NC - Zahra Clare Baker, 10, Hickory, 9 Oct 2010 - #12

[panthera]

FYI Im having alot of trouble with my server today so going this way instead of direct quote.
The pic which I believe to be for a passport would look like a boys except for the earings...
Does a mother not having anything to do with a child for over 6 years have a say so in where thier child goes??? guess thats a ? for the Aussie group. I would assume there to be a statute of limitations there as here?? If the mother was really out of her life since 8 months that cant be a hard thing to get past ( no more than we have heard from bio mom in all this I dont think she gives a dam,.; one way or the other. Did grandma sign that paper hopng son and granddaugher would have a better life in the USA??? not so far fetched an idea
I always know what day my trash is being picked up ...usually 1 or 2 days a week cant -even for the simplist mind be hard to figure out.. how hard is it to stick a prostetic in the trash a couple weeks before you report someone missing???

I dont even want to go any farther cause it scares me what I consider as my NORMAL MIND can come up with???

BBM

It wouldn't be difficult at all, and unnoticeable if it had been disassembled and the plastic component (that looks like a leg/foot) cut/smashed up. MOO

 

[Choux]

No. However,

Their parental responsibility can only be removed by an Australian court.

This is where I was wondering about.

Given the lack of information available in regards to the bio mom, I had to question whether or not, she could have willingly surrendered all rights to the child, leaving dad to be the sole decision maker.

 

[darnudes]

Bio-mom might have given up all rights early on - we simply don't know. If she did that could explain why we aren't hearing all that much from her now.

JMO

It isn't as simple as giving up "rights" if you are named on the birth certificate as either father or mother your consent must be attained, failing that a waiver application must be lodged, for instances if you are honestly unable to locate the birth mother or father.

 

[bellyup]

No. However,

Their parental responsibility can only be removed by an Australian court. Where a father is not named on a child’s birth certificate but has formally acknowledged paternity by signing a document to this effect, he has parental responsibility for the purposes of the Australian Passports Act 2005 and is required to provide consent prior to issue of a passport.

https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/BrochuresWebPages/BrochureChildenParentalConsent.aspx

Someone from AUS was posting much earlier in the thread that there was a way for parental rights to be revoked :waitasec: That poster felt it was likely because usually moms would have custody unless they were unfit ?

I did ask that poster if records are public in AUS ? Here we would be able to get custody papers, etc by searching databases. I wondered if there was maybe more discussion about Zhara in an early newspaper print about her cancer?

 

[panthera]

I think the kittens were given to a family member or friend ... again from MS or FB photos. I recall seeing one with Zhara holding a kitten and a caption like "Zhara visiting" or something like that. I'll see if I can find it.

Thank you. That is a much better thought!

 

[Kamille]

The fact that we're only seeing Zahra and AB in what appears to be an attempt at passport pictures might be because they had to get passports to come to the US. If neither of them had ever left Oz prior to this, it's unlikely that they had them.

MOO

 

[passionflower]

Funny today we hear absolutely nothing from news????????????
or did we and I missed it???

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Question of the Day

How did AB attain parental consent from the biological mother for Zahra's passport?

Who needs to give consent?

Before a passport may be issued to a child (anyone under 18 years who has never married) the written consent of all people with parental responsibility for the child is needed.
Where persons with parental responsibility are in separate locations the non-lodging persons may provide consent through their nearest passport office or Australian diplomatic mission or consulate.
In most cases people with parental responsibility are the parents named on the child’s full birth certificate.
Their parental responsibility can only be removed by an Australian court. Where a father is not named on a child’s birth certificate but has formally acknowledged paternity by signing a document to this effect, he has parental responsibility for the purposes of the Australian Passports Act 2005 and is required to provide consent prior to issue of a passport.

As well as the parents named on the child’s full birth certificate, a person may have parental responsibility through Australian court orders covering residence, contact, access rights, guardianship, custody, or other specific issues relating to the child. Institutions such as a government welfare agency may also have parental responsibility under an Australian court order.

https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/BrochuresWebPages/BrochureChildenParentalConsent.aspx

If you wish to make an application for a waiver of consent you must complete a statement on a form B9 and provide details of the circumstances (Download Form B9). The application will be referred to an Approved Senior Officer for decision.
https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/Newppt/B9_2005.pdf

https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/Newppt/ApplyingU18.aspx

Seems to me that AB did not obtain consent from Zahra's mother and probably applied for a "waiver of consent". I wonder if he gave correct and honest information on that application. There are massive fines for supplying false information.

As far as I've read, we have no particular reason to believe that Zahra's biological mother retained legal "parental responsibility" in relation to Zahra. It's possible she did, but also very possible that she didn't. Even if her absence from Zahra's life had originally been just an informal arrangement, with no one bothering to go to court to formalize and/or challenge it, I would think that her treatment for life-threatening cancer would have required formal clarification of who had the parental right to make medical decisions for her, as well as parental responsibility for getting her to all her chemo appointments, etc.

 

[wfgodot]

Funny today we hear absolutely nothing from news????????????
or did we and I missed it???

Only thing today was confirmation by LE of the sighting of Z and SM in the furniture store two weeks before Z disappeared.

 

[bellyup]

It's hard to know what happened but if we take some things at face value, such as the bio mum not knowing they were in America (if this is a true statement) she couldn't have signed a consent form.

That statement was total heresay. Someone posted it to a facebook message board as a "friend" of the supposed biomom saying that she had been looking for Zhara for five years. I don't think it really holds much truth at all for several reasons. People have already stated there was a lot of press about Zhara's battle with cancer in Australia AND Zhara lived with her grandmother who has lived in the same place for a very long time. If biomom really had been looking for her for five years it wouldn't have been difficult at all for her to find her.

Also, there was a recent media report that biomom stated that she hasn't seen Zhara since she was an infant but "kept in contact" with the family. That seems much more likely.

Finally, if she really gave any hoot about Zhara I think she would have spoken to SOMEONE by now and made a statement. I know if it were my child I would have been on the first plane over here.

 

[darnudes]

I highly suspect that biomom doesn't have parental rights. Someone from OZ posted here that it would be extremely rare for a biomom to NOT have custody unless there was good reason (in which case her rights may have been revoked.)

Sorry, I've probably not posted very clearly and it is very confusing with the definitions the Australia Government use.

Parental rights in relation to a request for a passport for a child under 18 means, by the Australian Government definition, BOTH parents listed on the child's birth certificate. It has nothing to do with custodial issues or child support. You can't just take a child out of the country (although there are approx 150 cases of this happening per year) without the consent of both parents on the birth certificate unless you fulfill the criteria laid out, this is then investigated.

An Approved Senior Officer, an officer delegated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, will consider the statement in support of the request to determine if a passport may be issued without the other person's consent.

https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/Newppt/Consent.aspx

 

[darnudes]

As far as I've read, we have no particular reason to believe that Zahra's biological mother retained legal "parental responsibility" in relation to Zahra. It's possible she did, but also very possible that she didn't. Even if her absence from Zahra's life had originally been just an informal arrangement, with no one bothering to go to court to formalize and/or challenge it, I would think that her treatment for life-threatening cancer would have required formal clarification of who had the parental right to make medical decisions for her, as well as parental responsibility for getting her to all her chemo appointments, etc.

Parental responsibility as defined by the Australian government, for the purposes of attaining a passport for a child under 18, means those parents listed on the birth certificate.

You have to supply the birth certificate and you have to answer specific questions if you do not have written consent.

 

[wfgodot]

More on bio mom:
Aussie mum's fear for Zahra Baker
Herald Sun / October 16, 2010
---
THE mother of missing 10-year-old Zahra Baker is devastated by fears her girl has been murdered in the US.

North Carolina police officer Clyde Deal told the Herald Sun he had spoken with the mother and her sister in Australia.

"Like any parent, she was extremely upset," he said.

Captain Deal said Zahra's mother and father, Adam Baker, separated when Zahra was a baby, but she maintained contact with her daughter over the years.
---

more at
http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-mums-fear-for-zahra-baker/story-e6frfkvr-1225939455790

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Someone from AUS was posting much earlier in the thread that there was a way for parental rights to be revoked :waitasec: That poster felt it was likely because usually moms would have custody unless they were unfit ?

It seems likely to me that Zahra's mother qualified as unfit, and thus likely that her parental rights had been terminated at some point. If she was fit, and still had some parental rights and thus the right to at least have occasional phone contact with Zahra, wouldn't she have looked into Zahra's whereabouts at some point over the past over the past 2 years (since the move to the US)? You know, noticed being unable to reach her and not having heard from her, and contacted police to look into her whereabouts?

If that had happened, and it had been found that Adam had supplied false information to get a passport and take her out of the country illegally without the mother's consent, I'm sure her location would have been traced easily long before now, and she'd have been shipped home to Australia by Australian government authorities. And frankly, if AB had put something like "unable to locate or contact mother" on a waiver of consent form, without really making any effort to locate or contact her, her lack of action over the more than two years since Zahra's been on the other side of the world would pretty much wipe out any credibility she might have had to claim that she had indeed been reachable and just hadn't made any attempt.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

Parental responsibility as defined by the Australian government, for the purposes of attaining a passport for a child under 18, means those parents listed on the birth certificate.

You have to supply the birth certificate and you have to answer specific questions if you do not have written consent.

Per what you posted previously, in MOST cases it means the parents listed on the birth certificate, but it clearly says that this isn't the case when a court has formally changed who has "parental responsibility" for the child. I'm quite sure that an Australian married couple who legally adopted a baby that isn't biologically related to them, doesn't have to get written consent from the birth mother or get a "waiver of consent" to get a passport for THEIR child years after the adoption.

 

[pinkpuddytat]

FYI Im having alot of trouble with my server today so going this way instead of direct quote.

Believe me, it's not YOUR server that's having trouble. I'm having issues too, but only with the WS site, not anything else.

 

[wfgodot]

Believe me, it's not YOUR server that's having trouble. I'm having issues too, but only with the WS site, not anything else.

Me too. Seems to have cleared up for time being, knock on wood.

 

[sweetmop]

I think the kittens were given to a family member or friend ... again from MS or FB photos. I recall seeing one with Zhara holding a kitten and a caption like "Zhara visiting" or something like that. I'll see if I can find it.

Oh I really hope that's the case. That makes me feel a little better about the welfare of the cats anyway. I haven't seen the MS or FB. I never got to check them out before they were taken down.

 

[lauriej]

It is either her passport photo taken in oz , so not long after she recovered from the second bout of cancer. Or else it is a passport photo taken in the US maybe they were attempting to get US passports.

...this pic shows the white sheet as a back drop of a pic taken at home.

 

[Ada]

I think the same way. Zahra died from evil! I don't believe it was a natural occuring death that AB and EB then tryed to cover up.

JMHO.

I wouldn't call it a natural death if she died from cancer and was not getting medical care. That child should have been enrolled with a pediatric oncologist the minute her feet hit NC soil, period.

As far as medical coverage, assuming their status was legal, she would have been eligible for Carolina Access if their income was low enough. As for SSI, I don't know that she would have qualified. As far as we know, her potential disabilities were cancer, hearing and leg loss.

She wouldn't get SSI for hearing loss if the hearing aides improved her hearing. She wouldn't get SSI for the leg loss if she is able to walk with the prosthetic.

Lung cancer was in remission. Bone cancer might have done it, but, it was resected.

So, SSI is not a given in her case. Still a possibility but not a sure thing.

That said, I feel certain that even if there was NO medical coverage for this girl, she would have been taken care of by the medical community in NC.

~another NC native