Posted on 04/26/2016 4:56:37 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
A Family Court judge's rulings that a fetus is a "child" under New York's Family Court Act have been vacated by a Manhattan appellate court. A unanimous panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, said Thursday that even though the appeal was moot, the rulings of Manhattan Family Court Judge Stewart Weinstein had to be dropped "in the exercise of discretion" because they "may spawn legal consequences or be cited as precedent."
Weinstein had refused to dismiss a child neglect petition filed by the Administration for Children's Services against a father based on domestic violence incidents that took place while the mother was pregnant because the father had "placed the life of the fetus in imminent danger."
"Under the Family Court Act's definition of a child as 'a person under 18 years of age,' a viable fetus could be included," Weinstein held in a February 2014 opinion.
Weinstein's opinion sparked an amicus curiae filing by 15 national and local women's rights and children's advocacy groups, led by The Bronx Defenders.
"Reading the term 'child' to include a fetus dramatically expands the government's power, without legislative guidance or authority, to investigate and monitor the lives of pregnant women and their families," said the brief, authored by pro bono counsel Simpson Thacher & Bartlett.
The case arose in August 2013 when police responded to a call at the home of Veronica E. Police said she "appeared to be drowsy, high and unable to fully answer questions," according to court papers. They noticed a newborn child on a bed in the apartment.
Veronica was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, the Administration for Children's Services brought a child neglect petition against her. They later learned the chid's father, Luis E., had a history of violent abuse of Veronica dating back five years, had six orders of protection issued against him and had been arrested a month prior to the birth for violating a protection order.
Children's services amended its petition, naming Luis E. as the respondent and citing the fact he had choked Veronica while she was in the ninth month of pregnancy.
Weinstein argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973) "found that a state may properly act to safeguard health, to maintain medical standards and to protect potential life." Citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the judge added that "the Supreme Court has granted the states the right to intervene on behalf of a fetus under some circumstances."
The judge cited as grounds for expanding the Family Court Act's definition of a "child" an Appellate Division, Second Department, medical malpractice case, Hughson v. St. Francis Hospital, 92 AD2d 131, 321. The case held a cause of action may lie for prenatal injury resulting from breach of an independent duty owed to the fetus by the physician.
'Fundamental Privacy Right'
The amicus brief argued that "women do not surrender this fundamental privacy right upon becoming pregnant. To the contrary, this fundamental privacy right protects women from measures that have the effect of penalizing them for their pregnancies."
Under Weinstein's logic, anything deemed harmful to a fetus could be grounds for a neglect petition, the amici argued.
"[Administration for Children's Services] could file neglect charges against pregnant women for smoking, for living with someone who smokes, for not taking prenatal vitamins, for working in a job that poses a risk to her pregnancy, for taking medication for depression, or for terminating or refusing medication for depression," the brief said. "It will be impossible to know in advance which actions [the agency] will decide justify neglect charges in any particular case," it added.
Joining on the brief were The Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, The Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, Child Welfare Organizing Project, Legal Momentum, Lansner & Kubitschek, The New York State Citizen Review Panels for Child Protective Services, New York University School of Law Family Defense Clinic, MFY Legal Services Inc., The Center for Reproductive Rights, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Perinatal Association, Boom!Health, Domestic Violence Project at The Urban Justice Center and the New York Legal Assistance Group in Support of the Attorney for the Children.
Legal expedience always trumps the truth.
the New York Legal Assistance Group in Support of the Attorney for the Children.
Death by a thousand alphabet agencies.
I notice these satanic lawyers ply their trade “pro bono.”
Don’t be fooled ... to a lawyer, pro-bono is any price that is a penny less than their full rate. i.e. If their top-billing rate is $350/hour, then charging a client $325/hour is PRO-BONO.
That PRO-BONO phrase is pro-lawyer and not pro-client. How many lay people think the lawyer did it for nothing !!!
Sleeze still rules.
Bad things happen when governments start pretending things to be true that aren’t true. Here are a few that have and will cause endless problems until the pretending stops, the third one is the cause in this case.
- Pretending that black people aren’t people so that slavery could be justified.
- Pretending that Jewish people aren’t people so that the holocaust could be justified.
- Pretending that preborn people aren’t people so that abortion can be justified.
- Pretending that homosexuality is normal so that perversion can be justified.
Yet If a pregnant women gets murdered it’s considered double murder by the courts.
>even though the appeal was moot, the rulings of Manhattan Family Court Judge Stewart Weinstein had to be dropped “in the exercise of discretion” because they “may spawn legal consequences or be cited as precedent.”
Yet, the Left will, like the tide, try and try again while judge shopping to get their ruling THEY like....to use as precedent.
But, a case where truth and science are involved...
That is such a bullchit statement!
Yep. Can't let the humanity of the unborn child see even a sliver of the light of day, lest the secular sacrament of abortion be tarnished in even the slightest way.
Wretched, but not unexpected. When there's a hole in the satanic dam, the demons will be in a frenzy to patch it.
“may spawn legal consequences or be cited as precedent.”
In other words, we’re afraid of the raging fangtooth feminazis who will roast our a$$ when they hear about this.
Only if the mother wanted the baby.
Doesn’t NYS reserve the right to charge you with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman?
How do they know for sure if she wanted the baby if she is dead? I don’t think that is correct.
"[Administration for Children's Services] could file neglect charges against pregnant women for smoking, for living with someone who smokes, for not taking prenatal vitamins, for working in a job that poses a risk to her pregnancy, for taking medication for depression, or for terminating or refusing medication for depression," the brief said. "It will be impossible to know in advance which actions [the agency] will decide justify neglect charges in any particular case," it added.
Interesting argument. But if all those things are going to apply anyway at birth, as Hillary would say, "what difference does it make"?
I was making a wry comment. It galls me that an unborn child’s life seems only as valuable as his/her mother wants him to be. The irony in my statement is that the law recognizes that child killed when her mother is murdered and can prosecute for both lives but that same woman could pay an abortionist to murder her child and the law stays out if it.
Sorry went over my head... Yeah it doesn’t make any sense.
No problem! Glad you agree.
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.