A religious lifestyle or a pedophile ring?
I have heard similar thoughts in the weeks since Texas authorities invaded a ranch in Eldorado and rounded up hundreds of children from the polygamous sect of the Fundamentalist LDS Church. Did they traumatize the children in order to protect them? Did they shatter their lives to rescue them?
The invasion came after a tip from a 16-year-old who called herself a victim of sexual abuse. The tip may turn out to be a hoax, but the practices of the sect are well-known.
In the world of the FLDS, "spiritual marriage" between older men and underage girls — what the law defines as rape — is given the stamp of religious approval. Of 53 girls believed to be between 14 and 17, more than 30 have children or are pregnant, including one who gave birth to her second child in custody. Among the boys, too, there is suspicion of widespread physical abuse. Indeed, many teenage boys are routinely banished to preserve the odds of polygamy.
These questions themselves say something about our own cultural moment. Who, after all, doesn't do a double take when hearing that these "endangered children" were never exposed to the Internet or television or processed food? The girls in their prairie dresses who are raised for assigned men have never text messaged or eaten Froot Loops or seen "Hannah Montana." The children's requests for a bread-making machine and prayer time have led to some ironic comments about exactly which culture is protecting children.
More to the point is the concern about separating children from parents. Every agency balances the risks of leaving children in a dangerous setting and the trauma of removing them. But cases are generally weighed one at a time. What's different about the FLDS case is that it was a wholesale roundup of all the children of a whole community.
This makes many, like Jane Spinak, a Columbia Law professor who has represented children in foster care, uneasy. "We may not like their lifestyle," she says. "We may not condone the practice of multiple women living together with a man, but it's not for the court to decide lifestyles." Spinak remembers when children were removed from biracial families, let alone gay families. "Lots of people live lives we don't think are good for their children, but we don't take the children away." Indeed, this resident of New York archly reminded me that two governors have admitted multiple partners in the last months without having their children removed.
Recent comments
As an attorney and foster parent, the main problem I have with the...
Chad | May 16, 2008 at 4:49 p.m.
I don't believe for a second that Thomas knows exactly what goes...
Anonymous | May 16, 2008 at 4:14 p.m.
No Imposition Inquisition -
There is a monumental difference...
Anonymous | May 16, 2008 at 4:11 p.m.
