Protecting Your Child From CPS And Child Abuse Pediatricians With Beth Maloney (#40)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Pediatricians have become board certified as child
abuse pediatricians.
They don't have anyqualifications to make that
assessment, but they do.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
So they stop giving the child the care that mom
knows that the child needs.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
Right.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
And the child not receiving care dies.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
It's happened.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
You're listening to the Brendan Murata show.
In this episode I talked toBeth Maloney, author of the book
Protecting your Child from theChild Protection System.
Beth is an attorney and parentthat helps other parents who are
dealing with child protectiveservices or have been wrongfully
accused of abusing theirchildren.
Reading her book, I wassurprised how common it is for

(00:44):
parents to find themselvesdealing with this system even
when they've done nothing wrong.
In this episode, we'll talkabout what someone should do if
they find themselves wrongfullyaccused of child abuse, how to
handle the child protectionsystem and how child abuse
pediatricians are building arole for themselves within the
medical system where they canaccuse parents of abusing their

(01:04):
children simply for seekingmedical treatment.
It's a very interestingindustrial complex being built
within the medical system aroundthis particular issue that I
think you'll want to hear aboutwhen you listen to this episode.
So, without further ado, here isBeth.
The question that I wanted tostart with that I've had since I

(01:25):
first discovered your work iswhy is it that a good parent, a
parent who isn't doing anythingwrong, who's treating their
children well, might findthemselves interacting with
child protective services?
Because I think everyone knows,you know, if there's a bad
situation.
If there's abuse going on, weall sort of agree that something

(01:47):
should be done.
But what are the reasons thatthat system might go wrong and
someone who's doing good mightfind themselves dealing with it?

Speaker 1 (01:58):
So I think there are a variety of ways that that can
happen.
First of all, there iscertainly an issue where parents
are impoverished and don't havethe same ability to care for
their kids that someone who hasmore resources does.
Unfortunately, those parentsare often accused of neglect and

(02:24):
, rather than helping, thesystem perceives some sort of
negligence there, even thoughparents are working as hard as
they possibly can.
So that's one possibility.
Another possibility is whenchildren have accidents and the

(02:45):
parents aren't really able toexplain exactly what happens,
which frankly does happen withkids having accidents.
You're not, you don'tnecessarily have your eyes on
them all the time, andparticularly if parents, if your
child was injured in a park andthere falls off a swing, and

(03:07):
there are five or six peoplearound and they all see what
happens and you saw a kid falloff the swing and nobody pushed
him or her off the swing, that'sone sort of an accident.
Another accident is somethingwhere there's actually a case
that happened in Texas where achild essentially was put on a

(03:30):
chair while the mom ran into thehouse and then ran back out and
the toddler fell off the chair.
So she wasn't really able toexplain exactly what happens,
and that then starts an entirechild protection exploration.

(03:50):
Let's put it that way.
And sometimes, as I mentionedin my book, parents
inadvertently say things thatlead to even bigger
investigations.
In my experience, once aninvestigation is opened, the

(04:10):
goal of the investigation is notreally to clear the parents.
It's to figure out how to findsomething that needs to be
addressed.
And another way it happens iswhich is my particular area of
expertise is when you havemedically complex kids who, and

(04:32):
by a medically complex kid and Iuse kid all the time, so I
don't want anyone to think I'mbeing disrespectful, that's just
.
You know.

Speaker 2 (04:40):
I call Michael my kids.

Speaker 1 (04:43):
You have a kid out who has maybe a breathing tube
or a feeding tube or anautoimmune disorder or some sort
of a complex disorder thatwould not be treated in your
typical pediatric, in the officethat your pediatrician would
probably refer the child out formore expertise.
And more and more often I'mseeing those parents of those

(05:07):
children being accused of eithercompletely making up the
symptoms that the child has orthe latest variation is
exaggerating the symptoms.
Yes, the child really is sick,but not as sick as the parent is
claiming.
And in those situations theparents get looped into this

(05:32):
child protection system.
The accusations are being madeby doctors who don't agree with
the treatment and, in the caseof accidents, by doctors.
That's where the initial reportstarts.
And then the quote unquoteinvestigation is handled by
caseworkers who have no medicalexpertise and really I think too

(05:58):
many times are more interestedin supporting the doctors or
finding a reason to look morecarefully at the situation than
they should be.

Speaker 2 (06:11):
So let's say that you're a parent and God forbid
you know we're all free fromthis Something happens that
requires bringing the child tothe emergency room.
How does one go from doing whatthey need to do to make sure
their child is safe and caredfor and recovers from whatever

(06:32):
accident happened to dealingwith the child protective
services system?
Well, I would not try toexplain something that I do not
know the circumstance.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
So if your child hurt himself or herself and you
don't exactly know what happenedin the situation, I would not
try and come to the point whereI would not know what happened
in the situation.

(07:06):
I would not try and come upwith a theory as to what might
have gone wrong.
So let's take the example withthe child in Texas who
essentially fell off the chair.
And it doesn't have to be Texas, it can be anywhere.
Something happens when you areasked what happened and you say

(07:28):
I don't know.
I went into the house to.
I went quickly into the housebecause the alarm was going off.
I thought maybe there was afire in the kitchen so I ran in.
Everything was under control.
I ran out.
They were on the ground.
Then you're asked how did thathappen?
I think your answer is I don'tknow.

(07:48):
I only know it happened in lessthan one minute.
That's what happened.
Rather than saying well, youknow, maybe the neighbor's dog
came into the yard and pushedhim off the chair.
Or well, my daughter was alsoout there and she can sometimes
be a little rough, so maybe shepushed him off the chair.

(08:10):
Or those, to me, are themistakes that parents make, if
you can call the mistakes.
I don't even want to call themistakes, because parents are
really just trying to figure itout and think that the person on
the other side of the tablewho's conducting the
investigation is helpful.

(08:32):
And they're not really beinghelpful.
They're not trying to figurethis out with you.
They're trying to justifyopening an investigation into
you.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
That is what I would say.

Speaker 1 (08:52):
So that's one thing that I would say.
The second thing I would say isknow your hospital.
So there are certain hospitalswhere these kind of cases are
generated all the time, so don'tgo there.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
So it sounds like a parent might look away for two
seconds.
Something happens.
They rush their child to getsome help and someone asks how
did this happen?
And they say I don't know.
I think he might have fallenfrom something.
And then they look at the childand go these injuries don't
look like he fell from something.
What actually happened?

(09:34):
Are you lying to us?
And now a case is open andthey're trying to build a case
against the parent.

Speaker 1 (09:42):
Right, let's say the interrogator or the doctor is
not going to say are you lyingto us?
They might just say well, thatexplanation doesn't really make
sense.
So now parents are trying tocome up they think that they're
in a cooperative relationshiptrying to figure out what
happened.
That's not what's going on.
So if you were sitting in apolice station being questioned

(10:07):
everybody who watches television, I think, knows that you don't
just like start answeringquestions and making up ideas
and coming up with theoriesbecause ultimately all of that
can just come back to hurt you.
So if you do not know theanswer, you say I don't know.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
So it sounds like when you're talking to child
protective services, you'retalking to someone who's trying
to build a case and you have totreat that interaction like you
would talking to a policeofficer or a prosecutor.

Speaker 1 (10:40):
I would.
I would do that.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
And are they required to identify themselves?
So do you know if you'retalking to someone from child
protective services all the time?

Speaker 1 (10:51):
A caseworker would identify themselves.
But if you are in the hospitaland a doctor is coming to talk
to you, you may very well haveno idea what kind of doctor that
is, whether they are a childabuse pediatrician or a
hospitalist who are really veryanxious, it seems, to find

(11:13):
abusive parents.
And or is this the emergencyroom doctor?
You just don't know.
So I think from the minute youstep inside the hospital's doors
, you are aware of the fact thatyou are in a potentially risky
situation, and I hate to saythat this is a new development.

(11:36):
This is not something that 10years ago I would have said, but
I do say it today.

Speaker 2 (11:43):
So why is it that the medical system is interested in
building cases like this?
Because that seems like a majoron ramp or entry point for
parents who might otherwise bedoing good to find themselves
dealing with this.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
Well, I've become very jaded and I think that
there is a real interest amongthis particular group of
pediatricians who are known aschild abuse pediatricians, who
need to justify their positionsand if they are not finding a
lot of abused children, thenwhat is the point of their job?

(12:24):
And I'm sorry to have to saythat.
And I also want to be clearthat there are many children who
are abused.
But I'm seeing a tremendousnumber of parents who are really
attacked and abused by thesystem and forced to hire
lawyers and engage in extendedlegal proceedings and lose their

(12:46):
children and are only allowedto visit them with supervisors
and have to go into counselingand take parenting courses.
And if there had been a momentof common sense at the beginning
of the case, one wouldrecognize that this was either
an accident or this is an illchild and that simply because a

(13:09):
parent parents differently thansomeone else might.
That's not a basis to takechildren away.
So I might parent my childrenone way.
Another person could parentthose same children in a very
different way.
I might not agree with theirparenting, I might not like some
of their parenting, there couldbe many issues that I would

(13:32):
have with their parenting, butthey're not my kids.
So while those children cannotbe beaten, cannot be starved,
cannot be sexually assaulted,cannot be thrown out of the
house, cannot be made to sleepin the car in the middle of the
winter, as punishment, cannot beheld by their ankles outside of

(13:53):
a second story window todiscipline them, these are all
cases that I have seen.
That's abuse.
That is abuse.
But not trying your best in adifficult situation to arrange
medical care or not supervisingyour children the best you can.

(14:17):
Every mother and probablyfather in the world at some
point has had to run out and youknow, or run into the house or
into the apartment because maybea stoke thing was going to boil
over or an animal suddenly raninto the yard and while you're

(14:38):
chasing the fox out of the yard,the child gets into some kind
of trouble.
That stuff happens.
It's not abuse.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
So what are some atypical parenting decisions
that someone might make that arelegitimate, or just different,
that the system might look at asabuse, even though they're just
different?

Speaker 1 (15:07):
So I've seen a situation where a mom who had
some of her own, let's say,academic challenges and had a
child who had some pretty severemental health concerns and that
mom was making the decisionsthat she felt was right for that

(15:31):
child, which included that shewas not willing to put the child
into a live in mental healthprogram.
She felt that she could managethat child's behaviors and that
was deemed to be abuse.

(15:53):
Wow so yeah, whereas I felt I atthe time was the guardian, I
had let him for that child and Ifought hard to say but this mom
is making reasonable decisionsbased on the information that
she has.
Nobody is being hurt here.
Nobody wants their child athome.

Speaker 2 (16:13):
It sounds like an incredible possibility in that
judgment for medical kidnap orfor the doctor to say well, we
think the best care is to takeyour child away from you, and if
you don't give your child thebest care, which we have defined
as taking the child away fromyou, we'll take the child away
from you.
So it almost sounds like themedical system gets to be its

(16:35):
own judge and authority in thatsituation.

Speaker 1 (16:40):
Okay, so in that situation, that is a very true
example, but in the particularsituation I outlined, what was
happening was that the caseworkers were being notified by
medical providers that thischild need to be in their
program full-time, and momdisagreed, and so the case

(17:03):
workers were then filing forcustody, saying the child has to
be removed.
There are situations, though,where the doctors are more
directly involved, so theemergency room situation that
you brought up, where a childgoes to the hospital with an
injury and the doctor just wholooks at it the child abuse
pediatrician, for whateverreason decides themselves that

(17:30):
child is not going home.
So they keep the child admittedin the hospital and they notify
child protection services thata petition for custody needs to
be filed, and if the child isnot removed immediately, then
something horrific is probablygoing to happen, and the case

(17:51):
worker goes into court or goesto a judge.
There's no notification to theparent and, based solely on what
that doctor has told that caseworker, who then repeats it to a
judge, custody goes to thestate.

Speaker 2 (18:07):
And does the parent get the opportunity to tell
their side of the story in thatsituation?
After the fact so, the judgemakes a ruling and then you get
to appeal the ruling.

Speaker 1 (18:19):
It's not an appeal.
The judge makes the ruling andthen you are given notice that
there will be a subsequentproceeding.
Now let me in fairness, becauseI try to be fair If there is a
child who is brought into theemergency room who has cigarette
butt burns all over their legand broken ribs and a black guy

(18:42):
and maybe is starving, thencertainly in that situation and
I don't mean to laugh, it's notfunny, I'm just saying in that
situation there is a reasonableground to believe that this
child is being abused and shouldnot go home.
And the same pattern wouldhappen the doctors would not
allow the child to leave thehospital and then immediately

(19:04):
there would be this emergencycustody granted and then the
parents would receive noticethat the child was in the state
custody and that there would bea hearing.
So that's how it's supposed towork.
The problem is that it's beingused in situations where there
really is not, in my opinion,that kind of an emergency where

(19:29):
parents should not be barredfrom access to their kids.
And there is an expressionamong lawyers and probably
pretty well-known possession isnine tenths of the law.
The problem is, once thecustody has been delivered to
the state, in that emergencyproceeding.

(19:49):
The parent really is in anuphill battle to get custody
back.
The assumption is, at that pointthe child belongs in custody.

Speaker 2 (20:03):
It sounds very similar to the political term
state of exception.
I don't know if you're familiarwith that, but state of
exception is a political conceptthat if the government has an
exception where they can dosomething they're normally not
allowed to do, they'll just doeverything as an exception.
So if the government is allowedto spy on you because there's

(20:24):
an emergency, well every timethey want to spy on you, it's an
emergency.
Now, and it sounds like thatthere's a similar dynamic going
on with child protectiveservices, where if they're only
allowed to take the child in anemergency, well every time they
want to take the child, it's anemergency.

Speaker 1 (20:39):
Well, it's not every time, so they only use this
emergency procedure in limitedcircumstances.
So here's another example ofhow an emergency proceeding
might work.
Suppose that you had and I usethis in the book if there were

(21:00):
two parents who had overdosed inthe car and the police come
upon the car and the two parentsare overdosed and there's a
toddler in the back seat.
They get to take that toddler,keep them at the police station,
notify the caseworker.
Caseworker goes to a judge,says emergency, somebody has to

(21:22):
have custody of this child.
So it could be used in thatkind of a situation also.
So I don't really think it's anexception, because there is a
specific procedure for this andmany times you do have doctors
who are actually saying this iswhat needs to happen.
So unless the caseworkers arereally explicitly implementing a

(21:47):
doctor's agenda, knowing thatit's wrong, then there tends to
be a lot of deference to medicalopinions in general, and so I
think that explains part ofwhat's going on.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
So let's say that there's a doctor who's just bad,
and they have an agenda andthey're willing to do bad things
for their agenda.
What checks and balances existin the system to prevent them
from engaging in harm against achild.

Speaker 1 (22:26):
In the context of child protection matters.
So in other words, the thingokay.
So I would say someone like me,I'm the check and balance.
There's no internal check andbalance on that person.
There are only attorneys whofight the cases.

Speaker 2 (22:46):
Got it.
So if the parents can't affordand a high quality person like
yourself, they're in trouble.

Speaker 1 (22:51):
It's much more difficult because not all
attorneys are created equal,just like all doctors and
carpenters and car garages whowork on car.
Some are better than others,and so unless you're able to
afford a really good attorney,you're in a tough spot.

(23:12):
If you cannot afford anyattorney, then an attorney in
most states will be appointedfor you.
It's not a constitutional rightto have a lawyer provided in a
child protection matter, butmost of the states do do that.
And I think again, thevariation among who gets

(23:33):
appointed is pretty great.
And so I hear from many, manyparents who say their lawyers
did really nothing for them,just went along, just went along
with whatever was said anddidn't really.
And let me also just say it'sreally hard to win these cases.
It's not easy, it's hard work.
It's hard work.

(23:54):
You're up against a machine.
The machine is whatever thestate system is, excuse me.
The machine is the doctorbacked by a hospital.
It's hard, so ideally you justdon't wanna get caught up in it,
if it's at all avoidable.

Speaker 2 (24:12):
It sounds like also the people in that machine are
probably much more experiencedand knowledgeable about how to
work the machine than theaverage parent, who's probably
never even thought about thisbefore.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
That's true and that is why I wrote the book, because
I saw that the same mistakes.
I hate to call them mistakesbecause I don't I'm not making
in any way the parentsresponsible for this.

Speaker 2 (24:39):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
You just don't realize what you're up against
and you should really look atthis as being a situation.
Very much what you said.
You're in the police station,you're being interrogated, and
so if the if something I'mtrying to think of a good
example here where somethinghappens, where your daughter

(25:05):
wanders down the street to aneighbor's house, let's say, and
for some reason there's areport made maybe this is the
fifth or sixth time it'shappened, I don't know the case
worker comes to the door, startsasking questions, and then the
mom is saying oh, she's alwaysgetting into trouble.
There was that fist fight atschool two weeks ago.
Okay, this is not helpful toyour case.

(25:27):
Now you've just sort of givenout information that will lead
to a further investigation.
The fist fight at school.
So now all of a sudden they'rewondering about that, and so
parents always talk too much,too much in these situations

(25:50):
because they feel that they'rein a tough spot, and if they can
just explain it properly, theneverybody will understand.
And what they don't realize isthat the person you're talking
to isn't there to understand.
They are not your therapist,they are not your friend, they
are an investigator and they'retrying to figure out if there's

(26:12):
a case.

Speaker 2 (26:13):
One question I wanted to ask you about was if child
protective services had anyissue with non-standard
parenting, so things likehomeschooling, home birth, not
vaccinating your children.
I've heard that in some caseschild protective services will

(26:34):
not look kindly on those becausethey believe that the standard
is what the sort of dominantinstitutions want, even though
parents who do those things areoften very conscientious and
care a lot about their children.
So is there any issue in thosecases?
Oh, and co-sleeping was anotherone that I'd heard there were

(26:55):
sometimes issues around.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
Yes, those are all considered red flags.
However, I don't think youwould be investigated solely for
that reason.
The problem comes up.
Let's use the example where theperson comes to the front door

(27:17):
and the case worker comes to thefront door and says to the
mother there's been a reportthat your child is running wild
through the neighborhood.
And the mother says at night,at night, okay, she's seen
running.
And the mother says that'simpossible.
We co-sleep.
She's nine years old but we'restill co-sleeping.

(27:39):
I know she's okay red flag, butit wasn't the co-sleeping that
caused the investigation.
It becomes a factor within theinvestigation.
So I've seen cases where parentsare again a medical case, where

(28:01):
the doctors are claiming oh,the child isn't really sick, or
the child has this disorder, butthe mother it's always the
mother, by the way, 95% of thetime in the medical cases it's
the mother is exaggerating thesymptoms.
And then, when I'm reading therecords, I see homeschooling

(28:23):
cited as a concern.
Now, why?
Because then they're sayingwell, there aren't enough eyes
on this child.
That's a phrase you'll hearoften there aren't enough eyes
on this child.
So I always tell clients whoand I think I've written it in
the book people who want tohomeschool.
Make sure there are eyes onyour child.

(28:45):
Take them to public libraryprograms, take them to art
lessons.
Any child who is homeschooledis still allowed to participate
in the sports with the schoolsystem, for example.
So let them be on the soccerteam, let them be on the
baseball team.
Don't have them be on thefootball team, because they
could get concussions.

(29:06):
But that's my personal thought,but I'm just saying do things so
that there the argument thatthere aren't enough eyes on this
child is defeated.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
Would video or documenting your child's life
through photographs and thingslike that be considered eyes on
the child?

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Sometimes, however, then if a child let's say a
child's really sick and can'treally mobilize around the house
and so maybe the mom is withthe cell phone taping so that
she can show the doctor who'streating this kid, this is what

(29:50):
we see after four o'clock in theafternoon.
He's really just pullinghimself around by his hands
because his legs aren'tfunctioning.
So the problem with trying tothen show that video to case
workers who are being told byother doctors that this is all
made up, is that then they'llclaim well, he or she was just

(30:10):
making the child do that,they're making it up.
So that might not be compelling.
Now, if you have pictures,photographs of the child sitting
at story time at the locallibrary, obviously that's a
group kind of a shock, right?

(30:32):
And if there are certain thingshappening in circle time or
whatever it's called.
I'm just making all this up,right you?

Speaker 2 (30:39):
got it right though.

Speaker 1 (30:40):
Okay.
So if there are things incircle time that demonstrate
that there are issues, if theperson leading in circle time
ends the story and says, okay,everybody can get up to go home
and all the other kids stand up,but your child cannot stand up,
just is trying but can't get up, then that kind of a video

(31:01):
certainly would be helpful,because you're not telling the
child to do that.

Speaker 2 (31:08):
So it seems like one of the cases that they might try
to build is around the ideathat whatever medical issue a
child has is made up.

Speaker 1 (31:20):
Correct.

Speaker 2 (31:21):
And that's explain that to me, because that doesn't
totally make sense to me.
I mean probably because I'venever that's never been
something that has ever occurredto me to do, and I also don't
totally understand what harm isoccurring if that actually is
happening.

Speaker 1 (31:39):
Well, you and I are on the same page on that one,
okay.
So I would say that any mom, inparticular of a child who is
medically complex, has a targeton their back because these
child abuse pediatricians havedecided that most of the care

(32:01):
that these children arereceiving is unnecessary.
So let's use a specific example.
Let's say a child has severebreathing issues and, without
going into detail, something iswrong inside this child's airway

(32:22):
system or and things aren'temptying the way they should
empty.
So anyway, after manyexploratory, different things
that are tried, the doctorconcludes child needs a tube in
order to breathe properly.
So, for whatever reason, thatchild ends up in some kind of a

(32:45):
crisis and is turning blue likesomething's not working, can't
get her to the doctor whoregularly treats her, and so
ends up at a local hospital or adifferent hospital and the
child abuse pediatrician theresays oh, nothing wrong with this

(33:06):
child, the child doesn't evenneed the tube.
They don't have anyqualifications to make that
assessment, but they do, andthey would then do the whole
emergency thing.
Call CYS or whatever they'recalled, child Protection

(33:27):
Services, say the petition hasto be taken and now start yeah,
it has to be filed, and nowstart dictating that the child
has to remain in the hospitaland the breathing tube has to be
removed and the parents are tobe separated from the child in
the hospital.
They're not allowed to see thatchild because the mother has

(33:48):
convinced this child that theydon't know how to breathe.
So we're gonna reverse theprocedure and everything's gonna
be fine.
So that's called the separationtest, where these child abuse
pediatricians claim that if theyseparate the children from the
mother and unravel all thetreatment, that suddenly the
child is going to blossom and befine and children have died

(34:10):
from the separation test.

Speaker 2 (34:11):
Wow, so they stop giving the child the care that
mom knows that the child needsand the child not receiving care
dies.

Speaker 1 (34:22):
It's happened wow.

Speaker 2 (34:25):
Is there any prosecution of the doctors in
that case?

Speaker 1 (34:30):
Well, that's very hard to do because you then have
doctors claiming that it was avalid medical opinion and that
Because All the actions weretaken with the state's approval
at the time that the child wasin custody, and because the

(34:55):
Doctor is then claims quasiimmunity through the state,
because it just it gets verycomplicated.
Without getting too legallyhere on you, I'll just say it's
complicated and that's why, ifyou have a child who has any
kind of a complex condition, youreally need to know where

(35:17):
you're taking the child and Ifyou end up in an emergency room.
I give a specific example inthe book where the mom takes the
child to the emergency room andstarts explaining all about the
medical condition and using allthe medical terms, and what she
doesn't realize is that Redflags are going off for the
doctor that she's talking to,because parents are not supposed

(35:39):
to use medical terms, onlydoctors are supposed to use
medical terms.
So using medical terms isanother red flag.
So you have red flag.
The child's home school, becausechild has, oh I, osteogenesis
imperfecta, which is a brittlebone disease.
So the child's home a lot ishome schooled.

(36:02):
The mother's using medicalterms Ah, lots of red flags.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
That's odd to me because it seems to me if
someone has a child who has somecondition and has been dealing
with that condition for years,that they would eventually pick
up the terminology.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
Of course they would, and when they're talking to the
expert treating physiciansthere, they will use the medical
term because that specifieswhat is going on, right?

(36:41):
So desaturation is a term whichI'm pretty sure is a low level
of oxygen in the blood, so thatthere may be symptoms where you
can tell that's happening.
So the mother might say we hadseveral episodes and the

(37:01):
mother's needs to bedesaturation.
Okay, start using the worddesaturation in an emergency
room, and there's all kinds ofproblems that come up because
you're not supposed to use thatword.
So you're not supposed to sayfor example, my child has

(37:22):
complex motor ticks.
You can say that to thetreating physician, because that
treating physician, that expert, has told you well, these are
complex motor ticks.
But what you're supposed to sayto a typical doctor is Well,
sometimes my child blinks hiseyes 25 times a minute, and the

(37:48):
reason I know that is because Ihave one of these clickers and
I've clicked to count, or, andthen, right after that, she'll
roll her neck in one directionand then another.
Okay, so that's the language touse, rather than complex motor
ticks.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
Would it be legitimate to say that you know,
doctor so-and-so told me thatthis is what the child has, or
is even that using that languagetoo much?

Speaker 1 (38:16):
I think that, for example, if you say doctor,
so-and-so, told me that she hassome kind of a condition where
it's really easy for her bonesto break, that's okay.

Speaker 2 (38:37):
I see, but even the term in that context is too much
for some.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
I'm yeah, I wouldn't use the correct medical term.
Medical term osteogenesisimperfecta.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
You know, one of the things I've heard is that
Criminals are often very good atnavigating the legal system
because they know they have tolearn how to do that, to do what
they do.
And it strikes me here thatparents who are actually abusers
Are probably far better atnavigating the system than
regular parents, because theparents who are abusers have
thought through okay, if we getquestioned, you know, what are

(39:11):
we going to do about this,whereas a normal parent is like
my kid's feeling something.
Help me with this right.

Speaker 1 (39:18):
Yeah, that's a good point.
I, I don't know, I would haveto think about that.
I do know that many goodparents are.
Just, they just Think thateverybody is, is on their side,
and so therefore they they don'trealize that they might be
saying things that that aregoing to get themselves in

(39:39):
trouble.

Speaker 2 (39:39):
Yeah, whereas if you're in a police station.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
You know, you would know enough that maybe you've
seen enough shows.
You think I think I should havea lawyer before I'm talking,
because otherwise what you mightdo is say, well, it couldn't be
me, because on that Tuesdaythat you're talking about, I
remember I went to a moviebecause it was pouring rain
outside, and then and, and I sawwhatever I saw at such and such

(40:07):
a theater, and you're 90percent certain that's right.
So you say.
But then what happens is whenpeople check out the story, they
find out a it wasn't rainingthat day or that movie wasn't
playing at that theater.
And then all of a sudden you'reexplaining yourself, but you
recognize that you're you're ina situation where maybe you just
shouldn't talk, whereas whenyou're A parent, typical parent

(40:32):
who trusts doctors, who believesthat the child protection
system is really only interestedin Parents who truly abuse
their kids, then you go into itmore or less like a deer in the
headlights.
Or you don't even know enoughto be a deer in headlights.
It's, it's too far along beforeyou even Understand what you're

(40:52):
in the middle of.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
So if I'm a parent dealing with this system, how do
I tell the difference between adoctor who maybe is there to
help me and a doctor who'sbuilding a case or or asking a
cop like questions?
Well or is there a difference?

(41:15):
Is it all going into the samesystem?

Speaker 1 (41:19):
Hmm, that is hard to say.
I would be able to tell, um.
So I'm trying to think if Ibring my child to the hospital
and I explain what happened.
So I have a friend who washolding her child fell on the
ice, landed on the child, childgot hurt, she got hurt.
She explained what happened.
They weren't satisfied withthat Explanation.

(41:42):
But no matter how many timesshe explained the story, it was
the same story.
There were no differences,right?
She didn't try to figure outwhy she tripped on the ice.
She didn't think about why shepicked him up.
She didn't talk about, you know, necessarily, um, how many
times before she had fallen onthe ice she didn't talk about.
Well, two years ago, actually,I fell on the ice with him and

(42:04):
he had a concussion and then wehad, you know, none, none of
that, just.
But if somebody keeps askingyou to explain it again, I would
have red flags go off myselfbecause I would figure well, I
already explained it.
Right If they if they separate.
Let's say that there's a momand a dad and Dad rushes the

(42:28):
child to the hospital, calls themom, says you gotta meet me
there.
I fell.
I was what.
Had him in my arms.
I fell, tripped on the steps.
I want to take him there.
He brings the child to theemergency room.
The mother shows up and they'reseparated.
Somebody says to them you knowwhat?
We just we just want to talk toyou individually.

(42:49):
If that's okay and most parentsare like, sure, that's fine
because we have an idea Okay,that's a red flag when they
start separating you from eachother, when, when they Say that
they'd like you to step out ofthe room, you're at your child's
bedside, for whatever reason.

(43:09):
You're very concerned, you'renot leaving that room and
somebody says well, we wouldjust like you to step out in the
hall.
There's probably going to be aguard waiting there or a child
protection worker with some sortof an order or something.
If you've been in that hospitalfor several hours with people
asking you all kinds ofrepetitive questions and you

(43:32):
don't really seem to be gettingthe medical care that you came
to get, that could be a reasonthat you'd actually just prefer
to Take your child home.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
Got it so.
So when the questions start tobe about you and what you've
been doing, rather than givingyour child what they need,
that's the red flag.

Speaker 1 (43:55):
That could be a red flag.
Yep, or repeating a story, orhow's your relationship with
your husband or your wife, oryou know, is there any physical
violence in the home?
Or what about alcohol oranything?
Those, those questions aredefinitely going in the
direction that Is not consistentwith.

(44:17):
My child fell off the swing inthe park.
I'm just here to make sure thatthey're okay.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
So, when those red flags start going up, what is
the way to Gracefully and safelyget your child out of that
situation?

Speaker 1 (44:37):
Well, until there is an order from a court, they
really don't have the ability toprevent you from leaving with
your child.
They can try, but if your senseis that you're in a situation
that's really very unsafe, thenyou might want to think about

(45:00):
just leaving with your child andyou could say to the doctors if
you needed to um, I think we'regood, but you know, he he seems
to be coming around was reallyI wasn't.
I was just here out of anabundance of precaution.
We've been here for two hoursalready.
We're, we're just going to gohome.

(45:22):
If you get pushed back from that, then I think you really are in
trouble.
Now Let me mention one thing.
Parents think well, I canalways just take my child out
against medical advice.
So that is not true, becauseAgainst medical advice is a
concept where, with the hospitalor doctors permission, you can

(45:44):
leave against our advice.
That's what, against my advice.
I would prefer I'm the doctor.
I would prefer that he stayovernight.
I think he needs some moreobservation.
You say you know what he seems.

(46:05):
I'm going to take him home.
If there's a problem, I'llbring him back.
Well, our advice is that hestays overnight.
All right, I'll sign whateveryou.
So if you, if you, the doctorsays, our advice is if he stays,
oh, is that he stays overnight?
If you take him home, you'rereally doing that at your own
risk.
You say, that's okay, I'll justsign whatever I need to sign,
because we're going to go.
If you get a lot of pushbackfrom that, there's probably a

(46:27):
problem there too.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
And if you go, against medical advice in that
situation.
Is that something that theywould use against you later?
They could, but.

Speaker 1 (46:39):
If you've made a reasonable decision.
Obviously, if your child islying on on the bed with broken
bones and bloody wounds and soforth, you can't do that, but
sure situation where you.
Something's just too much.
Something's just telling youyou know something's not right

(47:00):
here.
I don't understand why they'reasking us these questions.
What?
What does our, the state of ourmarriage or our relationship
have to do with?
This child Condition who gothurt in the backyard?
And and he's never been hurtbefore?
And I just brought him herebecause I wanted to make he

(47:21):
seemed fine, but I just wantedto make sure he was okay um, I
Think that that's the time tothink about leaving and, yes, if
you leave against medicaladvice, then it's possible that
you're gonna get a phone callfrom the hospital saying you
know, you left a littleprematurely and we really think

(47:43):
you ought to bring him in and bescreened again, and my, so my
advice probably would be justdon't go back if he's fine.
They're trying to.

Speaker 2 (47:55):
I Reading your book and and hearing the stories
about child abuse pediatricians.
That was a concept that I foundInteresting, and it seems like
there's sort of an industrialcomplex around child abuse now,
where A system was set up for alegitimate need.

(48:17):
Of course, we want to make surethat children who have
something happen or safe.
Right but now the system Can getprofit by finding people who
they deem is unsafe, and so theywant to find more profit.
They want to build more cases.
Uh, cases against Real abusersare difficult, and cases against

(48:42):
parents who are ignorant of thesystem might be easier.
So how is that an accurateassessment that there's a sort
of industrial complex going onhere?
And, and how does Child abusepediatricians?
How does it actually functionin the system?

Speaker 1 (49:00):
Okay, so these are.
These are my theories, havingsure and in this area for quite
some time and spent a lot oftime Writing this book and
reading articles and having justwon a major victory in
allentown, pennsylvania, andseeing what's going on there.
So there are about 350 childabuse pediatricians in the
country, so let's educate thepeople listening about medicine.

(49:25):
Doctors finish medical schooland then they pick an air or
during that time, they pick anarea, a specialty that they're
going into.
It might be pediatrics, um, itmight be, um, you know, ear,
nose and throat might be allergy.
It might be a surgeon, and sothen doctors get additional

(49:49):
training in that particular areaand then, once they finish that
, they get bored.
They take tests to become boardcertified.
So a pediatrician, after theyfinish the medical school, does
two years of residency and inpediatrics.
So they go to a hospital andthey're part of the pediatric

(50:11):
Team at the hospital and theyhave to do that for two years
and then they Pass a testHopefully they don't fail and
they become board certified.
Then Other specialties requiremuch more training.
So, for example, a genetic, uh,uh, metabolicist requires quite

(50:34):
a bit more training than apediatrician, and some doctors
Then take trainings inparticular areas.
So if you want to be A surgeon,then you want to be.
Maybe you want to become apediatric surgeon and maybe you
want to be a pediatric heartsurgeon.

(50:55):
So that requires really a lotof training Beyond just a
two-year residency forpediatrics.
So um 350 pediatricians havebecome board certified as child

(51:16):
abuse pediatricians.
That does not mean that theyhave any training other than An
exposure.
Okay.
So for example me, I'm a lawyer, right, so I'm not a tax lawyer
.
I mean, I understand tax law,the basic Tax law, but I'm not a
tax lawyer.
So, but I've been exposed totax law through courses and so

(51:41):
forth, right?
So If you have a child who hasan autoimmune condition, for
example, you would be takingyour child to a rheumatologist.
Child abuse pediatrician is notJust doesn't do a residency in
rheumatology, they have somebrief understanding of

(52:04):
rheumatology and as apediatrician, your typical
pediatrician would refer thepatient To a rheumatologist.
So if your child had anautoimmune condition, you would,
your child would be referred toa rheumatologist.
Okay, so pediatricians In thehierarchy of medicine are really

(52:27):
perceived as being On one ofthe lower rungs, even though
families perceive pediatriciansas being really important
because those are the doctorswho See their children all the
time.
But in the hierarchy of hospitalmedicine, pediatricians Are not

(52:48):
considered to be, uh, one ofthe more important specialties.
Who are the most important?
Surgeons?
Surgeons are the most important.
They generate more income,their training is more
significant.
And then within surgeons there,there are general surgeons,
there are heart surgeons, thereare brain surgeons, so so you
have this whole hierarchy inmedicine.

(53:10):
Pediatricians are not, they'rekind of on the bottom rung.
So if these 350 individualsbecome board certified in
pediatrics, suddenly, in termsof their own personal Self-worth
or whatever I would describeSuddenly have a great deal of

(53:32):
control over other specialistswho are far more qualified and
well trained than they are,because suddenly those child
abuse pediatricians are decidingwhether the rheumatologist is

(53:52):
making good decisions or not.
So there was a recent articlewritten by a group of child
abuse pediatricians from radiihospital in San Diego radii
children's hospital.
And those child abusepediatricians believe that every
hospital should have a, amedical.

(54:15):
I forget what they titled it.
It's basically a hit squadwhere they are going to oversee
every aspect of a complex Trials, medical care, and they will
decide whether that child shouldbe getting the treatment and

(54:37):
the medication that the expertsprescribed.
So there is an ego piece there.
Secondly, when a medicallycomplex child goes into a
hospital system, which then thatchild abuse pediatrician

(55:00):
decides.
So let me back up and say a lotof times, medically complex kids
, who have all these differentconditions, they have to go.
Not every hospital haseverything.
So your child might, dependingon where you live, might have to
see experts at severaldifferent hospitals.
Because if you're just in aplace that has a regional

(55:22):
hospital so for example, I'm inMaine and you probably would
have to take children withspecific conditions to Boston to
get certain kinds of care right.
So what happens is that if achild were to go into a hospital

(55:43):
here and a child abusepediatrician decided that they
didn't like the care that washappening, maybe in Boston,
maybe in New York, wherever itis happening then that child
abuse pediatrician not onlycauses the state to gain custody
of the child but to cut off allthe other medical care the

(56:06):
child was receiving andconsolidate it within its own
hospital system.
So this is exactly what I sawhappening in Allentown,
pennsylvania, where the childabuse pediatrician there, when a
child with a medical complexcondition ends up at her
hospital for one reason oranother, she will cut off the

(56:31):
care being offered by children'shospital of Philadelphia, by
the Cleveland Clinic, and sayall the care has to happen
within her hospital, whichobviously generates income for
that, yeah, it sounds like avery vicious way to steal
business from another competitor.
I see it that way and I'm sorryto have had to reach that

(56:52):
conclusion, but I do see it thatway.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
Well, your mention of the article a discipline
writing an article saying thattheir discipline should have
more power, right?

Speaker 1 (57:04):
Yes, yes, that's it.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (57:08):
That's it.
I mean, that is it in anutshell.
The difficulty is that I don'tthink that the specialists at
the hospitals recognize this ishappening, because I think they
are truly so brilliant andfocused on caring for their

(57:28):
patients that it's when thishappens to one of their patients
.
They tend to think it's sort ofa one patient problem.
They don't really see the biggerpicture, which is what I see,
which is that it's happeningagain and again, or what you've
identified, which is an articlethat is written as if we're

(57:52):
really, you know, we're on thechild's side, and this is why we
need to be involved in thesemeetings, but actually what
they're saying is we want morepower and this is how we're
going to get it.

Speaker 2 (58:05):
Yeah, it's a classic technique to gain power to take
a real problem child abuse andsay, well, to fight this serious
problem, we need all the powerin the world to do it.
We need more power, and it'salso a problem that can't be

(58:26):
solved the way that they'regoing about it.
So I don't know that childabuse can be removed entirely
from the world.
Even if these people hadabsolute power and the way that
they're going about it, itsounds like they're not even
necessarily focused on childabuse as much as expanding their
own system.

Speaker 1 (58:46):
So I think that's very true.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
Yeah, this is a very classic problem around power,
but it sounds like because it'sbeing viewed through the lens of
medicine, people don't see thepower dynamics at work.

Speaker 1 (59:01):
I'm protecting children.

Speaker 2 (59:02):
Right yeah.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
And I'm batting my eyes intentionally.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (59:07):
We're really trying to do this for the kids.
No, you're not You're trying todo it because you want to be in
charge, you want to elevateyourself, you want to be telling
all the different specialistswhat they can and cannot do, and
if children end up being hurtas a result of that, too bad.

(59:30):
Because what you will neverfind in any of these articles
written by these child abusepediatricians who talk about
separating the children from theparents and the mothers, who
exaggerate, and so forth onsomeone, you will never find the
discussion of the trauma thatthey inflict on those children

(59:52):
or the families or the parents.
It is not there ever.

Speaker 2 (59:58):
At this point in the podcast we took a short break,
but when we came back, Beth hadfound a piece of research she'd
mentioned earlier that shewanted to share with me.

Speaker 1 (01:00:06):
Must be the American Academy of Pediatrics.
So it's a medical journal,right?
It's called Pediatrics, Volume151, number two, February 2023.
And the article is MedicalChild Welfare Task Force a
multidisciplinary approach toidentifying medical child abuse.

(01:00:28):
So it's written by these childabuse pediatricians at Rady
Children's Hospital and they'resaying that every hospital needs
to have a medical child welfaretask force.

Speaker 2 (01:00:42):
I'm sure that would be a lot of money for them to
hire a task force at everyhospital.

Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
And it's supposed to be made up of child abuse
pediatricians and everymedically complex child.
This medical child abuse taskforce has to be part of the
treatment team and there shouldbe treatment teams, and all of
the medicine should be reviewedby the task force to decide
whether it's appropriate or not.

(01:01:09):
Well, these pediatricians, theyhave no training in that they
have no training in thesecomplex neuromuscular disorders
or lupus or whatever this childhas.
As far as I can tell, the onlypeople they maybe don't go after
are children who have cancer,because maybe that I don't know

(01:01:34):
why Might be a bad look for?
them.

Speaker 2 (01:01:37):
Might be a bad look for them to go after the cancer
children.

Speaker 1 (01:01:39):
Yeah, but everybody else they'll go after.
Somebody with childhood needswho has a feeding tube?
Well, they don't really needthat feeding tube.
Child who has an autoimmunedisease and requires periodic
treatments with IVIG?
Nah, they don't really needthat either.
So, anything that's complex,some sort of a metabolic

(01:02:02):
disorder?
Mitochondrial disease is ametabolic disorder.
Yeah, they don't really havethat.
That's the mother making it up.

Speaker 2 (01:02:12):
One thing I wanted to ask about was how the harm of
separating a child from theirparents is handled or
acknowledged by both the medicalsystem and the child protective
system, because even a shortseparation can be a serious
trauma.
So how is that handled?

Speaker 1 (01:02:32):
It's not acknowledged .

Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
That's what I thought .
Yeah, I wanted to confirm it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:37):
It's just not acknowledged.
I've never seen it acknowledged.

Speaker 2 (01:02:44):
Is anyone.

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
I'm sorry, go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
No, you go ahead.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
I've seen a situation where child abuse pediatrician
really a child who had verysignificant neuromuscular
disorder which no one was reallyquite sure what it was, and
that child did have a breathingtube and a feeding tube and was
getting excellent care, and thechild abuse pediatrician that

(01:03:13):
child ended up let's see, is ita trip to the emergency room?
Oh, I'm not.
It's too complicated to explain.
But in any event, child abusepediatrician decides that that
child needs to be pulled out ofhis home.
The police are supposed to gothere.
Take this kid out he's likethree years old drive him in the

(01:03:37):
police car to a local hospitalwhere he is then going to be
transferred into an ambulance.
The parents are not going to beallowed to see him at all.
Now picture a three-year-oldbeing hauled out of the house
screaming and crying, who hasbreathing issues.

Speaker 2 (01:03:54):
That's pretty scary for a three-year-old.

Speaker 1 (01:03:57):
Put him in the ambulance and then send that
ambulance to a hospital inanother city, in another state,
to be, quote-unquote, deliveredto the child abuse pediatrician
at that hospital, who is thengoing to have all the procedures
reversed because these twochild abuse pediatricians, who

(01:04:21):
have never even met the parents,have decided that it's all made
up Now.
Luckily we were able to stopthat from happening, but what is
wrong with people?

Speaker 2 (01:04:40):
How did you stop that ?

Speaker 1 (01:04:44):
Well, fortunately we had been.
We knew that there wasdiscussion of some stuff going
on in the background andfortunately the judge who Child
Protection Services went to,felt in that circumstance it
didn't add up because there wereother children and the judge

(01:05:08):
was saying well, if there areother kids, why are you telling
me they're doing this to onechild but not the other three?
So the emergency removal wasprevented.
But then we went into whetherthere would be a court
proceeding and by the time wegot to the court proceeding the

(01:05:30):
state realized they weren'tgoing to win this case, so they
just gave up.
Same thing that happened inAllentown.
But the amount of work requiredto get it to that point, so
that.
So they on their own motionjust dismissed their own
petition, but with a differentfamily and a different.

(01:05:51):
Suppose there had been no otherchildren, suppose it had been a
different judge.
So many other things could havegone horribly wrong.
And fortunately it didn't.
That case was actually.
The mother took the case to thePortland Press Herald and had it
on the front page because itwas just unbelievable what they

(01:06:14):
tried to do to that family.
But in all those hospitalrecords there was no discussion
about the effect on this child.
There was no provision made.
This child was supposed to, iftransported by ambulance, was
only supposed to travel in acertain kind of ambulance.

(01:06:34):
So there are ambulances thatare essentially like life
flights.
You've heard of life flights,you know you haven't.

Speaker 2 (01:06:40):
I haven't, actually, I don't know what that is Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:06:42):
So a life flight is like a really premature child a
child's born at maybe 22 weeks.
Something goes wrong and theplacenta ruptures or is
disrupted whatever the term isand so the baby is born, but in
a hospital that really doesn'thave the ability to care for
that child.
So the child goes by lifeflight.

(01:07:02):
So it's a particular kind of atransport helicopter that is
equipped with certain things.
So there are also ambulancesthat are the equivalent of life
flight.
So it's not your typical.
It's not like if I had a felldown the stairs had to go by
ambulance because my leg wasbroken.

(01:07:23):
There's a special kind of anambulance, so this child should
only be transported by that kindof an ambulance.
No arrangement was ever evenmade for any of that, and when
that was brought to theattention of I'm trying to think
how we got it in front ofsomebody's attention the
response from the child ofpediatrician was well, that's

(01:07:47):
not my job, so caring for thechild is not her job.
Her job is to just say child'sgotta come out After that.
She doesn't.
She's trying to say that that'sit.
So apparently they just thinkthat this whole separation thing

(01:08:09):
, the consequences, are just nottheir responsibility, other
than if for some reason, theythink they demonstrate that the
child suddenly improves as aresult of this really horrific
care, if you can even call itthat.
I guess they would claim creditfor that, but I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:08:32):
Yeah, it sounds like there's not a lot of cases of
this particular aspect of theprofession improving things.
I mean, is that fair to say?
Is there some?
If we're trying to be fair, isthere something that we could
grant them, or is it this bad?

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
No, it's that bad, In fact.
So I'm an attorney, I don'thave any medical training.
So the article that I justmentioned to you, I read it and
I think, okay, this is just abunch of bunk.
Basically, A doctor reads itand they're actually able to say
well, where are thepeer-reviewed studies?

(01:09:12):
Well, where are the cohorts?
Well, where are this?
Well, where are that?
There's nothing in there thatwould meet what would be
required for a doctor to writean article about a breakthrough
treatment for Alzheimer's orsomething.

(01:09:33):
You know what I mean.
There'd be patients and cohortsand studies and demonstrations
that the trial medication wassuccessful, because there would
have been one group that yougave placebos to and another
group who had the actualmedicine and the results would
be measured.
None of that applies toanything that these child abuse

(01:09:54):
pediatricians write.
They just write it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:00):
Yeah, I guess I'm both so curious what the
training for becoming a childabuse pediatrician is, because
the claim that any specialistmakes is that they have some
specialized knowledge that thegeneral public does not.
So I can't sequence a genomemyself.
That's not something Ipersonally know how to do, but
what is it that they're claimingthat they personally know how

(01:10:23):
to do that the general publiccannot understand.

Speaker 1 (01:10:25):
I do not know they do .
There are programs.
So one is at CincinnatiChildren's.
They have a child abuse twoyear training program.
I don't know what their.
I know they have training andhow to testify in court.
I know that's part of thetraining.
What exactly you would have toreally get someone.

(01:10:47):
That would be a good thing toexplore and try to figure out
sort of well, what is thattraining?
Are they what is the training?
Because they seem to feel thatthey can just make all kinds of
pronouncements.
So, for example, shaken babysyndrome.

(01:11:07):
Shaken baby syndrome has beenvery effectively challenged.
So child abuse pediatricianswould say this child has shaken
baby syndrome.
But when cases tried toidentify the medical testing
that would prove that a baby hasbeen shaken, it requires

(01:11:28):
certain things.
I'm gonna explain this as bestas I know, because I'm not an
expert on baby syndrome.
But it's very hard to shake ababy and hurt them.
It's hard to do that because asfragile as babies are, within
that fragility they're prettysturdy.

(01:11:49):
So in order to shake a babyhard enough to really kill them,
apparently you would have toshow some bleeding behind the
eyes.
And so cases where child abusepediatricians people were going
to jail for shaken baby syndrome, but it turned out that the

(01:12:09):
scientific evidence that woulddemonstrate that a baby was
actually shaken just wasn'tthere.
So those cases started gettingoverturned and you can find them
.
So, for example, there was apretty well-known case in Boston
about a nanny who was accusedof shaking a baby to death and
then defense counsel was able todemonstrate that that was not

(01:12:33):
accurate.
And, of course, when it wascovered in some program, they
made a big deal about the factthat the experts were paid.
So experts are always paid totestify.
Doesn't mean that there wassomething wrong with these
doctors who said, no, thescientific evidence doesn't back
up the claim.
I mean that experts are paid.

(01:12:55):
Whatever that's what you dowith experts for trials, they
get paid.
So, anyway, what did they do?
So they changed the name childabuse pediatrician.
So instead of shaking babysyndrome, now they call it
abusive head trauma.
Why do they call it abusivehead trauma?

(01:13:17):
Because if the word abusive isin there, then it eliminates.
The judges need to find anyabuse.
They've already told you it'sabuse.
So they're doing the same thingwith this medical child abuse
where it used to be.
The parents would be accused ofMunchausen by proxy.

(01:13:39):
Munchausen by proxy isincredibly rare.
What does it mean?
It means?
Well, munchausen syndrome meansthat I am I'm plain English
here I really need a lot ofattention.
So what I do is I pretendsomething's wrong with me and I
go from doctor to doctor, andmaybe I've even researched

(01:14:03):
particular diseases, and so I'mable to go to doctors and
pretend that I have symptomsthat I don't have, because
really what I need is I justneed a whole bunch of attention
from doctors.
And so you could imagine now,how many people do you think
really have Munchausen?
Not a lot, right?
Most people don't have a lot oftime to pretend that they're

(01:14:25):
sick so that they can go fromdoctor to doctor to doctor.
So they need attention, soanyway.
So then they accused the childof these pediatricians were
accusing mothers 95% of the timeit's mothers, they wrote it
themselves of Munchausen byproxy, meaning they're
pretending the children are sick.

(01:14:45):
So it's Munchausen by proxy.
The proxy is the child.
So they're pretending the childis sick, and then they're
accusing the mother ofMunchausen by proxy.
Well, attorneys started sayinghold on a minute.
You, the child of thesepediatrician, you don't have

(01:15:06):
credentials to be diagnosing amother with Munchausen by proxy.
That is an adult diagnosis,it's a mental health diagnosis
of an adult.
A pediatrician does not havethe qualifications to diagnose
an adult with anything, andcertainly not a mental health

(01:15:27):
disorder, when, chances are,they've never even met the
parent.
I mean you gotta have adoctor-client relationship to
have any kind of a diagnosis.
So then the child of thesepediatricians say we'll call it
something else.
So they went through severalname variations and then they

(01:15:48):
stuck on medical child abuse.
So now what they're saying iswell, the judges really don't
have to decide anything becausewe've decided this child is
medically abused.
Well, someone like me says well, hold on a second.
You're really saying the parentabused the child.

(01:16:10):
So once again you arediagnosing the parent with a
mental health disease.
There is no diagnosis ofmedical child abuse.
There is no billing code for it, it's just a different name.
So the example I like to giveis if your kid's name is Charlie

(01:16:31):
and you call him buddy becausea lot of people call their kids
buddy there's not like a new kid, it's the same kid, you're just
calling it by a different name.

Speaker 2 (01:16:42):
It also strikes me as a legal claim, hiding as a
medical claim.
In other words, abuse is alegal claim.

Speaker 1 (01:16:51):
It is so.
Their functioning is judge,jury and executioner, these
doctors, because they are givinga quote unquote diagnosis that
doesn't exist.
I'm putting a legal term onthere which is abuse.

Speaker 2 (01:17:07):
Again, I'm curious if there's a defamation case you
could make there.
Like this person said, I abusedmy child.
I didn't you know.

Speaker 1 (01:17:15):
Well, defamation generally, you have to have a
public, it has to be public.

Speaker 2 (01:17:24):
If I crime somebody a name.

Speaker 1 (01:17:26):
that's not really defamation, it's gotta be public
.
In addition to which, in acourt situation in a child
protection matter, there are allkinds of protections
quasi-immunity, immunity thatextend to the people involved.
However, there is a limitationin that it has to happen in good

(01:17:48):
faith.
So if you can successfully makethe argument that there was no
good faith behind any of this,then you may have a shot.
Interesting but good faith isusually a rebuttable presumption
.
So the presumption is thateverybody's acting in good faith

(01:18:09):
and you have to overcome it.
So the cards are stackedagainst you.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
You know, the question always to ask anyone
who's asking for power is whatchecks and balances are gonna be
on this power to make sure it'snot misused.

Speaker 1 (01:18:25):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:18:26):
And it sounds like that question has not been asked
of this profession in any wayCorrect.

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
I think that's an excellent point that I hadn't
really articulated.
But I think you're exactlyright.
There just are no checks andbalances, and it was really out
of frustration that I wrote thebook that I wrote because there
were no checks and balances.
So I figured well, what can Ido?

(01:18:53):
I can at least tell parentswhat they should know.
So how do you put those inplace?
I don't know the answer to that.
You need to have physiciansreally well qualified physicians
put their foot down and say no,a child abuse pediatrician is

(01:19:16):
not going to tell me whether Ican operate, whether I can
administer IVIG, whether thischild can or cannot have
supplements for metabolicdisorders.
And until they recognize theseriousness of the problem and
how much of a power grab this is, we're reading articles by

(01:19:42):
child abuse pediatricians sayingthey need to be the check and
balance.
Right, that's what that articleis all about.
All these other doctors need tobe checked and we're supposed to
do it.
It should be the opposite theyneed a check.

Speaker 2 (01:19:58):
Let me ask sort of a strange hypothetical question.
Let's say I'm a parent who hassome means, so educated, has
access to money, has access toresources, maybe even has access
to media, and someone comes atme through this system and I
want some justice.
What could I do to pursue thatif I'm willing to dedicate some

(01:20:24):
real resources behind pursuingthat justice?

Speaker 1 (01:20:27):
Well, I think the first thing if someone came
after you is I believe in publicexposure, so I think the more
attention you can bring to this,the less likely it is that it's
going to happen.
I have also recently realizedthat, to the extent that these

(01:20:47):
systems are really in place orbeing used to generating comes
for hospitals and doctors, a lotof times the people who are
footing the bill for that arethe taxpayers.
And if you can make aneffective case to your county

(01:21:10):
controller or your statecontroller that those funds are
actually being used to generatehospital revenues, so the case
workers who are paid, fostercare counselors, in-home
parenting supervisors, thepeople giving the parenting
courses if these are all beingpaid for by the state or by the

(01:21:34):
county in order to essentiallydevelop income for the hospitals
, then that might be a way to goand someone who had enough
influence and enough of aposition would probably be able
to get a sit-down meeting, whichanother parent might not be
able to do.

Speaker 2 (01:21:56):
Got it.
So if this system getsweaponized against someone who
has the capacity to get a realmeeting with someone in media or
in their state legislature,that case is gonna be dealt with
very differently.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
Yes.
However, I do think there'skind of an uphill battle because
it is such a tough, tough, it'sa tough thing to swallow that
this really is happening right.
It's kind of hard to really.
I think it's becoming more andmore apparent to more and more

(01:22:35):
parents, but most parents wouldhear this and they would think,
no, that can't be right thatthis is happening.
But it is happening.

Speaker 2 (01:22:46):
It sounds like the same psychology that people have
when they're in emergencysituation, where if someone's
you know again, god forbid, andI hope everyone is free from
this If someone's in a situationwhere there's an active shooter
or something like that, you cansee in video of those
situations there's a momentwhere people hear the gunfire
and they go OK, is this what Ithink it is?

(01:23:09):
I was having a normal day twoseconds ago and now it might be
different and there's thatlittle pause before everyone
realizes what's happening andthey start running and it sounds
like a lot of parents have asimilar situation where, if
someone from the system shows upand starts trying to harm them
or their child, there's thatmoment of I'm a good parent.

Speaker 1 (01:23:31):
What's going on, Right?
Well, I can tell you that oneof the cases I recently had when
it started happening to theparents.
In that case they thought, oh,they must have the wrong family.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
Hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:23:47):
They get that first call from Child Protection
Services, identify.
This is a case worker and themom is thinking, well, they must
have the wrong family right,because that's what your
instinct would be that it's this.
This doesn't happen to us.
Yeah but it does.

Speaker 2 (01:24:13):
So, if someone finds themselves in that situation,
what are the what are the firststeps they should take?

Speaker 1 (01:24:20):
Find a good lawyer.

Speaker 2 (01:24:22):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (01:24:25):
I think I honestly think so.
This, this medical child abuse,really was my motivation to to
write the book, because thoseare the cases I do right.
But once I started writing it,I realized, well, the whole book
couldn't just be about medicalchild abuse.
It's got to really cover thesystem.

(01:24:46):
However, if you were a parent ofa medically complex kid, I
would read it because, becauseyou are at risk, you are a
target, somebody who really isjust going about their life and
they're taking their kids to thepark and they're going fishing.

(01:25:09):
You know you don't really haveany idea that this could come at
you, but certainly if you havea medically complex kid, this
could come at you.
If you're in San Diego andyou're going to Rady Children's
Hospital, they are creating thismedical child abuse task force.
They're looking for you.
So I feel like those parentseverywhere need to really be

(01:25:33):
proactive and prepared andunderstand to use plain English
in an emergency room so thatthey at least reduce the risk
that they're going to betargeted.
And then, if they findthemselves in a situation, I
think that they need to reachout and find a good lawyer
quickly, not wait, not think.

(01:25:56):
Well, I can handle this.

Speaker 2 (01:26:00):
It sounds like the same advice people get in any
emergency situation is likefirst realize it's happening.

Speaker 1 (01:26:06):
Yes, yeah, don't be in denial.

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:26:11):
Because maybe it isn't happening, but if it is,
it's going to get really badpretty quickly.

Speaker 2 (01:26:21):
Are there any?
We've talked a lot about themedical system excuse me, the
medical system.
Are there any situations beyondthat that a good parent, a
parent who's not doing anythingwrong, might commonly find
themselves interacting with thesystem?
I know the medical system is abig topic for both of us, but
I'm just curious beyond that ifthere's anything people should

(01:26:43):
be aware of.

Speaker 1 (01:26:47):
I don't think so.
I really think that if you, ifyou're a typical parent and
typical things go happen orupstounds and there's no crazies
going on in life, I think mostlikely it's going to be an
accident.

Speaker 2 (01:27:05):
Got it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:06):
That's.
That's going to prompt this.

Speaker 2 (01:27:09):
It sounds like in other situations to you know
someone might investigate areport, but as long as you know
that you're being investigatedand you should treat it
accordingly, that most peoplewill be OK.

Speaker 1 (01:27:29):
I would think I would hope so.
I just I don't know.
I mean, you could rub acaseworker the wrong way and
that would maybe set them off ona path or an agenda.

Speaker 2 (01:27:41):
I see.

Speaker 1 (01:27:42):
OK, caseworkers are very careful if you have a
lawyer with you.
They're just careful becausethey recognize that you can't
make someone do something justbecause you want to.
So caseworker typically mightcome show up at the front door,

(01:28:03):
say, I want to come in and seethe kids and hand the parent 25
releases, and the parents justsigning away because they figure
, well, we don't have anythingto hide.
So sure, talk to whoever youwant, but in the meantime you
just don't know what all thosepeople are going to say.
So one of the things that thatI always recommend that parents
do and of course I do it forparents because it's hard to do

(01:28:27):
it yourself is confine the theinvestigation to what is the
problem.
So if the problem is that hefell off the swing and nobody
saw it other than you, then wereally don't have to start

(01:28:49):
answering questions that havenothing to do with that
particular incident.
So you have to redirect thediscussion a little bit.
So how does this have to dowith when someone then says well
, what is your relationship likewith your extended family
members?
Ok, well, what does that haveto do with the fall off the

(01:29:11):
swing?

Speaker 2 (01:29:13):
So let's say there's a knock at the door, there's a
caseworker there.
How should someone respond?

Speaker 1 (01:29:20):
Politely.
First of all, show me theidentification, ask them what
it's about.
If she, if he or she says, youknow I'd like to step inside,
maybe say, well, it's, let me,let me step out and let me get
the kids settled and I'll bewith you in a minute.
So maybe you put the TV on orwhatever and you step outside.

(01:29:42):
They don't have the right tojust come into your house.
Number one Got it.

Speaker 2 (01:29:46):
So is it a good idea in that situation and if they
say, oh, I want to have a lookaround to say I'm not going to
do that today?

Speaker 1 (01:29:54):
That's fine, you can say that.
Yeah say that they're notsocial workers with child
protection agency, are notpolice officers with warrants.

Speaker 2 (01:30:05):
Got it.

Speaker 1 (01:30:05):
Police officer with a warrant, you're going to have
to let them into the house.
Caseworker with a policeofficer, you're probably going
to want to want to let them in,because if they're showing up
with a police officer there'ssome sincere concern about
serious abuse.
I would say However if it's justa basic question.
We just want to check and seehow someone says doing, because

(01:30:27):
we had a report that he fell ona office swing at the park and
you said, ok, let me get him,bring him to the front door.
Here he is, here's Tommy.

Speaker 2 (01:30:40):
Got it.

Speaker 1 (01:30:41):
Caseworker says how are you doing, Tommy?
I don't know how old Tommy is,but Tommy says I'm good, you
know?
Yeah, that's what.
I would limit the interaction.

Speaker 2 (01:30:52):
In that situation, do you think it's better to show
them the child is is fine, or isit better to just say you know?
This seems like a situation Ishould have a lawyer present for
and not answer anything or showanything?

Speaker 1 (01:31:08):
Well, most states do say that when there is a concern
for child abuse, that they cansee the child.
So if you will not show themyour child, then they could, for
example, turn up at school ifthe child goes to school or
whatever.
But ultimately they areentitled to see the child.

(01:31:32):
So I'd probably just let themsee the child.

Speaker 2 (01:31:35):
I see.

Speaker 1 (01:31:36):
Now, if there's something wrong with the child,
then obviously they're going tobe additional problems, right,
but if there's really just noreason to be concerned, then you
bring them.
You bring them to the door.

Speaker 2 (01:31:49):
It's if additional questions start coming.
Oh, ok, I see the child's fine,but you know.

Speaker 1 (01:31:54):
I just like to come in and talk to you for a few
minutes and then you can saywell, I'm not really comfortable
with that.
Well, I have some questions.
I need to ask you.
Well, would you like to set atime when?
Why don't we set a time for youto come back?
Or maybe you're going to gomeet them and then you never

(01:32:16):
meet with them alone.
If you can't have a lawyer withyou, you have to have someone
with you to listen to the entireconversation, and that person
should be someone who has nohistory with job protection
services and who is could be arelative, but maybe not you know

(01:32:40):
the most.
If you got a pastor and yourpastoral comes in with you, that
would be great.
Right Is someone who maybe hassome.
I'm trying to come up withdifferent ideas of people who
would be that situation, itwould be fair to say.

Speaker 2 (01:32:56):
you know I'd love to answer these questions.
Let's schedule a time thatwould be good for both of us,
that that my lawyer can attendas well.

Speaker 1 (01:33:03):
That'd be fun.
Yeah, ok, or you could also sayif you happen to have a lawyer,
let's say you went to thehospital and things just really
didn't go well and you just hada feeling.
So you talk to some friends andyou get the name of an attorney
and you call that attorney andyou have a little conversation.

(01:33:24):
You say I think everything's OK, but I just just want to.
Can I just retain you in someway, have you on board so that
if there's a problem and thenmaybe what happens is you tell
the person you really shouldcall my lawyer about that.
Here's my lawyer's name andnumber.
That would really be good Thenthe case has to go through the

(01:33:47):
attorney in order to set up anappointment.
The case worker has seen thechild.
So that obligation you havecomplied with, what is usually a
state obligation to show thechild to the case worker.
So you've done that and nowthat case worker is on notice
that you actually have a lawyerand the appointments have to be

(01:34:09):
scheduled through that attorney.
And then what happens?
If I'm the attorney, then I say,when I get the call, or I call
them or whatever is, what is thepoint of this?
What is the point here?
What is it that you're tryingto explore?
And then they might say, well,there was the fall off the swing
with the circumstances.

(01:34:29):
And then you say, well, maybethe lawyer says, well, the child
was at the hospital for threehours.
There were never any problemsthat were.
And then the case worker says,well, we just want to make sure,
whatever chances are they'regoing to back off because you
have a lawyer.
Yeah, so, but I know everybodycan't have a lawyer, I recognize

(01:34:50):
that.
So in that case then you want toset up a time that's convenient
for you, when you know someonecan be with you who is going to
be a credible third partywitness to what happens, because
, sadly, case workers do lie andso you need to have someone

(01:35:11):
there who really is is present.
Ideally, you'd like to recordthe whole thing.
Some states allow you to recordeven without notice to the
other party, some don't, so youhave to be careful about that.
Chances are, if you're in astate where you have to get
permission and you say to thatcase worker okay, but I just

(01:35:34):
want to let you know I'm goingto be recording this, then
they're going to say, well, youcan't record it.
So you know, get a kind offigure it out.

Speaker 2 (01:35:46):
Is there anything that we didn't talk about, that
that you wish we had, or thatyou want to make sure that we
include that we haven't gottento so far?

Speaker 1 (01:35:58):
Well, I would say that when you are at a meeting
with child protection services,if it happens, no matter how
unfair it is, you cannot becomeangry, you cannot finger point,
because all of that will bewritten down somewhere.
So you really have to be onyour best behavior and never

(01:36:27):
call anyone names or all thethings that you really want to
do because you're being unfairlyaccused.
This is just not the time to doit.
You can always, on the way homein your car, call your best
friend and go on and on about it, unless your best friend was at
the meeting or whatever.
But you have to really maintainthat composure because if you

(01:36:50):
don't, it will be.
It will reflect poorly on youand then if you should end up in
a court proceeding same thingwhere you really want to be the
person who, when you walk intothe courtroom, the judge wonders
what is going on.
I mean you're well-dressed.

(01:37:11):
That doesn't mean that you'rewearing expensive designer
clothing.
It just means you're.
You know you're wearing acollar shirt or whatever, but
you're not in ripped up jeansand a dirty t-shirt, so you're
respectful.

Speaker 2 (01:37:27):
Sure.

Speaker 1 (01:37:28):
So I would say those are important things throughout
any case.

Speaker 2 (01:37:38):
Anything else we should add before finishing?

Speaker 1 (01:37:41):
I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (01:37:43):
Is there a?
We've mentioned your book,which I've read.
I would recommend it to otherswho are interested in the same
subject.

Speaker 1 (01:37:50):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:37:51):
Are there any other websites, social media things I
should make sure to include inthe links for this show.

Speaker 1 (01:37:58):
Well, you can put my website and my TikToks.
You know my TikTok link is atchild protection lawyer.
Have you seen that?

Speaker 2 (01:38:07):
I have not.
I think my wife saw it which ishow I found out about you.
She recommended it to me.

Speaker 1 (01:38:13):
Yeah, I've actually had quite a few people find me
through that and and some ofthose contacts have really
turned out to be quiteinteresting.
I mean people who were reallyinterested in uncovering what
has been going on and and I hadone one mom was so funny who
wrote my husband thinks I knowso much about this area of law.

(01:38:37):
He just can't believe it.
I don't tell him.
I learned from TikTok.
So I try to actually try togive people you know information
about a system that they reallydon't know anything about in
very short segments, becausethat's what TikTok is like, you
know, but um and so I guessthat's it.
The book is called protectingyour child from the child

(01:38:58):
protection system, and parentsreally seem to like it and I'm
really hoping that it savespeople money because then they
don't necessarily get themselvesin as much trouble as they
would, or they at least knowthere's trouble coming and
they're able to handle it alittle bit better.

Speaker 2 (01:39:21):
Well, Beth, thank you for the work that you're doing.
Thank you for sharing it withwith me today.
Well, thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (01:39:27):
This is really good, and you made me really think
about some things I hadn'tthought about before, so that's
good.

Speaker 2 (01:39:34):
Well, I'm glad to hear.
If there's a way that I can beof service in the future, let me
know.

Speaker 1 (01:39:39):
Thanks again.
Okay, we'll do.
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:39:47):
Thank you for listening to the Brendan Marata
show.
If you liked this episode,please leave a positive review
on whatever platform you listento podcasts on.
If you really liked thisepisode, please support the show
and become a paying subscriber,giving you access to special
bonus material only available tosupporters of the show.
I want to thank you forlistening to this show and I

(01:40:09):
will talk to you all later.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Protecting Your Child From CPS And Child Abuse Pediatricians With Beth Maloney (#40)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

Protecting Your Child From CPS And Child Abuse Pediatricians With Beth Maloney (#40)

Dateline NBC