Patterico's Pontifications


FLDS Cases Severed into 234 Separate Cases

Filed under: Civil Liberties — DRJ @ 11:03 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

Texas District Court Judge Barbara Walther Friday ordered that the original two FLDS child custody cases and the additional 115 cases filed since the original raid will be further severed into 234 separate child custody cases covering 440 children. As a result, there will be one child custody case for every FLDS mother. The divisions were determined by use of court-ordered DNA results.

I think this is what should have been done from the start but, in fairness, the FLDS adults were not forthcoming about parentage and it would have been difficult or impossible to make accurate divisions when the case was filed.

In related news, 8-hour court-ordered parenting classes for FLDS parents start Saturday in Houston, Lubbock, San Angelo, Austin and San Antonio. The curriculum has been “composed specifically for FLDS members.”


13 Responses to “FLDS Cases Severed into 234 Separate Cases”

  1. in equal fairness, the adults’ lack of forthcomingness came after the state’s paramilitary-style raid on their homes based on the laughably phony pretext of some young woman supposedly at some sort of risk, who has yet to be produced in the intervening months, notwithstanding the state’s solemn assurances that she exists. not everyone is inclined to spill their guts to unconstitutional authority.

    assistant devil's advocate (375260)

  2. ada,

    The indictments reportedly allege that Warren Jeffs married his own 15-year-old daughter to a 34-year-old FLDS member in May 2005 and, on the same day, Jeffs married an 11-year-old girl. Other reports suggest that Jeffs’ daughter is a cooperating witness.

    DRJ (070f3d)

  3. This is great news!

    Now, there is a real chance to discover the facts.

    As much as I didn’t want the mothers and kids to speak to the authorities without benefit of attorneys during the prior detentions and seizures, it is imperative they help facilitate Texas’ efforts to get at the truth (assuming they have counsel, of course).

    Ed (59b337)

  4. Ed,

    The girl has an attorney ad litem that the FLDS unsuccessfully tried to remove.

    DRJ (070f3d)

  5. by all accounts from foster families the children were polite, well-behaved and respectful. so some aspects of parenting they are superior. its just that part where you dont let adults violate your minor child.

    i’d love for CPS to go through south dallas/fair park and make some of those parents sign up for these classes. they need them just as badly but for different aspects. of course that would be racism.

    chas (82ec6c)

  6. On what grounds were the parenting classes ordered? Why not tell CPS to go to hell?

    CAL (a25eb4)

  7. Cal-
    I believe it’s related to that whole “child rape” thing.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  8. Har de har har.

    The judge was ordered by a higher court to return the children because it was incredibly wrong to take them all away even if we accept everything CPS claims.

    Since the judge has been told to return the kids, why do the parents have to accept any conditions on getting them returned? Tell her to get over herself. The lawsuit is only going to get bigger.

    CAL (a25eb4)

  9. Cal-
    You seem to be confusing “You went too far” with “Nothing should be done at all.”

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  10. Fox, you seem to be confusing “This group is icky” with “This is legal.”

    Ordering a parenting class for all the parents who belong to a particular religion? On what grounds? How is this not religious discrimination and unconstitutional?

    The judge was ordered to return the children by a higher court and imposed restrictions upon their return anyway. Why is that allowed? Refuse the class and the higher courts ruling to return the children still stands.

    CAL (a25eb4)

  11. Cal-
    All FLDS parents have been ordered to it? Or those who lived in the commune promoting child rape?

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  12. How is this not religious discrimination and unconstitutional?

    Our laws against polygamy and child rape tend to override any kind of religious-based test, just as the prohibition against murder includes the so-called “honor killings”. You seem to be arguing that it would be discriminatory to criminalize any behavior that is given a religious imprimatur.

    “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.” — General Sir Charles James Napier GCB, Commander-in-Chief in India (1782 – 1853)

    (That could very well be translated into the present day by minor alterations: You say that it is your custom to marry many women and even have sex with young children. Very well. We also have a custom: when men rape children and marry several women at once, we throw their asses in jail for a long time. So marry away; once you come outside, police will haul you away. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.)

    Drumwaster (5ccf59)

  13. Comment by Drumwaster — 7/28/2008 @ 1:01 pm

    Have seen that Gen. Napier quote before and always happy to see it posted again: seven different kinds of awesome.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4203 secs.