"Marlo" the FLDS Cow and her Calf subject of CPS round up to take tissue samples.

First of all, I understand that legally, in terms of how Texas law is written, most of the language here makes sense. However, it's a deep Orwellian detour into "newspeak."

The Salt Lake City Tribune - "On Thursday, 51st District Judge Barbara Walther ordered the 17-year-old girl, her baby and the girl's mother to appear in court after the Department of Family and Protective Services said the teenager refused to let it see the infant."

This is always the difficulty I have with the way these laws are written. Granted, the law says that you ought not have sex with a 16 year old in Texas, but we know it goes on, and it has probably happened more than several times during the writing of this post, in Texas. Texas however says that a girl can consent to sexual relations at the age of 17. "That girl," who I call "Marlo" for the sake of discussion, is now at the age where the state now says she can consent, she has the capacity to do so in the view of the state of Texas. Why is it that now, when she is 17, and she can clearly think for herself per Texas law, can she not say; "I have made up my mind, I wanted to do what I have done, I am in possession of my wits, leave me and my child alone!"

In addition there is no real evidence yet that something criminal has occurred. The assumption of criminality depends in large part on the result of tests Texas wants to conduct. This is a modern day dragnet. Round up everyone, search everyone, and sift through the objects you have collected to see if anything illegal is going on. When you find something indicative of a crime, you charge someone with a crime. The problem is you really didn't know a crime had occured, until you conducted the search, you didn't even really know what crime you were looking for, and who the criminal would be.

"In a court filing, the department said it wants to conduct an 'inspection, observation and genetic testing' of the infant to 'protect the safety and welfare' of the teenage mother."

Now the "newspeak" takes over. Realizing again that laws are drawn in terms of age, and that this girl is not 18, she is nonetheless of age to consent now, and in less than a year she will be an adult, legally. Do any of us really suppose that so much is going to change in the life of "Marlo" who is 8 and a half months away from her 18th birthday? Frankly, if she chooses to "go on vacation" for 8 months, out of the country, it's a bit of a moot point. Her desires are clear at this point. Having had late teen children who make up their minds, you can propose your better idea all day long, once they've made up their minds, they will probably stick to it. They can see the goal line from where they are and they will wait you out. So in this context, the state intends to "protect the safety and welfare" of "Marlo?" By the time they finish wrangling the details of that protection with a uncooperative 17 year old, she'll be 18. They can "try" to "protect" her, that protection amounts to simple custody of her. Nothing will be protected other than the human evidence chain.

"The filing states the department has 'cause to believe' the girl was married at age 14 to an adult man. She was among 439 children taken in April from the Yearning For Zion Ranch, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

That's still not cause to believe that she carries that man's child, and while I doubt seriously that her child is any man's other than her husband's child, law enforcement is not free to assume this. They want to make her child a ward of the state and the mother a ward of the state so that they can then supply a "will" for both of them that they would not express themselves.

"John R. Dolezal, attorney for DFPS, said in a Nov. 14 court filing the department believes it is in the teenage mother's 'best interest' to 'provide her with parenting classes and related assistance in ensuring that she is able to appropriately provide for the care of her child.' "

In full Orwellian mode the state uses it's legal right to speak words like "best interest." It also uses words like "provide" as if someone wanted a service, such as the parenting classes it offers. In the same way they could be said to "provide life altering services" to an inmate on death row.

"(Texas) also wants to collect DNA from the infant so it can identify 'the individual who sexually abused' the teenager and bar contact between the two."

Let's stay clear that Texas does not know "sexual abuse" occurred. Thus they cannot be said to be seeking that individual. The child and it's mother are essentially cattle, that are used in evidence. No interest in the "best interest" of either exists here. If there was such an interest, they would want to spare the mother and her child the trauma just as it appears that everyone in this whole case wants to spare poor Rozita Swinton the trauma of prosecution. In fact they insulate the instigator of this whole mess while they seek to traumatize that "children" they claim to want to protect. Again, does anyone seriously think that "Marlo's" ability to express her wishes is really impaired? If they really wanted to protect "Marlo" they would just emancipate her or leave her alone for 8 months. They don't want to protect her, they want to harvest evidence from her.

Sphere: Related Content