The Curious Case of Natalia Grace (2023–2024) User Reviews

Baffled and saddened and thoroughly entertained.

[amychase-43235 · 6/10 · 31 May 2023]

How is it that scientists can determine the age of ancient humans from over 200,000 years ago, but no medical doctor could determine this poor girl's age.

Also, 90% of the people interviewed in this doc are despicable, foolish and/or ignorant people.

This Michael Barnett is an especially dubious character. I want to compare him to a used car salesman, but that would be insulting to the salesmen. He sure is one slimy, narcissistic, manipulative piece of garbage.

I am giving this a rating of 6 though because it's very entertaining. I'm losing time and brain cells watching it, but I can't seem to turn away.

Potentially Amazing Docuseries Botched by Terrible Choices by the Crew

[cranium889 · 6/10 · 10 June 2023]

THE CURIOUS CASE OF NATALIA GRACE should be called THE CURIOUS CASE OF A DOCUMENTARY CREW ALLOWING A PERFORMATIVE SCUMBAG TO HIJACK THE SHOOT AND GET HIS OWN SERIES PRETENDING HE DIDN'T NEGLECT & ABUSE A CHILD WITH A DISABILITY

Seriously, this is an astonishingly heartbreaking story that's totally botched by the production desperately trying to turn it into a mystery and going all in on this annoying, bad actor.

What's worse is that by allowing Michael Barnett this platform, they don't just gloss over how a child prodigy is probably forever ruined by the trauma he suffered as a child, but forces him to relive it, despite repeatedly begging not to discuss it.

So watch a shocking story about how a life was ruined and witness an overlooked victim get exploited.

It changed my opinion

[colormeunimpressed · 8/10 · 4 June 2023]

I'm giving this documentary a high rating solely because I went in believing that this could have been a case of an adult posing as a child and I came out thinking the exact opposite.

Michael Barnett was not believable in the least and did himself no favors with the show. I disliked him immediately. I feel bad for their prodigy son who really seems to have suffered some trauma but mostly I feel bad for Natalia. It's quite obvious, if you pay any amount of attention, that she was not an adult but in fact, a child. She was left to fend for herself by an uncaring and highly materialistic family. There was a lot of abuse. That was evident. How much more though? Because I have a feeling she suffered even more than we know.

This was so deeply heartbreaking.

[adiadolan · 6/10 · 7 June 2023]

A lot of the reviews are talking about how the documentary was confusing, and while the material itself is confusing, I was able to follow the directors main drive. That's where I am deeply saddened and disturbed. When you think about the facts of this case, when you lay it all out there you can clearly see that Natalie WAS a child and suffered extreme abuse. It is so so clear, and I think you can come to that conclusion even before hearing from the dad. She was constantly in distress, in bad hygiene, hungry, and confused! She had no understanding of social cues and displayed distressing behavior. But she was 9 years old abandoned and suffering. I wanted to write this in case the directors of this documentary just happen to be reading comments. How could you! How could you make this documentary with such a vivid image that Natalie was a child, and solely focus on her abuser? The documentary continued to paint the narrative that she is creepy, she is something to be fear, it has three episodes that just blast her for being a social inadequate neighbor. But not bringing it back around to say "hey, you know why people might have thought she was weird? Because they thought she was 26 when in reality she was A CHILD"!!!!

My heart breaks for her. I really hope if there is anything more to be documented on this, that they take time to make right what this documentary got so so grossly wrong! This was neglect. It was complete neglect of someone who was the most vulnerable you can be. A child with a disability! I hope she is loved, I hope she is cared for and I hope she finds peace! And I hope everyone who made this documentary takes a moment to recognize the storyline they've chosen to follow is grossly unjust!

I loved the lady narrator, I believe she was an attorney, who lad out the facts for us, or else this documentary would have had nothing sustainable. Also she was hot.

ANYWAYS!!! This was terrible and heartbreaking. It should have been about justice for this poor girl. Thanks.

Don't review documentaries based on outcome

[jandifollowill · 7/10 · 7 June 2023]

This story is CRAZY!! I don't understand people giving the series a low rating bc they don't like the events that transpired. What's the point of you watching true crime?! Of course it's all heinous, and it's nothing you would thumbs up if you were reviewing the acts themselves, but you aren't. It does what most do, provides you with one side and then the other and you end you not knowing how you feel about it ("I love you, Now die" was the same way).

It's creepy, it's insane to imagine these things happened for real (bc I have seen "the orphan" movies), and yes the dad is a horrible actor, performing what he thinks is necessary to emote his storyline, but the series is still very interesting!

If you binged it so hard bc you had to hear the rest of the story, and then gave it a low rating bc you didn't like the outcome, you shouldn't be rating tv or film.

Unbelievable all around appalling for on every angle

[kllafaunce-36498 · 10/10 · 31 May 2023]

I can't believe this story... it's so bizarre.

First of all you would think the adoptive parents would file to unadapted this child. Once they found out that she was older then they realized and tried to kill the mother more than once. I don't understand their logic in handling of this situation.

The father is really creepy. Along with in my mind being narcissistic and very manipulative himself.

The mother also has these same traits. Man what a couple they did make: I can't even imagine living with them let alone having them as parents.

I hope and pray they both get some time in jail. Cruel and unusual punishment is what they did to Natalia and that is what they deserve.

An accurate depiction of the failures of our systems and the impact of abuse

[sam_hare · 7/10 · 14 January 2024]

Some of y'all in these reviews have never experienced trauma or abuse and it shows. If you come away from S1 with anything other than a solid understanding that Natalia is a child and her adoptive parents are BOTH monsters, I implore you to check your privilege and educate yourselves beyond your lived experiences.

Michael repeatedly attempts to victimize himself while simultaneously offering up the most disingenuous performance to try and cover up his complicity in Natalia's abuse.

Don't let the over dramatization from the production value detract from the real story here about a young immigrant disabled girl who is emotionally and physically abused by people she is supposed to be able to trust while adults everywhere turn a blind eye and let it happen.

S2 was important so Natalia could feel heard, but I do imagine she was likely coached to try and garner sympathy from those that believed Michael's over the top performance in S1. This makes sense because her frustration and anger alone, though completely justified and genuine, likely would not gain her the sympathy from the privileged crowd.

Beth Karas provides a balanced perspective and brings legitimacy to this doc, while Michael has the rich white male audacity to come back in S2 with only excuses, gaslighting, and 0 real accountability.

The system has failed Natalia Grace and I hope she is successful in any and all further legal actions against Michael and Kristine to get a sliver of justice.

These People Are Idiots!

[Mehki_Girl · 8/10 · 30 May 2023]

Halfway through watching this and these people are idiots.

First thing that catches my attention is their reaction, and this is in their own words, as to how they reacted to the child's physical sexual maturity.

Instead of taking the child to a doctor or endocrinologist or to a pediatric specialist, they go on a Google search.

Any parent with half a brain cell and I'm assuming if he has earned his income legitimately with all the big houses and everything that he has some level of intelligence. And that in this day and age, the mother should know that children are entering puberty younger and younger.

So instead of questioning this child, why not take her to a medical professional to see what's going on with her? Of course a child her age will try to hide that she's menstruating. It is not an indication of any sinister motive of the child.

At the age of 14 or 15 years old I was embarrassed to tell my mother I had gotten my period. So imagine the alarm of a 6-year-old?

If you wanted to be supportive and accepting then, you don't make her feel like a criminal for maturing early. You take her to a medical professional to see what's going on with any pituitary issues, which obviously she has, having dwarfism, and also the doctor by examining her teeth and through x-rays, can give you an idea of the actual age of this child that is your concern.

No way does she look like an adult and if you want to stretch it, it could have been possible that she was as old as 10 or even 12, but no why is she an adult.

Terrible production, no moral and no empathy

[Milanovel · 9 September 2023]

To the producers: Another one of those speculative and tasteless documentaries, with the sole purpose to get attention and make money. I don't understand how it can be legal to expose a child this way. This is a child with disabilities, and she has been through trauma after trauma. You use neighbours as character witnesses, neighbours who believe she is an adult, who don't understand she is a traumatised child. How can you interview the adoptive couple's son? He is clearly under the control, and manipulated, by a deeply disturbed and narcissistic father. And you market this documentary in comparison to the horror movie the Orphan??? Shame on you!

Just saw season two. And now the poor girl is exploited again, and in the hands of new predators. Jesus, somebody help her!

Engaging, but everyone was terrible

[tessamsf · 7/10 · 16 July 2023]

I watched the whole thing in a few days. This is a documentary where you root for absolutely no one, except a few (not even all) of the neighbors. The family is despicable (note: the mom capitalized on her son's autism by writing a book when he was a child that made her a TON of money and TED talks, etc).

The adopted girl/person is clearly a liar and frankly, I don't trust anything she said, the family is ridiculously unlikable, and the main interviewee, the father Michael, is awful to the point of wanting to turn it off. He's obnoxious, dishonest, hyperactive, and histrionic.

Altogether, I hope they all lose - and while that may sound unbelievably cruel if you believe one of the two narratives provided in the doc, I really believe something in the middle, and root for none of them.

biased sensationalist trash

[frogcilfruit · 3/10 · 22 July 2023]

What we get here are 6 episodes of Michael Barnett overacting all sorts of scenarii, the focus always on him instead of the main subject which is Natalia.

The filmmakers wallow in all the trashiest sensationalist aspects of the story and, especially Barnett's character, instead of giving a serious account of facts (no doctor is interviewed to give a scientific opinion on her age, no psychiatrist on her mental state). She is not even given the chance to express herself at any point.

We're only given Michael Barnett's version which is ridiculous most of the time, so fake it's cringeworthy.

This curious story deserved a serious approach, and I feel really bad for the people who were used to make this pseudo-documentary : Natalia and the hell she endured, and also the boys, Jake mostly, who is obviously traumatised by what happened in this house.

This is trash, and Michael Barnett is unsufferable.

Exploitive film making

[lucabrazisleeps · 6/10 · 16 January 2024]

Certainly the case is odd, but at its heart, the twists and turns, is the question of whether Natalia is manipulative and evil or whether her adoptive family is at fault. This is a false premise. Natalia was an orphan who got bounced around from family to family - hence attachment issues. Natalia may have threatened her adoptive family with harm - who wouldn't? Natalia was inappropriate in her apartment complex - that's because she was 8 and not 24. She is overly friendly with neighbors - attachment issues again. She plays with kids - never had a chance to. She says sexually appropriate things - since she was raped at least once (probably more) by the age of 8, she may not be able to assess what is appropriate and inappropriate. Within a two year period, she lives with an (allegedly) abuse mother and histrionic father - is she expected to know social decorum? Eats from people's fridges - she's hungry. She claims to be 24 - she was physically abused and manipulated to say these things. The postscript bolsters the case that she's somehow evil.

Bottom line - she was 8 when these things were done to her by adults. A reputable child psychologist would have been an informative interviewee, rather than random people. But somehow the film makers prefer to demonize her.

Meanwhile, the film crew keeps recording when the son fails to turn off his mic. Shouldn't they have turned off his mic? When a vulnerable interviewee says they want to stop the interview, it's grossly unethical to keep recording.

Yes it's compelling like a train wreck. Yes we care about Natalia. Yes it's "gone viral". But a lot of this has to do with how the film makers choose how to tell the story - in a salacious and emotionally manipulative way.

See Life Through the Eyes of a Hystrionic Criminal!

[deglispiriti · 1/10 · 16 June 2023]

This "documentary," which leans heavily on the narration of a bona fide fool, drags viewers through the case of heinous mistreatment of a disabled child on an international scale. The film is six (6) hours of vile, sensationalist hyperbole from a decompensating, hystrionic criminal. Mr. Barnett is a certified buffoon, and the documentarians treat him as a protagonist starring in his own delusion. They actually burn hours of coverage of a liar with no redeeming qualities. The truth of his negligence, abuse, abandonment, and open disdain for the adopted daughter he treated like an animal is obscured by two Indiana judges. And adding exponentially to the flagrant injustice, the film's entire sensationalist approach to the disabled girl in its first two episodes is unforgivable. Do not waste your time on this trash. It's simply an exploitation of the current national obsession with tragedy porn.

Unethical

[StardustOcean · 12 November 2023]

The entire "documentary" is very clearly biased and does not follow any documentarial ethos. There are obvious photographs and video interviews of Natalia at her current age (as of 2023, when this was released) that show that she has aged significantly since she was "supposedly 8 years old." There is no evidence in the movie about her perspective as should be evident by the title. There is no unbiased or even any profile or interviewer other than her adoptive father and his biological son who is dependant upon him for his own livelihood. There is clear bias, as I've stated, and a clear sensationalism to this "biography" that is preying upon a disabled girl, woman as of 2021.

Bizarre story - "Who would do that?", all of them apparently

[2shay · 7/10 · 7 January 2024]

I watched first season last year and just finished second season. I was surprised Beth Karas caught Michael's lie on air but not Natalia's about the second pepper spray incident. What is clear to me is no one is telling the truth. Now for everyone's motive, it must be money like it usually is. Neither will ever get the satisfaction they are seeking.

Watch the mannerisms of Michael and Natalie, I saw similarities. There were also easy tells for both of them to me for a lot of things. Some I still have questions on.

The one thing I do not question is Kristine. She really is a piece of work.

I do agree this didn't have to be six episodes. It is hard to watch the "acting" through all of it.

Over all good documentary but....

[animesurreal · 6/10 · 28 January 2024]

A lot of intentional hype by people participating in the documentary. Overall, it's a puzzling but good story. However, some of the biggest questions were NOT answered.

1. How were the parents able to change her age so easily? This seems to be a more serious SYSTEMIC issue because this allows sexual predators to potentially abuse the system.

2. Why the court is allowed to disregard the girl's real biological age? Seems like it's a play to cover their own grave mistake.

3. Recall after Natalia started living by herself on her own in the first neighborhood, neighbors didn't particularly like her. I could not reconcile what was said with the fact that she is completely innocent.

Spoilers ** The Adoptive Parents are Crazy

[Poprocksoul · 8/10 · 2 January 2024]

I am on episode 6. OK, Natalia clearly aged over the years. She was not an adult when she lived in the apartments. I 100% believe the DNA results and that Anna in the Ukraine is her mother. They look like they are mother and child.

The adoptive parents are insane and trying to cover their abuse and neglect. It's that simple. I don't think there is any mystery to this case. Once you see Natalia now. Once you know about the DNA results.

Regardless of what happens in any court. I think it is obvious they put a young child in an apartment alone that was what 10 years old. That leaves me speechless. The father is just as responsible and is just trying to escape prosecution.

I feel terrible for Natalia. She was gas lit. She was abused, neglected and abandoned. I am glad that one lady took her in and finished raising her.

As an aside the men in this case need to study female puberty. Many of them have no idea when development occurs and they sound stupid talking about the ages, etc. Let the doctors handle the science. It's sad that they give opinions in this case without any training or basic knowledge. It's sad that grown men don't remember basic health class information as well.

What a Rollercoaster of a Story

[tdwillis-26273 · 10/10 · 9 June 2023]

Many reviewers upset because they feel like there were no answers by the end. Perhaps they need to re watch and take notes. I gained a lot of factual information.

Natalia was failed....time and time again. Even the legal system failed her. The adoptive father was histrionic and unlikeable to me. I do think it's quite probable that the adoptive mother was the main abuser and manipulator. All of the adoptive parents in Natalia's case were weak selfish sick and morally bankrupt individuals.

What a F'ed up story all around. It seems as if the truly most innocent that gets the crappiest end of the deal.

Fascinating, but why aren't there answers?

[destiny_west · 7/10 · 3 June 2023]

I was well aware of the case of Natalia Grace and had followed it with interest.

I am a fan of the Orphan film, and that deals with something similar.

The adoption of what you think is a child with dwarfism, but then turns out to be a homicidal adult who causes the family nothing but terror.

I am unsure as to how they can't be certain of this girls age. We live in an age of dating dinosaurs and bodies dug up, But no one is sure of Natalia's age?

It really makes no sense to me.

Who do I believe? I am not sure.

I think if I was having doubts about my adopted child actually being the age she/he was meant to be within a few days I would have been back at the adoption agency questioning immediately and would not have let it go. Not that age would really matter, but when it was details as significant as in Natalia's case, I would have been pounding on the door. Not for just wanting answers for my sake, but also for that of Natalia's.

Regardless, this is a very interesting and scary documentary. I would highly recommend it.

Wrong title

[dannonmcelroy · 5/10 · 7 June 2023]

I feel like this should really be titled "The Overacting of Michael Barnett." In many ways it reminded me of The Staircase because Barnett was dictating his side of the story (which frequently changed) and it seemed like he genuinely likes to hear his own voice. He seems so fake and calculated. It is sickening.

The son that was interviewed was obviously heavily manipulated by his parents and coached on what to say for the interviews. This is less of a reality based documentary and more a scripted show to tell a he said/she said story in a marriage.

Whether she was a child or adult, the Barnetts wronged this girl and so did the documentary for making this less about her and more about the parents.

Everyone's A Liar

[rundmc1234 · 8/10 · 10 January 2024]

I'm giving this series an 8 not because it's actually that good from a storytelling or filming POV but b/c it's "can't look away" tv. It's like a slightly more cerebral Jerry Springer show that goes on and on but is endlessly fascinating. Literally, almost NO ONE in this story is sympathetic and it seems clear that almost EVERYONE is lying or just a fantabulist.

To those who think Natalia is an abused, disabled person - I do believe she was abused. She is clearly disabled. But, so sorry - abused disabled people can still be liars and sociopaths. Virtually everyone who encountered her either wanted nothing to do with her after a short period of time and/or seems to be making up stories about how sweet she is (and that's only a few people) for the cameras or (like the Mans family) because they are possibly looking for a payday through civil suits down the way. The way she denies doing/saying things that numerous people have claimed (including many people with no reason to lie), then when confronted with other witnesses starts fake crying and deflecting was super suspect. And, yes - fake crying. She makes the motions of crying throughout this series but there are no tears. It's just weird.

Then, the Mans' as her new adoptive family - who claim she's the sweetest kid - but seem to get flustered when it's pointed out that they tried to dump her at a hospital too when she attacked their other kids. "No; I never said that; someone (like her former adoptive mom who had no reason to even know she was in a hospital until contacted) must have made that up." Hmmmm.

The Mans family is just odd. I'm really hoping they aren't con artists but there is something just off about them. And, no - it's not because they have a bunch of other adoptive children. It's mostly because they seem to be dissembling every step of the way. (Also, I have no problem with people who are deeply religious but chasing someone down the street saying they need to find God is an immediate "weirdo alert" in my book).

I won't repeat everything other posters have to say about Michael Barnett except to wholeheartedly agree that he's a histrionic buffoon. He seems completely unreliable about virtually every single thing he says. "Nuff said.

The so-called "legal expert" in the show was almost as insufferable as Michael. For one thing, I'm a lawyer but I don't know what a "legal expert" is. Is she a lawyer? Is she an LLM? A professor? I've never heard of someone who's a "legal expert" who isn't a lawyer. But, the one thing I do know is that she's trying to style herself as some kind of non-lawyer expert on the law and she gets an awful lot wrong about it but is also clearly an advocate for Natalia. That's all fine but don't try to say you're some unbiased "expert." Just say you're an advocate for disabled kids/adults. Whatever she was, she had FAR too much screen time and added nothing to the overall story.

The only people I could stand in this series were Michael Barnett's attorney who seemed super competent and had his head on straight and Jacob, the Barnett's son, who seemed to be as truly abused in his household as Natalia claimed to be.

Of course, the wild card is Christine Barnett. Wisely, she decided to steer clear of this train wreck which says something for her judgment. There is clear and documented evidence of questionable behavior on her part in the past but since we don't know her side of the story from her own lips, I reserve judgment on her.

I'm sure there'll be more to this story which is clear just from the very last scene alone. Despite the tabloid aspect of it, I'll still be watching.

OMG! Dad is a horrible Drama Queen!!

[Pollard209 · 7/10 · 21 June 2023]

You have to work real hard to get past the over acting by the father.. OMG, he is the worst!

But you have to make it to the end!

OMG, an adoption horror story. Ukrainian people trafficking children? Forging documents?

Murderous adult psycho posing as a child Then the horror begins, the crazy nightmare behavior, knives, poison, pubic hair.

BUT THEN.... You have the stories of all the neighbors. Seriously ,What the heck, this is crazy! What is going on?

I'm thinking it's a real crazy Chucky situation , this is really happening.

No, it's a horrible adoptive mother that decided she no longer wants this kid?? Why was she so horrible? WTF?! Buyers regret .... Obviously there's some mental issues that should be addressed. The mom IS a master manipulator. She worked the system and got all of those people to do exactly what she needed to do to dump that child. Dad isn't much better!

No balls!

Now, I feel so bad for Natalia !

What a nightmare! Natalia was wronged, coached , mistreated and abandoned . And because of so many officials in the child protective services, and in the court system failed they're having to cover it up by dismissing all charges on both parties!

WOW!! A total injustice.

6 episodes that should have been 2

[westbayou · 2/10 · 10 June 2023]

Oof. What did I just endure? This story is interesting for sure, but the execution of this documentary is pretty brutal. They dragged the story out way too long, even including almost 10-minutes of them literally sitting around drinking beer waiting for a verdict.

ALL of the characters involved are utterly despicable. Michael Barnett is a walking clown, and we even turned him crying into a drinking game. Unfortunately we had to stop or we'd risk alcohol poisoning. Even that didn't make this story any better. It just drags on and on and on.....

No happy endings here, and really no answers. Save yourself 5 hrs of your life and just google it.

Problems with production

[codygdietrich · 7/10 · 1 June 2023]

This is a strange and twisted story. For some of the people being interviewed it is clear why they are being interviewed: they were the adoptive parents, they were the neighbors, etc. Then there are some where you wonder about why they are in the documentary. There is one who is listed as a "legal expert". What makes her a legal expert? In some documentaries legal expert means police officer or detective, in a lot of documentaries it is judge or lawyer and in some it is someone with a degree in social services and in others it is just someone who works in the government. I have seen some documentaries that have people who work as a records keeper in a social services office and according to their own statement they don't work cases they file things and yet they are listed as a "social worker". I have absolutely no idea what this woman's education or work history is that makes her a legal expert or in what type of law: criminal, business, domestic, family that she is an expert in. I do feel her opinion plays a large role in what she says, if you are a legal expert you should discuss the facts and the law regulating them. When you are discussing an incident where the police are called but never discuss the police report or what the police did you aren't discussing what the law officers did following legal standards and requirements. Why is it the person listed as a "legal expert" is not discussing the legal actions taken but making statements of "I think..." "I feel..." "I believe..." If you are going to have someone listed as a "legal expert" have them discuss the law not their opinion. There are multiple people brought in to share their personal story of their experience with the girl and the family and their story and opinion changes as their story progresses which is understandable. The challenge with a documentary is being able to tell a story sequentially and allowing that change to happen without it becoming muddied and confusing because you have teasers of them saying the opposite of what just said or you don't have proper markers to indicate they are discussing a later time then they just were. These people are obviously being interviewed, it is not a drama, so it's ok to hear the interviewer behind the camera ask the question if it helps to understand the answer.

Overall it is an interesting, and strange story but sloppy production, with teasers and jumping around and people without clear who they are and why they are in the show make the story a little tricky to keep in order. The other problem I have is a little more tricky in that there are comments made by people that contradict what others have said in the past. There is one detective that says a statement about a physical characteristic were false, yet there were multiple doctors at different locations from an earlier time that say otherwise. I don't know why that difference would exist but I do know that a detective is not a doctor and would not perform a physical medical exam and HIPPA laws would make it tricky for him to access any medical records or reports from a medical exam that were not ordered by the court. It is one of those strange points of this show that with one episode left to watch I don't think will be explained.

Fascinating but yes, a bit much

[lisabecka · 7/10 · 20 September 2023]

Yes, way too much time spent with Michael's histrionics, but I don't think they're *totally* fake since his other family members seem to have a toned down version of the same hyperness.

Are both the Barnetts apparently bats**t crazy unstables? Yes. But I can't see how the 'legal expert' believed they had 'gotten away with child neglect' when a court of law told them this person was 22. Could they have done better for a disabled person of any age? Yes. Would the average person know what to do with a disabled person? Iffy.

The real fault here is the 'reaging' court!! They should have tried much harder to find out exactly how old Natalia was before this poor NINE-year-old was left to fend for herself. They found the mother and the orphanage later on, so it couldn't be that hard.

The documentary, again, spends way too much time with Michael but also glosses over the testimony of the state mental health hospital staff, who supposedly witnessed pubic hair and blatant sexual overtones to male patients (which would not be unheard of even in one so young, who knows what happened to her in that eastern European orphanage or since). Did no one at any point think to give this kid an intelligence test? Wouldn't assessing her mental ability tell them if she was capable of functioning as an adult regardless of biological age?

One can only hope that Natalia now has the support she needs. And Jacob, the second biggest victim of this story, who was also a child forced into adult circumstances. He would have needed a great deal of guidance and had only parents way too wrapped up in themselves.