Polygymy Raid Based on Hoax?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by madanthonywayne, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I've heard some bad stuff about foster care. If 1% of those stories are true the kids should be taken out of foster care and, um, ..............? That's a tough one.

    Anyway, I just don't like the idea of the government swooping in a grabbing all the kids. It seems like gestapo tactics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Actually the investigation must be carried out in a timely manner. You'll notice how quickly the court dates have been coming on 417 cases right now. So your point is bogus.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    So Jefferies the convicted molester raised the age? No, i am pretty sure i heard it correctly that he lowered the age to 16 and was looking to lower it to 14. That is what this woman said, well it is easy enough to find out but they (FLDS or whatever they are called) have been around for hundreds of years with no problems before.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Well, some kids fall through the cracks in Foster care and when it is dicovered it is rectified. Abuse in foster care however is less than one percent of the homes. it just seems like more becuase it is a nice cliche for televison.

    As for your other complaint, would you rather the kids were left in an abusive home? Kids have died in the care of a parent who knew they were being investigated for child abuse. One such case in Michigan back in 1999.
     
  8. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Heh, if by hundreds you mean two or three, maybe as many as four and by no problems you mean cuaght up in conspiracy after conspiracy, yeah sure.

    Jefferies might have been nailed for having sex with a minor, but it doensl;t change the fact that the majority of women who have left the sect have agreed that the marriage age was <16 more than a decade ago. It might have been raised and then lowered again, or the woman you were refering to might have been lying out her teeth.
     
  9. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Have children died in the care of this group? Were their lives at risk? If so, then yes, remove the children. But I hadn't heard that was the case.
     
  10. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Do you want to take the chance that the men won't decide to silence the ones that they have been molesting? You are a little too cavalier with a childs life for my taste, and I daresay the taste of most humans. It won't hurt the children to be interviewed and stay away form their parents a few days while matters are settled.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2008
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    T.W, you are getting too emotional to be rational. For one thing these were marriages to 16 year olds. AFAIK there was no more abuse of children under that age than you see in society and probably\possibly less. Maybe there never even was any. Do you have any links that state otherwise?

    I dont agree with their lifestyle and personally i think people should get married after even 20 but the other day i was talking to a woman who had been with her husband since she was 15, would you like me to investigate her too? She is now over 30 and has a few kids.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2008
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    What colour issue? What colour am I meant to be supporting here John?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    From what I understand of this case, the mothers were allowed to go with their children, and the majority of them did.

    The issue of the search and removal of the children, precipitated by the fake phone call will be the main problem for the authorities. But unless they knew before they raided the compound that the call was fake, it can be argued that the raid was made in good faith.

    I also understand that some of the children will be placed in foster care? And DNA tests have also been carried out on all the children and the greater majority of the adults? I can assure you, if a 15 year old girl (as one example) is found to be the mother of one or more children and the father of those children ends up being one of the adult male members of that sect, then it can be assured that the raid itself was deemed a success.

    Again, didn't the mothers originally go with the children?

    The nature of this sect appears to be that it is a community and there is a risk to any child left in the compound itself. That is what I understand from what I have read in the media. At present, would you risk leaving any kids behind? Or would you attempt to place them and their mothers in other forms of accommodation while investigations are undergoing? Isn't there also some form of confusion about which child belongs to which parents, because of the nature of the sect itself?

    I really don't really care about their religious beliefs. But if there is a risk to the children in that compound, then everything should be done to ensure their safety. I don't understand why the male suspects weren't just removed in the first place.

    What gets me about this is the length of time they knew and suspected that abuse was taking place and nothing was done to investigate or remove the children until now. It's just bizarre and I suspect this will be something that will take a long time to sort out.
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    bells as for the males being removed im not actually sure thats legal. You can take the kids out of an abusive home but as far as i know you cant force one partner to leave there home in order that the kids and the non abusive parent can live there. As far as i know that would violate both OUR consitution and the US consitution (depending on where your talking about).

    In the Australian case it would violate the "just compensation" clause in the consititution

    However informing the mother or father that there partner is puting there children at risk and if they dont leave then you will have no choice but to remove the child and putting that decision to the 2 owners would be acceptable (either they split or you take the kids)
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    If the individual is a suspect, and it is better for the child to remain at home, then be removed completely from its own home environment, then the male suspect should be made to leave.. in an ideal world.
     
  15. kazakhan Registered Abuser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    915
    You said that in matters of "child protection" evidence doesn't matter and you also said "action" not investigation. So you support the removal of children from their parents on hearsay but not the incarceration of pedophiles on hearsay?
     
  16. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    As a former victim of abuse I am speaking from experience. What one person might consider rational in this case is nothing short of just plain stupidity. Yeah leave the (possible) victim in the home with the (possible) abuser. Real bright. Right up there with with having unprotected sex with a Sudanese working girl. The only way it comes out well is blind dumb luck.

    Oh, i don't mind the young marriages as I do the fact that the women are given NO CHOICE in the matter. None at all. Plus the stories of abuse that have been cropping up for decades. Finally somone decided that it was time to start and investigation and for good reason. Don't like it? Fine, then don't watch the news.

    As for the woman you talked to. If i had heard allegations and stories of abuse going on in her home of course i would investigate. I'd rather investigate a 1000 cases where nothing happened than not investigate a case where the child was being abused.
     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    kazakhan actually i said the RULES of evidence dont matter.

    Generally these investigations are concurrent with police investigations (actually make that probabbly ALWAYS) and possably with family court actions (if its because of a slit home for instance). However the police are looking for evidence a crime has been commited an the social worker is doing a risk assesment which are compleatly different things. So yes a case could be thrown out of a ciminal procidings because of the Rules of Evidence but the social worker has found enough evidence of risk for them to recomend monitoring, income management, extra help or removal (temparly or permidently). There are alot of things i dissagree with to do with manditory reporting, the first of which is we arnt alowed to tell the parents ANYTHING we suspect (even if the child tells us its someone else doing it, say a teacher, family friend ect). We cant give them a heads up before DYFS get involved which i belive is wrong (personal opinion here). However i DO agree that just because someone lies they shouldnt pack up and leave children who are assessed to be at risk in that situation

    Let me give you a better example

    Say the father in a divorce procidings says that his ex wifes partner is sexually abusing the child. This turns out to be compleatly untrue but DYFS find that the mother is getting drunk and beating the child every night

    Would you leave that child in that situation?

    Another one
    say a hospital thinks a childs broken arm is suspisious but it turns out to be legitamate when investigated but social worker finds that the single parent cant aford to feed the child. Should they be left without any surport because the claim was unsubstantiated?

    I am all for rules of evidence in a court of law. They are there for a reason and though they sometimes let guilty parties get away with there actions they also protect the inocent from being set up which is good (better 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be inprisioned ect) but that is not what removing the children is all about. Its about a proactive aproch to protect a child from a threat not a reactive investigation of a crime. Now if you want to debate what consitutes a risk then you need to find someone who works in the DYFS rather than someone who reports things to them. I dont know what sorts of evidence they use. I DO know it doesnt go on the inital complaint alone, it goes on what the social worker finds through THERE invesitigation no matter why it was started.

    If you want a legal analogy to tie it to its closer to the way the coronors court works than the way a criminal trial is run. Where YES hearsay is alowed and all the evidence is judged based on an assesment of the coronor rather than who has the best lawyer. In the end its up to the social worker to determan if a child is at risk and then to decide on the steps needed to remove that risk.

    Am i happy with this?
    Yes. To often has the goverment and the department been critisied for not doing enough to protect kids from a risk which has turned out to be justifyed


    Bells:
    I know your talking about this case in paticular but you cant protect adults from themselves. If a women or a man choses to stay in an abusive relationship you cant stop them no matter what you feel about the situation. You can only protect any children involved. Hell its been enough of a struggle to get manditory reporting for ELDER abuse let alone for domestic vilonce and even that only goes for sexual and physical abuse rather than the more common finantial, social, emotional abuses and neglect

    Also i think your ignoring the fact that sexual abuse is actually the smallest catigory of abuse. Most REALLY young children who are at risk are killed by there mothers not abused by there fathers. That fact is something that is not widely known because its not very politically correct to point it out but its true none the less. Most abuse cases are physical, emotional, social or neglect and they are equally distributed between males and females with the exception of newborns who tend to be abused by there mothers, munhousan by proxy which again tends to be the mother and sexual abuse which tends to be a male relitive or friend but is quite rarly the father. That is the infomation both the police officer (from the sexual crimes and domestic vilonce unit) and the manditory reporting trainer told us
     
  18. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Here's an update on this story, the appeals court has ruled that the state acted improperly when it seized all the children and that it needs to show that each individual child is at risk before taking custody away from the parents.
     
  19. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Gonna be funny when they sue the state and get a 100 million dollars settlement....
     
  20. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    So now the Texas Supreme Court has affirmed the appellate court's decision.
     
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I said it from the beginning. They should have consulted with me.
     

Share This Page