#3, Drano Series

 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge's Order Puts Infant in Harm's Way*
*Emergency Motion for Custody below

 
A year ago, mom had absconded with the 2-month-old child to Florida from Massachusetts. Last week, during visitation, dad took the child from Florida back to Massachusetts. 

Yesterday the parents were in court for a hearing on emergency motions by both sides. Mom wanted to suspend dad's visitation. Dad wanted custody of the 14-month-old child who cannot crawl or walk or hold a spoon, so that she could be properly diagnosed and treated.

Dad has alleged that mom is a prescription-drug abuser, and can prove it: mom's health insurer has produced evidence that mom purchased approximately 70 prescriptions' worth of drugs before, during, and after her pregnancy. Mom's drugs of choice are hydrocodone with acetaminophen (APAP), oxycodone with acetaminophen -- Schedule III drugs -- and Endocet, a Schedule II drug. One prescription alone was for 360 addictive Ultram pills to take during her pregnancy. While the days' old infant was breast- feeding, the mom was picking up a few more oxycodone/APAP prescriptions. To get those drugs she went to many doctors and many pharmacies. Pharmacists call it the polymedica, polypharmica syndrome, a scheme drug abusers use to escape detection.

Mom claims there is another person in the same town with her name who got the drugs. Formerly a pharmacy technician, mom has conveniently forgotten that to get those narcotics, the pharmacies require a birthdate and a social security number and the name of mom's health insurer so that they can get paid. 

When the child was 8 days' old, one nurse noted in the medical record that mom came to the office in crisis and almost dropped the baby. That was one of the days when mom picked up some oxycodone with acetaminophen.

By the time the child was 10 month's old, the child could not sit up on her own, couldn't crawl, couldn't hold a bottle or a spoon. An Early Intervention program wrote that the child needed two sessions weekly for physical therapy (to be able to sit up and to crawl) and two sessions weekly for occupational therapy (to be able to hold a bottle and a spoon).

By the time the child was 14 month's old, mom had taken the child for therapy only two weeks and had cancelled all other sessions. 

Worried that the child's muscles would atrophy and that her already
seriously delayed psycho-motor skills would remain impaired, making it impossible for the child to ever walk, dad sought help from the Probate & Family Court, which had decided Massachusetts had jurisdiction over mom, dad, and the child. (The Probate & Family Court has never explicitly given either parent custody . . . although a local district court did give dad temporary custody and a restraining order against mom around the time mom first left for Florida.)

But despite repeated attempts, the court would not help. Judges refused to hear dad's ex parte petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court order to allow him to get the child back to the Commonwealth. He brought it secretly because he feared that mom, who had traveled with the child to visit with friends and relatives in New York, would move to still another state if she learned he was seeking permission to bring the child north for diagnosis by Boston's finest medical professionals and assure that she receive whatever treatment they recommended.

Yesterday, the court spoke. Judge Mary McCauley Manzi, of the infamous Manzi family which brought down the infamous Judge Troy in the early '70s (a link to the impeaching Supreme Judicial Court opinion is on front page of the Online Lawyer's Weekly), refused to read dad's emergency motion for custody and learn about the child's condition.  Judge Mary McCauley Manzi threatened to report dad's attorney, the author of this email, to the Bar for being unprofessional -- ostensibly for repeatedly asking the court to hear dad's emergency motion. Judge Mary McCauley Manzi ordered dad to deliver the seriously neglected and deprived child back to mom before the court hears his motion. 

In a nutshell, placing procedure over substance, the judge is
jeopardizing the health, safety, and welfare of the child by ordering
dad to put his beloved daughter back in harm's way.

For shame.



 
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

ESSEX, ss.                                                   PROBATE & FAMILY COURT
                                                                        Docket No. 99W-1466-PA-1
--------------------------
BRIAN J. MEUSE, 
                   Plaintiff 
v. 

SUSAN PANE, 
              Defendant
--------------------------

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CUSTODY

Now comes Plaintiff Brian Meuse ["Meuse"] and moves that the child Marissa Lyne Meuse be allowed to stay in the confines of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in his custody in order that the physical examinations and treatment (begun in the Commonwealth this week) of the child continue.

Grounds for this motion are the health, safety, and welfare of the child Marissa. The mother, Susan Pane, has not only seriously neglected and abused the child, she has not been providing the child with the physical and occupational therapy deemed necessary in June of this year by the Early Intervention Program in Florida.

In support of this motion, Meuse states that he has received medical records (as allowed by an order of this court in June 2000) which prove that Susan Pane failed to bring the child for the requisite physical and occupational therapy except for two weeks shortly after the June Early Intervention examination. [Exhibit A.] As a result, the child's psycho-motor condition has not improved since June.

Concerned about the serious deprivation being suffered by his child, Meuse began implementing a plan for diagnosis and treatment for the child. The doctors who examined Marissa this week and the progress made are the following:
 

1. On Monday morning, October 2, 2000, Meuse brought Marissa to the Children's Hospital Emergency Room, where she was examined by Drs. Jonathan Sun and Bailey. They sent Marissa none her father to the hospital's Early Intervention program.

2. At the Children's Hospital Early Intervention program, Marissa was seen by Wendy Gordon. Meuse was given a nine-page form to fill out and return to Gordon. He awaits the results.

3. Dr. Gordon also gave Meuse contact information for West Newbury Pentucket Early Intervention, closer to his home.

4. On Tuesday, October 3, 2000, Pediatrician Sara Andrews, associated with Wilmington Pediatrics, recommended Dr. Norman Tanguay as primary-care doctor for Marissa and Dr. Mark Leibenson, associated with both Wilmington Pediatrics and Floating Hospital for Children, as the pediatric neurologist to examine Marissa. Dr. Andrew said that Dr. Leibenson is "superb."

5. On Wednesday, October 4, 2000, some staff members Jenny Wackerle and Diane Waldron of the West Newbury Pentucket Early Intervention arrived at his home to examine Marissa. 

6. Wackerle and Waldron arranged for three Pentucket Early Intervention therapists -- Sheila Muller, Michael Brown, and Katy Flurry -- to visit with Marissa on Tuesday, October 10, 2000.

7. On Thursday, October 5, 2000, Meuse took Marissa to visit Dr. Tanguay at Wilmington Pediatrics. After examination, Dr. Tanguay said that Marissa appeared to be suffering from the Russian-adopted-baby syndrome: where psycho-motor delays or motor dysfunction syndrome are caused by the children having been left in cribs or playpens and ignored, not being given anything for stimulus, not being touched, spoken to, or held.

8.. Stating that he believed Marissa's problem arose from her environment and not from anything neurological, Tanguay nevertheless told Meuse the next step was to set up an appointment with Dr. Mark Leibenson, the pediatric neurologist. Meuse is waiting for a call-back from Dr. Leibenson's office.

9. The Floating Children's Hospital has an International Adoption Clinic, which addresses the kinds of problems Marissa has been facing.

10.. Dr. Tanguay also wants to see the baby for her 15-month checkup and a full and complete physical. That would be around November 4th.

11.. Meuse was also concerned about the diet Marissa was on in her mother's care. [Exhibit B, menu supplied by Susan Pane to Meuse.] Dr. Tanguay, too, was concerned and he declared it as being inadequate. 


Given also that mother is using polymedica, polypharmica to gain access to controlled drugs, that she has impaired her own judgment by the drug usage, that she has jeopardized the child's safety, that the grandmother has cancer, that the medical services group is acting not in the best interests of the child, that the mother unlawfully kidnapped the child in the first place while a Haverhill District Court restraining order was in place, and that Judge Manzi adjudicated Massachusetts is the home state and would exercise jurisdiction over the case, Brian Meuse is entitled to have immediate custody forthwith for the health, safety, and welfare of the child.

WHEREFORE, Brian Meuse prays this motion be allowed.
 
 

Respectfully submitted,
BRIAN MEUSE, 
By his attorney,
5 October 2000             ____________________________
                                        Barbara C. Johnson, Esq.
                                        6 Appletree Lane
                                        Andover, MA 01810-4102
                                        978-474-0833

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE





 


drano-footer







A word about the Google ads being added to this site
Over the years, I have received hundreds of phonecalls and emails for recommendations of and referrals to family-law and civil rights attorneys and self-help groups across this nation, 3500 miles wide and 1500 deep plus Hawaii and Alaska.   Clearly, it is impossible for me to be responsive to these requests.   

Sooooo . . . not only can the few dollars from the ads pay for the expenses of this website, you, too, can also benefit: you can learn on your own which attorneys and which self-help groups in those areas of the law are available to help you.  

Hoping that the ads will give you sufficient information to satisfy your  requests for recommendations and referrals, I have been reformatting the files on this website to accommodate the maximum number of ads that Google's policy allows per file.

By the way, I have no control over which ads appear.  They are chosen by Google according to the content -- I think -- in each file.

HELP:  Any  HTML programmer know how to get rid of the extra <> below the Google ads at the top of the  files and the <> in the upper right-hand corners of the Google ads on the right-hand side of the screen?  i've wasted hours, if not days, trying to figure out WHY they are there in some files and not in others . . . and how to get rid of them.  THANKS!!



Google


Drano Series HomePage (Click) Feedback (Click) The Store (Click)
#1,   Meuse
#5,   Linnehan & Brown 
#9,   Linnehan & Brown
#13, Meuse
#17, Linnehan & Brown
#21, Linnehan & Brown
#25, Sylvia v. Sylvia
#29, Linnehan & Brown
#33, Trimboli
#37, Linnehan Related
#41, Smith/Pocahontas
#45, Smith/Pocahontas
#49, Smith/Pocahontas
#53, Smith/Pocahontas
#57, Smith & Judges
#61, Smith/Pocahontas
#65, Linn. Dom. Rel.
#69, Linnehan & Brown
#73, 1st Cir. B&L Decis.
#77, LyndaPaul-Child-sup
#81, 1st Amendment/Bar
#84a, Sano case/Banned in Mass.
#88, Money from estate
#90, Count 2: Answer Interwoven
#93, Herald in on Bar War
#97, Opposition to Nissenbaum
#101, Judicial Immunity Roots
#105 Barb's letter-Rule 1.15 (am.
#109  Barb v. BBO (Federal)
#113 Smith'sOpposition to Boston
#116 Meuse's §1983 Complaint
#120 Petition-Writ of Certiorari-USSCt
#124 Meuse-Opp-to-NCMEC Dis
#128-Letter-Petition-Rehearing
#132 Pretrial-conf-Lafortune
#136 Smith o-james-recons-dism
#140 Smith o-sj-R 56.1 facts mp1
#144 surreply-to-offs-reply-recon
#148 m-dismiss-jdp-ccs-malp-2
#152 contempts-Pocahontas & Smith
-------------------------------------------------------
#156 strike-appearance-ag-for-bbo
-------------------------------------------------------
#160 m-lv-excess-pp-brief
#164 answer-to-contempt-petition

#168 m-vacate-stay-and-consolidation
#172 appeal-judgment-of-dismissal-app-ct
#176  amended-motion-for-acceleration
#180 reply-to-crane-weisberg-appellee-brf
#184 appendices-to-petition-writ-for-cert
#2,   Meuse
#6,   Meuse
#10, Meuse
#14, Linnehan & Brown
#18, GAL in Case
#22, Linnehan v. Sylvia
#26, Grandparents
#30, Meuse
#34, Linnehan Related
#38, Smith/Pocahontas
#42, Linnehan Related
#46, Smith/Pocahontas
#50, Smith/Pocahontas
#54, Smith/Pocahontas
#58, Smith/Pocahontas
#62, Smith & Judges
#66, Linn. Dom. Rel.
#70, Linn.Child-support
#74, Fraud-5-Lawyers
#78, StupidButFamous
#82, 1st Amendment/Bar
#85, Bogus contempt, coming
#89, Petition for Discipline
#90, Count 3: Answer Interwoven
#94, Restraining Order
#98, Hearse at Lawyers Weekly
#102, Bar Board:Star Chamber
#106 Motions filed at Bar Board
#110 Reply Appeal Immunity
#114 The Younger Doctrine
#117 Fed QuasiJudicial Immunity
#121 Opp. to Dismiss by FOX TV
#125 F4J London Parade Pics
#129 Letter- Editor Lawyers Wkly
#133-Barb v, BBO: App Brief
#137 Smith-o-dipiano-recons-dism
#141 Smith o-sj-Boston-memo mp1
#145 m-partial-recon-cc-wiretap
#149 reply-o-dism-jdp-ccs-2d-mal
#153 barb-v-bbo-crane-defamation
-------------------------------------------------------
#157 strike-appearance-ag-for-BC-ABC
-------------------------------------------------------
#161 m-str-docs-obc-record-appendix
#165 m-declaration of-practice-of-law
#169 o-impound-supp-appendix-record
#173 show-cause-brief for hear'g-1st-Cir
#177 motions-vacate-reverse-dismiss
#181 five-motions-and-oppositions-sjc
#3,   Meuse
#7,   Recusing Judge
#11, Meuse
#15, Linnehan & Brown
#19, Linnehan & Brown
#23, Robyn Sylvia, Aff.
#27, Meuse
#31, Linnehan & Brown
#35, Smith/Pocahontas
#39, Linnehan & Brown
#43, Linnehan Related
#47, Smith/Pocahontas
#51, Smith/Pocahontas
#55, Smith/Pocahontas
#59, Smith/Pocahontas
#63, King HarrySmith
#67, Meuse Kidnapping
#71, Smith/Judges/A-G
#75, LaidbackPocahontas
#79, Fraud-StupidButFamous
#83, 1st Amendment/Bar
#86, Proposed Findings/Bar
#90, Answer to Petition Discipline
#91, Motion for Attorney Fees
#95, Court Commits Crimes
#99, Opposition to Attorney Fees
#103 Appeal Judicial Immunity
#107 Barb v. BBO et al (State)
#111 Complaint - Sec 1983
#115 TOC-Proposed Findings
#118 Opposition to Motion Strike
#122 Barb v. BBO -- immunity
#126 Meuse- re- Bivens Claims
#130 LaFortune-Opp to Preclude
#134 Memorial Butch Bailey
 #138 o-city-recons-denial-dismiss
#142 Smith surreply-Boston-facts
#146 Smithsupp-m-partial-recon-cc
#150 Barb-appeal-recommend-BB
#154a announcement-of-disbarment
#154 opp-recommendation-disbarment
#158 m-dismis-by-bbo in Barb v BBO
---------------------------------------------------
#162 m-recuse-SJC Justice-spina
#166 claims-USDC-Local Rule-83.6(2)(D)
#170 m-decl-practice-of-law-full-panel-sjc
#174 reply-unauthorized-practice-laws-jc
#178 motion-dismiss-disbarment-violation
#182 app-for-further-app-review-Rule27-1
#4,  Meuse
#8,  Meuse
#12, Linnehan & Brown
#16, Meuse
#20, Linnehan & Brown
#24, Sylvia c. Sylvia
#28, Deleted
#32, Linnehan & Brown
#36, Smith/Pocahontas
#40, Smith.Pocahontas
#44, Linnehan Related
#48, Smith/Pocahontas
#52, Smith/Pocahontas
#56, Judge Contempt
#60, King HarrySmith 
#64, Linnehan Related
#68, GAL Fees
#72, Brown & Linnehan
#76, Fraud-LaidbackLawyer
#80, 1st Amendment/Bar
#84, Sano case/Bar
#87, Senior citizen,Gordon
#90, Count 1: Answer Interwoven
#92 Immunity-DMA-Elderly
#96, Jarasitis: Judas to Justice
#100, Motion for Jury Trial
#104 Judicial Accountability Art.
#108 Preliminary Injunction
#112 Smith'sOpposition to Det.
#115a-Proposed Findings-Divorce
#119 Barb v. BBO--Prop Findings
#123 Meuse-Opp-to-STF-Dism.
#127 Meuse- Fake FBI Docs
#131 LaFortune-Mot-to-Dismiss
#135 Smith's dipiano-mot-dism
 #139 mal-pros-garden-variety
#143 Smith's o-recon-sj-qual-iy
#147 Reply-to-offs-o-partl-recon
#151 barb-ussct-petition-writ-cert
----------------------------------------------
#155 petition-for-rehearing-spina
#159 app-brief-and-letter-to-clerk
#159a app-brief-surprises
#163 m-jury trial for contempt
#167 combined-correct-docket-order-toc
#171 appeal-judgment-of-contempt-sjc
#175 nonlawyer-representing-parties
#179 reply-apps-disbarm't-contempt
#183 -scotus-petition-for-writ-certiorari


#1, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#3, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#5, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#7, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#9, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#11, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#13, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#15, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#17, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#19, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#21, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#23, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#25, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#27, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#29, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#31, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#33, Drano  (Not available in 640 pixels)

#2, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#4, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#6, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#8, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#10, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#12, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#14, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#16, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#18, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#20, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#22, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#24, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#26, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#28
#30, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#32, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)
#34, Drano Series (640-pixel monitor)

 
Barbara C. Johnson, Attorney at Law
6 Appletree Lane, Andover, Massachusetts 01810-4102 Phone 978-474-0833