Re: Texas Polygamists--sf in real life?

In message <ddfr-5B9CB7.00080829042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, David 
Friedman <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>In article <rdhd145qftjvuj2bbns6jtvstvs476ntel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Daniel R. Reitman <dreitman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:39:24 -0700, David Friedman
>> <ddfr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ldfd14h9lsaquvu3c13qhu6m14oo9k81i6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > Daniel R. Reitman <dreitman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> . . . .
>>
>> >> Tex.
>> >> Fam. Code @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 2.401(d).   Furthermore, Texas law prohibits persons
under
>> >> 18 from entering into common-law marriages.
>> >
>> >Thanks--that's the part I was missing. Do you happen to know when that
>> >provision went in?
>>
>> >.  . . .
>>
>> According to the Texas Legislature web site, no later than 1999, but
>> the session laws are only available from 2001.  The only amendment
>> since was in 2007, which added only the prohibition on bigamous
>> common-law marriages.  (I expect the courts would consider that
>> declarative of common law.)
>
>Thanks. The im****tant point is that it was not part of the changes three
>years ago, so not something put in to target the FLDS.
>
>On a slight tangent, I just rethought my calculations on number pregnant
>vs number of children, and I was making a factor of two mistake--in the
>direction that favors the CPS. The right calculation is:
>
>Suppose that at any one time two women in the 14-17 age range are
>pregnant. At the end of 4 years, about ten children will have been
>produced by mothers who were in that age range when they produced them.
>But half of those mothers will at that point be 18 or over. So a count
>of children produced by mothers who are currently 14-17 should give you
>about five children.
>
>The Texas authorities say there were at least 29. I think that's more
>than mildly implausible. Either the pregnancy figure is way too
>low--which seems unlikely, given that it comes from people who wanted it
>to be high--or the figure on how many had been mothers is greatly
>exaggerated.
>
>Am I making a mistake in my calculations?
>

At least one, it takes a certain amount of time before pregnancy becomes 
detectable, AIUI if a woman hasn't missed her period yet then the test 
won't work. If pregnancy is not suspected then it may not be tested for. 
Both shorten the period in which pregnancy is likely to be detected. You 
should be using the period during which pregnancy is likely to be 
detected rather than the actual length of pregnancy.
-- 
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address