s/o Nauglers: evolving social norms and acceptability

[maize]

This case has me musing about changes in quality of life and social norms and acceptable standards for raising a family.

 

I don't really want this to be about the Naugler family specifically, I am sure that will be picked apart elsewhere. Something that struck me though is that their lifestyle appears at a glance to be similar to that of many families in the not-to-distant past: no plumbing, questionable shelter, children with access to guns....

 

What we now call off-grid and, when taken to this extreme, may view as unacceptable for child-rearing, was once widespread in this country (and is still widespread in others). Not only that, the popularity of books like the "Little House" series indicates that we even tend to romanticize such a life.

 

Can we have a discussion about this? If the overall standard of living changes for the better, are past norms necessarily unacceptable? Does responsible parenting depend upon meeting the expectations of contemporary society? If so, why? To what extent is raising children like practicing medicine, where the most up-to-date standard of care needs to be adhered to?

 

I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

[AmyontheFarm]

In 1870s in Pa Ingalls time people built their homes close to water.  Water = survival.  But back then practically every square inch of North America wasn't "owned" like it is now.  Water rights are huge issues in some states.  Now, you can't just go walking across someones land to get water or shoot game without the owners permission.  You also don't threaten to shoot someone when you are illegally on their property.   I live on a farm, we aren't off the grid but I also know that I couldn't be completely off the grid because my land is completely land locked.  Other than the county ditch running past my place that is dry 3 months of the year and frozen for 4-5 months a year, I don't have water access.  That is why my cows drink town water. 

 

To me living off the grid is taking responsibility for yourself and your family and still obeying the laws of the land.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

Access to legal clean drinking water.

 

Sanitary toilet options. ( out house could be ok)

[maize]

Access to legal clean drinking water.

 

Sanitary toilet options. ( out house could be ok)

 

Are you saying these things are necessary regardless of the standards/norms of a particular time and place? 

 

What about places where clean drinking water is simply not available? 

 

Places without outhouses? Not all societies have built such things.

 

What exactly makes these a necessary standard in our society?

 

I'm not arguing against such a standard, just wondering how the standard is determined. Safe drinking water--yes I think every child should have it! Many don't. Is it bad parenting if the parents cannot provide it? Bad parenting to choose not to? Bad parenting to choose not to move somewhere where it is availabe? Bad parenting if 99% of children in the community have it and yours don't? Bad parenting if 50% of children in the community have it and yours don't?

 

Again, please look beyond this specific family. I'm wondering what overall principles may be at play.

[73349]

I believe that living indoors is non-negotiable, as are access to medical care, clean water, sufficient food, spoken and written language, and the basic paperwork for identification as a citizen.

Whether people two hundred years ago had them or not is less relevant than whether it's necessary to have them (which is why Americans' life expectancy in the Ingalls' day was perhaps 40).

 

I do think that in a community where it's reasonably easy to secure these necessities, the community should intervene and provide them to the children if a couple refuses to do so. I do think refusal, rather than lack of opportunity, is the best explanation for having a Facebook account and not birth certificates.

[OneStepAtATime]

I think maybe there needs to be balance?  I do think we need to meet the expectations of contemporary society, at least to some extent, so our society as a whole will continue to function, and so our children can have options and functionality within that society.  I don't think everyone has to march lockstep with each other.  

 

But I also think everyone needs to be following the law, providing adequate basic needs (such as water you don't steal from others), and an education that will give children a reasonable expectation of being able to fend for themselves as adults without having to live off of/be dependent on others on a regular basis (legally or illegally).

 

 

[maize]

I do think that living indoors is non-negotiable, as are access to medical care, clean water, sufficient food, spoken and written language, and the basic paperwork for identification as a citizen.

Whether people two hundred years ago had them or not is less relevant than whether it's necessary to have them (which is why Americans' life expectancy in the Ingalls' day was perhaps 40).

 

So to play with an idea:

 

Let's say modern medicine etc. has added 30 years to the average life expectancy. Perhaps future developments will do the same. Say genetic testing at birth could determine the ideal diet for a particular individual and strictly following that diet throughout childhood would increase a person's life span by thirty years.

 

Would it then be non-negotiable for parents to provide such testing and diet?

[maize]

By the way, I will be away from home most of the day and may not be able to check back in for awhile, so if I seem to disappear from the discussion it is not that I have lost interest. I am curious to read everyone's thoughts.

[Jen in NY]

I am fragile today and there's no way I am getting into this conversation. :) But I did want to recommend the book Our Posthuman Future to you, Maize. It is a little outdated at this point, but it addresses many of the questions that I see as related to your original question.... just because a technology is there, does that mean we should feel obligated to use it? Can society make certain technologies mandatory? Where is free will in this discussion? It is also interesting to look at what has happened since the book was written and how technology moves faster than our conversations about it.

[Farrar]

I feel like I can't think beyond the US and in the US, while I know there are people who live in pretty extreme poverty, I don't feel like there's a reason to be without access to clean water.

 

It's an interesting question...

 

One thing is that these off the grid families sometimes refuse to get their children social security numbers and birth certificates and I have a big problem with that because it impacts a child's whole life. You're robbing that child of the ability to determine their own life down the road. So I don't think it really matters if that's something people had a hundred years ago or not, I think everyone should provide their children with papers to prove their identity. And, following on that, records of their homeschooling in as much as they may exist. If a child completed a text and needs a parent to draw up a report card to prove it, I think they should have to do that.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

 

 

My commentary only regards the U.S.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Years ago, I knew of a lady who lived alone, off the grid. It came to her attention that her nieces and nephews were living in a dangerous situation -- drugs, neglect, squalor -- and the family was under CPS' surveillance. She was terrified that the children would go into foster care, so she tried to get custody, but she was very concerned that her own primitive lifestyle would disqualify her. Or even worse, that the children would be allowed to feel safe and nurtured with her for awhile, only to be removed later because of lack of running water, etc.

 

She decided that the best defense was a good offense, so she spruced up her place the best she could and invited the children's social workers out to see whether they thought she might be allowed to keep the kids. They saw that her place was spotless. And she was able to show the water and sanitary arrangements, the room that she had set up already for the children, the clean cooking and dining areas of the home, the ample supply of groceries and the well-tended garden, the adequate woodpile for the winter's heat, the safe and tidy house yard...she also explained her intention of getting normal health care for the children (including immunization) and how she would homeschool for the rest of the year as they transitioned, before enrolling them in public school in the fall.

 

The social workers told her that they'd rarely seen a home so well-kept and clean ON the grid and that there were no laws about electricity and plumbing being required for children's homes. The intent of the law was that the children would have clean water, hygienic sanitary systems, adequate heat, light, and ventilation, safe food prep, good sleeping arrangements -- and this lady's home had all of that.

 

She did get custody, but the last I heard she later moved to town with the children. She loved her off-the-grid life but she set that up as a single adult. She thought the children should be raised in a more mainstream way, closer to their friends and activities and able to go to school.

[imagine.more]

I believe that living indoors is non-negotiable, as are access to medical care, clean water, sufficient food, spoken and written language, and the basic paperwork for identification as a citizen.

Whether people two hundred years ago had them or not is less relevant than whether it's necessary to have them (which is why Americans' life expectancy in the Ingalls' day was perhaps 40).

.

Actually Pa Ingalls lived to 66 and Ma Ingalls lived to 84. Laura and Almonzo both lived to 90 or 91 I think. They died of pretty typical modern day diseases too, like Pa died of heart disease. I think sometimes we over or under-estimate the health of previous lifestyles. It's interesting looking back through real family trees and realizing that people lived from 65-90 years for centuries back without modern medicine and that family sizes also averaged at like 4 kids, not the 19 everyone assumes I'll have to have when they learn I don't avail myself of modern contraception, lol! On the other hand some over idealize and assume a Little House lifestyle will prevent all 'modern' diseases like heart disease, which obviously didn't work for Pa Ingalls.

 

This is an interesting question overall! We talked about this a bit when we lived in WV, where we knew families who actually didn't bother switching to indoor plumbing or didn't keep a refrigerator.

 

I do know CPS here required that we have heat for each room in the home and running water not over a certain temperature. I'm not sure we could have gotten foster care approval if we'd been living a completely off the grid lifestyle. But we are in Mennonite country so many great foster parents here do live more rustic than us and they love Mennonite foster parents, they send babies and runaway teens because a SAHM who lives 3 miles from a road is a good fit for those demographics :) The teens get tired of walking before they even reach anywhere to run away to, lol!

 

Personally I think off grid living can be just as healthy as modern living assuming there's access and use of doctors when needed and the home is clean and has sufficient food. I also don't think poverty should be criminalized. Some off gridders live that way out of ideals and some out of necessity and i'd say many are a mixture. I think the important thing isn't how basic needs for cleanliness, food, and shelter are met but that they're met.

[Amira]

 I want children to be raised in physically healthy environments. Tibbie's list (clean water, hygienic sanitary systems, adequate heat, light, and ventilation, safe food prep, good sleeping arrangements) pretty much covers what I think is necessary and those things are possible off-grid in the US.  But it's completely counter-cultural to do that and because of that a family may well be putting their children at risk for living that way. I think it's too hard for many Americans to get past the running water and electricity bit, but many people around the world are able to provide their children with these things even in rough circumstances.  

 

I have some serious concerns about the feasibility of this lifestyle if it's taken to extremes.  It's one thing to keep your kids alive and healthy, but it's another thing to also make sure they're prepared to be functioning adults.  If you're so far off the "grid" that your children aren't legally-recognized beings and you're a radical homeschooler who doesn't require *anything* of your children, then the physically healthiest environment in the world won't fix much and it can still be neglect.

 

I have lived and homeschooled in some fairly primitive conditions outside the US.  It was hard, really hard, to keep up academically and to keep up with all the work around the house.  Personally, I cannot imagine being a good parent to any number of children; homeschooling them, especially in high school; and managing all of the work that is necessary if you're off the grid unless you have an amazing (and expensive) off-grid set-up. There were people who thought we came pretty close to neglect for taking our children where we did and homeschooling them.

 

But to answer your basic question, I definitely don't think responsible parents have to do everything society expects.  We certainly haven't.  You can be a great off-grid parent with an outhouse and no running water. But responsible parents MUST deal with the consequences of their choices.  

[madteaparty]

I don't know what to think about the current case. But these sort of stories bring to mind an article I read in the New Yorker a couple of years back about a woman (incidentally, not from this country) made a (terrible) mistake, and the CPS got involved. After that, basically nothing she did could get her child back, her hole got deeper and she permanently lost custody of her boy. That case haunts me to this day and I can't even read similar articles anymore.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/02/where-is-your-mother

[VaKim]

I believe in live and let live and mind your own business. I was born way too late. I hate what our country is now.

[Murphy101]

As long as they are not physically harming their children (physical abuse, tainted water or food, letting them freeze to death in winter, or denying them life saving medical care such as a diabetic not getting insulin) then I am a-okay with a family living off the grid.

 

I wouldn't and have no desire to do so.

 

But I have no problem with others doing it.

 

It is actually extremely hard to live off grid legally bc our laws are very punitive to the homeless in general even when they are single and childless.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

It is possible to have access to safe water but it not be standard running water.

 

 

But I do think safe water is imperative.

[Anne in CA]

I was just talking to a man who worked for the Forest Service here before he retired. He says LOTS of people live illegally on government land without getting caught. In Portland Oregon there was a man and his dd who lived in Forest Park for two years before they got caught. People ARE living this way, the question is, do we take away their kids? In the case of the family mentioned before I didn't see any books or educational materials, and their kids need to be able to be exposed to language to be productive citizens. Do I want to take their kids away? No, not at all, but do I want their kids to be a drain on my kids, who are future tax payers? No, not at all. Should there be ways to get those kids some education without all the hassles of making them attend brick and mortar school? Yes. I wish it would come from churches and other non profits rather than the government, but education seems to be completely under the government for the time being.

 

 

[Word Nerd]

I was reminded of this story from several years back and wonder how they're doing now. 

[Mimm]

Yes I think that once a standard of living is drastically improved, it's no longer acceptable to live as people did in the distant past.

 

Besides, I'm pretty sure the little cabin in the big woods had four freaking walls and a roof! And a stove where they burnt wood and heated it up. Many commenters on the Facebook were saying something about how many people today have very low standards of living (in not those words) so what's the problem? The fact that so many people living horrible poverty is hardly a reason to willingly deny your children access to basic amenities (such as running water and a roof over their head) when you have them available.

 

I suspect this is an example of a family that likes a certain idea- off the grid living, self sufficiency and homesteading- and rushed headlong into it irresponsibly without caring how it affects their children. Many people in this country love ideas of minimalism and sustainability and so on and are slowly and responsibly working toward those goals in their lives. When you have kids, you have an obligation to those kids. Most people would list off the very basic, least things you owe your children are food, clothing, shelter and education. The parents are failing on the shelter part for sure and I suspect failing on the education. I can't imagine that this is a very enriching unschooling environment.

[Murphy101]

I don't know what to think about the current case. But these sort of stories bring to mind an article I read in the New Yorker a couple of years back about a woman (incidentally, not from this country) made a (terrible) mistake, and the CPS got involved. After that, basically nothing she did could get her child back, her hole got deeper and she permanently lost custody of her boy. That case haunts me to this day and I can't even read similar articles anymore.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/02/where-is-your-mother

Hard to decide whether to throw up from anger on her behalf or just bawl.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The problem (as others have stated) is not living off the grid.  Both my brothers lived off grid for many years.  One brother raised a family there until his oldest was in high school.  They had a good shelter (log cabin).  They had clean cold water from a mountain stream.  They had heat for the house and for cooking.  They had a good garden.  They had food animals (chickens and turkeys).  They had an outhouse that was well maintained.  Once a week they would drive into town to do laundry, shopping and shower (the laundromat had a pay shower).  They homeschooled and their oldest was able to go right into public high school with absolutely no problems.

 

Our family has a relationship with an aboriginal tribe in the Philippines.  The chief works very hard to provide shelter, food, water and sanitation for her people.  Our family provided a well for the village.  Next we provided filtration for that well because the children and adults were covered with sores from parasites when we visited them years ago.  This was an extremely poor village but all the children were well educated (public schools) and knew English as well as Tagalog in addition to their aboriginal language.  

[madteaparty]

Hard to decide whether to throw up from anger on her behalf or just bawl.

I know :(

[Farrar]

I don't know what to think about the current case. But these sort of stories bring to mind an article I read in the New Yorker a couple of years back about a woman (incidentally, not from this country) made a (terrible) mistake, and the CPS got involved. After that, basically nothing she did could get her child back, her hole got deeper and she permanently lost custody of her boy. That case haunts me to this day and I can't even read similar articles anymore.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/02/where-is-your-mother

 

Well that was horrible.

 

That really gets to a different sort of social norm. She basically had her child taken away because she was shy and socially awkward. I mean, the initial thing where she left him alone was the trigger - and probably one worth CPS involvement even - but then she was never able to rehabilitate because they didn't like her. She seemed "off." And a huge part of that was cultural. So disturbing to read.

[gardenmom5]

Are you saying these things are necessary regardless of the standards/norms of a particular time and place? 

 

What about places where clean drinking water is simply not available? 

 

Places without outhouses? Not all societies have built such things.

 

What exactly makes these a necessary standard in our society?

 

I'm not arguing against such a standard, just wondering how the standard is determined. Safe drinking water--yes I think every child should have it! Many don't. Is it bad parenting if the parents cannot provide it? Bad parenting to choose not to? Bad parenting to choose not to move somewhere where it is availabe? Bad parenting if 99% of children in the community have it and yours don't? Bad parenting if 50% of children in the community have it and yours don't?

 

Again, please look beyond this specific family. I'm wondering what overall principles may be at play.

 

you must also consider what the norms are in the area you're talking about.  yes, some areas they have to walk a few miles everyday to get their day's supply of water. those areas often also have outside groups who will come in to help with digging a community well to increase fresh water access.  that isn't the case in the US - so yeah, people in the US who CHOOSE to live somewhere without access to water have made a choice.  even 150 years ago - people CHOSE to live indoors (and only did otherwise if there was aboslutely no other choice).  they chose to have outhouses/designated latrine areas (even if they were living in a cave) - because they knew that helped protect them from disease.

 

what makes them a standard is increasing standards of living and more people get them.  even though my mother lived her first seven years with an outhouse (very, very rural), they were happy to have a real bathroom when they got one.  my grandmother was happy to no longer have to use a wood stove.  they were happy to go from a wood stove for heating - to central heating.

 

and yes - if the community has predominant sanitary facilities - and a family CHOOSES to reject them, I consider that bad parenting in that they aren't caring for the children.

 

[Murphy101]

Well that was horrible.

 

That really gets to a different sort of social norm. She basically had her child taken away because she was shy and socially awkward. I mean, the initial thing where she left him alone was the trigger - and probably one worth CPS involvement even - but then she was never able to rehabilitate because they didn't like her. She seemed "off." And a huge part of that was cultural. So disturbing to read.

I notice it didn't help her case that she had a fair-haired can pass as Caucasian child either. :/

 

ETA: I don't know how that foster/adoptive family can sleep at night. The chances are really good that little boy is going to grow up and read this case file. And I have to think it will forever change his view of how loving they really were to him.

 

Oh and total gloss over of how the first foster family was actually far more abusive. Nothing says better care like a foster parent wrapping their hands around a preschoolers throat tight enough to leave finger marks days later.

[Onceuponatime]

Actually Pa Ingalls lived to 66 and Ma Ingalls lived to 84. Laura and Almonzo both lived to 90 or 91 I think. They died of pretty typical modern day diseases too, like Pa died of heart disease. I think sometimes we over or under-estimate the health of previous lifestyles. It's interesting looking back through real family trees and realizing that people lived from 65-90 years for centuries back without modern medicine and that family sizes also averaged at like 4 kids, not the 19 everyone assumes I'll have to have when they learn I don't avail myself of modern contraception, lol! On the other hand some over idealize and assume a Little House lifestyle will prevent all 'modern' diseases like heart disease, which obviously didn't work for Pa Ingalls.

 

 

There is often some confusion around the terms life expectancy and life span. Life expectancy is an average and was very low in the past due to the inordinately large numbers of children that died in childhood, in large part because of poor sanitation, disease and malnutrition. Life expectancy is higher now than ever before. Life span, however, has not substantially changed. Many people in the past lived well into what we would call old age, if they were lucky enough to make it to 10yo.

[SparklyUnicorn]

The thought that keeps popping up in my mind is that poverty is not a crime. 

Thing is regarding that case, I don't know what they are being accused of.  Is it poverty?  Or are they purposefully being neglectful? 

 

Is it a crime to keep having children when you have no money?  Doesn't feel to me like it should be a crime, but that seemed to be the sentiment in some of the comments on the various websites regarding that case. 

 

On a somewhat related note, I watched that 20/20 thing last night about the FLDS.  Holy crap did that scare the shi* out of me.  I kept thinking about those kids who were terrified to leave the group because they believed the only things they ever knew.  So I thought could I be believing stuff that isn't true?  Am I being duped?  Don't worry, I'm not really paranoid, but entertaining that thought was uncomfortable. 

[Murphy101]

There is often some confusion around the terms life expectancy and life span. Life expectancy is an average and was very low in the past due to the inordinately large numbers of children that died in childhood, in large part because of poor sanitation, disease and malnutrition. Life expectancy is higher now than ever before. Life span, however, has not substantially changed. Many people in the past lived well into what we would call old age, if they were lucky enough to make it to 10yo.

Right. Sort of like how mothers of many tend to have longer life span. It's classic what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger theory in action. ;)

[Murphy101]

The thought that keeps popping up in my mind is that poverty is not a crime.

Thing is regarding that case, I don't know what they are being accused of. Is it poverty? Or are they purposefully being neglectful?

 

Is it a crime to keep having children when you have no money? Doesn't feel to me like it should be a crime, but that seemed to be the sentiment in some of the comments on the various websites regarding that case.

 

On a somewhat related note, I watched that 20/20 thing last night about the FLDS. Holy crap did that scare the shi* out of me. I kept thinking about those kids who were terrified to leave the group because they believed the only things they ever knew. So I thought could I be believing stuff that isn't true? Am I being duped? Don't worry, I'm not really paranoid, but entertaining that thought was uncomfortable.

Like heck poverty isn't a crime. It's the most commonly accepted discrimination in our country and laws reflect it, imnsho.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

The thought that keeps popping up in my mind is that poverty is not a crime. 

Thing is regarding that case, I don't know what they are being accused of.  Is it poverty?  Or are they purposefully being neglectful? 

 

Is it a crime to keep having children when you have no money?  Doesn't feel to me like it should be a crime, but that seemed to be the sentiment in some of the comments on the various websites regarding that case. 

 

On a somewhat related note, I watched that 20/20 thing last night about the FLDS.  Holy crap did that scare the shi* out of me.  I kept thinking about those kids who were terrified to leave the group because they believed the only things they ever knew.  So I thought could I be believing stuff that isn't true?  Am I being duped?  Don't worry, I'm not really paranoid, but entertaining that thought was uncomfortable. 

 

These "get the hs'er" stories lately are presented as if the families are being persecuted just for being poor, just for homeschooling, but it's rarely true. Within a few days we find out that the parents were beating and/or starving the children, that their eldest kids were the whistleblowers, that they are criminals who steal from their neighbors and threaten them with guns (brought to them by their little children from the car's glovebox), that the mother threatened an incident reminiscent of Ruby Ridge just for the authorities daring to be on the property, they don't let their kids have birth certificates or SS numbers, they don't submit to the extremely lenient hs laws of their state...

 

Crazy and evil people are using homeschooling as an excuse to hole up their kids in untenable situations. They just are. It's not about poverty, alternate lifestyles, or homeschooling. As always, the laws to control them will really only pester us, the people who deign to follow laws, but I suppose as a society we must do something. I'm not OK with people using hs'ing this way. I'm not OK with the hs'ing internet community shrieking these warnings every few weeks about "OMG! They're coming for hs'ers!" when really it's about people whom I think probably should be locked up.

 

Wonder what the tipping point will be?

 

[madteaparty]

Well that was horrible.

 

That really gets to a different sort of social norm. She basically had her child taken away because she was shy and socially awkward. I mean, the initial thing where she left him alone was the trigger - and probably one worth CPS involvement even - but then she was never able to rehabilitate because they didn't like her. She seemed "off." And a huge part of that was cultural. So disturbing to read.

Yes. She was the "other". It's fairly terrifying.

[SparklyUnicorn]

These "get the hs'er" stories lately are presented as if the families are being persecuted just for being poor, just for homeschooling, but it's rarely true.

 

This is what I believe.  I don't know if it is true, but I believe it.  There is some reason other than that.  There are plenty of very poor families living in this city and many homeless and they don't get their kids taken away or arrested for that.  On the contrary.  They get a lot of help. 

[Ravin]

Actually Pa Ingalls lived to 66 and Ma Ingalls lived to 84. Laura and Almonzo both lived to 90 or 91 I think. They died of pretty typical modern day diseases too, like Pa died of heart disease. I think sometimes we over or under-estimate the health of previous lifestyles. It's interesting looking back through real family trees and realizing that people lived from 65-90 years for centuries back without modern medicine and that family sizes also averaged at like 4 kids, not the 19 everyone assumes I'll have to have when they learn I don't avail myself of modern contraception, lol! On the other hand some over idealize and assume a Little House lifestyle will prevent all 'modern' diseases like heart disease, which obviously didn't work for Pa Ingalls.

 

This is an interesting question overall! We talked about this a bit when we lived in WV, where we knew families who actually didn't bother switching to indoor plumbing or didn't keep a refrigerator.

 

I do know CPS here required that we have heat for each room in the home and running water not over a certain temperature. I'm not sure we could have gotten foster care approval if we'd been living a completely off the grid lifestyle. But we are in Mennonite country so many great foster parents here do live more rustic than us and they love Mennonite foster parents, they send babies and runaway teens because a SAHM who lives 3 miles from a road is a good fit for those demographics :) The teens get tired of walking before they even reach anywhere to run away to, lol!

 

Personally I think off grid living can be just as healthy as modern living assuming there's access and use of doctors when needed and the home is clean and has sufficient food. I also don't think poverty should be criminalized. Some off gridders live that way out of ideals and some out of necessity and i'd say many are a mixture. I think the important thing isn't how basic needs for cleanliness, food, and shelter are met but that they're met.

The big killers in the 19th century were childhood illness, illnesses preventable with basic hygiene practices of the time that weren't followed/enforced (especially in the early industrial food practices and urban sanitation), infant mortality, and childbed mortality (which was worse in hospital than at home until physicians accepted germ theory and started washing their hands between patients). The basic reality was, "average life expectancy" once you survived childhood was not as drastically different as average life expectancy at birth.

 

The Ingalls had babies die. Average together three children who live to 75 and one who dies before a year, and you get about 56.

 

The biggest changes for improving infant mortality from the 19th century to now are clean water and good nourishment, followed by immunization.

[K&Rs Mom]

 As always, the laws to control them will really only pester us, the people who deign to follow laws, but I suppose as a society we must do something. 

 

 

I agree, but the laws proposed in reaction to extreme situations aren't actually "doing something" - because the kind of people who caused those situations aren't going to follow the new law any more than they followed the old one.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree, but the laws proposed in reaction to extreme situations aren't actually "doing something" - because the kind of people who caused those situations aren't going to follow the new law any more than they followed the old one.  

 

That's always the case isn't it?  It just makes life more difficult for law abiding people.  Kinda like all the crap about having to take your shoes off when you go through the security check at the airport.  Someone hell bent on hurting people doesn't care about laws.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I agree, but the laws proposed in reaction to extreme situations aren't actually "doing something" - because the kind of people who caused those situations aren't going to follow the new law any more than they followed the old one.  

 

That's what I was saying, in the part you quoted, when I made a contrast between them and "us - the people who deign to follow laws."

[gardenmom5]

  childbed mortality (which was worse in hospital than at home until physicians accepted germ theory and started washing their hands between patients). 

 

semmelweiss was in charge of the maternity ward in the poor hospital in vienna - he noticed a connection between drs washing their hands, and mortality. (this was before lister and pastuer). so, he required medical personnel on his ward to wash frequently.  the rich women would choose to deliver at the poor because there was a better outcome than delivering at "the rich hospital".  because germs hadn't been discovered - his peers were pretty angry, and drove him to an insane asylum.  they didn't want to wash their hands.  even after germs had been discovered - it took years to get medical personnel to wash.  even today, one of the reasons infections spread within hospitals is insufficient handwashing.

[Daria]

Actually Pa Ingalls lived to 66 and Ma Ingalls lived to 84. Laura and Almonzo both lived to 90 or 91 I think. They died of pretty typical modern day diseases too, like Pa died of heart disease. I think sometimes we over or under-estimate the health of previous lifestyles. It's interesting looking back through real family trees and realizing that people lived from 65-90 years for centuries back without modern medicine and that family sizes also averaged at like 4 kids, not the 19 everyone assumes I'll have to have when they learn I don't avail myself of modern contraception, lol! On the other hand some over idealize and assume a Little House lifestyle will prevent all 'modern' diseases like heart disease, which obviously didn't work for Pa Ingalls.

 

Ma Ingalls, Laura Ingalls Wilder, and Rose Wilder Lane each lost an infant son due to unexplained illnesses.  It's likely that that illness could ge diagnosed and treated today.  Ma Ingalls also had a daughter lose her sight due to Scarlet Fever, something that's very preventable today with antibiotics, and another daughter who had health issues caused by severe malnutrition.  None of that means that they were bad parents.  They did the best they could do.  But in 2015 a parent should be able to do better by their children.  A parent today whose children had the same outcomes, because they refused to avail themselves of health care, or resources such as SNAP or food pantries, would be neglectful.

 

In my opinion, every child in the world deserves to have access to clean water, a safe warm sheltered sleeping conditions, a stable food supply, and health care.  If a family is unable to provide these things, then it's our duty as humans to help them do so.  If a family could provide these things, but isn't doing so, then that's neglect. Sometimes, sadly, the best solution to neglect is to remove the children.

 

I have way to little information about the Naugler family in particular.  I believe it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and give your kids clean water, ample food, and a safe place to live.  I have no idea if they were doing so.

[JFSinIL]

And didn't Almanzo end up somewhat lame due to diphtheria?

[Matryoshka]

This case has me musing about changes in quality of life and social norms and acceptable standards for raising a family.

 

I don't really want this to be about the Naugler family specifically, I am sure that will be picked apart elsewhere. Something that struck me though is that their lifestyle appears at a glance to be similar to that of many families in the not-to-distant past: no plumbing, questionable shelter, children with access to guns....

 

What we now call off-grid and, when taken to this extreme, may view as unacceptable for child-rearing, was once widespread in this country (and is still widespread in others). Not only that, the popularity of books like the "Little House" series indicates that we even tend to romanticize such a life.

 

Can we have a discussion about this? If the overall standard of living changes for the better, are past norms necessarily unacceptable? Does responsible parenting depend upon meeting the expectations of contemporary society? If so, why? To what extent is raising children like practicing medicine, where the most up-to-date standard of care needs to be adhered to?

 

I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

I was thinking as I read the other post that other than the media-savviness (having a blog, starting a gofundme campaign), they reminded me of my grandparents' next-door neighbors when they moved miles down a dirt road in the mountains of Tennessee. 

 

The neighbors lived in a one-room shack, smaller than that lean-to the other folks were living in (but it did have four walls), in a plot of dirt.  It was up on blocks off the ground, but there was no electricity or running water; I'm guessing any water must have come from the nearby creek?  Heaven knows where the food came from; I don't remember seeing any fields or a huge garden.  The kids didn't go to school; no one had heard of homeschooling at that point - many people back in the hills didn't send their kids to school back then.  I remember my grandmother saying she taught one of the girls to read.  I'm pretty sure there was a still in the back of the house.  The father had guns (that might have been the source of much of their food).  After my grandparents moved out (he respected my grandfather and didn't cause him trouble), and sold their house and land, the guy then burned their old house and barn to the ground - he didn't like the new neighbors.  He also burned down the nearby small church.  Well, "everyone" knew he was behind those fires, but I don't think anything ever came of it as far as prosecuting him.

 

At any rate, the authorities couldn't have cared less about people like this back then (this would have been the '50's to '70's.)  And everyone else just minded their own business.  I think at least some of the kids may have eventually gone to school, though; I think when buses finally made it out that far into the mountains.

 

[Guest]

I don't know what to think about the current case. But these sort of stories bring to mind an article I read in the New Yorker a couple of years back about a woman (incidentally, not from this country) made a (terrible) mistake, and the CPS got involved. After that, basically nothing she did could get her child back, her hole got deeper and she permanently lost custody of her boy. That case haunts me to this day and I can't even read similar articles anymore.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/02/where-is-your-mother

What a horrendous miscarriage of justice, at multiple stages. This is like my nightmare scenario. That poor woman :(

[LucyStoner]

I have friends and acquaintances IRL who live off grid with young kids. That said, each of them lives in a home/structure with walls and has water on their property as well as a clear source of heat. I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation in 21st century America.

[Audrey]

I have friends and acquaintances IRL who live off grid with young kids. That said, each of them lives in a home/structure with walls and has water on their property as well as a clear source of heat. I don't think that is an unreasonable expectation in 21st century America.

 

When my husband's family first settled here in 1870, clean water, a sound home with walls, floor and solid roof and a reliable source of heat were the common expectations.  Granted, that was 19th C. Western Canada.  They may have been some kind of high-falutin' types out here for all I know, but I kind of doubt it.  ;)

[DawnM]

I grew up in Africa.  Many, many lived like this family (although in grass/mud huts).  However, if a lifestyle NOT living like this is available, I see no good reason to live this way.  Access to a good education (including college options), medical care, decent food and water, communication with the outside world, etc....is a good thing.

[Farrar]

To me the disconnect is in how some of these families are so media savvy - they use social media, have extensive blog presences, etc. And sometimes they spend a lot on particular projects. Supposedly the Nauglers had a really nice hog shed with electricity and a proper floor that they raised money for from the internet? If a family is living in such conditions because they don't have access to anything better, then that's one thing. But the priorities just seem so off here.

 

I think it's okay that we can say we've raised the floor on what can be safe living conditions in this country. As others are saying, four walls, adequate heat in the winter, clean water, documentation of your property and births... there's just no reason not to have these things in the US at this point in time. I get that they're more of a struggle for some families, but I think that's a pretty reasonable floor. Honestly, even the Ingalls probably had a family bible to record births, four walls, and a clean well for water.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't know what to think about the current case. But these sort of stories bring to mind an article I read in the New Yorker a couple of years back about a woman (incidentally, not from this country) made a (terrible) mistake, and the CPS got involved. After that, basically nothing she did could get her child back, her hole got deeper and she permanently lost custody of her boy. That case haunts me to this day and I can't even read similar articles anymore.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/02/where-is-your-mother

I guess I'm the odd man out because I am appalled that she would leave a child alone for so many hours in a crib like that.  She seemed to have mental problems (severe depression perhaps?) that wasn't directly addressed by her or others.  And I didn't see her as being a victim all along in the process either because she didn't seem to see the problems or really try to fix them.  I wish the authorities had gotten her some help from someone who understood her culture but since she didn't even tell them what that was for a long time, it is kind of hard to blame them for not doing that.  

[Pawz4me]

I guess I'm the odd man out because I am appalled that she would leave a child alone for so many hours in a crib like that.  She seemed to have mental problems (severe depression perhaps?) that wasn't directly addressed by her or others.  And I didn't see her as being a victim all along in the process either because she didn't seem to see the problems or really try to fix them.  I wish the authorities had gotten her some help from someone who understood her culture but since she didn't even tell them what that was for a long time, it is kind of hard to blame them for not doing that.  

 

:iagree:

 

As far as living off the grid -- The only ones I know of (haven't actually met them) are the son and DIL of an acquaintance.  Apparently their lifestyle includes a nice, very well insulated house with many solar panels and a generator.  Wood stove with ducting for heat.  From what I'm told they have a TV and computer and all the creature comforts, and that you could go into their house and wouldn't readily realize they're off the grid.  That's about the only type of off-the-grid lifestyle I'd be able to handle. ;)

[KrissiK]

I don't know what to think about the current case. But these sort of stories bring to mind an article I read in the New Yorker a couple of years back about a woman (incidentally, not from this country) made a (terrible) mistake, and the CPS got involved. After that, basically nothing she did could get her child back, her hole got deeper and she permanently lost custody of her boy. That case haunts me to this day and I can't even read similar articles anymore.

ETA: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/02/where-is-your-mother

Well, I'm not sure what to say. I think this woman is more than shy and socially awkward, as some posters have said. And I'm not sure where that line should be drawn with regards to poor, dangerous parenting and just not the best parenting. I'm saddened, and I think that case could have been handled better, but I'm not outright appalled. There was something not right about that woman.