From the opinion, which is a sharp and detailed rebuke of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (emphasis and some paragraph breaks added):
Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children is an extreme measure. It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of the children involved. However, it is a step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary. [Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 262.201.]The Department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relators' pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a "pervasive system of belief” that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. [Footnote: The Department's witnesses conceded that there are differences of opinion among the FLDS community as to what is an appropriate age to marry, how many spouses to have, and when to start having children—much as there are differences of opinion regarding the details of religious doctrine among other religious groups.]
The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger. It is the imposition of certain alleged tenets of that system on specific individuals that may put them in physical danger. The Department failed to offer any evidence that any of the pubescent female children of the Relators were in such physical danger. The record is silent as to whether the Relators or anyone in their households are likely to subject their pubescent female children to underage marriage or sex. The record is also silent as to how many of Relators' children are pubescent females and whether there is any risk to them other than that they live in a community where there is a "pervasive belief system" that condones marriage and child" rearing as soon as females reach puberty.
The Department also failed to establish that the need for protection of the Relators' children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children. As previously noted, none of the identified minors who are or have been pregnant are children of Relators. There is no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household as the Relators' children. [Footnote: The notion that the entire ranch community constitutes a "household" as contemplated by section 262.201 and justifies removing all children from the ranch community if there even is one incident of suspected child sexual abuse is contrary to the evidence. The Department's witnesses acknowledged that the ranch community was divided into separate family groups and separate households. While there was evidence that the living arrangements on the ranch are more communal than most typical neighborhoods, the evidence was not legally or factually sufficient to support a theory that the entire ranch community was a "household" under section 262.201.]
There is no evidence that Relators have allowed or are going to allow any of their minor female children to be subjected to any sexual or physical abuse. There is simply no evidence specific to Relators' children at all except that they exist, they were taken into custody at the Yearning For Zion ranch, and they are living with people who share a "pervasive belief system" that condones underage marriage and underage pregnancy.
Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the Department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is "immediate" or "urgent" as contemplated by section 262.201 with respect to every child in the community. [Footnote, slightly moved: The simple fact, conceded by the Department, that not all FLDS families are polygamous or allow their female children to marry as minors demonstrates the danger of removing children from their homes based on the broad-brush ascription of every aspect of a belief system to every person living among followers of the belief system or professing to follow the belief system.] ... Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is no evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue as required by section 262.201.
Finally, there was no evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the removal of any of Relators' children [as required under §262.201]. The evidence is that the Department went to the Yearning For Zion ranch to investigate a distress call from a sixteen year-old girl. [Footnote: The authenticity of this call is in doubt. Department investigators did not locate the caller on the ranch.] After interviewing a number of children, they concluded that there were five minors who were or had been pregnant and that the belief system of the community allowed minor females to marry and bear children.
They then removed all of the children in the community (including infants) from their homes and ultimately separated the children from their parents. This record does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the Department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children of Relators....
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- The Heart of the Disagreement Among the Judges in the Texas FLDS Litigation?
- Removal of Children from FLDS Ranch "Was Not Warranted":
- Future Legal Action Against the Texas Polygamists?...
- Lawsuits Against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services?
- Texas Appellate Court Rules Against State's Seizure of the FLDS Children:
- More Statistics:...
- FLDS Pregnancy Statistics:
- FLDS Update:
- Child Abuse in the Name of Protecting Children:
It appears mob psychology is not confined to the streets.
Thankfully, due process seems to have caught up with the mob today.
The court seems to following EV's (and my) original take on the case when first reported, no evidence of threat to most children involved, no justification for emergency removal.
Well, better late than never, but why the %$#@ couldn't they have taken this action six weeks ago (or whatever) before these poor children suffered the irreparable harm of being yanked out of their mothers' arms for no reason?
It's probably going to be an overcrowded bandwagon very shortly, but these were my issues, too (along with the reliability of the informant's information).
I am betting that it is so invested in the case that it does.
The Illinois DCFS put three thousand innocent names on their sexual offender list. Upon being notified of the accident, the agency said, in effect, what are you going to do about it?
Mess with them and they'll pretend they got some info requiring them to take your kids. Then you're in the position of someone who's suffered civil forfeiture. Spend the equivalent of what was taken proving a negative and then try to get the judgment in your favor actually settled.
Perhaps this will provide enough high-profile civil and criminal proceedings, with sufficient money to make them happen, that the results could be cited in other states.
Anyway, making the people whole is impossible, while making the perps less than whole is, unfortunately, illegal. Except financially, which, while nice, isn't as satisfying.
Weren't there some known perps who could have been but weren't picked up?
Now, the crooks will hide behing immunity and point fingers at each other.
That is why we need an absolute immunity. So a few criminals in state employ can kidnap children and get away with it.
As far as holding the government liable I am skeptical the issue was clearly enough settled for there to be liability here but that's just a totally uninformed guess. I think it would be a good system if the government had to pay compensation anytime someone's rights were violated even if there wasn't yet a clear precedent on the issue but too many people would be outraged at bad guys getting payoffs to really pass such a system (the public would focus on the actual payoffs ignoring the fact that the real benefit is in terms of the intrusions that didn't happen).
----------
As far as the case goes I'm quite glad to see that mere objectionable belief is not enough grounds for the state to snatch away your children. While I do believe these children were being harmed by living in that compound (even more so than being put in foster care would) most of that harm was a direct result of being taught a particular belief system.
Well, nobody. Sigh. They probably deserve to be tarred and feathered. I'd settle for removing them from positions of authority, but that almost never happens.
Suppose someone raised their children with the belief that:
Now the parents of these children would be inflicting no direct harm on these children other than by encouraging them to believe this faith. However, as a result suppose these children die in car accidents at a stupendous rate. Would that create a valid grounds for the state to remove the children from these homes?
If so then consider instead the belief system:
Could the state be justified in removing green/brown eyed children from parents of such a religious group? If so it's hard to see how there is any real guarantee of freedom of religion when it comes to parenting. After all if we can consider harms to the children resulting from their likely actions once they reach maturity where does it end?
If we answer no to these questions it seems we are essentially giving up the idea that the state should save children from cults. While I find the idea of children being brought up in these harmful cults sickening (much more so than raising them in mainstream religions) I am leaning toward that answer.
Wow, they even anticipate that Texas [pointless vulgarity deleted -EV] named Walther refuses to compy. Is it any wonder that [pointless insult deleted -EV] Bush comes from the same state?
[Folks: Let's keep the conversation substantive. Criticize judges, Presidents, or whoever else all you like, but please avoid substance-free namecalling, especially vulgar namecalling. -EV]
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is issued only when officials clearly abuse their discretion. Believe me, to be "mandamused" is a big deal to any judge. It will likely assure that she will have significant opposition in her next election.
Let's leave W out of this one.
The other day I saw the lawyer of one of the families (three children, two were removed completely with the mother removed from the husband to stay with a baby under state supervison. The father comutes long distances between three locations so he can keep in contact with his family) who said that CPS i trying to getthe wife into vocational training so she can get a job? and that CPS siad it will be at least April 2009 before the kids will be returned.
I bet the CPS will procrastinate as long as possible.
Of course the parents now have the worst of all dangers to contend with. Empire building by the Texas Justice Department and CPS to retain the additional staff required to process these cases.
... but who will watch the watchers?
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is issued only when officials clearly abuse their discretion. Believe me, to be "mandamused" is a big deal to any judge. It will likely assure that she will have significant opposition in her next election.
Are you a Texas lawyer? I am not, but I have not encountered any special impact on a judge's career in other states when an appellate court issues mandamus. Judges get reversed every day, often due to very clearly wrong decisions, and almost all of them keep their jobs.
I suppose it is possible that someone will challenge the judge, or that the public will question the soundness of her judgment. But if so it will be because of the perceived unsoundness of her decision, not on the technical legal point that mandamus was involved.
And this is just a guess but a lot of voters in that area might be unsympathetic to this religious cult.
Finally- though it does appear the judge flubbed this case- it would be impossible to sit through hearings involving these people's lifestyle and not become concerned that the children were being mistreated. She seems to have made a bad decision; but I'm not so sure it is self-evidently ridiculous as some people now assume.
Mandamus can be a big deal (such as the one that was the breaking edge that switched Fort Worth from all Democrats to all Republicans), incremental, or a cause to change the law (which used to name the judges by name, and now refers to parties instead, for a specific judge whose name shows up a lot).
It should be interesting to see how this plays out in the next election in that district.
I've read decisions out of california with which I disagree, but my immediate thought isn't "you know who else was from california like that judge?? Charles Manson!"
Anyway, reading a decision such as this tends to restore my faith in the rule of law. Bureaucratic creep is a dangerous thing.
(2) So a comment that simply called Hitler a whore or a moron -- with as little substance as your earlier comment had -- would indeed be improper on those grounds. It would also be improper on the grounds of inaccuracy: Hitler was, as best I can tell, a very smart man, and did what he wanted and not what others paid him to do (the usual figurative connotation of "whore"). He was also a monster (or perhaps calling him a monster is unfair to monsters), but that hardly makes him stupid or corrupt; in fact, his intelligence and his commitment to his cause made him vastly worse than he would have been had he been stupid or merely venal.
(3) If you want to explain why you think Judge Walther is "corrupt," is engaging in "outright criminal activity," or is engaged "in extreme abuse of power" (as opposed to having made a legal mistake, or even a serious legal mistake), please do so. But in my experience insults usually don't contribute to such substantive explanations, and if anything distract from them (as your earlier comment suggested).
What this basically means is the lower court will have to order the state custody terminated. It she doesn't, they will. I believe it gives the Parent's lawyers the ammo they need to get custody to the moms pretty quickly.
Dopes.
The Texas authorities knew this would be overturned, or the sketchy search and seizure would be eventually.
This happened basically so that the texas authorities could railroad the polygs out of texas. Welfare fraud is almost impossible to prosecute against polygs.
So the texicans are just trying to make Texas noncostviable for the polygs.
Do you know what the authorities got?
DNA from ALL the children and a good bunch of the adults.
The only way they could have gotten it.
At least some of the FLDS patriarchy daddies can be prosecuted. May they all wind up like ol' warren jeffs.
Hopefully the polygs will pack up and move....maybe to YOUR states welfare roll.
hahahahaha
I think it's a little more complex than that. I'm guessing the court has to reverse the order adjudicating the children dependent on the state, and will probably hold a proper adjudication hearing (which was never granted before). I'm not sure how it will work out, but I think this order may just lead to individualized hearings, which will of course be more favorable to most of the families.
I hope that was not badly expressed. I am not a lawyer and only have a layman's awareness of the matter.
Judicial Activism, it's everywhere! GAAAAAH!!!!
Bakum: Three Republican "activist judges" to boot.
Eugene seems to imply that he thinks Walther made a "legal mistake" or even a "serious legal mistake" but that clearly doesn't qualify as negligent.
What sort of a standard are we talking about here anyway? Is it an objective standard based on the condition of the law or is it a subjective standard based on a judge making a ruling that she knew or should have known was materially incorrect? Quite frankly, I don't even know where to begin, other than stating the question.
One point Eugene did not mention is that, according to the court, there were five women who had been pregnant and who are now alleged to be minors. The CPS had claimed there were 31. That's not a small error. And, as is clear from the court's opinion, there was no evidence that any of them, or anyone else, had suffered any sort of abuse. Given the timing, the relevant marriage laws and the available evidence, every single pregnancy could have been a legal pregnancy of a married woman.
This raises an interesting legal question--just how solid is the protection provided to those responsible by immunity? Suppose we assume a worst case scenario from the standpoint of the CPS. Suppose it can be shown that they knew their statements were false and that their actual motive was to suppress a religion they disapproved of. Can state sovereign immunity cover the deliberate use of state power to violate the First Amendment?
Or, for a somewhat weaker case, how about deliberate defamation—publicly claiming that a 22 year old married woman was 17 and pregnant? Making claims about the FLDS that they knew were false? Is any of that actionable if done by a state agency?
Agreed. But would the cure you propose be almost as bad... ?
They got away with it.
The State of Texas got the DNA samples they were after.
In the Chinese system prior to 1911 this was the function of the officials known in English as Imperial Censors. Their job was to investigate official misconduct. They had the power to arrest anyone and reported directly to the Emperor so they were outside the bureaucracy. They were quite effective so long as the system as a whole was not ridden with corruption (as in the late Qing dynasty.)
For what it's worth, my interest in law is far more than casual, but it's fairly obvious that it'll be necessary to make a great effort to get up to speed, once certain software tools are finally ready (realistically, in perhaps four to five years).
Ah, well. It seems as if everything, but everything becomes much more complex when examined closely.
Oof.
well...what about a system that allows for millions of dollars in welfare fraud every year?
Is the State not allowed to defend itself from parasites?
The actions of the state officials involved were legal at the time.
And open to being overturned by a higher court, like all judgements.
I honestly think the state of Texas is just trying to rid itself of 1000 polygs in the only way it can.
Before there are 5000 polygs or 10,000 polygs.
"Ridding" yourself of a religion you find troublesome, especially via removing an entire generation of its adherents, is perilously close to genocide.
so, they looked underage and couldn't or wouldn't provide a birth cert.
honest mistake. ;)
Don't you mean... they provided a birth certificate but the officials ignored it? Please tell me you are aware of this problem.
Texas knows they will have to give back the kids eventually.
They just want to make Texas too hot for the polygs so they will move on.
to your state and your state's welfare rolls perhaps.
:)
Griefer: I've never heard of the term "polygs," but it sounds to me like something of a pejorative (though I'll be happy to be corrected if I'm a mistaken). "Polygamists" seems to be the better term. It's quite proper to make substantive criticisms of polygamy here (or of homosexuality or of heterosexuality or of promiscuity or whatever else); but those substantive criticisms are better made through substantive arguments, not through pejorative labels.
;)
there was a lot of chaos, prolly some documentation was mislaid or overlooked.
/winkwink
i often type xians for christian as an abbreviation also.
not habinar, but that my generation.
Isn't the problem precisely that they cannot be held accountable in that fashion? Or any other?
Texas has tried to legally supress polygamy.
given that an FLDS male must have at least 3 wives to make it to heaven, these antipolygamy laws in texas seem perilously close to religious persecution to me.
it might even seem like those laws target the FLDS in particular.
;)
Because of the DNA samples.
Texas can state it operated in "sincere belief" because they did.
So the officials of the state are not liable.
But the childrapists and accomplices and enablers very well may be.
Do judges *ever* routinely second-guess State agencies in cases like these, or aren't they usually pretty much rubber-stamps -- unless the citizen has money or a good lawyer or political connections (or all of the above)??
Or how about in the case of no-knock drug warrants? Do judges ever skeptically interrogate the police to find out if there is a genuine need for them, or don't they just blindly sign whatever gets shoved under their noses?
also polygs or polys are common terms out here in the West.
im in denver.
i suppose they are mildly perjorative.
not as radical as nigger, but not as complimentary as citizen either.
Or how about in the case of no-knock drug warrants? Do judges ever skeptically interrogate the police to find out if there is a genuine need for them, or don't they just blindly sign whatever gets shoved under their noses?"
Why not? Nothing ever happens to them. Once in a while the police get charged, but never the judge.
We really need to fix this, but I don't know how.
Sometimes they're not re-elected.
That's what I was afraid of, but I was hoping that somebody would prove me wrong. My impression is that this judge did nothing out of the ordinary, except for the magnitude of the case. If this had involved a hundred different families with 4 children each in a hundred different cities with a hundred different judges, spread over time, nobody would be batting an eyelash.
Clearly, we have opposite "good judgments" when it comes to criminals in public employ. Bush IS a war criminal, and the only reason he did not use custer bombs in texas (lower case), because he did not have them. But when he used them in Iraq, that's OK. It is OK when WE do it, but wrong when enemies of our Dear Leader do so.
Who knows what Walther would do if given access to that red button in the White House?
Posting that on the net should get you 5 years in one of the following leading Western "democracies": Austria, Germany, France. I wonder what would you call him, if he could not spell in is native language basic words, or even Abu Ghraib?
A judge who does what crooked prosecutor says, while violating the LAW, IS corrupt (a whore in common English, where I live).
What she did whas rubber stamping clearly criminal act (kidnapping). Not to mention her owne extra creativity by sepataring children and placing them 1000 miles apart.
Unlike you, I am not a lawyer, and I do not risk disbarment for telling the truth. I see no difference between Walther and Feisler (except Walther being stupid).
Which brings me to wonder. Suppose we move back to 1942, Warsaw Ghetto. We were attacked by terrorists back in 1933. We had PATRIOT act rushed thru legislature right after. Now we need to protect Jewish children from those terrorists by taking them away for good. I use your blog to call then-judge Walther a whore for whoring herself to SS, and you do what? Censor me and call her crime "a serious legal mistake"?
Didn't we put those "mistaken" judges on trial at Nuremberg and hanged them for their "mistakes"?
There is one more comment I wish to make. Next ride around there will be Waco redux and no one among the public will cry after fallen "protectors".
Your spelling joins your substance in leaving the impression of a breathless rant. You leave the impression that responding to you would constitute feeding the trolls, and that doesn't contribute to anyone's willingness to analyze your arguments.
There's a comment policy below which constrains all of us, regardless of how certain we may be that somebody deserves worse than the policy allows. You don't have to like it, but those are the rules we agree to when we post our comments.
She may have difficulty getting re-elected however. Good riddance. As soon as I read testimony of that April hearing I thought CPS was abusing their authority and declared that lots of civil rights suits would ensue.
Oren, I have read that public officials under the color of law that deprive citizens of civil rights can be sued. This came up in the Philadelphia city gun law case. Perhaps CPS officials could be at risk under this idea?
She may have difficulty getting re-elected however. Good riddance. As soon as I read testimony
The judge didn't follow the law in at least two respects. First, she treated the case as concerning one family. Second, there was no evidence that most of the children were in danger. As the appeal court said: "The Department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty."
I would like to see every state official involved in this pay a price, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
The concluding paragraph of this opinion was absolutely standard for every case in which mandamus relief is granted. Don't be fooled by the "conditional" language into thinking that it means anything but a complete and unequivocal loss for the TDFPS. The language is standard, and it's purely a courtesy, akin to that granted by a parent who says to his six-year-old, "I'm not going to have to spank you, I know, because now that I've caught you red-handed I know you're going to put that cookie back into the cookie jar instantly, aren't you?" No lower court judge ever defies the higher court's ruling and thereby compels the higher court to issue an unconditional order.
That said: I think Prof. Volokh's description of this ruling as a "sharp and detailed rebuke" of the TDFPS is a considerable overstatement. This opinion is -- deliberately, I'm sure -- dry and utterly workmanlike. There's no rhetoric to speak of -- nothing that can fairly be characterized as a "sharp" statement about anything. The opinion is indeed "detailed," but that is the detail of a court that is going through a statutory checklist to examine a specific evidentiary record. Every time the appellate court says, "There is no evidence that ..." it's simply ticking another point off the checklist -- not pillorying either the agency or the trial court. This was indeed a thorough-going loss by the agency, but it emphatically was not a judicial call for political reform of the agency, nor for some candidate to run against the trial judge in the next election.
One can read between the lines, if one insists on doing that, by noting the frequency with which the appellate court, without further characterization, emphasizes the phrase "persuasive belief system" while finding the agency's evidence inadequate to meet the statutory test. And one might reasonably infer that the appellate court disapproves of the guilt-by-association theory of agency. But if one does that, one is guessing, because this opinion was written without any of the rhetorical flourishes that trip so freely from the tongues of any libertarian. There's little discussion and no dicta -- and absolutely nothing from which one could even begin to hazard broad predictions about how this panel might rule on a later appeal after a trial on the merits.
Does the name "Nifong" ring a bell?
Bill Dyer: I appreciate your experience, and I don't want to overstate the sharpness of the rebuke. But I expect good judicial opinions to be light on the rhetorical flourishes, and heavy on the facts and the legal analysis. I saw the sharp and detailed rebuke in the way the facts were marshaled, to highlight (with none of the rhetorical softening that sometimes happens in such opinions) just how weak the state's evidence was, and how downright absent it was with regard to so many children.
It's possible to reverse a trial court without "rebuking" anyone. It's possible to find that there's an absence of required evidence for statutory relief without characterizing that absence as "deplorable" or "downright." That's exactly what did happen here.
The fact pattern is dramatic. The opinion isn't. Pundits, press, and observers have strong opinions about these subject matters. But if the judges on this panel do, they deliberately and very thoroughly concealed them.
Could the agency have won at this stage if it had done a better investigation or made a better showing in court? We'll never know. Can the agency win on these very same factual issues after a final trial on the merits? We'll presumably see in due course, but that's entirely possible.
But it's misleading, I respectfully submit, to impute righteous indignation to this appellate decision that its text doesn't demonstrate. It's misleading to suggest that this appellate court found anything other than an absence of proof on this particular (limited) record from an expedited, interim hearing.
It's likewise flat wrong, for example, to say that the court of appeals found any "violations" of the Texas Family Code by the agency. In fact, neither the word "violate" or "violation" ever appears in the decision. And this decision was not on whether the agency had good cause to act, or even whether it thought it did. It's a decision on whether the agency's lawyers meet the agency's statutory burden to prove certain facts for interim relief. The trial court found that they had, and granted relief; the court of appeals found that they hadn't, and ordered that that relief be vacated. That means the agency lost, not that it was wicked.
Moreover, the court of appeals didn't sanction anyone for presenting any arguments or seeking any relief; it didn't find any lack of good faith; it didn't ridicule anyone or anything. It stuck strictly to its statutory checklist of relevant issues for this stage of the case. It was careful to do nothing more.
I respectfully submit that we who are describing what the court of appeals did -- especially we lawyers -- ought to be equally careful.
Extraneus: This ruling means nothing at all, pro or con, with respect to the taking or ultimate use of DNA samples.
protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary." Then it found that such circumstances did not indicate such a danger: "The Department ... failed to establish that the need for protection of the Relators’ children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children." How is this anything but a conclusion that the Department violated the law on when children may be removed on an emergency basis?
Ah, so they were successful and effective, except when they weren't. Sounds good Bill!
Ah, so they were successful and effective, except when they weren't. Sounds good Bill!
This started soon after the FLDS bought the ranch, which was soon after SCOTUS told us what goes on behind closed door is okay.
Texas Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, in a 4/11/05 letter addressing a bill he introduced stated that "HB 3006 addresses concerns raised by a polygamist sect that fled Utah and Arizona to settle in Schleicher County last year."
There are many more letters and reports in which he tells us there was one reason he was pushing the bill he later tacked on to another that was passed, that sole reason was the FLDS in his backyard.
The wanna be "Sarah" made her first call to the New Bridge Family Shelter on March 29th. In that call she told of being physically abused often, to the point on Easter Day that she was treated in a hospital. She claimed to be a pregnant 16 YO girl that was facing this life threatening situation. Also that the father of her young child had raped her.
Reports like that must be passed on to the local law enforcement immediately. So I must assume it was.
It was not until April 2nd until Officer Long, who is the affiant for the original search and arrest warrants, met up to interview the shelter employee that took the call. That is only ONE DAY before the raid.
The arrest warrant for some reason did not include any charges for the physical abuse that allegedly had put poor Sarah in the hospital. All it mentioned was SEX and CHILD.
Ms. Allison Palmer, First ADA, has admitted to the press she assisted in obtaining the warrants. The CPS told of using sources familiar with the sect before the raid started, The State AG's office spokesperson has told the press they were involved from the "start".
The assembly of 700 warriors, 13 CPS workers, helicopters and an armored personnel carrier would take some time, as would getting all the head honchos together. Looks like a plan coming together, the one Sheriff Doran told all he has been working on FOUR YEARS.
Now they are all surrounding the YFZ Ranch to move in and attack. We find out later that the Sheriff had received a call from the alleged husband PRIOR to executing the warrants, a call he learned of a probation officer that could verify the abusive "husband" had not been to Texas when it was claimed he did all those bad acts.
We also know that though Sarah had told of life threatening problems she faced on 3/29, it was not until FIVE DAYS LATER that they were there to save Sarah!
No problems, lets storm in and save all the victims, haul them off and teach them how they were victims!
Anyone that believes there was "good faith" in any of this mess is fooling themselves in my opinion.
If I had time, I'd pick your brains on a couple things Judge Walthers has done nobody seems to care about, but that's for another day maybe.
The trial court found that at the hearing, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had met its required burden of proof, such that the children didn't have to be returned. The court of appeals granted mandamus because they found that ruling to be an abuse of the trial court's discretion. The abuse of discretion finding was, in turn, based on an absence of evidence for the statutory factors.
That is not a finding by the trial court about what justification the Department did or did not have in taking possession of the children originally.
To pick a particular factor: The Department failed to prove, according to the court of appeals, that there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the children. But that is emphatically not the same thing as an affirmative court finding, either at the trial or appellate court level, that there was evidence which established there is no danger to the physical health or safety of the children.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know this, I'm quite sure.
"That is not a finding by either the trial or appellate court about what justification the Department did or did not have in taking possession of the children originally."
Can you suggest how the court of appeals made "findings" on the impropriety of the pre-adversarial hearing custody without bothering to cite or discuss those sections?
Meanwhile, the state's number of disputed 'minors' dropped from 26 to 8- and those 8 just haven't had their hearings yet.
Another girl- the youngest on the list of 'pregnant or has given birth' minors, is 14 and she is not pregnant and has not given birth.
They don't appear to have any 13 or 14 year old mothers and I have my doubts about 15 year olds.
The only two pregnant minors they had were 18 and 22 years old
Logically true, but the presumption of innocence means that 'absence of evidence' brings things to a screeching halt.
Did you notice Footnote 2?
"The temporary orders reviewed in this proceeding were issued following the hearing held April 17-18, 2008, and were SIGNED the week of April 21, 2008."
If you followed TRLA's activities with the 3rd from their initial Writ, which was denied, you'd know the Order For Placement and the Order For Temporary Custody may have been out of order in how they were signed.
The Order For Placement was definitely signed April 22nd.
Could the 3rd have been pointing this problem out to Walthers by including Footnote 2 in their Opinion?
The flip side of this type of cloudy logic is affirmative action. Here membership in a group confers benefits at the expense of other groups. It doesn't matter if you were born in Nigeria and never suffered a day of discrimination in your life you will still receive the benefit of belonging to the favored group.
It would be interesting to see how many think the actions of the Texas authorities were outrageous but affirmative action is just fine. Can you really blame a judge for making the same fundamental error in logic (though antithetical to everything the constitution intends) when the supreme court of the land persists to this day in making the same error?
1. The court expressly says that "Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully
litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children ... is a step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary" (p. 2). The court cites 262.201, but you're right that the decision has to be understood in the broader context of the Texas Family Code, including 262.101 et seq. -- those sections make clear that generally speaking the government may not seize children without a court order except in an emergency (see, e.g., 262.104). In any event, one way or another, the court concludes that the Department may seize children without an order "only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary."
2. Then, the court says "The Department ... failed to establish the need for protection of the Relators' children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children" (p. 7). Sounds like a pretty clear conclusion that the Department lacked the evidence that was required for item 1.
3. Nor do I see how the statement that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is relevant here. When it comes to legal rules that bar the government from seizing people without adequate evidence, absence of evidence does indeed show a violation of the legal rule. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" would be an argument if I were saying "the children weren't abused"; you could plausibly respond that perhaps they were abused but the evidence hasn't yet been uncovered. But under Texas law, if there is no evidence of imminent danger, that makes seizure of the children a violation.
4. Finally, as to the sharpness of the rebuke, I inferred it from the repeated statements of how "the Department did not present any evidence" of various things, coupled with the court's stress that those things were indeed required for the initial seizure or for the retention of the children. On pp. 6-8, I count at least eight, plus two "the record is silents," and a "failed to establish." And this one strikes me as especially sharp: "There is simply no evidence specific to Relators' children at all except that they exist, they were taken into custody at the Yearning For Zion ranch, and they are living with people who share a 'pervasive belief system' that condones underage
marriage and underage pregnancy." The "except that they exist" strikes me as a particularly telling attempt by the court to highlight what it sees as the weakness of the Department's case.
You're conflating two different questions. The first is whether the State had the right to keep the children after the adversary hearing. Subchapter c tells us what has to be proved lest the children be automatically returned. The trial court said yes, there was adequate proof. The court of appeals said no, there wasn't.
The second question is whether the State had the right to take them in the first place. That's determined not by subchapter c, but subchapter b. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court cited any of the sections that together make up subchapter b. Yet you've jumped to the conclusion that the appellate decision contains "findings" -- presumably binding upon the state for collateral estoppel purposes? isn't that the gist of what you're saying -- that the State had no right to take the children in the first place.
That's wrong for other reasons, too, completely apart from the fact that different subchapters of the Texas Family Code are involved. For although this was an adversary hearing, it was still an expedited hearing about temporary custody -- not a final decision on the merits, which it would need to be to create any "findings" that could be given collateral estoppel effect in other proceedings. For another, appellate courts don't engage in factfinding, especially on mandamus proceedings.
Finally: by your definition of what consitutes a "sharp rebuke," every single reversal based on insufficient evidence amounts to a "sharp rebuke." I repeat, the court of appeals here very obviously and very deliberately avoided the kind of sensational characterizations that the news media has put on its decision, and that you, too -- who ought to know better -- have fallen into.
"At the time that Relators filed their initial petition for mandamus on April 23, they were not aware that any Temporary Orders had been entered by the trial court. The "April 21st order" referenced by this court in its per curiam order of April 25, 2008, does not have a cause number, parties, or signature of the trial court, and appears to be a form of the order that was submitted by one of the parties. The signed orders that Relators [their clients] have received since filing the original petition are signed April 23 and April 24."
could the details from the Opinion by the Appeals Court in Footnote 2;
"The temporary orders reviewed in this proceeding were issued following the hearing held April 17-18, 2008, and were SIGNED the week of April 21, 2008."
be telling us the court took notice of the possible dates out of sequence?
I know nothing about the panel of the appelate court which decided this opinion. I read that the panel is Republican as is the trial judge. This would seem to reduce the possiblity of a political hit job.
It has been my experience that when an appellate court finds an abuse of discretion on every required statutory finding along with a completely clinical dissection and rejection of the evidence the trial court considered for each such finding, it is a pretty sound trashing(or thrashing) of the trial court's judgment and judicial performance.
Wouldn't you agree that the good Judge Walther will have an uphill battle putting a good face on her performance thus far in this case.
(vnjagvet)
I've seen, and represented parties in, decisions in which the appellate panel wanted to issue a "severe rebuke" to one side or the other, though. They include adjectives. They include intensifiers. Sometimes they get snarky. This just ain't one of those. Instead, this is just a Texas court of appeals going through the whole checklist, which they all always do. And maybe folks like Prof. V, who don't realize that they always do go through the whole checklist for every appeal, are misinterpreting the court of appeals' intent for that reason. I'm highly confident that if we could ask the individual panel members whether they intended to administer a rebuke, or to affect the trial judge's reelection odds, they'd be startled that anyone (other than, perhaps, a bunch of law professors) would even suggest such a thing.
Substantively, the weakest part of the court of appeals' opinion is its failure to give the traditional deference of appellate courts -- especially in mandamus proceedings! -- to trial courts' fact-finding responsibilities. Those responsibilities include, in appropriate cases, drawing reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence. Without even the benefit of a wink and a nod at that traditional standard of very limited review, the court of appeals opinion ignores even the possibility that the circumstantial evidence could have supported inferences on any of the statutory factors. If the grant of mandamus is vulnerable on further review by the Texas Supreme Court, it would be on that basis.
Nevertheless, while I fault the court of appeals for dodging -- indeed, completely ignoring -- the topic of inference-drawing from circumstantial evidence, I would have come to the same conclusion it did. It's one thing to read between the lines of a well-developed record (say, two full days' testimony) about a single family and its minor children, and to draw inferences from the circumstances so proved. It's another, further reach to do so when that two days' testimony purports to cover many dozens of families and hundreds of children, the large majority of whom (as the appellate court appropriately recognized) were not just-turned-pubescent girls on the brink of unlawful coercion.
I still think the Department may win this case in further trial court proceedings on the merits. But it will only do so if it does a vastly better job of presenting individualized cases about each of the affected families. And that is going to require an investigation that's orders of magnitude more thorough. Relatedly, the key difference may be that in the ultimate decision on the merits, there's not the same requirement that the Department show an "emergency."
Five.
According to the appeals court, fifteen of the twenty were adults who had been pregnant as minors, so that's out of the whole population, not just the 400+minors.
From another commenter:
"so, they looked underage and couldn't or wouldn't provide a birth cert. honest mistake."
There was a news story weeks ago according to which the CPS was openly refusing to accept birth certificates as proof of age. Given that, I see no reason to think the problem was with the refusal to provide the certificate. The 22 year old woman claims to have provided it early on. I have seen but not checked the assertion that the date of birth of the 18 year old woman was actually in documents provided by the authorities to the court in an early stage of the legal process, where they were listing women who had born children as minors.
A number of posters comment on the problem of controlling misdeeds by officials, with references to the Chinese censorate. H.L. Mencken discusses the problem in one of his essays. He explains that Prussia solved it by having special courts for trying officials accused of misconduct. It worked in Prussia, since Prussian judges took it for granted that anyone brought before them was guilty, but would never work in America, where the judge would probably be part of the same gang of scoundrels as the official.
Mencken accordingly proposed a suitably American solution to the problem. Anyone abused by an official was entitled to inflict the appropriate penalty himself. It would then be up to the official--or his heirs--to go to court to demonstrate that the penalty was undeserved or excessive.
This case also reminds me of a chapter by Judge Posner in which he goes into some detail on just how badly a judge can act without any risk of serious consequences.
Based on your analysis, I would rest much more comfortably were I a citizen of Texas. It appears that at least someone is minding the store.
The last time a cult farm in Texas was in the news with this much publicity was the Waco fiasco. There was considerably less due process then, and the results then were far more grave than the mere removal of children from a parent.
There is a lesson there, isn't there?
* * *
I would have thought that it is beyond dispute that the "removal of children from a parent" is a grave act and should be recognized as such each and every time.
That means providing strong justification for taking that action BEFORE taking the action.
When it is done en masse there is even more at stake for the parents and children involved -- and also for the rest of society and the legitimacy of our system of justice.