[Guest post by DRJ]

The Deseret News reports Judge Barbara Walther has recessed court and may be prepared to rule on temporary custody of the FLDS children:

“UPDATE: Judge Barbara Walther entertained closing arguments in today’s child custody case involving 416 FLDS children. She then recessed the court and appears poised to make a ruling.”

The live-blog from the San Angelo Standard Times is below the fold and can be accessed directly here. The prosecution section of today’s testimony is excerpted below.

HEARING LOG

“Standard-Times reporter Trish Choate files live updates from the FLDS child custody proceedings in the 51st District Court from the remote location at the City Auditorium. The hearing started Thursday and resumed shortly after 9:45 a.m. today.

9:35 a.m. – The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m., but the judge has not yet appeared on the bench. Attorneys are still trickling into the auditorium, and fewer journalists than Thursday dot the seats designated for them.

The auditorium is filling with conversation, punctuated by laughter. Members of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have already gone through security but haven’t taken a seat yet.

9:49 a.m. – All rise for 51st District Judge Barbara Walther.

She announces the cutoff for testimony is 4 p.m. today. “What’s important to the court at this point is what do I need to know to know whether or not the children can be returned,” Walther says. “That’s what I’m focusing on. You all focus on whatever you want.”

9:52 a.m. – A child’s attorney protests that the children were interviewed without parents present.

That’s the proper procedure, a prosecutor says.

The judge asks the child’s attorney whether she’s proposing that a possible perpetrator be present during CPS interview. No, the attorney says.

Under questioning, Voss says specific men in the community are suspected perpetrators of child abuse.

An attorney asks: “If the situation could be proposed that the men would leave the community and not have contact,” and the same supervision provided as at the San Angelo Coliseum, would Voss be willing to allow the children to return?

No, Voss answers: “The ranch is 1,700 acres. It’s huge. There is no way to secure that I’m aware of.”

People would continue to go off and on, she says.

“I don’t believe that it’s safe for the children to be in the home,” Voss says.

Now, it’s time to hear from attorneys representing the parents.

A attorney for four mothers steps up. She’s concerned about the testimony, the attorney says. One of her duties is to figure out how her parents can get their children back.

But, the attorney says. Voss doesn’t want the children to go back home.

Her understanding is the mothers who were separated from the children were asked how authorities could help them and if they wanted to go to a domestic violence shelter, the CPS supervisor says.

Only six went to domestic violence shelters, and then they promptly left, Voss says.

Angie Voss, Child Protective Services supervisor, takes the witness stand again.

10:04 a.m. – The parents’ attorney complains that her mothers haven’t been served proper legal documents.

The judge notes the problem of identifying the parents, and that names are “being switched back and forth” in the case.

But one mother has a birth certificate and a driver’s license, and authorities can go get her when the attorney wants to talk to her, the attorney says.

“If she hasn’t had notice, you need to talk to my district clerk, and we’ll arrange for her to have the pleadings,” the judge says.

Then the issue comes up of the 14-day hearing to determine custody, and how the proceedings have careened away from it.
“What is it that you’re telling me right now that has to do with a 14-day hearing?” the judge says.

Another one or two attorneys object to the path the parents’ attorney is taking, but she holds to her contention it does pertain to custody.

10:11 a.m. – “Now, this line had better be attorneys that are representing parents,” the judge says before another attorney steps up.

An attorney grouses about that, but the judge tells him, “Have a seat.”

It appears that the crowd of attorneys in the auditorium is reduced by at least one-third Friday compared to the previous day, and those who are present seem deflated after the 11 hours of attorney talk and testimony Thursday.

The parents’ attorney asking questions says CPS is taking a “one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach” to the case, and it’s not fair for CPS to take more than 400 children away based on global allegations.

“Up to this point in the investigation, there are over 20 girls in the investigation who have conceived or given birth at the age of 16 or 17,” Voss says. “What I’m telling you is that there is a culture of young girls being pregnant by old men.”

So there was a girl like that in all 19 residences on the ranch?
“Yes, sir, there was,” Voss says.

Another attorney objects that the parents’ attorney is going over history – forbidden by the judge.

“This woman,” the judge says, pointing to Voss, “is simply testifying as to what she believes. Now if you have evidence to rebut that, let’s get to that.”

The judge tells him he’s one of the best attorneys “in our town,” but the hearing has a very limited scope.

“I know that I personally am frustrated by virtue of the fact that we have an allegation about a culture that is allowed to exist without there being any testimony that my clients participated in that culture,” the attorney says.

The judge says that maybe the court needs to move beyond this witness and perhaps get to the point where parents’ attorneys can put their own witnesses on.

10:23 a.m. – The judge tells the local attorney to sit down.

More parents’ attorneys come forward, including an attorney for some of the fathers.

The men were not taken from the ranch? the attorney says. The judge makes it clear he needs to move on and does.

Under questioning, Voss says she believes most of the mothers have gone back to the ranch.

“Get to the point!” the judge says.

So each of these mothers is in her individual home? the dads’ attorney says.

Objections stop him cold.

Another parents’ attorney wants to know whether Voss has established her expertise in domestic violence and determining the age of a person “by sight.”

No, Voss says.

You have no expertise in determining a woman’s age by sight? the attorney says again. She goes on to say Voss has “magically” determined ages. The attorney wants to establish this isn’t credible testimony.

“We’re kind of creeping into argument,” the judge says.

She tries to redirect the hearing to information that would allow her to figure out whether the children should go back to their parents.

The judge ends up cutting off the parents’ attorney.

10:45 a.m. – The judge decides she has heard all the testimony she needs from Voss, and the CPS supervisor steps down, at long last.

A child psychiatrist from the Department of Family and Protective Services takes the stand.

A prosecutor questions him to establish his expertise in working with children, as well as children such as those at the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado.

A parents’ attorney objects that the psychiatrist’s testimony is not appropriate and needlessly goes over old ground.

The judge says his objection is premature.

The psychiatrist nearly gets a sentence or two out – including a reference to the Branch Davidian Compound – when an attorney objects.

The judge asks the objector whether he’s now the lead attorney for his firm.

“No, your honor,” he says.

She tells him to huddle with his colleagues about the lead attorney.

The psychiatrist went to Waco and led a clinical team to work with the Branch Davidian families.

A raid by federal authorities on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco ended in tragedy and loss of life several years ago.

The psychiatrist outlines his experience working with “a number of smaller, separatist, fundamentalist” groups.

Each group is different, but several have authoritarian leaders who govern the details of their daily life – what they eat, when they sleep and more.

The leader basically “defines how they live and how these children grow up.” His understanding of the YFZ Ranch community is that it has an authoritarian setup.

Under questioning from the parents’ attorney who’s pursuing his objection, the psychiatrist says he has gotten much of his information from the media.

Guffaws break out.

He has met with two members who grew up in the community and three young women to talk to them about their beliefs and their life in the community.

“I’d love to be able to speak with the elders of the community and learn more about how they think and how they raise their kids,” the psychiatrist says.

He admits he knows little about FLDS doctrine and other matters related to the sect.

“We’ve got tons of testimony about brainwashing, and that’s where this is going,” the parents’ attorney says.

11:02 a.m. – “This man has lots of information that the court has already heard about. I don’t know why we’re hearing about it again,” the parents’ attorney says.

But the judge decides to let the psychiatrist’s testimony go on, much as she would like to shorten the hearing, because she says she thinks it’s helping her in her decision.

The prosecutor asks the witness what he advised CPS to do regarding the children. The psychiatrist says he felt it was highly likely that these children would not be comfortable providing certain information.

“They would be very cooperative to a point, but they just wouldn’t talk about certain things,” he says.

They would have likely been told not to discuss their beliefs and practices outside of their community, the psychiatrist says. Children in such an insulated environment “tend to be very slow” in talking about very intimate things, or things that make them uncomfortable, he says.

The best thing to do would to just be around the children and treat them respectfully because traditional interview techniques would not be useful, the psychiatrist says.

The prosecutor says: What’s the harm in their society?
Girls age 14, 15 or 16 are not emotionally mature enough to consent to marriage, the witness replies.

“Do you think there’s any harm to younger children being in this environment?” the prosecutor says.

“Oh, man, I have lost sleep about this question,” the witness answers.

An attorney objects.

“There are lots of positive things about the community they’ve created,” the psychiatrist continues.

But the part of their belief system that allows underage marriage is abusive, he says.

And it’s an authoritarian environment, the psychiatrist says.
“Disobedience would lead to punishment and redirection” for the FLDS members, he says, and continuing to disobey would lead to “eternal damnation.”

Within the community, he says, a powerful respect exists for authority figures.

11:17 a.m. – The child psychiatrist continues to testify, saying the FLDS members also are faced with false choices. A 14-year-old girl told him she didn’t have to get married, but her father said to her, “Do you want to go to Zion?”

She said yes, and her father drove her to the YFZ Ranch, and she was asked whether she wanted to marry a man there, the psychiatrist says.

The girl said yes, and she could have declined the marriage, he says – but the choices on the other side were not very attractive. She would want to conform to the group’s beliefs, he says.

The prosecutor says: How is the YFZ Ranch harmful to boys?

The environment there is creating the high possibility that these boys will become sexual abusers down the road, the psychiatrist says. He adds that during childhood, the parts of the brain responsible for speech and language are forming, and if you read to the child, speak to the child and give the child lots of opportunity to hear language, the child will grow up with a healthy language capability.

A part of the brain, he says, is involved in forming healthy relationships, and if there’s no bonding, that part of the child’s brain does not develop.

Objections have cropped up that it’s taking too long to get to the point of his testimony, and it’s narrative.

The judge says that there is a time to do narrative instead of question-and-answer.

Doing questions and answers, she says, will just drag things out.

11:24 a.m. – The psychiatrist says that FLDS members who leave the group are “highly vulnerable” to people who would exploit them because of their upbringing.

It’s because they’re behind in their decision-making capabilities – they haven’t matured, he says.

He testifies that he asked three of the “young women” whether they would allow him to take their pulse, but told them that he didn’t have to – it was up to them. They appeared to be flummoxed by having to make a choice, he says.

It’s not easy to break the children’s thought patterns, the psychiatrist says. When you are socialized in a belief and behavior that’s deeply ingrained as part of their religion, it’s very hard to get a person to see that the belief and associated behavior are wrong, he says.

An objection comes up that the psychiatrist is no more qualified to give expert testimony than anyone in the courtroom.
It’s time for cross-examination.

“Now, we’re not going to have a frenzy over here at the microphone,” the judge says.

Parents’ attorneys will go first.

An attorney for three mothers asks whether the psychiatrist knows what percentage of the children in FLDS opt out of the belief system of plural marriage when they turn 18.

No, the psychiatrist says.

11:38 a.m. – A parents’ attorney says to the psychiatrist: How can a 6-month-old child be influenced in any way by the fact that someone a few hundred yards from them is a pregnant 16-year-old?

The psychiatrist says he didn’t say that, but he offers the opinion that the children should stay with the state until officials figure out what’s best for them.

“Doctor, haven’t you said in writing and in your research determined that a child develops 90 percent of his brain in his first three years?” the parents’ attorney says.

The psychiatrist says he probably wrote that the brain grows to 90 percent of its size by age 3.

The attorney reads off a few sentences a bit dramatically and almost angrily. Then he asks the doctor whether he wrote it.
“Maybe, but not in that tone of voice,” the psychiatrist says.

Observers laugh.

The court has indicated it wants to hear from parents, and those parents need some guidance about what they could say to get their children back, the parents’ attorney says.

“What can a parent say to a judge that could be helpful in getting that child returned?” the parents’ attorney says.

The witness replies, “What would make me feel comfortable is if a parent came forward and said, ‘I don’t think a girl should get married as a young teen. We need to know more about the outside world and be more transparent about their beliefs.'” It also would be a good sign if the parent asked for some advice about creating a healthy environment for their children, the psychiatrist adds.

“Believe me, so much of what they do out there is wonderful,” he says.

“If a parent were to say, ‘I will not allow my child to be married against her will,’ would it help you?” the parents’ attorney says.
No, the psychiatrist says, because the elements of free choice are missing.

Officials need time to develop trust and a relationship, he says. But “This is just a lose, lose deal,” the psychiatrist says.

11:31 a.m. – Another parents’ attorney zeroes in on the pyschiatrist’s testimony about taking the women’s pulse: Would they have been afraid of him, or afraid of appearing uncooperative?

The psychiatrist says he told them they didn’t have to tell him anything they didn’t want to or do anything they didn’t want to.

No parents’ attorneys step forward for questions in the auditorium.

11:53 a.m – Another attorney representing parents steps forward to question the psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist says he has been told it’s a blessing to have a lot of children.

An attorney for parents says: Do you know that Catholics and other religions believe it’s a blessing to have children?

“I wasn’t aware that I was making a pejorative comment,” the witness says.

“You offered no specific testimony or evidence to the court that the respondents in this case have been neglectful to this court, have you?” the attorney says.

An objection arises from a prosecutor, and the judge shapes it for her to move things along.

“That’s exactly what I was going to say, judge,” the attorney says.

“Next question please,” the judge instructs the parents’ attorney.

“Judge, I’m at a loss,” the parents’ attorney said. “I’ll sit down.”

The FLDS members are watching the proceedings solemnly in the auditorium.

The judge asks about children’s attorneys being grouped “by some sort of color-coding system.”

An attorney says, yes, they have done that, there has been such a grouping according to common interests.

The judge wants them to organize as groups and choose spokesmen or spokeswomen.

“We started this process with over 400 attorneys. Unfortunately, we have a number of attorneys who have had to leave town and have appointed co-counsel,” the attorney says. She inquires about perhaps taking lunch so they can get organized.

No, lunch “would only embolden you all,” the judge says.

All laugh.

So the attorney asks for a brief break to get organized.

“If I give you 45 minutes that you could -,” the judge starts to say. “No, 10!” the attorneys shout as one, interrupting her.

“I tried to give them a lunch,” the judge remarks to one of her staff members.

She leaves the bench, and lawyers immediately start milling around in the auditorium while an official at the front says things such as, “Greens will meet right here in the front. Any blacks? Blue is in the middle over here. Are there any more greens? We only have one green here in the front. Are there any blacks, uh, color-coded black?”

12:26 p.m. – Judge Walther’s staff tells the room that the judge is breaking for lunch, and court will resume at 1 p.m. The staff member also says the judge still intends to end testimony at 4 p.m. but reserves the right to change that intention.

One of the FLDS sect men leaving the courthouse at noon, asked how it is going, responds, “I’m smiling.”

Asked how he thinks things will go, “I don’t know yet.”

Coming out of the courthouse during a break, local attorney Jimmy Stewart says he feels confident the children will be returned to their mothers. “All I know is, (the judge) said she will try to conclude testimony by 4,” Stewart says. “I doubt we’ll be able to meet that goal.

1:28 p.m. – Court is back in session.

An attorney who represents multiple mothers begins talking about not having much access to her clients. She is asking that clients be given cell phones so they can contact them, and she wants access to the coliseum, where the children are housed. The women don’t have an opportunity to know what’s going on in the courtroom. She says there are women with medical issues.
A court staff member responds, saying people at coliseum are doing the best job they can to make the coliseum accessible to everyone. People are making sure everyone gets a chance to see their clients, he said. The judge says she can’t fix last night but will work on today. She says the cell phones were removed because of inappropriate use. The women are free to leave, she said.

“I have no way of knowing what’s going on out there,” she said.

The lawyer said she wants cell phones returned so they can speak to clients because they won’t be in San Angelo all the time.

The judge said she is not keeping the clients; they are free to go any time.

1:50 [pm]– Attorney representing boys younger than 5, and those representing teenage girls believed not to have children continue to ask specifics about what children should stay with their mothers. An attorney for boys age 5 to 11 asks whether boys have been coached on how to respond. Objection is overruled. The witness said there is a sense that the children’s interactions with strangers were being monitored. He said the boys think the ranch is a special place. Another attorney representing a 6-year-old boy asks which age group of children are at least risk for returning to their mothers only. He said the youngest children or babies are least influenced by any beliefs that may be unhelpful.

An attorney representing another boy asks why there is immediate danger of the boys going back to the ranch. He asks what is meant by immediate danger. He said they will continue to be exposed to beliefs and practices such as underage marriage and sexual abuse – emotional and psychological abuse, he said.
If these children are kept in state custody, there should be exceptional and innovative ideas put in place for children and families. She asked about what could work. He said children and families should be known on an individual basis. There should be an individualized plan put together that is open and has capacity to make truly free decisions, not a one-size-fits-all approach for each family.

An attorney for girls age 5 to 11 comes to the podium. She says court has to prove there is a danger to physical health of children. Asks whether damage that comes from separation is more than the harm of being returned to the family.

2:04 p.m. – Break to fix microphone

2:08 p.m. – Court back in session.

Attorney asks again to compare damage from removing the children from the parents versus giving them back to parents for girls age 5 to 11 in the short run. The witness said that of the children, the young preadolescent girls are most vulnerable because it’s a time of life when they look to older women to see how to live. They are the most vulnerable because of a community that has sexual abuse, he said.

Attorney said there is no difference in being housed in the coliseum or being at the ranch with their mothers.

The witness said the major source of authority in the community are men. When they are not around those men, the formal presentation of that belief system is not enforced.

2:20 p.m. – The children from the ranch believe they should not talk about certain things of their life, and should be passive-aggressive in some of their behavior, the witness said.
Now attorneys for boys and girls ages birth through 4 ask questions. Witness said kids are healthy and the medical aspect of their life needs to be investigated and made known to people who care for them. Medical exams are an important part of what needs to be done. The witness said it could be an asset if brothers and sister stay together. It’s also important to find biological parents of the child. The witness said determining those things would be more difficult if they are returned to the ranch.

2:15 p.m. – Witness said typical foster care placement would not be ideal environment for the YFZ Ranch kids. Maybe at some point, it would be reasonable. Training for caregivers about the FLDS community is necessary because the children need a similar environment. That doesn’t exist in traditional foster care.

2:35 p.m. – An attorney speaking for lawyers representing the youngest children asks: Would it be worse for the well-being of the younger children to be returned to the FLDS sect home, or to be separated from their familiar environment?

To be taken from their environment would be worse, the psychiatrist says.

Next, a children’s attorney asks questions about genetic testing for diseases and disorders.

The psychiatrist doesn’t think that’s high on the scale of things to be concerned about now.

The next children’s lawyer wants to know whether the mothers not on the ranch during the raid could be with their children.

The psychiatrist says he would like to see authorities be as flexible as possible.

“I personally would say, if you let these other mothers do it, just let them in,” the psychiatrist says.

The attorney asks: Should we try to get the process started of reuniting those mothers with their children at the coliseum?

“I think that good things that happen early on are better than good things that happen later,” the psychiatrist says.

2:45 p.m. – The psychiatrist leaves the stand, and the prosecution rests.