I must admit I was completely shocked after reading the headline “Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists’ kids”, expecting such a ruling to come from a California court, not a Texas court. As I began reading the opinion I grew more and more infuriated with the callousness of the Judge, only to find myself agreeing with the ruling at the end (sad to say).

Towards the beginning, the opinion summarizes the evidence presented by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services:

• Interviews with investigators revealed a pattern of girls reporting that “there was no age too young for girls to be married”
• Twenty females living at the ranch had become pregnant between the ages of thirteen and seventeen

After reading this section I began to question how any Judge could rule that their was no inherent danger to the children, particularly the girls, despite the statutory rape which was occurring as standard procedure on the ranch.

The ruling then went on to describe how there was no evidence that male children or the female children who had not reached puberty were victims of sexual abuse. The fact that this was added into the opinion disgusts me, although as I said earlier I did agree with the ruling after I finished reading the whole thing. By adding this clause, the Judge presiding over the case is insinuating that although statutory rape was occurring on the ranch, it was not occurring with girls who had not reached puberty, therefore they were not at risk…. yet. Would the judge expect then for the Department of Family and Protective Services to leave them in their homes until puberty, only to remove them at that time?

As I scrolled further down the opinion I came to the point in which I began to agree with the ruling, although I am not sure I am happy about it. The Judge makes a very valid point that there was no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household as the Relators, nor was there any evidence that the Relators have allowed or intend to allow the sexual abuse of their minor female children.

In short, the burden of proof was on the Department of Family and Protective Services to show that an immediate danger existed if the children were returned to their parents, and it does not appear they established that. By no means do I condone the actions of the adults who did allow the sexual abuse of minors to occur, but without any evidence that the parents involved in the lawsuit were among them, it appears the court was forced to rule in there favor.

I hope and pray that when the children are returned to their parents no harm comes to them either physically or mentally, but I must admit the court made the proper ruling in this case.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Appellate Court, Features