Kentucky ‘free range’ family loses custody of 10 kids over apparent ‘unschooling’

And one more quote from the blogger linked above:

The children were taken because it was unsafe. VERY unsafe, not because they were homeschooled.

This, surprisingly, has not been overly framed as a religious issue, at least not yet.

But this isn’t about homeschooling, parents rights, “off the grid living” “government control”, “erosion of our right to do what we please” etc.

It isn’t.

It is about the fact that the conditions at this particular site, in this particular case, with this particular family, where absolutely horrifyingly dangerous, unsanitary, and unsafe on multiple levels. This isn’t hearsay or supposing.

This is clearly visible in dozens on dozens of posts and photos posted publicly by the family themselves.

Quite frankly, I am surprised all the children made it out alive.

And another post (in the comment section) by "Gary" the blogger:

This situation, based off all the evidence I’ve seen, looks less like “un-schooling” and more like “Lord of the Flies” set in Kentucky…..
I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that despite publicly posted posts and photos, publicly posted by the very family themselves, of such things as:

1. Grave injuries to multiple children, including horrific burns and inches long scalp wounds.
2. Several documented cases of serious bouts with food borne illness, including up to 7 of the children at once.
3. Dozens of images posted of filthy and unsanitary conditions.
4. Photos showing how poorly built and rickety the “cabin” is.
5. Clear audio of the mother calling a Sheriff Deputy a “whore of the state” and screaming “shoot me”.
6. Images of open gas cans left out around camp fires.
7. A well documented criminal history for the father stretching back over multiple arrests, warrants, and over a decades time.

Even after ALL that being publicly available to anyone with 15 min. And an Internet connection………….

Even after ALL that (not even mentioning the accusations of child abuse, theft and threats) Even after all that……………thousands on thousands of people are STILL supporting this family based off a couple of clearly biased articles from online publications that are the modern day equivalent to the old black and white tabloids featuring such headlines as “Bat Boy Lives” and “Elvis ALIVE, caught in love nest with the Queen of England”.

(Shaking my head, slowly, with my face in my hands.)

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I was just wondering on how much money the CPS will get for
"caring" for these children? I wonder who pays for that?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Why would it matter of they had internet access? Why would that lack, if there even was one, be considered abuse or neglect?

It wouldn't necessarily be neglect (and certainly wouldn't be abuse) - but if one is going to homeschool one ought to have access to best-practice information, and being on the internet teaches literacy as well as offering limitless source material from which to teach.

The internet is a viable alternative to school curricula and textbooks, worksheets and lectures, etc. if one is determined to learn ANYTHING, they can do it on the internet. If the parents were illiterate, how could they homeschool? Plus, even if they stay relatively isolated on their property, the kids can learn about other cultures, other ways of life, etc. on the web.

Literacy can be learned from reading. That's how my entire generation did it, lol! Getting the dinos to not eat the books was tricky, but you do what you have to. The internet does offer a wide range of information, I agree, and is a very handy tool for home schooling. I prefer to use books as much as possible, including encyclopedias, actual dictionaries, and so forth. The internet is the tool to go to if the books don't contain the needed information. There are, though, complete curricula one can use in place of books, to teach entire subjects. If the parents were illiterate, it's unlikely they'd even own a computer, and less likely that they would be teaching their own children. I have never heard of home schooling families with parents that were not reasonably well educated. Learning about other cultures can be one through books. Again, until recently, that's how everyone did it. There isn't anything wrong with isolation, either, if that's what they want.

The internet is a very handy tool, but if parents decide not to use it, that's their right. There is a lot of bad stuff on there as well. Kids bully one another, there is a lot of content not suitable, and there are predators. These days, I can see why isolation, to some extent, might appeal to many.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

This is what I have been looking for in this story. ACTUAL issues. Complaining that they sleep in a tent, they're dirty, they don't go to school, etc., is irrelevant, but this stuff isn't. Seven kids sick at once for food borne illnesses is definitely NOT OK. Neither are the kids stealing from people and not getting medical attention when they need it.

a reply to: mamabeth

So should we just let them live in those conditions listed above cause the system might be corrupt?

I don't like the idea of taking kids from parents, but the list above is scary.

Regarding the new data, this is still far from settled. Since when are children removed because people are poor? The kids look healthy and happy in the pics, and it should not be a crime to live in primitive conditions. The allegations from the grown son aren't relevant, because he was far too young to remember much of anything from back then.

As far as questioning the children, that should ONLY be done with the parents, or a legal representative of theirs, present. There are too many cases of people questioning children and coaching them into false claims to have that any other way. Has everyone forgotten the claimed "Satanic abuse" cases involving day cares? Questioning the kids without a parent-chosen legal representative present would mean the case could be influenced by the CPS people.

I have a solution. A letter writing email campaign to habitats for humanity. I believe if they lived in a true structure with running water and a septic system. The issue would resolve itself.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Kids get taken away if/when you can't care for them, being poor can cause that
Usually those people will turn to the state for help, and those kids can get taken care of they don't get taken away.

If what is being said about the health of these kids is true then it seems pretty cut and dry they need some sort of intervention to get these kids cared for.

I would hate to see them taken forever, the parents should absolutely be able to get them back, once they can show they can keep them in good health.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Kids get taken away if/when you can't care for them, being poor can cause that
Usually those people will turn to the state for help, and those kids can get taken care of they don't get taken away.

If what is being said about the health of these kids is true then it seems pretty cut and dry they need some sort of intervention to get these kids cared for.

I would hate to see them taken forever, the parents should absolutely be able to get them back, once they can show they can keep them in good health.

What have we seen regarding their health? The conditions that we see are certainly primitive, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were not cared for. People did, after all,c are for kids for a long time before septic systems, running water, etc. If their health is poor, of course that is an issue. In that case, offering help, instead of taking the kids, seems a better solution. I am curious, though, about why and how the place they were staying is shown online, since CPS cases are supposed to be confidential. Then there is the little fact that in almost any case in which kids are taken, the conditions are described as poor. It gets suspicious after a while.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Complaining that they sleep in a tent, they're dirty, they don't go to school, etc., is irrelevant, but this stuff isn't.

Seven kids sick at once for food borne illnesses is definitely NOT OK.

Neither are the kids stealing from people and not getting medical attention when they need it.

Yep! That.
Thanks

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The allegations from the grown son aren't relevant, because he was far too young to remember much of anything from back then.

Yes, they are relevant. And no, he was not "far too young to remember much of anything."

Just, no.

As far as questioning the children, that should ONLY be done with the parents, or a legal representative of theirs, present.

Again....
just, no.

A "guardian ad litem" maybe - who is objective....
but NOT a "retained attorney."

There's a huge difference.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I prefer to use books as much as possible, including encyclopedias, actual dictionaries, and so forth. The internet is the tool to go to if the books don't contain the needed information.

I totally agree with you.
We have probably nearly 1,000 actual paper, bound books in our home.

Today I heard on the radio that there's a story coming out about how actual "paper books" are now being studied regarding what is more beneficial......like, versus "Kindle" or internet reading.

That actually "reading" things in print, on paper, and "turning pages" makes a difference.
I still balk at "Kindle" type digital stuff, and still prefer a book I can carry with me, thump on the table, dog-ear important pages, etc.


Plus, when "the grid" finally DOES go down, actual paper books will be all that is left for our kids and their kids to learn from.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I recently recovered from a food borne illness. Since I had just purchased the food that day, how would I have known it was going to make me sick. Do you honestly think the parents made their kids sick on purpose?
Guess what I went to the Dr. and was sent home without any tests or medication. Having to be in the care feeling that sick wasn't worth the trip.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The allegations from the grown son aren't relevant, because he was far too young to remember much of anything from back then.

Yes, they are relevant. And no, he was not "far too young to remember much of anything."

Just, no.

My kid remember next to nothing from that age, and that includes the younger ones. Three to four years old, a kid won't remember a lot. Saying, "Just, no." doesn't cut it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

As far as questioning the children, that should ONLY be done with the parents, or a legal representative of theirs, present.

Again....
just, no.

A "guardian ad litem" maybe - who is objective....
but NOT a "retained attorney."

There's a huge difference.

Why not a retained attorney? If those questioning are above board, there should be NO issues with that. If they aren't, as has happened in the past, there would be big issues. Young children are too easily led to say things that aren't accurate. The entire process should be recorded as well, with copies made available to the parents.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Ma'am, with all due respect, these children need to be interviewed by a specialist in the field of Children & Families, preferably one who has plenty of experience with young children.


A child can certainly be traumatized by early things - and I'm not going to debate it with you. I've worked with too many of them. I know what I'm talking about.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Ma'am, with all due respect, these children need to be interviewed by a specialist in the field of Children & Families, preferably one who has plenty of experience with young children.


A child can certainly be traumatized by early things - and I'm not going to debate it with you. I've worked with too many of them. I know what I'm talking about.

I didn't say they should not be interviewed. I said when they are, there should be a representative present for the parents, so that it can be assured that the children are not unduly influenced to say things that didn't actually happen. Do you not recall the cases in the past where that happened? People's lives were ruined, because a specialist led the kids to lie. It was proven that what they were coached to say could not even have happened.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I understand your concern. A good therapist would never ask leading questions.

A cop? Yes, they would.
A lawyer? Go to court sometime or learn about courtroom manipulation somehow from tv or something.

A Guardian ad Litem would not do that. A trained therapist with experience in art therapy, play therapy, narrative therapy, etc is what is called for. EACH of these kids has different "profiles" (personalities). Drawing out a child's perceptions is a skill. There are several ways to do it without EVER asking leading questions.

I'll even give you a example. The therapist asks the child to draw a picture of their family.

The result will be VERY revealing of that child's state of mind.

Offer to play with 'dolls' with the child. They get to choose the theme, the dolls, the roles played by the participants (the child and the therapist). See what the child chooses to "play". Give the child ALL of the power to determine the dolly situation and interactions.

Etc.

NONE of that is "leading" - it gives the child complete power to 'act out' or 'draw' their own feelings.

Perhaps you don't understand that kind of therapy. The child never feels "cornered" or "threatened". They have an adult offering to play with them, or draw with them, and THEY get to choose what it is that gets "expressed."

Anyway. That's all I am going to say about it. A SKILLED therapist can reveal the mindset of young kids by looking at what they draw, listening to them talk, seeing what they do when they play.....
etc.

A lawyer? Please.
A cop? No.
The mother or father? (I wish, but unfortunately most of the time: Not. Especially a parent in this situation)



A specialist with a neutral opinion, who has never met the kid before, never visited their home or talked to their parents or neighbors.
There is NO COACHING involved in that. It is simple observatory participation in the CHILD'S frame of mind.

You have little kids?
Ask him or her or them to draw a picture of your family. See what they come up with.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I understand your concern. A good therapist would never ask leading questions.

A therapist was the one that asked leading questions, and worse, in the McMartin case.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
A cop? Yes, they would.
A lawyer? Go to court sometime or learn about courtroom manipulation somehow from tv or something.

They would, and so would a therapist, in many cases. Come on, you never heard of false memories implanted by psychologists?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
A Guardian ad Litem would not do that. A trained therapist with experience in art therapy, play therapy, narrative therapy, etc is what is called for. EACH of these kids has different "profiles" (personalities). Drawing out a child's perceptions is a skill. There are several ways to do it without EVER asking leading questions.

Again, some have.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I'll even give you a example. The therapist asks the child to draw a picture of their family.

The result will be VERY revealing of that child's state of mind.

Offer to play with 'dolls' with the child. They get to choose the theme, the dolls, the roles played by the participants (the child and the therapist). See what the child chooses to "play". Give the child ALL of the power to determine the dolly situation and interactions.

Etc.

NONE of that is "leading" - it gives the child complete power to 'act out' or 'draw' their own feelings.

If that sort of legitimate technique is used, then there should be no problem having an observer there to represent the family. They could even be behind a two-way mirror, to avoid any influence. I am well aware of the legitimate techniques, and also aware that other types of techniques, not so legitimate, have been used. Considering the way CHS agencies have acted, an observer for the family is a very good idea.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
A lawyer? Please.
A cop? No.
The mother or father? (I wish, but unfortunately most of the time: Not. Especially a parent in this situation)

A lawyer and/or therapist chosen by the family would be perfectly fine, assuming they were out of sight. The parents, out of sight, would also be acceptable, if there is nothing to hide. Not in the same room, but that isn't necessary for observation.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

They would, and so would a therapist, in many cases. Come on, you never heard of false memories implanted by psychologists?

Yes, of course I did. You are talking about "regression therapy" and so forth. And the difference between a skilled Clinical Social Worker and a "Psychologist" is something beyond your comprehension.

And plus, those things were quite a while ago weren't they?

I want to present the case of Ted Kaczinsky to you. He was ill as a BABY, and his mother was not allowed to see him when he was in the hospital........and he received no nurturing while he was there.
During that time period, he adopted a "flat affect" - and was no longer responding to the smiles of others. He shut himself down. Then he became the UNABOMBER.
Remember him?

Sure, I know the stories of hypnotists and quacks implanting memories into people when regression therapy was new.
It doesn't happen like that anymore. A skilled Clinical Social Worker knows how to meet the client where they are, and especially with little kids, a LOT can be learned by the art a person makes, or the play-situation they invent.