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

[wenwe4]

What do the Stanley's consider to be "appropriate" consequences/punishment/guidance for the children for lying? What level of severity is needed to correct the child(ren) for "lying" to your "parents"? Would that be 2 infractions? How severe must the "beating" be for each child? Would the 4 y/o receive the same treatment as the 16 y/o? If severity of the beating is solely done "out of love" to "save them from hell" then I would suspect a big event would have to happen - after all, we are talking about eternity here.

IIRC the woman that drown her 5 children was trying to save them from evil and send them to heaven (Andrea Yates?) during a psychotic break. I have some level of empathy for her - she was not able to decipher right from wrong at that moment. Many people mourned that they had not done more to intervene on behalf of the children before it was too late.

The Stanley's will have their day in court.

ETA: I believe the parents are a flight risk if the children are returned before the parents make some significant changes in their mindset and their behaviors.

 

[CathyinTexas]

I have never met a kid with family issues who DIDN'T think that they were at fault in some way. If I were better then Daddy wouldn't drink, or Mommy wouldn't yell. Even kids who are sexually abused carry a tremendous amount of guilt that they didn't stop it from happening. This is very useful to abusers, by the way.

I didn't mean it is the children's fault. From what the older son said in his video and things we have read about the teenagers (parents alluded to it) they may not have realized the extent educating their parents in raising their children would take. There is other ways to go about this. There is FBSS (in Texas) where the children live in the home under the supervision of the state while the family accept services and follow all mandates. Here, everyone seems certain that the children were in danger and it was justified to go in armed with weapons to take them.

 

[CathyinTexas]

I've seen the video and there certainly are no signs of abuse there. Seems like a happy, loving family. But surely you know that 1.4 minutes captured on camera when people know they're being filmed, out of over 2,628,000 minutes, at a time occurring over five years ago, is not evidence that no abuse or neglect has occurred or is occurring.

I agree with that. It is most likely that if it comes to light that the children were truly physically abused many of their supporters will change their opinion. If these children were or are in danger of their parents, I certainly will. The state could have come in and told them they would have to agree to a temporary safety plan but the children remain in the home. These children had no warning they would be literally ripped from their parents and put in foster care. The tactics used in this case were overreach as some have suggested because there are others ways less traumatic to the children that can be used.

 

[wenwe4]

I didn't mean it is the children's fault. From what the older son said in his video and things we have read about the teenagers (parents alluded to it) they may not have realized the extent educating their parents in raising their children would take. There is other ways to go about this. There is FBSS (in Texas) where the children live in the home under the supervision of the state while the family accept services and follow all mandates. Here, everyone seems certain that the children were in danger and it was justified to go in armed with weapons to take them.

I agree there are so many other ways to go about this and the State has many options with parents. The key to the whole matter is if the parents are willing to "accept services and follow all mandates". The kids confirmed the parents would probably flee and furthered that the van was already packed (for camping) so it would not take long to leave the area. You can't have ongoing services with the family if they leave the area and/or unwilling parents. There is nothing to believe that things will change in the near future, without intervention (based upon the parents own statements).

What you are referring to is a lesser restrictive level of care - which the Stanley's can attain if they put their mind to it and do what the court has asked of them. I believe that the things that have happened in this case have been in response to the parents actions, words, behaviors, deeds, and progress toward outlined goals vs. risks of harm to the children.

 

[gitana1]

"Hitting" implies multiple strikes. You are blowing a single slap out of proportion. I don't believe this case involves multiple slaps or hits of any of the children. The oldest Stanley son certainly doesn't seem to be short of wonderful himself.

JMO

In his sermon, the dad describes administering corporal punishment to a child whose rear end is burning and who is screaming thinking they are going to die. But he states the parent "must continue". I don't believe such a scenario could ever imply one slap.

Who knows.

But intelligence sure is a big deal. An intelligent child can see when things are not OK.

They have reasoning abilites.

And intelligence for the male comes through the mother, so maybe the mother was just beaten down over time.

Thats no beaten down mother. She is even more fervent than her husband if you ask me. Comes out as possibly personality disordered in some of her rants.

Things don't have have to be black and white. Sometimes abuse actually begins in families where there was none to begin with.

I agree with that. It is most likely that if it comes to light that the children were truly physically abused many of their supporters will change their opinion. If these children were or are in danger of their parents, I certainly will. The state could have come in and told them they would have to agree to a temporary safety plan but the children remain in the home. These children had no warning they would be literally ripped from their parents and put in foster care. The tactics used in this case were overreach as some have suggested because there are others ways less traumatic to the children that can be used.

From all reports the process they used to remove the children is no different than any other anywhere across the nation. They had an allegation, went in to investigate and after doing so, removed the kids. I was actually quick to second guess DHS at first in this case because we all know how they can make mistakes at times. But the facts that we do know, including that it was not solely about MMS, but a variety of issues, that various allegations by others were involved, that not one but two agencies believed the children needed to be removed, that a judge signed the ex parte application for removal, that a judge at a probable cause hearing found cause to keep the kids in care, the parents own statements and photos of the removal belying the parents claims that LE stormed the house with guns drawn (a total bald-faced lie. Instead they calmly knocked and asked the parents to come outside), the changing stories of the parents, and the cautious support by their adult son of the removal, caused me to rapidly change my mind.

 

[Morag]

What a movie that would have made, 9 people in a camping van, fleeing the state, trying to pass unnoticed. I'm seeing Billy Bob Thornton (who was actually born in Hot Springs ) as the father, and Reese Witherspoon* as the mother. Or maybe Brad and Angie and their kids as the whole family?



*only because Sally Field is too old for the part

 

[Margo/Mom]

I agree with that. It is most likely that if it comes to light that the children were truly physically abused many of their supporters will change their opinion. If these children were or are in danger of their parents, I certainly will. The state could have come in and told them they would have to agree to a temporary safety plan but the children remain in the home. These children had no warning they would be literally ripped from their parents and put in foster care. The tactics used in this case were overreach as some have suggested because there are others ways less traumatic to the children that can be used.

I believe that what precluded that was the supported belief that the parents were poised to flee with the children if given the opportunity. And certainly the ongoing statements that have been made by the Stanleys are far from supportive of the belief that they are willing to cooperate with any sort of safety plan.

Someone I was reading recently in connection with another case characterized those who abuse on religious grounds as being something of a diffferent animal. In other words, they are likely not well-described by the term "dysfunctional," as vague as that term is. They tend to be loving, involved and have every wish for their children to be well and appropriately cared for. They have however (and the particular discussion I was reading had to do with the medical neglect associated with faith healing), a tremendous blind-spot when it comes to those particulars.

I suspect that this is the reality of the Stanleys. Frankly, there are quarters where they might well be regarded as extremist whackaloons--and I have seen very little of that on this particular thread. Rather there has been a willingness to set aside the extremes of life choices (home-births, forgoing both medical care and contraception, home-schooling, living to a great degree "off-the-grid," preparing for an imminent end to the world as we know it) and focus in on the specifics of abuse/neglect as defined by law.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I didn't mean it is the children's fault. From what the older son said in his video and things we have read about the teenagers (parents alluded to it) they may not have realized the extent educating their parents in raising their children would take. There is other ways to go about this. There is FBSS (in Texas) where the children live in the home under the supervision of the state while the family accept services and follow all mandates. Here, everyone seems certain that the children were in danger and it was justified to go in armed with weapons to take them.

I have always thought that moving someone into certain families would be preferable to moving children out--albeit and expensive choice. I'm glad to hear that someone is actually doing it.

However, the stories of armed removal are clearly overstated. Many have referred to things like "weapons drawn" and SWAT teams. The pictures that the Stanleys have provided reveal a Sheriff (yes, he had a weapon, not unholstered) and a couple of other people in the house. I would suggest that the LE presence was necessary due to the investigation, and I would imagine also the possibility that the family might have weapons--not a far reach given their life-style. They also provided transportation it would seem, as some of the children are pictured getting into a police car.

 

[human]

And what would people be saying if this family killed the children to save them from the evil whatever as so many people have done?

 

[MyBelle]

Whether guns were drawn or not, the mere presence of police in the forced removal of the children and subjecting the children to a medical exam is going to traumatize them.

The county will pay $1.1 million to a family whose children were subjected to invasive medical exams at the Polinsky Children’s Center, exams that a federal judge in September ruled were unconstitutional.

The settlement with the family of Steven and Joanna Swartwood of San Diego also includes major changes to the county’s policies for giving the exams.

The lawsuit claimed that the exams were not only unnecessary but also violated the Swartwood’s rights against illegal searches and due process.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/12/county-to-pay-11-million-over-intrusive-exams/

 

[gitana1]

Whether guns were drawn or not, the mere presence of police in the forced removal of the children and subjecting the children to a medical exam is going to traumatize them.

The county will pay $1.1 million to a family whose children were subjected to invasive medical exams at the Polinsky Children’s Center, exams that a federal judge in September ruled were unconstitutional.

The settlement with the family of Steven and Joanna Swartwood of San Diego also includes major changes to the county’s policies for giving the exams.

The lawsuit claimed that the exams were not only unnecessary but also violated the Swartwood’s rights against illegal searches and due process.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/12/county-to-pay-11-million-over-intrusive-exams/

I'm glad that family sued and won a settlement. There is another horrible case here in CA where a newborn was subjected to torture really, repeated attempts to insert a catheter so they could prove the newborn was exposed to drugs (she wasn't). I hope that mom sues as well.

There have been zero reports of anything of the kind in this case. No invasive exams of any kind have been reported. In the case you cite, there was evidence of physical injury, yet the doctor who reported it had no reason to believe the parents did it. The children were removed from the home, taken to a center and given invasive exams including skeletal exams, drug tests and had their genitals and anuses examined. For no reason.

Not the case here.

Here the kids were reportedly looked over in a van. On site. At their home.

And sometimes medical exams are necessary. I don't think regular, non-invasive exams are "traumatizing".

 

[bessie]

Continue at Thread #2


Thanks.