so much for the defense attempting to use the unfounded results of those investigations 20 years ago as a defense - well unfounded so no neglect/abuse.
Reports back then from mandated reporters concerned possible neglect. The laws in place at that time didn't allow for investigators to question children ALONE without parent present for neglect charges, and there were no abuse allegations made to prompt those interactions, "just" neglect.
As to the Dr. visits, defense can't claim the accused wasn't in charge of S's medical care and his father didn't believe in doctors while at the same time claiming the child's physician found no problem with the child's weight or lack thereof. That is an outright lie, or at the least, disingenuous.
His pediatrician and school nurse were tasked with investigating if some medial or physiological cause was behind the child's lack of weight and constant hunger. None was found. This is not the glowing endorsement the defense attorney thinks it is of his clients parenting. It indicates there was no reason except for neglect and starvation for S to suffer what he did.
I do not doubt there was plenty of available food in the home - for all the other occupants. Just not available for S.

S was removed from school and basically all of life outside his prison of a home at around age 11. I'd be very curious to know how the timing of that removal compares with the investigation where school nurse and pediatrician couldn't locate any medical reason for S to be so painfully thin and constantly hungry. I suspect the removal happened immediately after that unfounded ruling. JMO Goodbye mandated reporters, and no more doctor visits after that is my guess.