Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Just quoting you MC to get your attention, saw the quote that you didn't see Feds involved, and they did get involved AFTER the initial raid according to several articles I've seen.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

I think that many of us are curious about what other information the police had, especially considering that it doesn't seem that the specific circumstance related to the call can be substantiated. What did the phone call add to the mix that was missing before? If everyone locally knew/suspected what was going on, why did it take such a lame standard of proof to tip the scales?

I know that the police have to get a search warrants, but I think the standards for the warrants are shockingly low sometimes. Think about some of the no-knock raid-gone wrong stories that have come out this year (there was an especially bad one in Atlanta last year). Sometimes the standards to get the warrants deeply flawed, and it's really creepy from a civil liberties perspective, even when you are glad about the outcome, like in this case.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think that many of us are curious about what other information the police had, especially considering that it doesn't seem that the specific circumstance related to the call can be substantiated. What did the phone call add to the mix that was missing before? If everyone locally knew/suspected what was going on, why did it take such a lame standard of proof to tip the scales?

I know that the police have to get a search warrants, but I think the standards for the warrants are shockingly low sometimes. Think about some of the no-knock raid-gone wrong stories that have come out this year (there was an especially bad one in Atlanta last year). Sometimes the standards to get the warrants deeply flawed, and it's really creepy from a civil liberties perspective, even when you are glad about the outcome, like in this case.

Okay so if you know there's a FLDS "compound" or "ranch" or what-have-you, you already have some idea exactly what is happening there, but you have no evidence. You get a call with specific information, names and locations and ages. "Yes" you think, "a chance to at LEAST check this place out and at MOST shut them down." You show up and there are over 400 children there. You can't find "Sarah" or at least, no one admits to being her. You do find 12-16 year olds with children and older teens with multiple children.

According to Texas' law, where you cannot marry under the age of 16/consent to sex even WITH parental permission, this means something illegal is happening. Add in the knowledge you have about the FLDS church and you know exactly what is happening.

At this point you have to take the children. And you can't leave some behind, there's a chance they'll disappear. There's a pattern of repeated abuse and exploitation, and it's crazy to leave children in a habitually abusive home. These policies were put in place before they ever thought they'd need to remove 400 children at once, but they make sense.

And generally, the last thing that DCFS/CPS wants is to take children away. Usually the family is the best place for the child, even if it isn't perfect. (Or from a heartless perspective it's all about the $$$).

[jon1856]

^^^^^^^Very well presented and said.

And add the following to it:
More teenage mothers emerge in Texas polygamy probe
SAN ANGELO, Texas (Reuters) - Texas authorities said on Thursday they identified 25 more mothers below age 18 among those removed from a polygamist compound, raising to about 460 the number of minors at the heart of a huge abuse probe.
An apparent phone tip earlier this month led to a raid on the ranch in a remote part of west Texas and the removal of the children. The compound is linked to a breakaway Mormon sect and is run by followers of jailed polygamist leader Warren Jeffs.
Texas welfare and law enforcement officials say they have uncovered evidence of widespread child abuse on the grounds, with adolescent girls being forced into unions with much older men.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...e=domesticNews
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24294759/

And then you find this:
Sect challenges legality of search warrant, raid
CNN) -- Authorities knew that reports of alleged abuse at a polygamist sect's Texas ranch were questionable before they raided the compound, attorneys for the ranch's families said in court documents
The attorneys are arguing that search warrants were wrongly issued in the case.
A state official responded that the initial reports don't matter at this point, because "we found children being abused."
More than 400 children were taken during the raid at the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) Ranch on April 3.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/24/...aid/index.html

Polygamist Sect Mothers Separated From Children After Legal Efforts to Stay Fail

SAN ANGELO, Texas — Dozens of mothers from a polygamist retreat were bused away from their children Thursday, their legal efforts to stay united rejected as Texas officials sort out their massive custody case.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352530,00.html

How DNA tests reveal polygamist sex practices

Cheek swabs of 437 children can uncover family ties and criminal behaviors

Officials in Texas just finished collecting cheek-swab samples from the 437 children and alleged parents in order to determine who is related to whom.
The children were removed from a polygamous commune in Eldorado earlier this month during a raid sparked by reports of sexual abuse of underage girls. According to news accounts of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, pubescent girls were forced into "spiritual marriages" to older men.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24297292/
"Sexual consent
Results could have legal implications, including any evidence for possible statutory rape, which includes individuals below a certain age deemed legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity. In Texas, 17 is the minimum age, making it illegal for anyone under the age of 17 to engage in sexual activity with another who is at least three years their elder. (An individual must be at least 16 years old to enter into a legal marriage in Texas.) "
"Incestual relations?
The DNA testing could also provide incest clues.
Though no evidence of incest has been reported in the current case, the Texas Department of Public Safety is conducting the criminal investigation of possible sexual abuse at the Eldorado compound, also called the Yearning for Zion ranch.
"We assisted Child Protective Services in serving a search warrant at the YFZ ranch. While we were there, we observed activity that led us to believe that there may be some crimes that were occurring," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. "We obtained a second search warrant. And we are in the process of conducting a criminal investigation."
The investigation does include looking into possible "sexual abuse," Mange told LiveScience. "We haven't been more specific than that at this point."

"Incest is a statutory crime, and is defined as sexual intercourse between close blood-relatives. The prohibited degrees of incest vary from state to state and can include brothers and sisters, parents and children, aunts or uncles with nephews or nieces, and grandparents and grandchildren.
In Texas, it is illegal for a person to have sexual relations with: a current or former stepchild or stepparent, an uncle or aunt (or half uncle or half aunt), or a brother or sister (or half brother or half sister), according to the Texas Attorney General's office."

I just had this rather unpleasant thought: Given the every other Fundamentalist/polygamous group has to be watching this, why do I fear a large up-sale of cool-aid? And I am not trying to be funny here.
If you have read any of the books, their leaders/Prophets can say just about anything is the word of G*D and must be followed.

[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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

The lawyers do not have to consider advocates' opinions. If a child says he/she wants to return to mom/dad, the lawyer is supposed to try to find ways to make that happen. However, in the case of young children who may not be able to make a decision of that magnitude, the lawyers are supposed to weigh the wishes of the child with the evaluation of case workers and advocates to help come up with a solution that is in favor of their client.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

The lawyers do not have to consider advocates' opinions. If a child says he/she wants to return to mom/dad, the lawyer is supposed to try to find ways to make that happen. However, in the case of young children who may not be able to make a decision of that magnitude, the lawyers are supposed to weigh the wishes of the child with the evaluation of case workers and advocates to help come up with a solution that is in favor of their client.

I know, it's all a "supposed" to. I was just poking at the splitting of hairs.