When the attempts to sway his decision failed, the doctor submitted a third letter to the court which Ms. This was subsequently canceled after the mother reminded Ms. Having submitted two letters of recommendation to the court, the doctor was then issued with a subpoena demanding the mother’s medical records. She further admitted to attempting to convince the mother’s lawyer to contact the doctor for the purpose of sharing the court’s opinion with the doctor. Williams had contacted the doctor in order that he would “understand the court’s perspective/perception”.
Lowe had full knowledge of this and admitted in an email that Ms. Williams saw fit to privately contact the doctor via telephone so that he could “get her input”. Williams, have any medical qualifications.
This doctor was appointed by the county and we can presume that it was based on his medical credentials. In doing so, they hoped to reverse the findings in reports where he wrote glowing assessments of the mother of the child in question. Could this be why they are so resistant to returning special needs children to their families?Ĭontra Costa County Counsel Patricia Lowe and social worker Edyth Williams have been exposed in their attempt to exert undue influence on the county approved doctor who was appointed to this case. The County receives federal funding every time a child is seized and retained and they are further incentivized in cases of children with special needs. Officers of the court in Contra Costa County are violating Federal Law in attempting to adversely influence the findings of a prominent doctor in a case involving a child with special needs. The Sixth Amendment states, in its entirety: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted with the witnesses against him to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.Ī representative for the plaintiff sent us a statement describing the plaintiff’s assertions regarding county counsel allegedly violating HIPAA: Presumably, Defendants believe otherwise.
For this reason, Plaintiffs believe that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront accusers, the right to compel witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and the right to an attorney in the “Dispositional” phase of a trial proceeding under the challenged statute.
Plaintiffs believe that the proceedings authorized under Section 300 of California’s Welfare and Institutions Code are criminal in nature, in that they can result in the loss of family unity, a well-recognized fundamental constitutional right. Livingston (together, “Sheriff”), operate under a policy, practice and custom by which they act under color of law to seize children regardless of whether the statutory requirements of “serious harm” or “substantial risk” have been met,” “This case concerns the shocking truth that the County of Contra Costa (“County”), through it agencies Children and Family Services (“CFS”) and Office of the Sheriff and David O.