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

[CathyinTexas]

Parents here always had the option of not allowing corporal punishment at school and I was one who didn't allow it.

According to this news article, a public high school requires students to drop their pants to display their buttocks and the school also has a witness watch.

"We bring them [the students] in, make sure they understand why they're here, what they've done wrong. we make sure they have nothing wrong with their person, their body or their bottom, no pumps or bruises that are already there," Gauntt said.

The district also notifies the student's parents and always has a witness present, typically another administrator.

"We never give more than three swats," Gauntt said.


http://www.kait8.com/story/24791277/corporal-punishment-still-relevant-in-nea-schools

 

[CathyinTexas]

Regardless of what happens at the hearing (though I think it will go the way they all go, children will not be returned at this time) this family will never be the same.

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.

 

[CathyinTexas]

Most states follow the federal "rules" on child removal/reunification. The court/state can't remain in a bio families life more than 18 months. The children have to be returned without court involvement or parental rights have to severed. There is a period within that 18 month period that a court may decide to allow the children to live in the home with the parents with CPS supervision while continuing required "services", but there is an ending point dictated by law.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Granted, CPS could be wrong sometimes. But they know much more about the evidence than we do and formed an informed opinion on the basis of that. So it seems to me that they generally would have a better chance of knowing whether someone abuses their kids than we do on the basis of our gut feelings.

JMO but in the absence of evidence that CPS did something unjustified, going with what CPS says involves far fewer leaps to conclusions and less speculation than assuming the opposite.

(I haven't been following the details of this case so this is just a general comment.)

 

[CathyinTexas]

I hope they are in a loving home and can continue to be together. I suspect though it is more like a facility or group home. It is common for foster children to be moved multiple times.

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.

 

[CathyinTexas]

I think if there was report by someone that they saw injury to a child then it is justified. If it is just that the son or friend thought they needed pressure in changing their parenting techniques, maybe the reporters assumed something different would occur with this intervention. It may turn out the children really were in danger, I am going to reserve my judgement till we know more also.

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.

 

[CathyinTexas]

I think most judges presiding over these cases side with the state, and go totally by the states testimony. The defense can't present a "case" at the time he is determining whether the removal was justified, if I understand it correctly. I think that should be changed, so that if it is not justified children won't be traumatized by the separation from their parents in cases of innocence.

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

 

[MyBelle]

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.

We will probably never know. He has been respectful of his parents and of the authorities who made the decisions.

 

[MyBelle]

I think most judges presiding over these cases side with the state, and go totally by the states testimony. The defense can't present a "case" at the time he is determining whether the removal was justified, if I understand it correctly. I think that should be changed, so that if it is not justified children won't be traumatized by the separation from their parents in cases of innocence.

I totally agree with you especially when small children are involved. They can be emotionally traumatized just by the act of removal from mom and it can have long term behavior consequences. When all of my children were entered into preschool, they were transitioned gradually for that very reason.

JMO

 

[ellemo]

Most states follow the federal "rules" on child removal/reunification. The court/state can't remain in a bio families life more than 18 months. The children have to be returned without court involvement or parental rights have to severed. There is a period within that 18 month period that a court may decide to allow the children to live in the home with the parents with CPS supervision while continuing required "services", but there is an ending point dictated by law.

This is not a practiced in NY, where my husband's cousin has not had her kids for several years and her youngest was taken away at birth, yet she is still in their lives. I believe that the court may be starting the process to sever her rights, but the kids have been away from the mom -- one at a relative's home the other 3 (now 4) in foster care -- for over two years, possibly three. (I can't recall but it has been at least 3 Christmases)

Mom still has visitation once a week, which annoys the relative, who wants nothing to do with her. Mom has been through classes, job training, and I think detox in an attempt to unify the family but her husband and father of the youngest 4 has not, which is what I think makes the state reluctant to reunite the family.

 

[K_Z]

Newest update (2 hours ago) on the donation website states that the "free" lawyer now wants $7000 to go to trial. I'm assuming that is the Feb 12 adjudication hearing gitana posted about, since no one has mentioned criminal charges.

Donations have raised a little over $12K, and no new donations in 24 hours.

Interestingly, the probable cause hearing was more extensive than I had envisioned-- it spanned 2 days in court. The first was 3 1/2 hours, and included more than an hour of questioning an expert witness about MMS.

(This info summarized by me from social media and donation site comments, but not linked, per WS policy.)

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Newest update (2 hours ago) on the donation website states that the "free" lawyer now wants $7000 to go to trial. I'm assuming that is the Feb 12 adjudication hearing gitana posted about, since no one has mentioned criminal charges.

Donations have raised a little over $12K, and no new donations in 24 hours.

Interestingly, the probable cause hearing was more extensive than I had envisioned-- it spanned 2 days in court. The first was 3 1/2 hours, and included more than an hour of questioning an expert witness about MMS.

(This info summarized by me from social media and donation site comments, but not linked, per WS policy.)

Here are a few MSM reports that I'm not sure have been linked previously. They do talk about the length of the hearings.

http://www.katv.com/story/27899223/...t-for-their-seven-children-in-court-wednesday

http://www.katv.com/story/27908897/...ill-fighting-to-get-their-seven-children-back

http://www.katv.com/clip/11057381/a...y-parents-still-fighting-for-their-seven-kids

http://www.katv.com/story/27918346/seven-garland-county-kids-stay-in-state-custody

 

[K_Z]

Here are a few MSM reports that I'm not sure have been linked previously. They do talk about the length of the hearings.

http://www.katv.com/story/27899223/...t-for-their-seven-children-in-court-wednesday

http://www.katv.com/story/27908897/...ill-fighting-to-get-their-seven-children-back

http://www.katv.com/clip/11057381/a...y-parents-still-fighting-for-their-seven-kids

http://www.katv.com/story/27918346/seven-garland-county-kids-stay-in-state-custody

Thank you! I hadn't seen those.

I actually thought, from all of the chatter going around, that the probable cause hearing was going to be more, like a rubber stamp arraignment-- relatively brief, and a formal reading of the "probable cause" issues. I don't know if this probable cause hearing was longer, shorter, or about the same length as other typical probable cause hearings where kids are removed, but my non-lawyer observation is that LE/ DHS must have had a lot to present at the hearing. As opposed to one small, easily fixable issue, for instance.

That gives me more confidence that the removal was based on objective and appropriate criteria. It's very sad that it had to happen at all, and we likely won't ever know what, if anything, that friends and family members might have been doing to try to improve the situation, instead of calling DHS. If I recall correctly, DHS had been called to the home once or twice shortly before the removal episode. I get the sense that some of their friends and family members might have been trying to help the parents, and persuade some changes to occur, and the calls to DHS were perhaps the final result of not making any progress.

I do think the eldest son was involved in the reporting process. I get the sense he didn't want to go that route, but felt he had no other choice. That's just my opinion. He is described now by his own mother as an "agnostic", which has influenced his opinions. Growing up in that family environment, I can't imagine that "agnostic" would be benignly and non-judgementally received and tolerated in that household. Even from an adult child. JMO. I am glad to see him in recent family pictures, as that means they have not "shunned" him, or avoided him, for his "agnostic" beliefs (or any other reason).

And there are some clarification posts on the facebook site today that the $7K are not lawyer "fees", but fees related to filing and other matters for the Feb 12 hearing. There is also a comment that the Home School Legal Defense fund group won't get involved with this case unless the kids are not returned after the next Feb 12 hearing. Supporters had been urging the parents to get them involved.

And the comment from last evening on the fundraising site criticizing the lawyer was pulled off and another comment put in its place. Some censoring going on after the fact.

 

[MyBelle]

Here are a few MSM reports that I'm not sure have been linked previously. They do talk about the length of the hearings.

http://www.katv.com/story/27899223/...t-for-their-seven-children-in-court-wednesday

http://www.katv.com/story/27908897/...ill-fighting-to-get-their-seven-children-back

http://www.katv.com/clip/11057381/a...y-parents-still-fighting-for-their-seven-kids

http://www.katv.com/story/27918346/seven-garland-county-kids-stay-in-state-custody

Thanks for the articles, first I've seen them. Interesting comments from local residents about State Representive David Meeks (R-Conway) interview on local talk radio before the court hearing. No surprise to me the state politicians would react negatively and blame it on the Sheriff. Sure explains the why/how the Washington Post learned of the story and the Sheriff then issued his public denial that MMS was the reason the kids were removed.


But the Garland County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement this week that it was “absolutely false” that MMS was the sole reason the Stanley children were removed from the 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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-over-the-dangerous-miracle-supplement-mms/
JMO

 

[MyBelle]

This is not a practiced in NY, where my husband's cousin has not had her kids for several years and her youngest was taken away at birth, yet she is still in their lives. I believe that the court may be starting the process to sever her rights, but the kids have been away from the mom -- one at a relative's home the other 3 (now 4) in foster care -- for over two years, possibly three. (I can't recall but it has been at least 3 Christmases)

Mom still has visitation once a week, which annoys the relative, who wants nothing to do with her. Mom has been through classes, job training, and I think detox in an attempt to unify the family but her husband and father of the youngest 4 has not, which is what I think makes the state reluctant to reunite the family.

I think a state CPS agency is going to remain in a child's life as long as they believe the child needs it or until age 18. Even when placed with relatives, foster care is no picnic for children. But I also don't believe biological parents should remain in the children's lives if doing so affects the emotional stability of the children and CPS should be notified about it.

Dr. Phil had a recent episode about a case where young girls were being told by the biological mother to make allegations of sexual abuse against their grandmother's alcoholic husband. The grandmother had adopted the girls years ago. Dr. Phil told the grandmother that even if the allegations weren't true, an unrelated, alcoholic, elderly man should NOT be babysitting those little girls. It was a mess and CPS is going to stay in their lives for a very long time and that's how it should be.

JMO

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Just posting this here because I found it interesting that Arkansas among a few other states allow religious exemptions for capital murder, negligent homicide or manslaughter in reference to failure to provide medical care to children.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01/19/ac-dnt-tuchman-faith-healing-idaho.cnn

In at least one of the video recordings by the father, he preaches the same views as this sect as far as medical care is concerned. It was just one more red flag that stood out for me on top of the others.

I'm not stating that the parents are guilty of anything like this. I just think that there are "multiple" factors that are most likely being addressed with the family to try and prevent something that could potentially happen, as well as addressing maybe some current ongoing issues. Those multiple factors could be why the court hearing lasted longer than most.

 

[gitana1]

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.

Thats true, Cathy. Nice to see you here weighing in. I value your opinions.

 

[MyBelle]

Just posting this here because I found it interesting that Arkansas among a few other states allow religious exemptions for capital murder, negligent homicide or manslaughter in reference to failure to provide medical care to children.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/01/19/ac-dnt-tuchman-faith-healing-idaho.cnn

In at least one of the video recordings by the father, he preaches the same views as this sect as far as medical care is concerned. It was just one more red flag that stood out for me on top of the others.

I'm not stating that the parents are guilty of anything like this. I just think that there are "multiple" factors that are most likely being addressed with the family to try and prevent something that could potentially happen, as well as addressing maybe some current ongoing issues. Those multiple factors could be why the court hearing lasted longer than most.

With all due respect, the father belongs to the largest Protestant denomination in the world. I don't hold any opinions about factors other than the fact that the mother is also entitled to support as to the outcome she wishes to achieve.

 

[Charlie09]

Thanks for the articles, first I've seen them. Interesting comments from local residents about State Representive David Meeks (R-Conway) interview on local talk radio before the court hearing. No surprise to me the state politicians would react negatively and blame it on the Sheriff. Sure explains the why/how the Washington Post learned of the story and the Sheriff then issued his public denial that MMS was the reason the kids were removed.


But the Garland County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement this week that it was “absolutely false” that MMS was the sole reason the Stanley children were removed from the 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.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-over-the-dangerous-miracle-supplement-mms/
JMO

I noticed today that Amazon sells joint pain relief that has MSM in it...I also didn't realize it's basically a solid form of DMSO. Something my folks used all the time for arthritis and joint pain growing up - but in California you had to buy it as a solvent, not a pain reliever. (I have no idea if that is still the case, the garlic smell always drove us out of the house as kids)

 

[K_Z]

In America, there is a limit to what we as a modern society with laws will tolerate as "tribal beliefs", religious beliefs, quackery, or "alternative treatments." As an example, we don't tolerate people with STDs, HIV, and AIDS raping virginal children to cure their illness, even if they ardently "believe" raping a child will cure them.

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

Parents may "believe", for example, that giving autistic kids MMS bleach to drink, bathing them in it, and giving them MMS bleach enemas will "cure" their autism, but when those parents encounter the medical, legal, and CPS system, they will likely be compelled to stop that behavior, and risk permanently losing their children if they don't comply.

And while parents are now allowed to *believe* anything they wish about withholding necessary and appropriate medical care, the courts have ruled that they may not be prosecuted for that truly held belief, but the state CAN compel the children to receive necessary medical care, over the objections of the parent/s.

After the conviction for manslaughter in 1967 of the Christian Scientist mother of five-year-old Lisa Sheridan, who died without medical care in Cape Cod, Massachusetts,[290] the church lobbied the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to add a religious exemption, in 1974, to the Code of Federal Regulations:

A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian; however, such an exception shall not preclude a court from ordering that medical services be provided to the child, where his health requires it.[291]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science#First_prosecutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Twitchell

It's my opinion that we are coming closer and closer to mandatory vaccination for all children. When we have a major epidemic with lots of deaths and permanent harm from unvaccinated people and vaccine-preventable illness like measles (and it's coming, rest assured), the public and political tide will turn against "philosophical" and "religious exemptions" clauses that remain in some state's laws.