(Respectfully snipped.)
This is a long post, so I apologize in advance. (Roll and scroll if needed!) I wanted to explain my thinking.
One of the very disturbing issues that stand out is the family’s insular/ isolated lifestyle. The kids were home schooled, and from all indications, had few or no friends outside of their sibling group. While the family participated in “social justice” rallies, environmental rallies, and political rallies, this is vastly different than having peers, friend relationships, and ordinary relationships with adults in various roles (family, teachers, coaches, etc).
The kids were reaching out to adult neighbors with relative frequency, for attention, comfort, reassurance, and connections, whether or not they were “actually” starving—the food requests by Devonte being the basis for his reaching out.
It’s a delicate thing to criticize families who are so dedicated to one another, and who present such a unified “front” to the world. And especially delicate to criticize people who are often perceived as persecuted for their lifestyle. Certainly deep and loyal family bonds are admirable, dedication to worthy causes is admirable and altruistic, and dedication to political causes and candidates demonstrates concern and engagement in one’s community. Just as some families are deeply religious, and practice a lifestyle that is isolated by choice, deeply dedicated to their interpretation of their faith, and limit their social contacts to those with whom they share their deeply held beliefs.
Homeschooling, in and of itself, is a noble and wonderful choice for many motivated parents. But homeschooling has also been used to divert attention from an abusive environment at home.
There is a fine line between forthright engagement in these kinds of activities as a positive channeling of one’s own inner drive, and a genuine motivation to engage in them for deeply held principled reasons, versus indoctrination, and coerced "groupthink".
Which is why it is imperative that before criticism is levied, one has to give deep and critical consideration to “why” some of these choices are justifiably worrisome. It is all too easy for some to say that criticism of these women, their lifestyle, and parenting choices is persecution, bigotry, or intolerance, because not everyone agrees with their activism, progressive lifestyle, choices for building their family, and political ideologies.
This is delicate territory, just as it is with families where there are concerns about religious child abuse, abusive religious indoctrination, and religious emotional/ intellectual manipulation.
Children will be exposed to the ideas and deeply held beliefs of their parents. That’s true whether we are talking about religion, culture, or political/ social ideas. Plenty of families, for example, “force” their kids to attend religious services, or religious schools, against the “will” of the child.
If we compare social/ political rallies and protests as a “form” of deeply held convictions on the part of the parents, to deeply held religious convictions and activities surrounding religion, it is easier to begin to determine whether the child is participating because he or she is “forced” to do so, or because it’s a “family activity”, or because the child/ teen actually wants to participate.
For many kids, not going to religious services isn’t an option. For the Hart kids, I don’t think it was an option to “think differently” or “opt out” of participating with their moms in their extensive political, social, and protest activities.
I think the kids were indoctrinated, intellectually and emotionally manipulated, and isolated from most other people in society—EXCEPT for preparation and attendance at these numerous rallies, when they were showcased as heroes for the various causes. The moms were hailed all over the country and the internet as heroes for adopting such difficult and traumatized kids, and raising them to be “socially conscious” and politically active, even at such a young age. The kids were props for the activism of the mothers, IMO. Certainly enthusiastic and smiling props, but props nonetheless, IMO.
The mothers were only in their early 20s when they adopted the first 3, and already engaged in social and political activism. That continued with the second set of sibs. IMO, the mothers appeared to use this lifestyle of activism as a substitute for the type of parenting that each individual child needed so badly. Parentally prescribed and guided activism as a substitute for therapy, or normal social development, and engagement with peers. Again, JMO. I think they did far more damage socially and psychologically to these kids by that parenting strategy, than they did good.
The kids, IMO, had no life experience to develop any ideas of their own, no peers, no other adults—teachers, coaches, religious leaders, extended family—to help them develop their own ideas as they grew into teens. Their life experience was highly controlled, IMO.
The kids had no activities of THEIR OWN to pursue and succeed in as individuals—no sports, academics, activities, interests, apart from “the group” activities of the family.
We know from the neighbors at 3 locations that the kids seldom left the house. Any activities were things like family camping—no clubs, sports, hobbies, or friends outside the family.
That’s fine when kids are toddlers and young schoolagers, but emotional and intellectual needs change as kids move into their teen years. IMO, that is a worrisome situation for a healthy family unit. IMO, these kids were somewhat trapped in the “activist” lifestyle their moms prescribed for them—yet the kids likely wanted to please the moms by their enthusiastic sign lettering, chanting and participation at rallies, etc. They wanted to show that they were good little soldiers for the cause, even if they were far too young to have more than a very basic, biased understanding of the issues they were encouraged to support or protest.
It’s just my personal opinion, but as I read more about Devonte and the “free hugs” campaign, I was deeply, deeply disturbed. I think these kids were far too young to be put into those situations, especially given their traumatized backgrounds and isolation. I know not everyone will agree with that, but IMO, it’s perfectly fine for the moms to be activists and put themselves out there at rallies, protests, etc—but it’s another thing all together to make protesting and social justice a mandatory family activity—especially with kids who are vulnerable because of their history, and isolated socially. Most parents would try to shield young kids and young teens from that kind of pressure and controversy, until they were late teens at least, and able to make choices for themselves.
Devonte had a particularly horrific background when he and his sibs were adopted. He had a number of serious emotional, psychological, and developmental challenges. The "free hugs" activities at the protests, his obvious emotional reaction to what was going on, the "viral" picture, the pressures and criticisms that happened after that-- all of that played into his reaching out to the DeKalbs. He was asking-- begging for help-- and not just the food. IMO, he was exploited as a prop-- as were all the kids in their participation at these rallies and protests.
I feel pretty certain that the DeKalbs calling CPS because of their concern for Devonte is the stimulus for the rapid departure of the family, and the reason the SUV ended up at the bottom of the cliff. This was a confluence of many aspects of their lifestyle over years. It may have been an impulsive choice by Jen (driver) alone to drive off the cliff. Or, it may have been a joint decision with Sarah. It is possible the 3 missing teens were in the car when it went over, or they may be dead somewhere else. But IMO, there is zero possibility it was just a tragic accident. And I think there is zero possibility the 3 missing teens are alive somewhere else.
