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

[Morag]

Has anyone come across any information about this family's means of support? The income to support 9 kids and two adults, a large camping van, and a sizable house must be somewhat larger than the father's social security- assuming he receives it.

 

[SStarr33]

In all reality, cigarette smoke isn't good for kids either yet alot of parents smoke right in front of their kids, in their homes, without opening a window, and their kids inhale that smoke - yet those kids aren't taken away from their parents. So I'm curious how MMS can play a factor into this when MMS is still being sold on the net as I type this. Now I read that spanking could play a part. These parents honestly don't seem abusive. So I do wonder if this is all bc a couple of their kids didn't want to be homeschooled anymore so decided to play up all the negatives. Just an idea but no kid likes to be spanked or smacked, I know I didn't. There's a huge difference where abuse is concerned though. So what was the limit of discipline in this case?

Really good point. There better be some evidence of something really bad here. If there isn't, I suspect the Stanley's will become very wealthy after they sue the folks that did this to them.

 

[SStarr33]

Has anyone come across any information about this family's means of support? The income to support 9 kids and two adults, a large camping van, and a sizable house must be somewhat larger than the father's social security- assuming he receives it.

I know that the mom is a midwife.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

I found videos of speakers at the CHHP conference from the link the KZ shared above. (thank you KZ) There is a lot of useful information presented. The videos are long but educational.

Here is one that I watched:

Family law expert Ann M. Haralambie, JD, speaks on "Where Faith Meets the Law: Child Welfare Laws and the First Amendment" at the first Child-Friendly Faith Project conference on November 8, 2013. Her talk addresses circumstances under which child welfare laws permit the state to intervene to protect children from faith-based practices deemed to constitute abuse and neglect. Ms. Haralambie is a certified family law attorney in private practice in Tucson, Arizona, where she specializes in custody and child abuse cases. She is the former president of the National Association of Counsel for Children and the author of a three-volume, annually supplemented legal treatise on child custody and protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBQQR0kUQyM

 

[K_Z]

I know that the mom is a midwife.

I want to provide some clarity on midwives, for any who might be unfamiliar with the different levels of midwife providers.

Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) are University educated, masters or doctorally prepared Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, in addition to being licensed Registered Nurses. In some states, CNMs also separately licensed as Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, as well as nationally certified. CNMs practice almost exclusively in hospitals and free standing birth centers, and seldom do home births, as it is next to impossible to get malpractice insurance for home births. (And sometimes state statute prohibits CNMs from intentionally doing home births.)

Traditional midwives are trained by apprenticeship, by other traditional midwives. They provide prenatal care, and assist and attend home births, but almost never practice in acute care hospitals, as they typically aren't eligible to be a credentialed provider. They also do days to weeks of home visits after the birth, assessing the baby and mom, helping with breast feeding, etc. Some practice in Traditional Midwife free-standing birth centers, but usually not with CNMs. Some TMs have college educations, but most do not, and most are not health care providers. I've met a few that have EMT training at the basic or intermediate level. Most do have CPR training. In some states they are licensed voluntarily, in some states they have no requirement to be licensed at all, and are not officially recognized in statute. They do not carry malpractice insurance, but "could" be covered under personal umbrella policies (and that's both controversial and hazy).

Both Certified Nurse Midwives and Traditional Midwives have largely excellent outcomes, and are usually very particular about assisting only healthy patients they have followed throughout their pregnancies. The level of collaboration with MDs or OB-GYNs vary substantially from setting to setting, provider to provider. CNMs are eligible for insurance reimbursement; Traditional Midwives seldom are eligible and the patients work out a payment plan with the provider directly. Some TMs barter their services for in-kind donations or other needed services.

And lest anyone think I don't approve of traditional midwives because I'm a health care provider, I'll disclose that I myself had a wonderful, planned home birth with 2 Traditional Midwives, and a doula who was apprenticing to be a TM, as well. We have lots of access to MDs, and a nearby hospital, and had a good back up plan in case anything went awry.

http://www.traditionalmidwives.org/actmmed.html

http://www.midwife.org/
*Some of the education info is very outdated on this site, and would not apply to candidates today. All programs nationally are transitioning toward the DNP (clinical doctorate) as the entry level degree. The goal was 2015 for all programs to be in that framework. Wiki is actually more up to date.

Transitioning toward the doctorate[edit]

The AACN recommends that all entry-level nurse practitioner educational programs be transitioned from the Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) degree to the DNP degree by the year 2015.[4] The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists has followed suit, requiring the DNP (or DNAP-Doctor of Nurse Anesthesia Practice) degree for entry-level nurse anesthetist programs by the year 2025.[5] Nurse practitioners and nurse anesthetists currently practicing with either an MSN or certificate will not be required to obtain the DNP for continued practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Nursing_Practice

 

[1&2&3]

From the mother saying they have changed their parenting technique, yes, I imagine they have! In the beginning, when there were just two or three children one could parent totally differently than with five or six, let alone nine! And the parents did something right for the son to get into college.

With a big brother in college, wonder if hearing of his adventures out in the real world enticed the two teenagers to want to go to public school? Perhaps the parents have slacked off in their teaching as the babies kept coming? Just a thought. Another thought is childrens personalities are all different, and these two teenagers are more outspoken which would very much be against this type parent.

My opinions only!

 

[MyBelle]

Really good point. There better be some evidence of something really bad here. If there isn't, I suspect the Stanley's will become very wealthy after they sue the folks that did this to them.

ITA. I'm all for CPS investigating any report of abuse and have been very critical when they have failed to do so such as in the tragic case of Colton Turner. But launching such an investigation via a SWAT team is one of the most ridiculous overreaches of authority I've ever heard about.

I really have to question the competency of the Sheriff. I wonder if he also sleeps with his loaded weapon as did the Police Chief in Peachtree City.

JMO

 

[stillwatersc]

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

 

[MyBelle]

Why pick on these 7 out of about 15,000 homeschoolers in the state? I just don;t see how it makes sense.



I know the difference between fiscal and social conservatism. Arkansas is across the board conservative in all areas today, although it has been more socially conservative than fiscally throughout the years. This family's struggle appeals to both social conservatives and fiscal ones.

Rural means countryside and a lower population. LA county has 10 million residents, Cook county IL has 5,194,675. Shelby county TN has 927,644. Pulaski county Arkansas has 391,284.

Yeah, Garland county has a low, rural population:

They didn't "pick on" 7 children in the entire state, only in that county which is an urban area. It is a tourist destination as well. An area of more than 50,000 population is not considered rural by definition of the U.S. government. And until I hear there was actual abuse of the children, it does give the appearance the family was targeted because of their lifestyle.

JMO

Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people......

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designates counties as Metropolitan, Micropolitan, or Neither. A Metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a Micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population.



http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/policy/definition_of_rural.html

 

[gitana1]

I don't know where the MMS is coming from that can be purchased on the net. My guess is Canada or somewhere out of the US. They also call it other things now, since there has been legal action taken against those that were selling it here. It kind of reminds me of how things like bath salts and spice have been marketed but used for other purposes.

I went down the rabbit hole reading about it last night. The crazy is huge surrounding this "poison" that is marketed as a cure for everything. The people that use it, strongly believe in it. The founder markets it behind a religious organization. Using the religious marketing ploy, may help it to appeal to those that are against any kind of conventional medicine or are willing to believe if there is a religious name attached to it, it must be a good thing.

In the video the parents and neighbor made, the mother talks of the children being afraid to be examined by doctors because they have never been to places like that. I think the statements that the parents made about the MMS usage is a little hinky and they are trying to act as though they are naive about it. It's one piece of the puzzle as to why they are being investigated. If they parents don't get medical care for the children then it can be a red flag a a recipe for disaster, if one were to become gravely ill. We have seen parents in other cases that wouldn't get medical care for their children, due to their beliefs. Like I said, this is just one piece to investigate. It may or may not play a part in the painting of a larger picture.

The mother also mentions being questioned about their van being packed up as though there have were allegations that they would flee with the children. Another piece that needs further investigation.

If there are allegations of "any" kind of abuse, they need to be investigated. Abuse can also be psychological.

http://humanservices.arkansas.gov/dcfs/dcfspublications/pub-357.pdf

It is common for kids to want to spread their wings when they get to a certain age. I imagine that there would be quite a power struggle in a household environment that is very strict, controlling and isolating. We have seen adults go to extremes when control is challenged by a spouse or child in the home. Teens may not want to share the same beliefs as their parents.

Whatever the allegations may be, it is best that they are thoroughly investigated for the safely of everyone in the home.

For me, there are multiple "red flags" that need to be looked into. They may or may not amount to anything, but those "red flags" are there.

Hopefully, everything can be worked out and the family can be reunited in a safe, healthy environment for all, with some assistance of counseling.

I totally agree. But the constitution views parental rights as sanctified, really. And thus case law, state laws, federal laws, SCOTUS cases, etc., overwhelmingly protect and guard the rights of parents to the custody and control of their children and those rights can only be abridged when the welfare of the children make it paramount to do so. And even then, the least level of intrusion as possible is preferred.

Thus, if voluntary services may help, that's what should be offered rather than placing the children under the jurisdiction of the state or county. Or, if the children must be placed in government custody, having parents stipulate to certain guidelines may allow them to retain placement of the kids in their own home, or with relatives, pending investigation and further action/services mandated. For example, in this case, that means that if the state took custody, they could release the kids to their parents' care, the state still maintaining government custody, but not physical possession of the kids, as long as the family meets weekly with social workers and agrees to abide by certain edicts, pending the outcome of the juvenile dependency case (i.e., weekly counseling, no corporal punishment, no forcing the kids to walk barefoot in the snow for discipline, must show proof of adherence to state requirements re education, whether homeschooled or public school, no FDA unapproved supplements, etc).

I do believe it is very crucial to the values of our country that the least restrictive, the least instrusive measures be taken when possible, in these cases. I can say that chances are, I do not agree with this families' lifestyle or child-rearing practices for the most part. I get that sense from what they've stated, what has been reported about their lifestyle and what I can glean as a student of American sub-cultures, from their ultra-fundamentalist appearance, speech patterns, vocabulary and catch phrases.

But every family has a right to raise their children according to the principles they believe in, regardless of whether their principles offend others, unless such threatens the welfare of their kids. So the concerns of some sleuthers here and citizens elsewhere as to what has happened here are very valid and rooted in our nations' constitutional principles.

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, will be destroyed. We really must jealously guard the constitutional rights we are afforded as citizens, from jack-booted thuggery, in order to maintain the freedoms that history has shown (including my own, personal familial history) are so easily destroyed.

That being said, I am not compelled at all, at this point, that there was government overreach in this case at all or that if there was any, that it extended to three, distinct governmental agencies or offices, and that the safety and welfare of the children could, thus far, have been protected by an less intrusive measures.

See below.

Really good point. There better be some evidence of something really bad here. If there isn't, I suspect the Stanley's will become very wealthy after they sue the folks that did this to them.

Oh boy. That would be an incredible long shot. You're talking about what are known as federal civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and those are notoriously hard to successfully litigate for a variety of reasons. Without a clear showing of a pattern of conduct in a variety of cases demonstrating discrimination, it is highly unlikely a plaintiff would get very far at all. Further, winning actual monetary damages is extremely remote. Mostly, what the parents win in such cases is declaratory or injunctive relief (such as returning the child to the parents).

I know that the mom is a midwife.

I think they stated something about really being self-sufficient for the most part. I'm guessing they grow or raise a lot of their food, make clothes and supplies they need and maybe get buy on limited forms of income, like midwifery.

From the mother saying they have changed their parenting technique, yes, I imagine they have! In the beginning, when there were just two or three children one could parent totally differently than with five or six, let alone nine! And the parents did something right for the son to get into college.

With a big brother in college, wonder if hearing of his adventures out in the real world enticed the two teenagers to want to go to public school? Perhaps the parents have slacked off in their teaching as the babies kept coming? Just a thought. Another thought is childrens personalities are all different, and these two teenagers are more outspoken which would very much be against this type parent.

My opinions only!

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.

 

[K_Z]

Wow-- incredibly well said, gitana1.

I'd also like to add a thought to this paragraph:

gitana1 wrote:

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.

The father is 73 years old. It is *remotely possible* that he could have undiagnosed medical conditions (such as transient ischemic attacks, untreated high blood pressure or heart disease, etc), or be in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's or dementia. The family eschews traditional medical care, from what they have said and implied.

I don't offer that opinion lightly, as I'm perfectly well aware that 73 is old, but not *that* old, and that not every 73 year old should be viewed as physically ill or mentally declining. I offer that as a possible explanation, if personality changes such as paranoia had emerged and taken a sudden, drastic upturn. Fundamentalist families are usually paternalistic-- the father/ husband is the absolute leader and decision maker for the family, deferred to by the wife and children. Anyway, it's a possible explanation if things at home used to be reasonable, but had recently changed to be abusive or unreasonable.

 

[SStarr33]

Interview with their attorney from yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rajrjyroipw&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

 

[Nova]

Bleach is essentially chlorine and chlorine is to purify water. In 'Nam we couldn't drink the water without adding chlorine tablets.

You didn't have to go that far, Sam (though I thank you, sincerely, for your service). I grew up in South Florida and all water, including drinking water, reeked of chlorine. The alternative was all sorts of tropical bacteria.

It took me years after I left the area to feel "clean" after a shower that didn't make my eyes burn!

 

[MyBelle]

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

Of course. We don't know much about his finances other than he's had no problem retaining an excellent lawyer who has been a leader in democratic politics as was his father.

JMO

 

[wendybtn]

True Wendy... But meanmj was saying that homeschooling families still have to pay property / school taxes. Same as everyone who uses the public schools. And, btw, those families sending their kids to private schools.. They pay the same school tax too.

So, all the school taxes paid by everyone (either using the school or not) in each district gets schlepped together in a big pot, and the district then doles it out according to attendance and other variables they dream up each year. :thinking: IMO.

Of course, we all pay the same property taxes, etc. She was talking about some people thinking you get out of paying some taxes if you home school or get money to buy your books & supplies. Neither of those things is true.

 

[SStarr33]

Here is a video of a visit with CPS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIsnbUxAPhs&feature=share

 

[gitana1]

Of course. We don't know much about his finances other than he's had no problem retaining an excellent lawyer who has been a leader in democratic politics as was his father.

JMO

It appears clear that the attorney is representing them for free based on comments on the Bringthestanleykidshome facebook page that indicate they received news that a well known attorney "took on" their case. That's pro bono language.

 

[gitana1]

Here is a video of a visit with CPS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIsnbUxAPhs&feature=share

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?

 

[MyBelle]

It appears clear that the attorney is representing them for free based on comments on the Bringthestanleykidshome facebook page that indicate they received news that a well known attorney "took on" their case. That's pro bono language.

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

 

[RaeL]

Of course, we all pay the same property taxes, etc. She was talking about some people thinking you get out of paying some taxes if you home school or get money to buy your books & supplies. Neither of those things is true.

True Wendy... I agreed with you then and now .