It’s been well established in dozens of news articles that Kate Sharp of Birmingham used sharp practice and subterfuge to snatch a loved and wanted infant from his breastfeeding mother. The mother spoke out and online records from the Alabama Courts demonstrate that the essential facts given by the mother were true.
The Huffington Post broke the story and with mouths agape, it seemed we all were watching a legally sanctioned kidnapping unfold.
If you are unfamiliar with the Baby Elliott story, you can read more about it below or at links available in related stories on my blog. Elliott’s mother, Kimberly Rossler of Mobile had originally considered adoption but changed her mind prior to Elliott’s birth. She informed all involved she intended to keep and care for her little boy and as most of us would, assumed that notification was enough. After all, she was still pregnant. Elliott had not even entered the world.
The attorney involved, Donna Ames, withdrew from the case and Kimberly assumed the matter was closed. Weeks later Kimberly gave birth and took her precious boy home to begin their lives. Yet unknown to Kim, Kate Sharp lay in wait, knowing that Kimberly was required to file a final withdrawal with the court. Playing on Kim’s naiveté, Kate allowed the all deadlines to pass that would’ve given Kimberly any chance and then forcibly had Elliott taken. He was just three weeks old.
The story of this horrific child snatching went viral across the internet and television news. It was discussed in public and private forums; blogs were written, a Facebook page went up and it made news across the world. Readers expressed shock and disbelief that this was allowed to occur. “Surely there was more to the story,” some exclaimed. How could someone more powerful just enter your home and steal your breastfeeding child? How was this legal? It was the stuff nightmares are made of.
There wasn’t more to the story. Like a piece of meat, a parcel of land or the title to a beat-up car, Alabama law allowed this child’s fate to be reduced to a piece of paper and the concept of property.
There wasn’t more to the story. Like a piece of meat, a parcel of land or the title to a beat up used car, Alabama law allowed this child’s fate to be reduced to a piece of paper and the concept of property.
As Kimberly fought in the courts, discussion about the case and adoption law continued. Online petitions to legislatures were created, Alabama’s laws were contrasted with that of other states, and while a troll or two might occasionally rear their head, the discussions were overall beneficial as well as educational. Many found that they had made assumptions about child welfare and the law that simply weren’t true. Ideas were exchanged and a fundraising drive was started for the mother. As time went on and updates were scarce there was a waning of interest, but many were still transfixed. The idea that a baby could be taken by a stranger and from a mother who loved and cared for him was beyond aberrant to ethical people. It was a jarring assault on all we hold dear.
As I mentioned in a previous post, discussion on the Baby Elliott case seemed to take a sharp nose dive in 2017. There were accounts of online posts, comments and blog entries being deleted. Those who had previously supported Kimberly went suddenly silent. Then in December of 2017, the Facebook page “Bring Baby Elliott Home” disappeared.
Now we know why.
In a desperate effort to hide what she had done, Kate Sharp and her lawyer father were sending threatening letters to those who blogged about the case or created online petitions to change the law. And not only was she threatening, she brought suit against Facebook as well as individuals. Presumably, these individuals had supported Kimberly Rossler or had spoken out against the child snatching.
In the suit, Kate claimed she was “cyber-bullied.” It’s not unusual for perpetrators of horrible acts to claim victimhood in order to justify or take attention away from what they’ve done. They often point fingers but offer few details about their own actions.
Like Teacher78 who commented on this blog almost three years ago, I would question the judgement and morals of anyone who wasn’t deeply disturbed by what Kate Sharp has done and has been allowed to get away with. The snatching of a child she knew was loved and wanted was beyond diabolical and horribly inhumane. But feeling so further grandiose and entitled as to intimidate or sue those who called her out? That’s pathological.
The sad paradox is that the Alabama Supreme Court allowed Kate Sharp to use a poorly constructed, unethical law to steal a loved and wanted infant. That’s simply unthinkable – yet in the end that same Court did not prevent her from using that law without consequence.
Links for more information