Lawsuit against Arkansas DHS alleges that DHS acted in bad faith in mass removal of kids from church

Screenshot of Deposition showing that DHS has 24-72 hours to begin an investigation of abuse

"YES!!!!!" Response from DHS employee, Sheri Funk, when she was asked if she wanted in on a planning meeting on September 12, 2008.

"The Lord giveth, but DHS takes away." Statement allegedly made by Arkansas DHS employee after the mass removal of children from parents who belong to the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries Church.

In his motion asking for injunctive relief, Attorney Phillip Kuhn alleges that the Arkansas Department of Human Services acted in bad faith when removing children en masse from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries Church in two raids in the Autumn of 2008. Kuhn states, "Generally "bad faith" means the bringing of a prosecution that has no hope of success." But the courts have expanded that definition to include prosecutions that are retaliatory in nature. In fact, to obtain a preliminary injunction from a federal court, "the Plaintiff need show only that the prosecution was motivated "in part" by a purpose to retaliate against constitutionally protected conduct."

Kuhn's arguments and proofs are compelling, albeit extensive and complex, so I will only hit some of the high points.

First, bad faith is seen in the long delay between the time that the state received information of allegations of abuse in the church and the wholesale removal of children from the church. Indeed, Arkansas DHS and State Police knew about allegations of possible child abuse in the church in 2005 and for almost four years did nothing about it. Testimony in at least one deposition says that the state had received allegations as early as 2001.

Depending upon the severity of the allegations, an investigation is to be launched within 24-72 hours and completed within thirty days. So what took the state so long to act? Kuhn argues, "The defendants (the state) did not act until the indictment of Tony Alamo, the church leader, on federal Mann Act charges. The State dependency actions were instituted to aid and assist the authorities in the criminal prosecution of Tony Alamo and not because a child was in danger or any parent was guilty of abuse or abandonment as defined by Arkansas statue."

Secondly, bad faith is revealed by the state's inaction when "On June 18, 2009, a child was born to parents whose four (4) other young children were placed in foster care" by the state. The parents of this infant still live in the same house they lived in when their other children were taken by the state. The father is still employed by the church. One of the requirements the state has made for reunification of parents and children is that the parents must move off of church property and obtain secular employment because the church environment is dangerous for the children.

The state waited several months before requesting an order to remove the infant from its home. If the child was in immediate danger--the prerequisite for removing a child from its home--why was this child not taken as soon as it was born?

The third way that the state has shown bad faith is by how they have treated the children in foster care, and their parents. Kuhn says,

"...there has been a systematic plan by the employees of the defendants to isolate the children in foster care and depreciate the religious beliefs of the parents in the eyes of their children. There has been a conscious effort by the defendants, their agents, servants and employees, to drive a wedge between the parents and the children simply because the defendants believe the plaintiffs hold and practice an improper religious faith. The parents have consistently been denied the right of religious training with their children."

Bad faith was also shown by the state when it chose to treat relatives who are still in the church differently from those who have left. Kuhn states, "The relatives of the children now in foster care who are also members of the church are treated differently by the defendants than those relatives who are not members of the church." This claim is backed up by an affidavit from one grandmother who said that DHS would not allow her one phone call or visit from her three grandchildren, even though they had allowed other grandparents, who were not part of the church, to have unlimited visitation and even to have custody of their grandchildren.

There is much more that can be said about "bad faith" as well as other aspects of this case. However, I will close this three part article* with these words from Attorney Phillip Kuhn.

"As this ordeal has progressed, the parents have constantly been threatened by employees of the defendants that they would lose their children if they did not leave their church. The parents have lived under the constant pressure of this threat for almost a year. The attacks on the church are unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence. People who are guilty of nothing except religious association have witnessed their families being destroyed, their church vilified, their children confiscated, their very faith denied by official authority, and their way of life condemned and denied."

*Click here to read part one of this article and here to read part two.