WA WA - Sky Metalwala, 2, Bellevue, 6 Nov 2011 - #17

[Rougelatete]

Oh man! I get slapped with the flu and while I'm gone Sky's thread takes off! Good work, guys. I'm glad his name is back in the news and very relieved JB didn't show up (no surprise, there).

I'm assuming this quote from the article is just sloppy reporting, right? There was that theory floated a while back that Sky's grandfather had taken him back to the Ukraine but we since found that photo showing he was in Washington at the hair salon on June 15th. Just checking that we're not missing something here, right?

The boy's father also said he still believes little Sky is alive somewhere. He has said it's even possible that Sky actually vanished months before Biryukova reported him missing, and now he wonders whether the little boy's uncle took him to the Ukraine after a visit to Washington state in April 2011.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Missing-boys-mom-a-no-show-for-custody-hearing-142094943.html

 

[Rougelatete]

BBM - In Washington, a child abuse/neglect allegation has to directly relate to evidence of "harm to a child". Since no-one made a referral that these children were left unattended at the time (no one caught her), and we have no "evidence" of how the children were harmed. If little Sky was found deceased and there is undisputable evidence of him being significantly malnourished - then the State could have a "founded allegation" of child abuse and there could be a separate process for criminal charges brought through LE. The only reason they would be able to confirm that JB is the perpetrator of the longterm neglect as she had care/custody/control of the children for the year prior - SM did not have visitation rights. Hope I am making sense of this.

This is just massively disappointing! Wenwe and Gitana: if Sky is never found and LE does not have enough circumstantial evidence to charge JB with a crime in regards to him, is there anything at all they can charge her with?

 

[Rougelatete]

Another delay has arisen as the father of missing toddler Sky Metalwala tries to formally get custody of his 5-year-old daughter and prevent visits from her mother.
At a court hearing on Friday, KIRO 7 Eyewitness News learned that Biryukova would not sign off on a parenting plan in which the couple’s daughter would live with Metalwala and Birukova would not be allowed to visit.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/metawala-custody-attempt-halted-mother/nLPm9/

Solomon Metalwala, attorney frustrated over plan for daughter's care

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/crime-law/solomon-metalwala-attorney-frustrated-over-plan-da/nLPyb/

This woman is diabolical.

 

[Adrienne37]

Yea, I think it's pretty crappy myself that they are allowing her yet another court date instead of stripping her rights away. Good grief, how much more of this crap is Solomon going to have to take from this woman? Hasn't she done more than enough to him and the children already?

 

[gitana1]

Oh man! I get slapped with the flu and while I'm gone Sky's thread takes off! Good work, guys. I'm glad his name is back in the news and very relieved JB didn't show up (no surprise, there).

I'm assuming this quote from the article is just sloppy reporting, right? There was that theory floated a while back that Sky's grandfather had taken him back to the Ukraine but we since found that photo showing he was in Washington at the hair salon on June 15th. Just checking that we're not missing something here, right?

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Missing-boys-mom-a-no-show-for-custody-hearing-142094943.html

I think it's accurate. Wishful thinking on the part of a father who cannot face life without his son. If he's in Ukraine, at least there's a possibility of getting him back.

This is just massively disappointing! Wenwe and Gitana: if Sky is never found and LE does not have enough circumstantial evidence to charge JB with a crime in regards to him, is there anything at all they can charge her with?

I am interpreting the code a bit different than Wenwe. There are the code sections that deal with when and how a child can be taken by CPS and then there is the criminal code. Those are different. But, I''m not a Washington lawyer so I could be wrong.

In any event, the criminal code states as follows:

RCW 9A.42.020
Criminal mistreatment in the first degree.
(1) A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or a person employed to provide to the child or dependent person the basic necessities of life is guilty of criminal mistreatment in the first degree if he or she recklessly, as defined in RCW 9A.08.010, causes great bodily harm to a child or dependent person by withholding any of the basic necessities of life.

(2) Criminal mistreatment in the first degree is a class B felony.

RCW 9A.42.030
Criminal mistreatment in the second degree.
(1) A parent of a child, the person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or a person employed to provide to the child or dependent person the basic necessities of life is guilty of criminal mistreatment in the second degree if he or she recklessly, as defined in RCW 9A.08.010, either (a) creates an imminent and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm, or (b) causes substantial bodily harm by withholding any of the basic necessities of life.

(2) Criminal mistreatment in the second degree is a class C felony.

RCW 9A.42.035
Criminal mistreatment in the third degree.
(1) A person is guilty of the crime of criminal mistreatment in the third degree if the person is the parent of a child, is a person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or other dependent person, is a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or is a person employed to provide to the child or dependent person the basic necessities of life, and either:

(a) With criminal negligence, creates an imminent and substantial risk of substantial bodily harm to a child or dependent person by withholding any of the basic necessities of life; or

(b) With criminal negligence, causes substantial bodily harm to a child or dependent person by withholding any of the basic necessities of life.

(2) For purposes of this section, "a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life" means a person other than: (a) A government agency that regularly provides assistance or services to dependent persons, including but not limited to the department of social and health services; or (b) a good samaritan as defined in RCW 9A.42.010.

(3) Criminal mistreatment in the third degree is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.42.037
Criminal mistreatment in the fourth degree.
(1) A person is guilty of the crime of criminal mistreatment in the fourth degree if the person is the parent of a child, is a person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or other dependent person, is a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life, or is a person employed to provide to the child or dependent person the basic necessities of life, and either:

(a) With criminal negligence, creates an imminent and substantial risk of bodily injury to a child or dependent person by withholding any of the basic necessities of life; or

(b) With criminal negligence, causes bodily injury or extreme emotional distress manifested by more than transient physical symptoms to a child or dependent person by withholding the basic necessities of life.

(2) For purposes of this section, "a person who has assumed the responsibility to provide to a dependent person the basic necessities of life" means a person other than: (a) A government agency that regularly provides assistance or services to dependent persons, including but not limited to the department of social and health services; or (b) a good samaritan as defined in RCW 9A.42.010.

(3) Criminal mistreatment in the fourth degree is a misdemeanor.

Here are the potential sentences for such crimes:

RCW 9A.20.021
Maximum sentences for crimes committed July 1, 1984, and after.

(1) Felony. Unless a different maximum sentence for a classified felony is specifically established by a statute of this state, no person convicted of a classified felony shall be punished by confinement or fine exceeding the following:
(a) For a class A felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of life imprisonment, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of fifty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;
(b) For a class B felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for a term of ten years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of twenty thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine;
(c) For a class C felony, by confinement in a state correctional institution for five years, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of ten thousand dollars, or by both such confinement and fine.

(2) Gross misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

(3) Misdemeanor. Every person convicted of a misdemeanor defined in Title 9A RCW shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

I have posted this before. There are some other sections as well. By my interpretation, Julia could be arrested and face 10 years for leaving the kids at home during mediation, such potentially being criminal mistreatment in the second degree, a class B felony.

This differs from the civil code which is title 26 (crim code is title 9 and 9(a)), and which has to do with what must be reported and by whom, when CPS can remove a child, etc. That has more to do with dependency court, than criminal penalties and I think that defines child abuse differently, requiring actual harm. The criminal code does not appear to require actual harm:

RCW 26.44.020
Definitions.
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

(1) "Abuse or neglect" means sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or injury of a child by any person under circumstances which cause harm to the child's health, welfare, or safety, excluding conduct permitted under RCW 9A.16.100; or the negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child by a person responsible for or providing care to the child. An abused child is a child who has been subjected to child abuse or neglect as defined in this section.

Wenwe, correct me if I'm wrong!

 

[Adrienne37]

Thanks as always Gitana! You are a God send to this forum!!

 

[Amster]

WHY???? She wasn't there, her atty. wasn't there....just a representative....she is being coddled and petted and enabled BIG TIME. WHY??

 

[Rougelatete]

I am much-agreed with Adrienne that you are a blessing, Gitana!

I'm going to bug you again, if you don't mind: would denying M access to food (thus causing substantial weight loss and malnourishment) fall under Criminal Mistreatment in the First Degree? If not, could they charge JB with two counts of Criminal Mistreatment in the Second Degree (for denying M food and for leaving her unattended during the mediation)?

:gthanks:

 

[StephanieH]

If I failed to show up in court, they would either issue an arrest warrant or a judgment against me. I can't imagine a judge giving me another few weeks to try again.

It is too bad that Solomon didn't get custody months ago, but at least he does now and little Maile is safe.

 

[gitana1]

I am much-agreed with Adrienne that you are a blessing, Gitana!

I'm going to bug you again, if you don't mind: would denying M access to food (thus causing substantial weight loss and malnourishment) fall under Criminal Mistreatment in the First Degree? If not, could they charge JB with two counts of Criminal Mistreatment in the Second Degree (for denying M food and for leaving her unattended during the mediation)?

:gthanks:

It could be first degree if they had enough evidence that she suffered harm via weight loss or malnutrition due to food deprivation. But, I think that would be too hard to prove.

Usually, cases like that are extreme and they have proof that a child was denied food because the weight loss is/was so extreme and the kid or a witness describes starvation or there is evidence there was not food to provide the child.

I think they would have arrested Julia for that by now if the evidence was strong enough.

I don't know why, though, they haven't arrested her for admittedly leaving M alone during mediation. I can't figure that out. Unless they are biding their time and think she still may divulge something that she wouldn't if arrested.

 

[wenwe4]

Gitana, You nailed it! Thank you so much for defining the "criminal code" as all I have knowledge of is the CPS/dependency court civil codes regarding how an investigation gets started and what happens on that end of the spectrum.

The fact that Julia admitted leaving MM alone for the extended hours, would be a "lack of Supervision" issue that could be a founded allegation of child abuse/neglect. There would be yet another "founded allegtion" of lack of supervision for Sky on the day he went missing. 2 separate incidents and 2 founded allegations.

If Julia were to apply for a job where she would be caring for a vulnerable person , (ie: elderly, disabled, children) and a background check was run - she would be flagged as having founded allegations of abuse or neglect to a child. This is a completely separate process and issue from the criminal charges that can be brought against her - (See Gitana's post above).

 

[SurfieTX]

This is what I don't understand, both Julia and Solomon were charged with (?) when they left baby Sky in the car at the Target parking lot. So, right there, there is a precedent set. Sky was found to be fine at that time, but they were still charged. The second time around, she admits to not only leaving Sky in an UNLOCKED car on the side of the road while "running out of gas", which is later proven to be false, and he ends up NOT FINE; In addition, she also admits to leaving little M alone for 11+ hours during mediation.

It makes ZERO sense to not charge this woman with neglect or whatever. And, why can she "refuse" to sign an agreement about little M when she hasn't even been going to the supervised visitation that she was granted earlier? Her parental rights should be TERMINATED!

 

[wenwe4]

This is what I don't understand, both Julia and Solomon were charged with (?) when they left baby Sky in the car at the Target parking lot. So, right there, there is a precedent set. Sky was found to be fine at that time, but they were still charged. The second time around, she admits to not only leaving Sky in an UNLOCKED car on the side of the road while "running out of gas", which is later proven to be false, and he ends up NOT FINE; In addition, she also admits to leaving little M alone for 11+ hours during mediation.

It makes ZERO sense to not charge this woman with neglect or whatever.

You are right, I forgot about the Target incident. That would mean CPS records reflect 3 "founded" neglect allegations on Julia and 1 founded allegation on Solomon. CPS does not bring criminal charges (their only focus is safety of the child/ren). . . criminal charges is the separate process that Gitana has described, involving LE and the criminal court system.

The dependency court that Julia no-showed was regarding her parental rights to see the children. She has exactly 1 year to ameliorate the issues that brought the child into (foster) care. Time began ticking on her the very day Sky went missing. She must show progress toward her court ordered services (ie: mental health treatment, psych eval, parenting classes, etc) if she wants to contest the parenting plan that Solomon has presented to the court. She doesn't want to sign it but she has made no attempts to find Sky or see MM or come clean about what happened to Sky and locate him. Julia doesn't stand a chance in h*ll to just say she doesn't agree but does nothing to make progress. The State could move towards termination of parental rights (the ultimate power that CPS has over parents) if they feel it is in the best interest of the children. At this point, Julia is proving that to be true. (IMO)

 

[Adrienne37]

I'm just sick and tired of everyone coddling her. At every single turn, Solomon has been thwarted by this woman and the judicial system in the state of Washington. I can't understand why the judge didn't rule yesterday in favor of Solomon. What's going to change between now and March 30? Absolutely nothing. She isn't going to tell where Sky is, she isn't going to sign a parenting plan, she won't go to therapy, nothing is going to change. I'm just sick of it.

 

[SurfieTX]

I'm just sick and tired of everyone coddling her. At every single turn, Solomon has been thwarted by this woman and the judicial system in the state of Washing. I can't understand why the judge didn't rule yesterday in favor of Solomon. What's going to change between now and March 30? Absolutely nothing. She isn't going to tell where Sky is, she isn't going to sign a parenting plan, she won't go to therapy, nothing is going to change. I'm just sick of it.

I share your frustration. It's criminal. It really is.

 

[wenwe4]

Adrienne, I feel your pain! (((((Hugs))))) Furthermore, a message to Ms. Julia . . . "I am just not feeling the LOVE from you to your children"!!!!

All of the posters here have shown more compassion and love toward Sky and Maile and Solomon than has ever been displayed by Julia. Her photo-happy mania moments with Maile do not reflect a loving and caring Mother that Julia wants us all to believe she is. Her pattern of behaviors over the years speak volumes, especially the past four months!!!

ETA - Julia has proven that she cannot appropriately care for herself and has a pattern of behavior over the life of the youngest child that she leaves them unattended and without appropriate supervision to a point it is detrimental to both children. She must make attempts to prove she can overcome the issues that prevented her from providing the needed care for the kids. She has done nothing except hide, isolate, blame, duck and cover (does no good but gives her something to do in the meantime), and play the victim. I am not buying that she is a victim in this whole mess . . . she is the perpetrator.

 

[Rougelatete]

Criminally-speaking, they could probably charge JB with leaving M alone during the mediation and maybe for not feeding her. But, I think they'd be more than hesitant to charge JB with anything in regards to Sky right now because that would be double jeopardy. No one can prove that Sky was alive or in JB's care during the mediation or on November 6th (in fact, evidence points to the contrary). You can't be charged with leaving a child unattended (criminal mistreatment) if there was no child present at the time. I think that's where LE might be stuck. It can't be both.

IMO, that doesn't explain why they're not moving forward in regards to M. We know M is alive, we know she was under JB's SOLE care during the mediation, and we know JB admitted to leaving M home alone. We also know M was significantly underweight and probably malnourished when removed from JB's supervision.

What gets me going more than anything else is that JB does not look underweight in those surveillance pics. So, she was able to feed herself but not her daughter. Sick. Really sick.

 

[DairyGirl]

Could it be possible that JB is undergoing some kind of treatment, maybe in a mental facility and that is why they aren't doing anything? With the hippa laws they way they are of course we wouldn't know about it. I also think the Florida case (I don't even want to mention her name at this point) has made LE gun shy about pursuing charges that aren't air tight. I hate that it looks like she is getting away with what she has obviously done to Sky but I have to think that LE knows what they are doing.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

WHY???? She wasn't there, her atty. wasn't there....just a representative....she is being coddled and petted and enabled BIG TIME. WHY??

AND...just the fact that the ATTORNEY wasn't even there...but sent his/her representative.... says volumes about the importance (lack of) these meetings, therefore little M, hold for JB and her lawyer!

 

[Rougelatete]

Could it be possible that JB is undergoing some kind of treatment, maybe in a mental facility and that is why they aren't doing anything? With the hippa laws they way they are of course we wouldn't know about it. I also think the Florida case (I don't even want to mention her name at this point) has made LE gun shy about pursuing charges that aren't air tight. I hate that it looks like she is getting away with what she has obviously done to Sky but I have to think that LE knows what they are doing.

I'm guessing she's not in a facility. I think CT would have that information and since he knows she is still in the Puget Sound area, but not exactly where, I'm surmising that she is residing with a friend or family member.

ETA: I completely agree with you that LE is probably more hesitant than ever after that botched job with the unnamed Florida mother.