Why is the ACLU of Arkansas so quiet about the seizing of children from Tony Alamo Ministries
To be honest with you, I don't have a definite answer to the question I pose in the title of this article. But one thing is certain, if there ever was a case for the Arkansas chapter of the ACLU to get involved with, it is the seizure of children from parents who are members of the Tony Alamo Ministries church but who are not guilty of committing any child abuse or neglect.
The similarities between the case of nearly forty children seized by the Arkansas Department of Human Services from parents of children who were part of the Tony Alamo Ministries in Fouke, Arkansas and the case of the seizure of more than 400 children from the FLDS ranch in Texas earlier in 2008, have many similarities. In both cases the leaders of the two religions were accused of and/or charged with polygamy and sexual abuse of minors. In both cases, the state seized all of the children connected with the church, whether or not those children had been abused.
But there are two major differences. In the case of the FLDS, the ACLU of Texas got involved on behalf of the FLDS, filing a friend of the court brief, along with the national organization. The ACLU also issued three press releases supporting the FLDS parents, and they attended court sessions to observe whether or not the constitutional rights of members of the FLDS were being violated.
Here are some paragraphs from one of the press releases. The comments that the ACLU makes in this press release could just as easily apply to the situation with Tony Alamo Ministries in Arkanasas. (Emphasis added).
"Last month, TDFPS seized more than 400 children during a raid on the YFZ Ranch, where individuals affiliated with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) resided; the children have since been dispersed to foster facilities across the state. In its brief supporting last week's unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of a Texas appellate court, the ACLU asserts that the state's only evidence of harm was general allegations related to the parents' "culture," "belief" and "mindset." Further, before the state may deny a mother access to and custody of her child, the U.S. Constitution and state law require the mother be assured of due process of law – including a fair hearing, individualized consideration of the evidence, and proper application of state law.
"Children and parents have the right to be together unless it is determined, applying the proper legal standards adopted by the state and consistent with the U.S. Constitution, that temporary or permanent removal is necessary," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "When the state has actual evidence of ongoing or imminent child abuse, it certainly should separate children from their abusers, but children may not be separated from their parents based solely on the state's disagreement with a group's thoughts or beliefs, religious or otherwise."
In its ruling last week, the Texas Third Court of Appeals found that the state had offered "legally and factually insufficient" grounds for the "extreme" measure of removing all children – from babies to teenagers – from the YFZ ranch. As the appellate court concluded, "[t]he existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger."
The ACLU brief submitted today raises a number of concerns about the lack of procedural safeguards employed by the state. First, the ACLU argues that the state failed to provide parents a fair, individualized custody hearing at the highly unusual and frequently chaotic mass proceeding held before a district court on April 17 and 18, 2008. Second, the ACLU asserts that Texas custody law must be applied fairly, impartially, and without bias to the mothers. Finally, the ACLU argument focuses on a parent's right to care for her child, a right both state and federal courts have found to be more "precious" than property rights."
The second difference between the FLDS case and the Tony Alamo Ministries case is that judge Joe Griffin, presiding over hearings involving the children seized from the Tony Alamo Ministries church has put the parents of these children in the position of choosing between their religion and their children. Judge Griffin has ruled that if these parents want to be reunited with their children, they must not live on church property or work for the church. He has done this despite the fact that some of these parents believe it is their religious duty and calling to work for the church fulltime and have been doing so for years. One can hardly imagine a judge forcing a rabbi, priest, monk or minister from making a similar choice, even though many of them work fulltime doing religious work and live on church property and solely depend on their church for their financial support.
Furthermore, when one parent, Brian Broderick, moved from church property and got a job as a painter in Little Rock in order to comply with the judge's ruling, Judge Griffin ruled that he didn't comply fast enough. He then awarded custody of Mr. Broderick's children to a relative of his wife in West Virginia, creating a hardship for Mr. Broderick as the relative now has the right to tell him if and when he can visit his children, and he has a long drive to make in order to see the children.
It is very clear from the videos below of the interrogation of Mr. Broderick's children, that his children were not abused or neglected. That explains, of course, why the Arkansas Department of Human Services was so upset when these videos were released and asked Judge Griffin for a gag order, which he granted.
As to the question I asked at the beginning of this article, why hasn't the ACLU of Arkansas gotten involved in this case when it is so similar to the FLDS case in which both the Texas and national organization got involved, there can only be two answers--lack of resources and cowardice. I know the ACLU in Arkansas has limited resources. But it does not take many resources to issue a press release stating the concerns the ACLU has about the many civil and religious liberties issues that this case raises. And if the ACLU was concerned about the seizing of children from the FLDS ranch in Texas, they should have greater concerns in this case. While fewer children were seized from the Tony Alamo Ministries church, additional rights have been violated that do not appear to have been violated in the case of the FLDS. The Arkansas ACLU has issued several press releases over the past year, but none of them deal with situations as serious as the one involving the unconstitutional seizure of children from parents who are members of the Tony Alamo Ministries.
The silence of the ACLU--and the same could be said about other religious and civil liberties groups--about the seizure of children who were not being abused from the Tony Alamo Ministries church seems to lead to the second possible conclusion.
While sometimes it is true that silence is golden, could it be that in this case it is just plain yellow?
Copyright 2009 Daniel Weaver, reprinted with permission.