Is the State of Texas arguing that the FLDS

[MikeWaters]

do not have the right to reproduce?

If a woman gives birth next week, are they going to come in and take the infant?

It's pretty alarming to me that seemingly very few people care about this precedent.

[il Padrino Ute]

It pisses me off.

I wonder if people are brushing it off because they feel the same as a woman from El Dorado that I heard on the radio last week. She was asked what she thought about everything going on there and her response was, and I'm paraphrasing - "I wish those people would go back to Salt Lake City and stay there with the rest of the Mormons."

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

do not have the right to reproduce?

If a woman gives birth next week, are they going to come in and take the infant?

It's pretty alarming to me that seemingly very few people care about this precedent.

I think they are focusing on the statutory rape portion....underage girls with kids.

As of now, it appears that they have separated everyone while they sort it out.

One thing they have to improve is their PR arm. they are not giving very informative press conferences.

[MikeWaters]

If the state pursues permanent state custody for all the children, in my mind, they are arguing that these folks don't have a right to reproduce.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If the state pursues permanent state custody for all the children, in my mind, they are arguing that these folks don't have a right to reproduce.

Or they are saying that the FLDS culture is abusive and harmful to the children involved.

I guess it boils down to the same conclusion in this instance. They are concluding that these polygamous people should not have children because the environment in which these children would be raised is abusive and is a danger to the child.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Or they are saying that the FLDS culture is abusive and harmful to the children involved.

I guess it boils down to the same conclusion in this instance. They are concluding that these polygamous people should not have children because the environment in which these children would be raised is abusive and is a danger to the child.

so an infant is at theoretical risk in 2022 when she is 14? So you take her away?

I'd like to see the statutes that support that.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so an infant is at theoretical risk in 2022 when she is 14? So you take her away?

I'd like to see the statutes that support that.

It is true that all children can be removed from a home if there is abuse to one. There is a precedent for that.

One problem is that the standard rules and procedures are primarily designed for single family housing arrangements. The FLDS seem to make this difficult because there is not the typical living arrangements. This is complicated by the fact that they are providing confusing and contradictory information in the interviews about names, parentage, ages, etc.

Also note that the women share legal responsibility to protect their children from abuse -- by knowingly allowing the men to rape their teenage children they are also in violation of the law.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

Or they are saying that the FLDS culture is abusive and harmful to the children involved.

I guess it boils down to the same conclusion in this instance. They are concluding that these polygamous people should not have children because the environment in which these children would be raised is abusive and is a danger to the child.

Again, this may or may not be true.

Everyone who is mad does not seem to allow for the possibility that they have interviewed a TON of these people and have built a very strong case.

[MikeWaters]

I don't think they had a strong case in the first day or two when they rounded everyone up. From the media reports, it sounded like "that girl looks young and pregnant."

Ok. But what does that have to do with rounding up a 2 year old?

The law should be applied judiciously. Maybe I am crazy and it shouldn't be.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't think they had a strong case in the first day or two when they rounded everyone up. From the media reports, it sounded like "that girl looks young and pregnant."

Ok. But what does that have to do with rounding up a 2 year old?

The law should be applied judiciously. Maybe I am crazy and it shouldn't be.

2 year olds can't be abused?...I thought there was an account of a baby having water poured down its throat to stop it from crying? Maybe that was a different case and I am getting confused. Abuse is not limited to 14 year olds.