What about their baby?
When Tashfeen Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook opened fire inside the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center on Dec. 2, their rampage yielded not only 14 dead and a nation still reeling, but a small, forgotten victim: their six-month-old baby girl.
Her name still unknown, their child, now an orphan, remains in the custody of San Bernardino Child Protective Services. Days after the shooting, Farook’s older sister, 32-year-old Saira Khan, petitioned for custody of her niece; the court will hold a hearing on her request next month.
This baby girl sits at the center of a potential legal whirlwind. On one side is something called Juvenile Dependency Court, which typically rules without fanfare on the fate of children who need protection from abusive or neglectful parents. On the other, the singular set of horrors committed by this particular mother and father, and a high-profile investigation that includes close scrutiny of their living relatives.
Given her parents’ carnage, will authorities allow this baby to grow up with her family, or will she be placed in a new one, perhaps with the improbable goal of starting over?
Had her parents died in an accident, the outcome in this case would be simple, family law experts tell MSNBC: The baby would be raised by her aunt.
“The basic outline of a case in which both parents of a baby die is not a rare event. When that happens and family members are willing to take custody, family members get custody,” says Scott Altman, a professor and family law expert at the University of Southern California School of Law.
California law is clear (if not so simply written): When a child is no longer under her parents’ custody, “preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of a child for placement of a child with the relative.”
But before that can happen, even in a conventional dependency case, the law requires a judge and social workers to assess whether that relative is suitable. The law provides a straightforward checklist of logical attributes, including the “good moral character” of the relative and that relative’s ability to provide “a safe, secure and stable environment for the child.”
Lawyers call California’s inclination to place children with family “the relative preference.” But according to Andrew Cain, who supervises legal work in the dependency system for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, “that doesn’t mean the child will be automatically placed with a relative if [the relative] passes a few background checks. The court has to decide what is in the best interest of the child.”
The “best interest” standard is familiar in law, but can authorities reach a conventional decision in a case like this, with circumstances this horrifying, and tempers running at this high a pitch?
“Because this is being done in the public eye, the courts may act differently than they ordinarily would,” says Deborah Wald, a certified family law specialist and member of the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers.









