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

[jjenny]

I'm confident, based on the judges ruling, that it's ludicrous to think the only reason was her parents refusal to accept she may have somatoform. IMO There are far more reasons...and they go way back and continue today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And I am confident otherwise.
There is nothing in the ruling on the supposed medical abuse. And I couldn't care less if parents were rude to DCF employees. They are not asking to take any of them home.

 

[i.b.nora]

Regarding Dr Bharanidharan Padmanabhan aka Bharani Padmanabhan

As to the Moveon petition, the person who started it appears to have been a real person who is sickly and is located in the Boston area and very likely did meet the doctor some years ago in his practice.

As to his medical license, I found some information here that I think might possibly explain his outrage with Harvard specifically. FYI, Cambridge Health Alliance has teaching affiliations with both Harvard and Tufts.

http://profiles.ehs.state.ma.us/Profiles/Pages/PhysicianProfile.aspx?PhysicianID=53895

snip

Massachusetts Criminal Convictions, Pleas and Admissions

The Board has no record of felony or serious misdemeanor convictions regarding Dr. Padmanabhan.

Health Care Facility Discipline

This section contains several categories of disciplinary actions reported to the Board by Massachusetts health care facilities which are specifically required by law to be released in the physician's profile.

Facility: Cambridge Health Alliance
Facility Type: Work Site
Basis or Allegation:

Failure to follow internal by-laws, rules, regulations, policies
Interpersonal skills/personal behavior
Inadequate documentation in patient medical records

Action: Suspension of right or privilege
Begin Date
11/9/2010
End Date
10/28/2011

Action: Termination or non-renew of K
Begin Date
11/9/2010
End Date
10/28/2011

Action: Resignation
Begin Date
10/28/2011
End Date (blank)​

Massachusetts Board Discipline

Dr. Padmanabhan has not been disciplined by the Board.

*****************************************

There is more info at the page linked above for anyone interested.

I note that his Massachusetts medical license is good to 2016. There is no indication that he is currently employed anywhere. Is he being paid by Liberty Counsel or Rev Pat Mahoney? I think its important for them as well as Lombardo and Lyons to know they might be consorting with and accepting special plaques from a possibly illegal alien with a possibly expired visa. That could be very embarrassing.

If this character in the soap opera doesn't interest you, feel free to just skip on over it.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm confident, based on the judges ruling, that it's ludicrous to think the only reason was her parents refusal to accept she may have somatoform. IMO There are far more reasons...and they go way back and continue today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to the Boston Globe coverage, you are correct. It is impossible for the Judge to ignore the history of multiple reports made by multiple doctors about the parents: (Bolding my emphasis.)

And despite their fondness for Justina’s main doctors at Tufts, they had previously clashed with other members of the Tufts staff, who had filed an allegation of neglect with the Connecticut child-protection agency in late 2011.

The complaint alleged that the parents had not followed through on recommended mental health services as part of Justina’s overall care. It also cited Linda’s professed reluctance to assume responsibility for inserting a feeding tube into Justina at home.




http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

 

[jjenny]

According to the Boston Globe coverage, you are correct. It is impossible for the Judge to ignore the history of multiple reports made by multiple doctors about the parents: (Bolding my emphasis.)

And despite their fondness for Justina’s main doctors at Tufts, they had previously clashed with other members of the Tufts staff, who had filed an allegation of neglect with the Connecticut child-protection agency in late 2011.

The complaint alleged that the parents had not followed through on recommended mental health services as part of Justina’s overall care. It also cited Linda’s professed reluctance to assume responsibility for inserting a feeding tube into Justina at home.




http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

That allegation was DISMISSED. And Justina had long term psychological care.
She was seeing a psychologist for five years prior to ending up in BCH. I also find it particularly ironic that mother was accused of reluctance to insert a feeding tube into Justina, and later on BCH is apparently accusing the parents of having too many procedures done on Justina.
Seems the parents are damned if they do and damned in if they don't.

 

[gitana1]

That allegation was DISMISSED. And Justina had long term psychological care.
She was seeing a psychologist for five years prior to ending up in BCH. I also find it particularly ironic that mother was accused of reluctance to insert a feeding tube into Justina, and later on BCH is apparently accusing the parents of having too many procedures done on Justina.
Seems the parents are damned if they do and damned in if they don't.

It does seem that way. But you know, the parents really aren't doing themselves any favors. They have seemed quite overbearing and aggressive and histrionic at times. Quite telling was the Connecticut facility's response to them stating they would not take Justina because they "could not afford a protracted legal battle".

That was after the dad screamed and hollered about the place and then changed his mind and wanted Justina there.

Too late.

And I don't blame the facility one bit.

I have deep concerns about this case. I have deep concerns about BCH's actions (possibly knee-jerk, too rapid and retaliatory conclusions about the family and the child - medical abuse determinations usually take months, not one hospital stay). And I have deep concerns about possible government overreach and intrusion into constitutionally protected parental rights, on the part of DCF and the courts. And let me tell you, I've personally seen it happen.

Example? I had client with a frighteningly abusive husband. He had been diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder, bi polar disorder, alcohol abuse and could've been diagnosed with more but he abruptly stopped the process and would not allow the psychiatrists to continue with their evaluation.

He liked to beat the tar out of people. He beat up a parking attendant for angering him. He beat an old homeless man into the hospital. He attacked my client's female friends during parties. He battered my client, ruthlessly, on numerous occasions.

He liked to stare at little girls in the store.

He was very, very sinister and creepy and manipulative and violently scary and he's the only opposing party I've ever had a nightmare about.

Well, I got a restraining order against him and only supervised visits for him with the parties' infant girl.

Fast forward a year. The private monitor is a nut. She fell for the guy, I think or for his manipulations. She allowed a visit to occur against protocol even though he reeked of alcohol, because he said someone spilled it on him (and he never changed his shirt). She told him where my client lived. She even had him drive into the gates behind her as she went to pick up the child for a visit, which was a horrible breach of the rules.

Worse, she started telling my client that she should get back together with her abuser - that he wasn't that bad.

In the meantime, the husband wasn't paying support as ordered and my client became homeless. She ended up in various very sketchy living situations. The baby became covered with fleas bites at one place and they stole all her money. My client ended up walking on the street, crying, with a sick baby and nowhere to go. She went back to the house and banged on the door demanding her stuff and money. She called the police and they told her it was a civil matter. She asked or help with housing and they called social services.

Social services came and the woman immediately had a bad attitude. The worker asked where the father was and couldn't he pick up the child? My client explained that he was violent and shouldn't be able to take the kid, but she made a mistake and gave the worker the monitor's number.

That's was it.

The monitor colluded with the father and social services and he went into court (new judge now) and got emergency, temporary custody with no notice to my client. She was at a motel and social services came with the police and took the child.


The child was given to the father.

The judge made a mistake. He was 100% unaware of the restraining order and supervised visitation order. He realized his mistake a week later and belated modified the restraining order to allow the father to have custody of the now two year old who had not seen her father except for sporadic supervised visits, since she was 4 months old.

It took me an entire year of court to get the kid back. The judge and social services could not admit their mistake. They would lose face. So the child remained with the psycho. Luckily, she was cared for primarily by his very elderly parents but she came out of it with an intense startle reflex and no speech.

This is one example. I can give more. So I know the danger of unfettered bureaucracy.

That being said, I recognize the Pelletiers. I have had numerous clients like them and those clients have been nightmares.

Are they guilty of medical abuse? I don't know. Possibly. I have my doubts. But I have no doubt that their behavior has helped foster this night mare.

 

[Donjeta]

Justina is in DCF custody because she is not a Muslim terrorist:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...5/carr_justina_pelletier_needs_jokers_justice

I think some of these supporters do more harm than good for Justina.

If they don't see that the Boston terrorist's family is absolutely irrelevant to Justina's diagnosis and whether DCF was right or wrong to release the parents from the custody it kind of casts doubt on the whole of their judgment and if they have something to the point to say about Justina it's more difficult to take them seriously.

 

[Gardenlady]

I've said it before, but Howie Carr is a jerk with a long standing record of not just being wrong but being extremely hateful towards Muslims. Of course he finds a reason to drag that completely unrelated issue Into this. What a tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Justina is in DCF custody because she is not a Muslim terrorist:

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...5/carr_justina_pelletier_needs_jokers_justice

I think some of these supporters do more harm than good for Justina.

If they don't see that the Boston terrorist's family is absolutely irrelevant to Justina's diagnosis and whether DCF was right or wrong to release the parents from the custody it kind of casts doubt on the whole of their judgment and if they have something to the point to say about Justina it's more difficult to take them seriously.

Wow, just wow! That article is just too much....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I've said it before, but Howie Carr is a jerk with a long standing record of not just being wrong but being extremely hateful towards Muslims. Of course he finds a reason to drag that completely unrelated issue Into this. What a tool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Howie is more than a little scary!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenlady]

Howie is more than a little scary!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is. I don't know if he still does, but for many years he had a radio show and was completely freakin obnoxious. I will never forget listening to it (yeah I am a masochist lol) live the night of the OKC bombing. He went on and on and on about "towel heads", and all kinds of racist crap. It was completely appalling. Never an apology either when he was proven wrong, of course.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[i.b.nora]

Of all the interviews with Lou Pelletier that I have either watched or listened to, the Carr interview was simply put, horrible. Glenn Beck's interview with Lou was actually not too bad and attempted to at least ask Lou about one or two allegations that had been made about his behavior.

I had vague memories of the name Howie Carr from when I came upon him in some case I was briefly interested in years ago (maybe Whitey Bulger?) but no significant knowledge of or about him prior to listening to the radio interview with Lou. And, I don't live in the area so I really did not know who he was or what to expect from the interview.

With that said, things I noted to myself at the time I listened:

The host (Carr) seemed not particularly knowledgable, insightful nor curious about the case. He pretty much just let Lou ramble on, and on. He asked virtually no questions.

I noticed that Lou, when talking about the doctors, referred to them as 'the guy from Norway', 'the psychologist from Romania', and 'Alice from Nigeria'. The tone from both Lou and Carr, was very disparaging, as if because they were from other countries, they were somehow lesser people.

All blame was assigned to the State of Massachusetts and Harvard by both Lou and Carr. Lou gave no indication of what he and his wife did to sour things but more importantly, Carr did not even ask.

When Lou started whining about how both Massachusetts and Connecticut are largely governed by Democrats, the suggestion was that his own US Congressman, John B. Larson and his proximity to Nancy Pelosi were somehow plotting against and all in cahoots with both Massachusetts and Connecticut DCFs (and Harvard and the NIH) and against the Pelletiers. It struck me that for Lou to suggest that because his own Congressman is a Democrat and that he is therefore not interested in his constituents (all of them) is just so ignorant, imo. A good legislator who is interested in public service, works with his/her constituents and will at least see if they can directly help them with their problems, or steer them to agencies that might help, especially a problem such as Lou was presenting with the DCF in two states. That's what mine does. I doubt Lou ever called Larson's office to see if they could help. Instead he simply ridicules them and is joined by Carr, the interviewer, in the ridicule and false statements.

The only interesting (and new to me) thing that Lou said in the interview was when he alluded to some things that were said at trial — that he wouldn't go into and that Carr did not even question or bother to try to draw out. When I went back to try to listen specifically to that part of the interview again, I couldn't find it, so I gave up.

Now, when reading the recent Carr article linked to above, I am struck dumb by the absolute hatred expressed, not just in the article but in almost all of the comments. The utter ignorance is just astounding (and scary) to me.

 

[Donjeta]

The transcript is only very loosely related to what was said on the show but my overall impression of the show was that the problem of Justina's impending death in the hands of her imprisoners was largely overshadowed by the problem of the wrong people being there in positions of authority.

http://audio.wrko.com/a/91240223/lou-pelletier-on-justice-for-justina.htm

 

[jjenny]

State of MA doesn't have to like her parents, or agree with their views. The parents might be difficult to deal with. Not everybody can be sweet and cuddly. That doesn't mean state can just take their child from them. Justina doesn't want to be there but she can't leave.
She didn't do anything wrong.
You are only a young person once. And she is missing out on all the opportunities she had prior to state of MA removing her from her parents.
And for what?

 

[Gardenlady]

Of all the interviews with Lou Pelletier that I have either watched or listened to, the Carr interview was simply put, horrible. Glenn Beck's interview with Lou was actually not too bad and attempted to at least ask Lou about one or two allegations that had been made about his behavior.

I had vague memories of the name Howie Carr from when I came upon him in some case I was briefly interested in years ago (maybe Whitey Bulger?) but no significant knowledge of or about him prior to listening to the radio interview with Lou. And, I don't live in the area so I really did not know who he was or what to expect from the interview.

With that said, things I noted to myself at the time I listened:

The host (Carr) seemed not particularly knowledgable, insightful nor curious about the case. He pretty much just let Lou ramble on, and on. He asked virtually no questions.

I noticed that Lou, when talking about the doctors, referred to them as 'the guy from Norway', 'the psychologist from Romania', and 'Alice from Nigeria'. The tone from both Lou and Carr, was very disparaging, as if because they were from other countries, they were somehow lesser people.

All blame was assigned to the State of Massachusetts and Harvard by both Lou and Carr. Lou gave no indication of what he and his wife did to sour things but more importantly, Carr did not even ask.

When Lou started whining about how both Massachusetts and Connecticut are largely governed by Democrats, the suggestion was that his own US Congressman, John B. Larson and his proximity to Nancy Pelosi were somehow plotting against and all in cahoots with both Massachusetts and Connecticut DCFs (and Harvard and the NIH) and against the Pelletiers. It struck me that for Lou to suggest that because his own Congressman is a Democrat and that he is therefore not interested in his constituents (all of them) is just so ignorant, imo. A good legislator who is interested in public service, works with his/her constituents and will at least see if they can directly help them with their problems, or steer them to agencies that might help, especially a problem such as Lou was presenting with the DCF in two states. That's what mine does. I doubt Lou ever called Larson's office to see if they could help. Instead he simply ridicules them and is joined by Carr, the interviewer, in the ridicule and false statements.

The only interesting (and new to me) thing that Lou said in the interview was when he alluded to some things that were said at trial — that he wouldn't go into and that Carr did not even question or bother to try to draw out. When I went back to try to listen specifically to that part of the interview again, I couldn't find it, so I gave up.

Now, when reading the recent Carr article linked to above, I am struck dumb by the absolute hatred expressed, not just in the article but in almost all of the comments. The utter ignorance is just astounding (and scary) to me.

Carr did a lot of reporting, way back, on the mob, and Whitey Bulger in particular. Often he used Whitey as a stick with which to beat on his brother Bill Bulger, who was extremely popular as the Democratic Mass senate president. He also managed to get himself threatened by the mob a few times, less because of things he was reporting (much of which was widely known anyway) and more because he's a complete jerk.

 

[i.b.nora]

Thanks. Its been a few days since I listened to that interview. I used your link and used a word search for the word 'trial' which helped me find it in the transcript and then I realized this time around that the audio itself has a search feature so I found the comment Lou made that I was interested in at about or between 12:33 and 12:54.

The comment is reflected in the transcript as:

"To get out of this corrupt political corrupt judge also Johnston what he's done. Again if we talked about what went out of that trial you'd be amazed." (sic)​

 

[MyBelle]

That allegation was DISMISSED. And Justina had long term psychological care.
She was seeing a psychologist for five years prior to ending up in BCH. I also find it particularly ironic that mother was accused of reluctance to insert a feeding tube into Justina, and later on BCH is apparently accusing the parents of having too many procedures done on Justina.
Seems the parents are damned if they do and damned in if they don't.

The previous allegations weren't forgotten, though. They remain part of the record and the Judge could not ignore the fact that there was a history of reports by various medical professionals including Tufts and all were basically about the same thing.

 

[jjenny]

The previous allegations weren't forgotten, though. They remain part of the record and the Judge could not ignore the fact that there was a history of reports by various medical professionals including Tufts and all were basically about the same thing.

One allegation that was dismissed doesn't make a history.
And it was opposite. Not the same thing. BCH was apparently accusing the parents of talking doctors into un-necessary procedures. Which is opposite of being reluctant regarding a feeding tube.

 

[MyBelle]

State of MA doesn't have to like her parents, or agree with their views. The parents might be difficult to deal with. Not everybody can be sweet and cuddly. That doesn't mean state can just take their child from them. Justina doesn't want to be there but she can't leave.
She didn't do anything wrong.
You are only a young person once. And she is missing out on all the opportunities she had prior to state of MA removing her from her parents.
And for what?

The state has a duty to Justina to protect her safety and they are doing just that. Unfortunately, not all parents are fit to care for their ill children and the state must step in to protect them. Justina isn't the first child to be shielded from her parents and unfortunately, she won't be the last.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

One allegation that was dismissed doesn't make a history.
And it was opposite. Not the same thing. BCH was apparently accusing the parents of talking doctors into un-necessary procedures. Which is opposite of being reluctant regarding a feeding tube.

It still is an allegation and it is part of the record. iirc, the news media also reported that her CT pediatrician at one point made an allegation. So that's three allegations from medical professionals and hospitals.

 

[Donjeta]

State of MA doesn't have to like her parents, or agree with their views. The parents might be difficult to deal with. Not everybody can be sweet and cuddly. That doesn't mean state can just take their child from them. Justina doesn't want to be there but she can't leave.
She didn't do anything wrong.
You are only a young person once. And she is missing out on all the opportunities she had prior to state of MA removing her from her parents.
And for what?

Not everybody can be sweet and cuddly but everybody can zip it and refrain from making threats and try to appear cooperative if they think their child's life, health and happiness depends on them getting her home.