Quantcast
Utah

Texas makes deal with FLDS couple

Comments

Return To Article
  • Reality
    May 27, 2008 11:42 a.m.

    Hmmm... Testifying 12 year old sisters married to your "perfect prophet" and living in the same residence are a bit scary, huh?

    So much for "No proof! Send the kids home!"

  • Dagwe
    May 27, 2008 11:44 a.m.

    This case will end in the US Supreme Court asking for that court ruling on freedom of religion.

  • realitycheck
    May 27, 2008 11:57 a.m.

    wow - Dan Jessop really didn't want his 13 yr old sister to testify that she is married to Warren Jeffs. Guess he finally figured out that if he'll let his sister marry at 12 then he's not as good a parent as he suggests.

  • Thomas
    May 27, 2008 12:01 p.m.

    Reality you are unreal. This is grounds for an investigation. It presents no grounds for the standard of eminent danger of abuse. It does not justify the legalized kidnapping of over 400 children.

  • Deal?
    May 27, 2008 12:04 p.m.

    A "deal" from any Government is a "no deal".

    One of the biggest lies - "I'm from the Government & I'm here to help you!"

  • Finally
    May 27, 2008 12:10 p.m.

    I agree with "realitycheck"--Dan Jessop must have really been scared of the potential testimony in order to make a deal with CPS about anything. This thing is looking more and more like a mafia ring rather than a religion...I think the truth will begin to come out little by little and this image that the FLDS would have us believe--that they're just law abiding citizens exercising their religion, will be seen for what it is--hogwash.

  • watch your government
    May 27, 2008 12:12 p.m.

    When one persons rights are denied, everyone's rights are endangered.

  • Justthefactsmaam
    May 27, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    My a) above, of course, is referring to the credibility of the 'so-called parade of witnesses.'

    If that parade was worth a plug nickel, wild horses wouldn't have kept Texas CPS from NOT CAVING and NOT handing those kids over to the mother. Instead, they would have GLEEFULLY gone into court and put on their PARADE.

    Only an idiot thinks they have won when they have LOST their primary objective; full control of the children and a MASSIVE LOST of the degree of previous control that they had previously exerted.

    What MOTIVATION could have caused Texas CPS to ACCEPT SO MUCH LESS than what they already had IF they had such a great 'parade of witnesses.'

    Only logical answer is that they were afraid the parade of witnesses would BLOW UP IN THEIR FACES just like everything else has for them in this fiasco.

  • What?
    May 27, 2008 12:25 p.m.

    Dan jessop is one step closer to getting his family back. Not the other way around.

    If CPS had a real case, you think they would have allowed the children to go to Mom? No way.

    CPS in Texas is losing their shirts, skirts and anything else the wind has blown up.

  • SLIPPERY-SLOPE
    May 27, 2008 12:31 p.m.

    ==

    TO AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS TO AVOID CIVIL LIBERTIES ARGUMENTS

    QUOTE: Glen Lavy says that the California Supreme Court?s legal reasoning could be applied to polygamous marriages and [FLDS] POLYGAMIST CUSTODY CASES. [A week earlier, I used the same reasoning AGAINST the Texas CPS arguments: the polygamist childrens slippery slope argument.] QUOTE LOS ANGELES TIMES with my comment added.

    ==

  • Interesting
    May 27, 2008 12:38 p.m.

    I find it fascinating that very little of this makes its way to the major Texas papers, such as the Houston Chronicle. People in utah seem to be much more concerned with the day to day events unfolding in this case. And just reading the comments here, it appears that many Utahns have already made up their minds that the FLDS is in the right--not all but certainly quite a few. HMMMMM Maybe Utah needs to finally cut itself loose from polygamy and the culture that it breeds. I am not LDS, but if you honestly believe God doesn't condone polygamy anymore, stop defending it and stop defending its results. And yes--kicking out boys and marrying young girls off to older men ARE results of a culture of polygamy. At least Texas has the guts to stand up to this.

  • Re: watch your government
    May 27, 2008 12:38 p.m.

    "When one persons rights are denied, everyone's rights are endangered."

    Tell that to the FLDS children, hypocrit!

  • JFH
    May 27, 2008 12:43 p.m.

    Hey, watch your government: When one person's children are abused while the government looks the other way, it puts all our children at risk. I guess we should just all shrug our shoulders and say it's OK in the name of freedome of religion.

  • re: Thomas
    May 27, 2008 12:42 p.m.

    Thanks, good comment!

  • The Rock
    May 27, 2008 1:14 p.m.

    This is a very difficult case.
    My great grandfather had 3 wives (but only two mother-in-laws as he married sisters) and went on a mission to the southern states to avoid prosecution on polygamy charges. One of his companions was Heber J. Grant.

    The US Supreme court ruled that we have the right to believe what we want, just not practice polygamy.

    The first amendment reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    So much for the free exercise part.

    Forced marriages; however, do not constitute free exercise of religion.

    We have seen laws changed (changing the marriage age from 14 to 16) an apparent hoax phone call that started the whole thing, a mass kidnapping of over 450 children just because they thought some kids were being abused and there was a suspected religious theme.

    Oh well, I am pleased I am not dealing with this...

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2008 1:19 p.m.

    the thing is that there is no proof that all or even any of the children have been abused at this point. It kind of is like if your neighbor down the street abused his kids the state came and took all of the kids from the neighborhood because they must be abused too.

  • just wondering
    May 27, 2008 1:25 p.m.

    How much is all this costing the taxpayers?

  • VA gal
    May 27, 2008 1:33 p.m.

    I have to agree with Justthefactsmaam. If CPS had anything on this couple they would have kept the two kids. They would not have bent one inch.

    As far as it being his little sister that married Warren Jeffs, being related to idiots or criminals does not make you one. If Warren Jeffs is the nightmare that he is made out to be then there is very little this man could have done to prevent his sister from marrying Jeffs. So not much of an argument there.

    We don't take the children away from the mom if the dad is charged with child abuse of children outside his own. So I don't see how Warren Jeff's marriage has anything to do with this baby. I know many disagree but that is my opinion and I don't live in Utah and am not FLDS.

  • Sam Hampton
    May 27, 2008 1:39 p.m.

    I agree that the state of Texas must involve itself if the FLDS are indeed violating the state's laws against marriage (and sexual relations with) 14 y/o girls. That said, it is quite alarming that any government can trample all over citizens' due process rights, which the FLDS case involved--it calls into question the legitimacy of state action. In addition, I do not agree that the state has any right to interfere in the contractual/marital arrangements amongs consenting adults unless they can prove that the state has a compelling interest--for example, it might be proven that incestuous relationships can promulgate genetic problems. I don't even agree that the state should license marriages at all, lest the state interfere in private relationships, with the family, etc.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2008 2:11 p.m.

    The fact is that CPS should be verifying abuse and then taking the children, not the other way around. You don't pull all the children and place them in foster care and then figure out whose in harm's way. To me, this article just supports that not all 450(?) kids were/are/will be abused.

    I'm sure the Texas Supreme Court will find similar cause and support the Appeals Court.

  • Ing
    May 27, 2008 2:17 p.m.

    I don't think the people who seem pro-FLDS support polygamy.

    Religious persecution is something that a lot of people in Utah identify with. Utah was founded by people who were driven out of the settled parts of the US for their religious beliefs, and that history is as much a part of the state mindset as the Alamo is for Texas.

    Add to that the fact that people still associate Mormonism with polygamy even though the religion disavowed the practice more than a hundred years ago and will instantly excommunicate anyone who goes that direction, and the Utah interest is understandable.

    I think the Utah interest in this is not really sympathy for the FLDS--every Mormon person I know thinks they're crackpot heretics--it's a reaction to seeing an entire religious community's children taken by a government agency that seems to have the attitude that it doesn't have to justify itself to anyone.

    I say stop the polygamy, but don't punish the children. A lot of people think the FLDS don't deserve to keep their children...but maybe the children don't deserve to lose their parents. I think the state of Texas can do better than victimizing hundreds of innocent children.

  • NANTZ
    May 27, 2008 2:25 p.m.

    Defenders,.....You need to go back and read the entire story, not just the headline! What part did you not get?.....They just signed over, legal custody to the state, as temp. poss. is almost nothing in terms of custody. Their attorney must have really feared the evidence about to be brought, and grasped at the best deal they could get. The headline should read,- FLDS COUPLE ACCEPTS DEAL FROM TEXAS

  • Gal50
    May 27, 2008 2:39 p.m.

    Just to respond to some of the comments here, the state did verify abuse by finding underage girls married to older men and with children which indicates statutory rape. The adults on the compound were not able to accurately identify the family members of the girls and so all of the children were taken until it could be determined which families were involved in abuse. The children were of no help determining abuse as they couldn't identify their biological mothers and fathers.

    Some people erroneously compare this situation to one household on a block committing abuse, followed by CPS removing all of the children living on the block. Families on a block are not ruled by a fascist leader whereas it seems these FLDS families may be. We need to look at the dictates of Warren Jeffs and see what percentage of adults conform. Did anyone wear red on the compound? Were there any pets, toys or non-religious books? According to the bishop's report, all of the mature families save maybe one, practiced polygamy, so it seems that the families are very conformist and that their daughters are all at risk for underage marriage.

  • NANTZ is right
    May 27, 2008 2:41 p.m.

    You are correct--the parents signed over SOLE CONSERVATORSHIP to Texas, and they are just TEMPORARY POSSESSORS. Folks, that means these parents AGREED to let CPS have legal custody of their kids, as long as the kids could, at least for now, stay with the mom at the shelter AND, not insignificantly, there would not be a hearing with testimony which would have involved Jeffs and his "alleged" child bride. They were trying to avoid the testimony that would be given during the hearing.

  • Justthefactsmaam
    May 27, 2008 2:45 p.m.

    Perhaps you need to go back and re-read everything about this case frm the very beginning.

    CPS *already had* sole conservatorship.

    Prior to today the Jessop's didn't have anything. Not even temporary possession.

    Now they do have temporary possession.

    Who won? Who lost? Who caved?

    CPS caved. CPS lost. CPS has less than what they had before. Jessops have more than what they had before.

    Pay attention. I know it's hard for you. ;)

  • Sick at heart
    May 27, 2008 2:52 p.m.

    Hey, what ever happened to the polygamy law? It seems to me that the law alone would be enough to start in helping protect these children -- so why "no enforcement" attitude? At least Texas is trying.
    By the way, if the lawmen came into the Zion compound and went case by case as suggested with questions first, etc. after the first family was being interviewed, all the rest would flee. So there you are, back to square one. This seems like an obvious result to me. Why not you?
    I know a polygamist who told me of a mother who listened to her 14 year old daughter just screaming being (raped) by a much much older man in the next room and she did nothing. What a dilemma these little ones are in. One can't tell me this is OK in the name of religion.

    I will bet many who have posted here who are against Texas are FLDS.

    So sad for these little ones who are the victims -- and many not even knowing it because they are born into this practice and being groomed. Who is to help them if everyone turns a blind eye?

  • To Justthefactsmaam
    May 27, 2008 2:56 p.m.

    You need to get your facts straight--either that or you're purposely twisting them. Are you FLDS by chance? The evidentiary hearing had not yet been conducted. By agreeing to this, the Jessops said they do not challenge the state's sole custody so that there would not be a hearing--that's a huge difference from what you're saying. Yes, they got temporary possession, but only the mother gets to stay with the children at the shelter--it's not like they let them all go back to the ranch together. It's interesting to me that many folks keep saying there are no facts or evidence presented, but the second they try to produce some, it's deal making time. The story also says that it was the Jessops' attorney's motion to continue the hearing. I'm speculating a bit here, but my guess is because she didn't want to risk CPS's introducing evidence that would be damning to her clients. CPS caved because they didn't want to risk the evidence being excluded. So they made a deal that they could all live with.

  • Jonathan Wurst
    May 27, 2008 2:59 p.m.

    Did you guys notice the caveat emptor - the agreement depends upon the State Supreme Court decision? If the State rejects the stays and appeal, then the kids are going home (unless the State says a portion have to remain in custody such as the young teenage, unmarried women.

  • Re "Finally | 12:10 p.m."
    May 27, 2008 3:03 p.m.

    You need to put this into perspective.

    You said [I think the truth will begin to come out little by little and this image that the FLDS would have us believe--that they're just law abiding citizens exercising their religion, will be seen for what it is--hogwash].

    Whether their beliefs are "Hogwash" or not is irrelevant. This is a legal proceeding. It isn't about whether their church is true or not. That SHOULD be irrelivant is far as the legal matter goes. We should NOT try to use the legal system to prove/disprove someone elses belief system. The court needs to limit itself to "Legal" issues, not deciding if a person's religious beliefs are Hogwash or not.

    Texas also needs to try to get beyond their religious motivations in this case... or the whole thing is eventually going to backfire on them and EVERYONE involved is going to be worse off because a few people in CPS lost persepctive and turned this abuse case into a religion motivated witch-hunt.

  • nantz
    May 27, 2008 3:14 p.m.

    Re; JUSTHEFACWHATEVER, NOW PAY ATTENTION,....this couple does not comprehend how hard it will be to ever regain full custody of their children. Now they will have to challenge the state of Texas, and prove in court that, "it's in the best interest of the child" to transfer full custody to the parents in a court of law. This will only be allowed to be heard after the parents can prove that there has been a signifacant change in their circumstances, such as to care for the children in a safe envirement, support, home studies, schyco eval., ect. Before, the state may have just returned them after the Supreme Court ruling, no questions asked. The evidence must have startled their attorney!

  • kgil
    May 27, 2008 3:19 p.m.

    I am finding that my own pagan community is watching this case very closely to - in response to the person saying only UTAH was watching it.

    Pagans have had CPS take their children just for their religion, and also put in plans that the children could not be taught their parents religion. I do not know of any form of neopaganism with illegal tenets, however.

    So I think, IMO, that people USED to religious persecution - that see it for what it is - are perhaps all more interested in this case, mainly because the children were taken from THE GROUP as a group action, and the initital hearing was for the entire group - and because CPS alleges it is THE RELIGION that causes the abuse, and that the religion MUST NOT BE PRACTICED.

    Just my opinion. I'm sure the FLDS are guilty in pockets, but I hate to see innocent individuals trampled on and prejudged.

  • Stop it!
    May 27, 2008 3:20 p.m.

    Stop the inbreeding--NOW!

  • realitycheck
    May 27, 2008 3:21 p.m.

    re - Thomas 12:01pm

    I have no clue how you could say that. Dan Jessop lives in the same BUILDING as a number of these children, yet he has no problem with his 12 yr old sister being married to a convicted sex offender. He said as much.

    And you don't think that's grounds for pulling the children?

    Let's hope the Supreme Court is not as naive as you.

  • John Lambert
    May 27, 2008 3:23 p.m.

    My respect for Judge Walther has gone to zero. Any judge who uses "y'all" in a statement made from the bench should be inpeached.

  • realitycheck
    May 27, 2008 3:26 p.m.

    those of you that think this is a great win for FLDS, you couldn't be more wrong. You really thinl Texas wants to take care of all these kids? No way. But they don't want them to go back to that compound full of sex predators. They would have pulled the men if they could have, but the law doesn't work like that. (If they had pulled the men in, do you really think less people would be screaming about civil rights?)

    The state just wants the kids to be safe. If they could negotiate that all kids go back to the mothers but away from the fathers, they would do it in a second.

  • HD
    May 27, 2008 4:05 p.m.

    Regarding the photographs introduced into evidence last week that showed a 12-year-old girl kissing Jeffs in a manner that lawyers for CPS described as "how a husband kisses a wife", this is very relevant to the entire situation as this is one more piece of evidence of what is happening.

    Rod Parker, the Salt Lake City attorney acting as a spokesman for the FLDS Church, should be sensored by the court for his comment that this picture has nothing to do with the current case. Have any of you ever seen an adult hold a 12 yr old girl and kiss her in this fashion. While I support legal representation for the FLDS, Rod Parker does not or cannot see the truth of what is going on. If we are looking for the truth then Rod Parker should step up and call these things what they are and represent his clients with class and dignity. He makes this situation look worse with his slant on the facts.

  • Justthefactsmaam
    May 27, 2008 4:26 p.m.

    3rd Court of Appeals not only said NO EVIDENCE, but they said NO EVIDENCE 5 times.

    On one page.

    NO EVIDENCE.
    NO EVIDENCE.
    NO EVIDENCE.
    NO EVIDENCE.
    NO EVIDENCE.

  • 10 pm tonight on CBS
    May 27, 2008 4:33 p.m.

    I'm sure the FLDS doesn't want you to, but you all may want to watch the 48 Hours show on tonight. It will explore FLDS and shed some light on what we are up against.

    By the way, I find it appropriate that the Utah Attorney General calls FLDS the "American Taliban".

  • Last Kiss
    May 27, 2008 4:39 p.m.

    to HD

    If I ever catch someone kissing my kid like warren Jeffs did that young girl, I can guarantee you folks, that it would be his last kiss, as well as his last day on earth.

  • m
    May 27, 2008 5:22 p.m.

    I saw the picture as well - very creepy. I don't care if they practice polygamy but I care very much when they marry underaged girls. GO Texas. I hope they don't rush into returning the children, at least the adolesant girls, because in my mind everyone of them is in danger and both parents are to blame.

  • Stunned
    May 27, 2008 5:32 p.m.

    This whole mess has me stunned. I am so saddened for the children in this whole situation. I am also amazed that laws and rights are being trampled on. The first law that is being ignored is the practice of polygamy. Why aren't these men all arrested? Why are the children being arrested instead--their rights are completely neglected? I believe Texas, Utah, Canada, etc. should make a clean sweep and arrest all polygamous men, rather than trying to work with them to find out if they are abusing their families. If our society has these laws on the books they should be enforced. This enormous child abuse case/cases should have little to do with religious freedom, but rather with obeying the laws of the land.

    P.S. I too, thought the pictures of Warren Jeffs with a young girl was outrageous. That picture alone explains why we have laws against polygamy and underage marriage.

  • CPS blackmail
    May 27, 2008 5:39 p.m.

    Typical CPS tactic bad cop good cop routine; Round-up all the children then later use these children as leverage. CPS knows parents will do almost anything to get their children back. This so called good deal is nothing more than blackmail. Dont think for one minute any government agency that collectively kidnaps children under false pretense - sensational events that they imagine might happen in the future - is your friend. Alleged perpetrators should be prosecuted individually. CPS has a job but this know all do all agency wears blinders doing it.

  • Interloper
    May 27, 2008 5:48 p.m.

    The Jessops were given a sop. All three of Lori's children can stay with her at a shelter. The only difference between her and other mothers is that she is getting to live with her children over the age of one. The state maintains actual custody of all of the children. Dan's situation is more interesting. He is supposedly party to the sop but doesn't actually have possession of the children at all. Furthermore, his DNA is doubtlessly being cross-referenced to see if he has other children among the young girls. (Yes, I know that the Jessops say they are monogamous, but that doesn't mean it is true.)

  • Mad Granny
    May 27, 2008 6:01 p.m.

    We need to hang on here---we still do not know all the evidence that was found in their temple.From what I understand there was alot of damming evidence and if the court is allowed to continue I feel quite sure that it will be hair-raising to the ones that say they don't believe that there is any proof of abuse. Oh bythe way YA'LL is the TEXAS way!!Live with it.

  • wyogirl
    May 27, 2008 6:22 p.m.

    I agree with others - It was the Jessop's lawyer who didn't want the state evidence shown. I'm sure her lawyer explained what it would take to get the kids back - they knew it would be extremely hard. They risked it to protect Warren Jeffs and others like him.

    CPS and Judge Walthers allowing this woman to be with her children does not prove that they caved, it shows that they are not the heartless Nazi's that some have accused them of being.

    Hypothetical: If Charles Manson had a commune with a bunch of his relatives and friends living there together, raising each others children, teaching them that Manson is "perfect" and teaching them to accept the fact that they will either become like him one day, or become one of his victims would we want the state to protect those kids or give them back to their mothers? I know that these FLDS were not accused of murder, but child rape isn't far from it in my mind. They testified that Jeffs is "perfect" in their minds. They




  • What we have
    May 27, 2008 6:24 p.m.

    Is some perv. kissing a kid. Ok. Jeffs is presently in Jail. You know where he is BRING CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

    But return the children to their rightful parents. Prosecute abuse. But don't be the abuser yourself, state of Utah.

    FYI. If this was really such a 'bombshell', why did the state let the mom and dad (who is the brother of the girl in the photo), to have their kids back - even if they are still wards of the state? The parents have the kids in their physical custody. In my book, that tells me their 'evidence' is pretty week.

  • Brooke
    May 27, 2008 6:27 p.m.

    In my opinion, the Poligamy Laws are unconstitutional.. Look down your block and see how many people live together without being married. I don't like the deterioration of the family unit any more than anyone else but no one prosecutes unwed mothers or those who cause them. What go on in behind closed doors is not my business. If for religious reasons, the FLDS chose to raise their children to believe that marrying young and having lots of children and teaching them that Poligamy is God's Plan I say it 's their right.

  • Claire
    May 27, 2008 6:36 p.m.

    CPS pulls stuff like this in CA all the time! Their usual stunt is to tell parents that if they insist on a trial to fight the abuse allegations then they will not be permitted to see or speak with their children until after the trial, which would be in about 6-9 months or more. The other option is to waive your right to trial and go along with CPS and you can see or speak to your child later that same day. Now, when you are dealing with an infant, which would you choose?? I think this TX case and the agreement is similar. The mother wanted to stay with her infant and was willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure that would happen, regardless of her legal rights or how it may affect her legal standing.

  • One Wonders
    May 27, 2008 6:38 p.m.

    Let's see, Jeffs kissing a young girl - very bad. But isn't Jeffs in prison for the last several years? So how is that evidence for emergency removal of the children from all the mothers? Jeffs is in prison, not at "the ranch", return the children.

    Shouldn't FLDS create a panel of elders to provide guidance to the "prophet"? Maybe this panel of elders could provide a marriage policy that would keep the group out of trouble with he exterior community.

    In the meantime, the children should be returned to their parents (fathers and mothers) immediately. Any cases of child abuse should be prosecuted in a court of law within the normal rules of evidence.

    The CPS personnel should be chastised severely for their actions in this case. They should only remove children in true emergencies.

  • A1A
    May 27, 2008 6:47 p.m.

    Everyday, CPS removes babies from homes where one or both parents are drug addicts. Don't these parents love their children? Yes. Has it been proven that they are endangering their children? Well, obviously they are making bad decisions and usually they hang out with law breakers. So, their babies are taken away.
    Well, parents living on this compound have made bad decisions. They have photos of their supreme leader, a convicted felon in almost every room. The Jessops listen to false prophets and most certainly hang out with some folks that break the law. (Even though their friends aren't convicted yet.) So, innocent children shouldn't be exposed to religions run by convicted felons and their unindicted co-conspirators.
    Makes sense to me.

  • M.U. Stangranch
    May 27, 2008 6:47 p.m.

    The phenomenal support in Utah for this outfit has given me an idea. More of a prophecy, really.
    Somewhere in the valley I need to build a compound. Religious, of course, temple and other necessary trappings. Maybe a casino. In keeping with the locally well supported religious freedom, I should imagine the prophet (me) would call for polygamy to be practised. Doesn't hurt anyone, does it? Everyone would have to be of legal age, and children would not be allowed. However, there would be a twist. It would be much more short term, and would involve some compensation, a specified tithe, to practise the religious belief of polygamy. The men of the church could return and 'marry' again for a short term, again for payment of the tithe.
    It really isn't far fetched, in terms of what we whole heartedly support in the FLDS. If you want scriptural support, wait until I'm finished writing it.

  • Steve
    May 27, 2008 7:05 p.m.

    I'm annoyed that some keep claiming that the Texas Court of Appeals found no evidence of abuse.

    Not so. They acknowledged sufficient evidence to take away all girls in puberty.

    What they also stated was that they weren't seeing evidence that younger girls and boys were in immediate danger.

    That is a big, big difference. Supporters of the FLDS obscure this point.

    The question is whether the Tezas Supreme Court will uphold that decision or reverse it. But, still, teenage girls should remain under CPS protection.

  • One Wonders
    May 27, 2008 7:20 p.m.

    Ok Steve,

    I could agree to remove all girls between the ages of 10 and 18 until the family situation of each is investigated to determine if that specific girl is at risk.

    How ever, ripping babes from their mothers' breast (literally) at age 12 months seems a little extreme.

    And grabbing young children both male and female younger than 10 years old doesn't seem justified in this case.

    The people of CPS seem to be giving a little ground recently. They could go a long way towards gaining support if they would apply a little more reason to their actions.

  • realitycheck
    May 27, 2008 7:39 p.m.

    re - Brooke 6:27pm

    You say it's their right to teach their children to marry young and have lots of children. What about the child's rights? When born in and forever confined to a compound like YFZ, the children can be taught to do anything. A young girl wouldn't know right from wrong except what her parents teach her.

    And these parents worship Warren Jeffs and teach his word - that of a convicted sex offender. And that's ALL they teach. - the parents really don't want the kids to know anything about the outside world.

    so - what about the child's rights? Don't you think the child deserves a future?

  • Jen Shostak
    May 27, 2008 8:37 p.m.

    I can see that the Texas Attorney General's lawyers are not aimlessly bumbling along. Their including in this "settlement" an admission that this alleged 12 year old girl lived in the same house with the parents is (i) a possible set up for a perjury charge against Mrs. Jessop and (ii) forcing this couple into the position of testifying against others who lived in their house.

    Long range criminal and CPS tactics, this is not a "win" for this couple or the FLDS parents at large.

    "Jessop's attorney, Pat Matassarin, said ...CPS lawyers had come to court with documents several inches thick but she had no idea what they would be talking about". The lawyers for the parents need to get together, and focus on serving their own unified discovery demand on the Texas Attorney General and CPS. Under Texas court procedural rules, lawyers are not supposed to be blindsided by evidence they've never seen before. A very aggressive demand for production of documents and witness statements needs to be made. Otherwise, they will have malpracticed in representing their clients.

  • Sandy & Family
    May 27, 2008 8:45 p.m.

    Folks remember those parents including the fathers are not Warren Jeffs. You are all judging them all like they are him. Just admit this action and process was done completely wrong. These people including the kids have individual rights. The kids are not safer in this foster care system. Look at the statistics of it.

  • To Interesting
    May 27, 2008 9:14 p.m.

    I hate to burst your bubble, but Utah Mormon's are not in support of the practice of plural marriage by this group. I will tell you why it bothers me, first, I hate to always be mistaken for them. Second, it is against the law, we as the LDS church opted to obey the laws of the land. Third, people giving their 13-16 year old daughters to be married "spiritually" not legally, are sick and demented. Fourth, these people drain the welfare system and are very poorly educated. Fifth, I hate their cloned dresses, hair and voices, they are spooky. On a personal note, I did work with some of the group in Southern Utah, some were really weird, some were nice and I enjoyed what little contact I had with them, but I didn't agree with them. I was happy when the Kinston group had to answer to the law, I was happy when Tom Greene went to prison, I was happy that Warren Jeff's went to prison and I will be happy to see these kids not have to be forced to have sex at a young age.

  • COSMO
    May 27, 2008 9:30 p.m.

    So,the Texas CPS claims Conservatorship, over a newborn child. What a bunch of Vampire like Ghouls,
    hanging around as a mother endures the travail of
    birth, probably drooling,thinking about the money
    they can make, selling the infant, on the market.
    Who, at CPS is the Father? This infant was in no
    jeopardy, of being married off right away. Texas is
    using a chain saw to perform heart surgery, watch
    out for the splatter. :-)

  • To FLDS
    May 27, 2008 10:06 p.m.

    YOU FLDS PEOPLE NEED TO GET A LIFE A ONE WIFE!!!

  • azHawaiian
    May 27, 2008 10:25 p.m.

    Tx CPS is a bunch of pupule knuckle-heads. Why are they rounding up women and kids? Why aren't they rounding up the perverts forcing marriage on the women? Gee, takes one kolohe Hawaiian to figure that one out!

  • willy jessop
    May 27, 2008 10:34 p.m.

    did ya see doughy willy squirm when he was asked to look at the bishops list..... listing underage brides?
    yet he has no knowledge of any underage marriages?

    what a joke

    lies

  • what?
    May 27, 2008 10:53 p.m.

    two and a half million dollars in food stamps to hildale this year alone?
    plus they double dip by spending it at the church owned food town!
    it's pretty easy to get rich when you don't pay tax and have slave labor.
    cut off the welfare and hildale and colorado city would dry up and blow away

  • let me guess...
    May 27, 2008 11:29 p.m.

    the video of uncle warren confessing to his brother that he is a liar and has never been the prophet........

    was 'photoshopped' too.......


    please ....

  • Cali Mom P
    May 28, 2008 12:43 a.m.

    The bottom line is that all of the 400+ children are suffering! The underage brides were more than likely raised for just that and do not know better and to make it even worse they now have children of their own. Victims having victims! As a mother, my heart goes out to all of the children and all of the now adults that were raised in the compound. They do not know any other way of life but that does not make it okay. This is a messy situation and there will be no winners, hopefully all can cope.

  • Boots
    May 28, 2008 12:54 a.m.

    Dallas Morning News

    "On Tuesday, the Jessops signed an agreement with state lawyers, saying that the 12-year-old girl shown with Mr. Jeffs lived in the same building with the couple at the sect's Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado.

    Mr. Jessop acknowledged that the girl is his sister. Both are children of Merrill Jessop, a high-ranking figure in the sect.

    CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said: "It's clearer than ever that children were at significant risk of sexual abuse at the ranch. We were prepared to present that evidence to the court today."

    Mr. Crimmins declined to speculate on whether the couple backed off their demand for immediate release of their infant son to avoid more revelations in open court."

    The FLDS needs to remember one thing:

    The eyes of Texas are upon you
    All the live long day...

    Get used to it.

  • Mahonri
    May 28, 2008 4:27 a.m.

    A Deal? For their own child? The Lindburgh baby kidnappers should have been in Texas.

  • Grandpa Phil
    May 28, 2008 8:17 a.m.

    "Finally", I think you are wrong. Dan Jessop wasn't "afraid" of the testimony of the children being brought in; he was trying to keep the testimony revelant to the best interests of the infant in question. CPS was just trying to turn the hearing into another Kangaroo Court by offering evidence irrelevant to the case at hand. Such efforts at sensationalism are common in a case without merits.

  • Grandpa Phil
    May 28, 2008 8:33 a.m.

    Hello "10 PM tonight on CBS". By your comment, "and shed some light on what we are up against", you have identified yourself with CPS. That is the "we" being referred to. Don't you people in CPS have something JOB related you SHOULD be doing at this particular moment? Go find another family to grab their kids from. I know..... come to my house and try to take mine..........PLEASE.

  • Re: Last Kiss
    May 28, 2008 8:52 a.m.

    There needs to be more daddy's like you here on this blog. I think that if there were more daddy's like you out there, than there would be a lot less sex abuse going on.

  • The summarizer
    May 28, 2008 11:14 a.m.

    So -- Warren Jeffs is a pedophile kingpin. The FLDS are kooks with bad hair-dos and weird dresses. The Texas CPS are bumbling incompetents, and the judge is also. It is not surprising that we can't stop pedophiles from abusing girls in the US with our current "justice" system. Pimps do it in a much more egregious way in every sizeable city. The more shocking crime here is what the government of Texas did, in forcibly taking 400+ children away from their families with inadequate justification. Mormons are glued to this story because of the polygamy aspect. Did I miss anything?

  • Kit
    May 28, 2008 1:15 p.m.

    This isn't about religion, it's about pedophilia. The talk about "freedom of religion" is just a smoke screen to cover the real issue.

    All of the children were taken away because they were all vulnerable to sexual molestation - potentially by all of the men. Ask yourselves, what man would live in that environment if he weren't a pedophile? The so called "marriage" of very young girls to old men is just the tip of the iceberg. Pedophiles go after children of any age and the women are and have always been compliant.

    The children were also taken away so that there would be a better chance of getting truthful testimony. Left with their parents, they would have been coached and threatened not to "tell". Pedophile specialize in keeping children from "telling."

    Read the books.

  • Yo
    May 28, 2008 1:21 p.m.

    This is a free country and the Nazi Party should be allowed to practise their powers throught the CPS in Texas.

  • wyogirl
    May 28, 2008 1:58 p.m.

    re: religious persecution - CPS and others are accused of persecuting those at the FLDS ranch. The laws of the land apply to everyone regardless of their religious background.

    If I kept my children in a home with a rapist, and other adults that believed rape was o.k. and taught my kids that they would be raped someday or be a rapist and I worshiped Thor, the God of Thunder, would that be o.k. They couldn't take my kids away because to do so would be religious persecution? If that is the case, you couldn't take ANYONES kids away for ANY reason. All they would have to say is "I'm a _(fill in the blank)_)" and we would have to let them go??? Maybe some here think "yea, you can't take somebody's kids away ever" but those kids have rights too - they are not property.

    Also: The FLDS want to be "married" when it is good for them (to avoid statutory rape charges) by claiming the young girls had parental permission - but NOT married when it is good for them (to collect welfare or avoid polygamy charges).

  • GLO
    May 28, 2008 2:04 p.m.

    The solution is simple! Any one who has had sex with underage girls Lock-um up and throw-away the key. The ones that are thinking about becoming a perp. will have second thoughts.

    Photos/Books of Mormon/is not against the law. Focus on those that have committed crimes and show those that have not what the price will be.

  • Finally
    May 28, 2008 3:04 p.m.

    Grandpa Phil: Boy, you are so anti-CPS that you can't see the facts objectively. Why would anyone AGREE to sign over sole custody of their children to CPS if they weren't trying to prevent something from coming out in the hearing? If they had nothing to hide (or no one to protect, rather), they would never have done so and they would have gone on with the hearing. They were doing what they were told to do--damn the children, save the prophet! And the evidence is NOT irrelevant if CPS can show that this community is under the direct control of Jeffs and the "elders" of the FLDS--everything in their lives is directed by them from what pets to have to what to wear and how to comb their hair, all the way down to how to raise their children. If Jeffs is guilty of what he's been convicted of, then all of the children in that community are in danger. And yes, their belief system is necessarily interwined in that because of what it is--the "prophet" can never be wrong. It shows a pervasive mentality of abuse. Just because you call it "religion" doesn't mean it should be protected.

  • To Yo
    May 28, 2008 3:22 p.m.

    That's actually pretty funny! This is a free country-- Maybe we should call CPS a "religion" and then they can do whatever they want too...After all, only the government has to respect people's rights. If you're abusing women and children in the name of God, then anyone who questions you is persecuting you for your religious beliefs and you don't have to answer to that, RIGHT?! WRONG...

  • The summarizer
    May 28, 2008 3:22 p.m.

    Kit -- you're wrong when you say this is about pedophilia. That is part of it, no doubt. However, when government abuses the civil rights of its citizens, the hackles on the back of our necks should rise. The state of Texas' minions in CPS have done something that would have left our founding fathers breathless. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson would have been screaming their heads off at this. Read the Declaration. This is government abuse on a scale that mad King George could have appreciated.

  • Grandpa Phil
    May 29, 2008 6:39 a.m.

    To; "Finally", well, I haven't been called "Boy" in quite a while. I quite being a "boy" when I had my first one in 1978. Even he is all grown up now with two kids of his own. I am not so much "anti-CPS" as I am knowledgeable in who they are and how they work. Perhaps familiarity does breed contempt in this case but that is their doing, not mine. You have obviously never sat in a Family Courtroom and had to fight the System in order to gain custody (or even to maintain a relationship) with one of your children. I had to do that for my third daughter in a custody battle with my second wife (at least I had them one at a time). The entire custodial family law system is biased in favor of the state, parental or familial rights be d*mned. As much as many of you would like to believe different, Jeffs has NOTHING to do with any of those parents' rights to the custody, nurturing, care, and maintenance of their children. CPS, in violation of their own rules of privacy of a minor, threw those pictures in there to prejudice the case.

  • Grandpa Phil
    May 29, 2008 6:51 a.m.

    By the way "Finally", the word "religion" has never been typed by me in these blogs. I have not commented on their religion; I have only commented on their rights as parents - something near and dear to my heart as a father and grandfather. I have experience the Gestapo tactics of CPS first-hand as a foster parent and I can empathize with the FLDS families regarding how they are being treated by the Texas authorities. The odds are stacked against them, not so much because they have done anything wrong (evidence to that effect is totally lacking at this point) but because they are being daily castigated in the media by the likes of Nancy Grace and the fake experts she puts on the witness stand in her Kangaroo Court. These children may not be raised the way yours are (that might be a good thing, I don't know) but they need to be raised by their own parents following the dictates of the law and common decensy. As long as that is done, I don't care if they raise their kids to believe the sky is orange. After raising 9 kids of my own; kids are not dumb.

  • Grandpa Phil
    May 29, 2008 7:06 a.m.

    To: "the summarizer",, you hit the nail right on the head. This is about abuse of government authority. We call it the exercise of unrighteous dominion and CPS has honed it to a science. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND. Let the courts deal with the myriad of wild accusations flying about men abusing their authority and abusing girls. If laws have been broken, CRUCIFY them!! But, let the trials take place in the proper halls of justice and not in CPS Kangaroo Courts or the even less credible courts of public opinion. In all my years (and they are extensive) I have NEVER known any of you people to EVER get it right. You re-elected the slimeball Bill Clinton to a second term; how DUMB is that? Point made.

    In the meantime, return the children to where they belong; at their mothers' side. NONE OF YOU has the SLIGHTEST right to judge ANY of these women or their abilty to parent. I hear innuendo being thrown about as facts and judgments based on hearsay and sensationalized media ploys and have to hold back the scream of frustration in my head, "Don't they teach COMMON SENSE in school any more"?

  • re - grandpa phil 7:06am
    May 29, 2008 3:44 p.m.

    don't they teach ethics and morality where you went to school?

    or do you believe forcing 14 yr old girls to have sex with their uncles is ethically and morally correct?

  • Grandpa Phil
    May 30, 2008 7:10 a.m.

    to: "re:grandpa phil". I went to college at West Point which STRESSES ethics and morality and the rule of LAW, not conjecture and innuendo. If you take the time to actually READ the Supreme Court Brief and the Answers to the Petitions, you will see that, in spite of all the public accusations CPS made against the FLDS, they actually had NO EVIDENCE that any of those things actually occurred there. They admitted in court that they knew of no abuse to any of the children by either the mothers or the fathers. That is a fact of law now and no amount of wailing and knashing of teeth by a bunch of Neo-Christian gainsayers is going to change that. If you have evidence to the contray, name the 14 yr old girl and name the uncle you referred to, otherwise, stand against the tidal surge and wait for REAL evidence to come out before you point fingers and condemn. If and when I see real evidence of such abuse, I will be standing in the front rank to crucify the offender; until that happens, I WILL NOT be swayed by your or anyone elses irrational and fanciful accusations.