AZ - Gabriel Johnson, 8 months, 26 Dec 2009 - last seen in Texas - #15

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
smart blonde said:
I cringe when I think of little Gabriel in a landfill.

Landfills are so destructive, with the crushing and spreading of debris.

If Elizabeth did indeed place him in a dumpster, his remains may never be found, because so much time has now elapsed.
Click to expand...

With Gabriel being just a baby and it being almost a month later, I highly doubt that any remains could be found. :( ..jmo though.. Even then, I wonder how many landfills could be possibilities?....

I'm with you smart blonde..it makes me feel sick to think about that likelihood ....:furious:
 
I think EJ freaked out on the phone with TS on the babysitter day. So, TS arranged for someone to go get Gabriel and hide him.
 
Pondering Mind said:
With Gabriel being just a baby and it being almost a month later, I highly doubt that any remains could be found. :( ..jmo though.. Even then, I wonder how many landfills could be possibilities?....

I'm with you smart blonde..it makes me feel sick to think about that likelihood ....:furious:
Click to expand...

unless he is in a diaper bag!!!! Plastic would protect him alittle........
:furious:
 
momtective said:
Searching the landfill speaks volumes...apparently LE has no lead whatsoever as to anyone with Gabriel other than EJ. No video of anyone entering or exiting the hotel, no video of anyone except EJ with Gabriel. They have absolutely no clues as to where Gabriel is..none.:fruious:

I'm still believing he's alive though and his new adoptive parents must be terrified. I imagine they have waited years for a baby and now they have Gabriel. It is also very possible that the adoption was legal in the State of Texas. There was no father on the birth certificate and although the court in AZ awarded joint custody, EJ still maintained physical custody and an adoption agency in Texas would be none the wiser as to what the AZ courts had ordered. If EJ surrendered Gabriel for adoption prior to the order giving Logan full custody then I don't see how the adoption could be illegal. Immoral yes but I would really like one of our legal eagles to address this issue.
The adoptive parents either fear the adoption being overturned if they come forward or they believe it is in fact legal and see no reason to take the risk by coming forward.
If the adoptive parents truly believe it is a legal adoption the we should all be watching the Texas courts (Bexar County I suppose) for the adoption Affidavit to be filed in June...6 months after placement.
If I'm wrong about any of this...please feel free to set me straight.
Click to expand...

No way an adoption of Gabriel would be legal under the circumstances. For one thing, it would violate the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which is a federal statute and applies to all states. Some highlights:
(2) 'contestant' means a person, including a parent, who claims a right to custody or visitation of a child;

(3) 'custody determination' means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the custody or visitation of a child, and includes permanent and temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications;
. . .

(g) A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody determination.
http://deltabravo.net/custody/pkpa.php
Click to expand...
 
time said:
The bad part is that it sounds like if someone does have him, they could claim they thought it was all legal and never heard about Gabriel on the news. So, they only have their morality to risk. Ugh.

My second thought it that Elizabeth knows it takes 6 months - maybe she figured she would wait that out? I don't know if that makes sense but it could be part of her original thinking and now she could just wait and get out when the legalities become apparent. Maybe she had a deal with the Smith's, an agency, or the parents that she is sticking by. I don't know.

(ok, sorry, I just rethought this. Maybe she was not told the names and knows these folks can't be tracked until the 6 months is up?)
Click to expand...

They have no legal standing. They accepted Gabriel illegally, and knowingly. There was no paperwork, no court action, nothing. Not knowing the law is not a legal defense.
 
I am getting worried that they ran out of leads and are going to the landfill(s) as their last resort. :( :( :(
 
GB loaded that bus...not necessarily with mom.....he's still alive, I believe, somewhere between SA and FL...just my opion!
 
passionflower said:
unless he is in a diaper bag!!!! Plastic would protect him alittle........
:furious:
Click to expand...

From your fingertips to Gods' ears passion!



I pray that he's not there ...but if he is, and not found soon.. I don't believe that he ever will be. :(
 
BeanE said:
They have no legal standing. They accepted Gabriel illegally, and knowingly. There was no paperwork, no court action, nothing. Not knowing the law is not a legal defense.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I am reading it all wrong (or stating it wrong). It sounded like from what momtective posted that at the time they could have not thought it was illegal and could claim until the 6 months is up that they were still under that assumption. I don't know anything about this stuff! :waitasec:
 
Amster said:
I think EJ freaked out on the phone with TS on the babysitter day. So, TS arranged for someone to go get Gabriel and hide him.
Click to expand...

I like this one, given several other worse case scenarios.

This could explain the attitude Dr. Glass mentioned of TS's "loud confident monotone voice" when she passed along that EJ said the 'couple' were going to hide Gabriel until his looks changed. ...But it would be flabbergastingly brazen to actually have sent someone she knows or go get him herself and then publicly flaunt it so obviously.

Also, has anyone said if the Smith's whereabouts of December 26 have been confirmed? And Christmas itself?

I'm assuming TS's family members have been looked at also? Did someone say she has 3 sisters?
 
Any couple or person who shows up at a hotel room to "adopt" a baby knows it's not a legal adoption.
 
OneLove said:
I like this one, given several other worse case scenarios.

This could explain the attitude Dr. Glass mentioned of TS's "loud confident monotone voice" when she passed along that EJ said the 'couple' were going to hide Gabriel until his looks changed. ...But it would be flabbergastingly brazen to actually have sent someone she knows or go get him herself and then publicly flaunt it so obviously. - - Still getting even with her ex? - -

Also, has anyone said if the Smith's whereabouts of December 26 have been confirmed? And Christmas itself? Did they leave town for a few days then for a family trip?
Click to expand...

It's possible she doesn't know who picked him up. Maybe her adoption attorney friend set it up? An underground type group?
 
time said:
Well, maybe I am reading it all wrong (or stating it wrong). It sounded like from what momtective posted that at the time they could have not thought it was illegal and could claim until the 6 months is up that they were still under that assumption. I don't know anything about this stuff! :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that if someone hands you a baby and you walk away with him/her and keep him/her, that it is legal.
 
Amster said:
Any couple or person who shows up at a hotel room to "adopt" a baby knows it's not a legal adoption.
Click to expand...

But maybe the person who actually took Gabriel is from an adoption agency with a record for being able to make these more shady deals work out. EJ wouldn't necessarily have ever met the couple themselves with a middleman as a go between. She might have just been told rudimentary things about 'the adoptive couple'. And if so, the information she was given might have been very bogus itself, just enough to get her to let loose her grasp on that baby!
 
On an O/T note, my sister informed me today, that haveing a C-section means you have a 50% chance of death on the table:waitasec: she is about to have her 5th child. I wonder why some people have children?? Good thing she has "beat the odds" 3 times :doh:[/QUOTE]

I had a c-section with my last child and my daughter had a c-section with her first and will be having another c-section with her second in a few months. A person having a c-section does NOT have a 50% chance of dying on the table. Whoever gave your sister that statistic???? Janet
 
We've been told she was involved in an organization that was active in the many high schools in the whole metropolitan area that worked with pregnant girls. That would be ALOT of babies over several years time. Is it known if she tried to adopt any of these babies?
 
time said:
Well, maybe I am reading it all wrong (or stating it wrong). It sounded like from what momtective posted that at the time they could have not thought it was illegal and could claim until the 6 months is up that they were still under that assumption. I don't know anything about this stuff! :waitasec:
Click to expand...

I don't understand where the "6 months" is coming from. If it's from this paragraph:
A child custody or visitation determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if— (1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State; and
(2) one of the following conditions is met: (A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or
(ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State;
Click to expand...
This paragraph is referring to the original State and its custody determination that the new State can't override. In other words,
had been the child’s home State (Arizona) within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding (in Arizona) and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant (Elizabeth) or for other reasons, and a contestant (Logan) continues to live in such State (Arizona);

Since Arizona fulfills these requirements, no other State can make a custody ruling about this child, even if the child is now in that State and no State can enforce a law contrary to this federal law.
Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 28 USC Sec. 1738A

http://deltabravo.net/custody/pkpa.php
 
BeanE said:
I don't see how anyone could possibly think that if someone hands you a baby and you walk away with him/her and keep him/her, that it is legal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they would think it was legal or not - my point was they might claim they didn't know. And, it could be possible it was more than someone just handing them a baby. I don't know ... haven't thought it through, but I am thinking back to those POA papers the Smith's had which didn't really give them legal rights to Gabriel either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 2,676 (members: 92, guests: 2,584)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
2,584
Total visitors
2,676
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,723
Messages
17,973,955
Members
228,880
Latest member
JennySue80
Back
Top