"Such a raid is itself child abuse."

THIS.

"Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were living on the ranch in Eldorado. Of that group, 31 already have children or are pregnant...."

Yeah, I'd bet, oh, 30 of them were 16 or older when they became pregnant, and the other one was a shotgun marriage :)

"And if CPS doesn't know exactly which category any particular teenager falls in, the statements should have at least made that uncertainty clear."

But that wouldn't have helped to smear the entire FLDS as pedophile rapists. I mean, this is a liberal/feminist government organization that goes by the rule of thumb that children are better off removed from their fathers, and you expect them to be honest? Come on now :P

Your point is well taken. What I don't understand about this is that, if they wanted a way to get access to the compound and a justification for interviewing its inhabitants about what was going on, why didn't they focus on welfare fraud? According to accounts of the economies of the Arizona and Utah communities of the FLDS, many of the women register for welfare as single mothers. Of course, legally, most of them are, in the sense that they are not legally married to their husbands, but as I understand it to get welfare they have to state that their children's fathers are absent from their lives and not supporting them. In short, there seems to be good evidence for welfare fraud, and insofar it is organized by the leadership of the community, there is a conspiracy to commit welfare fraud.

Assuming that the Texas community functions in the same way, I would think that the authorities could easily have opened an investigation, much less traumatic for the children and requiring far fewer resources, into welfare fraud. The kind of information they needed for this investigation, such as how people are related and who lives with whom, would also be relevant to the child abuse issues.

jccamp: Actually, the version of the AP story that I linked to omitted that item, but now I've found a longer version; will update the post accordingly.

"as I understand it to get welfare they have to state that their children's fathers are absent from their lives and not supporting them."

So welfare pays single mothers to cut their children's fathers out of their lives. Talk about a moral hazard... But anyway, as long as the government foolishly enacts policies like this, I don't see anything wrong with FLDS women taking advantage of them. A polygamous man with eight wives and 21 children, for example, is hardly going to be "supporting them", or present in their lives, in the same way that a man with only one wife and three children is able to be. And at least they're not spending the welfare money on crack :)

"Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but none of these girls is believed to have a legal marriage under state law."

Hm, well, strike my previous comment. Although since the FLDS' "spiritual marriages" were arranged by the parents, 'parental permission' can be assumed, I don't see any way that they can be legal marriages, which means a few FLDS men are going to get hit with statutory rape charges :(

Two points, though:

1) In a culture where women are expected to marry and start having children at puberty, as is historically the norm, 'statutory rape' is a ridiculous conceit. Marrying off your daughters to older men early is far more pro-family than, for example, leaving them to get knocked up by some teenage punk who pulls a disappearing act and leaves the girl as a single parent spiraling down into an abyss of drugs, sex and poverty...

2) If the FLDS men are found guilty and have to register as sex offenders, doesn't that automatically break up the compound, since sex offenders can't live or work within umpteen feet of a school/park/day care center? Just wondering :)

It's my understanding that TX law requires that before a 16-y/o can be married, not only must parent consent, but the court also. There's the further fact that for a marriage to be legal, it needs to be registered with the state of TX, i.e., no 'common law' marriages permitted.

If these are indeed the facts, then none of the 16-y/o can be considered to have been legally married. Thus, all will be viewed as victims of statutory rape, which is considered a serious crime when not of the 'Romeo &Juliet' kind.

Is there any rational way to argue that minors should be permitted to stay within close proximity of child rapists?

The state has no really good answers to the questions raised by cults or organizations that seem to be cults. If they move in, they're just modern Black Shirts or SS, trampling on people's rights.

If they wait until after the Kool-Aid is passed around, then they're disfunctional, heartless beasts.

Perhaps a valid argument can be made about process, that A has to happen before the state can undertake action B. The peril of waiting for B may be excessive however.

It seems as though TX decided they'd rather be hung as over-reacting than under-reacting. That's not an unreasonable choice.

We pretty much beat this discussion to death in an earlier thread, but there was one other part of the same AP story that i found interesting:

"Of those 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split - 197 girls and 196 boys - but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range."

Kids are split 50-50 by gender, until they reach 14, and then about 2/3's of the boys leave before age 17. Which seems to fit with the government's theory that older men control the process (and access to the young girls).

Based on everything written, conjectured and testified to so far, the judge in this case really had no choice but to act to remove the children until the issues could be litigated in more detail. Had she failed to act, and a number of the children possibly at hazard simply disappeared, what we be saying about Texas's responsibility to protect those unable to protect themselves.

The Volokh Conspiracy: Supporting the right of middle aged men to sleep with high-schoolers since 2008.

As for the Texas foster system, if it really is in such bad shape that it constitutes "child abuse", then that is a far bigger problem than anything we're discussing here. It would mean that there would be no remedy to abuse or neglect in Texas, because the only alternative would be more child abuse. I have the feeling -- or at least the hope -- that those allegations are overblown.

I know several survivors of foster care systems in different states, including California and Lousiana (but not Texas). They all reported suffering years of severe abuse, including rape, and they had no hope of escape because the social workers didn't believe that white parents (the main source of demand for adopted children) should be permitted to adopt black or mixed race children (the disproportionate supply) because they could lose their cultural heritage. Prevented from having families, these children either aged out at 18 after years of mistreatment or ran away as soon as they could live on their own.

Hearing their accounts, and after further study, I've concluded that foster "care" is the exception rather than the rule, and not just in Texas. That shouldn't be surprising, as foster care was invented as a government takeover of the mostly private orphanage system that previously existed. The takeover was "for the children" to protect them from media-hyped stories of private abuse. Sound familiar?

The LDS non-conformists have been around for more than 100 years without mass suicides.

I know that persons in state custody have a higher death rate than persons not in state custody. I don't know what the death rate is in these religious communities. Probably not too high

The last major raid was in the early 1950s in the Arizona Strip. That means that for most of the time they existed these communities were left alone.

I'm assuming that the NYC police will not be raiding the Islamic Harems recently discovered here. Why the difference? Likewise, Barak Hussain Oboma Sr.'s polygamy. No problem.

Only LDS types are busted.

Meanwhile fornication, adultery, sodomy, lewd cohabitation, and lacivious carriage were (implicidly or explicidly) OK'd by the Supremes in Lawrence. Why did they forget polygamy?

I thought that virtually all the Conspiricy readers favored the right to have sex with as many persons as one could stupp in a day, a week, or a month. Why is family formation with as many people as you could fit in a house, worse?

I guess the Indian Community with its numerous arrainged marriages better watch out too.

This is a clear and outrageous violation of civil liberties based on flimsy evidence and religious intolerance. I only wish I had the time and opportunity to file the Federal action against these bigots who have shown no respect for the law they wish to enforce. The FLDS are not an insular minority, but even the distasteful ( oh, say murders, rapists, terrorists) have civil rights. There are purported lawyers on this blog who should be ashamed of their positions.

The Volokh Conspiracy: Supporting the right of middle aged men to sleep with high-schoolers since 2008.

The conspirators support the rights of all sorts of people to engage in all sorts of deviated preversions. The only thing that makes this one unique is that historically it's been accepted as normal behavior.

Keep in mind the possibility that most of those women may be victims of marital rape, in addition to statutory rape.

Philospher, removing a child (of whatever age) without strong reasons (rather than just speculative framing) is abusive of that removed child. Period.

The state has a high hurdle to clear in taking such drastic steps leading to foster care (whatever its level of quality).

This police action has become a fishing expedition, now, and authorities will be tempted to make too much of too little actual evidence of "imminent danger". This could be a disaster if the heavy-handedness is left unjustified at the end of what will probably be a process lasting years longer that it should. There will be much CYA-ing throughout.

There is evidence, based on pre-raid investigations, of children (and young women i.e. "brides") being treated like human chattel, as slaves. The compound was run by a quasi-government in the sense of passing children from one household to another and in assigning "brides" to polygamists. This was done with enforcement of various kinds that can be classified as coercive.

This was hidden in plain sight. Yet authorities did not act until a bogus accusation was made via the phone call of a hoaxer. This will likely undermine the action -- even if evidence of criminal behavior is dug-up in the wak of the sweep.

We wouldn't tolerate state authorities grabbing kids from a neighborhood in the typical American town, would we? Even if such an action led to the discovery of crimes in some households. Nor would we tolerate such an action based on, say, membership in this or that religious denomination, would we?

I'd add that this story will inevitably demonstrate how polygamy is an inferior form of marriage due to its tendnency to increasingly segregate the sexes and to undermine responsible procreation (which includes caring and educating children). Polygamy also tends toward insularity and with that a deterioration in the practice of self-government. This deterioration occurs both within the polygamous group (if, as in this case, it exists in its own seperatist compoud) and outside in the wider society.

On that last point, a good example is the state's over-zealous response to a hoax phone call.

Actually, all other disagreements aside, EV does make a point in his final paragraph. Why not just make the numbers released indicative of crimes committed, instead of including young girls who pregnancy may not be the result of crimes. If they had problem with, say, differentiating by exact dates of birth/pregnancy term, maybe they could have said so. Too bad no reporter asked the right question. Maybe there was an unstated rationale. But maybe not.

This does not change my personal opinion that this entire lifestyle of old men controlling the young girls of a community for sexual abuse totally creeps me out. I think the Texas authorities acted with alacrity in an abundance of caution to protect children at risk.

they had no hope of escape because the social workers didn't believe that white parents (the main source of demand for adopted children) should be permitted to adopt black or mixed race children (the disproportionate supply) because they could lose their cultural heritage.

Lots of bad things can be said about foster care, but this is a bit dated -- in 1997, a federal statute was passed to deal with this issue. Now, no adoption can be delayed or prohibited because of race.

"It doesn't take much to have a "legally recognized marriage" in Texas: "

I researched this a while back and seem to recollect that TX abolished common law marriage around ten years ago.

This could be an interesting law review topic. Esp. considering that TX, like many other states, allows a 60 year old to bang a 16 yo, provided they get married first, and makes it a felony otherwise. Oh, and ask parental consent and survive the process. A trial by ordeal that will prepare the groom for marriage.

Article from the originalist side would note that while Thomas Jefferson apparently banged the underaged Sally Hemmings like a screen door in a hurricane, he did NOT include such a right in his draft of the VA bill of rights.

Article from the other side might have a provocative title using $10 words. Perhaps "Deconstructing The Right of Older Guys to Bang Teenagers: a Remnant of Patriarchialism, or of Phallocentric Jurisprudence?"

The author should do anything to get it included in the Laidlaw.com database...

I think you are missing the elephant in the room--evidence of good spin control by the Texas authorities. According to the Time magazine version, and I think the original (but now revised) CNN version, while they claim 31 girls 14-17 are pregnant or mothers, only two are actually pregnant!

A lot of the justification for the treatment of the FLDS is the claim that they routinely marry off girls when they reach puberty and then have them bear lots of children. It's hard to see how that can be true if, out of 53 girls 14-17, only two are pregnant. It's also hard to see how, at that rate, they could have produced the 29+ children that the authorities claim they did (31 women pregnant or mothers, of whom only two are pregnant).

It also appears that the CPS is reporting age based on physical appearance and refusing to accept birth certificates or other documentation. For links to a good deal of this see my blog:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/

"How do we know the phone call was a hoax? What if the person who made the call is too terrified of retribution to come forward? Or worse--was caught by the church leaders?"

Actually, that much is pretty clear. I don't have time to find the link, but they traced the call and the caller turns out to have been someone in another state with a history of false reports to police (and a conviction, which normally only occurs when police are tired of someone annoying them with red herrings). Not that this affects the probable cause equation much, but apparently the Texas Rangers were much annoyed at what happened.

That in turn is a valid point. Unlike Waco, the matter was handled by local folks, and not as a publicity stunt. We can debate about kids being in CPS, but at least they're alive to debate about, nobody got shot, and the Rangers are pursuing, through out of state authorities, the false report that started the matter, rather than launching the cover-up mode.

The state has a strong reason to remove all the children even though there is no allegation that the ones under fourteen are in any danger. You put them through a few hours of absolute terror as you rip them from their families and bus them out of the community where they spent their entire lives. Then a couple of weeks of gnawing fear and uncertainty as they are imprisoned by strangers of unknown motives in alien conditions, with alien customs and aren't allowed to see their parents except for brief visits where the parents can't even tell them what is going to happen. They see the continued powerlessness of their parents against the overwhelming power of the state and come to realize that their entire future welfare depends on the goodwill of a group that they don't know or understand. When someone comes to them with all the power of that overwhelming state and is nice to them and asks them leading questions, they will do anything they can to please the person asking the question, including fishing around until they come up with answers that the questioner seems to like. The questioners will start to encourage more and more damning lies about their parents, but the children, not understanding the consequences of their lies, understanding only that the lies make the representative of the overpowering state happy, will continue to give them. After several weeks of this, the children will start to believe their own stories. Then the State will have the justification it needs for the horror it committed against the children in the first place.

Oh, and the parents will spend the next ten or twenty years in prison. Small price to pay to cover up a grotesque overreaction to a crank call.

If we are looking to get a scale of the abuse there, isn't the number they give a pretty good proxy? Pregnant or already with a baby by 17 usually means sex at 16 or under. I know that it catches some people who only had sex once they were 17, but on a high level this would seem to be made up for by the number of current adults who were previously the victim of statutory rape, e.g., the 3 year olds by 18 year old mothers. So, if we are looking for a proxy to get a sense of the abuse, until the state releases full birthdays and parent lineage on every one of them, this number seems like a good place to start.

That assumes, of course, no bad faith by the person compiling the number, by their either deliberately lumping in the 17 year olds because they falsely inflate the ratio or their just reporting false data.

All of the speculation above is really helpful, by the way. Had no idea that so many corporate lawyers and litigators were experts in child psychology and Texas family law. This is not everyone, but the conviction of some of those posters - sheesh, it's possible that we don't / ever will know everything you know.

I just realized that I made a mistake in my calculations. If at any one time two women 14-17 are pregnant, then over four years about 10 children will have been produced by women who were in that age range when they produced them. But at the end of the four years, half of those women will be 18 or older. So if you count children produced by women currently 14-17, there will be about five.

The Texas authorities claim there are at least 29.

This reminds me of those panicky statistics that say things like, "Such-and-such percent of kids between the ages of 16 and 20 have smoked a cigarette today."

What's wrong with that claim?

Well, usually, people over the age of majority are not considered "kids", so it's infantilizing to begin with. (As in this case, where young adults are being grouped with children in the media.)

Secondly, the statistic groups legal behavior together with illegal behavior. 18 is the legal age for smoking, so grouping 16- and 17-year-old "underage" teenagers with 18-to-20-year-old legal adults is muddling the legal issue. (As in this case, marriages and sex acts which are legal in Texas are being muddled with ones that are not.)

A few things to point out here that I think might have been mised.

1.) According to media reports (as reliable as they may or may not be) The children at the YFZ compound have been... inconsistent about their ages and parentage. Even if Texas wanted to be more selective in which children they removed, how were they supposed to know which ones belong to which parent?

2.) Reports from former FLDS sources indicate that some of the children at the ranch were "reassigned" from other families / communities. Until the DNA is in, it's an open question as to if some of the children even had legally recognisable parents or guardians at the ranch.

3.) The Arizona/Utah and Bountiful, BC FLDS enclaves have a documented history of moving people back and forth in the face of scrutiny. Anything short of the blanket removal Texas did would likely have resulted in some of the remaing children disappearing.

"if polygamy were to be ruled a substantive due process right, could these "spiritual marriages" somehow be deemed legal common law marriages after the fact. This is the only way that I can think of that the polygamy issue emerges in this child custody case."

There was a law review article about this a few years ago. Tom Green (IIRC) was arrested and convicted of bigamy in Utah. At the time of his initial arrest, he had married and divorced a number of women and was married to no one. (He also was convicted of sex with a minor, which seemed to stoke the prosecutor's zeal in aggressively pursuing other charges.) After his initial arrest, the state district court ruled that he was common law married to one woman (with whom he'd had a "spiritual marriage" but had specifically acted to avoid being "legally" married in the process), at the prosecutor's request.

Later, when after several months he continued co-habitating with multiple women, including his recently-declared-wife, the state brought cohabitation (read: bigamy statute) charges and he was convicted of "cohabiting" with another woman while married. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

While I am no fan of despicable older guys trying to have sex with underage girls (under color of marriage or not), I think that the declaring someone common law married to get a bigamy conviction poses serious due process and civil liberty problems.

"I'm assuming that the NYC police will not be raiding the Islamic Harems recently discovered here. Why the difference? Likewise, Barak Hussain Oboma Sr.'s polygamy. No problem. "

To be fair, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. is dead.

"This situation is like a reverse "I didn't know she was underage". Except it is CPS claiming the girls look young--after dismissing the birth-certificates provided as potentially forged but lacking any evidence to support that theory. "

Never let the facts get in the way of a good prosecution, right, Nifong?

"There is absolutely no comparison between the "abuse" of being taken away from your parents for a few days or months compared to a life time of misery in a cult that you cannot leave because you are unequipped to do so."

If a child is 'leaving the cult' via government intervention, he or she isn't being separated from his family for 'a few days or months', but forever. And, on a general note, the people who leave a cult lifestyle are likely to be the people most dissatisfied with that lifestyle and the most likely to be biased against it (and other cults). I discount, for that reason, the horror stories being pushed by ex-FLDS members bearing grudges.

"The Volokh Conspiracy: Supporting the right of middle aged men to sleep with high-schoolers since 2008. "

It's not about age; it's about keeping families together.

Philospher, removing a child (of whatever age) without strong reasons (rather than just speculative framing) is abusive of that removed child. Period.

That's an assertion, not an argument. Removing the child "without strong reasons" may be unwarranted, but what makes it abusive? The definition of abuse I linked in my last post suggests that something akin to maltreatment is needed for an action to be abusive. I have no problem with the argument that CPS is wrong or overreaching -- that's one thing -- but saying that putting a child into foster care for a temporary period is "child abuse" is a pretty aggressive claim, to put it mildly.

The state has a high hurdle to clear in taking such drastic steps leading to foster care (whatever its level of quality).

Once again, that doesn't go to the question of whether foster care = child abuse. I think that the hurdle should be lower for a temporary period -- just as the hurdle to detain someone pretrial is much lower than the hurdle to imprison someone for an extended period -- but reasonable minds can disagree on that point. I don't think reasonable minds can disagree on the point that foster care is not child abuse, as the term is commonly understood, without additional facts/claims about the state of the foster care system.

It is bad faith to act on a completely anonymous tip without any investigation to determine whether the tip had any validity.

Which is why Texas did not do that. They had an ongoing investigation.

Yes, all foster care systems have problems, but that doesn't mean that they are worse than a place that systematically rapes girl children and kicks boy children out of the community without preparing them for it. The FLDS demonstrated that it treats its children in an evil manner and the State of Texas followed both the law and good sense. If there are any complaints, it is about the delay in dealing with this cancer.

I'm baffled about the welfare program argument. Did Texas not reform its program when the rest of the country had to? Does Texas really subsidize child rape?

It's threads like this that make me wonder why I read this blog. I keep forgeting about our own home-grown wackos that largely went into hiding after 9/11. Just for a quick show of hands, how many people here are still upset about the branch davidians and ruby ridge, and think Tim McVeigh did the right thing?

By the way Eugene, it is really beginning to look like you want to have sex with underage girls.

This post is based on an odd cross section of the reported data. Last week, Texas CPS reported that there were at least 20 girls who became pregnant when they were 16 or younger. That is the real news.

Foster Abuse:

I know several survivors of foster care systems in different states, including California and Lousiana (but not Texas). They all reported suffering years of severe abuse [...]

I have contrary anecdotal evidence. My neighbors have fostered more than a handful of children (of various and mixed races) over many years. Several were adopted into their family, and all had a stay-at-home parent or, once old enough, were sent to a fine private school. None have complained of abuse.

I'm all for that. But that doesn't justify taking infants and toddlers away from them before any finding of criminal guilt, and without reason to believe that the infants and toddlers are at imminent risk.

Maybe not. But the law is otherwise in just about every jurisdiction of the USA.

A finding of criminal guilt is never necessary to deprive a parent of custody temporarily. And probable cause that one child has been abused is usually enough to justify removal of _all_ children from a home, at least temporarily. The only thing extraordinary about this case is the sheer number of children involved.

The problem the FLDS faces is that actually fighting back in court to regain custody of these children will allow the state to investigate facts the cult leadership would probably prefer remain hidden, both from the public and the State of Texas. These facts include the exact parentage of each child, the exact age of each child, and the exact age of each child's mother at the time of birth. The FLDS members have been extremely reticent about sharing any of this information, unlike ordinary parents faced with losing custody.

Is there is some sort of evidence that a large percentage of the 31 teens who are pregnant or are already mothers only became pregnant after their 17th birthdays?

I find the very fact that the authorities are citing figures about people aged 14-17, when the legally relevant ages are 14-16, is itself enough to make me suspect that a substantial number of the pregnancies were among 17-year-olds, whose statistics had to be thrown into the mix in order to yield a sufficiently shocking percentage. It's the same game played by the gun controllers when they cite the large number of "children" killed by guns, only it turns out that they're talking about people up to age 19 or 20, or by the anti-smoking propagandists that Frater Plotter cited above.

Seamus and others are missing the point.
You, again, are concentrating on whether a crime has been committed--this is not the relevant question.
The reason the stats include 17yo's is, quite simply, that 17yo's are minors. Every child under 18 falls under the aegis of the CPS mandate.
That a 17yo has given birth is by itself, of course, not evidence that her parents are deficient in any way.
But in the context of the investigation--especially THIS investigation--a 17yo mother will cause the investigator to inquire further, and is a useful piece of information.

Ahem. A 17-year old who has given birth has only a 3/12 chance of being impregnanted while of legal age.

THAT is why they are included in the count.

The original search warrant was supported by 2 pieces of information. The original outcry witness and the statement by the sheriff that he had supporting evidence from an confidential informant.

From the affidavit supporting the warrant request
"On April 6, 2008, Sheriff Doran advised Affiant that over the past four years, Sheriff Doran has worked with a confidential informant who is a former member of the FLDS; that the confidential informant has provided Sheriff Doran with information regarding the FLDS on more than twenty occasions over the past several years and that on each occasion, the information was proven to be reliable, true and correct; that the confidential informant has continued to provide Sheriff Doran reliable information as recently as April 5, 2008...".

Reading this, it looks like it was written to be allowed to mislead. What is missing is that whether the informant (as a former member of FDLS) was a member in the last 4 years, was a member of the Texas branch, had ever lived in Texas or has any first hand knowledge about the compound at all.

A newpaper article says

An April 1, 2004 article by The Eldorado Success concerning a press conference held in Eldorado by Flora Jessop, a former member of the FLDS and outspoken critic of the church, has the following quote attributed to Sheriff Doran:

"Flora has provided us with a lot of information and I find her to be very credible," Doran said. "However, at this time we have no firm evidence of any wrongdoing associated with the ranch.
If and when we have evidence that a law has been broken out there, we won't hesitate to act."

This sounds like who the informant is. (but is not certain). Note the dates, the raid was in Apr 2008, the compound is 4 years old. That puts it near Apr 2004 and in Apr 2004, this informant (former member even in 2004) provided info to the sheriff. It sounds like this informant has not had any first hand information about life in the compound, for the last 4 years. It sounds like the sheriff’s informant information is based only on info derived from out of state conditions and is 4+ years out of date, and provides no information about how the compound is run since the Texas marriage law changed in 2005.

EV, do you not know about the lost boys? Or understand UCLaw's point about the impossibility of leaving voluntarily? Have you not inquired into the possibility of abuse of much younger children, including infants? Certainly there have been allegations of physical abuse of such; another question would be whether the environment of such a compound fosters persistent emotional and psychological abuse.

Newsflash for those who think it's misleading to include 17 year-olds in the statistics: the average gestational time for humans is nine months. A little math will reveal that it is not unlikely a pregnant 17 year-old entered that condition when she was 16.

Texas may not have stepped delicately in this situation, but reasons for removing all the children go far beyond the obvious evidence of sexual abuse.

the question nobody is asking is, what happens if another woman (of age) gives birth on the ranch today? will CPS step in to protect it? will all future children of FLDS members be confiscated upon birth? or will CPS force them to have abortions? very troubling to say one is not allowed to have children because of his/her religion...

Actual rape is still a crime in Texas, even for the seventeen-year-old victims. There is some evidence that there was no legally-qualified consent from any of these rape victims. There is also clear evidence that girls younger than 17 were raped and that boys were kicked out of the compound. Why focus on meaningless exculpatory speculation when there is clear evidence that does not exculpate the men who have been been running this evil totalitarian hell?

why do you focus on meaningless inculpatory speculation... there is no evidence of forced sex and no evidence of boys being kicked out...

there is no evidence of forced sex and no evidence of boys being kicked out...

Carolyn and Flora Jessop have provided evidence. Naomi Jeffs escaped at age 13 and tells a similar story.

As far as the "lost boys", it's fairly clear from the ratio of men/women that either they have discovered a way to influence the gender of unborn children, are performed selective abortions or kicking boys out. A number of boys from the CO/AZ church sued in '06 after their expulsion.

Here's something I don't understand. All the fuss seems to be about older men having sex with teenage girls. if that was the problem, then what was the justification for taking all the boys, including infant boys, away from their mothers?

Also, its pretty amazing to me how quickly people are willing to dismiss the religious beliefs of people simply because they find them abhorrent. I've heard, but haven't been able to verify, that Texas raised the age of consent from 14 to 17, at least in part, to criminalize FDLS' activities. Does anyone know if there is any truth to that idea. If so, would it change anyone's opinion about what happened?

Duffy, preservation of evidence. The FLDS has a reputation for moving children around between their 3 compounds to avoid scrutiny. Given that, and the fact that the birth records are unreliable and the kids are inconsistent about their age and parentage, it seems reasonable to separate them all until we can at least get the DNA tests done.

I'd be just as averse to them if there was no religion involved at all, incidentally.

Oh, and I'm convinced that there are potential cases of actual rape, not just statutory rape. Certainly enough to investigate, at any rate.

One more thing, using the same math, any 14-, 15-, or 16-year old girl who is already a mother was likely impregnated when she was 13, 14, or 15, respectively.

But, DAMMIT! The CPS is worse than all of the above put together!

No doubt our government is always worse than anything else. I assume you apply that argument to our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan as well.

Oren writes: “Carolyn and Flora Jessop have provided evidence.”

No, actually neither has ever provided that. They’ve provided fanciful allegations, some of which may or may not be true. Many of their claims have been disproven, IOW proven to be lying.

Flora Jessop has never been at the Texas FLDS community; she left the FLDS denomination over two decades ago from an Arizona residence. [For relevance, what were mainstream church stands on homosexuality two decades ago? A lot can happen in twenty years.]

Carolyn Jessop deserted her former FLDS home in Utah 5 years ago. Her knowledge may be more relevant. I don’t know if she ever visited the Texas cooperative, but it seems doubtful.

Both Carolyn and Flora Jessop make money from opposing FLDS and glamorizing their former plights. Both stand to gain more as this saga continues. Flora has proven to be an unreliable witness to law enforcement on several occasions; making ‘mistakes’ (the scare quotes are justified) of event occurrences by years, and mistaking what state(s) in which her allegations occurred.


The law should needs to be enforced, but folks who go on fishing expeditions against minority groups weaken the case. The initial warrant already looks like it might not stand challenge, and the evidentiary warrant is overflowing with speculation and hearsay.

The law needs to be enforced. There's a procedure for doing that, but it's not as salacious, shocking or sensational as mass arrests of a commune chock full of people jiggling each other. But the right way protects the innocent as much as possible while it secures convictions on the guilty.

I agree with Anon that this discussion is very bizarre. Child services in any state have problems, but putting this case aside, what is that alternative? Continue to let children and young adults be terrorized? Continue to let women and men be battered by their spouses? If the state knows a sixteen year old has a child should they do nothing?

When the Taliban was whipping and executing women for minor violations of their religious laws, what excuses did many of you use then? That it was just a matter of freedom of religion? How far must a religious society stoop before the larger community says enough is enough?

Of course, laws restricting marriage to one partner is not based primarily on the christian ethic and do not violate the practices of many religions.

Right.

It seems to me that there are lots of alternative ways to get the DNA and to keep track of the kids.

Such as? I assume that the critics of what was done are serious about protecting the children, so it would be nice to see an alternative offered rather than just the drumbeat of attack on the government. How do you propose to protect the children?

freelunch writes: “I don't find polygamy abhorent [sic], but it is criminal. I find rape and child abandonment, both repeat activities of the FLDS, to be abhorent [sic], no matter what the religious claims.” [emphasis added]

M. Freelunch claims the FLDS rapes and abandons children. Interesting. Do the FLDS children get jailed —in Texas they can stand felony trial at age 14— when all the FLDS are convicted of these crimes (against themselves?) as M. Freelunch foretells?

What happens when people of A)tall stature, B)Scandanavian ancestry, or C) who wear brown shoes; are found to have a higher incidence of child abuse? Do we fry them all as M.Freelunch advocates . . . or should our society enforce laws against the individuals who perpetrate crimes?

Reading this post and the resulting comment thread is stomach-churning, sort of like watching a slow-motion train wreck. From the standpoint of this pinheaded bystander, this sure looks like a low point for the Volokh Conspiracy. To summarize the state of this post/thread from the panoramic 30,000 foot level:

1. a few otherwise-respected academicians/libertarians, who don't have any understanding of family law, have parsed admittedly summary wire service reports for "facts" that they then use as the basis for opining on a theoretical level about something entirely outside their area of academic or practical experience;

2. who then compound the problem by ignoring (or quibbling at the margins about) what appears to be fairly compelling evidence of (a) a pervasive pattern of institutionalized unlawful sexual relations between underage girls and older men, (b) suspicious demographics that, together with other reported evidence, likely give rise to probable cause to believe underage boys are being forceably removed from the community [apparently to cut down on "the competition"], and (c) allegations [the veracity of which may still be untested] of a pattern of moving women, girls, and minor children of all ages from "family" to "family," possibly without informed consent or through coercion. All in a community dedicated to the practice of polygamy, a practice that has been illegal everywhere in the United States for over a century;

3. egged on by a few folks who are clearly still mad about a handful of past aberrational law enforcement disasters like Ruby Ridge and Waco, and therefore refuse to even entertain the possibility that the authorities here were acting in good faith, albeit in a very difficult situation;

4. and who have now also managed to surface a couple of rather free-spirited folks who seem to think that the FLDS "lifestyle" is just fine, and/or are just a wee bit too dense to understand the distinction between "alternate lifestyle choices" among consenting adults, a la Lawrence, versus imposing those "choices" on minors.

Yuck... Professor Volokh, this one doesn't do you any credit. I think "Old Man River" got it about right at 2:15 am:

This is likely going to go down as a black mark on this community. There have been moments where the group has seemed out of touch, but as more details arise, this is just going to look atrocious. EV, you may be one of the smartest people I know, but you are going to have egg on your face for this one.

So sad...

Are these authorities going to raid EACH AND EVERY home in Tejas where a girl under the legal age is or has become pregnant?

I would not be surprised if, after a complaint of child abuse against a home, and an investigation that determines an underage girl is pregnant by an older male living in the home, the usual course of action by CPS is to remove all the minor children from the home. In fact, I'd be extremely surprised if this was NOT the case.

/shrug

I suspect that to anyone else who has actually spent time in family court, all the whining on this blog about this case being tainted by selective prosecution is kind of amusing. These sorts of laws are pretty much applied this way, every day, all over the USA, to parents who face allegations of child abuse. It typically goes much worse for parents accused of involvement in sexual abuse, either directly or via failure to protect. The only things unusual about this case are the sheer number of children involved, and a level of media attention that serves to encourage the state agency at issue to put forward a somewhat gentler, more cautious stance than normal.

Freelunch writes: “Why would we imprison the victims of crimes?”

Because you suggested it? “The FLDS” (your quote) includes men, women and children. “The FLDS” is a diverse group of people, a community.

It is my belief a large number of the adults in “the FLDS” (your quote) have committed crimes [of moral turpitude], but I would never dream of labeling every member of a community the way you have.

freelunch continues “Did you actually read what I was responding to?”

The allegation of “rape and child abandonment” (your quote) is attributed to “the FLDS” (your quote). If “activities of the FLDS” is not what was meant, I would suggest to refrain from writing that.

Although I am far far FAR from proud of my (Texas) legislature in general (the license plate idiocy, recent "Castle Doctrine" changes, Imperial Declaration of the Speaker come to mind for instance), I'm not sure that I see why it matters so much that the law was changed in anticipation of this very event two years ago.

Aren't many (most?) of our laws enacted in response to or anticipation of some factor? For instance, here in Dallas several municipalities have recently enacted laws prohibiting cell phone usage while in an active school zone. Why wasn't this enacted ten years ago? Well probably because people weren't driving in school zones while talking on cell phones ten years ago!

Likewise, although there were probably some marriages of individuals between the age of 14 and 16 before two years ago (I believe the change in law is in regards to marriage, not sex, but I could be mistaken), such marriages were infrequent. Moreover, I would be willing to bet that of the marriages that did come about by parental consent, almost none involved 14 year old girls and 60 year old men!

Quite simply, a law was not necessary to prohibit such a practice because it almost never happened. Now when there is evidence that such marriages are likely to occur with greater frequency, why would it be surprising that a law would quickly arise to address the situation?

The same kind of responsive legislation is happening right now after some highly publicized instances of minors "working" in strip clubs. The state has discovered that it has limited recourse in shutting down the club under current legislation and is quickly moving to remedy said situation. Surely no one would suggest that such a legislative response is somehow improper?

subpatre, your response borders on the offensive. I asked a highly legitimate question and deliberately framed in reference to the Taliban, rather than the FLDS church, since the abuses of the former are much more well documented.

Do you believe that a religion can engage in any behavior they wish with impunity? Yes or no.

"This discussion is bizarre.

53 girls 14-17
31 already have children or are pregnant."

This omits two important facts:

1. According to the Time Magazine web page (and the initial, but not the current, CNN page), of the 31 girls who "already have children or are pregnant," only two are pregnant. That puts the teen pregnancy rate a little below the Texas average. It also make it very hard to see how 29+ children could have been produced by mothers now in that age range, unless for some reason the pregnancy rate at the moment is something under a sixth of its average for the past four years (do the arithmetic for yourself).

2. The CPS has refused to accept birth certificates as proof of age. So far as I can tell from the published information, their statements about age are entirely based on how old they think girls look. That may be the best they can do for a first guess as to who is a minor and so should be held until further information is available. But it makes their published claims about how many under 18 girls have children or are pregnant flatly fraudulent, since they don't actually know which girls are what age.

Note also that the subjective test of age provides another explanation for why there are many more teen girls than teen boys--CPS may simply be more willing to accept claims by boys that they are 18 or older than claims by girls.

And, finally, the fact that they emphasize the total of 31 instead of the individual numbers--two pregnant, 29+ not pregnant but believed to have had children--ought to set off an alarm in anyone familiar with the usual ways of using statistics to mislead.

Basically, there seem to be alot of people who look at FLDS as a smoke screen to allow dirty old men to bang jail bait. That view entirely dismisses the idea that these people take their religion seriously.

I believe both. They certainly take their religion seriously (all the more so in the face of external opposition) but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is designed to allow the more powerful men in the community to control who bangs who and when.

Oren:

Your second point about the evidence is a fair one. It might be a strong enough point to justify separating some of the children from their parents. But it certainly does not apply to infant boys, who aren't going to testify anywhere and who aren't in danger of any abuse.

As for your idea that FLDS is designed to put power in the men and give them the ability to control who bangs who: I don't see that as being much different from many other religions, and from some structures. For me, the amount of brainwashing is a matter of degree, as is the patriarchal domination. So maybe fundamentalist muslims, orthodox jews, strongly fundamentalist home-schooling baptists, Amish, Mennonite and other groups should pay strong attention to what's happening here.

By the way, one of my points about taking the religion seriously is because I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to be very successful in helping these kids unless they have a strong understanding of the belief structures the kids have had instilled in them. And that means thinking about the elder men as something other than leering pedophiles.

Certainly patriarchal domination in religious teachings is nobody's business in the broader sense, but in the instant case it is part and parcel of the larger wrong-doing.

FWIW, I really don't consider the men to be leering pedophiles. I can believe that they sincerely believe their religion but, in the final analysis, that doesn't really change much.

^^^ Not helping.

ReaderY:

For an informal marriage to be valid in Texas, both parties have to be at least 18 years old. Also, if one of the parties is already married, then the informal marriage is void. So the marriages at FLDS would only be valid as common law marriages if the girl were the first spouse, and if she were over 18.

And to answer your last question, since a common law marriage is only valid when the parties are over 18, then parental consent is not an issue.

Oren:

It's easy to agree that, in the "broad" sense patriarchal domination is nobody's business. It's those pesky details. First, the FLDS. Then the Christian Scientists, who abuse their kids by withholding medical care. Then, maybe the orthodox jews when we decide that a briss is child abuse. And then? And I'm generally not a fan of slippery slope arguments. So I'd really be happy if someone could draw an intelligible line for me.

Oren (to npr)– Not helping? As you said earlier “in the final analysis, that doesn't really change much.”

If true, it’s your own argument; just more candid than you’d like.

sub, the sincerity of their religious beliefs matters very little in the final analysis because it has no bearing on whether or not a crime was committed. No country that I'm aware of exempts religious conduct pursuant to sincerely held beliefs from laws of general applicability.

I never said I was convinced there was marital rape going on (or statutory, for that matter), only that the evidence presented so far warrants a more complete investigation. No charges have been filed yet, but the investigation has just begun. Lab results from the most of the DNA hasn't even come back!

1. There are physical cues which allow a doctor or forensic specialist to identify a persons age with reasonable proximity. (Bone formation in the hands, head, hips, teeth, etc.)

2. Assuming that the physical cues for some meaningful portion of the children did not match the reported dates on the birth certificates, and all certificates were by the same issuer then all certificates become suspect and thus disregarded. Additional evidence may have been used such as the children's own self reporting of birth parents or birth dates or family names.

3. The ratio of males to females based on age was statistically problematic. Example: a near 50/50 split below the age of 13. Normal given US statistics. What was not on par was the steep decline in males to females after the age of 13 - roughly 3:1 ratio of females to males over the age of 13 (53 females versus 17 males). Where did 35 minor males between the age of 13 and 17 go? In the general population the ratio of males to females is roughly parity until after the age of 25 and then the difference is only a small percentage due to mortality.

4. Regardless of religious belief, historical evidence, or moral direction the state law in the case states that a minor - someone under the age of 17 - cannot legally consent to sex. They cannot legally marry without their parent's permission at 17 and under 16 they must have both their parents permission and the court's permission. Common law marriages only apply to adults - those people being 18 or over - who are not currently engaged in a legal marriage. The law applies only to parents providing consent for marriage. This means that parents cannot provide consent for their children to have sex. While they may approve or not disapprove of their minor child having sex, the sexual act of a minor with an adult or anyone 3 years older than themselves is still considered a crime of rape under the law.

4. An adult male having sex with a minor female is still considered child rape. A psychologist can excuse the behaviors by placing the person into the categories of ephebophile or pedophile and identifying associated risks for each category. The state makes no such distinction and errs on the side of caution. If an entire family and/or community appears to have colluded in the child rape then the risk to other children appears greater and hence the state acts in a seemingly extreme way by removing ALL children, not just those within a particular age range or gender.

5. Of 53 minor females between the estimated ages of 13 and 17, 2 are currently pregnant and 29 have previously been pregnant and produced one or more live children. That's 58% of the female children between the ages of 13 and 17 having been pregnant (or currently pregnant). Texas statistics state that the current rate for 15-19 year old pregnancy is 101 per 1000 (roughly 11%) with 84 per 1000 being the US average. It's unlikely that the 11% number would increase by shifting the state models age range down two years to 13-17. 58% is significantly higher than 11%.

6. 29 minor children have given live birth to 29(+) surviving children. 29 female children 17 or under are mothers. Assuming that 29 females gave birth to 29 children implies a 0% mortality rate. It is safer to assume that a 10% of pregnancies miscarried and at least 5% of children were still born or died soon after death. This means that at least 15% (4 or 5) of the females in question had more than one pregnancy. Additionally it cannot be assumed a 1:1 ratio of intercourse to pregnancy. This means that many of the minors engaged in sexual activity prior to conceiving. It's unlikely that all 29 girls birthdays fall within a window that would allow for both legal marriage, legal intercourse and a live birth. It is impossible for at least 4 of the girls to have had sex become pregnant, aborted, had sex again and delivered a live child within this very small window of legal opportunity. Since the state does not recognize spiritual marriages and does not recognize common law marriages of people under 18 and does not recognize multiple marriages then it is highly unlikely that any of the 31 girls can be considered legally consenting adults at the time of intercourse or conception.

"1. There are physical cues which allow a doctor or forensic specialist to identify a persons age with reasonable proximity. (Bone formation in the hands, head, hips, teeth, etc.)"

And do you think it likely that the CPS has actually done that sort of detailed examination of 460+ people? Is there any shred of evidence, in their statements, that they have?

"2. Assuming that the physical cues for some meaningful portion of the children did not match the reported dates on the birth certificates, and all certificates were by the same issuer then all certificates become suspect and thus disregarded. Additional evidence may have been used such as the children's own self reporting of birth parents or birth dates or family names."

Again, do we have any evidence that they did anything more than estimate age by appearance? It isn't as if the authorities have provided any. And their explanation of why they rejected birth certificates wasn't anything so fancy--it was just that they could be bogus. And, of course, they could be; I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the FLDS juggling birth certificates.

But once the authorities reject existing documentary evidence, all of their statements about specific ages, such as the claim of how many have given birth, become suspect--they can't know that accurately, yet they are claiming to.

"3. The ratio of males to females based on age was statistically problematic."

Indeed it was.

But if, as seems to be the case, the attributed ages are simply guesses by CPS, an alternative explanation suggests itself. I'm not certain, but I think the story that mentioned the number of people who had recently been reclassified as minors--I think it was in the twenties--described them as female. If they wanted to generate evidence in defense of the seizure, one obvious way would be to take all the young adult women who had had children and reclassify them as minors. And one side effect would be to skew the gender ratio for the "minors."

...

"5. Of 53 minor females between the estimated ages of 13 and 17, 2 are currently pregnant and 29 have previously been pregnant and produced one or more live children."

Don't you mean that of 53 females who CPS claims are minors, CPS claims that 2 are currently pregnant and 31 are either pregnant or have produced at least one live child?

The CPS spokeswoman also claimed, some time back, that several of the girls had said they knew the Sara who had made the phone calls--who we now know was a 33 year old Colorado woman. How many false statements does it take before you become at least mildly skeptical of the source? Are you at all disturbed by their making confident public statements about minors without mentioning that they don't actually know their ages?

"That's 58% of the female children between the ages of 13 and 17 having been pregnant (or currently pregnant). Texas statistics state that the current rate for 15-19 year old pregnancy is 101 per 1000 (roughly 11%) with 84 per 1000 being the US average. It's unlikely that the 11% number would increase by shifting the state models age range down two years to 13-17. 58% is significantly higher than 11%.

Yes. And the 4% pregnancy rate--two girls out of 53--is below the state average.

It's also very difficult to make the two figures consistent. Try it. You have to assume that the current pregnancy rate is about one sixth of the average rate during the past four years. That isn't impossible, but it's at least suspicious.

"6. 29 minor children have given live birth to 29(+) surviving children. ..."

I think you mean "CPS says that 29 women who CPS says they think are minors have given live birth ... ."

And do you think it likely that the CPS has actually done that sort of detailed examination of 460+ people? Is there any shred of evidence, in their statements, that they have?

I think they will do those examinations in due time. Like I said earlier, there will undoubtedly be a trial on the merits of these allegations in the coming weeks where the CPS will lay out its case.

Also, sub, what evidence do you have that this is a fishing expedition? It's quite possible the CPS has considerable evidence that has not been disclosed (since they have no duty to report publicly on the progress of an ongoing investigation). Again, we will see at trial who has what evidence - until then, your bombast is a bit out of place.

There was plenty of evidence prior to the search, including a consistent CI that was independently corroborated.

What you don't seem to understand is that the threshold for a CPS investigation is not ironclad evidence of specific wrongdoing. We'll save the hard evidence for trial.

Oren says - There was plenty of evidence prior to the search, including a consistent CI that was independently corroborated. What you don't seem to understand is that the threshold for a CPS investigation is not ironclad evidence of specific wrongdoing. We'll save the hard evidence for trial.

- CPS used third-hand anonymous information to initiate the search.
- There was no corroboration or confirmation of information.
- You and CPS ignore Constitutional promises of due process.
[ Above based on CPS report to Texas Senate ]

CPS believed what they wanted to, raided the community, arrested hundreds of people, and is now going to find legal justification for what they already did. It's called a fishing expedition.

And yes, I'm sure they'll find hard evidence in the end. Law enforcement has throwaway guns &meth packs. CPS must have their own versions.

Andrew J. Lazarus writes - This is a society organized around the leaders' scoring a lot of young quail

It’s bad enough you stack seven (!) unfounded assumptions on each other just to label others as brownshirts. But “quail”? What a sordid, sorry confession about your own sexual fantasies . . . and your perspective of jealous hatred.

This subject seems slimy enough without your help. Yuck! Please go wash your keyboard.

Philospher said: That's an assertion, not an argument. Removing the child "without strong reasons" may be unwarranted, but what makes it abusive?

Well, sure I asserted that unwarranted intrusion is abusive of children (and their parents).

Does that need further argument from me when you already appear to agree with this stated principle?

If removal is warranted, then, the intervention would be a rescue.

I hope you wouldn't imply that removal of infants, toddlers, and slightly older kids would just be a sort of vacation for them.

Many of these children will be sperated from their families for years. Some of them, especially those older than 12 years or so, will remain in state custody until they are adults.

And that's going to happen even if it is eventually admitted that their removal was unwarranted. The deed is done. All were caught in the net.

Given the nature of government agencies involved in this sort of stuff, and given the sad performance of our family courts, we can expect a great deal of CYA-ing as hundreds of lawyers and "experts" become involved.

Don't trust the system that routinely removes children from parents (non-polygamous) for far less than you might imagine is alleged in this blanket case.

---

Philospher said: I have no problem with the argument that CPS is wrong or overreaching -- that's one thing -- but saying that putting a child into foster care for a temporary period is "child abuse" is a pretty aggressive claim, to put it mildly.

Aggressively accurate, however.

The People have a government, not the other way around. The children of our society are not owned by the state authorities to do with as they wish.

That's also a big part of the problem inside the compound that was raided.

Hence my remark about how this form of polygamy undermines the principles of self-governance both within the compound and outside it.

Oren said: Chairm, so what if the phone call was the trigger? If crimes were being committed (and you seem to think they were) then I applaud the decision to bring the perpetrators to justice. The fact that Texas tolerated the crimes for so long is a terribly poor excuse.

Well, what if the false trigger was the impetus for a raid in your neighborhood? Would you willingly give-up your children to the state investigators?

They might find something to justify the benevolent intervention, eventually. In fact, it is very likely that some abuse would be discovered and rescues made. If you have nothing to hide, you'd submit -- even if a little reluctantly -- to the authority of the government agents, right?

Or we could sweep-up teenaged girls in search of the adult men who have had sexual relations with them. A little DNA testing at abortion clinics and at maternity wards might be justified if these statutory rapists (in plain sight) are nailed, right? Surely if we sepearate the girls from their families (and those adult boyfriends) for the purpose of questioning them thoroughly we'd come up with all kinds of allegations to pursue.

If society is against polygamy because of what it is, rather than for mere (if tragic) symptoms, then, let's enforce the laws of marriage. Polygamy undermines the core of marriage. That's the crime that we ought to take more seriously, I think.

I didn’t claim to know what information CPS has; I know what information CPS had prior to raiding the FLDS families.

Actually, that was a typo on my part. I meant "had" and I continue to assert that you have no idea what was in the CPS files at the time of the raid.

If there are probable grounds, please point us all to the report that establishes that the government had such prior to the raid.

Sorry, the government does not need to disclose the state of a pending investigation to every comer that wants to peek at the files. All the evidence will eventually be made public, just not quite yet.

The People have a government, not the other way around. The children of our society are not owned by the state authorities to do with as they wish.

Nor are children owned by their parents, to do with as they wish. We (rightly) give parents wide latitude on what constitutes the child's best interest, but to make this latitude unlimited is essentially to abrogate the rights of the child.

Many of these children will be sperated from their families for years. Some of them, especially those older than 12 years or so, will remain in state custody until they are adults.

You can assume the result of a hearing before its conducted, I prefer to wait.

Full and fair hearing? This from the person who claims it’s “a success” that the state eventually returns a child MISTAKENLY removed from his family and allowed the father to return home.

Out of context. I claimed it was a success, insofar as the initial (gross) mistake was quickly reversed. No system is perfect, but a system that quickly repairs its errors is far better than one that attempts not to make any.

Well, what if the false trigger was the impetus for a raid in your neighborhood? Would you willingly give-up your children to the state investigators?

If they had on me the kind of evidence they have on FLDS, hell yeah.

Instead we may be setting up a model of intervention based on a speculative framework, triggered by hoax tipsters, and the unwarranted removal of children from their parents. This can easily corrupt what's left that is still meritorious in the child welfare agencies.

But it's precisely those parents that have set up a system of relinquishment and reassignment that you say needs fixing. Those parents will not testify to the crimes of their leaders, nor will they even admit that some of the practices even happen (despite mounting public evidence to the contrary). I see no reason to doubt that they will continue those practices that you have labeled objectionable.

Or we could sweep-up teenaged girls in search of the adult men who have had sexual relations with them. A little DNA testing at abortion clinics and at maternity wards might be justified if these statutory rapists (in plain sight) are nailed, right? Surely if we sepearate the girls from their families (and those adult boyfriends) for the purpose of questioning them thoroughly we'd come up with all kinds of allegations to pursue.

Surely you don't mean to separate children from their families when the alleged rapist is neither a member of the family nor committed the rape with the explicit support of the family. If the family had anything to do with the rape (like, say, marrying off a 13 year old to a 30 year old), then absolutely remove the child pending the result of an investigation. Otherwise, the family has nothing to do with it.

Also, most teenage girls sleep with teenage boys, making it a non-crime in most states.

I wrote:

"And do you think it likely that the CPS has actually done that sort of detailed examination of 460+ people? Is there any shred of evidence, in their statements, that they have?"

Oren replied: "I think they will do those examinations in due time."

So Oren is agreeing with me that the CPS has not done the sort of detailed investigation needed to determine age, given their refusal to accept documentary evidence. But, as Oren knows, the CPS has been making public statements about how many "minors" of what ages have done what. If they don't know what the actual ages are, they cannot have the information necessary to know if those statements are true. Hence the CPS has been publicly lying about the facts.

What part of the logic of that does Oren dispute? If he agrees, doesn't that behavior--along with the insistence by a CPS spokeswoman that some of the girls knew the (we now know nonexistent) "Sara," provide reason to discount all factual claims made by CPS?

Oren writes:

"There was plenty of evidence prior to the search, including a consistent CI that was independently corroborated. "

I believe another commenter already provided evidence suggesting that their other source was an anti-polygamy activist who left the cult fifteen or twenty years ago, and so could provide no first hand information at all about what was happening in Texas--merely her view of the FLDS in general. Do you have any reason to reject that interpretation?

Oren writes:

"I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that they were mistaken about the facts and circumstances. I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that their judgment was unsound. What defies all logic, however, are accusation that they are intentionally malicious for no reason at all other than being intentionally malicious."

I think there are at least two obvious motives. The first is the desire to destroy or drive out the FLDS--very possibly motivated by an honest belief, perhaps correct perhaps not, that they are doing bad things such as forcing underage girls into sex. I think it is pretty obvious from the changes in Texas law three years ago—raising the age of consent for marital sex and making polygamy a felony, pushed by a legislator from the area where the FLDS ranch is—that there is serious political pressure to get rid of them.

The second is the desire of CPS to justify their actions. Presumably, when they made the initial seizure, they believed that "Sara" was real. They now know she wasn't. If the final conclusion is that the FLDS was doing nothing wrong, the CPS people responsible for the raid are going to be in serious trouble—reputational and possibly even legal.

My question to you is whether it is possible to make their public statements consistent with the belief that they are acting in good faith. How do you explain their making repeated statements about ages without specifying that they mean "our guess at age, even if contradicted by documentary evidence?" How do you explain the inconsistency between number claimed to have children and number actually pregnant? How do you explain releasing a figure for how many minors appear to have had fractures without mentioning that the fraction is about average--a point discussed in a later post on this blog? How do you explain the claim that several girls knew the Sara who had made the phone call, when we now know she did not exist?

All of that, it seems to me, indicates self-deception at best, and more plausibly a deliberate attempt to mislead by CPS.

I'm not an attorney, so the discussion of threshold of probable cause, etc. is a place where I have to let experts hold forth (even if this is the Internet). You don't need to be a lawyer, though, to understand what the sociological issue us here. And I'm really mystified by the way posters here are standing up, as a moral issue, for a society organized around obedience to the leader from birth, including, or more likely <i>especially</i>, the leaders' desires for plural "spiritual marriage" with teenage girls.

Let me summarize: <b>The Star Trek Prime Directive is make-believe and bad policy anyway.</b> We're under no compunction to allow a sub-society to exist in violation of our established laws against polygamy, statutory rape, compulsory education, and child neglect. Whether the raid met the appropriate legal standards, that's beyond my expertise. Whether we should try to get children out of this place, that seems like a no-brainer. I'm sure the kids in that Austrian basement (who knew the FLDS had an Austrian branch?) who had never been outside in their lives are pretty frightened and disoriented right now, too. Do you have a problem with that?

Oren said: Sorry, the government does not need to disclose the state of a pending investigation to every comer that wants to peek at the files. All the evidence will eventually be made public, just not quite yet.

The files? Sorry? Not good enough.

Well, not good enough as far as I'm concerned but you may be comfortable with setting the wheels in motion on the basis of fraud?

The trigger was a hoax phone call and whatever gets added to that file will be added after the initiation of the sweep. The speculative framework has long-existed without such a raid being triggered. That's the main point.

I made that point in response to someone else who was appalled that we thought the threshold ought to be higher than hoax tipsters.

Oren said: You can assume the result of a hearing before its conducted, I prefer to wait.

Perhaps you know very little of how the system actually works when children are removed. In my experience -- years of involvement with foster care and with adoption in various capacities -- you will be waiting for years.

Yet you said: If they had on me the kind of evidence they have on FLDS, hell yeah [the government can take my kids based on a hoax phone call].

You mean that hoax call, right? Because the government did not act on the other stuff that was known prior to the raid. Or are you talking about stuff being reported in the midst of this sweep?

You also missed the point of my question. The government wouldn't necessarily have evidence on you, Oren, but they'd have a hoax accusation against your neighborhood.

Why would we even need a hoax accusation? Just assume that the government will find something somewhere in your neighborhood. We could even take the princple further and allow spot check searches of private homes.

Again you probably wouldn't approve of that, I'd expect, but maybe you think there is some evidence against the FLDS that the government should have acted on BEFORE this particular raid in Texas? Maybe raids should now occur across the country on all FLDS-type communities, in your view?

I'm in favor of enforcing the polygamy laws, the welfare laws, and the laws against slavery and human trafficking. But these transgressions were in plain sight before the raid. Did you advocate raids and removal of children before this particular incident?

Last point first, no. Self-governance is not license to do whatever you want, it's a license to live by the rules that are democratically agreed upon. If the FLDS does not want to obey the laws of the State of Texas, they can live elsewhere.

Second to last point next, the inability to keep one's child from sleeping around (or using a rubber) is not even close to neglect on the level of the abuse here. The older men that have sex with teenagers (below the aoc) should be held accountable, criminally and civilly - absolutely no reason not to. They have to live by the same rules everyone else does (and can petition their gov't for a new rule, if they wish). I don't see any reason why police cannot or should not investigate any case in which it is probable that someone violated the law.

Of course, in the instant case we have very strong reason to believe that FLDS girls below the aoc were not impregnated by other teenagers but by adults, often after significant coercion by their parents and religious leaders (see, e.g. the Warren Jeff's trial).

Oren said: Self-governance is not license to do whatever you want ...

That is not a point of contention between us, Oren. But parents have the status they do because they are responsible for the children they bring into this world. Not because the government grants permission for them to raise their children. That's the starting place, I'd hope you would agree.

Oren said: the inability to keep one's child from sleeping around (or using a rubber) is not even close to neglect on the level of the abuse here

Again, you miss the point of the comparison. If we follow the logic of this raid, we'd cast a very broad and intrusive net to catch statutory rapists via pregnancy centers and abortion clinics, right? The inability of the adult man from raping an underaged girl is the central issue because that's person committing the crime. If the parents are accessories to that crime, then, cast a net broad enough and intrusive enough to catch them too, right?

Oren said: I don't see any reason why police cannot or should not investigate any case in which it is probable that someone violated the law.

Yet they failed to do so for decades. The hoax call is what triggered this raid.

Oren said: ... in the instant case we have very strong reason to believe that ...

Yes, the practice of polygamy is against the law. Yet that was not the trigger for this raid. Nor was it in the case you mentioned. Nor was that case the trigger for this raid. What did you meant to say?

But parents have the status they do because they are responsible for the children they bring into this world. Not because the government grants permission for them to raise their children. That's the starting place, I'd hope you would agree.

I suspect this is our major point of contention. Parents have guardianship rights for the purpose of exercising them in the best interest of the child (in your words, because they are responsible). Fundamentally, guardianship is not an end unto itself (like freedom of speech) but rather a means by which a different end is achieved. In this sense, guardianship should more be considered a duty than a right, since it imposes a positive obligation on the parent to do what's best for the child. It is the child that has the right to a guardian that makes decisions based on her best interest.

The situation is analogous to an executor of an estate, an accountant or lawyer that certainly has considerable legal power but power that is understood to be used for the furtherance of specific goals.

Now, as I've said a dozen times, parents have wide latitude in determining what constitutes the best interest of their child but that latitude cannot be unlimited. At some point (to be determined democratically, I imagine), the decisions of the parents become so contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the child's best interest that to continue guardianship would be an affront to that child's rights. I don't take this decision lightly, but, since we are talking theoretically, I think it has to be acknowledged that such a point exists somewhere.

Actually, before I get much further, I get the sense that you guys are broadly against the current SCOTUS logic on pretextual stops and, more broadly, the objective standard criteria. If that is the core of your opposition to the raid, that it was merely an excuse to investigate crimes that the police long suspected but could not get PC on, then this discussion is far broader than I imagined.

Oren said: At some point (to be determined democratically, I imagine), the decisions of the parents become so contrary to any reasonable interpretation of the child's best interest that to continue guardianship would be an affront to that child's rights.

I asked about the starting place. Parents are not merely guardians. The are responsible because they brought the child into the world. The connection pre-exists any government authority to dismantle, intrude upon, or otherwise monitor and review the child-parent relationship.

For a huge example, this principle is expressed in the marriage presumption of paternity which is one of the strongest and most significant laws in our society. It is expressed in the rather more intrusive laws regarding the presumption of paternity outside of marriage, as well. Nonetheless it is central to responsible procreation (which itself is a set of foundational principles that go beyond mere child bearing) which is at the core of marriage as a social institution.

The point, as you put it, and the threshold, as I've put it, exists whereby some transgression has moved the scenaior beyond THAT starting place.

If for you the starting place is the government's authority to grant permission to parents to care for the well-being of their children, then, it would appear to me that you believe that the government (democratic or whatever) owns society's children. This idea, if you hold it or if it is the basis for state interventions, would be a fundamental attack on self-governance and liberty.

Please clarify.

Andrew J. Lazarus, I don't think your crack about the Austrian example says what you think it says about the objections raised here regarding the removal of children.

Prosecution of polygamy -- as polygamy -- has become very rare and not likely even in this instance where the homes of an entire community have been dismantled.

Across the border in Canada the government doubts that it can intervene due to the recent precedents set by the court system in is jurisprudence on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The "progressive" avante guard of the legal community there is already lining up for regulation of polygamy rather than the continued prohibition. This is at odds with the public's support for the prohibition and for enforcement of the rule of law in Canada.

If we can't affirm the nature of marriage, and attack polygamy for what it actually is, then, I suppose we leave ourselves the vain hope that by intruding based on hoax calls we can dig-up enough individualized instances of symtomatic crimes that we don't have to make a case against polygamy itself.

Hence he problem of self-governance whereby the threshold of intervention is lowered for polygamists and thus lowered for all parents.