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

[jjenny]

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

These thousands were paid to BCH for treating her.

 

[jjenny]

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.

Since she is confined to a wheelchair, there is no effective treatment for somatoform either. So what is the point of psychiatric care if it doesn't work? That is assuming she ever had anything resembling somatoform to begin with.

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Didn't they try to transfer the care to other hospitals but it fell through?

No medical team would remain "neutral" for long - as soon as they made some kind of recommendations the parents would perceive them as either for or against them. JMO.

 

[tumbleweed77]

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

You are correct the word I should have used was accusation.

 

[tumbleweed77]

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.

The power to make a decision regarding the health care of children who they accuse parents of abusing. If they are a member of the treating team they should not also be a member of the investigating team

 

[Harmony 2]

Mod note: Thread is open but please be sure to:

* link when making statements of fact
* stay on the topic of the thread
* keep politics out of the discussion as we have a designated area for that topic

Please tone down the snark and personalized posts. Those type of posts make it uncomfortable to come in here to read and they are unnecessary. Please discuss in a civil manner. If you come across an offensive post click the alert triangle and do not respond.

bumping up guidelines for posting...

 

[jaunty-girl]

The power to make a decision regarding the health care of children who they accuse parents of abusing. If they are a member of the treating team they should not also be a member of the investigating team

I see. So if they report suspected abuse, then they should no longer do anything to care for the child. I am hoping that isn't what you meant but that's how it reads.
A child is brought to the ER
Doctors examine the child and believe there is abuse or neglect and they report it.
Doctors are no longer able to make decisions on how to treat said child.

BTW did you find the link about the custody, because I am genuinely interested to read about what the state was trying to do.

 

[Linda7NJ]

....
Addressed repeatedly

 

[tumbleweed77]

I see. So if they report suspected abuse, then they should no longer do anything to care for the child. I am hoping that isn't what you meant but thaexactly ow it reads.
A child is brought to the ER
Doctors examine the child and believe there is abuse or neglect and they report it.
Doctors are no longer able to make decisions on how to treat said child.

BTW did you find the link about the custody, because I am genuinely interested to read about what the state was trying to do.

The state filing is not posted as you are well aware. This is how the state operates. i thought you were aware that child services files for TPR not indefinite foster care. What exactlydo you think the state was trying to do? You can believe whatever you want the law is clear on what can and can not be done by the state

the doctors should stabilize the patient in emergency situations and transfer the care to a doctor who is not a member of the investigative team. In this case they believed she had so mato for which is a mental illness not linked to death. If their position was correct then there was no emergency situation. There was a period of sixteen months where a doctor outside the investigative could have been assigned to oversee her care.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The state files for a change of custody.
The state does not file for termination of parental rights when a child is taken into the states care.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AnaTeresa]

This thread is exhausting. I don't even know how we can still be going round and round - without Justina's medical files, it's all speculation at this point.

 

[jaunty-girl]

The state filing is not posted as you are well aware. This is how the state operates. i thought you were aware that child services files for TPR not indefinite foster care. What exactlydo you think the state was trying to do? You can believe whatever you want the law is clear on what can and can not be done by the state

the doctors should stabilize the patient in emergency situations and transfer the care to a doctor who is not a member of the investigative team. In this case they believed she had so mato for which is a mental illness not linked to death. If their position was correct then there was no emergency situation. There was a period of sixteen months where a doctor outside the investigative could have been assigned to oversee her care.

You made an assertion and if we have no documentation, then that is just your opinion. I do not believe the state wanted permanent custody. They had been trying to transfer that girl out for an eternity. She would have been placed in a different situation months and months ago if her father could control his mouth. There is ample evidence that they were trying to do something with her. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Because to state that for a fact they wanted permanent custody, you need something to show that.

On the second point, is your issue with BCH, because that's how we got here. Someone stated that BCH should be limited in power and I asked specifically what powers and you jumped in. Now it sounds like you think all hospitals should behave this way. That is too broad a topic for me to even entertain.

But I will say again, we have a plethora of linked articles in this thread, that document the steps the state was taking to try to transfer her out of BCH and to return custody. Lou just wanted to be a thorn in everyones side, including his own daughters.

As someone else has said, this is exhausting. Having to rehash things over and over with no concession, in the face of facts, is tiresome.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Massachusetts
Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights in Massachusetts
Ann. Laws Ch. 119, §§ 26, 29C; Ch. 210, § 3
The Department of Children and Families shall file a petition to terminate parental rights under the following circumstances:
The child has been abandoned.
The parent has been convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent, of aiding, abetting, attempting, conspiring or soliciting to commit such murder or voluntary manslsughter, or of a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent.
The child has been in foster care for 15 of the immediately preceding 22 months.
In determining whether such action is in the best interests of the child, the court shall consider the ability, capacity, fitness, and readiness of the child’s parent. In considering the fitness of the child’s parent, the court shall consider, without limitation, the following factors:
The child has been abused or neglected as a result of the acts or omissions of one or both parents; the parents were offered services and have been unable to make a substantial change in the circumstances that led to the abuse or neglect.
The child has been in the custody of the department for at least 6 months, and the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child.
The child is age 4 or older and has been in an out-of-home placement for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 months, and the child cannot be returned home.
The child is younger than age 4 and has been in an out-of-home placement for at least 6 of the immediately preceding 12 months and cannot be returned home.
The parent, without excuse, fails to provide proper care for the child, and there is a reasonable expectation that the parent will not be able to provide proper care within a reasonable time.
Circumstances That Are Grounds for Termination of Parental Rights (continued) in Massachusetts
Ann. Laws Ch. 119, §§ 26, 29C; Ch. 210, § 3
Because of the lengthy absence of the parent or the parent’s inability to meet the needs of the child, the child has formed a strong, positive bond with a substitute caregiver, the removal of the child from the caregiver would likely cause serious psychological harm to the child, and the parent lacks the capacity to meet the special needs of the child upon removal.
There has been a lack of effort by the parent to remedy conditions that create a risk of harm due to abuse or neglect of the child.
There has been severe or repetitive conduct of a physically, emotionally, or sexually abusive or neglectful nature toward the child or toward another child in the home.
The parent has willfully failed to visit the child when the child has not been in his or her custody.
The parent has willfully failed to support the child when the child has not been in his or her custody. Failure to support shall mean that the parent or other person has failed to make a material contribution to the child’s care when the contribution has been requested by the department or ordered by the court.
The parent suffers from a condition that is reasonably likely to continue for a prolonged, indeterminate period, such as alcohol or drug addiction, mental deficiency or mental illness, and the condition makes the parent unlikely to provide minimally acceptable care for the child.
The parent has been convicted of a felony that the court finds is of such a nature that the child will be deprived of a stable home for a period of years. Incarceration in and of itself shall not be grounds for termination of parental rights.
There has been a prior pattern of parental neglect or misconduct or a felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child, and a likelihood of future harm to the child exists based on such prior pattern or assault.
Circumstances That Are Exceptions to Termination of Parental Rights in Massachusetts
Ann. Laws Ch. 119, § 26
The department need not file a petition to terminate parental rights if:
The child is being cared for by a relative.
The department has documented in the case plan a compelling reason for determining that terminating the parents’ rights would not be in the best interests of the child.
The family of the child has not been provided, consistent with the time period in the case plan, such services as the department deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child’s home if reasonable efforts as set forth in § 29C are required to be made with respect to the child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.adoption.net/adoptive-pa...ights-termination-laws-adoption#Massachusetts

As you can clearly read, children taken into the custody of the state of Massachusetts don't automatically have "termination of parental rights" filed against their parents.

 

[Donjeta]

Well I think Lou would have screamed to high heaven if the state had even whispered the words termination of parental rights

 

[Elley Mae]

The parents, DCF, any foster parents, and the child, if he or she is over 14, will also have to discuss and sign a service plan aimed at re- unifying the family or helping the family resolve the problems that led to the C&P.

A service plan is an agreement between the parents and DCF that includes a list of what each family member and DCF is expected to do. The service plan includes jobs that must be successfully completed by each family member so that the child can return home. These jobs can include taking parenting or anger management classes, going to counseling, finding suitable housing, or submitting to drug or alcohol screens. While the case is open, DCF, the parties, and their attorneys will monitor whether everyone, including DCF, is completing their tasks.

http://www.clcm.org/edcandp.html


If the judge decides that the parents are not fit to rear the child and that it would be in the child’s best interest to terminate the parents’ rights to the child, the judge can free the child for adoption. The judge may also award permanent custody of the child to DCF with the goal of reuniting the family at a later date.

If I were the Pelletier's I would never have agreed to this either. They were smart not to sign this.

 

[Linda7NJ]

The parents, DCF, any foster parents, and the child, if he or she is over 14, will also have to discuss and sign a service plan aimed at re- unifying the family or helping the family resolve the problems that led to the C&P.

A service plan is an agreement between the parents and DCF that includes a list of what each family member and DCF is expected to do. The service plan includes jobs that must be successfully completed by each family member so that the child can return home. These jobs can include taking parenting or anger management classes, going to counseling, finding suitable housing, or submitting to drug or alcohol screens. While the case is open, DCF, the parties, and their attorneys will monitor whether everyone, including DCF, is completing their tasks.

http://www.clcm.org/edcandp.html


If the judge decides that the parents are not fit to rear the child and that it would be in the child’s best interest to terminate the parents’ rights to the child, the judge can free the child for adoption. The judge may also award permanent custody of the child to DCF with the goal of reuniting the family at a later date.

If I were the Pelletier's I would never have agreed to this either. They were smart not to sign this.

It really doesn't matter if they sign the case plan aka service plan or not. It will simply be noted that the parents refused to sign. It's then signed by the presenter and witnessed.

It's a way for the state to document what the plan is and that the parents were offered and are aware of the service plan.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SilkySifaka]

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.

THIS! it is why I totally distrust BCH. I have never ever heard of a decent doctor refusing a patient a second opinion.

 

[jaunty-girl]

THIS! it is why I totally distrust BCH. I have never ever heard of a decent doctor refusing a patient a second opinion.

There are MANY things Lou claimed happened, that I have a very hard time believing.

 

[forthelost]

There are MANY things Lou claimed happened, that I have a very hard time believing.

Like how he made it seem like she'd been admitted into the psychiatric ward from the ER when she really went to the neurology ward and stayed there for six weeks. Or that she just had the flu when the admission notes said it was for a cluster of other symptoms.

 

[Morag]

He also kept claiming that Justina was near death, when she plainly wasn't.