{"id":5874,"date":"2014-06-14T10:22:32","date_gmt":"2014-06-14T10:22:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=5874"},"modified":"2018-06-19T08:20:36","modified_gmt":"2018-06-19T12:20:36","slug":"lexi-dillon-must-be-saved-she-could-be-your-child","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=5874","title":{"rendered":"LEXI DILLON Must Be Saved: She could be YOUR child!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Duty to Rescue: Ethics vs. Law<\/h1>\n

by\u00a0Malinda Sherwyn<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Ruby Dillon<\/p><\/div>\n

The concept of the Duty to Rescue<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0is rooted on ethics; most of us feel morally obligated to come to the rescue of a person in peril, and the greater the danger or more vulnerable the victim, the deeper our sense of obligation.<\/p>\n

On\u00a0February 25, 2011<\/strong>, Dr. Ruby Dillon took her then 6-year-old daughter to the emergency room at Hoag Hospital. The ER physician examined the minor and diagnosed \u201cnon-accidental\u201d trauma consistent with sexual abuse. Child Protective Services (CPS) was made aware of the medical results as demanded by law.<\/em><\/p>\n

Did CPS have a duty to rescue?<\/p>\n

If a duty to rescue existed, did CPS honor its duty?<\/p>\n

In general, there is no duty to rescue in tort law, and a person or entity cannot be held liable unless (1) a legal duty was breached that (2) led to a known harm to a person. No legal duty, no negligence.<\/p>\n

There are, however, a few exceptions to the general rule.<\/p>\n

First, a defendant who\u00a0creates\u00a0a dangerous condition that places someone at risk creates along with it a duty to rescue the victim of that risk.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0August 2012<\/strong>, based on probable cause of suspected sexual abuse, the City of Tustin Police Department removed Dr. Ruby Dillon\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

Thus, not only did CPS choose\u00a0not to rescue\u00a0the minor from her dangerous condition; it also\u00a0created\u00a0a dangerous condition\u00a0when, by returning the minor to her abuser, CPS placed the minor at risk of further sexual abuse.<\/p>\n

Second, a duty to rescue also arises if there exists a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d between the defendant and the victim. \u201cSpecial relationships\u201d arise when one party assumes responsibility for another; like a parent for a minor child, or a doctor for his patient. In law, the \u201cspecial relationship\u201d most at issue is the one between emergency response personnel and any member of the community that requires their assistance.<\/p>\n

In early\u00a0March 2011<\/strong>, CPS received a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury from the minor\u2019s teacher (a mandated reporter) confirming the minor\u2019s accusations of sexual abuse. CPS failed to interview the teacher.<\/em><\/p>\n

In\u00a0January 2012<\/strong>, 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\u2019s house. CPS insisted the minor should remain with her father.<\/em><\/p>\n

On\u00a0November 7, 2012<\/strong>, 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\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

CPS was specifically\u00a0created\u00a0to rescue minors from dangerous situation. Their duty is to respond to reports of suspected child abuse and to act accordingly; that is, CPS are\u00a0mandated by law to assume responsibility\u00a0for minors at risk of abuse. Thus, a \u201cspecial relationship\u201d exists between CPS and Dr. Rubin Dillon\u2019s daughter. In the three instances above, CPS failed to interview the minor\u2019s teacher, ignored the minor\u2019s allegations and dismissed reports by the Tustin Police. Therefore, CPS breached its duty to rescue Dr. Rubin Dillon\u2019s minor daughter.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0breach\u00a0of the duty of care for liability to rise, and if the defendant has acted reasonably, there is no breach and thus no negligence.<\/p>\n

On\u00a0February\u00a025, 2011<\/strong>, Dr. Ruby Dillon took her daughter to the emergency room at Hoag Hospital. Despite medical records documenting \u201cnon-accidental\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

When CPS accepted the medical records from Hoag Hospital they had taken their first step towards rescue of the minor. However, CPS did not act like a \u201creasonable person\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

To summarize, CPS dishonored the law in at least three ways: (1) CPS created a dangerous condition that placed the minor at risk, \u00a0(2) CPS violated its \u201cspecial relationship\u201d with the victim, and (3) CPS failed to take reasonable care in their attempt to rescue of the minor.<\/p>\n

\"Lexi<\/p>\n

Final Thoughts<\/strong><\/p>\n

One must understand that the law is mainly interested in creating a set of rules that force the public to adhere to a\u00a0minimum standard\u00a0of civilized behavior\u00a0rather than in enforcing ahigh standard of moral conduct. Many things that are morally wrong are not punishable by law.<\/p>\n

Thus, it is our duty as responsible members of the community to\u00a0surpass the guidelines of the law\u00a0and ask ourselves, not what is the\u00a0minimum\u00a0that we can do to protect this child, but rather, what\u00a0right and\u00a0moral\u00a0acts of ours would help rescue this child from her tormentors.<\/p>\n

Because, if we as individuals truly want\u00a0justice\u00a0for this now 9-year-old child\u2014and not just the\u00a0minimal protection\u00a0proffered by current law\u2014we must climb up to a higher moral ground.<\/p>\n

Malinda Sherwyn can be reached at\u00a0malindaws@earthlink.net<\/a><\/p>\n

More information about Lexi can be found at\u00a0Bring Lexi Home Now<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Save Lexi<\/a><\/p>\n

A comprehensive article the Orange County Voice by Nick Gerda:\u00a0Problems in OC Child Welfare System Get Statewide Scrutiny<\/a><\/p>\n

Chronology of the Injustice<\/p>\n