[hkolln]

Originally Posted by infoster

Carolyn Jessop, now an author, was a married woman with 8 children in the same group. She was actually the 4th wife of Merill. Merill is the second in command at the Texas compund. Her book is sad and factual, she lived this and saw first hand what child abuse was going on.

I have her book and read it awhile back. It was sad but very factual coming from someone who's been thru all that.

[Synesthesia]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

And it would have been better for the State of Texas to proceed judiciously, removing only those children at imminent risk, rather than swooping in and grabbing 416 kids it's not prepared to feed or house.

That makes sense, but the problem is they have no way of knowing which kids are being abused and which are not.
It's a difficult and complicated situation for all involved.

[tinatyme]

Originally Posted by Synesthesia

That makes sense, but the problem is they have no way of knowing which kids are being abused and which are not.
It's a difficult and complicated situation for all involved.

Exactly and the State of Texas has a responsibility to protect all the children. They could not come into this communal living situationa and pick and choose what children were going to be taken and then leave some children there to be abused.

This isn't at all like a neighborhood in Chicago. These families live together, intermarry, eat together, farm together, homeschool together, make their close together, discipline their children together and, unfortunately, it appears that some of them are abusing their children together. The State of Texas made the right choice in removing all of the children and having their parents go through the system to get them back. It puts an incredible strain on the social services system there but this is what it is there for - to protect the children and provide appropriate services to reunify children with their families and/or facilitate adoptions.

I can't even imagine what some of these young girls are going through. Potentially they are 13, 14, 15 pregnant, scared, out of their home environment and faced with a whole lot of new choices and decisions that they probably never thought would be open to them. It is difficult enough being a teenager no matter what community you are growing up in but to be facing these life changing choices. I hope that they have access to lots of counseling, medical care and patience from the DSS staff that they are working with.

[Boulderbabe]

Originally Posted by Synesthesia

That makes sense, but the problem is they have no way of knowing which kids are being abused and which are not.
It's a difficult and complicated situation for all involved.

Well, if the allegation is that 50 year old men are marrying 14 year old girls, it's a pretty safe bet that nursing babies and three year olds aren't at high risk. There was no justification for removing them based on the evidence at hand. There isn't any evidence--not even a shred---that small children were at any risk whatsoever of abuse.

The fundamental principle behind child welfare is that we do the LEAST intervention needed in order to ensure the child's safety. Slamming through the door dressed in riot gear and taking every child in the entire compound is not the least intervention necessary. Many of these kids have been terribly traumatized when they were not at any immediate risk of harm.

In child welfare, the object is the best interests of the child. And the standard for removal is IMMINENT risk of harm. It was not in the best interests of babies, toddlers, and small children to remove them when there was nothing to suggest they were at imminent risk.

[mom2behappy]

doesn't necessarily mean that the sexual abuse starts then....same as if i bash my 8 yr old in the head with an object and he needs medical care....should dcfs leave my other children just because the allegation of medical abuse is only for my 8 yr old. and wait for me to harm the others? or should they remove all of my children and offer me services to help me to better care for my children? it would be a bad decision n dcfs side to leave any children to chance imho. just because this is a religious group does not make them immune to laws. if that became the case sexual abusers could all start their own fdls sectors and be protected by their "religious beliefs". right now these moms have a chance and choice to seek help for themselves and their children it is their choice wether or not they wish to take this option and have their children returned to them.

[chevyjewel]

Originally Posted by Boulderbabe

Well, if the allegation is that 50 year old men are marrying 14 year old girls, it's a pretty safe bet that nursing babies and three year olds aren't at high risk. There was no justification for removing them based on the evidence at hand. There isn't any evidence--not even a shred---that small children were at any risk whatsoever of abuse.

The fundamental principle behind child welfare is that we do the LEAST intervention needed in order to ensure the child's safety. Slamming through the door dressed in riot gear and taking every child in the entire compound is not the least intervention necessary. Many of these kids have been terribly traumatized when they were not at any immediate risk of harm.

In child welfare, the object is the best interests of the child. And the standard for removal is IMMINENT risk of harm. It was not in the best interests of babies, toddlers, and small children to remove them when there was nothing to suggest they were at imminent risk.

"Pretty safe bet" huh? Would you leave your child with these people on a pretty safe bet? Just go drop them off because they haven't hit the marrying age of 11 or so and take your chances? Would you take responsibility if your pretty safe bet turned out to be dead wrong? Could you explain to a little girl that you thought it was a pretty safe bet that she wasn't going to be abused YET, so that's why you left her in the care of men that believe in having sex and babies with minors? Could you listen to her stories of years of abuse if you were wrong?


I'm wondering what's up with the massive double standard you have here BB???

In a "regular" family with three children, if one child is being abused all of the children are removed. Immediately. And whatever happens with the one child happens to them all. They don't TPR rights on a target child and let the others return home. Or say if a father is sexually abusing his only daughter they don't let any sons stay with him while the case plays out. And if said father was abusing his teenage daughter no one in their right mind would allow female babies to stay with him (or anywhere near his vicinity) simply because the baby isn't old enough to have sex with him YET. Saying a female baby can remain around men like that and not be in imminent danger is a LUDICROUS notion. If men think it's alright to have sex with and impregnate teens then it's only a matter of time before the babies grow up and end up in the exact situation.

Why if this group is living as a communal family, and there is alleged abuse to some of the children should all not be removed??? By not following typical protocol wouldn't that be discrimination then to all "regular" families??? Before we know it we're going to be hearing all parents charged with abuse hollering "where's my exceptions to the law???"

Abuse to one means potential abuse to all. That is IMMINENT danger to all and ALL need to be removed.



I feel like they've already bent the rules for the mothers involved here quite a bit more than they would in ordinary circumstances. Frankly I'm sick of hearing about all the special concessions that have already been made. All kids are traumatized going through a process like this. To say these kids are going to be worse off than the others is speculative at best. IMHO most if not all will actually be much better off seeing there's a world outside of the only one they've ever been exposed to, they deserve to know they have options in an unbiased safe environment. Particularly the teens that are already pregnant. Scary as it might be right now, this might be the best thing that's ever happened to them in the long run.

[sethsmommy]

Latest Report...


Officials: 31 of 53 girls from sect ranch have been pregnant - USATODAY.com

[Kat-L]

Originally Posted by sethsmommy

Latest Report...


Officials: 31 of 53 girls from sect ranch have been pregnant - USATODAY.com

On CNN it says:

A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3½ weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado.
Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. Two of those are pregnant now, he said; it was unclear whether either of those two already have children.
Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but none of these girls is believed to have a legal marriage under state law

[aspenhall]

I live 15 minutes from Colorado City/Hildale....

Let me tell you the reality of 50% of the FLDS members' lives is FAR WORSE THAN THE MEDIA HAS REPORTED.

It's sad, too because some of the men and their wives are really good people,. great husbands, good parents...but even in those cases, the mentality these "good men" have is WIVES ARE PROPERTY, and children are too. A wife is not equal to her husband...she may be treated with some respect by some men, but the mentality is abusive.

The temple in texas was built so that Warren Jeffs could have a place "sanctioned" for blood atonement (murder). He has systematically brainwashed them ALL into horrid practices, that wouldn't have been tolerated by them 25 yrs ago.

And these "good men" that love their families and try to do their best by them, have no way to oppose any of the directives of Warren Jeffs...if they resist, their children and wives are taken in the midddle of the night and sent to other "faithful men" living at any of the innumerable compunds like the Ranch in Texas. Their homes are owned by Warren Jeffs as well, so at the whim of the "leaders" you could lose your entire life. The MAFIA would even be appalled at the injustice of their lives....And it IS more like a Gang, than it is a religion, neighbors gain "rewards" for spying on neighbors....The KGB could learn a few tricks too...and I even go so far as to state that NAZI GERMANY under Hitler, was potentially better off than these families who live by me.

And the children are taught this is acceptable at a very young age...THAT is why they're ALL in immediate danger, because they system that perpetuates this way of thinking won't change with the removal of just the "bleeding age" girls.

AND, becasue Warren Jeffs has isolated them so much, they aren't even aware it's against the law, and they aren't even aware they HAVE rights. So, in my mind, the adults are victims of abuse as well. And until the adults can understand the problem, the kids need to be in foster care...at the point the adults understand the issue, THEN a realistic reunification vs. adoption discussion can take place.

And another thing, They have virtually NOTHING in common with the LDS church (mormons)...absolutely nothing...it's a group of people who decided to make up their own rules to fit they way they wanted to live and what was convenient...nearly NONE of the beliefs are similar...and it's not so much because the LDS Church changed either... THEY ARE NOT MORMONS in any sense of the word. Please, don't refer to them as mormons...

[Forever_family]

My dad came to visit this weekend and we discussed this. He visited one of the compound of FLDS in the 80's and my read the "discourses" from the former leader of FLDS. He told me that he read about how they were trading young girls for cows. Gilrls are property, men are all powerful and in total control of the women. As soon as a young girl was of age they were married. Not only that they are sexually "prepared" whatever that means. They are told and taught to lie. From what my dad read it leads me, and my dad to think there was sanctioned child molestation. If a young girl was remotely rebelious (and not what we would think of as rebellion) she was married to and older man in order solve the problem because then they could control her through the threat to take away her children or it "calmed her down". Beating of wives and children is acceptable, specifically the young wives who quickly learn not to have an opinion....and I could go on and on. They are robots, they must be in order to survive. My dad never told me what he read while I knew it was bad, I didn't realize how horrific it was. And this is from what he read, as if the leader was proud of his beleifs. I have several realtives who knew the former leader well. He was apparnetly a mean and nasty man, known to be a bully before he became a polygamist. He went financially bust and decided to join up with this group of psychos. He was basically disowned by the rest of the family. The only thing my dad was upset about in regards to thes tate of Texas is that the women were seperated from their children because clearly they are victims of abuse and should be treated so (I tend to feel its a necessary tragedy). I dont' see how they can be reprogramed and this needs to be stopped.

We are related to the man who was the former leader of this group and have several relatives who are directly affected by this. It hits close to home.

Tinatyme, I didn't mean anything offensive in my comment about the NY times article. I read it, and I want to make it clear that the LDS church has no association with the FLDS group. Nor theologically did we ever practice what FLDS practices. Its like comparing apples to oranges. I agree with your opinions in this situation. I realize you didn't write the article, I was just wanting to make note that there were several discrepancies in the article and that it was an opinion, not based on fact. It offended me because of my core beleif in my faith, you did not offend me in anyway.

I have to agree with what AspenHall wrote.

[etaag]

This was on the CNN site this morning:

On Monday, CPS also revised its total count of children in state custody to 463, up one from Friday. Azar said the change resulted from finally getting the children out of the San Angelo Coliseum and into foster facilities around the state, where they were able to get a more accurate count.
Of those 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.


I wonder why this is?

Edited to add this information I found after I posted: (original article here:State: 31 sect girls pregnant or moms : Local : gosanangelo.com )

At a glance
Texas child welfare officials released to The AP statistics of children taken into state custody from the Schleicher County polygamist sect's ranch. Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar said some numbers could change:

• Total children: 463
• Birth-2 years, girls: 49
• Birth-2 years, boys: 52
• 3-5 years, girls: 46
• 3-5 years, boys: 53
• 6-9 years, girls: 68
• 6-9 years, boys: 63
• 10-13 years, girls: 34
• 10-13 years, boys: 28
• 14-17 years, girls: 53
• 14-17 years, boys: 17

• Number of girls 14 to 17 who've been pregnant: 31

[onhazier]

The 53 girls aged 14-17 compared to 17 boys in the same age group seems like a REALLY skewed number. If the numbers in etaag's post are accurate then what happened to the rest of the boys aged 14 to 17? Are they just not in custoday?

[jumpingfroggy]

What happens to the teenage boys? Anyone remember this from a couple years ago...
The lost boys, thrown out of US sect so that older men can marry more wives | World news | The Guardian

[sethsmommy]

Doesn't Carolyn Jessop talk about it in her book? I am pretty sure she talked about in her video. (the boys)

I asked my dh how in the world these men get away with this. He said the same laws that protect us protect them and that these guys are no dummies. They know how to work it. I just have to think that the only saving grace is to get the kids out while they are young like what just happened in Texas. I know they have to have probable cause though, right? How many more places like this are there anyway????

[sethsmommy]

"some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven."


from the above article---that is exactly what Carolyn said too...