These are among the most emotionally charged cases the Family Court confronts. Often, Shaken Baby Syndrome (S.B.S.) renders a child significantly impaired, depending on the severity of the traumatic event(s). It can even be lethal. For a more detailed discussion of the S.B.S. from a medical standpoint click here and/or here. The most confounding question posed by these cases is who the culprit is. The agencies charged with prosecuting child abuse/neglect cases will usually take the broad view and name as respondents just about everyone who had sole access to the child within the timeframe that they believe that the child was injured. Therefore, it is very common to see parents and extended family named as respondents in these cases. The sad truth, however, is that generally speaking the wide net that child protective services agencies cast usually ensnares innocent parties who find it next to impossible to defend against these cases.
The first priority in defending against these cases is to determine whether the diagnosis of S.B.S. is even appropriate. While many experts will look for the telltale signs of S.B.S. (bilateral retinal hemorrhaging, subdural hematomas, hydrocephalus, fractured ribs, brain injuries, etc.) these signs can sometimes be attributed to non-abusive causes such as meningitis (bacterial or viral), increased intracranial pressure or some other underlying medical condition. The important part is to look at the history provided by the parents or custodians, the constellation of symptoms that the child presented with when he or she was first seen by medical personnel, how quickly the child's symptoms resolved (if they did), and what was revealed by the various diagnostic and/or clinical tests performed on the child.
Obviously, the average person and the attorney who represents a client facing a charge of abuse are not qualified to make these determinations without the assistance of an expert. Thus, while it is usually a costly affair, the retention of an expert is absolutely vital to defend these cases. Without an expert, a respondent stands little to no chance of successfully defending an abuse charge.
The reason for this grim outlook is that all the prosecuting agency needs to do is two things. The first is prove the child was the victim of a shaking event. This would be done through an expert who has either treated the child or reviewed the medical records. The second thing is to prove that, essentially, a respondent was a person who was legally responsible for the child (which could encompass day care providers, and hence, extended family members) and that the respondent had an opportunity to shake the child. Once these two facts are proved, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to either disprove the diagnosis or the fact that they had access to the child. Without an expert, a respondent is basically before the court empty handed and a finding of abuse is a virtual foregone conclusion.
The first priority in defending against these cases is to determine whether the diagnosis of S.B.S. is even appropriate. While many experts will look for the telltale signs of S.B.S. (bilateral retinal hemorrhaging, subdural hematomas, hydrocephalus, fractured ribs, brain injuries, etc.) these signs can sometimes be attributed to non-abusive causes such as meningitis (bacterial or viral), increased intracranial pressure or some other underlying medical condition. The important part is to look at the history provided by the parents or custodians, the constellation of symptoms that the child presented with when he or she was first seen by medical personnel, how quickly the child's symptoms resolved (if they did), and what was revealed by the various diagnostic and/or clinical tests performed on the child.
Obviously, the average person and the attorney who represents a client facing a charge of abuse are not qualified to make these determinations without the assistance of an expert. Thus, while it is usually a costly affair, the retention of an expert is absolutely vital to defend these cases. Without an expert, a respondent stands little to no chance of successfully defending an abuse charge.
The reason for this grim outlook is that all the prosecuting agency needs to do is two things. The first is prove the child was the victim of a shaking event. This would be done through an expert who has either treated the child or reviewed the medical records. The second thing is to prove that, essentially, a respondent was a person who was legally responsible for the child (which could encompass day care providers, and hence, extended family members) and that the respondent had an opportunity to shake the child. Once these two facts are proved, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to either disprove the diagnosis or the fact that they had access to the child. Without an expert, a respondent is basically before the court empty handed and a finding of abuse is a virtual foregone conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment