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

[AgeofAquaruis]

Dr. Riggs is deceased? That’s unfortunate.

Yes. But the records are not dead.
MOO

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Dan Klein @KleinReports

Motion granted to get the mental health records of the victim. Judge rules Kristine can return home to live in Florida as long as she gives up her passport etc. More hearings including a motion to dismiss Michael’s charges are set for Oct. 23 at 10:30 AM
@WISH_TV

Good thing they are making her surrender her passport.
MOO

 

[Dawn Day]

Good thing they are making her surrender her passport.
MOO

Fat lotta good that does when you can drive into Canada or Mexico without a passport.

 

[Meloni88]

Sorry, I, too, find it baffling. To be unable to discern aging via photographs is baffling.

I'm thinking it's similar to faceblindness, which is more common that you might think. I know guys who can't distinguish between people who only look vaguely similar to me. They get thrown off when someone changes their hair or takes off their glasses because faces are almost a blur of ill defined features. It's crazy. Some people can't tell the difference between Amy Adams and Isla Fisher so I guess it's not that surprising some people don't recognize adolescent facial changes.

 

[Medstudies]

I'm thinking it's similar to faceblindness, which is more common that you might think. I know guys who can't distinguish between people who only look vaguely similar to me. They get thrown off when someone changes their hair or takes off their glasses because faces are almost a blur of ill defined features. It's crazy. Some people can't tell the difference between Amy Adams and Isla Fisher so I guess it's not that surprising some people don't recognize adolescent facial changes.

Absolutely and then there is cognitive biases. One example: confirmation bias where instead of listening to the opposing side and considering all of the facts in a logical and rational manner, people tend simply to look for things that reinforce what they already think is true.

People on opposite sides listen to the same story, and each will walk away with a different interpretation. And they walk away only with the points that they feel validates their existing point of view.

When I take all the info that is currently available: (The photos, the early assessments, the contradictions and changing of storylines, motives, histrionics, etc - logic leads me to believing NB.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Good thing they are making her surrender her passport.
MOO

Wow. I didn't know that. Well still it will make it so she can't fly anywhere. She'll have drive,walk,or take bus,or train. So no quick escape.
MOO.

 

[gitana1]

I mean, it isn't, though, is it? People see different things. Apparently some medical professionals agreed with the Barnetts. And several judges.

I'm open to hearing different opinions without the need to dismiss them.

No. "Several" judges did not. In fact, it is unlikely that any judge saw her photos at all.

We saw the petition presented by Kristine to get the age change and the evidence presented. I saw no mention of photos. The probate judge affirmed the age change, likely because it is very rare for judges to overturn what another court already decided. The probate court's job was NOT to determine Natalia's age. That had already been done. It was to determine whether a guardianship was necessary.

Yes, Kristine was able to convince one medical professional and an LCSW. That's not atypical in cases of factitious disorders.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't know anything about her condition other than what has been brought up here, but wouldn't teeth be the best determinant of age?

The Barnetts adopted NB in May 2010 and they were told she was 6 years old at the time with a birthdate of Sept 2003. NB should either have had a full mouth of baby teeth, or she should have been losing baby teeth. No 6 year old has lost all of their baby teeth AND also has all of their permanent teeth already in.

For comparison, look at Princess Charlotte age 5 starting Kindergarten this fall - she has a full set of perfect baby teeth. Older brother Prince George age 6 starting first grade this fall is missing his front teeth. All is normal with the Cambridge children.

Deciduous teeth - Wikipedia
"... The process of shedding primary teeth and their replacement by permanent teeth is called exfoliation. This may last from age six to age twelve. ..."

In every photo where her teeth can be seen, it looks like NB has a complete set of permanent or adult teeth.

I don't care for either of the B's but that doesn't mean that they aren't telling the truth about NB. I agree with MB - why are authorities coming after the B's now after it's been six years? The charge is abandonment not fraud. If NB was really an abandoned 9 or 10 year old child six years ago in 2012/2013, CPS would have stepped in and NB would have gone to foster care.

Also, all the news media is plastering NB's face everywhere so they must know she is an adult and not minor child victim who just turned 16 last month per the criminal charges. The news media could be facing lawsuits if NB is a child. In the most recent photo with the Mann family, she does look 30 years old now. All JMO.

Everything I’ve read is saying there’s really no definitive test, only averages. We can all agree Natalia is not average.

My son had 4 fully exposed teeth at 3 months and by age 6 months he had an entire mouth full. He began losing his baby teeth at age 4 and had all 4 wisdom teeth fully erupted at 13. My kid is still considered “normal”

 

[Linda7NJ]

Seems like a fairly extensive list of hospitals the prosecution are citing as witnesses. St Elizabeth Franciscan hospital, Helen Devos Childrens hospital, Riley Childrens Hospital, St Vincent's Stress Centre, Neuro Diagnostic Institute...

Citing where? I missed it...

 

[ioethe]

Citing where? I missed it...

Acusación contra Michael Barnett

Down the bottom of the first page.

 

[Meloni88]

No. "Several" judges did not. In fact, it is unlikely that any judge saw her photos at all.

We saw the petition presented by Kristine to get the age change and the evidence presented. I saw no mention of photos. The probate judge affirmed the age change, likely because it is very rare for judges to overturn what another court already decided. The probate court's job was NOT to determine Natalia's age. That had already been done. It was to determine whether a guardianship was necessary.

Yes, Kristine was able to convince one medical professional and an LCSW. That's not atypical in cases of factitious disorders.

Was the age change obtained in "probate" court as well or was that something else?

 

[gitana1]

None of this is based on actual facts, though, just your opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy reading it, but to dismiss other opinions as 'baffling' at this stage - when the facts are few and far between - is premature.

No it actually is based on fact and not opinion. We saw the probable cause affidavit as well as her petition for name change. We also read the letter from the Barnett's doctor.

Two, separate doctors two years apart actually analyzed her age and determined she was a child. One was an endocrinologist. Both exams were at hospitals.

Here is the evidence that Kristine Barnett presented to get the age change, as shown by the petition she submitted to the media:

1. She was adopted from the Ukraine on 7-9-08 by the Ciccones. An adoption agency contacted the Barnetts to possibly adopt the child because her original adoptive parents could no longer care for her.
2. After placement with them they began to notice unusual behaviors and physical characteristics.
3. She had pubic hair and a menstrual cycle which she had hidden from them at the beginning of her placement.
4. The Barnetts were concerned that the child was not 7 due to the following:

a. Her ability to hide her physical characteristics.
b. Statements by her of detailed, alleged abuse.
c. Her differing "stories" of timelines.
d. Her level of intelligence. [And note, this is a woman who has a brilliant child who navigated his family through the streets of Chicago by himself at age 3, and who says children's "spark" needs to be nurtured].
e. Her level of ability to "act" differently in different situations.
f. Her level of ability to manipulate.
g. Her extensive vocabulary.
h. Her physical characteristics [undefined].​

5. Her behaviors escalated into "dangerous" behaviors [undefined] throughout that first year of placement and the Barnetts sought help from numerous professionals. Two are listed. The famous doctor and a private LSCW.
6. The LCSW and Dr. McLaren "believe" she is physically a developed adult more appropriately OVER 22 years of age. Here is a photo of her a couple months later, supposedly OVER 22 here.

Mother claims Ukrainian adopted daughter, 9, was 22 and had dwarfism | Daily Mail Online
Note: There is no mention of any diagnostic criteria used to form that "belief" and no statements that the professionals actually determined her age. There is no way an attorney would leave that info out if true.
7. They attached a "letter" to support the "belief" of either the LSCW or Dr. McLaren. That's what's referenced. No medical reports or psych reports of any kind are listed.
8. Previously mental health clinics/hospital wards will no longer admit her. It appears here they are saying because the clinics/wards do not believe she is a child. Again, no reports attached or referenced.
9. A change of birth date could enable N to utilize adult mental health providers.
10. A change of birth date can allow her to apply for an qualify for government assistance.
11. A change of birth date could provide "additional means" to the Barnetts that are otherwise not available to them.

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

That's it. Nothing more. Remember, this was an uncontested petition as the only one who could have contested it was N and there is no evidence she contested it.

 

[gitana1]

Yes. But the records are not dead.
MOO

I'm worried about this though. To not have that first doctor able to testify and be cross examined is a huge blow to the state.

 

[gitana1]

Was the age change obtained in "probate" court as well or was that something else?

It was obtained in juvenile court - the one that handles adoptions. Although probate court in Indiana may also handle adoptions. But typically around the country juvenile court handles adoptions. Probate court handles guardianships.

 

[ioethe]

No it actually is based on fact and not opinion. We saw the probable cause affidavit as well as her petition for name change. We also read the letter from the Barnett's doctor.

Two, separate doctors two years apart actually analyzed her age and determined she was a child. One was an endocrinologist. Both exams were at hospitals.

Here is the evidence that Kristine Barnett presented to get the age change, as shown by the petition she submitted to the media:

1. She was adopted from the Ukraine on 7-9-08 by the Ciccones. An adoption agency contacted the Barnetts to possibly adopt the child because her original adoptive parents could no longer care for her.
2. After placement with them they began to notice unusual behaviors and physical characteristics.
3. She had pubic hair and a menstrual cycle which she had hidden form them at the beginning of her placement.
4. The Barnetts were concerned that the child was not 7 due to the following:

a. Her ability to hide her physical characteristics.
b. Statements by her of detailed, alleged abuse.
c. Her differing "stories" of timelines.
d. Her level of intelligence. [And note, this is a woman who has a brilliant child who navigated his family through the streets of Chicago by himself at age 3, and who says children's "spark" needs to be nurtured].
e. Her level of ability to "act" differently in different situations.
f. her level of ability to manipulate.
g. Her extensive vocabulary.
h. Her physical characteristics [undefined].​

5. Her behaviors escalated into "dangerous" behaviors [undefined] throughout that first year of placement and the Barnetts sought help form numerous professionals. Two are listed. The famous doctor and a private LSCW.
6. The LCSW and Dr. McLaren "believe" she is physically a developed adult more appropriately OVER 22 years of age. Here is a photo of her a couple months later, supposedly OVER 22 here.
View attachment 209262
Mother claims Ukrainian adopted daughter, 9, was 22 and had dwarfism | Daily Mail Online
Note: There is no mention of any diagnostic criteria used to form that "belief" and no statements that the professionals actually determined her age. There is no way an attorney would leave that info out if true.
7. They attached a "letter" to support the "belief" of either the LSCW or Dr. McLaren. That's what's referenced. No medical reports or psych reports of any kind are listed.
8. Previously mental health clinics/hospital wards will no longer admit her. It appears here they are saying because the clinics/wards do not believe she is a child. Again, no reports attached or referenced.
9. A change of birth date could enable N to utilize adult mental health providers.
10. A change of birth date can allow her to apply for an qualify for government assistance.
11. A change of birth date could provide "additional means" to the Barnetts that are otherwise not available to them.

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

That's it. Nothing more. Remember, this was an uncontested petition as the only one who could have contested it was N and there is no evidence she contested it.

As I understand it (and at this point I have to apologise to America for vastly oversimplifying your legal system), ex parte motions are usually granted for a temporary judgement which will be verified or overthrown in a full hearing later. Is this broadly correct? How long would such a temporary order last for? And would running away to Canada make it impossible for a further hearing to be held?

 

[Meloni88]

As I understand it (and at this point I have to apologise to America for vastly oversimplifying your legal system), ex parte motions are usually granted for a temporary judgement which will be verified or overthrown in a full hearing later. Is this broadly correct? How long would such a temporary order last for? And would running away to Canada make it impossible for a further hearing to be held?

Yeah I think that's what they are generally used for but perhaps there's no hard fast rule? Altering a birth certificate isn't meant to be a temporary thing, surely. This was intended to be permanent. I think it was just incompetence and a lack of precedence that led to this. They weren't doing their due diligence for some reason and let this go through without really thinking about the ramifications. Can only imagine the performance Kristine put on for the judge.

 

[gitana1]

As I understand it (and at this point I have to apologise to America for vastly oversimplifying your legal system), ex parte motions are usually granted for a temporary judgement which will be verified or overthrown in a full hearing later. Is this broadly correct? How long would such a temporary order last for? And would running away to Canada make it impossible for a further hearing to be held?

It was an emergency petition but not for temporary orders. So it looks like it was am order granted on an expedited basis but not temporary orders as is more typical for emergency requests. There would have to be grounds for that argued in a separate legal memorandum.

There would not necessarily have been the need for a second hearing because they weren't seeking temporary orders pending final orders.

 

[squareandrabbet]

I'm worried about this though. To not have that first doctor able to testify and be cross examined is a huge blow to the state.

Can they tap somebody else in Dr. Riggs' practice (nurse practitioner; technician, etc.) as proxy? Clearly it's the kind of thing one doesn't get asked to qualify everyday, more like an episode of "House"; and was thus probably the talk of the office for at least 2 weeks I should think...? Thus some people might remember it clearly.

 

[Meloni88]

Can they tap somebody else in Dr. Riggs' practice (nurse practitioner; technician, etc.) as proxy? Clearly it's the kind of thing one doesn't get asked to qualify everyday, more like an episode of "House"; and was thus probably the talk of the office for at least 2 weeks I should think...? Thus some people might remember it clearly.

I'd be surprised if he didn't provide some sort of written testimony. He died around the time that the charges were filed and we know they were working on this case for years beforehand.

 

[gitana1]

Can they tap somebody else in Dr. Riggs' practice (nurse practitioner; technician, etc.) as proxy? Clearly it's the kind of thing one doesn't get asked to qualify everyday, more like an episode of "House"; and was thus probably the talk of the office for at least 2 weeks I should think...? Thus some people might remember it clearly.

You know I don't know. I don;t think so. They will likely have to hire an expert to examine his records and interpret them.