They should return them all and start over, since they screwed it up and it's totally unconstitutional. There are lots of people who think like they do. Lots of people are passing judgement on these flds folks, but before you do, make sure you go to The Common Room and type in flds for the labels box, and then look up her posts. Luckily Texas is being sued by some of them, but that won't fix the psychological harm their children have come to.
See below. It makes me really mad.
And if you which government officials we can write to, would you kindly supply that information?
FROM DHM:
Friday, May 16, 2008
I Despair of this Country, I really Do.
These are the sorts of defenses for CPS actions in Texas that people seriously put forth:
fact 1: authorities found something (not yet made public) heinous enough to take all the children from their sick families.
fact 2: fact 1 is all that's relevant, and the rest will be revealed as the investigation continues.
The fact that they took away the children is proof that they had evidence enough to justify taking away the children. And how do we know that? Why, because they took away the children, of course. But how do we know they acted within the law in so doing? Why, obviously because they did it. And they wouldn't have done it if weren't illegal. Because we all know every government agency is always and ever above board and competent and perfectly within legal boundaries. How do we know this? Well, aren't they government? If they did it, it must be legal.
This was America, and I thought secret tribunals were right out.
At any rate, this guy's fact 1? It's not a fact. It's hogwash. Do he even realize that CPS is NOT allowed to remove 400 children from 35 homes without telling why they did it? Obviously not, nor does he care. Rhetorial question.
They can't say, "It's so heinous, we can't even tell you what it is." They have to tell. That's what the 14 day hearings are about. And at that hearing they did not say "It's so dirty we can't even tell you." If they had tried the "It's so heinous we can't tell" line, even Judge Walthiers would have thrown them out.
One hopes.
At any rate, that's not what they said. No. Instead, they said they found religious beliefs that made them unhappy. They found that girls are taught that a woman's highest calling is to be a wife and mother, and that made Angie Voss have heartburn.
They found that this people, like many religious and nonreligious folks believed that children were a blessing, and that gave the judge palpitations.
They found that this people did not use birth control, only Angie Voss couldn't bring herself to say those horrible words in court, and that gave her the vapours.
They found that this people believed in male spiritual leadership and that fathers were the head of the house, and that made the entire department of CPS swoon and plan to denounce and censor all copies of 'Father Knows Best' in the land.
They found pregnant teens, and that was proof of sexual abuse. As it turns out, sexual abuse IS one of the only four reasons CPS can remove a child from his home in the manner that they did, and it is the ONLY one of the four reasons they alleged.
For those who need reminders, these are the FOUR reasons they can remove children from the home in the fashion they did:
1. an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child,
2. the child has been the victim of sexual abuse.
3. the parent or person who has possession of the child is currently using a controlled substance,
4. the parent or person who has possession of the child has permitted the child to remain on premises used for the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Only, as it turns out, the only two pregnant teens they had (providing CPS was telling the truth when they said they had just 2 of them on April 29th) turned out to be ADULTS!!
You will not notice pregnant 22 year olds on that list. Nor do you see, "Well there's a 31 year old woman in one home who had a baby when she was 13 nearly 20 years ago in the 90s and in another state."
Polygamy or any other sleeping arrangements of the parents, providing they do not include sexual abuse of a minor child- not. on. the. list.
You don't see, "Has pictures on the wall of a prophet we think is a scoundrel and a skunk."
I might be missing it, but I also do not see, "Said prophet is a bigot and a racist, plus, he's in jail for something really bad." Nope. Cannot find it.
Nor do I see, "These are not a Christian people." It's totally missing. Surely just an oversight, I'm sure.
Wait, maybe I missed one. Could it be that somewhere up there it says, "they are members of a religious group where members don't wear red, watch television, have pictures on the walls, or read fairy tales?"
I know. I am sure it says "the state may remove all the members of a religious group in which former members of that religious sect who left it ten years ago say they were abused by their immediate family members while they were members, and that's why they left."
Well, no. It does not say that. It says immediate danger, and the child has been sexually abused.
How about that?
You know what else we do not see in that list of four items? "Anything so heinous you don't want to tell."
Sheesh. And that's a really strong word for me.
