m01-brief-1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
209-30D
Subject
Medicine
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
8
Uploaded by sscoville15
Sidney Scoville
M02 Assignment - TN v. Tikindra G. Case Study
CASE BRIEF
State of Tennessee, Department of Children's Services v. Tikindra G.
347 S.W.3d 188
(2011)
JUDICIAL HISTORY: DCS filed an adjudication that the twins dependent and
neglected. The parties stipulated to dependency and neglect. A hearing was
held to determine whether the twins had been severely abused. Madison
County Juvenile Court found Boy Twin had been severely abused. Mother
appealed. After a trial de novo, the Circuit Court, Madison County, Roger A.
Page, J., found that both twins had suffered severe abuse. Mother appealed. FACTS
: Samarion (“Boy Twin”) and Samaria (“Girl Twin), twins, were born on
July 9, 2007, to Tikindra G. (“Mother”), who was 20 years old at the time.
Mother had an “on again, off again” relationship with the twin’s father, but
they never got married. The twins were born prematurely, at about thirty-
four weeks, weighing about four pounds each. They spent the first two weeks
of their lives in the Neonatal ICU. The twins initially struggled to feed, but
this issue was mainly resolved in the hospital. The NICU provided the mother
with detailed written and verbal instructions on how to feed and care for
them once she took the twins home. The mother checked a box indicating
that she comprehended the directions and signed a document
acknowledging that she did. Mother indicated she would be staying with her
grandmother because the utilities at her apartment had been shut off. Home
health professionals visited Mother and the twin boy on July 26, 2007, the
day after Boy Twin was released, to speak with the mother about the services
planned for her preterm infants. The mother took the twins to the
pediatrician the following day, on July 27, 2007, for a checkup, which
revealed no issues with the infants at the time.
Without the knowledge of the staff at the hospital or the home health
agency, Mother had relocated with her four children to Quintora "Quinn"
Miller's ("Ms. Miller"). After moving in with Ms. Miller, Mother returned to
work. Mother left the twins with either the Father or Ms. Miller while she was
at work. The twin’s health had deteriorated, and by August 9, 2007, Samarion’s
condition
had become critical. Boy Twin went into respiratory distress. Mother called
911 and the boy was taken to the hospital. Boy Twin was near death at this
point. He was intubated and placed on a ventilator in the PIC Unit. A blood
transfusion was given to him on August 9 and 10, 2007. The girl twin's health
deteriorated as the boy twin received medical attention. After being
transported to the hospital, the female twin's condition was almost identical
to that of the boy twin.
ISSUE:
1. Did the trial court erred in concluding that clear and convincing
evidence was established that both twins were subjected to “severe
child abuse.”?
RULE:
U
nder
subsections (A) and (B) of Section 37–1–102(b)(23) – S
evere
child abuse in a dependency and neglect proceeding must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence.
ANALYSIS:
The due process protections of the federal and state
constitutions' due process clauses include one of the oldest judicially
recognized liberty interests: a biological parent's right to the care and
custody of his kid. Children have a right to a secure environment that is free
from abuse and neglect, and parents have a responsibility to provide that
environment for their children. An appellate court must distinguish between
the particular facts discovered by the trial court and the total weight of those
facts under the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard of proof. Findings of
fact based on the reliability of the witness are accorded great deference and
will not be challenged in the absence of convincing evidence to the opposite.
In a dependency and neglect proceeding, it is a question of law whether the
totality of the circumstances—either those the trial court found or those
supported by a preponderance of the evidence—clearly and convincingly
demonstrate that a parent engaged in serious child abuse. This
determination is made on a de novo basis without regard to any
presumptions of correctness. Under the statutory definition of "severe child
abuse," which is defined as specific brutality, abuse, or neglect towards a
child that, in the opinion of qualified experts, caused or would reasonably be
expected to cause certain conditions, no specific knowledge by a parent is
necessary for a finding of severe child abuse in a dependency and neglect
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
proceeding. It was determined by clear and convincing evidence that the
mother knowingly subjected two children, her premature babies, to abuse or
neglect that was likely to result in great bodily harm or death or failed to
protect them from such abuse or neglect, constituting severe child abuse;
hospital took great care in educating mother about
twin’s
needs and how to
care for them. Two weeks after a positive checkup, Boy Twin was rushed to
the hospital "pretty much dead." The child was consistently starved
throughout the two weeks, and the other child was later hospitalized in a
similar situation. After the first child was admitted to the hospital, the mother
must have known about his critical condition; however, it appears that she
continued to starve the second child. When asked if, to a reasonable degree
of medical certainty, she believed that the mother's abuse or neglect of
children, who suffered from malnutrition, had caused or would reasonably be
expected to produce severe developmental delay, the doctor responded in
the affirmative. This testimony from the doctor represented an opinion from
a qualified expert that neglecting two children had caused or would
reasonably be expected to produce severe developmental delay, supporting
a finding that a mother subjected children to severe child abuse.
CONCLUSION:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The
cost on appeal is to be taxed to Appellant, Tikindra G., for which execution
may issue, if necessary.
1.
What did the court conclude regarding whether parental
conduct must be “knowing” in order to be considered
“severe child abuse”?
The court concluded that a parent's behavior can constitute "severe
child abuse" even if they are not "knowing." As a result, a parent's
actions may be considered severe child abuse even if they had no
knowledge of or intention to hurt the child in question. The statute's
definition of "serious child abuse," which the court cited in its
decision, does not require evidence that the parent knew or
intended to hurt the child, the court noted. 2.
Why did the mother argue that her failure to adequately
nourish her newborn twins was not knowing?
She argues the court failed to consider the evidence of the CCP test
which showed a verbal IQ of 75, and a performance IQ of 8, and an
overall classification as Borderline Intellectual Functioning. Mother
also mentions the findings from the CCP assessment that she
frequently doesn't understand what people are saying but is
reluctant to admit it because she wants to present herself as a
smart, capable person who can handle herself without help. As
evidence, Mother's attorney references instances during Mother's
trial testimony where the questioner-based inquiries on incorrect
assumptions, and Mother merely responded to the inquiries without
resolving the error. Also, Mother merely failed to recognize the
danger to the twins. She specifically failed to understand the risks
associated with failing to feed the infants every two hours, the
significance of keeping in touch with the home health care agency,
and the importance of bringing the babies to follow-up
appointments with the doctor.
3.
Why did the court disagree with her position? On what did it
base it’s conclusion that she acted knowingly?
Evidence at trial showed that Mother had more than enough
training and education about how to care from the twins. Mother
acknowledged verbally and in writing that she understood the
proper care and feeding of the twins. Mother received a home
health care visit and also had a pediatrician appointment. At the
trial. Mother acknowledged that she understood the instructions,
and even stated that she fed the babies every two hours. After a
healthy checkup with the pediatrician, less than two weeks later,
Boy Twin was taken to the hospital “pretty much dead.” Mother's
false testimony in which she claimed that both infants had been
properly fed and that Boy Twin appeared to be "doing fine" until he
experienced respiratory distress is also an indication of her "state of
awareness." Furthermore, even after Boy Twin was admitted to the
hospital, Mother must have known about his serious condition but
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
still continued to deprive Girl Twin, at least until she was admitted
as well.
4.
Do you think the result would have been different if the
mother had not been instructed in how to care for her
newborns?
The likelihood that the result would have been different if the
mother had not received advice on how to correctly care for her
newborns is extremely slim. Regardless of whether the mother knew
how to correctly care for her newborns, the court determined that
the mother's actions constituted severe child abuse. The fact that
she had received directions on how to take care of them only
strengthened the conclusion that she acted willfully by failing to
provide them with enough food. She'd been provided instructions on
how to take care of them, after all. If the mother had received no
training at all in how to care for them, I believe the outcome for the
twins could have been much worse. Mother’s failure to
provide
her newborn twins with sufficient nutrition was the result of
ignorance because she had been informed by medical personnel
that her children were healthy.