On Nov 11, 3:56 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 4:51 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 2:41 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 3:32 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 24, 8:08 am, "Dragon's Girl" <bettywir...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 23, 12:09 pm, Greegor <Greego...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > > G > Betty, Do you really think that a kid
> > > > > > G > who is 10th percentile (5% of population)
> > > > > > G > would not set off huge alarm bells for
> > > > > > G > a doctor?
>
> > > > > > BW > My bad. I thought he said four.
>
> > > > > > G > Betty, In another thread you
> > > > > > G > accused me a priori of MOCKING you!
> > > > > > G >
> > > > > > G > In this thread I asked a direct,
> > > > > > G > fair and reasonable question.
> > > > > > G >
> > > > > > G > Apparently you don't want to answer it
> > > > > > G > so you join in with Dan's juvenile crap.
> > > > > > G >
> > > > > > G > You MOCK yourself.
>
> > > > > > G > Betty, Do you really think that a kid
> > > > > > G > who is 10th percentile (5% of population)
> > > > > > G > would not set off huge alarm bells for
> > > > > > G > a doctor?
>
> > > > > > G > Can't just answer a simple question directly?
> > > > > > G > If you don't KNOW, just admit you don't.
>
> > > > > > BW > I know the answer very well Greg.
> > > > > > BW > I just can't figure out why you insist
> > > > > > BW > on asking irrelevant questions.
> > > > > > BW > The article said that the girl had
> > > > > > BW > not been to the doctor in years.
> > > > > > BW > It would be impossible for those
> > > > > > BW > 'alarms' to be set off by someone
> > > > > > BW > that a doctor hasn't seen.
>
> > > > > > G > When the child was to the doctor years
> > > > > > G > before, the doctor THEN should have
> > > > > > G > insisted on CLOSE SUPERVISION.
> > > > > > G >
> > > > > > G > It doesn't take a SERIES of low weight
> > > > > > G > or a trend, if the kid is THAT LOW!
>
> > > > > > BW > Do you think it was the doctor's job
> > > > > > BW > to make sure the parents brought
> > > > > > BW > the girl to subsequent check ups?
>
> > > > > > What do the guidelines of the AMA and
> > > > > > pediatric association say on this?
>
> > > > > > Doctors ADMIT kids to hospitals for far smaller
> > > > > > problems than this.
>
> > > > > > Doctors also re****t to CPS for smaller problems than this.
>
> > > > > > I don't like the NAZI like world we've made with the
> > > > > > relation****p between doctor and patient with
> > > > > > CPS quietly in the mix. I'm just pointing it out.
>
> > > > > > We've got doctors calling CPS on their patients
> > > > > > all the time, there have even been stories of how
> > > > > > doctors have used re****ting to CPS in an attempt
> > > > > > to prevent parents from getting a second opinion.
> > > > > > In a few cases the second opinion proved that the
> > > > > > first (re****ting) doctor was horribly WRONG in their
> > > > > > determination.
>
> > > > > > Hell, One of the biggest Family Rights advocates
> > > > > > even experiencede an ER NURSE who used CPS
> > > > > > at the drop of a hat in an attempt to back up or
> > > > > > enlarge the nurses aggrandized authority. The
> > > > > > nurse phoned in a rediculously false re****t. The
> > > > > > re****t included completely fictional elements
> > > > > > borrowed from famous national CPS cases, like
> > > > > > that the mother was a preacher traveling in a
> > > > > > BUS with her kids. (Not a preacher, no bus.)
> > > > > > CPS (Missouri DFS) sent a newbie caseworker.
> > > > > > When the caseworke told her superiors who
> > > > > > the mother was, they asked the caseworker
> > > > > > to apologize and LEAVE. The child involved
> > > > > > lives with lifelong cerebral injuries as the result
> > > > > > of a foster care experience. The mother was
> > > > > > doing exactly as the doctor directed,
> > > > > > was told to go to the ER and have him paged
> > > > > > immediately, but the ER nurse saw this as some
> > > > > > sort of challenge to her AUTHORITY so she called
> > > > > > CPS before she paged the doctor.
>
> > > > > > Remember than in many states mandatory
> > > > > > re****ters have to re****t situations which MIGHT
> > > > > > possibly be abuse, or face legal liabilities.
> > > > > > There is a big difference between re****ting
> > > > > > every damned thing that MIGHT POSSIBLY
> > > > > > be abuse (almost everything!) as opposed
> > > > > > to re****ting only where they reasonably believe
> > > > > > there is actual child abuse.
>
> > > > > > Missouri law is a bit stricter about this than most
> > > > > > states (thanks to the Mom above) but you
> > > > > > know very well that the doctors MALPRACTICE
> > > > > > insurer would urge them to re****t such a case
> > > > > > unless there is some really good explanation!
>
> > > > > > I don't LIKE how it is, I'm just telling it.
>
> > > > > I'm not real sure what your desire is here, Greg?
> > > > > Do you want every parent who has a child with medical conditions
=
to be
> > > > > the target of DFS interaction, or no?
> > > > > I must admit, I am no doctor, but I know that there are signs,
an=
d
> > > > > without those signs, how could you expect a physician to suspect
> > > > > abuse?
> > > > > A child who is born premature, low birth weight, ill after
birth,
> > > > > suffering some medical conditions, multiple birth, etc would
> > > > > APPROPRIATELY be in the tenth percentile. Why that would set
off
> > > > > alarms to their physician is beyond me. Why you think it should
=
is
> > > > > also beyond me.
> > > > > A child who is born healthy, has no medical conditions, etc
being=
in
> > > > > the tenth percentile would raise HUGE red flags, and still, sans
=
the
> > > > > tell tale conditions of abuse and neglect, would not be
considere=
d
> > > > > abuse or neglect.
> > > > > Not real sure, by your posts, what it is that you would like for
=
the
> > > > > state, or doctors to do in this case, as there are many unknown
> > > > > factors.
>
> > > > > > BW > People move, lose their health care, find
> > > > > > BW > other doctors, etc...lots of stuff happens.
> > > > > > BW > It's not the medical provider who is
> > > > > > BW > responsible for following up with the
> > > > > > BW > patient, it's the patient, or the patient's
> > > > > > BW > parents, who are responsible for follow up.
> > > > > > BW > So, now, you tell me...who's to blame?
> > > > > > BW > The doctor who may very well have told
> > > > > > BW > the parents that the child was in need
> > > > > > BW > of medical care to boost her weight and
> > > > > > BW > monitor her progress, or the parents who
> > > > > > BW > did not provide that care to her, and
> > > > > > BW > abused her? I don't understand why
> > > > > > BW > you insist on placing blame where it
> > > > > > BW > does not belong.
>
> > > > > I notice you didn't answer the above.
>
> > > > Betty, Dan just posted a story that shows that CPS
> > > > was involved 5 years ago (re****t by teacher) so
> > > > it looks like CPS were involved and may even
> > > > have prompted that doctor visit.
DS > CPS was involved three years ago.
DS > The doctor was involved five years ago.
Another article says CPS involved 3 years ago.
CPS and cops LEFT THE KID THERE TOO!
Emaciated!
These people sit in judgement of others??
Complete dorks!
> > > > There are hints that this family is well off.
>
> > > Who "hinted" that?
>
> > > > Dan started this off sarcastically blaming CPS
> > > > but as it turns out, CPS WAS involved 5 years
> > > > ago and apparently didn't do any follow up.
DS > That's why I blamed CPS.
Sarcastically!
And joined argument with Betty that CPS didn't KNOW!
Now it's been re****ted they were involved THREE
years ago as well! 5 years ago, 3 years ago, CPS and cops
and now August it all hits the fan??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/msg/80=
1a95194a907ac5
DS > They closed a case on a 48 pound 11 year old girl in thirty days!
G > In essence, this kid starved almost to
G > death over the last 5 years right under
G > the watching eyes of CPS.
DS > Three years ago for CPS, and they closed the case in 30 days.
G > That's QUITE a fact they left out of the first
G > media story, wouldn't you say, Betty?
DS > Call the re****ter and complain, grag.
G > Why would they leave out that CPS has
G > been involved with this family for YEARS,
G > and was aware of the situation?
DS > Maybe that info wasn't available at the time.
G > What will we find out next?
G > Were they foster/adopters too?
G > Why do you suppose Dan didn't post the follow up
G > story in this thread, instead opting to create
G > a new one?
DS > It was new information.
G > New information on an old story.
G > Is there a reason not to attach it
G > to the original thread?
DS > Yes.
DS > New information - new thread.
Same kid. Same case.
This kid has a VERY good case for suing the
crap out of CPS for failing to protect her.
The quotes of her wanting out of the
situation would be golden for an attorney
seeking a big settlement.
When you first posted this it was to slam
parents, but I was suspicious right away that
there was something wrong with the doctor
letting this kid stay home at that weight.
I'm still suspicious that there is a bizarre
explanation (probably horribly inadequate)
that we haven't heard yet, something like
the caseworker and the doctor wrote
it off as part of a mental illness or behavior problem.
Did they think she was neurotic
and doing this to herself, or anorexic?
Another shoe will drop.
Hell, lots of shoes probably!
Now that CPS and the cops look like
major *****, we'll probably see their
explanation.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sup****t.child-protective-services/msg/80=
1a95194a907ac5
http://www.google.com/search?hl=3Den&q=3DStarving+girl+case+%27haunts%27+wo=
rkers&aq=3Df&oq=3D
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_103I08INV_starving_girl_cps-upda=
te_JM.169461284.html
CPS: Starving girl case 'haunts' workers
01:52 PM PDT on Friday, October 31, 2008
By KING5.com Staff and SUSANNAH FRAME / KING 5 News
Video: Investigators: Starving girl left in home after call to police
Larger screen E-mail this clip
There are more disturbing facts about the teenager who nearly
starved to death in Carnation. KING 5 Investigator Susannah Frame has
information that the girl was left in the home even after police saw
she was wasting away.
SEATTLE - Wa****ngton state's Child Protection Services says the
decision to close the case of a starving Carnation girl "haunts"
workers and the case is being reviewed.
The case of the 14-year-old girl struck quite a nerve in the
community. Earlier this month, a father and stepmother were arrested,
charged with deliberately starving their daughter as punishment.
Now KING 5 Investigator Susannah Frame has found the child was left in
the home even after police and Child Protective Services workers
responded to the home and found the emaciated girl begging for help.
Police and social workers went to the home this summer after a
neighbor called to say she'd heard a child screaming and banging on
doors and windows in the middle of the night.
New Department of Social and Health Services do***ents obtained by
KING 5 show that police left the child in the home even after
responding to that call. A sheriff's deputy wrote that the 14-year-old
looked so malnourished that she appeared to be age 7 or 8, and weighed
just 48 pounds.
On top of that, records show the girl begged the deputy for help
saying, "I don't want to live here anymore" because she was only
allowed a few Dixie cups of water a day.
Related Content
Investigators: Starving girl left in home after call to police
Stepmother preoccupied with knitting
Couple plead not guilty
Couple charged for extreme child abuse
Excerpts from Rebecca Long's blog
Her stepmother, Rebecca Long, she told the deputy, had duct-taped her
mouth and shoved her head in the toilet when she was caught sneaking
water.
We also learned from the records that a state social worker came to
the home the day after police came in.
The worker wrote that the girl looked "extremely thin and
malnourished," "is restricted from drinking water" and that the
stepmother hits her with "her hand, a belt, and a clog-like shoe".
Despite all that, the social worker left the child there.
Instead of taking her out, the worker developed a safety plan with the
parents telling them they must make a doctor's appointment and stop
physically disciplining her while she's at this current weight.
So how did the girl finally get taken out of the home?
The next day the parents made good on their promise to CPS and took
the girl to the doctor. According to the do***ents, medical
professionals were horrified saying the girl was intentionally starved
and despondent. She apparently told the doctor she'd rather have a
lethal injection than go back home.
They rushed her to the hospital and made yet another call to CPS that
finally led to police taking her into protective custody from
Children's Hospital in Seattle.
The parents have both pleaded not guilty to two counts each of
criminal mistreatment.
We=92ve also learned there was controversy over whether the girl should
be taken from the home when law enforcement officials and Child
Protective Services were called with similar complaints from the
daughter in 2005, when she was 11. Carnation police and the girl=92s
teachers thought she should be removed for her safety, yet state
officials left her there.
The records indicate the girl ran away from her home schooling center
on March 4, 2005 because she was "afraid to go home." She told
teachers she was locked in her room every day until 1:00 while her
mother slept, and only got a meal at 8 p.m. when her father came home.
She also re****ted her mother "hits me a lot."
The teacher called CPS and a King County Sheriff=92s deputy responded as
well. The deputy saw no signs of abuse and thought it was a situation
of a daughter and step-mother "not getting along."
CPS closed the case after repeated, failed attempts at getting a hold
of the father. In addition, the daughter told the caseworker her step-
mother had quit locking her up and that they were getting along
better.
That was the last time officials heard of any problems, until the call
from the neighbor in August of this year.
When contacted by KING 5 News after the re****t aired, Sharon Gilbert,
CPS Deputy Director for Field Operations, said the agency is reviewing
the case. Gilbert said at the time (2005) it appeared that the girl's
risk has been greatly "reduced." She said it may have been a mistake
to have closed the case and that the decision now "haunts" workers.
According to Gilbert, the case will be something they remember in
their "lessons learned"
The girl is currently in foster care. Her younger brother, who looked
healthy and well-fed, was eventually taken out of the home as well and
placed with different foster parents.
31 comments!
|
