Family battling Children’s Hospital to bring teen home for Christmas #2

[Linda7NJ]

The state filed for termination of parental rights. That is what the state files when they want custody. They then have eighteen months to have a trial. This is so the child does not remain in limbo for the rest of their childhood. No, they are not required to have the trial. They have the option as in this case to drop it when they determine there is not enough evidence for determination.



no I do not think it took sixteen months to get the improvement she got, as she got over the flu she probably showed improvements. I do not think psychiatric help is what gave her that minimal help. And if psychiatric help is not what gave her those improvements then we can certainly question the need to insist the parents only treat so somataform a condition of getting her back. The parents have a duty to care for their daughter and they were being told not to treat her for a physical Illness a doctor diagnosed her with. Child services put them in a precarious situation where all their choices would cause their child pain.



if this child was inappropriately and dangerously treated medically then the anger and frustration should be directed towards her parent a appointed doctors. Her parents are not doctors and should not be expected to know which doctor is correct. Child services is also not to be expected to know which opinion is correct. Child services needs to focus it's attention to cases where the abuse is evidence based, not subjective opinion of some doctors. A difference in opinion between licensed doctors should not be just cause for a child's removal.

The state did not file for TPR.
There is supposed to be concurrent planning when the state files for custody. There are different filings for different situations. Sometimes its care, custody and control, sometimes just custody..etc.. Depends on the situation.

There is zero documentation that we have seen the child even had the flu.

Flu wasn't even discussed.

Mom gave a list of seemingly unrelated symptoms.

Have you read the available doctor notes? judges rulings? Ect..

Cause if you're just listening to Lou, you're listening to a proven liar.

All IMO.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tumbleweed77]

Who said it required 16 months?
The length of time it took to get her home was her parents doing.

I take issue with "little improvement"
She hasn't needed hospitalization for a VERY long time.

The state wasn't required to have a termination of parental rights trial.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The state filed for termination of parental rights. That is what the state files when they want custody. They then have eighteen months to have a trial. This is so the child does not remain in limbo for the rest of their childhood. No, they are not required to have the trial. They have the option as in this case to drop it when they determine there is not enough evidence for determination.

no I do not think it took sixteen months to get the improvement she got, as she got over the flu she probably showed improvements. I do not think psychiatric help is what gave her that minimal help. And if psychiatric help is not what gave her those improvements then we can certainly question the need to insist the parents only treat so somataform a condition of getting her back. The parents have a duty to care for their daughter and they were being told not to treat her for a physical Illness a doctor diagnosed her with. Child services put them in a precarious situation where all their choices would cause their child pain.

if this child was inappropriately and dangerously treated medically then the anger and frustration should be directed towards her parent a appointed doctors. Her parents are not doctors and should not be expected to know which doctor is correct. Child services is also not to be expected to know which opinion is correct. Child services needs to focus it's attention to cases where the abuse is evidence based, not subjective opinion of some doctors. A difference in opinion between licensed doctors should not be just cause for a child's removal.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The state filed for termination of parental rights. That is what the state files when they want custody. They then have eighteen months to have a trial. This is so the child does not remain in limbo for the rest of their childhood. No, they are not required to have the trial. They have the option as in this case to drop it when they determine there is not enough evidence for determination.



no I do not think it took sixteen months to get the improvement she got, as she got over the flu she probably showed improvements. I do not think psychiatric help is what gave her that minimal help. And if psychiatric help is not what gave her those improvements then we can certainly question the need to insist the parents only treat so somataform a condition of getting her back. The parents have a duty to care for their daughter and they were being told not to treat her for a physical Illness a doctor diagnosed her with. Child services put them in a precarious situation where all their choices would cause their child pain.



if this child was inappropriately and dangerously treated medically then the anger and frustration should be directed towards her parent a appointed doctors. Her parents are not doctors and should not be expected to know which doctor is correct. Child services is also not to be expected to know which opinion is correct. Child services needs to focus it's attention to cases where the abuse is evidence based, not subjective opinion of some doctors. A difference in opinion between licensed doctors should not be just cause for a child's removal.

Please provide a link to support your assertion the state filed for termination of parental rights when they filed for custody.

Thank you in advance


<modsnip>




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[liljim]

"A difference in opinion between licensed doctors should not be just cause for a child's removal."

of course it should be, depending on the circumstances of the case.

someone that thinks BCH was way out of bounds here and that their position is indefensible please answer this - if the parents had decided to agree with BCH instead and deny justina treatment for mitochondrial disease, would you now be defending their right to do so?

if the Tufts doctor/s had then contacted DCF to report medical abuse they would have been right to do so, no?

if you hold the position that it has been proven to you that BCH is totally wrong about this and is guilty of all/most of things alleged here and by the parents supporters - then certainly you wouldnt argue that the parents should be allowed to withhold her treatment for her mito right? i mean, since it so obvious that she has mitochondrial disease.

so surely that wouldnt be a case of "well two licensed doctors disagree so the family can choose what course to follow and the state should never have any cause to get involved", or would it?

nothing is that black/white.

i STILL cant say for sure if BCH made all the right decisions in this case, but it certainly is far from proven that they made the wrong ones. or that they acted with negligence or with any nefarious purposes...

 

[Donjeta]

Didn't the admission notes say that Justina had trouble with her leg turning into pronation and it required a leg brace in 2012 and then odd movements spread into the rest of her body? And the Globe reported that her friends took turns eating in the classroom with her because she couldn't walk to the school cafeteria.

It doesn't sound like a star skater to me.

 

[Donjeta]

No "vast conspiracy" in the Justina Pelletier Case.

Boston Children's Hospital, DCF and the Judge were wrong in this case, and according to The Boston Globe:

The battle over Justina’s future was one of five cases involving Children’s in the last 18 months where a disputed diagnosis led to parents losing custody or being threatened with that extreme step. These conflicts, which typically involve controversial diagnoses at the medical frontier, have exposed the consequences of the ongoing failure to upgrade medical expertise within the state’s Department of Children and Families. The agency, many observers believe, is simply not equipped to properly referee such cases.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyl...-for-months/5TGcy5X8IxQusdtXgRmXdK/story.html

Are there more?

It appears this is presented as evidence that DCF must have been wrong to take custody again as there are five other cases of this happening but there is nothing further in the article to show any evidence that DCF was wrong in those five other cases....

Yes, sometimes children are taken into custody because a hospital initiates a DCF investigation. This is because hospitals are mandatory reporters. It doesn't mean that the parents losing custody or being threatened with the extreme step were always in the right.

 

[tumbleweed77]

Yes I would support the parents in treating somataform rather than mito, where have I indicated I would not support that?

The answer isn't black and white and I do not think BCH was negligent in their diagnosis. I think the state was wrong to take a side between licensed doctor's opinions. If her doctors were treating her in a way that was endangering her then they need their licenses revoked, I have not heard that was happening. If the doctors were not endangering her then it is disingenuous to claim that the parents are.

yes I have read the bits and pieces of released info. My experiences in family court tell me all the evidence won't be presented at the hearings. It is the trial transcript that would have all the evidence including testimony by the physician who diagnosed mito. Without his proper testimony and cross examination no one would be able to determine if the parents were uunreasonable in their insistence that she continue her mito treatment.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Yes I would support the parents in treating somataform rather than mito, where have I indicated I would not support that?



The answer isn't black and white and I do not think BCH was negligent in their diagnosis. I think the state was wrong to take a side between licensed doctor's opinions. If her doctors were treating her in a way that was endangering her then they need their licenses revoked, I have not heard that was happening. If the doctors were not endangering her then it is disingenuous to claim that the parents are.



yes I have read the bits and pieces of released info. My experiences in family court tell me all the evidence won't be presented at the hearings. It is the trial transcript that would have all the evidence including testimony by the physician who diagnosed mito. Without his proper testimony and cross examination no one would be able to determine if the parents were uunreasonable in their insistence that she continue her mito treatment.

Still waiting on that link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

Iirc, BCH never said Justina couldn't take the vitamins recommended by Korson. All this talk about "treatment" for mitochondrial syndrome versus treatment for other medical and psychiatric conditions is just noise. There is NO effective treatment for mito! It's not like BCH was denying her some cure or vaccine. I read that she WAS taking the vitamins while there.

The controversy is that the parents wanted ONLY the vitamins, and only "this" doctor, and no other treatments. They completely reject any psychiatric component to her overall condition. That is where the medical negligence comes in. They want to withhold psychiatric care.

The parents reject any efforts to coordinate Justina's care with a team approach. Hopefully they have changed their minds, so as to keep custody. We'll see.

 

[Elley Mae]

I would like to see children's hospital have their power pulled and I hope that this case makes people think twice about going there. There are other hospitals around, and don't forget, it's a business they are there to make money, and they did.

 

[K_Z]

BCH is a world class institution, and there is little disagreement about that. No one is forced to go there. People come from out of state to seek care there. The Pelletiers did. There is no need to bad mouth an entire institution, even if you disagree with one area or one situation. Why would any reasonable person want to deprive others in need from making their own choices to seek care there? Thousands upon thousands of children have been successfully treated there.

Sometimes paranoia is just paranoia. It's not reasonable to reject an entire institution of professionals, and make sweeping declarations that no one else should have the right to be treated there. That's very disordered thinking, IMO.

 

[tumbleweed77]

Still waiting on that link.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps you should link the original filings since you know so much about the family courts inner workings.

 

[tumbleweed77]

BCH is a world class institution, and there is little disagreement about that. No one is forced to go there. People come from out of state to seek care there. The Pelletiers did. There is no need to bad mouth an entire institution, even if you disagree with one area or one situation. Why would any reasonable person want to deprive others in need from making their own choices to seek care there? Thousands upon thousands of children have been successfully treated there.

Sometimes paranoia is just paranoia. It's not reasonable to reject an entire institution of professionals, and make sweeping declarations that no one else should have the right to be treated there. That's very disordered thinking, IMO.

Saying their power should be limited is not the same as saying they should be shut down.

 

[K_Z]

Oh, and no one made any $ off Justina's admission. Hundreds of thousands lost, if not millions.

 

[jaunty-girl]

Perhaps you should link the original filings since you know so much about the family courts inner workings.

Actually you made the assertion of fact more than once.

The state filed for termination of parental rights. That is what the state files when they want custody.

I'd like to see the filing as well, I didn't realize they were going for permanent custody.

TIA

 

[jaunty-girl]

Saying their power should be limited is not the same as saying they should be shut down.

What power would you have pulled? They are mandatory reporters, would you want them to not report potential abuse?

 

[tumbleweed77]

Iirc, BCH never said Justina couldn't take the vitamins recommended by Korson. All this talk about "treatment" for mitochondrial syndrome versus treatment for other medical and psychiatric conditions is just noise. There is NO effective treatment for mito! It's not like BCH was denying her some cure or vaccine. I read that she WAS taking the vitamins while there.

The controversy is that the parents wanted ONLY the vitamins, and only "this" doctor, and no other treatments. They completely reject any psychiatric component to her overall condition. That is where the medical negligence comes in. They want to withhold psychiatric care.

The parents reject any efforts to coordinate Justina's care with a team approach. Hopefully they have changed their minds, so as to keep custody. We'll see.

The parents were not charged with medical neglect but with medical abuse. You don't get charged with medical abuse for treating your child with vitamins. The BCH team is just as guilty of not approaching Justina's treatment with a team approach when they did not include her treating doctor in the team and denied the parents access to a second opinion.

 

[tumbleweed77]

What power would you have pulled? They are mandatory reporters, would you want them to not report potential abuse?

They can certainly report suspected abuse. A neutral medical team should have conducted the investigation. And her treatment should have been assigned to another medical facility so there would have been less animosity. A neutral medical team could have approached the parents in a less accusatory way and they could have moved forward with treatment.

 

[jaunty-girl]

They can certainly report suspected abuse. A neutral medical team should have conducted the investigation. And her treatment should have been assigned to another medical facility so there would have been less animosity. A neutral medical team could have approached the parents in a less accusatory way and they could have moved forward with treatment.

That's all well and good, what power would you have taken from them? If not the power to report, then the power to make decisions? The power to manage things in their hospital? I don't understand this line of thinking, what power did they have that you think they shouldn't have.

 

[jjenny]

The parents were not charged with medical neglect but with medical abuse. You don't get charged with medical abuse for treating your child with vitamins. The BCH team is just as guilty of not approaching Justina's treatment with a team approach when they did not include her treating doctor in the team and denied the parents access to a second opinion.

Parents were not charged with anything. There were no charges against them whatsoever. Obviously because there was no evidence against them.