View Single Post
Old 04-29-2008, 05:06 PM   #111
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

link....

Quote:
FLDS update: Under guard, sect teenager giving birth in Texas
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune

An FLDS female whose age is in dispute was in labor in a San Marcos hospital Tuesday, accompanied by Texas Rangers and CPS workers, an attorney said.
Attorney Rod Parker, an FLDS spokesman, said Pamela Jeffs is 18 - the same age shown for her on a court document prepared by Texas Child Protective Services.
Jeffs is one of 26 females CPS has now classified as minors
, an assessment that the FLDS said Monday was erroneous.
"Her husband is 22 and they are a monogamous couple," Parker said. He said Jeffs' husband is not at the hospital with her.
The couple also have a 16-month-old son, who is being held at The Children's Shelter in Austin.
so....it looks to me like the following is true or at least true as far as the State of Texas knows;

1. Pamela Jeffs claims to be 18;
2. A court document prepared by CPS shows her to be 18;
3. Pamela Jeffs and her husband are monogamous (not unlikely if he is in fact 22, as far as I can tell it takes several, several years for a fundie fellow to accumulate 3-5 wives);
4. Pamela Jeffs was apparently 16 when she had her first child;
5. Girls can legally get married in Texas at the age of 16 so long as their parents consent;
6. Pamela Jeff's 16 year old month son shows no signs of abuse (the CPS agent in charge testified that the children were, by and large, healthy and loved and the only substantive indication of abuse was pregnant kiddies);

If the above is true, or even if at least the State of Texas has no sound reason to believe otherwise, then the State of Texas has taken the 16 month old son of a legally married couple for no reason other than that the State cannot abide the religious affiliation of the parents. Furthermore, the mother is being touted by the CPS as further evidence that children or being abused, notwithstanding that the only plausible reason the mother went with the CPS in the first place was to remain with her young son.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote