34 of 47 children wrongly kidnapped by Gestapo CPS returned to parents

In the wake of the mass kidnapping of 49 children on an accusation that
TWO were abused and with absolutely no evidence or credible accusation
of child abuse against any of the rest of the parents 34 children were
finally returned to their parents after the parents capitulated to
extorted agreements infringing on their parental, due process, civil,
constitutional and human rights.

One in particular was that they must send their children to public
school, which violates a clearly accepted parental right to home school
their children.

These children had been kidnapped and held hostage for at least two
months by Gestapo CPS.

--
=============================================================
Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/

We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Thanks
Nique

"Neal Feldman" <silve...@home.net> wrote in message
news:3B114AE7...@home.net...

ATLANTA (AP) - Parents of 34 children seized during an investigation of
alleged church-sponsored beatings reunited with their children Friday after
accepting a judge's terms for their return, a state official said Friday.

The parents, members of the House of Prayer church, were driven in a school
bus to a Department of Family and Children Services branch office on Friday
evening to be reunited with their children.

To maintain the families' privacy, sheets covered the bus windows and
church members carried cardboard to block television cameras from recording
the event.

The bus backed to the office entrance to pick up the children about 5:30
p.m. before returning to the House of Prayer in northwest Atlanta.

Fulton County Juvenile Court Judge Sanford Jones told the parents that they
must send the children to school, have them immunized and not inflict any
punishment that leaves marks on the children.

Jones said parents still could spank their children, if necessary.

``With the help of some legislators, who explained the judge's conditions,
they have decided to accept those and come get their children,'' DFACS
spokeswoman Renee Huie said.

Agency officials have been trying to end a two-month impasse with the
church's pastor, the Rev. Arthur Allen Jr., and his followers. The 34 kids
were among 49 taken into state custody from church members. The others were
expected to be turned over to their parents next week.

Church members, who insist their use of corporal punishment does not
constitute abuse, said Wednesday they would defy the judge's order until
all the children are returned.

Of the 49 children, no more than five suffered physical harm, The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reported Friday.

Evidence in two of those cases was inconclusive, and just two of the five
children had welts or bruises, injuries serious enough to be considered
child abuse under Georgia law, the newspaper said.

Huie said the department is ``being extremely, extremely careful'' in its
approach to taking custody of children who may be at risk of abuse.

The agency typically removes all children from a home even if only one has
been abused, said Andy Boisseau, another department spokeswoman. That
standard was applied as social workers investigated allegations involving
six House of Prayer families, he said.

``I think we would rather make a mistake on the side of caution ... than
these cases where you have abuse and then the kid ends up dead,'' Huie
said. ``It often does come down to a judgment call.''

ATLANTA, March 29 - After a 7- year-old boy complained to his teacher in
February about welts on his back, Georgia child welfare authorities were
surprised to discover that the beating had taken place not at his home but
at services in his church, a tiny nondenominational congregation called the
House of Prayer, northwest of downtown.

And the boy was not alone, a state investigation concluded. Welfare
authorities said nearly 60 children had been seriously beaten by their
parents and by church leaders, under the supervision of the Rev. Arthur
Allen Jr., the pastor. Several children had open wounds, large bruises and
welts, investigators said.

Mr. Allen and four church leaders were charged with cruelty to children and
released on bail.

On Wednesday, in an Atlanta juvenile court, Chief Judge Sanford Jones
reluctantly decided not to release 41 children of church families from
foster care. Judge Jones said the children could go home if their parents
agreed to spank them only with their hands, and by themselves at home, and
not to allow girls younger than 16 to marry.

The parents refused.

"We're going to raise our children according to the Bible," said one parent
at the hearing, David Duncan.

Judge Jones replied: "I regret that. I hate to see these children
jeopardized by what I consider to be a cult."

In the three weeks since state officials began removing the children from
their parents, the case has transfixed the city and illuminated the
distinctions that juvenile authorities must make between acceptable
corporal punishment and child abuse. D'Anna Liber, of the Division of
Family and Children Services, said Georgia law allowed corporal punishment
but not physical injury.

"Parents have wide latitude in their method of punishment, and spanking is
within their right," Ms. Liber said. "But if they lacerate the skin or
leave marks or injure the child, that would cross the line into abuse."

Using an object to strike a child is often considered excessive, she said,
particularly if the object leaves a mark.

The department's investigators are encouraged to take pictures of injuries,
she said, and to use common sense in judging them. A single red welt on a
3-year-old is much more serious than one on a 16-year-old, she said, and
the location of the injury is also considered.

In hearings this month, police investigators told juvenile-court judges
that the beatings were standard practice at the church, performed by
parents and other adults with belts and switches under the supervision of
Mr. Allen. Police photographs showed three-inch-long welts on the children,
and a 10-year- old boy had open wounds.

In his testimony at Wednesday's hearing, Mr. Allen told the judge that
parents had an absolute right to discipline their children, and that he
advised members of his congregation on how severe the beating should be,
based on the infraction, the child's age and degree of remorse.

"When they administer a whipping, if I think a child is being struck too
many times for what they have done, I will come and intervene, and tell
them I feel that that's enough," Mr. Allen said. "It depends on what they
have done."

Children who did not express remorse should be punished more severely, he
said.

All of the church members are black, and Mr. Allen, 68, said: "If the white
society doesn't want to whip their children, that's their business. I'm not
trying to make you black, so don't try to make me white."

Investigators also found that several 14- and 15-year-old girls had been
ordered to marry after they became pregnant or began having sex. The
weddings were often performed in Alabama, where girls may marry at 14.

Mr. Allen confirmed the practice on Wednesday, saying it was better for
young teenagers to be married than to become "whores."

Officials said they were not sure whether the marriages were legal in
Georgia, where people must be 16 to marry.

"If they tell me I'm going out there anyway and having sex with different
ones, I believe it's best for them to have sex with their husbands, and
have babies by their husbands only," Mr. Allen said.

Mr. Allen has preached his fierce and literal interpretation of the Bible's
teachings at the small church for 35 years, and members - there are
currently about 130 - say they rely on his advice for many major decisions.
In 1993 he was jailed for 30 days after ordering a 16-year-old girl whipped
with belts, a beating that he acknowledged may have lasted half an hour.

Tanyaneeka Barnett, 25, a former church member, testified yesterday that
teenage girls who had sex were frequently whipped during church services,
after removal of their skirts or dresses.

Mr. Allen angrily denied that sexual abuse had occurred. The church was
simply trying to prevent the kind of social disorder that had led to school
shootings and rampant teenage pregnancy, he said.

"When the child is an adolescent, they are not able to think for themselves
how to conduct themselves," he said. "So a parent has to be an authority.
Someone with a more mature mind. You have to have rules."

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company

By ALAN JUDD
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

As soon as the door swung open, 14-year-old Dianna Frazier spotted her mother.
The girl sprinted across the room and leapt into Kim Ogletree's arms, wrapping
her legs around her mother's waist.

When Jimmy Barnett reunited with his 8-year-old son, Cephas, he lifted the boy
high into the air. Then he hugged him tighter and tighter.

Half an hour after David Duncan and his son, Stephen, found each other, the
7-year-old continued to rest his hand on his father's shoulder.

In the chaos of Friday's sudden reunions between members of the House of Prayer
church and many of the children seized from their homes by state welfare
officials in an abuse investigation, the boy wasn't letting his father go
anywhere.

When her tears subsided, Ogletree said getting her eight children back from
state foster care was almost enough to make up for the trauma of seeing them
pulled from their home May 8 in an ugly confrontation with police. Like the
other parents, Ogletree had not seen her children since they were taken into
custody. For some parents, the separation had been as long as two months.

"If you hold on and stay firm and continue to believe, you can see what
happens," Ogletree said. "It took a miracle, but we got our children home. The
Lord brought them home."

In a stunning turnaround, state child welfare officials decided Friday to
release 35 of the 49 children they had taken into protective custody amid
reports of widespread, systematic beatings of children at the small northwest
Atlanta church.

All but one of the remaining 14 children in state custody could be released as
early as Wednesday. That child is expected to return home by June 16, when he is
scheduled to complete psychological treatment.

The parents were not required to agree to any restrictions on how they
discipline their children. Earlier proposed restrictions by Juvenile Court Judge
Sanford Jones - such as a ban on spankings at church - had sparked a two-month
impasse between state officials and church members.

Church members and their pastor, the Rev. Arthur Allen Jr., had sought
unconditional surrender from the state Division of Family and Children Services.

The resolution of the conflict between the state and the parents came hours
after the Journal-Constitution reported that physical evidence suggested no more
than five of the 49 children in protective custody had suffered physical harm.
Evidence indicating abuse of two of those children was inconclusive, the
newspaper's review found, and only two children suffered the welts or bruises
that elevate a spanking to the level of child abuse under Georgia law.

"The judge and DFCS now realize that so many mistakes were made along the way,"
said state Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta), one of the lawmakers and civil rights
leaders who negotiated the children's release. "It really is an embarrassment to
the state of Georgia."

Until late Friday afternoon, it had seemed unlikely the children would soon go
home.

The judge had set a deadline of 2 p.m. for parents to comply with an order he
imposed Wednesday. Under that order, they had to promise to prevent their
children from being abused and not to let girls as young as 14 leave the state
to get married. A hearing would have been held in late June to determine when,
or if, the rest of the children could go home.

Allen's response, on behalf of the parents from the six families, was: "No
deal." The pastor insisted all the children had to be returned.

As Friday's deadline approached, DFCS officials took the 35 children approved by
the judge to a picnic near the agency's office on Bankhead Highway, where the
judge had instructed the parents to pick them up.

DFCS officials showed little sign of relenting on the conditions they had asked
the judge to impose.

"[The parents] said they would come, but if all the children are not here, they
would not take any," Andy Boisseau, a DFCS spokesman, told reporters at midday.
"All of the children are not going to be here - that's for certain."

To avoid raising false hopes, the children were not told that a reunion was a
possibility.

But at the House of Prayer, about two miles from the DFCS office, Brooks and
several colleagues were meeting with Allen and church members, trying to reach a
compromise. Brooks talked by telephone several times with Judge Jones, the
judge, and with Gary Redding, acting commissioner of the state Department of
Human Resources, which oversees DFCS.

Just before 1:30, Jones faxed Brooks a statement giving the lawmaker what the
judge had declined to give the parents Wednesday - a specific date that the last
of the children would be released if they agreed to take the first group Friday.

The judge's statement said the remaining children would be returned home by
Wednesday unless evaluations found "emotional, sexual or physical damage that
can't be handled by the family." One child's evaluation won't be finished until
June 16, however.

That promise sealed the deal.

Inside the church, the congregation drafted a letter seeking an apology from
Gov. Roy Barnes and DFCS. And the church members rejected the notion of outside
monitors watching how they raise their children.

"We want the situation returned, as near as possible, to the way it was before
they intruded in our lives," the letter said.

Then the congregation boarded two church buses to bring their children home.

"If they had been reasonable from the beginning, they could have prevented all
of this," Allen said of state officials. "They were going to go roughshod over
us, but we were a little tougher than they thought."

destroycps says ...
Seventy percent returned after only two months is an outstandingly positive
result considering most families never get reunited.

The returns were largely the consequence of the media attention for the en masse
abduction. If the CPS (GA's DFCS) tacticians had been smarter or less brazen,
they could have taken 5 or so kids at a time and gotten away with it.

Neal Feldman said ...

The pastor of this "church" played the media well. He exhorted
the teenaged church members to fight back when the police came to take
them into foster care. When they did, the police handcuffed them, and
that was the image everyone saw on the evening news.

Americans have short attention spans, especially as far as TV news
is concerned. How quickly we forget why this "church" got itself into
trouble in the first place: public whippings with bruises and blood,
forced marriages for 13 year olds, etc.

Chris

"Chris" <cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote in message
news:9esod1$ec3$3...@news.cudenver.edu...

Luminaria wrote:

Yeah, only 5 of 49 ever showed any marks at all, and only two seem to have
suffered what might even be considered to be abuse.... yet they handcuffed and
swept up 49 children and kidnapped them from their parents and families for
MONTHS... yeah, right... sounds like they were 'extremely, extremely careful'
to me... NOT!

They seem to have a distinctly different definition of 'extremely, extremely
careful' than I generally work with.

It is unreasonable enough to remove ALL children in a FAMILY when only ONE is
suspected of being abused... and quite another level of unreasonableness to
snatch all children of adherents of a CHURCH/RELIGION when only one or two are
suspected of being abused!

Yeah, standard BS 'err on the side of caution', huh? Massive trauma to all
involved GUARANTEED by kidnapping the child(ren), but they have no problem
doing this when there MIGHT be a possible case of abuse... which all the data
shows would be less than 1-5% of cases.

So they cause gross harm in 100% of cases just to make sure they do not miss
1-5% of cases.

Yeah, real 'cautious'... eh?

Luminaria wrote:

'Seriously beaten', huh? Nearly 60, huh? Interesting that of 49 children
kidnapped only FIVE apparently showed any marks at all, and only TWO who were
described as only possibly having what might be evidence of child abuse.

I guess 'seriously beaten' is taking a serious beating as a definition, or so
it would appear...

Amazing how TWO somehow becomes 'several'... and of course they describe things
in the most horrifically inflammatory manner. Typical.

What is the legal minimum age for marriage in Georgia? I am willing to bet
that it is less than 16. Also where does this judge get off dictating to
parents how they may or may not spank their children so long as the spanking
does not cross over to what would legitimately and credibly be considered by a
reasonable, objective, rational and logical person to be child abuse?
Reluctantly, huh? Clearly in all but MAYBE two cases there is ZERO legitimate
basis for the continued holding hostage of these children from their parents
and families.

> The parents refused.

As rightly they should! Their civil, constitutional, human, due process and
parental rights had already been trampled... why should they make it a willing
sacrifice?

Religious persecution, pure and simple. What is the definition of a cult? A
religion different from your own apparently.

This judge seems to think he is entitled to dictate the religion of these
parents, families and children. Please, someone, show me where in the US
Constitution or Georgia State Constitution that it is written specifically that
a judge has such authority and power to legitimately exercise. I have looked
and I have not found such to exist, while I HAVE found text that states clearly
that he does NOT have such power and authority legitimately.

Not SERIOUS physical injury. An important distinction.

Not necessarily. A paper cut lacerates the skin, leaves marks and could
arguably be said to 'injure the child'... would a paper cut be child abuse?
Not by any rational, reasonable, logical, credible or legitimate standard...
but then again where Gestapo CPS is concerned those terms have no relevance or
context.

Considered? By whom? These anti-parent childsaver whackos? Apparently.

There has almost never been a case where a Gestapo CPS agent has ever had
anything akin to common sense, much less utilized such. At least not according
to the data and evidence available.

Again it depends on the welt... and the age is not necessarily of significant
relevance. Personally I would consider the welt ona 16 yr old to be more
significant.

Define 'open wounds'. And three inches long, or wide? Define the so-called
'welts'. And as far as what has been shown virtually none, if any, of the
punishments legitimately qualified as 'beatings'... spankings maybe, of a
serious and strong nature, but beatings? It is quite obvious that these
'investigators' were being anything BUT objective and legimate in their
researches and comments. Hystrionics is more accurate.

Without further specifics this seems to be a reasonable approach.

So this is not arranged forced marriages... this is simply 'if you two are
going to create a child, you are going to marry eachother and raise that
child'. Seems reasonable enough from a position which opposes abortion.

I guess the judge feels teens getting abortions or babies having babies alone
and unmarried are great and preferrable outcomes. I guess he figures if they
give birth it is easier to kidnap infants from a single teenage mother than
from a married couple. Or so it would seem.

Cannot say there is no merit to his position.

If they marry in Alabama, a US State, and the marriage is legal, then it is
legal in ALL 50 states, which would include Georgia, unless Georgia secretly
seceded and no one noticed.

That would seem to be excessive and he was punished for it.

Sure seems they had no problems removing their clothing prior to that.

Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry love rules... they just
do not like obeying the rules that they are allegedly required to.

On Tue, 29 May 2001 02:00:25 GMT, Neal Feldman <silve...@home.net>
wrote:

Chris wrote:

Yeah yeah yeah, Little Chrissie. You just abhor the fact that your lackeys in the
media were instrumental in exposing exactly what I have been saying about Gestapo
CPS all along. Sit and stew, Little Chrissie... Sit and Stew.

Yeah, Little Chrissie... whine, shriek and cry in your standard hysterical,
hyperbolic, inflammatory and irrational manner.

As usual your delusional and hysterical perceptions and descriptions do not mesh
well with reality.

Remember Wenatchee. Remember Atlanta. Remember Ann Marie. More and more nails
in the coffin of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry and those
like you, Little Chrissie.

You are clearly running scared.

Nique wrote:

--

And the data and evidence clearly show that in such cases less than 5% are
legitimate by any reasonable standard.

And in regards to the situation you bring up, Gestapo CPS would kidnap the children
from the fleeing parent anyway... 'failure to protect', doncha know?

Ptui!

In abuse investigations, it is customary to remove all children at
risk, not just the one for whom abuse is suspected. Since the "alleged"
public beatings took place in church in front of the whole congregation as
part of the services, all the children belonging to members of this cult
were considered at risk.

Chris

"Chris" >

This statement is blatantly false. Can you cite anything in the literature
that supports your outlandish claim?

Further, abduction of children is morally and legally indefensible.

Doug

Hi, Chris!

I appreciate the opportunity your post gives readers to analyze your
position. Your inflammatory and inaccurate characterizations of the
incident Georgia officials are apologizing for provides rare insight into
the magnitude of your zealotry.

First, as you will notice in the news story to which you respond, only two
children were found to have any marks at all -- 60 of them were not
subjected to "beatings," public or otherwise.

But it is important that readers understand that this is what YOU mean by
"beatings" and the criteria YOU believe sufficient to forcibly remove
children from their families.

Secondly, you intentionally use the inaccurate and inflammatory term "cult"
to label the Christian church attended by members of the African American
community.

Given your value judgments of "cults" and "beatings," it is easy to see how
you could justify removing all children from all homes who practice forms of
discipline you disagree with. This, of course, would be the consequence of
passing the sort of laws you advocate.

Once again, thanks for offering us a rare moment of clarity regarding your
views.

Doug

>
> Chris
>

And your point is?

If these kids are faced by a bunch of strangers coming to drag them away from
their homes, why _shouldn't_ they fight back? Agreed, they probably won't win,
but with any luck the resulting publicity will help them to get home sooner
than if they had "gone quietly"

Whether their Pastor "exhorted" them to resist I do not know, but if he did is
there any evidence that he was wrong to do so - ie that the kids were kept away
from home _longer_ as a result of having resisted? .
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England

Last words of King Edward II.

"I always said that Roger Mortimer was a pain in the - - - AAARGHH!!!"

Chris wrote:

Well, to take something out of your pathetic playbook, Little Chrissie, it was
once 'customary' to beat wives, deny women the right to vote, enslave blacks, and
in certain parts of the world to incinerate Jews.

Yup... it is customary, so that makes it A-OK, right, Little Chrissie?

Apparently to you... not to me or the 94+% of the general population outside of
the <6% fascist extremist lunatic fringe of anti-parent anti-spank zealots of
which you clearly inhabit the far left fringe of, Little Chrissie.

Only by the <6% fascist extremist lunatic fringe of anti-parent anti-spank
zealots of which you clearly inhabit the far left fringe of, Little Chrissie.

And clearly based on the facts they are about right on target for their error
rate... 2 out of 49 is less than 5%.

Greg Hanson wrote:

Clearly 'at risk' means anyone who the paranoid delusionals of the <6% fascist
extremist lunatic fringe of anti-parent anti-spank zealots of which Little
Chrissie clearly inhabits the far left fringe of can conceive of a paranoid
delusion against... pretty much anyone outside their small number.

Interesting how a huge percentage of the paranoid delusionals of the <6% fascist
extremist lunatic fringe of anti-parent anti-spank zealots of which Little
Chrissie clearly inhabits the far left fringe of are not parents and never have
been... an incredibly larger percentage than that of the general population.
Interesting indeed... and quite telling!

Imminent danger is the standard that the LAW justifies removal from... but that
would not remove nearly enough children to justify and continue the funding
streams of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry, so they
kidnap children who are 'at risk' only in the 'minds' of the paranoid
delusionals of the <6% fascist extremist lunatic fringe of anti-parent
anti-spank zealots of which Little Chrissie clearly inhabits the far left fringe
of.

Basically the word 'cult' can apply to ANY religion, and is often used by
members of one religion to refer to those of a different religion. Even the
Roman Catholic Church has been called a cult. It makes it that much easier to
attack that group and their religion... after all, the first amendment
guarantees freedom of religion and bars persecution of a religion... but not a
'cult', right?

A religion, to get this protection, apparently has to have the GOVERNMENT'S Seal
of Approval that it IS a religion. Otherwise their rights can be trampled by
being denied.

Probably anyone he is not a member of and sees as an enemy (any church that does
not promote laws banning spanking and the rest of the agenda of the paranoid
delusionals of the <6% fascist extremist lunatic fringe of anti-parent
anti-spank zealots of which Little Chrissie clearly inhabits the far left fringe
of).

--

Doug wrote:

That it does... clearly so!

Little Chrissie knows what he knows... and is uninterested in any facts or
evidence, and certainly not in logic, reason and rational thought. His tactic,
like the rest of the anti-spank zealotry of the Church of Straus, is to whine
and wail and shriek in emotionalistic, hyperbolic, hysterical, inflammatory and
misrepresentative propaganda screeds.

Little Chrissie has stated that it is his position (a position of someone who
has NEVER been a parent) that ANY and ALL spankings of ANY sort are child abuse
and the practice should be criminalized. That is how much of an extremist
anti-spank zealot he is.

Yup. The more easily to attack them with, donchaknow?

Absolutely!

And thank you, Doug, for pointing it out so eloquently.

Chris wrote:

> Fern5827 (fern...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Chris, do you understand that the evidence that the children were beaten was
> : "INCONCLUSIVE"?
>
> True. The children might have inflicted all those bruises on
> themselves deliberately in order to make the church look bad...
>
> Chris

What 'all those bruises', huh Little Chrissie? You clearly read only what you
wanted to read, saw only what you wanted to see, and allowed your anti-parent
anti-spank zealotry delusions to fill in the rest. How typical of your kind,
including your Great Ghod Straus....

ONLY TWO of about 60 children showed ANY marks at all. And even THOSE there was
question as to whether what was evident actually supported a legitimate and
credible charge of child abuse.

So much for 'all those bruises', eh Little Chrissie?

You are clearly just as pathetic as last I left you.

Unfortunately, the words "considered" and "at risk" are self-serving.
The requirement of a warrant is a requirement that the issue of
whether the "risk" meets legal standards for government interference
be determined by a judge after due process. I know of NOTHING in the
facts of this case to justify seizing these children without an
advance hearing.

Life is risk. The determination of the degree of risk a child is to
be subjected to is one for the parents to decide, not the government.

- Jon Beaver

"Only" two children had marks from beatings, so you are
comfortable leaving all the other children in that same environment until
such time as they have visible marks of their own. You also declare, by
means of clairvoyance perhaps, that none of the other children had been
beaten, even in private. How you think you know this is beyond me.

If CPS had your paranormal abilities, removing children from
situations in which other children show evidence of physical abuse would
not be necessary. Have you considered offering them your services?

Thank you, Doug, for offering us a rare moment of clarity
regarding your views.

Chris

Excuse me, Chris, did I read that right? "same environment"?
I thought that some of the emotional extremism directed at you was
overdone, mocking, etc. but when you make such a gaff as that
"same environment" crud, you deserve all of the venom you get.
If you think attending the same type of church makes all of those
home "environments" the same, you must have a screw loose.

You seem to play it rather loose with terms like "at risk" and "same".
Is the sky blue on your planet?

Hi Chris,

"Only" 47 children suffered the violence of being handcuffed, forcibly
removed from their families, and incarcerated against their will in a state
facility.

Your agenda drives you to be "uncomfortable" leaving children in any
"environment" where they may be, possibly, sometime in the future, be
spanked. In your zeal to promote this end, your callously ignore the
feelings and rights of children and Georgia law. That you do not have
children of your own may partially explain your insensitivity, but your
belief that it is somehow okay to forcibly incarcerate innocent children to
promote your agenda is appalling. But your advocacy doesn't have anything
to do with the well-being of children, does it?

You write, " . . . leaving all the other children in that same environment

How do presume to know that these children would receive any visible marks?
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such injuries would occur,
yet you leap to the conclusion that it is simply a matter of time before
they do.
It is important for readers to understand that you consider it appropriate
for children to be removed from their homes simply because they, in your
unilateral opinion, are at "risk" of being spanked. Spanked...not beaten.

It is not up to me or their parents to establish that these children were
not beaten.

Mine was a presumption the Constitution requires of all citizens. In the
United States of America, citizens are presumed to be innocent until they
are proven guilty in a court of law. In this case, the state has the burden
of providing clear evidence that the children were beaten, which it failed
to do. There was no evidence of physical abuse for 45 of the 47 children
removed from their families.

But you are talking about spanking, aren't you? Well, by Georgia statute,
corporal punishment is acceptable. Therefore, the state has no right to
intervene upon proof of spanking, let alone the possible, maybe, "at risk"
of spanking.

Been there. As the Georgia case demonstrates, however, CPS agencies would
prefer your brand of paranormal presumptions. It's more profitable for
them.

Meanwhile, I think both professionals and laypeople alike are ethically
bound to adhere to the presumption of innocence until the state provides
evidence to the contrary. Children have the right to due process of law
prior to being forcibly taken into custody, just like adult citizens.

What you are saying here that if a child whose parents attend a given church
presents marks that may possibly indicate abuse, the children of all of the
members of the church should be incarcerated. Hitler may have followed your
reasoning, but it has no place in our republic.

Is this the "situation" to which you refer? Or is it that the church
members were African American and their culture qualifies them to be members
of a "cult." Are you suggesting that the children of parents who belong to
churches you consider cults should be removed from their "situations"? How
far are you willing to go in macro-managing other people's children, Chris?

Why do you applaud this incident of institutional child abuse while a
Georgia official expresses his shame over his state's illegal action? Is it
because Georgia CPS's de facto discrimination puts into force those laws you
would like to see passed nationwide, Chris?

You're welcome! My pleasure, sir.

Doug

Nique

"Doug" <do...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:prUQ6.48742$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

I'm beginning to think that perhaps Nique accepts public whippings for unruly
children; public whippings that leave blood and bruises.

I'm thinking that Nique condones forced 13 year old marriages.

Her defense of this situation makes it hard for me to conclude otherwise.

LaVonne

Nique wrote:

Nique, if you were a bit more knowledgeable about the system you condemn, you
would realize that in a situation such as this, all children are considered to
be at risk.

Or would you rather leave the remaining 44 open to the same treatment as the 5
-- public beating, blood, bruises, etc.?

Do you want to protect children, or do you want to protect your idea of the
"perceived" rights of adults to do whatever they choose, in the name of raising
and disciplining children?

I see very little in your posts that indicates compassion for children, but a
whole lot of fear and paranoia. What do you do to your children, Nique?

LaVonne

Doug wrote:

> First, as you will notice in the news story to which you respond, only two

Do you find two children being marked by beatings acceptable?

Cults are attended by all members of the community -- there are cults that
appeal to Caucasians, to Asians, to African-Americans..... African-American
attendance does not lend immunity from cultism. My godchildren are
African-American, and one of my best friends, an African-American, is ordained
in the Baptist church. He is in the process of completing his Doctorate in
Divinity. He commented to me that is was sad to think that this incident would
help define and lend more credence to African-American stereotypes.

Apparently, he was right.

LaVonne

Membership in the same church is NOT sufficient grounds for classifying
these children "at risk". You find one case of abuse in my child's
classroom at school are you going to remove every child in that school from
the parents? Use your brain for a change LaVonne. Even DFCS in GA has
ADMITTED THEY SCREWED UP!

Nique

"LaVonne Carlson" <carl...@umn.edu> wrote in message
news:3B143CA4...@umn.edu...

You are coming really close to me saying a bunch of REALLY ugly things about
your complete lack of intelligence. What I do not condone is the removal of
children without cause and without due process. You need to be careful
where you tread here. You have already proven yourself to be completely
devoid of intelligent thought.

Are you condoning that the state forcibly handcuff minor children whose
parents have done NOTHING wrong and are simply "guilty by association in the
same church"? That is far more abusive and traumatic in my opinion.

Nique

news:3B143B5E...@umn.edu...

This is not abuse LaVonne, this was done as part of a religious belief
system. Are you telling me that telling a pregnant girl she must marry the
father of the child is abusive? I don't necessarily agree with it for
myself, but that particular religion believes that it is the right thing for
them to do. It is not my place, nor yours, and CERTAINLY NOT the almighty
government's place to say otherwise. And it is certainly not abusive in my
opinion.

What are you going to do when someone tells you that they are going to
remove all your rights to due process because of your moral and ethical
belief system?

>Nique wrote:

So that's reason to remove all the children from their parents? You rail at
parents who have the audacity to spank their children, yet support removing
children from their families for months despite little or no evidence of
physical abuse? You should spend a little more time at a.s.c-p-s, some of
stories hear are far more traumatic than those of "children considered to
be at risk".

-Ric Werme
--
Ric Werme | we...@nospam.mediaone.net
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/werme | ^^^^^^^ delete

The Atlanta CPS has publically reiterated that spanking is legal
and that church members can "spank" their kids. This was about public
beatings which left bruises, and in at least one instance, blood. This
was also about child marriages, arranged by the pastor, involving girls as
young as 13 or 14.

I have never advocated removing children from homes for spankings
which leave no bruises etc.

Doug, if you want to attempt to use off the wall child abusive
fanatics like these as symbols of your anti-CPS cause, you have a lot less
political savvy than Pastor Allen.

Chris

The beatings in question were happening in church in front of the
assembled congregation. So all children of the congregation were part of
that environment.

Chris

I have been debating on the spanking issue online for over a
decade. The support this little extremist "church" in Atlanta has
received from the prospankers on this newsgroup illustrates a change I
have observed over the past 10+ years. Ten years ago, most of the online
prospankers would have rushed to distance themselves from a case like
this, perhaps angrily accusing antispankers of underhanded tactics for
even bringing up the subject on a parenting newsgroup. The mainstream
prospank argument would have been that what this "church" was doing was
not "spanking" but abuse, and that the antispankers were up to our old
tricks, trying to insinuate that there was some connection between the
deplorable actions of Pastor Allen and his Atlanta congregation, and
harmless, beneficial loving spanking done the right way. Now, we see
prospankers making the connection themselves, in public debate, calling
the maltreatment of children in this church "spanking - not beating." I
deliberately posted the newspaper stories in the hope that some of the
prospank regulars would defend the abuses of this "church." The response
has exceeded my hopes.

As public support for spanking continues to slip, one observes
that the center cannot hold. Yes, there are still "moderate" prospankers
in the world who distance themselves from people who string children up
and publically whip them in front of non-family-members, leaving bruises
and contusions. But these "moderates" are not the ones doing most of the
posting anymore. As the ranks of the prospankers dwindle throughout the
developed world, off-the-wall extreme voices within their ranks become
more and more prominent, by default. I believe we can see the evidence of
this now.

Ten years ago, I would have pressed hard against anyone online who
tried to defend arranged, forced child marriages, bruises, and public
whippings as a matter of religious freedom and family privacy. But now I
am content to allow such people the last word. The more such extremist
positions typify the prospank side of the debate, the less we antispankers
need to work hard, or work at all. Eventually, all we will need to do is
to allow what is left of the prospankers to talk, and do our best make
sure they are widely heard.

Chris

[snip]
: Cults are attended by all members of the community -- there are cults that

I think that Pastor Allen's child abuse "church" is a cult due to
the inordinate control he appears to exercise over his congregation.
Pastors, ministers, rabbis and priests traditionally occupy a position of
respect in their communities and have a great deal of influence. This is
to be expected. But when you have a pastor who determines who is going to
marry who, assigning barely-pubescent young girls as "wives" to his church
elders, and beating kids as part of "church" services in front of the
whole congregation, this crosses the line in to Cultland. In most
churches, a clergyman who attempted to exercise this kind of control would
not succeed. No matter how much respect and influence most clergy have
within their congregations, they would lose it if they attempted to behave
in such a manner. This is why I would not characterize most churches as
"cults."

When a single charismatic leader exercises extreme levels of
control over all levels of his parishioners' lives, including handing out
young girls as sexual rewards to trusted male lieutenants, that is a bad
sign.

When this includes public child abuse with "religious"
justifications, that is a worse sign.

When prospankers leap to the defense of a cult like this, that is
an extremely *good* sign... *if* one is working to abolish all forms of
spanking.

Chris

: Membership in the same church is NOT sufficient grounds for classifying

Under normal circumstances, yes, I agree with you.

These are not normal circumstances.

The beatings and bruisings were taking place at church in front of
the congregation as part of "religious" services. The forced child
marriages were commanded by the pastor as an alleged religious duty. And
if the underaged "wives" refused to provide sex to their "husbands" they
were beaten and threatened with Hellfire by Pastor Allen. The abuse was
taking place on the church level, not on the individual family level.
That is what makes these circumstances unusual.

: You find one case of abuse in my child's

No. But if the injurious physical abuse was being done in front
of the entire school, by the principal, as part of Friday Morning
Assembly, I would consider the entire school a dangerous environment in
which every student was at risk. And frankly, Nique, I think you would
feel likewise if your daughters were attending such a school. I think you
would yank your children out of such a school in a heartbeat if you saw
something like that going on. Am I right or wrong, Nique?

I also think you would yank a 14 year old daughter out of a school
in which the principal ordered her to have regular sex with a male
administrator or department head, or be beaten in front of the entire
school at Friday Morning Assembly if she refuses.

I would like to think, Nique, that you have better sense than the
followers of Pastor Allen, who lacked the good judgement to recognize that
this "church" was an unsafe, toxic environment for their children. No
pubescent child should have to be forced to have sex with adults, or to
publically suffer bruising beatings, or to live in fear of beatings after
watching them happen in church to other children they know.

The heavy-handed government intervention was a mess, true. But I
don't see anyone here posing any alternatives save for doing nothing and
allowing the abuse to continue unabated. You seem to feel that parents
should have the right to put their kids through this kind of Hell free of
outside interference. I do not. If you or anyone else would like to
propose an alternative method of intervention which would not involve the
government, I will be more than willing to listen. Until then, I will
likely continue to view the CPS intervention as the lesser of two evils.

Chris

Hi, LeVonne!

No. But that's not what we were talking about, was it?

Do you find handcuffing or otherwise forcibly removing and incarcerating 47
children who were not marked acceptable? Child abuse is child abuse.

In this case, 47 children were actually abused by their government because
they allegedly were "at risk" of possibly being spanked in the future.

So, the question remains whether it is acceptable for our government to
forcibly incarcerate innocent children without due process of law. You seem
to believe that, because these citizens are younger than us, they do not
entitled to the same legal protection given adults. The state cannot take
an adult in custody because she is "at risk" of driving while under the
influence. It should not be empowered to apprehend and incarcerate children
based upon some subjective prediction that they may be at risk of being
spanked.

Those who watched the network television news saw for themselves how the
children themselves felt about the state forcibly removing them from their
families. Then, in a act of cowardice reminiscent of the "orphan train"
days, the agency covered the windows of a school bus with sheets and
secretly carted these children back to their families months later.

My point is that these kids were treated like cattle by the very agency
mandated to protect them. These children, in a very real and painful way,
were systemically abused by workers who were incapable of weighing the
emotional damage of their own malpractice.

The agency now backtracks and offers apologies cloaked in sheets. But the
damage -- much of it irreparable -- has already been done to these children.

Not another "ism". <g> I am curious, however, to learn your definition of a
cult.

I admit at the outset that I have difficulty wading through the criteria I
have seen voiced in the literature. I sometimes feel I may be "at risk" of
following the murky footsteps left by that absurd (and costly) phrase in a
US Supreme Court decision about pornography ("I know it when I see it").
So, I would be interested in hearing the criteria you apply in qualifying
people for membership in cults.

I do believe that the term is often used as a inflammatory propaganda
device, as in the present case. It makes a delightful glittering generality
because, by inference, it draws upon another, equally powerful propaganda
device -- guilt by association. "Cult" can be used to condemn an entire
subsystem of human beings based upon their mere association.

That is nice to hear. One of my best friends is a white, Anglo-Saxon CPS
worker who, like many of her colleagues, abhor the cultural insensitivity
displayed by Georgia's child protective agency in this case.

I appreciate you sharing his comments. We have already heard contradictory
comments from members of the African American Caucus of Georgia's state
legislature regarding this police action. If I recall, one of them said
that he was ashamed of his state for its callous treatment of these
children. And, of course, we are both aware of the abundance of literature
addressing the cultural insensitivity and institutional discrimination
abundant in child welfare practice. These researchers have questioned why
children of color are so over-represented in the foster care population.

The point is that there are many knowledgeable voices to this controversy.

> Apparently, he was right.

No. While he is clearly one voice in the debate, he has no exclusive
license to truth due to either his friendship with you or his ethnic
heritage.

Doug

"Chris" writes:

"I," the master-debater, who appears to take great self-satisfaction in his
own words. "Prospankers" -- whoever the hell they are. And, behold, "they"
have been observed to have "changed" -- a group counter-evolution, it
appears, which endangers their kind to political obscurity . . .
non-survival of the non-fit.

. . . . No mention of children, however. This is an adults-only game.

And now we have "anti-spankers" -- whoever the hell they are. Presumably,
they are the other political faction -- the evolving group that Darwin
favors . . . the fit ones, the ones who will survive.

But no mention of kids.

...And it appears there is a "mainstream" subgroup of the "prospank" group
who would disavow the fringe element of the same group. In fact, it would
accuse the other faction of employing tricks in even discussing what the
government did to the children in Georgia.

But Social Darwinism (another "ism") seems to have had its reverse way with
one of the political factions....

...And the master-debater, representing the "anti-spanking" faction, admits
to trickery. He is pleased with the results.

Yet we still hear nothing of non-abused children being forcibly removed from
their families and incarcerated by the state under pretenses the Georgia
agency and its legislature now admits were inappropriate.

It's not about kids, afterall. It is all about this perceived political
battle among perceived factions of adults. And, of course, a global
assessment of what the "public" thinks about it all. The master-debater has
this range of wisdom.

Now, wait a minute! I misunderstood. I thought it was the fringe element
of the prospanking group that was endangered. But, it appears, through some
sort of natural selection, the mainstream has become extinct. Mendel would
have been fascinated had this occurred with his peas.

The political analysis continues, but with no mention of the 47 non-abused
children forcibly removed, en masse, from their homes. Rather than discuss
manacled children who were yanked, screaming, from their powerless parents,
we are handcuffed with the political ravings of the master-debater.
Afterall, he now has his finger on the pulse of all adults in the
"developed" world.

The welfare of children is of minor consequence in such grandiose and earth
shaking analogy.

Yep. Those damn white pedaled peas somehow found dominance in Chris's
perceived chaos -- a tributary to the river breaks away and finds prominence
by default, shunning Darwin once and for all. A grand counter-evolution.

We can?

"I" has adjusted to what he perceives as the evolutionally change in the
adult political debate. He envelopes others into the "anti-spanking"
faction -- which is easy enough to do, presumably, because now they don't
have to work as hard.

One wonders what the political faction is working for, but that seems beside
the point. We should be glad that they no longer need to resort to trickery
and other forms of labor.

This may seem absurd in light of the sweeping political analysis we have
enjoyed, but it occurs to me that some of the contributors who have objected
to the atrocities committed in Georgia may not be members of either of these
adult political factions -- mainstream or splinters. They may be authors
who simply object to the way the State of Georgia treated the 47 children
wrongfully removed from their homes.

Some of the posters to either side of the discussion about Georgia's child
protective agency may have been sensitive to the children involved in this
case.

Political debates are great fun for many adults. There is certainly nothing
wrong with them so long as they do not occur at the expense of our tiniest,
most vulnerable citizens.

Kids have rights, too.

Doug

Hi, Chris!

Political savvy may be your particular obsession, but it is not mine. (Not
that I don't nurture my own set of obsessions). Nor am I involved in an
"anti CPS" cause or faction.

The 47 innocent children who were wrongfully incarcerated by the state of
Georgia are not symbols to me. They are real people who were injured by the
agency mandated to protect them. They are young citizens who should be
entitled to the same rights of due process enjoyed by adults.

There was nothing symbolic about forcibly removing these kids under color of
law. They were real children who suffered real institutional abuse at the
hands of the state. That the state acted on behalf of its citizens involves
all of them as perps. Members of that state's legislature seem to have
recognized this and the agency claims to have taken steps to insure that it
does not happen again.

It seems to be that adults have a responsibility to be sensitive to the
feelings of these real kids rather than view their ordeal as fodder for some
sort of political argument.

Agency workers should have weighed the emotional damage done to the children
through removal against the potential damage that may have occurred by
possible future spankings. There is no indication the agency did so, other
than retrospectively months later.

To inflict actual child abuse as an alleged remedy for what workers
perceived to be a possible threat of future spanking is barbaric.

Doug

Chris, there was no evidence of abuse for 47 of the children. They were not
removed from the church, but from their parents.

Nique wrote:

You did not respond to Nique's question. She asked if you would remove
every child in that school *from their parents.* She said nothing about
removing them from the school. But of course, you knew that.

Wrong. You ignore her analogy. Why is that?

How the hell did you get here? Wow. The children in Georgia were not
removed from the church. They were taken from their parents and forcibly
incarcerated in state custody. Applying your analogy above, Nigue would
remove her daughter from her family and place her into state custody because
of the actions of the school principal.

> followers of Pastor Allen, who lacked the good judgment to recognize that

So now, after holding the 47 children in state custody, their parents have
suddenly become wise to toxic environments and now have the judgment not to
go to church? The facts in the news article you posted prove otherwise.

How have the circumstances changed for the children who were returned,
Chris? Are they better off today than they were months ago? Are the
emotional scars worth it?

Could it be that the magnitude of evil you apply to spanking hampers your
ability to weigh the abuse inflicted upon children forcibly removed from
their families?

I believe you accurately present the issue -- weighing the respective damage
of each option and choosing the least injurious. However, I submit that you
find yourself firmly politically seated on one end of the teeter-totter --
the scales are titled.

I see no indication that the state weighed both alternatives. Until it
could determine whether each child was abused or not, the state had an
obligation to, "at first, do no harm." Instead, it proceeded in what you
characterize as a "heavy-handed way" and did substantial damage to 47
innocent children.

Doug

Chris wrote:

Yup. Because the ONLY two children with any marks were the ones ORIGINALLY
taken. There was NO justification (sorry but your desperate Big Nanny
anti-parent paranoia is NOT legitimate justification, Little Chrissie) for
the mass kidnapping of the other 58.

None whatever.

Again the Big Nanny fascist attitude of parents being GUILTY until proven
innocent and treated as such. How typical.

ANY rational, reasonable, logical and legitimate thought is clearly beyond
you, Little Chrissie.

Has nothing to do with clairvoyance, Little Chrissie. It has EVERYTHING to do
with innocent until proven guilty and not kidnapping children from innocent
parents and families. It has to do with not removing children from homes
unless you HAVE proof and evidence that they WILL suffer SEVERE harm in all
likelihood if they are not removed. There was clearly no evidence of such
here, and as such there was (like in over 85-95+% of Gestapo CPS removals)
absolutely NO legitimate justification for removal, and as such the removals
were nothing less than Gestapo CPS kidnappings! Period!

Actually, Little Chrissie, it is you who continue to demonstrate your fascist
and fanatical extremist anti-parent and anti-family pro-Gestapo CPS
attitudes.

Oh well... thank you for playing, Little Chrissie.

Greg Hanson wrote:

Absolutely! You seem to be picking up on the real Little Chrissie and why he
is correctly labelled as he is.

Oh, he has none tight, that can be assured... all his screws are loose or MIA.

Little Chrissie has proven that fact long ago.

He always has... anything to further his <6% fascist extremist lunatic fringe
anti-spank and anti-parent anti-family and pro-Gestapo CPS agenda.

Things tend to be pretty dark and black and white in Little Chrissie's corner
of the Twilight Zone.

Doug wrote:

But that is ok, you see, because in Little Chrissie's twisted view of the
universe that is 'in their best interests'. <chuckle>

That seems to be the case about Little Chrissie, doesn't it?

> In your zeal to promote this end, you callously ignore the

Yup. Like most childstealers and their apologists like Little Chrissie they
will ignore the law when it is inconvenient to them (like when they hold in
contempt and disdain the civil, constitutional, human, due process and parental
rights of innocent citizens that their kind view as nothing but impediments to
their goals) yet will demand everyone be held to the highest level of the law
when THAT suits their purposes, and will advocate extremist draconian laws to
further their own agendas.