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

[ioethe]

So she lived in her first apartment for a year, they visited twice a week and also had a home health aide visiting regularly according to Michael Barnett...she was “discharged” from what exactly I’m unsure of. Natalia put in writing she wanted nothing to do with them & zero contact

Yet the Barnett’s, according to them, got her a second Apartment ...is the one she was evicted from for non-payment of rent.

If they can prove that ...and I believe they can. It’s a done deal. Natalia is an adult.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow your reasoning.

Could you expand?

 

[gitana1]

I’ve seen the reviews. You don’t have to keep posting them here. It really has nothing to do with the case against her. You know as well as I do that you can’t convict a person based on book reviews.

With respect to the doctor(s) and mental health professional(s), they had a professional responsibility to evaluate the patient’s condition, not rely on a lay person’s observations. Particularly if they were recommending something as drastic as re-aging her over 10 years. And yes, I feel the same way in Munchausen cases.

very interesting, unrelated, Munchausen article...
Doctors weren’t just treating the toddler, they were quietly building a case against her mom

I think the reviews very much have something to do with this case. They give a window into the psyche of the prime defendant of the crime here.

I know some would treat her as the victim in this case. She’s not. And those reviews show a person who is narcissistic, a liar and super convincing to most.

That’s revelatory IMO when it comes to how she was able to convince people that her adopted Ukrainian daughter was an adult psychopathic scammer when there is zero evidence she was in on any scam involving agencies in the Ukraine, zero evidence she was actually an American or a Ukrainian who had been in this nation for several years as they appear to be insinuating, and no evidence that she’s ever bilked anyone out of any money or property, either before the Barnett’s, during or after.

 

[Gussified]

I think the reviews very much have something to do with this case. They give a window into the psyche of the prime defendant of the crime here.

I know some would treat her as the victim in this case. She’s not. And those reviews show a person who is narcissistic, a liar and super convincing to most.

That’s revelatory IMO when it comes to how she was able to convince people that her adopted Ukrainian daughter was an adult psychopathic scammer when there is zero evidence she was in on any scam involving agencies in the Ukraine, zero evidence she was actually an American or a Ukrainian who had been in this nation for several years as they appear to be insinuating, and no evidence that she’s ever bilked anyone out of any money or property, either before the Barnett’s, during or after.

So you believe Amazon book reviews would be admissible in a court of law?

 

[Gussified]

It’s a British show on ITV. Here;

Thanks. The television interview was much better than the Daily Mail article about the interview.

 

[Amonet]

Also, note that Kristine Barrett claims Natalia had a bone scan done indicating she was around 14 sometime after the Barrett's got her. I never saw mention of that previously. One would think that would be in her petition to change age but the unsigned petition doesn't mention any such bone scan per news reports. Read her words:

‘At the time I ran a little school and I remember she said to me, these children are exhausting, I don't know how you do it,’ Barnett went on.

‘I was like, you're supposed to be a child yourself. It was like something another mom would say as she dropped her kids off.

‘It's very hard to decipher how old she is because she has such a unique look. But at that time I started to believe she was probably a teenager.

‘But I didn’t have any regrets. This was what I wanted to do. I felt overwhelming love for her.’

Barnett says she soon began finding bloody clothing in the trash suggesting Natalia was having her period and trying to conceal the evidence.

She sought out the help of her family physician who ordered bone density tests to establish Natalia's age.

When the results suggested the little girl was indeed at least 14 or older, Barnett says she switched the princess outfits and pink dresses for more appropriate clothes.

But as questions swirled around her age and true identity, Natalia's behavior begun to deteriorate.

Mother claims Ukrainian adopted daughter, 9, was 22 and had dwarfism | Daily Mail Online

So she admits to keeping the kid after starting to believe she was a teen already. She kept her after a bone scan, according to her, indicated the child was 14.

But then her behavior started deteriorating. And then they decided to get rid of her. Magically, the kid at that very time aged 6 to 8 years from the time of the supposed home scan indicating she was @14, until the age change petition.

Interesting.

This stinks to high heaven.

I'm not really surprised the child's behavior started deteriorating with all this 'suspicion' that the B's were putting on her shoulders. How is a child supposed to deal with the suspicious looks and being told they're much older than they thought they were?

 

[Meloni88]

So you believe Amazon book reviews would be admissible in a court of law?

That's a bit obtuse. Excerpts from her book can be admissable as evidence of poor character. They don't need the amazon reviews they just need to read the book and highlight the most egregious parts. It's presented as a factual autobiography and she's built a reputation as an autism expert/harnesser of genius/overcomer of huge adversity on the claims therein but it's full of obvious fabrications and truth stretching.

 

[Gussified]

That's a bit obtuse. Excerpts from her book can be admissable as evidence of poor character. They don't need the amazon reviews they just need to read the book and highlight the most egregious parts. It's presented as a factual autobiography and she's built a reputation as an autism expert/harnesser of genius/overcomer of huge adversity on the claims therein but it's full of obvious fabrications and truth stretching.

Yes, I agree with you. Her printed words could certainly be admissible. But I was responding to a post about the reviews of her book.

 

[Amonet]

This is one of the worst parts for me - using her early onset menstruation against her. Scary enough as is without an adult freaking out and telling you you're not who you say you are because of it. Carrie mom vibes. If they'd even done the most cursory research they would have found that precocious puberty is 15-20 times more common in internationally adopted girls. Why is no one in the media pointing this out? This supposed smoking gun evidence that the girl was so much older than claimed is very easily explained. I'd bet Dr Riggs informed her of that when she took her to him but it went in one ear and out the other. I also think they are likely massively exaggerating how much hair she had that first day. It was probably Tanner II or III at most but Kristine is dramatic AF.

The only evidence I've seen in the public domain would only put a floor age on N of around 6 to 12 when adopted by the Barretts. I haven't seen anything that would certainly put a floor age of 18.

As for KB, I suspect that her suspicions of N just made her start to treat N differently (even if she didn't realise it at the time) and N could feel that and started acting out. KB seems to have been very (in)sensitive about things that a child of that age is going to be sensitive about (puberty and periods), and I think it follows that would have an effect on the behavior of almost any child. Then KB decides to change the clothing for N, telling N that she's a different age, at least implying that N is a liar at best and a psychopath at worst. Even if KB had the best of intentions and her fears were genuine, all this seems like creating a perfect storm for bringing out problems in a child.

 

[Meloni88]

Yes, I agree with you. Her printed words could certainly be admissible. But I was responding to a post about the reviews of her book.

Ok but I don't think anyone was suggesting they have to use the reviews(?) The reviews are just interesting for us and show what casual readers with a skeptical eye have noticed doesn't add up and they talk about specific things she has claimed that can't be true. A seasoned prosecutor would probably have field day with that book.

 

[Meloni88]

The only evidence I've seen in the public domain would only put a floor age on N of around 6 to 12 when adopted by the Barretts. I haven't seen anything that would certainly put a floor age of 18.

As for KB, I suspect that her suspicions of N just made her start to treat N differently (even if she didn't realise it at the time) and N could feel that and started acting out. KB seems to have been very (in)sensitive about things that a child of that age is going to be sensitive about (puberty and periods), and I think it follows that would have an effect on the behavior of almost any child. Then KB decides to change the clothing for N, telling N that she's a different age, at least implying that N is a liar at best and a psychopath at worst. Even if KB had the best of intentions and her fears were genuine, all this seems like creating a perfect storm for bringing out problems in a child.

I agree. I don't believe much of what she claims the girl did anyway but the parts that are believable... firstly they don't point to the girl being an adult, quite the opposite, and second they sound like a kid acting out because of confusion, insecurity or fear, not psychopathy. If we believe Michael at all the first thing Kristine did when she noticed the girl having hair down there was bring in an adult male the girl had just met to gawp at her private parts. They fully admit to doing that to her as if it's not weird and inappropriate at all... so what are they not telling us about how they treated her? I wouldn't be surprised if she was telling everyone and making the girl feel so ashamed about her body.

 

[gitana1]

Where’s the evidence? Two bone scans & book reviews? That’s it?
Surely, the Barnett’s must have a preponderance of evidence that refutes those scans- enough to convince a judge. I would also suspect they have a whole lot more.

So you believe that after five years the state decided to prosecute with less evidence than the Barnett’s had to change her age?

Is that logical to you? The probable cause affidavit discusses the age change. Do you believe that the authorities didn’t fully investigate that case and the evidence submitted before deciding to charge?

You know I realize I’m probably biased about this case by the work I do. I have seen people like Kristine Barnett convincingly plead their case while knowing the reality of who they are. I’m aware what a court relies on in probate court. And how easy it is for controlling narcissists to manipulate the court system.

I also am aware due to the work my law partner does on what it takes for the state to decide to prosecute. It’s much more than the probable cause necessary for an arrest or indictment. They don’t tend to bring cases against educated white defendants without it being one they feel they can win. It’s bad for public trust and future elections of district attorneys if they bring high profile cases to trial that they lose. These aren’t decisions they take lightly.

So that’s my bias. Is it possible that the failed adoption you’ve discussed has biased you in favor of the Barnett’s as well? Allowed you to identify with a parent who has dealt with a troubled adoptive child? I mean frankly, and respectfully, the moment you said that all your past arguments made a lot more sense to me.

 

[gitana1]

So you believe Amazon book reviews would be admissible in a court of law?

Is this a court of law? This is a crime discussion site. Have you not been on other threads? Everything about defendants that’s in the public sphere is examined, dissected and discussed. It’s given me a lot of insight in the 15 years I’ve been on Websleuths.

If it’s not valuable information to you, feel free to scroll. I can guarantee, however, that investigators have poured over her book and noted the discrepancies and personality traits displayed. All of that is information that is valuable in assessing the merits of a case for LE and the state regarding a different issue involving the main character of the book. (Which is definitely not Jacob).

 

[gitana1]

Yes, I agree with you. Her printed words could certainly be admissible. But I was responding to a post about the reviews of her book.

I think copyright laws would prohibit us from actually reprinting her book here. I found the reviews illuminating. I just wonder if you’d be so dismissive of them if it was a defendant you felt was likely to have committed the crime with which they’d been charged.

But it’s perfectly fine if you have determined the synopses of her book as described in the reviews are useless to you. For me, especially as a lawyer, I’m thrilled to be able to devour any information about both victims and accused and witnesses, in any case. I like to examine a case from all sides rather than stubbornly refusing to consider information that doesn’t support my instincts or biases about a case. You do that in my line of work and you’re going to lose a lot.

 

[gitana1]

After Natalia tried to push her adoptive mother into an electric fence in 2012, she was committed to a state-run mental institution. At that facility, she confessed to faking her childhood. The Staff at Larue Carter Hospital in Indianapolis said that Natalia showed no remorse for her homicidal tendencies, and that she described her behavior as fun.

From The Daily Caller- unable to link fir some reason

I believe she exhibited behavioral issues. I mean the first adoptive family got rid of her for a reason. But this b.s. by Kristine of her trying to drag her (those were her first words) to an electric fence renders everything she says suspect to me. This person is disabled. Crooked legs and back. 3 feet tall or so. Kristine isn’t petite. Absolute nonsense.

It is more likely to be children with co duct disorder who admit to homicidal behavior and to enjoying it. Not cunning, manipulative adults.

There are so many inconsistencies in their various narratives that none of it passes the smell test for me. How would a kid adopted from the Ukraine through an adoption agency “fake her childhood.” This isn’t someone coming off the street and arranging their own adoption. She went through agencies.

I mean I keep coming back to my initial questions. How was she approached by the adoption agency over there to commit fraud? And how did she lose her accent in two years if she was an adult Ukrainian scammer? Or is she an American or a forefinger who has been here for over a decade who has somehow been able to dupe social services into thinking she’s a child from the Ukraine? So that should be super easy to prove by looking at her supposed passport, and doing fingerprints, etc. Which are used for everything these days. Did she travel from the US to the Ukraine as an adult and then came back with a different passport pretending to be five when she was actually 18? That’s pretty sophisticated. And then her grand plan after doing all that was to live rent free with a neurotic middle class family? That makes sense.

If it’s the movies.

And then how does readily admitting to homicidal tendencies, a psychopathic mindset and to scamming agencies and families into believing she was a dependent child, how do those admissions benefit her? If she’s diabolical enough and a cunning mastermind capable of such a sophisticated and lengthy scam as somehow conspiring with foreign adoption agencies or orchestrating a fraudulent adoption with falsified forms from the states and traveling back and forth to make it realistic, she’s going to then just admit to the scam and risk prison time?

This is such a fanciful and illogical narrative to me.

 

[gitana1]

Michael explained that despite the terror she had forced his family to endure, he provided Natalia with her own flat and a nurse to ensure she was able to live on her own, which she did successfully for six years.

He said: 'She lived there on her own while we visited her. We hired a nurse to make sure she was capable of living on her own, which she was.

'When she was discharged in 2012 she had stated in her papers she did not want to have contact with us anymore.

'After a year of living on her own, my son got an offer to attend university in Canada, so we sold or gave away all our possessions and we moved to Canada.

'Her lease was up on her first apartment and it was within two blocks of all services she needed

Now - there was also a NURSE

It should be pretty easy to prove whether a nurse lived with her. Witnesses stated she was forlorn and hanging around an adult drug rehab for company.

If they can prove they had a live in nurse caring for her, child or adult, they would win their court case. But they fully talked with LE all about Natalia and THEN they were charged. So I’m guessing that inaccurate.

 

[gitana1]

So she lived in her first apartment for a year, they visited twice a week and also had a home health aide visiting regularly according to Michael Barnett...she was “discharged” from what exactly I’m unsure of. Natalia put in writing she wanted nothing to do with them & zero contact

Yet the Barnett’s, according to them, got her a second Apartment ...is the one she was evicted from for non-payment of rent.

If they can prove that ...and I believe they can. It’s a done deal. Natalia is an adult.

They spoke to the investigators. Why on earth wouldn’t they have supplied that information to the investigators when they talked to them?

And I don’t think that has one thing to do with her age. How does their visits (if true) and a home health aides visits (if true), her refusal to have contact with them (which may line up with when the Mans took her and her social security was no longer going to the Barrett’s), and they rented a second apartment for her, how does that prove her age?

 

[Linda7NJ]

So you believe Amazon book reviews would be admissible in a court of law?

I don’t believe the book she authored would be admitted

So you believe that after five years the state decided to prosecute with less evidence than the Barnett’s had to change her age?

Is that logical to you? The probable cause affidavit discusses the age change. Do you believe that the authorities didn’t fully investigate that case and the evidence submitted before deciding to charge?

You know I realize I’m probably biased about this case by the work I do. I have seen people like Kristine Barnett convincingly plead their case while knowing the reality of who they are. I’m aware what a court relies on in probate court. And how easy it is for controlling narcissists to manipulate the court system.

I also am aware due to the work my law partner does on what it takes for the state to decide to prosecute. It’s much more than the probable cause necessary for an arrest or indictment. They don’t tend to bring cases against educated white defendants without it being one they feel they can win. It’s bad for public trust and future elections of district attorneys if they bring high profile cases to trial that they lose. These aren’t decisions they take lightly.

So that’s my bias. Is it possible that the failed adoption you’ve discussed has biased you in favor of the Barnett’s as well? Allowed you to identify with a parent who has dealt with a troubled adoptive child? I mean frankly, and respectfully, the moment you said that all your past arguments made a lot more sense to me.

Absolutely, my past experience has, without a doubt, influenced me in ways I can’t even describe. I have great difficulty trusting anyone.

I’ll freely admit this case brings out my bias. I’ve lived through adults lying, manipulating, hiding evidence, and “professionals” make excuses for the most prolific horrific & pervasive behavior imaginable as “normal deviations of childhood behavior” I’m talking about behavior the kid actually confessed to when interviewed by detectives. Behaviors that make those of Natalia seem angelic. I was fortunate as law enforcement sided with me after interviewing him. Thank God it was all on video.

The kid was eventually dx’d severe conduct disorder. Make no mistake- the kid was a full blown psychopath. Every time the kid moved to a new foster home, his history would be hidden from the new placement. This occurred with no less than 4 different private agencies doing the coverup, the state didn’t seem to mind either.

Yes, I’m well aware adults lie. I’m aware of many faults within the adoption/ adoption disruption/fostercare/ child protection system.

I’m also aware of an abundance of experts who’s credentials are beyond reproach and various professionals that go above & beyond to dig/find/ seek out other highly respected experts and study the entirety of the records...order more tests to fill in gaps.

Should be interesting to hear the dueling experts in this case.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It should be pretty easy to prove whether a nurse lived with her. Witnesses stated she was forlorn and hanging around an adult drug rehab for company.

If they can prove they had a live in nurse caring for her, child or adult, they would win their court case. But they fully talked with LE all about Natalia and THEN they were charged. So I’m guessing that inaccurate.

No, if you watch the video - a home health aide would go there - not live there.

 

[Dawn Day]

I agree. I don't believe much of what she claims the girl did anyway but the parts that are believable... firstly they don't point to the girl being an adult, quite the opposite, and second they sound like a kid acting out because of confusion, insecurity or fear, not psychopathy. If we believe Michael at all the first thing Kristine did when she noticed the girl having hair down there was bring in an adult male the girl had just met to gawp at her private parts. They fully admit to doing that to her as if it's not weird and inappropriate at all... so what are they not telling us about how they treated her? I wouldn't be surprised if she was telling everyone and making the girl feel so ashamed about her body.

Why wouldn’t it have been enough for Kristine to tell Michael about her “findings” in the bathroom?? Why does she call him in to L O O K. It’s damn creepy.

 

[Dawn Day]

I don’t believe the book she authored would be admitted


Absolutely, my past experience has, without a doubt, influenced me in ways I can’t even describe. I have great difficulty trusting anyone.

I’ll freely admit this case brings out my bias. I’ve lived through adults lying, manipulating, hiding evidence, and “professionals” make excuses for the most prolific horrific & pervasive behavior imaginable as “normal deviations of childhood behavior” I’m talking about behavior the kid actually confessed to when interviewed by detectives. Behaviors that make those of Natalia seem angelic. I was fortunate as law enforcement sided with me after interviewing him. Thank God it was all on video.

The kid was eventually dx’d severe conduct disorder. Make no mistake- the kid was a full blown psychopath. Every time the kid moved to a new foster home, his history would be hidden from the new placement. This occurred with no less than 4 different private agencies doing the coverup, the state didn’t seem to mind either.

Yes, I’m well aware adults lie. I’m aware of many faults within the adoption/ adoption disruption/fostercare/ child protection system.

I’m also aware of an abundance of experts who’s credentials are beyond reproach and various professionals that go above & beyond to dig/find/ seek out other highly respected experts and study the entirety of the records...order more tests to fill in gaps.

Should be interesting to hear the dueling experts in this case.

I believe that happens, what happened with you. My personal experience is as a family member. My great aunt and great uncle were foster parents for Years. They had over 63 children in their home over the years. The first 2 children they had, a brother and sister, they fell in love with. They tried to adopt them. But after 3 years in their home, the court decided to reunite them with their mother. My aunt and uncle never saw the kids again and were heartbroken. They continued on fostering but said they would never try to adopt again (they also had 3 adult children). They never had a disturbed child situation in their home. The foster kids I played with as a child were no different than me, in my experience. A few of the kids reconnected with them after they turned 18, which was nice. One girl who stands out in my memory was 14, while I was 13. She was super tiny for her age. We both attended my cousins Hs graduation party. It was my first “adult” dress and high heels. This girl shows up in a frilly little dress like what Shirley Temple would have worn. I thought my aunt and uncle forced her to wear this “ridiculous” dress. But that wasn’t the case. They took her shopping and let her choose whatever she wanted. And this poor girl had NEVER had a frilly fancy dress and always dreamed of owning one. It broke my heart, then and now, how different ours lives were. Simply by fate. I thought of this when people were questioning why Natalia might have chosen to dress younger as a preTeen or Teen.