Tough Questions

[416021va]

**Due to my present environment, ">" shall reflect "HIV". **

Soc,

I live in Virginia, but the CP lives in FL with my child. I have some unusual questions. I don't want to come across as spiteful because I know that you don't like that. However, I am not sure what to ask, or how to ask because of the peculiarity of the situation, and the time that has elapsed.

I know I should have asked questions like these so long ago, but I have blacked out many things since the separation/divorce/custody judgment, and rightfully so. In addition, I have been given advice by anti-NCP folk on the internet and didn't realize the bad advice (e.g. you are a liar) when I saw it.

During the year 2001, CP and I went out camping in the State of Virginia. CP was allegedly bitten by a tick, and developed a large "bullseye" mark on their back. Shortly thereafter, CP returned to FL with the child (before 6 months) to the State of Florida. CP told me that they went to a doctor for the mark, and was advised that they were tested for Lyme Disease.

CP then alleged that they were tested for Lyme Disease and the test turned out negative. However, CP told me that the doctor said they had >. I urged CP to get a "Western Blot" test which is supposed to affirm that CP has >. CP alleged that they took another test which affirmed that they had >.

I went to get tested multiple times, and in the years to come, but it was determined that I do not have >. CP suddenly vascillated, and told me that they did not have >. CP alleged that this was all a "big mistake" made by an unknown medical facility. CP even alleged that they filed suit against the medical facility and won.

CP provided me with a negative result, but would not let the paper leave their hand. CP refused to provide me with a positive result or the name of any medical facility. I didn't look at the document at the time to determine what or where the medical facility was. CP also advised that they tested positive for Lyme Disease and that the > reading was accidental. (This was CP's alledged premise for filing suit against the unknown medical facility in that they were being tested for the wrong thing).

I have checked CP's locale, for which public records (including lawsuits are found on the internet), but have found none.

Through a few other sources I have heard that CP states they will always test positive for >, because they allegedly been treated for Lyme Disease, but the disease will always show positive on a test result.

My questions (not for you, but informally to the medical community) were as follows:

1) Is there any reason why a person who goes in to be tested for Lyme Disease would be tested for >?

Answer: No

2) Is there any corrolation between a test for Lyme Disease and >?

Answer: No

3) Is there any possibility that someone could take a test, and then a confirmatory test for > and then suddenly be found negative?

Answer: No

Based on the above, my questions are as follows:

1) Could I subpeona alleged health records for CP stating that they have or do not have >?

2) In the eyes of the law, would I have the right to know whether or not CP has >?

3) In the eyes of the law, could > pose a health risk for child?

4) If I could turn around and obtain said records, could I turn around and sue for not being advised of the truth (or sue for anything else) if the statute of limitations for such has not expired?

5) Is there any publically accessible database that you know of which advises whether or not someone has >?

Sorry for the long post, and not even knowing what to ask, but something had to be asked, if not done, Soc.

Thank you very much for your time as usual.

[socrateaser]

>Based on the above, my questions are as follows:
>
>1) Could I subpeona alleged health records for CP stating that
>they have or do not have >?

If you believe that the child may be endangered by the CP's condition, then that would make such evidence relevant. I can almost guarantee that the CP would attempt to quash discovery, and you'd have to try to convince the judge to allow the release of the records.

>
>2) In the eyes of the law, would I have the right to know
>whether or not CP has >?

See above.

>
>3) In the eyes of the law, could > pose a health risk for
>child?

If the child doesn't have HIV, and the parent does, then clearly yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the risk will outweigh the parent's right to maintain primary custody. It's one thing to have HIV, it's quite another to have an active AIDS infection. If it's the former, then I'd say you're probably wasting your time. If it's the latter, and the child isn't infected already, then you probably would have a good argument.

>
>4) If I could turn around and obtain said records, could I
>turn around and sue for not being advised of the truth (or sue
>for anything else) if the statute of limitations for such has
>not expired?

In order to have standing to sue, you must show a concrete and particularized injury or threat thereof, fairly traceable to the other party, which the court can redress.

You have not shown that you have been injured by the other parent's failure to inform you, and unless there is some reasonable likelihood that the other parent will spill his blood on you, then you aren't at risk of an injury. So, you have no standing to sue.

Same analysis if you were to sue on your child's behalf. Obviously, there's a greater risk to the child, but how great is fact dependent. As previously stated, there is a huge difference between having HIV and actually exhibiting an active AIDS infection. But, even then, only certain activities will cause transmission of the disease, and I'm not an expert in communicable disease transmission, so I can't comment about risk factors.

>
>5) Is there any publically accessible database that you know
>of which advises whether or not someone has >?

No. Most states have enacted laws protecting HIV carriers, because of the high risk of discrimination that follows along with the disease.

[416021va]

n/m