The family medical history indicated a history of heart disease on the paternal and maternal. The first party was given by another year-old girl whose parents were not home, with an estimated 50 or more teens in attendance, but when her older brother arrived, he broke up the party.
According to witnesses, Jane Doe appeared to be intoxicated when she left. She had been drinking a large blend of liquors. The second party was held by. Jane is a young mother that has a history of mental health and anger management issues. She has been married for just over a year. The client and her husband have a history of arguing and fussing in front of the children.
Jane Jane was arrested after grabbing a knife and trying to stab her husband with the knife. The smallest schools with seven articles is Gettysburg College. Public schools have the most articles published, with Penn State University having 32 articles published.
Topics that were barely mentioned were class year, alcohol and drug use, policy, and demographics. As a part of demographics, race was only mentioned ones or twice. She has a 3-month old child with her boyfriend, Anthony, who has been physically abusive lately. She has decided to move in with her mother, Alice, for the sake of the baby, although their relationship is strained.
Jane has earned a GED and is waiting tables yet is at risk of losing her social services benefits because she is not complying with proper documentations. Alice Doe is in recovery from drug abuse. Students at my case study school who have Plan accommodations and modifications remain with their peers in a basic education classroom throughout the day and are provided with equal and equitable access to their coursework.
Their teachers are certified in the area of educating students with plans and provide students with the accommodations and modifications they need to find success in their classes. My case study school principal takes an active role in the. While, Mrs. Doe was not an unscrupulous person by any means. She did exhibit all the counterproductive behaviors. After dating for two years, Shawn Sayer and girlfriend Jane Doe decided to end their relationship.
Washburn for initiating the suit and Justice Tanenbaum for appointing Mr. Weber as a guardian when the case did not show that Baby Jane Doe lacked proper protection. It was Mr. Weber who pressed for a judicial authorization for surgery. The Court of Appeals held this procedure impermissible.
Weeks later, Mr. Weber went to the United States Supreme Court. Weber argued that the prognosis of mental retardation ''and other handicaps'' was the sole reason why her parents had denied the infant surgery. He asked that the New York Court of Appeals decision be overturned. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The United States Supreme Court may still get to hear the case, but through another route. The Justice Department, in the first such action in a case like this, went to Federal District Court to seek the child's medical records, but lost.
In the first Federal ruling in the case, Leonard D. Wexler, a Federal District Court judge sitting in Uniondale, dismissed the case, saying that the Government conceded that its review of the infant's early medical records, which the Government had somehow obtained, showed no discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of In its appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals, the Government said Judge Wexler had no right to rule on discrimination, particularly since the court did not have the infant's entire medical records.
Government lawyers said Judger Wexler had ruled that the Government's investigatory function ''can be impeded - indeed, thwarted altogether - on a preliminary finding of 'nondiscrimination' made before the administrative inquiry ever gets under way. The Department of Justice did not anticipate that the case would take a turn that could affect its ability to investigate discrimination in other areas and has asked the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reverse the lower court's decision.
Winter asked a lawyer for the State Attorney General's office, which is representing the hospital, to discuss this issue. The state lawyer, Stanley A. Camhi, replied: ''Perhaps the hospital policy or a memo. They would not need the patient's medical treatment records. Whatever the outcome at the appeals level, it is likely the case will get to the highest court in the nation.
This is not the first time the Reagan Administration has been involved in Baby Doe cases. But it is the first time it has gone to court to obtain an infant's medical records. In previous cases, the Federal Department of Health and Human Services asked hospitals to turn over records voluntarily and hospitals did so, in part, some said, because they were afraid of losing Federal funds.
Government interest in Baby Doe cases began 20 months ago after President Reagan and other Federal officials learned that an infant in Bloomington, Ind. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the parents' decision. Subsequently, the Federal Government instituted regulations in 6, hospitals in the nation receiving Federal funds.
The regulations required hospitals to place poster-size notices in prominent positions in delivery rooms, nurseries and maternity wards, reading: ''Discriminatory failure to feed or care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by Federal law. The notices included a hour toll- free hot-line number that could be called to report suspected hospital failures to feed or care for handicapped infants. Investigations into possible discrimination could be triggered by anonymous calls that brought so- called Baby Doe squads into nurseries.
Physicians were furious. Harry Jennison, the executive director of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the use of hot lines, signs and Baby Doe squads to retrieve medical records was ''terribly disruptive, particularly to the care of terribly sick infants. In several instances, he said, anonymous calls had mistakenly been made about infants who had been purposely not fed as part of procedures to ready them for surgery.
Federal investigators took the infants' records, and surgery had to be postponed. The American Academy of Pediatrics decided to go to court. And last April, Gerhard A. Gesell, a Federal District Court judge, struck down the nursery regulations. The judge said the rule was adopted too hastily and failed to give the public an opportunity to comment. But Judge Gesell ruled on procedural grounds only. And the Administration is now deciding whether to make changes in the rules or not reissue them at all.
The outcome of the Long Island Baby Doe case, physicians and lawyers say, will have a profound effect on the Reagan Administration's nursery policies. Both the Baby Jane Doe case on Long Island and the hospital regulations that would permit Federal investigators to enter the nursery rest on Section of the Rehabilitation Act of The section provides that no handicapped person may be discriminated against in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Government attorneys say it does. Stephan E. Lawton, who represented the American Academy of Pediatrics in the case before Judge Gesell, said the current lawsuit could decide the scope of Section Lawton said. Meanwhile, nine groups representing doctors, hospitals, the handicapped and the disabled said they supported applying the Rehabilitation Act of to the nursery.
Whether the Federal courts decide on the scope of Section or not, the moral and legal questions surrounding the rights of handicapped infants and their parents have now been addressed, if not answered. In the last two decades, ever since scientific advances in neonatal surgery made it possible to operate on severely deformed babies, hospitals have had to decide just which handicapped infants shall live and which shall die.
Usually life-and-death decisions involving newborns with severe impairments were made quietly, sometimes by parent and physician, sometimes by the physician alone. Rarely was the hospital held accountable for the decision, in part because review was not sought or made public. Some doctors say now that mistakes were made.
Many pediatricians say the decision to starve the Indiana infant because he had Down's syndrome was wrong. Thomas Murray, a medical ethicist at the Hastings Institute in New York who is in charge of a project on Baby Doe cases, said recently that in some cases parents act for reasons other than the health of their child. For example, parents whose religious beliefs ban blood transfusions have been taken to court by hospitals seeking to use the procedure on minors.
Invariably, the hospitals win. Murray said. He proposed that the standard to apply in these cases be centered on the ''best interests of the infant. State neglect-and-abuse laws that have been used in these cases are not really applicable, he said.