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

[Meloni88]

from the previous posted article ....”A year after changing their adoptive daughter's birth records, the Barnetts, who were living in Hamilton County at the time, rented an apartment for the girl on North 11th Street in Lafayette and moved her here.”

So....this does corroborate (somewhat) that the year after her age change Natalia had been spent living alone successfully with minimal support before moving into the last apartment.

If what the Barnett’s said about this is true, I cannot believe a then 10 year old could successfully live alone with minimal support for a year

Who knows? The parents are saying conflicting things. I think that after they got her birth certificate changed they immediately handed her over to this Aspire Indiana HUD state service that provides cheap housing and care for the disabled. Kristine says she was evicted from there for "causing problems at the property" but I take that with a tankful of salt. Then they got the Lafayette apartment (for either three months or a year depending on which Barnett you believe) and bounced.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If the prosecution hopes to get a conviction they better have some proof of actual intent & proof the Barnett’s actually believed she was a child at the time.

so far ...I’m not seeing any. They may simply have relied on incorrect conclusions drawn professionals who’s opinions were at odds with other professionals opinions. That’s not a crime.

 

[squareandrabbet]

We haven't seen the actual evaluations, so I think it's hard for us to know what was asked and what was concluded in the psych evaluations.

If the psych staff were told, here's someone of indeterminate age but good reason to consider she's over 18...that doesn't mean they're going to expect to find an 18 yr old mind inside that 18 yr old body. People of 18 can have a mental age of 11 .... were the psych staff tasked to find out which it really was? Or were they only tasked with diagnosing and helping N as a patient who was brought to them, which is what would normally be the case?

I haven't seen anything yet in the limited medical information that's leaked out that 'proves' to me beyond doubt that the age on the birth certificate was either incorrect or more than one or two years out. So it doesn't seem logical to me to assume that 1) the age was wrong, and 2)knowing that her age was wrong, she managed to pull off a massive con on the adoption agency, the Barnetts, on the doctors who did the bone scans, on the psych staff, and so on.

What about the teeth being 'adult' and yet still losing deciduous teeth at the legal age of 23 or 24?

If I ignore everything from the Barnetts that might be biased and not verified by a 3rd party, then what am I left with? For me, I can't see anything that conclusively says the child wasn't a child.

Yeah, I'm with you. I mean, I know very little of how one would "carbon-date" someone's maturity by psychology; BUT as someone who's been through a battery of psychiatric tests to rule out some stuff, I do remember clearly, at least part of what providers do in those tests (Minnesota Multiphasic, and other things I can't remember) is... to test your vocabulary, your sequential thinking capabilities, your general knowledge, and a lot of the same sorts of mental processing questions I remembered from being stuck in an IQ test in 8th (?) grade.

If a large portion of these determinations are just based in intelligence, how would you in fact prove that so-and-so was an "adult" vs. a biological "child"? I, for example, took the SAT's before I entered middle school as part of some sort of gifted-and-talented initiative, and I got at least 700 (I think at the time it was 800 max) on the verbal portion; and had a grade reading level of something like 11th grade. "Reading level" doesn't actually have a thing to do with "how old you are"; and it certainly seems as if the mother of a certified genius ought to know these things better than I do.

I in fact would be curious to hear from a mental health professional, as to what mental yardstick they would use to decide upon someone's "true age"; or even close to it.

 

[gitana1]

I was talking about the arguments for why Michael's charge should or should not be dismissed under SOL.

So you're right the state did use the term "continuing offense". I missed that before. But the "concealment of evidence" seems to be the important thing and the defense responds by saying there was no concealment.

Thank you. I never saw that article before! I assume he lost the motion?

I understand the argument. So the Tate appears to be saying that notwithstanding the two court orders regarding her age, they knew she was a child and told her to lie and say she was 22, and to tell people she just looked young, and thus they knew she was a child.

A defense to child neglect is that she isn’t a child or it was determined she wasn’t a child and so we believed that.

However, MB made statements indicating they knew she was a kid and told her to lie about her age and excuse her appearance.

I mean the state is going to likely show that the age determination was based on false statements and fraud by the parents. So they knew it was wrong. And so they knew Natalia would be lying to say she was an adult. She may not have even been aware of the official age change BTW.

In any event, because they knew she wasn’t an adult and told N to lie, it is a continuing act, leaving her there and trying to get her to play along.

 

[gitana1]

Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone else that an 11 year old child with her initial language barriers, cultural displacement, multiple placement disruptions, The Barnett's FAILURE to provide education as they're charged...somehow she tested into an ADULT EDUCATION CLASS & fooled everyone there?

You don’t test into adult education. And who said she fooled everyone there? Those are some big assumptions. Multiple people have stated something appeared wrong. There’s a reason the police were called five years ago.

 

[gitana1]

They’re claiming she lived alone in an apartment for a year (?) with support of a home health aide and a wrap around mental health component before apartment number two, correct?

Those have been your words about “wrap around” care. They’ve made various statements but it has yet to be seen what care she was actually provided.

 

[gitana1]

According to LARA, if the student does not do well enough on the placement test, they are given a tutor to work with to increase their readiness. We don’t know if she was actually in the adult classes or was working with a tutor at the school

What placement test? That appears to be an adult education and life skills program. You don’t have to test into it. They may determine what level you’re at with tests but people don’t have to test to get into adult Ed.

I know because I went. I was a delinquent (cutting school and other stuff) and got kicked out of two high schools and aged out of the continuation school. (Seriously). So I went to night school to get my high school diploma.

All you had to do was sign up.

 

[gitana1]

Was she in classes that helped learning disabled adults? They could have asked for her to be 18 and they chose 22, when you can't go to a public high school anymore. Teachers used to seeing adolescents might pick up on the fact that she was very young.

And called police. I mean something prompted the investigation. The court ordered age changed must have stymied them at first but they kept digging for a reason. She was clearly a child IMO.

 

[Meloni88]

If the prosecution hopes to get a conviction they better have some proof of actual intent & proof the Barnett’s actually believed she was a child at the time.

so far ...I’m not seeing any. They may simply have relied on incorrect conclusions drawn professionals who’s opinions were at odds with other professionals opinions. That’s not a crime.

I mean... they already got their answer from a pediatric endocrinologist that she was around 8. That's literally the most qualified doctor to make such an estimate and they disregarded it and continued to look for doctors who would agree she was older. They also failed to mention those 2010 and 2012 tests that showed she was a child in their petition to change her age. That's concealing evidence in my book. JMO but they were adopting the exact same tactics as Munchausen by proxy parents. Doctor shopping until they got an answer they liked.

 

[gitana1]

Surely Natalia was psychologically tested & evaluated. The Barnett’s seem very confident those records are critically important to the their defense.

More experts fooled by a crafty 11 year old?

The Barnett’s also want the school records - I’ll assume she aced the testing

No. More experts fooled by crafty narcissists. I know you’re aware of the multiple cases involving exactly that. Another mother was just indicated on murder charges after she put her “terminally ill” 7 year old on treatment withholding hospice care until she died.

Colorado mother accused of murdering daughter she said was terminally ill

People like this doctor shop until they get the answers they want. We’ve all seen how convincing KB is. We’ve also all seen that she has lied and changed her story multiple times.

The Barnett’s sought medical age determination assessments at least three times. They didn’t like the first two I guess.

 

[gitana1]

Found it- Natalia was represented

Details of the ensuing April 2016 proceedings are not publicly available and Natalia's guardian ad litem Ladona E. Sorenson, an independent family attorney appointed by the court to protect her best interests, said she was unable to comment.

That makes sense. There is no evidence she had an attorney for the age change.

 

[gitana1]

Well, that's pretty interesting, because this news story says the below (BBM):

A lawyer for the Ukrainian orphan accused of being an adult posing as a child says her ex-mom is wrong about her age



Thus, there is no conflict as to whether or not Natalia had legal representation at the time of her age change. She did not; as far as we know. She didn't acquire a lawyer until approximately 12 months after the Barnetts changed her name. I'm taking Insider's word on the contents of the Lafayette Courier and Journal findings, as I hate USA Today-umbrella'ed papers insisting that I turn off my advertisement blocker in order to look at them, and refuse to do it.

That’s right.

“Troemel said the girl was omitted from participating in due process in the age-changing case because the Barnetts filed an ex-parte petition.”

 

[Linda7NJ]

Those have been your words about “wrap around” care. They’ve made various statements but it has yet to be seen what care she was actually provided.

Someone had to write the scripts for the medication she was on. I’m going to assume they were psychotropic.
Barnett’s also said she had a therapist IIRC?

 

[squareandrabbet]

“Troemel said the girl was omitted from participating in due process in the age-changing case because the Barnetts filed an ex-parte petition.”

OK, I'll bite... why would one do such a thing? And how? I'm assuming this could be done if, as we suspected, the Barnetts postulated it as 100% intended for Natalia's own good and not anybody else's...?

 

[gitana1]

We haven't seen the actual evaluations, so I think it's hard for us to know what was asked and what was concluded in the psych evaluations.

If the psych staff were told, here's someone of indeterminate age but good reason to consider she's over 18...that doesn't mean they're going to expect to find an 18 yr old mind inside that 18 yr old body. People of 18 can have a mental age of 11 .... were the psych staff tasked to find out which it really was? Or were they only tasked with diagnosing and helping N as a patient who was brought to them, which is what would normally be the case?

I haven't seen anything yet in the limited medical information that's leaked out that 'proves' to me beyond doubt that the age on the birth certificate was either incorrect or more than one or two years out. So it doesn't seem logical to me to assume that 1) the age was wrong, and 2)knowing that her age was wrong, she managed to pull off a massive con on the adoption agency, the Barnetts, on the doctors who did the bone scans, on the psych staff, and so on.

What about the teeth being 'adult' and yet still losing deciduous teeth at the legal age of 23 or 24?

If I ignore everything from the Barnetts that might be biased and not verified by a 3rd party, then what am I left with? For me, I can't see anything that conclusively says the child wasn't a child.

I am willing to change my mind if medical evidence comes out that is a proper medical report, and I would give that evidence greater importance than anything else as there's less chance of outside manipulation or bias in actual scans -- though it is still possible to have bias in interpretation, but with numerous experts checking each other on those, then it should be possible imho to get closer to a realistic age range for the individual.

There are experts out there who work in 'aging' individuals from ancient civilizations...they don't use psych reports or stories from the family, they just go on what they know of biological aging. So I see the rest of it as unimportant faff and not compelling at all.

It is totally nonsensical. None of the Barnett apologists nor the Barnett’s themselves have explained or can explain the process of this adult psychopath creating fake records via adoption agencies or the Ukraine asserting she was a child when adopted.

Was she an adult in the Ukraine who wandered into an orphanage and pretended to be a child with fake papers? If so, how was this adult able to get rid of her accent so easily and not know Ukrainian just a couple years later?

Or was she actually an American or a Ukrainian who had been here for many years, living off people and somehow wandered into an American agency and claimed to have come here on a plane and to be five? Because when she was first adopted in the US she was just five per her paperwork. So almost 7 when the Barnett’s got her.

None of this The Orphan movie narrative makes sense. It’s fanciful. There’s no logic behind it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

That’s right.

“Troemel said the girl was omitted from participating in due process in the age-changing case because the Barnetts filed an ex-parte petition.”

Did the Barnett’s do that on their own or with an attorney?

 

[gitana1]

from the previous posted article ....”A year after changing their adoptive daughter's birth records, the Barnetts, who were living in Hamilton County at the time, rented an apartment for the girl on North 11th Street in Lafayette and moved her here.”

So....this does corroborate (somewhat) that the year after her age change Natalia had been spent living alone successfully with minimal support before moving into the last apartment.

If what the Barnett’s said about this is true, I cannot believe a then 10 year old could successfully live alone with minimal support for a year

If it was so successful I doubt there would have been a criminal investigation and charges.

 

[gitana1]

She didn't have any for the initial age change decision. She, or the Mans, had representation at the guardianship hearing though. But that ended up being dismissed without prejudice. I think it's disingenuous for anyone to say the judge "upheld" or "confirmed" the previous ruling on her age. The judge just didn't overturn the previous decision and then the case was dropped by the Mans

Exactly. That judge’s job was to determine if a guardianship of a minor child was necessary. If paperwork was presented indicating she was an adult per court order, the judge is going to determine the proposed minor is not a minor in need of a guardian.

 

[gitana1]

Also, as per MSN, this is a timeline if it will help (source is below):

EXCLUSIVE: Ukrainian dwarf adopted by American couple who claim she was 'an adult sociopath masquerading as a child' is now living in Indiana with a new devout Christian family of five who believe she was abandoned by them



-Bone density tests performed @ Payton Manning in (1) 2010; (2), 2012; which stated respective ages (1) "approximately" 8 and (2), 11:







It also won't help if we're getting articles like these because journalists are all relying upon "the other guy's" articles to write their own, instead of looking at the court documents we have. I'm not entirely convinced, for example, that some of these reporters are accurately labeling Ms. Sorenson, or even if these reporters know the difference between a "guardian ad litem" or an "attorney ad litem"; or know that it's possible to have an attorney be appointed "guardian ad litem" and in fact never function as an attorney on said case. They may in fact be functioning solely as a guardian though they are coincidentally also an attorney; and to make matters worse, I think it even depends upon jurisdiction. @gitana1 ?

It depends on how the terms are used in Indiana. In most states a guardian ad litem is minor's counsel. They are usually attorneys. But they investigate the case and report back. They also represent the minor in court. When they do so they are acting as an attorney ad litem (appointed).

 

[SandyQLS]

Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone else that an 11 year old child with her initial language barriers, cultural displacement, multiple placement disruptions, The Barnett's FAILURE to provide education as they're charged...somehow she tested into an ADULT EDUCATION CLASS & fooled everyone there?

Yes ITA
Students at the adult center must be 18, and if 16+ only with parent-guardian approval. Of course NB was deemed by the court to be 22 years old, but IMO that would not give her the general knowledge and math/reading skills necessary to test for and complete adult school studies for a GED.

Also early reports that NB couldn't even get a GED because of the age change are false drama. Indiana has a large program exactly for this purpose of helping adults learn English as a second language, acquire their GED, and also acquire some job training.