The testimony has to be from an expert.
JMO
And for all we know, such expert testimony was provided.
The testimony has to be from an expert.
JMO
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.
And for all we know, such expert testimony was provided.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The testimony has to be from an expert.
JMO
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
You mean this statement?: "Theres 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 dont 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 theyre the worst ones to have in there. Im 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 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/
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
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.