Vet What You Read

Nicole wants everyone to read this.

Here’s the link.

I almost hesitate to do that because the more traffic the article gets, the more likely HuffPo is to think it’s bona fide, and I hate that.

However, in the interest of fairness. . .

The summary is basically that the author is claiming that CPS and family courts tend to give custody of children to the parent that is less capable and withhold custody from the parent that is more capable.

She’s not talking about CPS taking children from a couple who are together. She is talking about couples who are split.

Her reasoning is that CPS knows that the supposed unfit parent won’t bother to fight for the kid, and the fit parent will, and that will generate revenue for the state in court costs and stuff.

In the article, the author give no sources for any of her claims. She cites one book, which I frankly didn’t bother to look up, and in a minute you’ll see why.

There you have the TL;DR version, even shorter than the so-called short version. I’d hate to see the long one.

So who wrote this screed and how did it end up on Huffington Post?

This is the disclaimer that appeared beside the article.  This is not the main part of Huffington Post. It’s the “Contributor platform.”

This is also the main reason why, even though HuffPo is liberal, and even though I often agree with their political view, I consider them a dubious source.  I always look up an author who writes anything there.  I never just accept it.  And most of the time, if HuffPo is reporting it, there are better reports available from more reputable sources.

HuffPo is not the World Net Daily or of the left, but frankly, it’s not any better than Fox.  Read at your own risk. More about that later.

So who is Patricia Mitchell, the author?

Here’s her bio from HuffPo.

I immediately saw red flags.  Here they are, starting with the opening sentence. The grammar is atrocious.  Just bad.  Capitalization all skewed, punctuation horrible, you name it.  It’s bad.

She starts by telling us how accomplished she is, how totally gorgeous she is, and how fabulously educated she is, a regular Miss High Society.  Well, except for those pesky English courses, in spite of her claim that she minored in English and is a college graduate. I strongly doubt both those claims unless

She’s a “professional photographer,” which qualifies her for nothing except taking pictures (if it’s even true).

And toward the bottom, we see that she is a “child advocate.”  She has not a single credential that would qualify her for that title (if it’s even a thing).

So, I went to Google and looked for her.

Dear FSM, I found her.

This appears to be her original blog.

She obviously found that whole blogging thing hard, as she only produced about five articles in about two years, mostly about her.

The lead article, just so we all know it, is about her, of course.

I will let you guess.  Take all the time you need.

This is her second attempt at a web presence.

While breathtakingly ugly, she seems to have tried a little harder.

But on both sites, she puts her own story front and center.

Have you guessed yet?

Here’s the summary.

She had a brief fling with a guy. They split up. She had a baby, a little girl.  She went home to family. Her entire family is mean and  all of them connived against her. Family stole her stuff. Mother attacked her with a poker. Dad hit her or something. Sister works for CPS.  Family connived to steal her kid and give the kid to the father who lived in a school bus with no electricity or plumbing. In other words, he nauglered it.

CPS decided that he was a better option as parent than she was, which is saying something.

She fought back.  She lost.  Parental rights terminated.

Oh, and she’d like to raise one million dollars (please donate) so she can fight against evil CPS.

She used about five million words to say that. Read it if you want. The grammar and spelling are just as bad as the bio was.

This is the reason that it’s a very good idea to vet stories coming out of Huffington Post.

Here’s a handy little graphic.  People on the right appear to disagree with this assessment, but I think it’s pretty spot on.  I found several things interesting when I first saw it.

First, it confirms my instincts about Addicting Info, which I never read anymore at all. It made me question HuffPo more than I ever had before. In addition, I added some reading of The Hill, the Wall Street Journal, and the Economist to my reading diet even though they skew to the right.

But mainly, I try to stay within the gray circle in the middle.






Follow the Money

The video is here.

Here’s the transcript.

All right, I think it’s working now. I am not sure. It froze up on me earlier.

Anyways, I’ll try to speak up too.

I wanted to do a few thoughts that I was having earlier today on, um, these cases that we keep seeing of CPS and everybody saying, oh, well, we don’t know the whole story, we don’t know the whole story, let’s find the whole story.

The whole story is, with every single one of these cases, is that it’s guilty until proven innocent. And yes, I’m driving home, so, I’m not breaking any laws. But it’s guilty until proven innocent, and the problem that I have with this is that it’s completely unconstitutional and I don’t know why people support this, this idea of, of thinking it’s okay to remove children from their homes in case there might be something going on.

And to go even deeper, most people maybe don’t know, they’re not aware, or maybe they just don’t even care, which is even more disturbing, but children are removed without a criminal investigation. CPS can remove children without having to provide the burden of proof they would need to provide in a court of law.

Many times, as is in our case, there was no evidence of abuse or neglect. There were never any criminal charges filed. Our case has been open for two years, over two years now, and we have not been charged with abuse or neglect, and this is what happens with most of these cases.

The parents aren’t charged with abuse and neglect.

Now if you go into a home and you’re like holy hell, this is horrible, and you’re like okay, here’s the evidence, we’re gonna prosecute the crime, charge the parents and take the kids, that’s not what’s happening, here, in America. It’s not even close.

Most cases are unsubst- most CPS investigations are unsubstantiated, yet the children remain in care. Even if they do go home, as in the case of ours, they still remain under state supervision. It is nothing but a strong-arm grab, because nothing can hold a parent more hostage than their children.

You can threaten an adult with jail time and it won’t be near as powerful of a motivational tool to get someone to comply with whatever you want them to comply with as it is to threaten them with their children.

And so that’s how the system works. The families, I can’t remember the name of it, the Families Act of 1997, Safe Families Act, I think that’s what it’s called, you can Google it, incentivized, financially incentivized family court.

People are like, oh, well they don’t just go in and take kids for no reason. Well, there’s a reason. You just probably don’t want to know about it. Money is the reason. And people say there’s no money in foster care, blah, blah, blah. Go to almost any state’s audit, Kentucky’s supposed to do (unclear) Governor Bevin said, he ran on his campaign, I’m gonna audit CPS, hasn’t done it yet. Don’t expect him to.

Um, but CPS audits. Find out in your own state how many children are taken into foster care and how many of those cases are substantiated. The numbers are alarming.

And this is their, usually their only investigation. There are no unbiased organizations that are investigating these agencies because there’s no oversight at all. There’s no oversight for any, in any state that I know of. There might be some coming up (unclear) going on, but there’s very little oversight.

So essentially, someone can be mad at you – that’s usually what happens – somebody’s mad at you, you don’t comply, somebody thinks you’re parenting wrong, whatever it is, somebody makes a call to CPS and says, I think these kids are being abused because of this, this or this.

Now, there may be actual abuse, which is, you know, the child is being beaten for no reason, or for whatever reason they have and there’s injuries or the child’s being chained to a closet or whatever. Someone goes in and goes, okay this is clear abuse.

But what about subjective abuse? What about having obese kids? Is that abuse? Is it abusive to have overweight unhealthy children? Is it abusive to educate your children in a manner, maybe atheists who think that teaching your child religion is abusive. Or maybe Christians who think that teaching your children, you know, not to believe in God is abusive. I mean everybody has subjective what they feel is wrong. Um, you know.

But it not a, it’s not illegal. It’s not illegal to not have running water. It’s not illegal to not send your kids to public school. To homeschool them. According to the laws, of course, but each state, every state in the United States allows for parents to homeschool in some aspect. It’s not illegal to teach your children about Jesus. It’s not illegal to teach your children that Jesus is fake. It’s not illegal to do any of these things that people have issues with.

But, since CPS is subjective, and they don’t have to show the burden of proof in a criminal court, it’s up to the individual caseworkers, it’s up to the individual family court system with the judge, cause in the end it comes down to what the judge deems. Now, if these people think your way of life is wrong, they’re gonna say, well, this could be abusive, let’s just keep digging and make sure these kids are okay because I think that this – without having to show any burden of proof.

In a criminal court, it would be thrown out and dismissed. In family court, you’re told, well, if you plead dependency, we’ll leave you alone. Dependency, per Kentucky law, basically means that, through no fault of your own, you’re unable to provide some necessities to your children or, it’s very vague. It’s actually, um, almost a joke that it’s in the law books. But that’s what they say. So, instead of getting you to say, dropping, dismissing the charges, saying you’re fine, they just say, well, plead dependency. They want you to plead something so they don’t have to admit that they’re wrong.

If you get out of that without having to plead dependency, you’re quite lucky. In some cases, they’ll use one child against the other. I was talking to a local Kentucky mom the other day. She had to sign over her rights to her newborn, who is easily adoptable of course. She had to sign over her rights to her newest baby to be able to regain custody of her older autistic child. And she did so, having to choose (starts to cry), which is horrible. (unclear) one of your two kids, and you just say, you save one of your kids and you’re like, which one do I save. You obviously save the one who you feel is more in jeopardy which is her autistic child, and that is just so unfair.

She was never found guilty of any type of abuse. She was having a hard time with her autistic child, and um, and the neighbor called, instead of offering help, she called CPS and said, Look this mom is a bad mom, she can’t handle her kids, and CPS got involved and saw an opportunity. And, um, it’s wrong.

And I’m reading the comments that I’ve shared two of the other families, I’ve shared their stories, three, I think three families I’ve been sharing their stories this past week or two and everybody says, oh, well, we don’t know the whole story.

You’re right. We don’t know the whole story. But I don’t know of any story that wouldn’t make headline news where the children need to be taken and then figure it all out later. I, I mean, if there’s cases of abuse, which you hear, you see them, those are the ones that make the news. The ones that make the news. Child locked in closet. Child found dead. Child found under a coach. You know, teenage girl, you know, weighing, you know, 56 pounds or however much she weighed. Those are cases of abuse that make headlines. Those are clear-cut yes take the kids that’s common sense.

But cases like ours and the other, you know, the other families that I’ve been posting about, those aren’t take the kids let’s figure it out later. There are repercussions to doing that. You don’t just take a kid, and yeah, I’m going on vacation, let’s go here. It is traumatic to a child to be taken and placed with strangers, unable to communicate with their parents on a regular basis. You know, it’s scheduled phone calls and visits, and it’s, you know, you do what we say when we say and we’re regulating everything. It’s traumatic to a child to do that. More traumatic than whatever you’re probably accusing the parents of doing.

And, um, if there not evi- if there’s not enough evidence for criminal charges, there’s certainly not enough evidence to take a child from their home. If you are the type to support that, um, I don’t even know what to say. I have, I have no comprehension on, on that. Even before experiencing it, but even more so afterwards, I just can’t even imagine thinking that would be the best, that would be the best way, to, um, to handle those situations.

Uh, it’s, uh, something I will be continuing to address. I know I’ve gotten a few people commenting on our page and a few messages, Facebook messages from people who are saying, well, we liked it better when you post more about homestead stuff, you know, we do, we will. But this is something I think that needs to be addressed with, um, with more emphasism on saving the children by not more disruption, less disruption to the home, less disruption to the psyche, um, having more accountability in these courts. I mean, can you imagine having your kids taken and never being charged with a crime?

You, yourself, you, sitting there, knowing how your life is today, knowing how you are with your children, knowing how everything in your life is going, knowing that you have not broken any laws. Oh, uh, uh, uh, I hear it all the time, I’ve not broken any laws, I have nothing to worry about.

We didn’t break any laws.

There were no laws. We were charged with zero. No laws. The only thing we violated was a, um, code. It wasn’t even like a law. There’s no fine. There’s no, it’s nothing. It’s, um, it’s less than a traffic ticket. Um, but we broke no laws. So people say oh, well, if you just complied. We had. But it still happened. And it happens to parents every day. And I guess until you’ve experienced it or experienced it close up, you probably won’t ever comprehend it. I don’t know.

I don’t know how to help people understand because going through it, I don’t understand it.

But it’s just something that’s been on my mind, reading the comments, not only on our page, but reading the comments on, um, on the other families that we post, the Schwabs and the Holmes baby, and the, uh, I just posted her yesterday, I forgot their names, the ones from Arizona. Um, but reading the comments and people just trying to find out, well there’s got to be more, there’s got to be more, there’s got to be something these people did to deserve this.

And, stretch of the imagination they come up with, oh, well, they did this, but they did that, but they’ve not been charged with a crime. So again, we’re going back to, well, these people don’t live the way that I like, they don’t do the things that I think that they should, they are different, they’re nonconventional, but they haven’t broken any laws.

And I’m going through these cases, not just the ones I mentioned but some others that come across, um, especially local ones because I know a few other families locally that are dealing with these things and it’s still the same. I’m looking. What law did they break? I’m looking to find what law did they break? What were they charged with?

None of them have been charged with a crime. That should be what you’re looking for when you’re looking to find out the truth about any of these stories, tell me what the parents were charged with. Tell me how they charge the parents with a crime, what crime they were charged with that justified taking their kids.

You want to look for the deeper story of that, find that. Find that in any of these cases. Go through any of the CPS. There’s, I’ll link pages in the comments here. There’s plenty of pages on Facebook. Um, CPS exposure, things like that. All of these stories, go through and look and see who, what were the parents charged with. In most of these cases, the parents were never charged with a crime.

And that is what is most concerning, and um, so, for those of you who are questioning what’s going on, look into that. If you have any doubts, look for criminal charges. Those are public. Those are public. What goes on in family court is private. (unclear) in family court, it’s private. If we were charged with a crime relating to our family court, that would not be private.

The charges, there may some certain things to it, but the charges themselves, if you’re charged with child abuse, that would be public record. If we were charged with any type of child neglect, that would be public record. That would be a criminal case. Public criminal case.

And the same goes with any of these other families. So, um, that’s what I want people to focus on. If you see that in your state, look up your CPS audits and look up some of your public, every state has public CPS cases. It doesn’t take much to find them either. And find out what are the parents charged with. And when you see that the parents aren’t being charged with crimes, ask yourself, what’s really going on. Why are these families being targeted if they’re innocent?

So, anyways, I’m gonna keep driving and head home, but that’s something I wanted to share tonight, and I’ll talk to you guys later.

And some comments from me:

financially incentivized family court.

Here’s the actual text of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

It isn’t what Nicole is claiming it is.  Prior to 1997, family courts had a tendency to try to keep families intact regardless of the consequences to the children. And terminating parental rights was so difficult to do that there was a good chance that children would not be adopted but would stay in foster care until they aged out.

The Act shifted the emphasis from the parents’ rights to the rights of the children.  The Act passed Congress almost unanimously.  Read that again.  The vote was almost unanimous. Something like four Congressmen voted no.

I know Nicole believes that children are a form of property, like puppy dogs, but they are not.  They are citizens with rights. And in child welfare cases, those rights trump the rights of the parents, period.

But let’s talk for a second about how the Act causes courts to steal children so they can adopt them out and make enough money to support the whole state (that’s what Nicole claims).

You know how much federal money the Act gives to states if they adopt children out?  It’s whopping. It’s enormous.


Read it again.



Here’s the pertinent piece from the image above, so you can read it.


So, foster parents are paid by the state approximately $600 per month, maybe a little more now if that data is old. Let’s assume it’s a bit more. Let’s make it $25/day.

Nicole is totally peeved about this.  This, to her, is proof that foster parents are in it for the money and that it’s a super duper career option. You can get rich doing this.

Let me say something about that.

I am not a foster parent.  I already did child-rearing and I don’t want to do it again, thanks very much.  But you couldn’t get me to invest that kind of time and emotional involvement for $25/day.  No way, no how, never. Foster parents aren’t being paid at all, frankly.  They are simply having some of their costs reimbursed. They are getting an hourly wage of zero.

I know that Nicole and Joe have “raised” children on much less money, but I used quotes around “raised” for a reason. Normal people spend money to raise kids. They spend money to feed them and they house them in real houses with actual beds and linens and they buy them clothes and shoes and get haircuts for them and take them places. They run out gas and put wear on a car taking them to ball practice and piano lessons and stuff like that.

Let’s take those stats that I linked to above and analyze them a little bit.

Ignore the big scary $233,000 figure at the top.  Let’s modify that.

According to the article, low-income families spend about $174,690 to raise a kid, as opposed to a much higher figure for high-income families, so let’s start there.

It goes on to say that families with three or more kids spend about 25% less per child than families with only one or two. That makes sense as there are hand-me-downs of all sorts, so stuff goes further.  That would reduce the figure to $131,000.

And this is for 17 years, so let’s divide that number by 17 (in actuality it doesn’t work out quite like that because older children cost more than younger children, but we’re dealing with averages here). That comes out to about $7700 annually per child, or $642 per month.

As I said before, foster care isn’t a great way to produce income.

But instead of paying for foster parents, Nicole wants the state to just give her the money.  Right. That’s a great solution.

CPS can remove children without having to provide the burden of proof they would need to provide in a court of law.

First off, the burden of proof is not a thing you “provide.” You don’t carry it around in your pocket.  It’s an obligation you either have or you don’t have.

Nicole gets this shit all confused, in part because she thinks of her children as property and not human beings with rights of their own. The state is not nearly as worried about preserving Nicole’s rights as they are about protecting the rights of her children.  Get that?  That’s a fact. When it comes to child protection, the emphasis is on the child.

However, the courts are really desirous of reunifying families. They actually really want Nicole and Joe to spend all that money providing for the children Joe and Nicole chose to bring into the world instead of making me pay for it.  So they are sort of loathe to press all sorts of criminal charges against the parents.  They actually try not to do that.  The parents have big enough problems as it is, and a criminal record (or further criminal record) isn’t going to help matters, so they avoid it if they can.

Family court is not criminal court.  Civil court is not criminal court.  Nicole needs to learn the difference. You’d think she would have done so by now.

We didn’t break any laws.

She lies about this a lot.  A whole lot.  In fact, she does this almost every time she talks about it.

Her version of the story is that a woman got mad at Joe because of Facebook and in retaliation, just because she was peeved, called CPS anonymously, having never met a single one of the children or ever going to the Shitstead and Todd Pate just rushed out there without any court order at all and kidnapped their kids.

That is not what happened at all.


It was not about water.

I concur.

From what I can gather, it was not about water.

It was way worse than that.

Joe went to this person’s property (she was renting, but it was still her home and her yard), not to speak to her, but to confront Person B who happened to be in the front yard at the time doing yard work.  Joe did not know the original woman was present in the back yard out of sight.

Some yelling ensued between Joe and Person B, and the person who ultimately called CPS came to the front yard.

She told Joe to leave.

Joe responded by threatening her.

But here’s what is important.

He had minor children with him.  Not only did his minor children witness his behavior, he also forced one of them to participate in the crime he committed.  “Get me the gun from the glove box,” he said (or something similar).

He finally left.

The woman who had been threatened then contacted Nicole in an effort to get her to stop Joe from coming by there and attempting contact with Person B.  Nicole rebuffed her completely.

That left the woman with only two choices.

She could just shut up and let Joe continue to threaten her that way or she could call the police.

Nicole knows all about calling the police. She does so at the drop of a hat. She does so if you happen to be in the same courtroom with her, or if you dare to ride down “her” road.

This woman had been personally threatened with the use of a gun while standing in her own yard, so she did a very sensible thing and called the police.

When she described what had happened, the police told her that in addition to making a complaint about Joe, she was obligated, by Kentucky law, to call CPS because there were minor children present.

All calls to CPS are considered “anonymous.” Nicole knew perfectly well that this woman was going to do this, and she knew why.

So Joe and Nicole made an effort to flee. They were fleeing in part because Joe was going to be charged with a criminal offense (and was ultimately convicted of that and spent a couple of weekends in jail as a result) and because they didn’t want CPS talking to their kids.

When officers came to the property to serve Joe, this is what they found. When CPS came to the property to investigate, this is what they found.


This was the living quarters for a family of 12.

They didn’t even know at first that it was a “house.”  They thought it was animal housing.  And Joe and Nicole had fled.

Here’s what the state said about it.


It’s not one bit surprising that people thought the Nauglers were living in a tent.  How would you describe the Shitshack?

And here’s a bit of an addendum.


Notice that statement is filed in addition to the longer statement above.

Todd Pate caught Nicole with the two older boys coming back to the Shitstead to get some stuff and that’s when the confrontation took place there.

There were three main issues.

The criminal activity that Joe engaged in precipitated all of this.  It was number one.  Joe did, in fact, break the law and was subsequently convicted of doing so.

A second, and just as troubling, situation was that their living conditions were beyond substandard. They lived in squalor.  They lived worse than people do in third-world countries.

And the final straw, the one that Sheriff Pate spent quite some time trying to make Nicole understand was going to be the final straw, was that Joe and Nicole refused to cooperate in any way with CPS.

This was entirely and solely the fault of Joe and Nicole Naugler.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants their kids.  Their kids aren’t special. They are just kids, and furthermore, they all have Joe Naugler’s DNA. They’re just ordinary kids who are almost feral and have never really been educated.

She was having a hard time with her autistic child, and um, and the neighbor called, instead of offering help, she called CPS and said, Look this mom is a bad mom, she can’t handle her kids, and CPS got involved and saw an opportunity. And, um, it’s wrong.

And the Sophie’s Choice thing complete with the tears is horse shit.

The deal is this. The autistic child was a teenage boy who is violent. Violent.  And the newborn baby was placed in grave danger by living in the home  with the boy who could not be controlled by his mother.  That’s the situation.

Now, please tell me how the neighbor was supposed to “help”?  Exactly how?

Apparently, the state had tried numerous times to help this woman and she, like Joe and Nicole, refused to cooperate with them.

I know somebody who has a now-adult autistic child.  It’s not easy.  In some cases (and this person’s child was one of them) they are prone to outbursts of anger and they have poor impulse control. These particular parents have always, throughout their child’s life, done everything they could possibly do to help their kid. They’ve gone to classes themselves. They’ve gotten the child all sorts of special education. They have gradually seen improvement, not just in the child’s ability to exhibit self-control, but in their own response to the stress involved.

This woman appears to have not been able to do that for some reason.

So the state had to remove the baby for its own protection.

What should they have done? Wait until the older kid killed or maimed the baby so they’d have a crime to prosecute?

When you have a child, you get custody of that child at birth.  Custody means that you have the right to say what goes on with that child, but that’s not all it means.  Custody also means responsibility.  If you can’t measure up with the responsibility part, the state is gonna take away the rights part.

Bet on it.

And I support them doing so.