Update on CPS taking a baby for supposed "severe neglect."

[Laurie4b]

Note: I didn't say that being separated wasn't harmful. Of course it is, traumatic for the parents and for the child. In the long term, though, it's a mere bump in the road especially when the child involved is very young and will likely have no independent memory of the event.

 

The risk of _permanent_ damage from removing the child for a short time (even a week or two) vs. the risk of leaving a child in the care of parents when there is some credible evidence of abuse or neglect... that's where the CPS caseworker has to make a judgement call, and where I wouldn't want to have any part in pressuring those agencies into leaving children in potentially harmful situations.

 

 

It appears in this case that there was no credible evidence of neglect, given that the child had been immediately taken to another doctor after a medical error in a hospital. Medical errors in hospitals kill people at an alarming rate. The hospital could have called CPS on itself. /sarc/. The parents immediately took the child to another doctor. That is in no way medical neglect. Medical neglect is denying a child medical care. The first doc may have thought there was medical neglect, but once CPS found the child had been taken to another doctor, the case clearly could have been slowed way down. (I'm going with the facts as we know them; if other facts emerge, that might change things.)

 

I totally disagree with the implication that there is little risk in removing a child who can't remember from his primary caregiver. This is based on my time as a clinical social worker, as a specialized foster parent, and as a guardian ad litem. We do not know specific time frames for what it takes for any given child to be permanently damaged in ability to attach by separation from their primary caregiver, particularly in the chaotic way in which the removal was described. There are different amounts of resiliency in children--some are more affected than others. If the child was in any kind of pain while hospitalized, the separation is going to have more impact.

 

The fact that the child will not have a memory he can verbalize is actually a problem. This is what makes trauma prior to language so difficult to treat with therapy. People actually do retain memories, but the memories are preverbal, so cannot be accessed by our current therapy techiques in the same way memories are stored that happened after a child has a significant amount of language.

 

I absolutely abhor the "err on the side of protecting the child" mentality because it falsely assumes that state intervention has a benign impact that is only protective. It can have a horrific impact and if the parents are poor and cannot afford good legal representation, the cases often drag out for a long time. It should be "err on the side of not inflicting harm on the child." If another competent doctor said the child was fine and being taken care of, CPS did not have to act precipitously.

[anotherbrother]

I don't know how to post a link, but there is updated good news on the case. Just search the baby's name on google.

[Corraleno]

Here's the link (article as well as video).

 

Basically, the baby will be transported to Stanford for evaluation, and then the parents will follow the recommendations from the doctors at Stanford. They can see Sammy as much as they want, and bring him home when the doctors give the OK. CPS will have another home visit later in the month.

 

Jackie

[SKL]

I'm glad they get to have custody of their baby and give him healing hugs. But I think it's terrible that the government gets to tell the parents whose health advice they must follow. Bah.

[amsunshine]

I'm glad they get to have custody of their baby and give him healing hugs. But I think it's terrible that the government gets to tell the parents whose health advice they must follow. Bah.

 

 

Yes. I'm not sure I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy about the idea of having CPS checking up on these parents, either. Unless there is something else about the case that has not been made public, it seems pretty invasive to have CPS monitoring these folks.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

Yes. I'm not sure I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy about the idea of having CPS checking up on these parents, either. Unless there is something else about the case that has not been made public, it seems pretty invasive to have CPS monitoring these folks.

 

 

Which is possible, as the CPS side of the case cannot be presented via the media.

[Serenade]

I'm glad they get to have custody of their baby and give him healing hugs. But I think it's terrible that the government gets to tell the parents whose health advice they must follow. Bah.

 

 

 

Totally agree with you here.

 

The one thing that I absolutely don't understand, what are parents supposed to do when they are suspicious of the advice of a particular doctor or medical facility and choose to go elsewhere. Why do they have to be officially signed out? Once someone is in the hospital, it's like they're in prison? Is it the same for adults and children? I'm not always convinced that any one doctor knows what is best for any particular patient. Seems like the parents and baby are trapped if the hospital doesn't want them to leave. What are their options then? What if the hospital won't discharge them? I could see hospitals dragging this out forever so as not to lose the billing dollars. And where do the parents' rights come in, or don't they have any? A parent shouldn't have to call a lawyer to get their baby discharged from a hospital! Even if it's against medical advice. The only exception to this, IMO, is if death would be imminent, and it doesn't seem like that was the case for this particular baby.

[SKL]

Yes, this gives way too much power to the doctors / hospitals. It's not as if doctors are always right. :/ The whole point of a second opinion is that medical professionals differ all the time.

[Whereneverever]

 

 

 

Totally agree with you here.

 

The one thing that I absolutely don't understand, what are parents supposed to do when they are suspicious of the advice of a particular doctor or medical facility and choose to go elsewhere. Why do they have to be officially signed out? Once someone is in the hospital, it's like they're in prison? Is it the same for adults and children? I'm not always convinced that any one doctor knows what is best for any particular patient. Seems like the parents and baby are trapped if the hospital doesn't want them to leave. What are their options then? What if the hospital won't discharge them? I could see hospitals dragging this out forever so as not to lose the billing dollars. And where do the parents' rights come in, or don't they have any? A parent shouldn't have to call a lawyer to get their baby discharged from a hospital! Even if it's against medical advice. The only exception to this, IMO, is if death would be imminent, and it doesn't seem like that was the case for this particular baby.

 

 

You can actually call the other hospital you want to go to and have them help you arrange a transfer.

[Ameena]

You can actually call the other hospital you want to go to and have them help you arrange a transfer.

 

 

 

And often even that doesn't work, in my experience. All the hospital you are trying to leave has to say is "patient's condition does not allow for transport at this time" or something similar and you are stuck there.

 

In MANY ways yes a hospital is like a prison IMO.

[justasque]

...

The one thing that I absolutely don't understand, what are parents supposed to do when they are suspicious of the advice of a particular doctor or medical facility and choose to go elsewhere. Why do they have to be officially signed out? ...

 

 

Generally speaking, in my (limited) understanding -

 

When you leave a hospital against medical advice (AMA), there is a process to follow, and forms to fill out. You're basically signing that you have listened to the advice of the docs, and that you are accepting the responsibility of the medical consequences of your leaving. As a patient, you have the right to do or not do what the docs suggest (assuming you are of right mind, etc.), and if you wish to leave you may, but it needs to be done properly (on both sides). It limits their liability, and documents what they advised, and that you understood the possible ramifications of your choice. It would be similar if you were evaluated by EMTs/paramedics and they wanted to take you to the hospital, but you decided not to go. As part of the process, the medical person has to sign off that there isn't an overriding issue - for example, if you're falling down drunk, or have a serious head injury, the medical person can decide that you're not capable of competent decision making, and they can force you to go to the ER or stay in the hospital even if you say you don't want to go, the idea being that if you were in your right mind, you'd want them to take you in.

 

The laws are different in different states in terms of who can consent for children - basically it's the parents, but there are odd exceptions. (I think in NY a minor can give consent for themselves if they have a child of their own, for example, but it's complicated.) I think there are circumstances under which the state can require a child get medical treatment, but I don't know the details. Again, it's a balance between parental rights and the right of the child to get life-saving treatment. Not an easy call, obviously.

 

Medical personnel take the AMA process very seriously, and if someone just up and left, taking a baby the docs were concerned about, without doing the AMA paperwork, there is going to be some drama. (In part because the docs are left in a vulnerable position, liability-wise, as they don't have the parents' formal sign-off that they understood the potential consequences.) In some cases I'm guessing leaving without AMA pretty much in itself requires the doc to call CPS, assuming the medical issues are severe enough.

 

I don't know enough about the baby's condition (flu + heart issue) or the state law to know how exactly all this might apply to the particular baby in this story, except to say again that the very fact that the parents left *without* the formal AMA process in itself raises red flags to medical personnel.

[SKL]

Generally speaking, in my (limited) understanding -

 

When you leave a hospital against medical advice (AMA), there is a process to follow, and forms to fill out. You're basically signing that you have listened to the advice of the docs, and that you are accepting the responsibility of the medical consequences of your leaving. As a patient, you have the right to do or not do what the docs suggest (assuming you are of right mind, etc.), and if you wish to leave you may, but it needs to be done properly (on both sides). It limits their liability, and documents what they advised, and that you understood the possible ramifications of your choice. It would be similar if you were evaluated by EMTs/paramedics and they wanted to take you to the hospital, but you decided not to go. As part of the process, the medical person has to sign off that there isn't an overriding issue - for example, if you're falling down drunk, or have a serious head injury, the medical person can decide that you're not capable of competent decision making, and they can force you to go to the ER or stay in the hospital even if you say you don't want to go, the idea being that if you were in your right mind, you'd want them to take you in.

 

The laws are different in different states in terms of who can consent for children - basically it's the parents, but there are odd exceptions. (I think in NY a minor can give consent for themselves if they have a child of their own, for example, but it's complicated.) I think there are circumstances under which the state can require a child get medical treatment, but I don't know the details. Again, it's a balance between parental rights and the right of the child to get life-saving treatment. Not an easy call, obviously.

 

Medical personnel take the AMA process very seriously, and if someone just up and left, taking a baby the docs were concerned about, without doing the AMA paperwork, there is going to be some drama. (In part because the docs are left in a vulnerable position, liability-wise, as they don't have the parents' formal sign-off that they understood the potential consequences.) In some cases I'm guessing leaving without AMA pretty much in itself requires the doc to call CPS, assuming the medical issues are severe enough.

 

I don't know enough about the baby's condition (flu + heart issue) or the state law to know how exactly all this might apply to the particular baby in this story, except to say again that the very fact that the parents left *without* the formal AMA process in itself raises red flags to medical personnel.

 

Sounds like the AMA procedure is purely a CYA for the benefit of the doctors / hospital. Why that would have anything to do with CPS being called is beyond me.

[joannqn]

Totally agree with you here.

 

The one thing that I absolutely don't understand, what are parents supposed to do when they are suspicious of the advice of a particular doctor or medical facility and choose to go elsewhere. Why do they have to be officially signed out? Once someone is in the hospital, it's like they're in prison? Is it the same for adults and children? I'm not always convinced that any one doctor knows what is best for any particular patient. Seems like the parents and baby are trapped if the hospital doesn't want them to leave. What are their options then? What if the hospital won't discharge them? I could see hospitals dragging this out forever so as not to lose the billing dollars. And where do the parents' rights come in, or don't they have any? A parent shouldn't have to call a lawyer to get their baby discharged from a hospital! Even if it's against medical advice. The only exception to this, IMO, is if death would be imminent, and it doesn't seem like that was the case for this particular baby.

 

My first child was delivered at the hospital after a homebirth transfer. After the birth, I wanted to go home but they told me directly, "Even if you are discharged, the baby will not be allowed to leave." There were no indications that anything was wrong. Her body temperature was a bit low from being naked in a cold hospital room for too long. So, we had to stay about 2 1/2 days until we were allowed to leave. Yes, we felt helpless and imprisoned.

[Liz CA]

http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?bctid=2338851142001&odyssey=mod|tvideo|article

 

Don't know if anyone has posted this update yet. A judge decided that a third medical opinion will be acquired from Stanford Medical.

CPS backed off and lifted the detention order. I am not 100% sure but it sounded like the parents will be able to see him anytime now and take him to Stanford for yet another evaluation. CPS is still "monitoring" the case and reserves their rights for home visits once the baby is released from Stanford.

I wonder if we hear more about it. I would so dearly want to read that someone cut that doctor down to size and CPS too while they are at it.

[Dahliarw]

I think that the whole case was handled poorly. Cps came to Kaiser and allowed the child to be taken home. At the point they decided that the sutter doctor was right about the medical condition, I feel they should have contacted the parents and told them they needed to take the baby to a hospital with a cardiac until right away or face cps involvement. It seems so unfair the way the baby was taken, without warning, when the parents thought they were ok with having him home. I imagine had they been warned, they would have complied (though not going to sutter).

[Ameena]

My first child was delivered at the hospital after a homebirth transfer. After the birth, I wanted to go home but they told me directly, "Even if you are discharged, the baby will not be allowed to leave." There were no indications that anything was wrong. Her body temperature was a bit low from being naked in a cold hospital room for too long. So, we had to stay about 2 1/2 days until we were allowed to leave. Yes, we felt helpless and imprisoned.

 

 

We had this happen to us too, but with a hospital birth. My water broke outside the hospital earlier that day, and I didn't come straight in {wasn't really sure if it was my water or not as it was a slow leak}. The hospital had a policy of if your water broke outside the hospital / wasn't broken by them, all babies had to stay for 3 days to be monitored for signs of infection.

 

DD didn't have a single sign of infection the entire time we we there, and even the on call pedi wanted to release her as there was no medical reason to keep her but couldn't as the head pedi for the nursery was her official doc assigned by the hospital and wouldn't sign for her release. We ended up having to stay for the full 3 days, as the same head pedi didn't get around to signing the paperwork to discharge until nearly evening on the 3rd day. They tried to discharge me on day 2 & I refused to go as they wouldn't discharge dd.

[Kbug]

Generally speaking, in my (limited) understanding -

 

When you leave a hospital against medical advice (AMA), there is a process to follow, and forms to fill out. You're basically signing that you have listened to the advice of the docs, and that you are accepting the responsibility of the medical consequences of your leaving. As a patient, you have the right to do or not do what the docs suggest (assuming you are of right mind, etc.), and if you wish to leave you may, but it needs to be done properly (on both sides). It limits their liability, and documents what they advised, and that you understood the possible ramifications of your choice. It would be similar if you were evaluated by EMTs/paramedics and they wanted to take you to the hospital, but you decided not to go. As part of the process, the medical person has to sign off that there isn't an overriding issue - for example, if you're falling down drunk, or have a serious head injury, the medical person can decide that you're not capable of competent decision making, and they can force you to go to the ER or stay in the hospital even if you say you don't want to go, the idea being that if you were in your right mind, you'd want them to take you in.

 

 

 

Yes, there is a proper procedure for both 1) leaving AMA and 2) medically necessary prevention of a patient from leaving AMA. Even if the parents had not felt compelled to leave AMA with their baby, they were never under any obligation to consent for the surgery to be done and possibly could have requested a second opinion from another in-house doctor. And when they did feel compelled to seek out a second opinion at another facility, again there is both a procedure for a patient to transfer and for a hospital to prevent. Hospitals transfer patients all the time. In order for a hospital to forcibly prevent a transfer they'd have to demonstrate to a legally authorized 3rd party that there was immediate life-threatening harm in doing so. And yes, I do have personal experience with surgeries and NICUs and a NICU's reluctance/refusal to transfer.

 

My husband works in a hospital and is the top level supervisor in house on the night shift. To leave AMA you basically sign a form and leave. If the hospital feels that you (or the person authorized to make decisions for you) are not competent to make a decision to leave AMA, and they feel the result of leaving would be life threatening enough to warrant it, they can attempt to prevent the patient from leaving by having them temporarily 'involuntarily committed'. Usually this is done a mental health professional or in emergencies by authorized local government authorities after an emergency hearing is done. My husband has felt he needed to attempt to legally prevent an AMA exactly ONCE in his career.

 

I wouldn't rule out the CPS being a result of a vindictive doctor, but I wouldn't consider it likely either. I would also be very hesitant to accuse the doctor of wanting to do heart surgery willy nilly, they probably were 100% convinced the surgery was needed. I can also see how the doctor could be concerned about the AMA, given the doctors position (they believed the surgery to be a life saving necessity), especially if the family did not stick around to follow proper procedures. The CPS reaction, I can not fathom, especially since the family took the baby to another reputable health facility and was cleared by that facility.

 

Kbug

[SKL]

I think that the whole case was handled poorly. Cps came to Kaiser and allowed the child to be taken home. At the point they decided that the sutter doctor was right about the medical condition, I feel they should have contacted the parents and told them they needed to take the baby to a hospital with a cardiac until right away or face cps involvement. It seems so unfair the way the baby was taken, without warning, when the parents thought they were ok with having him home. I imagine had they been warned, they would have complied (though not going to sutter).

 

I don't view CPS as the ultimate medical authority on planet earth. :/ Why would they have any right to decide which doctor, if any, was "right" about the medical condition? Why would that not be the exclusive responsibility of the parent, absent a finding (not suspicion) that the parents can't or won't take responsibility?

[Guest submarines]

Here's the link (article as well as video).

 

Basically, the baby will be transported to Stanford for evaluation, and then the parents will follow the recommendations from the doctors at Stanford. They can see Sammy as much as they want, and bring him home when the doctors give the OK. CPS will have another home visit later in the month.

 

Jackie

 

 

And why would the CPS have another home visit? :cursing: Just leave this poor family alone!

[Dahliarw]

I don't view CPS as the ultimate medical authority on planet earth. :/ Why would they have any right to decide which doctor, if any, was "right" about the medical condition? Why would that not be the exclusive responsibility of the parent, absent a finding (not suspicion) that the parents can't or won't take responsibility?

 

 

The 2nd doctor they saw was an ER doc, not a cardiologist. I do think with a specific heart condition, a pediatric cardiologist is the only one who woudl understand enough to make an informed decision about how safe the child is going home. I've had cancer, I trusted my oncologists to give me information on treatment, I wouldn't trust an ER doc to have the same level of knowledge. They probably would refer me to an oncologist. And if I wanted a 2nd opinion on treatment, I'd go to another oncologist, not an er doc. Not saying it's CPS's business to decide this, but if they thought that the sutter doctor's claim warranted evaluation, there were ways to have the child seen by a cardiologist without removing him from the parents care. CPS could have come and said "we're hearing your child's life may be in danger, MD at sutter has shown us medical evidence that this could be true, would you take your baby to another cardiologist for evaluation". I would best most parents would be willing to comply and they'd have total control as to who. As for the baby going to Sanford, I would suspect that the parents asked for this knowing that they would need to have the baby moved to another hospital to get him back from CPS. They did say they got what they wanted.

[Liz CA]

http://www.inquisitr.com/642051/cps-takes-baby-ca/

 

This article is dated 4-30-13.

Don't know if someone else already posted this.

 

Now the parents are ordered to follow "all medical advice". Evidently they have lost the prerogative to decide what is best for Baby Sam.

At least they can see him and he is officially back in the custody of his parents.

[Serenade]

 

Now the parents are ordered to follow "all medical advice". Evidently they have lost the prerogative to decide what is best for Baby Sam.

 

 

 

This is disturbing. Evidently, the government knows best...

[SKL]

Unless the CPS caseworker is a cardiologist, I don't care what s/he says about the cardiologist's advice. If that's what's going on, that is way overstepping and surely far from the intended role of CPS in our society. Sure, parents are going to comply if CPS threatens to take away their kids otherwise. That doesn't make it OK. That kind of policy puts all the power in the hands of people who don't even know the child, and who have a huge conflict of interest. Makes me mad.

[Dahliarw]

According to this, the parents are not forced to follow all medical advice:

 

The Nikolayevs can now see Sammy whenever they want and have control over the child’s medical decisions, but CPS will continue to monitor the situation. ... Now, by order of the judge, Sammy will stay at Stanford Medical Center, where he will get a second medical opinion. However, the couple must allow CPS to visit their home once Sammy is discharged, and they must agree to never take him from a hospital against medical advice.

 

 

Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/30/police-take-baby-away-family-wanted-second-medical-opinion#ixzz2S1VOH6Sf

[In The Great White North]

I am still wondering who is going to pay for the court ordered medical care?

[Katy]

This was featured on Good Morning America today. The mother stated she is going to sue (not sure if this is CPS, or simply to have the judgment or ongoing supervision overturned).

[jennynd]

http://www.inquisitr...-takes-baby-ca/

 

This article is dated 4-30-13.

Don't know if someone else already posted this.

 

Now the parents are ordered to follow "all medical advice". Evidently they have lost the prerogative to decide what is best for Baby Sam.

At least they can see him and he is officially back in the custody of his parents.

 

What if Dr A and Dr B have different opinion? Who should they listen to?? :huh:

[Kathryn]

 

 

 

Bet you it was bc you were not treated for GBS during labor. That's the policy here in our state. No antibiotics in labor= 48 hr stay for baby.

 

 

This is what happened with us for our second who was born quickly. I felt fine and he was fine and we wanted to go home. We were threatened with a CPS call if we tried to leave before 48 hours.

[SKL]

"... they must agree to never take him from a hospital against medical advice." ... This sounds to me like false imprisonment. :/ When and how did the citizenry grant CPS or doctors/hospitals so much power?

[I.Dup.]

When and how did the citizenry grant CPS or doctors/hospitals so much power?

 

Yes, when did this happen?

[joannqn]

 

 

Bet you it was bc you were not treated for GBS during labor. That's the policy here in our state. No antibiotics in labor= 48 hr stay for baby.

 

 

They gave me antibiotics as soon as they have had the IV in. I was there for 6 more hours before the birth.

[Liz CA]

According to this, the parents are not forced to follow all medical advice:

 

 

 

Read more: http://foxnewsinside...n#ixzz2S1VOH6Sf

 

 

I am glad to read this. It differs slightly on that point with other news coverage but I am hoping this is the correct version.

I am also glad to hear this will not be dropped but that the attorney for the family will file a law suit.

The way this was handled was outrageous and should not become par for the course.

[Crimson Wife]

Sounds like the AMA procedure is purely a CYA for the benefit of the doctors / hospital. Why that would have anything to do with CPS being called is beyond me.

 

 

That is exactly what it is. I had to sign an AMA waiver during my 3rd pregnancy to do weekly non-stress tests instead of twice per week. I had actually wanted to do the NST's every other week because I didn't have any chronic health issues or pregnancy complications. My baby was just small for gestational age and they wanted to keep an eye on her. But the hospital affiliated with my midwife refused every-other-week NST's and insisted on an AMA waiver for doing only one NST per week.

 

Youngest DD does have a developmental disability and it is possible that prenatal problems caused both slow growth in utero and her autism. However, I don't think having done twice the number of NST's would have changed the outcome (just cost our family more money and been even more inconvenient).

 

I have to wonder in this family's case, whether the Sutter doctor had any prejudice against them being immigrants and non-native English speakers. Would he have been so quick to call CPS on somebody like me?

[happyhomemaker25]

So now this poor couple is going to second guess every thought of taking their child to the hospital if needed. I know I would. It's not logical, no, but what a nightmare they have endured and it looks like CPS is going to be able to "continue to monitor them". Why? I hope CPS does not try to retaliate against the couple by finding something else to "concern" them. That sounds petty, but sometimes pettiness is just human nature.

I'm an adoptive mom of kids from foster care, I totally think there is a time and place for CPS, but I don't see it here.

[alef]

 

I have to wonder in this family's case, whether the Sutter doctor had any prejudice against them being immigrants and non-native English speakers. Would he have been so quick to call CPS on somebody like me?

 

 

Unfortunately it is human nature to be biased against whatever is different and unfamiliar. I do suspect that to be a factor in this case.

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I'm glad they were able to move the baby to another hospital.