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

[PrairieWind]

I think some of this last discussion here is why some people are concerned about religion being attacked. It is very easy to go from talking about the alleged behavior to the religion and then to just assuming that that behavior is common or "a part of" that particular religious affiliation. Then everyone of that or similar affiliation is under a cloud of suspicion for no valid reason.

 

[MyBelle]

From my post #371 above:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...n-from-Prepper-Family&p=11439477#post11439477

Do you have some evidence that HS is a Southern Baptist? Some sources or links? Because if not, all this discussion about Southern Baptists is irrelevant.

IIRC, you were the first one in this thread to identify HS as a Southern Baptist, so I'm curious where you came to that conclusion. Is it just because it's dominant in the south?

Many links have been posted.

Stanley, a Southern Baptist preacher,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-over-the-dangerous-miracle-supplement-mms/

 

[Confusion]

One of the reasons it bothers me when people with no training decide to diagnose someone else with a mental illness (especially someone they've never even met.) Most symptoms of most mental illnesses are normal behaviors. What makes them symptoms is the degree to which they're done. In some cases, it's a very fine line and in some cases it's only a symptom if in combination with another "over the limit" behavior/belief.

I knew a woman who was bi-polar and had paranoia and schizophrenia, but was usually well controlled with medication. When she'd occasionally decide to stop taking her prescriptions, her symptoms gradually reappeared. She was always religious, went to church at least once a week, read some scriptures every night, tried to live according to the Bible, did what she could to help others in need, etc., and it was seldom obvious to most around her that she'd stopped again until she was painting religious graffiti on bathroom walls, accusing doctors and nurses of trying to poison her (she contacted LE about that more than once because they kept giving her drugs), standing on street corners preaching (sometimes naked), screaming that someone had been murdered and hidden under her bed, and so on. Her psychiatrist and psychologist, on the other hand, could tell very quickly when the behaviors started to escalate, and usually get her back on her medications.

Just being a strong believer in a religion isn't necessarily a sign of mental illness, but when combined with other beliefs and/or behaviors, it very well could be. MOO

 

[gitana1]

Agree, daisytrail.

Hyperreligiosity has been well described for over a hundred years in psychiatric literature. It is particularly associated with bipolar mania, as well as psychosis-- even in the absence of things like substance abuse, as in the Strack family. (Search hyperreligiosity and mental illness, and there will be thousands of articles and discussions.)

There is no doubt in the psych/ mental health profession that hyperreligiosity can be the outward evidence of mental illness-- it's a symptom of dysfunctional thinking. Whether it is clinical mental illness, or not, has to do with how and the extent to which it affects the life of the hyperreligious person and those around them. Does the hyperreligious behavior lead to healthy relationships and behaviors, or is it harmful, abusive, and destructive?

IMO, there is no doubt that HS is hyperreligious, and has built his life and his family's life around his hyperreligious thinking. He may have been a very different and more moderate person WRT religion earlier in his life, and perhaps only recently has evolved his thinking to include Biblically justified scourging of his children, and ingesting dangerous caustic substances. He could be developing clinically significant hyperreligiosity that is related to aging or mental decline, as I said earlier. I don't know the particulars of what when on in that home-- only those kids and family members know what happens behind closed doors. But mental decline/ mental illness is one explanation for physical and psychological abuse that results from hyperreligiosity, IMO.

Of course, a lot of hyperreligious people don't believe in science, medicine, or psychology, so there you have it. Is hyperreligiosity admirable evidence of deep faith, or is it evidence of mental illness? Is hyperreligiosity admirable and healthy as long as it's benign, but only mental illness when the paranoia and compulsions lead to harming and killing others? Things to think about for all of us, for sure.

You know, I have read about how religion can exacerbate mental illness. But I do think we kind of need to leave the religion out of it as an ultimate cause of whatever is going on here. There are millions of religious people in the United States, millions of fundamentalists as well and most are not abusing their kids.

People who abuse kids can be prompted to do so for various reasons and can use various things, including religion, and also fear of the government, or of zombies, or whatever, to justify abuse or neglect.

I don;t think that's what matters, really. What matters is what's happened and how the kids can be kept safe.

 

[PrairieWind]

Gitana, that is a good explanation. Also, if protective services takes a child without a court order, there is then a requirement for a hearing for the court to then decide if there is cause to justify the removal and continue with state custody. Protective services (whatever they area called in a particular state/county) doesnt just get to just do whatever they want. Good judges will then have regular reports on the custody of the child. But yes, in certain circumstances no prior court order is required to take children into custody.

 

[K_Z]

You know, I have read about how religion can exacerbate mental illness. But I do think we kind of need to leave the religion out of it as an ultimate cause of whatever is going on here. There are millions of religious people in the United States, millions of fundamentalists as well and most are not abusing their kids.

People who abuse kids can be prompted to do so for various reasons and can use various things, including religion, and also fear of the government, or of zombies, or whatever, to justify abuse or neglect.

I don;t think that's what matters, really. What matters is what's happened and how the kids can be kept safe.

Completely agree. I grew up in an area with a very large Amish and Mennonite population, and I currently live in an area with a large population of Christian fundamentalists who homeschool, and lead very healthy lifestyles, and have healthy relationships with people of many faiths. They homeschool, but have not isolated themselves away from the rest of society. They participate in many civic activities and charitable efforts. We are friends with many of them, and my kids play with theirs. My sister's kids attend a home daycare run by a Muslim family. One of my daughters has 2 best friends who are Jewish and Mormon, and a third best friend who is the adopted child of a non-religious gay couple. I have no issue with any religion-- as long as the religion isn't the excuse for abusive, harmful, or destructive behaviors toward others. (Especially kids.)

What concerns me greatly in this case, is that religion appears to be the justification for whatever serious behaviors that were happening in the home that lead authorities to remove the children.

 

[K_Z]

Many links have been posted.

Stanley, a Southern Baptist preacher,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-over-the-dangerous-miracle-supplement-mms/

Thanks. Label versus identification. The website with his many sermons doesn't identify him with the Southern Baptists. I will continue to describe, rather than denominationally label, and call it religion and Christian fundamentalism/ Biblical literalism. That's more accurate and descriptive, IMO, and more neutral.

It's best not to imply that all Southern Baptists are being maligned because of the actions of one or a few that may have little to nothing to do with Southern Baptists. No one here is attacking Southern Baptists for anything at all. Let's move on from the Southern Baptist labelling and discussion.

 

[daisytrail]

I'm curious what extreme religious interpretation of his religion has been demonstrated by Rev. Stanley? The Southern Baptist Convention still is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. Are all 16 million also extreme? That's not up to me to judge, imo.

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is a Christian denomination based in the United States of America. It is the world's largest Baptist denomination and the largest Protestant body in the United States, with nearly 16 million members as of 2012.[1] This also makes it the second largest Christian body in the United States, after the Catholic Church.[2]



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

Wow! I actually wonder what post you are trying to respond to because I said nothing at all about Southern Baptists. I know many, many Southern Baptists, some of whom are friends of mine, and I have yet to know a single one of them who has needed CPS to intervene in their parenting choices or take their children from them. While I do know many Southern Baptist who do not drink, I do know a few who do. I have even know one or two who smoke. I am just puzzled as to how this thread somehow became a discussion about Southern Baptists. I have yet to see a link that Mr. Stanley is even a Southern Baptist. Did I miss something in another post? Until then, I will reply to those who actually address the point I raised, which is extremism in religion. I try to stick at least a bit to the subject at hand -- else someone accuse me of disingenuousness.

ETA: I guess I did miss it. It came after my post. Let me just say that he is not like Southern Baptists I have known.

ETA: In fact, It came after your post to my post, but I still do not see what his religious affiliation has to do with his behavior. For instance, most Muslims don't decapitate people.

 

[gitana1]

Gitana, that is a good explanation. Also, if protective services takes a child without a court order, there is then a requirement for a hearing for the court to then decide if there is cause to justify the removal and continue with state custody. Protective services (whatever they area called in a particular state/county) doesnt just get to just do whatever they want. Good judges will then have regular reports on the custody of the child. But yes, in certain circumstances no prior court order is required to take children into custody.

Yes. Previously I outlined the entire process CPS needs to go through to take a child into custody and keep them there.
1. They may take the kids immediately without a court order if there is a risk of imminent harm.
2. If they do so, they may hold the children for up to 72 hours but they must apply ex parte for emergency court orders at once, while filing a dependency petition, to be able to keep the kids in custody past the 72 hours. if the ex parte is granted, then:
3. A probable cause hearing must be set within 5 days. If probable cause to retain the kids is found by the court, then:
4. An adjudication hearing will be set within about 30 days. https://www.google.com/search?q=ark...s+custody+removal+dhs+-7+-seven+arkansas+code

There's been debate on the thread about whether DHS and LE violated the constitution in the first place by going to the family's home and removing the kids. It doesn't appear so.

LE are local, rural sheriffs, not the federal government. These are good ol' boys from the same state. Probably attend similar churches. They didn't storm the house because the family are "preppers" or religious. Let's not get hysterical here.

And once they remove the kids, local LE has no say as to what happens next with regard to custody of the kids. Different agencies.

I agree that for now, it is unlikely there will be charges. This is not a criminal case at present. It is a juvenile dependency case. Many CPS removal cases do not parallel criminal charges.

If DHS (DCFS) didn't support the removal, they have a funny way of showing it.

Here's the process in Arkansas for removal.

1. Determine if it is a priority I or II case, which depends on the severity of the maltreatment alleged. If it is a priority
I case, a special child abuse unit of the State police investigates. If it is a priority II case, DCFS investigates.
2. In priority I cases, if the police determine that the abuse is severe and the children should be removed, then DHHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, must do a health and safety assessment to determine if the child can safely remain in the home. If the child is determined to be at risk of severe maltreatment, the
agency shall take a 72 hour hold on the child as a prerequisite to the filing of a petition in juvenile court pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-516.
This protective custody can also be taken by law enforcement, a juvenile division of circuit court judge in a juvenile proceeding, a hospital administrator or treating physician but if this protective custody is initiated, DHHS shall
be notified immediately so that the proper procedure for attaining emergency custody can be
initiated timely (Ark. Code Ann. §12-12-516(c)). (That means DHHS must still conduct its investigation).

In priority II cases, DCFS determines whether the child can remian safely in the home. If it determines that the child cannot safely remain in the home, the 72 hour procedure is also followed. \

3. If DCFS believes it needs to continue to hold the child for more than 72 hours, DCFS must seek a court order, known as an ex parte emergency order (Ark. Code Ann. §9-27-314). An attorney ad litem shall be appointed when
the petition or emergency ex parte order is filed to represent the child’s best interest.
Parent counsel may also be appointed and indigency determined at the probable cause hearing.
Within five business days the court must conduct a probable cause hearing (Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-315) to determine if probable cause existed to protect the juvenile when DCFS removed the child; if it continues to exist; and if removal from the home is in the child’s best interest and is necessary to protect the child. If probable cause is found, the court will schedule a trial, known as the adjudication, to determine if the child is abused, neglected, or dependent (Ark. Code Ann. §9-27-303).http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=4SsSptO5Xs5YwmWiZzHAiA&bvm=bv.84349003,d.cGU

So, in this case, DCFS (DHS), not LE, is the one who had to authorize the 72 hour hold/removal pending an ex parte, emergency order, which was clearly granted by the court as the kids have remained in custody longer than 72 hours. And both DCFS and the court system have determined that a probable cause hearing is warranted.

Once the kids were removed by LE, it was out of their hands. DHS (DCFS) are the ones who have kept the kids from returning home. So it looks like they agreed with LE.

 

[daisytrail]

Agree, daisytrail.

Hyperreligiosity has been well described for over a hundred years in psychiatric literature. It is particularly associated with bipolar mania, as well as psychosis-- even in the absence of things like substance abuse, as in the Strack family. (Search hyperreligiosity and mental illness, and there will be thousands of articles and discussions.)

There is no doubt in the psych/ mental health profession that hyperreligiosity can be the outward evidence of mental illness-- it's a symptom of dysfunctional thinking. Whether it is clinical mental illness, or not, has to do with how and the extent to which it affects the life of the hyperreligious person and those around them. Does the hyperreligious behavior lead to healthy relationships and behaviors, or is it harmful, abusive, and destructive?

IMO, there is no doubt that HS is hyperreligious, and has built his life and his family's life around his hyperreligious thinking. He may have been a very different and more moderate person WRT religion earlier in his life, and perhaps only recently has evolved his thinking to include Biblically justified scourging of his children, and ingesting dangerous caustic substances. He could be developing clinically significant hyperreligiosity that is related to aging or mental decline, as I said earlier. I don't know the particulars of what when on in that home-- only those kids and family members know what happens behind closed doors. But mental decline/ mental illness is one explanation for physical and psychological abuse that results from hyperreligiosity, IMO.

Of course, a lot of hyperreligious people don't believe in science, medicine, or psychology, so there you have it. Is hyperreligiosity admirable evidence of deep faith, or is it evidence of mental illness? Is hyperreligiosity admirable and healthy as long as it's benign, but only mental illness when the paranoia and compulsions lead to harming and killing others? Things to think about for all of us, for sure.

I find this post to be perfect in addressing what may actually be Mr. Stanley's problem. I actually know a bipolar person who suffers from a religious mania. It has caused him and his family much suffering. He was actually evicted from his home because he was stalking a neighbor because he thought he should perform an exorcism on her.

I don't think religion is a cause or a cure for this sort of thing. I have nothing but compassion for the sufferers of this.

 

[daisytrail]

I think some of this last discussion here is why some people are concerned about religion being attacked. It is very easy to go from talking about the alleged behavior to the religion and then to just assuming that that behavior is common or "a part of" that particular religious affiliation. Then everyone of that or similar affiliation is under a cloud of suspicion for no valid reason.

I actually see only one person doing that. Most in this thread seem very willing to approach the case as being one of the choices made by these particular parents, the Stanleys.

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks. Label versus identification. The website with his many sermons doesn't identify him with the Southern Baptists. I will continue to describe, rather than denominationally label, and call it religion and Christian fundamentalism/ Biblical literalism. That's more accurate and descriptive, IMO, and more neutral.

It's best not to imply that all Southern Baptists are being maligned because of the actions of one or a few that may have little to nothing to do with Southern Baptists. No one here is attacking Southern Baptists for anything at all. Let's move on from the Southern Baptist labelling and discussion.

Excuse me but he has labeled himself a Southern Baptist minister. I seriously doubt the Washington Post made it up or affixed a "label" as you call it just as I doubt they called him a Tea Party activist out of the blue. You asked for a link and I provided it.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

Excuse me but he has labeled himself a Southern Baptist minister. I seriously doubt the Washington Post made it up or affixed a "label" as you call it just as I doubt they called him a Tea Party activist out of the blue. You asked for a link and I provided it.

JMO

May I ask why you see that as especially relevant to this particular case?

 

[MyBelle]

Wow! I actually wonder what post you are trying to respond to because I said nothing at all about Southern Baptists. I know many, many Southern Baptists, some of whom are friends of mine, and I have yet to know a single one of them who has needed CPS to intervene in their parenting choices or take their children from them. While I do know many Southern Baptist who do not drink, I do know a few who do. I have even know one or two who smoke. I am just puzzled as to how this thread somehow became a discussion about Southern Baptists. I have yet to see a link that Mr. Stanley is even a Southern Baptist. Did I miss something in another post? Until then, I will reply to those who actually address the point I raised, which is extremism in religion. I try to stick at least a bit to the subject at hand -- else someone accuse me of disingenuousness.

ETA: I guess I did miss it. It came after my post. Let me just say that he is not like Southern Baptists I have known.

ETA: In fact, It came after your post to my post, but I still do not see what his religious affiliation has to do with his behavior. For instance, most Muslims don't decapitate people.

His religious affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with this case, imo. For whatever reason, some have labeled Mr. Stanley a religious extremist, hyper religious, mentally ill, torturing his children, perhaps alcoholic and yet all that has been released is that he takes mineral supplement and uses it to purify water.

And while you may not know any Southern Baptists like him, I do! And he is just like them!

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

His religious affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with this case, imo. For whatever reason, some have labeled Mr. Stanley a religious extremist, hyper religious, mentally ill, torturing his children, perhaps alcoholic and yet all that has been released is that he takes mineral supplement and uses it to purify water.

And while you may not know any Southern Baptists like him, I do! And he is just like them!

JMO

There is what he actually says in his sermons. For many people here, these raise a red flag.

 

[MyBelle]

There is what he actually says in his sermons. For many people here, these raise a red flag.

And that is the family's point, I believe. He does have a right to free speech, a right to practice his religion and a right to due process. Nobody else has a right to infringe upon it unless the children are being placed in imminent danger. These children were searched and they were seized by armed police. And the Court is now deciding whether there was probable cause to do so.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

And that is the family's point, I believe. He does have a right to free speech, a right to practice his religion and a right to due process. Nobody else has a right to infringe upon it unless the children are being placed in imminent danger. These children were searched and they were seized by armed police. And the Court is now deciding whether there was probable cause to do so.

JMO

He is getting due process, isn't he? The right to practice his religion and the right to free speech is covered in the First Amendment to our nation's constitution. Who is interfering in his right to these. BTW, I did attend a Southern Baptist bible study class two years ago. I found it quite interesting and the approach was bibilical literalism. Even so, I did not hear a word about the supplement in question. To me, and I mean this with all due respect, the person who most wanted to tie this all to some sort of discrimination against Southern Baptists was you. I have read every post in this thread and not a single person has attacked Southern Baptists. Indeed, I want to make perfectly clear that I have nothing against people who are Southern Baptists.

I believe that the Stanley parents are being investigated because, just as links have shown, someone close to the family was concerned about the well-being of the children. This may have been one of the older children. Children do have a right to be concerned about their own welfare and those of their siblings. Children also have free speech rights, although a bit more limited than those of adults. The Supreme Court has actually held that they do. Also, the courts have limited religious practice in those ways which are harmful to others. Honor killings are not allowed in our country for instance. Do you believe religious freedom trumps the rights of people to be safe?

I absolutely believe people should have a right to both practice and advocate for their religious beliefs. I draw a strict line between speech and action.

 

[MyBelle]

Gitana, that is a good explanation. Also, if protective services takes a child without a court order, there is then a requirement for a hearing for the court to then decide if there is cause to justify the removal and continue with state custody. Protective services (whatever they area called in a particular state/county) doesnt just get to just do whatever they want. Good judges will then have regular reports on the custody of the child. But yes, in certain circumstances no prior court order is required to take children into custody.

BBM. That's the issue in this case. Were the children in imminent danger? There have been quite a few court challenges of late that have resulted in decisions against CPS. Here's one case where CPS decided the house was too messy. A Judge did not agree. I listened to a hot debate about this one last month as I drove across Missouri.

A county judge dropped both of the charges against the Hagans on the grounds the sheriff had not obtained a warrant, and stated the use of force was clearly excessive. The Hagan children were reunited with their parents after being held by the state for nine days, and the Hagans did not regain full legal custody for another six months.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...ssouri-homeschool-family-sues-after-home-raid

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I wonder... I came across a post by Chris, the adult son that is in college and was interviewed in the media. In this post he informs that there are two sides to the story and he hopes people won't try his parents in social media as all of the facts aren't out there. He loves his parents very much. He said that there seems to be some truths mixed with some exaggerations and also that maybe the police / CPS did what was right at the time. He said that the family are all working together with authorities in order to learn from and rectify the situation. This leads me to think that maybe the 2 oldest teens that were home wanted to go to public school and maybe some more outside socialization...and maybe they felt they were too old to be spanked. Maybe the father was a little heavy handed and heavy worded at times but maybe he was like that bc that's what he believed was right, it's what he learned as it's how he interprets the scripture he practices from.

Re the mms... The Stanleys have said repeatedly the kids weren't given mms, that the drops were used to purify the water for the garden. Dupont has made sodium chlorite for years that's stronger than the stuff found at the Stanleys. There's other manufacturers as well. Again, they said it was only used to purify water, and that the same container was used for years for that purpose so as not to cross-contaminate anything I guess. So I wonder - do they have a well? If not, what is the public water system treated with? Usually it has added fluoride and is treated with chlorine of some kind for purification.

Re the complaint from a concerned neighbor about the kids running around in the snow with bare feet... Michelle has said it was a tradition for the kids to do that with the first fallen snow. I've found pictures and boy are they adorable. It's not like there's a foot of snow - more like a dusting! The snow is so minimal that you can see the asphalt under the footprints in the driveway. It truly is adorable and makes me think they appreciated these little things in life. I've also seen another picture of the kids playing in heavier snow with layers of clothes on and snow boots.

Every single picture I've found shows all smiles, much happiness. The blogs I've come across show children that are god fearing and equally loving. They practice what they believe. The wording is mostly eloquent and classy. The photobuckets and picasa albums show sheer joy and I'm talking Hallmark worthy card quality...some could definitely be a teen novel cover. These kids are innocent through and through. They don't get that way with the worst part of bad parenting. IMO maybe the good pastor didn't change with his methods bc he did so well with all the rest. Maybe he has a couple of teens that tested him and it became a struggle to meet in the middle. Maybe there's lessons for the parents as well as the children to learn.

Some of the stuff on those morning devotionals made me feel incredibly uneasy but that could be bc it's not how I myself parent my children. That doesn't make me right & his interpretation wrong. It just means my opinion differs. If his discipline was extreme, then hopefully there's some type of parenting class that can be utilized to bring him up with the times (as far as abuse laws are concerned). I did find some things to be extreme but that may be bc I don't have the same beliefs. One thing I do know is that if you have to learn how to properly spank / strike / beat a child, then maybe it's wrong to begin with and shouldn't be happening.

 

[MyBelle]

He is getting due process, isn't he? The right to practice his religion and the right to free speech is covered in the First Amendment to our nation's constitution. Who is interfering in his right to these. BTW, I did attend a Southern Baptist bible study class two years ago. I found it quite interesting and the approach was bibilical literalism. Even so, I did not hear a word about the supplement in question. To me, and I mean this with all due respect, the person who most wanted to tie this all to some sort of discrimination against Southern Baptists was you. I have read every post in this thread and not a single person has attacked Southern Baptists. Indeed, I want to make perfectly clear that I have nothing against people who are Southern Baptists.

I believe that the Stanley parents are being investigated because, just as links have shown, someone close to the family was concerned about the well-being of the children. This may have been one of the older children. Children do have a right to be concerned about their own welfare and those of their siblings. Children also have free speech rights, although a bit more limited than those of adults. The Supreme Court has actually held that they do. Also, the courts have limited religious practice in those ways which are harmful to others. Honor killings are not allowed in our country for instance. Do you believe religious freedom trumps the rights of people to be safe?

I absolutely believe people should have a right to both practice and advocate for their religious beliefs. I draw a strict line between speech and action.

No, I have never tied this case to religion. And not only did nobody die in this case, I have yet to see any evidence the children were being harmed in any way.

It was others who linked the Rev's blog and tried to label him a religious fanatic abusing his children in the name of religion. I don't read any of his writings because I already know I don't agree with them just as I don't agree with the comments of the reality star on Duck Dynasty. Why would I waste my time when I already know what they are going to say? It is their families, not mine.

JMO