FLDS Child Custody Hearings Begin …
[Guest post by DRJ]
… and they’re off to a rocky start due to a “flurry of objections” from attorneys for the children, parents and the FLDS sect. Most parties want separate hearings for each child, something I think they should have.
The San Angelo Standard Times has reporters live-blogging the event. It’s difficult for the reporters to get a handle on the legal issues but it’s such an unusual proceeding that it’s hard for everyone. However, the reporters are doing a good job reporting on the burgeoning service industry of food carts (chili pie!) and other vendors in the area, as well as conveying the controlled chaos and carnival atmosphere that seems to have taken hold.
I’m reluctant to tell people how to run their business, especially judges, but I’m surprised this judge hasn’t requested assistance from other district judges. After all, they’ve brought in scores of volunteer attorneys, clerks, law enforcement, CPS agents, consultants, and more. They need judges to provide individual hearings. It seems so obvious that I must be missing something.
In any event, I have gainful employment matters to work on this afternoon so I’ll leave you with this open thread.
In addition to the San Angelo Standard Times’ link, other good resources to check for updates are the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and the Houston Chronicle. (The Chronicle’s reporters usually do a good job understanding legal issues.) Not to mention the big cable outlets that are apparently out in force.
NOTE: There’s an excellent article in the Houston Chronicle on Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran’s role in this case.
— DRJ
I agree with you about the need for individualized determinations, and the consequent need for more judges. One would hope that someone upstream would make that suggestion if it hasn’t already occurred to the local trial judge.
San Angelo’s hardly a backwater town, but neither is it remotely equipped to deal with this without help.
Beldar (848a05) — 4/17/2008 @ 12:54 pmAdmit it, Beldar. San Angelo is a little backwater.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/17/2008 @ 1:02 pmThis fiasco reminds me of a botched drug raid:
-Based solely on the word of an anonymous informant who may or may not have even been inside the compound…Check
-Who got details spectacularly wrong (the alleged abuser was in Arizona, and has been for years)…Check
-Authorities tight-lipped about what precisely they found… Check
-Few or no charges of any substance filed… Check
I think Schleicher county better have some very good lawyers…
CTD (7054d2) — 4/17/2008 @ 1:31 pmCTD…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/17/2008 @ 1:40 pmThat is, unfortunately, the all too typical response of American’s today: We are just too impatient to let things run their course, have all of the evidence develope, and then make a determination of the appropriateness of the actions taken.
Maybe Osama is right, we just don’t have it in us to see out to the conclusion, anything that takes more than 44 minutes, + commercials.
family law matters are non-scalable. judge walther will realize this very soon and call in more judges. a python might be able to swallow me, but not my new toyota tacoma 4×4, which is what hearing a case with 416 children and 350 lawyers is like.
still no sign of sarah barlow, the alleged 16-year old who started all this. no sarah means the search warrant gets quashed and all that evidence gets suppressed.
interesting article at wired.com this morning: these folks have been inbreeding since the 1930s when the first two families settled the area, and they produce new generations faster than we do. there’s a high incidence of the genetic defect fumarase deficiency, which involves cellular metabolism and causes mental retardation. add that to no formal education and no world experience and just imagine the amount of public resources this situation is going to consume.
assistant devil's advocate (bc3cc9) — 4/17/2008 @ 1:47 pmBut, isn’t that what the Welfare State is for?
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 4/17/2008 @ 1:50 pmADA,
If the original caller was at the compound, I think she’s in CPS custody. The original caller claimed to be Sarah Barlow born 6/13/92 and they have a child by that name and with that birthdate in custody. So either she’s not cooperating or they’ve decided not to make her go public because they have enough evidence without her. The State’s attorneys have already said that her call was the basis for the search warrant but not for the removal of the children.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 4/17/2008 @ 2:14 pmThe original caller claimed to be Sarah Barlow born 6/13/92 and they have a child by that name and with that birthdate in custody.
Where’s that from? Very interesting.
Can a criminal charge be upheld without “Sarah” being found?
steve (1115a4) — 4/17/2008 @ 2:32 pmsteve,
The original caller’s name has been reported by multiple newspapers, although I’m not sure where they got it. Her claimed birthdate is in one of the two affidavits filed in the case. I can’t remember whether it’s in the search warrant affidavit or the removal affidavit, but it’s probably in the search warrant affidavit.
The names and some identifying information for the children that were removed are in the Legal Notice published by the court clerk in the local newspaper, the Eldorado Success.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 4/17/2008 @ 2:53 pmsteve,
I don’t have much family law experience but I think these proceedings are materially different than cases with traditional search and seizure questions. The question here is whether the State had a reasonable basis to go in, and I think an outcry from a possible victim is a reasonable basis even if it turns out to be a hoax.
However, I doubt that one call (real or not) would be a good reason to remove all the children. State representatives claim the children were removed because of a pattern of abuse: numerous underage pregnant children, uncooperative adults who were changing their names and their children’s names/birthdates during the investigation, and a pattern of grooming younger children for underage marriage and sex.
I think the search will be separated from removal for the purposes of this hearing, and the judge will decide if the children’s removal should be continued until final hearings can be scheduled. The evidence of numerous underage pregnant girls together with uncooperative/lying adults will be persuasive for the purpose of temporary orders. The most interesting and perhaps the most difficult part of the case will be what happens to the boys who are under 18.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 4/17/2008 @ 3:08 pmThanks, DRJ.
steve (2f2dac) — 4/17/2008 @ 4:06 pmDRJ, every time I read some new breaking story on a news site, I always come here right after to see if you have gotten into it yet. You have a marvelous talent in sorting out the characters and the background info. Plus, the lawyer angle as a bonus, of course. You always seem to stay level headed, as well. I go away informed with details and the big picture. Much appreciated.
allan (6d5b0e) — 4/17/2008 @ 4:48 pmAllan,
Thanks for such a nice compliment but if my posts are helpful, it’s primarily because I have good commenters who push me to get the stories right.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/17/2008 @ 5:20 pmThe Houston Chronicle article on Sheriff Doran was indeed good. Nice to have the troubling question of why the authorities had not acted sooner on the informant’s information:
“He was aware of a lot of things that were happening,” Mange said. “But until you have someone making an outcry or until you see right in front of your face a crime that’s being committed, there’s not a great deal that we can do.”
Dana (270a01) — 4/17/2008 @ 5:38 pmDRJ, hey, don’t blame me.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/17/2008 @ 5:40 pmPlease school me on a couple of things.
1) For argument’s sake…the original warrant is proven to have been baseless, or a “composite”, excepting there was a phone call as alleged.
How on earth can any of the evidence obtained subsequent to the raid be allowed? I can see seizing the property if there is evidence of ongoing felonious activity – pregnant minors being notable. Doesn’t the state have to use less intrusive methods where possible? Ex. – send in CPS for unannounced visits which could reveal pregancies or bodily injury? Isn’t part of obtaining a warrant where the state says there is an urgency, e.g. potential flight of suspects?
2) Typically, aren’t the rights of a mother routinely given yooge weight? To my knowledge, no crimes are alleged against the moms, yet they have been separated from their children by police fiat. Wouldn’t this separation require a court order? Nobody can show me where the presence of the mothers in the temporary camps is a danger to the children. No beating or rape is possible there.
I am outraged that the mothers have been torn from their kids. If there is ever a time the presumption of innocence should apply, imo, it is here.
I don’t think this is McMartin II. But the actors thus far sure look like they are behaving just like the apparatchiks did then.
Any learned knowledge from y’all is most welcome. Thanks.
Ed (f28e9a) — 4/17/2008 @ 5:55 pmEd –
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 4/17/2008 @ 6:14 pmseveral sources mention the women lying, often in very obvious ways, and interfering with the investigation by doing so; thus, they’re at BEST an accomplice after the fact.
Ed,
I’m going to post a separate newspaper summary of today’s testimony. That will give us something more concrete to talk about, and hopefully help with answers to your good questions.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/17/2008 @ 6:22 pmfoxfier, i don’t agree with you that the women are criminals, but here’s a little thought experiment offered for your enlightenment:
we’re turning the clock back on your life, to when you were 11 or 12 years old. then we forcibly marry you to this 50-year old lecherous, drooling peckerwood, who forcibly consummates your marriage half an hour after the vows, knocking you up. after you have his baby and get settled in with the little tyke, come back here and tell us exactly what crime you committed.
assistant devil's advocate (c45ea8) — 4/17/2008 @ 6:31 pmADA- Way to look at only a tiny portion of the crimes committed–did you even read what I wrote?
No matter what crimes are committed against *you,* lying to the police to keep them from finding out about it is interfering with an investigation, and telling your children to do so is tampering with the witness.
You’re also forgetting the part of that experiment where I become an adult, marry my daughters off the same manner, kick out some of my sons to fix the sex ratio, let the leader of the cult take my kids to another state if he likes when they’re under 6 years old, and when the cops come to investigate I lie through my teeth about it and do my damnedest to make sure everyone else does so word of these crimes never gets out. And that’s before we get to the beatings type abuse.
Foxfier (74f1c8) — 4/17/2008 @ 7:04 pmThat Marleigh Meisner looks like a total w*h*o*r*e. I’ll bet she has at least four tattoos. I’d guess she probably has w***ed around with at least 84 different men.
Only a slut would want those kids taken from their wonderful families. I am praying that she comes down with brain cancer–several large tumors. I would enjoy a youtube video showing her diseased body flopping around on a hospital bed.
The patriots who are standing up for these kids and the constitution need to get together and form an organization to resist this and other atrocities by the government and their henchmen.
Further, all baptist churchs should be picketed on sunday to protest the invovlement of the el dorado baptist church in assisting the pigs, providing buses and acting as collaborators. this is a huge problem.
truth (9a6738) — 4/17/2008 @ 8:22 pmTruth speaks, but not that well. Or truthfully.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/17/2008 @ 8:26 pmThis is not a criminal proceeding (yet). First, well second actually, there will be a trial to determine the status of the child — whether it is abused, neglected or dependent. After that, there will be a second hearing on disposition which may include the “punishment” of the parents of losing custody or all parental rights. As DRJ pointed out in the new thread, the probable cause hearing being held right now is to determine where the children will be until the real trial is held.
nk (6b7d4f) — 4/17/2008 @ 8:44 pm