Replies

HOW COULD ANYONE COULD SUPPORT THE ACTIONS OF THE DR?

11. Corissa had advised defendant MacDonald that Dr. Erickson had explained to her
the tests and procedures that St. Luke's E.R. would want to perform on her daughter, and that, in
concert with Dr. Erickson's advice, she desired to wait until she had an opportunity to discuss
with Dr. Erickson the lab results from the initial tests before the administration of any antibiotics
or any spinal tap. Further, Corissa explained to defendant MacDonald her concerns from her
own research regarding injecting her 5 week old baby with antibiotics and performing a spinal
tap on the infant. Corissa did request and consent to a urinalysis, blood test, chest x-ray, and an
IV for nourishment, all of which were performed.
12. Defendant MacDonald stated that it was hospital protocol to administer antibiotics
and a spinal tap to infants six weeks and younger who have a temperature of 100.4° F. or above.
He told Corissa that there was a 5% risk of meningitis associated with flu-like symptoms.
13. In assessing the contrasting risks of antibiotics and a spinal tap against the slight
5
risk of meningitis in light of the flu-like symptoms that all of her family had suffered, Corissa did
not consent to the administration of antibiotics or a spinal tap at that time, and stated that she
wanted to wait until the lab results were returned on the initial tests.
14. During this period, Corissa contacted Dr. Erickson several times.
15. Corissa's decision not to give antibiotics and not to have an invasive and
potentially dangerous spinal tap performed on her five week old child was reasonable under the
circumstances, and well within her prerogative as parent of Taige Mueller. Taige Muller was not
in any imminent danger, and the risks of performing the spinal tap were at least as great as the
risks of not performing it. Each of the defendants knew or should have known that Corissa's
judgment was reasonable.
16. When the lab results came back all negative and normal, Corissa contacted Dr.
Erickson and discussed her progress further. At approximately 12:23 a.m., on August 13, 2003,
following administration of fluids to her daughter, Taige's temperature had dropped to 98.9° F.
At that time Taige was nursing well and the rash she had developed was less severe. At
approximately 1:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 13, 2002, Corissa asked a nurse if he would begin
the discharge procedure, since she wanted to take Taige home if her temperature continued to
remain down.
17. Unbeknownst to Corissa, defendant MacDonald had called Child Protective
Services ("CPS") of the Idaho Health and Welfare Department and was planning to enforce
hospital protocol without her permission.
6
18. Sometime after 1:00 a.m., defendant MacDonald came in with defendant Rogers,
who introduced himself to Corissa. Defendant Rogers advised Corissa that, although she was not
being accused of child abuse, she was endangering her child by postponing the antibiotics and
spinal tap. Corissa attempted to explain to him her reasoning for postponing and avoiding these
procedures and her view regarding the conflicting dangers involved. Defendant Rogers then
threatened to declare Taige in imminent danger despite the fact that he knew (or should have
known) that she was not.
19. At approximately 1:40 a.m., defendant MacDonald came in and requested to take
Taige's temperature. Corissa handed the child to him on the table so he could take the
temperature. MacDonald subsequently kept Taige and refused to return her.
20. Neither defendant MacDonald nor the police officers inquired concerning Taige's
feeding history.
21. Neither defendant MacDonald nor anyone else at St. Luke's nor anyone associated
with CPS nor any of the City Defendants attempted to contact, or did contact, Eric Mueller
before they interfered with his rights of parental custody.
22. Detective Rogers then stepped in front of Corissa preventing her access to the
telephone and shoved a form "Notice to the Court" (Idaho Code § 16-1613) into her mid-section
stating that the child had been seized and removed to a shelter. Corissa turned around to see her
child being taken away by defendant MacDonald, and she was dragged protesting down the hall
by two police officers, defendants Green and Snyder.
7
23. Although the Notice to the Court under Idaho Code § 16-1613 is supposed to
inform the Court of the place to which the child is being taken, the Notice given to Corissa did
not.
24. In fact, Taige was not taken to a shelter much less "removed" to anywhere, as the
Notice stated. Rather, she was kept in the hospital and forced to undergo medical procedures to
which her mother had objected. The statute under which Detective Rogers purported to act
(Idaho Code § 16-1612) does not authorize transfer of legal custody to the state nor does it
authorize the state to make medical decisions for a minor. Because Taige was not in any serious
danger, it also did not authorize Taige's seizure.
25. While there is a provision of Idaho state law that permits a court to order
emergency medical treatment of a child, viz., Idaho Code § 16-1616, no effort was made to
comply with that provision. Each of the defendants in this case deliberately avoided using that
provision because it would have required them to justify their illegal actions before a court.
26. Defendant MacDonald did not have a reasonable belief that Corissa's and/or Eric's
legal guardianship of Taige had been properly taken away.
27. Corissa demanded that her baby, a nursing infant, be returned to her. She
repeatedly asked to use the telephone to call her husband and Dr. Erickson, and was continually
denied the use of the telephone by the police officers. Instead, the police officers threatened to
handcuff her. Green and Snyder invited her to leave and asked her when she was going to go
home. She repeatedly stated and explained to the officers that she could not possibly leave her
8
baby.