Sunday, August 24, 2008

Those Family Values

Four months ago, there was a story raging across the country regarding a religious cult in Texas, led by polygamist child abuser, Warren Jeffs. It was controversial because the State of Texas, rightfully so, decided to take all the children into custody until things were sorted out.

Surprisingly, some on the right argued against protecting the children. They felt that it was wrong to protect children from child molesters, as long as those molesters were of the religious kind. I argued here and there on how wrong their position was, and that the children's best interest needed to come first.

I was completely dismayed when the courts ordered the children back to their parents' care. I was afraid for their safety and believed that these children were going to be abused again.

Unfortunately, I was correct.

This past week there were two stories that hit the media. The first reported how the State of Texas is now seeking eight children be returned to foster care due to concerns of ongoing child molestation.

The second story offers a little more detail. It appears that the State has resigned itself to have to investigate each child before going back to court. Meanwhile, this happens:
District Judge Barbara Walther said that there was "uncontroverted evidence of the underage marriage" and that the girl's mother, Barbara Jessop, refused to guarantee the girl's safety. The girl, shown in photographs submitted to the court kissing Jeffs, must immediately enter foster care.

Her 11-year-old brother, whom Texas child welfare authorities also wanted placed in foster care, will be allowed to stay with his mother but will have to undergo psychological evaluation in the next month

[...]

In the case of the 14-year-old allegedly married to Jeffs, Walther said she felt she had to place the girl in foster care because Jessop "was unable to provide assurances that she'd be able to protect the child in the future."

On Monday, Jessop refused to answer roughly 50 questions asked by attorneys for Child Protective Services, including what constituted abuse, the names of her children and her relationship with their father.

"I stand on the Fifth (Amendment)," she said repeatedly.

I won't go into the irony of how the same people are concerned about the rights of the newborn show such lack of concern for the already born. It just bothers me and makes me wonder, even as I write this, how many more of these children are going to go through this extra tour of hell on earth, before they too can get the protection that they deserve.

6 comments:

  1. I know. Isn't it absolutely shocking that the government should have to actually investigate and find signs of abuse before taking children away from their families? Why is it so wrong for people to believe that its ok to make assumptions about a large group of people, like they're all child molestors, because they all choose to dress similarly and look alike?

    After all, Republicans think all black people are criminals... why can't they believe that all FLDS members are child molestors?

    Sheesh. How hard is it to be consistent about stereotyping?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Umnnnhhhh, yah.

    There's a big difference between herding 300 kids into busses willy-nilly and finding ACTUAL REAL cases of abuse.

    But maybe you prefer simply herding? I mean who needs probable cause and all that crap?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gentlemen,

    Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, you're both wrong. It's not about clothing. It's about values.

    The second story, near the bottom, reports that this sect believes polygamy will bring them greater glory in heaven. Maybe 72 virgins.

    This sect also has a known history of child abuse and sexual assault of a child. Jeffs, and a number of his disciples, were already facing trial for this very thing. That is probable cause.

    And either way, they would have to investigate each case seperately. During that time, which is worse? Having the seperated for a short time until things are cleared? Or to leave them where further abuse, and coaching and coercion of the children can continue without recourse? I would prefer the former, but I have seen, met, and worked with kids that were sexually assaulted, and I know what kind of special hell they are in.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Given your statement about the "irony of how the same people are concerned about the rights of the newborn show such lack of concern for the already born", can I assume that you also favor protecting unborn and newly born children from birth mothers who want to kill them?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You may assume whatever you would like to, but the truth is, while I personally would reject abortion, it is my value system, and I cannot force it upon others.

    People should be given choices based on ALL of the facts, and not just what one side or t'other would have.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Who presents the facts to the newly born aborted baby before they get put into the closet to die? Are they given a choice? No, they're not. If they were, what do you think they would choose?

    Don't get me wrong. I am a proponent of choice: no one should force anyone else to have sex against their will. But sex, like many other choices, can have consequences. We don't, in a civilized society, get to choose to kill someone because they are an inconvenience.

    ReplyDelete