« Would Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin be a grand slam as McCain's Veep? | Main | Coffin nails, lies, and the junior senator from Illinois »
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Texas CPS workers interviewed on FLDS intervention
In a comment to my last post on the FLDS polygamy/child abuse controversy, regular reader and commenter DRJ left this link to a San Angelo newspaper's interview with some of the Children's Protective Services workers who were involved in the initial intervention at the Yearning for Zion ranch and who continue to be involved in the on-going investigation. Their viewpoints haven't much been heard, and I agree with her that they deserve to be, at least to the limited extent that they can speak out now without discussing individual pending cases. A sample:
"We have to back it up with fact," said special investigator Paul Dyer. "That's what we're doing. What you may read in the newspaper or see on the television — that's not necessarily supported by fact. Our investigation is and will be supported by fact."
....
For Dyer and fellow special investigator Eric Sanders — retired law enforcement officers who work on investigations and often serve as protection for female caseworkers — the wait that night was especially tense.
Jessop would allow only women into the compound. The men, waiting outside the gate with law enforcement and other CPS employees, slept in cars, walked outside and fidgeted while lightning flashed ominously in the black night.
Inside, according to Voss' testimony at an en masse hearing two weeks later and signed affidavits filed by CPS, the investigators ran into resistance — changing birthdates, coached answers, missing or shredded documents.
Distrust had already been high. The sect waited four hours before allowing law enforcement and CPS — which had a court order signed by 51st District Judge Barbara Walther — through the front gates, negotiating the terms of their entrance.
Even participating in such a negotiation was highly unusual, but the agency felt compelled to be as respectful as possible to the sect's wishes, [CPS investigator Ruby] Gutierrez said.
(The "Paul Dyer" referenced and quoted in the article is, so far as I know, no relation to me.)
DRJ had earlier linked an interesting article regarding Texas "Ranger Capt. Barry Caver, the lawman who led the Eldorado search, handled the Republic of Texas incident, and was the [very frustrated] Texas Ranger liaison with the federal agents in Waco." From that one:
Caver and the 22 other Company E Rangers in 43 [west Texas] counties ... had known for four years Eldorado would one day be trouble because of now-imprisoned polygamist leader Warren Jeffs' reputation.
"It was just a matter of when," he said. "We'd been trying to develop relationships with them so we would know who to talk to. But we had no idea how many were in there. We had thought maybe 150, not 600-700. It was overwhelming."
There are almost always at least two sides to every story. Here, there may be dozens and hundreds of sides. In due course, each of them should be heard, because every one of these children and families matter.
Posted by Beldar at 05:29 PM in Current Affairs, Law (2008) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Texas CPS workers interviewed on FLDS intervention and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
Comments
(1) nk made the following comment | Jun 8, 2008 10:01:51 PM | Permalink
Jessop would allow only women into the compound.
That was their first mistake. Nobody can be as cruel to a woman as another woman.
(2) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 8, 2008 10:03:09 PM | Permalink
Thank you for providing a forum to discuss this, Beldar. Your readers may also be interesting in this San Angelo Standard Times' article that interviews Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran.
It's difficult to discuss this case for two reasons. First, we don't know all the facts because the transcript of the initial custody hearing has apparently not been made public. It's difficult to analyze the evidence of physical abuse when we don't know what that evidence is. My understanding is that the evidence of physical abuse included instances of broken bones (breaks that might or might not be normal in a group of youngsters since we don't know the details) and possible sexual abuse (the details of which are also unclear). In my opinion, the lesson of the appellate decisions is that possible sexual abuse is not physical abuse that justifies temporary removal unless there is a cooperating complainant or proof of other physical injuries or neglect. That is not the standard I envisioned for Texas abuse cases. I suspect the Texas Legislature will clarify that standard next term.
Second, people are very emotional about this topic and, unfortunately, the debate quickly turns to what people think the law should be instead of the details of this case. The debate has been very productive insofar as it may guide the Legislature in writing future laws, but the CPS has to deal with the law as it is now written. This case would have been much easier had the CPS simply removed all teenage girls, but it's apparently routine to remove all children from the home in abuse cases. In this case, "all children in the home" is hard to quantify because the CPS had problems identifying the children, their parents, and where they resided. There is also the issue of whether this was a commune akin to one household or a community of separate households. In my view, the appellate courts never fully dealt with that issue and I hope the Texas Legislature will address it next term.
(3) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Jun 8, 2008 11:40:57 PM | Permalink
Dear Mr. Dyer: The cited article doesn't get the discussion very far. Look at the first paragraph you quoted:
""We have to back it up with fact," said special investigator Paul Dyer. "That's what we're doing. What you may read in the newspaper or see on the television — that's not necessarily supported by fact. Our investigation is and will be supported by fact."
What else can Paul Dyer say? That CPS doesn't have to back up their investigations 'with fact?' Note the rabbit punch in the third sentence: nobody else but CPS can guarantee the facts. The implication that newspaper/TV coverage is in bad faith is cute too. Note too that Dyer is a "special" i.e. not a regular member of CPS. What's his training? He is "retired law enforcement," which could be highly relevant depending on what sort of law enforcement he worked at. It could also be irrelevant: for example,how much help would a career of chasing after car thieves running "chop shops" be in the Ranch case? From what we've seen in the article, Mr. Dyer isn't entitled to any special respect for his views until we know what his qualifications are. I remind you of your 9 March 2007 post about the doctor who lied to you under oath about "secondary gain" to demonstrate that the reasons for lying don't have to be big. CPS has big reasons to lie: a prominent case that hasn't been handled well in its initial stages, with faults in the law that authorized CPS's actions. I state at once that I have NO PROOF that CPS has lied. But the motives are there. If CPS says it is entitled to fair consideration, it might start by yanking on Paul Dyer's chain and telling him that the public and press (who, unlike CPS, don't have legal means to compel the truth) aren't necessarily acting in bad faith either.
The notion that CPS is the victim of a bad law the Texas Legislature wrote is silly. CPS is supposed to be expert in such laws. Who would be surprised if CPS had submitted proposals for laws to the Legislature and worked with legislators to get such laws written? That is one of CPS's tasks, as it is of every Executive agency. CPS should have known about the state of the law; that also is one of its tasks. The second quote you cite says that the Texas Rangers had "known" i.e. suspected with good reason, that the Ranch would have to be raided one day. I think it is reasonable to assume that CPS has known about the Ranch for some time. If this is so, there's no excuse for blaming a defective law for the troubles in this case. CPS may be an overburdened agency, but overburdened or not it has great powers that are not granted to private citizens. The unwritten expectation is that CPS will perform its duties competently. This expectation is looking ragged at the moment.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
(not of CUNY)
(4) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 9, 2008 12:23:26 AM | Permalink
Mr. Koster,
You missed my point. I don't think the law is bad, although I think there are problems applying it to groups like the FLDS that are in the nature of cults or communes. My concern is that people don't understand the law.
(5) hunter made the following comment | Jun 9, 2008 7:39:28 AM | Permalink
Dyer(not Beldar) is being very cynical in this. It was CPS that was responsible for nearly the entire content and tone of the press coverage of this case. The Chronicle and other media outlets were faithfully using CPS's misrepresentations of the facts for weeks. But Dyer's own words do put light on the CPS claim they had no time to organize their raid better and shows it to be misleading.
And there is something in the way the quote about the Texas Rangers knowing there would be trouble that does not sound quite right either. I look forward to hearing more on that.
(6) tornado76 made the following comment | Jun 9, 2008 8:14:37 PM | Permalink
It's easy to accuse CPS of overreaching. However, I spent 13 years in Utah and I know what these people are about. Keep in mind that their prophet, Warren Jeffs, is in prison for doing exactly what these folks are accused of doing (or at least condoning). The polygamists in southern Utah and northern Arizona, of which the group in Texas is just a branch, have formed a closed society that is incredibly difficult for outsiders to penetrate. In addition, in both of those states it's politically difficult to take on Mormon fundamentalists since there are big Mormon populations (a whopping majority in the case of Utah). The polygamists routinely commit welfare fraud and practice other scams to finance their lifestyle. I don't care what consenting adults do with each other, but the polygamists always drag the children into it, which means the young girls. Beyond that, the beliefs of these groups can lead to heinous violence. Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer for a disturbing but informative description of what FLDS is about.
(7) Gregory Koster made the following comment | Jun 10, 2008 12:31:00 AM | Permalink
Dear DRJ: Glad you have resumed diplomatic relations. I may indeed have missed your point. So let's try again:
1. "I don't think the law is bad, although I think there are problems applying it to groups like the FLDS that are in the nature of cults or communes."
If there are problems applying the law, isn't that that definition of a bad law? Do you mean that the law wasn't written with groups like the ranch in mind?
2. "My concern is that people don't understand the law."
"People" is vague. Do you mean:
a) CPS? Good heavens, if the agency charged with enforcing the law doesn't understand it, there is a hell of a mess.
b) the Ranch? This gives me the impression that you are saying if the Ranch leaders
had read and understood the law they wouldn't have formed their compound in the way they did that gives suspicion at least (and likely more than just suspicion) that they are breaking the law? I must say, this doesn't seem likely. The Ranch was always prone to doing as it dam pleased, law or no law. I think there is a likely misunderstanding here.
c) "People" could mean any of the six billion odd humans on this planet. I could list them all and ask if they are the ones, but already Mr. Dyer is leaping for the delete key, shuddering in horror such a prospective gulping of bandwidth. Do you mean those who object strenously to CPS's actions, specifically me? You could be right. Well, here's your chance: Fame, glory, riches, and the love of significant others await you for enlightening me and others with the superior understanding of the law, and how it is manifested in this case. A daunting task.
Sincerely yours well OK maybe with a touch of facetiousness tossed in,
Gregory Koster
(not of CUNY)
PS--I think it would be well in this thread to mention Paul Dyer of CPS by his full name so our host doesn't get brickbats or bouquets not meant for him.
(8) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 10, 2008 11:18:11 AM | Permalink
Mr. Koster,
Laws cannot fit every circumstance perfectly but that doesn't make them bad laws.
By people, I was referring to commenters who leave comments that demonstrate an inability to understand the legal issues involved.
(9) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 11, 2008 2:25:55 PM | Permalink
Mr. Koster,
Here's an example of a person who, in my opinion, doesn't understand or respect Texas law:
"A Web site that talks of a threat to "pay [Texas Judge Barbara] Walther's home a visit" is not sanctioned by the FLDS Church, Parker said. The site is run by Bill Medvecky, a Fort Myers, Fla., man who has donated to the fund for captive FLDS children, Parker said.
Parker told church leaders the post could be construed as a threat, according to the newspaper. They contacted Medvecky and had him remove the judge's address, he said. But her telephone numbers remain on the site, which describes Walther as the "leader of the Gestapo" and includes a link to a petition to impeach the judge.
Medvecky noted Walther's address is in the phone book.
"They [FLDS members] are not confrontational whatsoever. I am," Medvecky told the Deseret News. "They are not me, and they have nothing to do with the site. We support them 100 percent."
(10) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 11, 2008 5:08:00 PM | Permalink
Mr. Koster,
I've thought more about your earlier comment, specifically that you're glad I've "resumed diplomatic relations" and you admit your comment was insincere and had "a touch of facetiousness tossed in."
You can be interesting and articulate but you have been deliberately rude to me on two occasions. Thus, I don't plan to read your comments in the future and, obviously, I won't be responding to them.
(11) Kent G. Budge made the following comment | Jun 11, 2008 11:46:32 PM | Permalink
"In addition, in both of those states it's politically difficult to take on Mormon fundamentalists since there are big Mormon populations (a whopping majority in the case of Utah)."
I'm not sure why this would be so. FLDS and mainstream Mormonism have only a distant historical connection. I don't know a single mainstream Mormon who is yearning to restore the practice of polygamy. Furthermore, even prior to 1910, when mainstream Mormonism abandoned the practice, it was not practiced the way FLDS are alleged to be practicing it. Marriage ages were young by our standards, but not by the standards of the time; the marriages were fully consensual; and instances of abuse within these marriages was not unusually frequent for the time.
"Beyond that, the beliefs of these groups can lead to heinous violence. Read 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by Jon Krakauer for a disturbing but informative description of what FLDS is about."
Krakauer's book is a sensationalist hit piece on religion in general and Mormonism in particular, making little distinction between FLDS and mainstream Mormonism. It's not a reliable source for real understanding.
I think you'd have a hard time finding any instances of "heinous violence" among mainstream Mormons or even FLDS dating from after the Utah War.
(12) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 23, 2008 4:29:29 PM | Permalink
I apologize for posting on an old thread but this San Angelo Standard Times article gives us some idea of the conflicting and unresolved issues in this case. Is this teenage girl being manipulated by the Texas authorities or by the FLDS? I hope for her sake her attorney can find out the truth and effectively act on it.
(13) DRJ made the following comment | Jun 24, 2008 3:20:48 PM | Permalink
The San Angelo Standard Times reports there is a hearing in San Angelo today on the subject of my last comment. The article also notes that the girl's attorney has been given armed security because of threats the attorney received over the weekend.
The comments to this entry are closed.
