Whether the child was stillborn is a critical question, and a matter that is being investigated by the coroner's office. If the child was born alive and discarded, the mother could be charged with murder. If the child were stillborn, she could be charged with concealing a birth, which is a gross misdemeanor. If evidence is inconclusive, she could be only charged with failure to report a death.

For now, Jones has been taken off all Family Court cases involving domestic violence. But the obvious question is whether, given all those police visits, he should be sitting on the bench in Family Court at all.

James Jimmerson, an attorney for Jones, said McNair's allegations against Jones are false. He said McNair actually suffered the facial injuries when she fell during a drunken stupor at the judge's home days earlier.

Manuel Carrascal claims that since the girl disappeared from his North Las Vegas home, he and his family have been intimidated and forced to flee their home, according to court documents obtained by the Review-Journal.

It wouldn't be the last time Agassi would bounce back. However, at 36 and as the game's elder statesman, he has concluded that the time has come to focus on his family -- wife Steffi Graf and son Jaden, 4, and daughter Jaz, 2.

In 1996, Jones called police after a quarrel with his then-wife, Deborah Jones, turned violent. Five months pregnant, she allegedly hit him with a flower arrangement and shower curtain rod. She was jailed on domestic battery charges.

*** We would say that, circa 2002, Jones still had much to learn about parenting: namely, that force gets you nowhere. Jailing might have been an effective deterent if it had been independently awarded by the juvenile court, but when Daddy is doing it to "teach you a lesson," it is hard not to step up the rebellion ten fold.

BTW: For what it is worth, Jones is an active Mormon. Even saints can have bad days. ***

*** This ends our coverage of the Reno Family Court Judge shooting. At this point, it is no longer a divorce case but a societal retribution case (i.e. criminal). ***

D---- S----'s family members sat slack-jawed after Family Court Judge William Voy sentenced S---- to 30 days in the Clark County Juvenile Detention Center and two years' probation.

*** This case was driven by media histeria from Day One. Of the dozen students involved in an alleged hazing incident, only this youth was charged. The charges were initially quite lurid, but the youth was convicted of much less, and the judge acknowledged from the bench that the crime was "non-sexual" in nature.

The low point of the hysteria was when the Review-Journal (i.e. Rebuke Urinal™) printed the youth's name and yearbook photo, in violation of the usual custom of protecting the identites of juveniles. (The TV stations, however, declined to name him.) Thus, the youth became publicly associated with the most lurid of the charges, which were never proved.

In our opinion, this is an incident that should have been handled as a disciplinary matter within the school system. That it became a criminal matter and a sex-tinged witchhunt is due largely to the R-J. ***

Clark County District Attorney David Roger promised to appeal the ruling because there is a slim chance that Schmidt could get out of prison before Brittney turns 18.

The reports show that in each case, police left with a resident of the home in handcuffs facing a misdemeanor domestic violence charge.

*** This is a surprising event that we weren't expecting. Definitely not good P.R.

What do you think of that mugshot? It is way different than his official photo. (Note to Judges: If you are going to get arrested for domestic violence: Get a shave first!)

In fairness, the three other cases mentioned in the article may not have involved Jones directly, only his family members and ex-girlfiend. The sole allegation against Jones remains to be proven. (In volatile domestic situations, the person making the charge is sometimes the instigator.)

We have never visited Jones' courtroom. He seems generally well-regarded by lawyers. He has a 85% retention rating in the Review-Journal Lawyers Poll. ***

Here is the County Press Release on the resignation.

The chutes are locked and accessible only to the staff, but police believe the infant may have been wrapped in something like a blanket and placed in a wastebasket inside a hotel room. A housekeeper then may have unwittingly dumped the trash and the infant down the chute, Roberts said.

*** The mother, we can tell, has "mental health issues," probably Bipolar Disorder and a concurrent Axis I personality disorder. All of this will come come out at trial but is unlikely to sway the D.A. at all, except that he won't ask for the death penalty.

We say Bipolar Disorder rather than Major Depressive Disorder because she didn't give birth at home. She managed to make her way to Vegas, a place of excitement when one is manic.

Very disorganized thinking in this one. Certainly not much in the way of premeditation. It is certainly easy enough to rid yourself of an infant legally, but the subject just doesn't have the ability to think things through. She's like, "Aggggh! Look what came out of me! Get rid of it!"

As readers may know, we don't get too choked up about infant deaths. (See our 2/6 commentary.) Whether naturally or unnaturally, it has always happened and always will. This child, evidently, was not yet connected to the world, so the effects of her passing are minimal. Our focus is on children who are still here. ***

On 6/22 at 6:55pm, an anonymous correspondent writes:

Mr. Campbell,

Your most recent comments about mental health issues that supposedly plague the mother of the child found in the Mirage trash, your unconcern for the life of an infant are over the line.

You sir, may well want to consult someone about your state of mental balance.

We reiterate: We have no concern for children who are already dead; only those still alive. Finding and punishing the perpetrator also does not interest us. Our "public retribution system" (i.e. the criminal justice system) will handle the problem with its usual blunt force -- Lock 'em up, throw away the key. -- without any input from us.

Our interest is Family Court, not criminal court.

*** Here we go again! Crystal Figueroa all over again.

This case will be taken care of very quickly, however. The list of suspects is limited to registered guests in the hotel and their associates. Most ladies don't get pregnant then unpregnant without someone noticing.

Quick, let's organize a vigil! — while the kid's identity is still unknown.

One thing we shouldn't expect to see is one of those makeshift streetside memorials. Mirage management won't go for that. ***

*** She is 22 and her oldest child is 7, so she gave birth when she was about 15 and got knocked up at about 14. No doubt, there is no useful father in the picture and the woman is greatly in need social services, beyond just welfare. Unfortunately, they are services that the county doesn't have.

The problem with harsh prosecution of this woman — and even holding her in lieu of bail — is that the kids are now thrown into an overburdened system, which might not be a whole lot better than the mother's own care. ***

The mother, Sylvia Rede, is in jail and her children at with Child Protective Services. Rede was inside the welfare office at Nellis and Bonanza when a state worker noticed the children alone in the car and called police.

*** It's another slow news day in Mediaville. It's June, which means we need kids-left-in-hot-cars stories -- just like homeless stories at Christmastime.

Hey, here's an idea: WHY NOT JUST RECYCLE LAST YEAR'S STORIES! No one will ever know.

Did the kids really need to be taken into custody? At that point, after authorities arrived, the danger had passed, hadn't it? Do we really need this additional burden on Child Haven? (Which, of course, is way over capacity already.) Is this what we are going to do in every kid-in-hot-car case? It is a stupid act on the part of the parent, but it isn't quite drug abuse or physical assault, and the lesson might have just as easily been learned by a citation to appear in court. ***

Why not Wayne Newton?

Police also interviewed family members separately for hours at a North Las Vegas police station, he told Channel 13, calling the experience emotionally, physically and mentally exhausting. "Sometimes

*** The article makes no mention of Family Court, so we'll have to naively assume that it doesn't happen here. ***

Hardcastle later called Stuart's testimony "heroic" and questioned what prosecutors hoped to gain by severing all legal ties between Brittney and her mother.

*** We were present at the hearing and dispute the newspaper's account that the witness "started to cry."

It would be more accurate to say that she "temporarily lost her words." The word "cry" implies a loss of emotional control, which was not evident during the testimony. The witness indeed exhibited "emotion", which was a pleasant change from the more flat and clinical testimony we usually get from caseworkers. However, the witness seemed fully aware of her emotions, and when they threatened to interrupt her speech, she — not the judge — requested a brief recess.

(The pause also turned out to be useful for dramatic effect.)

To be at temporarily loss for words, which often happens in moments of insight, is different from "crying." Crying is a specific physiological phenomenon, like sneezing or hiccuping. The corners of the mouth turn down, and the lips may quiver. In the unrestrained form, rhythmic wailing sounds are emitted from the mouth, and the body collapses in a pathetic heap.

"Cry" also implies liquid tears, which were not in evidence. From our vantage point approximately 20 feet from the witness (10 feet closer than the R-J reporter), we detected no visible lacrimal emissions — at least at the macroscopic level. (We did not investigate at the microscopic level.)

Of course, to the mainstream press all forms of emotion must fit into one of several simple categories. Stuart's response was not "laughing," so it must have been "crying."

In any case, this modest show of feeling in no way diminished the credibility of the state's witness, the child's caseworker, who then proceeded to demolish the state's own case.

We wonder who the District Attorney was representing in this action. As we understand it, the D.A. is supposed to represent the position of the caseworkers. In this case, however, the D.A. seemed to have gone out on its own, seemingly unaware of the wishes of its own client, and acted more as an independent prosecutor. We suspect that better communication between counsel and client might have revealed the embarassing testimony and eliminated the need for this hearing.

Now that the child's caseworker has declared in open court that she does NOT believe that Termination of Parental Rights is in the child's best interests, is the D.A. still going to proceed with its appeal to the Supreme Court of Hardcastle's TPR denial? If so, who is the D.A. now representing? The D.A. is apparently not representing the position of DFS anymore (unless the caseworker's superiors overrule her judgment). Is the D.A. now directly representing the child's wishes, without the mediation of the caseworker? If so, how has it determined what those wishes are? Or is the D.A. perhaps representing the position of CAP attorney Steve Hiltz, who performed his usual ineffectual squawking during the hearing and definitely supports termination?

(As usual, Hiltz's courtroom performance was of no material impact and was frequently interrupted by an annoying chorus of "Objection!... Sustained.... Objection!.... Sustained...." Hiltz's turn to speak is not always useless to the audience, however: I can be a good time to go out for a cigarette or a cup of coffee.)

It is clear that the child will be cared for and will not go back to the mother during her minority, so why can't we lay this matter to rest? It all boils down to that simple question: Who is the D.A. representing? ***

Schmidt's attorney said he fears an adoption would result in the mother-daughter bond being snuffed out completely, especially considering what he called "the bias" against Schmidt shown so far by Brittney's foster parents and her caseworkers.

Caruso said some members of Brittney's "team" haven't merely failed to implement the reunification plan ordered by the court, they have actively campaigned against it.

In one particularly glaring example, Caruso pointed to a report urging jail time for Schmidt that was submitted to the judge in her criminal case by Kimberly Coats, a special counsel [CASA] appointed by Hardcastle to oversee the reunification plan in Family Court.

Coats acknowledged Friday that she thought Schmidt deserved to go to jail for neglecting her daughters, but she denied allegations that she actively worked to keep Brittney and her mother apart.

*** Judge Hardcastle directly questioned the CASA volunteer while she was on the stand. He made it clear, from the content of his questions, that he felt it was inappropriate for an officer of his court to make a sentencing recommendation in the criminal court based on that authority. By recommending jail time for Schmidt in the criminal courtroom, which would delay reunification, she was in effect working against Hardcastle's own orders to facilitate reunification.

It is easy for a CASA volunteer, with great enthusiasm and minimal training in law, to get caught up in supporting the child and what they think is good for him, even if the court stands in their way. In fact, their first duty is to report to the court and take instructions from the court, since the court is the source of their power. This is a subtlety that CASA management should be watching out for, since most volunteers don't have the time or experience to build up this kind of operational knowlege. ***

BTW: Here are some photos of the lawyers talking to the media after the hearing: Brigid Duffy | Steve Caruso.

The police, meanwhile, said that two companies offered rewards for information on Everlyse. Meadow Dairy Gold of Las Vegas offered a $10,000 reward and the Carole Sund/Carrington Foundation is offering a $5,000 reward for Everlyse's safe return.

*** From a public relations standpoint, it is important to get on this bandwagon early. For a relatively small investment of $10,000 that might not have to be paid, Meadow Gold can become the Official Dairy of the Everlyse Disappearance. ***

"We're going to notify the board we're going to do this; we have no choice," Reilly said. "There will be a price tag. It may involve startup costs to attract organizations to set up shop here."

*** There are many interesting things in the article. First of all, we have Thom Reilly playing a very active role. He is our de facto DFS Director, which may actually be an important education for him.

A second thing — which may be only coincidence — is that there is no mention of Thomas Morton in this article.

A third point is an apparent stated willingness to spend money.

Maybe it does take a crisis to get things moving.

"He was just obsessed with bringing this judge down. Not physically. I never heard anything like that, but by reputation," Donner said.

*** On the contrary: This is the best thing Mack could have done for Weller's reelection campaign. Talk about name recognition!

Our prediction: The suspect is currently dead somewhere of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. ***

Bedwell said investigators are looking at five major scenarios surrounding Everlyse's disappearance: she walked away on her own; she walked out of the foster home and was abducted by someone; someone came into the home and abducted the girl; she was abducted by a relative; or something happened to her inside the foster home.

*** This is where we need a strong media-savvy DFS Director, front and center, guiding the press coverage, since there is a lot a potential damage to the foster system. ***

BTW: KLAS is turning into a pretty good news source. Of course it's television news, but it occasionally blows away the newspapers in their written coverage. There are real news articles online, not just the video broadcasts. It seems, in fact, that KLAS is moving into the newspapers' territory, beating them by a day on most stories and selling advertizing on the side. There might be a plan here. ***

Bedwell would not say why the foster parents, whom police did not identify, waited four hours to report the child missing. He said the foster parents have been interviewed by police. They had not been foster parents before taking in Everlyse and her brother, authorities said.

Unlike regular judges, senior judges are not answerable to the voters, but serve at the pleasure of the high court, and that can mean for life. Unlike regular judges, they can reject assignments until they are given a case they want to try. Unlike regular judges, they cannot be removed from a case by peremptory challenge. And until last year, they did not have to disclose their financial interests.

"You have a lot of people who respond to this with an emotional reaction to call, and not a lot of thought about how it's going to affect their family," Morton said.

Child Haven already turned its gymnasium into a makeshift dorm for boys and has temporarily closed its doors to hospitals holding infants who require emergency shelter.

"Many times people do not prosecute because they feel parents have suffered enough," she said. "It's a tough, sad call. But on the other hand, we legislate for car safety for children. We legislate that children can't sit in the back of pickup trucks. What about water safety?"

*** How could parents be held more "accountable" than losing their child? We can't see any conceivable value in prosecuting parents in the accidental deaths of their children except in extraordinary cases involving some form of illegal activity. The kid is already dead; prosecution doesn't bring them back. Prosecution "sends a message" to no one. No matter what the sentence may be, it in no way affects the safety practices of the next family out on the lake.

The fear of their child dying is the most powerful motivator a parent can have, and losing the child is the greatest possible punishment. If you also tell them, "If your child dies, you may be prosecuted," that doesn't affect the equation. No one is planning for their child to die. If you prosecute an already grieving parents, it is just government sadism, nothing more. ***