IN - Couple charged with abandonment of adopted child after legally changing her age, Sept 2019

[gitana1]

I'm only replying to the accent thing, but I moved to the US at 15 and have completely lost my accent. Everyone thinks I am American, but I still have my green card..

Yes but you weren’t an adult. They’re claiming she was an adult. I don’t know one or even an older teen who lost their accent.

Two friends of mine who came here at ages 12 and 14. The 12 year old has no accent. The 14 year old (now 51) has a strong Dutch accent. He said his little sister worked hard to lose hers.

Another friend came here from Hong Kong at 15. Dumped with her siblings by their parents in an apartment. She still has a thick accent. Her younger brother only slight.

The older you get, the harder it is. By age 18? I don’t know anyone. Maybe if they took accent classes they could. Remember, they claim she was 18 when she came here and inexplicably believe that’s supported by the fact that two years later she doesn’t have an accent and can’t speak Ukraine.

In fact, the reverse should be true. Her accent-free and fluent English points to her being young when she came here. Not an adult.

Unless they’re somehow claiming she isn’t Ukrainian at all.

“In their 1995 study, James Flege and his colleagues examined the English pronunciation of 240 adult native Italian speakers of English who had begun learning English when they emigrated to Canada between the ages of 2 and 23 years. When recorded, they had been there for an average of 32 years and reported speaking English more than Italian. The authors found that the age of learning English exerted a systematic effect on the bilinguals' production of English. The earlier the age of arrival, the weaker the accent.”
Retaining an Accent

“Not that an adult absolutely can't learn another language, cautions Kuhl, who herself is trying valiantly to master Mandarin Chinese. None of us want to believe that our brains are inexorably fixed, and we can't learn new tricks as grown-ups. But becoming fluent and accent-free in a new language becomes increasingly difficult, and the best time to start is as early as possible, like nursery school, while the brain is still developing. By puberty it can be an uphill struggle, as generations of language students have found. "People talk about a 'window of opportunity' for learning language," Kuhl says. "The implication is that if you miss that opportunity, it's too late. I don't agree. It is more difficult with the years. But not impossible."

English is rapidly becoming the language of science and of computers. In Silicon Valley, just down the road from where I live, you hear the accents of Bangalore, Helsinki, Tehran and Taipei randomly mixed in with pure Yankee. The newspapers carry ads for "accent reduction clinics," and as many as half the kids in a classroom may speak another language at home. All of which makes Kuhl's research about early language learning particularly relevant.”

Accents Are Forever | Science | Smithsonian


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311903478_Age_of_immersion_as_a_predictor_of_foreign_accent

 

[gitana1]

Or wait! Are they claiming she came here a long time ago and has been somehow pretending she’s young for years?

If so, that should be ridiculously easy to determine from a passport and initial adoption records.

 

[Gussified]

ask yourself: how many cases are there of foreign adoptions placing psychotic adult dwarfs pretending to be a kid? - vs - how many unhinged adults are there who abuse kids?

Which scenario is more logical?

Btw: there are adults who manage to convince more than one physician of fake disease:

Texas woman who made healthy son have 13 major surgeries, visit hospital 323 times, pleads guilty to recklessly causing injury to child

“TEXAS WOMAN WHO MADE HEALTHY SON HAVE 13 MAJOR SURGERIES, VISIT HOSPITAL 323 TIMES, PLEADS GUILTY TO RECKLESSLY CAUSING INJURY TO CHILD”

Just to be clear, I am not accusing N of fraud (nor the adoption agency, for that matter). But, there are many examples of foreign adoptions gone wrong. Time magazine had multiple articles of parents who dissolved, rehomed or even just put the child on a plane back to their home country. All I’m saying is that the Barnetts, after consulting with experts, may have legitimately thought they were doing the right thing, getting her the mental health treatment she needed and helping her get on her feet, as an adult.

 

[gitana1]

But they supposedly adopted N thru an adoption agency, not an internet “rehoming”, so how is that relevant? It sounds like the initial family was somehow able to reverse or dissolve the adoption, thru the agency, with or without a claim of fraud. So why couldn’t the Barnetts do the same?

And, even if you’re saying that wasn’t and option, why wasn’t “rehoming” an option? Just trying to understand why the Barnetts would not have been able to do what the first family apparently did.

Re-homing can result in either a guardianship OR an adoption. An adoption through this process will include a fee and a background check but it won’t include otherwise intense vetting of the prospective parents by the agency. The people getting rid of the kid pick the new parents.

The first couple couldn’t terminate their parental rights without finding new parents. They didn’t need fraud. They just needed new people to step in because it is the policy of the state (pretty much every one) that minor children aren’t rendered parentless by voluntary termination of parental rights.

Otherwise lots of people on the hook for child support would just terminate their parental rights.

The Baretts wouldn’t have been able to do what the first couple did unless they found new parents willing to step in. And maybe they felt that went too far - to just hand her off to someone they found on the internet. Maybe they felt if something went wrong it would come back to them and look horrible.

Maybe they believed that rehoming itself would look bad to those who knew they had her, but saying she was an adult psychopath who scammed them would allow them to save face.

 

[Gussified]

If prosecutors can prove they KNOWINGLY ditched a minor - they should be buried UNDER THE PRISON. I can’t imagine a more diabolical plan to hurt a child.
Neither should draw another breath of free air.

Not only that, but the doctor(s) and mental health professional(s) who helped perpetuate the fraud should face justice, as well.

 

[gitana1]

Just to be clear, I am not accusing N of fraud (nor the adoption agency, for that matter). But, there are many examples of foreign adoptions gone wrong. Time magazine had multiple articles of parents who dissolved, rehomed or even just put the child on a plane back to their home country. All I’m saying is that the Barnetts, after consulting with experts, may have legitimately thought they were doing the right thing, getting her the mental health treatment she needed and helping her get on her feet, as an adult.

You may not be accusing her but THEY are. Loudly and publicly. And do you believe it was just a strange coincidence that their emergency petition to have her declared an adult just happened to coincide with their son be accepted to a university inCanada?

And after investigating for five years do you think LE would charge people who sincerely believed they were doing the right thing? Because remember, they spoke to police before they were charged.

Instead of quietly assembling their evidence with the help of defense counsel, to show they weren’t being neglectful, they were doing the right thing, how is publicly naming her, publishing numerous photos of her, submitting a confidential petition including her mental health diagnosis to the media, submitting confidential information from a doctor about her puberty and mental health to the media, calling her an adult psychopathic scammer, how is that helping her?

And how is dumping a disabled schizophrenic psychopath in an apartment while you leave the country getting her the “treatment” she needed and helping her to get in her feet as an adult?

 

[Medstudies]

Just to be clear, I am not accusing N of fraud (nor the adoption agency, for that matter). But, there are many examples of foreign adoptions gone wrong. Time magazine had multiple articles of parents who dissolved, rehomed or even just put the child on a plane back to their home country. All I’m saying is that the Barnetts, after consulting with experts, may have legitimately thought they were doing the right thing, getting her the mental health treatment she needed and helping her get on her feet, as an adult.

Sure, that’s possible. Thing is, if they were trying to help her, what’s it to them that she’s with another family? The whole group seems genuinely happy together. Live and let live.

It just reeks of crazy making.

If, they were so concerned she was scamming the Mann’s and that she was danger to them - why would they care? - They placed her in an apartment with other tenants!

(And they told her “tell everyone that you’re 22, you just look young” )

NOTE: they didn’t tell her to tell people she was a dangerous person who threatened numerously to poison and murder people. If she really were a danger, they were obligated to notify her immediate neighbors in the same way they so aggressively tried to interfere in the relationship between NB and the Manns.

They abandoned her. Why should they continue to harass and interfere in her life?

MOO- their actions are just pathological vindictiveness

 

[Medstudies]

You may not be accusing her but THEY are. Loudly and publicly. And do you believe it was just a strange coincidence that their emergency petition to have her declared an adult just happened to coincide with their son be accepted to a university inCanada?

And after investigating for five years do you think LE would charge people who sincerely believed they were doing the right thing? Because remember, they spoke to police before they were charged.

Instead of quietly assembling their evidence with the help of defense counsel, to show they weren’t being neglectful, they were doing the right thing, how is publicly naming her, publishing numerous photos of her, submitting a confidential petition including her mental health diagnosis to the media, submitting confidential information from a doctor about her puberty and mental health to the media, calling her an adult psychopathic scammer, how is that helping her?

And how is dumping a disabled schizophrenic psychopath in an apartment while you leave the country getting her the “treatment” she needed and helping her to get in her feet as an adult?

.

You typed faster than I did.

ITA

 

[Gussified]

You may not be accusing her but THEY are. Loudly and publicly. And do you believe it was just a strange coincidence that their emergency petition to have her declared an adult just happened to coincide with their son be accepted to a university inCanada?

My understanding is that the age change occurred in June 2012, while the son was admitted to the school in Canada later in 2013 (don’t have date, do you?).

And after investigating for five years do you think LE would charge people who sincerely believed they were doing the right thing? Because remember, they spoke to police before they were charged.

Yes, I believe people can be charged and still be innocent.

Instead of quietly assembling their evidence with the help of defense counsel, to show they weren’t being neglectful, they were doing the right thing, how is publicly naming her, publishing numerous photos of her, submitting a confidential petition including her mental health diagnosis to the media, submitting confidential information from a doctor about her puberty and mental health to the media, calling her an adult psychopathic scammer, how is that helping her?

I agree with you here. I don’t think they’re helping themselves by talking to the media either.

And how is dumping a disabled schizophrenic psychopath in an apartment while you leave the country getting her the “treatment” she needed and helping her to get in her feet as an adult?

My understanding is that she was in treatment before and after she moved into the apartment, and again the Barnetts did not move to Canada right away.

 

[gitana1]

My understanding is that the age change occurred in June 2012, while the son was admitted to the school in Canada later in 2013 (don’t have date, do you?).


Yes, I believe people can be charged and still be innocent.


I agree with you here. I don’t think they’re helping themselves by talking to the media either.


My understanding is that she was in treatment before and after she moved into the apartment, and again the Barnetts did not move to Canada right away.

Yeah. Innocent people are sometimes charged. But after a FIVE YEAR investigation? You can’t say LE jumped the gun or had tunnel vision here. Come on. Let’s be reasonable.

You’re right about the dates. But this might explain why the age change on an “emergency basis” occurred prior to his commencement at Premier:

“Jacob and his parents spent months touring the most renowned universities in North America and abroad, looking for the perfect place for him to pursue his training and, ultimately, PhD. He had received offers from top universities, and his heart was set on Cambridge until he set foot inside Perimeter Institute, an independent centre dedicated to world-leading research, training, and outreach.”
Perimeter Welcomes Exceptional Young Talent - Inside The Perimeter

They moved to Canada the same month they left Natalia. I have found no evidence that she was in an apartment prior to that but she might have been while they were on their college tour. He started school in Canada in August 2013. People are typically accepted months before they commence school.

So let’s talk about this “treatment” Natalia was in. According to the Barnetts, depending on what version they’re giving, she’s a psychopath and a schizophrenic. She smears bodily fluids on walls. Pretends to be a child in order to defraud people. A total psycho.

Instead of obtaining a conservatorship over her as an incapacitated adult, thereby having control over and being able to ensure she participates in “wrap around services” they dumped her on an unsuspecting public, leaving her to her own devices.

You don’t have to live with someone in order to have a conservatorship over them. But having one you can ensure they’re not wasting their assets, you can control whether some predator has access to them. You can prevent them from having access to people they might harm. You can authorize their commitment involuntarily if they’re showing they’re dangerous. You can ensure they’re cooperating with treatment.

But changing their age, leaving them and moving to another country with no such legal oversight in place? That’s neglect when a person is as ill and disabled as Natalia. And per the Indiana statute, it’s neglect even if she’s an adult. Because she was clearly a dependent adult. Or did she experience an incredible miraculous recovery in a year, just like her genius son?????

 

[Linda7NJ]

My understanding is that the age change occurred in June 2012, while the son was admitted to the school in Canada later in 2013 (don’t have date, do you?).


Yes, I believe people can be charged and still be innocent.


I agree with you here. I don’t think they’re helping themselves by talking to the media either.


My understanding is that she was in treatment before and after she moved into the apartment, and again the Barnetts did not move to Canada right away.

That’s my understanding as well. Kristine also says her husband went back & Firth frequently afterwards as well.

 

[Gussified]

Yeah. Innocent people are sometimes charged. But after a FIVE YEAR investigation? You can’t say LE jumped the gun or had tunnel vision here. Come on. Let’s be reasonable.

bbm Did I say that? Where? I said innocent people can be charged. Even after a 5 year investigation? Yes, even after a 5 year investigation. Does that mean I think LE jumped the gun or had tunnel vision? No, but I still think they can get it wrong.

They moved to Canada the same month they left Natalia.

Do you have a source for that?

He started school in Canada in August 2013. People are typically accepted months before they commence school.

If he started in August 2013, then he likely was accepted in the spring of 2013.

But this might explain why the age change on an “emergency basis” occurred prior to his commencement at Premier:

“Jacob and his parents spent months touring the most renowned universities in North America and abroad, looking for the perfect place for him to pursue his training and, ultimately, PhD.

You don’t think they were literally traveling full-time for months, looking at schools, do you? I’m in the midst of the college search with my second in 2 years and while we have spent months touring universities, for 2 straight years, we weren’t traveling nonstop during that whole time. The travel is a few days here, a few days there, and does not require both parents on every visit.

 

[Linda7NJ]

We have to remember too, we don’t have all the information. We have bits & pieces. It’s impossible to convey the time before the Barnett’s, entire two years with the Barnett’s and afterwards in a one hour video or news articles.
I know that law enforcement, lawyers, social workers often mess up the details & chronology.
I know in my own overturned adoption & subsequent lawsuit - it occurred. I was fortunate in that I kept a running diary documenting every incident, phone contact, what was discussed etc. I also documented important telephone conversations in detail and would follow up with a letter detailing the conversation & sent to that person Certified mail with return receipt.
I kept copies of EVERYTHING and only through the discovery process did I learn of significant & relevant history, MANY other placements & MANY crimes committed by the adopted child that were hidden from me prior to adoption.
I’m familiar with the re-homing yahoo lists as I, almost out of desperation, used one. What stopped me was the fear & moral responsibility I had to an unsuspecting society & other children. I needed to be able to look at myself in the mirror knowing I did everything I could to protect others.

 

[gitana1]

Not only that, but the doctor(s) and mental health professional(s) who helped perpetuate the fraud should face justice, as well.

Who says they knowingly helped perpetuate such a fraud? I do think the one who wrote the letter exceeded his professional bounds but I think he was convinced. I mean did the doctors in every case of Munchausen by proxy knowingly help the parents perpetuate a fraud?

Again, Kristine Barnett is very convincing. Her Amazon reviews for her book, are an average 4.7 out of 5. And she has endless stellar reviews from places like the Washington Post. New York Times. She’s convincing.

Except to some.

What’s incredible is that most bought that she was able to do the following, all at the same time:

1. Spent hours with her autistic son giving him attention in hours of daily therapy sessions.
2. Voraciously and extensively researched her son’s condition, reading multiple text books and articles.
3. Took care of her other son who was a severely ill infant who had major breathing problems. She never left his bedside and never slept.
4. Ran an in-home daycare for special needs kids.
5. Created a community night school for kids with autism.
6. Transcribed a story one of her daycare charges told her, that she recorded on her cell phone, printed it, bound it, gave it to the child, and then every day found a new picture for the child to create a story from.

Really? And yet multiple people including professional book reviewers read this nonsense AND BELIEVED IT.

So yeah. A person like this can fool professionals. Especially if they only see and hear from her in select settings.

But I’m less interested in who she fooled and how then in those who saw through her and what they had to say. It’s fascinating to me. They describe constant exaggeration. Constant m, incredible tragedies. Constant heroism. Excessive narcissism. When I researched this family at the beginning of this case that all really stood out to me:

Sonia Greenrated it
it was ok
almost 6 years ago
SNIPPED

The book, however, is disappointing on many fronts. The writing isn't great, but I'm willing to forgive some of that when it is an autobiography, written by an amateur writer. The main problem though is that the book misses some points and oversells the story and its characters, and in doing so, lost me as a reader who started out very engaged. By the end, I was rolling my eyes.

As the writer tells the story, Jake got a very drastic diagnosis at a very young age. At no point does she even question whether, perhaps, the initial diagnosis itself might have been wrong. Why not? Instead of proving how they overcame the diagnosis, perhaps she could have discussed what must have occurred to them at some point: that Jake, like many other kids on the spectrum, might not be as low on the autism scale as was initially thought. The writer adds a lot of drama to the story without resolving some of the issues that her readers are given. Her middle son, for example, seems to have a very serious medical issue, but we are never told whether that was resolved. She herself gets a serious diagnosis as well, but we are never really told how that affects her life.

The main problem for me is the oversell. The mom doesn't just run a daycare, she runs what sounds like the world's BEST daycare. The office workers at the testing facility where Jake takes some tests are ECSTATIC with his results. People are not middle class or lower class in this book: they are either VERY POOR or VERY RICH. And here is the oversell that lost me completely: Jake enrolls in college, starts tutoring other students, and doesn't just feel happy when they succeed. He and the student he helps at one point WEEP with joy. I don't buy it. No kid weeps with joy at much of anything, and even if such a kid existed, I think odds are that it would not be a kid on the autism spectrum.

Meganrated it
liked it
about 6 years ago

Well. The author is not a career author or writer, she was a mom with an interesting story to tell, so I'll give her that. That being said...
SNIPPED
I was also flat out baffled and annoyed by some of the decisions she made. Their house is flooded and ruined, and they still have to sadly pay the mortgage on it. She is lamenting on how broke they are, which obviously sucks, but then they go and buy a brand new, amazing house. That was never really explained. Is she just a dip? I am only 26 but that seemed insane to me. Obviously that's her life choice so whatever, but definitely had me re-reading that line, then sitting there in stunned disbelief.

She was also a little self-righteous. There were times she brought up good qualities of hers or her family's and then would immediately do this sheepish, falsely humble thing. She kept dropping the fact how kind and generous they are. For example, they don't like to give gifts at Christmas and really focus on giving to the poor. I wouldn't begrudge anyone that. I think that is all an example we should aspire to. But I kind of feel the second you bring it up, it becomes less about the kind act and more about you. It would be one thing if these stories served a point to the narrative or if she was trying to educate others how to help a certain charity, but sometimes they seemed just completely mentioned for no reason other than to make her look better.

Kevin Farrellrated it
liked it
almost 6 years ago

Don't let the 3 star rating discourage you from reading this one...
SNIPPED
The Rating.
I wanted so much for this story to be about Jake Barnett - Autistic Genius. It was but, it was about much more. The story included how his Mom and Dad worked constantly to help find Jake when he was almost lost within himself. So much of the story was about the obstacles that the entire Barnett family faced during Jake's Childhood. I agree that this is an important part of the story and could not be left out. However, early in the book I kept getting the sense that the story being told seemed out of proportion. I felt that I was being told a tall tale from time to time but I moved on. Then on page 172 the chapter titled Dark Times described in detail how desperate things were for all families in Indiana during the start of the recession. The author (Kristine Barnett) describes a world that did not fit the facts. She is writing about Indiana in 2008. A lot of people were out of work - that is true, still is. Her husband, Mike, lost his job and so did many in their neighborhood. Barnett claimed that she believed that almost 50% of the people in Indiana were out of work. Not actually true. Then there was this paragraph on page 174:

" . . . Many people around us burned old tables and chairs for heat. A lot of people didn't have electricity, and the people who did weren't using it. Every house was dark. There were no lights on anywhere. I remember walking through Walmart, the aisles cleared of everything except necessities: camping gear, coffee, fire logs, lighter fluid, water, cheap electric blankets for those without heat - and beer. The store didn't bother to stock anything else. It looked like an army surplus store."

This one paragraph was evidence enough for me to understand that Barnett writes through her own eyes. I am certain that this is what her world looked like in 2008 from her point of view. The rest of us could buy anything we wanted in Walmart because it was all there on the shelves. I don't know of anyone who burned furniture. I live in Indiana in a neighborhood just like the one she described as her own. It was at this point in the book that I realized that the author is such an emotionally charged person that she can not simply state the facts with accuracy. Accuracy would not convey the emotion that she has in each memory, so she shapes the story to carry the emotions as well as the facts.

Kelly rated it
did not like it
over 5 years ago
Shelves: gave-up-on

When I started this book I really liked it. However halfway through I got so tired of hearing her give herself pats on the back I couldn't believe anything else she wrote. One chapter she wrote about how multiple children came to her and because they had been problems for their parents, within minutes she could see with their spark and changed their lives forever.
I'm sure she was an incredible woman when it came to what she was doing, but I find it hard to believe that only after 10 minutes with an autistic 11-year-old she was able to do something for him that all the experts and his own parents could not.
I decided I did not want to second guess each word she wrote and quit the book.

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius by Kristine Barnett


Ughh just ughhhhh
May 6, 2018
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
The writing isn’t great but I’m willing to overlook that except she’s so boastful and braggy. I don’t think i can finish the book.


Had to Put it Down
May 24, 2014
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
As the mother of an autistic 12 year old boy I was excited to read this book. However I got tired of reading about how this super mom could achieve all this greatness while all these terrible trajedies surrounded her . It came off as self indulgent instead of the story of her incredible son. Clearly this boy is a genious and without his mothers support his brilliance may have stayed hidden or more probably delayed in appearing.. But after a few chapters I could not take any more of the authors self aggrandizement.


I would love to read the true story
June 30, 2015
Verified Purchase
Format: Paperback
We all love miracle - success stories but this is too much. It would have been very interesting to know the true story. (I read about a third of a book - really not one meltdown of an autistic kid?).


More about the mother than the son
January 27, 2018
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
It was hard to get past the feeling that the mother is a major egomaniac. The book felt like it was mostly about her, not her son. Much of it felt impossible. Time frames etc. I really find myself not caring at all after finishing it.


Tedious
January 28, 2018
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
The always-right mother tells us how to raise our kids while she lauds her son's accomplishments. It was too much for me.


I can't finish this book
August 7, 2014
Verified Purchase
Format: Paperback
I am about 75 pages into this book and I have to stop reading it. I am literally becoming ill from the ridiculous super-woman theme that is ratcheting up further with each subsequent page. Having had a child with Down Syndrome who lived to 14 months of age with a sever seizure disorder (infantile spasms), I know what life is like when days are filled with unfruitful therapy sessions and a child who is in pain and has lost all her emotions. I simply do not believe this mom could have given Jake the type of attention she says she gave him, researched her son's condition to the extent she did, plus cared for her severely ill infant Wesley, plus ran a daycare from her home. The hours do not exist in the day to do what she says she did. What clinched it for me is that she claims she stayed up transcribing a story one of her 8-year-old daycare charges told her that she recorded on her cell phone, took the time to print it out and bind it into a volume, and give it to the child, and then every day found a new picture for the child to create a story from. When could this have happened? She was already not sleeping a wink because she had to stay by Wesley's bedside because of his breathing issues and because she was reading all kinds of textbooks and articles about autism that were strewn about her bedroom. The pace that she claims to have kept up would have resulted in a breakdown of her own health and/or mind. But instead she says she took on creating a "night school" for autistic kids in the community. As another reviewer has said, the fact that her son navigated them through downtown Chicago because he had memorized an atlas of the United States when he was not yet four, but he still wasn't talking--it's not ringing true. I feel a fair amount of license has been taken with this story to make it sound perfect and impressive--and we're never allowed to forget just how brilliant and superior her son is to all those "typical" kids out there. Not only that, she keeps finding ways to throw in how brilliant her family of origin was, with her wealthy inventor grandfather and artistically precocious sister. There is a performance orientation here that I've spent many years trying to break free from, and I am recoiling at the pride and perfectionism I'm picking up from this book. I can't read any more of this.


Here's the thing.
June 12, 2013
Verified Purchase
Format: Hardcover
SNIPPED
There's a lot of problems with the time line in addressing the actual amount of time he "had autism". It sounds like maybe a year total, at most. Her son was diagnosed (informally by the birth to three system) at age two some time. Her turned three before the summer, started special ed preschool in september, then she took him out around age 3.5. So he went to special ed it sounds like for a few months. At 3.5 she says, or just after he stopped preschool, he was using words, not conversationally though, and one example was him directing them through a urban downtown area by looking at a map or something. So words at 3.5. At this point he also knows how to read. Then- before he is four, she tells him about a mars special at an observatory, he "nags and pesters her" until the day comes (which requires language and interaction), then by the time they get to the observatory, again, before he is four, because they mention he is three, he is having lengthy conversation about mass and mars and planets and rotation with the lecturer in complete sentences.

I don't really have a problem with his development, because its interesting and part of his story. I don't love though that she seems to take credit for his recovery and play up her "muchness" paradigm which seemed to have him virtually not autistic in just a few months. I buy that this happened, but I think it probably would have happened with or without her in his case, and I don't love that there is so much hype about her sacrifices and awesome parenting. I practice muchness with my autistic son all the time...and I think it is good for everyone, but I don't think you can attribute a turnaround of that magnitude within 1-5 months as being solely based on play therapy. I don't love the school system either, and may not send my son, but to be fair, he only went for a few months and that results in a lot of special ed bashing in their publicity and in the book. I agree that special ed sucks in this country. But...just saying

Too- and I know people are going to freak out. It doesn't seem to me like this kid was ever really accurately diagnosed with severe autism. I don't think the book makes the claim that he had severe autism...maybe it does, but I know I heard them claim that in an interview about the book. My son had autism, now PDD NOS and talks and interacts less than this kid seemed to at the same age. It sounds to me like this kid had a speech/developmental delay and some autistic (eccentric?) features.

Then this kid- who has all these talents is doing all these interviews all the time, and it just comes across more as a ploy for book sales than....you know...passion for science all the time always.

Its an interesting story. I dunno. I just felt bull s-worded a little after reading it.


Self serving book -can I get my money back??
May 15, 2015
Format: Paperback
This seems to be a very self serving book. Kristine never leaves a chance to brag about her self & some about her child. Her kid was way too high functioning, if at all autistic. I hardly think it was any of her doing that helped the child. I didn't get any inspiration or ideas from this book to help my brilliant yet autistic child. Her situation was totally different from what a general family with an autistic child faces. Sorry, I hate to bash this book up.


Two Stars
January 28, 2016
Format: Paperback
Sorry but I just dont believe her, not everything of course but most of it is bulls***!


Story not beleivable
August 22, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition
I started reading the book because I am in a book club. I applaud this mother's love and dedication for her child, but I found the details not very believable. I do not believe the public school Special Education teacher told her to give up on teaching her son his alphabet. She may have encouraged the mother to put the flash cards aside for awhile so other areas of need could bb addressed. She was well within her rights to pull her child out of school to home school. but the Special Educator could have also effectively taught her son. I am glad her son has excelled in Education and hope he continues to thrive. but I felt like the story focused too much on the mother. I became very disinterested in the book after the 2nd chapter and I dread going to my book club to discuss this novel.

https://www.amazon.com/Spark-Mother..._reviews&filterByStar=three_star&pageNumber=1

 

[gitana1]

bbm Did I say that? Where? I said innocent people can be charged. Even after a 5 year investigation? Yes, even after a 5 year investigation. Does that mean I think LE jumped the gun or had tunnel vision? No, but I still think they can get it wrong.


Do you have a source for that?


If he started in August 2013, then he likely was accepted in the spring of 2013.


You don’t think they were literally traveling full-time for months, looking at schools, do you? I’m in the midst of the college search with my second in 2 years and while we have spent months touring universities, for 2 straight years, we weren’t traveling nonstop during that whole time. The travel is a few days here, a few days there, and does not require both parents on every visit.

No you didn’t say that you think they jumped the gun or had tunnel vision. Clearly if you believe they likely charged innocent people after a five year investigation, you think there was a problem somewhere. I’m pointing out that it certainly didn’t result from jumping the gun and tunnel vision.

The probability that innocent people are charged after that much time investigating a crime is low. I’ve not heard of one.

Yes I have a source for that information. It’s the probable cause affidavit. Natalia and Michael Barnett’s own words. Probable Cause Affidavit

The Barnett’s are the source for the statement in the article that they travelled for months looking for colleges.

I’m not sure why anyone would compare their life to the Barnett’s lives in order to refute facts stated about them in media articles. They obviously aren’t anything like other people.

 

[cherrymeg]

We have to remember too, we don’t have all the information. We have bits & pieces. It’s impossible to convey the time before the Barnett’s, entire two years with the Barnett’s and afterwards in a one hour video or news articles.
I know that law enforcement, lawyers, social workers often mess up the details & chronology.
I know in my own overturned adoption & subsequent lawsuit - it occurred. I was fortunate in that I kept a running diary documenting every incident, phone contact, what was discussed etc. I also documented important telephone conversations in detail and would follow up with a letter detailing the conversation & sent to that person Certified mail with return receipt.
I kept copies of EVERYTHING and only through the discovery process did I learn of significant & relevant history, MANY other placements & MANY crimes committed by the adopted child that were hidden from me prior to adoption.
I’m familiar with the re-homing yahoo lists as I, almost out of desperation, used one. What stopped me was the fear & moral responsibility I had to an unsuspecting society & other children. I needed to be able to look at myself in the mirror knowing I did everything I could to protect others.

It sounds like you had a really horrible experience. I can't imagine what that was like. You behaved responsibly and went through difficult legal measures to remove someone potentially dangerous from your life. You didn't pass them on to a stranger or let them loose on unsuspecting people. What the Barnetts did was not the same. Their actions don't make sense. If they felt she was a scam artist why not un do the adoption. If something happened to them she is their legal daughter. If she was a con artist she could claim the were part of it. If you adopt a child that is out of control, dangerous, an adult, etc. you wouldn't want to have ties to them legal or otherwise.

 

[Gussified]

Who says they knowingly helped perpetuate such a fraud? I do think the one who wrote the letter exceeded his professional bounds but I think he was convinced. I mean did the doctors in every case of Munchausen by proxy knowingly help the parents perpetuate a fraud?

Again, Kristine Barnett is very convincing. Her Amazon reviews for her book, are an average 4.7 out of 5. And she has endless stellar reviews from places like the Washington Post. New York Times. She’s convincing.

Except to some.

What’s incredible is that most bought that she was able to do the following, all at the same time:

1. Spent hours with her autistic son giving him attention in hours of daily therapy sessions.
2. Voraciously and extensively researched her son’s condition, reading multiple text books and articles.
3. Took care of her other son who was a severely ill infant who had major breathing problems. She never left his bedside and never slept.
4. Ran an in-home daycare for special needs kids.
5. Created a community night school for kids with autism.
6. Transcribed a story one of her daycare charges told her, that she recorded on her cell phone, printed it, bound it, gave it to the child, and then every day found a new picture for the child to create a story from.

Really? And yet multiple people including professional book reviewers read this nonsense AND BELIEVED IT.

So yeah. A person like this can fool professionals. Especially if they only see and hear from her in select settings.

But I’m less interested in who she fooled and how then in those who saw through her and what they had to say. It’s fascinating to me. They describe constant exaggeration. Constant m, incredible tragedies. Constant heroism. Excessive narcissism. When I researched this family at the beginning of this case that all really stood out to me:

Sonia Greenrated it
it was ok
almost 6 years ago
SNIPPED

The book, however, is disappointing on many fronts. The writing isn't great, but I'm willing to forgive some of that when it is an autobiography, written by an amateur writer. The main problem though is that the book misses some points and oversells the story and its characters, and in doing so, lost me as a reader who started out very engaged. By the end, I was rolling my eyes.

As the writer tells the story, Jake got a very drastic diagnosis at a very young age. At no point does she even question whether, perhaps, the initial diagnosis itself might have been wrong. Why not? Instead of proving how they overcame the diagnosis, perhaps she could have discussed what must have occurred to them at some point: that Jake, like many other kids on the spectrum, might not be as low on the autism scale as was initially thought. The writer adds a lot of drama to the story without resolving some of the issues that her readers are given. Her middle son, for example, seems to have a very serious medical issue, but we are never told whether that was resolved. She herself gets a serious diagnosis as well, but we are never really told how that affects her life.

The main problem for me is the oversell. The mom doesn't just run a daycare, she runs what sounds like the world's BEST daycare. The office workers at the testing facility where Jake takes some tests are ECSTATIC with his results. People are not middle class or lower class in this book: they are either VERY POOR or VERY RICH. And here is the oversell that lost me completely: Jake enrolls in college, starts tutoring other students, and doesn't just feel happy when they succeed. He and the student he helps at one point WEEP with joy. I don't buy it. No kid weeps with joy at much of anything, and even if such a kid existed, I think odds are that it would not be a kid on the autism spectrum.

Meganrated it
liked it
about 6 years ago

Well. The author is not a career author or writer, she was a mom with an interesting story to tell, so I'll give her that. That being said...
SNIPPED
I was also flat out baffled and annoyed by some of the decisions she made. Their house is flooded and ruined, and they still have to sadly pay the mortgage on it. She is lamenting on how broke they are, which obviously sucks, but then they go and buy a brand new, amazing house. That was never really explained. Is she just a dip? I am only 26 but that seemed insane to me. Obviously that's her life choice so whatever, but definitely had me re-reading that line, then sitting there in stunned disbelief.

She was also a little self-righteous. There were times she brought up good qualities of hers or her family's and then would immediately do this sheepish, falsely humble thing. She kept dropping the fact how kind and generous they are. For example, they don't like to give gifts at Christmas and really focus on giving to the poor. I wouldn't begrudge anyone that. I think that is all an example we should aspire to. But I kind of feel the second you bring it up, it becomes less about the kind act and more about you. It would be one thing if these stories served a point to the narrative or if she was trying to educate others how to help a certain charity, but sometimes they seemed just completely mentioned for no reason other than to make her look better.

Kevin Farrellrated it
liked it
almost 6 years ago

Don't let the 3 star rating discourage you from reading this one...
SNIPPED
The Rating.
I wanted so much for this story to be about Jake Barnett - Autistic Genius. It was but, it was about much more. The story included how his Mom and Dad worked constantly to help find Jake when he was almost lost within himself. So much of the story was about the obstacles that the entire Barnett family faced during Jake's Childhood. I agree that this is an important part of the story and could not be left out. However, early in the book I kept getting the sense that the story being told seemed out of proportion. I felt that I was being told a tall tale from time to time but I moved on. Then on page 172 the chapter titled Dark Times described in detail how desperate things were for all families in Indiana during the start of the recession. The author (Kristine Barnett) describes a world that did not fit the facts. She is writing about Indiana in 2008. A lot of people were out of work - that is true, still is. Her husband, Mike, lost his job and so did many in their neighborhood. Barnett claimed that she believed that almost 50% of the people in Indiana were out of work. Not actually true. Then there was this paragraph on page 174:

" . . . Many people around us burned old tables and chairs for heat. A lot of people didn't have electricity, and the people who did weren't using it. Every house was dark. There were no lights on anywhere. I remember walking through Walmart, the aisles cleared of everything except necessities: camping gear, coffee, fire logs, lighter fluid, water, cheap electric blankets for those without heat - and beer. The store didn't bother to stock anything else. It looked like an army surplus store."

This one paragraph was evidence enough for me to understand that Barnett writes through her own eyes. I am certain that this is what her world looked like in 2008 from her point of view. The rest of us could buy anything we wanted in Walmart because it was all there on the shelves. I don't know of anyone who burned furniture. I live in Indiana in a neighborhood just like the one she described as her own. It was at this point in the book that I realized that the author is such an emotionally charged person that she can not simply state the facts with accuracy. Accuracy would not convey the emotion that she has in each memory, so she shapes the story to carry the emotions as well as the facts.

Kelly rated it
did not like it
over 5 years ago
Shelves: gave-up-on

When I started this book I really liked it. However halfway through I got so tired of hearing her give herself pats on the back I couldn't believe anything else she wrote. One chapter she wrote about how multiple children came to her and because they had been problems for their parents, within minutes she could see with their spark and changed their lives forever.
I'm sure she was an incredible woman when it came to what she was doing, but I find it hard to believe that only after 10 minutes with an autistic 11-year-old she was able to do something for him that all the experts and his own parents could not.
I decided I did not want to second guess each word she wrote and quit the book.

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius by Kristine Barnett


Ughh just ughhhhh
May 6, 2018
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
The writing isn’t great but I’m willing to overlook that except she’s so boastful and braggy. I don’t think i can finish the book.


Had to Put it Down
May 24, 2014
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
As the mother of an autistic 12 year old boy I was excited to read this book. However I got tired of reading about how this super mom could achieve all this greatness while all these terrible trajedies surrounded her . It came off as self indulgent instead of the story of her incredible son. Clearly this boy is a genious and without his mothers support his brilliance may have stayed hidden or more probably delayed in appearing.. But after a few chapters I could not take any more of the authors self aggrandizement.


I would love to read the true story
June 30, 2015
Verified Purchase
Format: Paperback
We all love miracle - success stories but this is too much. It would have been very interesting to know the true story. (I read about a third of a book - really not one meltdown of an autistic kid?).


More about the mother than the son
January 27, 2018
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
It was hard to get past the feeling that the mother is a major egomaniac. The book felt like it was mostly about her, not her son. Much of it felt impossible. Time frames etc. I really find myself not caring at all after finishing it.


Tedious
January 28, 2018
Verified Purchase
Format: Kindle Edition
The always-right mother tells us how to raise our kids while she lauds her son's accomplishments. It was too much for me.


I can't finish this book
August 7, 2014
Verified Purchase
Format: Paperback
I am about 75 pages into this book and I have to stop reading it. I am literally becoming ill from the ridiculous super-woman theme that is ratcheting up further with each subsequent page. Having had a child with Down Syndrome who lived to 14 months of age with a sever seizure disorder (infantile spasms), I know what life is like when days are filled with unfruitful therapy sessions and a child who is in pain and has lost all her emotions. I simply do not believe this mom could have given Jake the type of attention she says she gave him, researched her son's condition to the extent she did, plus cared for her severely ill infant Wesley, plus ran a daycare from her home. The hours do not exist in the day to do what she says she did. What clinched it for me is that she claims she stayed up transcribing a story one of her 8-year-old daycare charges told her that she recorded on her cell phone, took the time to print it out and bind it into a volume, and give it to the child, and then every day found a new picture for the child to create a story from. When could this have happened? She was already not sleeping a wink because she had to stay by Wesley's bedside because of his breathing issues and because she was reading all kinds of textbooks and articles about autism that were strewn about her bedroom. The pace that she claims to have kept up would have resulted in a breakdown of her own health and/or mind. But instead she says she took on creating a "night school" for autistic kids in the community. As another reviewer has said, the fact that her son navigated them through downtown Chicago because he had memorized an atlas of the United States when he was not yet four, but he still wasn't talking--it's not ringing true. I feel a fair amount of license has been taken with this story to make it sound perfect and impressive--and we're never allowed to forget just how brilliant and superior her son is to all those "typical" kids out there. Not only that, she keeps finding ways to throw in how brilliant her family of origin was, with her wealthy inventor grandfather and artistically precocious sister. There is a performance orientation here that I've spent many years trying to break free from, and I am recoiling at the pride and perfectionism I'm picking up from this book. I can't read any more of this.


Here's the thing.
June 12, 2013
Verified Purchase
Format: Hardcover
SNIPPED
There's a lot of problems with the time line in addressing the actual amount of time he "had autism". It sounds like maybe a year total, at most. Her son was diagnosed (informally by the birth to three system) at age two some time. Her turned three before the summer, started special ed preschool in september, then she took him out around age 3.5. So he went to special ed it sounds like for a few months. At 3.5 she says, or just after he stopped preschool, he was using words, not conversationally though, and one example was him directing them through a urban downtown area by looking at a map or something. So words at 3.5. At this point he also knows how to read. Then- before he is four, she tells him about a mars special at an observatory, he "nags and pesters her" until the day comes (which requires language and interaction), then by the time they get to the observatory, again, before he is four, because they mention he is three, he is having lengthy conversation about mass and mars and planets and rotation with the lecturer in complete sentences.

I don't really have a problem with his development, because its interesting and part of his story. I don't love though that she seems to take credit for his recovery and play up her "muchness" paradigm which seemed to have him virtually not autistic in just a few months. I buy that this happened, but I think it probably would have happened with or without her in his case, and I don't love that there is so much hype about her sacrifices and awesome parenting. I practice muchness with my autistic son all the time...and I think it is good for everyone, but I don't think you can attribute a turnaround of that magnitude within 1-5 months as being solely based on play therapy. I don't love the school system either, and may not send my son, but to be fair, he only went for a few months and that results in a lot of special ed bashing in their publicity and in the book. I agree that special ed sucks in this country. But...just saying

Too- and I know people are going to freak out. It doesn't seem to me like this kid was ever really accurately diagnosed with severe autism. I don't think the book makes the claim that he had severe autism...maybe it does, but I know I heard them claim that in an interview about the book. My son had autism, now PDD NOS and talks and interacts less than this kid seemed to at the same age. It sounds to me like this kid had a speech/developmental delay and some autistic (eccentric?) features.

Then this kid- who has all these talents is doing all these interviews all the time, and it just comes across more as a ploy for book sales than....you know...passion for science all the time always.

Its an interesting story. I dunno. I just felt bull s-worded a little after reading it.


Self serving book -can I get my money back??
May 15, 2015
Format: Paperback
This seems to be a very self serving book. Kristine never leaves a chance to brag about her self & some about her child. Her kid was way too high functioning, if at all autistic. I hardly think it was any of her doing that helped the child. I didn't get any inspiration or ideas from this book to help my brilliant yet autistic child. Her situation was totally different from what a general family with an autistic child faces. Sorry, I hate to bash this book up.


Two Stars
January 28, 2016
Format: Paperback
Sorry but I just dont believe her, not everything of course but most of it is bulls***!


Story not beleivable
August 22, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition
I started reading the book because I am in a book club. I applaud this mother's love and dedication for her child, but I found the details not very believable. I do not believe the public school Special Education teacher told her to give up on teaching her son his alphabet. She may have encouraged the mother to put the flash cards aside for awhile so other areas of need could bb addressed. She was well within her rights to pull her child out of school to home school. but the Special Educator could have also effectively taught her son. I am glad her son has excelled in Education and hope he continues to thrive. but I felt like the story focused too much on the mother. I became very disinterested in the book after the 2nd chapter and I dread going to my book club to discuss this novel.

https://www.amazon.com/Spark-Mother..._reviews&filterByStar=three_star&pageNumber=1

I’ve seen the reviews. You don’t have to keep posting them here. It really has nothing to do with the case against her. You know as well as I do that you can’t convict a person based on book reviews.

With respect to the doctor(s) and mental health professional(s), they had a professional responsibility to evaluate the patient’s condition, not rely on a lay person’s observations. Particularly if they were recommending something as drastic as re-aging her over 10 years. And yes, I feel the same way in Munchausen cases.

very interesting, unrelated, Munchausen article...
Doctors weren’t just treating the toddler, they were quietly building a case against her mom

 

[Gussified]

The Barnett’s are the source for the statement in the article that they travelled for months looking for colleges.

I’m not sure why anyone would compare their life to the Barnett’s lives in order to refute facts stated about them in media articles. They obviously aren’t anything like other people.

Okay. So you’re convinced that they meant they were traveling full time for months looking at colleges.

Not comparing my life to theirs. At all. Simply sharing my experience with a college search. It’s not full time travel. It just isn’t. Even for grad school. You have to fit it in during the breaks in the kid’s normal life.

But if you want to believe it is full time travel, then I’m sure I can’t convince you otherwise.

The probability that innocent people are charged after that much time investigating a crime is low. I’ve not heard of one.

Yes I have a source for that information. It’s the probable cause affidavit. Natalia and Michael Barnett’s own words. Probable Cause Affidavit

There are definitely inconsistencies in the timeline, and that’s part of the problem. Kristine’s account...

Even so, Barnett says she and her husband rented an apartment for Natalia when she was discharged from secure psychiatric care in August 2012 and placed under the supervision of state healthcare provider, Aspire Indiana.

ETA: I’m confident the timeline will be cleared up at trial, if it goes that far.

 

[claudianunes]

I’ve seen the reviews. You don’t have to keep posting them here. It really has nothing to do with the case against her. You know as well as I do that you can’t convict a person based on book reviews.

With respect to the doctor(s) and mental health professional(s), they had a professional responsibility to evaluate the patient’s condition, not rely on a lay person’s observations. Particularly if they were recommending something as drastic as re-aging her over 10 years. And yes, I feel the same way in Munchausen cases.

very interesting, unrelated, Munchausen article...
Doctors weren’t just treating the toddler, they were quietly building a case against her mom

Well, I haven't read them. There are more people on this thread, the posts are for everyone, not just for you. I don't understand why you seem to be taking everything on this thread so... personally?

 

[Linda7NJ]

No you didn’t say that you think they jumped the gun or had tunnel vision. Clearly if you believe they likely charged innocent people after a five year investigation, you think there was a problem somewhere. I’m pointing out that it certainly didn’t result from jumping the gun and tunnel vision.

The probability that innocent people are charged after that much time investigating a crime is low. I’ve not heard of one.

Yes I have a source for that information. It’s the probable cause affidavit. Natalia and Michael Barnett’s own words. Probable Cause Affidavit

The Barnett’s are the source for the statement in the article that they travelled for months looking for colleges.

I’m not sure why anyone would compare their life to the Barnett’s lives in order to refute facts stated about them in media articles. They obviously aren’t anything like other people.

Where’s the evidence? Two bone scans & book reviews? That’s it?
Surely, the Barnett’s must have a preponderance of evidence that refutes those scans- enough to convince a judge. I would also suspect they have a whole lot more.