Samantha Geldenhuys is Insensitive to Family Abduction Child Victims

Samantha Geldenhuys goes on National Television in Australia and says she is not a victim. This statement by Samantha is Savanna Todd, Samantha Geldenhuysan insult to all the missing children in the World and to the thousands of victims and families impacted by the Parental Kidnapping Crime.

On behalf of the Family Abduction Community, we praise the father for his patience and understanding in his 20 year quest for his child. As he patiently waits for his biological daughter to find the courage to start a relationship with him, we hope that in the near future she will understand the criminal acts committed by her mother. We hope that she has the intelligence to read about this family abduction crime and the horrible emotional abuse it inflicts on young children.

We really hoped that Samantha Geldenhuys would stand up for the rights of parentally kidnapped children. Instead, she selfishly turned her back on them by claiming she was a not a victim. It appears like she and her mother believe that if you don’t like the results of court order issued by a judge, then it’s your right to take the law into your own hands and violate that court order.

For Samantha and all others who don’t believe that parental kidnapping is a crime, here are some links from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington D.C. and the United States Department of Justice.

Family Abduction

Parental Kidnapping

Advertisements

27 Responses to Samantha Geldenhuys is Insensitive to Family Abduction Child Victims

  1. Mary says:

    This young lady may not see herself as a victim today. But, these are very, very early days where she is still in shock and denial. She is young, and at an age when young adults may see themselves as all-knowing, indomitable and ever so worldly wise. Also, counsel that she may be receiving may not be coming from experienced trained professionals. It may consist of nothing other than the opinions of her mother’s friends and relatives whose emotional involvement is such that they are incapable of giving wise or unbiased counsel.

    That sort of current affairs program is what it is – usually biased, emotive and trashy journalism, on a fee-for-service basis in the pursuit of ratings. I felt some of her responses were framed with the intent to hurl hurt, anger and punishment at her father for her mother’s exposure, and I found that disappointing and in poor taste.

    In the fullness of time, she may come to understand that she is as much a victim in this matter as is her father.

    • Neha says:

      What makes you think, Mary, you know better whether she is a victim or not?? You are the one who acts like “know it all”!!

    • Neha says:

      The girl did not “insult” anyone!! No sane father would take away a baby from her nursing mother!! I don’t care about any other details!! The woman was post-partum for god’s sake!! I hope that jerk burns in hell!! If the family court system wasn’t so fucked up maybe there weren’t these many parental kidnapping cases!

      • forthelost says:

        Even an abusive one? Even a mother who’d previously killed a child? Even a mother who abused drugs or alcohol? Really?

      • Mary says:

        Vitriol and impotent frustration aside Neha, the family court system bases its decisions on facts, evidence and in the best interests of the children of the marriage. As well, it also measures against a plethora of other criteria, one such criterion being especially in embittered and protracted custody battles: which parent, if awarded custody, would be more willing to share the children from the marriage with the other parent.

        Family court judges have difficult decisions to make. Parties in dispute may not always agree with family court decisions, but there is a legal requirement to abide by the court’s decision until it is successfully appealed. Court decisions are legally challenged on a daily basis. When one legal door closes, people look for other legal doors to open, or avenues that eventually lead to those legal doors. Kidnapping and hiding the children of the marriage because one party does not agree with the court’s decisions is a serious criminal offence in most countries around the globe.

        The US played an active role in the drafting of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and that legislation translated into US law in 1988. It is a serious criminal offence to internationally parental kidnap children from the US, as it is with all Hague signatory countries.

        Entering other countries on false statements and on passports that cannot be evidenced back to a person’s birth name is also a serious criminal offence in, I would say, all countries around the globe.

        I would also think that changing the name and citizenship of a minor without the appropriate permission is also a criminal offence.

        Gaining citizenship of other another country on false statements isn’t always palatable to that country, or to those whose citizenship applications were denied.

        Being able to country hop because of citizenship of another country gained from false statements is a criminal offence, and is unfair to all of those, whose desire it is to live in that country, are rejected for similar offences.

        Neha, perhaps you can help me out here. Did this woman receive any money from the Australian Government in the way of family payments, schoolkids bonus, teenage financial support or any other form of child support/child assistance to help this woman raise her children in Australia? I ask, Neha, because it is an offence (even jailable) in Australia to acquire taxpayer-funded assistance falsely.

        Would this woman have been granted entry into New Zealand or NZ citizenship, or entry into or permanent residence in Australia, had it be revealed on any piece of paperwork that she and her daughter travelled on false names and false passports, and she was wanted on parental child abduction in another country?

        Why should this woman be given any preferential treatment for her choice of not looking for legal pathways to challenge court decisions?

      • Celeste says:

        Maybe if non-custodial parents wouldn’t take the law into their own hands then there wouldn’t be so many cases.

        In Samantha’s case she’s still in shock over her mother’s arrest and maybe shocked over what her mother was arrested for.

        There were two warrants actually for her mother’s arrest in the South Carolina courts. 1 charges Alex with custodial interference and the other is from the FBI which charges her with Unlawful Flight To Avoid Prosecution.

        Alex clearly had no intention of sharingSamantha with her her father.

      • Celeste says:

        Are you really that stupid Neha?

        They took Savanna away from Dorothy because she had untreated Bipolar disorder and she was constantly putting her in danger.

        Dorothy drank while she was pregnant possibly harming Savanna in uttero. This isn’t a simple case of post partum. Dorothy was a danger to herself and her daughter. That’s why she only had supervised visits with her child. If the supervisor had been doing her job instead of being too trustful with Dorothy to bring Savanna back to her father none of that would have happened and Savanna would know her father.

    • Minyama says:

      Editor, maaate, once again you do not disappoint. You have an inexhaustible amount of bile. I take it you and Mary Mary are an item?
      Seriously, lets look at your fiction above. Take your response to Cliff’s offer. The reason we are all here chatting to each other is that daddy dear organised a crooked psychiatrist to punch out a science fiction evaluation that ultimately deprived a fine woman of her baby, to a man working 70 hours a week with an elderly mother and neither were capable of protecting the child from harm. What’s that, you didn’t know? does that mean you just rabbit on about things you know nothing about? tsk, tsk. There are no serious commentators any more.
      The thing about us Aussies is that we really dislike bludgers that abuse women. (yeah, we have a few pricks that buck the standard so settle down)
      Looking at the rest of your generalised allegations, they are all bluster and not 1 fact.
      One thing you are correct in mate, is that in this age, much evidence is available online, but in the Lee Barnett case, honest American mothers hid the evidence of this corrupt trial and process in cupboards and attics, so that one day, justice could be achieved. Go get a copy of the November issue of GQ magazine and the article written about your mate. He never wanted to find Samantha, only Alex. Every time he had an opportunity to reach Samantha whilst Alex was in the frame, he shied away. Even when anon rang him up and dobbed Alex in, he still stayed away for two years until the FBI arrested Alex, then rode in on the white steed thinking Samantha would welcome him with open arms??!! What an arrogant dickhead. Ed, get a hold of his lawyer and borrow the court transcript. Sit down with a cold beer and have a read. You might then offer some intelligent commentary, but right now you are an ignorant vindictive babbler.
      One more thing. For the benefit of all your other readers and as a general principle, why would a young, intelligent lady want to establish a relationship with a lying vindictive uncaring and dangerous old man. Any clues?
      Cheers mate.

      PS if you think I am a supercilious smart arse, you are more intelligent than what I gave you credit for.

      • well informed says:

        Bruce ,you continue to say things that are incorrect.

        The father was requested by the FBI not to make contact as it was a criminal investigation.
        Anon did not telephone the father.
        The father definitely did not “ride in on his white horse” but discreetly came to Australia in the hope that she may want to see him as this evolved.
        By the way Bruce did you find the proof of payment that you claim was made as you previously stated?

      • underwatch says:

        Bruce,

        It sounds to me like you were a protester in the ’60s in Australia, anti-government and might have been against your countries involvement in the War.

        Bruce Michell

        You attack the father in this case for working 70 hours a week (that’s what hard working Americans in the Finance Industry did and are expected to do) and you attack him for wanting it all — to be a loving and caring father to his only child. This father is a graduate of Yale, an Ivy League School and one of the most prestigious and top Universities in the World. His daughter Savanna is a Yale legacy and it’s really sad that she wasn’t afforded the opportunity to apply to that school.

        The woman you support is a college drop out, took a one year old child to seven (7) or more countries and had a history of running from job to job. Both her first and second marriage failed and she claims to had to have recently mortgaged her house. It sounds like even though she had a family with the economic means to help her stay in the United States and litigate her custody case, she would rather vindictively kidnap her child. As the research indicates, the motive in parental kidnapping cases is “anger and revenge” against their former spouse and not love for the child.

        Bruce, if you understood this parental kidnapping crime, there are plenty of cases where the adult-child has eventually figured out that they were a victim of this crime. In one of these well-publicized cases, the woman, a top student and one of the top universities in America did not realize until her twenties that she had been parentally kidnapped. I understand upon realizing this, she cut off her relationship with her mother and located her father.

        So Bruce, this is no longer the ’60s. Your conspiracy theory of the Family Law Court in Charleston, South Carolina, USA is ludicrious. If you were to walk into this Family Law Courtroom and appear in front of this Judge you would realize that he takes the rights of children and parents very seriously. You would be quaking in your boots about having to explain to a U.S. Federal Judge if you had read the following below before submitting a false Passport Application.

        Passport Application

        When Dorothy Lee Barnett goes to trial in the United States, are we going to see you in front of the courthouse with picket signs and bullhorn protesting her prosecution?

        So as you sit down and have a cold beer and whatever ’60s medication you may supplement it with, you should once again try and understand that Parental Kidnapping is a very serious Global Crime. When a Parental Kidnapper is caught, there is no defense in the World that would ever justify it.

        The Editor

      • Celeste says:

        Again I say BULLSHIT!

        This mother had untreated bipolar disorder and refused to be treated. She was constantly putting herself and her daughter in danger. She drank while she was pregnant and was physically violent towards Savanna’s father.
        If she’s such a “fine mother” as you so eloquently put it then why did she take the law into her own hands? Why not let the judicial fall where it may and do its job instead of breaking US Law and then getting a corrupt politian involved with something that’s just a one-sided story?

    • Minyama says:

      Mary Mary quite contrary, how does your life go? As I pointed out to your bedmate below, the experienced trained professionals got us here. Did you know that in the 90’s some lawyers would coach their male clients on how to make their wives look like they had a mental condition, hire one of your trained professionals and the woman, under pressure in court from aggressive lawyers, and the ‘trained professionals’ would act as if they were indeed deranged. A sympathetic judge would than award custody against them.
      In some areas, the Guardian ad Litem, although supposed to be helping the court, were in fact agents for hire to the highest bidder, to get the desired recommendation. $50,000 I think was the going rate. What, you didn’t know?? Could it be that a lot of the women who fled, were victims of this corruption and you have become the champion for the corrupters?
      As for your criticism of the program, I think your bias against women would prevent objectivity on your part so your comments are worthless in any event.

      • Mary says:

        Lunk, twonk and ninny as you please, Minyama. Your intentions may be white knight honourable, but clouded by emotional involvement and the shooting from the hip before putting the brain into gear.

  2. Cliff Barnett says:

    This is the last time I will let myself respond to this radical blog.
    We all know how it works, someone makes a comment that you do not agree with….Then, several things happen. For family members it is usually a scare tactic insinuating that the family members knew where the kidnapper was or helped them disappear. For others it is a radical name calling response as with Bruce. These tactics are to induce hits or intended to make the others lose their cool. In all responses it is suggested that everyone including the family dog needs to see a therapist and everyone should spend all the money on psych evaluations. Bruce needs a therapist because he disagrees with you? At other times certain comments are just “left out”. This is a chronic pattern that any reasonable person can easily see through.
    In this case you and Mary are the ones who have lost your cool with name calling, slander, and comments like WTF and how well someone scrubs up which make no sense to me. Calling an 84 yr. old mother who lost her daughter and grand daughter a liar ..Brilliant! Your anger is brought on just because someone disagrees with you .. Wow how professional. We all realize this is your job so I will not take it personally but I will offer you a little bet if you will.
    Myself and my 84 yr. old liar mother will come sit down with you and Mary and the FBI, and take as many lie detector test as you want. Here is the bet.. If my mother and I both pass the test you resign from your little blog here.. Not one person knew what Lee was doing and that is how she was successful for 20 years.. Get over yourself or take my bet.
    Oh yes, notice I did put my real name on here.. Guess I did that because I am guilty of helping my sister.

    • pat laverne says:

      Cliff,
      I have read plenty on the computer about your sister’s plight. I am in 100% in her favor. Being a mother I would have done the same to protect my children and so would any mother that cared about their baby. The daddy is a big fake, if he had cared about his child he would never have put his wife through that kind of hell. It is obvious you sister felt desperate or she would not have left the area she had grown up in, friends and family. She was a brave woman and greatly admired.
      Our good ole boys in the legal system are as crooked as the crook.

      • underwatch says:

        <Cliff,
        I have read plenty on the computer about your sister's plight. I am in 100% in her favor. Being a mother I would have done the same to protect my children and so would any mother that cared about their baby. The daddy is a big fake, if he had cared about his child he would never have put his wife through that kind of hell. It is obvious you sister felt desperate or she would not have left the area she had grown up in, friends and family. She was a brave woman and greatly admired.
        Our good ole boys in the legal system are as crooked as the crook.

        Pat,

        1. You are a mother and might have a son or maybe eventually a grandson. Are you not raising your son so that he will believe he that one day he is just as capable as a woman to parent or raise his child.

        2. As a mother, if your daughter-in-law wanted to write your son out of you and your child’s life, wouldn’t you do everything in your power to ensure your son and grandchild’s rights were protected.

        3. As a mother, do you think your son would someday have the skills to raise a 1 year old child by himself? Or is any mother, even one with some serious mental post-partum issues more capable than your son. Would you ever recommend to your son to pay child support and never see your child?

        4. So this time it’s you in Charleston in Family Law Court in the early ’90s. Okay, like every other courthouse in America, the judges and family law lawyers know each other. You just finished a 12-day trial as well as multiple custody evaluations. You were not interested in joint custody, only sole custody because this is your child. There is no one that is going to tell you how often your ex-husband will have custody of your child including a judge in Charleston. Your lawyer is incompetent and is part of the conspiracy against you. In fact even after this trial, he won’t report the attorney to or judge to the bar or legal association but you are certain your ex-husband paid them off. You had several outbursts in court, but that’s how you roll.

        5. So you are backed in a corner, you lost custody of your child. The court does not believe you will share custody if your child with your former husband. You contact Faye Yager in Atlanta. She wants money including the $10K Emerald Ring, all your furniture and money from your relatives. She’ll give you a lifetime of legal support but if you ever turn on her, you may never wake up the next morning. She says if you get caught, you will go to jail.

        Pat, are you really sure that if you were in the same position, you would do the same thing?

        The Editor

      • pat laverne says:

        Editor,
        I just read your note to me. I do have three grown sons, two of which are wonderful fathers. However, I don’t believe in taking a baby from their mother if she is a dedicated mother. I would have strongly discouraged one of my sons from ever doing that. I also have three grandsons and in their best interest I would have wanted them with their mother and hoped their fathers would be gentlemen enough to give her the support she needed. This woman was still nursing her baby when the judge awarded the father custody. The bond between a mother is like none other, that is not to take away from a father’s love but as mature adults we put ourselves aside and do what is best for the child. I still maintain this guy is a jerk and and I believe he was just being spiteful. As far as the law goes, I think the good ole boys teamed up on her. I haven’t read anything before about the mother refusing to give any visitation to the father. I did read that he worked 70 hrs a week. All that could have had a reasonable solution.
        My husband was a good husband and father, his work required him to be away from home often and I did have the pleasure of being a stay at home mom. I can for sure tell you that no body would have gotten hold of one of my babies. As my boys were approaching teenage years I could see they needed their dad more than me but not as babies.
        I read one time that an infant sees themselves through their mother’s eyes. Just watch how a little baby looks at their mom and that will tell you all you need to know.

      • underwatch says:

        Editor,

        I just read your note to me. I do have three grown sons, two of which are wonderful fathers.

        Pat, it sounds like one of your sons is not a wonderful father. That’s too bad but what does that have to do with Harris Todd, a Yale University Graduate and a man that worked for the same prestigious financial company for thirty plus years?

        However, I don’t believe in taking a baby from their mother if she is a dedicated mother.

        It sounds like you believe in “maternal custody”. I think many people in the ’50s and ’60s felt that way, even the courts. But the thinking today with the Family Law Courts moving to co-parenting and with “many parents” adopting children, I think our global society is moving away from that mindset.

        I would have strongly discouraged one of my sons from ever doing that. I also have three grandsons and in their best interest I would have wanted them with their mother and hoped their fathers would be gentlemen enough to give her the support she needed.

        Again, you are back in the ’60s. Today’s woman wants and deserves it all, to both work and be a mom. It’s not just the father’s job to pay support.

        This woman was still nursing her baby when the judge awarded the father custody. The bond between a mother is like none other, that is not to take away from a father’s love but as mature adults we put ourselves aside and do what is best for the child. I still maintain this guy is a jerk and and I believe he was just being spiteful. As far as the law goes, I think the good ole boys teamed up on her. I haven’t read anything before about the mother refusing to give any visitation to the father. I did read that he worked 70 hrs a week. All that could have had a reasonable solution.

        I have seen the phrase “good ole boys” by Dorthy Lee Barnett’s Supporters. But it sounds to me that the Yale Graduate and Stock Broker Harris Todd had a generous and loving family that surrounded Savanna with love. From reading about this case, I would surmise that Dorothy as a former flight attendant and college drop out just didn’t want to stick around Charleston. She had traveled the World including Africa and Costa Rica and she was going to get even with her former spouse and his family. At least that’s what that both the Judge and the Custody Evaluator determined. It also appears that Dorothy lost it during the custody evaluation and court hearing. That’s so sad that she didn’t have the family support and a good friend to convince her of the life changing consequences of that decision.

        My husband was a good husband and father, his work required him to be away from home often and I did have the pleasure of being a stay at home mom. I can for sure tell you that no body would have gotten hold of one of my babies. As my boys were approaching teenage years I could see they needed their dad more than me but not as babies.

        Harris Todd never got a chance to be a parent to his children. That is the real tragedy here.

        I read one time that an infant sees themselves through their mother’s eyes. Just watch how a little baby looks at their mom and that will tell you all you need to know.

        There is a tear jerking Academy Award Winning U.S. Movie, Kramer vs Kramer. Meryl Streep decides that she can’t take it being a mother anymore, and picks up and leaves abandoning her son and ex-husband. Eventually after Dustin Hoffman learns how to raise his son as a Single Father, she comes back and the Court awards her maternal custody. But in the end, she understands the relationship that her young son has with his dad and gives him back sole custody. That movie was in 1979, over a decade before this kidnapping. I think children look at their parents in the same way you describe above. If you were talk to the thousands of Searching Parents that are current victims of a Parenting Kidnapping Crime, they would tell you that the look that their children gives them or the interaction between parent and child is what brings tears to their eyes everyday. For 20 years, for this father, that’s the memories he has of his child. And you Pat are claiming that in all cases a mother has an exclusive right to this. Dorothy Lee Barnett’s behavior in the case was horrible. Our legal system needs to deter other from committing this
        horrible crime against children.

        The Editor

  3. underwatch says:

    Cliff,

    Here is a one time offer I will make to Samantha / Savanna and you. If Samantha agrees to start the reunification process with a licensed clinical therapist and her dad, the Editors of this website will remove all references to Samantha / Savanna in this blog. We will immediately cease all blog entries directed at Samantha / Savanna as well as your mother, Bruce and Judy Michell and you.

    Cliff Barnett
    I’ll give you until Monday Morning, February 3, 2014 12-noon to accept this offer.

    We’ve seen so many of these case over the past twenty years. In these cases, we followed the Extradition Hearing, Criminal Trial, Sentencing Trial and any Civil Trial.

    Unfortunately, there is so much exposure for some of the family members like you that may be both co-conspirators and victims in these cases. We’ve reported when some of these witnesses have taken the Fifth Amendment on the witness stand and subsequently lost their homes during the civil portion of the litigation. These cases also bring out a cast of expert witnesses wanting hundreds of dollars per hour in fees and defense attorneys wanting to turn a Criminal Defense Trial into a ’60s protest or a 2.0 version of the Jerry Springer Show. They also bring out some very shady individuals that sounds like the reason for the death threats we’ve received. You also have individuals like Faye Yager injecting satanic ritual abuse (whatever that is) and the defendant usually enlarging her story to include new allegations.

    In this Digital Age, there is so much evidence that can’t be shredded that will directly incriminate any third party conspirators. And from existing research, we know that in 75% of the cases, the family members knew the location of the parental kidnapper. We find it unlikely that Dorothy abandoned her own mother and didn’t receive any financial assistance from her as well as other family members like you.

    In seeing these cases over the years, there is really only one person that can de-escalate this situation. That’s Samantha Geldenhuys and a family member like you. There are certainly plenty of families impacted by parental kidnappings that have gone on to attend their children’s graduations and weddings as civil human beings. Unfortunately, it sounds like that gene is not in the Barnett Family DNA. Both you and I know that a jury will believe that Harris Todd is a good man, he had same job for many years. The Family Law Judge in Charleston got it right, Harris would have been the better custodial parent to ensure that both parents were involved in this child’s life. As your own mother stated in the interview, Harris lost his daughter. You also know your sister’s true character and the probable outcome in this case.

    Finally Cilff, I would recommend therapy for the Barnett Family Dogs.

    The Editor

  4. Judith says:

    I see that the friends and family of Dorothy/Alex have been posting here in a futile and impotent attempt to somehow shut down any negative criticism of Dorothy/Alex’s past behaviours and character.

    This isn’t anything particularly unusual. Often friends and family members of convicted rapists and murderers will also stand by their loved one, defending his/her character. They will either be in complete denial that he/she is guilty, or they try to blame the victim of somehow being the cause of the whole situation, and try to give a plausible justification to whatever bad behaviours were committed. One example was the mother of a man who was convicted of raping a 15 year old girl who stated that it was the girl’s fault that her son raped her, as she had dressed provocatively. It just couldn’t possibly be that her son was what he was.

    This is what friends and family members of criminals tend to do when someone close to them has been caught. It’s perfectly natural to deny and attempt to change public opinion that their loved one is anything but a crook.

    If any of Dorothy’s supporters are able to come onto a forum, giving testimonials to her alleged innocence and even claim to have evidence that supports her side of the story, then why did none of them do anything to help resolve it in the last 20 years, prior to her capture late last year?

    Or (with the exception of the brother, Cliff) did none of the current supporters know about her past until she was captured? If that was the case, how could one go from not knowing her past to suddenly having “knowledge” and “evidence” that she was wronged in South Carolina and forced to behave as she did for 20 years?

    I’ve seen this over and over and over. A small, dedicated group of friends and supporters will repeat and repeat how innocent the woman is. They then claim that behind the scenes, they have all of this overwhelming evidence, that when finally unleashed, will prove she was right all along and will make any who disagreed look like fools. But the evidence never appears.

    These sorts of cases are very emotional, and subjective to someone’s personal life experiences. So let’s try a different approach.

    This is a high profile case, with the story having been aired throughout the media. Almost every family legal professional in Australia and the US would have seen this story. Are there any academic or legal professionals out there, not connected with the mother or the father, who have written a journal piece, blog entry or article that supports and justifies Dorothy’s past actions in this matter?

    So far, all I see in support of Dorothy’s actions and behaviour are a couple of close friends and family. Which isn’t unusual. But despite the rather one-sided media campaign to get the public on side, no one else seems to have joined the cause.

  5. SONYA says:

    I STRONGLY BELIEVE CLIFF AND DOTTIE DID NOT KNOW WHERE LEE WAS. IF SOMEONE WOULD BOTHER READING THE TRAIL TRANSCRIPT IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOTTIE AND LEE WAS STRAINED TO THE BREAKING POINT BECAUSE DOTTIE WAS TRYING TO GET LEE HELP. LEE DID NOT WANT HELP. DOTTIE IS A LOVING MOTHER AND FANTASTIC PERSON. SHE NEEDS TO BE RESPECTED SHE HAS BEEN THROUGH SO MUCH. LEE IS ON TRAIL NOT HER FAMILY. THE TRUTH WILL BE EVIDENT SOON ENOUGH.

    • underwatch says:

      Hi Sonya,

      In parental kidnapping cases, Harris Todd went 20 years not knowing where his daughter was. Recently, we saw both Dottie and Cliff go on television for a reunion with Savanna. Could you imagine being Harris Todd, a graduate of Yale University and a successful stock broker having to see this? How insensitive of both Dottie and Cliff.

      During a parental kidnapping, there’s only a few cases I’ve known where the parental kidnapper’s family have leaked the location of the child to law enforcement. I recollect in that case, the family moved forward and eventually both parents attended the child’s high school graduation. Dottie and Cliff had 20 years to do the right thing, “in the best interests of the child”. If I were the father in this case, I would want to see justice for the 20 years he lost as a parent. And as we’ve seen in recent court cases, in this digital age it’ almost impossible to cover up the evidence.

      Finally, do you actually think Lee walked away from her mother. When she was low on funds and had to mortgage her house, don’t you think she would have called her brother?

      The Editor

      • Sonya says:

        Honestly it’s all so sad I don’t know what to think. I know Harris is hurting .i Didn’t think of the insensitivity part. I guess this will just run its course. I have tried to reach out and help but it falls on deaf ears. It’s in Gods hands now.

      • underwatch says:

        Hi Sonja,

        Thanks for your comments. It’s nice to see this type of conversation.

        I have heard the saying, “A tiger never loses its stripes”. It’s most likely that Lee does what she wants despite what anyone has to say. That’s the way Lee rolls. Let’s hope Samantha is not capable of any deviant behavior like her mother. Unfortunately, like many parentally kidnapped victims, her media interviews stating she is not a victim is red flag.

        The Editor

    • Drew says:

      Look Sonya. I would have assumed you were going down on the royal Mr Todd the Third. Then I remembered to start, he bats for the wrong team. He might be paying you, who knows. Point is that your vindictive attack towards Lee is just fueled by your childhood and lifelong jealousy of Lee.

      • Mary says:

        Young lady, I reckon if your parents knew what you were publicly posting to this site, they would not be impressed. You were not even a twinkle in your parents’ eyes during Ms Barnett’s childhood or at the time of the custody hearing, yet you are so worldly-wise and all-knowing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: