I wouldn't put it past them. The prosecution GRANTS immunity to the FLDS women, who either then TESTIFY or are held in contempt. All the children then whose fathers did not show up to submit DNA evidence and have had their parental rights terminated are out of the picture.
Mom is now in JAIL. CPS comes to get the kids. They could get most of the kids back that way.
Sphere: Related Content
Election Results – President
-
We will update the results as they come in.
The post Election Results – President first appeared on Le·gal
In·sur·rec·tion.
46 minutes ago
4 comments:
Quit giving them ideas!
Hugh,
Not to challenge your theory, which you did not go into deeply, my friend!
There are a few 'catch all' phrases in the Family Code that looks to be applicable here, but the specific codes chapters & sub-chapters do not look like a "bigamy" charge would be the ticket to taking the children.
Without me searching further into this Family Code web of rules, I do believe relatives are eligible to seek custody in that situation.
SECTION 161.001. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP
§ 161.001. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENT-CHILD
RELATIONSHIP. The court may order termination of the parent-child
relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:
(L) been convicted or has been placed on
community supervision, including deferred adjudication community
supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or
serious injury of a child under the following sections of the Penal
Code or adjudicated under Title 3 for conduct that caused the death
or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a violation
of one of the following Penal Code sections:
(i) Section 19.02 (murder);
(ii) Section 19.03 (capital murder);
(iii) Section 19.04 (manslaughter);
(iv) Section 21.11 (indecency with a
child);
(v) Section 22.01 (assault);
(vi) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);
(vii) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);
(viii) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual
assault);
(ix) Section 22.04 (injury to a child,
elderly individual, or disabled individual);
(x) Section 22.041 (abandoning or
endangering child);
(xi) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual
conduct);
(xii) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by
a child);
(xiii) Section 43.26 (possession or
promotion of child pornography); and
(xiv) Section 21.02 (continuous sexual
abuse of young child or children);"
Maybe I wasn't clear enough, for which I apologize. Theory: Mom's took 5th for possible bigamy charge. The theory they took the 5th is very strong, why, less so.
Theory: Texas is playing rock and hard place.
It has been floated that those fathers that will not come forth will have their parental rights "terminated." I have always wondered why the state of Texas viewed that as a threat.
With Fathers TERMINATED, mom is offered IMMUNITY from what ever the crime they are pleading the 5th for. The object of taking the 5th is because they don't wish to incriminate themselves. The purpose of taking the 5th is not to testify at all. With prosecution threats removed from Moms, they are COMPELLED to testify.
Moms still of course DO NOT want to testify because they may endanger friends or husbands. They now MUST do so or face contempt.
Mom Goes to JAIL for Contempt, stays indefinitely. State takes "abandoned" children.
Variations. Children cannot leave the state. Dads come to be with, their parental rights have not been terminated. Dads are arrested and DNA tested. Children are deemed again to be in unsafe environment for whatever reason. Children taken. State gets dads DNA.
Not of much difference in the possible theories you lay out, but there is no challenge to parental rights of "fathers that will not come forth" with the SCOT ruling that I am aware of.
I do not see where custody or abandonment are a factor now.
Again, does not alter your theories greatly, but there seems to be a great deal of pieces that must fit perfectly for Texas to succeed, going by your theories.
We're stuck in the 'wait & see' mode!
Post a Comment