Evidence: Foster mother pleaded with state to remove children

By Bill Donovan
Staff writer

GALLUP — The woman who went on trial Tuesday for allegedly being the cause of the death of a foster child in her care made several requests to the state in the days before the child’s death trying to get the state to remove him and his siblings from her house.

That information was made public Wednesday during the trial of Cleo Juan, 33, who has been charged with felony child abuse resulting in death.

Documents from the Children, Youth and Family revealed at the trial said that on March 7, 2006 — a week before police found the lifeless body of 18-month old Colby Shirley on the floor of Juan’s trailer — Juan was almost begging the state to remove the five foster children from her care because she was feeling “so overwhelmed in the morning.”

In fact, this was the third request she had made to the state — the first back on Feb. 23, 2006. The documents said the matter was under discussion by state officials but no decision had been made.

On March 14, police and emergency personnel were able to revive Shirley, who was flown to Albuquerque where he remained bedridden for the next week in a vegetative state until he died.

The focus of the trial, which is expected to go to the jury on Friday, could center on the answer to one question: Did the toddler eat breakfast on the morning that he died?

If he ate breakfast at 9:20 a.m. on that day, Juan may be facing a guilty verdict and a possible life sentence. But if he didn’t, and her defense attorneys are able to present credible witnesses saying the toddler couldn’t eat breakfast that morning, she may walk out of the courtroom a free woman.

The reason is there is evidence showing that Juan returned to the trailer at 9:35 that morning.

Medical experts who specialize in child abuse called by the prosecution both said the trauma to Colby’s head was so great that he would not have been able to act normally after it occurred.

So, if he was not able to eat breakfast, was not able to walk to the bathroom and was not able to remove his clothes by himself before 9:35 a.m., the damage to the child had to be done by one of the three adults who were in the trailer with the child before Juan arrived back at the trailer.

But if he was able to do this at 9:35 a.m. when Juan came home and took over his care, the only one who could have been responsible was Juan.

This is why Joe Fine, Juan’s attorney, asked the two medical experts — Dr. Karen Campbell, medical director for the Child, Youth and Family Program, and Dr. Michelle Barry, a forensic pathologist for the state medical examiner’s office — whether they would encourage police to investigate the three other adults in the trailer if it turned out that the toddler couldn’t eat his breakfast, couldn’t walk to the bathroom and couldn’t remove his clothes by himself before Juan returned home.

They both said that they would.

There was some evidence presented that indicated the toddler was acting normally that morning when Juan returned home, including statements made by Juan herself to police who asked her to describe the events of that day leading up to Colby going limp in the bathtub.

The two doctors also made other statements that did not help the defense.

This included statements that said there was no way Colby could have gotten the injuries he did by tripping over a train and hitting his head on the carpet or falling when he was trying to remove his clothes or hitting his head on the bathtub while taking a bath. These were all reasons given by Juan at one time or another to police for Colby’s injury that day.

The kind of injury that Colby suffered to the head is the type that occurs in a major car crash or when a child falls two or three stories and lands on his head, Dr. Barry said. Or it can come from someone violently shaking the child.

The prosecution is scheduled to continue the state’s case today.

District Court Judge Grant Foutz agreed Wednesday to allow Juan’s entire statement to police to be given to the jury in a role-playing exercise, with one of the prosecutors reading the words said by the detective and one of the defense attorneys reading what Juan said.