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

[CathyinTexas]

And sometimes people actually are wronged.
This alleged case sounds so much like Justina's, some people were actually confused thinking the case was about her.
But it's not. And it doesn't sound like that girl had loud parents, as we haven't heard about this case until now. But BCH is still accused of doing virtually identical thing as it alleged to have done to Justina.

There is also the Elizabeth Wray case which was just before Justina's. She may have still been in there when Justina was admitted. Her parents are too afraid to speak out. Maybe they will get the courage to file a lawsuit.

https://www.facebook.com/freeelizabethwray

 

[CathyinTexas]

This is another similar case of medical abuse and DCF. The girl died and the mother died later of a heart attack. This is her official testimony to lawmakers.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/kid/docs/HS_DCF/121808/Kimberly Castro December 18 2008.pdf

 

[CathyinTexas]

http://liftingtheveil.blog.com/2014/04/05/will-the-real-judge-joseph-johnston-please-stand-up/

 

[CathyinTexas]

Family liking the counselor is good for the cooperation usually but I think that the counselor having had cosy dinners and written defensive articles about future clients wouldn't be real professional. And Hokanson could be considered a not quite impartial party too since he has old opinions about the family and hypothetically if there was already some problem with medical abuse or negligence when he was treating Justina he might have already missed it once.

I think that in controversial DCF cases it would be best for the counselor to be someone new and unbiased who hasn't already made up their mind in any direction before he takes the case.

\
That person would be hard to find at this late hour, with all of the publicity, imo. I certainly wouldn't trust anyone that BCH or DCF recommends.

 

[jaunty-girl]

I wonder how many parents with sick children pass through BCH without DCF getting involved. I mean it has to be more than a few right?

 

[believe09]

I wonder how many parents with sick children pass through BCH without DCF getting involved. I mean it has to be more than a few right?

This isn't a case about the many, though, it is a case or cases about the few. There are large numbers of physicians, some employed by BCH, that have been charged and convicted of molesting patients. For example. I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of patients who passed through hospitals who weren't molested. Does that minimize the well documented experiences of the few?

One aspect about this case that troubles me is the possibility that simply being BCH or a representative of BCH means that the weight of this hospital and the influence it carries can remove a child from successful medical treatment and the family who loves her.

I realize that there are posters committed to the belief that Justina was being medically abused by her family and I respect your point of view although I do not agree.

The idea that there has been no completely disinterested party as a decision maker, it appears, in the family court regarding this case and the knowledge that there are other cases out there...other families with similar complaints raises the possibility in my mind that BCH and DCF did what the Pelletiers claimed they did.

 

[MyBelle]

This is another similar case of medical abuse and DCF. The girl died and the mother died later of a heart attack. This is her official testimony to lawmakers.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/kid/docs/HS_DCF/121808/Kimberly Castro December 18 2008.pdf

The only similarity I see is that the parent didn't agree with doctors in multiple facilities. Her child died of a disease often incurable.

I find it fascinating how parents take their sick child for medical care and when they get the truth, they decide to fight not the illness but the professionals trying to help their child. They put their own need to be "right" above what is best for the child. Blaming it all on the doctors rather than themselves accomplishes nothing helpful, especially for the child.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

This isn't a case about the many, though, it is a case or cases about the few. There are large numbers of physicians, some employed by BCH, that have been charged and convicted of molesting patients. For example. I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of patients who passed through hospitals who weren't molested. Does that minimize the well documented experiences of the few?

One aspect about this case that troubles me is the possibility that simply being BCH or a representative of BCH means that the weight of this hospital and the influence it carries can remove a child from successful medical treatment and the family who loves her.

I realize that there are posters committed to the belief that Justina was being medically abused by her family and I respect your point of view although I do not agree.

The idea that there has been no completely disinterested party as a decision maker, it appears, in the family court regarding this case and the knowledge that there are other cases out there...other families with similar complaints raises the possibility in my mind that BCH and DCF did what the Pelletiers claimed they did.

BBM. If Justina was being treated successfully at a different hospital, why did her parents decide to take her to a another hospital in an ambulance? Why did they agree to have her admitted as an inpatient for three days? I don't know of any hospital that would admit a "well" person for three days nor do I know of any insurance company that would pay the bill.

I think a review of the facts in this case shows Tufts did report Justina's parents to DCF at one point and the complaint involved the parents' failure to seek psychiatric evaluation. Is it a coincidence professionals at BCH also focused on a psychiatric component of her condition? I don't believe it is.

 

[annahanna]

http://news.gnom.es/pr/personhood-u...motion-calling-for-justinas-immediate-release

".....The motion will be filed on May 30 at 1:00 P.M. at the Edward W. Brooke Courthouse on 24 New Chardon Street, Boston. Liberty Counsel, which is representing the Pelletier family, and Rev. Patrick Mahoney, family spokesperson, will hold a news conference in front of the court at 1:30 P.M. after the filing.

The Liberty Counsel has put out a press release stating that the meeting with the medical team from Tufts went well. Attorney Richard Mast stated on video (discussed below) that the meeting with the medical team went well. He described it as "cordial." There were no statements that Dr Korson was or was not a part of the medical team. There were no statements about Justina's diagnosis or diagnoses. There were no statements about any immediate changes in her medical care. In fact, the Pelletiers and their spokespeople were uncharacteristically quiet about the entire meeting. (IMO)

According to Attorney Moran, the 60B motion was filed around noon. Why would they speed up the timetable for the filing? Why did the press conference not take place?

I did not find an announcement of the cancellation of the press conference on Rev Mahoney's twitter feed or Facebook, the #freejustina twitter feed or Facebook, the Miracle for Justina Facebook, the Liberty Counsel's twitter or Facebook, or anywhere else. Was the press conference canceled because the press did not show up or because the DCF/Tufts team meeting did not go as well as the Pelletier's spokesmen claimed? Perhaps there is some sort of new agreement for confidentiality between the parents and the medical team?

Rev Mahoney's twitter has a picture of Lou and Linda Pelletier with Richard Mast and Philip Moran reportedly right after the motion was filed. Linda appears to be crying in the photo. If she had just received the "good news" that DCF and Attorney Hathaway would agree or ascent to the motion, why would she be crying?

The youtube video of attorneys Richard Mast and Philip Moran "explaining" the successes of the day was not a press conference. There were no journalists in sight, there has been no mainstream media reporting of the "successful" meeting or the filing of the motion, and the "interview" was shot on an iPhone. So far, I have not seen an official transcript of the "interview" but I did listen to it a number of times. Both attorneys appeared (IMO) to be uncomfortable - stuttering, run-on sentences - something I would not have expected from experienced attorneys. I am not a transcriptionist, but below are a few quotes I was able to transcribe from the "interview."

Attorney Philip Moran:
"I filed a motion on behalf of Lou and Linda Pelletier this morning at about noon time."
"Rule 60B motion."
"We were hoping Judge Johnson would act on it today."
"We had indications from both DCF and Nancy Hathaway who is the attorney for Justina that they would not …. DCF would not oppose it, Nancy Hathaway indicated that she would assent to the motion, so that she could get home."

RE: "Polanowicz plan" "As of this morning the fourth step or the fourth leg of that criteria has been met. And as of now it is our position that they have complied with the entire plan that Secretary Polanatwitz has set forth and that it is time for Justina to go home. And we were hoping that he would act upon it."

The Judge stated that he would give the other side "at least two weeks to respond."

Nancy Hathaway joined them in chambers after a chance meeting. She indicated that she:
"Has not read it but she would probably ascent to it"
After leaving chambers, Attorney Hathaway called the DCF attorneys who said that "they had not actually received it but that they requested two weeks to respond to it."
"That seems to me to be much too long a period of time. If they are going to assent to it or agree to it, they could simply indicate that they assent to the motion. And we could go back to Judge Johnson and have him approve it or allow the motion without even a hearing. And that was one of the alternatives that I told him that we were looking for. He seems content on having a 2 week period for them to respond and then set a definite time after that for a hearing and that will take us to June 20th hearing - which is going to be automatically allowed anyway because that's when the 6 month period under his own review will come up."
"He seemed hung up on procedure as opposed to form."
"Hopefully, next week there will be some doings and we will be able to come back before him to expedite Justins's return home."

Unseen female voice:
"So it could still take 2 weeks:"

"Well, it could but we are hoping that …..Rev Mahoney is going to meet with Sect Polanowicz on Monday morning and we are hoping at the end of that meeting things will be move forward very quickly."

Attorney Richard Mast from Liberty Counsel: "At the end of the day we are really excited that the meeting with the Tufts health team went really well."

Call me cynical, but this does not sound like there is any sort of agreement in place to release Justina or even to assent to the Pelletier's motion to vacate the custody order. It would be normal professional standards to want to read the motion and investigate the facts before agreeing with or arguing the motion. It sounds like both attorney Hathaway and the DCF attorneys were cordial and noncommittal. It sounds like the The family's attorneys have finally convinced them to keep quirt while they ride the wave of (what they think is) public opinion and try to expedite Justina's release before DCF realizes that they have not met the intent of the reunification plan.

I hope that I am very wrong, but I don't think this is over.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1446

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cy1eVtJvoI&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

 

[annahanna]

I wonder how many parents with sick children pass through BCH without DCF getting involved. I mean it has to be more than a few right?

Tens of thousands of sick children are treated each year at Boston Children's hospital without any suspicion of medical abuse. Most familys that I know who have had chronically or critically ill children treated at BCH have been happy with and grateful for their child's care.

On the other hand, Dr Korson has said that he has had 40+ Mito patients where medical abuse was suspected ny other providers - he came to the abuse conclusion in only 3 of those cases. Perhaps Dr Korson is part of the problem?

" Of the more than 40 mito cases where suspicions were raised about a parent of one of his patients, he supported the accusation in three cases."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

 

[annahanna]

\
That person would be hard to find at this late hour, with all of the publicity, imo. I certainly wouldn't trust anyone that BCH or DCF recommends.

Not so hard. I don't think this case is as widely known as it would seem by reading this forum. In fact, I remember someone commenting here recently that their sister in West Hartford had been unaware of this case.

Professional psychologists and psychiatrists are trained to put aside their biases when meeting with a patient for the first time. Once they have been treating a patient or involved with a family for a while it is much harder to see the true picture.

it is completely inappropriate for Justina's psychologist to agree to counsel the family in light of the abuse allegations and his long term relationship with the child and parents. I am surprised that he agreed to do it.

 

[annahanna]

Found it!

My sister lives in West Hartford and she didn't know anything about it two weeks ago. It is disappointing that others in their town wouldn't care about this injustice.

 

[annahanna]

Some posters thought that Tufts did not want to get involved in treatment of Justina, but here is an article on the current status about it.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...l-uncertain/Y7qvYTGsq8QklkxUZvuUgP/story.html

"Still, for the family, not all the news out of Children’s was bad. The most encouraging sign had come in May.....A three-person hospital ethics committee, convened at the request of the Pelletiers issued a decidedly measured report on Justina’s case. ....As for its recommendation that Justina’s case be reviewed by doctors outside Children’s, previous efforts to do that — first at Tufts, then at Baystate in Springfield — had already fizzled."

Tufts declined to review and take on this case in April 2013. They were brought back into the case by the judge's order in early 2014. I am sure this was the outcome of a lot of discussion and negotiation,

 

[epiphany]

The Liberty Counsel has put out a press release stating that the meeting with the medical team from Tufts went well. Attorney Richard Mast stated on video (discussed below) that the meeting with the medical team went well. He described it as "cordial." There were no statements that Dr Korson was or was not a part of the medical team. There were no statements about Justina's diagnosis or diagnoses. There were no statements about any immediate changes in her medical care. In fact, the Pelletiers and their spokespeople were uncharacteristically quiet about the entire meeting. (IMO)

According to Attorney Moran, the 60B motion was filed around noon. Why would they speed up the timetable for the filing? Why did the press conference not take place?

I did not find an announcement of the cancellation of the press conference on Rev Mahoney's twitter feed or Facebook, the #freejustina twitter feed or Facebook, the Miracle for Justina Facebook, the Liberty Counsel's twitter or Facebook, or anywhere else. Was the press conference canceled because the press did not show up or because the DCF/Tufts team meeting did not go as well as the Pelletier's spokesmen claimed? Perhaps there is some sort of new agreement for confidentiality between the parents and the medical team?

Rev Mahoney's twitter has a picture of Lou and Linda Pelletier with Richard Mast and Philip Moran reportedly right after the motion was filed. Linda appears to be crying in the photo. If she had just received the "good news" that DCF and Attorney Hathaway would agree or ascent to the motion, why would she be crying?

The youtube video of attorneys Richard Mast and Philip Moran "explaining" the successes of the day was not a press conference. There were no journalists in sight, there has been no mainstream media reporting of the "successful" meeting or the filing of the motion, and the "interview" was shot on an iPhone. So far, I have not seen an official transcript of the "interview" but I did listen to it a number of times. Both attorneys appeared (IMO) to be uncomfortable - stuttering, run-on sentences - something I would not have expected from experienced attorneys. I am not a transcriptionist, but below are a few quotes I was able to transcribe from the "interview."

Attorney Philip Moran:
"I filed a motion on behalf of Lou and Linda Pelletier this morning at about noon time."
"Rule 60B motion."
"We were hoping Judge Johnson would act on it today."
"We had indications from both DCF and Nancy Hathaway who is the attorney for Justina that they would not …. DCF would not oppose it, Nancy Hathaway indicated that she would assent to the motion, so that she could get home."

RE: "Polanowicz plan" "As of this morning the fourth step or the fourth leg of that criteria has been met. And as of now it is our position that they have complied with the entire plan that Secretary Polanatwitz has set forth and that it is time for Justina to go home. And we were hoping that he would act upon it."

The Judge stated that he would give the other side "at least two weeks to respond."

Nancy Hathaway joined them in chambers after a chance meeting. She indicated that she:
"Has not read it but she would probably ascent to it"
After leaving chambers, Attorney Hathaway called the DCF attorneys who said that "they had not actually received it but that they requested two weeks to respond to it."
"That seems to me to be much too long a period of time. If they are going to assent to it or agree to it, they could simply indicate that they assent to the motion. And we could go back to Judge Johnson and have him approve it or allow the motion without even a hearing. And that was one of the alternatives that I told him that we were looking for. He seems content on having a 2 week period for them to respond and then set a definite time after that for a hearing and that will take us to June 20th hearing - which is going to be automatically allowed anyway because that's when the 6 month period under his own review will come up."
"He seemed hung up on procedure as opposed to form."
"Hopefully, next week there will be some doings and we will be able to come back before him to expedite Justins's return home."

Unseen female voice:
"So it could still take 2 weeks:"

"Well, it could but we are hoping that …..Rev Mahoney is going to meet with Sect Polanowicz on Monday morning and we are hoping at the end of that meeting things will be move forward very quickly."

Attorney Richard Mast from Liberty Counsel: "At the end of the day we are really excited that the meeting with the Tufts health team went really well."

Call me cynical, but this does not sound like there is any sort of agreement in place to release Justina or even to assent to the Pelletier's motion to vacate the custody order. It would be normal professional standards to want to read the motion and investigate the facts before agreeing with or arguing the motion. It sounds like both attorney Hathaway and the DCF attorneys were cordial and noncommittal. It sounds like the The family's attorneys have finally convinced them to keep quirt while they ride the wave of (what they think is) public opinion and try to expedite Justina's release before DCF realizes that they have not met the intent of the reunification plan.

I hope that I am very wrong, but I don't think this is over.

Just using your post to link to the YouTube video you are quoting, as well as to the Liberty Counsel Press Release you reference in your opening sentence:

snipped

The Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF) has indicated that it will not object to the Motion for Relief from Judgment filed today to return Justina home.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1446

Attorneys Richard Mast & Philip Moran (Justina Pelletier):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cy1eVtJvoI&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

 

[epiphany]

There is also the Elizabeth Wray case which was just before Justina's. She may have still been in there when Justina was admitted. Her parents are too afraid to speak out. Maybe they will get the courage to file a lawsuit.

https://www.facebook.com/freeelizabethwray

snipped, BBM

Elizabeth’s case had also hinged on a dispute over whether her problems were physical or psychiatric. However, in her case the disagreement involved a different controversial illness, something called PANDAS or PANS, an autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder believed to cause obsessive compulsive disorder. That dispute had led to allegations of medical interference being filed against the girl’s parents and to the state taking custody of the girl. And the representative from the Children’s psychiatry service who played a key role in Elizabeth’s case was the same psychologist who had pushed to change Justina’s diagnosis to somatoform disorder, Simona Bujoreanu.7

The Wray family was allegedly told by doctors that Elizabeth was clear to be transferred to another hospital, however, the following Monday they learned that the hospital contacted the Department of Children and Families child protective services unit, urging them to file for temporary custody of Elizabeth and to admit her to the Bader 5 psychicatric ward.

http://liftingtheveil.blog.com/2014...nvestigated-by-department-of-public-health/#i

 

[epiphany]

Whatever happened to Alan Dershowitz?
He seems to have dropped the family like a hot potato!!!
Just like Dr. Phil ...the family wouldn't give him full access to medical records...

All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO, Alan Dershowitz has likely been consulting behind the scenes for the Pelletiers:

Dershowitz told FoxNews.com Tuesday he is interested in working with the family's current legal team on "broader Constitutional issues" surrounding the case. The attorney said he isn't looking to "micro-manage litigation," but was moved to offer his help on a pro bono consulting basis after reading about the family's plight in newspaper accounts.

"I have reached out to one of the family's representatives, and we are trying to set up a discussion on how to proceed," Dershowitz said.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/...family-to-take-up-offer-from-alan-dershowitz/

 

[Morag]

IMO, Alan Dershowitz has likely been consulting behind the scenes for the Pelletiers:

Dershowitz told FoxNews.com Tuesday he is interested in working with the family's current legal team on "broader Constitutional issues" surrounding the case. The attorney said he isn't looking to "micro-manage litigation," but was moved to offer his help on a pro bono consulting basis after reading about the family's plight in newspaper accounts.

"I have reached out to one of the family's representatives, and we are trying to set up a discussion on how to proceed," Dershowitz said.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/...family-to-take-up-offer-from-alan-dershowitz/

This is an old story, dated April 1, 2014. That was the first and last time we have heard from Atty. Dershowitz on the Pelletier matter.

 

[sweetmom]

This is an old story, dated April 1, 2014. That was the first and last time we have heard from Atty. Dershowitz on the Pelletier matter.

Atty. Dershowitz does not shy away from the spotlight, so I agree that this indicates he's not involved with the case after all. And if that is true, I would love to know why. For that matter, there has been nothing new from The Blaze, Glenn Beck's site, for a good while either. Nor anything in the mainstream Boston or Hartford papers.

It will be interesting to see what the family does if the press and the big-name supporters drop this whole case...they've gotten used to being quoted and covered. Hopefully they will turn their energy to caring for Justina, but methinks they will miss being in the limelight and will stir up some new accusations to stay there

 

[txsvicki]

Doesn't "broader constitutional issues" usually take a long time to ever get resolved through the courts? Justina needs attention now, with her eating and walking. Whether is mito or somatoform or both, she could lay around and die if she chokes on something or gets so dehydrated from not being able to swallow. I'm assuming that is okay now, and walking is her main issue.

 

[CathyinTexas]

The Liberty Counsel has put out a press release stating that the meeting with the medical team from Tufts went well. Attorney Richard Mast stated on video (discussed below) that the meeting with the medical team went well. He described it as "cordial." There were no statements that Dr Korson was or was not a part of the medical team. There were no statements about Justina's diagnosis or diagnoses. There were no statements about any immediate changes in her medical care. In fact, the Pelletiers and their spokespeople were uncharacteristically quiet about the entire meeting. (IMO)

According to Attorney Moran, the 60B motion was filed around noon. Why would they speed up the timetable for the filing? Why did the press conference not take place?

I did not find an announcement of the cancellation of the press conference on Rev Mahoney's twitter feed or Facebook, the #freejustina twitter feed or Facebook, the Miracle for Justina Facebook, the Liberty Counsel's twitter or Facebook, or anywhere else. Was the press conference canceled because the press did not show up or because the DCF/Tufts team meeting did not go as well as the Pelletier's spokesmen claimed? Perhaps there is some sort of new agreement for confidentiality between the parents and the medical team?

Rev Mahoney's twitter has a picture of Lou and Linda Pelletier with Richard Mast and Philip Moran reportedly right after the motion was filed. Linda appears to be crying in the photo. If she had just received the "good news" that DCF and Attorney Hathaway would agree or ascent to the motion, why would she be crying?

The youtube video of attorneys Richard Mast and Philip Moran "explaining" the successes of the day was not a press conference. There were no journalists in sight, there has been no mainstream media reporting of the "successful" meeting or the filing of the motion, and the "interview" was shot on an iPhone. So far, I have not seen an official transcript of the "interview" but I did listen to it a number of times. Both attorneys appeared (IMO) to be uncomfortable - stuttering, run-on sentences - something I would not have expected from experienced attorneys. I am not a transcriptionist, but below are a few quotes I was able to transcribe from the "interview."

Attorney Philip Moran:
"I filed a motion on behalf of Lou and Linda Pelletier this morning at about noon time."
"Rule 60B motion."
"We were hoping Judge Johnson would act on it today."
"We had indications from both DCF and Nancy Hathaway who is the attorney for Justina that they would not …. DCF would not oppose it, Nancy Hathaway indicated that she would assent to the motion, so that she could get home."

RE: "Polanowicz plan" "As of this morning the fourth step or the fourth leg of that criteria has been met. And as of now it is our position that they have complied with the entire plan that Secretary Polanatwitz has set forth and that it is time for Justina to go home. And we were hoping that he would act upon it."

The Judge stated that he would give the other side "at least two weeks to respond."

Nancy Hathaway joined them in chambers after a chance meeting. She indicated that she:
"Has not read it but she would probably ascent to it"
After leaving chambers, Attorney Hathaway called the DCF attorneys who said that "they had not actually received it but that they requested two weeks to respond to it."
"That seems to me to be much too long a period of time. If they are going to assent to it or agree to it, they could simply indicate that they assent to the motion. And we could go back to Judge Johnson and have him approve it or allow the motion without even a hearing. And that was one of the alternatives that I told him that we were looking for. He seems content on having a 2 week period for them to respond and then set a definite time after that for a hearing and that will take us to June 20th hearing - which is going to be automatically allowed anyway because that's when the 6 month period under his own review will come up."
"He seemed hung up on procedure as opposed to form."
"Hopefully, next week there will be some doings and we will be able to come back before him to expedite Justins's return home."

Unseen female voice:
"So it could still take 2 weeks:"

"Well, it could but we are hoping that …..Rev Mahoney is going to meet with Sect Polanowicz on Monday morning and we are hoping at the end of that meeting things will be move forward very quickly."

Attorney Richard Mast from Liberty Counsel: "At the end of the day we are really excited that the meeting with the Tufts health team went really well."

Call me cynical, but this does not sound like there is any sort of agreement in place to release Justina or even to assent to the Pelletier's motion to vacate the custody order. It would be normal professional standards to want to read the motion and investigate the facts before agreeing with or arguing the motion. It sounds like both attorney Hathaway and the DCF attorneys were cordial and noncommittal. It sounds like the The family's attorneys have finally convinced them to keep quirt while they ride the wave of (what they think is) public opinion and try to expedite Justina's release before DCF realizes that they have not met the intent of the reunification plan.

I hope that I am very wrong, but I don't think this is over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cy1eVtJvoI&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1446

They probably don't trust the DCF to do the right thing and release Justina. Linda may have been given some disturbing information about Justina's health. She has been untreated for a long time, as well as being given psychiatric drugs. I know that I can't prove it, but that is what they give psych patients in psych wards. Her eyes in some of the pictures over the months look like she was medicated, also her slurred speech.