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

[MyBelle]

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 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.

BBM. That's what is at the heart of this case, imo. Very well said.

 

[daisytrail]

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

But that is precisely the point that has been made by Gitana and others with some experience in this area, and I was a CASA quite a number of years ago and there was much that I knew only because I was court-appointed and confidentiality was extremely important. We won't know (the evidence). We have no real way of knowing unless more emerges on this case that is actually released to the public. A criminal charge would probably have to result for us to have that sort of information. All we can really do is speculate.

 

[gitana1]

But that is precisely the point that has been made by Gitana and others with some experience in this area, and I was a CASA quite a number of years ago and there was much that I knew only because I was court-appointed and confidentiality was extremely important. We won't know (the evidence). We have no real way of knowing unless more emerges on this case that is actually released to the public. A criminal charge would probably have to result for us to have that sort of information. All we can really do is speculate.

You know, CPS has been found to overreach in various case. One horrible one was recently when a mother's newborn infant was yanked from her and tortured with catheters to see if she was born with drugs in her system merely because the mother was acting oddly. Oh, it sickens me.

So, I am not skeptical of claims against social services and I initially immediately jumped to the assumption that there had been overreach here, based on what the family had stated.

But the reality is that in most cases when social services removes kids, the removal is merited and most parents whose children are taken lie about why it happened and claim they did nothing wrong.

So we have to examine the totality of the circumstances in these case and try to be objective. I feel I have. With what we know, it seems rational to assume there is probable cause here at this point and not to believe there must be a conspiracy if the public isn't given proof.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I agree. I don't see the courts releasing every single tidbit of info, and I honestly don't see them pursuing criminal charges, if they want the family reunited at some point. I'm thinking Michelle's recent statement of going through social services shows they are learning something, or at least trying to. I believe the court is going to help this family. These parents were in tears when they found out their kids couldn't come home with them after the initial court date. They love their children it seems. When the court found cause to keep the kids out of custody longer, it forced the parents to take a step back and think. When the court put a gag order on proceedings, I don't believe that was done solely to have a fair trial (if it even goes that far), I believe it was done in anticipation of a reunification for this family, to protect the children as well as their parents.

The thing that scares me is that the court found evidence of abuse, which is why they decided to keep the children longer. What was the extent of that abuse? Was it all physical or was it mental & verbal as well? How does someone learn not to do something that they've most likely done their whole entire life?

 

[daisytrail]

I agree. I don't see the courts releasing every single tidbit of info, and I honestly don't see them pursuing criminal charges, if they want the family reunited at some point. I'm thinking Michelle's recent statement of going through social services shows they are learning something, or at least trying to. I believe the court is going to help this family. These parents were in tears when they found out their kids couldn't come home with them after the initial court date. They love their children it seems. When the court found cause to keep the kids out of custody longer, it forced the parents to take a step back and think. When the court put a gag order on proceedings, I don't believe that was done solely to have a fair trial (if it even goes that far), I believe it was done in anticipation of a reunification for this family, to protect the children as well as their parents.

The thing that scares me is that the court found evidence of abuse, which is why they decided to keep the children longer. What was the extent of that abuse? Was it all physical or was it mental & verbal as well? How does someone learn not to do something that they've most likely done their whole entire life?

Good question, if he has done this all his life. His oldest children could probably tell us. I do think it is possible though that his behavior has become more so. Or maybe he has lately become more frustrated with controlling his teenagers. At his age, we cannot discount the possibility of dementia, which would be very sad for the whole family. In that case, learning new behavior would be increasingly difficult.

 

[MyBelle]

But that is precisely the point that has been made by Gitana and others with some experience in this area, and I was a CASA quite a number of years ago and there was much that I knew only because I was court-appointed and confidentiality was extremely important. We won't know (the evidence). We have no real way of knowing unless more emerges on this case that is actually released to the public. A criminal charge would probably have to result for us to have that sort of information. All we can really do is speculate.

We don't know the evidence which is why I don't automatically leap to the conclusion it was justified. I'm certainly not going to speculate somebody is abusing their kids just because CPS says so.

 

[daisytrail]

We don't know the evidence which is why I don't automatically leap to the conclusion it was justified. I'm certainly not going to speculate somebody is abusing their kids just because CPS says so.

Nevertheless, the thread was started for comment, and many comments in many threads involve a degree of speculation. That leaves us with only the known but not the unknown. I don't think anyone has gone over the line.

 

[K_Z]

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

BBM for focus.

As a point of clarification and accuracy, the court is not now "deciding" if there was probable cause. The court "decided" last week at the "probable cause hearing", and continued the children in foster care. The parents have apparently been asked or ordered to comply with some manner of social services to begin the process toward reunification. The next hearing is February 12. Using logic, we can conclude that there was, and still is, "probable cause" for the children to be removed from the home. However, it is possible (and probable, IMO) that the "probable cause" that exists, if publicized, would still be rejected by some people as "invalid." There are some people, IMO, who think there is never a situation "extreme enough" to justify removing a child from a biological parent.

Lots of different officials in different agencies have looked at this case by now, and they know a lot more than we do. I trust their judgment about the home environment and parenting techniques at this point in time, more than I do the judgment of these parents. I believe they clearly have the children's safety in mind.

 

[K_Z]

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

BBM. You know that is patently false. And quite honestly, this post reads a lot to me like baiting for reaction. Not a single poster on this thread has called HS an alcoholic, or even implied it. Your post is the first one to associate the issue of alcohol and Southern Baptists. No one has "labelled" him anything, except your posts labelling him Southern Baptist, and then making assumptions about what his behavior "should" be. This family is "hyper religious" by their own description so discussing that on this thread is not some kind of unfair criticism, or persecution.

No one, me included, has said HS "is" mentally ill. AND, we have gone to extreme lengths to define CLINICAL mental illness from behavior that might be considered odd or extreme, or out of the mainstream, but ultimately harmless to others. We have discussed that the onset of new changes in personality in aging people (and younger others) are sometimes the first clue that dementia or mental illness may be developing.

It is obvious to me that there is an agenda here to twist everything that is discussed to make it appear that many posters, are persecuting and unfairly ripping on this man and this family, or that there is some terrible "conspiracy" to persecute this man because of his political beliefs-- which you first posted about. It's unfortunate that in your posts the safety of the children takes a backseat to this other agenda.

His BEHAVIOR has been discussed and described, in the CONTEXT of his religion. His own words posted on the internet publicly, and in his interviews, have been discussed and described.

Oh-- and MMS is no more a dietary supplement than sprinkling Drano on your cornflakes. It's not an alternative herb-- it's a highly caustic chemical reaction. I get that it's legal, just like Drano and Clorox are legal. Lots of poisons are legal to own. It's unsafe and ridiculous that anyone is so foolish as to ingest this caustic chemical and call it a "supplement". And very frustrating that gullible and ignorant people can be so easily misled.

 

[gitana1]

BBM for focus.

As a point of clarification and accuracy, the court is not now "deciding" if there was probable cause. The court "decided" last week at the "probable cause hearing", and continued the children in foster care. The parents have apparently been asked or ordered to comply with some manner of social services to begin the process toward reunification. The next hearing is February 12. Using logic, we can conclude that there was, and still is, "probable cause" for the children to be removed from the home. However, it is possible (and probable, IMO) that the "probable cause" that exists, if publicized, would still be rejected by some people as "invalid." There are some people, IMO, who think there is never a situation "extreme enough" to justify removing a child from a biological parent.

Lots of different officials in different agencies have looked at this case by now, and they know a lot more than we do. I trust their judgment about the home environment and parenting techniques at this point in time, more than I do the judgment of these parents. I believe they clearly have the children's safety in mind.

That's right. Probable cause has been found. But the actual process is like the criminal process. At a preliminary hearing, it is decided whether there is probable cause to try to the defendant. If so, there is a trial.

In this case, same thing. Their "trial" which is really called an adjudication hearing, is next month. At that time, the court can decide to clear them of the allegations and return the kids.

Apparently certain recommendations (safety plan) have already been made by social services and their attorney has likely advised them to begin following those recommendations prior to adjudication, at which time the court could say they HAD to follow the safety plan in order to qualify for reunification.

 

[gitana1]

I just received a call from a friend of mine who is a social worker and sometimes removes children in her caseload, from their homes. I asked her what her experience has been in relation to criminal charges and being removed from the home.

She stated that around 70% of the cases in which kids are placed into the system for extended periods do NOT involve criminal charges against the parent or guardian for the acts the caused the removal.

And thinking about it I think I can tell you that I haven't had one charge myself in the cases of parents I've represented in dependency cases. But the caveat is that juvenile dependency cases are not the bulk of my work.

 

[stillwatersc]

Should I get verified as a Southern Baptist to post in this thread? :winkkiss: Different congregations can vary pretty widely in their beliefs, as can individuals in a church. Southern Baptists do not have a strict lock-step culture at all. You guys need to lighten up and this thread or it is going to get shut down. :chillout:

I haven't looked at many pictures of these kids but from what I have seen, they look vibrant and healthy, even glowing and the smiles go right to their eyes. I feel like this family will be fine. Dad, at 70, I can't imagine having to deal with a bunch of youngsters at that age! He may be a bit overwhelmed or even suffering from early dementia. As a pastor, he may feel like his kids reflect on him in the community and over-react to normal behaviors - he was raised in a very, very different culture. This situation is so sad. I pray these beautiful children are in loving hands and they are safe and happy.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Should I get verified as a Southern Baptist to post in this thread? :winkkiss: Different congregations can vary pretty widely in their beliefs, as can individuals in a church. Southern Baptists do not have a strict lock-step culture at all. You guys need to lighten up and this thread or it is going to get shut down. :chillout:

I haven't looked at many pictures of these kids but from what I have seen, they look vibrant and healthy, even glowing and the smiles go right to their eyes. I feel like this family will be fine. Dad, at 70, I can't imagine having to deal with a bunch of youngsters at that age! He may be a bit overwhelmed or even suffering from early dementia. As a pastor, he may feel like his kids reflect on him in the community and over-react to normal behaviors - he was raised in a very, very different culture. This situation is so sad. I pray these beautiful children are in loving hands and they are safe and happy.

Thank you, your post made me giggle. I do have hope that the family will be fine and I do believe that these parents love their children dearly and want the best for them.

I have faith that the family will benefit from services that are provided to them, as long as everyone works together.

Maybe this whole thing will change their outlook on the authorities (so to speak) and they will realize that they are there to help not harm.

I have seen parents that want to handle things themselves and there are times when outside help is needed. Some are very hesitant to ask for help. There is nothing wrong with asking or accepting help if it can resolve whatever issues that may be causing tension in a home so that all can live happier, healthier lives.

 

[stillwatersc]

Dad, at 70, I can't imagine having to deal with a bunch of youngsters at that age! He may be a bit overwhelmed or even suffering from early dementia. As a pastor, he may feel like his kids reflect on him in the community and over-react to normal behaviors - he was raised in a very, very different culture. This situation is so sad. I pray these beautiful children are in loving hands and they are safe and happy.

When I wrote "from a different culture", I mean his age, not his religion. He was a child in the 50's - his parents probably went through the Depression. People from that era had a very different outlook than we do now.

 

[CathyinTexas]

There is also the fact that more children die and/or are sexually and physically abused in foster care than in biological homes. Texas CPS is under fire now for that reason among others. My point is that removing children does not guarantee safety. It is a difficult situation all around.

 

[CathyinTexas]

Once the children are removed, if not returned within 72 hours (very rare, if ever) they will remain in the system for 12-18 months. At least in Texas the statistics are that less than 20 percent are reunited with parents. In the majority of cases the parental rights are severed and the children are adopted or remain in the foster care system until age 18.

I should have replied with quotes, I guess.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

There is also the fact that more children die and/or are sexually and physically abused in foster care than in biological homes. Texas CPS is under fire now for that reason among others. My point is that removing children does not guarantee safety. It is a difficult situation all around.

I completely agree that the system is far from perfect. It's absolutely a top priority IMO, to ensure that children are safe from harm in any environment that they are in.

I am having a hard time believing what you have stated as fact that I bolded above though and wonder if you have legitimate links to back that up with?

I did find one article on the subject from 2013, but it certainly doesn't support what you have stated.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...arents-as-number-of-childrens-deaths-rise.ece

 

[BeginnersLuck]

There is this article, but it is concerning all deaths from child abuse/neglect in Texas.

http://amarillo.com/news/texas-news/2014-06-29/texas-leads-nation-child-abuse-deaths

 

[CathyinTexas]

He didn't have a convincing smile on his face as the others did. I wonder if he is satisfied with the way things have gone since he made the accusations? Does he still think this is best for his parents and siblings? Just curious.

That older son appears on the FB page with his parents and the rest of the kids in a photo that was taken Friday during their visitation. No estrangement.

 

[CathyinTexas]

I have to agree with those here who oppose Hal Stanley's teaching on beating. I am familiar with the Bible scriptures regarding this subject. I don't know that the word for beat is translated correctly. I do not condone the description that Mr. Stanley gives and seems to carry out in his home. This is so sad because I am sure that this man loves his children and the children love their parents. He is misguided I believe.

He also freely admits that the anyone including the government or psychologists, are not right if they state that beating his children is wrong and he will only listen to God. Why would anyone in the right mind feel it is safe to return children to someone that has clearly stated such?

IMO, that is exactly what he would do to them for speaking out once back in the home.

It sounds to me like a long speech of someone trying to justify what they did by using the bible. There is nothing religious about that. It screams more about power and control in some sick way.

How many years has this been going on? Those "sermons" are not new. Was the sermon prompted by him being questioned previously for his actions and he wanted to try and instill fear in a attempt to shut someone up?