I just read that the woman claiming to be N's birthmother is 40?
So that would mean she was either 10 when she gave birth, or 24.
Just by Occam's razor, which is most likely?
I’m watching the girl’s you tube channel. Anyone who think that teenager is an adult close to 30 needs help.
If she was an actress who could somehow pull that off she would never have simply allowed them to see her naked the first night or ever. It’s nonsense. It’s clear she’s a kid. Her demeanor. Vocabulary. How she relates to her sister. Her silly YouTube videos that many teens do that they think are so cool and important. Her facial features and structure. Total teenager.
I thought the videos looked like a normal teenager.
What disturbed me was the number of downvotes on them. But now, after searching N's name on YouTube, I see the number of videos, the titles and content of some of them, and this is just being presented as a 22 yr old woman pulling a stunt out of the movie Orphan, and most people seem to be taking it for granted that the 22 yr age was correct ... plus a court found that was her age, how could a court get it wrong?
The concept of a 'real life' person doing the same thing as in the movie Orphan is alluring to people, it's going to get clicks and it's going to get people thinking.
I also just watched Mr Barnett on the UK's This Morning show, and it wasn't really challenging his version of events, just asking for his version of events. He brought up that three court cases confirmed N being 22 years old, and Gitana's explained to us that only one case 'made' that N's legal age, the others were only deferring to the original decision. Mr Barnett, right at the end said (paraphrasing) "I don't know why they're bringing this case against us now, because surely it's past the statute of limitations". It was interesting that he said that before they moved to Canada they'd already moved N out of the family home to an apartment close to them, and that's where she had the home help nurse, and during that time the Barnetts would visit N about two or three times a week.
I would like to know if N can now have her age legally set back to 16 if more thorough evidence is provided to a new judge, evidence for the bones and the teeth and taking into account that precocious puberty is a real thing etc?
And, *if* the court finds that the Barnetts did 'abandon' N, is this going to be more about the 'dependent' aspect than the 'minor' aspect? If the Barnetts truly believed that N was still a minor, would it matter if she was or wasn't? Especially having a judge agree to the 22 yr old age, anyone would think that if a judge has made that ruling then they're vindicated in their belief?
I'm hoping that a new hearing with all those pediatric specialists will examine all the old scans, examinations, dental exam charts etc, and show what a load of meaningless codswallop was presented to the first judge who went along with that age change, and then a jury is more likely to find N a dependent. Also, whatever lawyer the Mans could afford in 2016 surely wouldn't have been able to put as much effort into that case as the state can do now, so there's surely a better chance now of having those former decisions overturned? My concern isn't so much about the Barnetts and what they've done, it's about what's best for N...what she's lost by that court decision to increase her age, and if she could gain by having it changed back?
