An associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University has been charged with felony parent abduction after taking her three children on what authorities contend was a one-way trip to the Hawaiian Islands.There are many things wrong with this story. Woman has 3 kids with 2 men. Dads have no custodial rights. Mom uses a full-time nanny. A 44-year-old mom has an infant child.
Annelise E. Barron, 44, of Palo Alto, has yet to enter a plea, but she told The Daily News the case was the product of a misunderstanding and a breakdown in communication with the two fathers.
"Why would a tenured professor at Stanford try to run away to Kauai forever?" Barron said in a telephone interview Tuesday evening. "I have a very good job. It doesn't make any sense."
Barron's full-time nanny, Sonia Audino, 34, of Sunnyvale, is also facing three counts of depriving a lawful custodian of right to custody or visitation as well as one count of child abduction.
I thought that the term was "child abduction", not "parent abduction".
In the movie Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin Williams plays a dad who has to disguise himself as a nanny just to see his own kids.
According to a declaration Jardetzky filed on Dec. 19 in hopes of obtaining sole custody of his children, Barron's hasty departure was fueled by fears that "apocalyptic changes in the world" would occur on Dec. 21.Now this is strange. She is apparently a respected professor with her own research lab of about 20 people at Stanford. Smart people do get sucked in by bizarre theories, sometimes, but I would not expect a Stanford professor to move to Hawaii because of the ancient Mayan calendar.
Authorities soon learned that Barron and Audino had taken the children to Kauai. Emails obtained by police also indicated Barron was arranging to have personal property and her car shipped to the island.
Barron and Audino were subsequently arrested on Christmas Eve and extradited to California slightly more than two weeks later. Bail was initially set at $500,000 but Barron's was dropped to $100,000 and Audino's to $55,000. Both women are out of custody.
Barron also said her inquiries about having personal property and her car shipped to Kauai were related to a sabbatical she was hoping to spend at the Hawaii Institute of Unified Physics. She said she is friends with its controversial director of research, Nassim Haramein.Haramein is not just controversial, he is a kook and a charlatan on the academic fringe. Here is a recent claim:
But Barron said she understood why her actions were concerning to authorities and the fathers of her children.
"Obviously, I made mistakes in terms of leaving my phone off and not communicating better with the children's fathers," Barron said. "I hope to clear up this misunderstanding and move on with my life and my research."
In the meantime, Barron's infant son is in Butler's custody and her other two children are staying with Jardetzky's older brother and sister-in-law. Barron, who has been ordered to wear a GPS-monitoring anklet, said the court has allowed her to have regular supervised visits.
Haramein's work indicates everything in the universe is connected, from the largest to the smallest scale, through a unified understanding of gravity. He demonstrates that it is the space that defines matter and not matter that defines space.This is all nonsense. No real physicist sends his paper to the Library of Congress.
"Remember that matter is made up of 99.9 percent space," Haramein said. "Quantum field theory states that the structure of spacetime itself, at the extremely small level, vibrates with tremendous intensity. If we were to extract even a small percentage of all the energy held within the vibrations present in the space inside your little finger, it would represent enough energy to supply the world's needs for hundreds of years. This new discovery has the potential to open up access and harness that energy like never before, which would revolutionize life as we know it today." ...
Less than a month after Haramein sent his paper to the Library of Congress, ...
Haramein's approach could potentially unlock new discoveries in the areas of energy, transportation and even space travel.
This will be an interesting case to watch. Either the authorities know more than they are telling us, or they have overreacted to a minor dispute. Either way, publicity throws light on a crazy system. Somehow it was okay for this professor to gain sole custody so the kids can be raised by a nanny, but not okay for her to spontaneously fly to Hawaii to see some New Age guru. Maybe she will turn out to be a psychopath, and the nanny will turn out to be a lesbian lover. There could be 18 years of litigation coming out of this story.
A comment says:
Sadly this article leaves too many critical questions unanswered, leaving the reader misinformed, and perhaps doing permanent damage to the reputations and lives of everyone involved. ...Yes, questions are unanswered, but it is a story when a Stanford professor gets arrested for kidnapping, and the newspaper is just reporting the story. And yes, Haramein is controversial.
A Stanford bioengineering professor, kidnaps her children to a vacation destination in the US with her Nanny in tow and then gets arrested and extradited in haste over the Christmas vacation? A kidnapper on the run, with a Nanny? Somebody please call Showtime! What is really going on?
Sadly, the rest of the article only helps murk the waters and lets the estranged husband sling some mud on miss Barron with a little bit of aid from the reporter no less. Jardetzky, Barron's ex-husband describes Miss Barron of being "extremely disturbed" and of being afraid of an impeding apocalypse in a police report? Wow! stop the press! Ex-husband says former wife is nuts!
Then, the writer tells us that Barron's friends in the scientific community are "controversial" with no further clarification of to what those views are but adding by this mere comment weight to Jardetzky's remarks.
Perhaps the ex-husband has unduly badmouthed Barron, and I believe she is innocent until proven guilty like everyone else. But the fact remains that she surely unduly badmouthed him to the court to get full custody, and then refused to give him the limited amount of visitation that the court had ordered. She may not belong in prison, but I have a hard time seeing how she could be completely innocent.