did not see his mother after she came out of surgery ipso facto means that he could not have cared for her during this time. Nor did Fioto testify, for example, that he visited the hospital in order to discuss with doctors his mother’s course of treatment or recuperation. Fioto also failed to testify about prior hospital visits that he made in order to provide care for his mother such that the jury could have reasonably inferred that the visit at issue in this appeal was made with the aim of caring for his mother. In short, Fioto provided’ no facts from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that he intended to provide care for his mother at the hospital or actually gave her such support during his visit. Cf. Scamihorn v. Gen. Truck Drivers, 282 F.3d 1078, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). At best, plaintiffs trial testimony only
holding that plaintiff had cared for his father who suffered severe depression after murder of his daughter within meaning of fmla interim regulation because inter alia he discussed with his father grief associated with murder and provided reassuring physical presence to his father holding that police chiefs son who alleged that he was denied an interview for a position because his father had criticized the local officials did not have standing to assert the first amendment rights of his father holding that plaintiff has satisfied the elements of standing because he alleges to have personally suffered emotionally as a result of defendants failure to vigorously investigate and prosecute several suspects for the murder of his father and his request for damages and an independent inquiry into defendants investigation will likely redress his suffering holding that the presumption of legitimacy shifts the burden of persuasion to the putative father to establish that he did not father the child holding that the natural father who was incarcerated failed without justifiable cause to communicate significantly with his daughter and noting that he called his daughter once and that he did not attempt mail communication with her despite his awareness that the adoptive parents were represented by counsel and therefore he could have initiated contact through their counsel or the court to communicate with her