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

[daisytrail]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Since there was "credible" testimony in the Stanley case, must it have also been direct? Gitana or another knowledgeable contributor may have had something to say about this before.

Needless to say, if one or more of the Stanley children testified about something that happened to them, in which they were the object of Mr. Stanley's actions, then that would be direct evidence -- even if it is not evidence to which we are privy.

 

[TrackerSam]

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.

I never claimed lack of an interview with the children was evidenceof a gag order, I suggested it could be. Without knowing what was said in court you suggest that there may have been abuse and the kid's lives are in jeopardy, pure conjecture. So how long will this investigation continue? Until the kids are all 18? We don't like their life style but we have nothing we can charge them with, so let's slap a gag order on this whole thing and take their kids away. If there was anything illegal going on, they would've been charged. And that's the bottom line.

 

[daisytrail]

I never claimed lack of an interview with the children was evidenceof a gag order, I suggested it could be. Without knowing what was said in court you suggest that there may have been abuse and the kid's lives are in jeopardy, pure conjecture. So how long will this investigation continue? Until the kids are all 18? We don't like their life style but we have nothing we can charge them with, so let's slap a gag order on this whole thing and take their kids away. If there was anything illegal going on, they would've been charged. And that's the bottom line.

As I clearly indicated in the post to which you replied with the quote above, I am fine with people conjecturing. I will leave you to your own devices on that matter and have resolved not to be offended by the way that others may construct their opinions. You have your methods of argument and I have mine.

As, to your questions, I am puzzled as to why you would think I know the answers. I don't think anyone here knows the answers. The confidentiality laws that govern CPS are meant to be for the protection of children and family privacy. Any judge's individual order on any particular case is not something I am either defending or claiming to know the reason of. If anyone has a link from the case itself which lays out the parameters of the gag order, they are welcome to post it. Then we would have something to debate about that relates to the case itself.

As to my suggesting that there may have been abuse, that has already been suggested by media reports on the case itself. Unless you think those children were removed from their home for no reason whatsoever then all we are left with is what has been published. No one here was in the courtroom.

Is it my personal opinion that the children were taken from their family to protect the children? It sure is.

ETA: You cannot prove a negative. You may say that there was no abuse all you choose to. The burden of proof then falls upon those who believe there was. You are correct in that we here lack the evidence to prove that there was. To give an example, if you say a huge angel appeared in the sky at 7pm last night around sunset and spread his wings from the south edge of the horizon to the north edge and I was not there and did not see it, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that this event, improbable though it may be, actually happened. I know that this is a chat room and that formal rules of logic and rhetoric do not apply, but I cannot help being fond of them.

 

[IAMME]

I never claimed lack of an interview with the children was evidenceof a gag order, I suggested it could be. Without knowing what was said in court you suggest that there may have been abuse and the kid's lives are in jeopardy, pure conjecture. So how long will this investigation continue? Until the kids are all 18? We don't like their life style but we have nothing we can charge them with, so let's slap a gag order on this whole thing and take their kids away. If there was anything illegal going on, they would've been charged. And that's the bottom line.

This is where I get confused, this lifestyle is not unusual in this area, strict adherence to biblical law is not something that people would raise an eyebrow at, it is something that is rather celebrated in my state. Tge vast majority of the population here isn't going to "persecute" them for beliefs that they also hold... now if this were an atheist family that was trying to live green and homeschooling their kids and their kids were taken and they screamed "persecutions bc of their beliefs, THAT I could buy!! But believe me these people's beliefs are not all that abnormal, there may not be a Majority of people homesteading, home birthing and homeschooling, but it isn't because they don't believe in the principles!!

 

[daisytrail]

This is where I get confused, this lifestyle is not unusual in this area, strict adherence to biblical law is not something that people would raise an eyebrow at, it is something that is rather celebrated in my state. Tge vast majority of the population here isn't going to "persecute" them for beliefs that they also hold... now if this were an atheist family that was trying to live green and homeschooling their kids and their kids were taken and they screamed "persecutions bc of their beliefs, THAT I could buy!! But believe me these people's beliefs are not all that abnormal, there may not be a Majority of people homesteading, home birthing and homeschooling, but it isn't because they don't believe in the principles!!

Perhaps there is a federal government conspiracy to kidnap the children of people who do those sorts of things. :scared: :doh:

 

[MyBelle]

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.

I'm capable of reading the actual UN Declaration myself and forming an informed opinion on my own. btw, I've been a registered democrat for 43 years.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Since there was "credible" testimony in the Stanley case, must it have also been direct? Gitana or another knowledgeable contributor may have had something to say about this before.

Needless to say, if one or more of the Stanley children testified about something that happened to them, in which they were the object of Mr. Stanley's actions, then that would be direct evidence -- even if it is not evidence to which we are privy.

Very well said. Testimony from a witness is direct evidence and it is up to the Judge to decide if it is credible. He's going to want more "proof" than just testimony from a child.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

Very well said. Testimony from a witness is direct evidence and it is up to the Judge to decide if it is credible. He's going to want more "proof" than just testimony from a child.

JMO

I believe that there will be testimony from multiple children (based on Michelle's fears of what the two oldest might have been telling the investigators), as well as other possibilities which might include the Pearls' book (To Train Up a Child), an instrument (such as PVC pipe) used for corporal punishment, and the adult neighbor who has reported seeing Hal slap on of the girls. There may also be materials related to the MMS--since there was apparently (according to the woman who reports on the family FB page) a good bit of time spent on that during the first day of hearings--which might include materials on dosing, enema bags (particularly if stored together with the MMS), where the MMS was found (in the family medicine cabinet as opposed to with the aquaponics stuff) and the like. And, since we are dealing with the protection of children, I would imagine that the standard required in family court is closer to a preponderance of the evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence that the Stanleys might use in their defense might include things like medical records and school records. However, since these things do not exist for their children (and I gotta wonder if there are even birth records), they may be hard-pressed to counter reasonable claims that their children have been physically abused supported by physical evidence and testimony.

 

[Margo/Mom]

You seem to be imagining quite a bit, imo. Please provide some links because I have no idea where you got the idea that some book or a PVC pipe or any "instrument" has been used to strike any child in this family or than an "adult" neighbor has witnessed anything. Referencing facebook and what may have been posted there is really getting tiresome because I don't read there.

Have a nice day.

JMO

OK--here are a couple of links. Michelle stated in an interview that she was told by a DHS representative that there was a complaint that the children were running around barefoot in the snow AND that Hal had slapped one of the girls: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...y-mom-of-7-homeschoolers-taken-by-authorities.

This interview with Hal, here, stated that it was paramedics who examined the kids in a van: http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...eyre-victims-of-christian-persecution-134335/

As far as beating the children with an instrument, Hal discusses this with his children in his recorded devotions, drawing primarily from Proverbs to justify the use of a rod in chastening--making specific references to one or more of the children in the process. Now, I make my own assumptions about the likelihood of the Pearls' book--which is used by many home-school "quiverfull" families. The Pearls recommend the infliction of pain using a PVC plumbing pipe "To Train up a Child." Their book and methodology has been a factor (although the Pearls deny it) in a number of child deaths in similar situations.

And in fact, there are three critical risk factors associated with physical abuse of a religious nature. They are a strict authoritarian structure (clearly outlined in patriarchal terms in Hal's sermons), a belief in corporal punishment (again--from the sermons) and a high degree of isolation--which in this family is demonstrated in their extreme self-sufficiency oriented lifestyle which includes not only their own food production (which is actually laudable), but also their rejection of not only public education, but also ANY form of medical care, as well as any congregational affiliation outside their own home.

I just listened again today, by way of finding those links, to Michelle's interview and statement. And reading between the lines, she is very worried about what the older two children living at home have to say. She was also very quick to publicize that the older son who gave an interview is an agnostic--and to blame his very carefully guarded suggestion that all was not quite right at home on his differing religious beliefs. She also goes on about why someone would make a report instead of just coming to her and Hal ("like they did in old times"). Every time I hear her I am just profoundly aware of her pointing a finger here, there and anywhere but at home. Even her statement(s) that she thinks that they should let the younger children come home and keep the teenagers (she has said this several times in several instances) just makes me think that in her heart of hearts she knows that they are in trouble for hitting on the kids, but that she trusts the younger kids not to say anything. She also talks frequently about her children being brainwashed (in public school). Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[Margo/Mom]

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

According to Michelle, they were served with papers indicating what the allegations are.

 

[tlcya]

I am still waiting for links that support the fact that these people are on the receiving end of religious persecution. And I don't mean links with the parents as the source of that interpretation. But as you can imagine, I am not holding my breath.

When you have no links upon which to base your belief, simply pepper those with opposing viewpoints with repeated requests to provide links to the basis for theirs. When they provide them, repeatedly, simply discount or ignore them. Rinse lather repeat.

 

[daisytrail]

OK--here are a couple of links. Michelle stated in an interview that she was told by a DHS representative that there was a complaint that the children were running around barefoot in the snow AND that Hal had slapped one of the girls: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...y-mom-of-7-homeschoolers-taken-by-authorities.

This interview with Hal, here, stated that it was paramedics who examined the kids in a van: http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...eyre-victims-of-christian-persecution-134335/

As far as beating the children with an instrument, Hal discusses this with his children in his recorded devotions, drawing primarily from Proverbs to justify the use of a rod in chastening--making specific references to one or more of the children in the process. Now, I make my own assumptions about the likelihood of the Pearls' book--which is used by many home-school "quiverfull" families. The Pearls recommend the infliction of pain using a PVC plumbing pipe "To Train up a Child." Their book and methodology has been a factor (although the Pearls deny it) in a number of child deaths in similar situations.

And in fact, there are three critical risk factors associated with physical abuse of a religious nature. They are a strict authoritarian structure (clearly outlined in patriarchal terms in Hal's sermons), a belief in corporal punishment (again--from the sermons) and a high degree of isolation--which in this family is demonstrated in their extreme self-sufficiency oriented lifestyle which includes not only their own food production (which is actually laudable), but also their rejection of not only public education, but also ANY form of medical care, as well as any congregational affiliation outside their own home.

I just listened again today, by way of finding those links, to Michelle's interview and statement. And reading between the lines, she is very worried about what the older two children living at home have to say. She was also very quick to publicize that the older son who gave an interview is an agnostic--and to blame his very carefully guarded suggestion that all was not quite right at home on his differing religious beliefs. She also goes on about why someone would make a report instead of just coming to her and Hal ("like they did in old times"). Every time I hear her I am just profoundly aware of her pointing a finger here, there and anywhere but at home. Even her statement(s) that she thinks that they should let the younger children come home and keep the teenagers (she has said this several times in several instances) just makes me think that in her heart of hearts she knows that they are in trouble for hitting on the kids, but that she trusts the younger kids not to say anything. She also talks frequently about her children being brainwashed (in public school). Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Thank you for that interesting post. I have a number of points to make. The first is that I am not too concerned about the children in the snow. Children can be quite hardy. However, if the witness' claim that Stanley slapped one of his daughters is accurate, then I am quite worried. The reason is that I don't believe any parent should strike any child in the face, about the head, or shake any young child. These behaviors present risks to the developing brain. Depression, minimal brain damage, and frontal lobe damage may result. One consequence of frontal lobe damage is that the child may become less able to control her behavior. As chilling as I find it that these parents may be using an actual rod on their children's bodies, I am even more concerned with the effect of head blows on their minds. (Now I just know someone is going to chime in saying that they have children reared in the same environment who went to college; that means almost nothing. As a former college instructor, I can assure you that I have known many young people achieve degrees who had no sense whatsoever.) We do not know the long term effects of this damage, but indications of the consequences of repeated blows to the head have long been apparent in boxers and are becoming increasingly matters of concern for football players and soccer players.

Also, I don't think we can conclude anything at all about the religious beliefs of the young man who has given the interviews, notwithstanding the fact that his mother has described him as agnostic. My dictionary says that an agnostic is one who considers the existence of god unknown and probably unknowable. However, I have heard people use the word agnostic wrongly frequently. I have heard people use the term as applying to the unchurched, people who are not obviously of another religion but just not interested in Christianity, and people who would more accurately be described as apostates from the religion/denomination of the person using the term. For all we know that young man may attend church every Sunday but just not a church Michelle approves of.

 

[RANCH]

According to Michelle, they were served with papers indicating what the allegations are.

They were served with what kind of papers? Civil or criminal? Who served these papers?

 

[Tricia]

Dear Everyone,

Please, no personal attacks or posts directed at others that are personal in nature.

Stick to the case. It's not about the posters. It's about the kids, the sheriff, what happened and why.

 

[Morag]

They were served with what kind of papers? Civil or criminal? Who served these papers?

I'll hazard a guess that they were served with whatever kind of papers are usual in such cases, and that the papers were served by the people whom the state designates to serve such papers. Perhaps someone who is interested enough in the process could research Arkansas law, or even send a note to Mrs. Stanley via Facebook.

 

[gitana1]

Honest Question- What is the purpose of a gag order in situations like this? Is it for the children's, parent's, or government's benefit? TIA

See below:

Surely it is to protect the vulnerable children. Some of the things that happen to abused children could be very embarrassing to them if those things were made public. We don't know for sure what has happened here, but a child wouldn't want it known that his parents had forced enemas on him/her. Or that a parent had administered bare buttocks beatings.

Rape victims are usually shielded from having the precise details of their ordeals made public. Unfortunately, there are members of the public who laciviously enjoy such details, and what (may have) happened to these kids would provide sick enjoyment to some.

BBM. This is the party line about gag orders or confidentiality in juvenile cases. I understand that children have (or should have) privacy rights and that many would be upset to have personal details of their lives made public. I've fought on other threads about respecting the children's rights to privacy over the public's desire to know.

But this is a different case because it is about government action that threatens a family. So I think we have to balance the privacy rights of the children with the public need for transparency and for those subject to serious government actions which take away or threaten constitutional rights, like the rights to one's children, to be able to speak out and criticize that government action. Otherwise, what are we, Iran? North Korea?

As I said, I support children's rights to privacy but when their rights to their parents or vice versa are threatened, gagging the parents does not seem warranted.

And surely the PARENTS aren't going to be divulging abuse they inflicted on their kids. Further, the details of many kid's abuse is publicized in criminal cases. So, I really feel gag orders in these cases serve to protect government interests and not societal ones.

And that worries me greatly. And caveat, I think there is a lot of evidence that the Stanley abused their kids and I do not believe this family has been persecuted. It's not logical. But that is unimportant. Whether guilty or not, American citizens should all have the right to confront and call out the government. That's a key way of keeping the government in check.

We were talking about the kids. There haven't been any interviews with them (the kids) so it's my opinion that they too have a gag order.

Little kids don't typically know how to call a radio station or whatever and the foster parents, who are standing in the shoes of their parents, have the right to limit their access to media.

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

Criminal charges more often that not do not follow CPS removal of children. As I stated earlier, a friend who actually removes kids from homes when necessary, states that about 70% of the cases in which the kids are placed into the system do NOT involve criminal charges. That is likely because the two systems have different standards of proof and the criminal standard is much harder to meet (clear and convincing versus beyond a reasonable doubt).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Since there was "credible" testimony in the Stanley case, must it have also been direct? Gitana or another knowledgeable contributor may have had something to say about this before.

Needless to say, if one or more of the Stanley children testified about something that happened to them, in which they were the object of Mr. Stanley's actions, then that would be direct evidence -- even if it is not evidence to which we are privy.

Witness testimony about something a witness has observed is direct evidence if the observation doesn't need an interpretation via science or experts.

I never claimed lack of an interview with the children was evidenceof a gag order, I suggested it could be. Without knowing what was said in court you suggest that there may have been abuse and the kid's lives are in jeopardy, pure conjecture. So how long will this investigation continue? Until the kids are all 18? We don't like their life style but we have nothing we can charge them with, so let's slap a gag order on this whole thing and take their kids away. If there was anything illegal going on, they would've been charged. And that's the bottom line.

There are time limits to how long children can remain in state custody without an adjudication hearing. In this case I believe the DHS investigation is pretty much over.

They were served with what kind of papers? Civil or criminal? Who served these papers?

Subpoena papers. Those papers would list probable cause.

 

[RANCH]

I'll hazard a guess that they were served with whatever kind of papers are usual in such cases, and that the papers were served by the people whom the state designates to serve such papers. Perhaps someone who is interested enough in the process could research Arkansas law, or even send a note to Mrs. Stanley via Facebook.

I don't have a clue where or what to look for and I don't do Facebook.

 

[RANCH]

Subpoena papers. Those papers would list probable cause.

So CPS served them with subpeonas when the removed the children? Or later on? I guess this is considered a civil case at this point, right?

 

[daisytrail]

They have always seemed high-handed to me and contradictory to our system of government. Of course the gag orders that judges in these cases may impose are not the same thing as CPS rules of confidentiality, are they? Do judges often issue such orders as an "adjunct" to CPS rules of confidentiality?

Also, I am wondering if a parent is publicly disparaging of his/her children during such an investigation, does CPS take that into account when determining whether these parents have the best interests of their children at heart. It has occurred to me that the Mr. and Mrs. Stanley may be damaging their own cause of be reunited with their children by some of their public statements. I have even wondered just what their lawyer is thinking in having them present their cause so publicly. Is the reunification of this family really the parents' goal? Is it really their attorney's goal? Could the goals of the parents and the attorney be at odds if someone else is paying the family's legal bills?

 

[MyBelle]

OK--here are a couple of links. Michelle stated in an interview that she was told by a DHS representative that there was a complaint that the children were running around barefoot in the snow AND that Hal had slapped one of the girls: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...y-mom-of-7-homeschoolers-taken-by-authorities.

This interview with Hal, here, stated that it was paramedics who examined the kids in a van: http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...eyre-victims-of-christian-persecution-134335/

As far as beating the children with an instrument, Hal discusses this with his children in his recorded devotions, drawing primarily from Proverbs to justify the use of a rod in chastening--making specific references to one or more of the children in the process. Now, I make my own assumptions about the likelihood of the Pearls' book--which is used by many home-school "quiverfull" families. The Pearls recommend the infliction of pain using a PVC plumbing pipe "To Train up a Child." Their book and methodology has been a factor (although the Pearls deny it) in a number of child deaths in similar situations.

And in fact, there are three critical risk factors associated with physical abuse of a religious nature. They are a strict authoritarian structure (clearly outlined in patriarchal terms in Hal's sermons), a belief in corporal punishment (again--from the sermons) and a high degree of isolation--which in this family is demonstrated in their extreme self-sufficiency oriented lifestyle which includes not only their own food production (which is actually laudable), but also their rejection of not only public education, but also ANY form of medical care, as well as any congregational affiliation outside their own home.

I just listened again today, by way of finding those links, to Michelle's interview and statement. And reading between the lines, she is very worried about what the older two children living at home have to say. She was also very quick to publicize that the older son who gave an interview is an agnostic--and to blame his very carefully guarded suggestion that all was not quite right at home on his differing religious beliefs. She also goes on about why someone would make a report instead of just coming to her and Hal ("like they did in old times"). Every time I hear her I am just profoundly aware of her pointing a finger here, there and anywhere but at home. Even her statement(s) that she thinks that they should let the younger children come home and keep the teenagers (she has said this several times in several instances) just makes me think that in her heart of hearts she knows that they are in trouble for hitting on the kids, but that she trusts the younger kids not to say anything. She also talks frequently about her children being brainwashed (in public school). Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

BBM. Discussing consequences with children is something most parents do. "Touch the stove and it will burn you." "Talk back to me and you will be in time out" etc., my children quickly learned because they knew we would follow through. It's how children learn discipline and isn't a new concept. I do not believe Hal Stanley is beating his children. I think they all figured out at a fairly early age that he will indeed follow through.

I don't know much about "quiverfull" families or if the Stanleys are part of it nor do I delve into nonsense that seems more invented for reality television. Their religion and beliefs should have no bearing whatsoever on their case with CPS. It's a giant leap to take what the father preaches about using a rod for discipline to conclude he's abusively beating his children.

I know quite a few parents who do not want their children in public schools for a variety of reasons. That's their decision to make.

This case did not begin with a report of physical abuse by beatings. This case started with a benign report of barefoot children in the snow--and then it became a search warrant for MMS--and when it got before the Judge it became claims of physical abuse that any Judge would and should take seriously.

Michelle may be right. She knows her children better than you or I: her children's motives for making these reports may very well have been because the children wanted the parents to be forced to send them to public school. In that regard, their wish has come true. But I seriously doubt the children also hoped to be removed from their home and placed in foster care for months.

JMO