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

[rosemadderlake]

^^^^^^ 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.

Or, could bio relatives of the children have contacted authorities?

 

[SATA]

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.

I know - but I have just seen too many robotic kids with fake, constant smiles glued on their faces.
I was speaking out of frustration.
There have been these two very serious cases recently.

 

[Starkville]

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

I remember her. Hopefully those kids are okay. Because I don’t care what anyone says, she is sick. Still.

 

[PayrollNerd]

^^^^^^ 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.

This crossed my mind also. If they were estranged from their individual families, one of the reasons may have been the lack of support in the adoption. My X and I explored adoption in the early 1990s and were open to a different race. Some of our family, we knew were very prejudice. It was the lifestyle they were raised in. They gave it lip service so as not to be a social pariah. However, when the possibility of us actually adopting got closer, it was clear they were not fully supportive. (We ended up having 2 biological children after 10 years of infertility.)

 

[enelram]

Or, could bio relatives of the children have contacted authorities?

If I read between the lines of his comments, I wonder if there isn't some kind of 'dispute' or conflict on how to handle
this.
You could be correct, rose....

 

[SATA]

This crossed my mind also. If they were estranged from their individual families, one of the reasons may have been the lack of support in the adoption. My X and I explored adoption in the early 1990s and were open to a different race. Some of our family, we knew were very prejudice. It was the lifestyle they were raised in. They gave it lip service so as not to be a social pariah. However, when the possibility of us actually adopting got closer, it was clear they were not fully supportive. (We ended up having 2 biological children after 10 years of infertility.)

I read somewhere that it was due to disagreement in raising method of the kids.
Can´t remember where and it might be inaccurate.

 

[enelram]

I remember her. Hopefully those kids are okay. Because I don’t care what any e says, she is sick. Still.

Didn't she at one point spend gobs of donated money getting all kinds of facial plastic surgery so she could look like

Kim Kardashian? Yea, she's a few cards short of a deck.

 

[rosemadderlake]

If I read between the lines of his comments, I wonder if there isn't some kind of 'dispute' or conflict on how to handle
this.
You could be correct, rose....

I can't even imagine a heartbreak like this for the bio relatives of these kids, trusting, hoping for a better life for kids, or the sorrow of having to give them up to begin with. And then this ending, to know they were murdered like this. To find out they were abused... And what even happens in a situation like this?

If there is a dispute, or claim, maybe they are awaiting DNA matches?

 

[otto]

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.

Exactly. I think many who are unfamiliar with the education system assume that a teaching degree means that someone is qualified to teach, but that is definitely not how education institutions view a teaching degree. Many qualified educators choose a different route after several years as an educator, often moving into positions related to education that require teaching experience and professional certification. Sarah seems to have done nothing related to education after completing the degree, yet I suspect she emphasized that degree in adoption applications and that adoption agencies gave her high points for that degree. It is during the practicums that real teachers are identified, and those who cannot cope with managing a group of children are weeded out. My impression is that Sarah displayed characteristics or "red flags" during practicums that excluded her from working with children.

What does that tell us? It suggests to me that adoption agencies need to re-visit the review how adoptive parents are selected and to look beyond the happy, smiling, eager faces of childless parents who promise everything that adoption agencies look for in prospective parents. They also need better long term evaluation of adoption families to genuinely monitor the mental health of the children.

Why was a young girl fleeing two lesbian women? What were they doing that disturbed her so much that she risked injury to escape? If this young girl was fleeing two men, would authorities have returned the young girl to the two men?

 

[Gooddeeds]

My points are dangerously being misinterpreted. I said abuse doesn't always lead to trauma. That is true. I said there wasn't any concrete evidence of physical or psychological injury. Let me know if I missed it please.QUOTE]



Sleuth to your first paragraph only, quoted above:

ABUSE IS TRAUMA. How can it be anything else, it’s horrible in any form. Having to publicly portray everything is great ‘we are so loved’ when it’s not the truth is very psychologically abusive. READ SATA’S POST #466.

WITH HOLDING FOOD, TEETH, EXPLOITATION, ISOLATION, ETC IS PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE. JUMPING OUT THE WINDOW AND SNEAKING OUT OF THE HOUSE TO GET HELP/FOOD IS A REAL INDICATOR OF THE DEGREE OF DESPERATION.

PHYSICAL ABUSE was court documented more than once, confessed by the abuser, charges applied.

BRUISES, BELTED, HEAD WATER DUNKED, TEETH REMOVAL (unknown) IS PHYSICAL ABUSE.

THIS IS WHAT WE ‘KNOW’. I shutter to think about what we don’t know.

To your “Let me know if I missed it” comment, I have to genuinely ask why you don’t see the ‘concrete’ evidence? Because it is as concrete as it can be. It’s concerning to see how it would be anything less.

 

[otto]

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?

I read somewhere that authorities want to rule out that the children were drugged or killed prior to the plunge over the cliff.

 

[enelram]

I can't even imagine a heartbreak like this for the bio relatives of these kids, trusting, hoping for a better life for kids, or the sorrow of having to give them up to begin with. And then this ending, to know they were murdered like this. To find out they were abused... And what even happens in a situation like this?

If there is a dispute, or claim, maybe they are awaiting DNA matches?

Wonder if either Jen or Sarah had a will? Often parents with dependent children will specify directions of handling

deaths in their will. Or have a separate codicil to handle this.

 

[Whiteorchids]

I remember her. Hopefully those kids are okay. Because I don’t care what anyone says, she is sick. Still.

She is really strange but at least the kids aren’t barricaded in the house from the world and only paraded to political events, protests and hippy festivals. They all go public schools and church and hasn’t driven them over a cliff or abused them. When she lived near me I’m friends with many of the local cops that would visit her quite often to see how they were doing she used to invite neighbors and friends over for dinner. The kids had big jungle gyms and such in the backyard. The officers told me she was more normal off camera. I have no idea why someone would want 14 kids.

 

[gcharlie]

I can't even imagine a heartbreak like this for the bio relatives of these kids, trusting, hoping for a better life for kids, or the sorrow of having to give them up to begin with. And then this ending, to know they were murdered like this. To find out they were abused... And what even happens in a situation like this?

If there is a dispute, or claim, maybe they are awaiting DNA matches?

One of the CA LE was asked questions about the biological parents the other day. He did not know how the laws work in terms of the state of CA and any requirements for them to report this, or if anyone coming forward as a parent could compel information from the state.

Gets even more complicated because it crosses state jurisdictions.

 

[Gooddeeds]

Wonder if either Jen or Sarah had a will? Often parents with dependent children will specify directions of handling

deaths in their will. Or have a separate codicil to handle this.

I hadn’t thought about a Will yet but I’m curious to see if there is one based on the nature of Jenn. Would it be so obviously spelled out in a very controlling manner as to what and who, or just not have a Will so it could be left up for grabs?

 

[Sleuth99]

My points are dangerously being misinterpreted. I said abuse doesn't always lead to trauma. That is true. I said there wasn't any concrete evidence of physical or psychological injury. Let me know if I missed it please.QUOTE]



Sleuth to your first paragraph only, quoted above:

ABUSE IS TRAUMA. How can it be anything else, it’s horrible in any form. Having to publicly portray everything is great ‘we are so loved’ when it’s not the truth is very psychologically abusive. READ SATA’S POST #466.

WITH HOLDING FOOD, TEETH, EXPLOITATION, ISOLATION, ETC IS PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE. JUMPING OUT THE WINDOW AND SNEAKING OUT OF THE HOUSE TO GET HELP/FOOD IS A REAL INDICATOR OF THE DEGREE OF DESPERATION.

PHYSICAL ABUSE was court documented more than once, confessed by the abuser, charges applied.

BRUISES, BELTED, HEAD WATER DUNKED, TEETH REMOVAL (unknown) IS PHYSICAL ABUSE.

THIS IS WHAT WE ‘KNOW’. I shutter to think about what we don’t know.

To your “Let me know if I missed it” comment, I have to genuinely ask why you don’t see the ‘concrete’ evidence? Because it is as concrete as it can be. It’s concerning to see how it would be anything less.

Wow [emoji15] the struggle is real for some of y'all trying to add your input to a dying convo.

Abuse doesn't always lead to *high* trauma effects. Furthermore, I was discussing what the children endured before they were adopted. All of what you named above does not apply to what I was discussing earlier in the thread because we were discussing parameters that contributed to the hart women's actions and the path that led them to doing what you named above. It wasn't a discussion about whether what the hart women did to the children was abuse or not.
When you reply to a text it only quotes the most recent one. So people joining in on the conversation who don't review earlier posts might respond and have no idea what the origins of the discussion was about. 🤷🏾*♀️ I think your response shows that.



IMO

 

[Sleuth99]

Exactly. I think many who are unfamiliar with the education system assume that a teaching degree means that someone is qualified to teach, but that is definitely not how education institutions view a teaching degree. Many qualified educators choose a different route after several years as an educator, often moving into positions related to education that require teaching experience and professional certification. Sarah seems to have done nothing related to education after completing the degree, yet I suspect she emphasized that degree in adoption applications and that adoption agencies gave her high points for that degree. It is during the practicums that real teachers are identified, and those who cannot cope with managing a group of children are weeded out. My impression is that Sarah displayed characteristics or "red flags" during practicums that excluded her from working with children.

What does that tell us? It suggests to me that adoption agencies need to re-visit the review how adoptive parents are selected and to look beyond the happy, smiling, eager faces of childless parents who promise everything that adoption agencies look for in prospective parents. They also need better long term evaluation of adoption families to genuinely monitor the mental health of the children.

Why was a young girl fleeing two lesbian women? What were they doing that disturbed her so much that she risked injury to escape? If this young girl was fleeing two men, would authorities have returned the young girl to the two men?

You make so many great points. I mentioned earlier that the education could have caused people to overlook suspicious things and was met with opposition, but you hit it right on the nail. Having a degree in education doesn't mean you can teach or know how to work with youth. I've seen that first hand in too many circumstances. Bruce Dekalb said he went over the next day to check out the house. I agree that the young girl wouldn't have been returned if it were two men and believe Dana would have called 911 that night.


IMO

 

[beatrixpotter]

I have a large family and homeschool my children. I was actually also homeschooled as a child myself. I have to admit I find the prejudice I find in threads like this very offensive. I have had to delete what I type up so many times. It's grossly offensive to me to refer to me as a child hoarder because of my family size. Quite frankly it's just disgusting. Just as disgusting as if someone made some bigoted remark on here regarding someone else's religion or sexuality.

I have my children because I LOVE them. Not because I collect them. I and my husband work very hard to provide everything I can for my children. I think it's very offensive to imply (as I've seen many times) that just because I have this many children it's some deep seated psychological issue. Just because you read of a handful of abusive large families or google some articles online does not make "you" an expert on large families or homeschooling for that matter.

To suggest that my family requires an extra level of "monitoring" because of two families recently in the news is just beyond the pale. I'm tired of this being a factor zeroed in on while other major common denominators in other crimes are ignored simply because they are more common. How many families with a small number of children abuse or kill them? Probably more. Why not suggest extra monitoring there? How many children who are in public schools are abused? Most children who are abused are actually in public schools. It doesn't prevent it. Since it doesn't prevent it and so very many still fall through the cracks why not suggest more monitoring for children in the environment?

Child hoarders? That's just disgusting and hateful and clearly a term deliberately intended to be offensive.

 

[bluesneakers]

I have a large family and homeschool my children. I was actually also homeschooled as a child myself. I have to admit I find the prejudice I find in threads like this very offensive. I have had to delete what I type up so many times. It's grossly offensive to me to refer to me as a child hoarder because of my family size. Quite frankly it's just disgusting. Just as disgusting as if someone made some bigoted remark on here regarding someone else's religion or sexuality.

I have my children because I LOVE them. Not because I collect them. I and my husband work very hard to provide everything I can for my children. I think it's very offensive to imply (as I've seen many times) that just because I have this many children it's some deep seated psychological issue. Just because you read of a handful of abusive large families or google some articles online does not make "you" an expert on large families or homeschooling for that matter.

To suggest that my family requires an extra level of "monitoring" because of two families recently in the news is just beyond the pale. I'm tired of this being a factor zeroed in on while other major common denominators in other crimes are ignored simply because they are more common. How many families with a small number of children abuse or kill them? Probably more. Why not suggest extra monitoring there? How many children who are in public schools are abused? Most children who are abused are actually in public schools. It doesn't prevent it. Since it doesn't prevent it and so very many still fall through the cracks why not suggest more monitoring for children in the environment?

Child hoarders? That's just disgusting and hateful and clearly a term deliberately intended to be offensive.

I agree with you. I grew up in the country where for various reasons (including religious) families were large, 8 - 12 kids was not uncommon. They were happy families, farming families, active in their churches and in the community. Subjecting these families to random interference or inspection would clearly violate the Constitution.

 

[katydid23]

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?

We were not given any psychological tests. But we were given lots of questionnaires, which were pretty detailed and invasive.

And they asked us pretty intense questions during our home interviews. Hypotheticals, like if your child refuses to go to bed, when asked, what do you do in response? When they ask you why they do not look like you, how do you respond? So they were getting into our psyche pretty deeply in that way.


And they interviewed our neighbors, employers and some family members. So they had a pretty good idea of our mental/emotional stability, or lack there of. :wink: