• Home
  • News
  • State Wrongly Removed 400 FLDS Kids, Texas Appeals Court Says

Family Law

State Wrongly Removed 400 FLDS Kids, Texas Appeals Court Says

Posted May 22, 2008 11:38 AM CST
By Martha Neil

Updated: Texas officials exceeded their authority by taking some 400 children of a religious sect from their parents at the Yearning for Zion ranch last month and putting them in foster care, a state appeals court says.

Responding to a mandamus filing by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, the Third Court of Appeals held the state's Department of Child Protective Services didn't establish that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily by taking them from their families on an emergency basis, according to KXAN, an NBC News affiliate. The families are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which reportedly advocates polygamy and marriages of teenage girls to much older men.

However, "the existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the court says in a written opinion (PDF). It applied Section 262.201 of the Texas Family Code in reaching its ruling.

Without evidence of physical danger, removing children from their homes on an emergency basis before the issue of parental custody was litigated was too extreme a measure to be permitted under the statute, the court explains.

"The danger must be to the physical health or safety to the child," the court writes. "The Department (CPS) did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty."

It also says the record doesn't show that child welfare officials made "any reasonable effort ... to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children."

Recent news coverage indicates initial reports that numerous underage teens found at the YFZ compound are or have been pregnant may have been incorrect, as discussed in a Salt Lake Tribune article today.

It wasn't clear from initial news coverage whether the court's decision applies to all of the children removed from YFZ (who numbered 468, the opinion says), or may exclude girls who have reached puberty or some members of this group.

"The appellate decision technically applies only to 38 of the roughly 200 parents who challenged the seizure. But their lawyer, Julie Balovich of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, said she expected attorneys for all the other parents to seek to join the ruling," states an Associated Press article filed later in the afternoon.

It appears from the opinion that specific evidence of sexual abuse was lacking concerning many, most or even all of the teenage FLDS girls who have reached puberty. A total of five became pregnant between age 15 and 17, the opinion says, but it cites a lack of evidence about the circumstances involved and their marital status at the time.

"The ruling directs the district court to vacate the temporary orders granting conservatorship, or custody, of the children" to the state's Department of Family and Protective Services, reports the Deseret News.

State District Judge Barbara Walther now has 10 days to do so, according to a joint article by the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.

More details about what will happen now to some 465 FLDS children in foster care in Texas are expected to be provided at a news conference this afternoon.

Additional coverage:

CNN: "Court: Texas had no right to remove polygamists' children"

New York Times: "Appeals Court Rules Against Texas in Polygamy Case"

Updated at 4:30 p.m. to include additional coverage.

Comments

1.

Davis
May 22, 2008 12:17 PM CST

I cannot beleive this!

those polygamist impregnate 15 year old girls and banish boys to make sure each man gets three wives. they call the rest of the world evil and insolate their children.

THis cult has no more right to kids or to even exist than a bunch of pedifiles. It’s a disgusting place and is wrong. I don’t care about what the law says, these polygamous men will burn in hell and their kids will suffer because they are forced into a life of fear and survitude to a false prophet.

That judge has no guts and his appeasment to these people shows why our country is falling. this isn’t about freedom of religion… it’s about pedifilia!

Flag this comment

2.

John
May 22, 2008 12:41 PM CST

Davis, all prophets are false. Your bias is disgusting.

Flag this comment

3.

Lynnae
May 22, 2008 12:49 PM CST

While I personally feel that the decision to take these kids away from there parents is the right decision, the state did not provide sufficient proof.  They should’ve built up their case better before taking action.

I just hope that if the kids get returned to their parents that the adults at the YFZ Ranch do not put them on greater “lock-down” so that if CPS did go back there with a solid case, they could be found. These kids should have the right to a safe and healthy upbringing.

Flag this comment

4.

Bemused
May 22, 2008 12:51 PM CST

It is unconstitutional to uproot and destroy families under any hearsay unless it’s a state CPS. There was no reason to do what they did. The whole thing should have been handled as a criminal matter and as such the accused would be given their Miranda Warning and evidence collected. disrupting those children’s lives over hearsay that was found to be false is what is criminal. In this country accused are still innocent until proven guilty (for the time being). If the girls are being forced into sex then build a real case and stop this unconstitutional CPS encroachment and destruction of families across the country.

Flag this comment

5.

Robert
May 22, 2008 1:16 PM CST

Pubescent girls are in danger. Polygamy is a crime.

Flag this comment

6.

True Observer
May 22, 2008 1:39 PM CST

“Polygamy is a crime.”

Crimes have specifice definitions.

Polygamy involves being legally married to someone when you or the partner are already married.

That was not the case here.

Some men were “shacking up” with other women besides their one legal wife.

This is perfectly legal.

This

Flag this comment

7.

Will
May 22, 2008 1:57 PM CST

Out of 460 children, five girls became pregnant between the ages of 15 and 17.  Just doing rough math, there were probably about 38 girls in that age group. How does this compare to the general (non-FLDS) population?  The FLDS probably has a lower incidence of teen pregnancy than the average for the State of Texas.  According to www.guttmacher.org, Texas has the 5th highest teenage pregnancy rate of any state.  The issue, of course, is whether or not these relationships were consensual, but that remains to be proven one way or the other.  We tend to leap to the conclusion that these relationships were forced, but that is not a given.

Flag this comment

8.

D. Todd Smith
May 22, 2008 4:11 PM CST

The order didn’t require the return of all 400+ kids (see http://www.texasappellatelawblog.com/2008/05/articles/final-judgments/flds-children-going-home/), but as a practical matter, that probably will be the effect.

Flag this comment

9.

Bill
May 23, 2008 6:28 AM CST

I hope this gets appealed.  The first amendment has hamstringed our society for long enough on disgusting practices.  Next thing the courts will find is that female genital mutiliation is legal because it is for religious purposes.  Why, because the crazy conservatives and whining liberals will have finally found themselves in perfect agreement.  The conservatives will believe that anything religious must be untouchable by our society and the liberals will think that we must protect and understand foreign cultures, and the more wrong and disgusting the culture is the more we will have to protect it.  The only reason that liberals (ACLU) will turn their back on the FLDS is that they are white americans.  After that, forced marriages of young girls to american muslims, oh wait, that is already happening without government intervention.

Flag this comment

10.

Andrew Rhodes
May 23, 2008 6:34 AM CST

BIGAMY is the term used for obtaining multiple spouses at the same time UNDER THE LAW.
POLYGAMY is the term used for obtaining multiple marriages at the same time THROUGH RELIGIOUS CEREMONY.

There are NO reported cases of individuals obtaining multiple legal marriage certificates.  None whatsoever.

Next, we have the issue of the actual claims. 

A caller claiming to be a 16 year girl at the ranch claimed to be abused.  The government’s solution?  Remove over 400 children, claim they were ALL abused with no facts, in fact basing the entire claim on gossip, and placing the children where they will most likely be “lost” in the system and exposed to other religious beliefs, thereby violating the Parental Rights of the children’s true Parents.

Moreover, as recently reported, many of the “child brides” no only turned out to be adults, but much older than even 20.  One having turned out to be 27 accoring to an MSNBC report.

I’m hoping Texas faces a bankrupting level of civil suits and the authorities face severe criminal charges.

Andrew

Flag this comment

11.

Skip
May 23, 2008 7:43 AM CST

I love when the government sanctions brainwashing!

Flag this comment

12.

Jade
May 23, 2008 7:54 AM CST

Ok, I don’t think they should have had more proof. When you’re worried about children in cases like this you should be able to remove them from the home. Sexual abuse is pretty serious. If someone is forced to marry and have sex with an adult as a teenager, that IS abuse. They ARE in danger.

Flag this comment

13.

Todd Rainer
May 23, 2008 9:07 AM CST

How many of us thought that CPS would NOT screw this up???

<crickets>

Flag this comment

14.

associate
May 23, 2008 11:27 AM CST

Todd,

Probably only the ones who have never seen CPS in action before.

Flag this comment

15.

John Anon
May 23, 2008 1:58 PM CST

It’s already on its way to the Texas Supremes, who ostensibly will correct the whole mess that the Third Texas Court of Appeals created.

In any event, the posters here seem to have forgotten that common law marriage is alive and well (and legal!) in Texas.  It doesn’t matter that these people never got a court clerk’s okay—the mere fact that they’re cohabitating, believe that they are married, and are holding themselves out as married makes them married, and the fact that they’re doing this with multiple wives makes them bigamists in violation of state law.

I hope the Texas Supremes reverse the lunacy of the Third CoA here—pregnancy at 13 and a culture of “marry and breed immediately at puberty” doesn’t subject children to harm?  Give me a break.

Flag this comment

16.

Walter Heiser
May 24, 2008 1:46 AM CST

Hard to believe that some of the posters here purport to be attorneys who should support the rule of law rather than the bigoted Gestapo-style tactics of the CPS. 

Let’s see:  original complaint on which the warrant was granted turned out to be a hoax caller; the allegedly “underage” brides are now down to 5 and most of those 5 may well be 17 or older—17 the age of consent in Texas—or over 16—16 the age of legal marriage in Texas with parental consent; zero physical or sexual abuse of children (other than these 5 alleged “under-aged” brides) has been found. No “abandoned” teenage boys have surfaced. 

Texas can certainly prosecute against illegal polygamy if it so chooses or charge statutory rape IF the CPS can find any child brides under the Texas legal age of 16. Either Texas lacks evidence of any of this or is it is afraid that its anti-polygamy statute won’t hold-up in a nation that allows homosexual “marriages” and widespread adultery by “monogamous” married couples. . So Texas opts for the “easy way” to stop these “immoral Mormon polygamists”—a “child abuse” witch hunt by the CPS. 

Exactly what evidence is there here that warranted removal of 400+ children—many of them infants—from their parents?  Nothing but an apparent desire by the powers in Texas to tar, feather and ride those “immoral Mormon polygamists” out of the State on a rail!  I trust that the Texas Supreme Court will quickly affirm the very correct unanimous ruling of the Third Court of Appeal.

Flag this comment

17.

J Cunyon Gordon
May 24, 2008 5:44 PM CST

I am gratified that the court had the integrity and will to overturn the order allowing the Texas CFS to remove 400 children from their parents based on allegations that may have at best applied to a few of the children.  As to those who were specified to be victims of crime, I agree that they should have been removed.  But to convert specific allegations into a broad-brush basis of “endangerment” allows the state too much power.  There is, after all, a parental right to custody of their children that should trump a notion as flimsy as endangerment.

I also applaud the legal aid lawyers who dared to represent the mothers and challenge the removal order in the first place.  Legal aid offices often get funding from the state to do their work of representing the poor, and these lawyers may have risked that funding to do what they knew was right.  Bravo to all of them.

Last weekend I found myself the sole dissenter in a group of 20 lawyers who approved of the state removing the children.  My usually rational—and liiberal—colleagues were so blinded by their disapproval of the FLDS’s beliefs and alleged practices they failed to see the state had overreached.

None of us really want the states (or the Feds for that matter)  to have the power to invade families on the basis of moral outrage, no matter how repugnant we find the actions.  Because the state found the religious beliefs to be fringe, or even loony, they disrupted those families, maligned the parents with unfounded general accusations, and removed children in some version of paternalism run amok.

What about parents who smoke cigarettes around their newborns, who leave guns unlocked in homes with teenagers, who have fully-stocked liquor cabinets and toddlers?  Those parents present a threat to the health and life of their children too.  Should the police be able to knock down doors and rescue those endangered children? God, no.

Let’s not be so hasty to accept state intrusion when we abhor the beliefs or teachings of the affected group; remember that one day they could come for you.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.