Actually, nobody is saying that. However, a report of a slap, coupled with the barefoot in the snow issue was sufficient to warrant an initial visit.
Clearly there was another report, or some other indication that provided a reasonable suspicion of the presence (and use or exposure) of the MMS (and whatever else may have been contained in the search warrant--unsecured firearms, perhaps? some implement used in paddling?). And then we know that the children were interviewed and examined.
If all that there was was a report of a slap, and the first follow-up visit did not reveal a kid with visible facial damage, it is likely that there never would have been an issue.
But clearly there was more. Enough to convince a judge that a preponderance of evidence indicated that it was more likely than not that the children had been abused/neglected and would face imminent danger of its continuation should they be returned. Further, the parents have been provided a summary of the evidence and were in court when it was presented before the judge. So, all of their public posturing about it being all about the MMS, or barefoot in the snow, or lies that the kids told, well, that just gets pretty difficult to believe. Also difficult to believe is that no one is telling them anything. They can put all that out in public, but in the courtroom it's a different story. I am quite certain they have signed receipts for documents, their attorney has gone over things with them. When asked, they will have to say that they understood the allegations, as well as the plan to which they have agreed. And they will be asked if they were coerced into any agreements.
So, I would just take their public pronouncements with a grain of salt.
