Constitutional Issues in Texas Polygamy Raid

As any thinking American could have predicted, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the actions of Child Protective Services in seizing the four hundred plus children of the Yearning For Zion Ranch violated the rights of the parents and their children and that the entire proceeding is illegal. It is about time some decisions regarding the constitutionality of this action were called correctly. However, justice will not be served until all of the children are back with their parents in whatever place their parents choose to live.

This case has cost the State of Texas dearly, in terms of the actual action, cost of umpteen child protective workers, foster care and legal action. None of this compares to the cost to the children who were ripped from loving parents and their short lives disrupted likely forever, or to their parents, who have gone through much anguish and mistreatment. This is a pittance compared to what it should eventually cost, as there is every reason to believe most if not all of these parents could and should sue for damages.

The entire fiasco is reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials in that a group of 'citizens' charged with upholding the rights of society have sought out and persecuted a small group based on hearsay, innuendo and self-righteous indignation that someone should dare to live differently than they believe they should. That the higher court should rule against official CPS opinion is entirely correct. The only shortfall within the decision is that it did not go far enough: the State of Texas should have been ordered to return all of the children immediately to their rightful guardians as there was no evidence to uphold the removal in the first place. CPS and the judiciary have apparently not learned their lesson in overstepping their Constitutional boundaries, however.

Lawyers for CPS, in an effort to save face and develop some sort of track record for continuing to trample the rights of parents, are still behaving as though they have legal standing to make demands of these parents. For Judge Walther to propose negotiation for the return of the children shows the desire to legislate from the bench is still alive and well in Texas. It is also apparent that there is considerable official support for increasing State control over the rights of families and that this is an on-going effort to reduce citizens' civil rights.

This issue has already been decided in the courts, under nearly identical circumstances, in the case of what has become known as the Island Pond Raid, (Vermont, 1984 ) against the Twelve Tribes religious sect. Although the issue in the Island Pond case was purported to be physical child abuse not child sexual abuse, most other issues are strikingly similar. In that case, State District Judge Frank Mahady ruled that child protective service workers could NOT hold the children separately from their parents for three days to fish for evidence and could NOT take pictures of the children for future reference. The Texas court has already allowed CPS to obtain DNA evidence from these children-a clear violation of their civil rights. A well-researched and well-produced documentary is available as a download in several parts on YouTube or can be obtained from the film maker on the www.islandpondraid.org website.

Reviewing the circumstances of both of these raids makes it clear the 'state' believes it needs more rights to interfere with the parent-child relationship than the Constitution allows and intends to continue to press the boundaries of the law in an effort to water down parental rights, the right to home-school and the right to freely practice religion.

There is no evidence of improper parenting in this case. In fact, State mental health workers have already gone on record, against the wishes of their superiors to report for the record that these parents and children appear to be mentally healthy, admirably bonded and well-cared for. In fact, those same mental health workers have expressed serious concern over the treatment of both parents and children by said CPS employees, saying the removal itself bordered on child abuse. So, Judge Walther's ruling that all parents be required to take parenting classes, lose their right to travel and otherwise remain quasi-wards of the court is seriously out of line. Once again, official departments of the State are attempting to make unconstitutional demands of citizens not found guilty of-and not even charged with-a crime. In addition to an assault on the rights of these children and their parents, this case is an outright assault on the liberties of all citizens. A link below leads to a citizens' petition to impeach Judge Walther based on her inability to discern Constitutional limits.

In our judicial system, courts retain no rights over citizens who have committed no crime or those who have served their lawful sentence. This constitutionally-delineated right has been previously blurred "in the interest of the children". This case is the natural outgrowth of a court system overlooking even the smallest of rights of the citizen. For there is nothing unusual about this particular state-sponsored child-snatching except for the numbers involved. Daily, in every county and every state, children are removed from the custody of their parents with no evidence stronger than an anonymous complaint. Although the courts have ruled otherwise, CPS workers routinely demand entry without a warrant, stating they don't need one. Law enforcement also continues to accompany them to their kidnapping without a court-generated warrant. Parents are routinely lied to, deceived as to their rights and threatened with loss of their children if they should retain an attorney to protect their interests. Judges routinely terminate legal parental custody on the flimsiest of evidence, assisted by the fact parents don't know how to obtain adequate and expensive legal council.

Attorneys for the FLDS families will no doubt encourage them to accept the conditions put forth by Judge Walther and CPS to help parents speedily regain custody of their children. Doing so, however, lends even more credulence to the belief by CPS and the courts that they are above the Constitution. It would be far better for the rights of ALL citizens if these parents were to refuse unlawful court oversight in regards to their children. In this country, you are either guilty or you are not. If you are guilty, you are subject to court oversight for a specified period of time. These families have been neither charged nor adjudged guilty and no court oversight is appropriate. It appears the court in this case is attempting to either assert these parents are in some way partly guilty simply because some anointed social worker or anonymous complainant says they are or that the court retains rights in every child's family. In this way, social institutions such as our courts and CPS wrangle additional rights-rights not given them under the law. This undermines the entire judicial system and its ramifications are evident in all sorts of cases in all states.

Perhaps because Hillary asserts, "It Takes A Village", or because the United Nations, under the guise of protecting children, attempts to force into International Law the idea that children belong to the State and whomever their current political minions are, this entire field of social quasi-law appears to be widely accepted by uninformed citizens. Only because most citizens are lucky enough never to have gotten caught up in this affront to constitutional justice do they never believe the egregious abuses of power and authority that are perpetrated against citizens less fortunate than themselves. If they were to be victimized themselves, they would quickly realize what an extreme form of socialistic control is being instituted here. It is occurring daily however, and becoming more widespread all the time. We are rapidly approaching a society in which parents bear children at the whim of the state then care-take them according to the state's wishes at their own expense and under threat of legal penalty. This guarantees a State that controls all aspects of society very quickly and is reminiscent of China's one-child policy. Some citizens may dream of such a utopian State, but it is doubtful they have thought out the ramifications very thoroughly. This is not a new concept: a bit of research into the Hitler Youth movement in the 1930's will bring forth several very uncomfortable parallels.

The State has had their meddling hand well-represented in the breakdown of the family unit, the destruction of community and the loss of the cohesive values- systems of religion. Allowing such unconstitutional control of our children only guarantees the State will hold all the cards within another generation. These same children, when grown, will be the next generation of citizens to lose their rights and they may well go quietly as they have known nothing better. The time is now to stand against the encroachment of constitutionally-guaranteed rights by the State as soon it will be too late. Make your voices heard, both vocally and at the ballot box. Because, this time, it really IS "for the children"!