We fight for justice and advocate to tell her story. This little girls death has a message for the world.
Justice for Anyah

On January 23, 2008 Anyah Glossinger, a five year old Autistic and legally blind child, was placed in a therapy pool while attending an after school program for disabled children. She was placed in the pool without a life jacket and left unattended for a period of time that resulted in her being found at the bottom of that pool. She died the following day. She had been in the care of The United Cerebral Palsy’s Little Bridges program, specifically 2 coaches that were in charge of her, Sixto Mitre and Elva Lerma.

At the time of the drowning the ratio of adults to children was 1 to 1, (3 adult coaches, and 3 children). The startling truth is that when the tragedy happened Anyah was the only person in the pool and the only child who had not been given a life vest. She had the developmental level and cognitive ability of someone approximately 18 – 24 months of age. She could not speak or ask for help nor could she swim. These facts were well understood by the attending staff caring for her. One coach left her in the water because he had to go to the bathroom and the second coach in question turned her back on the pool and walked away to "attend to another child at the far corner of the pool", leaving Anyah completely unattended.  A sopena of Elva Lerma's phone records indicate that she had sent out a text message at the approximate time Anyah went under water. She was found at the bottom of the pool some time later and died as a result of their actions.The police originaly said there was a "lost unnacounted" amount of time.  The text message sent from Elva Lerma's phone (Anyah coach) was sent at 4:30PM.  This was around the approximate time Anyah went under the water. Her parents and many people in the community believe this was reckless, careless behavior, especially given Anyah's special needs. They believe it is negligence warranting charges of Neglegent Manslaughter (disambiguation).

In April 2008 Anyah’s death prompted an internal investigation by the state of California that uncovered severe violations which included;  unqualified staff, lack of background checks, unqualified director, operating outside license, among dozens of other serious health, safety, and administrational issues. The state’s Department of Social Services and Licensing closed the facility’s program stating that they “failed to meet the basic needs of Anyah, which resulted in her death.”


Anayah's blood gas levels showed a down time of 15-20 minutes................ (down time, the time between the second she went under water and the time she began recieving oxygen).

On May 29th 2008 the Police Department concluded their investigation and presented it to the Riverside County District Attorneys' office, suggesting criminal charges of negligent manslaughter and child endangerment. The District Attorney’s office declined to file charges. The press release from the D.A.'s office can be found below & on the NEWS link of this web site. Anyah's mother, Emily Wereschagin, went to meet with three members of the District Attorneys office the morning following the briefing and the decision not to file charges.  They were present on the board the day before. One detail brought to discussion at the meeting was that Anyah was wearing arm floaties.  The arm floaties she was provided with were size "Ages 6-12 large", (Anyah was very petite with the physical stature of a 2-3 year old). The photo of the arm floaties reflects a warning label; "This is not a legal life saving preserver, do not leave child unnattended".  Anyah having the physical stature of a 2-3 year old weighed aproximately 30 lbs. She was 5 years old.  The other two children were provided with life vests. The coaches told police the reason for that was "she had been getting more comfortable in the water", yet the UCP records reflected that she had gone to the pool only approximately 6 times that year.  In this discussion with the D.A. Emily was shocked to hear the D.A. justify the lack of a life vest by stating  that even he himself had placed his children in the pool in just arm floaties for years, insinuating this may be common household practice. Emily chose not to ask him if any of his children were autistic, because she knew if his children were, they wouldn't have been having the conversation to begin with.  She also knew that if his children were autistic, he wouldn't have allowed them in a pool with out a life saving preserver! She will save her arguements for head District Attorney Mr. Rod Pacheco.  He was not present at the original briefing, and currently has avoided returning her phone calls. He has the ability to overturn the decision recently made by his staff.  Emily did however ask them if there was anyone present for the decision making process that was familiar with the specific needs of children on the autistim spectrum.  After some uncomfortable stammering the response was, "yes I think someone from CPS (child protective services) was".  Emily was confused at the fact that CPS would be present, they then clairified for her they were reffering to Jacky Hardigan.  Emily's response was "Jacky Hardigan works for the state department of community care and licensing". The response back was a blank stare.  It is safe to say that certain state personel involved in shutting down the Little Bridges program EXPECTED (given the violations and uncovered internal issues with UCP's Dennis James Center) that the D.A.'s office would strongly consider moving up the executive ladder in there consideration to file charges.  It is safe to say that as of right now, the most apparant representation of the justice system in this particular case, highlights a major underlining issue.
LACK OF COMPREHENSION.   Did the D.A. comprehend the level of care required to keep Anyah alive?  I know that the special needs coaches DID when they made the decisions that led to her death!


                           


?        ?           ?            ?           ?           ?


The Definition of Negligence

neg·li·gence (neg'l? j?ns)
noun

  1. the quality or condition of being negligent; specif.,
    1. habitual failure to do the required thing
    2. carelessness in manner or appearance; indifference
  2. an instance of such failure, carelessness, or indifference
  3. Law = failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another.

NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community.

Negligence is a 'legal cause' of damage if it directly and in natural and continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such damage, so it can reasonably be said that if not for the negligence, the loss, injury or damage would not have occurred.

Negligence may be a legal cause of damage even though it operates in combination with the act of another, a natural cause, or some other cause if the other cause occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing such damage.

?        ?        ?          ?           ?         ?          ?



The Riverside County District Attorney's office
declines to file charges......


MICHAEL JEANDRON

Public Information Officer
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office
Indio
: 760.393.3232
Riverside: 951.955.9215

MichaelJeandron@rivcoda.org

We have declined to file charges in the death of Anyah Gossinger.  The decision
was based on the fact that the evidence did not reach the threshold required
 by law to warrant criminal charges. 

 The law distinguishes between ‘ordinary negligence,’ which is the standard used in
most civil contexts, and the higher standard of ‘criminal negligence,’ which would
apply in a criminal case such as this.

 The law defines criminal negligence as follows:

 Criminal negligence
involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or
mistake in judgment.  A person acts with criminal negligence when:

1.      
He or she acts in a reckless way that creates a high
risk of death or great bodily harm; and

2.      
A reasonable person would have known that
acting in that way would create such a risk.

 A careful review of the evidence presented by the Desert Hot Springs Police
Department shows that the actions of Anyah’s caregivers did not rise to the higher
level of criminal negligence as required by the law.  The evidence shows that
Anyah’s caregiver was watching Anyah and another special-needs boy while the boy’s
 caregiver left briefly to use the restroom.  Anyah was in the pool wearing ‘floaties.’
The boy began to climb out of the pool onto a narrow raised tile platform.  A fall from
this platform could have injured the boy.  Anyah’s caregiver went to the side of the
pool to restrain the boy.  While her attention was directed to the boy, Anyah apparently
 slipped out of her floaties and sank to the bottom of the pool.

 A third caregiver then entered the pool area with her child and noticed Anyah at the
bottom of the pool.  Anyah was immediately pulled out of the water and Cardiopulmonary
 Resuscitation (CPR) was administered.  While no one knows exactly, it is
estimated that Anyah was under water for approximately sixty seconds. 

 The CPR was initially ineffective because Anyah had regurgitated some food that
blocked her airway.  Several minutes passed until the blockage was discovered and
the food was cleared out.  Her lungs received no air during this period.  CPR was then
continued until medical help arrived.   

 While it appears that the caregivers may have made several mistakes in judgment
and in supervision of Anyah, these mistakes do not rise to the level of recklessness
 that is required to support a criminal charge in this case.  
   


Manslaughter by gross negligence

Under English law, where a person causes death through extreme carelessness or incompetence, gross negligence is required. While the specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances and so may include both acts and omissions. The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession and cause death. In R v Bateman 1925 Cr. App R. 8 the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:

  1. the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
  2. the defendant breached this duty;
  3. the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
  4. the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

Dont forget these are ELECTED OFFICIALS AND YOUR VOICE COUNTS:
Contact
: District Attorney-elect Rod Pacheco  @  (951) 955-5465
Web Hosting Companies