The *official* FLDS thread.

[Sylvia727]

But until a court of LAW not public opinion and public lynchmobs, declare them to be guilty of a crime they are not criminals or rapists or whatever you amy want to call them.

I have to disagree with this statement. If I rape someone, I become a rapist at that moment and I continue to be a rapist until the day I die. If I murder someone, I am a murderer then and forever. A court of law is trying to divine the truth, not write it. If a jury finds me innocent, the blood is not washed from my hands. It's not like getting a marriage annulled.

Innocent until proven guilty is meant to protect citizens from being accused of a crime, not deny the existance of a crime. So far, no one in this thread has said, "John Doe raped Jane Smith." I think it's been fairly well established that men over the age of consent had sex with women under the age of consent, and that's what we're discussing. Almost certainly, some of the men on that ranch are innocent. And almost certainly, some of the men on that ranch are guilty. Sorting out specifics is what the courts are trying to do now.

If my comments read as "All the men of that church should be burned at the stake," then I apologize. That is not what I've been trying to communicate. But I do believe that the courts are going to find some or most of those men guilty of statutory rape. If they don't - if the law finds all of them innocent - I can still believe that a crime was commited, I just can't do anything about it. How many people believe that OJ is guilty?

Many of the 'adult' women would be there 'of their own free choice' - even if it is a form of brainwashing (and let's face it - any religion which a person adheres to becomes a form of brainwashing if it dictates to you about what you should or have to believe). The children - yeah, ok.. that's a bit different..

But only a bit. If I should have kids () I would want them to be brought up with similar beliefs as mine (and since I look around and see how my beliefs fit in with the way the universe seems to work, cool...). I imagine that most parents would want the same for their kids. The parents in that place are doing the same - it just happens that their beliefs are somewhat more...'extreme' than what we normally encounter.

If a woman joined that church after reaching the age of majority, then it should be treated like any other abusive relationship. The law stays out of her life until she asks for help. We can't judge anyone's private life. We can't judge her limits and assume that she doesn't want this lifestyle, even if we find it degrading and inhumane. How many people find being whipped during sex abusive? Or find collars and harnesses degrading? As a private citizen, if I see a woman with a black eye, I'll ask if she needs help - but when she says no, I have to respect that, and allow her control of her own life.

The overage women who genuinely were abused and who want help could have some trouble getting it, though. They'll have trouble proving rape, because if they were overage and married, their husbands have no overt reason to assume that they're not consenting. Obviously if she says no or if he drags her into the bed, then it's rape, but some of the members of this church could find themselves in the unique position where the woman was raped, but the man didn't rape her. If she didn't consent, then she was raped, but if he thought she consented, then he didn't rape her.

If a woman reached the age of majority after joining the church, then that's a bit of a moral gray area in my mind. Only a bit, because she's still an adult and is still presumed to have control of her life. However, the statute of limitations says that a crime commited against when she was a child can still be prosecuted, and at that point in time she was not presumed to be in control of her own life. Hence the moral ambiguity. In that situation, I think there are no easy answers. Our system failed to protect her.

But there is no ambiguity about what is (allegedy) done to the underage girls in that community. Those men can't claim religion as an excuse, either. As citizens of this country, they are obliged to follow the laws. No one's making them stay here if they don't like it. Personally, I like living in a country where the citizens are protected from injury.

And before anyone claims religious persecution for the preceding paragraph, let me say that there has to be a limit to religious freedom somewhere. If my religion obligates me to sacrifice babies to Satan, I can't practice that aspect of my religion in the USA. If my religion obligates me to murder heretics, I can't practice that aspect of my religion in the USA. If my religion obligates me to rape little girls ... I still can't practice that aspect of my religion in the USA.

The definition of statutory rape is outdated, but that's an entirely different rant.

How much tolerance should be tolerated?

As much as it doesn't violate the laws of a country. Or to look at it in another light, as long as it's done between consenting adults. You want to tie your lover up and smack him with a riding crop? Get his permission first. You want to keep your wife at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen? Get her permission first. Just because it's not a lifestyle I would choose doesn't mean it's not a valid choice. So long as the women on that ranch have a choice, then it's fine. I don't believe that they do, but until they say they don't, I have to assume that they do.

[Seshat]

I agree in the main with what Sylvia has said. I also go a step further.

Children raised in that sort of environment, raised in ignorance of the laws of the greater society they're in, will grow up believing that that behaviour is normal.

When they become adults by our standards, they won't suddenly become aware of our rules or laws or standards of behaviour.

Morally, I believe that the women and men who grew up there are victims - even the men who got married and were given their own child-brides to rape. They were probably taught it was normal for their brides to cry and struggle - presuming they did. The girls would have been taught that what they were about to go through was normal, and probably prepared for it as best their older female peers could. They might not have struggled or fought or given any clear signs of non-consent.

Morally, those men are also rapists, of course. They're just both rapists and victims. I'm certain they have all sorts of psychological and psychiatric problems, not to mention the social problems they'll have adjusting to the world outside their compound walls.

Tending to the victims - all the victims - is going to be a huge strain. And some will not get what they need. I have a great deal of sympathy not only for the victims, but for the social support services of Texas and whichever neighbouring states offer help.

[Slytovhand]

I had a thought reading the responses here....

What if, according to the beliefs of that religions (whether indoctrinated or not - which will always be in question - personally I would say it is...), then the women should be subservient to the men (which does apply in some religions... personally... sod that!!!!) - in that case, is it rape?? She is effectively 'consenting' to it, by giving away her responsibility...


Second thought... If there is a God up there, and that God has said XYZ - in that case, where to mere human laws fit? Especially in situations where XYZ violates human laws? There would be an imperative to break the human laws for the divine ones? (just hypothetical at the moment, to separate from the psychiatric situations for now...). As one example, it was only a few years ago that it was illegal to perform witchcraft in Queensland (or to be a witch). Naturally, there were a few who broke that law...


Slyt

[Seshat]

What if, according to the beliefs of that religions <snip> then the women should be subservient to the men <snip> - in that case, is it rape?

If she gives informed consent, it is not rape. If she does not, it is.

Her reasons for the consent are none of my business, so long as she's not under duress.

Second thought... If there is a God up there, and that God has said XYZ - in that case, where to mere human laws fit? Especially in situations where XYZ violates human laws? There would be an imperative to break the human laws for the divine ones?

As has been said before in this thread: if your religious laws contradict the social laws of the society you're in, move to a nation where they don't. Especially if what you're intending to do for your religious reasons affects another human being.

If we don't follow those rules, we open the door for situations like the Spanish Inquisition, or the Taliban, or a whole lot of other 'my religion requires me to convert you to it, forcibly if necessary' behaviour. Or even 'my religion requires me to kill anyone who isn't a member of it'.

If we're going to be civilised, we cannot permit divine law to override secular law. Unfortunately, history has proven that too many times.

(Divine laws like 'thou shalt speak nicely to thy neighbour' or 'thou shalt not eat the meat of animal-X' are no problem, of course.)

[rahmota]

If we're going to be civilised, we cannot permit divine law to override secular law. Unfortunately, history has proven that too many times.

Of course the flip side of that is that secular law must also respect and recognize as well as acknowledge personal individual religious beliefs even if they are not popular or ones that are commonly acceptable. ie anything that isnt anglo-saxon protestant "christian" in this nation.

So long as it involves willing and consenting adults, be it consent by fiat for accepting and living according to that religion or a signed and notarized statement of permission, then the actions taken in that religion to their members is not the government's business.

For example a religion that has its members ingest a hallucinogenic substance to have a vision quest to get near their god shoudl not be told they cannot do so.

A religion that involves its members beating and abusing their bodies with whips, scourges or other torture devices while strange should not be interfered with by the government.

A religion that belives in polyamourous or otherwise practices somethig other than non-1woman/1 man monogamous relationships is not doing anythign wrong and defiantely should not be interfered with by the government.
Also the age of consent and statutory rape is rather arbitrary and needs to be more appropriately addressed or removed but you are right that is for another thread.

If my religion obligates me to murder heretics, I can't practice that aspect of my religion in the USA.

You should be able to if you could get permission from the heretics to let you kill them. Then they would be consenting adults and you could kill them. At least in a morally correct and proper world.

if your religious laws contradict the social laws of the society you're in, move to a nation where they don't.

Which lessons the value of that indivudal country which in the worst case scenario leads to theocratic governments such as the taliban (even in the name of jesus christ the christian taliban would be a bad thing) qand would probably lead to total global armageddon if the only coutries there where where ones where religious intolerance towards anyone who didnt agree with your chosen faith was the law.

Government owes its people more respect than they owe their government. Especially in actions where the rights, powers or lives of the individual are usurped without proof of wrongdoing. The way Texas CPS and all invaded the compound and siezed all the kids and women and are treating them like they are prisoners of war (keeping parents from their children is a crime against humanity) is rather sick and sad. Almost as sick and sad as the lives they where being "rescued" from. This is an ugly no win scenario where both sides have lost honor.

What if, according to the beliefs of that religions (whether indoctrinated or not - which will always be in question - personally I would say it is...), then the women should be subservient to the men

According to the Christian Bible women are to be subservient to their husbands in all regards. This means that according to the Christian faith and the christian bible women are not allowed to say no to their husbands in any regards and the husband can force sexual congress upon a woman and under christian bible law she is the one who is at fault and has to atone for the sin of disobedience and disrespect to her husband. I think its leveticus which is old testament and not taught as much in most churches but there are still fundie christian faiths that stress the importance of the woman obeying the husband in ALL regards including not being allowed to say no in the bedroom.

[Sylvia727]

A religion that belives in polyamourous or otherwise practices somethig other than non-1woman/1 man monogamous relationships is not doing anythign wrong and defiantely should not be interfered with by the government.

The issue you're going to run into on this one is tax breaks. Polyamorous marriage was not part of this society at the time the laws on marriage were established, so some major reconstruction is required. And a few years after that goes into effect, divorce law will go through a similiar upheaval. And then legal guardianship of children. But I agree with you in theory.

You should be able to if you could get permission from the heretics to let you kill them. Then they would be consenting adults and you could kill them. At least in a morally correct and proper world.

But then it wouldn't be murder, it would be euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Which lessons the value of that indivudal country

<snip>

the only coutries there where where ones where religious intolerance towards anyone who didnt agree with your chosen faith was the law.

If a country's laws on religion are too strict, and they have a relaxed emigration policy (or their neighbors have a relaxed political refugees policy), then the problem will solve itself. All the open-minded people will leave, and the only ones left will be hateful bigots. Meanwhile, all the enlightened countries who allow for freedom of religion will prosper, assuming that they can support their immigrant population.

It may very well lessen the value of that country. I certainly think it would. But to the closed-minded radical, this country is paradise. How pleasant for them to live in a community where no one ever disagrees with them or challenges their thinking.

"My way or the highway" is only a restrictive policy in countries with restrictive laws. In the USA, we do have freedom of religion, and we're working to improve its application to real life. I don't think our laws are too restrictive. While we are predominantly Christian, it's not all end-all and be-all. In fact, out of the ten commandments, only two are laws and two more are principles of government. (Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal are laws, and honor thy parents and thou shalt not bear false witness are upheld in other codes of conduct.)

The way Texas CPS and all invaded the compound and siezed all the kids and women and are treating them like they are prisoners of war (keeping parents from their children is a crime against humanity) is rather sick and sad.

The cops got a 911 call for help, which is why they entered the compound. What they saw there gave them reason to believe that most or all of those children were being systematically abused or were in grave danger of abuse. Danger to the children is more important than the rights of the compound owners. They followed correct procedure, and I don't see anything questionable about their actions.

Keeping children from their parents is only a crime against humanity if they don't have reasonable doubts about the children's safety. Ever read A Child Called It? There's a scene where Dave's abusive mother gets visitation with him in the foster home and bullies him into recanting. Psychiatrists agree that if abuse has occured, letting the abuser back near the victim is damaging to the victim's mental health and can put them even farther back.

Why do you say that the women and children are being treated like POWs? I haven't any allegations to this effect. This article says that they are providing

meals, water, showers, restroom facilities, toiletries, security, medical facilities, transportation, toys and supplies — "things we think will make life better for them in the shelter."

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I genuinely want to know your reasons for this belief, as it does affect the situation.

According to the Christian Bible women are to be subservient to their husbands in all regards.

Most denominations understand the Bible is a collection of ancient documents that need to be filtered through cultural norms of the time. Some don't, I know, but as long as those women give informed consent I can't interfere. If a woman believes that God wants her to obey her husband in all things, then she should have the right to obey her husband in all things. If a person believes that God wants them to give 10% of their money to their church and not work on Sundays, then they should have the right to give away their money and not work on Sundays.

As long as their freedoms don't impinge on the freedoms of anyone else, I don't care. If a man believes that God wants him to dominate his wife, but he fails to obtain her informed consent, then he does not have the right to dominate his wife. For that matter, if a woman consents and then changes her mind, he has to stop. I see this scene playing out in marital rape. If she says no, then stop, no matter if she's given consent prior to this. (Assuming there's no safeword, of course.)

[rahmota]

The issue you're going to run into on this one is tax breaks. Polyamorous marriage was not part of this society at the time the laws on marriage were established, so some major reconstruction is required. And a few years after that goes into effect, divorce law will go through a similiar upheaval. And then legal guardianship of children. But I agree with you in theory.

Well the tax laws need revised anyhow. Flat tax can reduce everythign down to a 3 lines of tax laws. How much did you make? what is 15% of that.
Pay that much. And so society gets an overhaul it needs one anyhow. Amerika needs an enema.

But then it wouldn't be murder, it would be euthanasia or assisted suicide.

And so? End result is the same just change the name. It all depends really on your point of view.

In the USA, we do have freedom of religion, and we're working to improve its application to real life. I don't think our laws are too restrictive.

Really? While we may have the theoretical supposition that freedom of religion is a part of this country historically anyone who wasent a standard judeo-chritian has been persecuted, hunted down and forced to convert or keep their beliefs hidden. Punishment for not being christian has been a common problem for many citizens of this country. As for other countries well thats their problem. I'm not a citizen of another coutry I'm an american so I deal with american issues first and then sort the rest of the world out later. Cant clean someone else's house if yours isnt clean first.

And as for our laws not being too restrictive. Two people who happen to be of the same gender but love each other and want to commit to each other their lives cannot legally get married in most of the states in the union. There are a plethora of other morality laws whose only reason for existing on the books is to promote and defend the judeo christian beliefs and persecute anyone who does not believe the same way.

The cops got a 911 call for help, which is why they entered the compound.

And I have seena couple news reports saying that the call was a hoax done so that the police would have probable cause to raid the compound.

Why do you say that the women and children are being treated like POWs?

Lets see their children where forcebly removed from the parents. The children where not permitted to see their parents. The children where being held in a coleseum, an auditorium. The state of texas is forcing paternity tests on all the parents to seperate families based only on bloodlines instead of family ties (a family is more than just blood or a piece of paper). The parents where not permitted freedom of movement. A gilded cage is still a cage.

Basically I see this and as much as I don't like the leader and some of his views, as an excuse by the state of texas and the enemies of ploygamy and anythign that isnt mainline judeo christian to go in and persecute people who do not believe the same way. Using any excuse they can to rip families apart and let the texas CPS sell these children into foster homes getting federal money for each child they sell that way. heres an interesting site to check out that talks about that and has resources for people to fight the depredations and attacks of CPS:http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html

I'm not saying that every parent on the planet is a good parent and that there arent cases where abuse or neglect exist. what I am sayign is that the government has no right to just arbitraily come in and say you are not living according to OUR standards of living and what WE think is right and punish people for not living according to "normal" values and lifestyles. The government and CPS should be strictly limited to specific scenario and the burden of proof must be held higher to remove children than it is now. Also while we are on the topic of CPS and all I dont think they should be allowed to have anonymous calls to them to turn people in as that just leads to abuse of the system. Get into a fight with someone, dont like them, they have kids? Call CPS and tell them all sorts of lies and they'll come and attack the person you hate and theres nothign they can do about it.So what if there would be a few revenge based issues maybe it would deter people from making frivolous calls out of spite or hatred or anger. Better to err on the side of families and individuals by limiting the power of government than allowing government to run roughshod over individuals and families by having too much power.

texas and their CPS have exceeded any moral high ground IMO in this and are acting like any other persecutorial nation on a religious purge and witchhunt. Regardless of if there was any abuse or neglect or anythign going on inside that compound that is for the courts to decide. Not you nor I. Calling someone a rapist if they have not been found guilty of it is not right. A person is an alleged criminal until proven guilty in a court of law. It is the foundation of our criminal justice system in this country and permeates the writings of all our founding fathers. You are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law, not publiuc opinion.

[Seshat]

Well the tax laws need revised anyhow. Flat tax can reduce everythign down to a 3 lines of tax laws. How much did you make? what is 15% of that.

Let's leave this out of it for now: it's not a tax thread. Though we could do a tax thread.

And I have seena couple news reports saying that the call was a hoax done so that the police would have probable cause to raid the compound.

If the responding officers had no knowledge that it was a hoax (if it was), they're not at fault here. If it was a hoax, the hoaxer is at fault.

Lets see their children where forcebly removed from the parents. The children where not permitted to see their parents.

Children who were in immediate danger of abuse or neglect, in the best judgement of the officers involved. And abusive parents can cause children further harm even without physical contact.

If the children weren't abused, then yes, the situation would be painful and difficult for them; but they would recover. If they were, this is a necessary stage in recovery and treatment.

It's one of those situations where there is no good way of handling it, and the bad way is only used because it's better than the worse way.

The children where being held in a coleseum, an auditorium. The state of texas is forcing paternity tests on all the parents to seperate families based only on bloodlines instead of family ties (a family is more than just blood or a piece of paper).

If there were enough resources available, the children could be housed better and there would be enough staff to sort through the children's reports of who their social-families are. This is a 'too few resources to properly handle the problem' issue, as near as I can tell from way over here.

The parents where not permitted freedom of movement. A gilded cage is still a cage.

From looking at American law/cop shows, this is one of the standard methods of handling alleged criminals.

It may not be a good thing, but it's not a specifically-targetted-at-these-people thing.

Basically I see this <snip> as an excuse by the state of texas and the enemies of ploygamy and anythign that isnt mainline judeo christian to go in and persecute people who do not believe the same way.

I don't. This is too big, and there are too many people involved and too many journalists running around. If it turns out that none of the children were actually being married to the men, that will come out sooner or later.

It'd be horrific publicity for Texas and the CPS; and hoaxes and conspiracies of that order are just the sort of thing that journalists love to track down. If it's a conspiracy, it's a really inept one.

Using any excuse they can to rip families apart and let the texas CPS sell these children into foster homes getting federal money for each child they sell that way. heres an interesting site to check out that talks about that and has resources for people to fight the depredations and attacks of CPS:http://cpsvictims.tripod.com/id4.html

That's more possible to me than a vast conspiracy. However, I think the most likely situation is overworked, under-resourced organisations facing a huge problem and not being sure how to cope.

what I am sayign is that the government has no right to just arbitraily come in and say you are not living according to OUR standards of living and what WE think is right and punish people for not living according to "normal" values and lifestyles.

I agree. But my understanding here is that the responding officers saw evidence of actual harm being done to the children. Not difference, but harm.

The government and CPS should be strictly limited to specific scenario and the burden of proof must be held higher to remove children than it is now.

Which is worse: taking children from their parents for a few days to determine whether the responding officer is correct, or leaving children in an abusive situation where the parents have just received one of their likely triggers to further abuse the child?

It's a 'bad choice/worse choice' situation. The standard CPS response is to take the bad choice, not the worse choice.

Also while we are on the topic of CPS and all I dont think they should be allowed to have anonymous calls to them to turn people in as that just leads to abuse of the system.<snip>So what if there would be a few revenge based issues

So speaks the man who is capable of defending himself.

Now think about me: remember, I'm already disabled. If I see a case of a person who I know to be violent and hair-trigger, who is already battering his/her spouse and children, should I be put in a situation where I'm too damn scared to report it?

I haven't a hope in hell of defending myself against an able-bodied abusive drunk. Capsicum spray is more likely to disable me than the drunk (even sprayed away from me, the small amount that comes my way due to wind would send me into an allergic response). A tens unit often doesn't work on a drunk, so I'm told. And I'm already depressive: don't give me a gun.

Got any ideas?

Regardless of if there was any abuse or neglect or anythign going on inside that compound that is for the courts to decide. Not you nor I.

And my understanding is that the people involved are being held in the standard manner for the US justice system, pending the court's decision.

If you don't like that standard manner: you're a US citizen. Go ahead and lobby for change.

Calling someone a rapist if they have not been found guilty of it is not right. A person is an alleged criminal until proven guilty in a court of law.

If you can find an instance where any officer of the US justice system has called any of these people rapists (as opposed to alleged rapists), you can take the evidence to the appropriate body and have that officer punished for it, or even disbarred or whatever the term is.

If it's journalists doing it, their professional organisation would like to hear about it.

(Note that saying 'this girl was raped' is fine. If medical examination proves that she had sex, and she's underage, she was raped by legal definition.)

If it's members of the public, of course, then all I know of that you can do is correct them.

It is the foundation of our criminal justice system in this country and permeates the writings of all our founding fathers. You are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law, not public opinion.

And how is public opinion the fault of the state of Texas?

[rahmota]

Let's leave this out of it for now: it's not a tax thread. Though we could do a tax thread.

Agreed just showing how easy it would be to fix the tax laws in this country. Hell give me a big enough bottle of white out and I could reduce the law library in thsi country down to a handful of paperbacks and still have this country running better than ever.

Children who were in immediate danger of abuse or neglect, in the best judgement of the officers involved.

Police officers are trained to see crimes. So they have a nasty tendency to use the if all I have is a hammer then the world is full of nails approach to things. ie they can be a little bit blind to any other approach or situation than this is not the way thigns should be there cannot be any grey area so i will call it a crime and start treating peopel like criminals.

taking children from their parents for a few days to determine whether the responding officer is correct, or leaving children in an abusive situation where the parents have just received one of their likely triggers to further abuse the child?

That is making the assumption that the parents actually are abusive. It would be better to do a proper investigation leaving the children with their family. Better to err on the side of keeping families together than to needlessly rip them apart and traumatize the children. All that will do is give you children who grow up hating mistrusting the government and their agents. Not exactly a bad thig mind you as we need more people mistrusting their government but still traumatising children needlessly is not a good thing.

So speaks the man who is capable of defending himself.
<EDIT> Got any ideas?

I always got ideas. Well isnt that what dear ol hubby is for? Or other family members? Remember family takes care of family, always. That means someone try somethign against you the whole clan comes pouring in to help out. Also isnt that what the authorities are there to help with? Or close friends?

If you don't like that standard manner: you're a US citizen. Go ahead and lobby for change.

been workign on that. Common sense and reason are takign a back door to fear and hatred in american politics. Ever sicne 9/11 and king george its come out into the open. Things will probably only get worse before they can get better.

And how is public opinion the fault of the state of Texas?

I was referrign to the way a couple of the folks on here seem all too happy to hand the texas authorities a rope to let the FLDS folks learn a new dance if you get my drift.

[Seshat]

That is making the assumption that the parents actually are abusive. It would be better to do a proper investigation leaving the children with their family. Better to err on the side of keeping families together than to needlessly rip them apart and traumatize the children.

It's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. If the parents aren't abusive and you take the children, you've upset the family and possibly traumatised the children.

If the parents are abusive and you don't take the children, the family might flee. Or worse, the parents are likely to physically abuse the children (even if they didn't do so before), and you end up with injured, or even permanently mutilated or dead children.

I always got ideas. Well isnt that what dear ol hubby is for? Or other family members? Remember family takes care of family, always. That means someone try somethign against you the whole clan comes pouring in to help out. Also isnt that what the authorities are there to help with? Or close friends?

My husband would try, but he's not especially well off physically himself. And I don't have many close friends; nor a clan of family. So yeah, I'd be basically depending on the police.

This is another case where your rural-US-South experience differs from my urban-Australian experience.

been workign on that.

Good.

I was referrign to the way a couple of the folks on here seem all too happy to hand the texas authorities a rope to let the FLDS folks learn a new dance if you get my drift.

I do. Me: I don't know what's happened, I'll never know what's happened. But I have a tendancy to assume that most folks are just plain folks trying to do the best they know how.

[rahmota]

It's one of those damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situations. If the parents aren't abusive and you take the children, you've upset the family and possibly traumatised the children.

I'd rather take the chance and leave the kids. Too many times people have abused the system just to get revenge on the other parent in a divorce for getting custody (my cowife. Her ex husband called CPS on her at least 3 times a month just to get her in trouble after their divorce. She finally had to get a lawyer and sue both CPS and her exhusband to get them to stop. CPS didnt care or find it suspcious that the same person kept calling on the same person. They dont care.)

My husband would try, but he's not especially well off physically himself. And I don't have many close friends; nor a clan of family. So yeah, I'd be basically depending on the police.
This is another case where your rural-US-South experience differs from my urban-Australian experience.

Wow that sucks that you'd have to rely soley on the police. Thats almost as bad as not having nothign at all.
Yeah you are right. I have an extended family clan that is ready at a moment to help out. I mean judas my exstepson has to watch his step and there are parts of the county he cannot go or he will get his face pounded in rightfully so.

Anyhow I dont think there is much else to say here as this is drifting off into other areas outside the FLDS topic.

[Sylvia727]

Seshat's making most of the arguments I would, so I won't respond to earlier posts.

I'd rather take the chance and leave the kids. Too many times people have abused the system just to get revenge on the other parent in a divorce for getting custody.

I'm sorry you had this experience with the CPS. I had the exact opposite experience. I went to CPS with evidence of my abuse. Witnesses, hospital records, psyciatric records, criminal records of my abuser, my abuser's testimony that he tortured a cat to death ... and they didn't care. Worse, one of them tried to tell me that I was a liar, and hormonally unstable. Unstable? Well, yes, that's what my shrink has been trying to tell you. CPS was worse than useless in my case, and if not for my mother I'd probably be dead by now.

I'd rather take the chance and take the kids. It's been years since my sperm donor left my life, and I still have nightmares about what he did to me. This is not an easy situation. It is not going to be resolved easily, or painlessly. But CPS should not be taking chances with children's health and mental stability.

When I was 12, if I'd been rescued by CPS, I would have asked to go back. That's how I was trained. "Daddy loves me, and it's my fault he gets angry. I deserve to be punished by him." Pick up any book on child abuse or domestic abuse and you will read the same themes, over and over again.

Assuming these kids have been abused, they need to be protected from their abusers and from their training. And at this point, it's gone on long enough that I think we would have seen evidence that no one was abused or raped.

As far as family protecting their own ... I'm two thousand miles away from my family. I have some friends, but I've only been in this city for a few months, so I don't have a strong support system. I'm relying solely on the police for protection. There are a lot of people in similiar situations.

[rahmota]

I'm sorry you had this experience with the CPS.

Sad thing is I am not the only one who has had this experience. The locla CPS office is as far as I know still under investigation from the state attorney generals office for wrong doing and last year had several people get fired for rights violations and abuse of their power. I managed to get one placed on suspension and her contract not renewed this year because of the way she violated mine and my families civil and legal rights. but I had to go to court to get our rights recognized.

Around here CPS is one of the most vile, repugnant and evil organizations you can imagine and no one in their right minds goes to them of their own free will. They do not help people. they do not care about extenuating circumstances or limited funds. If you are not able to provide for your family in the manner in whcih they declare you must. If you are not able to live your life according to their guidelines then they declare you an unfit parent and work to try and remove your children.

I mean the bitch that tried to get my wife declared an unfit mother came flat out and said (fortunately I had a recording of this) that "well if you're disabled then you shouldnt have children. You should have seen the judge when the recording was played in court. He was probably going to throw the gavel at the witch for it.

But CPS should not be taking chances with children's health and mental stability.

No they shouldnt. Not without definate and firm proof of wrongdoing. Everythign I have seen on the news right now is conflicting and unclear as to what sort of proof the government has or had for goin in there the way they did.

As far as family protecting their own ... I'm two thousand miles away from my family. I have some friends, but I've only been in this city for a few months, so I don't have a strong support system. I'm relying solely on the police for protection. There are a lot of people in similiar situations.

Which is a sad and disgusting comment on how fucked up this country has become. Familiy should always take care of family no matter what else. Unfortunately our soceity has replaced trusting the family aand trusting the friends and trusting in our own self reliance with trusting in the authorities and the CPS and other outside agencies to the point where for the most part many people cannot take care of themselves or have anyone truely trustworthy to rely on. A sad thign indeed for amerika.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

No they shouldnt. Not without definate and firm proof of wrongdoing. Everythign I have seen on the news right now is conflicting and unclear as to what sort of proof the government has or had for goin in there the way they did.

That's because it's on the news, Rahmota. Number one, the news doesn't have access to all the documents and such that show what the government found. Number two, the news is not interested in the truth, they are interested in ratings. If CPS did not have sufficient cause to go in there, it will come out in the court proceedings. So far the judge has not struck anything down or ordered CPS to send the children back, which tells me they have quite a bit of evidence of wrong-doing they were able to show the judge.

Familiy should always take care of family no matter what else. Unfortunately our soceity has replaced trusting the family aand trusting the friends and trusting in our own self reliance with trusting in the authorities and the CPS and other outside agencies to the point where for the most part many people cannot take care of themselves or have anyone truely trustworthy to rely on. A sad thign indeed for amerika.

I don't understand why you think that modern society has done this. In past times, certain families were just as untrustworthy as some are today. The difference was that victims of those families had nowhere else to turn to, as there were no violence shelters or organized police. People with supportive, helpful families do tend to rely on them, but not everyone is that lucky. Some people are orphans---they have no family. Some people have left families afflicted with abuse. Some people have been cast out of families because they are disabled and required expensive care, or they did not agree with their family's beliefs. Some people are simply forgotten about by their families. These situations have existed since there were families, and they are a lot mroe common than you think.

[rahmota]

Some people are simply forgotten about by their families. These situations have existed since there were families, and they are a lot mroe common than you think.

Maybe I think we're getting into regional/cultural differences again. While there have been all those things yes. Around here the clans (witha C not a K. Meanign the extended family of aunts, uncles, cousins etc...) have a natural tendency to take in and help those of their family or decent strangers or lost waifs depending on the situation that need it. At least they used to. Even that is fallign apart now a days.

So far the judge has not struck anything down or ordered CPS to send the children back, which tells me they have quite a bit of evidence of wrong-doing they were able to show the judge.

Either that or they have a judge in their pocket that doesnt care.