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

[Linda7NJ]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think so. The legal custody doesn't change even if they place her in a CT facility, does it? And wouldn't the parents have said, "oh yeah, move her there yesterday?"

I don't think Massachusetts would have jurisdiction if she moved to Connecticut. There must be a very well coordinated plan in mind. Everyone it's be onboard. IMO

Wait...tufts is in Massachusetts and the residential facility is in Connecticut ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenlady]

Is this true?
"Once she's out of Massachusetts, it would appear to me that there's no legal way that they can control her at all," he says. Upon arrival, Justina could just leave the facility. - See more at: http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2014/05/06/justinas-family-just-let-her-come-home#.U2kEw8IU_cs

I'm not sure I'd take anything this guy says seriously. He founded the group MassResistance (I guess yet another political group involving itself in this case), which is also listed by SPLC as a hate group.

MassResistance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Donjeta]

This is a PA document but it says all fifty states are part of the same deal when it has to do with the out of state placement of children in the DCF custody so I'm assuming that it applies in MA and CT as well.

Anyway, lots of rules and regulations are involved.
http://dhs.phila.gov/intranet/scintrahome_pub.nsf/Content/Policy%20and%20Planning%20-%20Center%20News%20-%20ICPC%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Guide/$File/ICPC%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Guide%20Final%20nov%2021%2005.pdf

Service planning and financial responsibility remain with the sending state as long as
that state retains legal jurisdiction or commitment of the child. It is the responsibility of
DHS to supervise the placement and provide reports as requested until there is a plan
for discharge of the child with the concurrence of the ICPC offices in both states.

 

[Gardenlady]

Lou really shot himself in the foot when he threatened the original CT facility they wanted to send Justina to.

That's assuming that what he really wants is the return of his daughter, of course.

 

[Linda7NJ]

This is a PA document but it says all fifty states are part of the same deal when it has to do with the out of state placement of children in the DCF custody so I'm assuming that it applies in MA and CT as well.

Anyway, lots of rules and regulations are involved.
http://dhs.phila.gov/intranet/scintrahome_pub.nsf/Content/Policy%20and%20Planning%20-%20Center%20News%20-%20ICPC%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Guide/$File/ICPC%20Policy%20and%20Procedure%20Guide%20Final%20nov%2021%2005.pdf

The link doesn't work.
Is it about the ICPC? Interstate compact agreement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

I don't think Massachusetts would have jurisdiction if she moved to Connecticut. There must be a very well coordinated plan in mind. Everyone it's be onboard. IMO

Wait...tufts is in Massachusetts and the residential facility is in Connecticut ?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CT court is refusing to take the case (as we all know from judge's ruling).
So if she moves to CT why would MA have jurisdiction? And CT court is refusing to take the case. So, can she just walk out of there (or be wheeled out)?
Tufts is in MA and so is BCH.

 

[Linda7NJ]

CT court is refusing to take the case (as we all know from judge's ruling).

So if she moves to CT why would MA have jurisdiction?

They do have legal custody


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Lou really shot himself in the foot when he threatened the original CT facility they wanted to send Justina to.

That's assuming that what he really wants is the return of his daughter, of course.

Considering he learned nothing from his mistake...I'm left wondering


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Donjeta]

The link doesn't work.
Is it about the ICPC? Interstate compact agreement?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes it is.

 

[Linda7NJ]

CT court is refusing to take the case (as we all know from judge's ruling).

So if she moves to CT why would MA have jurisdiction? And CT court is refusing to take the case. So, can she just walk out of there (or be wheeled out)?

Tufts is in MA and so is BCH.

I'm thinking something must have changed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

CT court is refusing to take the case (as we all know from judge's ruling).

So if she moves to CT why would MA have jurisdiction? And CT court is refusing to take the case. So, can she just walk out of there (or be wheeled out)?

Tufts is in MA and so is BCH.

MA would still have legal custody.
If her parents wheel her out, they will be arrested.
IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Donjeta]

http://articles.courant.com/2014-05..._1_polanowicz-justina-pelletier-lou-pelletier

According to Polanowicz's letter, the plan was developed with Pelletier's parents, Lou and Linda Pelletier, who live in West Hartford, Conn.

"This reunification plan has been in development for several weeks," Polanowicz wrote.

But the Pelletiers and Mahoney disputed that account Monday.

Mahoney said he had a 70-minute meeting on April 25 with Polanowicz, in which a plan was discussed with Justina's state-appointed attorney, Nancy Hathaway.

The Pelletiers, their lawyers and Hathaway agreed to a plan in which Justina would be returned home immediately with certain conditions, but "DCF opposed that," Mahoney said.

Mahoney said he was contacted Friday by Polanowicz, who set up the meeting held Monday. That meeting lasted 90 minutes and involved Deveney, he said.

"Our hope was that the Hathaway plan would be adopted and Justina would be returned home with certain stipulations. Tragically, that is not what happened," Mahoney said.

The letter says the current plan is similar to what Hathaway had proposed before.
http://tribwtic.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/reunification-plan-letter.pdf

 

[Linda7NJ]

http://articles.courant.com/2014-05..._1_polanowicz-justina-pelletier-lou-pelletier



The letter says the current plan is similar to what Hathaway had proposed before.
http://tribwtic.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/reunification-plan-letter.pdf

Imo they can not return her home, only to have her parents continue on with the same behavior and have to remove the child again. That would cause more harm to the child they're trying to protect.
The parents must prove themselves. So far, the family has only proved they are unwilling and unable to be cooperative,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

Imo they can not return her home, only to have her parents continue on with the same behavior and have to remove the child again. That would cause more harm to the child they're trying to protect.
The parents must prove themselves. So far, the family has only proved they are unwilling and unable to be cooperative,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What behavior?

 

[Linda7NJ]

What behavior?

The lies and constant ridicule of everyone involved would be a terrific start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[i.b.nora]

I hadn't heard anything lately from Dr Bharani Padmanabhan, the unemployed neurologist extraordinaire, the one who is here on a possibly expired type O-1 visa, the one who claims to be an instructor at Harvard Medical School, and the one who has been documenting the exploits of the Pelletiers and Rev Pat Mahoney.

He has posted an image at his flickr page that is said to be a photo of Justina with Rev Mahoney and the dog taken by Jennifer on May 2nd at the facility where they were visiting Justina. It is said that for the first time in three months they were allowed by CFS to take a photo or photos.

I am guessing the "Justina Speaks" video was taken some time within that three months, surreptitiously. Maybe they wrote the script and asked her to read it to check her reading ability. Remember, they said not too long ago she had reverted to 2nd grade levels. I dunno. To me, the lip and mouth movements don't sync with the audio. Maybe the audio was added later? Just a thought.

In any case, it seems that none of the rules apply to the Pelletiers. I am not sure that is a characteristic that I can totally embrace.

As I said in the beginning, it seems to me that blame can be assigned all around, to ALL parties. BUT, I feel it is time for everyone to cut their losses and move on, for the sake of Justina, if nothing else. The Reunification Plan seems to make sense to me, especially since it was developed specifically incorporating desires as expressed by the Pelletiers. So, I simply do not understand their wholesale rejection of the plan.

 

[jjenny]

I think video was taken at the same time Mahoney visited, because it's the same dog she is holding. I don't think she is reading any scripts. She can barely talk. She mumbles. She also looks very much out of it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I think video was taken at the same time Mahoney visited, because it's the same dog she is holding. I don't think she is reading any scripts. She can barely talk. She mumbles. She also looks very much out of it.

She's probably wondering who the heck they are!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Donjeta]

Well, as far as very brief snapshots in time go, she smiles broadly in that photo, despite being severely traumatized by the sexual abuse in the shower they reported the next day, and she can hold a largish dog in her arms and the caption says she's made the bracelets so it may have been slightly exaggerated that she was losing the function of her upper limbs as well as the lower ones.

 

[forthelost]

That's what they say. They are not allowed to know anything about the treatment she is getting at Tufts because they don't have custody.

It might be what they say, but is it true? If the state has custody, the state can choose to wave HIPAA for the parents.