GUILTY NY - Evanna Tranberg-Bennett, 12, died, parents failed to get her medical care, 6 Dec 2019 Probation

[Lusitana]

IMO and based on personal experience, even parents who have had absolutely nothing to do with the death of their child can spend the rest of their lives wishing they had done something different.

I agree.

That’s part of the reason this case bothers me so much, nobody involved is even batting an eye and saying “well, maybe I did something wrong” or “maybe I should’ve done more”, it’s a big war for them and they only care about being right.

A child is dead and the people that should care seem to not care one bit.

I feel terrible for the other children.

 

[shotgun09]

Today a new post is up on the TB Family page attempting to describe the family's busy week with court visits etc. From what I can decipher, today is a virtual meeting with Judge Koweek and each individual family member charged to confirm that there is no conflict of interest...if they choose to all be represented by Sussman.

Tomorrow is a public hearing regarding the Order of Protection , preventing visitation and contact with the children. Afterward, a family court issue is to take place, maybe 'gathering' all family members into one case?

An additional note, is that a criminal indictment, is/has been? "temporarily adjourned"

As is usually the case, these most recent posts and comments made on their page have been sprinkled and seasoned with the TB family spin/speak, so understanding what may really be happening is questionable

IMO, the **** is about to hit the fan..
But, that's just me. NAL !!

 

[Lusitana]

Today a new post is up on the TB Family page attempting to describe the family's busy week with court visits etc. From what I can decipher, today is a virtual meeting with Judge Koweek and each individual family member charged to confirm that there is no conflict of interest...if they choose to all be represented by Sussman.

Tomorrow is a public hearing regarding the Order of Protection , preventing visitation and contact with the children. Afterward, a family court issue is to take place, maybe 'gathering' all family members into one case?

An additional note, is that a criminal indictment, is/has been? "temporarily adjourned"

As is usually the case, these most recent posts and comments made on their page have been sprinkled and seasoned with the TB family spin/speak, so understanding what may really be happening is questionable

IMO, the **** is about to hit the fan..
But, that's just me. NAL !!

Thank you!

It would be much easier to follow this case if Columbia County had their records online.

Is there a way to access the Court calendar, their case number, etc?

 

[shotgun09]

Thank you!

It would be much easier to follow this case if Columbia County had their records online.

Is there a way to access the Court calendar, their case number, etc?

I haven't seen anything from the County Court online

 

[MsBetsy]

On FB when one DEACTIVATES there profile it is temporary but every post or comment ever made AND anything UNDER theirs eill disappear until reactivating

That makes sense. I'm not familiar with how FB works but that explains why the page was gone for awhile and all then all the comments were gone. It looks like the commenting on that post has been turned off altogether on the community page.

 

[MsBetsy]

Thank you!

It would be much easier to follow this case if Columbia County had their records online.

Is there a way to access the Court calendar, their case number, etc?

I don't think family court records are made public. Maybe only the family knows the docket number, or case number. Imo

 

[MsMarple]

I don't think family court records are made public. Maybe only the family knows the docket number, or case number. Imo

Oddly, I was able to access all the family court hearing dates - by numbers, not names - but can't find a criminal case calendar. There's a search engine but it doesn't include Columbia county. I have no idea why or if there's another link I missed.

 

[MsMarple]

Oh my. The family has erected a roadside sign with a picture and plea to support the Tranberg Family.
Chatham Community Board

 

[shotgun09]

Oh my. The family has erected a roadside sign with a picture and plea to support the Tranberg Family.
Chatham Community Board

Check out the 'likes' and 'loves'..The family has a handful of supporters. The rest of the Community is probably sick of them, IMO

 

[craftyhistorynerd]

Check out the 'likes' and 'loves'..The family has a handful of supporters. The rest of the Community is probably sick of them, IMO

judging by the comments yes, yes they are .. or were not supportive .. hence why the commenting is turned off lol

 

[MsMarple]

Ugh. The family continues to misunderstand the purpose of DSS requiring Steve and Heidi to live away from Venuska's kids when they were temporarily returned. The family accused DSS of trying to fracture the family and turn one against the other. DSS is legally bound to protect the children.

Now they equally misunderstand the purpose of an upcoming hearing to determine if there is a conflict of interest by having Sussman represent all 7 suspects. They accuse “some” of trying to invent conflict between family members. SMH.

IMO they are so entrenched in their rage against just about every county agency that they've lost the big picture. Every action, even those designed to protect family members' rights, are viewed as an act of war against them.

It's all been amusing to watch, kind of like an ant farm, but now it's starting to wear thin. Family – it's about the children, not you. Stop making it about you – you're not that important but the fate of your kids is. MOO.

 

[Lusitana]

Oh my. The family has erected a roadside sign with a picture and plea to support the Tranberg Family.
Chatham Community Board

So... there's money for that but not to give a 12-year-old child a funeral? Nice.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter_1977]

So... there's money for that but not to give a 12-year-old child a funeral? Nice.

That's been put up by one of their vocal supporters.

 

[Alethea]

Ugh. The family continues to misunderstand the purpose of DSS requiring Steve and Heidi to live away from Venuska's kids when they were temporarily returned. The family accused DSS of trying to fracture the family and turn one against the other. DSS is legally bound to protect the children.

Now they equally misunderstand the purpose of an upcoming hearing to determine if there is a conflict of interest by having Sussman represent all 7 suspects. They accuse “some” of trying to invent conflict between family members. SMH.

IMO they are so entrenched in their rage against just about every county agency that they've lost the big picture. Every action, even those designed to protect family members' rights, are viewed as an act of war against them.

It's all been amusing to watch, kind of like an ant farm, but now it's starting to wear thin. Family – it's about the children, not you. Stop making it about you – you're not that important but the fate of your kids is. MOO.

In my opinion it would be unethical for an attorney to represent both the parents and the adult children because there is an actual conflict in their interests even if they say there isn't one.

The fact is, the three adult children without any children do not have the same responsibility for the care of their siblings as a parent does. If they were acting independently, or represented by objective independent counsel, their attorneys would say that they have their own lives (jobs, friends, etc.) and they were not closely monitoring Evanna's condition. And/or they were not in a position of power to do anything about it. An aunt or sibling does not have legal control over a child in the way that a parent does.

Parents are responsible for the health and wellbeing of their children, full stop. The best defense for every non-parent defendant is that they are NOT the parent! How is that not a conflict? An attorney cannot suggest that one of her clients testifies against another because it would prejudice one client's interest.

This is why conflict of interest rules exist. I'm glad the court is holding a hearing because it is a serious matter and strikes at the heart of competent legal representation.

 

[Lusitana]

That's been put up by one of their vocal supporters.

I thought so too. But still, why would someone spend money on that instead of having a funeral for a child? I honestly don't get it.

 

[MsMarple]

In my opinion it would be unethical for an attorney to represent both the parents and the adult children because there is an actual conflict in their interests even if they say there isn't one.

The fact is, the three adult children without any children do not have the same responsibility for the care of their siblings as a parent does. If they were acting independently, or represented by objective independent counsel, their attorneys would say that they have their own lives (jobs, friends, etc.) and they were not closely monitoring Evanna's condition. And/or they were not in a position of power to do anything about it. An aunt or sibling does not have legal control over a child in the way that a parent does.

Parents are responsible for the health and wellbeing of their children, full stop. The best defense for every non-parent defendant is that they are NOT the parent! How is that not a conflict? An attorney cannot suggest that one of her clients testifies against another because it would prejudice one client's interest.

This is why conflict of interest rules exist. I'm glad the court is holding a hearing because it is a serious matter and strikes at the heart of competent legal representation.

If I understand correctly clients can submit a written waiver of conflict of interest. Good luck explaining that to the family. Can the judge overturn waivers?

Once the suspects have individual counsel are they allowed to remain in the same house?

IMO it's in Venuska's and Ryan's best interests to throw Steve and Heidi under the bus. Sussman can't even suggest it as long as he's representing all the adults, right?

 

[MsBetsy]

judging by the comments yes, yes they are .. or were not supportive .. hence why the commenting is turned off lol

They just explained on their FB page that the people criticizing them are trolls using several FB accounts in order to spread misinformation about them. They claim that according to "their investigation," they are all associated with "Columbia County functionaries."

I'm not sure how they can know this. Didn't they say the same thing about other crime discussion forums?

It seems they are not familiar with what a crime discussion group is meant for.

I understand that their page is not meant to be a discussion forum, but they have to expect criticism since they are going to great lengths to make their case public.

In the end, none of that will matter much. It will all come down to whether or not the DSS has sufficient evidence to support removing the children from the home. CPS can write whatever they want regarding the medical issues and medical history for the children. It all still has to be supported by medical records and testimony from actual doctors and experts.

Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

So... there's money for that but not to give a 12-year-old child a funeral? Nice.

Has Evanna's body been released to the family yet?

 

[MsMarple]

Has Evanna's body been released to the family yet?

Yes, according to a February update on their now-removed fundraiser page.

 

[Alethea]

If I understand correctly clients can submit a written waiver of conflict of interest. Good luck explaining that to the family. Can the judge overturn waivers?

Once the suspects have individual counsel are they allowed to remain in the same house?

IMO it's in Venuska's and Ryan's best interests to throw Steve and Heidi under the bus. Sussman can't even suggest it as long as he's representing all the adults, right?

At least in New York, Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct suggests that an attorney still cannot take a case even with a written waiver if one client would have a claim or defense against the other party in a litigation. The lawyer has to "reasonably believe that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client," which I don't think anyone could do when one client is an allegedly domineering parent and the second client is a young adult child of that parent.

I have turned down potential clients for much weaker conflicts. If there's any chance that your honest advice to your client would be to throw their co-defendant under the bus, I don't think you can ethically represent both parties. That's just my personal opinion and where I draw the line but I just don't see how you are fully representing your client's interest when you have this secondary interest to consider too.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/rules/jointappellate/NY-Rules-Prof-Conduct-1200.pdf

RULE 1.7.
Conflict of Interest: Current Clients
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if a reasonable lawyer would conclude that either:
(1) the representation will involve the lawyer in representing differing interests; or
(2) there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s professional judgment on behalf of a client will be adversely affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property or other personal interests.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.