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

[808paradise]

BBM. Please don't twist my words. I said it was impossible to place myself in the children's shoes because I'm not a child and I don't live in their household.

It's called empathy. I'm not a child and I don't live in their household but I can imagine how it might feel to be a child growing up with a father who preaches what HS does and may very well be trying to beat rebellious teens into submission to his will and a mother who believes that her role is to submit to her husband in everything. I'm sorry you lack that ability.

 

[MyBelle]

I have seen absolutely no one in this thread suggest that the government should dictate to parents what religious education they may provide for their children as long as they don't insist that it take place at public school. I'm my opinion, there is not a thing wrong with homeschooling.

However, parents to not have a right to refuse their children reasonable education, neglect their medical care, deny them a legal identity, order them into marriage or sexual relationship, or physically or psychologically abuse them. When the exercise of religion impinges upon these rights of children to be safe, protected, and free to use their minds, then I believe those rights of the children have been impinged upon by the insistence of the parents to have their way.

BBM. Where is the evidence the Stanleys have done any of this?

 

[MyBelle]

It's called empathy. I'm not a child and I don't live in their household but I can imagine how it might feel to be a child growing up with a father who preaches what HS does and may very well be trying to beat rebellious teens into submission to his will and a mother who believes that her role is to submit to her husband in everything. I'm sorry you lack that ability.

No need to personally insult me. Right now, my empathy rests with the children taken out of the comfort of their home and placed with strangers in foster care for six weeks. That emotional trauma could result in long-term damage far more serious than listening to a sermon.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

No need to personally insult me. Right now, my empathy rests with the children taken out of the comfort of their home and placed with strangers in foster care for six weeks. That emotional trauma could result in long-term damage far more serious than listening to a sermon.

JMO

The significance of the sermons is not that the children were subjected to them, but that they lay out Hal's justification for corporal punishment that was very likely abusive. And do not forget that the children likely also faced the trauma of being removed from home and taken into hiding by their parents.

 

[MyBelle]

The significance of the sermons is not that the children were subjected to them, but that they lay out Hal's justification for corporal punishment that was very likely abusive. And do not forget that the children likely also faced the trauma of being removed from home and taken into hiding by their parents.

The sermons are just words. They are not evidence of physical abuse. And custodial parents are allowed, by law, to move with their children to where ever they like.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM. The government is NOT allowed to intervene in a family's religious choices unless it is physically or emotionally abusive to the child. The Bary case isn't the same because the government did not remove her to Florida, a fundamentalist Christian minister did and how the child found them was on Facebook. Mr. Bary admitted he prayed five times a day but the child was not subjected to any extremes of religious practices of Muslims yet the child and her kidnappers claimed her father threatened to kill her. I agree the minister should have been prosecuted for kidnapping.

JMO

I don't see the question here as having to do with the government telling people what their religious beliefs should be, but rather at what point in life a minor can reasonably be allowed some say in the matter. I see that as a common undercurrent in both cases. The Stanleys are claiming that the removal stems from the desire of their teenagers to go to public school--which would violate the parents' strongly held religious convictions. Now, possibly the conflict led the teens to tell on their folks who were already regularly engaging in dangerous practices (whipping children into submission, or dosing them with MMS), or alternately their "rebelliousness" (in quotes here because I see that term being reiterated in fundamentalist literature vis a vis children besieged by the spirit of the devil--and must be "chastened") has led to chastening at a level that actually crosses the line into physical abuse.

Now, in the Bary case, it is unclear exactly what the Bary's knew about their daughter's conversion, nor the extent to which she was attending various campus ministry events (which actually ought to be a concern for the parents of any high school girl--regardless of any religious intent to the activities). It was clear however that there was friction between the family and their daughter from time to time with regards to the practice of wearing hijab when she might be seen by friends (on the way to mosque), as well as her developing online friendships--which led to the incident of the father raising the laptop up as if to strike her. Beyond that there was a good bit of anti-Muslim invention about threats of honor killing (a cultural practice not found in Sri Lanka, the family's country of origin--not to mention not typically a response to religious conversion) and preferential treatment given to Muslim families over that accorded to Christian families by Childrens' Services.

But, again--the question remains the same. And the objection to the UN Statement of the Rights of the Child which you raise centers directly on the rights of children, at some "age of reason" to be allowed a choice in the matter.

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM. Where is the evidence the Stanleys have done any of this?

Are you suggesting that the judge erred in determining that there was sufficient evidence to continue to maintain the placement?

 

[Margo/Mom]

The sermons are just words. They are not evidence of physical abuse. And custodial parents are allowed, by law, to move with their children to where ever they like.

JMO

And by the same token, various agencies are empowered by law to remove children from situations that they deem to be dangerous--subject to confirmation by the court.

But the issue I was raising had to do with the trauma of removal--which I acknowledge and take very seriously. However, this must be weighed against the evidence of ongoing danger and trauma of leaving the children in a harmful situation.

At this point, a judge has confirmed sufficient evidence exists (meaning that he has seen enough to convince him) that the action taken was appropriate.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't see the question here as having to do with the government telling people what their religious beliefs should be, but rather at what point in life a minor can reasonably be allowed some say in the matter. I see that as a common undercurrent in both cases. The Stanleys are claiming that the removal stems from the desire of their teenagers to go to public school--which would violate the parents' strongly held religious convictions. Now, possibly the conflict led the teens to tell on their folks who were already regularly engaging in dangerous practices (whipping children into submission, or dosing them with MMS), or alternately their "rebelliousness" (in quotes here because I see that term being reiterated in fundamentalist literature vis a vis children besieged by the spirit of the devil--and must be "chastened") has led to chastening at a level that actually crosses the line into physical abuse.

Now, in the Bary case, it is unclear exactly what the Bary's knew about their daughter's conversion, nor the extent to which she was attending various campus ministry events (which actually ought to be a concern for the parents of any high school girl--regardless of any religious intent to the activities). It was clear however that there was friction between the family and their daughter from time to time with regards to the practice of wearing hijab when she might be seen by friends (on the way to mosque), as well as her developing online friendships--which led to the incident of the father raising the laptop up as if to strike her. Beyond that there was a good bit of anti-Muslim invention about threats of honor killing (a cultural practice not found in Sri Lanka, the family's country of origin--not to mention not typically a response to religious conversion) and preferential treatment given to Muslim families over that accorded to Christian families by Childrens' Services.

But, again--the question remains the same. And the objection to the UN Statement of the Rights of the Child which you raise centers directly on the rights of children, at some "age of reason" to be allowed a choice in the matter.

BBM. That's between parent and child just as a curfew, tv watching, Internet access is between parent and teen. Making false allegations to authorities so that the government will intervene in religious practices of a family is an infringement on parental rights, which is why the U.S. has not ratified the U.N. treaty.

The Stanleys religious practices should have absolutely nothing to do with this case yet the fixation on Hal's preaching by complete strangers is an indication to me that Hal and Michelle Stanley are correct and that is why their children were removed from their home. The Bary 13-year-old was NOT removed from her home by CPS. There is no comparison between the cases.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Are you suggesting that the judge erred in determining that there was sufficient evidence to continue to maintain the placement?

Since the hearing was postponed, I believe the Judge has only heard serious allegations.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM. That's between parent and child just as a curfew, tv watching, Internet access is between parent and teen. Making false allegations to authorities so that the government will intervene in religious practices of a family is an infringement on parental rights, which is why the U.S. has not ratified the U.N. treaty.

The Stanleys religious practices should have absolutely nothing to do with this case yet the fixation on Hal's preaching by complete strangers is an indication to me that Hal and Michelle Stanley are correct and that is why their children were removed from their home. The Bary 13-year-old was NOT removed from her home by CPS. There is no comparison between the cases.

JMO

Rifqa Bary was 16, close to 17 when she left home, with the assistance of the Lorenz family and others, to hide from her parents--citing that her religious choice endangered her life. Despite the fact that no evidence of danger to her was ever substantiated, she remained in foster care--the custody of childrens' services, until the age of 18. Now, I suppose whether that looks to you like government intervention depends of who the parents are, and perhaps what their religious beliefs are.

However, the fact that Hal Stanley laid out his rationalization for beating his children into submission in something labeled a "devotion," ought not grant him some religious protection for child abuse. And based on the length to which the Stanleys have demonstrated themselves to be willing to go in turning beliefs into action, yes, I do believe that this was an explanation of something that the children were experiencing on a regular basis.

And both Hal and Michelle have made references to their "spanking" of the children having been a factor (in particular the "rebellious" teenagers).

 

[Margo/Mom]

Since the hearing was postponed, I believe the Judge has only heard serious allegations.

JMO

And in your opinion those serious allegations that you believe have formed the entire basis for the judge's decision are not sufficient to warrant the protection of the children?

 

[daisytrail]

I do not believe for one minute that the Stanley children were removed from their parents custody due to their parents' religion. Whatever the initial report, I believe the children were removed due to concerns about their safety.

I do believe, however, that the return of the children to that family depends very much upon whether or not the Stanleys can conform their parenting practices to those standards which would allow the court to believe the children are being returned to a safe environment. If a determined plying of the "scourging" by the Stanleys is wedded to their deeply held religious beliefs of how to bring up children, then the parents may not be able to find it within themselves to make the necessary adjustments. This would an extremely unfortunate attitude that would reduce the likelihood of a peaceful reunification for that family.

After all the publicity (the brouhaha!) that has been sought by the parents themselves, I would think that those involved in assuring the safety of the children (CPS, medical professionals, the judge) would want to make certain there is no repeat of the initial problem. In my opinion, these parents have made it harder to get their children back. In my opinion, their lawyer may have been doing them no favors if that is the goal.

It is so easy for people to get caught up in a media circus. I am sad for the family, their grown children, the minor children. An ugly genie has had the cork popped on its bottle. It will be a long time before normal life will resume. People should understand that the media is rarely on their side. It is a self-generating maw that chews people up and spits them out.

 

[MyBelle]

Rifqa Bary was 16, close to 17 when she left home, with the assistance of the Lorenz family and others, to hide from her parents--citing that her religious choice endangered her life. Despite the fact that no evidence of danger to her was ever substantiated, she remained in foster care--the custody of childrens' services, until the age of 18. Now, I suppose whether that looks to you like government intervention depends of who the parents are, and perhaps what their religious beliefs are.

However, the fact that Hal Stanley laid out his rationalization for beating his children into submission in something labeled a "devotion," ought not grant him some religious protection for child abuse. And based on the length to which the Stanleys have demonstrated themselves to be willing to go in turning beliefs into action, yes, I do believe that this was an explanation of something that the children were experiencing on a regular basis.

And both Hal and Michelle have made references to their "spanking" of the children having been a factor (in particular the "rebellious" teenagers).

Rifqa was 13 when she was subjected to proselytizing at her public school. She remained in the custody of CPS because she accused her parents of threatening to send her back to Sri Lanka.

I'm not sure why you think there is any similarity to the Stanley case because Rifqa ran away from home. The Stanleys haven't threatened to deport any of their children that I'm not aware of.

She was 13 then. She is 17 now. The story of her life in between is the journey of a teenage girl, the only daughter in an immigrant family, a brown-skinned, lower-middle-class high school student in a mostly well-to-do, white suburb, looking for a place to belong.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/1042759

 

[MyBelle]

And in your opinion those serious allegations that you believe have formed the entire basis for the judge's decision are not sufficient to warrant the protection of the children?

Allegations do require tangible evidence and the state asked for more time. The Judge can't risk returning the children until he knows whether there is truth to the allegations and the state can't take forever.

JMO

 

[Montjoy]

Allegations do require tangible evidence and the state asked for more time.

Evidence need not be 'tangible'. Testimony is not tangible and it is more than adequate.

 

[MyBelle]

The government can NOT intervene in parenting practices that are tied to religious beliefs unless the practices are emotionally or physically abusive such as forcing a 13-year-old child into marriage.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Evidence need not be 'tangible'. Testimony is not tangible and it is more than adequate.

The testimony has to be from an expert.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Evidence need not be 'tangible'. Testimony is not tangible and it is more than adequate.

I think when the accusations are about physical abuse, there does need to be tangible evidence or a judge will return the children to the parents.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Rifqa was 13 when she was subjected to proselytizing at her public school. She remained in the custody of CPS because she accused her parents of threatening to send her back to Sri Lanka.

I'm not sure why you think there is any similarity to the Stanley case because Rifqa ran away from home. The Stanleys haven't threatened to deport any of their children that I'm not aware of.

She was 13 then. She is 17 now. The story of her life in between is the journey of a teenage girl, the only daughter in an immigrant family, a brown-skinned, lower-middle-class high school student in a mostly well-to-do, white suburb, looking for a place to belong.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/1042759

See this article from summer 2014--when Rifqa was 21, and five years after the initial incident when she was 16. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...718_1_rifqa-bary-john-stemberger-blake-lorenz

I have never seen any indication of proselytizing at her school. She was involved in some Ohio State University area campus ministries, one of which has ties to a cult-like organization known as International House of Prayer. She also, while in foster care in Florida (since the state initially refused to return her to Ohio and her family, or authorities in Ohio) had contact with Lou Engle--associated with another cult-like group known as The Call.

Where I see similarities, once again, is that authorities are placed in a role of sorting out the claims of children in rebellion against their parents religious beliefs. There are also differences, such as the complete lack of any evidence on the Bary's part that they either believed in honor killings, or that they were particularly demanding with regard to their childrens' adherence to Islam (although that was certainly their preference). IOW, it has always appeared that Rifqa made up a whole lot of stuff. She may even have been sufficiently delusional to believe it. On the other hand, the Stanleys do not deny the use of corporal punishment and seem to fear that their older kids (presumably motivated by a desire for public school rather than their parents religiously-oriented home school curriculum) have the goods on them. And this is born out in Hal's sermons--where he articulates not only a God-given right to beat his children with a rod, but an obligation to do so in order to drive out the devil.