# Another Homeschool Family Raided - Kids Taken



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Their big offense - living Off-Grid.

http://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...-off-grid-family-because-theyre-homeschooled/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MichaelZ said:


> Their big offense - living Off-Grid.


According to the article their big offense was not having a state approved homeschooling curriculum. There is a big difference twixt homeschooling and no schooling. To my knowledge there is no law in this state (Ky) requiring anyone to be ongrid..... there are several about providing a proper education to the kiddies.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

MichaelZ said:


> Their big offense - living Off-Grid.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.offthegridnews.com/curre...-off-grid-family-because-theyre-homeschooled/



It doesn't sound at all like their big offence is living off grid but a schooling issue. What it doesn't state, is if this is something that's been addressed with the family before. 

I would think that parents should be allowed to correct the situation before seizing kids. I know in Canada addict parents get dozens of chances to clean up before kids a removed from their care.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

More than likely it was the threats made to a neighbor that got the kids removed:
http://www.wave3.com/story/29019229/off-grid-couple-faces-hearing-to-regain-custody-of-10-children


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Danaus29 said:


> More than likely it was the threats made to a neighbor that got the kids removed:
> http://www.wave3.com/story/29019229/off-grid-couple-faces-hearing-to-regain-custody-of-10-children


Certainly, threats have merit if they are as described, but that is not why the kids were taken. With regard to "unschooling" it can not be any worse that the Core-Curriculum rubbish my 7th grader got this year. I can cite numerous examples of how rotten that is as I had to help her get through a lot of it, but that is another topic. (And we are going back to a decent home curriculum next year)

If the kids suffered, I see no mention of the kids needing medical attention and they all look fine in their photos. The only abuse I noted were the bruises on the moms arms that the police left. Like wr mentions, in Canada kids living in drug houses are not taken when they should and you hear of plenty of the same in the US.

Interesting that they mention 30 below temps 1 hour south of Louisville? We don't even get that cold in N. WI ! 

Certainly, I would not want my kids or grandkids living under tarps, but if they can do it, it should not be a crime. From what I read, they were working on more permanent dwellings.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

You can believe that the government will take your kids for nothing else than teaching them as you believe. What gets dredged up after the fact is to be expected, because the public would not still be putting up with the tearing apart of families if some reason were not provided that sounds legitimate enough. I don't care what ridiculous state approved mess someone refuses to teach their kids....ripping someone's children away from them and subjecting those kids to a trauma and heartache that lasts a lifetime is wrong. Always will be wrong.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I can understand needing clean drinking water but threatening someone to give you theirs is over the top. 

Words in both articles are written to incite emotions. They may be living under tarps but after the floods here, many of my neighbours were left to live in their tepees. 

My concern is not with their living conditions (provided the kids are clean and fed) but I do believe educational standards do need to be met and I'm left to wonder if this has been addressed with the family previously.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> I can understand needing clean drinking water but threatening someone to give you theirs is over the top.
> 
> Words in both articles are written to incite emotions. They may be living under tarps but after the floods here, many of my neighbours were left to live in their tepees.
> 
> My concern is not with their living conditions (provided the kids are clean and fed) but I do believe educational standards do need to be met and I'm left to wonder if this has been addressed with the family previously.


How much of it comes down to what we're prepared to believe about accusations against families like this? Is it ever said "we took them because they believed in God...we took them because they weren't teaching them state approved curriculum"? I don't tend to think that every or even most removal of children from homes comes by way of a Real legal reason to do so...they don't care what's legal anymore. They only care that we believe that there is something legal about it.

Educational standards are the families business. We don't need no government nannies.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> How much of it comes down to what we're prepared to believe about accusations against families like this? Is it ever said "we took them because they believed in God...we took them because they weren't teaching them state approved curriculum"? I don't tend to think that every or even most removal of children from homes comes by way of a Real legal reason to do so...they don't care what's legal anymore. They only care that we believe that there is something legal about it.
> 
> Educational standards are the families business. We don't need no government nannies.


There was a lot more to this situation than what the OP's article mentioned. 

And educational standards are not the family's business. If kids aren't educated properly they become a burden to society. I am all for home schooling provided the parents are educated enough themselves to provide the appropriate education to their children. Unfortunately, I know many homeschooling parents who don't have that ability.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> How much of it comes down to what we're prepared to believe about accusations against families like this? Is it ever said "we took them because they believed in God...we took them because they weren't teaching them state approved curriculum"? I don't tend to think that every or even most removal of children from homes comes by way of a Real legal reason to do so...they don't care what's legal anymore. They only care that we believe that there is something legal about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Educational standards are the families business. We don't need no government nannies.



You may not need government nannies but if I'm not mistaken, the standards are in place and defying them does run the risk of penalty.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> You may not need government nannies but if I'm not mistaken, the standards are in place and defying them does run the risk of penalty.


So when do we stand up for what's right? When there are no penalties? The state does not own people's children. There is no excuse for a society that's accepting of that.


*
"...Nicole Naugler was pulled over by a Breckinridge County deputy before officers took her two oldest boys with no documentation to support their actions, an audio recording of the incident shows.

Nicole, 5 months pregnant, was slammed into the hood of a cop car, and was taken into custody for disorderly conduct after pleading with the Sheriff to not take her boys, and resisting arrest.

When Nicoleâs husband Joe arrived, Sheriff Pate, with his hand on his sidearm, ordered him back his the car and ordered him to turn over the remaining eight children over by 10:00 am, a website dedicated to raising support for the family, states.

Joe was threatened with felony charges if he didnât comply, the website says. It appears the incident unfolded as a result of an unfounded anonymous complaint filed with Child Protective Services..."*

http://policestatedaily.com/ky-cops-take-10-kids-from-free-range-family-brutalize-pregnant-mother/


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Dutchie said:


> There was a lot more to this situation than what the OP's article mentioned.
> 
> And educational standards are not the family's business. If kids aren't educated properly they become a burden to society. I am all for home schooling provided the parents are educated enough themselves to provide the appropriate education to their children. Unfortunately, I know many homeschooling parents who don't have that ability.


These people are teaching self sufficiency, not dependance on society, the government or anybody else. Meanwhile public schools turn out "burdens on society" by the thousands...and are taught from the start by such to be dependent on the system. Folks need to mind their business.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> So when do we stand up for what's right? When there are no penalties? The state does not own people's children. There is no excuse for a society that's accepting of that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say they shouldn't or couldn't stand for what they believe in but activism often comes with an associated cost. 

Are you also prepared to support daddy's right to his neighbour's water? After all, he seems to feel strongly enough to threaten someone for it.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

One has to have goods home stars and in this case the way it sounds it wasn't. We have to turn out educated kids and not adhering to the states standards then it IS the governments place to make it so. One must have a good education even if it is home schools. If not others WILL step in. Period.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

warning do not teach children to work, where food comes from, or how to be able to adapt to providing for themselves.

Why is it that homeschooling succeed higher end results than government schools.
Learning hands on about things of personal interest creates a stronger impact than coloring in one of four ovals.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wr said:


> I didn't say they shouldn't or couldn't stand for what they believe in but activism often comes with an associated cost.
> 
> Are you also prepared to support daddy's right to his neighbour's water? After all, he seems to feel strongly enough to threaten someone for it.


And Obama declares something a fact based on one side of the story...

Police acted stupidly.. 

In America we need to hear both sides and the jury before sentencing.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Dutchie said:


> There was a lot more to this situation than what the OP's article mentioned.
> 
> And educational standards are not the family's business. If kids aren't educated properly they become a burden to society. I am all for home schooling provided the parents are educated enough themselves to provide the appropriate education to their children. Unfortunately, I know many homeschooling parents who don't have that ability.


I agree to some extent. But there are homeschool packages that basically do all the teaching via well-done videos so one does not necessarily need extensive training or a college degree. This is what we use, even though we have college teaching degrees. My one son started college in Calculus I and the next son will probably have college credit for Calculus I and II by the time he starts college. Both had ACT scores of 29. But I also know of homeschoolers that do some things that I would question, yet they at least seem to teach the basics - I am yet to see a homeschool graduate that can not at least do basic math, read, and write. 

On the other hand, you can no longer trust the government to properly educate. Our 13 yr old daughter, in the online public school Core curriculum is learning very little. Actually, it is horrific academically. 

As a college educator, I see plenty of adults that can not do 5th grade work that recently graduated from high school. Not inner city schools either, but supposedly great schools. 

I am all for good education, be it home school or public school. But there seems to be a double-standard in place.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> These people are teaching self sufficiency, not dependance on society, the government or anybody else. Meanwhile public schools turn out "burdens on society" by the thousands...and are taught from the start by such to be dependent on the system. Folks need to mind their business.



What if the children grow up and don't want to live in a tent in the family compound? Will they have marketable skills?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, wood cutting is skill that makes money
Education should never end. Nothing stops people from changing.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> What if the children grow up and don't want to live in a tent in the family compound? Will they have marketable skills?


Ditch digger are always in demand!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Ditch digger are always in demand!


 If they know how to operate heavy equipment.
Ditch Witches, and backhoes are the common ways now. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It doesn't take much googling to learn that there's a lot more to know about this story. Still, this was poorly handled by CPS & the police.

If CPS gets a report then they should investigate. If they find something then summon them into court. Explain the situation to the parents and give them an opportunity to come into compliance. If not then a judge can find them in contempt, or even remove the kids from the home.

But this was handled poorly enough that the police & CPS deserve any bad publicity that they get.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Nevada said:


> It doesn't take much googling to learn that there's a lot more to know about this story. Still, this was poorly handled by CPS & the police.
> 
> If CPS gets a report then they should investigate. If they find something then summon them into court. Explain the situation to the parents and give them an opportunity to come into compliance. If not then a judge can find them in contempt, or even remove the kids from the home.
> 
> But this was handled poorly enough that the police & CPS deserve any bad publicity that they get.



Is there any indication that the parents method of education had been addressed previously?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> Is there any indication that the parents method of education had been addressed previously?


I didn't see anything about that. Mostly the father having a string of run-ins with the law & neighbors.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Sounds like a family of Joads to me. 

We had the unfortunate esperience of living near a family of idiots who decided that they wanted to home-school their children. The older two studied, attended a home-school league's functions and got a passable high school education. About then the father died and the mother, a sloven, let the younger two play on the computer all day and do no homework or study their lessons. She finally ran off with a *****. Last I heard the younger child got arrested for shoplifting, the DHS got wind of his circumstances and forced him into public school where he is apparently catching up. A daughter, poor ignorant thing, married at sixteen to get out of the house.

Home schooling done properly might be just fine. Not done properly it is criminal.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Woolieface said:


> These people are teaching self sufficiency, not dependance on society, the government or anybody else. Meanwhile public schools turn out "burdens on society" by the thousands...and are taught from the start by such to be dependent on the system. Folks need to mind their business.


Thank you. That's exactly what I was going to say. Ya beat me to it


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Well since the parents set them up on a "homestead" where they have to haul their water in, didn't cover that most basic necessity of life, it sure makes you wonder what else is lacking. That is downright idiotic if you want to be left alone to live your life and raise your kids your own way, to be dependent on others for your water.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I am a homeschooler, I taught all three of our boys from kindergarten to graduation from High School. We live on a small farm. I have no problem with homeschooling, unschooling or living in primitive conditions to start a homestead. I am fine with off grid living too. This family had a whole lot of issues and they posted their stuff all over the internet. The only thing that is surprising is that CPS didn't step in sooner. 

The people who live near them do not support them nor does their local homeschool group or the church they attended. That speaks volumes to me. Threatening to shoot your neighbors because they won't let you steal their water is a criminal offense. So is writing bad checks. Not putting a decent roof over your kids heads because you are too lazy to put together the pre-fab building you bought says you have no business trying to homestead. Look at the "cabin" the children were living in. It looks like a goat shed at best. 

More information: 
This one has a copy of the CPS complaint. http://kathrynbrightbill.com/post/118481565656/here-are-7-surprising-things-you-need-to-know


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

At least a third in my area do not have running water.
We have a community well at our local mercantile. Due to the number that share in the cost of it it is a monthly fee of five dollars ....you bring your own hose connect to the faucet go in to the clerk and she turns the water on...Those pocket hoses are nice...load up well the containers on still on the truck.
Results of the water testing that the fees go to are posted monthly.

Ele. That also is not in everyone's home. Some have a genny only some have great tnandy solar setups most a patch work system of solar genny deals. Note we have to pay by the foot for installation... my bill in 2003was a bit over 22 thousand financed thru the co-op.

Since we had a group of 70 persons that moved from Boston to near me who lived two winters in blue tarped teepees with a good share of them children and birthing mother's....I know it can be done. 

This fear that what they learn is useless is silly, and very bigoted. Remember most of the people who made a big permanent impact in history were home schooled in rough times.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MichaelZ said:


> Interesting that they mention 30 below temps 1 hour south of Louisville? We don't even get that cold in N. WI !


30 below is probably stretching it a bit. I live about an hour south of these folks and the coldest it got here in our little valley this past winter was 22 below.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I do not claim to know everything about this family. The basic idea of the police taking the children in the way it seems it was done seems very wrong to me and there is no doubt will leave lasting impressions, maybe even problems on the younger children. I am most troubled by that! I know people in my community who have been charged and convicted of physical abuse to their children and the local DHS services has seen fit to return them to the same homes and in some cases never even remove them. What does this say, our system is flawed. I am sure there are those who work for the system with good intentions, maybe they even do some good, but there are also those with an agenda and use the system to push that agenda. 

As far as marketable skills. There is no guarantee at all, that a high school education insures marketable skills or even a basic education. I work with, and have worked with, people with high school educations who can neither read nor write or have basic comprehension skills and they are in 6 figure jobs today, STILL lacking those skills. Craftsmen are always in demand. There are numerous skill sets that are always in demand, not all of them come from a book. In the same way a child raised in a poor homeschooling environment may not have an edge in becoming a scientist or computer programer, a child raised in a government run education system will have acquired little skills to help him live as a sustainable farmer. So we could argue all day long about the downside and upside to both systems. The real argument for me is at what point do free people get to decide for themselves and their children which direction to go. What makes one persons opinion of how to raise children better than another persons opinion. If it has come down to who ever has the most authority and force to back them up, then we have surely reached a very low spot in a so called free society.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> How much of it comes down to *what we're prepared to believe* about accusations against families like this?


I'm not prepared to believe any of the hype from INFOWARS


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Since the arrival mentions that the children lacked birth certificates and social security cards as if that is wrong....explain the rational for it being a non issue for illegals.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

I smell bs on several things.

Family, in my opinion, stupid to post their life on the web. Asking for busy bodies to interfere.

How does anyone know that the dad and the neighbor didn't have a casual agreement to trade eggs for water access, or some other scenario? Then maybe the neighbor decided to be difficult. 

A neighbor interviewed quoted with remarks of disdain for a woman who chose to birth at home. Sounded like the kind of person who would have disapproved, even if the home was a more stable structure.

It is accused that dad was turned down for water access, and threats - by someone who chooses to be anonymous. This is the only issue I believe might warrant reporting. Then should be properly followed up on, not what happened. I didn't see any mention of anyone even interested in what resulted concerning the threats. So maybe that wasn't even a credible source. But it sure was worth mentioning in media to paint the guy in a certain light?

On the schooling, the law is the law, and I certainly disagree with it. But how ridiculous to take these actions upon one visit. Shoulda been some evaluation and attempt to give parents a time frame to implement some gov approved crap before any kids were traumatized.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Since the arrival mentions that the children lacked birth certificates and social security cards as if that is wrong....explain the rational for it being a non issue for illegals.


It's not a non-issue for illegals. I have no idea what you base that thought on. It's also a red herring.

For these children it will mean misery trying to prove who they are and that they are legal citizens. If you look at the link I posted above several kids have come forward lately with no evidence they exist and talked about the problems they are having. They have no birth certificates, no SS numbers, no record of their existence via school or medical records. They can not get jobs, driver's licenses, can't vote, etc. 

Parents can chose to secede from the government and normal life if they like but they have no right to hamstring their children this way.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, per the federal dept of education... the school can ask but NOT demand it from anyone as illegals could get caught in becoming uncomfortable. A phone bill suffices thus.. if the school had demanded such things as birth cert or ss# to comply in order to quote register I think the family show 's be treated as well as illegals and allowed the same requirements and ....Grace.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If CPS gets a report then they should investigate.
> If they find something then summon them into court.


They did investigate, and taking the children was the end result
http://kathrynbrightbill.com/post/118481565656/here-are-7-surprising-things-you-need-to-know

As to "summon them to court":



> Joseph Naugler has multiple arrests, including for passing bad checks and for driving without registration or proof of insurance, and for *failure to appear in court* on those charges.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Joseph Naugler has multiple arrests, including for passing bad checks and for driving without registration or proof of insurance, and for *failure to appear in court* on those charges.


OK, but I don't see how that relates to the custody of his kids.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hey while your looking up folks...want check out al sharpton.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm quite sure that a father with misdemeanour charges is not grounds to rush in and remove kids from the home. He might not be a great role model but he's not cooking meth and his kids are fed. 

While he may not be father of the year, that doesn't indicate the children were in immediate danger. 

Even the education issue should have at least been attempted to resolved before the children should be removed from parental custody.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> Even the education issue should have at least been attempted to resolved before the children should be removed from parental custody.


I agree. This was a matter to be worked out between CPS and the family. If it couldn't be worked out then the court should have gotten involved. It wasn't a good case to be handled in the form of a police raid. Taking kids from parents in police raids should be reserved for cases where it's suspected that kids are in immediate danger. That wasn't alleged here.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They did investigate, and taking the children was the end result
> http://kathrynbrightbill.com/post/118481565656/here-are-7-surprising-things-you-need-to-know
> 
> As to "summon them to court":


In checking out that link, to a blogger, she ain't who I'd model anything after for credibility. 
That site appeared to serve as a support for LGBT activism, taking donations so she can pursue the bar exam, and slamming anything most here consider "right" wing. So, not appealing to me. 
I'm not sure she's American either. 
But I am sure I'm not taking her slant on this situation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

partndn said:


> In checking out that link, to a blogger, *she ain't who I'd model anything after for credibility. *
> That site appeared to serve as a support for LGBT activism, taking donations so she can pursue the bar exam, and slamming anything most here consider "right" wing. So, not appealing to me.
> I'm not sure she's American either.
> But I am sure I'm not taking her slant on this situation.


The OP used INFOWARS so if you want to go by "credibility" we have to ignore it all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK, but *I don't see* how that relates to the custody of his kids.


CPS does
This wasn't their first contact with the family


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm quite sure that a father with misdemeanour charges is not grounds to rush in and remove kids from the home. He might not be a great role model but he's not cooking meth and his kids are fed.
> 
> While he may not be father of the year, that doesn't indicate the children were in immediate danger.
> 
> Even the education issue should have at least been attempted to resolved before the children should be removed from parental custody.


The previous charges are just one small piece of the puzzle.

There are threats, theft, sub standard housing, failure to appear in court, no schooling, etc.

They weren't just taken on a whim as many seem to imply


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The previous charges are just one small piece of the puzzle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're these things previously addressed with the family? If not, they should be given the opportunity to correct the situation.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> It's not a non-issue for illegals. I have no idea what you base that thought on. It's also a red herring.
> 
> For these children it will mean misery trying to prove who they are and that they are legal citizens. If you look at the link I posted above several kids have come forward lately with no evidence they exist and talked about the problems they are having. They have no birth certificates, no SS numbers, no record of their existence via school or medical records. They can not get jobs, driver's licenses, can't vote, etc.
> 
> Parents can chose to secede from the government and normal life if they like but they have no right to hamstring their children this way.


I'm not sure that the children "in the system" are going to be better off, especially the current common core generation when they turn 18 and have a record prepared about them by the government that they have no control over.

Just saying.

My kids have SSNs, and after getting notified by new and old insurance companies recently that their information was part of a huge data breach, I had the thought that if they didn't have SSNs til they were 18, that actually might have ended up sparing them from hacked/destroyed credit reports.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> It's not a non-issue for illegals. I have no idea what you base that thought on. It's also a red herring.
> 
> For these children it will mean misery trying to prove who they are and that they are legal citizens. If you look at the link I posted above several kids have come forward lately with no evidence they exist and talked about the problems they are having. They have no birth certificates, no SS numbers, no record of their existence via school or medical records. They can not get jobs, driver's licenses, can't vote, etc.
> 
> Parents can chose to secede from the government and normal life if they like but they have no right to hamstring their children this way.



Actually, everything can be done without those documents IF you know the laws and rules to do it.
I wish I hadn't been suckered into this Beastly system when I was a kid and didn't know better, it is a far harder job to disentangle myself now, than it would have been to join it later on my own decision.
In my lifetime, there were Presidents who didn't have birth certificates (No, I'm not talking Obama) and who were born at home. SS is relatively new although people act as if it always existed.
Teaching kids to beware the gov't and stay away from its systems is far better advice than teaching them to accept and depend on it, IMO.





Patchouli said:


> I am a homeschooler, I taught all three of our boys from kindergarten to graduation from High School. We live on a small farm. I have no problem with homeschooling, unschooling or living in primitive conditions to start a homestead. I am fine with off grid living too. This family had a whole lot of issues and they posted their stuff all over the internet. The only thing that is surprising is that CPS didn't step in sooner.
> 
> The people who live near them do not support them nor does their local homeschool group or the church they attended. That speaks volumes to me. Threatening to shoot your neighbors because they won't let you steal their water is a criminal offense. So is writing bad checks. Not putting a decent roof over your kids heads because you are too lazy to put together the pre-fab building you bought says you have no business trying to homestead. Look at the "cabin" the children were living in. It looks like a goat shed at best.
> 
> ...



You are correct here.
There is much more to this story and after looking at the past 10 - 15 years of background on this man and his family, I'd advise people to do the same and THEN come to conclusion on this.
There appears at least, to be a history of freeloading and scamming, then relocating to the next village when they wear out their welcome.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

As far as I can see in fishing through the on-line reporting and commentaries (faux-reporting) there are only a few things that matter at all, and they're being completely misconstrued or ignored by many.

The only thing the government had a lawful ground to investigate was if the father threatened another person with a gun. By law, he's presumed to have the right to have a gun. Whether he told his kids to get it, is irrelevant. They are allowed access to guns. The government also could investigate if the accusation had any merit from the complainer. Was it really trespassing even? You know, I don't know how it is everywhere. But, property lines out here in KY can be iffy. Shoot our neighboring property owner is the local surveyor and even he and I have attempted to mark out the lines around my place and realized it's darn near impossible to do. But, we make do because we have a decent relationship with one another.

Secondly, interviewing the children is completely irrelevant to determining what went on between the dad and the accusing party regarding the gun incident.

Thirdly, the parents are completely within their rights and acting responsibly to insist on the government not violating the 4th amendment. They even offered to allow the children to interact with the government, as long as their attorney was present. That's pretty accommodating in my opinion considering the complaint the govt was responding to didn't even directly involve the children.

Fourth, the cops knew they were in the wrong and violating the 4th amendment. That's why they waited until these people were off their property to arrest her and seize the kids. And, that's why they coerced the father to deliver the other children. Doing it on their property would have gotten it thrown out of court and opened them up to civil prosecution.

Fifth, all the other stuff from the past and what was "witnessed" by CPS and the law outside of the gun complaint is trumped up bunk! They had nothing in the past that was going to pan out or the kids would have been gone. Obviously, they knew what the family was like and how they lived cause they've interacted with them before. And, the other stuff they're reporting because they're trying to build a case cause they've got nothing else apparently to work with from the gun complaint.

Lots of people bring in water and don't have traditional sewer. And, my goodness if every person in KY who had glass, trash, nails and an unfenced pond had to surrender their children to the state....well, let's just say, there'd be a lot of kids taken and they'd probably have to be farmed out to some other state for housing and care. We got pond all over. And, lots of folks have decades worth of junk on their places that they never even dumped. And, let me tell you, it takes years to get it all out. And, usually you just can't get it all.

Finally, I don't believe these kids are being taken just because they are homeschooled. I don't believe they are at a risk meriting investigation or removal because of their living conditions. Look at the pictures of the kids. They look happy, content, healthy, etc.

I believe the govt took these kids because the family is attempting to exercise their 1st and 4th amendment constitutional rights. And, that just doesn't jive with the way this government wants us all to behave.

After all, if parental life history, habits, living conditions, educational success, arrest records, etc. were truly the standards by which the govt were required to judge and determine removal criteria by, then lots of people wouldn't have their kids.

All those public and private school kids would be removed for testing below acceptable grade levels, for being suspended, detention, expulsion, for being held back a grade, for being too poor to pay for school lunches and having to take free weekend food backpacks home, for being too poor to pay for required school supplies or extra curricular fees. All the parents who had arrest records or drug or alcohol abuse or questionable associates would have to lose their kids. All families would have to be split apart who didn't meet an acceptable size home for a certain number of people. What would that even be by the way? Cause you know tons of people live in a tiny run-down place, but there's just a few of them. And, tons of people (in this economy) are living in pretty nice homes with multiple generations or roommates. Also, what about the people who are struggling to not live in their car so they're making sure they have a roof over their head, but it involves living in long-term rental hotels, or moving around frequently within a circle of friends and family who don't have permanent room for them. What is the proper head count vs. square footage or bedroom/bathroom ratio? Do we just use fire marshall codes?

The burden of proof is always supposed to be on the government and they are not supposed to be able to force you to cooperate in incriminating yourself. That's the 5th amendment. And, the presumption of your innocence is fundamental to our rights.

Anyway, that's how I see it. We homeschool. I freely admit that, and you may decide that i'm biased because of it. I do think that homeschool families are persecuted as a group unfairly and more frequently than some other groups. But, it's not because I'm trying to have a pity party or saying that other people or the government are prejudiced against homeschoolers like us.

That's too emotional and irrational. I believe it is for three very simple and straightforward reasons.

1. The govt bureaucracy isn't making money off of us because they don't get to count homeschooled kids as "butts in a chair each day at school" which directly correlates to their funding.

2. Homeschoolers because of fear of prosecution, tend to be better versed than the average person about 4th amendment rights and other constitutional rights because we have to figure legal compliance issues out on our own. We don't have a school district office to process us and take care of those details. So, we end up having a better working knowledge of some major constitutional rights and responsibilities. Many of us also understand that if we're contacted, resisting authorities who violate our rights is important, because our actions can lead to precedents being set that after other families who deal with the authorities after us.

and, 3. Our demographic (homeschoolers), because of reasons 1 and 2 are potentially a threat to the expansion of the sheeple population. Think I'm kidding. We moved a year ago. Wasn't even sure how many people in our new county homeschooled. Heard of a few. Met a few. Have met several friends this year. More than half of them have brought up with me conversations repeatedly about wanting to homeschool, too, cause they're unhappy with something going on with their children's school experience. Repeatedly. And, not just in passing. Some have yanked their kids and started homeschooling. Some are actively looking into it. And, they've been asking us questions about it cause they want to find out how we do it. they're not homeschooling cause we do it. but, the fact that they know us and other homeschoolers is playing a part in them even considering homeschooling, because those relationships are able to be supportive and informative to them when they have questions.

k. i'm done. I think this is the longest post I've ever written here.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I have been trying to look up various sources of info on the case. Quite honestly if I was home and not at work right now I would have other things to occupy my time. But at any rate I have been looking. What I have found does not really make a lot of sense to be. Now I am not the most computer savvy person, but my understanding is post are rated according to how many times they are views. In other words when you Google something the places most visited will pop up first when you enter search words? If this is not correct maybe someone can explain it a little better to me, but that is how I understand it works.

So based on that, I would expect when I Google the family's name or other search words relating to this story I would find various sites popping up dealing with homeschooling, off-grid living or maybe self sustainability, even anti-government sites I would expect to some extent.

What I keep finding is when I put in search words, sites keep popping up who are covering this story and the sites seemingly have nothing to really do with the story. Gay and Lesbian sites, Atheist sites, feminist sites, progressive sites (still not sure what that is?) Now look, this is a free country and a free internet (for now anyway) I have no issue with any of these people discussing the story. I guess I just do not understand why it would seemingly be of such importance to these groups and why these sites would pop up 1st in a search, leading me to believe they have to most traffic on the topic on the internet, therefore the most interest in the story?

Just seems like, as an example, a Hunting site, covering the story of a family on a Blue Water yacht? I would not expect the people on the hunting site to really have any interest in what a family sailing on the sea would be doing? But in this case, it seems not only are the hunting sites interested in the story, they are more interested in the story than the blue water yacht sites are?

Am I missing something in this story?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I'm quite sure that a father with misdemeanour charges is not grounds to rush in and remove kids from the home. He might not be a great role model but he's not cooking meth and his kids are fed.
> 
> While he may not be father of the year, that doesn't indicate the children were in immediate danger.
> 
> Even the education issue should have at least been attempted to resolved before the children should be removed from parental custody.


Did you listen to the audio between the mother and the CPS worker and police? Trying to run off with the kids and making the statements she did were what caused the kids to be considered in enough danger to be removed. They had every reason to think if they left the family would disappear. In order for CPS to work with you they have to feel like you will actually be there to work with them.  

This woman handled it so badly. And yes if you have a blog and CPS gets a call about you they may just look at your publicly posted information about your family. :doh: That's not stalking that is fact checking.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Actually, everything can be done without those documents IF you know the laws and rules to do it.
> I wish I hadn't been suckered into this Beastly system when I was a kid and didn't know better, it is a far harder job to disentangle myself now, than it would have been to join it later on my own decision.
> In my lifetime, there were Presidents who didn't have birth certificates (No, I'm not talking Obama) and who were born at home. SS is relatively new although people act as if it always existed.
> Teaching kids to beware the gov't and stay away from its systems is far better advice than teaching them to accept and depend on it, IMO.


You might want to share that information with this young woman because so far she has had no success. 

https://www.facebook.com/8827326284...2732628415890/883164911705995/?type=1&theater


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Did you listen to the audio between the mother and the CPS worker and police? Trying to run off with the kids and making the statements she did were what caused the kids to be considered in enough danger to be removed. They had every reason to think if they left the family would disappear. In order for CPS to work with you they have to feel like you will actually be there to work with them.
> 
> This woman handled it so badly. And yes if you have a blog and CPS gets a call about you they may just look at your publicly posted information about your family. :doh: That's not stalking that is fact checking.



I'm not able to listen to it but moms do get somewhat panicked if they think they're going to lose their kids and I'm of the opinion that police and CPS should know that and be trained to diffuse volatile situations. 

My ex left my kids in a hotel room for 6 hours while he was in a cell before mentioning this to someone and when I picked them of from CPS, I clearly stated that if it happened again, they would need to bring a body bag and yet it was assumed I was angry, not dangerous. 

It doesn't sound like these folks have a great deal of money so I doubt if the would run that far and if they did, I'm sure it would be on their blog soon enough.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> You might want to share that information with this young woman because so far she has had no success.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/8827326284...2732628415890/883164911705995/?type=1&theater




As I stated simply go to the Fed dept of education and the one page on the subject comes up with current guidelines and it applies both to illegals as well as us citizens.

Which is why I mentioned it as it in reading up on the subject ....she lacked some of the legally consider mandatory docs that the school dept felt she needs to enrolled the children... thus the school districts actions of of requirements are legally not federal mandated to be required.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I'm not able to listen to it but moms do get somewhat panicked if they think they're going to lose their kids and I'm of the opinion that police and CPS should know that and be trained to diffuse volatile situations.
> 
> My ex left my kids in a hotel room for 6 hours while he was in a cell before mentioning this to someone and when I picked them of from CPS, I clearly stated that if it happened again, they would need to bring a body bag and yet it was assumed I was angry, not dangerous.
> 
> It doesn't sound like these folks have a great deal of money so I doubt if the would run that far and if they did, I'm sure it would be on their blog soon enough.


The Sheriff was extremely patient. He spoke to her for at least 20 minutes trying to calm her down and have a rational conversation. The father had run off with 8 of the 10 kids. The simple solution would have been to have the father who was at the heart of the problem due to his threatening the neighbor with a gun come back and speak to them. He escalated things by refusing to allow them on the property without a warrant and then running off when he knew they were coming back. If he was any sort of a man or a father he would have been there to answer the charges and let his wife take care of the kids.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> As I stated simply go to the Fed dept of education and the one page on the subject comes up with current guidelines and it applies both to illegals as well as us citizens.
> 
> Which is why I mentioned it as it in reading up on the subject ....she lacked some of the legally consider mandatory docs that the school dept felt she needs to enrolled the children... thus the school districts actions of of requirements are legally not federal mandated to be required.


She doesn't want to go to grammar school she wants to have a life. Get a job, drive a car, vote, go to college. Be a normal American citizen. Getting a child with squiffy immigration status into elementary school has no bearing on this case.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well she can be our next president...


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> I didn't say they shouldn't or couldn't stand for what they believe in but activism often comes with an associated cost.
> 
> Are you also prepared to support daddy's right to his neighbour's water? After all, he seems to feel strongly enough to threaten someone for it.


I'd say first of all, we have no idea if the accusation is legitimate and if someone gets the benefit of the doubt, it's not going to be CPS or some ticked off neighbor. 

Secondly, since when do threats equal the stealing of one's children? People Actually assault others every day, do the time or pay the penalty, and keep their kids.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> What if the children grow up and don't want to live in a tent in the family compound? Will they have marketable skills?


What if millions of kids across the country don't want to grow up as cyborgs of the state learning their useless indoctrination into this absurd system?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Woolieface said:


> What if millions of kids across the country don't want to grow up as cyborgs of the state learning their useless indoctrination into this absurd system?


They can have their parents teach the basics at home. The only requirement in my state is that the parents actually teach them those basics.... and that doesnt take much.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> It's not a non-issue for illegals. I have no idea what you base that thought on. It's also a red herring.
> 
> For these children it will mean misery trying to prove who they are and that they are legal citizens. If you look at the link I posted above several kids have come forward lately with no evidence they exist and talked about the problems they are having. They have no birth certificates, no SS numbers, no record of their existence via school or medical records. They can not get jobs, driver's licenses, can't vote, etc.
> 
> Parents can chose to secede from the government and normal life if they like but they have no right to hamstring their children this way.


I voluntarily ditched my "papers" a long time ago. What misery?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Woolieface said:


> What if millions of kids across the country don't want to grow up as cyborgs of the state learning their useless indoctrination into this absurd system?



That sounds quite dramatic but unless they have a trust fund, they will still need at least basic skills to survive. Even land to pitch a tent and grow food costs money, unless you advocate squatting. 

I look at the many Hutterite kids that leave colonies annually with a most a 7th grade education and it's pretty tough for them. I recently had to help him fill out forms for custody of his child and go to court with him to help him understand the proceedings and explain what the judge was telling him.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> You might want to share that information with this young woman because so far she has had no success.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/8827326284...2732628415890/883164911705995/?type=1&theater





Patchouli said:


> She doesn't want to go to grammar school she wants to have a life. Get a job, drive a car, vote, go to college. Be a normal American citizen. Getting a child with squiffy immigration status into elementary school has no bearing on this case.


Then we are talking about two different things.
She *wants* to get into the system with a B/C, SS card, pay taxes, be a U.S. citizen and vote.
I'm talking about getting an EIN from the Social Security office, remaining a non-citizen, get a driver's license and pay no income taxes.
If she wants to join, fine with me. There are ways to do that as well, but I won't be giving out that advice.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> I voluntarily ditched my "papers" a long time ago. What misery?


Interesting. You remind me of someone I used to know.  

So curiosity question: Do you have children? If you do did you get rid of their papers or ever get them for them in the first place? Did you get rid of your papers after you were established in life? Before you say went to college? Held a job? Made enough to buy a place to live? Because it's one thing to toss them after all of that and when you could still prove who you are via the system anytime you like and making that choice for your child and leaving them no way at all to ever get started in life. If you do have children I hope you have thought that through pretty thoroughly and you either own a 100 acre farm you can give them a piece of to make their own life on or you have some other way to support them the rest of their lives.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

There is a guy who is in his 40's I know who has never had a birth certificate or a S.S. number. he works for my dad some and I have hired him to help on the farm some. He rents a house in town and has had several jobs around that I know of. he just bought himself a used van last time I was home. I do not think not being registered with the system is automatically a sentence to a life of poverty and hardship. The guy I know seems to be doing just fine?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> There is a guy who is in his 40's I know who has never had a birth certificate or a S.S. number. he works for my dad some and I have hired him to help on the farm some. He rents a house in town and has had several jobs around that I know of. he just bought himself a used van last time I was home. I do not think not being registered with the system is automatically a sentence to a life of poverty and hardship. The guy I know seems to be doing just fine?


You can't legally hire someone without a birth certificate or a SS number. If you are paying him cash to do odd jobs that's a whole 'nother ballgame. You can buy a used vehicle with cash too. Same with renting a house, depends on what the owner needs to know. 

I don't know what your state laws are for getting a driver's license but here in AR he couldn't get one. If he got one 20 years ago and never let it expire the laws may have been more lax. Try getting one for the first time today with neither of those. 

But the real question here is do you really want to leave your kids with no other option than living under the radar on cash only? Just because somebody can do it living a minimalist lifestyle doesn't mean you should limit your kid's future that way.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I am sorry, but that is not the real question to me. The real question is not if I have the right to, as you put it "limit my kids" or as others see it help them avoid becoming "part of the system". The real question for me is, if I do not have the right to make decisions for what is best for my own children, then why should someone else be given the right to make those decisions? What qualifies a stranger to decide the future for children they have no real responsibility for.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> You can't legally hire someone without a birth certificate or a SS number. If you are paying him cash to do odd jobs that's a whole 'nother ballgame. You can buy a used vehicle with cash too. Same with renting a house, depends on what the owner needs to know.
> 
> I don't know what your state laws are for getting a driver's license but here in AR he couldn't get one. If he got one 20 years ago and never let it expire the laws may have been more lax. Try getting one for the first time today with neither of those.
> 
> But the real question here is do you really want to leave your kids with no other option than living under the radar on cash only? Just because somebody can do it living a minimalist lifestyle doesn't mean you should limit your kid's future that way.



Actually, that's not true.
The SCOTUS ruled on that in 1990. Refusing to hire without a SS# can be grounds for an EEOC lawsuit, although the results are mixed.
There are differences among the states on D/L requirements, but most have alternative provisions and if necessary, get one from another state. 
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/employees_without_ssns.html
Getting a SS# without a birth certificate is possible as well, though it may not be easy.

It may seem like a harder path to most, but isn't that what freedom of choice is all about?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Hence the reason I love va. When we file religious exemption from school, that's it. The county and state write them off and you hear nothing from them again. It's the parents right to teach their kids whatever they chose. Not the govt.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> I am sorry, but that is not the real question to me. The real question is not if I have the right to, as you put it "limit my kids" or as others see it help them avoid becoming "part of the system". The real question for me is, if I do not have the right to make decisions for what is best for my own children, then why should someone else be given the right to make those decisions? What qualifies a stranger to decide the future for children they have no real responsibility for.


I would hope that the real question all of us are asking is what is truly best for all of our children. That we wouldn't put our personal whims or politics ahead of the long term health and happiness of our kids. If a parent's first thought is about rights and not their children's welfare then I think their priorities are skewed. 

In the case of this family we are discussing the audio the mother recorded herself shows exactly where her priorities lay and it was not with her kids. It was with her rights. The Sheriff pleaded with her to put her kids first and she refused. I don't understand that at all as a mother of three sons myself.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Actually, that's not true.
> The SCOTUS ruled on that in 1990. Refusing to hire without a SS# can be grounds for an EEOC lawsuit, although the results are mixed.
> There are differences among the states on D/L requirements, but most have alternative provisions and if necessary, get one from another state.
> http://www.twc.state.tx.us/news/efte/employees_without_ssns.html
> ...


Do you hire and fire people in a real world job situation? That is a lovely bunch of semantics that in the real world is meaningless. 

And this is not freedom of choice when it was the parents who made the choice for the child. Get the paperwork and then let your kid drop it if they choose. But don't leave them with no way to prove who they are or that they are an American citizen because that is not freedom of choice that is tyranny.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

You are making the assumption that a parent is making the best choice for themselves and not the children because they disagree with you on registration. You believe everyone should register their kids, and you have the right to register your kids, no one is telling you what to do with your kids. But because others do not believe as you do, they are putting themselves first and not thinking of what is best for the kids.

Could I not make the same statement to you? Do not out your put your whims or personal politics ahead of your children by choosing for them, but allow them to register when they get to an age they can decide for themselves.

You see when we choose to control other people and their children, because we do not agree with them, or we think we know what is best more than they do when it comes to their own children, that is tyranny, not a parent making what they believe is the best choice for their own children.

Sorry I just can not comprehend how someone would want to interject their believe on another persons decision when it comes to their children.

I do not agree with you on registration. Clearly we will probably never agree on this. I do appreciate your involvement in this conversation, and I respect that you are entitled to your point of view. But honestly, I would never attempt to tell you what is best for you or your children. They are your children and it is your responsibility to make those decisions for them until they reach an age of understanding and can decide for themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Sorry I just can not comprehend how someone would want to i*nterject their believe on another persons decision *when it comes to their children.


Many want to do that on most every topic imaginable.

Just read most any thread on most any forum for examples


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Well said Muleman.

Patchouli, here's a few examples of things to consider, when considering whether the group consensus of the masses should oversee the rights to decisions of individual families.

I don't know if these are hot button issues for you. But, generally, I would consider them to be hot button issues with a group large enough to be considered a demographic.

What about parents who structure their children's lives around:

restrictive diets like veganism,
pursuit of afterschool tutoring like some Asian communities,
amish people only schooling until 8th grade,
mormom people raising their children with the expectation of a 2 year mission,
helicopter parenting,
free range parenting,
pursuit of an artistic or athletic career to the detriment of almost all else,
sending their children to live with other relatives for various reasons,
orthodox religious practices,
political activism,
performing arts,
highly urban only lifestyle,
highly rural only lifestyle,
highly mobile, extensive traveling lifestyle,
total removal of access to technology,
total free access to technology, social networking, video games,
unrestricted access to family and friends who may be dangerous,
complete isolation from family and friends who may be dangerous.

My point is that, these types of lifestyles may be seen by others as over the top. They may be seen as perfectly acceptable by some. They may be the right choice in the end for a child. They may be a mistake in the end for a child. Sometimes, they may be seen as crazy by people at the time, but in the end sometime those children grow up and tell about what an interesting and rich childhood they had growing up. They may feel more connected in a positive way to a particular cultural type of life or experience, and be envied by others for the childhood they had. They may not.

But, what makes our constitution so outstanding and historically successful is that it gave families the freedom to make those decisions and lead lifestyles that might not be "typical" if they so choose.

That's disappearing now because people seem to approach each other from a place of presumed judgment and an assumption that individuals only have the right to life choices if everyone else gives them a thumbs up.

That's not only wrong. It's doomed to failure. None of the things we've concocted, CPS, public schools, state-run mental healthcare, prisons, etc have become wild successes. They haven't overcome the social issues they were meant to cure and quite frequently, very tragic stories are published of individuals experiences in those systems. And, all the rest of us and future generations are being burdened by what it's all costing us.

It's true some people have very unfortunate things happen to them in childhood. It can be tragic, but I don't believe government intervention is the thing that will ever solve that ultimately.

I think you're probably a great parent. I think you're undoubtedly the best parent for the kids that God gave you. I don't want to ever tell you what you should do about anything concerning your children. I'm sure you could agree with that. And, I'm sure you'd want anyone who was even considering passing judgment on you, to have those assumptions as well. Can you see though how that is disappearing?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Is it a legal choice to register or not register children in the U.S.?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Is it a legal choice to register or not register children in the U.S.?


If born at home without a Dr. or midwife, yes.
Highly discouraged, but legal.


Here's a link showing how to get documentation of birth later in life, it can be passed on to the young girl below, I don't do facebook.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/mvsact92b.pdf 



Patchouli said:


> You might want to share that information with this young woman because so far she has had no success.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/8827326284...2732628415890/883164911705995/?type=1&theater


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I love in an area with a high amish / Mennonite population. The hospital here delivers babies all the tune with no paperwork. And they don't push the issue. Our neighbors converted to amish 2 years ago. Both their boys have birth certificate and ss numbers. But their daughter born last year in rmh hospital does not.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> If born at home without a Dr. or midwife, yes.
> Highly discouraged, but legal.
> 
> 
> ...


Her parents refuse to help which has left her with only her grandparents to help her. Explain to me how that is the parents putting her welfare first and not just their messed up political and religious views.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Dutchie said:


> There was a lot more to this situation than what the OP's article mentioned.
> 
> *And educational standards are not the family's business. If kids aren't educated properly they become a burden to society. I am all for home schooling provided the parents are educated enough themselves to provide the appropriate education to their children. Unfortunately, I know many homeschooling parents who don't have that ability*.


I agree completely. And I DID homeschool my daughters. One is a college graduate and CPA and one is a sophomore in one of the top colleges in the country. 
I know of plenty of homeschooling families who have no business homeschooling and the kids come out the losers.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Gibbsgirls raised some good questions with her post. There are many things we all disagree upon. My children make decisions I do not agree with and I will not support. They know this, but are free to do as they choose. You ask someone to explain how the girls parents are not putting themselves first by refusing to change their belief system and do something ow that they apparently thought was not good before. If I honestly believe my child will burn their hand if they touch a hot stove am I putting myself first by not agreeing to help them touch it? 

I still think many of you are missing the real question. What business it is of yours or mine to interject OUR belief system into the affairs of another family? That is the real issue. Are we free to make decisions for our families or not. 

If that family who refuses to help their child register with the state were to attempt to force you to un-register your child would you feel they were infringing upon your parental rights? As you would infringe upon them to register their children based upon your belief system. 

This is where I am at on this topic. I have my beliefs, just as everyone here has their beliefs, as to what is right or wrong, what is good and bad. All of our beliefs are not based on the same things. We have all had different life experiences, which has been a big part of forming our beliefs. However, at what point should our life experiences and beliefs count for more than anyone else's to the point we feel qualified to make decisions for that person and what is best for their family based on our experiences and beliefs and discount theirs?

Now if some want to pick and choose individual cases to prove their view is right and an entire way of doing things they disagree with is wrong based on that narrow view, well I am just not sure how we get past that and ever get to a point where there can be a reasonable discourse.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wr said:


> That sounds quite dramatic but unless they have a trust fund, they will still need at least basic skills to survive. Even land to pitch a tent and grow food costs money, unless you advocate squatting.
> 
> I look at the many Hutterite kids that leave colonies annually with a most a 7th grade education and it's pretty tough for them. I recently had to help him fill out forms for custody of his child and go to court with him to help him understand the proceedings and explain what the judge was telling him.


What about it is dramatic if saying that someday a kid might not want to live in a tent, etc. isn't? The system IS absurd and it IS indoctrination. I know I wish I had not ever been subjected to it. Everything that people argue a kid will not fit into if they live such a lifestyle is precisely what some of us never wanted to be a part of.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Dutchie said:


> There was a lot more to this situation than what the OP's article mentioned.
> 
> And educational standards are not the family's business. If kids aren't educated properly they become a burden to society. I am all for home schooling provided the parents are educated enough themselves to provide the appropriate education to their children. Unfortunately, I know many homeschooling parents who don't have that ability.


Oh please. So, who gets to be judge of that? The government who is doing a bang up job of churning out children by the hundreds of thousands decade after decade who are burdens to society?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Interesting. You remind me of someone I used to know.
> 
> So curiosity question: Do you have children? If you do did you get rid of their papers or ever get them for them in the first place? Did you get rid of your papers after you were established in life? Before you say went to college? Held a job? Made enough to buy a place to live? Because it's one thing to toss them after all of that and when you could still prove who you are via the system anytime you like and making that choice for your child and leaving them no way at all to ever get started in life. If you do have children I hope you have thought that through pretty thoroughly and you either own a 100 acre farm you can give them a piece of to make their own life on or you have some other way to support them the rest of their lives.


Let's say I'm wise enough not to post every last detail of my life anywhere on the net, but here's what I'll answer:

Yes, I ditched them as an adult. What's unfortunate about making that decision at some point when you're already in the system is that it's much harder to get out than to get in. Kind of like the mafia.

I held jobs before doing it (which were unpleasant, useless in my opinion, and amounted to being a cog in the wheel) and found necessary income to meet my needs afterwards.

It's not hard to get in the system and things are generally easier in many ways if you are in the system, I just don't happen to think easier=better much of the time. I'm a happier person today.

It's ridiculous to say the choice to raise a child that way eliminates their possibilities of being a part of any of that. What's far more opressive is knowing that you were unwittingly sold out to the state by your parents when you could not make a decision for yourself and you will have to be very determined if you ever want to get out.

The government is by no means adverse to getting you on paper with a good bribe.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Her parents refuse to help which has left her with only her grandparents to help her. Explain to me how that is the parents putting her welfare first and not just their messed up political and religious views.



I cannot and will not explain her parents motivation, since I don't know the facts about them, I have no way to explain, condemn or defend them.

The only reason I replied and provided you the link was to show how another blood relative or even a family friend, can swear an affidavit attesting to her age and nationality in order to facilitate her getting the gov't documents she desired.

I can have compassion for someone even though I may disagree. Actually I wish I could trade places with her. 
But I thought maybe this was someone you knew and wanted to help, so I obliged. Her last facebook posting on Feb. 16th was a hopeful meeting with a member of the legislature.

In my case, an SS # was given to me when my mother became a young widow in the 70's and had to raise her two boys by herself. My dad's SS money was known as survivor benefits and several years worth of checks came in mine and my brother's name which she used to keep a roof over our head and feed us, and she worked full time as well.
I don't doubt for a minute (yesterday was Mother's Day, BTW) that she did the very best she could. 
However, now that I wish to withdraw from this malevolent benefactor's grasp, the legal question arises about my "debt" to be repaid or even if I am allowed to do that, seeing as I "volunteered" to take that money........at 11 years old.
Further, there is the matter of "donating" ALL 30+ years of SS and Medicare paycheck deductions and receive zero forever more once I withdraw.
That's right, they may require I repay my debt and not reciprocate for me. 
Depending on how the math works out, I may take the offer anyway.

But my real point was, my mother did what she thought was best because she loved me, and my circumstances now don't change that fact.
I may not always understand my mother's ways or always agree with them, but I don't doubt her love.


As in both of our cases, there is much information that is not known, withheld or misstated among the general public and only diligent research can uncover ways to navigate the minefield of life.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

As American citizens we are all born with certain rights in this country. If what you are doing as a parent is something that is a direct attempt to deny your child citizenship in this country then it is wrong and should be stopped. By refusing to document their existence in any way you are denying them their citizenship and their full rights. 

If you want to beat your child to death because your religion or your messed up brain tells you to do it then the government should absolutely step in. In some areas the government has a duty to protect it's citizens. Keep in mind the mother of this family said she would not call the police if she saw her own child being beat bloody nor in her opinion should the police show up if someone else called. How warped is that? Do you agree with that? Is that how far parental rights go to you?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> As American citizens we are all born with certain rights in this country. If what you are doing as a parent is something that is a direct attempt to deny your child citizenship in this country then it is wrong and should be stopped. By refusing to document their existence in any way you are denying them their citizenship and their full rights.
> 
> If you want to beat your child to death because your religion or your messed up brain tells you to do it then the government should absolutely step in. In some areas the government has a duty to protect it's citizens. Keep in mind the mother of this family said she would not call the police if she saw her own child being beat bloody nor in her opinion should the police show up if someone else called. How warped is that? Do you agree with that? Is that how far parental rights go to you?


I'll only point out that being born here gives you those rights automatically, they are not bestowed upon you by gov't documents, but by the Creator Himself.
That is the profound truth that our founding fathers tried to pass on to us and the truth that is tried to be kept hidden by the dictators of today, no matter how benevolent they may seem.
It would take an entire thread on the 14th amendment to explain this thoroughly, and in the end, you may agree to dismiss it anyway.

A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. 
So what may seem abominable to you, is equally abhorrent to us, as if we were giving a child to a wolf, rather than a sheep.


ETA, if what you quoted the mother saying is true, I wonder is than in context?
If my child were being beaten, the only phone call I MIGHT make to 911, is well AFTER I had taken care of the criminal, certainly not while it was going on......


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Let's say I'm wise enough not to post every last detail of my life anywhere on the net, but here's what I'll answer:
> 
> Yes, I ditched them as an adult. What's unfortunate about making that decision at some point when you're already in the system is that it's much harder to get out than to get in. Kind of like the mafia.
> 
> ...


You know ultimately you and I can speculate all day long but we won't know for sure that your kids can get out and thrive or that they can survive in the lifestyle your family has chosen until they actually sink or swim. And I sincerely hope they thrive. I think with good parents who really love their kids they will do well in life no matter how different their childhood is and I don't knock choosing to live life differently. We were anything but mainstream. But our kids were still given everything they needed to do whatever they want in life. 

I can tell you from my own personal experience being raised in a whacko, abusive, fundamentalist home that chose to withhold my documents from me and that chose to keep me out of the culture as much as possible it was very difficult to get going. I managed to steal my documentation and went in the military and that gave a me a safe transition into the real world. The religious end of things took a lot longer to slough off and the abuse well it's there forever. 

There is a really good website out there put up by former homeschoolers who were raised in far more restrictive and crazy homes than mine and it chronicles their even greater difficulty getting on their feet in the real world. I would highly recommend reading it, this link specifically talks about the family in this thread but the whole website is good: https://homeschoolersanonymous.word...le-naugler-the-off-grid-homeschooling-family/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll only point out that being born here gives you those rights automatically, they are not bestowed upon you by gov't documents, but by the Creator Himself.
> That is the profound truth that our founding fathers tried to pass on to us and the truth that is tried to be kept hidden by the dictators of today, no matter how benevolent they may seem.
> It would take an entire thread on the 14th amendment to explain this thoroughly, and in the end, you may agree to dismiss it anyway.
> 
> ...


It's in the audio she recorded herself in the link I posted above, probably a couple of pages back now. I listened to the entire thing myself. She told the Sheriff he was wrong to come out just because somebody called him or CPS. He walked her through why he comes out on calls. He was very patient and very kind. He said he has to come out on every call because it may be a crank call or someone's life could really be at stake. Then he walked her through a hypothetical situation of what if a neighbor's child was being beat bloody? She said she wouldn't call and the police shouldn't come. He said what if it was her child and she responded the same. She said she would take care of things herself and the police should never step in. Never ever, in her opinion they have no rightful existence at all. No one should ever interfere in a family's business. Heaven help the child with 2 parents who believe beating them bloody is okay.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

You know if you had started your argument for others to step into family decisions based on the troubled childhood you experienced, it would have explained a lot to everyone involved in this discussion as to why you were so biased in your opinions and quick to step into someone else's affairs. I am truly sorry you had to experience such a troubled upbringing. I can certainly see where it has scared you for life and quite honestly, seems to have impaired you from viewing things from others points of view who experienced quite a different upbringing. I wish you nothing but peace and healing, but would also warn that will not come from attempting to force your beliefs on others as to what is right and wrong.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Every social problem that could be listed here was something that existed prior to the explosion of "government social programs". And, they all were dealt with within their local families, churches, communities, etc.

The margin of success or failure of those efforts were not perfect. But, neither is the success/failure record of the government programs. I prefer the local way to deal with it-not the federal/state way. If those people are left to deal with, they will do a better job. They have an automatic vested interest in the problems because they know the people and they will be motivated to make their community thrive.

Churches are a great example of that work in motion. Most struggle now to just exist. I don't think it's a coincidence that churches whose function was not just worship but community support lost huge amounts of $$$ and attendance when the govt social programs cropped up and offered the same type services without any commitment or close accountability from those it helped in return.

Your ears may have heard that mom say that she would let someone beat a child. My ears didn't. I heard her say she wouldn't call the cops. 

But, that in no way infers that she wouldn't do something about it. You know the vast majority of all abusive crimes don't end up involving law enforcement. Do you think that they never get dealt with just because the cops and CPS aren't involved?

Remember, that same recording showed that when those cops took her kids, she was hysterically screaming (while pregnant) that they could go ahead and shoot her if they had to because she was going to protect her kids from them. I don't think she was being dramatic. I think she would have taken a bullet for her two babies, who are likely bigger than her now that they are teens. I think she didn't get shot because the cops chose not to.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Every social problem that could be listed here was something that existed prior to the explosion of "government social programs". And, they all were dealt with within their local families, churches, communities, etc.
> 
> The margin of success or failure of those efforts were not perfect. But, neither is the success/failure record of the government programs. I prefer the local way to deal with it-not the federal/state way. If those people are left to deal with, they will do a better job. They have an automatic vested interest in the problems because they know the people and they will be motivated to make their community thrive.
> 
> ...


I think she lucked out with some of the most patient cops in the country. I did hear her screaming bloody murder but again I have a hard time sympathising when she created that situation and then didn't like it when the police officer finally followed through. And her deadbeat husband should have been there dealing with it not leaving his very pregnant wife there to deal with he mess he created. 

I know for a fact that most of the abuse cases in this country never get taken care of unless the state steps in. It may not be a perfect system but your idea that anybody else will step in is a load of horse manure. My father was a Pastor and I was in church 16 times a week and you know what? Nobody stepped in because a whole lot of good God fearing Christians think it is perfectly okay to beat the crap out of your kids in order to keep them on the straight and narrow. And they are people just like the ones on here who feel it isn't right to step in between a parent and a child. They just look the other way and let the abuse happen. 

The world was never Mayberry.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I think she lucked out with some of the most patient cops in the country. I did hear her screaming bloody murder but again I have a hard time sympathising when she created that situation and then didn't like it when the police officer finally followed through. And her deadbeat husband should have been there dealing with it not leaving his very pregnant wife there to deal with he mess he created.
> 
> I know for a fact that most of the abuse cases in this country never get taken care of unless the state steps in. It may not be a perfect system but your idea that anybody else will step in is a load of horse manure. My father was a Pastor and I was in church 16 times a week and you know what? Nobody stepped in because a whole lot of good God fearing Christians think it is perfectly okay to beat the crap out of your kids in order to keep them on the straight and narrow. And they are people just like the ones on here who feel it isn't right to step in between a parent and a child. They just look the other way and let the abuse happen.
> 
> The world was never Mayberry.


If a stranger in street clothes comes into your home and tries to drag your kids off, nobody is going to bat an eye if you lose your ever loving mind on them. Let that stranger come in with a clip board and a uniform and you're supposed to what? Nod, smile and pack the kids up for their trip? Give me a break already. It's human nature, and it's GOOD human nature to defend your children against people who want to steal them.

Let me not get started on state sponsored child abuse and what happens to some kids who don't get returned to the custody of their parents


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Pat, you obviously suffered some type of abuse growing up, in a home which you identify as relating to that you see in this story. The hurt that you are obviously still feeling is spoken loud and clear in your post. However, as I previously stated, painting everyone who reminds you of your family and your past with the same abusive brush does not make it so. I certainly hope you have someone you are able to talk to to deal with the issues you are still having with this, so that one day you can look at others who remind you of your past and not feel the need to judge them by your experiences.

And on a personal note, NO my first thought would not be to call the cops if someone were to attempt to harm one of my children. I would deal with the situation and give them the same warning my father gave one of my ex-brother in laws. "The next time they will come get you in a body bag" So yes, I would die and or kill to protect my children, if the situation called for violence, then it would be used.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> If a stranger in street clothes comes into your home and tries to drag your kids off, nobody is going to bat an eye if you lose your ever loving mind on them. Let that stranger come in with a clip board and a uniform and you're supposed to what? Nod, smile and pack the kids up for their trip? Give me a break already. It's human nature, and it's GOOD human nature to defend your children against people who want to steal them.
> 
> Let me not get started on state sponsored child abuse and what happens to some kids who don't get returned to the custody of their parents


Again listen to the audio. The kids never had to be taken at all. They were taken because the parents refused repeatedly to let anyone speak with them. The Sheriff told her if they were not able to speak to the kids and sort out the complaint then the Judge would issue a warrant and the kids would be removed. The mother kept claiming she had an attorney and they were trying to get the attorney to set something up. She flat refused to let the Sheriff speak with the kids. She eventually had the 2 oldest come out and stand there so he could see them. That was it. 

These people are not even homeschoolers according to state law in Kentucky. They never filed the paperwork. So technically speaking all of their children are truant and they could be picked up just on that charge alone. These parents created the situation and then screamed abuse when they got exactly what they asked for. 

And one more time if the FATHER who created this entire situation by theft, threatening a neighbor with bodily harm and then running away with 8 of his kids had just stayed home all of this could have been avoided. All he had to do was talk to the police. What's the worst case here he gets arrested? Wouldn't be his first time. Far better he is a real man and does his duty than all 10 of his children get taken into custody and his preganat wife goes to jail.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> Pat, you obviously suffered some type of abuse growing up, in a home which you identify as relating to that you see in this story. The hurt that you are obviously still feeling is spoken loud and clear in your post. However, as I previously stated, painting everyone who reminds you of your family and your past with the same abusive brush does not make it so. I certainly hope you have someone you are able to talk to to deal with the issues you are still having with this, so that one day you can look at others who remind you of your past and not feel the need to judge them by your experiences.
> 
> And on a personal note, NO my first thought would not be to call the cops if someone were to attempt to harm one of my children. I would deal with the situation and give them the same warning my father gave one of my ex-brother in laws. "The next time they will come get you in a body bag" So yes, I would die and or kill to protect my children, if the situation called for violence, then it would be used.


What would you do if it was your neighbors kids?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I think she lucked out with some of the most patient cops in the country. I did hear her screaming bloody murder but again I have a hard time sympathising when she created that situation and then didn't like it when the police officer finally followed through. And her deadbeat husband should have been there dealing with it not leaving his very pregnant wife there to deal with he mess he created.
> 
> I know for a fact that most of the abuse cases in this country never get taken care of unless the state steps in. It may not be a perfect system but your idea that anybody else will step in is a load of horse manure. My father was a Pastor and I was in church 16 times a week and you know what? Nobody stepped in because a whole lot of good God fearing Christians think it is perfectly okay to beat the crap out of your kids in order to keep them on the straight and narrow. And they are people just like the ones on here who feel it isn't right to step in between a parent and a child. They just look the other way and let the abuse happen.
> 
> The world was never Mayberry.


I'm sorry for you. You seem to be in a lot of pain and I guess this topic has hit a nerve. I hope you find some peace and contentment with the things that have happened to you in the past. They are in the past. I hope your future has more Mayberry in it.

I wish you a lot of luck and blessings to do so. The world is full of good and evil and I don't deny that. I just differ with you on how I think it should be handled. It will never be rid of it completely though.

I don't doubt the authenticity of your personal experiences. But, everyone has their own experiences. That's what I believe makes it so important for us all to be free to make our own decisions. The government just isn't the answer.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> I'm sorry for you. You seem to be in a lot of pain and I guess this topic has hit a nerve. I hope you find some peace and contentment with the things that have happened to you in the past. They are in the past. I hope your future has more Mayberry in it.
> 
> I wish you a lot of luck and blessings to do so. The world is full of good and evil and I don't deny that. I just differ with you on how I think it should be handled. It will never be rid of it completely though.
> 
> I don't doubt the authenticity of your personal experiences. But, everyone has their own experiences. That's what I believe makes it so important for us all to be free to make our own decisions. The government just isn't the answer.


You know the honest truth is you and I probably agree almost completely on this subject. There are very few reasons I believe the government should step into a family. I have said that repeatedly here. The difference between us is you are arguing from the perspective of a good parent who deeply cares about their kids and knows so long as they are loved and taken care of all the rest really doesn't matter. I agree with you on that. But I know due to my own childhood that every parent is not like that. And I firmly believe children need protection from parents who are abusive. So I am arguing from the opposite end of the spectrum. 

Just out of curiosity is there any situation where you think the government should step in and take children away?


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Pat, I will be honest with you, if it were physical abuse which I witnessed and had no doubts as to what was happening then I would take the same steps to protect them. However, if it were simply a difference in lifestyle, religion or what I would view as a personal choice for the person and their family, it would be none of my business. If my neigbor decided not to send his children to school that is his choice. I have worked with and know people who lived in a house made of tar paper and plastic sheeting who had an army blanket nailed up for a front door. Their kids did not have new cloths and did not do a lot of the things I was able to do because they simply did not have the money. But would I have ever given a thought to turn them in to DHS or something like that? NO, I would not. The father worked and provided for his family as he seen fit and the best he could. They were simply poor and did not have much stuff? 

I know you may think I am trying to push an agenda, but I am simply relaying to you the experiences I have had which have been much different undoubtedly than your experiences. I have worked with some very uneducated people who have been very successful in their careers. One of the most well of men I know in my town quit school in the 8th grade to go to work. I barely finished high school, hated it and barely passed. I never attended college. I have made a very good living for myself with what most would consider a limited education. I know it is not PC in today's world, but I have not encouraged my children to pursue college. I simply do not see the benefit myself. Does that mean I am only looking out for myself, because I am discouraging them from higher education? I simply do not see it as a benefit and cannot recommend it to them. The same I am sure as some people do not see the benefit in a state run education system and cannot send their children to public school. Many do not see the benefit of being part of the system and do not get sign them up in it. That is not abuse, that is a parent making what they believe is the best choice for their children. In those types of situations, no I would never interject in them.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Pat, I guess I was typing while you were posting and I missed your last post, so I wanted to take a moment to respond. I am not a confrontational person. I do not do well with confrontations. I was on up in my years when I was finally able to admit I have a temper and learn to deal with it better by simply walking away from some situations. Normally, I will interact on subjects like this and then at a point where I feel I am no longer making progress and having a productive discussion I simply walk away and go elsewhere. I came very close to doing that with this thread. I am glad I did not. Thank you for sharing some personal information that I am sure is not the easiest thing for you to do, it helped me and I am sure others understand your perspective much better. Not saying I agree with it, but I understand it! haha. Anyway, Some of my experiences with government agencies has been less than good. I too grew up in the church. I have never lost my faith in God and continue to put my trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation. I have lost faith in what I was always a part of growing up which is organized religion, but that is really another topic for discussion. 

Now I will not give specifics, but what I will say in regards to your last post is I think government has no place in the family unit. Do I think children should always be left to the care of the parents, no matter what, even abuse? Absolutely not. There was a time when there were groups of people in communities to deal with just such situations. They lived in the community and were familiar with those in the community. They were able to handle situations with discretion when needed. There are still those groups out there, though not as many as they once were, as many are no longer PC. I still know of many situations where I live being handled locally with discretion, as it should be in my view, by people who fully understand the situation at hand.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> The difference between us is you are arguing from the perspective of a good parent who deeply cares about their kids and knows so long as they are loved and taken care of all the rest really doesn't matter. I agree with you on that. But I know due to my own childhood that every parent is not like that. And I firmly believe children need protection from parents who are abusive. So I am arguing from the opposite end of the spectrum.
> 
> Just out of curiosity is there any situation where you think the government should step in and take children away?


There are a few. But, there are probably way more that I would not which you might find upsetting.

And, just for FYI- I have my own childhood and young adulthood experiences. So, does my husband. So, did my mother and her sister. So, has some of my husband's family. So, has some of my father's family. They were pretty horrific at times. Lots of residual trauma that has had to be dealt with. Had the law involved in a few circumstances over the years. Most of the time not. Honestly, things were usually complicated by the law for us. And, ultimately we found resolution on our own. Some of those involved didn't. 

But, we decided to be survivors not victims. So, please don't mistakenly think that I or many other people disagreeing on here see the world through rose colored glasses. The collective experience of myself and my loved ones I draw from runs the full spectrum from mental, physical, drug, alcohol, sexual abuse. It runs all the way from simple controlling to people dying as a result.

But, my story is not unique. It's just mine. Lots of people out there. Lots of abuse. Lots and lots of definitions of abuse. Lots of people turn out okay. Some people don't. And, some people have never had abuse touch their lives. But, I think you might be surprised my how many more have.

Of course then there's the whole debate about what IS abuse anyway. Lots of room for murkiness in there.

Life is full of hardships. Life is not fair. Sometimes life is tragic. But, I still believe that the government programs have made sheeple believe that they will fix things, but they don't. It's just added another layer to the onion that by and large doesn't need to be there.

Also, I believe that nowadays a lot of people are more hesitant to invervene into families and communities to step in and say what needs to be said or do what needs to be done because the govt will step in and try and stop them.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I appreciate both of your opinions too even if we don't agree.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli,
Your life experiences color your view on this, as our own do for the rest of us. I said at the beginning I had my doubts about this man, his methods and his motivations. If he was just a hard working man doing his best, I would say I was on his side, but while I don't know him personally, and I may not believe everything happened exactly as it was portrayed in the news story, if some of what I read of his past is true, I think he may have brought this on himself.
In spite of that, let me say that I wish I had been around when you were being hurt. I have dealt with a few of those situations over many years, and when I handled it personally, my success rate is 100%. I have also called the law to intervene a few times and their success rate is considerably less, about 50% and takes a heckuva lot longer.
I was taught well by the elder men in my family, so whether he wears a priest collar, a uniform or overalls, it makes no difference to me. If I see it or know about it, we'll have one short conversation and it stops right then and there.
My wife, OTOH, has worked with the system, as legal representation for children who have been taken by the state, in several jurisdictions and 3 states. 
She's had to fight the state to return children to parents whose main crime was being poor and having a rebellious teenager skipping school and getting into trouble. The social workers made the parents who were already over-stressed, jump thru hoops to satisfy their their rather snobby standards.......and they did.
She's also had alcohol and drug addicted parents whose main concern in getting their children back, was keeping the welfare checks coming to them every month. Those kids were better off going just about anywhere except back home. And she had to fight the state to make sure THAT was handled correctly and quickly too!
Knowing enough of the situation to make the right call is difficult at best, and getting it done legally without further harming the children is darn near impossible. The best outcomes are when you can minimize the damage and give that child the best home, with the most love as you possibly can. And there's a whole lot of people who THINK they know what's best and a rare few, who actually can get it right almost every time, because no one gets it right ALL the time.

I'm no expert at counseling and child placement. My specialty is teaching grown men to keep their hands to themselves.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I looked for updates yesterday regarding the parent's attendance in court and there is little for news because of laws in place to protect children but it does seem they were charged with misdemeanor criminal charges. It is interesting that the father had another child who was 'taken away' several years ago and while he does comment, I'm not sure how it may relate to the children currently within the home. 

http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/...earing-to-Regain-Child-Custody-303273911.html


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Patchouli,
> Your life experiences color your view on this, as our own do for the rest of us. I said at the beginning I had my doubts about this man, his methods and his motivations. If he was just a hard working man doing his best, I would say I was on his side, but while I don't know him personally, and I may not believe everything happened exactly as it was portrayed in the news story, if some of what I read of his past is true, I think he may have brought this on himself.
> In spite of that, let me say that I wish I had been around when you were being hurt. I have dealt with a few of those situations over many years, and when I handled it personally, my success rate is 100%. I have also called the law to intervene a few times and their success rate is considerably less, about 50% and takes a heckuva lot longer.
> I was taught well by the elder men in my family, so whether he wears a priest collar, a uniform or overalls, it makes no difference to me. If I see it or know about it, we'll have one short conversation and it stops right then and there.
> ...


Well after seeing the fiascos we have had here in Arkansas lately with DHS and kids being "rehomed" with child molestors, the way they have handled the Stanley family case (which was wrong in my opinion, those children should not have been taken), and then the Bella Vista case where the ball was dropped so badly and the little boy was killed I really do understand the view that the state sucks at taking care of kids. I really do.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I looked for updates yesterday regarding the parent's attendance in court and there is little for news because of laws in place to protect children but it does seem they were charged with misdemeanor criminal charges. It is interesting that the father had another child who was 'taken away' several years ago and while he does comment, I'm not sure how it may relate to the children currently within the home.
> 
> http://www.wbko.com/home/headlines/...earing-to-Regain-Child-Custody-303273911.html



The statement from the oldest child is pretty serious.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

I thought this was a good article about the Naugler's way of homesteading from a person who lived off-grid with homesteading parents his whole life. His parents are still off-grid. 
https://homeschoolersanonymous.word...hooled-childs-thoughts-on-the-naugler-family/

He looks closely at their Blessed Homestead blog and Facebook page and comes to some conclusions that the family has placed their children in danger. The comments following the article are very interesting as well.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Belfrybat said:


> I thought this was a good article about the Naugler's way of homesteading from a person who lived off-grid with homesteading parents his whole life. His parents are still off-grid.
> https://homeschoolersanonymous.word...hooled-childs-thoughts-on-the-naugler-family/
> 
> He looks closely at their Blessed Homestead blog and Facebook page and comes to some conclusions that the family has placed their children in danger. The comments following the article are very interesting as well.



That is a very articulate and intelligent review of the situation as he sees it (and I would agree with him).


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I will be honest, I could not get the article to load after several attempts. However, after reading a bit on the sites home page and the titles of some of the other articles they featured. I certainly would not expect to find any articles on the site which would show homeschooling or conservative values in a positive light. The sites agenda certainly seems to be going in a different direction than that? 

I will try again later to see if I can get it to load as I like to read about these things from many points of view, even if they do have an agenda to push, it is interesting to me to see how they attempt to manipulate the information to prove their point in many cases. IDK, maybe not in this story?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Muleman said:


> I will be honest, I could not get the article to load after several attempts. However, after reading a bit on the sites home page and the titles of some of the other articles they featured. I certainly would not expect to find any articles on the site which would show homeschooling or conservative values in a positive light. The sites agenda certainly seems to be going in a different direction than that?
> 
> I will try again later to see if I can get it to load as I like to read about these things from many points of view, even if they do have an agenda to push, it is interesting to me to see how they attempt to manipulate the information to prove their point in many cases. IDK, maybe not in this story?


From the article:

"...When the family first moved to the property they did, indeed, have a cabin of sorts. In reality it was a small prefab home bought on credit. But this cabin was later returned. Where it stood is now a concrete slab, bare and seen in photos as a resting place for a heard of goats...."

Well..... a HEARD of goats...... I don't know, but, good journalists can spell. lol


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

The discussions here and all around on-line about this family that I've read are exactly why I don't think the govt should have the authority to interfere. It's a David vs. Goliath type fight once they decide to get involved. But, it frequently ends up being a frightening modern day witch hunt.

What I see often is that once the "target" is identified, the onslaught of issues they have to defend against is almost limitless.

They are forced to answer to a neverending list of constantly evolving concerns that the govt has assigned itself the right to judge them on.....

types of housing, utilities
types of transportation,
types of schooling,
types of employment,
types of pets,
types of people living or associating
types of childcare
types of medical care
types of medicine about
all kinds of questions about what/who the child has access to
types of _______________
there is no limit to the list.....

And, the govt does it in their own time. All while life is happening and people sit in traumatic limbo.

Used to be that if the govt had proof of a specific crime, they could arrest a specific person, and they had to provide that person all the details of what the charges were and guarantee legal representation be available upon request.

If anyone can't see that the former is what this family is going through and the latter is what they should be going through, then I pray for you. Because if too many of us lose sight of that, then there will be no one left to speak out when they come for each of us.

Cause I call what's happening to them and thousands of other families a witch hunt! By gosh, the govt is going to see that they answer for something in the end. A person can't defend themselves against such an unjust onslaught.

I swear, when I listen to that cop talking to that mother, do you know what I hear? I hear him trained to use the same type of coercion that battered women have to learn to identify and resist from men who are h*** bent on dominating them verbally or physically. He basically sounds cool and calm and collected at first and keeps ignoring everything she is saying. He draws out some cooperation from her, putting her under duress. He lets her think the issue is over for the moment, and then startles her when she tries to leave and exerts physical strength and intimidating shouting to force her to submit.

I'm sorry, that type of behavior is no way for a public servant to be trained. Totally unacceptable tactics. I've lived through trying to survive under the thumb of men who sound exactly like him. Makes my skin crawl. I'm sure what he was doing was exactly what he was trained to do. Seen cops with that same M.O. many times before. It's surreal to understand the comparisons.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> I will be honest, I could not get the article to load after several attempts. However, after reading a bit on the sites home page and the titles of some of the other articles they featured. I certainly would not expect to find any articles on the site which would show homeschooling or conservative values in a positive light. The sites agenda certainly seems to be going in a different direction than that?
> 
> I will try again later to see if I can get it to load as I like to read about these things from many points of view, even if they do have an agenda to push, it is interesting to me to see how they attempt to manipulate the information to prove their point in many cases. IDK, maybe not in this story?


Actually he is pro off-grid living and homeschooling. He is also very knowledgeable of what a homestead can and should look like to be functional vs. basically homeless squatters. I think anyone who homesteads will find his post valuable and on point. I hope you can get it to load. The pictures themselves speak a thousand words.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> From the article:
> 
> "...When the family first moved to the property they did, indeed, have a cabin of sorts. In reality it was a small prefab home bought on credit. But this cabin was later returned. Where it stood is now a concrete slab, bare and seen in photos as a resting place for a heard of goats...."
> 
> Well..... a HEARD of goats...... I don't know, but, good journalists can spell. lol


Really? First he is not a journalist just a guy raised by people who lived off-grid and had a nice self sufficient homestead giving his 2 cents on the situation. And if you knock anyone's knowledge for a misspelled word or two I guess you don't take most of the advice here seriously.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Have you looked at the pictures Gibbsgirl? This is their "house". 10 kids, 2 adults lived through the winter in this when they weren't sleeping in their car to try and stay warm. And this is after 2.5 years, this isn't just what they put up so they could build a real house. These are their children when all of them were sick from food poisoning. Cooked in the "kitchen" shown here.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Have you looked at the pictures Gibbsgirl? [/IMG]



Yep. And, I don't think I can pass judgment. First of all, I'm not there. I don't know for sure what is the whole of their reality. A picture might be worth a thousand words, but news, blogs, and facebook do not give you the complete picture.

Second, if their living conditions were do dire, wouldn't they look like they were starving or something? Wouldn't a bunch of children have died or been seen by emergency medical people repeatedly?

Third, I've seen plenty of people living the "trailer trash" lifestyle. Should we take all of their kids? Some of these pictures may look like squalor, but there's enough squalor around to debunk the notion that kids are removed just based on that.

Finally, what about all the urban/suburban kids out there "living the dream". Starving themselves to death, eating to obesity, shutting themselves off from society that is much closer to them than this family by staying plugged into on-line all the time, and smoking their dope and popping any pills they can get their hands on. I bet the facebook pages of those kids mothers isn't exactly representative of what their life really is either.

One more thing... I still believe this is a witchhunt. Conversations everywhere keep jumping around over exactly why this family is losing their kids.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

He certainly does not seem to be much of a carpenter, and I freely admit if he has been working on this place for 2 1/2 years it does not seem like they have made much progress? But at the same time, I am still just not sure taking their children and giving them over to the state is the answer. Like I said, I am just not a fan of government intervention into families. I am not going to comment on them on personal matter's as I simply do not know them. I do not know if this is a man really trying to do the best he can for his family and is just not very successful, or if this a lazy bum who is fine living in poor conditions and simply does not care. If I lived there, I would probably know, but I don't. So based on the information I do know, I am just not ready to say having the government take the kids is the right thing to do. That would be a very last resort for me after all other options have been exhausted. I have seen local clubs help families in need with good results. I have seen local churches help families in need with good results. I have seen local individuals help families in need with good results. I have just not seen local gov. agencies help families in need with good results. My personal experiences have left me biased against gov. intervention.

Oh and thanks for posting the pics pat, I have not been able to get on their facebook thing yet? I think our connection here is just to slow for most of it?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Also, that first picture was captioned that spring had started and they we just getting started setting up an outdoor kitchen in March. It didn't say they were cooking in there right then, and then the kids got sick.

The second picture was saying the kids were sick and it was in July. If my kids were sick with fever, I'd let them hang out outside too if it felt like it was relieving them in July. Outside with breeze, fresh air and not having the germs locked up with the unsick ones on top of each other-not a completely dumb move.

I don't live like this family we're talking about. Some similarities. But, yes it would be fair to say my house/life/homeschooling probably would look different in pictures. But, I've seen worse, and don't think those people should be forced to lose their families either. We could nit-pick and banter all day about this.

Bottom line for me is, I sincerely questions the govt's right to interfere with their kids. The ends don't justify the means for witch-hunting people.

I also doubt that these parent's completely lack morals or integrity. They might not be perfect, but God and the constitution don't require any of us to be. I wouldn't put so much stuff on-line. But, I doubt they did it because they wanted to be snarky and fly it in the face of the authorities. I think they probably had a group of on-line friends and followers and were trying to document the how-tos and positives and negatives of their life so it could be a benefit to their family and others.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The article is an interesting read simply because the writer grew up off grid and his parents remain off grid (33 years) and only addresses the information gleaned from the family's facebook page and basically discusses issues that most homesteaders and outdoorsmen already know and if followed would have made their life a whole lot easier. 

What was discussed was pretty common sense for most homesteaders. It covers basic things like soil erosion, keeping water ecosystems alive and uncontaminated and animals and humans likely shouldn't share the same living space. Basically, in the words of my father, 'keep your camp clean.'


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Just had to share. Walked into some of my family watching Monty Python with supper. Started chuckling to myself cause it was the perfect scene for me right when I walked in. Made me giggle after the hot-topic we've been bantering about on here with the whole "should the government interfere or not" discussion.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY[/ame]


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> He certainly does not seem to be much of a carpenter, and I freely admit if he has been working on this place for 2 1/2 years it does not seem like they have made much progress? But at the same time, I am still just not sure taking their children and giving them over to the state is the answer. Like I said, I am just not a fan of government intervention into families. I am not going to comment on them on personal matter's as I simply do not know them. I do not know if this is a man really trying to do the best he can for his family and is just not very successful, or if this a lazy bum who is fine living in poor conditions and simply does not care. If I lived there, I would probably know, but I don't. So based on the information I do know, I am just not ready to say having the government take the kids is the right thing to do. That would be a very last resort for me after all other options have been exhausted. I have seen local clubs help families in need with good results. I have seen local churches help families in need with good results. I have seen local individuals help families in need with good results. I have just not seen local gov. agencies help families in need with good results. My personal experiences have left me biased against gov. intervention.
> 
> Oh and thanks for posting the pics pat, I have not been able to get on their facebook thing yet? I think our connection here is just to slow for most of it?


FB is so overloaded these days with pictures and videos even with high speed internet I have trouble getting it to load at times. 

It's kind of interesting you bring up local help. According to comments on their FB page from people who claimed to be from their community they have worn out their welcome at Churches and other charities. I believe they have also begged for money via their blog and FB page. If you have ever worked with any sort of charity you know there are 2 types of people: those genuinely down on their luck who need a hand up to get back on their feet and professional grifters. Everything I have read so far has screamed the latter. 

Oh and they actually had a pre-fab cabin when they first moved out there. They sold it or sent it back so they have actually gone backwards not forwards.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

On the upside their gofundme page is now up to almost $44,000 so maybe they will be able to build a real house when all is said and done.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I heard something about that, but how does go fund me work? Is it real money or is it some kind of loan? 
Again, I really know nothing about them so this is not directed at them at all.
The local churches in our area have formed a sort of partnership where each church donates into a single fund. This fund is designed to help people really in need and people passing through who may have run into trouble. Several years back they had to appoint a group of people to oversee it, due to an increase in people passing through taking advantage of the free financial help. Seems Pat is correct in that there are people who make a living going from place to place getting hand outs and they have learned that churches are willing to help those in need, sometimes to a fault.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> It's kind of interesting you bring up local help. According to comments on their FB page from people who claimed to be from their community they have worn out their welcome at Churches and other charities. I believe they have also begged for money via their blog and FB page. If you have ever worked with any sort of charity you know there are 2 types of people: those genuinely down on their luck who need a hand up to get back on their feet and professional grifters. Everything I have read so far has screamed the latter.
> 
> Oh and they actually had a pre-fab cabin when they first moved out there. They sold it or sent it back so they have actually gone backwards not forwards.


I don't know if that's true or not. But, my feeling is that is they are chronic beggars within there local community charitable organizations, so what? Those charities are allowed to say "no, figure your own stuff out". They've then made an active decision to not enable a local family. That is their right and responsibility. The family could then be held accountable to get their act together.

I'm not saying I believe that is what's happened here. I don't know. But, it's a perfect hypothetical example of what i'm talking about. 

why should their children be taken for them being unable or unwilling to provide typical lifestyle? is that any worse than the chronic users of public welfare services? I actually don't think its as bad as chronic welfare recipient families. and, they don't get their kids taken away for being poverty stricken.

but, if the community put pressure on the family to say, "hey enough is enough"....then, it was TOTALLY sabotaged by the govt. Instead of holding the family accountable to the community for what the community expected in return for assistance, the govt has swooped in with a "hold up, we got this".

This is what perpetuates poverty and not pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.

I don't assume that's what's happening here. But, it's a good hypothetical to show why I am so against govt interference in social issues.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> This is what perpetuates poverty and not pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
> 
> I don't assume that's what's happening here. But, it's a good hypothetical to show why I am so against govt interference in social issues.


They are as of right now at OVER $43,000 on their GoFundMe, page, they should be fine, with their new laptops and cellphones, heck maybe they will even drill a well or build a house with four walls??


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

IDK, Having 4 walls is over rated and just seems like such a waste. After all then you have no way in or out and most people just wind up cutting a hole in the 4th wall, then going to the extra expense of adding in a door to it. Seems much more efficient and cost effective to just leave that 4th wall off to begin with, then you do not have to worry about buying a door and all. That just makes good sense! I mean it does to me anyway? You just watch and see, this whole 4 wall house fad will be gone in a few years anyway, just like Disco. Then we will all be setting around talking about how crazy people used to be for building those 4 wall houses back in the day.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> I heard something about that, but how does go fund me work? Is it real money or is it some kind of loan?
> Again, I really know nothing about them so this is not directed at them at all.
> The local churches in our area have formed a sort of partnership where each church donates into a single fund. This fund is designed to help people really in need and people passing through who may have run into trouble. Several years back they had to appoint a group of people to oversee it, due to an increase in people passing through taking advantage of the free financial help. Seems Pat is correct in that there are people who make a living going from place to place getting hand outs and they have learned that churches are willing to help those in need, sometimes to a fault.


They went through a crowd sourced loan thing to get the money to rent and set up a dog grooming business for the wife. Then when the kids got taken they had a gofundme set up for them. It's just straight cash in their pocket that never has to be paid back.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Really? First he is not a journalist just a guy raised by people who lived off-grid and had a nice self sufficient homestead giving his 2 cents on the situation. And if you knock anyone's knowledge for a misspelled word or two I guess you don't take most of the advice here seriously.


How about relax and have a sense of humor.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Point is is not the govts business how you live. They are out in place to govern the nation on a global scale. Not barge into our everyday lives. If those people are content living in a tent or yurt or whatever rise they chose , which worked for Jesus abs most everybody else up until a few hundred years ago, that is their God given right. Not the govts.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

I have often looked at many of the old pioneer pictures of families out in the plains areas standing in front of a sodie house made from nothing more than stacked dirt and was basically a hole in the ground they lived in. How many would view that in today's world as unfit for children to be raised in? What has changed? Were those people thinking only of themselves and abusing their children by living is these conditions. The argument can be made that it was all they had at the time and with the technology today we can do better. But do we have to? Should we have to? Again I would ask, what has changed?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Muleman said:


> I have often looked at many of the old pioneer pictures of families out in the plains areas standing in front of a sodie house made from nothing more than stacked dirt and was basically a hole in the ground they lived in. How many would view that in today's world as unfit for children to be raised in? What has changed? Were those people thinking only of themselves and abusing their children by living is these conditions. The argument can be made that it was all they had at the time and with the technology today we can do better. But do we have to? Should we have to? Again I would ask, what has changed?


First something is a convenience and then it becomes "necessity". There will probably come a day when not having internet is viewed as child abuse.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't know if that's true or not. But, my feeling is that is they are chronic beggars within there local community charitable organizations, so what? Those charities are allowed to say "no, figure your own stuff out". They've then made an active decision to not enable a local family. That is their right and responsibility. The family could then be held accountable to get their act together.
> 
> I'm not saying I believe that is what's happened here. I don't know. But, it's a perfect hypothetical example of what i'm talking about.
> 
> ...


It could also be said that a $40,000.00 donation isn't exactly pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

wr said:


> It could also be said that a $40,000.00 donation isn't exactly pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.


I totally agree with that. But it is $ the individuals are choosing to spend that belongs to the personally. That's different than the govt choosing to spend everyone's $. It will inherently be a limited offering be cause individuals ate personally regulating what they will go be and if they will go at all. I haven't heard of too many people who may not be worthy of charity receiving ongoing funding gifts.

People aren't often fooled repeatedly compared to the government who isn't discerning. It just processes people through the bureaucratic nonsense system.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

gibbsgirl said:


> I totally agree with that. But it is $ the individuals are choosing to spend that belongs to the personally. That's different than the govt choosing to spend everyone's $. It will inherently be a limited offering be cause individuals ate personally regulating what they will go be and if they will go at all. I haven't heard of too many people who may not be worthy of charity receiving ongoing funding gifts.
> 
> People aren't often fooled repeatedly compared to the government who isn't discerning. It just processes people through the bureaucratic nonsense system.


It's interesting to me because our children's services system is a disaster and it looks like yours may be too. I see folks who have their children removed 'pending investigation' and yet I watch a family who's had one daughter try and commit suicide twice, a son was investigated but not charged because of his age, for sexually interfering with a much younger child, on son was allowed to use a very large ATV and went through a barbed wire fence resulting in multiple skin grafts, daughter smokes pot at home in her room with younger children in the house and two of the younger children were left alone at home and lit the house on fire, none are asked to attend school nor are they home schooled, they just pay substantial fines for truancy once in a while and a daughter is now living with her biological mother, who is a known criminal and crack abuser. The living conditions are unsanitary, there is dead livestock on the front step, the house is filthy and filled with cat feces and the children are bathed no more than once every couple weeks (neglect not because of lack of running water). 

The custodial parent knows just the right words to appease the system so an investigation initiated and if you know how to play the system so the right words are spoken and all issues are dropped. In the case of the sexual interference issue, it was as simple as, 'I think he was just playing 'doctor' but we'll get him some counseling,' and nobody follows up to see that happened.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Yes I think it's broken n here and in most places. It's sad. But t some people aren't fixable.

I believe the govt has overextended it's controlling influence and is not in control of much of anything while simultaneously removed our individual rights to stand up for ourselves and anyone else in our daily lives.

It's perpetuated a society that by and large no longer acts like it has personal responsibility for much of anything. And I believe it's brought about by the govt control perverting our perspectives on what each of us has to gain or lose and invest or ignore in our daily lives.

That's one of the things I really like about homeschooling. We have the opportunity to not let our kids shirk their responsibilities, which I think is rampant in classroom schooling. There's no "just keep your head down and don't make waves and you'll slide through" for the stuff my kids do here under our roof and supervision.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> I have often looked at many of the old pioneer pictures of families out in the plains areas standing in front of a sodie house made from nothing more than stacked dirt and was basically a hole in the ground they lived in. How many would view that in today's world as unfit for children to be raised in? What has changed? Were those people thinking only of themselves and abusing their children by living is these conditions. The argument can be made that it was all they had at the time and with the technology today we can do better. But do we have to? Should we have to? Again I would ask, what has changed?


I was thinking about this last night too, what about say the Little House on the Prairie books. I think there are a couple of genuine differences between then and today. First the homes were temporary and they were making their way to a better life via true homesteading. Second it was a hard life and a lot of kids died due to the living conditions, lack of medical care, etc. all of which this family also refuses. Add in filth and poor water supplies and it's amazing a few bad cases of food poisoning are all these kids have had. It was a necessity then but not now and purposely choosing a life that has a high chance of grave injury or death for your kids these days is not very defensible.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I was thinking about this last night too, what about say the Little House on the Prairie books. I think there are a couple of genuine differences between then and today. It was a necessity then but not now and purposely choosing a life that has a high chance of grave injury or death for your kids these days is not very defensible.


Nope people back then chose that life. They personally made the decisions for reasons from exciting adventures to opportunity for fortune to feeling pinched out of things where they were at.

But every time westward expansion took place there were plenty of communities with "higher standards of living and safety and security". And every one of those families had peopl in those established communities who held court and sat in judgment of them.

The difference was it was the court of public opinion and was not able to physically stop then from pursuing the life they aspired to


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Pat, I just am not sure I can agree with you on this. I do not think the sodie homes were temporary. I do not think it is a fair statement to assume all of these very simple dwellings were temporary or simply a stepping stone to something better. The idea of buying a "Starter home" as a young couple, then moving to a "Big House" when we have a family, then finally downsizing for retirement years is a fairly new idea. To many this is not a logical idea but one that only a society of excess provides. Most places in the world even today it is normal to live your entire life in the same house, many times it is the same small house you started with, maybe with a room or two added.

I would also have to take exception to the lack of medical care. Choosing to not take part in an industrialized medical system which relies on chemical and pharmaceutical companies and choosing to treat illness in a more holistic or natural way to me is not medical care vs. no medical care, but simply 2 different ideas of what medical care should be.

I would also have to disagree with the assessment of what presents a danger to the children. I would absolutely not want my children to grow up in an inner city area. The death rate from violence in inner cities is alarming. However as people and as parents we all make choices as to what we find dangerous and what we find not. I know people who would never think of allowing their children to ride a horse because it is too dangerous. Too dangerous according to who, and what makes their opinion of what is dangerous any better than mine. I can not imagine not allowing my children to ride a horse (although admittedly I would rather them ride a mule) I would never and I do mean never allow my children to attend a inner city school like is found in most big cities, that would be a higher risk of danger for them than I am willing to accept, however, I would never attempt to tell those who do so they should not have that right, because I view it as a danger.

So again, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this subject as I simply do not believe it is my right or responsibility to tell someone else how to manage the affairs of their family, with the exception of known abuse which I had first hand knowledge of, and as I stated at that point I would deal with it myself and still would not see the gov. as a good solution, but a very last resort.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Soddie homes were temporary by their very nature. They didn't last very long. You could make a good case for an adobe house, or a log cabin, but not a soddie.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Mo, I simply would not be able to agree with you on that. They are made of dirt, dirt does not rot or go bad? Yes, rain would erode parts of it and the structure would certainly require upkeep and rebuilding, but what does not? The stories I have read indicate that in many plains areas there simply was no other building materials to be had in the area and bringing in enough material from outside was not an option. 

However, I do not think this is really a discussion on building methods as much as it is, what is an acceptable building method. Once we decide there are minimum standards to be met, then it becomes a point of who's minimum standards, then how close to those standards is "close enough" and who decided that?

I do not doubt anyone here is sincere in their opinions. I do have a hard time grasping how some can so easily embrace the idea that somehow, someone has a right to force their beliefs as to what is acceptable and what is not on someone else.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Muleman said:


> Mo, I simply would not be able to agree with you on that. They are made of dirt, dirt does not rot or go bad? Yes, rain would erode parts of it and the structure would certainly require upkeep and rebuilding, but what does not? The stories I have read indicate that in many plains areas there simply was no other building materials to be had in the area and bringing in enough material from outside was not an option.
> 
> However, I do not think this is really a discussion on building methods as much as it is, what is an acceptable building method. Once we decide there are minimum standards to be met, then it becomes a point of who's minimum standards, then how close to those standards is "close enough" and who decided that?
> 
> I do not doubt anyone here is sincere in their opinions. I do have a hard time grasping how some can so easily embrace the idea that somehow, someone has a right to force their beliefs as to what is acceptable and what is not on someone else.


Sod is not dirt, that's why you call it sod. Includes the grasses, the roots, organic matter, which decompose. 

As far as "forcing our beliefs on others", you have to set some kind of base standards in order to have a civilized society. Somebody is always going to be too extreme to meet even the base standards. I guess we are "forcing our beliefs" on pedophiles when we lock them away, too? But I'm glad we do.

There is a lot more to this story than the home schooling. Because cases involving juveniles are not public, there is a lot we don't know yet. I'm not impressed with this mom and dad one little bit, but no one has presented any evidence yet that their children were actually harmed by how they lived either. So I'll ignore the flaming rhetoric about how these noble people were just trying to live an independent life yadayada and see what the court rules, and if they say why. 

I know CPS can be over-zealous. There was the recent "free range" kids case, and I saw my neighbors years ago lose their daughter for months because she was caught playing with matches trying to start a fire in her room, and was whipped with a belt. Teacher saw a mark on her leg, CPS came and took her right out of school. So I'm not defending the authorities, just waiting until we really know what went on to finalize my opinion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Like everyone else, my thoughts are only conjecture based on the scant bit of information available but I wouldn't find a sod home unfit but then again, I've lived in a trappers cabin and canvas tents in hunting camp. 

I did a bit of reading last night on the mother's blog and it does seem that this is not their first visit from CPS and although she does not indicate the nature of previous visits, she did comment that they have been visited 'several' times in the past.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

MC, I thought we were all kinda on the same page as far as what we were talking about, family matters as far as living conditions, education and basic health and safety, not sexual abuse.

I will say again, I believe these things should be handled locally and discretely in most cases and ANY gov. intervention would be a very last resort for me.

I will relate a story which may give some indication of my thoughts on pedophiles. Lets just say it is a made up story for now.

There was a big family get together where lots of extended family came together for an all day event. As the evening wore on many of the smaller children were put to bed in the bedrooms in the house. When one of the fathers went in to check on the children he found an a middle aged distant relative doing things to one of the children he should not have been, that was the last time he ever did anything like that and he was never seen or heard from again, he mysteriously disappeared. But like I said, just a made up story.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

The "bad old days" people speak of, I believe, is in general as much of a myth as the idea that things will inherently be better in the future. The path of progress only ever incited one question in me.."where are we going?". Apparently they should have told me back then that we were headed for a bubble where we'll all punch buttons, drink filtered water (that we payed for) and eat vegetables that have the DNA of insects in them.

I must be really living on the edge here and just begging for some kind of horrible demise. I don't go to doctors, I drink my milk raw, sometimes I sleep in a room that falls to 32 degrees in the winter. I've even been known to touch a sheep and not wash my hands before eating! I don't know if I believe folks had it so bad. Hard is not bad. It's just hard, and who thinks living a cushy life equals the best results in humanity


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Woolie, I am with on that. I am not one for abuse at all. I will say some of the kids who I have seen do the worst as adults, were some of the ones who were provided the most as kids.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Nope people back then chose that life. They personally made the decisions for reasons from exciting adventures to opportunity for fortune to feeling pinched out of things where they were at.
> 
> But every time westward expansion took place there were plenty of communities with "higher standards of living and safety and security". And every one of those families had peopl in those established communities who held court and sat in judgment of them.
> 
> The difference was it was the court of public opinion and was not able to physically stop then from pursuing the life they aspired to


Children in big cities were actually far more likely to die due to poor sanitation, crowded conditions and contaminated food and water. Plus the lack of medicine and vaccinations applied to everyone. Setting out across the open prairies to start a life may have opened you up to a different sort of dangers but the simple truth is life was dangerous for every child back then and large numbers died. 

Now purposely choosing today to thrust your children into a third world lifestyle and providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion. You can live off grid safely and in a healthy manner with some foresight and a lot of hard work. These parents seem to be lacking in both.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Children in big cities were actually far more likely to die due to poor sanitation, crowded conditions and contaminated food and water. Plus the lack of medicine and vaccinations applied to everyone. Setting out across the open prairies to start a life may have opened you up to a different sort of dangers but the simple truth is life was dangerous for every child back then and large numbers died.
> 
> Now purposely choosing today to thrust your children into a third world lifestyle and providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion. You can live off grid safely and in a healthy manner with some foresight and a lot of hard work. These parents seem to be lacking in both.


Choosing to not be part of conventional medicine is not abuse. If this were a thread specifically related to that, I'd show you the statistics on doctor related death. In my opinion it's an institution of abuse of people who trust it, itself, and if people have a right in opting to medically treat their children via conventional means, then those of us who have done our homework and choose not to should be left alone to make that choice as well.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Children in big cities were actually far more likely to die due to poor sanitation, crowded conditions and contaminated food and water. Plus the lack of medicine and vaccinations applied to everyone. Setting out across the open prairies to start a life may have opened you up to a different sort of dangers but the simple truth is life was dangerous for every child back then and large numbers died.
> 
> Now purposely choosing today to thrust your children into a third world lifestyle and providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion. You can live off grid safely and in a healthy manner with some foresight and a lot of hard work. These parents seem to be lacking in both.


 That is so true. This country is not a 3rd world one. We need to do everything we can to irradiate such poor as these folks to keep living in a run down place as that. Ands we must keep up on the vaccinations as well. This country batter not go the way of any third world situation and Americans do not. They have plenty of help. For THOSE that want to and not refuse and live like some poor country on the other side of the world. And even SOME of them live better then these people did. No way to bring children up in the USA at all.`!


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

ak, I have to be honest, I normally like your post, but with the misspelling's and capital letters and partial sentences. I have NO idea what you just said. :stars::hysterical:

Pat, can I pose a question. I know you said you believed it was wrong for someone to choose to not be treated with what you call modern medicine and that was your opinion. I think we can all agree "Modern Medicine" refers to using pharmaceuticals and chemically derived medicine from the pharmaceutical companies correct? I think we can also agree that homeopathic or natural medicine is the alternative to this form of modern medicine. Now where this gets a little grey is which is better? I can show statistics for the benefit of homeopathic medicine and am sure you could show similar statistics for pharmaceutical medicines.

So, Do we agree that each has its benefits and its failures? I would hope we could agree on that? IDK, maybe not? But lets just say we do. You feel it is wrong for a parent to not allow their child the benefit of pharmaceutical medicines. I am assuming, and correct me if I am wrong, you think if a parent denies their child this care, the state should step in and mandate it, or force the parent to allow their child treatment with pharmaceutical medicines?

Now, lets say for arguments sake. I believe in homeopathic medicine and it is my opinion pharmaceutical medicine is dangerous and risky and parents should not subject their children to these unnatural cures, but should seek natural treatments. Would you believe I was crossing a line if I said the state should mandate that you not expose your child to these pharmaceutical drugs and you should not be allowed to use them, but must use homeopathic medicine only, because in my opinion they were better?

Now this is just a hypothetical, not trying to call anyone out, just trying to understand where we are all at on this. I appreciate everyone's input, even those I disagree with, as I believe we have taken a very emotional issue for some and had a very grown up discussion about kids stuff.:lookout:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Choosing to not be part of conventional medicine is not abuse. If this were a thread specifically related to that, I'd show you the statistics on doctor related death. In my opinion it's an institution of abuse of people who trust it, itself, and if people have a right in opting to medically treat their children via conventional means, then those of us who have done our homework and choose not to should be left alone to make that choice as well.


I didn't say it was did I? I said:



> Now purposely choosing today to thrust your children into a third world lifestyle and providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion. You can live off grid safely and in a healthy manner with some foresight and a lot of hard work. These parents seem to be lacking in both.


If you are choosing to live in filth with no water source except a contaminated pond full of animal manure, an outdoor kitchen that it is impossible to keep clean and extreme weather conditions including extended cold and damp then you had best be getting your kids some basic shots and be prepared to get them antibiotics when they come down with pneumonia or severe food poisoning. If you can't clean up after yourself and your property is littered with rusty metal and nails get them a tetanus shot. If you let your goats wander through your kitchen well eventually you will have some intestinal issues. And they could turn into something life threatening. 

I have no problem with home remedies, it's our first choice. We very rarely go to the doctor. We did very few vaccinations. We considered good food and a healthy lifestyle the best possible medicine. Almost all the food we ate we grew ourselves. We raised and butchered our own meat. I am not against any of those things done with some thought and effort towards health, safety and sanitary conditions.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Children in big cities were actually far more likely to die due to poor sanitation, crowded conditions and contaminated food and water. Plus the lack of medicine and vaccinations applied to everyone. Setting out across the open prairies to start a life may have opened you up to a different sort of dangers but the simple truth is life was dangerous for every child back then and large numbers died.
> .


Sorry but that's a blanket statement that does not fit on numerous times and places. You're repeating progressive era junk propaganda that was heavily pushed in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the united states and england. Historically there are all kinds of scenarios that have played out in different centuries in different regions and countries.

Living conditions have never been a guaranteed predictor of a person's outcome. If I were, I guess the third world would have gone extinct by now.

I've done extensive reading on historical topics that has shown me that you can't make a blanket statement like that and back it up with irrefutable historical references.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Muleman said:


> ak, I have to be honest, I normally like your post, but with the misspelling's and capital letters and partial sentences. I have NO idea what you just said. :stars::hysterical:


Sometimes I'm not sure if he's serious or being sarcastic. This is one of those times...


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> So I'll ignore the flaming rhetoric about how these noble people were just trying to live an independent life yadayada and see what the court rules, and if they say why.
> 
> I know CPS can be over-zealous. There was the recent "free range" kids case, and I saw my neighbors years ago lose their daughter for months because she was caught playing with matches trying to start a fire in her room, and was whipped with a belt. Teacher saw a mark on her leg, CPS came and took her right out of school. So I'm not defending the authorities, just waiting until we really know what went on to finalize my opinion.


I don't make the assumption that the court will do any better in letting us know the real story or making the right decision. After all CP's has become this beast at least in part by the support of the court system.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Muleman said:


> ak, I have to be honest, I normally like your post, but with the misspelling's and capital letters and partial sentences. I have NO idea what you just said. :stars::hysterical:
> 
> Pat, can I pose a question. I know you said you believed it was wrong for someone to choose to not be treated with what you call modern medicine and that was your opinion. I think we can all agree "Modern Medicine" refers to using pharmaceuticals and chemically derived medicine from the pharmaceutical companies correct? I think we can also agree that homeopathic or natural medicine is the alternative to this form of modern medicine. Now where this gets a little grey is which is better? I can show statistics for the benefit of homeopathic medicine and am sure you could show similar statistics for pharmaceutical medicines.
> 
> ...


We use homeopathy ourselves.  When I talk about modern medicine I am mainly talking about antibiotics. Kids do still die today of easily treatable illnesses because their parents refuse them basic medical care. In a situation like these children are living in their chances of contracting an illness that would be life threatening without antibiotics is much higher like I mentioned in my post above.

I don't want to see any form of healthcare mandated for anyone. The only time I believe anyone should step in is if a parent makes a choice that could clearly kill their child.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

By the way. My apologies for some of my posts being littered with typing errors. The guys got me a big girl phone. (That's what my kids call it ). So I can use it for online now instead of just my laptop.

But sheesh! The tiny little keyboard screen and autocorrect is about to make me crazy. Lol


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Sorry but that's a blanket statement that does not fit on numerous times and places. You're repeating progressive era junk propaganda that was heavily pushed in the late 1800s and early 1900s in the united states and england. Historically there are all kinds of scenarios that have played out in different centuries in different regions and countries.
> 
> Living conditions have never been a guaranteed predictor of a person's outcome. If I were, I guess the third world would have gone extinct by now.
> 
> I've done extensive reading on historical topics that has shown me that you can't make a blanket statement like that and back it up with irrefutable historical references.


Well you lost me here. I would point to the statistics for child mortality in third world countries vs. first world ones but I am afraid you would just say those are progressive propaganda. If we can't base the discussion on facts and statistics I don't suppose we can have a discussion. 

I am genuinely curious though is it over crowding, poor sanitation or contaminated food and water you are taking issue with?


----------



## puddlejumper007 (Jan 12, 2008)

ok, i am retired and have lots of down time,,i spent this after noon going through her face book, and blog...oh boy i do not know much about legal stuff, but they certainly needed to check on those kids...children do all the cooking, built that three sided shack they live in. mom said she did not know how her daughter learned to read she just did, and the boy does math she does not know how he learned...on her blog she filmed giving birth to her last baby for all the world to see...oh boy there is something wrong with them. the children look healthy enough, sounds like the older boys are raising them. God help the children the parents are idiots...and really give homesteaders a bad rep.


----------



## puddlejumper007 (Jan 12, 2008)

for got something,,,july all the children got sick except two...one of the older ones fixed them all blankets around the camp fire, mom thought it might be food poisoning..she was glad they liked camping...showed a picture of all those sick children laying on blankets in the dirt.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I am genuinely curious though is it over crowding, poor sanitation or contaminated food and water you are taking issue with?


I don't dispute that those all exist as issues on society. What I take issue with is length and breadyh of the reach the federal govt has claimed to oversee them.

All of those issues can be disputed as to what the threshold is for crossing the line depending on who you're asking and in what decade you're asking.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

puddlejumper007 said:


> ok, i am retired and have lots of down time,,i spent this after noon going through her face book, and blog...oh boy i do not know much about legal stuff, but they certainly needed to check on those kids...children do all the cooking, built that three sided shack they live in. mom said she did not know how her daughter learned to read she just did, and the boy does math she does not know how he learned...on her blog she filmed giving birth to her last baby for all the world to see...oh boy there is something wrong with them. the children look healthy enough, sounds like the older boys are raising them. God help the children the parents are idiots...and really give homesteaders a bad rep.


 I'm sure I'd probably find stuff I thought was great and awful and everything in between if I pursued almost anyone's Facebook page.

But just to show how important context and face to face communication is, I can say how my first reaction to some of those statements went.

Totally relate to kids doing the cooking. Mine do a ton under my supervision. No one taught me to cook. So I try as hard as I can to always get my kids cooking. My 12 yo daughter knows enough now to cookb3squares a day and it's not only 5 different meals. Working on the boys now. I don't want them hesitant at all to make real food at home. 

I don't know how one of my kids learned to read either. He didn't need the curriculum lessons the older three had done. One day he just took off reading and continued to make huge strides fairly independently of me. The next one younger than him hasn't so he's plugging away like the older ones did lesson by lesson.

Sometimes I don't know how my older boys do the math they figure out either. I have a variety of types of curriculum that's been available to the kids over the years. And I've worked to teach the kids how to work through stiff on their own as much as possible. I want them to dive right in and not be fearful that they might make mistakes and need to ask for help after they've made the effort on their own. Sometimes I look at the stuff they do and go "wow".

So some of the things you wrote were on Facebook I could relate to in a good way. But maybe that's because I'm homeschooling. Everyone has their own ears and can hear things quite differently.

I don't relate to all of it though. I don't have Facebook or twitter or anything cause it wierds me out.

My whole thing is that I want you, me her and everyone else to be genuinely free to the greatest degree possible. And I don't think that's how we are all being forced to live.

As an example my husband works second shift. I'm careful though to not let other people see or hear that my kids aren't on the same daily schedule as other kids. I don't want to answer to authorities about it. It's none of their business. But if I let the kids say they slept with their dad some people get nosy. If I let people see we're outside in the mornings or running errands as a family some people get nosy. Then the govt shows up and I have to submit to questions and risk my kids. 

My husband took second shift because he knew he could still have family time but we'd do it at the beginning of the day instead of in the evenings. That let another guy at his work take day shift so he could see his public schooled kids.

But by cause there are nosy people out there, I have to live a stifled life with my kids. Cause if they call the law then I've got to deal with it. Busy bodies can really mess your life up. 

People we know are fine with seeing us anytime. But almost every time we step out during school hours total strangers question why they're not in school. It only takes one of them to bring the law on you. Knowing that I'm at risk of crossing paths with the wrong person is not living free.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't make the assumption that the court will do any better in letting us know the real story or making the right decision. After all CP's has become this beast at least in part by the support of the court system.


And sometimes the parents are the beasts. There have been some cases around KC the last few years that break your heart and make you want to practice SSS on (sub) human beings. CPS really did save some kids' lives. You can't automatically assume they are all good or all bad.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> And sometimes the parents are the beasts. There have been some cases around KC the last few years that break your heart and make you want to practice SSS on (sub) human beings. CPS really did save some kids' lives. You can't automatically assume they are all good or all bad.


I don't question at all that intervention is necessary sometimes. I only question who should intervene and under what circumstances. I see more cases of it doing harm than good with what the current system has evolved into.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Our justic system was originally designed to set such a high standard for conviction that it was expected that a few guilty people would escape punishment. That was considered the less of two evils because wrongly imprisoning people was so abhorrent. It has mutated to exactly the opposite of that. That disgusts me.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

Since we are all sharing here and feeling all warm and fuzzy. Ya'll are feeling it too right?

I thought I would share a first hand experience with the child services system. I know a couple who never had kids, but work for child services. They were in positions to hear and help decide on the child's behalf, custody cases where children have been removed from homes. I do not remember their specific job titles, just what the job was.

Fast forward and one day they decide they want children. They were not able to have children themselves, so they decided to adopt. Now I can tell you they owned their home and they had both been working for the agency for quite a few years and still work for them to this day, so I can assure you they did not have financial trouble. After a lengthy process it was determined they did not meet the requirements to adopt.

Think about this. Here are employees of the very agency who decides if a child should stay with their parent or be removed and they themselves not only do not have children and have never had children, but they are found to be unqualified to take care of children of their own, but somehow they are qualified to help decide if other people can take care of their children?

This is just part of the problem with a large bureaucratic system to oversee parental rights.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't dispute that those all exist as issues on society. What I take issue with is length and breadyh of the reach the federal govt has claimed to oversee them.
> 
> All of those issues can be disputed as to what the threshold is for crossing the line depending on who you're asking and in what decade you're asking.


We were actually discussing a very specific place and time period. Muleman and I were talking about Little House on the Prairie, Sod houses, etc. which would put us in the 1850 to 1875 period. Westward expansion era was what you mentioned and I replied that at that time: 



Patchouli said:


> Children in big cities were actually far more likely to die due to poor sanitation, crowded conditions and contaminated food and water. Plus the lack of medicine and vaccinations applied to everyone. Setting out across the open prairies to start a life may have opened you up to a different sort of dangers but the simple truth is life was dangerous for every child back then and large numbers died.
> 
> Now purposely choosing today to thrust your children into a third world lifestyle and providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion. You can live off grid safely and in a healthy manner with some foresight and a lot of hard work. These parents seem to be lacking in both.


Government intervention was never mentioned as a factor.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Muleman, that reminds me of a time years ago. I was considering going back to work and the school district was hiring.

One of the prereqs to a job offer was passing a basic skills tests. It wasn't difficult. Just basically enough to show if you were functionally illiterate.

I asked if I had to take it since I had a high school diploma FROM THAT DISTRICT? I was told yes because the diploma wasn't considered reliable representation of my literacy and basic knowledge.

That story cracks my kids up.

I took a the test a passrd with high marks but i didn't bother pursuing job any further.

Apparently it was a commonly given test for many different positions in the district.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> We were actually discussing a very specific place and time period. Muleman and I were talking about Little House on the Prairie, Sod houses, etc. which would put us in the 1850 to 1875 period. Westward expansion era was what you mentioned and I replied that at that time:
> 
> 
> 
> Government intervention was never mentioned as a factor.


Yes and regarding that specifically those post civil war periods were not known as high risk urban environment periods. Westward expansion does not simply refer to little house on the prairie era though.

The govt wanted land settled to push out the Indians and ensure our claim to those territories, so they offered free land. There were a number of gold and silver strikes in that era that enticed expansion as well. There was also some significant immigration happening from a few places during some of those years so foreigners were interested those types of opportunities 

If you look into some places during the industrial revolution and several during the market revolution, which were not during the liitle house books, you can find some examples of poor living conditions.

Much of the political progressive era propaganda and heavy activity actually didn't ev n coincide with the poor conditions during the industrial or market revolutions. The transformative legislation really got ramped up in the 1890s to the 1920s.

So the time frame of little house doesn't fit right. Honestly a lot of those big urban centers in that era were destroyed skeleton cities from the civil war, or unable to function as mighty industrial centers because the workforce of the nation took a dramatic hit from the civil war.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Yes and regarding that specifically those post civil war periods were not known as high risk urban environment periods. Westward expansion does not simply refer to little house on the prairie era though.
> 
> The govt wanted land settled to push out the Indians and ensure our claim to those territories, so they offered free land. There were a number of gold and silver strikes in that era that enticed expansion as well. There was also some significant immigration happening from a few places during some of those years so foreigners were interested those types of opportunities
> 
> ...


I was thinking along the lines of say New York city in the period my ancestors hit it and thankfully managed to survive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1530136/?page=1


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

You all may run me off of here after this but here I go. I grew up spending a lot of time with Grandparents who had no 'running water' you had to use the pump in the kitchen to get the water running. The "bathroom" was an outhouse and you took your bath in a wash tub. While we lived with my Grandparents my entire family slept in an unheated upstairs room and yes it got darned cold in Michigan in the middle of the winter, honestly the barn may have been warmer. However there was a house with a roof, floor and 4walls, it was clean and the kitchen had the necessary equipment to properly keep and prepare food. 

Now for this family - sorry but to keep children in the squalor they are in is criminal. There is no reason they could have not found funds for even a good used army tent, set it on a wooden platform and used a wood stove in it for heat. That is how we went hunting and it was plenty warm plus the wood stove was also used for cooking. They could scavenge for free pallets to build pens for the animals then plant a garden to grow healthy food for the children and themselves to eat. Also a little soap and clean water will go a long way to keeping the kiddo's healthy. I have no problem with home schooling - if the parents are intelligent enough to teach the kids enough so they can get by in the world. They can get along fine without electricity, the internet and maybe even a phone. However with kids you never know what can happen so maybe a cell phone would be a good idea. As for medical care, things happen, broken arms or legs, appendicitis, gall bladder and so forth. These parents would have no earthly idea how to handle these medical problems.

While foster care is not ideal in any circumstance I think until the parents make some major improvements in the living situation it may be in the kids best interest.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I was thinking along the lines of say New York city in the period my ancestors hit it and thankfully managed to survive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1530136/?page=1


I'm gonna have to get onto one of our computers to get to read this link.

I don't doubt that there were typhus outbreaks during that era in NY. The 1840s was the tail end of the market revolution era. And local NY organized do velopment to manage resources and place restictions locally would make sense. They were exoeriencing lots of incoming ng immigrants.

My point was that the romantic idea that living a tough life as a pioneer was acceptable then because children were in more danger staying with n established cities was misleading.

Also pioneers and soddies were a thing for many decades. But little house happened starting after the civil war and the industrial and marjet revolution and before the active progressive era, which is what i was pointing out.

You link about NY is a fine example I'm sure of a specufic local story. But that doesn't make it a blanket explanation or justification that excuses or endorses people from that era vs contemporary times.

People then had a variety of reasons for choosing to live that way. So do people now 

I wouldn't want to live how a lot of people live. But there are very few I would choose to stop from doing what they wanted.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Jlynnp, you shouldn't be booted off for having your opinion.

I don't disagree that the stuff online doesn't look great. But I don't think it all looks bad. And I don't think its realistic to let my mind fill in the blanks and then pass judgment.

The thing I will say about your list is that I think you threw out the word criminal a little too loosely. Crimes cause harm to people or property. There isn't obvious let alone provable harm here that i've seen.

If we react harshly and are turned off or disgusted by something that feels different to us and our own life experience, and then use our reaction to pressure or force others to conform to the mentality of the mob, we run the risk of criminalizing our society into a soviet or nazi like state.

Don't be afraid to be part of all our babbling on here though please. This place is for everyone to get to type out their thoughts.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I think we have all got pretty strong opinions but none of us really knows for sure what reasons have been cited for seizing the kids. 

If it were an issue of living conditions, I don't think the eldest child of the father would need to testify because he hadn't lived with the family in many years.


----------



## Muleman (Nov 8, 2013)

between several sides to every story, the truth, lies, and what actually happened, somewhere in the middle probably. Even when it is all said and done, we will probably never really know what should have been done and what should not have been done and what was actually done. But as frustrating as I will admit it was in the beginning of this discussion. I have enjoyed the conversation and the different viewpoints. Always a good thing if you ask me, when as many as has joined in here can talk like adults about such a emotionally charged topic, exchange ideas, and in the end admit we still do not agree on everything, but we do respect everyone's opinion. And who knows, just maybe walk away from the conversation just a little bit wiser for it.

That is why I say there is more than one way to do something, mine is the right way, but I am opened minded enough to admit there are other ways!:hysterical:


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> I didn't say it was did I? I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry if I misunderstood this, but it seemed like you were calling a lack of modern medical care a problem. -
*
"...providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion."*


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood this, but it seemed like you were calling a lack of modern medical care a problem. -
> *
> "...providing no safety net at all via modern medicine or what have you is wrong in my opinion."*


Which I then explained meant antibiotics and things of that nature.  Kids in filthy conditions, with poor sanitation, poor water sources, exposed to extremes in weather and food that has not been properly handled or refrigerated die in large numbers in third world countries every day. Generally something as simple as an IV to combat dehydration and some antibiotics could save almost all of them. So if you choose to live in third world conditions then you increase the chances of an illness that could kill your child unless you use a modern medical intervention.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wr said:


> I think we have all got pretty strong opinions but none of us really knows for sure what reasons have been cited for seizing the kids.
> 
> If it were an issue of living conditions, I don't think the eldest child of the father would need to testify because he hadn't lived with the family in many years.


Back in one of the links the family actually posted a photocopy of the complaint given to CPS.


----------

