Autistic Child=Public Nuisance Lawsuit goes to Mediation in Santa Clara

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/suit_seeking_to_declare_autistic_boy_a_public_nuisance_goes_to_mediation

The parties in a suit contending an autistic boy is a public nuisance have agreed to participate in court-supervised mediation.

Judge Maureen Folan of Santa Clara County, California, on Tuesday urged the boys’ parents and the neighbors who sued to reach an agreement, theSan Jose Mercury News reports.

“The question I have for each and every one of you is: Do you want to be solution-oriented and a great role model for your kids?” Folan asked. “Or do you want to be the opposite of that, and be litigation-oriented?”

One of the plaintiffs, Robert Flowers, said the judge’s idea was “promising.” The boy’s father said he was also pleased, although a previous attempt at mediation had failed.

The suit claimed the boy who lived in Sunnyvale, California, was a public nuisance because of his attacks on their children that included kicking and slapping. Their suit, the neighbors said, was directed at the boys’ parents because they were not controlling his behavior.

A previous judge in the suit issued a preliminary injunction in July 2014 requiring the boy’s family to make sure he doesn’t strike or assault neighbors. The suit also seeks damages and argues the boy’s uncontrolled behavior put a damper on the marketability of the neighbors’ homes.

The boy and his parents moved in September 2014. They say their son’s bad behavior stopped after he took medication and participated in therapeutic classes.

Previous:
Ex-courthouse clerk charged with felony for throwing files in trash after being fired

Next:
Judge's injunction delays possible shutdown of Kansas courts

---

Filed under:

States | Alternative Dispute Resolution | Trials & Litigation | Tort Law |California | Disability Law

---

You might also like:

• Neighbors' suit contends boy with autism is a public nuisance
• Trial court should not have dismissed law student's disability complaint, 9th Circuit says
• 10 Questions: Has the ADA measured up?
• Lawyer's double-murder trial delayed over use of subpoena rather than warrant for cellphone search
• Lawsuit says 'financial slavery' service by dominatrix was elder exploitation

Another CPS Case-This One Might Have a Decent Outcome

Mediator had given recommendation to one parent by having heard a tape-recorded scenario, which was allegedly against the interest of client, but client was never allowed to hear the tape recording to even challenge the authenticity to begin with, or what was contained on the tape....

Weeks later, client-- who only was to have supervised visits, never got any visits because there was no availability at any agency.   In meantime, a trial date was finally set, but the custodial parent kept doing errant actions and failed to allow visits since there was no supervisor, and none could be obtained. In meantime, the client managed to improve the child's grades in school, establish that the mother's boyfriend was an alleged perpetrator, and had enough evidence against the other party to gain at least 50-50 custody.

During that time, it was eventually discovered that the kids were being neglected and police and CPS became involved to some extent, thus paving the way for the trial outcome hopefully in client's favor. 

Eventually, client actually got some help [sheriff] from out of county, and  finally got the mother's boyfriend where he could not be within 100 yards of the kids at all. This is normally not that difficult to do, BUT when false charges are made, and then the mediator ignores the facts and gives kids to wrong parent (who does not stop others from harming kids) there is a big problem.

Filing contempt charges and repeated court hearings is usually not recommended unless client has a lot of time and money, and Judges tend to not like repeated hearings, but having police and CPS properly investigate a case can be a plus when there is actual evidence, a witness, and third party verification.

If you only have second hand evidence and cannot get CPS to realistically help your case, which CPS does not always do, considering the CPS lawsuits out there, it will require diligent monitoring of what the errant parent is doing, and sometimes you will have to enlist the aid of other people to help you get to the bottom of it. It is usually never fast, nor easy. But if you can do it, and CPS gets a recommendation against the other party, you are more than 2/3 of the way there.  CPS finds many cases to be unsubstantiated, and too many of those can harm a case.

Is Parental Alienation Real? Yep....

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/therapy-soup/2011/09/parental-alienation-syndrome/

A twelve-year study by the Family Law section of the American Bar Association showed that Parental Alienation syndrome (PAS) abuse occurred to at least some extent in nearly 60 percent of divorces (the extent to which it occurred ranged from mild to extreme). Today, more and more mental health professionals recognize that this is a very real and tragic problem.

Although PAS abuse usually occurs during or after a divorce, some argue that it can happen during marriages as well. In these cases, the parent “dumps” their problems with the other parent on the child or sets up “gangs” within the family.

In any case, the victims are first and foremost children who don’t usually realize what’s happening to them (if they are older, and have a longer-term history with both parents, they may understand at some level what’s going on). These children live with the loss of a parent that’s as painful and stressful as a death, but are not allowed to grieve. They are taught to stuff those feelings of grief and to turn that pain and their natural love for their parent into hatred.

http://www.pasattorney.com/court-interventions/  [note: this link is from a Michigan attorney's site who is also registered in several others states, including CA but nonetheless, it sheds light on how serious the issue really is...]  and to read about how DNA evidence can be used in a criminal case, from defense side,  in overcoming juror's assumptions, see   http://www.lorandoslaw.com/False-Accusations-And-Criminal-Defense-Topics/If-DNA-Then-GuiltyStrategies-for-Overcoming-Juror-Assumptions-About-DNA-Evidence-In-Criminal-Trials.pdf

Online Disparagement v Freedom of Speech..... Be Careful..............

Businesses rejoice but poster beware: Yelp ordered to identify anonymous reviewer

9/22/2015

by

Edward Heath  

| Robinson+Cole Data Privacy + Security Insider

Many business have suffered the misery and frustration of a harshly negative, anonymous online review. That anonymity, critics argue, frees the reviewer from worries about the need for accuracy and, worse yet, encourages the spiteful posting of false accusations designed to drive away customers. In competitive markets, the targeted business has no choice but to fear that a rival is behind the posting.  

Attorney has not followed all of the related "Yelp" cases in past 4 years BUT it is believed that Yelp did prevail in a major lawsuit when an attorney sued Yelp because attorney claimed Yelp published defamatory reviews that were not true.  If you google that information, it is very likely you will find the new case law. Right now I don't have time to look it up and analyze it LOL.........

Last week, a Massachusetts judge gave the Commonwealth’s business some relief by ordering Yelp to reveal the identity of an anonymous reviewer who posted disparaging comments about a local jewelry store. Yelp is among a handful of websites that have become ubiquitous in the consumer space. Yelp is often used to identify a business to fill a need or want, and many customers will not patronize a business unless the Yelp reviews are favorable. At the same time, businesses have recognized the importance of this social media tool and place Yelp stickers in their front windows proclaiming “People Love Us on Yelp” while at the same time personally asking customers to post positive reviews.

In a case of first impression in Massachusetts, the San Francisco-based Yelp opposed the third-party subpoena it received in the civil defamation lawsuit that the jewelry store owner has brought against “Customer Doe.” Although the anonymous poster claimed in her review that the owner “lacked ethics” and had “ripped off many other vulnerable and desperate women who had to sell their jewelry,” Yelp refused to remove the post because it “appeared to reflect the user’s personal experience and opinions” and refused to identify the poster.

 Yelp’s objection was based principally on the First Amendment, citing consumers’ rights to use anonymity as a shield against retribution. The Boston judge disagreed, ordering Yelp to disclose its information about the user, who has since moved to Colorado and whom the store is no doubt poised to name as a defendant in its case.

[View source.]