It most certainly sounds to me that Children's are specifically denying Justina has mitochondrial disease. Children's wanted her taken of medications she was taking for mitochondrial disease, diagnosed her with somatoform, and forbade parents from seeking another opinion.
Maybe, but I'm not convinced of it. Or they could be acknowledging physical symptoms and attributing them to something else. The medication wasn't "for" mito, but to treat symptoms that were thought to be mito-related. The only mito-specific treatment is the vitamins. So they could have decided some symptoms were mito-related and others were not, or that a better treatment plan was indicated for mito-related symptoms, in addition to mental health care for those that they did not attribute to mito. You can't actually forbid parents from seeking another opinion, especially when they already had the diagnosis. They forbid them from discharging her and taking her elsewhere because they suspected abuse. I mean if Tufts was willing to take her and they wanted to go there, it's not even a second opinion - I find it hard to believe Children's would even care, though they'd still have to report the suspected abuse. But I don't think they wanted to discharge her home because they were concerned - but the parents can call up anyone they want about her condition.
Parents were neither charged nor prosecuted for anything here. CT DCF might claim they substantiated something in response to MA DCF, but they refused to take the case (at least that is what the judge claims), and Justina was living with her parents while in CT (and CT DCF had no problems with it).
So it certainly makes me question as to what exactly CT DCF claims it substantiated.
I never said they were prosecuted - that's why everything is confidential!
I just don't think you quite get the process:
1) There is the initial investigation in CT, which is not substantiated. That case ends. I don't know much about the details of that case. I believe it a MA doctor who called in the report to CT? Could be wrong on that. But because the report was made to CT, they could investigate, and they have automatic jurisdiction over residents in such reports.
2) Children's makes a medical abuse report to Mass DCF - they could have reported it to CT, but it seems in this case they were trying to get urgent action, and only MA could take urgent action. MA has the right to investigate anything reported to it within MA, but then most states have a law that says the state of residence has jurisdiction to take actual action - MA is the only state that does not. So MA instead just asked CT to take over the investigation and that MA would give them all the information gathered within their investigation (states generally cooperate in social services - both could have jurisdiction to take action, but they just work something out). Because it became urgent in the eyes of DCF, they took emergency custody but couldn't really do something more permanent because it was expected that CT would assert jurisdiction.
3) CT seems to kind of agree an initiates an investigation using the information MA gave to it, and reports back to MA that their assessment is the parents are unfit. Not much info on what it is that they found. MA says ok so then you are going to take action? And they say no we will not assert jurisdiction you can take our findings and continue with your handling of the situation. (there's some rangling in here about trying to find a placement but I think it became too difficult and both sides got annoyed and gave up) The judge in his ruling basically seems to worry that he even has jurisdiction, which is why he's not ordering the psych tests. But he felt he had to take action now because the only state that could have had it said it wouldn't challenge MA's claim of jurisdiction, so his hands were rather tied. If MA had the law CT has, they couldn't have taken permanent custody - it would have had to become a CT issue. I think he's uncomfortable with the jurisdictional scheme in thiscase and that's why he rants at CT.
MA DCF has the right to investigate anything, regardless of residence, that happens in MA. Jurisdiction comes into play when you are taking non-emergency action, which only happened recently.
Interestingly, it would seem that the parents could appeal for lack of jurisdiction, but they haven't mentioned that, so I don't know if that has any chance of being successful. Not sure what you do if CT won't help out. And they may think CT might not be more favorable.
4) CT closes its investigation. It doesn't move to take any action in court. If it did, it would be asserting jurisdiction, and all the related matters currently happening in MA could be ended for lack of jurisdiction with the understanding that CT will now decide what will happen. But because it took no action, it never asserted jurisdiction, so MA is stuck with it, but CT did do an investigation that substantiated the idea that the parents were unfit. The investigation is a separate matter than actual court action. The judge just relies on their recommendations. It's not like an actual ruling.