This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2008, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Until women from a polygamous sect "unequivocally" identify their offspring, they have no standing to contest a judge's decision to remove the children from a west Texas ranch, state officials argue.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services contends in a court filing released today that FLDS mothers have engaged in a "conspiracy of silence" that forced the en masse custody hearings they now want to do over.

The document was filed in response to a petition filed with the Third Court of Appeals in Austin on behalf of 50 women from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The state filing lists 468 children as being in custody, something a spokesman said today was a typographical error. There are 464 children in custody.

The mothers' petition, filed by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA), sought to reunite them with their children as they work to comply with any service plan devised by the state.

But Texas DFPS argues the pleadings do not identify which children belong to each mother, which the women have "repeatedly declined to do" and calls into question their right to dispute the state action.

"Neither the courts nor the department should be forced to play guessing games when the safety and well-being of these children are at stake," the state's response said.

But in an answer to the state filed today, TRLA attached a list of each mother and her children to refute the state's claims they are unwilling to identify their offspring.

The state went on to argue that 51st District Judge Barbara Walther did not abuse her discretion in relying on certain facts to determine the children should remain in state custody.

The state argues that during a hearing held April 17-18, no attorneys objected to the format used - which it narrowly interprets to mean use of an overflow auditorium.

Numerous attorneys did object to the "en masse" hearings, which they said denied their clients the right to individually make the case their children were not at risk.

But holding individual hearings by a statutory 14-day deadline would have been "an extraordinary waste of judicial resources" and a "logistical nightmare," the state argues.

It also says attorneys for parents and children were given ample opportunity to question witnesses and present evidence before Walther concluded the children were at risk.

Despite ranch residents who provided "misinformation," the state said, investigators uncovered facts that led to its conclusion that children were being endangered by their parents' beliefs and practices.

Girls told them there was no age too young to be married. Girls as young as 16 were already mothers and lived in households with other wives. The state identified around 20 "girls" who had conceived or given birth younger than 16 or 17 - though some of the mother's ages are now disputed and some births occurred years ago.

As for boys, the danger to them is a "belief system requires them to follow the prophet," the filing states. Removing the men from the ranch and allowing women to care for the children there was "untenable and impractical," the filing said.

The "entire male and female population at the ranch had been enculturated (sic) into the belief that underage marriage was sacrosanct," the state argues.

In TRLA's response, lawyers argued the state still has not justified the children's removal and instead shifts responsibility for the situation to the mothers.

State and federal law holds parents have a fundamental interest in actions involving removal of children, contrary to the department's assertion questioning the mothers' right to challenge its action in court, the response said.

The law firm also said the state used "mere innuendo, supposition and extrapolation rather than actual evidence for each child" to meet requirements for taking custody of the children.

Circumstances affecting less than 5 percent of the children can not be fairly extrapolated to more than 400 children, it said.

TRLA also asked the appeals court to review whether the judge dealt fairly with visitation. By leaving visits up to the department's discretion, rather than spelled out, the court effectively denied mothers the opportunity to visit their children, TRLA said.

brooke@sltrib.com" Target="_BLANK">brooke@sltrib.com