Good American family; Disney about Natalia Grace

[EasterParadeHats]

Has anyone watched this? On really confused about something things

It’s hard to know exactly how it happened but I’m guessing the doctor was largely following Kris’s lead. The church lady is played by Christina Hendricks.

Interestingly the actress playing Natalia is 27 years old

I think it was quite well done as initially you see it through Kris’s eyes and Natalia is lashing out and there do seem to be signs she’s (at least) in puberty plus no signs of abuse. So it’s easy to sympathise their position. But then when they dump her in the apartment and it’s from Natalia’s point and she can’t look after herself , she’s frightened. Kris is abusive to her. You feel so sad and outraged for this little girl who has been failed by everyone and is so vulnerable.

The fact a judge changed her birth date to reflect she is 22 is awful, what evidence was there and was It backed up and investigated properly. It would seem she just was dumped from family to family by the shady adoption agency .

I couldn't get beyond the first episode it was just too uncomfortable for me.

Oh I thought it ended abruptly but I thought that was because the story was portraying the ambiguous nature of the story!

What should they have done, if the suggestions that the truer to kill members of the family are true?

I'm guessing because of her condition it was difficult even for the medical professionals to determine her age. We may never know. She may not even know.

On Wikipedia it' said a gene test said she was younger

Got her psychiatrist based help? If she was, as they claimed, an adult, they could have pressed criminal charges. They only didn’t go down that route because they wanted to bury the secret. (And they probably didn’t have a lot of evidence, either) They could have been far less cruel than just dumping her on her own with no clue how to look after herself in an unsuitable apartment. Whatever way you spin it, it is pretty shady on their part to say the least.

How they weren’t imprisoned for neglect I’ll never know. Again I hope it would be very different in the uk.

They probably went for someone older that could pass as/act much younger because it’s a pain in the arse hiring minors to play lead roles. They can only spend so much time on set, I think max seven hours, not every day, and some of that has to be for schooling, and everything takes such a long time as a result.

If her official age (at the time) was 22 then getting her a flat to live in wouldn’t be neglect, I don’t think.

from wiki:

The prosecutors were barred from presenting the evidence that Natalia was a minor child born in 2003 when she was left to live alone in an apartment, and the neglect case was tried based on Natalia's disability, not her age.

I think an unadapted apartment for a disabled person, not ensuring she ate and kept up personal hygiene, and leaving her with no support or medical supplies, or anyone to call in an emergency would definitely constitute neglect. She could barely walk. Not sure how there’s any other way to see it. That’s just neglect of a vulnerable adult, rather than a child.

Yeah - I assume that is what they were charged with - but they may have been acquitted because they had no formal responsibility for her (ie as she wasn't - at that point- adopted by them as a child, they did not have any parental responsibility). But I am speculating without knowledge of how US law works.

they were still her legal guardians/responsible for her financially. That’s the only way I believe they could legally emancipate themselves from her.

Michael and Kristine Barnett are charged with neglect of a dependent, neglect of a dependent causing bodily injury, neglect of a dependent causing serious bodily injury and conspiracy to commit neglect of a dependent. The neglect allegations are based on Natalia's disabilities caused by her dwarfism.

From a news article. But the Guardian reports that the husband was acquitted in Oct 2022 and the charges against the wife were dismissed in March 23 , it doesn't say on what basis.

Watching the documentary is really quite sinister. Both the Barnetts seemed devastated when they apparently saw she had public hair, and then Kristine freaked out when she claimed to have found the period socks. It makes you wonder what purpose this ‘little girl’ was meant to fulfil for them, that she’d now not be any good for.

what are you implying?

That I have a suspicion that she wasn’t adopted purely out of the kindness of their heart. Have you seen the documentary? MB gives me the creeps, really made me very uncomfortable.

That’s not to say that NG wasn’t/isn’t a disturbed individual, but Christ knows what she went through as a young child. Trafficking and abuse is very likely, and that’s before you get to all her medical issues and the fact that she’s had not one consistent person in her life. She may even be a sociopath but that doesn’t mean she’s not also a victim.

I haven't seen the documentary, no. It appears to be an extra subscription on Prime which I was reluctant to sign up to but I may have to do I can watch it!

I can understand how it would be shocking if a child you thought was seven had pubic hair and a period even if you don't have any kind of ulterior motives.

Agree. And the boys of the family were teenagers at the time, I think? So adopting a younger child may have been partly related to the family dynamics of a younger sister vs a same age sister.

MB is off his rocker. He makes me VERY uncomfortable. The amateur dramatics in that doc are something else.

I watched the first few, and to be honest I dislike basically everyone in it. The dad gives me the creeps, the mum has got a major saviour complex and Natalia definitely seems like a manipulative adult to me. I’m interested to see if that changes when I get to ep 5.