If the wife and mother had obeyed the court’s order of protection to not go near the children, then Timothy would have had his children with him on Saturday, March 2, 2024, and his 12-year-old-son, as he has done on previous occasions, would have seen that his father got help.
Even after kidnapping the children on January 9, 2024, and concealing and keeping them from their dad, had Sarea returned them as the order required her to do prior to the day he died, he would not have died alone without medical assistance.
Having type-1 diabetes since the age of two, not only did the kidnapping prevent Timothy from receiving medical aid as he had in the past, it also caused extreme emotional turmoil that escalated his condition to aggravating harmful levels. The kidnappers, as well as the police knew that Timothy’s emergency visit to the hospital Intensive Care, made him even more vulnerable. They knew that his brain was swollen and still recovering when released from the hospital and found his children gone, taken from him after being left with him abandoned.
Implications of gross misconduct can be found in the statutes of Arizona Law. Below is a partial list of obvious violations.
*** Kidnapping – A person commits kidnapping by knowingly restraining another person with the intent to:
Place the victim or a third person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury to the victim or the third person. In Arizona, kidnapping is a class 2 felony unless the victim is released voluntarily by the defendant without physical injury in a safe place before arrest and before accomplishing any further offenses.
*** Custodial Interference – In Arizona, a person can be charged with the crime of custodial interference even before there is a court order regarding legal decision-making or if s/he has a joint legal decision-making order with the other parent if s/he takes, entices (persuades) or withholds any child from the other parent and denies that parent access to any child.
*** Child Abandonment and Neglect by statute – Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S), Section 8-531(1) provides us with a legal definition of the term. “Abandonment” means the failure of a parent to provide reasonable support and to maintain regular contact with the child, including providing normal supervision. Failure to maintain a normal parental relationship with the child without just cause for a period of six months constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment.” This means that first, under Arizona law, every parent has a duty to financially support his or her children. (A.R.S. §§12-2451, 25-501)
The parent who doesn’t provide financial support will have a major strike against him or her in an abandonment inquiry Parents must also maintain regular contact with the children. For the parent who lives in another state or country or for the parent who is incarcerated, this means visitation, phone calls, letters and gifts. The parent must make a reasonable effort to maintain a relationship with the child.
*** Child neglect and child abandonment often go together. Child neglect is defined by A.R.S. § 8-201 (25). The definition includes failing to provide clothing, food, shelter or medical care.
*** ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE – Penal Law § 120.10 (3)- (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1967)(Revised December 12, 2006 1 and June 5, 2012 2)
Under our law, a person is guilty of Assault in the First Degree when, under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, that person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to that person [or to a third person].
A person RECKLESSLY ENGAGES IN CONDUCT WHICH CREATES A GRAVE RISK OF DEATH TO ANOTHER
PERSON when he or she engages in conduct which creates a grave and unjustifiable risk that another person’s death will occur, and when he or she is aware of and consciously disregards that risk, and when that grave and unjustifiable risk is of such nature and degree that disregard of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.
*** Depraved Indifference – A person has a depraved indifference to human life when that person has an utter
disregard for the value of human life – a willingness to act, not because he or she means to cause grievous harm [to the person who is injured], but because he or she simply does not care whether or not grievous harm will result. In other words, a person who is depravedly indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life – – that person does not care how the risk turns out.
Depraved indifference to human life reflects a wicked, evil or inhuman state of mind, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts. It is evinced by conduct that is wanton, deficient in a moral sense of concern, and devoid of regard for the life or lives of others. “We say today explicitly…: depraved indifference to human life is a culpable mental state” (Feingold, 7 NY3d at 294).
“Depraved Indifference” is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life- a willingness to act not because one intends harm, but because one simply does not care whether grievous harm results or (Feingold at 296, quoting Suarez, 6 N.Y.3d at 214). People v Lewie, 17 NY3d at 359, supra.
“Reflecting wickedness, evil or inhumanity, as manifested by brutal, heinous and despicable acts, depraved indifference is embodied in conduct that is ‘so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so devoid of regard of the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy’ as to render the actor as culpable as one whose conscious objective is to kill” (Suarez, 6 NY3d at 214 quoting People v Russell, 91 NY2d 280, 287 (1998)).
This definition also applies “when the defendant intends neither to seriously injure, nor to kill, but nevertheless abandons a helpless and vulnerable victim in circumstances where the victim is highly likely to die, the defendant’s utter callousness to the victim’s moral plight-arising from a situation created by the defendant- properly establishes depraved indifference ….” (Suarez, 6 N.Y.3d 212).
*** Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress – “Arizona courts have recognized the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (See the Venerias v Johnson 1981 127 Ariz. 496,499.)
Emotional distress passes under various names such as mental suffering, mental anguish, mental or nervous shock, or the like. It includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea.”
“It is only where it is extreme that the liability arises.”
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) is a tort that occurs when one acts in a manner that intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer severe emotional distress, such as issuing the threat of future harm.
• Prima Facie Case
-The defendant acts
-The defendant’s conduct is outrageous
The defendant acts purposely or recklessly, causing the victim emotional distress so severe that it could be expected to adversely affect mental health.
See the police admissions. | See malicious conduct for “but-for-test”.