I mentioned in my earlier post that the Texas Supreme Court ruling to return all the children was only a partial victory since the parents still do not have the children and the state still has control over them.
I also said that CPS would try everything they could to keep the children in their power. That’s exactly what happened today:
“By the time the third version was introduced, the language was made stronger and in CPS’ favor. It would be in place indefinitely so that state officials connected with the ongoing child abuse investigation “SHALL be allowed access to said property at any and all times.”
Wonder what the other objections were? There were actually three versions of the agreement:the first one being CPS have access to the ranch from 8 a.m. to 8p.m., members needed to cooperate with them and this agreement would end at the end of summer. Remember that in CPS lingo, cooperate means do whatever they say without question.
We’re not sure what the second agreement was, but here is the third agreement-the one Walthers agreed to:
“…In order to take custody, FLDS parents or their designees must produce an affidavit and have themselves and their children photographed at the time of taking
possession of the child,” according to the order.
Also, the children would not be allowed to leave the state for at least 90 days, and if the families move within Texas, the parents must notify the state seven working days prior to the relocation.
And if the children were to travel within state lines more than 60 miles from where they live, the state must be told at least 48 hours in advance.
The judge also would have required that state officials be allowed access to the YFZ Ranch “at any and all times necessary to the investigation if any children are there. In addition, mothers and fathers must take parenting classes.”
No wonder they objected. Not only that, but one attorney pointed out that in order to add provisions to the order, there needs to be a separate hearing. In other words, this attorney wants the judge to follow the policy set forth by law for adding provisions to the agreement.
Then the judge said she would sign the first version of the agreement as long as signatures of all 43 FLDs members were on it. Notice-not all their attorneys sign the agreement-each individual client has to sign it-something that is very rare:
“Laura Shockley, a lawyer for several sect children, said few judges in her experience required signatures from an attorney’s clients. “Attorneys normally sign (agreements) on their own,” she said.”
By putting that stipulation in the agreement, the judge is giving CPS exactly what it wants-more time to hold on to the children, which has been their goal from the very beginning.
I also found this little tidbit interesting:
Attorney Julie Balovich of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which represents many of the families from the FYZ Ranch in Eldorado, told the judge that the message from the higher courts was clear: Walther must vacate her order. Walther disagreed with Balovich’s interpretation… The article goes on to say that Walthers thinks she can only rescind her decision when all the clients sign the agreement.
She wants other people to follow the law, but she does not follow it herself. That’s a rather odd example to set, isn’t it?
Now CPS has the weekend to move the children even further from parents and say on Monday- when one attorney will return to the 3rd Court of Appeals first thing Monday morning to have Judge Walther’s original seizure order dismissed- that they’re still not sure where all the children are.
Powered by ScribeFire.