Here is another blatant assault on the first amendment. The court has thrown out the State's abduction of (yes abduction) of over 460 children from Yearning for Zion, the compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community.
I am not writing this to support any evil doers. If there were any under-aged or forceful marriages, any statutory rapes or other abuse on minors, the culprits should be tried and punished. If any of the adults in the community have committed such crimes or knowingly aided them, they all should be prosecuted to the maximum extend as allowed by law. The right of religious freedom won't protect them and first amendment does not excuse such crimes.
However, the lawyers of Child Protective Services have finally admitted that 15 of the 31 "child" mothers placed in foster care were actually adults. One is 27. A 14-year-old removed as a child mother apparently has no children. The state had raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hot line saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband, but that girl has not been found at the ranch during the raid. Police traced the calls to 33-year-old Colorado Springs woman named Rozita Swinton. Swinton had earlier been arrested for making a false report, and accused of posing as "Jennifer," 16, who called 911 to report that her father had locked her in a basement for days. She is also accused of posing as other aliases.
That being said, in this case the Texas government officials jumped into this mess with the best of intentions. They forgot or ignored the legal procedure while earnestly trying to save another child from molestation. This lead to flagrant errors in evidence and identities of the parties involved. Even now the authorities cannot clearly find the ages, names and relationships of the 'children' taken away from the ranch. DNA tests of hundreds of people are taking weeks to process when many children are away from their parents despite of the lack of proof of any wrong doing.
The court ruling says in its third paragraph that "Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children is an extreme measure. It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of the children involved. However, it is a step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children, and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary."
The court talks about the following facts that were undisputed by the Department of Child Protective Services. The only danger to the male children or the female children who had not reached puberty identified by the Department was the Department's assertion that the "pervasive belief system" of the FLDS community groomed the males to be perpetrators of sexual abuse later in life and taught the girls to submit to sexual abuse after reaching puberty;There was no evidence that the male children, or the female children who had not reached puberty, were victims of sexual or other physical abuse or in danger of being victims of sexual or other physical abuse. Also, there was no evidence that any of the female children other than the five identified as having become pregnant between the ages of fifteen and seventeen were victims or potential victims of sexual or other physical abuse. Additionally, the Department conceded at the hearing that teenage pregnancy, by itself, is not a reason to remove children from their home and parents, but took the position that immediate removal was necessary in this case because "there is a mind-set that even the young girls report that they will marry at whatever age, and that it's the highest blessing they can have to have children."
It may sound outrageous when you hear about girls are married by guys who are old enough to be their dad. But keep in mind, a horror story alone is not a legal basis for removing hundreds of children form their parents. The Texas Court of appeals, Third District, at Austin is clearly right in pointing out that a good intention would not substitute legal procedures for proving that a child is in imminent danger.
No comments:
Post a Comment