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

[lawstudent]

I think what this boils down to is that the judge's order said they could get her back when they could meet her needs, both physical and mental, in terms of healthcare.

A judge can't just prescribe a course of treatment. Justina could be moved to Tufts and if they follow doctor's recommendations there, they would be in compliance. However, because she has already been with a certain team for a while, and the judge said the family was being belligerent to the existing team, he probably felt that it would be harmful to abruptly transfer her care and wanted the parents to agree to transition it, which would be an issue. It seems like maybe they've made progress on that front, if she's going back to Tufts. As long as they follow doctor's orders there, I think they will get her back. The issue is that I don't think Tufts has much of a child psychiatric program, whereas Children's does. So if Tufts ultimately determines she needs more psychiatric oriented care, they could reject her - they wouldn't say well you can just get treated for mitochondrial disease if they suspect other things are going on. Neither hospital wants to kill her and have the liability, I'm sure of that, so both are going to try and address whatever issues present. I doubt Children's has let her deteriorate by failing to treat her illness. It's entirely possible she is being treated for both. If they're unwilling to follow any hospital's plan of action, they won't get her back, because obviously she needs some sort of treatment.

 

[jjenny]

Somatoform sufferers typically often become incredibly distressed if their symptoms seem to be worsening. We don't know what she was accused of - somataform definitely, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. The condition implies mental distress. If they want her treated for it, then the treatment they want is for mental health issues, so clearly she is displaying some. If she was taken by ambulance, she was obviously having a medical crisis that could have exacerbated everything.

If her doctor actually referred her via ambulance to see a GI specialist, I can't see the hospital having her come in and then being like "nope you can't see him." Is it possible the doctor at Tufts sent her there for a more extensive diagnostic investigation, and tipped them off that there might be a mental component?

No, it's not possible. And never mind that Children's didn't do an extensive diagnostic investigation. She was diagnosed with somatoform a short time after arriving there.

 

[epiphany]

Justine Pelletier family wants to take up Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz's offer to help

snipped; BBM

“Parents have a right to be wrong, as long as they’re acting reasonably," Dershowitz said. "And if two distinguished medical centers have different diagnoses, it should be the parents, not the state, that determines the course of treatment."

Dershowitz also said a gag order imposed by the judge to stop the family from talking to the press was "without a doubt unconstitutional."

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/...family-to-take-up-offer-from-alan-dershowitz/

If anyone can find a transcript of Alan Dershowitz comments, please post. TIA

 

[liljim]

"Is it possible the doctor at Tufts sent her there for a more extensive diagnostic investigation, and tipped them off that there might be a mental component?"

they would not have had to "tip them off" it is well documented in her medical history, a family doctor had voiced concerns about her care and the doctors AT TUFTS had filed a complaint of abuse/neglect against the parents.

 

[jjenny]

"Is it possible the doctor at Tufts sent her there for a more extensive diagnostic investigation, and tipped them off that there might be a mental component?"

they would not have had to "tip them off" it is well documented in her medical history, a family doctor had voiced concerns about her care and the doctors AT TUFTS had filed a complaint of abuse/neglect against the parents.

Of course you conveniently forgot to mention that this complaint was investigated and dismissed. She was living with her parents up until Boston's Children's contacted DCF. There was no DCF involvement in CT when she went to Boston's Children's. So your post is kind of misleading to say the least.

 

[wendiesan]

We don't just know one side. Court documents aren't secret.
I would prefer DCF and Children's released all the information they had. In fact parents could release medical doctors from having to follow HIPAA.
But I am not assuming it will make them look better. In fact I believe the things we don't know would make them look worse.
What have they been doing to the child all this time?

my bold

Just wondering about this. Since DCF is now Justina's guardian, the ability to waive HIPAA would rest with DCF, no? I understood that the parents' ability to use this right, like their ability to make medical decisions on Justina's behalf, was suspended by the judge when he gave custody of Justina to DCF. Ie. DCF has the ability to release BCH from HIPAA restraints. Or am I wildly off base with this theory.

 

[jjenny]

Just wondering about this. Since DCF is now Justina's guardian, the ability to waive HIPAA would rest with DCF, no? I understood that this right, like the ability to make medical decisions on Justina's behalf, was suspended by the judge when he gave custody of Justina to DCF. Ie. DCF has the ability to release BCH from HIPAA restraints. Or am I wildly off base with this theory.

I am not sure on that either. Since Justina is a ward of the state, DCF can decide what kind of treatment she can get. For instance she can be signed up for experimental treatment without parental permission. So if Children's has any trials going, Justina can be signed up as a human subject (and possibly already participated as a human subject-parents seem to believe that).
But I believe DCF could certainly reveal what kind of abuse they are accusing the parents of. That doesn't fall under HIPAA.

 

[Linda7NJ]

my bold

Just wondering about this. Since DCF is now Justina's guardian, the ability to waive HIPAA would rest with DCF, no? I understood that the parents' ability to use this right, like their ability to make medical decisions on Justina's behalf, was suspended by the judge when he gave custody of Justina to DCF. Ie. DCF has the ability to release BCH from HIPAA restraints. Or am I wildly off base with this theory.

DCF would never waive HIPPA.

I'm not sure how it works there, but in NJ DYFS can have physical custody for many reasons while parents retain control and care. Seems DCF has total and complete custody of this child. As her legal guardian they will do what they feel is in her best interest and that would never include waiving HIPPA.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe they could, even if they wanted to. It would only benefit them, not the child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

I am not sure on that either. Since Justina is a ward of the state, DCF can decide what kind of treatment she can get. For instance she can be signed up for experimental treatment without parental permission. So if Children's has any trials going, Justina can be signed up as a human subject (and possibly already participated as a human subject-parents seem to believe that).

But I believe DCF could certainly reveal what kind of abuse they are accusing the parents of. That doesn't fall under HIPAA.

DCF operates under a cloud of confidentiality, always.

You're correct. They could sign her up for clinical trials. I doubt they would though with all the media attention. They use regular old foster children for those. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

DCF would never waive HIPPA.

I'm not sure how it works there, but in NJ DYFS can have physical custody for many reasons while parents retain control and care. Seems DCF has total and complete custody of this child. As her legal guardian they will do what they feel is in her best interest and that would never include waiving HIPPA.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe they could, even if they wanted to. It would only benefit them, not the child.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe for a second it would benefit DCF.
I also don't believe for a second what DCF is doing is in Justina's best interest.
She used to be able to do many things while living at home, including attending a private school for children with special needs. Which she reportedly loved and had many friends.
Please tell me how being locked up in a psychiatric ward is in her best interest? She is removed from her family and friends, doesn't go to school, and is sick, weak and in wheelchair.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I don't believe for a second it would benefit DCF.

I also don't believe for a second what DCF is doing is in Justina's best interest.

She used to be able to do many things while living at home, including attending a private school for children with special needs. Which she reportedly loved and had many friends.

Please tell me how being locked up in a psychiatric ward is in her best interest? She is removed from her family and friends, doesn't go to school, and is sick, weak and in wheelchair.

I'm not actually discussing the child's condition. I'm not a medical doctor. Never met her or her parents.

DCF IMO is doing what they are legally mandated to do. Regardless if they are correct in those assumptions. The law is on their side.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

I'm not actually discussing the child's condition. I'm not a medical doctor. Never met her or her parents.

DCF IMO is doing what they are legally mandated to do. Regardless if they are correct in those assumptions. The law is on their side.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the law is on their side then it needs to be changed ASAP.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If the law is on their side then it needs to be changed ASAP.

Ain't gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

Ain't gonna happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you know that how?

 

[Linda7NJ]

And you know that how?

I'm psychic? lol

There is no reason for it to change. The vast majority of People do not care enough about abused children to even bother to pick up the phone and report suspected abuse.
The vast majority don't want to hear about the horrible abuse children suffer at the hands of their own parents.
They just don't.
Parents that don't abuse their children enjoy their life in the little self imposed ignorant bubble they live in.
I've always watched the news....when I first started out actually doing social work, I was overwhelmed. Nothing prepares you for that. Nothing. after one short year out in the field, I couldn't do it any more and went back to school. It was overwhelming. I couldn't eat, sleep, I swear I think I had PTSD for awhile.
People just don't want to know.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

I'm psychic? lol

There is no reason for it to change. The vast majority of People do not care enough about abused children to even bother to pick up the phone and report suspected abuse.
The vast majority don't want to hear about the horrible abuse children suffer at the hands of their own parents.
They just don't.
Parents that don't abuse their children enjoy their life in the little self imposed ignorant bubble they live in.
I've always watched the news....when I first started out actually doing social work, I was overwhelmed. Nothing prepares you for that. Nothing. after one short year out in the field, I couldn't do it any more and went back to school. It was overwhelming. I couldn't eat, sleep, I swear I think I had PTSD for awhile.
People just don't want to know.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then it really makes no sense that MA DCF can remove a child from loving parents, stuck that child in psychiatric ward, and keep that child in custody for over year. When that child is not even a resident of MA.
Never revealing what kind of supposed abuse they are accusing the parents of.
That child is not doing well while in DCF custody.
She is isolated from her family and friends.
She is in wheelchair.
I am not sure what kind of education the child is getting if any.

 

[lawstudent]

The law is on their side, and it won't be changed. That I can agree with. I give up on trying to reason. Not saying it's right, but it's legal and we don't have all the information to figure out if any particular things could be changed to improve such situations. But DCF will have extreme discretion for the foreseeable future because people are outraged by child abuse and it's already in trouble in MA for a situation where a child being monitored by DCF disappeared, and it's assumed the mother was involved in his death. People don't err on the side of the parents, even if it means some parents are treated unjustly.

I don't know whether the parents or DCF could waive privacy rights. But her parents aren't bound by them - they could talk at length about what went on when they got to Children's, and all the procedures done - they just can't force new info out of Children's.

 

[liljim]

Of course you conveniently forgot to mention that this complaint was investigated and dismissed. She was living with her parents up until Boston's Children's contacted DCF. There was no DCF involvement in CT when she went to Boston's Children's. So your post is kind of misleading to say the least.

i didn't "conveniently forget" anything.

a normal person that does not already have their mind made up about this case would want to know more about the multiple other doctors that have voiced concerns about the medical care this girl has received.

someone looking to understand this case would think "hmm i wonder what the doctors at tufts found so concerning that they also reported this family, i would like to hear more about that".

also, when you say the charge was "investigated and dismissed" who is it that you think did that?

 

[jjenny]

i didn't "conveniently forget" anything.

a normal person that does not already have their mind made up about this case would want to know more about the multiple other doctors that have voiced concerns about the medical care this girl has received.

someone looking to understand this case would think "hmm i wonder what the doctors at tufts found so concerning that they also reported this family, i would like to hear more about that".

also, when you say the charge was "investigated and dismissed" who is it that you think did that?

We know exactly what the doctors at Tufts found so concerning (and it wasn't Doctor Korson by the way). We know exactly who investigated it and dismissed it. All of it was reported by the Boston's Globe who did a very good investigation of the case.
There is no secret here. It was several years prior to her ending up in Boston's children.
CT DCF actually did an investigation back in 2011 and obviously found them to be fit to care for the child. Case was dismissed.
So what is your point exactly?
If somebody accuses you of something but the case is dismissed does it still make you guilty?

 

[Linda7NJ]

We know exactly what the doctors at Tufts found so concerning (and it wasn't Doctor Korson by the way). We know exactly who investigated it and dismissed it. All of it was reported by the Boston's Globe who did a very good investigation of the case.

There is no secret here. It was several years prior to her ending up in Boston's children.

CT DCF actually did an investigation back in 2011 and obviously found them to be fit to care for the child. Case was dismissed.

So what is your point exactly?

If somebody accuses you of something but the case is dismissed does it still make you guilty?

It could simply be that there was not enough evidence. Could be perfectly innocent or guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk