OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics 2005 in government doing your duty than turning your back." He later predicted that "When I die, I know I will be remembered for Short Creek far beyond anything I did in office" (Bradley 1996, 149), and that the raid "had finished him" politically (Zoellner, 1998). Since the 1953 raid, public officials and law enforcement We taken a passive stance to the political hot potato that Polygamy has become. In this vacuum, The Corporation of the President of the Fundementalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church), the largest of Utah's polygamous groups, has flourished. Its population is about ten thousand people, and they live in Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona. Both towns are entirely owned by the United Effort Plan, which is a land trust controlled by the FLDS Priesthood hierarchy, whose leader is Warren Jeffs (Llewellyn 2004, 18-20). The Legal Context Davis v. Beason (1890) is the first Supreme Court case that deals with polygamous parents' right to indoctrinate their children in religious principles that include the practice of Polygamy. The Court decided that teaching children to practice religious traditions that have been deemed illegal by the state was not protected under the parent's rights. When deliv-ering the opinion of the Court, Associate Justice Field established that "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.... Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society.... To extend exemption from, punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community" (Davis v. Beason 1890, 341). Justice Field then went on to declare that "to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and Proper subjects of punishing, as aiding and abetting crime are in other cases" (Davis v. Beason 1890, 342). Therefore, the court found that to promote the crime of polygamy was itself a crime. The polygamy issue reached the Utah Supreme Court in 1955 in the case of Black v. Utah (1955). The case was an appeal from a judgment of the Sixth District Juvenile Court, which deprived Leonard and Verna Black custody of their eight children. The original petition in this case alleged that the eight children were dependent and neglected because they were "destitute," and because the parents "have and do now teach and encourage said children to believe in the practice of polygamy." Justice Worthen gave the opinion of the Court, and said that while "It is true that taking these children from their par-ents does seem harsh...unless we are genuinely concerned for the welfare of these children and for the public welfare" (Black v. Utah 1955, 909). Worthen cited Section 55-10-32, and said that Leonard and Verna Black "have not only 'failed and neglected to provide [the children] with proper mainte- nance, care, training and education...required by both law and morals,' but have affirmatively and knowingly provided the children with the care, training and education violative of law and morals" (Black v. Utah 1955, 909). Worthen admitted that while the Court found ample evidence to suggest neglect, "still this alone does not mandate the Court to deprive the parents of the custody of their children" (Black v. Utah 1955, 910). But he emphasized the fact that the "children must for their best interest be taken from the custody of their parents. The evidence warrants fully the Court's finding that the home of the parents is an immoral environment. Here they are subjected to this illegal and immoral practice of action" (Black v. Utah 1955, 911). The Supreme Court deprived the parents of custody over the eight children, and made the children wards of the state. The legal precedent set by Black was utilized by the Utah Supreme Court in the 1991 case of Sanderson v. Tryon. The Court established that the fact that parents may practice polygamy is not an adequate reason for the state to remove a child from the home. The case stems from a child custody dispute between Jennifer Sanderson and Robert Tryon, who formerly maintained a polygamous relationship. The couple separated, and the district court awarded custody to Tryon, on the grounds that Sanderson still practiced polygamy. The trial judge in the district court concluded that while the Sanderson/Tryon children attend public schools and otherwise receive proper maintenance and care, the law presumes that because of her practice of polygamy, Jennifer L. Sanderson has knowingly failed and neglected to provide for the Sanderson/Tryon children the proper maintenance, care, training and education contemplated and required by both law and morals (qtd. in Sanderson v. Tryon 1991, 625). Tryon depended on the argument presented in Black to argue that finding the plaintiff practices polygamy was adequate to support Tyron's custody award. The Court disagreed, claiming that "the findings of fact are inadequate since they simply do not demonstrate a rational factual basis for the ultimate decision by reference to pertinent factors that relate to the best interests of the children." The opinion was unanimous. From these two cases, we can conclude that the policy of the court in regards to custody of children cannot be revoked merely because a parent practices polygamy. Rather, the combination of neglect in the home as well as the parents' practice of polygamy together are sufficient reasons for the state to remove a child from the home. In Pennsylvania, however, the original premise of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v. Beason was upheld. In the 2003 Pennsylvania Supreme Court divorce case of Shepp v. Shepp the Court found that: Appellant's promotion of his beliefs to his stepdaughter involved not merely the superficial exposure of a child to the theoretical notion of criminal conduct, but constituted a vigorous attempt at moral suasion and recruitment by threats of 35 |