| David B Conrad Mary C Conrad 248 West 500 South Manti, UT 84642 IN THE
UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH, in the interest of : COUNTER RESPONSE TO : RESPONSES : Daniel Conrad DOB: 08-31-07 : Case No: 20080428-CA : Child under 18 years of age : The parents of Daniel Conrad: David B Conrad and Mary C Conrad, representing themselves, present a Counter Response to Martha Pierce, attorney Guardian ad Litem’s Response to Parents’ Petition on Appeal (and of John Peterson, counsel for DCFS…which also just arrived by mail upon completion of this document).
1. Ms. Pierce begins with the
statement, “The Office of the Guardian ad Litem represented the child’s best
interests at trial and on appeal.” We
take exception to that statement.
Contrary to its stated mission, our observation of the actions of the
Office of the Guardian ad Litem (as with DCFS and the Medical Establishment)
has been that career, career relationships and financial motivations have been
the over-riding factor – not our precious Daniel’s best interests. See documentation submitted to the court.
2. The dates submitted on the Parent’s
Petition on Appeal were correct. Ms.
Pierce however, gives the erroneous date of 8-13-07 as Daniel’s date of
birth. The correct date is 8-31-07.
3. Ms. Pierce makes the statement “This
case involves a child with precarious medical needs.” The present tense of that statement (as
opposed to a past tense verbiage) is misleading. See the website www.danielinthelionsden.us
to see video clips documenting Daniel’s phenomenal progress. Daniel has been a very happy, healthy baby
for months now – because he has been breathing carbon monoxide-free air. The true cause of Daniel’s health problem was
State of Utah error induced carbon monoxide poisoning, which was ignored by
DCFS and the Medical Establishment, who were willing to just send Daniel and
his family back into that poisonous environment to be further sickened or
killed. The mitigation of the carbon
monoxide problem was not accomplished by anything DCFS or the Medical
Establishment did – but by steps that the parents took in January – and through
the help of a friend Thomas Rodgers in February. See documentation submitted to the court.
Daniel is now 9 months old. At the time DCFS received referrals he was 5 months old. While we can neither confirm nor deny whether DCFS received referrals with the stated description that was given of Daniel, the description given was not accurate. He was breathing and nursing fine; he could cry and hold his head up and actively move his limbs. His skin color was not gray and his condition was not deteriorating, but had been improving for about a month and especially during the past two weeks of that month. (See documentation submitted to the court). In fact the statement in Dr Inouye’s report of 2-11-08 (in case file) contradicts that alarming description with the statement…“I don’t think the baby is in any acute danger…” . This is also confirmed by the fact that upon checking into PCMC on 2-12-08, Daniel was deemed to be in stable condition including with respect to vital signs – respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, alertness, etc. per Dr Howard Kadish’s report. (Dr Armstrong’s visualization of Daniel prior to his admittance for evaluation at PCMC was a brief (60 second) visual observation of Daniel the previous evening while sleeping at 10:30 pm in very poor light in a darkened room…not a real exam). 4. Ms. Pierce’s statement, “After weeks of negotiation and mediation, the Parents stipulated to a set of facts.” is a gross misstatement of what actually occurred. The mediation/negotiation consisted of a one-and-one-half-hour mediation meeting that took place on 3-14-08 with Dean Campbell acting as mediator…and then another 10-minute session during the pre trial hearing on 4-3-08. We made it clear at the pre-trial hearing that in addition to the scant facts as set forth in DCFS’s Amended Verified Petition, there were also many other non-stipulated facts, which needed to be considered. We did not agree that only the scant stipulated facts as set forth by DCFS be used as the basis for adjudicating a decision – in fact we objected to it…and we certainly did not waive our right for an Appeal. See transcript of the pre-trial hearing and earlier documents submitted to the court. Certain stipulated facts and a number of non-stipulated facts were ignored that pertained to our case with respect to important points of the law. Evidence which validates those facts was also ignored. Furthermore, additional evidence which further strengthens the validity of those facts has been brought forth since the pre-trial hearing, which could not reasonably have been gathered, produced, and submitted prior to the time that said evidence was filed. The mail just arrived with a Response also from John Peterson, counsel for DCFS. It appears that he makes the same attempt to discourage the Court from examining the facts and evidence that pertain to the case. The above Counter Response applies to his assertions as well. As to his comment about dependency – it is in essence a finding of incompetence – which we can clearly demonstrate does not apply in our case. As to his attempt to discredit the material facts that accompanied the Petition on Appeal by calling them “strange conspiracy theories”: we have overwhelming evidence that confirms the validity of those facts…and there is nothing new or strange about them…just people making mistakes; being unwilling to admit their mistakes; and placing worldly gain over more noble motivations…this has been going on since the world began. Dated this 21st day of June, 2008 ___________________________________ David B Conrad ___________________________________ Mary C Conrad (CounterResponse (Appellate Court).doc - original in MSWord.doc)
|
|
Back to Daniel in the Lions Den .us (home page)
|