"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"
If you want to read the whole MSNBC article on the court ruling, go here.
While I won't claim to have called this one exactly, I have been pointing out that I thought that Texas has screwed this one up from day one. My belief is that the authorities in Texas have been waiting at the gate of the compound (sometimes literally), hoping for any excuse to rush in and break up what they see as heathen's and freaks.
Now, I lived in Texas for a couple years. Love a lot of the people there. But I have never been around more intolerence in my life. I know some people think Utah is wildly intolerent, those people are, in my opinion, wildly sheltered.
For those who don't go read the linked article let me sum up what the court said, and what it means.
First, the court said that the state didn't have any right to take all of the children from the ranch to begin with, Texas law requires immediate danger in order for children to be taken without a court order, and the court said there was no proof of immediate danger. Second, the court said that the state failed to provide evidence that would allow the removal of all of the children. Third, the court found that the lower court should not have considered the entire ranch as 'one household' for determination purposes.
So, the state was arguing that the children were in danger because girls aged like 13-16 could be forced into marriages. Half of the children they took away were under 5, which makes the immediacy of that danger questionable at best. Another example of their argument not comporting with reality is in the underage mother 'evidence'. Of the 31 girls that the state originally claimed were underage mothers, 15 have been reclassified as adults, one as old as 27.
What does this all mean. The way I read it, the lower court has ten days to vacate its ruling, which would send the kids back to their parents. And I think that is the right thing to do.
Now, does this mean that I don't find many of the things that were purported to go on there creepy, or even possibly abusive, absolutely not. That is why I am so frustrated with Texas. They screwed this one up from day one. There are more than likely girls on that ranch that desperately need help, but because Texas was more worried about making a huge statement, and running those freaks out of the State once and for all, they didn't bother to do it right. And when it comes to the courtroom, and proving your case, you have to make sure that you go by the book as much as possible.
I think this whole mess kind of backs up Mark Shurtleff on this kind of issue. Yes, we would like to do something about a situation that we think is wrong, but we can't just go marching into Hilldale/Colorado City because we don't like what we think is going on, we have to have proof of something. Because even people we disagree with, most especially people we disagree with must be afforded all of the protections of the constitution. If we want the system to work, we must ensure that it works for the most heinous of criminals/miscreants, or it doesn't work at all.
2 comments:
here's a question you may hear often. polygamy is illegal, so why doesn't shurtleff go after them for that and if they find child abuse then they've taken care of that as well.
why exactly can't they do that?
Well, here's some preliminary thoughts on it.
First, it would need to be specific. So, one couldn't just say, I know that there are polygamists in Hilldale, lets go in there. So you would need some reasonable belief based on something articulable to get a warrant, then you would search for what? I'm not really sure. They wouldn't have a marriage license that you could search the house for, would you search for wedding photos? Without people willing to testify against them, it is an interesting question about what you would take to court to prove bigamy.
I guess you could ask them if they were polygamists.
Second, you couldn't just arrest a guy for bigamy and then search for proof of child abuse. You would have to have a reasonable suspicion of such abuse.
Barring some other crime, i.e. welfare fraud, child abuse, etc. Bigamy is a third degree felony. 1-5 years. If there was nothing besides bigamy, it would be highly unlikely the person would serve more than 1 year, and frankly I'd be surprised if they even served the 1.
Here's the question for you (or anyone else). If there isn't any child abuse, if there isn't any welfare fraud. What is the public policy stance? Say the state arrests, tries, and convicts a man for bigamy. Say he has three wives and 16 children. What is it that we as a State want out of him? What would the year in jail do (besides take the provider away from a family of 19?). What is it we want him to do? Disassociate himself from the other two wives?
This question is sticky. Laws against polygamy are weird areas, with lots of room for incredible problems. The worst part about the Utah statute (which you can find at UCA 76-7-101) is the language 'purports to marry'. So, even though a polygamists second marriage has no legal effect, and is in no way sanctioned, or recognized by the state, we still make it illegal.
This, in my mind, is akin to saying that if a gay couple purport to be married, even though the state does not recognize it, that such a union is in itself illegal. Why does the state want to go down that road?
I can tell you now, that no prosecutor in their right mind wants to prosecute basic bigamy. Again, if there is child abuse, or welfare fraud, that is another matter entirely. Problem is (as Texas is finding out), it isn't easy to get enough info for the abuse charge, especially when you don't take the time to completely flesh it out.
Side note, the famous Green case (polygamist prosecuted back in I believe 04?) was discovered and brought to light by an attorney that just retired from my office, when she went after him for child support.
Post a Comment