Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Vascular Dementia

My father has a fixation of sorts with a t-shirt he has that says 'World's Greatest Grandpa.' I don't remember who got it for him, but I know that he got his 'world's greatest Grandpa' coffee cup because he made it quite clear that it hurt his feelings that Granny Tea had at least half a dozen and nobody had bothered to get him anything proclaiming his parallel excellence in his patriarchal role.

There's a reason for that, but if he wanted to pretend to himself that he'd actually been a very different sort of person than he had been, we figured it was a harmless enough amusement at his age. We knew the truth, and we could certainly understand why the truth was far too uncomfortable to live with from his point of view. We'd prefer fantasies, too, in his shoes, so we let him have them and he has the t-shirt and coffee cup to prove it.

He brings it out to show us every time we come over. I wonder what it is about that t-shirt that means so much to him. Is he showing us his credentials, telling us "I must have been a good person and a great grandpa, the t-shirt says so?" Is it simply that he doesn't make connections very well any more, but he knows that shirt has something to do with us? Because he's not always quite sure of our names, does he want to make sure we know his?

But then, I am not even sure he knows the shirt refers to him. He keeps trying to give it away to my 9 year old son. Whenever he does this, my mother and I admire the shirt, listen to him talk about it and try to give it to the boy, and then, when my father's back is turned, we look at each other with raised eyebrows and hide the shirt away. Last week, my husband, full of sympathy unmixed with the confusing conflicts of that painful past (and just a nicer person than I am), privately told our son to go ahead and wear the shirt for the duration of our visit, just to please his grandpa. The boy put the shirt on willingly enough. I am not even sure that my father realized it. A few days later my father mentions his shirt again. He explains to my mother and our eldest daughter that he gave it to the boy because he just felt so sorry for him.

Sorry for him? They ask why. "Well, you see," he explains, "I could see that his dad was really at the boiling point with him and the little boy wasn't really doing anything. So I felt sorry for him."

My husband doesn't have a boiling point, or at least not one the children have ever been able to trigger. I am afraid I have the dubious distinction of being the only person in the world who has ever managed to make my husband lose his temper, and I could probably count those occasions on one hand. He is not perfect, but he simply doesn't have a boiling point. To give you some idea of just how flawed I am, this enrages me sometimes.

I can't imagine what my father saw that made him think it my husband was about to lose his temper- an event I believe nobody other than I has ever witnessed, and the last time was probably 15 years ago. I wonder about that. Is he reliving his own fatherhood and mistaking it for my husband's altogether different (and far superior) parenting? Is he projecting, or is he remembering?

And then I wonder about just how rational it is to try to make sense of what a person with dementia says and does, to figure out some reason for it, as though reason and dementia were even kissing cousins. Today while two of the Progeny were playing ping-pong in the Grandparent's basement, another sibling came down to report that they should quiet down their hilarity. Grandpa was on the phone, she said, and he was telling the person he was speaking with that the two siblings in the basement were screaming at each other. The nurses, he complains, are mean to him and rude. The doctor explains to my mother that actually, my father was quite a handful.

Where he once would ham it up, acting like a reporter when he couldn't remember our names, whipping out an imaginary pencil and asking us to spell our names for him, now he only says, "Hey, you, thanks for dropping by."

He tries to explain to my mother that he will still need to be able to drive into town for 'short' errands, she reminds him that the doctor has said he is done driving. He told her, "I still do know how to drive, you know. I know what the steering wheel is for, and how to operate the brakes and the gas, and I haven't forgotten any of that. I still know how to operate my truck." I suggest, again, that if she finds this too hard, she can just tell him, "Don't you remember? You told me not to let you drive anymore." He won't know the difference. She laughs.

This is, in a sense, how we have handled many touchy moments. For a while my dad was sure that his real problem was that he didn't have a job. He put in applications, or drove long and impractical distances looking for places he thought were hiring, but he couldn't find them. He started calling my husband to ask him to help him to apply for these jobs, most of which, if they existed at all were wildly inappropriate for my 70 year old dad. At first my husband would demur, hedge, and try to talk him out of it. This was stressful for everybody. Now he just agrees, and makes an appointment to take him the following week, because we know it makes my father less unhappy if we don't argue with him, and he won't remember the appointment next week. It's another fantasy we permit, like the t-shirts and coffee cups. I don't know if this is mean or kind or just cowardly, but I can't see what good it does to argue with him about it, when not arguing produces the same results- he forgets it all in a week.

He has spent most of the last week dozing in front of the television. It wasn't on. He doesn't watch his favorite shows anymore. We think he can't follow the plots. One afternoon he wants to tell me about a comic strip they've cut out of the paper and put on the fridge. It's very funny, he says. "It's this one," he says, "and she says this thing to him. This is dumb, but she says it. And then he says this other thing back. That's the really funny part. I'll get it in a minute... What is it he says?" and then he looks at me as if I can tell him. I gently say I don't know. He gets agitated. "You do know. It's that one on the fridge." I remind him that he was telling me about it because I hadn't seen it. "Oh, I know!" he says triumphantly. The punchline is "Did you unplug the sofa?"

He gets up and shows it to me- an elderly couple are in bed, and she asks, "Did you put out the cat?" "Cat?" He asks. "We don't have a cat." "I know," she replies. "I was just testing you. Good. You passed."
The next panel shows that he's turned over to go to sleep, and then he asks her, "Did you unplug the sofa?" I laugh.

I don't tell my dad this, but once when my mother was having a particularly dithery moment, she said, "Pretty soon I will be as bad as your father, and then where will you be," and I replied, "Um, Mom? Actually, Dad is fine..."
She laughed.
Nervously.


When we describe what is happening with my dad to each other, we find ourselves making the same gestures to explain it. "It's like he was just going like this," we say, moving a flat palm in a straight and even horizontal line, "and then all of a sudden, he does this," and we drop that hand abruptly down in a steep vertical drop. It is like he stays at a plateau for a certain period of time, and then instead of a gradual slide down to the next level, he just plummets off the steep edge of that step and drops abruptly stomach heaving plunge to the next level.

Recently a friend who has observed some of this with us, listened to one of my 'guess what Dad did this week' stories, and commented, "Wow. It seems like he was just going like this," she said, moving a flat palm in that familiar straight and even horizontal line, "and then all of a sudden, he does this," and she dropped her hand abruptly down in a steep vertical drop.

Tonight at the library, the HG was discussing events with a homeschooling mom about halfway between the two of us in age. She is experiencing similar difficulties with her grandmother. "It's so strange. She seems like she was just going along like this," she said, moving a flat palm in that familiar straight and even horizontal line, "and then all of a sudden, she does this," and she dropped her hand abruptly down in a steep vertical drop, and as my daughter repeats this to me, my own hands move along with hers, following the stair step pattern we have all been tracing in the air for months.

I googled vascular dementia, which I have just been told this week is the sort my father has. I read:

Onset can be gradual or dramatic. ... Regardless of the rate of appearance, vascular dementia typically progresses in a stepwise fashion, where lapses in memory and reasoning abilities are followed by periods of stability, only to give way to further decline.


Stairsteps. Gi-aaaaaaa-nt stairsteps. We are all secretly reading about the disease that has created this giant staircase down which my father is walking- or leaping. And we often secretly look at each other, second guessing ourselves when we forget seomthing, or lose our own trains of thought.

As recently as six months ago when we tried to tell people that my dad was losing it, that he was not really all there, they would look at us with some surprise- or suspicion and say, "REally? But he seems just fine. He made perfect sense when he was talking to me." I've mentioned he always did have a fine Irish gift of gab, and he coupled this talent with brilliant acting skills. What would happen is he would start telling one of his famously entertaining stories- he always has had to be the center of attention, and then he would forget what happened next. This was obvious only to those who knew him well, evidenced by barely a flicker in the eyes, and he would quickly recover and go on telling a brilliantly entertaining story. Only those who knew the real story would know he'd completely forgotten what really happened and midway through his story just started making things up. They were entertaining things, but they were pure fictions, and he'd never be able to tell the same story twice. But if you'd not known the real version, or the man longer than 22 years ago, you wouldn't know that.
The most common type of vascular dementia is multi-infarct dementia (MID), which is caused by a series of small strokes, or “mini-strokes,” that often go unnoticed and cause damage to the cortex of the brain—the area associated with learning, memory, and language. These mini-strokes are sometimes referred to as transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), which result in only temporary, partial blockages of blood supply and brief impairments in consciousness or sight. Over time, however, the damage caused to brain tissue interferes with basic cognitive functions and disrupts everyday functioning.

My father had his first stroke 22 years ago, when he was just 48 years old. The HG was three. We were visiting my parents before moving to Japan. One week before he had his stroke we were camping together. My dad had high blood pressure for years, but he would not give up his fritoes and his favorite soda (I don't remember what it was anymore. I feel a tiny wriggle of fear in my brain because I can't remember- was it 7-up or Pepsi?). He was sitting on one of the beds in the pop-up trailer, swinging his heels and eating his chips. We remonstrated with him about those chips and all the salt and his high blood pressure. He merely grinned, and said, "But this is how I want to go. When I die, I want one hand in a Frito bag and the other wrapped around my soda. What a way to go."

It was almost exactly one week later when he came knocking at our bedroom door at the crack of dawn, and said quietly to my husband, "Can you get up and come out here, please? I need you." When my husband came out, he said, "I think I've had a stroke or a heart attack or something- and I can't remember how to use the phone. Could you call the ambulance." By the time he got to the hospital he was not so calm or so controlled, but after a couple years of therapy, if you had not known my dad before the stroke, you would not have known something was wrong. As a friend said when he heard about it, "That man with half his brain cells is smarter than the rest of us," and that was certainly true. But that was a long time and many brain cells ago. Now, he can't beat a 9 year old at chess, and he thinks my husband of 25 years is 'that guy with all the kids.'



Somehow, I do not this this is what he was thinking of when he said it was how he wanted to go.

Where did THAT come from?

The Boy and I were playing Ping Pong at the grandparent's house (I stink at, by the way), when we had this strange conversation:

Him: "Um... Pip? I have a kind of weird question to as. I've been wondering it since I was... since I was like TWO."

Me: "Oh?"

Him: "Umm... you might not know the answer. What happens to someone's stuff when they die? Who gets it?"

Me: "...."

Makes me wonder who he's planning on finishing off in the near future. (I did eventually answer his question.)

Improve Your Diet

According to this article, these are the ten 'best foods you aren't eating,' and apparently these are particularly good for men:

Beets-I love them. But I eat them pickled and according to the article, I should have them raw, perhaps grated into a salad.

Cabbage: I had no ideas most Americans did not eat cabbage. It's another favorite in certain salads. The HM eats it raw on road trips. We roll down the windows and sing rude songs about the results of this habit.

Guava- we eat this perhaps once a year, at best.

Swiss Chard- I don't buy this, either

Purslane- this is a weed that grows just about everywhere, and I eat it, but I think I am the only member of my family who likes it.

cinnamon

Pomegranate juice- $$$$$$$$$$$

Goji berries-????????????

Dried plums- also knawn as prunes, a favorite of the males in my fam,
I can't stand them.

Pumpkin seeds- we do eat these, and other squash seeds, though probably not often enough to do us any good.

YOu can click on the link above to read more about why these foods are supposed to be so good for men's health and suggested methods of preparation.

Eight more very healthy foods:
SALMON - I think we eat a decent amount of this, though it's all canned now.

BEANS - Oh, yes.

BLUEBERRIES - When blueberry pickin' season comes around, we can pick fifty pounds in an hour, and we can eat them all in two or three days.

QUINOA - I am the only one who likes these.

WALNUTS/ALMONDS - We do eat these.

SPINACH - And this

ARTICHOKES - and this

TOMATOES And these.

I just came across the link by accident, I don't even remember how. Does anybody have any suggestions for the ten healthiest foods for females?

CM Carnival

Getting organized, using the KJV, something called the 'Green Hour," microscopes, short lessons, dandelions, narration, and more- all at the Charlotte Mason Carnival. Very interesting posts linked there. Check it out.

Texas Foster Care

Financial problems and understaffing plague Texas CPS:

CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said not all the workers given that task will be conservatorship caseworkers, whose caseloads already are more than twice the national average, according to Ms. McClure.

Because of the added burdens, Mr. Crimmins said CPS is preparing to ask state leaders for more money.

A leading lobbyist for foster-care contractors said that while CPS faces a daunting challenge in moving the sect children's cases through the courts, it caught at least one break.

The raid came as the state's foster child population dropped, to about 17,800, said Nancy Holman, head of the Texas Alliance of Child & Family Services. That is more than 1,000 below budgeted levels.


Former state District Judge Scott McCown, who handled hundreds of child-abuse cases while on the bench in Travis County, said the polygamist case "is going to put a big strain on an already strained system."

"It's kind of like asking in the midst of [Hurricane] Katrina whether a rain shower in New Orleans would be a problem," said Mr. McCown, head of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank.

"It's no problem because it's already a disaster," he said.


Emphasis mine.

Answers to Mystery Quiz

Can you name the creators of the following (first colemn is fictional character, second column is the author):

Philip Trent- E. H. Bentley
Nigel Strangeways- Cecil Day Lewis
Richard Hannay - John Buchan
Philip Marlowe- Raymond Chandler
Father Brown- G. K. Chesterton
Chief Inspector Morse- Colin Dexter
Sherlock Holmes- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
James Bond- Ian Fleming
Lord Peter Wimsey- Dorothy L. Sayers
Jules Maigret- Georges Simenon
Gideon Fell- John Dickson Carr (can anybody name all of his pseudonymns?)
Jane Marple- Agatha Christie
Adam Dalgliesh- P.D. James
Reginald WExford- Ruth Rendell (oops- I lost the W in Wexford's last name in the previous post)
Mike Hammer- Mickey Spillane
Hercule Poirot- Agatha Christie
Auguste Dupin- Edgar Allan Poe
Sergeant Cuff- Wilkie Collins

Inspector Alleyn and Albert Campion were not on the original list.

List taken from Schott's Almanac, 365 Days of Miscellany

Here's another quiz of my own making, and I do not even know all the answers:

In which Margery Allingham mystery does Albert Campion first meet Amanda, and which title brings Amanda back into Campion's life?

Which Ngaio Marsh title shows where Inspector Alleyn first meets AGatha Troy, whom he later marries? That one was so funny that I laughed right through some major clues and missed them altogether. Is there one where they actually marry, or does he propose in one book and they are married in the next:

And is there a Sara Woods where Antony and Jenny Maitland actually lose their baby? I've seen a reference to it in several later books, but never read the story where this actually happens.

LIkewise, is there actually a Patricia Wentworth showing Miss Silver in the Case of the Poisoned Caterpillars?

Which Richard and Francis Lockridge is it where Inspector Heimrich meets Susan, his future wife?

Which is the first Harriet Vane/Lord Peter book, and which is the one where she finally accepts him?

Which book shows us John Appleby meeting and wooing Judith Raven?

Where and how do Sarah Kelling and Max Bittersohn meet, and who wrote the mysteries in which they live and move and have their being?

Tommy and Tuppence are the creatures of what mystery writer's brain? And in which book do they make their debut?

Who does Mrs. Pollifax fall in love with and marry, and in which book do they meet?

Who is Nigel Strangeways' love interest?

Do you have a favorite couple from mysteries?

Today's Updates on FLDS

Scroll Down for Updates

A Texas Lawyer weighs in:

This website does not endorse the right of the FLDS to practice polygamy or the practice of its older members “spiritually” marrying young girls. But three out of four children removed from the YFZ ranch were four years of age or younger. The State of Texas has taken these children from their parents and is preparing to place them in “foster homes” with people who are not their biological parents. This kind of sweeping police power cannot be endorsed by reasonable, family-conscious people. The powers of the State, including its judiciary, are being used to wage a “social experiment” by CPS social workers spurred on by former FLDS members.

There are laws to punish those who engage in polygamy or engage in sexual relationships with underage girls (no matter if sanctioned by “spiritual” marriage). But is not a crime to be a member of the Texas FLDS or to worship its religious tenets anymore than it’s a crime for the Trinity United Church of Jesus Christ in Chicago to worship its “black values” or Protestants in Mississippi to believe that the Catholic Church is evil and the Pope a pagan. The First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause protects the right of worship in America – or at least it did until Texas’ Child Protection Services convinced a court that innocent children would be a risk because their parents are FLDS members.

----------------

CPS continues to insist the 18 year old who gave birth yesterday is a minor,
"although a court document prepared by a state investigator lists her as 18. Attorney Rod Parker, an FLDS spokesman, also said Jeffs is 18.
"Her husband is 22 and they are a monogamous couple," Parker said, noting the father "is being deprived of the opportunity to spend those first special moments with his son on a basis that makes no common sense. Infant babies are not going to be indoctrinated."

So she was 18 according to CPS when they went to court, and now they don't accept their own evidence?
She and her husband have a 16 month old who is in Austin at The Children's Shelter. She and the newborn will get to stay together in state custody, but there is no word on if she gets to see her 16 month old.

Parker also says that of the forty women who went to another shelter instead of home when CPS told them they could not stay with their children- all of them have gone back home. Accounts of other mothers at the time were that CPS told them they would have a better chance of seeing their children if they went to the other shelter.

At least one mother still isn't sure that CPS even knows who her toddler is:
While CPS said Monday that all children are accounted for, one FLDS mother said she has been unable to learn where her 2-year-old son has been placed. He does not show up by name or birth date on CPS' placement list, she said. He was born the same month, though a year earlier, than another toddler with the same first name - Mahonri.
Her son "has brown eyes and blond hair," said the woman, who asked that her name not be used. "The other has blue eyes and sandy, thin hair. . . . My concern is they don't have him listed as the right person or haven't listed him at all.
"CPS told me they had my [son] at Baptist Children's center," she said. "The other mother got the same news, so that doesn't really tell us what we need to know."


Lawyers are still trying to figure out how to get in touch with the CPS caseworkers assigned to their cases. The state gave the lawyers a list of names- but no phone numbers.
At least three children remain in the hospital, and their doctor is showing some sense and compassion:

Texas Rio Grand Legal Aid attorney Mary Lou Alvarez also says
"two children were discharged from the Shannon West Texas Memorial Hospital on Monday. An infant and its two siblings remain in the hospital with their mother, whom the treating doctor insisted be present for their medical care, she said.
Some women, Alvarez said, have left the YFZ Ranch and are headed to Texas cities where their children are in shelters or foster homes in anticipation of being able to visit them."

---------
More on the disputes over age:
On Monday, CPS said 31 of the 53 girls ages 14 to 17 who were removed from the polygamist compound are pregnant, have children or both.

But those figures were challenged by Parker and Cynthia Martinez, a spokeswoman for Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, which is representing 48 of the mothers at the YFZ (Yearning For Zion) Ranch near Eldorado.

"We have a very strong dispute," Martinez said. "We don't agree that those numbers are accurate."

Martinez said state officials have refused to believe the documents provided by mothers of the children.

"The mothers, in many instances, have been able to provide driver's licenses and birth certificates," Martinez said. "The legal documents have shown what these women's ages are, but it's an eyeball test. The state says you are as old as you look."

CPS officials didn't address the attorneys' concerns Tuesday.

--------

FLDS members have complained that while some of them have documentation that CPS won't accept, others can't get their documentation because CPS took it. It is certainly true that CPS has a mountain load of paperwork taken from the Ranch:
A Dallas appellate judge will begin a private review today of computer hard drives and 1,000 boxes of documents seized from the Yearning for Zion Ranch to determine which may fall under the protections of the clergy-penitent privilege.
The content of the boxes, stacked floor-to-ceiling high in a Texas Department of Public Safety room, includes letters written to FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs, church membership lists and genealogy charts, medical records and hand-written notations pertaining to ongoing criminal cases. The documents were taken from the ranch, owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, in a raid that began April 3.

Initially defense lawyers were looking through the paperwork in order to redact any passages that should be confidential and had nothing to do with the children. The state requested that an independent reviewer go through the papers instead, complaining that FLDS lawyers are taking too long, and anyway, they might
assert privilege in an attempt to exclude evidence from potential criminal cases.

I know you'll be surprised to hear that Judge Walther agreed with the state yet again.
Walther said Justice Molly Francis, who sits on the Texas Court of Appeals' Fifth District bench, will begin examining the papers today to assess the situation and set up guidelines for going through them.

----------
The FLDS website has a new video up, this one is called The Teacher's Prayer. There's a song, but this computer doesn't have audio, so I just look at the pictures.=)
These children had a private school, not a homeschool, and there are many photographs of the children at school and play. Some of the pictures that interested me included one of a couple little boys using the dictionary, a couple showing large maps hanging on the walls in the background, a group of children at a school table made by pushing desks together and they are all using cuisenaire rods, several kids batting a balloon molecule model (I guess that's what it is, could be wrong), several of kids writing in their workbooks, at least one where the little girl appears to be using colored pencils (including red, so, once, more, I can't believe that they didn't even know what to do with crayons), the whiteboard in the background (oops, once more, clearly they could have figured out to use crayons if they didn't already know), little boys giving each other rides in a wheelbarrow (something my own children love to do, and it's much better than a mere wagon), and picture after picture showing happy, smiling, adorable children, as well as many pictures showing red items in the photographs- a red disposable cup, red pencils, red papers, red books, red in posters on the walls. They don't wear red, but they aren't 'afraid' of red as the 'color of evil,' as I have read some people assert. It's a trivial matter, except it does reveal just how willing people are to believe anything bad about teh FLDS, no matter how silly.
-----------
They also have a new section up called Questions and Answers.
Currently, they only have three up. They say they do not force girls to marry, but do teach that marriage is a sacred choice they must make. I think that one is going to get them into trouble, but it's not
They say women can leave the ranch if they wish and nobody will stop them, and some have left and taken their children and others have chosen to leave without their children. I don't know how true that is. Carolyn Jessop says she had to escape, and while she never lived at the ranch, she was married to Merrill Jessop, current overseer of the ranch. Carolyn's oldest daughter was 15 when she left, and even Carloyn admits she didn't tell the children why she was leaving because they wouldn't have wanted to. Her daughter is now over 18 and she has returned to FLDS. She tried to keep Merrill from seeing his children, but the state insisted that while she could retain custody, he did have visitation rights, and he's never run off with the children during those visits.
They also say none of them are on welfare, though some elderly and disabled members receive social security (I have another post up about that).



--------------------
Texas Rio Grande Legal Aide has an excellent update site- check back there periodically for updates.
Regarding the 2 missing children- keeping in mind that CPS yesterday informed the press there were NO children unaccounted for-
CPS has provided information as to the location of one of the children. TRLA is working to confirm this information.

CPS has informed TRLA that they are working on locating the second child and will provide that information soon.


I am glad CPS is working on it. But if they have to 'work on locating' that child- were they not misleading the public when they told the press there were no children unaccounted for?
------------

12:15: The state has announced that they've found broken bones in some of the sect's children:
Wednesday's comments by Commissioner Carey Cockerell, who oversees the Department of Family and Protective Services, were the first to suggest children other than teen girls had been physically abused.
He said medical examinations have revealed numerous injuries, including broken bones, in ''very young children."
Cockerell gave no other details on the children's injuries, but said 41 children were involved. CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins declined to elaborate on the commissioner's comments. The department's child protective services division is caring for the children.

FLDS responds:
FLDS spokesman Rod Parker called Cockerell's testimony ''a deliberate effort to mislead the public."
Parker said any broken bones would have been treated in medical facilities away from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado and that doctors are required to report suspected abuse.
Parker said state officials were ''trying to politically inoculate themselves from the consequences of this horrible tragedy."


12:52:
DFPS Provides Senate Committee With Eldorado Update

The Department of Family and Protective Services provided the Senate Health and Human Services Committee with an update Wednesday, April 30, 2008 on the children removed from an Eldorado ranch. The update included information about some of the key challenges for investigators, the findings to date, and the care of the children.

Click on the link to read the rest. Some of it is indeed cause for concern that some children may have been abused, which we have always acknowledged was likely. Some conflicts with other information CPS has provided in press releases. Some is incomplete. Some of it is self-serving:
Based on interviews with the children, we have reason to believe that some of the children in our care do not have parents at the Eldorado ranch.

FLDS members told them that from the beginning.
I am concerned about the broken bones, but for some perspective- the Cherub has two. One is a broken leg she received at her babysitter's before we ever adopted her or even knew her.
The other is a fractured elbow bone for which we never did discover the cause. She does not respond to pain in a typical fashion and one morning she woke up favoring her arm. She never cried, fussed, or seemed even mildly annoyed. She just pulled her arm away when I tried to put her shirt on. I noticed she was holding it funny, but she didn't mind me touching it, just didn't want me trying to put her shirt on it. We took her to the doctor that day and they found a fractured elbow. I have no idea what the normal or average number of broken bones among children is. For the FLDS, this is approximately 10 percent.

1:32-Here's a blog purported to be by somebody who says he was born and raised FLDS, though he is not currently a member. He has a rather different view of the 'lost boys,' and says the 'lost boys' house is actually known in the FLDS community as a 'party house.' It's interesting reading. Make of it what you will.

1:58: What did CPS and law enforcement know and when?
Thursday, a Colorado lawyer filed a scathing 39-page motion that says Texas authorities knew that Barlow, the man they had a warrant to find, was in Arizona at the time of the raid. Prominent Aspen Lawyer Gerry Goldstein, who owns a law firm in San Antonio, claims evidence that Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran spoke with Barlow on a cell phone, confirming his drivers' license and location in Arizona, before executing the raid. In the phone call, says Goldstein's lawsuit, Barlow advised the sheriff he had not been to Texas in 20-some years, and had never heard of the girl he was suspected of raping.

With each turn of events, the raid takes on characteristics similar to attacks on the Branch Davidian compound in Texas and the Randy Weaver homestead in Idaho. In those cases, law enforcement agencies stretched their authority to intervene in lifestyles they didn't like, or considered weird. As each case unfolded, citizens grew more frustrated by the apparent willingness of government agents to violate citizens' rights.


-----
2:40: 106 dollars a day per child is not enough to enable shelters to provide for the sects special dietary needs:
Pure vanilla. Pure honey. Real maple syrup and whole milk. Fresh fruit. Large black or white hair scrunchies and all-white bed linens.

The emergency shelter caring for children in state custody from a polygamist Mormon splinter sect asked for residents' help here Monday in providing these items and more that fit with the children's dietary and living preferences.

[...]

The children have been polite and well-mannered, causing no problems, Trejo said. The center's 32 staff members and one cook have adapted to their needs, modifying the environment and food. Staff try not to wear red, a color the children object to, and try to provide the natural diet and specific products they are accustomed to back home, she added.

Many of the preferred products are not already on hand and cannot be bought in bulk, requiring more than the $106 per day per child that the center receives from the state, Trejo said. Residents wanting to help are asked to donate cash, which allows staff to buy products on an as-needed basis.

[...]
The Ark also will try to build a garden so the children from Eldorado will feel more at home and to meet their requests for fresh vegetables. Other children at the center also would be able to take part in the garden, Trejo said.

That particular shelter has 9 of the sect's children. I know it's not costing nearly a thousand dollars a day to buy pure honey, vanilla, maple syrup or fresh fruits and vegetables. Not even if you add white sheets- which it does appear is what the children are used to, looking at pictures from the FLDS website- but they don't seem to mind other colors for blankets (click to enlarge). If the state is paying 106 dollars per day for these children that's nearly half a million dollars a day, just for the shelter costs. Legal fees, of course, will be greater.

-----------------

Birth records:
Two births from a ranch mother or mothers are registered in Schleicher County, according to the Schleicher County Clerk's Office. The Tom Green County Clerk's Office declined to comment on whether its rolls reflect births from sect mothers.

By late last week, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had not requested the Department of State Health Services check for birth certificates for children removed from the ranch, said Doug McBride, a health services department spokesman.

All the ranch children weren't born in Texas, and officials felt there would be no official birth records for those who were born in the state, McBride said.

"Early indications are that there were no birth records," he said.
I guess if you don't ask, then you can keep asserting that you don't have any.

-----------------

More on the broken bones: You may remember that I was confused by Angie Voss' court testimony at the hearing about this issue. When asked if CPS had found any broken bones, she said 'there were some suspected broken bones.' How do you 'suspect' a broken bone, and why wouldn't you confirm it? They'd had the kids for two weeks then, and they still only 'suspected' broken bones? What was that about, I wondered. Why didn't they know?

Perhaps they 'suspected broken bones' because the mothers of the children informed CPS that some of them had brittle bone disease:
Salt Lake City attorney Rod Parker accused the department of putting out "misleading information" to malign the polygamous sect.
Parker said some children in the community have brittle bone disease and that Texas Child Protective Services was informed of that.
"That makes some of the children more susceptible to broken bones," Parker said. "The mothers told CPS about that when they were taken in. They've known all along that the reason they might see higher incidence of broken bones was due to this condition. They have no evidence to support the implication it is due to child abuse."

Welfare Fraud and the FLDS

Accusations have been made, though not, as far as I can tell, by any officials in the state of Texas, that the FLDS women abuse the welfare system and milk the government of benefits by signing up for Welfare and Food Stamps and lying about the fathers of their children.

It is true, so far as I can tell, that some members of the communities in Arizona and Utah, have been caught doing this, and officials in those states have cracked down on Welfare Fraud there. I cannot find that anybody, beyond anonymous (and I don't even mean pseudonymous, like me, I mean that blank, unlinkable, 'anonymous' with no other information) accusers have said that the Texas community is doing this.

Here's what FLDS says about welfare:

Q: Does anyone at the Ranch receive any Welfare assistance from any State or Federal government agency?
A: There are a few handicapped and retired elderly people that are receiving Social Security Income. This is the only government assistance received by anyone at the Ranch.


The Texas community may be abusing the system. I don't know. They say they aren't even using it, except for the handicapped and the elderly. That's all I can find about the Texas community in regard to Welfare. IF somebody can present some sort of evidence that the Texas community is guilty of Welfare Fraud, I'd be interested in seeing it.

But if they are using Welfare, then CPS is lying when it says they have no documents proving their age. You can't be on Welfare without such documentation, so both allegations cannot be true.

I do not fall down on one side or the other in regard to the possibility of their assertion as being true or false. I do not know, but I can compare and contrast certain facts.

These are the only facts I know about the Welfare Fraud allegations:

Nobody, other than anonymous commenters on the internet, has accused the members of the *Texas* group of Welfare fraud anywhere that I can find. I don't think it's reasonable to hold them guilty for what some members of the Arizona and Colorado communities do. I can find that CPS is pretty free with other allegations, as is law enforcement ('dozens' of under-aged mothers; the titillating, and false, stories of sex beds in the temple; that these people lie all the time; that they don't have I.D.; that they aren't allowed to play with toys or don't know how to use crayons; 50 year old men with 13 year olds, and Angie Voss even accused them of encouraging 'old men' to have sex with 'little girls'- her words, when they have no such evidence and I think it's emotionally inflammatory, intellectually dishonest, and manipulative to call teenagers 'little girls,'while testifying under oath, etc.), so I don't see why, if they had evidence of Welfare Fraud they wouldn't have mentioned it.

CPS insists that the FLDS members don't have any documents, or that those they have 'might' be forged. This is inconsistent with the anonymous claims that they are defrauding Welfare.

FLDS might well be lying when they state, categorically, that the only members of the ranch using any state assistance are the disabled and the elderly who receive social security. But you see, they are making substantive, verifiable statements of fact, and CPS isn't. And if they were, in fact, using Food Stamps, somebody somewhere who is not in the community would know it. Where do they use their food stamp cards? The cashiers and managers at those stores know very well which of their customers are on food stamps. They could come forward and call FLDS out on that lie- if it is a lie. CPS could say something if it is a lie.

Another possibility is that the Texas community has looked at the things that caused members of the other two communities problems and has been trying to avoid them, so they are not actually on Welfare or food stamps.

Right *now* it looks to me like they have more credibility than CPS or anonymous commenters on this issue.

So, I ask again, if anybody knows for a fact that the members of the Texas community are committing Welfare Fraud- or even simply using it, where do you get your information and can you share the source? Meanwhile, I put this down as not only 'unproven,' but also not even asserted by anybody with any credibility whatsoever.


Obligatory 'I spit on child abusers' statement for those who have trouble understanding that the government is supposed to respect and follow its own laws even when dealing with 'icky' people that are unpopular, weird, or suspected of being really bad, nasty men:
If or when the state convicts any FLDS men of sexual assault or abuse, I, for one, will cheer, assuming the evidence is sound and they are convicted for what they have DONE, not for what they BELIEVE. I am all in favor of abusers, after proper respect for the same rights we all have of due process, being charged, tried, and convicted. If or when that happens, there is nothing I have said about FLDS that will need to be taken back, since I have been in favor of doing just that from the first comment I have made about FLDS until now. But even suspected child abusers should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not because we are sympathetic towards child abusers, but because we realize that giving the state a crime where evidence doesn't matter is giving the state a weapon against all of us- and sooner or later they will go after the Amish because they dress funny, have large families, have an increasing number of genetic birth defects because they don't marry outside the community, and they don't send kids to school past 8th grade, and don't use electricity; the Catholics because of all the (often slanted) press about pedophile priests (genuine pedophiles who abuse truly little children, not who marry teens) and teach that celibacy is a high calling; the Apostolics because they dress funny and believe in a young earth; mainstream LDS and the Moonies, because they teach that marriage is required for full salvation, and the Moonies assign marriage partners, and it's simply wrong to create a special class of crime for which the state does not need solid evidence in order to punish people it doesn't like.

No Comment

Some students at Centennial High School have shaved vertical lines into their eyebrows in a trend recently made popular by hip-hop star Soulja Boy. School officials say the mark looks like a gang symbol.

Centennial administrators are telling students with the lines that they can't return to school until they shave their eyebrows off. Assistant Principal Mark Porterfield said the students are not suspended, but they are not allowed in school until they cooperate.

Four students have been sent home. One returned with a bandage covering the shaved brow.


The rest is here.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Match the Mystery Writer with the Mystery Solver

Can you name the creators of the following:

Philip Trent
Nigel Strangeways
Richard Hannay
Philip Marlowe
Father Brown
Chief Inspector Morse
Sherlock Holmes
James Bond
Lord Peter Wimsey
Jules Maigret
Gideon Fell
Jane Marple
Adam Dalgliesh
Reginald Exford
Mike Hammer
Hercule Poirot
Auguste Dupin
Sergeant Cuff

List taken from Schott's Almanac, 365 Days of Miscellany

The original list is about twice as long, but I skipped several.

Update: Answers are posted here.

18 y.o. FLDS Mom Giving Birth, Accompanied by CPS, Rangers

An FLDS female whose age is in dispute was in labor in a San Marcos hospital Tuesday, accompanied by Texas Rangers and CPS workers, an attorney said.
Attorney Rod Parker, an FLDS spokesman, said Pamela Jeffs is 18 - the same age shown for her on a court document prepared by Texas Child Protective Services.
Jeffs is one of 26 females CPS has now classified as minors, an assessment that the FLDS said Monday was erroneous.
"Her husband is 22 and they are a monogamous couple," Parker said. He said Jeffs' husband is not at the hospital with her.
The couple also have a 16-month-old son, who is being held at The Children's Shelter in Austin. Parker said Jeffs is at the Central Texas Medical Center and that he had been told Texas Rangers and CPS workers were with her.
"We're not sure what their intention is with respect to that baby," he said. CPS has allowed mothers to remain with infants 12 months old or younger who are in state custody.


For those doing the math, that means, assuming the 16 month old was full term, that he was conceived 25 months ago, so she was 16 and her husband was 22 20 at that time- assuming also that she's not 18 and 11 months and he's not 22 years and one day old. I don't remember whether the age gap (whereby it doesn't matter if the younger party 'consented' or not, it's assault) in Texas is three or four years.

I will also add that I recognize the possibility that they are only monogamous because they are both still so young, that perhaps Mr. Jeffs, assuming they have the same last time, has every intention of taking on another wife in the future. It's possible he plans to take on a 14 year old child-bride next year or ten years from now. It's possible he plans to rob a bank or kick a puppy at some date in the future, too.

The facts are what the law should deal with, not prior restraint based on the state's beliefs about somebody's possible plans in the future. The facts, according to court documents prepared by CPS, recognize this young mother as being an adult, 18 years old, yet CPS is including her in their 'minors' list submitted to the court, and so we have one more good reason to believe The Texas CPS workers involved in this case 'pad' their numbers.

Another fact is that she is giving birth in a hospital accompanied by Texas Rangers and CPS instead of by family or friends.

More than that, we don't know. It could well be that she wants it that way. Only time will tell.

Update: It's a boy.
The boy is healthy, and the mother is doing well, according to CPS. The infant will stay with his mother, and both will be in temporary custody of CPS. The agency says the mother is a minor, an assertion disputed by a spokesman for the sect parents. Rod Parker, a former FLDS attorney, says the girl is 18.


CPS permitted her mother to stay with her while she gave birth. The report says that two armed state troopers and at least one CPS employee waited outside the maternity ward.

The ID Issue

Keeping in mind that CPS insists it knows that the girls who claimed to be adults aren't, that all the children are accounted for, that they have no reason to worry about missing children even though their mother's attorney can get no word on where two boys are located, and that the only reason their numbers fluctuated in regard to the number of children in custody is because they moved a number of young ladies from the 'adult' column into the 'child' column (even though the number of adults in the coliseum went up at precisely the same time) and see what you think about things that make me go hmmm, and things that just don't make sense to me:

[...]
Of the 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who are in state custody, 31 either have given birth or are expecting, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar.

"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," Azar said Monday after releasing the latest figures.

[...]

Agency officials have called into question claims of adulthood among the girls since the raid and have in some cases disputed documentation provided, saying the girls look younger than 18. Because many FLDS members share similar names and have complicated family relationships, identifying all of the children taken into custody has been a challenge.

"I do have serious questions about how they are determining age in there," said Parker, who is trying to get a better count from FLDS families.

He said the sect is at a disadvantage in proving names and ages because law enforcement confiscated every document that might show family relationships.

The latest information from CPS comes with "absolutely nothing to back it up other than it's coming from them, and they think we should trust them," Parker said.
[...]

On Monday, CPS also revised its total count of children in state custody to 463, up one from Friday. Azar said the change resulted from finally getting the children out of temporary housing in the San Angelo Coliseum and into foster facilities around the state where they could get a more accurate count.
[...]

Azar said the numbers could still change slightly because authorities have not seen documentation on all the children and have struggled to positively identify everyone.

[...]

Believe As They Say, Not As They Do

There is an important post up on the Messenger and Advocate, please go read it. CPS remains unconcerned about the two missing children. Their cavalier attitude is, as Guy says, obnoxious. But it's also bizarrely out of touch with other things CPS says. For instance, Darrel Azar both insists that 'all children are accounted for' even while he defends the separation of FLDS siblings (even from a monogamous family) on the basis that:

He said making placements was difficult given that the "children don't even want to answer you what their name is and where they feel everyone is their brother and sister."


Regardless of what you think about FLDS, how can both of these claims be true? They are mutually exclusive. If you don't know who you have and who they are related to, you cannot know that they are all accounted for and when mothers and attorneys tell you that two of the children are not on of your lists, you need a better response than a failure to return phone calls and an insouciant disregard for the fact that the children's mothers and their attorneys have no idea where you've put them and you can't tell them. It's simply not good enough to say you're not worried about this situation.

And here's Van Deusen again, we've quoted him before, too:

"We don't have any unaccounted-for kids. All of them are in foster care now," said Van Deusen.

He couldn't provide any details about the specific two boys but said identification issues have continued to plague Texas officials. CPS workers have repeatedly complained that some children and women have provided different names than were given the day before. Together with the unusual family sizes and the number of different mothers caring for the children from the polygamous families, it's been difficult to sort out who's who.

"I don't know if this is a matter of simply not being matched up properly," he said.

Here's my guess, and it is just a guess. My guess is that CPS is not really being irresponsible in their lack of concern about the two missing boys because they do know exactly where they are. The reasons for this is that they are not and never have been NEARLY as confused about who these kids are as they keep claiming.

They've had to hospitalize 6 kids, besides the ones who caught the chicken pox while in CPS custody. One of them is a 2 year old child who had lost 'a severe amount of weight' while in the coliseum.

While testifying under oath at the hearing, CPS investigator Angie Voss testified that all the children needed to be removed from their homes because all of them were at risk - that even the older boys were at risk because they were being raised to accept abusive practices as normal, and that they were 'groomed' to become perpetrators under this belief system. Yet CPS permitted 2 18 year old boys from FLDS to remain in state custody with the younger boys.

How seriously do you think CPS believes Ms. Voss' rhetoric given those circumstances?

I'm going to swipe a comment by John f. from Guy's blogpost, because I think it gets at the crux of the issue and more people need to understand this:
No one at this blog has condoned polygamy, child abuse, or underaged marriages.

Guy and others at this blog are raising their voices against the violations of due process that have occurred and that are continuing as this story gets worse and worse every day.

In other words, Guy and others here are raising their voices in your defense as much as in defense of the constitutional and civil rights of the FLDS. This is because our constitutional and civil rights protect all Americans, no matter how repugnant their religious views are to you. This approach gives you security in your beliefs to the same extent it is supposed to give the FLDS security in their beliefs.

In responding to the allegations of abuse made by the 16 year old caller, Texas CPS should have removed her and perhaps her siblings, at most, from the ranch. Or the Texas CPS could have removed the alleged perpetrators of abuse. There was no legal basis under Texas statutes or the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution to remove all of the children from the ranch.

None of the children showed signs of neglect. Testimony elicited during cross-examination at the two-day circus hearing revealed that neither the actual CPS official, Ms. Voss, who made the decision to remove the children, nor the psychologist consulted as an expert witness for the state (who had no real knowledge about the FLDS aside from information learned in the media and from a former member) thought that any of the children faced a threat of imminent harm, which is the threshhold required to remove children from their homes. Also, Ms. Voss testified under cross-examination that her decision to remove the children was based on her belief that the FLDS beliefs created an environment in which boys were raised to be perpetrators and girls raised to be victims of sexual practices that are against the law (polygamy/bigamy). In other words, Ms. Voss made a substantive decision about the religious beliefs of a particular group of people and removed all of their children from them based on that decision.

If the state is allowed to make this kind of evaluation — that a belief system has the potential to cause some people to become abuse victims years down the road — as a basis for removing children and refusing mothers contact with those children, then this should be a serious concern for all Americans because we should not want the government making substantive evaluations of the health of our religious beliefs as a basis for removing your children from your home, even entirely absent signs of neglect or abuse.

The potential for future abuse as a result of certain religious beliefs is not actual, imminent abuse required to remove children from their homes.

It is difficult to see why you and others do not seem to understand this principle.

Indeed.
Lawyers were not even given access to the evidence, nor did many of them ever get to see their clients before the hearings (some of them do not seem to have been permitted to see the children they are supposed to represent yet), and many of the parents never received the paperwork the law requires be submitted to them before the hearing. Over 400 children were removed on the basis of a hearing that treated them as one giant household instead of individual households, even though they live in separate abodes on the ranch.
Regardless of what was or wasn't happening on the ranch- these abuses of law by the people we hire and pay to act as agents of the state are unacceptable in a free society.
Please do read Guy's post at Messenger and Advocate.

New Numbers

There are a total of 463 FLDS children - 250 females, 213 males - in state custody in Texas. Here is a breakdown of that count:
* 0-2: 101, 49 females, 52 males
* 3-5: 99, 46 females, 53 males
* 6-9: 131, 68 females, 63 males
* 10-13: 62, 34 females, 28 males
* 14-17: 42, 27 females, 15 males
* Disputed age: 26 females, now classified as 17 or younger.
* Two boys who turned 18 while in state custody also have voluntarily chosen to stay with younger boys.
Source: Texas Child Protective Service


That last is interesting, isn't it? Since when did CPS let 18 year old males stay in foster care with minor boys?

We're getting a clearer picture of how CPS is determining the ages of these young women (emphasis added):
Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar said 31 of 53 girls ages 14 to 17 have children, are pregnant or both.
"This includes that group of girls that once claimed they were 18 or older," he said. "It was determined they were not adults."
He said some women acknowledged being younger and the age of others was determined by their attorneys or by looking at the women.
"I have seen them myself," he said, "and I don't see any that look like an adult to me."
Azar said he did not know how many girls are pregnant, but said it is a small number. CPS has previously said that three teenagers are pregnant.
Salt Lake attorney Rod Parker, a spokesman for the FLDS, said that of the three, one teenager refused to take a pregnancy test, one is 18 and the other is 17.
He also contends that the state's new count includes 17 adult women who are being classified as minors.
"Beyond that I am unable to verify the information because the Texas Rangers took all the records that might be useful in responding to this," Parker said.


So it is largely by self-identification or the guess of CPS agents based on appearance. I am not staking a firm claim that CPS doesn't have a large number of pregnant minors. I have no way of knowing. But apparently, neither does CPS. If the young women claim to be minors, they get to stay with their children. If CPS will not even acknowledge that possibility, they are working behind blindfolds of their own creation. And as the mother of two daughters in their twenties who don't even look old enough to drive, I have my doubts about Azar's qualifications as an expert on age based on appearance.

Two attorneys representing 48 mothers say this is an 'eyeball test' of dubious merit. Their clients tell them they were basically put in a line-up and CPS agents decided which of the young women looked under 18 and which didn't.
Amanda Chisolm works for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA), which is where many of the attorneys representing FLDS members come from, and she says,
"Until we can get numbers of how many of these women dispute the age CPS is attributing to them I wouldn't rely on any of the figures that [the state] gives out,"


In fact, yesterday while we were out and about in the Big City, the Equuschick found she'd not brought a warm enough coat. She bought a child's sweatshirt with hood at a gift shop, and her rain bedraggled, kiddie clothes state, the rest of our party, including two other mothers in our thirties and forties, agreed that she looked about ten years old. She is 23.

TRLA attorney Julie Balovich said one woman now deemed to be a teenager is a 24-year-old woman who is pregnant. FLDS member Willie Jessop contends the state's tally also includes a 28-year-old whom the state has listed as being 17.
"Do we correct it and get out the girls who are overage when the minute they do that, they forfeit their children?" he asked. "CPS has had a very difficult time being accurate with any of the numbers and this number is the most outrageous yet."


According to CPS spokesman Azar, this is just typical disinformation:
"The simple truth is there is a steady flow of misinformation, which is often the case when people who may have abused children, and those who never stepped in to protect them, try to discredit those who move to protect [the children],"

Notice all those weasel words and sly innuendoes- people who 'may' have abused children and those who never stepped in to protect them?! What a slimy thing to say about the lawyers representing these women and/or girls.

Meanwhile, six children are in the hospital, three have been treated and released, and while CPS finally figured out a way to let their mothers visit them in the hospital, other promises are unfulfilled:
Attorneys representing the children still do not have adequate information about the children they are supposed to represent, their ad litums, or the caseworkers assigned to them. Azar says that will get better.
At attorney who has visited two facilities, one holding 17 FLDS children and the other 71, says that staff at both places 'complained about the lack of information and direction from CPS,' and, I know we're all terribly surprised,
"contrary to a courtroom pledge by CPS, sibling groups have been split up. Eight children from one monogamous family have been sent to five different shelters, she said. Another little girl is in a shelter an hour away from the group home where her sisters are, O'Toole said."


Azar says, basically, that it's all the children's fault because they won't answer CPS workers about their names- which brings up the question as to how CPS can so firmly insist that 'all the children are accounted for' as Azar says, and he also complains that they all feel like all the other children are their brothers and sisters. In other words, the children all want to be together. Like they were before they were rescued because of that pervasive climate of abuse and coercion that CPS agent Angie Voss testified about:

During a court hearing two weeks ago, a CPS investigator said the agency had identified one teenager who was pregnant and four others were mothers. She also spoke of a list of 20 minors and young women who conceived their first child between the ages of 13 and 16.
According to that CPS document, one woman was 13 when she conceived a child who was born in 1997; another was 14 when she conceived a child born in 2000.
But the document also lists a woman who was 23 when she gave birth in 2006.


I'm not staking any money on the innocence of every single man at the ranch. I will not be at all shocked to find that some or one of them may be guilty of exactly what CPS is charging them of. The ends, however, do not justify the means. What if, for every child CPS might have 'saved' here, they've traumatized twenty more by ripping them from their loving homes, moving them four or five times in as many weeks, subjected them to bizarre and unfamiliar living conditions, endless hours grilling them trying to get them to admit things they don't believe or trip them up, held them against their will under incredibly totalitarian, authoritarian, and coercive conditions? How many decades will it take, do you think, for these children to ever trust authority figures again? Will they ever?

Up until 2005, Texas thought 14 year olds were old enough to marry with parental permission. So far as I know, just about every state still thinks 14 year olds are old enough to get birth control or have abortions without parental permission.

And whatever we think of FLDS teachings or practices, if we let this go forth without an outcry, without insisting that FLDS members should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, and should not have been subjected to a mass removal of their children based largely on events that happened more than five years ago when they weren't even illegal- then none of us are going to be able to hold onto that constitutional protection of being innocent until proven guilty. That is a right that belongs to all of us, and we should cherish it for all of us.

Grits has more on the how CPS is coming up with their numbers:
So how did we get so rapid an increase of 26 girls who're pregnant or have kids? DFPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins told the Deseret News: "Of those 53, Crimmins said 26 claim to be 18 or older. "But we don't think they are," he said."

Aaaah ... that explains it. I'd bet dollars to donuts every one of those 26 are pregnant or has a kid, since that would make DFPS' numbers add up. From the beginning, the agency seems to take these girls' word when it benefits their case, and label them liars when it suits them. That's probably a sound media strategy, but at the end of the day, in front of a judge, they shouldn't get to have it both ways.

If all of the additional "girls" they're now counting actually told DFPS they're 18 or older, and the agency has no documentary proof besides their suspicions that the women are lying, that puts a little different spin on it than most of the headlines today. Since DFPS has already says it disbelieves birth certificates and other documents found on the ranch during the search, I wonder on what they're basing this belief that the alleged crime victims are liars?


The eyeball test- which my daughters would 'fail,' too, as would many other young women we know. It's the result of good genetics, clean living, and clean faces.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Celtic Thunder



"The Voyage"
I love this song.

GON OUT, BACKSON, BISY, BACKSON

For those who don't speak Milne:

We will all be gone or busy for the rest of today- HG is going with my parents to my dad's doctor appointment so she can help my mother get there and they can understand what the doctors are telling them about why Dad's kidneys aren't doing their job, and they can find out just how badly they are not doing their job.

. The HM is taking The poor Cherub into the dentist to take care of an abscessed tooth that flared up Saturday night. We tried to reach the dentist, but failed, and on the advice of our nurse's hot line took her to E.R. to get an antibiotic. Why is it that these things NEVER happen on week days during normal hours?

. The Boy, Cherub, and the HM are spending the rest of the day here with the Daddy and four boys we often spend time with, but I doubt the HM will have much time for the computer. They will be doing manly man things outside.

The rest of us are, including the Mummy of those four boys, are having a Chick's day and evening out, an event that we've been planning for some months now for this day, and it took too much work to get the free tickets to the concert, the days off required for the menfolk and EC, and the gas money, etc, for us to cancel this trip now- so we are going to visit the Big City, see the sites, ride the public transit, visit sites, a shop or two, and go to a concert in the evening. We shall come home physically exhausted, mentally rejuvenated, talking a thousand words per minute, and financially flayed.

Good for Ben Stein

Even if he is a little late:


Can't someone say the obvious here? That in this case, it's not the Mormons who are the criminals, it's the government of Texas.


Some of us have been saying it sir, we've been saying it.

Religious Debates Go Here

I wrote this out yesterday afternoon. Subsequent events have sort have rendered it moot, but still, it's something I said I would do, so here it is.

I don't know if anybody else is even interested in discussion along these lines, but just in case, here is the place for it. In our the comments to our weekly Sunday Hymn post this week, Christoph took issue with one of the things David suggested those who wished to join him in prayer and fasting might pray for.

I approved the comment, but I also said that particular post was not the place for further religious debates. I suggested Christoph pick another post if he wanted to continue a discussion on those lines. And then I thought I might as well offer one for those interested.

There are rules, however. It is, after all, our blog, and it is a family blog. Here are the rules I have thought of so far- I hope not to need more:

Keep it clean. I will not entertain sophomoric discussions about what 'clean' means. You know, you really do, and the point should not be to figure out how much you can get away with, but how you can communicate without relying on words and terms most people recognize are not acceptable in polite society.

Keep it fairly civil, within reason, and avoid the personal. It's acceptable to say "That is a morally bankrupt idea," it is not okay to say 'You are a morally bankrupt spawn of Satan.'

Those of you do not believe in the God we believe in try to remember that He IS the God we believe in, and we love Him. You may think that is irrational and foolish, and that He is not a God anybody should believe in, I understand that. Just remember that if you wish to comment along those lines, you'll be talking about somebody we love, and phrase your issues as respectfully as you can with that in mind.

Those of you do believe in the God we believe in, keep in mind that we share a belief that all humans are made in the image of God, and that we are called on to love each other and even our enemies.

Here's what Christophe said about religion (I published his comments, and you can read the rest there):

Don't feel motivated to change one religion for another one.

Follow rather Payne, Spinoza, Jefferson and other rationalists, Deists and/or ethicists preferentially, whose ideas stand on their own without appeal to authority or inaccurate, self-contradictory, and, in many places, blatantly immoral and evil texts.



-----------
Subsequent events:

Let's begin by telling a story. You can figure out why I am thinking of this story as you read on:
Years ago we had just moved in to our new house in Okinawa- the movers dropped our belongings off at about 5:00 p.m. and disappeared. We got to bed by midnight, I think, after finding beds and bedding and a soup pan and a couple dishes. Our then two children were 3 and 16 months. The HM had to leave for work in the morning. I was awakened just before by 8 a.m. by a knock on the door. I blearily climbed out of bed and staggered to the door, tripping over boxes and stubbing my toe on misplaced furniture along the way. I actually had to move a heavy ward-robe box to open the front door. When I opened it, there stood two smiling members of a religious sect known for their door to door proselytizing. They wished to come in and study with me. I am not averse to having discussions with this (or any other door to door group), but this was completely not the time for it. I explained that we'd just moved in, pointed to the box that was in the way, and suggested they come back the next day.

They said there was no time like the present. I said I hadn't fed my children, I wasn't dressed, there was no where to sit, and I had to unpack my house that day. They asked if I already had a 'church home' and I said yes, and told them where it was, asserted again that I would talk with them later if they would come back, but that particular day and time was simply not gonna work. They continued talking over and past me, making assumptions about what I believed and why, and arguing with their assumptions. I said again that there was simply no way I could discuss anything with them or let anybody in the house at that moment, and I had things to do, please come back another day. They ignored my request again, telling me that what they had to say to me was more important than anything else I could possibly do that day, and, eventually, I simply had to reach past them and pull the door shut. As they left they were still smiling, but explaining, over the closing door, that they were used to religious persecution and considered it a blessing.


Here are the subsequent comments to the post of yesterday- the one where I asked that there be so further such arguments on THAT particular post:

2:02 "As for 'letting the people choose their own religion,' prayers, of course, in no way hinder the freedom of others to do make their own choices. And, in point of fact, it is part of David's religion (and mine) to pray for conversions. Are you suggesting this is a part of our religion we should not be free to exercise?"

Of course you're free to say what you want. I'm encouraging anyone reading that to reject such nonsense as comprises your religion, which is hardly limiting your freedom.

"...I will not entertain any other attempts here."

Which is on the one hand, understandable, and on the other hand, puts the lie to your prior assertion you don't use the moderation feature to censor opposing opinions; that you only use it to prevent spam.

So, while we're on the same side in this issue, for reasons of our own, my original estimation of you when it comes to censoring comments was correct.

After your reassurance, I apologized for jumping to the wrong conclusion. However, I jumped to the right conclusion.

"...this is not the post to place them..."

Every place is the right place for truth and countering falsehood. I wouldn't think there is any place on the Earth for a person of faith not to practice their beliefs, although it would be up to them to decide if the consequences to themselves and others were worth it... and likewise, expressing pro-reason and anti-superstition views is my belief and right, and certainly it's at least as important to do it when actually facing statements I disagree with than it is at any other time.



And here Christoph replies again in the thread where I asked him not to:

4:48: I see you've allowed another comment, and censored mine.

So, yes, you are a censor despite your previous assurance to the contrary. I have no use for you nor your blog any longer.


And again:

5:13
You claim you have the right to say what you want where you want. But you do not."

I have the right to say whatever I want; however, you do not have to publish it nor did I ever say otherwise.

I'm pointing out it is you that said you only filter spam, when clearly you filter more, even if it's only moving one's comments to a place other than where the commenter intended, for purposes of your own.

From my point of view, why is this post the correct one to express disagreement with your religion? Precisely the reason you feel I shouldn't: Because it is about prayer.

And prayer is silly. Only action will do. A positive affirmation as a method of guiding one's own mind, maybe. Believing someone else will do something on your behalf as a result of your private thoughts...

With that, I appreciate that you'll be recopying my other comments (and perhaps this one as well) in a different place; however, it doesn't change my point.

My opposition is to your religion specifically and I'm not especially trying to be nice about it. Nor do I expect you to be although you can if you prefer.

With that said, I don't dislike you (quite the reverse as I believe your morals are pretty solid on subjects I've read about thus far) or anything of the sort... however, I meant what I said.

Good day and no offence meant even though I knew a sincere expression of my views was likely to cause one. I was neutral on whether you would be offended or not.



And again, at 2:22 AM, in a comment he said I should feel free to delete or publish, but his preference was that I not- I couldn't tell which thing he preferred me not to do, but I am erring on the side of caution and not publishing the majority of that email. However, there is one section that I don't think he'd mind being published:

However, criticizing me for not including my email address when even the address itself screams out it's an anti-spam measure... and I don't even know your first name, much less your full name... nor do I know your email address... is a low, unwarranted blow.

Finally, you set up your blog in such a way as to allow anonymous comments and Google Blogger gives you the option of not doing so. So any critique of one of your commenters for choosing anonymity (even the Supreme Court of your country recognizes anonymity as being essential to free speech under certain circumstances) is unseemly.


Actually, of course, he doesn't know whether or not I am offended. My primary emotion remains amusement, tempered by slightly less exasperation than I felt with the religious cult members who would not go away and come back a day later even after I have told him, 'Today's a bad day, come back tomorrow and we'll talk."

Incidentally, obviously it's quite possible to set up an anonymous email account- I have one; and I have never asked for the sort of information he claims I am asking for, and my contact information is, indeed, available on the blog sidebar- right where it always has been:
Go to the left sidebar, click on my name (Headmistress, zookeeper) to bring up my profile, and then look to the left again, where it says Contact. There's a button there that says email. Click on that, and there you are.

So far as I know, that's the way it is on all blog-spot blogs.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Sunday Hymn Post

O God of mercy, God of might,
In love and pity infinite,
Teach us, as ever in Thy sight,
To live our life to Thee.

And Thou Who cam’st on earth to die,
That fallen man might live thereby,
O hear us, for to Thee we cry
In hope, O Lord, to Thee.

Teach us the lesson Thou hast taught,
To feel for those Thy blood hath bought;
That every word and deed and thought
May work a work for Thee.

For all are brethren, far and wide,
Since Thou, O Lord, for all hast died;
Then teach us, whatsoe’er betide,
To love them all in Thee.

In sickness, sorrow, want or care,
Whate’er it be, ’tis ours to share;
May we, when help is needed, there
Give help as unto Thee.

And may Thy Holy Spirit move
All those who live, to live in love,
Till Thou shalt greet in Heaven above
All those who live to Thee.

I don't know this one, but I like the lyrics. Cyberhymnal midi file and background information here.

Our friend David left the following comment to this post, and I want to make sure that those who might be interested don't miss it, so I'm reposting them here:
Sarah and I are going to be spending Monday in fasting and prayer for these children [the FLDS children] and their parents and would like to ask others to join us.


  • Please ask God to protect the children and bring them to the place best for them.
  • Please ask God for justice to be done.
  • Please ask God for parents who have never abused their children to receive their children back.
  • Please ask God to comfort the children who are separated from their parents, preferably by returning them to their parents if that is possible and safe.
  • Please ask God to comfort the loving parents who miss their children.
  • Please ask God to bring the parents, and some day the children, to knowledge of Jesus Christ, that they may be saved.
  • Please ask God to move the government officials involved to do what is truly morally and ethically right and not to step around legal safeguards designed to protect the public from their abuse of power. Please ask Him to remove anyone who has abused their power in this case, so that we may all have peace.
  • Please ask God to make the truth evident to everyone.

If you can't pray all of these things, please pray what you can.


As I am copying and pasting this, I am reminded of something Amanda Witt once posted about prayer:
let us never sell short the meaning and power of prayer. The Lord of All has infinite resources. He can provide, though our purses are empty.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

We Demand a Recount

I am having a really hard time figuring out exactly how many minor mothers CPS claims to have in its custody, and I can't understand why they seem to be giving such contradictory accounts. I'm going to recap the information I have links for to date, and maybe somebody else can explain this to me.

Supposedly, yesterday or the day before CPS identified 25 more females who claimed to be adults but were minors. Were they mothers or not? We are getting conflicting and contradictory information.

According to CPS official Darrell Azar:

"... further research into the ages of the people at the coliseum resulted in an increase in the count of children by 25 more. He said women who had told authorities they are adults turned out to be minors with children of their own."


Except.... do they all have children? When he says 'women who told authorities they are adults' turned out to be minors with kids- does he mean all 25 of them, or does he mean that 2 of the newly identified minors also had kids? If it seems like I am being nitpicky, read on.

And how solid is CPS' research? There's an interesting weasel word in this story which I didn't notice before:
Texas authorities said on Thursday they identified 25 more mothers below age 18 among those removed from a polygamist compound, raising to about 460 the number of minors at the heart of a huge abuse probe....
[...]
The 25 additional teenage mothers who have been sorted from the adults and who initially claimed to be adults may provide prosecutors with more ammunition if it was found for example that some had become pregnant when they were in their early teens.

Officials would not say how old the mothers were beyond the fact all are believed to be under 18.


Is this just the bureaucratic love of the passive verb? Are they merely 'believed' to be under 18, or has CPS actually shown them to be under 18? Is this still me getting bogged down in details? I do that at times, but read on.

Not every news story reports them as mothers- this story has Azar merely saying CPS has
"identified 25 minor females who had represented themselves as adults."


Why, if they had identified them as mothers, does this story so carefully not say so?

How is CPS identifying them as minors?* Remember that CPS has told us that they given false names, birthdays, contradictory accounts of their names and ages (I sympathize with CPS- that is so frustrating, to be told different things at different times)- and that they don't have documentation. So where and how is CPS confirming their ages? I would really like to know.

According to this article, Darrell Azar, with CPS, says:
Among the YFZ Ranch children are "dozens" of minors... who have children or who are pregnant.
DOZENS? That's terrible. Maybe CPS was right after all? Except...

Chris Van Deusen, a CPS spokesman, says (the same day, as near as I can tell):
"The only thing we can say is we're aware that there are 20 girls who became pregnant, and they were between the ages of 13 and 16. That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived, they were 13, 14, 15 or 16," he said. "That establishes that there is some sexual abuse here."


Don't you find '20 girls who became pregnant' an odd way to phrase this? That's because he's trying hard not to admit when they 'became' pregnant. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, which actually looked at the documents CPS submitted to the court, one of these 20 under-aged mothers who 'became' pregnant is now thirty years old.

The SLTribune looked at the court documents and they say that while the CPS agent Angie Voss testified about all those pregnant minors and under-aged mothers, what she did not explain is that she was talking about cases going back a far as 1993- most of them ten years ago, almost all of them from either a time when they were not legally under-age, or they weren't even in Texas.

Ah, and they have a bit more on Van Deusen's statement:
The count of children in custody rose again Friday after CPS determined that 25 girls who claimed to be adults are actually minors, said spokesman Chris Van Deusen. That group may overlap with the 20 listed in the court document as pregnant or as mothers, he said. "The only thing we can say is we're aware of 20 young girls who became pregnant when they were between the ages of 13 and 16," Van Deusen said. "That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived they were 13, 14, 15, or 16. "That establishes that there was some sexual abuse here," he said. Van Deusen said the court document may not include minors identified as pregnant or mothers since the court hearing. He also said he could not talk about investigative results that haven't been made public in court or otherwise.


So do these 25 new girls overlap with the 20 that CPS listed in its court documents or not?

And a story today reports that:
"Two teenage girls are pregnant, and although identities and ages have been difficult to nail down, CPS officials say no more than 30 minor girls in state custody have children."


'No more than thirty' could mean thirty, and it could mean... 2. We don't know. And, of course, even if there are actually 30 of them, that makes CPS agent Azar a liar, as he said there were 'dozens.'

Parker, the lawyer for FLDS, says that they actually only have one girl with a verified pregnancy. CPS has (recently) claimed they had three under-aged pregnant girls. One of them will be 18 (this is in addition to another girl in custody who has been 18 for two weeks and they are still counting her as a minor) in a few months, and one refused to let them give her a pregnancy test (making it seem she's not so terribly compliant and unable to speak for herself or make her own choices as they said these girls are). He says they are counting her refusal as a known pregnancy. That leaves one verified under-aged pregnancy, and one suspected on the basis of the refusal to take a pregnancy test- and while I am passionately interested in seeing the perpetrators of statutory rape/sexual assault charged and jailed (assuming, of course, that the pregnant girl did not get pregnant with her 17 year old husband), this pregnancy rate is far, far less than the ratio for any other group in Texas. Which raises another question yet to be proven- are the fathers of these children more than three years older than the mothers, or are any of them also teens?

Let's look at the CPS claim again:
Two teenage girls are pregnant, and although identities and ages have been difficult to nail down, CPS officials say no more than 30 minor girls in state custody have children. It's not clear how many other adolescent girls may be among the children shipped to foster facilities.


You have to admire the way the CPS officials use weasel words- 'no more than 30 minor girls have children...' could mean anything from 1 to 30. I'd like to know which it is, and why they're being so coy about hard numbers.

Here's an another offical statement from CPS:

CPS identified 20 minors and young adult women with children who were impregnated between the ages of 13-16.


So Azar is either a liar or he can't count. And the reports yesterday about discovering 25 minor girls who were mothers frankly don't add up with other numbers CPS officials are publicizing. Why are we getting such contradictory information from CPS?

Just a reminder to those who can't seem to follow this- I have never said there are no under-aged girls being abused or who have children or are pregnant. I have said CPS is doing a pretty poor job of proving it, and that parents ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I have even said, at times, that I would not be shocked to learn that there probably are such cases. I have consistently said that I want to see guilty parties in those cases charged and put behind bars in order to punish them and protect other under-aged girls- and one of my biggest problems with this case is that CPS has pretty much made it highly unlikely that this will ever happen. They've given the perpetrators three weeks to see which way the wind is blowing, it's highly unlikely that they've waited around in Eldorado for law enforcement to send them an engraved invitation to go to jail. But if CPS officials cannot even agree with each other about how many minor girls in their custody have children or are pregnant, it seems obvious that the evidence they insist they have cannot be as compelling as they are presenting it to be.


*How IS CPS determining ages? I do not know. While the media is passing on the canard that none of these people have birth certificates and other forms of identification, that's not what came out in the hearing. There, the judge said their birth certificates and other I.D. were not adequate:
"During the hearing, attorneys for parents and children said they had certified birth certificates, social security numbers, Texas drivers licenses and even tax returns that could be used to validate names and ages.

But Voss said the documents would not be acceptable, suggesting some certificates might be forged.

And Judge Barbara Walther agreed.

''How do you know, in today's world of identity theft, a birth certificate is proof of who they are?'' the judge asked.

Attorney Stephanie Goodman asked Voss whether a certified birth certificate would be acceptable proof for her client.

''I can't say that it wouldn't be,'' Voss said. But she also could not say it would be.

Instead, Texas will use DNA samples to link mothers and fathers to their children."

One problem- DNA does not determine age. And if CPS isn't accepting these documents, how are they ascertaining the girls' ages? Dental records? Fortunate telling? Tea leaf reading? Taking their word for it if they claim to be under 18 while calling them liars if they say they are adults?

I quoted this before, in this post. Our dear brother David responded:
Wow. Wouldn't it be neat if there were some kind of written standard the judge could read to find out what does and does not constitute proof of identity?

Oh, right; that would prevent her from just making things up as she goes along.

Oh, well; not the first time an ignorant Texas judge has just made up standards in the face of the befuddling complexities of life.

Conformity and Toys

FLDS has a new video up- the one called "Helping Hands." In the very last frame there is a little boy playing with blocks, so we do now know that when CPS representatives said that these children have no toys, CPS representatives were not quite, er, accurate.

I've added this bit of information to the Conformity and Toys post.

Should You Lose Your Kids In a 'Class Action'?

-
The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect's ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep - from nursing infants to teenagers - is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family's children.

The move has the appearance of "a class-action child removal," said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University's law school in Dallas.

"I've never heard of anything like that," she said.

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, contends that the state has essentially said, "If you're a member of this religious group, then you're not allowed to have children."
news article here

... state authorities are supposed to keep the children in their homes unless "a person of ordinary prudence and caution" believes there's a continuing and immediate danger to their safety.


CPS spokesman Darrell Azar gives lip service to the law, saying removal is always the last option- although it was the first in this case, and that there simply was no other way to protect the children. I wonder if he actually read his own agency's testimony at the hearing:

CPS officials have conceded there is no evidence the youngest children were abused, and about 130 of the children are under 5. Teenage boys were not physically or sexually abused either, according to evidence presented in a custody hearing earlier last week, but more than two dozen teenage boys are also in state custody, now staying at a boys' ranch that might typically house troubled or abandoned teens.


More here

But It's Illegal

These comments exemplify some of the arguments I've read supporting the raids and subsequent removal of all the children:

There is a culture of law-breaking in the FLDS compounds beyond polygamy–defrauding the government through false welfare claims and having children as young as thirteen and fourteen work in construction (those aren’t just “chores”).

As far as the kids being returned, no, they should not be, they are being raised in an illegal situation and that in itsself can be concidered abuse. Much like a child who is raised in a drug dealers home, they learn what they see and continue the cycle. So break the cycle for these kids!


One problem with this line of reasoning is that not all the families who have lost their children are actually living polygamy at this time. We know there is at least one divorced single woman with one 13 year old son in foster care. We know there is at least one monogamous family with three children in foster care, and in their case the wife has an EMT license and she offered to leave the ranch and her husband immediately and get an EMT job if she could have her kids back.

But more importantly, let's assume that the government does, in fact, care very much that children not be brought up in a climate where law-breaking is accepted, and even a way of life.

So naturally, the question arises as to when the government is going to intervene and remove all the children of illegal immigrants from their parents who have broken the laws of this country and continue to do so, hold a single hearing for all illegal alien parenting cases in each community, treating them as a single household, and bus the children off to far flung foster homes.

How long do you suppose it will take?

So How Many Pregnant Teens Does CPS Have?

Here's some other news:

An attorney for FLDS families in Texas today challenged the state's claim of a pervasive pattern of underage girls having children, saying the state's own documents show that just two teenagers in custody are pregnant.
Rod Parker, who also acts as a spokesman for the polygamous sect at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, said he was basing his statements on a list that was given to him by an unnamed source who said the document was generated by Texas Child Protective Services.
Of the three teenagers listed as pregnant, Parker said, one is about to turn 18 and another refused to take a pregnancy test, he said.
"That leaves us with one," he said.
Based on that list, Parker said, "I challenge the CPS to come forward with the pregnant minors."


CPS is coming close to admitting what others have been saying all along- they don't have twenty pregnant teens:
Chris Van Deusen, a CPS spokesman, said, "The only thing we can say is we're aware that there are 20 girls who became pregnant, and they were between the ages of 13 and 16.

Got that? Not "We have twenty pregnant girls, but there are 20 girls 'who became pregnant." In case that's not clear:

"That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived, they were 13, 14, 15 or 16," he said. "That establishes that there is some sexual abuse here."

"At the time they conceived," which may have been in another state than Texas- the ranch has only been there for around four years. Texas only raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 2005- three years ago. FLDS' lawyer is claiming that CPS is talking about at least some pregnancies that did occur before the group ever got to Texas:
Parker said the 20 minors the state has identified either as pregnant or mothers actually had children over a 10-year period. He also said some of the purported minors in state custody are or are about to become adults.
"They need to let those people out," Parker said.


There's more here, emphasis mine own:
One CPS document reviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune lists just three pregnant teenagers. The court document, also reviewed by The Tribune, includes women who became mothers before the FLDS' move to Texas or before the state raised the age of marriage, with parents' permission, from 14 to 16 in 2005. The chart does not indicate whether the women are legally married or the ages of the children's fathers. Among them: One woman, now 30, listed as having given birth to her first child in 1993 when she was 14. A reference to this situation was made by a CPS investigator without explaining when the pregnancy occurred during the two-day court hearing in which Judge Barbara Walther made her decision to keep the children in state custody.


And yet...
"It's a very good day for the children," said Darrell Azar, communications director for Texas Family and Protective Services at a news conference at the main gate to the San Angelo Fairgrounds about half an hour after the last bus left. "They're on their way to foster care, where they will be safe and protected and have their needs met."

Azar said his agency is working out details to give mothers the chance to see their children.

Among the YFZ Ranch children are "dozens" of minors, he said, who have children or who are pregnant.


Which is it? Dozens? Or 'Twenty girls who became pregnant, but that's not to say there are twenty now...?' In light of his utterly conflicting statements, this one just drips with blackness of the pot/kettle sort:

In responding to FLDS' concerns, Azar said the polygamist sect is embarked on a campaign of disinformation, but there is no way a public relations campaign could wash away the concerns for the children.

"I think the vast majority of Texans and Americans understand the children are protected," Azar said.


One thing the FLDS women complained about is that the answers they get from CPS depend entirely on the CPS worker they asked- they got conflicting answers from different CPS workers, too.

The Nightmare Worsens

CPS can't find two of the children and doesn't bother to answer emails or return phone calls to their mother's lawyer:

A Corpus Christi attorney representing two mothers from the Schleicher County polygamist retreat raided this month claims that child welfare authorities cannot account for two boys.

The boys, ages 16 months and 11 years, were part of a group of more than 400 removed from their parents' custody this week and bused to foster homes across the state. The last groups left Friday.

State child welfare authorities responded that no children have been lost, but family relationships are muddled, hence the need for genetic testing to determine them.
[...]
Rebecca Flanigan of Corpus Christi, with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, said the children are not on any of the state's placement lists. She said Child Protective Services has not returned her phone calls or e-mails on the issue.

"They haven't been spirited away," Flanigan said. "They have not been accounted for. Not on any one of CPS's placement lists. We don't know where they are, nor do they know."
[...]
Flanigan said four mothers she represents want to know where their children are because each expects to move to a city where she can be near them. Those efforts have been hampered because many of the mothers have not been told where their children have been taken. One of her clients has seven children going to four different cities.

"These are toddlers who in a few weeks' time will not know who their mothers are because they've been taken from them," Flanigan said. "When you get sucked into this bureaucracy, you really don't know who is in charge, and who will influence the decision to reunite these children with their moms."


I can imagine the screaming, long dark nights of anguish these poor parents are experiencing.

I have known of one case where CPS 'lost' a child- and the child was found a day or two later- in the custody of CPS. The mother overdosed in a public place, youngster at her side. Proper authorities were notified and took everybody away- mother to the hospital, child to custody. CPS had mislabeled the toddler and he'd been sent off to one social worker- who couldn't figure out exactly where he'd come from, while the one who should have had the tot only learned of his existence when a cousin of the mother called to ask, "What have you done with the baby?" CPS said, "What baby?" They had no record of having picked him up. Everything straightened out in the end, and the toddler was safe enough- but I wonder what would have happened if the mother's cousin hadn't called?

I hope this is just a bureaucratic error and these children are as safe as they can be under the circumstances.
----------------------------

Friday, April 25, 2008

Mathematical Poetry

While I sit with my father this afternoon, I am taking time to go through some books I left in their basement two years ago. They are the last of a few thousand given to us by the owner of a small used bookstore that went out of business. most of them we donated to thrift stores, a few we kept, a few sold. I got burned out on sorting them, and left a couple bookcases full in Granny Tea's basement. Here's a keeper, Imagination's Other Place, by Plotz- iut's a collection of poetry about math and science. We have the comical, the serious, the lyrical, and the plodding. Here's a sample of comical:

Plane Geometry

Emma Rounds


'Twas Euclid, and the theorem pi
Did plane and solid in the text,
All parallel were the radii,
And the ang-gulls convex'd.

"Beware the Wentworth-Smith, my son,
And the Loci that vacillate;
Beware the Axiom, and shun
The faithless Postulate."

He took his Waterman in hand;
Long time the proper proof he sought;
Then rested he by the XYZ
And sat awhile in thought.

And as in inverse thought he sat
A brilliant proof, in lines of flame,
All neat and trim, it came to him.
Tangenting as it came.

"AB, CD," reflected he-
The Waterman went snicker-snack-
He Q.E.D.-ed, and, proud indeed,
He trapezoided back.

"And hast thou proved the 29th?
Come to my arms, my radius boy!
O good for you! O one point two!"
He rhombused in his joy.

'Twas Euclid, and the theorem pi
Did plane and solid in the text;
All parallel were the radii,
And the ang-gulls convex'd.

News Updates, FLDS

CPS says 260 children remain at the coliseum, where CPS itself has described the living conditions to the judge as 'untenable.' No mothers remain to nurture and comfort their children in the untenable situation in which the state has placed them.

CPS spokesman

Azar said the FLDS teens who have babies are different from other teen mothers because FLDS girls are "spiritually married" to middle-age men.

So long as there's no 'spiritual marriage,' the more than half of all other teen-aged pregnancies in the community that are with adult men old enough to be charged with statutory rape, are acceptable to Azar?

Once more, I think they ALL should be charged, both FLDS men and men in the general community, any and all men who have been shown to have abused under-aged girls. But that's not what's happening here.
Imagine this scenario:
CPS gets a call purported to be from a teenaged girl who says she is abused and held captive against her will by Jacob Smith, and she gives his age and birthdate. Jacob Smith is well known to law enforcement, and they quickly discover that all this information matches a registered sex offender- he's in another state. They know this, because they speak to him and to his Parole Officer in that other state. Still, better to err on the side of caution, so four days later CPS shows up with law enforcement- and can't find the girl, but they see other minor girls they believe are being abused and held captive against their will, and they know they are minors because.... they look young. And they know they are abused because.... they have children- and.... they look young.
So.... they leave the suspected captors and abusers alone, free to come and go, do not charge them with a single crime, and take away all the children in the area- incidentally, holding a number of them captive against their will, including a number of females who insist they are legally adults and they are not being held against their will. And meanwhile, the suspected abusers are free to slink way in the dead of night and hie themselves to some other community where they are free to continue their wicked hobbies untroubled by the risk of jail sentences.

That bothers me. A lot.

FLDS believes and practices many things that I find repugnant- polygamy, marriages assigned by prophet (as the Moonies), bigotry (the negative image of Louis Farakhan's racist hatred), and so forth. These things are distasteful, they are objectionable, but what they are not is crimes. Child Abuse is a crime, but the criminals, if there are any, are going free through huge loop holes in the state net, while the innocent, remaining to protect their children, are being treated as criminals:

"It could very well be there's some good reasons to remove some of those children, absolutely," Doggett said. "But to suggest all of them be painted with this broad brush because they belong to a particular religion is a very dangerous thing - and that's why we have courts."


More timeline questions (I always skip these sorts of details when reading a mystery, so I am glad others are looking into it)- Txwordpounder at Prairie Fire Journal points out some issues that come up when we look at times and dates and official statements- he notes that we have public statements where we see:
Flora telling the national media that the phone calls are legitimate and chastising others who are claiming they are a hoax, all during the same time period that her and the Texas Rangers have in fact come to the conclusion that they are a hoax.

It's obvious that Flora's credibility is questionable at this point. But that hasn't dampened the mainstream media's willingness to continue facilitating her propaganda campaign against the FLDS. It certainly validates Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard description of Flora as "misguided and devious."

Then there's still the question about the Texas authorities' involvement in this devious activity. According to the affidavit for the first search warrant, signed by Texas Ranger Leslie Long, he interviewed two employees of the New Bridge Family Shelter in San Angelo, who claimed that during the period of March 29-30 they "answered multiple phone calls" from the girl later identified as "Sarah," now believed by Texas Rangers as being a hoax perpetrated by Rosita Swinton. The timeline in the affidavit raises some vexing questions. When did Family Shelter employees actually alert law enforcement about the phone calls? If the two employees were so certain of the legitimacy of the call and the girl being in imminent danger, why was there a three-day delay between the day of the last call (March 30) and the day Texas Ranger Long interviewed them (April 2), the day before the raid went down? Why wasn't law enforcement contacted the first day of the calls?


Just a reminder that there's more information about Flora Jessop here.
And....
Here's more information on the 25 females who have been reclassified as minors:
Azar also said further research into the ages of the people at the coliseum resulted in an increase in the count of children by 25 more. He said women who had told authorities they are adults turned out to be minors with children of their own.

A San Angelo attorney, Stephanie Goodman, was denied entrance to the coliseum at noon today. She said her clients - some of them mothers - were being denied access to counsel and getting "several of their constitutional rights violated."


Officials would not say how old the mothers were beyond the fact all are believed to be under 18.


One news story I read but cannot find now said that their ages were determined by 'CPS investigations' and communications from their lawyers. I would really like to know what these things mean- are these 19 year olds claiming to be 17 so they can stay with their babies, or is CPS using those very identification documents that so many people claim FLDS people do not have? Or is this finally some hard evidence of abuse? If you were a man who fathered children on these girls, do you think you would be waiting around in Eldorado to find out when they were going to charge you?


Why, if we are so concerned about protecting the children, have these men been allowed to go free?

(updated to add Prairie Fire Journal's link, as I neglected to do that earlier, smack my hand with a well deserved slap, and to fix a couple of errors, etc.)

More on the Removal of the Children from their Mommies

Yesterday CPS separated the youngest children from their mothers, in a move that their own state's own expert witness testified would be most traumatic for them. He recommended that they should stay with their mothers. The judge and CPS preferred not to follow the advice of anybody but CPS agent Angie Voss- which is, to my mind, a bit like asking the foxes to decide which chickens should stay with them and which should be free to go.

From Brooke Adams excellent Polygamy Files:

Ruth is 34. She has four children: The little boy, a 2-year-old and twins who are nearly 13 months old -- a couple weeks too old, it turns out.

Until Thursday, Ruth believed she would be allowed to stay with her infants.

But she came up against one of the arbitrary lines drawn by the state of Texas in this human drama: Mothers who are breast-feeding infants younger than 12 months were allowed to stay.

Mothers like Ruth were sent away.

''These twins are premies,'' she said. 'They need extra care.''

Who is caring for those babies tonight? She has no idea. One has a cold, perhaps pneumonia, and an ear infection.

''Some big burly guy came and took him from me,'' she said, ''and wouldn't give me a chance to say goodbye to him.''

It has been cold and drafty in the coliseum the past few nights, the women said.


Ruth says her four year old child has lost four pounds during the three weeks he has been in state 'care.'
And once again, CPS officials are apparently in the business of enforcing a cultural standard that is basically 'white bread,' middle America, and not remotely a child abuse issue:


'The last few days you could hardly walk around the workers were so thick,'' Ruth said. ''If you've heard about a prison, that's what if felt like. They put tags on our arms, branded us like a herd of cattle.''

Mothers who brought babies and young children onto their own cots to cuddle and comfort were told to put them back in cribs, the women said.


And so the children were removed, crying, calling for their Mamas, begging to stay with their Mommies. The state, of course, did not permit any witnesses to these actions. They say it's to protect the children, but since they plaster the pictures of 'adoptable' children in public places, I think not.

Yesterday, Darrell Azar, spokesman for the Texas Children Protective Services, admitted the obvious: "...the women and children who were separated became very distressed and tearful. He said workers waited 45 minutes, then began to move them out."

Here is what CPS says today:

''Before the separation, CPS explained what was going to happen and then allowed plenty of time for everyone to work through their emotions. The separation was orderly and without incident.''


I do not even have to have been there to know that the people behind that statement are black hearted liars who are so arrogant and full of hubris that they assume the rest of us are as ignorant, gullible, and compliant as they say the FLDS women are. Ahem. Let me take a deep cleansing breath and be more temperate.
This statement is palpably false as the level of common sense possessed by an amoeba will tell us.

Even if every charge ever made about the FLDS sect is true and worse besides, this statement is obviously a lie. There is no way on God's green earth that dozens of children four and under were taken from their parents in one mass movement and this was 'orderly and without incident.'
Being taken from your mother IS an 'incident.' Toddlers are NOT 'orderly.' And it wouldn't matter to them if their parents beat them with a stick every night of their entire lives, they would be screaming and crying to return. There is no possible scenario whereby awake children were separated from their mothers without incident. Why is CPS lying about this? What else are they telling us that isn't true?

An alternative is that they have told the truth as they see it, and the spector of screaming, terrorized children clutching for their mothers, sobbing mothers, and howling nursing 15 month olds being banned from their mother's breasts is apparently so hum-drum a daily occurrence to them that it is 'without incident.'

The Final Plunge... accentuated with a lot of other things.

Classes are over, which feels very weird. This semester has sped by much faster than other semesters. Losing a car in a flood one month, going out of state the next, and out of the country the month after *that* might have something to do with that odd feeling. That's my theory, anyway.

Now I've only got to write the paper and take exams. Then I think I shall join my grandfather as he follows military patrols shouting slogans. That sounds like fun.

Mothers Separated from their Babies

More news here:

- 64 women also left the coliseum, 17 of them are mothers with babies under the age of 12 months. Those 17 women went into a care facility where they could be with their babies.
- 47 women were separated from their children. Of that 47, 40 went to a separate location and only seven returned home.


That might be because they want to leave life at the ranch and this is their chance.
It might be because they know that what they want does not matter, that CPS will not even think about giving them back their children if they return to the ranch. It might be because they weren't given a genuine choice.

Azar said the women and children who were separated became very distressed and tearful. He said workers waited 45 minutes, then began to move them out. The children's ages were not given.
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, who represents some FLDS members, said mothers were told to gather together inside the coliseum at 9 a.m. but were not told why. Once there, CPS said children 13 months or older were being removed from them. One mother had her 13-month-old daughter literally taken out of her hands, the legal aid society said.
Two women who returned to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ranch, Velvet, 31, and Ruth, 34, later gave tearful accounts of how their young children were taken from them in what they described as a "cold" manner.
Velvet, who did not give a last name, said she has a 13-month-old daughter, Velvet Rose, who is still breast feeding.
"I don't know where she is," Velvet said fighting back tears. "She's never had a bottle before. I need her back."
Ruth, who provided no last name, said she has twins who are just older than 12 months, as well as two other children ages 2 and 4.
She said she tried to explain to CPS workers that Judge Barbara Walther had said that women with children between the ages of 12 and 24 months should be able to visit them frequently for breast feeding and other nuturing.
"But they said, no. They said if you go to the shelter, there is a chance you can visit them. But if you go anywhere else, you'll never see them again."
[...]
As the first group of buses pulled away from the coliseum at 10:30 a.m., a woman on a bus held out a sign that read, "SOS. Mothers separated. Help."
Another yelled out, "We're being kidnapped."


Apparently, they also were not permitted to consult with their lawyers before being forced to make a decision:

Stephanie Goodman, an attorney representing several of the FLDS women, said they were not allowed to contact legal counsel before making their decisions of where to go today. That is in violation of their constitutional rights, she said.
"I'm sure there are some safety issues here, but there should be some effort made for these women to meet with their attorneys before being made to make this kind of choice."

Now this is interesting:
In addition, he said CPS had identified 25 minor females who had represented themselves as adults


A couple of points arise here- notice that all we are told is that they are minor females. Not mothers, just minor females. Maybe they are pregnant or have children
and he just didn't want to say, or maybe he did say and the reporter didn't communicate that- these things are entirely possible- But it's interesting that the article quotes him only as saying they are 'minor females.'

How did CPS identify that these were indeed minor females? DNA won't tell you how old somebody is. Might it be that they had, oh, documents? The sorts of things that CPS keeps telling us they do not have? The sort of the things the Judge said 'might' be cases of identity theft? Or did 25 young women, realizing they would be separated from their children if they continued to insist they were adults, say, "Fine, have it your way, I am 17. Now can I stay with my 2 year old?" I have to say if I were a young mother who could get away with claiming to be a teen and if admitted I was an adult I would see my child disappear from my life perhaps forever into foster care, and if I said I was a minor I could stay with my child- I would not even have to think about it. I would claim to be 12 years old if that's what it took to stay with my child.

Back to separating mothers and children, here's how FLDS characterized today's events:
Devestated and confused by CPS and state auth
04/24/2008 11:00 AM
Mothers who have been separated from their children, (all those with children two years and older) are loaded on buses. Some go to the Ranch, some to a women's shelter in San Antonio, and some in San Angelo. While on the bus they throw open the dark-tinted windows and cry out for help. Writing SOS signs, the mothers hold them out the window pleading for help. CPS workers tell the FLDS ladies that if they choose to go to the women's shelter, they (the mothers) will have a much better chance of seeing their children. The majority of the mothers choose to go to the shelter. CPS workers and policemen swarm the area. Questions asked CPS workers have varying answers, depending on which worker is asked. Mothers contact their lawyers and leave the shelter.
Mothers and children are torn apart by CPS an
04/24/2008 9:00 AM
At 9:00 CPS workers, state troopers, etc. swarm the Coliseum. Mothers and children are ordered to take their last bite of breakfast and be ready to go. Some mothers have barely dressed their babies and haven't eaten at all. Mothers are called. Policemen and CPS workers are assigned to each mother, and began to take the children away. The whole Coliseum echoes with the cries of heart-broken children, and mothers. The CPS workers and state troopers physically peel the children off the mothers and force them apart. The building is in an uproar! Some policemen are weeping. Attorneys are turned away at the gate. "Are attorneys allowed to see their clients?" a guardian ad litem shouted to a Texas Ranger. "No!" the official shouts back. As the bus leaves with a group of mothers the mothers throw open the windows and call out for help. Writing SOS signs the mothers hold them out the windows. Any child over 12 months has been physically forced away from their mother.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The Hoax, the Search Warrants, and the Affadavits

You know, I really dislike both the taste and texture of grits, but Grits for Breakfast is fast becoming a favorite:

The man named in the search warrant, Dale Barlow, actually lived in Arizona. He contacted authorities immediately after the Texas raid occurred to say they were after the wrong man, but Texas Rangers took their own sweet time investigating the bogus call. Why? I think it's because they didn't want it proven fake before the 14-day CPS hearing.

Reported the Standard Times, "In a media briefing immediately after the two-day custody hearing Friday, CPS spokeswoman Marleigh Meisner used Sarah more as a symbol than as a person." Usually "symbols," especially phony ones, aren't enough probable cause in court to justify house to house searches and seizing hundreds of kids.


Gleaned from the comments to that post:
The anonymous caller who sparked the torch law enforcement had primed and waiting said she was married to Dale Barlow, age 49, and she gave the hot-line his birthdate. All that information matched up to the data of the real Dale Barlow who was in Arizona- and Texas law enforcement apparently knew this at the time. He's the Dale Barlow they put on the initial search warrant.

I actually thought, based on the original call, that they did have enough evidence to at least go in to the ranch to look for "Sarah" in the first place. But now I am wondering. I am reading that there were four days between Sarah's phone call claiming she was pregnant and was afraid her husband would beat her again, as he allegedly had before, and when they actually got the warrant. Does not sound like they were worried about 'imminent danger,' does it?

I also understand that some corroboration is required when all you have is an anonymous phone call:
§ 261.304. INVESTIGATION OF ANONYMOUS REPORT.
(a) If the department receives an anonymous report of child abuse or neglect by a person responsible for a child's care, custody, or welfare, the department shall conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is any evidence to corroborate the report.

Here's the standard they used:

Does this sound like solid, sound corroboration?

"The anonymous caller said she was 'married' at age 15 to a man named Dale Barlow and that she had a baby with him. Ranger Long confirmed that Dale Barlow had previously been convicted for a sexual conduct with a minor."

First note that this is a different time span than the one Sheriff Doran shared in his interview with Matin. Note also that all of the specific details Ranger Long 'confirmed' are publicly available information which anybody else could have discovered and used to make a false accusation, too. And in confirming it, law enforcement would also have confirmed that he was in Arizona, not Texas.

"The anonymous caller had said that Dale Barlow was 49. Ranger Long confirmed that Dale Barlow's birthdate was 11/05/1957 and that he was 49."

Also publicly available, and also making it certain sure the later claims from CPS and law enforcement that maybe it was a 'different' Dale Barlow are utterly bogus.

But law enforcement already knew this:
“Moreover, prior to executing the initial warrant, (Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran) was advised that Dale Barlow was in Arizona and not on the premises sought to be searched. In fact, prior to entering the premises Sheriff Doran actually spoke to Dale Barlow in Arizona by cell phone, confirming his driver license number and the fact that he was in Arizona.”

Barlow advised the sheriff that he did not know Sarah Jessop, he had not been to Texas in over 20 years, nor had he ever been to Yearning For Zion Ranch, according to the filing. Thus, Goldstein argues, law enforcement had been advised and verified that the only person suspected of posing an immediate risk to children was not located at the polygamist compound."


"The anonymous caller said that she had been medically treated at the ranch. Ranger Long confirmed that a Lloyd Barlow, MD, provided a clinic at the ranch."

I can't believe the existence of a clinic is viewed as verification.

"The anonymous caller stated that she could not get out, that the ranch was guarded. Ranger Long observed two sets of fences and a guard house."

Likewise.

"The anonymous caller stated that her maiden name was Jessop. Ranger Long confirmed that the man in charge of the ranch was Frederick Jessop."

Right. This is like somebody claiming somebody named Yoder molested her in a Mennonite or Amish community, and Ranger Long could confirm that it was probable cause for investigation because there are, in fact, people named Yoder in the community. Hundreds of them.

The entire ranch descends from four people. Half of them are named Jessop, and so are the two most vocal former FLDS members I know of, Carolyn and Flora.

Did she offer any details that weren't available via google?

So, on the strength of this 'corroboration,' a dozen or so CPS workers and hundreds of law enforcement officers entered the Ranch to search for Sarah. While there, they witnessed 'evidence' of other abuse, which Sheriff Doran has implied was simply that some of the girls who were pregnant or holding kids looked younger than they should according to the recent Texas law. But in order to do this, they had to get a second warrant. In the comments at Grits for Breakfast, Doran Williams notes:

The first search and arrest warrant is dated April 3, 2008 at 5:50 pm; the second search and arrest warrant is dated April 6, 2008 at 10:15 p.m., just three minutes after Ranger Long signed his affidavit. Maybe the Judge is a speed reader, or maybe she had the opportunity to review the second affidavit and discuss it with Ranger Long before he signed it. Or maybe the Judge just signed the warrant without reading the affidavit. Who knows....


They took four days after that call from the pregnant teen in fear of her husband- whom she claimed had beaten her before so badly she'd had to go to the hospital (notice that Ranger Long does not confirm any teen treated for broken ribs at a hospital), and just three minutes for the second. The first call is truly a cause for concern about imminent danger- girls says she's pregnant, trapped, and being beaten. The second threat? There are (allegedly) pregnant teens (in lower numbers than at any high school campus in Texas).

FLDS has hired a high powered lawyer. He points out:
... prior to executing the initial warrant, (Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran) was advised that Dale Barlow was in Arizona and not on the premises sought to be searched. In fact, prior to entering the premises Sheriff Doran actually spoke to Dale Barlow in Arizona by cell phone, confirming his driver license number and the fact that he was in Arizona.”

Barlow advised the sheriff that he did not know Sarah Jessop, he had not been to Texas in over 20 years, nor had he ever been to Yearning For Zion Ranch, according to the filing. Thus, Goldstein argues, law enforcement had been advised and verified that the only person suspected of posing an immediate risk to children was not located at the polygamist compound.
Emphasis mine.

Did the judge know this before she executed her second warrant?

Did she know this when she held a single massive hearing instead of granting each family an individual opportunity to hear specifically from CPS what was threatening about their homes and what danger their children were alleged to be in?

Had she given families separate hearings instead of treating the entire ranch as a single household, she might have known about the child with Down's Syndrome.

Instead, the judge ruled that all 437 children were in 'imminent' danger of abuse because they would be imbibing this toxic climate of belief, taking CPS' word for it that all the girls would be taught to marry before they were legally of age, and all the males would become sex offenders who married under-aged girls. One problem- one of the children summarily removed from his home is a five year old child with Down's Syndrome. It is outside the realm of probability that this child will either marry or be giving in marriage, so the State's tizzy about future abuse doesn't apply to him at all. Why couldn't he go home to his mother? Not a single risk factor the state claimed applied to the children at YfZ applied to this poor little guy.

FLDS Podcast

JeriLynn Ward's show with Will Grigg is airing. It starts--again--on the hour every hour for the next 23. Here is the link and her icon is the one with her picture that says "I Object! Justice Examined."


She'll store it as a podcast at her site tomorrow night.

On the Personal Front

(Scroll down for update)

I haven't really blogged about a fairly recent issue in our lives, because I knew it would embarrass my mother, and I do love my mother and hate to embarrass her.
More than usual.

Seriously, though, I want to talk about this, because I know we are not the only people who deal with it, because while I don't give you all our names and precise location (thought you could guess without trying hard), we do try to be somewhat transparent about some things on the blog. So, Mom, I am sorry, but remember, these people do not know who you are, and they love you anyway.

And, I may not be around much in the next day or two, maybe longer, I don't know. We're trying to figure out what to do with the cards we've been dealt and how to work things out.

I wasn't there and this is third hand so it's probably exaggerated. I like this version, though, because it makes me laugh, bad daughter that I am:

I am told that last week my father marched along behind some Marines who were drilling in public. As they marched, they were shouting Marine things, and Dad was shouting CAP (Civil Air Patrol) slogans (they did not invite him to join them, and the general impression is that they were annoyed). When my mother was good and embarrassed and ready to just lay down and die, he flapped his arms in the air and darted off, shouting more CAP slogans and telling the Marines to carry on.

I have mentioned, lightly, here and there, that my father never let a child win a game of any sort, let alone a chess game. He used to play chess with the HG and always whomped the socks off of her. Last year he played my 8 year old son and could not win. He could not even remember what the queen's moves were. He was embarrassed about that.

My parents live next door. Recently, my father came to the door looking sheepish.
On an evening noted by a blinding, miserable, hurricane-like rainstorm, sheets of rain, wuthering winds, and just sheer nastiness, my father drove his truck into town (8 miles away) on an important errand. They were out of band-aids. These must be the most expensive band-aids in history, because on the way back he pulled the truck over in a drive to look at some deer and he got the truck stuck in the mud. He had to walk a mile back to our house in the blinding, driving rain. He wanted my husband to go get it out.

Incidentally- we saw no signs of bleeding, and we do have band-aids. We also live next door, and nobody called to ask us if we had any. In my experience, he often goes to town and forgets why he's there (a cashier we know told me recently, "your dad's getting worse, isn't he? He comes into the store and he's as friendly as always, but he seems lost. Blank, somehow.") so he picks up something else and tells himself and everybody else that's what he went into town for. On another occasion he drove into town (right past our house, where most of us were actually at home) to borrow the cell phone from my husband because his phone was out of order. My husband did not have a cell phone, but offered his office phone. My dad objected, saying he didn't have the number (so... how would the cell phone help?). My husband offered the phone book, but he wasn't making a local call. He finally gave up, went home, and watched television.

He called me on another occasion, saying he'd broken down, AAA was coming to take him and the truck to the garage, and I needed to find my mother and tell her to come get him at the garage. I did. My mother waited for several hours. Meanwhile, AAA got dad's truck started, and he drove on to where he'd been going in the first place. He came home and watched television, never noticing that it was 8 p.m. and Mother was not home. She finally called here and said tersely, "Go next door and tell me if your Father is home." He was. The next morning I asked her what had happened with Dad and the truck. She said even more tersely, "I do not know. I have not spoken to The Person who was driving the truck."

We had a snow storm in February in which my father lost his truck three times. One of the times he simply drove directly into a ditch, making a beautiful right angle turn (we know because we saw the tracks) right off the road, and he kept on going until the snow was up over the door and he could not get out by himself. He was a mile from the house and he kept honking the horn and was Seriously Annoyed because we did not hear it and come get him (another old guy who also probably should not have been out drove by and helped him. And my dad? We did not let him go out in it, either, he was sneaky.)

A few weeks ago he did a great job tidying up his garage, organizing it and making it look all pretty. And then the next day he went around asking everybody who did that wonderful job so he could thank them properly. He got very upset when Mother told him he did it himself, so she dropped it and he continued to ask people who he should thank. We just told him we'd be sure to thank the person who did it for him.

He recently wrote a message for my mom on a whiteboard in their house. A few hours later, he was looking at it in puzzlement, asking her, "Who wrote that? IT's my handwriting, but who wrote it?"

I could go on. And On. And ON. Frankly, some of this stuff has its incredibly funny side, and while that sounds callous, everything we read by anybody else dealing with dementia says you have to keep your sense of humour, and so we are.

And writing all this down here it all looks so obvious and so very much WHAT WERE YOU PEOPLE THINKING?!" And truthfully, yes, we are all well aware and have been for some time that he is slipping (or sky diving) into dementia and we have done work arounds, but in writing all this down I am picking out the, um, 'highlights' of the last few months and in between he had his normal moments or at least moments where he faked real good. He's always been a ham, an actor, a glib, Irish gift of the gab guy- so he is very, very good at faking it when he doesn't have a clue. When he can't remember a grandchild's name he hams it up as a reporter, pretends to lick his imaginary pencil and hold up a pad and jokes, "And who do we have here? Ahhhh, Spell it for me." He'd actually gotten away with that one DOZENS of times before we realized that he does that when he doesn't know who you are.

Yesterday I spoke to him on the phone, and he complained of a head-ache and not feeling well. But that's all. Yesterday evening he told my mother he'd spent the morning at the emergency room (I spoke to him in the morning), and that something was wrong and needed to be removed but he didn't know if it was his prostate or something else, and he had to go to the other doctor in town 45 minutes away but he didn't know if it was there or they were coming to see him, and he could find no paper work for this alleged visit, but he did have a plastic bag for personal effects such as they give you at the hospital. So did he go to the hospital? We do not know. Does he have an appointment somewhere today with somebody? We do not know. The whole story was actually at least three times more confusing than the one I am sharing here, but it was so confusing I can't even figure out what he said.

And so, definitely for today and probably for a longer period of time, we are planning on moving our school stuff over next door (we don't have cable and Grandpa loves his television, so we can't make him come here) so that somebody can keep him company. He mainly seems to run into town and hither, thither, and yon, because he is bored and alone. So instead, we're going to invade his space and make him cranky. But at least he won't be bored.

And I have his car keys. I am the only member of the family mean enough to hang onto them. In fact, I am so mean that I suggested that we just tell him that he lost them. The rest of the family voted me down. Emphatically. I do not know how a woman as mean as I am got such sweet relations and Progeny.

I also do not know what this means for the rest of my life. It's not that this is too much to do, it's just that it requires shifting, rearranging, planning, and organizing a bit more, and I am not very good at that. So it might mean blogging as usual, but it probably won't, or it might mean that I seem to disappear off the face of the Worldwide web. At least temporarily. My parents have internet access but it as slow as a snail with a load on its back. I could walk next door and deliver a message before I could start up their computer, log in, and email one. And because I might seem to just abruptly disappear, I thought I would explain why.

I don't want to sound whiny or pathetic. It IS sad, but truly, I am not grief stricken, which makes me sound hateful and horrid, but I can't explain it. I am sorry, but he had his first stroke at 48 years old and that was 22 years ago, so he's been a different person than the one who brought me up for the last two decades (and honestly, we all agree that his stroke made him a nicer person). This particular change is fairly fast, there's been nothing gradual about it, but we said our goodbyes to the man he used to be twenty years ago. I have been deeply grateful for Debi's blog as she deals with these issues much more painfully, as the family member suffering was her husband and the father of her children, not a 70 year old man.

And because of the difficulties of internet communications instead of sounding whiny and pathetic I probably sound cold and heartless instead, and that won't be accurate, either. It is what it is, and we are dealing with it the way we have to deal with it, which means a lot more laughter and matter of fact acceptance and not so much tears and hand-wringing because that's the way we are and I don't find tears and hand-wringing very useful. I expect the Marianne's of this world to be upset about this and the Elinors to know exactly what I mean.

Marianne Dashwood: Always resignation and acceptance. Always prudence and honour and duty. Elinor, where is your heart?
Elinor Dashwood: What do you know of my heart? What do you know of anything but your own suffering? ... I've had this pressing on me without being at liberty to speak of it to a single creature. ... Believe me, Marianne, had I not been bound to silence I could have provided proof enough of a broken heart, even for you.


But I am not going to provide such proof. Instead, I shall share the stories that make me laugh.
Thanks for understanding, and I do hope to be back soon. For all I know, we may work things out so successfully that I'll be back in two hours looking like I've made a huge deal out of nothing. OR not.
----------------------------------------------

Well. I did try to write this post at my parents', but true to form, their internet service just conked out on me and I had to give it up.

Interesting developments. Turns out, Granny Tea talked and talked to Dad last night trying to figure out if he had really been to the emergency room that morning or some other day or not ever at all, and she still wasn't getting a really clear story and didn't know what had really happened.

And then, it became most apparent that he had, in fact, been to see a medical professional at some point the day before when, um, certain circumstances revealed to her that a certain tube, which he had neglected to mention to her, was not attached to a certain bag, which he had also neglected to mention.
I switched the clothes from washer to drier for her while I was over at the house.

Spurred on to a more serious search by this, um, leaking of information, Granny Tea finally found some discharge papers. She cannot read the doctor's name or all the instructions, and, in fact, there were no instructions for reattaching the bag to tube. Usually when faced with the task of putting things together she calls on the HM or Jenny, but she thought discretion was in order, and I know we are ALL grateful for that.

I learned all this when Jenny and I delivered Granny Tea's truck to her this morning about 10:00 (her van had to go to the shop this morning). So I understood, when I returned to my parents' house, why he changed his clothes three times while I was there.

We do not know why he keeps disconnecting the bag, but his sense of humor is still intact. Granny Tea called me tonight to say she's finally spoken to his doctor, and Dad is actually sick. He always has wanted his tombstone to say, "I TOLD you I was sick!!" He's something of a neurotic hypochondriac, you see, so none of us take him seriously when he complains about pain because it's always something. This time, there actually is something. In view of the fact that he neglected to mention such pesky details as tubes and bags that needed to be checked and cared for, Equuchick suggests his tombstone be amended to "I told you I was sick, but I couldn't remember why or when."

Granny Tea also told me on the phone, "Please pray that he will stop disconnecting this thing and taking the bag off!" and in the background I heard my dad telling her that we might as well pray that he be kept from taking his pants off too, while we were at it. We hadn't realize that was a concern that had been preying on his mind, but I suggested duct tape or padlocked suspenders, just in case.

During the course of the day he told me The Cherub, who was sitting quietly on an antique church pew they have, must be in church because she was upside down. I got the first part, not the second. He offered the Boy his own Greatest Grandpa shirt, and when I suggested the 9 year old boy might be a bit young for the title, he told me no, The Boy got it right the very first time.

Two other small bits of info- I should clarify that he has not yet gotten so bad that he doesn't recognize us. He always knows the Progeny are his grandchildren and I am his daughter. He just sometimes gets our names mixed up or can't think of what our names are at all- that's when he plays the 'spell it' game. He did once call the house asking for Jim, and we don't have any Jims here. I assumed he'd just accidentally called our more familiar number when he meant to call the author shop or something, but that wasn't it. He got more and more flustered as I kept telling him he'd accidentally dialed our number and tried to help him figure out who he did want to call. "You know who I mean," he finally spluttered. "That guy with all those kids!" Light dawned. "You mean my husband,?" I asked, "The daddy to seven of your grandchildren?" He did.

A while back when Granny Tea wanted him to make a doctor appointment with the neurologist to see what was going on, he insisted nothing was wrong and he did not need to see a doctor. He asked for examples of what she meant. She gave him a list (a short one because she doesn't like to upset him, unlike me), and then said, "And your problem solving skills are deteriorating." He was quite indignant, insisted she had no idea what she was talking about, his problem solving skills were just as good as they always had been, and in fact, he did math every day without any trouble at all. Then he ran through some basic addition and subtraction facts to prove his point.

And so this has passed into family provenance- whenever somebody is having a befuddled moment, we boast about our problem solving skills, and tell the world 2 plus 2 is 4.

Civil Liberties Are Not Just For People We Like

DJ Drummond posted recently at Wizbang about the 'Rights of the Unpopular' (I linked to that and many other FLDS stories about the internet here yesterday). I think the unpopular can act as sort of canaries in the coal mines- how we treat them, how we accept the way authority figures treat them, is kind of a weathervane telling us what rights the rest of us will be keeping or losing in the near future. We should all be concerned, and of course, we are concerned about the children (keeping in mind NOBODY has even been charged with a crime, and we have seen no evidence of 13 year old girls married to fifty year old men, and pedophilia isn't even a charge the government has made- that's an internet fiction), but we should also be concerned about the rights of children not to be ripped from their homes without some sort of due process and legal standard:

FLDS parents in Texas whose children were taken away, and who must provide DNA samples, deserve independent, separate hearings before a judge -- a constitutional right that has been denied to them, a Utah attorney says.
"On the state side, they want to put on one case," said Rod Parker, of Salt Lake City, who represents some of the FLDS families. "On the parents' side, they want to put on 400 cases. And there isn't really a mechanism to do that."
But the legal and logistical challenges of affording every parent due process must not jeopardize their right to be fairly represented and heard, he said.
"Just because they're all part of a group doesn't mean you put the group on trial - the church on trial," Parker said Wednesday during a panel discussion at a Salt Lake County Bar Association luncheon. "The constitutional rights of these people are individual rights."
Their plight should alert the rest of the country that its civil liberties could just as easily be endangered, said Ed Firmage, University of Utah emeritus law professor who joined Parker and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff for the discussion.
"What has been done could have the same result in the Salt Lake City temple, or a mosque, or a ward, or a parish," he said.


News story here

Notes from the FLDS Website

From the Captive FLDS Children website:


Three-year-old frightened, homesick, and hear
The little three-year-old who had returned from the hospital begans to cry again tonight. After a half hour she is still crying. Her sister kneels beside the cot trying to comfort her, but she just cries louder, "Mother! Mother!" Realizing that the whole room of people is affected, a caretaker picks her up and carries her out by the bathroom, hoping that the crying will not be heard as well. Passing by concerned CPS workers the caretaker simply says, "She is missing her mother." The caretaker tries to get the sobbing girl interested in something out the window, but to no avail. Someone comes and tells the caretaker that the crying girl is disturbing everyone, so they walk into the bathroom. The caretaker succeeds in quieting the little girl long enough to get her to take a sip of water now and then, but then the crying starts again. This continues until the little girl is exhausted and falls asleep in the caretaker's arms. The caretaker carries the three-year-old back to her cot and lays her down. Pulling the blanket up over her head, the little girl cries, "They're going to get me." Several times through the night the girl wakes up crying, "They're going to get me! They're coming to get me!" (meaning the CPS workers.)
Thursday, April 10, 2008 08:00:00 PM

Mothers threatened.
A policeman enters the shelter and speaks loudly so everyone can hear, saying that there have been rumors that some mothers are talking about walking off the premises. "If you do," he fairly shouts, "We will arrest you and put you in prison, and you will not come back to your children."
Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:36:00 PM
Mothers and children have just started a school effort to keep busy and happy. Twenty minutes later we are called to gather. CPS supervisors announce that everyone will be gathered together to a bigger facility, where families can be together. Everyone is to gather all personal belongings and boxes are provided. Be ready to load at 1:00 PM.
Monday, April 14, 2008 10:30:00 AM

After the announcement of the move, some mothers ask CPS workers about contacting lawyers and doctors. CPS workers promise time after time, that after the move all that can be taken care of. The move is the priority. Mothers and children are excited about being reunited as families.
Monday, April 14, 2008 10:45:00 AM
Monday, April 14, 2008 12:30:00 PM

Mothers and children seperated.
CPS bus supervisors, having taken lists of names, call the mothers names and the number of children going with them, and escort them off the bus. Mothers who have children under the age of five are allowed to take all their children and get off the bus at the Coliseum. No caretakers are allowed to go along with the mothers to help. Mothers who do not have children under the age of five, but children five and older, stay on the bus and are driven a short distance to the Pavilion. All caretakers are also told to stay on the bus and get off at the Pavilion. Inside the Pavilion there are many CPS workers, male and female. Workers call the group of mothers and children to order, then a spokeswoman reads the names of mothers, caretakers, and number of children who go with each one again. Mothers and caretakers are told to walk a short distance away from the children. Some children try to follow their mothers and caretakers, but are stopped by CPS workers. Any mothers who object are escorted by CPS workers. Once the group is sorted, the CPS worker in charge tells the mothers and caretakers to step into the next room where, "...we will give you some information." Some children start to cry and hold on to their mothers. CPS workers take hold of children and say, "We will watch you. Your mom is just going to step into the other room. We will watch you until she gets back." Mothers reluctantly walk into the next room where the entire wall is lined with policemen, firearms handy. The mothers and caretakers are called to order as the spokeswomen reads the "information". The mothers and caretakers are told that the state has custody of their children. The adults are given two choices: to go back to the Ranch, or to go to the Family Alliance Shelter. There is not a choice to stay with the children. One caretaker asked what the shelter was, and if it would mean they could be closer to the children. A CPS worker explained that a person could go to the Family Alliance Shelter if they were afraid of anything happening to them at the Ranch. The majority of mothers and caretakers chose to go by bus to the Ranch.
Monday, April 14, 2008 02:35:00 PM


This is, of course, their version. Naturally, it will be a bit biased- although they seem fair. They say they had to stay on the bus for a couple hours, but the seats were comfortable and there were clean facilities on the bus.
It might even be a bit misleading- they talk about 'caregivers,' who may well be underaged brides- but we don't know, and CPS, the media, and law enforcement are presenting their very one-sided (and often clearly misleading) view to the public, so I think it's only fair to offer some balance.

Some Other Lost Boys

The boys 8 and older were sent to the same boys' ranch where 27 of the other boys had already gone. That's a total, presuming everybody is counting properly, of 54 boys there now.

Vince Nowak, an attorney with Mullin, Hoard & Brown, is working at no cost to represent five children and is expecting to represent more.
"My ethical obligation is to advocate whatever objective they (the boys) want to achieve," Nowak said. "They want to go home. Home to them is Yearning for Zion Ranch. They at least want to be with their mothers."


Fifty four extra boys, kept separate from the rest of the ranch's population, is a lot of children to clothe and feed. How does that get covered?

[...]The ranch has a "no pay agreement" with the state to take children in state custody, but because of the unusual circumstances, a special agreement will be worked out. Adams said those negotiations have not occurred yet.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services typically has five different payment rates for children in foster care. The agency declined to comment on how the children were being classified.
If Boys Ranch's agreement follows state guidelines, the ranch could receive at least $38.59 per child per day for basic care. If they were classified as emergency shelter candidates, which is the highest classification and most costly, it would be $106.22 per child per day.


Here's another FLDS expert testifying to what she calls 'loving, caring, adults', and a 'rich support system,' which, of course, has been yanked from under them by the state.
Religion
Neither Adams nor Texas CPS officials would comment on whether the boys are continuing with their religious practices.
The chapel that Boys Ranch provides is based on a Christian, nondenominational format, according to the facility's Web site, but life at the ranch is a far cry from the strict spiritually-infused activity at YFZ ranch.
Martha Bradley, a professor at the University of Utah and a historian who has studied the fundamentalist Mormon sects since the 1990s, said the boys would have participated in family prayer both morning and night along with Sunday school.
Bradley, author of "Kidnapped from that Land," a book about the Short Creek Raid by state and national law enforcement on a Mormon fundamentalist group, said FLDS children would be "totally immersed in religious life - rhetorically, behaviorally and socially."
"It's not an exaggeration to describe their work as shadowed by religion as well as their play," Bradley said. "These students have been surrounded by loving, caring adults and I would imagine the absence of this rich support system, cases of child abuse aside, will be most different and ultimately damaging to these children."
[...]

I am, I confess, a little weary of people pointing out the so called 'lost boys' of the Colorado City and Utah group as justification for yanking these kids out of their homes and putting them in foster care. Yes, the Lost Boys stories of child abandonment are horrible, and something should be done. I just fail to see that creating an entire other sort of 'lost boy' out of these children who were living at home with their parents and were not abandoned is any sort of solution at all. If you're truly upset about the 'lost boys,' then you should be outraged that these children were taken from their homes three weeks ago, have been moved four times in those three weeks (the youngest ones, at least, the older perhaps only twice), and nobody has offered any claim that these boys were abused in any fashion except by the likelihood of being contaminated by the 'unhelpful' beliefs of their culture- beliefs like 'children are a blessing,' motherhood is wonderful, and plural wives. They would have been better off in the state's eyes if they were learning how to have 'safe sex' with plural partners (the hypocrisy of this is sickening). Their lawyer is not impressed with the state's actions, either:

Nowak said he has yet to see a single piece of evidence from the state that the children were abused, adding his clients categorically deny any abuse.
Nowak said if he doesn't receive evidence within the next week, he'll request individual hearings for his clients and wants the older boys to attend them.
"But right now, they are in the custody of the state. Whether the state allows me to do (bring them) I don't know," Nowak said. "To take a child away from a home is a hell of a legal burden to me. In my opinion, the state hasn't met it yet."

Waterplay and Fingerpaints at FyZ

The real expert at the FLDS hearing- the one who had studied the FLDS sect for 18 years, not the state's witness who said he got most of his information from the media- testifed that while Warren Jeffs is the prophet, the different communities vary in just how far they actually let him control their lives:

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.


Here's what the Southern Poverty Law Center said about Jeffs and his edicts:

In the two years since he became prophet, Jeffs has ordered all dogs shot; closed the town zoo; forbidden television, holidays, movies and music; banned laughter; forbidden swimming and water sports, and sent "God Squads" of young men to inspect residences and report any violations of his edicts.

I can't say that televisions, holidays, movies, and water sports are required for a safe and happy childhood. I've known lots of adults who have never learned to swim. I like our holidays, but JW children don't have them, and they seem to get along. Amish children do without several of these things, and they seem happy and healthy. Other groups don't have television or movies, and they thrive.

Here's the FLDS slideshow/video of their children at the ranch before they were taken.
There are images of children laughing, playing in the water, and a two little girls playing a piano. Three's a portable radio/CD player in the background of one of the photos on a different part of the site- it clearly could just be used for recordings of sermons, but we don't know.

I don't want to make overmuch of this- it's just interesting. There are many possibilities here. The SPLC report is from the spring of 2005. It's possible Jeffs changed his edicts. It's possible the SPLC was wrong about what they were.
Or it's possible that this particular community is not quite as inflexible in following their Prophet's commands as we have been led to believe.

Oh, and about those poor children with no toys- don't miss the shot of several little girls in the middle of what looks like a sandbox as big as my bedroom. And that 'evil' color red? Well, I believe they don't wear it. I don't believe they think it's evil. In the picture of the little girl sitting in her mother's lap while fingerpainting, they've clearly used red fingerpaint.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

In Which the Headgirl tries Not to Vomit

A young couple, we'll call them Jane and John, came in today to get library cards. For one of our library services, a patron is required to create a password. A staff member helps them with this process and this is the exchange I had tonight.

Me: Please choose a password at least four characters long. It can be a set of numbers, letters..
Him: Jane!
Her: John!
Her: Awww, we're such nerds.
Him: I know...
*hug* *gushy looks*

I did not tell them (because I try not to rain on people's parades) that every other couple in their demographic does the exact same thing and there's really nothing nerdy about it.

On the other hand, I suppose that was better than being forced to play middleman in another, more rocky relationship dispute later on in the evening.

The Potential Unmaking of The Equuschick

What ho all, and farewell!

The Equuschick is off for a short road trip Thursday through Saturday, having been invited to join a friend for the National Clydesdale Sale and a few days of shopping, festivaling, banqueting, and chilling-in-a-hoteling.

The Equuschick has made it very clear to her friend that it is this friend's responsibility to see to it that The Equuschick does not come home with anything that is not self-sustaining.

Interview with Sheriff Doran of Eldorado

The whole thing is here. I linked to it further down in the post with FLDS updates for today, but this is so interesting, I am posting it here as well.
He admits that his 'inside' informant had never actually even visited the ranch- she left FLDS before they built the ranch. There are some other intriguing revelations here as well:


[ ]The following interview was conducted late Monday evening in his office at the Schleicher County Law Enforcement Center.

Randy Mankin: First of all, thank you for agreeing to this interview.

Sheriff Doran: You’re welcome. Remember I told you that you would be the first one I spoke with?[ ]

Mankin: Fair enough. Let’s start by talking about the four years leading up to the raid.

Doran: Well, you know what it was like when we first learned about the YFZ, the news media swarmed into town and the next thing I know I’m standing in front of a bunch of microphones and TV cameras. It was not easy.
[ ]
Mankin : How many times had you been on the Y F Z R a n c h over the past four years.

Doran:I don’t know exactly.... I’d just say that I’ve been there many times.

Mankin: What was the reason for all of those trips?

Doran: There was no one reason, but I’d say that my main goal was to develop an open dialog and a level of understanding. I wanted to be able to talk with them in case something happened.

Mankin: You mean something like what happened last week?

Doran: Yeah...that’s right.
[ ]
Mankin: Okay, let’s talk for a minute about probable cause. What was it about the raid that started on April 3rd that was different?

Doran: Well, there was a call to a family shelter hotline that was referred to Child Protective Services.

Mankin: And, what was the nature of that call?

Doran: A 16-year-old girl called to say that she was at the YFZ Ranch and that she had been abused.

Mankin: Physical abuse, or sexual abuse?

Doran: She reported being physically abused, even to the point of needing medical treatment. And, I believe there was a second call from the girl.

Mankin: Didn’t she also claim to be the mother of an 8 month old baby?

Doran: I believe that to be the case. She also said she was pregnant again.

Mankin: Okay, if she was 16 and her birthday was in early January, as described in the warrant, calculating the age of her baby and an extra nine months for pregnancy, that would make her 14 at the time the baby was conceived.

Doran: Probably.

Mankin: Wouldn’t that also indicate that there had been sexual abuse of her as a child?

Doran: I can’t argue with that.

Mankin: So, that was enough probable cause?

Doran: The request from CPS was our probable cause, but we combined that with information that myself and others have gathered over the past four years. All of that went on the affidavit requesting a warrant.

Mankin: You mentioned information you and others have gathered. Would some of that information have come from the confidential informant that was mentioned in the affidavit.

Doran: That is correct.

Mankin: Okay, on the subject of the informant. There was a bit of controversy this week when ABC News and others reported that your informant was a person inside the YFZ Ranch. Was that actually the case.

Doran: Absolutely not! You saw the affidavit. You know it said the informant was a former member of the FLDS. You and I both know that they don’t allow former members at the YFZ.

Mankin: Let me get this straight then...when the warrant was issued, the informant had never been at the YFZ Ranch?

Doran: That’s correct! To get a warrant, it takes a complaint from a victim or first hand knowledge of a crime. The informant provided an abundance of good information, but none of it was based on first hand knowledge and therefore it wasn’t enough to go to a judge with and seek a warrant.

Mankin: So the call from the 16- year-old girl was essential?

Doran: The request from CPS was essential. I suppose her call was essential to them.

Mankin: So, how long from the time you got word that CPS was asking for help until the time you surrounded the YFZ Ranch.

Doran: About three days.

Mankin: That’s a big operation to put together in three days, surely law enforcement must have had a preliminary plan in place ready to deal with this kind of eventuality?

Doran: Let’s just say that law enforcement was and is prepared to answer a cry for help at the YFZ Ranch.
[ ]
Mankin: So, they finally let you in the gate. How many went in?

Doran: I’m not exactly sure how many law enforcement officers, let’s just say a handful, and some CPS investigators.

Mankin: What happened then?

Doran: We asked to see the girl who called for help, but they wouldn’t produce her.

Mankin: At this time you were working under the original search warrant. What was the scope of that warrant?

Doran: You’ve seen it. We were basically directed to search anywhere and everywhere in order to find the girl and put her in touch with CPS.

Mankin: At some point, the warrant was amended.

Doran: Actually, Judge Walther issued a second warrant.

Mankin: Judge Barbara Walther?

Doran: Yes, Judge Barbara Walther. She issued the original warrant and issued the second one expanding the search to include looking for evidence of other crimes.

Mankin: What prompted the new warrant?

Doran: Let’s just say when we got in there law enforcement officers and CPS investigators witnessed evidence of other crimes.

Mankin: CPS has reportedly identified a number of pregnant young girls, or young girls with babies. Would that be the evidence of other crimes you are referring to?

Doran: Well....I’m going to leave that question for CPS to answer.

Mankin: Fair enough. So, a new warrant was issued and the search is going house to house?

Doran: Let’s say building to building, methodically, building to building.

Mankin: At some point it was decided to put the children on a bus and send them to Eldorado.

Doran: CPS needed a neutral site where they could interview the children...a nearby site that could be secured.

Mankin: Were the adults at the YFZ Ranch being cooperative.

Doran: They were never cooperative. They were accommodating, but not cooperative.

Mankin: Was it that way the entire time?

Doran: I’d say that the longer it went the less cooperation we received.

Mankin: We’ve heard from people at the YFZ, particularly the women, that law enforcement officers tore babies from their mothers’ arms.

Doran: It never happened.

Mankin: You know that for a fact?

Doran: I know it for a fact. At one point, when it appeared we were going to have some trouble, I called Merrill Jessop from my cell phone. I put him on speaker phone and he told the women to cooperate. He said it several times.

Mankin: How did that work?

Doran: It worked well. The women’s mood changed immediately and they handed over the children.

Mankin: So, 416 children in all, were you expecting that many?

Doran: No, I wasn’t. Merrill had told me there were about 120 people on the compound, but he told me lots of things and now I know that very little of it was true.

[ ]
Doran: My understanding is he was the only one arrested at the temple. Another man was arrested later.

Mankin: Leroy Johnson Steed was arrested and booked into jail for tampering or fabricating evidence with intent to impair.

Doran: That’s right.

Mankin: We’ve heard that he was caught trying to hide children.

Doran: I’ll refer you to the District Attorney on that one.

Mankin: All right. Can we talk about what you found in the temple?

Doran: I’d rather not.

Mankin: It’s been reported that a bed was found on the top floor of the temple and there have been implications that it might have been used for consummating marriages moments after the ceremony.

Doran: I wouldn’t know about that.


Well then that's a problem, because the only place I have seen this reported is when the claim is attributed to either Doran himself or his 'inside' informant who was never actually 'inside' the YfZ ranch or temple.

Mankin: Actually, I heard a couple of reports that there were two beds found. Is that accurate?

Doran: I’d say that was an accurate statement.

[ ]
Mankin: Any idea what the FBI wanted when they finally arrived at the YFZ Ranch?

Doran: No. They had their own search warrant and I’m not privy to that information. You’ll have to ask them.

Mankin: Okay, we’ve heard a lot of speculation through the years that there is a crematorium at the temple. Did you find an incinerator or a crematorium?

Doran: No. Not at the temple, not anywhere.

Mankin: Any tunnels?

Doran: No...no tunnels.

Mankin: All right, how about weapons? Did you find any weapons?

Doran: Yes, we located some weapons, but none that were illegal.

Mankin: What about the documents seized?

Doran: I wasn’t on the evidence gathering team so I don’t know much about that...and I probably couldn’t comment if I did know.

Mankin: All right, I said this would be about the raid, but I have to ask about Dale Evans Barlow. There was a warrant listing him as the man who allegedly abused the 16-year-old girl. Apparently neither he nor the girl can be found. Any comment?

Doran: You’ll need to ask CPS about the girl.

Mankin: CPS seems to be convinced that they have the original complainant among a group of young girls who are pregnant, and otherwise meet the description.

Doran: There again, you need to check with CPS about that.

Mankin: And, Mr. Barlow?

Doran: As for Mr. Barlow, I cannot comment except to say that Barlow is a common name in this group. Who is to say the hotline operator heard the first name correctly. I have faith that the investigators will sort it all out.

Ideas Have Consequences

What we believe about who we are, where we come from, the relationships and responsibilities of family, state, and community, will influence what we believe about other things, important things, like what laws are reasonable, what powers the state should have over individuals.

I think the consequences of many of our society's ideas have been dreadful for children.

We have a state agency with a near monopoly on our kids and a total monopoly on public education dollars- the public school system. We have given the full power of the state with all that implies to an agency that does not have to follow the same laws and rules of evidence that any other state agency must (CPS), and we have let these people decide what they believe is good parenting or bad, and people have *lost* their kids because the people in this agency have enshrined their middle and upper class post-industrial standards as *the* standards for the rest of us.

A friend of mine once told me about friends of hers who had CPS called on them. The children were not abused, nobody made that claim. They were fed and clothed and educated- CPS did not find otherwise. But their house was incredibly filthy. They did not lose their children permanently, just for a few days. But then CPS stayed in their lives for the next two years- telling them to do things like clean up the yard, plant grass, paint the fence- in other words- CPS acted as enforcers of a strict suburban housing covenant even when no such covenant existed, and they did this with the constant threat of taking the children always in the background.

In Wenatchee, of course, some people never got their kids back even though they were innocent. And what too few public officials understand is that this also means that children have lost their parents, been basically kidnapped by the state with all the emotional baggage they would have from any other kidnapping- parents have been put in jail, children have been placed in foster care, families have been put through great hell all because they homeschooled, or used a private school without accredited teachers (I've referenced the Nebraska Seven case several times).. There's also the horrific case in Iowa of Barry Bear, a mentally retarded child removed from his family home because his mother, who had a teaching degree, homeschooled him, and there are others. Our homeschooling freedoms have been protected at great personal cost, and we can never case to be vigilant.

Sometimes in discussions about these issues, we parents get passionate, and, I'm sorry to say, we get rude sometimes. On our side, what is merely an academic discussion for others is for us a personal threat to our children. There are people in government and academia who believe that homeschooling is in dangerous territory and of questionable permissibility (all laws protecting that right and limiting the federal government's role to the contrary, apparently).

Too many people, innocently or otherwise, assume that putting kids in public school will stop abuses that are alleged to have occurred at FLDS- naively, or others, thinking both that the purpose of education is to foster the ability of children to choose for themselves and that it actually does that. Let me tell you about Joanna, who sat behind me in my eighth grade class in public school. Joanna told me, in a flat, monotone voice that I found chilling even though I could quite figure out why, that she'd had three abortions. Her mother took her to California for them. The fathers were different young men from the Marine base with whom her mother traded Joanna. I was horrified, but I was also a child and I didn't know what to do. Neither of us felt we had any choices. Then we have the increasing numbers of students abused by their teachers. Or, far less egregiously, there's my senior high school 'life choices' or some such class, where the teacher fostered individual choices by giving me a D because I refused to alter my pro-life views to match what she thought they ought to be.

Some of us homeschool at least in part because fostering freedom of opinion is exactly what public education does not do. Many an anti-homeschool stance starts from an assumption that parents stand in an adversarial relationship to their children rather than as their advocates. It is odd to me that this viewpoint where parents are presumed guilty frequently presumes nothing but good faith on behalf of the institution and those reared by it and working in it.

We know that parents fail, and when they commit crimes against their children, then the state should step in. But it should not ever step in without reasonable suspicious of a crime- just because I am a parent, my constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure should not be abrogated.

As for the assumption and presumption of good faith on behalf of the institution- consider the case in East STroudsburg, PA, back in 1998, when 59 6th graders were given genital exams- 59 crying little girls railroaded through an assembly line of personal violation in four hours- this happened at their school without parental notification or permission. School officials denied those girls the right to call their parents- children were crying and pleading, and against their will were subjected to an invasive and unnecessary procedure- because the school assumed to itself just such authority as your opinions would grant it. The entire might of the state stood behind the gross abuse of power and refused to discipline any of the adults involved or even admit that they had gone too far.

I do, in part, homeschool my children to 'protect' them. Not to insulate them from *ideas* but to protect my children from the consequences of some very problematic ideas held by other people in a nearly unchecked position of power and authority- it's part of our job as parents not to submit our children to harmful environments.
I do not subject my children to the care and control of adults whose viewpoints might lead them to make decisions for my children that I would consider harmful.

Then there's the point that children need to be removed from the exclusive care and concern of their parents because we might 'indoctrinate them.' That is itself a point of view that eliminates one choice without proving that there's anything wrong with that choice- it is itself a statement of absolutism, and equally doctrinal in nature.
There are those who don't want us indoctrinating our kids, but I don't want them indoctrinating my kids, either, so who decides who wins this one? Since my kids _are_ my kids, just I am _their_ mother, and these 'others' are total stranger to them, they ought to be able to understand why I don't think they should have much say in the matter, sans probable cause to suspect me of actual abuse, and not merely 'thought crimes.'

Which brings us to the question of 'ownership.' No, I would not say I 'own' my kids like chattel property, though I would say they are indeed my children and not the state's. I would say that we belong to each other. Ask my children whether I belong to them or the community at large, and they will have most emphatic views on that. It is not the state that tucks them in at night, it is not the state hugging my neck, bringing me wilted dandelions (or now that they are older, cool new books and musical pieces they have found), it is not the state that plays Versability with my children or plays practical jokes on them or me, and I have not seen the state at my dinner table or snuggled up under the covers in the evening when the HG and I sometimes read together. We belong to each other mutually and the state has no place to interfere in that, unless, again, it can be shown that there is probable cause one of us is committing a crime. So people who talk about parents who think they 'own' their children like property are utterly clueless- and a little scary:

'David C. Berliner, a regents' professor at the Mary Lou Fulton College of Education at Arizona State University whose research interests include school vouchers and classroom teaching, said it's wrong for the state to be hands-off.

''My take on it all is that children are not the personal property of parents,'' Berliner said by e-mail.


Which is not the point at all. The point is that parents are responsible for the education, both secular and religious, of their children, not the state. The parents may choose to delegate that responsibility to the state by sending their children to public school, and they might delegate the religious responsibility there as well, if they are agnostic, or to the church if they are religious. The state should not choose to turn reality on its head by forcing parents to answer to the state rather than the other way around.

The state has every legal and moral obligation to be exactly 'hands-off' sans probable cause that I am committing a crime against my children.

FLDS Links

Bingo! This is right on the money!:

We would caution those on either the right or the left to reconsider their failure to speak out on the Texas raid. This event is a prelude of things that might very well occur in the future - and polygamists won't be the only object of the government's wrath. What's to keep a federal attorney general from authorizing a similar raid on equally questionable grounds, but not necessarily child abuse, against any other dissident or bizarre band of citizens? Would it take much imagination to envision some gung-ho sheriff staging a raid on an Amish community? On the Moonies? Even on the Minutemen?

There are also various free-thinking groups who may live in small communes. Can we really tolerate that kind of life in America?

Not if an anonymous phone call comes in from someone claiming to be a 16-year-old abused and pregnant girl. Call out the armored vehicles, get a search warrant from a compliant judge - there are lots of those - and march 'em off to a detention center - all in the name of "protecting the children."


I don't agree with FLDS doctrine or many of their practices. I do want to see abusive men who have committed crimes punished (although the state has pretty much made it absolutely impossible that this will happen). I also believe in the Golden Rule- I wouldn't want my children taken from me without more evidence than the state has presented in the FLDS case, so I can't agree that it's okay to take their kids just because I find polygamy and the control of the sect by a convicted criminal icky.

CPS workers operated from a 'tip sheet' purporting to help them be 'sensitive' to FLDS members. But most of the information on it came entirely form hostile former members, and their lawyer feels like this is unfairly prejudging the members of the sect.

FLDS members have a timeline up on their blog. Here are some events from that timeline:
Events at Fort Concho, phones confiscated.
Officer announces he is here to gather all our cell phones. When asked for an explanation he says it was for safety and security reasons.
Sunday, April 06, 2008 08:00:00 PM
Events at Fort Concho -- privileges granted;
Had showers today, did laundry, and felt very blessed with the privilege. The CPS people have been trying to get information about all who are here. No one will tell them anything except, "I demand a lawyer." It is hard to make any connections with lawyers without phones. Quite a tense day as emotions heighten. A couple of CPS investigators walk over to the shelters to see if they can convince people to start giving some information so that mothers and children can go home and they can go home. They (CPS) just become more frustrated.
Monday, April 07, 2008 06:00:00 AM


Sunday, April 06, 2008 08:00:00 PM
April 10th:
Heart-broken three-year-old..
A three-year-old girl cries aloud, long and hard for approximately one and a half hours until she is hoarse and falls asleep. She keeps crying out her mother's name. Her mother was gone to an out-of-state appointment when the raid happened, and has been trying to get into the shelters where her children are, but has not been able to yet. 11:00 pm The little three-year-old is coughing hard and wheezing badly. CPS is notified and they have decided to send her to the hospital on an ambulance.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008 09:00:00 PM

Three-year-old taken to the hospital.
Ambulance team cannot go anywhere so they have started an albuterol nebulizer treatment on the three-year-old girl. Word comes that the tornado warning is cleared. The ambulance carrying the three-year-old leaves shelter #1, headed to the hospital. CPS workers allow one caretaker to go with the child. CPS is asked, "Will you allow her mother to meet her at the hospital?" "Absolutely not!" was the emphatic answer. "The state has custody of this child. No one else can be there."
Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:34:00 PM


Don't you just bet this poor three year old girl is so grateful that CPS errs on the side of caution in her behalf?
Question- what would her life look like this week if they didn't err on the side of caution? Next week? A month from now? The state's own witness testified that until they are teens, the girls are only in danger of a belief system he finds 'unhelpful.' Do you want to bet your kids on whether or not he might find your belief system 'unhelpful?'

Editorial asking where the evidence is for abuse
:
Judge Barbara Walther, who is overseeing the YFZ Ranch case, yesterday declared: "The court has ruled the conditions those children were in were not safe for the children. I did not make the facts that got this case into the courts."

Excuse me, Judge? You issued a sweeping, house-to-house search warrant based on a highly questionable anonymous call that turned out to be phony. You refused to allow individual hearings for children, grouping them together like cattle. You accepted the testimony of an expert on "cults" who only learned about FLDS from media accounts, rather than an academic who'd studied them professionally for 18 years.


Updated at 11:05- The Backwater report has two excellent posts. This one:
Now please understand that I don’t countenance the FLDS religion. In point of fact, I think it is a nip and tuck horse race over which of the organizations (FLDS or The State) is more addlepated. But, seeing as how the FLDS, unlike the State, hasn’t burned down and premeditatedly and publicly killed its enemies in large numbers (Waco), hasn’t killed a mother while holding her baby (Ruby Ridge), and hasn’t killed a child by shooting him in the back (Ruby Ridge), and hasn’t kidnapped a child at gunpoint in order to send him back to bondage (Elian Gonzalez), I think the insanity of the FLDS, when compared to the insanity of the State, is comparatively benign and so should be left alone. (For that matter, the case might be made that the insanity of Jack the Ripper was comparatively benign when compared to the insanity of the State.)

Let us assume the worst of the FLDS. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it is true that they like giving several 15-year-old girls to one 50-year-old lecherous fiend. I quite agree that such action is reprehensible and if we were living in times where there was justice to be found in the magistracy I would support the State practicing the doctrine of interposition in order to involve itself in the situation. However, the times we are living in suggests that the last place we can look for justice, especially in foster care situations, is from the State. In the link that Carmon provided in her last post the evidence is amply provided for how disastrous the foster care system is in the state of Texas. To take these children from the FLDS parents and place them in the hands of the Texas foster care system is like rescuing souls from purgatory and transferring them to hell.

And remember, the above assumes the worst unsubstantiated accusations against the FLDS are true — this is something that has yet to be proven.


And here's the second, where he makes the same point I did about the double standard in our society:
to be perfectly honest if I were forced to choose between the kind of fornication that is being pushed among and pursued by adolescents in our schools and the kind of polygamous marriages that might be being pushed among and pursued by adolescent girls in a FLDS commune I could see an argument being made in favor of the FLDS commune. Think about it. In the former scenario you have children contracting STD’s, or you have pregnancy out of wedlock with the eventuality of either unprepared single parents, marriages between unprepared children, or abortion. However in the polygamous FLDS compound I would bet good money you would find few STD’s, you’d find a community that is going to support the marriages and you find older men who are likely more able to support their family then the average teenage adolescent boy.

Now remember, I think both scenarios reprobate but if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to choose one of the two illicit sex scenarios for adolescent girls to enter into there is a part of me that would lean towards choosing the FLDS.


A BIG thanks to Where the Kudzu Grows for linking here and for passing on the links to Backwater.

11:23; Collectivist Child Abuse:
In 2004, noted Strayhorn, 38 foster children were killed; 48 were killed the following year. In addition, "about 100 children received treatment for poisoning from medications; 63 foster children received medical treatment for rape that occurred while in the foster care system; and 142 children gave birth while in the state foster care system."


"As alarming as these cases are," she continues, "we can only imagine how much worse the Fiscal 2005 data is because Gov. [Rick] Perry's Health and Human Services Commission has refused to provide the data needed to complete my investigation."


[...]
Six hours after being on the ranch and talking to a variety of girls, Voss said the decision was made to remove some of the children from the complex."

The situation was "scary" in what way? Well, y'see, there was this palpable sense of incipient violence hanging in the air like the scent of an impending thunderstorm:


"`I heard a report that a tank was coming on the property. Things were getting more scary to me. It was a situation of a very huge magnitude with so many law enforcement officers around,' she testified. The case workers wanted to interview the children in an environment that didn't seem `so scary and dangerous.'"


Which is to say: The situation was "scary" because of the presence of the paramilitary Berserkers who had been sent to help Voss and her comrades kidnap the kids!

So we're back to the old Bastiat formula for totalitarian government intervention -- creating the "poison" and the "antidote" in the same laboratory. Or, if you will, leaving the arsonists in charge of the fire department -- or the abusers in charge of the child "protection" apparatus.


3:43: When did Texas find out the warrant was based on a hoax? Why did Texas authorities request that the records in this case be sealed?
A court document says a phone number used to report alleged abuse at a polygamist retreat in Texas had been used previously by a 33-year-old Colorado woman.
It's not yet clear whether authorities suspect Rozita Swinton of Colorado Springs made any of the calls that triggered this month's raid of the compound.
An arrest warrant affidavit made public Wednesday says a phone number she had used previously was used to call a Texas crisis center before authorities conducted the raid and removed more than 400 children. Swinton's whereabouts are unknown.
[...]
Two Texas Rangers were with Colorado officials when they searched Swinton's home. Texas authorities said the search turned up several items suggesting a possible connection between Swinton and calls regarding compounds in Texas and Arizona owned by the Mormon sect, called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The items weren't identified.
[...]
In mid-April, Texas Rangers called Colorado Springs Police regarding their investigation into the Yearning for Zion Ranch.
Texas Ranger Brooks Long asked about two telephone numbers, both with Colorado Springs area codes. One of the phone numbers, the document says, "was possibly related to the reporting party for the YFZ Ranch incident," and was one of the numbers police had connected to Swinton.
While Colorado Springs Police did not file for an arrest warrant until three days after hearing from Texas, Swinton was arrested April 16 in connection with the February call.
Documents related to Swinton's arrest were sealed by a judge at the request of Texas authorities. The Associated Press filed a motion to unseal the records Monday, and the arrest warrant affidavit was released Wednesday.


Finally, the judge shows some sense and compassion-
The judge overseeing the cases of more than 400 FLDS children in state custody said this afternoon adult mothers of infants age 12 months and under should remain with their babies in state custody.


There are 18 adult mothers with nursing babies under 12 months old, according to CPS.

"The judge also told CPS children older than 12 months should be kept in proximity to their mothers so the mothers can visit frequently. Walther rejected a request earlier this week to keep the children within a five-county radius.
"What this is, is when I take possession of a child, I take personal responsibility for that child, and I'd like to know where these children are," said Walther this afternoon.
CPS attorney Gary Banks said there are 23 adult women with children between the ages of 12 and 24 months. Those women have 28 children collectively."
The judge also ordered that the children should have access to the clothing they desire while in care. Nothing is said about food, so I don't know how they'll handle children who have grown up on a completely natural diet, no processed foods, no soda, etc:

The judge also told Banks she wanted the children to be able to exercise their religion and have access to the clothing they desired while in foster care. Banks said CPS is in the process of setting up educational evaluations for each child.
Banks told her it is urgent the children be placed into foster homes at this point, calling conditions at the San Angelo Coliseum where children are being housed "untenable."


Which is pretty much what the FLDS parents have been saying.
I hope some lawyers will weigh in on whether or not this part is reasonable:
Walther said individual hearings for the children will begin May 18, and urged attorneys representing sect members and those lawyers appointed by the state to represent the interests of the children to refrain from making filings with her at this point.
"We have four to five feet of filings, and it's very hard for me to go through five feet of filings," she said.

We are weeping over the judge's hard life. I mean, it's not her fault that the children didn't get individual hearings or at least hearings by family. It's not her fault she didn't ask to share this case load with other judges.
Oh. Right.
I am glad that the mainstream media is finally picking up on this:
Texas Rangers have said they are investigating whether the call could have been a hoax perpetrated by a Colorado woman with a history of lying to police there. Court documents released today show one phone number used to place a call to the Texas shelter had been used by Rozita Swinton in the past.


4:06- The Volokh Conspiracy calls it 'child abuse in the name of protecting children,' and points out the idiocy of yesterday, saying that these women could not be with their nursing infants because, after all, women went back to work at 6 weeks postpartum all the time:
Yep, having your mom go to work 8 hours a day is just like having no maternal contact at all and being placed in a foster home.


I am so glad those nursing infants under 12 months can stay with their mothers. I wish the judge knew anything at all about the benefits of extended breastfeeding, and my heart aches for the little nurslings, but at least she isn't sending them hundreds of miles away. What a pathetic situation, where we are grateful that nurslings aren't sent hundreds of miles from their nonabusive parents whom the court's own witness has said are not in imminent danger.

DJ Drummond from Wizbang has also come to the discussion-
I'm worried, and I think maybe you should be, too. The media had a lot of fun covering the April 3 raid by law enforcement on the FLDS' so-called "polygamist compound" just outside San Angelo. The FLDS members have been roundly mocked, and in the public eye have been branded as outlaws and malcontents.[...]It's been twenty days since the raid, and more and more it's looking as though there was not much in the way of 'probable cause'. I mean, what evidence has the state shown to the media?[...] Look, if someone commits a crime and you can prove it, nail them to the wall, but I am very concerned about the idea that a group's ranch can be raided and everyone held in custody without charges, on no substantive evidence whatsoever.

I don't agree with the FLDS, but I cannot agree with denying them their rights. Prove the charges have merit, or let them go. Anything else would be an insult to the Constitution of the United States.


437 children shipped off to group homes and foster homes because of a false accusation from somebody who had never even been a member of the FLDS, another false accusation from an 'insider' who, in all probability, was a disgruntled (with good reason) former FLDS member who also had never actually been to the ranch at all.

7:30- Looky what I found!
Scratch that- it's not in all probability- it's a fact- the informant was NEVER a member of the group at the ranch:
Mankin: Okay, on the subject of the informant. There was a bit of controversy this week when ABC News and others reported that your informant was a person inside the YFZ Ranch. Was that actually the case.

Doran: Absolutely not! You saw the affidavit. You know it said the informant was a former member of the FLDS. You and I both know that they don’t allow former members at the YFZ.

Mankin: Let me get this straight then...when the warrant was issued, the informant had never been at the YFZ Ranch?

Doran: That’s correct! To get a warrant, it takes a complaint from a victim or first hand knowledge of a crime. The informant provided an abundance of good information, but none of it was based on first hand knowledge and therefore it wasn’t enough to go to a judge with and seek a warrant.

Mankin: So the call from the 16- year-old girl was essential?


Doran: The request from CPS was essential. I suppose her call was essential to them.

Mankin: So, how long from the time you got word that CPS was asking for help until the time you surrounded the YFZ Ranch.

Doran: About three days.

Mankin: That’s a big operation to put together in three days, surely law enforcement must have had a preliminary plan in place ready to deal with this kind of eventuality?

Doran: Let’s just say that law enforcement was and is prepared to answer a cry for help at the YFZ Ranch.


Wow. The phone call was essential, and we now know it was a hoax, and the 'inside' informant had never even been to the ranch. Read the rest of it. It's pretty disturbing. Here are some of the things that bother me. They are 'uncooperative' because they don't produce the girl, whom we now know did not exist.
It's well known that these people are the descendants of the Short Creek raid FLDS people- some of them were actually children in those raids. They don't trust authority or the government, and they have good reason for that. Sheriff Doran has just confirmed to them that they should not trust representatives of the law:
I’d say that my main goal was to develop an open dialog and a level of understanding. I wanted to be able to talk with them in case something happened.

They will never trust law enforcement again, and who can blame them?

He insists that FLDS accusations that police tried to rip babies from mother's arms are false, and he proves this assertion by explaining that he talked to Merrill Jessop and got him to tell the mothers to cooperate, and then they handed the babies over.

""More than likely, the parental rights..... terminated..."

From a comment at Feminist Mormon Housewife (emphasis is mine)):

I live in Texas and thought y’all might be interested in seeing an email I received from one of the yahoo groups I belong too. It’s not the first one I have received although this one is the most detailed as to what will happen to the children.

Hi Everyone! My sister, _____ is the executive secretary to ________, who is the
Founder and President of Arrow Child and Family Ministries. Arrow found out today that they
will be receiving 80 -100 permament placement children from the Eldorado Compound from infants
to 11 years of age. These are children that will be placed in Arrow’s care for 1 - 2 years.
More than likely, the parental rights of their parents will adventually be terminated and they will placed
in foster homes and/or adopted ou
t. Arrow is an excellent Christian Foster to Adopt agency. I have
met many of the staff and they are very Godly people.
I am so grateful to Arrow for being willing to take on such a responsibility of caring for these children. These
children will be in a wonderful Christian environment
. They will be placed at the beautiful Arrow Retreat Center
in Porter, TX. Arrow is in need of many volunteers of short and long term commitments. The current need that
they have is getting the cabins ready for these children by next Monday. CPS will be out to inspect the Arrow
Retreat Center in Porter next Tues. and everything has to be in tip-top shape. These children are use to a very
clean invironment. (They have not been allowed to be normal children and have been made to work and clean
instead of play.
) The cabins have been setting over
the winter and are in need of a good Spring cleaning. Ronna and I were out there cleaning one cabin till 9:30 tonight
and we didn’t even get have way finished. There are seven cabins that have to be cleaned. I will be working at
The Arrow Retreat Center all day on Wed., April 23rd. If there is anyone that can donote anytime this week to
help Arrow clean the facilities and help prepare for these children, please call me at (281… . I am helping coordinate this
project. (No training is needed for this volunteer task. Just wear clothing that you don’t mind getting dirty! Bring old rags
and cleaning supplies if you have them.) Teenagers are welcome to help with this project as long as they are supervised by a parent
or responsible adult. I wouldn’t advise bringing childten under the age of 12 because of the cleaning chemicals and labor involved.

Arrow will need many volunteers to do a number of tasks over the next couple of years. From doing laundry, to cleaning,
cooking, shopping, etc… (My understanding, these volunteer tasks would be at your convenience, whenever you are available.)
They are also in need of long term volunteers that would work directly with the children in 8 hour shifts. There are other
volunteer needs as well. In order to volunteer, you must attend an orientation meeting and some training is involved. To
find out when and where the orientation meetings will be held, you may contact Arrow Chld and Family Ministries at
(281… .

They are also in need of donations. I am attatching a list of items needed if you or your church family can help in any way. I know that their current needs are white twin sheet sets , (200 sets) white towels, wash clothes, hand towels and toiletry items. The list will of course change when they find out the needs of the children they will be receiving. They will need pack-n-plays, high chairs, strollers, car seats, diapers, etc. for the babies.
Right now, they are just worrying about the present needs of preparing for these children.

As far as these children’s education goes, it looks like CPS is coordinating with the University of Texas to have a charter school
on site at the retreat center. This will take place in the Fall
. [more hypocrisy from the state] Therefore: Arrow will have to build several new buildings for the school.
I am helping pick-up donations and cooridinate volunteers for Arrow, so please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

More than anything, these children need a lot of prayer. Only God can heal the hurt and sort out the confusion in these children’s lives. Please pray for the staff of Arrow that God will give them strength and wisdom to care for these children. Arrow will have to hire around 75 workers to help
care for these children. Please pray that God sends them just the right people to work with these precious children.
Sorry this is so long. Thank you for taking time to read this.

Not All Former FLDS Members Approve of CPS Actions

According the Salt Lake Tribune:

A 32-year-old Nevada man drove 1,200 miles with a photo album of his children and said he would provide a DNA sample to Texas authorities Tuesday to prove paternity and get his three sons out of state custody.
David J. Williams, a former member of the FLDS polygamous sect, whose ranch was raided by authorities earlier this month, called the siege "an injustice" perpetrated by "unhonorable [expletive deleted, but not because I think it was unjustified]."
...Williams... said he would do anything to "free" his sons.
"They are being held hostage by a state that seems to abuse power," he said.
Williams left the FLDS three and a half years ago, but would not say why. About that time, his former wife, Marie, and their three sons moved to the Texas ranch. He insisted there is no abuse of children there.
"These children are very much loved and cared for," Williams said, adding that he thought the raid was motivated by bias against the FLDS and their belief in plural marriage.


Another father, this one lives at the ranch, went to get his mouth swabbed, too. He said he had nothing to hide, but the DNA swab made him feel like a criminal. That's the point, I think.

One of the things that has puzzled me in reading many of the hostile criticisms of the sect is that the same people will make two apparently mutually exclusive accusations. We keep hearing that these polygamous sects abuse the Welfare system as mothers apply for benefits as single mothers. And then I hear the same people complaining that the group refused to give any identification to CPS or that they don't even have any identification. These two things are not compatible. I do not know if they are bilking the Welfare system or not (though it's worth noting that legally, most of the children are the offspring of single mothers as they no longer seek civil recognition of more than one 'marriage.' But I do know that they aren't getting welfare benefits if they don't have identification, and if they are getting welfare benefits, CPS has access to that identification. I also know that if they have no identification documents, then it makes no sense for the judge to have ruled that she has no way of knowing if those nonexistent documents are forged or not.

Salt Lake City-based attorney Rod Parker, who represents FLDS families, on Tuesday accused Texas Child Protective Services of playing dumb about the children's parentage.
Texas authorities have access to birth certificates, he said, noting that the DNA tests could have dual purpose in assisting with criminal prosecutions.


Which is all very well, except, of course, by leaving the men free and holding the women and children captive, they have made it possible, even likely, that the guilty will flee while the innocent languish in foster care.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Muskrat video.



I didn't realize the birds were quite so noisy. Beautiful noise. :)

The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round

A few reminders. Under questioning, Angie Voss, CPS investigator, admitted that only : "specific men in the community are suspected perpetrators of child abuse."

An attorney characterized by the judge as one of the best attorneys in town told the court: ""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 state's very own expert psychiatrist admitted
:

...he has gotten much of his information from the media....
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.


He also said "the youngest children or babies are least influenced by any beliefs that may be unhelpful," and that
If these children are kept in state custody, there should be exceptional and innovative ideas put in place for children and families. She asked about what could work. He said children and families should be known on an individual basis. There should be an individualized plan put together that is open and has capacity to make truly free decisions, not a one-size-fits-all approach for each family.


And when asked about the possibility of all the mothers being permitted to join 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."


Yet here is what the Judge and CPS decided to do today:
Kept together at large west Texas sites for two weeks, the first of more than 400 children taken from a polygamist compound boarded buses Tuesday bound for group homes and other faraway foster care facilities.

Instead of continuing to allow the mothers to stay with their children while the unique and individual plans the state's own psychiatrist recommended were worked out:
State District Judge Barbara Walther signed an order Tuesday allowing the state to begin moving the children into temporary foster care while the state completes DNA testing of the 437 children and at least 175 adults and develops individual custody and treatment plans.


CPS wants the children to be able to get into a 'normal' routine in more 'homelike' settings:
CPS spokesman Darrell Azar said child welfare officials want to get the children in a more homelike setting. "They need to be out of the limelight," he said. "Children can't get into a normal routine in a shelter."

CPS said in its placement plan — attached to Walther's order — that it will try to place mothers under 18 with their children and will try to keep sibling groups together. Some of the families may have dozens of siblings.

Boys ages 8 and older will likely be placed in a setting similar to that where dozens of teen boys were taken last week, a Boys' Ranch near Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle some 250 miles from Eldorado.

The CPS document lists facilities all around Texas — as far as Houston, about 500 miles away — where the children may be placed.


Brooke Adams has more:

Tom Green County Judge Barbara Walther signed an order today sending FLDS children to 16 different group homes and shelters across Texas. Hours later, the Texas Child Protective Services began transporting them away from the San Angelo Colesium. I watched as five full buses and a number of empty ones pulled out of the colesium, led and followed by state troopers. Some children on the buses waved at media posted at one gate.

This is the fourth move for the children since they were taken from the ranch on April 3.


I guess so long as we intone, "But it's all about the children, and we must err on the side of the children" with enough emotional inflection in our self-righteous voices, it doesn't really matter whether what we're doing is actually harmful to them or not. Texas cares so much about these children it's going to abruptly disrupt the breastfeeding of nursing babies, move all the children at least five times within a month or so before they are done, separate them not only from their parents, but also their siblings (oh, they give lip service to keeping siblings togther, but if all the boys 8 and up are going to one home, and all the children five and under to another, then they are not keeping siblings together), and you know they aren't really getting any school work done.

And in response to this, I've been reading comments from one proud Texan who says things like, 'Yep, we just care more about our kids than you do.'

Texas loves and protects its children so carefully that they are removing 437 (or more, the count is dubious and confusing) from their homes because some of them might be at risk of being married off in their teens and all of them are at risk of being poisoned by thinking that teenaged marriage is not the worst thing that could happen to you. In order to save them from this horrible fate, the affectionate and doting state of Texas will protect them by placing them in a system where, instead of the alleged abuse we have, whereby some girls were were possibly married to older men as teens (perhaps as many as twenty if we start counting ten years ago when it wasn't illegal), we have this situation:
"In 2004, noted Strayhorn, 38 foster children were killed; 48 were killed the following year. In addition, "about 100 children received treatment for poisoning from medications; 63 foster children received medical treatment for rape that occurred while in the foster care system; and 142 children gave birth while in the state foster care system."

Two out of three children in this system that shows how deeply Texas cares about its kids are on pschotropic drugs.

Thank-you, Mrs. Pharris, for the link.

A Math Problem

Sorry to keep rehashing this, but it's kind of interesting to see how either CPS or reporters slip around on this.

CPS has said that a total of 416 children were removed from the YFZ ranch and 82 of the women remained with their children at the coliseum. That comes out to a grand total of 498


Shari Pulliam said on CPS' behalf that it was just too hard to get an accurate count, what with all the people milling around, and more than one location, and confusion about ages.

Okay. I can get that with CPS refusing to accept that some of the FLDS women were as old as they said they were, the counts by age could be off. But they could and should have an easily accurate headcount for everybody over all. As people got on the buses at the ranch, they could have just.... counted them. They could have done it again when they got off.

Then Shari said it was because some of the older mothers actually turned out to be teens, and so they moved them over the children's grouping to be correctly tallied asmong the children. If that were the case, then the number of adult mothers should have gone down:
However, CPS now says that the actual number of adults has increased from 82 to 95. When you tally the new numbers together for both adults and children you get a grand total of 532. That's a net increase of 34.


So Pulliam's story about the extra children coming from regrouping them from the 'adult mother's' column into the 'minor children' column doesn't make sense. And regardless of the ages of all the women and children, CPS should have at least had a proper head count for the total- otherwise, they couldn't be sure they were providing enough food, beds, and other supplies.

We also have another problem, the 'lost boys,' not the ones the Arizona FLDS community apparently abandons, but the ones CPS has put on a boy's home somewhere in Texas. Where do they fit in this count?
As far as I know, the only children that have so far been removed from the coliseum were the 27 teenage boys sent to the isolated Cal Farley's Boy Ranch in the Texas Panhandle. That means 410 children remain at the San Angelo Coliseum along with 95 adults. That comes out to a total of 505. But the San Angelo Standard-Times is reporting that the number still housed at the coliseum is 519.


So who's doing the math wrong? And why is this simple task of getting a head count so complicated?

Fitting in with the crowd

There small things at school that make me smile. Example: I asked a professor from a former semester if I could pick up my final exam. That was a couple of months ago. He said yes, so I stopped by his office for it... and he couldn't find it anywhere. He searched frantically through several stacks, uttered a deep and sincere apology, and that was that. Or so I thought, until last week when he ran into me (not literally) on campus. He excitedly told me he found my exam. In a popcorn tin.

Yes, a popcorn tin. He told me he was trying to clear out space among his stacks of stuff, the popcorn tin happened to be empty (although still smelling of popcorn), and so into it went a stack of exams. He apologized profusely.... I was not at all concerned, mainly amused and comforted. If stacks of paper, confusion about those stacks of paper, and desperate attempts to consolidate stacks of paper are signs of brilliant minds, then maybe there's hope for me yet. ;-)

Toys and Conformity

UPdated to note that FLDS has a new video up- the one called "Helping Hands." In the very last frame there is a little boy playing with blocks, so we do now know that when CPS said that these children have no toys, CPS was not quite, er, accurate.

It has long been my mother's assertion that the only toys children need are blocks. a ball, and a doll. When the youngest two children were babies, we noticed that their next oldest siblings were not much interested in their dolls. After all, who wants a stiff, plastic, fiction when you can hold the real thing?

During another period of their lives, two of our girls spent much time cherishing, loving, and tenderly carrying around two plain red bricks they called their babies. I often wondered just what exactly any outsiders might think of us if they saw my little girls lavishing so much affection and care on those bricks. It was my theory that they preferred the bricks to their dolls because they had a much more satisfactory solidity to them. Other favorite non-conventional toys have been teacups and saucers from leaves and acorns, people made of flowers and sticks, feathers and corncobs, and the measuring cups and spoons from my kitchen. Children today have a lot of plastic, gaudy toys, but given the opportunity, they often prefer to play with real things, at least mine always did.

Currently, my 9 year old son's favorite toys are shovels, rakes, boards, hammers, and buckets. He loves the post-hole digger, and his town friends are deeply envious because he's allowed to use it whenever he likes. He does not want toy copies. He wants real tools that work. His favorite place to play is outside, either in and around the pond or digging more holes in his earthworks. We have toys, because Mom cannot resist them at the thrift shop, but if I were wise and got rid of everything he does not play with, the only indoor toy he'd have right now would be the legos. And if we had a baby, he'd have to have his legos in a very different (far more inaccessible) place than he does at the moment.

The FLDS members have put up a website to speak out from their point of view. They have some videos, one showing the children before they were taken from the ranch. I am not saying this slide show of happy children is proof that no abuse ever occurred. I am saying that those people who are freaking out over the children 'having no toys' are foolish. As I watched happy little boys looking at something through binoculars, a giggling baby chasing his crawling papa across the floor, a grinning mother carrying a happy baby on her shoulders (where he had a fistful of her hair), a proudly smiling girl withholding up an iris as big as her head, a boy holding a friendly chicken, children splashing through a pond, and a group of children all gathered around a new calf and all trying to pet it and touch it at the same time, I thought again, "Who wants toys when you an play with the real thing?"

They have the real thing, too, just not in the consumer minded, abundant materialistic fashion we are used to, and I have to say, I think they're right about this and our larger culture (including the one in my house) is wrong. I am pretty sure I saw the handle of a wagon. I saw balloons.

I don't think the pictures of laughing children at their desks covered with writing utensils and paper are purely utilitarian. I couldn't tell if there were crayons or not, this computer is not very good for picking out details in images, but I can't imagine that mothers familiar with pencil and paper couldn't figure out what to do with crayons, though I can easily imagine looking blankly at crayons offered by smiling villains (in my eyes) while in the midst of being traumatized after being ripped from my home after members of my family have been grilled all night by authority figures, and bused to an entirely strange and frightening environment when I don't want crayons, I want to go home.

So I don't know if the children have crayons or not- although I have known many a modern, worldly mother who hasn't let her children have crayons at home, either, because she doesn't want to find drawings on the walls or crayons in the drier. I do know they have something even more fun. I saw a picture of the little girl in somebody's lap- finger painting.

I believe that children actually like to work. They like to feel like productive, contributing members of the family. Most families around the world operate this way and have for millennium. I am pretty sure our extended childhood and denial of meaningful work to our children for nearly two decades is a modern, middle and upper class, post-agricultural innovation and I can't see that it's worked out so well that everybody else should emulate it.

So when you see people lamenting that these poor children have 'no toys' and no childhood, what you are reading is somebody lamenting that a pocket of America somewhere has escaped this particular cultural imperative and is not conforming to the standards of appearance and behavior we impose no less strongly than the FLDS sect, but with less self-awareness that this what we are doing. Think the FLDS community is rigid about dress, unlike our free society? Do you know a single female teen who would be willing to go to a typical public high school dressed like an FLDS member, make-up free, and that huge wave over her forehead? Would you be willing to trade clothes with an Amish farmer for a day, walk about in public, go to the store, the bank, the courthouse, and conduct business as usual?

So isn't this really about of our cultural values should we enshrine and enforce in law? A distaste for child-brides? I can get on board with that, although since the law for legal marriage in Texas specifically was about targeting this religious group and only changed in 2005, and Texas has made sure any child-rapists that might have been in the FLDS group have been free to leave so they can marry teens another day, there are some problems with believing that it's really child brides that incensed Texas lawmakers and CPS workers.

Outrage at abandoning children? Likewise, I am in favor of punishing parents who abandon their children (keeping in mind that nobody has accused *these* parents of abandoning any of their children), although this is difficult since the 'lost boys' of the Arizona communities will not testify against their parents.

Polygamy? I am not convinced. I do not like it, but it's hard for me to see why our society is taking a stand on this as a moral issue- I think it's immoral for an unmarried couple to live together without benefit of marriage, but I don't see society letting me enshrine this into law. Adultery isn't illegal, even though it should be seen as breach of faith and contract. Promiscuity in general certainly is not only not illegal, it's not even very frowned upon (indeed, the opposite on most college campuses).

Toys? Bedtimes? Chores? Clothing? Religious beliefs? Education choices?

Hardly. Although.... Hmmmm.

I might be persuaded about the benefits of a law setting some minimal literacy standard, whereby all otherwise normal children who have not learned to read by the age of 12 within their current educational system would have to switch to a different form of education- homeschoolers would have go to private or public schools, and publicly schooled children, of course, would have to go to private or home schools. =)

Double Standards

Although thus far the state presented only the records of five underaged mothers it says are between the ages of 16 and 19, it justifies the removal of the other 427 children on the basis that the entire culture is toxic- rife with systemic Bad Beliefs that foster abuse of the body and of the mind. The pregnant teens are, in this case, the symptom and not the cause.

I agree that the ick factor for a climate of abuse, where underaged girls are allegedly encouraged to have consummated relationships with older men resulting in children is is high, very high, and I am all in favor of full prosecution of the men everywhere this can be shown to have happened by results. But since the majority of the children taken are not teen girls, indeed many of them are under 5, how do we prove a dangerous and abusive climate of cultural toxicity whereby the poisonous doctrine of underaged girls encouraged to become mothers at very young ages is clearly risking the well being of all the children in the group?

I suppose we look at two things- the cultural climate and the results. Climate would include things like teachings, literature, music, entertainment, what things are valued by the community, what things are shunned, what things are admired, what things are feared, what we accept, what we fight for. Some of these are nebulous and difficult to define, some less so.

And results would be, for instance, the number of teen pregnancies in a group:

the non-Hispanic white rate is 60 per 1,000, the black rate is 130 per 1,000 and the Hispanic rate is 145 per 1,000.

The rate at YFZ seems to be 45 per 1,000, 20 percent lower than the rate for other Texas girls in the polygamous girls’ demographic cohort and more than 60 percent lower than among Hispanic girls in Texas.

That seems to indicate that underage girls at YFZ are 20 percent less likely to have sex than other white girls across the state and 60 percent less likely to have sex than Hispanic girls across the state.

Further, the rate of teen pregnancy at YFZ is lower than the rate of teen pregnancy in more than three-quarters of Texas counties.


Am I trying to make excuses for possible or probable abuses at the FyZ ranch? No. As I have said, I am quite comfortable with charging those adult men who have committed crimes with those crimes. But given the things we accept and even encourage in our own society, I find it hard to understand how the outrage against this group is not based on their beliefs and religion.

Under-aged girls can have access to birth control with or without their parents' consent, and the vast majority of our society actually considers it the responsible thing to provide access to birth control to teens, even while speaking out of the other side of their mouths to condemn the culture of the FLDS on the basis that 16 year olds are 'too young and immature' to make sexual decisions. Obviously, we only mean 'some' sexual decisions. Promiscuity is acceptable, marriage and motherhood is not. That's a serious double standard.

Planned parenthood advises under-aged girls to lie so as to conceal statutory rape crimes as well as forced rape, and society turns a blind eye to this (note that in California nearly 70 percent of teen births are fathered by adult men). In what fashion is what happens inside the FLDS sects worse? This isn't a two wrongs making a right argument- my purpose is to point out that if statutory rape were really what concerns us, then the media, CPS, and the public at large would be equally upset about what goes on at Planned Parenthood clinics and in high schools (and junior high schools) all over the country.

So what is the difference? Is it that the fathers at FLDS are involved in their children's lives? Is it that there's a religious connection?

Why did we send 700 law enforcement officers, an army of CPS personnel, and armored cars to prevent this, and we do nothing much about this:

  • "An effective strategy to combat teenage pregnancy must address the issue of male responsib ility, including statutory rape culpability and prevention. The increase of teenage pregnancies among the youngest girls is particularly severe and is linked to predatory sexual practices by men who are significantly older."
  • "It is estimated that in the late 1980's, the rate for girls age 14 and under giving birth increased 26 percent."
  • "Data indicates that at least half of the children bom to teenage mothers are fathered by adult men. Available data suggests that almost 70 percent of births to teenage girls are fathered by men over age 20."
  • "Surveys of teen mothers have revealed that a majority of such mothers have histories of sexual and physical abuse, primarily with older adult men."



Some of the fathers seem not to be cooperating with the DNA collecting
, which raises some interesting points:
"We've told them to cooperate, but there are a lot of people who are reluctant," said Cynthia Martinez, a spokeswoman for the Legal Aid attorneys who represent dozens of mothers. "There's a perception there that the state will be using it to separate them" rather than reunite them with their children.[...]
Susan Hays, an attorney for a toddler in state custody, said many of the fathers are reluctant and some may have left the state, fearing that the tests are really designed to help prosecutors make criminal abuse cases.

While they have good reason to suspect the state has no desire to reunite them with their children and that the entire purpose of CPS and this judge is to separate them, I am also fully aware that it's entirely possible they are not going to submit to DNA testing because they are well aware it will prove they have taken advantage of under-age girls. And we are all so very concerned about punishing these men who have taken advantage of under-aged girls, are we not?

Except how have we prevented them from doing just that? The state may have saved these girls- although that is doubtful. Attorneys have explained that even in the 20 girls the state listed for the court, they included cases ten years old- many of the girls are no longer under-aged. True or not, I don't know. A more important point is that by removing the women and children from the ranch and sequestering them while leaving the supposed criminals free to come and go, any real criminals will have already.... gone, gone, gone, somewhere they can prey again, free of criminal charges.

Making it obvious once again that adult males preying on teen aged girls is not truly the issue here- it's a religious community that authorities would like to see out of their hair.

(Note: no, you're not imagining things- the post was longer. I moved part of it to a different post as it was really about two different things)

Ominous

Buses filled with women and children today began leaving the San Angelo Coliseum where 437 FLDS children have been been held for more than two weeks.
Just before 2 p.m. central time, two full buses, one partially full, and one empty buses were escorted by police cars and trailed by two ambulances. The women and children waved at bystanders as they rolled north out of the stadium, their destination unknown.
Earlier today, the coliseum and adjacent pavilion were under lockdown. Attorneys, Salvation Army workers and even a spokesman for Texas Child Protective Services are being kept out.


If the state was truly concerned about crimes, of course, the men would have been bused out some time ago, and the children sent home.
This reminds me of what I've said about the 'erring on the side of the children' fallacy:

Texas authorities' attempts to save children from being abused at the YFZ Ranch are doing much more harm than good for the 437 children they removed from the FLDS Church property, a Utah child welfare advocacy group said Monday.

A byproduct of actions by child protective services in Texas is exposing children to a special kind of trauma, fear and mistrust that they are likely to have not known were it not for the raid at the compound, said Bonnie L. Peters, executive director of The Family Support Center.

While well-meaning, removing the children and keeping them sequestered "is not in the best interest of the children and will have devastating effects on their mental health," she said, starting with the heavily armed Texas law enforcement officers who arrived at the ranch of the Fundamentalist LDS Church in SWAT gear. "The children, no doubt, suffered extreme psychological abuse at the hands of the people who were seeing themselves as rescuers."


From an interesting blog by a 'plural wife'
- in heart, she says, not in practice.

Signs That Lo, the Winter is Passed

Open windows in the house

Woodpeckers waking me up in the morning

Mayflowers coming up

Daffodils blooming

Jenny and the Boy are planting flowers

Plowing and planting in the corn and bean fields

The golf cart can be washed

The decades old privately owned and operated ice-cream stand by the river in town is open (they close every winter)

Spring flowers for sale in all the plant nurseries

increased flies from the barn find their way inside

thunderstorms

No longer do we hear family members pleading, "Why don't YOU go check the mail? I did it yesterday. I'll give you my dessert if you check the mail" Instead, we hear, "No, me, me, I want to check the mail! Let me! Oh, you already got it? I was gong to get it!"

A Work in Progress:


The retaining wall of tires is now completed! Now we have the task of planting Day lilies in each tire...

Is This For Real?

UPDATE- CPS has been completely unaware of the number of children in their care! Instead of 416, they have 437! So did these 21 unknown (by CPS) children get their fair hearing?

The FLDS women complained that CPS workers were monitoring their prayer service, and on one occasion even started vacuuming during them. They requested privacy for group prayers. I do understand the judge's concerns here, she doesn't want them using the time to swap information or coach the children who are in attendance. But her solution was to direct CPS to find a mainstream LDS member to monitor their prayer services. This is like suggesting that a Catholic priest monitor a Lutheran because they're kind of the same:
Walther's suggestion comes just four days after an apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appealed to news media to make a "clear distinction" between the two groups and reiterated that they have no connection.
The LDS Church strenuously disavows polygamous groups such as the FLDS, with whom they share historical roots and a scriptural canon.
The church denounced polygamy as a practice in 1890 and 1904 and excommunicates members who support or practice it. Fundamentalist Mormons consider the LDS Church to be out of order for abandoning principles laid out by Joseph Smith, founder of the faith.
...John Walsh, who has studied both the LDS Church and fundamentalistgroups, said it was "problematic."
"To me it shows that the judge does not have a nuanced understanding of Mormon culture and of the very different churches that are part of the Mormon umbrella," said Walsh, who testified before Walther last week about FLDS practices.
"She is in essence saying that we want one branch of the schism to supervise the other branch, which in any other religion would be problematic."


And this does not instill confidence in the state case. They speak with such certainty that certain girls are under-age, that each individual child of the 416 are at risk for abuse- but it turns out the state has not known how many people it is holding in custody. There are not 416, but 437:

On Monday, CPS said an updated head count shows it has charge of 437 children. Of those, 77 are age 2 or younger.


How could they hold the hearing 'en masse' instead of individually and not even have an accurate accounting of the number of children in their charge?

Here are the judge's reasons for denying breastfeeding mothers the right to stay with their nursing babies:
"But every day in this country, we have mothers who go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave," she said.
"The court has made a determination that the environment those children were in was not safe," said Walther, adding that there is a shortage of suitable placements for infants in Texas.

The mothers were safe enough to stay with their babies for the last two weeks. And mothers who go back to work at 6 weeks have made a choice- a hard choice, in many cases, but it is a choice. And they know they are going back to work so they feed their babies appropriately so that the break will not be abrupt and traumatic for the babies.

Walther also ruled that the women and children would be allowed to use telephone lines set up at the Coliseum on Monday but only to visit with attorneys. She limited the children to half-hour conversations and the women to one-hour visits with counsel.


Updated:
About the fact that CPS has had 21 more kids in their care than they realized for the last three weeks, Grits for Breakfast points out:
This ridiculous news raises several questions: First, would it be accurate to assume that these 21 children have not received their mandatory 14 day hearing which the other 416 got (in minimalist, perfunctory fashion) last week? Since the judge refused to give individual hearings and grouped everyone together, maybe she'll say it won't matter. But CPS is now holding more kids than the court gave it permission to seize last week.

Grits is always more succinct than I (shoot, everybody is more succinct than I), and you should read the rest.

Says CPS:
“You can imagine with these many people and different locations, it was hard to get an exact count,” said Shari Pulliam, spokeswoman for the department. “We finally think we’ve got a count.”


Why, yes, Shari, I can imagine how you could hold 437 children in your custody for nearly 3 weeks, hold a legal hearing justifying your retention of these children in state custody and insist that the single group hearing was just the same as individual hearings as required by law, feed all those children, clothe them and provide proper educational matierals (because surely you're not just letting them have a three week break from school in violation of state education laws), and provide medical care as needed, and all this time never realize that you have 21 more children then you've realized. I can imagine it, truly I can. And every scenario I imagine begins and ends with gross incompetence on the part of CPS and law enforcement. Didn't you count these people as you loaded them on and off the bus? How about as they walked into the Baptist church building where they were first taken, and then later as they entered Fort Concho?

More at the Messenger and Advocate
(okay, so not everybody is more succinct than I, but there are plenty of good links and comments here, information well worth your time).

The Homeschooling Connection

Here's an article on FLDS and homeschooling. While there isn't actually a connection between homeschooling and the FLDS sect, this accusation was bound to come sooner or later. The headline of this article is strangely at odds with the content of the article. [that story has moved, but the same story can be found here]

Headline:

Texas officials went easy on FLDS when it came to kids' education



Since when is abiding by the law 'going easy' on the rest of us?

About two years ago, the Schleicher County sheriff and the local school superintendent met with a leader from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints about the kind of education youngsters might be getting at the church's Yearning for Zion Ranch.
Local officials got a letter specifying that the children would be privately schooled, and that the curriculum included the basics, according to the state.
That's all it took. In fact, by meeting with officials without a formal complaint of truancy being filed and by specifying that the private school curriculum would cover basics such as reading, the church leader appears to have gone beyond what's strictly required in Texas education law.


They also left a packet of curriculum materials with officials, which is vastly more than they were required to do.

"People are usually stunned when I tell them we don't have any oversight at all over private schools or home schools. They just assume that there are certain requirements they have to teach, or materials they have to use, and there's not," Ratcliffe said.


Ratcliffe is the spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency, and I think she clearly doesn't talk to people from a wide range of diverse political and socio-economic viewpoints.

Soon after the removal of more than 400 children from the breakaway Mormon sect's ranch near Eldorado - following allegations that children were abused or were at risk of abuse - home-school proponents voiced concern the situation might be used to taint their education efforts.
"A local law enforcement officer was quoted as saying that authorities were not able to 'get at' these families earlier because they were home schooling," Tim Lambert, president of the Texas Home School Coalition, said in a news release. He said in an interview that the comment was made on a broadcast interview.
"When these kind of tragedies happen, people say, 'If we regulated home schooling, this wouldn't happen,' " Lambert said. "My argument is always, this is an abuse case, not an education issue."


Once upon a time people questioned homeschooling on the basis of academics. And the homeschoolers proved that they were well able to meet or beat the public schools on academic grounds.
Then, of course, came the infamous 'S' word, amusing homeschoolers everywhere who remember being shushed by teachers in class and told, "School is not for socializing." And we recognized the focus on the S question for what it was, a tacit admission that school apparently wasn't about academics anymore.

Now we have a new tacit admission- in at least some people's minds, schools are not about academics or socialization, but about policing parents, all parents, not just those who have shown probable cause for concern, but all of us.

And for some people, it's clearly about power and control:

David C. Berliner, a regents' professor at the Mary Lou Fulton College of Education at Arizona State University whose research interests include school vouchers and classroom teaching, said it's wrong for the state to be hands-off.
"My take on it all is that children are not the personal property of parents," Berliner said by e-mail.
"As minors, the state has an abiding interest in checking on their welfare and their education. When the state doesn't do that, it is abandoning its responsibility to take care of those we define as not able to make decisions on their own.
"Walking away from such responsibility is cowardly. Texans should be ashamed of their lack of oversight," he said.


How very authoritarian of him.

Homeschooling Bag Ladies

The title and theme for this week's homeschooling carnival cracked me up.
Photobucket

Just yesterday Jenny was looking for a book she and Pip are supposed to start reading for school next week. It had been on my desk for the longest time, but now that we wanted it, it wasn't there anymore, although several overdue library books were lurking beneath some math papers, a notebook, a cooking magazine, and three catalogs (it's a very large desk).
"Try my canvas bag," I suggested.
"Which one?!" she yelped, with good reason.

It wasn't in the canvas bag with the drawing of jewelweed on the side (I colored it with fabric crayons and then ironed it onto the bag, filling in gaps with indelible markers), although we did find the Writing Strands book that I misplaced last month. Nor was it in my canvas bag decorated by the Cherub's scribblings (using indelible markers and fabric crayons, with my encouragement). It wasn't in the Mary Englebreit bag hanging up inside my closet door (that was full of pens and art supplies). It wasn't in the pink bag with the roses on it- that one was empty for a change. It wasn't in the black Mary Englebreit bag with the "Queen of Everything" picture and motto on the side. For some reason, that one has wallpaper borders and newspaper clippings in it.
(Okay, I know the reason but I am not sharing it because it would be entirely too embarrassing to admit that I put all that stuff in that bag two years ago when we moved into this house- it was stuff I gathered up that had falled out of boxes or otherwise been left behind at the little house, and there it all still sits, clearly of vital importance.)

It was not in the large plastic tote in my closet, nor on any of the four bookcases in my room or the wooden ammo crates from the 1920s that are full of books (ammo for the brain)and stacked around the ledge that runs around the outer wall of my room, nor was it under the bed (wild horses couldn't get me to tell you what we found there).

We did find it, but it wasn't in a bag after all. It was inside the chipped green cupboard in my room:


Oops. That picture is over a year old. Here's what that cupboard looks like now:



Obviously, I need to get a few more bags.

Monday, April 21, 2008

All in a night's work

We rent our movies out for two days at a time. We do not renew them because of the high check-out rates.

Phone call tonight from a rushed and determined woman: I need to renew my moves, because I don't have a driver's license right now and can't get to the library!

I restrained the urge to ask what she'd done to lose her D.L. in two days, since if those were the only circumstances under which she could get to the library, then she must have had one when she brought the movies home.

Instead I explained that I couldn't renew her movies, but I did give her a couple alternatives that would help her avoid overdue fees and that many patrons don't know about. She listened rather impatiently, said a gruff thanks, and then hung up.

Later on in the evening I found her two DVDs in the drop box. Well, sort of... one of the movies was only an empty case. And when I tried calling to let her know that we needed the disc, too, I was told the answering machine was full. For someone without a driver's license, she must spend a lot of time away from home.

Muskrat. (I think)

A few days ago Equuschick, a friend, and I saw two muskrats down at the creek, so this evening I went down to the creek for a little while to wait and see if I could capture a picture of them. I only saw one this evening, but it stayed around for quite awhile. Sorry for the blurriness of the picture, but I had to zoom in a lot in order to be able to actually SEE it.

Some of those 'teens' are indeed adults

And nursing mothers want their babies to stay with them:

SAN ANGELO, Texas -- Mothers in the polygamous FLDS sect on Monday filed a motion for a temporary restraining order demanding access to attorneys, privacy in prayer and a halt to Texas child-welfare workers plans to separate them from their breast-feeding children.
Though filed specifically on behalf of four Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints mothers, the TRO is meant to include other mothers fighting to stop the state from taking their toddlers, who were taken from the sect's YFZ Ranch earlier this month.
Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) officials have repeatedly said they plan to separate all 416 children taken from the ranch -- including those under 2 who are currently breast-feeding -- once DNA testing determines maternity. That genetic screening began today. Texas Judge Barbara Walther set an afternoon hearing to further discuss the TRO motions.
The TRO also claims that since state officials have seized all cell phones from mothers and their children, they have no means to confer with attorneys. Further, despite CPS assurances that telephone access would be provided, that has yet to happen, the mothers argue.


Let's assume the very worst we possibly can about these mothers. No matter how bad they might be (and they can't be that bad, or the state wouldn't have let them stay with their children all this time)- should the state be permitted to hinder their ability to telephone their attorneys?

The judge also received 35 habeas corpus petitions representing the seized children "illegally restrained" by CPS. Those documents were filed on April 15, but were not available until Monday.
In yet another FLDS raid-related development, coordinating attorneys, legal aid attorneys and guardians ad litem announced an undisclosed number of 20-30 young women whose adult status had been debated had indeed been determined to be legally adults.


Can you imagine how you would feel if the government had held you against your will, insisted you'd been 'raped' and threatened to separate you from your children forever because you are under-age and have children- and all along you are actually a 23 year old adult? Would you ever trust CPS again?

CPS took away 416 children from their families and from the ranch because they 'observed' underaged 'children' with children. Only it turns out they were wrong. Do you see Angie Voss examining herself to see if maybe just maybe, she might have been wrong about anything else?

Updated: The judge has no such reasoning processes going on. In spite of the gross misjudgment from CPS workers about the ages of these women and their honesty, the judge declines to rule on the issue of separating breastfed mothers from their babies:
"The judge said she would leave it up to CPS officials and the attorneys to work something out on the breast-feeding. The attorneys, however, replied that they have so far been unable to come up with a workable agreement. "


Can the adult women charge their captors with kidnapping?

Boys and Girls Together

We're reviewing regrouping because somewhere along the way the FYG and FYB have forgotten what I thought they once knew. So we've pulled out the Cuisenaire rods and I set them problems- first build a number, and then subtract a number requiring some regrouping, then we go over what we did by writing it all down on paper.
They 'built' a 73 by setting out seven '10' rods and one '3' rod. The FYG subtracts 15 by trading in two ten rods for twenty units, and then laboriously counting back 15 of them into the box.
The Boy glances at his rods and quickly tosses two ten rods back into the box and pulls out a five rod.

The FYG looks baffled, and wants to know why he has the same answer as she does and how he knew to do that. He doesn't know, he just does.

I know just how she feels. I eventually arrive at the same answer as my more math literate friends, but I plod.

Later we take turns making up story problems for various math problems.
Every one of the Boy's story problems involve legos and fort construction.
Every one of the FYG's story problems are about clothes, shoes, and shopping.

We wrap up with an easy one (always try to end a math lesson on a success, says CM, as I ask them for a story problem for 7 + 3. The Boy's problem is about sawing down trees and nailing various branches together until he gets the 10 feet of board length he needs for his fort.
The FYG's is about shopping and shoes, and ends on an editorial note: "I have 7 pairs of flip flops and three pairs of tennis shoes.
And that is not enough."

Expelled

The HM, I, and two other couples went to see Expelled this weekend. We liked it. I am assigning Pip and Jenny to watch it for school this week. There were a couple of sequences that I thought were a little over the top, and one or two times where I thought the line of reasoning was fallacious, but this happened more often with the biogenesis theories of the Darwinists- crystals and little green men I kid you not. Perhaps fallacious wasn't the word for that- hysterically hilarious might do.

Amanda Witt has more.

Memory Lane

I once had a houseful of afternoon company during a major sewer back-up problem
while my husband was out of town doing some military training and I was trying to sell our house for our upcoming transfer.

I think it was 27 people. Who dropped in. So we had a singing. And that was also the day a prospective buyer came over with her house inspector;-)

Almost everything that could go wrong happened that day, and I learned later that most of our guests did not realize just how bad things were. We all just kept singing.

I was fine with the company. The broken air conditioner was acceptable, even though it was frustrating that it happened while a potential buyer was there. The sewer was frustrating, but I didn't know yet how bad it was. I wasn't excited about the bedroom ceiling collapsing, but I was praising God that nobody was underneath it when it happened. I could deal with the fact that one of my children and a friend had broken one of our beds- badly- by jumping off the double bed bottom bunk and swinging their legs up over the rails of the top twin bunk. I was deeply disappointed that they'd not told anybody about it when it happened and that my child was not forthright and honest when asked what had happened, but we resolved that issue by the seat of our pants so to speak.

It was the *next* day, when one plumber came out and said it would cost 300 dollars to repair, and what did I care about the cost since I wasn't paying it, the men from our church had told him they would pay it, and then he just disappeared never to return that my composure began to slip. And it was later still, around 5:00, in the afternoon when it looked like I would be without toilet or shower for at least a week (six children, no toilet; one of the children a toilet training toddler) that I was holding said composure by a slim thread. And when my husband called from Texas or Louisiana or wherever he was doing hard military training (which constituted hours spent at Starbucks studying the books) and cheerfully asked how things were going and had the house sold yet that my rapidly fraying composure thread snapped, and so did I. Instead of going into a long rant explaining everything that had gone wrong, I answered him by bursting into tears.

He tried to calm me down over the phone, but he was getting very worried himself, understandably, and when I could finally stop sobbing to hard to even speak, I went into a long and incoherent tirade, of which he understood only that I was crying (which I rarely did) and therefore assumed one of the children must be terribly injured.

I finally calmed down enough to explain, and there was really nothing he could do from where he was except assure me he didn't care how much money I spent fixing the plumbing, which I already knew, but it's always nice to be affirmed. Still, it was a full week before we could find a plumber who would come out and help us. A week of washing dishes in a tub and dumping the water outside. A week of using a camping toilet and dumping that in the old outhouse hole. A week of sponge baths, or driving back and forth to a friend's house fifteen miles away to shower (we couldn't stay there, we had goats to milk and we preferred sleeping in our own beds).

It is now one of those things we now look back on and laugh hysterically, and quietly pray we never have to experience again;-)

Reason and the Side of Caution

A due recognition of the function of reason should be an enormous help to us all in days when the air is full of fallacies, and when our personal modesty, that becoming respect for other people which is proper to well-ordered natures whether young or old, makes us willing to accept conclusions duly supported by public opinion or by those whose opinions we value. Nevertheless, it is something to recognise that probably no wrong thing has ever been done or said, no crime committed, but has been justified to the perpetrator by arguments coming to him involuntarily and produced with cumulative force by his own reason.
Charlotte Mason, volume 6, page 143


"Now, I understand why Felt wanted to stop Watergate. In my memoirs
... titled THE GOOD LIFE, I recall those moments in the White House when now I realize I should have acted to stop the spreading scandal. One night, when, in my presence, Nixon ordered Halderman to get a team in place to do break-ins, I should have stood up and said, "No, Mr. President, you can't do that." But I rationalized that there was a war going on, friends of mine were POWs, and the Cold War was hanging in the balance. Maybe the president was right; we had to take extreme steps to protect the country. And getting Richard Nixon re-elected was, as I saw it then, the most important thing I could do for my country.

What I now realize today, of course, is that we humans all have an infinite capacity for self-justification. Jeremiah was right: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?'"
~ Chuck Colson, Breakpoint, 'The Return of Watergate'


Over and over when you read about CPS cases unnecessarily removing children from their homes, they defend their actions (or other people do it for them) by saying, 'We must err on the side of caution,' or 'on the side of safety,' or even, most egregiously, 'on the side of the children,' making it sound like the children are being sent to summer camp instead of, from their point of view, kidnapped and held against their will in something called foster care.

How did we reach the point where we thought the effects of being yanked from a loving, affectionate, familiar home against your will and placed with strangers with no communication permitted with your parents were so negligible that this was 'erring on the side of caution?' Certainly, there are times when this is absolutely necessary. But it's never 'erring on the side of caution.' It is a decision that one certain trauma is better than another possible or suspected trauma. It is sometimes the correct judgment, but so long as state officials and the public view it as a benign, unproblematic, action free of negative repercussions for the children, it will be taken far too often when it should not be.

Human beings rationalize about an extremely emotional topic. Nobody wants to see children abused, so we justify any means to stop potential abuse, even when the means we take can also be abusive and cause exactly the trauma we claim to wish to stop.

Calling it 'erring on the side of caution' makes us feel better about the terror we are inflicting on children in order to rescue them. And, again, sometimes that is what must happen. But we shouldn't tell ourselves fairy tales about it to make us feel better.

When Adoption Should Not Be An Option

Several years ago I watched a terribly disturbing news program (20-20? Primetime? I don't remember) about CPS taking newborn children away from their mothers in the hospital because they deemed those mothers unfit to care for their children. The reason those mothers were unfit is that they were disabled. One of them had Cerebral Palsy. She agreed that yes, it took her longer to change a diaper than it took a woman who did not have C.P. She did not see why that constituted neglect so severe that the state could kidnap her children and reassign them to other families without any proof that she'd actually done anything that caused her children harm. If anybody else saw this program and can help me track down more details, I would appreciate it.

Last year UK reporter Camilla Cavendish reported on another case that gives social workers there the appearance of black marketeers trafficking in baby flesh:


a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child – for ever – because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a danger.

As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the father’s inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted.



So John Doe was suspected of injuring his daughter Susie Doe. The suspicion was never proven- he was never even charged, and he continued to share custody of Susie Doe with his former wife. Nearly ten years later, John Doe and Mary Smith fall in love. They marry and have a baby, we shall call her Jane because we are all imaginative and creative like that.
And CPS, or its equivilant, sweeps in and removes little Jane, severs parental ties, and places baby Mary for adoption, while leaving Susie there with the person they suspect has abused her.

For the same local authority to leave a man alone with a child that it thought he had harmed, but to take away another that had not been harmed, does seem bizarre. Until you realise that the child from the first marriage was disabled, and older, and would have been hard to place with an adoptive family. The child from the second marriage was a healthy baby, just the kind of “adoptive commodity” that local authorities find relatively easy to place.

I still believe that ministers were right to want to speed children out of the hell of care. But they have put social services departments in a strange position. We now expect them to combine three contradictory roles: to protect children, to keep families together and to meet adoption targets (which bring financial rewards). Under pressure, in situations that are not clear-cut, those roles are bound to conflict.

What is the evidence? Government figures show a significant jump in the number of babies being taken into care, from 1,600 in 1995 to 2,800 in 2005: a 75 per cent increase in ten years. While there has been an increase across all age groups, it is much, much greater for babies. More 10 to 15-year-olds are removed, but the rate of increase was only 21 per cent.


In England, as here 'privacy' laws that are supposedly about protecting the children are clearly used to protect government workers instead:

This case has also brought something else home to me: our hypocrisy about privacy. It is illegal for me to write about most care cases, or to read court papers, even when the parents involved beg me to. I can generally only write when judges go public. Yet I have discovered that even as I was writing about this case last year, painstakingly omitting much of the detail to ensure that no one could identify the child, her picture, real name and age were being published in a national newspaper. Not by a journalist, who would have been in contempt of court. But by an adoption agency, advertising for adopters.

Agencies have to find good homes for needy children. Many do a great job. But for parents who are routinely told that they will be in contempt if they dare to reveal the legal proceedings to anyone outside the court, or even to talk about the child by name, because his or her privacy is paramount, it is staggering to see their children being advertised like pets.


I wonder. Are we going to see such advertisements for any of the FLDS children?

Poisoning the Well

Brooke Adams again:

Last week, a lead attorney for FLDS parents had William John Walsh testify about Mormon and FLDS practices. He shot down one of the most inflammatory allegations made by Texas law officers about what they saw when they entered the sect's temple two weeks ago.

An affidavit filed in court by a Texas Ranger said that on April 5 an ex-FLDS member who had served as a confidential informant for Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran said there were beds in the temple where ''males over the age of seventeen engage in sexual activity with female children under the age of seventeen."

The ranger said that on that same day, officers entered the temple and saw a bed (later described as on the third floor) with rumpled linens and a ''strand of hair that appears to be from a female head.''

Okay, we bit. And then Walsh offered up an entirely different explanation for the beds-in-the-temple story.

Although he has never been inside the FLDS temple, Walsh said it was likely set up like an LDS Church temple.

LDS Church temples, he said, typically have several beds available in case people doing temple work -- marriage ceremonies, baptisms for the death -- become faint or feel ill.


Law enforcement (and CPS) release salacious speculation and hearsay. This increases the ick factor, adn the rest of us, totally creeped out by polygamy, funny dresses, and teen pregnancy (except for when it occurs in secular settings), are predisposed to believe all kinds of things about these people without any further proof. "Fifty year old men married to young girls?" Of course that's disgusting. Just one problem. The original allegation about an abused 16 year old who prompted the raid on the ranch because of her calls for protection from her abusive fifty year old husband turned out to be false, and not from anybody who has ever been in the FLDS sect.

And so far, even in the actual evidence presented in court, I am not aware that they have found any such cases at the ranch. None of the husbands of the five under-aged mothers girls are that old. I'm not saying it's okay if the husband is 40, or 36, or 26 and the girl is 16 (does the ick factor decrease with the men's ages?), but why is it that we latch onto 50? Isn't it because that sounds worse?

Sophie's Choice And Identification Difficulties

Brooke Adams points out another area where what the state is putting these people through is exactly the sort of malfeasance the state is accusing FLDS of perpetrating:

The state has given the young women one of those ''false choices'' that psychiatrist Bruce Perry talked about during his testimony. If they say they are under 18, they will get to stay with their children in foster care. If they say they are older, they are going to be sent back to the ranch after the state gets DNA samples from their children.

What would you do? IF your young child, perhaps a nursing baby, was going to be sent into foster care and you could go with your baby if only you told the state you were under 18, and you knew the state would believe you, what would you choose? I would believe my first and foremost obligation was to my nursing infant.

And while the state has conveyed the impression that it doesn't know how old these people are, or their names or dates of births because they don't tell or they don't know, and it sounds like there is precious little official documentation, that isn't really accurate, and if we'd thought about it, we'd have known better.

After all, another frequent accusation against FLDS members in Colorado City is that they commit Welfare Fraud, getting Welfare benefits for their women and children as 'single mothers' when they are, in the sects eyes, 'married.' Since their marriages are not legal, that doesn't make sense to me, but I would guess the specific problem is actually that they refuse to identify fathers so that the state can collect child support. That's neither here nor there at the moment. The point is they can't get Welfare benefits if they are as free from legal identification as the state has implied:

During the hearing, attorneys for parents and children said they had certified birth certificates, social security numbers, Texas drivers licenses and even tax returns that could be used to validate names and ages.

But Voss said the documents would not be acceptable, suggesting some certificates might be forged.

And Judge Barbara Walther agreed.

''How do you know, in today's world of identity theft, a birth certificate is proof of who they are?” the judge asked.

Attorney Stephanie Goodman asked Voss whether a certified birth certificate would be acceptable proof for her client.

''I can’t say that it wouldn’t be,'' Voss said. But she also could not say it would be.

Instead, Texas will use DNA samples to link mothers and fathers to their children. One unknown: Who is footing that tab?

I am not sure how they will sort out the age issue.

While Texas won't accept birth certificates as proof of parentage or age, they were good enough for prosecutions in Arizona.

Arizona authorities relied on birth certificates to convict a handful of FLDS men for sexual misconduct with underage girls. The birth certificates were used as absolute proof in establishing how old the girls were when they had children.


The issue here is not that they may have as many as fifty under-aged girls with children, as Voss claimed in court. The issue is that she has decided, based entirely on her judgment of their appearance, that they must be younger than their birth certificates or they claim.

Thought Police, II

See Grits for Breakfast for another good post:

[...] Allegations of forcible rape turned out to be bogus, and only five girls between 16-19 girls were found with child - probably about the same ratio you'd find if you rounded up all the kids in my neighborhood.

Instead, I wonder what it would be like for these children to be torn from a loving family by people whose message is this: Everyone who loves you is bad. Everything you believe is wrong. The God you've been taught is a fraud and belief in Him is harming you.

To pluck any deeply religious child out of a secluded household and shower them with such messages from "de-programmers" would scar a kid for life, if they believed it.
[...]
In Eldorado, no one alleges YFZ parents are themselves abusing children. Instead the allegation (in court, at least) is that they're teaching their kids that a woman's highest calling is giving birth and raising children, and that it's acceptable to get married at an early age. Even if it were true, and the allegation was disputed, can this really be enough to seize children from their homes? It's not SUCH an outrageous belief, even if you don't share it: Until 2005, 14-year olds could marry in Texas with parental consent, and 16 year olds didn't need parents' permission.


Cicero has a long list of links about the case. These resources have been particularly useful:

Brooke Adams of the Polygamy Files (she's not polygamous, she's not even Mormon) does a great job of staying even handed and carefully teasing out the details.

The Salt Lake Tribune- absolutely the best news coverage anywhere. Because they are in Salt Lake, I had just assumed they were LDS, but according to Cicero:
(The Salt Lake Tribune was founded as an anti-Mormon anti-polygamy newspaper and so has extensive experience in reporting on these types of issues).


According to the Deseret News:
"To make this transition as smooth as possible, we're going to try to keep these children in groups," Shari Pulliam of the Texas Department of Family Services said Saturday. "We're going to keep the teenage girls and their children together, the siblings together as much as possible."


This would mean they can't place the children until the DNA testing is done, right? I believe we were told that CPS didn't know whose children were whose or which family groups they were in because nobody would tell them, except for when they did tell and were then accused of lying.

FLDS members opened the ranch for their attorneys and the childrens' guardians ad litum to visit:

Susan Hays, a Dallas attorney acting as a guardian ad litem for a little girl taken from the YFZ Ranch, left the ranch impressed.

"These people can build houses. It's an amazing facility, amazing construction," she said Saturday. "These aren't poor kids living in trailers. They're huge buildings, very clean and, frankly, they're a lot better conditions than the children are living in right now inside the coliseum."

Some of the children taken from the YFZ Ranch are being housed in nearby San Angelo, where they are sleeping on cots in what some of the FLDS have said are very cramped conditions. Attorneys have complained that they have had to conduct interviews with their clients in horse barns.

Patricia Deveau, a San Antonio attorney representing a 9-year-old boy, said the YFZ Ranch was a beautiful, self-sustaining community.

"I wanted to meet my child's father and see where he's been living so I can complete my own investigation," she said. "I was impressed with how self-sustaining this community is. I had no idea. It was an education for me."

DNA testing isn't completed yet, so, um, how does Deveau know that the man she is visiting is the father of her client, since nobody knows, and the children give conflicting information? Does it sound like perhaps CPS may have over-stated the case in court?

When you see a small child that's living on a cot instead of in their home, that's sad," Hays said. "It's frustrating and sad for individual lawyers when they have not seen any evidence of abuse in that child's home. The state seems to be making this argument that the whole thing's a big house. It's a 1,700-acre ranch with multiple buildings, large homes."


I general rule of thumb for me is that if ever I find myself and the ACLU on the same side, I need to rethink the issue. I have, and I did, and currently the ACLU and I are still on the same side:
"While we acknowledge that Judge Walthers' task may be unprecedented in Texas judicial history, we question whether the current proceedings adequately protect the fundamental rights of the mothers and children of the FLDS," said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, in a statement.
While the ACLU "deplores" crimes against children, Burke said that "constitutional rights that all Americans rely upon and cherish - that we are secure in our homes, that we may worship as we please and hold our places of worship sacred, and that we may be with our children absent evidence of imminent danger - have been threatened" by the state's actions.


It looks increasingly like 33 year old Swinton, with absolutely no affiliation with FLDS, was behind the false allegations that prompted the raid and removal of all 416 children from the FLDS ranch:
The Texas Ranger Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety confirmed Friday that Swinton was a person of interest in calls placed to a crisis hotline by someone claiming to be Sarah, a 16-year-old girl who had been sexually abused and beaten by a 50-year-old polygamous husband.
[...