they even took Aaron and April to church with them which was a level of bizarre hard to fathom. I got the idea it was Nick trying to prove he wasn’t ashamed of being a cuck and his fabulous erotic lifestyle. I think a great deal of Nick’s batshit behavior is from shame but trying to prove he’s not ashamed and totally in the right
Foster care would be very traumatizing. It’s highly likely the kids would be separated and god only knows the conditions they might end up in. The courts will always try to keep them together with a family member if they can. I can’t imagine the grandparents or aunt, who have a lot of resources, wouldn’t do everything possible to keep the kids with them. Maybe it’s a cope but I don’t think they’ll end up separated
So I notice in this latest batch of MN Public Records that not all the kids were taken at the same time (??)
All the records were pulled at the same time. All the kids have "time in custody" of 26 (or 28?) days, except "ARR", the one who tested positive for drugs, who was only in custody for 11 days total.
Where was she before that?
And yes, at this moment, his children are "all together with family". And Nick would be accurate in saying that even if a few weeks ago one of the children was not.
Remember when Balldo accused Ms. Sweep of perjury? Well now he confirmed one of the claims from the CHIPS report. Nice going Balldo.
Interesting new matter of public record attached. Now that the court reporter has uploaded the requested transcript that Frank proposes to introduce as an "exhibit" at trial, we finally have the lengthy testimony of Ms. Sweep that Nick flat-out accused of perjury on his live stream, so lets dive in and try to pinpoint which part he thought was a lie, shall we?
Myriad highlights to add to the lore include, but are by no means limited to:
1) Much like when Nick reveled in thumbing his nose at his church by bringing the full qover and the later throuple to the pews, sure enough all of the below transpired with April "in the gallery" to show "support" gazing upon the cult leader in awe. Surely that would have inspired a lot of confidence in the county's eyes.
2) Although the maternal grandparents are generally understood to have been the only caregivers, it turns out the "two youngest children" were then actually "in the care of another family member" and "Uncle's giving respite" for unspecified intervals. For how long and how many times did Nick's choices subject his kids to the trauma of being separated even from each other?
3) For once there was a brief glimpse of conscience and contrition in Kayla, when she tearfully hugged her eldest out in the hallway and said "these are the consequences of our actions." Will Nick ever acknowledge the same?
4) On a lighter note, finally we get the comical details about the May 28th first site visit's refusal of access to the master bedroom, where Nick - allegedly - shut the door in Sweep's face saying "you do not need to come in here" because he was only going in there briefly to grab whatever shitty art piece would surely explain away the loose bullet found near his firearm. What (or who) was there in that room that he had to hide?
5) An added excuse for refusing access to the master bedroom during the May 28th site visit was that the Rekietas were "on their way to go post bond" between that 1:00 P.M. site visit and the CHIPS hearing later that afternoon. Why such a hurry to post unconditional bond ASAP when they had already been conditionally released?
6) Again Nick can't resist the chance to hear the sound of his own voice despite his own attorney sitting there who is supposed to do the talking, this time taking a simple question of whether the parents have "been cooperating with drug testing" as the time to belt out his own "objection...to the introduction of the drug test evidence" that wasn't even the call of the question, as if panicking at the thought of ever discussing the parents' own hair follicle tests on May 30th, for which they'd swiftly revoked consent to release results to any county officials, and which their later July 13th motion sought to suppress altogether for the sole reason that the GAL shouldn't have gotten her hands on the results. This time the different judge was having none of it and asked Nick's attorney whether she'd like to make an objection for him.
7) Leaving aside the parents' May 30th hair follicle test with a result that they've aggresively tried to bury ever since, sure enough their first urine test results were handed to the state at the last minute in the hallway before the hearing, which even then still tested positive for alcohol almost two weeks after the arrest.
8 ) Again KCHHS insisted that "the agency still continue to supervise visits" because both sets of grandparents have lived whatever incredibly sheltered existence it would take to be "unfamiliar with what somebody under the influence would look like," and more oddly because at least Nick's parents (unlike Kayla's) still did "not believe that Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta use any type of substance" in the first place, such that some sort of "facilitator" would need to babysit both sets of grandparents through use-recognition "education" brushing up on what you or I might call basic common sense.
9) Another testament to Nick's herculean work ethic can be found in the fact that he, Kayla, and the "live-in nanny" must not have been enough to clean the disgusting house so "hard to walk around...without stepping on clothing, bedding, blankets" on their own, because it turns out that the poor grandparents had to do much (if not all) of the cleaning for them. And even then, there was a noted failure to "remove any residual exposure" to cocaine by "wiping every surface down with bleach," because when it came down to selecting the appropriate "cleaning protocol," the Rekietas refused to even so much as discuss "what substance was there" and "don't necessarily believe that it was even in their home." Besides, why would such basic cleaning supplies even be around given Nick's protestations to Mayr about bleach being so much more dangerous to children than cocaine?
10) As reiterated in later case plans, Sweep elaborates on KCHHS' safety meeting's attempt to "plan around drug use" having been hampered by the parents having "stated they do not want to answer any questions regarding that" and KCHHS having been "unable to do any safety planning around returning the children" because they had "not been able to establish sobriety" or "establish how these substances were found and got into the home" in the first place.
11) As reiterated in the July 13th motion, the defense seemed to have given up on outright reunification and pushed instead for having the grandparents move into the parents' home, which KCHHS also found unacceptable in part because foster care in the home from which the children were removed would be ineligible for foster parent licensure, and moreover because of hampered "safety planning around Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta's access to that home" and lack of a "plan of how their access to the home would be restricted," even if they were to move into the "second residence" that had not yet been inspected "to see if it would be safe" and that was so close as to let the parents "have access to the children unsupervised." What were these pesky county prudes so afraid of?
To be continued...
