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

[Margo/Mom]

The testimony has to be from an expert.

JMO

And for all we know, such expert testimony was provided.

 

[tlcya]

tangible:

adj. adjective

• 1. Discernible by the touch; palpable. a tangible roughness of the skin.
• 2. Possible to touch.
• 3. Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete.

Credible:

adj. adjective

• 1. Capable of being believed; believable or plausible. a credible witness; a credible explanation.

I suggest 1) that credible testimony can also be defined as or be considered tangible. and 2) that credible testimony need not come from an expert but may.

We know that the judge continued the status quot, which is that the children are still not returned to the parents/household. We know that over the course of two days the judge considered evidence, including, but not limited to, what has been termed "credible testimony" from family members (note the plural), and decided to allow the of children from the parents to continue.

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

The purpose of Wednesday's probable cause hearing was to determine if there was applicable reasoning in removing the children from the home. According to Garland County Authorities, when the house was searched they found Miracle Mineral Solution which is a product that is not FDA approved due to the potential toxicity.


That is just one of the things found and cited in authorities report.

http://www.katv.com/story/27908897/...ill-fighting-to-get-their-seven-children-back

((josh)) yeah kevin -- sources tell me credible testimony given in court by family members alleged physical abuse. the judge decided there was probable cause to take the children at the time of the search last week at their home in garland county and there still is enough probable cause to keep the children.

SNIP

i spoke with one of the stanley's older children who has since left the house... he says there's more than one side of the story and law enforcement's approach to this case may have been appropriate

http://www.onenewspage.com/video/20150123/2479647/Kids-Removed.htm

 

[MyBelle]

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.

You don't seem to understand that Bary wasn't rebelling against her parents religious beliefs, she was rebelling against her parents period. She lied and said she was forced to attend their religious services. She lied and said they threatened to deport her and she would be killed. She should have NEVER been placed in a foster home that was a different religion than her own. My state specifically forbids it. No child should be allowed to be influenced by a cult and she was.

There is no evidence in this case that the Stanley children removed from the home don't want to practice the religion of their parents and in fact the mother has said their oldest son doesn't do so and they are fine with it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

And for all we know, such expert testimony was provided.

No, there was testimony that contained allegations of physical abuse.

 

[tlcya]

We have not been made privy to the entirety of the evidence presented at the most recent hearing. We know it took place over the course of two days and we know that credible testimony from family members alleged physical abuse. It is inaccurate to suggest that was the totality of the evidence considered by the judge when weighing whether to return the Stanley children. It is entirely possible that there was expert testimony. Just because it was not shared with the public does not mean it did not occur. It MAY have. It MAY NOT have.

 

[MyBelle]

We have not been made privy to the entirety of the evidence presented at the most recent hearing. We know it took place over the course of two days and we know that credible testimony from family members alleged physical abuse. It is inaccurate to suggest that was the totality of the evidence considered by the judge when weighing whether to return the Stanley children. It is entirely possible that there was expert testimony. Just because it was not shared with the public does not mean it did not occur. It MAY have. It MAY NOT have.

How could there have been expert testimony about child abuse at the same hearing where the allegations of physical abuse were made?

I do believe the hearing to present EVIDENCE to the Judge was postponed at the request of the state.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

You don't seem to understand that Bary wasn't rebelling against her parents religious beliefs, she was rebelling against her parents period. She lied and said she was forced to attend their religious services. She lied and said they threatened to deport her and she would be killed. She should have NEVER been placed in a foster home that was a different religion than her own. My state specifically forbids it. No child should be allowed to be influenced by a cult and she was.

There is no evidence in this case that the Stanley children removed from the home don't want to practice the religion of their parents and in fact the mother has said their oldest son doesn't do so and they are fine with it.

JMO

I don't get the impression that the Stanleys are fine with their grown son being (according to Michelle) an agnostic. She offered that by way of explanation for why he was not jumping on the Christian persecution bandwagon, but rather suggesting that perhaps it would be important to listen to the children's point of view as well.

However, a key point of dissension between the Stanley parents, and their "rebellious" teens (recalling that in many fundamentalist contexts "rebellious" does not mean developmentally resisting parental authority, but rather being led by internal demons) is that the teens wish to go to public school. Now, for many the choice between home schooling and public schooling is a matter of educational preference. It is pretty clear, however, that for the Stanleys, and many of their supporters, the choice NOT to allow their children to attend public school (or to be seen by a physician) cannot easily be separated from their religious beliefs. They home-school their children because they believe that to do otherwise would be equivalent to allowing them to consort with the devil. Michelle has been quite clear in some of her statements that her children are being brainwashed by unholy elements simply due to their attendance at public school.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't get the impression that the Stanleys are fine with their grown son being (according to Michelle) an agnostic. She offered that by way of explanation for why he was not jumping on the Christian persecution bandwagon, but rather suggesting that perhaps it would be important to listen to the children's point of view as well.

However, a key point of dissension between the Stanley parents, and their "rebellious" teens (recalling that in many fundamentalist contexts "rebellious" does not mean developmentally resisting parental authority, but rather being led by internal demons) is that the teens wish to go to public school. Now, for many the choice between home schooling and public schooling is a matter of educational preference. It is pretty clear, however, that for the Stanleys, and many of their supporters, the choice NOT to allow their children to attend public school (or to be seen by a physician) cannot easily be separated from their religious beliefs. They home-school their children because they believe that to do otherwise would be equivalent to allowing them to consort with the devil. Michelle has been quite clear in some of her statements that her children are being brainwashed by unholy elements simply due to their attendance at public school.

The choice of schooling is up to the parents and always has been. Public schools are rife with violence, drugs, kids with behavior problems. I don't blame any parent for wanting to keep their children away from those influences.

JMO

 

[tlcya]

My assumption is that the allegations of physical abuse were made prior to the recent two day hearing and testimony about that alleged abuse was given during the two day hearing. I think it is disengenuous to suggest that the allegations of physical abuse first were made during that hearing. Again, I do not believe the hearing which encompassed two days was simply two unnamed family members testifying about previously unmade abuse allegations and that nothing else was heard, seeen or considered. To me that is most illogical.

People who wish to spin the hearing into the judge simply deciding to delay without giving any credence to whatever evidence was seen and heard during that two days can do so. I will remain right on this :fence:

I have no idea if the allegations of abuse against the Stanleys are accurate or not. But I believe wholeheartedly that the judge saw and heard enough to believe that there was reason to believe it was more possible than not that those allegations are true and in the interest of the safety of the Stanley children, maintained the state's continued custody of them.

 

[MyBelle]

My assumption is that the allegations of physical abuse were made prior to the recent two day hearing and testimony about that alleged abuse was given during the two day hearing. I think it is disengenuous to suggest that the allegations of physical abuse first were made during that hearing. Again, I do not believe the hearing which encompassed two days was simply two unnamed family members testifying about previously unmade abuse allegations and that nothing else was heard, seeen or considered. To me that is most illogical.

People who wish to spin the hearing into the judge simply deciding to delay without giving any credence to whatever evidence was seen and heard during that two days can do so. I will remain right on this :fence:

I have no idea if the allegations of abuse against the Stanleys are accurate or not. But I believe wholeheartedly that the judge saw and heard enough to believe that there was reason to believe it was more possible than not that those allegations are true and in the interest of the safety of the Stanley children, maintained the state's continued custody of them.

According to the reports I read, the hearing was the first time the parents learned of the allegations of physical abuse. Allegations are all a Judge needs to delay reunification. He has to take allegations seriously and act in the best interest of the children.

Physical abuse of a child is a crime. The parents do have the right to due process as do the children.

JMO

 

[tlcya]

Reports of what the alleged abusers say about what they knew when and what exactly has been alleged against them hold less credibility for than they may for others. That is fine. It is the WS way.

 

[MyBelle]

I have no reason not to believe the parents. My opinion is usually on the side of innocence until proved guilty.

JMO

 

[tlcya]

In cases of reported child abuse mine tends to lay more with the theory that it is better to remove the kids and investigate while ensuring the children's safety. Than to require absolute proof before removal. All that I need in such cases is to know that authorities and a judge believe that the removal is for the best while the investigation continues for me to be at peace with that decision. I don't need to see what evidence was presented. I prefer to have faith in the justice system when possible. That faith has been shaken in some cases where I feel a guilty party has gotten away with murder (FICA for instance).

But in general, and in this case specifically, I tend to believe it more likely that there was genuine concern for the safety and wellbeing of the Stanley children than to believe that there is some highly improbable conspiracy of multiple authorities and agencies to spuriously separate an family without cause.

 

[MyBelle]

In cases of suspected child abuse, I tend to stay on the fence until I know the full facts. I also don't immediately attack the credibility of parents and pretend CPS always gets it right but that's just me.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

According to the reports I read, the hearing was the first time the parents learned of the allegations of physical abuse. Allegations are all a Judge needs to delay reunification. He has to take allegations seriously and act in the best interest of the children.

Physical abuse of a child is a crime. The parents do have the right to due process as do the children.

JMO

That is 100% false. The Stanleys were talking about allegations that Hal slapped one of the kids ad that they used corporal punishment long before the probable cause hearing.

 

[MyBelle]

That is 100% false. The Stanleys were talking about allegations that Hal slapped one of the kids ad that they used corporal punishment long before the probable cause hearing.

Corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas.

I can only go by the media articles I've read and I've never seen any mention of a slap.

 

[gitana1]

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

That's true. Out it this way, there can be bruises on a child from a fall rather than abuse. Or no bruises or marks but testimony that there was past abuse. Many cases are decided on testimony. Like rape cases. Man says it was consensual, rough sex. Woman says it was rape. Case hinges often on testimony.

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.

Not necessarily true. And some physical abuse doesn't leave marks. Like holding a child under water for periods. Or slapping their face but not hard enough to leave a lasting mark.

The testimony has to be from an expert.

JMO

Please cite to law indicating this.

According to the reports I read, the hearing was the first time the parents learned of the allegations of physical abuse. Allegations are all a Judge needs to delay reunification. He has to take allegations seriously and act in the best interest of the children.

Physical abuse of a child is a crime. The parents do have the right to due process as do the children.

JMO

See below:

You mean this statement?: "There’s all these allegations, and I know there are, and they are going to be examining us, and it is going to be very painful. I don’t want to get on that stand and testify against my children or have them testify against me. Because I know it will hurt.

Not knowing anything. Why? Of course I had started to form, because they had my two teenagers in their SUV for 5 hours. And they’re the worst ones to have in there. I’m going, 'oh no…'” http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/01/21...-in-arkansas-taken-by-authorities-speaks-out/

Here's another allegation, BTW, from the statement: "On a hot line, the lady read a report that all the kids were running around barefoot in the snow, inadequately dressed, and that my husband had slapped one in the face..."

The dad also says how anyone who "has teenager kids, you know that they can get confused by some things" and: "There's 7 children and to my knowledge, most of the evidence that they've taken is from one despondent teenager...maybe two...we want our children back."

Right after that he says something about how they believe in forgiveness and will make whatever it takes "adjustments" to give them the best home possible, they will do.

Hmm. Kind of sounds like a message to some of their kids.

Off topic but I just have to note how darn YOUNG the man looks. The dad looks very good for 73.

The Stanleys made those statements prior to the probable cause hearing. See the above link. A video of the mom was released on 1-20-15, the day before the hearing.

In particular, the mother stated:

The interviewer asked her how this all happened. Did someone give the authorities a tip?

On a hot line, the lady read a report that all the kids were running around barefoot in the snow, inadequately dressed, and that my husband had slapped one in the face. When they asked us and the kids were standing right there, we all laughed. Because that is their tradition. When it snows, we run out there and take pictures of the … footprints in the snow. But every time they build a snowman which they do every time it snows, they bundle up, put plastic gloves on top of their mittens, and plastic bags on top of their shoes just to keep them from getting wet… We have over 200 pairs of shoes! They just choose to go barefoot in the yard sometimes… http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/01/21...-in-arkansas-taken-by-authorities-speaks-out/

BBM.

 

[MyBelle]

That's true. Out it this way, there can be bruises on a child from a fall rather than abuse. Or no bruises or marks but testimony that there was past abuse. Many cases are decided on testimony. Like rape cases. Man says it was consensual, rough sex. Woman says it was rape. Case hinges often on testimony.



Not necessarily true. And some physical abuse doesn't leave marks. Like holding a child under water for periods. Or slapping their face but not hard enough to leave a lasting mark.





Please cite to law indicating this.



See below:



The Stanleys made those statements prior to the probable cause hearing. See the above link. A video of the mom was released on 1-20-15, the day before the hearing.

In particular, the mother stated:

BBM.

According to your quotes the report of a slap was made along with the report of the bare feet in the snow and the CPS ruled it as unfounded. So, you're saying they can come back and say, oh, wait, we decided it was valid? Seriously? That's ludicrous.

And I think it would be really difficult to convince a judge that a child is being water-boarded but maybe I'm used to living in a state with intelligent judges.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

According to your quotes the report of a slap was made along with the report of the bare feet in the snow and the CPS ruled it as unfounded. So, you're saying they can come back and say, oh, wait, we decided it was valid? Seriously? That's ludicrous.

And I think it would be really difficult to convince a judge that a child is being water-boarded but maybe I'm used to living in a state with intelligent judges.

JMO

No. According to my link the Stanleys claimed CPS determined there was no abuse. We know that's b.s.. CPS is the entity that brought the ex parte claim. Not LE.

What's key is that the Stanleys knew of physical abuse claims prior to the porbable cause hearing, which contradicts your claim that they didn't until that hearing.

 

[MyBelle]

No. According to my link the Stanleys claimed CPS determined there was no abuse. We know that's b.s.. CPS is the entity that brought the ex parte claim. Not LE.

What's key is that the Stanleys knew of physical abuse claims prior to the porbable cause hearing, which contradicts your claim that they didn't until that hearing.

so, CPS determined the barefoot in the snow report was abusive? A slap to the face is evidence of abuse if a neighbor says so? What if the neighbor has a beef such as Hal Stanley stole a pig or belief has moved the property line?

The Sheriff's office does seem to confirm it was their office's decision:

But the Garland County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement this week that it was “absolutely false” that MMS was the sole reason the Stanley children were removed from the home. The sheriff’s office, according to the statement, “responded to possible child abuse and neglect allegations from … concerned citizens that are familiar with, and friends of, the family.”

The sheriff’s office noted that “upon arrival, and after an extensive on site investigation, it was determined by investigators the minor children living at the residence were at risk of serious harm due to a number of different factors.” Investigators, the statement said, “felt they had no choice but to intervene in the best interest of the minor children.”

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

JMO