Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Krantz v. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Supreme Court, U.S.

uP FILED

No. 19-552 OCT 22 2010

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

in The

Supreme Court of the Anited States

ALBERT KRANTZ and

MIRIAM KRANTZ,

Petitioners

V

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN SERVICES,

}

Re spondent.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

Te The Arkansas Court Of Appeals

—__—_—_______- @ - — _-- —____—__

JOHN WESLEY HALL, JR

1311 Broadway St.

Little Rock, Arkansas 72202-4843

ForHall@aol.com

(501) 371-9131

Counsel for Petitioner

October 22, 2010

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

There are no corporations party to this case, but

the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries, Fouke, Arkan-

sas, is discussed throughout the opinion of the trial

court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The peti

tioners’ relation to Tony Alamo Christian Ministries is

an issue in this case.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented

Rule 29.6 Statement

Table of Authorities

Opinions Below.

Jurisdiction.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

Statement ..

Reasons for Granting the Petition.

I THE DECISION OF THE ARKANSAS

COURT OF APPEALS CONFLICTS WITH

THIS COURT’S DECISIONS APPLYING

STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW TO FREE

EXERCISE OF RELIGION CLAIMS

THE DECISION OF THE ARKANSAS

COURT OF APPEALS CONFLICTS WITH

THIS COURT'S DECISIONS APPLYING

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE TO PRO-

TECTION AND RECOGNITION OF FAM-

ILY INTEGRITY .....

Conclusion..

APPENDIX

Krantz v. Ark. Dep't of Human Services,

Ark. App. 316 (April 14, 2010)...............

Thorne v. Ark. Dept of Human Services,

Ark. App. 443 (April 14, 2010).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

irk. Dept of Human Services v. Kran

cation Order

Denial of Rehearing, May 19, 2010

Mandate, June 24, 2010

Denial of Petition for Review, June

Adjudi

24, Z010

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985)...5, 17

Broderick v. Ark. Dept of Human Services, 2009

Ark. App. 771, 2009 WL 3853149 (November

ee IE series ai sa cv onus anda ds os cereas ives rouaceareneds muuatanienedcoens 4

Broderick v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services,

2010 Ark. App. 168, 2010 WL 546494 (Feb-

Pe Br MI Rodale a dccl ccaantisvesean satis exepunencuecuecenes 4

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,

Ne BF Ie va vc esck cen cencoccsevsvavnsicsvsatiersosses iy ee

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties

Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S.

ee eer et re coe uen cua kuvenebarnts co panowerinns 7

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)......... 7,15

Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)...................... 16

Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748

P. Sune. SES CWE. APR. 1680). no... ccccsccceccctavccssecssnss i3

Myers v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010

PER PaO. SiO UTI 14, DODO) oii sccsccessssesssssscececes 4,6

Ondrisek v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010

Ark. App. 164, 2010 WL 546367 (February

Ss OE evi petsiadldercs dy Sind civd ca houses soriaeneecdivess Se 4

Parrish v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010

Ark. App. 327, 2010 WL 1487224 (April 14,

eee ye aes ac sea PS REO OP nde AA 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page

Reid v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2009

Ark. App. 784, 2009 WL 3855700 (November

tae) )

Reid v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010

Ark. App. 156, 2010 WL 546436 (February

es ac cuns ayakawetaenanesoevees

Seago v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2009

Ark. App. 767, 2009 WL 3852785 (November

te i) ae

Seago v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010

Ark. App. 169, 2010 WL 546410 (February

17, 2010)

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972).......

Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment

Sec. Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981)

Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199

RES ag SER RTE

Thorne v. Arkansas Deptt of Human Seruvs.,

2010 Ark. App. 317 (April 14, 2010) , 4, S,

Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478 (1974).......

Wade v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 337 Ark.

353, 990 S.W.2d 509 (1999)

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)...

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Const. amend. [........

U.S. Const. amend. XIV ................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Contin:

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a)

Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-505 (Repl. 2009

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-9-22

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(1)(1) (Supp. 2010

-

~

-

ee

~

~

_

—

~

» *

.\

~

we

~

_

=

~

7

~

>

i\

i

—

—

_

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioners, Albert and Miriam Krantz, respect

fully petition for a writ of certiorari to the Arkansas

Court of Appeals in this case.

———_--- —- @ —-

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Arkansas Court of Appeals

(App. 1-2) is reported at 2010 Ark. App. 316, 2010 WL

1487246. It incorporates by reference Thorne uv.

Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 317

(April 14, 2010), which was modified on rehearing

2010 Ark. App. 443, 2010 WL 1988182 (May 19,

2010). (App. 3-23) The Arkansas Court of Appeals

denied rehearing May 19, 2010 (App. 35), and the

Arkansas Supreme Court denied a petition for review

June 24, 2010. (App. 37)

The decision of the circuit court is unreported

I

(App. 24-34)

JURISDICTION

The Arkansas Court of Appeals decision was

entered April 14, 2010. Timely petitions for rehearing

and for review were denied May 19, 2010 and June

24, 2010, respectively. (App. 35, 37). On September 7,

2010, Justice Alito extended the time for this petition

for writ of certiorari to Octcber 22, 2010.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof. .

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Consti-

tution, § lL:

nor shall any state deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due proces

of law:

STATEMENT

l. This case raises an important question of

free exercise of religion in the context of a child

dependency and neglect case. The petitioners are

church missionaries ordered by the juvenile court

to disassociate from the Tony Alamo Christian Min-

istries to be reunified with their children first put

into foster care by emergency order. If they fail to

comply, their parental rights can be terminated, and

their children put up for adoption. They also claim

the utter lack of evidence as to them under the “cut

and paste” juvenile court order prepared by the

state’s attorney and signed by the juvenile judge

violates their due process rights

2. In September 2008, the respondent Arkansa

Department of Human Services obtained juvenile

court orders to take control of all 124 children be

lieved to be residing at the Tony Alamo Christian

Ministries, Fouke, Arkansas. While not many were

initially found there, others were later picked up and

detained. In the process, petitioners’ six children were

taken from them.

Despite the state requirement of a closed hea

ing, there was a combined hearing in January 2009

involving the common fact issues involving nine

families. Individual hearings followed. There were

hearings finding the children dependent and neglect

ed based on findings of fact and conclusions of law

involving life and conditions at the Tony Alamo

Christian Ministries.

The ultimate goal of any dependency and neglect

case is reunification of the family, as it is here. (Orde:

App. 29, {| 6) If the court finds that fails, however, the

See note 3, infra

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-3250)(1) (Supp. 2010

petitioners family mghts can be

children put up for adoption

trom tho eC cases there are A VOT Opinion

from the Arkansas Court of Appeal:

This petition involves only one family, parent

eparated from their six children. without any ev!

dence whatsoever against them, requiring them to

disassociate from the Tony Alamo Christian Min

istries to be reunited with their children in violation

of their religious faith. The petitioners are given the

choice of sacrificing their religious behefs to satistly

the respondent and the juvenile court that thei

children are not dependent and neyle ted

Ark. Code An 22W(c)( 2) (Supp. 2010

Besides this case are: Thorne v. Ark. Dept. of Human Ser

wes, 2010 Ark. App. 317 (April 14, 2010), substituted opinion on

denial of rehearing 2010 Ark. App. 443, 2010 WL 1988182 (May

19, 2010); Myers v. Ark. Dept. of Hurnan Services, 2010 Ark. App

326 (April 14, 2010), substituted opinion on denial of rehearing

2010 Ark. App. 444, 2010 WL 1997411 (May 19, 2010); Parrish 1

irk. Dept. of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 327, 2010 WL

1487224 (April 14, 2010); Reid v. Ark. Dept. of Human Service:

2010 Ark. App. 156, 2010 WL 546436 (February 17, 2010);

Broderick v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 168

2010 WL 546494 (February 17, 2010); Seago v. Ark. Dept. of

Human Services, 2010 Ark. App. 169, 2010 WL 546410 (Febru

ary 17, 2010); Ondrisek v. Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2010

Ark. App. 164, 2010 WL 546367 (February 17, 2010); Seago |

Ark. Dept. of Human Services, 2009 Ark. App. 767, 2009 WL

3852785 (November 18, 2009): Broderick v. Ark. Dept of Human

Services, 2009 Ark. App. 771, 2009 WL 3853149 (November 18

2009); Reid v. Ark. Dept. of Human Servic 2009 Ark. App. 734

2009 WL 3855700 (November 18, 2009

linder the clearly erroneou Lar

late review whicl in Arkansa dependency na

negiect Case: ilso involve de novo revie Ol the

application of the fact to th lAa\ whatever on

would say about the evidence to support the conclu

of the juvenjle court in the other case Lhe

devoid of proof

Sion:

utterly

petitioneys

children are

LO the

dependent and nevplect

record as

of the «

that petitioner:

iby te vICW

ed. There are no “two perm!

dence A to them and that 1 their due proc

claim. Petitioner ubmil that they stain the juve

nile court and on appeal olely because of gurlt |

association and who they choose t y pray md a ociale

with. That is their free exercise claim. The potentia

termination of their parental mghts are at |} t

3. Petitione! ubmit the ind their childr

tates hysteria against the Tony

ibuse allegra

wept up in the

tian Ministrie

of underage

and sexual

mMmarriave

were

Alamo Chri

and allegation

but that do

Lion

Alamo and Orit ictIng with him

lide! Ag ( | »4 } ‘)

Wade tri {) j f if . ’

990 S.W.2d 509, 511 (1999

Ande) 170 { iT

Alamo W il convicted { VI inn LCT ] hat pn) if) if) a

minor vir! “ut Line bony Alamo Christian Ministrie C/riats

State lloffm l/l tka Vian b:Oes R40020 1] Hil’ }3 VW }

Ark.). which on ippeal to the lt >» Court of Appeal for tte

taighth ‘rrcuit. United State lloffman aka Alamo, 09-3

(Sth Cir.), submitted September 21, 2010. Alamo is sentenced

ths. Alamo has been in federal custody sines

to 2100 month

tember 2008

involve them. Moreover, the record is devoid of any

evidence against them that justifies taking their

children from them and putting their children into

foster care. Essentially, at the juvenile court’s direc-

tion, the state’s attorney drafted the orders in all the

cases, they are identical but for the names,’ and the

juvenile judge signed off on them (App. 24-34), mak-

ing no differentiation for different evidence as to the

individual families.

4. Petitioners raised their free exercise and due

process challenges in the juvenile court which were

rejected on appeal, relying on the result in another

case. (App. 18-23)

In their petition for rehearing, they reiterated

that the record was devoid of any evidence against

them, strict scrutiny review had to be applied, and

the juvenile court order and its affirmance were thus

essentially aggravated due process violations by the

expedience of “cut and paste” that failed to account

for the lack of evidence against them. Rehearing was

summarily denied." (App. 35) The Arkansas Supreme

Court denied a petition for review. (App. 37)

* ———

In this case, the order refers to petitioners’ “other chil-

dren” when there are none.

10

In Myers and Thorne, the court of appeals substituted

opinions mention that petitions for rehearing were filed in those

cases but omits mention of the petition for rehearing here. (App.

3)

~

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

l.. THE DECISION OF THE ARRANSAS COURT

OF APPEALS CONFLICTS WITH THIS

COURT'S DECISIONS APPLYING STRICT

SCRUTINY REVIEW TO FREE EXERCISE

OF RELIGION CLAIMS.

A. Free exercise of religion claims are subject to

strict scrutiny. Church of Lukumit Babalu Aye, Inc. v.

Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 532-33, 546 (1993): County of

Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater

Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 608-09 (1989);

Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec.

Division, 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981): Wisconsin v. Yoder,

406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)."

" See Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 447-48 (1990),

quoted in Point I], infra, the due process argument, immediately

preceding the quote below:

“The statist notion that governmental power should

supersede parental authority in all cases because

some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant

to American tradition.” Parham, 442 U.S., at 603. We

have long held that there exists a “private realm of

family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v.

Massachusetts, 321 U.S., at 166. Thus, when the gov-

ernment intrudes on choices concerning the arrange-

ment of the household, this Court has carefully

examined the “governmental interests advanced and

the extent to which they are served by the challenged

regulation.” Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494,

499 (1977) (plurality opinion); id., at 507, 510-511

(BRENNAN, J., concurring); see also Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. 390, 399-400 (1923).

8

This free exercise claim runs headlong into the

power of the State of Arkansas; not to just put the

children into foster care pending final resolution, but

it risks outright destruction of this family unit.

Petitioners’ children are at risk of being put up for

adoption if petitioners do not satisfy the juvenile

court that they have sufficiently disassociated from

their church.

In this case, petitioners submit the Arkansas

courts erroneously applied a balancing of interests of

the children, parents, and state rather than strict

scrutiny to petitioners’ free exercise claim as required

by this Court’s cases. The interest of the state in

protecting the safety of children at the Tony Alamo

Christian Ministry is undoubtedly valid, if those

children are actually at risk. But, balancing the

interests is not the approach that the First Amend-

ment requires. Applying the strict scrutiny standard

of review to petitioners’ case, with the juvenile court

looking for the least restrictive means to achieve the

desired result, petitioners should have prevailed and

their children returned to them.

B. In Thorne, 2010 Ark. App. 443, at 16-18

(App. 21-23), controlling here by reference (App. 2),

the court of appeals held:

A parent’s right of conscience in relig-

ious matters, however, sometimes collides

with state laws of general application prom-

ulgated for the protection of children and

other citizens. There are familiar examples.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). ...

Q

These fact-specifie cases strive for a delicate

balance, one that respects all the important

iuiterests involved: parents’ rights of con-

science and of child-rearing and the state's

interest as parens patriae in protecting chil-

dren.

Arkansas law recognizes this delicate

balance....

Here, as the circuit court implicitly con-

cluded, the State’s interest in preventing po-

tential harm to these children outweighed

Thorne’s conscientious choice to live on min-

istry property, work for the ministry, and de-

pend on the ministry for his family’s every

need. We see no constitutional infirmity in

the circuit court’s disposition order on this

record.

This is but a balancing of interests; it is not strict

scrutiny required by the free exercise clause.

C. The state courts’ balancing of interests con-

flicts with settled case law from this Court.

For example, Thomas, 450 U.S. at 718:

The state may justify an inroad on religious

liberty by showing that it is the least restric-

tive means of achieving some compelling

state interest. However, it is still true that

“(tlhe essence of all that has been said and

written on the subject is that only those in-

terests of the highest order ... can over-

balance legitimate claims to the free exercise

LO

of religion.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406

U.S., at 215.

In Church of Lukumt Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at

the Court said:

A law burdening religious practice that

is not neutral or not of general application

must undergo the most rigorous of scrutiny.

To satisfy the commands of the First Amend-

ment, a law restrictive of religious practice

must advance “‘interests of the highest or-

der’” and must be narrowly tailored in pur-

suit of those interests. McDaniel v. Paty, 435

U.S. [618], at 628 [(1978)], quoting Wisconsin

v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972). The com-

pelling interest standard that we apply once

a law fails to meet the Smith requirements is

not “water[ed] ... down” but “really means

what it says.” Employment Div., Dept. of

Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S.,

at 888. A law that targets religious conduct

for distinctive treatment or advances legiti-

mate governmental interests only against

conduct with a religious motivation will sur-

vive strict scrutiny only in rare cases.

(bracketed material added)

D. The court of appeals erred in not apply-

ing the strict scrutiny standard of review in this

dependency and neglect and potential forced adoption

case involving free exercise of religion, considering

petitioners’ repeated assertions there is insufficient

evidence as to them.

1]

The interests asserted by the state are no doubt

valid, but do they even apply here? By applying

a balancing of interests, the court of appeals was

erroneously and unconstitutionally diverted from

deciding the merits of petitioners’ individual appeals

that their children were not dependent and neglected.

It was conceded by all that the petitioners were

good parents and their children were not seriously at

risk, even if one credits all the testimony and com-

pared to other parents of children in this series of

cases. Essentially, the petitioners were lumped in

with all others at the Tony Alamo Christian Minis-

tries. It was purely guilt by association, without any

individual assessment of the claims under the free

exercise clause. The First Amendment requires more.

Petitioners are church missionaries, and they live

on the church property. They have devoted their adult

lives to the evangelical mission of the Tony Alamo

Christian Ministries. They work and live there, and

their six children were born there. Serving God in

this way is their life; it is how they choose to live

their lives. The juvenile court told them to stop

without even considering any alternatives.

While there may be some evidence supporting a

dependency and neglect finding as to other parents

and children at the church property, including child

abuse and some sexual abuse, absolutely none of it

involved petitioners nor their children. Nor was there

any evidence that the petitioners’ children were

remotely aware of the other allegations except for one

incident of paddling another child that left the peti-

tioners’ child unimpressed. *

There is no evidence whatsoever that petitioners

or the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries neglected the

petitioners’ children. The petitioners were admittedly

“wonderful people” who were sincere in their religious

beliefs that they should serve the Tony Alamo Chris-

tian Ministries as they chose to do by being mission-

aries for the church and spreading the word of God.

In fact, the state called a woman, who left the

church eight years earlier, who testified to parts of

the church doctrine, over a First Amendment objec-

tion, and that she disagreed with the religious per-

spectives of the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries in

detail. One example:

My opinion is that they [the children]

are in harml|’|]s way because the parents do

not see. They continually are taught the per-

spective of Tony [Alamo] and his perspectives

are not right as I have already talked about.

And as long as they are there, I mean there

are some great people like the Krantzes are

wonderful people. The Myers, Bethany is a

wonderful mother. [I mean some great people,

but under the influence of Tony I fear for

those children while they are in that environ-

ment. (Tr. 869 (bracketed material added))

'* Reasonable corporal punishment is permitted in Arkan-

sas schools. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-505 (Repl. 2009).

13

The feared “perspectives” of Tony Alamo and the

Tony Alamo Christian Ministries are squarely rooted

in nothing but the Bible. They, like billions of other

persons, consider the Bible the absolute word of God.

Petitioners believe and live this, and their children do

too. That is a belief system that is absolutely consti-

tutionally protected and none of the state’s business.

The court of appeals here recognized this as a part of

the “sincerity” of the petitioners’ beliefs: “As another

court stated the legal principle in another case involv-

ing this ministry, ‘[rJeligious and political beliefs, no

matter how bizarre and nonconforming, are personal

matters, and the courts are not instruments of ortho-

doxy charged with the responsibility of keeping

citizens on the ideological straight and narrow.’ Miller

v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695,

698 (W.D. Ark. 1990).” Thorne, supra, at 16. (App. 20)

The court, however, did not apply strict scrutiny.

Based on that belief system, and guilt by associa-

tion, the petitioners had their children removed from

them by order of the juvenile court. Worse yet, no

alternative was even considered by any court.’” As far

as the Arkansas courts were concerned, their being in

the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries was reason

13 . P 9

If the state courts are so concerned about Alamo’s influ-

ence over the church, they never mention that he is in a maxi-

mum security prison for 2,100 months, 1,135 miles away in

Tucson, Arizona. He was in custody since shortly after the raid,

before the first dependency and neglect cases were heard, or

even filed.

14

enough to take their children away from them. Peti-

tioners submit that a more sensitive First Amend-

ment analysis was required.

Procedure by presumption is always

cheaper and easier than individualized de-

termination. But when, as here, the proce-

dure forecloses tne determinative issues

of competence and care, when it explicitly

disdains present realities in deference to

past formalities, it needlessly risks running

roughshod over the important interests of

both parent and child. It therefore cannot

stand.

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 656-57 (1972).

Petitioners were entitled to have their claim

tested under strict scrutiny and not just a balancing

of interests. [t violates the First Amendment to

penalize or tamper whatsoever with that belief sys-

tem and remove petitioners’ children from them,

making them potentially subject to adoption, without

even attempting to apply strict scrutiny review.

Il. THE DECISION OF THE ARKANSAS COURT

OF APPEALS CONFLICTS WITH THIS

COURT'S DECISIONS APPLYING THE DUE

PROCESS CLAUSE TO PROTECTION AND

RECOGNITION OF FAMILY INTEGRITY.

A. The petitioners’ family was taken apart by

the juvenile court order affirmed by the Arkansas

Court of Appeals, and there is no competent evidence

to support it. That violates due process of law under

this Court’s cases.

Intertwined with the free exercise claim is the

fact that the decision of the Arkansas courts removing

petitioners’ children from them because of their

association with the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries

without sufficient evidence violates their due process

rights to maintain family integrity. It is a given that

due process protects the integrity of the family unit

from state action. See Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S

417, 447 (1990), the abortion notification case:

A natural parent who has demonstrated

sufficient commitment to his or her children

is thereafter entitled to raise the children

free from undue state interference. As Jus-

tice White explained in his opinion for the

Court in Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645

(1972):

“The Court has frequently emphasized

the importance of the family. The rights

to conceive and to raise one’s children

have been deemed ‘essential,’ Meyer uv.

Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923),

‘basic civil rights of man,’ Skinner v. Ok-

lahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), and

‘[rlights far more precious ... than prop

erty rights,’ May v. Anderson, 345 U.S.

528, 533 (1953). ‘It is cardinal with us

that the custody, care and nurture of the

child reside first in the parents, whose

primary function and freedom include

preparation for obligations the _ state

L6

can neither supply nor hinder.’ Prince

v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166

(1944). The integrity of the family unit

has found protection in the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,

Meyer v. Nebraska, supra at 399, the

“qual Protection Clause of the Four

teenth Amendment, Skinner v. Oklaho

ma, supra at 541, and the Ninth

Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut,

381 U.S. 479, 496 (1965) (Goldberg, J.,

concurring).” /d., at 651.

Similarly, in Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 258

(1983),

the Court has found that the relationship

of love and duty in a recognized family unit

is an interest in liberty entitled to consti

tutional protection. See also Moore v. City

of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (plu

rality opinion). “[S]tate intervention to ter

minate [such a] relationship . must be

accomplished by procedures meeting the req

uisites of the Due Process Clause.” Santosky

v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 752 (1982)

B. What is the quality of evidence required

under the due process clause? In a case like this, at

what point do the free exercise clause of the First

Amendment and the due process clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment merge? Or do they? Should they?

Ls

Both are sufficient for petitioners to prevail

Morcover, when tne record is so lacking in «

dence against petitioners supporting the conclusion

adopted by the state court it is not just clearly erro

neous under Anderson v. Bessemer City, supra, i

becomes a due process violation itself. Thompson

City of Loutsville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960): Vachon v. Neu

Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 480 (1974)

C. As stated above, petitioners were swept up

in the animus against Tony Alamo that they had

nothing to do with or knew about. There is no legally

sufficient evidence supporting the order that their

children had to be removed from them until the

bowed to the juvenile court demand that they, a

missionaries for the Lord, disassociate from the Tony

Alamo Christian Ministries and their lifes’ work. The

state submitted the same substaiitive order in all the

cases, just changing the names, in this case referring

to “other children in their family” (App. 26) when

there are none. This left no room for individualized

justice

On the state of this record, petitioners received

no due proce sin the state’s rending of this family

CONCLUSION

JOHN WESLEY HA

1311 Broadway St

Little Rock, Arkar

forHall@aol.cor

01) 371-9131

DIVISION I

Jo. CA09-579

ALBERT KRANTZ and MIRIAM KRANT,

APPELLAN'I

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVI

APPELLEE

. J] ti i Del | pr

Appe from the N r

{Loul (Lircullt ¢ i!

NO. JV-200

| . | f :

\libert ind Minam Krant mppeal | if}

adjudicating their children, lL.K 'K.1, AK.2 rs

C.K ind KR.K dependent ney ected after DH LOOT

them into custody trom the lony Alamo Cnhristiat

Ministries compound in Fouke, Arkansa mn Nove

ber ZOO. In the ame proceeding, the circuit court

elso adjudicated the hildren of Don Thorne, Bethan

Vive! and Carlo ind Sophia Parrish dependent

neglected. All of the parents make the same arpu

ments on appeal. They challenge the iticiency of tt

evidence to ort the dependency-negiect find

ind contend that } irl purl olated ear ’ ig hy

Ay )

App. 2

to the free exercise of their religion in ordering them

to obtain and maintain housing and employment

separate and apart from the ministry.

In a separate opinion, we affirmed the adjudica-

tion order involving the children of Don Thorne.

Thorne v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App.

317, _ S.W.3d __. We [*2] affirm the adjudication

order involving the Krantzes’ children for the same

reasons expressed in the Thorne appeal.

Affirmed.

MARSHALL and BAKER, JJ., agree.

App. 3

2010 Ark. App. 443

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I

No. CA09-583

DON THORNE

APPELLANT

v.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered May 19, 2010

Appeal from the Miller

County Circuit Court

[NO. JV-2008-323-1]

Honorable Joe E. Griffin, Judge

AFFIRMED

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

This court handed down an opinion on April 14,

2010, affirming the trial court’s order adjudicating

appellant Don Thorne’s children dependent-neglected.

The same day, we issued an opinion affirming the

trial court’s order adjudicating the children of

Bethany Myers dependent-neglected, in part for the

same reasons expressed in our decision affirming the

order in Thorne’s case. Myers v. Arkansas Dep't of

Human Servs., (*2] 2010 Ark.App. 326. Thorne and

Myers filed petitions for rehearing alleging that this

court’s decisions contained mistakes of law and fact.

In response to Myers’s petition, we issued a substi-

tuted opinion correcting a nonmaterial mistake of fact

App. 4

and denying her petition. Myers v. Arkansas Dep't of

Human Servs., 2010 Ark.App. . We correct the

same error in this substituted opinion and deny

Thorne’s petition.

This is one of four appeals decided today that

involve children who were removed from the Tony

Alamo Christian Ministries compound in Fouke,

Arkansas, in November 2008. The circuit court heard

the cases together in one adjudication hearing. Appel-

lant, Don Thorne, is the father of three children

placed in DHS’s custody. He challenges the circuit

court’s order adjudicating them dependent-neglected.

We affirm the court’s order.

In September 2008, DHS took emergency custody

of six minor females who lived in Tony Alamo’s resi-

dence at the Fouke compound. DHS presented evi-

dence that their parents were aware of beatings

administered to the ministry’s children by adults;

that some of the parents and other children witnessed

the beatings; that the parents condoned the marriage

of underage females to adult males and placed their

daughters in the residence of Tony Alamo without

parental supervision; that Alamo sexually abused one

of the girls (M.B.1) and spent time in his bedroom

with others; that the parents neglected to provide the

children with proper medical care and education; and

that they condoned extreme disciplinary measures for

young children, such as fasting. On November 18,

2009, we affirmed the circuit courts orders adjudicat-

ing the girls dependent-neglected. See Broderick v.

Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2009 Ark.App. 771, ___

App. 5

S.W.3d___; Seago v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2009

Ark.App. 767, __ S.W.3d ___; Retd v. Ark Dep't of

Human Servs., 2009 Ark.App. 784. [*3]

The evidence taken at the girls’ adjudication

hearings led DHS to seek emergency custody of many

more children in Fouke. The circuit court held an

adjudication hearing that began on January 12, 2009,

for the Reid, Seago, Broderick, Ondrisek, Krantz,

Thorne, Myers, Parrish, and Avila children. Many of

the children sought by DHS, including some of the

Thorne and Myers children, were hidden by their

parents or other ministry adults. The court granted

DHS’s motion for directed verdict as to the Reid,

Seago, Broderick, and Ondrisek children because their

siblings had already been adjudicated dependent-

neglected. On February 17, 2010, we affirmed appeals

from those adjudications because the appellants had

raised their arguments for the first time on appeal.

Today we affirm the orders adjudicating the children

of the Thorne, Krantz, Myers, and Parrish families

dependent neglected.

Don Thorne is the father of a daughter, A.T.1,

aged fourteen, and two sons, A.T.2, born in 1995, and

A.T.3, aged twelve. From an earlier marriage, he is

also the father of one of the other appellants, Sophia

Parrish, aged twenty-three. He has been a member of

the ministry since 1974, when he was nineteen. There

was testimony that A.T.1 lived in Tony Alamo’s resi-

dence. Thorne works for the ministry and lives on its

property in Fouke. At the time of the hearing, his

wife, Luisa Cordero-Thorne, was in hiding with A.T.1

App. 6

and A.T.3 with Thorne’s help. Although Thorne

claimed to not know where they were, the circuit

court held him in contempt until his wife brought the

children back. [*4]

The witnesses at the adjudication hearing were

G.P.1 (the son of Carlos and Sophia Parish); Jessica

Cooper (a former member of the ministry); M.B.1 (a

former member); Nicholas Broderick (a former mem-

ber); S.B. (a former member); H.D. (a former mem-

ber); Don Thorne; Sophia Parrish; Carlos Parrish;

Bert Krantz; Debra Ondrisek; Miriam Krantz; Rich-

ard Ondrisek; Cindy Allen (a DHS supervisor); Brian

Broderick; Alphonso Reid; Bethany Myers; Rebecca

Avila; and Jose Avila. Nicholas, M.B.1, and S.B.

are siblings of M.B.2, who was a subject of this hear-

ing. Jessica Cooper is their aunt. Like Thorne,

the Krantzes, the Parrishes, Bethany Myers, the

Ondriseks, the Avilas, Brian Broderick, and Alphonso

Reid are parents of some of the children with whom

this hearing was concerned.

Jessica Cooper testified that she was born in the

ministry in 1972 and married her husband when she

was sixteen and he was twenty-seven. She said that

the ministry is not a safe environment in which to

rear children and testified at length about its com-

munal lifestyle; its secrecy; the reporting system that

encourages members to inform on each others’ trans-

gressions; the imposition of fasting as punishment;

and the restrictions on members’ contact with the

outside world. She said that she left because she

wanted her children to go to college and that it was

App. 7

not customary for girls to finish high school because

they usually got married. She gave several examipies

of girls no older than sixteen who married grown

men. She stated that, in the past, Tony Alamo had

run the organization from prison; that he encouraged

parents to give up their parental authority to him;

that the parents adopted Alamo’s views and were

blind to the risks to their children; and that children

were often [*5] separated from their parents, as she

was at the age of twelve. She described being in a

group of children present when Justin Miller was

given 140 licks with a three-feet-long paddle at

Alamo’s direction; when it was over, blood seeped

through his pants.’ She said that Alamo had spanked

her with a board and had beaten others mercilessly,

and she named numerous people whom she had seen

beaten. Ms. Cooper said that, before she left the

ministry, her son confided to her that he was thinking

about suicide.

S.B. described being beaten at Alamo’s direction

by one of his wives, Michelle Jones, when S.B. and

her sisters M.B.1 and A.B. were living at Alamo’s

residence. She said that A.T.1 (Thorne’s daughter)

and L.K. (one of the Krantzes’ daughters) were in the

room during her beating. She also said that A.T.1

lived in Alamo’s home, which L.K. visited. She stated

that Alamo had slapped her four or five times and

' See Miller v. Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 748 F.Supp.

695 (W.D.Ark.1990).

App. 8

that he had hit B.S. (Greg Seago’s daughter), C.R.

(Alphonso Reid’s daughter, aged ten), and A.O. (the

Ondriseks’ daughter). She also said that some girls

were forced to fast. S.B. said that she was threatened

with a spanking by John Kolbeck if she told anyone

what happened at Alamo’s house. She testified that,

in February or March 2008, she and the other girls at

Alamo’s house, including A.T.1 and M.M., were forced

by Alamo to participate in recording Tape No. 564, in

which they denied being molested by him.

In detail, M.B.1 described the ministry’s secrecy

and the members’ isolation from the outside world;

Alamo’s teaching that the Bible permitted girls to

marry at puberty; her sexual [*6] molestation in the

shower by Alamo when she was living in his home;

her beating by John Kolbeck; Kolbeck’s beating of

other children; Alamo’s living arrangements with

adult women and girls as young as age eight; his time

spent alone in his bedroom with the young girls; her

participation in Tape 564 with N.M.1 and M.M.; and

being forced to help hold down S.B. (aged eleven or

twelve) while Michelle Jones beat her. M.B.1 said

that she heard B.S. scream while John Kolbeck beat

her and that Bethany Myers was one of the people

who dragged B.S. to the beating. According to M.B.1,

Myers’s daughters N.M.1 and M.M., while living ina

separate residence with Myers, spent a significant

amount of time in Alamo’s household. M.B.1 also said

that two men in their twenties had asked her to

marry them and that she had friends her age who

had already married and had children and who hated

App. 9

their lives. She stated that most older boys leave

ministry; that it is not safe for children;

Alamo would continue to control the ministry while

he was in jail. She said that the parents believe that

Alamo is a prophet and do not question his authority.

Nicholas Broderick described witnessing John

Kolbeck’s savage beating of Spencer Ondrisek, Phillip

Avila, and A.O., while the Ondriseks were present

and did nothing. He said that Kolbeck once slapped

him, but did not beat him, because Nicholas stated

that he was going to leave the ministry. He explained

that it was normal for boys to drop out of school by

the age of seventeen and that there were few boys in

school above the tenth grade, after which he dropped

out. He said that he was forced to fast a few times

and experienced “diesel therapy” (being forced to ride

with a driver of a ministry truck). He added that [*7]

young girls were at risk of becoming child brides; that

J.G. married a man in his thirties; and that R.S.

married when she was fourteen.

H.D., aged seventeen, testified that she had left

the ministry when she was twelve. She said that she

was forced to fast for a week at the age of ten because

she had failed to perform a chore after suffering a

head injury in a fall. She stated that the fall caused

her to lose consciousness, and when she came to,

people were praying over her; no one, however, took

her to a doctor. In fact, she did not think that minis-

try members were supposed to go to the hospital. She

said that she had suffered memory loss and pain and

swelling on the back of her head. She said that her

App. 10

sister had also been placed on a fast. H.D. described

being present when J.G. was informed that she was

going to get married at the age of twelve. She said

that she and J.G. were playing with Barbies when

J.G.’s mother received a phone call in which she

learned that the marriage would occur; J.G. and her

mother were upset, and J.G. cried. She said that J.G.

had a typical wedding with a bridal dress and

bridesmaids. H.D. stated that she was taught that it

was permissible to lie to people outside the ministry.

Bethany Myers acknowledged violating the

court’s order by not producing her children for DHS.

She said that she had no idea where her husband and

children were. The trial court held her in contempt

and placed her in jail.

Don Thorne denied having any first-hand

knowledge that John Kolbeck or anyone else had

beaten the children or that children had been forced

to fast. He admitted giving [*8] Sophia away in

marriage at the age of twelve. He claimed that the

ministry no longer permitted young girls to marry

but admitted that he had heard Alamo preach that

the Bible condones polygamy and the marriage of

girls at puberty. Thorne denied letting A.T.1 live at

Alamo’s residence but admitted that she had stayed

there for a couple of weeks. He was untroubled by

Alamo’s using her to create Tape No. 564 without his

* A wedding picture from J.G.’s wedding ceremony was

introduced into evidence.

App. 1]

permission. He acknowledged that his wife had told

mo

him that she had asked John Kolbeck to spank A.T.2

while Thorne was driving a truck for the ministry.

G.P.1, aged seven, testified that his father had

spanked him and two of his younger sisters with a

paddle that had their names on it. He said that both

of his parents had slapped him on the face when he

was six, leaving red marks, and that he was afraid of

being spanked by John Kolbeck.

Sophia Parrish admitted slapping and “popping”

G.P.1 in the mouth on two occasions but denied

leaving any marks. She admitted spanking him and

G.P.2 with a paint stirrer or with her hand. After

obviously lying under oath and being threatened with

a perjury charge, Sophia returned to the stand and

admitted that she had spanked G.P.1 with a paddle;

that she had married at twelve when Carlos was

nineteen; that her father had walked her down the

aisle; that she had sex with Carlos when she was

twelve; and that she had given birth to a stillborn

baby girl at the age of fourteen. Sophia stated that

the Krantzes were at her wedding, which was widely

celebrated by the members of the ministry. She

affirmed that John Kolbeck had spanked A.T.2 at his

mother’s request. Sophia said that she [*9] had

completed only the sixth grade because she had not

wanted to be pregnant while in school. She stated

that her friends had also dropped out when they

began having children, and she listed four other

weddings of young girls that she had attended.

App. 12

Carlos Parrish testified that he did not believe

Nicholas and denied having witnessed any beatings.

He stated that he had no intention of moving away

from the ministry’s property.

Bert Krantz, who was fifty-seven years old at the

time of the hearing, testified that he joined the minis-

try, in which he is a minister, in 1972, and that he

works in disseminating Alamo’s recorded messages.

He admitted that he was present at, and approved of,

several weddings of young girls but said that the

ministry had not permitted underage girls to marry

in five or six years. He stated that, although the Bible

condones the marriage of young girls at puberty, he

would not permit his children to marry during their

minority, nor would he let his children fast or be

disciplined by anyone else. He stated that he had

never witnessed any physical punishment. He

acknowledged having heard Tape No. 564 but said

that it had not concerned him. Bert said that he

believed that Alamo is a prophet and that it would be

a sin against God to leave the ministry. He denied

letting Alamo run anything in his life, but he admit-

ted that he does not drive because Alamo does not

want him to do so.

Miriam Krantz, who is twenty years younger

than her husband and is the custodian of the audio-

tapes, also said that no one else disciplined her chil-

dren; that she was familiar with Tape No. 564; that

she also believes that Alamo is a prophet; that she did

not know [*10] that Kolbeck had administered disci-

pline; and that, when she attended Sophia’s wedding,

App 13

she was aware that Sophia was twelve, but it did not

concern her

In the adjudication order, the circuit court found

the children dependent-neglected and made extensive

findings of fact. The court found that the Thornes had

failed to protect their children against physical abuse;

that they were aware of the pattern and practice of

severe physical beatings; that they endorsed and

facilitated illegal marriages of underage females to

adult males; that they neglected the needs of their

children by failing to assure that they received ade

quate education and by failing to register their chil

dren in an accredited school with certified teachers or

providing legally approved home schooling. The court

also found that the parents committed or permitted

medical and physical abuse by requiring, condoning,

and permitting dangerous, involuntary fasts imposed

on children younger than fifteen, and by failing te

have them properly immunized. The court further

found that the parents were aware of multiple in

stances when ‘Tony Alamo, through his direction to

John Kolbeck or others, intentionally caused physical!

harm to Spencer Ondrisek, Philip Avila, and A.O. The

court found that the parents were aware of Alamo’s

pattern and practice of enforcing adherence to his wil!

by brutal physical attacks. The court noted M.B.1’:

molestation by Alamo at the age of thirteen. It further

found that the parents were aware that Alamo

claimed to be married to multiple wives and that they

-permitted and condoned the ministry’s practice of

“diesel therapy.” [*11]

ihe court ne wv Oo] unitication

the parents supervised visitation. Alon

requirement it directed them to

employment and ale and table hou f

and apart from the ‘Tony Alamo Christian

and it members, and to maintain them Io

ix month: he court directed Thorne to a ist DH

locating the children currently » hiding with

pousi ‘The court expre iY the testimon'

7) M B JC a Coope! , Nichol:

Broderick that mabing asLing underage

marriage educi i neglect Kual abuse

occurred credibl ind tated that

und pract ce of such abus« it deemed not

testimony of Carlos Parrish pophia Parr!

Krantz ind Mir imy)

not

Thorne fi

adjudica n

<mlected and cont

they were m1)

Wa NO evidence

nunized ilthough thi Is ( : it dor nov require

view of tn overwhelming evidence of

nreavus VO] f which are di!

elovV lhorne also asse lat the evidence

upport the tral court finding that he

ionally neglected ar children pointing

that the Christian A Beka curriculun

widely acc pled

doe

li e| Lherap j | [I rs ’ pict) prey) | Bar

ministl mec | ’ } !

ar | TPvye :

L FiO Tie i I ( }

pud ry tr Cy rave a ry 1T) tne y LOC!

ontravened Arka! " ( 1 Annotate ePCLIO }

Abie Kepl AGILE by, a a (‘J ine pmdiwdaicvAati |

hear! oO dD ed re hairst, the trial

court did ¢!l ethe ] I ( itl irl ree ty

eourt mmqaent (oT ’ j lar | i]

Na pparent ti L Line u to ,

; \

Chird tut ei

rceuit ir I] } ert

rie’ y) i} Lpdpor cf ,i¢ [

suthorit

1]

ether the egatiol tit hate

rated ry Live Df a] . { ) ’ ; “a

nep! AGLE bs, WDependen ( ( | j ( | j ;

provel r i pre ondet nice yf ¢ le*] rk .(

An! “9-Z i Ay iG Ale Ktep! ‘O04 YM

ré (*] f Lrye ] tia til } Tr)

Cie! (*rrorie ij r j va: iz, i

er 1009 Ark.Ay | W.3d |

if i Pmepena r) rie f I hud j cy

thie if i L ¢ Lil ( i { [} ; Line redit Bet

/ | | |

App. 16

on the child, not the parent; at this stage of a proceed-

ing, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the

child is dependent-neglected. Jd. An adjudication of

dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which

parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the

[*13] adjudication; the juvenile is simply dependent-

neglected. Id.; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs.,

97 Ark.App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A)

(Rep].2009) defines a “dependent-neglected juvenile”

as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious

harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual

abuse, sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition

of “neglect” in section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or

omissions of “a parent, guardian, custodian, foster

parent, or any person who is entrusted with the

juvenile’s care by a parent” that constitute:

G) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of

the juvenile when the person knows or has

reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or

has been abused:

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the neces:

sary food, clothing, shelter, and education

required by law, ... or medical treatment

necessary for the juvenile’s well-being... ;

(iil) Failure to take reasonable action to

protect the juvenile from abandonment,

abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, ne-

glect, or parental unfitness when the exis-

tence of this condition was known or should

have been known;

App. 17

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to pro-

vide for the essential and necessary physical,

mental, or emotional needs of the juvenile,

including failure to provide a shelter that

does not pose a risk to the health or safety of

the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care

and maintenance, proper or necessary sup-

port, or medical, surgicai, or other necessary

care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume re-

sponsibility for the care and custody of the

juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume

the responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the

juvenile that results in the juvenile’s being

left alone at an inappropriate age or in in

appropriate circumstances, creating a dan-

gerous situation or a situation that puts the

juvenile at risk of harm. |*14]

We reject Thorne’s argument that the circuit

court erred in finding his children dependent

neglected because there was no evidence that they

had personally suffered abuse. As we explained in our

November 2009 Seago, Broderick, and Reid opinions,

the General Assembly’s expressed purpose in the

juvenile code is to protect dependent-neglected chil-

dren and make their health and safety its paramount

concern; a child may be adjudicated dependent-

neglected even if he or she has not yet suffered abuse.

Thorne, who lived and worked in this community for

over three decades, was rearing his children in a

App. 18

secretive, communal environment that included

sexual abuse of young girls, underage marriage,

fasting, and beatings. Thorne admitted that his wife

asked John Kolbeck to spank A.T.2 while he was

absent and that he gave his twelve-year-old daughter

in marriage to an adult man. A.T.1, who apparently

lived in Alamo’s home, witnessed 8.B.’s beating by

Michelle Jones. Bethany Myers was one of the people

who dragged B.S. to be beaten by Kolbeck. Addition-

ally, Sophia Parrish admitted “popping” G.P.1 on the

mouth, as he had testified. Striking a child six years

of age or younger on the face or head, with or without

physical injury, 1s abuse. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-

303(3)(A)(vii)(a). Thorne’s assertion that the evidence

of corporal punishment should not be credited be-

cause there was no medical evidence is disingenuous

in view of the testimony showing that the ministry

discourages its members from seeking medical assis

Lance

Thorne’s second argument is that two provisions

of the case plan violate his right to freely exercise

his religion as protected by the United States and

Arkansas Constitutions. The [*15] circuit court

ordered Thorne to “obtain safe and stable housing

separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian

Ministries and its members, and maintain said

housing for at least six months” and to “obtain stable

employment separate and apart from the Tony Alamo

Christian Ministries and its members and maintain

App. 19

said employment for at least six months.” Thorne

contends that. in essence, the ¢ olan makes fii

choose between his children and his church.

DHS and the attorney ad litem argue that

Thorne failed to make this argument below and that

the circuit court therefore never ruled on it. We

disagree. Thorne’s lawyer raised the constitutional

issue at the beginning of the hearing: “Your Honor,

this case is purely a free exercise of religion case.”

Thorne and other witnesses testified about the im-

portance of communal living within the ministry.

When asked whether living off ministry property

would have an effect on his “Christian walk,” Thorne

responded “[al]bsolutely.” The circuit court, in ruling

from the bench on the dependency-neglect issues,

recognized Thorne’s beliefs. “{T]he parents involved

have very strong feelings and very strong convictions

concerning their spiritual beliefs and how they wish

to live.” And the court recognized the legal decision it

faced.

[We have the intertwining of the allega-

tions of the state concerning abuse in various

forms and various forms of neglect coupled

with the religious and spiritual beliefs of the

mothers and fathers and families that are

participants in this case. That right, as given

to us as citizens of the United States, that is

freedom of religion to believe as we cholo]se I

consider to be one of our most important

rights and one that I, as a judge, believe that

App. 20

[ am charged to protect within the law as

within the facts. [*16]

The circuit court’s order, finally, required Thorne to

make substantial changes in his religious practices to

pursue reunification with his children. Taking this

record as a whole, we conclude that Thorne preserved

the constitutional argument.

Every person’s right to make decisions of con-

science about religious matters is protected by the

ree Exercise Clause vc: the First Amendment to the

United States Constitution and by an even more

sweeping provision of the Arkansas Constitution. Ar-

ticle 2, section 24 of Arkansas’s Constitution provides,

in part, that “{a]ll men have a natural and indefeas-

ible right to worship Almighty God according to the

dictates of their own consciences.... No human

authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever,

control or interfere with the mght of conscience... .

As another court stated the legal principle in another

case involving this ministry, “[rJeligious and political

belhefs, no matter how bizarre and nonconforming,

are personal matters, and the courts are not instru-

ments of orthodoxy charged with the responsibility of

keeping citizens on the ideological straight and

narrow.” Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748

F.Supp. 695, 698 (W.D. Ark. 1990) (Morris S. Arnold,

J.); see also West Virginia State Board of Educ. v.

Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). To judge the con-

stitutional issue fairly, therefore, we must acknowl-

>

edge and consider the circuit court’s unchallenged

App. 2]

finding about the sincerity of Thorne’s religious

beliefs. We do.

A parent’s right of conscience in religious mat-

ters, however, sometimes collides with state laws of

general application promulgated for the protection of

children and other citizens. There are familiar ex-

amples. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (a

state may [*17] not compel Amish children to attend

high school until age 16); Prince v. Massachusetts,

321 U.S. 158 (1944) (a child-labor law was constitu-

tional even though it kept a child from selling relli-

gious tracts as part of her faith); Pierce v. Soc’y of the

Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268

U.S. 510 (1925) (a state may not require students to

attend public schools; a parent has the authority to

provide, and his or her child has the right to receive,

sectarian schooling with secular schooling). These

fact-specific cases strive for a delicate balance, one

that respects all the important interests involved:

parents’ rights of conscience and of child-rearing and

the state’s interest as parens patriae in protecting

children.

Arkansas law recognizes this delicate balance.

“Parents, of course, have a fundamental right to

direct the care and upbringing of their children. But

the State of Arkansas has an equally compelling

interest in the protection of its children.” Porter

v. Ark. Dept of Health & Human Servs., 374 Ark.

177, 185, 286 S.W.3d 686, 693 (2008) (internal cita

tions omitted); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102

App. 22

(Rep|.2009). And in child custody disputes, for ex-

ample, a parent’s religiously motivated choices and

actions are material if they affect a child’s well being.

Hicks v. Cook, 103 Ark.App. 207, 212, 288 S.W.3d 244,

248 (2008). In some cases, the facts tip the balance in

favor of protecting the child, and against the parent’s

liberty — even in matters of conscience and religious

conviction. E.g., Prince, 321 U.S. at 167.

This is one of those cases. As the circuit court

found, the most pressing potential danger facing

Thorne’s children was simply living on miunistry

property. The record is full [*18] of testimony about

beatings, sexual abuse, underage marriages, and

other problems, all of which victimized the children of

families living on ministry property. In fashioning its

case plan, the circuit court responded to the potential

danger with a narrowly tailored solution — requiring

Thorne to obtain housing separate and apart from the

ministry. And because ministry life was communal in

almost every respect, the court also required Thorne

to obtain employment outside the ministry so he

could earn the money to pay for this new housing

arrangement and other living expenses. Here, as the

circuit court implicitly concluded, the State’s interest

in preventing potential harm to these children out-

weighed Thorne’s conscientious choice to live on

ministry property, work for the ministry, and depend

on the ministry for his family’s every need. We see

no constitutional infirmity in the circuit court’s

App Za

disposition order on this record. We therefore affirm

on Thorne’s second point

Affirmed.

GLADWIN, KINARD, GLOVER, BAKER

BROWN, JJ., agree

App. 24

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

MILLER COUNTY, ARKANSAS

JUVENILE DIVISION

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF

HUMAN SERVICES PLAINTIFF

VS. NO. JV-2008-323

MIRIAM KRANTZ, MOTHER

ALBERT “BERT” KRANTZ, LEGAL OR

PUTATIVE FATHER OF

L.K., DOB: [Omitted in Printing]

A.K., DOB: [Omitted in Printing]

A.K., DOB: [Omitted in Printing]

S.K., DOB: [Omitted in Printing]

C.K., DOB: [Omitted in Printing]

R.K., DOB: [Omitted in Printing!

ET AL.

JUVENILE DEFENDANTS

ADJUDICATION ORDER

On this 20th day of January, 2009 the above

entitled cause of action is presented to the Court for

an adjudication of a petition filed by the Arkansas

Department of Human Services alleging that the

above named juveniles are dependent/neglected,

Honorable Joe Griffin presiding. Present before the

Court were Miriam Krantz, mother; Albert “Bert”

Krantz, putative father; Jim Phillips, parents attor-

ney; Cindy Allen, Miller County Children and Family

Services; Malenda Cree, CASA; Misty Bowen

Fubanks, OCC Managing Attorney; Christy Carr,

App. 25

Attorney Ad Litem; and Mary Helen Mitchell, Attor

ney for the Department of Human Services.

From the testimony, exhibits, statements of the

parties and counsel, the record herein, and other

things and matters presented, the Court, noting the

best interests, welfare, health and safety, case plan

and appropriate statutory placement alternatives,

does hereby ORDER, ADJUDGE AND DECREE:

1. This Court possesses jurisdiction of the

parties and the subject matter before it

2. An Emergency order was entered on Novem

ber 18, 2008 placing custody of the above named

juveniles with the Arkansas Department of Human

Services. A probable cause order was entered on

November 24, 2008 wherein the Court found probable

cause that the above named juveniles are dependent

neglected and that the emergency situation which

necessitated removal of the juveniles continued such

that it is necessary for the juveniles to remain in the

custody of the Arkansas Department of Human

Services until the adjudication hearing.

3. The Court finds that the Department exe!

cised a 72 hour hold on November 18, 2008 by remov

ing the juveniles from immediate danger of severe

maltreatment.

x The first contact of the Arkansas Depart

ment of Human Services arose during an emergency

where immediate action was necessary to protect the

health, safety and welfare of the juveniles and where

App. 26

preventive services could not be provided, therefore

the Arkansas Department of Human Services is

deemed to have made reasonable efforts to prevent or

eliminate the need for removing the juveniles from

the juveniles’ home

Based on the testimony and evidence produced at

trial, the Court finds by a preponderance of the

evidence that the above named juveniles are depend

ant-neglected as a matter of law and finds the De

partment of Human Services’ petition to be true. a)

Specifically, the Court finds that the parents in this

matter failed to protect their children against physi

cal abuse and that they were aware of the pattern

and practice of severe physical beatings known within

the closed community of the Tony Alamo Christian

Ministries as “spankings or proverbs.” b) Both par

ents endorsed and facilitated attempted illegal mar

riages of underage females to adult males. c) Both

parents neglected the needs of the above juveniles

and other children within their family by failing to

reasonably assure that they received adequate educa

tions; by failing to properly register their children for

an accredited school with certified teachers; or, to

properly register and provide home schooling under

Arkansas law. d) The Court finds further that both

medical and physical abuse was committed or permit

ted by the above referenced parents as to this child

and other children within their family by requiring,

condoning, and permitting dangerous, involuntary

“fasts” imposed on children younger than fifteen

years of age. Both parents further neglected their

children’s medical needs by not having them propel

immunized

Additional Finding

The parents were aware of multiple instance

where Tony Alamo, through his direction to John

Kolbeck and others, intentionally caused physical!

harm to S.O., PA., A.O., S.O. P. A.. and A.O. wer

physically abused when S.O. was fourteen years of

age. The beating was done by Tony Alamo and John

Kolbeck and included strikes to the face with both

open palm and closed fist. The paddle used to admin

ister the beatings of these children was approximat

ly three feet long, and one-half inch thick. Thesi

beatings were witnessed by other teenage childrer

under the age of eighteen. One or both of their par

ents were required to observe the beating

A.O. was also beaten with a paddle when shi

fourteen years of age during one of the three beatin;

which 8.O. suffered at the hands of John Kolbeck at

the direction of Tony Alamo. Richard and Debra

Ondrisek witnessed the beating of A.O. and did

nothing to prevent it. Beatings of juveniles in the

Tony Alamo Christian Ministries took place frequer

ly during the teenage years of S.O., A.O., and V.!

There was a pattern and practice instituted |

Tony Alamo, carried out by himself and his agents, for

all members of the Tony Alamo Christian Ministrie

whether residents of the Fouke, Arkansas community,

or living elsewhere, to enforce by brutal, physica

App. 30

visits between the juveniles and their parents shall

be determined by the juveniles’ counselor. If the

counselor determines that it is in the best interest of

the juveniles for visitation between them and their

parents be stopped, the counselor will notify the

Department Human Services Office of Chief Counsel

immediately who will request an emergency hearing

on the matter. There shall be no recording, either

video or audio of the visits and no pictures made

during the visits. All letters, notes, cards, literature

and/or gifts shall be inspected and approved by the

Department personnel pnor to being given to the

children

8. Said juveniles are ordered to attend school

daily unless medically excused, maintain passing

grades, bring their grades and attendance records to

the next hearing, and obey the lawful and reasonable

commands of their foster care providers and school

officials.

9. The parent(s) are ordered to: 1) submit to

psychological evaluations by a psychological examiner

licensed in the state of Arkansas and approved by the

Department; 2) attend and actively participate in

counseling as recommended by the _ psychological

evaluation; 3) successfully complete parenting classes

and demonstrate that they can effectively put what

they have learned into practice; 4) obtain safe and

stable housing separate and apart from the Tony

Alamo Christian Ministries and its members and

maintain said housing for a period of no less than six

months; 5) obtain stable employment separate and

App. 31

apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and

for

period of no less than six months; 6) allow the De

partment access to their home for home visits; 7)

otherwise comply with the case plan and cooperate

with the Department.

1O. The Department of Human Services i:

ordered to 1) refer the parents for a_ psychological

evaluation; 2) counseling; 3) parenting classes;

continue counseling for the juvenile; 5) monitor

parents’ housing and employment

ll. If the Department is responsible for

for services for the parent, the court orders

x__ The parent is to pay for or reimburse the

Department for failure to keep appointments for drug

screens, psychological evaluations or other services

funded by the Department

12. Pursuant to ACA §$9-27-346 the Court finds

that the parents have an obligation and have the

ability to pay child support. A separate order of child

support shall be entered and is incorporated by

reference herein. The Office of Child Support En

forcement is permitted to intervene in this action or

file a separate action to enforce this order of support,

petition for modification to this order of support and

to collect any arrearage that may accumulate. Upon

request, the Office of Child Support Enforcement is

permitted access to the entire court file/record as

needed to carry out its obligations under this order

and pursuant to law

App. 32

‘he court notes that the testimony of M.B

J.C., S. B., H.D., and N.B. was that beatings, forced

fasting, under age marriages, education neglect and

sexual abuse did occur at the Tony Alamo Christian

Ministries, and that there was a pattern and practice

of said abuse. The Court finds these witnesses to be

credible. The Court finds that the testimony of Carlos

Parrish, Sophia Parrisk [sic], Don Thorne, Albert

“Bert” Krantz, and Miriam Krantz that the above

named abuses did not occur is not credible

Court authorizes ie Arkansas De

partment of Human Services or its agents when

acting as custodian of the juveniles to e * consent

to specific medical, dental or mental health treatment

and procedures as required in the opinion of a duly

authorized or licensed physician, dentist, surgeon, or

psychologist, whether or not such care is rendered on

an emergency basis or on an Impatient or outpatient

basis. and the Court consents to such care

lS. The parents have provided a permanent

mailing address which is [Omitted in Printing],

Fouke, Arkansas and said designated mailing address

will be used by the court and the Department for

notice purposes unless and until the parents notify

the court and the Department in writing of a new

mailing address

l6. ‘he parents have provided the cour

the Department with the following information

A. The mother does have membership in or

descent from an Indian tribe; the legal/putative

App. 33

father does not have membership in or descent from

in Indian tribe; the juvenile do have membership

or descent from an Indian tribe:

17 As to educational tssues, the

Court order

the following

he

parents shall have access

r¢ cords

on the juveniles

x The parents shall NOT have

hool records on the juveniles

[he parent shali be able to obtain infor

nation about the juveniles’ placement fron

the school records.

x__The parent shall NOT be able to obt

information about the juveniles’ placement

from the school records.

The parent may participate in scl

nferences or similar activities at school

x__ The parent may NOT

school conferences

school

participate

or similar activities

[he parent may make decisions under IDEA

for the juveniles

x__ The parent may NOT

under IDEA for the juveniles;

And

make decision:

Che court x will allow the fost

to the parent under IDEA or

App. 34

appoints as

the surrogate parent

|

L& Prior orders of this Court which do not

conflict with this order shall remain in effect

19. Jurisdiction of this cause is continued with

a review hearing scheduled for March 12, 2009 at

9:00 a.m. at the Hazel Street Courthouse, Texarkana,

\rkansas. Further, all parties present have received

notice of hearing and no further notice of hearing

hall be required

IT IS SO ORDERED, Effective this 20th day of

uary 2009

Joe HK Criffin

Joe Griffin, CIRCUIT JUDGE

JUVENILE DIVISION

DATE: Feb. 9. 2009

PREPARED BY

Mary Helen Mitchell

Mary Helen Mitchell, #83-215

Department of Human Service:

Office of Chief Counsel

3809 Airport Plaza

Texarkana, AR 71854

870-773-0563

FAX 870-779-0921

CW 11A/08-05)

App. 35

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT and

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

Justice Building

625 Marshall Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201]

May 19, ZO

Clay S. Conrad

11767 Katy Freeway

Suite 740

Houston, TX 77079-177

Re: CAO9 00579

Albert Krantz

\

Arkansas Departme

Dear Mr. Counsel

The Arkansas Court of Appeals 1

ing today in the above styled case

“Petition for Rehearing is denied

Sincerely

Leslie W. Steen

Leslie W. Steen. Clerk

LWS:llb

cc: Keith L Chrestman

Tabitha Baertels McNulty

Orin Eddy Montgomery

Miller County Circuit Clerk

(No. JV2008-323-1)

App. 36

MANDATE

AFFIRMED

Proceedings of April 14, 2010

CA09-579

ALBERT KRANTZ and

MIRIAM KRANTZ APPELLANTS

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN SERVICES APPELLEE

This appeal was submitted to the Arkansas Court

of Appeals on the record on the Circuit Court of Miller

County and briefs of the respective parties. After due

consideration it is the decision of the Court that the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed

[It is also ordered that the appellant pay the

appellee $93.00 for brief costs in the appeal

PI} PI

Marshall and Baker, JJ., agree

In testimony, that the above is a true copy of the

judgment of the Court of Appeals, I, Leslie Steen,

Clerk, set my hand and affix the seal, this 24th day of

June, 2010

Leslie W. Steen

Clerk

App. 37

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT and

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

Justice Building

625 Marshall Street

Little Rock, Arkansas 7220]

June 24, 2010

Deborah Ruth Salling:

Attorney at Law

101 E. Capitol, Suite 201

Little Rock, AR 72201]

Re: 1000444. Albert Krantz et ux v. Arkansa

Department of Human Service

Dear Ms. Sallings

The Arkansas Supreme Court made the following

order today in the above stvled case

“Petition for review is denied. Corbi

participating.”

Sincerely

Leslie W. Steen

Leshe W Steen. Cle K

LWS:llb

cc: Keith L. Chrestman

Tabitha Baertels McNulty

Clay C. Conrad

Mary Pankey, Clerk

(J V2008-323-1)