All FLDS Children Have Been Relocated
[Guest post by DRJ]
The remaining FLDS children have been relocated from the temporary quarters in San Angelo to foster care across Texas. Here’s a report from the Abilene Reporter News that indicates the Abilene-bound children are enjoying the playground equipment:
“It is unclear how many of the 437 children seized from the ranch were placed in Abilene. Officials at the Hendrick Home for Children also declined to give ages for the children placed there.
David Miller, president and CEO of the Hendrick Home for Children, said the facility typically admits children ranging in age from five years to 16 years. “We sometimes take children younger than five, but we need a special variance from Child Protective Services to do that,” he said, declining to say if the facility had received any such variances from CPS in order to foster the YFZ children.
Special needs, medical and dietary concerns, as well as figuring out how best to play with the YFZ children are among the first concerns Hendrick Home staff will address, Miller said.
“We have to work with them, build up their trust,” he said, over the sounds of the children playing on the facility’s playground. “They love the playground,” Miller said. “Their eyes got as big as saucers when they got off the bus and saw the playground.”
Their favorite playground equipment? “They’re most interested in the slides and monkey bars,” Miller said. “They are having fun.”
In the next few days, the children will be introduced to the horses kept on the 50-acre property and will be given carrots to feed them. They will also be tested to see “where they are” academically, Miller said. The facility has been given special regulations in regards to the children’s care, such as diet and television restrictions.
“We’ll follow the rules in the next few weeks and see how they do,” he said.”
There are several photos at the link.
— DRJ
I once had a neighbor who was born and raised in Abilene. Going by his report that playground may be the most exciting thing in Abilene. (Although a place that rural may be the best environment for these kids at the moment.) However,that was 20 years ago, and he was a little biased against his birthplace (he was disowned by his family because he was gay).
Of the two adults, both women, one is wearing contempary clothes, but the other seems to be wearing the sort of dress FDLS women wear.
kishnevi (b4f085) — 4/26/2008 @ 8:52 pmthe two adults in those pictures, I meant.
kishnevi (b4f085) — 4/26/2008 @ 8:53 pmThe woman in FLDS garb has to be a minor because only children were taken to the shelters. The adult mothers have all been removed. She’s probably an older sister because reports say the CPS tried to relocate siblings together. The reports also stated that minors who are mothers were taken to San Antonio with their children, although there could be exceptions.
The other woman in slacks is probably a shelter employee who is accompanying the children as they play.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/26/2008 @ 11:33 pmConsider
…
…
…
So families on the Ranch who did not participate in polygamy, or had traditional monogamous families, have their children in juvies hundreds of miles away.
Nice.
Darleen (187edc) — 4/27/2008 @ 3:23 pmThere was testimony that every household had at least one underage mother living there.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/27/2008 @ 3:51 pmDarleen, Boys Ranch is NOT a penal farm. It generally does not take in kids with juvenile records. I am personally familiar with three groups homes that have taken in YFZ kids, and they are all considered the best group homes in the area. The kids in these homes typically have lost at least one parent, but have shown a lot of promise. Many area families take personal interest in any children residing there, and help pay for college and graduate school. Also, because of their setting and facilities, the YFZ children can live together but kept apart from other residents.
From West Texas 2 (f28dac) — 4/27/2008 @ 4:16 pmThere was testimony that every household had at least one underage mother living there
So the couple in the story were lying? Or the divorced mom?
WestTx
I’ll take your word for it. CA runs differently from county to county. Some places are “Juvenile Detention and Assessment Centers”. Some places for “child protection” as just frying pan to fire … like Los Angeles’ MacLaren Hall (finally closed in 2003)
Darleen (187edc) — 4/27/2008 @ 4:40 pmAs West Texas 2 states, I know that the locations the children were sent to in Abilene and Midland are nice places where the children will be very well-treated. I hope the other locations are just as nice and, based on my general knowledge of places like Cal Farley’s, I think they are.
DRJ (a431ca) — 4/27/2008 @ 4:54 pmDRJ
While I’m happy to hear that the group homes are not Dickensian warehouses like MacLaren, I’m still not convinced that every single child, including nursing children 13 mos and older, should have been swept out and sent (in some cases) hundreds of miles away.
There is going to be longterm damage to the kids that did not have to be removed.
CPS is denying it, but some of the women have alleged that they were told if they stay at the Ranch (rather than going to a shelter) they would never see their kids again.
This story is far from over.
Darleen (187edc) — 4/27/2008 @ 5:15 pmi share darleen’s perspective and apprehension about this.
assistant devil's advocate (3fe451) — 4/27/2008 @ 8:22 pmI find it hard to believe that any CPS worker told a FLDS parent they would never see their kids again. I have no problem believing that a few FLDS parents are “lying for the Lord” in this circumstance.
Oona (6933b2) — 4/28/2008 @ 1:47 amI wanted to post an article I came across that EXPLAINS why the government may be doing the DNA testing on these children.
This article was in the Phoenix New Times and Republic paper in DEC. 2005 long before this raid occurred.
It explains that there were up to 20 families with children afflicted with a rare disease called fumarase deficiency that is caused from inbreeding and is a form of retardation with severely deformed appearances, as well as severe seizures that can/do result in strokes.
The article is called FORBIDDEN FRUIT by John Dougherty.
It is an extremely interesting article that is unbiased telling the facts not opinions!! These are from local doctors that have treated these children.
It has CHANGED my opinion (which I know means little) of the governments actions in this case and has given me more peace and understanding about WHY they did what they did.
Please check it out! It is quite lengthy-but is well worth the time for the info received in it.
Meda (dd5eb8) — 4/28/2008 @ 8:22 am“CPS is denying it, but some of the women have alleged that they were told if they stay at the Ranch (rather than going to a shelter) they would never see their kids again”
Of course some were told that. Not every employee of every protective agency is some benign, non-judgmental angel, nor can a govt. agency control what every employee says. Also the job of many employees in this situation is to get the FLDS people to comply with what the government wants them to do (go to a shelter, now…..) threats are common coin to get people to just shut up and do what they are told. If you were NOT part of the decision to take everyone’s kids and ship all the women off to a shelter, but were responsible for making them go, then threats might be one tool to use. Not a great tool, but better for everyone involved than tear gas, tanks, and fire no?
Of course, now that the government has acted, there is going to be tremendous pressure to be “right” about its actions, whether it was justified or reasonable or not. I bet there will be a lot of off the record, unsavory, unjustified, out of the press spotlight hardball and manipulation of parents and children before this is over.
EdWood (06cafa) — 4/28/2008 @ 1:10 pmOh, also, I don’t know if this is true for Texas, but for some states, women who’s husbands are alleged to have sexually abused their children can keep their children IF they will leave their husband, or make sure that he is completely out of the life of the child. If they won’t agree to do that then the state will take the child as a protective measure. Maybe the employees who told the women that were being HELPFUL!
EdWood (06cafa) — 4/28/2008 @ 1:18 pm