Hana and The Pearls in The Seattle Times

Jeff Hodson of the Seattle Times provides extensive coverage of the death of Hana Alemu “Williams” as well as the Pearls’ teachings in Did Hana’s parents ‘train’ her to death?  I am grateful for the link to this site.  Letters to the editor regarding that article are here.

Also, there is new story about Koko aka Lydia Schatz in All Voices.

More Mainstream Mentions of Pearl

Kristin Butler at Crosswalk.com looks at The Pearls and the Schatz tragedy in Disciplined to Death.

A St. Louis Law Firm appears to be seeking families who wish to sue Michael for “negligence of a producer of consumer products.”

And on a side note, The Hippie Housewife has posted part 3 of her three-part series on the “rod verses.”

Disciplining the Adopted Child

Kelly of Toll For Thee shares how he Disciplines her Adopted Child without spanking.

While we’re discussing Gentle Discipline, Dulce de Leche has some more tools for your Gentle Discipline Toolbox:
Opening Up the GD Toolbox: Physical Needs
Opening Up the GD Toolbox: Play

The Pearls Remain In The News

Lisa Belkin of The Huffington Post asks, Can Adoption Lead to Child Abuse?

Elizabeth Esther explains why we should hold the Pearls accountable for their teachings in Are the Pearls to blame for child spanking deaths?

Clay Duda of the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange takes a look at the history of corporeal punishment in Spanking at Home and in the Classroom, What’s Right and Wrong?

The story has gone international as this post in the Belfast Telegraph demonstrates.

In fact, the story is so big that even Psychology Today is writing about it.

Oh, and by the way, the NY Times Article and its spawns showed us the happy congregation and their happy children.  Read Dulce De Leche’s explanation of why they look so happy.

 

Hana Fund

Here is an article from ZenaEthiopia about Hana and the fund which has been started to help make sure that nothing like this ever happens again:  Ethiopian Community Mutual Association of Seattle Announces Hana Fund.

Statement from Hana’s Adoption Agency

AAI, Hana’s Adoption Agency, has sent the following Letter to its adoptive families:

Dear Adoptive Family,

Everyone at AAI is shocked and saddened by the tragic death of Hana, a 13 year old from Ethiopia who had been with her adoptive family for three years. She passed away in May and, after several months of investigation, the adoptive parents have been charged with homicide by abuse and assault of a child. The coroner determined the cause of death to be hypothermia. She died in the family’s yard. It is hard to imagine a more horrible end to the dream of a new life in America for this girl.

AAI learned of Hana’s death in August, seeing it in the press, as did everyone else. AAI quickly informed the Ministry of Women’s and Children’s Affairs in Ethiopia. The Minister asked AAI to arrange to have a representative from the Ministry travel to the U.S. to write a report. Adoption programs such as AAI working in Ethiopia are typically asked to host foreign delegations every few years and it had been six years since AAI had done this. Last week the Vice Minister came to Washington State, accompanied by AAI’s legal representative in Ethiopia, Temesgen. Meetings were arranged with the prosecuting attorney, lead detective, and child protective services involved with Hana’s case. The Vice Minister met with adoptive families in their homes and in groups, having the opportunity to converse with many Ethiopian children. He visited a school, a court room to attend a re-adoption, and met with AAI staff at th e office. He then visited another agency in Washington and one in Minnesota. He concluded, as we had, that given the circumstances it was not possible for AAI to have known or predicted the outcome of this adoption. It was his first visit to the U.S. He loved the beauty of the countryside, enjoyed seeing the children, and had his questions about Hana’s tragic death answered to the extent possible. Temesgen reports that it was a successful visit, given the sobering circumstances.

But, we ask ourselves, what can be done to prevent such a tragedy in the future? We have developed a new form that each adoptive family will be required to sign, that lists very clearly the types of discipline that are not allowed to be used in AAI’s adoptive families. Homestudy workers will be asked to speak with applicants in much more detail about discipline. Our goals are to eliminate applicants with harsh discipline plans and to promote training methods which are more humane, effective, and neurobiologically based. There will also be a change in the post placement schedule for agency visits. For families whose child arrives after November 1, 2011, reports will be required at 1, 6, 12 months intervals after placement. For families applying after this date, a fourth agency post placement report will be required at the 24 month mark. We are hoping that this elongated schedule will give us all a better idea of h ow placements are progressing while keeping families connected with their agencies and social workers for a longer period of time, allowing for more personalized support and guidance, if necessary.

Because of concerns raised by this tragic death, AAI has been given approval to request the assistance of law enforcement to make safety checks on any families who are behind on post placement reports. Several countries require that families submit reports annually until the child turns 18 years of age. In the past we have sent multiple reminders to some families asking for reports, in the future AAI will contact law enforcement for assistance if the reports are not forthcoming, to assure the well being of the children.

We are also pleased to know that the EMCA (Ethiopian Community Mutual Association) has responded by establishing a “HANA FUND” with the purpose of preventing cases of abuse and assault in adoptive families. This fund will promote a program of outreach and crisis intervention, focusing on cultural awareness, education, and counseling. For more information or to make a donation see ecmaseattle.org. Though EMCA is a Seattle organization they hope the effort will expand across the country.

Nothing will soften the impact of this sad death, but AAI will strive to learn, grow and improve as we reflect on the tragedy.

More Thoughts About Hana Williams

C.L. Dyck of Scita Scienda shares her thoughts in Hana Grace Williams and the Myth of My Happiness.

Kathy Cassel of Cassel Crew explains her concerns with To Train Up A Child in (How Not) To Train Up a Child.  Note that she does believe in spanking but more as a last resort than as a first and/or only tool.

The Mule explains more about the Petition to Amazon and Why You Should Sign It.  This is the same petition you see on my sidebar.

Professor Curtis Hutt of the University of Nebraska shares his view concerning the ongoing debate about violence against children on Samuel Martin’s Blog.

Overcoming the Issues of The Older Adoptive Child

Veteran Adoptive Parent, Christine Minich explains the Issues with Older Adoptive Children and how to overcome them.   What she recommends is almost the polar opposite of the Recipe For Disaster in my last post.

A Closer Look At The Pearls’ Teachings and Adoption

Christine Minich takes a look at The Pearls’ Teachings in:

The Disturbing World of The Pearls in which she looks at Doublespeak and Definitions as well as some examples of his abusive teachings.

and The Disturbing World of The Pearls Part 2 in which she takes a look at their heretical Theology.

Also, TulipGirl tries to shed some light on the underlying philosophy of the Pearls’ Teachings with On The Pearls And Parenting, Once Again.

The Toronto Sun has an article about the Pearls’ Teachings in Was child abused to death due to advice from book?

Missizzy posted a Recipe For Disaster on  the Websleuths.com message board which explains that happened to Lydia and Hanna.  You might be interested in the rest of the conversation, it is really quite interesting.  I hope it is ok for me to link to this.  If anyone objects, please email me at hermanalinda@whynottrainachild.com and I will remove this entire paragraph.

I also thought I’d mention this post from Civil Thoughts about Adoption Education because that is so important.

Reactions to Hana Williams story

Here are some reactions to the “Hana Williams” story from around the internet.  All of these links consider the link between To Train Up A Child and Hanna’s death.

Note: I just found out from a friend of her’s from Ethiopia that her real name is Hanna Beck. eta: word from Ethiopia is that her real name is Hana Alemu.

The Short Life of Hana Williams by chucklestravels

Did the Disturbing Philosophy of To Train Up a Child Lead to Hana Williams’ Death? by J. Bryan Lowder on Slate.com

Hana Grace Williams, 1997 – 2011 by Tulipgirl who makes a very good case as to how the Pearls’ emphasis on “defeating totally” a “rebellious” child had a lot to do with how the Williams managed to turn the Pearls’ teachings into an instrument of death.

Controversial book part of adopted girl’s murder investigation from Religion News Blog

Extreme Discipline Book Connected to Adoptees’ Deaths from Adoption Talk

Obviously, I’ve been away for awhile
by Down To Earth Woman

Another Dead Child: Hana Grace-Rose Williams, age 13. (Parents owned book “To Train Up a Child”) and Having flashbacks/Survivor’s Guilt by Elizabeth Esther

Rally has been archiving this entire story in his How Could You? Hall of Shame. This is a clear and concise timeline of sorts with many links. It also contains some details I had not heard elsewhere.

And here is a news story which, while old news, seems to contain a few details I hadn’t yet read.

Case file: Parents starved and beat girl, locked her out in the cold from KVAL.com

Why Blame The Pearls At All? – Part 2

Yesterday I looked at the question of what the Pearls’ teachings had to do with the death of Lydia Schatz. Today I will look at the deaths of Sean Paddock and Hana Williams.  Lydia died as a direct result of her parents  following the Pearls’ teachings, but that was not the case with Sean and Hana.

So, how does the death of Hana Williams relate to the Pearls’ teachings? It has been confirmed that her parents were following the Pearls’ teachings by someone who has emailed me anonymously. I have also seen a quote from an email list which then got posted (without permission as far as I can tell) on a message board. I then saw it in the comments here and here.  This person confirmed that the family were following the Pearls’ teachings as well.  S/he also gave some clues that I find interesting.

The Pearls do not teach that parents should leave their children outside all night.  The only real problem is that they teach that parents must always win, as I explained yesterday.  Of course, the Williams were way out of line in making Hana sleep outside without so much as a sleeping bag.  Why would they do that?  I can only speculate.  It is commonly reported that Hana had suffered a significant weight loss (I read 30 pounds somewhere).  The comments mention that she was refusing to eat and then stealing food.  That is a very odd accusation.  If you want your child to eat, why would they have to steal food from you?  How could they steal food from their own parents?  Isn’t all the food everyone’s?

Here is a quote from Michael Pearl’s Article, The Angry Child:

If he doesn’t like what is on the table and he is rude, send him away from the table and do not let him eat until the next meal. Do not feed him snacks between meals, and let him get good and hungry. He will then eat baby food spinach and love it.

Now, I can only speculate, I have no proof that is what they were doing. She could have had Anorexia or some other eating issue due to RAD which caused her to refuse to eat.

But, IF they were withholding food to make her eat what they wanted her to and she was stealing food in the night, they would probably end up locking up the food.  If she were somehow managing to get it anyway, and IF it were true that she was peeing on the rug, it might make sense for someone who has been pushed over the edge to make her stay outside.

So, this is what I’m seeing.  A family who was in way over their head, dealing with Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) and trying to make the Pearls’ teachings work in a situation for which they were not designed.  My thoughts are that they lost control of reality.  They needed help and did not seek it.  It’s a real tragedy.  They probably didn’t think that it was cold enough outside to kill her.  But with her body weakened by lack of food, she succumbed.

I do not know much about the death of Sean Paddock. All I know is that he was wrapped tightly in order to keep him in his bed and he suffocated. Again, the Pearls do not teach parents to do that. His mother might have been trying so hard to win that she did not consider the consequences of her actions, but I can’t really blame the Pearls’ teachings for his death.

So far, all 3 cases of children dying at the hands of followers of the Pearls’ methods have been adopted.  It is apparent that these teachings are particularly dangerous when applied on adopted children.   It is very important that the organizations which oversee adoptions are made aware of this connection.

 

Why Blame The Pearls At All?

 

Many people question why anyone could possibly blame the Pearls at all for the death of Lydia Schatz. I totally understand the question. No matter what the Pearls teach, they did not actually hit the child. And they insist that the Schatz family did not follow their instructions properly.  So, did they? Well, we can’t really know for sure. I would like to explain here how I  believe that the Schatz parents could have been following the teachings of Michael and Debi Pearl to the letter and still killed Lydia Schatz.

First of all, let’s look at who Lydia Schatz was. This post explains her background. She was adopted from Liberia at the age of 4. She did not learn to obey at an early age, she learned to be stoic in an orphanage where showing weakness could be fatal. She might even have had Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD).  It is important to note that all the children who have died at the hands of parents who were following the Pearls’ teachings have been adopted.

Now, let’s look at the Pearls’ teachings.  Pearl teaches that the parent must be 100% consistent. Here is a rather long quote from the book, To Train Up A Child to show this teaching in context:

BE ASSURED OF TWO THINGS:

1. Every small child will have one or two times in his young life when he will decide to take hold of the reins. The stubbornness is profound–amazing–a wonder that one so young could be so dedicated and persevering in rebellion. It is the kind of determination you would expect to find in a hardened revolutionary facing enemy indoctrination classes. Parents who are trained to expect it and are prepared to persevere still stand in awe at the strength of the small child’s will.

2. If you are consistent, this test of authority will come only one, two, or, at the most, three times in each child’s life. If you endure, conquering the child’s will, then in the long run the child wins. If you weaken and let it pass to the victory of the child’s will, then by winning it is a character loss for the child. You must persevere for the both of you. The household cat who, regardless of protest, door barring and foot swinging, is occasionally allowed to stay in the house will take the occasional success as impetus to always try to get in. If he is consistently kept out (100% of the time), he will not come in, even when the door is left open. The cat, allowed to occasionally get its way, is trained, despite your protests, to come into the house. If you kick it hard enough and often enough, it will become sufficiently wary to obey while you remain on guard but will still bolt through the door when it sees the opportunity. On the other hand, dogs, thirty-five times smarter than cats, can be trained either to come in or stay out upon command. The key again is consistency. If the dog learns through conditioning (consistent behavior on the part of the trainer) that he will never be allowed to violate his master’s command, he will always obey. If parents carefully and consistently train up a child, his or her performance will be as consistently satisfying as that rendered by a well trained seeing-eye dog.

Note that they are saying that the parents must win every battle or all is lost. Now lets look at how one must respond to rebellion and/or disobedience. Consider the advice in this article from the Pearl’s website, No Greater Joy. Read that and consider how the parents can obey that advice if the child were to continue being rebellious without ceasing.

Now, on to the speculations. I (and many others) speculate that Lydia knew how to pronounce the word in question. I suspect that she had said it many times correctly, as it was a fairly common word, “pulled.” I believe that in the case of this homeschool lesson, she showed with body language or tone of voice that she was playing around or being rebellious and refusing to comply. She did not obey so they switched her. The problem is that she refused to submit. She did not pronounce the word correctly. She also probably thrashed and fought. Now the parents were put in the uncomfortable position of not knowing when to stop.   I’m guessing that they had read the article, In Defense of Biblical Chastisement and were following it.  I am  having trouble choosing a quote, I think you should go read the entire thing.  Ok, it is very long, so I will quote the main important parts.  Since Michael Pearl has accused us of taking his words out of context, I am going to take that as permission to include very long quotes:

How many licks?

There is no number that can be given. It would be better to administer more licks that are less forceful than to administer few licks that hurt severely. It is much more effective to administer chastisement or punishment in a slow thoughtful fashion. Our goal is to cause the child to voluntarily surrender his will. We want to impress upon him the severity of his disobedience. It takes time and thoughtfulness for the child to come to repentance. I have told a child I was going to give him 10 licks. I count out loud as I go. After about three licks, leaving him in his position, I would stop and remind him what this is all about. I would continue slowly, still counting, stop again and tell him that I know it hurts and I wish I didn’t have to do it but that it is for his own good. Then I would continue slowly. Pretending to forget the count, I would again stop at about eight and ask him the number. Have him subtract eight from ten, (a little homeschooling) and continue with the final two licks. Then I would have him stand in front of me and ask him why he got the spanking. If his answer showed that he was rebellious and defiant, he would get several more licks. Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will. Only about three of our five children ever resisted after a spanking and refused to cooperate. Each of the three required only one experience of continued spankings until they surrendered. None of the three ever tried it a second time. In all cases, it was between the ages of two and four that they tried their moment of defiance.

If you ever have a child who stands his ground of defiance and you let him win, you have lost his heart forever—unless you are able to go back and win a confrontation and keep on winning. If you ever let his rebellion triumph just one time, it makes it much harder to conquer in the future. After he gains the upper hand, one victory on your part will not be sufficient. You will have to persevere in several contests of wills until he is convinced that he can never stand against your authority.

Where on the body?

The Bible says, “the rod is for the back.” That would include anything that is not the front—the back from the shoulders down to the feet. When training, and not chastening or punishing, any convenient place on the body is effective. When you have told a child not to touch, and he reaches out, you can thump or swat his hand. If he is trying to climb down from his chair after being told not to, you can swat his legs. But when you are engaging the child in serious chastisement, the small of the back down to the thighs is the most effective. You can spank half as hard on the back with a light, stingy switch and be more effective than spanking harder on the bottom or thighs.

What if they fight back?

Children fight back because they think they have a chance of forestalling the spanking. First make sure the child never gains anything by fleeing. Second, cause the child to understand that he is further hurting himself by resisting. Slow down, stay calm. If you are in a frenzy, the child will respond in kind. If a child flees, don’t chase him. Wait and allow time for the tension to go out of the air. Slowly pursue him, explaining that he cannot win. If it takes a long time, that’s fine. Go to his hiding place and laugh at his frail attempts. Explain that if it takes fourteen days to bring him to justice, he will be brought to justice. Patience. Calm. Dignity. Wait until he calms down in the back of the closet, or under the bed, and as you sit outside, or just beyond him, quietly tell him that you are coming to give him his ten licks, but that since he has fled, he is now going to get one extra lick. Wait several minutes for him to calm down and listen with reason, and ask him how much ten plus one is. “That’s right, eleven. Would you rather have 10 licks or 11?” He answers “10.” Then tell him that it is too late to get just 10, but if he doesn’t come out immediately you will raise it to 12. He must have calmed down for him to make a rational choice. If not, then wait a little longer. Keep this up until you raise the stakes to about twenty licks, explaining to him that when you get to 20 licks you are coming after him. If he is locked in his room, explain that you will unlock the door. There is no escape. Be calm, non-threatening in tone. Just quiet dignity. Think of yourself as a high-ranking government official in charge of negotiations. Know that in the end you will win. It is the quality of the win that counts. You want him to voluntarily surrender. There is no “violence” that way. It is a great victory if you can get him to finally give over and take the few steps toward you. One win like this and you are likely to never have this problem again.

The Schatz parents continued to spank for 7 hours, taking breaks for prayer. Mr. Pearl does not say to do this. In fact, he warns parents not to abuse in that same article.

How often?

Each child will be different. Some four-year-olds will need five spankings a day, whereas others will need only one a month. Some children hardly ever need a spanking after they are seven or eight; others still need one after they are married. Not that anyone is going to spank him.

You should not spank beyond your fellowship with the child. If you feel that your spanking is excessive, it is because it is not working. If it is not working to produce happy, creative kids, then you are missing one of the other elements we discussed. You have probably forgotten how to relax and enjoy your children. Or perhaps you have failed to train. The bottom line is that if other things are equal, and you give a child a spanking every time he needs it, the time will soon come when he will not need to be spanked so often, and eventually not at all.

When is it abuse?

You are abusing the child when it starts doing harm to the child. Listen to your friends—especially to those friends that share your philosophy. Ask the opinion of people you respect. If they think you are abusive, get counsel in a hurry. Ask the opinion of your older children. If your child is broken in spirit, cowed and subdued, you have a problem. Children should be happy and cheerful, full of enthusiasm and creativity. If your children are fearful or anxious, you should get some counsel.

It’s too bad that his warning is very vague.  Apparently the Schatzes did not understand how to reconcile that warning with the insistence that they needed to continue giving licks until she submitted.   Maybe they were following this advice from the book, To Train Up A Child (page 80)

PERSISTENCE

Some have asked, “But what if the child only screams louder, gets madder?” Know that if he is accustomed to getting his unrestricted way, you can expect just such a response. He will just continue to do what he has always done to get his way. It is his purpose to intimidate you and make you feel like a crud pile. Don’t be bullied. Give him more of the same. On the bare legs or bottom, switch him eight or ten licks; then, while waiting for the pain to subside, speak calm words of rebuke. If the crying turns to a true, wounded, submissive whimper, you have conquered; he has submitted his will. If the crying is still defiant, protesting and other than a response to pain, spank him again. If this is the first time he has come up against someone tougher than he, it may take a while. He must be convinced that you have truly altered your expectations.

There is no justification for this to be done in anger. If you are the least angry, wait until another time. Most parents are so guilt laden and paranoid that they are unable to carry this through to the end.

If you stop before he is voluntarily submissive, you have confirmed to him the value and effectiveness of a screaming protest.

The next time, it will take twice as long to convince him of your commitment to his obedience, because he has learned the ultimate triumph of endurance in this episode in which he has prevailed. Once he learns that the reward of a tantrum is a swift forceful spanking, he will NEVER throw another fit. If you enforce the rule three times and then fail on the fourth, he will keep looking for that loop-hole until you have convinced him it will not work again.

Now, I truly believe that the Schatz did not have any idea in the world that this calm, methodical spanking could kill her. Let’s look at the cause of death, Rhabdomyolosis. Please read the linked post for an in depth explanation. Here are the pertanent quotes:

Rhabdomyolosis describes the condition which follows massive skeletal muscle deterioration, liberating large amounts of muscle cell waste into the bloodstream… “Rhabdo” refers to skeletal muscles. “Myo” means muscle. “Lysis” means rupture, creating the word “rhhabdomyolysis.” Rhabdomyolosis is the condition that results from rhabdomyolysis (the process). When muscle tissue breaks down, if it is in small quantities as happens naturally, the cells themselves contain enzymes (a natural digestive substance) which digest the tissue into very tiny particles. When exceptionally large numbers of muscle cells break down or are broken open due to great stress or trauma from beating, the muscle cells enter the bloodstream because there are so many and muscles have lots of blood vessels in them. When the blood becomes overloaded with these broken muscle cells (called myoglobin), they travel through the body. When they get to the kidney, these big broken cell pieces get pushed into the kidney and clog it. Within each kidney, there are one million tiny, very fragile structures called nephrons, tiny little special tubes which not only remove fluid and protein waste products but also absorb nutrients, acids, and bicarbonate back into the body. Each of the yellow tube-like structures (we each were given two million of them) regulates what remains in the tube, eventually becoming urine.

The muscle cell breakdown products look something like the broken muscle fragments that appear in the figure displayed above. The kidney is designed to handle only tiny particles that are dissolved in fluid, not cells or tissue breakdown products. These cellular byproducts get squeezed into the tiny tubes and clog them. During treatment in the hospital, patients are administered huge amounts of IV fluids to keep the pressure high, pumping constant fluid through the tubes so that debris does not lodge in them.

What happens when the tubes get blocked so much that fluids cannot open them? Each one of those affected tiny tubes dies, a condition called acute tubular necrosis. Necrosis means that something is dead and rotting. Those tiny little marvelous and fragile structures die. They die, turn black and rot. They don’t grow back. These patients will be compromised for the rest of their lives. If too many of those tiny tubes die, the body cannot process nutrients and wastes, it cannot balance acids in the body, and the kidney failure causes anemia, because another part of what the kidney does involves telling the bone marrow to make red blood cells.

So, yes it was totally the parents’ fault. They took bad advice, and took it to an extreme which the author did not intend. Mr. Pearl did not consider adopted children who will resist to the point of death. He still does not understand this or he would clarify, modify or add a disclaimer to his teachings. As far as I know, all he has done is to say that the Schatz couple was out of control and did not follow his teachings correctly. I submit that they followed his teachings too correctly. Mindlessly following a man’s teaching is not what Christians are called to do and for that they will answer to God.

(In Part 2  I discuss the deaths of Sean Paddock and Hana Williams.)

For more discussion of this topic, I recommend this post from Rosecommon Acres.

I also recommend this post from Created To Be His.

More about Hana Grace Williams

You may recall me posting about Hana Grace Williams earlier this month.  In that post I mentioned that I had heard murmurings on the internet that her parents were Pearl followers.  Well, someone has emailed me to confirm that rumor.  Well, confirm might be too strong a word for a fairly anonymous email, but I don’t see any reason not to believe her.

I don’t know what the Peals teachings have to do with this case, if anything.  Certainly the being consistent and never backing down are a concern, but I have never heard them teaching parents to make children sleep outside without a sleeping bag.  I know that they have teachings which include withholding food for certain offenses, like not eating what was served or not saying Please or Thank You.  That might explain her 30 pound weight loss, but so far we have no evidence.

Here is a News story about the Ethiopian Community’s response to this.

And here is a FB page dedicated to her as well as a FB group.

 

Analyzing the Schatz Tragedy

Cindy, from Under Much Grace, analyzes what causes people like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz to harm their children in a new series:
Why Good People Make Dangerous Choices (Pondering Pearl and Lydia Schatz)

An Introduction

Part I: Virtue In Place of Unquestioned Obedience.

Part II: How Dehumanization (and Declaring War Against Family Members) Causes Moral Disengagement

Part III: Defining Aggression as Normal, Acceptable, and Desired Behavior

An Addendum Note About Lydia Schatz and the Correction She Suffered for a Mispronounced Word: Liberian Adoption and Reactive Attachment Disorder

Part IV: The Milgram Experiment and the Pressure to Commit Evil for the Common Good

Part V: Pondering the Atrocities of the Jewish Holocaust and its Relationship to the Study of Obedience

Bad Apples or Bad Barrels? The Short and Long Versions of Zimbardo on the Lucifer Effect

Part VI: The Calm Before the Storm Following the Schatzes’ “Guilty” Pleas

Part VII: The Breaking the “Diabolical Will” of Infants in the IFB – Even at Hephzibah House

Part VIII: There But For Grace

Part IX: Using the Milgram Study to Understand How Pearl Becomes Appealing

Part X: The Schatz Family is Not Unique

The Schatz Abuse Story and the Paradise Post

As 2010 winds to a close, I am reflecting on the changes to this website.  I moved to this blog in March during the thick of the Schatz story.  Over the months I found more and more time passing between posts and started filling that time with posts about other controlling groups such as the Patriarchy Movement as well as helpful posts about Gentle Discipline.  I am very thankful to God for how He has been using this blog.  I wish my readers many blessings in 2011.

And now, The Paradise Post has released its Top 10 news stories of 2010 and the Schatz Abuse Story was number one.   I  post an excerpt from their story here for permanence:

Schatz, Smith lead top 10 news

Posted: 12/30/2010 01:00:00 AM PST

Once again the Post staff voted on the Top 10 stories of the Year. This year, the top story is the Schatz family abuse case.

1. Parents arrested in child abuse case

The ugliness of humanity reared its head in Paradise this year when two local parents allegedly beat their adopted daughter to death for mispronouncing a word.

Lydia Schatz, 7, died in February and her parents, Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, are accused of killing her by using controversial disciplinary methods outlined in a religious training book, “To Train Up A Child,” by Michael and Debi Pearl, founders of the No Greater Joy Ministry.

In the aforementioned book, the Pearls recommend using a rubber quarter-inch plumbing supply line for disciplining a child. Elizabeth called emergency crews on Feb. 6 to report that Lydia was not breathing.

A storm prevented the girl from being airlifted to the hospital by the LifeFlight helicopter. Lydia was being rushed by ambulance to Chico Municipal Airport, but died en route. The autopsy of Lydia shows that the girl died of Rhabdomyolysis, a rapid breakdown of skeletal muscle due to injury to muscle tissue.

Lydia’s 11-year-old sister was also discovered with injuries and sustained kidney failure. She was not originally expected to survive, but made a full recovery after treatment at Sutter Memorial Hospital.

The Schatzes have six biological children and adopted Lydia, the 11-year-old, and a 3 month-old from the Republic of Libera in Africa.

Police said all the children made statements affirming being disciplined by rubber tubing found in the Schatz home.

The parents were charged with murder and torture, each facing life in prison. Kevin and Elizabeth retained separate lawyers and pled not guilty to the crimes.

The case has not been resolved. The Schatzes are scheduled to appear in court on Feb. 28, 2011 for a jury trial.

What is Grace Based Discipline?

The Web Magazine, Positively Feminine, is running a new series called, What Is Grace-Based Discipline? by PhenomoMom. I am quite impressed with this magazine and its contributors and suggest you check it out.

Orphans In Paradise

Kerry Semon and Niels Hoogeveen from Pound Puppy Legacy investigate the tragic case of Lydia Schatz as well as the Tyler case which also involved an abused orphan from Liberia in Orphans In Paradise.

More adoption outrage

The Riggs family is also taking Mr. Pearl to task for his comments about adoption in the 2nd part of today’s blog post. They are commenting on Mr. Pearl’s blog.  I can’t help but wonder what his reply will be.  I have yet to see him to apologize or retract a statement.

Proof that Mr. Riggs believes in spanking: http://www.brentriggsblog.com/2010/01/parenting-in-2010

Man vs. God

Lorraine from All Are Precious In His Sight has written an impassioned blog post called Man vs. God which is a response to Michael Pearl’s advice regarding adopting and fostering children.  Apparently, he is scaring away prospective adoptive and foster families with his advice which is in no way Biblical.

More Thoughts Adoption

Someone on Facebook shared some very insightful comments I would like to share with you all:

There’s another element to this story that has not been addressed – and that is the fact that so many adoptive families are ill-equipped to deal with the realities of bringing home an older child, group of siblings, and/or children from overseas. I think that the Schatzes went into adoption believing they were “rescuing” children. They adopted THREE children at one time – one was 8yrs old, one was 4, and one was an infant. They were interviewed by a local news station before they left for Liberia, and the video showed them smiling and calmly talking about how they meant to open their home to a child in need. They had 6 children in the home already. Clearly this couple believed in the teachings of the Pearls and had used it with their 6 kids. They thought they were “in control.” There was no kid-behavior they couldn’t defeat with their methods. And since it worked so well with their 6 kids, surely it would work especially well with orphaned kids who they believed would look up to them as rescuers and godlike figures. They EXPECTED it. Adoption was supposed to make them feel even more powerful and noble. They expected gratitude and obedience, especially from their adopted children. What they didn’t count on was that their 8yr old arrived with emotional wounds from years in an orphanage, struggling with incomprehensible losses and grief in her short life, and anger at the people who thought they were “saving her.” No doubt her behavior was difficult to manage. No doubt the other kids – who were not used to defiance and expressions of anger – were overwhelmed by these newcomers and what they brought to their new lives. The Schatzes expected that ALL KIDS will comply, ALL KIDS should bow down to their parents, that the very real and deep issues arising from adoption loss should be no different from any other difficult “childlike behavior.” When it didn’t work out that way, for the first time they realized they are not in control. Rather than seeking help, they just lost it and beat up on defenseless children, believing that they could somehow punish away all the behaviors they found so intolerable. What they refused to consider was that they were witnessing years of pain and grief and anger that was only compounded by a new and maybe even more miserable life for these children. The problem comes up when parents think they are in control of every action that a child demonstrates. When they don’t ask for help. When they think that they are godlike figures and children are sub-human, deserving to be “trained” like mules and horses.

I responded:

I agree except for one point. They had these children for almost 4 years and were using the Pearl method the entire time. I don’t believe that they “lost it” and beat her up. I believe that they continued to chastise her more and more as she continued to get more and more defiant and eventually it became a death match. She refused to give in and they just kept on chastising her, sure that she would eventually give in. Pearl teaches that his system will work on EVERY child but that the parents must be 100% consistent. What neither Pearl nor the Schatzes realized was that not every child will give in and that with repeated switchings, the tissues will break down and kill the child. I could be wrong, but this is what I suspect. As there was a witness, I believe that the truth will come out in court.

The reply:

Actually, that is what I suspect as well, though I probably didn’t state it clearly. As you say, the other children were witnesses and will (hopefully) speak out in time. My suspicion is that the Schatzes were firm believers that the Pearls’ methods were “the way of proper parenting” and simply believed it would always work – with every child. In every situation. And were surprised and at a loss when they found it did NOT work with their new adoptive children. My suspicion is that those children had never been beaten in their lives before and were outraged and far more defiant against the “trainings” than the Schatzes’ biological kids were. When I suspect that the parents “lost it,” I mean that I believe they just could not fathom what to do about being out of control with a child. They must have wondered: how could that happen when the Pearls’ promised their techniques would work on every child, when they were following all the marital and parenting rules set forth by the Pearls’ books? I think they just didn’t find in themselves the basic compassion and humility they needed to understand the situation and call for help. And I think that ultimately their “training sessions” just became more frantic and violent in their attempts to beat the children into that “submissive whimper” they were promised by the Pearls.

The Schatzes have a court date scheduled for June 24th, one week from today.

link to What Frog and Toad Can Teach Us…

Karen from from Now… Through a Glass Darkly has written a follow up to her last post which I have added to In Depth Analysis

Stand With an Open Heart–What Frog and Toad Can Teach Us about What Lydia Schatz Might Have Said

Attachment Disorder

Love Never Fails blog asks us to consider if Attachment Disorder could have had anything to do with Lydia Schatz’ death. I think that most of us who know anything about Attachment Disorder have considered that question. I’ll be adding this link to The Schatz Story part 2.

Christy’s Testimony

We know the Pearls very well as we have followed their ministry since almost its inception. We have read nearly every article and book, listened to every CD and watched nearly every DVD. We would have come to their defense in a heart beat before we adopted our son but two years ago the Lord showed us clearly that the one size fits all method of parenting that they espouse was not going to work with our son with attachment disorder. We are so thankful for our son now and what God began to teach us about his love and that he began to show us a “more excellent way” (I Corinthians 12:31) and that was love.


We could see very quickly that this child would die before he would give in or allow his will to be broken. The Pearls would never say that they condone beatings or murder but the problem is that they say you need to keep disciplining until the child submits. Now with a normal child who had been loved, accepted and nurtured all it’s life this would happen fairly quickly but for a child with attachment disorder who had been abused, neglected and traumatized whose brain does not register consequences it does not work. Our son would do the most bizarre behavior and be oblivious to the consequences. (throwing himself down the stair numerous times is just one of a myriad of examples). They just will not “learn” their lesson as the Pearls would want you to believe. So what would happen if we followed their teaching to the letter? Even though we could spank in a perfectly calm non angry state the child would not give in. We would be there all day and you would have a situation like what has happened here and in the other case. Yes, you can calmly spank a child to death.


Yes the Pearl’s say you should give yourself a “lick” first to make sure it isn’t too hard but they also say that if your child isn’t responding then maybe it isn’t hard enough and you are being a “wimp”. Following this teaching to the letter also leads to the outrageous practice I witnessed recently of a young Mom spanking her 6 WEEK OLD for rolling over in his crib and not going to sleep! Do Michael and Debi condone this type of discipline? This mother was also a follower of their teaching and she seemed to think so. They have certainly never spoken against it anywhere.




You can also bet that they will not apologize or clarify any of their teaching based on this case. If someone took what I said and followed it to the letter and something tragic occurred because of it you can bet that I would feel a great responsibility because of it however this will not occur with the Pearls. In all our years of reading their material I have never once seen them apologize, clarify or change their minds on any matter. This shows a great lack of humility to me.

Don’t tell me that I don’t know them or haven’t read their stuff. I have probably read and listened to more than you and would have defended them strongly but this tragedy is last straw for us because I know that they will take no responsibility for this and will only become more defensive and only vaguely refer in their newsletter about being persecuted for righteousness sake.

I have canceled my subscription to their newsletter and will have nothing to do with this ministry anymore. I hope and pray that more eyes will be opened and more people will see that you can not follow man made rules but you need to follow Jesus and be open to the Spirit’s leading in your particular home and life.