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

[Dawn Day]

After re-reading everything ....my understanding is The Last Time Barrett’s heard from Natalia - NATALIA says she changed the “beneficiary”- so.... it appears that information came from Natalia and who knows exactly what she meant? Perhaps she meant as a “contact”

I’d bet Natalia signs over her check to the Mann’s

What Kristine actually said, as quoted from Daily Mail, is: “She discontinued communication with me. What I did get was a letter in the mail stating that she had changed Michael from the beneficiary of her social security income to someone else”.
So actually Kristine did NOT say that she got a letter from Natalia. If she had, she would have said “I got a letter from Natalia”. Obviously Kristine would like for us to interpret this as getting a letter from Natalia. But if Kristine didn’t say that, you shouldn’t say it for her. This very likely was a letter from social security Administration notifying them of the removal of Michael as representative payee.

 

[Gussified]

The exact quote from the Daily Mail Mother claims Ukrainian adopted daughter, 9, was 22 and had dwarfism | Daily Mail Online
“I will do one more year of financial aid, the exact same thing I AM DOING for all of my children” (emphasis mine)
By her own words she says “I am doing”. I cannot see this as anything other than an attempt to deceive.

How old are her other kids? I thought someone said the oldest is an adult now.

 

[Dawn Day]

Couple Accused Of Neglect Say Adopted Ukrainian Daughter Was Actually Adult Dwarf Running A Scam

The Barnetts told investigators that they paid for Natalia’s rent, according to the affidavit.

However, Michael allegedly informed authorities in the document that beyond the rent, they “did not financially support Natalia after leaving to Canada."

In Michael's account, sometime in September 2014, the Barnetts stopped paying for Natalia's Lafayette, Indiana rental. The reason for this may be because the girl was evicted in May of that same year, according toWISH-TV.

Fortunately for Natalia, concerned neighbors intervened and looked after her, the court papers say.

In 2016, Natalia moved away from Tippecanoe County to enroll in tuition-free classes at a high school for adults and older youth called Excel Center, according to WLFI, a West Lafayette station.

This is obviously erroneous reporting because how can someone keep paying rent AFTER the legal eviction?

 

[Gussified]

What Kristine actually said, as quoted from Daily Mail, is: “She discontinued communication with me. What I did get was a letter in the mail stating that she had changed Michael from the beneficiary of her social security income to someone else”.
So actually Kristine did NOT say that she got a letter from Natalia. If she had, she would have said “I got a letter from Natalia”. Obviously Kristine would like for us to interpret this as getting a letter from Natalia. But if Kristine didn’t say that, you shouldn’t say it for her. This very likely was a letter from social security Administration notifying them of the removal of Michael as representative payee.

I agree with you. If Kristine didn’t say it, we shouldn’t say it for her. Kristine also didn’t say they were taking N’s SS checks. One way or another, she was mis-using the word beneficiary. Either as I interpreted it (a DB beneficiary) or as you interpreted it (as a representative payee).

 

[kaen]

.

After re-reading everything ....my understanding is The Last Time Barrett’s heard from Natalia - NATALIA says she changed the “beneficiary”- so.... it appears that information came from Natalia and who knows exactly what she meant? Perhaps she meant as a “contact”

I’d bet Natalia signs over her check to the Mann’s

Are you implying that the Mann family is taking advantage of this child? I have not read that information anywhere or even seen any indication that the Mann family is in this for the money. They are a family who has supported this person (whether you believe she is a teen or 20 something) for the last number of years. They have clearly showed her love and affection. She has become a part of their family. So, IMO, it is unfair to even hint at the idea that they are doing what they are doing for the money.

I understand your position on Natalia being an adult and having issues. But, if she is doing better in the care of a family, whether she is younger or older, we should all celebrate that she seems to be on a good path and encourage her and them to keep doing what they are doing. She is not in jail. She has not harmed anyone. She is living her life.

 

[kaen]

This is obviously erroneous reporting because how can someone keep paying rent AFTER the legal eviction?

I would have to look it up but I believe that Mr. Barnett had said he paid the year upfront.

ETA link: "Kinnard also denied that his client abandoned Natalia, telling NBC News that Michael and Kristine moved to Canada to pursue an opportunity for their son and paid the rent at the Lafayette apartment upfront so Natalia would have a place to stay." Indiana couple accused of abandoning adopted daughter, moving to Canada

 

[Dawn Day]

I agree with you. If Kristine didn’t say it, we shouldn’t say it for her. Kristine also didn’t say they were taking N’s SS checks. One way or another, she was mis-using the word beneficiary. Either as I interpreted it (a DB beneficiary) or as you interpreted it (as a representative payee).

The problem with your interpretation is that there is no such thing as choosing your death benefit beneficiary of the social security death benefit.

 

[Dawn Day]

How old are her other kids? I thought someone said the oldest is an adult now.

3 sons, Jacob, Wesley, Ethan.
Jacob is currently 21. He was born in May 1998. I extrapolated this from a Facebook post on Jacob’s Facebook from May 2018 that said Jacob just turned 20.
Ethan is approximately 16. I extrapolated this from Jacob’s Facebook, a post on Oct 23 2017 said “Ethan is now 14”.
Wesley, I’m guessing is in between 16-21 as he appears older than Ethan. But that’s just a guess.

 

[kaen]

For all we know, the Barnett’s were trying to get her deported. Who knows?

She is a legal citizen and can not deported or have her citizenship revoked despite what the Barnetts or anyone else wants. She came into the US as an adoptee whose age certification was approximately 6. The Ukraine court certified that she was that age and the USCIS accepted that. She stepped on US soil and was granted citizenship in 2008.

I think they had hoped to get her thrown out of this country by claiming that she was an adult when she first came in. They had her declared to be 22 in 2012 which means that, according to their math, she would have been 18 in 2008--age of majority and unable to be adopted legally when she entered the US. They could however with the age change get her arrested for fraud.

All of this is so awful to me to see a young person who lived in an orphanage, had not 1 but 2 failed adoptions before the Barnett placement and to be abandoned again. Whether you believe that her age was falsified or not, it is not good for a child/young person of any age to be bounced around and not have a stable support system.

I would love to hear from the families with whom she had been placed originally. Especially, the ones who met her and spent time with her in the Ukraine.

 

[Gussified]

3 sons, Jacob, Wesley, Ethan.
Jacob is currently 21. He was born in May 1998. I extrapolated this from a Facebook post on Jacob’s Facebook from May 2018 that said Jacob just turned 20.
Ethan is approximately 16. I extrapolated this from Jacob’s Facebook, a post on Oct 23 2017 said “Ethan is now 14”.
Wesley, I’m guessing is in between 16-21 as he appears older than Ethan. But that’s just a guess.

So it is possible that she/they provided one year of financial support to her adult son(s) and is doing the same or planning to do the same for her other sons. Right?

 

[gitana1]

Exactly.

From the Daily Mail article, where the SS quote originated...
Mother claims Ukrainian adopted daughter, 9, was 22 and had dwarfism | Daily Mail Online

They further helped her get a social security number, apply for benefits, food stamps and an ID.
...
'I co-signed the lease and paid for the rent up front for a year. I did everything you would do when you send your child off to college, I helped her with groceries and bought furniture at Target for her.

'I was optimistic, she had a concrete plan for her life. She had food stamps. She had social security income for the rest of her things. She had demonstrated she was able to live.’
...
She discontinued communication with me. What I did get was a letter in the mail stating that she had changed Michael from the beneficiary of her social security income to someone else.

Except if Michael was the beneficiary then she wasn’t getting the benefits. He was. Until Natalia changed that.

 

[gitana1]

I read that Natalia receives $722 per month social security income. I googled the address of her apartment and it currently rents for $450 per month. I don’t know the rent in 2013.
On the court website the eviction proceedings were filed 5-12-2014. The landlord had already regained possession of the premises. The lawsuit was for monies owed of approximately $750. This was NOT for damages as the court noted that any issue of damages was reserved for future. No future case is noted.
Just by the dates alone we can absolutely determine that the statement of Kristine’s that she paid one year in advance is a lie. Does advance payment mean Kristine used her own personal funds? NO. Natalia May have received a larger lump sum initially from SS. Because if you are determined eligible, you receive back payments to the date you became eligibile. This is so common that there are rules as to how a representative payee must use or preserve these funds. (FYI When my friend finally got SSDI, she received a back pay lump sum of 60k)

When exactly did they leave her?

Also, really? This woman was “optimistic” that an adult who had to be hospitalized several times and had tried to kill her and her family on multiple occasions (according to her) is suddenly totally self sufficient and sane?

 

[gitana1]

After re-reading everything ....my understanding is The Last Time Barrett’s heard from Natalia - NATALIA says she changed the “beneficiary”- so.... it appears that information came from Natalia and who knows exactly what she meant? Perhaps she meant as a “contact”

I’d bet Natalia signs over her check to the Mann’s

Someone said on here (with no links to back it up) that the Manns are unemployed and appear to live off “failed adoptions”. The mom’s Facebook clearly shows she works and has for years.

 

[gitana1]

I would have to look it up but I believe that Mr. Barnett had said he paid the year upfront.

ETA link: "Kinnard also denied that his client abandoned Natalia, telling NBC News that Michael and Kristine moved to Canada to pursue an opportunity for their son and paid the rent at the Lafayette apartment upfront so Natalia would have a place to stay." Indiana couple accused of abandoning adopted daughter, moving to Canada

Well that doesn’t match with what he said on Dr. Oz. He stated they paid a couple months, right? Why would he be saying that in relation to the first apartment when it is clearly the second apartment that’s the issue?

 

[gitana1]

She is a legal citizen and can not deported or have her citizenship revoked despite what the Barnetts or anyone else wants. She came into the US as an adoptee who certification was approximately 6. The Ukraine court certified that she was that age and the USCIS accepted that. She stepped on US soil and was granted citizenship in 2008.

I think they had hoped to get her thrown out of this country by claiming that she was an adult when she first came in. They had her declared to be 22 in 2012 which means that, according to their math, she would have been 18 in 2008--age of majority and unable to be adopted legally when she entered the US. They could however with the age change get her arrested for fraud.

All of this is so awful to me to see a young person who lived in an orphanage, had not 1 but 2 failed adoptions before the Barnett placement and to be abandoned again. Whether you believe that her age was falsified or not, it is not good for a child/young person of any age to be bounced around and not have a stable support system.

I would love to hear from the families with whom she had been placed originally. Especially, the ones who met her and spent time with her in the Ukraine.

Have we been able to independently confirm two failed adoptions?

 

[gitana1]

Has anyone tracked down and interviewed these folks?

Someone attempted to. This is an interesting article. It shows this family had her for two years, straight from the Ukraine:

There's Been An Important Update In That Crazy Ukrainian Orphan Story | Betches

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

Regarding the Mans petitioning for guardianship, in adult guardianship cases, a guardian ad litem decides whether it is in the best interest of the "alleged incapacitated person" ( that's the terminology in WA) to have a guardian. With adult guardianship, the person basically loses all of his/ her choices as an autonomous person, including voting, having a driver's license, to marry or have a domestic partnership, to choose medical care, to make a will, to own or lease property, and to make any decisions regarding social aspects of his/her life. It is SUPER restrictive, and the GAL could have decided it was not an appropriate level of control relative to her abilities and needs. MOO.

 

[kaen]

Have we been able to independently confirm two failed adoptions?

It has been reported more than once on links posted early on. I think lots about this girl's life between 2008 and 2019 is questionable in terms of accuracy in reporting. I think that the Barnett's story has had changes depending on to whom and when they spoke. No independent verification. I would also love to hear from the placement agency in FL.

One other thing on a very different note. This mother seems to be very invested in the idea of maximizing intellectual potential in her children. Is is possible that Natalia was appealing as an adoptee because she was so verbal and precocious but when that did not pan out the way the son's did (a success story with books and blogs and kudos) was Natalia less appealing to parent?

 

[gitana1]

Regarding the Mans petitioning for guardianship, in adult guardianship cases, a guardian ad litem decides whether it is in the best interest of the "alleged incapacitated person" ( that's the terminology in WA) to have a guardian. With adult guardianship, the person basically loses all of his/ her choices as an autonomous person, including voting, having a driver's license, to marry or have a domestic partnership, to choose medical care, to make a will, to own or lease property, and to make any decisions regarding social aspects of his/her life. It is SUPER restrictive, and the GAL could have decided it was not an appropriate level of control relative to her abilities and needs. MOO.

They were seeking guardianship of a minor child. Not of an imcapacitated adult. The Barrett's contested it stating Natalia was an adult, not a minor.

 

[gitana1]

It has been reported more than once on links posted early on. I think lots about this girl's life between 2008 and 2019 is questionable in terms of accuracy in reporting. I think that the Barnett's story has had changes depending on to whom and when they spoke. No independent verification. I would also love to hear from the placement agency in FL.

One other thing on a very different note. This mother seems to be very invested in the idea of maximizing intellectual potential in her children. Is is possible that Natalia was appealing as an adoptee because she was so verbal and precocious but when that did not pan out the way the son's did (a success story with books and blogs and kudos) was Natalia less appealing to parent?

I absolutely got that sense (on reference to your second paragraph).

I didn't start seeing the reference to two failed adoptions until recently. My sense is that came from the Barrett's.