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

[tlcya]

I do not believe that has been divulged. We know credible testimony was given by relatives but not who the relatives were. Were they the alleged victims or others? I don't think we have been given that information.

 

[daisytrail]

If children have freedom of speech, shouldn't they also have freedom in the choice of religious practice? I am a little puzzled by the assertion that children have freedom of speech and should employ it in talking to the press, but that they do not have a right to choose their religion or even to choose no religion at all.

Children who have had little freedom to date it seems should now be subjecting themselves to press interviews in which their family's private life could be questioned or exposed? To me this is a bizarre idea. Likely these children want nothing to do with that.

There is no evidence that these children are under gag order in any case. Conjecture is not evidence.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Gothard has absolutely nothing to do with this case but I can see why the Duggars might get involved. I'm not a fan of the Duggars or their right-wing moral and political agenda but they do have a fan base and a case like the Stanleys will grow it. The Duggars not only live in Arkansas, the Duggars are very active politically. Jim Bob Duggar has served in the legislature and ran for the Senate.

Hal Stanley is a retired Southern Baptist minister. There is nothing that suggests he is the leader of a cult or that his children are sexually abused. Corporal punishment is allowed in Arkansas public schools and that won't change because the majority of voters share the Christian belief that sparing the rod will spoil the child.

I can't think of a better way Josh Duggar can push forth the right-wing political and moral agenda of less government than to have a state government agency intrude, disrupt and divide an Arkansas family, not give a reason for it and hide behind a gag order.

http://www.frcaction.org/about-us

JMO

Ah, yes. Family Research Council. Check into how they stood behind family reunification and sparing the rod spoiling children when they involved themselves in the case of Rifqa Bary. Oh, wait. That family was Muslim. But the extreme level of public access in the Florida family court system enabled quite the circus down there. Hard to say that it furthered the best interest of either the child or the family.

 

[Margo/Mom]

BTW--many Christian denominations reject corporal punishment of children.

 

[daisytrail]

Not all Christian churches practice biblical literalism, for heaven's sake! Many Christian churches believe that scripture may be interpreted in many ways. The way some people are limiting the definition of "Christian" in this thread is something that I am beginning to feel is insulting to many Christians who sincerely practice their faith and believe in religious liberalism.

 

[MyBelle]

If children have freedom of speech, shouldn't they also have freedom in the choice of religious practice? I am a little puzzled by the assertion that children have freedom of speech and should employ it in talking to the press, but that they do not have a right to choose their religion or even to choose no religion at all.

Children who have had little freedom to date it seems should now be subjecting themselves to press interviews in which their family's private life could be questioned or exposed? To me this is a bizarre idea. Likely these children want nothing to do with that.

There is no evidence that these children are under gag order in any case. Conjecture is not evidence.

All parties are covered in a gag order including witnesses. That isn't conjecture, it is fact.

(n) Gag Order is the order issued by a judge prohibiting the attorney and parties involved in a legal procedure not to disclose or discuss the matter involved in the case to the public, when the judge is of the opinion that such an action may prejudice or influence the outcome the trial.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/gag-order.htm

Anyone who wishes to live where children are allowed to choose their education and religion has many countries to choose from. Only Somalia and the United States have refused to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child.

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8



JMO

 

[daisytrail]

BTW--many Christian denominations reject corporal punishment of children.

My post closely followed yours with a similar focus. I just want to be clear that I was not talking about the way that you use the term Christian.

 

[K_Z]

All the posts, comments, instructions on how to contact, and references to recruiting the support of the Duggars have been completely pulled off the 2 main facebook support sites.

Now isn't that interesting?

*But aquaponics is still apparently up for discussion. And as a companion to the earlier discussion on aquaponics and the organic and closed symbiotic relationship between the plants and fish, lets revisit this comment from Hal Stanley:

“MMS is a water purification drop,” he said. “It raises the pH of the water; it’s totally harmless. It’s a bogus thing to get in and search our house.”

And what are they accused of:

The parents have been accused of violating the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act — and at the heart of the controversy, Stanley believes, is his use of MMS.

Stanley said he has been accused by authorities of “spanking” his children. But, he noted, if spanking constitutes child abuse, most families would be guilty.

“Any parent in America would identify with me when you’re dealing with rebellious teenagers,” he said.

He does believe, however, that his two oldest children living at home — ages 16 and 14 — played a part in the raid.

Court documents, he said, indicate that the 16-year-old boy reported bringing the MMS bottle to a friend’s house and then coughed for several hours after smelling it. But Stanley suspects that the boy may have inhaled a different chemical used for the aquaponics system, and that he used the incident to try to get out of his parents’ homeschooling program.

“The two teenagers, the top two — they wanted to go to public school,” Hal Stanley said. “And of course, we’ve insisted that they have a home-schooled education. But I think they were used.

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

BBM. My observation is that Hal Stanley seems to need a lot of different chemicals to "manage" his organic, holistic aquaponics system, eh?

 

[daisytrail]

All parties are covered in a gag order including witnesses. That isn't conjecture, it is fact.

(n) Gag Order is the order issued by a judge prohibiting the attorney and parties involved in a legal procedure not to disclose or discuss the matter involved in the case to the public, when the judge is of the opinion that such an action may prejudice or influence the outcome the trial.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/gag-order.htm

Anyone who wishes to live where children are allowed to choose their education and religion has many countries to choose from. Only Somalia and the United States have refused to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child.

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8



JMO

I hope you are not deliberately ignoring my point, since my subject was clearly not Somalia or the UN. My point is that some are implying that children should have freedom of speech. Does this mean that children have the freedom to back talk their parents and not be "chastened?" If you have changed your mind and now believe that, I invite you to say so. My point was a comparison on First Amendment rights, if that is at all unclear. There are no absolute First Amendment rights. All rights are interpreted by the courts on up to SCOTUS. SCOTUS has held that children enjoy some freedom of expression, even in their school environments. I also believe that children should have other, perhaps somewhat limited rights, when it comes to religion. Throughout this thread, some people -- I believe you know exactly who I mean -- have referenced the Constitution of the United States -- and seem to think that somehow parents should enjoy all possible constitutional protection when it comes to how they rear their children, and yet allow children no freedom whatsoever. Children are not possessions!

When you reply to my posts, I would appreciate it if you replied to what I actually said <modsnip>

 

[MyBelle]

All the posts, comments, instructions on how to contact, and references to recruiting the support of the Duggars have been completely pulled off the 2 main facebook support sites.

Now isn't that interesting?

*But aquaponics is still apparently up for discussion. And as a companion to the earlier discussion on aquaponics and the organic and closed symbiotic relationship between the plants and fish, lets revisit this comment from Hal Stanley:



And what are they accused of:







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

BBM. My observation is that Hal Stanley seems to need a lot of different chemicals to "manage" his organic, holistic aquaponics system, eh?

two = a few, according to my math. PH balance of water is important in any environment where there are fish.

 

[K_Z]

And yet, why would all those posts and comments about the Duggars be removed? There was so much hope and enthusiasm that these celebrities would be the stimulus for making the Stanley situation "go viral" (to use their now-scrubbed words.) A few hours ago the Duggars were the great idea and great hope to "fix" all this injustice.

Hmmm....why scrub all that off the sites.....thinking....thinking...maybe... lawyers-- no, that can't be it. Must be something else. Let's forget all about the Duggars, since maybe that wasn't such a good plan. I'm sure the Duck people are the newest "best" celebrity plan to "fix" all this. Sheesh......

Oh wait! "MMS is for 'water purification' for the aquaponics system." Let's all repeat that a few more times, using our outside voices. Or maybe it's for raising the pH. Or lowering it. It's critical for something related to pH or purifying the system. Really. The fish LOVE it!

But whatever we do, let's not talk about spanking rebellious teenagers. Or using rods. Or chastening. Or chastising. Or beating. Or.....slapping kids in the face.....or.....the use of physical abuse in the name of religion to "purify" children....right? That's not a topic for discussion. Right?

 

[IAMME]

I'm still seeing a plea to the duggars post...? And one of the comments makes me Sooo sick!!! A commentor (not the Stanley family) said their kids ran and hid when someone knocked on the door bc they're so scared they might be taken too.... WTH?? What kind of person terrorizes their kids like that? That makes me so sad for those kids

 

[Margo/Mom]

All parties are covered in a gag order including witnesses. That isn't conjecture, it is fact.

[/url]

Anyone who wishes to live where children are allowed to choose their education and religion has many countries to choose from. Only Somalia and the United States have refused to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child.

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8

JMO

The issue is really no so much WHO is covered as WHAT is covered in the gag order. My understanding is that it applies directly to the court proceedings. Were that not the case, the Stanleys might be risking contempt of court in their public discussion of some of the things that they claim happened during the course of the removal, or the limitations on their visits with the children. Hence my question about whether the children were present in the courtroom. If not then the gag order would not apply to anything within their knowledge. And some of them are very young, so I would imagine that a two day hearing would be an unnecessary stress on them, particularly on school days. And I am not terribly familiar with the procedures in family court (which tend to vary widely by state), but I would imagine that the two oldest of the at-home children will be giving testimony, if they have not already done so. So, as witnesses, they may not be permitted to observe in court.

And BTW--if you are going to cite info about the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, you might want to read something other than right-wing propaganda about it. And then ask--does the US want to stand in a category with Somalia, or the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Agreed! I also don't think speaking to the press would be in their best interest, and they are too young to understand the ramifications of doing so, I believe that their best interests must be protected.

If this were a real issue (as I believe it is not), then the Guardian Ad Litem might appeal to the judge.

 

[Margo/Mom]

All the posts, comments, instructions on how to contact, and references to recruiting the support of the Duggars have been completely pulled off the 2 main facebook support sites.

Now isn't that interesting?

I still see the Duggar discussion on the Standing with the Stanleys page.

 

[Margo/Mom]

But whatever we do, let's not talk about spanking rebellious teenagers. Or using rods. Or chastening. Or chastising. Or beating. Or.....slapping kids in the face.....or.....the use of physical abuse in the name of religion to "purify" children....right? That's not a topic for discussion. Right?

Yes--in spite of a whole lotta ugly that is allowed to appear on those threads, any sort of rational redirection is promptly removed. There are at times obvious "holes" in the discussion, where people are clearly responding to someone whose post is no longer there.

Interesting that the group moderator had initially stated that the page was started to give support to the family. Fair enough--but then the second page, started by Magellan was offered as a place for the "discussions" that people wanted to have. Apparently only certain views are allowed in the discussion, however, as that site also blocks posters who disagree. There was another site (something like Help for the Stanleys) that was offering up "information" in support of the safety of MMS. That one was either taken down, or I was totally blocked from viewing it, because I can no longer see it. That would be a good place to challenge some of the "it was just for hydroponics" information.

 

[TrackerSam]

There are those less concerned about the children's best interest unless it serves the parents' best interest, which to me appears to be presenting themselves as persecuted innocents. So unless the children are prepared to back that up, I highly doubt those parents want them talking to anyone, including those tasked with investigating the abuse allegations. MOO JMO IMO etc.

There is no proof of abuse. They've had plenty of time to investigate and still no charges.

 

[TrackerSam]

If children have freedom of speech, shouldn't they also have freedom in the choice of religious practice? I am a little puzzled by the assertion that children have freedom of speech and should employ it in talking to the press, but that they do not have a right to choose their religion or even to choose no religion at all.

Children who have had little freedom to date it seems should now be subjecting themselves to press interviews in which their family's private life could be questioned or exposed? To me this is a bizarre idea. Likely these children want nothing to do with that.

There is no evidence that these children are under gag order in any case. Conjecture is not evidence.

And we're not in court. We're in a chat room where conjecture is allowed. Abuse/conjecture. Drugs/conjecture. Etc etc. What is circumstancial evidence if not conjecture?

 

[Margo/Mom]

There is no proof of abuse. They've had plenty of time to investigate and still no charges.

In fact, TS, we don't know much about what evidence has been offered to the court beyond a report of credible accounts of physical abuse. The fact that neither you nor I know does not mean that there is no evidence. The court has ruled in two hearings (the emergency hearing after 72 hours and then the subsequent preliminary hearing) that there was sufficient evidence to maintain the placement. I will reiterate again, the various family members are accorded due process, and by every indicator this has been happening. Due process does not mean an instantaneous judgment of what you want it to be. It means that the children have been provided with independent representation (Guardian Ad Litem), the state (or more properly the county) was required to show due cause in a timely fashion, and a hearing date has been set.

There was an extension granted by the judge--apparently at the request of DHS. Typically such extensions are requested on behalf of the family--to allow them time to gather their case or to demonstrate willingness to make changes as required. I will conjecture that DHS made the request on the basis of either some emerging issue that requires further investigation, or some ambivalence on the part of the family with regards to adherence to a re-unification plan and a desire on the part of DHS to grant them more time to demonstrate sincerity.

And one more time--the charges before the court are violations of laws that govern the protection of children, specifically in the realm of physical abuse. Not every person who is charged with a crime is imprisoned, depending on the nature of the crime. So--the fact that the Stanleys are walking around free (with some key exceptions as regards their contact with their children) is not an indication that there are no charges, no proof, or that the case against them is not very serious.

 

[daisytrail]

And we're not in court. We're in a chat room where conjecture is allowed. Abuse/conjecture. Drugs/conjecture. Etc etc. What is circumstancial evidence if not conjecture?

Far be it from me to stifle anyone's conjecture. I merely pointed out that conjecture is not evidence. If conjecture should lead to a well-constructed theory, why that would be wonderful indeed! I don't see conjecture as being the same as circumstantial evidence. Does what is allowed have anything to do with whether an apple is an orange?

To return to the subject of the Stanleys, I believe the issue to be the safety of those children.