home

A Good Decision

As TalkLeft recently observed, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that invalidated the groundless seizure of 468 children and the subsequent separation of most of those kids from their parents. This editorial wisely echoes Jeralyn's sentiments: "It's time to return these children to their parents." (more ...)

From the beginning, state Department of Family and Protective Services officials have argued that the culture of the polygamous FLDS sect is abusive, subjecting under-age girls to arranged marriages with older men and a lifetime of sexual servitude. They have argued that the culture raises girls to be victims of sexual abuse and raises young men to be abusers.

There may be truth in that. But under the law in the United States, a culture cannot be indicted. Only the specific people who commit specific crimes against specific victims can be. Thank goodness.

Some of the minors at the FLDS compound may have been coerced into sexual unions with adults, but there was never any evidence that prepubescent children were at risk, or that male children were at such risk of immediate harm that their wholesale removal from their parental homes was justified. If authorities in Texas had such evidence (beyond the probably bogus information upon which the warrant was based), they should have limited the seizure to the specific children who were specifically at risk.

But that's the whole point. Officials must meet the burden of proof in individual cases.

It's much too easy for social workers to say "remove the child." By erring on the side of "protecting" the kids, they insulate themselves from criticism if a child who is left with a parent is later abused. But that short-sighted thinking ignores the abuse that is inherent in removing children from their parental homes and forcing them to live with strangers under conditions that isolate them from their parents. And it ignores the constitutional right of mothers and fathers to parent their own children. While that right is not unyielding -- it may give way when parents are abusive or neglectful -- it is substantial.

The Texas case should remind us that in the absence of compelling reasons to fear that a child is in immediate danger, the child should be left with his or her parents until authorities convince a judge that the need to protect the child outweighs the harm that is inevitably caused by separating kids from their mothers and fathers.

< A Little History | Obama's Vice Presidential Selection Team >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I could not disagree more (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Foxx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    and I find this kind of legal liberalism chilling.

    As anyone who has grown up with abusive parents knows, leaving these children, especially the girls, at the mercy of these "parents" is destroying their lives and subjecting them to a lifetime of torment.

    If you are so concerned about the law, then use it to find a way to get these children out of hell.

    and you are (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    certain that all 468 children are victims of abuse? Please provide us some evidence to that fact. The presumption of innocence is a basic tenet of our society and while I may find their religion and marriage views deplorable, violations of federal and state law should be investigated appropriately. Taking 468 children from their parents and presuming guilt of sexual abuse for all 468 children is ludicrous. As one who was abused as a child it is very near and dear in my heart, as an american, the presumption of innocence and legal search/seizure and warranted seizure of children is far more important.

    Parent
    presumption of innocence (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    is a basic tenet of our society and there was zero presumption here....

    I am torn.. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    I feel for the children who were yanked away from their parents.  HOWEVER I do believe there is enough evidence that the parents are unwilling and unable to protect their children from abuse.  Ask any kid who grew up in a cult and later came to denounce it - they will tell you they wished someone had come in and rescued them.

    ask that same question (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:39:07 PM EST
    to any kid who is physically abused, hungry, emotionally abused or simply unloved and you will get the same answer. There are millions of kids suffering physical, emotional abuse in the US who are being raised by catholics, atheists, christians, muslims etc. Who speaks for them? No one unless their parents are part of a cult.

    Parent
    But.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST
    it's a little different to address individual cases.  I agree with you - it's a horrifying reality for many children in this country.  But when your parents are part of a community whose cultural practice allows underaged girls to be assaulted by grown men then it's not out of line for authorities to step in.  I don't necessarily agree with the decision to yank all of the kids out of there but something had to be done.

    Parent
    but that is the argument (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    every child was yanked and despite my ill feeling towards religion in general and especially towards cults, the state has an obligation to behave more responsibly.

    Parent
    That is such a fine line. (none / 0) (#15)
    by hairspray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:58:19 AM EST
    I have just finished reading INFIDEL, a story of a girl growing up in a muslem society and how difficult that was for her to break free.  I think the damage to the chidren in "closed" societies is huge, and while the burden of proof is an excellent concept in an open society, the issues are not so clear in this case.  These people are brainwashed and allowing this to continue is simply abandoning children to their own devices.

    Parent
    Torn is a good description (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by travc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    As much as I really really dislike religious fundies and think they are a danger to society, the right to have and raise children is one of the oldest out there (enshrined in laws before Europeans knew how to write).

    I really hope they investigate and prosecute individual cases where there is some evidence.

    BTW: Male children in polygamist groups often get screwed over pretty badly too.  When they turn into teenagers, they tend to get kicked out with no support and a worldview that doesn't work in the wider world.  It is typical male dispersion seen in lots of animal species (I'm a biologist), but I think us humans should be better than that.

    Yes.. (none / 0) (#8)
    by JustJennifer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    What bothers me about the original post (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Foxx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    is that ignores the harm being done to these children. That is a big piece missing in the discussion. What will happen to these children/these girls when they are returned to their "parents." Without that we are not looking at the whole picture. For me, it is not enough to say, oh well, there is a greater good. The children/girls are being abandoned in hell and that is not ok with me.

    Also, one of the worst parts of family abuse is that children can't help developing emotional ties to the abusers. Those ties create huge internal traps and potentially lifelong dysfunction. So yes there is pain when they are separated from them. But far greater harm when they are left with them.

    What I want from a lawyer who would advocate returning these children to their "parents" is equal thought/work about how to help them rather than abandon them.  

    How I'd help them... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    while remaining in 100% agreement with TChris.

    Prosecute the sick f*ckers, one at a time by proving an individual (or multiple) act(s) of abuse in a court of law in front of a jury of their peers, convict them and lock 'em up for a long time.

    It's not perfect, but it's the best we can do without giving the government unprecedented powers over parental rights.  You've got a right to an unconventional life as long as you don't abuse your kids.

    Not to mention being a ward of the state is no prize sometimes.

    Parent

    Group differences (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:03:57 PM EST
    When this first happened, I asked a whole group of online friends if something wasn't amiss in just taking 400+ children from their parents and that I had really mixed feelings about it.  

      No one answered.

      The cult has different values, from the rest of our culture, so I think it's easier for people to turn away from caring that the government was grabbing 400+ children and ripping them away from their mothers (I have no idea how close they are to their fathers, whoever they might be).  That alarmed me.  

      I agree wholeheartedly that where there is actual abuse we should act on that but not just willy nilly grab over 400 children away from their parents.

      It's complicated by the fact that many of the women were deemed (by onlookers in power to grab the children), to be under-age themselves, and it turns out many were adults after all.

      More complicating is that in watching the women it's obvious to me that while they may actually (feel they) enjoy their lives which include socialization with other parents or women and shared upbringing of children (not a small plus), they move and talk like robots so that is worrying.

      But it's not our business to save them from a form of religion as long as they're not harming others.  The question is the probable harm to the children but then we would not be acting on charges of abuse but of having different values and being different from most of us.

      It's all very perplexing.  But I was glad to see the children returned where there was no evidence of abuse and I think it is the only judicial choice.

    I'm sensitive to this issue because (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by thereyougo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    when we see 400 + children being brainwashed to perpetuate polygamy, which is against the law, I WANT the law to step in.

    Its amusing that a sect of society that lives closed from the outside that houses a hospital, school, and even a crematorium could live in a free society.

    They shun the outside for a reason. They want to live as outlaws and make their numbers grow without interference from pesky laws.

    This is done under the guise of 'religion'.  Sorry,except its not a religion. Its a belief but they're not recognized as what they claim.

    Since polygamy is illegal in this country. There are many issues that have to be investigated, and the women purposely made it hard for authorities to find out who belonged to who, what their ages were because they were born inside the compound away from government so there aren't any records of the births.A father could sire 30+ kids and the kids would not know how old they were. Now for the practical purpose, how does this dad support this many kids? taxpayer funded welfare.

    Is it fair to us taxpayers to fund that lifestyle?
    I don't think so. I don't like to support tax cheats by "allowing' this "family" to go back to  tax funded lifestyle.

    Sorry, I'm on the side of the rule of law and if the sect is breaking the law by practicing polygamy, it should not continue.

    These kids are in a prison, prisoners have some rights but also have lost freedoms. We should proceed from this angle and allow them no state funded aid. We'll see how far the group keeps polygamy.

    welfare fraud is a good first step.  

    Right (none / 0) (#16)
    by 1980Ford on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:15:11 AM EST
    And they had weapons of mass destruction and bin Laden was supposed to be there.

    Nothing worse than a law and order type making up crimes (where did welfare fraud come from?) while condoning the laws broken by the state.

    It is sometimes difficult to know which is more dangerous, this or FLDS.

    Parent

    From what I have seen from former members (none / 0) (#13)
    by splashy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:02:26 PM EST
    They are returning them to a very restrictive and difficult life.

    There has also been mention that there may be a possibility that some of the mothers would have liked to have a good excuse, within their culture, to get away from the church more, where they could live more normal lives with their children.

    I'm hoping they can control the abuses. It's going to be very difficult.