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

[wenwe4]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arkansas
86% christian.... His children were not taken from him because of his religious beliefs in a conspiracy to interfere with his religious rights as he would like the public to believe... It is ludicrous to believe that is the issue here, he was turned in to the child abuse hotline, they opened an investigation, the investigation found that the children were not safe in the home and they were removed until their safety could be assured... He believes that he is right to abuse and/or neglect his children based on his religious beliefs, the law does not allow a rationalization for abuse, religious or otherwise. Believe it or not arkansas DHS does not just snatch up kids EVERYTIME they come in a home... They have to have substantiated the claims of abuse or neglect, they have been in my home several times, they have investigated me more times than I can count (one of my exes favorite pastimes seems to be calling the hotline) and while it is annoying I have never had any fear of them coming to my house or questioning me or my children, I've NEVER worried over "what my kids were telling" because I KNEW the allegations were unfounded and I have never thought that it was a conspiracy by DHS to persecute me because of my beliefs... IMO HS's fear mongering are an insipid attempt to divert the attention away from whatever FACTS are being presented.... All IMO

Who knows something about the likelihood or reasons a judge might grant the parents request for a new GAL?

BBM - Thank you for this!

It appears we have been having this circular argument about fundamentalists and home schooling - when the case was never about that. This is a child protection case because children were harmed by these parents actions.

These parents brought National attention to their case claiming it was MMS, then barefooting for pictures in the snow, then it was those terrible friends/neighbors who didn't come 3-fold to confront the parents instead of notifying authorities, then it was OMG - what did my teenagers tell the authorities, then it was the older kids will do anything to go to public school - our biggest nightmare, then we aren't perfect parents, all the while the parents scream their individual rights have been taken away. Most disturbing of all - if the children's rights are recognized (ie: no abuse/neglect, safe environment, not in constant fear) the parents claim that will "destroy" the family.

Will the parents ever be able to establish a trusting relationship with their children? Not if they are unwilling to face the fact that their lifestyle places their children in serious threats of harm to their health, welfare, and safety. Were his 5 grown children standing with their Father and Step-Mother yesterday? Where are their extended family members (ie: children's spouses & grandchildren)?

 

[Margo/Mom]

The liberal media? Now, that would be strange to me. The Stanleys seem to keep claiming that their freedom of religion is being abridged. So why don't they stick to religion? It seems to me that they keep veering into politics. It seems to me that a concern with such worldly matters would not enhance spiritual practice. What on earth do they think the liberal media will do for them. These poor fools do not seem to understand that they should be focused upon the well-being of their children and not on getting into bed with a bunch of reporters. I guarantee you that they will wake up sullied.

Agree. Actually, I think that the gag order is working in their favor. It not only prevents the parents from building a case in the press and online, it also prevents any reporters in the court-room from sharing evidence that is presented to the court. The authorities are already prevented by FERPA, etc from sharing details specific to the case.

So, without actually violating the order, there is a good bit of propagandizing that can go out on behalf of the Stanleys (what good, loving parents they are, etc; what big, bad meanies the government employees are, etc), with very little of a factual nature being disclosed to inform the public what the legal issues actually are.

 

[Margo/Mom]

BBM - Thank you for this!

It appears we have been having this circular argument about fundamentalists and home schooling - when the case was never about that. This is a child protection case because children were harmed by these parents actions.

These parents brought National attention to their case claiming it was MMS, then barefooting for pictures in the snow, then it was those terrible friends/neighbors who didn't come 3-fold to confront the parents instead of notifying authorities, then it was OMG - what did my teenagers tell the authorities, then it was the older kids will do anything to go to public school - our biggest nightmare, then we aren't perfect parents, all the while the parents scream their individual rights have been taken away. Most disturbing of all - if the children's rights are recognized (ie: no abuse/neglect, safe environment, not in constant fear) the parents claim that will "destroy" the family.

Will the parents ever be able to establish a trusting relationship with their children? Not if they are unwilling to face the fact that their lifestyle places their children in serious threats of harm to their health, welfare, and safety. Were his 5 grown children standing with their Father and Step-Mother yesterday? Where are their extended family members (ie: children's spouses & grandchildren)?

I am going to suggest that the DHS preference would be to reunify this family. Simply because they are not drug addicted, do not appear to be chronic law-breakers or criminally insane.

However, they face two big hurdles. One is to garner a reasonable assurance that the children will not be beaten or fed noxious substances. And the second is to have the cooperation of the parents in a re-unification process that re-establishes reasonable parental authority without beatings. The second is frankly no easy task and requires both commitment and willingness to learn new methods of discipline, coupled most likely with family counseling.

And the big question that will need to be answered is whether Hal Stanley is willing and able to put his ego aside and move forward.

 

[bessythecat]

I have another question in regards to the Bring the Stanley Kids Home Facebook page. A recent commenter says there is an interview on TV with one of the Stanley teen boys. Can anyone local confirm this? Is it online? I would be interested in viewing the interview.

(Also, could it perhaps be the interview with an adult son who is college that was broadcast at the beginning of the situation?)

 

[Donjeta]

I am going to suggest that the DHS preference would be to reunify this family. Simply because they are not drug addicted, do not appear to be chronic law-breakers or criminally insane.

However, they face two big hurdles. One is to garner a reasonable assurance that the children will not be beaten or fed noxious substances. And the second is to have the cooperation of the parents in a re-unification process that re-establishes reasonable parental authority without beatings. The second is frankly no easy task and requires both commitment and willingness to learn new methods of discipline, coupled most likely with family counseling.

And the big question that will need to be answered is whether Hal Stanley is willing and able to put his ego aside and move forward.

He's making it rather harder than it needs to be (imo) because it seems he's making a lot of noise about framing this as a spiritual battle between the godless authorities and the righteous worshippers, so anything that the authorities would view as progress would be seen as giving in to the devil.

 

[wenwe4]

I have another question in regards to the Bring the Stanley Kids Home Facebook page. A recent commenter says there is an interview on TV with one of the Stanley teen boys. Can anyone local confirm this? Is it online? I would be interested in viewing the interview.

(Also, could it perhaps be the interview with an adult son who is college that was broadcast at the beginning of the situation?)

Thank you for this post! I went searching and found it - I have not seen this previously. All I can say is thank goodness he has a level head! I am so impressed with this man and I applaud his courage and honesty! (the video takes quite awhile to load - at least it did for me).

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

 

[IAMME]

I was a CASA. The training that I remember consisted of understanding the procedures of cases we might encounter, a bit of child development, cultural understanding of different was that people parent, the scope of what one was entitled to in terms of documentation and access to people close to the child (actually quite broad), how to write a report to the judge, and most important grounding in our understanding that the best interests of the children whose cases we were assigned to must come first. We actually wanted to know what the children felt and what the children wanted. Yes, background checks were required.

ETA: When I was a CASA (not in Arkansas) we did not become involved in custody disputes between parents unless the matter became a CPS case.

Right, as far as my understanding CASA are only involved in DHS cases, but GALs can be assigned to kids in a custody dispute, or a DHS case....

 

[wenwe4]

Pseudo-transcript

Stanley’s adult son interview:

There’s definitely more than one side to this story . . . the children’s perspective - no one is really asking the children. We can’t know what all is going on in their minds.

The DHS & Police - you really shouldn’t label anyone as the bad guys in this situation have to be open to what we don’t know – you can’t make statements about things that you’re not personally close to. . . . . You really can’t understand the situation unless you’ve been in it.

Sometimes people can do things that may not be the best decision but they are acting in their own best conscience. . . . there’s many cases where children really do need to be considered. They need to be taken first while the investigation is underway. I don’t it’s fair to attack the Dept or the parents – they are just reacting like parents. . . . There is no enemy here, we are all just trying to get what’s best for the kids and the family.

I’ve seen the papers and I think there was some degree of truth, some exaggeration, some stuff just thrown in to make the case more feasible. In my heart of hearts, Ifeel like there’s some things about their parenting that really needs to be looked at. While my parents have the best intentions and I love them as people but they could learn some stuff about parenting . . . .

A lot of people been saying If this could happen to this family it could happen to mine – it’s possible but the situation isn’t so grim if you really do love your kids. . . you have this option you’ll have a hearing - you will speak if you really are with the children’s best interest I really believe the law system will help you get you will get them back.

People have been saying the homeschooling or the Christian community is under attack . . . I really don’t believe that’s the case, here at least. There were there were alot people who I know that were were genuinely concerned made their allegations. . . . .that is what the police acted on. It wasn’t the Police’s own initiative themselves.. It is responsibility and their duty to follow up – can make them look like the bad guys and they are just doing their job.

I know my parents really do love their children but I think they could learn what really works in parenting. What makes the children appear on “ideal” on the outside might not have been what was the best for the children.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

 

[Margo/Mom]

Pseudo-transcript

Stanley’s adult son interview:

There’s definitely more than one side to this story . . . the children’s perspective - no one is really asking the children. We can’t know what all is going on in their minds.

The DHS & Police - you really shouldn’t label anyone as the bad guys in this situation have to be open to what we don’t know – you can’t make statements about things that you’re not personally close to. . . . . You really can’t understand the situation unless you’ve been in it.

Sometimes people can do things that may not be the best decision but they are acting in their own best conscience. . . . there’s many cases where children really do need to be considered. They need to be taken first while the investigation is underway. I don’t it’s fair to attack the Dept or the parents – they are just reacting like parents. . . . There is no enemy here, we are all just trying to get what’s best for the kids and the family.

I’ve seen the papers and I think there was some degree of truth, some exaggeration, some stuff just thrown in to make the case more feasible. In my heart of hearts, Ifeel like there’s some things about their parenting that really needs to be looked at. While my parents have the best intentions and I love them as people but they could learn some stuff about parenting . . . .

A lot of people been saying If this could happen to this family it could happen to mine – it’s possible but the situation isn’t so grim if you really do love your kids. . . you have this option you’ll have a hearing - you will speak if you really are with the children’s best interest I really believe the law system will help you get you will get them back.

People have been saying the homeschooling or the Christian community is under attack . . . I really don’t believe that’s the case, here at least. There were there were alot people who I know that were were genuinely concerned made their allegations. . . . .that is what the police acted on. It wasn’t the Police’s own initiative themselves.. It is responsibility and their duty to follow up – can make them look like the bad guys and they are just doing their job.

I know my parents really do love their children but I think they could learn what really works in parenting. What makes the children appear on “ideal” on the outside might not have been what was the best for the children.

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

Awful lot of profound understanding there. One thing stood out this time through. He says "I have seen the papers." When I listened in the past I assumed he was talking about newspapers. At this point, I think he is talking about the various papers filed with the court, copies provided to parents and so forth. This says two things to me, not only has he had the opportunity to review them and finds them to be close to the truth as he has experienced things, but also verifies that the parents--despite all kinds of claims that the children were removed for no reason, the parents have never been told why and on and on--the parents have received written allegations supporting the removal of the children.

This young man, to my mind, certainly has far more credibility than the Justice of the Peace that's been commenting on FB, saying not only that she knows the family well and believes all charges to be bogus, but also implying that the workings of the court system itself are corrupt.

 

[gitana1]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arkansas
86% christian.... His children were not taken from him because of his religious beliefs in a conspiracy to interfere with his religious rights as he would like the public to believe... It is ludicrous to believe that is the issue here, he was turned in to the child abuse hotline, they opened an investigation, the investigation found that the children were not safe in the home and they were removed until their safety could be assured... He believes that he is right to abuse and/or neglect his children based on his religious beliefs, the law does not allow a rationalization for abuse, religious or otherwise. Believe it or not arkansas DHS does not just snatch up kids EVERYTIME they come in a home... They have to have substantiated the claims of abuse or neglect, they have been in my home several times, they have investigated me more times than I can count (one of my exes favorite pastimes seems to be calling the hotline) and while it is annoying I have never had any fear of them coming to my house or questioning me or my children, I've NEVER worried over "what my kids were telling" because I KNEW the allegations were unfounded and I have never thought that it was a conspiracy by DHS to persecute me because of my beliefs... IMO HS's fear mongering are an insipid attempt to divert the attention away from whatever FACTS are being presented.... All IMO

Who knows something about the likelihood or reasons a judge might grant the parents request for a new GAL?

Only if they could show extreme bias or inability to do their jobs. I've never personally seen what we call "minor's counsel" removed from a case against their will

It's also the state that gave us the Clintons...let's not pretend it's a right wing state with only fundamentalist home schoolers in it -

Seriously? Come on. Arkansas ranks among the top ten most conservative states in the nation. I've cited as to that fact and the politics of pretty much all the leaders in the state. Come on.

Here's what I posted before about Arkansas, its politics and any relation to this case:

Arkansas is a solidly red state: http://www.politico.com/2014-electio.../#.VMGLEy7qO30


The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state auditor, state treasurer, state land commissioner, are all Republicans. Garland County is a strong tea party county and there is no way the independent, tea party supported sheriff would have it in for a tea party family. http://www.washingtoncountyteaparty.com/?q=node/135


That makes zero sense. It is totally illogical. You do realize these people have to be elected in those areas? You think they are going to go after the people who elected them?


As to Bill Clinton, he was from Arkansas, so of course he got a lot of support from that state. And the majority of voters are Democrats? Nope.


The Democratic party used to be big in the south as it was, before the mid-1960's socially conservative shift. Remnants of Dixiecrats hung on for some time. Eventually, there was a shift with formerly Republican black voters in the south changing to Democrat and formerly white voters in the region changing to Republican. But there is still a core of conservative Democrats in the south.


Today, about 30% of voters identify as Democrats in Arkansas but 37% identify as Independent (and please don't tell me they are socialists), and 24% as Republicans. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/2...s-numbers.html

What that means is that 61% are not Democrats. Of those that are, most are conservative Democrats:

"Arkansas has been a reliably red state in each of the last four presidential elections. But this predictability in presidential elections belies the seismic political shift in the Razorback State over the past four years. Federal and state offices once dominated by Democrats are now filled with Republicans. Before the 2010 election, Democrats held five out of six federal offices -- both Senate and three of the four House seats -- and also controlled both chambers of the state legislature.
Despite the shifting political winds, Arkansas' underlying ideology remains unchanged; it has consistently been more conservative than the rest of the nation. In the first six months of 2014, 41% of Arkansans said they identify as conservative, five points higher than the national average. In 2008, when Pryor was re-elected with no serious opposition, Arkansans were more conservative than the U.S. by a six-point margin."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/176177/fe...t-midterm.aspx

Arkansas is the 9th most conservative state out of 50: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...conservative-1


All that means that it is illogical and not rational to believe there is a state or county-level anti-Tea party, anti-homeschooler, pro-tax or anti-religious conspiracy afoot to harm this particular family. It simply makes zero sense. None at all. It makes zero sense that an independent sheriff elected by tea partiers, would go after one of his constituents in this way. Nah.

 

[daisytrail]

I see that fundamentalism has been touched on in this thread. Here is a Wikipedia link that explains what fundamentalism actually is and it is not a religion per se, but rather an approach to theology/doctrine/text. It does not only apply to Christianity but many, many different religions. Therefore, a critique of fundamentalism is certainly not the same thing as an attack upon religion, as some would like to claim. I suspect that the same people who might get upset about a discussion of fundamentalism in this thread, would not have any problem at all with a discussion of Islamic fundamentalism or Buddhist fundamentalism.

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

To elaborate a bit, among Christians, the Mormon church has its fundamentalist off-shoot, FLDS, and the traditional Church of Latter Day Saints is not pleased at all. I have observed that many Christian churches advertised as non-denominational are actually quite fundamentalist, as are the Independent Bible Baptists.

In short, fundamentalism can be an approach to belief or an approach to text.

Liberal Christianity does not describe a political stance at all but rather an approach to biblical scripture that is not literal.

To me, a connection with a certain political view/party rather negates the purity of belief, but that is just my particular opinion and I do not mean it in any pejorative way.

What words actually mean can change over time and the word fundamentalism is now used often merely as a descriptor and not as an insult.

 

[wenwe4]

Purely from the son's statements, HS sermon re: loving rod of guidance/beat or hell, and the videotapes of the parents - I can only imagine what it might be like to be a child growing up in this household.

What happens if a child has a bad day? What happens if you are crabby, or not feeling well, or wanting to play outside when you can't, or daydreaming? What happens if you cry or are hurt? What happens if you get in trouble or have a fight with your sibling? Who do you talk to when your heart is heavy or you are fearful?

Do you get comfort (or sermons) from your parents? Do you speak up for yourself? Do you dare? Can you write down something you are thinking about and not be challenged/in trouble for thinking outside of the box?

Are you happy? What would make you more happy? What do you like best about your life? What do you not like so much? What would be great if it could change? What should stay the same?

I think the older son who spoke out would have much to say that would be so enlightening for the parents to hear - if he could be recorded and the parents watched the playback so he could freely speak. I believe him when he said it was better to remove the children until the case is fully investigated. He did not minimize the children's experience in any way (which these parents have continually done IMO).

 

[daisytrail]

Purely from the son's statements, HS sermon re: loving rod of guidance/beat or hell, and the videotapes of the parents - I can only imagine what it might be like to be a child growing up in this household.

What happens if a child has a bad day? What happens if you are crabby, or not feeling well, or wanting to play outside when you can't, or daydreaming? What happens if you cry or are hurt? What happens if you get in trouble or have a fight with your sibling? Who do you talk to when your heart is heavy or you are fearful?

Do you get comfort (or sermons) from your parents? Do you speak up for yourself? Do you dare? Can you write down something you are thinking about and not be challenged/in trouble for thinking outside of the box?

Are you happy? What would make you more happy? What do you like best about your life? What do you not like so much? What would be great if it could change? What should stay the same?

I think the older son who spoke out would have much to say that would be so enlightening for the parents to hear - if he could be recorded and the parents watched the playback so he could freely speak. I believe him when he said it was better to remove the children until the case is fully investigated. He did not minimize the children's experience in any way (which these parents have continually done IMO).

This is such a wonderful post! It is clear that you have great insight into the lives of children. To me, the most horrible thing a parent can do to a child (besides sexual manipulation/molestation) is to deny that child an interior life and the right to be non-perfect or just plain human. To expect perfect adherence to any doctrine in a form of tyranny. To expect perfect anything is pretty awful, as children, in order to develop emotionally, have to be allowed the option of failure, of falling short without being subjected to punishment that destroys that child's individuality, including the usual normal personality quirks of all human being. Rigidity and conformity actually create stupid people, who are afraid to really think. Thinking and thinking for oneself have to go together, or what actually occurs in the mind is a lot of knee-jerk nonsense and not thinking at all.

 

[human]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-lives-annually-why-is-this-still-happening/


http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...being-raped-the-burden-of-women-under-sharia/

Yup. OK under their religions which of course are protected in the US.

So if we have freedom to practice religion or not , of choice, does that mean we get to support those aspects? And do we get to support female genital mutilation?

Of course it would be absurd to allow those thngs just as it is absurd to allow somethings such as child abuse if your religion says it is Ok.

 

[IAMME]

Only if they could show extreme bias or inability to do their jobs. I've never personally seen what we call "minor's counsel" removed from a case against their will



Seriously? Come on. Arkansas ranks among the top ten most conservative states in the nation. I've cited as to that fact and the politics of pretty much all the leaders in the state. Come on.

Here's what I posted before about Arkansas, its politics and any relation to this case:

Arkansas is a solidly red state: http://www.politico.com/2014-electio.../#.VMGLEy7qO30


The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general, state auditor, state treasurer, state land commissioner, are all Republicans. Garland County is a strong tea party county and there is no way the independent, tea party supported sheriff would have it in for a tea party family. http://www.washingtoncountyteaparty.com/?q=node/135


That makes zero sense. It is totally illogical. You do realize these people have to be elected in those areas? You think they are going to go after the people who elected them?


As to Bill Clinton, he was from Arkansas, so of course he got a lot of support from that state. And the majority of voters are Democrats? Nope.


The Democratic party used to be big in the south as it was, before the mid-1960's socially conservative shift. Remnants of Dixiecrats hung on for some time. Eventually, there was a shift with formerly Republican black voters in the south changing to Democrat and formerly white voters in the region changing to Republican. But there is still a core of conservative Democrats in the south.


Today, about 30% of voters identify as Democrats in Arkansas but 37% identify as Independent (and please don't tell me they are socialists), and 24% as Republicans. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/2...s-numbers.html

What that means is that 61% are not Democrats. Of those that are, most are conservative Democrats:

"Arkansas has been a reliably red state in each of the last four presidential elections. But this predictability in presidential elections belies the seismic political shift in the Razorback State over the past four years. Federal and state offices once dominated by Democrats are now filled with Republicans. Before the 2010 election, Democrats held five out of six federal offices -- both Senate and three of the four House seats -- and also controlled both chambers of the state legislature.
Despite the shifting political winds, Arkansas' underlying ideology remains unchanged; it has consistently been more conservative than the rest of the nation. In the first six months of 2014, 41% of Arkansans said they identify as conservative, five points higher than the national average. In 2008, when Pryor was re-elected with no serious opposition, Arkansans were more conservative than the U.S. by a six-point margin."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/176177/fe...t-midterm.aspx

Arkansas is the 9th most conservative state out of 50: http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...conservative-1


All that means that it is illogical and not rational to believe there is a state or county-level anti-Tea party, anti-homeschooler, pro-tax or anti-religious conspiracy afoot to harm this particular family. It simply makes zero sense. None at all. It makes zero sense that an independent sheriff elected by tea partiers, would go after one of his constituents in this way. Nah.

Thank you for all those links! This is what I've been trying to say, i realize that the rest of the country may look at these beliefs and think them "backwards" (there are certainly enough jokes made about arkansas and the south in general to make you think that) but they are not considered that here, and certainly wouldn't be locally persecuted, where the LEOs, prosecutors, judges, DHS workers etc will more likely than not share the same beliefs... And who definately represent a majority who does. It would be political suicide.

 

[human]

It is about the children. Not the parents. The parents want it to be about them. They want to be martyrs who are being persecuted. This is a dream come true for them.

A big spotlight on them! Cool

 

[IAMME]

So if the GAL is stating that the older children have reason not to want to go back to the home and that the younger children want to return but the GAL doesn't believe it would be in their best interests based on the older childrens assertions, would that be a conflict of interest? I have a feeling that something like that may be the issue here, the younger children want what they have known and may not realize that that may not actually be in their best interests, and the parents are pouncing on this division in their children's wishes... JMO

 

[wenwe4]

There seems to be some sort of "disconnect" (for lack of a better word) between the parents vs. the pre-teen, teen, and adult children. The parents do not have the "fear" of the younger children talking to DHS but I think that comes from their lack of understanding of child developmental milestones for 2 reasons.

1) Developmentally speaking, the very ages that adolescents begin to understand that their parents are just humans with flaws and not idolized as they once were for their "parental awesomeness". These are the ages they start making their own decisions about what they like and how that differs from their parents sometimes. What they think might be different from what they have been taught and the "obey or chose beatings or hell" rigidity in parenting is not really conducive to healthy relationships and has signficant consequences in the longterm. (IMO)

2) The younger children will probably tell more information than the older children about any safety threats in the home through their their play and non-verbal communication. Not to mention their answers to open ended questions, their growth and development, behaviors in a variety of settings - including during parental interaction.

I am really curious about their visits. Is the time spent playing with the children and focusing on enjoying their limited time together? Or is it primarily a congregation gathering for a hell/fire/damnation sermon the entire time? Even if the 30 minute sermon is kept during the visits, are they guilt laden? If they don't have to focus on school or homework during the visits - what do the parents do with the time with the kids? Do the parents know how to play, interact, engage with all ages for fun?

 

[gitana1]

So if the GAL is stating that the older children have reason not to want to go back to the home and that the younger children want to return but the GAL doesn't believe it would be in their best interests based on the older childrens assertions, would that be a conflict of interest? I have a feeling that something like that may be the issue here, the younger children want what they have known and may not realize that that may not actually be in their best interests, and the parents are pouncing on this division in their children's wishes... JMO

It would definitely not be a conflict of interest. The children's attorney is there not to communicate what he kids want but to determine their best interests. Of course when their best interests are backed by their desires and what they state, that information will be communicated to the court as a support for the attorney's position. But a child's desires that do NOT support the attorney's position will also be communicated. However, if the attorney feels they are not inline with the child's best interest, then the child's statements will be framed that way.

The general rule when it comes to kids' wishes and whether they are going to be considered is the age and maturity of the child - how they do in school, do they get into trouble at school or in the community, are they old enough to know the difference between right and wrong and fact and fiction - and the reasonableness of the desire and whether it is based on logic or not.

So, for example, a 15 year old who has D's and F's and skips school, and wants to live with a parent who lets them run wild, who maybe has drug problems, will not be taken seriously, while a 10 year old who does well in school, and wants to live with a parent who gives them a sense of comfort and safety, will be taken seriously.

It is the child's attorney's job to determine all of that, for the most part.

If a GAL has a client who is desperate to return home to a parent, for example, who has serious drug problems and a history of dangerous irresponsibility and/or abuse when it comes to the child, but who has been promised that "things will change" and given much longed for expression of love from the parent, the GAL may not side with what the child wants when communicating what he or she feels is the child's best interest.

No conflict at all. Even if a GAL has sibling sets of clients who want or state different things. The picture as a whole will be determined based on everything the GAL learns.

 

[wenwe4]

So if the GAL is stating that the older children have reason not to want to go back to the home and that the younger children want to return but the GAL doesn't believe it would be in their best interests based on the older childrens assertions, would that be a conflict of interest? I have a feeling that something like that may be the issue here, the younger children want what they have known and may not realize that that may not actually be in their best interests, and the parents are pouncing on this division in their children's wishes... JMO

IANAL (hopefully Gitana can speak to this) but I believe the GAL would say exactly what you laid out to the court. Here is what the older kids want - the younger ones want, here is what I think and here is why. The GAL can offer suggestions or recommendations to help (ie: therapy, parenting assistance, psych evals) sort things out, offer assistance, set boundaries, develop safety plans, etc. The goal is always working toward reuniting the family but the outcome depends upon the parents willingness to change enough to ensure all the children are safe in the home.

CPS has been very clear with this family on where the boundaries have been crossed - it's been 2 months. It is not a secret where the State has concerns for the behaviors of the parents based upon the evidence and ongoing parental progress (or lack thereof) toward outlined goals.

The clock has been ticking the entire time as parents have 12 months to get their act together or face termination of parental rights. Ten months left to go - can Hal and Michelle do it? Time will tell.