Tara Jefferson Robinson and Norrence Robinson, Individually and on Behalf of Their Minor Child, S.R. v. Daryl Mitchell

Judgment rendered June 30, 2021.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 53,958-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

TARA JEFFERSON ROBINSON
AND NORRENCE ROBINSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF THEIR MINOR CHILD, S.R. Appellants

versus

DARYL MITCHELL, ET AL. Appellees
*****

Appealed from the
First Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Caddo, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 603,276

Honorable Craig Owen Marcotte, Judge

*****

LAW OFFICE OF SUSAN E. HAMM Counsel for Appellants
By: Susan E. Hamm

JEFFREY M. LANDRY Counsel for Appellee,
Louisiana Attorney General State of Louisiana

DAVID H. NELSON
Assistant Attorney General

McNEW, KING & LANDRY, LLP Counsel for Appellee,
By: Brady D. King, II Louisiana Patient’s
Compensation Fund

*****

Before COX, STEPHENS, and ROBINSON, JJ.

COX, J.

This case arises out of the First JDC, Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Tara

and Norrence Robinson filed suit individually and on behalf of their minor

child, S.R. (collectively referred to as “the Robinsons”), against Dr. Daryl

Mitchell (“Dr. Mitchell”), Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Company

(“LAMMICO”), Willis Knighton South Health Center (“WKS”), Willis

Knighton Health Systems (“WKHS”), Willis Knighton Health Systems

Laboratories (“WKHSL”), Dr. Daryl Mitchell and Dr. Cynthia Montgomery,

AMPC d/b/a Mitchell & Montgomery M.D.s (“Dr. Mitchell’s office”), and

Jeff Landry, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana (hereinafter

collectively referred to as “Defendants”). The Louisiana Patient’s

Compensation Fund (“LPCF”) and the Louisiana Patient Compensation

Fund Oversight Board (“LPCFOB”) were later added as defendants. In

addition to other claims not at issue in this appeal, the Robinsons filed a

wrongful life claim on S.R.’s behalf. The LPCF filed a partial exception of

no cause of action and dismissal of the wrongful life claim. The trial court

granted the partial exception of no cause of action and dismissed with

prejudice the wrongful life claim. The Robinsons now appeal that judgment.

FACTS

Dr. Mitchell confirmed Mrs. Robinson’s pregnancy through an

ultrasound on February 25, 2014. On April 17, 2014, Dr. Mitchell ordered a

Quad Screen Test, which is a blood test to determine whether an unborn

child is at risk for certain genetic conditions. Among other genetic markers,

the test screens for Down syndrome, which occurs when there is an extra

copy of the chromosome 21 in a person’s DNA. Mrs. Robinson’s blood

sample was collected by WKHSL and sent to Mayo Medical Laboratories

(“Mayo”), where the Quad Screen was performed. Mayo sent the test results

to WKHSL via computer. The results, which showed a positive result for

Down syndrome, were received by WKHSL on April 21, 2014.

WKHSL then forwarded the results via facsimile to Dr. Mitchell’s

office, which Dr. Mitchell designated as the preferred method of delivery.

The Quad Screen results were retrieved by Sharon Trent, LPN and employee

of Dr. Mitchell’s office. Nurse Trent recorded the test results on Mrs.

Robinson’s medical chart as “negative,” or not at risk for Down syndrome.

The Quad Screen results were then placed in Mrs. Robinson’s chart for

review by Dr. Mitchell. Dr. Mitchell initialed the test results and informed

the Robinsons that the results were normal on her next office visit.

Subsequent ultrasounds were performed by Dr. Mitchell’s office, none of

which revealed abnormalities.1

Dr. Cynthia Montgomery delivered S.R. via Cesarean section on

September 28, 2014. At birth, S.R. was noted to have features suggestive of

Down syndrome. S.R. was admitted to the NICU, and an examination

showed that S.R. had multiple features consistent with Down syndrome. A

blood sample was collected from S.R., a chromosome analysis was

performed, and the results were consistent with Down syndrome. Dr.

Mitchell reviewed Mrs. Robinson’s file and told the Robinsons that he

previously read the Quad Screen results incorrectly. At this point, the

Robinsons were informed of the Down syndrome diagnosis.

1
This recount of the medical events is derived from the MRP opinion.

2

The Robinsons first presented their claim to a medical review panel

(“MRP”). The MRP found that the evidence did not support a finding that

WKHS, WKHSL, or WKS failed to meet the applicable standard of care. It

found that the evidence supported a finding that Dr. Mitchell and his office

failed to meet the applicable standard of care. However, due to conflicting

evidence, the members of the panel were unable to determine whether this

conduct was a factor of the resultant damages alleged by the Robinsons.

The MRP stated that LPN Trent misread the lab results on April 22,

2014, and failed to advise Dr. Mitchell that the Down syndrome result was

positive. Although Dr. Mitchell initialed the report, he failed to note that

the result was positive. The MRP found that both LPN Trent and Dr.

Mitchell failed to meet the applicable standard of care, and noted that it is

the physician’s responsibility to review the test results.

As to damages, the MRP opinion stated that when Dr. Mitchell

informed the Robinsons of the Down syndrome diagnosis, “they told him

that they would not have really changed anything and that they would still

love their child.” The MRP noted that the parents stated in their submission

to the panel that had they known the lab result was positive for Down

syndrome, they would have terminated the pregnancy. This conflicting

evidence prevented the MRP from determining whether the complained of

conduct was a factor of the resultant damages, which the parents contend is

the birth of a child with Down syndrome.

The Robinsons filed their petition for damages against Defendants in

district court on September 1, 2017. The Robinsons alleged that WKS,

WKHS, WKHSL, and Dr. Mitchell’s office are vicariously liable for the

3

medical negligence committed by their employees in the course and scope of

their employment. LAMMICO is the insurer for Dr. Mitchell’s office.

In their petition, the Robinsons stated, “Given the extraordinary

suffering experienced by S.R. as a result of being born with Down

syndrome, never being born is and always will be preferred to being born

with Down syndrome.” They stated that had they known the Quad Screen

revealed a risk of giving birth to a child with Down syndrome, they would

have terminated the pregnancy. They alleged the following damages:

1) Past, present and future loss of love, affection, society,
nurturing, guidance, and companionship suffered by [the
Robinsons];
2) Past, present and future mental and emotional anguish
suffered by [the Robinsons];
3) Past, present and future pain and suffering;
4) Past, present and future extraordinary medical and
counseling expenses and related benefits of S.R.,
including but not limited to custodial care of S.R.;
5) Loss of enjoyment of life;
6) Lost wages and support and/or loss of potential income;
7) Lost income;
8) Loss of earning capacity;
9) Wrongful life;
10) Extraordinary financial loss and/or expenses as a result of
the negligence of defendants;
11) Past, present and future medical care and treatment and
related benefits of S.R.;
12) Past, present and future custodial care of S.R.

They stated the following in their petition regarding S.R.:

The infant, S.R., is and always will be physically,
developmentally, mentally, intellectually and emotionally
delayed as expected of and consistent with a person with Down
syndrome. This condition is a chromosomal abnormality and is
permanent. S.R. will live her whole life with physical,
developmental, mental, intellectual and emotional delays and
abnormalities requiring extraordinary medical care and
treatment that a normal healthy baby, child and/or adult would
not experience. Consequently, S.R. has and will continue to
have extraordinary challenges, responsibilities, and financial
burdens as well as extraordinary mental and emotional trauma
for the rest of her life. The responsibilities and financial

4

burdens will likely continue even after the death of the parents
and caretakers of S.R., Tara Robinson and Norrence Robinson,
as people with Down syndrome now live into their 60s and
even 70s with appropriate medical and psychological care and
treatment.
The Robinsons listed 13 issues and/or conditions that S.R. could

potentially face, and of those 13 conditions, S.R. currently shows signs of or

is treated for hypotonia and ligament laxity, gastrointestinal issues, Celiac

disease, pulmonary issues, low thyroid, and emotional issues.

The Robinsons stated that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies

because the events in this case could not reasonably have occurred absent

the negligence of Defendants. They argued that the Medical Malpractice

Act and the Liability for State Services Act, including the cap on recovery,

are unconstitutional in that they violate Art. 1, Sec. 2- Due Process; Art. 1,

Sec. 3- Equal Protection; Art. 1 Sec. 4- Right to Property; and, Art. 1, Sec.

22- Access to Courts. The Robinsons also requested a jury trial.

The State, through the Louisiana Attorney General, intervened in the

suit and requested the trial on the merits be bifurcated from the trial on the

constitutional issues raised. The trial court bifurcated the case and stated the

trial on the constitutional issues would not be scheduled until a ruling on the

merits is entered.

WKHS, WKS, and WKHSL filed their answer on October 27, 2017.

They denied that they, or anyone for whom they are responsible, are guilty

of any fault, negligence, or breach of a medical standard of care. They

highlighted that the MRP unanimously found that they did not fail to meet

the appropriate standard of care.

5

Dr. Mitchell, his office, and LAMMICO answered the Robinsons’

petition on November 8, 2017. They also denied the allegations and

liability. They stated that this case falls under the Louisiana Medical

Malpractice Act (“MMA”) and in the alternative, pled an act of God.

The Robinsons amended their petition on April 24, 2018, and added

the following damages:

13) Wrongful Birth;
14) Ordinary and usual financial burden, loss and/or
expenses of raising a child.

WKHS, WKS, and WKHSL, answered the amended petition and filed

a motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”). They asserted that “there is no

genuine issue of material fact that there was no deviation from the standard

of care on their part in the treatment provided to [Mrs. Robinson], the

alleged conduct of these defendants did not cause additional injury, the

plaintiffs do not have any expert witness to satisfy their burden of proving a

deviation from the standard of care on the part of these defendants caused

additional injury that would not otherwise have occurred[.]” They stated

that the Robinsons have not responded to interrogatories and have not

revealed any expert witness to support a deviation from the standard of care.

The Robinsons stated they did not intend to produce any expert

testimony regarding the standard of care applicable to WKHS, WKS, and

WKHSL. The Robinsons did not oppose the dismissal of these defendants

from the suit. The trial court granted the MSJ on behalf of WKHS, WKS,

and WKHSL, and dismissed them from the suit with prejudice.

The Robinsons filed a petition for authorization to settle medical

malpractice claim with reservation of rights on June 11, 2019. The

6

settlement was between the Robinsons and Dr. Mitchell and his office. The

Robinsons agreed to $2,500 from Dr. Mitchell and $100,000 from his office,

in addition to an agreement to keep these two defendants listed in name only

for the purposes of requesting additional damages against the LPCF and the

LPCFOB. The Robinsons stated that they received the money, but it was not

enough to cover damages. They agreed to release Dr. Mitchell and his office

from any other claims or damages arising in this suit. The only remaining

defendants are the LPCF and LPCFOB.2

The LPCF responded to the settlement petition and asserted its right to

a $100,000 credit against any future judgment in the matter by virtue of the

settlement. It reserved the right to assert the affirmative defenses of waiver,

estoppel, set off, and/or failure to mitigate damages and reserved the right to

contest that the claims asserted are covered by the MMA.

The LPCF did not agree with the proposed settlement judgment. It

argued that although the $100,000 settlement does establish the liability of

the settling healthcare provider, the Robinsons still have the burden of

proving that the admitted medical malpractice caused damages in excess of

$100,000. Their second argument concerned whether the Robinsons have a

cause or right of action to prosecute a wrongful birth or wrongful life claim.

The trial court signed a judgment concerning the settlement, but reserved to

the LPCF the right to contest causation and damages, as well as whether the

Robinsons may assert a cause of action for wrongful birth or wrongful life.

The LPCF filed a partial exception of no cause of action and dismissal

of the wrongful life claim. It stated that the Robinsons have brought a

2
The State of Louisiana remains a party on the constitutional issues.

7

wrongful birth claim on their own behalf and a wrongful life claim on behalf

of S.R. In this exception, the LPCF is only arguing the wrongful life claim

should be dismissed at this time. It highlighted that the petition for approval

of settlement stated that S.R.’s chromosomal condition and alleged physical

and mental disabilities were not caused by the healthcare providers. It stated

that the petition does not allege acts or omissions which either caused the

Down syndrome or allowed the pregnancy of S.R.

The LPCF detailed the difference between wrongful birth (a claim

brought by the parents claiming they would have avoided conception or

terminated the pregnancy if they had been informed of the risk of birth

defects), wrongful life (claim brought on behalf of the child and seeks to

recover damages for having to endure life in an afflicted condition), and

wrongful pregnancy/conception (claim brought by the parents of a healthy

child alleging the negligent performance of a sterilization procedure and

seeks to recover damages resulting from the unintended conception and

birth). It argued that Pitre v. Opelousas General Hospital, 530 So. 2d 1151

(La. 9/12/1988), and subsequent cases on the issue of wrongful life have

held that wrongful life is not an action in Louisiana.

It cited Davis v. Board of Supervisors of La. State Univ. & Agr. &

Mech. Coll., 97-0382 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/18/1998), 709 So. 2d 1030, as

stating that the healthcare providers did not act or fail to act in any way that

contributed to the child’s genetic condition, which is the same issue in the

case at hand. The Fourth Circuit stated, “We are troubled by the

philosophical conundrum flowing from [the claimant’s] suggestion that

8

somehow she would have been advantaged had she not been born. This

begs the question of how a person who never existed is advantaged[.]”

The LPCF argued that although the claim is brought by the

Robinsons, it is S.R.’s claim. Essentially, her options were life with Down

syndrome “or death by abortion.” It questioned whether under our law,

there is an option for S.R. in the first place and notes that Louisiana law

prohibits anyone from assisting someone in a suicide. Finally, it stated, “As

a Wrongful Life claim is based solely upon the legal fiction that an unborn

child would have chosen being aborted rather than life with an afflicted

condition, a Wrongful Life claim, if recognized in Louisiana, would have to

completely ignore the widely recognized presumption that all human beings

have an innate and compelling instinct for self-preservation and be based

solely upon rank speculations, i.e. what option would the unborn child

choose?”

The Robinsons opposed the exception of no cause of action, arguing

that Louisiana law does recognize the need for compensation for damages

suffered by a child resulting from birth. They argued that the Pitre case is

distinguishable because Pitre dealt with a case of albinism, which was not

reasonably foreseeable, and their case deals with Down syndrome, which is

reasonably foreseeable via testing. They also pointed out that the Davis

court declined to address whether or not Louisiana recognizes an action for

wrongful life and the LPCF’s quotes from Davis are dicta.

On August 24, 2020, the trial court heard argument regarding the

partial exception of no cause of action regarding S.R.’s wrongful life claim.

At the hearing, the Robinsons argued that Dr. Mitchell caused S.R. to have

9

to live with Down syndrome and that is no different than causing the Down

syndrome. The LPCF argued that Dr. Mitchell did not cause S.R. to have

Down syndrome, and Louisiana has never considered “life” to be a damage.

The Robinsons countered by stating that the damage is S.R.’s life of pain

and suffering from living with Down syndrome. At the hearing, the trial

court disagreed with the Robinsons’ arguments and granted the no cause of

action for wrongful life. On August 28, 2020, the trial court rendered its

judgment on the partial exception of no cause of action. It granted the

exception of no cause of action regarding S.R.’s wrongful life claim and

dismissed that cause of action with full prejudice. The Robinsons now

appeal that judgment.

DISCUSSION

The Robinsons’ arguments are all closely connected. In their first two

assignments of error, they argue the trial court erred in granting the no cause

of action and dismissing S.R.’s claim for wrongful life. The remaining

arguments deal with the issues of causation and damages, which are required

elements for a tort claim. For this reason, their arguments will be addressed

together. The primary question we must address is whether the State of

Louisiana acknowledges a claim for wrongful life. The Robinsons argue

that jurisprudence has left the door open for a wrongful life claim and that

but for the negligence of Defendants, S.R. would not have been born with

Down syndrome. The LPCF argues that there is no action for wrongful life

in our civil code or statutory provisions and it is the prerogative of the

legislature, not the courts, to change that. The LPCF highlights that the

10

Defendants could not have caused or prevented S.R.’s Down syndrome

because it is a genetic condition.

An exception of no cause of action raises a question of law. Billiot v.

Billiot, 52,391 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/14/18), 262 So. 3d 401. The standard of

review for an appeal of a no cause of action ruling is de novo. Larkin Dev.

N., L.L.C. v. City of Shreveport, 53,374 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/4/20), 297 So. 3d

980, writ denied, 2020-01026 (La. 12/22/20), 307 So. 3d 1039.

A wrongful life action is brought by or on behalf of the child for

having to endure life in the afflicted conditions. Pitre, supra. It is alleged

that the physician’s negligent practice or failure to properly advise the

parents has led to the birth of a child in the afflicted condition. Id.

In Davis, the Fourth Circuit stated that because of the facts of that

case, it did not need to address whether Louisiana recognizes a wrongful life

claim. However, the issue has been squarely presented to us in the case

before us. Before determining whether S.R.’s action meets the required

elements of a tort claim, we must first determine if wrongful life is a valid

claim in Louisiana. The Louisiana legislature has been silent on whether

Louisiana will recognize a wrongful life claim. For the reasons outlined

below, we do not find this wrongful life claim to be valid in Louisiana.

In Pitre, the Louisiana Supreme Court first addressed a wrongful life

claim. It found that the doctor did not owe a duty to the unconceived child

to protect her from the risk of being born with albinism. Although it seems

that the Louisiana Supreme Court left the door open for future wrongful life

claims, Louisiana courts have found wrongful life claims to be invalid for

various reasons. In Henry v. Taco-Tio, Inc., 614 So. 2d 772 (La. App. 2 Cir.

11

1993), this Court stated, “Louisiana law has never recognized a cause of

action for wrongful life which is based solely on illegitimacy.” See Latullas

v. State, 94-2049 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/23/95), 658 So. 2d 800; Lloyd v.

Howard, 566 So. 2d 424 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1990); Doe v. Cronan, 487 So. 2d

461 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1986). Cerebral palsy was not found to be a reasonably

foreseeable defect that would arise from a botched tubal ligation. Conner v.

Stelly, 2002-549 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02), 830 So. 2d 1102, writs denied,

2003-0129 (La. 3/21/03), 840 So. 2d 540, and 2003-0039 (La. 3/21/03), 840

So. 2d 551. This begs the question of when, if ever, a wrongful life claim

could be a valid cause of action in Louisiana.

The Louisiana First Circuit in Pines v. Dr. Carlos D. Moreno, Inc.,

569 So. 2d 203 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1990) concluded that each plaintiff had

stated a cause of action, of which wrongful life was pled by the plaintiffs,

even though they did not specify what cause of action had been stated.

Wrongful life was not specifically recognized in this case by the First

Circuit. The First Circuit does not recognize partial no causes of action like

the Second Circuit does. As such, we are not sure what cause of action

survived the no cause of action motion.

We are not bound by the decisions of other courts of appeal.

Additionally, we find that Pines is distinguishable from the facts of the case

before us. The Pines case does not indicate that the existence versus non-

existence argument was at the core of the claim. Instead, the mother argued

that the misdiagnosis and subsequent prescription aggravated an existing

condition of the unborn child. The claim label of wrongful life seems to

have come from the court of appeal in its analysis. The trial court stated

12

there was no claim under Pitre, which covers much more than just wrongful

life.

The State of Louisiana historically and presently values the life of the

unborn, as indicated by our legislature, which determines which causes of

action will be available under our law as they are responsible for passing

laws that affect the people of this State. An unborn child shall be considered

as a natural person for whatever relates to its interests from the moment of

conception. La. C.C. art. 26. Under La. C.C. art. 1474, unborn children

have the capacity to receive donations. Under La. C.C. art. 2315.2, both

parents and siblings have recovered for the wrongful death of an unborn

child. See In re Air Crash Disaster at New Orleans, La., 795 F. 2d 1230

(5th Cir. 1986); Danos v. St. Pierre, 402 So. 2d 633 (La. 1981).

Additionally, an unborn child, conceived at the time of the mother’s

accident, and subsequently born alive, would have a cause of action for loss

of consortium. Mason v. Luther, 2005-25 (La. App. 3 Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.

2d 1145.

Succession law also protects the interest of the unborn. An unborn

child conceived at the death of the decedent and thereafter born alive shall

be considered to exist at the death of the decedent. La. C.C. art. 940. An

unborn child’s rights may be preserved after the death of her father by

appointment of a curator. La. C.C. art. 252. Allowing a claim on behalf of

the child that states the child would be better off having not been born is in

opposition to our laws recognizing and protecting the rights of the unborn.

The wrongful life claim is brought by the parents on behalf of the

child because the child is too young or does not have the capacity to bring

13

the claim herself. The parents are speaking on behalf of the child; the child

is not speaking for herself. Regardless of the outcome, a public record

would always exist to remind the child that her parents, and possibly a jury,

determined that she would have been better off had she not been born. 3 If

this argument was allowed to move forward, the courts would be placed in a

position of determining which conditions or disabilities render a life not

worth living. People with similar conditions or disabilities would then be

grouped with the plaintiff and said to have “wrongful” lives. The courts

have no business declaring that among the living there are groups of people

who should have never been born.4

In the case before us, the Robinsons argue on behalf of their child that

it would have been better if she had not been born rather than to be born

with Down syndrome. We disagree that this is a legally recognizable

argument in Louisiana, regardless of how it is captioned. In addition to the

considerations set forth above, this argument sets up a philosophical and

theological debate as to whether a child’s request for abortion is akin to

requesting assistance in suicide. Our jurisprudence recognizes that the first

law of nature is that of self-preservation. A person is conclusively presumed

to act in such a manner as will not unnecessarily expose himself to physical

harm. Lipscomb v. News Star World Pub. Corp., 5 So. 2d 41 (La. App. 2

Cir. 1941); see also Carter v. City Par. Gov’t of E. Baton Rouge, 423 So. 2d

1080 (La. 1982). Additionally, Louisiana criminalizes the assistance of

suicide. La. R.S. 14:32.12.

3
Kathleen Gallagher, Comment, Wrongful Life: Should the Action Be Allowed?,
47 La. L. Rev. 1319 (1987).
4
Id.

14

The Robinsons raise the issue of abortion in this case by stating they

would have aborted within the time limits allowed by law if they would have

known of the defect. The laws of this country, whether agreed upon or not,

give the mother the right to choose abortion within certain guidelines, not

the unborn child. Given that an unborn child cannot choose an abortion of

herself, it follows that a child cannot sue her doctor, or even parents, for not

having been aborted.

Additionally, in their petition, the Robinsons further stated, “Given

the extraordinary suffering experienced by S.R. as a result of being born

with Down syndrome, never being born is and always will be preferred to

being born with Down syndrome.” We cannot agree that a life with Down

syndrome is not worth living. Down syndrome is the most commonly

occurring chromosomal condition. Approximately one in every 700 babies

in the U.S. is born with Down syndrome—around 600 births per year.5 We

have made great societal and medical strides in understanding and treating

children born with Down syndrome. During the first half of the 20 th century,

the majority of children with Down syndrome were placed in institutions.6

The families were convinced, often by members of the medical community,

that the child was less than human and their needs would be so great that the

families would not be able to raise them.7 Now, people with Down

syndrome are active participants in educational, social, and recreational

5
Down Syndrome Myths & Truths, National Down Syndrome Society (last visited
June 4, 2021), https://www.ndss.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NDSS-Myths-and-
Truths-2015.pdf.
6
History of NADS, National Association for Down Syndrome (last visited June 4,
2021), https://www.nads.org/about-us/history-of-nads.
7
Id.

15

activities.8 They are included in the typical education system, participate in

sports, music, art programs, and other activities in their communities.

Increasingly, individuals with Down syndrome graduate from high school

with diplomas, and participate in postsecondary academic and college

programs.9 People with Down syndrome are valued members of their

families and communities, and make meaningful contributions to society. 10

We refuse to regress back to the early 20th century way of thinking

about children with Down syndrome. A life with Down syndrome, although

difficult, does not equate to a life not worth living.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

granting the LPCF’s partial exception of no cause of action and dismissal of

S.R.’s wrongful life claim. Costs associated with this appeal are assigned to

the Robinsons.

AFFIRMED.

8
Down Syndrome Myths & Truths, supra.
9
Id.
10
Id.

16