Published: Friday, May 2, 2008
Case of polygamist sect raises values dilemma
The disturbing child abuse case unfolding in Texas raises difficult questions about two ideals we hold dear: Religious freedom and child safety.
The state of Texas has been criticized by church members, lawyers and civil liberties groups for removing all of the children from a polygamist compound following a raid by Child Protective Services. Members of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are accused of a pattern of abuse in which teenage girls were forced into underage "spiritual" marriages and sex with older men. The state, however, moved all the children, from nursing infants to teenage boys, into foster care, with a total of 463 children in custody.
Of those, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children under 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys 14 to 17 years old, compared with the 53 girls in that age range.
On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Texas Child Protective Services said that nearly 60 percent of the underage girls taken in the raid have children or are pregnant. Of the 53 girls between the age of 14 and 17 who are in custody, 31 have either given birth or are expecting. Those numbers lend credence to the need for the raid in the first place, even if the calls that sparked the inquiry didn't come from one of the teenage sect members.
The church believes polygamy brings glorification in heaven and leader Warren Jeffs is revered as a prophet. Jeffs was convicted last year in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl into marriage with an older cousin.
Constitutional experts say U.S. courts have consistently held that a parent's beliefs alone are not grounds for removing a child.
"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't do that," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the Associated Press.
Which is precisely the dilemma. "Imminent risk of harm" means the only time the state can legally step in is right before one of those underage "spiritual" marriages is consummated.
But doesn't the state have an obligation to protect these young women, even if they say marriage and pregnancy at 16 is what they believe in and want? Statutory rape is OK under the guise of religion?
It's a tremendously fine line; answers aren't easy. The state likely could've conducted the raid in a more efficient, less disruptive manner. But those errors don't outweigh the need to protect girls who may or may not know they need help.
The state of Texas has been criticized by church members, lawyers and civil liberties groups for removing all of the children from a polygamist compound following a raid by Child Protective Services. Members of The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are accused of a pattern of abuse in which teenage girls were forced into underage "spiritual" marriages and sex with older men. The state, however, moved all the children, from nursing infants to teenage boys, into foster care, with a total of 463 children in custody.
Of those, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children under 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys 14 to 17 years old, compared with the 53 girls in that age range.
On Tuesday, a spokesman for the Texas Child Protective Services said that nearly 60 percent of the underage girls taken in the raid have children or are pregnant. Of the 53 girls between the age of 14 and 17 who are in custody, 31 have either given birth or are expecting. Those numbers lend credence to the need for the raid in the first place, even if the calls that sparked the inquiry didn't come from one of the teenage sect members.
The church believes polygamy brings glorification in heaven and leader Warren Jeffs is revered as a prophet. Jeffs was convicted last year in Utah of forcing a 14-year-old girl into marriage with an older cousin.
Constitutional experts say U.S. courts have consistently held that a parent's beliefs alone are not grounds for removing a child.
"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't do that," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the Associated Press.
Which is precisely the dilemma. "Imminent risk of harm" means the only time the state can legally step in is right before one of those underage "spiritual" marriages is consummated.
But doesn't the state have an obligation to protect these young women, even if they say marriage and pregnancy at 16 is what they believe in and want? Statutory rape is OK under the guise of religion?
It's a tremendously fine line; answers aren't easy. The state likely could've conducted the raid in a more efficient, less disruptive manner. But those errors don't outweigh the need to protect girls who may or may not know they need help.
Comments
(