Officials Had No Right To Take Polygamists Kids, Court Rules
SAN ANGELO, Tex. - A Texas appeals court said Thursday that the state had no right to take more than 400 children from a polygamist sects ranch, a ruling that could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.
The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the state offered “legally and factually insufficient” grounds for the “extreme” measure of removing all children from the ranch, from babies to teenagers.
The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said.
It also failed to show evidence that more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.
It was not immediately clear whether the children scattered across foster facilities statewide might soon be reunited with parents. The ruling gave Texas District Judge Barbara Walther 10 days to vacate her custody order, and the state could appeal.
FLDS spokesman Rod Parker said sect members feel validated, having argued from the beginning that they were being persecuted for their beliefs.
The legal geniuses have spoken. Contrary to this foundation of American marital law:
[W]e think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests…
[P]olygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy…. An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
…[T]he only question which remains is whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-67 (1878).
…The court of Texas now feels that their belief system does not, in fact, influence those around them or damage children and that it has no interest in offering protection to the rest of society…
It ignored the reality that they COULD prove that 5 girls were being sexually abused, that this abuse was not some random uncle sneaking in under the cover of night but, rather, a socially accepted act carried out under the premeditated sham of an illegal marriage unto which the young girl had to have been forced — seeing as she had no legal ability to consent to such. This is something that the entire community participated in through participation in the ceremonies.
It also ignored the reality that, while these marriages were not declared as such, they did, in fact exist. (It’s really only through an adherence to a legal sham of state sanctioned marriage that they could be ignored in first place…) Thus they were permitted to ignore the actual illegality of the actions in question.
The most striking irony, though, is how they are talking now — having been schooled by an army of lawyers: “We’re being persecuted for our beliefs.” Really? The Texas authorities knew the compound was there for decades — and did nothing. The seizure of children was done because the violation of children reported and discovered was a socially accepted set of actions which then left the other children there defenseless.
They admit that their beliefs advocate something contrary to American law (Though they can lie like troopers on Larry King about having no husbands…) and there is solid proof that some children were illegally married to and sexually used by those older men, yet, the connection between belief and support of action seems to have no legal credibility.
It’s a strange bending of really: “You may believe you are married but we refuse to accept that those marriages could exist. If they can not exist, then no laws have been broken and no one could be harmed by what we just decided does not exist. All that is present here is a group of people believing in a fiction and beliefs can’t harm anyone either (COUGH 911 COUGH) so they should get their children back to continue teaching them to engage in what we have decided doesn’t exist.”
Only a lawyer could make that one make sense…
