The Curious Case Of Natalia Grace

[Notabug]

2 hours ago, babyhouseman said:

I just don't understand why Natalia's bio mother's testimony or the doctor talking about her bones weren't good enough proof for her age. I wonder about the other sons with Kristine. There are more questions than answers. 

It's because the judge in the abuse case ruled that the birth certificate trumped everything else and refused to allow the prosecution to present evidence that the birth certificate was incorrect.  The prosecution probably wasn't even allowed to mention that Natalia had been aged up by 14 years.  The minute the judge ruled that her age could not be disputed, the prosecution was in deep trouble.

As for the judge who altered the birth certificate, the petition was filed on behalf of Michael and Christine, so it was up to them to give evidence and present witnesses.  Since Michael and Christina were the ones who wanted her to be older, their lawyer was certainly not going to present any witnesses who disagreed.  It seems like Natalia's interests should've been represented in the courtroom, too, probably by children's services, but maybe not.  Michael said it was their family doctor who wrote a letter to the court stating that she was older than originally thought.  If the judge didn't ask for further information as to how the doctor came to that conclusion, then that would stand as 'expert' opinion.  Happens in malpractice trials all the time.  Someone brings in a witness with no specific training or expertise in the situation and, unless the other side's lawyer objects, that witness can testify to anything.

It strikes me that the judge and whoever was supposed to be representing Natalia's interests in the birth certificate hearing just didn't really care what happened or what it would mean to change her age by so many years.  Lazy, corrupt, or incompetent, take your pick,

Edited June 2, 2023 by Notabug

[Notabug]

41 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

That's another thing that just makes this case all the more disturbing - Kristine and Michael were abusing and manipulating Natalia, and then they set her loose on the public at large and saw to it that she acted and talked as creepy as possible, thanks to all their manipulation tactics, so that other people would a) be just as freaked out by her, and b) be "witness" to her strange behavior so that Kristine and Michael could point to it and be like, "See? It's not just us, she was like this with everybody!" And if Natalia happened to break into people's homes and freak them out on that level, too, eh, well, so be it, just another piece of evidence Kristine and Michael can use to show how creepy she is. 

That's...downright diabolical, that is. On so many levels. If I were her neighbors in that apartment building, I'd be fucking PISSED that those two were willing to put so many people's privacy and lives at risk like that.

Excellent point. As sickening as that thought is, I think it would definitely explain that one text Kristine sent that said something to the effect of how Natalia was lying about things so that she could "let her husband sleep in her room". I was amazed more wasn't made of that part of that text exchange, 'cause, uh, yeah, that's not something to just gloss over.

That's another thing - he kept going on about all this stuff Kristine was doing during their divorce to get back at him, and all the while he was saying this, I kept thinking about that moment when he said that Kristine made him delete those videos of her abusing Natalia that he'd recorded, but he also said he's kept the phone in the hopes somebody could retrieve those videos someday.

And I was like, "Well, if ever there was a good time to whip out that phone and see if you could do that, your divorce would be a pretty perfect opportunity, no?" He wasn't married to her anymore, he was free to do whatever he wanted at that point, and lord knows she was pretty ruthless, so if I were him, I'd be like, "Okay, you want to play hardball? Let's play hardball." and use those videos to highlight just how horrible a mother she was to Natalia. That could've helped Natalia, it could've helped him ensure his sons got to stay in his life, it could've benefitted him in the divorce proceedings, so why not just go for the jugular and bring those in?

Unless, of course, his story about recording those videos is bull, and/or they exist, but he can't show them because there might be evidence on there of him abusing Natalia, too. Which seems a LOT more likely. 

(It's clear how much of a crash course he's gotten in how the law works, 'cause there was that one bit pre-trial where he was all, "If my attorney were here he'd say some lawyer-y things" and I was like, "He'd also tell you to shut the hell up, but hey, by all means, keep talking.")

I REALLY want to know more about the place in Florida where Michael and Kristine adopted her. Just how shady were they? Were they part of this sex trafficking thing that's being investigated, and people like Michael and Kristine, as well as the other adoptive parents who had Natalia before them, were aiding them in those crimes? 

I also think somebody should talk to and look more closely at the other foster children Michael and Kristine took in. I'd be interested to see what all they have to say about their time living with them. 

I think his family either has blinders on or are in deep denial. The woman he's with now - anytime I saw her interacting with Michael, I just kept thinking, "RUN, lady. Run fast and run far." Even if she thinks he's innocent in all of this, who the hell wants to deal with THIS much drama in their everyday lives? 

He's clearly hiding and covering up a LOT. I kind of wondered if his "Oh, crap, I left my microphone on" moment was actually intentional, like, he pretended he'd forgotten it was on in the hopes that maybe he could sneak in a bit of a recording to give people an idea of just how manipulative Michael is. 

On that note, the fact that Michael made a point of telling Jacob that he was a minor when all of this happened absolutely has me thinking that Jacob was made to do more, or that Michael and Kristine were trying to make him do more, than what he admitted to here*. Which, again, is deeply disturbing to think about on a whole host of levels.

*My mom was immediately skeptical of Michael's claim that he'd just learned about Kristine making Jacob pee on Natalia's bed because, a) *Gestures at Michael in general*, and b) she was like, "Wouldn't he have been able to, y'know, smell the urine at some point?"

I would not be surprised if the other two sons washed their hands of this entire freakshow of a family, and if they have, good for them. I hope they're doing okay, wherever they are. 

It's especially telling they didn't immediately go that route considering they had three young sons and thus would've already had a regular pediatrician they could instantly talk to. Even if the pediatrician was more familiar with health issues relating to boys, given they'd been treating the Barretts' three sons, they would absolutely know another pediatrician who was more knowledgeable about girls' health issues, and would've referred the Barretts to them. 

But they didn't do that, and as has been discussed in depth here, we know now exactly why they didn't do that. 

They also had just adopted a child with a serious birth defect that could ultimately be disabling.  Kids with dwarfism need frequent assessments as well as physical and occupational therapy.  They lived in Indiana, there are several excellent universities with top notch medical centers and most parents would've had Natalia enrolled with one of their orthopedic specialists in a heartbeat.  Just watching the old videos, I was surprised to see that Natalia was seemingly always in socks or what looked like regular shoes which did not fit properly.  She obviously needed custom-made shoes to help her to walk safely.  She probably could've also perhaps used braces or crutches or a walker, but it doesn't look like she had any of that while with the Barnetts.  The older a kid like this gets, the greater the orthopedic deformities and the less likely it is that the kid is going to be able to maintain mobility.  Looks like Natalia is confined to a wheelchair for the most part these days.  No surprise.

[Notabug]

11 hours ago, Whimsy said:

. Can Natalia file a civil suite?

Probably yes.  The problem is that it seems that Michael, at least, is broke and maybe Christine is, too.  Or they've hidden their money away so that it cannot be found.  Lawyers for civil cases usually work for a portion of the proceeds.  If they lose the case, their client owes nothing.  If they win, they take their expenses off the top and then get usually somewhere between a third and half of the proceeds for their commission.  A third of nothing is nothing.  It is unlikely a plaintiff's attorney would take Natalia on as a client when there is virtually no chance of recovering a substantial amount of money

Edited June 1, 2023 by Notabug

[Annber03]

23 minutes ago, Notabug said:

It's because the judge in the abuse case ruled that the birth certificate trumped everything else and refused to allow the prosecution to present evidence that the birth certificate was incorrect.  The prosecution probably wasn't even allowed to mention that Natalia had been aged up by 14 years.  The minute the judge ruled that her age could not be disputed, the prosecution was in deep trouble.

I kept wondering about that aspect of things, too - okay, so they can't prove child neglect, since the implication is that she's not a child. Could the prosecution have maybe tried for abuse and neglect of a disabled adult instead? Might they have had more luck with that angle? 

17 minutes ago, Notabug said:

They also had just adopted a child with a serious birth defect that could ultimately be disabling.  Kids with dwarfism need frequent assessments as well as physical and occupational therapy.  They lived in Indiana, there are several excellent universities with top notch medical centers and most parents would've had Natalia enrolled with one of their orthopedic specialists in a heartbeat.  Just watching the old videos, I was surprised to see that Natalia was seemingly always in socks or what looked like regular shoes which did not fit properly.  She obviously needed custom-made shoes to help her to walk safely.  She probably could've also perhaps used braces or crutches or a walker, but it doesn't look like she had any of that while with the Barnetts.  The older a kid like this gets, the greater the orthopedic deformities and the less likely it is that the kid is going to be able to maintain mobility.  Looks like Natalia is confined to a wheelchair for the most part these days.  No surprise.

My mom said the exact same thing. 

Also, if Kristine did indeed have lupus, I mean, that's a pretty debilitating disease in and of itself, and involves a lot of care and time and effort. And yet they add on an adopted child who's going to clearly need a lot of medical care as well? I know Michael went on about how "rich" they were and all that, but even the most financially stable families can be bankrupted with just one major medical situation, so...

[ccphilly]

13 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

along with the Ciccone family who first adopted her

I need to know more about the Ciccones'-what the heck were they doing?  It sounded like they were trying to sell her at Little Person conventions.  And while we're at it, how did the Barnetts' adopt her so fast?  This had more questions then answers.

Edited June 2, 2023 by ccphilly
spelling

[Gemma Violet]

3 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Unless, of course, his story about recording those videos is bull

Yeah, that whole story about Christine punching Natalia is just plain weird.  He did nothing to stop her from punching her because he was oh so scared of Christine.  He didn't even call the police.  And yet, regarding the cow farm incident, he said Natalia could overpower Christine because Christine is so frail with lupus.  So which is it, Michael?  

[Andyourlittledog2]

I will tell you something: as much as I am interested in what Natalia has to say, if Michael is part of that show I will not be watching it. I cannot put up with one more minute of that fool's histrionics and theatrical shit. I am sorry I gave him as much time as I did and I won't give him any more.

[Pi237]

7 hours ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:I cannot put up with one more minute of that fool's histrionics and theatrical shit. I am sorry I gave him as much time as I did and I won't give him any more.

He was acting like this was his big debut. And that boisterous bravado  before and after the trial, like he was an innocent man who won a great victory. Disgusting. 

[nokat]

I'm watching episode five. Is Kristine the horrible person, or is Micheal the gas lighter here? Oh, he is.

Both gross.

Edited June 2, 2023 by nokat

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, nokat said:

I'm watching episode five. Is Kristine the horrible person, or is Micheal the gas lighter here? Oh, he is.

Both gross.

They are both disgusting. 

[MaggieG]

I could not with Michael anymore. My goodness, that was like bad community theater. He seemed to love the cameras and all his interviews were so performative. "Make sure you aim the cameras at the ground so I can fully act out how a child was punched in front of me while I did nothing." The way he practically skipped into his lawyers office with that creepy smile. And then at the end when he was protesting a little too much about whatever Freddie said. "Who's laptop is this? How many pieces do you want it back in?" Like, fuck off dude. There has to be something wrong with the woman that his is currently married to. I wouldn't be able to spend more than 5 minutes with that man and his unhinged energy. 

[Cobb Salad]

49 minutes ago, MaggieG said:

I could not with Michael anymore. My goodness, that was like bad community theater. 

Same here.  In a way I’m glad Kristina had no interest in participating as her contribution would have most likely have been just as cringeworthy.  As for what she’s accused of doing there’s nothing that she could say to make me think what she did was okay. 

I plan to watch the show with Natalia’s response, I suspect for as little as we saw her speak in this one that we’ll get plenty of her being interviewed and very little (or none) of Michael except for recreations.  He had his chance to speak so I think they’re done with him.  

Also, watching the scene where Natalia’s birth mother is interviewed remotely and they lose the connection - I hope she and her family are okay. 

[SunnyBeBe]

Spoiler

I read somewhere that Natalia was now allowed to speak since the gag order was lifted.  If true, was this on Kristin’s case only?  So, Michael was not bound by it?  I’d hate to see Michael try to comply with a gag order.  He doesn’t have the ability.  

  I’ve put this in spoiler since I think it wasn’t in the show. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by SunnyBeBe

[nokat]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

  Reveal spoiler

I read somewhere that Natalia was now allowed to speak since the gag order was lifted.  If true, was this on Kristin’s case only?  So, Michael was not bound by it?  I’d hate to see Michael try to comply with a gag order.  He doesn’t have the ability.  

  I’ve put since in spoiler since I think it wasn’t in the show. 

I figured I'd read about it after the show. 

18 hours ago, Notabug said:

Kids with dwarfism need frequent assessments as well as physical and occupational therapy. 

I've seen from Little People the pain and frequent surgeries. Imagine if they weren't taken care of.

[mojito]

I'm still wondering how I even stumbled on this show as I haven't watched ID in years.

This show has left me with some pretty dark thoughts and conclusions:

• To whom did Natalia's mother think she was turning her daughter over? Did she sell her into prostitution from the start? What's the story on the "agency" that made this adoption happen?
• I cannot stop thinking about how Michael deserves to be in the slammer and treated like the bitch that he is. 
• Maybe one of the younger boys will sell his story to ID in a few years, and somehow put Michael and Kristina through the court system again.
• What's up with Michael's wife? Who would marry such a sorry excuse for a human being? He's a drama queen with no balls. Who needs that?
• Anyone else  suspect that he has some major sexual dysfunction issues?
• When the neighbors discussed Natalia coming into their homes and going into their refrigerators looking for food, all I could think of was that she sounded like a raccoon. 

Is anyone else unsure whether or not they could gather up enough interest to watch the continuation of this story?

[libgirl2]

9 minutes ago, mojito said:

I'm still wondering how I even stumbled on this show as I haven't watched ID in years.

This show has left me with some pretty dark thoughts and conclusions:

• To whom did Natalia's mother think she was turning her daughter over? Did she sell her into prostitution from the start? What's the story on the "agency" that made this adoption happen?
• I cannot stop thinking about how Michael deserves to be in the slammer and treated like the bitch that he is. 
• Maybe one of the younger boys will sell his story to ID in a few years, and somehow put Michael and Kristina through the court system again.
• What's up with Michael's wife? Who would marry such a sorry excuse for a human being? He's a drama queen with no balls. Who needs that?
• Anyone else  suspect that he has some major sexual dysfunction issues?
• When the neighbors discussed Natalia coming into their homes and going into their refrigerators looking for food, all I could think of was that she sounded like a raccoon. 

Is anyone else unsure whether or not they could gather up enough interest to watch the continuation of this story?

I will watch the continuation because I want to hear from her and find out how she is doing. And maybe there will be answers to some of the questions I still have. 

I really thought we would find out Michael "came out" but he got married instead. So yea, I'm thinking there is some dysfunction going on. What? God knows. 

Edited June 2, 2023 by libgirl2

[MaggieG]

1 hour ago, mojito said:

I'm still wondering how I even stumbled on this show as I haven't watched ID in years.

This show has left me with some pretty dark thoughts and conclusions:

• To whom did Natalia's mother think she was turning her daughter over? Did she sell her into prostitution from the start? What's the story on the "agency" that made this adoption happen?
• I cannot stop thinking about how Michael deserves to be in the slammer and treated like the bitch that he is. 
• Maybe one of the younger boys will sell his story to ID in a few years, and somehow put Michael and Kristina through the court system again.
• What's up with Michael's wife? Who would marry such a sorry excuse for a human being? He's a drama queen with no balls. Who needs that?
• Anyone else  suspect that he has some major sexual dysfunction issues?
• When the neighbors discussed Natalia coming into their homes and going into their refrigerators looking for food, all I could think of was that she sounded like a raccoon. 

Is anyone else unsure whether or not they could gather up enough interest to watch the continuation of this story?

The way she made it sound was she just left her in the hospital after giving birth. I wonder if Natalia was placed in an orphanage or whatever the equivalent of the Ukrainian foster system is. 

[ALittleShelfish]

I'm on my third attempt to watch the final installment in this.  Due to the wacky episode numbering, I have no idea which episode, but I'm pretty sure it's the last. 

I can't with Michael.  I just cannot listen to this dude.  Several people in my life have mentioned that I'm very, very animated and dramatic when I talk (guilty), so I asked one last night how I compare to this dude.  "On a scale of 1-10, he's a 500 and you're about a solid 5 or 6." (whew)

The "Your network is whack" remark made ma laugh, but damn I'm even more interested in hearing from her now.  Wonder if she would be more insane than Michael.  

I feel for their boys.  

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I really thought we would find out Michael "came out" but he got married instead. So yea, I'm thinking there is some dysfunction going on. What? God knows. 

I actually wondered about that, too. 

[Tipsymcstagger]

On 6/1/2023 at 12:46 PM, Giant Misfit said:

Ciccone's who seem to have gotten off scot free of responsibility in this series. 

Ikr? I finished this last night and the lack of any follow up with the Ciccones was astounding to me. The whole entire thing was shady with a capital S. Wherever the truth lies - the one certainty is that the Barnetts are garbage. Straight criminals. All you have to do is take a look at their poor son to see what kind of “parents” they are. Awful on so many levels. I think ID tends to put out half baked documentaries because they want to get stuff out the door and strike while the proverbial iron is hot. Same thing they did with the Murdaugh documentary. Open ended and kinda sloppy. HBO or Netflix? did a much more comprehensive documentary series on the Murdaughs that was well put together and much more riveting. The Natalia Grace case deserved a lot more probing and follow up. Seemed lazy to me. 
And drama queen Michael can get bent. I never want to see his Neanderthal face on my screen again. What a piece of work…

[mojito]

@Tipsymcstagger, I'm sure some would say that the writing was brilliant because it strung audiences along, but throughout, I felt that the convoluted telling of the story was merely trying to manipulate the audience, and this is one reason that I have major doubts that I will follow up. At one point, I found myself wondering if the truth was embellished for entertainment's sake.  I don't even trust this content as factual.

[Andyourlittledog2]

1 hour ago, Tipsymcstagger said:

I think ID tends to put out half baked documentaries because they want to get stuff out the door and strike while the proverbial iron is hot. Same thing they did with the Murdaugh documentary. Open ended and kinda sloppy. HBO or Netflix? did a much more comprehensive documentary series on the Murdaughs that was well put together and much more riveting. The Natalia Grace case deserved a lot more probing and follow up. Seemed lazy to me. 

Yeah, these ID documentaries seem to be done in a very disorganized, lazy way and are way too long and practically unedited. I've watched more than one of these and the person filming it seems to get easily sucked into some strong personality being interviewed and instead of a thoughtful concise telling of the tale, so to speak, it becomes bogged down by the strong personality's constant talking and convoluted stories. One was a four to six episode one on a missing girl and the documentarian (I hesitate to give her that much respect) kept going down rabbit holes that the girl's sketchy mother invented on the fly. The end result was no one knows any more about this missing girl and the whole thing is just open ended. Kinda like this one about Natalia. No real resolution with the primary focus being on the never shuts up histrionic dad.

That's why I swore I wouldn't watch another one of these but they sucked me right in with Natalia. I shouldn't do this to myself. ID has no credibility with me on these long multi-episode 'event' deals. I am hoping I am cured now. Michael pretty much did me in.

[SunnyBeBe]

This was the production company.  
 

https://www.hotsnakesmedia.com/about

 

 

[Hedgehog2022]

On 6/2/2023 at 3:55 PM, MaggieG said:

The way she made it sound was she just left her in the hospital after giving birth. I wonder if Natalia was placed in an orphanage or whatever the equivalent of the Ukrainian foster system is. 

From I what I've heard, these Eastern European countries have a kind of pipeline like thing going between maternity hospitals and foreign adoption agencies. In other words, the hospitals "hand" unwanted babies to adoptions agencies who basically "sell" these children to desperate families or childless couples in the United States or other countries. The "fees" they charge to the prospective parents are high...but they promise a quick adoption process with little to no background checks. Sounds like the place the Barnetts used was one of those sketchy strip mall type places. In my opinion it's basically is human traffiking.

There was a case a few years ago of a couple from North Carolina I believe, that went through an adoption place similar to this but they actually went to the orphanage in Russia to adopt a little girl. I think she was six or seven...while they were there they met a little boy and wanted to adopt him too. They went back to North Carolina with both kids...after awhile they decided they didn't want the girl and started a campaign to make it seem like she was "troubled", "difficult" and finally they accused her of trying to push the toddler boy over the deck railing which would be a fatal fall if she succeeded. All of this was bullshit...the "parents" ended up taking this poor child back to the orphanage in Russia. She eventually found her way out and back to the United States after some publicity about her awful life made its way to some journalists with clout. She's a grown woman now, college educated and married with kids. Her former adopted family never talk about her or have anything to do with her or inquisitive reporters. 

[Cobb Salad]

@Hedgehog2022 that second story you mentioned was the subject of a couple of 48 Hours shows (I think, it’s a CBS produced show) that was originally shown years ago, the correspondent met with the little girl when she was dumped back in the orphanage in Russia.  It was a sad scene. Then there’s a follow up episode that’s shown on ID every so often.  IMO the parents in the that situation should have adopted 2 children closer in age - it might have resulted in a different outcome for everyone.  

[SoMuchTV]

On 6/2/2023 at 5:31 PM, ALittleShelfish said:

I'm on my third attempt to watch the final installment in this.  Due to the wacky episode numbering, I have no idea which episode, but I'm pretty sure it's the last. 

Ain't that the truth!  I thought I'd seen it from the beginning (via YouTubeTV dvr) but posters here kept mentioning a few things that I 'm sure I never heard.  Apparently I never saw the first episode.  And I never could figure out where it was in my recordings (even though it claims to have recorded everything).  I finally ended up using a Max account I have access to, to watch the first episode.

And, IMDB lists it as three 2-hour episodes, while ID shows it as six 1-hours, with completely different episode names.  Arrghh.  I've spent way too much effort on this.

One thing I wondered.  A lot of people seemed to think the birth certificate and dna test on the mother proved that she was indeed born in 2003. That does seem to lend credence, but can we be sure the mother didn't have a younger child in 2003?

[Kiss my mutt]

I’m starting to feel like I’m watching the same episode over and over. It seems like the same material. Michael is freaking me out. He’s so out there and acts so bizarrely. It’s really uncomfortable to watch.

There was a family who had a youtube channel at one point that talked about giving a child back from an international adoption due to behavioral/physical issues.  It was years ago and I can’t remember the channel or if it’s even still up. 

I was really into this in the beginning but I feel like I’m watching the Michael show now and it’s terrible.

[sagittarius sue]

3 hours ago, SoMuchTV said:

Ain't that the truth!  I thought I'd seen it from the beginning (via YouTubeTV dvr) but posters here kept mentioning a few things that I 'm sure I never heard.  Apparently I never saw the first episode.  And I never could figure out where it was in my recordings (even though it claims to have recorded everything).  I finally ended up using a Max account I have access to, to watch the first episode.

And, IMDB lists it as three 2-hour episodes, while ID shows it as six 1-hours, with completely different episode names.  Arrghh.  I've spent way too much effort on this.

One thing I wondered.  A lot of people seemed to think the birth certificate and dna test on the mother proved that she was indeed born in 2003. That does seem to lend credence, but can we be sure the mother didn't have a younger child in 2003?

The mother was born in 1979 so not exactly likely that she gave birth to Natalia in 1989 as the phony birth certificate said.

Nice kitty avatar.

[Hedgehog2022]

4 hours ago, Cobb Salad said:

@Hedgehog2022 that second story you mentioned was the subject of a couple of 48 Hours shows (I think, it’s a CBS produced show) that was originally shown years ago, the correspondent met with the little girl when she was dumped back in the orphanage in Russia.  It was a sad scene. Then there’s a follow up episode that’s shown on ID every so often.  IMO the parents in the that situation should have adopted 2 children closer in age - it might have resulted in a different outcome for everyone.  

Yes yes!! I could not remember the show I saw but I knew it was either 48 Hours or Dateline. Thank you!

[TipseyGirl]

On 6/2/2023 at 2:38 PM, mojito said:

I cannot stop thinking about how Michael deserves to be in the slammer and treated like the bitch that he is. 

🔥🔥🔥👏

[SoMuchTV]

10 hours ago, sagittarius sue said:

The mother was born in 1979 so not exactly likely that she gave birth to Natalia in 1989 as the phony birth certificate said.

Nice kitty avatar.

Ah, good point.  But 1989 was just a year the judge came up with, right?  Suppose the mom had her in her teens.  Natalia being a few years older than her b/c age (not necessarily 14 though) might explain a lot of the age-related issues they were seeing.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SoMuchTV said:

might explain a lot of the age-related issues they were seeing.

We don't know if these "age-related issues" are actually true. The only people who claim them are Michael and Kristine who had every reason to lie. There are no medical records to back up anything they've said. Natalia herself said she's never even had a menstrual cycle. 

[overtherainbow]

I finally finished the documentary and have a few thoughts.

• Natalia's "behavioral issues": I think it was obvious Natalia dealt with a lot of abuse as a child and perhaps had an attachment disorder. The inappropriate sexual comments and seeking attention in any man or boy she happened to be around reeked of someone who was sexually abused at a young age. She didn't just pick that up from nowhere. As for her terrorizing the Barnetts, we'll never know the extent to which they were lying. The only clips they showed were of her getting disciplined by Kristine (by the way, is it Christine or Kristine? I keep seeing it written both ways. I like Kristine better though.) The inappropriate behaviors in the apartments (sneaking into her neighbors places and eating their food), shows a little girl who didn't know how to care for herself and was deeply lonely. Putting her in an apartment by herself was a travesty. Even if they truly believed she was 22, that never should have been their first course of action with her disability and various other issues. I believe whatever issues she had were likely worsened by her time with Kristine and Michael, who seemed to be constantly interrogating her and did nothing to accommodate her.
• Michael: Boy was he a piece of work. The guy is so ridiculously performative. It was tough to sit through all the fake crying and theatrics. It was also disturbing to see the way he interrogated Natalia, the daughter he agreed to adopt and basically threw away to an apartment. I'm not sure I believe what he was saying about how Kristine beat Natalia. Something about that just seems too convenient to me. 
• The electric fence: The electric fence stuff was ridiculous. I really wanted to hear Kristine in her own words justify a 3 foot tall, disabled child physically overpowering her and attempting to drag her into an electric fence (which we later learn wasn't even on). Everything points to Kristine being a drama queen and using the situation as justification for Natalia being "crazy" and a danger to the family and therefore justified in sending her away, when the evidence simply isn't there.
• Puberty: This confused me. Were the Barnetts lying the whole time about the periods, since Natalia and her new family claimed in the Dr. Phil interview in 2019 that she'd never had a period? Or did her condition give her precocious puberty from a really early age and she had "light" periods then but didn't consider them full-on periods? The period issue aside, Natalia did seem to have more adult teeth during the time she was with the Barnetts, which makes me think she was a little older than the age they were told she was.
• The birth certificate: So from the pictures of her missing teeth and the short clips of her, I never thought Natalia was 22 and born in 1989, but I don't fully believe she was born in September 2003 either. It's not uncommon for foreign orphanages to doctor birth certificates to make children younger than they really are, as they know younger kids "sell" better. I think Natalia was between 9-12 when she was adopted and living with the Barnetts, which would explain her teeth and periods (if she had them). Anna Gava (her biomom) however is still adamant she gave birth to her in 2003, but she could have also given birth to her in the late 90s and been paid off. 
• English speaking abilities: This was the most bizarre part of the case to me. Natalia being a few years older and having spent more time in the US prior to the Barnetts adopting her would also explain why she spoke so well. I know kids pick up languages fast, but if Natalia spent the first few years of her life in the Ukraine, surely she'd have an accent still, right? Natalia seemed very Americanized and had virtually no connection the the Ukraine. Which made me think she'd been in the US for much longer than a year. Or she's just exceptional at picking up American English and getting rid of her accent. 
• First family: There was very little about the first family that were mentioned in the Dr. Phil episode where they supposedly got rid of Natalia after an incident where she was accused of breaking the son's arm. I want to know what happened there.
• Natalia's new adoptive family: The family that "adopted" her and tried to get guardianship over her also sends my alarm bells ringing. I'm really surprised they didn't challenge her age status in court if they really believed she was underage (she's not now but still, I mean at the time) and go straight to social services and the police about a disabled child living by herself in appalling conditions. She seems happy and loved by them, but I also wonder if they're using her for the government benefits and fame.

Apparently there's a part 2 that's just Natalia's story coming out later this summer. That should be interesting to watch. 

[Gemma Violet]

50 minutes ago, overtherainbow said:

Natalia's new adoptive family: The family that "adopted" her and tried to get guardianship over her also sends my alarm bells ringing.

Me, too.  There's something fishy there.  They're either a very compassionate couple who love children or they're a couple of scam artists who love cashing the government checks of unwanted kids.

[Cobb Salad]

@overtherainbow to your points -

Yes putting Natalia in an apartment alone was beyond cruel.  Thinking back on this part of the series I really wonder about the judgement of the producers spending an hour long segment interviewing people who mostly said “yeah, she was weird and I was glad when she left”.

Michael - if he is such a victim he should have been an advocate for Natalia when this was happening.  He is guilty, guilty, guilty and lucky he’s not serving time in jail where child abusers aren’t looked at kindly.  

That birth certificate and puberty - I’m sort of on the side of the possibility she was aged down a few years or so - the legal expert they kept going back to through the show even talked about this.  That could have explained the public hair.  

Natalia’s English - she learned it early enough for her not to have an accent, IMO, even if her first language is Ukrainian.  I suspect she was in the US longer than was reported.  The son’s point of her not knowing the Cyrillic alphabet is a nonstarter - was anyone in the orphanage even teaching her anything? Again this could go back to being brought to the US earlier than they were told.  

Yeah, I kind of side eyed that family who so willingly took her in like a stray.  On a rewatch I caught the statement that they sub letted that 2nd apartment while the rent had been paid in advance (well, that’s what Michael said for what it’s worth) as well as signing over the SS payments so my immediate thoughts are “she’s got money!, jackpot!” but then if they’re going to take her in, their thinking could be another mouth costs money, she has physical challenges, we can’t foot all of her expenses.  I hope to see more about them in the upcoming documentary about Natalia.  

[Whimsy]

2 hours ago, Cobb Salad said:

Yes putting Natalia in an apartment alone was beyond cruel.  Thinking back on this part of the series I really wonder about the judgement of the producers spending an hour long segment interviewing people who mostly said “yeah, she was weird and I was glad when she

I think they did that because for the first half of the entire docuseries they were trying to be “tricky” with the information so we all would believe she WAS an adult at first. I know that for the first 3 hours I was being persuaded into thinking there was something fishy with NATALIA based on the way the information was being portrayed to us. I’m actually pretty mad they did it this way because there are still people over on Reddit (and I’m sure other places) who are still saying she was an adult.  I just felt that was a disservice to Natalia. 

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Whimsy said:

I know that for the first 3 hours I was being persuaded into thinking there was something fishy with NATALIA based on the way the information was being portrayed to us. I’m actually pretty mad they did it this way because there are still people over on Reddit (and I’m sure other places) who are still saying she was an adult.  I just felt that was a disservice to Natalia. 

Thank you, EXACTLY. I should have never trusted this story to be told in any credible, ethical way once I found out it was produced by the scumbags who run the ID Channel. They presented this from the POV of the Barnetts and worked backwards trying to eek in the actual FACTS of the case so they could ramp up the drama and the needless "both sides" perspective. There are still people on the internet who are arguing that Natalia's hospital birth certificate was forged thanks to how this shit show was put together. 

And what of poor Natalia? Where does she come in? What voice did she get in this? Well, we'll have to wait to tune in "later this summer!" according to the ID Channel promos. Meanwhile, this young girl's life that was already ruined by the Ciccones and the Barnetts will have to continue to be in ruins some more before ID lets her get her say in. 

[Hedgehog2022]

4 hours ago, overtherainbow said:

I finally finished the documentary and have a few thoughts.

• Natalia's "behavioral issues": I think it was obvious Natalia dealt with a lot of abuse as a child and perhaps had an attachment disorder. The inappropriate sexual comments and seeking attention in any man or boy she happened to be around reeked of someone who was sexually abused at a young age. She didn't just pick that up from nowhere. As for her terrorizing the Barnetts, we'll never know the extent to which they were lying. The only clips they showed were of her getting disciplined by Kristine (by the way, is it Christine or Kristine? I keep seeing it written both ways. I like Kristine better though.) The inappropriate behaviors in the apartments (sneaking into her neighbors places and eating their food), shows a little girl who didn't know how to care for herself and was deeply lonely. Putting her in an apartment by herself was a travesty. Even if they truly believed she was 22, that never should have been their first course of action with her disability and various other issues. I believe whatever issues she had were likely worsened by her time with Kristine and Michael, who seemed to be constantly interrogating her and did nothing to accommodate her.
• Michael: Boy was he a piece of work. The guy is so ridiculously performative. It was tough to sit through all the fake crying and theatrics. It was also disturbing to see the way he interrogated Natalia, the daughter he agreed to adopt and basically threw away to an apartment. I'm not sure I believe what he was saying about how Kristine beat Natalia. Something about that just seems too convenient to me. 
• The electric fence: The electric fence stuff was ridiculous. I really wanted to hear Kristine in her own words justify a 3 foot tall, disabled child physically overpowering her and attempting to drag her into an electric fence (which we later learn wasn't even on). Everything points to Kristine being a drama queen and using the situation as justification for Natalia being "crazy" and a danger to the family and therefore justified in sending her away, when the evidence simply isn't there.
• Puberty: This confused me. Were the Barnetts lying the whole time about the periods, since Natalia and her new family claimed in the Dr. Phil interview in 2019 that she'd never had a period? Or did her condition give her precocious puberty from a really early age and she had "light" periods then but didn't consider them full-on periods? The period issue aside, Natalia did seem to have more adult teeth during the time she was with the Barnetts, which makes me think she was a little older than the age they were told she was.
• The birth certificate: So from the pictures of her missing teeth and the short clips of her, I never thought Natalia was 22 and born in 1989, but I don't fully believe she was born in September 2003 either. It's not uncommon for foreign orphanages to doctor birth certificates to make children younger than they really are, as they know younger kids "sell" better. I think Natalia was between 9-12 when she was adopted and living with the Barnetts, which would explain her teeth and periods (if she had them). Anna Gava (her biomom) however is still adamant she gave birth to her in 2003, but she could have also given birth to her in the late 90s and been paid off. 
• English speaking abilities: This was the most bizarre part of the case to me. Natalia being a few years older and having spent more time in the US prior to the Barnetts adopting her would also explain why she spoke so well. I know kids pick up languages fast, but if Natalia spent the first few years of her life in the Ukraine, surely she'd have an accent still, right? Natalia seemed very Americanized and had virtually no connection the the Ukraine. Which made me think she'd been in the US for much longer than a year. Or she's just exceptional at picking up American English and getting rid of her accent. 
• First family: There was very little about the first family that were mentioned in the Dr. Phil episode where they supposedly got rid of Natalia after an incident where she was accused of breaking the son's arm. I want to know what happened there.
• Natalia's new adoptive family: The family that "adopted" her and tried to get guardianship over her also sends my alarm bells ringing. I'm really surprised they didn't challenge her age status in court if they really believed she was underage (she's not now but still, I mean at the time) and go straight to social services and the police about a disabled child living by herself in appalling conditions. She seems happy and loved by them, but I also wonder if they're using her for the government benefits and fame.

Apparently there's a part 2 that's just Natalia's story coming out later this summer. That should be interesting to watch. 

Excellent post...so many questions about this story. I would like to know what happened after Natalia called the police on herself. If so, there should have been a report and a follow up on her.

I also want to comment on the son, Jacob. I have a family member that has Asperger's and I can say, as someone who has experience with it, Jacob needs help. As I view it, the Barnetts used this kid up for their own selfish needs and brief celebrity. I get that he is some sort math genuis and they nurtured that side but he lacks any kind of socialization with his peer group. He spent his younger years and teenage years with older teens and adults...that is not a good thing for kids with Aspergers. I feel when Jacob didn't serve Kristine's purposes anymore she just dumped him out like she did Natalia. Living in a dreary basement with little social interaction is not healthy for him. He certainly has depression. But what does Michael do for this kid? Nothing. He was used by these parents. Kristine ordering him to urinate on Natalia's bed was sickening. Jacob needs therapy and an Aspergers knowledgable therapist to help him with his social cues and for his depression.

[Gigi G3]

4 hours ago, Cobb Salad said:

4 hours ago, Cobb Salad said:

Thinking back on this part of the series I really wonder about the judgement of the producers spending an hour long segment interviewing people who mostly said “yeah, she was weird and I was glad when she left”.

 

I watched this a couple of days ago and this is the part i keep thinking about for some reason. The neighbors' reactions seemed so odd! Editing? Also the Barnetts' neighbor in the big-checked dress also seemed like kind of a creep.

Also, was there was a mention that she was attending adult school or something when she was living on her own? How did she do this? Online? Did she go to a school? How did she get food like the donuts? Delivery? Did she have any spending money? Did she even have a stool to stand on to open a cupboard? Then there was the visual of her dragging the big trash can. Crazy.

[Annber03]

10 minutes ago, Gigi G3 said:

Also the Barnetts' neighbor in the big-checked dress also seemed like kind of a creep.

She was the one with the American flag outside her house, right? And she was talking about how she liked to observe everything going on in the neighborhood. I joked to my mom that her nickname should've been Gladys Kravitz. 

[Gigi G3]

Yes, that was her.

[Hedgehog2022]

20 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

She was the one with the American flag outside her house, right? And she was talking about how she liked to observe everything going on in the neighborhood. I joked to my mom that her nickname should've been Gladys Kravitz. 

There were alot of weird people in this saga...the little person who was bragging about his sexual prowess and the size of his genitals!!! OMG! And the hoarder mess of a house and yard he lived in???!!! Yikes! The two people that "adopted" Natalia...they look like people that are using her and probably skimming her benefits and any other financial help she gets. What the hell is going on in Indiana?

[Cobb Salad]

49 minutes ago, Gigi G3 said:

IAlso, was there was a mention that she was attending adult school or something when she was living on her own? How did she do this? Online? Did she go to a school? How did she get food like the donuts? Delivery? Did she have any spending money? Did she even have a stool to stand on to open a cupboard? Then there was the visual of her dragging the big trash can. Crazy.

They showed a building where this GED place was so I assumed she was going there in person.  (At the 2nd place, not sure about the 1st one) They were the ones who called Michael when Natalia went missing for a few days.  About that school, I was wondering what kind if education she had beforehand that would help her with keeping up at the GED place.  Wouldn’t they have had any idea of her education level?  

At the first place it was mentioned she was not getting help with getting food on a regular basis until someone intervened to get the social worker (or whoever) back in the picture then the Barnetts started to get her groceries more often.  She had SS money, she had a food stamps card in her possession at least when she was in the 2nd place.  Neither apartment was handicapped friendly and I really wonder how long the Barnetts thought this was going to last, especially after Natalia was moved to the “white trash” part of Layfayette - it seemed like the intent was to totally isolate her until she just disappeared or met some unfortunate fate.  Oh wait a minute Michael said there were all these nice conveniences nearby so it was an okay area.  Right.  

[Kiki777]

I saw the Dr. Phil episode which featured the couple who adopted Natalia and they seemed like well-meaning people to me.  The money they got from having her SS benefits signed over would have been necessary to take care of her expenses (and probably were not even enough, considering the medical expenses she probably had).  I think Michael Barnett just had major sour grapes about losing that source of income because it was less $ to spend on his ugly sports cars.

[Cobb Salad]

The Dr. Phil interview is on YouTube:

 

 

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, Hedgehog2022 said:

There were alot of weird people in this saga...the little person who was bragging about his sexual prowess and the size of his genitals!!! OMG! And the hoarder mess of a house and yard he lived in???!!! Yikes! The two people that "adopted" Natalia...they look like people that are using her and probably skimming her benefits and any other financial help she gets. What the hell is going on in Indiana?

Right? I said that to my mom as well, how strange it was that this whole saga was playing out in Indiana, of all places. Not the first state I'd think of for a story like this to unfold. 

But yeah, this is one of those cases where, if someone were to write a completely fictional story with this kind of premise and these kinds of people, everyone would be like, "Okay, this is over the top, these people and this premise are way too unrealistic."

1 hour ago, Kiki777 said:

I think Michael Barnett just had major sour grapes about losing that source of income because it was less $ to spend on his ugly sports cars.

I got a kick out of how the documentary kept showing him driving to his pre-trial meetings in yet another sports car. Like I said before, we get it, Michael, you love your sports cars. 

[overtherainbow]

3 hours ago, Gigi G3 said:

I watched this a couple of days ago and this is the part i keep thinking about for some reason. The neighbors' reactions seemed so odd! Editing? Also the Barnetts' neighbor in the big-checked dress also seemed like kind of a creep.

Also, was there was a mention that she was attending adult school or something when she was living on her own? How did she do this? Online? Did she go to a school? How did she get food like the donuts? Delivery? Did she have any spending money? Did she even have a stool to stand on to open a cupboard? Then there was the visual of her dragging the big trash can. Crazy.

She was on food stamps but it was implied some of her neighbors brought her over food as well (outside of what the Barnetts brought her). There was a clip showing her bridge/pantry packed with food, but I too wondered how well she could get around and reach for stuff. 

I'm honestly surprised the neighbors took her saying she was in her 20s at face value. Looking back at what she looked like then and what she looks like now, she's clearly developed a lot. She was very childlike in that clip where she was racing the little boy on the bike. 

If I were her neighbor I would definitely have called social services to investigate, no matter how old she claimed to be. Especially if she was entering people's houses unannounced (which by the way, did none of them ever lock their doors?)

4 hours ago, Hedgehog2022 said:

Excellent post...so many questions about this story. I would like to know what happened after Natalia called the police on herself. If so, there should have been a report and a follow up on her.

I also want to comment on the son, Jacob. I have a family member that has Asperger's and I can say, as someone who has experience with it, Jacob needs help. As I view it, the Barnetts used this kid up for their own selfish needs and brief celebrity. I get that he is some sort math genuis and they nurtured that side but he lacks any kind of socialization with his peer group. He spent his younger years and teenage years with older teens and adults...that is not a good thing for kids with Aspergers. I feel when Jacob didn't serve Kristine's purposes anymore she just dumped him out like she did Natalia. Living in a dreary basement with little social interaction is not healthy for him. He certainly has depression. But what does Michael do for this kid? Nothing. He was used by these parents. Kristine ordering him to urinate on Natalia's bed was sickening. Jacob needs therapy and an Aspergers knowledgable therapist to help him with his social cues and for his depression.

I felt sorry for him too. You could tell he was conflicted and didn't want to say anything that negatively implicated his parents but what happened really messed him up. He probably has PTSD from being forced to urinate on Natalia's bed.  I hope he's seeing a therapist to talk some of it out.

I also agree he fueled their narcissism. I think he's pretty self sufficient, he's at the University of Waterloo in Canada working on his PhD still.. I also don't think he lives with Michael in that basement full time, he was just there for the filming. 

[Gemma Violet]

43 minutes ago, overtherainbow said:

I think he's pretty self sufficient, he's at the University of Waterloo in Canada working on his PhD still.

I had no idea.  I'm so glad to hear this.  I just assumed he was so depressed, he had dropped out, or if he had finished school, he wasn't able to work.  I hope he's able to make it through all that trauma and be happy and successful.  

[Hedgehog2022]

18 hours ago, overtherainbow said:

She was on food stamps but it was implied some of her neighbors brought her over food as well (outside of what the Barnetts brought her). There was a clip showing her bridge/pantry packed with food, but I too wondered how well she could get around and reach for stuff. 

I'm honestly surprised the neighbors took her saying she was in her 20s at face value. Looking back at what she looked like then and what she looks like now, she's clearly developed a lot. She was very childlike in that clip where she was racing the little boy on the bike. 

If I were her neighbor I would definitely have called social services to investigate, no matter how old she claimed to be. Especially if she was entering people's houses unannounced (which by the way, did none of them ever lock their doors?)

I felt sorry for him too. You could tell he was conflicted and didn't want to say anything that negatively implicated his parents but what happened really messed him up. He probably has PTSD from being forced to urinate on Natalia's bed.  I hope he's seeing a therapist to talk some of it out.

I also agree he fueled their narcissism. I think he's pretty self sufficient, he's at the University of Waterloo in Canada working on his PhD still.. I also don't think he lives with Michael in that basement full time, he was just there for the filming. 

People with Aspergers need regular weekly/or twice a  month therapy with a therapist who is trained in treating people with Aspergers. Yes, they are on the Spectrum and are considered high functioning, like Jacob who is gifted and has academic accomplishments, but their social skills are limited and they lack social cues and don't understand or misinterpret social interactions or conversations. This can leave them frustrated and lonely. It's very hard for them to make and keep friends...sometimes they get taken advantage of. It's very isolating if an Aspie doesn't have the kind of support he/she needs. Hopefully he's getting this kind of professional support...but I wouldn't look to his father to help provide that. He's too busy buying new sports cars.

[Almost 3000]

On 5/30/2023 at 1:24 PM, Andyourlittledog2 said:

Just from the commercials the dad was super sketchy.  Any grown man who throws himself down and pounds his fists on the carpet while screaming in frustration like a two year old loses points big time with me.

Yeah, he never got a clue. His lawyers had to coach him how to behave and he completely forgot their directions for the special.