Yesterday's Ft. Worth Star-Telegram reports on what to expect at the next round of hearings, scheduled to begin May 19, in the cases of 464 children taken into state custody from the FLDS compound in Eldorado, Texas. In simultaneous hearings in 5 San Angelo courtrooms, children will be grouped by family so that siblings will have hearings together. The hearings are likely to continue the children in state custody while parents work on "service plans" to meet Child Protective Service guidelines for return of their children. The court will attempt to to complete all hearings by June 5, the 60-day deadline as required by law.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
9 comments:
We all feel sorry for these children and probably their mothers --but the men need to do time for violating our marriage laws by taking on multiple spouses. This is not a lifestyle we want to encourage by official approval. They can not convince me that the men's motives are pure.
I've been under cult-like leadership before --where such leaders enjoyed power over others and the adulation of followers. It was a perfectly fine church --but people had arisen who had charisma and mis=used it . I smelled a rat in that there was a lack of real love for people and respect for any one with a differing point of view on church management, etc.
A REAL church of Jesus Christ treats all its members respectfully and learns how to disagree respectfully . These mormon groups are simply endorsements of a sex-focused lifestyle --cloaked in religious mumbo jumbo.
Barb, you have to stop assuming that the whole world wants to walk in lockstep with you.
These men and women segregated themselves from the rest of society with great deliberation because they don't want to live your kind of life. Do their wishes mean nothing to you?
You are assuming "abuses" where there probably are none.
Mind your own business.
I certainly make no such assumption, Chimera, that "the whole world wants to walk in lockstep" with me. If I did, I would have certainly learned differently from blogville.
There is nothing biblical about minding your own business where 50 year old men are taking 14 year old brides. They have so many kids they probably can't tell their daughters from their wives. Don't kid yourself --this is a steamy sexual environment when old ginks can draw continually from a new supply of maidens to bed and wed.
I have just as much right as you do to discuss the pros and cons of such groups in our nation that believes in equality and freedom and certain views of morality, of right vs. wrong.
"We all feel...," "...we want..."
You keep speaking for other people. Let them speak for themselves. Say "I" instead of "we."
I don't know why you want to discuss the pros and cons of someone else's life. Where's it gonna get ya? It's got nothing to do with you. You cannot thrust your own morality onto other people and expect them to thank you for it. You may decide for yourself which moral rules suit you, but you have to let other people make their own moral decisions for themselves.
You don't know that any of these women are being forced into marriage. You don't know that children are being abused. All reports so far indicate exactly the opposite, in fact.
They chose to live their lives apart from the rest of the country so people wouldn't be able to tell them how they should live and how they should love and how they should raise their kids. They very deliberately shut the rest of the world out of most of their lives, and what happens? The world kicks in their doors, terrorizes the women, arrests the men, and kidnaps the kids and subjects everyone to medical testing without their permission.
When's your government gonna come kicking your door down, Barb?
If your kind gets in charge of the gov't, I expect they will kick my door down, Chimera, for my politically incorrect views and writings --for not keeping my opinions to myself. Free speech will become a thing of the past.
All who violate laws hide the fact and retreat from public view best they can. What do you expect? The Meth lab folks do the same thing. These men are getting away with violating our laws on marriage and they should not. The laws have good justification behind them.
My "kind?" LOL! And pray tell, what "kind" is that?
"The (marriage) laws have good justification behind them."
'Splain that.
The kind who would suppress free speech from my kind.
The laws that prohibit bigamy and polygamy and polyandry --the laws we used to have that made it harder to get divorces --and benefited the party who was faithful over the adulterer. The laws about age of consent. The laws that define marriage as between one man with one woman. Those are the laws with good justification behind them.
The justification is again about what is fair and most protective and healthy for both kids and their parents. What provides the happiest homes and kids. The best financial stability.
I really believe a man and wife who love each other and their kids in healthy ways will have the most functional families with the happiest and most achieving, well-adjusted children. I don't think all the other domestic arrangements have the same potential.
Guess people believing abortion should remain legal - won't be able to refer to themselves as "pro-choice" anymore.
Since, if a female "looks to be" under eighteen and has "chosen NOT to abort" this "now" is "accepted" as "grounds" for CPS to "remove the infant" and do an "investigation".
What with new federal guidelines - these infants will be placed - in "pre-adoptive homes".
At the end of the "year" CPS is given to "effect needed changes" - the claim is then routinely presented - that "at this time" it is deemed "TOO TRAUMATIC" for the infant to be "torn" from those it now views as "parents".
Thus - in the "best interests of the child" the parental rights of a "minor" -
(who "obviously" cannot provide the "stable" home - federally funded foster parents can - especially since they CONTINUE to be funded AFTER the adoption is finalized)
will BE TERMINATED.
The state (any state) then picks up it's "per case adoption incentive".
And everyone's happy.
Well, maybe NOT the mother - but with enough of the "right kind" of therapy and the "judicial" use of prescribed medications - she'll eventually "learn" to be "grateful" to live in such an "enlightened society". She'll "thank us" later for "stepping in" and "doing the right thing".
Or not.
Either way the "child welfare industry" rolls well-fundedly on down the road.
Yep. Words out! It's clearly NOT "choice" anymore.
If a girl "looks" under eighteen "keeping her baby" is no longer considered a "protected freedom".
Abortion - socially mandated - those not complying will have resulting babies - removed by the state.
The "general public" will feel "warm and fuzzy" - in a maternal sort of way - that these "young girls" are "saved".
Nope. It's sure "not a matter of choice".
Not anymore.
Granny, are you referring to the minors in the cult who gave birth? I wouldn't support the separation of children from their mothers just because the mothers are under-age--but I do think the fathers need to go to jail for violating the law on polygamy in order to put an end to this abusive, illegal system. And usually, the issue involving a pregnant minor would depend on whether there was a grandmother on site to help care for both the minor child-mother and her child?
It just points up the problem of minors as mothers --they ARE too young to raise kids by themselves. And most women need a bread-winner in the family to help them raise their kids unless they are educated with jobs that afford day care--or need to share rent and expenses with someone else, even the child's grand-parents. Children need constant supervision. And minors as mothers usually aren't mature enough to want their lives to center around children.
Post a Comment