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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mickey2942 said:
.... They are often dedicated folks, who would often even help their children connect with siblings adopted by other families, or parents who are incarcerated.

People who adopt from other countries, don't have to go through as much home study, and certification process, as the folks who adopt foster children. International adoption, they can just pay a lawyer to do everything, it is a package deal. One home study, and I have literally seen them be verbatim almost identical from a particular attorney. The attorney works with international adoption agencies, and the child is even flown here, like pizza delivery, direct to their home. The folks just write a check. It is literally that easy.
.
Click to expand...

BBM/SBM This is absolutely not true. In my multiple international adoptions, I had home studies that were done by a state certified LCSW who used the same forms for all adoptions and applying foster care parents. For each adoption we were required to meet with the social worker, have updated home visits, our children were interviewed, our personal histories documented, state and federal background checks, international checks, and post-placement requirements that included home visits and placement reports. International adoptions are not a like a pizza delivery that I have ever experienced. I am active in groups with other families. Not a single person I know was able be uninvolved and have a lawyer take care of it. Yes, Korea adoptees come to this country via escort but all other aspects of the requirements to adopt are a stepped process.

You may know people who appear to be uninvolved but your characterization is not common and to represent it as such implies that international adopting families are less than or just opportunistic. And, again, untrue. I have been involved in international adoption reform since before 1998. I certainly have seen irregularities but what you describe is not the case.

Foster care home parents are required to do things like have CPR and child abuse training unlike adoptive parent who are not required.
 
Meloni88 said:
Ugh, going over the doctor's note again. A "neuropsychologist" noted "secondary sexual characteristics" and this "signifies adult sexual development". What the actual F? It signifies adolescent development. This whole thing reads like justification for sex abuse. I had a pervy relative who would make sexual comments about me and touched me inappropriately on several occasions and he just loved to make a big deal about me having pubic hair as if it meant I wasn't a child anymore, just like Michael has done repeatedly when talking about Natalia's puberty symptoms. My abuser did this to justify his gross behaviour and thoughts and groom me into thinking it was normal for me to be objectified and leered over because I was growing up.
Click to expand...

Ugh. That’s horrible.
 
Amonet said:
“Ugh, going over the doctor's note again. A "neuropsychologist" noted "secondary sexual characteristics" and this "signifies adult sexual development". What the actual F? It signifies adolescent development. This whole thing reads like justification for sex abuse. I had a pervy relative who would make sexual comments about me and touched me inappropriately on several occasions and he just loved to make a big deal about me having pubic hair as if it meant I wasn't a child anymore, just like Michael has done repeatedly when talking about Natalia's puberty symptoms. My abuser did this to justify his gross behaviour and thoughts and groom me into thinking it was normal for me to be objectified and leered over because I was growing up.”

BBM. I don't see what it has to do with a neuropsychologist anyway? Wouldn't that normally be the endocrinologist's department?

As you say, secondary sex characteristics generally appear well before the age of 20, so there's no way that it supports the age change. It is 'spin' to say it signifies 'adult sexual development', the same way the 'adult teeth' are spun out of N being in the process of losing deciduous teeth and the emergence of permanent teeth, which again normally does happen before the age of 20.
Click to expand...

Well the endocrinologist determined N was a child. So obviously they omitted that assessment!!
 
kaen said:
If she was adopted after 2001 when the automatic citizenship rule took effect, she receives automatic citizenship. Full stop. The visa she traveled on IR3 or IR4 sets out what procedures need to happen. On an IR3, the adoption was finalized in her home country and she becomes a US citizen as soon as she steps on US soil with a citizenship paper arriving in approx. 1 month from arrival (It seems like you do travel to see your child in Ukraine so most kids probably come in on an IR3). If on an IR4, the adoption is finalized in receiving state and then she is automatic citizen and you need to submit a N600.

The Barnett family was not her first adoption. In FL, the process is this: The Florida Adoption Finalization Hearing Process. Step 1: Be sworn in with your adoption attorney and social worker. Step 2: Answer a few questions asked by the judge about your adoption journey, providing for your child and more. Step 3: Witness the signing of the final decree of adoption by the judge.
Her citizenship can't be rescinded. (American Adoptions - Adoption Finalization in Florida | Complete Your FL Adoption). I had read something about a NH family and the process to finalize there is: The final legal step you’ll need to complete for your child’s New Hampshire adoption process is the adoption finalization stage. Adoption finalization signifies that your child is a legally recognized, permanent member of your family. You’ll be granted the final decree of adoption and legal parental rights at this time. The adoption finalization doesn’t occur until about six months after placement with your child. American Adoptions - Adoption Finalization in New Hampshire | Complete Your NH Adoption
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for that info. So she must be a citizen! Glad for that at least.
 
Ok. I looked up the law on set asides of civil judgments. One year after the judgment in cases of fraud. That’s like CA.

However:

“Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(3) provides that a judgment may be set aside for “fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party . . . .” Additionally, a motion for relief from judgment under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) must be filed not more than one year after the judgment was entered. However, Trial Rule 60(B) contains a “savings clause” which provides, “This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding or for fraud upon the court.”
[9] In Stonger v. Sorrell, 776 N.E.2d 353 (Ind. 2002), our supreme court addressed the three ways that a motion to set aside a judgment for fraud can be raised, adopting analysis used by federal courts for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which is nearly identical to Trial Rule 60(B)(3). First is a motion filed under subsection (3) of the Rule, which “may be based on any kind of fraud (intrinsic, extrinsic, or fraud on the court) so long as it is chargeable to an adverse party and has an adverse effect on the moving party.” Stonger, 776 N.E.2d at 356. A motion under this Rule also must be filed in the court that issued the judgment, and it must be made within one year of the judgment. Id.
[10] Second, a party may file an independent action for fraud pursuant to traditional equitable principles. Id. “Independent actions are usually reserved for [...]situations that do not meet the requirements for a motion made under” Rule 60(B)(3). Id. Such cases include ones where “(i) the fraud is not chargeable to an adverse party; (ii) the movant seeks relief from a court other than the rendering court; or, most often, (iii) the one-year time limit for Rule 60(b)(3) motions has expired.” Id. An independent action for fraud is subject to the doctrine of laches and is available only in extremely limited circumstances. Id.
[11] Third, a party may invoke the inherent power of a court to set aside its judgment if procured by fraud on the court. Id. at 356-57. Also, a court may sua sponte set aside a judgment for fraud on the court. Id. at 357. There is no time limit for a fraud on the court proceeding. Id.
https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03191501mpb.pdf
(That last bold by me means if the court brings its own motion there’s no time limit. And the court can be asked/pressured to do so).

So I think this kid has some options. I hope a good attorney will take her case for free after the criminal case is over.
 
kaen said:
BBM/SBM This is absolutely not true. In my multiple international adoptions, I had home studies that were done by a state certified LCSW who used the same forms for all adoptions and applying foster care parents. For each adoption we were required to meet with the social worker, have updated home visits, our children were interviewed, our personal histories documented, state and federal background checks, international checks, and post-placement requirements that included home visits and placement reports. International adoptions are not a like a pizza delivery that I have ever experienced. I am active in groups with other families. Not a single person I know was able be uninvolved and have a lawyer take care of it. Yes, Korea adoptees come to this country via escort but all other aspects of the requirements to adopt are a stepped process.

You may know people who appear to be uninvolved but your characterization is not common and to represent it as such implies that international adopting families are less than or just opportunistic. And, again, untrue. I have been involved in international adoption reform since before 1998. I certainly have seen irregularities but what you describe is not the case.

Foster care home parents are required to do things like have CPR and child abuse training unlike adoptive parent who are not required.
Click to expand...

The difference is IR3, when parents meet child before they come to the United States and IR4., parents meet child on arrival in United States.

IR4, is usually less involved in the process. I probably only see things that are messed up, thus my skewed attitude.
 
How many court cases determined her age?

Michael has claimed “3”, his lawyer said “2”. I don’t have the link to back this up, but I am certain this is correct.

2012- Age changed Marion Co.
2013- DHS or child protective services initiated a case against Barnetts and tried to get jurisdiction over NB. Just like any other case for abuse/neglect against a parent. This failed as the Barnetts had her amended birth certificate and DHS could not prove she was a child.
2016- Guardianship case. It is in the court ledger available on Indiana court website that the judge in the guardianship case put it on hold over the “age issue”. The litigants had to First return to the Marion Co superior court that changed her age originally. It was the same court but NOT the same exact judge. This court did NOT change her age back. Thus the Mans ended up withdrawing their guardianship petition.

I know I read about the DHS/CPS case somewhere. And that they beat the charges.
 
Errrr said:
If they really thought they had been conned by an adult, why didn’t they call the police and have her deported?
I just realized why they declared her to be 22! It would mean she entered the country as an adult so that when she came to the attention of authorities, she would get deported! Is that why they let her rent lapse?
Click to expand...

DEPORTATION

I think you are on to something with the age change to 22 being linked to making her over 18 at the time of very first adoptive thereby nullifying her right to Citizenship.

The rules that confer citizenship on an adoptee ONLY APPLY to adopted CHILDREN, not adopted adults.

Further, some police interview DID MENTION that after her age change it triggered some kind of investigation into whether or not adoption fraud had occurred. The police officer said that as far as he knew this investigation did NOT conclude a crime of fraud was committed. He also said the original investigators of this potential fraud had died and there were no records to say what happened except that nothing came of it.
 
Dawn Day said:
DEPORTATION

I think you are on to something with the age change to 22 being linked to making her over 18 at the time of very first adoptive thereby nullifying her right to Citizenship.

The rules that confer citizenship on an adoptee ONLY APPLY to adopted CHILDREN, not adopted adults.

Further, some police interview DID MENTION that after her age change it triggered some kind of investigation into whether or not adoption fraud had occurred. The police officer said that as far as he knew this investigation did NOT conclude a crime of fraud was committed. He also said the original investigators of this potential fraud had died and there were no records to say what happened except that nothing came of it.
Click to expand...

USCIS would have been in charge of investigating the adoption and any irregularity before they would have approved any visa and an adoption. USCIS determines eligibility and an investigates as the suitability of the adoptive family. USCIS is very savvy in all of the countries I have been involved in adopting from. We were actually flagged based on the actions of an orphanage and our visa was held until they investigated further. They are on the alert for baby-stealing, irregularities in the process, false documents of children and more. In our case all was clear and we were free to adopt our child. (Today, the US has many safeguards in place and as a member of the Hague Adoption Convention (Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption) things are very clear cut as to country responsibility in the adoption process.) Natalia was adopted from Ukraine which is not a Hague country. However the US was being tough on international adoptions in 2005-2008, I know because I adopted in that time frame.
 
kaen said:
USCIS would have been in charge of investigating the adoption and any irregularity before they would have approved any visa and an adoption. USCIS determines eligibility and an investigates as the suitability of the adoptive family. USCIS is very savvy in all of the countries I have been involved in adopting from. We were actually flagged based on the actions of an orphanage and our visa was held until they investigated further. They are on the alert for baby-stealing, irregularities in the process, false documents of children and more. In our case all was clear and we were free to adopt our child. (Today, the US has many safeguards in place and as a member of the Hague Adoption Convention (Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption) things are very clear cut as to country responsibility in the adoption process.) Natalia was adopted from Ukraine which is not a Hague country. However the US was being tough on international adoptions in 2005-2008, I know because I adopted in that time frame.
Click to expand...
That’s reassuring. I’m glad to know there are safeguards in place.
Do you think that same govt agency would investigate an adoption so long after the fact? Cause this w/NB occurred about 4 years after her adoption took place and presumably after her 1st adoption was legalized/finalized [adopted 2008; birth certificate amended 2012]
 
Dawn Day said:
That’s reassuring. I’m glad to know there are safeguards in place.
Do you think that same govt agency would investigate an adoption so long after the fact? Cause this w/NB occurred about 4 years after her adoption took place and presumably after her 1st adoption was legalized/finalized [adopted 2008; birth certificate amended 2012]
Click to expand...

I don't believe so. However, if there was question to the validity of her documents it would trigger USCIS to review its procedures in a region and look at any other irregularities or questions. In my adoption that was scrutinized, there was a request for information that I received after a year. I was pretty panicked as I was concerned that there was a flag that could jeopardize my child's status or indicate that something illegal happened (which I would never want to be a part of doing something that harmed a birth family or child). When I spoke with the officials, it was all really information gathering as they reviewed procedures regarding this country and specific geographic area.

I can say with fair assurance that if a child did not look their age the USCIS and State Department would flag it. It happened with families when I was adopting. It is true that you can't have an infant with a full set of baby teeth, etc. The US wants to ensure legal, proper practices are occurring for the safety of US adopting families, child (to avoid trafficking or stealing), and for the people in the country to have faith in the US process of adoption. There have been issues in Central America, Asia, and Eastern Europe so the powers that be in State and USCIS have been on alert for many years.
 
Whether this child was older or her stated age at adoption, the real crime is that she lived in an orphanage and was adopted and then was passed around to differing families with little regard for addressing issues that might be present. Even if she was a teen when she came (I don't think she was) and had mental health issues, it is not good for any human being to be passed from family to family in disruption. Anyone who adopts becomes aware through their home study and agency of the mental health issues that can occur in children who have been warehoused and not cared for in an emotional and/or physical way.

I loved the video that was put out with pointed questions. The Barnetts have a lot to explain and those who put an at risk (due to physical health issues and possible mental health issues from disrupted adoptions) in their care should be investigated---surely the Barnetts reached out to them with their concerns before dumping her on her own.
 
gitana1 said:
There is. 30 days in civil cases. So they’re forfeited their right. Or her right.

However, in extraordinary cases the court of appeals can sometimes decide to hear a case after that time limit:

Missing the Deadline for Filing a Notice of Appeal in a Civil Case: Remedies?
Click to expand...
Well, isn't that great. So she now is legally 30 and is going to stay that age no matter what, because appeal wasn't filed in 30 days? How would she even know to file an appeal if she were actually 9 when her age was changed to that of an adult? The mind boggles.
 
kaen said:
I don't believe so. However, if there was question to the validity of her documents it would trigger USCIS to review its procedures in a region and look at any other irregularities or questions. In my adoption that was scrutinized, there was a request for information that I received after a year. I was pretty panicked as I was concerned that there was a flag that could jeopardize my child's status or indicate that something illegal happened (which I would never want to be a part of doing something that harmed a birth family or child). When I spoke with the officials, it was all really information gathering as they reviewed procedures regarding this country and specific geographic area.

I can say with fair assurance that if a child did not look their age the USCIS and State Department would flag it. It happened with families when I was adopting. It is true that you can't have an infant with a full set of baby teeth, etc. The US wants to ensure legal, proper practices are occurring for the safety of US adopting families, child (to avoid trafficking or stealing), and for the people in the country to have faith in the US process of adoption. There have been issues in Central America, Asia, and Eastern Europe so the powers that be in State and USCIS have been on alert for many years.
Click to expand...
She clearly looked her age if you go by the photos. Barnett's argument seems to have been that because of her dwarfism, she looked a lot younger than she actually was.
 
mickey2942 said:
This is such a tragic story. Why would this situation occur? Couldn't the Barnett's have contacted the agency they adopted N from?

I just don't get it. I have never even relinquished a pet, let alone a child.
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect Kristine has a narcissistic personality. She didn’t go about it by the rules because narcissists think the rules don’t apply to them. Kristine seems to be devoid of empathy, a hallmark symptom of NPD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 187 more.
Total: 2,218 (members: 188, guests: 2,030)

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
2,030
Total visitors
2,218
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,877
Messages
18,115,065
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top