Ruby Dillon v. Harold LaFlamme, et al
|Defendant:||Bonnie Breeze, Birute Bruzas-Ranes, John Cate, Howard Chang, Jessica Chlebowski, Grace Coleman, County of Orange, Matthew De Armey, Does, Sheryl Edgar, Kristen Eitner, Rosanne Froeberg, David Glidden, Danise Johnson, Harold LaFlamme, Elizabeth Ramirez Lockmer, Maureen Maganuma, D Alicia Marron-Taylor, Robert Munoz, Patricia Nash, Orange Superior Court, P.A. Nash & Associates, Jennifer Palmquist, Sunday Petrie, Tony Rackauckas, Eva Srikureja, Mahathap Srikureja, Pravit Srikureja, State of California, Carol Stewart, Alan Stokke and C. J. Wilkinson|
|Filed:||February 27, 2015|
|Court:||California Central District Court|
|Nature of Suit:||Civil Rights: Other|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this
Ruby Dillon v. Harold LaFlamme, et al
|Court||California Central District Court|
|Nature of Suit||Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights|
|Cause||42:1983 Civil Rights Act|
|Filed||Feb 27, 2015|
|Terminated||Mar 02, 2015|
|last updated: Saturday May 16, 2015 12:05 AM PDT|
|Monday, March 02, 2015|
|2||NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to New Case Number 8:15-cv-00339 DFM. (esa)|
|Friday, February 27, 2015|
|1||COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-15290912 – Fee: $400, filed by PLAINTIFF Ruby Dillon. (Attorney Patricia J Barry added to party Ruby Dillon(pty:pla))(Barry, Patricia)|
|Att: 1 Civil Cover Sheet,|
|Att: 2 Supplement Attachmt to civ cov sht|
by Michael Thomas
June 21st, 2014
Updated 06/21/2014 at 10:06 am
Investigation Shows Pattern Of California Neglect Of Child Abuse And State-Mandated Protections
Something is very wrong with the ‘Child Welfare System’ in California. The story of Lexi Dillon graphically represents so much of what will, and has, gone very wrong in the case of sexually abused children.
What follows are two excerpts from an article which illustrate the terrible injustices that one family has been tortured by over the past couple of years. As shocking as these official court-ordered actions appeared to be, the relevant public records in Orange County, California will substantiate every one of them.
They concern the very unfortunate predicament of a young girl named Lexi Dillon. Her mother, Ruby Dillon, has been working triple time to free her from an abusive father who the State of California has given implausible protection to. Incredible though it may sound, the sexually abusive father in this case has been treated as though he is the injured party. Here is the timeline of the stunning response by the Orange County Child Welfare System, as well as by the concerned courts assigned to the legal proceedings.
In August 2012, based on probable cause of suspected sexual abuse, the City of Tustin Police Department removed Dr. Ruby Dillon’s minor daughter from the home of the father and took her into protective custody out of fear that she may be in danger. CPS ordered the child returned to the father, the alleged abuser.
Thus, not only did CPS choose not to rescue the minor from her dangerous condition; it also created a dangerous condition when, by returning the minor to her abuser, CPS placed the minor at risk of further sexual abuse.
Second, a duty to rescue also arises if there exists a “special relationship” between the defendant and the victim. “Special relationships” arise when one party assumes responsibility for another; like a parent for a minor child, or a doctor for his patient. In law, the “special relationship” most at issue is the one between emergency response personnel and any member of the community that requires their assistance.
In early March 2011, CPS received a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury from the minor’s teacher (a mandated reporter) confirming the minor’s accusations of sexual abuse. CPS failed to interview the teacher.
In January 2012, the father lost his job and the minor tells law enforcement and CPS that the abuse is occurring almost every time she is at her father’s house. CPS insisted the minor should remain with her father.
On November 7, 2012, the Court appointed therapist (as a mandated reporter) contacted the child abuse registry to report a new allegation of sexual abuse by the father. The Tustin PD immediately sent an Officer to the minor’s school to interview her and removed her from her home into protective custody. CPS dismissed the reporting and had the child sent back to the father.
CPS was specifically created to rescue minors from dangerous situation. Their duty is to respond to reports of suspected child abuse and to act accordingly; that is, CPS are mandated by law to assume responsibility for minors at risk of abuse. Thus, a “special relationship” exists between CPS and Dr. Rubin Dillon’s daughter. In the three instances above, CPS failed to interview the minor’s teacher, ignored the minor’s allegations and dismissed reports by the Tustin Police. Therefore, CPS breached its duty to rescue Dr. Rubin Dillon’s minor daughter.
Another exception to the general rule that there is no duty to rescue is that if one takes a step towards rescue, he then has the responsibility to take reasonable care in conducting his act of rescue. All that the law asks is for the rescuer to do what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. In other words, there must be a breach of the duty of care for liability to rise, and if the defendant has acted reasonably, there is no breach and thus no negligence.
On February 25, 2011, Dr. Ruby Dillon took her daughter to the emergency room at Hoag Hospital. Despite medical records documenting “non-accidental” trauma consistent with sexual abuse, workers at CPS failed to (1) interview the ER physician, (2) conduct a forensic exam, (3) contact law enforcement, (4) conduct a CAST interview of the minor child, and (5) conduct an interview of the suspected abuser: her father.
When CPS accepted the medical records from Hoag Hospital they had taken their Postsfirst step towards rescue of the minor. However, CPS did not act like a “reasonable person” when it then failed to interview the ER physician or the father, conduct any exams of its own or contact law enforcement. Thus, CPS breached their duty to rescue.
To summarize, CPS dishonored the law in at least three ways: (1) CPS created a dangerous condition that placed the minor at risk, (2) CPS violated its “special relationship” with the victim, and (3) CPS failed to take reasonable care in their attempt to rescue of the minor.
As unbelievable as these facts are, some of these developments have recently occurred under the scrutiny of the alternative new media. And yet the appointed judge continues to act with complete impunity. The actions of the court have put a young child directly in harm’s way and yet the State of California has done nothing to short-circuit a process gone completely awry.
What follows is another timeline of events which further delineates this state-sponsored crime spree executed against a powerless child citizen.
Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):
Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.” Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment. The choice is yours.
- CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE H
- (1) This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
- (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
- (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
- (4) If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.