Hana Williams: Another child "disciplined" to death

This Saturday will mark six months since the tragic death of thirteen-year-old Hana Grace Rose Williams, born Hana Alemu, who died at the hands of her adoptive parents Larry and Carri Williams.

Hana is the third in a string of deaths linked to the use of training methods outlined in Michael and Debi Pearl's book, "To Train Up a Child". The deaths of seven-year-old Lydia Schatz and four-year-old Sean Paddock were also attributed to the use of these teachings. The siblings of all three children were found to have been struck repeatedly with plumbing supply line, the tool recommended by the Pearls for "training" children as young as six months old.

Are the teachings in the Pearls' book inherently abusive? At first glance, perhaps not. They wrap their message up in pretty bows, encouraging parents to "tie strings" and develop mutual respect and trust. A cursory read-through by a well-meaning parent may raise only a few easily-ignored red flags. But what happens when these teachings are followed religiously and taken to their logical conclusion?

The horrifying affidavit filed after Hana's death paints precisely this picture. For months, Hana had been regularly beaten, denied food, forced to shower under cold water outside, locked in a dark closet, and permitted to use only the lavatory set up for her behind the barn. She ultimately succumbed to hypothermia when left outside in the rain. Her adopted brother had endured similar abuses, including being hosed down in cold water when his documented medical condition caused him to urinate in his pants.

The Pearls would deny that any such abusive actions had any relation to the teachings in their book. And yet according to the affidavit:

"Other forms of discipline taught in this book include cold water bathes to assist in toilet training or putting the children outside in the cold weather, having them miss meals and sleeping on the floor or outside as forms of punishment."

The book itself further substantiates these claims:

"So, my suggestion was that the father explain to the boy that, now that he was a man [at all of three years old], he would no longer be washed in the house. He was too big and too stinky to be cleaned by the babywipes. From now on, he would be washed outside with a garden hose. The child was not to be blamed. This was to be understood as just a progressive change in methods. The next dump, the father took him out and merrily, and might I say, carelessly, washed him off. What with the autumn chill and the cold well water, I don’t remember if it took a second washing or not, but, a week later, the father told me his son was now taking himself to the pot. The child weighed the alternatives and opted to change his lifestyle. Since then, several others have been the recipients of my meddling, and it usually takes no more than three cheerful washings."

"If a child doesn’t like what is on the table, let him do without until the next meal. A little fasting is good training."

"If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final."

"Use your own judgment as to what is effective. I found five to ten licks usually sufficient. Sometimes, with older children, usually when the licks are not forceful enough, the child may still be rebellious. If this occurs, take time to instruct and then continue the spanking. A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child is surrendered."

Continue the disciplinary action until the child is surrendered...or dead.

After Lydia's death, Micheal released a statement saying that he "laughed at his caustic critics". A child is dead, and Michael laughs. He concludes his lengthy mocking statement with the following:

"Even my chickens are laughing...well, actually it is more like cackling, because they just laid another organic egg for my breakfast and they know that it was that same piece of ¼ inch plastic supply line that trained the dogs not to eat chicken."

To put this into perspective, consider author Stephen King's response when actual school shootings were linked to his book "Rage". Far from laughing, King expressed deep remorse and had the book pulled from further publication. That is the human, compassionate response to death. Michael Pearl laughed.

But there is hope. These deaths are not going unnoticed. As these children rest safely in the arms of their Heavenly Father, others are questioning the Pearls' methods. CNN recently a ran a two-part series on Michael Pearl and Lydia Schatz (Part 1 and Part 2), which was later followed up with their report Ungodly Discipline and interview Faith and Discipline after the death of Hana Williams. The New York Times has also reported on the Pearls and their role in Hana's death. Although the reports thus far have failed to truly unearth the severity of these teachings, they are a hopeful beginning.

Others are speaking out against the Pearls' abusive teachings as well:

• Why Not Train a Child has explored why blame the Pearls at all?, a question explored further in Part 2. The blog continues to follow the unfolding story and the many reactions it has elicited.
• Elizabeth Esther wrote about another dead child, the cognitive dissonance of "biblical" child-training, and why the Pearls must be held accountable.
• Free by His Grace has asked, Hana Williams: “Rebellion” or Reaction to Abuse?
• TulipGirl wrote about Hana Williams and the Pearls and parenting.
• A member of No Longer Quivering shared her own heartbreaking experience with using the Pearls' materials in her article Corpses Don't Rebel.
• Christianity Today writer Rachel Stone read the book for herself, discovering that the line between the Pearls’ “child training” and child abuse is blurry at best.

In memory of Hana, I will be devoting next week to a three-part exploration of the "rod verses" in Proverbs. While the issue at hand isn't limited to corporal punishment - even many who spank find the Pearls' teachings to be horrifying and cruel - it is the Pearls' twisted use of Scripture that so many supporters, both fervent and reluctant, hold out as evidence that what he teaches must be biblical. It is my hope that the idea of physical chastisement as a necessary, or even acceptable, part of "biblical" discipline will continue to be questioned by those who learn of the tragic results of such twisted theology.

As I've asked before: How many more? How many more children need to die before the teachings of the Pearls are seen for what they really are? How much longer will this needless abuse happen behind closed doors, not at the hands of monsters, but those of well-meaning, loving parents who have been taken in by the Pearls' promises of godly children? This is not a case of taking away nuggets of gold and leaving behind the small part that tends to the extreme - no, this is a case of digging through a garbage dump in hopes of finding one small fleck of gold. Perhaps the Pearls are all the more insidious for that very reason: for all their advice of "tying heartstrings", the practicality of carrying out what they put forth achieves anything but attachment.

Unreasoning Fear

"Things happen all the time."

This is the common sentiment used to justify a constant line-of-sight supervision of our children. Don't glance away, don't leave them alone, not even for a minute, because things happen all the time.

This is a challenging discussion to have because first, it is difficult to disagree with the overarching mentality in light of horrifying personal stories, and second, any attempts to do so leave you looking both thoughtless and careless.

Stranger abduction. None of us want our children to be that "one child" it happens to. The thought is beyond horrifying. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that:

• 797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied (1999) resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.
• 203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.
• 58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.
• 115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)
(source)

But when we step back and look at the risk of stranger abduction (less than one child per day in the entire United States), and then look at the very real risks to a child's development that come along with direct, constant, line-of-sight supervision at all times and in all places, the latter, I believe, has very far-reaching implications both to the individual and to society as a whole.

I am fully supportive of proactive parenting that teaches and empowers children to recognize and respond to danger. I am not comfortable with parenting that sees danger around every corner and insists on constant supervision at all times and in all places. Our fear of "stranger danger" has kept too many children indoors, in front of the television, playing video games, and surfing the web, rather than outdoors exploring, discovering, running, climbing, and building.

I also see a dangerous dichotomy in telling our children that all strangers are to be feared and yet that all adults should be automatically respected and obeyed - particularly because, statistically speaking, a child is at far greater risk from those placed in charge of them (teachers, leaders, caregivers, etc) than they are from strangers.

The very concept of "stranger danger" actually creates a more dangerous community for our children, because a) children become fearful of all strangers, including the vast majority who would help rather than harm them, and b) adults become fearful of all interactions with children, including any attempts to help them, for fear of being accused of nefarious motives (thinking, for example, of the tragic pond drowning of a two-year-old girl, because the man who saw her wandering down the street was too afraid to help her for fear of being accused of kidnapping). When all adults (particularly men) are automatically suspect, everyone loses. Community cannot bloom and thrive under these conditions.

I am in no way suggesting that we throw our children to the wolves, but I don't believe we can teach them to think for themselves, trust their own judgement, or make good decisions if they are under our constant supervision. How can they properly handle responsibility and freedom if we never give it to them nor expect it from them?

None of this is helped by media hype (sensational news sells), nor by the many organizations and individuals who stand to profit by elevating public anxiety (buy our gadget, it will help keep your child safe!). It is in many ways like our fear of germs, egged on in order to sell to the public that which was originally intended for medical professionals. Take, for example, Purrell's "imagine a touchable world" slogan, with its implication that the world is untouchable without their products, or Lysol's "Mission for Health" and "Healthy Babies" programs. But how do you make a case against these profit-driven tactics when the certain response is, "are you really willing to risk your child's life? Isn't it worth it if it might protect them?"

And yet...don't nearly all of us frequently take our children in the car? The rates of child death due to vehicular accidents is approximately twenty times greater than the rates of stranger abduction (2,863 child passengers died in 1999, to contrast the stats above, and 2,270 in 2007, to give a more recent figure (source)). But we accept that everyday risk because we believe the benefit of driving in the car is greater than the risk of our children dying in a car crash (while, of course, doing what we can to make that car trip as safe as possible, including seatbelts and extended rear-facing carseats and so on - all of which still don't bring down the death rates to anywhere near the rates of stranger abduction). Likewise, I believe the benefit of a child-appropriate "free-range childhood" is greater than the risk of stranger abduction - and I, too, will do what I can do make that free-range childhood as safe as possible by arming my children with knowledge and confidence.

Even so, nothing I could possibly do will make this life entirely safe for my children. I will pray (and pray and pray and pray) for their safety - mind, body, and soul - but I cannot eliminate all risks. To believe I can is to place undue guilt on myself while creating a false sense of security for my family.

Being aware of the real dangers is more productive than adopting a worst-case scenario mentality. Family abductions, for example, are several hundred times more common than stranger abductions. If I had an unstable ex, I would absolutely take greater precautions with my child. Likewise with child molestation - frighteningly common, especially by family members and friends.

This failure to differentiate between "things that happen all the time" and "worst-case scenarios" is highlighted, I think, in the argument that "you wouldn't leave your purse unattended, would you?" No, typically I wouldn't - because it is (relatively speaking) no big deal to snatch a purse. Snatching a child, on the other hand, takes a very rare type of person. I am reminded of the story of a man who stole a car, not realizing there was a child strapped in the back - and upon discovering the child, immediately turned the car around and returned the child to his mother. That is the very real difference I am speaking of - people will steal things, but very very few will steal a child.

At some point, my children are likely to encounter someone unsafe. I cannot remove that possibility from their lives. I can, however, give them the tools they need to avoid dangerous situations when possible, live through it if they have to, and process it in a healthy manner when it is over. As such, these are my primary goals:

• provide skills and knowledge
• encourage them to trust their intuition and avoid general fear
• respect their body and teach them to do the same
• emphasize the importance of honesty
• remove any aura of shame from the topic
• build a strong community in our neighbourhood

I am still working on how best to accomplish these goals, but they give me something to work towards and, ideally, prevent me from falling into a fear-based approach to parenting. I'd love to hear how you balance avoiding the irrational "stranger danger" fear/mentality while also providing your children with the tools they need to keep themselves safe.




Recommended Reading:
Free-Range Kids by Lenore Skenazy
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker
Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker
Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv

Disciplined to death

Yesterday marked three weeks since seven-year-old Lydia Schatz was killed at the hands of her adoptive parents, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz.

Thursday marked four years since four-year-old Sean Paddock was killed at the hands of his adoptive mother, Lynn Paddock.

What did both tragic deaths have in common?

Parenting methods that followed the writings of Michael and Debi Pearl.

Countless bloggers have written about the deaths in the past month, and their words say everything my heart is feeling right now. Outrage that these "Christian parenting experts" continue to poison well-meaning parents with their writings. Sorrow and horror over the deaths of these children, and the harm - physical, emotional, and spiritual - caused to untold numbers of other precious little ones. Disgust at the manipulative twisting of Scripture that attempts to cloak abuse in a loving, God-mandated covering.

In Heartbroken. Angry. Again., TulipGirl wrote:

"Well intentioned or not, the abusive parenting influenced by Michael and Debi Pearl led to another child’s death. How many more children are being abused behind closed doors and condoned by the Church in the name of “no greater joy” and “first time obedience”? When will the Pearls take full responsibility for the harm of their teachings? When will Christian parents see through the lies cloaked in Scripture?"

Links to many of TulipGirl's extensive articles on the Pearls are included at the end of the post. Several external links are also included in her entries Vulnerable, To Abuse and Who Is Speaking Out Against Abuse?.

In Hold ‘em Down, Defeat Totally, TulipGirl responds to Michael Pearl's statement:

"If, indeed?! A child is dead, another one hospitalized for nearly two weeks, and the other seven children conveyed this so-called discipline was normal in their home. The Pearls’ teachings could no more turn someone away from “abusive habits,” as their very instructions set parents up for normalizing patterns that lead to abuse — “defeat totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. . . five to ten licks. . . continue the spanking. . . continue the disciplinary action until the child is surrendered.”"

The heartbreaking entry In which I discuss the unthinkable, written by close friend of the Schatz family Laurie Mathers, details the horror of coming to terms with the knowledge that the people they love could have committed such an unspeakable act:

"As the days have gone by, more and more information has been uncovered about our friends. It turns out they were following the methods of Michael and Debi Pearl's "ministry" of systematic child "training". My husband and I have spent hours upon hours since this discovery poring over Pearl literature, disgusted. Horrified. I wanted understanding of what could have led to this tragedy, and I got it. The Pearl Method was the missing link. It made “sense” of what made no sense before. From what I've read, and even from some hindsight reflections of what I knew of this family, it appears they were following Pearl teachings very carefully - in doctrine and in practice. If the autopsy reports verify what preliminary findings suggest, it was the form of whipping (using the identical implement recommended in Pearl literature) taught by them which killed Lydia, and nearly killed Zariah."

As heartbreaking as it is, this is such an important entry to read.


In child abuse in the name of Jesus, thatmom writes about other incidents of abuse resulting from similar twisted "Christian" teachings:

"This is just the tip of the iceberg; an unbiblical philosophy and theology of power and control is behind their suggestions for discipline."

Salon.com has posted an extensive article by Lynn Harris entitled Godly discipline turned deadly:

"Attorney Mike Ramsey told Salon that the Schatzes had explicitly described to police their adherence to the Pearls' philosophy, which, as one of many horrified anti-Pearl bloggers within the conservative Christian community observes -- recalling precisely what prompted the Schatzes' call to 911 -- includes the admonition that a proper spanking leaves a child "without breath to complain.""

In This made me cry today..., Rebecca Diamond writes extensively on the discord between the theology of the Bible and that of Michael Pearl:

"They did it to her in the name of Jesus and Michael Pearl. Just in case any of my readers are confused, let me explain. You may not know who Mr. Pearl is – I’ll get to that – but I’m pretty sure you don’t know who their Jesus is either. Because that Jesus isn’t the same Jesus I serve, the one who clearly stated “Let the children come to me, and forbid them not” and “the kingdom of Heaven is of such as these” and “what you did unto the least of these my brethren, you did to me” and “unless you become as a little child, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom”."

In When Parenting Kills – What Can We Do?, Katiekind touches on the adoption aspect:

"One risk factor [the Pearls] don’t seem to consider is the effect on children of attachment and trauma issues, such as RAD (reactive attachment disorder) – something sometimes associated with older-child adoptions. It may be no coincidence that these victims were adopted three years ago from a war-torn African country. Who knows what children who are put up for adoption under such circumstances have endured. Under what circumstances did they lose their family? What did they witness personally? What did they themselves endure? What was orphanage life like? Naturally children shaped and damaged by such experiences may respond differently to Pearlesque discipline than the joyful unconditional surrender depicted by the Pearls."

In her heartwrenching entry, Perfectionism, Ann Voskamp of A Holy Experience writes about her family’s personal experiences applying the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl:

"Do you not train me well enough, Lord? I don’t obey You without fail, Father. And You are an infinitely better Father to me than I am a Mother to these children. Then why did I think I could have “always” obedience from these precious ones? You discipline me, Lord--- but always in the context of mercy and love---and a Cross."

If you read anything, read that one.


How many more? How many more children need to die before the teachings of the Pearls are seen for what they really are? How much longer will this needless abuse happen behind closed doors, not at the hands of monsters, but those of well-meaning, loving parents who have been taken in by the Pearls' promises of godly children? This is not a case of taking away nuggets of gold and leaving behind the small part that tends to the extreme - no, this is a case of digging through a garbage dump in hopes of finding one small fleck of gold. Perhaps the Pearls are all the more insidious for that very reason: for all their advice of "tying heartstrings", the practicality of carrying out what they put forth achieves anything but attachment.

Continue to speak out. This abuse cannot be permitted to continue under the guise of "godly parenting". It cannot be permitted to continue, period. My fervent hope in this tragedy is that the truth of what the Pearls teach will, at long last, be exposed for the evil it is.

Vaccines and risks

Today I am sharing some thoughts on vaccines and risks in a guest post at Sheila's place, Not One of the Herd. Her blog has some great posts chronicling her personal journey in "exploring and challenging the 'norms' of society". Come on over!

Sheer brilliance

First they came up with a chicken pox vaccine.

This, as anyone with an ounce of common sense should have been able to forsee, led to an increase in adult shingles.

So what did they do?

They came up with a shingles vaccine too.

It's sheer profit brilliance.

(Oh, but it's not about the money. Really.)

Oh yes, and did you hear? There has been an increase in measles outbreaks recently. Measles are, after all, a "potentially deadly disease". Darn those religious homeschooled non-vaxers.

A few years from now, they'll be writing the exact same article, only about chicken pox instead of measles. Forget normal childhood illness (with lasting immunity, unlike the chicken pox vaccine's immunity). No, no, chicken pox is a "potentially deadly disease". Beware!

The Definition of "Risk"

I'm trying to be patient. I really am. But when people can't even understand a concept so basic as "risk"...well, it becomes rather difficult.

Risk is the possibility of an event occuring. When I say there is a risk of such-and-such, I don't mean that it will happen. I mean there is a possibility that it will happen.

So the fact that it didn't happen to your sister/mother/friend/etc is, I'm sorry to say, really quite irrelevant.

There are risks associated with epidurals. There are risks associated with being induced. There are risks associated with medical tests. With formula. With babies watching television. With vaccines. With leaving a baby to cry alone. There simply are.

I just want people to think. To have all the knowledge they need to make an informed decision. Not to necessarily make the same decision I would - just to make an informed one. Maybe for you the benefit is worth the risk, while for me it isn't. That's fine - just be willing to recognize that the risk exists in the first place! I can respect that sort of decision. What I can't respect is the poor logic of "such-and-such didn't happen to so-and-so, therefore there is no risk", or, perhaps even worse, "it won't happen to me."

Those two statements are so hurtful in the way they completely disqualify and invalidate the experiences of all those to whom it did happen. So it didn't happen to your sister - that doesn't mean it won't happen to you. That doesn't mean it hasn't already happened to countless numbers of other women. Show some respect for those women - recognize that the risk exists. Just recognize that it exists.

Negligent?

I really wish magic 8 balls worked.

Or that all baby books and articles and studies said the same thing.

Or that "right answers" fell out of the sky.

Because then these no-win issues wouldn't exist.

It seems that no matter how much I read about vaccinations, I just don't get any further ahead, any closer to that one perfect "correct" answer.

On the one hand, I can continue to delay my son's vaccinations and to be selective about which ones he gets in the first place. I'm very fortunate to have a doctor who accepts this without question or objection. But how would I feel if my son ended up with a vaccine-preventable disease? And is it really fair to take advantage of everyone else's vaccinations?

On the other hand, I can have the vaccinations done. I can allow the doctor to inject them into my baby. And then I can hope and pray that he isn't adversely affected by them, and constantly wonder whether this or that is a result of the vaccines.

Either way, I'm gambling. Either way, I take a risk with my son's health, with his life. It feels like either way, I lose.

My perfect little baby boy is napping a few feet away from me, blissfully unaware that on Tuesday, when he turns six months old, we will go see the doctor and once again his mom will say no, not today, we're still delaying. No, not today will we inject him with substances that could have lasting negative effects on his health and development. No, not today will we increase his protection against this, that, and the other. What does that make us? Good? Bad? Thoughtful? Negligent?

Confused?

I know there probably is no right answer here. But for now, I'm doing what I think is best, after months of research. I'm continuing to delay. In the meantime, I'm breastfeeding, the bit of protection I can give him without worry. I'll keep delaying until I feel it's time to do otherwise - and maybe that day simply won't ever come.

I Don't Wanna

The more I learn about the world, the more I find myself saying I don't wanna.

I don't wanna do what I'm told.

I don't wanna do it just because it's normal.

I don't wanna do it just because it's expected.

I don't wanna do it just because it's mainstream.

I don't wanna.

The more I learn about the world, the more I find myself noticing. Considering. Thinking. Deciding. Changing. Leaving the mainstream behind.

Countless unconscious decisions I once took for granted are now becoming conscious choices.

Maybe this is called growing up? (Except that I don't see most people doing it!)

I don't want to fill my house with chemicals just because P&G wants me to. I don't want to eat food filled with crap just because it's what the nearest grocery store sells. I don't want to take every medicine known to man for every little sniffle just because the drug company needs to up their profit. I don't want to give birth to a drugged-up baby just because the nurses tell me to have an epidural. I don't want to pump my kid full of toxins just because the doctor says he should be vaccinated. I don't want to leave my baby to cry it out just because society says he needs to learn to be independent. I don't want to send him off to public school in a few years just because it's normal.

And on and on and on and on.

So this is me, finally stepping up and saying, "Hey world! I don't want to do it just because it's mainstream!"