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

[MyBelle]

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.

Yes, even states have figured out--no doubt due to lawsuits--that they do need a warrant to search and seize anything, including children. The courts have not been silent on the issue and I doubt they will be silent about this one.

Case law has established that the state satisfies the reasonableness component for a full-scale search through a showing of probable cause.http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/investigations.html

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.

http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/bin/white_papers-articles/investigations.html

 

[Morag]

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

At least not in front of one another!

(And before anyone gets upset, I grew up in the south, and this is an old joke from the very Baptist town I grew up in.)

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Hmmm... Just came across a media person's twitter. Seems as though a couple family members did in fact feel abuse had occurred in that house, so much so that they testified to it during the probable cause hearing. IMO for a child to be upset and spout off that they're abused is one thing, but to actually testify to it in a court of law lends more credence. Curious the outcome of this case. I hope the courts can get to the bottom of everything.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

https://mobile.twitter.com/_joshberry

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
Reporter at @KARK4News @Fox16News #Team20
Little Rock

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
TONIGHT AT SIX: Waiting for Judge's decision in the case of the 7 Stanley children removed from their home. #KARK4 tout.com/m/75jccq?ref=t…
3:34pm - 21 Jan 15

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
@Bexnoell I'm told there was testimony by witnesses, including family, that claimed physical abuse. specifics haven't been released
8:03pm - 22 Jan 15

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
@WendyShank1 The Judge hasn't released that info yet. Apparently certain family members' testimony claimed the physical abuse.
4:06pm - 22 Jan 15

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
Hal Stanley walked out of Garland Co Courthouse crying, saying they're heartbroken. Judge's gag order keeping family quiet otherwise #ARnews
2:45pm - 22 Jan 15

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
#BREAKING Stanley family atty. confirms judge's finding of probable cause for DHS to keep custody of children. #ARnews
1:56pm - 22 Jan 15

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
@sbgeorge00 that's their attorney yes. Apparently there was credible testimony from family that there was physical abuse going on.
2:40pm - 22 Jan 15

Josh Berry
@_joshberry
Source: credible testimony given in court alleged physical abuse. MMS not only factor in keeping Stanley children in DHS custody #ARnews
2:15pm - 22 Jan 15

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Going over what constitutes abuse in Arkansas. Since its legal to physically discipline a child there, for a court to determine probable cause to keep the children from their respective parents it appears they may have gone over their legal limitations.

Maybe there's more to be gleaned from Hal's morning devotionals...

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Is Hal ordained? If so, how and where did he become ordained? Did he give sermons in church before preaching at his home, which is where he most recently holds his own church? Has he lived in Arkansas his entire life? Michelle? How old is their oldest child (children) that are in college?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

This is not and will not be the first or last case where children were removed from the home for safety reasons, while an investigation is conducted. There are countless others where freedom of religion, home schooling, etc. aren't applicable and I find it ridiculous that so many would rally around parents that cry poor me, based on what they have to say without both sides of the story.

Child welfare cases are always sealed from the public to protect the children. Blowing smoke of conspiracy may appeal to the ignorant, but it won't fly with those that know and understand it is how the system works FOR the protection of the children. Sometimes parents have to "put on their big boy/girl panties" and deal with it. I wonder what kind of "excuse" I and many others, could drum up with the media to garner support if I were in the situation?

I most likely would admit that I am not a perfect parent, as I don't believe there is such a thing and I would welcome assistance and counseling for my family in order to be reunified. I would make whatever changes that are necessary in my parenting for the psychological and physical well being of my children if needed.

It is very telling that the older son speaks out and states that there are two sides to the story. The fathers own words are his discipline practices and why he justifies them cannot be denied. His own words that he will listen to what "God" tells him to do over anyone else cannot be denied. I'm sure I could twist up some bible verses to justify just about anything and claim it's my religious freedom to do so. For very good reasons that everyone is aware of that bird doesn't fly when it crosses a line to the point of harming others.

The parents were very quick to blame the children for the involvement of the authorities in the media. When the son that is out of the home spoke, they had an excuse to give blaming him because he is not of their religion. I can see why there was mention of a gag order if the parents will still so stubborn to blame their children publicly in the media. We don't know and we won't know what the authorities actually found, we will only hear the parents who could do no wrong side. The pieces that add up and are available to view are plenty for me to understand why the courts have taken these actions to protect the CHILDREN.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Is Hal ordained? If so, how and where did he become ordained? Did he give sermons in church before preaching at his home, which is where he most recently holds his own church? Has he lived in Arkansas his entire life? Michelle? How old is their oldest child (children) that are in college?

There is a lot that can be viewed on the website where the "sermons" are to answer your questions. He holds church at his home with his family and says sometimes a few others will show up to attend. He has 9 children with his current wife. Two are out of the home. He has five others that are older, not from this wife and there is no mention of them other than they exist.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

There is a lot that can be viewed on the website where the "sermons" are to answer your questions. He holds church at his home with his family and says sometimes a few others will show up to attend. He has 9 children with his current wife. Two are out of the home. He has five others that are older, not from this wife and there is no mention of them other than they exist.

I know, I looked at their Wordpress site when going through the thread last night. I'm wondering if he's truly ordained or does he just call himself a reverend? I'm uneducated as to his someone becomes a minister and that's why I'm asking. I wonder if he did a fellowship or became an elder somewhere at least before becoming a minister. Did he give sermons in an actual church prior to holding church in his house? The reason I ask this is bc I wonder if he preached in a church before then why doesn't he now?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I know, I looked at their Wordpress site when going through the thread last night. I'm wondering if he's truly ordained or does he just call himself a reverend? I'm uneducated as to his someone becomes a minister and that's why I'm asking. I wonder if he did a fellowship or became an elder somewhere at least before becoming a minister. Did he give sermons in an actual church prior to holding church in his house? The reason I ask this is bc I wonder if he preached in a church before then why doesn't he now?

Those are things that I don't know. Listening to his sermons, he discusses home church and why he believes in it.

 

[Morag]

From the Arkansas Code:


5-2-614. Use of reckless or negligent force.

(a) When a person believes that the use of physical force is necessary for any purpose justifying that use of physical force under this subchapter but the person is reckless or negligent either in forming that belief or in employing an excessive degree of physical force, the justification afforded by this subchapter is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish a culpable mental state.

Perhaps the reason for using physical force on these children has been recklessly or negligently formed. For example, if a child refused to agree with a religious opinion, or spoke out on a matter with which the parents did not agree; the reason for using physical force would be hard to justify. Right now, we can't know what these parents may (or may not) have done, but if they are relentlessly beating them because of a (mis)interpretation of a Bible verse, that may not be a lawful justification.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

I am aware there was a search warrant. CPS in my state does need a warrant to enter a home, search it and seize children. I thought the Constitution applied to all states but perhaps not.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

At least not in front of one another!

(And before anyone gets upset, I grew up in the south, and this is an old joke from the very Baptist town I grew up in.)

I also grew up in the South and I'm not aware any aspect of this religion was or is a joke. Those that were Southern Baptist that I knew didn't drink or play cards. I can only go by what I know.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

I am aware there was a search warrant. CPS in my state does need a warrant to enter a home, search it and seize children. I thought the Constitution applied to all states but perhaps not.

JMO

Yes, the Constitution applies to all states, but state and local laws are sometimes in disagreement with the federal laws, and AFAIK, those laws at the state level may be enforced until they are appealed to the federal courts. I didn't read the whole of the Wikipedia article I reference, but I believe that there are something like 10-12 intermediate courts and challenged laws must go through one of them before reaching SCOTUS. I am in no way suggesting that probable cause should not be established and warrants served before entering a person's home. I do know that renter's seem to have lesser rights and I assume that there in an entire code of regulations that CPS uses apart from the criminal code that applies to LE. Since children are not property but human beings, I also assume that they are treated (or should be) as human beings when it comes to being "seized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals

Moreover, just as law is subject to interpretation through the appeals process, so may any text be interpreted and placed in its context (historical or political or social) for a better understanding thereof. Take the book Ecclesiastes, for instance. Some people believe the narrator to be Solomon but many biblical scholars to not believe so. In short, if you write it, someone somewhere is going to interpret it. This is called freedom, and it is in a way, but it is also how power is employed. Some people's interpretations end up being listened to and influencing the future; other interpretations are discarded.

 

[daisytrail]

And if we all don't do it occasionally, we will never get to where we want to be. To think that you can go through a lifetime and never have to go along to get along is absurd. My Grandmother and I never saw eye to eye but we loved each other and we both had to smile, grit our teeth, and get along sometimes.

But that is not exactly what I think. Of course in any relationship, compromise is important, but I do not believe in breaking children's wills. When I used the word hypocrisy, I was specifically referring to asking a child to invalidate his or her own beliefs and put on a false front when it comes to religion. I know many religious hypocrites. I have observed that they do much damage to others. I think it is an insult to a religion to pretend to it.

 

[Morag]

I also grew up in the South and I'm not aware any aspect of this religion was or is a joke. Those that were Southern Baptist that I knew didn't drink or play cards. I can only go by what I know.

JMO

I'm not the only one who knows this joke. Try googling baptists drink in front of each other. I believe it was a Southern Baptist who told the joke to me. I came from a small, worldly university town whose denizens were comfortable with people of other religions.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm not the only one who knows this joke. Try googling baptists drink in front of each other. I believe it was a Southern Baptist who told the joke to me. I came from a small, worldly town whose denizens were comfortable with people of other religions.

There are Baptists and there are Southern Baptists. They are not one and the same denomination but they certainly do coexist comfortably in the same towns. Southern Baptists do NOT drink alcohol. It isn't a joke to them, imo.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1156

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, the Constitution applies to all states, but state and local laws are sometimes in disagreement with the federal laws, and AFAIK, those laws at the state level may be enforced until they are appealed to the federal courts. I didn't read the whole of the Wikipedia article I reference, but I believe that there are something like 10-12 intermediate courts and challenged laws must go through one of them before reaching SCOTUS. I am in no way suggesting that probable cause should not be established and warrants served before entering a person's home. I do know that renter's seem to have lesser rights and I assume that there in an entire code of regulations that CPS uses apart from the criminal code that applies to LE. Since children are not property but human beings, I also assume that they are treated (or should be) as human beings when it comes to being "seized."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_courts_of_appeals

Moreover, just as law is subject to interpretation through the appeals process, so may any text be interpreted and placed in its context (historical or political or social) for a better understanding thereof. Take the book Ecclesiastes, for instance. Some people believe the narrator to be Solomon but many biblical scholars to not believe so. In short, if you write it, someone somewhere is going to interpret it. This is called freedom, and it is in a way, but it is also how power is employed. Some people's interpretations ended up being listened to and influencing the future; other interpretations are discarded.

When someone feels their civil rights are violated, they can and often do file a lawsuit. It could very well happen in this case. It sure wouldn't be the first time parents have felt their rights violated by CPS or law enforcement.

JMO

 

[Morag]

There are Baptists and there are Southern Baptists. They are not one and the same denomination but they certainly do coexist comfortably in the same towns. Southern Baptists do NOT drink alcohol. It isn't a joke to them, imo.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1156

I have known Southern Baptists who do drink, so we'll have to agree to disagree. The flesh is weak for some; but not all.

 

[MyBelle]

I have known Southern Baptists who do drink, so we'll have to agree to disagree. The flesh is weak for some; but not all.

I'm not seeing your point. Mr. Stanley is a Southern Baptist minister. He has said he does not drink. The Southern Baptist Conference does not accept the use of alcohol.

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1156/on-alcohol-use-in-america

Hal added, "There's never been any beer, liquor."

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...ng-search-for-mi/18793/P9S1iYaoUEuIXypDAa_3kQ