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

For the record I don't condone or agree with raising young kids in a primitive situation. But is electricity and running water a must have? As for living in a tent, I believe there are ten's of thousands of families all over the USA living in tent cities. At least these people do own there own land and are building permanent structures, but they should have some sort of clean water system before kids are brought into the picture.

I wouldn't include young children in a off grid project not because its unsafe for the kids but because of the potential attention you would receive from local authorities and neighbors that wish to hurt you.

a reply to: Rocker2013

How does anyone here think these parents are managing off-grid with 10 KIDS, and providing adequately for them?

They live in the woods. They are hunting, fishing, foraging, growing veggies, whatever....as far as I can tell.

And they have more than one "roof" over their heads....if you look at their blogs you can see pics of it.
I admire their tenacity.

If it turns out that every one of those kids (aside from the baby, obvi) is literate, then there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Are the kids infested with lice? Are their teeth falling out? Do they have shoes? Are they able to read/write and do math? Are they malnourished physically??

I do disagree with them not being vaccinated....but as long as that's the only issue I'm fine with it. The water thing is a different situation. If they are stealing people's well-water, that's different than using river water and boiling it, etc.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

There are 12 of them in this family, 12.
Do you know that a male needs to drink 3 liters of water a day, and a woman 2?
Now add the TEN KIDS into that.
Now add the amount of FOOD they would all also need.

It's nice to have romantic notions about freedom and free living, but this is not possible for a family of 12 people, and you cannot possibly convince yourself that it is.

So, the question is, are you happy to sacrifice the health and wellbeing of those kids for your romantic notions of "freedom"?

I support the right of any adult to live how they wish when it's not harming others, but these parents have one job to do, and that's raise their kids to become healthy and happy adults to the best of their ability. They are not doing that, and no one can claim they are. They are selfish, arrogant, and pretty ignorant too, deliberately willing to damage the health of their own kids for some kind of mental idealism that cannot possibly exist because their family cannot survive within it.

a reply to: LDragonFire

For the record I don't condone or agree with raising young kids in a primitive situation.

I do, we (modern i-society) have it wrong.

a reply to: Rocker2013

LOL = My Mother in New Zealand was one of 13 kids, all are very successful.

Check yourself before you know what.

And yes I read your entire post and love sees any additional children as irrelevant - love will bring them all into the fold, as long as sustainable, which it was in this circumstance,

Prison planet - period

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Because the public school system does such a great job and is evident by the millenial generations rapid assent to the top of all education metrics in the world.......oh wait no I meant the opposite

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Agreed!!!!

a reply to: LDragonFire


I firmly believe in alternate lifestyles. The interviews I saw on TV must've been the talk of the town though. Most people were truly concerned about the living conditions. A lot talked about the mother giving birth in a tent in below zero conditions.

I did a little looking around here's their kitchen.




Yeah sure the fence keeps the goats out. It does nothing for the mice, field rats, squirrels, possums or any of the countless other types of insects and vermin that inhabit Kentucky.

I've had campsites set up like that and served children at them. But I would never dream of doing so on a continual basis. Our forefathers cook like that, that's why there average life expectancy was in the 30s. Average life expectancy then was so low due to infant mortality. Probably from conditions similar to giving birth in a tent when it's below zero like the mother did.

Here is a town 's woman's quote as best I can remember when she was talking to a female reporter. " honey that girl gave birth up there in a tent in the dead of winter."

My feelings are fine. If you want to live off the grid homeschool your children by all means I encourage people to do so. But I wish they would at least make sure their children are raised under safe hygienic sheltered conditions and their health is not needlessly put at risk.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry but I just don't think it's possible to do this with ten kids.

If you're living as part of a community, with others able to share the burden and alleviate the pressure on the adults to gather enough to survive then fair enough, but I do not believe this is possible.

I have nothing against the lifestyle of these people, it's something I would love to do myself, but I know that it would be hard enough with one child, it would be impossible with ten.

You cannot possibly believe that all of these kids are educated to a reasonable level, while having to hunt, fish, gather water, build... the amount of food and water this family would need is extreme, there would be absolutely no time for any education at all.

I understand the knee-jerk reaction of "damn the oppressive state!!!!" (it's very common to see that here) but there is no way in hell these parents can be adequately providing for all of these kids, it's just not physically possible.

a reply to: Rocker2013

It's nice to have romantic notions about freedom and free living, but this is not possible for a family of 12 people, and you cannot possibly convince yourself that it is.

It is certainly possible! People lived in tribes and villages without "the grid". If they know how to grow their own, hunt and fish, grow veggies from saved seeds, etc.......these kids are not suffering at all. This family has 26 acres. PLENTY of space for them and their animals, and I don't recall any reporting of 'hoarding' or 'animal carcasses'....

really?

Some people can absolutely live off of the land (and the grid) - humans did it for millennia before "the grid" even existed.

a reply to: Greathouse

But I wish they would at least make sure their children are raised under safe hygienic sheltered conditions and their health is not needlessly put at risk.

I hope this, too....
in fact, I insist on it. But hermetically sealed, chemically treated surfaces and germophobia are also unwarranted. Like I said, the anti-vax thing bothers me. But as far as their 'education' is going, it seems okay.

No dead babies. Humans are far more capable of survival "off the grid" than modern society wants to acknowledge.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yup, in general people frighten me!

I think the best result for this case would be. That because of public outcry. The children are placed back with the family but monitored. Honestly in that area, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Southern Baptist congregation offer to help. Because as it is often said in these parts about Southern Baptist " good church people are always in everybody else's #".

Take in mind I am not religious by any means. But Southern Baptists have a way of rolling up their sleeves and getting stuff done.


Edit; I might have left out. That Kentucky courts can be odd sometimes. They have no problem ordering you to church.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Rocker2013

LOL = My Mother in New Zealand was one of 13 kids, all are very successful.

Check yourself before you know what

And they were all raised by two parents entirely off-grid, hunting for food, fishing, collecting water from entirely natural sources?

That's the issue here, not the large family.

Like it or not, you cannot redefine the limits of Human survival because you think it's nicer. A Human needs so much protein to survive, so much water, there is no way in hell two adults can care for 10 kids and provide everything they need under such conditions.

But then we know this, because the dad threatened neighbours when water access was refused.

People seem to think living like this is all daffodils and deer encounters, it's damn hard living - which is exactly why we developed the society so many now want to get away from. Do you really think that if life in the woods was so fantastic and freeing we would have all moved into warm houses?

No one made us evolve into the society we now have, we made conscious decisions to improve our existence and we made those choices because living in the woods meant hunger, cold, thirst, threats, disease...

a reply to: Rocker2013

Like it or not, you cannot redefine the limits of Human survival because you think it's nicer. A Human needs so much protein to survive, so much water, there is no way in hell two adults can care for 10 kids and provide everything they need under such conditions.

Are you unaware of the Amazonian tribes that are still thriving "off the grid"?

I'm sorry your horizons are so limited. I understand, though - if that's what you've been taught.
Yes, people can, and do, live off the land, and raise a bunch of kids, without dying.
Everything they need is right there -
food, water, protein, shelter, love, education.

a reply to: Rocker2013

The water isn't that big and issue I believe. Again were talking about Kentucky, if the children are returned I guarantee you someone will show up out there to drill them a well after all the hoopla on the Internet.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yes, and as I said, it takes a community of people not two parents with 10 kids. I noticed you ignored that part of it even though you used the model to support your notions

Back in the day, we lived in small communities (community being the operative word) with five or six able hunters gathering food. This is an entirely different scenario and you know it.

The ratio of able hunters to dependants would have meant five of these kids would have died by now, it's a miracle that none of them have - and probably because they have plenty of locals willing to provide for them when they needed it.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Are you unaware of the Amazonian tribes that are still thriving "off the grid"?

I'm sorry your horizons are so limited. I understand, though - if that's what you've been taught.
Yes, people can, and do, live off the land, and raise a bunch of kids, without dying.
Everything they need is right there -
food, water, protein, shelter, love, education.

So now two modern adults are comparable to a people who have existed in their traditional ways for hundreds of thousands of years?

And those Amazonian's don't have ten kids each. Why don't they have ten kids each? Because they know that it takes a village to raise just a small group of kids, they might have ten kids between them, but that's with 50 able bodied adults hunting and fishing for several hours a day.

And I'm not "limited", thanks, I just know what practicality is and I'm not silly enough to abandon it for some romantic notion.

Like it or not, existence like that is hard, and no matter how people here want to pretend it's something magical, doing this with 10 kids is impossible. There is no way those parents can physically provide adequately for ten kids, no way in hell.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
which is exactly why we developed the society so many now want to get away from.

If society is so wonderful, why are so many people wanting to get away from it today? For some reason you have this absolute trust in government and society. I can't imagine your view on the Amish or even the Quaker way of life.


If a family wants to live off the grid, be self reliant, be away from society, or educate their children without the government stepping in, it's their right to do so as long as the wellfare of their children is secure.


My problem with what I've read is that they essentially have ten children living in a shack with a paper thin roof. If they want to live the way they do, that's fine. But they need to have better shelter and some kind of access to a clean water supply. We've had plenty of rain in this area. So in reality, there's no excuse for them not to have a reservoir of clean water.

To add to this, it is not impossible to support ten children if you're capable of hunting, fishing, trapping, growing, and canning food. It is hard work. But it isn't impossible.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Rocker2013

Like it or not, you cannot redefine the limits of Human survival because you think it's nicer. A Human needs so much protein to survive, so much water, there is no way in hell two adults can care for 10 kids and provide everything they need under such conditions.

Are you unaware of the Amazonian tribes that are still thriving "off the grid"?

I'm sorry your horizons are so limited. I understand, though - if that's what you've been taught.
Yes, people can, and do, live off the land, and raise a bunch of kids, without dying.
Everything they need is right there -
food, water, protein, shelter, love, education.

No, sorry. If what they have there is so limited how on earth are they going to give those kids a good education? How can they spend the time on education when they also have to live off the land?

originally posted by: Greathouse
If you want to live off the grid homeschool your children by all means I encourage people to do so. But I wish they would at least make sure their children are raised under safe hygienic sheltered conditions and their health is not needlessly put at risk.

I really appreciate what you've brought to the thread.

Catching up on this thread, I find I'm torn... Sure, parents should make sure their kids are healthy and have water. And they shouldn't put them in harm's way. But how is this the government's job to make sure that happens? There are homeless families on the streets, under bridges, and in tent cities and the government doesn't take their kids away and arrest them.

And when it comes right down to it, who's business is it if these people choose to live off the land, cook on a rock and fish and hunt for their food? (Stealing water is problem, certainly, but putting that aside for now)... The kids look clean and healthy and they're smart. The three year old is printing his name. One kid's interest were "biology, history, science and math" or something like that. I can't find one thing wrong with these kids.

I know it's tempting to think that people can't live like this with 10 kids, but did you see the "chores" charts? The order of their lives? It's amazing what they do and are involved in.

And their health may well be better than those of us who were born in a sterile environment and raised with antibiotics, antibiotic soap, fluoridated toothpaste, eating GMO foods and beef made with hormones, chemicals and other additives...

We all die sometime and if they catch a dreaded disease from a rat or something, this is life. I'm sure the parents are aware of the risks they're taking. But shouldn't they have the freedom to take those risks? Same as a family who chooses to move to an undeveloped area in Africa or Mongolia? Why is it the government's job to make sure these particular "homeless" people live to some standard set by the government?

I do think an investigation is warranted... But to TAKE their children summarily, without warning, without a warrant, without proof of an order, is horrendous! Find out if the kids are suffering first! These kids will be scarred from this. If the authorities REALLY had the children's interests at heart, wouldn't they have at least found out if there was a REAL reason to interfere, instead of listening to the gossip of the townspeople?