Future unclear for removed youths
 
By MICHAEL GRACZYK
The Associated Press
San Angelo Standard-Times
 
Here are some questions regarding what is next for the 416 children removed from the YFZ Ranch because of allegations of a "pervasive" pattern of physical and sexual abuse involving the minors.

The questions were fielded late last week by Marleigh Meisner, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, the agency caring for the women and children, and John J. Sampson, a University of Texas law professor who teaches the Children's Right's Clinic, which provides legal representation for abused and neglected children in Travis County.

What's the next legal step?

Meisner: April 17, a full adversarial hearing, 10 a.m., in the Tom Green County Courthouse. At that point, we will make a recommendation to a judge. There will be attorneys appointed, or even perhaps (they) have already been appointed to represent the children.

For each child individually, or as a group?

Meisner: Normally, it's each child individually, but the judge is making a decision how she's going to do that.

Sampson: You have X number of mothers, and Y children and Z number of fathers, presumed fathers, alleged fathers, unknown fathers. All of the fathers are entitled to service. All mothers are entitled to service. All children are entitled to representation.

What if the judge decides not to grant custody?

Meisner: This is all to do with temporary custody. If the judge decided the children needed to be returned, then the children will be returned. It's ultimately always the judge's decision.

Sampson: They've already made something of a case to the judge when they convinced the judge we need an order not to investigate but to take possession of the children. This kind of gets into speculation because since this is unprecedented. Since there's smoke here, we suspect fire. And so the court is almost always going to say: "Yes, I realize the statute says the parent should walk out with the child unless it would be dangerous. I've already had a preliminary determination that there's a danger to the child, and we've had a hearing there's a danger to the child, and I find there's a continuing danger to the child, so naturally the state is going to be continued in the foreseeable future."

How long is that?

Sampson: "Foreseeable future" is supposed to be one year. You can get an extension for six months, then the case needs to be decided.

Is it possible the 139 women could be separated from their kids?

Meisner: That's a decision that's to be made later, and it's a decision that's not been made yet.

Sampson: The reluctance of a parent to cooperate doesn't facilitate the parents' situation. The only time a parent has a chance of prevailing is when they make a case. Now they have a presumption when they make a case that parents have a right to have and raise children, but that presumption is subject to trumping if there is a serious danger to the physical or emotional well-being of the child.

If the judge says the state can't continue temporary custody, will the women be free to go?

Meisner: They've been free to go always. They came because they asked to come. They've stayed with us but are free at any time to leave. They are here on their own choice.

Have any departed?

Meisner: To my knowledge, none have left.

Where would they go?

Meisner: I have no idea.

If the women are free to go, is it reasonable to assume they'd be able to function in the real world outside the compound?

Meisner: I don't think I can address that.

Sampson: Some people obviously were coerced. The mothers followed their children, but they didn't report the child abuse. Those who had reason to believe there was child abuse - and that's also criminal - and to that extent everybody in the whole commune could allegedly be charged with various crimes, including not reporting child abuse.

So just because they're free to go now doesn't absolve them of any future charges?
 
gosanangelo.com
Originally published Sunday, April 13, 2008
 
Back