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 cloths. 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.
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
a cricker critter 08.22.08 at 12:58 pm
“A little common sense will go a long way to do the right thing by Merrianne and the FLDS folks.”
this seems to have disappeared in Texass , at least in the current judicial system. This young girl is being used to blackmail her parents and friends. May God bless and protect her, because CPS surely won’t.
M.E.
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 2:00 pm
The fact that her mother sees nothing wrong with having her ‘marry’ a 50+ year old man has nothing to do with it.
marttie 08.22.08 at 2:26 pm
She married him but is still a virgin How has she been abused?
a cricker critter 08.22.08 at 2:28 pm
LoL..if you look at the pics of the “marriage” and the ones of her taken into CPS custody….you decide who is “forcing” or coercing, or abusing this young lady!
a pic is worth a thousand words
M. E.
Bob 08.22.08 at 2:38 pm
TxBluesMan: Is it the age difference that bothers you? Why is that your or the court’s business? Age difference, per se, is meaningless, is it not?
Let me proleptically answer to avoid ping ponging back and forth. It’s not really the age difference that is the issue, because an 18-year-old marrying a 54-year-old is perfectly legal, and that’s about the same age difference (36 years, plus or minus) as in the present case, right?
No, the real issue is the fact that she’s 14, right? Okay, so if that’s the case, and assuming arguendo that 14 is not a proper age for marriage, that’s what you should focus on. Of course, that age is perfectly legal in some other cultures, so now I could, if I chose, enter into a long argument about the cultural bias of various laws, but we’ll forego that for now.
Nevertheless, and at the very least, you should drop the age difference argument. But, you won’t, will you? And, here’s why. You’re using that argument to conjure up a false picture in a reader’s mind of, say, a Mr. Burns from the Simpson’s marrying an infant.
It’s not truth and justice that you’re after but, rather, you’re trying to smear others.
Don’t you have bettter things to do with your time? Maybe like listening at your neighbor’s wall or peeking in their windows?
And, to the substance now. This girl’s husband is in jail. And unless the girl can travel to Utah and sneak in the jail, she’s in no danger of being with her husband. So, why has she been taken from her loving family and put in a foster home run by people who do not follow her religion and who are not part of her culture?
marttie 08.22.08 at 3:29 pm
Is there a law in texas that a certain age group cannot marry some one way older? Something like you can’t marry someone ten years older or more?
Little Benny 08.22.08 at 4:48 pm
TBM-
I’m out of touch with the details of this case, but wasn’t Merrianne’s marriage to this fellow a spiritual marriage only?
If it isn’t proved that the marriage has been consummated, and all evidence as far as I’m aware says it hasn’t, then nothing really happened. Without consummation of the marriage that CPS and the gang find so distasteful, there is no crime. No consummation no crime, or as we say in basketball, no harm no foul.
Please let me stress, that Jessop’s virginity need not be proved. It is the LACK thereof that must be proved for the case to have any grounds.
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 5:42 pm
marttie,
What does her being a virgin have to do with it? In Texas there is no requirement that the marriage be consummated. There is also no law on a set number of years difference - but it is illegal for someone that is under the age of 18 to marry unless they:
a. Are 16 and have a notarized affidavit documenting parental consent on file with their license application, or
b. Have a court order authorizing the marriage.
By conducting the marriage ceremony outside of the law, Merrill Jessop committed a 3rd Degree Felony (2-10).
Little Benny,
See my response to marttie, above. There is not a requirement for a marriage to be consummated in Texas. Texas also does not recognize a ’spiritual’ marriage. If you have a ceremony that claims to be a marriage, document it on a “Marriage Record,” send letters addressing each other as husband or wife, etc, you are married. Consummation matters not at all, so the fact that the girl is a virgin is moot.
R 08.22.08 at 6:01 pm
In Texas there is no requirement that the marriage be consummated.
For what charge? For bigamy? For statutory rape? Or for something else.
Thomas Forguson 08.22.08 at 6:38 pm
Texasbluesman if there’s no sex, there’s no abuse. common sense.
Jack Petersen 08.22.08 at 7:03 pm
This is clearly a case of punishing the innocent in order to punish the guilty. And the underlying motive is not to uphold the law or to prevent abuse. It’s to persecute and stamp out this unfavored religious group.
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 7:47 pm
R,
See ‘To Consummate or Not to Consummate, that is the FLDS Question’ for information on what bearing that has on marriage in Texas. It would primarily apply to Bigamy and Performing an Illegal Marriage charges.
For Sexual Assault of a Child, you have to prove penetration, but it does not have to be a sex organ, it is penetration by any object (including the turkey basters some are so fond of)…
Thomas,
Since when did common sense and the law have to be in agreement?
Bob 08.22.08 at 7:49 pm
Please excuse me in advance for veering off the present well worn path to try to make a larger point that may have something to do with the psychology behind the persecution of the FLDS.
When I was a little Catholic kid growing up in a small town, there used to be a Jewish salesman who would regularly go door to door selling kid’s dungarees (probably “jeans” to you).
The guy was diminutive and he was known to everyone as “the little Jew.” I believe he even encouraged that as his nickname as part of his informal marketing strategy.
Each month or so it would be “Hey, the little Jew is here, does anyone need any dungarees?”
No one seemed to openly dislike the guy, but sometimes I’d catch a certain tone of voice from some neighbors about him.
So, one day I asked my mother about why some people secretly didn’t seem to like him. Her reply was that Jews are cliquish.
I can still remember thinking to myself “So,what’s the problem with that?” And, as years passed I’ve often thought about that, and I still ask “So, what’s the problem with that?”
The difference is that now I ask the same thing in regards to all distinct peoples who wish to follow their own lights in religion and culture and who wish to self-identify and to have the right to self-determination as they themselves feel is right for them.
What’s wrong with being “cliquish,” so long as you are not harming people who are not part of your religion or culture?
Of course, part of the answer, at least in this country, is that we are supposed to just all be plain wrap Americans with only minor and sanctioned differences allowed.
And, a plain wrap American only has one wife, doesn’t wear prairie dresses, says he belives in God (but doesn’t really), doesn’t live in an almost self-contained community within a larger community, etc. and he’s not cliquish.
Is this part of what is behind the hatred and bigotry aimed at the FLDS?
I wonder, in light of the FLDS matter; what would have happened back then in my little town had the little Jew and some co-religionists suddenly moved in and decided to live in a compound just minding their own business.
Would some of the townsfolk have started a whispering campaign against them that might have led the local town cop to get a search warrant, etc.? “Psssst. Didja hear that Jews mutilate the genitals of their little boys when they’re 8 days old and try to hide this by claiming it’s a religious ritual? Pass it on.”
Little Benny 08.22.08 at 7:57 pm
Forgive me for being confused, but if they don’t recognize the marriage, why would they also prosecute for bigamy? Wouldn’t you have to be married to two people for bigamy to be occurring?
The law doesn’t recognize it, then does for the sae of prosecution, then it doesn’t, then turkey basters get involved, no wonder Texas is screwed over…
Thomas Forguson 08.22.08 at 9:36 pm
In the process of my ongoing legal education, I have found that logic and law have little in common. So far as I know no evidence was introduced that the alleged victim had been penetrated by Jeff’s organ or a turkey baster. Therefore no abuse occured and she should not have been removed from her home.
TxBluesMan 08.22.08 at 9:39 pm
LB,
The way the law reads is that if they purport to marry or do marry “except for the person’s prior marriage…”
Remember, all bigamous marriages are void - in all states, not just Texas, so it is the act of attempting to have a second spouse or going through the ceremony that creates the offense.
It’s pretty much the same in other states also - all bigamous marriages are void, but you can still get prosecuted.
R 08.22.08 at 9:51 pm
Since when did common sense and the law have to be in agreement?
Going by your posts, it would seem the answer is “never.”
Joey 08.23.08 at 12:52 am
So TXBluesMan says going through a ceremony creates an offense. Wow. I guess this is one those egregious acts (a religious ceremony) that is against the law, and thus not protected under the free exercise of religion clause? Alternatively, would it not be protected free speech?
Jeny 08.23.08 at 12:59 am
“Joey { 08.23.08 at 12:52 am } So TXBluesMan says going through a ceremony creates an offense. Wow. I guess this is one those egregious acts (a religious ceremony) that is against the law, and thus not protected under the free exercise of religion clause? Alternatively, would it not be protected free speech?
Not in Putin’s Russia–or West Texas. ;))
CurioiusTexan 08.23.08 at 12:59 am
Why was she taken? What was the “perponderence” of evidence to support her being at risk?
CPS Employee Handbook
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Handbooks/CPS/default.asp
Re: Reports of abuse
Law
If the department determines after an investigation that child abuse has occurred and that the child would be protected in the child’s home by the removal of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse, the department shall file a petition for the removal of the alleged perpetrator from the residence of the child rather than attempt to remove the child from the residence.
Texas Family Code §262.1015(a)
Joey 08.23.08 at 2:29 am
CuriousTexan, I hope Mrs. Jessop’s lawyer brings this issue up. So far, it appears to be a given in everyone’s mind that the marriage itself was abuse per se. I hope he objected to that argument or assertion (or implicit accusation?). I’m startled frankly about that. You’d think the state and Walther would have articulated a little more their position and how the marriage was abusive to Merrianne. Obviously, it’s unusual, and naturally some people assume it implies sexual abuse. But this is a court of law. You can’t just go assuming things. The facts accepted during this ruling had serious consequences for the girl and the mother. But the state clearly didn’t prove the girl had ever been abused or was at risk of abuse at all. They might have shown the girl was in some form of “spiritual marriage” if you allow the evidence was valid, but this showing is a moot point. IMO they should have shown real abuse beyond whatever damage the ceremony and writing of love notes did to the girl.
Chai Tea 08.23.08 at 5:03 am
That video is one of the most heart breaking things I’ve ever seen. How anyone can watch that video and not weep along with that girl is beyond my understanding.
Walther has emotionally, mentally, and probably physically tortured that girl for no other reason than that she can and she Walther has done so out of spite toward a group of people. Unbiased? Unbelieveable.
If MerriAnne does not end up an emotional wreck because of what CPS and Walther has put her through and continuing to put her through, it won’t be for want of trying on the part of CPS and Walther.
The harm done by the authorities will is far out weighed by any harm that was done by being engaged/promised to Jeffs. At least in the pictures with Jeffs, the girl is happy and glowing.
Good job Walther. Wonderful job CPS. You’ve destroyed yet another young life.
Pliggy 08.23.08 at 11:35 am
I caught another one! blue go fetch!-
“BTW, I am guilty of multiple counts of what Warren Jeffs is serving time for committing.
When I was in elementary school, there were three elementary school girls living across the street. Their names were Sheila, Mary and Lisa. I married all three several times and officiated marriages between each of them and my sister several times (yes… that’s right… lesbian, underage marriages between blood sisters).”
“What a criminal I am.”
“It was great fun at the time though.”
http://jamesbrausch.com/?p=10
Chai Tea 08.23.08 at 12:34 pm
Now that you mention it…When I was 16, I was married one night at a youth group function at my church at the time - I still have the certificate. The boy I married was only 13 at the time, and the boy who married us was 15 and the pastor’s son. (I later REALLY married him!) I guess we really should have all been put into CPS care and our parents blacklisted on the CPS list, the pastor jailed and the church closed.
Sheesh.
Hugh McBryde 08.23.08 at 4:17 pm
There are two reasons to take Merrianne. One is to punish adults by the taking of a hostage. The other is to preserve the illusion that the cause Texas continues to promote, that of the poisonous religious/ideological environment, was good cause.
I still do not understand why that does not scare even the most rabid of the opposition. That cause, if allowed to stand, essentially enforces an Orwellian “crimethink” onto all of us. We cannot allow this.
There are always casualties in the war for our ongoing freedoms. We we have that freedom, those casualties are always the innocent that an omniscient state would theoretically protect.
A state though, powerful enough to prevent such crimes, enslaves us and performs far more unspeakable acts.
Chai Tea 08.23.08 at 9:22 pm
Hugh, that is what captured my attention about the FLDS case before I even knew any of the details…that a government agency could invade a TOWN on the pretext of a false report and KIDNAP all the children to indoctrinate them against the parent’s will to a ‘religion’ unlike their own. I know the naysayers decry it every time it is mentioned, but it is the trampling of Constitutional rights and the abhorence of religious persecution that horrified me before I knew the details of who the FLDS people are and what their religion teaches.
I do not agree with adding to the Holy Scriptures and I believe that all revelation was completed by the time of John’s death on Patmos, so I could never “be’ FLDS, but there is MUCH about their religion and lifestyle I admire. They have been much more ’submissive’ (for want of a better word) than I could have been - their faith and quiet confidence exhibited to the world has been a model for all believers who truly want to show trust in God during horrendous persecution.
My heart breaks for MerriAnne and Teresa who, innocent of any crime, have been made the public scapegoat and I pray earnestly that God will protect them from the evil that would consume them…administered by Walther and CPS.
I am so terribly worried about MerriAnne and her highly charged emotional state. I hope that she is in a home that is compassionate enough to allow her frequent contact with her family, but I am afraid that CPS will enforce their rules of one hour visits per week, and make it difficult for Barbara or her siblings to see her - They punish the child. Can anyone say BULLY.
Oh…it just makes me so mad!
JF678 08.23.08 at 11:47 pm
A wise person once said, “No Justice. No peace.”
Hannah Rebekah--LDS Christian 08.24.08 at 12:04 am
Seeeze!!!! So going through the act of a marriage constitutes a marriage? I remember in high school we had Sadi Hawkins days and one of the booths was a marriage booth with the preacher and the marriage certificate. I happened to marry several guys for fun that day…I even married my husband and still have that pretend marriage license somewhere even though I married him for real years later. So do others have Sadi Hawkins where they live or something equivalent and did they do these types of things you like marriage booths or kissing booths; and would these be considered bigamist marriages in the eyes of Texas law? I just don’t get their logic. I’m thinking there is a kind of circular argument going on with the Texas laws. They want it both ways and it doesn’t make sense.
I’ve read the other posts and agree with the ones who say this is sick on Texas’ part. It should be we the people and not a dictatorship set up in the U.S.
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 11:01 am
Chai,
If she is not emotionally sound enough to be away, how is she emotionally sound enough to be married? You should be ashamed of yourself - she is either old enough (and emotionally sound enough) to be married at age 12, or not. You can’t have it both ways.
Hannah,
It is the people that establish the law - and in Texas, those people are Texans. If you don’t like our laws, don’t live here. They haven’t changed in decades.
Chai Tea 08.24.08 at 12:00 pm
My understanding of these early ‘marriages’ is more on the line of being ‘promised.’ Until MerriAnne says the marriage was consumated, it is no different than an arranged marriage done daily by other cultures in even highly developed countries like Japan and China. So, please, stop harping on a cultural difference. No evidence has been presented that this girl has even been ‘bedded.’
I have already stated that I don’t agree with many of the FLDS lifestyles in other posts.
I don’t think a 14 year old girl should be married either, but until 2 years ago it was okay by Texas standards and there are still states that permit it, so please….give it a rest.
Chai Tea 08.24.08 at 12:07 pm
TBM there is a HUGE difference between being engaged/promised to marry, and “REASSIGNED” by Walther and CPS to STRANGERS by FORCE.
If you can’t tell the difference, that explains why you are so cold blooded throughout all the pain and suffering that young lady is going through and why those of us, with mothers and fathers hearts, are deeply concerned about her mental and emotional health.
CurioiusTexan 08.24.08 at 12:37 pm
Would have people ignore the fact that Hildebran changed the legal age of marriage- actually he attempted and failed, so his buddy Perry attached it to another bill- that was directed solely at the FLDS?
I still wonder just how long this premeditated attack has been in the works.
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 12:42 pm
Txbluesman the law on legal consent was changed three years ago. It was a change directed at the FLDS. If the FLDS hadnt move to Texas, you Texans would still see nothing illegal with 14 year olds getting married or having sex. If Warren Jeffs had sex with Merriene Jessop , that was an action that was illegal before the FLDS moved to Texas. However CPS only claimed she was married. With all their ability to cherry-pick the evidence for Merrienne’s custody hearing, they said nothing about her being raped.
Jeny 08.24.08 at 1:50 pm
“Chai Tea { 08.24.08 at 12:00 pm } My understanding of these early ‘marriages’ is more on the line of being ‘promised.’ Until MerriAnne says the marriage was consumated, it is no different than an arranged marriage done daily by other cultures in even highly developed countries like Japan and China. So, please, stop harping on a cultural difference. No evidence has been presented that this girl has even been ‘bedded.’
I have already stated that I don’t agree with many of the FLDS lifestyles in other posts.
I don’t think a 14 year old girl should be married either, but until 2 years ago it was okay by Texas standards and there are still states that permit it, so please….give it a rest.”
When I was 15 (hs sophomore), my 18 year old boyfriend (hs senior) gave me a diamond (chip) “promise ring”.
This ring was intended to demonstrate our commitment to each other and our intention to be married at a later date. He would have been happy to marry me before I graduated high school, but I wanted us both to complete our education first. At the time in GA (where we lived), we could have married with my parents consent.
If this were today, and we were in Texas, I have to wonder what would happen to both of us.
Gives me great pause.
Chai Tea 08.24.08 at 5:11 pm
Well…according to Walther and CPS, your parents were abusive, negligent allowing you to have such an ‘intense’ relationship with that boy - he was 3 years older than you so that constitutes child abuse by him…jail time.
This whole thing is idiotic in the extreme.
Children in the “gentile” world really are being abused and CPS is too busy hounding these families to protect children in need. Go figure.
Pliggy 08.24.08 at 5:51 pm
bluepunk,
how dare you look down your filthy nose and tell someone else THEY should be ashamed. YOU are not old enogh to be thrown in jail to punish your mother.
I wouldn’t treat my dog the way you want to treat an innocent and virtuous 14 year old girl. You are as cold blooded as a steel post.
There has to be something in your past that has made you such a heartless coward. You sir, deserve no respect at all.
I know, I should be as patient with you as I am with the pup who peed on the rug, because you haven’t been taught any better. I won’t send you to the pound, I’ll just kick ya.
amberrose 08.24.08 at 7:31 pm
Txmanblues
Is it not apparent that the girl has never been away from her mother? Is it not apparent that she has never been “married” in the sense you mean? Are you not aware that she is more at risk of abuse than she ever was IF the accusations that cps say are true? Are the statistics of foster care just something we should accept as a necessary risk to help children?
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 8:14 pm
Chai,
You need to check what Texas law says - there is no requirement for a marriage in Texas to be consummated.
Amberrose,
Perhaps her mother should have thought of that before she decided to violate the law.
Jeny 08.24.08 at 8:56 pm
amberrose–TBM is A-OK with Merrianne being the victim of collateral damage, if it means her Mother is punished in the process.
Or perhaps he’s just fine with *all* foster children being victimized by abusers while in foster car–in payment for the sins of their parents.
I get the impression he really *is* that creepy.
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 8:56 pm
TBM, If there was no sex, there was no abuse.
Jeny 08.24.08 at 9:09 pm
“Chai Tea { 08.24.08 at 5:11 pm } Well…according to Walther and CPS, your parents were abusive, negligent allowing you to have such an ‘intense’ relationship with that boy - he was 3 years older than you so that constitutes child abuse by him…jail time.
This whole thing is idiotic in the extreme.
Children in the “gentile” world really are being abused and CPS is too busy hounding these families to protect children in need. Go figure.”
The whole thing is scary. I can’t imagine the difference between when I was 15 (1978) and now, and the way things would be handled.
In 1978, it was up to my parents to decide if my relationship was “too intense” or not.
In 2008, CPS and the courts make that call?
In 1978, my parents decided if I was old enough to get married (or not).
In 2008, that is CPS’ call.
In 1978, if my parents consented to my marriage at age 15, their word was the final word on it.
In 2008, my parents wouldn’t have the final say. CPS and the courts make that decision–and my parents could go to jail if they dare make it rather than CPS/the court? Not to mention, I could be sent into foster care for marrying my 3 years older boyfriend?
Darn, a WHOLE lot’s changed….is this still the USA?
TxBluesMan 08.24.08 at 10:34 pm
Thomas, do you consider it appropriate for a parent to encourage a child to commit burglary, or fraud, or any other felony? Because Texas feels that if a parent does so, it is abusive, and Barbara did that to M.
Jeny,
In 1978, we could execute 17-year olds - are you suggesting that laws should not change due to changes in the world?
Thomas Forguson 08.24.08 at 11:10 pm
What felony did Merriane Jessop commit? In any case, there were drastic solutions than placing this poor child for a second time in foster care.
CurioiusTexan 08.24.08 at 11:11 pm
Of course she’s not. But, some of us don’t consider ourselves sheeple who need the government telling us what we can and can’t do in our personal lives.
TDFPS in Tx is out of control. The very agency sanctioned with protecting the young and old, in fact hurting far more than they help.
Joey 08.24.08 at 11:39 pm
Barbara Walther or CPS didn’t really mention the nature of the danger the girl was in by staying with her mother. So TxBluesMan ventures a guess that it was encouragement of Merrianne to commit a felony.
That’s an interesting guess. But I still wonder why CPS and Walther didn’t mention a significant and relevant detail like the nature of the exact danger Merrianne was in.
Chai Tea 08.25.08 at 6:42 am
Joey, Walther/CPS (one and the same) can’t point to or name something that doesn’t exist.
There was no abuse and MerriAnne is not in danger of abuse — well, wasn’t until Walther/CPS put her in foster care - now there is GREAT danger to that young lady.
TxBluesMan 08.25.08 at 9:59 am
What does danger have to do with this removal? It is not an emergency removal, and the standards are different.
Chai Tea 08.25.08 at 8:33 pm
If there was no danger of abuse, then there was no need for removal. If she was not removed for potential abuse, exactly why was Merrianne removed???
I had dinner tonight with some friends - the lady had pictures of her grandparents on the occassion of their wedding. The groom was 17 - the bride 15.
TxBluesMan 08.26.08 at 11:44 am
Chai,
Imminent danger is not the correct legal standard at this point of the case.
You might try learning what the law says, not just what your opinion is.
Chai Tea 08.26.08 at 7:09 pm
So…tell me the reason? Why has Merrianne been taken into custody? I really don’t see the danger, and from what others are posting on other forums and blogs, neither do they.
So…oh master-mind TBM - what’s up with Merrianne’s imprisonment? The only thing that makes any ’sense’ (and is reflective of the vindictive nature of those persecuting the FLDS) is to incarcerate this girl to punish her parents for refusing to incriminate themselves or others while under investigation a criminal case.
I’ve never claimed to have legal knowledge - however, there is a gut instinct that comes into play when something is wrong - and the way this whole case has been handled has been wrong - and it seems the SCOT agrees with this legally challenged dumb bunny.
Odd…that someone with your ’superior’ legal knowledge couldn’t see the wrongs and that the SCOT had to point them out to you. Maybe you don’t have perfect knowlege, TBM. Maybe you should try a little empathy instead of legaleze…it might make others believe you have a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone.
But then again….that’s just my opinion.
wtswrng 08.29.08 at 9:21 pm
Is “TxBlueblood” a CPS agent? It almost makes me wonder.
April 38 08.29.08 at 10:55 pm
If being promised is the same as being married, as someone up this thread claims — it would be a close parallel to the way that Mary, believed to have been a barely adolescent girl, was betrothed to Joseph, an older man. She was his espoused wife in New Testament parlance: married in the sense of an exclusive and firm commitment, but not consummated.
When her pregnancy was discovered, Jpseph knew he was not the father. He had to receive a divine visitation telling him of the nature of her pregnancy to put his mind at rest. Had he not had that visit, he would have “put her away privily.” The other option was to stone her. He had refused to consider the latter — but if CPS had been around, it would have been all for it.
CPS and the State of Texas would throw Mary into prison because she was pregnant, allegedly by an older man, take away her infant Son and place Him in a foster home. … And haul Joseph off to prison.
Meanwhile, Merrianne has done nothing but apparently promise herself to her future husband. And CPS hauls her off — to punish her mother. Weird, irrational and unjust.
bluestrength11 08.30.08 at 12:45 am
I want to know what realistic options there were. Should CPS have left the children to fend for themselves? For goodness sakes, Merriane was only 12 years old when she was married to Warren. These children were being sexually abused.
bluestrength11 08.30.08 at 12:47 am
By the way, Merrianne was pregnant as an underage minor. Her mother and father were complicit in the marriage and allowing her to become pregnant. She is in danger of continued abuse living with them. Her mother is not innocent in this.
Jeny 08.30.08 at 5:44 am
blues….if Merrianne was pregnant, where’s the child?
I say you’re [redacted] one of her Grandmother Carolyn’s buddies–if not Grandmother Carolyn herself spreading nasty, filth about an innocent child.
[redacted]
Thomas Forguson 08.30.08 at 5:53 am
Blueweakness000: CPS made no claim that the child had been raped. They were completly unmoved by the trauma experienced by Merrianne. I have just finished reading an essay by Maggie about the terror inflicted on children by a CPS visit.
Thomas Forguson 08.30.08 at 5:57 am
TBM, there has to be some danger that has to be more than the actual severe emotional trauma tha CPS inflicted on Merrianne,
R 08.30.08 at 6:02 am
I want to know what realistic options there were. Should CPS have left the children to fend for themselves?
“Fend for themselves”? When were they ever doing that?
Kurt, mind telling us if we’ve got ourselves another Government of Texas undercover PR agent here?
Kurt Schulzke 08.30.08 at 6:43 am
R -
With respect to Bluestrength11, I prefer not to “rat out” a government collaborator (and it’s rarely possible to do so except to a limited extent) unless he/she makes a clearly misleading statement about his/her identity.
In this case, the only clues available are the moniker (”bluestrength” implies that the writer identifies him or herself with law officers, like “texasbluesman”) and the IP address (traces to San Angelo).
K
R 08.30.08 at 7:09 am
Fair enough.
rikitikitavi1 08.30.08 at 7:52 am
Blue, CPS left the children to fend for themselves after they witnessed their mothers being forcibly removed from the Coliseum. They constantly threatened the children that if they didn’t start telling the “truth” (read: saying what CPS wanted them to say as opposed to the Truth), their mothers would be removed by a man with a gun. They yelled at the children & called them “liars.” They didn’t give a damn about those children then; they never have. Read the reports from the MH workers who saw what CPS did to them.
And which child are you alleging is hers? If she did have a baby, why wasn’t she crying for her baby instead of her mother when she was taken back into custody?