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

[Margo/Mom]

So here's something that has been in the back of my mind since I read all the comments about the "ill fitting" clothes and worn out shoes the children were seen wearing during visitation, according to MS.

They look fine to me in the pics posted, but what do I know?! I do notice that the older girl is wearing jeans in the most recent visitation pic posted on FB, and in every other family pic, all the girls wear long skirts. Strangely, there is no criticism of the older girl wearing jeans, either by her choice, or because that's all that is available to her. In a lot of fundamentalist families, girls and women always wear long skirts.

Anyway, is there something that prohibits the parents from bringing the children's OWN clothing and shoes from home to the social workers? It's not like the home was declared a superfund site, or something! Why couldn't they pack up a few changes of the children's clothes & shoes to be given to them? (Searched first by the social workers, I suppose.)

I understand why authorities would not allow them to help the kids pack the night they were removed, but it's been weeks, and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to accommodate and encourage. Maybe not tons of outfits, as space might be limited at the foster home, but a few changes of favorite clothes? Might help the kids feel more secure, and help the parents to do something positive for the kids direct benefit. Maybe a favorite blanket or toy, too, for the younger ones.

Does anyone know why they might not be allowed to do this? Or maybe they haven't asked, or the option hasn't been extended to them. Or maybe the kids don't want their clothes from home?

It just seems like a very odd thing to complain about, as in the hair braiding/ fixing. One would think the older girls would be very able to help the younger ones with favorite hairstyles, if the kids wanted their hair braided, etc. Wouldn't MS be allowed to braid the girls' hair during supervised visits, if they wanted? There is no prohibition against contact during the visits, apparently, from the posted pics--hugging, lap sitting, etc.

(Or is it all just more things to complain about with the foster care placement? IDK.)

I had similar thoughts. I think it is to be expected in such cases that there is a sense of competition with the foster family.

 

[K_Z]

How does emancipation work when the child is not able to be independent financially? Can a child be "emancipated" but have the state take care of them like a foster child?

No, I don't think so. But after some nebulous point of financial independence and emancipation, I suppose they might be eligible for social welfare benefits, just as any adult citizen would be.

IANAL, but here are a few references for Arkansas. Perhaps gitana1 will stop by and add to this part of the discussion.

http://www.arlegalservices.org/files/FSEmancipation.pdf

This reference says age 17, with parental and court consent. Another reference says age 16.

Do I need my parents' consent to
get emancipated?

If you are under 18 years old, you are considered a
minor. Minors need parental consent and a judge's
consent to get married. Minors also need their parents'
consent to join the military. To be emancipated by a
judge, a minor must give his/her parents notice of the
court hearing, and the parents may go to court to contest
the emancipation.

Do I have other choices?

Yes. If you don't want to live with your parents, you can:

• Get counseling or mediation,
• Go to live with another adult (like an aunt, uncle,
grandparent, or family friend),
• Get help from public or private agencies, or
• Make an agreement with your parents to live
somewhere else.

http://minors.uslegal.com/emancipation/arkansas-emancipation-of-minor-law/

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2007/10/17/arkansas-emancipation/

http://whlawoffices.com/emancipation-arkansas/

In the second instance, anyone over 16 can petition a court to “remove their disability”—basically, make them able to enter contracts just like an adult. Interestingly, this option (codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-26-104) does not require parental consent, although the parent(s) must have notice.

 

[LinasK]

How does emancipation work when the child is not able to be independent financially? Can a child be "emancipated" but have the state take care of them like a foster child?

We have a niece who got legally emancipated at age 16. She went to work and got a job. You can do that at age 16.

 

[jnblsm]

So here's something that has been in the back of my mind since I read all the comments about the "ill fitting" clothes and worn out shoes the children were seen wearing during visitation, according to MS.

They look fine to me in the pics posted, but what do I know?! I do notice that the older girl is wearing jeans in the most recent visitation pic posted on FB, and in every other family pic, all the girls wear long skirts. Strangely, there is no criticism of the older girl wearing jeans, either by her choice, or because that's all that is available to her. In a lot of fundamentalist families, girls and women always wear long skirts.

Anyway, is there something that prohibits the parents from bringing the children's OWN clothing and shoes from home to the social workers? It's not like the home was declared a superfund site, or something! Why couldn't they pack up a few changes of the children's clothes & shoes to be given to them? (Searched first by the social workers, I suppose.)

I understand why authorities would not allow them to help the kids pack the night they were removed, but it's been weeks, and that seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to accommodate and encourage. Maybe not tons of outfits, as space might be limited at the foster home, but a few changes of favorite clothes? Might help the kids feel more secure, and help the parents to do something positive for the kids direct benefit. Maybe a favorite blanket or toy, too, for the younger ones.

Does anyone know why they might not be allowed to do this? Or maybe they haven't asked, or the option hasn't been extended to them. Or maybe the kids don't want their clothes from home?

It just seems like a very odd thing to complain about, as in the hair braiding/ fixing. One would think the older girls would be very able to help the younger ones with favorite hairstyles, if the kids wanted their hair braided, etc. Wouldn't MS be allowed to braid the girls' hair during supervised visits, if they wanted? There is no prohibition against contact during the visits, apparently, from the posted pics--hugging, lap sitting, etc.

(Or is it all just more things to complain about with the foster care placement? IDK.)

I do remember seeing a picture of the family before the kids were taken (by the white fence), and the oldest girl was wearing jeans.

Then, in another pic where they're on visitation, it looked like another girl also had jeans on.

I don't know how to link from my phone!

 

[stormshine]

Eh, it's just a random poster making stupid comments. The clothes probably belong to the kids. I remember on a facebook site for the Diegel kids, everyone was commenting about how terribly unhappy one of the girls looked in a photo that was reposted. Of course nobody corrected them that it was an old photo from a year before the children were removed.

 

[gitana1]

Eh, it's just a random poster making stupid comments. The clothes probably belong to the kids. I remember on a facebook site for the Diegel kids, everyone was commenting about how terribly unhappy one of the girls looked in a photo that was reposted. Of course nobody corrected them that it was an old photo from a year before the children were removed.

Just curious how you know the photo was from an earlier date?

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Temps were in the 30's earlier this week. My kids went to the mailbox- bare feet and without coats. Running and giggling about how cold the ground was.

I hope this gets sorted out so this family can be reunited soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stormshine]

Just curious how you know the photo was from an earlier date?

Because that same facebook page had posted it earlier and said that it was from before she was taken away. When they reposted it they never claimed it was new, but many just assumed because she looked sad in the photo.

 

[gitana1]

Temps were in the 30's earlier this week. My kids went to the mailbox- bare feet and without coats. Running and giggling about how cold the ground was.

I hope this gets sorted out so this family can be reunited soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clearly not the scenario here.

 

[gitana1]

Because that same facebook page had posted it earlier and said that it was from before she was taken away. When they reposted it they never claimed it was new, but many just assumed because she looked sad in the photo.

Off topic, I looked and saw it posted previously but nothing saying it was from before. Photos taken in the same outfit, same backdrop either have no caption or indicate it was taken "after" and discuss weight loss.

But the mom in that case seems vested in and enamored with medical problems. Total Munchausen case to me.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Clearly not the scenario here.

Yet there's nothing clear about the scenario regarding this case. moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CathyinTexas]

Here is an interview with Hal Stanley from yesterday. I hope all will listen to it in its entirety before commenting. Regardless if those in authority thought the raid justified, the way these parents and children were treated are beyond cruel.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...l-interview-with-hal-stanley-february-19-2015

 

[Margo/Mom]

Here is an interview with Hal Stanley from yesterday. I hope all will listen to it in its entirety before commenting. Regardless if those in authority thought the raid justified, the way these parents and children were treated are beyond cruel.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...l-interview-with-hal-stanley-february-19-2015

Cathy--I will be happy to listen when I get a chance (clicked on it and got a very long piece of intro music), but you need to be aware of a couple of things. One is that due to privacy laws that prevent public agencies from disclosing family/children's business (such as FERPA and HIPAA), the flow of information has been totally in control of the family. Several FB pages supportive of the family block and remove any discussion/facts that do not support the view that they espouse. Magellan has one such site. Another site used a stock picture pulled from the internet of armed police with guns drawn at the door of a house. This was not the Stanley home (pictures that the Stanleys/supporters themselves posted show that nothing of the sort happened), nor is there any indication of such a guns drawn approach.

Now--I will ask that you listen to some of Hal's previously posted sermons (given in his home to his children) in which he espouses not only an extreme patriarchal view of family (claiming this to be "Biblical") but also the claim of a Biblical mandate for fathers to "chasten" their children with a rod. Also look up a Facebook page called PrayersfortheStanleyChildren, which provides a different viewpoint and invites discussion. Then take a look into some sites like Homeschoolers Anonymous and No Longer Quivering, where adults who were raised in similar households share their stories of abuse. Look into the story of Bill Gothard--an advocate of the same kind of discipline that Hal Stanley espouses, as well as some of the children who have died in such households from abuse.

Then consider that Hal Stanley appears to be someone deeply devoted to his, and only his, own version of truth and reality. And think about whether you are willing to accept as Gospel anything that he says.

 

[K_Z]

Interesting interview with Hal Stanley.

Although the court awarded the Stanleys limited three-hour liberal visitation rights every week, the parents are censored in what they can discuss with their children and are not allowed to pray with them during visiting hours.

BBM.

"My right to train my children in the way they should go has been taken away. I can't teach them the Bible. I can't pray with them. I can't do the things that God demands," Stanley argued. "They came in one fell swoop and took Christianity out of the lives my children."

When the Stanleys meet with their children, the meetings are supervised by officials who monitor everything they do and discuss. Stanley explained that one of their visits was cut short because of something he said.

BBM-- this was also discussed in a post upthread from another interview.

Stanley also disclosed that he thinks two of his older children, who have already gone on to college, could be behind the investigation because they always expressed interest in going to public school.

"We have a couple of our teenagers who decided they wanted to go to public school," Stanley contends. "I think they are behind some of this, but we are trying to get to the bottom of it ourselves."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/7...eyre-victims-of-christian-persecution-134335/

 

[BeginnersLuck]

It sounds like there are children that have grown and moved out of the home and children that are teens in the home calling the parents out. Maybe..just maybe...they want to save the younger ones from the negative impact that they experienced in that environment.

I am disgusted that so many are minimizing the impact that this has on the children, both young and old, in this home.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

The first red flag that stood up for me was these parents screamed persecution because of "religion" "home schooling" "medicine" etc. If I was a parent and did no wrong..I wouldn't have to scream about anything. Many people home school, many people are religious, many people eat healthy. Why do they think they they are so special that they are "targeted"? Please....

 

[Yoda]

From the same article

"Now they are being taught the world standards. We have homeschooled them. Now, they are being forced into public school. My children are not properly dressed. They are not properly prepared," he added. "My children are being abused as we speak by the public school system. Everything we have built for 22 years has been taken away."

What I bolded concerns me. This seems like a very odd thing to say when discussing the welfare of your children. Jmo

 

[K_Z]

The first red flag that stood up for me was these parents screamed persecution because of "religion" "home schooling" "medicine" etc. If I was a parent and did no wrong..I wouldn't have to scream about anything. Many people home school, many people are religious, many people eat healthy. Why do they think they they are so special that they are "targeted"? Please....

Paranoia is part and parcel of many insular religious groups. Some teach and believe that the "more isolated and different" they are from "the world", the closer they are to following the perfect path and lifestyle prescribed by their religion, and that they will be tested and persecuted for adhering to this isolated and different lifestyle. It is often given as an example of a test of faith.

HS, IMO, clearly believes that he has the one and only "right" answer for how children should be brought forth and raised. If anyone disagrees with his interpretation, then they are wrong, and persecuting him for his beliefs. He rejects anything else other than things consistent with his personal interpretation. He preaches separatism.

He is revealing in his interviews that his older children have embraced a much different path in life, more engagement and involvement with the rest of society beyond their insular group of like minded homeschool/ homechurch friends. And he appears to be hurt, confused, frustrated, and angry about that, from his interviews. Perhaps he feels his own eternal situation is at risk if he can't "do" what he feels is his religious imperative-- or that he somehow "failed" as leader. IDK. He seems to feel children are almost possessions, rather than beings with independent thoughts and aspirations that will become adults. IMO.

 

[Donjeta]

Interesting interview with Hal Stanley.

Although the court awarded the Stanleys limited three-hour liberal visitation rights every week, the parents are censored in what they can discuss with their children and are not allowed to pray with them during visiting hours.

BBM.

JMO but I doubt the children have been forbidden to pray.

The parents praying with the children could sometimes be a tool for more emotional abuse, guilt tripping the kids for asking for help and reporting abuse or simply for enjoying their new friends and learning things at the school, trying to skirt around the forbidden topics to pressure the kids to a point of view or saying certain things, or otherwise sabotaging what the foster care people are trying to achieve.

"... please forgive our son who was tempted to lie by the devil who says I abuse him when I disciplined him for his own good... please deliver him from sin, he's saying he likes the new ungodly school... please save him from the evils of [insert list of religious insults directed at people who are trying to help]...

 

[Margo/Mom]

The first red flag that stood up for me was these parents screamed persecution because of "religion" "home schooling" "medicine" etc. If I was a parent and did no wrong..I wouldn't have to scream about anything. Many people home school, many people are religious, many people eat healthy. Why do they think they they are so special that they are "targeted"? Please....

I agree that there has been a good bit of smoke being blown by the family. Hard to get down to the basic case that this is not about Christianity, home schooling or MMS. It may involve some medical neglect (or possibly educational neglect), but as I understand it the charge against the family is abuse--which could be psychological or physical, or both. Judging by Stanley's published sermons, it is almost certain that physical abuse is involved--which is where the testimony of the older children, who have actually seen and experienced what goes on within the household will be important.

It is interesting that the Home School Legal Defense Association--which is by no means a moderate organization--has chosen to take a step back from blindly supporting every home-school family/organization that cries discrimination when confronted with charges of abuse. In truth, they have been burned several times (including recently in the case of the Twelve Tribes in Germany) by giving blind allegiance in cases where home schooling was being used as a shield to cover physical abuse. Quiverful groups (the Duggar family group) have also found themselves embarrassed by cases like the one of Bill Gothard. I will say that HSLDA, to its credit, has attempted to clarify not only that their larger mission of defending home schoolers is endangered by supporting such abuse-in-hiding, but also to define how the specific beliefs of legalism and patriarchalism are not only harmful, but not supported Biblically.

http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/V30N2/V30N202.asp