Joe and Nicole Naugler Arraignment

WXBC

(05/12/15)- Innocent pleas were entered Tuesday (05/12) on behalf of a Breckinridge County couple at the center of a custody dispute with the state involving their ten children.

Joe Naugler pleaded not guilty to a charge of menacing in connection to a dispute with a neighbor earlier in the month. Bond was set $1,000 unsecured with a pre-trial conference set for May 26th.  

Nicole Naugler entered not guilty pleas to charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest following a confrontation with authorites on May 6th. Naugler was already on bail with a pre-trial conference set for July 7th.

The state placed the Naugler’s ten children in foster homes following a complaint over living conditions at the family’s residence in the Garfield area. The couple and supporters say the children were removed due to their “off-the-grid” lifestyle.

Speaking briefly to reporters, Joe Naugler asked friends and supporters to keep them in their thoughts and prayers. The couple exited the courtroom without further comment.

Breckinridge County Sheriff Todd Pate couldn’t comment on the case, citing an on-going investigation.

A custody hearing was held Monday (05/11). Neither the Nauglers or their attorney would comment if custody had been returned, and records involving juveniles are closed to the public. Another custody hearing is set for next week.

http://www.wxbc1043.com/Naugler-Arraignment/21503436

3 thoughts on “Joe and Nicole Naugler Arraignment

  1. “A custody hearing was held Monday (05/11). Neither the Nauglers or their attorney would comment if custody had been returned,…”

    Lets call a spade a spade here… the only legitimate question concerning ‘custody’ is… why aren’t the kidnappers being charged and prosecuted?

  2. Any normal mother would “resist” a kidnapper’s taking of her children. It is instinct. That mother bear thing. Don’t underestimate us, and don’t try to make this into something it’s not. This whole thing of condemning her and characterizing her actions as “disorderly conduct and resisting arrest” when she was almost certainly instinctively protecting her children is a sick charade.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*