thoughts, whims, and delusions of a middle aged mama

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

FLDS, DNA, CPS, Babies, Who's the Victim?

I had wanted to keep this blog limited to discussing specific aspects of life in the FLDS communities that have been misunderstood, or sensationalized by mainstream media. However, this "situation" has made it's way into the news in the last two days and it has me terribly confused. So I thought I'd reach out here for a little clarity.

Let me lay out what I understand to be "the facts", first;

1. Last April, when the children were taken from YfZ Ranch, this particular young lady was sixteen, almost 17 years old. (Her birthday is in August)
2. She was pregnant. Her baby was born, full term, (no one has said otherwise), in June.
3. The mother retained custody of the baby and they were released together with all of the other children.
4. So, since no one knows the precise length of gestation for this particular baby, it is a fair assumption that she became pregnant right around the time she turned 16.
5. Legal custody of this young lady has been retained by Texas CPS since last April.
6. I haven't seen a reason stated for having retained custody, although I am guessing it s because of her age when she got pregnant. CPS is probably making a claim that her parents failed to protect her.
7. CPS is alleging, apparently based on information from the "Bishop's list", that she was "married" at age 14.
8. The baby that was born has never been alleged to be a 'victim'. CPS did not retain custody of the baby. Since they publicly acknowledge having non-suited all but two of the children, including this young lady, and we know Merrianne is the other, there is no CPS involvement with the baby.
9. There is no basis for them getting involved. There has been no accusation of abuse or neglect. There has been no witnessing of abuse or neglect.
10. CPS retaining legal custody of this young lady is based on her alleged 'victim' status and the alleged inability of her parents to protect her. The baby's well being has never been an issue. Decisions this young lady chooses to make about, or for, her baby has never been the subject of CPS involvement.

So this is where I get confused. CPS want the DNA from the baby to use, potentially, as evidence that a crime has occurred. The mother of the baby refuses to allow CPS to have anything to do with her baby. There are no complaints or allegations concerning this baby's well being that would trigger an investigation. So now they are "creating" a need to investigate, based on them having not had access to the baby.
If a child welfare worker finds out that a young lady in a public high school, who is sixteen, years old, has a baby, and the worker is told the baby's father is much older than the mother, and there are no other complaints, no allegations of mistreatment or neglect, that worker does not have the right to demand to a. see the baby, and b. take a sample of the baby's DNA, for any purpose.
So where is their right to do this with this baby? How do they make the leap that says that not only is their concern and involvement based on the age, and alleged marital status of the young lady, but it now extends to the baby, shifting the mother from 'victim', to potential perpetrator, or 'abusive or neglectful parent'?
Then, because of the reasonable fear this young mother has, based on her own experiences, she defies CPS, and refuses them involvement in her baby's life, they somehow use this refusal as 'prima facia' evidence of neglect?
And they are still hell-bent on collecting DNA, which I can't figure out how they have a right to?

If, as a parent, I choose to allow one of my children to live with a responsible friend or relative, for whatever reasons, which are mine, and mine alone, I have a right to do so. I can send my child to live in Hong Kong or Istanbul, as long as the people I am giving permission to care for my child are responsible adults and are willing to provide parental care in my stead. The state has no jurisdiction in this private matter. Perhaps I am not capable of caring for my child. I have then made a reasonable alternative choice. It is my right to make that decision for my child.
The state only has the right to step in and investigate when there is an allegation that my child is being abused or neglected as a result of my parenting, or my allowing other circumstances to put my child at risk.

Now, I agree, the ruse of taking in another child for DNA testing was pretty silly, however, it is also, from the perspective of a young mother who herself was mistreated at the hands of CPS, a reasonable response to enormous fear. Perhaps the court needs to take a compassionate view of this young mother. Perhaps the court needs to recognize that, indeed, this young mother is a victim. Not of her lifestyle and community, but rather, of the system that invaded her life.

So, we have a young woman, who is under CPS supervision based on alleged actions of her parents, who has a baby, that is not under CPS care or supervision, that CPS wants to take DNA from, based on a 'suspicion', and the mother doesn't want to allow DNA to b taken, and has voluntarily, perhaps, which is her right, placed her child with a trusted adult for care, and now the court is being asked to evaluate the mental health of the young woman to determine if she is a fit mother?
None of this makes any sense!!!!!!

I've linked the article from 'gosanangelo' below...but it doesn't unmuddy the waters, either...I am really confused!!!!
If anyone can offer any clarity, I would greatly appreciate it!


TxBluesMan said...

Well, first things first.

There is a valid court order compelling the young lady to produce the child for DNA testing. In November, the girl refused to do so, and she eventually came to an agreement to do so, setting forth the conditions, etc. This order was sealed, so we don't know the exact conditions.

The young lady then, in violation of the agreed to order, provided someone else's child for DNA testing.

First and foremost, the 17 year old is now subject to contempt charges (both civil contempt and criminal contempt). As a 17 year old in Texas, she can be held as an adult in the county jail for up to 18 months on the civil contempt charge and up to 180 days on the criminal contempt charge.

In addition, she is also subject to criminal charges as an adult, the most serious one being for Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, a 3rd degree felony that is punishable by 2 to 10 years in prison and up to a $10,000 fine. If the state goes that route, since the crime is a felony and involves her child, she could end up losing custody of the child to the state.

The involvement of CPS is based on the alleged abuse of the young lady, to wit: the Sexual Assault of a Child (otherwise known as statutory rape). The DNA of the baby proves paternity, which also proves who is criminally responsible for the abuse of the young lady.

In regards to that, the court made a completely proper order to produce the baby. The young lady, whether on her own or at the behest of others (it really doesn't matter which) has refused to comply with the order.

Had the order not been proper, the young lady's attorney had ample time to seek a writ of mandamus to quash the order. That did not happen, probably for the reason that such a petition was doomed to fail.

They are not "creating," as you put it an excuse to test the baby. The young lady was underage and was sexually abused, as defined by statute, whether or not she sees it that way or not. That is why is is known as statutory rape.

At this point, a lot depends on how irritated that the judge is over the matter. Based on experience, it would not surprise me at all to see Judge Walther to find her in contempt and to order her into the custody of the County Sheriff.

While I know that is not what you would like to hear, that is what this young lady has gotten herself into.

As a side note, the young lady has a foot in both worlds right now. Under the Family Code, she is still a minor until August, when she turns 18. For the Penal Code and contempt purposes, she became criminally responsible as an adult the day she turned 17 last August. If she is found in contempt, she will not be incarcerated with juveniles, but will be housed with adults in the County Jail.

If you have any influence with the FLDS Regina and you don't want to see this young lady in jail for the next year and a half (or longer), you may want to encourage them to talk to her. Her only way out at this time is to produce the child.

Anonymous said...

Blues, are you a robot? Your responses sure seem that way, your take on everything you've ever commented on is so methodical, cold and unfeeling I can't imagine you even have a life.

I don't give a *#*! what your opinion here is, and furthermore, if your perfect life had come under such intense personal experience I sincerely doubt you'd have the same attitude, I think when I get to the other side I'm going to look up your life and see if it's really as law abiding and perfect as you would like us to believe.

rericson said...

I think there is a "catch 22" surfacing, again.
Until the validity of the warrant(s) is tested, everything that has emanated from those events is problematic. Including the instant case. Only in Texas would mandamus fail, which is very likely why counsel didn't persue it, although I probably would have to establish the record.....

Having the warrants quashed will invalidate all of these "cases", however, everytime that 'criminal' activity can be established as a result of what was seized in those warrants, it makes them that much more difficult to poisons the 'purported' impartiality of the jurists who will decide...those beyond Walther..we already know just how poisoned she already is.

I am reasonably sure both her counsel and others have fully explained what her options are and both probable and possible outcomes. All any of us can do is support her in her decision, and trust that sooner, or later, justice is going to prevail...
I know that sounds hokey...but it is really what we are all holding on to....

Anonymous said...

There's no rationalizing this one. It is about concealing a crime. Being afraid is no excuse to defy the law.

TxBluesMan said...

Love of the Truth,

Thank you for your input. I would encourage you not to be a pendejo about what is going to happen.


The validity of the warrants or lack thereof is not going to help the young lady for contempt. Even if the warrants are tossed, that will not help her.

There are clear lines that you can't cross, and telling a judge in Texas where to get off the wagon is about as fast a way to get to jail as one could find.

I know that you are looking for the silver lining, but there ain't one. At this point, her best hope is to turn over the baby for testing.

TxBluesMan said...


It might be a good idea to see what the Prof thinks about this, especially about the girls thought process and what his opinion is on what they think this will accomplish (v. what will happen to the girl if she continues to defy the judge)...

rericson said...

I can't stand all these "high minded" types who have no clue what it means to fear for your child...I mean real fear, not just everyday, "I hope my child doesn't get hurt." fear of the world.

Bluesmman, You may be correct, i a very narrow sort of way. Her best hope for keeping the judge happy, ergo keeping herself out of a potential jail visit, might be to turn over her child for the DNA testing...
On the other hand, she and the people she trusts have to decide what is best, in the big picture. She may very well make the choice to go to jail rather than allow her child to be tested. And that IS her choice to make...
I'm not sure what I would do in the same situation....
there are no easy solutions and pros and cons to several different responses...
I trust that she will get good advice from various people, and, ultimately, she will make some very hard choices...
She's in a really crappy place...a place no young mother should have to be in...

TxBluesMan said...

True, I never said that it wasn't her choice to make.

If, however, she chooses to defy the judge, then no one should be surprised when she is then held accountable for the consequences of her choice.

Numerous people have made that choice. Most have sat in jail for a long time.

As far as being in a crappy place? I agree, but I also remember the saying - she made her bed, now she has to lie in it...

Anonymous said...

The argument of TBM is always "The Law".

When the Law is an ass, screw it.

Let us not forget, EVERYTHING Hitler did in Germany was LAWFUL.

I suggest Teresa Steed take a vacation with her son until the evidence gleaned from the illegal SW is thrown out of Court.

If barbie THEN still wants to throw her in jail for contempt, let's see what the public has to say about it.

There are more than enough houses in hiding for her to chose from, and after the attack on the Ranch and the abuse of the children by CPS, there are a few thousand more Patriots that would take here in.

Going by TBM's rules, Schindler should have been prosecuted for breaking THE LAW, right?

There comes a time TBM when REAL MEN AND WOMEN stand against tyranny instead of blindly being led around by the wrong head.

Anonymous said...

There's a big difference between fascists murdering Jews than a government agency investigating statutory rape, friend.

You insult the memory of the murdered.

rericson said...

Anon...I don't disagree with your idea....
However, until she is 18, going in to hiding, involves not only this young mother, but also her parents, who are, ostrensibly, according to the law, responsible for her, and where she is located is a big part of that even though she might be safe from detection, her parents could end up being's so freaking ugly
And so many ripples....

rericson said...

Anon, Clearly you have no real world understanding of the horrors of CPS placment. or even
Although not comprable to the horrors of WWII, nothing is, the trauma that children and families suffer, everyday, in this country because our child welfare system is broken, is a tragedy of gargantuan proportions.

Anonymous said...

Love of the Truth,

Thank you for your input. I would encourage you not to be a pendejo about what is going to happen.

TBM, are you making another prediction? Oh Goody, goody, I know where to put my money now.


Ron in Houston said...

Love of Truth

Blues is just a "by the book" sort of person. While that can appear cold and unsympathetic, it's really neither. People try to infer that because he's "by the book" that he has some ax to grind with the FLDS.

The only ax Blues has to grind is with folks who break the law. His approach would be the same whether it was a Baptist, Catholic, Jewish or any other religious type person.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Does anybody really believe that CPS honestly is concerned about her parenting skills?
About her emotional welfare?

These are claims specifically made by CPS in their documents to the state- and they are clearly hogwash, so why would Teresa trust them?

I also think this is interesting:
The motion also states that CPS does not intend to seek permanent custody of the girl, one of two whose cases remain open since the April 3 raid of the YFZ Ranch, where the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has made its Texas home.

It's the first time CPS has said publicly it will not ask for custody of the 17-year-old girl, said CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins...

I think such a pointed statement sounds precisely like a threat that they are interested in taking custody of the baby. And there is every reason and excuse in the world for a mother to do whatever necessary to prevent CPS from touching her infant- such a baby is in horrendous danger of abuse, neglect, and even death while in CPS custody. There is a higher 'law' than CPS and Judge Walthers, and I think the Nazi analogy is spot-on.
"just obeying orders" is no defense against actions that violate that higher law, and subjecting your infant to the horrific risks and dangers associated with foster care in Texas. This is also an infant CPS had ample opportunity to observe as the child was born while the mother was in CPS custody- if they wanted to 'observe' Teresa's parenting skills, they could have, and no doubt did, do so before.

This is not about protecting Teresa or the baby, and I think Teresa's act of civil disobedience was an act of courage, and the act of a mother who puts her child's interests ahead of her own.

rericson said...

Here is a post Bill Medvecky just left. I deleted the original for some language that was non-productive. His post, however, is here in full save the first lines.

I doubt very seriously if you or TBM would have been at the forefront of trying to stop the pogrom of the Jews, in fact, I think people like TBM, cleo and the rest of you would have been cheering them on.

Following something blindly just because it's "The Law" is good for lemmings, bad for thinking people.

You cannot accept the fact that Merrianne, Veda, Teresa, or in this case, Teresa Steed have made their own free choice, all you see is the black and white of the age limit. $ years ago it was 14. 4 years ago, you were happy with it.
Today it's 16 because the FLDS were singled out. So now all of a sudden it's "Rape".

Hogwash! It's rape when the person making the charge says it's rape regardless of how old they are.

I don't care if Teresa was 6 when she was betrothed. The fact of the matter is that she did not have a child until 2 month's before her 17th Birthday. According to THE LAW, she was old enough, even by Texas' bigoted standards.

As for Teresa's parents; it will not be the first time they have been persecuted for their religion and they know what the possible ramifications are. The only question is: How many martyrs is Texas willing to make of these people, and how high are the ultimate damages going to cost the taxpayers of Texas.

Bill Medvecky

TxBluesMan said...

Regina, just an FYI. I asked Ron on my blog about the possibility of the girl being put in a position to lose custody of the baby due to her own actions (and dependent on the actions to prosecute her, aside from the contempt charges).

If she is charged and convicted of Tampering with Physical Evidence (the DNA sample, by switching babies), the minimum term is 2 years.

Based on such a conviction, she would be unable to provide care for the child and the state would be able to go in and take custody of that child.

She really needs to get some better advice than she has been getting. The further that she takes this, the harder the State will push back.

She really needs to back off, now, before it starts going south.

I know that many of y'all don't care for what I have to say, but it would be a real shame for this girl to go to jail or prison over this. I also know Texas judges - and they aren't like judges elsewhere...

TxBluesMan said...

LOL @ Regina...

Do you think that I really care what Bill thinks?

Anonymous said...


The fact of the matter is that CPS DID NOT KNOW the girl was two weeks away from having a baby until the FBI told them that after tapping the phones and hearing about the baby through "Chatter".

Then, they rushed in to try to get their hands on the baby just as they did to Louisa Jessops and Pamala Jeff's and Lois Jessop's newborn's.

The Motion before the Court is a wink between CPS and barbie, one that Teresa is well aware of. She has seen the damge to children like Willson, Britton, Max, Naomi and Mahondra and it won't be happening to Teresa's son anytime soon. She did not lie on the Stand, the baby isn't in Texas.

:)) GB

rericson said...

Okay...time for my dimwittedness to show, again...
Why do people keep saying this is Teresa? Or does this young mother just have the same given name as Teresa Jeffs?

Also, there may be no fear of the mother being placed in care, and until they started this nonsense of doing a psych eval, I would have siad the baby was safe, too...although I'm not sure about that, now..
But I thought it was purely to get the DNA in order to make another arrest...
At the very least I hope her atty. negotiates for a independent psychiatric. If the court won't order that it be done by someone both parties agree to, I hope she has one done seperately, by a super reputable shrink!!!!!

Silver said...

I thought the baby was born AFTER the children were released to their parents and therefore NOT under CPS control/supervision. At least I didn't read of CPS standing at the mother's bedside while she gave birth THIS TIME.

I don't understand why they didn't just present the real child of the mother - if nothing else, it would be information used against the father, whom is probably already indicted based on the Bishop's Records.

Deceit just feeds the belief that all FLDS are liars and undermines them for the future...whatever it should hold. This young girl, whether by her own choice or the instruction of others, now has a history of being deceitful, and should she have to appear for any time of legal case, this will count against her.

I am on her side - I understand her fears for her child - as much as anyone who hasn't gone through this personally can.

I just don't think she helped herself or the FLDS in general by not being honest. I'm saddened for her and for her family.

rericson said...

Boy my sentiments are with you...switching babies, although driven by legitimate fear, was one silly move!...although, it did buy time...and not having been a fly on the wall, that may have been the desired outcome...who knows?

I would agree with Ron in instances where the parent has not been able to provide alternative, acceptable care. Since there is no currently active case involving the baby, if the mother has placed the child in alternative care with relatives or other trusted individuals, CPS would not be involved. There would be no reason for a complaint to be made.

I understand your strong cautions, from a systems perspective..
On the other hand, I also understand that in a community where family unity and continuity and survival is paramount, I can also understand the dilema when being confronted with "Pick One" lose your own personal freedom or lose your husband and breadwinner and person responsible for many...
I honestly don't know what I would do. I might very well think that my own freedom was the lesser of evils. I would know that there were others who would love and nurture my child as their own, so good care wouldn't be an issue, and I might think my own suffering in jail for a few months, or howevr long it took for reolution, was a lesser evil than my whole family losing it's leader and source of strength....
It's a really tough one!

As for what I deleted from Bill's post, it wasn't directed at you. It was something that offended me, alot....

Anonymous said...

There seems to be a double standard here.

Texas and CPS can lie, cheat and steal until the cows come home, but the sky falls in if one of them tries to protect their children BY WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE.

On the scale of credibility, Texas is in the tank and CPS never had any in the first place. Now we want to judge a mother for trying to keep her baby safe?

What sheer hypocracy!


TxBluesMan said...

"At the very least I hope her atty. negotiates for a independent psychiatric. If the court won't order that it be done by someone both parties agree to, I hope she has one done seperately, by a super reputable shrink!!!!!"

In Texas the court will decide who will conduct the psych eval. There is no requirement that she agree to who it is, nor does she legally have any input. If she decides, she can, at her own expense and effort, have a second one done (for rebuttal).

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Why do people keep saying this is Teresa? Or does this young mother just have the same given name as Teresa Jeffs?

If I did this, then it would because I am forgetful and ever bad with names. Blush.

Silver- I don't know- If she can drag this out until she is 18, she can leave the state quickly and take her baby with her.

You're right, the baby was born shortly after the court ordered them return the children- but the court did leave wide open the possibility that they could keep the teen girls. Texas chose not to, for whatever reasons. If they were concerned, honestly, about the welfare of those young women, they could have kept them. They did not. Probably because this was never about teen girls, but about adoptable little ones.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I don't understand why they didn't just present the real child of the mother - if nothing else, it would be information used against the father, whom is probably already indicted based on the Bishop's Records.

Well, that would be one more important reason- she does not want her baby's father indicted. It also seems likely to me that she is less concerned about helping herself or even her entire community than she is about her foremost responsibility- her baby. There is every reason to believe CPS at least is interested in trying to take her baby, and no reason in the world to trust them. Foster care in Texas is a dangerous, high risk place that no mother would want for her child. I don't think there's anything silly about taking huge personal risks in order to protect one's child from Texas CPS.

Texas is astoundingly two faced about this- we had the story on New Year's where the first New Year's baby was born to a 15 year old, fathered by an adult male, and the two of them live with her parents. Texas had no plans to investigate this, nor did any of those involved in her care perform their legal duty to report that man for child rape-
yet this girl, who did not conceive until after her sixteenth birthday, is subjected to all kinds of horrific trauma inflicted by the state and an ongoing legal battle- and there is no obvious reason for it other than religious bigotry and the need for Texas to wipe the messy egg off of its face.

It may be her actions will backfire on her, although I hope and pray not, but at least she's getting advice from people who have told her the truth and whom she trusts-
CPS has rarely come close to being honest with anybody in this case, so I don't know why it's silly not to trust them now.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

According to this story at the SL Trib:
"The state and attorneys for the girl and her mother agreed in November to a "meet and greet" where caseworkers could observe the infant, not take DNA, he said.

But representatives of the Texas Attorney General's Office also showed up and performed the test."

So there was no DNA test to be done at that meeting, and the girl brought a different baby to keep her child safe and test the waters- is CPS to be trusted, are they acting in good faith, did they tell the truth? CPS failed that test, and showed the girl that she was quite right not to trust CPS.

The Pharisee said...

When the law is a joke, take it to the jury, and nullify it's ass.

(the above is a joke using the word "Ass" base on my previous use of it as a thing to sit upon, and earlier claim in this thread that the law is an ass, assssss opposed to a joke).

rericson said...

Wow! That puts a whole different slant on things...this young mother doesn't look nearly as silly as she her decision to produce a differnt child...
I had only read the Deseret News and gosanangelo...neither of them had the "whole" story...

TxBluesMan said...

Headmistress said:
"Well, that would be one more important reason- she does not want her baby's father indicted."

If she is willing to go to jail and or prison instead of the father...

"So there was no DNA test to be done at that meeting, and the girl brought a different baby to keep her child safe and test the waters- is CPS to be trusted, are they acting in good faith, did they tell the truth?"

From the San Angelo Standard-Times article:

"Rather than find the teen in contempt of court, Walther recessed the hearing and ordered attorneys to strike a sealed agreement in which the girl, her mother and attorneys for both were to meet with CPS attorneys and caseworkers and produce the baby for genetic testing."


"Attempts to meet again were rebuffed [by the girl]"


"Further attempts to agree on a time and a doctor also were rejected"

From the Deseret News:

"At a subsequent meeting between CPS and the girl, lawyers for the agency said she brought a child she claimed to be her baby."

The meeting was for the purpose of genetic testing of the baby.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Blues, I read the accounts you quote from, and they do not contradict the one on the Trib. Together we get a full picture.

The agreement was sealed, and there was nothing in Walthers order that required CPS to have only ONE meeting and that ONE be soley for DNA testing, so you don't know that this particular, specific meeting was for DNA testing. It appears the girl didn't believe that was the purpose of the meeting. She believed it was a 'meet and greet.'

It makes sense that CPS 'promised' a neutral meeting with no testing in order to assuage her fears and lull her into compliance. She brought another baby, just in case, and she was right not to trust them. Contrary to the promises CPS made her, agents from TAG showed up to DNA test the baby (making it clear, again, this is not about the baby or the mother).

In your version, you have to make a couple guesses without information and trust CPS accounts- and they have a proven track record of dishonesty.

In mine, I don't make guesses based on nothing, it's in keeping with CPS previous track record, and I rely on an account from FLDS, and I haven't seen the FLDS lying yet.

"The state and attorneys for the girl and her mother agreed in November to a "meet and greet" where caseworkers could observe the infant, not take DNA, he said.

But representatives of the Texas Attorney General's Office also showed up and performed the test."

The girl, her trust violated, has refused further meetings for obvious reasons. CPS cannot be trusted.

Texas remains shockingly hypocritical on this issue. It's not about the law for them, or the other adult men who impregnate girls much younger than them (and younger than this FLDS mother) and make the front page paper in laudatory articles.
It's clearly about a thuggish, bullying, power trip.

You know the story of the boy who cried wolf? At this point, CPS and the state of Texas have cried wolf so many times that I simply don't believe them about anything at all- they are the ones with the track record of deceit, dishonesty, and underhanded tactics. They reap what they sow.

TxBluesMan said...


Documented cases of FLDS lying abound. If you choose not to see that, there is nothing that we can do to affect that choice.

Even if we were to take that assertion as a fact, that it was a meet and greet only, the girl would have still been in violation of the court order and subject to contempt sanctions.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether she trusts CPS or not. She is under a court order to produce the child. She is refusing to do so. Her motivation is not a relevant issue. Her concerns are not a relevant issue.

Regardless of what our particular thoughts are on the wisdom or stupidity of her action, there is one thing that is clear.

Judge Walther will not be amused.

Unless you want the girl to be put in jail, you should hope that she produces the child. UNLESS SHE PRODUCES THE CHILD, the judge will order her into custody for contempt, and will hold her until she complies with the court order. Everything else surrounding this issue is just fluff with no meaning.

Do you really want to see that happen?

I don't want to see the girl go to jail any more than anyone else. My first post on this thread made an entreaty to Regina to try and influence someone to talk to her so that she would not be found in contempt.

As I said before on this thread, I think that it would be a shame for that to happen. I am, however, realistic.

You claim that CPS is crying wolf. It could be, I don't know. I do know that she is defying a State District Judge, and they don't take kindly to that.

She is pushing the State, and in Texas, the State pushes back, usually hard.

Unless you really would like to see her in the county jail for the next 18 months or more, then someone should really talk to her, because unless she provides the child, that is exactly what will happen to her.

I would rather that she not have to endure that.

The Pharisee said...


The COURT pushes back hard. A 17 year old girl.

What a revealing statement.

If you can push back hard, then she's an adult.

rericson said...

Well, the other option is that the attys come to some agreement to put in front of Walther. If the baby is out of state they can access the CPS entity in the state of residence of the child. Most likely there is an inter-state compact in place expressly for this kind of cooperative acion. CPS in the state of residence of the baby could make a home visit for purposes of collecting DNA, if the attys work that out....

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I have never said no FLDS person has ever told a lie. What I say, and have yet to see refuted, is that in THIS YFZ case, the lying has all been on the side of CPS and the state of Texas. I have heard claims like yours repeatedly- that there are 'documented' or 'proven' cases of the FLDS lying all throughout this case, but not one single time that I have asked for specifics (with a source), has anybody offered the evidence.

So instead of just telling me "documented cases are all about" you could pick a couple and point them out. That you do not is rather telling.

I say that CPS has cried wolf so many times before that there is no reason to take their word over FLDS members in this instance either- I am not saying they are crying wolf so this girl has nothing to fear. I believe she has a great deal to fear, and it was not unreasonable to act on that fear to protect her baby from the horrors of CPS induced foster care by refusing to present that child.

I believe CPS to be vindictive and Texas to be pigheaded and stubborn to the point of blindness, and all to willing to cause the innocent to suffer on points of mere pride.

When I say CPS cried wolf too many times, I am not speaking to whether or the risk to this girl is high, I am speaking of credibility, of which CPS has none, not of dangers to this young mother. Although, your positive statement of what CPS and Texas WILL do to this young mother does relieve my fears somewhat, as your track record with such predictions has been pretty nearly perfect- what you predict is not what usually happens.

So because CPS has almost never told the truth here, I see no reason to believe that CPS did not lead this young mother to believe that the November meeting was a meet and greet with no DNA testing planned. I would even venture to guess that the baby was the child of a sister wife, so it was even dishonest IF she said she was the baby's mother. They told her they wanted to see what sort of a mother she was. They could do that just as well by watching her mother a sister wife's child.

Texas remains demonstrably unconcerned with child safety issues or criminal activity. Their double standard- the immense resources focused on this one 17 year old and her baby while ignoring hundreds and hundreds of young mothers who are 12-15 and impregnated by adult men but who are not FLDS- brings shame and reproach on them.

And no, I certainly do not want to see her in jail. I am pretty sure nobody involved wants to see that happen. Do you know what everybody but you would like to see happen even less than that? her baby end up in the cesspool that is Tx foster care.

At this point, she has every reason to believe there are two choices before her- both of them evil. One is to go to jail. The other is to risk her baby being taken by CPS. I know which one I would choose, I know which one I would hope my own daughter would choose (I am to be a grandmama in September) for her child.

It is an evil thing for a state to force any mother to make such a choice. It is nearly as evil to force a mother to choose between sending a man she loves to jail for no worse crime than loving her back and agreeing to take care of her and her baby.

TxBluesMan said...

If you can push back hard, then she's an adult.

For criminal purposes, such as contempt, she became an adult last August, when she turned 17, as I have repeatedly pointed out. For family law purposes, she doesn't become an adult until she turns 18.


The reason that I don't point out the numerous times that the FLDS have been caught in a lie is because you don't trust the source, just as I don't trust the source of the allegations of CPS supposed lies. I can list example after example, but since it comes from law enforcement and CPS, you won't believe it, any more than I will believe anything that Willie Jessop says anymore.

On predictions, if you go back and look, a good number of my predictions have been dead on. I was wrong on two. The 3COA decision and the SCOT decision. The rest have turned out to be remarkably accurate, although in some cases the tactics used were different than I would have chosen (like the interviews of Ranger Long and Sheriff Doran).

I will freely admit that Texas is pigheaded and stubborn about enforcing its laws. So far there are 20 indictments for offenses against the peace and dignity of the State of Texas. The difference is that I realize, and most (not all) FLDS supporters don't acknowledge, is that the FLDS brought this on themselves by violating the law.

I have no desire to see that baby go into foster care - but if it does, then the blame is on the young lady that has decided to defy a court order.

The State is not forcing her to make that choice, she is doing it on her own, and she is responsible for the consequences of her own decision.

I hope that she makes a good one. Either way, she has to be accountable for her decision.

JJ said...

Hi Regina,

One of things that has stood out in my mind in all of this is that while CPS has said they will not take T. Steed into custody, they have not said they will not take the baby. They as others have already pointed out, have lied when they set up the "meet & greet" where suddenly, by some amazing coincidence, another agency turned up to force the DNA.

As for Blues and his legal opinion, yes, it's possible that Steed could be charged and could be jailed. But what good purpose would it serve to do that Blues? Given that Texas and CPS have lied to this young woman, she hasn't as far as anyone knows had a case file opened on the baby or signed a parenting agreement, what right do they have to demand she produce the child?

They allege she's an abuse victim, but is it in the interest of justice to force a young woman who doesn't see herself as a victim to testify and produce evidence against her will? Are we not just guilty of abuse when the State steps in and compels a witness who has not brought a complaint? As you pointed out elsewhere, abortion isn't even a "safe" option as "the State will seize the remains of the aborted fetus to conduct DNA testing for criminal charges." What kind of system will disregard the choice of an alleged "victim" and further victimize them by forcing them to partake in a prosecution they don't want? Is that the kind of justice we want, the kind that causes more pain than relief to a "victim"?

Are her legitimate concerns really just "fluff with no meaning"? Again, no one has promised not to take the baby and even if they did, given CPS held adults with proof of age as minors, is that really a system that engenders trust? Can't you see the hypocrisy of claiming she's a child for the matter of her custody and in her rights as a parent, but an adult when it comes to charging her for what the State considers a crime and she considers protecting her child from CPS and foster care?

"I have no desire to see that baby go into foster care - but if it does, then the blame is on the young lady that has decided to defy a court order."

No Blues, the blame is not on Steed. The State and CPS have made no promises not to take that child. There comes a time, and you just might not get this, when ones own personal safety and freedom comes in second to the safety and welfare of those they love. Given everything we all know about CPS, this is one of those times and Steed may have to go as far as spending a few days in jail to safeguard her child, but let's see how long that would last once taken to a courtroom not run by Walther.

Irregardless of how the State views it, this is a consensual relationship not one involving something like the hesitant victim of a serial rapist who may endanger others by not providing evidence against the accused. Steed deserves the right to say no to both the State and to CPS.

rericson said...

I just deleted a comment because it served no purpose except to call names.

The person who posted it will understand this note.

Please, don't post things like that or I will take them down as soon as I see them.

rericson said...

Give it a rest. I have taken down comments from folks on both "sides" of the issue(s) that say nothing but mudsling. I have "adjusted" a comment of Bill's in order to remove the mud...
I will continue to do that. And i wouldn't care if it was my dear old grandmother's post.
Find some other place to post name calling.

I also just took your last post down. There is no need to have the world know how silly you're being.

Anonymous said...

"Love of the Truth,
Thank you for your input. I would encourage you not to be a pendejo about what is going to happen."

Is this the name calling you hate so much?

TxBluesMan said...


Our system of government requires that court orders be obeyed. In addition to the court order, she was served with a search warrant for the DNA of the child.

She ignores both at her own peril.

The FLDS, just like the LDS of old, do not get to determine what laws that they will follow, and what they won't.

If this continues, it will just get worse and worse for them, for like the Federal Government from 1857 to 1896, Texas isn't going to back down until the FLDS complies with the laws.

The last time this happened, the Mormons ended up losing all of the LDS property.

Gee, isn't that what is happening with the UEP?

Ron in Houston said...

The line between CPS and law enforcement is often fuzzy. This is one of those cases. CPS really only wants the DNA in order to assist law enforcement with the prosecution of that father of the child.

I think whether you cry foul or not over this depends on your views of whether the father should be prosecuted.

I have a distaste for using civil proceedings as a way to collect criminal evidence. To me, if law enforcement is after the father of the child then they can use the grand jury subpoena process.

JJ said...

Blues said, "Our system of government requires that court orders be obeyed. In addition to the court order, she was served with a search warrant for the DNA of the child."

Does that court order apply across state lines? They can bring all the warrants they want to her current residence, but if the child is not there, what jurisdiction do they have? Would they not have to first locate the child and then go through local courts? Again, I ask, how can they rationalize the incarceration of a young woman they consider a child in regards to the matter of her custody and in her rights as a parent, but an adult when it comes to charging her for what the State considers a crime and she considers protecting her child from CPS and foster care?

We don't usually agree, but in this I will agree with you. I don't believe CPS has any concern for either Steed or the baby, just in aiding LE in making a case and saving as much face as they possibly can.

If I cry foul, it's more with the belief that Steed has the right to not aid in a prosecution she doesn't want. As the alleged victim, does she have no rights whatsoever in regards to her own case? In the attempt to force her to do so, Texas is creating a victim of their own actions. If Texas applied their laws across the board, equally to every young mother under a certain age and used the same resources to do so, I would have no argument. But the fact is, they don't. They don''t do sweeps of High Schools and demand the names of the fathers of babies born to underage mothers or demand the DNA of all those babies in order to find them and prosecute. They don't go into the neighborhoods and do the same.

And I do agree that if they want to prosecute the father, let LE do it's job with the grand jury. Allow Steed to face a grand jury with a criminal lawyer to advise her of her rights and remove CPS from the process. In approximately six months Steed will be a legal adult. What purpose does it serve to threaten her with jail except to pander to "the peace and dignity of the State of Texas"? An oxymoron given the state of the LE system in Texas as it currently stands.

I guess we'll see what happens on Friday (Amazing how it's always Friday and the weekend looms without things being sealed and how often they leak.) and what relief Steed's lawyer applies for if the worst happens. Personally, I hope Ms. Steed stands her ground and this moves to a higher court where motions from Steed's lawyer will get a fair hearing.

TxBluesMan said...


The Rangers attempted to serve a search warrant for the child's DNA in November, while the girl was leaving the courthouse.

I would imagine that what Willie Jessop has omitted from his statement is that the AGs Office had a warrant when she used the other person's baby for the DNA sample.

Since the existence of the girls real baby is probable cause, in and of itself, it would take about two seconds to obtain a new warrant.

Second, if they did have a warrant, it eliminates any argument about the 'fuzzy line' between law enforcement and CPS.

Third, it also greatly increases the likelihood that she will be charged with tampering with evidence. Thinking about it that way, she might be served with an arrest warrant for that at her Friday hearing, although I can see it going the other way (psych eval and contempt) also. It's just too hard to call right now.

That poor young girl is about to get a crash course in what being stupid will get you.

Someone really needs to get it through to her what the consequences of her actions may be, before she goes further down that path. Hopefully she has not already passed the point of no return...

TxBluesMan said...


Does that court order apply across state lines? They can bring all the warrants they want to her current residence, but if the child is not there, what jurisdiction do they have?

The order was to the 17 year old girl, and she is present in Texas. If the baby is not in Texas, all she has to do is to tell the court where the baby is.

Personally, I hope Ms. Steed stands her ground and this moves to a higher court where motions from Steed's lawyer will get a fair hearing.

The only way for this to move to a higher court is for the 17 year old to be incarcerated for contempt, which would allow her attorney to file a petition for mandamus. There are no interlocutory appeals on the order for producing the child, and if a warrant is involved and she is arrested on a criminal charge, she would have to go through a motion to suppress first (which would fail). She would then have to be found guilty before she could appeal.

The only thing standing her gound is likely to accomplish is her being committed to jail.

cheese said...

Anonymous said...

"The fact of the matter is that CPS DID NOT KNOW the girl was two weeks away from having a baby until the FBI told them that after tapping the phones and hearing about the baby through "Chatter"."

And this is the same "all knowing CPS" that could spot "pregnant teens" who later proved to be adults!

And this is the all knowing

rericson said...

I wasn't aware of what "pendejo" meant when I saw's not a common slang word in my world, sorry...
I just looked it up and from what I can tell, blues was using it to say "don't be stupid"...If I had known what it was, I probably would have taken it out, or at least asked bluesman to refrain in the future, even from some of the milder kinds of name calling...
Since it is way back in the first posts, for me to take it out and repost his comment without that would put the entire post out of context....and that doesn't make sense, either...
so, since it is a relatively mild "name calling", I'm leaving, this time...
Sorry, it was my error...

Lucille said...

Documented cases of FLDS lying abound.

Pure B.S. You have never produced one documented case of the residents of YFZ lying. When you were challenged to produce one, you resorted to a very ambiguous example, the statements of Teresa Jeffs. You're hardly credible in any respect. There are no documented cases of FLDS members lying re this affair, as HM noted.

The only thing standing her gound [sic] is likely to accomplish is her being committed to jail.

More nonsense, more falsehoods from you. Her standing her ground has denied CPS access to her child. She is successful thus far. True, she might back down - I don't claim to predict the future - but she has frustrated their aims.

rericson said...

Lucille, et al...
Actually, I can, off the top of my head, think of two instances where the FLDS lied...Two! That's it...I mean, there may be others...but in all of the "stuff" that has gone around for the past ten months, I can only think of two..compared to the countless acts of duplicity on the part of CPS, and other "system" folks...
1. The oft cited promise of 1953 to no longer engage in underage marriages....this one gets raised all of the time....
2. The expressed intent for use statement given about the YfZ lands when they were originally purchased....

That's it....there may be others, but they are few, and far between...and nothing compared to the duplicitous behavior of so many concerned with these cases on the prosecution or child welfare end of things.....

Anonymous said...

2. The expressed intent for use statement given about the YfZ lands when they were originally purchased....

Regina? How do you know that was a lie? You don't know the circumstances behind it, as far as David knew maybe that's all the intent was. Maybe WSJ came and saw the land, the resources and changed the purpose of the land, lots of people do what they are told not knowing the intents and purposes that they are told. I take issue with you saying that that is a documented lie, when we don't really know that.

TxBluesMan said...


My intent was to tell him not to be stupid, not to overlook what was about to happen to the young lady. It wasn't meant to say that he was stupid, and wasn't meant to be insulting.

It's fairly common 'round 'bout here, and I didn't even think about it...

If you don't want me to do that, I'll try and refrain - it is of course your blog and your rules. As a guest, I need to obey the rules of your house...

JJ said...

Blues, I would be greatly heartened if you could stop sounding like a DA crying eternal doom & gloom to threaten a reluctant witness into doing the States work for them and a little more like a human being capable of understanding, at the very least, Steeds concern for her child's safety and welfare.

You continue to repeat the same information and the looming threat of jail if Steed doesn't produce the child, but not one word on the possible consequences of bringing that child back to Texas. Like the minute she does, CPS could and would swoop in and take custody of the baby. Do you by some chance believe Steed could be reading here? Is it your intention to frighten her into compliance by repeating the threat of possible charges and jail over and over again? She's not a child and I'm sure she has been told of the possible consequences a number of times.

I'm sure the jailing of a 17 year old mother over the safety of her child, forced prosecution and issue of DNA is not something Texas wants to play out in the national and international media. And should they take the extreme of jailing this young woman, it is something that will. And I would hazard a guess it will not reflect well on either Texas or CPS and would start to involve a number of individuals and agencies they would not care to deal with. Of course this is the point where you will tell the world to bring it on because Texas doesn't care, but given the record, perhaps they should. One in twenty of it's citizens in the system, judges and LE up on a number of ugly charges, DNA exonerations, the numbers of young men in prison on Romeo & Juliet charges, TYC, Lawrence v. Texas, not to mention the Judge Keller debacle and the appointment and the appointment of Shanda Perkins of the sex toy scandal fame to the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

You say "all she has to do is tell the court where the baby is" like we're discussing a piece of meat and not a child and a loving, caring mother in the mix. It doesn't wash and I believe you know that, as not once have you admitted the dangers of foster care or the very real possibility that they will take the baby even if they don't charge the mother before doing so.

The law may be the law Blues, but what does it say about those who wield it when they do so without common sense and compassion? What does it say about us if we allow such a system to continue to function without questioning it?

Lucille said...

JJ, I highly doubt TBM is capable of thinking through those questions. It simply does not fit his fundamental worldview. Good, and evil, do not exist outside of the law.

I notice he's again avoided - naturally - the question about just what the vast amounts of FLDS lies are. He doesn't seem to have any substantiated lies to point to.

rericson said...

L of T-
Actually, I don't remember where I read it, but I did read a statement, from someone from the ranch to the people, maybe it was through Doran, I honestly don't remember, but it took place during a meeting long before the raid, where there was an appology for having been duplicitous about the stated reason for the purchase....

I truly can't remember when or where I read it, but I know I did...maybe someone else has a better memory than I do....

Blues, I said you were using the term to say "DON'T be stupid.."

I just want people to generally be careful to not call names, because once that crap starts, it becomes a free for all and we all get caught in the emotions of the moment and sometimes cross lines that stop good talk and give rise to angry defensive postioning...there's enough of that on other blogs....

I have to be at a school thirty miles from here in less than an hour so I'll see all y'all later!!!!

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I do not have strong opinions either way about whether or not the father should be prosecuted. I don't know.

I do have very strong opinions on the morality of the state using emotional blackmail and the unconstitutional power of CPS to steal a baby and place it in high risk situations in order to coerce a 17 year old mother into helping the state make its case against her will.

The threat of jail would not, to me, be a more dire threat than the threat of losing my child to the maws of Texas foster care, and CPS has very pointedly NOT promised their intention is not to remove the baby.
Basically, Blues, your threats about jail (veiled as compassion) are the moral equivalent of saying, "Let us cut off your arm or we are going to shave your head."

Documented cases of FLDS lying abound.

If this were true, you could produce them.

From the first moment I heard of the case (when they were still looking for Sarah) I did not automatically accept the word of any FLDS member because I had no knowledge of them other than what I was reading. However, it did not take more than a few days to notice that I didn't have to take the word of anybody, CPS or FLDS- in every single case where the two sides were making disparate claims, if there was third party confirmation available, that third party confirmation supported the FLDS.

Every time. I have not found one single example of a CPS or LE claim substantiated by a third party which supports their word against the FLDS.

The FLDS representative who worked out the details of the ranch back in 2004 or so may or may not have 'lied' about the purpose of the ranch- even if he did, I would put that very low on any list, because it was not anybody's business what it was for and I do not believe we are obligated to be 100 percent revealing of our lives to busy bodies. It's not be substantiated, at any rate, and furthermore, it happened before this CPS fiasco.

You began, TX, by pointing out the agreement with CPS, setting forth the conditions for her to produce the child, are sealed so we don't know the exact conditions. If those conditions are as straightforward as you imagine, there would be little point in sealing them. He could be lying, but at this point I see no reason to disbelieve Willy's account that the conditions included a meet and greet session where no DNA would be taken.
CPS IS obviously lying, however, right before our eyes when they file court documents expressing crocodile teary concern about the girl's mental health and a need for a psychiatric evaluation.

She has kept her child away from CPS five months longer than she would have if she had produced the child. I don't consider this silly, foolish, or criminal.

Anonymous said...

JJ, unfortunately, if the young lady continues to defy a judge and court order, she will be placed in jail. How this will ride out in the public at this point, especially after the debacle yesterday of a FLDS member destroying the legal winter crop of a non-FLDS member's legally leased land, is just ONE more illegal activity of the FLDS. This will reflect on the entire community in the eyes of the public, especially as this girl is so young that it will be seen as she is following orders from "higher" ups.

At this point after the release of WSJ's ramblings, now the incident on leased UEP land, and the unlawful activity of this young lady, one more incident will just convince the general public that all defactors have been right all along and that the FLDS is nothing more than a lawless cult.

The best thing this girl could do for the image of the FLDS is to not bring yet another lawless act into the mix.

Lucille said...

Anon, quit your whining about some poor think about who formed the UEP, who used their funds to buy the UEP properties, who developed the UEP properties, who farmed them, who built up the community there.

I don't have any sympathy for anyone who stood to benefit from Wisan's utterly immoral (no, Bluesy, I didn't say illegal, so pipe down) deeds. Let Wisan, or the state pay him back - out of their own money, not by spending money or selling land that is the rightful property of the FLDS members of the Twin Cities.

Lucille said...

By "some poor" I meant to say some poor dupe or crony of Bruce Wisan.

TxBluesMan said...


This isn't about a reluctant witness. She has not been asked to testify. She HAS been ordered to produce the baby and has refused to do so. She HAS been deceptive in providing some other baby after an agreement was reached. She may have committed a felony in doing so, particularly if the AG's Office had a search warrant for the baby's DNA.

I understand her concerns. I also realize that once the court has issued an order, she is responsible for complying with that order. She is in a bad spot, but a lot of it is of her own making due to poor choices on her part.

You also do not understand how Texas operates. The State isn't going to care what the rest of the nation thinks. If the rest of the nation doesn't like it, Texans for the most part don't care. It is part of the overall culture here. Take the death penalty for example. Most states are appalled that we have executed 4 times as many as the #2 state - yet the regular pace continues and will go on until the 350 or so on death row are all gone. Our highest criminal court has told the Hague Court where the door was. You already know this.

She has a choice to make. I hope that she chooses wisely.


If you want documented evidence of FLDS lies, try looking at the following two videos.

#1 - MSN Keate Interview. In this interview, Rulon states that they have only boys, with Lorene sitting next to him and not correcting him.
#2 - Dateline Interview. The original video was on Youtube (later removed), I have seen it, in it Rulon and Lorene talk about how attached their daughter is to Lorene. The link was originally posted on Grits for Breakfast.

Which is true Lucille? Do they have only boys? Do they have a daughter? Which is true and which is a lie? They both can't be true - one is a lie.

If I get time, I'll post a more complete list on my blog.

JJ said...

Blues, you may not get this, but with the exit of the Bush Regime, the world of Texas is going to change regardless of whether Texas likes it or not. You say, "You also do not understand how Texas operates. The State isn't going to care what the rest of the nation thinks. If the rest of the nation doesn't like it, Texans for the most part don't care. It is part of the overall culture here." But what you fail to consider is that while "the State" may not care what the world thinks of it, Texans themselves care very much about their own and it's their own citizens who are affected by the decisions of the State. It's the citizens of Texas who are becoming tired of the State and it's policies and actions. They are the ones that pay in the end with their dollars, their families welfare and safety and while they may not care for the derision cast upon the State by those who do not live there, they do care very much when the States actions directly affect them personally.

As for my not understanding, well I have a number of family members born and bred all across Texas and spend a good deal of time with them. They are very proud of being Texans but not very proud of many of the things done by the State. Being proud of who you are and where you come from does not exclude knowing and acknowledging there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. They may love Texas with all their heart, but are losing that good ol' boy solidarity as more and more "issues" are finding their way out of the world of everyone knows about it and closes their eyes to it because that's just the way it is and into the spotlight. Hell, a good number of people knew what Bastrop County Sheriff Hernandez and County Commissioner Goertz were doing all along. The only thing that both pleased and surprised a good number of residents was that they were finally charged for it.

While Texans may be proud of their state Blues, they will also be the first ones to admit that it's corrupt. Texas is the only state I have ever been to where I have seen such fear of LE from law abiding citizens. Where I have seen an entire Cafe go silent when LE officers came in to dine. And not a Cafe filled with young possible miscreants, but filled with senior citizens and families.

Troup, Bastrop, Donna, Harlingen, Rusk. Your own newspapers report police, judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. You have only to read your own papers and the comment sections to see what Texans are saying about the system in Texas. But I guess the State really doesn't care what others say about them.....even their own. That's a mistake and the State may wake up one day very surprised to find it's citizens not crying foul at Federal interventions.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the father of this girl's baby come forward? Or why hasn't he come forward? This girl is having to deal with this, while the father is probably hiding out of state.
We know who the father of the child is, yet now the girl's baby can't be found, she produced someone else's baby to the court.

Ron in Houston said...

This one can't be 100% proven to be a lie, but it sure rings high on the BS meter:

From this article

It was Jessop who announced that the FLDS church leadership was apparently ready to give up the practice of marrying underage girls, a practice that Jessop had denied any knowledge of the week before.

Willie didn't know of any underage marriages? Well, perhaps, but I highly, highly doubt it.

Lucille said...

Why doesn't the father of this girl's baby come forward? Or why hasn't he come forward? This girl is having to deal with this, while the father is probably hiding out of state.

Why, exactly, should he? What benefit do Teresa or her child stand to gain from him deciding to "come forward"? (I gather you mean that he should "come forward" to CPS or law enforcement, because he certainly has never denied paternity within the community.) What benefit does he stand to gain? What benefit do any other FLDS members stand to gain?

Lucille said...

TBM has performed the amazing feat of providing one example several weeks (at least) after being first asked. Quite impressive, really. I didn't think him capable of it.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

If a man did come forward claiming to be the father, would that stop the state from demanding the baby be produced? No. They would insist the baby be presented so they could check his story, and the baby would be just as much at risk as before. So why would a father endanger his child that way?

Less importantly, and hypothetically, the mother has made significant efforts to stand up for herself and her child by refusing to give her baby to CPS or denounce the father to LE. Do you suppose she wants him to nullify those efforts, to, in a sense, deny their importance by turning himself in? I doubt it. She might even find it insulting. So why should he?

Ron, is there a source actually quoting Willy saying he didn't know of any under-aged marriages ever performed? That article, which was clearly slanted, doesn't quote him or give a source, and I've seen other examples where reporters 'paraphrased' and their paraphrase did not reflect what had been said.

Blues, you may have come up with one example of one member of the FLDS not telling the truth to a reporter- if, indeed, he has a young daughter. I would prefer to hear him say so for myself, or see some other evidence. I would also be curious as to what he or his wife might say about that interview and their thought processes.

Again, I am not claiming that no FLDS ever under the sun have attempted to deceive anybody. I couldn't make that claim, as I don't personally know any FLDS, let alone every one of them, I presume they are human and may have moments of weakness or abstraction that afflict the rest of us, and I certainly have never seen any claims to perfection from the FLDS.

I am saying this: in every instance I know of where CPS said one thing and FLDS said another, when the conflicting statement was subject to third party investigation or confirmation, CPS was lying, FLDS members were not.
The track record here is amazingly consistent. CPS, for reasons I cannot grasp, seems to have deliberately and profligately squandered their credibility, while the FLDS seem to have walked a more careful line.

Here we have an FLDS member saying the meeting was a meet and greet, no DNA to be taken. We have the behavior of the young mother, which would tend to support that version and not Blue's. We are told the agreement setting forth the conditions for CPS interaction with the girl is sealed, indicating there were conditions and it sounds like CPS violated them.

We have evidence of CPS duplicity as we see them clearly lying to the court about their so-called concerns for the young mother, which nobody seriously believes.

We see that what the mother has at stake is her baby's health and safety, the safety of a man she presumably loves and who is needed in the community, and her own person (which is probably last on her list of priorities).

We see that what CPS has at stake is their own pride, their need to have something, anything at all to show for their multi-million dollar interference and traumatization of over 439 children, and vindictive desire to assist LE into manipulating a young mother into providing evidence against her will of a 'crime' in which she is purportedly the victim, and possibly removing a baby in spite of the fact that they have no evidence of danger to that child- not an admirable stance on the part of CPS.

It's possible that it's a lie and the girl was honestly told there would be LE at the meeting to take DNA. But the facts we know do not give me a reason to support that version over another.

As for what Texas does or doesn't care about- irrelevant. I've lived in Texas. My brother was born there. My son in law is from Texas, I have dear friends from Tx. And what most people outside of Texas observe is that a lot of Texans are more arrogant about their state with less reason than anybody else we know. All the bluster about what Texas does and doesn't care about is pathetic, really.
Odious self-complacency is not a substitute for integrity or morality. Texas hasn't demonstrated much of the latter two traits.

duaneh1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Heck Blues, you got women from all sides after ya! LOL
Guess this here is a women's only site!

Anonymous said...

"Take the death penalty for example. Most states are appalled that we have executed 4 times as many as the #2 state - yet the regular pace continues and will go on until the 350 or so on death row are all gone. Our highest criminal court has told the Hague Court where the door was. You already know this."

"She has a choice to make. I hope that she chooses wisely."

these are interesting statements! would you be suggesting the death penalty for this young lady trying to protect her child against the almighty cps aka the child sellers?

I know this is out of context but the fact that it was brought up in this case is more than a little disturbing!

why would anyone defend the cps organization unless they had some monetary gain?

Anonymous said...

I hate to say it but the FLDS keep shooting themselves in the foot:

More proof that the Colorado City Police will only work for the FLDS and not uphold the law.

This does not look good for the public image the FLDS are trying to foist on the public.

Anonymous said...

Associated Press
Dec. 8, 2008, 10:57PM
SAN ANTONIO — Investigators from the Texas Attorney General's Office on Monday took DNA samples from a baby born to a member of a polygamist sect months after a high-profile raid, thwarting efforts by the mother to prevent the sample from being collected.

Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, confirmed late Monday that investigators executed a search warrant and gathered a DNA swab. The office is handling the prosecution of some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints accused of charges including bigamy and sexual assault of a child.

Child welfare authorities previously tried to examine and collect a sample from the baby born June 14, saying they wanted to establish paternity, but the baby's 17-year-old mother refused to disclose the child's whereabouts. A stand-off in court in San Angelo on Nov. 25 led to an undisclosed agreement between the two sides.

But the search warrant, obtained in criminal court, forced the issue.

FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop said authorities went to an FLDS home in the San Antonio area, where some of the families have moved since the April raid on their West Texas ranch, and collected DNA from the baby girl.

He had said previously the teen mother, who was in foster care late in her pregnancy, was afraid authorities would take the newborn if she allowed them to examine the baby.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

You don't hate to say it at all, anonymous. I don't see anything there that has any connection with the contents of this post, either, or with what happened at YFZ.

Most members of the public are smart enough to know better than to tar and feather an entire religious group spread over several states for the actions of two farmers who apparently feel they have the right to do what they were doing.

During WW2, the American government legally interned Japanese citizens and confiscated their farms, then transferred them over to European immigrants or dust bowl migrants- this was all legal, but it wasn't moral. The government believed the Japanese were doing something wrong, but it was wrong. The new land owners had the legal deeds to the property, but they were profiting by the misery and unjust treatment of others. Had one of those Japanese farmers returned to his farm and plowed up the legal squatter's crop and I heard of it, I hope I would have not have been braying to others about how this proved the Japanese were not to be trusted and it sure didn't look good for the public image the Japanese were 'trying to foist on the public.'

Here in our time people lose land to the government all the time- for roads, for big box stores- it's unjust, but legal. And if some poor soul who has lost his property to eminent domain trespasses or refuses to leave in the first place (see the New London case), most people are sympathetic towards him.

I don't know the ins and outs of the whole Wisan/trust situation, except what little I've read doesn't impress me with Wisan's stewardship of the land or respect for religious beliefs. But whether he's 'legally' got the right to rent out FLDS land to others or not isn't the same thing as a moral right, and

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Oops, got cut off:
But whether he's 'legally' got the right to rent out FLDS land to others or not isn't the same thing as a moral right, and, I meant to say, I think most people who are not already predisposed to be hostile to the FLDS will view this incident with some charity, even if they think the two men plowing the field were in the wrong.

Anonymous said...
You can go here and read all about it.

by the way,, we were in a war with Japan, when the japanese were interred in the United States.

Anonymous said...

I've come to the conclusion that anonymous HAS to be a blond.

We were at war with the German's and the Italians too.

The fact is, the internment of the Japanese was unconstitutional. I know that doesn't disturb the supporters of the attack on the Ranch, but the Feds won't go along with it any more than they have the internment.

As far as lying, cheating and stealing is concerned, if that's against the Law, then the entire Bush Administration will soon be behind bars.

:)) GB

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

We were at war with the nation of Japan. That did not make it right to confiscate and resell the legally purchased land of Japanese-Americans and put them in camps.

You know, anon, in my initial comment I said something snippy like "And people like you would have been standing there cheering the theft from the Japanese as legal and good."

I deleted it because I thought it might be unfair and unkind. I was wrong. It would have been completely accurate.

I am not remotely interested in reading up on the details of the trust- I have limited time, resources, and energy, and as a mother who dresses funny, has religious values outside the mainstream and seven homeschooled children, the children being returned was my over-riding concern, and CPSs duplicity and disregard for children as well.

Details of the domestic life (not puerile details, just things like planting, harvesting, feeding, and caring for a family) interest me as a housewife with a large family.

Tedious details about the trust are too removed from me for me to pay close attention to them.

I am not going to argue the rights or wrongs of it, I am only pointing out that given the confusion around it, the facts that the public does understand- the court took the FLDS land for some reason and gave it Wisan's charge, and he leases it out to other people now, MOST people who don't already have a huge hate are going to feel some sympathy for the two guys who plowed that field even if they also think they were legally wrong to do so.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I didn't say I didn't know anything at all about it. I said I didn't know enough or care to know enough about the details to make a judgment call on whether the two men plowing were legally right or not. And I did not, in fact, give an opinion on anything related to the trust or the legalities therein.

My point was that you are mistaken in assuming this would necessarily give the FLDS a PR black eye with anybody who hadn't made up your mind, and that it is disingenuous of you to say "I really hate to say this..." when obviously you really like to say it.

I did not, in fact, take a stand on whether the two men were right or wrong.

YOU said that the two men plowing just made the FLDS look bad, yada, yada, yada and were damaging the FLDS public image. I pointed out that even if the two men are legally in the wrong, that's not necessarily true, and I gave examples of another situation where land was 'legally' taken by the government that wasn't morally right. You, um, defended the government for interning the Japanese and taking their land, giving us a fairly good idea of how much credence to give your other opinions, which seem to be 'if the government did it, it's right and anybody who disagrees is evil or stupid.' I suppose the Fugitive Slave Law was also a good thing in your book?

My point, once more, had nothing to do with the legal details of the trust and everything to do with your stated opinion of how bad this made the FLDS look to the general public:

I think most people who are not already predisposed to be hostile to the FLDS will view this incident with some charity, even if they think the two men plowing the field were in the wrong.

Anonymous said...

Slave laws were atrocious! Yet they are still being practiced in Flds with women and children.

Lucille said...

Slave laws are still being practiced by the FLDS? Which slave laws are you referring to?

TxBluesMan said...

Well, Ms. Steed's hearing should be underway as I write this.

Hopefully we will hear something soon.

I really hope that the girl doesn't talk her way into jail (that is, if it isn't too late for that hope)...

TxBluesMan said...

Well, apparently she wasn't that bright...

See my blog for the details.

Alinusara10 said...

It appears once again TxBluesMan is proven wrong.

Texas drops fight over FLDS baby,5143,705296001,00.html

Katelyn said...

I find it highly laughable that one would call TxBluesMan cold due to his logic and sophistication. Love of The Truth, your alias indicates that you would favor logic, as it leads to truth. Additionally, TxBluesMan commented in a very diplomatic and respectful way. On the other hand, you openly admit that you don't give a *#*! what his opinion is. Now, if you really cared about the truth, you would consider others' thoughts and opinions... Especially when such opinions are (in YOUR words) methodical.

About Me

My photo
First I am a mother, and grandmother....that is probably the single most important aspect of my life. Then I am a family advocate for a large, national advocacy organization. I work primarily in "systems advocay", helping to identify needs and change policies in children's behavioral health. And I love my dogs, my garden, my pond and fish, and trashy murder mysteries and the occasional shot of good scotch.... Fell free to post a note in whatever the most recent entry is...I love meeting new people!

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed