FLDS, Teen Pregnancy and Due Process
I must be missing the whole FLDS story. If I understand correctly, the state of Texas has taken nearly 500 children away from their families. The main concern underlying all of this is that young girls, as young as 13, are being "spiritually married" to older men and they're getting pregnant. There may be other kinds of alleged abuse, but the teens getting pregnant appears to be the big one.
So why are they taking infants away from their mothers? I'm reading stories about women with six kids having to deal with their children being spread all over a rather large state.
Under substantive due process, a state infringing fundamental rights must be advancing a compelling state interest in a narrowly tailored manner. To put that in a potentially relevant way, you can't use a shotgun approach - you have to use a sniper rifle.
Taking away infants from their mothers has little to do with preventing teen pregnancy. Taking away girls from the ages of 10-14 would have made more sense - it would have looked more like the narrow tailoring required by the Constitution.
There's a bunch of questions in all this:
Is our society any good at preventing teen pregnancy in the first place? Who are we "normal people" to tell these people about sexuality and teenagers? How old was Cher when she ran off with Sonny Bono (and he later became a congressman).
I do recognize that part of this is a valid concern about these girls being forcibly raped. But let's not forget that this happens in supposedly normal communities too. Are these girls going to be safer in a regular high school?
How about procedural due process? Was there some imminent danger that required removal of all these kids with no advance hearings? Procedural due process is supposed to involve notice and an opportunity to be heard, and this is generally before the state infringes our rights.
There's the religious freedom issue. What if the state decided to cart off all the Jewish kids because Jewish families give wine to 13-year-old boys at their Bar Mitzvahs? I suggest that states not try this one, because we have better access to lawyers than our FLDS friends.
So why are they taking infants away from their mothers? I'm reading stories about women with six kids having to deal with their children being spread all over a rather large state.
Under substantive due process, a state infringing fundamental rights must be advancing a compelling state interest in a narrowly tailored manner. To put that in a potentially relevant way, you can't use a shotgun approach - you have to use a sniper rifle.
Taking away infants from their mothers has little to do with preventing teen pregnancy. Taking away girls from the ages of 10-14 would have made more sense - it would have looked more like the narrow tailoring required by the Constitution.
There's a bunch of questions in all this:
Is our society any good at preventing teen pregnancy in the first place? Who are we "normal people" to tell these people about sexuality and teenagers? How old was Cher when she ran off with Sonny Bono (and he later became a congressman).
I do recognize that part of this is a valid concern about these girls being forcibly raped. But let's not forget that this happens in supposedly normal communities too. Are these girls going to be safer in a regular high school?
How about procedural due process? Was there some imminent danger that required removal of all these kids with no advance hearings? Procedural due process is supposed to involve notice and an opportunity to be heard, and this is generally before the state infringes our rights.
There's the religious freedom issue. What if the state decided to cart off all the Jewish kids because Jewish families give wine to 13-year-old boys at their Bar Mitzvahs? I suggest that states not try this one, because we have better access to lawyers than our FLDS friends.
Labels: constitution, due process, FLDS
posted by Albany Lawyer at 8:32 AM
2 Comments:
"State Rep. Elliott Naishtat, who sits on the Human Services Committee, said he hopes the media attention on this case will enable him to get more resources for CPS in 2009.
"We need to train these workers better, we need to pay them better, we need to create a situation where the workers themselves won't be traumatized -- that's where I think Texas may get a black eye," said Naishtat, D-Austin."
The above is an excerpt from:
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=8312748&nav=menu73_2&rnd=870.7585471099709
More resources?
Yeah. They'll probably need lots more buses now.
Especially, since recent federal policy changes - demand "more" cases - "more" "expedited procedures" - with "efficiency" of establishing "permanency" the overall "focus".
This was done so - more children qualify for adoption "quickly" - enabling states to "qualify" for those lovely federal "adoption incentives".
Many studies of note have been done.
It's all documented.
Travesties of justice "being excused, justified and accepted" as "matters of bureaucratic policy" - daily - across this nation - considered merely the "way we do business" - by the "child welfare industry".
The routine "drugging" of children diagnosed with "separation anxiety" - which coincidently doubles or triples the funding - come to mind.
As do those in the field of psychology (affectionately referred to as "psych whores" by attorneys) who receive five hundred dollars per hour to "produce the findings" they're paid to.
Yep. Some think slavery was "abolished" - it was merely renamed.
States (any state) only begin qualifying for federal funding once a child has been "removed from the home".
The funding is on a "per case" basis - complete with a "quota" - that must be SURPASSED to get to the "big bucks".
Over 90% of funding supports the removal of children and the foster care system.
Less than 10% is left for "everything else" - which includes the reunification of children (giving children back).
Since children are now routinely removed due to "suspicion that abuse of 'some kind' 'could occur' in the future" - this presents a problem.
As does - once the child is removed on "suspicion" - everything that plays out from there - is done based on the presumed guilt of the parent of this initial accusation (which needs NO evidence - merely an "opinion" of a cps worker).
One is presumed guilty and there is LITERALLY no avenue for a parent to attempt to "prove innocence" in these proceedings.
One is told that "issue" is addressed in criminal court IF charges are filed.
They usually aren't as the permanent termination of ALL parental rights does not require them (usually there's no actual "evidence" that's required for these).
Parents who insist on claiming innocence are deemed by both the judge and CPS as uncooperative and their parental rights are terminated. Takes about five minutes. Less if they're busy (or have a lunch date or something).
Funding "stops" if a case is closed.
There are inherent financial conflicts of interest within the "child welfare industry".
Follow the money "billions".
Lots of documentation.
What it reveals is NOT PRETTY.
I appreciate the comment above from anonymous. At first it seems a little like the rant of a raving lunatic, but I'm sorry to say my understanding of the legal process in this area makes it not so crazy after all. They process is crazy, and drives people mad.
Post a Comment
<< Home