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

[MyBelle]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying about my mom, and how once the archaic (and IMO barbarous) treatments she was subjected to were discredited and she was brought under a more holistic kind of treatment (psychiatrist for meds, psychologist for talk therapy/art therapy, etc.) with a focus on reintegrating her with her family and being a more self-sufficient person she went from being a near-vegetable to an 'not quite normal, but within shouting distance of it' individual.

What I am trying (not necessarily eloquently) to say is that I have LOTS of experience with severe psychiatric disorders and why isolation is not (or has not been, in my experience) a good treatment for them.

Where are you getting the idea that Justina is isolated or in any way receiving improper care?

 

[jjenny]

Where are you getting the idea that Justina is isolated or in any way receiving improper care?

Are we playing some sort of game here?

 

[Linda7NJ]

For example, if I decide to go try to find a dermatologist or plastic surgeon to remove a facial scar (and this is a real-life example) I might go to five or six doctors before I find one whose plan of treatment I feel comfortable with. Yes, I was 'doctor shopping.' Either I paid for the consultations out of pocket or they were offered free of charge for an initial visit, but as I wasn't being prescribed any potentially addicting meds (and nor was Justina, as far as I can tell) this 'shopping' was NONE of the government's business.

To my knowledge, the stigma of doctor shopping is ALL about drug-seeking behavior. I have not seen any specific allegations of Munchausen by proxy against these parents so I don't get why 'doctor shopping' is at issue at all, I really don't.

As always, I welcome being educated by those who have more knowledge of a case! :rose:

First, you must understand what exactly Munchausen by Proxy is and isn't.
This may or may not be Munchausens ....
Or something else remarkably similar.

There are enough RED FLAGS to consider it and certainly we should be concerned for this child's well being based on her parents actions and behavior.

At this point, I'd be willing to bet my last dollar there is a plethora of evidence we haven't seen that more than justified a change of custody.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

Dear Gardenlady, you and I have been on the same 'side' of some many cases here on WS I almost hesitate to disagree with you out of such liking on my part.

Nevertheless! I really, truly, do not see why even in a case of somatoform disorder she would need to be so strictly partitioned from her parents in the absence of active harmful behavior on their part. When she was at the depth of her illness, my mom was CONVINCED that her family was the Devil at the root of all her problems but when she got better treatment she actively wanted their company. And it's worth noting that her doctors (plural, because you'd better believe my dad went 'doctor shopping' after her admitting psychiatrists told him she would never get better and would never be able to function at all) never said her family the problem.

With all due respect, Justina's care is being determined by medical professionals who do see what is going on. There was a complete investigation.

 

[jjenny]

First, you must understand what exactly Munchausen by Proxy is and isn't.
This may or may not be Munchausens ....
Or something else remarkably similar.

There are enough RED FLAGS to consider it and certainly we should be concerned for this child's well being based on her parents actions and behavior.

At this point, I'd be willing to bet my last dollar there is a plethora of evidence we haven't seen that more than justified a change of custody.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only her parents aren't accused of Munchausen by Proxy, so you would lose all your money.

 

[Minette]

I am just.....WHERE is the evidence that Justina is in such remarkable danger from her parents more so than kids of acknowledged abusers/drug users?

 

[jjenny]

With all due respect, Justina's care is being determined by medical professionals who do see what is going on. There was a complete investigation.

Her care was determined by medical professionals prior to DCF taking custody.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Dear Gardenlady, you and I have been on the same 'side' of some many cases here on WS I almost hesitate to disagree with you out of such liking on my part.

Nevertheless! I really, truly, do not see why even in a case of somatoform disorder she would need to be so strictly partitioned from her parents in the absence of active harmful behavior on their part. When she was at the depth of her illness, my mom was CONVINCED that her family was the Devil at the root of all her problems but when she got better treatment she actively wanted their company. And it's worth noting that her doctors (plural, because you'd better believe my dad went 'doctor shopping' after her admitting psychiatrists told him she would never get better and would never be able to function at all) never said her family the problem.

Parents should play a huge supporting role for a child with any diagnosis.
If the parent isn't on board ...and, in fact, goes to great lengths to trash the treatment providers and the diagnosis, in front of and to the child, It's detrimental to that child's health and well being.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

I am just.....WHERE is the evidence that Justina is in such remarkable danger from her parents more so than kids of acknowledged abusers/drug users?

Well, it's super secret and nobody gets to know about it, don't you know?
The little boy was just found dead by the side of the road in MA, and apparently DCF case worker wasn't even regularly visiting his family.
But no money should be spared to keep Justina in custody.

 

[jjenny]

Parents should play a huge supporting role for a child with any diagnosis.
If the parent isn't on board ...and, in fact, goes to great lengths to trash the treatment providers and the diagnosis, in front of and to the child, It's detrimental to that child's health and well being.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So hospital A diagnoses the child with one condition.
But hospital B diagnoses the child with another condition.
Which diagnosis are parents supposed to follow in order for them to not lose custody to DCF?
Considering hospital A and hospital B could report them to DCF for not following their diagnosis.
So, in case of medical disagreement, parents should automatically lose custody because they would have to disregard one of the diagnosis to follow the other?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Only her parents aren't accused of Munchausen by Proxy, so you would lose all your money.

You may want to read my post again, you musta missed something as I'm still sitting on my money


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenlady]

Dear Gardenlady, you and I have been on the same 'side' of some many cases here on WS I almost hesitate to disagree with you out of such liking on my part.

Nevertheless! I really, truly, do not see why even in a case of somatoform disorder she would need to be so strictly partitioned from her parents in the absence of active harmful behavior on their part. When she was at the depth of her illness, my mom was CONVINCED that her family was the Devil at the root of all her problems but when she got better treatment she actively wanted their company. And it's worth noting that her doctors (plural, because you'd better believe my dad went 'doctor shopping' after her admitting psychiatrists told him she would never get better and would never be able to function at all) never said her family the problem.

I always enjoy your posts too, I always recognize your cute kitty avatar right away! :blowkiss:

I think with something like your mom's illness, the docs probably recognized that even though she literally thought you were the devil, you all were not the cause of her condition. And while your presence may have temporarily caused her distress while her condition wasn't well controlled, your presence was not making the condition itself worse.

I'm not sure how it works these days, if the would allow family in before something like schizophrenia is controlled at least somewhat with meds, if the family is part of the psychotic manifestations. Very difficult situation, and I could see good reasons for either approach.

I suspect that in Justina's case, whatever she has, the parents are somehow making the condition worse; either through encouraging her symptoms/complaints, exacerbating her anxiety (which in turn worsens the physical symptoms of somatoform), or something else. I do not know whether they are doing this deliberately or not. But not agreeing to the initial conditions of curtailing the medical talk with her, shows they apparently at that point were more concerned with being right than they were about helping her be less anxious.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am just.....WHERE is the evidence that Justina is in such remarkable danger from her parents more so than kids of acknowledged abusers/drug users?

The difference is ....the drug users and abusers jumped through a few hoops. They had a few clean urine drops and worked their case plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

The difference is ....the drug users and abusers jumped through a few hoops. They had a few clean urine drops and worked their case plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But Justina's parents were never drug users to begin with.
If DCF wants clean urine I am sure they have plenty of it.

 

[Linda7NJ]

But Justina's parents were never drug users to begin with.

If DCF wants clean urine I am sure they have plenty of it.

WHAT?????




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

WHAT?????




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very simple. Justina's parents appear to upstanding non-drug using citizens. Yet DCF regularly leaves children with less than upstanding citizens.
Sometimes with bad consequences. But for Justina's case, DCF appears to be sparing no expense, even though it was never revealed as to how exactly her parents are any danger to her.
So, what gives?

 

[MyBelle]

Her care was determined by medical professionals prior to DCF taking custody.

Her care still IS being determined by medical professionals. It was medical professionals who called in DCF. Those are real facts and now a non-issue to the Court.

 

[forthelost]

Can you at least acknowledge that the parents are only one side of the story? And that BCH, by law, can't release anything to the contrary?

 

[jjenny]

Her care still IS being determined by medical professionals. It was medical professionals who called in DCF. Those are real facts and now a non-issue to the Court.

Because parents refused to follow protocol prescribed by BCH and wanted to follow a protocol prescribed by Tuft's. That should not be a ground for removal of the child.

 

[Gardenlady]

Can you at least acknowledge that the parents are only one side of the story? And that BCH, by law, can't release anything to the contrary?

I asked this earlier too. :waiting: