AR - Fully-Armed Sheriffs Remove 7 Homeschool Children from 'Prepper' Family

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right. The allegations of the anonymous caller was what prompted them to investigate. The investigation results are what led to the removal. I'd be pretty horrified if the law allowed children to be removed simply due to allegations without substantiation.

According to the attorney the affidavit filed after the removal did say the allegations led to the removal.

According to a motion he filed, an affidavit previously filed by authorities, following the search and after GCSO removed the children, didn't set out any facts of abuse to the children and only said the juveniles' health and safety are in danger due to "allegations" involving abuse.

He says a child is not abused by "allegations" and points out that the children were examined on scene by a physician and pronounced fit and healthy.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor.../HM_6yEtGhUutVMD_Pwu3cg#.VMBxPHb8bM8.facebook
 
I didn't say they'd get their kids back. Just that they'd escape prosecution. I think the kids are going to be in the system for quite awhile- at least some of them.

Great, for every 2 or 3 fantastic foster families, there are 5 crazy people wanting to make money off the kids. I am sure that will be much better for them, than their usual family routine. Do you really believe he is beating these kids into submission every day or every week?
 
Great, for every 2 or 3 fantastic foster families, there are 5 crazy people wanting to make money off the kids. I am sure that will be much better for them, than their usual family routine. Do you really believe he is beating these kids into submission every day or every week?
Nope.
 
Yes. I have no confidence that the father would understand and know how to comply with the law while administering God-commanded scourging, chastening, chastisement, and "correction" to his children.

He was willing to record and publicly post a sermon saying that if anyone said not to "use the rod", psychologists, etc, that he would not agree or comply because his interpretation is that he believes the word of God has mandated that he "use the rod" to correct his children. He says he believes that anyone that disagrees with his interpretation is not speaking the word of God, and can be disobeyed and disregarded. That's a very dangerous mindset, IMO.

I wanted to add that people who have lost custody of their kids for various behaviors often are enjoined from doing things like drinking alcohol and doing drugs as a condition of getting their kids back. Even though they might be adults otherwise allowed by law to drink alcohol, etc. Judges set down all kinds of conditions that parents must adhere to in order to regain or maintain custody. It would be perfectly reasonable for a judge to tell these parents they may not use physical punishment as a condition of regaining custody, among other quite reasonable conditions.

And, no charges were filed YET. This isn't over. Charges still may be filed. Particularly if they refuse to cooperate, IMO.

I do believe it is over. But whether charges are filed or not, one thing traditional Southern Baptists do NOT do is drink alcohol.

JMO
 
Yes. I have no confidence that the father would understand and know how to comply with the law while administering God-commanded scourging, chastening, chastisement, and "correction" to his children.

He was willing to record and publicly post a sermon saying that if anyone said not to "use the rod", psychologists, etc, that he would not agree or comply because his interpretation is that he believes the word of God has mandated that he "use the rod" to correct his children. He says he believes that anyone that disagrees with his interpretation is not speaking the word of God, and can be disobeyed and disregarded. That's a very dangerous mindset, IMO.

I wanted to add that people who have lost custody of their kids for various behaviors often are enjoined from doing things like drinking alcohol and doing drugs as a condition of getting their kids back. Even though they might be adults otherwise allowed by law to drink alcohol, etc. Judges set down all kinds of conditions that parents must adhere to in order to regain or maintain custody. It would be perfectly reasonable for a judge to tell these parents they may not use physical punishment as a condition of regaining custody, among other quite reasonable conditions.

And, no charges were filed YET. This isn't over. Charges still may be filed. Particularly if they refuse to cooperate, IMO.

But they haven't been YET - so without charges, you can't take away a parent's legal authority in their own home.
 
The sheriff’s office, according to the statement, “responded to possible child abuse and neglect allegations from … concerned citizens that are familiar with, and friends of, the family.”

Love to know how they were all recruited to go by the sheriff's office in one little town. Most people call a toll free number in their region or state and report anonymously. Most families get one or two people maybe who will report. Sounds like there were dozens lined up to report this in person. Odd?

I think there is a strong possibility that there was no allegation by a concerned citizen other than one of their children or children's friends. Neither CPS nor LE can enter somebody's home, search it and seize children without a warrant. I can certainly see why the Judge issued a gag order. I'm betting he demands to know who made that call to CPS or police.

The Judge is tasked with determining one of three options: there was probable cause to take the children at the time and still is; there was probable cause at the time but not anymore and the children can go back home; or, there was never probable cause to take the children.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor.../HM_6yEtGhUutVMD_Pwu3cg#.VMBxPHb8bM8.facebook
 
Great, for every 2 or 3 fantastic foster families, there are 5 crazy people wanting to make money off the kids. I am sure that will be much better for them, than their usual family routine.

Snipped for focus.

All 7 of the kids are in the same foster home-- I think that is absolutely remarkable that CPS was able to place them all together, and I'm very glad and appreciative of the efforts of the foster family. They must have a huge home, and even bigger hearts. Can you imagine taking in 7 kids in a situation like this? Most foster parents are not in it for the money, IMO. I know there are some that are, but let's not paint so many foster families with such a broad brush. I personally know quite a few very loving and ethical foster parents.

I was also thinking about how different the breakfast experience is now for the 7 Stanley kids. I hope the foster parents encourage them to talk to each other while they share breakfast. Model some positive behaviors that don't include instructions on how to endure beatings, etc.
 
Just read through this and while I was on the fence in the beginning, I do believe the authorities had very good reasons to take the kids away. And I came to this from watching/listening to videos of the mom & dad. I also think a conspiracy is highly unlikely. It would mean at least two people close to the family, the sheriff, child services, judge (and according to some, a school district looking for Federal Funds) all conspired.

Someone mentioned that we are quick to believe in a conspiracy from authorities when something bad happens and that it is a double standard. I don’t think it is a double standard. There is a reason for authorities to cover up when a child died. Someone didn’t do their job – whether through incompetence, too many charges, laziness or negligence -- and people begin to cover their *advertiser censored*. So the worker, the boss and anyone else involved may try to change records, etc., in an effort to keep their jobs.

Here, I see nothing that would give a reason for a group of people in a number of agencies to persecute the family. Is there really that many people who hate homeschoolers/preppers/ supplement users so much that they will band together to take their kids away?

Add to this the comment of the grown son who is NOT bashing law enforcements. And the mom says the teens told the cops that the parents would pack them up and take them away. If they didn’t really believe that, would they have told the cops something that would put them AND their younger siblings in foster care? Sure, there are kids who are bad seeds and might do that but most older siblings wouldn’t do something like that to the younger kids.
 
I think there is a strong possibility that there was no allegation by a concerned citizen other than one of their children or children's friends. Neither CPS nor LE can enter somebody's home, search it and seize children without a warrant. I can certainly see why the Judge issued a gag order. I'm betting he demands to know who made that call to CPS or police.

The Judge is tasked with determining one of three options: there was probable cause to take the children at the time and still is; there was probable cause at the time but not anymore and the children can go back home; or, there was never probable cause to take the children.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor.../HM_6yEtGhUutVMD_Pwu3cg#.VMBxPHb8bM8.facebook

BBM for focus.

There was a search warrant, discussed by LE as well as by the Stanley parents in their interviews.

CPS does not need a search warrant to take children into custody.

The judge determined in court that there was probable cause to take the children at the time, and still is. They remain in foster care. The next court hearing is Feb 12.
 
But they haven't been YET - so without charges, you can't take away a parent's legal authority in their own home.

But authorities CAN take children into custody who are in an unsafe, neglectful, or abusive environment. Whether or not the Stanley parents face criminal charges is a completely separate issue.
 
Colton Turner's physical abuse was reported at least three times and Texas CPS did nuthin'.

I remember that case. No one knows better than I that the authorities do not always do what they should do.
 
BBM for focus.

There was a search warrant, discussed by LE as well as by the Stanley parents in their interviews.

CPS does not need a search warrant to take children into custody.

The judge determined in court that there was probable cause to take the children at the time, and still is. They remain in foster care. The next court hearing is Feb 12.

Yes, CPS does need a search warrant to search and seize children. That argument has already been made to the courts.
 
BBM for focus.

There was a search warrant, discussed by LE as well as by the Stanley parents in their interviews.

CPS does not need a search warrant to take children into custody.

Indeed they do not but they also do need to adhere to the principals of the constitution.

I have yet to see any proof the parents were abusive.
 
was[/I] a search warrant, discussed by LE as well as by the Stanley parents in their interviews.

CPS does not need a search warrant to take children into custody.

Indeed they do not but they also do need to adhere to the principals of the constitution.

I have yet to see any proof the parents were abusive.

When there is proof, please post it. Thanks.
 
But authorities CAN take children into custody who are in an unsafe, neglectful, or abusive environment. Whether or not the Stanley parents face criminal charges is a completely separate issue.

Yes, authorities can take children into custody with probable cause. The issue in these cases, including this case according to the media, is whether there was probable cause

JMO
The Judge is tasked with determining one of three options: there was probable cause to take the children at the time and still is; there was probable cause at the time but not anymore and the children can go back home; or, there was never probable cause to take the children.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...in-in-dhs-custod/13202/HM_6yEtGhUutVMD_Pwu3cg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
104
Guests online
1,754
Total visitors
1,858

Forum statistics

Threads
605,488
Messages
18,187,687
Members
233,389
Latest member
Bwitzke
Back
Top