intothefray Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You've gotta be effing kidding me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 At "The Naugler Report" page, there is a link to an article that explains the difference between "physical custody" (which the parents now have) and "legal custody" (which the parents do NOT have). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 At "The Naugler Report" page, there is a link to an article that explains the difference between "physical custody" (which the parents now have) and "legal custody" (which the parents do NOT have). I was just coming here to ask about that. So at least if they have the kids living in filth again within a week, the state can remove them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerileanne99 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 At "The Naugler Report" page, there is a link to an article that explains the difference between "physical custody" (which the parents now have) and "legal custody" (which the parents do NOT have). Yes, but who wants to bet if they actually have all the kids with them and the money that certainly hasn't gone into the home improvements they are gone in the night? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Wow. Didn't they just clean up some trash and get some rabbits? What about the shelter and the sanitary conditions of the cooking area, pond, toilet, etc? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heatherwith4 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 WHAT!?! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Yes, but who wants to bet if they actually have all the kids with them and the money that certainly hasn't gone into the home improvements they are gone in the night? I'll be standing behind you in the betting pool line. The parents have a published reputation of "migrating" at whim. I confess shock that the county authorities would allow the children to return to a cesspool (that is the complimentary label) as "home." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You know, one if the fb pages said the husband has been seen around town with a woman who isn't his wife. I wonder if he left Nicole, and that's part of the reason why the kids are back? I just can't see her getting them back if he's still there, not with the abuse allegations. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I can't believe they returned them. In our county they would not return them when there were still criminal charges pending. What happens if mom is convicted and held......do the kids go back into care again on Tuesday??? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I am absolutely ill. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You know, I spent some time in south central and eastern KY. Poor people have it HARD in Appalachia. There is a level that is ignored just because nobody has the resources to do anything substantial. It's true. Whether near or literal starvation, or lack of education, or severely limited access to healthcare -- yep. That's poverty, even in the USA. But having seen THAT, do you know what? The Nauglers are beneath it. They come in beneath that level of saddening, isolating and generational poverty. Once a family crosses over into sleeping on boards the children assembled, and wallowing in a cesspool that serves as their entire water supply, that's different. What are the forces at play here? Who is in charge? Who with money and power has an investment in putting these children back into the environment, and what could they possibly have to gain? Editing for clarity: 1. This post means that I think the Naugler children's situation is worse than those who either cannot help being poor because of insurmountable issues. Instead, their troubles are more like those families whose children suffer because of parents' choices. (Research heroin in Appalachia for examples.) 2. This post is not meant to convey pity for the Nauglers, or a sense that they should be perceived as victims, or any connection between them and parents who are merely poor. It is instead a contrast. 3. The reason I brought up their poverty stricken neighbors was because I don't understand how the children were returned and don't want anyone to assume it's just because Breckinridge is so poor that the Nauglers are seen as no different, because it's not true. They are horribly, criminally different. Hope this helps. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 The worst part about this is that I bet one of the requirements that CPS will put on them is to put the kids in school. Then they really will be crying about being persecuted for wanting to homeschool. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 You know, I spent some time in south central and eastern KY. Poor people have it HARD in Appalachia. There is a level that is ignored just because nobody has the resources to do anything substantial. It's true. Whether near or literal starvation, or lack of education, or severely limited access to healthcare -- yep. That's poverty, even in the USA. But having seen THAT, do you know what? The Nauglers are beneath it. They come in beneath that level of saddening, isolating and generational poverty. Once a family crosses over into sleeping on boards the children assembled, and wallowing in a cesspool that serves as their entire water supply, that's different. What are the forces at play here? Who is in charge? Who with money and power has an investment in putting these children back into the environment, and what could they possibly have to gain? Yes people in Appalachia have it hard but the Naugler's have it worse by their own design. Poor doesn't equal living with poop everywhere or selling beds given to your children or being too lazy to plant a garden or putting up walls or trying to get a job when you are able-bodied. The Naugler's are in this position because of their own choices not because they are poor. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Yes people in Appalachia have it hard but the Naugler's have it worse by their own design. Poor doesn't equal living with poop everywhere or selling beds given to your children or being too lazy to plant a garden or putting up walls or trying to get a job when you are able-bodied. The Naugler's are in this position because of their own choices not because they are poor. Please read posts before quoting - I think you missed my point. I edited for clarity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottakee Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I wonder where they are living. There is no mention of them being HOME..........as in at the homestead. Wonder if they are in a hotel, apartment, rental, etc. instead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I am absolutely ill. Me too. I feel genuinely sad and sick by this. Maybe I'm too emotionally invested but the whole dysfunctional abusive dynamic around such a filthy, inadequate home... I can't believe the kids were returned to that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intothefray Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I couldn't sleep last night because all I could think about was people saying the kids were home. I didn't think it was possible. I was praying that it wasn't.. I spend way too much time with this shit. I really should just back away FAST. Me too. I feel genuinely sad and sick by this. Maybe I'm too emotionally invested but the whole dysfunctional abusive dynamic around such a filthy, inadequate home... I can't believe the kids were returned to that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 i'm betting they are in the hotel or an apartment or something. I cannot believe they'd be back on the homestead. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Part of me is not surprised since I've known foster kids returned to parents who had given them multiple broken bones etc. Not saying that this situation isn't one of neglect but I've seen CPS often err on the side of reunification. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heatherwith4 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 i'm betting they are in the hotel or an apartment or something. I cannot believe they'd be back on the homestead. That's what I hope. Of course, I wonder how long it will take them to fill whatever dwelling they are in with feces. Those poor kids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Part of me is not surprised since I've known foster kids returned to parents who had given them multiple broken bones etc. Not saying that this situation isn't one of neglect but I've seen CPS often err on the side of reunification. I agree. Unfortunately it's not uncommon for CPS to put reunification above child safety and well being. I was hoping that the media attention on this one would give them the guts to keep the kids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I've been thinking about this far more than I probably should tonight. Several comments on The Naugler Report express hope that this has been a wakeup call for Joe and Nicole. I'm scared this has been the exact opposite. I fear they will see this as proof that they don't actually have to do what CPS says to get their kids back and remain firmly rooted on their high horse. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamakelly Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 http://www.wave3.com/story/29486975/custody-case-not-over-for-off-the-grid-family BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY, KY (WAVE) - The off-the-grid family in the midst of a custody battle has been reunited with some of their children, for now. Joe and Nicole Naugler made national headlines after their 10 children were taken away by the state. Images of their homestead and lifestyle stirred controversy. The Naugler's custody battle is still not over, but the children who are minors have been allowed to stay with their parents, according to their attorney Rick Hardin. Hardin told WAVE 3 News Monday the case was still pending. He made it clear the cabinet still had custody of the children, even though they were in the Naugler's possession. Joe and Nicole Naugler are scheduled to appear back in court on July, 27. Copyright 2015 WAVE 3 News. All rights reserved. I think its really strange that they have physical custody, but not legal custody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I am profoundly disappointed, grieved actually, in the Hardin County and the State of Kentucky for letting those kids back and especially so soon. They needed a lot more time in care in order to have health and emotional needs addressed to say nothing of educational. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: That said, if I had to hazard a guess, these kids have profound problems that may have been too much for the families or group home in which they were placed resulting in two week "letters of intent" asking the children to be moved which is most states is the avenue in which a family or facility gives notice that they can't handle the situation. I suppose it is entirely possible that the county could not find placements for them for longer term which means they'll either keep trying to intimidate the Nauglers into complying with some of their basic demands, and bounce the kids in and out of the system - very possible - or simply give up and well, I've seen that as well. NOT PRETTY! But there aren't enough trained, therapeutic foster families in this nation. I hope that is not the case, but I do suspect it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I am profoundly disappointed, grieved actually, in the Hardin County and the State of Kentucky for letting those kids back and especially so soon. They needed a lot more time in care in order to have health and emotional needs addressed to say nothing of educational. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: That said, if I had to hazard a guess, these kids have profound problems that may have been too much for the families or group home in which they were placed resulting in two week "letters of intent" asking the children to be moved which is most states is the avenue in which a family or facility gives notice that they can't handle the situation. I suppose it is entirely possible that the county could not find placements for them for longer term which means they'll either keep trying to intimidate the Nauglers into complying with some of their basic demands, and bounce the kids in and out of the system - very possible - or simply give up and well, I've seen that as well. NOT PRETTY! But there aren't enough trained, therapeutic foster families in this nation. I hope that is not the case, but I do suspect it. This has occurred to me as a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 If the kids themselves see their foster families as the enemy, they could easily make life unmanageable for the families. A refusal to use the toilets might only be the beginning... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I am profoundly disappointed, grieved actually, in the Hardin County and the State of Kentucky for letting those kids back and especially so soon. They needed a lot more time in care in order to have health and emotional needs addressed to say nothing of educational. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: That said, if I had to hazard a guess, these kids have profound problems that may have been too much for the families or group home in which they were placed resulting in two week "letters of intent" asking the children to be moved which is most states is the avenue in which a family or facility gives notice that they can't handle the situation. I suppose it is entirely possible that the county could not find placements for them for longer term which means they'll either keep trying to intimidate the Nauglers into complying with some of their basic demands, and bounce the kids in and out of the system - very possible - or simply give up and well, I've seen that as well. NOT PRETTY! But there aren't enough trained, therapeutic foster families in this nation. I hope that is not the case, but I do suspect it. If the kids themselves see their foster families as the enemy, they could easily make life unmanageable for the families. A refusal to use the toilets might only be the beginning... I think this is a possibility as well. Dealing with 10 kids who have been trained to live like animals and despise authority may very well have just been too much for CPS and their foster families. The idea that they physically live with the parents but CPS makes all the decisions makes absolutely no sense unless they just determined they can't keep the kids so at least they will try to keep some kind of legal control. Also, the most recent article linked above says 'some of the children for now'. But then it goes on to say that the children who are minors have been allowed to stay with the parents. So it's not clear if all of the kids are home or not. I'm still wondering whether they are living at the homestead or in a new place. I certainly hope it's a home with walls, plumbing and refrigeration for food. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 If the kids themselves see their foster families as the enemy, they could easily make life unmanageable for the families. A refusal to use the toilets might only be the beginning... I did respite care for a foster family that had a 12 year old boy that would only go to the bathroom on the cement floor of the garage. Nearly drove them to distraction. He got over it around age 16...four years! Unfortunately, the bios were drug users and the things they did to him, the things their "friends" did to them are not even mentionable on this forum. Sigh..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Sadly, I have been around many children who SHOULD have been placed in protective custody. As I posted on the other thread, I KNEW these kids would be extremely hard to deal with as foster kids, and would need expert foster parents. My guess is that someone high up intervened, though, not that they kids were too much trouble. Usually a foster family being even worse than the family the children were removed from is not enough to reunite a family so dysfunctional. My guess is the someone far up the food chain intervened for a reason we wouldn't easily understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenmom5 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I'm still wondering whether they are living at the homestead or in a new place. I certainly hope it's a home with walls, plumbing and refrigeration for food. assuming they use them - and don't just shut walls and use a bucket like when they were previously in a house. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idnib Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 If the kids themselves see their foster families as the enemy, they could easily make life unmanageable for the families. A refusal to use the toilets might only be the beginning... If the kids were returned because they thought of foster parents and the government as the enemy and were therefore unmanageable, the Nauglers might certainly feel vindicated and made more bold. That means their plan worked. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renthead Mommy Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Also, the most recent article linked above says 'some of the children for now'. But then it goes on to say that the children who are minors have been allowed to stay with the parents. So it's not clear if all of the kids are home or not. I'm still wondering whether they are living at the homestead or in a new place. I certainly hope it's a home with walls, plumbing and refrigeration for food. This confused me as well. It reads as we returned the ones that were minors, but kept the ones that were not minors. But they were all under 18. I am thinking the confusion comes from lack of a comma and should say "the children, who are minors, have been allowed to stay with the parents." But I would like to know which ones they let them have back and how many of them they returned. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerileanne99 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 This confused me as well. It reads as we returned the ones that were minors, but kept the ones that were not minors. But they were all under 18. I am thinking the confusion comes from lack of a comma and should say "the children, who are minors, have been allowed to stay with the parents." But I would like to know which ones they let them have back and how many of them they returned. I actually wondered if it was poor journalism and they were referring to Joe's oldest child that testified against him 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenagerMom Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/winn/2015/07/06/reach-out-america-raising-the-bar Start listening at 5:45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChemMommy Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 http://www.blogtalkradio.com/winn/2015/07/06/reach-out-america-raising-the-bar Start listening at 5:45 A 50 minute long pro-Naugler's interview. Yuck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in VA Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 If the kids were returned because they thought of foster parents and the government as the enemy and were therefore unmanageable, the Nauglers might certainly feel vindicated and made more bold. That means their plan worked. I have been worried about this since I found out they got the kids back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenagerMom Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 A 50 minute long pro-Naugler's interview. Yuck! That confirms what a nutcase he is. Idiot posted the darn videos. All the world can see that every interaction with the Police was the Naugler's being irrational and the cops being as calm & patient as can be. He accused the cop in the seat belt video of actually trying to rip his door open until he noticed he was being recorded.....yeah didn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 It appears that the eldest is fifteen. They all are minors. I believe that two essential commas were omitted from the news story. "The children, who are minors, . . ." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 assuming they use them - and don't just shut walls and use a bucket like when they were previously in a house. Reading about how they lived in other houses makes it clear that better housing will not solve any part of the Nauglers' issues. And with their victim mentality, I doubt they took anything positive from this situation at all. :( I don't see them improving the kids' quality of life in the future. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Nicole comments that all of her children are minors and they are all home. And...some of their...supporters...not so bright...seems to me...but...I just another hater... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Eulanda. . . oh my. . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hkpiano Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 LOL, Moxie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 http://www.wave3.com/story/29486975/custody-case-not-over-for-off-the-grid-family BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY, KY (WAVE) - The off-the-grid family in the midst of a custody battle has been reunited with some of their children, for now. Joe and Nicole Naugler made national headlines after their 10 children were taken away by the state. Images of their homestead and lifestyle stirred controversy. The Naugler's custody battle is still not over, but the children who are minors have been allowed to stay with their parents, according to their attorney Rick Hardin. Hardin told WAVE 3 News Monday the case was still pending. He made it clear the cabinet still had custody of the children, even though they were in the Naugler's possession. Joe and Nicole Naugler are scheduled to appear back in court on July, 27. Copyright 2015 WAVE 3 News. All rights reserved. I think its really strange that they have physical custody, but not legal custody. It's not too uncommon in some states. It basically puts the parents on constant notice while easing the pressure on the foster system and letting families stay together. But CPS needs no warrant to take the kids again so if there's one more report or a 911 call or a lack of compliance with a parenting plan, they can remove the kids again. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancingmama Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Yes, it isn't uncommon for them to have physical custody but the state to retain legal custody. And they most likely complied with having a safe, covered, living space, whether that's a hotel, a friend's place, or whatever. But they are in for regular visits, announced and unannounced. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChemMommy Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 She posted a picture of the pre-fab house and some comments on her Blessed Little Homestead fb page today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 She posted a picture of the pre-fab house and some comments on her Blessed Little Homestead fb page today. She also said that their plans are to live in a "tiny house." . . . with eleven children! :smilielol5: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'm glad that they have the prefab. I think the more limited posting is a good thing too even if it leaves us curious. I think having CPS involved has been a good thing. Do I think that their entire mindset has changed? Probably not but I tend to be optimistic in my hopes for families to get it together and to make things work. I'm always willing to have my cynical side proven wrong over time. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'm glad that they have the prefab. I think the more limited posting is a good thing too even if it leaves us curious. I think having CPS involved has been a good thing. Do I think that their entire mindset has changed? Probably not but I tend to be optimistic in my hopes for families to get it together and to make things work. I'm always willing to have my cynical side proven wrong over time. I agree. I'm skeptical but still hopeful that they'll do better in the new place, especially since they'll be under so much scrutiny by CPS and won't be able to do whatever they want without question like before. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 At least the kids have an actual roof over their heads for now. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intothefray Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'm SO freaking confused. What happened with the dogs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.