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

[gitana1]

there seems to be a lot is supposing have I missed the actual charges?

The Washington Post headline that started this thread reads
"Seven children may have been taken from their ‘prepper’ parents over dangerous ‘miracle’ supplement MMS"

The comments on this thread include:

Response:

And on and on it goes....the ugliness on this thread about religion and expectations of children obeying rules while they are at home is embarrassing to watch when no details of the alleged abuse (if any) have been released.

I certainly don't agree with all the comments on this thread. And while we haven't seen the petitions (there are no criminal charges), I have cited to various statements by the Stanley's as to the allegations. They have stated someone complained because the kids were barefoot in the snow and inadequately dressed. They have stated someone reported Hal Stanley slapped a child in the face. They've talked about MMS. They've discussed allegations of corporal punishment. I linked to it all and frankly it's hard to go back and recreate all of the links. But it's all here in the thread.

 

[daisytrail]

Maybe that's what you meant but it is not what you said. Also, I try to be polite and calm in most posts. I think calling my post a tirade is unfair.

I certainly have to agree with that. No one has been more calm, measured, or informative in this thread than you, and I want you to know that I am very grateful for your legal expertise.

 

[tlcya]

Curious: Do those who have issues with this particular removal simply have problems with this particular removal or is your problem with it that you feel all CPS child removals are handled without giving parents due process? Because this one has appeared to be handled by the book. So my question is, do you have problems with only this case or with the current way in which all CPS removals are handled (ie. your problem is with the book)? Not snark. Simply trying to get a better understanding as to why this one family seems to have such support from some members. Is the problem with the process as a whole or the process as applied to this one family? TIA

Bumping because the above was a sincerly asked question containing no snark. Since there seems to be so much back and forth on this case which has to do with children's rights, religion, core beliefs etc.

I had hoped to get back to the actual case HERE and figure out if the objections and concerns voice by some members are grounded in a problem with the current way in which all CPS removals are handled or simply the rules applied to everyone as they are applied to these specific parents. Maybe I missed the answer. :idontknow:

 

[808paradise]

The point is - we don't know what the allegations are, so it's all just opinion and hot air, until it's known what the judge's actual concerns are.

I said we don't know the DETAILS of the allegations. We know that abuse and neglect have been alleged.

 

[tlcya]

I happened to see a comment on the AR Rep Harris adoption rehoming thread that basically read [paraphrased] religion is a place pedophiles hide - or something to that effect. It caused me to wonder about this case and the gag order.

We really have no idea of the allegations outside what the parents claim are the allegations and aside from the fact that a court took those allegations seriously enough, whatever they actually are, to continue the separation of the family. Food for thought.

 

[Charlie09]

I said we don't know the DETAILS of the allegations. We know that abuse and neglect have been alleged.

I read what you said....I will be interested to know what the judge's actual concerns are.

 

[Charlie09]

I certainly don't agree with all the comments on this thread. And while we haven't seen the petitions (there are no criminal charges), I have cited to various statements by the Stanley's as to the allegations. They have stated someone complained because the kids were barefoot in the snow and inadequately dressed. They have stated someone reported Hal Stanley slapped a child in the face. They've talked about MMS. They've discussed allegations of corporal punishment. I linked to it all and frankly it's hard to go back and recreate all of the links. But it's all here in the thread.

corporal punishment is not illegal, we don't know if no shoes in snow was a regular occurrence or a one time playful incident.

 

[MyBelle]

I read what you said....I will be interested to know what the judge's actual concerns are.

I think at this point the it is possible the Judge has been rubber-stamping whatever DHS wants, which seems to be what happened in the Justin Harris case being discussed on another thread. There seems to be systemic dysfunction in Arkansas DHS.

JMO

 

[Charlie09]

I happened to see a comment on the AR Rep Harris adoption rehoming thread that basically read [paraphrased] religion is a place pedophiles hide - or something to that effect. It caused me to wonder about this case and the gag order.

We really have no idea of the allegations outside what the parents claim are the allegations and aside from the fact that a court took those allegations seriously enough, whatever they actually are, to continue the separation of the family. Food for thought.

Is there a place they are out and proud?

 

[gitana1]

corporal punishment is not illegal, we don't know if no shoes in snow was a regular occurrence or a one time playful incident.

Well that's true. But those are the allegations according to statement by the family and that's what I was addressing. Not whether the allegations were founded or not.

 

[tlcya]

Is there a place they are out and proud?

Not that I was aware of. I am of the opinion that pedos hide in plain sight most times, and position themselves into positions which offer exposure to children and trust by parents. The Harris case and that comment simply made me wonder why the court felt the gag order was needed and if it had anything to do with the TYPE of allegations that have been made, in part. Since we don't have a clue exactly what the court heard in that hearing that spanned two days, I was simply speculating.

 

[Charlie09]

But again...it's speculating on this situation where no such allegation has been made even unofficially -

 

[tlcya]

correct. speculation on something besides whether the parents lifestyle or religion is the problem officials may have with the household. If we are going to discuss this case without benefit of knowing specifically what allegations the court found credible enough to continue keeping the children from their home, then that is all this thread will be. Without facts, speculation wins the day. We have what amounts to pages upon pages upon pages about religion, beating children with rods, state conspiracies to remove children from religious folks in order to make a buck off the removal, governmental interference in freedom and rights. Why not speculate on the allegations.

 

[Charlie09]

Why not indeed....

 

[daisytrail]

correct. speculation on something besides whether the parents lifestyle or religion is the problem officials may have with the household. If we are going to discuss this case without benefit of knowing specifically what allegations the court found credible enough to continue keeping the children from their home, then that is all this thread will be. Without facts, speculation wins the day. We have what amounts to pages upon pages upon pages about religion, beating children with rods, state conspiracies to remove children from religious folks in order to make a buck off the removal, governmental interference in freedom and rights. Why not speculate on the allegations.

Since the law is such that there are requirements of confidentiality that protect the rights of the parents and the children (and sometimes the operations of CPS) there is little left but speculation on allegations. Surely this thread would have fizzled long ago if facts and facts only were the requirement. illowfight: As far as I know, the rules don't so limit us. :drama: Unfortunately for them, the parents involved keep feeding the media and social media with all sorts of provocative statements. :drama: In terms of family preservation, they seem to be shooting themselves in the feet. To me, that means that social, political, and religious statements made publicly mean more to them. Their choice. Personally, were I in their position, I would rather have my children back than stand upon all the principles in the world, but then I have always put my own child first. I say go for it, if they wish to be such fools. Zipping their lips would be more likely to get them their kids back. :silenced:

 

[daisytrail]

Since the law is such that there are requirements of confidentiality that protect the rights of the parents and the children (and sometimes the operations of CPS) there is little left but speculation on allegations. Surely this thread would have fizzled long ago if facts and facts only were the requirement. illowfight: As far as I know, the rules don't so limit us. :drama: Unfortunately for them, the parents involved keep feeding the media and social media with all sorts of provocative statements. :drama: In terms of family preservation, they seem to be shooting themselves in the feet. To me, that means that social, political, and religious statements made publicly mean more to them. Their choice. Personally, were I in their position, I would rather have my children back than stand upon all the principles in the world, but then I have always put my own child first. I say go for it, if they wish to be such fools. :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: Zipping their lips would be more likely to get them their kids back. :silenced:

I come in the lulls between real life.

 

[808paradise]

Why not indeed....

If you don't like the thread, why are you here?

 

[Charlie09]

If you don't like the thread, why are you here?

hoping for an actual update.

 

[daisytrail]

If you don't like the thread, why are you here?

Sorry. I did not mean to comment on my own thread but to add to it. I come here to be amused sometimes.

 

[808paradise]

Sorry. I did not mean to comment on my own thread but to add to it. I come here to be amused sometimes.

My question wasn't directed at you Daisytrail. I enjoy your input very much.