I smell a rat. Having read both draft orders in the FLDS case (Original version and Walther’s version — made available by Austin’s KXAN.com), my view is that neither draft complies with the order of the Texas Supreme Court upholding the earlier ruling of the Third Court of Appeals. I suspect that Stockholm Syndrome may be setting in among FLDS and their attorneys. The drafts suggest that these unfortunate victims of government abuse are beginning to legitimize — in their own minds — the misconduct of their government captors.
June 3 update: The actual order signed June 2 falls into the same category as the two drafts discussed in this post. It’s wonderful news that the kids can go home, but home just isn’t going to be the same with CPS goons hanging out at will “interviewing” kids and pretending like they know best how to “parent”. Their real objective is to get some FLDS kids so as to legitimize their barbarity to date and get some of that federal funding.
The Supreme Court instructed Judge Walther to free the FLDS children to return to their parents consistent with the health and safety of the children. This phrase has been roundly misread. It needn’t mean what many people, apparently including attorneys representing the FLDS, seem willing to think it means.
In fact, the primary threats to the mental, emotional and physical health and safety of the children — on the basis of the most reliable eye witness accounts of mental health professionals on the record — are Judge Walther and Texas CPS, not the parents. I believe that these professionals and others who review their accounts would likely testify that the new order should create as much physical and psychological distance between Texas CPS and Walther (who are together on this deal) and the FLDS as humanly possible. The only way to make this happen is to go over Walther to the Third Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court also allowed that Judge Walther might require individual FLDS parents (though not the entire group) to remain physically in Texas (or some other confined geographical area) solely to facilitate any ongoing criminal investigations of individuals. But the fundamental context of the Supreme Court’s order (affirming the Third Court of Appeals) was CPS’s complete failure to show evidence that would require the FLDS as a group to be subject to surveillance or intrusion by the State over and above that of any other citizen. A key passage from the Third Court’s opinion follows with my emphasis:
The Department [CPS] failed to carry its burden with respect to the requirements of section 262.201(b). Pursuant to section 262.201(b)(1), the danger must be to the physical health or safety of the child.
The Department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relators’ [FLDS parents'] pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a “pervasive system of belief” that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children.
The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department’s witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger. It is the imposition of certain alleged tenets of that system on specific individuals that may put them in physical danger. The Department failed to offer any evidence that any of the pubescent female children of the Relators were in such physical danger.
The record is silent as to whether the Relators or anyone in their households are likely to subject their pubescent female children to underage marriage or sex. The record is also silent as to how many of Relators’ children are pubescent females and whether there is any risk to them other than that they live in a community where there is a “pervasive belief system” that condones marriage and childrearing as soon as females reach puberty.
The Department also failed to establish that the need for protection of the Relators’ children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children. . .
Both drafts demonstrate continuing unwillingness on the part of Texas CPS and Judge Walther to follow the law or acknowledge their own mistakes. Both drafts falsely imply – in direct contradiction to the court’s ruling above — that CPS has some evidence that FLDS parents have done something wrong that entitles Texas CPS to extraordinary, highly intrusive access to FLDS homes.
Imagine if you had to allow hostile government agents like the thugs in the video (Update: video of a warrantless entry by CPS agents into one FLDS home) has been removed from the original website) — who have terrorized you and your kids for two straight months — free access to your home for 12 hours every day. The terror of re-separation that this policy would induce in the children (and their parents who are people, too) is unthinkable. No mental health professional in his or her right mind would approve of such an arrangement because it is gravely detrimental to the health of these children and their entire families. It is inhumane and disgusting that CPS would even suggest it.
The facts publicly available suggest (if not prove) that involvement by Texas CPS and Judge Walther in any fashion in this case is manifestly detrimental to the health and well-being of the children. CPS has thoroughly humiliated, browbeat and otherwise traumatized these children. They will bear psychological scars from this catastrophe as long as they live. The sooner they can distance themselves from the perpetrators, the better.
If a Texas mother had abused these children as Walther and CPS have, CPS would demand that she be legally prohibited from visitation, period. That same prohibition should now apply to Walther and CPS. What’s good for the goose . . . I suggest that this is no time for the FLDS to roll over and accept either of these drafts. They deserve better and should demand it.
I want to highlight CPS’s use of the term “pervasive belief system” which the court quotes several times in its opinion. This term is a CPS code word for “religion”. I have said from the beginning that this was a case driven by religious bias and bigotry. The Third Court of Appeals opinion proves this is true, in so many words. More on this later.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Signing those agreements is just a way for CPS to come around the back way to get at them again. And they will.
Signing what “agreements”? There are none I can find, only the temporary orders walthers ruled on and “Authorization” for release.
I’m 110% certain walthers should not be involved with any future cases with these children, but the suits are still active.
Stockholm Syndrome…hmmm that is interesting indeed.
Well I never really faulted CPS except for being duped by law enforcement who were looking and excuse anyway.
That is interesting…I’ll have to think it over.
These same things are happening to me and my daughter for over a year and I have been fighting this battle all by myself. The judge refused to enter anything but a no contest plea when I was clearly arguing for a denial and a trial. I keep getting delay after delay, slandered every day, attempts to frame me, sabottage of my work and attempted sabottage of my housing; all because I will not agree with their lies about me and subject myself to being treated like a vassal. I have had three assigned lo\awyers to date who have represented the court and CPS very well, but not me. I’m in Yuma Arizona; and this is the most corrupt system I have ever encountered.
The more you know about the system, and the people who are abused by it, the more you will understand how very corrupt it is. Federal law in effect gives a bonus to state child “protection” agencies for finding children to place for adoption. So the pressure is on the caseworkers to find cause to remove a child, whether just cause exists or not. In this system, you are guilty till proven innocent, and damn the Constitution.
Just pray, if you have had no bitter experiences with CPS (in any state of the union) that you never do. If you do, you reap the whirlwind, and your state CPS, under any of its aliases, will take your child. Otherwise there would not be between 500,000 and 600,000 children trapped in the system.
The prophet cannot remove a man’s priesthood authority. A man loses his priesthood by his own actions. We FLDS women will not stay with a man who has no priesthood – much as we recognize all his many other fine qualities. It is this way – the man’s actions cost him the loss of the priesthood – the prophet did not take it away. The women choose not to stay with that man because without priesthood he cannot exalt them – the prophet does not force her to leave – but if she can be placed by a man who can exalt her and her children – she will do so. So no – the prophet does not create and break families – the actions of individuals do – Probably no men on the planet are held to a higher accountability than FLDS husbands by their wives. If they cross that line it is goodbye – not because the prophet said – but because they have no priesthood.