Posted on 10/13/2007 6:14:00 PM PDT by fatima
re: died around 9am
I’m down for that...iirc, lividity doesn’t set in immediately, takes a little time (1/2hr to 3?hrs) for blood to drain into lower points after stopping in place altogether.
One thing I don’t think Perper thought about - if ANS fever was back up to 105/106, then, of course, her body would remain ‘warm’ for some time after her death...was he only going by (hospital?) temp and HKS/KE stories?
don’t forget - she was injected with a.baumannii contaminated needle/syringe on Feb 2 - she had baths/ice-baths prior to leaving the Bahamas, upon arrival, and every day she was in that suite. On arrival, Eroshevic gave Ans ‘neosporin’ - conclusion: ke KNEW ans’s injection site was infected - dont’ buy the ‘flu’ story - only 3 cipro tabs were missing in four days iirc - it’s a pink elephant IMO MOO MOO MOO
a. baumannii has no reason to be in the Bahamas - it’s rarer than MRSA was 10 years ago, It’s being identified as an “iraq’ virus as it was first noted in battle-wounded returning to British and American military hospitals. imo, it is unlikely that Anna would have contracted it in a bahamian hospital - if she did, the CDC/WHO would have been all over it. IMO MOO
cites: Case Law, Grandparents Rights, Rulings
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2006-09-12-grandparents-favored_x.htm
The court also emphasized that Pennsylvania’s visitation statute was unlike the broadly written Washington state law at issue in 2000, because Pennsylvania specifically gave visitation rights to grandparents whose child had died.
http://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/custody-more/grandparents-visitation-rights(1).html
Many states have permissive visitation laws similar to Washington’s. These states don’t see grandparent or caretaker visitation as a severe restriction on the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children.
Instead, they classify visitation as only a slight burden on that right. Therefore, the states need only justify the burden with a “rational” reason. Preserving the right of
children to maintain strong bonds with their grandparents generally qualifies as such a reason.
http://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/custody-more/state-grandparent-custody.html
California Conditions for grandparent visitation rights include a determination of whether a parent is deceased, the child’s parents are divorced or separated, the whereabouts of one parent is unknown, or the child is not residing with either parent. In addition to determining that visitation is in the child’s best interests, the court must find that the grandparents had a preexisting relationship with the grandchild. The court must also balance visitation with the parents’ rights. If both parents agree that the court should not grant visitation to the grandchild, the court will presume that visitation is not in the child’s best interests. Adoption does not automatically cut off the visitation rights of grandparents.
Kentucky: A court may award visitation rights if visitation would be in the child’s best interest. A court may award a grandparent the same visitation rights as a parent without
custody if the grandparent’s child is deceased and the grandparent has provided child support to the grandchild. Adoption cuts off the visitation rights of grandparents unless the adoption is granted to a stepparent, and the grandparent’s child has not had his or her parental rights
terminated.
also:
http://www.californiafamilylawblog.com/2006/11/for_grandparent_visitation_thr_1.html
cites2: Case Law, Grandparents Rights, Rulings
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Thurgood082506.pdf
¶35 We therefore hold that the Grandparent Visitation Statute is not unconstitutional under Troxel. The statute expressly incorporates the parental presumption, thereby ensuring that courts give “special weight” to the decisions of fit parents.
Moreover, it provides guidance to courts in determining whether the petitioning grandparents have established circumstances under which the courts can, nevertheless,
supersede the parent’s decision.
¶41 The district court also found that visitation between the child and the grandparents had been unreasonably limited or denied. When Mr. Thurgood first received
custody in June 2000,he did not allow visitation for five months. After this five month period, he granted Ms. Uzelac two visits, one for the child’s birthday and the other for a family Christmas party. The next visitation did not occur until March 2001, and it only lasted for one hour.
Thereafter, Mr. Thurgood did not allow visitation or telephone calls until July 2002, despite repeated attempts by the Uzelacs to contact the child. After the judge
ordered visitation in July 2002, Mr. Thurgood only allowed Ms.Uzelac to see the child twice between July 2002 and January 2003, when the district court issued a second visitation order. Following that order, Ms. Uzelac saw the child every other weekend throughout 2003 until Mr. Thurgood and the child moved to Florida in January 2004. Mr.Thurgood terminated all phone contact between the Uzelacs and the child one month later.
Based on these findings, there was sufficient evidence for the district court to determine that visitation had been “denied or unreasonably limited,” in satisfaction of one of the named statutory factors. Utah Code Ann. § 30-5-2(2)(b).
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-53-2005mo.pdf
After Mother’s death, however, Father abruptly denied Grandmother contact with Child, despite Grandmother’s repeated attempts to call Father and request time with
Child.
Between Mother’s death in May 2002 and April 2003, Grandmother saw Child on only three occasions when Child was visiting other maternal relatives.2
Eventually exasperated with the situation, Grandmother filed for partial custody pursuant to Section 5311. The court granted her temporary partial custody in April 2003
2 Father apparently allowed Child’s relationship to continue with his maternal greatgrandfather (Great-grandfather) with whom Child also had a very strong relationship.
6. Significantly, the court observed that “when [Child] is with [Grandmother], he seeks and receives emotional support regarding the death of his mother.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6.
This finding is particularly resonant because “[Father] himself expressed concerns regarding [Child’s] ability to express his emotions regarding his mother’s death.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6.
Thus, the court concluded, “contact with his mother’s side of the family is highly beneficial emotionally for [Child] in helping him deal with the loss of his mother.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6
23 Pa.C.S. § 5311.1 The Superior Court held that the trial court’s application was constitutional. We affirm.
1 § 5311. When parent deceased
If a parent of an unmarried child is deceased, the parents or grandparents of the deceased parent may be granted reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried child by the court upon a finding that partial custody or visitation rights, or both, would be in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship.
All due respect plum,
Kentucky and Washington have nothing to do with a baby that is a resident of CA. CA laws only would be at the core.
I am not saying she will not get visitation, only that CA laws will see her as a grandmother not a parent. It isn’t going to be cut and dry. Larry will go down swinging. Some valid and great concerns the court will NOT ignore
The grandparent has no relationship with the child. Whether that is her fault of not will not outway the fact there is no bond being broken is my point. THAT is important to courts. If a bond was built, they think long and hard before breaking that, again because emotionally it is not in a child’s best emotional interests to lose love just because grownups can’t behave like grown ups.
Sexual abuse family history
Like it or not, it WILL come up. How a judge will apply it in this day and age is anyone’s guess.
Long distance relationship
This plays again into no bonding existing to be broken and how much can a small child bond with a long distance relationship. Is it in the child’s best interest being so small to be shipped off occasionally to someone she doesn’t know?
Instabilty of relationships
Multiple marriages .. this in CA might not go far lol
But important is to stick with the appropriate state. Many tales can be told but they would not apply here. Discussing a case where the child is older and had a relationship (bond) also would not be comparable. Liberal courts like CA often recognize bonding as important. For whatever reasons .. the bottom line is that does not exist between DL and VA. It is the second most important measure they use after the best interest consideration.
California’s Legal Criteria is -
*Best Interest of Child
*Prior Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship
*Effect on Parent/Child Relationship
*Parents are Deceased, Divorced and/or Unmarried
*After Stepparent Adoption
Now, that bad news stated, the good would be:
Natural mother deceased.
Natural father and mom were not married
Child is so young, she could better adapt. The ‘stranger’ transition would be weighed against the lifetime benefit of having a loving grandmother in her life.
Effect on parent / child relationship .. minor. Larry has nothing to show that VA has EVER undermined his father role by speaking poorly of Larry so she has a proven track record there. Larry not being adult enough to return the same behavior is more likely to work against him imo from past cases studied in CA. IOW, teaching a child to hate and immaturity are NOT in the child’s best interest. They will not be in his favor. If anything, it will support the child needs her grandmother in her life to balance out the family from the deceased mom’s side.
It could go either way but it certainly is NOT going to be easy from either side. The one thing the court does do is.. deminish the emotions from both sides and focus on the child!
from (sorry) Art Harris - second time in two months Art has claimed the baby DL ws born drug free:
Her autospy revealed only trace amounts of Methadone in her bile, according to Broward County Medical examiner Dr. Joshua Perper, and sources close to her tell me exclusively that Dr. Eroshovech had successfully helped weaned Smith off Methadone before Dannielynn was born.
Family members tell me the baby had no drugs in her system.
www.artharris.com/2007/10/12/bald-truth-exclusive-anna-nicole-doc-raided-howard-k-stern-present-during-records-search-agents-searching-dr-khriss-home-now/#more-517
Objection. Kentucky Laws versus Calif laws could indicate 'venue shopping' - case law is absolutely pertinent, whether it is PA, UT or Washington IMO Truxel has been effectively challenged.,setting precidents
The grandparent has no relationship with the child
overruled. Grandparent was prevented from having a relationship with child. Child immediately responded to grandmother during one, 'allowed to hold' visit.
Sexual abuse family history
Irrevelant - over 40 years ago. VA divorced abusive spouse quickly after marriage. Abusive spouse's subsequent behavior is not a reflection on VA
Long distance relationship/Stability
Irrevelant - grandmother was actively prevented from participating in granddaughter's life by unmarried parent of grandchild. Unmarried parent provided no support to mother of child during mother's pregnancy. Parents of child were unmarried, in fact, father refused to marry mother. Father has allowed open contact with characters of interest in the death of the mother. Father has allowed open contact with his maternal/paternal relatives, no contact with childs maternal side of the family - intentional and malicious alienation
The state rests
:)
another (sorry) art harris post - only because this is the first time i’ve heard of a 30K offer....
Before Pinder, they were represented by Tracy Ferguson of Callanders and Co., who reportedly paid them about $100 apiece to provide anti-Stern affadavits for a South Carolina developer claiming title to her Horizons home—a claim G. Ben Thompson has since dropped.
*Another television producer told me he’d spurned a $30,000 demand* by the nannies for exclusive interviews, while an almost comical interview show in the Bahamas, Controversy TV, claimed they’d bandied about the sex stories before, but no media outlet was buying it.
www.artharris.com/2007/10/09/bald-truth-exclusive-nannies-deny-book-claims-is-rita-cosby-desperately-hunting-more-sources-howard-k-stern-lin-wood-to-let-it-rip-on-lkl-why-did-lawyer-debra-opri-hang-up-on-me/#more-503
family tells me..
ROFLMAO.. the family of liars. Great source. Art is a joke.
Art Harris is a sick joke! He makes my skin crawl but his fans are intriguing.. I was unaware that pond scum had computer access...must be that new AT&T card!
Had a coffee - need a shower from reading that cr*p. Talk about hate speech - I guess it’s acceptable to demean a private Southern White Christian retired police officer trying to come to grips with the murder of her daughter and grandson and attempting to see her granddaughter.
Wonder how Art would handle the situation if Barbra Streisand had died under the care of F. Lee Bailey and Ms. Streisand’s mother was fighting for justice?
You have to believe the Kentucky family is flabbergasted by the Rita Cosby expose. I am sure they were blissfully unaware of LB’s Hollywood friends & companions, Daniel’s death and Anna’s tortured life & death.
They only showed up when the custody feud began. The fact that LB was a potential daddy (regardless of Anna’s baggage) must have been a *positive* in their normal lives.
It certainly must have floored the Birkheads when dear Larry joined forces with Howie, moved to LA and started pimping the infant! They might secretly support Virgie’s efforts.
(insert that Simpsons pic with a big HA HA) LOLL
The CHILD and one natural parent are residents of CA.
CA supports GP rights especially when a parent has died. A case for Texas, US Supreme shot down a case! And as recent as May 2007 another TX shot down because of that precedent. Is that the case law you want used in CA?
It will not be about Virgie. As I said, the bottom line remains, prevented or not, there is NO existing relationship. This by their State laws IS pertenient and imo, as it should be! It is pertenient in any case dealing with child. The child’s interest must be #1 no matter what imo. Will it go against her, judge’s call but you can’t discount it. It will be an argument to expect from LB and WILL be part of a judge’s consideration.
Sexual abuse:
We don’t know the full extent. There WILL be court evaluations and histories taken. The point is, it will be injected and considered. What weight a judge will decide, what will be ‘discovered’ remains to be seen.
BUT, In this day and age, no judge wants to be on O’Reilly for placing a child in a home that had ANY abuse history. Will divorce show enough to be moot, probably but .. it depends on other factors or if any other abuse can be shown.
Will it be enough to sway a judge remains to be seen. We just are not privy to the full truth. IF that is all there is in the history, it might be okay but... there are no guarantees. It is there. It isn’t like we are dealing with a home where it isn’t in the history. It is not cast aside easily nowadays is my concern. If a judge is hell bent on using it, they will. If not, they will say she dealt with it and it is not relevant.
Father ‘allowing’ Stern
WE suspect Stern but what is a judge going to look at? Stern is not accused of or charged with a darn thing. That is what the court will consider if anything. Unless you can show direct danger to the child, physical harm to the child, ‘friends’ will not be much weight at all. In fact, DL was with Stern for months and no illness or harm came to her.
Hell, parents can be drug addicts as long as they don’t DO the drugs in the child’s presence! As long as the child is fed and safe from physical harm don’t expect emotional moral battles. The courts will not focus on friends. Howard being a questionable friend is not what you wish it would be to a court. The court will look at Larry and Virgie.
You final point is indeed one VA will use on intentional alienation. The court knows this going in! Heck, if they agreed they wouldn’t be in court so that part is clear from the start to the court. It won’t get past the judge but it will not be the focus of the court. If a parent wasn’t trying to forbid visitation, they wouldn’t be there asking the court to decide period. Family court is used to cutting past the emotional fires.
US SUPREME COURT has already set a precedent. Grandparents have no right to visits over the parents wishes.
On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided a grandparent access case called Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Troxel addressed what rights grandparents have to maintain a relationship with their grandchildren after their child has died and over the surviving parent’s objection. The decision in Troxel - consisting of a plurality opinion, two concurrences and three dissents - further muddied an already unclear are of the law. The only clear holding from Troxel was that a “fit” parent had the right to decide whether a child’s grandparents could have access to the child.
Case in CA ..
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040903.html
Thus, Karen had an uphill battle, to say the least, in challenging the statute. Perhaps realizing that challenging the statute “on its face” would fail, she also challenged it “as applied” to her particular situation.
But here, too, she lost. The California Supreme Court was unwilling to hold that granting the grandparents’ request, under the circumstances, violated Karen’s parental rights - especially given that Charles, who was then also Emily’s legal parent, had supported the request.
VA has no standing in the long run. LB is not Karen. The deceased natural mother will be presented, on film, as adamantly stating she did not want the grandmother involved (unlike Charles who supported GP visits). LB has the money to fight VA to the death aka US Surpreme Court and you see what their position is! Don’t think HKS and LB won’t go all the way there, they will. Unless or until LB were to be charged with a crime or unless LB could be shown to be unfit (highly unlikely) it will be a sad ending for Ms Arthur.
Hateful grownups make me sick. :(
“”...the low profile of the good guys.”””
Good strategy - especially since the likes of TMZ, ET, etc., have all been so pro-Larry and/or intimidated by Stern’s goons.
Nothing positive ever developed from Virgie’s, O’Quinn’s, Harding’s or Jackie Hatten interviews.
What is disturbing and distressing has been the total destruction of the nannies’ credibility. This is devastating for Daniel’s inquest - they witnessed Anna’s accusations against HK$!!!!!
I doubt he would handle it any different. Rotten comes from the inside on Art, nothing could cleanse that pig. He is evil. Sold his soul for a few Sternies on a blog. I don’t go to his site and I don’t let anything he says bother me. He is a nothing playing to a very very small audience that is brain dead and run on the mentality of 12 year olds.
Liz,
I don’t see a news report? Do you have a link or some specifics please. Thanks!
Great news if true.
Maybe Wood argued their side for them like he usually does. :D
Did Harris wander off the reservation? That actually bolsters Rita’s claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.