NOOOOOO!

[gardenmom5]

I think Nicole is overwhelmed and depressed and feels like there is no way out other than to just keep pushing "forward" with their plans, oblivious to the fact that they are actually going backward at an ever-accelerating pace. I don't think Joe is mentally ill — I think he's just a selfish lazy manipulative POS.

 

:iagree:   this.

 

there are also the reports joe uses drugs - and I'm sure that's where the money goes.

I don't think things will get better unless/until Nicole dumps his sorry behind in the dump where it belongs.  I don't think joe will ever willingly change.

 

 

 

At some point they're going to have to choose between their ideology and their kids, and I think it's going to take a lot to make Joe back down. He wants things back the way they were, living on donations, with Nicole and the kids doing all the work while he sits on his @ss all day smoking weed and bragging about what an anarchist he is on crazy Sovereign Citizen boards.

 

I don't see joe ever backing down.  I think he'd rather sit on his 4zz smoking pot than have kids.  as someone mentioned up thread - one of the ways he controls Nicole is keeping her pg.  (I don't think he actually cares about the kids themselves.)

if she dumped him, she would be in a much better place to get the help she needs to get to a place where she could get her kids back.

[Corraleno]

Well now she's done it. She posted a long lecture about financial planning and being prepared, ending with:

 

How hard would it be for you to be completely debt free? 

People talk a lot of talk. Everyone knows the answer. 

But your answer isn't my answer. We don't live to your standards.

You may think you know what's best for my family.. But that's not for you to decide.

We don't want to be a rat in a cage. We want to be free.

 

There's been a LOT of response to that, pointing out that they are living "free" because a whole lot of people who actually work for a living have been supporting them and donating money. To turn around and insult the very people who are funding them as "rats in a cage" is real really stupid. It also prompted someone to dig up — and post — a list of creditors who got burned when she filed for bankruptcy — it is a very very long list.

 

There are still a handful of people defending them, but between the shocking photos on the news site and then this, it seems like everyone except the really crazy anti-govt nuts has backed away. 

 

[kwg]

I saw that, about the finances. Made me smh. They have no income, no garden, no- i don't know- beds!-....???? 

 

 

Yk what is getting me? Before all this- when she posted like the picture of her kids all around the outside area sick from eating days old pancakes or when they were sleeping in the car bc the "house" was too cold- no one said "hon, your life has become unmanageable. You need to change"  SHe was posting the pics same as she is now!  What is that about?!?

[Ottakee]

Looking back a year ago in her blog things seemed rough but more manageable. They had that prefab with real walls and windows (likely the cabin they say CP's approved....NOT what they have now) with a sleeping loft for the kids. It looked cleaner and more organized.

 

Things have really gone down hill though since then....sick kids laying outside, no clean water source, no good shelter, no reliable heat in the winter, etc.

[Mimm]

Yeah it's easy to live debt free when you don't consider debts something you actually need to pay off. When you lower your standard of living that far. When you live off donations from those "rats in a cage" who were foolish enough to have compassion on you. :glare:

 

How is that freedom? I know, I know, you can't reason with crazy.

[maize]

I saw that, about the finances. Made me smh. They have no income, no garden, no- i don't know- beds!-....????

 

 

Yk what is getting me? Before all this- when she posted like the picture of her kids all around the outside area sick from eating days old pancakes or when they were sleeping in the car bc the "house" was too cold- no one said "hon, your life has become unmanageable. You need to change" SHe was posting the pics same as she is now! What is that about?!?

Maybe someone did say that. Seems they delete any comments they don't like, so we'll never know.

[sarasue7272]

It is so small. From the other pictures the "shelter" didn't seem big, but in that slideshow it looks really small. I can't imagine how 12 people could just stand in it at all. They must have been wet every time it rained.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I just keep thinking of those kids.  Do they miss their parents?  (I would assume most kids even in abusive situations really love their parents).  How are they feeling with the stark contrast of their life right now - real beds and real sheets and clean clothes and good plentiful food - esp. for the younger ones who might not remember life before it got the way it did recently.  Does that set up conflicting feelings for them?  How are they dealing with the fear that the parents instilled in them towards all these people who are trying to help them?  Are they acting like POWs  (name, rank and serial number only) or are they starting to see the difference between reality and what their parents are saying?  What kind of conflicts does that set up for them?  Are they fearful that they will have to go back?  Fearful that they might have to stay with foster parents?  I hope these foster parents are the really good ones and not the really bad ones that you do hear about at times on the news.  

[Guest]

I just hope that they are with GOOD foster families (not like the experiences of some of the boardies here) and even if they are returned at some point, I hope they remember what "clean and cared for" felt like in order to do better with their own families.

[idnib]

Well now she's done it. She posted a long lecture about financial planning and being prepared, ending with:

 

 

There's been a LOT of response to that, pointing out that they are living "free" because a whole lot of people who actually work for a living have been supporting them and donating money. To turn around and insult the very people who are funding them as "rats in a cage" is real really stupid. It also prompted someone to dig up — and post — a list of creditors who got burned when she filed for bankruptcy — it is a very very long list.

 

I couldn't believe when she said court was a week away and she didn't have anything to do in the meantime (paraphrasing). I guess if people aren't there to help them (work party) then they're not going to make progress.  :confused1:

[idnib]

How are they dealing with the fear that the parents instilled in them towards all these people who are trying to help them?  Are they acting like POWs  (name, rank and serial number only) or are they starting to see the difference between reality and what their parents are saying? 

 

I don't think the kids can keep up the "POW" act for long. I mean, they're kids. The little ones will just adapt to their new reality. Not to say that they'll forget their parents, but that they can't keep up that kind of facade, especially if the foster home has other kids to play with. Kids are designed to play and they will, losing their taciturnity in the process. The older ones will be more conflicted, I think. They are past the age of innocent play, have different cognition levels, and have longer exposure and training to their parents' ideas.

 

I'm sure they all miss their parents terribly.

[Orthodox6]

I just keep thinking of those kids.  Do they miss their parents?  (I would assume most kids even in abusive situations really love their parents).  How are they feeling with the stark contrast of their life right now - real beds and real sheets and clean clothes and good plentiful food - esp. for the younger ones who might not remember life before it got the way it did recently.  Does that set up conflicting feelings for them?  How are they dealing with the fear that the parents instilled in them towards all these people who are trying to help them?  Are they acting like POWs  (name, rank and serial number only) or are they starting to see the difference between reality and what their parents are saying?  What kind of conflicts does that set up for them?  Are they fearful that they will have to go back?  Fearful that they might have to stay with foster parents?  I hope these foster parents are the really good ones and not the really bad ones that you do hear about at times on the news.  

 

The foster families (if good ones -- may God grant that they are good people!) are attempting to gain the trust and confidence of scared and scarred children.  Think of the fox and the Little Prince, slowly building that trust through patience, caution, and love.

[Orthodox6]

In this country, no laws prohibit espousing beliefs that are ignorant, false, paranoid, delusional, and/or otherwise irrational.  Children may not be withheld from their parents solely because of such beliefs.  Exception is if these beliefs cause actual harm to the children.  [e.g. the Duggars] [and perhaps these children, also]  Like it or not, we as a nation are better off without any such laws.  Other principles support the temporary removal from the home of these children.  If the parents, however, meet all legal requirements, conscience would force me -- albeit sadly -- to agree that the children must return home.  Even the non-payment of taxes does not justify keeping children from their parents.  (Nonetheless, I hope that the parents are forced to pay in full all monies legally due to any government, business, or individual.)   

[gardenmom5]

In this country, no laws prohibit espousing beliefs that are ignorant, false, paranoid, delusional, and/or otherwise irrational.  Children may not be withheld from their parents solely because of such beliefs.  Exception is if these beliefs cause actual harm to the children.  [e.g. the Duggars] [and perhaps these children, also]  Like it or not, we as a nation are better off without any such laws.  Other principles support the temporary removal from the home of these children.  If the parents, however, meet all legal requirements, conscience would force me -- albeit sadly -- to agree that the children must return home.  Even the non-payment of taxes does not justify keeping children from their parents.  (Nonetheless, I hope that the parents are forced to pay in full all monies legally due to any government, business, or individual.)   

 

except the non-payment of taxes is also likely to keep them from getting a decent place to live.  any money they earn, get from other sources, can be used to pay off their back taxes.  (just another incentive for them to stay under the radar.)

 

but they are so paranoid and delusional I don't think they'll even try to obtain a decent and safe shelter for their children.  until they do so, they will likely not get their children back. 

[Orthodox6]

except the non-payment of taxes is also likely to keep them from getting a decent place to live.  any money they earn, get from other sources, can be used to pay off their back taxes.

 

but they are so paranoid and delusional I don't think they'll even try to obtain a decent and safe shelter for their children.  until they do so, they will likely not get their children back. 

 

Unfortunate, but likely true points in your reply.

 

I spoke using "pure theory", not the reality of this family.  Mrs. Naugler's ongoing diatribes and attacks, posted right in public with the desire that they be read, serve only to shoot herself in the stomach and postpone the return of her children.  CPS hardly can interpret her rantings as sincere promises to create a safe living environment for her family.

 

 

[Ottakee]

I just keep thinking of those kids.  Do they miss their parents?  (I would assume most kids even in abusive situations really love their parents).  How are they feeling with the stark contrast of their life right now - real beds and real sheets and clean clothes and good plentiful food - esp. for the younger ones who might not remember life before it got the way it did recently.  Does that set up conflicting feelings for them?  How are they dealing with the fear that the parents instilled in them towards all these people who are trying to help them?  Are they acting like POWs  (name, rank and serial number only) or are they starting to see the difference between reality and what their parents are saying?  What kind of conflicts does that set up for them?  Are they fearful that they will have to go back?  Fearful that they might have to stay with foster parents?  I hope these foster parents are the really good ones and not the really bad ones that you do hear about at times on the news.  

As a foster parent to over 100 children, I will try to answer this:

 

1.  yes, they likely do miss their parents and their siblings

2.  I am sure there are MANY conflicted feelings. That is very typical as the kids feel safe and like parts of the foster home but then feel like they are abandoning their parents, yet they like it, but it is all new and scary, but it is fun, but they miss..............  Good foster parents are well experienced in this as are the counselors.  They try never to say anything bad about the parents or past environment unless the child brings it up and you NEVER put the child in a place to have to chose between the bio parents and the foster parents.  Hard to explain on a forum how you balance giving the kids safety and yet recognizing the positive qualities of their family of origin (no matter how deep you have to dig to find those qualities).

3.  The little ones adopt faster.  It is the school age kids that often have the most trouble as they have more reasoning skills and can understand more.  The trust though can take weeks, months, or even years to gain.  Our 11 year old has been with us 5 months now and I think this week was the first week that he hasn't threatened to run away/packed up his stuff, etc. when he got really conflicted about here vs. birth home situation.

4.  They likely want to go back but not want to go back (see the conflict).  I think they likely want to go back to the birth parents (assuming here it was mostly neglect and no physical abuse or molestation) but not to the situation they were living in.  They likely are scared and happy at the same time.

 

I too have prayed that they all have really good foster parents who are experienced in trauma as well as prepared to deal with the issues from educational, nutritional, and medical neglect.  They have a lot to help the kids overcome.

 

Most likely the kids will all be in counseling except the baby and maybe next youngest one.  Even if it is play therapy to start.  I am assuming the courts will order psychological evals on both parents and drug testing for dad at least.

 

I HAVE seen kids from really rough situation go back home and make it.  The parents though used the resources they were offered and had a strong desire to learn and change and make it with their kids.

[Renai]

Ottakee, and others who know about foster care, how do they usually split the children? Would they put older with younger siblings, or group younger together, olders together, etc? Or does it really just depend what is available for the foster families to take?

[idnib]

So what is the court hearing next week anyway? Is it about the kids or the criminal charges?

[Corraleno]

So what is the court hearing next week anyway? Is it about the kids or the criminal charges?

 

I believe it's the criminal charge against Joe for "menacing." The next custody hearing is in June, and then Nicole's hearing for resisting arrest is in July.

[Corraleno]

Yeah it's easy to live debt free when you don't consider debts something you actually need to pay off. When you lower your standard of living that far. When you live off donations from those "rats in a cage" who were foolish enough to have compassion on you. :glare:

 

Yeah, it seems like their definition of "debt free" somehow doesn't include things like a $20K business loan, $14K in back child support, $20K in back taxes, and the fact that they are buying the land on credit. Not to mention all the debts they discharged in bankruptcy, or the bad checks, or the evictions. Even without all the unpaid debts they simply walked away from, they are still up to their eyeballs in debt! 

 

She mocks people with car loans, when both of their vehicles were donated and now they're begging for money on GFM to buy a better van. She mocks people with actual jobs, when they have been relying on other people to support their children for almost two decades because her lazy-ass husband can't be bothered to work. She mocks people with mortgages, when they've lost their kids because they are basically homeless and living in squalor!

 

It's one thing to say "Hey, we got in over our heads and we desperately need help!" It's quite another to collect $45K in donations and then thumb your nose at the donators and basically say "Suckers! We're so much smarter than you!"

 

 

[Heather in VA]

Well taxes and child support are government mandated debt. She probably figures they are immune. UGH. 

[gardenmom5]

Well taxes and child support are government mandated debt. She probably figures they are immune. UGH. 

 

 

my mom was kinda like this - on a much smaller scale.  when figuring her budget, she'd leave out things like UTILITIES, insurance, etc.  she only focused on "fun things".  dh ended up taking over her finances (and put her on a cash allowance for "fun things".)  it still took him months to discover everything because if it wasn't fun, she ignored it.  oh - and dh's background is finance and it took him months.

she actually appreciated not having to think about things .  she had her allowance she could spend on "fun things" and didn't have to think about anything else. 

[Ottakee]

Ottakee, and others who know about foster care, how do they usually split the children? Would they put older with younger siblings, or group younger together, olders together, etc? Or does it really just depend what is available for the foster families to take?

It really depends on what is available. They might try to keep the 2 girls together at least. Some foster families only take boys or only take girls or only 8 and under or only 10 and up etc.

 

We are licensed for up to 4 kids, boy or girl, 0-18 years old. That said in most cases we will only take a boy 9-12 years old...ONE child...just due to our current family dynamics. Years ago we would take sibling groups and did mostly toddlers and babies.

 

They may have to do more splitting than they ideally want and/or place farther away just due to the number of kids at once and the threat of the parents. Likely they don't want the kids very close to the parents due to risk of kidnapping etc.

 

Likely not in this case but in some cases the kids just really each need their own foster home due to their level of needs and the sibling dynamics. They do generally though try to place siblings together if they can and it is in the best interest of the kids.

[Renai]

 

It's one thing to say "Hey, we got in over our heads and we desperately need help!" It's quite another to collect $45K in donations and then thumb your nose at the donators and basically say "Suckers! We're so much smarter than you!"

 

Seems like some donors are disputing the charges on their cards to get their money back now.

[Elfknitter.#]

Seems like some donors are disputing the charges on their cards to get their money back now.

Is there a news report for that?

[blondeviolin]

I've been following this story with morbid interest. I lived in ETown. The LDS ward at the time was very charitable and accommodating. I find myself amazed because in their older blogs the family had food and shelter and homeschool workbooks (not my cup of tea, but they HAD THEM), and attended church, had FHE, etc. When they first moved to ETown, she wrote that the house they had planned to rent didn't work out because it wasn't clean and habitable (oh, the irony!). I find myself annoyed because they wrote about issues they had with the church and their ward (again, SUPER charitable) and then turned around and wrote about using the church's "pantry" (bishop's storehouse).

 

Where is the slideshow? I saw the news video, but not the slideshow...

[Renai]

Is there a news report for that?

 

I don't know. One of the ladies on the BLH page stated that she and others that have donated (I believe hers was $150), have started to dispute the charges on their cards. It is in response to the post where Nicole is spouting off about debt.

 

ETA: It was Peggy Philips. It looks like they deleted the commented, but I just barely skimmed just now because there are so many comments there. I believe the opposing page may have a screen shot of it. They have everything.

 

Yep. Here it is: https://www.facebook.com/790726694356144/photos/a.790734217688725.1073741827.790726694356144/793508087411338/?type=1&theater

 

[Corraleno]

I've been following this story with morbid interest. I lived in ETown. The LDS ward at the time was very charitable and accommodating. I find myself amazed because in their older blogs the family had food and shelter and homeschool workbooks (not my cup of tea, but they HAD THEM), and attended church, had FHE, etc. When they first moved to ETown, she wrote that the house they had planned to rent didn't work out because it wasn't clean and habitable (oh, the irony!). I find myself annoyed because they wrote about issues they had with the church and their ward (again, SUPER charitable) and then turned around and wrote about using the church's "pantry" (bishop's storehouse).

 

Where is the slideshow? I saw the news video, but not the slideshow...

 

http://www.wave3.com/slideshow?widgetid=157540&slideshowimageid=1

[Corraleno]

Seems less and less likely that they're going to be getting the kids back:

 

 

A Group of locals and concerned citizens have found your forum, and we are impressed with your hard work, objective facts and critical thinking.

You are dead on. There is much more here and Nicole & Joe will be getting their just desserts finally. As someone who can personally testify to their nuttiness, this gives me peace.

The quote you provided above can be further backed up by a message Nicole sent a few years ago. She stated after her Sister mentioned concern and CPS the following Paraphrased.

" If CPS came to my home, and tried to take my children, I'd lock the cabin and strike a match."
 

<snip>

 

She also said she'd shoot CPS in the head.

I have proof. I can share it privately if need be.

 

 

And the stuff that's coming out about what Joe did to Alex is truly horrifying. :sad:  I can't believe he could do that to one kid and not have ever abused any of the others. 

 

 

[Renai]

Seems less and less likely that they're going to be getting the kids back:

 

 

 

 

And the stuff that's coming out about what Joe did to Alex is truly horrifying. :sad:  I can't believe he could do that to one kid and not have ever abused any of the others. 

 

Where did this info come from?

[Mimm]

Seems less and less likely that they're going to be getting the kids back:

 

 

 

 

And the stuff that's coming out about what Joe did to Alex is truly horrifying. :sad:  I can't believe he could do that to one kid and not have ever abused any of the others. 

 

Link? Where are you finding this?

[FaithManor]

It really depends on what is available. They might try to keep the 2 girls together at least. Some foster families only take boys or only take girls or only 8 and under or only 10 and up etc.

 

We are licensed for up to 4 kids, boy or girl, 0-18 years old. That said in most cases we will only take a boy 9-12 years old...ONE child...just due to our current family dynamics. Years ago we would take sibling groups and did mostly toddlers and babies.

 

They may have to do more splitting than they ideally want and/or place farther away just due to the number of kids at once and the threat of the parents. Likely they don't want the kids very close to the parents due to risk of kidnapping etc.

 

Likely not in this case but in some cases the kids just really each need their own foster home due to their level of needs and the sibling dynamics. They do generally though try to place siblings together if they can and it is in the best interest of the kids.

Given the attitudes of the parents and threats they have made, I would be very scared if I were CPS of having very many of the kids in the same home, scared for the foster family.

 

I would be in favor of the children being placed some good, long distance from the county with no more than two in any one location while this is sorted out just for the security of the foster families because I think Joe is dangerous and potentially Nicole is as well.

[Ottakee]

It could be very tough for the foster families since this is such a high profile case. Safety is a huge concern. You want to take the kids out shopping for clothes, groceries, to the park etc but I am sure they don't want the kids recognized and/or followed.

 

We have has cases with violent birth parents. With one child that was hospitalized they had a guard at the room the whole time child was in the hospital.

 

Foster parents work very hard for the $17 a day they get per child. It is often a thankless task as the kids are mad at you, the birth parents are mad at you, and some view you as part of the system to kidnap kids from their parent.

[FaithManor]

Ottakee, as a tax payer and citizen of Michigan, I thank you very much for your service to the families of our state. You don't earn anywhere in the ballpark of what you should get for the responsibility you accept!

 

For the Naugler children, I have often wondered if Kentucky should "borrow beds" from Indiana or Tennessee. Yes, getting the kids to visitation would be a pain in the rear for the CPS, but on the other hand, they would not be a part of communities that the Nauglers are likely to frequent nor have community supporters that frequent. It seems extreme, but I really think these people are capable of being dangerous.

[Orthodox6]

Interesting message board thread.  As I ran across it easily, and the board itself apparently is set for "public read", I guess it is ok to post a link -- ??  I don't know the legalities of such activity, so please take down this post if it should be removed. 

 

http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com/horse-forums/kids-taken-away-ky-off-grid-family-550423.html

 

Someone over there might also be a member here.  They digressed toward yurts.  

[Amira]

All conversations should digress toward yurts.

[maize]

Interesting message board thread. As I ran across it easily, and the board itself apparently is set for "public read", I guess it is ok to post a link -- ?? I don't know the legalities of such activity, so please take down this post if it should be removed.

 

http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com/horse-forums/kids-taken-away-ky-off-grid-family-550423.html

 

Someone over there might also be a member here. They digressed toward yurts.

The information about mom being Rh- and dad Rh+ is disturbing in light of the unattended home births (which were already disturbing).

[Luckymama]

All conversations should digress toward yurts.

Or kilts ;)

 

Kilts in yurts!!!

[Ravin]

On my FB feed, I saw a lot of happy Mothers' Day wishes to "fur mothers," and I felt like a jerk, but I totally wanted to tell people to stop equating their dogs with my kids.

My MIL posted a fur baby post on mother's day. She cares more about them than about her human children.

[maize]

Or kilts ;)

 

Kilts in yurts!!!

The cultural dissonance is killing me...

[Jean in Newcastle]

Given the attitudes of the parents and threats they have made, I would be very scared if I were CPS of having very many of the kids in the same home, scared for the foster family.

 

I would be in favor of the children being placed some good, long distance from the county with no more than two in any one location while this is sorted out just for the security of the foster families because I think Joe is dangerous and potentially Nicole is as well.

So far, Joe seems to have a general disinterest in the children which hopefully will protect them right now.  But there is a weird symbiotic thing between Joe and Nicole so if she gets upset, he might be tipped over into caring which would not be good because I don't think the caring would be a healthy kind of thing from him but a possessive kind of thing.  

[Ravin]

Yeah I wish they did child endangerment charges for parents whose kids have to be taken into state custody and for whom things are substantiated of course. I can't believe DD's birth mom never got charged with any of the like 5 things she could have knowing the conditions the kids were in and the suspected issues going on. It kinda makes me mad she got away with no financial or personal ramifications and never bothered to visit the kids or anything. Luckily she broke the law later for something fairly minor and got arrested but of course someone bailed her out. Sometimes these things just don't make sense to me, but really as a foster parent I never heard of any birth parent being charged with anything criminal even though the criminal activities were what caused the kids to be removed permanently. I guess they figure taking the kids away is consequence enough? I dunno, I'd love to know the reasoning behind how that stuff is handled. 

 

It usually comes down to a matter of admissible evidence of specific crimes. The standard of review for making children dependent is generally preponderance of the evidence and for termination of parental rights, clear and convincing evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is "more likely than not" and clear and convincing is a higher standard than that but lower than the standard for criminal charges, which is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

Often there is plenty to support the lower standards for removal and termination without there being anything that will pass muster in a criminal trial. Also, child welfare action can be the result of a lot of small accumulated things, none of which by themselves rise to being a criminal act. For example, a parent can have rights terminated for failure to protect a child from the abuse of the other parent. In severance, what matters most is whether the children will be safe going forward (will the cowed and battered and abused and codependent mother actually protect them from the father that beat them, for example). In criminal court, the mother's state of mind and culpability at the time of the charged action, etc. are all very important.

 

Dependency and severance don't necessarily have anything to do with criminal wrongdoing at all.

 

For example, my nephew was taken into CPS custody at a time when there was a high risk that his father might flee the state, taking the boy with him, while my sister was in an emergency inpatient mental health facility. Her husband had sexually assaulted another family member and she caught him in the act. She had a breakdown--took the kids to my mom and checked herself in to the hospital. CPS involvement was because she was not in a position to protect her children from her husband. She herself had done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

She still had to jump through a ridiculous lot of hoops to get her son back, mostly because Texas doesn't provide parents in dependency actions with attorneys (it's not compelled by constitutional rights until severance is on the table) and CPS dragged their feet on reunification after the actual danger was completely eliminated (by suicide). Had she not been able to get her mental health stabilized enough, found work, and gotten a new place to live (they'd lived with her MIL, in the upper floor of a house the bottom floor of which was dominated by MIL's hoarding. Sis kept the kids away from those rooms, but MIL blamed her for the suicide at the time so even if it hadn't been a dubious situation, she couldn't go back there), she might not have been able to get him back.

 

Another example, I had a foster sister who was in care because her single mother lacked extended family social supports and couldn't adequately parent her while going through chemo for breast cancer. The girl (at 13) put herself in some very sketchy situations because of the lack of supervision.

 

I have a friend whose son is a dependent of the state because of his own behavior/actions. It was not safe for the family to keep him in the family home, not because of any fault or wrongdoing of the parents (well, of my friend at least. Her ex is a piece of work and has had his rights terminated for completely failing to give a crap about what happened to his son going forward after the boy got in trouble--though again, he didn't commit any acts himself which were criminal).

[Heather in VA]

The information about mom being Rh- and dad Rh+ is disturbing in light of the unattended home births (which were already disturbing).

 

If this is the case this is very worrisome. I had home births and am Rh- with an Rh+ spouse. But I had medical personal and this was taken care of. It's really easy to deal with but it  must be dealt with. Knowing that she doesn't have medical care during pregnancy or during birth makes it very unlikely that she's dealing with this. Her chances for problems increase with every pregnancy and since she's pretty anti-doctors, Rh disease could be fatal to the infant.

[Ravin]

I feel so bad that those kids will have to be split up. I'm sure that they clung to each other while living on their so-called homestead. While I don't for a minute doubt that they're better off split up but in good conditions than together where they were before, I still hurt for them.

 

 

 

 

Totally off topic, but Jeanette Walls and I are distantly related by marriage. Her MIL and mine are first cousins (well were, since my MIL has passed). So her husband and mine are what? Second cousins? Third? FTR, this is her current husband I speak of, not the one she was first married to in the book.

First cousins once removed.

[Ravin]

I agree. You need to educate your kids so THEY can make a choice when they're older. You can't just educate them according to what YOU feel is necessary. That's something that bothers me about unschoolers around here, they're like "well, I never needed math beyond the basics" and I'm like "well, YOU didn't want to be an accountant, or a doctor, or a scientist, or whatever. Your KIDS might choose differently, and it's your job to make sure you don't close any doors."

 

Grrrr..

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, at least where religion is the motivator/excuse for limiting a child's education

[gardenmom5]

Or kilts ;)

 

Kilts in yurts!!!

While eating cupcakes

[Ravin]

It's part of home education case law in England that you can't just educate to the specific needs of your family or cultural group. Instead you need to seek to prepare the child for life in the wider society.

And part of U.S. case law that you can limit education to the needs of your family or cultural group, at least when motivated by religion. The case is some state I don't recall v. Yoder.

[Ravin]

I really want to believe this. As bad as it sounds I really do hope she's delusional. At least there is a chance that delusional can be fixed. With some help she could come around to face the situation and make some good decisions for the kids. Unfortunately I am not as optimistic. The video with the cop and the seat beat really sticks with me, first that they would automatically record a simple traffic stop and put it on the web but also her constitutional rant. It just seems that her belief system is rooted more in anti-authority than some idealistic idea of homesteading that went amuck.

Actually, if she's delusional it is very difficult to fix. That sort of delusional disorder where the delusions are things that could be true but aren't (as opposed to completely off the wall stuff like believing you're a pink unicorn) are hard to identify and don't respond well to medication.

[Ravin]

WTF? She is planning on opening her business on Tuesday, the day after she loses custody of her kids for at least another month, and gosh darn it, if that pet grooming salon doesn't look nice enough to LIVE in! Clearly she CAN get her sh*t together when she wants to, but it seems not if she is "ordered to" by the evil overlords (aka the government).

 

If I lost my kids for a month, I would be losing my mind, not planning on opening a cute dog grooming salon the very next day. For some reason, this reminds me of the woman who stands accused of killing her husband in a kayaking "accident" recently. She insisted it was an "accident" but the very next day she was posting things on facebook about feeling free, sunsets, etc. It didn't seem like she was particularly upset about the loss of her husband, and that drew people's suspicions.

 

I am likewise suspicious of Nicole Naugler.

In her defense, one of the parents having gainful employment/income will help their case. Not by itself, of course.

[Ravin]

amy dacyzyn of the frugal gazette posted what they ate. they ate cheaply - but a lot, and it was nutritious.

 

 

I think they were engaged. made me think of the teacher from years ago who coerced her student lover into murdering her husband and make it look like a break-in. when she was interviewed, she was completely put together. hair, make-up, accessories, etc. perfect. then the student was arrested, and she was an absolute mess.

 

 

his oldest son is from a prior marriage/relationship/not-sure. he's 19, and testified at the first hearing about being abused emotionally, psychologically, and s3xually by joe before joe's parental rights were *terminated* when he was four. I think he lived with joe and Nicole for a short period before they started having their own kids.

It's likely that he still had to pay child support unless/until the boy was adopted by someone else (e.g. step-father). I recall reading he lived with an uncle. If that was a guardianship, dad would have been on the hook for child support. It stops accruing when the child turns 18 and graduates, but it's still there until death.