The Hawthorne Case

NamUs MP78879 identifies Cebreros as 10 at disappearance, gives March 1, 2003 as Date of Last Contact, and lists Hawthorne, California. Its narrative says she is missing with her brother Noel Cebreros, whose record it identifies as MP78880. The California DOJ profile gives the same last-seen date and locality.^1,2

The sibling relationship is expressly recorded by the sources. It is not a connection inferred from similar names. The reviewed descriptions do not provide a time of day, exact observation address, destination, or complete sequence after the last-seen event.

What the State Profile Adds

The California DOJ profile alleges that the children are being concealed by their mother. NamUs’s shorter narrative identifies the siblings without including that allegation.^1,2 This is a difference in the detail published by the two profiles, not an established contradiction between witnesses.

The state’s allegation remains an attributed public agency statement. This paper has not examined a warrant, custody order, or court judgment, and does not independently determine an offense or anyone’s responsibility. A family relationship should not acquire additional implications through retelling.

Record Dates and Agency References

NamUs gives March 19, 2021 under NamUs Case Created; the surrounding webpage displays May 7, 2026 under Date Created. Its agency Date Reported field is blank.¹ Neither later creation date is evidence of a new sighting.

Both profiles list Hawthorne Police Department and case 033422. California DOJ gives telephone (310) 970-7915, while NamUs displays (310) 349-2720.^1,2 These are separately attributed contact references, not a claim that both reach the same office or remain equally current.

Sourced Accounts and Questions

The sources share a date, locality, sibling relationship, and agency case number, while the state profile adds an allegation about the mother.^1,2 The reviewed materials do not supply the underlying legal documents or a complete observation history.

Can you find a public agency clarification or identifiable court record explaining the basis and status of that allegation? Such a document would need to match this case and be read for what it actually establishes, rather than treating an undated profile as a court finding.

When you compare later notices about either sibling, can you identify a documented observation rather than repetition of the joint last-seen description? Keep Abigali’s MP78879 separate from Noel’s MP78880 and record which person each claim concerns.

Here’s where you come in: explore these open questions in your own Research File in Almost Solved. Preserve the sibling connection and the source’s qualifications without inventing a route or assigning guilt. Relevant information about the children belongs with investigators.

Conclusion

The public profiles establish how the siblings are described together and how the agency references can be matched. They do not supply a complete later chronology or an adjudicated explanation. A traceable account preserves the distinction between the shared record and the additional attributed allegation.