Why is this dude making out with his granddaughters?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I guess where I part company with you IlPad is that I don't see this as analogous to rounding up, for example, every kid in my neighborhood. They have almost nothing in common with each other. I see this more like rounding up the kids in Jonestown before they all drank the Koolaid. If the small insular group is teaching that everyone should drink the suicide Koolaid, what does it matter that only some of the parents have actually offered it to their kids. That is my view of it anyway. I don't think that a small insular group that teaches that child marriages are ordained of God and that forces children to submit to them, even if it is just some of the children, is a place for any child to be.

I can certainly understand the point you make. The problem I have is that it started with what turned out to be the fraudulent phone call and rather than check the facts first, they went with it.

To be honest, I think a lot of this had to do with pressure from evangelicals who are not the most tolerant folks when it comes to other religions. The FLDS kept to themselves and folks don't like secretive groups - especially secretive religious groups - that live in their neighborhood.

I don't really look at it as they were trying to protect children; I think some anted to rid the community of polygamists. The guise of protecting the children gave them a reason to do it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I guess where I part company with you IlPad is that I don't see this as analogous to rounding up, for example, every kid in my neighborhood. They have almost nothing in common with each other. I see this more like rounding up the kids in Jonestown before they all drank the Koolaid. If the small insular group is teaching that everyone should drink the suicide Koolaid, what does it matter that only some of the parents have actually offered it to their kids. That is my view of it anyway. I don't think that a small insular group that teaches that child marriages are ordained of God and that forces children to submit to them, even if it is just some of the children, is a place for any child to be.

The difference is the term imminent. If kids are being fed kool-aid, you have a more compelling case than if you are talking about boys or infants where the harm idedntified is sex with underage girls.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

The difference is the term imminent. If kids are being fed kool-aid, you have a more compelling case than if you are talking about boys or infants where the harm idedntified is sex with underage girls.

Exactly. If I told creekster that his wife wanted to ravish him imminently and he was later informed imminently meant ten years, he might be a tad disappointed.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I can't imagine my daughter being indoctrinated in a culture that would encourage her to have sex with a religious leader in her early teens.

Early teens? The girl in the photo was 12. She very well may have been pre-pubescent.

So don't be ticked; be doubly ticked.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Early teens? The girl in the photo was 12. She very well may have been pre-pubescent.

So don't be ticked; be doubly ticked.

Sure, but you don't take every single kid out of the environment for that belief or teaching unless harm is imminent. If the CPS had limited the removal to girls between 8 and 18 it would be more manageable, defensible and much more likely to stand judicial review.

(don't forget, the photo was an exhibit from the appellate case, which is why TSG has it.)

[MikeWaters]

I'm glad they took the 27 year old into custody. Just to be safe. She could have been 15.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Sure, but you don't take every single kid out of the environment for that belief or teaching unless harm is imminent. If the CPS had limited the removal to girls between 8 and 18 it would be more manageable, defensible and much more likely to stand judicial review.

(don't forget, the photo was an exhibit from the appellate case, which is why TSG has it.)

You and I agree most of the time. But I just can't begin to understand this viewpoint. Guess we'll have to leave it at that.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

You and I agree most of the time. But I just can't begin to understand this viewpoint. Guess we'll have to leave it at that.

By way of explanation without meaning to enflame, let me put it this way: There is almost nothing worse I can imagine than to have my children taken from me and placed in some other home without my permission adn without my input and without visitation and without any notion of when they might be back. This power we have given to the state, and which has been delegated to administrative functionaries, should only be used sapringly and as infrequently as possible. If crimes against children are being committed, the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted. If harm is imminnet, then removal might be justified, but to remove my children becaseu of my belief, which belief might lead to harm of a class of children into which my children do nto fall is almost unpseakably horrible, in my mind. The state under such circumstances has a very high burden and should be allowed to act only with compelling evidence of hamr, which for boys and infants has never been shown.

I do not love the FLDS, but what if your neighbors think you are like the FLDS?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

By way of explanation without meaning to enflame, let me put it this way: There is almost nothing worse I can imagine than to have my children taken from me and placed in some other home without my permission adn without my input and without visitation and without any notion of when they might be back. This power we have given to the state, and which has been delegated to administrative functionaries, should only be used sapringly and as infrequently as possible. If crimes against children are being committed, the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted. If harm is imminnet, then removal might be justified, but to remove my children becaseu of my belief, which belief might lead to harm of a class of children into which my children do nto fall is almost unpseakably horrible, in my mind. The state under such circumstances has a very high burden and should be allowed to act only with compelling evidence of hamr, which for boys and infants has never been shown.

I do not love the FLDS, but what if your neighbors think you are like the FLDS?

I understand what you are saying. What I am saying, to use an extreme example, is that if you tortured and executed your children when they turned, say 14, or you lived in a commune where certain children were selected for torture and execution at the age of 14 at the whim of the commune leader, I think you would agree with me that such people shouldn't have any children in their custody regardless of the fact that the 13 year old and younger children have never been so much as scratched. I can't logically distinguish that from this.

I have thought from the word go that much of the sympathy for the FLDS position around here has to do with fear as LDS that we are just a whisker from suffering some similar fate. I'm glad that some are acknowledging this. I just find that to be an illogical and unjustified leap.

[MikeWaters]

CPS can still investigate with the children still in the home. I think this is actually the most common situation.

Say I call in that UtahDan is molesting his daughter. Does UtahDan think that his daughter should be placed in foster care for 2 months, 6 months, 1 year, as the charge is investigated? If he says "no", then I have to conclude he thinks rape and molestation of young girls is ok. (according to his logic). CPS should do the "safe" thing and remove the girl from the home. (according to his logic).