Whoa! Polygamist solution is frightening...

[mfblume]

What concerns me is that although some abuse was allegedly found amongst the polygamists, their children were taken while homosexual couples can adopt a child and that is allowable.

[SOUNWORTHY]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What concerns me is that although some abuse was allegedly found amongst the polygamists, their children were taken while homosexual couples can adopt a child and that is allowable.

Or some of the foster homes the children will be put into. Many if not most of the foster home people are not in the business for love but for money. We had a foster home next to us that the couple wasn't married and she slept around and he didn't seem to care,not sure how much better off the kids will be.

If it is the men who are wrong then go after the men, not the innocent women and kids. It's always the kids who suffer in situations like this. There are surely some good men left there that could stay.

[Margies3]

Originally Posted by SOUNWORTHY

Or some of the foster homes the children will be put into. Many if not most of the foster home people are not in the business for love but for money. We had a foster home next to us that the couple wasn't married and she slept around and he didn't seem to care,not sure how much better off the kids will be.

If it is the men who are wrong then go after the men, not the innocent women and kids. It's always the kids who suffer in situations like this. There are surely some good men left there that could stay.

Even if there are NO good men left to stay, if these mothers are not the ones who abused the young girls, then how do we justify taking the children from the mothers?

We've been licensed foster parents. And both of our boys were adopted from within 'the system' (meaning that we have them because their home situations were so bad they could not be allowed to stay with their biological parents. NOT because the biological parents made a choice to give them up).
I can't tell you how many times we've seen the system work in such a way that even tho the father was abusive, if the mother was willing to put the father out, then the mother was allowed to keep her child. In fact, in our oldest son's case, that is exactly the deal the mother was offered. All she had to do was get rid of the abusive father and she would have been allowed to keep her son. Instead she chose the father over her own son. That is why we have him today.

What I'm saying is that if they have mothers who love their children and are willing to do whatever it takes to keep them - get rid of the father, attending parenting classes, move away from the compound, or whatever! - then those children should be with their mothers.

The other question that I've had all along is this: I understand that there was abuse of young girls by making them have sex with these older men. That's deplorable!! But what about the little ones? The smaller ones? The toddlers? Were they abused in some way? If not, then how do they justify removing them from their birth mothers? Doesn't there need to be just cause for removal? You can't just lump them all together.

I've seen many, many times when one child in a home would be removed because that child was being abused, while the rest of the children would be left in the home. They could not remove them until they could prove that they were also being abused. I've seen that over and over. Why not in this case?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Margies3

Even if there are NO good men left to stay, if these mothers are not the ones who abused the young girls, then how do we justify taking the children from the mothers?

We've been licensed foster parents. And both of our boys were adopted from within 'the system' (meaning that we have them because their home situations were so bad they could not be allowed to stay with their biological parents. NOT because the biological parents made a choice to give them up).
I can't tell you how many times we've seen the system work in such a way that even tho the father was abusive, if the mother was willing to put the father out, then the mother was allowed to keep her child. In fact, in our oldest son's case, that is exactly the deal the mother was offered. All she had to do was get rid of the abusive father and she would have been allowed to keep her son. Instead she chose the father over her own son. That is why we have him today.

What I'm saying is that if they have mothers who love their children and are willing to do whatever it takes to keep them - get rid of the father, attending parenting classes, move away from the compound, or whatever! - then those children should be with their mothers.

The other question that I've had all along is this: I understand that there was abuse of young girls by making them have sex with these older men. That's deplorable!! But what about the little ones? The smaller ones? The toddlers? Were they abused in some way? If not, then how do they justify removing them from their birth mothers? Doesn't there need to be just cause for removal? You can't just lump them all together.

I've seen many, many times when one child in a home would be removed because that child was being abused, while the rest of the children would be left in the home. They could not remove them until they could prove that they were also being abused. I've seen that over and over. Why not in this case?

I don't understand why y'all don't get it. The parents promoted and facilitated this by orders of their leader. The PARENT'S allowed and helped these men use their daughters. The little ones and toddler's are the result of teenage mother's some as young as 12 or 13 when they started being molested and impregnated by men. I want to know where the real biological dad's are and if there is not some incest that was also going on. Because by now they are pretty much all related somewhere or will be somewhere down the line. Different mothers same fathers.

[The Mrs]

Just saw an interview with one of the women who declared, 'We are law-abiding citizens.'

Yet, from the reports I've seen so far their birth/marriage/death records are pretty much non-existent. Aren't there laws governing the recording of those events? I'm under the assumption that there are.

And if they are not finding the proper records, are they not breaking those laws?

How are they getting welfare assistance without SS #'s? If they have SS #'s, they have to have birth records somewhere, right? Why are they having a hard time locating those documents?

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Just saw an interview with one of the women who declared, 'We are law-abiding citizens.'

Yet, from the reports I've seen so far their birth/marriage/death records are pretty much non-existent. Aren't there laws governing the recording of those events? I'm under the assumption that there are.

And if they are not finding the proper records, are they not breaking those laws?

How are they getting welfare assistance without SS #'s? If they have SS #'s, they have to have birth records somewhere, right? Why are they having a hard time locating those documents?

This didn't start in Texas, it started in Utah and then Arizona, and finally Texas. As for the children born in Texas I am not sure. I don't know if they are receiving assistance from the state or not. I am assuming the reason the FBI is involved is because they crossed state lines.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Brother Hall, if I had 2 or 3 children and I was 16 years old, that would mean I was at least pre-teen when I started having kids. Lets call it what it is, very young girls and I hate to use this vernacular were "pimped" out to old men under the guise of relegious purposes of their "family". Now I feel if this is true these men are pedophiles and they don't have to go and try to find children to molest, they are provided for them by their parents. If you are married, ask your wife if she would mind if you got a "spiritual" 13 -15 year old wife.

I agree with you. I'm concerned with the fact that these people don't know any other way of life. This could cause them far more trauma than marrying at 16.

What if an Amish community married their daughters at 16 in a state where it was legal? Should we send in the government to tell them, "Don't do that. We don't like your ways?"

There's a fine line here. I heard a Fox News reporter saying that since these young ladies don't know any difference we have a moral responsibility to bust in there and tell them they can live how they want to. Something in my heart just said, "Really?" Think about it...what if they disagreed with the way we make our girls dress? What if they felt it was abusive to make a young girl dress in a dress during winter and called it "abuse"?

So far I'm hearing there's no evidence of anything illegal yet. All of these was instigated by a call that hasn't even been proven to have described a real event.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What concerns me is that although some abuse was allegedly found amongst the polygamists, their children were taken while homosexual couples can adopt a child and that is allowable.

Wow! Very interesting point bro.

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

I don't understand why y'all don't get it. The parents promoted and facilitated this by orders of their leader. The PARENT'S allowed and helped these men use their daughters. The little ones and toddler's are the result of teenage mother's some as young as 12 or 13 when they started being molested and impregnated by men. I want to know where the real biological dad's are and if there is not some incest that was also going on. Because by now they are pretty much all related somewhere or will be somewhere down the line. Different mothers same fathers.

Here's the deal...there's no proof of any of all these accusations yet. This are accusations that are being imposed upon them. They are innocent until proven guilty...we need proof. And so far...even the initial call may have been a disgusted neighbor, not a real case of abuse.

If all of this is verified fact, can you provide me some sources so I can know for sure all this was happening?

[ChristopherHall]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Just saw an interview with one of the women who declared, 'We are law-abiding citizens.'

Yet, from the reports I've seen so far their birth/marriage/death records are pretty much non-existent. Aren't there laws governing the recording of those events? I'm under the assumption that there are.

And if they are not finding the proper records, are they not breaking those laws?

How are they getting welfare assistance without SS #'s? If they have SS #'s, they have to have birth records somewhere, right? Why are they having a hard time locating those documents?

I just heard that a book was found with listings of men and their spiritual wives. From what was just said it appears that all of those looked at on the list so far were 16 or older. I think the age of consent in TX is 17.

From my understanding there isn’t any law requiring birth, marriage, or death certificates. Also I don’t think people are required to have a SSN. I think there are some in the Amish community, German Baptist, and even Christian Science that don’t have them. There are clauses in the law that allows people to forgo those records and paperwork out of religious convictions. I believe they are receiving benefits through provisions in the law that recognize these rights.