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

[gitana1]

Yep but the fact is no attorney has to take on such a case free of charge unless he believes his client has truly been wronged. That particular attorney is a Hot Springs Democratic leader as was his father and as was Bill Clinton.

JMO

No attorney has to take on a case free of charge regardless. Do you know how many criminal attorneys take on cases pro bono when it is fairly clear the client is guilty? There are many reasons to take on a case free of charge. Outrage and sense of justice is one. Fulfilling ethical imperatives to take a certain number of pro bono cases each year is another. Believing in one's client and wanting justice before obtaining all the facts is another. So is the political climate and the free publicity taking on a popular cause or a difficult case may garner.

The fact that they got pro bono assistance may be an indication of how the attorney feels about their case or it may not.

His political affiliation is irrelevant. President Clinton is irrelevant as well.

 

[SStarr33]

Wow. That supervisor is evil. You could tell she came in defensive the moment she entered the room and really wanted to find fault and hurt the father. I don't see that he did a darn thing wrong. But what does it have to go with this case? We all know there are bad people and good people in any job. Are these the officials involved in this case?

IHNI but I posted it because I had never seen CPS in action.

 

[kimi_SFC]

Thank you gitana1 and K_Z for your incredibly informative input on this thread! I've learned SO much reading here in a short amount of time.

I have a feeling this case is nowhere near finished with twists and turns.

:tyou: :tyou:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tlcya]

The video of a supervisor with a father from a totally different case about which we know nothing is interesting and the supervisor seems very confrontational (to me). Also missing is how CPS came to be involved, the drug being apparently administered, and the child aged seven with a restraining order (for what we don't know) in place by mother so he cannot contact her.

I have too few facts about the case in the video linked but I feel

a) that father should have been made aware of the drugs his seven year old daughter is being prescribed, particularly since they are apparently anti psychotic.

b) the father never should have taken his seven/eight year old daughter on an internet tour describing possible side effects or possible drugs she might be being given under a doctors care for an alleged serious issue.

c) I note that dad admits to not knowing where his daughter lives (assuming part of restraining order which IMO seems pretty serious. in other words we have no clue who this guy is or what abusive relationships are involved in that case).

d) he is concerned that "A" is overweight and apparently weighs this seven/eight year old child quite regularly since he cites she gains three quarters of a pound each time she visits him.

e) he gives her decaff coffee and discuss her weight issues with her regularly.

F) Dad is right that he and any caretakers should be aware of medications his child is on simply because caretakers should have that information to pass on to emergency medical persons if some medial emergency arose.

[sorry typing as I watch the video, I kind of get why the supervisor is frustrated. Dad's excuse is that "yeah, I feed her crap and give her sodas, sugar free, but I only get her for limited times and so it's her mom's fault she is fat and since I get her such a limited amount of time I should be able to give her special treats. Even as I weigh her regularly and discuss my concerns about it with her." MY OWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE FATHER IN THE YOUTUBE VIDEO IS SAYING WITH HIS RESPONSES OVER 23 POUNDS OVER THE COURSE OF UNNAMED AMOUNT OF MONTHS AND IS STRICTLY MOO.]

Not sure how any of this relates to this case of seven children being removed from their homes, just giving my thoughts on the linked video.

 

[RaeL]

I mean, guys, we are talking about the government coming into someone's home, their sanctuary, with weaponry and physically removing their children from their care and from their home, placing them with strangers, with no notice and no immediate legal mechanism to prevent that removal.

That is seriously huge, seriously significant! And better safe than sorry simply does not justify that level of governmental stripping of rights. There needs to be quite specific justification for such government intrusion or all the principles of our society, the ones that make us secure in our homes and with our families, the ones that make us Americans,

I really feel that mere dissatisfaction on the part of teens who want to spread their wings a bit is not what led to:
1. Allegations in calls to LE or CPS from concerned third parties who are familiar with the family.
2. Grounds for a search warrant.
3. Storming the home with multiple officers and weaponry.
4. An LE decision to remove the children from the home.
5. A DHS decision to file an ex parte application to maintain 72 hour emergency custody.
6. The granting by a court of the ex parte application.
7. The decision by DHS to file a petition and seek a probable cause hearing.
8. The decision of the court that there was probable cause justifying the continued removal of the kids and a further hearing.

Unless these kids are diabolical liars who manipulated or fabricated evidence (and if that is the case, you have to wonder how they got that way), I don’t see how this case could survive the various levels of scrutiny that got it to where it is now.

And the comments by the parents about spanking their kids, rebellious teens, being worried that the teens were the ones being questioned, how teenagers can get “confused” and that the case is built on nothing more than the words of one disgruntled, “possibly two” teenagers, coupled with the measured concern of the older son? Yeah. IMO this case is not about unhappy teens. It’s about something serious that needs to be addressed.

My feeling is that this family became more harsh in their discipline techniques, more isolating and restrictive in their parenting of their children, more paranoid and distrustful of the outside world and less able to cope with the needs of their children in the face of a change in their attitude about the world around them, and thus they likely imploded a bit as they aged and grew their family.

But it does seem that this may be something that can be fixed. Sometimes a wake up call and a safety plan instituted by DCFS is all that's needed to ensure the welfare of the kids and reunite them with their family.

Thank you for writing a very well thought out and organized post! You described my opinion of this situation in words I could never put together! It's a joy to read and I appreciate all the facts layed out numerically! (I'm having a horrible time navigating this website on my iPad ... It's like having all thumbs IMO).

 

[RaeL]

At 72, the father may have an IRA or pension and he could have paid off the house.

I saw a go fund me page last night with almost 12K

Friends launched an immediate social media campaign, including a BringTheStanleyKidsHome page on Facebook and a ******** page, to help Hal and Michelle Stanley organize a legal defense and obtain the children’s release from state custody.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/7-homeschool-kids-stolen-by-sheriffs-deputies/#RJMcXyUoO21UsdS1.99

 

[MyBelle]

No attorney has to take on a case free of charge regardless. Do you know how many criminal attorneys take on cases pro bono when it is fairly clear the client is guilty? There are many reasons to take on a case free of charge. Outrage and sense of justice is one. Fulfilling ethical imperatives to take a certain number of pro bono cases each year is another. Believing in one's client and wanting justice before obtaining all the facts is another. So is the political climate and the free publicity taking on a popular cause or a difficult case may garner.

The fact that they got pro bono assistance may be an indication of how the attorney feels about their case or it may not.

His political affiliation is irrelevant. President Clinton is irrelevant as well.

I don't know that any attorney takes on a pro bono case yet believes the client is guilty. Most attorneys are in it as a profession. Working for free doesn't pay the bills. I have not seen any indication that any attorney would do that or is doing so in this case. It has not been established that there is a pro bono attorney for this family. That is your assumption with no basis in fact.

I am a granddaughter of a governor, a daughter of a judge and a sister of a civil rights attorney who has been in practice for 40 years, all with strong ties to Arkansas. The fact that this family has an attorney who is a strong leader of the democratic party tells me that he believes in their case.

We'll agree to disagree.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

IHNI but I posted it because I had never seen CPS in action.

CPS agencies are under scrutiny everywhere for that very reason. The process is far from perfect.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

The video of a supervisor with a father from a totally different case about which we know nothing is interesting and the supervisor seems very confrontational (to me). Also missing is how CPS came to be involved, the drug being apparently administered, and the child aged seven with a restraining order (for what we don't know) in place by mother so he cannot contact her.

I have too few facts about the case in the video linked but I feel

a) that father should have been made aware of the drugs his seven year old daughter is being prescribed, particularly since they are apparently anti psychotic.

b) the father never should have taken his seven/eight year old daughter on an internet tour describing possible side effects or possible drugs she might be being given under a doctors care for an alleged serious issue.

c) I note that dad admits to not knowing where his daughter lives (assuming part of restraining order which IMO seems pretty serious. in other words we have no clue who this guy is or what abusive relationships are involved in that case).

d) he is concerned that "A" is overweight and apparently weighs this seven/eight year old child quite regularly since he cites she gains three quarters of a pound each time she visits him.

e) he gives her decaff coffee and discuss her weight issues with her regularly.

F) Dad is right that he and any caretakers should be aware of medications his child is on simply because caretakers should have that information to pass on to emergency medical persons if some medial emergency arose.

[sorry typing as I watch the video, I kind of get why the supervisor is frustrated. Dad's excuse is that "yeah, I feed her crap and give her sodas, sugar free, but I only get her for limited times and so it's her mom's fault she is fat and since I get her such a limited amount of time I should be able to give her special treats. Even as I weigh her regularly and discuss my concerns about it with her." MY OWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE FATHER IN THE YOUTUBE VIDEO IS SAYING WITH HIS RESPONSES OVER 23 POUNDS OVER THE COURSE OF UNNAMED AMOUNT OF MONTHS AND IS STRICTLY MOO.]

Not sure how any of this relates to this case of seven children being removed from their homes, just giving my thoughts on the linked video.

It doesn't relate to this case. I think the only link to it is an example of how CPS leaps to choosing sides in child custody cases.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

IHNI but I posted it because I had never seen CPS in action.

I have. That's unusual. And that case ended with CPS dismissing their case and the man getting back his visitation rights.

I don't know that any attorney takes on a pro bono case yet believes the client is guilty. Most attorneys are in it as a profession. Working for free doesn't pay the bills. I have not seen any indication that any attorney would do that or is doing so in this case. It has not been established that there is a pro bono attorney for this family. That is your assumption with no basis in fact.

I am a granddaughter of a governor, a daughter of a judge and a sister of a civil rights attorney who has been in practice for 40 years, all with strong ties to Arkansas. The fact that this family has an attorney who is a strong leader of the democratic party tells me that he believes in their case.

We'll agree to disagree.

JMO

I'm not related to a lawyer. I am one. Lawyers take high profile cases for free for various reasons. One main one that some do is free advertising. They don't necessarily believe their client is guilty or has no claim, it's that they don't care. (Not me, BTW. I'm not into criminal defense because I would have an ethical problem with helping the guilty go free and in other cases, if I believe there is a problem with my client then I try to represent them in a manner that assists them but doesn't hurt anyone. But many attorneys I know don't care about guilt or innocence).

We have seen multiple cases right here on websleuths where either unscrupulous lawyers or those who are seriously anti-death penalty, agree to represent high profile defendants for free when it appears clear that the defendant is likely guilty.

The fact that the lawyer is a Democrat is probably not related to his representation of these parents.

 

[Donjeta]

In my opinion, whether lawyers believe their clients did something wrong or not when they agreed to take the case could be totally irrelevant as lawyers are not omniscient by virtue of their profession and it's quite possible that at the time the client relationship is just beginning many of them are not in the possession of all the relevant information that might help determine the truthfulness of their clients' claims .

And of course if the claims involve something like, "I didn't discipline my kids too hard, only just right", it's a matter of defining "too hard" and everyone's mileage might vary.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

The case got publicity. There could be a number of factors for a attorney taking it pro bono, if that is true. They have raised legal fees.

Someone that knows the attorney and also knows the family could have made a phone call. Anyone that has worked in the legal system should be well enough aware, that you never know what goes on behind closed doors, regardless of how well they or someone else in the community may think they know someone.

I find it odd, that one old video, of one persons interaction with a case worker in NY would be posted. It's completely irrelevant to this case and does not reflect on all case workers or some kind of "standard" of operation by case workers across the US.

I'm also a bit confused on whether there was some kind of "swat" operation as was initially described by the family that took place, or was it a exaggeration. I'll go back and read. Domestic situations can be very dangerous for officers AND members of the household. If they took extra precautions then most likely there was suspicion due to allegations or more that it was in the best interest of all.

This is a pastor and midwife in a small community and right now they are screaming out publicly in defense. They have managed to garner a lot of sympathy, even though the adult son has spoke out stating there are two sides to the story. The physical and psychological well being of the 7 children that were in the home, should be the number one priority. Those 7 children and the two adult children are all old enough to speak so whatever is going on, can be sorted out.

I'm once again amazed at the tremendous amount of support garnered on SM from one sided statements made by those on the defense. Some of the wild conspiracy allegations are absolutely ridiculous.

 

[RaeL]

Those 7 children and the two adult children are all old enough to speak so whatever is going on, can be sorted out.

I'm once again amazed at the tremendous amount of support garnered on SM from one sided statements made by those on the defense. Some of the wild conspiracy allegations are absolutely ridiculous.

Thanks for an excellent post! Ita with it all! :cheers:

 

[tlcya]

It doesn't relate to this case. I think the only link to it is an example of how CPS leaps to choosing sides in child custody cases.

JMO

I understand, and as I said, that supervisor seemed very confrontational. But my point is, we have no info on that case, that family, etc. So maybe she was a B. And maybe dad is a and she was protecting a child from a father using the system to try to wrest custody of his tender age daughter from her mother who has a very justified reason for being the custodial parent and having an OP out against him. We cannot know from watching that video whether the supervisor is actually being a B or is restraining herself while in a room with an awful harmful parent.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I understand, and as I said, that supervisor seemed very confrontational. But my point is, we have no info on that case, that family, etc. So maybe she was a B. And maybe dad is a and she was protecting a child from a father using the system to try to wrest custody of his tender age daughter from her mother who has a very justified reason for being the custodial parent and having an OP out against him. We cannot know from watching that video whether the supervisor is actually being a B or is restraining herself while in a room with an awful harmful parent.

It was a huge ongoing case between two parents in a custody dispute, that ended up at the supreme court level. Unusually, when cases like that drag out for so long, it is due to one or both parents being difficult. The info can be found online. It has nothing to do with this case and you are right that one video of one conversation without any details surrounding it, doesn't provide enough information to come to any conclusions.

 

[kaen]

But launching such an investigation via a SWAT team is one of the most ridiculous overreaches of authority I've ever heard about.

We have no idea what the pre-raid information was. If the two teens (according to the mom) were telling the authorities that their parents would take off with them in the packed van, I would imagine that the police had other information that might make them think that these were parents who might be dangerous. Whether that information was accurate or not, who knows. That said, the police need to act in a way the provides for the safety based on their best information.

 

[K_Z]

We have no idea what the pre-raid information was. If the two teens (according to the mom) were telling the authorities that their parents would take off with them in the packed van, I would imagine that the police had other information that might make them think that these were parents who might be dangerous. Whether that information was accurate or not, who knows. That said, the police need to act in a way the provides for the safety based on their best information.

Agreed. Particularly if the reports included information about unsecured firearms, or irresponsible use or storage of firearms with the 7 minors present. IMO, the combination of possible parental paranoia, distrust of authorities and government, insular/ isolated lifestyle, and reports of unsafe and/ or abusive situation in the home mandates that LE arrive prepared to handle the situation safely and promptly for everyone involved. No one wants to read about another horrific Josh Powell situation, or repeat a Randy Weaver/ Ruby Ridge scenario.

No one sent the officers out there on a "whim" or a frivolous report, or because they homeschool, or have aquaponics, or are leaning one political way or another. I'm confident of that, but others commenting clearly disagree, and think there's some diabolical "conspiracy" afoot to oppress this particular family.

A gitana1 has pointed out, there was some kind of multi-layer reporting of a serious and unsafe situation involving the children, that has been vetted by a number of agencies in court. The investigation is ongoing, the children are safe, the parents are safe, and have visitation with the kids, so at this point, it needs to be worked out in the court and CPS system.

WE only know ONE side of the story-- the story told by the parents, who have their own interpretation that may or may not be truthful or valid. There is another side to this story that hasn't been told. I'm trusting the system to work. As mentioned upthread (Beginner's Luck, I think), the children can speak, and will be interviewed by child experts to find out what is going on in the home.

 

[gitana1]

The case got publicity. There could be a number of factors for a attorney taking it pro bono, if that is true. They have raised legal fees.

Someone that knows the attorney and also knows the family could have made a phone call. Anyone that has worked in the legal system should be well enough aware, that you never know what goes on behind closed doors, regardless of how well they or someone else in the community may think they know someone.

I find it odd, that one old video, of one persons interaction with a case worker in NY would be posted. It's completely irrelevant to this case and does not reflect on all case workers or some kind of "standard" of operation by case workers across the US.

I'm also a bit confused on whether there was some kind of "swat" operation as was initially described by the family that took place, or was it a exaggeration. I'll go back and read. Domestic situations can be very dangerous for officers AND members of the household. If they took extra precautions then most likely there was suspicion due to allegations or more that it was in the best interest of all.

This is a pastor and midwife in a small community and right now they are screaming out publicly in defense. They have managed to garner a lot of sympathy, even though the adult son has spoke out stating there are two sides to the story. The physical and psychological well being of the 7 children that were in the home, should be the number one priority. Those 7 children and the two adult children are all old enough to speak so whatever is going on, can be sorted out.

I'm once again amazed at the tremendous amount of support garnered on SM from one sided statements made by those on the defense. Some of the wild conspiracy allegations are absolutely ridiculous.

BBM

I think that was an exaggeration by the parents, repeated here. The kids in this case were removed by DHS and fully armed sheriffs were there executing a search warrant.

Photos shown by the family of the event do not show guns drawn or any SWAT team. It shows kids being calmly walked to the car.

SWAT looks like this:

http://terrortrendsbulletin.com/category/sudden-jihad-syndrome/

http://www.thebadgeguys.com/my-active-shooter-response-experience/

But in this case, these are photos of who was there:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-they-reportedly-left-with-their-seven-kids/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...ce-say-it-was-for-alleged-child-abuse-132902/

A bit different I would say.

Garland county sheriffs don't have a SWAT team but the state police does. I saw no photos of SWAT team members featured.

Also, SWAT doesn't appear like this:

Hal Stanley and his wife, Michelle, of Hot Springs heard a loud knock on their door on Jan. 12 only to find a crew of state and Garland County police officers standing on their porch with a search warrant. http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...ce-say-it-was-for-alleged-child-abuse-132902/

Emphasis by me.

Here is another account by the family that describes a much calmer scenario than the gun-toting SWAT raid they are now trying to claim (BTW, it also shows that initial complaints were about neglect or abuse due to reports of the kids being outside barefoot in the snow, not MMS supplements):

She said the dispute started a month earlier when an anonymous caller complained about the family allowing the children to be barefoot.

When an investigator arrived, “We showed her some of the ’200 and something’ pair of shoes and told her (actually the kids told her) how it was their preference to go barefoot and that it was like a tradition to briefly run out in the snow barefoot and take a picture of the footprints.”

Then weeks later, “several people showed up at our door, all obviously here for the investigation and we welcomed them in.”

“However they desired us to step outside in order to speak privately with Hal and I and not in front of the kids. I tried to tell them it was much warmer inside and that it was nothing for the kids to go to the back of the house for us to have privacy talking. They refused and insisted on us stepping outside.”

She continued: “After stepping outside they issued us a search warrant and said we could not enter our house or talk to our kids until the search and the investigation was through. … They said the charge was that we had a poisonous substance in our house and that the kids were being exposed to it and it endangered their welfare.” http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/7-homeschool-kids-stolen-by-sheriffs-deputies/#GDJtC7GoWXPogw0d.99

Emphasis by me.

BTW guys, I looked back and noticed something wrong with my signature in prior posts. They weren't initially like that. I don't know what went wrong but I think I've fixed it. I was having that redirect problem others were having with the site. May have been related?

 

[tlcya]

BBM

I think that was an exaggeration by the parents, repeated here. The kids in this case were removed by DHS and fully armed sheriffs were there executing a search warrant.

Photos shown by the family of the event do not show guns drawn or any SWAT team. It shows kids being calmly walked to the car.

These are photos of who was there:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-they-reportedly-left-with-their-seven-kids/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...ce-say-it-was-for-alleged-child-abuse-132902/

Garland county sheriffs don't have a SWAT team but the state police does. I saw no photos of SWAT team members featured.

Also, SWAT doesn't appear like this: Emphasis by me.

Here is another account by the family that describes a much calmer scenario than the gun-toting SWAT raid they are now trying to claim (BTW, it also shows that initial complaints were about neglect or abuse due to reports of the kids being outside barefoot in the snow, not MMS supplements): Emphasis by me.

BTW guys, I looked back and noticed something wrong with my signature in prior posts. They weren't initially like that. I don't know what went wrong but I think I've fixed it. I was having that redirect problem others were having with the site. May have been related?

Thank you. As always a well reasoned post. and OT this may be of interest re your signature glitch: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?269127-Avatars-and-Signature-Images-**PLEASE-READ**

 

[sunflowerchick]

It always amazes me how many have so much faith in "the system" (LE, Child Services, etc.) when it suits your agenda yet are the first to cry foul when the system fails. These people are human. Sometimes they get it wrong. I am not saying they did in this case. I don't have enough information to make that call. I just find the hypocrisy here sad.