Robin Rider-Osborne Have you seen this lady’s comment? According to http://www.wbko.com/…/Off-grid-Couple-Faces-Hearing-to… the state brought in Joe’s oldest son Alex Brow to testify against his father.
Alex testified under oath that he was taken from his father at age 4 and that he had not seen his father Joe since he was taken away. He also testified that he got all the beatings, most of the mental abuse, and a lot of sexual abuse.
The article states, “He told WBKO the reason he was in Kentucky, was to help his ten brothers and sisters”.
First I would like to state that first and foremost the children’s safety is of utmost importance and what I am about to point out has only to do with my own concern for their safety as a Citizen who is watching this all play out.
Alex Brow as a witness, should have been objected to by the Naugler’s attorney before he began testifying, on these grounds, Alex’s testimony concerns allegation of beatings, mental abuse and sexual abuse that he states he suffered. Seeing that he was removed at the age of 4 and has not been with his father since then, his testimony concerning what he experienced at age four is not credible before a court of law, as a child of four years of age is not able to understand the concept of truth required for one to raise their right hand and tell nothing but the truth, prior to delivering testimony before the Court.
Alex’s testimony of abused suffered was what others told him he suffered and this is not omissible in a court of law because it is considered hearsay. The fact that the judge would allow testimony that is based on hearsay is a huge red flag to the credibility of this Court.
The state seems to be pretty desperate to put a sibling up against his father based on hearsay and the judge should not have allowed the testimony on the grounds expressed above, in my opinion.
I expect the Naugler’s attorney will file a motion to strike the testimony, even if this just simply allows them to preserve the objection for a future appeal.
Now legal testimony should have been from the psychologist who assessed Alex when he was four years old and removed him from his father Joe’s custody or from other experts who assessed Alex as a child and who determined that he would be taken from his father. These experts would have their records and some type of assessments to present before the court. At the very least they would have testified as to how they determined that Alex was sexually abused prior or up to the age of 4 years old.
As a non-fee pastoral counselor one of the issues that is difficult to explain to parents in custody issues is that even though one parent may hate the other. If you love your child, even if you gain custody of the child, you should never attempt to destroy the child’s other biological parent’s character (character assassination) as this is a subtle abuse of the child themselves and their self-esteem. An attack against the child’s birth parent is an attack against the child.
The state knows this but their best interest is not for Alex but for themselves, because they needed to get a witness to help them defend their unconstitutional actions against the Naugler’s and they needed the court to agree with them so that they could gain legal access to the Naugler’s 10 children and do a battery of assessments on each of the children in hopes of gathering evidence to use against the Naugler’s.
The Naugler’s may have nothing to hide, but the state having no legal evidence to take these children in the first place, must now find anything they can to submit as evidence. And, when you have nothing to hide and they find nothing to support their abuse of power, they tend to falsify documents or use counseling techniques that do not have the child’s best interest at heart but are designed to create evidence as needed to support their unconstitutional actions.
I hope that these children can have an attorney present when they are being questioned and given the assessments, because I am very concerned for the constitutional rights of these children as the state has already violated their constitutional rights when they removed the 10 children extracting some of them from the safety of their family car and forced their father to bring in the others and when they continued to detain them based on hearsay testimony of their witness, Alex Brow, whose testimony was not only hearsay, but also greatly influenced by the state and whomever sought him out to present testimony, and as he is not an expert in child psychology or any field needed to provide expert testimony with assessments needed to validate the continued detainment of the 10 children from their parents, dogs, cat, and Kentucky home.
Also, if you watch the video found here by ABC News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAQn8bI3D0E of Alex Brow in front of the camera he looks up to the right and this tells us that his brain is creating and attempting to figure out what to say based on what was told to him versus what he himself remembers.
When someone access old memories their eyes look to the left to access those memories. There is truth to this. Have someone ask you a question and try it on yourself.
Alex states, “I would get all the beating, um” and then his eyes go up to the right to create what to say next.
He then states, “most of the mental abuse, um” against his eyes go to the right, “a lot of sexual abuse towards me” he keeps his eyes towards the right.
You did not see him one time shift his eyes to the left (accessing memories), you only see him look to the right (creating) or at the reporter in front of him.
This does not mean that he is lying just that the information concerning the alleged abuse he suffered is not present in his memory to access.
He was simply too young, so he is having to access what he was told happened to him and create to provide this testimony.
In my opinion Alex is 19 years old, in my mind he is still a baby and I do not feel that the state had his best interest at heart when they brought him into Court to testify against his father, especially knowing that this case is in a huge spotlight across this nation.
They should have brought in experts. If Alex did suffer sexual abuse, he should not have had to come out with this to the public to help his siblings and why has he not reached out to them in the past, why now when the state is desperate to cover their unconstitutional actions and to get legal access to the Naugler’s 10 children?
If Alex was sexually abused the state would have no problem bringing in expert testimony or past court documents that substantiates, the alleged sexual abuse.
We are continuing to pray for this family, all of them including Alex, God Bless. – Shawna Sterling Cut Glass
The Naugler Family waited all day Monday in…
wbko.com|By Jake Boswell