By Corey Thompson
Missouri Free Press
Body camera footage obtained by Missouri Free Press, along with direct messages from former Missouri Children’s Division investigator Noney Martin, is raising serious questions about how the Lincoln County Children’s Division handled an investigation that resulted in two children being removed from their homes on the night of January 8, 2026.
The evidence reviewed by Missouri Free Press includes body camera footage from Lincoln County Sheriff’s deputies, direct communications with Martin, and statements from the families involved. Together, they paint a troubling picture of how the investigation unfolded and raise questions about whether decisions to remove the children had already been made before any meaningful investigation occurred at either home.
According to the body camera footage, at approximately 10:00 p.m. on January 8, then-Children’s Division investigator Noney Martin arrived at the first residence accompanied by two Lincoln County Sheriff’s deputies. One deputy is identified on the recording as Deputy James Livingston. The identity of the second deputy remains unknown.
Martin identified herself and explained that she needed to see two children connected to a report she had received. According to the family, one of those children did not even live at that residence, immediately raising questions about the accuracy of the information that prompted the response.
The child’s mother then closed the door to retrieve the child.
As she did, Martin remained standing on the front porch and turned toward the deputies.
The body camera captures Martin saying, “I’m going to have to take them.”
Deputy James Livingston immediately replied, “You’re gunna take ’em?”
Martin answered, “I’m gunna have to.”
At that point, neither child had been brought to the door, and Martin had not yet explained the allegations to the family or requested drug testing.
Only after that exchange did Martin explain that Children’s Division had received allegations involving fentanyl use. She told the family their child would need to stay somewhere else while the parents submitted to drug testing.
Confused and unaware of their legal rights, the child’s father invited Martin and the deputies inside the residence, assuring them there was no fentanyl in the home and offering to let them look around.
As soon as everyone entered the residence, the body camera video suddenly went black.
The audio, however, continued recording.
During that recording, Deputy Livingston can be heard commenting about how clean the residence was. According to the family, no search for fentanyl was ever conducted. Instead, the audio captures Martin completing paperwork for what is commonly referred to as a Temporary Alternative Placement Agreement, commonly known as a TAPA.
A TAPA is intended to be a voluntary safety plan allowing children to stay temporarily with relatives or trusted family friends while concerns are addressed.
The interaction lasted approximately thirty minutes before the family’s child ultimately left with his grandmother.
Martin and the deputies then proceeded approximately two houses away to another residence where they had been told the second child lived.
At approximately 10:30 p.m., they contacted the child’s father.
Martin again stated that Children’s Division had received allegations involving fentanyl and that the child needed to leave the home.
The father immediately denied the allegation.
“I don’t do fentanyl. If I did, my kid would probably be dead. I smoke weed. I don’t do hard drugs,” he told Martin and the deputies.
He also made it clear he did not intend to allow his daughter to leave.
“My child isn’t going anywhere,” he said, adding that “we’ll all go to jail.”
After confirming with Martin that she intended to remove the child, Deputy Livingston warned the father that if he refused to cooperate, the child would be forcibly removed and he could be detained.
During the encounter, Livingston stepped fully inside the doorway of the residence and asserted that he did not need a warrant to enter the home.
Believing he had no real choice, the father ultimately agreed to allow his daughter to leave with her grandfather rather than risk watching deputies forcibly remove her from the home and place her into state custody.
Neither child was allowed to return home or have physical contact with their parents for seven days while the parents completed drug testing.
During that time, and in the weeks that followed, Missouri Free Press made repeated attempts, often daily, to speak with someone from the Lincoln County Children’s Division regarding the case.
Those phone calls were never returned.
Emails requesting comment also went unanswered.
Following the publication of a portion of the body camera footage, Martin’s husband briefly posted a public comment defending his wife before deleting it.
“You don’t have all the facts,” he wrote.
Shortly afterward, Mrs. Martin contacted Missouri Free Press directly.
In a series of messages, Martin acknowledged that the removals were traumatic for everyone involved.
“I know it was traumatizing to the children,” she wrote.
She also stated that it had been traumatic for her personally and explained that she was acting under instructions from her supervisor.
According to Martin, she was directed to remove the children using a TAPA because it was “less invasive.”
Martin also told Missouri Free Press that she left Children’s Division shortly after this incident.
“There is a lot that went wrong with that case,” she wrote. “I will say that there is more that could have been done to speed up the process of the children getting back into the home.”
She later added that she “felt like crap for days” because she “just wanted the kids to go back home.”
Missouri Free Press asked Martin whether this was the first time she had been instructed by a supervisor to remove children before an investigation had begun.
Her answer was simple.
“No.”
When asked whether she could estimate how many times she had been directed to remove children before an investigation was completed, Martin replied that she could not.
Missouri Free Press also asked what would have happened had either family refused to sign the TAPA.
Martin replied that the removals would have become forceful.
Additional questions, including the identity of the supervisor who allegedly gave those instructions and why the investigation proceeded as it did, were not answered.
In a subsequent email, Martin’s husband suggested Missouri Free Press look beyond his wife.
He wrote that the events surrounding this case had significantly impacted their family and encouraged Missouri Free Press to investigate the Lincoln County Children’s Division and its supervisors because there is “a much bigger story there.”
The facts documented in the body camera footage also raise significant constitutional questions that could become relevant if either family chooses to pursue civil litigation.
In Florida v. J.L., the United States Supreme Court held that an anonymous tip, standing alone, generally does not create reasonable suspicion for government action without sufficient independent corroboration.
Likewise, in Stanley v. Finnegan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed that parents have a clearly established constitutional right to the care, custody, and control of their children. The court held that, absent probable cause to believe a child faces imminent danger of serious bodily harm or other recognized emergency circumstances, government officials generally may not remove children from their parents without violating that constitutional right.
Whether those decisions ultimately apply here would be determined by a court. However, the sequence of events captured on body camera, and Martin’s own statements that she was instructed to remove the children before the investigation was completed, could become central issues should litigation be filed.
The evidence reviewed by Missouri Free Press also leaves several important questions unanswered.
What does Mr. Martin know that prompted him to say there is “a much bigger story” inside the Lincoln County Children’s Division?
If Mrs. Martin believed these children should not have been removed, why didn’t she refuse the order or report what she believed to be improper before carrying it out?
If the removals were justified, why did she later describe the incident as traumatic, say she “felt like crap for days,” and ultimately leave her position?
If this was not the first time she had been instructed to remove children before an investigation had begun, how often has that occurred within the Lincoln County Children’s Division?
And finally, if Mrs. Martin truly wants to help these families, as she says she does, will she now step forward as a whistleblower and identify the supervisors who directed those decisions?
Those questions remain unanswered.
Missouri Free Press has requested comment from the Lincoln County Children’s Division and will update this story if responses are received.