ShareThis Page

Suspended deputy attorney general, wife regain custody of biological children

| Thursday, April 18, 2013, 12:45 p.m.

A Franklin Park couple accused of abusing their two adopted children will regain custody of their two biological children, an Allegheny County judged ruled on Thursday.

Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey A. Manning lifted a no-contact order covering the 2-year-old son of Douglas and Kristen Barbour and said a similar order for the couple's daughter, 5, will be lifted within a week after she makes a videotaped statement to prosecutors.

“The parents very much want their children home with them,” said Charles Porter, Douglas Barbour's attorney.

Barbour is a deputy state attorney general suspended without pay.

The biological children have lived with their paternal grandparents since the Barbours' arrest in October. The couple were allowed supervised visits two or three times a week since being released on bond, their attorneys said.

Police said the couple denied proper nutrition to their adopted son, 6, who was taken to Children‘s Hospital in Lawrenceville on Sept. 14. When admitted, he weighed 9.5 pounds less than when he entered the United States from Ethiopia six months earlier.

Their daughter, 18 months, who also is from Ethiopia and was hospitalized on the same day, has multiple healing skull fractures, police said.

The adopted children are with foster families.

Family Division Judge Kathleen R. Mulligan in December ruled the Barbours may have custody of their biological children, who authorities said were not abused.

The couple's defense attorneys said Manning's decision was necessary because a no-contact order was a condition of their bail.

“It is neither my duty nor my obligation to interfere with” Mulligan's decision, Manning said.

Dr. Ronald Neeper, a psychiatric consultant for the court who performed a mental evaluation on the couple, said he does not believe they were a threat.

Neeper, however, said he believes the Barbours could influence their oldest child, who may testify for the prosecution, which is why Manning ordered her statement recorded.

The Barbours are charged with simple assault, endangering the welfare of a child and reckless endangerment. Kristen Barbour, 31, also is charged with aggravated assault.

According to the police affidavit, the 6-year-old boy was admitted to the hospital for hypothermia, rapid breathing and significant skin breakdown. The child initially was taken to Express Care in Wexford by his father for an infection.

When told the boy's body temperature was 93.6 degrees, Douglas Barbour, 33, asked: “Would that be from being in the bathroom cold, wet and naked for an hour?”

When the boy was interviewed Oct. 2 at A Child's Place at Mercy, he said that when he was bad — which he described as urinating or defecating in his pants — he was forced to eat his meals in the bathroom, the affidavit said. He also was forced to stand in the bathroom in the dark, which he said was “scary.”

Upon his admission, the boy weighed 37.5 pounds but gained 6.8 pounds during six days in the hospital. When he arrived in the United States in March from Ethiopia, he weighed nearly 47 pounds, police said.

The 18-month-old girl was taken to the hospital on the same day because her eyes were rolling back and she had difficulty in breathing.

Kristen Barbour told doctors that the toddler has a history of banging her head. Doctors found multiple healing fractures and said it was abuse.

The Barbours' trial is scheduled for July 9.

Adam Brandolph is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-391-0927 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.