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

[MyBelle]

You say that you doubt that the judge has seen any evidence of physical or emotional abuse, but your very link which you posted does not support your contention. I quote "credible testimony given in court alleged physical abuse." Testimony in court is a part of evidence. This may be in the form of eyewitness evidence for all we know. It could be in the form of evidence gathered by the police or the CPS caseworkers or it could be evidence in the form of a report to the judge by a CASA volunteer. I have written such reports myself in the past. What you seem to be calling "allegations" no doubt were given consideration by many people involved with the case, including the judge. When the son in the interview in the video says that people should not judge, he makes it clear he is talking about the opinions offered on either side. He seems to be discussing the media and the people who are forming judgments from things when they are not close to the case. He is talking about the need for his parents to develop better parenting skills. He clearly loves his family and hopes for resolution, providing that these parenting skills can be improved.

There can be no need for improvements if there is no problem. Clearly, this son sees a problem.

BBM. That's exactly what I posted. ALLEGED. ALLEGATIONS of physical abuse do require proof such as photographs. Allegations aren't evidence of anything at all. Introduction of evidence was supposed to take place last week and was postponed at the request of the state. A kid saying they are physically abused requires a tad more than just an allegation to persuade a judge it is true.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

BBM. That's exactly what I posted. ALLEGED. ALLEGATIONS of physical abuse do require proof such as photographs. Allegations aren't evidence of anything at all. Introduction of evidence was supposed to take place last week and was postponed at the request of the state. A kid saying they are physically abused requires a tad more than just an allegation to persuade a judge it is true.

JMO

Evidence in such a case can involve the evaluations of psychiatrist for instance. The psych eval does not have to show photographs to constitute evidence. The believable report of a child to a professional that he/she has been abused is evidence. Also, the word "allegations" does not mean that the allegations are not credible. It is up to the court and those appointed by the court to make determinations of credibility. All of this can constitute evidence in compiling a case. For instance, a psych eval or an examination by a counselor that indicates that one or both parents may be very resistant to making the changes that CPS sees as necessary may adversely affect the reunification of the family.

 

[MyBelle]

Evidence in such a case can involve the evaluations of psychiatrist for instance. The psych eval does not have to show photographs to constitute evidence. The believable report of a child to a professional that he/she has been abused is evidence. Also, the word "allegations" does not mean that the allegations are not credible. It is up to the court and those appointed by the court to make determinations of credibility. All of this can constitute evidence in compiling a case. For instance, a psych eval or an examination by a counselor that indicates that one or both parents may be very resistant to making the changes that CPS sees as necessary may adversely affect the reunification of the family.

An evaluation by a psychiatrist takes time. The psychiatrist's testimony becomes evidence. The entire McMartin daycare debacle was based totally on allegations by children that were later proved to be lies but by then the reputations of the daycare and the family that ran it were in ruin.

In the decade and a half since the defendants were set free, research psychologists have shown that it's easy to pressure children to describe bad things that never happened. False memories can feel real, though, not just for preschoolers but for older children as well.

But Sapp, now known as Kyle Zirpolo, says he never had false memories: He always knew his stories of abuse were made up. The adults at the McMartin Pre-School "never did anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything," he says today. "I said a lot of things that didn't happen. I lied."

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/30/magazine/tm-mcmartin44

 

[daisytrail]

An evaluation by a psychiatrist takes time. The psychiatrist's testimony becomes evidence. The entire McMartin daycare debacle was based totally on allegations by children that were later proved to be lies but by then the reputations of the daycare and the family that ran it were in ruin.

In the decade and a half since the defendants were set free, research psychologists have shown that it's easy to pressure children to describe bad things that never happened. False memories can feel real, though, not just for preschoolers but for older children as well.

But Sapp, now known as Kyle Zirpolo, says he never had false memories: He always knew his stories of abuse were made up. The adults at the McMartin Pre-School "never did anything to me, and I never saw them doing anything," he says today. "I said a lot of things that didn't happen. I lied."

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/30/magazine/tm-mcmartin44

No, you are mistaken. At that stage of a proceeding it is the psychiatrist's report that becomes evidence. I have seen many such evaluations reports. I was a CASA. It was part of my job to examine the reports. Just as it was part of my job to listen to the parents, the children and to visit the foster parents (whether they always like it or not). I am not going to get into the McMartin case. It does not pertain to this thread, nor do so-called "false memories" pertain to this case to my knowledge. However, I am well-read on issue.

A competent evaluation by a psychiatrist of an adult takes about 1 hour. An evaluation of a child, depending upon the child's age may take longer. To me, you did not address my post, you have brought in extraneous issues, and you are unpersuadable by any evidence or opinion.

I shall reply no more to you on this, but I do want to remind that persistence is not the same thing as persuasion.

 

[gitana1]

All the Judge has really done is approve the agency's request for more time. I doubt he has seen any actual evidence of physical or emotional abuse. I think the agency is still "looking" for it......

JMO

No. They had a probable cause hearing. That means evidence was submitted to the court. The difference between an adjudication hearing and a probable cause hearing is the level of proof. In the former, there needs to be a preponderance of evidence that emergency custody was necessary (abuse/neglect existed) and remains necessary. Hearsay evidence is allowed. At the latter, there needs to be evidence of abuse or neglect beyond a reasonable doubt and the rules of evidence of apply:

Burden of Proof:
Petitioner must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that probable cause exists for continuation of
emergency order A.C.A. '9-27-315(b).

Rules of Evidence do not apply at Probable Cause
Hearing. A.C.A. '9-27-315(e). This means that
hearsay is admissible.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...8ko_OFzaUhgtGTQ&bvm=bv.85970519,d.eXY&cad=rja

At the adjudication hearing on March 17, 2006, the trial court found that the allegations of abuse were supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court made a finding that both children were dependent-neglected based on medical neglect and parental unfitness by both parents.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...uLbvvQTRe-WWzIw&bvm=bv.85970519,d.eXY&cad=rja

Essentially what that means is that it is easier to show abuse or neglect at a probable cause hearing, and much easier to submit evidence to the court, but allegations alone are not enough. There has to be testimonial evidence. In other words, an allegation - "Mr. S abused his children by hitting them." "My father abused me." is not enough. Testimonial evidence: "I saw Mr. S strike his child." would be enough if the witness is credible.

Later, at the adjudication hearing, the defense can challenge those testifying with their own experts or people refuting their testimony, etc.

The hearing would not be continued for DHS to gather more evidence. In my experience, typically, it is the defense that seeks more time to defend their case. There must be good cause shown to continue the adjudication past the 30 day time limit. Wanting to gather more facts is not typically good cause to continue, unless something specifically (like lab results) is holding up the case. There is no way the court would allow a continuance upon requets by the state simply becvause they want to go on a fishing expedition. That would be a violation of due process and the Stanley's attorney would be freaking out and appealing, etc., if that's what happened.

Because the hearing was postponed until next month at the request of the state. All the Judge heard at the previous hearing were allegations.

credible testimony given in court by family members alleged physical abuse.


http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

Testimony is evidence.

Many people are convicted of crimes like murder upon nothing more than testimony. That's enough.

BBM. That's exactly what I posted. ALLEGED. ALLEGATIONS of physical abuse do require proof such as photographs. Allegations aren't evidence of anything at all. Introduction of evidence was supposed to take place last week and was postponed at the request of the state. A kid saying they are physically abused requires a tad more than just an allegation to persuade a judge it is true.

JMO

Testimony of abuse or neglect is more than an "allegation" however. Testimony is evidence. Statements are evidence: "I saw him slap the child. The child fell down and cried." "My father beat me with a board in the living room. He then forced me to walk in the snow barefoot. It happened on the 12th of December at 3:23 p.m.. I know because I looked at the clock before he began beating me."

Physical proof is 100% absolutely not and never required to substantiate credible testimony. Otherwise, how do you prove things like emotional abuse, child molestation via fondling, oral contracts?

 

[MyBelle]

My opinion is based on the link that cites an unnamed source who was there that there were allegations of physical abuse made at the hearing. The testimony of the person making the allegations is not proof there was physical abuse, it only provided the Judge with probable cause to continue the investigation. It is no different than the report the children were being given a dangerous supplement provided probable cause for a search warrant. At some point, there needs to be PROOF rather than allegations.

there was enough probable cause to keep the children away from their parents.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

No, you are mistaken. At that stage of a proceeding it is the psychiatrist's report that becomes evidence. I have seen many such evaluations reports. I was a CASA. It was part of my job to examine the reports. Just as it was part of my job to listen to the parents, the children and to visit the foster parents (whether they always like it or not). I am not going to get into the McMartin case. It does not pertain to this thread, nor do so-called "false memories" pertain to this case to my knowledge. However, I am well-read on issue.

A competent evaluation by a psychiatrist of an adult takes about 1 hour. An evaluation of a child, depending upon the child's age may take longer. To me, you did not address my post, you have brought in extraneous issues, and you are unpersuadable by any evidence or opinion.

I shall reply no more to you on this, but I do want to remind that persistence is not the same thing as persuasion.

FYI: The hearing has not yet been held. It was postponed until March.

 

[gitana1]

My opinion is based on the link that cites an unnamed source who was there that there were allegations of physical abuse made at the hearing. The testimony of the person making the allegations is not proof there was physical abuse, it only provided the Judge with probable cause to continue the investigation. It is no different than the report the children were being given a dangerous supplement provided probable cause for a search warrant. At some point, there needs to be PROOF rather than allegations.

there was enough probable cause to keep the children away from their parents.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

JMO

I understand that it can be confusing. I don't know what else to tell you. The article you cited does not state that probable cause was based on "allegations". It states that: "Sources told KARK4's Josh Berry that credible testimony given in court by family members alleged physical abuse."

I'm not sure what you mean by "proof". The government has the burden of proof here. Credible testimony is proof. Testimony is often enough to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless as to whether you believe it or can't accept it. That's the law.

What we feel should be the law and what is the law can be two different things. I think that's what's going on here.

 

[MyBelle]

No, you are mistaken. At that stage of a proceeding it is the psychiatrist's report that becomes evidence. I have seen many such evaluations reports. I was a CASA. It was part of my job to examine the reports. Just as it was part of my job to listen to the parents, the children and to visit the foster parents (whether they always like it or not). I am not going to get into the McMartin case. It does not pertain to this thread, nor do so-called "false memories" pertain to this case to my knowledge. However, I am well-read on issue.

A competent evaluation by a psychiatrist of an adult takes about 1 hour. An evaluation of a child, depending upon the child's age may take longer. To me, you did not address my post, you have brought in extraneous issues, and you are unpersuadable by any evidence or opinion.

I shall reply no more to you on this, but I do want to remind that persistence is not the same thing as persuasion.

Unless you were a CASA on this case, I'm not understanding the relevance. I'm not a CASA on this case but I do have my own set of professional education, training and experiences that I draw from to form an opinion.
I think the success of persuasion depends a lot on facts and the facts are, the media didn't report a psychiatrist testified at the last hearing, they reported a family member alleged physical abuse. There is also a video at this link.

A Garland County judge made the decision Thursday afternoon that there was enough probable cause to keep the children away from their parents.

Sources told KARK4's Josh Berry that credible testimony given in court by family members alleged physical abuse.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

 

[K_Z]

No, you are mistaken. At that stage of a proceeding it is the psychiatrist's report that becomes evidence. I have seen many such evaluations reports. I was a CASA. It was part of my job to examine the reports. Just as it was part of my job to listen to the parents, the children and to visit the foster parents (whether they always like it or not). I am not going to get into the McMartin case. It does not pertain to this thread, nor do so-called "false memories" pertain to this case to my knowledge. However, I am well-read on issue.

A competent evaluation by a psychiatrist of an adult takes about 1 hour. An evaluation of a child, depending upon the child's age may take longer. To me, you did not address my post, you have brought in extraneous issues, and you are unpersuadable by any evidence or opinion.

I shall reply no more to you on this, but I do want to remind that persistence is not the same thing as persuasion.

daisytrail, I think your experiences as a CASA are quite relevant to this particular discussion, and thank you for your perspective. I'm sorry that your experiences were trivialized. I hope you'll share more about this important role. It takes a compassionate and dedicated advocate to do that job, for which we should all be thankful, and show our respect. Along with Guardians Ad Litem, these individuals are of critical importance to ensure that kids have someone who speaks only for them and their needs, and understands their experiences and reality.

A new article referenced on one of the FB sites gives some insight into the Stanley supervised visits.The visits are a "few hours" a week, and have conditions (not unexpected). Visits are allowed as long as the parents are participating in the parenting classes directed by the court. At least 2 observers, according to the article, and there are topics which may not be discussed. If the topics that are not allowed are discussed, the visit will be cut short. (The article implies that this has happened, IMO, but does not come out and say one way or the other.) And more criticism of the two teenagers. It really worries me about those older kids returning home without some serious safeguards in place. Pretty much the entire community supporting the Stanley parents has slammed and blamed those 2 kids publicly, directly and indirectly, every chance they get. <modsnip>. And that is profoundly worrisome, IMO.

IMO, the "family member" who may have given input that lead to the removal likely has personal experience living in the home, and has personally observed what is of relevant concern to the removal of the children. I think the court is probably quite interested in that person's input.

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM. That's exactly what I posted. ALLEGED. ALLEGATIONS of physical abuse do require proof such as photographs. Allegations aren't evidence of anything at all. Introduction of evidence was supposed to take place last week and was postponed at the request of the state. A kid saying they are physically abused requires a tad more than just an allegation to persuade a judge it is true.

JMO

A bit more complicated than that, one would hope. While CPS in investigating anonymous calls from people who claim to "know" that so and so is abusing their children, then I think that the tendency is to walk away unless their is corroborating physical evidence. However, if the report comes from someone having intimate knowledge of the family, who has actually witnessed physical abuse, and this is corroborated by the children, then those "allegations" tend to carry more weight. If several of the children independently provide similar information (such as a description of the instrument used for corporal punishment), then again, that tends to serve as corroboration even though no bruising is present.

Consider that, by the report of the parents, these children have NEVER been seen by a physician. CPS may well want to conduct X-rays, which may reveal healed-over wounds not apparent on visual examination. Might also consider whether this might well be considered medical neglect.

My point is that photographs--while exceedingly helpful--are not the ONLY evidence to be considered.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It is no surprise that this case is being politicized. The extreme far right tried to latch on to the Pelletier case. That child really was a victim of medical abuse by her parents yet still managed to get a standing ovation from Congress.


JMO

For a truly classic case of far-right politicization of a case, under very different circumstances, Google Rifca Bary. Brought out birthers, Muslim haters and every stripe of Christian fundamentalism, not to mention government conspiracists. In that case they were lobbying to PREVENT a child's return home. There were some extreme irregularities (such as the minister's family who moved the child to Florida and hid her there until the FBI caught up with them) that went unchallenged (or were actually lauded in some quarters). In the end, I think it became clear that the child was not disposed to stay with her parents and had plentiful contacts just awaiting an opportunity to whisk her away again. Judge opted to provide foster care to prevent another case of running away. No parental abuse was ever substantiated. To my mind the politicization made any hope of family reunification totally impossible.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I think the success of persuasion depends a lot on facts and the facts are, the media didn't report a psychiatrist testified at the last hearing, they reported a family member alleged physical abuse.

I don't know that press were allowed in the courtroom. Different states have different rules regarding access to family court. In any case, the judge's gag order would prevent them from reporting.

What we do not know is what reports were provided to the judge in preparation for the hearing, which may well have included medical and psych reports.

Further, while a judge would not allow more time to the state to "go fishing," I would imagine that if the state provided some credible emergent evidence of new issues (such as one of the children alluding to sexual abuse--purely as an example), or if there was critical evidence (lab reports, for instance, or military records substantiating a psychiatric problem) that had been ordered but was not yet available, the judge might allow additional time.

I think it is very important to remember that most of the information provided about this case has been wholly controlled by the family--with the exception of the single counter-statement by the county that MMS was NOT the sole reason for removal (as the family had trumpeted widely via the web). The gag order is to protect the children. And I would imagine that the judge took into account the willingness of the family to scape-goat the teenagers in the press in order to bring the younger children back under their control in issuing the order.

 

[K_Z]

I'm wondering if there will be an outcome here that produces a solution for the older 2 teens, where, for example they could live with the young adult brother, and attend public school (as they wish, from reports). From the pictures, they appear to be between about 15-17 years old, quite close to the age of majority. I think the courts may view the older teens and their needs and situation quite differently from the younger children.

It is also possible that the oldest 2 teens could request legal emancipation, in order to pursue their education differently from the homeschooling situation/ curriculum, and to be able to make their own medical decisions, etc. I think it's possible that there is some discussion about that, and this may be the "creative reports" that social media posts attribute to the older teens. MS, in her blogtalk interview, broke into tears when saying "they may be giving them vaccinations". If the oldest kids want to break away from the cloistered fundamentalist lifestyle their parents have mandated, education and medical care are 2 areas that would get the attention of the court, IMO. Combined with the physical abuse allegations, and the MMS quackery (and I personally do believe the kids have been given that caustic stuff), it's enough for a serious court evaluation.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I'm wondering if there will be an outcome here that produces a solution for the older 2 teens, where, for example they could live with the young adult brother, and attend public school (as they wish, from reports). From the pictures, they appear to be between about 15-17 years old, quite close to the age of majority. I think the courts may view the older teens and their needs and situation quite differently from the younger children.

It is also possible that the oldest 2 teens could request legal emancipation, in order to pursue their education differently from the homeschooling situation/ curriculum, and to be able to make their own medical decisions, etc. I think it's possible that there is some discussion about that, and this may be the "creative reports" that social media posts attribute to the older teens. MS, in her blogtalk interview, broke into tears when saying "they may be giving them vaccinations". If the oldest kids want to break away from the cloistered fundamentalist lifestyle their parents have mandated, education and medical care are 2 areas that would get the attention of the court, IMO. Combined with the physical abuse allegations, and the MMS quackery (and I personally do believe the kids have been given that caustic stuff), it's enough for a serious court evaluation.

I do believe that the courts are more willing to take into account the preferences of older children, particularly when they weigh in the enhanced likelihood of their bolting. IOW, should they state to the court that they will not stay if returned, the court may consider continued foster care to be preventative.

I tend to agree that the children were likely being dosed with MMS, given Michelle's willingness to endorse it as a valid medical product (which it is not) that had done Hal much good. Among the quackery of MMS aimed at families of children with autism, is the suggestion that autism is caused by persistent parasites--which can be cured through persistent use of the product in enema format. Considering that the first DHS visit was prompted by a report of children running barefoot in the snow, and pictures posted of their greenhouse project showing the kids routinely barefoot in warmer weather, and that this is Arkansas, one might surmise that actual hookworms could be an actual issue. Apparently, however, the folks who make their living off of MMS quackery advise that the worms are persistent and to increase frequency so long as (autistic) symptoms persist, or wormlike matter is seen in the fecal matter. What actually happens is that the product strips the intestines of strings of mucus, doing actual internal damage.

But, while my sense is that such dosing may well have occurred, the larger issue is that the Stanley family is an adherent of corporal punishment to beat out any devilish intentions on the part of their children. While I am certain that Hal and Michelle do not think the two oldest are too old for beating, once they have adopted a mind of being unwilling to take it any more it may be very difficult (physically) to implement (this is where the Pearls begin to advocate removing food and so forth). The Stanleys may be willing to allow the older teens to go in order to maintain control of the younger children.

 

[daisytrail]

daisytrail, I think your experiences as a CASA are quite relevant to this particular discussion, and thank you for your perspective. I'm sorry that your experiences were trivialized. I hope you'll share more about this important role. It takes a compassionate and dedicated advocate to do that job, for which we should all be thankful, and show our respect. Along with Guardians Ad Litem, these individuals are of critical importance to ensure that kids have someone who speaks only for them and their needs, and understands their experiences and reality.

You are most kind. In the past, I have been both a CASA and a victim advocate. I am soon to be 66 years of age and my physical health no longer permits me to be active as I once was. As to my memory of how a case progresses, gitana is bound to know more than I do. I have, however, seen many psych eval reports. They were quite routine and the access of a CASA to case materials was almost complete. The case files never left the CPS workers office, but I could examine them without someone looking over my shoulder and ask for copies of things that seemed relevant. I do not know if HIPPA laws have changed that.

It often surprised me how thick a file could be and how many CPS contacts were made before children were removed, even temporarily. I saw no evidence of some sort of activist CPS. The workers' case loads were too heavy for them to be looking for extra issues, extra work. To me, CPS is appallingly underfunded, and as a money-saving measure, the privatization of foster care oversight is a move in the wrong direction.

 

[K_Z]

So here's something that has been in the back of my mind since I read all the comments about the "ill fitting" clothes and worn out shoes the children were seen wearing during visitation, according to MS.

They look fine to me in the pics posted, but what do I know?! I do notice that the older girl is wearing jeans in the most recent visitation pic posted on FB, and in every other family pic, all the girls wear long skirts. Strangely, there is no criticism of the older girl wearing jeans, either by her choice, or because that's all that is available to her. In a lot of fundamentalist families, girls and women always wear long skirts.

Anyway, is there something that prohibits the parents from bringing the children's OWN clothing and shoes from home to the social workers? It's not like the home was declared a superfund site, or something! Why couldn't they pack up a few changes of the children's clothes & shoes to be given to them? (Searched first by the social workers, I suppose.)

I understand why authorities would not allow them to help the kids pack the night they were removed, but it's been weeks, and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to accommodate and encourage. Maybe not tons of outfits, as space might be limited at the foster home, but a few changes of favorite clothes? Might help the kids feel more secure, and help the parents to do something positive for the kids direct benefit. Maybe a favorite blanket or toy, too, for the younger ones.

Does anyone know why they might not be allowed to do this? Or maybe they haven't asked, or the option hasn't been extended to them. Or maybe the kids don't want their clothes from home?

It just seems like a very odd thing to complain about, as in the hair braiding/ fixing. One would think the older girls would be very able to help the younger ones with favorite hairstyles, if the kids wanted their hair braided, etc. Wouldn't MS be allowed to braid the girls' hair during supervised visits, if they wanted? There is no prohibition against contact during the visits, apparently, from the posted pics--hugging, lap sitting, etc.

(Or is it all just more things to complain about with the foster care placement? IDK.)

 

[daisytrail]

I tend to agree that the children were likely being dosed with MMS, given Michelle's willingness to endorse it as a valid medical product (which it is not) that had done Hal much good. Among the quackery of MMS aimed at families of children with autism, is the suggestion that autism is caused by persistent parasites--which can be cured through persistent use of the product in enema format. Considering that the first DHS visit was prompted by a report of children running barefoot in the snow, and pictures posted of their greenhouse project showing the kids routinely barefoot in warmer weather, and that this is Arkansas, one might surmise that actual hookworms could be an actual issue. Apparently, however, the folks who make their living off of MMS quackery advise that the worms are persistent and to increase frequency so long as (autistic) symptoms persist, or wormlike matter is seen in the fecal matter. What actually happens is that the product strips the intestines of strings of mucus, doing actual internal damage.

The idea of parents administering enemas to their older children is utterly cringe-inducing. When I first read that this substance is often administered in this manner, I thought, oh-oh.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

The idea of parents administering enemas to their older children is utterly cringe-inducing. When I first read that this substance is often administered in this manner, I thought, oh-oh.

People put it in every orifice of the body. It is also inhaled and given through IV's. There are clinic overseas that do this to "cleanse" the entire body. It's insane.

 

[stormshine]

How does emancipation work when the child is not able to be independent financially? Can a child be "emancipated" but have the state take care of them like a foster child?