aren't girls between 14 & 17 technically children?

Parent Cafe
21

<p>They did make an exception for babies 12 months or younger and allow them to stay with their mothers. But lots of children who are older than that nurse. It is certainly not unusual to nurse until at least 15 to 18 months old. It looks like nursing status was irrelevant to the Texas authorities. How cruel is that! This sounds like Nazi Germany, when children were taken away from parents.There are absolutely no reports of evidence of abuse in these younger children. No bruises, unexplained injuries, nothing. </p>

<p>Article follows:</p>

<p>‘I need her back’ FLDS mothers recount being separated from children
By Christopher Smart
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/24/2008 06:56:02 PM MDT</p>

<p>Posted: 6:47 PM- ELDORADO, Texas - An FLDS woman choked back tears today as she described how her 13-month-old baby was taken from her at the San Angelo Coliseum.
The woman, who identified herself as Velvet, 31, was among 64 women who left the coliseum, some to go stay with their babies of 12 months and younger. Velvet said she does not know where her child is tonight.
“She’s still nursing. She’s never had a bottle before. I need her back,” Velvet said.
Today’s exodus included the women and 63 children. Seventeen women with babies 12 months and under were to be taken to a care facility with their children.
Texas Child Protective Services workers separated 47 women from their children. Of those, 40 went to another, undisclosed location, and seven returned to the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ ranch in Eldorado.
As this evening, 260 children remained at the coliseum and will be moved out in coming days, officials said. On Tuesday, 111 children 5 and older left San Angelo for foster homes across the state, a CPS spokeswoman said.
On Wednesday, Tom Green County District Judge Barbara Walther reversed an earlier decision and asked CPS to keep the youngest babies with their mothers and to keep mothers with children over 12 months old in close proximity to them.
This evening, however, another woman, Ruth, who spoke at the gate to the ranch, said all her children - twins just over 12 months old, and a 2- and 4-year-old - were taken away. Ruth and Velvet also said that CPS workers told them that if they chose to return to the ranch, they would not see their children again.
Earlier today, CPS spokesman Darrell Azar denied those allegations, saying the separations had no bearing on the outcome of the case.
Velvet said she returned to the ranch because she doesn’t trust the CPS, claiming workers had lied to her all along.
CPS attorney Gary Banks told the judge Wednesday that siblings would be kept together. But Ruth, 34, said her twins were not being placed with the older children.
She also said that when the CPS workers took the children, the older ones cried, saying, "Mother, Mother, don’t let them take us away, we want to be with you.’ "
Asked what was like to be back on the ranch without her children, Ruth said, “I can’t even imagine life without my children. It’s very emotional to come here and not have them with me.”</p>

22

<p>nameneeded - hey, I’m the queen of extended nursing, having nursed two kids for a total of 40 months. So yes, I know that some mothers nurse beyond 12 months.</p>

<p>Having been a La Leche League leader for several years, it’s sad to say that the majority of moms do not nurse 15-18 months, so our society has developed an attitude of antipathy toward it. Frankly, I’m surprised the judge used the cut off age of 12 months and not six months. </p>

<p>The other issue here was the staggering numbers of placements that they had to make. Since I’m sure they made it a top priority to keep nursing babies under twelve months with their moms, it made it impossible to honor all placement requests.</p>

23

<p>plus they need dna to figure out who goes with who.</p>

<p>( I nursed my kids for about 100 months combined :wink: and yes I only have two kids)</p>

24

<p>

So you think the mothers have no culpability in this abuse at all?</p>

25

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad - </p>

<p>This is where this situation becomes challenging and sticky; I truly believe these mothers when they say they don’t believe there has been any abuse, because they’ve been brainwashed to believe what’s going on is not abuse. It will take many, many months if not years for these women to trust outsiders enough to accept the fact that they were breaking the law. </p>

<p>But the question is, if they truly do not believe what was going on was illegal, can they be held accountable for it? I think once they’ve been told so, they should be, but how do you articulate this to women who have been told the things about the outside world (that they’ve been told by the men of their cult) in a way that they can comprehend it and understand the consequences if they do not cooperate?</p>

26

<p>I don’t know the backgrounds of all the women but I also don’t know the backgrounds of all the men who were involved so I suppose some of them could also fall into the ‘brainwashed’ category. But in our society adults have to take some responsibility. I think in this case it’ll be for a judge and jury to determine.</p>

<p>But whether they were brainwashed or not, they still allowed this to happen or might have even more actively participated and therefore are inclined to continue to allow this behavior and are therefore a threat to these kids.</p>

27

<p>I’d like to ask a couple very politically incorrect questions without getting pounced on for endorsing rape of children.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>While polygamy is against the law, I have trouble understanding why it is illegal (aside from left over religious laws). In the land of the free, why do we care whether someone wants to marry multiple people? I know some such relationships are abusive (perhaps more than normal marriages), but there’s no shortage of abusive normal marriages either. I just don’t understand why we care as a collective represented by a government.</p></li>
<li><p>We as a society seem to live in fear of teenage sexuality. Biologically we are programmed to bear children between about 15 and 35 and raise children from about 60 on up. We have set up a society in which those who bear children also raise them rather than a society in which the elders who have self actualized raise the children born by young people who have yet to self actualize.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>So, while it is obviously wrong if 15-17 year olds are forced into relationships against their will with older men, is it intrinsically wrong that they are bearing children? It seems they are the most physically capable of doing so, from a biological perspective.</p>

28

<p>“I nursed my kids for about 100 months combined and yes I only have two kids)”</p>

<p>So I assume you would have been very upset if the state or city decided to take them away from you at 12 months old? There’s no justification to separate mothers and children besides illness or death of the mother or signs of direct abuse. And abuse isn’t always that easy to prove.</p>

<p>I am sure that the mothers know who the children are. I think the DNA is to sort out the fathers to use in the case against them.</p>

<p>“But whether they were brainwashed or not, they still allowed this to happen or might have even more actively participated and therefore are inclined to continue to allow this behavior and are therefore a threat to these kids.”</p>

<p>Um, they are a threat to a 15 month old, or an 8 year old? I have seen parents who have abused children be allowed to keep them with supervised visits. Certainly, there is no risk to the younger children, and if you have a beef about the teen girls, then supervise them.</p>

<p>The foster care system stinks and those girls would be better off supervised with their moms. There would be far more visibilty. And do you have any idea how many girls get raped and/or pregnant in foster care? I do, and it’s plenty.</p>

29

<p>Well, they may be biologically ready, but in most cases, the state pays for the care of the children, so I think the government should have a say. </p>

<p>I think that the parents of pregnant teens need to be held as responsible as these women are being held. So separate all teen mothers from their parents. Put them under state care and have the mothers and children live in state run compounds, or in foster care. And have their parents support the teen and her babies. The father can also help out, if he can be identified by DNA.</p>

30

<p>*“I nursed my kids for about 100 months combined and yes I only have two kids)”</p>

<p>So I assume you would have been very upset if the state or city decided to take them away from you at 12 months old? There’s no justification to separate mothers and children besides illness or death of the mother or signs of direct abuse. And abuse isn’t always that easy to prove.*</p>

<p>THere doesn’t have to be abuse to take the kids away for investigation- just a complaint.
I am sure when Texas case works its way through the court system many of kids will be returned just as mine were to me. Of course mine weren’t pregnant, they were attending fancy private schools and had more books in their bedroom than I bet the whole compound had.</p>

<p>The state took my kids away from me when they were school age- in fact as I have posted on CC, because of an unsubstantiated complaint by a crazy person, police came into each of their schools and removed them.</p>

<p>I was not any less upset to have that done to school age children, than I would have been for infants, actually more so, than an infant, because my children will remember that incident for a long time, while I don’t think babies would.</p>

31

<p>Nameneeded - </p>

<p>Are you being sarcastic? I’m not understanding why you want government to hold peoples’ hands so much or treat people so cruelly simply for bringing a child into the world. </p>

<p>If an adult is willing to raise a child, why is it inherently wrong for a teenager to willfully and without coersion bear a child?</p>

<p>Edit - oh. I think I get it. You’re just mad that the state took the compound children and want the same done to all situations, right?</p>

32

<p>“THere doesn’t have to be abuse to take the kids away for investigation- just a complaint.
I am sure when Texas case works its way through the court system many of kids will be returned just as mine were to me. Of course mine weren’t pregnant, they were attending fancy private schools and had more books in their bedroom than I bet the whole compound had.”</p>

<p>I don’t think that you know exactly what was on the compound. </p>

<p>In the jurisdiction where I live, there has to be something more substantive to separate children from mothers than what they are going on in this case. There is absolutely no reported evedence of abuse of babies, toddlers or the younger children. The complaints are about the teen-aged girls. The younger children could stay with the mothers, and even the teen-aged girls with supervision. That would be a lot less harmful than separating them now. Protective services constantly strives to keep children with their natural mothers or fathers if available. It is very shocking that they are doing this now, in a way that clearly is traumatic for the children. </p>

<p>They clearly are allowing politics to govern, and sacrificing the children for their political agenda. Very cruel.</p>

33

<p>nameneeded: As is obvious to everyone who pays attention, in households where abuse has been suspected to take place (and, in this case, since all of the households pledge themselves to an ideology which holds principles that include abuse, the entire compound), the children are taken into protective custody first, and only returned once the complaints have been proven false on a per-household basis. It’s cruel, but better safe than sorry.</p>

34

<p>a situation where over half of the menstruating girls have borne children or are about to do so, bears investigating- especially when the fathers are old enough to be their grandfathers and they are not independent/self supporting. = have freedom.</p>

<p>IMO for children to witness young adolescent girls being forced to bear children and care for them is child abuse, especially knowing that when they get just a little older, that is what is in store for them as well.</p>

35

<p>applejack: I just want equal treatment. If the state is destroying these maternal-child bonds, then let them do it to every family that has a pregnant teenager.</p>

<p>I am very upset that they are taking these children away from their mothers, and cannot understand why La leche League and other people concerned with child welfare are so silent.</p>

<p>So many children are returned ot incompetent parents, many of whom then reinjure or kill their children. These mothers pose no threat to their children at this time. They can have the teens separated from the abusive men, and supervise them. Far worse parents get their children and then get state supervision.</p>

36

<p>“IMO for children to witness young adolescent girls being forced to bear children and care for them is child abuse, especially knowing that when they get just a little older, that is what is in store for them as well.”</p>

<p>So then go into the cities where 40-60% of teenagers have babies by the time they are 18 years old, and remove all of the girls, as well. Remove all female children, knowing they will have children when they are teens. Can’t have it both ways.</p>

<p>And children are removed when there is clear evidence of abuse. Not in this kind of situation. They can be supervised. They are at no risk.</p>

37

<p>“nameneeded: As is obvious to everyone who pays attention, in households where abuse has been suspected to take place (and, in this case, since all of the households pledge themselves to an ideology which holds principles that include abuse, the entire compound), the children are taken into protective custody first, and only returned once the complaints have been proven false on a per-household basis. It’s cruel, but better safe than sorry.”</p>

<p>That simply is not true. I report several cases of suspected child abuse or neglect a month, and it is extremely rare that the children are removed from the homes. Usually they are given to a relative to take care of, with supervised visits by the parent. I don’t recall a single case where the child has permanently been removed from contact in some form with the parent. The PS system favors the parent. part of it is that foster care is so risky, as so much abuse, including rape occurs in foster homes. </p>

<p>This case is very politically motivated. These children are at no risk while being supervised and foster care is not a good option for them versus supervision under their mom’s care.</p>

38

<p>So then go into the cities where 40-60% of teenagers have babies by the time they are 18 years old, and remove all of the girls, as well. Remove all female children, knowing they will have children when they are teens. Can’t have it both ways.</p>

<p>Which cities would those be?</p>

39

<p>Of the 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split - 197 girls and 196 boys - but there are only 17 boys age 14 to 17, compared with the 53 girls in that age range.</p>

<p>Wonder what happened to the boys?</p>

<p>Under Texas law, children younger than 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but none of these girls is believed to have a legal marriage under state law.</p>

40

<p>What they really needed to do was to go in and round up all the men and force them out and keep them out. The women and children could stay in the compound and professionals sent in with experience in dealing with cults and brain washing. I hate the thought of the children being separated from their mothers, but every minute those children stay with their mothers, they are in training to accept abuse.</p>