CA CA - Hannah, 16, Devonte, 15, & Sierra Hart, 12, Mendocino County, 26 March 2018 #3

[Cryptic]

I'm curious - Is there any mandatory psychological testing done on potential adopting parents?

Do people just apply and get approved? Barring any current substance abuse or criminal convictions, is that all that;s
investigated?

Is the 'system' so overloaded that they approve people without thoroughly checking on their suitability?

Any personal experiences here?

I have limited personal experience and a degree of second hand experience from friends who have actually adopted. That aside, the best answer to the questions might be "Its complex".

Many states have streamlined adoption processes that in the past were slow moving bueracratic machines with complex and sometimes contradictory requirements that turned people away from adopting children in need. That does not mean that all suitability testing and standards have gone out the window.

Rather, it means that one needs to show that they are willing and that they can manage as a parent. One does not need to be on track for winning say, Family of the Year award from First Baptist Church of Smallville, nor does one need to nominated as a "Progressive Parent of the Year" by a talk show.

Then factor in that some bad parents deteriorate slowly. During the assessment phase, they are fine. Problems develop later.

 

[Sherlockhemlock]

Most of what you asked is out there. Born/raised in Huron, S.D, has 2 or 3 siblings, met SH at college- Northwest State
in S.D. don't know about work history. Nothing has been reported about her childhood from friends or family.

It’s Northern State in Aberdeen SD.

 

[Zelda1010]

Sarah, too. Neither of them should have had those kids!

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I know I make some excuses for Sarah, but this I agree with. Sarah was also a damaged individual and neither one of them should have had those kids.

 

[SATA]

I am seriously beginning to think that there should be some extra monitoring of children hoarder families (families with a large number of children).

I am also following the Turpin case, and in that connection I started to look into those large families to learn about the dynamics.
Some of them seem to be loving and caring (although the older GIRLS are always carrying much of the burden of helping taking care of younger siblings, which is in no way fair to them.)

But in many cases, you see robotic children in cult-like families.
Take the best known family, the Duggars.

They should be looked into, I don´t even know whether what I am writing is controversial, but it is my gut feeling the kids in many of those families need help.

And I want to stress, and as I said, not ALL families with large numbers of children are cult-like, some are very happy families!

 

[georgiajean]

I'm just going to assume you've spent very little time with people who have adopted children out of situations like that if you think long term trauma or behavioral issues are something you can't assume or are uncommon. No one is justifying abuse because of this. But it's just sort of basic child development. Being abused while the brain is developing does not typically lead to healthy and resilient children with no long term problems.

I think there is a real disconnect in your comment to readily admit the children must have been through "a high level of abuse and or neglect" but that no one has the right to assume it lead to any long term issues with the children. Sorry, but children are NOT that resilient. And all the research out there substantiates this. Why would anyone attempt to downplay the long term effects of childhood neglect and abuse?

We can't simultaneously want children removed from abusive situations and then try and deny the long term effects of that abuse on the children. It doesn't absolve anyone who further mistreats them by admitting the long term difficulties they face! But it's not fair to anyone to deny the problems. It's especially not fair to the children. It's only acknowledgement of the issues and needs that helps insure that these children and their families get the support they need. And, yes, the families need support. The act of adoption doesn't actually automatically qualify any adult to deal with the psychological needs of children who are abused.

Families who adopt and the children they adopt need MORE long term support and care. And they need it in large part due to the very high rate of long term issues due to any previous abuse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK195987/

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/long_term_consequences.pdf

Yes. Thank you for clearly saying what I have been thinking, and trying to say very poorly!!
As an educator, I see daily the long-term effects of trauma. Our community is doing a full-court press on trauma, trying to eliminate many causes of trauma to stop it from happening in the first place (homelessness, food insecurity, drug use/abuse, etc).
Thank you.

 

[georgiajean]

There IS evidence. The biggest evidence is that the state of Texas found it necessary to broaden their search for parents to include out of state placement. The state does not do that willy-nilly!

During the case, the children would have been with whatever foster home(s) would take them. They would have started a search for an adoptive home by the time the parental rights were terminated (though many times, foster families adopt). It would have started in the same region then statewide. They may have tried something like a news segment (forever families, Wednesday’s Child, etc). Eventually, they would have opened it up to photolistings like TARE and adoptuskids.org. However, even then, Texas families would have taken priority for a number of reasons.

This was a fairly young sibling set. For the state to have chosen an out of state family, it was because they couldn’t find one in Texas. Some being male and black sadly likely contributed to the reasoning; but I almost guarantee these kids had multiple placements, behavior issues, were at risk of being split up even.

And resiliency (as people talk about regarding kids in this situation) is a myth. Kids really ARE harmed by substance exposure, multiple homes, abuse, neglect, etc. There is information out there how a simple investigation causes trauma. Add removal from the home, visitation (and missed visitation), various foster homes (goodness knows what quality), ending visits, etc. Every move sets kids back six months! New schools, monthly visits by agency/caseworker/casa/lawyer, crazy foster care rules, new neighbors/churches/friends. It is all a LOT and every child IS impacted, often greatly.

I don’t know how long you have been involved with this population; but I can tell you that I’ve lived with a LOT of these kids. It is terribly sad what they’ve gone through and will carry with them. Even when they can’t consciously remember, their little bodies and brains still respond like they do even when they’ve made extreme progress in many ways. So sure they come along in some ways, thrive even in many ways. But they didn’t just bounce back and in some ways they’ll pay the price for what their original families and CPS has done to them for the rest of their lives.

AGAIN, absolutely NO excuse for abuse by the adoptive family! I am not giving them excuses to have progressively gone down the path of beating, withholding food, and now murder. Sadly, who knows what else JH did. There is NO excuse for any of that.

But I do think, in order to keep these things from happening more (and it happens too often), we need to be honest and upfront about what it is like to parent children from hard places and why. We also need to destigmatize it so when families are in over their heads they can keep seeking out help and actually finding it. We need better support for these children and their parents.

By the end, the family had already pulled in and were likely unreachable. But what if we had caught them early on? Would they have accepted respite, other role models, school, different therapies, etc earlier on if they didn’t have to feel threatened?

What if it were safe for families to admit how hard it is, that they weren’t prepared, that they over-extended, that they are scared, that they’ve made mistakes, that they need help, that they really aren’t saints, that they can’t keep putting on this face in public?

Maybe we can save the next adopted child before CPS is called out, before kids are abused, before yet another is killed.

Wow. Well said. Thank you for sharing your experience and clarifying the long-term impacts of the child welfare system and trauma. Also thank you for explaining how/why this information is not meant to clear the Hart women of responsibility, or to blame the children.

 

[musemoon]

The process is amazingly intrusive and, yet, terribly flawed allowing for all sorts of inappropriate foster and adoptive homes to be approved.

Some people do have to have a psych eval; but it really isn’t common. Certain diagnoses, certain past histories, etc could make it where a person is asked to get one. But usually, they’d just be asked for a letter of fitness from their doctor, therapist, psychiatrist, etc.

The paperwork we did was extensive. And then the person writing your home study asks you those same questions or clarifying ones (“Mrs H, you stated that your father ____; what have you done to address the resulting consequences of that?”). The questions include everything from your own upbringing to your experience with children to your sexual activities to financial considerations. There are questions about any past drug usage, criminal activity, household moves, child abuse investigations, psych history, etc.

They talk to every family member in the home as well as most other children (if grown, living with another parent, etc), parents, and get references (work, neighbors, church, etc).

The home is inspected with state guidelines in mind (fire extinguishers, meds kicked up, shampoo not left on the side of the tub, potatoes not on floor of pantry, no standing water, etc).

Background checks include local criminal, FBI, CPS, and domestic abuse calls. If you haven’t lived “here” long enough, they will also do so for previous addresses/states.

It’s all very intrusive. But outside of where there is outside documentation (therapist, criminal check, etc), it’s also largely on an honor system. I mentioned that I tried pot twice when I was 18, for example; but who would have known had I not? Obviously, if I were some crazy causing an issue with a neighbor, I wouldn’t have asked that neighbor for a reference. Whatever. you get the idea.

Anyway, most people would qualify as long as they don’t have any huge things going on, state they’ve dealt with the past, and state they will follow the rules.

This was exactly my experience as well.

 

[Quill]

So Sarah has this educational background that should provide her with the knowledge and skills to educate troubled kids. The school article mentions they didn't start until 7 months after the 2nd adoption was finalized, so Sept '09. And one child didn't start in kindergarten until 2010.

Were they homeschooling before that? I wonder if Sarah tried and realized she didn't have the patience for it? I'm not sure exactly what her work history looks like.

BBM and edited by me

I had asked about her actual degree a couple of pages back. I believe the answer was BS in Elementary Ed. with a minor in Special Ed. This is why I asked. Varying degree programs aside and considering that I earned my degree a loooong time ago, I am not sure that even a minor in Sp. Ed. would adequately prepare a person. Someone earlier had mentioned that Sarah should have had training in "such and such" methods which prompted my question to ask about her degree. I think that Special Ed. degree is much more extensive/specialized and would also have required added strengths. I just can't see a minor providing enough to assume she had a highly specialized knowledge. Someone who has been through that degree program more recently may want to jump in here and add some insight.

She may very well have thought she could handle it but was mistaken. The reality of being the parent is very different from the textbook or classroom application. But curiously, she was the parent who worked outside the home, right?

Of course, at this time, we really do not know what the children's levels of capability and/or special needs they might have had. All we know is what we have gleaned from the moms' social media. This whole case is just so sad.

 

[otto]

BBM and edited by me

I had asked about her actual degree a couple of pages back. I believe the answer was BS in Elementary Ed. with a minor in Special Ed. This is why I asked. Varying degree programs aside and considering that I earned my degree a loooong time ago, I am not sure that even a minor in Sp. Ed. would adequately prepare a person. Someone earlier had mentioned that Sarah should have had training in "such and such" methods which prompted my question to ask about her degree. I think that Special Ed. degree is much more extensive/specialized and would also have required added strengths. I just can't see a minor providing enough to assume she had a highly specialized knowledge. Someone who has been through that degree program more recently may want to jump in here and add some insight.

She may very well have thought she could handle it but was mistaken. The reality of being the parent is very different from the textbook or classroom application. But curiously, she was the parent who worked outside the home, right?

Of course, at this time, we really do not know what the children's levels of capability and/or special needs they might have had. All we know is what we have gleaned from the moms' social media. This whole case is just so sad.

My only source of information for Sarah and her education degree is this website. That said, I have not seen anything about her actually teaching. This fact is very important in terms of assessing whether she was actually a good candidate to teach children.

In my area, graduating teachers who are good candidates are immediately hired and placed in tenure track positions where they are granted permanent teaching certification in two years. Graduating teachers with potential are hired and complete teaching certification over several years (sometimes as long as ten). Many graduating teachers are put in the substitute teaching stream, which essentially means they will never have a full time teaching position except in small districts with fewer hiring options, and roughly 40% never see the inside of a classroom because they don't have the diversity of skills required to teach.

If Sarah did not hold a teaching position, chances are she was deemed an unsuitable candidate for the classroom. It's quite likely that an adoption agency would view her education degree as meaning she was more qualified to address the needs of special needs children, but if she was not hired as an educator after graduation, education institutions would see the opposite - that she is in no way qualified to work with special needs children or any other children.

Given what we know today, neither of these women should have been allowed to adopt. I do have to wonder if their lesbian status worked in their favor, where political correctness to some degree was more important than a thorough analysis of their parenting skills.

 

[mtnlites]

I am seriously beginning to think that there should be some extra monitoring of children hoarder families (families with a large number of children).

I am also following the Turpin case, and in that connection I started to look into those large families to learn about the dynamics.
Some of them seem to be loving and caring (although the older GIRLS are always carrying much of the burden of helping taking care of younger siblings, which is in no way fair to them.)

But in many cases, you see robotic children in cult-like families.
Take the best known family, the Duggars.

They should be looked into, I don´t even know whether what I am writing is controversial, but it is my gut feeling the kids in many of those families need help.

And I want to stress, and as I said, not ALL families with large numbers of children are cult-like, some are very happy families!

Who would be in charge of deciding how "big" a family was before it was considered "child hoarding"? Would a specific number be put on it? Who would decide that number? What kind of "monitoring" would take place and who would implement such a thing?

As a former social worker, I can attest to the fact that family services is already stretched far past its limits when it comes to caseloads and investigating actual abuse claims. In my years of working with literally hundreds of families, only ONE made it through our office (and our office covered 14 counties in my state) that had more than 4 children in the family. And that case was found unsubstantiated because, as it turned out, it was a legitimate health issue that someone was mistaking as neglect.

For every "bad" case we hear about in the media that involves large families, there are at least a few dozen "good" ones that we don't hear about. Abuse happens just as frequently in one-child homes as it does in large families. In my professional experience, it happens more frequently.

 

[Cryptic]

Given what we know today, neither of these women should have been allowed to adopt. I do have to wonder if their lesbian status worked in their favor, where political correctness to some degree was more important than a thorough analysis of their parenting skills.

Possibly, but I don't think so.

Rather, the two people were willing to adopt children who were difficult, or even very difficult to place. Factor in that many states have streamlined the adoption process and may have relaxed, to some degree, the qualification requirements for all adoptive parents (prospective adopters no longer need to demonstrate "Parent of the Year" potential) in order to place children in need with families.

Then, add the possibility that the duo may have deteriorated slowly and there could be ground work for a creeping disaster regardless of sexual orientation.

Who would be in charge of deciding how "big" a family was before it was considered "child hoarding"? Would a specific number be put on it? Who would decide that number? What kind of "monitoring" would take place and who would implement such a thing?

For every "bad" case we hear about in the media that involves large families, there are at least a few dozen "good" ones that we don't hear about. Abuse happens just as frequently in one-child homes as it does in large families. In my professional experience, it happens more frequently.

Very well said and a very good illustration of the pitfalls of the families that don't follow my personal norms are "suspicious" and "suspicious" people need to be "monitored" line of thought.

 

[Whiteorchids]

Do y’all in CA remember Octomom Nadya Suleman who gave birth to Octuplets? She already had 6 biological kids total of 14 and is a single mom. When her story broke in the news she lived a few streets over from me but has since moved. I used to see her and her kids in Target. They always looked happy and well. She struggled to support her kids and almost committed suicide. She has turned her life around. I saw her lately on a couple of talk shows and on my local radio not too long ago. Her and her children appear to be doing quite well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5172919/Octomom-says-finally-peace-14-children.html

 

[longlonglake]

There is something grotesque about the way the Hartley Hooligans paraded the girl around, put lipstick on her, etc. Is that even their real family name?

 

[Quill]

My only source of information for Sarah and her education degree is this website. That said, I have not seen anything about her actually teaching. This fact is very important in terms of assessing whether she was actually a good candidate to teach children.

In my area, graduating teachers who are good candidates are immediately hired and placed in tenure track positions where they are granted permanent teaching certification in two years. Graduating teachers with potential are hired and complete teaching certification over several years (sometimes as long as ten). Many graduating teachers are put in the substitute teaching stream, which essentially means they will never have a full time teaching position except in small districts with fewer hiring options, and roughly 40% never see the inside of a classroom because they don't have the diversity of skills required to teach.

If Sarah did not hold a teaching position, chances are she was deemed an unsuitable candidate for the classroom. It's quite likely that an adoption agency would view her education degree as meaning she was more qualified to address the needs of special needs children, but if she was not hired as an educator after graduation, education institutions would see the opposite - that she is in no way qualified to work with special needs children or any other children.

Given what we know today, neither of these women should have been allowed to adopt. I do have to wonder if their lesbian status worked in their favor, where political correctness to some degree was more important than a thorough analysis of their parenting skills.

Yes, you have covered many of my thoughts with your answer, especially regarding the area of actual teaching experience and coping skills. It is notable that even though she was the parent working outside the home, she was not using that degree.

I haven't used my degree in many years, but I was one of those snapped up upon graduation. That is how that works. I eventually chose a different route (SAHM); too many corporate moves with the husband and wanting consistency for my own children.

 

[blue22]

My only source of information for Sarah and her education degree is this website. That said, I have not seen anything about her actually teaching. This fact is very important in terms of assessing whether she was actually a good candidate to teach children.

In my area, graduating teachers who are good candidates are immediately hired and placed in tenure track positions where they are granted permanent teaching certification in two years. Graduating teachers with potential are hired and complete teaching certification over several years (sometimes as long as ten). Many graduating teachers are put in the substitute teaching stream, which essentially means they will never have a full time teaching position except in small districts with fewer hiring options, and roughly 40% never see the inside of a classroom because they don't have the diversity of skills required to teach.

If Sarah did not hold a teaching position, chances are she was deemed an unsuitable candidate for the classroom. It's quite likely that an adoption agency would view her education degree as meaning she was more qualified to address the needs of special needs children, but if she was not hired as an educator after graduation, education institutions would see the opposite - that she is in no way qualified to work with special needs children or any other children.

Given what we know today, neither of these women should have been allowed to adopt. I do have to wonder if their lesbian status worked in their favor, where political correctness to some degree was more important than a thorough analysis of their parenting skills.

In Texas, I honestly find it hard to believe it did.

 

[Whiteorchids]

There is something grotesque about the way the Hartley Hooligans paraded the girl around, put lipstick on her, etc. Is that even their real family name?

I agree. I think they used the kids for their own agenda to get recognition in the public.

 

[enelram]

I wonder if there was or will be funeral/memorial services for the victims and for JH and SH and who took responsibility for all that?

I've been watching to see if there was any kind of public announcement, even for releasing the bodies, which ME's usually let the press know if asked. i haven't seen anything. I also wonder if they'll all be buried together or how it will be handled. This could be awkward for the families if the women were estranged, very private and if the families
did not approve of their 'lifestyle'.

 

[bears10]

Mendocino Sheriff tweet:

https://twitter.com/mendosheriff/status/982077990338052096?s=21

My stepdaughter is 17 and very thin, and not “well endowed”. She’s so thin that when she sits in the front seat of my car, the airbags turn off. That being said, she still LOOKS like a 16/17 year old. Hannah truly looks 12 years old to me. None of them look their ages to me, but Hannah stands out the most imo. I feel like she may have gotten the brunt of abuse.

 

[rosemadderlake]

I wonder if there was or will be funeral/memorial services for the victims and for JH and SH and who took responsibility for all that?

Authorities have not released the remains of Hart family members killed in SUV plunge to relatives; missing Sierra Hart’s age may have been miscalculated:

Mendocino County Sheriff Public Information Officer Captain Greg Van Patten told CrimeOnline that authorities were able to identify the remains of Markis Hart, 19; Jeremiah Hart, 14; and Abigail Hart, 14, through photographs and with the help of Jennifer and Sarah Hart’s relatives, who knew their adopted children. Both mothers were found dead inside their 2003 GMS Yukon after it plunged over a cliff into the Pacific Ocean on March 26, with Jennifer behind the wheel. The children were found outside the vehicle. At this time, authorities believe Jennifer drove the SUV over a cliff intentionally.

The sheriff’s office has placed a hold on the recovered bodies, meaning that the remains will not be released to relatives for dispensation at this time.

Jennifer and Sarah Hart were “largely estranged” from their families, Van Patten said, but the relatives were aware of the children and had interacted with them.

http://www.crimeonline.com/2018/04/...harts-age-may-have-been-miscalculated-police/

---
Bbm: Bodies are being held for positive ID? I'm not sure of other reasons? Maybe waiting for test results or review that determine previous injury, or time of death?

 

[enelram]

^^^^^^ I would not be surprised if the parents' families only want to handle the funerals/burials for their individual daughters and not be financially responsible for all the children.

that comment from the sheriff sounds odd to me, which is why I commented as I did.