Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
It great to hear that some parents are cooperating and children are getting to visit with their parents. Thank you for the encouraging news. There is so much speculation in this case that it is hard to make any real sense of what is going on. I wish we could hear more from those that have first hand knowledge of this case, both from the parents themselves and others.
This is a sad situation, no matter what side of the fence you may be on, but to hear that some parents and children are having visits is always good.
Ah this brings back sweet memories of the Russian arrest waves in the 20's-50's. I wonder when the government will move beyond those who are highly religious...
You were told before to get off the "genocide" meme and discuss the topic intelligently.
Edited By Siteowner
Understand this--as an officer of the court, she cannot reveal all she knows. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant. Show some respect for someone doing an obviously thankless job.
Edited By Siteowner
Strike 2
Edited By Siteowner
When the question was asked about the "31 out of 53 underage girls", I assumed the answer was meant to classify the "31" as being pregnant or with child.
If accurate, the answer surprised me somewhat. The legal age to marry with parental consent is 16, and I have seen no news of any proof those within that group of 31 were under 16 years of age.
But, even if there were any under 16 YO, what does being "out of line with the general population" do to bring that observation to the table?
The next answer, to question about what her concern would be if " awarded to the state permanently", produced an a rather conclusive answer of " they WILL adapt to their new environment" (emphasis added).
After reading this interview, it looks like Malonis evidently has already concluded the YFZ Ranch is an abusive single household her clients were victims of, or at the minimum the household[S] they came from were.
In another interview, Ms. Malonis detailed was was required to take the children, stating " ...it
’s got to be credible and specific, that the children are in danger and have either been abused or are in immediate danger of being abused".
Maybe Malonis, being the attorney for the one that just gave birth to her second child, has knowledge of a possible crime, and/or maybe she's a Southern Methodist that doesn't approve of activities that may not conform to the practice of the general population.
Actually, EasTex01, the lawyer is just doing her job. It isn't her job to decry the horrid things done by CPS or the State. Her job is to see that her clients, the children, are cared for, and to do her best to try and figure out what's best for them. She seems to be doing that. She's encouraged contact with the parents, and maintains the kids are getting parent time. It would be wrong of her to criticize the State at this point. That isn't her job, at least on this case.
Allyson,
She is counsel to the children. Not a mediator between the state and the parents.
If there is evidence of particular events or conduct of the parents that was abusive or created dangers for the children, she should report it and stand up for her clients.
To quote her, if the state's actions did not show "credible and specific, that the children are in danger and have either been abused or are in immediate danger of being abused", for each INDIVIDUAL client she represents, then YES she should "criticize the State at this point".
KBP,
It isn't her job to criticize the state. It's her job to represent the children. I stand by what I said. Certainly, she needs to get to know the children, and yes, as individuals. And she is not a mediator between state and parents. Her job is to accurately describe what is best for each child, IN COURT. Actively being rude to the state is only going to undermine her job, frankly. As a professional, rather than a media monger or spokesperson, she is required to be circumspect and not bring further spotlight onto her clients. She has to focus on them, not on what the state has or has not done, except in how it reflects on them directly. Then, she needs to discuss it IN COURT, not with the public, a blogger, or the media.
As much as we all hound this story like hounds on a fox, the media attention really isn't good for the children at all. They're only shielded to some extent.
As a plural mom myself, and one who's "sisterwife" is now pregnant, I am very sympathetic to the majority of people involved in this mess. I don't take a light view of abuse, and abusers should be punished to the full extent of the law... however I don't necessarily see the marriage of a 16 year old girl to a 35 year old man to be abuse. It COULD be abuse... but is not necessarily. Let's prosecute the abuse, and not the scandal or the polygamy.
I hope this situation wakes up America about child abuse and foster care, the parental rights laws, and how the system really works. The parental rights law presumes that what is in the "best interest" of children is "family reunification." That is why children are returned to home environments daily that would shock mainstream America. Let's see if that happens here where everyone is watching. Let's see if a higher standard is put on these parents than it is on the parents of the other 500,000 plus children we already have in the system. If the allegations are found to be true and parental rights are removed so that these children can be freed up for adoption; then let's compare that to how other cases are handled in this country. If these children go back to their parents let's compare the followup visits by Family Service to how followup is done in other cases. America needs to use this situation as a window to view the system. A system that is largely failing children who are already abused and neglected. How many chances should we be giving parents who choose to raise their children in negligent, incompetent, boorishly, defective ways?
www.whosebestinterest.com
Allyson,
If she represents children that had their rights violated by the state, then yes, she should respond to such in court.
She should also point it out to any she reports to, if it does not violate the ethical limits the bar has established.
To set quietly until heard in a court, hoping not to upset the system, is what creates the type of problems CPS is famous for, and leaves the public, YOU, uniformed of the problems.
If there is no media attention, it means nobody cares enough to attend to any problems the CPS creates.
It is my opinion that the nursing mothers still with their babies is the result of the MEDIA pressure that forced Judge Walthers to change her plans, 3 times.
Otherwise the CPS would be have sent all the mothers >18 YO away (determined by their looksy test!).
Every lawyer who knows anything, knows that cases like this depend upon media coverage. Those poor children need all the good publicity they can get.
Who pays the wages of the guardian ad litem. They work for the state, unless I'm mistaken. So I don't really expect them to be criticizing the hand that feeds them, now that I think of it.
There was, just to set the record straight, absolutely no sign of abuse. If there were in fact 2 women aged 16 who were pregnant, that's a lot less than the general population, and I don't see whole neighborhoods being rounded up, yet.
These people need someone to vociferously stick up for them. Someone to express the outrage that many good Americans feel in their hearts. This fits the classic definition of a witch hunt: guilty until proven innocent, no due process, and everything going on in secret. Remember Salem? Things haven't gotten better since then, in fact, this proves things have gotten much worse.
A sad tragedy that will blight America forever. If ever there was a time to speak up, now is it. Voice your outrage, because this was an outrageous act. And do what you can to help these people - they will need lots of donations to fight their legal battle. What could be more worthy? Your children will be next, if we don't start doing something now.
Mental health workers rip CPS over sect
Staff complains agency traumatized kids, disregarded mothers' rights
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ro/
5770183.html
Press coverage is a good thing.
Finally! This will turn the tide, watch now.
You want outrage? I've got outrage.
I'm outraged that there are people who live in this country that believe that, as long as the parents consent, there is NO age that is too young for marriage and sex. (That's a near direct quote from an interview, stated by Willie Jessop. After the interview, he and his attorney told the interviewer that if they aired the interview, they'd pull the station's credentials to cover the story. Fortunately, the station went forward and aired the truth.)
I'm outraged that there are people in this country that think it's just fine to lie to law enforcement and to the agency that is trying to protect the children. I'm outraged that there are people who believe that the so-called parents have the NERVE to get in front of a television camera, cry crocodile tears, and demand "return the children" without ONCE saying "my daughter's name is Mary, she's fifteen, and we love her."
I'm outraged that a society that has made a practice of draining every drop of the taxpayer's money that they can get their hands on is now begging for funds to defend their "right" to rape little girls.
I'm outraged that there are young boys taken from school and put to work doing construction work at the age of eleven or twelve. And I'm outraged that these same boys are, once they're judged old enough to be a threat to the old pedophiles who want free access to little girls, tossed out of trucks on the side of the road like garbage.
That enough outrage for you?
Rainkiss, you sound like me. All that outrages me as well.
What is your source for the 'near direct quote'?
"Texas stopped from moving newborn, mother taken from YFZ ranch
07:47 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 13, 2008"
A judge is finally standing up for civil rights and stopping CPS!!
It is about time!!!
go to the new FLDS website, Truth Will Prevail, and you will see the lies of CPS refuted, clearly, and unequivocally.
Also, check on articles on the Internet on CPS being "big business" - there's a financial incentive to take children from their rightful parents.
Remember, all it takes is one anonymous phone call, and you'll be spending your life, and your life's savings (if you are fortunate to have any) defending yourself from the false accusation of an accuser who will have the benefit of remaining anonymous. CPS is out of control, everywhere around the world. They even have the vast majority of the politicians in their corner, either becuase the politician is too ignorant, too corrupt, and / or scared of the press releases that CPS will issue if the politician doesn't support them. One bad press release claiming that a particular politician doesn't support "the best interests of the children" and doesn't support the "fight against child abuse" and the politician can be all washed up. These people at CPS are way too powerful, and way too corrupt. If you go to the new FLDS website, you'll see how CPS was caught in their lies re: the age of the mothers.
Commenting by HaloScan
