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

[cherrymeg]

They definitely adopted her? They had her age changed legally and were able to block guardianship by others. There must be paperwork. The mother wrote a book, went on TV and held speaking engagements about parenting. Someone is going to look into your life when you seem to be aiming for celebrity status. If this girl was rehomed with the Barnetts, how can they change her age.

 

[cherrymeg]

I’m trying to walk a tight line and stay within TOS RE: staying on topic. Both of my children are adopted internationally. Any child adopted comes from a trauma background - just the separation from birth parents is a trauma. Trauma often rears it’s head in ugly ways. If anyone wants more information on International Adoption and the effects on the child and adoptive parents, feel free to start a conversation with me.

Can I ask if you have come across people that have rehomed there adoptive kids? Is it hard to find resources to help kids adjust. I was trying to figure out why people that rehomed adoptive kids were able to do that even when it put children in danger and they didn't seem to face any consequences. If you adopt a child they are yours the same as if you gave birth to them. Legally it wouldn't be different. I feel like giving your kid to strangers is usually a crime.

 

[Laughing]

She never mentioned the girl in her book. There are a couple paragraphs where she said that they opened their home to other children, through a program, at her church, called Safe Families. It is a volunteer program that is supposed to provide respite short term only. She mentions having a girl there while her single mom had surgery.

It is possible that she may have met the adoptive daughter that way but there is no mention of anyone staying with them long term. It seems like there are embellishments, in the book, but she really did help some families, creating autism support groups and activities, when they still lived in Indiana. The people, who believed in her, are going to be very let down when they realize that she truly did abandon this girl. The book ends after they moved to the farm in Canada.

It looks like the youth center, Jacob’s Place, her dream, for families of kids with autism, closed down, sometime, after they moved to Canada.

MOO

RBBM

Single mom, surgery, sounds potentially tragic. Probably against TOS to poke around, but do we know if this single mom recovered? What kind of surgery was needed? Injuries? Recovered sufficiently to parent a special needs child?

Manipulated by someone envisioning their next "project?"

JMHO YMMV LRR Mooo-OOOOOOO

 

[Cryptic]

I was trying to figure out why people that rehomed adoptive kids were able to do that even when it put children in danger and they didn't seem to face any consequences.

If you adopt a child they are yours the same as if you gave birth to them. I feel like giving your kid to strangers is usually a crime.

My wife and I have been unofficial foster parents to at risk kids on a few occasions.

Fundamentally, I think any parent can legally decide to let a child reside with another party as a "guest" for any length of time. A party responsible for guests either short or long term can be given power of attorney.

A decision to "long term guest" a child- (cough, cough) can become criminal given the circumstances.

But..... my state's CPS policy emphasizes that parental decisions that place children in residences, living arrangements, nutrition, clothing etc. that are to varying degrees and even to pretty large degrees, less than ideal, are not criminal.

The policy also stated the same circumstances could be criminal in regards to one child, but not criminal in regards to another based on the child, totality of the situation and the availability or lack of other options.

In short..... The initial answer to your question may depend on whether the individual given the children was truly a stranger and whether the new living circumstances truly endangered the children- or were just less than ideal to varying degrees.

And, the final answer to your question could be... "it just depends" .

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

My wife and I have been unofficial foster parents to at risk kids on a few occasions.

Fundamentally, I think any parent can legally decide to let a child reside with another party as a "guest" for any length of time. A party responsible for guests either short or long term can be given power of attorney.

A decision to "long term guest" a child- (cough, cough) can become criminal given the circumstances.

But..... my state's CPS policy emphasizes that parental decisions that place children in residences, living arrangements, nutrition, clothing etc. that are to varying degrees and even to pretty large degrees, less than ideal, are not criminal.

The policy also stated the same circumstances could be criminal in regards to one child, but not criminal in regards to another based on the child, totality of the situation and the availability or lack of other options.

In short..... The initial answer to your question may depend on whether the individual given the children was truly a stranger and whether the new living circumstances truly endangered the children- or were just less than ideal to varying degrees.

And, the final answer to your question could be... "it just depends" .

So children have no protection from The entity who's one job is to protect children. So very convenient for abusers and those who just dump these children.

 

[squareandrabbet]

So they lied on their divorce petition.
MOO.

Yeah, mother in this case is a walking sketch-o-rama, IMO. Frankly, at this point she is sounding like the psychopath, a real Svengali control freak writ large. Towards everybody!!

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

My wife and I have been unofficial foster parents to at risk kids on a few occasions.

Fundamentally, I think any parent can legally decide to let a child reside with another party as a "guest" for any length of time. A party responsible for guests either short or long term can be given power of attorney.

A decision to "long term guest" a child- (cough, cough) can become criminal given the circumstances.

But..... my state's CPS policy emphasizes that parental decisions that place children in residences, living arrangements, nutrition, clothing etc. that are to varying degrees and even to pretty large degrees, less than ideal, are not criminal.

The policy also stated the same circumstances could be criminal in regards to one child, but not criminal in regards to another based on the child, totality of the situation and the availability or lack of other options.

In short..... The initial answer to your question may depend on whether the individual given the children was truly a stranger and whether the new living circumstances truly endangered the children- or were just less than ideal to varying degrees.

And, the final answer to your question could be... "it just depends" .

In addition to all of those "factors", throw in the component that a child with special needs is worth much more to these criminals, because of the monthly SSI payment, plus the dozens of hours they can bill for respite, habilitation, and attendant care per month. It can be split between the "parent" and the "caregiver" even though the child has been permanently moved into the "caregiver's" house. And the child has zero protection. It is considered a "grey area".Moo.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

Yeah, mother in this case is a walking sketch-o-rama, IMO. Frankly, at this point she is sounding like the psychopath, a real Svengali control freak writ large. Towards everybody!!

ITA.

 

[Scrapper18]

Can I ask if you have come across people that have rehomed there adoptive kids? Is it hard to find resources to help kids adjust. I was trying to figure out why people that rehomed adoptive kids were able to do that even when it put children in danger and they didn't seem to face any consequences. If you adopt a child they are yours the same as if you gave birth to them. Legally it wouldn't be different. I feel like giving your kid to strangers is usually a crime.

Rehoming has received a bad rap in the media. You only hear about the bad. Adoption does make the child yours, just like you gave birth. Just as you have rights to relinquish or create an adoption plan for your birth child, you have those rights for an adoptive child as well. Those that I’m aware of (outside of media) have used this as a last resort. They have sought every help possible. The child is creating an unsafe environment. For instance, a child is sexually preying on other children in the home. In these cases, rehoming to a home where the child is an only child living in the home is best. No monies, etc. are exchanged. Rather an adoption plan is made. These are legal and ethical.

 

[Scrapper18]

In addition to all of those "factors", throw in the component that a child with special needs is worth much more to these criminals, because of the monthly SSI payment, plus the dozens of hours they can bill for respite, habilitation, and attendant care per month. It can be split between the "parent" and the "caregiver" even though the child has been permanently moved into the "caregiver's" house. And the child has zero protection. It is considered a "grey area".Moo.

Unless it varies by state, only foster children or children adopted out of foster care qualify respite, habilitation and attendant care benefits. A child adopted privately in the US or internationally does not qualify for any of these benefits.

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

Unless it varies by state, only foster children or children adopted out of foster care qualify respite, habilitation and attendant care benefits. A child adopted privately in the US or internationally does not qualify for any of these benefits.

I wasn't talking about adoption, I was talking about private rehoming arrangements.

 

[Cryptic]

So children have no protection from The entity who's one job is to protect children. So very convenient for abusers and those who just dump these children.

The children do have some protection as some "re-housing" arrangements can be criminal depending on the circumstances.

But.... in my state a lot of leeway is given to parents in my state regarding life style arrangements, residence, living conditions, and though not specified per se, long term "guest" arrangements.

Your concern of inadequate protection and the leeway given to parents seems to reflect the balance between:
- state authority and interest in protecting children verse
- parental rights and family autonomy from the state.

Too much weight given to parental rights can, as you stated, put children at risk. Too much weight given to the State authority risks abuse of authority where parents are deemed to be unfit because arrangements "A" are less than ideal or reviewer "R" thinks they could have "tried harder".

I live in a "Red" state. "Red" states tend to emphasize parental rights. Too much a tilt either way, however, is not good. The tricky thing is finding the right balance.

 

[AgeofAquaruis]

The children do have some protection as some "re-housing" arrangements can be criminal depending on the circumstances.

But.... in my state a lot of leeway is given to parents in my state regarding life style arrangements, residence, living conditions, and though not specified per se, long term "guest" arrangements.

Your concern of inadequate protection and the leeway given to parents seems to reflect the balance between:
- state authority / state's interest in protecting children and
- parental rights / autonomy from the state.

Too much weight given to parental rights / autonomy can, as you stated, puts children at risk. Too much weight given to the State yields situations of abuse of authority where parents are deemed to be unfit because arrangements "A" are less than ideal or reviewer "R" thinks they could have tried harder.

I live in a "Red" state. "Red" states tend to emphasize parental rights or family autonomy. Too much a tilt either way, however, is not good. The tricky thing is finding the right balance.

That's sad. Because it should be about the children's rights,Period,and what is right for the children.

 

[Cryptic]

That's sad. Because it should be about the children's rights,Period,and what is right for the children.

As the State gets to ultimately decide what is right for the children / or what rights children have, too much tilt in that directions yields:

- Family Judge "J" does not like parent's beliefs or lifestyle. He then orders the children removed to protect their "rights".

- Nosy neighbor "N" exaggerates less than ideal living conditions at home "H". This triggers an investigation that confirms some of what "N" said. The State then removes the children to protect their "rights".

- Social worker "S" really enjoys the authority her job gives her. She then contrives situations where she needs to intervene in order to protect the "rights" of children.

The above situations maybe simplified in some aspects, but dangers of giving the State too much authority over parents are very real.

 

[EvilOlivE]

The mother tells her side of the story:

Mom claims Ukrainian daughter, 9, she adopted was really a 22-year-old with dwarfism | Daily Mail Online

 

[Scrapper18]

The mother tells her side of the story:

Mom claims Ukrainian daughter, 9, she adopted was really a 22-year-old with dwarfism | Daily Mail Online

Thanks for the link. Still not sure of whom or what to believe here. Looking forward to seeing all the evidence.

 

[EvilOlivE]

So, I found the facebook of the couple who took her in, she is still with that family and they look to be very happy. If what the adoptive mom who was arrested says is true (about her trying to kill them, etc.), why would this girl be happily still living with the new family. Makes no sense if she was truly a murderous psycho.....

What a crazy story.

 

[Scrapper18]

So, I found the facebook of the couple who took her in, she is still with that family and they look to be very happy. If what the adoptive mom who was arrested says is true (about her trying to kill them, etc.), why would this girl be happily still living with the new family. Makes no sense if she was truly a murderous psycho.....

What a crazy story.

Do you know how long she has been with them? There is, what we call in the adoption community, a honeymoon period where the adoptee is overly compliant, happy, etc. After the honeymoon period, the “issues” begin to show - could be minor or major. I have not read everything and have no clue as to how long she has been with this new family.

 

[EvilOlivE]

Do you know how long she has been with them? There is, what we call in the adoption community, a honeymoon period where the adoptee is overly compliant, happy, etc. After the honeymoon period, the “issues” begin to show - could be minor or major. I have not read everything and have no clue as to how long she has been with this new family.

No sure, but they officially petition to court to obtain guardianship of her in 2016, so she's been with them since at least then, but I'm guessing they at least knew her (or were taking care of her) for a while before the court petition.

 

[Medstudies]

The mother tells her side of the story:

Mom claims Ukrainian daughter, 9, she adopted was really a 22-year-old with dwarfism | Daily Mail Online

I just read this. I’m not sure what to believe here either. But I will say, that picture of NB with the coloring sure looks like the work of a child. I suppose someone could emulate the style, but I’m not sure I could fake the coloring and handwriting that well.