Timothy’s story is a work in process and is only briefed here. Many details have been omitted, but maybe featured under a different topic, definitely in his biography. For this writing the attention is on the question: if Timothy’s children had not been kidnapped at all, or had been returned to him after they were taken, would he have suddenly died?
Employing the “but-for test”, it is evident that a person whose actions directly contribute to a particular outcome holds responsibility for the ensuing consequences. As elucidated by Law.cornell.edu website, this legal principle underscores the close correlation between a person’s conduct and the resultant harm.
So, what was the contributed malicious conduct that closely relate to Timothy’s death?
Timothy, who lived with type-one diabetes since the tender age of two, tragically passed away at the age of thirty-four, while alone in his home, for the first and only time, grappling with a diabetic episode. Timothy was forced to be alone, thus he was without the crucial assistance he ordinarily would have had.
Typically, his episodes would manifest in the mornings, during a time when a family member was always on hand to provide support. Timothy was diligently monitored by medical professionals and relied on an insulin pump to carefully manage his condition. He had mostly been successful in avoiding diabetic episodes until recent years. Regrettably amidst the divorce proceedings, his episodes resurfaced with alarming frequency, causing distress and vulnerability.
Timothy’s oldest child learned what to do during those dire situations after being sent to live with him in his new place after being forced from their previous home. Having lived more than a decade and a half of cohabitating with a diabetic partner, Sarea, the wife and mother, knew of Timothy’s medical condition and the meticulous care it demanded daily. Despite his condition, she created a sequence of events that can only be described as callous and heartless. Duty of Care was nonexistent, the breeding of depravity had gone wild with abuses.
In court filings, Timothy tells how his estranged wife was unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue regarding their divorce, opting instead to evade discussions and actively thwart his efforts towards an amicable separation. He elaborated how she resorted to manipulative tactics, including exploiting their children in deliberate attempts to inflict emotional harm upon him.
Other testimony provides that Sarea reneged on the agreed separation and would not discuss a divorce. Instead, she maliciously banished Timothy from their spacious four-bedroom home resulting in its forfeiture; then, subsequently dispatched their two eldest sons to reside with him in his newly procured two-bedroom apartment. Weeks later, she appeared with the youngest child, lingered for two nights, then absconded to Las Vegas, where she remained nearly a year, abandoning all responsibilities and familial obligations. After leaving the family in disarray, Sarea resurfaced unexpectedly, kept the children given to her by her friend, who Timothy thought was helping him with their children.
Without Timothy’s knowledge, Sarea’s friend, Timothy’s baby-sitter, prevented his children from schooling that day, took his auto without permission and illegally drove them to their mother, while he was in the intensive care unit recuperating from a diabetic episode. Blatantly ignoring the legal boundaries established in the protective order due to past instances of violence and abuse, Sarea withheld the children from their father and cut off all communications with him.
After Timothy was forced from their home, he did not suspect that Sarea had planned to abandon the kids and leave all three with him and flee to Las Vegas. He did not know when she had reappeared and only found out after she had absconded with the children while he was recuperating in the hospital following a diabetic episode. Timothy did not know that the children’s sitter was communicating with their mother and would take them without his consent, and especially in violation of his protection order, of which she was aware.
A protective order had been issued against Sarea due to her history of violence and abuse. Her past, along with her new threats to physically hurt him, Timothy informed the court and was granted the protective order preventing Sarea and her complicit sister from having any contact with him and the children.
However, upon returning home to discover his children missing, the sitter would not tell him where she had taken them, so Timothy promptly contacted the authorities and was met with indifference. He was harassed, threatened, then neglected. The police themselves ignored the order, even contacted Sarea without any attempt to retrieve the children, which encouraged her to continue to disregard the orders and continued to hold hostage the children from their home and Timothy.
All mentioned above and much more was the malicious conduct that caused Timothy to be alone without the help that was being provided by his oldest child.
No one knows for certain if Timothy’s sudden death could have been averted if he had gotten the medical help this time that he had received every time in the past since developing diabetes. Nevertheless, for the first and only time and unexpectedly, Timothy was forced into a situation where he was prevented from having the means of assistance as he had in the past for his diabetic emergencies.
Under the “but-for-test”, we can see that “but for” the deprivation of constitutional rights constituting unequal treatment under the law committed by the officials, Timothy would have gotten the help he needed.
“But-for” the violation of the protective orders, the kidnapping of Timothy’s children, the blocked communications and kept hostage away from him by estranged wife, which caused him to be alone when if children were home as usual, he could have gotten medical assistance, as he had in the past.
What caused him not to? That cause is the correlation between the conduct of violating well established Arizona laws deemed criminal by malicious abhorrent conduct. Considering these distressing circumstances, one cannot help but question whether Timothy’s sudden demise could have been averted.
It is imperative to scrutinize the legal implications surrounding this ordeal. See the Laws which apply and imply depraved and unconscionable malicious conduct as criminal activity by the perpetrators, which includes the law officials. Click Here to see laws violated. See Timothy’s last court filing.