Town Square

Post a New Topic

Professor charged with felony child abduction

Original post made on May 22, 2013

Annelise Barron, an associate professor at Stanford University, has been charged with felony child abduction after she left for the island of Kauai in December with her three children, allegedly without informing the children's fathers.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 9:55 AM

Comments (78)

Posted by Hulkamania, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 22, 2013 at 10:26 am

Why would anyone want to move to Kauai forever? How about Maui? There's a place to move to forever.


Posted by hmm, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 10:36 am

Look like a National Enquirer headline news?


Posted by Maria, a resident of Barron Park
on May 22, 2013 at 10:41 am

She can't be tenured if she's an associate professor. Her profile indicates she's still an Associate Professor. Just saying...


Posted by SRM, a resident of Palo Alto Orchards
on May 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

Associate Professors can be tenured and many are. Just saying ...


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 22, 2013 at 11:09 am

@ Hulk - half of my Native Hawaiian family came from Kauai, the other half Oahu. Both families also lived on Hawai'i and Maui. Every island is beautiful, no need to dis.


Posted by Bluto, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 22, 2013 at 11:18 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Paly grad, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 22, 2013 at 11:29 am

@maria:

Associate Professors and Professors are usually tenured.
Assistant Professors are not tenured at most colleges.


Posted by Cheap shot, a resident of Stanford
on May 22, 2013 at 11:33 am

Misleading attention grabbing headline.No one is being abducted.
Shame on you.
It's a family dispute with legal aspects.
Cheapens the newspaper to sensationalize like that.


Posted by Felicity, a resident of Los Altos
on May 22, 2013 at 11:49 am

I agree! What a sensationalist headline! Gee whiz. This happened in December. Let it be sorted out in family court and not in the public eye. It sucks for all parties involved. And guess what? We are not involved and we don't need to be made voyeurs by the voyeuristic media.


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on May 22, 2013 at 11:56 am

It sounds like the incident happened in December and she was charged just recently, hence the reporting. It's hard to believe that she went on vacation before her court dates without considering possible ramifications. The poor children, it can't be easy on them.


Posted by Abe Mitchell, a resident of Meadow Park
on May 22, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Surely this matter is a personal affair and does not really justify the same being the concern of the general public.Hence it surprises myself as an individual that a reputable publication, as your paper is, reduces itself to publish material like this!!


Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Midtown
on May 22, 2013 at 12:26 pm

It saddens me when local papers go for sleaze factor.

Petty people out to damage the reputations of respectable people?

Couldn't find any "real news?"

I guess it must be difficult finding anything going on in the world.

(...and I'd love to live in Kauai forever, but the Bay Area is pretty fabulous as well.)


Posted by Anon, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 22, 2013 at 12:54 pm

I wish the paper would write about how my ex owes me and my children $100,000 in child support while living the high life in Palo Alto. Maybe it would shame him into getting a job and taking care of his kids for once. Now that family law matters are being made public ofcourse.


Posted by Bikes2work, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm

This article is tame compared to the ones in the Daily News and Daily Post. The Post made her sound like a 2012 doomsday nut.


Posted by Stanford defensiveness?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 1:17 pm

Gee, some people seem so sensitive to news relating to Stanford University - this is a professor who might be teaching your children. I guess it's ok to be constantly boosting and bragging about Stanford in an overkill fashion (which some of us tire of), yet when there is an unfavorable news event related to faculty, news media should ignore? I think not.


Posted by WTF, a resident of College Terrace
on May 22, 2013 at 1:25 pm

@Maria:
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing indeed.


Posted by Emily Litella, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 2:05 pm

Obviously, Barron was distresses, disturbed, and not thinking rationally. But hey, do not dis Kauai! I could live there forever! Oahu, Maui, Molkai....any island but the Big One. The Kona side is too apocalyptic


Posted by felony, a resident of South of Midtown
on May 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm

it seems like just being alive is ''felony'' in your society. certainly not mine. you got no rightrs. world belongs to the monied.


Posted by Not an issue, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 4:39 pm

With money tight fr newspapers, maybe the weekly is going for a more National Inquirer- type look. Maybe we will soon see headlines that read:

" Larry Klein admits- I was kidnapped by aliens and probed"
" exclusive photos of yoriko ksihinoto driving all over town"


Posted by Member, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 22, 2013 at 4:39 pm

This is the mother of three of her own children who at December still had full custody of all of them. Of course she can travel with her children and can shut down communications if she chose. Basically she missed two appointments. Is that a crime? Isn't this unfair treatment to her? How unfortunately it was for the three children to have their mother taken away by police at Chriatmas Eve. Do we care most about the children's well-being? What were the fathers of the children thinking? What were the police thinking? Their own interests!


Posted by member, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on May 22, 2013 at 4:54 pm

Does anyone question why one of the uncles has custody of two of the children rather than their own father?


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 22, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Given the updates this afternoon to this story, if all true, her behavior sounds questionable.

It's reasonable that this would be a story. Just the other day, a PA resident was complaining about all of the negative EPA headlines. Now, w/this headline & the local murder trial of the husband of a murdered woman, the privileged know what it's like to have their business splashed across a front page. Apparently, they're just as subject to poor decisions & criminal behavior as the hoi polloi.


Posted by YSK, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 5:49 pm

Really Palo Alto online? Are you really stooping so low as to publish this story a full six months after it occurred? You find it acceptable to be used as a tool for an already abusive court system? The timing of this article is not only highly suspicious, it's about as low as a publication can sink without actually being the National Enquirer. Did no one at your publication even take a minute to wonder why this is coming out now? Did anyone at your publication take the time to examine the case and fairly represent both sides? Did anyone take the time to reflect that there are malicious people in the legal system who would not hesitate to sink so low as to attack a person without foundation? Who will take any shortcut to destroy the person who is not their client or who may have been trying to protect their children? Did you bother to question why someone suddenly thought this story should come out at this time? Someone above asked a very perspicacious question, why, INDEED, are the children with their uncle? That alone, should have given you pause before you chose to sink to a new low in reporting. Maybe you should have checked before printing this article. I'm disgusted. You jumped on what you hoped would be a locally sensational story without giving a second thought to who may be hurt. It's ironic that you censor comments on your online forum with impunity, giving off the appearance that this is a high brow medium, then you stoop to levels that most local newspapers wouldn't touch. The hypocritical nature of this article and your choice in printing it is astounding!


Posted by DDee, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 22, 2013 at 5:53 pm

She left for the islands on the very day she was supposed to appear in court... I doubt very much that it was an oversight, more like some expensive angry, passive-aggressive acting out.

And even if she did somehow communicate with the 2 fathers, she obviously did not communicate with the court.

Smacks of a "little miss entitled" moment to me.

An "I have the money and the prestige and can do anything that works for me, such as fly my kids and their nanny across the ocean for Christmas, and yes, hook up with my current male enfatuation and possible father of my 3rd child because I DESERVE it, " kind of moment.

But even if I am way off based, there is no way she ran out on court dates and 2 different fathers just before Christmas absent-mindedly.


Posted by YSK, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 5:56 pm

and Hmmmmm, what a ridiculous statement...thinking it's ok to publish a questionable story about a Stanford Professor just because East Palo Alto is once again seemingly intent on self destruction. You think this is some kind of social justice? This is not a story about murder, drugs and drive by's, this is a story that belongs in family court...the same place that many people in this area have been at least once. How would YOU like the details of YOUR personal/professional life, your family issues, published without foundation?


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 22, 2013 at 6:48 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] I was merely responding to the whining of another PA resident the other day who complained that too much negative EPA news made the headlines.
Now it's other nefarious happenings allegedly committed by more monied, privileged locals that are making the headlines, so the complainer can now be happy that her town is once more in the news.

Seems like you missed WHY this story is news - because she was just charged w/the felony. Being arrested is one thing, being charged is another & it can take some time to happen. So apparently, there is foundation enough for her to be not just arrested, but charged. Like everyone here in EPA who's charged w/a crime, she's innocent until proven guilty.

How would I like my personal details out & about? If I were arrested for KIDNAPPING & charged w/a felony, as a local it'd probably make the local news. I think it's merely equal opportunity reporting at work here. Speaking of intent on self-destruction, let's talk about this professor & all that she risked w/her behavior - not to mention bringing her nanny into it as a possible accessory. And to think - she has the benefit of much more privilege & education than most EPA residents who get into trouble.

You mentioned the words social justice, not me. I merely said it's equal opportunity reporting. Family court issues are often open to the public to attend, & arrest records are also public, so please don't pretend this is ALL a private issue, because clearly it's not.


Posted by nostromo0001, a resident of another community
on May 22, 2013 at 6:55 pm

This is so very sad that someone's private family court information would be blasted across the media in such a sensationalistic fashion. To make matters worse, Dr Barron is a very gifted scientist with a lifetime of significant research. We live in a society that judges people based upon legal information that should be protected from public consumption. What effect is this article going to have on Dr Barron's reputation going forward? I have followed Dr Barron's research for years and this is absolutely unfair to her. My heart goes out to her and her family during this crisis.


Posted by YSK, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 7:23 pm

@Hmmmm, excuse me and I apologize if I misconstrued the intent of your words, but you are incorrect, she was NOT just charged with the felony...this case is over five months old. Again, you want to know what's behind this story? Look to who has the most to gain...this is not a simple story about a recent event. It's an ONGOING situation that is suddenly being brought to the public's attention in a blatant and egregious attempt to smear Dr. Barron. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are not too terribly bright...including the person who decided this is news. I can't wait until it all backfires. When something is done out of a malicious intent, it inevitably backfires. Karma can be a real bitch.


Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 22, 2013 at 8:26 pm

The woman had full custody of her children and return tickets back to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Obviously this story is a plant by some pretty manipulative people to try to discredit Dr. Barron. I agree with everyone else, this is a prime example of yellow journalism.


Posted by Colonel Panic, a resident of Barron Park
on May 22, 2013 at 8:47 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] There is a lot more to the story than has been written here. Both of these men are alleging that this single woman took both of their children. Doesn't that say something to you? Two men, both looking for their missing children? Yellow journalism indeed! Palo Alto Online has the facts exactly correct.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Green Acres
on May 22, 2013 at 8:59 pm

ABDUCTION?? Please don't write a story like this. This is not journalism. The families have enough stress and you adding more by writing about it. Shame on you.


Posted by Palo Alto Native, a resident of Downtown North
on May 22, 2013 at 9:37 pm

YSK, why did you say "thinking it's ok to publish a questionable story about a Stanford Professor just ....."? What does the fact that she is a Stanford Professor have to do with
the story being written. Should negative stories not be written about Stanford?


Posted by Beentheredonethat, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 22, 2013 at 9:47 pm

First of all, shame on you Palo Alto weekly staff writers for running this article without complete facts of the case. By the way, why doesn't the father have custody of the children?

I thought good journalism was about getting ALL the facts and reporting from a unbiased point of view. You seem to have reported as Judge and Jury on this one. Finally, do you really believe that this very intelligent woman would abscond to Hawaii?


Posted by YSK, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 9:56 pm

@PaloAltoNative What I wrote was in reply to someone else whom I erroneously attributed a sentiment that they were not expressing. Nobody should be above public record, but this is not a crime, it is a family law matter that was blown up into a 'crime' and as such, unless this paper is willing to give the countless other women and men who want THEIR stories told their due, should be not sensationalized in print. Again, ask yourself why now, and who has the most to gain by doing this? Hmmmm and maybe you should look into the case a bit more, and into some other cases in this valley...you may find some hair raising tales out there that could affect YOU some day. Like, um, lemmesee...a distraught woman throwing herself off a freeway overpass and the reason behind it? This case is just the tip of a very nasty iceberg.


Posted by Palo Alto Native, a resident of Downtown North
on May 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm

No YSK, I am sure that some of the comments (including yours) show outrage that the PA Weekly is writing negative things about a STANFORD PROFESSOR. I have no idea if the story is true or false. I find the comments troubling. I believe Hmmm is on to something.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 22, 2013 at 10:28 pm

So it sounds, YSK, like you know WHEN she was charged w/the crime. When, exactly, was that? What info in the article do you dispute? how much about her do you really know? Is she a friend of yours?

This story isn't to blame, for those complaining about it. This story is presenting the fact that she is being charged - that at least is a provable fact. How can a story be "planted" when it contains this key fact & many other publications are carrying the story? Sounds like some of the biased views are coming from readers who are her friends or family.

I have no desire to look further into this care or any other, thanks for the invitation to do so, YSK.

For those whose points are that she's intelligent, so what? Intelligent people do a lot of things that are of questionable judgement. For example, if this was a situation involving abuse toward her or the kids & she was trying to escape, she went about it wrong. And speaking of stupid, what's w/not turning in the grades? Even if the charge of kidnapping is unfounded but she did the other stuff (the RFID text, leaving cell phones off, putting items in storage w/witnesses to attest) she put herself in a precarious position legally, as well as her employee AND her kids. What professor, in her right mind, would put her nanny (who's also been charged) at risk, as well as her career, her professional reputation & her freedom at risk? She either didn't care about how this was affecting her employee & kids, or she really is cracking under stress.


Posted by YSK, a resident of Community Center
on May 22, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Yeah Hmmm, as a matter of a fact, she IS a friend of mine, which puts me square in the middle of knowing more than you do and more, apparently, than this paper does.


Posted by Kathleen Hatch, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on May 22, 2013 at 11:17 pm

I am surprised how lazy we have all become and no longer seem to look beyond the printed word, words that have meaning. I do question the reporter's motive/agenda in doing this story. It is after all, a family law case, thousands of which pass through the courthouse each year. Sadly, many would be considered high conflict and/or have issues involving Domestic Violence, so why report on THIS case? When I was in school, I remember learning "WHO, WHAT, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, AND HOW" most of which was not included in the article. The reporter is either lazy, dumb, or has their own agenda, or all of the above.
Barron had full custody of the children, missed a 'scheduled' visitation ie SUPERVISED visitation. If the reporter had bothered doing what took me under 2 minutes to do, they would have learned a great deal FROM THE 92 PAGES of information posted online about the case. Yep, 92 pages! So mom has 'full' custody, dad has 'supervised' visitation, children are NOT in the custody of their father even now.
Regarding the issue of mom teaching at Stanford, and any concerns anyone might have, I would be more concerned about the father who also teaches at Stanford, and is ONLY allowed to see his children in SUPERVISED visits.
I'm not the mother so I don't know why she did what she did, and I would have to ask myself or anyone else what they might do, would they reach a point where they just needed a break? The online court record shows relentless court appearances for 5 years! The father is on 'supervised' visitation! From looking at the court records, EVERY year during the holidays, there are court appearances FOR ALL 5 YEARS. I would also ask myself, do my children deserve some peace? Do they deserve a nice holiday/vacation/break?
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on May 22, 2013 at 11:19 pm

Her friend Nassim Haramein? That guy's theoretical physics are fantastical, but getting off-topic.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 22, 2013 at 11:34 pm

Well, YSK, you aren't exactly objective, no matter how much you know about it. You failed to mention the rights of the non-custodial parents, or how this is affecting the kids & the nanny. Is your friend paying for a good attorney for the nanny?


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 22, 2013 at 11:46 pm

Musical - truly, really, indeed - but he's a good storyteller. Maybe he can guest star on The Big Bang Theory?


Posted by Think of the children, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 22, 2013 at 11:54 pm

This is a sad story from the point of view of the children.

What sort of life do these half siblings have? Their mother appears to be in legal conflict with two men who have both fathered a child with this woman who takes the kids out of school to have a liaison with a third.

All the tv stations seem to be carrying this story as well as newspapers.

I hope that the children are being well protected from this media attention, that they are now in a stable living situation with people who love them and care for them and they are back in their regular schools.

I pray that they manage to come out of all this without being emotionally damaged. I wish adults would put their children first before their own selfish agenda.


Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 23, 2013 at 12:06 am

Who said mother was off on a liaison with somebody? She was on a consulting job. Apparently reading comprehension is not a strong point with you.


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2013 at 12:11 am

Disgusted, very interesting that you mention reading comprehension, because the story doesn't mention consulting. How did you glean this information? It sounds like a liaison was just as likely as the unmentioned consulting - or maybe both? How do you know that's what she supposedly went there for? She mentioned vacation. So what was it, work or vacation, or a working vacation?


Posted by some guy, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 5:27 am

So the woman *wasn't* charged with felony child abduction? Some of the posters seem to act like they know more about the story than the reporter.


Posted by Think of the children, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 23, 2013 at 7:19 am

The article does not mention why she was visiting another man just that she was.

My dictionary defines liaison as "to ensure concerted action, cooperation, etc." which is the reason I chose to use the word. For anyone who was aiding the woman by housing her and her children (rather than using a hotel destination) there seems to be some type of compliancy.


Posted by ex from hell, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 23, 2013 at 7:44 am

And I thought my ex was the worst ever, but sounds like these guys are even worse (or at least one of them is). I don't know the woman, but sounds as though she had full custody and why shouldn't she take the kids on vacation? Missing a few days of school is hardly a big deal -- people do it all the time in December. Calling it a "felony abduction." Really? No different from those girls in Cleveland? Give me a break.

But as scurrilous as the fathers may be, and I don't know them so can't say (my ex may be worse after all!) the real culprit here is the Weekly for putting itself smack in the middle of a high-conflict custody case. All of you tsk-tsking over the poor kids -- do you think this story is helping them? Their personal trauma being splashed all over the media?

Can't wait to see the stories from all the disgruntled parents who have learned that Town Square is a new way to broadcast their grievances! (And when you're in a custody battle, everyone has grievances.)


Posted by Think of the Children, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on May 23, 2013 at 7:52 am

Ex from Hell

When your story is blasted on all the various media outlets in the Bay Area and you are charged with a crime, I will feel sympathy for your children also.

I repeat my original hope that the children are in a loving home, being protected from the legal shenanigans and able to attend their regular schools. I have no idea of the age of these children, but missing semester finals is not in their best interest if that was the case.


Posted by Shoot the messenger, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 8:55 am

I'm so glad all of you are scapegoating the news for reporting this story. Nevermind the local police, the Kauai police, or the DA who are all playing along with the fathers' plans. The news people are just reporting facts. Arrests were made and charges were filed. Serious charges. That is news. It should be reported.


Posted by seriously, a resident of College Terrace
on May 23, 2013 at 9:01 am

We have no reason to believe that she is anything other than a good mom, and her kids would probably rather be with her. My ex also accused me of a child-related felony. It is a sport for these guys, public humiliation of someone who is just doing her job as a parent. Lucky for me and my kids that he wasn't savvy enough to go to the weekly and whine.


Posted by Shoot the messenger, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 9:23 am

Seriously, that's my point. Were you actually CHARGED with a child-related felony? No, so the weekly would not have listened to your ex even if he was that savvy. They report on real charges and real police reports. This story is their job. No charges, no trial, no story.


Posted by KT, a resident of Midtown
on May 23, 2013 at 9:47 am

FYI, even Stanford newspapers reported her arrest as well as the Mercury news and other media outlets ...Web Link . Of course the courts are going to have to sort this out, but it is still news and the news outlets need readership to survive. Obviously it is a serious charge from a well-respected member of the Stanford community.


Posted by SUE, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2013 at 10:14 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2013 at 10:27 am

Criminal charges aside, her judgement and her actions must be a cause for worry for those who care about her. She has caused problems for those she has a responsibility toward, including students, those in her lab, her nanny and of course, her kids.

Securing funding is challenging right now for many scientists. Add to that a difficult divorce, an infant plus two other children AND legal problems with infant's father, resulting in a lot of stress. There are likely mental health issues brewing here, if they haven't already come to a boil.

What is strange on this thread are so many comments dismissive of the fathers' rights and assumptions that the birth mother with custody can't be in the wrong, even when she failed to show for mandated legal appointments. Remember, this woman instructed her employee to destroy the RFID on her identification. Thst isn't an innocent act of a harried mom just wanting a vacation. Sure, she might be harried, but it also shows intent to be untraceable, even if only temporarily.


Posted by Tina, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 11:15 am

This seems like a ploy by the father and DA to actually bring charges to a Mom who brought HER children on vacation to a beautiful place when SHE HAD FULL CUSTODY. Instead of being concerned about the children,,, they decide to arrest their MOM on Christmas EVE.... and YOU people report an abduction? This is a sad excuse for a paper, to be honest. Elizabeth Smart is a felony abduction. Megan Kanka was a Felony Abduction...... The Mom was on Vacation, with her kids, exercising HER parental RIGHTS.
What pull does this Father have that he has the DA to do his bidding? And why type of person is he that he would have his own children witness the arrest of their Mom , compromising her ability to make a good living? [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] It all goes back to WHO broke this story or WHO leaked it.... It is there you will find the answer. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Michelle Gazave, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 11:25 am

I had a very similar situation in San Jose. I was married to my ex husband. He drove me to the airport. He picked me up at the airport. He filed for divorce while I was gone and also for child abduction. My child was taken away. I believe there was money involved because they did not follow the law. This case is not a surprise to me. It is very unfortunate people can be bought out and break the law.


Posted by SUE, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2013 at 11:26 am

@Aquamarine
You make an excellent point about this thread. So many are assuming that something is wrong with the father because he does not have full custody.
Has anyone here wondered if the mom was/is unbalanced enough to make false accusations against the father? Or to manipulate/threaten her children into making false accusations. During bitter divorce cases, some parents will do anything to get custody.


Posted by Tina, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 12:19 pm

@Sue -- I really do think something is wrong with the father due to the fact that he'd rather have his children witness their mother arrested, instead of enjoying their vacation.And to go through the channels in order to bring this to the public light. She missed a court appearance, it's not like she killed anyone..... we need to get our priorities straight..... the DA should have just let family court deal with it like any normal DA.

@Aquamarine--There is a whole study about ex-spouses who fabricate false allegations of mental illness of a sane spouse in order to gain an upper hand in custody. So false allegations, like the one you are eluding to "....likely Mental Health Issues brewing...", AND "Has anyone here wondered if the mom was/is unbalanced enough to make false accusations against the father", are unwarranted.

Where is the Mom's Side of the story here. I do not see it.... the article is subjective NOT objective.


Posted by Enough!, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 23, 2013 at 12:26 pm

Reading the article and the entire thread of comments, one thing stands out the clearest. The timing of the article. In the real world, this is old news. If you look the case up on line, you can see it's been going on for years. Question who has most to gain by destroying the mother? Why THIS case and not one of the thousand other cases currently in Santa Clara County? Check out the status of our illustrious family courts: California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody Web Link


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 12:55 pm

It isn't about actual news on this site. It's about gossip, innuendo .. and generating angry letters about anything/everything.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty." Character assassination in the absence of facts -- a local specialty. So is erasing comments that don't work for PAOnline.

Are "reporters" going to comb divorce filings for new material?


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2013 at 12:57 pm

This made the news because the person charged and one of her exes are known in the scientific and university communities.

She has two exes, not one.

The DA always charges as many counts, and the highest, as possible, knowing charges are often dropped or reduced. When was she actually charged by the DA? I don't mean arrested, but charged. She hasn't entered a plea. How long does one have to do that?

How does Tina know Barron was arrested in front of the kids? I'm guessing mental health issues, not "eluding" to anything the fathers have said. Just add up her stressors and look at her behavior and the environment in which this all happens. The latter is something I well understand.

She gave an interview to another newspaper, and a DA colluding with an accuser is illegal. Please, show us the evidence that Rosen's DA's office is corrupt. Show us the evidence that these fatherS (plural) are colluding with each other and the DA. Then, you should go to the state's attorney because those are serious allegations. And finally - the RFID text is very telling about her intent, as is deliberately skipping TWO court appointments.

Are her friends commenting here helping any?


Posted by Michelle, a resident of another community
on May 23, 2013 at 1:00 pm

I totally agree with Enough. I was already in a similar situation as this mother. It haa been going on for years in Santa Clara County.


Posted by Been there, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on May 23, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Several years ago I was in a similar situation the same family court, and I feel for this mother. I was one of hundreds of mothers and a few fathers who tried to protect our children, but the court system favored the abuser. It was a nightmare! Years of hearings, years of defending myself and my children. There was an organization stated by some other moms who helped a lot of us, and the presiding judge back then held public hearings where the parents went in and told their stories. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] They didn't care about my children's rights, they cared more about the abusive father's rights (or an abusive mother's rights). Someone said they looked at the court record so I did too, and it was like walking down memory lane. Before you judge this mother (or a father in a similar situation), just look at what she has been put through! You can pull up the case online and just see all of the court dates! Just go to the web site for Santa Clara County Superior Court and search the mother's name under family court cases. Back then there were some very serious cases including non-custodial parents withholding and not returning children from visitation, children with bruises and broken bones, and venereal diseases, and no one was interested in reporting on them. I do remember a case in the same courthouse that was finally reported on years later when they dug up the remains of the child in the father's backyard, but they didn't report on it when the mother reported the child missing, when the mother provided information about the father's abuse, everyone said the child must have run away. I also remember a case I heard about when I was in court about a father who's case was only in the news after he committed suicide when he just couldn't take it anymore and couldn't see much less protect his children! The media didn't report on his case and how the abusive mother was using the court system to continue the abuse. After years and years in court, my case finally worked out, but it was years and years defending my children and myself from an abuser who then used the court system to continue the abuse. The mother wasn't in hiding, she was right out in the open where they arrested her in front of her children on Christmas Eve. MY QUESTION IS WHY THIS CASE AND WHY NOW? [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Something isn't right with this story, or maybe the true intention was just to report on one side of the story against the mom who had full custody and not mentioning the father was only allowed to see his children under supervision. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by cattt, a resident of Southgate
on May 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 23, 2013 at 3:12 pm

Why this case. Why now. Someone violated their ethics to plant this story. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 23, 2013 at 3:55 pm

WHEN WAS SHE CHARGED BY THE DA? Why would someone's ethics have to be violated to "plant this story"?


Posted by ex from hell, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 23, 2013 at 5:59 pm

Some of you lucky people have never been through a contentious divorce. You have no idea. Divorce documents are long and complicated, especially when kids are involved, and both parents are pretty much guaranteed to violate at least one item at least once, no matter how hard they try to play nice. "Kidnappings" happen all the time: the parent who has the kids decides to keeps them an extra day. Or takes the kids when it's the other parent's time and disappears for days, even a week. I never heard of a situation in which the police cared (and yes, my ex had the police sent to my house a couple of times. They put in a pro forma appearance and left.)Never heard of a DA filing charges. Most DAs want to stay out of these messy cases and let the divorce court do its thing.

So my first question, and the one any reporter should ask, is: why this particular case? Stanford professor, ok, but she's hardly a celeb, nor are her exes.

Question number two: why include all the eyewitness "we saw her moving stuff out of her apartment!" and "she looked stressed!" The whole tone of this piece feels stalkerish to me. I thought that kind of reporting was the province of another local paper. Too bad to see the Weekly taking the low road.


Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 23, 2013 at 7:14 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Aquamarine, a resident of Stanford
on May 23, 2013 at 7:44 pm

Why are commenters making this about themselves, instead of the actual subject? Whether you've had a contentious divorce or not, people well understand how screwed up it can be and how bad family court often is (and Santa Clara County's family court isn't anything to be happy with). Speaking of taking the low road, people involved in contentious divorces should be more prudent about keeping their court-ordered appointments and, if planning a crime, not leaving easily traceable evidence such as cell phone and text records. It sounds like the police have done a pretty thorough investigation, which has nothing to do with stalking.


Posted by Prefab Sprout, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 24, 2013 at 9:42 am

Folks, all that I can guess is that this "situation" has to be way, way more complicated than we know, like any "situation" arising out of a contentious child custody fight. It should have been handled in the family courts. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by neighbor, a resident of another community
on May 24, 2013 at 10:11 am

I hope there is no jury trial case brought in Palo Alto. This newspaper article has poisoned any local jury pool.

Lots of writers, including the reporter, who have no idea of what the actual facts are have no problem playing with the fate of the principals who are actually involved in this sad contentious situation.

As citizens, aren't folks worried that their own dirty laundry could be aired anytime a story is needed? Why can't this website be used for real local news?


Posted by Prefab Sprout, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 24, 2013 at 11:05 am

Prefab Sprout is a registered user.

Folks, all that I can guess is that this "situation" has to be way, way more complicated than we know, like any "situation" arising out of a contentious child custody fight. It should have been handled in the family courts. Read the story that appeared in the San Jose Mercury News, which unfortunately for this family gives a lot more detail. So--the angry ex-husband missed two visits; but the court dates missed were civil, family court matters. Not good, but what happened seems like a Draconian over-reaction. The police and DA knew that the mother was flying home on December 27, a few days after she was arrested. Was it necessary to force three innocent children--including a baby!--to see their mother and nanny arrested and thrown in jail on Christmas eve, and to force them into foster care with strangers? What a horrible shock. This experience will have scarred these children permanently, especially the infant who lost his mother--to him, it was as if she had died. Such wounds, occurring that early, never heal--never. They cause damage known as "attachment disorder", which is a lifetime injury. Were the children ever in danger? No. They were on vacation in Kauai, probably having a wonderful time. One only goes to Kauai for a vacation. Was it necessary to force this horrible experience onto these children? Clearly not. The mother had full custody of these kids, AND a return ticket--this was KNOWN to the DA and police, although somehow, NOT MADE CLEAR to the judge who issued the warrant, or the judge who approved the turn-over of the children to Child Protective Services. Why was that info concealed from these judges, who thus were USED in a most disrespectful manner by the DA?--clearly, to manipulate them into doing what they might not otherwise have done. The DA in charge of the arrest allowed her office to be used to further the custody goals of one side of the custody battle, by criminalizing what could have been handled by the family courts--why on Earth would she do that? Consider that no one was hurt here--UNTIL the mother was arrested. Never mind her, who cares, you can say that she deserved the smackdown--but at that point, THE CHILDREN WERE HURT. BADLY. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.] Let this be worked out in the family courts.


Posted by Eric Van Susteren, online editor of Palo Alto Online
on May 24, 2013 at 11:18 am

Eric Van Susteren is a registered user.

Hi everyone,

We report on felonies in Palo Alto that are either violent or unusual. We decided that this case warranted coverage because it fell under the latter category. Information on the case was released by police, and it was not publicly disclosed until this week (Web Link). The department's explanation for waiting has been added to the story. Thank you for your comments.


Posted by Prefab Sprout, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 25, 2013 at 1:18 am

Prefab Sprout is a registered user.

Take a look at this, and realize that this is not a person that should be thrown away, because she took her kids to Kauai [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Web Link


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 25, 2013 at 11:43 am

Hmmm is a registered user.

Prefab - it's nice to know that you're on the side of the mom & she does good things for science. That doesn't clear her of these charges, however.


Posted by saleha, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on May 27, 2013 at 1:30 am

saleha is a registered user.

Well now, it's interesting that there are people on here who are obviously her friends saying that she had full custody so she could do whatever she wanted and that the father has no rights. I am guessing she no longer has any custody. The reason she doesn't is because she tried to take away her kids from the fathers. This is so wrong. Fathers have equal rights to their children and just because you are the mother, doesn't trump custody. Bottom line, she flipped her finger to the fathers and didn't show up to court ordered dates. That has consequences. It makes me sick that people think that just because you are the mother you have more rights. So sad for the fathers who work so hard, always working against accusations...this is a good precedence for rights of the fathers, thankfully it looks like the court system is working in this case.


Posted by Crescent Park Dad, a resident of Crescent Park
on May 27, 2013 at 1:51 pm

Crescent Park Dad is a registered user.

That is an interesting point...she did blow off two court appointments. Something that her supporters are neglecting to acknowledge.

I'm sure there's way more to this story than what is public...and I'm sure all parties have their pro's and cons.

But I would agree that something must be up if the SCCo DA is getting involved (vs a family court rep).


Posted by Prefab Sprout, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:29 am

Prefab Sprout is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 21 comments | 1,461 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 1,110 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 890 views

When Grandparents Visit
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 814 views

Background and Ideas for the Comp Plan
By Steve Levy | 14 comments | 813 views