ChildCare Action Project:
Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)

The Barry Bear Story


Anna Lee Bear Jailed
with Foreword
December 7, 1997 UPDATE
Fifth month of punitive confinement
Talk Back
Core Message: "FREE BARRY BEAR"
December 17, 1997 UPDATE
Anna Bear will get a review of her six month sentence
December 21, 1997 UPDATE
"Not if they jail me ten years"
January 17, 1998 UPDATE
Oral Appeal Arguments for Barry Bear, January 12, 1998
Erin's Letter
Dear Mrs. Bear. You don't know me. But today we got an e-mail...
March 25, 1998 UPDATE
"We conclude that Barry is not an acceptable candidate for discharge..." (Received April 1, 1998. Posted April 4, 1998)

While this story may seem to have nothing to do with combatting sex education or homosexuality, please remember that our objectives include combatting the victimization of children and their families. The Bear's story is indeed a story of child/family victimization.

This exclusive story, prepared with permission from email postings from Mr. John Harvey of Des Moines, Iowa, is a warning to homeschoolers of what to watch for.

Anyone is welcome to freely distribute this posting. All we ask is that you do so with the entire posting, not just pieces, and include all copyright information.

This page will be updated as information is learned. Please check back each week for news.

Thomas A. Carder
ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)


From John Harvey
1102 21st Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50311
Phone: 515-282-2672

with forward by
Sarah Leslie
The Christian Conscience
Des Moines, Iowa 50137-0346
Fax: 515-262-9854

provided as a free information service by
Thomas A. Carder
ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)
P. O. Box 177
Granbury, TX 76048-0177


The Barry Bear case was supposed to be a model case to come after the homeschoolers in Iowa by threatening to remove their children if they didn't comply with the state's overly restrictive home school law(s). Barry Bear was raised by his parents on an Indian reservation. Sam Blumenfeld and I met with him when he had only been in the state system for a year and found him to be a wonderful, pleasant kid with some elementary education abilities. The State responded to Anna and Archie's repeated court battles to bring him home by institutionalizing him in major lock-ups which Barry didn't like. They sedated him with lithium and other horrible drugs that were not appropriate for him. The State has made numerous, unsubstantiated -- even ridiculous -- claims about Barry's health and mental health over the years, which State doctors have attested to, but private physicians have said was "bunk". To this date, the State has refused to acknowledge its profound error about the mismanagement of this situation -- because to do so would negate their attempts to still use this court case as a precedent to come after homeschool families. There were numerous attempts over the years to come after homeschool families with the threat of social workers taking away their kids, using Barry Bear as the precedent, but in every case the Lord miraculously intervened. Most of these families were poor or of mixed race, like the Bear family which the State thought would be easy pickings for their social experimentation.

Anna finally found her "loophole" when the State of Iowa neglected to go to court in a timely fashion. The next day she took Barry Bear from the institution that was holding him, which she had a legal right to do, and brought him safely out of Iowa. The next time she was in Iowa, she was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to tell where Barry is. Here's the rest of the story....

Sarah Leslie


Anna LEE BEAR, is in jail for contempt of court - When a Boone County court refused to release her adult son, Barry Bear from state custody she took advantage of liberal visitation to remove him from custody.

Barry Bear, age 20, a captive of the State of Iowa is not guilty of anything except being mildly retarded. Anna's contempt charge was imposed when she failed to comply with a Boone County order to return him to custody.

She took him off of a heavy drug regimen, cold turkey. She made sure he had a good diet and natural food supplements. He's been drug-free for 13 months since early October 1996. He is doing well. A doctor examined Barry and told Anna that Barry could be safely taken off drugs. Barry had a full physical examination since escaping state custody.

Current whereabouts of Barry and his father if known, cannot be disclosed because both Barry and his father Archie can be prosecuted. They cannot visit Anna in jail or contact her in any way for fear of capture. Archie Bear is suffering profound physical ailments and is facing severe hardship in Anna's extended absence. Barry's family is presumably caring for him while Anna is serving time.

ANNA LEE BEAR is serving her fourth month of a six-month contempt sentence. She could be released immediately if she would simply make sure that Barry is returned to his captors at Woodward State Hospital and School. This option would mean that Barry would return to his state-prescribed drug regimen. Anna is resolute and not likely to give in to the state. She certainly will not attempt to gain her freedom by returning her son to custody.

Anna's sentence will take her through her birthday, November 22, 1997 through Thanksgiving; through Christmas and through New Years. On February 4, 1998, she is scheduled for release. She could be charged again and again and held in jail for the same continuing offense.

The state argued that Barry must be held in custody because he is mildly retarded and would be a problem to the community if released without the chemical restraints on his behavior. At trial it was demonstrated that until he was institutionalized he needed no drugs. The trial court was advised that Barry was not combative with his peers but with those at the hospital who mistreated him. He has spoken of being isolated and held down and shocked by staffers.

If institutionalization prompted the need for the drugs perhaps the state should consider freeing him from custody and free him from the drugs. One day after Anna arranged for his escape, the court following a 60 day delay between trial and ruling, determined that he must be returned to custody and remain on drugs. The court said that keeping him in custody was the only way of keeping him drugged. Barry's mother took issue with his need for drugs.

She proved her point by demonstrating for over a year that he did not require a drug regimen. This experiment meant that she would have to sacrifice her freedom in order to obtain freedom for Barry.

In the next few days another review hearing will be petitioned. A pending appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court will be dismissed to permit the Boone County District Court to revisit the matter.

Anna Lee Bear is married to an American Indian, Archie Bear. Together they raised a family on a reservation at Tama, Iowa. The youngest child is Barry Bear.

This is not the first time the Bears have had difficulty with the state. Both Archie and Anna served time in jail for withdrawing Barry from public school. The state said Anna, a teacher of 20 years could not home-school Barry because he was mildly retarded. Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld noted author and educational authority, said she was capable of meeting Barry's educational needs. Notwithstanding a heavy weight of evidence in the family's favor, the state won that argument and took over custody of Barry from age 11 to 18. The state in its infinite parental wisdom taught him important things like how to tie his shoe strings and how to ride the MTA and how to stuff envelopes. The Court of Appeals told the DHS to return Barry to his home but the DHS in their tenacity to "maximize" his educational opportunities asked the Iowa Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeals ruling to release.

The family thought that Barry would surely return home when he became an adult and no longer under DHS control. The administrator at the DHS-controlled Woodward State Hospital and School in Woodward, Iowa, Dr. Michael Davis had other plans for Barry. His stay at Woodward provided state funding at the rate of $232 per day for the institution which over the past several years has had to fight fiercely against shutdown. The school decided that Barry needed to be heavily drugged and petitioned the court to hold Barry in custody as an adult. Noting that Anna would not continue the drugs if he returned home to the reservation, the court continued his confinement indefinitely.

John Harvey

December 7, 1997 UPDATE

Anna Lee Bear, mother of Barry Bear has now entered her fifth month of punitive confinement. Her offense was contempt of court. She freed her son from confinement at Woodward Hospital and School. She took him off drugs. The 20 year-old mildly retarded man is doing quite well after 14 months of freedom from the institution and freedom from a state-prescribed drug regimen. Anna Bear was willing to exchange her freedom for his. In the meantime, she has assumed the burden of proof in the matter. She has shown that Barry does not require a drug regimen.

A review hearing is set for Barry's official release. It is scheduled December 11, 1997 at 3 p.m., at the Boone County Court House in Boone, Iowa. The hearing is to determine if Barry can be safely released. The family has already proved that he can - this hearing is to see if the court can be convinced by the reality of the matter.

At the previous hearing the burden of proof shifted to Barry to prove that his release would not constitute hazard to the community. This was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. In the absence of legal substance, Assistant Boone County Attorney Jim Robbins, in his appeal brief simply threw slams at Anna Bear. He told the court that she was "obsessed"; that she was "doting and over-protective" and that she demonstrated "continued irrationality". Woodward's Diane Stout holds a BA in Education. She was largely responsible for advising against Barry's release. Joe Krick, state psychologist went along with her notion. Records of K. Singh's, state psychiatrist were introduced but Dr. Singh was not available for cross-examination. Anna Bear's rescue of Barry showed that all of these institutional experts were wrong in their guesses and expert predictions. However, verifiable observations may not rise above the educated whims of the institutional staff.

Access was denied to the appeal file because of a Boone County court order. A copy of the court order was requested. It was found that the order sealing the record was secret "because it had names on it".

At the previous hearings, the guardian ad litem for Barry Bear, Nancy Burke demanded that the hearing be closed to the public and to the media. Geoff Greenwood of K.C.C.I. TV8, this week asked again for expanded media coverage. Greenwood is not optimistic that it will be permitted. Neither Barry Bear nor his parents have asked for closed sessions.

It may be in the best interests of the Department of Human Services, the agency which runs Woodward Hospital and School, to keep things secret. Do you believe that men love darkness when their deeds are evil? The architects of the American political experiment were persuaded that courts must be public. This was to preserve the legal system from tyranny and was also aimed at engendering the highest level of respect and confidence in the judicial system.


  • Why is it necessary for government to pursue the Bear family for over a decade?

  • Why is it necessary to keep the proceedings the court record secret? [Does the public have a right to know?]

  • Why should a young man be confined and the burden of proof be placed on him to show that the community would be safe on his release?

  • Barry Bear was drug-free before the government captured him at age 11. Barry Bear has been drug-free for 14 months while outside of direct physical state custody.

    • Should the state come to the realization that confinement for Barry Bear is inordinate?

    • Should the state come to the realization that forced administration of drugs is totally inappropriate and counterproductive in this case?

  • What is the state's compelling interest in holding Anna Lee Bear in jail? What does the court prove by its judicial behavior?
Could it be that the state is more interested in the $232 per day state funding for Barry Bear's care in the Woodward institution and the possible confiscation of Barry's trust fund?

TALK BACK        Core Message: "FREE BARRY BEAR"

P. O. Box 42
Tama, Iowa 52339
Capitol, Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5211
Charles M. Palmer, Director
Iowa Department of Human Services
Fifth Floor Hoover Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5454
Assistant Boone County Attorney
Jim P. Robbins
1001 Mamie Eisenhower Ave
Boone, Iowa 50036
(515) 432-7114
Dr. Michael Davis, Superintendent
Woodward State School and Hospital
Woodward, Iowa 50276
(515) 438-2600)
1801 Grand Av.
Des Moines, IA 50309
{515) 284-1040
9-11:30 AM

If you receive answers to these questions from any source including the above officials, consider sending the responses to us.

Thomas A. Carder
President ChildCare ActionProject: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)


John Harvey

We will ensure the responses receive the proper attention. You may also wish to interact by telephone on Jan Michelson's talk show.

Thank you.

December 17, 1997 UPDATE

After several shifts in court dates, Anna Bear will get a review of her six month sentence for contempt. She is now well into her fifth month of incarceration.

The trial is set at the Boone County Courthouse in Boone, Iowa at 3:30 PM., FRIDAY December 19th. ANNA will appear in court. The session will be public and will be video taped.

Her attorney will argue that Anna Bear is steadfast unmovable in her resolve to resist the court's demand for Anna to disclose Barry Bear's whereabouts. Barry is her 20 year old son. Anna made a daring rescue of Barry, taking him out of an institution at Woodward, Iowa. This freedom fighter has paid a high cost for Barry's freedom. Her attorney will argue that it does the court no good to pursue its current course of action. He will ask the court to immediately release Anna so that she can return to her family for Christmas.

Barry, a mildly retarded young man was forced onto a drug regimine which his own doctor called unnecessary. The court ignored Barry's attending physician's report. The court ruled favoring the desire of an institution which profits from a $232 per day fee for Barry's care. The state determined that Barry must be the custody in order to insure his drug regimine. Evidence in his case showed that it was not until he was placed in custody of the state that drugs were needed.

More news to come.

John Harvey
1102-21st Street
Des Moines, IA 50311
515 282-2672

December 21, 1997 UPDATE

Will ANNA BEAR surrender BARRY BEAR to Woodward Hospital School? "Not if they jail me ten years", Anna told the court on Friday.

ANNA LEE BEAR is free after serving 139 days in jail. She gained her freedom when the court decided that she was resolute and that she would not likely change her mind to return Barry to captivity.

There is no doubt that those on the several e-mail loops played a significant part in causing the judge to reverse his decision to jail a 68 year old mother. The e-mailers and the press shed some much needed light on government-sponsored oppression. Anna is thankful for the prayers and those who wished her well. Thanks are also due for placing the spotlight on evil. (A list of talk back contacts can be found at the end of this article if you wish to prompt officials to do that which is right - namely to FREE BARRY BEAR from his order of institutional commitment.)

Anna received many encouraging messages and cards. She shared these with other inmates. One of the most touching letters came from Erin, a 15 year old home school student in Thomasville, Georgia.[1]

A Des Moines Register reporter, Thomas Odonnell was contacted by a Texas-based research web site. Odonnell contacted Boone county attorney Jim Robbins. Having reviewed the web updates[2], he asked about the derogatory remarks that Robbins had made about Anna. Prosecutor Robbins said that he lifted the remarks from previous rulings made by the court. Robbins was quoted as saying that Anna has a "warped view of the facts." Robbins told the press that the state was only trying to protect Barry Bear's interests.

The hearing was videotaped. Reporter Odonnell covered the story. He interviewed Anna Bear following the trial. The judge watched the camera closely. There were no hearing participants in the area where the video camera was set up. The story was reported to the Des Moines Register. It was found also in the, Cedar Rapids Gazette with an Associated Press credit. ABC affiliate WOI-TV attempted to interview Anna Bear for her story. WOI-TV was given a video copy of the trial.

It's time to rejoice! Both Barry and Anna are free for now. Authorities can elect to pursue Barry. The order committing Barry to Woodward State Hospital School is on appeal before the Iowa Supreme Court, Case 97-15. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 12, 1998 at 9 AM. It could take two to three months for the final ruling. Until that time it may be difficult to locate the Bear family. In the meantime, Anna plans to locate Barry and to spend Christmas with her family.

On August 2, 1997, Anna Bear traveled with her husband, Archie and her 20 year old son Barry when their pickup broke down. A law enforcement officer arrived to assist. Anna was arrested and taken into custody on a warrant for contempt of court. The trooper did not realize that Barry was the real target of the state's wrath. Barry was able to depart with his father. Anna was immediately jailed and awaited trial until September 12, 1997. She was given none of the documents required by law. During the pretrial incarceration the only way she would be freed was to surrender a cash bond of $2,500. She refused to post bail.

During the "individualized determination" hearing on December 19, 1997, the judge reviewed the matter. He said that it was the duty of the court to coerce Anna into returning Barry Bear to the custody of Woodward State Hospital School. The judge sensed at the time of sentencing that Anna would never return her son to the institution. He thought it his duty to test that resolve by incarcerating Anna Bear. His order allowed two provisos in sentencing her to the maximum term. She was given credit for time served. Secondly, Associate Judge Breen said that he would grant her "a privilege." His explanation made it clear that Anna Bear held the key to her liberty. The condition was that she arrange to get Barry back into custody. Anna Bear did not choose to avail herself of that "privilege." At one point, the judge said that Anna's incarceration was probably more palatable than if she were younger and had more responsibilities to care for young children. Anna Bear on December 19, was rushed without a winter coat or jacket or sweater from her captivity in Cedar Rapids to the courthouse in Boone. The state car traveled at the rate of 90 MPH. She arrived at her 3:30 hearing at 3:31. No arrangements were made by the state to transport Anna to her home.

In making his ruling, Judge Breen, made a number of comments about Anna Bear which conflicted with earlier inflammatory comments in court rulings. He said she was "quite bright", had "a good memory", she was "thoughtful", "not confused", "not acting out of poor judgment", "not out of touch with reality", and she was "very determined." The judge said that the attempt to coerce her has failed. He concluded that "We have tested Anna Bear as much as we should... the defendant's period of incarceration is ended and she is to be set free after this hearing."

How is it that we need more prison space when there seems to be enough space to incarcerate a 68 year old non-violent peaceful mother?

The court said it was extending a get-out-of-jail privilege to Anna Bear. Can it be considered a "privilege" when the object of Anna's rescue mission was to get Barry away from his captors at Woodward? Anna Bear made it clear that she would not pursue her freedom by arranging for her son's confinement. She has never wavered from that principled commitment.

How is it that the state refuses to permit a family who loves Barry Bear to have the opportunity to meet his needs? (One of attorneys in Barry's case, several years ago estimated that the state spent over one million dollars on Barry. That's a lot of public money.)

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Render unto God the things that are God's. Apparently this devoted mother did not believe that Barry belonged to Caesar.

Why does the public have to pay for a testing program to test the resolve of a person with high moral principle? Anna told the state and the court "No" when asked to return Barry Bear on September 12. The most common retort today is to ask what part of "NO" did the court misunderstand? It seems incredible that the court can rule without evidence and testimony of an expert witness that Barry Bear was "seriously mentally impaired." This ruling was based solely on the state's petition. At the same time the court could not determine a resolute, steadfast, principled mother when she testified before the court. She was forced to prove that her "NAY" meant "NAY" by serving 139 days in jail.

Barry Bear's conduct has been the target of governmental criticism. Keep in mind that the state has raised this young man for nearly a decade from the age of eleven. If his conduct is really poor, to whom should we look for blame? The state has said he was "aggressive." At trial it was made clear that aggression was noted only after he was institutionalized and put on drugs. This was first done when Barry was placed in Compressive Services in Charles City, Iowa. The state acknowledged that this placement was totally inappropriate. At trial it was shown that his aggression was never with his peers. For some reason the staff has not been able to fully gain his respect. When Barry had the choice, he decided to go home to live with his family. At one point he disclosed that he was tied down and shocked with electricity. Apparently the nanny-state believes in discipline using chemicals and electricity.

Was the judge using poor math when he said that 139 days is 2/3 of a 183 day sentence? Its more like 3/4 isn't it? [One-hundred thirty nine days is 75.9% of 183 days. Seventy-five percent is 3/4. So, yes, 139 days is more than 2/3 of the 183 day sentence. But maybe the judge did not calculate the percentage, maybe he just on-the-spot estimated it. Web Host: Thomas A. Carder]

Much of what has been done in the Barry Bear case is called "Junk Science." Evidence from medical doctors said that the drugs were not necessary. But a staffer with a BA degree said they were needed. It would seem that when challenged, the burden of proof should shift to the staffer to demonstrate the scientific basis for her whim. Junk science makes it possible to effect decisions in court which go beyond common sense, common decency and the facts in a case. Anna Bear was able by her rescue of Barry to demonstrate the very best non-speculative evidence that Barry didn't need drugs by taking him off drugs. Perhaps the Emperor has no clothes.

Aaron Rivera, a Blairstown home-school father knows Anna and Barry Bear. His family is no stranger to coercion and oppression. Several years ago, Aaron purchased and distributed many bumper stickers which read "FREE BARRY BEAR." It may be well to make sure the oppressors hear that refrain echo all across America -- this time on the Internet[2]. As a side note, Aaron Rivera is still in the rescue business. While on his mail route last week, in Cedar Rapids, Aaron rescued two young boys ages 8 and 10, from icy pond waters.

January 17, 1998 UPDATE

Oral Appeal Arguments for Barry Bear
January 12, 1998

Oral Appeal Arguments Heard In the Iowa Supreme Court.

Did the District Court Err in failing to release Barry Bear from confinement at Woodward State Hospital and School?

Five justices sat in session at 9:30 AM on January 12, 1998. David Staudt of Waterloo represented Anna Bear. Woodward Hospital and School was represented by County Attorney Jim Robbins.

One of the issues discussed whether Barry or the state should shoulder the burden of proof pursuant to his release. Justice Linda Neuman, asked a number of interesting questions. She asked just how long the state needed to keep Barry. She questioned what the state had to offer that his parents could not provide. Robbins recited the entire history of Barry's contact with the state. He repeated slams against the parents. Newman responded to Robbins criticism that the mother was doting. Robbins said the parents wouldn't always be around to care for Barry. Staudt replied that other family members could assure that Barry's needs would be met. It was pointed out that Barry was posed some physical alarm but this was expressed only against institution staff and only after he had been heavily drugged. Staudt pointed out that the record showed no physical confrontation prior to drugging and institutional confinement. Robbins then said that Barry was a danger to himself because he had bitten his hands and has hit his head against the wall. Staudt said that Barry has done that since before the state took him into custody. The state was unable to treat or cure that behavior. The arguments were brief but intense.

The final decision by the high court could come within a week or it could take as long as two months.

ERIN'S LETTER, 11/21/97

Dear Mrs. Bear:

You don't know me. But today we got an e-mail from a friend telling us about your situation. My heart goes out for you and I am awed by your courageous stand.

My name is Erin ... and today is my 15th birthday. I am in the 10th grade and I have been home-schooled all my life. I've grown up in a Christian home, and I love God with all my heart. I know that tomorrow, November 22nd is your birthday. By the time you get this it will all be over. Happy birthday, from one November baby to another.

I was so moved when I read about the things you have done to save your son. I applaud and encourage you for even going so far as to sacrifice your freedom for you're son's safety. I will be praying for your safety while in jail and for the peace and contentment that can only come from God. Its people like you that make me ask myself the hard question of what would I do if I faced persecution like that. I truly don't know what I'd do but I hope that I could be like you, to be strong, and to hold fast to your convictions. Have a good Thanksgiving and remember, God is with you wherever in life you are.


Erin ...


1) Go to /

2) Click on "Sex, ABC and Disney (SAD)..." from the opening screen.

You will be presented with the Table of Contents of the special "Very SAD" folder on our website. Scroll down and click on "The Barry Bear Story."


Everyone should know the high caliber of students we now have in home schools. If oppression is to cease in America it will likely be the home school students who will bring it to a halt.

March 25, 1998 UPDATE
(Received April 1, 1998. Posted April 4, 1998)

Barry Bear was not freed from the court-ordered commitment /incarceration at Woodward State Hospital and School. He petitioned for discharge and subsequently appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. From the land of "likelihood", the Iowa Supreme Court, on March 25, 1998, ruled:

"We conclude that the school has shown by clear and convincing evidence that harmful consequences are likely to follow a discharge at this time." See Iowa Code (Section) 222.43(3). In fact, the evidence from the psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, and program manager, uniformly agreeing that discharge would be a mistake, was uncontradicted by any professional testimony. While Anna contends that the outbursts of aggression are solely in response to school staff members and not the lack of medication, we do not agree. ...acts of aggression are the result of a mental condition that can be adequately controlled by medication....

"We conclude that Barry is not an acceptable candidate for discharge at this time; however, this does not close the door on that possibility at some time in the furture...

Perhaps before long a discharge may safely be ordered, but that time is not now. Accordingly, we affirm the judgement of the juvenile court denying the petition for discharge."


The burden of proof was placed on Barry Bear, a 20 year old mildly retarded man to establish a prima facie case that (1) the relatives friends of the confined person are able and willing to provide support and care and (2) no harmful consequences are likely to follow such discharge. The court determined that the Bears made that case simply by asserting it. The burden of proof then shifted to the superintendent of the school to prove the contrary by clear and convincing evidence. The superintendent did not appear at hearing. Records used to establish clear and convincing evidence in court were not supported by those who prepared the records, report and recommendations. Key witnesses were not available for cross examination by Barry Bear, his parents and his attorney.

Would it not appear far more equitable that the one who purports to foresee consequences of discharge be ordered to prove by clear and convincing evidence that certain harm was inevitable ? How could a Woodward inmate provide proof of a fact not in evidence? How can a Woodward inmate provide clear and convincing evidence that something will not happen?

The court commented on Anna Bear's testimony: Anna Bear testified that she and Barry's father were capable of providing care for Barry. Barry's aggressiveness was usually directed at school staff members and this would not be a problem at home according to her. Anna, however, continued to protest the administration of any medication to control Barry's aggression. When staff was questioned about how Barry was a danger to himself it was disclosed that he would bite his hands and wrists. Barry's attorney retorted that Barry did that long before the state had anything to do with him. His mother has explained that he thought it was because of the pain of his stomach ailment.

The court in the ruling said: There is no question that Barry's parents are committed to what they perceive to be his best interests, although the school contends that their efforts are not rational.

Note that the court scoffs at the parents so-called "perception" of Barry Bear's best interests. In the absence of worthy evidence to the contrary how can the court hold that its "perception" is superior to that of the parents? How is it that the court can determine without trial court evidence that the parent's "...efforts are not rational". Certainly, perhaps the school is right if the test of rationality was the submission of the parents to the notion that Barry Bear had to have his social behavior chemically controlled. It was demonstrated in trial court Barry did not need medication until he was institutionalized first at Comprehensive Services in Charles City, Iowa. One could certainly presume that if institutionalization brought about the young man's need for strong meds then discharge would be the proper reversal of that bureaucratic error. The state admitted that the placement at Comprehensive Services was a tragic error. Apparently, the only way the state can cover up its mistakes is to perpetuate them.

The court has a strange view of what clear and convincing evidence means. The court relied heavily on information which was not properly before the court and was not be subjected to cross-examination because the authors were not present.

The court has a strange view of the jurisdiction of the matter on appeal. The Woodward School superintendent filed its petition for commitment on the basis of retardation. Barry Bear was approaching his 18th birthday. The order of commitment was effective only after he turned 18. Barry's petition for discharge was made after he turned 18. However, the court in its infinite wisdom determined that the Juvenile Court somehow retained jurisdiction over an adult.

This is not the usual happenstance for most young Iowans held captive by an oppressive system of government. But Barry's case is slightly different.

The GOOD NEWS for Barry is that he is NOT under the immediate control of the Juvenile Court, the District Court or the Supreme Court. Thanks to Anna Bear's daring and fearless rescue of Barry Bear from his captors, he and his family live happily far far away from Iowa. The personal cost to Anna Bear was 139 days in an Iowa jail for her rational conduct in freeing Barry Bear.

He was taken off drugs cold turkey. This was a rational decision supported by a local doctor who is not own, controlled nor intimidated by the D.H.S. It was not without some real problems for s few months. He is now stable and happy and physically healthy. Now these parents can claim that they have a drug free son. The courts can scoff and scorn and rule adversely, the school officials can lie and distort, the D.H.S. can confuse, intimidate and fight, but Barry Bear is not within their grasp - Barry Bear is free. Barry honors God and he honors and obeys his parents. Barry deserves to have his freedom preserved against all Keystone bureaucratic oppressors. The bumbling bureaucrats who rule over us need our most earnest prayer.

The next major event is to go back to the district court and examine all of the evidence against Barry's discharge, take depositions from all who contributed to the litigious distortions and the file another petition. The Supreme Court will issue a writ of procedendo which tells the juvenile court to proceed to judgement as if there were no appeal. It is difficult to know how the lower court can take action of an individual who is no longer a juvenile. Perhaps legal scholars might want to take note, because Iowa officials know how to do that which is legally impossible.

The new petition for dismissal can happen anytime. It may be resisted since it is largely academic. Barry is not in the immediate custody of his captors and it might be reasoned that since he has no legitimate relief to be sought because his mother secured his discharge, the court might consider the issue moot.

As Barry Bear reaches is 21st birthday on June 14th he might face another fight if the state decides to capture Barry rather sizable bank account. The account is the result over the years of Tribal distribution of gambling profits to enrolled residents of the Tama Reservation. Speaking with pure speculation, this may have been the bounty sought by the Woodward School.


If you have questions or comments, feel free to send them to us.

Email to Thomas A. Carder (
ChildCare ActionProject: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)

or US mail to

P. O. Box 177
Granbury, TX 76048-0177


Email to John Harvey (


US mail to

1102 21st Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50311
Phone: 515-282-2672

Thank you.

You are welcome to go to the

[Top of the CAP Home Page], the [CAP Table of Contents]

or the

[Sex, ABC and Disney (SAD) Table of Contents]

or leave us an email message or comment at

The ChildCare Action Project (CAP) is a nonprofit Christian ministry. We rely on public support. If you wish to contribute to the CAP,

please visit Become a CAPtain

or please send your donations to

ChildCare Action Project
Post Office Box 177
Granbury, TX 76048-0177

Tax exemption applies in accordance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Tax Codes.

Please feel free to write to us.

Thank you for visiting us and may God bless you.

In the blessed name of Jesus:
Lord, Master, Teacher, Savior, God.

Thomas A. Carder
ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)

©1997, 1998 ChildCare Action Project: Christian Analysis of American Culture (CAP)