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

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

And at the end of the day I am willing to bet you would believe the guy/girl representing the family because your mind seems to be made up about the state.

It seems more likely then not based on the conditions and them having to steal food and water they these kids health is in question.

Has any one asked why this family is having so many kids that they seem to not have the means to take care of?

At the end of the day, I would believe the recorded interviews, and what they revealed. Recordings, plus a representative for the parents, would insure that interviews were done above board, with no leading questions, rewards promised, or whatever. In other words, they would be good evidence. My mind wants the truth, but it seems clear that yours is already made up.

Stealing food and water is a legal issue, for certain, if proven, which might or might not reflect on the health of the children. Medical exams are the determining factor there.

The real question is not why they have "so many" children, but what happened to make them unable to support them, and whether or not they ever applied for any sort of assistance. If they didn't, why not? If they did, were they turned down?

There are many questions, and what we should all focus on is truthful answers. If the only issue is that the parents didn't have the means to care for the children, then that is easily remedied. If there was abuse, that is another issue.

It seems very odd to me that people have some issue with interviews being conducted in such a manner as to insure sound results, and having those results available to both sides in the case.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The judges and the CPS work together, and seek convictions, not truth.

I'd say they seek answers and what's in the best interest of the children.

Quite a jump there, straight into convictions.

Of course you'd say that. You also stated elsewhere that children are "markers" for payment, for the school system.

Right. I stated public schools plan a budget by student count. The student is an assigned "marker" in that budget. Why would I say that? Because it's fact.

You stated that kids were markers. That is the term you used. You also stated that parents who kept their children out of school were "stealing from the government. Your comments, and attitude, treat children as possessions of the state. I'll bet you support forced vaccinations as well, and are totally against any non-public school options for education.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The point is that both sides need to be represented. Recordings of all questioning of children need to be made, and available to both sides, so that it can be shown that nothing untoward happened during the questioning. If both sides can see what happens, everything is more likely to stay above board. In a case with real abuse or neglect, the court could then show that their conclusions were accurate. In cases where that is questionable, the defense has a chance to see what occurs in questioning of the children, to be sure that it's done the right way.

I totally agree with this. Secrecy is not appropriate. Nor is manipulation.

I starred your post.

Exactly! I want the parents held accountable if they are abusive. I also want to be sure they ar, before they are accused. I have heard too many stories of CPS cases being totally screwed up, to trust them to be objective.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

So, separating him from his mother didn't work out so well. Relevance?

The relevance is that he was an infant, and certainly too young to "remember" the event. Yet, I scarred him for life. It resulted in Reactive Attachment Disorder.

We know that a baby who never receives interaction (aside from being fed and diapered) from the care provider will "shut down". It turns babies into people who have no ability to be close to anyone, or trust anyone, or care about anyone.

I have read speculation that such neglect can even bring about psychopathic behavior, though of course, there is no one cause for that, or any common factor in all cases. I also recall reading about a study wherein babies so neglected actually died, though I can't imagine what sort of monsters would condone such a test. Horrible. Anyone that could ignore a baby like that is a sick and/or evil person.

Starred both of your responses as well. We aren't as far apart on this as it might have seemed.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
If you think of it in those terms, the youngest now (a toddler, I believe) won't have 'conscious' memories but their persona will be shaped by the circumstances/nurture factor. If a baby is taken from an unfit parent and given to a responsible, caring, educated family the baby can do just fine, and grow up to fit in with society and to have empathy, friends, close relationships, etc.

This is very true, because babies are resilient little people. They also can be, as shown in such cases, scarred for life if removed from one bad situation only to be laced in another just as bad.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
That was my point.
Now, finding GOOD foster parents is a whole 'nuther subject, but one that is part of the system also.
Yes, there are horror stories of "foster parents" who neglect, even kill their wards. Not cool at all. The system recognizes this, and again - they WANT to keep the family intact if at all possible.
That's when "case managers" get involved. The kids stay at home, but the parents are required to comply with certain standards, and given the tools and training to do so before the supervision ends and the family can be safely left alone.

There are some good foster parents out there, and some very NOT good ones. My husband and I knew a couple that did foster care, and in that case, the woman was so dedicated to the kids, and so caring, it was a wonderful thing to see. Other cases, there are people doing it for just the money. I know of one case where the children were not even allowed to use the living room, and were made to do virtually all of the housework. The house was filled with expensive decor items, as well, that you know were bought with the money the foster kids brought in. We can read about worse cases than those.

In this case, I wonder why they weren't provided with housing, and a case manager brought in, to allow the parents to be able to care for the children themselves. It's possible there were signs of physical abuse, and that simply isn't being revealed. It's also possible that they were simply removed as a matter of procedure. Sometimes, cases get so bogged down in procedures that details are overlooked.

I hope this case isn't one of abuse, and the family is able to be helped to get things together. Better for all involved. If there has been abuse, I really feel for the kids, because there is almost no way they'd be able to stay together.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The judges and the CPS work together, and seek convictions, not truth.

I'd say they seek answers and what's in the best interest of the children.

Quite a jump there, straight into convictions.

Of course you'd say that. You also stated elsewhere that children are "markers" for payment, for the school system.

Right. I stated public schools plan a budget by student count. The student is an assigned "marker" in that budget. Why would I say that? Because it's fact.

You stated that kids were markers. That is the term you used. You also stated that parents who kept their children out of school were "stealing from the government. Your comments, and attitude, treat children as possessions of the state. I'll bet you support forced vaccinations as well, and are totally against any non-public school options for education.

The fact you have a problem with a term is your problem.

Marker, as in a place marker.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

In this case, I wonder why they weren't provided with housing, and a case manager brought in, to allow the parents to be able to care for the children themselves.

And this might be exactly what "the system" decides needs to be done.
Case managers are the ones who visit the family periodically, and help to counsel the family to be more effective at their objectives (taking care of the kids).

I was not only a 'case manager', but also a therapist who dealt with parents whose kids had been removed.......and also dealt with kids whose home life was awful.

The system is certainly not perfect! But, the good workers want to help the families, not BREAK THEM UP.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

True enough, but I have heard of many workers who were not the good sort. Any time the parents don't want the kids in public school, it seems the cases are extended, to allow the courts to get the kids into the system, and keep them there. I have heard of cases where the case workers saw no issues, but the courts still didn't allow kids to come home. The good workers are outweighed by the bad far too often. That's the system at fault, not those workers.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The judges and the CPS work together, and seek convictions, not truth.

I'd say they seek answers and what's in the best interest of the children.

Quite a jump there, straight into convictions.

Of course you'd say that. You also stated elsewhere that children are "markers" for payment, for the school system.

Right. I stated public schools plan a budget by student count. The student is an assigned "marker" in that budget. Why would I say that? Because it's fact.

You stated that kids were markers. That is the term you used. You also stated that parents who kept their children out of school were "stealing from the government. Your comments, and attitude, treat children as possessions of the state. I'll bet you support forced vaccinations as well, and are totally against any non-public school options for education.

The fact you have a problem with a term is your problem.

Marker, as in a place marker.

Marker, as in object. That you consider children to be objects is your problem. Or pawns for the State, if you prefer.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The judges and the CPS work together, and seek convictions, not truth.

I'd say they seek answers and what's in the best interest of the children.

Quite a jump there, straight into convictions.

Of course you'd say that. You also stated elsewhere that children are "markers" for payment, for the school system.

Right. I stated public schools plan a budget by student count. The student is an assigned "marker" in that budget. Why would I say that? Because it's fact.

You stated that kids were markers. That is the term you used. You also stated that parents who kept their children out of school were "stealing from the government. Your comments, and attitude, treat children as possessions of the state. I'll bet you support forced vaccinations as well, and are totally against any non-public school options for education.

The fact you have a problem with a term is your problem.

Marker, as in a place marker.

Marker, as in object. That you consider children to be objects is your problem. Or pawns for the State, if you prefer.

I really don't waste my time with nonsense.

It must really suck for you that some things are what they are, not what you want them to be.

Government works with a budget. In other words numbers. Each student is a number, a place marker.

Deal with it.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have heard of many

Of course you have....
we all have!!

That's what the media shows us...the sensationalism. It doesn't show us all of the successful outcomes. Yes, there are many young, childless graduates who work as CPS agents - and I totally understand how someone who has kids and is in a mess (according to 'the system') is very put off by having some 20-something with only "classroom" training.

It takes a parent with experience (and education - not one or the other - but BOTH), in my opinion, to help a parent who is struggling. It requires someone who has raised kids...who knows how hard it is....who has experienced hardship and frustration and the pain of raising kids.....to help someone who is floundering.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have heard of many

Yes, there are many young, childless graduates who work as CPS agents - and I totally understand how someone who has kids and is in a mess (according to 'the system') is very put off by having some 20-something with only "classroom" training.

Both our case workers were young. The first one we loved. The second one was condescending.

The second one, on second visit was wearing 3" long gold cross earrings. That really was not OK with me. That along with the condescending attitude, I almost reported her.

a reply to: Annee

The second one, on second visit was wearing 3" long gold cross earrings. That really was not OK with me. That along with the condescending attitude, I almost reported her.

Yeah, that is bad. It's not OK.

originally posted by: Annee
I really don't waste my time with nonsense.

It must really suck for you that some things are what they are, not what you want them to be.

Government works with a budget. In other words numbers. Each student is a number, a place marker.

Deal with it.

So, you freely admit that you consider children nothing more than objects, for the government to use as they see fit, to collect money or whatever. Based on that, your opinions on this case have less than zero relevance, because the welfare of the children, who are people, not objects, cannot possibly be your primary concern. Why not just admit you prefer them to be in state care, so the government can earn money from them?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have heard of many

Of course you have....
we all have!!

That's what the media shows us...the sensationalism. It doesn't show us all of the successful outcomes. Yes, there are many young, childless graduates who work as CPS agents - and I totally understand how someone who has kids and is in a mess (according to 'the system') is very put off by having some 20-something with only "classroom" training.

I am speaking as much from people I have known as about the cases the media shows us. When you can see the people involved, and know the situation, and see it handled very poorly, that carries a lot more weight than media reports ever could. Some of the situations described in these cases, by various workers, aren't anything close to the reality.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
It takes a parent with experience (and education - not one or the other - but BOTH), in my opinion, to help a parent who is struggling. It requires someone who has raised kids...who knows how hard it is....who has experienced hardship and frustration and the pain of raising kids.....to help someone who is floundering.

I would agree with that. Too often, the people looking at such cases have no experience at all, and no idea how things actually work. No amount of classroom training can replace parenting experience. Too often, too, we see people in those positions that are actually hostile to families as a rule, especially families with more than one or two children. That sort of bias can relly influence a case in the wrong direction.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Too often, the people looking at such cases have no experience at all, and no idea how things actually work. No amount of classroom training can replace parenting experience.

And yet, many go to Catholic priests for marriage and family counseling.

I've never understood that.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Too often, the people looking at such cases have no experience at all, and no idea how things actually work. No amount of classroom training can replace parenting experience.

And yet, many go to Catholic priests for marriage and family counseling.

I've never understood that.

Neither have I. I am not Catholic, though, and don't really get the idea of priests not being allowed to marry. Nothing Biblical about that prohibition.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I totally do NOT get how a never-married non-parent can be an effective 'counselor' for married parents.

It just doesn't make sense.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Too often, the people looking at such cases have no experience at all, and no idea how things actually work. No amount of classroom training can replace parenting experience.

And yet, many go to Catholic priests for marriage and family counseling.

I've never understood that.

Neither have I. I am not Catholic, though, and don't really get the idea of priests not being allowed to marry. Nothing Biblical about that prohibition.

Priests not marrying is actually about money. They used to be able to marry, way back.

The church doesn't want to give up anything or provide inheritance.

a reply to: Annee

The church doesn't want to give up anything or provide inheritance.

Huh?
There is no requirement that a spouse receive an inheritance. Is there a requirement that the Church receive the assets of a priest?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Annee

The church doesn't want to give up anything or provide inheritance.

Huh?
There is no requirement that a spouse receive an inheritance. Is there a requirement that the Church receive the assets of a priest?

Research I did some 20 years ago. There's no way I still have any of the links. I'm OK being wrong.

Just so you know I didn't make it up ---- although this one says it's about morality.

The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property.

If [the church] could control a person's sex life, it could control their money, their employment, their benefice."
historynewsnetwork.org...