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

[Karmady]

From the Globe article in the previous post:



Again, I'm not super familiar with how family court/state custody issues work, but I didn't think that DCF typically asked for a child to be returned to the parents. The parents file a request motion, and DCF doesn't oppose it and may assent to it or submit affidavits or briefs in support of that motion. I didn't think DCF had standing to ask on behalf of the parents that she be returned, but that could be a misunderstanding by the reporter, or maybe I'm just wrong.

Then it says they had removed their opposition, so maybe that was the dismissal referenced. Then it says the parents met the conditions, so that would indicate a change in circumstances. And the judge does not have to agree they met all conditions, just that it would be in her best interest to go back.

Then it says DCF filed papers to support her return home - that to me indicates they didn't request she be returned, but instead offered support to the parents' motion. Just a legal distinction, but it's worth noting, because otherwise it seems to not make sense. But then it says the parents weren't able to submit such a motion yet, so it is confusing.



It's not available, but I think everything is sealed and the parents leak information selectively. I should have said success is rare, but there's very little addressing motions for reconsideration. I thought that the difference between a motion for reconsideration and an appeal was that an appeal deals with the judge getting the law or application of the law wrong, and a motion for reconsideration deals with a factual change, not an error. In this case, the article mentions the parents have met the burden of showing a change in circumstances, so I guess that's the standard they are using to try and modify the decision.

ETA: And if they are truly asking for her to be returned to her parents, CT DCF will not be taking over unless they decide there's something to investigate. They aren't asking her to be transferred to the custody of CT authorities.

Yes, I agree they're rarely granted and also that you CAN file a motion for reconsideration if there's been a change in facts. Just not sure I'd call it a motion for reconsideration since you'd have to supplement the record. Depends on the circumstances I think, so maybe appropriate here. Just semantics anyway, I suppose. Thanks for responding. Too bad the papers aren't available. It's not like most of her personal info hasn't already been put out there. jmo

 

[lawstudent]

Yes, I agree they're rarely granted and also that you CAN file a motion for reconsideration if there's been a change in facts. Just not sure I'd call it a motion for reconsideration since you'd have to supplement the record. Depends on the circumstances I think, so maybe appropriate here. Just semantics anyway, I suppose. Thanks for responding. Too bad the papers aren't available. It's not like most of her personal info hasn't already been put out there. jmo

Did some more research - apparently MA's rules of civil procedure don't even refer to such motions so there's a lot of confusion about when and if they can be filed, whereas other states have specific time limits. From a case for the First Circuit:

Reconsideration is warranted only in a limited number of
circumstances: 1) the moving party presents newly discovered
evidence material to the Court’s decision, 2) there has been an intervening change in law or 3) the decision was based on a manifest error of law or fact or was clearly unjust. United
States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009).

I guess the third one leaves it open to any sort of argument, but it must be tough to get a judge to admit he was totally wrong and unjust.

 

[sweetmom]

To LawStudent:

Especially if the judge was in fact following the rules and being as just as possible, not to mention trying not to react injudiciously to the family's hysterical accusations.

 

[CathyinTexas]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGXOYwyohQ0

 

[CathyinTexas]

Tonight, June 12, Nancy Grace finally weighed in on the Pelletier case. She is for the parents and angry at DCF for getting involved. I must say, I am surprised.

 

[jjenny]

Tonight, June 12, Nancy Grace finally weighed in on the Pelletier case. She is for the parents and angry at DCF for getting involved. I must say, I am surprised.

She is a little bit late to the party, isn't she?

 

[sweetmom]

Tonight, June 12, Nancy Grace finally weighed in on the Pelletier case. She is for the parents and angry at DCF for getting involved. I must say, I am surprised.

Angry at DCF? Why? They had no choice: doctors are mandated reporters , so by state law they had to report their concerns to DCF, and that meant DCF had to get involved. That's something NG should certainly know.

But she is about as good a lawyer as Keith ("I've never even talked to this person but I am diagnosing him/her anyway") Ablow is a doctor. They are TV personalities and publicity hounds, not respected professionals, IMO.

 

[CHICANA]

Angry at DCF? Why? They had no choice: doctors are mandated reporters , so by state law they had to report their concerns to DCF, and that meant DCF had to get involved. That's something NG should certainly know.

But she is about as good a lawyer as Keith ("I've never even talked to this person but I am diagnosing him/her anyway") Ablow is a doctor. They are TV personalities and publicity hounds, not respected professionals, IMO.

Not for getting involved. For taking her from her home. She wasn't abused, and they're supposed to do everything they can to keep a child with her family, yet they neither provide nor offered any services to accomplish that

 

[sweetmom]

Not for getting involved. For taking her from her home. She wasn't abused, and they're supposed to do everything they can to keep a child with her family, yet they neither provide nor offered any services to accomplish that

But DCF thought she WAS being abused by her family's refusal to give her psychological treatment. That's kind of the whole point.

DCF and the judge DID try to find her an interim placement in Connecticut A WHOLE YEAR AGO but the family objected. All of you who keep complaining about Justina's long period of time in the BCH ward need to realize that it was actions by her family that kept her there, not actions by BCH or Mass DCF or the court.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not for getting involved. For taking her from her home. She wasn't abused, and they're supposed to do everything they can to keep a child with her family, yet they neither provide nor offered any services to accomplish that

They didn't take her from her home, initially child protective services was called for a second time, to keep her in the hospital, her parents wanted to remove her AMA...for the second time, from Children's, the second hospital.
In less than 30 days that child was in three different hospitals. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

But DCF thought she WAS being abused by her family's refusal to give her psychological treatment. That's kind of the whole point.

DCF and the judge DID try to find her an interim placement in Connecticut A WHOLE YEAR AGO but the family objected. All of you who keep complaining about Justina's long period of time in the BCH ward need to realize that it was actions by her family that kept her there, not actions by BCH or Mass DCF or the court.

Justina was getting psychological treatment. She had a long term psychologist. Her parents have a right to decide who should be treating her.
BCH, MA DCF and the court are responsible for locking her up in Bader 5, not her parents.

 

[jjenny]

There is no law that says how many hospitals you can have your child in in 30 days, is there? And never was. Parents seeking treatment for their child is not abuse or neglect.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Justina was getting psychological treatment. She had a long term psychologist. Her parents have a right to decide who should be treating her.

BCH, MA DCF and the court are responsible for locking her up in Bader 5, not her parents.

Do you believe her psychologist was treating & meeting with her on even a weekly basis?

I do not believe that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

There is no law that says how many hospitals you can have your child in in 30 days, is there? And never was. Parents seeking treatment for their child is not abuse or neglect.

Seeking treatment wasn't the problem jjenny.

Doctor shopping and refusing to follow medical advice is viewed as endangerment. Having unnecessary procedures and over medicating is viewed as abuse.

Regardless if the allegations are right or wrong doctors have a duty and are mandated to report suspected abuse & endangerment.

Child protective services then investigates the allegations.

That's the way it works.

The system worked exactly as it should have. The ONLY kink in the process has been the parents and their antics. They prolonged the process. They alone thwarted every move toward reunification by refusing to follow the case plan, threatening staff, lying, making false allegations....all of which prolonged the process and in FACT forced their own child to endure months of unnecessary time away from home.

All IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

Who says the procedures were unnecessary? All the procedures were done by reputable doctors. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that there were any procedures done that were unnecessary.
As for parents prolonging something-if you ask me, this never should have happened to begin with.
There appears to be no evidence of abuse here, only a sick child with poorly understood condition.

 

[Karmady]

Did some more research - apparently MA's rules of civil procedure don't even refer to such motions so there's a lot of confusion about when and if they can be filed, whereas other states have specific time limits. From a case for the First Circuit:

Reconsideration is warranted only in a limited number of
circumstances: 1) the moving party presents newly discovered
evidence material to the Court’s decision, 2) there has been an intervening change in law or 3) the decision was based on a manifest error of law or fact or was clearly unjust. United
States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009).

I guess the third one leaves it open to any sort of argument, but it must be tough to get a judge to admit he was totally wrong and unjust.

I've actually seen one granted in the past year. Maybe 5 lifetime. lol

 

[K_Z]

Who says the procedures were unnecessary? All the procedures were done by reputable doctors. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that there were any procedures done that were unnecessary.
As for parents prolonging something-if you ask me, this never should have happened to begin with.
There appears to be no evidence of abuse here, only a sick child with poorly understood condition.

BBM. And I disagree. From what is in the public, with media articles, I believe these parents are unquestionably medical abusers. In addition to whatever psychological and medical conditions this teen has (or doesn't).

This is an area I think is very poorly understood by the general population-- when is a medical procedure "unnecessary?"

Here are a few evidence based examples:

http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/

Contrary to popular belief, the decision as to whether a procedure is "necessary" isn't really a verbal battle between 2 docs. There are CLEAR evidence based guidelines for many procedures. Insurance and payors often require that a procedure fall within the evidence based guidelines for it to be "necessary".

Now, we all know that there are "outliers" at EITHER end of the bell curve for doing a given procedure. There are medical doctors who eschew immunizations (shockingly, IMO). And there are doctors who will do very invasive (and expensive) testing for very minor complaints-- for example, ordering an MRI for minor headache complaints.

Increasingly, there is a requirement for these "outlier" decisions to be energetically supported, in order to get coverage, and comply with institutional policies. But that is never a problem for outliers-- they have the justification all figured out before they even make a decision. Docs who are "outliers" have figured out how to get "their" procedures covered.

Medical abuse perpetrators "know" what they need to "say" to get an outlier doc to do something the abuser wants done. These parents are cunning and skillful at identifying their "mark". Medical abusers "shop" for the outliers, IMO-- NEVER the ones who adhere to mainstream practices and evidence based criteria. They screen their candidates carefully to determine the potential for the candidate to carry out their requests. That is what doc shopping is all about.

The medical abuse perpetrator always makes sure that their "situation" is sufficiently complex to "justify" the position of the outlier doc they have chosen. That is how they manipulate so cunningly and skillfully. And that is why they can so plaintively claim "But a licensed doctor RECOMMENDED and performed this procedure!"

Medical abusers are con artists of the highest degree. Smart, skillful, and cunning.

And "outlier" docs are "looking" for cases that fit whatever their pet project or philosophy is. It's a match made in....well, it's a match, anyway. They both get something they want out of the arrangement. "IMO".

 

[octobermoon]

BBM. And I disagree. From what is in the public, with media articles, I believe these parents are unquestionably medical abusers. In addition to whatever psychological and medical conditions this teen has (or doesn't).

This is an area I think is very poorly understood by the general population-- when is a medical procedure "unnecessary?"

Here are a few evidence based examples:

http://www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/

Contrary to popular belief, the decision as to whether a procedure is "necessary" isn't really a verbal battle between 2 docs. There are CLEAR evidence based guidelines for many procedures. Insurance and payors often require that a procedure fall within the evidence based guidelines for it to be "necessary".

Now, we all know that there are "outliers" at EITHER end of the bell curve for doing a given procedure. There are medical doctors who eschew immunizations (shockingly, IMO). And there are doctors who will do very invasive (and expensive) testing for very minor complaints-- for example, ordering an MRI for minor headache complaints.

Increasingly, there is a requirement for these "outlier" decisions to be energetically supported, in order to get coverage, and comply with institutional policies. But that is never a problem for outliers-- they have the justification all figured out before they even make a decision. Docs who are "outliers" have figured out how to get "their" procedures covered.

Medical abuse perpetrators "know" what they need to "say" to get an outlier doc to do something the abuser wants done. These parents are cunning and skillful at identifying their "mark". Medical abusers "shop" for the outliers, IMO-- NEVER the ones who adhere to mainstream practices and evidence based criteria. They screen their candidates carefully to determine the potential for the candidate to carry out their requests. That is what doc shopping is all about.

The medical abuse perpetrator always makes sure that their "situation" is sufficiently complex to "justify" the position of the outlier doc they have chosen. That is how they manipulate so cunningly and skillfully. And that is why they can so plaintively claim "But a licensed doctor RECOMMENDED and performed this procedure!"

Medical abusers are con artists of the highest degree. Smart, skillful, and cunning.

And "outlier" docs are "looking" for cases that fit whatever their pet project or philosophy is. It's a match made in....well, it's a match, anyway. They both get something they want out of the arrangement. "IMO".

This is spot on. We have suspected this of a friend of the family and her adult daughter. Not doctor shopping for pain meds, but a diagnosis they "wanted" if that makes sense. The mom took her daughter to a neighboring state and the ER doctor put a stop to it. Docs in the neighboring state demanded the daughter's med history, last visits and permission to obtain all records. She (the daughter was on medicaid) the hospital wouldn't take out of state medicaid without access to all tests, etc. They checked out of the hospital against the doctor's advice as soon as her medical history was in play. Doc shopping across state lines. Sound familiar?

 

[Donjeta]

Who says the procedures were unnecessary? All the procedures were done by reputable doctors. I haven't seen a shred of evidence that there were any procedures done that were unnecessary.
As for parents prolonging something-if you ask me, this never should have happened to begin with.
There appears to be no evidence of abuse here, only a sick child with poorly understood condition.

JMO but "it never should have happened to begin with" is no kind of excuse or explanation for the parents prolonging it and making it harder for Justina to get back home.

If your children get taken and it never should have happened to begin with, it makes even less sense, not more, to cause obstacles in the reunification process. If your children are kept away from you for a good reason that is one thing but if they are kept away from you because someone made a tragical mistake the last thing you want to do is anything that will make them keep your kids longer.

If you want them back, that is.

:cow:

 

[jjenny]

JMO but "it never should have happened to begin with" is no kind of excuse or explanation for the parents prolonging it and making it harder for Justina to get back home.

If your children get taken and it never should have happened to begin with, it makes even less sense, not more, to cause obstacles in the reunification process. If your children are kept away from you for a good reason that is one thing but if they are kept away from you because someone made a tragical mistake the last thing you want to do is anything that will make them keep your kids longer.

If you want them back, that is.

:cow:

It certainly doesn't look to me that DCF had any reunification plan in place until Polanowicz came up with one.