Interesting twist in the Barnetts' neglect case - Tippecanoe Co

[cobber]

https://www.jconline.com/story/news...rn-interviews-attorneys-want-know/4179268002/

So what's this all about? Kirk?

 

[HoughMade]

Compensation for interviews? That's relevant as to the "child", the complaining witness, but I'm not so sure it is relevant as to the parents- the defendants.

 

[cobber]

Strange things happen in this neck of the woods...

It almost seems like an attempt to discredit them in the public eye, without actually making a press release to that effect (in view of the gag order) to imply that they're leveraging this case for money and fame (?).

 

[HoughMade]

...and the story continues.

https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=xZE4tQwOGnrk5NvJ6lXNOyhJcQXVvIW_Eh0CcFy6gruHFWBWn2axj2UOCzhY-9iQ0

Long story short- as far as the courts of the State of Indiana are concerned, Natalia was born in 1989 and that finding sticks. This does away with the child neglect charges as she would have been over 22 and over during the time period of the alleged neglect. There remain a few charges related to whether there was neglect of a disabled adult...but those are the least serious charges in this case. The defendants are free to challenge the issue of disability and whether they committed neglect.

 

[manifest destiny]

It all stinks. With a really odd odor. But I'm curious how/why the Barnetts could change the birthdate from '03 to '89. Even if their correct that the daughter was older than claimed when adopting, isn't 1989 an arbitrary birthdate? Could it be 1987 or 1991? Is it routine for adopting couples to change details of the adopted child? After the adoption? Back to that smelly-smell issue.

 

[HoughMade]

While I agree this smells, the odor seems to be emanating from the overseas adoption agency...and possibly the first set of adoptive parents. 1989 was based upon medical information as certain bones and other structures change with known timing. Could it be a year or 2 either direction? I guess, but nothing within the "margin or error" would have made Natalia a minor when the alleged neglect occurred.

 

[cobber]

I don't know that the Barnetts' actions 'smell', as much as the State seeking to ignore a court order so they could proceed with a prosecution. Also, the argument that the State is not in privity with itself seems strained.

You have to play these things as they lay...