General Hospital: Perkie's Observations



Sam orders Heather to give her the baby.  Heather coldly tells Sam "If she (Heather) can’t have him, no one can." Shockingly, Heathers throws herself and the baby off the roof. Jason lunges to save the baby from a terrible fate. Somehow, he manages to grab the baby and save him from harm. However, Heather isn't so lucky and hits the ground below.
 


On the hospital grounds, Liz helps the paramedics stabilize Heather.  Anna warns her not to die, because they have unfinished business.  Meanwhile, Tea tries everything to get away from Todd to go on the roof.  Anna tells them not to go up there, and informs Todd separately that she knows he had a role in the switch. She sternly warns him not to leave town.  Tea continues to insist on seeing her son. 
 
Sabrina tells Patrick there’s a crazy lady on the roof with a baby.  Steve explains to everyone it’s Heather. Dante runs in to tell Steve that Heather went over the roof, and he heads out.  Liz tries to stop him, but he is determined to help his mother.  Heather is taken into the hospital where Patrick and Sabrina work on her. 
 
Jason, Sam and the baby come down from the roof.  Britt offers to check the baby for any injuries.  John wants Anna to wait until everyone is settled to get official statements. Anna wishes to speak with Steve, but Liz angrily says Heather is crazy and there is no forgiving what she’s done. Liz doesn't see any need for Steve to be involved in the madness. Steve knows Heather is a crazy kidnapper, but she’s still his mother. 
 
John tells Sam and Jason the police will need their official statements.  Sam asserts Jason did nothing wrong and saved the baby.  John acknowledges that, saying they have the security footage to back up her claims. 
 
Tea sees the baby with everyone, and recognizes Sam as the woman who lost her baby that night.  She thanks the group for saving her son.  John says they need to talk, but Tea just wants her baby.  Tea tries to grab her baby, but Jason and Sam coldly turn her down. John and Todd hold Tea back, while JaSam head off to have the baby checked out. 
 
Patrick tells Steve that Heather is alive, but has internal bleeding and a damaged vertebra.  Steve reassures Heather that Patrick will do the surgery.  Heather apologizes for betraying his trust.  Liz takes Steven away.  He blames himself, but Liz says it’s not his fault. Heather manipulated him, and he should just let it go.
 
Anna asks Heather about her association with Todd.  In turn, Heather asks about her reunion with Robin. Anna calls Heather a liar and informs her that Robin wasn’t at the clinic.  Sabrina overhears, as Heather swears she saw Robin alive.  Anna warns Heather never to say Robin’s name again, because she’s tired of the lies and manipulations.  Anna assures Heather she’s going to make sure that Heather gets assigned to somewhere worse than Ferncliff. She vows Heather will never see the light of day or Steven again.  However, Anna is willing to offer Heather a deal, if she confesses Todd helped her with the switch. 
 
Steve apologizes to Dante for what his mother did to Olivia.  He’s upset that he signed the release papers and believed she was better.  Steven wonders if it’s better for everyone if Heather doesn’t survive the surgery.  Sabrina tells Patrick she thinks Robin is alive. 
 
Britt gives the baby a clean checkup, but wants to keep him overnight to be safe.  She offers to have his medical records from Llanview brought over to the hospital.  Liz hands Sam the baby and tells her she’s happy for her, which Sam appreciates.  Sam’s not sure how to feel about getting her son back, since this means Tea will lose him. Jason tells her to keep the baby safe and love him.
 
Liz looks troubled outside the hospital and Britt offers her an ear.  Liz mentions losing Jake and thinks it's unfair that one mother is having a reunion with her child, while the other is losing hm.
 
Tea tells the guys that while she’s sorry that Sam lost her child, she can’t borrow Tea’s.  She says the last three days have been terrifying for her and wants their help in bringing the baby to her.  John warns Todd that he’ll tell Tea the truth himself if Todd doesn't man up.  Todd finally informs Tea she’s not getting the baby back, because he is not hers.  Tea says she delivered the baby, but Todd says that baby isn’t this one. 
 
Todd says he’s sorry for everything he’s ever done to her, but the baby isn’t Victor. He breaks the news that Tea’s child is dead and this baby belongs to Sam.


Comments

TV Gord's picture
Member since:
18 February 2009
Last activity:
6 hours 49 min

I am not a lawyer, but I have seen just about every show David E. Kelley has ever made, so I think I qualify. (Of course, I'm not wearing pants right now, so I should probably be a judge.)

JASAMMABBY's picture
Member since:
5 April 2011
Last activity:
5 weeks 2 days

@TVGord- Priceless!!!!

sassysdreams's picture
Member since:
1 January 2009
Last activity:
5 days 22 hours

GHFan777 wrote:
I am not an attorney, nor have I ever studied the law, but personally I think what js has stated makes the most sense to me.

Of course you do!! Laughing out loud Laughing out loud Laughing out loud

J Bernard Jones's picture
Member since:
9 September 2008
Last activity:
17 hours 28 min

GHFan77 wrote

Hmmm did your attorney's state any specific court cases to back up what they told you JBernard? I am not an attorney, nor have I ever studied the law, but personally I think what js has stated makes the most sense to me.

We did not discuss specific cases. I trust both my attorney and my adoption attorney to know what they are talking about. What "makes sense" is not always what the laws are from state to state (nodding to Jasambaby). Nonetheless, my personal attorney is here in Georgia (who is licensed to practice in DC, Virginia, Pennsylvania and one other state that escapes me), my adoption attorney is in Arkansas and we discussed this "hypothetical case" as it might apply nationally. As such, this question came up: the case involves residents of New York (Port Charles) and Pennsylvania (Llanview); would the interstate nature of the case color the issue of eventual custody? They were confident it would not do so.

I have no opinion about JS's opinion except it doesn't make sense. EVERY legal argument has a presumptive end game. What is the presumptive endgame in the claim that Tea "has rights"? Which brings us to this:

Everything at this point is conjecture. Nothing has been done to verify that Sam is the mother of Daniel/Victor. We the viewing audience know that she is, but the DNA test that has already been completed, was illegally obtained. Tea did not give consent, nor did Sam give consent for the test performed on the deceased infant. Custody of infants is not decided on emotion and conjecture in these type of cases, but rather on tests where samples are legally obtained and processed by independent labs under supervision. This is a soap and they are constantly taking license and liberties to tell stories...but this would never have played out like this in real life.

But everything is not conjecture, as far as we the audience is concerned. We are arguing these issues from the position of viewers who a) know the facts of the case that many of the characters do not as they have been presented to us (the babies were switched, Sam's is alive and Tea's is dead) and b) what might happen in a real world scenario.

So, I ask the question again: what is the legal endgame to the claim that Tea "has rights"?

Is it that Tea should retain custody of a child that is not hers, one that was obtained as a result of fraud and a series of mistakes?

Is it that Sam's rights as Danny's biological mother should be invalidated because Tea unwittingly raised said child who came into her custody as a result of said fraud and said series of mistakes?

Is it that Tea should be allowed to keep Danny permanently as his mother based on having him for the first 6 months of his life as a result of said fraud and said series of mistakes?

Is it that "a de facto adoption" happened as a result of said fraud and said series of mistakes? In other words, "finders keepers"?

So, again I ask you all respectfully, what is the legal endgame to all these "rights" that Tea has as the putative parent of Daniel that she has enjoyed and should continue to enjoy as his "mother" as a result fraud and a series of hospital mistakes?

GHvetfan's picture
Member since:
26 October 2009
Last activity:
14 hours 5 min

None of the above! My point lies only in the PCPD wanting only to not compound the situation by handing Sam a baby that turns out was Tea's in the first place.

tealita's picture
Member since:
20 March 2011
Last activity:
4 weeks 1 day

TV Gord wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I have seen just about every show David E. Kelley has ever made, so I think I qualify. (Of course, I'm not wearing pants right now, so I should probably be a judge.)

Ah, TV Gord... ROFL. Grade Party

kintex's picture
Member since:
8 November 2010
Last activity:
16 hours 7 min

TV Gord wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I have seen just about every show David E. Kelley has ever made, so I think I qualify. (Of course, I'm not wearing pants right now, so I should probably be a judge.)

Laughing out loud Laughing out loud Laughing out loud

@J Bernard
Since you took the time to research this topic, all I am going to say is that after your consulations with 2 attorneys and the essays above, you are still wrong. No I am not going to pull anything from Lexis or Westlaw to back up what I am saying or individually address all your sub issues. I dont even need to know whose these people are or where they are licensed but I will say this, the next time you are seeking legal help, they would not be my first call.

TV Gord's picture
Member since:
18 February 2009
Last activity:
6 hours 49 min

Just when you thought it was safe, I drop a bomb of silliness. Thanks to JASSAMABBY, Tealita, kintex, and anyone else who appreciated it. Big smile

I'm enjoying the debate, too, but a little levity never hurts. Beer

J Bernard Jones's picture
Member since:
9 September 2008
Last activity:
17 hours 28 min

@ Kintex, way to passive aggressively dodge the question/s, but by not addressing the legal endgame — what is Tea supposed to be getting out of all these supposed "rights" she has again? — your argument falls on its face. Whatever that was. Smile

J Bernard Jones's picture
Member since:
9 September 2008
Last activity:
17 hours 28 min

TV Gord wrote:

I am not a lawyer, but I have seen just about every show David E. Kelley has ever made, so I think I qualify. (Of course, I'm not wearing pants right now, so I should probably be a judge.)

HA! ROFL

liason4real's picture
Member since:
10 May 2008
Last activity:
12 hours 35 min

I don't know why anyone would believe Todd or Heather, so IMO the best thing to do is to resume the baby that died and do a paternity test on both babies. Of course, RC should have had both women in the same location giving birth while cray cray Heather played her games. Party

kintex's picture
Member since:
8 November 2010
Last activity:
16 hours 7 min

@JBernard. Let me be clear, I did not dodge your question, I chose not to address it because it is not an issue relevant to the point I made. I still stand by what I stated that at this time, Tea is the legal parent. You dont have to agree with me, but since you went to the trouble to do all that research, I felt compelled to point that out.

J Bernard Jones's picture
Member since:
9 September 2008
Last activity:
17 hours 28 min

@kintex, now it's time for me be clear, so we're both clear: Tea has been wronged. Terribly so. She's had terrible things happen to her as a character within this baby switching plot specifically and I even see the point of those who feel Carlivati has "piled on," putting the character through sheer hell. I get it, I understand it. I've gone as far to agree or partially agree with you and others on several specific points you raised. I am a great fan of the character and the actress, as I have stated on several occasions both here and when OLTL was on the air. As a viewer and a fan, I am sympathetic to her plight, screaming and all — and nobody does the Latina rebel yell better than Lozano.

However discussing the "rights" that Tea supposedly has regarding Baby Balkan leads to one and only one logical question: the "rights" to what exactly? You (and JS's) claim that Tea is the legal parent. To what legal end do those rights extend for Tea given she obtained the child through a combination of fraud and negligence? Dodging thatquestion or choosing not to answer it is a distinction without a difference.

I wanted to get the real world answers, not assume them into existence, thus no "trouble" gone to at all.

I felt compelled to point that out, too. Smile

js3557's picture
Member since:
28 September 2009
Last activity:
5 hours 13 min

JBernard - This phrase "legal endgame" is not a legal term I have ever heard of. I went through pre-law, law school, and have been a prosecutor in MA for 17 years. In all of those years, the term "legal endgame" has never come up in any case law, text book or statute I have read. If you mean what is the legal basis or foundation for my opinion, then I would have tell you that the fact that the birth certificate lists Tea as the mom coupled with the fact that she has raised him, means that Tea has rights at this point. If you go back to my earlier posts, I never said that Tea would win in the end. My point then, and my point now, is that the baby would not just be handed over to Sam in the way he was. The DNA test would be inadmissible.

NY is more similiar legally to MA than to southern states. There are major differences between northern liberal states and conservative southern states in the way they address custody issues. And, for the record, I don't mean liberal/conservative in stricly political terms. I mean liberal/conservative in the legal community. In MA, the baby would be given back to Tea and a DCF (Dept of Children and Families) worker would be appointed. Sam would have to file for relief in probate court. The probate court would appoint a guardian ad litem for the child and would order an official DNA test. When the results showed that Sam is the mom, the court would then address custody. The standard of review in MA is "the best interests of the child". Biology doesn't always cut in MA or in NY. With that said, Sam would win in the end because the child is so young, because Jason will be gone, and because Tea would not fight it.

Sassy - People who claim to be something they are not online are pathetic. I don't care if you don't believe that I am an attorney because I am secure in who I am and what I am. Your opinion means less than nothing to me (a negative integer perhaps?)

js3557's picture
Member since:
28 September 2009
Last activity:
5 hours 13 min

JBernard - The rights Tea have, at least in MA, are based on the fact that the maternity of the baby as listed on the birth certificate has not been proven legally incorrect as of yet. She is the custodial parent until and unless she is proven not to be the bio mom. Once that is accomplished, the MA standard of review (best interest of the child) would be used to determine custody.

kintex's picture
Member since:
8 November 2010
Last activity:
16 hours 7 min

All I will say is this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Tea has been wronged, whether you are a fan, or any supposed future legal rights which is why I said I didnt address your questions before because they are not relevant. I am not advocating for Tea to take Sam's child lol. This is Sam's baby I know that but at that point in time in the hospital, Tea is still the legal parent.

GHvetfan's picture
Member since:
26 October 2009
Last activity:
14 hours 5 min

Kintex - I don't believe anyone is advocating that Tea takes the baby. This whole argument started because I commented that Sam was just given the baby on John and Jason's word. I too think J Bernard needs new lawyers. I doubt there is a state in the union that would ignore Tea's plight and hand that baby to another woman without the research J Bernard has done. That was the basis of my comment. Jason says hey the baby is Sam's and everybody agrees without question. I would certainly be screaming if I was Tea. JS - you have the patience of a saint.

I cannot for the life of me figure out how this debate can be charactetized as antiSam.

sassysdreams's picture
Member since:
1 January 2009
Last activity:
5 days 22 hours

In my opinion until it was proven differently Tea should have be arrested for kidnapping!!! After all, she was with Todd when she gave birth, she was with Todd before and after the kidnapping occurred, she saw the baby that she gave birth to so she knew he did not look like the one she took home, she knew the child she took home had a genetic disease that couldn't have come from her or her husband and yet she said nothing, she was with Todd in the hospital, and she was with Todd when he flew her home to Llanview on his private jet.

Sam knew immediately when she saw the baby she was given that it wasn't her son. I'm certain Tea knew the same thing when she saw the baby that Todd replaced her son with. And yet, she said nothing! If we the viewers hadn't actually seen what had occurred, how would we know that she was not an integral part of the kidnapping?

And not even being mentioned is that when Todd flew Tea and the baby across state lines it became a Federal crime. In my state of Virginia, (not sure if it would be considered a liberal northern state or a conservative southern state since its in the middle) Tea would have been arrested along with Todd and Heather for conspiring to and kidnapping baby Danny. Once the truth came out and she could prove that she was an innocent victim, the charges would be dropped. But until she could prove that she was not complicit, which would be hard to do for the very reasons I stated above, she would not be permitted to take a kidnapped child home with her.

I'm glad I don't live in a state where a possible kidnapper's questionable parental rights takes priority over the victim's rights!!!

liason4real's picture
Member since:
10 May 2008
Last activity:
12 hours 35 min

When Tea gave birth, Todd refused to allow her to even hold the baby in her arms. The baby was half the size of the one that Sam gave birth to which made no sense at all since Tea was full term. Todd held the baby which was wrapped up in a scarf close to his chest and despite Tea's screams he never once showed her the baby's face. If Tea had seen the baby when he was born, she would have been able to recognize that Sam's baby was not her child. Sam saw her baby at birth and Tea did not which was the whole point of the baby switch story line.

Member since:
12 June 2008
Last activity:
47 weeks 2 days

First off all the legal expertise in here is delightful. He is my two cents, Tea has legal custody of the baby, the baby would have been placed with child protective services because I am sure a good lawyer Alexis would have demanded it because of the fear of Tea running off with the baby. A court ordered DNA test would have been performed and the moment it was found who the biological mother was the baby would have been given to Sam. It would have not taken months or years for this to play out because Tea has no standing in this at all. the mother never signed her rights away. It was a baby switch or kidnapping.

I am glad they didn't drag this out because it has been one bad plot point after another.

GHvetfan's picture
Member since:
26 October 2009
Last activity:
14 hours 5 min

I am glad I do not live in Sassy's guilty until proven innocent world although I am sure she doesn't mean to have Sam live by those standards. Afterall, Sam was complicit in Jake's kidnapping. Sam, according to SamFF, shouldn't have answer to any of her crimes because she was grieving or had just given birth. Tea, not being Sam, should be punished for losing her child and being lied to and her biggest crime is not being Sam.

sassysdreams's picture
Member since:
1 January 2009
Last activity:
5 days 22 hours

GHvetfan - Please do not put your words into my mouth or claim to know how I feel about Sam or any other character. You do not know me and you have absolutely no idea how I feel about any of the characters or actors on GH or any other show for that matter!

My theory is no more preposterous than any of the others given here. And at least it is based on the few facts that are known by the people of PC. A person who is raising a kidnapped child that they know was delivered under highly unusual circumstances with only Todd (a raping, kidnapping murderer) as a witness and which has a disease that could not have come from either of its biolgoical parents, is of course going to appear guilty of that kidnapping at first glance. That is only natural. Certainly a lot more credible than those claiming she adopted the baby because she took him home with an illegal birth certificate or that she now has parental rights because she kept a kidnapped child away from its mother for six months.

GHvetfan's picture
Member since:
26 October 2009
Last activity:
14 hours 5 min

Sassy - i am not sure how I put words in your mouth. I was just expressing gratitude that the world isn't guilt until innocence proven which were your words.

Ravennite613's picture
Member since:
10 December 2008
Last activity:
5 weeks 2 days

Wow - Tea a kidnapper now I have officially read the dumbest thing on DC EVAH

I need a rolling eye emoticon so badly right now

GHvetfan's picture
Member since:
26 October 2009
Last activity:
14 hours 5 min

Ravennite- my favorite part about the ridiculousness of that Tea as kidnapper comment is that Sassy thinks Tea should be arrested until cleared of wrongdoing but would defend Sam for her part in Jake's kidnapping.

Unbelievable!

Sassy- i just want to tell you that I truly look forward to your posts. I love your passion and devotion to Kelly Monaco and Sam. I have nothing but respect for your willingness to go balls to the walls as my husband would say. I may not feel the same way about the actress and character but I love reading the posts. Rock on!

JasamForever's picture
Member since:
29 December 2009
Last activity:
3 hours 6 min

These out of the blue so supportive comments regarding Tea from LizFF are just too funny. I have enjoyed GH lately and I am going to enjoy the remaining Jasam family scenes that are to be continued when and or if Steve B returns.

Anything to be negative against Sam......

The idea that the courts would determine who ultimately receives baby Daniel, even after maternity is established based on what is the best interest of the child does not make any sense to me??????

js3557's picture
Member since:
28 September 2009
Last activity:
5 hours 13 min

How is anything I said negative against Sam? I said Sam would get her baby back. I never said she shouldn't or that she did something wrong. I said the process of just giving the baby over to her without the court being involved was wrong. How in the world could that be interpreted as anti-Sam? If the legal standard of "best interest of the child" is confusing to you, you could always attend a basic family law class at your local community college. It's really not a complicated standard to understand.

An example to help you out: Baby is kidnapped and switched by someone other than the woman who ends up with him. Maternity comes out after court ordered DNA test. Judge is then informed that the woman who has raised him up until now is an employed, stable woman with a home, stable income, and ties to the community. Judge is then informed that bio-mom is a crack head living in a shelter with no education, no job, and still actively using drugs. Best interest of the child would dictate that the child remain with nonbio-mom. I am not saying this is similar to Tea/Sam, or that Sam is similar to a crack head (which is why I said with Jason gone, Sam would get her baby back without a doubt). I am just using this as a clear cut example for easy understanding of the concept.

Member since:
27 May 2009
Last activity:
2 weeks 1 day

Glad she got her baby back but I did not like the way they treated Tea, keeping her from the baby she believed to be hers when he was dangling off that building. By law she had every right to that baby until the courts changed things. Legally the child is still Tea's. They would have to show me with a legal DNA test before they took my child.

GHvetfan's picture
Member since:
26 October 2009
Last activity:
14 hours 5 min

Js- nothing you said was anti- Sam. Me thinks some people are just looking for a reason to argue.

maxsmom's picture
Member since:
20 February 2009
Last activity:
16 min 55 sec

this is a case where I think "keeping it real" would be soapier than the writer's vision-I think JS is more than simply legally sound, it would be more interesting than what is playing out-2 good women who feel that the child belongs with her, neither having played a part in any shenanigans-of course the child ends up with Sam but what a great November sweeps