VJ member about child's death in Vietnam

[mapletree 33]

The family has filed a lawsuit against the Alameda police and fire departments.

Filing suit is easy. Winning is something else.

Imagine the deposition in this case as the mother is asked all the questions that can be asked. A defenses' proper job is to prove this child's death was the fault of the mother, the father and anyone else. This is not about right and wrong, this is how the system works. You don't win money by filing a lawsuit. You win by proving your case, or accepting a settlement after you provide a strong enough case where you may win.

Imagine going through a two year period where every possible choice of a mother and father is highlighted as the actual cause of their child's death. How did the child get sick? Poor sanitation and care? Why didn't the mother seek proper medical care? Too poor? Why didn't the father send more money? Did he go see a that X-men movie, spending money on entertainment while his child needed money for care? Did someone check the wrong box on a form they submitted? Whose fault is it that something got mailed in with a page missing? I can't imagine anyone thought at any one time, "But for this action, a child will die." And I am sure there are things that could have been done differently by many people.

But I would not want to dig in this dirt and look for fault. Odds are no one is at fault. But if you demand to find it, it will be found.

The best case scenario, after it is all done, you get money. And if you are willing to trade your child for money, then you need to look into your soul.

The worse case scenario is that a jury of impartial people, many of whom will be mothers and fathers with their own children, will decide after they impartially review all the evidence that no one in an official capacity was at fault. This leaves a smaller and more dangerous pool to blame.

You may have a case. You may win. But make sure you know what you are going after if you file a lawsuit. A judge cannot give you your child back. You are going after money. I suspect what you need is peace.

There are amazing support groups for parents that have lost children. Look into them.

My condolences. My best.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Since HFMD disease is so common in VN, I can't believe their TOP hospital is not equipped to deal with it. I would want my kid being treated at the best hospital, even if I had to go into debt to do it.

Sorry for the OP's loss.

[newlyweds2010 208]

He wouldn't have to prove that they were wholly responsible. He'd only have to prove that it's more likely than not that their actions or inaction contributed to his daughter's death. Even if the jury assigned only 1% responsibility to the consulate he would still be due compensation.

I'll give you an example.

On Memorial day of this year, Raymond Zack waded into the San Francisco bay off of Alameda until he was chest deep in the water. Raymond Zack intended to commit suicide by drowning, and within an hour he was floating face-down in the water. Who is responsible for Raymond Zack's death? Obviously, it would seem that Raymond Zack is responsible, but there's more...

Alameda police officers and firefighters WATCHED as Raymond Zack stood in the frigid waters of the bay, but did not attempt to rescue him. Why? Because they were not trained in land/water rescue operations, and they didn't have a boat (remember - the water was only chest deep). They called the Coast Guard, who arrived within 20 minutes, but because of the shallow water they weren't able to get close enough to attempt a rescue. The Coast Guard, in turn, called for a helicopter to come to their aid. Eventually, a nurse who was trained in water rescue went into the water and pulled Mr. Zack to shore, but they were unable to revive him.

The family has filed a lawsuit against the Alameda police and fire departments.

Very different scenarios. Police officers and fire fighters have a duty to rescue, therefore they are held liable if they just watch you drown. In fact, they are exempt from any liability if they cause negligent damage while they attempt to rescue a person, because they have to (and this is called, guess what, the "firefighter rule"). Other people have no duty to rescue anybody, even if it would be very simple to do so. If I had watched Raymond Zack drown without doing nothing but taking pictures of him going down, I would have come out of a lawsuit as a winner. No duty, no liability, no award in court. Here, the consular officers had NO DUTY to give a visa, certainly not for medical reasons.

[Boiler 45,468]

So what would happen say if they were unusually quick, and the person obtained a visa that allowed a much earlier flight that crashed?

A lot of visa's are discretionary, so if say a waiver was obtained that allowed someone to come to the US and they say died of food poisoning?

Edited November 5, 2011 by Boiler

[Brian121957 43]

So what would happen say if they were unusually quick, and the person obtained a visa that allowed a much earlier flight that crashed?

A lot of visa's are discretionary, so if say a waiver was obtained that allowed someone to come to the US and they say died of food poisoning?

For youe example the question becomes. "Is it a reasonable conclusion that the actions of the consulate increased the chance of death?" The chance of death by plane crash is basicly the same yesterday today and tomarow. So a delay can not be a factor. But if the mortality rate of an infant is higher in one country verses the other. Then it is reasonable to conclude that delays by the consulate keeping the infant in the higher mortality rate country would increase the chance of death.

Think of it this way.

You are swimming in a river with crocodiles. The longer you swim the greater your chance of being eaten.

You ask a strong man for help to get out of the river but you are told, “Not today, maybe I will help you tomorrow”. The next day he comes back and you ask again. He says, “I don’t like the way you asked. I don’t think you actually need help out of the river. I will check on you tomorrow to see if you still need help”. The third day you are eaten by the crocodiles. Is it just a tragic event or was somebody at fault.

A reasonable person would say that the strong man should have realized you might be eaten while he delays helping you.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

For youe example the question becomes. "Is it a reasonable conclusion that the actions of the consulate increased the chance of death?" The chance of death by plane crash is basicly the same yesterday today and tomarow. So a delay can not be a factor. But if the mortality rate of an infant is higher in one country verses the other. Then it is reasonable to conclude that delays by the consulate keeping the infant in the higher mortality rate country would increase the chance of death.

Think of it this way.

You are swimming in a river with crocodiles. The longer you swim the greater your chance of being eaten.

You ask a strong man for help to get out of the river but you are told, “Not today, maybe I will help you tomorrow”. The next day he comes back and you ask again. He says, “I don’t like the way you asked. I don’t think you actually need help out of the river. I will check on you tomorrow to see if you still need help”. The third day you are eaten by the crocodiles. Is it just a tragic event or was somebody at fault.

A reasonable person would say that the strong man should have realized you might be eaten while he delays helping you.

And my response would be: You knew the river had crocodiles so why did you risk it?

I can't help but think the consulate thought that the baby was just another tool to get the visa. The parents knew that was a dangerous country, they still got pregnant. She is from that country and suddenly it's too good for her? What if the visa was all-out denied?

It is a tragedy for sure, but these things happen. I agree with whoever said these people are accepting money for the loss of their child. It won't bring their child back but it belittles her memory.

[newlyweds2010 208]

With the due respect for these parents who lost their child, and I am sorry to make this analogy which may sound disrespectful but I think just makes things clear: would anybody sue the government because they bought a plane ticket to the US believing the visa was a sure thing, but then their visa process was delayed for whatever reason and they missed their flight?

I'm sincerely sorry for their loss, but I don't think the US government can be held legally responsible for it.

Edited November 6, 2011 by newlyweds2010

[Boiler 45,468]

For youe example the question becomes. "Is it a reasonable conclusion that the actions of the consulate increased the chance of death?" The chance of death by plane crash is basicly the same yesterday today and tomarow. So a delay can not be a factor. But if the mortality rate of an infant is higher in one country verses the other. Then it is reasonable to conclude that delays by the consulate keeping the infant in the higher mortality rate country would increase the chance of death.

Think of it this way.

You are swimming in a river with crocodiles. The longer you swim the greater your chance of being eaten.

You ask a strong man for help to get out of the river but you are told, “Not today, maybe I will help you tomorrow”. The next day he comes back and you ask again. He says, “I don’t like the way you asked. I don’t think you actually need help out of the river. I will check on you tomorrow to see if you still need help”. The third day you are eaten by the crocodiles. Is it just a tragic event or was somebody at fault.

A reasonable person would say that the strong man should have realized you might be eaten while he delays helping you.

If the river is Vietnam and the Crocodiles are Vietnamese, well that would meant the child was a crocodile.

So the analogy is nonsensical.

Now the country I came from has an average life expectancy of nearly 2 years longer that the US. Sounds like I should sue for the difference.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

You guys are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with a discretionary visa, and everything to do with the death of a US citizen child. The OP can pull out all kinds of statistics to show that the mortality rate for children in Vietnam is much higher than in the US, and that the disease with which the child was stricken could have been easily treated in the US, but that treatment is much more difficult to obtain in Vietnam. The only thing keeping that child from being able to come to the United States was the bureaucratic stalling of the US consulate in Saigon.

If he filed a civil suit in California then I'm almost certain the OP would win. However, from comments the OP has made to me it appears what he'd really like to do is change policy and/or law. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that would be much more difficult to accomplish.

[Boiler 45,468]

That probably says a lot more about California than anything else.

The US is 37th in the world as far as health systems is concerned. The UK is 18th, but the best Hospital experiences I have had was in Sri Lanka which is 76th.

Both the Sri Lanka and US experiences are heavily skewed by money, or the lack of it.

If the OP did have medical insurance it would not surprise me if the treatment that could be had was not better in Vietnam.

[PantomimeGoose 59]

I'm sorry for your loss.

Even if they're 'just doing their jobs', the government robs us all of something precious when they separate us from our families. What happened to yours is tragic.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

You guys are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with a discretionary visa, and everything to do with the death of a US citizen child. The OP can pull out all kinds of statistics to show that the mortality rate for children in Vietnam is much higher than in the US, and that the disease with which the child was stricken could have been easily treated in the US, but that treatment is much more difficult to obtain in Vietnam. The only thing keeping that child from being able to come to the United States was the bureaucratic stalling of the US consulate in Saigon.

If he filed a civil suit in California then I'm almost certain the OP would win. However, from comments the OP has made to me it appears what he'd really like to do is change policy and/or law. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that would be much more difficult to accomplish.

He hadn't proved the child WAS a US citizen child. The fact is they chose to get her pregnant and I can't help but think that it was a tactic to speed up the process and I think the CO thought that as well. He didn't go the proper route to prove the child a USC, the CRBA would have taken longer than that. he could have flown to collect and protect the child... They are at fault (if any fault should be assigned), not USCIS for doing their job. If they won this the fraud would be insane and it would turn kids back into "anchor" babies "My kids a USC so hurry up with my visa!"

[ceadsearc 516]

I am a bit confused, maybe someone here can clarify - is there a reason the child, having been born to a USC father, could not be registered as a citizen & obtain a US passport almost immediately? I understand the delay with the visa for the wife, but why was the child unable to come to the US with the father? (Admittedly, I do not know the process for this - my daughter was born here so we had to register her birth at the Bolivian consulate, not vice versa.)

To the OP, I am sorry for your loss.

[cdneh 3,112]

He hadn't proved the child WAS a US citizen child. The fact is they chose to get her pregnant and I can't help but think that it was a tactic to speed up the process and I think the CO thought that as well. He didn't go the proper route to prove the child a USC, the CRBA would have taken longer than that. he could have flown to collect and protect the child... They are at fault (if any fault should be assigned), not USCIS for doing their job. If they won this the fraud would be insane and it would turn kids back into "anchor" babies "My kids a USC so hurry up with my visa!"

This.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

I am a bit confused, maybe someone here can clarify - is there a reason the child, having been born to a USC father, could not be registered as a citizen & obtain a US passport almost immediately? I understand the delay with the visa for the wife, but why was the child unable to come to the US with the father? (Admittedly, I do not know the process for this - my daughter was born here so we had to register her birth at the Bolivian consulate, not vice versa.)

To the OP, I am sorry for your loss.

Being born to a USC father needs to be proven. The OP had a K1 visa meaning they weren't married. The child was born out of wedlock, which, from a high fraud country especially, means a DNA test to prove paternity. The parents would apply for the CRBA which can sometimes take a couple of months (inc the DNA test). The OP's fiancee was trying to get to the front of the line just because she had a kid. She didn't book appointments, just rocked up and expected to be seen "because she was special and had a child". As far as USCIS knows, a USC child did NOT die because it was never proved to BE a USC child.

If the parents were married paternity is assumed but I believe some countries still require DNA tests and the process still isn't immediate.