FLDS Texas Child Welfare Raid Part I

Unless you have been really isolating yourself from the media over the past few weeks, you are likely aware that child protective services in Texas conducted a raid on an FLDS (not to be confused with the Mormon church, which Mitt Romney is a part of, FLDS is a splinter group) compound based on allegations of sexual abuse, welfare fraud, domestic violence, and marriage of underage girls to older men.

 A few hundred children were taken into state protective services while the mess is sorted out.  Since the children & the adults have been indoctrinated to believe all outsiders are the enemy, they are confounding officials by lying about whose child is whose, lying about their ages, and their names.  Most of the children do not have birth certificates b/c they were delivered at home. You can read an article from the Salt Lake Times here. 

 The absolute best book I have read regarding Mormonism & the difference between Mormon’s and the FLDS is Jon Krakauer’s book, Under the Banner of Heaven.  I cannot recommend it enough.  The thing I appreciate so much about his book is that it is extremely religiously unbiased and written from a journalistic perspective, not a religious one.  Even if you would not call yourself a reader, this book will keep you interested.  I would lend it to you, but my cousin has it and I don’t think I will ever see it again (that was 3 years ago).

         The raid has sparked  A LOT of controversy from professionals of every type, and if you listen closely to the arguments being leveled against the authorities, they fall broadly into one of two camps:

1.) Religious persecution- people claim that unless the child is underage that is given in marriage, this behavior (polygamy) is a religious issue, not a moral issue that should be dealt with in the public square.  This is violating their rights. The claim also runs the course of saying that the state should not be interfering with matters of child welfare except in the most extreme of circumstances.. i.e. the “isolated” case within the compound.

2.)  Emotional Outrage- People in general are very upset at seeing children separated from their mothers en masse (over 400 in all).  Many, many people are comparing this to the US government treating the kids like cattle, or the treatment of those of Asian descent during WWII. But… I would like to quickly point out, that this is not a quaint Texas version of Lancaster’s Amish… this is a community known and documented to practice religion by marrying off young girls to older men.  I mean, I know the outfits are hot, and I have always wanted to sport a wide collar myself, but come on!

I am fascinated by this story b/c it highlights the on-going debate in the child welfare world of the direction of policy regarding children who come into contact with state protective services for suspected abuse, and the debate it raises b/w the separation of church & state.  For years, the child welfare system was governed by a “parent-centric” philosophy, meaning, that you were preserve the family at all costs. The primary question asked was whether or not the home was ’suitable.”  This lead to the common picture most have of children languishing in care for years while their parents may or may not meet goals. 

 Fortunately, in my opinion, we have shifted away from the philosphy in 1997 when ASFA (adoption & safe families act) was enacted which put limits on kids being in care.  The field shifted from a “parent-centric” position who saw the parent or family as the client, to a “child-centric” position whose primary question is “what is in the best interest of the child.” Under ASFA, child safety is the highest priority.  If this shift had not taken place, it is highly doubtful that such a raid would have taken place. 

If you question parents of any cultural background on what children need to thrive, you will be hard pressed to find someone who lists safety as the only characteristic.  It would be utterly absurd to argue that because your child is consistently hungry and suffering delays from a lack of food, but is not yet dying, you can be declared a fit and suitable parent.  NO, that is ludicrous, yet, that is exactly how our current policies and child welfare systsm make decisions.

Excited expectant mother’s do not walk around in their ninth month saying, “I can’t wait to protect my baby from harm.” NO, they wait eagerly to nurture the life they have carried within them. We have a frightening and despicable double standard for children. For children in “normal” families we define a good parent as one who is loving and nurturing, but in child welfare we do not define parents as “good” or “bad” simply suitable. 

When we create policies that make serious bodily harm the primary indicator for whether or not a parent should maintain parental rights (not all the FLDS parents abused their kids, right? hmmm..) , we fail and create conditions ripe for another round of abuse and neglect.  This is why I cannot understand folks arguing that these kids should stay with their moms during this investigation.   That is like making the kids the canary in the mind shaft…. put them back in… if abuse happens, then we will take them away for good!  what? Since when do we allow people a second chance to harm children, whether or not they believe it’s religiously okay?

Researchers have long docmented the link b/w childhood abuse and the likelihood of becoming an abuser, so while the state of Texas has taken exreme measures, that just may be what it takes to stop a cycle of abuse in this situation.  There is no question as to whether or not the abuse is occurring, the question is the degree of abuse.  But.. given the environment of abuse, linked to controlling religious beliefs, the situation will recapitulate if allowed to continue.

ASFA’s safety focus is a remarkable step compared with former family preservation efforts, but does not go far enough.  It is not enough to protect from injury and sexual abuse, we are inconsistent with our own parenting values if that is our policy and practice standard. This double standard also leads to a serious lack of funding for stretched agencies. 

If we keep funding at the absolute minimum, with a very low social safety net, as some advocate, you are then forced to only pursue suitability, instead of the values we aspire to for our own families.  In one of my earliest social work ethics classes in undergrad, we were given a case study about whom we would place a child with following their parents death. The case was one of those horrid (I found out later that is what a lot of social work is, it is always a bizarre set of circumstances) examples where it was the lesser of two evils.  My prof pushed us hard saying constantly… “If this were your child, which family would you pick?”  So.. the same applies… “If this were my child, how much funding would I allocate for child protective services? would I want my kid with the FLDS church while the state investigated?”

FYI: This post will be followed with a discussion on the intersection b/w polygamy, and religious rights.  Why is it practiced by all of our heroes of the faith, and outlawed by the American govt.?