Legal experts all agree that the sequestering of all the children at a religious retreat of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, near San Angelo, Texas, raises serious constitutional questions. In an article written by Michelle Roberts for the AP titled “Sweep of Polygamist’s Kids Raises Legal Questions” several legal scholars agree that serious constitutional questions need to be addressed.

The move has the appearance of "a class-action child removal," said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University's law school in Dallas. "I've never heard of anything like that," she said.

Attorney’s for the church as well as church members claim that the state not only failed to properly investigate but is condemning all members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regardless of weather or not they participate in polygamy.

A number of those that have lost their children are not in plural marriages and live apart from those that are in plural marriages. And yet their children were also taken. Some legal scholars contend that is not possible. [b] Constitutional experts say U.S. courts have consistently held that a parent's beliefs alone are not grounds for removal. [/b]"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't do that," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

At the two ring circus held in San Angelo, some call it a child custody hearing, the state conceded that none of the male children were abused or at risk of abuse. Yet all underage male children were taken by the state and are now incarcerated in a home for troubled or abandoned teens.

Other legal questions will undoubtedly surface when it is established that there was no phone call for help. The young girl that allegedly made a plea for help has yet to make herself known. If she was in such dire need as is claimed and she is now free from her abusive husband and the church why does she not raise her hand and say “Here I am. Thank you for setting me free”?

All of us are against child abuse. And yes young teen girls marring men three or four times their age does qualify as sexual child abuse. But let us not forget that we are a nation of laws. And those laws should apply not to just a select few but to everyone equally. If the authorities indeed suspected child abuse at the ranch then there are constitutionally correct methods of investigating. This is where an astute prosecutor makes good use of grand juries.