Childress and Schmidt talk, reveal they are "True Believers."

Well, it wasn't exactly rocket science though many doctrinaire members of the rabid opposition took issue with my analysis back in October. They will be gratified to know I got something wrong. Childress was no friend of the FLDS, he was a True Believer.

The Modern Pharisee October 25th, 2008 - "I am speculating here but it is sound speculation for someone as far on the outside as I am. If this is truly the case, I again repeat that Charles Childress may turn out to be, in the final analysis, a great hero for the FLDS, having stood up to Texas who seems intent on prosecuting a much larger number of cases.

You can imagine a meeting that goes like this:

'You're dismissing nearly ALL the cases Charles, WHAT'S UP?!?!'

'You have maybe three cases.'

'That's unacceptable!'

'You have maybe three cases, this is what you hired me to do.'

'You find MORE!'

'I can't.'

(Phone Rings, Governor Perry is calling on his cell phone)

'Pack your kit and git Chuck.' "

In this speculated phone call, I got the rolls wrong but the general idea right. Childress did want to pursue custody cases, right up to severing parental rights, but Texas did not.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - (Patrick) Crimmins said, (Charles Childress and Jeff Schmidt's) position was not supported by the CPS caseworkers involved with the families.

'It is true that after being assigned to assist in these cases, Mr. Childress and Mr. Schmidt urged that the pleadings in several cases be amended to include a request for termination of parental rights," he said. "This recommendation was not supported by the conservatorship workers assigned to work with the children and families in these cases in the field, nor was it supported by their supervisors.' "

My error was in painting anyone outside of Childress and Schmidt as caring about the children. This does not make them pro FLDS or even their actions as pro FLDS nor would it make me agree with their actions as actually protective of the children, but they do believe in what they are doing and they were trying to find cases where children could be "saved" and they had gotten to the point where they thought they had.

"As the state's investigation continued, both men said they saw evidence to warrant filing motions seeking termination of parental rights on a number of cases - at least 10 and perhaps more, the attorneys said.

Instead, they said, they were overruled by leaders of the Department of Family and Protective Services, which runs the agency."

So the conversation is actually more like this.

"Charles, how are you coming on dismissing those cases? I thought you'd be done by now."

"I've got ten I want to go forward with."

"I don't think you understand Charles, we lost that battle but we have guys under indictment, and this was never really a child custody case, it was a fishing expedition masquerading as 400 child custody cases."

"I can't lend my name to that." (actually said by Childress)

"Get rid of all of those cases Charles, except for this one and that one."

"I can't."

(Phone Rings, Governor Perry is calling on his cell phone)

"Pack your kit and git Chuck."

That is more or less the gist of it. It was never about backing the FLDS having their kids on either side of the argument, it was about moving on and it never having been about the children in the first place. The Childress position is that CPS should really define Child Abuse as it was defined for justifying the taking of the children in the first place, the state's position is "that was all for show, we have what we want, we have our indictments, the children would have been a bonus, forget it. That's pretty much backed up by the following:

"Ultimately...the situation became untenable as pressure increased from Austin to shut down cases, even ones with significant concerns."

So pressure came from the state Capitol to get rid of the cases. I'm sorry, but with this looks too much like Austin never cared about the children. Even Childress in his twisted way cared more about the kids than the state did, they were always just an excuse. Over two days I wrote the following about the Childress situation including the above speculation that maybe Childress had turned in favor of the FLDS. First there was "Childress Resigns. CPS in Turmoil." That was absolutely accurate.

"After three months the attorney hired specifically to handle FLDS cases has abruptly resigned. Such resignations don't occur unless something major has happened behind the scenes. I've pointed out before that when high profile figures in a department or case resign, it's done with the awareness of how it will look to the world at large.

Clearly the damage of a Childress resignation was outweighed by the damage that Childress would stay, so he resigned. Since the appearance of a Childress resignation is a sign of the total turmoil in Texas and their "persecution" of the FLDS, the resignation signals extreme internal distress at CPS.

What else could possibly be the meaning of a three month employee resigning in the biggest child custody case in US History? By concluding there is no one to pursue, Childress has said there was no case. At all."

Accurate, completely up to the last sentence. It should have read "By the STATE concluding there were no cases to pursue, they have said there is no case, at all." The same day I made another observation.

"The key here is that whoever is ultimately pulling the strings in the whole CPS/FLDS/YFZ fiasco, it has been determined from the top that the handling of the custody cases is a disaster. Since this is politics, the disaster part is determined by how it makes those at the top look. Charles Childress had NOTHING to do with the raid taking place, but still falls on the sword. Preceding him was Gary Banks, who WAS lead counsel at the time of the raid."

I finished with the following on October 25th:

"(A) rule of politics is that you don't make your constituency (your co workers in a bureaucracy) LOOK bad. This LOOKS bad, so it IS BAD. You don't DO it unless something profound happens because it looks that way and everyone will think it is for some earth shattering reason. Planned resignations take place with the outgoing head giving plenty of time and citing 'good reasons' and praising their peers. Tom Brady doesn't quit the Patriots during the introduction of the starting line up in the Super Bowl. It's DESTRUCTIVE. It's not what a career 'team player' does. Bureaucrats are CONSUMATE team players. They don't survive unless they are."

Now we know how true that was. It was an earthquake, just like I said it was.

Sphere: Related Content