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

[MyBelle]

I'm not advocating violence against kids, I do think sometimes physical consequences are a better deterrent than others, but it's up to the parents to decide what works best on each kid. And while I'm a huge parents rights advocates, with those rights, come responsibilities - parents have the responsibility to not be abusive if physical consequences are used.

I do also remember one time my dad reached out to grab at my brother's shirt - my face happened to be in between the reach, my dad's elbow and the shirt - Guess who had the bloody nose? The adorable 9 year old sister, not the 16 year old brother - but anyone who had been behind us at the gas station would have no clue what had happened in the truck that day, just the dad yelling at the son while trying to clean up the favorite girl's nose What we see isn't always the complete picture is my point.

I can appreciate the desire to make sure the home is safe, but sincerely hope the kids aren't put in danger in a foster home in AR. We'll see what happens next week.

The desire to make sure the home is safe does require balance because there is real emotional harm in removing children from their home. The kids have been out of the home for six weeks. I can only imagine the emotional trauma to a small boy who only has known his stay-at-home mother as his primary caregiver. All we have seen is innuendo and rumor. No actual charges of physical abuse and that is unfortunate because the little ones pay a dear price for CPS being so dysfunctional, they can't get their act together and don't act in the best interest of the child.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, Arkansas law does not provide a religious exemption when it comes to corporal punishment. A blow to the face is considered abuse. Blows elsewhere--presumably buttocks or legs--may not be delivered with a fist, nor result in lasting pain or more than transient marks.

The judge has determined that there was sufficient evidence of physical abuse to continue foster placement, and only allow supervised visits. That is pretty serious.

Blows to the face resulting in physical abuse do usually result in actual criminal charges. Where are the criminal charges in this case?

 

[tlcya]

Did I miss the stats on CPS removals for abuse (presumably court found justified removals) of children from homes in AR as compared to how many result in criminal charges for the parents? I do not know AR law, but if it is at all similar to other states I am more familiar with, children are removed often for completely justified reasons (ie. what is legally considered abuse/neglect) a temporary foster placement or safety plan put in place and reunification worked toward, all without criminal charges ever being filed and all without the public ever being aware.

Does AR not operate the same way? Most CPS removals and subsequent reunification happening without the public ever being aware at all let alone made aware by the courts of said actions?

 

[K_Z]

The defense has filed a motion so they are meeting March 11 before the March 23 hearing that was set before. Does anyone here know what the motions is? I assume the defense attorney will argue there isn't just cause to remove the children? Is it possible the judge would return the children to the parents on that date? I am curious what our members here think will happen.

BBM.

I don't think the kids are coming home March 11.

I'm on the fence about whether any will come home on the 23rd. I think it's possible the younger kids will have a gradual reunification plan back to the home, and I think it's possible the 2 oldest teens will go to live with a relative with the Stanley's concurrence. But that's just my speculation, of course.

My opinion from reading MS's recent posted writings is that there is significant disagreement on her part with what they are being directed to do. Her tone is even more angry and defiant than a few weeks ago, IMO. That's not a positive sign, IMO. And if that's true, I think that is going to be a real barrier to rapid reunification. JMO.

 

[Margo/Mom]

The actual law -


that "without justification" seems to not be very concrete -

Agreed that some aspects are a bit wobbly. The following list comes from http://www.stoparchildabuse.com/discipline.htm and is sourced to the Arkansas Division of Child and Family Services--and I would presume that it derives from Administrative Code:

•Striking a child on the face or head
•Shaking a child under age three
•Shaking any child in a way that causes physical injury
•Striking a child with a closed fist
•Throwing, kicking, burning, biting, or cutting a child
•Interfering with a child’s breathing
•Threatening a child with a deadly weapon
•Pinching, striking, or biting a child’s genitals
•Causing greater than passing pain or leave more than minor temporary marks
•Tying a child to a fixed or heavy object or binding or tying a child’s limbs together
•Giving a child or permitting a child to consume or inhale a poisonous or noxious substance not prescribed by a physician that can interfere with normal functions
•Giving a child or permitting a child to consume or inhale a substance that can alter their mood, if it has not been prescribed by a physician, including but not limited to: marijuana; alcohol (except alcohol used in a recognized and established religious ceremony); narcotics; inappropriate over-the-counter drugs or even appropriate over-the-counter drugs if a person purposely administers an overdose to a child and the child suffers negative consequences from the overdose or inappropriate over-the-counter drug
•Exposing a child to chemicals that have the capacity to interfere with normal functions, such as chemicals used or generated during the making of methamphetamine
•Causing a child to believe they have an illness they do not have (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) if the incident is reported and confirmed by medical staff or a medical facility

The terms "greater than passing pain" and "more than temporary marks" would seem to be key, in this case. However, the references to exposure to chemicals that have the capacity to interfere with normal functions, as well as those concerning the actual giving or permitting a child to consume a poisonous or noxious substance is also very likely included.

At this point there is at least superficial evidence available to the public (the presence of MMS in the household has never been denied; and Hal Stanley's sermons are very clear with regard to his belief in chastening with a rod beyond the point of inflicting pain) BTW--while the "without justification" clause is pretty wobbly, Michelle's latest statement seems to object even to such a wobbly accusation. Her stand seems to be that parents--by dint of being parents--have God given justification at all times.

 

[Margo/Mom]

The desire to make sure the home is safe does require balance because there is real emotional harm in removing children from their home. The kids have been out of the home for six weeks. I can only imagine the emotional trauma to a small boy who only has known his stay-at-home mother as his primary caregiver. All we have seen is innuendo and rumor. No actual charges of physical abuse and that is unfortunate because the little ones pay a dear price for CPS being so dysfunctional, they can't get their act together and don't act in the best interest of the child.

JMO

CPS "getting their act together" includes maintaining confidentiality. One more time, the fact that WE have not seen the evidence is no indication that the Stanleys, their attorney, the childrens' Guardian Ad Litem and the judge have not seen the evidence, or that it does not exist.

 

[Margo/Mom]

indeed. In this case, we still don't know if there actually was a slap to any child's face. A neighbor may have been reporting purely bogus accusations because they were in a dispute with the Stanleys over something else...kinda like the stolen pig allegation that got the Hatfield-McCoy feud a burnin'.

JMO

Or the neighbor's report may have been confirmed by one or more of the children.

 

[Margo/Mom]

The defense has filed a motion so they are meeting March 11 before the March 23 hearing that was set before. Does anyone here know what the motions is? I assume the defense attorney will argue there isn't just cause to remove the children? Is it possible the judge would return the children to the parents on that date? I am curious what our members here think will happen.

I have wondered as well and the folks on the FB sites have been mum on that topic. My guess (and it is nothing more than that) is that it surrounds some more immediate issue than the return of the children and might be something along the lines of changing their placement to a foster family that is willing to continue the homeschooling, or to guarantee the opportunity to worship in their own home regularly.

One prediction that seems pretty safe is that the kids are not going home on that day, which will lead to greater sturm und drang on the FB pages, more blaming and more theorizing about the persecution of home-school and Christian families.

 

[Margo/Mom]

My opinion from reading MS's recent posted writings is that there is significant disagreement on her part with what they are being directed to do. Her tone is even more angry and defiant than a few weeks ago, IMO. That's not a positive sign, IMO. And if that's true, I think that is going to be a real barrier to rapid reunification. JMO.

I agree. I think that her prayer partners and online buddies are doing her no favors in pushing the governmental overreach memes and conspiracy theories. She seems to have actually moved from an "I'll do whatever it takes" to digging her heels in against the very notion that children have a right to be protected from abusive parents.

 

[TrackerSam]

CPS "getting their act together" includes maintaining confidentiality. One more time, the fact that WE have not seen the evidence is no indication that the Stanleys, their attorney, the childrens' Guardian Ad Litem and the judge have not seen the evidence, or that it does not exist.

If they had done something illegal, they would have been charged. You can speculate all you want to the contrary.

 

[Charlie09]

Or the neighbor's report may have been confirmed by one or more of the children.

or they could desperately be looking for something that would make this ok legally - and not open them to litigation and compensating the family for taking the kids because the stanley's fought them.

 

[Charlie09]

I agree. I think that her prayer partners and online buddies are doing her no favors in pushing the governmental overreach memes and conspiracy theories. She seems to have actually moved from an "I'll do whatever it takes" to digging her heels in against the very notion that children have a right to be protected from abusive parents.

I haven't been following this on facebook, but just looked through two of the pages and don't see what you are referring to at all.

 

[Steft50]

If they had done something illegal, they would have been charged. You can speculate all you want to the contrary.

Criminal charges are not always filed against parents whether you believe that or not. My sister lost custody of her kids last Halloween for her drug possession and use after being reported to DHS by a neighbor. DHS found drugs in her home and she was unable to pass a drug test. She has had a couple of family court appearances, given a list of what she needs to accomplish and a time frame in which to do it in order to get her kids back. Not once has she been arrested or had criminal charges brought against her for her drug possession (we're not talking simply weed here). Everything at this time is going thru the family court system.

 

[MyBelle]

Criminal charges are not always filed against parents whether you believe that or not. My sister lost custody of her kids last Halloween for her drug possession and use after being reported to DHS by a neighbor. DHS found drugs in her home and she was unable to pass a drug test. She has had a couple of family court appearances, given a list of what she needs to accomplish and a time frame in which to do it in order to get her kids back. Not once has she been arrested or had criminal charges brought against her for her drug possession (we're not talking simply weed here). Everything at this time is going thru the family court system.

I think criminal charges are ALWAYS filed in cases of physical abuse because it is, after all, illegal. I don't believe this case even has allegations of drug abuse.

 

[Margo/Mom]

If they had done something illegal, they would have been charged. You can speculate all you want to the contrary.

TS--I think that we are bandying words. As I am not a lawyer I will not attempt to provide the word that is used when one is accused by the state of harming/neglecting/endangering one's own children to the extent that an emergency removal is enacted and endorsed by action of the court.

I do know that family court operates differently than criminal court. I also know that there are different standards of evidence required in different situations and by different courts. While a criminal case requires a stringent standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) for conviction, civil court requires only a preponderance of evidence. This is why some cases that have failed to achieve criminal conviction (OJ, for instance) have nonetheless succeeded with civil charges, such as wrongful death.

I believe that the standard in operation at present, that has allowed the continued interruption of custody is that it is more likely than not that the children were endangered. On March 26, the Stanleys will have an opportunity to present evidence in their own defense. So, in actual fact, the delay may be in their favor in terms of collecting evidence, or demonstrating a willingness to comply with laws. That is, if they ARE willing.

 

[Margo/Mom]

If they had done something illegal, they would have been charged. You can speculate all you want to the contrary.

TS--I think that we are bandying words. As I am not a lawyer I will not attempt to provide the word that is used when one is accused by the state of harming/neglecting/endangering one's own children to the extent that an emergency removal is enacted and endorsed by action of the court.

I do know that family court operates differently than criminal court. I also know that there are different standards of evidence required in different situations and by different courts. While a criminal case requires a stringent standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) for conviction, civil court requires only a preponderance of evidence. This is why some cases that have failed to achieve criminal conviction (OJ, for instance) have nonetheless succeeded with civil charges, such as wrongful death.

I believe that the standard in operation at present, that has allowed the continued interruption of custody is that it is more likely than not that the children were endangered. On March 26, the Stanleys will have an opportunity to present evidence in their own defense. So, in actual fact, the delay may be in their favor in terms of collecting evidence, or demonstrating a willingness to comply with laws. That is, if they ARE willing.

 

[TrackerSam]

The following is from a post from Michelle that appeared March 6 on the BringtheStanleyKidsHome FB page.

"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. The UN does not believe in the God ordained unit of the family and therefore they are out to destroy it by granting children equal rights with the parents under the guise of protecting children. The fact is if you take away a parents rights to decide what is best for their children then the children's true protection is lost and they are no longer protected by the only ones authorized to protect them. May God open peoples eyes to see the wisdom of his authority structure clearly laid out in his holy word, and the good and protection of following it. May children see it and not be snared to think otherwise. Eph. 6:1-3"

In a subsequent post she prays for the softening of her children's hearts, which leads me to speculate that she worries about what her children may be able to testify to in court.

I thought there was a gag order. Unless they're on trial, they won't have to testify.

 

[MyBelle]

or they could desperately be looking for something that would make this ok legally - and not open them to litigation and compensating the family for taking the kids because the stanley's fought them.

I think a lawsuit is inevitable with this case.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I thought there was a gag order. Unless they're on trial, they won't have to testify.

The gag order prohibits anyone who has been in court during proceedings from discussing what they saw and heard.

But as far as, unless they're on trial they won't have to testify, I don't understand what you are talking about. Multiple people will be testifying before the judge, beginning with the social workers and so forth who have been assessing and working with the family. The parents attorney, together with the parents will be able to determine what they want to offer up in their defense. Now--as a non-attorney, I don't know what the rules are with regard to whether the parents can choose not to testify (in a criminal case the accused can choose NOT to testify. Should they choose TO testify, the downside is that they open themselves to cross-examination). The Guardian Ad Litem--representing the unique point of view of the children involved also has an opportunity to speak.

The goals of family court are to work towards a resolution that serves the best interest of the children. In recent decades there has been a strong interest in keeping children with families of origin where possible (or moving swiftly towards adoption when that is not possible or wise). So, there is really a much greater focus on planning for change and the ability/willingness of the family to comply with such planning than in finding people guilty of something.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I think a lawsuit is inevitable with this case.

Really? On what grounds?