Full Text RSS
Email UpdatesThe raid and seizure of over 400 children from a Polygamist cult in Texas got me thinking. First let me say that I do not condone the beliefs or actions of these cult members. I simply want to share some thoughts these events have triggered and I’d like your comments.
- I was unaware that child protective services could seize children from their parents without evidence of abuse. If what I understand about this case is accurate, the government received an anonymous call from a female claiming to be a 16 year old victim of this cult. It now appears this call was fraudulent. A single unsubstantiated call gave the government probable cause to seize over 400 children from over 100 families. I must restate… I don’t like this cult… but regardless of that… does this mean that a single unsubstantiated anonymous phone call could lead the government to seize your children? Doesn’t that seem wrong to you? Shouldn’t the burden of evidence be upon the state? Shouldn’t there be some proof?
- These mothers were not legally married to the men who fathered their children, so technically they were single mothers who drew welfare benefits from the State of Texas. It also appears that no one in this cult was employed in the traditional sense. So the taxpayers of Texas have been funding this cult for years? Isn’t this a case of the state creating (or at least perpetuating) the problem? Wouldn’t this cult have gone bust without government funding? Instead of using police force, why not cut off funding? Or prosecute them for welfare fraud?
- One more time… I don’t condone polygamous marriages, but I must ask an important question. In our modern “loose” society, how can we criminalize this behavior? For example, I’ve met unmarried men who have three children from three different women. I’ve also met women who have three children from three different men. Why is it legal for some people to behave this way and illegal for others? It’s illegal if you have multiple sex partners as a matter of religious principle, but legal if you do it as a matter of casual promiscuity. Doesn’t that seem horribly inconsistent? Wilt Chamberlain claims to have had sex with 20,000 women, yet if he married two of them at the same time, even with their knowledge and consent, he’d be a criminal. So you can legally have casual sexual relations with as many people as you wish but if you make a commitment to more than one of them, you’re a felon? Can anyone explain this? I sure can’t.
I learned about this case listening to Ian and Mark at Free Talk Live who are being attacked for asking similar questions. I’m glad they are there. Someone needs to ask tough questions, even about weirdos.
Update:
As I expected, I have gotten some serious hate mail and I am being attacked in social media because of this post. I guess that’s what happens when people perceive you to be defending the indefensible. I am not defending these people. I am questioning the actions of the state. There is a difference you know.
I want to point out to those of you who think I am nuts, that right here in Minnesota we have two major immigrant populations who practice widespread polygamy and child marriage. So I ask you who are insulting me, should Minnesota CPS also remove all the children en mass from all the homes of these immigrants based upon their cultural and religious practices? Or would it be better to treat it on a case by case basis like we do now? I prefer case by case because it passes constitutional muster.
Answers based on a friend in Utah (where this story has gotten a TON of press for some reasons…)
1) the founder of this cult Warren Jeffs) has been under investigation for quite some time. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to jail for rape, rape as an accomplice, incest and sexual conduct with a minor. Basically he is a sexual predator. As a result, the other male members of his cult were under scrutiny.
2) There is probably a case for welfare fraud to be made here. Since the mothers were eligible under current law, the only way that the state could have stopped funding them and the cult would have been to change Texas Welfare laws and we all know how easily THAT will happen.
3) polygamy laws have been on the books for as long as the LDS church has been around (this cult is an offshoot of the LDS church which is why the Utah press has been so invested in this case). The only way Utah was allowed to become a state was for the LDS church to renounce the polygamy teachings of Brigham Young. A case could be made if you wanted for repealing those laws if that is your thing, but meanwhile the laws still on the books as of today.
LL
Comment by The Lady Logician April 26th, 2008 @ 5:16 am
LL,
I am not suggesting that polygamy laws should be overturned or that Jeffs isn’t a pervert.
My point is that if they (the government) can seize your children because of an unsubstantiated anonymous phone call, doesn’t that bother you? If they can do it here, can’t they do it to anywhere? Or do we just trust the government not to abuse this power and only use it on the fringes of society? People say “I don’t care about these freaks. Lock them up.” Fine, but what if you are the accused? What is in place to prevent that? The fact that they can just show up and take my children and I have to prove I am not abusing them scares me.
Isn’t this a clear case for changing welfare laws? Isn’t the government complicit and liable for this abuse? Can’t one say, in this case (and many others) that the government subsidized child abuse?
And, if this lifestyle is sick (which I think it is), why does our society seem to condone other forms of the same behavior?
Comment by The Savage April 26th, 2008 @ 6:32 am
As I said - this did not “start” with a single anonymous call….it started with a rape conviction in Utah. From there the investigation turned to the YFZ Ranch. The police were working on getting multiple warrants based on the Utah case. Then they got the call and they thought there was probable cause to go in earlier.
I agree that this is a clear case for changing welfare laws. It is one of many! While you are technically correct in stating that the government was “subsidizing” the child abuse, there is still the whole personal responsibility issue to deal with. The individuals engaged in the illegal activity are ultimately responsible for their own actions, aren’t they?
LL
Comment by The Lady Logician April 26th, 2008 @ 6:52 am
LL,
I haven’t heard this anywhere else.
Do you have a source? It is my understanding that no men were arrested. Only the children were taken.
I am not the only one questioning this. There are some mainstream professionals raising legal questions about this mass government seizure of children. This has never been done before, and that is the problem. If it is allowed to stand, it sets a legal precedent allowing the government to seize children en mass with virtually no evidence.
The government usually attempts this type of tactic against groups who are indefensible, meaning no sane person wants to defend them. But if the legal precedent is set they can use the same tactics against anyone.
Watch out… there is a significant percentage of Americans who believe homeschooling is child abuse, and most of them work for the government. I’ve even talked to Republicans who believe homeschooling is kooky and people should be forced to send their kids to government schools. I would guess that “forced” would mean having your children taken from you and given to someone else who would send them to government school.
The FLDS child custody situation in Texas could have serious consequences for anyone who does not have “mainstream” beliefs.
At the very least… every mother… every father… every child… every family… should be able to make their case separately in a court of law. That is not happening in this case and it is frightening. The entire group is being treated as a single legal entity.
Comment by The Savage April 26th, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
http://www.amw.com/fugitives/capture.cfm?id=33750
Also for a really good indepth site with news coverage of the whole story go to http://www.ksl.com. My SLC friends say that is the best coverage of the whole story.
The larger part of the story was the conspiracy, child abuse and rape charges.
I agree that there is much in this case that is problematic, however there is also much in this case that is not known outside of the LDS community.
I also agree that there are a lot of reasons why parents (especially homeschooling parents) should be concerned, but I don’t think that this is necessarily one of them.
LL
Comment by The Lady Logician April 27th, 2008 @ 7:02 am