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

[MyBelle]

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?

The Judge, not CPS, determines what is in the best interest of the child. Any parent has a right to speak about their own child. Didn't their son publicly speak about them?

 

[IAMME]

I have had personal experience with DHS investigation (completely unfounded during a child custody case) and can tell you that after a complaint is made to the hotline, a case worker will contact children at school without a parents consent or knowledge and interview them about the allegations made, then will come to your house and interview you about the allegations, they will inspect your home and make sure there is a suitable living environment and food in the pantry, they will give you papers concerning your rights and responsibilities during the investigation, which I don't actually remember what they said, and a list of the allegations made against you in detail, but the reporter is kept confidential but they will ask you if you know who turned you in and why they turned you in. Then if the report is unfounded you will get a letter in the mail saying that the report has been found unfounded.
Since the Stanley children don't attend school I'm assuming they would have shown up at the house and interviewed everyone individually, and if I understand correctly they were there about the snow and then came back later with a warrant and removed the kids. I assume that the kids told them about the mms during that initial interview and they had to research it and get a search warrant. IMO

Eta- they may have asked either the children or parents for witnesses that confirmed their claim and found the neighbor who said they saw the child struck in the face, that is also IMO.

 

[808paradise]

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.

And how do you think they learned that he will follow through if not by following through. Children rarely take heed of warnings immediately. They WILL try to touch the stove after you've told them it will get hot. They will continue to talk back even after being warned of a timeout or other consequences. Also, as children become older they naturally begin to rebel more from their parents. In spite of consequences. Even if they know the parent will follow through. Especially teens as they start to explore and find out who they are.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that if HS is preaching about using the rod, then he's probably done it too. And I think it's highly likely given the fact that the judge did not order them returned, that he probably crossed the line into abuse.

 

[1&2&3]

Speaking of using a PVC pipe for punishing a child, remember little Charlie Bothuell from Chicago? He is the child who was reported as a runaway. However, he was found in the basement of his own home where he had been hidden. He was tagged as the "Basement Boy".

Just recently his father and step- mother were charged with torture and child abuse. The choice instrument for punishing Charlie - a PVC pipe. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...it-boy-found-basement-charged-torture-n309486

The use of a PVC pipe screams abuse to me to begin with! One factor that is an issue in spanking a child, is the strength behind the person doing the task.

 

[MyBelle]

And how do you think they learned that he will follow through if not by following through. Children rarely take heed of warnings immediately. They WILL try to touch the stove after you've told them it will get hot. They will continue to talk back even after being warned of a timeout or other consequences. Also, as children become older they naturally begin to rebel more from their parents. In spite of consequences. Even if they know the parent will follow through. Especially teens as they start to explore and find out who they are.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that if HS is preaching about using the rod, then he's probably done it too. And I think it's highly likely given the fact that the judge did not order them returned, that he probably crossed the line into abuse.

BBM. can only speak from my own experience with my children and grandchildren. All it took was a couple of trips to the time-out chair and a couple of slaps to the hand for them to learn there would be consequences for actions. We never had problem with rebellion that merited a beating and I seriously doubt the Stanleys have, either.

I don't know if Stanley has used a rod or not but it doesn't matter because corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas. The act of using a rod isn't abuse; using it to the point of causing physical injury is.

JMO

 

[Yoda]

BBM. can only speak from my own experience with my children and grandchildren. All it took was a couple of trips to the time-out chair and a couple of slaps to the hand for them to learn there would be consequences for actions. We never had problem with rebellion that merited a beating and I seriously doubt the Stanleys have, either.

I don't know if Stanley has used a rod or not but it doesn't matter because corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas. The act of using a rod isn't abuse; using it to the point of causing physical injury is.

JMO

Something else that should be considered is what they were being punished for. We are thinking how we reprimand our children for behaviors we deem unacceptable. Some posters spank, I never did, but I am going to assume that punishment was for major situations.
The S family's unacceptable behaviors, which require the rod, may be for things as minute as being late to the table, not saying sir or ma'am, or any trivial reason. HS believed if he spared the rod he would not be following God's will. Could it also be possible that using the rod was a daily ritual?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

https://stanleyfamily.wordpress.com/4-morning-devotionals/

From HS sermons to his children:

At 18+ minutes in he says chasten thy son while there is hope...the child is crying, screaming, hurting...his bottom is burning. But don't stop..why..when do you stop? When the child recieves the correction. That's the reason I don't spank you and let you go to your room and cry. Because then you can go there and have a pity party with the devil more and more...when you get older you can still go and pout and scheme...tell people how you want to get out of here and how your parents are mean and evil....I would worn you against that.... This is serious business....The day I have stopped chastening you, you know I ave given up on you....and at the time I can just say I hate my dad....my dad earned (sp?) me when I was a kid....and you can go find you 10 psychology books.....and they will teach you that, but they will be wrong. Now listen, this is God's word..."chasten they son while there is hope"

At 22 min in the first audio on the linked site he starts "threatening" with his "lectures" into beating with the rod.

He then goes on to describe the purpose of the rod to give wisdom..

He then goes on to say he is not the father just beating the child

The rod and gives wisdom. If I have to come back to this twelve times he says, I will.

at 29min. in: he's not a father beating the child because he is bigger than the child and he wants to hurt the child, there is a purpose in this. If god doesn't deal with you then your a *advertiser censored*. That's what the word of God says. The rod gives wisdom and God wants you to be wise.

The purpose of the beating with the rod is to give wisdom.

At 32 min. in the audio he talks about the mother being ashamed to bring the child out of the womb.

At 34 min. he talks about the purpose of the rod again...

IMO, this is all very sick and just one bit of the bigger picture. Listen if you want to, or don't listen at all. I care about these young children that are still in the home and also the older ones that are out of the home and may have to heal from what they experienced in that kind of "controlling, demeaning, house."

eta: please excuse my spelling. Listen to it all to get a better idea of what these children have to endure with these so called "sermons".

 

[daisytrail]

BBM. can only speak from my own experience with my children and grandchildren. All it took was a couple of trips to the time-out chair and a couple of slaps to the hand for them to learn there would be consequences for actions. We never had problem with rebellion that merited a beating and I seriously doubt the Stanleys have, either.

I don't know if Stanley has used a rod or not but it doesn't matter because corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas. The act of using a rod isn't abuse; using it to the point of causing physical injury is.

JMO

It ought to be against the law:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/08/19/49191/study-links-child-abuse-to-spankings.html

 

[daisytrail]

https://stanleyfamily.wordpress.com/4-morning-devotionals/

From HS sermons to his children:

At 18+ minutes in he says chasten thy son while there is hope...the child is crying, screaming, hurting...his bottom is burning. But don't stop..why..when do you stop? When the child recieves the correction. That's the reason I don't spank you and let you go to your room and cry. Because then you can go there and have a pity party with the devil more and more...when you get older you can still go and pout and scheme...tell people how you want to get out of here and how your parents are mean and evil....I would worn you against that.... This is serious business....The day I have stopped chastening you, you know I ave given up on you....and at the time I can just say I hate my dad....my dad earned (sp?) me when I was a kid....and you can go find you 10 psychology books.....and they will teach you that, but they will be wrong. Now listen, this is God's word..."chasten they son while there is hope"

At 22 min in the first audio on the linked site he starts "threatening" with his "lectures" into beating with the rod.

He then goes on to describe the purpose of the rod to give wisdom..

He then goes on to say he is not the father just beating the child

The rod and gives wisdom. If I have to come back to this twelve times he says, I will.

at 29min. in: he's not a father beating the child because he is bigger than the child and he wants to hurt the child, there is a purpose in this. If god doesn't deal with you then your a *advertiser censored*. That's what the word of God says. The rod gives wisdom and God wants you to be wise.

The purpose of the beating with the rod is to give wisdom.

At 32 min. in the audio he talks about the mother being ashamed to bring the child out of the womb.

At 34 min. he talks about the purpose of the rod again...

IMO, this is all very sick and just one bit of the bigger picture. Listen if you want to, or don't listen at all. I care about these young children that are still in the home and also the older ones that are out of the home and may have to heal from what they experienced in that kind of "controlling, demeaning, house."

eta: please excuse my spelling. Listen to it all to get a better idea of what these children have to endure with these so called "sermons".

I will say bluntly that I don't care what text this man gets this stuff from, it is immoral!

ETA: Or at least his interpretation may be immoral if it results in one mark on those children. This is the 21st Century. What we have learned about human behavior and brain development and motivation all count for something. I took many literature classes including the Bible as Literature. Historically, even in that text itself, thinking changes and an evolution of human understanding takes place.

 

[MyBelle]

It ought to be against the law:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/08/19/49191/study-links-child-abuse-to-spankings.html

Yet it isn't against the law in many states. It's up to voters to change the laws.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

IMO, at the very least it is brain washing emotional abuse. I absolutely can't imagine being a adult or child and listening to this man preaching about the rod or many other things in his "rants". This an is not someone that I would consider "ordained" by any religion and maybe that is why his only church is in the home that he wants to attempt to control.

 

[daisytrail]

Everything that is written requires interpretation. If written in another language, it requires translation which can never be exact. Because language itself evolves, the language of English when spoken in Shakespeare's time, is quite different than English spoken now, even in pronunciation. In Chaucer's time it was even stranger to our modern ears. Ancient Mandarin must be carefully translated into modern Mandarin and then in turn often translated into Cantonese. Ancient Greek is not like Modern Greek. Hebrew has changed as well. Jesus likely spoke only Aramaic. Then his words were translated into Greek or Hebrew in the Gospels.

Some scholar may come along and point to a detail or two where I may not be entirely accurate, but I believe I have it mostly right.

Each reader then takes what he or she reads and adds a personal interpretation. Mr. Stanley seems to want to feel that he must beat his children to save his children from the devil. Anyway, that is my interpretation of what Beginner's Luck has posted from his sermons.

I find that really sad.

However, I believe that many people gain meaning from The Bible that does not necessarily lead them to believe as Mr. Stanley and Mrs. Stanley seem to believe. There guilt-tripping, accusatory, and threatening things in that sermon that I find very disturbing. I think he is a sort psychological terrorist. I really think that if these parents don't change, their children would be better off elsewhere.

 

[MyBelle]

IMO, at the very least it is brain washing emotional abuse. I absolutely can't imagine being a adult or child and listening to this man preaching about the rod or many other things in his "rants". This an is not someone that I would consider "ordained" by any religion and maybe that is why his only church is in the home that he wants to attempt to control.

He is a retired Southern Baptist minister. Where do you get that he wasn't ordained and why does it matter to this case? Supposedly, his preachings aren't the reason his children were removed from their home.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

IMO, at the very least it is brain washing emotional abuse. I absolutely can't imagine being a adult or child and listening to this man preaching about the rod or many other things in his "rants". This an is not someone that I would consider "ordained" by any religion and maybe that is why his only church is in the home that he wants to attempt to control.

I actually read a bit about accreditation and some of these very independent Bible seminaries. Apparently some of them actually do not seek the academic respect that such accreditation would confer. I read this in a fascinating book by a woman who sought to escape the very punitive religion she had been brought up in. This religion did not necessarily mandate many children, but it certainly gave women little power even when it came to choosing a husband.

 

[Montjoy]

Some scholar may come along and point to a detail or two where I may not be entirely accurate, but I believe I have it mostly right.

As someone who has written on hermeneutics before, I will say that much of what you say is sound. But (and not to disagree with you here), the fact that clarity in understanding things is a moving (and perhaps always evasive) target does not mean that society cannot collectively judge what is right and what is wrong. As well, history provides us with no shortage of examples of individuals (usually men) who think that they have a monopoly on the truth (e.g., an interpretation of scripture) and abuse this presumed authority to preserve their power.

I tried to watch some of S's sermons, but I didn't have the stomach or patience for it. I'm not going to say here that he is nuts, mentally ill, messianic, etc., but I will concede that I am relieved that his children and his manner of raising them is under review.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Please provide a like to his credentials....You have said this all along but never baked anything up by your statements.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

It doesn't matter what someone "calls" themselves. There is no "religious" affiliation that makes one person better than another. Some people "say" that if you don't think as I do, then you are evil or the devil. That thinking is very dangerous IMO! When someone tries to force their opinion on a adult or soon to be adult child then it's not going to go over very well.

 

[borndem]

True sunflowerchick. I have been screaming for years that the child protective system is flawed and needs serious overhaul. However, much of my screaming has been in cases where CPS was involved, sometimes multiple involvements, and a child ends up dead. I am one who errs on the side of caution. Take the kids out of the environment, investigate the allegations of abuse and go from there. I agree, there does seem to be a bit of a double standard sometimes.

It is hard to find that balance when dealing with any big brother type agency. Some will scream when they act. Some will scream when they don't and others just scream regardless. No person and therefore no agency filled with persons will ever be perfect.

Still :fence: waiting to hear more facts before leaping either way. But I do not have a problem with CPS and LE investigating charges of abuse. Maybe this was all some agenda driven molehill that has been made a mountain. But maybe there is a problem in this home. I am trusting that I will have a better idea where I fall on that as we progress.

I am just now getting onto this case, so pardon my "late" remarks here.... I am always late, it seems... anyhow -

You took words out of my mouth, my dear friend (((tlcya))). I was going to say, how many times have we seen a case here where the CPS folks go out, send in a report classifying it as "at low risk," and then nothing happens except something very bad. And we all know that in most states, CPS folks have too big a load of cases and some have not received proper or enuff training and/or trainee-type experience before they are assigned a full caseload prolly around 6 months too soon. (One of my best friends was a CPS worker, and she could never catch up, etc., etc., etc. She worked herself night & day for little pay and we would talk about it, and she would just cry her eyes out or want to buy a gun and take care of it herself (not really, but you get my drift)).

Yes, I would much rather have a case started and investigated early, and then classified as "all okay," and terminated with no more reports or problems, than have one that was not followed well or at all, and then we are seeing a new post here on WS about horrible mistreatment and/or death to one or more children.

So let's continue to watch and hope that this one turns out well.

 

[MyBelle]

As someone who has written on hermeneutics before, I will say that much of what you say is sound. But (and not to disagree with you here), the fact that clarity in understanding things is a moving (and perhaps always evasive) target does not mean that society cannot collectively judge what is right and what is wrong. As well, history provides us with no shortage of examples of individuals (usually men) who think that they have a monopoly on the truth (e.g., an interpretation of scripture) and abuse this presumed authority to preserve their power.

I tried to watch some of S's sermons, but I didn't have the stomach or patience for it. I'm not going to say here that he is nuts, mentally ill, messianic, etc., but I will concede that I am relieved that his children and his manner of raising them is under review.

I've not listened to his sermons either but he is an elderly individual and he could be suffering from dementia. If his preachings do cross the line into fanatical rants and his children are being subjected to them to the point it is emotionally abusive for them, the Judge will address it. Mental health experts will need to evaluate the children and that does take some time.

JMO

 

[mmmagique]

I've not listened to his sermons either but he is an elderly individual and he could be suffering from dementia. If his preachings do cross the line into fanatical rants and his children are being subjected to them to the point it is emotionally abusive for them, the Judge will address it. Mental health experts will need to evaluate the children and that does take some time.

JMO

Have you tried to listen to his ramblings at all? You may see things differently if you listen to his rants and put yourself in the childrens' place. Also, *if* he has dementia (which we have no reason to believe) then it is even more important to find out what is going on in this house, and to make sure the children are safe. The wife in this case follows her husband's word, so if he is somehow mentally incapacitated, it could be a very dangerous situation for the children.