Day 2 Updates from FLDS Hearing

Trish Choate at the San Angelo paper is providing a daily log from the hearings. It's not an official transcript. IT is a good source for what's going on. If you click the link, you may get a 'page not found,' as I did when other bloggers linked to the first day's report. Just find the search box and plug in FLDS to find the new page and all their coverage of the case.

Here's the bits that interested me, thus far (my favorite has to be the psychiatrist who is making assessments about the community and the families even while admitting he gets most of his information from the media):

Under questioning, Voss says specific men in the community are suspected perpetrators of child abuse.

An attorney asks: "If the situation could be proposed that the men would leave the community and not have contact," and the same supervision provided as at the San Angelo Coliseum, would Voss be willing to allow the children to return?

No, Voss answers: "The ranch is 1,700 acres. It's huge. There is no way to secure that I'm aware of."

People would continue to go off and on, she says.

"I don't believe that it's safe for the children to be in the home," Voss says.

So why not charge those specific men and arrest them, put them on trial and put them in jail, as happened with Warren Jeffs? Because Voss knows she really doesn't have much evidence? So because she doesn't have enough evidence to convict the specific offenders (although watch, she contradicts herself later), all 416 children must lose their families?

A attorney for four mothers steps up. She's concerned about the testimony, the attorney says. One of her duties is to figure out how her parents can get their children back.

But, the attorney says. Voss doesn't want the children to go back home.

Her understanding is the mothers who were separated from the children were asked how authorities could help them and if they wanted to go to a domestic violence shelter, the CPS supervisor says.

Only six went to domestic violence shelters, and then they promptly left, Voss says.

So Voss is clearly saying the mothers can only have their children if they leave their religious community and husbands- even the husbands who she acknowledges are not involved in the crimes she alleges.. That's interesting. I hadn't read that the six women who went to shelters left 'promptly.' I know CPS shared with the media that six had chosen to go to the shelters, but they didn't seem so open about sharing that they left- and if they left 'promptly,' it seems like they must have already have been gone when CPS was reporting that six of them had gone to the shelters.

10:04 a.m. - The parents' attorney complains that her mothers haven't been served proper legal documents.

The judge notes the problem of identifying the parents, and that names are "being switched back and forth" in the case.

But one mother has a birth certificate and a driver's license, and authorities can go get her when the attorney wants to talk to her, the attorney says.

"If she hasn't had notice, you need to talk to my district clerk, and we'll arrange for her to have the pleadings," the judge says.

Hmmm. So while CPS and the judge have been insisting the parents lie about their ages and change names at will, here's a woman with all kinds of identification, and they claim to know nothing about her. Over at Brooke Adams' blog she mentions a woman who had been out of town when the children were taken. She had all these identifying documents and went to the fort to see her children. They refused to let her in, saying that her proof wasn't good enough and she might be lying about which children were hers.

Another attorney objects that the parents' attorney is going over history - forbidden by the judge.

"This woman," the judge says, pointing to Voss, "is simply testifying as to what she believes. Now if you have evidence to rebut that, let's get to that. "[...]

"I know that I personally am frustrated by virtue of the fact that we have an allegation about a culture that is allowed to exist without there being any testimony that my clients participated in that culture," the attorney says.

Good point.

The parents' attorney asking questions says CPS is taking a "one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach" to the case, and it's not fair for CPS to take more than 400 children away based on global allegations.

"Up to this point in the investigation, there are over 20 girls in the investigation who have conceived or given birth at the age of 16 or 17," Voss says. "What I'm telling you is that there is a culture of young girls being pregnant by old men."

So there was a girl like that in all 19 residences on the ranch?

"Yes, sir, there was," Voss says.

But earlier she said it was only a few specific men they were looking at. If there at least 19 of these girls, why has she only presented the records of ten girls from 16-19, only five of whom even have children? How is it abuse for a 17 year old to give birth if Texas permits marriage at 16? And what does she mean by 'old men?' Since 1 in 40 teens in Texas give birth (we don't know how many have abortions," then couldn't we say that Texas has a culture of young girls getting pregnant and remove all the teens in the state from their homes?

10:23 a.m. - [...]
Another parents' attorney wants to know whether Voss has established her expertise in domestic violence and determining the age of a person "by sight."

No, Voss says.

You have no expertise in determining a woman's age by sight? the attorney says again. She goes on to say Voss has "magically" determined ages. The attorney wants to establish this isn't credible testimony.

"We're kind of creeping into argument," the judge says.

She tries to redirect the hearing to information that would allow her to figure out whether the children should go back to their parents.

The judge ends up cutting off the parents' attorney.

Wouldn't it help her to figure out if the children should go home if she learned Voss is dead wrong about her accusation that as many as 50 of the women are under-aged and lying about it? Wouldn't it help to know if the children could go home if it is shown that they never should have been taken in the first place, and, in fact, their homes do not promote a culture of child marriage?

Now we're getting to some really strange stuff:

10:45 a.m. -[...]

A child psychiatrist from the Department of Family and Protective Services takes the stand.

A prosecutor questions him to establish his expertise in working with children, as well as children such as those at the YFZ Ranch near Eldorado.

[...]
The psychiatrist went to Waco and led a clinical team to work with the Branch Davidian families.

A raid by federal authorities on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco ended in tragedy and loss of life several years ago.

The psychiatrist outlines his experience working with "a number of smaller, separatist, fundamentalist" groups.

Each group is different, but several have authoritarian leaders who govern the details of their daily life - what they eat, when they sleep and more.

The leader basically "defines how they live and how these children grow up." His understanding of the YFZ Ranch community is that it has an authoritarian setup.

Under questioning from the parents' attorney who's pursuing his objection, the psychiatrist says he has gotten much of his information from the media.

Guffaws break out.

He has met with two members who grew up in the community and three young women to talk to them about their beliefs and their life in the community.

"I'd love to be able to speak with the elders of the community and learn more about how they think and how they raise their kids," the psychiatrist says.

He admits he knows little about FLDS doctrine and other matters related to the sect.

"We've got tons of testimony about brainwashing, and that's where this is going," the parents' attorney says.

Emphasis mine. He's the expert witness for the state, and his information comes from the media?

An attorney for three mothers asks whether the psychiatrist knows what percentage of the children in FLDS opt out of the belief system of plural marriage when they turn 18.

No, the psychiatrist says.

Why doesn't he know? Because it might contradict his preformed ideas?

The prosecutor asks him what's the harm in their society and he says,

"Girls age 14, 15 or 16 are not emotionally mature enough to consent to marriage"

I pretty much agree with that, but unfortunately for him, the state of Texas where he lives and practices does not, since they only raised the legal age of marriage from 14 to 16 in 2005.

It's not easy to break the children's thought patterns, the psychiatrist says. When you are socialized in a belief and behavior that's deeply ingrained as part of their religion, it's very hard to get a person to see that the belief and associated behavior are wrong, he says.

An objection comes up that the psychiatrist is no more qualified to give expert testimony than anyone in the courtroom.

Again with the belief system, which does appear to be the entire case for the state of TExas.

This is creepy:

11:24 a.m. - The psychiatrist says that FLDS members who leave the group are "highly vulnerable" to people who would exploit them because of their upbringing.

It's because they're behind in their decision-making capabilities - they haven't matured, he says.

He testifies that he asked three of the "young women" whether they would allow him to take their pulse, but told them that he didn't have to - it was up to them. They appeared to be flummoxed by having to make a choice, he says.

11:31 a.m. - Another parents' attorney zeroes in on the pyschiatrist's testimony about taking the women's pulse: Would they have been afraid of him, or afraid of appearing uncooperative?

The psychiatrist says he told them they didn't have to tell him anything they didn't want to or do anything they didn't want to.

Oh, where to begin. First of all, it's not enough for the parents to say that they would never make their girls marry against their will (he says this a little later), but it is enough for this total stranger to tell these essentially kidnapped and traumatized children that they do not have to let him take their pulses.

And then we have his assessment of their hesitancy. That's a weird request and a weird way of putting it, and they KNOW what power of life or death this man has over them. Why isn't it perfectly reasonable for them to be nervous as they try to figure out what the 'right' answer is?
The answer is there is NO right answer here, kids. IF you'd said no, he would have said you were fearful of medical professionals and unsocialized. IF you said yes, well, then you must be 'vulnerable' to people who would exploit you. Stop and think about what this incredibly powerful stranger who will be choosing your destiny wants you to do, and you're 'flummoxed' by having to make a choice. CPS has stripped all power from these children, and then views their traumatized responses as proof that they are abused- and that is certainly true- by CPS!

11:38 a.m. - A parents' attorney says to the psychiatrist: How can a 6-month-old child be influenced in any way by the fact that someone a few hundred yards from them is a pregnant 16-year-old?

The psychiatrist says he didn't say that, but he offers the opinion that the children should stay with the state until officials figure out what's best for them.

But what if the state was wrong to take them in the first place?
The parents have to jump through hoops to get their kids back, hoops like, oh, changing their religious beliefs, and being, you know, less FLDS and more like the psychiatrist. That would make him 'comfortable':

The court has indicated it wants to hear from parents, and those parents need some guidance about what they could say to get their children back, the parents' attorney says.

"What can a parent say to a judge that could be helpful in getting that child returned?" the parents' attorney says.

The witness replies, "What would make me feel comfortable is if a parent came forward and said, 'I don't think a girl should get married as a young teen. We need to know more about the outside world and be more transparent about their beliefs.'" It also would be a good sign if the parent asked for some advice about creating a healthy environment for their children, the psychiatrist adds.

"Believe me, so much of what they do out there is wonderful," he says.

"If a parent were to say, 'I will not allow my child to be married against her will,' would it help you?" the parents' attorney says.

No, the psychiatrist says, because the elements of free choice are missing.

Officials need time to develop trust and a relationship, he says. But "This is just a lose, lose deal," the psychiatrist says.

So much of what they do is wonderful, but they should be asking this guy for some advise about creating a healthy environment if they want to see their kids again? That's a bit arrogant.

11:53 a.m - Another attorney representing parents steps forward to question the psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist says he has been told it's a blessing to have a lot of children.

An attorney for parents says: Do you know that Catholics and other religions believe it's a blessing to have children?

"I wasn't aware that I was making a pejorative comment," the witness says.

"You offered no specific testimony or evidence to the court that the respondents in this case have been neglectful to this court, have you?" the attorney says.

An objection arises from a prosecutor, and the judge shapes it for her to move things along.

"That's exactly what I was going to say, judge," the attorney says.

"Next question please," the judge instructs the parents' attorney.

"Judge, I'm at a loss," the parents' attorney said. "I'll sit down."

Did I read this right? The judge just helped the prosecutor word his objection 'to move things along?' I thought that only happened in the movies. Did she say that, or is that the original reporter's attempt to provide a plausible explanation for the judge to help the prosecution's case? Isn't she supposed to at least pretend to be impartial? What kind of court is this? Does she help the lawyers for the children and parents in the same way? Rhetorical question. Stupid to boot. We all know the answer.

The children, parents, and attorneys have been organized by some sort of color coded grouping according to their interests- how that was decided, I don't know. The Judge now tells them to get together in their groups (sounds like grade school) and appoint a spokesperson for each group. Will this mean that if the attorney for one little girl in the yellow group has an objection, she can't make it unless the yellow group's spokesperson agrees?

1:28 An attorney who represents multiple mothers begins talking about not having much access to her clients. She is asking that clients be given cell phones so they can contact them, and she wants access to the coliseum, where the children are housed. The women don't have an opportunity to know what's going on in the courtroom. She says there are women with medical issues.

A court staff member responds, saying people at coliseum are doing the best job they can to make the coliseum accessible to everyone. People are making sure everyone gets a chance to see their clients, he said. The judge says she can't fix last night but will work on today. She says the cell phones were removed because of inappropriate use. The women are free to leave, she said.

"I have no way of knowing what's going on out there," she said.

The lawyer said she wants cell phones returned so they can speak to clients because they won't be in San Angelo all the time.

The judge said she is not keeping the clients; they are free to go any time.

The 'inappropriate use' was showing those with eyes to see that CPS was lying when they said the mothers did not want to talk to reporters, because they used their phones to, guess what? Talk to those reporters. It was also inappropriate that they took pictures of the crowded, unsanitary, and unacceptable living conditions CPS had placed them in when it made them forced refugees. It's only appropriate for CPS to do that to other people.
And they are only free to go in the way that Sophie was free to choose in Sophie's Choice- their choices are untenable. They can choose legal representation or they can choose their children. This is disgusting.

1:50 Another attorney representing a 6-year-old boy asks which age group of children are at least risk for returning to their mothers only. He said the youngest children or babies are least influenced by any beliefs that may be unhelpful.

An attorney representing another boy asks why there is immediate danger of the boys going back to the ranch. He asks what is meant by immediate danger. He said they will continue to be exposed to beliefs and practices like underage marriage and sexual abuse - emotional and psychological abuse, he said.

The state has submitted NO evidence of under-aged marriages- 16 is a legal age for marriage. Does this guy not know that? Does the state not care (stupid question, sorry). And again- it's their beliefs that are in question here. This sends knots in my stomachs.

2:08 p.m. Attorney asks again to compare damage from removing the children from the parents versus giving them back to parents for girls age 5 to 11 in the short run. The witness of the children the young preadolescent girls are most vulnerable because its a time of life when they look to older women to see how to live. They are the most vulnerable because of a community that has sexual abuse, he said.

Attorney said there is no difference in being housed in the coliseum or being at the ranch with their mothers.

The witness said the major source of authority in the community are men.

Tell me again this is not about their religious beliefs, and what was that other thing? Oh, yes, CPS says respecting those beliefs is 'paramount.' Rrrright.

And please, how can the state's witnesses continue to assert that the children are at risk because of what has yet to be proven- that there is sexual abuse? ALL we have is a vague story CPS supervisor Voss tells (and it was stricken from the record) that ONE girl told her she'd heard of a 13 year old girl who had gotten pregnant. Voss didn't find out the girl's name, the dates, the location- and we do not have this teen's version of what she allegedly told Voss.
We have ten girls over 16 who are supposedly married- and that's not illegal. We have five girls between 17 and 19 who are pregnant- and that's not illegal. Has Voss checked out the pregnancy rates at the local high school recently?

What on earth does this mean?

2:20 p.m. - The children from the ranch believe they should not talk about certain things of their life, and should be passive-aggressive in some of their behavior, the witness said.

Here's a glimmer of light:

2:35 p.m. - An attorney speaking for lawyers representing the youngest children asks: Would it be worse for the well-being of the younger children to be returned to the FLDS sect home, or to be separated from their familiar environment?

To be taken from their environment would be worse, the psychiatrist says. [emphasis mine]

[...]

The next children's lawyer wants to know whether the mothers not on the ranch during the raid could be with their children.

The psychiatrist says he would like to see authorities be as flexible as possible.

"I personally would say, if you let these other mothers do it, just let them in," the psychiatrist says.

The attorney asks: Should we try to get the process started of reuniting those mothers with their children at the coliseum?

"I think that good things that happen early on are better than good things that happen later," the psychiatrist says.

And now we finally get to somebody who actually doesn't get his information from the press:

2:45 p.m. - The psychiatrist leaves the stand, and the prosecution rests.

Attorneys for fathers call their first witness.

He reels off his education, including a doctorate in religious studies concentrating on Mormonism.

As part of the Bible, they teach that women should submit to their husbands, the expert says. But, like Catholic women and other women who adhere to various religions, FLDS women have interpreted that in different ways at different times.

And FLDS women can choose when to get married, he said. Thousands of FLDS members live in the United States, and they don't all believe the same thing, the expert says.

"The family practices of the FLDS vary from family to family," he says.

Not all of them are polygamists, either, the expert says.

He has studied all this for 18 years, along with studying Judaism, Catholicism and many different Western religions, he said.

2:57 p.m. - The FLDS generally expels members who engage in extramarital sex, the religious expert testifies.

In his experience, he says under questioning, parents would not approach a girl balking at marriage by telling her she will go to hell or have to leave the community.

But there could be some spiritual consequences discussed with the female, he says.

"Basically, they're into matchmaking," the expert says.

The community will say, "We think it's a good match," he says.

It's a new phenomenon to have girls marrying at a very young age, the expert says, and it probably originated with Warren Jeffs, a now-imprisoned FLDS spiritual leader. Most people would say Jeffs is still the FLDS leader, the expert says.

This is also what Carolyn Jessop, former plural wife of the current leader at the YfZ ranch says. The longer he's in jail, the better off these people are.

3:06 p.m. - The attorney for Child Protective Services begins cross-examination of the religious expert.

"If the children are reporting that when they marry is when the prophet says, 'You marry,' would that be consistent?" the attorney says.

Among the FLDS, many opinions have been expressed about the right age for a girl to marry, the expert says.

Some church leaders have said 18, and others have said that when a female begins her menstrual cycle, that's a good time, he says.

They also generally look at the child individually, the expert says. One child might be ready at 16, but a less responsible one "might have to wait until she gets older."

And whether or not we think 16 is a good age, the state of Texas thinks it's perfectly reasonable to allow marriage at 16 with the consent of the parents.

3:11 p.m. - A child's attorney asks the religious expert whether he's saying that differences exist among sect members and their beliefs.

"You cannot treat them all the same. They're not homogeneous," the religious expert says.

The 20,000 FLDS members will probably always recognize a single prophet, but how much they adhere to the prophet's teachings just depends, the expert says.

The attorney asks whether the expert has heard of "lying for the Lord."

"There are times when they can be deceptive - basically, when they feel their survival is at stake," the expert says.

As we know, CPS also is deceptive.

The FLDS has been subject to persecution, he says: Law enforcement officers have come in and asked the children, "Who is your mommy, and who is your daddy?" When the children answered, then mommy and daddy went to jail for bigamy.

So, he says, the children are taught not to be forthcoming about who their parents are.

The child's attorney asks about the bed in the temple, an item mentioned in many news reports.

The bed is there, the expert says, because the FLDS members might fast, and when hundreds of people fast, there might be incidences of fainting.

To his knowledge, he says, no sex has occurred in the temple.

Indeed. There are beds in other Mormon temples, too, because pregnant women get vertigo sometimes. There are cots in many offices and workspaces around the country where somebody might need to lie down.

As I've mentioned before, I think the FLDS prophet is a creep and belongs in jail (where he currently resides) and this line of questioning makes more sense (and causes more problems for the FLDS) than some of the states' other approaches:

3:21 p.m. - An attorney for parents objects to the line of questioning about Jeffs, noting that, "He's in jail somewhere."

It turns out that Jeffs is the father of the child the attorney is representing.

Another child's attorney asks: Isn't it true that Mr. Jeffs not only encourages marriage between older men and underage girls, but he also participates in it himself - a 40-year-old who marries underage girls?

It's not a case of some sort of "leering" yen for underage girls, the expert says. Instead, what probably happens is that Jeffs sees that a girl has reached adulthood as defined by the community, and then he offers the girl the opportunity for marriage.

Does he offer that opportunity to girls as young as 14? the attorney said.

Laughter breaks out.

"I don't have personal knowledge" of every offer he's made," the expert says. Jeffs has recommended younger girls than his predecessors did for marriage, he says.

How young? the attorney asks.

"Thirteen is the youngest he's recommended," the expert says.

Not good. Disgusting. Is this 13 year old a member of the YfZ group?

"Would you say that those girls have any real choice to decline (marriage), or are they pressured so much that they pretty much have to agree?" the attorney says.

In some cases, the reasons for the rejection have led to the girl having to leave the community because it creates too much tension, the expert says. In other cases, that hasn't happened.

3:40 p.m. - A father's attorney asks the expert witness on religion: What do you know of a "house of hiding" mentioned in some documents?

The FLDS has been persecuted at times in its 180-year history, the expert says, so it has had to have places for people to go to hide out. But, he says, if authorities were seeking a child molester among the FLDS, then the other members would not be prone to help him.

[...]
Are FLDS members not living in a setting like at the YFZ Ranch more involved in the outside world? says the first mothers' attorney to question the expert.

No, generally, they are very insular, the religious expert says. About 60 percent of the sect members are polygamists, he says.

Conceiving, bearing and rearing children is considered the most sacred responsibility for the FLDS, so couples take great care in the rearing of their children, he says.

The next attorney representing attorneys asks whether the FLDS members see any "reward, incentive or blessing" in marrying underage children to adult males.

No, and it doesn't compromise their theology to avoid underage marriage, the expert says.

If these children are returned to their homes today, are they in any immediate danger of sexual, emotional or physical abuse? another mother's attorney says .

No, the expert says.

So now we have the psychiatrist for the state and the one of the fathers saying the children would be better off at home.

That's all that's up for now.

Also, I think the Swinton woman in Colorado Spring is not the woman who made the initial phone call prompting the raid:

ABC News reported on its website Thursday that former Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints member Flora Jessop, who operates a rescue mission for teenage girls trying to escape the sect, told Texas authorities she had gotten calls from a girl claiming to be an abused member named Sarah.

A girl with that same name made the original calls for help to a San Angelo, Texas, hotline, sparking the raid in which 416 children were taken into protective custody.

Jessop told ABC News that the Texas Rangers directed her to record the calls and the Texas Rangers traced those calls to Colorado Springs.

I still think the first phone call is a hoax, given that this allegedly shelters, sequestered, practically buried alive 16 year old referred to Easter Sunday, a holiday the FLDS do not celebrate, and did not apparently know the name of her husband, and no hospital has reported treating an FLDS teen with broken ribs- and the nurses and doctors would have been required by law to report possible abuse of a minor child.

As you think about the FLDS case and the accusation made and the consequences to the children, be sure to consider what burden of proof you would want the state to apply before they removed your children on the basis of an anonymous phone call.