Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

Thanks. I haven't seen that, but I'll take your word for it.

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.

You're right that I shouldn't have conflated the lawyers and the guardians ad litem, although in my experience they do work together to get what is in the best interests of the child.

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.

That's not necessarily how it works everywhere; certainly not with younger children. I'll leave it to a lawyer in Texas to say how it works there.

All of that said, it is not necessarily the goal of the lawyers to reunite kids with families.

And Drolefille -- splitting hairs is what we lawyers do best.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Thanks. I haven't seen that, but I'll take your word for it.



And Drolefille -- splitting hairs is what we lawyers do best.

Lol, don't I know it.

Anyway here's one article. Amazing how the Utah papers keep popping up on top of my Google News when I search!
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695269233,00.html

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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 $$$).

I was really just thinking about the standard to get the warrant for the first raid. Once they were there, no doubt the actions they took were the correct ones.

Here's the thing: if all it takes to get a warrant when we suspect what's going on and yet can't work up enough evidence to get a warrant based on what we think is up, is an anonymous phone call, then we basically create a situation where there's an incentive for suspicious folks to fake phone calls, and some of the raids based on fake phone calls will turn out to be without merit.

I'd rather we used a better standard to establish the cause for the original warrant. Consider a different circumstance in which people suspected abuse, maybe WASPs in the the suburbs who grow suspicious of their Muslim neighbor's treatment of his daughters. Would you be cool with a warrant based on an anonymous phone call in that case?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And Drolefille -- splitting hairs is what we lawyers do best.

As do we PR flaks

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I was really just thinking about the standard to get the warrant for the first raid. Once they were there, no doubt the actions they took were the correct ones.

Here's the thing: if all it takes to get a warrant when we suspect what's going on and yet can't work up enough evidence to get a warrant based on what we think is up, is an anonymous phone call, then we basically create a situation where there's an incentive for suspicious folks to fake phone calls, and some of the raids based on fake phone calls will turn out to be without merit.

I'd rather we used a better standard to establish the cause for the original warrant. Consider a different circumstance in which people suspected abuse, maybe WASPs in the the suburbs who grow suspicious of their Muslim neighbor's treatment of his daughters. Would you be cool with a warrant based on an anonymous phone call in that case?

Again, how is this an anonymous phone call? "Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm married to ____ Barlow. I'm his 7th wife. I'm 16. I'm pregnant. I live on FLDS Ranch. They're going to hurt me if they find out I called you"

The woman who they suspect of making this call, who apparently has Dissociative Identity Disorder and a history of doing this, will still get in trouble. She doesn't get a pass. Although apparently she does an impressive scared teenager impression, the person who received the call was shocked.

If you got a phone call that included the following information: "My name is Jane and my daddy touches me at night. I'm going to have a baby. My address is 123 Main Street." WTF are you going to do but go to that house and find out if JANE is being abused or not!

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Again, how is this an anonymous phone call? "Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm married to ____ Barlow. I'm his 7th wife. I'm 16. I'm pregnant. I live on FLDS Ranch. They're going to hurt me if they find out I called you"

The woman who they suspect of making this call, who apparently has Dissociative Identity Disorder and a history of doing this, will still get in trouble. She doesn't get a pass. Although apparently she does an impressive scared teenager impression, the person who received the call was shocked.

If you got a phone call that included the following information: "My name is Jane and my daddy touches me at night. I'm going to have a baby. My address is 123 Main Street." WTF are you going to do but go to that house and find out if JANE is being abused or not!

^^^Agree. It is NOT as if an officer went out side of the PH and called it in off of a pay phone or something.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Again, how is this an anonymous phone call? "Hi, my name is Sarah and I'm married to ____ Barlow. I'm his 7th wife. I'm 16. I'm pregnant. I live on FLDS Ranch. They're going to hurt me if they find out I called you"

The woman who they suspect of making this call, who apparently has Dissociative Identity Disorder and a history of doing this, will still get in trouble. She doesn't get a pass. Although apparently she does an impressive scared teenager impression, the person who received the call was shocked.

If you got a phone call that included the following information: "My name is Jane and my daddy touches me at night. I'm going to have a baby. My address is 123 Main Street." WTF are you going to do but go to that house and find out if JANE is being abused or not!

Originally Posted by jon1856

^^^Agree. It is NOT as if an officer went out side of the PH and called it in off of a pay phone or something.

But I think you invite the level of officers or private individuals making such calls when they have suspicions, even if they aren't grounded in actual evidence.

If I got such a phone call, I'd call the cops. If the cops got such a phone call, I'd expect them to investigate the claim, but I wouldn't expect a judge to give them a search warrant to conduct a raid unless we could establish first that even such a person existed, which can't actually be done in this case.

I'm happy about the outcome here, but I'm not interested having the standard be something like "forget long established civil liberties*, as long as the outcome pays off."

*like: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's not just a problem with the person who placed the phone call; it's a problem with allowing the use of a faulty standard of proof that eventually is likely to affect not just the guilty as in this case, but all of us. Look at the other thread about the cops shooting the innocent guy more than 50 times. It's really hard to make the general case that the big problem is that our standards for police action are too high.

ETA: the fact that the call wasn't placed by the person named in the call makes it worst than an anonymous call. It's actually a fraudulent call.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But I think you invite the level of officers or private individuals making such calls when they have suspicions, even if they aren't grounded in actual evidence.

If I got such a phone call, I'd call the cops. If the cops got such a phone call, I'd expect them to investigate the claim, but I wouldn't expect a judge to give them a search warrant to conduct a raid unless we could establish first that even such a person existed, which can't actually be done in this case.

Fraudulent calls are illegal. If an officer made them the case would be thrown out and if a citizen made them they'd be arrested. That's how this policy works.

Ok so if you as a child services worker or police received such a call, they should "investigate" but not go to the house? This was only a "raid" because it was on such a large scale. It was only on such a large scale because we're talking compound not private residence.

What's the burden of proof here, you want them to go find Jane's birth certificate first so you know she exists? Talk to teachers? Talk to everyone except for Jane, the 15 year old pregnant girl being molested by her father?
The one who might be in serious danger if her father finds out she called?

I'm happy about the outcome here, but I'm not interested having the standard be something like "forget long established civil liberties*, as long as the outcome pays off."

*like: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Probable cause is an allegation of child abuse where there needs to be an in person investigation (warrant) to determine the veracity of the complaint. What is the burden of proof you want for a child abuse situation?

It's not just a problem with the person who placed the phone call; it's a problem with allowing the use of a faulty standard of proof that eventually is likely to affect not just the guilty as in this case, but all of us. Look at the other thread about the cops shooting the innocent guy more than 50 times. It's really hard to make the general case that the big problem is that our standards for police action are too high.

Strawman.

What burden of proof would you have found acceptable in this case?

ETA: the fact that the call wasn't placed by the person named in the call makes it worst than an anonymous call. It's actually a fraudulent call.

Yes, and (as far as we know to this date) the police/DCFS operated in good faith on that phone call. They went to find the abused child, they found what they have called widespread abuse of children and they acted as they would have if they'd found abuse during a domestic violence call, a traffic stop, a drug bust, etc.

[UGAalum94]

Drolefille,

Are you really saying that you are satisfied with the use of fraudulent phone calls in police obtaining search warrants?

I'm not, and that's the only point I'm really trying to make.

I'm happy the kids are out of there. I hope the case stands up in court. I don't want to see kids remain in abusive situations.

The fact that the police relied on an anonymous call which later turned out to be fraudulent is a bad thing, and it's not a strawman argument to speculate about how basing future warrants on a similar standard of proof could be even more troublesome. Anonymous calls shouldn't be enough to allow a search of a house. If the other evidence used in the warrant is solid, an unsubstantiated phone call really shouldn't even be needed.

ETA: I saw where you asked me what standard would have been ok in this case. The honest answer is that I don't know because I don't know what other evidence they had on which to base the suspicion. This case is especially complicated like I mentioned earlier by the limited contact the kids and women had with the outside world. (In our theoretical other cases, I think we could often conduct interviews with school, daycare, church personnel or doctors to determine if there was any merit to the call or if it was a case that suggested immediate harm, the police could actually go to the door and request to speak with the named person from the call to see if the situation did support the idea that someone was at imminent risk or exigent circumstance actually existed.) But with this compound, I just don't know. The fact remains that a fraudulent/anonymous phone call shouldn't be the thing that tipped the scales. It's a really troublesome standard.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Drolefille,

Are you really saying that you are satisfied with the use of fraudulent phone calls in police obtaining search warrants?

I'm not, and that's the only point I'm really trying to make.

I'm happy the kids are out of there. I hope the case stands up in court. I don't want to see kids remain in abusive situations.

The fact that the police relied on an anonymous call which later turned out to be fraudulent is a bad thing, and it's not a strawman argument to speculate about how basing future warrants on a similar standard of proof could be even more troublesome. Anonymous calls shouldn't be enough to allow a search of a house. If the other evidence used in the warrant is solid, an unsubstantiated phone call really shouldn't even be needed.

ETA: I saw where you asked me what standard would have been ok in this case. The honest answer is that I don't know because I don't know what other evidence they had on which to base the suspicion. This case is especially complicated like I mentioned earlier by the limited contact the kids and women had with the outside world. (In our theoretical other cases, I think we could often conduct interviews with school, daycare, church personnel or doctors to determine if there was any merit to the call or if it was a case that suggested immediate harm, the police could actually go to the door and request to speak with the named person from the call to see if the situation did support the idea that someone was at imminent risk or exigent circumstance actually existed.) But with this compound, I just don't know. The fact remains that a fraudulent/anonymous phone call shouldn't be the thing that tipped the scales. It's a really troublesome standard.

Again, how is this phone call anonymous? And how are the police to know that it is fraudulent at the time? The woman who allegedly made this call is good at it, she sounds like a scared teenager when she does it. She's also mentally ill.

In general, your method is a very poor one and there's a reason why DCFS does not operate that way. It would have a much greater potential for leading to a seriously injured or dead child. Teachers/daycare staff and doctors are already mandated reporters. If they see something they have to tell someone. If they're not seeing something interviewing them is a waste of their time.

I'm not arguing outcome with you, I know we agree on that, I'm talking about how this process is a necessary one and one that does not tramp on civil rights. Usually the police are not as involved in a DCFS investigation, at least not initially, but there was a threat of harm and everything was on a large scale.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Again, how is this phone call anonymous? And how are the police to know that it is fraudulent at the time? The woman who allegedly made this call is good at it, she sounds like a scared teenager when she does it. She's also mentally ill.

In general, your method is a very poor one and there's a reason why DCFS does not operate that way. It would have a much greater potential for leading to a seriously injured or dead child. Teachers/daycare staff and doctors are already mandated reporters. If they see something they have to tell someone. If they're not seeing something interviewing them is a waste of their time.

I'm not arguing outcome with you, I know we agree on that, I'm talking about how this process is a necessary one and one that does not tramp on civil rights. Usually the police are not as involved in a DCFS investigation, at least not initially, but there was a threat of harm and everything was on a large scale.

How do you understand what would normally happen if such a call came into the police station? I don't think the default response is that the police have a right to search the house of the accused, but maybe I'm wrong.

I wasn't saying that the appropriate response to a suspicion of child abuse by a person willing to be identified to the police in real life is a big retro-active investigation with the usual reporters.

I think the response to a call that says, "I'm Ugaalum and my next door neighbor is abusing his child" is for the police to immediately go to my next door neighbor's door and talk to him to determine if there's exigent circumstances or signs of imminent threat. But my phone call alone shouldn't be enough to establish that there are, particularly if the police don't know who I am or if I really am who I claim to be. And it shouldn't be the case that judges would typically give warrants based on anonymous calls alone, even in claims of abuse.

If a kid is interacting with many mandatory reporters and no one has made a report, there's all the more reason for the police to exercise caution if a call comes in, and there are many avenues of investigation other than the search warrant if when the police go to the door they can't establish exigent circumstances.

In this YFZ case, all the usual and additional methods of establishing probable cause are limited and there are no mandatory reporters, so figuring out how to proceed is really hard. If "everybody" suspects polygamy and child abuse, why would it rightly come down to the phone call to prompt the raid? And, if it is as I hope, that there is additional evidence, I'd rather see that evidence as the basis for the warrant rather than the problematic phone call.

Similar action based only on similar phone calls would create civil rights issues.

[GeekyPenguin]

I'm wondering if they got a warrant because it wasn't like they could go onto the door of the ranch - it's not like the ranch is your normal 4bed/2bath home in a subdivision where they can pull up and knock on the door.

Also, if they feared the woman calling being harmed, they could argue "exigent circumstances" and could possibly enter without a warrant.

I'm not at all saying that I agree with warrantless searches or searches with warrants that lack proper foundation - I'm going to be spending most of my life arguing against it. I also think that if I were a cop in a situation who got that call, I'd probably get a warrant and head out ASAP.

[DeltAlum]

The following is a quote from an Associated Press story quoted in AOL News. Since it's on AOL, I don't think I can link to the whole article:

"A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant."

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The following is a quote from an Associated Press story quoted in AOL News. Since it's on AOL, I don't think I can link to the whole article:

"A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant."

For complete story line:
Most teen girls from ranch have been pregnant

Of 53 girls ages 14-17, 31 have children or are pregnant, Texas officials say
SAN ANTONIO - More than half the teen girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday.
A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. Two of those are pregnant now, he said; it was unclear whether either of those two already have children.
"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24356447/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352966,00.html

[Thetagirl218]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

The following is a quote from an Associated Press story quoted in AOL News. Since it's on AOL, I don't think I can link to the whole article:

"A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant."

This made me want to cry and be sick to my stomach at the same time! I am 21, and there are girls in that camp who I am sure have had multiple children!

Being a High School teacher this just makes me shudder to think that these kids are the same age as most of my students!

They should be living and enjoying their childhood, not being forced into marriages, raped, and forced to have children at such a young age!