Jan. 26, 2025

Brian and Sonja Stafford Probable Cause Affidavit: Justice for the forgotten Children Part 4

Brian and Sonja Stafford Probable Cause Affidavit: Justice for the forgotten Children Part 4
Apple Podcasts podcast player icon Spotify podcast player icon Youtube Music podcast player icon RSS Feed podcast player icon
Apple Podcasts podcast player icon Spotify podcast player icon Youtube Music podcast player icon RSS Feed podcast player icon
Season 1

What if the family dynamics you thought you knew were far from reality? This episode of the 69 South Podcast peels back the layers of the Stafford family saga, where allegations against Sonia and Brian Stafford take center stage. With their children defending them and Brian's brother Brad painting a darker picture, we explore contrasting perspectives that raise eyebrows and question what truly went on behind closed doors. Adding to this narrative, Nikki, the biological mother of the adopted children, opens up about her heart-wrenching journey to reclaim her kids, offering a poignant glimpse into the battles she faced against a flawed system.

As we venture into the financial and property enigmas of the Stafford household, unsettling revelations come to light. From the distress experienced by foster care children to Department of Child Services reports painting a troubling picture of Brian and Sonia's actions, these disclosures challenge the façade of a typical family. Our investigation into the Staffords’ financial habits uncovers inconsistencies in their spending on child-rearing, pitting their expenditures against USDA benchmarks and revealing a web of subsidies and property developments that complicate their narrative further.

The legal storm surrounding the Staffords intensifies with looming charges and community safety concerns at the forefront of the arrest warrant and bond hearing. We navigate the legal intricacies and the strategic moves by the state to ensure the Staffords are brought to justice. Through Nikki's courageous testimony, we spotlight the systemic failures she faced with the Department of Child Services, shedding light on the relentless obstacles that tested her resolve. This episode promises a riveting exploration of the truths and lies entangled in the Stafford family saga, leaving listeners with much to ponder until our next installment.

Do you want to advertise with 69 SOUTH?

Scented Jewels
We’ve got the coolest wax melts ever. Dive into a world of many aromas at shopscentedjewels.com

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Support the show

Disclaimer: All defendants are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in a court of law. All facts are alleged until a conviction!

00:04 - 69 South Crime Podcast Investigation

14:37 - Financial Investigation Into the Staffords

23:36 - Property Evolution and Subsidy Investigation

32:15 - Stafford Family Food Spending Analysis

45:13 - Arrest Warrant and Bond Hearing Discussion

54:19 - Custody Battle and Systemic Failures

01:07:48 - Probable Cause Affidavit Reactions

WEBVTT

00:00:04.953 --> 00:00:12.685
69 South 69 South 69.

00:00:12.685 --> 00:00:18.143
South 69 South 69.

00:00:18.143 --> 00:00:18.403
South.

00:00:23.661 --> 00:00:33.316
Welcome everyone to Podcast 69 South, where we discuss and discuss true crime, cold cases, current events and hot topics, along with our state of society today.

00:00:33.316 --> 00:00:35.064
This is your trigger warning.

00:00:35.064 --> 00:00:39.780
Our podcast content is produced for adult listeners, 18 years of age and older.

00:00:39.780 --> 00:00:44.112
We discuss situations that may be offensive and triggering to some listeners.

00:00:44.112 --> 00:00:47.770
Sit back, relax and enjoy.

00:00:47.770 --> 00:00:51.409
Welcome back everybody to 69 South Podcast.

00:00:51.409 --> 00:00:57.792
I am Chop and I'm going to be your host today, as always, and with me always is my beautiful co-host, julie.

00:00:57.792 --> 00:01:01.448
Hello, we hope you had a good time since the last time.

00:01:01.448 --> 00:01:06.022
We are finally going to get through this probable cause affidavit, thank the Lord.

00:01:07.085 --> 00:01:07.688
Amen.

00:01:08.489 --> 00:01:15.269
So, without further delay, we're going to jump right into it, and then, after we get through the probable cause affidavit, we have an interview.

00:01:15.750 --> 00:01:16.451
Yes, we do.

00:01:16.451 --> 00:01:18.081
We have an interview with Nikki.

00:01:18.081 --> 00:01:27.194
She is the mother of the first group of children from Indiana that was adopted to the Staffords.

00:01:27.740 --> 00:01:29.969
She wanted us to get her story out there just so.

00:01:29.969 --> 00:01:37.370
I mean, she basically wants to set the record straight on why her children were even there and the fight she went through to try to get them back.

00:01:38.132 --> 00:01:38.352
Yep.

00:01:38.859 --> 00:01:40.528
So let's get right back into the questioning.

00:01:41.599 --> 00:01:46.813
Okay, so did she basically just deny all of the allegations against her parents?

00:01:47.019 --> 00:01:47.421
She did.

00:01:47.882 --> 00:01:52.212
And in fact did she specifically say that the grooming allegations were bullshit?

00:01:52.212 --> 00:01:53.061
Yes, she did.

00:01:53.061 --> 00:01:57.453
Did she tell you that she was raised by the best people on the planet?

00:01:57.453 --> 00:01:58.921
Yes, she did.

00:01:58.921 --> 00:02:08.334
And did she also say that she has adopted some of Sonia's parenting practices, such as writing sentences and things like that?

00:02:08.334 --> 00:02:09.235
Yes, she did.

00:02:09.235 --> 00:02:12.289
Did she say that she's made any changes?

00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:13.962
She had.

00:02:13.962 --> 00:02:16.143
No, she had said they were.

00:02:16.143 --> 00:02:20.992
She was essentially using the sentencing as kind of a punishment and stuff with her own kids.

00:02:21.760 --> 00:02:26.131
Did Kay mention that her parents were getting a divorce when you interviewed her?

00:02:26.131 --> 00:02:26.812
She did.

00:02:26.812 --> 00:02:31.670
And did she also mention that Sonia had a new boyfriend and that Brian had a new girlfriend?

00:02:31.670 --> 00:02:32.453
She did.

00:02:32.453 --> 00:02:39.989
Was her description of Brian's new girlfriend something along the lines of it's a don't ask, don't tell kind of situation.

00:02:39.989 --> 00:02:40.651
Yes.

00:02:40.651 --> 00:02:44.169
Did you tell her that you knew who Brian's girlfriend was?

00:02:44.169 --> 00:02:45.132
Yes, I did.

00:02:45.132 --> 00:02:52.834
What was her, I guess, explanation or her reaction to Brian and Victim 11 being together?

00:02:53.439 --> 00:03:06.216
She was kind of caught off guard that I even knew about it, but pretty much said that the situation was that it was hush-hush, that people weren't supposed to know about it and again was in shock that I knew about it and brought it up.

00:03:06.800 --> 00:03:09.086
Did you also interview M.

00:03:09.086 --> 00:03:10.411
Yes, I did.

00:03:10.411 --> 00:03:14.489
Did he also deny all the allegations against his parents?

00:03:14.489 --> 00:03:15.391
Yes, he did.

00:03:15.391 --> 00:03:18.669
And did he say that he was blessed and had a great childhood?

00:03:18.669 --> 00:03:19.390
Yes.

00:03:19.390 --> 00:03:20.241
Okay.

00:03:20.241 --> 00:03:27.592
Did you learn during your investigation that M has a child with victim six, who is one of the adopted kids?

00:03:27.592 --> 00:03:28.514
Yes, I did.

00:03:28.514 --> 00:03:35.652
Okay, after interviewing the biological children, did you also interview Brian's brother, brad Stafford?

00:03:35.652 --> 00:03:36.193
Yes.

00:03:36.193 --> 00:03:41.032
And what did he share in his interview that was relevant to your investigation?

00:03:41.539 --> 00:03:47.330
Brad had talked about that he had lived at the home with Brian and Sonia periodically when some of the kids were in the home.

00:03:47.330 --> 00:03:52.668
He had talked about an incident which was consistent with victim eight, with having the pillow taken away.

00:03:52.668 --> 00:04:06.605
He had talked about how he thought that Sonia was very harsh with the kids and then he also talked about something that was consistent with the other disclosures on how the kids, when they reached a certain age, it was almost like they aged out and they were kicked out.

00:04:06.605 --> 00:04:12.385
He described it as being kicked down the road because they didn't go along with the scheme with Sonia.

00:04:12.385 --> 00:04:16.422
He did also talk about the incident with victim aid around Thanksgiving.

00:04:16.422 --> 00:04:20.112
He said after the incident that he wasn't invited back to the property.

00:04:20.112 --> 00:04:31.776
He said after Sonia got upset and kind of questioned on her parenting skills and methods that slowly, more and more the family was kind of being forced to be distant and weren't allowed to come back to the property.

00:04:32.341 --> 00:04:37.709
The incident at Thanksgiving that you talked about is that the incident that victim two disclosed.

00:04:37.709 --> 00:04:42.757
That victim eight had gone up to a family member and they said why are you going to bed so late or so early in the night?

00:04:42.757 --> 00:04:44.339
Yes, and they said why are you going to bed so late or so early in the night.

00:04:44.339 --> 00:04:46.903
Yes, okay.

00:04:46.903 --> 00:04:52.514
Was there other incidences that had been observed that were relevant to your investigation?

00:04:53.379 --> 00:04:53.740
He did.

00:04:53.740 --> 00:04:57.031
He talked about an evening that they were in a Mexican restaurant for dinner.

00:04:57.031 --> 00:05:03.470
He had talked about he believed it was victim four, Victim four or victim two wasn't able to order food.

00:05:03.470 --> 00:05:06.802
Everyone had ordered food and gotten food, except for her.

00:05:06.802 --> 00:05:09.151
He had asked you know where's your food?

00:05:09.151 --> 00:05:12.161
And her response was she wasn't allowed to have anything.

00:05:12.161 --> 00:05:14.266
She wasn't allowed to get anything.

00:05:14.266 --> 00:05:18.925
So that was another incident that kind of stuck out to me when I was speaking with Brad.

00:05:19.947 --> 00:05:28.112
Did you use the phrase when you were interviewing him that he witnessed Sonia kind of manhandle the kids periodically throughout the years?

00:05:28.112 --> 00:05:28.994
Yes.

00:05:28.994 --> 00:05:36.172
Did he describe it as almost like someone that Sonia could not control it and didn't care who was around?

00:05:36.172 --> 00:05:37.274
Yes.

00:05:37.274 --> 00:05:46.735
What did he, or what were his thoughts about observing that and his concerns about what was going on behind the scenes?

00:05:47.259 --> 00:05:48.023
He was concerned.

00:05:48.023 --> 00:05:52.509
If she was doing that in front of people, what was going on when there weren't people around?

00:05:52.880 --> 00:05:57.668
Did he also make the comment that his brother, brian, would have turned a blind eye to what Sonia was doing?

00:05:57.668 --> 00:05:58.370
He did.

00:05:58.370 --> 00:06:01.860
At some point, and the reason that Brad was interviewed.

00:06:01.860 --> 00:06:15.750
Did we learn that when Victim 11 was kicked out after Brian and Victim 11's relationship became public in 2023, that Victim 11 went to live with Brad at the time in Monroe County?

00:06:15.750 --> 00:06:16.351
Yes.

00:06:16.351 --> 00:06:21.350
Okay, and did he tell you about the situation, how it came to be?

00:06:21.812 --> 00:06:23.910
He did he talked about initially.

00:06:23.910 --> 00:06:27.987
He said that Brian had reached out to him telling that things weren't going well at the farm.

00:06:27.987 --> 00:06:34.891
He asked Brad if he needed a place to stay, if he would be able to come stay with him, and Brad said you know, you're my brother.

00:06:34.891 --> 00:06:36.401
Of course I've got a room for you.

00:06:36.401 --> 00:06:38.345
If you need it, just let me know.

00:06:39.026 --> 00:06:44.954
He said it was a period later that Brian had reached out again and said hey, you know, things are still kind of bad.

00:06:44.954 --> 00:06:47.283
I may still need to come stay with you.

00:06:47.283 --> 00:06:50.170
And he said you know, you're more than welcome.

00:06:50.170 --> 00:06:52.523
You know how to get here, things like that.

00:06:52.523 --> 00:06:56.012
He said there was another conversation shortly after that.

00:06:56.012 --> 00:06:59.769
He had reached out again and said hey, I've got to take you up on that.

00:06:59.769 --> 00:07:03.302
I've got to come stay with you, but I'm going to have somebody else with me.

00:07:03.302 --> 00:07:09.134
And Brad was kind of taken back and it was like okay, and asked who it was.

00:07:09.134 --> 00:07:15.629
And Brian told him that it was going to be Victim 11, that him and Victim 11 would be coming to stay with him in Monroe County.

00:07:16.343 --> 00:07:22.529
And did that eventually end up happening, that Victim 11 went to live with Brad in Monroe County?

00:07:22.529 --> 00:07:23.071
Yes.

00:07:23.071 --> 00:07:30.146
And did he in his interview talk about Brian would be there periodically and kind of visit Victim 11?

00:07:30.146 --> 00:07:30.668
Yes.

00:07:30.668 --> 00:07:42.014
Did in his interview did he paint it as somewhat innocent in the relationship that it was something that was more about feelings than a sexual relationship?

00:07:42.014 --> 00:07:42.315
Yes, he did.

00:07:42.315 --> 00:07:43.038
Okay than a sexual relationship.

00:07:43.038 --> 00:07:43.439
Yes, he did.

00:07:43.439 --> 00:07:51.168
Okay, did Brad talk about Brian losing his job as a result of what was going on with Victim 11?

00:07:51.168 --> 00:07:52.011
Yes, he did.

00:07:52.540 --> 00:07:57.028
And at this point did you kind of figure out where Brian worked or what he did for a living?

00:07:57.028 --> 00:07:57.610
Yes.

00:07:57.610 --> 00:07:59.446
What was his employment?

00:07:59.901 --> 00:08:03.730
He was a contractor with an electric company that subcontracted with Eli Lilly.

00:08:03.730 --> 00:08:04.252
He had talked about that.

00:08:04.252 --> 00:08:09.028
The higher-ed with Eli Lilly he had talked about that, the higher-ups with Eli Lilly had caught wind of the investigation.

00:08:09.028 --> 00:08:16.824
At some point he essentially told Brian or gave him the ultimatum either you can retire and you can leave on your own, or we're going to dismiss you.

00:08:17.264 --> 00:08:22.363
Did he talk about Cody's suicide and Sonia's treatment of Cody in comparison to the other kids?

00:08:22.363 --> 00:08:22.865
Yes.

00:08:22.865 --> 00:08:31.511
Did he describe it, her treatment of Cody as psychological retaliation against the child?

00:08:31.511 --> 00:08:31.951
Yes.

00:08:31.951 --> 00:08:36.711
Did he use that as a way to describe how Sonia treated other kids in the home too?

00:08:37.722 --> 00:08:39.192
That was specifically Cody.

00:08:39.977 --> 00:08:49.671
Okay, was there a time where Sonia had told Brad something about DCS and missing DCS on a certain occasion and that they were out at the farm?

00:08:49.671 --> 00:08:50.311
Yes.

00:08:50.311 --> 00:08:54.456
What was that comment about?

00:08:54.456 --> 00:09:08.947
Essentially, that DCS had learned had been out there and Sonia kind of just essentially blew it off.

00:09:08.947 --> 00:09:12.820
Did she end up making the comment of something along the lines of well, it was lucky they weren't out here the other day because this kid had a bruise or something along the lines?

00:09:13.279 --> 00:09:13.902
Yes, she did.

00:09:13.902 --> 00:09:15.528
She did make a comment about that.

00:09:15.950 --> 00:09:23.745
Okay, so after interviewing Brad Stafford, did you interview VF, who is now the adopted mother of victim two, three and four?

00:09:23.745 --> 00:09:25.327
Yes, vf, who is now the adopted mother of victim two three and four.

00:09:25.327 --> 00:09:31.394
Yes, and the girls were placed with VF in May of 2024, the day they were removed, correct?

00:09:31.514 --> 00:09:32.075
That's correct.

00:09:39.940 --> 00:09:40.745
Since she has been placement for them?

00:09:40.745 --> 00:09:42.535
Did she give you an idea in her interview about how the girls have adjusted since?

00:09:42.556 --> 00:09:42.958
leaving the farm.

00:09:42.958 --> 00:09:43.139
She did.

00:09:43.139 --> 00:09:46.269
She said it has been quite of an adjustment period.

00:09:46.269 --> 00:09:54.312
She said that initially the girls would be fearful because they were afraid that V was going to act like Sonia did towards them.

00:09:54.312 --> 00:10:01.811
So V said she kind of had to nurture the girls and kind of explain that you know you're in a safe place now.

00:10:01.811 --> 00:10:03.947
Those things aren't going to happen to you anymore.

00:10:03.947 --> 00:10:15.068
You know you can do things you necessarily weren't allowed to do when you were living with Brian and Sonia and kind of had a kind of nature them and it kind of reassure things that are different now.

00:10:15.881 --> 00:10:27.227
Did she talk about whether the girls were kind of hesitant to wear certain clothes or makeup or nail polish if they were to go out because they were worried about seeing members of the family and getting in trouble?

00:10:27.227 --> 00:10:27.789
Yes.

00:10:27.789 --> 00:10:33.486
Did she also talk about having a birthday party for victim four and how the girls responded to a birthday cake?

00:10:33.486 --> 00:10:35.399
Yes, what was their response?

00:10:36.423 --> 00:10:39.672
They didn't know what to do with it because they'd never had one before.

00:10:40.740 --> 00:10:43.227
Did she describe it as almost being foreign to them?

00:10:43.227 --> 00:10:44.090
Yes, she did.

00:10:44.090 --> 00:10:50.172
Did she also talk about family pictures and wanting to do family pictures with the girls, since they are now in her family?

00:10:50.172 --> 00:10:50.653
Yes.

00:10:50.653 --> 00:10:55.509
And is that kind of a point like a triggering point for them?

00:10:56.010 --> 00:10:56.392
It was.

00:10:56.392 --> 00:11:00.770
They initially didn't want to do the family photos with V and her family.

00:11:00.770 --> 00:11:08.494
They had talked about how it wasn't good experience for them before because Sonia would always yell at them or things would happen during the pictures before.

00:11:08.494 --> 00:11:12.590
So they associated with that with negative from the farm.

00:11:12.590 --> 00:11:20.053
So V again had to reassure and nurture and kind of say you know this, you're in a different environment.

00:11:20.053 --> 00:11:22.041
Now those things aren't going to happen.

00:11:22.041 --> 00:11:24.323
You know, we want you to be in these pictures.

00:11:24.323 --> 00:11:25.666
You're part of our family.

00:11:25.666 --> 00:11:27.688
Now those things aren't going to happen, you know we want you to be in these pictures.

00:11:27.708 --> 00:11:28.610
You're part of our family now so has V.

00:11:28.610 --> 00:11:33.926
In her interview did she talk about noticing any change of the girls eating habits since they've been with her?

00:11:33.926 --> 00:11:34.849
Yes, she did.

00:11:34.849 --> 00:11:36.072
And what did she notice?

00:11:36.519 --> 00:11:42.342
She said, they tend to eat way more because they have no concept of being full, so they just continue to eat and eat.

00:11:43.325 --> 00:11:51.230
And does she, in the time that she has had them, did she go and take them to the doctor for checkup and things like that?

00:11:51.230 --> 00:11:52.131
Yes, she has.

00:11:52.131 --> 00:11:59.260
Has she also been monitoring any growth, any weight gain, anything like that, while they've been with her?

00:11:59.260 --> 00:11:59.880
Yes.

00:11:59.880 --> 00:12:10.914
And did she also tell you about the girls kind of experiencing some things, needing to clip their fingernails and toenails, having thicker and healthier hair since they've been eating more?

00:12:10.914 --> 00:12:11.655
Yes.

00:12:12.200 --> 00:12:20.153
And so, in that time that the girls have been with V, what are some of the weight gains that they have had?

00:12:20.153 --> 00:12:22.086
Well, let's actually break that down.

00:12:22.086 --> 00:12:27.552
Victim four what was her starting weight when she first was in the care with V?

00:12:29.524 --> 00:12:30.988
Her weight was 86.4.

00:12:32.160 --> 00:12:34.768
And the last time that she was weighed by V?

00:12:34.768 --> 00:12:36.072
When was that?

00:12:36.860 --> 00:12:41.111
It was last month, November, the last month or this year.

00:12:41.922 --> 00:12:43.889
And how much did she weigh at that point?

00:12:44.519 --> 00:12:45.903
98.8 pounds.

00:12:46.446 --> 00:12:51.004
And so that would be 12.4 pounds she had gained in a period of time.

00:12:51.004 --> 00:12:51.566
Yes.

00:12:51.566 --> 00:12:52.889
And did she grow any?

00:12:53.669 --> 00:12:53.910
Yes.

00:12:54.171 --> 00:12:55.092
How much did she grow?

00:12:55.500 --> 00:12:56.743
She grew about three inches.

00:12:57.104 --> 00:13:03.105
And so for her starting height, where she was on June 7th, her starting height would have been what?

00:13:04.929 --> 00:13:06.673
Four foot six and a half inches.

00:13:07.020 --> 00:13:08.788
And then on the 21st of November.

00:13:09.360 --> 00:13:11.067
Four foot nine and a half inches.

00:13:11.561 --> 00:13:15.071
And then for victim two what was the starting weight on June 7th?

00:13:15.780 --> 00:13:17.508
116.8 pounds.

00:13:18.181 --> 00:13:20.489
And what was her weight as of November 21st?

00:13:21.240 --> 00:13:22.658
137.2 pounds.

00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:25.408
And so she gained about 20.4 pounds.

00:13:25.408 --> 00:13:26.049
Is that correct?

00:13:26.250 --> 00:13:26.831
That's correct.

00:13:27.200 --> 00:13:30.190
And then, what was her starting weight on June 7th?

00:13:30.721 --> 00:13:31.745
5 foot 1 inch.

00:13:32.059 --> 00:13:36.687
And then her height as of November 21st 5 foot 3 inches.

00:13:36.687 --> 00:13:38.144
And then victim three.

00:13:38.144 --> 00:13:41.250
What was her starting weight on June 7th?

00:13:41.799 --> 00:13:42.904
112 pounds.

00:13:43.080 --> 00:13:47.369
And then her weight as of November 21st 138.4 pounds.

00:13:47.369 --> 00:13:51.510
And so she's gained about 26.4 pounds, correct, that's correct.

00:13:51.510 --> 00:13:57.033
And then has she also grown during that time period.

00:13:57.400 --> 00:13:58.650
Yes, she's grown about an inch.

00:13:59.398 --> 00:14:03.850
Okay, and so, as part of your investigation, did V provide recent photos of the girls?

00:14:03.850 --> 00:14:04.451
She did.

00:14:04.451 --> 00:14:08.614
And did you also have photos from the girls from the night of their removal?

00:14:09.076 --> 00:14:09.397
I did.

00:14:10.019 --> 00:14:13.931
Okay, so I'm going to show you what's been marked as States Exhibit 3, 4, and 5.

00:14:13.931 --> 00:14:16.607
And what's Exhibit 3?

00:14:17.140 --> 00:14:22.591
This is a picture before the night of the removal of Victim 4 and the most recent picture.

00:14:23.192 --> 00:14:25.688
Okay, and then the States Exhibit four who is that one?

00:14:25.688 --> 00:14:28.966
And then the state's exhibit five.

00:14:28.966 --> 00:14:34.570
Okay, and they are side-by-side comparisons of the girls, right?

00:14:34.570 --> 00:14:34.931
Yes.

00:14:34.931 --> 00:14:42.773
Okay, and has there been any contact with Brian or Sonia since the girls have been in V's care?

00:14:43.921 --> 00:14:46.048
There's not been physical contact with them.

00:14:46.048 --> 00:14:46.269
No.

00:14:46.780 --> 00:14:49.831
What sort of contact have they had if not physical contact?

00:14:50.279 --> 00:15:03.476
V has reported throughout the investigation that Brian, sonia and her boyfriend Stephen and victim 11 would drive by and even stop at the end of the road where they live on or end of the driveway or end of the driveway.

00:15:03.476 --> 00:15:22.399
V, in most recent conversation with her, also talked about that, after they had had their family photos done, that she had shared them on social media, which was something that she hadn't done before since the girls hadn't been formally adopted, and that Brian had found the pictures on her social media and had only reacted to just the photos of the girls themselves.

00:15:22.903 --> 00:15:32.465
So, in addition to all of the interviews you conducted, did you receive 310s, 311s from the Department of Child Services related to this family?

00:15:32.465 --> 00:15:33.347
Yes, I did.

00:15:33.347 --> 00:15:35.567
And what year did those reports begin?

00:15:36.102 --> 00:15:37.340
They started in 2015.

00:15:38.042 --> 00:15:43.509
And did these reports that you were able now to review corroborate what you learned from the kids throughout your investigation?

00:15:43.509 --> 00:15:44.410
Yes, they did.

00:15:44.410 --> 00:15:50.192
Did Victim 7 make any reports or reports to an adult that were then reported to DCS?

00:15:50.192 --> 00:15:52.607
You found in the 310s and 311s.

00:15:52.607 --> 00:15:52.849
Yes.

00:15:52.849 --> 00:15:54.548
What about M?

00:15:54.548 --> 00:15:55.352
Yes.

00:15:55.352 --> 00:16:04.261
Okay, was there a report relating to Victim 1 that was consistent or that stood out to you that kind of aligned with a lot of what we learned in our investigation?

00:16:04.282 --> 00:16:06.224
Yes, that stood out to you that kind of aligned with a lot of what we learned in our investigation.

00:16:06.224 --> 00:16:11.087
Yes, there was two in 2020 that were consistent with the disclosures that we learned in the investigation.

00:16:11.748 --> 00:16:15.471
Okay, and was there a report in 2022 about Victimate?

00:16:15.471 --> 00:16:15.971
Yes.

00:16:15.971 --> 00:16:22.736
And was that consistent with your investigation as Victimate was told to lie to DCS?

00:16:22.736 --> 00:16:24.120
That's correct.

00:16:24.120 --> 00:16:28.010
Okay, that was in the 310 and 311 that was reviewed.

00:16:28.010 --> 00:16:28.532
Yes.

00:16:28.532 --> 00:16:31.866
Were there multiple reports about victim eight.

00:16:31.988 --> 00:16:32.589
Yes, there were.

00:16:32.789 --> 00:16:33.631
How many were made?

00:16:34.441 --> 00:16:37.330
There's at least three reports made specifically with victim eight.

00:16:38.181 --> 00:16:43.471
Was there a report that was made in 2023 about victim eight staying with the neighbors?

00:16:43.471 --> 00:16:49.283
Yes, there was 23 about victim eight staying with the neighbors.

00:16:49.283 --> 00:16:52.332
Yes, there was, and in that report is it mentioned that he had gained 35 pounds since living with them?

00:16:52.332 --> 00:16:56.365
Yes, was there also a report that he had been kicked out by Sonia on a specific day?

00:16:56.365 --> 00:17:01.682
I think it was in 2022 or 2023 that showed up in the three tens?

00:17:01.682 --> 00:17:02.722
Yes, there was.

00:17:03.144 --> 00:17:11.440
Okay Now you said that there was some body cam footage from the night that the girls were removed on May 22, 2024.

00:17:11.440 --> 00:17:14.230
We've talked about who was on the scene.

00:17:14.230 --> 00:17:22.032
Were there any statements that Brian Stafford made to deputies or to the family case manager that you reviewed on body cam?

00:17:22.653 --> 00:17:30.188
Yes, brian acknowledged that the girls had been paddled, talked about one of them having a mark from it and then one of the scratches on her face.

00:17:30.188 --> 00:17:36.605
He also mentioned that he brought up almost the molest allegations by himself, without being prompted.

00:17:36.605 --> 00:17:41.488
He made a comment that Sonia was just trying to use it all against him.

00:17:42.002 --> 00:17:47.444
At some point does Sonia arrive on the scene and start talking to the family case manager, with deputies present.

00:17:47.444 --> 00:17:48.047
Yes.

00:17:48.047 --> 00:17:53.323
Does Sonia admit that the girls are on this food schedule that the girls disclosed?

00:17:53.323 --> 00:17:54.525
Yes, she did.

00:17:54.525 --> 00:17:55.988
And did she make the comment?

00:17:55.988 --> 00:17:58.693
I get to eat T-bone steak.

00:17:58.693 --> 00:18:01.685
They have to eat ravioli and ramen noodles.

00:18:01.685 --> 00:18:02.667
Yes she did?

00:18:02.667 --> 00:18:05.693
Was Sonia intoxicated the night that she showed up?

00:18:05.693 --> 00:18:06.520
Yes.

00:18:06.520 --> 00:18:07.563
Okay.

00:18:07.563 --> 00:18:13.021
Did she also admit that the girls were getting spanked by a paddle and that they had a point system?

00:18:13.021 --> 00:18:13.983
Yes, she did.

00:18:14.305 --> 00:18:18.800
Did she also make the comment that she kind of just found all of this very humorous?

00:18:18.800 --> 00:18:19.541
She did.

00:18:19.541 --> 00:18:22.525
Did she bring up victim 11 being pregnant?

00:18:22.525 --> 00:18:23.566
Yes, she did.

00:18:23.566 --> 00:18:32.395
And did she also make the comment to the family case manager that this, referring to the situation with Brian, had been going on for so long?

00:18:32.395 --> 00:18:32.977
Yes.

00:18:32.977 --> 00:18:39.432
And did she also admit that the girls had disclosed to her numerous times about Brian exposing himself?

00:18:39.432 --> 00:18:40.513
Yes, she did.

00:18:40.940 --> 00:18:42.103
Throughout your investigation.

00:18:42.103 --> 00:18:46.573
We've talked about the devices that you had obtained and were processed later.

00:18:46.573 --> 00:18:49.867
Are those sort of still being processed for additional things?

00:18:49.867 --> 00:18:50.670
Yes, they are.

00:18:50.670 --> 00:18:54.065
Okay, did you find anything relevant in your investigation?

00:18:54.065 --> 00:18:57.612
That's of note for the court in this hearing.

00:18:58.413 --> 00:19:04.913
Yes, there were messages about DCS being at the residence on the 22nd, which was the night that they went out with the deputies.

00:19:04.913 --> 00:19:18.990
There was also images on Brian's phone that kind of confirmed the pregnancy there was the background photo was Brian and it had a positive pregnancy test on it Numerous communications between her and Brian confirming their relationship.

00:19:18.990 --> 00:19:36.394
And then there was one incident that really stuck out to me that Brian had inquired about coming coming down or coming in and ask what to do with the girls, and Sonia said to put them in their rooms, make sure that their alarms were set and give them a bucket or something or have them use the restroom before they go in.

00:19:37.181 --> 00:19:48.371
Did you also, on Sonia's device, find any videos of the girls from inside the house that seemed to have been taken from cameras that you located in the execution of the search warrant?

00:19:48.371 --> 00:19:48.893
Yes.

00:19:48.893 --> 00:19:54.048
Was there anything that cooperates with the girls have disclosed in the review of those videos?

00:19:54.327 --> 00:19:54.809
There was.

00:19:54.809 --> 00:20:02.044
There was videos of the girls in their bedrooms or, I'm sorry, there was pictures of the girls in their bedrooms consistent with what they had disclosed.

00:20:02.044 --> 00:20:05.291
There was also videos of them writing out their sentences.

00:20:05.291 --> 00:20:14.648
One of them was very emotional and crying during that process, but these were videos believed to be from the camera system in the house that were stored on her device.

00:20:15.240 --> 00:20:20.830
And so at some point in the investigation did you learn that Brian and Sonia have sold their house on Herbiemont Road.

00:20:20.830 --> 00:20:21.332
Yes.

00:20:21.332 --> 00:20:23.847
And do you know when that sale took place?

00:20:24.601 --> 00:20:25.545
October of this year.

00:20:26.060 --> 00:20:35.931
And so at some point you learned that Kay, the bio daughter, had made comments to M Grandma about Brian buying a house in Newcastle.

00:20:35.931 --> 00:20:37.365
Were you able to confirm that?

00:20:37.365 --> 00:20:41.463
Yes, I was, and so did he take anyone with him when he went to Newcastle.

00:20:41.924 --> 00:20:42.326
He did.

00:20:42.326 --> 00:20:43.507
He took victim 11.

00:20:44.628 --> 00:20:47.993
And were you contacted by a realtor that handled that sort of sale?

00:20:47.993 --> 00:20:48.355
And he did.

00:20:48.355 --> 00:20:49.056
He took victim 11.

00:20:49.936 --> 00:20:50.357
I was.

00:20:52.982 --> 00:20:55.451
And what was the reason they contacted you?

00:20:55.920 --> 00:20:58.247
They found the whole situation kind of concerning.

00:20:58.247 --> 00:20:59.770
So they actually reached out.

00:20:59.770 --> 00:21:03.099
It was a former IMPD officer that works sex crimes.

00:21:03.099 --> 00:21:15.702
He had reached out to Zach Dodson, who is a corporal for the investigations unit, who she was familiar with, and kind of said essentially, I want to explain this kind of situation I have with you because I find it odd or concerning.

00:21:15.702 --> 00:21:26.189
I want to explain this kind of situation I have with you because I find it odd or concerning, so kind of starting running through the situation with them selling the house and Brian was wanting to purchase a home and do a dual closing for him and victim 11.

00:21:26.189 --> 00:21:36.434
And Zach was obviously familiar with the investigation because he'd been a part of this as well and immediately knew who she was talking about and said is his name Brian?

00:21:36.434 --> 00:21:38.695
And her response was well, how do you know that?

00:21:38.695 --> 00:21:48.321
And that was when Zach forwarded me her information and said I'm going to put you in contact with the detective that's investigating that.

00:21:48.342 --> 00:21:52.065
At some point did we ever confirm that victim 11 was in fact pregnant?

00:21:52.065 --> 00:21:52.545
Yes.

00:21:52.545 --> 00:21:53.566
Has.

00:21:53.566 --> 00:21:54.605
She had her baby.

00:21:54.605 --> 00:21:55.507
Yes, she has.

00:21:56.188 --> 00:22:09.196
And that finishes up Detective Williams' testimony and we're going to go on to Investigator Bays, who is also another investigator who worked on this, and we're going to jump right into that.

00:22:09.196 --> 00:22:20.604
So let's talk a little bit with the court about your involvement with this investigation.

00:22:20.604 --> 00:22:25.622
Were you present yesterday when we did the three-hour hearing with Detective Williams as he testified about his involvement in the Staffords?

00:22:25.622 --> 00:22:29.613
Can you explain for the court how you became involved with this investigation?

00:22:29.960 --> 00:22:30.580
Absolutely.

00:22:30.580 --> 00:22:39.954
I was initially asked to help track down some adoption placement records from out of state that included Florida, Oregon, as well as some here in Indiana.

00:22:39.954 --> 00:22:46.894
As the investigation evolved, it became pretty clear that there was a financial component that needed some exploration.

00:22:46.894 --> 00:22:56.213
My background is in financial crimes On my last assignment as the FBI Financial Crimes Task Force in Indianapolis, so I was asked to participate.

00:22:57.819 --> 00:22:58.702
Financial Crimes Task Force in Indianapolis.

00:22:58.702 --> 00:23:04.344
So I was asked to participate and as a result of your involvement, did you obtain financial records associated with Brian and Sonia Stafford to assist in this investigation?

00:23:04.344 --> 00:23:04.945
I did.

00:23:04.945 --> 00:23:10.221
And can you explain for the court how or by what means you obtained those records?

00:23:10.843 --> 00:23:19.084
So we did get the adoption records and it was pretty clear that there was quite a bit of subsidy that were transferred to the Staffords over a period of time.

00:23:19.084 --> 00:23:23.922
Most, if not all, of those subsidies were sent to a citizen's bank account.

00:23:23.922 --> 00:23:30.604
I requested and received an order, served that order to Citizens Bank and I went and reviewed the records.

00:23:30.604 --> 00:23:36.261
I was able to open a much larger window into the Staffords' financial spending behavior.

00:23:36.702 --> 00:23:42.773
And so let's talk about the property that the Stafford's owned at 56 Herbymont Road in Martinsville, Indiana.

00:23:42.773 --> 00:23:47.612
Are you aware of when that piece of property was purchased by the Stafford's?

00:23:48.119 --> 00:23:52.132
I believe it was in 1996, at least in around that time period.

00:23:52.440 --> 00:24:02.496
And can you explain for the court if you were able to, through public information kind of review, what the property looked like back when it was purchased, up to 2024?

00:24:03.019 --> 00:24:09.054
Yes, so there's an overhead satellite imagery of the property goes so far back as 1996.

00:24:09.054 --> 00:24:16.334
And then there's intermediate images that were taken between 96 and 2021.

00:24:16.334 --> 00:24:21.327
Images that were taken between 96 and 2021.

00:24:21.387 --> 00:24:35.391
So if you're able to get a good sense of how the property looked and then how it evolved, over that time period and as an aid for your testimony did you prepare a few slides that were labeled here in Exhibit 6 as sort of a progression of what the property looked like throughout the years.

00:24:35.551 --> 00:24:38.858
Yes, I did sort of a progression of what the property looked like throughout the years?

00:24:38.858 --> 00:24:46.558
Yes, I did, and would that be helpful for the court in your testimony to have to look at States Exhibit 6 while you're testifying about this property.

00:24:46.558 --> 00:24:55.442
Yes, If you could just walk the court through the first slide that you have on States Exhibit 6,.

00:24:55.442 --> 00:24:57.451
What is it that we're looking at?

00:24:58.316 --> 00:25:01.224
So this is just an overview of what the property is.

00:25:01.224 --> 00:25:02.969
It's actually three parcels.

00:25:02.969 --> 00:25:08.049
However, for tax assessment purposes, you'll see, the parcels in the south are bound.

00:25:08.049 --> 00:25:17.092
So even though they are three, they're two separate parcels from a tax assessment purpose and for valuing, those have been assessed together.

00:25:17.092 --> 00:25:31.753
And then you see the property or the partial to the north which is priced, I should say valued separately, and that basically makes 56 Herbemont Road as we're going to talk about it today.

00:25:32.259 --> 00:25:36.964
And going to the next page of the state's exhibit six, can you explain for the court what we are looking at here?

00:25:38.240 --> 00:25:43.153
So, in understanding what the property looked like when the Staffords occupied it, this is a good example.

00:25:43.153 --> 00:25:47.929
You're seeing an overhead satellite image from 1998, and what you see?

00:25:47.929 --> 00:25:54.616
There are two structures that are photographed, and these photographs are certainly much more modern than 1998.

00:25:54.616 --> 00:25:58.500
But those are the two structures that existed on the property.

00:25:58.500 --> 00:26:07.872
You have the primary residence, which is represented on the bottom left, and then a large pole-style barn, which is represented in the picture in the upper left.

00:26:07.872 --> 00:26:14.623
I do believe that pole-style barn has been upgraded over time, but it's kind of unclear what exactly when.

00:26:15.244 --> 00:26:24.932
So there's three pictures on the second page of States, exhibit 6, and it looks like one of them is an aerial view that you had mentioned, with some yellow rectangles.

00:26:24.932 --> 00:26:31.792
Can you explain for the court what that is and how that's going to help you kind of get through your testimony?

00:26:32.193 --> 00:26:36.490
Sure, it's kind of a baseline for what there was there in 1998.

00:26:36.490 --> 00:26:39.940
Sure, it's kind of a baseline for what there was there in 1998.

00:26:44.119 --> 00:26:51.892
Those particular squares are where these two structures that you're seeing on the left side of the slide are located, and so, as we go through this, if there's additional squares, that's additional things that are added to the property.

00:26:51.892 --> 00:26:53.114
Would that be fair to say?

00:26:53.433 --> 00:27:00.300
That's correct, okay, so let's go to the next page and explain for the court what we have here.

00:27:00.300 --> 00:27:04.461
So this was the first structure that was added after the Stafford's bought the property in 2002.

00:27:04.461 --> 00:27:12.885
It is a large kind of traditional red barn and that structure still exists there today and that structure was built in 2002.

00:27:13.286 --> 00:27:19.088
And you were present for Detective Williams' testimony and through your assistance in the investigation.

00:27:19.088 --> 00:27:30.253
Is 2015 a year that would have been after or around the time that all three groups of kids the Staffords adopted would have already been in the home?

00:27:30.594 --> 00:27:31.153
That's correct.

00:27:31.575 --> 00:27:33.454
Okay, so let's look at the next page.

00:27:33.454 --> 00:27:36.836
Can you explain for the court what we're looking at here?

00:27:37.817 --> 00:27:40.318
So this is a pad, or a concrete pad.

00:27:40.318 --> 00:27:46.667
It's listed as a basketball court In any of the pictures contemporaneous to the removal of the kids.

00:27:46.667 --> 00:27:53.150
There's no basketball equipment or goals or anything but that ad did arrive in 2018.

00:27:53.150 --> 00:28:02.144
And what we're looking at is an image of it in 2018, and what we're looking at is an image of it.

00:28:02.144 --> 00:28:05.856
Its presence there is consistent with that development in 2018, meaning it wasn't there before and then the following page.

00:28:06.559 --> 00:28:07.162
And this is.

00:28:07.162 --> 00:28:10.167
There's two items there that I want to highlight.

00:28:10.167 --> 00:28:21.932
The first is this freestanding patio I believe it's referred to this patio on the back of the house and then there's the second structure, which is a small garage-type barn that was built in 2020.

00:28:22.334 --> 00:28:33.347
And so in your review of looking at this property during the investigation, is there any sort of, I guess progressive value of the property since the time that the Staffords bought it?

00:28:33.828 --> 00:28:36.381
Yes, there's two ways we can look at the value of the property.

00:28:36.381 --> 00:28:37.663
There's a ways we can look at the value of the property.

00:28:37.663 --> 00:28:56.648
There's a tax assessment, which is public record, on the product of a government assessor in 2001, which is as far back as we have good records it was valued at $72,800.

00:28:56.648 --> 00:28:59.895
Today that same property is valued at $349,700.

00:28:59.895 --> 00:29:03.163
Then there's also a sale value which we all know is dramatically different.

00:29:03.163 --> 00:29:06.413
We do have to look as far back as 2014.

00:29:06.413 --> 00:29:15.009
So that property collectively was valued potentially at sale at $185,300 in 2014.

00:29:15.009 --> 00:29:22.980
That property was sold, house structures and all in October of 2024 for $625,000.

00:29:23.621 --> 00:29:26.632
I believe I'm jumping around a bit In States Exhibit 6,.

00:29:26.632 --> 00:29:32.027
Are there additional pages that would be helpful for the court, during your testimony, to be able to review?

00:29:32.929 --> 00:29:39.571
Yeah, based off what I was just discussing, you'll see some graphs and charts in the back that just demonstrate the value.

00:29:40.381 --> 00:29:42.787
And that's the last page of States Exhibit 6.

00:29:42.787 --> 00:29:43.528
Is that correct?

00:29:43.990 --> 00:29:44.531
That's correct.

00:29:45.220 --> 00:29:53.339
So you mentioned early in your testimony that there was we learned through the investigation the Staffords were receiving a subsidy for each child they adopted.

00:29:53.339 --> 00:29:59.084
Can you tell the court, through your involvement, how much you learned that the staffers received per child?

00:29:59.905 --> 00:30:08.257
I was able to get comprehensive documentation from both Indiana and in Florida for the children that had been placed and adopted from there.

00:30:08.257 --> 00:30:28.913
The amounts varied in Indiana, maybe having to do with when the kids were adopted or whatever agreements existed, but generally speaking, in Indiana they received $300 to $350 a month per child in their care per month, and then the children from Florida they received $417 per child per month.

00:30:29.760 --> 00:30:34.573
And so how much money did the Staffords make in placement benefits as a total number?

00:30:35.319 --> 00:31:05.617
So if we look at their bank documents and money that we know factually that they received and what form they received it in, we can look back as far as December 2016 up until July, which is the time collectively or in the aggregate from Florida and Indiana.

00:31:05.617 --> 00:31:13.513
I would add, though, that there were children placed in the house from 2009 up until 2016 as well.

00:31:13.513 --> 00:31:19.122
2016 as well.

00:31:19.122 --> 00:31:22.890
We have records from Florida that indicate how much they were providing them during that time period, and it's an additional $110,000.

00:31:22.890 --> 00:31:29.008
But that source from Florida, and we don't have bank records that confirm they received all of that.

00:31:29.008 --> 00:31:31.420
We have no reason to think that they didn't, though.

00:31:32.080 --> 00:31:40.574
And so, in reviewing what we've received on the Staffords in terms of their financial life, did you learn that this was a single income household?

00:31:40.574 --> 00:31:41.194
I did.

00:31:41.194 --> 00:31:44.914
And was that income provided by Brian Stafford?

00:31:45.317 --> 00:31:45.799
That's correct.

00:31:46.160 --> 00:31:57.894
And so, as sort of a review in the case, were you able to look at between the years of 2021 and 2024, what their total cleared income was between that time period?

00:31:57.894 --> 00:31:58.535
Yes.

00:31:58.535 --> 00:32:01.002
And can you explain for the court?

00:32:01.002 --> 00:32:06.034
When we use the term total cleared income, what are we talking about?

00:32:06.779 --> 00:32:12.464
I'm referring to money that was deposited into their account that had already been subjected to withholding.

00:32:12.464 --> 00:32:15.493
It had already been subjected to taxation.

00:32:15.493 --> 00:32:21.330
So this is money that was deposited into their account as liquid funds, into their operating accounts.

00:32:21.893 --> 00:32:28.587
And so what was the total cleared income for the Staffords between 2021 and 2024?

00:32:29.068 --> 00:32:41.529
So a quick note on the 2021 and 2024, we chose that window and we'll talk about it a little more, but we're going to discuss September 1st 2021 through May 31st 2024.

00:32:41.529 --> 00:32:52.261
And the reason that is is we have the most overlap in spending records, just because that's what was made available, so we're going to get our best assessment from that time period.

00:32:52.261 --> 00:33:04.203
So when we talk about September 1st 2021 through December 31st 2021, they brought in collectively $27,881.72.

00:33:04.203 --> 00:33:10.971
In 2022, over the course of the year, they brought in $86,8996.

00:33:10.971 --> 00:33:34.085
And then the last part, I'd say the first half of 2024, this is January 1st through May 31st, when, when which the children were removed, they brought in $35,173, all post-tax, all post-withholding.

00:33:34.730 --> 00:33:38.901
To provide yourself with sort of some context and perhaps the core.

00:33:38.901 --> 00:33:46.042
During your investigation, did you try to find some sort of, I guess, agreed number on how much it costs per year to raise a child?

00:33:46.809 --> 00:33:56.080
Yes, we wanted to establish a, a baseline, so we had something to compare that, to see if these what expenditures were being made on behalf of the kids.

00:33:56.080 --> 00:34:06.875
So in doing that, I borrowed from the 2017 United States Department of Agriculture study on how much it costs to raise a child and how those costs are broken down.

00:34:06.875 --> 00:34:19.101
The study was published in 2017, and in 2017, that estimate was $233,610 over the 18-year span of a child.

00:34:19.101 --> 00:34:29.018
Of that $233,000, it is important in our discussion today 18% of that is allotted or earmarketed for food.

00:34:29.018 --> 00:34:37.744
Those totals are expected to rise with inflation, so the estimate 2.2 percent over the course over each year.

00:34:37.744 --> 00:34:47.458
So that left us in 2021 with approximately a $254,000 for the 18-year lifespan of a child.

00:34:47.458 --> 00:35:00.322
With the inflation that would raise it to $260,000 in 2022 and to about $265,000 in 2023, all with those inflation costs built in.

00:35:00.322 --> 00:35:13.885
If you figure 18% of that estimate applies to food, we landed at about $211 to $226 per month per child for food allowance between 2021 and 2024.

00:35:16.231 --> 00:35:23.876
And that is what our investigation and your part of the investigation has been focused on what they have been spending, or what we can measure.

00:35:23.876 --> 00:35:26.001
They spent in food for the children.

00:35:26.001 --> 00:35:26.523
Yes.

00:35:26.523 --> 00:35:34.440
And so how did you, in looking at all of their financial records, how did you assess how much they spent on food for the children in their home?

00:35:35.251 --> 00:35:39.481
So I had to start by understanding how, by what means, they're spending their money.

00:35:40.070 --> 00:35:50.382
In doing that, I'd taken that citizen's account that we already discussed and looked at it with the other credit card accounts and anything else people use for day-to-day spending.

00:35:51.130 --> 00:36:09.677
I identified a Chase credit card and a Discover credit card, kind of associated or built into their financials, however, it is that citizen's account to which the subsidies from Florida and Indiana were being deposited that appear very much so to their operating account records for their household cost.

00:36:09.677 --> 00:36:22.284
So I was able, in viewing all of those records, to determine a handful of places where they'd regularly spent their money, and that was Walmart, costco, aldi's, sam's Club and Amazon.

00:36:22.284 --> 00:36:31.193
I obtained transaction details, that is, line items, for what they spent, so receipts the list exactly what they bought and when.

00:36:31.193 --> 00:36:35.389
And then I coded all of those purchases into six different categories.

00:36:35.389 --> 00:36:40.981
That included food, hygiene, school and home items, clothes and toys.

00:36:40.981 --> 00:36:45.393
When I coded them, I collated that by date and by type.

00:36:45.393 --> 00:36:58.643
Then that's where I got that September 1st 2021 through May 31st 2024, because we have a good record overlap for that time period, which again will give us our most accurate assessment.

00:36:59.291 --> 00:37:07.282
And so can you explain for the court how much did the Stafford spend in 2022 on food for the children in their care?

00:37:07.931 --> 00:37:09.639
I will, and I'd like to add one note.

00:37:09.639 --> 00:37:15.081
I want to note that a study like this it's not exhaustive and it's not comprehensive.

00:37:15.081 --> 00:37:26.978
I will always lack a certain amount of insight because I don't live in the house with them, but we will definitely see examples of off purchases or cash purchases that there's really no way to track.

00:37:26.978 --> 00:37:38.853
What I've done here is follow the patterns, and what I can say is that this is very much depicts where the Staffords were regularly spending their money on food and groceries.

00:37:38.853 --> 00:37:45.664
With that said, they spent approximately $10,475 in groceries in 2022.

00:37:45.664 --> 00:38:02.469
That breaks down to an average of $872 a month, and if we compare the estimated expense, we can see they spent $5,076 less than the USDA estimates that they should have A note for that, then, that is.

00:38:02.469 --> 00:38:07.478
This is going to be true for 2022, 2023, and 2024.

00:38:07.478 --> 00:38:09.882
I'm talking about household spending.

00:38:09.882 --> 00:38:12.311
I'm not talking about just what they spent.

00:38:12.311 --> 00:38:21.257
When you talk about what household spending, they spent $5,000 less than what the USD said they should have spent, only on the children.

00:38:21.697 --> 00:38:35.664
And for, I guess, kind of to bring it back to the testimony from yesterday, we know that at least in 2022, there were three children at the very least that were in the Stafford's home.

00:38:35.664 --> 00:38:36.385
Is that correct?

00:38:37.329 --> 00:38:41.201
In 2022, at the very least, there was more like five to six.

00:38:41.811 --> 00:38:43.818
Okay, and so what about 2023?

00:38:44.851 --> 00:38:45.972
In 2023,.

00:38:45.972 --> 00:38:53.465
For the entire year, they spent about $9,763, breaks down to $813 per month.

00:38:53.465 --> 00:38:56.152
Compared to that same USD average.

00:38:56.152 --> 00:39:06.346
They spent $2,116 less than they should have or would have been expected to, which is about 24 to 25% less.

00:39:06.346 --> 00:39:15.762
And again the same deal household spending, not just spending that was assessed against the child, the needs of the children, and what about 2024?

00:39:16.891 --> 00:39:24.264
This would have been just between January 1st to May 31st, and they spent about $2,111.

00:39:24.264 --> 00:39:35.835
That breaks down to a monthly average of $422, and they spent $1,258 less, which is more than 50% what the USDA would have said.

00:39:35.835 --> 00:39:40.271
Based on the number of children they had in their house, they should have spent at that time.

00:39:40.652 --> 00:39:43.619
And so I want to jump back just for a moment.

00:39:43.619 --> 00:39:46.311
We talked about the subsidies the staffers were receiving.

00:39:46.311 --> 00:39:56.273
When we got some of the records back from Florida and from Indiana, did you learn that the staffers were still receiving payments for victim eight after we had learned he was no longer in the home?

00:39:56.273 --> 00:39:56.835
I did.

00:39:56.835 --> 00:39:57.797
Okay.

00:39:57.797 --> 00:40:09.378
So, looking at what you've gone through their history of spending, were you able to find any purchases that were consistent with what the children disclosed about the food regimen they were required to follow?

00:40:10.400 --> 00:40:30.699
Yes, I received the statements, both in terms of their interviews as well as what Detective Williams had built into his probable cause affidavit, and I wanted to see if the purchases that we had information on for that same time period bear out against what these young people said and were being fed, and I was able to find quite a few consistencies.

00:40:30.699 --> 00:40:39.213
Specifically, there was references to peanut butter, sardines, soup specifically ravioli, romaine and yogurt.

00:40:39.213 --> 00:40:52.242
When I looked at these items in particular, for the time period 9-1-2021 through 5-31-2024, there were only 29 40-ounce peanut butter items bought.

00:40:52.242 --> 00:40:56.876
That bears out, or I should say that equals 1,160 servings.

00:40:56.876 --> 00:41:13.505
They bought 228 cans of ravioli, 105 cans of beans, 636 packages of Roman, 98 cans of sardines, 51 cans of tuna or packages of tuna and 124 items of yogurt.

00:41:14.010 --> 00:41:25.112
Is there anything else of relevance to the court for the determination of the probable cause that would be important for her to know about in your review of the records and things we've gone over during this investigation?

00:41:26.153 --> 00:41:32.045
I don't think I would have anything that I would add, at least at this stage, to what we have talked about so far.

00:41:32.045 --> 00:41:34.557
Certainly, that analysis is going on.

00:41:34.557 --> 00:41:45.510
There's a lot we're going to use these tools for, but on the food stuff, it was pretty clear that there are a huge deficit when you compare the expectations of what they should be spending.

00:41:46.110 --> 00:42:02.885
I suppose I should simplify by asking and looking at their financial records Does it appear consistent with what the children's statements, that those are the foods they were required to eat and there was some level of not being provided anything else?

00:42:03.489 --> 00:42:15.869
Yes, that is absolutely the case, and I would add this it is not as though there were not plenty of money that was incoming and that it is through that there were other food items being purchased.

00:42:15.869 --> 00:42:28.306
You know, if you look at 2021, 8,155 is what they cleared between subsidies and income for that month alone, from September 1st to September 31st.

00:42:28.306 --> 00:42:29.838
The following month almost 6,000.

00:42:29.838 --> 00:42:31.130
The following month almost 6,000.

00:42:31.130 --> 00:42:33.577
The following month almost 7,000.

00:42:34.170 --> 00:42:36.820
And I guess to also provide the court with some idea.

00:42:36.820 --> 00:42:38.838
You mentioned that there were other purchases.

00:42:38.838 --> 00:42:47.735
Was there organic produce, a variety of other foods that Sonia Stafford and Brian Stafford were purchasing for their household when their children were there?

00:42:47.735 --> 00:42:48.418
Yes.

00:42:48.418 --> 00:42:57.038
So it would appear that there was an abundance or a variety of other things that the girls and other kids could have eaten.

00:42:57.418 --> 00:42:58.202
Without question.

00:42:59.851 --> 00:43:02.300
I suppose this may be a little bit unorthodox.

00:43:02.489 --> 00:43:04.088
I've never done a hearing like this before.

00:43:04.088 --> 00:43:14.617
It seems a bit strange, but I've already provided to the court reporter arrest warrants for both Brian and Sonia Stafford, as well as orders for finding a probable cause.

00:43:14.617 --> 00:43:29.903
I began yesterday's hearing and I know that there was a lot of kind of thrown at you, judge, but I began yesterday's hearing by saying that there were a number, a high number of counts we would be charging each of them with.

00:43:29.903 --> 00:43:34.215
Were a number, a high number of counts, we would be charging each of them with.

00:43:34.215 --> 00:43:43.422
And that has that has turned out to be true, judge, for at least brian stafford, we are looking at 59 counts, I believe, for him, and what includes a variety of different things, as is listed on the warrant.

00:43:43.422 --> 00:43:52.684
We are intending to charge both of them with the promotion of labor trafficking, and that is based on the evidence we have presented today.

00:43:52.684 --> 00:44:02.043
Your Honor, that has come through the investigation Detective Williams, as well as our investigator Bays, has participated in.

00:44:02.043 --> 00:44:14.177
So we're asking for an arrest warrant to be granted for both Brian and Sonia Stafford and we would ask for a finding of probable cause on the variety of different counts when we file the case.

00:44:14.177 --> 00:44:18.458
There will be different timelines that are in the charging information.

00:44:18.458 --> 00:44:29.213
But essentially, judge, we have multiple counts of neglect, multiple counts of child molest and a variety of different things that you have heard yesterday, your Honor, and we would ask.

00:44:30.456 --> 00:44:37.704
On the warrant, we would ask for a significant upward departure from the bail schedule, as Investigator Bates has testified.

00:44:37.704 --> 00:44:43.099
There's some financial availability, I suppose, of both of them.

00:44:43.099 --> 00:44:51.043
But more than anything else, the state is significantly concerned about flight risk, particularly for Sonia Stafford.

00:44:51.043 --> 00:44:57.199
We've learned that throughout the investigation she has ties to California as well as Florida.

00:44:57.199 --> 00:45:03.362
This is, we anticipate, going to be a reputation-ending case for her.

00:45:03.362 --> 00:45:07.121
So we are concerned that there may be some flight risk with her.

00:45:07.121 --> 00:45:14.039
But additionally, judge, these children have finally spoken out after a decade or more of being told to be silent.

00:45:14.039 --> 00:45:23.639
There will be a target on their backs and so we are concerned greatly about retaliation, particularly from Sonia, as it relates to Brian.

00:45:23.679 --> 00:45:27.679
Yesterday the court heard testimony that Brian and victim 11 now have a child together.

00:45:27.679 --> 00:45:33.018
There is another potential victim that is out there now that Brian has created on his own.

00:45:33.018 --> 00:45:38.534
So we do have concern about public and community safety with him in addition to Sonia.

00:45:38.534 --> 00:45:47.597
Retaliation, I think may be possible from Brian, but I think it would come in a different form as it just seems to be his mo.

00:45:47.597 --> 00:45:52.463
So we would ask for an upward departure from the bond schedule.

00:45:52.684 --> 00:46:10.478
I know for a level four felony judge I don't have off the top of my head what it is, but I think it would be appropriate to set their bonds at potentially two hundred thousand dollar property slash surety and, I think a higher cash portion, maybe even even $80,000 for both of them.

00:46:10.478 --> 00:46:15.746
I think would be appropriate just in the light of nature of the circumstances of this case.

00:46:15.746 --> 00:46:26.204
And additionally, judge, they are facing substantial amount of time, assuming that the state proceeds to trial and gets a conviction on just one of the level four felonies.

00:46:26.204 --> 00:46:31.833
When you start stacking them together, I believe that that also leads to a potential flight risk.

00:46:32.313 --> 00:46:36.963
Then the judge says, okay, you have not filed the actual cases yet.

00:46:37.230 --> 00:46:38.313
We have not Judge.

00:46:38.313 --> 00:46:41.967
So procedurally we were waiting to get the arrest warrant.

00:46:41.967 --> 00:46:44.333
As Detective Williams started off yesterday.

00:46:44.333 --> 00:46:48.402
He explained that his probable cause affidavit is 100 pages.

00:46:48.402 --> 00:46:54.123
We thought that this would be the easiest way to present all of this to the court and have it digested.

00:46:54.123 --> 00:47:01.164
Also, we're a bit concerned about what's going to happen if we were to file the case and they got notice of it.

00:47:01.164 --> 00:47:03.798
We were worried about what would take place.

00:47:03.798 --> 00:47:06.318
So we've not formally filed everything.

00:47:06.318 --> 00:47:08.737
It is prepared and ready to go.

00:47:08.737 --> 00:47:15.961
But the goal was to be able to give detective williams the arrest warrant for both of them and then, once they're in custody, we plan to file.

00:47:15.961 --> 00:47:24.492
Okay, and I will be filing a written motion once we formally file the case to remove them from the matrix.

00:47:24.492 --> 00:47:35.737
I will assume that they probably qualify for CR-26 and will obviously be objecting to that, but that we have not filed it yet.

00:47:35.737 --> 00:47:37.342
So I haven't done that.

00:47:37.811 --> 00:47:48.461
So I, looking at the proposed finding and orders for probable cause, I certainly, based on what I have heard, believe there is probable cause to issue arrest warrants for both individuals.

00:47:48.461 --> 00:47:53.856
But I want to look through all of the charges, all of the charges you have here to determine.

00:47:53.856 --> 00:47:56.360
You said the highest is going to be a level four.

00:47:56.360 --> 00:47:57.362
Is that what you said?

00:47:58.030 --> 00:47:59.237
A level four for Sonia.

00:47:59.237 --> 00:48:16.065
We will be charging the level one felony child molest for Brian Stafford, and this is for, as Detective Williams testified yesterday, that was for the child molest, the digital penetration of the victim that took place.

00:48:17.150 --> 00:48:21.041
Okay, you're going to be filing no contact orders for both cases as well.

00:48:21.309 --> 00:48:22.717
That is correct, your Honor, yes.

00:48:24.373 --> 00:48:27.240
So, okay, I understand you only filed the MC.

00:48:27.240 --> 00:48:30.498
I was thinking you were going to file the case first.

00:48:30.498 --> 00:48:32.934
So what's the plan when I issue the warrants?

00:48:32.934 --> 00:48:36.181
Are you waiting for service on those before you file the cases?

00:48:36.630 --> 00:48:41.282
Yes, the plan was to have them in custody and then we would formally file the case.

00:48:41.949 --> 00:48:50.603
Okay, Then relate somehow with your case filings that, hey, probable cause has been found for this already.

00:48:50.603 --> 00:48:52.164
Warrant was already issued.

00:48:52.344 --> 00:48:52.606
Yes.

00:48:53.871 --> 00:48:55.155
So that we don't have double.

00:48:56.338 --> 00:48:56.940
Yes, Judge.

00:48:57.510 --> 00:48:59.737
Because at that point you're going to direct them.

00:48:59.737 --> 00:49:04.469
I don't care, direct them to my court, or are you putting them in a blind filing?

00:49:05.291 --> 00:49:07.731
I think the preference from our chief deputy has to put in a blind filing.

00:49:07.731 --> 00:49:10.014
I think the preference from our chief deputy has been to put in a blind filing.

00:49:10.014 --> 00:49:21.141
I do not think that there is some involvement peripherally from some other judges who think that there may be conflicts and so we thought maybe it may end up in your court.

00:49:21.541 --> 00:49:21.862
Okay.

00:49:23.202 --> 00:49:23.963
But I'm not sure.

00:49:24.643 --> 00:49:25.023
All right.

00:49:25.023 --> 00:49:30.347
So I think we'll need to do is at least I want to at least give the magistrate a heads up.

00:49:30.547 --> 00:49:30.807
Yes.

00:49:34.190 --> 00:49:35.300
Because they typically get all of those initials.

00:49:35.300 --> 00:49:36.469
So just let them know that this is coming through.

00:49:36.469 --> 00:49:53.494
I am not sure where it's going to end up yet, but I have found probable cause and a warrant already Because I want to make sure if these cases trail in any way, if they are not able to post whatever bond that somehow gets transferred or related to other cases.

00:49:53.833 --> 00:49:54.135
Yes.

00:49:55.338 --> 00:49:56.139
Okay, all right.

00:49:56.139 --> 00:50:03.222
So your proposal on both of them is at least 200,000 property class surety plus 80,000 cash.

00:50:03.222 --> 00:50:04.103
Is that what I've heard?

00:50:04.510 --> 00:50:13.304
Yes, judge, I think that it is a substantial upward departure from our bail schedule, but I do think it's warranted given the circumstances.

00:50:14.170 --> 00:50:17.235
And which one is so the 1722,?

00:50:17.235 --> 00:50:20.784
Does that one relate to Brian, stafford or Sonia, or does it?

00:50:21.929 --> 00:50:23.440
1722, the case number.

00:50:23.702 --> 00:50:26.315
Yes, so your proposed orders?

00:50:26.315 --> 00:50:29.061
They were not filed on the case.

00:50:29.061 --> 00:50:31.682
They were just given to us, or were not filed on the case.

00:50:31.682 --> 00:50:32.708
They were just given to us, or were they filed?

00:50:32.728 --> 00:50:33.931
on a case Well Judge.

00:50:33.931 --> 00:50:36.579
I don't believe they were filed on the MCs.

00:50:37.150 --> 00:50:40.139
Okay, so they were just sent to the court as proposed orders.

00:50:40.278 --> 00:50:40.920
Yes, your Honor.

00:50:41.771 --> 00:50:45.480
Okay, any preferences on who I associate which case with then?

00:50:45.480 --> 00:50:52.382
I suppose, because I'll have to put one case 722 with Brian Stafford and 723 with Sonia.

00:50:52.750 --> 00:50:54.197
I don't have a preference Judge.

00:50:54.650 --> 00:50:57.284
Okay, I want to make sure that our paperwork stays straight.

00:50:57.284 --> 00:51:09.333
So just for the record, then Brian Stafford will be associated with the 2412-MC-1722, and Sonia Stafford will be associated with the 1723 cause.

00:51:09.333 --> 00:51:15.443
So it looks like really the counts that are different would just be the molestation addition to Brian's cases.

00:51:15.963 --> 00:51:16.625
Yes, your Honor.

00:51:16.625 --> 00:51:19.219
So we do have sexual abuse elements for Brian.

00:51:19.219 --> 00:51:27.260
We charged him with a number of performance before a minor that is harmful, that's, for exposing himself, the masturbation that the court heard about.

00:51:27.260 --> 00:51:34.023
And then we have the promotion of labor trafficking that we have charged him with.

00:51:34.023 --> 00:51:42.463
We also charged both of them with neglect, and the theory was that Sonia what she was doing Brian knew about, and vice versa.

00:51:42.463 --> 00:51:53.016
There are a handful of batteries and strangulations that we only charged Sonia with, as the court heard testimony about yesterday, but there are a lot of mirrored charges between them.

00:51:53.958 --> 00:52:00.641
Is that the lowest level on each and I'm sorry if you've said this already there are many, many misdemeanors.

00:52:00.641 --> 00:52:01.643
Or is it all just?

00:52:02.811 --> 00:52:07.099
I think the lowest level for each of them should be a level six felony.

00:52:07.099 --> 00:52:18.161
There is a misdemeanor for Sonia, okay, so I think we did charge her with some misdemeanor domestic batteries your honor but I don't think that there are any.

00:52:18.161 --> 00:52:40.277
And, judge, I know that this is a lot for you to review, but I do want to again reiterate for the record that this the goal was to be able for whatever these kids disclose have a count that if there was a criminal action that it would be charged, that they were able to come forward the way that they did.

00:52:40.277 --> 00:52:45.346
We wanted to at least be able to do some sort of justice way that they did.

00:52:45.346 --> 00:52:47.429
We wanted to at least be able to do some sort of justice.

00:52:47.429 --> 00:52:52.278
So it's not an effort to throw the book at them, but just the size and the investigation has turned out this way.

00:52:53.106 --> 00:53:00.353
So most of the doubles are doubles because you're relating it to different children, different neglects of a dependent for a different child.

00:53:00.554 --> 00:53:01.195
Yes, your Honor.

00:53:02.666 --> 00:53:06.721
Counts for a different child could potentially be neglect in a different way.

00:53:06.961 --> 00:53:07.583
Yes, your Honor yes.

00:53:07.603 --> 00:53:07.764
Judge.

00:53:07.764 --> 00:53:12.708
Okay, and that kind of sums up the probable cause affidavit.

00:53:12.708 --> 00:53:16.331
I want to apologize that it kind of sounded a little jumbled up.

00:53:16.331 --> 00:53:26.601
We basically wanted to bring it to you raw and, as you can tell by the way it was read, you can tell that the judge and the prosecutor was kind of shook up.

00:53:26.601 --> 00:53:32.391
The judge was shook up about what she had heard and I don't blame them.

00:53:32.391 --> 00:53:36.166
She was probably in shock, everybody was in shock.

00:53:36.166 --> 00:53:45.880
But at this point it seems like the court was really going after him and trying to charge him with each act of neglect and battery, as they should have for each child.

00:53:45.880 --> 00:53:49.014
It's a separate crime every time they did something to each child.

00:53:49.014 --> 00:53:51.472
So I mean, I agree with them on that point.

00:53:51.853 --> 00:53:59.719
Yeah, and I was surprised that their bond was not higher than what it was.

00:53:59.719 --> 00:54:07.425
Both of them bonded out on a surety bond of $60,000 and a cash bond of $4,000.

00:54:07.425 --> 00:54:12.476
I thought that was a little bit minimal for all the charges that they had.

00:54:13.266 --> 00:54:17.016
The prosecutor was asking for $80,000 cash on each one.

00:54:17.326 --> 00:54:31.559
And $200,000 surety, and the only thing I can probably think of is why it wasn't so high is because they didn't have previous criminal charges or a record and everybody gets due process.

00:54:32.005 --> 00:54:47.315
So I agree with that, but it seemed like the prosecutor had a pretty big case that she was presenting about flight risk from Sonia and I don't blame her because these people are at an age this, this many charges, it's going to be a life sentence.

00:54:47.315 --> 00:54:55.597
I mean if they get 20 years, which is only on a handful of 50 charges, that's a life sentence for either one of them.

00:54:55.664 --> 00:55:07.498
Yeah, that's the rest of it, and so now I wanted to get into the story or not the story, but the interview that I did with a lady named nikki.

00:55:07.498 --> 00:55:11.911
She is the mother of the first group of children from indiana.

00:55:11.911 --> 00:55:24.032
Now, in september of 2010, nikki's life took a dramatic turn when her mother and her grandmother reported her to dcs, concerned that she was using drugs, specifically marijuana.

00:55:24.032 --> 00:55:33.922
At the time, nikki was just 24 years old and had been enduring a mentally abusive relationship, which contributed to her struggles with depression.

00:55:33.922 --> 00:55:41.869
This situation escalated when police had arrived at her workplace to question her.

00:55:41.869 --> 00:55:44.536
This was a new experience for Nikki, who had never been in trouble before.

00:55:44.536 --> 00:55:51.530
She was also drug tested and, although she had openly admitted to using marijuana, the test confirmed her use.

00:55:51.530 --> 00:56:01.094
At that time, she was staying with her brother and his family after leaving the father of her youngest child to escape a domestic situation.

00:56:01.976 --> 00:56:08.938
Despite her struggles, nikki was determined to keep her family together and she declined her parents' suggestion to split up her children.

00:56:08.938 --> 00:56:13.068
Unfortunately, the involvement of DCS created tension.

00:56:13.068 --> 00:56:18.748
Her brother was uncomfortable with the situation and asked her to leave With nowhere else to go.

00:56:18.748 --> 00:56:21.376
Nikki returned to her youngest child's father's home.

00:56:21.376 --> 00:56:26.416
Just two nights later, dcs and the police had arrived to take her children.

00:56:26.416 --> 00:56:28.532
The confrontation was intense.

00:56:28.532 --> 00:56:34.873
Her father, who was living with her, had a heated exchange with the police, who threatened him with a taser.

00:56:34.873 --> 00:56:41.536
Although they left without the children initially, they did return later that day and removed her four youngest children.

00:56:41.536 --> 00:56:49.777
Nikki's oldest daughter, who was 10 at the time, was not taken as DCS deemed her old enough to care for herself.

00:56:49.777 --> 00:57:02.237
Fearing for her daughter's safety, nikki voluntarily signed her over to her grandparents, and she just signed temporary guardianship over to the grandparents.

00:57:02.704 --> 00:57:15.934
And I have to say I got to listen to this interview and I'm pretty skeptic about people and I'm a pretty good reader on people and this poor girl I say girl, I mean she's-.

00:57:16.315 --> 00:57:16.956
She was young.

00:57:16.956 --> 00:57:18.989
She was young I mean to me on the interview.

00:57:19.028 --> 00:57:20.072
She sounded really young.

00:57:20.072 --> 00:57:23.065
Yeah, she seemed very genuine.

00:57:23.065 --> 00:57:24.911
I mean, you got to realize, folks.

00:57:24.911 --> 00:57:27.349
She was in her 20s with five children.

00:57:27.349 --> 00:57:31.063
I don't believe she was getting much, if any, help at all.

00:57:31.063 --> 00:57:37.538
I could be wrong about that, but man, she really seemed like all of that was a huge struggle in her life.

00:57:37.538 --> 00:57:40.730
And then she gets through that struggle.

00:57:40.730 --> 00:57:49.516
She now has some relationship with some of her older children, but then this comes out and then it's just broke her heart.

00:57:49.925 --> 00:58:03.764
Well, nikki's four children were placed in different homes Her son and youngest daughter with her mother and her stepfather, and then her two other daughters went with her grandmother and her grandmother's husband.

00:58:03.764 --> 00:58:05.907
Other daughters went with her grandmother and her grandmother's husband.

00:58:05.907 --> 00:58:17.641
Now, while not navigating the DCS requirements, which include parenting classes, therapy, drug screening, supervised visits and financial education, nikki was determined to regain custody of her children.

00:58:17.641 --> 00:58:27.273
Despite completing all the necessary services, every time she made progress, her family case manager, teresa, would add more requirements to her list.

00:58:27.985 --> 00:58:36.135
In an effort to rebuild her life, nikki moved to Illinois, securing a job in fast food and living with a roommate who had foster parent experience.

00:58:36.135 --> 00:58:43.552
However, the Indiana DCS rejected this arrangement, insisting that she must reside in Indiana to have her children returned.

00:58:43.552 --> 00:58:47.864
Arrangement insisting that she must reside in Indiana to have her children returned.

00:58:47.864 --> 00:58:56.139
Faced with limited options, nikki moved back in with her mother and stepfather, continuing her job requirements and fulfilling DCS requirements.

00:58:56.139 --> 00:59:08.259
Initially, this arrangement was approved, but when her stepfather fell ill with leukemia, the caseworker decided it was better to place her children in a foster home.

00:59:08.726 --> 00:59:11.072
So it was one thing after another for her.

00:59:11.753 --> 00:59:14.610
It sure was, and I believe her.

00:59:15.353 --> 00:59:15.715
I do too.

00:59:15.715 --> 00:59:20.931
We've talked to a lot of people that have been through the DCS process and we get a lot of the same thing.

00:59:20.931 --> 00:59:27.498
Back in this same time era, it was just like, class after class after class, nothing's good enough, nothing's good enough.

00:59:27.498 --> 00:59:28.567
You know what I mean, and it was.

00:59:28.567 --> 00:59:33.184
We've even heard several accounts of false drug test accusations.

00:59:33.184 --> 00:59:40.639
I mean it's the DCS case in this era was really, really needed to be investigated a lot more than what it was.

00:59:41.306 --> 00:59:42.010
It sure did.

00:59:42.010 --> 01:00:08.784
It sure did alcohol after having a few drinks while mourning her grandfather's passing.

01:00:08.784 --> 01:00:16.119
Now, despite a CASA recommendation, or like a guardian at Lytton, they had suggested that her children could be placed with their biological father.

01:00:16.119 --> 01:00:32.757
Dcs ultimately decided against it due to his prior criminal history I guess he had a breaking and entering charge when he was like 18 years old, and they wouldn't even give him custody of his children, which is crazy to me.

01:00:32.757 --> 01:00:39.177
So, as a result, her children remained with the Staffords, changing the course of Nikki's journey.

01:00:40.686 --> 01:00:46.338
When Nikki's children were placed with the Stafford family, her son was just seven years old.

01:00:46.338 --> 01:00:54.059
He recalls being told he was going to Disneyland by the family caseworker with promises that mommy would meet them there later.

01:00:54.059 --> 01:01:02.659
The next thing he remembers is walking into a building and seeing his grandparents, who informed him they would see their mom later.

01:01:02.659 --> 01:01:09.257
Now Nikki felt immense pressure from DCS to sign away her parental rights.

01:01:09.257 --> 01:01:23.112
She was led to believe that if she didn't agree to an open adoption, her children would be separated and they would be moved from foster home to foster home, potentially causing more trauma.

01:01:23.826 --> 01:01:33.733
Basically what she was saying was DCS told her if you don't let them go to the Staffords, we're going to take you to court, prove you unfit and we're going to split your kids up.

01:01:33.733 --> 01:01:35.431
So they were forcing her to sign this.

01:01:35.965 --> 01:01:42.974
Yeah, but they were already at the Staffords because they were like fostered for a little bit before they were adopted.

01:01:43.135 --> 01:01:46.134
Okay, but I know that she did put some emphasis on that.

01:01:46.134 --> 01:01:46.706
That.

01:01:46.706 --> 01:01:50.596
I mean they lied to her basically about signing the yes, they did.

01:01:50.596 --> 01:01:53.833
They threatened her with splitting her children up, which you know, and it scared her to death.

01:01:53.833 --> 01:01:54.596
Scared her to death.

01:01:54.655 --> 01:02:00.757
Yes, so Nikki was convinced that she was doing what was best for them at the time.

01:02:00.757 --> 01:02:05.096
Her journey as a mother began when she was just 15 years old.

01:02:05.096 --> 01:02:08.510
She had a total of five children by the time she was 24.

01:02:08.510 --> 01:02:19.159
However, the stress and trauma from losing her kids eventually led her to turn to harder drugs as she struggled with guilt and the lack of support.

01:02:19.159 --> 01:02:26.518
After the adoption, she checked herself into a mental hospital three times to cope with her depression, anxiety and PTSD.

01:02:26.518 --> 01:02:36.619
Under the agreement of the open adoption, nikki was supposed to see her children twice a year, receive monthly letters and have a couple of phone calls each month.

01:02:36.619 --> 01:02:40.976
These visits began in June of 2012.

01:02:40.976 --> 01:02:46.297
Each time she saw her children, she would ask them if they were happy, safe and okay.

01:02:46.297 --> 01:02:54.809
They always assured her that they were fine, but Nikki did notice a significant weight loss during her first visit.

01:02:55.931 --> 01:03:01.271
And that right there goes along with you know, the probable cause affidavit and what the other kids were saying.

01:03:01.271 --> 01:03:10.432
And these staffers were telling everybody oh, they're just working hard on the farm and we're feeding them all health food, it's a healthy regimen, they're just fine.

01:03:10.804 --> 01:03:12.893
No, because you're starving them is what you're doing.

01:03:13.364 --> 01:03:22.275
And Nikki also said that she wouldn't let none of the parents be alone and then, when she would leave, the staffers would interrogate the kids.

01:03:22.275 --> 01:03:22.777
Yes.

01:03:22.777 --> 01:03:24.528
What did your parents ask?

01:03:24.528 --> 01:03:24.730
You.

01:03:24.730 --> 01:03:25.652
What did you tell them?

01:03:25.652 --> 01:03:26.353
Did you tell them this?

01:03:26.353 --> 01:03:26.896
Did you tell them?

01:03:26.916 --> 01:03:27.157
that.

01:03:27.157 --> 01:03:31.536
Now, as Nikki worked hard to rebuild her life, she eventually got clean.

01:03:31.536 --> 01:03:34.474
However, troubling information did come to light.

01:03:34.474 --> 01:03:56.139
Two of her children reported that Sonia and the DCS worker were friends with the Staffords and they would even visit them outside of work, even attending parties where there was alcohol and maybe other substances were present.

01:03:56.139 --> 01:04:08.521
Now, additionally, sonia's biological son was dating the woman who supervised Nikki's visits.

01:04:08.521 --> 01:04:17.664
In 2014, sonia abruptly stopped all the visits, allowing only Nikki's grandparents to see the children.

01:04:20.971 --> 01:04:25.960
By 2019, sonia's family began to unravel even further.

01:04:25.960 --> 01:04:36.257
One of her daughters was returned, so Sonia had sent one of the children she adopted back to the original family.

01:04:36.257 --> 01:04:47.384
This daughter revealed to her grandmother that she had experienced abuse, prompting them to call DCS, that she had experienced abuse, prompting them to call DCS.

01:04:47.384 --> 01:05:00.148
Alarmingly, dcs informed Nikki's mother that there had been previous sexual abuse allegations at the Stafford farm, and this was in 2019.

01:05:00.148 --> 01:05:08.096
Nikki thought that the biological children were aware of the troubling dynamic involving Brian and Victim 11.

01:05:08.096 --> 01:05:13.601
The visitation with her grandparents ceased two to three years before May of 2024.

01:05:13.601 --> 01:05:30.940
Now, currently, nikki has a minor may hear it.

01:05:33.226 --> 01:05:34.532
We're going to play that clip for you.

01:05:34.532 --> 01:05:36.311
I just do want to add one thing real quick.

01:05:36.311 --> 01:05:40.155
When I was listening to this interview, that literally jerked a tear from my eye.

01:05:40.786 --> 01:05:42.193
It was heart wrenching.

01:05:42.213 --> 01:05:43.641
Here's that clip from my eye.

01:05:43.641 --> 01:05:44.204
It was heart-wrenching.

01:05:48.974 --> 01:05:49.376
Here's that clip.

01:05:49.376 --> 01:05:56.635
Well, is there anything like any specific message you want me to put out or something?

01:05:56.635 --> 01:06:11.806
Because I want to tell your story, but I want it to be 100% right and I want, whatever you, what's most important to you, for you, for me, to get out there.

01:06:11.806 --> 01:06:14.608
You know what I mean yeah, I'm sorry.

01:06:16.030 --> 01:06:49.237
I just want her to know that I never stopped loving her or thinking about her in her whole life and I'm so sorry that all of this happened to her and all of her siblings and I just hope that, where she is in now, that she is happy and that she is being treated right, and I hope that one day I'll be able to see her again.

01:06:51.186 --> 01:06:53.606
Man, that's tough, I tell you.

01:06:53.606 --> 01:06:57.534
That was hard to hear, but she genuinely meant that from the heart man.

01:06:57.664 --> 01:06:58.407
She sure did.

01:06:58.407 --> 01:07:04.833
And oh, that was a tearjerker and I'm glad this PCA is over with.

01:07:05.306 --> 01:07:09.452
I have a good sense for people that don't give a shit, and I did not get that sense from her at all.

01:07:09.452 --> 01:07:11.811
I have to tell you we have so much more to get to.

01:07:11.811 --> 01:07:17.615
I want to thank everybody for listening and thank you, jesus, for getting us through that probable cause affidavit.

01:07:17.615 --> 01:07:21.548
I know that was rough to hear folks, but we've got to get out of here for the day.

01:07:21.548 --> 01:07:23.192
We folks, but we've got to get out of here for the day.

01:07:23.192 --> 01:07:25.474
We'll join us next week and we'll get right back into it.

01:07:26.356 --> 01:07:28.378
Yeah, we'll be back next Monday.

01:07:28.579 --> 01:07:29.940
Absolutely, I'm ready for it.

01:07:29.940 --> 01:08:05.385
No-transcript.