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

[Margo/Mom]

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



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

It is in March--the 26th?

 

[human]

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.

People forget there are other religions, then, protected. Some say it is OK to use drugs, some to do animal sacrifices, some maybe to do human.

What Christian is he talking about? Some do not eat meat. Some do snake handling. Etc etc etc.

I imagine the only one recognized by him is his version

 

[wenwe4]

It is in March--the 26th?

standing......fb page just updated a post. The kids were not allowed to return home today, court is on 23rd, and family wants to continue talking about the "injustices".

Guess the family didn't get the message from the court today about change needing to happen before the children are safe to return home.

 

[Margo/Mom]

It is in March--the 26th?

Sorry--I had it wrong. It is the 23rd and 24th.

 

[Margo/Mom]

standing......fb page just updated a post. The kids were not allowed to return home today, court is on 23rd, and family wants to continue talking about the "injustices".

Guess the family didn't get the message from the court today about change needing to happen before the children are safe to return home.

I don't think that there was ever any possibility of the children returning home today. All the posters on the FB pages want to go on and on about how could the court do this, oh the injustice and on and on. A couple were even in court. But, I would imagine that this hearing was granted for some kind of procedural motion. Sounds like their attorney tried to use it as a foot in the door for a whole laundry list and the judge made him pick just one. But anyone with basic knowledge of court procedures should have been able to figure out that they weren't going to be able to sidestep the whole process just by asking.

As someone noted earlier, when people have children removed, they never respond with a grateful acknowledgement for the wake-up call and rejoice that we have protective systems that place kids in safe foster homes. They respond with anger and denial. Why are they being picked on? Why don't they go after some really bad people instead? How can they do this to us--we aren't really bad, maybe we made some mistakes, but we REALLY loved our kids! (Even the birth mom in the Justin Harris fiasco--and those kids early days were a real horror show).

Somebody needs to get through to their friends that they are not doing the kids or the family any favors by feeding the denial.

 

[wenwe4]

I don't think that there was ever any possibility of the children returning home today. All the posters on the FB pages want to go on and on about how could the court do this, oh the injustice and on and on. A couple were even in court. But, I would imagine that this hearing was granted for some kind of procedural motion. Sounds like their attorney tried to use it as a foot in the door for a whole laundry list and the judge made him pick just one. But anyone with basic knowledge of court procedures should have been able to figure out that they weren't going to be able to sidestep the whole process just by asking.

As someone noted earlier, when people have children removed, they never respond with a grateful acknowledgement for the wake-up call and rejoice that we have protective systems that place kids in safe foster homes. They respond with anger and denial. Why are they being picked on? Why don't they go after some really bad people instead? How can they do this to us--we aren't really bad, maybe we made some mistakes, but we REALLY loved our kids! (Even the birth mom in the Justin Harris fiasco--and those kids early days were a real horror show).

Somebody needs to get through to their friends that they are not doing the kids or the family any favors by feeding the denial.[/QUOTE]

I agree - the best a friend could do for them is to encourage working with the State to make the necessary changes to ensure that the kids are safe and that they feel safe in their home.

I think these parents are going to have to be facing a choice in the near future. Either choose between 1) fighting to be "right" or 2) recognizing and taking immediate and drastic steps to ensure these kids will never be at risk of harm for the issues that got the kids picked up in the first place.

Based upon their comments - I think we already know their choices. It is sad that they went and tried to garner support based upon "injustices" because of MMS in the home and they are now locked in this "war", hunkering down to go out in a blaze of glory.

Obviously the court believes these parents have some serious work to do - the definitions have been outlined to them at least in the court order that was issued after the 72 hour hold. The real issues of child abuse/neglect are only leaked out in excited utterances (ie: media ran w/MMS, not perfect parents, barefooted) or confirmed by the recorded sermons of beating children out of love to save them from h*ll.

 

[human]

The parents will be martyrs . They cannot submit to the evil.

The kids will be considered ruined anyway by the brainwashing of the evil ones.

They see nothing wrong with what they think and do.

Just like parents in the Middle East who think it is ok to stone their daughter to death because she was raped. Oh well.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I followed one of the posters to the Stanley FB pages to her FB page--just to see if she had elaborated on anything there, as she was one of a couple who were actually there in the courthouse. Turns out she is a Garland County magistrate--or Justice of the Peace. Really surprised me, particularly given all of the loose talk about how "they" are all "in it together." Anyway, poking around the web for her background, came across this on a blog, from 2011:

"* WHAT IS IN THE WATER IN HOT SPRINGS: A notice in Hot Springs paper announced a rally a few nights ago at the Gospel Light Champion College Cafeteria to view "Restoring Courage, Stand With Israel." a video-stream event from Israel.


Garland County Justice of the Peace Mary Bournival, District 4, called the international event “basically an encore to what Glenn Beck did for restoring honor in Washington, D.C. last year.”


Not everybody in Hot Springs has been called to glory yet. A local blogger who's keeping up with the Garland County theocracy movement commented in a post passed along to me today:


About 100 people showed up. Most of our village idiots were there, a motley gaggle of *********s, one lady dressed in the settler garb of a zealot garbage-thrower in Hebron, and a few curious, curmudgeonly onlookers like yours truly. As the big show started on the big screen, a speaker solemnly asked the Jerusalem audience (mostly white American Christians) to stand for Israel’s national anthem. They did, and so did we. Well, most of us. Except for a few notable (ahem) exceptions, the Hot Springs Hundred (mostly white American Christians) dutifully rose as one while Hatikvah played on and on. And on."

Anyway, to my mind, it just sorta punches gigantic holes in the theory that this is all about Christian persecution. It would appear that fundies have a pretty substantial political hold in and around Garland County.

 

[Charlie09]

I followed one of the posters to the Stanley FB pages to her FB page--just to see if she had elaborated on anything there, as she was one of a couple who were actually there in the courthouse. Turns out she is a Garland County magistrate--or Justice of the Peace. Really surprised me, particularly given all of the loose talk about how "they" are all "in it together." Anyway, poking around the web for her background, came across this on a blog, from 2011:

"* WHAT IS IN THE WATER IN HOT SPRINGS: A notice in Hot Springs paper announced a rally a few nights ago at the Gospel Light Champion College Cafeteria to view "Restoring Courage, Stand With Israel." a video-stream event from Israel.


Garland County Justice of the Peace Mary Bournival, District 4, called the international event “basically an encore to what Glenn Beck did for restoring honor in Washington, D.C. last year.”


Not everybody in Hot Springs has been called to glory yet. A local blogger who's keeping up with the Garland County theocracy movement commented in a post passed along to me today:


About 100 people showed up. Most of our village idiots were there, a motley gaggle of *********s, one lady dressed in the settler garb of a zealot garbage-thrower in Hebron, and a few curious, curmudgeonly onlookers like yours truly. As the big show started on the big screen, a speaker solemnly asked the Jerusalem audience (mostly white American Christians) to stand for Israel’s national anthem. They did, and so did we. Well, most of us. Except for a few notable (ahem) exceptions, the Hot Springs Hundred (mostly white American Christians) dutifully rose as one while Hatikvah played on and on. And on."

Anyway, to my mind, it just sorta punches gigantic holes in the theory that this is all about Christian persecution. It would appear that fundies have a pretty substantial political hold in and around Garland County.

so it is fundamental christianity that is the problem?

 

[Charlie09]

The parents will be martyrs . They cannot submit to the evil.

The kids will be considered ruined anyway by the brainwashing of the evil ones.

They see nothing wrong with what they think and do.

Just like parents in the Middle East who think it is ok to stone their daughter to death because she was raped. Oh well.

You are comparing the Stanley's with parents who kill their daughters?

 

[Margo/Mom]

At last, some real news. And it makes sense.

The Stanley's attorney, Q. Byrum Hurst, says just because they're different doesn't mean they're wrong and don't deserve their children.

He says the judge in this case took up one motion in Wednesday's hearing. It was a motion to appoint another ad litem; an independent guardian to legally represent the kids in court. He's hoping for a ruling soon.

Q. Byrum Hurst says, "At the conclusion of the hearing, he took it under advisement and asked the attorneys to present case law to him on each side. So we'll submit that case law and expect a ruling from the court probably tomorrow. I'm hoping they will drop this case and send these children home."
http://www.katv.com/story/28397954/seven-garland-county-kids-remain-in-state-custody-new-hearing-set

 

[Margo/Mom]

so it is fundamental christianity that is the problem?

Ummm, no. Just pointing out that it is well-infused into the local culture. The Stanley's religion does not make them a part of a persecuted minority.

 

[wenwe4]

From the same link posted by Margo/Mom

"The court found probable cause for taking the kids out of the home on January 22nd. According to reports, authorities found MMS in the home, (also known as Miracle Mineral Solution) but after speaking with DHS and other authorities, that was not the only reason the children were taken. DHS will not comment specifically but says multiple components could have come into play."


Wait were the kids picked up on 1/12 or 1/22?

ETA: went back and checked - the kids were picked up on Friday 1/9/2015. Now the "friday afternoon" comments Michelle made in her video make more sense to me. It appears the referral came from friends of the family according to MSM news releases early on.

 

[Margo/Mom]

At last, some real news. And it makes sense.

The Stanley's attorney, Q. Byrum Hurst, says just because they're different doesn't mean they're wrong and don't deserve their children.

He says the judge in this case took up one motion in Wednesday's hearing. It was a motion to appoint another ad litem; an independent guardian to legally represent the kids in court. He's hoping for a ruling soon.

Q. Byrum Hurst says, "At the conclusion of the hearing, he took it under advisement and asked the attorneys to present case law to him on each side. So we'll submit that case law and expect a ruling from the court probably tomorrow. I'm hoping they will drop this case and send these children home."
http://www.katv.com/story/28397954/seven-garland-county-kids-remain-in-state-custody-new-hearing-set

Apparently the parents are asking that a different Guardian Ad Litem represent the children. I can see why the judge would not want to rule on that one immediately. The role of the GAL is to represent the unique interests of the child(ren), acknowledging that their interests may not be identical to those of either the parents nor protective services. As an example, the Stanley parents are staunch home-schoolers. CPS may not care. However, we know that at least two of the children prefer to go to public school. And the reality is that following some time in public school, others of the children may have formed attachments that they wish to continue--at least not to be uprooted mid-school year. If this looks like the parents are shopping for a GAL more closely aligned with their own way of thinking, might this not be a conflict of interest. It doesn't say, but I would imagine that CPS was not favorable to the motion. Hence the request for case law on both sides.

And that Justice of the Peace posting to the Stanleys FB page is certainly capable of comprehending this. And without violating the gag order might well have disclosed that the motion was a procedural matter, not a question of bringing the children home, and that the sides were directed to bring in case law in support of their sides.

 

[wenwe4]

Aren't GAL's always supposed to be independent and only speak for the best interest of the children to the court? Does it sound kind of like they are say the appointed GAL is not "independent"? Maybe the current GAL is recommending decreased visitation/contact with the parents based upon their initial assessment or negative behaviors?

When I read that the family wanted to appoint an "independent GAL" I wondered if they were perhaps 'GAL shopping' because it seemed redundant to me. Could be - maybe not but I do agree with the court to take it under advisement.

In my state, the children get an Atty to represent their interests if they are 13 or over, the younger children are appointed a GAL.

 

[MyBelle]

You are comparing the Stanley's with parents who kill their daughters?

Totally derailed and deep waders are needed.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Aren't GAL's always supposed to be independent and only speak for the best interest of the children to the court? Does it sound kind of like they are say the appointed GAL is not "independent"? Maybe the current GAL is recommending decreased visitation/contact with the parents based upon their initial assessment or negative behaviors?

When I read that the family wanted to appoint an "independent GAL" I wondered if they were perhaps 'GAL shopping' because it seemed redundant to me. Could be - maybe not but I do agree with the court to take it under advisement.

In my state, the children get an Atty to represent their interests if they are 13 or over, the younger children are appointed a GAL.

I think "an independent guardian to legally represent the kids in court."= attorney.


Good idea.
JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

Aren't GAL's always supposed to be independent and only speak for the best interest of the children to the court? Does it sound kind of like they are say the appointed GAL is not "independent"? Maybe the current GAL is recommending decreased visitation/contact with the parents based upon their initial assessment or negative behaviors?

When I read that the family wanted to appoint an "independent GAL" I wondered if they were perhaps 'GAL shopping' because it seemed redundant to me. Could be - maybe not but I do agree with the court to take it under advisement.

In my state, the children get an Atty to represent their interests if they are 13 or over, the younger children are appointed a GAL.

Apparently some states use one person for both GAL and atty for the kids. I read a discussion of the difference once. It's kind of a fine distinction, but one protects the best interests of the child while the other must respond to the child's wishes (presumably even if they are not in their best interest).

 

[wenwe4]

I think "an independent guardian to legally represent the kids in court."= attorney.


Good idea.
JMO

Actually a GAL is an independent guardian that legally represents the kids in court and one (or more) was already assigned in this case. The parents are now asking for another one. Atty's are not always appointed for children in family courts- depends on the State, but I believe Federal law requires that a GAL is always appointed to represent the best interest of the children when kids are taken into protective care.

 

[tlcya]

Aren't GAL's always supposed to be independent and only speak for the best interest of the children to the court? Does it sound kind of like they are say the appointed GAL is not "independent"? Maybe the current GAL is recommending decreased visitation/contact with the parents based upon their initial assessment or negative behaviors?

When I read that the family wanted to appoint an "independent GAL" I wondered if they were perhaps 'GAL shopping' because it seemed redundant to me. Could be - maybe not but I do agree with the court to take it under advisement.

In my state, the children get an Atty to represent their interests if they are 13 or over, the younger children are appointed a GAL.

In my state, where minors are concerned a GAL is to represent the best interest of the children, independently of parents or agencies such as CPS. They are literally the voice of the children, as interpreted by the GAL. Where adult wards of the court are concerned, in my state, a GAL is appointed when adult guardianship is contemplated, but the GAL does NOT represent the ward. They are the independent eyes and ears of the court, meant to gather information and make objective observations and recommendations. I do not know how AR works in regards to GAL but my guess is:

parents asked for independent GAL because they do not trust the state appointed one

GAL actually is simply eyes and ears of court and not meant to represent the children's interests specifically

or none had been appointed and parents asked for one to be

In my state with adult wards of the court, if the ward wants to fight the guardianship a totally independent attorney is assigned, beyond the court appointed GAL, to represent and vigorously argue for the ward and only the ward.