Tales from the Front: FLDS Ranch Lawyering
It hasn't been me out of town, disconnected, out of pocket this time... but the end result has been almost the same. I've been half here the last few weeks, but oh! the stories I can tell!!
A few weeks ago, the Texas Bar Association put out a plea for anyone who could pick up a pro bono case or three to please consider representing either children (as guardian ad litem) removed from the Fundamental Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) ranch in west Texas, or to represent one of the mothers trying to get back their children from state protective custody. My own personal live-in lawyer (daughter Lisa) ended up going out there to represent a few of the mothers.
By going "out there" I do mean Out There. You can look it up on the map, but trust me, while it's not out in the middle of nowhere, you CAN see it from there. Let's just say I didn't worry about her enjoying the night life too much on this trip. And she ended up with two clients, both women close to thirty (one on either side of it) and both women worried sick about their children who had never been away from home before.
The women were still quite shaken by the raid, and this was several days later. They said the Child Protective Services (CPS) raid happened in the middle of the night, and came with an armed tank and complete armed SWAT team. And even though they did everything asked of them, the SWAT team kept their guns pointed at the mothers and children the entire time. An experience which would shake up the most jaded of people, I'd think, but for these so sheltered women and children, it was that much more terrifying. "They spoke so loudly" one woman said, and that scared her children as much as anything, these children who had never had a voice so much as raised towards them.
Now the flip side is that CPS and law enforcement surely remembered the situation at Waco, and if I was making such decisions on what to bring with me, I wouldn't have left that tank at home. And certainly I understand why the SWAT team people never let their guard down or showed any trust in the people they were dealing with this time. Sure, it was a way different group of people, but those awful memories of the Branch Davidian tragedy kept all the SWAT guns trained on the people, just in case.
The day after Lisa met with her clients, the hearing started. Now with at least 320 children/parents needing a legal decision on where the children would live in the short-term, I can see why a half-day bench hearing for each of them wasn't practical. However, what happened in the hearing lumping all of them into one, that wasn't justice.
Lisa told us about the first piece of evidence introduced. By law, all the lawyers (both those representing mothers and all the guardian ad litems) needed to see and agree to each piece of evidence introduced. And yet, count them, remember, there are more than 500 legal advocates there trying to do their best for their clients. So the judge called a 10 minute recess and told all the lawyers to come up to see this first piece of evidence right quick. And what was that like? Lisa said one word. Zoo.
After that, the rule for evidence changed. Lawyers were to come up to see the evidence offered at the end of the day and write out their objections if they indeed objected to that piece of evidence. Realistically this made even less sense than the recess to crowd up and try to see, for the written objections wouldn't be seen or ruled on by the judge until, at earliest, the next morning, with at least six hours of hearing having happened in the meantime.
I don't know how this should have been done. It's easy for me to say "well, that didn't work" now, but how DO you hold a quick 300+ hearings, with kids in the yard waiting to know where they were to sleep the next night? I'm sure appeals will be lodged and won because of the way this hearing was held, but I can't think of any way to expedite these hearings without having somebody's rights trampled. I just wish it weren't these children's rights being tossed away like this time.
Meanwhile my daughter's clients are calling her daily, after all this is about their children and their fears for their children, and I know if it were me I'd be calling more than once a day. I would be the one they'd nickname "crazymom," as they tossed my case around like the hot potato nobody wants to get stuck with.
At any rate, she's glad she got the chance to help out and represent these mothers, she (and I) have serious questions about the legality of the raid to begin with, and I don't think these children have been treated right, and these mothers are getting not even close to as much consideration as the dogs at the SPCA. Uhhh... most of that opinion there is just mine. Lisa might agree but she won't say right now, not as long as she has clients living in this situation. But she IS really glad for the opportunity, no matter how much it all frustrates her. You know the law, you know how things should be, and what should be your legal recourse when things aren't as they should be, and this situation is so far out of normal experience, it's a real education for everybody involved.
Even for mothers of those involved. Even just hearing the bits and pieces she feels like she can tell me. Even being the one who waits for her call after she meets with her client, because if I don't hear from her by midnight I'll be calling the Texas Rangers to go find her. It's amazing how that girl can roll her eyes long distance. But hey, what are mothers for?
- thejanet's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Traumatized Children
I would say the children, especially the young children (one 16 months old), are already traumatized for life. To be ripped from your mother's arms at gunpoint and taken to an unfamiliar place is not something that will be forgotten. The fear is within every cell of their small bodies and branded on their minds with horror.
With two adopted children in our family (my daughter and my niece), we have seen the results of the severance from the birth mother. An insecurity results that no amount love has erased ... an insecurity that has no basis in their lives since we adopted them. They have both flourished, but the insecurity remains as an underlying force.
All of us whose mothers have returned to spirit can relate to the feelings of insecurity that arise because "mother is no longer here." Even when we have cared for them in their old age, that very primal tie to mother has been broken. There is no tie like that between mother and child, whether or not the relationship is positive. I've heard numerous times that many soldiers die with "MOM" on their lips.
I am appalled at the governmental agencies of Texas, but also very suspicious that this event has absolutely nothing to do child welfare or religious practices. I seriously suspect that it is a diversionary tactic of our Secret Government intent on a pre-emptive strike on Iran and on manipulating the election process.
Thanks to your daughter, Janet, for her kind assistance and to you for keeping us informed.
for more than 100 years
(I messed up reply to main and reply to post again. Ignore this.)
Airheadedly,
Janet
Should The IPC issue a press release re: this whole situation?
Janet,
Thank you for the 1st hand report. It has to be, and continues to be, a very harrowing experience for both your daugther and you as her mother, mentor and friend. She sounds like a very principled chip off the ole block!
As we discussed I think we, as progressive Christians, need to take a very close look at this whole situation. Maybe The Institute for Progressive Christianity, should consider issuing a press release re: protection of separation of church and state. While we may not, as progressive Christians, necessarily agree with the FLDS theologically, we must, IMO, take a principled stand here.
We can do this in two parts. On the one hand we can laud the State of Texas' support for it's protection of childrens rights and on the other raise a serious question re: protection of religious freedom. While plural marrriage is, by law forbidden, we need to more closely examine the motives of the state to see if there is a deeper more sinister motive here, as in taking an opportunity, an excues, to break up a religious group the state thinks is religiously repugnant.
I personally believe the children should be returned to the custody of their mothers, and be allowed to return to the ranch, to continue practice of their religious life, no matter what others may think of their philosophy. It is not the role of either the state or other religious people to determine what is right for others to believe, as long as, and this is a big exception, no harm is done to anyone.
I heard male members of the church say in public interview, that they did not know that state law forbid marriage of minors under 16, and that now knowing the law that they will commit to living by that law. As I see it, it's the leaderhip that is at fault here. We need to separate religious belief from laws protecting children from exploitation. It's a fine line but one that needs to be, IMO, taken on principle.
You're closer to the situation than I, so what do you think? It sounds like you also have some serious principle issues here.
Rich
for more than 100 years
Ever since the Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) changed its doctrine to follow US law against polygamy, and this group splintered off, they have lived in remote area ranches in Utah, Arizona, Texas. And not until the raid on this YFZ Ranch has there been a word said either to or against them since a similar raid on a town (now Colorado City, AZ) in 1953.
Probably, no surely, we should have seen this coming once Warren Jeffs, the FLDS president and prophet, was arrested several years ago. But it was still a surprise to me. Oh and Jeffs is still the man in charge, he sends his orders via telephone through his ranch leaders. I do think Jeffs may still be our bad apple. He's definitely a bad apple, and has caused his group (mostly those located at other places) much harm.
In my opinion, if child abuse was the issue, the raid would have included females from 13-17 and males older than 17. If the danger of abuse was the issue. I don't think it was the issue at all, and no, I don't know what the issue might be. But I personally would discount a concern for child abuse as any sort of reason for anything done. It just doesn't make good sense when held up next to what was done.
Breaking up the group does seem to fit the state's actions a bit better, but I'd guess breaking up the accumulating wealth of the group rather than repugnant religious practices as motive. I may be sitting on a radical edge here, but I don't think I am.
Your division of a white paper makes sense, or would if I could believe that preventing child abuse was part of the state's motivation. I surely can't say it's not, I just say that I can't believe that.
And these children, currently warehoused in large Texas group homes, they are the real losers. Ripped from their home and their mothers, going from being a cherished and much loved child to a number in a child warehouse, these kids have lost it all. At best, some of them may be returned to their mothers (but probably not to their home) sometime in June at earliest. That would be during the prescribed 60 day hearing. I don't know how damaged these children and mothers will be by that time. It hurts my heart even to think about this.