|David B Conrad
Mary C Conrad
248 West 500 South
Manti, UT 84642
STATE OF UTAH, in the interest of : OBJECTION TO
: PROPOSED ORDER
Daniel Conrad DOB: 08-31-07 : Case No: 544741
Child under 18 years of age : Judge Paul D. Lyman
The parents of Daniel Conrad: David B Conrad and Mary C Conrad, representing themselves, hereby object to the proposed order written relative to the pre-trial hearing that occurred on April 3, 2008 and recently submitted to us by the petitioner, State of Utah, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), by its counsel, Julie V Lund, Assistant Attorney General on the following grounds:
1. Judge Lyman clearly stated on at least three separate occasions, that his ruling in favor of DCFS’s wishes on that day would not mean that we were guilty of anything. Yet ruling in favor of DCFS’s wishes outlined in the “Prayer” section of the Second Amended Verified Petition, filed with the court on that day by Ms. Lund, clearly was a contradiction to those statements.
a. The top section of the “Prayer” section of the Amended Verified Petition says, “Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully prays for findings, judgment, and relief as follows: …and article 8 of said section reads, “That the court make findings as alleged herein by clear and convincing evidence and substantiate by a preponderance of the evidence the supported DCFS finding of Physical Neglect against David and Mary Conrad in CPS case number 1548844.
b. In fact that very day after returning home from the pre-trial hearing, in our mailbox was a letter from DCFS, stating that as far as they were concerned, we were guilty of the finding of Physical Neglect – and if allowed to stand, it would be a permanent black mark against our family’s good name – and among other things, could affect our ability to adopt children or be foster parents in the future.
c. Not only does this come in direct conflict with what we were clearly told by the Court, we disagree with that finding, and feel it our moral obligation to defend our innocence and our family’s good name.
Furthermore, if we were to go along with the Court legitimizing that incorrect finding – truly guilty parties could more easily say of us, “The Court found them guilty – they are the guilty ones, not us”…parties such as the County, that certified that our house was safe; the State of Utah that certifies and licenses the County Inspectors; the Dealer/Contractor that sold the previous owners the home with dangerous code violations; HUD that certified that the home was safe before it crossed the Utah state line; the original manufacturer who built and sold the home with dangerous code violations; Primary Children’s Medical Center that failed to do a $40 test at their disposal, and instead gave $40,000, worth of inappropriate care. (It has become apparent that they have done this in other carbon monoxide cases they’ve been made painfully aware of, and should have known better from those experiences [see link towards the bottom of the website www.danielinthelionsden.us ]. It is also interesting to note that the treatment for CO poisoning is very inexpensive – breathe clean air.)
2. Judge Lyman stated that the information supplied in the papers that we filed with the court: the paper entitled “When Philosophies Collide” and the letter to the Judge dated 3-28-08 and supplemental documentation; were for the most part not relevant to the case pertaining to the law – and the great majority of that information was not weighed or considered.
a. Yet, Utah Code section 78A-6-105, Subsection (21), paragraphs (c) and (d) (which I read before the Court) states the following: paragraph (c) – “A parent or guardian legitimately practicing religious beliefs and who, for that reason does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, is not guilty of neglect.”…and paragraph (d): “Notwithstanding Subsection (21)(a), a healthcare decision made for a child by the child’s parent or guardian does not constitute neglect unless the state or other party to the proceeding shows, by clear and convincing evidence, that the health care decision is not reasonable and informed.”
b. …and the papers that I submitted to the court that were not treated as relevant clearly document that not only was our healthcare decision informed and reasonable; the care that Daniel was receiving was proper and was working (disqualifying Daniel also from the definition of a dependant child within the provisions of Utah Code 78A-6-15-05) – but that the approach that we were already taking would later prove to have been superior to what we would be compelled to have Daniel endure as DCFS and traditional medicine stepped in. Although it is convenient, without examining the facts which pertain thereto, to give them the credit for Daniel’s recovery – it was not them (DCFS and the traditional medical profession) that resolved Daniel’s problem of not being able to keep his food down; and that protected him from the carbon monoxide poisoning. It was the special family fast and prayer and the healing power of the priesthood that did that; God’s ability to heal and protect a body; God’s ability to change the way the wind blows to keep exhaust fumes from entering a home; the simple mechanical remedy, by inspiration that we employed of keeping Daniel inclined; and then finally, our friend Tom Rodgers that identified the carbon monoxide problem and made our home safe (and had the problem third party certified by several state licensed experts including former Senator Parley Hellewell, a state licensed and certified Heating and Air Conditioning contractor of many years – see website www.danielinthelionsden.us for more details).
Daniel has been getting well because of our family’s deep faith and religious convictions; his being able to keep his food down after the special family fast, prayer, and priesthood blessing; the simple, mechanical remedy that was employed; genuine love received from his family; and the breathing of carbon monoxide-free air – not because of anything DCFS or Primary Children’s Medical Center did. In fact, what they did was very hard on Daniel and counter productive to Daniel’s progress (see the papers that I submitted to the Court).
Based on my extensive experience with, and my knowledge of traditional medical approaches; and the approach that the traditional medical profession would take with Daniel, I had very good reason to believe that the approach I was already taking (for my son, whom I love) as a trained Chiropractic Physician – along with our family exercising our faith in God; Whom I acknowledge is smarter than me and smarter than the medical doctors; Who knew long before anyone else about the carbon monoxide in our home; and upon our family exercising our faith in Him and petitioning Him on Daniel’s behalf, He took measures to heal Daniel and to protect him from the colorless, odorless carbon monoxide that was affecting him – such things that the DCFS and the traditional medical profession never did (see the documentation that I filed with the court).
c. In speaking generally about the irrelevance of the papers I submitted to the court, pertaining to the law, Judge Lyman made the statement, in reference to a section in the “Philosophies Collide” paper – that he did not care that I had a problem with respect to asthma in relation to horses as a child, etc. However, overlooked was the fact that as described in the paper, it was a traditional medicine-administered DPT vaccination (created with horse serum) that was the cause of a boy who lived on a ranch, who loved horses – to ever after be afflicted with a severe asthmatic allergic reaction to horses – how that affected my other health problem, which time and time again was misdiagnosed, mistreated – my having been inflicted with botched surgery after botched surgery – finally to have the problem resolved – not by the traditional medical profession – but by a simple, inexpensive alternative-health care profession’s cure. The first several pages of the “Philosophies Collide” paper document the extensive experiences I had that blessed me with the knowledge that the traditional medical profession is not the Supreme Authority with respect to health related matters…and that there are other alternative approaches that often are superior.
d. The paper then goes on to document experiences I had as a trained Chiropractic Physician, getting people well that the traditional medical profession had been unable to help. The second half of the paper along with the 3-28-08 dated letter to the Judge and supplemental documents filed with the court lay out very clearly the facts that demonstrate that not only was our health care decision and course of action for Daniel very informed, reasonable and appropriate; influenced also by strong religious beliefs and convictions; disqualifying the definitions of both dependency and neglect – under the terms of the law – but that the approach we had already been taking also proved to be superior to the DCFS-traditional medical profession approach we would be compelled to have Daniel endure.
e. Therefore it is only fair and just, considering the points of the law as referenced above – that the information in said submitted documents be considered and weighed very heavily and carefully in determining the proper decision according to those precise points of the law.
3. Ms. Lund brought up an issue that we wish to address: concerning a fax DCFS received from Dr Armstrong’s clinic. When Daniel was torn from Mary’s breast and given other things instead at Primary Children’s Hospital (See paper, “When Philosophies Collide”), that of course greatly cut into Mary’s milk production and supply. After returning from the hospital we discussed our views on that with Dr Armstrong, and proposed a plan to Dr Armstrong with the goal of weaning Daniel off those man-made substances and getting him exclusively back onto Mary’s milk – which we feel is superior. See letter to the Judge dated 3-28-08 where that is referenced.
On the day that DCFS received a fax from Dr Armstrong’s Clinic, Dr Armstrong was out of town when Mary had come in for a weighing. The nurse that talked to Mary had no knowledge of our prior conversations with Dr Armstrong about weaning Daniel off the formula – nor did she realize that Mary and I both made sure that we received training with respect to insertion and removal of the naso-gastric feeding tubes prior to leaving Primary Children’s – so that as the need arose to re-insert a new tube, we could do so – because the old tube needed to be replaced – or because babies often pull the tubes out themselves (which Daniel has done)…anyway, before his departure out of town, Mary had discussed with Dr Armstrong the fact that she felt that it was time to speed up that weaning process from the formula, and Dr Armstrong was all right with her trying that. Mary did, however overestimate the speed at which her body could make up the difference in the extra milk she would need to produce. When that became evident at Daniel’s second weighing after his first full week exclusively on breast milk – as he had not gained, just maintained – this is what we proposed to Dr Armstrong should be done: I told Dr Armstrong that I did not like the fact that Daniel had not gained, but had just maintained. I explained that I thought that Mary had been a little overanxious to get rid of the need for the tube once and for all – and had overestimated the speed at which her body could make up the difference in the extra milk she would have to make. I said that I thought that Mary and I should put the tube back in – go back to 4 tube feedings per day; then decrease that daily number by one each week…that that should allow Mary’s body plenty of time to be able to make up the difference with respect to her milk production; as opposed to the initial time frame she thought she could handle. Dr Armstrong concurred that that should be a good approach. Mary and I re-inserted the tube at home, and started Daniel back on 4 tube feedings per day with the plan of decreasing the daily number by one – on a weekly basis – and in 4 weeks Daniel should be free of the tube and formula once and for all – allowing Mary’s body adequate time to be able to make up the difference in milk production.
If we need to adjust the speed of that approach as seems prudent, we will – just as we made the adjustment this time. Remember, we made a rational decision to adjust our approach when we found it would be prudent to do so – proposed it to Dr Armstrong and he concurred. We did not have to be told what to do.
4. The Court repeatedly made the statement that the only desire of the court and of DCFS is to be assured of Daniel’s well being…and that is already being accomplished without a court order for Protective Supervision Services. Judge Lyman expressed confidence in Dr Armstrong who he acknowledged is a competent and respected Doctor in the community. Dr Armstrong has indicated that he is happy to continue to assist in the monitoring of Daniel’s progress, and we will continue to keep him involved in that monitoring process until it is mutually agreed that it is no longer necessary. Dr Armstrong is happy with the care we have been giving Daniel and with how well Daniel is doing.
Except for the initial request (at which time we felt the need to take some steps to protect Daniel from what DCFS might have done to him) Ms. Annette Monson (DCFS case worker) has been free to see Daniel at any time to verify his state of well being – and check with Dr Armstrong at any time to get his opinion on how Daniel is doing…again, Dr Armstrong is well pleased with the care that we are providing to Daniel and with how well he is doing. We shall continue to keep the channel open for Ms. Monson to have the ability to check on Daniel’s state of being as often and for as long as she feels the need to do so.
I repeat, that if it is true, as stated repeatedly by the Court, that the only desire of the Court and of DCFS is to be assured of Daniel’s well being – that is already being accomplished – and the means are there for that to be able to continue to be accomplished – without a court order for Protective Supervision Services – which by law must be justified by a finding of dependency or neglect – which does not fit our case according to the points of the law as referenced above.
a. It is totally understandable under the circumstances that DCFS felt the need and did become involved in the first place, on the reports of good people (that did not understand all the facts) who were concerned – in our community. That does not however mean that the DCFS - traditional medicine approach that we were compelled to have Daniel endure was good for him…and it does not mean that a court ordered Protective Services Plan is needed to ensure his well being. If indeed, Daniel’s well being to be assured, as repeatedly stated by the Court is the only desire of the Court as well as DCFS – the means and channels have already been open and continue to be open for that.
b. I understand that there are likely to be financial driving forces or pressures, or incentives to cause DCFS to have the wish to ratchet things up to the next level of involvement or services – despite the fact that “in the interests of helping Daniel and our family” that is not necessary. I brought this up at our first meeting prior to our first pre-trial hearing on March the 6th, 2008. Dr Armstrong had called Mr. David Tibbs (DCFS’s counsel at that time) to let him know that he did not believe that legal proceedings were necessary in our case – that he felt “it would not be a good use of the court’s time to have us there”. Mr. Tibbs indicated that since he was merely the counsel for DCFS that was not his call. The evening before that first meeting was when Mr. Tibbs then read my “When Philosophies Collide” paper. In the meeting that morning Mr. Tibbs remarked that he had found the paper extremely fascinating and really appreciated having the perspective. That morning Mr. Tibbs recused himself from the case. In a conversation with our friend Tom Rodgers later that day about the carbon monoxide situation, he said that my paper “When Philosophies Collide” had really impacted him – that he thought it made total sense.
…anyway I made the statement in that first meeting, that I understood that there were financial incentives for succeeding in getting a court ordered Protective Services Plan in place – but as far as just being assured of Daniel’s well being, pushing things through legally was really not necessary. I had a report from Dr Armstrong, happy with Daniel’s progress – and pointed out that they were free to see Daniel whenever they wanted and to check in with Dr Armstrong whenever they wanted. They didn’t seem to like that idea, and seemed to have another motive for wanting to push things through legally. When I had mentioned the additional monies received for increased services factor, they all flatly denied that additional money was tied in any way to putting a new Service Plan into effect. (Present in the meeting, besides Mr. Tibbs, Mary and me; were Bruce Zylks, Lance Martin, and Annette Monson of DCFS; and Michael Jorgenson, Guardian ad litem.)
But I know how the world works. Just as a hospital has an inherent financial incentive to do as many services as they think they can possibly justify, which allows them to charge for and get paid for those services, it only stands to reason that the more services DCFS does, the more funding they can get (Federal and otherwise) – and for individual workers or offices – it stands to reason that there would be incentives in place for “increased productivity”, at least in the form of recognition for advancement, which includes increased salary – if not actual bonuses added to paychecks.
In fact how the money aspect works (Title IV-E, other tax dollar funding, etc.) is well documented, as in the following two books: “Forgotten Children” by Carole Keeton Strayhorn, former Texas Comptroller (in charge of keeping track of funding of programs) see: www.window.state.tx.us/forgottenchildren ; and “Kids for Money” by Don Lyons, who has the credibility and distinction of having filed a federal lawsuit against the DCFS in his area, who (DCFS) then a few days before the Federal Trial date, settled with him out of court; giving him what he wanted plus a cash settlement for all the trouble they had caused him. See: www.kidsformoney.com .
c. …but notwithstanding the financial/career considerations or incentives, I would ask now that they be set aside. This is Daniel; our family; our lives you are affecting. We’d like to just be left in peace. What you are doing with all these unnecessary legal maneuverings is not beneficial to our family or to Daniel. You (DCFS) have the ability to assure yourselves of Daniel’s well being as described above – if that really is your only motivation – and you can do that without court ordered protective services. We really would prefer not to have to go to trial. But if DCFS continues to force the issue, we will not let them do this to our family without a fight. If necessary, we will appeal and appeal and appeal – take it all the way up to the Supreme Court if that’s what it takes – in defense of our innocence, our family’s good name and our constitutional rights.
It is being discovered that what has happened in our manufactured home with respect to CO poisoning is just a microcosm of what has been happening not only in this valley and state, but in the entire country with respect to manufactured homes for decades. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have been affected – nationwide. A large class action
lawsuit is coming, and powerful law firms are expressing a serious interest in our case realizing it will lead into that enormous class action lawsuit. Part of the arrangement will be that they will help us with this particular matter as well, if needed.
Here is one company expressing a serious interest in becoming involved: the firm involved in the class action suit against the coal mine in Price, Utah that killed all those workers: Dewsnup, King & Olsen see: www.dkolaw.com/index.html . Our friend, Thomas Rodgers was referred to them by the Director of Licensing and Certification, located in the same building as Ms. Lund’s office (counsel for DCFS). He is the person, for the state of Utah that is in charge of training housing/building inspectors. He has been using videos, etc of our home, from the www.danielinthelionsden.us website as a case study in his training sessions regarding this extremely serious issue of carbon monoxide poisoning.
Because of the enormous implications of this case, national legislators are beginning to be involved: US Senator Bob Bennett, US Congressman Chris Cannon, US Senator Orrin Hatch et al, for starters – and major news media organizations are making preparations to begin coverage, as we speak. What happens here will not occur in darkness, but in the broad daylight of public scrutiny and knowledge. The results of this media coverage will be to benefit hundreds of thousands if not millions of people nationwide, that have not been made aware that they and their families have been placed in harm’s way to the dangerous effects of carbon monoxide poisoning.
5. In summary, we object to this proposed order relative to the pre-trial hearing on 4-3-08, because it contradicts what Judge Lyman clearly stated that day in the court room on at least three separate occasions: that his ruling in favor of DCFS’s wishes on that day would not mean that we were guilty of anything. It ignores two important points of the law as described above. It ignores the many facts contained in the documents that we submitted to the court that must, in the interest of fairness, equity and justice be carefully weighed and considered according to those two points of the law. It is evident when weighing those facts that this proposed order is improper. Furthermore, if the statement repeatedly made by the Court really is true – that the only desire of the Court and of DCFS is to be assured of Daniel’s well being – that is already being accomplished; and the avenues are open for that to continue to be accomplished – if DCFS really cares enough about Daniel to bother to come by and see him once in a while; or make a phone call to Dr Armstrong every-so-often – without the prospect of extra career advancement and/or monetary incentives for this case.
Dated this ______ day of ____________, 2008
David B Conrad
Mary C Conrad
(ObjectionToProposedOrder.doc - original in MSWord)
Back to Daniel in the Lions Den .us (home page)