor is it clear to me that CPS always removes children in the event of an accusation outside a court of law that the man is guilty of a felony.
CurioiusTexan 08.06.08 at 2:00 pm
In February, Georgia state Sen. Nancy Schaefer released a blistering assessment of the bureaucrats entrusted to protect children there: “I believe Child Protective Services (CPS) nationwide has become corrupt and that the entire system is broken almost beyond repair. I am convinced parents and families should be warned of the dangers.”
I’m not certain about CPS, but the other wretched arm of TDFPS- Child Care Licensing, can act as judge and jury when determing if an employee or household member is “a risk” to the children in care. The Risk Evaluation process is handled by CCL and their decision is final. One does not have the right to contest it. In one such case a family member was required to vacate the home due to a DWI. No offenses related to minors or family violence. Only a DWI. Curiously enough, this particular case happened about 2 weeks after the Eldorado raid.
Compare what is being done to the FLDS with what the state allowed and continues to allow, at this residential facility where foster children were housed. Also look at the destruction they caused to one of the adults accused in this case. Google Jackie Reynolds + cps. They caused this man, proven innocent, incredible grief.
http://www.fightcps.com/2004/08/unsafe-fosterincarceration-thats-been.html
[If the link doesn't work, google "woodside trails + cps. It's the first return.
Excerpt:
Documents released recently by Strayhorn's office show that complaints came in regularly alleging that consensual sex among the boys was commonplace, a claim echoed by Allen, the former counselor.
Gaines, the camp's director, said boys at the camp occasionally "act out sexually," but she insisted that such instances were always reported to the state.
She said false allegations are common at the camp because of the kind of work it does.
Almost all of the boys who lived there were dealing with serious emotional disturbance, and most had sexual issues, she said.
Charlene Bateman, director of the licensing division at the department, said consensual sex among teenagers is not condoned but does happen occasionally at residential facilities.
If it's provable, she said it generally leads to a citation for inadequate or neglectful supervision.
[The states knows it's going to happen and the consequence of "inadequate or neglectful supervision" is a CITATION. So they knowingly place kids in environments that puts them at risk. Is that "protection"? ]
“We don’t say it’s OK for kids to have sex,” she said.
The department doesn’t compile statistics about the number of allegations against a facility, but they can be found in the investigative files.
And while there’s no provision for citing a facility that becomes the subject of numerous allegations, she said that would lead to increased scrutiny by the agency as has happened with Woodside Trails.
The two recent arrests of Woodside staffers both came as a result of referrals from the Department of Family and Protective Services, according to the Bastrop County arrest affidavits.
And Steve Suriano, the detective who handled the investigation for the Bastrop County Sheriff’s Department, said he works closely with state officials to investigate complaints.
But Suriano, who said he has responded to some 25 allegations of abuse and neglect at Woodside in the last year alone, said the investigator assigned to facilities in his area is badly overextended. ~~~