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

[wenwe4]

Home business? Does his business depend on the kids doing all the work or how does the removal of kids take away his right to do business?

Maybe he believes in the "olden days" where families have lots of children to run the farm? (fish farm?)

Shouldn't these parents be in court right now? I think we will be hearing in the next couple of hours from them via their fb page that they are even more outraged at that nasty government who picks on them. Problem for Hal is we all must abide by the those governmental laws and many families can do that and practice their religious beliefs without harming their children.

BTW: Good to see old friends here!

 

[K_Z]

Agree wenwe4. I was quite struck with how self centered HS's rant is. The kids are just pawns for him to demonstrate his beliefs and divine mandates on. They don't seem to exist as people to him, just "children". It's all about HAL and his wishes and his view of everything. He seems unwilling, or maybe even unable, to view any of this from the perspective of society and law.

Quite frankly, that rant sounds kind of mentally unbalanced to me. I have to wonder if he's always been this much of an extremist, or if it's a change in recent years. What did he hope to accomplish by that?? It doesn't make him look reasonable, rational, or focused on solving the issues and getting his kids home. It makes him look pretty bad, IMO.

I also wonder why his 5 grown children from another relationship don't appear to be a part of his life anymore.

 

[Donjeta]

I'm wondering what medical procedures causing bodily harm the kids have been forced to have (according to HS). Were they actually ill and in need of medical treatment? Vaccinated? Or does he consider any kind of contact with a medical professional as grievous harm?

 

[wenwe4]

Agree wenwe4. I was quite struck with how self centered HS's rant is. The kids are just pawns for him to demonstrate his beliefs and divine mandates on. They don't seem to exist as people to him, just "children". It's all about HAL and his wishes and his view of everything. He seems unwilling, or maybe even unable, to view any of this from the perspective of society and law.

Quite frankly, that rant sounds kind of mentally unbalanced to me. I have to wonder if he's always been this much of an extremist, or if it's a change in recent years. What did he hope to accomplish by that?? It doesn't make him look reasonable, rational, or focused on solving the issues and getting his kids home. It makes him look pretty bad, IMO.

I also wonder why his 5 grown children from another relationship don't appear to be a part of his life anymore.

BBM - I was unaware he had 5 grown children from another relationship (I had inklings that he might have had 2 adult children) and I saw in one of the photos 8 children although one appeared to be an adult. I agree with you that he appears to dismiss the children's feelings, needs, and has a complete "adultcentric" view of children. I believe in his view the children are less than, not complete, only half a human, small balls of clay he can model into his own fancy, minions, doers of his will, slaves to his manifesto's, and they should have no more say in their lives than pet animals. (JMO)

HS has posted a new video of the "supporters" collecting around the courthouse this morning. It appears they didn't get the 1776 people they wanted (number representing declaration of independence).

Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/standingwiththestanleys

 

[wenwe4]

I'm wondering what medical procedures causing bodily harm the kids have been forced to have (according to HS). Were they actually ill and in need of medical treatment? Vaccinated? Or does he consider any kind of contact with a medical professional as grievous harm?

The children probably had to be vaccinated prior to entering public school (especially with the measles outbreaks recently).

 

[bessythecat]

Thanks for posting the link to the video wenwe4. The caption to the video reads "Come out and join us this afternoon as we pray for victory!" (https://www.facebook.com/standingwiththestanleys) Is the hearing suppose to be an all day event?

 

[Margo/Mom]

HS has posted a new video of the "supporters" collecting around the courthouse this morning. It appears they didn't get the 1776 people they wanted (number representing declaration of independence).

Here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/standingwiththestanleys

Well, there must be, well, gosh, at least a dozen!

 

[Margo/Mom]

The children probably had to be vaccinated prior to entering public school (especially with the measles outbreaks recently).

I think that they have not been vaccinated. I think all states allow for religious exemptions to vaccination, and most are pretty loose beyond that (allowing exemption with a simple signature of the parents that they disagree with vaccination). Apparently two of the children were sick, however and taken to a doctor. Hal apparently was proud that none of his children had ever been seen by a doctor--and now they all (or at least the 7 in question) have.

I suspect that Hal would object to antibiotics--or any other prescribed medication--as being evil and intrusive.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Thanks for posting the link to the video wenwe4. The caption to the video reads "Come out and join us this afternoon as we pray for victory!" (https://www.facebook.com/standingwiththestanleys) Is the hearing suppose to be an all day event?

I wish they DID have a bigger crowd. I don't see any press coverage.

 

[wenwe4]

Thanks for posting the link to the video wenwe4. The caption to the video reads "Come out and join us this afternoon as we pray for victory!" (https://www.facebook.com/standingwiththestanleys) Is the hearing suppose to be an all day event?

Yes - let's bring a picnic and pitch a pup tent! (snark)

I caught that too - I think this is probably a "fact finding hearing" (that is what they are called in my neck of the woods). The first hearing is usually a "shelter care" in which the Judge determines whether there is enough evidence (concerns) to keep the children in care after the 72 hr. hold and usually happens the day following the 72 hrs. Then they will schedule the fact finding hearing to bring all of the evidence, reports from medical/school/therapists of the children, LEO reports, CPS reports, and any other relevant info regarding the children's health/safety/well-being.

At this point, the parents will be confronted with all of the evidence of investigation and a plan will be made to work towards ameliorating the issues that brought the kids into care and a two-track system will be in place for the kids. The two tracks are 1) reunify the kids with their parents working towards moving the children home with specific provisions in place to ensure child safety (ie: parenting classes, anger management classes, therapeutic visits, drug/etoH treatment if warranted, etc). The 2nd track is termination of parental rights.

If the parents are willing to engage in services and change the things that amounted to abuse/neglect - reunification is always the first choice. However, I fear that these parents are not going to open their minds and accept the consequences of their evil deeds, and make the serious lifestyle changes they will need to achieve in an effort to have their children returned to their care.

My sincere hope is that they have a little "Come to Jesus" meeting with the Judge today.

 

[wenwe4]

I think that they have not been vaccinated. I think all states allow for religious exemptions to vaccination, and most are pretty loose beyond that (allowing exemption with a simple signature of the parents that they disagree with vaccination). Apparently two of the children were sick, however and taken to a doctor. Hal apparently was proud that none of his children had ever been seen by a doctor--and now they all (or at least the 7 in question) have.

I suspect that Hal would object to antibiotics--or any other prescribed medication--as being evil and intrusive.

BBM - I missed that 2 of the kids were sick - there goes the parents claim the children all received a "clean bill of health".

Why on earth give your kids antibiotics when you can give them bleach? The miracle cure-all MMS that has been proven to cause harm to anyone that ingests it. After all, HS checks his own pH frequently and has found it to be especially beneficial. Maybe HS's tyrannical problems are caused from the bleach poisoning?

 

[Margo/Mom]

This just appeared in a comment on the Standing with the Stanleys page:

"The juvenile judge decided he didnt have time to hear all the motions so limited it to one. Hearing lasted under thirty minutes. No decision was made on the one motion. The children are still in DHS custody."

My take is that the Stanleys filed multiple motions on multiple issues (change of schooling, expanded visitation, change to the existing DHS plan, change of placement, daily prayers under Hal's leadership, etc). The judge agreed to take one. Judge heard and did not rule. This could be because DHS was not ready to respond to the motion, or because it was so completely wackadoodle (such as move to dismiss based on Constitutional grounds as outlined by Hal in his post this AM) that the judge is merely filing it to be dealt with at a later time.

Totally JMO based on speculation.

 

[flourish]

Well, I agree that this sounds very angry and defensive. HS has definitely clarified that a big part of the conflict is related to parenting actions based on his personal religious interpretation. I don't read this as hopeful or positive. If he truly believes in divinely mandated physical punishment and absolute control of every aspect of his children's thoughts and lives, then I don't think there will be a rapid reunification of this family. He will view CPS mandates as a choice between God's laws and man's laws, IMO. And I don't think he will be willing or able to comply with man's laws. JMO.

Okay, so full disclosure here. I grew up in a very devout Mormon household. One of the effects of that is that I have a difficult time discerning between bible writings and book of mormon writings.

That being said, I was always taught that God commanded his followers to "obey the laws of the land." Can someone more knowledgeable about the bible please tell me if that is in the bible or if I'm getting it mixed up with the BoM, please? TIA

 

[Margo/Mom]

My sincere hope is that they have a little "Come to Jesus" meeting with the Judge today.

My hope would be that there be a number of Come to Jesus meetings with members of clergy who are knowledgeable of child abuse in both the physical and spiritual realms. Perhaps some folks who are on the recovering side of fundamentalism who have struggled with and found more forgiving Biblical understandings. I don't know if Hal can hear anything that they would say, but somewhere along the line there needs to be an awakening.

 

[wenwe4]

Well, sounds like today was a hearing for the "motions" that were filed and possibly just a "status hearing" based upon the comments on the standingforthestanleys fb page and the 30 min time allotment for the hearing. Someone commented that they have "court" coming up - so that may be the "fact finding hearing" they are referring to.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Okay, so full disclosure here. I grew up in a very devout Mormon household. One of the effects of that is that I have a difficult time discerning between bible writings and book of mormon writings.

That being said, I was always taught that God commanded his followers to "obey the laws of the land." Can someone more knowledgeable about the bible please tell me if that is in the bible or if I'm getting it mixed up with the BoM, please? TIA

Well, there is the "render unto Caesar" quote, which responded to a question about paying taxes. Letters of Paul urge slaves to be obedient to their masters, which is also deemed by many to be a reflection of that being the law of the land at the time.

But, like many things Biblical, I don't know that there is one simple answer. At least that is how I have been led, taught and counseled to understand. That puts me in pretty direct opposition to believers like Hal--who insist on black and white understandings.

 

[wenwe4]

Okay, so full disclosure here. I grew up in a very devout Mormon household. One of the effects of that is that I have a difficult time discerning between bible writings and book of mormon writings.

That being said, I was always taught that God commanded his followers to "obey the laws of the land." Can someone more knowledgeable about the bible please tell me if that is in the bible or if I'm getting it mixed up with the BoM, please? TIA

Me too flourish.

IIRC the BoM and LDS did not embrace the "obey the laws of the land" until the Feds forced the LDS to quit practicing polygamy (polygyny) or Utah would not be allowed to acquire Statehood in the good old US of A. After the 1890's Mormons incorporated the "follow the laws of the land" into their religious teachings and that is when many of the fringe groups (ie: FLDS, Barrons, etc) of the LDS religion moved from Utah to Canada, Mexico, Texas, Arizona etc.

 

[flourish]

Me too flourish.

IIRC the BoM and LDS did not embrace the "obey the laws of the land" until the Feds forced the LDS to quit practicing polygamy (polygyny) or Utah would not be allowed to acquire Statehood in the good old US of A. After the 1890's Mormons incorporated the "follow the laws of the land" into their religious teachings and that is when many of the fringe groups (ie: FLDS, Barrons, etc) of the LDS religion moved from Utah to Canada, Mexico, Texas, Arizona etc.

lol, yes it's amazing how Mormon God's changes of heart tend to coincide with political pressure and opposition. So coincidental!

 

[gitana1]

This is what Hal Stanley has posted today:


FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, The First Amendment to the Constitution.


Today I have no freedom to "free exercise thereof" of my religion. My religion is absolute devotion to the Bible and the Christ it reveals and to a family in which Jesus Christ is Lord. My family lost this freedom on January the twelfth when the sheriff's department claimed my children and took them from me. They are now wards of the state and are told that they have no rights. For two months they have been incarcerated, indoctrinated, forced into medical procedures which harm their bodies and humiliated by ungodly authorities. By ungodly authorities I mean those who are not authorized by God. God gave parents to care for the needs of the children. Christians wake up! They took away the rights of my FAMILY to home worship, home school, home health, and home business. No crimes were committed, and no laws broken. Christians wake up! This has nothing to do with law it has to do with procedures. For two months I have heard very little of law, but have waded through the morass of procedures of the bureaucrats who use what little law is left to protect their procedures. Today, in court we fight for freedom of religion, mine and yours. If they took away the freedom we had enjoyed for some twenty years building, by the Bible, the family you have seen and love, if they have taken away my freedom they can take away yours. The future of our families should be based on the First Amendment and not some bureaucrat or judge! Christians wake up! Where are the politicians we just elected? Where are the preachers? Christians wake up!
Bro Hal

It sounds like they mean to go in fighting--and perhaps defensive. But again, we do not know what the motion is that the court has agreed to hear

Reminds me of the "wake up white people!" rant this KKK guy used to post on his answering machine message every week or whatever.

Yes - let's bring a picnic and pitch a pup tent! (snark)

I caught that too - I think this is probably a "fact finding hearing" (that is what they are called in my neck of the woods). The first hearing is usually a "shelter care" in which the Judge determines whether there is enough evidence (concerns) to keep the children in care after the 72 hr. hold and usually happens the day following the 72 hrs. Then they will schedule the fact finding hearing to bring all of the evidence, reports from medical/school/therapists of the children, LEO reports, CPS reports, and any other relevant info regarding the children's health/safety/well-being.

At this point, the parents will be confronted with all of the evidence of investigation and a plan will be made to work towards ameliorating the issues that brought the kids into care and a two-track system will be in place for the kids. The two tracks are 1) reunify the kids with their parents working towards moving the children home with specific provisions in place to ensure child safety (ie: parenting classes, anger management classes, therapeutic visits, drug/etoH treatment if warranted, etc). The 2nd track is termination of parental rights.

If the parents are willing to engage in services and change the things that amounted to abuse/neglect - reunification is always the first choice. However, I fear that these parents are not going to open their minds and accept the consequences of their evil deeds, and make the serious lifestyle changes they will need to achieve in an effort to have their children returned to their care.

My sincere hope is that they have a little "Come to Jesus" meeting with the Judge today.

The adjudication hearing wasn't set for today. I can't remember the date. Maybe April?

 

[wenwe4]

lol, yes it's amazing how Mormon God's changes of heart tend to coincide with political pressure and opposition. So coincidental!

(I so agree with this post!)

Wouldn't it be interesting if Hal and Michelle were reminded that back in the "olden days" (1890's) the Feds and State government stepped in when women and children were exploited under the guise of religious freedom.