IN - Couple charged with abandonment of adopted child after legally changing her age, Sept 2019 #2 *not guilty*

[Meloni88]

I hope this show shows both sides of the story

Even both sides-ing it is ridiculous IMO. We saw all those doctors and dentists who confirmed over and over that she was a child in the court documents. We can see clearly in photographs of Natalia over the years that she was a little girl when she arrived in the country, went through adolescence and is now a young woman.

 

[cocomod]

Even both sides-ing it is ridiculous IMO. We saw all those doctors and dentists who confirmed over and over that she was a child in the court documents. We can see clearly in photographs of Natalia over the years that she was a little girl when she arrived in the country, went through adolescence and is now a young woman

Yes, we have. But I have watched programs tell the public a story that we have known to be false. It is hard to me because most of the people I know have never heard of this story. This was a travesty on so many levels. Like, literally, how can the court do what they did?

 

[Laughing]

Personally, I would love for Dr. Jen to add her personal & medical opinion to this discussion:

Jennifer Arnold, MD, MSc | Boston Children's Hospital

www.childrenshospital.org

How can any court decide against an unrepresented minor???

This question is for you, Indiana taxpayers....

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[jjenny]

She wasn't growing? Have these people noticed she has severe dwarfism? No **** she isn't growing like a regular person. That was the argument they made that she is an adult? Not growing? The mind boggles. Because her age was legally changed from child to adult, it was not possible to argue at trial that she was abandoned as a child.

 

[jjenny]

There is something really wrong with our laws if these people were able to change her age from a child to an adult, without her interests being represented, but there appears to be absolutely no way to change it back.

 

[cocomod]

There is something really wrong with our laws if these people were able to change her age from a child to an adult, without her interests being represented, but there appears to be absolutely no way to change it back.

Correct!! I can’t even imagine that they won’t revisit this issue. I mean, death row inmates get a retrial or exonerated if new evidence exists. How can they not fix this given she had zero representation?!

 

[jjenny]

Correct!! I can’t even imagine that they won’t revisit this issue. I mean, death row inmates get a retrial or exonerated if new evidence exists. How can they not fix this given she had zero representation?!

She probably can't even sue media for defamation likening her to Orphan or implying she is an adult because legally she is an adult. It's absurd. Why is it only possible to change her age one way but not the other?
These adoptive parents making horrible claims against her, like she tried to kill them (which media is gleefully reporting).
Well she lived with a bunch of people since then and haven't killed any of them. If she was such a killer maniac how come nobody is dead?
Just read an article how neighbors "reveal disturbing encounters." When she was left alone, she was unkept and had body odor. Hello? How did they expect her to take care of herself when she was left alone in the apartment? It was disturbing for these neighbors to see her struggling to take care of herself? Really?
It's a miracle she isn't dead.

"But a year after the move, Natalia was forced out of the apartment due to complaints about her disturbing behavior. Neighbors recounted seeing her struggling to take care of herself and recount in the documentary how they saw her wearing dirty clothing, scuffed shoes and stinking of body odor."

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[jjenny]

Yes, we have. But I have watched programs tell the public a story that we have known to be false. It is hard to me because most of the people I know have never heard of this story. This was a travesty on so many levels. Like, literally, how can the court do what they did?

I don't get it. Like has been pointed out by another poster, somebody convicted of a crime can have the conviction overturned. Yet a child having her age changed to an adult can not have that overturned under any circumstances?
What was the evidence that she wasn't a child? She wasn't growing like a normal person? She has severe dwarfism. Supposedly she had pubic hair and menstruation? She denies it, but even if that were true, there is such a thing as precautious puberty, which is a child having sexual development characteristics before the age of 8. That's not proof of her being an adult even if it were true.

 

[jjenny]

And her not speaking with an "Ukrainian accent" points to her being a child, not an adult. Children pick up languages very easily, while adults don't. Her not having an accent points to her being a child when arriving into the US, not an adult. Having a good vocabulary after being in US for a short time points to the same thing. Many arriving as adults take a long time to get a good vocabulary.

 

[jjenny]

Prosecution was able to verify who Natalia's birth mother is by DNA. They were not allowed to use that evidence in court. I do not understand why she can't go to court and change her age back. Why does it only go one way? This whole story makes me so angry. She has a birth certificate showing she was born in 2003. Her birth mother was verified by DNA. Why did US court made her a legal adult and she is not allowed to change it back? And then these adoptive parents make these horrible claims about her. A lot of adoptions don't turn out well, but the parents usually don't try to make the child a legal adult and let the kid survive on his or her own.


"The Indiana State Police sent two detectives, and we sent one of our deputy prosecutors to Ukraine in 2019. This is before the war over there. They were actually able to find and meet Natalia's birth mother. DNA samples were taken from her, brought back to the police lab which showed she was the natural mother of Natalia," Harrington said."

Tippecanoe County Prosecutors Office Releases Evidence: Natalia Grace Barnett Case

Tippecanoe County Prosecutors office releases evidence they weren't allowed to use in trial.

www.wlfi.com

 

[jjenny]

Even both sides-ing it is ridiculous IMO. We saw all those doctors and dentists who confirmed over and over that she was a child in the court documents. We can see clearly in photographs of Natalia over the years that she was a little girl when she arrived in the country, went through adolescence and is now a young woman.

And her birth mother was verified by DNA. She has a whole bunch of documents showing she was born in 2003. Yet a US court proclaimed her to be an adult and apparently it's impossible to change that. So she couldn't even go to school since she now was a legal adult. What was done to this child is atrocious.

 

[Meloni88]

I don't get it. Like has been pointed out by another poster, somebody convicted of a crime can have the conviction overturned. Yet a child having her age changed to an adult can not have that overturned under any circumstances?
What was the evidence that she wasn't a child? She wasn't growing like a normal person? She has severe dwarfism. Supposedly she had pubic hair and menstruation? She denies it, but even if that were true, there is such a thing as precautious puberty, which is a child having sexual development characteristics before the age of 8. That's not proof of her being an adult even if it were true.

The Barnetts took her to an endocrinologist. He would have done a series of blood tests to check her hormone levels and find out for certain whether she was menstruating or not. Whether there was a diagnosis of precocious puberty idk but regardless, we know that that endocrinologist estimated that she was around 8 years old based on his findings. They had bone scans and dental exams done as well and all came back telling the Barnetts she was a child.

AND when she first arrived in the US and adopted by the New Hampshire family she was taken to Boston Children's and those hospital records show that an orthopaedic doctor accepted the fact that she was 4 years old. They presented the family with a schedule of treatments for Natalia's condition. These were doctors at the best children's hospital in the world having zero doubt that she was a child. It is ludicrous that they will not change her age back even now that they have access to all this information.

 

[squareandrabbet]

The hopeful adoptive parents arrive in county expecting one child, whom for all photos and records, is a normal healthy child and then a pitiful one with problems is brought to them as the only child they can adopt and their emotions and guilt drive them to accept the child they didn't choose.

Remember the Doctor and his wife in Houston that went to India for a baby. <modsnip - not victim friendly>

These people were hoodwinked by the Ukrainian and the US adoption agencies. She was an adult and they left her in an apartment and provided everything for her care <modsnip - not victim friendly>

JMHO

The minute I saw this person, I knew she was an adult.

I started spotting at aged 10, and this was 1981, before they started putting god knows what in the water to speed up everyone’s puberty.

10 year olds have in fact given birth before:

10-Year-Old Girl Gives Birth to Daughter

Get breaking national and world news, broadcast video coverage, and exclusive interviews. Find the top news online at ABC news.

abcnews.go.com

also, the mother who gave her up in the Ukraine was found and interviewed.

she said, (a), she is a child; and (b), that she was told giving her up would lead to a better life.

she also said that if she had known this would happen to her, she would never have given her up for adoption.

as for the Barnett’s claims she acted out in a sexualized manner, this certainly wouldn’t even be the first case we’ve seen or heard of on this site, where still completely childish children have acted out sexually because they’ve been abused by other children and/or adults.

 

[jjenny]

The whole story is outrageous. Her mother was verified by DNA. Mother was born in 1979. So she was 24 when she had Natalia. Her mother would have to have been 10 years old when she had Natalia if Natalia was in fact 14 years older than she actually is. And her mother already had a four year old child when she had Natalia, which would mean she would have been six when she gave birth to her first child.
Absolutely absurd.
Why can't she go to court and get her age back? These laws need to be changed.

 

[jjenny]

She was in the orphanage in the Ukraine since she was a newborn. Her mother gave her up because of her congenital abnormalities. Her mother was a single mother with a four year old child. Per her current legal age Natalia would have been 14 years old when arriving at the orphanage. Surely nobody thinks a 14 year old could pass for a newborn?
The whole story is absurd.

 

[jjenny]

I really wish she could sue the media for defamation. All this insinuation that she was an adult and portraying her as some dangerous "serial killer wannabe" when clearly she was a child-she has a birth certificate and other documents showing she was born in 2003, her birth mother was verified by DNA, birth mother's story checks out, and she hasn't killed anyone, obviously, etc. But I guess the judge deemed her a legal adult so she can't even due that.
Russia stopped allowing adoption to US some time ago and this case illustrates there might have been good reasons for it. How does a judge deems a child with a birth certificate an adult when the child's interests were not represented and the child is not allowed to change it back? Children who are put in the orphanage as infants might have behavioral issues-they don't get enough attention as babies-that could lead to a reactive attachment disorders and so on. That doesn't make the children adults.
So she lost on education, appropriate health care she needed for her disabilities, she was put in her own apartment and neighbors were complaining she was having disturbing behaviors, and couldn't take care of herself properly?
She was a little girl with severe disabilities living on her own. How exactly was that going to work out?

 

[cocomod]

@jjenny I share your outrage. I have been following this case for a long time and I have no words on how unbelievable it is to me that our court system failed her so miserably.

I also cannot believe the neighbors didn’t have compassion and try to help her. Of course she wasn’t good at taking care of herself. She was a CHILD that was abandoned.

I am also disgusted that they are further victimizing her by allowing these monster adoptive parents to continue to perpetuate lies!!!

 

[AngTxGal]

And her not speaking with an "Ukrainian accent" points to her being a child, not an adult. Children pick up languages very easily, while adults don't. Her not having an accent points to her being a child when arriving into the US, not an adult. Having a good vocabulary after being in US for a short time points to the same thing. Many arriving as adults take a long time to get a good vocabulary.

The doc series says her birth year as 2003 and she was adopted by this family in 2010.
So when did she come to the US? How old was she when she came here? Did she speak?
How many times had she been adopted And returned?

In the video footage from the doc series- It is clear to me that she is aging and changing in her maturity in speech and facial features.
Do I think she was born in 1989? No. I think it is possible she was a few years older- 2-3 years, but not 10 years older.
Does she have cognitive delays? Or was she still trying to learn English?
Did she attend school? This piece of the puzzle was not shown in the doc series. What did her teachers have to say? Were there issues with peers?

What type of screening did the adoption agency do if they placed her with a family that turned out not to feel committed to her disability, well-being, and schooling?

If she was born in 2003, she could be 20-25 now. She isn’t a child anymore- and likely could now have the funds to not be as vulnerable as she once ways. If she is the monster the family described- they will be her target for revenge.

JMO

 

[squareandrabbet]

Prosecutors prepared to call Natalia Barnett's birth mother to prove Ukrainian orphan's age in neglect case

The neglect of a dependent case against Michael Barnett and Kristine Barnett for abandoning their adopted daughter took a new twist this week.

www.jconline.com

Prosecutors tracked down Natalia's birth mother, Anna Gava, in Ukraine, which was confirmed through a DNA test, Starbuck said during Wednesday's hearing.

Gava and Ukrainian records indicated Gava gave birth to a girl with severe dwarfism on Sept. 4, 2003, and Gava, who already was a single mother, put Natalia up for adoption on Sept. 5, 2003, Starbuck said in court.

Meyer's Aug. 14 ruling is that Tippecanoe Superior Court cannot alter another state superior court, so Natalia's age is a settled matter in the courts.

BBM: so not only do they have an adult woman willing to attest Natalia Grace was a child with dwarfism because said child was birthed out of her body; but we've also got an ironclad statement that as good as says "judge" Meyer provided nothing but meaningless boilerplate CYA for their decision ("we can't possibly do anything different because Reasons!"); and IMO should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[jjenny]

The doc series says her birth year as 2003 and she was adopted by this family in 2010.
So when did she come to the US? How old was she when she came here? Did she speak?
How many times had she been adopted And returned?

In the video footage from the doc series- It is clear to me that she is aging and changing in her maturity in speech and facial features.
Do I think she was born in 1989? No. I think it is possible she was a few years older- 2-3 years, but not 10 years older.
Does she have cognitive delays? Or was she still trying to learn English?
Did she attend school? This piece of the puzzle was not shown in the doc series. What did her teachers have to say? Were there issues with peers?

What type of screening did the adoption agency do if they placed her with a family that turned out not to feel committed to her disability, well-being, and schooling?

If she was born in 2003, she could be 20-25 now. She isn’t a child anymore- and likely could now have the funds to not be as vulnerable as she once ways. If she is the monster the family described- they will be her target for revenge.

JMO

She was born in 2003. Prosecution tracked down her birth mother in Ukraine and verified by DNA tests done in US that she is Natalia's mother. Her birth mother gave her up as a new born in 2003 and she was sent to an orphanage in Ukraine as a newborn. She is not a couple of years older. It's not like she doesn't have documents proving her exact birth date, which was in 2003. This article has a good timeline of what happened to her.

"Tippecanoe County Prosecutor Patrick Harrington meets May 22, 2023, with the Journal & Courier and shares the evidence his deputies gathered in the Barnett investigation. Most of the evidence was never heard by jurors because of court rulings. But among the evidence is proof that Natalia was born in 2003."

J&C COVERAGE: Natalia, the Ukrainian orphan, and the Barnetts' fight to clear their names

The Journal & Courier documented the allegations and prosecution of Kristine Barnett and Michael Barnett since the charges were filed Sept. 11, 2019.

www.jconline.com