Baskin son on why he won't reunite with parents...

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Yep, there are strong opinions on this one. I don't even know if Jon is still checking in on this site-- I wish him well in his life endeavors.

[XCalibur]

I think that any way you flush it, Michael and the Maples attitude towards him casts doubt on the whole thing. No matter how they try to justify it, the fact that they made these claims about the Baskins and did nothing to try to get Michael out of that situation casts doubt on their credibility and possibly that of Bobby and Christy's too. Having thought about this case often, I just don't see any way around that. And the reasons they have given for not meeting Michael or even talking to him don't really hold any water with me at all. They just don't.

I personally would like to see Michael interviewed and how he comes off. I think it would tell us a lot. If he comes off as an articulate person who has it together than to me it casts even more doubt on the Maples' story. and of course if he firmly denies there was any abuse towards him. I would like to see if he comes off as more impressive than Bobby did in his interview. There was definitely something off there.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by crystaldawn

Jon has addressed a ton of Issues brought up here today and I don't believe wants to continue posting but here are a few things about the kidnapping aspect he mentioned to me that I'll share.

a) they had full physical custody of us and with that in mind kidnapping cannot legally happen at the time that we left,

b) we were already gone when the custody changed so no one could be kidnapped because it already happened in the past and there are laws about how you can't be found guilty of something you already did after the fact that a new law or legal finding says it shouldn't be done,

c) just like all the other things that they did wrong in filing the kidnapping warrants, it's not hard to believe that they also filed a warrant for the wrong crime, and

d) we have a system in the United States called innocence until proven guilt, and the law has never found Marvin Maple guilty of kidnapping. So legally he's not guilty of kidnapping, just like legally the Baskins aren't guilty of doing what I remember they did. It doesn't mean it's right, but if you weren't there you can't say it happened

I've just been kinda reading through this.. and.. While I realize I'm responding to something from 5 years ago.. AND.. Rarely do I disagree with CD.. but.. The above is incorrect.

I'll stay pretty much out of the rest of the arguments, but.. This part.. I do want to address.

Now, in a way, it may be right in that kidnapping is certainly not likely to be something the Buntings were guilty of.. But.. We're getting into semantics here.

Point "B" above is "Ex Post Facto".. That does not apply here. that is enacting a law that criminalizes an act and then punishing someone for committing said act when it was NOT illegal. Now.. That's a bit of a dance here, because.. The most well known argument regarding that is Sex Offender Registries. Those came into being around 1995, but anyone who committed a crime that would land them on the registry PRIOR to that was required to be on the registry. The argument is that is Ex Post Facto, and, really.. It's not an argument. It is. Therefore, it should be illegal and a constitutional violation. Some states agree with this. Others not.. It's made it to the Supreme Court who has found that it is NOT Ex Post Facto punishment, that it's 'public safety' and Sex Offender Registries are not punishment. Which.. Let's be honest, is BS. Whether you are happy that it worked out that way or not I don't care, but be honest that they certainly are punishment.

So.. What happened here is that the grandparents absconded with the children. They knew that their custody was coming to an end and the left with the kids before they had to return them. That is against the law.

Specifics of the law may vary by state.. And while I'll agree this may not be kidnapping everywhere (Again, certain states may have different statute wording)

The grandparents also knew that custody had been returned to the parents. As evidenced by the mentions of them being scared when they viewed the Unsolved Mysteries broadcast (I believe Jon said that).. So.. Right there, they knew. Which means the most likely charge would be some form of Custodial Interference. Again.. All depends on the state and how the statutes are worded there.

SOME states refer to this basically as "Parental Kidnapping" right in their statute.. So.. Saying that they are not guilty of "Kidnapping".. While the 'classic' definition.. Probably correct.. It all depends on the locale where it happened.

The idea that the Grandparents can say "oh, we didn't know we didn't have custody".. Please. See how that would work out in court. In fact, The grandfather DID find out, if he tried to use that as a defense. Because he went to jail. If he tried this his defense attorney likely would have laughed him out of his office. This would be an argument that someone who made the brilliant decision to represent themselves would come up with and then be shocked that they were found guilty.

At the end of the day.. The grandparents were and are criminals. They absconded and kept the kids with no right to do so and further went so far as to assume new identities to keep them from being found.


If you want to agree with what they did and think they did the right thing.. Hey.. I'm OK with that. A mother has no money and steals a loaf of bread from a store to feed her kids.. That's understandable. But it's STILL ILLEGAL.


as for "D".. Legally.. The grandmother is the only one who isn't guilty and that's because she died before she could be found guilty. The grandfather *IS* guilty.. Not sure what he eventually pled out to.. But part "D" above makes it sound like they did nothing wrong and that is spin. That's Bill Clinton coming out and saying "I did not have sexual relations" and then saying getting a BJ isn't "sexual relations"

AS for the grandmother.. She's only not guilty in the eyes of the law. By EVERY other metric she's guilty.


These kids don't want to have anything to do with their parents? That's their right. They're so dead set against having anything to do with them, it'd probably be a really bad idea for them to try or someone to force it. If I were the parents.. I'd probably, as they seem to be doing, just hope that they have the best life they can.


FWIW.. it looks like TN would call this "Custodial Interference".. Statute is here.

https://law.justia.com/codes/tenness...ion-39-13-306/

One thing to note in that statute..

It is a defense to custodial interference:


That the person who removed the child or incompetent person reasonably believed that, at the time the child or incompetent was removed, the failure to remove the child or incompetent person would have resulted in a clear and present danger to the health, safety, or welfare of the child or incompetent person;

However.. That wouldn't hold up since multiple courts and agencies found no evidence of a "clear and present danger"

If the grandfather had been a younger man in better health when he was caught.. He'd have done more time than he did.



Crap.. I have to bring this part up as well.. There's possibilities. That this COULD have become a jury nullification situation. To be honest.. I'm a believer in Jury Nullification. But this wouldn't really be the right way to use it. Jury nullification, for those not familiar, is a jury basically ignoring the law and exonerating a defendant. If you ever want to get out of jury duty.. Just say the words "Jury Nullification". That'll get you out every time, most likely. I wouldn't overly recommend it, because there's also a chance that it removes you from jury duty permanently via a felony conviction! Not quite sure that would be possible, but it scares the hell out of the courts. The best example of this was OJ. That was most likely Jury Nullification, at least on some level.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

I think that any way you flush it, Michael and the Maples attitude towards him casts doubt on the whole thing. No matter how they try to justify it, the fact that they made these claims about the Baskins and did nothing to try to get Michael out of that situation casts doubt on their credibility and possibly that of Bobby and Christy's too. Having thought about this case often, I just don't see any way around that. And the reasons they have given for not meeting Michael or even talking to him don't really hold any water with me at all. They just don't.

I personally would like to see Michael interviewed and how he comes off. I think it would tell us a lot. If he comes off as an articulate person who has it together than to me it casts even more doubt on the Maples' story. and of course if he firmly denies there was any abuse towards him. I would like to see if he comes off as more impressive than Bobby did in his interview. There was definitely something off there.

Michael and both Mark and Debbie are on Facebook. I have checked them out. Look, we all know social media isn't always a gauge for how things really are, but one thing that I find true is that the Baskins don't seem to have changed their beliefs. They are both strong Christians, they make reference to this often, they were that way 30 years ago and they look like they have raised two very healthy boys, Michael and the adopted boy Paul. Also, no proof ever came out about the abuse. They do have a couple of pictures of Bobby and Christi with some sadness to it. Hey look, someone is wrong here. Either the Baskins are wolves in sheeps clothing and their "Leave it to Beaver" image is completely the opposite of who they are.................or they actually are that way and the Maples were criminals.

Either way, I have never gotten past the idea that they leave Michael there. You just wouldn't do that. You'd let the other kids go back to their parents and stay in their lives and look out for them, all three of them. You don't just abandon one of them, and yes I have heard their explanation. It's bad.

I still don't get why Bobby and Christi never got a hold of their brother. How can their curiousity not get to them? Is there something they are afraid of finding out that 30 they've believed 30 years of lies. Because I sure as heck wouldn't trust my 8 year old self's memory, I'd want to corroborate it.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

Michael and both Mark and Debbie are on Facebook. I have checked them out. Look, we all know social media isn't always a gauge for how things really are, but one thing that I find true is that the Baskins don't seem to have changed their beliefs. They are both strong Christians, they make reference to this often, they were that way 30 years ago and they look like they have raised two very healthy boys, Michael and the adopted boy Paul. Also, no proof ever came out about the abuse. They do have a couple of pictures of Bobby and Christi with some sadness to it. Hey look, someone is wrong here. Either the Baskins are wolves in sheeps clothing and their "Leave it to Beaver" image is completely the opposite of who they are.................or they actually are that way and the Maples were criminals.

Either way, I have never gotten past the idea that they leave Michael there. You just wouldn't do that. You'd let the other kids go back to their parents and stay in their lives and look out for them, all three of them. You don't just abandon one of them, and yes I have heard their explanation. It's bad.

I still don't get why Bobby and Christi never got a hold of their brother. How can their curiousity not get to them? Is there something they are afraid of finding out that 30 they've believed 30 years of lies. Because I sure as heck wouldn't trust my 8 year old self's memory, I'd want to corroborate it.

I don't know its all so bizarre. And now I've also heard that even Debbie's own sisters were on the Maple's side!

I mean even I find it hard to believe they made up all this. If none of this was true, what in God's name caused them to do something so horrible to their own daughter and sister? They had to have hated her guts to do something like this. Unless of course the sisters were deceived by Marvin and Sandra too. And if indeed Debbie and Mark are innocent of all this, they have to be first degree saints and Christ like to have forgiven this. I am a Christian myself, and I can't say I would have forgiven Marvin and Sandra for something like this. I don't even want to say on this forum what I might have done if someone turned my own children on me and assassinated my character like that!

[everybodylovesrs]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

I don't know its all so bizarre. And now I've also heard that even Debbie's own sisters were on the Maple's side!

I mean even I find it hard to believe they made up all this. If none of this was true, what in God's name caused them to do something so horrible to their own daughter and sister? They had to have hated her guts to do something like this. Unless of course the sisters were deceived by Marvin and Sandra too. And if indeed Debbie and Mark are innocent of all this, they have to be first degree saints and Christ like to have forgiven this. I am a Christian myself, and I can't say I would have forgiven Marvin and Sandra for something like this. I don't even want to say on this forum what I might have done if someone turned my own children on me and assassinated my character like that!

Happens all the time in families. And friend groups. It could be that they didn't like their strong religious beliefs. Or... it could simply be the fact that some people are mentally ill.

[TheCars1986]

I believe Jon and hope he's doing okay.

[everybodylovesrs]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I believe Jon and hope he's doing okay.

I believe he believes what he believes. Doesn't make it true. I'm sure he's hard at work on writing his biography which will eventually become a companion Lifetime movie.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by everybodylovesrs

Happens all the time in families. And friend groups. It could be that they didn't like their strong religious beliefs. Or... it could simply be the fact that some people are mentally ill.

I don't know about all the time, yeah sure families become estranged all the time but I don't know that this level of betrayal happens all the time.

And its pretty incredible as well that they would hate Debbie to that extent just because of her religious faith, anything is possible of course. I could probably believe that easier today with the woke movement but this was back in the 80's when even atheists were way more tolerant of such beliefs even if they didn't share them.

I don't suspect this case will ever go away on these boards though, unless Jon and Jennifer change their minds one day. Simply because to many people see Mark and Debbie as victims of a terrible injustice. For the reasons I have stated, I am inclined to believe that as well. I just can't get past their whole attitude towards Michael and them leaving him in that situation if all of this was true. I just can't. That is the main reason I am inclined to believe Mark and Debbie.

But on the other hand, its pretty incredible to me as well that these two did that amazing a job of brainwashing that Jon and Jennifer can't even shake it even in adulthood. I mean my God even most of Charles Manson's followers managed to free themselves of his BS. Of course, most of them were adults at the time whereas Jon and Jennifer were still children when this happened. So I suppose its possible.

Truthfully the whole thing is just flabbergasting to me. An awful injustice was done regardless of which side you believe. Just a matter of who did it.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

I don't know about all the time, yeah sure families become estranged all the time but I don't know that this level of betrayal happens all the time.

And its pretty incredible as well that they would hate Debbie to that extent just because of her religious faith, anything is possible of course. I could probably believe that easier today with the woke movement but this was back in the 80's when even atheists were way more tolerant of such beliefs even if they didn't share them.

I don't suspect this case will ever go away on these boards though, unless Jon and Jennifer change their minds one day. Simply because to many people see Mark and Debbie as victims of a terrible injustice. For the reasons I have stated, I am inclined to believe that as well. I just can't get past their whole attitude towards Michael and them leaving him in that situation if all of this was true. I just can't. That is the main reason I am inclined to believe Mark and Debbie.

But on the other hand, its pretty incredible to me as well that these two did that amazing a job of brainwashing that Jon and Jennifer can't even shake it even in adulthood. I mean my God even most of Charles Manson's followers managed to free themselves of his BS. Of course, most of them were adults at the time whereas Jon and Jennifer were still children when this happened. So I suppose its possible.

Truthfully the whole thing is just flabbergasting to me. An awful injustice was done regardless of which side you believe. Just a matter of who did it.

So maybe it was Jon who said this on this board, but he did mention that the Maples were devout Christians. He said growing up his grandpa read them the Bible everyday. Yet he kidnapped him. But his parents were devout Christians....................yet they were accused of some horrible crimes. I mean, this is what you are dealt with at 8 years old. How the heck do you even know up from down at this point? Nothing would make sense and you would trust nothing at all.

So I think more the reason to go and see just how accurate things are. Mark and Debbie are in their 60s. They won't be around forever. I would want to at least hear their story. You may not be able to someday.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

So maybe it was Jon who said this on this board, but he did mention that the Maples were devout Christians. He said growing up his grandpa read them the Bible everyday. Yet he kidnapped him. But his parents were devout Christians....................yet they were accused of some horrible crimes. I mean, this is what you are dealt with at 8 years old. How the heck do you even know up from down at this point? Nothing would make sense and you would trust nothing at all.

So I think more the reason to go and see just how accurate things are. Mark and Debbie are in their 60s. They won't be around forever. I would want to at least hear their story. You may not be able to someday.

I saw those posts from Bobby/John. If indeed that's him, he definitely sounded more open to meeting Michael though seemed afraid to. My gut feeling is they will eventually agree to meet their brother if not their parents. And depending on how it goes it might lead to a reunion, but it might not. Hard to say.

If Mark and Debbie are who they say they are and like I said I am inclined to believe they are, I don't expect them to give up. These two are their children any way you flush it. No matter long they are estranged they were with them when they were young, they watched them take their first steps say their first words and everything, you don't just forget that. I sure never would. And if all these allegations were false, I sure as hell would never give up in their place, would want not only my children back in my life but my name cleared as well. I mean what a terrible thing to be falsely accused of. People who have said in the thread Mark and Debbie should just give up probably never had children, you never give up on your children.

Of course, its always possible we could have been wrong and it could have been true, after all none of us were there so none of us know for sure. But given what I know, to many things don't add up.

They are all still fairly young. I just pray for the truth to come out for all of them so they might all have peace. And if the Baskins were innocent I hope they finally get vindication.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

I saw those posts from Bobby/John. If indeed that's him, he definitely sounded more open to meeting Michael though seemed afraid to. My gut feeling is they will eventually agree to meet their brother if not their parents. And depending on how it goes it might lead to a reunion, but it might not. Hard to say.

If Mark and Debbie are who they say they are and like I said I am inclined to believe they are, I don't expect them to give up. These two are their children any way you flush it. No matter long they are estranged they were with them when they were young, they watched them take their first steps say their first words and everything, you don't just forget that. I sure never would. And if all these allegations were false, I sure as hell would never give up in their place, would want not only my children back in my life but my name cleared as well. I mean what a terrible thing to be falsely accused of. People who have said in the thread Mark and Debbie should just give up probably never had children, you never give up on your children.

Of course, its always possible we could have been wrong and it could have been true, after all none of us were there so none of us know for sure. But given what I know, to many things don't add up.

They are all still fairly young. I just pray for the truth to come out for all of them so they might all have peace. And if the Baskins were innocent I hope they finally get vindication.

It has been 14 years. You would think they'd want to have seen their brother by now. That's the thing, the Buntings don't come off as terribly likeable people. It just makes me think they've been trained to think a certain way and it does seem toxic. They remember their brother, were apparently heart broken he couldn't come, but they didn't bother meeting him? Are they afraid he might be normal and that it was the Buntings and not the other Baskin children that missed out on a normal life? Man, that would be a huge twist for them, and I would want to at least know one way or another.

So here is the question, how much did the Baskins try to reconcile with the kids after they were found in 2009? They did fly out to California. Jon says they were only doing it for show. But have they made efforts since?

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

It has been 14 years. You would think they'd want to have seen their brother by now. That's the thing, the Buntings don't come off as terribly likeable people. It just makes me think they've been trained to think a certain way and it does seem toxic. They remember their brother, were apparently heart broken he couldn't come, but they didn't bother meeting him? Are they afraid he might be normal and that it was the Buntings and not the other Baskin children that missed out on a normal life? Man, that would be a huge twist for them, and I would want to at least know one way or another.

So here is the question, how much did the Baskins try to reconcile with the kids after they were found in 2009? They did fly out to California. Jon says they were only doing it for show. But have they made efforts since?

Its not surprising he would think that, he obviously believes his parents are hellspawns, whether he was brainwashed to think that or it is genuine.

I haven't heard there has been any attempts to see them, there could have been. But even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't care. Mark and Debbie I'm sure are aware that at this point and time they want nothing to do with them, so they could very well just be trying to respect their wishes all the while hoping they change their minds someday.

I've never seen Jennifer interviewed either way, I did see that interview with Jon. I didn't think he came of as unlikeable exactly, but there did seem to be something slightly off about him. His demeanor when speaking about the abuse seemed to unemotional and robotic, but it may just be me. He was emotional when he talked about his younger brother though.

Assuming the abuse allegations weren't true, my best guess on why he is afraid to meet his brother is because he has had this world shaped for him since childhood with this narrative, and he is afraid if he meets Michael and he comes off as totally normal and someone who has it together the whole narrative and world he has come to believe in will collapse and place the grandparents who raised him in a whole different light and not a good one. So it could very well be denial and refusal to face that possibility. I mean think about it, when you have believed something your whole life it is extremely hard to turn away from it I mean it literally becomes a part of your world and who you are. and I think that may be what is happening with him and his sister. They want to believe their grandparents were heroes.

Of course, if the abuse allegations were true, that's a whole different story and everything is sort of obvious so no point in rehashing it.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

Its not surprising he would think that, he obviously believes his parents are hellspawns, whether he was brainwashed to think that or it is genuine.

I haven't heard there has been any attempts to see them, there could have been. But even if there wasn't, it doesn't necessarily mean they don't care. Mark and Debbie I'm sure are aware that at this point and time they want nothing to do with them, so they could very well just be trying to respect their wishes all the while hoping they change their minds someday.

I've never seen Jennifer interviewed either way, I did see that interview with Jon. I didn't think he came of as unlikeable exactly, but there did seem to be something slightly off about him. His demeanor when speaking about the abuse seemed to unemotional and robotic, but it may just be me. He was emotional when he talked about his younger brother though.

Assuming the abuse allegations weren't true, my best guess on why he is afraid to meet his brother is because he has had this world shaped for him since childhood with this narrative, and he is afraid if he meets Michael and he comes off as totally normal and someone who has it together the whole narrative and world he has come to believe in will collapse and place the grandparents who raised him in a whole different light and not a good one. So it could very well be denial and refusal to face that possibility. I mean think about it, when you have believed something your whole life it is extremely hard to turn away from it I mean it literally becomes a part of your world and who you are. and I think that may be what is happening with him and his sister. They want to believe their grandparents were heroes.

Of course, if the abuse allegations were true, that's a whole different story and everything is sort of obvious so no point in rehashing it.

Yes, and very unnatural to me. Just "off" I guess is possibly how to describe it. I also have to think that the memories I have prior to 7 or 8 years old exist, but barely. I can remember punching a kid in Grade 1 in the nose because he took my boot off during recess in the winter time. He got a bloody nose. However I can't remember things with 100% accuracy during that time. So basically you are trusting your memory at a very vulnerable age. That's risky.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

It has been 14 years. You would think they'd want to have seen their brother by now. That's the thing, the Buntings don't come off as terribly likeable people. It just makes me think they've been trained to think a certain way and it does seem toxic. They remember their brother, were apparently heart broken he couldn't come, but they didn't bother meeting him? Are they afraid he might be normal and that it was the Buntings and not the other Baskin children that missed out on a normal life? Man, that would be a huge twist for them, and I would want to at least know one way or another.

So here is the question, how much did the Baskins try to reconcile with the kids after they were found in 2009? They did fly out to California. Jon says they were only doing it for show. But have they made efforts since?

Seems to me, as I mentioned before.. This would be a really, really, really bad idea to try to force it.

The Baskins (The parents.. The names are throwing me for a bit of a loop at times) seem to not be forcing it.. Which.. Is the right thing to do, no matter how hard it might be for them. If the kids don't want anything to do with them, there's a reason behind that. Whether that reason is valid/true or not is basically irrelevant. It's what they believe. Forcing them into a meeting against their will isn't going to change their minds. In fact, it's apt to have the exact opposite outcome and cause them to dig in their heels.

Some of the stories that were told to the social workers seem.. Really to have a whole lot in common with McMartin, as I believe someone mentioned before.

Here's a writeup I haven't seen before.. It's off Facebook, so.. Grain of salt. But..

The troubles for the Baskin family started in October 1986. Bobby Baskin, who was almost five years old at the time, told his grandmother about sexual abuse at the hands of his paternal grandfather. Bobby then later told the story to his mother, Debbie.
Debbie and her husband, Mark, then asked Debbie’s parents, Marvin and Sandra Maple, what they should do about it.The Maples encouraged them to press charges, and that’s what they did. The grandfather denied the abuse, and Bobby was unable to tell his story on the stand. Instead, he just cried.
As a result, the charges were dismissed in January 1987. During the ordeal, Debbie and Mark decided to move their family from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, to Louisville, Kentucky. However, Mark and Debbie were worried it might be too stressful for Bobby. So the Maples offered to look after Bobby and his 6 year old sister, Christi.
In June 1987, the Baskins made the difficult decision to move and leave Bobby and Christi with the Maples. For a few months, things went well. When Debbie asked for the children back twice, the Maples convinced her to postpone the move. But by spring 1989, the Baskins were demanding the return of their children. That’s when the Maples got temporary custody of the children.
They told the police that the Baskins had abandoned the children and sexually abused them during a visit. The Maples also told the police that the Baskins were involved with a satanic cult. Investigators looked into the claims, and they found the charges to be baseless. They ordered the Maples to hand over Christi and Bobby on March 1st 1989, almost two years after offering to keep them for a short time. But instead of handing over the children, they sold their house and fled.
The police and FBI launched a search, but the Maples couldn’t be found. Over the years, their disappearance was featured on both Unsolved Mysteries and America’s Most Wanted. There were a few sightings, but there were no confirmations. After fleeing Tennessee, the Maples moved to San Jose, California, with new names. Christi and Bobby were now Jennifer and Jonathan Bunting.
Twenty years after the disappearance, a Kentucky newspaper ran a story about the kidnapping, which Marvin Maple read online. He was unhappy with how he was depicted in the story and expressed this at the bar where he socialized. At least one of the people listening to Marvin went to the authorities, and Marvin (who was going by the name John Bunting) was arrested for the kidnapping on February 2nd 2009. Sandra Maple had already passed away in 2005. When Marvin was arrested, Christi was in shock and couldn’t understand that the man she called “Daddy” could be facing kidnapping charges.
Bobby and Christi were also hesitant to meet their parents and didn’t immediately contact them after the arrest. The parents believe that the children may have been brainwashed after so many years.
Marvin pleaded guilty to custodial interference and was given four months of probation.

Now, that's a detail I didn't know or didn't pick up on before.. Apparently, originally, the abuse came from Mark's father?

Allegations of abuse against the parents didn't, seemingly, start until after that.

I wonder if this is a situation where the kids remember the abuse from the paternal grandfather, which may be legit.. and when they say "The abuse was real".. That's what they're talking about?

Maybe there's a situation here where the parents weren't going to keep the kids from their grandparents, but allegation of abuse, the maternal grandparents weren't going to allow that to happen? and.. Perhaps are saying that the Baskins were complicit in the abuse due to that?

That.. Actually might cause a whole lot of things to add up here. Other than the fact that the Baskins apparently did press charges, but they didn't stick for lack of evidence..