The Bishop's Records CPS Presented in Court

About that Bishop's Record submitted to the court by CPS.... Keep in mind that the judge ruled that CPS did not have to accept legal documents such as birth certificates because they 'might be forged,' but she did accept this handwritten document of unknown origin and did not ask for any authentication.

This is the sort of reading and counting that I find tedious, and I am not saying I have done comprehensive study of it, so feel free to fact check- but here's what I am finding.

First of all, most entries are either undated or were written in March or May of 2007, so many details could be different. People could have moved in and moved out, babies born, marriages made, divorces, and other events would change all this data. But it is what CPS submitted in court as evidence of this wholesale toxic culture of rampant abuse whereby old men marry little girls and beget children on them. Keep in mind that CPS's public argument is about 'old' men married to 'little girls,' and they have talked about pregnant 13 year olds as though it were a common occurrence, and, in fact, as though it is something they have seen with their own eyes. Since the forms seem to have been filled out in 2007, most of the 17 year olds listed would not be 18, and these would seem to include young women CPS is identifying as minors.

As we know, several of them claim polygamous relationships, which are illegal. I doubt very much that Texas wants to prosecute any of these families on that basis, because, given the current legal and social climate, they stand a very good chance of not only losing, but of being the cause of overturning almost all polygamy laws in the country. It would also be interesting to count the number of teen-aged girls who are unmarried, as that would indicate that the 'climate' of underaged marriage is not quite as CPS represented it, and it would be interesting to count the number of boys listed as living elsewhere to see if this explains the shortage of teen boys at the Ranch (teen boys also go out to work, so that's another possible explanation).

That said, we have:

A 24 year old man who says he has two wives, age 21 and 18. There are three children listed, but I don't know which of the women are their mothers. There's a 2 year old, a ten month old, and a 7 month old. Without their birthdays, we can't know if the 18 year old was young enough when she had her first child that he could be prosecuted, and I really don't think Texas wants to prove their charge that nasty old men were making brides of little girls by using as their poster child a 24 year old married to an 18 year old, not even when he also has another bride.

There are around 25 children from age 11 to newborns listed on another form, but no parents are listed on that page They are all Jeffs, and two are listed as living elsewhere, one as deceased.

It may be that the pages are out of order, because the next page includes a 38 year old man (a Jeffs), who claims 14 wives, and instead of listing children it says, 'see next page.' His 'wives' range in age from 20 to 37, six wives are in their 30s, and six of them are listed as living 'elsewhere.' No child-brides in evidence.

There is a 36 year old who lists eight wives. He can probably be prosecuted for sexual assault, and I would not take issue with that, as one of them is listed as being only 16 years old, and even presuming her parents' consent, Texas requires certain legal formalities with minor girls that I doubt he followed- except we don't know that.. Most of the forms do not distinguish which children belong to which wife, but his seems to, as he lists a wife, and then children, then another wife, and then children (the others list wives first, and then all the children). The 16 year old is not listed as having any children, so she might testify that the marriage is 'spiritual' in nature and not yet consumated and the state would have a hard time proving otherwise (unless, now 17, she is pregnant or has a young baby). It might also be that he married her in another state where the laws are different. That is a comment on the difficulty the state will have- or should have- justifying its removal of over 400 children on this basis, not a comment on the morality of this relationship. I think it is immoral for a 36 year old man to take to himself a 16 year old bride, especially when he already has half a dozen others. But this would seem to indicate his household is one which warrants further investigation, not a 'climate' of toxic thought justifying the wholesale removal of over 400 other children living in other families. The ages of his first wife and child indicate she was 22 years old when she bore him. A couple of the wives and around 7 of the children lived either at Short Creek or 'elsewhere' at the time of the writing. The other women, going by the ages of the children, look to have been 20 or older when they had their first child.

There is a 54 year old who lists 7 wives. They range in age from 17 to 49, with the youngest three being 17, 19, and 25 years old. Keep in mind that this was compiled in March of 2007, so unless he's married somebody new, currently all his 'wives' are 18 and older. I would place this one very, very high on the ick factor, and if they can show that he 'married' any of them when they were legally under-aged, I won't be blogging about gross injustices. There are 14 children from age 14 down to 3 months. It seems to me that in both this and the previous listing, the state would have been justified in removing these men for questioning and possible charges, but instead they removed 400 + children and left the men to go free. Incidentally, I wonder how many of these 18 year old wives are being held by the state as minors right now?


There is a 31 year old with two wives, ages 30 and 19 years. This form does not say which mother goes to which children, but there 2 two year olds, so unless they are twins (and we do not know whether or not they are), it looks like the younger bride may have given birth at 17. Nevertheless, she's 20 now, so the CPS agents were not seeing a married teenager when they went to the ranch.

Keith is 46, lists five wives, the youngest is 17- but that was a year ago (the others are from 21-43). Several of his family are listed as living at Short Creek.

Jackson and his bride were 21 and 17 a year ago. They are listed as having an 8 month old at that time. Was he 21 and a day and she 17 and 11 months, or the other way around? We do not know.

Lehi is 28 and one year ago the youngest of his three brides was 16. Two other brides (24 and 22) and all of his children (the oldest is 4) are listed as living at Short Creek.
He may well be in trouble.
Or maybe not. I do not know. Since his other families live in Short Creek, is it possible that he was not legally married to the others, but is legally 'married' to the 16 year old legally in some other state? Is there another state where, in 2007, a 28 year old could legally marry a 16 year old? I am not looking for loopholes for him, I'm trying to point out just how little homework CPS could have done before removing over 400 children from their homes on the basis of fewer than half a dozen under-aged marriages, and one 30 year old woman who gave birth in the '90s when she was only 13.

MIchael is 56 and has a 19 year old wife with an 18moth old child- or did a year ago. He also has 3 other wives in their 40s and 50s with numerous children who live in Short Creek. This ranks high on the ick factor for me, but I don't know if it ranks high on the sexual assault of a minor factor. We'd need to know things like.... where did they get married, what is the wife's birthdate (was she 19 and 11 months at the time he filled out this form, or 19 and a day), was the baby full term.

In March of last year, Keith was 22 years old and his wife Rebecca was 16. I think this is still illegal- unless he has her parents' permission and they filed the proper paperwork, or unless he was married in a state that didn't require specific paperwork for a 16 year old bride. They had no children then.

Luke was 19 and his wife Sarah was 16. No children listed as of March 2007.

Abram is 35 and has five wives. The youngest is 16 years old. I do not know if she had a child then, but at the time, his youngest three children were one month (two of them) and three months old. Two wives and several children live at Short Creek.

Wendell is interesting. He is 67 years old, and his oldest wife is 79 years old. He claims 21 wives, and the ick factor is off the scale, but his youngest wife is well within the legal range at 24 years old and the fifties and forties age group seems to be well represented. His children range from 23 years old down to 6 months (looks like in this pervasive climate of rampant under-aged marriage his 23 year old daughter has not yet married), and he lists three female guests ages 83, 79, and 56. Somebody else pointed out that this doesn't look like as much like a harem as it does a support group. If he would not insist the women were his wives, but would call them his live-in lovers or his room-mates, the state would not blink an eye.

James and his wife Nancy are both 39. They have five children. The oldest child living with them is 20 years old. Their youngest is just 8 years old (or was a year ago).

Isaac is 32 and he lists 11 wives. Most are in their mid to late 20s, one is 19.v23 and 21 year old wifes live 'elsewhere.' Oldest child in the home was 8 at the time.

In March of 2007, Leland was 36. His wives 35 and 23. Oldest child, 11, youngest, 2.

Lloyd is 37. His four wives are 21, 23, 30, and 35- and they and all their children live in Short Creek.

Nephi and Margaret are 23 and 21. Their two children are 2, and I think it says 11 months. This form is not dated.

Joseph and Lori are 26 and 24. In May their three children were 3 years old, 19 months old, and 5 days old. That baby will be a year old around May 14th. Is his Mommy one of the nursing mothers permitted to stay with their babies under 12 months old? Will CPS kick her out in a week or two? If you were Lori, would you try to pretend to be 17? Would you try to convince CPS the baby was not a year old?

Richard is 32, his three wives are 31, 23, and 21. The oldest and youngest children listed are 9 and 1.

Merrill and Irene are 24 and 21. Their child was 2 as of March of 2007.

David is 36. His wives Shirlyn and Sara are 33 and 29.

Edmund is 48. His first wife is 42. Their five oldest children (three boys and two girls) live in Hildale. His other wives are 39, 36, 22, 25, 39, 22, and most of them and their children (including a number of older boys) are living in Hildale. One wife's age is not given, nor is her place of residence. There are three children from that union, age 15, 11, and 13, all children listed as living in Hildale.

David and Rose-Marie are 29 and 26, and their two children (Daevena Rose and Daven Thomas) were 3 and 1 in March of last year. At that time, Rose-Marie and the children lived in Short Creek.

Dan and Sarah were 21 and 17 years old in March of last year, and had no children listed. She would be 18 this year.

Paul was 30 last year, and he doesn't give the ages of his two wives. They and their three sons (7,5, 3) are listed as living in Colorado City.

Thomas doesn't give his age. His wife Evelyn was 19 and their baby was 5 months old. He also seems to have trouble filling out forms, listing his baby as 'father,' and his wife as 'husband.'

Jacob and Sarah were 22 and 20, and Sarah then lived in Short Creek, I think in her father's house if I am understanding what Jacob wrote.

Fred and Diane were 24 and 22, she also was still at Short Creek a year ago. Perhaps the husbands of Dan and Sarah were still building their living quarters. Perhaps their wives didn't want to come.

There is a 34 year old husband whose name I have trouble reading- Janus? James? His wives are 31, 23, and either 21 or 24 (can't read it again). The children are from 8 to 4 months of age. No child-brides.

Wendell (another one) and Rebecca are 21 and 19. No children were mentioned in March of '07, but she could easily be one of those 'minors' with a child this year.

Don, Lydia, and Charity are 30, 21, and 26. Only Don is listed as living at the ranch. The others live in Short Creek or Idaho, including the 6 and 3 year old children who seem to belong to the 26 year old mother.

William is 27, his wives are 26 and 20- oldest child is 5, youngest 1 month.

Jonathan lists himself and 2 wives, no ages for any of them, no children listed. One wife is listed as being in 'Hiding.' I don't know if this is what she is doing or a town where she lives.

Jacob is 29. His first wife is listed as being 'almost' 28, and their oldest child 6 1/2. His second wife is 'almost' 22, their baby is 1 1/2, and this wife and child are listed as living in 'house of hiding.' The sound of that makes me nervous, but I don't know what it is and it could be perfectly innocuous.

Richard (another one) is 39, his wives 21, 27, and 36, and they and all their children were listed as being in Short Creek. The oldest was 14 at the time. Unfortunately, it looks like at least his first wife and their 8 children had moved to the ranch, because all the information he gave on the form a year matches the information he gives to the Trib this week, which indicates that there's a high probability that he and his wife did give the correct information to CPS as they claimed, and there's a high probability that CPS is not exactly being forthcoming with the truth when they say that nobody would give them their correct names and relationships.

Page 40 of the document shows a list of names and birthdates, but if there is any information on family relationships there, I could not decode it.

There is a list of housing quarters (apartment 1, duplex 2, Steed house, trailer, dairy, etc) indicating at least 30 separate abodes.

There's what looks like an appended page, or just one out of order, listing a 50 year old man whose wives are 46, 44, 43, 42, 44, 27, and 47, and they and all their children (there are many) lived at Short Creek a year ago.


So what we have here is basically four cases of older men married to under-aged girls, assuming they didn't file parents' permission at the courthouse or they weren't legally married in another state:

Nephi Jeffs 38
Elizabeth Jessop 16

Lehi Alred 28
Rachel Alred 16

Abram Jeffs 35
Suzanne Jeffs 16

Leroy J. Steed 40
Elizabeth Jessop, 16

Possibly:
24 year old Joseph's 18 year old wife Naomi who had a 7 month old in March of '07. Assuming that child is hers (there's also a 10 month old, and an older wife), is full term, and she wasn't 18 years and 11 months at the time, she might have been under-aged at the time of conception.

We have a number of monogamous couples, the vast majority of marriages which do not indicate any child-brides, a number of polygamous relationships which do not show any child-brides, and we have Angie Voss testifying that every single one of the ranch's 19 households (there were actually over 30 households) had an under-aged girl who was either pregnant or a mother. Unless CPS had other evidence than these records, it appears she, um, exaggerated.

Please do double-check the names and ages. This is what I've come up with, but my eyes glaze over and roll back in my head when confronted with 40 some odd pages of forms like this. It can also make a good prayer list for those of you who are so inclined. These poor children.