[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by aspenhall

maybe we need to define EDUCATIONAL NEGLECT as a form of child abuse....then

Why would you accuse the FLDS of educational neglect? They had a school on the premises, and kids of school age attended for the number of days and hours required by Texas law.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by 2bmomof4

Boulderbabe

They are doing everything they should be doing. They removed the children they suspected may be in danger (which happened to be all of them initially) and then they are conducting their investigations on a case by case basis. Thats EXACTLY how it should be. Some are going back to their families, others wont. The authorities are doing what they can and should be doing, they are trying to protect the children. Their methods may be intrusive, but suspected child abuse is something that has to be investigated thoroughly. I'm glad they did what they did. I'm pretty sure everyone here just wants what is best for those kids. Don't get yourself so worked up about it, its not healthy.

That's the problem----they didn't do what they were supposed to do. The appeals court says that in order to remove a child, the state must have clear evidence that abuse is occurring or will occur in the very near future.

That didn't happen in this case.

The state also has to make reasonable efforts to keep the kids safe in their homes before they are removed.

That didn't happen in this case.

The state also has to make these judgements for individual children of individual families, and it has to allow those individuals to be represented in court.

That didn't happen ,either.

These laws exist for a very good reason. They exist to prevent kids from having lasting, lifelong damage from the trauma of being removed from their parents. They also exist to protect parents' rights, so that we don't have to be afraid of somebody coming to snatch our kids away for no good reason. Removing a child is serious, serious business. Only when the risk of staying far outweighs the certain damage of removal should kids be pulled out.

I am worked up about this because this is a terrible harm done to kids who didn't need to have this done. And I'm upset because it sets a precedent for the same horrible harm being done to even more families.

What has happened here is NOT what is best for these kids and these families, and it's going to make it a heck of a lot harder to investigate suspected abuse in the future. It's a high stakes game. If you care about what's best for kids, you never, ever blithely say, "Pull them out, and we'll sort out the facts later." Texas CPS has harmed these kids in a way that will affect them for the rest of their lives. That is not trivial.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by chevyjewel

Excellent post Forever-family. This sect is a cult. Plain and simple. And thank GOODNESS that only a small fraction of the children are being returning home and the vast majority of cases with continue on in their investigations.

First of all, if the Texas Supreme Court doesn't issue a stay of the appellate court's order, all the kids are going to have to be released.

But more importantly: do you REALLY think that evidence is unimportant in these cases? That the state should be able to march into somebody's home and take their kids away forever without a shred of proof? That's not the world I want to live in. Is it the way you want to live?

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Synesthesia

This strikes me as odd because the FDLS believe the old outmoded teachings about black people that were thrown out by the mainstream Mormon church back in the 70s.....

Huh? What's that got to do with anything?

I don't agree with the idea that black people bear the mark of Cain, or any of that stupidity. But in America, we don't take kids away because of what parents think. You're allowed to think or believe anything you like. As long as you aren't posing any danger to a child, you can think or believe whatever you choose.

The ACLU is on the FLDS's side on this one. ACLU believes there's been a serious violation of the Constitution here. And I agree.

[Hadley2]

BB--I've been reading your posts, and I understand your points, I do. They are based on fact and as far as I can see correct as far as they go. But I think maybe they don't go far enough.

This is difficult, and I think people are having a hard time articulating why it is difficult. So they cast about and land on the tangible things that they feel uncomfortable about, thus opening the door to assessments of bigotry and ethnocentrism.

I don't think most people are worked up about polygamy per se. They may not like the implied subjagation of women, but as long as adult women choose it freely, I think most people would let that go. I don't think most people are worked up about religious beliefs per se. There is nothing inherently any more unbelievable or "out there" about Mormon theology than mainstream Christian theology. It is virtually the same story, with just an added field trip for the Savior. Having authoritative prophets on Earth is not really any different from having a pope or bishop, etc. I do think people are uncomfortable with the isolationism and forced authoritarianism of this group, but I don't think that's an ethnocentric position--I think it is a natural repugnance for an unhealthy type of social structure, one that has been repeated--with out-of-the-norm leaders and followers--through much of history.

So I think what is really at heart here is the difficulty of dealing with a supercommunity--more of a single, unified entity, taking authority unto itself and sometimes under the direction of a disturbed leader--dedicated to bucking the norms, laws, and authority of the rest of civil society. A la the tax rebels. A la Waco. A la Jim Jones. In those situations, if you were to follow non ex-parte rules, you could easily be setting the entire community--adults and children--up for a horrific ending.

Suppose a CPS worker visited one house, set an investigation in motion, and physically left. We have seen, in this country, the awful fallout from such a simple approach all too often. This is one reason why authorities leave such communities alone as much as possible--because they know there is no safe way to take such things one small step at a time...any complaint they can't ignore by law must trigger an all-out, all-or-nothing approach.

You could ignore that very real possibility. You could say, "follow the law, let the chips fall where they may." But if you did, well, then what would people say? "They should have known better. The authorities were idiots who couldn't see past sop...."

The other thing I keep coming back to in thinking about all this is that CPS and the "authorities" would probably have MUCH MUCH MUCH rathered not to ever do anything in this situation. In my experience, they'd rather do ANYTHING than a removal and running a case. Look at how many years they avoided it. When I lived in Texas, I had a friend whose grandmother was married at 13 to a 22-y.o.--but no kids till 16, proving grandpa was honorable. She told me they did it that way so that the man could be sure the wife was "raised to his liking." I don't know if they were related to this group or not. In any case, she told me this nearly 30 years ago, she was in her early 20s at the time--so it had happened at least 50 years before that. This kind of thing has been going on a long, long time and the authorities for the most part left it alone as long as they possibly could.

A report triggers action. I have to think there was a LOT of very high-level discussion before these actions were taken. Yes, that's speculation and it may be giving more credit than is due...but, really, think about it: if a "normal" non ex-parte investigation had been started and you ended up with armed resistance, mass suicide, or other horror, what would we all be saying?

[Mommytinkerbell]

Hadley2 has hit the nail on the head. I totally agree. I also believe CPS has given more consideration to these children than other children brought into care. (You can't always accomodate what a child is used to eating or reading or believing- at all times , etc. Foster children have to just get used to our foster homes and what we do. These children have not had to do that as of yet. They've been fed according to their laws and kept together in group homes and not put in our schools.)

Probably because it's a media case but also probably because they do care and know the children need the kindness from all of us whom they may fear. I think CPS is doing what they think is best in a bad situation. They get such horrible press no matter what. They'll never look GOOD. They remove people's children! But in so many cases it saves lives! It is a must.

It's sad when things happen and they have to make a decision. The turnover rate there is bad but luckily some workers stay and continue to do a job that is needed and important, despite being overworked and underpaid. Remember that the higher ups there make the decisions and the workers must follow orders.

I do agree the whole system needs work and hopefully one day it'll be better. However, NO ONE will ever really like an entity which removes children from their parents, esp. when you know those parents or are related to them.

Last thought, protection of all children is vital. And someone has to do it.

[Boulderbabe]

Hadley,

I agree---one of the things that disturbs people in the US the most is the idea of communal living. It violates all sorts of cultural precepts about individualism in this society. I also agree that visions of Waco were dancing in CPS officials' heads. But that's not legal grounds to remove kids.

I don't think that CPS should have the right to take children away unless there is very, VERY strong evidence. You and I both know how damaging this is to kids. Why is CPS getting a free pass on this in this case? There simply were NO pregnant 13 year olds. The one girl they alleged was 13 and pregnant is actually 14, and she's never been pregnant in her life. CPS has manufactured all sorts of ideas, but not one shred of it has turned out to be true.

I talked to the Director of Child Protective Services in our county today (I was at a foster parent recruiting event) and I asked her what she would have done. Her answer was, "Get a court order telling all the MEN in the compound to leave pending an investigation, leave the kids with their mothers, and begin a very thorough investigation." Why was an idea like that so hard for them to come up with in Texas?

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Mommytinkerbell

I think CPS is doing what they think is best in a bad situation. They get such horrible press no matter what. They'll never look GOOD. They remove people's children! But in so many cases it saves lives! It is a must. Last thought, protection of all children is vital. And someone has to do it.

I am not against child protection. And I realize that there are times a child must be removed----my own son was removed from his birth family, remember?

But the question is HOW we make that terrible decision, based on what evidence, and using what legal safeguards to make sure that we're not overreacting or trampling on anybody's rights.

I am not saying that no child should ever be removed. I think there are times when that is necessary, as awful as it is. But there was no reason to do it here. There was no evidence of abuse, proper legal and social work procedures were not followed, and people's Constitutional rights were just plowed over.

I reviewed the Court of Appeals order, and DCFS's request for a stay of that order last night. I predict that the Texas Supreme Court is going to give DCFS a big spanking on Tuesday morning. I expect a strongly worded ruling rebuking them for grossly improper procedure, and an order to release the children at once.

We'll see if I'm right.

[Boulderbabe]

BTW: on "natural repugnance" for "unhealthy social structures"---as an anthropologist, I can tell you there is no such thing. We don't have any feelings about social order encoded in our genes, so there goes the "natural" part. And over human history, most people have lived in strongly authoritarian societies. How about the Pilgrims in America? (Re-read Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, if you don't think it was authoritarian there. Remember the stocks?). Feudal France. Russia under the czars. China, for most of its history.

The idea that a market democracy is somehow "natural" and everything else is "unhealthy" or "naturally repugnant" just doesn't jive with history as we know it. Both markets and democracies are incredibly recent inventions in human history.

[Hadley2]

I did not say people had a problem with communal living. I don't actually think that is true as intentional communities seem to be catching on again. I said that a supercommunity, an isolationist band of people unified by a rejection of the norms and authority of the mainstream society, led by a disturbed, authoritarian leader, that these types of groups in the past had shown a propensity for violence and self-destruction and that that makes it difficult to follow regular procedures without risking further endangering those people and the people who must try to work with them.

"Isolationist" is very different from "isolated." There is a huge difference between groups that are isolated and groups that are isolationist. "Disturbed" is a word that I think can be applied to the leader, now in prison for forcing the rape ("marriage") of a 14 y.o. girl to her older first cousin.

And I have to respectfully disagree with you: There certainly can be a natural repugnance for an unhealthy social structure. Natural in the sense that most people are naturally repulsed by that which they know to be harmful within the context of circumstances in the here and now. ETA: I do think that is encoded in our genes, so that the same behavior that would be "naturally" embraced in one time and place would be "naturally" rejected in another--both impulses driven by the same genetically encoded drive to thrive as individuals and a society. Unhealthy in the sense that some social structures lead to negative outcomes within the context of the larger society. For example, while chewing its foot off is the healthiest choice for a racoon caught in a leg trap, it clearly is not a healthy choice for a free racoon. Context counts.

I think too often psychologists may overlook culture, but anthropologists likewise overlook psychology. And both must be viewed within the context of society and functional outcomes within the larger society. So I don't think it is an anthropological "fact" that there is no such thing as an unhealthy social structure. I think what you may have been trying to say is that no culture is superior to any other culture, just as no language is superior to any language. I would agree with that. I don't, however, think it can be assumed that every social structure represents or is equivalent to a "culture" in the sense of a naturally developing set of worldview, values, language, and artifacts--although I'd have to admit that, over time, an invented aberration could develop into a dynamic culture.

Another factor: Sub- or minority societies cannot be said to be healthy or functional if their cultural practices run so contrary to the norms of the larger society that they harm themselves or others or impede their ability to engage productively with or be contributing members of the larger society.

So subgroups within larger groups that behave in ways that yield negative outcomes are unhealthy. For example, female circumcision is a cultural tradition in some parts of the world. Without knowing the exact reasons, we can reasonably assume the practice yielded some benefit or perceived benefit in the time, place, and culture in which it became a norm. In the United States, though, it is not acceptable--not because we are ethnocentric or look down on another culture, but because it is an act that has no value or benefit within the context of our society but instead carries severe negative consequences for both the circumcised girl and society as a whole. It is also not acceptable to immolate brides who come up short on dowry. Again, this is a cultural tradition elsewhere (and may have had a parallel tradition at some point in past Western culture), but is clearly "naturally" repugnant and unhealthy here and now--not because we are ethnocentric or look down on another culture, but because it is an act that has no value within the context of our society but instead carries severe negative consequences for both the victim and society as a whole. Whatever benefit it conferred in the time and place it became a tradition, it doesn't confer here.

Girls marrying at 13 or a little older was not at all out of the ordinary when the average lifespan was 30-something or even 40-something. A healthy society with that limitation would have a healthy tradition of young marriage. Here and now, it is repugnant because there is no benefit to either the girl or the larger society and there are negative unhealthy consequences, that is, real harm is done to the girl and the larger society within the context of life circumstances in this society.

We have many examples of subcultures that, despite some sharp differences with mainstream culture, flourish within our society. So, given all that, I just don't think you are correct in painting people's reaction to this case as bigotry.

This group has a known history of forcing underage marriage and rape; its leader is now in prison for that very offense. Authorities received a report (now seems to be false) that the same thing was happening again. If it was true of a particular girl, and if it was true that it was a community norm, then I think all the children were abused--I can't say that a young girl of 8 who sees her teenage sister married off to an older man isn't affected by it. Add to that the potential for violence,....

So, I don't know what the answers are or should have been in this particular case. I don't know if the law is flexible enough to keep everyone physically safe and absolute rights intact in a situation like this. I would agree that physical safety does not always trump civil rights--but I don't know how easy it would be to make that call when children are involved. I often marvel at how well so many laws do meet the challenge of many different situations, but not all laws fit all situations. And I don't know what the answers are in those cases.

I don't think, though, that people's reactions to this case has much to do with bigotry, ethnocentrism, or cultural intolerance. We can celebrate diversity and multiple cultural traditions in a pluralistic society, but a logical line gets drawn and disallows those things that clearly harm both the individuals involved and the larger society as it exists here and now. And I think that line gets expressed, as I said, as a "natural repugnance" for "unhealthy social structures."

[Boulderbabe]

The idea that there is some sort of genetically encoded opinion on society is nuts. Could you tell me what gene that is, and where it is in DNA? Is there also a gene for liking Coach bags, or plaid golf pants? (And if there is, can we turn that last one off?)

The question is, who gets to decide what is "unhealthy" and what is not? There are lots and lots of people who think that our society is "unhealthy." Certainly a society that is destroying the natural environment, that promotes racial inequality, and that treats women as sexual objects is worthy of criticism.

I don't think that there's any "natural" order of society. Or any "natural" judgements to be made about them. You're expressing your very culturally based judgements, not some part of your DNA.

As for 13 year olds: why do you keep using this image over and over? THERE ARE NO PREGNANT OR PARENTING 13 YEAR OLDS AT YFZ. Texas Social Services cannot produce any. Not one. The youngest parenting girl is 17.

Please, don't repeat baldfaced lies. It's just yukky.

[Hadley2]

BB, I like you and respect you but you are not responding to what I wrote.

Please read what I wrote. I did not write what you are objecting to or what you are deriding.

"The idea that there is some sort of genetically encoded opinion on society is nuts." I absolutely agree, so I am so very glad that I didn't say that!

The idea that there is no genetically encoded drive to survive and thrive--which is what I was talking about, not anything about genetically encoded, static and specific opinions about specific things--is nuts.

Evolution is not a phenomenon of cultural bias. What I said was that the same practice that is acceptable and healthy at one time and place is not acceptable and healthy at another...in both cases, acceptance and the definition of health are based on outcome--does the practice support the overall biological success of the species in that time and place or not?

If it does, it is acceptable and healthy. If it does not, it is not. Practices that do not support the end-game of survival will be "naturally" repugnant and are, by definition, "unhealthy." People react accordingly--showing a "natural repugnance" for that which harms them either individually or by threatening the healthy long-term survival of the group.

The only decision that counts as to whether a particular practice is healthy or not is outcome. Adaptable creatures that we are, people try to anticipate outcomes and act accordingly. Some are better at it than others.

I also did not, and have never said, anything about what was or was not at the FLDS community. I am not repeating anything. Again, read what I actually wrote and don't ride me down for something I most certainly did not say.

I truthfully related what a friend of mine told me nearly 30 years ago in Texas and I was very careful and specific to say I had no idea if the marriage of that young girl was FLDS or not. It was simply an example of how long such practices have been accepted there. And I simply made the point that this practice was acceptable and healthy at other times and places, including Texas, but would not be in the United States of America in 2008.

Are you saying it is? I don't think so, and I wouldn't accurse you of saying that. I read what you write and respond to it without spinning it into something else. Please extend me the same courtesy.

Again, I don't know all the details of what went into establishing cause for this action. What I said was that IF the local and state authorities believed there was cause for a wide-ranging abuse case and investigation, it is then understandable, given the nature of the group (NOT its religion or the fact it was different from mainstream American culture) that they felt a group removal of children away from all of the adults (what would make the mothers safer than the fathers?) was the safest way to go.

There are, at least reportedly, strong attitudinal differences between this group and other groups such as the Amish, Chassidim, and others who hold themselves apart to some degree and have a more tightly organized social structure than most of mainstream America. I don't think the same approach would have been used in those communities if there was a report triggering an investigation. Differences and diversity are not only tolerated in this country, they are embraced and celebrated more than we give ourselves credit for.

A supercommunity such as that ruled over by a person like Warren Jeffs poses a different set of challenges.

Thinking about and learning from Waco is not paranoia anymore than thinking about and learning from Columbine and 9/11 are paranoia. In our state, we've had several tax rebel groups flare up with armed resistance at just the suggestion, in the press, of a law enforcement action--the guns were there before the civil authorities had even made a decision to give the police the "go." These things are real and do happen.

Maybe they were wrong. Maybe there was no cause, I don't know. I would be surprised, since this was such a huge undertaking and in my experience, CPS and ss agencies normally hate to spend one penny more per child than absolutely necessary--and then, hang onto it as tightly as possible for as long as possible. Not to mention the enormous negative political fallout. And not to mention the resistance of conservative courts--which in my experience, anyway, are much, much more likely to support parental rights than child safety.

But, bigger, more costly, and deadlier goose chases have been initiated by our national government, so who knows? The point is, if there was cause, their actions could be reasonably seen by many to be a reasonable safeguard not just against the alleged sexual abuse but further violence.

So I don't think the action taken or people's reaction to it on this forum is rooted in religious intolerance or intolerance for difference in general. That is the main thing I have wanted to say. I think asserting that is unfair.

I think it probably has much more to do with a healthy repugnance--in this day and time, it has been accepted before--for the particular type of abuse suspected and a responsible fear of the group's reaction to official inquiry.

Again, IF there was no cause--remembering that cause is not the same thing as the proof needed for a finding--then the action was not justified, but IF there was cause, and IF there was also cause, as it seems there might have been, to fear a violent response, then I don't know what else could have been done. (Although, like our national government, I do think there could have been much better planning for the aftermath of the removals.)

I don't how you split the difference, or if the difference should be split, between civil rights and at least the justified perception of a high level of physical risk to all--Live Free or Die or Live to Fight Another Day?--but our laws do allow for some splitting of that difference in certain circumstances.

And I do think people can have a healthy negative reaction to any practice in their midst, whether it is embedded in religious belief or not or has become a cultural artifact of a particular group or not, without being religious or cultural bigots.

Given that people in general may just be the planetary equivalent of incurable cancer and the ultimate outcome may be very negative in a few decades, centuries, or millenia and it is a beautiful day today, I will now go out and play with my kids while I can. I don't think there is a selfish irony in that, but if there is, I bow to it.

[hrisme]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

I talked to the Director of Child Protective Services in our county today (I was at a foster parent recruiting event) and I asked her what she would have done. Her answer was, "Get a court order telling all the MEN in the compound to leave pending an investigation, leave the kids with their mothers, and begin a very thorough investigation." Why was an idea like that so hard for them to come up with in Texas?

This makes sense to me too, and from what I recall a letter was sent to officials with the men volunteering to leave the compound & allow caseworkers to remain on site at all times (I don't know if this was confirmed, but I know it was mentioned in the media). There is no question that these allegations should have been investigated, and there was no easy way to do that--investigate one family and how long do you think it will be before the other kids are shipped out of state??? But there are ways there could have been an on-site investigation, without the children going through the trauma of removal. We all know the risk of attachment disorder as a result of early separation from parents, not to mention PTSD...

I have no doubt that some of these parents are abusive, and that there are individuals within this society who take advantage of the isolationist culture & "obey at all costs" mindset. But I also have no doubt that there are families who are in this culture because they were born & raised in it--but who care for their children, do not abuse them, and could have received intervention without the children being removed.

As far as the Carolyn Jessop argument--how would she have felt if these were HER children who had been removed? It took her years to finally leave this society. You could argue that she had plenty of opportunities to seek outside support--how many times was her little boy in the hospital, with hospital social workers right there??? And yet, she didn't leave. So why is she not considered an accessory to abuse, because she knew her children were being abused and did not report it? She had good reasons for not leaving--and no doubt there are other families in this society that have good reasons for not leaving, but whose children have now been taken from them.

This is one of those cases where there are no easy answers. I'm just thankful I'm not one of the caseworkers that has to deal with this mess.

[Boulderbabe]

Hadley,

Let me make this very brief: You cannot use evolution to justify why people, both here and in Texas, have shown such hatred of the FLDS on the basis of such little information. It has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, and nothing to do with biology.

It is fear of difference. And that is ethnocentrism, pure and simple.

When people criticize these women's clothing, voice, demeanor and life choices without knowing them personally, and when they use those criticisms to justify seizing their children, that is not evolution at work. That is prejudice and xenophobia. It has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with society.

I always hear people make claims about what is "natural" when what is happening is prejudice. The English thought that Indians were "naturally" inferior. For many years, there were people who claimed that it was "unnatural" for black people and white people to marry. Even now, some people think that it is "unnatural" for gay people to parent, and that anybody who shows disdain and intolerance for gay people is only showing "natural repugnance."

There is nothing natural about it. Not in the least.

[Boulderbabe]

Hrisme,

There may well be some parents in the FLDS compound who are abusive. And if there are, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (I"m sure you agree!)

But I'm with you----there needs to be some evidence, first.