Rep. Harris & wife rehome adopted children Now with Exorcism

[doggie]

That nutjob needs to be locked up for public safety. I can see the parents wanting to kill the idiot.

[Idolatry]

From the Slate article: "but what has really sent this story to the next level are reports of children being subject to abuse due to the Harris’ alleged belief in demon possession."

No.

What took this story to the so-called "next level" is was a girl being raped at 6. The rest of it, the rehoming, the exorcism, pale in comparison. But if it takes an exorcism to get national media to pick up this fuck, I'll take it.

[Mama Mia]

From the Slate article: "but what has really sent this story to the next level are reports of children being subject to abuse due to the Harris’ alleged belief in demon possession."

No.

What took this story to the so-called "next level" is was a girl being raped at 6. The rest of it, the rehoming, the exorcism, pale in comparison. But if it takes an exorcism to get national media to pick up this fuck, I'll take it.

Actually I'm worried that this story is turning so sensationalistic with the demons and exorcism that the main issue that should be addressed -- random

"re-homing" of adopted children, gets lost.

It's a problem virtually no one is aware of. And I think it had a good chance of getting some actual serious attention since it had tragically bad results in this case. And because it was a politician who is at the center of it. But I think the more he comes across as just a fringe extremist , the less likely it is that the actual problem will get attention.

[Hane]

The "family pet" that was killed was a guinea pig. (I guess the Harrises wanted us to assume it was a Rottweiler or something). As many have pointed out, it's unwise to leave small children--particularly troubled children--alone with animals.

True story: When my baby sister was 5 or so, our same-age cousin came over to play. My mom was watching them from the kitchen window as they slid what she thought was a stuffed toy down the sliding board. It turned out to be my middle sister's guinea pig. Unfortunately, Fluffy didn't survive. My friend and I tried to substitute a Fluffy 2.0 before middle sister could find out. For years, it seems middle sister believed Fluffy had made a full recovery, but she later admitted she could tell the difference.

[artdecades]

The more I read about this story, the less sense it makes.

DPS blocked a private adoption? Can they even do that?

A missing piece is how everyone involved knows the bio mom. That could be very interesting.

I feel like they couldn't be privately adopted because the mother had already lost her rights/CPS had already taken the children. She was not able to sign over the rights.

[KittenMitten]

Actually I'm worried that this story is turning so sensationalistic with the demons and exorcism that the main issue that should be addressed -- random

"re-homing" of adopted children, gets lost.

It's a problem virtually no one is aware of. And I think it had a good chance of getting some actual serious attention since it had tragically bad results in this case. And because it was a politician who is at the center of it. But I think the more he comes across as just a fringe extremist , the less likely it is that the actual problem will get attention.

I totally agree with you Mama Mia. We can't forget the real issue of rehoming and, dare I say it, children's rights. This seems to happen a lot, I notice. Missing the real issue.

I was on another site reading a blog by an atheist, usually pretty snarky. But he reported this heartbreaking murder of a little boy and hav very little snark, just wanted to acknowledge the horror of it. I then looked through the comments, fully expecting to see people united in sorrow for the death of a little boy. I found a few, but mostly found hate vollying back and forth between Christians and nonbelivers. Several times I chimed in yes, but what about the little boy? I did not need recognition for what I wrote, but that little peanut did.

Then we come back to this. I am so happy those little girls are in a good home. This should not happen again and should not be swept under the rug.

Thank you for reminding us Mama Mia

[FloraKitty35]

I just get such a creep vibe from Rep. Harris. I don't think we've heard the worst of what went on with those girls when they were in his household. I hope they are in home that wants them now and is willing to properly work with them and give the love they deserve.

[Cleopatra7]

I totally agree with you Mama Mia. We can't forget the real issue of rehoming and, dare I say it, children's rights. This seems to happen a lot, I notice. Missing the real issue.

I was on another site reading a blog by an atheist, usually pretty snarky. But he reported this heartbreaking murder of a little boy and hav very little snark, just wanted to acknowledge the horror of it. I then looked through the comments, fully expecting to see people united in sorrow for the death of a little boy. I found a few, but mostly found hate vollying back and forth between Christians and nonbelivers. Several times I chimed in yes, but what about the little boy? I did not need recognition for what I wrote, but that little peanut did.

Then we come back to this. I am so happy those little girls are in a good home. This should not happen again and should not be swept under the rug.

Thank you for reminding us Mama Mia

I don't know. I agree that the dangers of rehoming is the key point to take away from this case, but it also seem clear that the Harrises' behavior towards the girls, and even their insistence on adopting, was the direct result of their religious beliefs. In this world of "religious freedom" where we're supposed to uncritically tolerate every ridiculous action if it is motivated by "a sincere religious belief," it is important to show that beliefs have consequences in the real world. Mentioning that the Harrises believed that the girls may have had demons in no way diminishes the awfulness of their situation, but it does shed light on how these people justified their actions. Another example is that of Andrea Yates, who killed her children because she was afraid that they would go to hell if she didn't. Yes, she was legally insane at the time, but you can't understand that situation unless you examine her religious beliefs, including the quiverfull aspect and her association with Michael Woroniecki, and how that fed into her delusions.

[2xx1xy1JD]

They are both important issues.

The "demonic possession" may make them simply look crazy, but they aren't. This isn't a paranoid delusion as a result of mental illness. It part of a larger story of a specific view of children. If you see children as unsaved little sinners, then there is both the impulse to take them in even if you don't particularly like them, and an impulse to believe that any behavior you don't like is deliberate defiance and a sign of evil. That paves the way for attempting to follow advice from Michael Pearl or Nancy Thomas, basically abusing a child until they submit to your complete control. If this doesn't work, it's the fault of the child, who is still in the grip of evil forces. This makes some people more likely to adopt when they are not equipped to handle it, and then more likely to rehome when they don't succeed. Hey, their motives were all pure and holy, and it's not their fault that the children were in Satan's hold.

Re rehoming: There needs to be clear laws that anything more than temporary guardianship (which is sometimes legitimate for things like school) for x number of months MUST be approved by the courts, even if everyone agrees, and that a complete background check and home study are required. It took a few tragic cases for the courts here to make background checks necessary in custody cases. Previously, courts would sometimes just rubber-stamp arrangements done on consent. Some of those arrangements turned out to be crackhead mom giving child to crackhead friend, or young mom with issues giving child to her insane abusive mother. It took those child deaths to bring changes.

[shedemei]

This quite from the article concisely explains so many of the child collectors and rehomers discussed here:

"The failed adoptions that we have seen are parents who think they can

love their child into being good, " the

therapist said."In a good disclosure

meeting, all the child's current and

potential behaviors are discussed in

depth and there is a clear road map of

what it will take to make this adoption

successful. ... Adoptive parents don't

believe us. They think their family is

different. They think they are the fairy

godmother and their charity is to save

themselves a Cinderella. "

[Mama Mia]

Re rehoming: There needs to be clear laws that anything more than temporary guardianship (which is sometimes legitimate for things like school) for x number of months MUST be approved by the courts, even if everyone agrees, and that a complete background check and home study are required. It took a few tragic cases for the courts here to make background checks necessary in custody cases. Previously, courts would sometimes just rubber-stamp arrangements done on consent. Some of those arrangements turned out to be crackhead mom giving child to crackhead friend, or young mom with issues giving child to her insane abusive mother. It took those child deaths to bring changes.

I agree there needs to be some system in place. But I don't think that a traditional home study, background check and formal court process is neccessarily the appropriate answer for most ommon situations. Particularly if the costs and requirements are the same.

In these type of adoption re- homing cases, where the child hasnt been raised in the family and is going to a stranger or aquantince, yes. Typical adoption processes and standards should be followed. But adoption disruptions and re- homing are a very small proportion of overall children who are living away from their parents.

There are millions of children just in the U.S.who are living in the care of extended family or friends. The vast majority of whom aren't in the process of being adopted and aren't part of the child welfare system. . There are of course risks in kinship care. But there are also huge benefits. And subjecting millions of grandparents, aunts, adult siblings and close family friends to the same financial costs and stringent living and background requirements as strangers pursuing adoption would decimate that system. Informal Kinship care is vitally important, and is often preferred - not only for the obvious family connection - but because it maintains the child in their culture and greatly lessens trauma to the child.

Many of the families providing this care wouldn't pass traditional stringent screenings because of lack of space or finances, or past criminal history. Obviously abusive and neglectful relatives shouldn't provide care -- but that's true in any situation. Biological Parents don't start out with home studies and background checks before having children - grandparents taking on the responsibility of rearing those children shouldn't start out with that requirement either.

The primary issue facing most families in this situation is that it can be difficult to obtain services and supports they might need - because of the unconventional family make-up. Some states and programs try to address this problem -- without insisting that the kinship care parents meet the typically middle-class norms in order to provide care.

Here's an article. It's just wikipedia, but has some good links and basic info:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship_care

[2xx1xy1JD]

Kinship placements led to 2 highly publicized child deaths in Toronto, which is why the rule about background checks was put into place. Formal home studies aren't needed, but social workers will visit the home if the placement is being done from foster care.

[Mama Mia]

Kinship placements led to 2 highly publicized child deaths in Toronto, which is why the rule about background checks was put into place. Formal home studies aren't needed, but social workers will visit the home if the placement is being done from foster care.

I can see why an initial social worker visit would be appropriate if the kids were. Placed from Foster Care. I just hope the social workers are just looking for potential abuse issues, and providing information on resources. There's a big difference between a family who is intentionally looking to be Foster parents --- and a family member who has suddenly taken on a relatives children in a crises situation.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Relaxed standards on things like # of bedrooms - absolutely.

Sometimes, though, a parent is involved with CPS and it becomes clear that the kids will go into care unless the family finds someone else to take in the kids, or the parents are split and one parent is dealing with CPS. At a minimum, you need to know if these alternates have a criminal background, a background with CPS or if they've had other cases dealing with children.

[KateFowler]

I agree there needs to be some system in place. But I don't think that a traditional home study, background check and formal court process is neccessarily the appropriate answer for most ommon situations. Particularly if the costs and requirements are the same.

In these type of adoption re- homing cases, where the child hasnt been raised in the family and is going to a stranger or aquantince, yes. Typical adoption processes and standards should be followed. But adoption disruptions and re- homing are a very small proportion of overall children who are living away from their parents.

There are millions of children just in the U.S.who are living in the care of extended family or friends. The vast majority of whom aren't in the process of being adopted and aren't part of the child welfare system. . There are of course risks in kinship care. But there are also huge benefits. And subjecting millions of grandparents, aunts, adult siblings and close family friends to the same financial costs and stringent living and background requirements as strangers pursuing adoption would decimate that system. Informal Kinship care is vitally important, and is often preferred - not only for the obvious family connection - but because it maintains the child in their culture and greatly lessens trauma to the child.

Many of the families providing this care wouldn't pass traditional stringent screenings because of lack of space or finances, or past criminal history. Obviously abusive and neglectful relatives shouldn't provide care -- but that's true in any situation. Biological Parents don't start out with home studies and background checks before having children - grandparents taking on the responsibility of rearing those children shouldn't start out with that requirement either.

The primary issue facing most families in this situation is that it can be difficult to obtain services and supports they might need - because of the unconventional family make-up. Some states and programs try to address this problem -- without insisting that the kinship care parents meet the typically middle-class norms in order to provide care.

Here's an article. It's just wikipedia, but has some good links and basic info:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship_care

Biological parents are not required to undergo a homestudy because raising your own biological child is basic human right -- caring for somebody else's kid (grandchild, niece, your BFF's daughter while BFF gets chemo, whatever) is a privilege. There's a significant difference between sending kids to granny's for two weeks while you go on vacation with your spouse to what Harris did -- handing his kids over to an acquiantance. Who subsequently sexually assaulted the kid and THEN handed both kids over to some other family.

Informal kinship arrangements? Does this cover parents who essentially couch surf? Whose kids get shuffled from one friend or relative to the next as the parent wears out their welcome? No oversight for that?!

It sounds like the girls are doing well in Family #3, but, um, surely they'd've been better off not being adopted by an idiot like Harris. I think the way to prevent re-homing is WAY more screening of adoptive/Foster parents on the front end, rather than damage control after it's all gone pear-shaped.

[dianapavelovna]

Thank you for letting me know-I used this example because it was linked to elsewhere in the thread :)

oh I apologize if I came off as handslappy or nasty! - I'm just pretty passionate about exposing Nancy Thomas as the hack that she is anywhere I come across her 8-)

[Mama Mia]

Biological parents are not required to undergo a homestudy because raising your own biological child is basic human right -- caring for somebody else's kid (grandchild, niece, your BFF's daughter while BFF gets chemo, whatever) is a privilege. There's a significant difference between sending kids to granny's for two weeks while you go on vacation with your spouse to what Harris did -- handing his kids over to an acquiantance. Who subsequently sexually assaulted the kid and THEN handed both kids over to some other family.

Informal kinship arrangements? Does this cover parents who essentially couch surf? Whose kids get shuffled from one friend or relative to the next as the parent wears out their welcome? No oversight for that?!

It sounds like the girls are doing well in Family #3, but, um, surely they'd've been better off not being adopted by an idiot like Harris. I think the way to prevent re-homing is WAY more screening of adoptive/Foster parents on the front end, rather than damage control after it's all gone pear-shaped.

I am obviously not talking about sending the kids to grandmas while you go on vacation :roll: . And, as I clearly stated, I am not talking about situations like Harris and the whole adoption / rehoming situation.

Are you seriously suggesting parents who are couch surfing need CPS involvement? Or that their children should be put in foster care? That's barbaric. And, by the way, wouldn't cover kinship care- since the parents are there.

The vast majority of kinship care is grandparents or other members of the parents family caring long term for the children. Often due to the parents addiction, incarceration, mental illness. Sometimes it's due to hopefully more temporary situations -- very young moms sometimes aren't ready yet, or the parents are homeless. Sometimes it's teens who are sent to live with a relative because there is too much conflict. It's an informal system of care that has existed throughout history and is very common. A big issue with state intrusion into kinship care is that it disrupts cultures and community networks. Much like higher incarceration rates for the same crimes among minority groups. Which homes are deemed " adequate" tend to be held to a strerotypically middle class standard.

[toejamflipflop]

I hope this fat bastard gets what coming to him/her since he looks like a woman but claims to be a man. His wife should be thrown in jail along with him.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Google "Jeffrey Baldwin grandmother inquest" if you want to know exactly why police and CPS records should be checked even with kinship care.

[Mama Mia]

Google "Jeffrey Baldwin grandmother inquest" if you want to know exactly why police and CPS records should be checked even with kinship care.

That's a tragic case. But a quick Google shows tons of deaths of children placed in foster care - not with relatives, but with regular Foster parents who have been screened and trained. Also, the vast majority of kinship care has no connection with CPS at all. It certainly seems reasonable, to me, to do a background check for child abuse specific charges if the children are placed by CPS. But if CPS is not already involved in the childrens lives- why would they be brought in?

One case that came up in a Google search was this one, where one of the primary reasons the mother didn't have the children was because her boyfriend had a non- child related criminal record. The Foster mother who murdered her daughter was a former CPS worker. Its a very unusual situation - just like case you cite.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... care/marr/

[2xx1xy1JD]

There's no reason that a old or unrelated criminal record should prevent someone from ever having custody of a child - but it should at least be discussed.

Truly temporary arrangements are one thing, but actually switching over custody is another. I don't see any basis for automatically assuming that a parent, who may be struggling if they are in a position where they are giving up custody, will automatically make the most informed and responsible choice when handing off their child. I've seen too many cases where questions were not asked, or there was a certain amount of selective blindness to problems with relatives.

The rule here is that everyone involved in custody cases needs to fill out a sworn statement about any other children they have or have had in their care, any previous CPS involvement, any previous family court cases and any criminal record or pending charges. Anyone who is not the parent of the child also needs to request that their records be sent to the court. It's an extra form to complete, and a bit of effort, but it's not overwhelming.

I read the link you provided. In some ways, the facts have some similarities to the Jeffrey Baldwin case. Both involve young mothers who were overwhelmed and not that stable, but who weren't physically abusive. Both involve the children being placed with others, who would ultimately kill a child. It's possible that more robust social services may have prevented both apprehensions. There is evidence that biological parents are less likely to kill or seriously harm a child than other caregivers. I wouldn't say, though, that Logan's case shows that asking questions of kinship care is wrong. Christy was desperate, and she was showing remarkably little judgment in who to trust around her children. If anything, both cases show the need for MORE supervision of cases where children are removed from parental care.

[Mama Mia]

I think we're going to need to agree to disagree on this one. And, as I said " informal" kinship care is pretty much exclusively out of the realm of CPS, by definition. If CPS is already in the picture there is of course more of a need for professional involvement. INormal care is also largely out of the court system all together. And is the primary coping method in many cultures when the parents are struggling or overwhelmed. It has also become the greatly preferred placement method for formal arrangements. With many jurisdictions recognizing the many benefits to the children, and putting in money and programs to make this possible. For example providing money for cribs, smoke alarms, baby gates, respite child care etc. . Another big benefit for children who aren't in the system is that parents are more likely to seek help from relatives if they know the children can go there. If they think their children will go to Foster care they are more likely to attempt to try to hide their issues and subject their children to abuse / neglect. And since there are, literally, millions of families who informally use this system, i don't understand what would be gained by the government coming in to fix what isn't broken.

And my primary point with the case I linked was that of course there have been cases where a grandparent or other relative caretaker has killed a child - but there are also loads of cases of unrelated Foster parents killing children. People who are of course screened.

[hoipolloi]

The Arkansas Times has successfully finished a GoFundMe campaign to finance a detailed look into Arkansas' child welfare system: https://www.ioby.org/project/beyond-reh ... are-system. Given the high quality of the work they've done so far, this project should be worth reading when done.

And if anyone need more proof of what a fucking asshole Justin Harris is, the Times described how he used the girls in his campaign literature while they were still being fostered, and before adoption (http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/ar ... -dhs-rules):

State Rep. Justin Harris (R-West Fork) used photos of a foster child his family was planning to adopt during his 2012 re-election campaign. The state Department of Human Services expressly prohibits the public use of photos or any other media that would compromise a foster child's anonymity.

Asked whether the Department of Human Services was aware Harris was using a foster child in campaign materials, DHS spokesperson Amy Webb said she couldn't comment specifically on Harris, but speaking generally, she said the agency would not allow such use.

"If we were made aware of a situation like you described, we would immediately call the foster or pre-adoptive parent and tell him to discontinue using the picture on any campaign material. We would not be comfortable with a foster child’s picture being used during a campaign. [DHS's Office of Policy and Legal Services, which according to department rules, has to approve public use of any media featuring a foster child] would not agree to that either."

[Chowder Head]

Yeah sure no one didnt know he was using those girls in photos during his reelection. My bullshit meter just broke, :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

[Gingi1976]

Food for thought. . . .I am going to ask the same question I asked last week.

Justin and Marsha Harris appear to be deplorable human beings lacking anything that resembles a moral, decision making compass. They failed these children every step of the way (as did others) and used political influence to satisfy their own egos. . .even when it was clearly in conflict with what was in the best interest of these kids.

SO WHAT?

Legally, they didn't break any laws. Harris is still an elected official with oversight of the DHS budget. Has anything REALLY changed now that the story has come out? I hate to sound so cynical, but people have short selective memory. It's a story today, but forgotten tomorrow. It's doesn't make it OK, but once the furor dies down will there be any REAL consequences for the Harris'?

Besides the damage to their reputation which, IMO, far too many people will be willing to forgive because they're "good Christians" who victimized by these girls and DHS.