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

[gitana1]

Eeeshh. Why is it getting so snarky in here? Each side has logical reasons supporting their opinions.

It's true, a medical team at BCH, as well as DCF and a judge, have decided that leaving the child in the care of her parents is not a viable option and that she was, at least, in danger in their care. And I take that very seriously.

Also, personally, I've read some things about the parents that make me think they are unstable mentally.

But guess what? In the United States of America, the government is not allowed to take children away just because their parents are wacky. And there is enough to the story to indicate BCH and DCF may be wrong here. So on the side of unnecessary government intrusion?

1. The child's long time psychologist thinks something is wrong with what has happened: "It’s the most bizarre situation … I’ve ever been involved with,” says Dean Hokanson, the clinical psychologist who has worked with Justina the past five years. In addition to working with Justina, Dean Hokanson also testified at one of the court proceedings.They were actually being accused of being too active in pursuing healthcare matters for their child,” says Hokanson. http://foxct.com/2013/11/19/hospita...-parents-argue-diagnosis/#JsggFmQfpv5MH8vi.99

2. The child's long time doctor disagrees with what has happened and was barred from being involved in the kid's medical care at BCH and was barred for a time from giving testimony at trial: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...l-uncertain/Y7qvYTGsq8QklkxUZvuUgP/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/12/justina-pelletier-case-shows-public-psychiatric-power-control/

3. The child was diagnosed with somatoform disorder at BCH, as an explanation for her symptoms, yet it turns out only one doctor actually diagnosed her with that and three others disagree:

Staver said three psychiatric experts and Dr. Korson testified in court in the last months of 2013. One of the psychiatrists was the one from Boston Children’s Hospital who first diagnosed Justina with somatoform disorder. That doctor maintained a somatoform diagnosis to the court, Staver said. Another was from Boston Children’s who disagreed with the somatoform diagnosis but said Justina had another psychiatric condition known as conversion disorder. The third, Staver said, was a psychologist who had seen since Justina since 2006, well before the custody battle began. This psychologist believed that Justina suffered from a form a depression that resulted from her symptoms with mitochondrial disease. Dr. Korson maintained in court that Justina had mitochondrial disease, which impacts the energy-producing organelles of her cells.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...cusations-against-justina-pelletiers-parents/

4. Mitchondrial disease is highly misunderstood by medical experts and often leads to false allegations of child abuse:http://www.mitoaction.org/advocacy

5. BCH and DCF have a history of heavy-handedness and effectuating the removal of children from their parents for medical abuse:

According to the Boston Globe, in the last 18 months Boston Children’s hospital took custody of children or seriously threatened to do so at least five times. The Globe reported, “It happens often enough that the pediatrician who until recently ran the child protection teams at both Children’s and Massachusetts General Hospital said she and others in her field have a name for this aggressive legal-medical maneuver. They call it a ‘parent-ectomy.’”

Read more: http://benswann.com/exposed-boston-...-children-against-parents-will/#ixzz2zs9ebYbv
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter​

Dr. Eli Newberger, a pediatrician who founded the child protection team at Children’s in 1970 and ran it for three decades, cautions that “doctors in this new specialty have enormous and really unchecked power.”
As an expert witness in cases around the country, Newberger said he’s seen a tendency for state child-welfare agencies to be “overly credulous to hospitals” and for some child protection teams to show a “reflexive willingness to label and to punish,” especially educated mothers who are perceived as being too pushy.
Assertive parents, armed with information from Internet support groups and believing they’re advocating for their child’s best interests, risk alienating doctors and nurses, leaving them few allies if they find themselves accused of medical child abuse.http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

6. Despite removal from her parents, the child has not improved enough to leave a medical facility.

7. The hospital stated the child did not need a feeding tube/button and removed it. They ended up having to replace it.

8. I have seen firsthand how one expert will influence the system in dependency court cases leading to a chain reaction resulting in the unjust removal of children who are sometimes placed in even worse situations. Ego plays a huge part in this.

There is enough about this case for me to have deep concern with the actions of BCH, DCF and the court.

There is logic behind both sides, so why so much snark in here?

 

[MyBelle]

Eeeshh. Why is it getting so snarky in here? Each side has logical reasons supporting their opinions.

It's true, a medical team at BCH, as well as DCF and a judge, have decided that leaving the child in the care of her parents is not a viable option and that she was, at least, in danger in their care. And I take that very seriously.

Also, personally, I've read some things about the parents that make me think they are unstable mentally.

But guess what? In the United States of America, the government is not allowed to take children away just because their parents are wacky. And there is enough to the story to indicate BCH and DCF may be wrong here. So on the side of unnecessary government intrusion?

1. The child's long time psychologist thinks something is wrong with what has happened: "It’s the most bizarre situation … I’ve ever been involved with,” says Dean Hokanson, the clinical psychologist who has worked with Justina the past five years. In addition to working with Justina, Dean Hokanson also testified at one of the court proceedings.They were actually being accused of being too active in pursuing healthcare matters for their child,” says Hokanson. http://foxct.com/2013/11/19/hospita...-parents-argue-diagnosis/#JsggFmQfpv5MH8vi.99

2. The child's long time doctor disagrees with what has happened and was barred from being involved in the kid's medical care at BCH and was barred for a time from giving testimony at trial: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...l-uncertain/Y7qvYTGsq8QklkxUZvuUgP/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/12/justina-pelletier-case-shows-public-psychiatric-power-control/

3. The child was diagnosed with somatoform disorder at BCH, as an explanation for her symptoms, yet it turns out only one doctor actually diagnosed her with that and three others disagree: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...cusations-against-justina-pelletiers-parents/

4. Mitchondrial disease is highly misunderstood by medical experts and often leads to false allegations of child abuse:http://www.mitoaction.org/advocacy

5. BCH and DCF have a history of heavy-handedness and effectuating the removal of children from their parents for medical abuse:

6. Despite removal from her parents, the child has not improved enough to leave a medical facility.

7. The hospital stated the child did not need a feeding tube/button and removed it. They ended up having to replace it.

8. I have seen firsthand how one expert will influence the system in dependency court cases leading to a chain reaction resulting in the unjust removal of children who are sometimes placed in even worse situations. Ego plays a huge part in this.

There is enough about this case for me to have deep concern with the actions of BCH, DCF and the court.

There is logic behind both sides, so why so much snark in here?

Gosh, I haven't seen snark but opinion that the multiple specialists who expressed their professional opinions to the Judge are totally wrong. Seems a little one-sided and seems to work both ways. Others are very supportive of the decisions of the Court. You are citing news articles months old and a lot has changed since then. I think it is far more complicated than the parents just being "wacky."

The professional opinions are that the family is incapable of handling the complex medical needs of the child. Is this heavy-handed? Perhaps in the eyes of laymen but it isn't to the court. The court has to rely on it. That's all a Court can go by.

The child's long time doctor, Dr. Korson, is not dis-involved in her care. In fact, a month ago, the Judge took care in making sure he is on the team to manage Justina's care.

JMO

 

[Elley Mae]

Eeeshh. Why is it getting so snarky in here? Each side has logical reasons supporting their opinions.

It's true, a medical team at BCH, as well as DCF and a judge, have decided that leaving the child in the care of her parents is not a viable option and that she was, at least, in danger in their care. And I take that very seriously.

Also, personally, I've read some things about the parents that make me think they are unstable mentally.

But guess what? In the United States of America, the government is not allowed to take children away just because their parents are wacky. And there is enough to the story to indicate BCH and DCF may be wrong here. So on the side of unnecessary government intrusion?

1. The child's long time psychologist thinks something is wrong with what has happened: "It’s the most bizarre situation … I’ve ever been involved with,” says Dean Hokanson, the clinical psychologist who has worked with Justina the past five years. In addition to working with Justina, Dean Hokanson also testified at one of the court proceedings.They were actually being accused of being too active in pursuing healthcare matters for their child,” says Hokanson. http://foxct.com/2013/11/19/hospita...-parents-argue-diagnosis/#JsggFmQfpv5MH8vi.99

2. The child's long time doctor disagrees with what has happened and was barred from being involved in the kid's medical care at BCH and was barred for a time from giving testimony at trial: http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...l-uncertain/Y7qvYTGsq8QklkxUZvuUgP/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/12/justina-pelletier-case-shows-public-psychiatric-power-control/

3. The child was diagnosed with somatoform disorder at BCH, as an explanation for her symptoms, yet it turns out only one doctor actually diagnosed her with that and three others disagree: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...cusations-against-justina-pelletiers-parents/

4. Mitchondrial disease is highly misunderstood by medical experts and often leads to false allegations of child abuse:http://www.mitoaction.org/advocacy

5. BCH and DCF have a history of heavy-handedness and effectuating the removal of children from their parents for medical abuse:

6. Despite removal from her parents, the child has not improved enough to leave a medical facility.

7. The hospital stated the child did not need a feeding tube/button and removed it. They ended up having to replace it.

8. I have seen firsthand how one expert will influence the system in dependency court cases leading to a chain reaction resulting in the unjust removal of children who are sometimes placed in even worse situations. Ego plays a huge part in this.

There is enough about this case for me to have deep concern with the actions of BCH, DCF and the court.

There is logic behind both sides, so why so much snark in here?

Thank you, and yes the snarky is why I stopped posting, and began to read between post. jmo

 

[jjenny]

http://michaelgraham.com/rev-mahoney-confronts-gov-patrick-on-pelletier-case-with-must-watch-video/

And here is the statement from DCF also saying it's not up to them, but to the court.
Gov Patrick says it's up to the court. DCF claims it's up to the court.
Isn't that baloney?
DCF tells the court what to do.
If DCF told the court the child could go back to the parents the court would presumably oblige. Judge Johnston didn't run after DCF asking them to take custody. DCF came to judge Johnston asking for custody.

"Contrary to the belief of many, DCF does not have the authority to determine when and if custody should be returned to Justina’s parents. As with all cases of alleged abuse or neglect, that authority is held solely by the court. In this case, after reviewing all of the evidence, the court found that it is in the best interest of Justina to remain in DCF custody for now."

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-19907--20140425,0,5790071.story

 

[Linda7NJ]

And here is the statement from DCF also saying it's not up to them, but to the court.

Gov Patrick says it's up to the court. DCF claims it's up to the court.

Isn't that baloney?

DCF tells the court what to do.

If DCF told the court the child could go back to the parents the court would presumably oblige. Judge Johnston didn't run after DCF asking them to take custody. DCF came to judge Johnston asking for custody.



"Contrary to the belief of many, DCF does not have the authority to determine when and if custody should be returned to Justina’s parents. As with all cases of alleged abuse or neglect, that authority is held solely by the court. In this case, after reviewing all of the evidence, the court found that it is in the best interest of Justina to remain in DCF custody for now."



http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-19907--20140425,0,5790071.story

It is up to the court.

DCF is tasked with making recommendations after gathering information.

DCF is not the only recommendation the court considers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

It is up to the court.

DCF is tasked with making recommendations after gathering information.

DCF is not the only recommendation the court considers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am amazed at those who blame DCF for conduct that is clearly the fault of the parent. No wonder so many children are in danger in this country.

 

[gitana1]

I am amazed at those who blame DCF for conduct that is clearly the fault of the parent. No wonder so many children are in danger in this country.

Hmm. That seems like an unfair and illogical statement. Questioning unchecked power has nothing to do with why so many children are in danger in this country. That power goes both ways and most if us who want more transparency and accountability are highly critical not only of questionable decisions to remove children but also questionable decisions not to.

Nothing is clear about this case. If it were so clear there would not be so many people concerned about this case nor so many professionals in disagreement with what DCF and BCH did here.

It is up to the court.

DCF is tasked with making recommendations after gathering information.

DCF is not the only recommendation the court considers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you've said is undoubtedly true. However, in my experience regarding such cases, DCF rules the court and determined the outcome in 95% of dependency court dispositions. No authority except Mikita counsel has as much power over court outcomes. Courts tend to view DCF as an unbiased third party when they are not, and rely heavily on DCF recommendations in their rulings.

And that can be scary as DCF as in institution is typically horribly understaffed and overworked. That leads to many children falling through the cracks and occasionally bad decisions that fall the other way.

I have seen several such cases. One involved my client who called DCF to report allegations of abuse substantiated by police, against stepdad and mom. Somehow, DCF officials took a liking to the couple and turned the whole case around. They took custody of the kids away from my client and placed them with mom and stepdad. He then hired us. It took months to untangle and prove to the court that the other side were the abusers, not dad who tried to protect them.

 

[Elley Mae]

Hacker group Anonymous targets Children’s Hospital

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...letier-case/jSd3EE5VVHbSGTJdS5YrfM/story.html

Mass. DCF Working To Return Justina Pelletier

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hcrs-19907--20140425,0,5790071.story

Mass. State Official Wants Justina Pelletier In Connecticut

http://foxct.com/2014/04/25/mass-state-official-wants-justina-pelletier-in-connecticut/

 

[Linda7NJ]

Hmm. That seems like an unfair and illogical statement. Questioning unchecked power has nothing to do with why so many children are in danger in this country. That power goes both ways and most if us who want more transparency and accountability are highly critical not only of questionable decisions to remove children but also questionable decisions not to.



Nothing is clear about this case. If it were so clear there would not be so many people concerned about this case nor so many professionals in disagreement with what DCF and BCH did here.







What you've said is undoubtedly true. However, in my experience regarding such cases, DCF rules the court and determined the outcome in 95% of dependency court dispositions. No authority except Mikita counsel has as much power over court outcomes. Courts tend to view DCF as an unbiased third party when they are not, and rely heavily on DCF recommendations in their rulings.



And that can be scary as DCF as in institution is typically horribly understaffed and overworked. That leads to many children falling through the cracks and occasionally bad decisions that fall the other way.



I have seen several such cases. One involved my client who called DCF to report allegations of abuse substantiated by police, against stepdad and mom. Somehow, DCF officials took a liking to the couple and turned the whole case around. They took custody of the kids away from my client and placed them with mom and stepdad. He then hired us. It took months to untangle and prove to the court that the other side were the abusers, not dad who tried to protect them.

I totally agree with you.
I've seen it time and time again and I've experienced it.

With that said, I agree the system needs a complete overhaul, accountability and transparency.

But... In this case.. Regardless which side is medically correct, the parents aren't doing themselves any favors. It's clear to me that her Parents are willing to use her as a pawn in their own agenda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

Hmm. That seems like an unfair and illogical statement. Questioning unchecked power has nothing to do with why so many children are in danger in this country. That power goes both ways and most if us who want more transparency and accountability are highly critical not only of questionable decisions to remove children but also questionable decisions not to.

Nothing is clear about this case. If it were so clear there would not be so many people concerned about this case nor so many professionals in disagreement with what DCF and BCH did here.



What you've said is undoubtedly true. However, in my experience regarding such cases, DCF rules the court and determined the outcome in 95% of dependency court dispositions. No authority except Mikita counsel has as much power over court outcomes. Courts tend to view DCF as an unbiased third party when they are not, and rely heavily on DCF recommendations in their rulings.

And that can be scary as DCF as in institution is typically horribly understaffed and overworked. That leads to many children falling through the cracks and occasionally bad decisions that fall the other way.

I have seen several such cases. One involved my client who called DCF to report allegations of abuse substantiated by police, against stepdad and mom. Somehow, DCF officials took a liking to the couple and turned the whole case around. They took custody of the kids away from my client and placed them with mom and stepdad. He then hired us. It took months to untangle and prove to the court that the other side were the abusers, not dad who tried to protect them.

Exactly. DCF can tell the judge they want to return her and the judge will almost certainly oblige. So for the governor and head of HHS claim that it's up to the court is misleading if you ask me.
DCF could close the case any time it wants.
And return this child to her parents.
How long have DCF been claiming now that they want to return her to CT? Yet she is still in MA.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Exactly. DCF can tell the judge they want to return her and the judge will almost certainly oblige. So for the governor and head of HHS claim that it's up to the court is misleading if you ask me.

DCF could close the case any time it wants.

And return this child to her parents.

How long have DCF been claiming now that they want to return her to CT? Yet she is still in MA.

DCF will close the case when her parents decide to engage & embrace the process.

Her parents need to prioritize and put their child first. Now they're more interested in the limelight and media attention.
I find it frightening that Lou is still running around claiming she's at deaths door and she doesn't have much time left. I find that disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

That note that Lou released recently, the one he says Justina smuggled out to the family, the one where a portion was cropped out or not included in the image he released. The note that says:

“They hurt me all the time push me all the time and more,” the purported note from Justina Pelletier says. It also says “[they] do not let me sleep ..."
​

I wonder why, when asked by the Blaze people why he didn't include the whole note, his answer was so circumspect and basically changed the subject and did not answer the question.

You can see the full note here.
"According to a list allegedly penned by Justina, these are the top 15 reasons why the State of Connecticut should rescue her from Massachusettes DFC and send her home to her parents (errors in spelling not corrected):"

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/life/ju...ldren-and-families-15964/#PAM7Zc2rtZbAbBKm.99
http://www.commdiginews.com/life/ju...ldren-and-families-15964/#iGHRXlbQQDa33673.99

 

[jjenny]

DCF will close the case when her parents decide to engage & embrace the process.

Her parents need to prioritize and put their child first. Now they're more interested in the limelight and media attention.
I find it frightening that Lou is still running around claiming she's at deaths door and she doesn't have much time left. I find that disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And how do you know she isn't? Like you repeatedly pointed out, we don't have her medical records.
So, how do you know she isn't at death door?
I was just reading about another young lady with mitochondrial disease that per her doctors has a month left to live.
This disease could be fatal.

 

[Linda7NJ]

And how do you know she isn't? Like you repeatedly pointed out, we don't have her medical records.

So, how do you know she isn't at death door?

I was just reading about another young lady with mitochondrial disease that per the article had a month left to live.

She looked rather healthy in the photo yet she has a month to live.

Please link the article.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

Hmm. That seems like an unfair and illogical statement. Questioning unchecked power has nothing to do with why so many children are in danger in this country. That power goes both ways and most if us who want more transparency and accountability are highly critical not only of questionable decisions to remove children but also questionable decisions not to.

Nothing is clear about this case. If it were so clear there would not be so many people concerned about this case nor so many professionals in disagreement with what DCF and BCH did here.



What you've said is undoubtedly true. However, in my experience regarding such cases, DCF rules the court and determined the outcome in 95% of dependency court dispositions. No authority except Mikita counsel has as much power over court outcomes. Courts tend to view DCF as an unbiased third party when they are not, and rely heavily on DCF recommendations in their rulings.

And that can be scary as DCF as in institution is typically horribly understaffed and overworked. That leads to many children falling through the cracks and occasionally bad decisions that fall the other way.

I have seen several such cases. One involved my client who called DCF to report allegations of abuse substantiated by police, against stepdad and mom. Somehow, DCF officials took a liking to the couple and turned the whole case around. They took custody of the kids away from my client and placed them with mom and stepdad. He then hired us. It took months to untangle and prove to the court that the other side were the abusers, not dad who tried to protect them.

BBM. My comments are specific to this case and I'll continue to hold the opinion the system has worked as it is supposed to work. The Judge took the time to hear directly from the physicians caring for Justina. Those of us who hold no medical credentials are not in a position to criticize physicians for their medical decisions which included calling in DCF.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

DCF will close the case when her parents decide to engage & embrace the process.

Her parents need to prioritize and put their child first. Now they're more interested in the limelight and media attention.
I find it frightening that Lou is still running around claiming she's at deaths door and she doesn't have much time left. I find that disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It still makes no sense that he would threaten a facility in CT. It's as though he really doesn't want his own child, he just wants to blame everybody else for her condition.

 

[i.b.nora]

Paraphrased: Just as he said he would, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick arranged a meeting between John W. Polanowicz, Secretary for Massachusetts Health and Human Services and current Pelletier family spokesman, Rev. Patrick Mahoney. Polanowicz oversees 17 State agencies, including the DCF.

They met yesterday in a 70 minute meeting. They discussed a unification proposal that would return Justina back home to the Pelletiers with "conditional custody". The family and Justina's State appointed attorney Nancy Hathaway had both previously endorsed this proposal.​

I have not seen it reported by any MSM sources so I won't link to any of the sources that I saw that mentioned the meeting.

I can hardly wait for her to be returned to her home and her parents because the sooner that is accomplished the sooner all the groups who have glommed onto Justin's plight as their cause celebré will have to find a new one, lest their donations dry up.

 

[MyBelle]

Paraphrased: Just as he said he would, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick arranged a meeting between John W. Polanowicz, Secretary for Massachusetts Health and Human Services and current Pelletier family spokesman, Rev. Patrick Mahoney. Polanowicz oversees 17 State agencies, including the DCF.

They met yesterday in a 70 minute meeting. They discussed a unification proposal that would return Justina back home to the Pelletiers with "conditional custody". The family and Justina's State appointed attorney Nancy Hathaway had both previously endorsed this proposal.​

I have not seen it reported by any MSM sources so I won't link to any of the sources that I saw that mentioned the meeting.

I can hardly wait for her to be returned to her home and her parents because the sooner that is accomplished the sooner all the groups who have glommed onto Justin's plight as their cause celebré will have to find a new one, lest their donations dry up.

Well said.

 

[gitana1]

BBM. My comments are specific to this case and I'll continue to hold the opinion the system has worked as it is supposed to work. The Judge took the time to hear directly from the physicians caring for Justina. Those of us who hold no medical credentials are not in a position to criticize physicians for their medical decisions which included calling in DCF.

JMO

Well, you comments weren't specific to this case alone. You stated, "No wonder so many kids are in danger in this country." That's what I was responding to.

There's a good chance you are right about this case. I don't know. I have serious concerns about it although I agree with LindaNJ that the parents are making things much more difficult and polarized.

But to say that those of us who have no medical credentials cannot judge the case, that's ludicrous. The child's longtime physician who diagnosed her and treated her for mitochondrial disorder, as well as her long time psych, 100% disagree with the medical team at BCH partially comprised of young, new doctors, who had never met Justina before and who made an immediate decision and diagnosis -medical abuse and somatoform - the latter which has since been in question when it comes to Justina and which is: "a somewhat dubious and quite controversial diagnostic category introduced into the psychiatric classification systems some 25 years ago. Ever since, there has been a debate about the validity of this diagnostic concept, which has a psychodynamic basis and is related to another ambiguous concept of 'somatization'." http://cfids-cab.org/cfs-inform/CFS.case.def/janca05.txt

If all the docs were in agreement in this case, there would be no controversy.

But aside from that, experts give opinions that lay people analyze for validity and accuracy, all the time. Those lay people? Juries. And sometimes just regular people do so, who decide the doctor treating them (or their children) may not be right.

The best we can do with expert opinions when dealing with issues that are not subject to 100% definitive, objective testing, is to listen to the experts and if they disagree, weigh and balance their respective positions.

Finally, Justina's long time doctors were barred from participating in the BCH team treating Justina and later barred from court and giving testimony, at first, when the initial decision to remove her from her parents and then keep her in state custody, was made. Yes, they later allowed them to give testimony but once a court makes a decision, they are quite reluctant to admit there may have bee a mistake and you better believe that the hospital and DCF would defend their decisions just a strenuously as prosecutors who demand a retrial or continue to insist on guilt in cases where clear evidence shows a convicted prisoner serving decades for a crime is, in fact, innocent.

 

[gitana1]

Please link the article.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.kcci.com/news/woman-with-month-to-live-has-message-for-you/25644938

Also:

When a person has mitochondrial disease, it means that the power plants in their cells are not working properly. It also means that they could suffer a ‘power failure’ in the organ systems that sustain life. In some cases, mitochondrial disease is fatal.http://www.gmdaw.org/about-mito.htm


Mitochondrial Disease is a debilitating medical condition most people have never heard of, but one that can dramatically shorten a child's life.
Healthy babies who suddenly stop growing, loose muscle tone, and start having seizures may have the disease.
Doctors and researchers say a wrong diagnosis, treatment, or diet can make the condition worse. http://www.americanownews.com/story/16435888/mitochondrial-disease-can-shorten-a-childs-life