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.
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