Shocking Story #2

[Deb O (UK)]

My thoughts and good wishes are with you and anyone else in this situation x

[eKatherine]

The problem is that the people who carry out these things have a number of core beliefs that keep them from actually observing what is going on.

First, they believe that doctors are gods, and if the doctor can't figure out what's wrong, then there's nothing really wrong with you (or your child).

They believe that mothers are inherently manipulative. They either smother their children or neglect them. Anybody remember when we knew that autism was caused by cold mothers and homosexuality by mothers who were too close to their sons?

So according to these beliefs, if they can't figure out what's wrong with the child, there's nothing wrong, and the mother is imagining it. Since there's nothing wrong, clearly the mother is pursuing doctors to get attention, and if the child appears to be sick, it must be something the mother did to the child, because THERE'S NOTHING WRONG IF THE DOCTOR DIDN'T DIAGNOSE AN ILLNESS! Since the mother is making the child ill, probably intentionally, the health personnel are obligated to do everything they can to get the child away from her.

And there's no need to check for celiac, because that's such a rare illness that nobody gets it, and even if they did, it's too much trouble and expense to do the diet, which would cut into the quality of life of a child forbidden to have pizza and sandwiches like his peers, and make him feel left out.

Left out? Did I leave anything out?

[gfp]

Left out? Did I leave anything out?

Only a couple of scenarios....

First off I may not have a great faith in human nature but I find it more probable this is a single person instigating everything NOT the hosptial trying to cover its ASS directly.

What they are doing is very sick.. IMHO and I can't see a whole depratment covering this up... using specificaly MSBP because there are easier ways to cover a botched diagnosis and miscare... that would have a far less devastating effect on the mother and people are not that BAD.

What I think more probable is a single member of the department who is either CYAing or is actually seriously mentally ill. Lets call this hypothesis Misery syndrome after Stephen Kings book where his carer cuts off an ankle and a thumb and even after the reason for the internment (finishing the book is done won't let go)

Lets say an orderly develops Misery syndrome (like a reverse MSBP - where the carer makes the patient sick to prevent losing the patient)

This orderly then covers up their work by casting insinuations about the mother and even plating evidence.

In this case the person probably has a record of mental health issues... hence why I suggest a PI ...

Another scenario is this orderly has been abused as a child... and simply kep insinuating ....

I think this might be a MD mental disorder. One doctor did this to 6 different families.

Open Original Shared Link

I agree, indeed I already said that....

The child is held up like a carrot, causing the mother to dance to their tune and agree to "MSBP counseling". Much of the purpose of this is to extract a false "confession," while assuring the mother that cooperation will enable a quicker reunification.

and also said DO NOT BE HELPFUL DO NOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT A LAWYER PRESENT

there is also the "celebrity" .... the article mentions a single Dr. with over 100 MSBP accusations...

I find it hard to beleive all 100 were CYA.....

Once again this is a mental illness. If someone can find out what happened to this Dr. then his testamony is probably worth nothing... Is he married... is he divroced... is he seperated from his kids? etc. etc.

Perhaps he used to beat his wife.. etc. etc.

This is the dirt you need... its distasteful but this is the best way.

Meanwhile a single Dr. doesn't do this alone.. they need to pull in others. But these others are probably CYAing... they don't want to be the person who didn't agree to call in CPS...

these people will crack if its disovered that the protagonist is unstable.

[Nancym]

Actually, it might also be "expert syndrome". The guy wanted to carve out a field where he wanted to be known for his expertise. So he found all these cases of MBP. It is a common way to promote yourself in a little known field. You paint a grim picture using FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and exploit it to your advantage.

This is really terrifying. I think I'd advise anyone with a sick, undiagnosed child to take extremely good notes about their care.

The terrifying part of this is that these people are immune to prosecution!!!!

[gfp]

Actually, it might also be "expert syndrome". The guy wanted to carve out a field where he wanted to be known for his expertise. So he found all these cases of MBP. It is a common way to promote yourself in a little known field. You paint a grim picture using FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) and exploit it to your advantage.

This is really terrifying. I think I'd advise anyone with a sick, undiagnosed child to take extremely good notes about their care.

The terrifying part of this is that these people are immune to prosecution!!!!

Not quite true.... you just have to do the work.

They cannot be prosecuted over false diagnosis etc. BUT they can be prosecuted for perjury if called as expert witnesses.

A recent UK case illustrates it is largely the legal system that choses not to prosecute them

Open Original Shared Link

Credibility challenged

But last year, her credibility was challenged in a case at Snaresbrook Crown Court. A defence barrister Edward Henry accused her of misleading the court in her CV, which, he argued, suggested she had a degree from Balliol College, Oxford.

Ms Rees - who was the first completely deaf student to win a place at Oxford - readily conceded that she had not completed her degree. She said her CV was meant to show only that she had finished the first two years of the course.

The next day the Crown Prosecution Service dropped her as an expert witness in the Snaresbrook case. Mr Henry's client was later acquitted.

The police were asked to investigate Ms Rees on possible charges of perjury, and interviewed her under caution. The CPS has now decided not to prosecute her.

[Gcbec]

Yes , You are right, it does begin with a single dr. What happenes that dr decides which ones she can pull in. If they work a t a hospital they know already they will get support from all the dr's in that hospital, they will not go against a collegue. Then they call primary peditrician, and from my friends case it actually said in the notes:

"Dr _____ called and said she is expert in MSBP(false) and said she has diagnosed mrs______ with it, said this is why no one could figure out johns problems. If she shows up at dr's office with John call the police. Also, we will have immunity if we agree with her. (this is example of roll over peditrician)

Not all do this but once a dr calls and claims to be an expert, even though they are not, dr's tend to fall for it and get scared. They rather have immunity against any lawsuit and agree then to stick with the parents they know are right. As far as the accusing dr having problems, I agree 100% I think a full mental evauluation should take place for the accusing dr. I am going through the same thing, the accusing dr here has done it to 10 families this year, I am in touch with 1 of them. Whats unfortunate is unless you have alot of $ to hire your own experts and good attorneys there is not much else you can do.

Once a "bad" dr decides this is what you have, they stop looking at the clinical diagnosis for child. So, the child will go undiagnosed until the court system comes to there senses. But, as I said there are ways around there claimed immunity and we will find them.

Sweetheart, you are in my prayers and remember keep the vision of her return in your heart and mind and let God guide you through this.

Cindy

[gfp]

Yes , You are right, it does begin with a single dr. What happenes that dr decides which ones she can pull in. If they work a t a hospital they know already they will get support from all the dr's in that hospital, they will not go against a collegue. Then they call primary peditrician, and from my friends case it actually said in the notes:

"Dr _____ called and said she is expert in MSBP(false) and said she has diagnosed mrs______ with it, said this is why no one could figure out johns problems. If she shows up at dr's office with John call the police. Also, we will have immunity if we agree with her. (this is example of roll over peditrician)

Not all do this but once a dr calls and claims to be an expert, even though they are not, dr's tend to fall for it and get scared. They rather have immunity against any lawsuit and agree then to stick with the parents they know are right. As far as the accusing dr having problems, I agree 100% I think a full mental evauluation should take place for the accusing dr. I am going through the same thing, the accusing dr here has done it to 10 families this year, I am in touch with 1 of them. Whats unfortunate is unless you have alot of $ to hire your own experts and good attorneys there is not much else you can do.

I think there is.... the problem is it doesn't seem right.... the mother is concerned about the baby not revenge...

but digging up dirt of the Dr. is the best way to do this.

It takes time and effort but going through the court proceedings you can find other cases and other moms...

You can find the Dr's qualifications and then find people who were with that Dr. at med school.....

Usually Dr's get up to all sorts of pranks at med school... yes it costs money but share this between 10 people...

and med school is extremely stressful and a lot of work.... many of these dr's may have been vulnerable and talked of past experiences or needed councelling....

Beleive me, an expert witness who is on record for drugs charges or even something really stupid as a child is an expert witness with no credibility... especially if you find your own expert witness in the form of the Dr's psychiatrist ... etc.

[Rikki Tikki]

Please don't follow bad abvice. It does not matter what their perceived weakness is, the Court will only think you are not mentally together. Insist your child is tested for celiac, make them rule it out. You must focus on getting your children back, not thinking you can "make the dr. a quivering mass on the floor."

Do what you want after the case is closed, but focus on the return of your children.

[GFBetsy]

All of her blood tests came back pointing at Celiac as the source of her problems. She had to have a blood transfusion while we were there since she didn't respond to the iron treatment. That transfusion made 5 that my little baby has had since she was born. Then the biopsy came back showing the villi in her stomach as non-existent, gastritis, and other inflammation. The GI doctor said it looked like Celiac. Her IGG tests also came back favorable for Celiac. She also had this terrible rash on her bottom that had been there for 1 month that even the dermatologist could not identify, and it did not respond to any type of treatment.

The GI doctor decided to put in a GJ tube to feed her through. However, the tube was put in a size too small and was only filled w/2 ccs of water. The tube rotated constantly, which posed a big threat since it was in her small bowel and could cause it to rupture. We had to keep a bandage over it to keep it in place. The tube came out one night while we were sleeping. She was on a continuous feed and the tube caught and pulled out. 4 days later I was taken by complete surprise when I was told to bring my baby back into the hospital room by the doctor and nurse who had not come into the room all day. They had me lay my baby on the bed, then unhooked her from everything and cornered me w/police officers and other staff as some lady I did not know grabbed my baby girl and ran out of the room. I was told I was to immediately leave the hospital and not return.....that the state now had custody. I was not given anymore information than that.

I found out 3 days later that I was being accused of Munchausen By Proxy by someone...though there was no physical evidence.

Just wanted to note that the child HAS been tested for celiac, and darned if the dang test didn't come back positive! That means that, even though there is a clinical diagnosis that accounts for most (if not all) of this child's symptoms, the mother is still being accused of deliberately making her child ill. One of the most definitive determinants of Munchausen by proxy (it seems to me) is whether or not the child improves when removed from the accused caregiver (generally the mother). If the child is still ill, then it seems pretty obvious that the child's illness has little or nothing to do with the presence of the caregiver. Well, according to the original post, this child is still ill. There seems to be no evidence that the temporary caregivers are doing anything to accomodate the diagnosis of celiac . . . so, my question is: who's "making the child sick" now?

As far as gfp's advice goes, I think he's not really advocating revenge for its own sake, but more along the lines of finding something that will discredit this "expert" witness. As he said:

Beleive me, an expert witness who is on record for drugs charges or even something really stupid as a child is an expert witness with no credibility... especially if you find your own expert witness in the form of the Dr's psychiatrist ... etc.

And while I'm not really keen on the idea of destroying someone's professional reputation, I think that any attorney worth his salt would be strenuously looking for holes in the accuser's credentials. After all, it is only the accuser's credentials that really matter in an accusation of this kind. If I went around accusing someone of MSBP, people would laugh at me. They would say (and rightly) that I had no experience in the matter and therefore had no legitimate ability to make such an accusation. It is when the accuser has the weight of "experience" and "expertise" on his/her side that such an accusation becomes actionable. And that means that finding and exposing the "problems" associated with that person's "expertise" is the best way of showing the accusation up as the nonsense it seems to be based on the information we've got. And, besides that, someone who is recklessly making these sorts of charges DESPITE the presence of a diagnosis that adequately explains the child's problems DESERVES to have his/her professional reputation damaged.

There is a scientific principle called Occam's Razor that essentially says that an explanation of any phenemenon ought to make the fewest assumptions possible. It also says that if there are two competing explanations, the explanation that ought to be accepted is the one that requires the fewest hypothetical explanations. Well, in this case there are two possible explanations: 1. the child has a physical ailment (like the diagnosed celiac) that is causing the child's ailments, or 2. the child has a psychologically unfit mother who wants the child to be ill, because she gets some sort of jollies out of the situation and who is therefore starving the child, forcing it to vomit in order to increase weight loss, deliberately exposing it to viruses in order to create ear infections, forcing doctors to agree to unnecessary transfusions, causing her baby's blood not to absorb iron very well, giving the baby an unidentifiable diaper rash, deliberately pulling out the (too small) surgically inserted GJ tube, oh, and somehow interfering with the blood work and biopsy of her child in order to make it SEEM like the child has a real problem. Now, which option seems to have the fewest hypotheses involved? It seems to me that the person who made this accusation can't have a very scientific mind . . .

Edited to say: Sorry I got a little scathing. The fact that this sort of thing can happen (and it does happen . . . just ask the Seattle PI) makes me VERY angry. In fact, the Seattle PI pointed out a case in which the city of LA gave a mom 1 million dollars and a public apology because it removed a child from her care because it didn't believe her reports of the severity of her child's athsma. The child later died from an athsma attack while in the "protective" custody of foster care. I know that CPS gets attacked when they are wrong either way . . . there was a little girl here in UT that was murdered by her custodial father and stepmother just a month ago. And my reaction then was to say: Why in the world did the courts allow that man to have custody of that child? If they make a mistake either way, people hate them. But it seems to me that there needs to be a greater number of brakes on the acceptance of such diagnoses as MSBP. After all, such accusations are often based on the feelings of a pediatrician/physician, NOT a psychiatrist. Given that the pediatrician is the one who sees the child, that doesn't mean that such accusations should be accepted with no further research. Did anyone EVER ask this mother to see a psychiatrist for diagnosis? Would the state even BOTHER to include a psychiatrist in some of the dr's visits in order to evaluate the mother before it barged in and took her child? NO, it wouldn't. And that's not right.

[gfp]

Please don't follow bad abvice. it does not matter what their perceived waekness is, the Court will only think you are not mentally together. Insist your child is tested for celiac, make them rule it out. You ,must focus on getting your children back, not thinking you can "make the dr. a quivering mass on the floor."

Destroying the credentials of the expert witness in court is the job of your trial lawyer during cross examination just as the job of the prosecution is to destroy her credibility as a caring mother because all cases like thins hinge on is the testimony of an expert witness.

In the UK in the 80's and Belgium and France more recently thousands of kids were taken from their parents under various abuse changes and these parents all went to court to prove they were good parents (some of them maybe weren't) but very few of them ever won because they concentrated on defending thier position not discrediting the expert witness because in the end you have two people, the mother and the expert witness both saying the opposite.

Many thousands of kids were put into state care.... in the UK for years and in France for 6 months until someone took apart the expert witness because at the end of the day the law is judging the credibility of the two .... and the expert witness automatically has more credibility.

Here is an English version of the latest French one...

Open Original Shared Link

Recent UK one

Open Original Shared Link

A couple who believe their children have been wrongly taken away by social services told the BBC the court had ruled against them on the basis of one medical expert.

"There was no conflicting medical evidence," the father said. "It was him and him alone and that power surely cannot be allowed to continue.

"He held the power completely over our whole family and with that power in one fell swoop he destroyed it."

[Rikki Tikki]

Again I can only offer my advice. Simply, my advice is that you get your children back. Work with the system to do this. Time will pass, you will lose your parental rights and all of your energy would of been put in the wrong place. You can save that battle for another day. Focus on getting your child/children back.

Destroying the credibility of what the court has already deemed an expert witness will take too long in the short time you are given to reunify with your children. Focus on what is important and that is the return of your children.

Best of luck

[gfp]

Again I can only offer my advice. Simply, my advice is that you get your children back. Work with the system to do this. Time will pass, you will lose your parental rights and all of your energy would of been put in the wrong place. You can save that battle for another day. Focus on getting your child/children back.

Destroying the credibility of what the court has already deemed an expert witness will take too long in the short time you are given to reunify with your children. Focus on what is important and that is the return of your children.

Best of luck

The deemed expert witness is an "expert witness" in a syndrome invented by a paeodtrician who has since be stripped of his MD!

"There is no evidence that cot deaths runs in families", said Meadow, "but there is plenty of evidence that child abuse does".

Whereas there is a whole load of evidence cot deaths are genetic.

Meadow's 73,000,000:1 statistic was paraded in the popular press, and provoked an uproar amongst professional statisticians who considered it dangerously over-simplistic. The president of the Royal Statistical Society wrote an open letter of complaint to the Lord Chancellor, stating that the figure had "no statistical basis".

The criticisms were twofold: Firstly, Meadow was accused of applying the so-called prosecutor's fallacy in which the probability of "cause given effect" (i.e. the true likelihood of a suspect's innocence) is confused with that of "effect given cause" (the likelihood that innocence will result in the observed double-cot-death). In reality, these quantities can only be equated when the a priori likelihood of the alternate hypothesis, in this case murder, is close to certainty. Murder (especially double murder) is itself a rare event, whose probability must be weighed against that of the null hypothesis (natural death).

The second criticism concerned the ecological fallacy: Meadow's calculation had assumed that the cot death probability within any single family was the same as the aggregate ratio of cot deaths to births for the entire affluent-non-smoking population. No account had been taken of conditions specific to individual families (such as the hypothesised cot death gene) which might make some more vulnerable than others. The occurrence of one cot-death makes it likely that such conditions exist within the family in question, and the probability of subsequent deaths is therefore greater than the group average (estimates are mostly in the region of 1:100).

Some mathematicians have estimated that taking both these factors into account, the true odds may have been greater than 2:1 in favour of Clark's innocence (Joyce, 2002). The perils of allowing non-statisticians to present unsound statistical arguments were expressed in a British Medical Journal (BMJ) editorial by Stephen Watkins, Director of Public Health for Stockport, claiming that "defendants deserve the same protection as patients"

Lord Howe described MSbP as "one of the most pernicious and ill-founded theories to have gained currency in childcare and social services in the past 10 to 15 years. It is a theory without science. There is no body of peer-reviewed research to underpin MSbP. It rests instead on the assertions of its inventor. When challenged to produce his research papers to justify his original findings, the inventor of MSBP stated, if you please, that he had destroyed them".

It was the destruction of the credibility of the expert witness that allowed several a not guilty verdict....

and this discredited ex-Dr. is the one who invented MSbP so the expert witness is an expert witness in a case of a syndrome invented by someone who has no credibility.

The reason this is so important is because the expert witness gives opinion not fact.

The expert witness says what in theirt opinion is likley or unlikely and by the nature of being an expert witness the "facts" they base this on are not required to be proven. It is up the the defense to question the validity or not of these "facts"...

Presently the current prima-donna of MSbP in NYS is the ex-prima-donna of SBS...Debra Esernio-Jenssen and spent most of her life studying lead poisioning..

Open Original Shared Link

Statements in the medical literature that perimacular retinal folds are diagnostic of shaken baby syndrome are not supported by objective scientific evidence. Non-comparative observational reports and unsystematic narrative review articles contain insufficient evidence to provide unbiased support for or against diagnostic specificity, and inferences about associations, causal or otherwise, cannot be determined. Clinical and autopsy evidence of ocular lesions must therefore be considered alongside other physical findings and a thorough investigation before concluding whether a head injury is caused by abuse. The child in our case had ocular haemorrhages (peripheral retinal, optic nerve sheath and intrascleral) and retinoschisis, which again some people consider specific for child abuse. Unfortunately, the evidence for these assumptions has similar problems to that for perimacular retinal folds. An evidence based analyis of indexed medical publications on shaken baby syndrome from 1966-1998 uncovered a weak scientific evidence base.11 Selection bias, inappropriate controls, and the lack of precise criteria for case definition were identified as important problems with the data. Many studies committed a fallacy of assumption, selecting cases by the presence of the clinical findings that were sought as diagnostically valid. Unsystematic reviews and consensus statements often mingled opinion with facts and added no original supporting evidence.

Perimacular retinal folds are associated with increased neurological morbidity and mortality in infants and children with abusive head injuries.6 The reported incidence of perimacular retinal folds in shaken baby syndrome varies from 6% in a consecutive clinical case series to 50% in a sequential autopsy case series.5 12 Clinical and autopsy studies with appropriately matched controls are needed to determine the causal mechanism of perimacular retinal folds and their specificity for abusive head injury. Until good evidence is available, we urge caution in interpreting eye findings out of context.

and the answer

Debra D. Esernio-Jenssen,

Director Child Protection Center

Schneider Children's Hospital

There are several important historical, social and developmental history that was not delineated in this case report. Nor were admission laboratory values, radiographs, and physical examination noted, as well as more details about the child's hospital course. There also was no mention of existing literature on television toppling injuries.

It would be important to know, for example how exactly the father found the child. It is not stated if he was face up, prone, or on his side. Was any blood present, from the childs nose, mouth, skull? Was there evidence of "cooking" in the kitchen? Why did he not telephone 911? There is no mention of what he informed happened to his child to the neighbor who drove them to the hospital.

They report that a "greasy smudged area" on the TV glass corresponded to the impact site on the child's head-but did not report the location of the impact site. With symmetrical parietal skull fractures a severe trauma to the crown or occiput would be expected.

Were there any previous injuries to this child or prior child protection reports. Was there family discord, known drug or alcohol use, or financial stressors? How were the children disciplined?

What were the developmental capabilities of this child? Was he standing, walking, and able to climb? How verbal was the 3 year-old sibling? Was he talking in complete sentences, does he understand cause and effect?

When he arrived at the hospital, what was this child's vitals, arterial blood gas, CBC, LFTs, coagulation studies? Any other cutaneous manifestations of abuse? If the television landed on his anterior chest, were there rib fractures or pulmonary hemorrhaging? There is no skeletal survey report mentioned. Was it done?

Why was there no mention of prior literature on television injuries. The Consumer Product Safety Commission statistics were not mentioned. How many children in the past have died from television toppling? How many with perimacular retinal folds? Was a report about this child sent to the CPSC?

And finally, many perpetrators of Shaken Baby Syndrome cite accidental injury as a cause of the physical findings in their victims. Twenty minutes is ample time to shake a toddler to death. The television certainly may of toppled onto the floor, angering the father, who then shook the crying, frightened toddler. His 3 year old sibling said "television fell", there was no detailed report of his forensic interview. This alleged accident was NOT witnessed by a non-family member. Furthermore too much data pertaining to this case was not included in the case report. Without providing the details of the aforementioned information requested, the authors' conclusions seem unfounded.

Competing interests: None declared

So here we have an expert in lead poisioning who frequently presented herself as an expert in SBS and now as MSbP....

or we can listen to a real expert... on the same thread.

Patrick E. Lantz,

Associate Professor

Department of Pathology, Wake Forest Unversity School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157 USA

Open Original Shared Link

too long to post but he counters every arguament the "self professed expert witness" makes.

[Rikki Tikki]

Look that is only my opinion. As I have stated she needs to focus on getting her child back, she has six months to reunify with her child if it's under 3. She does not have time to try and bring down an expert witness. If you have spent any time at all in a Court room you know that the task of bringing down a witness is not easy. The task of making the expert witness a "quivering mass" on the floor is just not a realistic possibility.

Advising her to do that is a huge mistake and one that she is almost sure to lose. As I have stated she needs to focus on getting her child back. As I have also stated she can fight that battle another day as far as someone being incompetent. She does not have time to do that now.

This is only my advice, just as yours is.

[Gcbec]

As someone going through this myself, following "the rules" to get your child back is NOT the way to go. This will only ensure you will never see them again. They "the accusing dr's" get away with false reports, and as said previously children are dangled like a carrot to win them back. Yes you are right, there is only so much time, but it is a waste of time to "do what they say", .If yougo into court with enough knowlege and information to discredit the "expert" her testimony will be worth NOTHING. It absolutly blows my mind to read that there are some here that actually beleive the dr's are right, and we should listen to "crazy" alegations, and accept it, cause if we dont we will not get our kids back. I am sure these people must work for the system, and feel they are right. But you can not deny, this baby had positive endoscopy, and the "expert" chose to ignore it. So what should the mother do? Oh yeah FIGHT LIKE HELL, discredit this dr, bring her down, enough so another family wont go through this. Once your day in court is done, you cant go back, in the end it is the judges decision. Remeber BE STRONG, and Beleive in yourself, do not accept blame for something you didnt do EVER. I Beleive in YOu, so do so many people, especially your little baby. I am praying for you.

Cindy

[concerned-mom061]

First, I want to say thank you to all of the people who have given me their support and prayers. I hope you all are blessed for your kindness. As far as all the conversations about discrediting the expert witness and just focusing on getting my baby back...you both are right. I have to go to court being as nice and pleasant as possible and agree to certain terms and conditions, for even though I know I did nothing wrong, right now they are calling all of the shots. I can't take a chance in losing my daughter by not agreeing to cooperate. At the same time, I have to work at finding the faults of this doctor so when I go into the court room I can give the judge good reason as to why she should not believe this doctor, but to believe me. I am just a nobody in this situation with this so called wonderful doctor testifying against me......who do you think the judge will believe. But, if I can show the judge that this doctor's character is not all that grand, then I bring her to my level and I stand a better chance of being the credible witness! I do not believe in revenge, but I do believe in doing what is right, and I will fight to make sure this does not happen to anyone else. Thanks for everything you guys!!! I will never give up on my daughter!! I will fight to the end!

[gfp]

First, I want to say thank you to all of the people who have given me their support and prayers. I hope you all are blessed for your kindness. As far as all the conversations about discrediting the expert witness and just focusing on getting my baby back...you both are right. I have to go to court being as nice and pleasant as possible and agree to certain terms and conditions, for even though I know I did nothing wrong, right now they are calling all of the shots. I can't take a chance in losing my daughter by not agreeing to cooperate.

Yes cooperate but make sure you do so with a lawyer present.

At the same time, I have to work at finding the faults of this doctor so when I go into the court room I can give the judge good reason as to why she should not believe this doctor, but to believe me. I am just a nobody in this situation with this so called wonderful doctor testifying against me......who do you think the judge will believe. But, if I can show the judge that this doctor's character is not all that grand, then I bring her to my level and I stand a better chance of being the credible witness! I do not believe in revenge, but I do believe in doing what is right, and I will fight to make sure this does not happen to anyone else. Thanks for everything you guys!!! I will never give up on my daughter!! I will fight to the end!

Just to say, its your lawyers job (and that of your expert witnesses) to actually do that in court .... I know you know that but its important you think like that.

In other words you don't need to discuss the medical facts, that is your expert witness.

You don't need to bring up previous trails where the expert witness has been discredited, that is your lawyer...

So yes you are as pleasant and nice as possible, its the lawyers job to be as scathing and incisive as possible!

What you can do is dig about and try and find things your expert witness and lawyer can use.

Remember, this is your life but only their job....

The earlier you present things to your lawyer the earlier you know if he/she can use them and the less time you waste on dead ends but also because of the nature of this type of hearing the court records will be protected so your lawyer will need time to subpoena them.

One thing I learned from a very good lawyer who is a friend of a friend and very well known in France was when I told him my problem the first thing he asked me is "How far will you go?" .....

Now admitedily I was the plaintif in this but that doesn't really matter... the same applies.

If you are squabling with a neighbour over a tree is completely different to fighing for your child!

Perhaps your lawyer presumes you will do whatever it takes but all I'm saying is to admit this to yourself..

If your lawyer suggests getting dirty and this might end up with someone losing their job then be prepared....

I do not believe in revenge, but I do believe in doing what is right, and I will fight to make sure this does not happen to anyone else.

The time to do that is afterwards....

Any "dirty tricks" your lawyer uses now should be for one thing only.... getting back your child!

After you have your child back then you can help others and one of the best ways is by sharing information...and giving your time.

As someone whom was on the receiving end of someone determined to seperate me from my parents I might have a different viewpoint. As it happens my father was not and still is not a very touchy-feely person at all but it irks me to think how close I was to being taken into care by one person with all the power.

Hence, I am giving you my time.....

[GFBetsy]

In other words you don't need to discuss the medical facts, that is your expert witness.

You don't need to bring up previous trials where the expert witness has been discredited, that is your lawyer...

So yes you are as pleasant and nice as possible, its the lawyers job to be as scathing and incisive as possible!

I agree. Do what the courts ask as far as evaluations/etc. to show your fitness, but make sure your expert witnesses and lawyers know everything they need to know in order to show that the "expert witnesses" on the other side are simply people, too, and people who have made a mistake this time.

[eKatherine]

Only a couple of scenarios....

First off I may not have a great faith in human nature but I find it more probable this is a single person instigating everything NOT the hosptial trying to cover its ASS directly.

What they are doing is very sick.. IMHO and I can't see a whole depratment covering this up... using specificaly MSBP because there are easier ways to cover a botched diagnosis and miscare... that would have a far less devastating effect on the mother and people are not that BAD.

What I think more probable is a single member of the department who is either CYAing or is actually seriously mentally ill. Lets call this hypothesis Misery syndrome after Stephen Kings book where his carer cuts off an ankle and a thumb and even after the reason for the internment (finishing the book is done won't let go)

Lets say an orderly develops Misery syndrome (like a reverse MSBP - where the carer makes the patient sick to prevent losing the patient)

This orderly then covers up their work by casting insinuations about the mother and even plating evidence.

In this case the person probably has a record of mental health issues... hence why I suggest a PI ...

I really think that this is not merely the result of one mentally ill person's actions, but an extension of the "herd" mentality we have spoken of before. One "expert" who is skilled in manipulating others can convince enough people that something is a critical issue without presenting the real, entire story. They will also trust this person to lead them, and cooperate in helping him or her to the extent that the "herd mentality" becomes a "mob mentality".

[Luvs to Scrap]

Concerned Mom,

I just wanted to let you know that my thoughts and prayers are with you as you go to court tomorrow. Hopefully the truth will win! I will be watching this thread hoping to read good news tomorrow night. Take care! Kendra

[Gcbec]

GREAT NEWS <<<<<

SHE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHe went to get her daughter..........

OUR PRAYERS WERE ANSWERED

Please hold that baby tight and continue to pray for our children....

CIndy

[Rikki Tikki]

Happy to hear it.

[GFBetsy]

Wonderful!

[Lymetoo]

It seems like the MSBP accusation is sometimes made when the dr's do something wrong to lay the blame elsewhere.

I agree! The same thing has happened to mothers of Lyme patients. Lyme can be difficult to dx because of lousy tests....so if the child is still sick, guess who gets the blame?

GREAT NEWS <<<<<

SHE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHe went to get her daughter..........

OUR PRAYERS WERE ANSWERED

Please hold that baby tight and continue to pray for our children....

CIndy

That's so wonderful!!!!

[Turtle]

I love good news!!!!

[Luvs to Scrap]

GREAT NEWS <<<<<

SHE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SHe went to get her daughter..........

OUR PRAYERS WERE ANSWERED

Please hold that baby tight and continue to pray for our children....

CIndy

Praise the Lord! What an answer to prayer. I will continue to pray that you get the same wonderful news later this month when you go to court too, Cindy. Yeah! Kendra