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

[Gussified]

The most obvious explanation to me is that it would devastate her career as a best selling author and speaker on parenting children with special needs. To undo the adoption would be admitting failure and the inability to work miracles in any and all situations. So KB started creating an alternate reality to excuse her shortcomings, place the blame on the child herself, and found some ( not all) medical professionals to go along with it. She can be very convincing. I unfortunately have first hand experience with a mentally ill narcissist/sociopath who can turn an innocent child into the dangerous enemy in order to get him removed from her presence, and make people feel sorry for her in the process. Pure evil. Moo.

And this hasn’t devastated her career?

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

And this hasn’t devastated her career?

It took a while to catch up with her. Again, this is my own opinion, based on everything I have seen and read, and based on the crimes she and her husband are charged with.

 

[Keine Engel]

Hmm. Their website shows they both have the same kind as Natalia although with slight variation:
Bill & Jen aren’t your typical couple...

Which makes me wonder. This type usually results in a ton of surgeries. Not fun but it allows them to walk normally and not be in constant pain. Has Natalia had the benefit of such surgeries while in the states?

Warwick Davis aka. Wicket Wystri Warrick has the same type (I think, or very similar) mentioned here:

Both his children inherited the same condition. His daughter Annabelle (now 22 ) has also followed in her father's footsteps appearing in both TV series & films so there's quite a lot of info. & pics of her throughout her childhood for comparison.
Aged 10

Warwick-Inside The Academy
(November 2007)

'Harry Potter & The Order of the Phoenix'
​

Aged 12

Premier of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (9th July 2009)​

Aged 13

WARWICK DAVIS & FAMILY HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE FILM PREMIER (November 2010)​

Aged 14

'Sherlock Holmes' UK premeire - 8th December 2011​

 

[ioethe]

And this hasn’t devastated her career?

Not if she gets away with it. She will be the victim of a terrible scam but her motherly instincts carried her to the truth. There’s probably another book in it.

 

[Keine Engel]

Cont'd ^

Aged 18

CBBC Letterbox Challenge 2016
​

Annabelle Davis (22)

"Horrible Histories The Movie" World Premiere (July 2019)

Premiere Of "Maleficent: Mistress of Evil"
8th October 2019​

Annabelle Davis

​

The Famous People

 

[gitana1]

There have been some compelling arguments here re: N being a child. Still, I’m not ready to vilify any of the parties in this case. My question is, if they were just trying to get rid of N, why would the Barnetts go to all the trouble of going to court to get her age changed vs just undoing the adoption. They obviously knew it could be undone, since the first family had done so. Seems like going thru the court process is a much more time consuming and expensive process. No? What was their motivation? What did they stand to gain?

No, I don’t believe that she has, based on the photos with her new family. Where you can see them, her feet look deformed. (But I gotta admit, I roll my eyes when I see others aging her based on photos, so what do I know.)

Changing ones age is much easier than undoing an adoption. Quicker too. They filed an emergency petition.

I think if they can actually prove fraud and can definitively prove she was an adult they could easily undo the adoption based on fraud and her age of majority. But I believe the evidence required would likely be much greater than for the age change and harder to prove.

IMO they found a quick way to get out of caring for her.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Changing ones age is much easier than undoing an adoption. Quicker too. They filed an emergency petition.

I think if they can actually prove fraud and can definitively prove she was an adult they could easily undo the adoption based on fraud and her age of majority. But I believe the evidence required would likely be much greater than for the age change and harder to prove.

IMO they found a quick way to get out of caring for her.

If prosecutors can prove they KNOWINGLY ditched a minor - they should be buried UNDER THE PRISON. I can’t imagine a more diabolical plan to hurt a child.
Neither should draw another breath of free air.

 

[Dawn Day]

To be fair, Natalia has the jacket open and it’s dropping off her shoulders ...making it appear Ill fitting

Are you if the opinion that the jacket would fit fine if not for the fact of it being unzipped and hanging a bit back off her shoulders?

 

[Medstudies]

To be fair, Natalia has the jacket open and it’s dropping off her shoulders ...making it appear Ill fitting

Right, but mom couldn’t make sure she was as presentable as the boys? And there is still the poor excuse for the skirt dragging the ground.

I see three sharply dressed boys, a little girl that looks like a street urchin that looks quite happy. And then mom. :::What’s up with that head pose?::: The nostrils are looking quite photogenic lol

It’s mom and dad that have criminal charges against them. If they really thought they were scammed by the agencies where is their litigation against them? Did they make complaints to appropriate authorities? attorney general? Did they seek financial compensation?

-

 

[Gussified]

Changing ones age is much easier than undoing an adoption. Quicker too. They filed an emergency petition.

I think if they can actually prove fraud and can definitively prove she was an adult they could easily undo the adoption based on fraud and her age of majority. But I believe the evidence required would likely be much greater than for the age change and harder to prove.

IMO they found a quick way to get out of caring for her.

She had to convince multiple doctors, psychologists, lawyers, a judge. =Time and money. Plus, undoing the adoption would be a clean break vs. the ongoing tie to N. Still just doesn’t add up to me. Just can’t rule out the possibility that they believed they were doing the right thing, vs. something nefarious.

 

[Dawn Day]

Why do the Barnetts continue to assert Natalia was supposed to be 6 yrs old when they adopted her, when their own filing for an age adjustment clearly states she was 7 yrs old?? This seems like evidence of deception. They wanted their story to seem more dramatic.

 

[Dawn Day]

She had to convince multiple doctors, psychologists, lawyers, a judge. =Time and money. Plus, undoing the adoption would be a clean break vs. the ongoing tie to N. Still just doesn’t add up to me. Just can’t rule out the possibility that they believed they were doing the right thing, vs. something nefarious.

In hindsight, the age change benefited Natalia in that the Barnetts could no longer institutionalize her against her will, nor send her off to a “therapeutic boarding school” against her will.

 

[gitana1]

She had to convince multiple doctors, psychologists, lawyers, a judge. =Time and money. Plus, undoing the adoption would be a clean break vs. the ongoing tie to N. Still just doesn’t add up to me. Just can’t rule out the possibility that they believed they were doing the right thing, vs. something nefarious.

Yes so why didn’t she choose severing the adoption route if she felt they’d been defrauded and that Natalia was a psychopathic, adult scammer? Because that’s what she has said. Clearly. Why any allegiance?

The fact is she’d have to actually be able to prove fraud. And definitively prove the older age to reverse an adoption. If she had the evidence it would not be hard. More time consuming though.

There’s no altruism here. You think Natalia has any inheritance rights per those people’s wills and trusts?

Nope.

And what was the emergency?

She didn’t have to convince multiple doctors. Just one. And yes, it was time and money. But much easier and quicker than reversing an adoption. Especially when you can’t prove fraud.

As far as convincing people I’ve seen that woman speak. I’ve read the reviews of her book. She’s a compelling liar, IMO. It’s really not that hard to convince other adults that your “foreign” head case is an evil liar.

Especially coming from such a “well-regarded” miracle worker.

 

[Gussified]

The fact is she’s have to actually be able to prove fraud. And definitively prove the older age to reverse an adoption.

So how did the first family reverse the adoption? Did they prove fraud? I guess that could explain why it was for “undisclosed reasons” — i.e., confidential settlement.

 

[gitana1]

So how did the first family reverse the adoption? Did they prove fraud? I guess that could explain why it was for “undisclosed reasons” — i.e., confidential settlement.

No. They didn’t have to.

If you have been reading here you will see that “re-homing” of older adoptive kids is a thing.

We are talking two different things here. One is either an adoption disruption or dissolution after a child was likely advertised on a website of some sort as needing a new home.

Informing others of "rehoming"

You Can't Adopt a Child on Yahoo Anymore, But You Still Can on Facebook | On the Media | WNYC Studios

People Are Giving Away Their Unwanted Adopted Children Through Internet Forums

These are private adoptions or sometimes just guardianships that avoid a lot of scrutiny and requirements like a certain level of income and assets and they are not as difficult because the minor child is obtaining new parents. I urge you to read the links.

To reverse an adoption based on fraud is different. Harder. I mean if they have solid proof I would expect them to do it. Because they’d have a strong case that would stand up to scrutiny. But without solid proof it’s not as easy as dissolving an adoption in a rehoming scenario.

ETA: “Undisclosed reasons” does not translate legally into “confidential settlement”.

That’s a major leap that presupposes a lawsuit of some sort.

 

[ioethe]

So how did the first family reverse the adoption? Did they prove fraud? I guess that could explain why it was for “undisclosed reasons” — i.e., confidential settlement.

There was another family willing to take N on. In order to reverse an adoption in the US you have to find another entity (be that another family or an institution) willing to take them. So the Barnetts would have had to find another family willing to take N, admitting that they were unable to parent her.

 

[gitana1]

There was another family willing to take N on. In order to reverse an adoption in the US you have to find another entity (be that another family or an institution) willing to take them. So the Barnetts would have had to find another family willing to take N, admitting that they were unable to parent her.

Unless they were saying she was actually an adult. Then they could reverse due to fraud.

 

[Medstudies]

She had to convince multiple doctors, psychologists, lawyers, a judge. =Time and money. Plus, undoing the adoption would be a clean break vs. the ongoing tie to N. Still just doesn’t add up to me. Just can’t rule out the possibility that they believed they were doing the right thing, vs. something nefarious.

ask yourself: how many cases are there of foreign adoptions placing psychotic adult dwarfs pretending to be a kid? - vs - how many unhinged adults are there who abuse kids?

Which scenario is more logical?

Btw: there are adults who manage to convince more than one physician of fake disease:

Texas woman who made healthy son have 13 major surgeries, visit hospital 323 times, pleads guilty to recklessly causing injury to child

“TEXAS WOMAN WHO MADE HEALTHY SON HAVE 13 MAJOR SURGERIES, VISIT HOSPITAL 323 TIMES, PLEADS GUILTY TO RECKLESSLY CAUSING INJURY TO CHILD”

 

[akazia1978]

Okay. Fair. So can you answer the rest?

1. Where is her accent? She came here as an adult according to you and the Barretts. I do not know anyone who came here as an older teen or adult who lost their accent. The very thing the Barrett's use to claim she is a scammer is the very thing IMO that proves she's not.

2. And if she was sold are you saying she's the innocent victim of a fraud or is she in on it?

3. If she's the innocent victim of a fraud, why are the Barrett's saying she's an adult scam artist? Why would she play along and hide her menstrual cycle and pretend to be a little girl? What's the point of that?

4. If she's in on it, what's the benefit to her? I go back to the original questions. Why smear bodily fluids on the wall and openly try to kill them? Where's evidence of payment to her? A kickback? Why stay with them for two years after receiving a kick back? Why go through this whole charade at all? Why not invest in an easier scam?

I'm trying to use logic here. Help me out.

I'm only replying to the accent thing, but I moved to the US at 15 and have completely lost my accent. Everyone thinks I am American, but I still have my green card..

 

[Gussified]

No. They didn’t have to.

If you have been reading here you will see that “re-homing” of older adoptive kids is a thing.

We are talking two different things here. One is either an adoption disruption or dissolution after a child was likely advertised on a website of some sort as needing a new home.

Informing others of "rehoming"

You Can't Adopt a Child on Yahoo Anymore, But You Still Can on Facebook | On the Media | WNYC Studios

People Are Giving Away Their Unwanted Adopted Children Through Internet Forums

These are private adoptions or sometimes just guardianships that avoid a lot of scrutiny and requirements like a certain level of income and assets and they are not as difficult because the minor child is obtaining new parents. I urge you to read the links.

To reverse an adoption based on fraud is different. Harder. I mean if they have solid proof I would expect them to do it. Because they’d have a strong case that would stand up to scrutiny. But without solid proof it’s not as easy as dissolving an adoption in a rehoming scenario.

ETA: “Undisclosed reasons” does not translate legally into “confidential settlement”.

That’s a major leap that presupposes a lawsuit of some sort.

But they supposedly adopted N thru an adoption agency, not an internet “rehoming”, so how is that relevant? It sounds like the initial family was somehow able to reverse or dissolve the adoption, thru the agency, with or without a claim of fraud. So why couldn’t the Barnetts do the same?

And, even if you’re saying that wasn’t and option, why wasn’t “rehoming” an option? Just trying to understand why the Barnetts would not have been able to do what the first family apparently did.