State v. Barnett

• Decision Date: 25 August 2021
• Docket Number: 20A-CR-1967
• Parties: State of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Kristine E. Barnett and Michael P. Barnett, Appellees-Defendants.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

State of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Kristine E. Barnett and Michael P. Barnett, Appellees-Defendants.

No. 20A-CR-1967

Court of Appeals of Indiana

August 25, 2021

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court The Honorable Steven P Meyer, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 79D02-1912-F3-41 79D02-1912-F3-42

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Theodore E. Rokita

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela Sanchez

Assistant Chief Counsel of Appeals

Tyler Banks

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Samuel J. Dayton

Courtney L. Staton

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

Victoria B. Casanova

Casanova Legal Services, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Kristine E. Barnett

Deidra N. Haynes

Law Office of Deidra N. Haynes

Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Kristine E. Barnett

Terrance L. Kinnard

Kinnard & Scott

Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Michael P. Barnett

Friedlander, Senior Judge.

[¶1] This matter stems from the 2010 adoption of Natalia Barnett by Kristine Barnett and Michael Barnett (collectively, "the Barnetts")^[1] and a subsequent change in Natalia's birthdate from 2003 to 1989. In 2019, the State of Indiana charged the Barnetts, in separate cases, with multiple counts of neglect of a dependent, and the Barnetts filed separate motions to dismiss all charges alleging grounds that included res judicata, collateral estoppel, and statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motions in part, dismissing some but not all of the charged counts. The State filed motions seeking to have the trial court certify its orders, and the trial court granted the motions. The State then sought permission to file interlocutory appeals, and this Court granted its request and consolidated the appeals.

[¶2] On appeal, the State presents two issues for review, which we restate as:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by finding that the State was precluded from presenting evidence to the jury of Natalia's age to prove that she was a dependent of the Barnetts during the charged period?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by dismissing three of the counts charged against the Barnetts as being outside the statute of limitations period?

[¶3] We affirm.

[¶4] In 2008, a New Hampshire couple adopted Natalia from a Ukrainian orphanage. According to the Ukrainian order authorizing the adoption, Natalia was born in 2003. She entered the United States in 2008.

[¶5] Natalia was born with a form of dwarfism called diastrophic dysplasia which results in musculoskeletal issues. As she grew older Natalia would require several corrective surgeries to improve her quality of life.

[¶6] Based on events not relevant to the instant matter, the New Hampshire couple placed Natalia for re-adoption; and, in 2010, the Barnetts agreed to adopt Natalia from the couple. At the time of the adoption, the Barnetts lived in Hamilton County, Indiana, and they petitioned to adopt Natalia in the Hamilton County Superior Court. Their petition was granted, and the adoption decree was issued on November 3, 2010. The decree listed Natalia's birthyear as 2003.

[¶7] Soon after the adoption, the Barnetts began to believe that Natalia was older than her date of birth suggested. Also, Natalia began to demonstrate threatening behaviors. Between 2010 and 2012, Natalia was medically and psychologically evaluated at several facilities located in Marion County, Indiana.

[¶8] In March 2012, the Hamilton County Department of Child Services ("HCDCS") received a report regarding the Barnetts and Natalia and began investigating the situation. While the investigation was pending, the Barnetts informed the HCDCS staff that they were seeking to change Natalia's birthyear.

[¶9] In June 2012, the Barnetts filed a petition in the Marion County Superior Court, Probate Division ("Marion County Probate Court" or "probate court"), to have Natalia's birthyear changed from 2003 to 1989, based on age estimates provided by a primary care physician and a social worker. Eleven days after the Barnetts filed their petition, the probate court issued its order changing Natalia's birthyear to 1989 ("age-change order"). Prior to granting the change order, the court did not appoint a guardian ad litem to represent Natalia or hold an evidentiary hearing, and the Barnetts did not appear in court. The petition was served on Natalia who was hospitalized in Marion County at the time. Thereafter, the HCDCS case was closed as unsubstantiated.

[¶10] After Natalia's birthdate was changed, the Barnetts moved her into her own apartment in Hamilton County and assisted Natalia in obtaining federal disability benefits and supportive services to help her transition to life as an adult. In August 2012, however, HCDCS received a report alleging that Natalia was a child victim of abuse or neglect, and the agency again opened an investigation. In May 2013, HCDCS filed in the Hamilton Superior Court a request for authority to file a Child In Need of Services ("CHINS") petition, based on its belief that Natalia was a child who had been abandoned and was in need of services. The court issued an order dismissing the petition, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the CHINS matter because Natalia had been judicially determined to be an adult by the Marion County Probate Court.

[¶11] Due to events not relevant to the case before us, Natalia's lease at her Hamilton County apartment could not be renewed. So, in July 2013, the Barnetts moved Natalia to an apartment in Tippecanoe County that was located on the public bus line and near various facilities that could provide Natalia with services and resources she might need. Soon thereafter, the Barnetts moved to Canada with their biological children. The Barnetts paid the first year's rent for Natalia's apartment but did not provide additional financial support; however, Natalia did receive $733 per month in federal disability benefits. Natalia never saw Kristine again and only saw Michael once at a court hearing held years later.

[¶12] Around the time that the Barnetts moved to Canada, Natalia met Antwon and Cynthia Mans (collectively, "the Manses"), a Tippecanoe County couple that befriended Natalia. Soon after meeting the Manses, Natalia moved in with them.

[¶13] In August and September 2013, Tippecanoe County Adult Protective Services conducted an investigation into whether Natalia was an endangered adult. Investigators interviewed Natalia and the Barnetts and became aware of (among other things) the 2012 order that changed Natalia's birthyear. The adult protective services case was closed without further action.

[¶14] In September 2014, the Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department received a complaint from staff at a local adult reading academy, questioning Natalia's age classification as an adult. An investigation ensued which continued into 2015, and included meetings with the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office. During the investigation, the Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department was advised of the 2012 age-change order. The detective who investigated the complaint sought help to obtain the records from the age-change case. The age-change case was filed as an adoption case type; thus, the court records were confidential. The detective (through testimony at a subsequent hearing) indicated that the Tippecanoe County Prosecutor's Office wanted to help stabilize Natalia's situation; at least two meetings regarding the matter were held in the prosecutor's office; and the prosecutor's office attempted to enlist local attorneys to assist in the matter pro bono.

[¶15] In April 2015, Marion County Deputy Prosecutor Cynthia Oetjen filed an appearance in the age-change case, indicating that she was appearing on behalf of Marion County Adult Protective Services ("MCAPS"). MCAPS was added to the chronological case summary ("CCS") under the heading "interested person." Appellant's App. Vol. 14, p. 120. Oetjen also filed on behalf of MCAPS a petition for appointment of a guardian ad litem for Natalia. On April 13, 2015, the probate court denied the petition. Oetjen, however, did not withdraw her appearance, and MCAPS remained listed as an interested person for the duration of the case.

[¶16] In March 2016, the Manses filed a petition in the Tippecanoe County Circuit Court seeking guardianship of Natalia. Michael filed an objection with the court, asserting that Natalia was an adult pursuant to the probate court's 2012 age-change order. The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to represent Natalia's interests. On April 26, 2016, the circuit court issued an order finding that the proceeding appeared to be a collateral attack on the age-change order. The court continued the guardianship proceeding and suggested that the Manses pursue a motion to vacate the probate court's age-change order before attempting to seek guardianship over Natalia.

[¶17] In August 2016, the Manses filed in the Marion County Probate Court a combined motion to vacate the age-change order and motion for relief from judgment. A hearing was held on March 7, 2017, at which the Manses and Michael were each represented by counsel who called witnesses and presented argument.^[2] Natalia was present and was represented by a GAL who testified at the hearing. The Manses argued that there was no statutory authority to change a child's age; the petition to change Natalia's age should have been filed in Hamilton County; and Natalia was not afforded due process because she received no notice of the matter that was initiated by the Barnetts in 2012, and, at that time, no hearing was held.

[¶18] During the March 7, 2017 hearing, the probate court recognized that its original 2012 order was issued without notice to all the...