Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[Tom Earp]

I still have the itch in the back of my mind about this so call unknown girl was that called and has never been found?

This reminds me of a bit of Waco, Texas when the Feds moved in and look what happened there.

Whether this group was wrong or right, why did the Feds swoop in?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Whether this group was wrong or right, why did the Feds swoop in?

I don't believe there were any Feds involved, swooping or otherwise. All the reports I have seen refer only to Texas law enforcement and Child Protective Services investigators participating in the raid.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't believe there were any Feds involved, swooping or otherwise. All the reports I have seen refer only to Texas law enforcement and Child Protective Services investigators participating in the raid.

I should elaborate.

I'm not making a judgement on what should or shouldn't happen to the "families."

My thought, though, is that IF the mission of the lawyers is to reunite the families (whether that's right or wrong), all of the objections are simply elongating the process and that flies in the face of what they're supposed to be trying to do.

This is a mess.

[madmax]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't believe there were any Feds involved, swooping or otherwise. All the reports I have seen refer only to Texas law enforcement and Child Protective Services investigators participating in the raid.

That's not the point. Since when does an anonymous call give the local, state, feds or any law agency the authority to search your house and take your kids?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by madmax

That's not the point. Since when does an anonymous call give the local, state, feds or any law agency the authority to search your house and take your kids?

Since it's the latest in a long line of complaints.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by madmax

That's not the point. Since when does an anonymous call give the local, state, feds or any law agency the authority to search your house and take your kids?

Police officers act on information from "anonymous sources" all the time. The only way I can think of to exclude the evidence seized here is if the officers acted in bad faith in relying on the anonymous tip.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by madmax

That's not the point. Since when does an anonymous call give the local, state, feds or any law agency the authority to search your house and take your kids?

Since ANY threat to a child that is reported to DCFS/police has to be followed up on. And it wasn't entirely "anonymous." Though she may not have given her full name (police likely would not release it anyway) she identified herself as an abused child at X location, (seventh) married to X guy. How can the police NOT go in. Add that with the fact that they "knew" what the compound was but had no legal reason to go there in the first place, and they got their reason.



Here's a timeline

March 29-31 – A children’s shelter received a call from a 16-year-old girl saying she lived on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado. She claimed in the call that her 50-year-old husband, later identified as Dale Barlow, beat her and sexually assaulted her. She said that she was Barlow’s seventh wife, and they were members of the Fundamentalist sect of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

April 3 – Authorities forced their way into the polygamist compound with assistance from Child Protective Services. They began interviewing children in the shelter.

April 4-7 – CPS began interviewing and removing children from the compound in buses. In total, 416 children were taken from the compound, and 139 women voluntarily left with them. They were transferred to a fort in San Angelo, and all children are put in temporary state custody.

April 8 – Two people were arrested at different times while trying to stop authorities from searching parts of the polygamist compound.

April 10 – The state officially announced why they were searching the compound, and released information about the 16-year-old girl. They also release information about beds discovered in the temple on the compound, which police say were for sex with underage girls. Meanwhile, FLDS lawyers filed motions in court to stop the searches. This is a federal search warrant btw. The FBI is involved for unknown reasons, although speculation is that it is due to inter-state trafficking of underage girls for the purposes of sex.

April 14 – Mothers who did not have children under four years old were ordered to leave the shelter. CPS said it was because they were coaching the children during interviews. This was a day after cell phones were taken from women and children of the sect.

April 17 – The custody hearing between the church of FLDS and the state began.

April 18 - A judge ordered the children stay in state custody.
April 19 -- Texas law enforcement investigated a woman who may have made a false abuse claim against the polygamist sect. A 16-year-old girl named "Sarah" called a hotline saying she was being abused by her 49-year-old husband. The call began the child abuse battle.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

My thought, though, is that IF the mission of the lawyers is to reunite the families (whether that's right or wrong), all of the objections are simply elongating the process and that flies in the face of what they're supposed to be trying to do.

They are not supposed to be trying to reunite the children with their families necessarily. Each lawyer is supposed to be representing and advocating for the child he or she represents and seeking to have done what is in that child's best interest. Whether or not that is reunification with family or something else may be different for different children.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't believe there were any Feds involved, swooping or otherwise. All the reports I have seen refer only to Texas law enforcement and Child Protective Services investigators participating in the raid.

Originally Posted by madmax

That's not the point. Since when does an anonymous call give the local, state, feds or any law agency the authority to search your house and take your kids?

It is the point when this is what I responding to:

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Whether this group was wrong or right, why did the Feds swoop in?

But as for your question, as Kevin said, anonymous calls lead to searches all the time.

But to clarify, the anonymous call, coupled with other information that law enforcement had been receiving, led to law enforcement and CPS investigors coming into the compound. What the CPS investigators found once they were in the compound and could investigate led to taking the chilcred into custody.

[UGAalum94]

I agree with the poster who finds an anonymous call alone to be a creepy standard to lead to a search of this scale*, but coupled with other evidence, I think the search was the right thing is this instance.

*I'd be all about a DFACS review for suspicion of child abuse, but I don't think that an anonymous call about child abuse without any corroborating evidence ought to be enough to conduct a search of anyone's house or separate of children from their parents.

I think one of the many things that makes this case so strange is that because women and children so rarely if ever left the compound, the opportunities to do any kind of less invasive investigation were so limited. It would seem, though, that if the women were in fact receiving welfare benefits as unmarried parents with no source of outside income, as apparently is a pattern in these polygamous cults, that would give a way to investigate the circumstances of the children's lives without a full-on invasive police search. Then you could build a more legit-seeming case for a well-earned search warrant.

And that's the thing about the whole "police act on anonymous information all the time" argument. They do, but to come and search your home, you'd like to think it took more than one anonymous phone call that even after the search couldn't be substantiated or connected to real and specific person. Perhaps the police would serve their reputations well if they promoted the other facts that gave them cause to be suspicious in addition to the phone call.

[Thetagirl218]

This whole thing simply sickens me.

I believe that there were 30 girls under age who were either pregnant or had recently given birth?

If some lawyer says it was consensual they need a head transplant!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And that's the thing about the whole "police act on anonymous information all the time" argument. They do, but to come and search your home, you'd like to think it took more than one anonymous phone call that even after the search couldn't be substantiated or connected to real and specific person. Perhaps the police would serve their reputations well if they promoted the other facts that gave them cause to be suspicious in addition to the phone call.

Perhaps to flesh it out a bit, police do act on anonymous tips all the time, but not necessarily on anonymous tips alone. Remember that they have to have a search warrant for your home. A judge is going to want more than an anonymous tip alone, but an anonymous tip, viewed in the context of other things that the police may know, may well be sufficient. Likewise, an anonymous tip that contains enough verifiable information as to suggest that the tipster is trustworthy may also be enough.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

They are not supposed to be trying to reunite the children with their families necessarily. Each lawyer is supposed to be representing and advocating for the child he or she represents and seeking to have done what is in that child's best interest. Whether or not that is reunification with family or something else may be different for different children.

Actually, you're incorrect. The lawyers are there to argue on behalf of their clients' (the children's) wishes. It is the state's job to act on behalf of what they feel is in the best interest of each child. Since the social workers will have more on their hands than they can handle, advocates (Kappa Alpha Theta's philanthropy!) have also been appointed by the court to meet with the children, parents, and others to form an objective opinion on what is best for each child.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Actually, you're incorrect. The lawyers are there to argue on behalf of their clients' (the children's) wishes. It is the state's job to act on behalf of what they feel is in the best interest of each child. Since the social workers will have more on their hands than they can handle, advocates (Kappa Alpha Theta's philanthropy!) have also been appointed by the court to meet with the children, parents, and others to form an objective opinion on what is best for each child.

Ok so what you're saying is that CASAs are "determining what's in the best interest of the child" in their opinion and the lawyers are expected to represent this in consideration of the child's wishes since the child is a minor. Sounds like the lawyers are also going to be highly concerned with the best interest of the children.