King George 28, State of Texas 28
As the insanity continues, it’s now a tie game…
26. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, found that evidence to support the CPS claim that the FLDS community constituted a single household “was not legally or factually sufficient.” The court summarized the CPS reasoning as follows:
All 468 children were removed from the ranch under the theory that the ranch community was “essentially one household comprised of extended family subgroups” with a single, common belief system and there was reason to believe that a child had been sexually abused in the ranch “household”.
The court then proceeded to demolish the foundation of the CPS position, based on statements from CPS witnesses:
The notion that the entire ranch community constitutes a “household” as contemplated by section 262.201 [of the Texas Family Code] 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 [Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the parent organization of which Child Protective Services is a division] 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”.
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.
The appeals court ordered the district court to “vacate its temporary orders granting sole managing conservatorship of the children of the Relators [the 38 women who participated in the appeals case] to the Department [of Family and Protective Services].” In spite of this blunt and well-reasoned legal rebuff, CPS is pressing forward and has appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court.
27. After announcing publicly that Dale Barlow was wanted for the rape and physical assault of “Sarah,” Texas officials later dropped charges against him, without even having the decency to state why the charges had been dropped. By 2 May, the charges had been dropped, but the Texas Department of Public Safety was not willing to admit the date when the charges had actually been dropped.
If the charges were dropped because there is no evidence that Dale Barlow abused “Sarah” or because there is no evidence that “Sarah” even exists, that should be publicly stated, if not incorporated into a public apology. Simple human decency dictates that Dale Barlow’s name should be publicly cleared if, in fact, the Department of Public Safety knows him to be innocent of the offenses that they alleged against him in public.
By 19 May, CPS had also withdrawn the legal case aimed at protecting “Sarah”. A CPS lawyer stated: “We’re not saying that the child doesn’t exist, but at this time we don’t believe she’s in our custody.”
If CPS has reason to believe the calls that triggered the raid were hoaxes, they have a moral obligation to admit that fact. As a material fact that is relevant to the legal cases currently being heard, CPS has a public duty to reveal the information in their possession related to those calls.
28. Although the district judge who presided over the initial custody hearing permitted nursing mothers to stay with children who are twelve months old or younger, she did not grant that same privilege to mothers nursing infants older than twelve months. What possible motivation could the state have for not permitting the health and bonding benefits of nursing to continue for these very young children? The state has argued that, within the FLDS community, young girls were married to older men and that they were taught to accept such early marriage. I find it ludicrous to believe that these nursing infants were on the verge of being married off to older men and, unless the state makes the equally ludicrous argument that nursing mothers were singing lullabies of underage marriage to these infants, it is very challenging to understand why the state would think that it was helping rather than harming these infants by not enabling their mothers to continue nursing them.
Click image to enlarge