
Teen Sarah Patrick charged with parents' murder after sister's discovery
'It hits me when I see my five-year-old sister screaming for her mommy and daddy,' she added.
Sarah, now 17, was arrested early in July by Carroll County, Georgia, police and charged with two counts of murder and two of aggravated assault.
Carroll County officials say she turned herself in when presented with 'mountains of physical and digital evidence'.
Her biological father, Doniel, accompanied her. He's convinced she's innocent.
'I'll always be in your corner,' he wrote on Facebook. 'Never doubt your place in this world. You were sent here with purpose, wrapped in grace and born to shine in ways only your soul knows how.'
Chaotic childhood
'They don't know it, but a year from now me and my 5-year-old sister would find them wrongfully shot dead in our home – and they won't get to watch me graduate high school, see me walk down the aisle, or even say goodbye,' Sarah posted to TikTok alongside an image of her dead parents in March.
Carroll County police cited "mountains of physical and digital evidence" in their case against Patrick. Photo / TikTok
'I miss you guys, save a seat for me in heaven.'
But the series of tearful TikTok posts did not address the bitter custody battle waged between her biological parents.
Doniel Patrick filed for divorce from his wife in 2018 after 10 years of marriage. They had two children, Sarah and her younger brother, Donnie.
Doniel had sought 'primary physical custody of the parties' minor child' and that all visits be supervised until she proved to be 'clean' of drug and alcohol abuse.
Ultimately, the divorce settlement gave primary custody to the mother, with the father only seeing them every second weekend and during holidays.
This settlement was soon appealed, however. Doniel filed an emergency custody application in November 2019, alleging that Kristen and her new boyfriend – James Brock – had exposed the children to methamphetamine and marijuana use.
According to court documents, Sarah, then just 11, told police she was aware of the presence of drugs, that drugs were being used, and that she felt 'unsafe'.
Brock was serving probation for drug offences involving ice and marijuana.
'I, Sarah Grace Patrick, am 11 years old and love both of my parents very much,' she recorded in appeal documentation. 'I really want to live with my father. On December 12, 2019, my mother said I could finally live with my father after I told her.'
The custody appeal was initially granted. But it was overturned just five days later.
Kristin then accused Doniel of breaching the divorce custody agreement by 'wilfully abusing alcohol during his parenting time' and seeking to demean her reputation with her children.
A March 2020 court order gave the parents equal custody, adding that the mother must 'ensure that the oldest child, Sarah Patrick, is placed in counselling immediately'.
Tumultuous times
By October 2020, Sara Grace was allowed to stay with her father during the week and return to her mother on weekends.
But, two years later, things took a disturbing turn.
Her stepfather, James Brock, accused Kristin of deliberately driving the family car into the side of a barn in which he was standing.
James Brock, 45, and Kristin Brock, 41. Photo / Facebook
'Respondent tried to run over the petitioner while he was inside the barn, with the minor child in the backseat of the vehicle,' a police report reads. 'The other minor child witnessed the whole incident. Respondent is abusing prescription medication.'
The 'other minor' inside the car was Jaley, then aged 6. Her older brother, Donnie, also witnessed the incident.
James went on to accuse Kristin of assault, deliberate property damage and threatening to kill him. But he later dropped all allegations.
Instead, they got married in December 2023.
'I don't know if she ever realised … that the person I most wanted to be was her,' Sarah Grace posted to TikTok in April.
Another clip shows her in tears, with mascara running down her face. Superimposed are the words: 'Life's hard but at least I have my mom'.
The post then cuts to two cremation urns with a photo of Kristin with James. The caption reads: 'Mom?'
Sarah Grace's grandfather, Dennis Nolan, is not convinced of her guilt.
'It's all speculative stuff,' he told FOX 5 Atlanta. 'Nothing puts the gun in her hand. They don't have the gun.'
He said he had received a call from Sarah after she was detained: 'What are they doing to me?' she reportedly asked. 'Why are they doing this to me? I didn't do anything.'
Building a case
'I know, 100% of my heart, that Sarah's innocent,' Sarah's father, Doniel, told US media.
'She's a typical 17-year-old that lived like a teenager, and she would never do this.'
Her father, Doniel Patrick (left), insists on her innocence, criticising police procedures during her interrogation. Photo / Facebook
He complained that police had not followed correct procedures when interviewing his daughter.
Police had prompted him to take a break, he explained.
'By the time I came back in, they had her in the room, interrogating her without my permission. By the way, she was 16 years old at the time,' he said.
Doniel says Sarah had named several people she believed may have been involved in the killing.
'She had told us about, you know, other friends of the family and stuff, and she suspected they could have done it,' he said.
But Carroll County police are resolute.
'While the case has not remained in the public spotlight in recent months, this investigation has never gone silent,' the Sheriff's Office said in a recent statement.
'Real justice takes time, time to ensure that no detail is overlooked, no stone unturned.'
County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Ashley Hulsey said there were no signs of forced entry at the house, though one door was slightly ajar. And nothing appeared to have been stolen.
'Our team has sifted through mountains of physical and digital evidence and collaborated with the FBI and GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation) crime lab,' she added.
Hulsey explained that a livestreamed recording of Sarah giving a eulogy at her mother's funeral was among the key pieces of evidence they had collected.
Investigators believe the performance was an attempt to divert attention. Although they admit they do not have a motive for the killings.
'She's 17. She's kind of been out on her own. She's lived with different family members and moved all over the place,' Hulsey said.
'We don't know what goes through the mind of a child who wants to harm their parents.'
Sarah has been charged as a full adult.
The next court hearing is scheduled for August 11.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Couple take previous home owner to court after she refuses to leave
A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on May 21. But the previous owner, Terina O'Connell, said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media and asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 – tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time" and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders. They typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter


Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Couple take former home owner to court after she refuses to leave
A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner after she refused to leave the property. New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on May 21. But the previous owner, Terina O'Connell, said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home. As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media and asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day. The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 – tomorrow". She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made". She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days". While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed". She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time" and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB". "These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis". "I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party." OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders. They typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort". "There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments." Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. "As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments." By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter


NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Couple take former Pāpāmoa Beach home owner to court as she refuses to leave after mortgagee sale
The new owners sought a trespass order on May 22 to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work they took their case to the High Court. 'The bank does not own my property' According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on June 6, where O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties. The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house. There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a 'call out' for support, saying 'all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday 20 May 2025 – tomorrow'. She said the purchasers had 'made a deal with the devil' and that 'the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made'. She posted that she 'would appreciate some support at my home ... tomorrow afternoon ... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days'. While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media where she explained her views on the 'alleged debt' owed to the bank. In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested and answer questions she had. Judge: Any issues are between her and the bank, not the new owners The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB. O'Connell told the court she'd tried to 'negotiate a solution' for two years, had not consented to the mortgagee sale and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway. Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo / Hannah Bartlett She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating. She said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been 'harassed'. She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to 'support her through this stressful time' and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship if forced to leave. But Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were 'between her and ASB'. 'These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property,' Justice Gardiner said. The judge said while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case. She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters. The High Court judgment also noted that while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness. They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default. The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, June 9. There has been a slight increase in the number of mortgagee sales this year. Photo / 123rf Are mortgagee sales on the rise? Cotality New Zealand data showed a 'minor lift' to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter when there were 52. This marked the highest number of mortgagee sales since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales. However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was 'still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis'. 'I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party.' OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as 'mortgagee sales' in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting just over 38,000. New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks are responsible lenders and typically have dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty and mortgagee sales were 'rare and always a last resort'. 'There are several options that banks may offer ... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments.' Beaumont said in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers. 'As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments.' Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.