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

[wenwe4]

I read the first few pages on this thread and jumped to the end for more updates. Wow! This case seems to bring up a lot of emotions for some.

Clearly the kids are in state protection for reasons. It is not easy to remove kids, nor is it easy to find foster, set up educational/school and medical appointments for 7 kids. It takes cops, court orders, and CPS involvement to all find enough cause to keep the children in protective care. The children have been interviewed, tested for medical-health and educational placement and establish needs.

If this was all a big misunderstanding - it would not be 6 weeks later with supervised visits for the parents. My concern watching the video of the father, neighbor, mother was the focus on how violated they felt. No concerns for the welfare of their children (IMO). The only mention was the ambulance had checked the kids out (which would only transport to hospital if warranted) and the mothers anger at the children being allowed to attend public school.

My takeaway from that video was the parents hoping to incite a riotous crowd to protest CPS and LEO ability to remove kids if they are reportedly in danger. My biggest concern would be allowing the kids unsupervised contact with their parents for fear they will attempt to influence the kids to lie, run, etc.

 

[Steft50]

I think criminal charges are ALWAYS filed in cases of physical abuse because it is, after all, illegal. I don't believe this case even has allegations of drug abuse.

So, you're insinuating that drug use such as meth is legal and legal to do while caring for your children? Perhaps where you live, where she lives meth use is illegal, the use of which endangers her children who were living with her at the time. Which is exactly why they aren't currently living with her or in her care. While this case may be about physical abuse and my sisters is not, they are both about doing something illegal and/or to/with/around their children. Many who have experience in this area of law have repeatedly said criminal charges are NOT always filed against the parents. I've provided a first hand experience that supports what others have said several times.

 

[wenwe4]

In the state that I live there has to be a direct link between drug abuse and child abuse. For instance, if one parent goes to the garage and smokes weed, but the other parent is sober inside the home taking care of the children - there is no child abuse. If a parent who is high on meth shakes their infant violently to stop them from crying - there is a direct link between the 2.

There are no criminal charges filed unless the child dies or suffers extreme life lasting injuries (ie: brain damage). The criminal court is a separate court from family court and have their own laws to govern. Just like having a family court terminate parental rights for someone does not equate to criminal charges. You have to commit a crime to have criminal charges filed.

When weighing the rights of the parents vs. the rights of the children - the State always puts the childrens safety first. Hence, it appears where we are with this case.

 

[stormshine]

A lot of people seem to think that child abuse and neglect can only exist if there is a criminal act (in "medical kidnap" cases you always hear the line "but they haven't even been charged with anything"). A lot of people also seem to believe that a criminal act in the home is necessarily child abuse.

Here's how I see it:

1. It's possible to be a terrible parent, yet never abuse or neglect your children.
2. It's possible to abuse/neglect your children without actually committing a crime.
3. It's possible to commit a crime in the home without abusing or neglecting your children in any way.

What I mean by #1 is that there are people out there who make reprehensible parenting decisions (such as teaching your children to be racist) but haven't done anything so bad as to warrant the removal of children.

What I mean by #2 is that there are some people who are so bad at being parents that their children need to be removed, but haven't necessarily committed any crimes. For instance, some people are simply mentally or emotionally incapable of caring properly for a child. Some people have deeply-held beliefs about medicine that makes them make terrible decisions which put their children's lives at risk ... but I don't think those bad decisions are necessarily crimes.

 

[Charlie09]

A lot of people seem to think that child abuse and neglect can only exist if there is a criminal act (in "medical kidnap" cases you always hear the line "but they haven't even been charged with anything"). A lot of people also seem to believe that a criminal act in the home is necessarily child abuse.

Here's how I see it:

1. It's possible to be a terrible parent, yet never abuse or neglect your children.
2. It's possible to abuse/neglect your children without actually committing a crime.
3. It's possible to commit a crime in the home without abusing or neglecting your children in any way.

What I mean by #1 is that there are people out there who make reprehensible parenting decisions (such as teaching your children to be racist) but haven't done anything so bad as to warrant the removal of children.

What I mean by #2 is that there are some people who are so bad at being parents that their children need to be removed, but haven't necessarily committed any crimes. For instance, some people are simply mentally or emotionally incapable of caring properly for a child. Some people have deeply-held beliefs about medicine that makes them make terrible decisions which put their children's lives at risk ... but I don't think those bad decisions are necessarily crimes.

And it's possible that none of the above happened and over zealous police took away the children when there was no legal authority to do so.

 

[Margo/Mom]

And it's possible that none of the above happened and over zealous police took away the children when there was no legal authority to do so.

There are two checks on that. One was the need to show cause to a judge in order to get the search warrant in the first place. The second was the requirement to appear before a judge within 72 hours in order to show cause for the removal.

 

[808paradise]

There are two checks on that. One was the need to show cause to a judge in order to get the search warrant in the first place. The second was the requirement to appear before a judge within 72 hours in order to show cause for the removal.

Oh but don't you see? They're all in it together! It's a huge conspiracy to take children out of their homes so the state can get money from the Feds. Don't let a pesky little thing like logic or evidence convince you otherwise. :gaah:

 

[ellemo]

Oh but don't you see? They're all in it together! It's a huge conspiracy to take children out of their homes so the state can get money from the Feds. Don't let a pesky little thing like logic or evidence convince you otherwise. :gaah:

And they must have paid off the adult son, too, because he isn't clamoring to *immediately* reunite the family or speaking out against the authorities

 

[tlcya]

]And it's possible that none of the above happened and over zealous police took away the children when there was no legal authority to do so.

BBM, thank you. The happy medium I have been looking for to match my own. I agree, that IS possible. But nothing I have seen thus far convinces me that THIS case, more so than ANY other recent removal by CPS, warrants my suspicion. So while I acknowledge that this is possible. I find it less likely than the possible that this case, being handled like any other CPS report of abuse post probable cause hearing, is just as justified as any other. No more. No less.

 

[K_Z]

And it's possible that none of the above happened and over zealous police took away the children when there was no legal authority to do so.

As long as we're speculating *in general*, I'd like to point out that aspects of the whole situation may actually be much *worse* than we have discussed. These are extremist individuals, leading an extremist and isolated lifestyle, by their own description.

There is a gag order in place. A number of official agencies and the court have agreed that the children were in a "not safe" environment, and needed to be removed. Some aspects of the truths of the situation could be more embarrassing, or far worse, than what we know and anticipate. And I'm not suggesting we should speculate with any more specificity-- just pointing out things may actually be much worse than what we know. That is also a valid possibility, given these specific circumstances.

These are parents who deeply and strongly believe they have a divine mandate to absolutely control their children. There is no telling where that "belief" may have lead them in their parenting. IMO.

 

[Charlie09]

As long as we're speculating *in general*, I'd like to point out that aspects of the whole situation may actually be much *worse* than we have discussed. These are extremist individuals, leading an extremist and isolated lifestyle, by their own description.

There is a gag order in place. A number of official agencies and the court have agreed that the children were in a "not safe" environment, and needed to be removed. Some aspects of the truths of the situation could be more embarrassing, or far worse, than what we know and anticipate. And I'm not suggesting we should speculate with any more specificity-- just pointing out things may actually be much worse than what we know. That is also a valid possibility, given these specific circumstances.

These are parents who deeply and strongly believe they have a divine mandate to absolutely control their children. There is no telling where that "belief" may have lead them in their parenting. IMO.

except they were allowed two hours with their children, so I think your speculation is incorrect -

JMO

 

[Charlie09]

Oh but don't you see? They're all in it together! It's a huge conspiracy to take children out of their homes so the state can get money from the Feds. Don't let a pesky little thing like logic or evidence convince you otherwise. :gaah:

what evidence is this that you speak of?

 

[K_Z]

except they were allowed two hours with their children, so I think your speculation is incorrect -

JMO

I disagree. There could be patterns of extreme disciplinary techniques (to use a general term) that may be quite abusive, and well known to others, but not actually "in progress" when police and DHS arrived to remove the children.

 

[Charlie09]

And they must have paid off the adult son, too, because he isn't clamoring to *immediately* reunite the family or speaking out against the authorities

I guess since we're speculating we should be glad that this older son didn't just kill the family - like what happened in San Juan Capistrano last year.

 

[tlcya]

Heck of a leap. I was looking for other than leapers.

 

[Charlie09]

I disagree. There could be patterns of extreme disciplinary techniques (to use a general term) that may be quite abusive, and well known to others, but not actually "in progress" when police and DHS arrived to remove the children.

Sorry, they were allowed home for a four hour visit, not a two hour visit as I posted above.

Since the children were not (at least as far as I can tell) escorted by CPS or law enforcement, I'm pretty sure they were not concerned about pattern of extreme disciplinary techniques...to use your term.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I disagree. There could be patterns of extreme disciplinary techniques (to use a general term) that may be quite abusive, and well known to others, but not actually "in progress" when police and DHS arrived to remove the children.

I would also point out that the allowed visitation is supervised, which tends to indicate that the parents are being regarded with a fairly high level of suspicion. And this is with court approval.

 

[K_Z]

Sorry, they were allowed home for a four hour visit, not a two hour visit as I posted above.

Since the children were not (at least as far as I can tell) escorted by CPS or law enforcement, I'm pretty sure they were not concerned about pattern of extreme disciplinary techniques...to use your term.

The parents have said in their interviews and writings several times that they have two individuals supervising visits. IIRC, another pastor was also in attendance for the home worship visitation that was recently arranged. These parents will not be allowed unsupervised visits with the children until the case is adjudicated in court. No way.

ETA: The Josh Powell horrific murders rocked the community of supervised visitation. There is simply no way parents who have had kids removed to foster care, with supervised visits ordered, will be allowed unsupervised time with the kids. No one in authority is willing to take those kind of risks with the kids. And anyone who allowed that would be fired summarily, IMO, for negligence and cause.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Sorry, they were allowed home for a four hour visit, not a two hour visit as I posted above.

Since the children were not (at least as far as I can tell) escorted by CPS or law enforcement, I'm pretty sure they were not concerned about pattern of extreme disciplinary techniques...to use your term.

The visitation is supervised. The trip home was under a Baptist minister and his wife who have apparently worked with DHS in the past. Apparently one earlier visit was cut short when Hal did not follow the rules about what could be discussed with the children.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Sorry, they were allowed home for a four hour visit, not a two hour visit as I posted above.

Since the children were not (at least as far as I can tell) escorted by CPS or law enforcement, I'm pretty sure they were not concerned about pattern of extreme disciplinary techniques...to use your term.

The visitation is supervised. The trip home was under a Baptist minister and his wife who have apparently worked with DHS in the past. Apparently one earlier visit was cut short when Hal did not follow the rules about what could be discussed with the children.