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

[gitana1]

Yeah, it's not like people who work for state government have their own agenda or are trying to defraud the system. Nah, that never happens, right? one or more adults are also required to provide proof of child abuse beyond hearsay. A minor detail, but incredibly necessary to some of us...and to the Supreme Court. Parents do have the right to confront their accusers.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...eachers-can-act-as-law-enforcement-offficials

JMO

BBM. ??? In America, we do not need the testimony of one or two adults to substantiate abuse. There is zero legal basis for your claim and it simply is not a legal requirement in any court of law in our nation.

The direct testimony of children or witnesses of any age to abuse is valid as long as the person is of sound mind, knows right from wrong and fact from fiction, i.e., "competent."

In fact the case you linked to is a case currently before the Supreme Court and it is about whether, if a child is not "competent" to testify, his statements given to a third party who testifies, can be considered at a child abuse trial. Which is what happened to the defendant in the case being considered.

In the case, the Supreme Court is deciding whether a conviction obtained after a trial during which statements of a child made to a teacher were testified to in court by the teacher, is a violation of the defendant's 6th amendment right to confront his accusers.

It is complex and the answer depends on whether or not the child was competent to testify and whether or not his statements were thus considered hearsay or were testimonial in nature. The Court is currently examining the case and has not yet decided.

If his statements were considered hearsay, then the 6th amendment confrontation clause would likely not come in and the statements could be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule as due to the child's age he would be deemed "incompetent" to testify, (however then, one justice stated, the reliability of his statements would likely then come into question).

But in the Stanley case, reports seem to make clear that at the probable cause hearing, direct testimony was given - from witnesses or subjects of the alleges abuse - not testimony from people reporting hearsay statements. So the case currently being decided by the Supreme Court would not apply one way or another, to this one.

There is nothing to suggest that at the least, the teens have not testified in this case nor to suggest that due to their age they are incompetent to testify directly regarding what has happened to them.

 

[Margo/Mom]

FB indicating the hearing coming up is at 11:00 on March 11.

I have to say, the FB posts from MS yesterday and today are very disturbing to me to read. Nearly 8 weeks into this, and both posts read very much to me like an angry message of protest, with repeated emphasis on how they have been "robbed" of what she perceives as absolute divine authority over their children. That indicates to me that things might not be going well in the parenting classes and psychological counseling/ evaluation process. It also indicates, IMO, that she continues to place "blame" on the kids for not submitting absolutely to their authority as parents, as well as blaming outsiders who have "taken" authority from them. JMO.

Also a very odd reference at the end to how much they "miss" the 2 oldest who are grown and on their own. And that in and of itself is telling to me.That says to me that maybe there isn't as much warm, supportive, and loving contact with the oldest 2 as she would desire in this time of family crisis. (And again, never a single mention, supportive or otherwise, of HS's five other grown children.) Why in the world tack that statement onto the angry protest message? Unless it's a message telegraphed to the 2 oldest, as well as all of their supporters.

MS is also discussing pleading about "melting" the children's hearts--and that's definitely not a hopeful sign, IMO. That indicates ongoing conflict, IMO, and more rallying of their supporters not just in support, but in opposition to the usurpation of what they perceive as their absolute divine authority over their children, IMO. (And again, more subtle "blaming" the kids for what is going on, IMO.) HS is not in the pic posted today, not is it mentioned why. He's been in every other visitation pic.

IDK how it's all going, but none of this reads as "hopeful" to me. It reads as intense frustration, continued rejection of the process by the mother, and angry blaming of the kids and authorities. That doesn't seem to bode well for rapid reunification. JMO.

ETA: It's a nice pic, BTW-- the kids appear happy, well dressed, clean, and comfortable in the pic, girls leaning into mom, etc.

I found this statement by Michelle to be particularly chilling:
"You can not have children's rights and parental rights and still expect the family to exist. Loving parents respect their children and rights should not be an issue unless the children don't respect their parents."

With the motion hearing coming up Wednesday, I can only wonder what sort of motion is being put forth. It would seem that their attorney is pretty run-of-the-mill (as in not and adherent of "natural law" or sovereign citizenry or some of the things that Michelle seems to be putting forth in her post)--but I would imagine he still has to abide by his clients' wishes (after advising them of how they stand up against law and so forth). I know that the supporters have gotten themselves whipped up into an expectation that this might "set the children free." I cannot imagine that being the case. But perhaps it is a move to change the placement of the children to a home-schooling family?

 

[human]

Dogs and cats have more people supporting them than children do.

Where was the rule where you could hit someone with a rod of some circumference? Was it your wife or was it a slave?

 

[Charlie09]

Dogs and cats have more people supporting them than children do.

Where was the rule where you could hit someone with a rod of some circumference? Was it your wife or was it a slave?

what are talking about that has to do with this situation?

 

[Montjoy]

what are talking about that has to do with this situation?

Not to speak for 'human', but the relevance is that a victim does not give up his/her rights as an individual because of his/her relationship (say, as a child or a wife) to someone because of their relationship (parent/child or wife/husband).

 

[Charlie09]

Not to speak for 'human', but the relevance is that a victim does not give up his/her rights as an individual because of his/her relationship (say, as a child or a wife) to someone because of their relationship (parent/child or wife/husband).

so the wife is being treated as a slave and is being hit . .is alleged where?

 

[Montjoy]

so the wife is being treated as a slave and is being hit . .is alleged where?

That was never stated or implied by anyone. What 'human' was referring to was the 'rule of thumb', an old law, where a man could hit his wife with a stick/switch so long as it was no thicker than his thumb.

 

[Charlie09]

That was never stated or implied by anyone. What 'human' was referring to was the 'rule of thumb', an old law, where a man could hit his wife with a stick/switch so long as it was no thicker than his thumb.

so then my original question stands, what does that have to do with this?

 

[gitana1]

so then my original question stands, what does that have to do with this?

Excessive corporal punishment is one of the allegations apparently. Mr. Stanley has posted sermons about the necessity of using corporal punishment on his children even when they are screaming in pain. He also alluded to rebellious teens in his statements. It is clear tht he and his supporters believe in and advocate the right of parents to utilize systematic corporal punishment on children of all ages regardless of their rights or their ages. Human apparently was commenting on that.

The mother has stated the parents have rights but the kids do not. Coupled with beliefs about corporal punishment, there are concerns.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM. ??? In America, we do not need the testimony of one or two adults to substantiate abuse. There is zero legal basis for your claim and it simply is not a legal requirement in any court of law in our nation.

The direct testimony of children or witnesses of any age to abuse is valid as long as the person is of sound mind, knows right from wrong and fact from fiction, i.e., "competent."

In fact the case you linked to is a case currently before the Supreme Court and it is about whether, if a child is not "competent" to testify, his statements given to a third party who testifies, can be considered at a child abuse trial. Which is what happened to the defendant in the case being considered.

In the case, the Supreme Court is deciding whether a conviction obtained after a trial during which statements of a child made to a teacher were testified to in court by the teacher, is a violation of the defendant's 6th amendment right to confront his accusers.

It is complex and the answer depends on whether or not the child was competent to testify and whether or not his statements were thus considered hearsay or were testimonial in nature. The Court is currently examining the case and has not yet decided.

If his statements were considered hearsay, then the 6th amendment confrontation clause would likely not come in and the statements could be considered as an exception to the hearsay rule as due to the child's age he would be deemed "incompetent" to testify, (however then, one justice stated, the reliability of his statements would likely then come into question).

But in the Stanley case, reports seem to make clear that at the probable cause hearing, direct testimony was given - from witnesses or subjects of the alleges abuse - not testimony from people reporting hearsay statements. So the case currently being decided by the Supreme Court would not apply one way or another, to this one.

There is nothing to suggest that at the least, the teens have not testified in this case nor to suggest that due to their age they are incompetent to testify directly regarding what has happened to them.

Respectfully, please read my posts more carefully before you launch into a tirade at me about something else. I said the reports from ADULTS require more than just hearsay. I said nothing about the child's testimony. I haven't seen any media reporting that the Stanley children testified at the hearing so if that took place, please link. Thanks.

 

[808paradise]

Nevermind. Not worth the effort.

 

[Charlie09]

Excessive corporal punishment is one of the allegations apparently. Mr. Stanley has posted sermons about the necessity of using corporal punishment on his children even when they are screaming in pain. He also alluded to rebellious teens in his statements. It is clear tht he and his supporters believe in and advocate the right of parents to utilize systematic corporal punishment on children of all ages regardless of their rights or their ages. Human apparently was commenting on that.

The mother has stated the parents have rights but the kids do not. Coupled with beliefs about corporal punishment, there are concerns.

there seems to be a lot is supposing have I missed the actual charges?

 

[BeginnersLuck]

There seems to be a lot of disregard for the welfare of the children by a "few" posters. The mother and father have both blamed the oldest children out of the house and the teens still in the house, along with neighbors or others. Why would a person think that so many people are "out to get them"?

It seems ridiculous, because it is! It's not just one accusation, it's multiple. If someone accused me of something and I was innocent, I would wait it out. That's not at all what is going on here!

 

[BeginnersLuck]

The paranoia and "shaming" of their own children is ridiculous! If they want to have a good future relationship with their children then they need to wake up. By the way....where are HS's oldest children that are not by his current wife? Why are they not standing up for him? Why are the majority of the FB supporters not even local?

 

[808paradise]

The allegations were abuse and negligence made by people close to the family. CPS decided the allegations were credible and had LE assist in removing the children from the home. A judge has reviewed the evidence and ruled that at this time the children should remain in care. That is really all we "know" at this time as the judge also imposed a gag order that prevents us from knowing more about the allegations and any proof thereof.

There is also no credible evidence of a conspiracy to remove the children in order to gain more federal money for the state, punish homeschoolers, preppers or deny anyone their freedom of religion.

 

[daisytrail]

FB indicating the hearing coming up is at 11:00 on March 11.

I have to say, the FB posts from MS yesterday and today are very disturbing to me to read. Nearly 8 weeks into this, and both posts read very much to me like an angry message of protest, with repeated emphasis on how they have been "robbed" of what she perceives as absolute divine authority over their children. That indicates to me that things might not be going well in the parenting classes and psychological counseling/ evaluation process. It also indicates, IMO, that she continues to place "blame" on the kids for not submitting absolutely to their authority as parents, as well as blaming outsiders who have "taken" authority from them. JMO.

Respectfully sniped for focus.

What a peculiar way of thinking this mother has. Is this some sort of dominionism that she is touting? Her anger towards her older children for not being in complete submission is disturbing.

 

[Charlie09]

The allegations were abuse and negligence made by people close to the family. CPS decided the allegations were credible and had LE assist in removing the children from the home. A judge has reviewed the evidence and ruled that at this time the children should remain in care. That is really all we "know" at this time as the judge also imposed a gag order that prevents us from knowing more about the allegations and any proof thereof.

There is also no credible evidence of a conspiracy to remove the children in order to gain more federal money for the state, punish homeschoolers, preppers or deny anyone their freedom of religion.

The Washington Post headline that started this thread reads
"Seven children may have been taken from their ‘prepper’ parents over dangerous ‘miracle’ supplement MMS"

The comments on this thread include:

I have to wonder if this will end up being another "religious child maltreatment" scenario.

I've never seen anything good come from such extremism.

Preparing daily for a violent end. Thus the term "preppers". Paranoid.

I wonder if these parents could have been distributing the stuff and that may be "part" of the investigation.

The mom reminded me of a FLDS polygamous woman

It is apparent he did a few of these when there was teenage turmoils going on in the home. He was expecting his children to follow the house rules.
He read passages from the bible that spoke of if a parent loves a child they will correct them. He did speak of spanking, rods, pain was temporary. He seems to be a devote christian who uses the bible as he guide for life. Jmo

Response:

How very sad to insinuate that a child is not going to receive the love of their father if that do not believe, act, do as, obey their father even when they are grown.

I've said from the beginning of discussion of this case that it has all the strong warning signs of religious child maltreatment. And every little piece that comes out only confirms that more strongly for me. This isn't about politics or persecution, it's about child abuse administered with religion as an excuse, IMO.

And on and on it goes....the ugliness on this thread about religion and expectations of children obeying rules while they are at home is embarrassing to watch when no details of the alleged abuse (if any) have been released.

 

[daisytrail]

I found this statement by Michelle to be particularly chilling:
"You can not have children's rights and parental rights and still expect the family to exist. Loving parents respect their children and rights should not be an issue unless the children don't respect their parents."

With the motion hearing coming up Wednesday, I can only wonder what sort of motion is being put forth. It would seem that their attorney is pretty run-of-the-mill (as in not and adherent of "natural law" or sovereign citizenry or some of the things that Michelle seems to be putting forth in her post)--but I would imagine he still has to abide by his clients' wishes (after advising them of how they stand up against law and so forth). I know that the supporters have gotten themselves whipped up into an expectation that this might "set the children free." I cannot imagine that being the case. But perhaps it is a move to change the placement of the children to a home-schooling family?

Actually, as I have continued to read what is posted here from the Stanley's page, I have gradually become convinced that these parents are more interested in putting forth their views than in retaining custody of their children. To me, that is just bizarre. She seems to see this as a struggle that she must win and that, in order for her to win. her children must be subdued entirely. One almost hopes that this family will not be reunited when one considers what must be awaiting those older children should they return home. If they have not be scapegoated and considered pariahs before, then they would surely be treated as such should they return home.

There! I have said it. Based on the public statements of those parents, including also in this those horrendous sermons, I hope these poor children are not returned to their parents, whom I actually perceive to be child-hating.

 

[808paradise]

I was just trying to answer your question. We do not know what specific allegations were made because of the gag order.

 

[daisytrail]

The Washington Post headline that started this thread reads
"Seven children may have been taken from their ‘prepper’ parents over dangerous ‘miracle’ supplement MMS"

The comments on this thread include:








Response:



And on and on it goes....the ugliness on this thread about religion and expectations of children obeying rules while they are at home is embarrassing to watch when no details of the alleged abuse (if any) have been released.

Well, actually some of us seem to believe that children have rights existing apart from the rights of their parents. I, for one -- and I have been much criticized for this belief: I believe that older children have a right to hold religious beliefs and even engage in religious practices that are not those of their parents. So you see, I very much support religious choice and freedom for everyone, even teenagers. You will find no criticism of any particular religion from me. I have a religion and I adhere to it and have strong, strong, serious beliefs about my right to practice it.

I respect the rights and dignity of every human being. My religion requires this. And children are human beings!