Sunday, May 10, 2015

The Nauglers: Victims? Maybe Not.

If you only read one article online about a situation, you may not be presented with all of the facts.

Popular posts right now are defending Joe and Nicole Naugler in a complicated situation. The two claim that their children were unlawfully removed from them because of their unschooling and living off-grid. And people are getting riled up about it, believing only the one side.

Then you do some searching and find other sides to the story. And holy cow, there is a WHOLE other side. Theft of the neighbour's water, trespassing to get that water, asking a child to go get the gun when the neighbour told him he had to keep off his property, piles of garbage, broken glass and nails (and the children roam freely without shoes or anything), another family living the same way and who knows them saying that the family has been banned from their house for a while and so many other things.

But, interestingly enough, the most compelling information on the other side is actually supported by the Naugler's audios found here:

Should I go into great detail about the issues and concerns these audios bring up? How about a mother telling her child "don't do it, he'll just shoot you because that's what cops do when you don't comply"? About a mother who has police saying the need to investigate the allegations and her resistance is going to lead to her children's removal, who then answers back, when the cop tries to get her to understand by giving an example of her witnessing another woman or a child being attacked, that she wouldn't call the police, she would only intervene if her own children were being attacked.

Nicole is trying to claim the police arrested her for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest when she was just sitting in her car and that if you listen to the audio, you can tell. Listen to the 3rd audio for that--she was not in her car, she was clearly losing it, she was absolutely resisting arrest... I had to admit that upon seeing the photos of her bruised arms, I wondered how poorly the cops had behaved, but then you hear her completely losing it and it was very easy to imagine her physically resisting with all her might and I think the cop said something about her jumping and scuffling. Well, that means the cop has to hold on tighter. He's arresting somebody who is resisting arrest. And if she's resisting strongly enough, he has to hold on tight enough that it will bruise.

The things she said during the conversation with the cop I find truly concerning. I completely understand why the cops had to take the boys and arrest her. She might be all, "Oh, they were going to let me go and then changed their minds without any reason," but enough time passed that I suspected they quickly got approval from somebody higher up to take the boys right then.

She claims all kinds of rights, but doesn't seem to have ANY understanding of what those rights actually mean. She tries to accuse the police officer of trespassing. She, in a strange twist of things, uses US rights and amendments to try to prove her case but then completely rejects the authority of the police and government. It makes no sense whatsoever. Now, this lack of logic doesn't have anything to do with her kids being handed over, but her misunderstanding of and unwillingness to obey the law of the land she's living in is what has led to this situation.

Oh, and when you listen to the audio, you'll hear both her and the cop talk about "the last time"--a year ago, another CPS allegation had been made, but that time, she let somebody talk to the kids. She's not letting somebody this time. Not unless an attorney is present, which has absolutely nothing to do with CPS situations AT ALL from my understanding. But I admit I could be wrong. I've never, however, EVER heard of children demanding a right to an attorney to speak to a cop or caseworker over CPS allegations or even being able to demand that right.

All she did was dig herself into a larger hole, make the police even more convinced she's trying to hide something. She went so far as to tell the cop that she wouldn't call the police if she witnessed a woman being attacked by her husband or someone else's kids being attacked, but she would intervene if someone was attacking her own kids. That is not comforting for a police officer.

The husband can be heard on the third audio, saying something about her being arrested because they weren't around to have the kids talk to them, but he's clearly unaware of his wife's having refused to allow the police to talk them, so at least it wasn't a pre-planned thing on both their parts. She also told the two boys, as they were being taken, to not saying anything under any circumstances. Whether she's just fanatical about her perceived rights or whether she's got something to hide, she clearly has no idea that such behaviour is going to be seen by police as her hiding things.

In a nutshell, this story has nothing to do with homeschooling, unschooling or living off the grid, but about resisting the laws of her country of simply having the kids speak to authorities after her husband's threat with a gun and other allegations led to a CPS complaint. Well, the removal of the kids was the result of not only not letting the kids speak to the cops but the other things she said that the cop clearly found concerning (as did I); her arrest was the pure result of her behaving the way she did when the cops were removing the boys.

Btw, here's a really good page on some of the other side:


  1. I agree - two sides to the story and this one definitely leans towards "not homschool related or off-grid related".

    I woud like to add if it is ok though - that it is perfectly reasonable for a parent to request a third party (of the parent's choosing - could be a lawyer, a priest, a family friend, anyone BUT the parent) be present during any questioning of the children. The regulations only state that the children should be questioned without the parent present (because parent's presence might change up the child's responses). So in that regard, it is perfectly acceptable to say "I want my lawyer present for any official questioning."

    1. Jessica, not being an American, I don't totally know these things. :) Now, that the parents can request that someone else be present, does that mean that the cops/CPS *have to* allow that? She seemed to think that by requesting her lawyer be present that the cops had to comply.

  2. My understanding in general is that police must have a parent-authorized adult present to interview a child. Frankly, though, this could include a teacher or principal of a school if the child attends school.

    CPS (CFC in Kentucky) may interview the children without a parent-authorized third party adult.

    Regarding this particular situation, it is clear that she came out guns flying. Anger, negativity; not speaking reasonably. Not letting him finish talking, jumping to conclusions.

    As the officer stated over and over and over to her and she refused to hear it - he is legally obligated to investigate any accusations. In this case, both the law and child protective services were involved because the father involved the children in an illegal situation.

    Firmly standing up for one's rights is very different from being a witch and making it ugly for everyone. Sorry for being so blunt.

    The audio on this - just the first one - makes me sick to my stomach. Why did she have to set herself up like that? :(

    1. The really sad thing, imho, is that she doesn't realize she set herself up at all!! She is convinced it shows how right she is and how wrong the police officer was.

      It hit me that the fact that they weren't staying at their... shelter... for the time being and she wasn't divulging anything about why or where else they were staying, it set things up so that the police would have NO idea on how to get a hold of them. That made the situation even worse for her.