Stanley family - Fundies have children removed

[FJismyheadship]

Dear friends, I feel the need to remind you all once again that this page was created for those who wish to offer words of prayer and support to the Stanley family and to keep everyone up to date.

We are not here to debate religion, or political stands. This is not a place to talk about gross, abuse of any kind or to suggest this is the case here, because it is not the case, the Stanleys have not been accused of any such thing, and the children all have been given a clean bill of health, Anyone who even suggest such things will be delted.

I understand you all have thoughts and views however unless you personally know this family and are involved with their lives please remember your views are speculation, and this is not the forum to for that. We are here to encourage and support this family during this very trying time.

To answer the question where are the children:

The children are in a undisclosed place, in state care. The parents have been able to see them.

We are thankful for everyone, and know you are waiting for answers, when the time is right they will be given. For now join us as we wait and pray. If you have a word of encouragement please share. Let the light of Christ shine even in the dark times.

Kristy

[nelliebelle1197]

Well, you wouldn't want to get delted.

[FJismyheadship]

I have been banned from commenting. My crime? Mentioning plumbing line. I did NOT say the Stanley's used it, I used it as an example of how someone can abuse a child without leaving bruises. I even had a disclaimer stating that I was not accusing the family.

Another person who I have been talking to about this case also mentioned being hit with plumbing line and the Pearls. She got banned too.

Apparently, you shouldn't even suggest the Pearls in any shape form or fashion lest you be banned.

[artdecades]

Am I the only one kinda creeped out by the fact that they are claiming that their son's agnosticism is the root of his opinions? Good parenting is good parenting. It shouldn't matter what your religious views are. Makes it that much more likely they are using "biblical" discipline with the kids.

Creepy, yes. Surprising, no.

Remember, this whole narrative is being shaped by the fact that they are claiming to be christians persecuted for their beliefs. So any comment that doesn't fit that narrative must be discredited. Despite the fact that the son's statement was not inflammatory and was pretty flattering, it did not fit that story.

[DGayle]

I understand you all have thoughts and views however unless you personally know this family and are involved with their lives please remember your views are speculation, and this is not the forum to for that.

Yet you're free to speculate all you want on how perfect the parents are.

[DGayle]

Creepy, yes. Surprising, no.

Remember, this whole narrative is being shaped by the fact that they are claiming to be christians persecuted for their beliefs. So any comment that doesn't fit that narrative must be discredited. Despite the fact that the son's statement was not inflammatory and was pretty flattering, it did not fit that story.

That son impressed me. You could tell he loves is parents, is trying to not cast blame, yet he is pragmatic enough to admit that there are areas of hardship.

And they're throwing him under the bus because they couldn't trap him in religion.

[FJismyheadship]

This quote by Paul Washer was sent to me today, thought I would share with you all since many of you already have expressed this in your own words.

"The church in America is going to suffer so terribly. And we laugh now but they will come after us, They will come after our children. They will close the net around us while we are playing soccer mom and soccer dad while we are arguing over so many little things and we are mesmerized by so many little trinkets. The net even now is closing around you and your children and your grandchildren. You will be isolated from society as is already happened. Anyone who tries to run for office who actually believes the Bible will be considered a lunatic until finally we are silenced. You'll go down as the greatest bigots haters of mankind in history. They've already come after your children and for most of you, they got them. They got them through the public schools and indoctrination in the universitys and then you wonder why they come out not serving the Lord. So little by little the net is closing around and then it's not so little by little. Look at how fast, in just a matter of weeks. But at the same time, know this, Persecution is always meant for evil. But God always means it for good. And is it not better to suffer in this life to have an extra weight of glory in Heaven. You must settle this in your mind, this is the one thing that I want to say over and over. Do not believe, down through history you have a wrong idea of martyrdom and persecution. You think that these men were persecuted and martyed for their sincere faith in Jesus Christ. That was the real reason. But no one heard that publicly. They were martyred and persecuted as enemys of the state. As child molesters, as bigots, as narrow minded stupid people who had fallen for a ruse and can contribute nothing to society. Your suffering will not be noble. So your mind must be filled with the Word of God when all people persecute you and turn on you. And if the Spirit of God and common Grace pulls back and you see even your children and your grandchildren tossing in the lot that you should die. This is no game. You want revival and awakening but know this, For the most part great awakenings have come only preceeding great national catastrophies of the persecution of the church. I believe God is bringing a great awakening but I believe He is raising up young men who are strong and trust in the Providence of God to be able to wade through the hell that is going to break lose on us. And it will be on us before we even recognize it. Unless, In Gods' providence He is not done. And NO, this is not silly talk. Apart from a great awakening, these things are going to come upon you. Be ready to lose your homes, your cars and everything."

Paul Washer

A comment:

Studies have shown that the trauma of removal & foster care is so tremendous that long-term outcomes prove that it is actually better for a child to remain even in a home with drug use and/or mild abuse than for the child to be removed into state custody.

We have to stop removing children without weighing the harm that removal itself does.

So let the child remain at home where there is abuse and/or neglect and/or drugs because that's less damaging than being taken away from home? I don't know, sometimes I think my life would have been better if I had been taken away from my dad.

[mrs]

Does it bother anyone else, the Facebook page seems to support the parents rather than the children? In my opinion the children should be the ones that take priority.

[browncoatslytherin]

Does it bother anyone else, the Facebook page seems to support the parents rather than the children? In my opinion the children should be the ones that take priority.

imo, the page exists to validate the parents and say that their parenting is okay.

[FJismyheadship]

She removed the Paul Washer post. She says because it was causing debate and strife when this is a support page.

[2xx1xy1JD]

A comment:

So let the child remain at home where there is abuse and/or neglect and/or drugs because that's less damaging than being taken away from home? I don't know, sometimes I think my life would have been better if I had been taken away from my dad.

I've had plenty of cases where there was no clear good solution.

At some points, of course, abuse/neglect/substance abuse can be so bad that there is simply no safe way to allow kids to remain in the home.

Many kids, though, will still love badly flawed parents, and see a bad home as better than no real home. I remember one really sad case where it looked like there was no way that a girl would be able to stay with her family - mom was institutionalized, dad had a drinking problem and had thrown a beer bottle at her head, grandparents simply didn't have the means to take her. She ended up attempting suicide.

There are cases where removal is the only safe option. We can't pretend that there's no downside, though. It is going to be harmful and traumatic. It's just a question of whether staying in the home would be even worse.

[Mama Mia]

A comment:

So let the child remain at home where there is abuse and/or neglect and/or drugs because that's less damaging than being taken away from home? I don't know, sometimes I think my life would have been better if I had been taken away from my dad.

Everything 2xx1xy1jd said.

It's a really, really complicated problem in general - and every single family situation is unique and complicated in its own way.

Unless the abuse/neglect/substance abuse/endangerment is causing really severe harm and damage it really is almost always better to leave the kids in the home and work with the family from there.

For a number of reasons :

--- removal, even temporary removal, is traumatizing - especially to young children.

----there aren't always good homes to place the children in, often they will be shuffled through several different placements, teens often end up in group homes. Some foster homes are wonderful, some are atrocious. -

--- the parents are going to get a better grasp on the skills they need if the kids are in the home. You can take a parenting class and learn all the techniques - but that's not the same as actually dealing with the day to day parenting issues and practicing new skills.

--- same with any other issue. It's how the parents act in " real life" that matters.

---Especially with substance abuse, removal can become an awful, awful revolving door. Crises happens, kids are removed. Court demands parents are clean and sober for x amount of time. Kids come home. Stress/life happens. Parents relapse. Try to hide every thing from any public agency. Descent into dangerous activities. Crises. Removal. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.Repeat.Repeat.

There is a definite movement towards the harm reduction approach for this reason. That's where instead of instead of insisting on 100% abstinence from drugs/alcohol the focus is on making the home and lifestyle safe , while encouraging movement towards sobriety.

--Mild abuse is often the easiest issue to deal with successfully ( note I said " minor") . It is relatively simple to get a parent who loses their temper, or one who believes in harsh punishments, to take parenting courses and learn new tools. Especially if it's combined with counseling and, best case, practical help to take some of the stress and burden off. The parent may still strongly believe that what they did before was appropriate -- as long as they don't continue to do it.

-- Neglect really varies, because it has different causes -- poverty, depression, chaos, substance abuse or just ignorance. If you address the root cause though, the families will often be fine. The main concern with neglect /endangerment is usually with toddlers and pre-schoolers because they need constant supervision. With school age and teens one thing that is often addressed is helping the older kids to be able to provide self-care.

And all of these are greatly complicated because there is often more than one issue and individual parents and children are going to have their own degrees of adaptability to these changes.

I know these sound kind of awful, but the idea isn't to make the parents perfect parents -- it's to make them " good enough" parents. Because it actually does beat the alternative as far as outcomes. And because high quality foster care is, of course, needed for some families it makes sense to reserve it for the children who are suffering the most.

Long term outcomes for kids in foster care are really, really awful. Extremely high rates of homelessness, incarceration etc. but to be fair, that is a complicated picture too. Because the kids coming from foster care already had whatever was going on at home shaping them. And you can't really separate out which is which. And, frankly, there's nothing stopping the parents taking back in their 18 year old who has aged out of foster care.

[Terrie]

I'm of mixed minds on how far you go before you remove. I think if parents aren't improving, the option to remove kids needs to be there, even for "mild" situations. A second cousin had a drug abuse issue. As a result her kids were exposed to some unsafe situations, especially as their mom got worse, not better. She got support from CPS, but her son was eventually removed and her daughter stayed with her. Of the two, her son is much better off. He was lucky enough to be in the same foster home until he aged out, while her daughter bounced among extended family members. The daughter now has a drug abuse issue, and two kids who bounce back and forth from their mom to foster care to relatives, around and around.

I think the main goal needs to be stability of some sort, be it foster care or family, when it comes to borderline cases. I admit this is based on pure anecdote, but I think it's one useful measure of balancing conflicting harms.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Mama Mia - totally agree.

I'd get frustrated by vicious cycles that I saw. Kids would be removed - sometimes for very valid reasons - and then the parents would start to fall apart. They'd lose their benefits, which would lead to loss of child-appropriate housing. They'd get depressed, which would lead to worse mental health and/or relapsing with the substance abuse. They'd lose the face-to-face parenting and bonding time with their kids which could actually make them better parents. The kids would start getting settled elsewhere. In borderline situations, it could tip the balance against reunification.

I became more cynical after working for an agency, because I realized that their job isn't really to advocate for the best interests of the child, in a global sense. Their job is to comply with the mandate set out by law, which basically means trying to make sure that kids don't die or get seriously harmed on their watch. If a worker had to choose between a supervision order or foster care in a borderline case, the supervision order could pose more risk for the worker and agency. If something were to happen, it would be on their heads. OTOH, if the child would be physically safe but feeling unloved and unstable, and eventually end up homeless after ageing out of the system, that wasn't their problem.

You are also right that the situation that got them removed in the first place plays a role in the outcomes for foster kids. We had several African teens in foster care at one point - their parents had arranged to send the kids here and claim refugee status, to protect them and give them a better life. These kids did remarkably well. They came from families that loved them (and yes, it takes love to sacrifice everything you have to give your kids a shot at a better, safer life). They didn't have the issues that most of the other teens in care had, and the foster parents really liked them.

[Toothfairy]

So some foster kids who I took in should stay with their parents who rape, molest, and abuse them. Wtf. Yes getting taken away from the only home you know is traumatic. But it's even more traumatic to stay in an abusive home. Kids need to feel love and be safe not be in an environment starving or getting taken advantage of

[Mama Mia]

So some foster kids who I took in should stay with their parents who rape, molest, and abuse them. Wtf. Yes getting taken away from the only home you know is traumatic. But it's even more traumatic to stay in an abusive home. Kids need to feel love and be safe not be in an environment starving or getting taken advantage of

NOBODY said that. Or anything remotely close to that.

People were talking specifically about mild cases, not when children are being raped, or starving. That's ridiculously inflammatory.

And while it's wonderful you are caring for foster children you are obviously aware that there is generally a lack of even enough foster homes, let alone great foster homes with dedicated foster parents who are in it for the long haul.

[FJismyheadship]

So on the fake Ashleigh blog, someone left a comment stating that the Stanley daughters should lie and claim their foster father molested them. Like that's gonna do any good.

[SoybeanQueen]

The lying about sexual abuse in foster care (or any other kind of abuse) would not help anything, but it is shockingly common. Sad, too, because there are cases where kids continue to be abused in foster care but the false reports are so common that people are probably skeptical.

One of the first things were were told as we started our training as foster parents was that we should expect to be accused of abuse. That it happens to nearly every foster parent eventually.

Some of it I understand, thinking about how I would feel if my children had been removed from my care. I doubt I'd be completely rational all the time. While I can't envision myself making a malicious report, I would probably find fault with the way someone else was raising my kids and might get pretty mad about it.

A stranger suggesting that the kids should make false reports, though... that's a whole other level of crazy that will only hurt their case in the end.

[mrs]

There is a new update from Michelle posted on the "Bring the Stanley Kids Home" Facebook page:

"We started our "social services" yesterday and yet again a ton of unbelievable answers to prayer. I hope we get to share it all with everyone someday to encourage others to believe in the power of prayer. Keep on praying. The Lord is so good to hear and answer. He is our refuge and strength. The kids are doing well and God is protected them with all the prayer that everyone is bathing them in. We are greatly honored and blessed for all the support."

(Source: facebook.com/bringthestanleykidshome)

What does "social services" mean? Parenting classes? I am happy that the kids are doing well.

ETA: Just curious, I know nothing about family court, but are they in violation of the gag order? Or is "social services" separate from the court issues?

[Johanna25]

They had an interesting item on the radio yesterday. There have been all kinds of studies that have shown that kids in the foster care system or who have been in foster care in the past do less well in school than other kids. This has caused a lot of criticism of the foster care system. There is a new study out that shows that kids who will be in foster care in the future also do less well in school (obviously a retrospective study). But that shows that it is not the foster care system that is causing their problems in school, since they haven't even been exposed to that yet, but other factors. These factors could include all the socio-economic things typical of foster kids as well as the family stresses that put them into foster care. The takeaway was that hard-working foster parents and others in the system who are trying to help these kids should not be blamed for the performance problems.

[gustava]

They had an interesting item on the radio yesterday. There have been all kinds of studies that have shown that kids in the foster care system or who have been in foster care in the past do less well in school than other kids. This has caused a lot of criticism of the foster care system. There is a new study out that shows that kids who will be in foster care in the future also do less well in school (obviously a retrospective study). But that shows that it is not the foster care system that is causing their problems in school, since they haven't even been exposed to that yet, but other factors. These factors could include all the socio-economic things typical of foster kids as well as the family stresses that put them into foster care. The takeaway was that hard-working foster parents and others in the system who are trying to help these kids should not be blamed for the performance problems.

Do you mean a "prospective" study? What you provide a link to the study? Not snarking. Just not understanding.

[Johanna25]

I'm sorry, I don't have the cite. It was an NPR report and I didn't pick up on that info. What I meant by retrospective is that I assumed they had to collect data from before the kids entered fostercare. I don't really know how the study was conducted and I may not be using the term correctly, I'm afraid it's not my field.

[2xx1xy1JD]

That makes some sense. If you have kids in a home that dysfunctional that they will be placed in foster care, those kids are going to be at risk.

I'm not blaming all foster parents! Many are hard-working and committed and do their best for the kids.

I've seen situations, though, where aspects of the foster care system added further trauma. A little boy who came into care when he was only 1 year old, got labelled as "aggressive" by the foster parents for totally age-appropriate behavior, saw that the biological son just a bit younger got lots of love and could call them mommy and daddy while he couldn't, and got stuck in limbo until the court face finally finised when he was five. A girl who was removed at 13 due to sexual abuse by her father, who got bounced around repeatedly so that she never got a proper education and ended up being (incorrectly, I believe) labelled as mentally ill. The original home situations were bad enough that staying the home wasn't a safe possibility, but the foster care system took a toll too.

[KittenMitten]

Totally off topic, but as I was reading last page of this thread, I saw a link to Dr James Dobson to buy his books. Did anyone else see that? My sister bought me 'Bringing Up Boys' by Dr Dobson. My son was acting out at home and preschool. The book was horrifying. Six months later my son was diagnosed with autism. But, I should have beaten the autism out if him? Can anyone explain why his books are advertised here?

ETA: it's no longer here.

ETAA: and it's back. I guess it cycles through. Please some one answer, I'm feeling a little panicky. Thanks.

[browncoatslytherin]

Totally off topic, but as I was reading last page of this thread, I saw a link to Dr James Dobson to buy his books. Did anyone else see that? My sister bought me 'Bringing Up Boys' by Dr Dobson. My son was acting out at home and preschool. The book was horrifying. Six months later my son was diagnosed with autism. But, I should have beaten the autism out if him? Can anyone explain why his books are advertised here?

ETA: it's no longer here.

google does random ads, usually based on browser history. i just now got an ad for bodycandy.com, as i order from there a good bit as they have a nice variety of plugs.