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

[ellemo]

In cases of suspected child abuse, I tend to stay on the fence until I know the full facts. I also don't immediately attack the credibility of parents and pretend CPS always gets it right but that's just me
JMO

I think in a case like this that is true, esp. since the adult son has implied that there were problems in the household.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas.

I can only go by the media articles I've read and I've never seen any mention of a slap.

The slap was mentioned by Michelle in her interview with "Megellan," apparently an online radio station.

However, it is an overstatement to say that corporal punishment is legal in Arkansas, as there are some parameters. The ones that seem to be most pertinent to this case have to do with blows to the face or head, and the limitation that pain and marking be only transient.

Clearly the testimony of some or all of the children will play a role in making this determination (assuming that physical examinations reveal no evidence of previously broken bones and the like, or current welts or scarring). Hence the importance of not only supervising the contact between the parents and the children, but also clearly prohibiting any conversation regarding the case. Imagine if Hal were to say to the younger children, "if you want to come home and see your room and toys again, and play in your yard, you have to tell the bad people that you know your daddy only spanks you because he loves you--and it doesn't really hurt."

 

[JeannaT]

I'm just glad that these kids get a chance to see what life is like outside their very unusual little world their parents have created. Hopefully Foster care is treating them well, and allowing them a "breather" from the constant threat and rantings about how God wants parents to whale on their children.

Spare the Rod spoil the child is about the most misunderstood Bible verse there is. Spare the rod, lose the lamb is the actual quote better translated, and it was a directive to shepherds. Shepherds know that if you aren't vigilant, and watchful, and prodding with your flock, you will lose a wandering lamb. Shepherds don't beat lambs with sticks, they prod them along gently. Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me. It's the same rod used as a comfort in the 23rd psalm. It's a comforting touch from a watchful vigilant shepherd, pointing the lamb the direction to go.

And it's been bastardized by loony people to believe Jesus exhorts you to beat your children with sticks. hmm. What a mess.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Reports of what the alleged abusers say about what they knew when and what exactly has been alleged against them hold less credibility for than they may for others. That is fine. It is the WS way.

I agree. Some fail to acknowledge that the Stanleys and their friends have been the primary source for a good bit of information that is circulating. While I would stop short of accusing them of lying outright, I would suggest that having one's children removed with an accusation of abuse or neglect is an incredibly difficult situation--even in cases where the abuse was far more apparent than in this one. Denial is a human defense mechanism to protect against blows to the ego.

I do believe that the Stanleys have, at best, exaggerated claims to make themselves appear better to the public, to their friends and to themselves. When I see reports of "fully-armed sheriffs" storming the house in the middle of the night, I tend to look very carefully. In fact, some combination of authorities (DHS and Sheriff) arrived at the house in late afternoon with a warrant to search the house for MMS (and we really do not know what else it may have said on the warrant). Reports say that they were forced to stand outside in freezing weather for as long as 5 hours. In fact, they were offered a seat in a warm cruiser, but preferred to stand on the front porch so they could observe. And some authority brought their coats to them within the first half hour.

Based on pictures provided by the Stanleys, LEOs had weapons--as they always do--but I see nothing whatsoever to indicate that they were ever unholstered or that anyone ever made reference to them.

So, in short, when Michelle announces that they had no idea until the hearing that there were accusations of physical abuse, I am skeptical. By her own report, their attorney was provided with papers three days prior to the hearing. I do believe that Hal has even backpedalled a bit (again, interview given to Magellan--available online) in saying that all they heard or focused on was the MMS. Absolutely understandable. But not quite the same as their only being told of the MMS.

 

[Margo/Mom]

According to your quotes the report of a slap was made along with the report of the bare feet in the snow and the CPS ruled it as unfounded. So, you're saying they can come back and say, oh, wait, we decided it was valid? Seriously? That's ludicrous.

And I think it would be really difficult to convince a judge that a child is being water-boarded but maybe I'm used to living in a state with intelligent judges.

JMO

I don't know that anybody ruled anything on the basis of that first visit. I would guess that the original report was that the investigator was shown that there was adequate clothing for the children and that none of them appeared to have any scarring about the face. That would have meant that there was insufficient evidence for an emergency removal--not that they were somehow cleared.

The same is true of the things that the Stanleys keep reiterating about what they were told on-site on the day that the kids were removed. The fact that an EMT or some other med-tech person with a van said to Hal "everything's OK," could mean lots of things (including "don't bother me--I'm working")--but NOT some indication that the parents were cleared of any possible charges. Not their role. My guess is that they did some routine BP checks, reflexes, a once-over for obvious bruises or scarring and check of the scalp for any possible infestations. The sort of thing nurses do before kids get on the bus to camp. The lack of anything found there is not an expert opinion of "all clear." Again--it might have precluded an emergency removal, despite other indicators that would require further investigation.

My understanding is that the "emergency" was constituted by the older children's statement that their parents were packed and ready to flee if the kids were left overnight while medical investigation continued. This may or may not have been true, however the fact that the kids said it, and that there was evidence of a packed camper, apparently supported the emergency removal.

 

[Margo/Mom]

so, CPS determined the barefoot in the snow report was abusive? A slap to the face is evidence of abuse if a neighbor says so? What if the neighbor has a beef such as Hal Stanley stole a pig or belief has moved the property line?

JMO

That is why the Stanleys are afforded the right to due process. This means that a judge has to rule on the initial removal in terms of whether it was indicated based on general evidentiary standards. This happened within 72 hours as required by law. Meanwhile the Stanleys have reported to the public that they were promised that their children would be returned to them after 72 hours. Doubtful, extremely doubtful, because it doesn't work that way.

They have now been provided with several things, including a summary of the charges/allegations (not certain of the proper legal term) against them and the evidence to support that, the opportunity to visit their children, and a plan by which they may demonstrate the sincerity of their willingness to adhere to legalities (such as they are) in the protection of children. We know that this included some yard clean-up (one might conclude that the hydroponics project did include chemicals or other things that are not good for very young children to play with), psychological testing and parenting classes, to assure that they have a base of skills and knowledge to discipline their children without abusing them.

Now, whatever the reasons for the delay, it affords the Stanleys with additional time to gather evidence to counter the claims (and according to Michelle they do intend to answer every one point by point), as well as to demonstrate their willingness to comply with any conditions that may be imposed on them.

Due process is not a quick thing. But we cannot have both rapid judgment and due process.

 

[bessythecat]

I agree. Some fail to acknowledge that the Stanleys and their friends have been the primary source for a good bit of information that is circulating. While I would stop short of accusing them of lying outright, I would suggest that having one's children removed with an accusation of abuse or neglect is an incredibly difficult situation--even in cases where the abuse was far more apparent than in this one. Denial is a human defense mechanism to protect against blows to the ego.

I do believe that the Stanleys have, at best, exaggerated claims to make themselves appear better to the public, to their friends and to themselves. When I see reports of "fully-armed sheriffs" storming the house in the middle of the night, I tend to look very carefully. In fact, some combination of authorities (DHS and Sheriff) arrived at the house in late afternoon with a warrant to search the house for MMS (and we really do not know what else it may have said on the warrant). Reports say that they were forced to stand outside in freezing weather for as long as 5 hours. In fact, they were offered a seat in a warm cruiser, but preferred to stand on the front porch so they could observe. And some authority brought their coats to them within the first half hour.

Based on pictures provided by the Stanleys, LEOs had weapons--as they always do--but I see nothing whatsoever to indicate that they were ever unholstered or that anyone ever made reference to them.

So, in short, when Michelle announces that they had no idea until the hearing that there were accusations of physical abuse, I am skeptical. By her own report, their attorney was provided with papers three days prior to the hearing. I do believe that Hal has even backpedalled a bit (again, interview given to Magellan--available online) in saying that all they heard or focused on was the MMS. Absolutely understandable. But not quite the same as their only being told of the MMS.

BBM. I agree. During the interview with Magellan, Hal explains the police woman asked him to step out of the house and that they had a search warrant for the house. According to Hal, the police woman then"raddled of some stuff about MMS and a bunch of other junk." http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...l-interview-with-hal-stanley-february-19-2015

To bad we don't know what that other "junk" was in reference to, but it could be anything...

 

[MyBelle]

I think in a case like this that is true, esp. since the adult son has implied that there were problems in the household.

Every household has some kind of "problem" in the eyes of young people. An implication isn't reason enough to remove a young child and keep him from his mother for months.
Removal is emotionally traumatizing and should be avoided unless it is dire.

Nothing about this case appears dire. The agency practices do appear archaic.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

Every household has some kind of "problem" in the eyes of young people. An implication isn't reason enough to remove a young child and keep him from his mother for months.
Removal is emotionally traumatizing and should be avoided unless it is dire.

Nothing about this case appears dire. The agency practices do appear archaic.

JMO

The judge apparently did not agree. And the judge has the advantage over us in having seen some actual evidence.

 

[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

 

[gitana1]

so, CPS determined the barefoot in the snow report was abusive? A slap to the face is evidence of abuse if a neighbor says so? What if the neighbor has a beef such as Hal Stanley stole a pig or belief has moved the property line?

The Sheriff's office does seem to confirm it was their office's decision:

But the Garland County Sheriff’s Department said in a statement this week that it was “absolutely false” that MMS was the sole reason the Stanley children were removed from the home. The sheriff’s office, according to the statement, “responded to possible child abuse and neglect allegations from … concerned citizens that are familiar with, and friends of, the family.”

The sheriff’s office noted that “upon arrival, and after an extensive on site investigation, it was determined by investigators the minor children living at the residence were at risk of serious harm due to a number of different factors.” Investigators, the statement said, “felt they had no choice but to intervene in the best interest of the minor children.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ts-over-the-dangerous-miracle-supplement-mms/

JMO

As I have stated to you previously, backed up by links, CPS determined there was abuse, took the children into custody, filed an emergency petition allowing them to keep the kids in care longer and requested adjudication of the abuse issue. CPS did that. Not LE.

Yes, LE conducted a parallel investigation as to possible criminal conduct. That is different from the CPS investigation. Only CPS has the power to file a petition to remove the children from their parents. When LE investigates and determines there is abuse they call CPS. CPS then is the entity who decides whether he kids will be removed. Not LE.

Anyhow, you keep changing what you're saying. First you said the Stanleys didn't know about any physical abuse allegations until the probable cause hearing. When I disproved that, you stated CPS determined the allegations were unfounded. When I proved there was nothing to support that assertion, you stated that it was the sheriff's decision to remove the kids.

I feel we are going around in illogical circles. LE has nothing to do with filing petitions to take kids into state care except calling CPS. CPS makes the decision. No matter what the Stanleys might have said.

 

[flourish]

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

I've also been wondering about this, because we've been going around and around. Links have been provided numerous times, explanations of laws and protocols have been given, to no avail. This is the point where, as a teacher, I'd say, "I heard your words, you've heard mine. My answers aren't going to change just because you don't like the answer, and I'm going to walk away now."

Sometimes it's best to walk away. Sometimes disengaging with people who aren't choosing to listen to the answers to their questions can be helpful as it's difficult to argue when no one argues back. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

As I have stated to you previously, backed up by links, CPS determined there was abuse, took the children into custody, filed an emergency petition allowing them to keep the kids in care longer and requested adjudication of the abuse issue. CPS did that. Not LE.

Yes, LE conducted a parallel investigation as to possible criminal conduct. That is different from the CPS investigation. Only CPS has the power to file a petition to remove the children from their parents. When LE investigates and determines there is abuse they call CPS. CPS then is the entity who decides whether he kids will be removed. Not LE.

Anyhow, you keep changing what you're saying. First you said the Stanleys didn't know about any physical abuse allegations until the probable cause hearing. When I disproved that, you stated CPS determined the allegations were unfounded. When I proved there was nothing to support that assertion, you stated that it was the sheriff's decision to remove the kids.

I feel we are going around in illogical circles. LE has nothing to do with filing petitions to take kids into state care except calling CPS. CPS makes the decision. No matter what the Stanleys might have said.

Respectfully, when you posted the link about the slap of the child AND the bare feet in the snow, I pointed out that the parents were told that report was dismissed as unfounded. If a report is dismissed as unfounded, I doubt any parent is going to know it will be used against them in court.

I have no reason not to believe the parents' version of events about who made the decision to remove the children. If you don't find them credible, sobeit.

Have a nice evening.

 

[MyBelle]

The judge apparently did not agree. And the judge has the advantage over us in having seen some actual evidence.

Or the Judge has an agenda that has nothing to do with the best interest of children. Hard to say, since I wasn't in the courtroom but the delay does trigger my hinky meter. Foster care is big, big business and rife with fraud. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the care of the Stanley children.

JMO

Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell last week filed a lawsuit to revoke funding of Emerge Family Advocates, Inc., a nonprofit supervised visitation center.The center is operated by a state legislator, family court judges and some of the professionals who appear before them.
According to a press release issued by Sorrell’s office, Emerge currently operates several federally funded supervised visitation centers located in Vermont and New Hampshire.

Concerns are that some New England courts are protecting the financial investments of unethical industry professionals instead of the best interests of the families....

State budget records and recent court filings show that since 1995, Emerge has received millions in grants from State and local agencies in Vermont and New Hampshire. Funding sources include the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement’s Access and Visitation program, as well as the US Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) Safe Havens grants.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/...e-family-advocates-28066/#Bqi8foBG6IeVXyXk.99

 

[tlcya]

I've also been wondering about this, because we've been going around and around. Links have been provided numerous times, explanations of laws and protocols have been given, to no avail. This is the point where, as a teacher, I'd say, "I heard your words, you've heard mine. My answers aren't going to change just because you don't like the answer, and I'm going to walk away now."

Sometimes it's best to walk away. Sometimes disengaging with people who aren't choosing to listen to the answers to their questions can be helpful as it's difficult to argue when no one argues back. JMO

True. But sometimes, that is the time for someone to say, we have both been talking. and yeah, we both appear to be listening. But maybe I am simply not HEARING. So my question was my attempt to really get quiet and ask a specific question, in hopes I will finally HEAR something I have been missing this whole time.

And if THEN I STILL cannot hear something I have been blindly missing this whole time, yes, time to disengage and move on.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Respectfully, when you posted the link about the slap of the child AND the bare feet in the snow, I pointed out that the parents were told that report was dismissed as unfounded. If a report is dismissed as unfounded, I doubt any parent is going to know it will be used against them in court.

I have no reason not to believe the parents' version of events about who made the decision to remove the children. If you don't find them credible, sobeit.

Have a nice evening.

I have never heard any claim from the Stanleys that there was any kind of determination provided to them on the basis of that first visit.

 

[Margo/Mom]

Or the Judge has an agenda that has nothing to do with the best interest of children. Hard to say, since I wasn't in the courtroom but the delay does trigger my hinky meter. Foster care is big, big business and rife with fraud. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the care of the Stanley children.

JMO

Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell last week filed a lawsuit to revoke funding of Emerge Family Advocates, Inc., a nonprofit supervised visitation center.The center is operated by a state legislator, family court judges and some of the professionals who appear before them.
According to a press release issued by Sorrell’s office, Emerge currently operates several federally funded supervised visitation centers located in Vermont and New Hampshire.

Concerns are that some New England courts are protecting the financial investments of unethical industry professionals instead of the best interests of the families....

State budget records and recent court filings show that since 1995, Emerge has received millions in grants from State and local agencies in Vermont and New Hampshire. Funding sources include the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement’s Access and Visitation program, as well as the US Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) Safe Havens grants.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/...e-family-advocates-28066/#Bqi8foBG6IeVXyXk.99

Unfortunately there is no shortage of children with serious needs within the foster care system. No need to invent problems to keep beds filled.

 

[MyBelle]

Unfortunately there is no shortage of children with serious needs within the foster care system. No need to invent problems to keep beds filled.

In Arkansas, it appears there is a lot of inventing going on to make sure there is no shortage of children. Numbers don't lie. Nationwide, the number of children in foster care is DOWN significantly, especially in populous states such as Cali and Colorado but oddly is flat in Arkansas. AR is one of the top states for returning children to their homes quickly. It seems for every kid that goes back home, Arkansas HHS is making sure another one takes his place. It's a revolving door.

In 2013, there were 3,798 children entering the system and 3,614 exiting the system. In 2012, 3,846 entered the system and 3,802 exited. In 2011, 3,856 entered the system and 3,774 exited.

JMO

Since 2000, there has been a 45 percent drop in the share of California children in the system, a reduction achieved largely through shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. In 31 of California’s 58 counties, the number of children in foster care declined by 10 percent or more between 2000 and 2009—even as the population of children in the state increased from 9.3 million to 10 million.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_510cdr.pdf

http://rightforkids.org/files/8113/4064/8461/FGA-RightForKidsBook-web-single-pages.pdf

 

[Margo/Mom]

In Arkansas, it appears there is a lot of inventing going on to make sure there is no shortage of children. Numbers don't lie. Nationwide, the number of children in foster care is DOWN significantly, especially in populous states such as Cali and Colorado but oddly is flat in Arkansas. AR is one of the top states for returning children to their homes quickly. It seems for every kid that goes back home, Arkansas HHS is making sure another one takes his place. It's a revolving door.

In 2013, there were 3,798 children entering the system and 3,614 exiting the system. In 2012, 3,846 entered the system and 3,802 exited. In 2011, 3,856 entered the system and 3,774 exited.

JMO

Since 2000, there has been a 45 percent drop in the share of California children in the system, a reduction achieved largely through shortening the time that most children spend in foster care. In 31 of California’s 58 counties, the number of children in foster care declined by 10 percent or more between 2000 and 2009—even as the population of children in the state increased from 9.3 million to 10 million.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_510cdr.pdf

http://rightforkids.org/files/8113/4064/8461/FGA-RightForKidsBook-web-single-pages.pdf

Your data do not support your conclusion that children are being brought into care on invented reasoning. California has reduced the number of children in care by shortening the amount of time that they are IN care, something that has been a concern for many years actually pre-dating some of the privatization efforts. Some advocates actually oppose such efforts, claiming that they encourage premature severing of family ties, or alternately returning children to abusive situations.

Next question to be answered, in order to substantiate your theory, would be how Garland County is housing their foster children. Are they being placed through private foster care agencies (who actually just perform the tasks of screening and supervision of foster families--as agencies have done in the past)? Are these agencies operating on a profit or non-profit basis?

 

[flourish]

So we've got CPS caseworkers and supervisors involved and having concerns that they feel warrant continued removal, we've got a judge who clearly feels there's enough evidence to warrant continued removal. CPS and the judge are both subject to review, oversight, and must answer to their supervisors and provide documentation and work within the parameters of the law and protocols. There's been no evidence provided that this CPS agency and judge have any "agendas" other than doing their job. Their credibility has not been reasonably called into question.

Then we've got the parents, who are making statements indicating the removal was inappropriate and basically equals persecution. They are not subject to review, oversight, and don't have to provide documentation. There's a lot of evidence to indicate that the family DOES have an agenda. Their credibility IS QUESTIONABLE.

No brainer to me as to who has the most "believability" here.

As far as statistics go, statistics can be skewed, misinterpreted, and general statistics provided HAVE NO PROVEN RELATION TO this particular case, so are therefore irrelevant.