Indiana boy abducted by grandparents in 1994 found living under different name in Minnesota

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Washington Post-AP

INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana woman whose young son was abducted 19 years ago was screaming and “jumping up and down” after learning he was living in Minnesota under a different name, her husband said Thursday shortly after police announced they had found him.

Richard Wayne Landers Jr. was just 5 years old when he and his paternal grandparents, who were upset over custody arrangements, disappeared from Wolcottville, a town about 30 miles north of Fort Wayne.

Indiana State Police said the now 24-year-old Landers was found in Long Prairie, Minn., thanks in part to his Social Security number. His grandparents were living under aliases in a nearby town and confirmed his identity, investigators said.

Police declined to say whether the grandparents would face charges, citing the ongoing investigation.

FULL story at link.

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, January 10, 7:43 PM

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/indiana-boy-abducted-by-grandparents-in-1994-found-living-under-different-name-in-minnesota/2013/01/10/eac7796a-5b84-11e2-b8b2-0d18a64c8dfa_story.html

---

Indiana State Police/Associated Press - This photo provided by the Indiana State Police shows Richard Wayne Landers, Jr. who authorities say was abducted from Indiana by his paternal grandparents in 1994 during custody proceedings. Authorities say a 24-year-old man with the same Social Security number and date of birth as Landers but living under a different name was located in October, 2012 in Long Prairie, Minn. Police

[Demeter]

1. Words fail me

Thank goddess my in-laws weren't in any way shape or form like that....too bad their son was.

[brooklynite]

6. Not having kids simplifies the arguments phenomenally...

[riderinthestorm]

2. Simply heartbreaking. No words. They'll never regain those lost years. nt

[ReRe]

3. This is so sad...

...I wonder what his grandparents told him happened to his parents? I would give anything to read this case history when it's over with. So much is left out of this report. Well, I don't know what happened 19 years ago for those grandparents to go to such drastic measures. I only hope the mother and son will be happily reunited. I don't care how old those grandparents are or how justified they must have felt about doing what they did, they should be held accountable for kidnapping. Geesh!
Thanks for the report, Omaha Steve.

[Kalidurga]

4. Really sad...

I hope that other than kidnapping their grandson the grandparents aren't evil. I hope they took good care of him and loved him. But, the kidnapping thing kind of points to them not being very good people at the least and at worst very controlling not good people.

[Tutonic]

5. Send them to prison. THey kidnapped a 5 year old. Deprived this mother of her child for 19 years.

[happyslug]

8. The child was an adult when he turned 18, that was seven years ago

I do NOT know the Statute of Limitation for Kidnapping in Indiana, but it would have start to run no later then when the child turned 18 and was no longer a minor AND went to live on his own.

Furthermore, the only "Parents" the child has known the last 19 years has been his paternal grandparents, so you want to destroy that support group for him?

I know revenge is sometime wanted in such situations, but we have to look at all of the parties and want they want, including the child (Who probably does NOT want his grandparents, the people who raised him, to go to jail).

Sorry, the best thing is to leave the parties work it out among themselves. The child is an adult and will have to handle this news item in addition to the fact the people who raised him kept him away from his mother. Sorry, I would have to defer to what the Child wants more then any demand for jailing the grandparents.

[Tutonic]

11. There is no statute of limitations for kidnapping. Kidnapping is a Class A felony. Transportation

of a minor across state lines is an added offense. Also Granny and Gramps were charged with various related crimes that would not run out until victim was 31. They should be charged and likely will. May not serve time but they will be made to pay for their Class A crime. Your suggestion about letting the parties work it out among themselves reminds me of the Hatfields and McCoys--we know how they worked it out. We have a system of laws in this nation that if employed without deference to ones age (seniors), race, nationality, or gender ensure something that we call justice.

[bitchkitty]

12. They have to pay for what they did.

You can't let this go - they stole a child. I don't care if they stole him because they love him. I love my nephew's children - does that mean I get to steal them away from their mother? Even if I thought I would be a better parent (HA!) it would be a despicable act.

It would be nice if life was all flowers and rainbows and a simple "I'm sorry" would suffice. But it's not. If you let these kidnappers slide, it sends a message that it's okay to steal children. And that's just wrong.

[TheMadMonk]

15. NO IT IS NOT! That just gives the next set of disgruntled...

...grandparents permission to give it a go.

Jaycee Lee Dugard was with her kidnappers for just about the same length of time. Perhaps we shouldn't have interferred there either.

If his grandparents raised him in such a way that he's still dependent on him, then all the more reason to force them apart.

You start with: "Well he's not a child anymore so let's get that statute of limitations clock ticking." and finish: "Defer to the best interest of the child" When someone wants it both ways, I assume an ulterior motive. What's yours?

Much of the time the grandparents in these situations are the worst kind of misogynists. "No woman is good enough for their boy, or his child." And the mother/grandmother is all too often the driving force. I've met these mothers, who stand foursquare behind abusive sons, even openly declare that she deserved it. They are not nice people. Not nice people at all.

Jail them.

[snooper2]

17. how about a good ass beating then?

[Pale Blue Dot]

26. Do you want future grandparents to have the capability

to begin to brainwash children at the age of 5?

These people MUST be punished.

[obamanut2012]

10. She an sue them in civil court

[happyslug]

7. This case is weird, Paternal Grandparents, but the father is NOT involved with the son

I will NOT speculate to much, but this is just weird. The boy's father does NOT appear to have EVER been involved with the child, but the boy's father's parents were the one that took him. The boy is now a father himself.

In most states the right of Grandparents, even if the intervening parent is not involved, have just a marginal claim to visitation with the child (The US Supreme Court has ruled that even if the intervening father is dead, the paternal grandparent's right to visitation can NOT interfere with the surviving parent's right to raise her or his child as they see fit, even if that includes cutting off the paternal parents from seeing the child). The above US Supreme Court Case was issued in 1999, Troxel v. Granville thus post dates the 1994 taking of this child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville

The actual decision:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=530&invol=57

Grandparents do NOT have the same rights as a parent and the courts have constantly said so, even if the intervening parent is dead. I suspect the Grandparents were told all they could expect to get was vitiation, and that was to be restricted, probably to once a month. This was NOT acceptable to them, so they left Indiana with the child.

Now, if there was evidence of neglect or abuse by the mother, then the Grandparents could have a good argument, but no such accusations have been made.

Side note: This Child has the same Social Security Number he had when he was removed from his Mother's home. Since Reagan it has become the norm to get Children Social Security numbers for you can NOT claim them, unless they are under age 6, as dependents for Income Tax purposes (Prior to Reagan, you did NOT need to list your child's social security number on your income tax when you claim the child as a dependent, thus most people prior to Reagan did not get a Social Security Number till they started to work in their teens, but under Reagan the age to get your Social Security became age 5).

Thus, this child's social security number was known to someone if the Grandparent's file Income taxes and claim the child as a dependent. The Grandparent's social security number AND ADDRESS would have been on file with the IRS when they filed they taxes. If they were on Social Security, and thus did not have to file income taxes, the child's social security number would have been on record with Social Security (But NOT his address, for it does not sound like he was entitled to any benefits) but the Grandparent's Social Security number and address would have been on record with the Social Security Administration.

I am an advocacy of privacy, but sometimes privacy needs to be penetrated to do what is right. In this case, the fact that the Grandparent's had a felon warrant out for their arrest after 1999 (and a misdemeanor warrant from 1994) should have been enough for the Police to be able to contact Social Security and the IRS to ask for any information as to address of the suspects (The Grandparents). Yes, I remember Nixon abused the IRS when he was President but permitting cross checks should be permitted if a warrant has been issued (Most states will NOT request extradition for Misdemeanors but will do so for Felonies).

I would like to blame the Federal Government, but I suspect the blame is on the local police, they never asked the IRS or Social Security for such information, they had other priorities. The Mother could not. This is one of the reasons they should be a child advocate in most counties, with adequate resources to make such requests under the right circumstances. i.e. Police have issued a warrant, then the parent could contact the advocate so the advocate could ask the IRS and Social Security for any and all information. I would like say the advocate should be independent of the Police, but it some circumstances it might be better for the advocate to be a member of the police. On the other hand, the advocate should be someone who can make an independent request if a parent makes the request AND HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO SO. Probably better if the advocate be with the local District Attorney's office but part of the Budget of the Advocate has to include adversing to make sure people knows the advocate exist and what the advocate can do.

[catbyte]

13. Maybe they didn't claim the kid as a dependent on their taxes?

[Historic NY]

9. Something wrong here....30miles away...

what kind of investigation was done or not done? PPPW.

[2pooped2pop]

14. not 30 miles away

found in Minnesota. Taken 30 miles from Ft. Wayne.

Still have to wonder why he wasn't found since he was using his own ss. number.

[TheMadMonk]

16. Because the right hand is not allowed to know...

...what the left is doing.

IIRC, isn't it absolutely forbidden in law to use SSNs as ID.

[Thor_MN]

18. No. The SSA says that SSNs are not to be used other than for SSA purposes, but

there are no laws that prevent them from being used.

As a practical matter, if a compnay wants to use you SSN as a USERID (account number), it should not be a problem. If they want to use it as your PASSWORD, you should absolutely refuse.

What I find interesting in this case is why his employer did not discover the SSN/name discrepancy when they checked his SSN when they hired him... If he isn't self employed, someone screwed up.

[TheMadMonk]

19. It's called a common law change of name.

And it happens all the time, particularly with children in instances of divorce and remariage. They just start using another name and no-one quibbles that the name is not the same as the one in the official record.

That person, can and often does, live their whole life (including voting, paying taxes and collecting refunds, paying into SS and collecting benefits when the time comes) using the name everyone knows, whilst having an officially recorded name that they may NEVER use, outside of explanation.

THIS amongst other reasons is why SSNs (tax file numbers here in Australia) are NOT used for tracking people outside the system for which they were specifically intended. And why inside those systems, the number is used almost totally exclusive of attached names.

[riderinthestorm]

22. As an employer I can tell you its impossible for us discover SS# fraud.

We can check the validity of the SS# but that we can't discern if that number is assigned to the employee you are hiring.

I had one guy working for me who was using a stolen SS# - it took more than 10 years before the IRS contacted us that to ascertain if the person we had working for us was the same person assigned to that number. It wasn't (my employee was a 16 yr old young man, the number was assigned to a 65 yr old soon-to-retire gentleman).

So no way would an employer know or have caught this.

[Thor_MN]

23. I wasn't talking about fraud.

Are you saying that when an employer checks an SSN, as required, all they do is send in the 9 digit number and all they get back is a yes or no answer? If that is the case, what an incredible waste of time and effort.

[riderinthestorm]

24. Yes, you only get affirmation that the number is "good", not who it exactly belongs to.

The reasoning is that if employers could match SSNs with IDs, there would be a lot more stolen identities. Once you have a person's SSN and their full real name, I can see where there may be some trouble.

So all you get is a yes or no answer about the number and that's it.

Yes, it is an incredible waste of time. And its also why so many employers feel like the scapegoats when people say "go after the employers for hiring illegals!!111!!!!"

Well, you can check those numbers all you like and I'll guarantee you every number is going to check out as legal.

It may not belong to that employee but the number is good. The employer is only obligated to do that much (and in reality what more can one do?) and they can pretty much get off any legal penalty for unknowingly hiring an undocumented person.

[fascisthunter]

20. The only way I can express what this must be like...

... is a buzzsaw of emotion.

[olddad56]

21. We don't know why they took the boy. I would like to know the facts.

I would not be surprised if the grandparents thought that they were acting in the child's best behavior. What if the dad was a deadbeat and the mom was unfit to raise the kid but was granted custody. What if the boy had a happy life with his grandparents. I'm just playing devils advocate, cause we don't know the circumstances that motivated the grandparents. Maybe they did something horrific, maybe they did something courageous and in the boy's best interest. I hope to hear more about this one.

[jeff47]

27. Then they could sue for custody

If the situation was as terrible as you theorize, they could sue for custody and show the mother is not fit.

What if the boy had a happy life with his grandparents.

Patti Hearst was quite fond of her kidnappers, after they finished brainwashing her. Should we have excused her kidnapping because she was happy?

I'm just playing devils advocate, cause we don't know the circumstances that motivated the grandparents.

The fact that their solution was a class A felony demonstrates they were not fit parents.

[marlakay]

25. Mother was living in car with step father

Real father was never in the picture. I googled and read story from CBS.

Grandparents had raised the kid from birth, then had dispute with mom, maybe they wanted full custody since she was unemployed and living in car at time and since they had raised kid.

Sheriff said he wasn't worried about kid because grandparents were good people.

Makes me think they didn't look to hard to find them.

Yes, what they did was wrong but from the story I am sure they felt desparate to do best for him.