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

[Linda7NJ]

I believe that happens, what happened with you. My personal experience is as a family member. My great aunt and great uncle were foster parents for Years. They had over 63 children in their home over the years. The first 2 children they had, a brother and sister, they fell in love with. They tried to adopt them. But after 3 years in their home, the court decided to reunite them with their mother. My aunt and uncle never saw the kids again and were heartbroken. They continued on fostering but said they would never try to adopt again (they also had 3 adult children). They never had a disturbed child situation in their home. The foster kids I played with as a child were no different than me, in my experience. A few of the kids reconnected with them after they turned 18, which was nice. One girl who stands out in my memory was 14, while I was 13. She was super tiny for her age. We both attended my cousins Hs graduation party. It was my first “adult” dress and high heels. This girl shows up in a frilly little dress like what Shirley Temple would have worn. I thought my aunt and uncle forced her to wear this “ridiculous” dress. But that wasn’t the case. They took her shopping and let her choose whatever she wanted. And this poor girl had NEVER had a frilly fancy dress and always dreamed of owning one. It broke my heart, then and now, how different ours lives were. Simply by fate. I thought of this when people were questioning why Natalia might have chosen to dress younger as a preTeen or Teen.

I once had a 16 year old foster child that never had a Barbie doll. That’s all she asked for, for Christmas. It broke my heart.
I bought her so much Barbie crap you’d think I had 5 little girls lol. She would often play with them for hours. She wasn’t delayed in any way shape or form, quite the opposite ...she just loved making up for her lost childhood. Each time she finished, she’s pack everything up, townhouse, car, clothes dolls all of it and hide them in MY CLOSET. She didn’t want anyone else to know.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Why wouldn’t it have been enough for Kristine to tell Michael about her “findings” in the bathroom?? Why does she call him in to L O O K. It’s damn creepy.

Yeah, that was very strange. As I said up thread. When I fostered children over 4 - when they first arrived, I’d fill the tub, add bubbles - and give the child space & privacy. I’d leave the door cracked and listen & start talking if it got quiet. “Don’t forget behind your ears” that sort of thing. I didn’t really care if they were CLEAN - my goal was to help them settle in.
I can not imagine EVER calling my husband in to gawk on day one or EVER to be honest, even if the kid had a 10” tail. I just wouldn’t do it.

 

[Meloni88]

Why wouldn’t it have been enough for Kristine to tell Michael about her “findings” in the bathroom?? Why does she call him in to L O O K. It’s damn creepy.

I would have been mortified and so angry if I was Natalia. Massive betrayal of trust and invasion of privacy on the very first day.

 

[gitana1]

I believe that happens, what happened with you. My personal experience is as a family member. My great aunt and great uncle were foster parents for Years. They had over 63 children in their home over the years. The first 2 children they had, a brother and sister, they fell in love with. They tried to adopt them. But after 3 years in their home, the court decided to reunite them with their mother. My aunt and uncle never saw the kids again and were heartbroken. They continued on fostering but said they would never try to adopt again (they also had 3 adult children). They never had a disturbed child situation in their home. The foster kids I played with as a child were no different than me, in my experience. A few of the kids reconnected with them after they turned 18, which was nice. One girl who stands out in my memory was 14, while I was 13. She was super tiny for her age. We both attended my cousins Hs graduation party. It was my first “adult” dress and high heels. This girl shows up in a frilly little dress like what Shirley Temple would have worn. I thought my aunt and uncle forced her to wear this “ridiculous” dress. But that wasn’t the case. They took her shopping and let her choose whatever she wanted. And this poor girl had NEVER had a frilly fancy dress and always dreamed of owning one. It broke my heart, then and now, how different ours lives were. Simply by fate. I thought of this when people were questioning why Natalia might have chosen to dress younger as a preTeen or Teen.

Well she also might have a thing for appearing childish. Like she knows it makes her more likely to be loved. Comforted. Held. Cared for.

She’s a person who has been through a lot. That doesn’t make her a fraud!!

 

[gitana1]

I would have been mortified and so angry if I was Natalia. Massive betrayal of trust and invasion of privacy on the very first day.

See that wasn’t something that shocked me too much. I might tell my spouse to look at something that didn’t make sense to me. If it was surprising enough it’s possible I might for a moment forget the child’s potential discomfort.

What’s shocking is that an adult young woman would be fine with a man walking in an staring at her pubic hair. As she’s fully naked in the bathroom.

Her comfortable lack of reaction is what strikes me and also supports the idea that she was no adult or even a teenager.

Little girls in western nations start to feel body shame or embarrassment about being naked in front of opposite sex persons by at least around 8-9. Depends on the culture of course. But even in Europe where kids run around naked a lot longer than they ever do here, I’ve noticed on beaches they start wearing bottoms around 6-7. Girls start wearing tops around 10-11.

But the age when shame really kicks in is around the beginning of puberty.

I don’t believe this was an adult getting a kick off being bathed by a strange woman and having her stranger husband walk in the first day and inspect her. Her lack of shame at that moment makes me feel she either was super young or lacked boundaries due to abuse.

 

[Meloni88]

Well she also might have a thing for appearing childish. Like she knows it makes her more likely to be loved. Comforted. Held. Cared for.

She’s a person who has been through a lot. That doesn’t make her a fraud!!

This is one of the reasons my hackles were raised... when Kristine said in the Mail that she was "suspicious" of the girl because supposedly when they collected her she acted like she couldn't walk and wanted to be carried everywhere until they got to a beach and she suddenly jumped up and ran to the sea. "I remember looking at Mike and thinking, what’s going on? She couldn’t walk a second ago and now she just got up and ran." I mean, since when is it unusual behaviour for any child to prefer to be carried? A girl whose just been given away for a second time wants comfort? Imagine that!

Totally contradicts what Michael said on Dr Oz though. He said when they went to pick her up at the agency she "ran" into the room to greet them and was shouting "Mommy! Daddy!" and he thought that was weird because a real kid wouldn't be happy in those circumstances. Like it just doesn't occur to him that an orphan is desperate for parental love.

 

[gitana1]

This is one of the reasons my hackles were raised... when Kristine said in the Mail that she was "suspicious" of the girl because supposedly when they collected her she acted like she couldn't walk and wanted to be carried everywhere until they got to a beach and she suddenly jumped up and ran to the sea. "I remember looking at Mike and thinking, what’s going on? She couldn’t walk a second ago and now she just got up and ran." I mean, since when is it unusual behaviour for any child to prefer to be carried? A girl whose just been given away for a second time wants comfort? Imagine that!

Totally contradicts what Michael said on Dr Oz though. He said when they went to pick her up at the agency she "ran" into the room to greet them and was shouting "Mommy! Daddy!" and he thought that was weird because a real kid wouldn't be happy in those circumstances. Like it just doesn't occur to him that an orphan is desperate for parental love.

It hurts to think of the utter deprivation that was likely her life. I hope she’s healed enough and is with the right people enough to properly attach. Otherwise this is a girl who could be subject to continuous victimization throughout her days.

 

[Dawn Day]

Well she also might have a thing for appearing childish. Like she knows it makes her more likely to be loved. Comforted. Held. Cared for.

She’s a person who has been through a lot. That doesn’t make her a fraud!!

Exactly. The Barnett’s seemed to do an awful lot of “reading into” Natalia’s behavior. And always thru a distrustful lens of negativity. If she had been my adopted child, my first reaction wouldn’t have been fear (Michael made a very dramatic show of how “scared” this made Kristine). It would have been, “Oh wow. I need to get her to the doctor” (ie She May have precocious puberty and need treatment).

 

[Meloni88]

See that wasn’t something that shocked me too much. I might tell my spouse to look at something that didn’t make sense to me. If it was surprising enough it’s possible I might for a moment forget the child’s potential discomfort.

What’s shocking is that an adult young woman would be fine with a man walking in an staring at her pubic hair. As she’s fully naked in the bathroom.

Her comfortable lack of reaction is what strikes me and also supports the idea that she was no adult or even a teenager.

Little girls in western nations start to feel body shame or embarrassment about being naked in front of opposite sex persons by at least around 8-9. Depends on the culture of course. But even in Europe where kids run around naked a lot longer than they ever do here, I’ve noticed on beaches they start wearing bottoms around 6-7. Girls start wearing tops around 10-11.

But the age when shame really kicks in is around the beginning of puberty.

I don’t believe this was an adult getting a kick off being bathed by a strange woman and having her stranger husband walk in the first day and inspect her. Her lack of shame at that moment makes me feel she either was super young or lacked boundaries due to abuse.

I think 6 or 7 is too old for (essentially) a strange man to be invited to look at her naked body. I was about 4-5 when I started to feel that kind of shame. It's bad enough with a strange woman but if needs must... I don't think they have ever stated what the girl's reaction was to their reaction, I doubt they even noticed or cared tbh. Agree that if she was totally nonchalant about Michael looking at her it indicates that she was very young, not a teen or whatever. (I know she was child though so that's by the by). I believe you would be conscientious enough to realize it would be inappropriate to invite your husband to stare even if your first instinct was to call him. Not without at least gauging the child's capacity for embarrassment.

 

[Amonet]

Exactly. The Barnett’s seemed to do an awful lot of “reading into” Natalia’s behavior. And always thru a distrustful lens of negativity. If she had been my adopted child, my first reaction wouldn’t have been fear (Michael made a very dramatic show of how “scared” this made Kristine). It would have been, “Oh wow. I need to get her to the doctor” (ie She May have precocious puberty and need treatment).

I totally agree with this. And seeing the doctor and getting the doctor's assessment would also be a good time to reassure the child that she might soon be bleeding, to put a pack of pads in to her room and tell her that it's normal for women and that she can come to me for advice and reassurance...and hopefully avoid that hiding of the bloodied underwear.

 

[gitana1]

I think 6 or 7 is too old for (essentially) a strange man to be invited to look at her naked body. I was about 4-5 when I started to feel that kind of shame. It's bad enough with a strange woman but if needs must... I don't think they have ever stated what the girl's reaction was to their reaction, I doubt they even noticed or cared tbh. Agree that if she was totally nonchalant about Michael looking at her it indicates that she was very young, not a teen or whatever. (I know she was child though so that's by the by). I believe you would be conscientious enough to realize it would be inappropriate to invite your husband to stare even if your first instinct was to call him. Not without at least gauging the child's capacity for embarrassment.

Probably. Because I’d probably be super nervous about this new kid in my house and not wanting to do anything to traumatize her or make her scared or feeling weird.

But I come from a European family. (Holland and Spain). Very different attitudes about the body than here. Kids run around naked a lot over there and people don’t find that sexual or provocative in any way. There’s also a lot more comfort with adult nudity in many parts of Europe. In terms of what you might see at certain beaches and on tv.

Here it’s much more secretive and Puritan.

I’m not that horrified by the thought of people seeing me naked. I don't think kids bodies are anything other than totally innocent.

But yeah I think the fact that she supposedly had pubic development would be a sort of instinctual factor in making most women not yell for their husbands to rush in and look. Most people would just tell him ASAP after.

Also, the fact that she is a brand new adopted child who ho has been through a lot would likely also cause me to be super vigilant about her feelings.

But I can’t say for sure. If I viewed her as my child with an anomaly I probably wouldn’t be as uncomfortable as most here in the US with having my husband see. I don’t know. I know I would not have been screaming or yelling though!!

 

[gitana1]

I totally agree with this. And seeing the doctor and getting the doctor's assessment would also be a good time to reassure the child that she might soon be bleeding, to put a pack of pads in to her room and tell her that it's normal for women and that she can come to me for advice and reassurance...and hopefully avoid that hiding of the bloodied underwear.

You mean instead of shrieking and screaming for your husband to “get in here!!! Look!!”

God only knows what that taught her about herself. Poor kid.

 

[Meloni88]

Probably. Because I’d probably be super nervous about this new kid in my house and not wanting to do anything to traumatize her or make her scared or feeling weird.

But I come from a European family. (Holland and Spain). Very different attitudes about the body than here. Kids run around naked a lot over there and people don’t find that sexual or provocative in any way. There’s also a lot more comfort with adult nudity in many parts of Europe. In terms of what you might see at certain beaches and on tv.

Here it’s much more secretive and Puritan.

I’m not that horrified by the thought of people seeing me naked. I don't think kids bodies are anything other than totally innocent.

But yeah I think the fact that she supposedly had pubic development would be a sort of instinctual factor in making most women not yell for their husbands to rush in and look. Most people would just tell him ASAP after.

Also, the fact that she is a brand new adopted child who ho has been through a lot would likely also cause me to be super vigilant about her feelings.

But I can’t say for sure. If I viewed her as my child with an anomaly I probably wouldn’t be as uncomfortable as most here in the US with having my husband see. I don’t know. I know I would not have been screaming or yelling though!!

I'm actually British living in the States. So a bit more relaxed about stuff than an average American but probably not as relaxed as the Dutch lol. I got shamed to heck by my husband's family (also from Indiana) when I wore a shirt dress without a bra. Barnett's were going against their own norms for sure I would say. Just demonstrates that they never saw her as a real person IMO.

 

[Amonet]

You mean instead of shrieking and screaming for your husband to “get in here!!! Look!!”

God only knows what that taught her about herself. Poor kid.

If the child was about two or three and covered in bruises, then I'd call my husband to look. But older than 4 and something related to the private parts? Noooooo. Okay, maybe about four, if they're used to being naked and comfortable with their dad seeing them, and only to have them in the room naked and to tell the hubby quietly to look there, but not to let the child know that's he's looking for anything. If it was puberty related, then for me that would be a women's thing, and I might mention it to the hubby but I'd only show the doctor or nurse, or a grandma if there was one available?

 

[squareandrabbet]

I agree. I don't believe much of what she claims the girl did anyway but the parts that are believable... firstly they don't point to the girl being an adult, quite the opposite, and second they sound like a kid acting out because of confusion, insecurity or fear, not psychopathy. If we believe Michael at all the first thing Kristine did when she noticed the girl having hair down there was bring in an adult male the girl had just met to gawp at her private parts. They fully admit to doing that to her as if it's not weird and inappropriate at all... so what are they not telling us about how they treated her? I wouldn't be surprised if she was telling everyone and making the girl feel so ashamed about her body.

Yeah, I for one don't think it's remotely useful to consider calling your husband into the bath, unless your husband has parented girls. Was Michael married before, and does he have daughters? Because as far as I know, he and KB only have sons. Thus I do think it's creepy she called MB in to gawp. If he's never seen a female child of a certain age and upwards undressed to have any kind of comparison purpose, what could he possibly add that isn't majorly violating Natalia's privacy?

I believe she exhibited behavioral issues. I mean the first adoptive family got rid of her for a reason. But this b.s. by Kristine of her trying to drag her (those were her first words) to an electric fence renders everything she says suspect to me. This person is disabled. Crooked legs and back. 3 feet tall or so. Kristine isn’t petite. Absolute nonsense.

It is more likely to be children with co duct disorder who admit to homicidal behavior and to enjoying it. Not cunning, manipulative adults.

There are so many inconsistencies in their various narratives that none of it passes the smell test for me. How would a kid adopted from the Ukraine through an adoption agency “fake her childhood.” This isn’t someone coming off the street and arranging their own adoption. She went through agencies.

I mean I keep coming back to my initial questions. How was she approached by the adoption agency over there to commit fraud? And how did she lose her accent in two years if she was an adult Ukrainian scammer? Or is she an American or a forefinger who has been here for over a decade who has somehow been able to dupe social services into thinking she’s a child from the Ukraine? So that should be super easy to prove by looking at her supposed passport, and doing fingerprints, etc. Which are used for everything these days. Did she travel from the US to the Ukraine as an adult and then came back with a different passport pretending to be five when she was actually 18? That’s pretty sophisticated. And then her grand plan after doing all that was to live rent free with a neurotic middle class family? That makes sense.

If it’s the movies.

And then how does readily admitting to homicidal tendencies, a psychopathic mindset and to scamming agencies and families into believing she was a dependent child, how do those admissions benefit her? If she’s diabolical enough and a cunning mastermind capable of such a sophisticated and lengthy scam as somehow conspiring with foreign adoption agencies or orchestrating a fraudulent adoption with falsified forms from the states and traveling back and forth to make it realistic, she’s going to then just admit to the scam and risk prison time?

This is such a fanciful and illogical narrative to me.

Plus, apparently the DM went back for a second bite at the apple speaking to Natalia's purported birth mother.

On October 8, the Daily Mail reported that a woman claiming to be Natalia’s Ukrainian birth mother has confirmed that she is indeed a teenager. Anna Volodymyrivna Gava, 40, told reporters that she had given birth to a baby girl on September 4, 2003, but “felt forced to surrender her” when doctors told her she was born with short arms and legs. Her child, Natalia, was then sent to an orphanage, where she lived for five years before being adopted by an American couple. Gava said Natalia is now 16 years old.

BBM:

The Daily Mail says it “learned independently” that Natalia “arrived in the U.S. in 2008 with paperwork stating she was named Gava Natalia Vadymivna and was born September 4, 2003,” seeming to back up Gava’s story — and prosecutors’ claims that the Barnetts abandoned their adopted daughter. “Why did they decide that she is older than according to documents?” Gava told the Daily Mail. “It is clear that the child does not look older. “You [the Barnetts] were saying and swearing you’d help the child but it turns out you didn’t do anything. Why are you leaving an underage child and say that she’s older?”

More here:
What’s Going on With This Possible Real-Life Orphan Story?

I also liked the Amazon review where the lady said she had to stop reading because KB's reportage was giving her victim-of-narc-mom flashbacks (BBM):

There is a performance orientation here that I've spent many years trying to break free from [...]

which may mostly be notable to me for being a remarkably tactful and subtle way to call KB a clear and obvious flag-waving narcissist; but it is one of those things where "if you know, you know it".

Also, without delving too deeply into the topic as it's tangential, does anyone have any opinion on how "Christian" the Barnetts have come across in their retailing of their life experiences? Is it backed up with any evidence a la the Mans; or do the Barnetts come across as "lip-service Christians"? Normally it wouldn't matter except, well... none of the Barnetts' treatment of Natalia strikes me as being particularly Christian; and I'm curious how they reconciled it in their own minds.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The “electric fence” confuses me.
Are we talking “hot wire” to keep in horses? If so, Kristine’s reaction is why over the top even if she was simply reacting to Natalia’s intent.
I’ve had boys take turns daring each other to put their tongues on it & doing so. lol
I’d like some more information about the electric fence.

 

[Tugela]

Oh no offense taken!

So you were totally flat at age 20 but had breasts suddenly at age 28? Without pregnancy?

That doesn’t seem to make sense.

There is metabolic change that happens in early to mid 20s that is associated with the end of physical development. Essentially the end of puberty. Typically weight gain and signs of aging, especially among females. It will vary from individual to individual, some it starts later and some earlier, but by about 25 will see clear evidence in most people. That is why very few models have a career past their mid 20s.

There is another one that happens in your late 40s to early 50s, essentially the onset of senescence. Your body can change rapidly in the wrong direction at those times if you don't adjust your lifestyle.

 

[Meloni88]

The “electric fence” confuses me.
Are we talking “hot wire” to keep in horses? If so, Kristine’s reaction is why over the top even if she was simply reacting to Natalia’s intent.
I’ve had boys take turns daring each other to put their tongues on it & doing so. lol
I’d like some more information about the electric fence.

There's just no way to make that story make sense. If there was public access to it, it wasn't a dangerous fence. Period. It would be a low amp livestock fence and wouldn't hurt all that much and definitely couldn't kill anyone.

Is an Electric Fence Dangerous?

No, an electric fence is not dangerous. The voltage being sent through the wires is high, but the current or amplification (amps) is very low. A 220-volt shock will hurt just as much as a 10,000-volt shock, as long as the current or amps are the same. Amps are what kills. Electric fence energisers put out high voltage (around 8,000 volts), but very low amperage or current (around 120 milliamps). This is 120-thousands of an amp. It should not even kill a squirrel.

What is a great Electric Fence? - Get yours here.

Unless they are they going for family outing by one of the rare max security prisons that use a high amp fence (in which case it sounds more like they are trying to get their kids killed, not the other way around), Kristine is full of it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

There's just no way to make that story make sense. If there was public access to it, it wasn't a dangerous fence. Period. It would be a low amp livestock fence and wouldn't hurt all that much and definitely couldn't kill anyone.

What is a great Electric Fence? - Get yours here.

Unless they are they going for family outing by one of the rare max security prisons that use a high amp fence (in which case it sounds more like they are trying to get their kids killed, not the other way around), Kristine is full of it.

I gotta admit the image in my mind of a dwarf trying to drag an full grown adult anywhere is rather comical

 

[Tugela]

You do understand they don’t have to remove a person’s skull in order to determine whether bones have fused, right?

Bone fusion is not an exact measurement, it can vary widely in individuals. This is a X-ray analysis we are talking about, it is not as precise as direct examination of the bones themselves, which obviously you can't do when they are still being used.

The first bone fusions start anywhere from 9 to 15 years of age in normal individuals, some of the later ones can take as long as 30 years. Plus, we are dealing with a dwarf here, who by definition is an abnormal individual. The doctors who made that assessment were likely used to dealing with normal children with normal development. They may say 8 or 10 using the lower end as a baseline, but it could just as easily have been 15 or 18 at the high end, maybe even more if the individual was outside the normal range.

It might make for good reading in an affidavit to get a warrant, but in reality what they are describing is a lot more vague than that. And remember, this information is from an affidavit citing records, but there is no reason to think that those original examinations would have been done objectively and with critical review, there was no reason to have done that at the time. The examiner just would have just done their X-rays and used the usual criteria based on normal average children that they typically looked at. Now, those results are actually important for the current case, but will they stand up to critical analysis? The LEO filing the affidavit certainly had no incentive to do that. You can't just take these things at face value. We will have to wait and see.