The San Angelo Standard-Times - "A girl alleged to have been married to an adult at age 14 has become the new focus of the state's investigation into allegations of sexual abuse at a Schleicher County polygamist compound.
In a brief hearing Thursday, the girl's attorney told 51st District Judge Barbara Walther her client was not present, torpedoing a planned hearing on a motion by the state's Child Protective Services agency that would have compelled the girl to produce her newborn child for DNA testing.
'My client is not willing to appear voluntarily,' said Kelly J. Ellis, the San Angelo attorney appointed to represent the girl.
Walther rescheduled the hearing for Tuesday, ordering the girl, her mother and the newborn all to be present.
According to the CPS motion, the girl gave birth June 14, just after Walther returned 439 children to their parents at the order of the Texas Supreme Court. The higher court ruled Walther should not have allowed the state to take emergency custody of all the children after its April raid on the YFZ Ranch northeast of Eldorado.
Court documents do not list the exact age of the girl, nor do documents released in the course of the seven-month case provide any immediate indication of how old she is or reference to her parents, Sarah Barlow and Joseph Steed."
NOW we have potential cause for the second warrant. Was this girl "Seen" at YFZ that day?
"According to the motion filed Nov. 14 by CPS' new lead attorney for the case, John R. Dolezal, the girl is still younger than 18 and was married at 14.The girl 'has a child,' Dolezal said in court Thursday. 'In order for us to do our duties investigating sexual abuse, we need the child produced to do genetic testing. We're here in the best interests of (the girl), to protect her from sexual abuse.' "
Ok, but this is still fuzzy. Is she 17? Where is she from? We do know that some people at YFZ that day were not from the ranch. Doing the math if John Dolezal is correct, the child was born either a bit premature, or, mom was under 17 when she became pregnant. If the child was conceived anywhere after today's date, a crime may in fact have occurred. A full term child would put the date of conception at about September 14th of last year.
Nevertheless we heard of a girl who refused a pregnancy test which indicates whatever condition she was in, it wasn't clearly showing. At the time of the raid she was 6 and a half months along. Again, assuming all of this is true.
Still, there are issues. Unless CPS has reason to believe that the father of this girls child was "overage" and saw her as "pregnant" that day, there is no reason to have the record that would give them the suspicion that a man fathered her child illegally.
The chain of events has to be;
- See the Girl as pregnant. Second warrant. We know the only girl that was not a minor at the time of the raid, that was later thought to be pregnant was asked to take a pregnancy test. They weren't sure.
- Find the marriage record by use of that warrant indicating that girl's "husband" was too old for her by law.
- Use that record to demand DNA testing.
- Not married legally.
- Has a child fathered by someone who would thus be a criminal.
- Had that child fathered in a location that made the act illegal. (They could have been in Mexico, or Utah, we don't know the age of the father.)
- Even a teen. They don't have "born on dates" like BEER.
This will be a big problem though if proved, the rope gets really thin and close to snapping. Judges and juries are people. Among themselves they will all be certain that the assumption of wrong was justified.
Or this could just be the death rattle of the CPS case.
Sphere: Related Content
10 comments:
When they talk about probable cause it has to be specific. Not generalized, like "well she lived with a bunch of polygamists who have allegedly engaged in underage marriages." That won't cut it. The Constitution provides individual not group rights. Probable cause cannot extend from one person (or one community) to another person. They have to speak to the reasons they thought this girl in particular was impregnated by an adult man illegally. And then if all goes well, that probable cause can only extend to her immediate family, not the entire community.
The CPS case is doomed. It's only a matter of time...
Is this the same girl that hsd already taken the pregnancy test and only refused on the forth time?
CPS has never told the truth. This is no different. Besides the fact that: Underage marriages are less likely in the FLDS. There are no unwed mothers in the FLDS. Far less teen pregnancys. At least when a teen gets pregant they are married.
Yeah Z, but I have always believed they want to "get" them so bad, that a number of people will ignore the fact that the chain of evidence is still beyond improper.
With their assumptions justified, they'll simply want to gloss over the "leaps of faith" necessary to get from one point to the other.
As we know, a Pregnant Teenage Girl is not even evidence of a crime. But of course "Everybody knew there were Pregnant Underage Girls" at YFZ who had been impregnated illegally by older men.
It's not obvious, but it will be seen as obvious. The ends will justify the means and the leaps are not as long as they once were, if this turns out to be real.
There were in the end, three pregnant females from the YFZ ranch in CPS custody. Two gave birth and were shown to be adults.
There was a girl that refused a pregnancy test, allegedly. This I figure, and I'm just making an educated guess, is the third pregnant female. CPS is now alleging she is underage, and did give birth on or about the 14th of June. There was a lot of press reporting to that effect around that time, then the issue died.
I cannot believe that CPS did not attempt to take this girl BACK into custody. I can't believe they did not attempt to keep her the first time if she was about to pop.
Nevertheless, they're saying they gave her back, as a minor, when she was about to give birth.
They have since taken Merriane Jessop back into custody. This smells, but it's hard to say what it means.
You can also count on the fact that very shortly we'll be hearing about the rest of the children still under suit. This girl HAS to be one of them.
If the leap of faith (that dozens of homes comprize one household) is glossed over on the basis of this "probable cause" (pregnant teenager), it can only be glossed over for a period of time. The matter of whether a single warrant can be served on what are obviously dozens of houses HAS TO be addressed eventually; and I wager that the supreme court will say no, this isn't right.
As for why she wasn't returned to CPS custody, it's probably because she has a good lawyer and GAL.
And I admit, this is the first time I've heard of her. I don't recall any news reports about a third teenage girl who gave birth. If she is not listed on the Bishops list or any other records, as the article says, it's possible she just arrived at the ranch a short time ago, or they have mistaken her age.
I do remember her. Now, it could be a composite of different girls, but at one point they were down to three. Two were adults. There was a girl, not an adult, who refused a pregnancy test.
I have assumed always that the girl who refused was the "Third Girl." Later there was a report that the "third girl" was going to give birth, in June. Then nothing. I thought I wrote blog articles about her, I can't find the references though.
By the time I knew it was important, I was unable to locate the stories again.
So, assuming it's one girl and my memory serves me correctly it went like this.
Three FLDS females were pregnant. One refused a pregnancy test and was SAID to be underage. This is the THIRD GIRL.
Two were released, leaving only the THIRD GIRL who was later said to be about to give birth in June. The stories then stopped altogether.
Since she refused a pregnancy test, several things were evident about this girl. She looked to whomever was examining or "eyeballing" her to be pregnant, but not enough to be certain. I wrote about that fact and said if she can't be shown to be pregnant without a TEST, she couldn't have been SEEN as a Pregnant Underage Teen. Again, this all assumes it is the same girl.
Somehow in the shuffle, CPS would have us believe they turned loose a girl about to pop, who was pregnant, who has to be seen at the CENTER of their evidence trail and they lost her and now they want her back.
This smells so much like one other incident. Remember when CPS went BACK to the ranch to look for more kids and Willie told them to pack sand?
I believe you're getting her confused with the 14 year old who refused to take the pregnancy test:
"A lawyer for the 14-year-old girl alleged to be pregnant has disclosed that the girl has submitted to a pregnancy test confirming that she is not pregnant. "
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/post_14.html
Ok, thanks, that documents my claim that in April, we were down to THREE girls.
That means that no one else that turned up pregnant was a girl SEEN by Texas at YFZ.
Also, we can't relay on ages unless that age is given to us by the person in question or their real attorney, CPS lies.
Something is VERY wrong about this story Z. I'm now getting "backwash" from other sources that say "I never said there were no pregnant teens." Yeah, and neither did I, I said there were no pregnant underage teens that I knew of, and in addition to that, I have stood firmly by the claim that there were no pregnant underage teens SEEN that day. I still maintain there were no such girls.
What you've uncovered here is the documentation of the one of the articles I have sought in the Salt Lake Trib. The naming of the number, three. Two pregnant, both were adults, one was a kid, that kid wasn't pregnant. So there is no Third Girl. There were only two.
Regardless, they'll have to prove they truly believed a "pervasive pattern," indeed, a conspiracy, to impregnate pubescent girls existed on the ranch. The facts do not support this belief. Ultimately, the supreme court or appellate justices will have to decide whether they believe that the CPS workers and LE believed the entire ranch engaged in systematic impregnating of girls that barely reached puberty. "Seeing" a couple adult pregnant women is not evidence that supports this belief. Seeing one pregnant teenager, and 31 other non-pregnant teenagers does not support this belief. The higher courts will rule against them, i.e. that they didn't really believe that the children were at risk. Their qualified immunity will be stripped due to lack of good faith. The warrant will also be tossed due to over-broadness and lack of good faith.
Turn's out there were two pregnant girls in addition to Pamela and Louisa (adults).
http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2008/11/dfps-seeking-baby.htm
I guess that's the final tally. So two pregnant teens. And that's the probable cause for tearing dozens of homes apart, and dragging off 432 children.
I'm disgusted with Texas.
Post a Comment