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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

AgeofAquaruis said:
SMH. That's because she didn't have anyone in her corner to fight for her. She didn't have any way to do it for herself either.
Click to expand...

What was she supposed to do at 9 yrs old? Go out and find and pay for a lawyer herself to fight it?

That's ridiculous! This is sick, it's just punishing an abused child for the abuse instead of punishing those responsible!
 
Amonet said:
What was she supposed to do at 9 yrs old? Go out and find and pay for a lawyer herself to fight it?

That's ridiculous! This is sick, it's just punishing an abused child for the abuse instead of punishing those responsible!
Click to expand...
I’m surprised not 1 judge on the panel of 3 said “Amended by FOURTEEN YEARS??? Wait a gosh darn minute here!” The appellate court made no fresh determination of her age and have now prevented the criminal court proceedings from doing just that. This ruling shocks the conscience. They are punishing Natalia for the failure of the state to be more proactive earlier. I am livid.
 
Dawn Day said:
I’m surprised not 1 judge on the panel of 3 said “Amended by FOURTEEN YEARS??? Wait a gosh darn minute here!” The appellate court made no fresh determination of her age and have now prevented the criminal court proceedings from doing just that. This ruling shocks the conscience. They are punishing Natalia for the failure of the state to be more proactive earlier. I am livid.
Click to expand...

It is totally wrong to uphold a decision made by a court that had been defrauded by the adoptive parents to more than double a child's age despite there being evidence out there that the birth certificate age was correct. To say that legally as the fraud succeeded then nothing can be done, is not justice.
 
IIRC, an attorney did try to go to court & have that birth-date fraud undone, but was unsuccessful. Can anyone find a link to this part of the sorry tale.

I guess there is no ACLU in Indiana, no disability law specialists, either.

Her civil rights were definitely violated by this list of court decisions.

Glad she is actually with a family now!

jmho ymmv lrr
 
Oh, well, there is an ACLU in Indiana, but they do not accept third-party reports.

(Maybe they would pay attention to a couple hundred reports of the same crime?)

IMHO Natalia was definitely harmed by the government, the court that ignored the board-certified pediatricians & the immigration documents & declared Natalia an adult!

Get Legal Help

If you believe your constitutional rights have been violated, you can

But first, please make sure your case fulfills the following:

  1. Your civil liberties have been violated by a government entity
  2. Your issue concerns a right or freedom protected by the U.S. or Indiana Constitutions
  3. You are the person or party whose constitutional rights have been violated
We do not accept complaints from third parties, or complaints made on behalf of someone else. Please note that as our office puts additional precautions into effect due to COVID-19, we have limited resources and are unable to pursue every case that comes to our attention. We will make every effort to respond to your complaint within 8 to 12 weeks. If we do take your case and represent you, our services are free.

If you can arrange for her family to see this, please do!!!

jmho ymmv lrr
 
NEW PHOTO
The earliest known photograph of Natalia. From the Ukrainian orphanage circa 2007. This photo appeared in the Russian/Ukrainian report about this case and Natalia’s birth mother. The interview with her birth mother appears to be the same as was reported by the English publication The Daily Mail, but the Daily Mail did not include the photos from the orphanage
 

Attachments

  • A5714715-F617-4CC1-A7A1-AA698004B5CD.jpeg
    A5714715-F617-4CC1-A7A1-AA698004B5CD.jpeg
    88.2 KB · Views: 68
Laughing said:
Apparently charges were dismissed, the court says that no one bothered to appeal the age-change so the child neglect cannot have happened:

Neglect charges based on Natalia Grace Barnett's age dismissed against mom accused of abandoning her in Lafayette

There is a more recent article, behind a paywall.

Still haven't seen any explanation of how a court changed Natalia's age -- without legal representation.

SMH

Natalia, hope the air conditioning works well, Autumn is on the way!
Click to expand...

The charges for neglect of a minor were dismissed because of the civil court decision regarding her age, which was clearly obtained under fraudulent means, but also due to the statue of limitations which is a harder barrier to overcome.
They still face other charges for neglect of a dependent.
And the prosecution is appealing the decision to uphold dismissal of the child neglect charges to the state Supreme Court.

In one of these threads I outlined how Natalia can possibly undo the civil age change, after doing some research. Let me see if I can find it.
 
gitana1 said:
The charges for neglect of a minor were dismissed because of the civil court decision regarding her age, which was clearly obtained under fraudulent means, but also due to the statue of limitations which is a harder barrier to overcome.
They still face other charges for neglect of a dependent.
And the prosecution is appealing the decision to uphold dismissal of the child neglect charges to the state Supreme Court.

In one of these threads I outlined how Natalia can possibly undo the civil age change, after doing some research. Let me see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
Thanks Gitana. I hope you find it
 
Dawn Day said:
Thanks Gitana. I hope you find it
Click to expand...

Here’s what I found:

Ok. I looked up the law on set asides of civil judgments. One year after the judgment in cases of fraud. That’s like CA.

However:

“Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(3) provides that a judgment may be set aside for “fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party . . . .” Additionally, a motion for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) must be filed not more than one year after the judgment was entered. However, Trial Rule 60(B) contains a “savings clause” which provides, “This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding or for fraud upon the court.”
[9] In Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. 2002), our supreme court addressed the three ways that a motion to set aside a judgment for fraud can be raised, adopting analysis used by federal courts for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which is nearly identical to Trial Rule 60(B)(3). First is a motion filed under subsection (3) of the Rule, which “may be based on any kind of fraud (intrinsic, extrinsic, or fraud on the court) so long as it is chargeable to an adverse party and has an adverse effect on the moving party.” Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 356. A motion under this Rule also must be filed in the court that issued the judgment, and it must be made within one year of the judgment. Id.
[10] Second, a party may file an independent action for fraud pursuant to traditional equitable principles. Id. “Independent actions are usually reserved for [...]situations that do not meet the requirements for a motion made under” Rule 60(B)(3). Id. Such cases include ones where “(i) the fraud is not chargeable to an adverse party; (ii) the movant seeks relief from a court other than the rendering court; or, most often, (iii) the one-year time limit for Rule 60(b)(3) motions has expired.” Id. An independent action for fraud is subject to the doctrine of laches and is available only in extremely limited circumstances. Id.
[11] Third, a party may invoke the inherent power of a court to set aside its judgment if procured by fraud on the court. Id. at 356-57. Also, a court may sua sponte set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Id. at 357. There is no time limit for a fraud on the court proceeding. Id.
Appellate Decisions
(That last bold by me means if the court brings its own motion there’s no time limit. And the court can be asked/pressured to do so).

So I think this kid has some options. I hope a good attorney will take her case for free after the criminal case is over.
Click to expand...

IN - Couple charged with abandonment of adopted child after legally changing her age, Sept 2019
 
gitana1 said:
The charges for neglect of a minor were dismissed because of the civil court decision regarding her age, which was clearly obtained under fraudulent means, but also due to the statue of limitations which is a harder barrier to overcome.
They still face other charges for neglect of a dependent.
And the prosecution is appealing the decision to uphold dismissal of the child neglect charges to the state Supreme Court.

In one of these threads I outlined how Natalia can possibly undo the civil age change, after doing some research. Let me see if I can find it.
Click to expand...
They may have gotten away with it in the court system. Let them get all smug and comfy, it will make it that much worse when Karma catches up with them. MOO
 
Thanks, @Gitana ! Now we need a bulldog of an Indiana bar-admitted attorney.

OR plenty of on-line support for the gentleman who tried previously?

Either @meanmaryjean or @LaborDayRN is a Hoosier, currently not sure which one. We have an Indiana detective posting, of course this old blonde COVID survivor cannot remember that username....

@Hoosier952 @Hoosierfan72 @Hoosiers#1 @fallingdown

jmho ymmv lrr
 
Indiana Attorney General wants the State Supreme Court to take Barnett case

"Now, the Attorney General is arguing to the state Supreme Court that the age-change was fraudulent and done secretively under a confidential adoption cause.

The petition is asking the justices whether defendants can manipulate the judiciary…to obtain a court order on false pretenses…and then use it to shield themselves from prosecution."
 
meanmaryjean said:
Indiana Attorney General wants the State Supreme Court to take Barnett case

"Now, the Attorney General is arguing to the state Supreme Court that the age-change was fraudulent and done secretively under a confidential adoption cause.

The petition is asking the justices whether defendants can manipulate the judiciary…to obtain a court order on false pretenses…and then use it to shield themselves from prosecution."
Click to expand...

Wonderful, wonderful!!!

Now sadly the child robbed of her teen years cannot go to school with her peers, and cannot have vital medical procedures at the time her joints need them, but she can have vindication AND those that hurt her can be charged!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 88 more.
Total: 274 (members: 89, guests: 185)

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
185
Total visitors
274
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,012
Messages
18,248,474
Members
234,523
Latest member
MN-Girl
Back
Top