Crime, News

BREAKING: Columbia City Mom, Babysitter Wanted in Abduction of Teen Daughter

Columbia City mom and childcare provider Kimberly Montero Black (left) is wanted in connection with the kidnapping of her 16-year old daughter Karsten Keeley Macauly (lower right).

Kimberly, 40, ran Celestial City Child Care – a home day care in the 4500 block of South Angeline Street – from 2006 until June 2010, when she suddenly disappeared, leaving several local families without care or pricey deposits.

According to the Center for Missing & Exploited Children:

Karsten was allegedly abducted by her mother, Kimberly Montero, on June 11, 2010. A felony warrant is on file for Kimberly. They may travel to Canada. Karsten’s ears are pierced. She may dye her hair another color. Kimberly may use the alias last name Black. More.

Anyone with information on their whereabouts is asked to call the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children at  1-800-843-5678 (1-800-THE-LOST).

18 comments on “BREAKING: Columbia City Mom, Babysitter Wanted in Abduction of Teen Daughter

  1. Kimberly tried to work the system and it failed her. The kids are old enough to make a choice and it was made, she wanted her mother.

  2. Kimberly stole thousands of dollars from the families who paid her to take care of their kids when she disappeared from Seattle. These parents likely will never recover their tuition money.

  3. Kimberly is a sociopath who uses any and all means of financial “assistance” and regularly claims “abuse” just like her mom. Karsten had a mother – it was me. Her Dad and I raised her with no help from Kim (financial or other) for 14 years. Karsten was a happy and well loved kid and Kim was threatened by that. The only way Kim could see to remedy the situation was to claim abuse. (see false reporting warrant when she got caught) She has stolen two vehicles, regularly writes bad checks, owes $65,000 in back child support and will likely take out student loans in our daughters name if she gets the opportunity. She is a thief , a con and wouldn’t know a moral compass if it hit her in the head. If you have any information about this case – please call the Sacramento police. Thanks

  4. I would be failing our son not to mention that Kimberly also “left behind” Karsten’s twin brother Rob. He has cerebral palsy.
    enough said on that

    Jane Macaulay

  5. Domestic Violence (DV) by Proxy:
    Why Terrorist Tactics Employed by Batterers Are Not “PAS”

    September 16, 2009

    As more and more abused women lose custody to batterers in family courts, they are wrongly embracing the very ideas that enabled their abusers to gain custody in the first place. False accusations of “parental alienation” are often used by batterers to gain custody and to defend against accusations of abuse.

    Some unfortunate women after years of enduring domestic violence have lost custody to the batterers who abused them. In these cases, batterers have made good on their threat to attack their ex-partner in the place she is the most vulnerable—by taking her children away from her. After separation, these batterers continue to wage their campaign of manipulation and abuse by attempting to convince involved children that their mothers never loved them. Looking for a way to describe their batterers’ behavior, some mothers have called what their batterer is doing “parental alienation syndrome.”

    In reality, what these women are describing from their ex-partners is better termed Domestic Violence by Proxy (DV by Proxy), a term first used by Alina Patterson, author of Health and Healing. DV by Proxy refers to a pattern of behavior which is a parent with a history of using domestic violence or intimidation, uses a child as a substitute when he no longer has access to his former partner. Calling this behavior “parental alienation” is not strong enough to convey the criminal pattern of terroristic behaviors employed by batterers.

    When his victim leaves him, batterers often recognize that the most expedient way to continue to hurt his partner is to assert his legal rights to control her access to their children. By gaining control of the children, an abusive male now has a powerful tool which allows him to continue to stalk, harass and batter an ex-partner even when he has no direct access to her. Moreover, by emotionally torturing the child and severing the bond between children and their mother, he is able to hurt his intended victim — the mother — in a way she cannot resist.

    DV by Proxy includes tactics such as: threats of harm to children if they display a positive bond to the mother, destroying favored possessions given by the mother, and emotional torture (for example, telling the child the mother hates them, wanted an abortion, and is not coming to get them because they are unloved).

    DV by Proxy may also include coaching the child to make false allegations regarding their mother’s behavior and harming or punishing the child for not complying. DV by Proxy perpetrators may also create fraudulent documents to defraud the court in order to prevent the mother from gaining custody. Whether or not the child is biologically related to them is irrelevant to perpetrators of DV by Proxy. The perpetrator’s main motivation is to hurt his ex; whether or not his own child is harmed in the process is irrelevant to him.

    This is very different from “parental alienation syndrome” as described by the late Richard A. Gardner. Dr. Gardner described PAS as an internal process by which a child aligns themselves with a preferred parent to protect themselves from the divorce conflict. “PAS” is conceptualized as a psychological process of identification with a parent who, according to the theory, encourages this identification at the expense of the other parent.

    PAS inducing parents, according to Gardner, are often unconscious of what they are doing to encourage the identification. In contrast, perpetrators of DV by Proxy are very conscious of what they are doing. Controlling, coercive, illegal acts often done by abusive and controlling people, usually men, are not subtle, and do not encourage an identification with a parent. Criminal, fraudulent, coercive acts are visible and obvious. These behaviors encourage compliance by threats and fear. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and often illegal. These behaviors include: battery, destruction of property, locking children in rooms to prevent them from calling parents, falsifying documents, along with other similar overt behaviors.

    The most dangerous aspect of Gardner’s PAS theory is that that the alienating parent’s behavior is theorized to be so subtle as to be unobservable. In other words, the behaviors that are supposed to cause the alienation are assumed to be happening without any proof that they have actually occured. As many women have discovered this makes a charge of “alienation” almost impossible to defend against.

    While Gardner’s theories regarding PAS have been shown to be overly general and have not been supported by careful research, behaviors seen in DV by Proxy can be readily observed. Behaviors involved in DV by Proxy are deliberate and planned; many are illegal, and if the child is given the freedom to talk, will be described in great detail by the child.

    If the child’s formerly favorable view of the victimized parent changes when exposed to tactics like this over time then it is more likely a form of “Stockholm Syndrome” or traumatic attachment to the abuser, rather than the alignment with one parent and negative reaction to the other that Gardner described as “alienation”.

    A recent and comprehensive article on PAS and its use in the court system, by Jennifer Hoult can be downloaded here.

    For further information:

    ?Are Protective Parents Losing Custody to Alleged Abusers? Evidence shows that women who raise concerns about family violence during custody litigation run the risk of losing their children.
    ?Stopfamilyviolence.org: The people’s voice for family peace. Stop Family Violence is a national grassroots organization with a mission to organize and amplify our nation’s collective voice against family violence.
    ?CA3 -Children Against Court Appointed Child Abuse
    ?High-conflict divorce or stalking by way of family court? Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 2004. http://www.mincava.umn.edu/reports/linda.asp
    ?Hoult, Jennifer. (Spring 2006). The Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Science, Law, and Policy, Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 26(1) pp. 1-61. (download PDF)

  6. Great post aside from everything being he, he ,he. I am sure that this happens to men too as I have seen it (I have seen it on both sides so it’s ot like that)
    Again, not hating on women (I love 92.3% of them) just saying that it is a 2 way street.

  7. The above observation/wiki note/great use of initials has nothing to do with Kimberly Montero aka Black aka Early and Karsten Macaulay. In the words of Armstrong and Getty….”it is crap” “crap” gotta roll the r’s
    Heh wait a cotton pickin’ minute – did Kim write that? Did I mention that we have 5 kids – all un-beaten, un-battered? If anyone is luring anyone it was Kimberly – who had our daughter leave school the week of her final exams at Waldorf with promises of “clubbing” “leather jackets” and guitars played by Kurt Cobain. What 16 year old would turn down that package deal? Did she deliver the goods? We love you Karsten
    Jane Macaulay

    Jane Macaulay

  8. Recognizing Child Abuse
    MYTH #1: It’s only abuse if it’s violent.
    Fact: Physical abuse is just one type of child abuse. Neglect and emotional abuse can be just as damaging, and since they are more subtle, others are less likely to intervene. .
    MYTH #2: Only bad people abuse their children.
    Fact: While it’s easy to say that only “bad people” abuse their children, it’s not always so black and white. Not all abusers are intentionally harming their children. Many have been victims of abuse themselves, and don’t know any other way to parent. Others may be struggling with mental health issues or a substance abuse problem.
    MYTH #3: Child abuse doesn’t happen in “good” families.
    Fact: Child abuse doesn’t only happen in poor families or bad neighborhoods. It crosses all racial, economic, and cultural lines. Sometimes, families who seem to have it all from the outside are hiding a different story behind closed doors.
    MYTH #4: Most child abusers are strangers.
    Fact: While abuse by strangers does happen, most abusers are family members or others close to the family
    MYTH #5: Abused children always grow up to be abusers.
    Fact: It is true that abused children are more likely to repeat the cycle as adults, unconsciously repeating what they experienced as children. On the other hand, many adult survivors of child abuse have a strong motivation to protect their children against what they went through and become excellent parents.
    What Is Child Abuse?

    “Child abuse” can be defined as causing or permitting any harmful or offensive contact on a child’s body; and, any communication or transaction of any kind which humiliates, shames, or frightens the child. Some child development experts go a bit further, and define child abuse as any act or omission, which fails to nurture or in the upbringing of the children.
    The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act defines child abuse and neglect as: “at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”
    A child of any age, sex, race, religion, and socioeconomic background can fall victim to child abuse and neglect.
    There are many factors that may contribute to the occurrence of child abuse and neglect. Parents may be more likely to maltreat their children if they abuse drugs or alcohol. Some parents may not be able to cope with the stress resulting from the changes and may experience difficulty in caring for their children.
    Major types of child abuse are :
    Physical Abuse, Emotional Abuse, & Sexual child Abuse, Neglect.( Physical neglect, educational neglect, emotional neglect)
    Neglect: The failure to provide for the child’s basic needs. Neglect can be physical, educational, or emotional. Physical neglect can include not providing adequate food or clothing, appropriate medical care, supervision, or proper weather protection (heat or coats). It may include abandonment. Educational neglect includes failure to provide appropriate schooling or special educational needs, allowing excessive truancies. Psychological neglect includes the lack of any emotional support and love, never attending to the child, spousal abuse, drug and alcohol abuse including allowing the child to participate in drug and alcohol use.
    Physical Abuse: The inflicting of physical injury upon a child. This may include, burning, hitting, punching, shaking, kicking, beating, or otherwise harming a child. The parent or caretaker may not have intended to hurt the child, the injury is not an accident. It may, however, been the result of over-discipline or physical punishment that is inappropriate to the child’s age.
    Sexual Abuse: The inappropriate sexual behavior with a child. It includes fondling a child’s genitals, making the child fondle the adult’s genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism and sexual exploitation. To be considered child abuse these acts have to be committed by a person responsible for the care of a child (for example a baby-sitter, a parent, or a daycare provider) or related to the child. If a stranger commits these acts, it would be considered sexual assault and handled solely be the police and criminal courts.
    Commercial or other exploitation of a child refers to use of the child in work or other activities for the benefit of others. This includes, but is not limited to, child labour and child prostitution. These activities are to the detriment of the child’s physical or mental health, education, or spiritual, moral or social-emotional development.

    Child abuse can have the following consequences :
    1. It will encourage your child to lie, resent, fear, and retaliate, instead of loving, trusting, and listening

    2. It will alienate your child from you and the rest of your family & make him a recluse.

    3. It will lower your child’s self esteem, and affect your child’s psychological development and ability to behave normally outside his home.

    4. When your child grows up, your child could probably carry on the family tradition, and abuse your grandchildren.

    5. Your child may exclude you from his adult life. For example, you might not be invited to your child’s wedding, or not be allowed any contact or relationship with your grandchildren

    The following signs may signal the presence of child abuse or neglect.
    The Child:
    • Shows sudden changes in behavior or school performance
    • Has not received help for physical or medical problems brought to the parents’ attention
    • Has learning problems (or difficulty concentrating) that cannot be attributed to specific physical or psychological causes
    • Is always watchful, as though preparing for something bad to happen
    • Lacks adult supervision
    • Is overly compliant, passive, or withdrawn, cutting
    • Comes to school or other activities early, stays late, and does not want to go home
    The Parent:
    • Shows little concern for the child
    • Denies the existence of—or blames the child for—the child’s problems in school or at home
    • Asks teachers or other caregivers to use harsh physical discipline or dismisses a child’s experience
    • Sees the child as entirely bad, worthless, or burdensome
    • Demands a level of physical or academic performance the child cannot achieve
    • Looks primarily to the child for care, attention, and satisfaction of their emotional needs

  9. Litigation and Family Violence

    A batterer who files for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator.
    Because of the effects of trauma, the victim of battering will often seem hostile, disjointed, and agitated, while the abuser appears friendly, articulate, and calm. Evaluators are thus tempted to conclude that the victim is the source of the problems in the relationship.
    This is from the Presidential Task Force Report produced by the American Psychological Association, where it is cited fathers who batter frequently file for sole custody and often get it.
    Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family
    ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE

    Issue #5: WHEN PARENTS SEPARATE AFTER AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, SHOULDN’T FATHERS HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS MOTHERS TO BE GRANTED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AND VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN?

    Tensions exist between children’s need for contact with their father and their need to be protected from the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that is common in families where there have been other forms of violence such as woman abuse.
    Although most people believe that fathers should have equal access to their children after the termination of a relationship between the parents, the equal-access option is based on the assumption that the fathers will act in their children’s best interests. However, that is a naive assumption in situations where family violence has occurred.
    Fathers who batter their children’s mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children, too. In many of these families, prior to separation, the men were not actively involved in the raising of their children. To gain control after the separation, the fathers fight for the right to be involved.
    Often children who have been exposed to violence in the family are frightened to confront their father’s negative or abusive behaviour, and mothers cannot protect them. Sometimes the father tries to alienate the child from the mother by using money and other enticements, negative comments, or restricted access to the telephone or with holding visitations while with him. Other times, fathers may threaten or actually kidnap the child to punish the mother for leaving, or to try to force her to return.
    Most people, including the battered woman herself, believe that when a woman leaves a violent man, she will remain the primary caretaker of their children. Family courts, however, may not consider the history of woman abuse relevant in awarding custody. Recent studies suggest that an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother. Often fathers win physical custody because men generally have greater financial resources and can continue the court battles with more legal assistance over a longer period of time.
    Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children’s witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother’s behaviour in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.
    Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen him use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored. Research indicates that a high level of continued conflict between separated and divorced parents hinders children’s normal development. Some practitioners now believe that it may be better for children’s development to restrict the father’s access to them and avoid continued danger to both mothers and the children.
    By Barry Goldstein at Times up!

    We often hear complaints about false allegations of abuse. The research is definitive that women rarely make deliberately false allegations of abuse. Victims who make such allegations are subject to vicious attacks, discussion of painful and embarrassing circumstances and very often cruel retaliation for telling the truth. Accordingly it is not surprising unless you live in the pretend world of abusers that only one-two percent of allegations of abuse by women are deliberately false. While unqualified professionals often discount or discredit such allegations particularly when made in the context of contested litigation, we rarely hear the question of how frequently men’s denials of abuse are accurate. Abusers virtually always deny charges against them despite the fact they are almost always accurate, but these same professionals are rarely skeptical of abuser denials that have far less truth value. This is another example of gender bias that tends to be invisible to those who unconsciously use gender biased methods.

    The myth that women frequently make false allegations has serious consequences. Many prosecutors and child protective agencies routinely refuse to investigate allegations by mothers if there is a contested custody case pending. Custody courts often punish mothers for making such allegations. Even when the allegations are not immediately discounted, they are generally treated with tremendous skepticism.

    What happens when fathers make allegations against mothers in the context of contested custody cases? These allegations are taken seriously and agencies that routinely discount mothers’ allegations make a full investigation of fathers’ complaints. These complaints are often used as a strategy by abusers to quickly switch custody at the start of litigation in order to gain an advantage. Nevertheless, agencies that see far more allegations by mothers because men in our society are so much more abusive tend to believe they need to take men’s allegations seriously in order to appear neutral.

    An important research study was done. The researchers investigated complaints to child protective agencies involving allegations of sexual abuse in the context of contested custody cases. This research established that fathers are sixteen times more likely to make deliberately false allegations than mothers. The research is not saying mothers are sixteen times more honest than fathers. This research is limited to parents in contested custody cases. Most contested custody cases cannot be settled because the father is an abuser using custody as a tactic to pressure the mother to return or punish her for leaving. These abusers believe the mother has no right to leave them so they are entitled to use any tactic including false allegations to get their way. Most of the inadequately trained professionals relied on by the custody courts believe the myth that mothers frequently make false allegations, but are unaware of the scientific research that fathers in contested custody cases are much more likely to make false allegations. This research has important implications in criminal cases, child protective proceedings and custody disputes.

    This study has important implications for the work of prosecutors and child protective workers because they must exercise caution before bringing charges based on allegations by fathers involved in custody disputes. Not only are such allegations often false, but the professionals are likely to be fooled because abusers are particularly adept at manipulation. Professionals who believe they have the ability to determine if someone is telling the truth just from observing them are particularly vulnerable. Best practices would require these professionals to speak with the mother and consult with domestic violence experts (such as advocates) before reaching any conclusions. Prosecutors and case workers should require independent evidence and be cautious about children who normally are very credible but might be under the influence of the abuser.

  10. Dear Jane & others,

    I am very sympathetic to your situation and appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion on this important subject. That said, I’ve had to delete a few comments because I’m not comfortable allowing this to become a forum for trashing others.

    Please abide by your RVP’s established Rules of Conduct.

    Thank you,
    Amber Campbell
    Editor/Publisher

  11. Dear Editor,
    I respect your interest in avoiding the “trashing” of others. Having said that – you are allowing the information (see above 3000 plus – internet psychology) and it’s attempt to persuade the reader of the mother as the victim and the father as “physical, sexual and psychological abuser” This is about a warrant for the arrest of a bad-guy and a missing child. This is about a child care facility owner that bilked her clients of thousands of dollars, stole a car and has written bad checks all over the country.
    The private mediator that spent over a year with all parties involved recommended a “no contact” order for Karsten’s bio mom Kimberly. This is a higly unusual action for a mediator – and it was done for many reasons. The folks posting these “articles” – do not have the details and are attempting to ” trash” Karsten’s family.

  12. I was edited for telling my truth and I was not inteding on ‘trashing’ anyone. Anyway, Jane, I have some info for you that I hope is helpful. I am deeply sorry for what you have been through and want to see justice served and your family reunited.

    Feel free to contact me @ (206) 423-7478

  13. How was Jane allowed to cast aspersions on Kimberly. She has shown no proof, just long rants that are too convoluted to read coherently. I wonder, if given the opportunity, how Kimberly would write about Jane. I think Kimberly, if all these accusations are false, has grounds for slander. I still can’t believe the RVP allowed her posts.

  14. @Ellen: Thanks for your feedback. I understand where you’re coming from, but the fact is that Kim is wanted by the FBI.

  15. Karsten read this:

    Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a lack of regard for the moral or legal standards in the local culture. There is a marked inability to get along with others or abide by societal rules. Individuals with this disorder are sometimes called psychopaths or sociopaths.

    Diagnostic Criteria (DSM-IV)

    1. Since the age of fifteen there has been a disregard for and violation of the right’s of others, those right’s considered normal by the local culture, as indicated by at least three of the following:
    A. Repeated acts that could lead to arrest.
    B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases.
    C. Failure to plan ahead or being impulsive.
    D. Repeated assaults on others.
    E. Reckless when it comes to their or others safety.
    F. Poor work behavior or failure to honor financial obligations.
    G. Rationalizing the pain they inflict on others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *