Warren Jeffs FLDS compound in Texas surrounded by police #4

[mysteriew]

I saw your post. I just didnt realize that you wanted me to answer you, sorry!:blowkiss:

I havent looked up the rates of any counties. I have just barely begun looking at Texas CPS. In the end these children wont all be in Tom Green county foster homes anyhow. The state of Texas is experiencing a double whammy crisis, not enough foster homes and funding, too many kids needing to be added to the system. It has already been stated that the children of FLDS will probably be fostered out all over the state of Texas.

Additionally, the CPS is state run not county.

But at the current time, the raid, the children, the court and the CPS is in Tom Green County. And CPS might be "state operated" but it is the county department. There are always departments that are better than average, as well as departments that fall behind standards. And even in the departments that fall behind, there will be some successes along with the failures.

You have indicated some very dire consequences if the children are placed in the CPS custody. I am just trying to determine if your concerns are valid. Yet despite quoting other statistics, you are unable to back up your claim that if placed in this departments care, that the statistics are valid.

You have indicated that you have a vested interest in this. You have also indicated that you have some expertise in this. I really wonder why, with your concerns, and your expertise and vested interest- why you aren't in Texas?

 

[LinasK]

No it isnt. My assertion was that even as laws are continuously changing, so does what society considers "too young" to have children.

Her assertion was it was "ok" back then because the average life span was shorter.

Her statement has validity because we could assume that to a degree on a shortened life curve people might step up the pace at which they do things.

The underage aspect of this needs to change because it doesn't follow the law, not because it is immoral on a universal level.

Glow, just look at the statistics for premature births, miscarriages, and birth defects for teenagers. You will find out that they are much, much higher than for women in their 20's whose bodies have matured.
Besides, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world does, it matters what the laws are right here in our country- except that they are shipping our children off to Canada and Mexico to escape justice.

 

[LinasK]

All of us who read and post on a crime forum know what a true pedophile is. It is a man (we will say man for the purpose of simplicity here) who has a sexual interest in children who have not developed sexually. It is a pathological twist in their mental make up. They are sexually excited by a prepubescent child . The FLDS men wait until a girl menstruates and then she is spiritually "married". This seems an awful practice to me personally living in the time period I do but it isn't true pedophilia according to the medical definition.

Oh yes it is!:furious::furious::furious: I was molested at age 13. Does that fact that I already had my period make it any less of a pedophile??? NO! In fact my molester took an interest in me as young as age 4 or 5, he used to rub up against me from behind on the pretext of getting my coat!

 

[philamena]

This seems an awful practice to me personally living in the time period I do but it isn't true pedophilia according to the medical definition.

bullchit!

 

[LinasK]

What does it say about us as a society when we are comfortable with homosexuality and not polygamy (assuming all the partners in the poygamous erlationship are consenting adults?)

Apples to Oranges-Many, many homosexuals are in monogamous relationships or they are single. You don't hear of them being in polygamous relationships or tearing families apart for their sexual benefit! And yes I do support gay rights and not polygamy! Polygamy is breeding these abuses by their very nature. It is not natural to share your spouse- that's commonly called wife-swapping and is not acceptable in mainstream society, that's why there are bigamy laws.

 

[Glow]

But at the current time, the raid, the children, the court and the CPS is in Tom Green County. And CPS might be "state operated" but it is the county department. There are always departments that are better than average, as well as departments that fall behind standards. And even in the departments that fall behind, there will be some successes along with the failures.

You have indicated some very dire consequences if the children are placed in the CPS custody. I am just trying to determine if your concerns are valid. Yet despite quoting other statistics, you are unable to back up your claim that if placed in this departments care, that the statistics are valid.

In fiscal year 2007, Texas provided foster care or other living arrangements to about 33,000 children. But in Tom Green County, where San Angelo is located, only 286 children were provided foster care.
Even the Houston/Dallas area, which has the most resources available, ends up sending children to other counties for care, said Johana Scot, director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin. The center assists parents whose children have been removed.
"San Angelo doesn't have the capacity for [this]," Scot said. "If they do end up going into foster care, they'll be all over Texas. It will be a mess."
Because San Angelo is isolated in west Texas, fewer resources are immediately available - such as lawyers, judges and mental health http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8859784


Usually when there are fewer resources (as mentioned above) the stats get worse or the case loads get farmed out to areas with more resources.

 

[Truly]

Glow, just look at the statistics for premature births and birth defects for teenagers. You will find out that they are much, much higher than for women in their 20's whose bodies have matured.
Besides, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world does, it matters what the laws are right here in our country- except that they are shipping our children off to Canada and Mexico to escape justice.

Also, Glow had actually claimed that it was ok for Agnes of France to be married at age eight, then remarried to a 65 year old murderer at age twelve.

She then had the hallucination that I had asserted that that was ok! :banghead:

 

[LinasK]

So, because they cannot do this removal to the satisfaction of ALL they shouldn't do it? Since when does the current state of CPS in TX give them a "PASS" on removing 416 children they have evidence are endangered? So, were they just supposed to say "sorry can't do it, we can't handle our current cases so maybe in a few YEARS when we get THOSE straightened out you can give us a call"?

There isn't a PERFECT CPS in the WORLD. Mistakes are made- BUT that doesn't mean we should just STOP TRYING to protect children.

And NO, they cannot leave the children on THE RANCH. That is psychologically intimidating to the children - yeah, lets just leave them in the place they have been abused at WITH the women who in many cases refused to defend them from the abuse. The kids MUST BE REMOVED to a "neutral area" where they can be evaluated in an environment outside the one the abuse occurred in. And YES, they MUST BE REMOVED from their "mothers" (whether those "mothers" are their bio mothers or not remains to be seen, BTW) because the person the child calls "mother" may or may NOT be the actual birth mother of the child. Children are not chattel, the FLDS cannot just SWAP kids like hats because they feel like it. For all CPS knows half the kids may belong to no-one at the ranch - to leave even ONE CHILD in the care of an unrelated person under allegations of abuse would indeed be criminal.

Children are like willows, they can withstand an incredible amount of force without breaking. Is it sad, yes, is it going to damage them forever? Doubtful...the risk of leaving the children in an environment where children are considered LABOR and abuse is TAUGHT and LIVED daily is much more dangerous than separating them from their "mothers" and making them eat Fruit Loops and play with toys. Babies are removed form the breast every day without any serious issues - breast feeding is great, but not key to the survival of the baby - if the Mom got ILL we wouldn't be expecting her to breastfeed - but for the baby, it's the same result...removal from the breast. If one case is acceptable, the other is too.

This situation would strain the resources of ANY state. That should NOT be an excuse NOT TO DO IT though. The children will be fine and will be returned to the bio parents, if such a relationship can be determined and BOTH parents are found to be innocent of wrongdoing. If NOT, the children will be placed elsewhere and "gasp" exposed to the infidels out here in the "world" - probably ruining them in the eyes of the FLDS Church, but joyfully, NOT in the eyes of the greater society. Those children are WANTED here - even if they chuck the long underwear and spend their days being educated and PLAYING with toys.

As to their future, I am certain that enough LDS Church families can be found to take every single child - in family groups as large as 20 - I know MANY who have adopted MULTIPLE CHILDREN and already have large families - and they will be perfectly prepared to deal with the specific issues of faith and polygamy that may arise in the raising and counseling of the children in the future. Again, I may not agree with the tenets of the Mormon Church myself, but I can put that aside to gain what is BEST FOR THE CHILDREN in this case. The KEY HERE is what is BEST FOR THE CHILDREN - and it may be that removing ALL of them from their FLDS parents (who are obviously controlled by the "Prophet" like puppets) is the BEST OPTION for the CHILDREN. I really do not care what is best for the parents if they have abused those children in ANY WAY - even if it was only that they turned a blind eye to abuse or supported and condoned psychological and emotional abuse. The CHILDREN are my ONLY concern here. What is BEST FOR THEM? And an ENVIRONMENT can be toxic - even if the food is organic and thoughts are "pure".

Leaving even a single infant in the hands of a mother who is unable to defend or protect that child against abuse of ANY KIND is WRONG! And that has NOTHING to do with the FLDS religion - but only the ACTIONS of the mother (and father) - actions made in the NAME of religion - but carried out by PEOPLE. The key here ist that this is INSTITUTIONALIZED, PROGRAMMED, REWARDED ABUSE and that makes ANY ADULT in the organization a potential abuser. the children come FIRST and MUST BE REMOVED from ALL of them and from the ENVIRONMENT OF ABUSE...PERIOD.

My Opinion

I'm in complete agreement with you Flowerchild! Excellent post!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Glow]

Back at Fort Concho on Tuesday, reporters called out to boys walking on the grassy parade field, asking if they were being treated well. One youth shook his head, indicating no.
But as reporters moved closer to the fence, a CPS worker called the boys back and appeared to scold an older boy.
Officers then approached the media and told them to move across the street.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8859784

 

[mollymalone]

My responses are in blue.

I wouldn't have disrupted the children's routine and life. They could have been left on the ranch and the true problem which is the men... could have been taken to the Fort and detained.

That goes against all CPS rules, and I suspect you'd find in all states that it is the procedure to remove the children from the home, not the parents. If you were "detaining" the men at the Fort you would be violating their rights to due process. "Detaining or arresting?" You have to have grounds to arrest and you shouldn't do that without a thorough investigation or some evidence showing the need for "detaining" the men. Due process in action. So what is it? "make sure they are going willingly or being detained?


Make sure they "know" that they are going willingly...just like the woman that originally went to the fort. As a matter of fact it has been reported that the men have indeed offered to do this. Once everyone lawyered up that news disappeared, but the point is they were WILLING to go if the children and women could have remained.

Means absolutely nothing that they offered. CPS procedures preclude this. If it were to be allowed in this case, all others in the state of Texas who had their children removed would be clamoring that these people were treated different than they were and that their children should have been left in the home where the abuse was occuring or alleged to have occured.

While they were sitting in the Fort I would have had daily LONG meetings with them concerning their future in the state of Texas. Their assets should have been frozen and a guardian put in place to pay temporary basics like the electric bills and so on.

The men, unless they own their own business do not have assets, what they have or live in belongs to the FLDS and can be removed from them by word of their leader, Warren Jeffs. The assets currently in Texas for the FLDS sect at Eldorado would be their "church", the property and the buildings and all other machinery and equipment, furnishings etc. The same furnishings the children would be using under your scenario.

The state of Texas isn't going to "freeze" their assets until a thorough investigation is accomplished. Freezing their assets without an investigation or evidence would deprive them of due process. Only after an investigation, charges and a conviction would someone be put in place to oversee the assets of the FLDS at Eldorado, like what's been done in Colorado City.

Meanwhile back at YFZ the 500 plus support staff that is currently seeing to things could have been there seeing to things. The DNA swabbing etc could all be done just as efficiently there.Didn't I read that a team is going out to the ranch to collect DNA from the women there anyhow?

This is costing the city and state governments at last report in excess of $85,000.00 a day. That same amount of money (actually much less) would be more than adequate to maintain security around the ranch. Even at the height of the raid, LE was easily able to control who went in and out. So that is not the big issue that some might think.

The actual square footage of the ranch is much larger than you think and LE would not be able to easily control who went in and out. LE from surrounding counties were called in to help control the media and other gawkers outside the Fort as it was. The very same LE who have other duties in their own counties. Who do you suggest gets called in to guard it adequately? The Marines? National Guard? Border Patrol? The procedure is being done in a controlled environment. By that I mean that the children aren't being shuttled around between buildings and being hidden so that the swabs cannot be accomplished.

The advantage of doing it this way is pretty apparent.

One, this is a patriarchal group. If the men say stay the women wont run. Once you have them complying, they in turn make sure everyone else does. Its a trickle down affect.

Two, the men KNOW that they HAVE to keep control of the money. The combination of the threat of the money drying up combined with the threat of losing their families. would bring them into line much faster than threats of charging them with child abuse or jail time.

If ordered to leave by their leaders or husbands the women will leave. They have left husbands and children on their commands, so what makes you think they won't do it again? Threaten them with losing their families? The fact that the men are assigned other wives and children allows them to simply move elsewhere and assume another family.

The FLDS leaders receive money from other members located outside of the state of Texas, many of whom run businesses that they or the FLDS own.
The money won't necessarily "dry up." Perhaps the welfare money might, but those businesses won't be forced to stop operating without just cause, evidence and a court hearing.

Three, On the matter of threatening them with the "mans" laws that they have broken.... They would view going to jail for God and their beliefs as a good thing. To them that is honorable. They would feel persecuted. They would enjoy that. We don't want them to enjoy this, we want them to be fearful of noncompliance with the law, and that their way of life is in danger. That is a whole other matter to them. They feel they MUST cling to their way of life since in their minds that is what GOD wants of them and Gods law is superior to mans. Once it is down to them being unable to carry out "Gods" law unless they concede on some points....they would concede. They would do it because they would feel they "had" to in order to continue carrying out "Gods" wishes.

They don't respect laws, they aren't fearful of the laws, otherwise they wouldn't be breaking them. FLDS members have been known to file for welfare benefits when not entitled to them; others practiced tax evasion; children are required to have birth certificates and social security numbers in order to receive benefits, education etc.. and yet the leaders of the sect have practiced a form of discrimination against many of the children. Certain mother's hold birth certificates for their children while others do not. This is due to their leaders being afraid CPS and other authorities will determine from birth certificates the mother's age and the child's age, and be better able to prosecute them for criminal behaviour.

Granted, some of the young men who were born and raised in the sect may not have been told of the laws if they've been kept from the outside world and are not taught about laws. However, many of the men/boys are sent out to work in the outside world and before Warren Jeffs took over, there was an amount of contact via limited tv etc.. The people they send out for their PR on tv all state that they follow the law. IMO BS

Never in history not even ONE time has jailing people who think they are doing something in the "name of God" worked on any significant scale. The reason for this is that the more you use the law of man on them the MORE they feel that they are pleasing God to resist. While the state or the rest of us might be fearful of jail, they don't have the same view. Of course they don't want to go to jail but if they are sent there by force then it is no longer about what they did "wrong" that got them there. At that point they are being "persecuted" and remaining rigid in their thinking and waiting things out is a wonderful thing because it is pleasing to God.

No? I seem to recall there are clerics and their henchmen and other persons convicted of terrorism activities who thought they were doing it in the name of God and it has worked quite well. They are behind bars still.

Those who work in corrections or LE can tell you that the majority of those who are incarcerated blame others and forces outside themselves and claim persecution. They remain rigid in their thinking as well. It isn't a phenomenon restricted to those who believe they are persecuted and incarcerated for their religion...like Warren Jeffs believes.

I know all of this would have been outside the current CPS protocol but this entire situation is large and new so why couldn't a "new" way of handling it been tried? I keep hearing "that is not the way its always been done" "That's not the way CPS works" etc...

CPS's protocol in all states is not perfect. Its protocol is determined by lawmakers and others, and in many cases it has been changed and improved upon through the citizens of the state keeping an eagle eye upon it and holding it accountable. So, you want a "new way" of dealing with the FLDS. Why? Are they SO special, held up above the rest of the citizens of the state of Texas? or of the rest of us?


Well the facts are that Texas has one of the poorest performing CPS's in the entire country. I am basing this not on hearing "horror stories" but rather on going to their website as well as other governmental web sites and reading the statistics. Texas has an over burdened under staffed CPS system that has been accused of drugging children as well as losing them. Their are children in their system they cant even account for. I am not picking on Texas, heck I am from Florida and our CPS is a disaster here also. This was just NOT the environment to bring an influx of 400 children into.


Then what "environment" do you suggest they "bring them into?" Federal custody? Out of state custody? CPS in each state has their own over burdened, understaffed system. Texas is doing the best it can with what it has, and there have been many fine citizens of Texas who have stepped up to the plate to ensure that this happens according to the law and with the children's best interests in mind. Do we fault them for that just because CPS didn't do it "different?"

When CPS release a press statement they seem so proud of how well they are handling these particular children. Not once have they commented about how many children already in the system have had the attention funneled away from them because of this.

We haven't heard of the CPS personnel who are working hard to carry the load, nor have we heard of all the individual LE who are working hard to protect the children. Do you expect them to give you or me chapter and verse of their entire system to satisfy a purient desire to know?

They are bending over backwards for these children of this sect. In all other cases the children would have been removed instantly from both their parents. Mothers were allowed to stay with their children for a time. How many mothers are going to complain to CPS and file lawsuits because they weren't allowed to stay with their children and these people were?

Also not mentioned, how many currently occurring abuse claims are not being investigated as closely and thoroughly as they would have been before because everyone is so focused on this one case. Even if they try their best, the manpower just isn't there. The best time to think outside the box is when the box is riddled and full of holes.

Address that question to the Texas LE who are continuing to do their job investigating abuse allegations, the CPS workers who are continuing to work on those cases. CPS may not be perfect and never will be. But if they weren't there to help, who would be? Right, the children of today might still exist in the days of 200, or 100 years ago when there was no one to be their advocate. I applaud CPS for doing a difficult job in the face of negative opinion.

 

[Truly]

Back at Fort Concho on Tuesday, reporters called out to boys walking on the grassy parade field, asking if they were being treated well. One youth shook his head, indicating no.
But as reporters moved closer to the fence, a CPS worker called the boys back and appeared to scold an older boy.
Officers then approached the media and told them to move across the street.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8859784

Well, how is that relevant to (at least) two of us telling you our personal experiences of being raped when we were children? You can't hear that, can you, Glow? To you that is just 'titillating', 'inflammatory' 'child rape', so you put your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalalalala. And try to find another way to justify what everyone else knows is wrong. :furious:

 

[mysteriew]

In fiscal year 2007, Texas provided foster care or other living arrangements to about 33,000 children. But in Tom Green County, where San Angelo is located, only 286 children were provided foster care.
Even the Houston/Dallas area, which has the most resources available, ends up sending children to other counties for care, said Johana Scot, director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin. The center assists parents whose children have been removed.
"San Angelo doesn't have the capacity for [this]," Scot said. "If they do end up going into foster care, they'll be all over Texas. It will be a mess."
Because San Angelo is isolated in west Texas, fewer resources are immediately available - such as lawyers, judges and mental health http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8859784


Usually when there are fewer resources (as mentioned above) the stats get worse or the case loads get farmed out to areas with more resources.

You are speaking theoretically. Yet your previous posts cited statistics and that is what I am interested in. What proof is there that there are fewer resources?

But currently the children are in Tom Green County. And from what I read at the website, they are not sure where the children are going to go if custody is obtained. It isn't unknown for children to be placed with relatives, even out of state relatives, they can be placed with out of state agencies, if permanent custody is given and parental rights revoked, the children may even be placed for adoption. So until a plan is formulated, I don't really think we should be criticizing possible, future, unknown plans.

 

[mollymalone]

Originally Posted by Glow

"All of us who read and post on a crime forum know what a true pedophile is. It is a man (we will say man for the purpose of simplicity here) who has a sexual interest in children who have not developed sexually. It is a pathological twist in their mental make up. They are sexually excited by a prepubescent child . The FLDS men wait until a girl menstruates and then she is spiritually "married". This seems an awful practice to me personally living in the time period I do but it isn't true pedophilia according to the medical definition."

So according to that definition you state, the underage children who were not developed sexually, and were abused at the tender age of 5, 6, 7 or other ages under 13, as evidenced by women and men who were children in this sect and have spoken out were not molested by pedophiles?

 

[LinasK]

Glow, you posted that you were a mother at age 16. I'm assuming that was by your choice, not forced. Just because you were mature enough to become a mother at that age doesn't mean others are.

 

[LinasK]

Originally Posted by Glow

"All of us who read and post on a crime forum know what a true pedophile is. It is a man (we will say man for the purpose of simplicity here) who has a sexual interest in children who have not developed sexually. It is a pathological twist in their mental make up. They are sexually excited by a prepubescent child . The FLDS men wait until a girl menstruates and then she is spiritually "married". This seems an awful practice to me personally living in the time period I do but it isn't true pedophilia according to the medical definition."

So according to that definition you state, the underage children who were not developed sexually, and were abused at the tender age of 5, 6, 7 or other ages under 13, as evidenced by women and men who were children in this sect and have spoken out were not molested by pedophiles?

I'm going to requote myself in answer, since Glow has ignored this post of mine:

Oh yes it is!:furious::furious::furious: I was molested at age 13. Does that fact that I already had my period make it any less of a pedophile??? NO! In fact my molester took an interest in me as young as age 4 or 5, he used to rub up against me from behind on the pretext of getting my coat!

Moreover, when I got my period at age 11, did that mean I was mature enough to have a baby?????

 

[Glow]

You are speaking theoretically. Yet your previous posts cited statistics and that is what I am interested in. What proof is there that there are fewer resources?

But currently the children are in Tom Green County. And from what I read at the website, they are not sure where the children are going to go if custody is obtained. It isn't unknown for children to be placed with relatives, even out of state relatives, they can be placed with out of state agencies, if permanent custody is given and parental rights revoked, the children may even be placed for adoption. So until a plan is formulated, I don't really think we should be criticizing possible, future, unknown plans.

Placing the children with relatives is a counter intuitve suggestion, given who we are talking about here.

the "proof" is in these words,

in Tom Green County, where San Angelo is located, only 286 children were provided foster care.
Even the Houston/Dallas area, which has the most resources available, ends up sending children to other counties for care, said Johana Scot, director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin. The center assists parents whose children have been removed.
"San Angelo doesn't have the capacity for [this]," Scot said. "If they do end up going into foster care, they'll be all over Texas. It will be a mess."
Because San Angelo is isolated in west Texas, fewer resources are immediately available - such as lawyers, judges and mental health professionals

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8859784

You should check out the link! There is a lot more there.

 

[barb0301]

Placing the children with relatives is a counter intuitve suggestion, given who we are talking about here.

the "proof" is in these words,

in Tom Green County, where San Angelo is located, only 286 children were provided foster care.
Even the Houston/Dallas area, which has the most resources available, ends up sending children to other counties for care, said Johana Scot, director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin. The center assists parents whose children have been removed.
"San Angelo doesn't have the capacity for [this]," Scot said. "If they do end up going into foster care, they'll be all over Texas. It will be a mess."
Because San Angelo is isolated in west Texas, fewer resources are immediately available - such as lawyers, judges and mental health professionals

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8859784

You should check out the link! There is a lot more there.

It's almost a given that the children will be moved to other counties. San Angelo is small and doesn't have the resources needed for this. However, that isn't necessarily bad. There are some great group homes in the state of TX that could take groups of siblings in to keep them together. I read an article last week (and posted a link), that said they were going to put them in group homes rather than individual foster homes.

And look who you are quoting here from this article, Johana Scot, director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin. The center assists parents whose children have been removed. Of course they are going to put the worst spin possible on this situation, they have a vested interest in doing so.

 

[mysteriew]

So according to that definition you state, the underage children who were not developed sexually, and were abused at the tender age of 5, 6, 7 or other ages under 13, as evidenced by women and men who were children in this sect and have spoken out were not molested by pedophiles?

We use the term pedophile here to signify any adult who is attracted to or who has targeted or attacked a child of any age. However, if you talk with a child molester they will proudly announce they are not "pedophiles". It is a favorite attempt to dodge and the child sexual abusers sort of have there own favorite terminologies which are based on the psychological descriptions of abberent sexual attractions. I was actually suprised to see Glow using it.

The age of the children they are primarily attracted to/attack can determine the correct term that is used.

Ephebophilia or Hebephilia= attracted to adolescents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

 

[LinasK]

We use the term pedophile here to signify any adult who is attracted to or who has targeted or attacked a child of any age. However, if you talk with a child molester they will proudly announce they are not "pedophiles". It is a favorite attempt to dodge and the child sexual abusers sort of have there own favorite terminologies which are based on the psychological descriptions of abberent sexual attractions. I was actually suprised to see Glow using it.

The age of the children they are primarily attracted to/attack can determine the correct term that is used.

Ephebophilia or Hebephilia= attracted to adolescents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

You are so right! Michael Jackson doesn't consider himself a pedophile either.

 

[mysteriew]

Pedophilia or paedophilia (Commonwealth usage) is the primary or exclusive sexual attraction of adults to prepubescent children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Usage of the correct term indicating the age they are attracted to seems to be important to the ones I have seen on blogs.

They also don't call themselves child molesters. They are "child lovers". More specifically "girl lovers or boy lovers."