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

[Amonet]

This, to me, shows what an experienced liar he is. Note that he doesn’t actually say that any son actually ran into traffic. But that is what he wants people to think. And if they didn’t actually run into traffic, WHY is this a murder attempt rather than a “I destroyed your toy/homework”? Because they can read her mind?? This guy really has mental issues.

I wondered too how Michael B 'knew' what was in N's mind, and that it was definitely a sneaky attempt at murder rather than maybe a child feeling that they didn't fit in compared to their siblings and acting out by destroying things belonging to the siblings.

Also, did Michael say that he was there at the time, or did he say that it happened while Kristine took the kids to school?

How many of these examples they've shared were actually observed by other people?

 

[Meloni88]

I wondered too how Michael B 'knew' what was in N's mind, and that it was definitely a sneaky attempt at murder rather than maybe a child feeling that they didn't fit in compared to their siblings and acting out by destroying things belonging to the siblings.

Also, did Michael say that he was there at the time, or did he say that it happened while Kristine took the kids to school?

How many of these examples they've shared were actually observed by other people?

It didnt happen imo. They would have mentioned it in the earlier interviews if she'd tried to kill their sons. Maybe Kristine told him she was throwing their stuff outside, could have been true or not, and the story has escalated to throwing stuff in a busy road in order to get the boys flattened lol. Kristine tells the original fib and Michael goes wild with it, seems to be the pattern. Like he's been telling the story about the Pine Sol as if he witnessed it but no one has asked him to clarify if he saw her do it himself.
It's pretty obvious he didnt though. He said Kristine left the room, natalia got the pine sol from under the sink, carried it to the kitchen table and poured a large amount in her drink. Then Kristine walked back in as she was screwing the cap back on. Is he just standing there watching the whole time and doing nothing? Kristine "discovered" what happened because she walked in the room and saw Natalia with the "pine sol" in her hand and asked her what she was doing, Michael didn't tell her what natalia had done because he clearly wasnt there. I bet all these crazy stories happened when Michael was at work.

 

[Errrr]

Couldn’t this be cleared up with a little DNA test?

 

[Errrr]

Just like she's started to get adult teeth turns into she has adult teeth, therefore she's an adult.

And that going to a school where you must legally be over 16 means that she was an adult.

And that having the legal age change accepted by a judge (as it's to help her!) means that she's the exact age that the age was changed to.

And that judges never make mistakes.

And that the only bone test that matters is the one that came back as approximately 14 yrs old, which still doesn't equate to 22.

These arguments sound like someone trying to prove that something-or-other was consensual, an argument that would be void in the case of a minor. ???

 

[Errrr]

I wonder if they were responsible for bringing a disabled child into the country to adopt, if they have some responsibility for dumping her on the system to support? Maybe that was the reason for the emergency subsequent adoption as well as being coy about her age to make her more attractive? It got them off the hook. A child in an orphanage from birth till the age of six could have serious issues similar to those Romanian babies. It’s probable the family couldn’t handle it.
It doesn’t appear that Kristine was keen on a bleeding pubescent with behavioural issues either. Sounds like both mother and daughter were in denial about puberty. Poor kid.
Did living alone in apartment for a year cure her?

 

[Errrr]

I'm not really buying the whole "she had an adult vocabulary" thing as one of the proofs of her being older either. My son at 7 had an extensive vocabulary and used words that I couldn't believe he knew the definition of, and really spoke in an adult manor a lot of the time.

This coming from a woman bragging that her three year old son was explaining the theory of planetary shaping to a planetarium audience. By her reasoning, she gave birth to a grown man.

 

[gitana1]

Kristine did the same thing. She said Natalia would stand over people while they slept so they had to hide sharp objects. Didnt say she was ever actually standing over anyone with a sharp object but we are supposed to infer that she had a knife or something.

She was probably scared and wanted comforting. That turned into a murder attempt. Throwing new siblings’ toys (all of whom are older kids) into the road isn’t being a brat. Or expressing angst or rejection. It’s also a murder attempt.

The hyperbole is fantastical.

 

[Amonet]

Couldn’t this be cleared up with a little DNA test?

The original issue is of N's biological age and whether or not it matches the birth certificate that came with her from Ukraine.

The second issue, now that the original birth certificate has been replaced with a legal certificate showing an earlier date of birth, is whether or not N was capable of living alone without her adoptive parents when they left to go to Canada and if they left her with enough support.

By itself a DNA test won't help with either of these issues. If the woman in Ukraine who says she is N's biological mother can be proved to be the mother, then what? Does that prove N's real age? Or do people just say, "well she must have given birth to N when she was ten years old and then changed N's date of birth to make it appear that she was really 22 when she gave birth.

I think it would make a more compelling case for N's actual age if the biological mother's own age and the date she gave birth to N could be confirmed from other documents. It seems odd to me that that wasn't done in the first place, to find those documents before going in front of a judge to have N's age changed. Did the judge ask if sufficient attempts had been made to find those documents? Is it reasonable to try and locate those records in Ukraine? Maybe it wasn't considered reasonable in the original hearing...maybe the state will be able to liaise with Ukrainian authorities to find hospital records of N's birth?

 

[ioethe]

The original issue is of N's biological age and whether or not it matches the birth certificate that came with her from Ukraine.

The second issue, now that the original birth certificate has been replaced with a legal certificate showing an earlier date of birth, is whether or not N was capable of living alone without her adoptive parents when they left to go to Canada and if they left her with enough support.

By itself a DNA test won't help with either of these issues. If the woman in Ukraine who says she is N's biological mother can be proved to be the mother, then what? Does that prove N's real age? Or do people just say, "well she must have given birth to N when she was ten years old and then changed N's date of birth to make it appear that she was really 22 when she gave birth.

I think it would make a more compelling case for N's actual age if the biological mother's own age and the date she gave birth to N could be confirmed from other documents. It seems odd to me that that wasn't done in the first place, to find those documents before going in front of a judge to have N's age changed. Did the judge ask if sufficient attempts had been made to find those documents? Is it reasonable to try and locate those records in Ukraine? Maybe it wasn't considered reasonable in the original hearing...maybe the state will be able to liaise with Ukrainian authorities to find hospital records of N's birth?

I think that possibly comes down to the whole “court presumes that the parents are acting in the child’s best interests” - To trace the documents someone would presumably have to travel to or have contacts in Ukraine, a considerable expense if no one was arguing against the age change - which at the time, no one was.

 

[Amonet]

I think that possibly comes down to the whole “court presumes that the parents are acting in the child’s best interests” - To trace the documents someone would presumably have to travel to or have contacts in Ukraine, a considerable expense if no one was arguing against the age change - which at the time, no one was.

Yes, I think that probably is the reason it wasn't deemed necessary then. But maybe now it could be relevant to make the attempt?

 

[ioethe]

Yes, I think that probably is the reason it wasn't deemed necessary then. But maybe now it could be relevant to make the attempt?

I wonder if the Daily Mail reporters testifying that they have seen her orphanage admission documents would even be enough?

 

[Amonet]

I wonder if the Daily Mail reporters testifying that they have seen her orphanage admission documents would even be enough?

If the DM reporters have seen those documents, then there shouldn't be a problem getting copies of them to put in evidence for the upcoming trial. I think it would be much better to have the actual documents/certified copies so that the court can verify that they are genuine documents rather than have someone 'say' they've seen them. Maybe the DA's office could work with the US Embassy in Ukraine to get that done?

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

It didnt happen imo. They would have mentioned it in the earlier interviews if she'd tried to kill their sons. Maybe Kristine told him she was throwing their stuff outside, could have been true or not, and the story has escalated to throwing stuff in a busy road in order to get the boys flattened lol. Kristine tells the original fib and Michael goes wild with it, seems to be the pattern. Like he's been telling the story about the Pine Sol as if he witnessed it but no one has asked him to clarify if he saw her do it himself.
It's pretty obvious he didnt though. He said Kristine left the room, natalia got the pine sol from under the sink, carried it to the kitchen table and poured a large amount in her drink. Then Kristine walked back in as she was screwing the cap back on. Is he just standing there watching the whole time and doing nothing? Kristine "discovered" what happened because she walked in the room and saw Natalia with the "pine sol" in her hand and asked her what she was doing, Michael didn't tell her what natalia had done because he clearly wasnt there. I bet all these crazy stories happened when Michael was at work.

It also has changed with each telling, from bleach to windex then pine Sol. His expressions are interesting to say the least.

 

[squareandrabbet]

If the DM reporters have seen those documents, then there shouldn't be a problem getting copies of them to put in evidence for the upcoming trial. I think it would be much better to have the actual documents/certified copies so that the court can verify that they are genuine documents rather than have someone 'say' they've seen them. Maybe the DA's office could work with the US Embassy in Ukraine to get that done?

Yeah, it's not difficult:

Apostilles and Legalization of Documents | U.S. Embassy in Ukraine

If you are in Ukraine, you may contact the local state civil registration office(RAGS) for copies of civil records. If you are in the United States, please contact the Embassy of Ukraine for information about obtaining Ukrainian civil records.

There are firms that will do this, much in the manner of how they handle international travel visas (sometimes they are even the same firm). I know this, primarily because I spent three arduous self-educated months trying to get documents from the U.S. approved for use in courts in mainland China. It is, however, a process that can't be hurried (if you have ever stood on line at an embassy or consulate for a visa to a foreign country - pick a country, any old country - I myself have stood on line at minimum four consulates just for my job - you have probably experienced this firsthand already).

 

[Linda7NJ]

She was probably scared and wanted comforting. That turned into a murder attempt. Throwing new siblings’ toys (all of whom are older kids) into the road isn’t being a brat. Or expressing angst or rejection. It’s also a murder attempt.

The hyperbole is fantastical.

I have a sister-in-law that teaches special education (early teens) She literally loathes children. ALL children. ...but on topic - she will take the most mundane normal typical behavior and assign outlandish nefarious intent. She’s a narcissist so every single sentence uttered begins with “I - me or mine” ...if one of her students does exceptionally well, it’s all thanks to her genius. If they do something wrong, fail at something, she sees it as a REAL ATTACK on her.
She hasn’t been welcome in my house for about 11 years now.

I see many similarities between her & Kristine

 

[gitana1]

I wonder if the Daily Mail reporters testifying that they have seen her orphanage admission documents would even be enough?

No.

 

[gitana1]

I have a sister-in-law that teaches special education (early teens) She literally loathes children. ALL children. ...but on topic - she will take the most mundane normal typical behavior and assign outlandish nefarious intent. She’s a narcissist so every single sentence uttered begins with “I - me or mine” ...if one of her students does exceptionally well, it’s all thanks to her genius. If they do something wrong, fail at something, she sees it as a REAL ATTACK on her.
She hasn’t been welcome in my house for about 11 years now.

I see many similarities between her & Kristine

I’m sorry you’ve had to endure her. I feel super sorry for the kids in her classes. Especially due to the vulnerability of being special needs. That’s sad.

 

[Errrr]

No.

That’s sad. I really have to credit the media for going to the bother of tracking down the mother in this case. I can’t believe the courts would be so cavalier. I wonder if the girl wasn’t even present?

 

[Errrr]

DBM

 

[gitana1]

That’s sad. I really have to credit the media for going to the bother of tracking down the mother in this case. I can’t believe the courts would be so cavalier. I wonder if the girl wasn’t even present?

I do not believe she was there nor was she represented. In a case like that the court would view the parents as her representatives and presume they were acting in her interests.

But if she was being deemed an adult I feel she should have had a chance to have independent counsel looking out for her interests. Yet at the time there is no way the court would foresee an outcome like this one.