CA CA - Hannah, 16, Devonte, 15, & Sierra Hart, 12, Mendocino County, 26 March 2018 #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
musemoon said:
This is amazing because parents adopting through foster care are fingerprinted and there is a criminal records search, if there is anything there, they can't adopt, especially an abuse complaint. A homestudy and study of the family is also done just prior to adoption, so if these allegations were substantiated, they shouldn't have been able to adopt another set of kids. When adopting through foster care at the very least there is a social worker in your home once a month as well as the children's attorney and adoption case workers, usually prior to adoption, your home is a zoo, at least if you adopt through a private family resource agency, then the visits are weekly in addition to all of the others mentioned above. This is what I don't understand, they can't adopt again if they have an open or recent accusation of abuse.
Click to expand...

I think what happened there is that the child making the complaint of being hit with a belt was not substantiated.

The child may have still been in counseling/ therapy at the time, and if she had other issues with fabricating stories, the belt abuse allegation may have fallen apart as it was investigated. I'm not saying she definitely fabricated, but these are kids with huge histories of problems, and many times they test limits, embellish or exaggerate, or fabricate, for attention, or to "punish" a parent. It is very important that police and social services investigators closely investigate these allegations, because kids DO lie and fabricate. We cannot assume that just because they report "something", that is is unquestionably true.It MAY be true, it MAY be part of their emotional, behavioral, and developmental difficulties as they grow out of the trauma they experienced.

IMO, there is a blend of truthfulness and exaggeration that exists in both the kids, and the mothers reports about certain things with this family. I do not think the moms were "all evil, all the time." I think most of the time they were pretty appropriate in terms of addressing basic needs, like food, clothing, and shelter. But I think there were plenty of challenges with the kids that they likely didn't know how to handle, and they weren't willing to ask for, or receive any help. They got frustrated, and that's when the abusive behavior of the mothers kicked in. Perhaps challenging behaviors escalated among the kids-- then the mom/s escalated their response, and crossed the line into abuse.

I do not think the moms were actually "starving" the kids-- as in, physiologically withholding food to cause biological or developmental effects. However, I DO believe they were withholding or controlling food as a behavioral strategy/ punishment, or even as abuse. I DO believe that the child reported to the neighbors that he was hungry, even "starving". But I don't believe any of these kids were in a true "starving" situation like the Turpin kids, who were tremendously growth stunted and chronically starved by feeding them primarily vienna sausages in limited caloric amounts.

We have to remember that most of the pictures in the public of these kids are several years old. They are not recent pictures. And the kids came from very traumatized backgrounds, and may have syndromes, and chronic undernourishment effects from their early years that persisted to the present. They may be slightly small for age by visual appearance, but unless we have ACTUAL medical records documenting their growth and development since they were adopted, I think it's difficult to come to the conclusion that they were "starved".
 
It certainly isn't conjecture that abuse of some sort was occurring in that home. Or that the children reported multiple other instances of abuse. That raises some very troubling questions about how they were able to adopt the second time, how past trauma histories might be used to cover for current abuse, the nature of ongoing oversight after a child abuse conviction, and not to put too fine a point on it, the extent to which two white lesbians raising six black children colored outsiders perceptions of the home being a good one or the kids being "lucky." To what extent did their living in predominantly white areas help them fly under the radar? Just some thoughts and questions to ponder, certainly not facts.

K_Z said:
Part of what we have to accept in a free society is that we cannot control people who want to do bad criminal things, UNTIL they do bad criminal things. What Sarah was convicted of is not bad enough to remove parental rights, remove kids, limit the family's activities (like moving to a new state, homeschooling). We have to be honest and truthful about what "the state" can realistically do.

IMO, the REAL screw up was letting these 2 women adopt TWO sets of profoundly traumatized kids. That should NEVER have happened. NEVER. IMO. Each one of the 6 kids had serious and deep needs and challenges. These 2 women in their 20's were simply NOT equipped to properly care for and provide for THAT MANY kids with such serious needs, IMO! I think adopting 3 at once was too much-- and then letting them adopt 3 more (similar in age, no less) with severe needs from the foster care system 3 years later is complete incompetence on the part of adoption authorities.

Are adoption authorities so desperate to home kids (and sibling groups) that they overlook such risky placements? It seems so. I don't know if the kids would have beebn bette off in the foster care system, or split up for adoption, than with the Hart women. But IMO, these women were no where even close to appropriately prepared and equipped to care for these children. This is a MASSIVE failure of the inter-state adoption system, IMO.
Click to expand...

Also, for what its worth, I absolutely think that leaving bruises all over a 6 year old and getting a criminal conviction for it warrants removing children from the home.
 
K_Z said:
BBM for focus

I think the bigger issue is what kind of formal court ordered social services monitoring occurs after a conviction for child abuse?

Were social workers visiting the home during Sarah's probation year? Or did Sarah just visit her probation officer at an office?

Identifying/ attacking/ limiting homeschooling as the result of the outcome of the abuse/ neglect problem won't solve the problem of abusive families hiding behind homeschooling, IMO.

Homeschooling has a very active and well funded legal lobby-- HSLDA. Members are passionate about parental rights to determine their child's education, as well as passionate about keeping the option of homeschooling legal everywhere. (We can thank the Amish community for advocating for many of our modern homeschooling laws.)

https://hslda.org/

Simply engaging in homeschooling is not reason enough for social services to be involved-- but I could argue that a substantiated charge of abuse, followed by abrupt withdrawal of kids 8 weeks before the end of the school year, IS reason enough for formal supervision of the kids in the home, and ensuring all of their needs are being met. (And that includes schooling.)

I sincerely doubt that we will ever have an "enforcement" arm of truancy (law enforcement officers) in any state that are charged with investigating and finding un-registered homeschooling families, to bring charges (educational neglect-- how does one define that with so many homeschooling philosophies). I can't see any state having the fortitude or budget to do something like that to their citizens. Most people in America would not stand for that level of intrusiveness on parental rights to determine their children's schooling needs. Homeschooling is legal-- even if not every family has registered "properly".

It's frustrating to see abusive families hiding behind homeschooling-- but homeschooling laws are not the problem. Proper identification of abuse, neglect, and subsequent monitoring of these families is the problem we face, IMO.
Click to expand...
I can only speak to CO, but yes, if a conviction of child abuse there will be constant home visits. Usually it will start with superivised visits only, then step down from there if all goes well.
 
Please use Reply With Quote where appropriate. It makes reading the thread so much easier.

Thanks in advance.
 
http://katu.com/news/local/woman-says-she-reported-cruel-treatment-by-jennifer-and-sarah-hart

SEATTLE (AP) — A woman said Tuesday that she told Oregon child welfare officials in 2013 that Jennifer and Sarah Hart — who plunged off a California cliff with their children last month in an SUV — had been depriving the kids of food as punishment.

In a statement provided to The Associated Press, Alexandra Argyropoulos, a former friend of the Harts, said she "witnessed what I felt to be controlling emotional abuse and cruel punishment" toward the six children.

more at link
----
Wow, I wonder what she witnessed :(
 
K_Z said:
How did MN screw up? If her probation was complete, there is nothing the state can do to prevent them from moving somewhere else. Her sentence was served. There is only so much that social services can do-- they can't monitor someone "forever" just because they "might" abuse a child.

Part of what we have to accept in a free society is that we cannot control people who want to do bad criminal things, UNTIL they do bad criminal things. What Sarah was convicted of is not bad enough to remove parental rights, remove kids, limit the family's activities (like moving to a new state, homeschooling). We have to be honest and truthful about what "the state" can realistically do.

IMO, the REAL screw up was letting these 2 women adopt TWO sets of profoundly traumatized kids. That should NEVER have happened. NEVER. IMO. Each one of the 6 kids had serious and deep needs and challenges. These 2 women in their 20's were simply NOT equipped to properly care for and provide for THAT MANY kids with such serious needs, IMO! I think adopting 3 at once was too much-- and then letting them adopt 3 more (similar in age, no less) with severe needs from the foster care system 3 years later is complete incompetence on the part of adoption authorities.

Are adoption authorities so desperate to home kids (and sibling groups) that they overlook such risky placements? It seems so. I don't know if the kids would have beebn bette off in the foster care system, or split up for adoption, than with the Hart women. But IMO, these women were no where even close to appropriately prepared and equipped to care for these children. This is a MASSIVE failure of the inter-state adoption system, IMO.
Click to expand...

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there was absolutely no abuse during that year. I have no idea what kind of supervision Sarah received, but due to the rather complicated situation, social services should have also been involved.
 
Poppyflower said:
http://www.koin.com/news/oregon/timeline-of-hart-familys-child-welfare-issues/1098664897

Timeline of Hart family's child-welfare issues

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) -- As authorities investigate a possible sighting of Jennifer Hart on surveillance video in Fort Bragg, California, KOIN 6 News took a closer look at the child-welfare issues the Hart family faced in Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. more at link
Click to expand...

Thanks.

This is where, IMO, their whole peace-loving hippie charade first falls apart:
but have recently started spanking Abigail due to her behavior.
Click to expand...
 
https://kymkemp.com/2018/04/03/larg...sing-juveniles-to-begin-tomorrow-at-low-tide/

A large scale Search & Rescue operation with approximately 71 searchers is schedule to begin on 04-04-2018 at 8:00 AM during low tide conditions with the base of the operation being located at the MacKerricher State Park.

The search area will focus from the Noyo Harbor to the MacKerricher State Park based upon ocean current and drift pattern analysis conducted by the US Coast Guard. A further search will be conducted from the crash site with focus to the south of that location. This search is anticipated to include aircraft, boat and land searchers.

The following public safety agencies will be participating in the 04-04-2018 search operation:

Contra Costa County Search & Rescue
Bay Area Mountain Rescue
San Mateo County Search & Rescue
Marin County Search & Rescue
Sonoma County Search & Rescue
Lake County Search & Rescue
CAL ESAR
Mendocino County Search & Rescue

more at link
 
Doghairrules said:
I just don’t understand why that wasn’t a huge red flag for someone, that they removed the kids from school right after an abuse situation. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I guess to be fair, we don't know what actually happened with the probation and follow up from CPS. We only know that apparently they moved, the abuse continued, and at least three of the kids are now dead.
 
longlonglake said:
Could the 3 missing kids have been able to push the SUV off the cliff?
Click to expand...

Thoughts like that have run through my head as well, in addition to questions about them all sleeping and the car rolling off the cliff. However, the investigators keep saying "acceleration all the way" which would indicate that not only was the car running, but it was being driven with a purpose.
 
Well this sure sounds like it was an intentional act, hard to believe some say might not be then we have this.

-- On April 1, 2018, a spokesperson with the California Highway Patrol told KOIN 6 News that a preliminary investigation shows the crash, which happened off a cliff in Westport, California, on March 26, was an "intentional act," and not the result of a traffic accident. The CHP spokesperson told KOIN 6 News that the vehicle, a 2003 GMC SUV, came to a stop 70-feet from the edge -- approximately 5 feet off the highway -- before it accelerated and plunged off the cliff.

http://www.koin.com/news/oregon/timeline-of-hart-familys-child-welfare-issues/1098664897
 
Jo in Calif said:
Well this sure sounds like it was an intentional act, hard to believe some say might not be then we have this.

-- On April 1, 2018, a spokesperson with the California Highway Patrol told KOIN 6 News that a preliminary investigation shows the crash, which happened off a cliff in Westport, California, on March 26, was an "intentional act," and not the result of a traffic accident. The CHP spokesperson told KOIN 6 News that the vehicle, a 2003 GMC SUV, came to a stop 70-feet from the edge -- approximately 5 feet off the highway -- before it accelerated and plunged off the cliff.

http://www.koin.com/news/oregon/timeline-of-hart-familys-child-welfare-issues/1098664897
Click to expand...

Here is an updated article from today that states:

With the investigation ongoing, Sheriff Barney said he couldn't say whether the crash was a homicide.

"We will consider all those angles," he said, "anything from a terrible accident to a homicide is on the table."

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...f/2018/04/jen_hart_possibly_sighted_in_f.html
 
A theory, completely IMO (and one which will be supported or debunked via the autopsies). The children and one parent were incapacitated by some substance, or already dead. The remaining parent drove suv off cliff to attempt to make it look like an accident.

Still hoping somehow the other 3 children and the 2 dogs are in Fort Bragg somewhere. Hoping tomorrow's big search leads to conclusions.

Question:
Was there a festival, gathering, event in Fort Bragg that they were already going to? I have attempted to search this but no luck. Was thinking if there was an event, the children would have expected the trip. the location of the wreck is North of Fort Bragg, so on the way home... It was only on the way back that things went amiss? But why? What was the trigger, if the trip was already planned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 111 more.
Total: 2,535 (members: 112, guests: 2,423)

Online statistics

Members online
112
Guests online
2,423
Total visitors
2,535
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,306
Messages
18,154,748
Members
231,702
Latest member
Rav17en
Back
Top