View Single Post
Blackcat31 12:13 PM 04-01-2015
Originally Posted by NeedaVaca:
From what I understand the provider called CAS first and then when the parents found out they pulled. Then she sued for money owed and then they counter sued. The parents were retaliating. Also, from what I remember in the transcripts the smoking was brought up by the family in court but never before that and the judged basically said since it wasn't an issue while they were in care and they continued to bring him he wasn't taking it into consideration. I honestly think there are still unanswered questions and the provider should have had better representation. With a real lawyer this whole thing could have played out differently.
I agree that the smoking was brought up after but the judge commented on it and said they dismissed it as evidence but I still think it lent to the providers credibility. kwim?

"I find nothing in Ziven’s health history, either individually or in totality to suggest that he was in any physical danger. I find no evidence relating to the parental care which would suggest that they were not totally and properly attentive to his physical needs. It was only after the reporting to the Children’s Aid Society and after Ziven was removed from the plaintiff’s daycare that the plaintiff wrote letters to the defendants expressing concern"


The bolded part was the kicker for me.
Reply