Texas Supreme Court Rules Children go back

[Details]

Texas common law marriages (not an expert - but I did a bunch of reading) are when two adults (both must be over 18), live together as husband and wife, refer to each other in public as such. I don't think there's a time limit - maybe there is - not sure.


It's not over though, luvbeaches, Leila - the court decision only appealed the decision to remove the children from their homes - and they did so on the basis that they believe there was a way for the judge to protect the children while taking steps short of removing them - court orders prohibiting sex offenders from coming by, restrictions about where the family can and cannot live, restrictions against leaving the state or country, etc. They didn't close down the investigation, say there were no grounds for it, say the families should get their children back no strings attached - only that there were steps that could be used short of removing the children.

 

[luvbeaches]

It's not over though, luvbeaches, Leila - the court decision only appealed the decision to remove the children from their homes - and they did so on the basis that they believe there was a way for the judge to protect the children while taking steps short of removing them - court orders prohibiting sex offenders from coming by, restrictions about where the family can and cannot live, restrictions against leaving the state or country, etc. They didn't close down the investigation, say there were no grounds for it, say the families should get their children back no strings attached - only that there were steps that could be used short of removing the children.

Thanks for this information.

 

[Mygirlsadie]

Well someone in the ''higher ups'' in Texas obviously thinks its acceptable or the children wouldn't be going back and that just makes me sick to my stomach.

Excuse me? If we thought it "acceptable", would we have gone through all of this to begin with? We knocked the scab off of a festering boil that Utah and Arizona have allowed to grow for decades. This battle isn't over. Those perverts merely took advantage of a situation that they assisted in creating with their lies and subversive actions.

 

[txsvicki]

This decision sickens me. I hope some of the teenage girls who may not want to go back get some initiative after a taste of freedom and run away. If illegal aliens can get fake id's and work here, so can some of these kids. Anything would be better than having a bunch of old geezer pedophiles taking advantage while having a work slave.

 

[Mygirlsadie]

Exactly! I still just can't understand this courts ruling. Nothing about it makes sense to me..:waitasec:

This decision sickens me. I hope some of the teenage girls who may not want to go back get some initiative after a taste of freedom and run away. If illegal aliens can get fake id's and work here, so can some of these kids. Anything would be better than having a bunch of old geezer pedophiles taking advantage while having a work slave.

 

[pixies]

Just great.

Once again proves that children are NOT being protected by our current laws. It proves once again that people will fall all over themselves to defend child molesters and religious zealots who rape children in the name of "god".
Wonder if those who defended these people are into this type of things? Hmmm.
Pat yourselves on the back for that one.

What a grown woman does with herself, I could care less. If she wants to join a "religious sect" and dress ugly and be a servant to some pervert with a "mommy-complex"..whatever! Good for her.
But when she brings children into the cult and allows them to be paraded around like cattle, to be married to 40 year old men and allowed to give birth at the age of 15, something needs to be done.

First, we need to cut off all funds to these sects. NO WELFARE. PERIOD. EVER.
If they are into the communal living, let them have at it. But they do not get medicaid or food stamps. If you cut off the money, these places would fall apart.
It is all about the power and the money to the men who run these things.

 

[mykodiak]

Mygirlsadie...I want to apologize for my last comment to you. I realize that I sounded very "snippy" and rude. Please accept my sincere apologies for my response to you. I was so frustrated by this entire situation that I mistakenly slapped at you for your comment.

Be assured that most Texans DO NOT condone this decision and DO NOT want to see these perverts continue their sick actions. I believe that our higher courts also do not approve of the perverts actions, but had to make this decision based on the errors made on a lower court level. I still believe that Judge Walther and CPS made the correct decision to remove the children, but they should have persisted and held individual hearings instead of lumping all children into one group. That is what the higher courts had a problem with. If Judge Walther had held individual hearings (or had the attorney's signed agreements to have smaller group hearings) there is the possibility that, by the FLDS's constant refusal to step forward and name names, the state would have had a better defense to keep the children in custody. As it is there is the tiniest doubt in a lot of people's minds that the parents may have had justification.

 

[Details]

Well someone in the ''higher ups'' in Texas obviously thinks its acceptable or the children wouldn't be going back and that just makes me sick to my stomach.

They don't think it's acceptable. They're reading the rule that says that CPS must use any acceptable alternative to removing the child, and finding that CPS did not have enough reason to say there was no acceptable alternative. That's all. The court, IIRC, even references court orders such as prohibiting the sex offender from coming near the house, living with the children, forcing them to allow inspections, and prohibiting them from leaving Texas. They don't think this is acceptable - only that CPS can continue it's investigation and guard the children while leaving them in their homes. And that's what they're doing - parents must be photographed, cannot leave or even move 60 miles without court permission, must allow unnanounced visits, etc. They break those rules, and CPS has good reason to go get the kids back.


I think they're wrong, I'm very worried about what happens to those kids when they get home - but they are not saying any of this is right, nor that CPS needs to abandon the investigation, nor that the children do not need protection. Only that the standard to remove them immediately from the homes was not met.

 

[mykodiak]

I've been researching the requisites for common law marriages in Texas. Texas DOES recognize common law marriages, but the FLDS may have a loophole on this. I found this explanation of common law (or informal) marriages and bolded the area where the FLDS may have pulled a sneaky trick. This is from Jerry Melton's law office website. He is an attorney in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area. I appreciated his explanation because it is in plain language, not legalese.

Proving a Texas Common Law Marriage
(Informal Marriage)​

In order to enter into a valid marriage in Texas, whether ceremonial or common law, the parties must possess the requisite capacity to marry. In order to establish a valid marriage in Texas, the parties must:​

• Be a man and woman (Texas Family Code §2.001 and §2.401);​
• Not have been divorced within the past thirty days [Texas Family Code §2.002];​
• Not be presently married to a third party [Texas Family Code §2.002];​
• Be eighteen years of age [Texas Family Code §2.102[, unless the underage party has secured an order from the court granting permission to marry [Texas Family Code §2.103[, or has proof of parental consent [Texas Family Code §2.202]; and ​
• Not be related as an ancestor or descendant, related by blood or adoption, nor be siblings by whole, half blood, or by adoption, nor may either be a parent, brother, or sister by whole or half blood, nor be the son or daughter of a brother or sister by whole or half blood [Texas Family Code §1.03 and §1.92] ​

In essence, the parties to a informal marriage, like ceremonial marriage, must be of the opposite sex, of legal age, and possess no legal impediment, such as those concerning kinship or the existence of a current marriage. ​

MEETING THE THREE-PRONG TEST​

A finding of the existence of a common law or informal marriage is only justified if the evidence shows that the parties agreed to be married, that they lived together in Texas as husband and wife, and they have publicly represented themselves as married. All three of these requisites must exist at the same time. In addition, the common law marriage without formality statute precludes proof of the existence of an informal marriage if the acts occurred in a state other than Texas.
​

(Actually, the statute for "Informal Marriage" is listed in Texas Family Code §2.401.) Since polygamy means having more than one wife or husband at the same time, usually implying more than just two (which is "bigamy") and they may not legally qualify as having common law marriages...they're just a bunch of wackos with a whole bunch of mistresses being kept in the same household.

 

[Details]

Yeah - seems they cannot be prosecuted as polygamy - so long as their first marriage actually was legal. If it wasn't - the loophole might have a loophole of it's own to say they could be in multiple common law marriages.

I don't think people should be prosecuted on polygamy statutes - it just doesn't seem like any of my business to me. At one point I'd been discussing with some people who figured maybe having sex with multiple 16 year olds was legal, since it'd be a common law marriage - but since underage marriage is only legal for a formal marriage with papers signed, obviously that's not going to work either. That was what got me reading the statute.

 

[jubie]

These kids are going to be grilled and punished for anything they did or said that would be viewed against their rules while they were away from the ranch. It's been reported that telling on eachother is encouraged so I can just imagine what these poor little ones are going to go through being returned home. The smiles will be short lived if you ask me. And now that they'll be home during the investigations they will NOT feel safe to be honest.

They'll be groomed and doomed.:furious:




J.

 

[southcitymom]

I am grateful for this ruling. Of course, I felt from the beginning that this was handled terribly and such a ruling was likely.

 

[mollymalone]

CPS is going to have one other large problem on its hands. FLDS in the recent past has obtained equipment which is/was used to listen in on phone calls etc. among its members.

Since it's received homeland security monies/equipment then there is every likelihood that any room that the cps workers interview the children, or parents in at YFZ is going to be bugged and all conversations recorded.