The rights to conceive and raise one's own children have been deemed "essential," "basic civil rights of man," and "far more precious ... than property rights. (Stanley v. Illinois)Working out in a somewhat public place as I do (The Neighborhood Cup), people get a chance to see me in action - crafting documents or simply writing pieces for my blogs. Often, they get a chance to hear me discuss things in person. The Cup attracts people from all walks of life with often divergent beliefs and ideas. So, from time to time, we can be heard discussing some of the issues of the day. Sometimes we engage in very lively debates about one of my passions - the law.
I've been working out of cafes since April of 2008. It seems that I’ve developed a reputation as being an advocate of sorts, distinguished as a person who is not an attorney. And this weekend presented me with the opportunity to help someone in need.
Some weeks ago I was approached by a lady whom I will call “L”, the first letter of her first name. Her case cannot be discussed in detail as the matter is a dependency case involving children who are minors. She came to me around the middle of May seeking help to fill out a form called the “Extraordinary Writ”. She had appealed a previous decision from a trial court, which the Appeals Court sustained - meaning the lower court’s decision now stands.
We filed the “Extraordinary Writ” seeking another review. In a few days we received word from the court allowing another review and scheduling oral arguments on June 22, 2011. The opposition, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, filed an answer immediately after which had to be objected to. She brought the answer to the Cup on Friday and we worked on the response the entire weekend.
We were seeking to re-try the case. The chief reason is that she did not get the level of advocacy from her previous attorneys that would give her the fair opportunity to prevail. After a lengthy pre-trial phase, a new attorney was substituted less than a month before the trial. The trial date was later moved but the amount of time did not allow for lengthy discovery period, leaving important pieces of information out and critical documents were not entered into evidence.
Among the many things that we found was the possibility of law enforcement officers actually fabricating a child’s statement. For instance, the child who was the victim was 3 years old at the time and was said to have made a statement to the authorities. Following is the purported words that came out of the child's mouth. We note that two of the sentences included 7 words:
- Mama holds me when Joe beats me.
- Mama was there where he hurt me.
- She whines.
We suspected the fabrication of testimony when we discovered expert knowledge that said a three year old has the capacity to speak sentences that have 3-5 words. The MAYO Clinic, on their resource site said that a 3-year old child will speak with sentences of 3-4 words. We asserted that linguistic experts should have been consulted to determine the child’s syntax. In the paper we offered what we felt the child meant:
- Mother was there to hold me after Joe hurt me.
- Mother was home when I got hurt (but did not see it)
- Mother whines. (Not ordinarily a part of a 3 year old’s vocabulary)
Had all the evidence specified on this brief been acquired, we believe it would have been enough to acquit (“L”) of the charge of “failure to prevent injury”. As we have shown, (“L”) was the victim of less than rigorous defence by her attorneys that was wholly prejudicial to her case. The strength of MAYO CLINIC’s expert understanding of a 3 year old’s linguistic skills alone, which contradicts the police’s statement should be enough to grant this petition. For with that assertion we open the court’s eyes to a wider and sophisticated system of fabricating statements and evidence to create disunity in a family and perpetuate oppression against a mother.VIEW COURT RECORD
VIEW MAYO CLINIC WEB RESOURCE
