Mother Must Answer Supreme Court
by Friday In Baby Neglect Case

November 16, 2000

The mother who is allegedly on drugs and has neglected her 14-month-old girl so that she cannot crawl, walk or hold a spoon has been given until Friday by the Supreme Judicial Court to answer a petition by the child’s father why he should not be given custody.

The father claims that Judge Mary McCauley Manzi of the Lawrence District Court has refused to hear a motion of the baby’s father for custody because she is apparently prejudiced against men. Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court will be hearing the father’s appeal.

A rally at the Lawrence courthouse on Monday drew thirty demonstrators for the baby.

The story has been reported only in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune and it apparently tried to write an accurate and fair account, but the reporter failed to understand the most important aspect of the case, says the attorney for the father, Barbara C. Johnson.

The newspaper stated, “[The father], who has been ordered to turn the baby over to [the mother], fled with the baby October 11, 10 days after he violated his custody arrangement and flew her back from Florida to Haverhill.”

Atty. Johnson points out that there never was a “custody arrangement” for the father to “violate.” She says the father brought the baby back on October 1, not October 11, because the mother had absconded to Florida with the then two-month-old child a year ago although custody was in the father, according to the ruling of a Massachusetts court. The father took the child back to Massachusetts, she says,  “knowing that no court had ever given [the mother] custody of the child and believing he had implied custody.”

The lawyer emphasizes that the father will produce the baby as soon as Judge Manzi hears the evidence as to the mother’s neglect. But the judge refuses to hear any evidence until the baby is given to the mother who is alleged to be abusing the child. Justice Ireland will be deciding if Judge Manzi has been correct.

Mother Is A ‘Victim’

The mother is attempting to claim she is a “victim” says Atty. Johnson.

The mother’s attorney, Rosalyn Stults, told the newspaper, “My client is scared to death. She has sought restraining orders….she has been petrified.” To which, Atty. Johnson replied, “If she is frightened and scared to death, why hasn’t she gotten a restraining order?  We all know they’re very easy to get.”

The baby also has a taxpayer-paid attorney, Michael Mimno, who was appointed by the court to represent her on October 11. Atty. Mimno told the newspaper he wants more information about the baby who he has not yet seen. “There are some serious issues regarding the child’s health. [The father] should have the opportunity to litigate those issues, but if you want to have those heard, you have to play by the rules of the probate court. [The father] is failing to abide by those rules.” To this comment, Atty. Johnson replied, “This is the first time I have heard Mimno ever even mention the health and well-being of the child. He did not address his concerns at a hearing before the Appeals Court a few weeks ago. I know. I have been at both hearings. All he wants is [the father] to be locked up, and he has stated so! It’s difficult to understand how he is representing this little baby’s interests.”

A Case of Slander?

Atty. Johnson says she is considering a suit for slander against the mother’s attorney for telling the newspaper that Johnson has "altered medical evidence to make it appear that [the mother] has a drug problem."

The father’s lawyer says further, “I had caused over two dozen subpoenas to be served on pharmacies, hospitals, and doctors, as well as [the mother’s] former drug-distributing employer and health insurer [Merck-Medco]. Around 70 prescriptions were filled for [the mother] within the two years she lived in Massachusetts. Her narcotics of choice appear to be hydrocordone/APAP (acetominephen) and oxycodone/APAP, which she was taking when the breast-feeding child was 8 days' old. According to both Merck-Medco and the selling-pharmacy records, she received a prescription for 360 Ultram from a local doctor, Dr. David Byrne, around the time her pregnancy began. I have been unable to get confirmation from Dr. Byrne, who is known to be quite conservative medically, that he gave her such a prescription. We doubt it, because although Ultram is not a narcotic, it is believed by some medical and pharmaceutical professionals to be addictive and dangerous to be taking while pregnant.”