Circumstantial Evidence

by KevinH on May 19, 2013

I receive the Washington Lawyer magazine every month.  When I see it in my mail I immediately go to the back page.  The back page contains a monthly article written by a D.C. lawyer named Jacob Stein.  The articles are always entertaining and are usually geared for the daily practice of law.  This month contained the story below titled “Circumstantial Evidence” and I wanted to pass it along to everyone – even nice, normal people that are not afflicted with a law license.  Hope you enjoy.

Martin Armstrong had obtained two continuances from the court to file his opposition to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

He had a problem with the case. He could not bring himself to read the file. He knew he must go someplace where there were no distractions. He decided to take the file and nothing else and register at that second-rate hotel in Boston where he stayed in his student days.

When he arrived at the old hotel, the clerk told him to leave his briefcase in the lobby and to come back in an hour or two and his room would be ready. He decided to stop in at the used bookstore close by. He was determined, however, not to buy any books that would distract him.

He went to the table where, for a dollar, one could pick up a stray volume from one of the multivolume sets. He saw one of Arthur Schopenhauer’s books, titled Counsels and Maxims. Despite his resolution to buy no books, he could not pass up this dollar bargain. He knew of Schopenhauer in his Harvard philosophy class. He liked the old boy’s pessimism.

No matter his resolution not to buy a book, he bought the book. A page or two of Schopenhauer would not be much of a distraction from the summary judgment, and he took a few turns around Bromfield Street, enjoying the pleasant fall weather. Then he returned to the hotel. His room was just what he wanted – a bed, a desk, a chair, a small closet. No radio. No TV. No distractions.

Once and for all he was going to read the pleadings and the papers, no skipping. He soon realized that there was not much to the defendant’s motion. Why had he been so frightened by it?

After two hours of work he stood up, stretched himself, and looked around the small drab room. The cleaning people did a poor job. The last occupant was a smoker and a drinker. The ashtray was filled with cigarette butts. Beneath the bed was an empty half-pint whiskey bottle. He put both in the trash basket. He had been clean of smoking and drinking for three years. If he were to spend a week in this room, he might fall off the wagon.

Armstrong felt exhilarated after writing the first draft of the pleading. He decided to take a walk, eat a sandwich, and return to the room. He said to himself that he had now earned the right to read a few of Schopenhauer’s maxims, including the advice that “[t]o speak angrily to a person, to show your hatred by what you say or by the way you look, is an unnecessary proceeding – dangerous, foolish, ridiculous, and vulgar.” Well, he said to himself, that is pretty good.

There was a one-page paper note in the back of the book. It happened to be a suicide note, filled with despair and futility. It contained this Schopenhauer quotation:

Life may be represented as a constant deceiver in things both great and small. If it makes promises, it never keeps them,… Life gives only to take away. The charm of distance shows us a paradise, which vanishes like an optical delusion if we allow ourselves to approach it.

Well, Armstrong said, somebody in that state of mind should not have been reading Schopenhauer.

The outside Boston fall weather was pleasant. He tried to open the window facing the street. It would not open. There were chipped coats of old white paint around the window. He thought of those lead poisoning cases he had lost.

Armstrong placed himself where he could put his strength behind the effort to raise the window. It did not open. But something else happened. He felt a sharp chest pain. Why did he get all worked up about opening that window? His cardiologist had warned him against doing anything that required real physical effort.

He breathed deeply, but the pain did not go away. He looked through the leather pouch where he kept his shaving supplies to see if he had the prescription bottle of nitroglycerin pills. The bottle was there, but no pills. He did find a scatter of over-the-counter sleeping pills that he had. In the past, when he had sharp pains, he took a nitroglycerin pill together with a sleeping pill. If he got  good night’s sleep, the pain went away. He took two of the “blueys,” the blue pills that guaranteed to give a good night’s sleep.

The following morning, the cleaning woman knocked on his door. No answer. She reported this to the desk clerk who, with the help of others, pried open the lock. Armstrong was in bed. Dead. The police were called. The policeman found the suicide note. He then called the doctor whose name appeared on the empty nitroglycerin bottle.

The policeman identified himself and asked if the doctor had Martin Anderson as a patient. The doctor confirmed that he did.

“Did you prescribe nitro pills for him?” the policeman asked. The doctor said he did.

The policeman said, “What if he took a lot of pills and smoked a lot and drank a bottle of whiskey – would that have any effect?” The doctor said it would kill him.

“Well, it looks like Martin Armstrong has died, and left a well-written suicide note.”

The doctor said, “Something must have gone wrong for Martin to end up like this. Something must have really gone wrong for him to be in that hotel you described. Why wasn’t he staying at the Ritz, his favorite hotel in Boston? Something must have really gone wrong.”

{ 0 comments }

By now, you’ve undoubtedly heard the story of Anna and Alex Nikolayev, the Sacramento parents of baby Sammy who were stunned when Child Protective Services (CPS) workers yanked the infant out of his mother’s arms – all because the parents had the temerity to request a second opinion from physicians.

But after some digging, I began to realize that while all the available facts have been reported by one outlet or another, no one article told the whole story.

Background: The Nikolayev Family

Alex and Anna Nikolayev, parents of 5-month-old infant Sammy, took their child to Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento due to Sammy’s congenital heart murmur and the fact that the baby had developed flu-like symptoms.

It’s important to keep in mind that this wasn’t the first time they’d had to seek medical treatment for their child. In fact, they apparently had seen many doctors prior to this visit, at least one of whom had told the young parents that Sammy should not be given antibiotics.

So when Anna saw a Sutter nurse begin to administer antibiotics to her child, she spoke up and asked why. The nurse said “I don’t know.”

Then the attending physician told the worried parents that Sammy didn’t have the flu – but rather that the infant needed open-heart surgery immediately.

The parents made the (I believe quite understandably) decision to seek a second opinion elsewhere. Anna put Sammy in his stroller, and they traveled across town to Kaiser Permanente Medical Center to get that opinion.

At Kaiser Permanente, after the child was evaluated, physicians told the Nikolayevs that they could take Sammy home – a very different opinion than the one formed by the Sutter physician.

One fact that seems to be getting lost in the retelling of this tale is that the Nikolayevs were confronted twice by authorities. The first such occasion happened on the day they brought Sammy home from Kaiser Permanente. The police approached the parents, and with their permission, spoke with the KP physician who had treated Sammy. The KP doctor assured the police there was no danger to Sammy. The police indicated to the Nikolayevs that the staff at Sutter had led the police to believe Sammy was at death’s door, but that they could clearly see he was not.

The next day the nightmare truly began. The Nikolayevs were confronted again by the police – but this time, the police were escorting CPS workers who had one of the officers take Sammy right out of his mother’s arms. There’s very troubling video of this incident here.

For the following week, the distraught, confused parents were allowed only one-hour visits with their baby per day. CPS, meanwhile, had taken Sammy to Sutter, the very hospital that had made the parents so leery.

Finally, on April 29th, a judge yanked the reins on this runaway train returning medical decision-making authority to the Nikolayevs. However, the ordeal isn’t over for these parents: the judge also ordered the parents to allow home visits by CPS workers, to abide by medical care providers’ treatment orders, and to not remove Sammy from any hospital unless the infant was discharged by the hospital.

So, effectively this preliminary order puts Sammy’s medical care back in the hands of the medical profession instead of where it belongs – with his parents.

CPS Response

Initially, the agency circled the wagons and declined comment, citing privacy laws. However, eventually the agency released a statement, partially quoted in this Yahoo! article:

The law is clear. If there is imminent risk of serious physical harm to the child and there is insufficient time to obtain a court order to remove the child from the care of the parents… the social worker or law enforcement officer can remove the child.

That does seem pretty clear – except that judging solely by the facts currently available to the public, the “imminent risk” exception to the court order requirement doesn’t really apply in this case.

This is made manifestly apparent by the court’s subsequent order, in which the court returned medical decision-making authority to Sammy’s parents – which would not have happened had there been any evidence of an ongoing imminent risk.

What Next for the Nikolayev Family?

Sammy is now receiving care from another hospital (not Sutter). His parents have stated he probably will require surgery.

Understandably, the Nikolayevs are worried about future CPS visits. They report that many parents spoke up following this story’s first publication, stating that they had experienced similar questionable actions by CPS – which, of course, is no surprise to any reader of this blog.

The Nikolayevs are not alone in this fight, however. They are represented by Joseph Weinberger, a Sacramento attorney who appears to focus on personal injury cases.

Additionally, Tim Donnelly, a Republican California Assemblyman representing Twin Peaks, CA, has now called for an audit of the CPS agency’s actions in the Nikolayev case.

And they’ll need all the help they can get. While I certainly hope that the next court hearing (scheduled for later this month) will put an end to the entire matter for the Nikolayevs, that is far from a foregone conclusion.

Parents have a constitutional right to make healthcare decisions on behalf of their children. CPS trampled those rights in this instance. Basically, CPS took a child out of a home because the parents sought a second medical opinion for their child.

While there’s certainly enough blame to go around (to the overreaction of the medical care providers at Sutter, for instance, for the wholly unsupportable decision to report obviously caring parents as abusers simply because the parents questioned their conclusions), the Sacramento CPS bears the brunt of the responsibility for this ridiculous assertion of its powers.

This is yet another tragic example of CPS abusing its power in regards to our children. And if you think this can’t happen to you, think again. These parents acted completely within their rights, followed the advice given by the physician providing the second opinion, and still had their infant child taken from their home.

{ 0 comments }

Collaborative Divorce: Not Just for the Super-Wealthy

May 1, 2013

I’ve written briefly before about collaborative divorce on this blog, but one misconception about this relatively new method of ending a marriage continues to pop up from time to time. That misconception is that collaborative divorce is just for the wealthy and those with significant net worth values. Two studies conducted by the International Academy [...]

Read the full article →

What Is Münchausen Syndrome By Proxy and Why Are Parents Losing Custody Because Of It?

April 29, 2013

Münchausen syndrome by proxy. It sounds dire. And for parents of sick children who have yet to receive a diagnosis from their medical care providers, it can be. But it’s not the illness their children have. It’s what their children’s doctors think the parents have.  And if the doctors and nurses in charge of your [...]

Read the full article →

How to Thoroughly Make a Mess of Your Custody Case

April 24, 2013

Pardon the tongue-in-cheek headline, but, as a divorce and custody attorney, I have to admit that sometimes it seems as if straightforward advice may not get through quite as clearly as satire does. So, in that slightly-satirical-but-completely-serious spirit, and in honor of the day (though I’m not fooling you here!),  here’s my own version of [...]

Read the full article →

Parental Abduction and the Hague Convention, Part 2: What to Do If It Happens to Your Family

April 22, 2013

In the previous post, I shared a little background on the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Convention” for short). This post, part 2 on “Parental Abduction and the Hague Convention,” will cover several concrete things you need to know and do in the event this happens to you and your family. [...]

Read the full article →

Parental Kidnapping and the Hague Convention, Part 1

April 19, 2013

As Joshua and Sharyn Hakken now sit in custody, awaiting trial on multiple felony counts, one thing has become abundantly clear: the Hakken family history is a troubled one. The Hakkens – parents of two young sons – lost custody of their children after Louisiana police found the young family ensconced in a motel room [...]

Read the full article →

Three Ways Child Welfare Agencies Could Improve Their Investigations

April 4, 2013

According to an old maxim, you should never raise your voice to complain about a problem unless you can offer a solution. I’m not sure how true that is – seems to me that there is value in merely pointing out that the house is on fire – but it does seem only fair that, [...]

Read the full article →

What Remedies Are Available After False Abuse Allegations Are Raised?

March 28, 2013

After you’ve successfully defended your client’s good name against false allegations of child abuse and somehow shepherded him safely through the quagmire of a horribly abusive investigation, what’s next? Is there any remedy for a parent who has been intentionally put through the grinder of a false abuse charge? There are remedies, of course, but [...]

Read the full article →

The Case Notebook in False Abuse Cases

March 25, 2013

One of the most helpful things my clients in false abuse cases can do to help me do my best work for them is to prepare and maintain a current case notebook. What’s a Case Notebook? Simply put, a case notebook is a collection of documents and notes relevant to the ongoing case that’s maintained [...]

Read the full article →