Judge Says Breastfeeding Causes Abuse
Since we wouldn’t want anyone to be abused…
Attorneys for the [mothers of the children taken in the raid of the FLDS compound in Texas] asked the judge to consider letting nursing mothers remain with their children after negotiations with CPS on the issue stalled. They asked the judge to let the mothers stay until DNA results are in, likely to take up to 40 days.
Walther acknowledged the nutritional and bonding benefits of breast-feeding.
”But every day in this country, we have mothers who go back to work after six weeks of maternity leave,” she said.
“The court has made a determination that the environment those children were in was not safe,” said Walther, adding that there is a shortage of suitable placements for infants in Texas.
…
Shari Pulliam, a spokeswoman for CPS, said the agency plans to proceed with plans to send the women home.“We don’t place adult women in foster care,” she said. “Our main thing is to protect children from abuse and neglect.”
Salt Lake City Tribune
Update:
Infants taken into custody during a raid on a polygamous sect’s west Texas ranch get mother’s milk, after all.
The judge overseeing the cases of more than 400 FLDS children said Wednesday in a status hearing that the adult mothers of infants age 12 months and under should remain with their babies in the state’s care.
Salt Lake City Tribune
Comments are closed.
The article you refer to did say that the judge let the lawyers to resolve the breast-feeding issue, but they haven’t come to an agreement.
This is a hard one though and as a woman I have struggled with this FLDS case, because normally in cases where there are allegation of abuse, the children are taken immediately from the parents and put under state custody. These cases should not be treated any differently, right? Probably the fathers were the only ones engaging in the abuse, but who knows? I really struggle with it and I feel for the mothers who I see on TV crying longing to be with their children, but at the same time, what does the state do? Grant waivers? They’ve already allowed exceptions where the mothers would stay with the children 4 years and younger at the coliseum.
I don’t think this is an issue of breastfeeding, but of how much contact should there be allowed between the children and the mothers when there is abuse allegations involved.
Overall, this is just a very sad case where the mothers and the children may turn out to be the victims, but can the state do anything differently until the mothers are proven innocent? I don’t know… I’m open to others’ comments.
Attempting to treat it as a standard case allows many attrocities to occur.
What is being attempted is a subterfuge. By claiming all 500+ folks were a single household, they were allowed to do a fishing expedition on the entire community. That fishing expedition has rendered 5 girls between 16 and 19 pregnant or with child. This isn’t quite as sexy as the 12 and 14-year-old girls they were shooting for in the raid. The latter would definately be felonious conduct. The former is between perfectly legal, misdemeanor, and possibly low grade felony.
What we are left with is a situation where children have been removed from a home by the State because the State fears (reasonably) not that they will be sexually abused (Anywhere from 12-16 is the line for sexual abuse) but that they may become pregant before their 18th birthday. In the end, what is the difference between a school district in Texas giving condoms to a 15-year-old and a religious sect marrying a 16-year-old? How can one environment be fostering an environment likely to have abuse and another not doing so? And with this risk, why on earth would a breastfeeding child need to be thrown into State custody immediately?
Now if the State of Texas wanted to argue that living in polygamous home was inherently abusive, this would be another issue. This isn’t the arugment they are making though, probably because they lack legal warrant to make it. I believe that if they want to break up a sect they need to do it directly. They shouldn’t be attempting to create a legal fiction in order to do so.
What ever happened to INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY?
Last I heard they haven’t even substantiated the call that started this yet.
And is there evidence that 416 kids are all being abused?
Come on, this is religious bigotry. Why don’t some of those lawyers who never see their own kids because they are out to rape everybody else of their money give up their own abused kids?
Oh, that’s right, there is no money in it for them.
This makes me sick and I don’t struggle with it at all except that it saddens me just how stupid and oblivious the American people have become. THey don’t even do this in Russia.
Do you have faith, do you go to church and believe in Jesus? Guess what, your next. They are going to come after you eventually. Laugh, go ahed, bigot. Just because these people are Mormons you don’t feel threatened, but mark my words, they are coming for you and your kids. It is just a matter of time. Keep the blinders on though.
If there were an individual family in an ordinary suburban neighborhood in which it was alleged and preliminary evidence suggests that the young girl children were being mentally prepared from an early age to submit compliantly to sex with older men possibly as soon as they are at child-bearing age, then the adults of that family would be accused of grooming children for sexual abuse, and the state would be expected to remove the children for protection, until the validity of the accusations could be tested in a court of law.
But somehow, for the sake of religious tolerance, we should turn away from the families in the FLDS sect. Those adults are allowed a different standard.
Right.
Provide me one example where that has occured Jason. You’re offering speculative nonsense.
Are you kidding? What is speculative nonsense about that? Sexual abuse of minors most often involves adult men known to the children, including members of their own family or friends of their family, and the sexual abuse of minors often includes a grooming period leading up to the actual abuse.
This isn’t speculative nonsense, this is the reality of child sexual abuse.
i struggle with this, too. however, i know that in our country, witnessing abuse without stopping or reporting it is also illegal. so, therefore, if the mothers witnessed abuse (young girls begin married, etc.), they are also guilty. and the justice epartment has the legal responsibilty to investigate any report of abuse, so that would include all adults who may have abused or witnessed abuse. it seems harsh to me, as a mother, but this is the legality of the matter. for example, my parents are foster parents and had a little boy liing with them who had been shaken by a caregiver (not parent) he was removed from his parents while the investigation was occuring (9 months), as the social worker was concerned that the parents lacked judgement regarding who the caregiver would be, and could not afford to not work. he is back with the parents now. this sounds a bit unjust too, and while the system may be flawed, children are removed from homes quite often when the abuse is coming from an outside source or only one parent. they are also, at times, removed when no abuse is happening, but is only suspected. i can’t imagine being one of those mothers, as a nursing mom myself, but i also can’t imagine allowing any abuse against my child or any child of my community. regardless of religion, the case MUST be investigated. i pray that no abuse was happening, but also believe that those in position to investigate must do their job.
while the systems that be probably don’t allow for this, i do think that a lenient visitation policy for young children and mothers should be made available, particularly for those who are nursing. however, i do think that the whole thing has been sensationalized and convoluted to a point where we probably don’t know the whole story of who can see whom, who can live with whom, who is being investigated for what, etc. the media does a great job of changing stories every 5 minutes, although it looks, from the addition at the bottom of this post, that young nursing babies are still with their mothers.
“in our country, witnessing abuse without stopping or reporting it is also illegal.”
Not true, actually. Obstruction of justice is a crime, but there is no affirmative duty to prevent or report criminal behavior, even serious criminal behavior.
This may be a bit of a simplistic way of looking at it, but:
If young girls are being forced to marry against their will, how does the sexual act not constitute rape? In that case, wouldn’t intervention be the same as if the police were concerned about systematic rape in a suburban context? And if this is happening, wouldn’t it be a bit odd to assume that the other children in such a community are far safer?
And if the young girls are being groomed to submit to such sexual acts from an early age, I fail to see how that is substantively different from raising young girls to accept a life of sexual slavery at the hands of (even one) man, when they had no real choice whether to marry him or not.
Aquinas famously sided with the natural law prescription that parents have primary care and, as it were, the right to raise their children, when he argued that Jewish parents should raise their children as Jews even if in doctrinal error. But if we can legitimately cast it in terms of rape, then it seems the natural law would give no quarter to these folks, and it would be a rather unrelated issue.
Pax Christi,
X-Cathedra,
That’s exactly how I’m seeing things too.
If young girls are being forced to marry against their will, how does the sexual act not constitute rape?
This is part of the case that has been blown up over the last couple weeks. There is no forced consumation on the temple bed, probably the most lurid accusation and one of the first to be dispelled. It appears that no girls were married prior to 16, at least physiologically there doesn’t appear to be. Generally what would be alleged is involuntary force where the victim does not have the ability to consent to the act. Presently in Texas 16-year-olds can give consent to marry, and I don’t know offhand the age of consent of sex. If they would have found a 12 or 14-year-old pregnant girl, the case of abuse would be automatic.
Just as a note, due to key words some comments are going to enter moderation automatically. I will attempt to clear them as soon as possible.
That is exactly what the State is saying , X Cathedra and frankly, I don’t understand MZ’s lack of concern about it. MZ do you not think girls are being raped? Or do you think they are but think the State went overboard? If you think the State went overboard, what options do you think the State could have had other than what they are doing?
“In that case, wouldn’t intervention be the same as if the police were concerned about systematic rape in a suburban context?”
How would we react if the police were to respond to concerns about systematic rape in a suburb by taking all the children in that suburb away from their parents? I don’t think it would be with a shrug.
MZ: We cross posted. You answered some of my questions. First, what is your source for your assertion that there is “no forced consumation?” Who cares if it happened on the temple bed or not. The State clearly thinks and from other women who have left have said that rape DOES occur. Why do you think rape is not occuring, merely because the girls’ age? Are you aware that women can be raped passed the age of 16? Also, if the community coerces girls into marriage isn’t that the same as rape?
Blackadder: Do the laws differ from State to State regarding abuse notification? I know in AK any adult in power (teachers, doctors, etc) HAVE a legal responsibility to speak up.
There may be special rules for people like doctors and teachers when it comes to reporting abuse, but as a general matter there is no such requirement.
I don’t really know enough about this case to comment intelligently on the merits. But I would point out:
1) The State has a pretty dismal record when it comes to cases involving allegations of mass abuse. There are just too many examples of overreaction, hysteria, and government misconduct to take as given anything government officials say in such matters unless it is backed up by solid evidence.
2) When it comes to cases involving minority groups that have weird and/or unpleasant views, this danger is even greater.
The State clearly thinks and from other women who have left have said that rape DOES occur. One can’t make a case with the latter.
Are you aware that women can be raped passed the age of 16? Certainly. Passed the age of 16 we are generally not speaking of a case where it is impossible to give consent.
Also, if the community coerces girls into marriage isn’t that the same as rape? That the marriages were arranged is not enough to establish coercion. The legal remedy to a coerced marriage is annulment. Rape would be considered on its own merits.
The division in this thread, I’m guessing, is largely between people with children of school age who have intereacted with the publicschool system, and those who have not.
My view is that the State of Texas is persecuting these poeple because they are religious conservatives with large families.
If there were truly concerned about the purity of these 16 year old girls, then it would be a matter of course for teenage pregnant girls to be removed from their parent’s care. But then everybody would see the injustice in that.
Ben, you would be wrong. In any case, all of us are speculating. I am concerned about placing children, especially these children, in foster care considering that many children are abused while in State custody. It seems like there were other ways of investigating the situation.
This statement from the Texas Comptroller seems relevant to this discussion:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60623statement.html
a few quotations:
“Data shows that while the number of foster children in our state’s care increased 24 percent from 26,133 in Fiscal 2003 to 32,474 in Fiscal 2005, the number of deaths increased 60 percent.”
“If you compare the number of deaths of children in our state’s population to the number of deaths in our state’s foster care system, a child is four times more likely to die in our state’s foster care system. ”
“Based on Fiscal 2004 data provided by the Health and Human Services Commission, about 100 children received treatment for poisoning from medications; 63 foster children received medical treatment for rape that occurred while in the foster care system; and 142 children gave birth while in the state foster care system. “
To my knowledge (and I will welcome enlightment if this is not true) the female who made the initial phone call that triggered the raid has yet to be located, or even determined to be a real case. However, the raids and resulting legal, social and overall philanthropic problems are carrying on as if we had found the weapons of mass destruction (oops … wrong war). But at least we have freed the people from the unholy Saddam (oops … FLDS men). Are there most likely problems within the sect? I am sure there are. Is this the right way to deal with them? Maybe, and maybe not. The power structure was quite eager to dash in and upset the apple cart before there was verifiable proof that a problem existed.
Apparently this is a 14-year-old pregnant girl: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-polygamists_23tex.ART.State.Edition2.4682227.html
What these women need is de-programming. One of the husbands admonished one of his wives for ordering shrimp, because he doesn’t like shrimp. He said that a good wife would never order anything for herself that the husband didn’t like. A normal woman would kick him in the nuts. I guess when you’re running around like a civil war re-enactor, normal’s a far cry. Good that they’re getting the kids out of the cult.
They bred like rabbits, too – 12 to 16 was common for a wife. Say one pasha had 5 wives, that’s 60+ children for one guy! That makes NBA players pale by comparison :P But just imagining having 16 children! If one weren’t the compound type, one’d have to buy a bus for family trips.
What really surprises me is that these thoroughly bland looking, Little House on the Prairie dressed women don’t think it strange that hubby gets it on with a bunch of other women. They must have a schedule posted or something :P
What these women need is de-programming.
Do you take one or two lumps of totalitarianism with your libertarianism?
A normal woman would kick him in the nuts.
Glad you have your priorities in check. Objectification can be traversed both ways, can it not? Perhaps she should have put him in the garage for the night too.
I guess when you’re running around like a civil war re-enactor…
None appear to be dressed as Southern Belles. The cultural reference you are seeking is Little House on the Prairie.
Good that they’re getting the kids out of the cult.
Two lumps it is.
I had the Little House in there, too, btw.
It really is rather odd that you’re defending a cult where minors are harmed. I mean, I’ve noticed before that your views on women are a bit, uh, let’s say old-fashioned, but this is now the second time you’re being quite understanding of that cult.
My view is that the State of Texas is persecuting these poeple because they are religious conservatives with large families.
…yes…because Texas is such a liberal, secular, religion-hating state…
‘religious conservatives with large families’ – nice euphemism for ‘polygamist cult’
I notice that ben, like M.Z., has expressed rather patriarchal views before. I didn’t think they were THAT patriarchal :P
Gerald,
One needn’t be a fan of polygamy, patriarchy, or child abuse to have a problem with the way the state has acted in this case.
You added LHotP while I was typing my response.
It isn’t so much the cult I’m defending as much as I’m defending the institution of the family. I find it is grossly irresponsible to define a society, even a cultic one, as a family. There have been a couple stories of women willing to leave the cult with their children, but it isn’t being addressed because the cases are being considered as one. There are some non-polygamous couples who have requested their children be returned and offered to sever themselves from the ranch. And while I don’t think we necessarily should treat teenagers as adults, I think we need to respect that they do possess some moral agency. Disregarding the father’s age for a moment, having a 16-year-old with child married is not the worst outcome in the world. Have her with child is not an ideal outcome, but it is a situation that society has to address and acting as if she lacks moral agency will more likely than not encourage worse behaviors, see the public schools with daycare centers for the students as an example.
True, BA, but ‘religious conservatives with large families’ was just too precious to resist, esp. after the thread the other week :)
Gerald,
I think your professed lack of concern for over prosecutorial abuse went a bit beyond Mr. Forrest’s comment about religious conservatives with large families.
So far I think there might have been a good case for temporarily removing the women between, say, 12-18. The rest is sheer tyranny and persecution.
Professors and public intellectuals are openly proclaiming that teaching kids religion is child abuse. Simple self-interest should get us very concerned about what Texas CPS is doing.
So you see this is as a step in the direction of Catholics losing their kids because of, eg., the Church’s discriminatory stance against gays(marriage, adoption) / condemnation of gay sex ? I think outside of the USA it’s a maybe. But – given the numbers of Catholics it’s still rather unlikely in form of a blanket policy. Also, how could mere affiliation suffice ? The church, eg, condemns contraception and almost no Catholic cares. It’d probably be a school teacher hears something, calls CPS, etc. Still, I don’t really see it in the US.
Keeping children away from their parents (where there is no credible prospect of abuse) is bad enough. But I’m afraid the really scary stuff is still to come. If past examples of this sort of thing are any indication, the authorities will soon be interrogating the children (if they haven’t started already), trying to get them to allege some form of abuse. If they deny it, this will of course be dismissed as a result of the brainwashing and the interrogation will continue. Given enough time, they will get at least a few of the children to make allegations of abuse. Presumably that will be all that is needed to convict the whole lot, regardless of whether there is any truth in the allegations or not (and regardless of whether the children later recant).
I’m sure Daddy misses his 75 children.
Speaking of whackjobs – Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t allow blood transfusions (and birthdays, voting, Christmas, Easter, you name it). There are situations when that can be lethal. Routinely, courts step in and deny the parents’ wish. I say that it’s not the kid’s fault that his parents are nuts. The state has a duty to protect children. The only question is where to draw the line.
That is just scary Blackadder. Oprah…
Gerald,
Now if you could show similar compassion for the other 100 people grieving their 300+ children being removed, a much friendly ratio for you to handle. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic! You’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? If a few people wind up under the tank treads in pursuit of the good, then that is just the sacrifice we have to make to live in a free society.
M.Z.,
Great point. And if you DO have to “break a few eggs”, just to live in a “free society”, then just how free are you?
Case in point…Look at Sweden. They have been at peace for hundreds of years, their people enjoy universal health coverage, and they produce the safest cars in the world!
As a bonus, they also get to claim ABBA as their own! :)
Gerald,
Actually, the law tends to be pretty accommodating even when it comes to things like life saving medical treatment (most states, for example, have statutes exempting parents from prosecution for abuse and neglect based on their refusing medical treatment for religious reasons. Certainly if a parent doesn’t want their child to celebrate Christmas or their birthday, the state is not going to step in and stop them.
Maybe I’m just one of the glass-is-half-full types, or else the observation that this is a good deal better than Waco or Ruby Ridge amounts to setting the bar way too low, but I don’t see that the judge’s reference to “abuse and neglect” had anything much to do with breastfeeding per se.
Rightly or wrongly, all the children here were deprived of their mothers. Their mothers. That being the case, trying to work in a breastfeeding angle muddles the priorities.
However, I think you’re spot on in being alarmed at the widespread unwillingness to confront the statutory rape aspect of all this (not to mention polygamy, and getting 12-year-old boys to work construction a year or two before turning them out on the streets). The fact that the authority figure in this case is a “husband” doesn’t necessarily make the situation any less malign than if he were merely a school teacher or minister (though it does make the state’s ability to intervene more problematic).
Admittedly, the operation here makes about as much sense as busting Al Capone on tax laws of all things. That kind of backhandedness only works if there exists a sufficiently wide consensus that somebody had to do something. Time will tell if that criterion was met but after Waco and Ruby Ridge, I doubt that everyone will be convinced.
i think child protective services on the whole do much more harm to children and families than they do good. In some cases they are quite evil in what they do. For instance, one blogger spoke, until she was threatened with legal penalities, of a woman she knew with a large family whose older son was accused of some impropriety by his sister as a result of a sibling argument. As a result all of the children (7,8,9, something like that) including a nursing baby were removed. After a while, under intense suggestive interrogation, a preschooler came up with some accusation against the father. So both the father and the oldest son were in jail. At that point the blogger had to stop talking about it because the mother trying to get her kids back was so frightened of the threats she received, of the nature that making this public showed an improper disposition to cooperate with Children’s Services (and would therefore delay or prevent getting her children back.) So I don’t know the outcome. But this is a case in which there was actually NO abuse involved, yet a family was torn apart by it. When I was very poor and had many children I was terrified of something like that happening to me. I believe that only the support of my neighbors and the fact that my kids were getting A’s in school prevented it a couple of times when we were reported, for instance, because my kids were swimming in a creek swimming hole where all the neighborhood kids had swum for generations.
I remember a pulbic health nurse told me, “You can sleep with your kids-meaning share a bed-if you are middle class, but if you are poor and do it you could be in trouble.” She illustrated this with a story-with no names-of a poor family whose children were taken away in our local area merely because they were all sleeping in one room, although there was no evidence of any sexual abuse.
There is absolutely no reason to take a nursing baby away from its mother unless the mother is actually abusing or neglecting the baby or taking illegal drugs harmful to the baby.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong, of course, about 16 year old girls being married and pregnant. It doesn’t fit our current social pattern but it is our social pattern which strains human norms. It is wrong to compel them to marry 50 year olds, although that was done in times past with the blessing of state and church. It is more wrong to compel them to marry 50 year olds who have lots of other wives. There was definitely sick stuff going on there. Also harm to the poor young boys who were kicked out. But the danger is clearly ended with the removal of the 50 year old men. Now the state needs to help the women and children with counseling and practical help to setting up new households. The women perhaps need to be monitored a bit for their emotional stability and ability to survive in the world outside the cult. They don’t need to be treated as criminals or child abusers. They are clearly victims here.
Gerald, PLEASE don’t use the expression “breeding like rabbits.” !!! It is a disgusting phrase to use about human beings. Quebecois farm families used regularly to have 12 or 14 children just a couple of generations ago. I myself have a friend who has 11 and several friends who have 9, as I do myself. Whatever the skewed modern standards are, having 12 or 14 children is not abnormal for human beings.
Yes, this should have been stopped and it should have been stopped by the removal of the abusing men. The rest of it is more abuse of power by the state.
Susan Peterson
When one guy fathers 70+ kids, rabbits would say ‘Dayum!’
In the old days, a third or more of the children died young. I don’t think it’s ‘skewed’ to think a dozen children’s a lot. Not that I care how many kids people have, personally I am thinking 2 or 3.