Deceased/Not Found Ca - Hannah,16 (fnd dec), Devonte,15, (dec nf) Ciera Hart,12 (fnd dec),mendocino Cty,26 Mar 2018 #7

[mtnlites]

Even though they may have looked healthy the very fact that food was withheld is abusive and terrifying. Plus the fact that the kids were not growing properly means something internally was amiss.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Yes, I realize that now, of course. As a former former social worker I am very well aware of how looks can be deceiving. However, I was talking about this particular case (not abuse in general) and how I would have felt by simply being an outsider looking at the pictures. We have a lot of information verifying the abuse and we know what was going on. However, I said just by looking at the pictures, without the context, it wouldn't have triggered any warning bells to me. It was just my own personal opinion about how I felt when looking at the pictures.

 

[gcharlie]

It's really a shame that critical parts of adoption records/histories of the adopted kids are sealed.

So much of what Jen told the OR CPS appears to be BS when it comes to the adopted kids and their backgrounds. Access to these records could have easily disproven what she said.

Specifically with Devonte and Jeremiah- reliable news reports from both his family and court records show that he was removed from his birth mother around the time Sierra was born (April 2006) and lived with a paternal aunt until December 2006. He then went into foster care until he was adopted. So these boys were removed from their mother's care when they were 3 1/2 and 2 1/2.

Whether it was overt or covert racism on the mother's part is not for me to decide. But she went beyond overboard in terms of lying about these kids years before adoption.

 

[Mira_Eg]

Sorry, my reply with quote isnt working. Thank you @Mira_Eg for the links to the doc.
No wonder Devonte was so emotional. Seems to me that poor kid tried to do all the right things to satisfy these @#$&es. Yet, still faced punishment along with his siblings. I have no doubt that the kids were threatened that if they spoke up or misbehaved, they would be seperated or put into the foster system.

Sure, he was. Those fake zealous smiles and then suddenly crying in the session of Ferguson photo indicate a huge pressure on this poor child. The whole package of this staged scene, if seen in order, clearly shows that. It happened in another scene when he was pushed to the stage to hug a singer and cryyyyyy. Nothing was real or genuine there. IMO The child became emotionally broken and didn't experience the natural reactions to different situations because there was always the monsters to order him what to do exactly and how. And any different response would have put him along with his siblings in trouble. He probably felt responsible and eventually so frightened that any 'disobedience; by him would harm all the children too.JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Two things about Markis. I noticed in the picture posted earlier, Markis as a very young boy did not have the protruding jawline that he had as he matured.

Also, my heart breaks for him that even on his birthday...he was punished. Noone was allowed to wish him a happy bday. I know this is small in the grand scheme of the hell these children lived. But, a young boy who had gone through so much already...this is devastating. Poor sweet innocent boy.

It singled him out, but it punished the other kids too. It seems small but it's a telling glimpse at what their world was like.

 

[mtnlites]

I am wondering how some of these festival people treat their children. I read one FB festival friend’s FB and she felt that parents sometimes get stressed or some such thing.

Most of us treat our children very well. "Festival people" is a very broad term that encompasses literally millions of people. As with any "group" (and festival goers are not actually a "group", despite the way they're talked about on here), you find both good and "bad" parents. You'll find the same in any subculture. It is either neither better nor worse than with anyone else. Some parents are fantastic, some are abusive, but that's what you would find in any sampling.

Sarah and Jen were good manipulators. They pulled the wool over lots of people's eyes.

 

[bluesneakers]

I am wondering how some of these festival people treat their children. I read one FB festival friend’s FB and she felt that parents sometimes get stressed or some such thing.

To be fair all parents sometimes get stressed sometimes.

 

[fridaybaker]

Almost every foster-adoptive parent I know has adopted multiple children. But between bio, foster, and adoptive children, people are limited on how many they can take in at a time. Also, it’s more “normal” to adopt a couple sibling groups rather than just one. Only one of my friends has adopted a large sibling group rather than a couple smaller ones.

I really have trouble with the idea that people should be suspect because they are one of the few who will take in and care for multiple kids that other people tend to forget on a day to day basis. If more people would take one or two kids in at a time, those of us doing this hard work wouldn’t have to take in so many. It absolutely kills me to say no to kids knowing they will go to shelters or sleep in CPS offices. It’s hard are for me to thinknour family is done fostering when I know I have room in my home and heart for more and that they’d thrive here. It’s difficult to shut your doors when you know most people won’t even consider opening theirs. Being willing to adopt and love 3, 6, 10 kids is NOT a red flag.

Lots of issues with the Harts. But most people adopting kids simply want children and want to help kids needing a home. Neither is a red flag.

Heidi, I agree after your post that perhaps the simple fact of wanting to adopt six is a red flag in, and of, itself.

However, I do think that agencies should be extra-cognizant of the situation of the adoptive family in an instance where you start out with troubled children, or those who have suffered abuse, combined with payment, as well as the fact that the family is from out of state. From my point of view, I'd think that the needs of the children have to balanced very, very diligently with checks. You send children, who are already at risk, off to live forever with and to be under the control of, total strangers, paying them to do so. No follow up. Zero. It's just frightening to think about.

From what I can understand here, that is exactly what happened. They paid a couple, whom nobody at the agency personally knew, whom the children didn't know, and let them vanish.

I know, what is the alternative? Well, what would be done had not the Hart's come along? Perhaps they would be split up into foster homes; perhaps they would have been adopted by a kind and stable person or couple the next week. Likely, though, they wouldn't be dead.

I do appreciate your insight, though. Mine are strictly based on the "view from outside the window", and it seems that you are quite experienced with these situations.

 

[kizzykat]

Two things about Markis. I noticed in the picture posted earlier, Markis as a very young boy did not have the protruding jawline that he had as he matured.

Also, my heart breaks for him that even on his birthday...he was punished. Noone was allowed to wish him a happy bday. I know this is small in the grand scheme of the hell these children lived. But, a young boy who had gone through so much already...this is devastating. Poor sweet innocent boy.

I read that Markis was berated or belittled (a similar term if not one of those). I'd swear it was in the DHS report but I haven't been able to find it again. Otherwise it was in a MSM article last night. I'll have to go MOO on this till I can find that comment, unless someone else remembers reading it. Made me very sad for him.

 

[HeidiTX232]

Yes, I realize that now, of course. As a former former social worker I am very well aware of how looks can be deceiving. However, I was talking about this particular case (not abuse in general) and how I would have felt by simply being an outsider looking at the pictures. We have a lot of information verifying the abuse and we know what was going on. However, I said just by looking at the pictures, without the context, it wouldn't have triggered any warning bells to me. It was just my own personal opinion about how I felt when looking at the pictures.

The only picture that has made me really “whoa” was the painting one. Someone has to be at the bottom of the growth chart. So just being small or thin isn’t a red flag to me. A healthy diet, their pasts, genetics, etc could account for thin children.

 

[fridaybaker]

Also one of the doors was torn off, found on the rocky cliff face. Even with evertthing rolled up and locked down, it's common for unbelted and even unbelted pasengers to be ejected if the forces are great enough. I believe Sarah was found wedged in the back of the vehicle, I presume she had been sitting in front.

Can you tell me where you read that Sarah was found wedged in the back of the vehicle? I hadn't read that before. Thanks in advance!

 

[mtnlites]

The only picture that has made me really “whoa” was the painting one. Someone has to be at the bottom of the growth chart. So just being small or thin isn’t a red flag to me. A healthy diet, their pasts, genetics, etc could account for thin children.

That's what I said in my original post, too-that the only picture that made me flummoxed was the painting one, but I didn't see it until last night. Had I only been looking at photos, I would not have suspected abuse, especially if the parents were friends and they were giving me totally acceptable reasons for why the kids were small (ie. they lied).

 

[Koshka]

Most of us treat our children very well. "Festival people" is a very broad term that encompasses literally millions of people. As with any "group" (and festival goers are not actually a "group", despite the way they're talked about on here), you find both good and "bad" parents. You'll find the same in any subculture. It is either neither better nor worse than with anyone else. Some parents are fantastic, some are abusive, but that's what you would find in any sampling.

Sarah and Jen were good manipulators. They pulled the wool over lots of people's eyes.

BBM. Yes. Nascar fans, Parrotheads, Opera buffs: whatever the affinity group is, the sad truth is that you'll find some bad parents in it. I don't think I've ever read anything that says a particular group stands out from the rest as being significantly worse. They were two very good (and obviously articulate) manipulators who were willing to do whatever it took to do what they wanted to do. That speaks to who they were as people, not what their hobbies/interests were.

 

[HeidiTX232]

I'd think that the needs of the children have to balanced very, very diligently with checks. You send children, who are already at risk, off to live forever with and to be under the control of, total strangers, paying them to do so. No follow up. Zero. It's just frightening to think about.

From what I can understand here, that is exactly what happened. They paid a couple, whom nobody at the agency personally knew, whom the children didn't know, and let them vanish.

So, what should have happened is that a MN agency (CPS or a private agency) should have followed up monthly with the family from placement to finalization because technically the children are foster children in the inbetween time. From TX’sstandpoint, this should have been at least six months (it can be waived but usually isn’t). After finalization, no one checks on the family because, at that point, the family is just like anyone else.

Well, kinda. An in-state family can have post-adopt services which is more involved including the parent meeting without a social worker every six months.

And you do have to fill out a form every five years confirming you are still the children’s parents and where they are being educated in order to continue getting the subsidy check and Medicaid.

But generally, we are just like any other family created in whatever way after the adoption is finalized.

 

[musemoon]

People grasp for control when things feel out of control. I absolutely believe that JH bit off more than she could chew, likely exasperating her own issues, and that this turned out tragically. It’s possible that this all could have happened with a biological child or just one fairly healthy adoptive child because she may well have had significant enough issues for that to be the problem. But it almost definitely made it worse that she adopted so many kids “from hard places,” Kids known to have some exceptionalities themselves. It’s quite challenging to handle when you’re pretty healthy yourself.

I personally think this is it....truthfully. I don't see this as premeditated or even them using the kids as labor of any kind....

I see this as a person who actually got a placement removed because they used wire hangers (very Mommy Dearest) who had an ideal family tableaux, (Lesbian, vegetarian, holistic, festival going, free love, transracial, one love family) who didn't have the psychological means nor the personal fortitude to withstand it.

1. Even if she had one unmedicated mentally ill child she'd be stretched to her capacity and it seemed she may have had 4. I know people think she was lying on this point, but I know very few kiddos adopted through foster care with absolutely no needs at all...seriously, it's so rare.

2. Imagine no screen time, outdoor time or schooling outside of the home? Parenting six kids all day alone? It would be enough to overwhelm the best parent. I think her harsh disciplines were buying her quiet time...time she would have had if they kids had been engaged in activities outside of the home. (Edited to add She thought they had food issues...for whatever reason and ran with that to the extreme. We are vegetarians, my kids are slim they metabolize food quickly cause they eat, whole, healthy food. I am not slim, I eat less than they do . Perhaps withholding food "worked" to help with things, medication, therapy, outside time, friends and other things would have done a better job of. She wanted six kids and didn't want six children especially noises, messy, diagnosed kids with trauma.

3. Also, I know this is not likely but the fact that the anonymous friend brought up JH's obsession with her is suspect in my eyes which makes me wonder what her motives were in making the report. I'm not sure if she was a lesbian or not, but it's a weird thing to tell a CPS worker if there wasn't some ulterior motive.

4. Watch the Bernie Sanders video, while they may have known they were on camera, they didn't act just for the camera, you can see the family interactions there...the kids seem genuinely happy and organic, Jen seems a bit off....but it's up for debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK2IlTweyLQ

5. I don't think this was a case of cruelty <modsnip>, especially six unmedicated ones or six with issues that were never seen by doctors....the control she exhibited looks like fear to me, fear she'd lose control of them, the dive off a cliff together....fear.

6. She simply wasn't what she thought she was, she couldn't parent the way she wanted to and every time she tried she became less and less of what she wanted to be and the kids suffered for it.

Edited to add: Sarah was her partner and Sarah had to buy into the "family" parenting or she would have been out.

 

[?mysterian?]

Heidi, I agree after your post that perhaps the simple fact of wanting to adopt six is a red flag in, and of, itself. However, I do think that agencies should be extra-cognizant of the situation of the adoptive family in an instance where you start out with troubled children, or those who have suffered abuse, combined with payment, as well as the fact that the family is from out of state. From my point of view, I'd think that the needs of the children have to balanced very, very diligently with checks. You send children, who are already at risk, off to live forever with and to be under the control of, total strangers, paying them to do so. No follow up. Zero. It's just frightening to think about. From what I can understand here, that is exactly what happened. They paid a couple, whom nobody at the agency personally knew, whom the children didn't know, and let them vanish. I know, what is the alternative? Well, what would be done had not the Hart's come along? Perhaps they would be split up into foster homes; perhaps they would have been adopted by a kind and stable person or couple the next week. Likely, though, they wouldn't be dead.I do appreciate your insight, though. Mine are strictly based on the "view from outside the window", and it seems that you are quite experienced with these situations.

I haven't read any article stating that the Hart children were adopted and then had no follow up, or that the adoption agency let anyone vanish. Maybe I missed it, though. Do you have a link or did I misunderstand? I've seen this article http://katu.com/news/local/dhs-rele...-hart-children-jen-sarah-devonte-hannah-ciera that says "...Another standard law governs adoptions that cross state lines. A family's home state must complete a home study before a family can adopt a child from another state. It's a rigorous process in Minnesota, Fiddler said. The laws also require monitoring after the placements, he said..." I haven't seen any records released that prove/refute that post-adoption monitoring actually occurred, but it was supposed to. From what I can tell, the adopters and adoptees aren't supposed to disappear after the adoption takes place.

 

[janewall]

BBM. Yes. Nascar fans, Parrotheads, Opera buffs: whatever the affinity group is, the sad truth is that you'll find some bad parents in it. I don't think I've ever read anything that says a particular group stands out from the rest as being significantly worse. They were two very good (and obviously articulate) manipulators who were willing to do whatever it took to do what they wanted to do. That speaks to who they were as people, not what their hobbies/interests were.

Thank you Koshka.

I thought discussion of festival atmospheres and "festival people" had been declared OT by mod sillybilly in thread #6, as the sweeping generalizations being put forth were unhelpful to the search for Devonte and Hannah, or to furthering discussion of the Harts' known abuses and legal issues. I really was hoping that snark had ended.

JMO, MOO, etc.

~/~ festival person and parent ~/~

 

[rosemadderlake]

Two things about Markis. I noticed in the picture posted earlier, Markis as a very young boy did not have the protruding jawline that he had as he matured.

Also, my heart breaks for him that even on his birthday...he was punished. Noone was allowed to wish him a happy bday. I know this is small in the grand scheme of the hell these children lived. But, a young boy who had gone through so much already...this is devastating. Poor sweet innocent boy.

Bbm: yes, what a healthy looking younger boy Markis was. All really beautiful children.

No idea of Jen's motives or Sarah's motives, but these two were not maternal.

What mother punishes a kid on his birthday like that. I think it is huge.

The withholding of food, extremely small portions, and a vegan diet with no medical oversight on growing children is too sad to even think about.

When Devonte went to the neighbors for help I can only imagine what he was putting himself through as the spokes child for his siblings. He knew he was the favorite and could play it, act the part... And he was scared. I pray for a miracle.

And when CPS showed up, all the kids became the enemy to Jen and Sarah. No one fessed up? Those two, without a maternal bone in their bodies, just punished them all for the last time.

They will join the annals of the Turpins and others as the very personification of evil. And what is so difficult is evil is not always overt until it is too late. And Jen was a gamer, a user, and a taker, and an actor, and a SJW with no altruism. Her evil was vengeance.

 

[Sleuth99]

I dont think she was in control the last year and a half. She definitely was loosing it. She got in over her head the moment she lost control in MN and hit a 6 year old with a belt. They were going from state to state looking over their backs, hiding the kids, from schools, neighbors, friends. On the run like fugitives up to the final end.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I see what you're saying. I think the situation was snowballing and when I said she was in control I was referring to her seeming to be decisive and intentional in her actions.


IMO

 

[LeighB]

And you do have to fill out a form every five years confirming you are still the children&#8217;s parents and where they are being educated in order to continue getting the subsidy check and Medicaid.

This is where the problem is. As long as you're getting a subsidy check, you're not "just like every other family." As long as a state is giving taxpayer money for the adoption, then it has an obligation to the taxpayers to make sure those children are better off than before the adoption. And it needs to be more often than every 5 years (although even 5 years in this case would have saved these children's lives).

I had absolutely no idea before this case that states handed out money post-adoption, let alone that they do it with no check-ups required.

 

[ReadyorNot]

5. I don't think this was a case of cruelty <modsnip>, especially six unmedicated ones or six with issues that were never seen by doctors....the control she exhibited looks like fear to me, fear she'd lose control of them, the dive off a cliff together....fear.

<snip>



<modsnip> I would also like to point out that 6 completely normal kids are a struggle too, it seems to me you presuming the kids required any medication for behavior problems and are insinuating that its understandable that someone might act this way.

I also disagree on the origin of fear, I think she feared losing control of the narrative in which she was the hero/rescuer of abused children and being outed as an abuser herself.