Walthered= railroading, harming folks to cover up your incompetence.  Like Nifonged
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/05/31/flds-gets-walthered-again

Yes, that what the editorial folks are saying about Judge Walther.  Comparing her to the disbarred Prosecutor, Mike Nifong in NC.

Not nice.  Whose heads will roll in DFPS?  The county has already spent their entire yearly CW budget on YFZ.  What about those million dollar bus contracts?  Some of these kids are  HUNDREDS OF MILES FROM HOME.

Judge Barbara Walther left the courtroom Friday evening without signing an order that would have started the reunification process with parents of the more than 400 children from 1,700-acre polygamist sect ranch near Eldorado. It was a sudden twist in a hearing that went on for more than four hours and introduced three distinct proposed orders that would have led to reuniting children and their parents.

In the end, Walther left after saying the court would sign orders when mothers from the ranch agree to them. That means the children won't leave shelters this weekend, said lawyers who represent mothers and children in the case.

They also said they will file more court documents Monday asking the Third Court of Appeals to make Walther release the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints children.

The Texas Supreme Court on Thursday agreed with the Third Court of Appeals in ordering Walther to vacate her ruling that gave the CPS custody of about 450 children taken from the ranch.

The Supreme Court stopped short, however, of ordering an unconditional return of the children in question, leaving open questions of when children will be reunited with their families, how it will be done, and what conditions CPS will seek on the reunification.

Many lawyers and one sect leader were baffled and upset when Walther left the court without signing an order.

Many others were left asking what would happen next.  Full Story

===========================
GO SanAntonio Comments
Posted by DB on May 31, 2008 at 10:44 a.m.

Well, the Third Court of Appeals gave Walthers 10 days to vacate her order or they said they would take action themselves. I believe that Monday is the deadline on that.

===========================
Posted by taylorcrew on May 31, 2008 at 10:50 a.m.

Evidence? Isn't that what the appeals court just ruled on? There is no evidence people, the agency operates on rumors. It's not just the El Dorado case where CPS takes kids without hard evidence, they do it everywhere.

Can we protect kids AND the constitution? Of course we can. That's where this agency has gone far afield and the higher courts are telling the District Courts that this isn't going to continue.

It's a very real threat to every parent. At any time, anyone can make an allegation against you. Regardless of the merit of the allegation, CPS can take your kids without evidence that you have done anything wrong.

Think about it. These are very scary times in America. Once one agency sets the precedent for ignoring the constitution, the rest will follow.
===========================
Posted by jolifam66 on May 31, 2008 at 10:56 a.m.

Here's the relevant portion of the SCOTX which Walther takes as a granting of power to amend her temporary order rather than vacate it as ordered:

"On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child,”[4] including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court.”[5] The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home[6] and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.[7] The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,[8] and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.[9]" http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2008/may/080391.htm

My take is that the reason for the inclusion of explanation of alternative remedies was for the department and Walther to see that there were alternatives to removing all the children. Seeing the leading sentence (the topic sentence) clearly shows that the spirit of this paragraph which was of explanation--it was not providing a loophole for Walther to merely amend her temporary order granting the state full custody of the children; that has been ordered vacated by the appeals court, which was left standing.

Furthermore, even if it were understood to be granting Walther the opportunity to merely amend the temporary order as opposed to vacate it, this could clearly be done only if there were specific reports of abuse with respect to specific mothers (SCOTX referenced 261.303 "investigation of a report of child abuse or neglect ." see Texas code: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm  No specific allegation has ever been articulated against any specific mothers, so the point of the judges explanatory paragraph with respect to alternatives to removal was moot, and only intended to show what could be done in the future in the event that specific reports of abuse against specific mothers have been filed.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther wanted to place additional restrictions on the parents and give state child protection workers more authority to monitor the families.

Walther said she would sign the order after the parents, all members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, agreed to those terms. 

So it looks like she is playing "cutsie" with the Orders from the Third and the Supreme Court.  Does this seem a tad arrogant?  Time for IMPEACHMENT?

Does any of this seem unacceptable?  Does this look like the spirit of the decisions of the Third and the Supreme Court?  Is somebody forgetting that CPS had no Constitutional Right to scoop up the entire town to begin with?  So how can CPS have the right to pop in to anybody's house at any time?  The Constitution is still being stomped into the dirt, I think.
=========================

GO SanAntonio Comments
Posted by Twilight on May 30, 2008 at 3:33 p.m.

These people still have not been convicted of a crime and there is still no evidence.

CPS, is the only one that has been convicted of mistakes at this point in time.

=========================
Posted by Contumacious on May 30, 2008 at 5:42 p.m.

>>>>>>A draft agreement released by CPS attorney Gary Banks says the parents can get their children back after showing identification and pledging to take parenting classes and remain in Texas."<<<<<<<

HUH?

Bad , Bad agreement.

Yo Gary, do you sir understand that you guys lost? That both appellate courts found that you were perpetrating a sham and a scam.

So re-write the agreement as follows:

(1) CPS bureaucrats hereby agree to leave TX;

(2) Those bureaucrats who choose to stay will be monitored closely;

(3) Those bureaucrats who choose to stay working for the state must take Constitutional classes;

That's it.

Isn't that a LOT better.

Me thinks so.

Orders & Opinions

The Supreme Court of Texas

...So here's Flora telling the national media that the phone calls are legitimate and chastising others who are claiming they are a hoax, all during the same time period that her and the Texas Rangers have in fact come to the conclusion that they are a hoax.

It's obvious that Flora's credibility is questionable at this point. But that hasn't dampened the mainstream media's willingness to continue facilitating her propaganda campaign against the FLDS. It certainly validates Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard description of Flora as "misguided and devious."

Then there's still the question about the Texas authorities' involvement in this devious activity.

...Then there's the question of (Affiant) Texas Ranger Long, himself a long-time acquaintance of Flora Jessop

Lots of "background info" on Flora Jessop, AND a comment left by a "former schoolmate with Flora".  There seems to be an undertow of sewage that a rug got tossed over.  As for Flora's "wild" lifestyle, she detailed some of that to CNN on April 17, 2008  It looks as if Flora's "advocate" facade were removed, and the spin gets unspun, what is underneath could be pretty ugly.

Full Story-
http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=8380629

SAN ANGELO, Texas - Saddle up, because it ain't over yet.

    The largest child-welfare case in United States history bucked participants and spectators every which way last week - and the wild ride will continue.

    The first jolt may come anytime from the Texas Supreme Court, which worked through Saturday without deciding whether to stay an appeals court decision that sends some, if not all, of about 450 children from a polygamous sect back to their parents.

...By Thursday, the underpinnings of the state's case seemed to be buckling. Just eight mothers were left in a pool of 26 females the state believed to be 17 or younger. More were expected to be declared adults in coming status hearings. Not a single instance of physical abuse was introduced in the hearings, either. Still, five judges mechanically approved boilerplate service plans while rejecting any suggested modifications from parents' or children's attorneys.

I love Brooke Adams' wordsmithing.  In a few words, she succinctly sums up the tyranny of "voluntary" service plans that aren't voluntary, that are SUPPOSED to be "created by child protection staff and families together".

~By the Way~
Also see Signing Under Duress, Threat, and Coercion
~AND~
RESCIND OF SIGNATURE

The crumbling case

I am at the River Cafe, just down the street from the Tom Green County Courthouse. This afternoon 51st District Judge Barbara Walther is set to hold the 14-day adversarial hearing on Louise Bradshaw's son, born May 12.

What will Walther do, given yesterday's appeals court ruling?

Here's a question: The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had all the power in the world to structure status hearings held this week in any order it wanted. It kept telling us, the media and the public, that there were 31 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who were pregnant, mothers or both.

Now we know the truth: There are only five girls in that group. All but one are or will be 18 this year. One gave birth when she was 17, three when they were 16. One is pregnant.

I kept asking the state for a breakdown by age of the 31 girls, the 60 percent, it claimed were pregnant or mothers. They refused weeks ago and still haven't done it.

Now we know why.

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- State child welfare authorities have agreed to reunite 12 children from a west Texas polygamist sect with their parents until the state Supreme Court rules on their custody case.

Teresa Kelly, a spokeswoman for the parents' lawyer, says Child Protective Services agreed on Friday to allow the parents to live with their children in the San Antonio area under state supervision.

Arguing the Third Court of Appeals acted "in excess of its power,"* the state's Child Protective Services agency asked the Texas Supreme Court today to overturn the lower court's ruling that could result in the return of hundreds of children removed from a polygamist sect's ranch.

* Walther wasn't operating in excess of her power?  CPS weren't operating in excess of their power?

February 5, 2003
Need for a search warrant trips social workers
Ohio authorities not aware of Fourth Amendment protections

Walsh vs. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services, Case No.3:01CV7588

Uh, Marleigh-

February 5, 2003
Walsh vs. Erie County Department of Job and Family Services, Case No.3:01CV7588

In a forceful opinion, US District Judge James G. Carr wrote: “Despite the Defendants’ exaggerated view of their powers, the Fourth Amendment applies to them, as it does to all other officers and agents of the state whose requests to enter, however benign or well-intentioned, are met by a closed door.  There is...no social worker exception to the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.  ...Any agency that expects to send its employees routinely into private homes has a fundamental obligation to ensure that those employees understand the constitutional limits on their authority.”  

Court grants appeal by FLDS mothers
Posted: May 22, 2008 09:17 AM

AUSTIN, Texas (KXAN) -- The Third Court of Appeals has ruled that Child Protective Services did not have the right to remove children from the Yearning for Zion ranch last month.

The Mandamus Decision pdf

The ruling comes as a result of a document filed by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid last month. The TRLA is the largest provider of legal aid in Texas, on behalf of 48 FLDS mothers that TRLA is representing in their child custody cases.

"The way that the courts have ignored the legal rights of these mothers is ridiculous," said TRLA attorney Julie Balovich. "It was about time a court stood up and said that was has been happening to these families is wrong." Just like the rest of us in every westernized country in the world.  This IS the standard CPS operating procedure.  We hope they sue CPS for TRILLION$ and OUT OF BUSINE$$.  We would LOVE to enter in a CLASS ACTION.

In the decision, the Court ruled that CPS failed to provide any evidence that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily in removing them from their families. According to the Court, "The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger."

TRLA will be holding a press conference in front of the courthouse in San Angelo Thursday at 1:30 p.m. regarding this issue.

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745

Now is also a GOOD TIME to call your Senators and Representatives and tell them- "Let the Adoption Incentives Act expire on September 30.2008.  And the next time ANY of the CAPTA related acts come to sunset, let them die too.   Why wait?  Just RESCIND them NOW!"

Grits for Breakfast
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Some on Dallas News staff "aren't interested" in correcting false media impressions about YFZ raid

Among the Dallas News editorial board members, Sharon Grigsby has been the only consistent voice questioning the state's actions in the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup. Reacting to news that CPS has been wrong so far regarding the age or pregnancy status of all the "disputed" mothers, she writes today on DMN's Opinion blog that "Some on our staff have said they aren't interested in my continued posts on this topic." I replied in the comments that this observation:

confirms my sense that the MSM is less interested in focusing on information that's not full of salacious accusations against weirdo polygamists. God forbid y'all actually report the truth instead of whatever phony accusation CPS ginned up that day.

Pretty amazing that your colleagues would admit it, though. The facts on which they based their opinions were invalid, but they don't want to revisit their conclusions. I'm asking myself "Why?", but can't come up with a single good reason offhand besides some sort of religious bigotry. What else could possibly explain journalists' callous indifference to truth?

Posted by Gritsforbreakfast at 7:52 PM 

SAN ANGELO — Attorneys for parents belonging to a polygamist sect criticized Texas Child Protective Services on Monday for trying to broker reconciliation plans that were short on specifics and long on requirements that could be impossible to complete.

“This plan is so vague and so broad my client has no idea what she's to do now,” said Donna Guion, attorney for Sharon Barlow, one of the many wives of imprisoned Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints prophet Warren Jeffs.

...The agency defended what FLDS spokesman Rod Parker called “cookie-cutter” service plans, insisting the plans are merely a starting point for both sides. **An absolute bald-faced lie.  Once the plan is signed, it is cast in concrete.  It is VOLUNTEERING for "Services", about the same thing as Plea Bargaining, not making them PROVE the charges, if any, in an Adversarial Hearing.

SAN ANGELO, TX -- Although Texas officials have taken some criticism for removing hundreds of children from a religious compound, the Baptist agency caring for them has earned praise from the most important people: the children themselves.

..."You’re nice," a 6-year-old girl announced last week as Nanci Gibbons, the agency’s executive vice president, walked past her on the ranch play ground.

"Why, thank you," Gibbons replied, "but how do you know I’m nice?"

"Because your shirt says 'BCFS,'" the girl answered, "and you know what BCFS stands for, don’t you?"

"Is it, 'Beef, Chicken, Fish and Sausage?'" Gibbons guessed, quoting the nickname many of the children had bestowed during their stay in San Angelo.

"Oh no," the girl said firmly. "It means, 'Best Care for Children.'" (I am about to retch)

Full Story-
http://www.churchexecutive.com/news.asp?N_ID=1255

Seems to me like dedicated Christian Americans would have REFUSED to participate in this communist exercise.  Not only did they go along with it, they ENABLED CPS to carry out it's Satanic deeds.  Shame, shame on you Texas Baptists!  You just confirmed to millions of atheists that they are right.  You can't put a feel good smiley face on what you have done!  When they come and imprison you and deny your Constitutional Rights, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

Much has been written, in recent weeks, about the number of teen girls entering into "spiritual" underage marriages at a Texas ranch from which some 462 children were removed last month.

However, it was not until the fringe religious group that operates the ranch, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, moved to Texas that legislators adopted a law that made marriages of teens under age 16 illegal, Reuters reports.

"There was suspicion, speculation and concern and we knew they were the most obedient followers of Warren Jeffs and people were alarmed," says Harvey Hilderbran, a state legislator who represents the area in which the Yearning for Zion ranch is located. He was the sponsor of a bill that became law in 2005 that raised the age at which children can marry, if their parents consent, from age 14 to age 16.

...And, as other coverage indicates, it appears that authorities at least arguably may have targeted the FLDS for more stringent enforcement of violations of the law that are routinely overlooked in other settings.

The removal of more than 400 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compound in Texas made front-page news for several days in April. However, a follow-up Associated Press story revealing that the phone call that initiated the raid was a hoax got short shrift.

Rozita Swinton, who has been arrested and charged with misdemeanors more than once for making false phone calls about child abuse, has been questioned by Texas Rangers and may be the person who made the phone call.

Few people are ever arrested for filing false child abuse reports, even though it is a crime.  Full Story

"The right to have children and the right to raise children is a fundamental liberty. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that liberty is akin to Free Speech and Freedom of Thought. It can only be interfered with by the government if the government makes a "particularized showing" to a judge that the children were in danger of IMMINENT harm. 

But mass, sweeping arrests of children and interrogations of them without their parents present is not only unlawful, it's CRIMINAL, and any evidence the state gets from these interrogations of these children cannot be used against their parents"

See the Video

Yoo-Hoo?  Any lawyers representing the FLDS children or parents stopping by AFRA?

Here's why NONE of the states are "in compliance" to receive federal funding 
(and why CPS is committing FRAUD)
 SERVICES TO FAMILIES IN CRISIS - AS MANDATED BY 42 U.S.C. § 671 (a) (15) and 672 (a) (1)
An agency cannot be reimbursed for the cost of a child's out-of-home care 
unless the reasonable efforts requirement  is met.

(18) provides that States shall give preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards.

Did the subject of "Reasonable Efforts" come up while the court was busy tearing up the Constitution?  If it did, the news didn't think it meant anything important.  The FLDS men did offer to leave.  That was reasonable.  Now I hear on TV that a couple FLDS boys are MISSING and the Texas monsters don't know where they are.  Remember Marleigh Meisner smugly saying "They are safe with us"?  Texas Comptroller Carolyn Strayhorn would beg to differ.