Texas can't hold 'em: Supreme court says state erred in taking children
The Texas Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it was an abuse of judicial discretion to take hundreds of children in what has become the nation's largest-ever child custody case.
"On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted," the justices said in a brief ruling handed down late Thursday.
FLDS faithful were happy — and hopeful.
"I'm happy as soon as all the children are back to their mothers and we're home," Martha Emack said outside the Texas Capitol in Austin shortly after the ruling came down.
Emack was visiting her two children, ages 2 and 1, in a children's shelter when she got word of the ruling.
Texas child welfare authorities were disappointed with the high court's decision.
"We are disappointed but we understand and respect the court's decision and will take immediate steps to comply," said Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. "Child Protective Services has one purpose in this case — to protect the children. Our goal is to reunite families and make sure the children will be safe."
In its ruling, the high court said that state law gave the lower court broad authority to protect children "short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care," including removing the alleged perpetrators from the home and preventing the removal of a child from the jurisdiction of the investigating agency.
Those options were not embraced, the court said, affirming a ruling by Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court said that although there are "important, fundamental issues concerning parental rights and the state's interest in protecting children, it is premature for us to address those issues."
While they agreed the trial court erred in removing boys and pre-pubescent girls from the ranch, the dissenting justices issued an opinion saying teenage girls remain in jeopardy at the YFZ Ranch because of a pattern of sex abuse.
The dissenting opinion cited several teenage girls on the ranch who were pregnant or had given birth, religious leaders who had "unilateral power to decide when and to whom they would be married" and that documents seized showed "several extremely young mothers or pregnant wives" on the ranch.
"This evidence supports the trial court's finding that there was a danger to the physical health or safety of pubescent girls on the ranch," the dissenting opinion stated.
Recent comments
The law says give them back ! the Sputreme court says they were...
Hal clausen | June 1, 2008 at 8:51 p.m.
RE: "I still say these people are more Taliban than American...
realitycheck needs to be checked | May 30, 2008 at 11:50 p.m.
>>If anything higher than a 1% rate justifies mass seizure,...
re: G | May 30, 2008 at 7:47 p.m.
