Family Services Takes Children Because Concealed Carrying Foster Parents Don’t Exercise ‘Good Judgment’

A Las Vegas family was split apart after the Department of Family Services decided a pair of concealed carrying foster parents weren’t fit to be around children.

Kristi and Rod Beber have parented “over a hundred” children throughout their years as foster parents, and they’ve also always kept a gun in the house. On April 3 they awoke to screaming on their property. Kristi called 9-1-1; Rod grabbed his handgun. No shots were fired, but the DFS later determined that Kristi and Rod were unfit parents and took away their three foster children.

“Let me tell you something, my hands were shaking,” said Kristi, recounting the incident. “I’m calling 9-1-1.”

“You want to protect your family and your house,” said Rod. “As a [concealed carry license] holder, one of the first things you want to do is take control of the situation.”

Local police arrived and quickly diffused the situation. Rod never used his handgun, but when DFS reviewed the police reports they revoked their foster license, determining “the incident did not describe and adult exercising sound judgment.”

“I said, ‘Don’t make me drop them off a the Child Haven,” said Kristi. “If you’re going to revoke me, revoke me, but don’t make me drop those kids off at Child Haven.”

At the time of the DFS’ decision, the law dictated that foster parents were not allowed to have a loaded firearm in the home for any reason. However, shortly after the incident the laws changed and now the Bebers are fighting to get their foster license reinstated.

“He said, ‘You know what, Kris, we’re not going to close [this case]. This isn’t right, we’re not going to let this happen.’”

(This article was a submission from freelance writer Brent Rogers)

{ 3 comments… add one }
  • Bill May 8, 2017, 8:18 am

    Did they have a “loaded” firearm in the house or was it loaded after they heard the disturbance?

  • Jay May 8, 2017, 5:28 am

    As a ccl carrier and former foster parent, I have to make some observations. I obviously support concealed carry but I have to say the couple deserved to lose their fostering license. They clearly violated the rules they had agreed to operate under. Now, I know a person can control a loaded weapon with children in the house. But that is neither here nor there. The article pointed out that “At the time of the DFS’ decision, the law dictated that foster parents were not allowed to have a loaded firearm in the home for any reason.” That is plain simple, cut and dried. If they could not abide by those rules, (it in fact says “law”) then they should not have undertaken to foster children. I’m sorry but that’s all there is to it. Let me state emphatically I don’t consider in any way that they are unfit to be parents, foster or otherwise.
    I do question the following statement; ” “As a [concealed carry license] holder, one of the first things you want to do is take control of the situation.” ” I would disagree. First you determine what the situation IS and then if any armed (or other) intervention is required. Inserting yourself into a situation, “taking control” of one, is not usually a required action. If their persons and home were not under immediate threat, the next required action would be to stay the heck out of whatever was going on and allow the police to “take control” of the situation, what ever it was. They are trained for it, have the authority for it, and have vastly greater amounts of liability insurance to fall back on should something go wrong.
    My second observation is a criticism, particularly with the article itself. It doesn’t always make it clear who is speaking or to whom or when. Concerning the incident that brought the one person out armed, we are only told that there was someone screaming in their yard. “Screaming”? How? literally wordless screaming? Screaming at somebody? If so, whom? why?
    Lacks the basic 5 W’s; Who, What, When, Where & Why.
    I was ultimately left wondering just what all happened other than the one inserted himself armed into some situation, presumably on his property. I have no idea what the threat was.

  • Bobolow September 8, 2015, 6:53 pm

    Good for them! Good for them.
    May God bless them.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend