Here's a snip-it on the story from as close to an objectionable stand point I could fine (admittedly it was hard to find a non-partisan write up of this story) http://www.westernjournalism.com/cps-rem...-kentucky/

 

"The Nauglers, who have ten children and another one due in four months, have chosen to live a “back to basics” lifestyle “off the grid.” The family lives in a 280-square foot wood-frame, three-walled cabin with a generator for power. They have no running water, use an outhouse with a latrine, grow their own vegetables, hunt on their land, and cook on a wood stove."

 

The background is this family has 10 kids with another on the way and they're what is refereed to as off-grid homesteaders. They own their own land outright and do not accept nor use any public utilities including (running water, sanitation, garbage collection, or electricity). Essentially they are the fringe of the homesteaders, the people that are looking to be 100% withdrawn from society, I'm not making the thread to argue for or against their lifestyle.

 

My question is at what point do you believe the state has the authority to remove children from a home? Is the lifestyle justification enough to remove children or does there need to be a form of abuse? Some people I know will argue that withholding the children from society, traditional schools (public or private) could consist of abuse in itself. I disagree with that but it's a fair argument.

 

I think this sets a horribly dangerous precedent that if the state arbitrarily decides your lifestyle is equivalent to abuse because of absence from common choices what stops the state from dictating all parental lifestyle choices? At some point will be faced with situations like Germany where it is illegal to homeschool a child?

---