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

[AgeofAquaruis]

So they Dr shopped until Michael's Dr. Decided to ignore all the previous exams showing Natalia to be much younger. The courts also clearly ignored all the other evidence of Natalia being much younger, went with a 'Doctor' who clearly isn't even Natalia's 'Doctor'. Listened only to saint Kristine,and Michael's version. To make their ruling.
Those rulings should be rendered Null,and Void.
MOO

 

[Meloni88]

Don’t get me wrong; I think it is absolutely terrible this child did not get her surgeries. But, it’s not just the Barnetts to blame. Remember, they adopted her in the US from another family who adopted her from the Ukraine. That other family should be held responsible for lack of medical care as well. JMO

Difference is as far as we know the first family did everything legally and tried to find her a new family who could take care of her needs when, for whatever reason, they decided they were ill-equipped. They paid for her to be seen at a world renowned children's hospital so it's possible she got some of those recommended treatments. We can see from photos (and from Michael's statement that she ran towards them when they met her) that she had corrective braces fitted before she went to live with the Barnetts. The Barnetts, on the other hand, went out of their way not just to deny appropriate medical care when they had custody of her but to deny her any chance of ever getting the medical treatment she needed. They deliberately took steps to prevent her from accessing support networks and left her in an unsafe environment where she didn't know anybody. I think the woman who found her said she didn't have shoes on so I doubt they were keeping up with her physical therapy/castings. They expended plenty of effort trying to get her committed to psychiatric facilities, however. They were making out to everyone that they were given no medical information about Natalia even though she had extensive records and they were in possession of a surgical timetable from the Boston doctor (I'd actually bet money she shredded them). They were telling the Indiana doctors she had a different form of dysplasia and no doubt were withholding those medical files from them so they had to treat her like a blank slate. That would slow down treatment considerably and prevent doctors from giving the best timely care and advice.

I wonder if they had life insurance policy on her. They're stupid and evil enough to have done that.

 

[Meloni88]

So they Dr shopped until Michael's Dr. Decided to ignore all the previous exams showing Natalia to be much younger. The courts also clearly ignored all the other evidence of Natalia being much younger, went with a 'Doctor' who clearly isn't even Natalia's 'Doctor'. Listened only to saint Kristine,and Michael's version. To make their ruling.
Those rulings should be rendered Null,and Void.
MOO

Not even ignored. It wasn't presented so he didn't look for it. It's nuts the more I think about it. The medical evidence they did show him was so thin it was obviously not even enough for a typical child never mind one with dwarfism, why did he just accept that that's all there was? This judge was OLD, not some greenhorn. I don't understand why it didn't occur to him that they were up to no good. I'd be thinking there was some sexual crime being covered up because that's the most obvious reason (to me) someone would be invested in getting a child deemed an adult. They'd adopted her, probably got a fat tax credit and then 18 months (?) later were petitioning to declare her an adult. How is that not suspicious on its own and not warrant some scrutiny? By their own account they'd picked her up in strange circumstances, were given no info about her and were saying they realized they were scammed by a rogue agency. Does that not scream human trafficking? But he just signs off on an age change like that solves the case. !??!

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Difference is as far as we know the first family did everything legally and tried to find her a new family who could take care of her needs when, for whatever reason, they decided they were ill-equipped. They paid for her to be seen at a world renowned children's hospital so it's possible she got some of those recommended treatments. We can see from photos (and from Michael's statement that she ran towards them when they met her) that she had corrective braces fitted before she went to live with the Barnetts. The Barnetts, on the other hand, went out of their way not just to deny appropriate medical care when they had custody of her but to deny her any chance of ever getting the medical treatment she needed. They deliberately took steps to prevent her from accessing support networks and left her in an unsafe environment where she didn't know anybody. I think the woman who found her said she didn't have shoes on so I doubt they were keeping up with her physical therapy/castings. They expended plenty of effort trying to get her committed to psychiatric facilities, however. They were making out to everyone that they were given no medical information about Natalia even though she had extensive records and they were in possession of a surgical timetable from the Boston doctor (I'd actually bet money she shredded them). They were telling the Indiana doctors she had a different form of dysplasia and no doubt were withholding those medical files from them so they had to treat her like a blank slate. That would slow down treatment considerably and prevent doctors from giving the best timely care and advice.

I wonder if they had life insurance policy on her. They're stupid and evil enough to have done that.

The child that could not be miraculously cured by Kristines Godliness,and paraded around on talk show,after talk show,and write books about for $$$$$ and glorious praise.
MOO

 

[Meloni88]

State filed another request for production and responded to the motion to squash today.

I just noticed too that both Michael and the state requested documents from "Mobile Dental Health Services" in Sept and October respectively and, as we know, the documents said she was estimated to be 9 at the oldest both times they took her. I assumed Michael was requesting documents from a different dentist who might have said something a bit more favourable to them lol. He's so clueless.

 

[Meloni88]

This might have been discussed already but found some interesting possibly relevant trivia... when you adopt a child you can claim a specific tax credit and you get the max allowable amount if the child has a disability. In 2010 this was briefly changed from a nonrefundable credit to a refundable credit until 2012 when it went back to being nonrefundable. Ordinarily it would not occur to me someone would go through the hassle of adopting a child just to get a $13,000 refundable tax credit, not exactly a king's ransom, but these people are somehow both extremely devious and extremely dim so I'm curious. Can it be a coincidence that they adopted the first year it became a refundable credit? They took her off the first family's hands pretty darn quickly so maybe it didnt cost them much in attorney fees like it did the DePauls. Could this have been the plan all along? Rush adopt a kid with a growth disorder, secure the lump sum in January and then cry "scam." Or at least why they went through with the adoption in November despite their saying they first believed she wasn't a real child in May.

 

[jjenny]

The judge rued to make Natalia an adult based on flimsy statements, then when Mans tried to get her ruled back a child, court refused. I don't think Natalia was even aware of the original ruling at the time, or had any representation, sounds like she was locked up in a psychiatric hospital at a time. And when lawyer tried to overturn the original ruling, supposedly Natalia was told she was an adult so she should be acting as one. I am flabbergasted at a US court acting in such a manner.

 

[Dawn Day]

This might have been discussed already but found some interesting possibly relevant trivia... when you adopt a child you can claim a specific tax credit and you get the max allowable amount if the child has a disability. In 2010 this was briefly changed from a nonrefundable credit to a refundable credit until 2012 when it went back to being nonrefundable. Ordinarily it would not occur to me someone would go through the hassle of adopting a child just to get a $13,000 refundable tax credit, not exactly a king's ransom, but these people are somehow both extremely devious and extremely dim so I'm curious. Can it be a coincidence that they adopted the first year it became a refundable credit? They took her off the first family's hands pretty darn quickly so maybe it didnt cost them much in attorney fees like it did the DePauls. Could this have been the plan all along? Rush adopt a kid with a growth disorder, secure the lump sum in January and then cry "scam." Or at least why they went through with the adoption in November despite their saying they first believed she wasn't a real child in May.

I imagine the credit was enticing. Yet they supposedly were set to adopt from Haiti first, so I don’t think it was a plan to dump her from the start. I also wonder if they assumed Natalia would get disability, but perhaps found out she didn’t qualify at the time. Disabled kids don’t automatically get a disability check.

 

[jjenny]

I imagine the credit was enticing. Yet they supposedly were set to adopt from Haiti first, so I don’t think it was a plan to dump her from the start. I also wonder if they assumed Natalia would get disability, but perhaps found out she didn’t qualify at the time. Disabled kids don’t automatically get a disability check.

From what has been reported, Natalia was getting social security disability payments. But obviously not a huge amounts. I am sure medical bills would have been a lot more, but presumably she would have had medical insurance? I just think they got a lot more than they bargained for with Natalia's medical needs. She would need a lot of surgeries, which would obviously put a damper on things like traveling and going to other countries. And her condition couldn't be "cured" by whatever parenting methods.

 

[Dawn Day]

From what has been reported, Natalia was getting social security disability payments..

I know she is getting SSI now, but I don’t think she was qualified before she was re-aged. It was actually in the Barnetts petition to re-age her that being re-aged would help her qualify for govt assistance. With social security, before the age of 22 they use family income for SSI, or you need a retired parent who collects SS or is themselves disabled and collects SSDI based on their record as an employee. After being aged at 22, only NB’s income would be counted and she wasn’t earning anything, thus she qualified for SSI (Not SSDI because that is for people with a certain number of working months where they paid social security tax).

 

[Meloni88]

State subpoenaed T Mobile today. That must be about the text messages Michael was sending Cynthia (probably trying to butter her up/smooth things over) talking smack about Kristine haha. (Do phone carriers store all our text messages??)

 

[Meloni88]

• Verizon: Keeps records of calls and cell towers used for a year; text message details are retained for up to one year, actual text message content between 3 to 5 days; Internet session information for up to a year, and Web sites visited for up to 90 days.
• AT&T: Stores call records for between 5 to 7 years; cell tower records since July 2008; text message details for between 5 to 7 years; text message content is not retained; Internet session information and destinations for up to 72 hours.
• Sprint: Hangs onto call records and cell tower records for between 18 and 24 months. Internet session and destination info for up to 60 days; text message details for up to 18 months, depending on the device; text message content not retained; Internet session info and destination info for up to 60 days.
• T-Mobile: Retains call record details for 5 years; cell towers used, "officially, 4-6 months, really a year or more;" text message details 5 years; text message content, not kept; Internet session and destination info is not kept.

 

[Medstudies]

State subpoenaed T Mobile today. That must be about the text messages Michael was sending Cynthia (probably trying to butter her up/smooth things over) talking smack about Kristine haha. (Do phone carriers store all our text messages??)

Idk?
his LinkedIn lists him working for T Mobile during the time period.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-barnett-a2625411. 2009-2016.

(I didn’t realize he transferred to a TMobile location in Canada, hmmm?)

 

[Meloni88]

Interesting, I think I did see that before but forgot. It's a "subpoena duces tecum" which I think means they want them to show up and give evidence. If he worked for T-Mobile he would most likely be using them as his cell phone carrier, right? A relative of Cynthia was saying on Youtube that Michael had been texting them about Natalia and admitted he knew she was a child and that Kristine is a psycho.

 

[Meloni88]

Separate trials set for Barnetts, who face new charges for abandoning daughter in Lafayette

The judge has allowed the amended charges. They face between 6 and 20 years. New, separate trial dates set for June and July.

 

[Medstudies]

...
The new charges cite dental records from 2011 and 2012 to back claims that Natalia was 8 or 9 in 2011 and between 6 and 9 in 2012, according to the affidavit. KB was told of Natalia's estimated age, according to the affidavit.

According to court documents filed with the new charges, Dr. Lisa Maskill, an orthopedic surgeon at the Dr. Helen DeVos Children’s Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan, examined Natalia in 2017 and 2018 and diagnosed her with diastrophic dysplasia, club feet, “joint issues at every level” and “required, but was unable to obtain, surgery on her spine, hip, hand and possibly wrist.” Maskill told investigators that “because of the delay in medical care and surgeries, the surgeries will be more involved and the treatment will take a longer period of time.”

Okay, I’ll fess up to a little schadenfreude, so to KB&MB:

 

[Medstudies]

Michael and Kristine Barnett Court Appearances

51 images from the various hearings.

Quite a difference from the October hearing.

 

[Meloni88]

I don't know why he was looking so bloody confident in October. What a dim bulb. Did he think they'd never find her unedited medical records? Did he think doctors who saw her wouldn't recognize her from the news and contact the police? Did he think, like Kristine did, that the DePauls would actually side with them? Maybe it was all Kristine and she lied to him about what the doctors and dentists had said.

Is there a reason why his trial would be set for a month before Kristine's or is that just random? Can the second trial reference the first or would that be prejudicial. I assume they would be two separate juries...

 

[Amonet]

Separate trials set for Barnetts, who face new charges for abandoning daughter in Lafayette

The judge has allowed the amended charges. They face between 6 and 20 years. New, separate trial dates set for June and July.

In that article, MB's attorney, Kinnard, says "“We’re still just as confident. But we think it’s just unduly burdensome for our clients to even worry about those additional charges.”"

What about the additional burdens your client put on this child? What about the way she is 'burdened' for life due to the medical neglect by your client?

 

[Amonet]

I don't know why he was looking so bloody confident in October. What a dim bulb. Did he think they'd never find her unedited medical records? Did he think doctors who saw her wouldn't recognize her from the news and contact the police? Did he think, like Kristine did, that the DePauls would actually side with them? Maybe it was all Kristine and she lied to him about what the doctors and dentists had said.

Is there a reason why his trial would be set for a month before Kristine's or is that just random? Can the second trial reference the first or would that be prejudicial. I assume they would be two separate juries...

I don't understand why it's going to be two separate trials when the bulk of the alleged crimes were committed when they were a married couple, living together, and joint parents of the individual who the charges are about?

It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for all those experts to have to appear twice, all the evidence to have to be presented twice to two separate juries, etc.

I suppose it sort of makes sense if the defense teams want to work separately, so they can each have their own cross-examinations of witnesses and experts without confusing the jury or risking prejudice in the jury.

And I suppose KB might change her mind about a trial if she sees how hard it is for MB to fight the charges against him when her charges are probably stronger than his if she was the one taking N to most of her medical appointments and things like that?