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

[Linda7NJ]

"They will not file a lawsuit" is not a fact?





Could have fooled me.

IMO = In My Opinion






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

IMO = In My Opinion






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at my signature line.

 

[jaunty-girl]

Look at my signature line.

Not everyone has their settings set to see signature lines. I don't see them. Just a FYI.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Jmo this post is not towards any individual or poster.
I am very offended by the archaic attitude towards mental health and care. When children are in the hospital for cancer treatment, or any other prolonged medical issue, no one refers to them as 'locked up'. Take the same tone and disgust when you say 'psych ward' and insert 'cancer ward'. It sounds shameful. There is plenty wrong with the mental health care system, but psychiatric wards are not a dumping ground, a jail, or an early 1900's sanatorium. They are not what you see in movies or read in books. And like everything else, there are good and bad. It is time we treat mental illness with the seriousness it deserves.
I don't know anything about the facility where JP was and, unless I visit personally, I refuse to malign a facility and the entire staff.
Jmo

It is really upsetting. I totally agree with you. There shouldn't be any stigma, shameful labeling, or frankly so much ignorance about mental illness in 2014.
It's tragic.
If people were more compassionate, knowledgable and supportive of others seeking help...maybe...just maybe...every single week we wouldn't be reading about a school shooting somewhere.




Some make it out to be like "One Flew Over the Coo-Coos Nest" and that's incredibly frustrating and disrespectful.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not everyone has their settings set to see signature lines. I don't see them. Just a FYI.

I don't see them either. I'm on tapatalk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

It is really upsetting. I totally agree with you. There shouldn't be any stigma, shameful labeling, or frankly so much ignorance about mental illness in 2014.
It's tragic.
If people were more compassionate, knowledgable and supportive of others seeking help...maybe...just maybe...every single week we wouldn't be reading about a school shooting somewhere.




Some make it out to be like "One Flew Over the Coo-Coos Nest" and that's incredibly frustrating and disrespectful.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the whole problem is that Justina was not seeking this type of "help", assuming that by help you mean being locked up in a secure mental ward?
Somatoform isn't something that requires being locked up in secure mental wards (even for those who actually have it).

 

[CHERIE.T]

Not everyone has their settings set to see signature lines. I don't see them. Just a FYI.

:seeya: welcome!
(I like to view siggy lines for that reason.
I respect your opinion to not view them. )

 

[Linda7NJ]

Isn't the whole problem is that Justina was not seeking this type of "help", assuming that by help you mean being locked up in a secure mental ward?

Somatoform isn't something that requires being locked up in secure mental wards (even for those who actually have it).

You would be assuming incorrectly. I've repeatedly have answered this question for you.

I'm having great difficultly understanding the apparent inability of some to hold more that two concepts at once in ones mind.

I'm not sure if it's a deliberate attempt to misconstrue other peoples' posts or there is some sort of disconnect going on.

All IMO





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Jennifer Pelletier: The video was not staged... she was speaking from her heart.. it was emotional for her! She has been so hurt!!!



https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Miracle-for-Justina/253343311469595

How does Justina know anything at all about the governor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

I'm very confused by this new report. I now have a JD, but am not as familiar with the motions used in family court since they tend to be sealed. But I've never heard of a "motion for review of reconsideration and dismissal."

A motion for reconsideration is rare and would mean they are saying the facts have changed - in this case, presumably the parents are now complying and it would now be appropriate for them to have custody, so the judge should now reconsider his order.

There is no motion for dismissal, but rather a motion to dismiss. But what would even be dismissed? Usually you would file a motion to dismiss the case because the opponent's complaint was inadequate or they wouldn't cooperate with discovery, or because the case had been dropped. But this isn't really a 'case' - if the judge took custody away, that can't just be withdrawn like a request would be - the order has already been made. Maybe DHS is trying to dismiss some earlier filings that would now be unneeded?

The "review of" part makes no sense to me. You don't "review reconsideration" - that's redundant. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough, but I've never heard these terms together in a motion like that. I'm wondering if this is being to some extent misreported.

 

[Tulessa]

Look at my signature line.

Links need to be provided, UNLESS stated as JMO. Linda clearly stated this, and not just in her siggy line.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm very confused by this new report. I now have a JD, but am not as familiar with the motions used in family court since they tend to be sealed. But I've never heard of a "motion for review of reconsideration and dismissal."



A motion for reconsideration is rare and would mean they are saying the facts have changed - in this case, presumably the parents are now complying and it would now be appropriate for them to have custody, so the judge should now reconsider his order.



There is no motion for dismissal, but rather a motion to dismiss. But what would even be dismissed? Usually you would file a motion to dismiss the case because the opponent's complaint was inadequate or they wouldn't cooperate with discovery, or because the case had been dropped. But this isn't really a 'case' - if the judge took custody away, that can't just be withdrawn like a request would be - the order has already been made. Maybe DHS is trying to dismiss some earlier filings that would now be unneeded?



The "review of" part makes no sense to me. You don't "review reconsideration" - that's redundant. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough, but I've never heard these terms together in a motion like that. I'm wondering if this is being to some extent misreported.

Just wanted to say Congratulations on earning your Juris Doctorate!!!!!

Whooo hoooo!

I'm so proud



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Links need to be provided, UNLESS stated as JMO. Linda clearly stated this, and not just in her siggy line.

I actually tried that many years ago..I figured I'd write in my signature line something like "all posts are my opinion only"
I was told..nope! Not good enough!
Then...I had a catchy little quote from Dr. Robert Hare. Apparently, that offended other posters...had to delete that as well.
I don't even know what I have now! lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

Links need to be provided, UNLESS stated as JMO. Linda clearly stated this, and not just in her siggy line.

Linda's statement that "they will not file a lawsuit" is clearly false. And if it's not clear already, that is my opinion. I am pretty sure there will be a lawsuit filed once they get the custody back.

 

[K_Z]

Jmo this post is not towards any individual or poster.
I am very offended by the archaic attitude towards mental health and care. When children are in the hospital for cancer treatment, or any other prolonged medical issue, no one refers to them as 'locked up'. Take the same tone and disgust when you say 'psych ward' and insert 'cancer ward'. It sounds shameful. There is plenty wrong with the mental health care system, but psychiatric wards are not a dumping ground, a jail, or an early 1900's sanatorium. They are not what you see in movies or read in books. And like everything else, there are good and bad. It is time we treat mental illness with the seriousness it deserves.
I don't know anything about the facility where JP was and, unless I visit personally, I refuse to malign a facility and the entire staff.
Jmo

I agree, wholeheartedly.

And might I add, I find the term "incarceration" very inflammatory and offensive, when the situation is a hospital acute care admission. It's hyperbole intended to antagonize and incite conflict.

Incarceration implies "punishment." No one anywhere that I have seen or read believes Justina is deserving of any "punishment". She did nothing wrong. Minors are not hospitalized to punish them, nor to infuriate their parents.

And minors are most certainly not frivolously admitted to psychiatric units for inpatient care just to upset or antagonize their parents.

And parents do not lose custody of their children for "no reason."

 

[annahanna]

Isn't the whole problem is that Justina was not seeking this type of "help", assuming that by help you mean being locked up in a secure mental ward?
Somatoform isn't something that requires being locked up in secure mental wards (even for those who actually have it).

Patients with mental health disorders often do not seek help for their condition. That does not mean that they do not have the condition or that they are not a danger to themselves or others.

Somatoform disorders do sometimes require an inpatient stay depending on the severity of the condition. Intensive psychotherapy, weaning off of unnecessary or excessive medications, medical monitoring of possible withdrawal symptoms from certain drugs, and assistance in reducing medical providers and treatments may necessitate hospitalization.

 

[annahanna]

I am sorry, but what other parties?
DCF had custody, now DCF says she should go home.
What other parties do you think could possibly be involved in this case?

So far, what we know for certain is that the Pelletier family has filed a brief and that Secretary Polanowicz has confirmed that the Health and Human Services Department filed a brief last Friday. There are some media outlets saying that MA DCF has filed a brief, but that appears to be a misunderstanding of the difference between MA HHS and MA DCF (kind of like the difference between the US President and the IRS.).

Other interested parties may include:
MA DCF
CT DCF
Justina's attorney
The Guardian Ad Litem
The residential treatment facilities - both JRI and Wayside
The treating psychologist(s)
The treating psychiatrist(s)
The Tufts medical care team (which is not limited to Dr Korson)
Dr Flores who may or may not be on the current medical treatment team
Justina's pediatrician in CT
Officials from Ben Bronz Academy

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There may be more.

 

[Karmady]

I'm very confused by this new report. I now have a JD, but am not as familiar with the motions used in family court since they tend to be sealed. But I've never heard of a "motion for review of reconsideration and dismissal."

A motion for reconsideration is rare and would mean they are saying the facts have changed - in this case, presumably the parents are now complying and it would now be appropriate for them to have custody, so the judge should now reconsider his order.

There is no motion for dismissal, but rather a motion to dismiss. But what would even be dismissed? Usually you would file a motion to dismiss the case because the opponent's complaint was inadequate or they wouldn't cooperate with discovery, or because the case had been dropped. But this isn't really a 'case' - if the judge took custody away, that can't just be withdrawn like a request would be - the order has already been made. Maybe DHS is trying to dismiss some earlier filings that would now be unneeded?

The "review of" part makes no sense to me. You don't "review reconsideration" - that's redundant. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough, but I've never heard these terms together in a motion like that. I'm wondering if this is being to some extent misreported.

A motion for reconsideration is not rare, imo. You have to really believe that the Judge got it wrong (or have a scorched earth type approach to a case), but I wouldn't say "rare." And they don't depend on the facts changing, necessarily, also imo. In my experience, they're mostly to say, as I mentioned, that the Judge got it wrong -- the facts, the law, or the law as it applies to the facts. That said, I agree with you about the title of the motion. It's not your typical nomenclature. Is the pleading available anywhere?

 

[jjenny]

So far, what we know for certain is that the Pelletier family has filed a brief and that Secretary Polanowicz has confirmed that the Health and Human Services Department filed a brief last Friday. There are some media outlets saying that MA DCF has filed a brief, but that appears to be a misunderstanding of the difference between MA HHS and MA DCF (kind of like the difference between the US President and the IRS.).

Other interested parties may include:
MA DCF
CT DCF
Justina's attorney
The Guardian Ad Litem
The residential treatment facilities - both JRI and Wayside
The treating psychologist(s)
The treating psychiatrist(s)
The Tufts medical care team (which is not limited to Dr Korson)
Dr Flores who may or may not be on the current medical treatment team
Justina's pediatrician in CT
Officials from Ben Bronz Academy

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. There may be more.

Seriously?
CT DCF that was reprimanded by the judge for not wanting to get involved in the case. You expect it to file a brief?
Wayside? She is already gone from there. Why would you expect it to file any briefs?
Her pediatrician in CT who presumably hasn't seen her in over 15 months?
What basis does he/she have to file any briefs?
Dr. Flores? Why in the world would he file a brief?
Officials from Ben Bronz Academy? Again, why in the world would they file any briefs?
As for MA DCF, it apparently already filed a brief saying that she should go home.
What other brief do you expect it to file?
And since msm is reporting that MA DCF filed this brief, what is your basis for claiming it to be wrong?

"In what Justina's attorneys are calling a "dramatic reversal," the Massachusetts DCF filed a motion agreeing that the teenager should be returned to her family. Alec Loftus, a spokesman for Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary John Polanowicz, confirmed to FoxNews.com Wednesday that both parties are in agreement."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eing-justina-pelletier-should-be-returned-to/

 

[jjenny]

Here is another msm article. Pretty clear that DCF filed this brief.

"A spokesman for Polanowicz said in a statement that DCF had filed papers in court “to support our shared goal of bringing Justina home.”"
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...her-parents/CrVnLiKTpa3sBo0nhkrz1J/story.html