NOOOOOO!

[swellmomma]

17. You can join the military at 17. And in some states marry at 14.

OUt here you can join the reserves at 16(which my dd16 is hoping to do next fall), regular force at 17.  I always thought the laws in the USA with the no drinking until 21 were strange, that you can do all these other adult things, put yourself in a high risk career, heck you can be graduating with your bachelor's degree before you can have a drink.  I don't know what the age is to marry with permission here I think 16, I know there was a couple that I knew in high school that got married the summer before grade 11 and 12 and I don't know if they were quite 17 yet.  The drinking age here is 18, same as voting age, heading out into the world as adults etc. 

 

 

[maize]

I thought the later drinking age is because alcohol can have a more detrimental effect on the immature brain?

[Katy]

OUt here you can join the reserves at 16(which my dd16 is hoping to do next fall), regular force at 17.  I always thought the laws in the USA with the no drinking until 21 were strange, that you can do all these other adult things, put yourself in a high risk career, heck you can be graduating with your bachelor's degree before you can have a drink.  I don't know what the age is to marry with permission here I think 16, I know there was a couple that I knew in high school that got married the summer before grade 11 and 12 and I don't know if they were quite 17 yet.  The drinking age here is 18, same as voting age, heading out into the world as adults etc. 

 

 

 

This is off topic, but the drinking age changed here in the 1980's.  I think there were some studies related to kids and drunk driving that led the change, it wasn't a federal law but states were only eligible for federal highway money if they raised the age to 21.  I was very small at the time but I know someone who was in the very last week of the cutoff and she was allowed to drink at 18, her friends one week younger than her weren't until age 21.  I think age 21 encourages binge drinking and in general the whole thing has backfired.

 

ETA:  person in question was in Florida, USA - probable that each state had different rules as the law changed.

[gardenmom5]

I thought the later drinking age is because alcohol can have a more detrimental effect on the immature brain?

 

I think it was because of drinking and driving.

I remember when they changed (the drinking age here) and driving rules to for the first six months, no one unrelated in the car with you.  

 

I've seen some uber scary teenage drivers who weren't drinking . . school had JUST gotten out. given how bizarre it was (and where) - I think it was intentional.  take that kids DL away.

[LucyStoner]

The impetus for the federal government to all but mandate lowering the drinking age was the high number of drunk driving accidents involving drivers 16-20. Also, to make it less likely that 18-19 year old high schoolers were so easily able to supply alcohol to their younger high school friends. In that respect, the law has been something of a sucess. Teens do drive drunk far less than they did then. Unfortunately, underage college students seem more likely to binge drink when it is illegal so the law hasn't been a total sucess either. There is no science that says that alcohol impacts the older developing brain (18-19) in concrete ways to merit its ban. Some neuroscience researchers say that it's driving itself that is the larger problem for young people with still developing brains and not mild to moderate drinking.

[maize]

I do think driving is a problem; where I lived growing up the driving age was 18, which makes a lot more sense developmentally than 16 (especially for boys). That is problematic though in areas without decent public transportation.

[Halcyon]

I wonder who took those birth pictures?

[Ravin]

I wonder who took those birth pictures?

Probably one of the kids.

[Matryoshka]

Just to underscore the fact that off-grid living has nothing to do with being without power or living in squalor, I give you this cool off-grid living pod.  Power, clean water, toilet and shower, kitchenette, it's insulated, and all off-grid.  Only fits two adults, though...

 

Might make a cool retirement plan... it can also be towed anywhere you want (and charges your electric car while being towed...)

[Mimm]

I wonder who took those birth pictures?

 

One of the older kids I'm sure.

[maize]

Just to underscore the fact that off-grid living has nothing to do with being without power or living in squalor, I give you this cool off-grid living pod. Power, clean water, toilet and shower, kitchenette, it's insulated, and all off-grid. Only fits two adults, though...

 

Might make a cool retirement plan... it can also be towed anywhere you want (and charges your electric car while being towed...)

I want one!

[Heather in VA]

Just to underscore the fact that off-grid living has nothing to do with being without power or living in squalor, I give you this cool off-grid living pod. Power, clean water, toilet and shower, kitchenette, it's insulated, and all off-grid. Only fits two adults, though...

 

Might make a cool retirement plan... it can also be towed anywhere you want (and charges your electric car while being towed...)

That is pretty cool. But I think I'd rather live in it alone. As a retirement plan that close of quarters might lead to divorce ðŸ˜

[Tammi K]

I thought the later drinking age is because alcohol can have a more detrimental effect on the immature brain?

 

I recall that raising the drinking age became tied to Federal funding for highways.  Recalling from my newly licensed days ( back in the dark ages) studies were showing that states with higher drinking ages had less road fatalities. So, the feds got into the picture and said, "If you want funding for your highways you need to raise your drinking age to 21."

 

No studies to link this to but recalling from the past.

 

[Runningmom80]

Just to underscore the fact that off-grid living has nothing to do with being without power or living in squalor, I give you this cool off-grid living pod.  Power, clean water, toilet and shower, kitchenette, it's insulated, and all off-grid.  Only fits two adults, though...

 

Might make a cool retirement plan... it can also be towed anywhere you want (and charges your electric car while being towed...)

 

That is so cool!

[Word Nerd]

The pod looks cool in a claustrophobic sort of way.

[mamakelly]

Funny. So now I'm blocked again at Blessed FB page. I haven't commented on anything since I was unblocked. So either she's reading here and matching up names, or she's reading at The Nasty FB page and matching names and blocking. (and I only commented 1 or 2 times on the Nasty page!?)

If people rent to this family without his having gone to a treatment facility, I'll be amazed. I've been continually employed, zero criminal history, plus never rented without strong (gainfully employed, upstanding) local references and a superb credit check and even I don't get the places I always want. Last time I tried to rent alone, I had no pets, two kids, and I had to fill out like 8 forms.

 

 

 

I wondered about this too.  On "the other page", someone did some research, and the county records show that "their" property is still owned by Kentucky Land company, a real estate company that apparently does land contracts.  I had never heard of land contracts before.  A land-contract a form of seller-financing that can be used by people with poor credit.  Basically, the seller keeps the title until the contract is paid off directly from the buyer to the seller.  Terms can vary, but in some cases, if the buyer defaults before the property is paid off, they are evicted, the title stays with the seller, and the buyer retains zero equity.  Effectively that's like renting, but with a big down payment that you could potentially lose.

 

Just another way where it can be very expensive to be poor.

 

Now, if I were a landlord, I don't think I'd rent to this family, but that raises the question:  where can they live?  Building a reasonable structure on this current property may be their only option.

[Heather in VA]

 

 

Just another way where it can be very expensive to be poor.

 

 

While I agree it can be expensive to be poor, I don't have sympathy for this family in that regard. I feel for families who are working hard and still unable to make ends meet. But I don't see that here. In the past they have had decent housing but they trashed it or didn't pay bills and got evicted. They didn't get evicted because they were working two jobs but it still wasn't enough. They are barely working 1 part time job between the two of them. And then, of course, there are the accusations that a good deal of money went to drugs. And meanwhile they keep making babies who need to be fed, housed, and cared for. This family's financial situation is one of their own making. 

[gardenmom5]

Funny. So now I'm blocked again at Blessed FB page. I haven't commented on anything since I was unblocked. So either she's reading here and matching up names, or she's reading at The Nasty FB page and matching names and blocking. (and I only commented 1 or 2 times on the Nasty page!?)

 

well - what better things could she be doing?  certainly not fixing up her "homestead" and cleaning up herself to get her kids back . . . .\

[gardenmom5]

While I agree it can be expensive to be poor, I don't have sympathy for this family in that regard. I feel for families who are working hard and still unable to make ends meet. But I don't see that here. In the past they have had decent housing but they trashed it or didn't pay bills and got evicted. They didn't get evicted because they were working two jobs but it still wasn't enough. They are barely working 1 part time job between the two of them. And then, of course, there are the accusations that a good deal of money went to drugs. And meanwhile they keep making babies who need to be fed, housed, and cared for. This family's financial situation is one of their own making. 

 

they were also GIVEN a fair number of household goods (including real beds for the children) which they sold.  where did the money go?  probably drugs.

[Heather in VA]

Very true - I had forgotten about the donated household goods (including beds for the kids). I am sickened to think of the families who need and would appreciate help but these people are getting it instead.

[FaithManor]

I wondered about this too.  On "the other page", someone did some research, and the county records show that "their" property is still owned by Kentucky Land company, a real estate company that apparently does land contracts.  I had never heard of land contracts before.  A land-contract a form of seller-financing that can be used by people with poor credit.  Basically, the seller keeps the title until the contract is paid off directly from the buyer to the seller.  Terms can vary, but in some cases, if the buyer defaults before the property is paid off, they are evicted, the title stays with the seller, and the buyer retains zero equity.  Effectively that's like renting, but with a big down payment that you could potentially lose.

 

Just another way where it can be very expensive to be poor.

 

Now, if I were a landlord, I don't think I'd rent to this family, but that raises the question:  where can they live?  Building a reasonable structure on this current property may be their only option.

I agree, if I were the landlord, they'd be gone. The liability would be too great to consider having them back, and the amount of clean up work I would have in order to make that hazardous waste dump go away would make me absolutely furious.

 

I don't know where they could go. Really. This has hit the national news, and she is too stupid to stay off facebook. It is inconceivable that anyone who is in the rental business in Kentucky does NOT know about these people. Maybe they could go to some hamlet in Manitoba or Alberta where no one has heard of them, but still, twelve people - many landlords will not rent to such a large family.

 

I think they utterly devastated their lives with this disaster and may be unable to get adequate housing that would prompt the return of their children.

[Heather in VA]

I agree, if I were the landlord, they'd be gone. The liability would be too great to consider having them back, and the amount of clean up work I would have in order to make that hazardous waste dump go away would make me absolutely furious.

 

I don't know where they could go. Really. This has hit the national news, and she is too stupid to stay off facebook. It is inconceivable that anyone who is in the rental business in Kentucky does NOT know about these people. Maybe they could go to some hamlet in Manitoba or Alberta where no one has heard of them, but still, twelve people - many landlords will not rent to such a large family.

 

I think they utterly devastated their lives with this disaster and may be unable to get adequate housing that would prompt the return of their children.

 

Completely agree, especially with the last statement. I still maintain that they aren't really trying that hard to get them back  though. They aren't cleaning up the current place and we know they aren't looking for somewhere else because we would be hearing the laments of how the evil establishment doesn't respect their life every time they were turned down. Someone earlier said Joe and Nicole aren't even living on the "homestead". Do we know if that's true? If so, where are they living and why did they move off the homestead?

[FaithManor]

Completely agree, especially with the last statement. I still maintain that they aren't really trying that hard to get them back  though. They aren't cleaning up the current place and we know they aren't looking for somewhere else because we would be hearing the laments of how the evil establishment doesn't respect their life every time they were turned down. Someone earlier said Joe and Nicole aren't even living on the "homestead". Do we know if that's true? If so, where are they living and why did they move off the homestead?

Yes, they do not seem to be trying very hard. I have sadly felt that the real heart of the matter is that possibly their ideology is more important to them than their children.

[gardenmom5]

Yes, they do not seem to be trying very hard. I have sadly felt that the real heart of the matter is that possibly their ideology is more important to them than their children.

 

 

It's a lot easier to run without children.  but . . . . who will do the labor?

[idnib]

I agree, if I were the landlord, they'd be gone. The liability would be too great to consider having them back, and the amount of clean up work I would have in order to make that hazardous waste dump go away would make me absolutely furious.

 

 

I wonder if the landlord is one of the sovereign types and is a supporter. Or perhaps he or she would ideally like them off their land but unwilling to kick out a family that large(where will they go?) and are hoping the court forces them to clean up the mess. I know I would be unwilling to kick out a pregnant woman. Maybe after the birth?

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I wonder if the landlord is one of the sovereign types and is a supporter. Or perhaps he or she would ideally like them off their land but unwilling to kick out a family that large(where will they go?) and are hoping the court forces them to clean up the mess. I know I would be unwilling to kick out a pregnant woman. Maybe after the birth?

 

I'd kick out a pregnant woman from that mess, in the fond hopes that a women's shelter would at least be clean and, well, sheltered.

 

I've wondered if maybe the land owner is not local at all; thinking of some of the "Land Man" sales in the undeveloped parts of my state where they might hire an agent to sign the papers but the owner is a speculator far away.

[Heathermomster]

This thread has been most enlightening.  Ignoring the Nauglers for a moment, there are some really nice homestead websites.  To really magnify the serious issues with the Naugler family, I think it is worth looking at homesteading done right.  

 

http://www.hullabaloohomestead.com/category/our-journey,,,This blog seems kinda neat.

http://homestead-honey.com/about-2/... I just can't get over how clean everyone looks.

http://www.homesteadmania.com/top-10-homesteading-blogs/.. The couple that adopted children from Haiti use solar panels and batteries live in a home as clean as my own.

[Corraleno]

Completely agree, especially with the last statement. I still maintain that they aren't really trying that hard to get them back  though. They aren't cleaning up the current place and we know they aren't looking for somewhere else because we would be hearing the laments of how the evil establishment doesn't respect their life every time they were turned down. Someone earlier said Joe and Nicole aren't even living on the "homestead". Do we know if that's true? If so, where are they living and why did they move off the homestead?

 

 

According to the WAV3 news report on the day of the "big clean up" (which only lasted a few hours and accomplished basically nothing), Joe and Nicole are currently "staying with friends." They can't be expected to haul their own water and cook their own food and wash their own dishes and dump their own shit buckets with all the slave labor gone, can they?   :001_rolleyes:

 

Plus now they have thousands and thousands of dollars — they can stay in a motel and eat out every night is they want to. Which is what I'd bet they're really doing. 

 

[Mommy22alyns]

 

According to the WAV3 news report on the day of the "big clean up" (which only lasted a few hours and accomplished basically nothing), Joe and Nicole are currently "staying with friends." They can't be expected them to haul their own water and cook their own food and wash their own dishes and dump their own shit buckets with all the slave labor gone, can they?   :001_rolleyes:

 

Plus now they have thousands and thousands of dollars — they can stay in a motel and eat out every night is they want to. Which is what I'd bet they're really doing. 

 

 

 

Do they even want their kids back?   :crying:

[Katy]

Do they even want their kids back?   :crying:

 

I'm thinking no.  They do want to continue to be internet celebrity martyrs for the sovereign citizen movement crowd though, so they can keep having the money for nothing roll in.

[Corraleno]

While I agree it can be expensive to be poor, I don't have sympathy for this family in that regard. I feel for families who are working hard and still unable to make ends meet. But I don't see that here. In the past they have had decent housing but they trashed it or didn't pay bills and got evicted. They didn't get evicted because they were working two jobs but it still wasn't enough. They are barely working 1 part time job between the two of them. And then, of course, there are the accusations that a good deal of money went to drugs. And meanwhile they keep making babies who need to be fed, housed, and cared for. This family's financial situation is one of their own making. 

 

It's really shocking how many different places they've lived just in the past 5 years. From looking at Nicole's blog, they've been in at LEAST seven different places since September of 2010, and if you count the prefab cabin & the "shack" as two homes, and foster care as another, then the kids have had 9 different "homes" in less than 5 years. Between September 2010 and June 2011, they moved 4 times.

 

It looks like the longest they've been in one place was the old farmhouse that the church helped them rent. I think they were there for around 18 months. The church paid their rent for a while, then at some point the church stopped paying, and eventually they were evicted. That was a really nice big old-fashioned 4 bedroom house with a big kitchen, lots of acreage, tons of room for a big garden and livestock. The church even gave them a nice 15 passenger van with only 80K miles on it, as well as clothes and furniture, and bought them groceries. The kids were active in scouts and church activities. They were actually homeschooling. It was probably the most stability those kids have ever had.

 

If Nicole had set up her grooming business at home, and Joe had gotten an actual job (or two), they could have set up payment plans on the back taxes & child support, and they could not only have dug themselves out of the hole they were in, but eventually they could have built a pretty self-sufficient life for themselves. But neither of them were willing to really work and they managed to totally piss off the church, thanks to Joe's threats of violence (e.g. threatening someone who bought them groceries instead of giving cash), Nicole's lectures on politics and the Constitution, and their total failure to help themselves, so they were eventually kicked out of the church and had to move.

 

Even after all that, they lucked into a 4BR double-wide on nice acreage that they could rent-to-buy with no down payment, just taking over the payments — and they blew that, too. I believe that this was the home where someone reported bringing them clothes and food and finding poop all over the floor and filthy, stinky, naked children. And when they were evicted from there, they allegedly smeared poop all over the place and took an axe to the walls in revenge. Then they moved from there to the prefab, the prefab was repo'd, they built the "shack," and now the kids are in foster homes.

 

It doesn't appear that they have ever actually been self-supporting. They just go from place to place, church to church, living off charity and then when the debts build up, they take off. The list of debts Nicole discharged in bankruptcy was a mile long, and a lot of it was stuff like Hobby Lobby, grocery stores, gas stations, etc. And that was back when they only had maybe 3 kids — they couldn't even support their family when it was way smaller than it is now! 

 

Even if by some miracle they manage to get the kids back by building some sort of cabin on that land, they can't afford to even feed them, and eventually they'll default on the land payments and Nicole's business loan and rent payments, and they'll be homeless again.

I agree, if I were the landlord, they'd be gone. The liability would be too great to consider having them back, and the amount of clean up work I would have in order to make that hazardous waste dump go away would make me absolutely furious.

 

I don't know where they could go. Really. This has hit the national news, and she is too stupid to stay off facebook. It is inconceivable that anyone who is in the rental business in Kentucky does NOT know about these people. Maybe they could go to some hamlet in Manitoba or Alberta where no one has heard of them, but still, twelve people - many landlords will not rent to such a large family.

 

The deal with the land contract is they don't really have a landlord.  The owner of the title may not be able to break the contract for anything except non-payment.

 

And, do you really think Canada would accept them as immigrants?  There are generally pretty stringent requirements on income and stability in order to immigrate.  Keep in mind the Canadians are the people who had the good sense to foist off Justin Bieber on us.

[Corraleno]

Do they even want their kids back?   :crying:

I'm thinking no.  They do want to continue to be internet celebrity martyrs for the sovereign citizen movement crowd though, so they can keep having the money for nothing roll in.

 

 

I think they want it both ways — they want their "illegally kidnapped" kids back (or at least Nicole does) but they also want to continue to live for free, on charity and donations, and not have to work unless they feel like it (i.e. Nicole grooming a few dogs now and then while Joe sits on his ass). But since they can't have it both ways, I do think they will give up the kids rather than comply.

 

I also think it's possible that they already know they're not getting the kids back — or at least that Joe knows it and he's going along with Nicole's delusions. They have to know that the longer CPS has the kids, the more likely it is that they will drop the POW act and talk about what really goes on in that home. And that can't be good news for Joe.   :glare:

[Christiahn]

Well, here's me:

 

1. I'm starting to get really freaked out by the cries of, "Oh, no, the government is breaking up homeschooler's homes and stealing all the kids!" when it turns out that, no, a family was abusing and neglecting children and using hs'ing to hide it all (which might affect us all someday soon). I mean, it keeps happening.

 

2. Homesteading, the yearning for back-to-the-land, is in my bloodstream. It's the thing I didn't do when I chose to homeschool four sons, because I have limited energy and funds. Couldn't do both,  so I'm doing homeschool well. But I still might buy a small plunk of land, when these people grow up. So if somebody's doing it at all -- well, poorly, criminally -- I'm interested.

 

3. Specifically for this family: I'm just wondering where the heck the bottom is. Every time we hear a little bit of their story, I think that must be the worst, but no. There's more.

I'm an HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) member. As a member they send out a quarterly magazine and email news. It is already affecting families not in the wrong. I've read of a few cases where CPS and even the local police think our amendment rights don't exist, and they use excessive power and threats to attain their goals. It is very scary. And those are just the ones that HSLDA reported on. I am sure there are many more that we know nothing about.

[hornblower]

The deal with the land contract is they don't really have a landlord.  The owner of the title may not be able to break the contract for anything except non-payment.

 

And, do you really think Canada would accept them as immigrants?  There are generally pretty stringent requirements on income and stability in order to immigrate.  Keep in mind the Canadians are the people who had the good sense to foist off Justin Bieber on us.

 

speaking as past immigration officer, no way they'll qualify.

 

for one thing, don't they have criminal records?

And they're destitute. We don't let in destitute people except sponsored refugees.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I'm an HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) member. As a member they send out a quarterly magazine and email news. It is already affecting families not in the wrong. I've read of a few cases where CPS and even the local police think our amendment rights don't exist, and they use excessive power and threats to attain their goals. It is very scary. And those are just the ones that HSLDA reported on. I am sure there are many more that we know nothing about.

 

What are their goals? I would be very interested in links to AP news stories (not HSLDA links or World Net Daily or infowars) about excessive power and threats inflicted upon homeschooling families for no reason.

[maize]

The deal with the land contract is they don't really have a landlord.  The owner of the title may not be able to break the contract for anything except non-payment.

 

And, do you really think Canada would accept them as immigrants?  There are generally pretty stringent requirements on income and stability in order to immigrate.  Keep in mind the Canadians are the people who had the good sense to foist off Justin Bieber on us.

:smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:

[Spryte]

Old news, but I've refrained from watching any video. Reading was enough. Till now.

 

I just watched the video of the baby walking with a toothbrush in his mouth, across the muddy planks. And falling. :( So dirty.

 

Then I watched the little one face plant after the slide. Why is she videoing this stuff and not parenting? What the heck? And why post this stuff?

[Xuzi]

I've learned about a new conspiracy theory due to following this situation: CPS is kidnapping attractive, well-behaved children so that they can be placed for adoption for CPS's profit. This is why some abused kids aren't removed by CPS when they should be: they weren't adoptable.

 

 

 

Jeez-louise.

 

 

ETA: Just to be clear: I don't buy it.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I'm an HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) member. As a member they send out a quarterly magazine and email news. It is already affecting families not in the wrong. I've read of a few cases where CPS and even the local police think our amendment rights don't exist, and they use excessive power and threats to attain their goals. It is very scary. And those are just the ones that HSLDA reported on. I am sure there are many more that we know nothing about.

Oh I think you can be pretty sure that HSLDA rummaged around for a while, scraped the very bottom of the barrel, and came up with a couple of stories that they could twist and manipulate into "news articles" designed to scare their membership, followed up with a plea for money. They are masters of the half-truth and especially like to exploit stories where the other side can't tell their version. They appear to be fence-sitting on the Naugler case--they don't really want to get involved directly, but they'll sure as heck use it for their fundraising purposes.

 

I've been homeschooling for 5 years and have seen numerous "oh noes! CPS took their kids because they homeschool!!!" stories. There is always more to the story.

[Audrey]

Maybe the Duggars will take them in.

 

 

Geez!  I just spit my tea! 

 

Now, that would be right up TLC's alley.  :glare:

[Corraleno]

Old news, but I've refrained from watching any video. Reading was enough. Till now.

 

I just watched the video of the baby walking with a toothbrush in his mouth, across the muddy planks. And falling. :( So dirty.

 

Then I watched the little one face plant after the slide. Why is she videoing this stuff and not parenting? What the heck? And why post this stuff?

 

There's another video from a few years ago (when they actually had a house) where another baby is crawling around on the floor, then crawls into another room and comes back chewing on something, and she says "oh, did you find your cookie?" and doesn't even put the camera down to make sure that it's only an old half-eaten cookie he picked up off the filthy floor and not something like, I dunno, a cat turd. Unbelievable.  :ack2: 

 

[Tammi K]

 Keep in mind the Canadians are the people who had the good sense to foist off Justin Bieber on us.

 

 

:smilielol5:  :smilielol5:  :smilielol5:

 

 Maize, how can you laugh about this???   This is NOT funny.  :001_cool:   

 

( Now we're stuck with him)

[Mergath]

Looks like Nicole finally let some miniscule amount of common sense penetrate her thick skull and made part of her FB page at least semi-private. I just went to take a look, and I can only see one post now.

 

Of course, she still hasn't taken her BLH FB page down, because soliciting donations is still far more important than getting her children back. 

[Katy]

Geez!  I just spit my tea! 

 

Now, that would be right up TLC's alley.  :glare:

 

 

Can you imagine how that would work?  It would be straight out of the Old Testament-

 

You don't work, you don't eat. 

 

:mellow: :huh: :confused1:   I think we're on the wrong show.  Bye.   :gnorsi:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm an HSLDA (Home School Legal Defense Association) member. As a member they send out a quarterly magazine and email news. It is already affecting families not in the wrong. I've read of a few cases where CPS and even the local police think our amendment rights don't exist, and they use excessive power and threats to attain their goals. It is very scary. And those are just the ones that HSLDA reported on. I am sure there are many more that we know nothing about.

HSLDA would climb a tree to tell a lie if the truth was on the ground. Especially if it scares people into joining.

[Ottakee]

I've learned about a new conspiracy theory due to following this situation: CPS is kidnapping attractive, well-behaved children so that they can be placed for adoption for CPS's profit. This is why some abused kids aren't removed by CPS when they should be: they weren't adoptable.

 

 

 

Jeez-louise.

 

 

ETA: Just to be clear: I don't buy it.

YEP.........that happens all the time..............CPS is very bored and the workers have nothing to do.  There are tons of extra funds laying around for the care of these kids.........and tons of open foster homes.   Just think, they can take the kids away from good homes and place them in state care which likely runs $50+ PER CHILD PER DAY they are in care.  Then when they are adopted, they can offer the foster parents adoption subsidies and medical subsidies and other services until the kids are older...................NOT QUITE A BELIEVABLE THEORY.  Foster kids COST the state money.

[Orthodox6]

Add to the foregoing that CPS caseworkers, who already stumble under the weight of too many assigned families, are begging for still more case files.

[sarcasm dripping]

[maize]

I've learned about a new conspiracy theory due to following this situation: CPS is kidnapping attractive, well-behaved children so that they can be placed for adoption for CPS's profit. This is why some abused kids aren't removed by CPS when they should be: they weren't adoptable.

 

 

 

Jeez-louise.

 

 

ETA: Just to be clear: I don't buy it.

You mean this isn't true?

 

And here I was feeling all safe from CPS kidnapping because my kids are not well behaved...