of cases not when you're dealing with money damages we follow the people and lawyers will do a lot of things so say a lot of things so quite frankly we felt that we have seen it all between our combined experience over fifty years of reading trial transcripts we kind of thought that we've seen everything that we need to see the worst of the worst of us to the best i think i can speak good for karen when i say that when we read the transcript of the hearing in this case we were quite frankly horrified this is a profoundly disturbing case and i encourage the board to review the transcript carefully to see just how this case was prosecuted and what happened in this case we have a finding of parental unfitness and let's look at what actually occurred this case we have a husband and wife they have two twin this they're sitting on a friday afternoon friday evening relaxing the the mother takes one schwinn up a short flight of stairs it's a split level home she's right to close proximity to her husband while the husband remains on the sofa and more than with the other child she hears no signs of distress no screaming on the part of the child no crying nothing no sounds of anger no signs of distress of any kind and she calls there were no signs or was no reason for there's no baby crying there's the reason you would expect she would be shaken childless because the child is somehow annoying you is so much creating some type of disturbance none of that happened here so we are here to read the opening of her brief the where is the predicate act in the response is what we don't have to show we just need to show that it happened well quite frankly are the two questions are inextricably tied together you have to have a reason for why this shaking this baby was supposedly shaken you have to have something that caused it and there was nothing one of these she signs of she can see baby syndrome is a parent who is prone to anger now look at michael we see teaches special education to small children to mentally disabled children up you think that a tenured education professor for developmentally disabled children if he'd had a problem with anger perhaps most likely that anger would have manifested itself at some prior time in it never did absolutely no certified for less than five years who spoke to police officers and said i think this gives baby was shaken and i think that the that the father did and why did she say that because she heard that the father was the last one with the child before the fall because she had no other choice who else was there or she going to leave them the wife well the police jumped on this the police well they call it an investigation but i think you'd be better to say that they were there to ferret gate referring to the diddley is a piece of shit this man has been put through the regular hour he's standing there in the hospital at one point he turns to his wife and he says i'd like to speak with you alone and talk about this this is from the other the d c office investigator now what was said there well we don't know because they never inquired the state was there's no reason for it nobody heard any could explain why it occurred no michael rescreen for his attorneys came forward with a neurosurgeon who had treated between two  he said that when you have a chronic so you're ok with trauma that a minor fall such as this child painted in this case could easily cause the acute small amount of leading that they rivers long bone fractures none of these are there the doctor all of marla's now out there if you blindly rule one way or the other what he's saying is that there's no way that anybody can tell particularly in a case like this so what we're left with is this we've had a family destroyed i don't mean just a possibility maybe it happened the did what does your understanding of the testimony is that the shaken baby syndrome usually occurs to the symptoms arise soon after the the accident you know when the  according to babysitter there were no symptoms so again this baby sitter was not placed under any where near the interrogation level of michael nice was oh but she claims that the child had no symptoms at all now when the child came home from a sitter all they noticed that the baby seemed to be sleeping on the actually it's all in whether the fall of the the trial court's order he said the court found that the physical and medical evidence proves this is a quote he says it proves that the type of injury the trial suffer was the result of not an accidental trauma but that's not true but the evidence proves that it might or might not be the result of an accidental trauma trauma who also said that the evidence proves that the injuries occurred while in the pres interior of michael we say well actually no your honor the evidence proves that the injuries the fall from the college occurred when michael weeks wasn't there he was with his wife standing  therapies away the there is no allegations of anybody seen him she is fabian nor are there any is there any evidence at all that he actually did the only injury we have any proof of is that this child rolled off the sofa while michael reese was with his wife just a few steps away up the staircase the evidence established that no one could say what caused this evidence but we there why is it that laurie reese why is the if she's not also being held culpable in this this case how it is for culpability any less than michael we says they were both they're both caring for their children the trial court ruled that there is no evidence that moore we switch informed of her husband's actions which caused injury to the child what actions what did he do who saw it again which the found that this standard is only it was wired when they were ready to give the child up for adoption to some other family and they repeatedly mentioned repeatedly in their brief that actually the standard is preposterous of the evidence absolutely awful how it failed because she never accounted for the fact that there were no corroborative circumstances and when she was presented we're faced with evidence from peer reviewed medical journals causes but it is usually related to birth trauma with others whether that was the case in this particular child we don't know certainly the i think should also whom we're here to try to take the first steps to putting this writing together quite frankly the notion that this room could be destroyed in such a manner this injuries in the compilation of injuries that existed and the ones that did not exist that provide us with that medical evidence as well as the onset us thems and his injuries included and i hemorrhaging over the right frontal lobes a frontal hemorrhage within the brain also called the contusion within the frontal lobe and that is probably the most did and cause the symptoms that it underwent the lack of oxygen for at least twelve seconds the signal is severe and frequent vomiting the  child and the severity of the injuries could only have occurred from a fall high enough she estimates fifteen feet for the brain to accelerate and upon impact it's the accel ready to stand against the brain or an automobile injury or a shaking shaking and or throw against a soft here and you remember there were no injuries to the outside of her head or any part of her thank you please the court counsel the focus on this hearing the focus on the proceedings below what child it's always the best interest of the child what happened here it was and you said that the hospital with his serious injury and the doctor who took care of her during her course of treatment determined that by looking at the numerous cat scans and m r i s that were done by consulting with all the of the doctors involved in the case now by doing lead examination following her history determined that the injury result of that and she was aware of the the history presented when ad was brought to the hospital which is that there'd been a sudden onset of these severe symptoms she took that history and looked at the medical evidence and determined that that  immediate onset of symptoms and that's what they had an immediate onset of symptoms therefore it was her expert conclusion that the trauma that caused the injuries had to have occurred immediately prior to the onset of the symptoms in the five  ten minutes immediately prior to the onset of the symptoms of the responding father was the only person with the child that's why the investigation that ended up focusing on him the mother was giving a pass to the other twin up in the kitchen and did not see what happened during this fire ten minute period the doctor testified after she was actually shown pictures of their home the couch the location of the couch location of the helo on the couch the carpeting the even the itself no corresponding skull fracture grooves anything on the outside of her scalp and add that in her opinion was the strongest and then when dr l of i was asked about that on cross examination is when he i don't believe you i don't the baby can't control their head and their head is a very large percentage of our body weight that there is not only back and forth motion but also rotating motion and the brain proteins and she thought the brain actually slammed up against the skull on the inside and that's what  the study that means of course in twenty eight percent of the cases that doesn't exist and she acknowledged one of the symptoms could be that they weren't present in this case but to her the injuries that she saw out indicated that this that the cause of this injury combined with  onset of symptoms have to be of use of head trauma occurring within seconds or minutes of the presentation of symptoms all the services recommended and doing what he what is recommended that he does so i suppose it was the possibility at that time that he could have showed that he would have done whatever he would have needed to do to be restored to fitness in that interim period of time the apologize they would also question though just home much different what distinction were drawn these children were taken away from the parents by a greedy there were two events this trial took two falls in one day i think it's important that we point out that that your credit record yourself conceded that when you have a chronic subdural b which more than a minor fall can cause the injuries that they found in this child they're talking about a fifty if would fall for a child but frankly i my mind refuses to baby syndrome and that's if you have corroborated circumstances in his case he said is almost always going to be retinal hemorrhaging without a room without retinal hemorrhaging as he put it the diagnosis becomes uncertain you don't know what you're dealing with look at any kind of fall from a child this young is not being minor but we will we have our issue falls from sofas that have been repeatedly referred to as minor falls the i th that we were dealing with this issue of the standard of review it is manifest weight of this we acknowledge that this is a very high standard we certainly disagree with the low standard that was applied in the trial were to tear this family apart nevertheless when you review the evidence in this case there is only one conclusion that makes any sense that no one knows  not evenly balanced in this case it was because there were no corroborative circumstances because there is no history of anger management problems because there are no other injuries to this child there were no injuries or complaints about the foster children there were no complaints from a tenured teacher those developmentally disabled children and frankly if you look at this case as a whole it doesn't make sense the trial court instead relied almost entirely on the demeanor of the witness