Our View - Saturday

OVERSTEPPING ITS AUTHORITY
Agency wrong to take kids, court rules

It's easy to look at the situation in West Texas, where the state Child Protective Services authorities raided a polygamist sect and removed all 440 children from the compound, as a circuslike situation with little relevance for other Americans. The family situation is bizarre, and photographs of the 38 mothers leaving the San Angelo courthouse look like something straight out of "Little House on the Prairie."

Nevertheless, had the Texas Court of Appeals not ruled that CPS overstepped its legal bounds, then such agencies - already known for their secrecy, vast powers, unaccountability and occasionally abusive behavior, real and imagined - would have no realistic limits on its power to take children away from their parents. The case also shows that in the children's services system, parents are guilty until proven innocent, which is a troubling reversal of the standard legal precepts in a free society.

CPS agents swept into the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints compound after receiving a call to its abuse hotline from someone alleging to be an abused teen-age girl - a call that now is believed to have been a hoax, possibly from a troubled Colorado Springs woman. Instead of finding that particular girl and removing her from an abusive situation, the CPS agents removed all the children and then farmed them off to foster homes across the state. Children were often separated by hundreds of miles from their siblings, and parents were not free to see them.

"Removing children from their homes and parents on an emergency basis before fully litigating the issue of whether the parents should continue to have custody of the children is an extreme measure," according to the court. "It is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary for the protection of the children involved. However, it is step that the legislature has provided may be taken only when the circumstances indicate a danger to the physical health and welfare of the children and the need for protection of the children is so urgent that immediate removal of the children from the home is necessary," the court said.

The authorities took all the kids in a community even though there was no immediate or urgent danger. The court found that CPS made no effort to resolve any particular problems short of taking the children. CPS officials found five teenage girls (aged 15 and 16) who were pregnant, but then leaped to the conclusion that all the children there - including infants and toddlers - must be removed to protect them. There's evidence that at the Yearning for Zion ranch girls are pushed into marriages with older men, but that shouldn't give the state the right to take away all of the children who live there. Those cases should have been handled on a case-by-case basis, not the one-size-fits-all methods so common to government actions.

"Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal," according to the court. CPS on Friday appealed the decision to the state supreme court.

Obviously, the state needs a way to remove children from dangerous and abusive situations. But too often, officials behave as if parents have no rights, and as if the children belong to the state. Hence, their tendency to swoop in, remove kids and think nothing about the long-term pain and suffering their actions - especially when they overreact or are wrong about the situation in a home - cause to children and their families.

Perhaps this troubling and complex situation in Texas will cause Americans to begin a broader discussion about CPS policies and parental rights.

GRAND JUNCTION CULTURE CLASH

The battle over religion's place in the public square likely will never be settled to the satisfaction of everyone. Each Christmas season sees a renewed battle over which and how many religious symbols will be allowed on public property. If it weren't such an important issue, it would be entertaining to watch, each side firmly convinced it's in the right and the other simply ignorant of the Constitution. Last week, the battle moved a little closer to home when members of the Western Colorado Atheists asked the Grand Junction City Council to do away with the invocation that starts each council meeting.

According to an Associated Press report in Friday's Gazette, the atheists believe the "prayers violate the First Amendment and make residents who don't hold religious beliefs feel unwelcome." The First Amendment issue has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and protests and the results have been mixed. Sometimes one side wins, sometimes the other as courts struggle to keep the debate within strict confines. As for the atheists feeling unwelcome, many people might feel unwelcome at council meetings. Some might be awed by the perception of authority of government, others as a result of being lambasted by elected officials. But as long as no one is physically preventing them from attending or acting in such a manner as to stifle public participation, they have access to government.

But a bigger problem than someone's comfort level is the attitude of some members of the City Council. Mayor Gregg Palmer says he's a Christian and he sees nothing wrong with the invocation. Of course he doesn't; no one is challenging his beliefs.

Councilman Doug Thomason, a Methodist, said, "If they chose not to observe the invocation, that's their prerogative." Would Thomason feel the same if the atheists chose to not observe the invocation and sat in the front row, chatting among themselves as the others prayed? Most likely not. Sure, such actions would be rude, but likely wouldn't prevent the invocation. Thomason went on to say, "But they're not going to infringe on my rights to hear that invocation." From whence comes a supposed right to hear a religious prayer at a public government meeting?