Skip to main content

Skeletal Surveys and False Allegations of Child Abuse

This story (see link) from Saratoga is one where a child was removed from parents by a paediatrician "on a crusade" because of false medical allegations of child abuse.

The things to note about this are:
a) The typical rush to judgment of the court unwilling to hear a range of medical experts. The court in the US (much like many Family Courts in the UK) only want to hear the experts that say "guilty" and dont want any uncertainty. Look at the Oldham case to see a similar example in the UK.
b) There is an issue about a form of brittle bone disease "that cannot be tested for".
"Subsequent testimony of new doctors said Julia suffered from a variant of the brittle bone disease that cannot be tested for. The doctors also stated that Julia's parents repeatedly sought medical help for Julia and consistently took her to the same doctor, which is not the behavior of parents trying to hide abuse."

In the UK, however, this would possibly be considered FII (aka MSbP). This may be medically equivalent to the Websters (Hardinghams) case. I cannot really suggest anything here because I have not spent the same time studying the scientific research that I have spent on SBS.

If you are a parent being treated the same way as those people in New York, I am sorry, but I don't have their contact details. I do try to collate useful pieces of information from around the world.

It does seem that the USA courts are more interested in getting the decision right rather than a rapid adoption. In the long term this is best for both children and parents.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.