The article I am reading says that the parents were abusive with state officials, calling them Nazis and the father threatened a social worker that as a consequence had to be reassigned...??? And that the judge agreed with the doctors at the Children's Hospital, not the parents...?

IOW, he said one thing while doing a very different thing. While he is claiming in this judgement that he agrees with Children's diagnosis, his choice to put her back with Dr. Korman is a tacit admission that Dr. Korman was right all along.

And yes, the parents were rude and mean to the people who accused them of medical child neglect for following the protocol prescribed at Tufts and who denied their child appropriate medical treatment for the past year.

My interpretation is that he is finally getting Justina the medical treatment her life depends on, while providing cover for Children's and DCF because they denied her that medical treatment.

Her original doctor--the one the parents liked-- was at Tufts. The first time she was seen at Children's is when they took her to the ER there. At the ER, the doctors thought they detected some problems with how the child was being raised and cared for.

She was in the mental ward at Children's (not Tufts, where her old doctor practiced) by the judge's order for a year and then some.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/parents-sick-teen-justina-pelletier-accused-verbally-abusing/story?id=23067247

I think you missed the first article I quoted and linked, from March 4.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/parents-hail-small-victory-sick-justina-pelletier/story?id=22766417
March 4, 2014
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Justina Pelletier, the sick teenager who for the last year has been the center of a custody tug of war between her parents and the state of Massachusetts, will get treatment with her original doctors at Tufts Medical Center, a family court judge has ruled. ...

....Tufts confirmed that Korson will be part of a new medical team with other specialists, including a neurologist and gastroenterologist* from Boston's Children's Hospital.

"Dr. Korson has agreed participate in the care of this patient, along with physicians at other hospitals," Tufts spokeswoman Julie Jette told ABCNews.com. "Other clinicians at Tufts Medical Center may be involved as well. They are working out details with the parties involved. We have nothing else to add at this time."


Note that Dr. Korson was her original doctor at Tufts, who is a specialist in mitochondrial disease and had diagnosed her (and previously her sister) and coordinated her care for mitochondrial disease. Per this article, the judge has put her care back under Dr. Korson. And her original gastroenterologist had been at Tufts and had moved to Children's.

The judge has since granted the state of Massachusetts permanent custody till she's 18, since CT has refused to become involved.

On March 4th, he put her medical treatment back with her original doctors from Tufts.

3 weeks later, he put her permanent physical custody under Commonwealth of Mass, blaming her parents for their bad behavior.

In that latest ruling, he states that he believes Children's diagnosis of psychosomatic illness. However, he had just 3 weeks earlier put her medical treatment back with the Tufts specialist who diagnosed her with mitochondrial disease.

I take that action -- to put her treatment with the specialist who diagnosed mitochondrial disease -- to be a tacit admission that Tufts specialist has been right all along. Regardless of what he stated in his ruling, that his (nonmedical) opinion is that her illness is psychosomatic, in reality he is acting as though he knows that he is wrong.

He will never admit verbally or in writing that she has mitochondrial disease, because that would be admitting that they (he, Children's, and DCF) were wrong to withhold that treatment for the past year.

IOW, what he says regarding her medical treatment does not match with what he did.

DCF has to realize her health is deteriorating. She looks to be in bad shape. The "somatoform" treatment doesn't appear to be working for her.
Yet none of them would admit to any wrongdoing.

But facts are facts. The judge was very specific in his ruling.

I'll just leave this here. I'm sure many on DU know who Mathew Staver and the Liberty Counsel are. That's who the parents ar trying to get involved in helping them out. Anyone not familiar shoudl google. It should tell you something about these people. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/judges-ruling-big-setback-religious-right-justina-pelletier-case

But Justina is still supposed to get her medical care from Tufts doctors.
It really doesn't matter who Mathew Staver and the Liberty Counsel are. Them being who they are don't change the facts of this case.

It doesn't matter who the Liberty Counsel are? I think it's a pretty hefty clue. I certainly pay attention to things like that.

What is you argument about Liberty Counsel here? That because you don't like them, you are fine with how Justina has been treated by DCF and the court?

and claiming that courts and DCF are wrong to remove a child from custody? Are you conservative anti-government like they are? I'm not "fine" with anything. I'm just not an ultra right wing Glen Beck watching loon is all. States and courts have jurisdiction to act in this manner. I'm not buying the media spin that these whackos have managed to whip up.

Do you think the government should always butt out when it comes to child abuse? I mean, as long as right wing sources whip the media into a frenzy and make the parents out to be victims, and make no mistake, that is the goal here, that might as well be the outcome. Disband all DCF offices, right? Shut down the family courts.

Parents were treating her for mitochondrial disorder based on the diagnosis given to her at Tufts. Children's hospital decided Justina's problems are mostly in her head by diagnosing her with somatoform disorder. Parents did not agree with that. That classifies as child abuse now?

We are basing opinions on media frenzy whipped up by right wing interests. People are jumping to the conclusion that a hopsital called child protection services and they removed a child from custody based on nothing, because right wing sources say so. Well, I'm not jumping to that conclusion. This is typical right wing anti-government bullshit.

There is lots of information from many sources. Read Boston Globe on this case, for instance.

I live in an area where it's been getting local coverage from the beginning so I'm very familiar with the case.

If you live in the area then you know how bad things are at the DCF and if that was your child you would be scared to death.
How would you the react?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/02/02/massachusetts-children-under-state-protection-die-from-abuse-with-alarming-frequency/2TcwcpIbWnrANkKKQs1CVP/story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/26/state-audit-turns-host-problems-dcf/x8NFm1btTrzPBxAabgk3UN/story.html

http://www.childrensrights.org/news-events/press/new-reports-show-massachusetts-failing-to-protect-children-in-foster-care/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/16/mass_foster_care_endangers_children_lawsuit_alleges/

That always seems to be the case everywhere, whenever there's a high profile child abuse story. Forgive me if I'm still not going to jump to conclusions and say a hospital and government are in collusion to take a chid from their parents for no reason just because their parents and the right wingers backing them up say so.

I once spoke to a medical student from Ecuador who was planning on practicing in the States, who truly believed that prion disease was a myth and there's nothing I could do to convince him otherwise. As in, Mad Cow Disease/scrapies/Cruchfeld-Jacob's. Just flat out didn't believe it was really caused by prions.

Just because a doctor is a doctor (or trying to be one) doesn't mean they aren't capable of being wrong. But try telling them that unless you're another doctor, and even then....

Where is your evidence that doctor doesn't believe in mitochondrial disease?

I am not following your logic here. This while situations started because Children's didn't accept her diagnosis of mitochondrial disorder and instead diagnosed her with somatoform.
They are not going to be treating her for mitochondrial disorder.
So the fact that it exists makes exactly what difference here?
She was send to the psychiatric ward. Not department specializing in mitochondrial disease.

"In April, doctors told Justina that she was being transferred to Bader 5 — the hospital’s psychiatric ward
that focuses on the treatment of seriously troubled children who may pose a risk of harm to themselves or
others."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

Again:

http://c.o0bg.com/rw/Boston/2011-2020/2014/03/25/BostonGlobe.com/HealthScience/Graphics/SCAN.pdf

It's not at all helpful to the parents' cause, if you read it carefully.

Dr. Korman, from Tufts, who was coordinating her treatment for mitochondrial disease. Her renewed team also includes, interestingly, a gastroenterologist from Childrens. The same gastroenterologist that was on her original team, whom she had gone to Children's to see, and who Children's prevented from seeing or treating her for the last year.

Regardless of what he writes in his later ruling, putting her back with Dr. Korman for medical treatment is tacit admission that she is suffering from mitochondrial disease.

What part of that is not factual?

Children's Hospital claimed that her illness was not mitochondrial disease and, courtesy of the judge, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts denied her appropriate medical treatment for a year.

That is also a fact.

Regardless of whether her parents have custody or the Commonwealth has custody, regardless of the Judges (nonmedical) diagnosis, the fact is she is now being given the treatment that they denied her for a year.

I think its pretty damn significant that the same judge that denied her appropriate medical treatment for the last year has now put her back into treatment.

and would seem quite a bit more significant.

The articles stated that the teams are working out the details of her treatment going forward. They don't seem as confident of all the details as you seem to be.

Considering that the same judge ruled she should.

They are working out the details of the treatment. She isn't merely being sent back to Tufts to resume treatment as if nothing happened, despite how the OP is trying to make it out. I'm sure they were also waiting for the final ruling from the judge. The fact she's in Massachusetts probably makes things difficult as well. If the parents hadn't gone aroudn threatening everyone she'd probably be back in Connecticut by now.

Tufts.

I don't know why this is being spun as a victory for her parents. It is anything but.

depending on the complex of symptoms. It effects multiple organs and it is progressive. Since she hadn't been seen or treated for more than a year by Dr. Korson, her gastroenterologist, her original psychiatrist, neurologist nor any of the other specialists that were involved in her treatment under Dr. Korson's regimen, obviously her condition will have changed. It's not like they can just pick up where they left off.

From what I had read earlier, Dr. Korson is known especially for coordinating treatment across numerous doctors, as required. "Working out the details of her treatment" requires evaluation of her current state and treatment based on that. The specialists are not all at one location.

And nowhere does it state that she is being sent back to Tufts as an in-patient. Her medical treatment is being sent back to Tufts. That is not the same thing as being an in-patient.

Unless she has a crisis that requires hospitalization, she is residing, and will continue to reside, at the Framingham facility until they are able to find a Connecticut facility to take her.

Nor am I disputing any diagnosis of anyone concerned. I'm simply not going to jump to the conclusion that a hospital and the government conspired to take a child away from parents "for no reason!" because of hype from right wing sources. Nothing I've read or seen in this story would lead me to believe that this has happened.

I think it's significant that after withholding treatment for mitochondrial disease, preventing her original doctors from seeing her, treating her for a psychiatric disorder for a year, and stating in his ruling that he believes that she has a severe somatoform disorder, the judge put her original doctors back onto her treatment. The judge's actions in restoring her original treatment speak far louder than his words.

I do know that there are ties between DCF and Boston Childrens, with at least one (iirc there were 2) DCF employees in charge of her case having formerly worked at Boston Childrens. I know from my reading that "somatoform disorder" is a controversial diagnosis hypothesis that grew out of Freud's "hysteria" and it stands the risk of lumping in people with hard to diagnose and rare diseases. The chair of the DSM-IV task force himself has problems with the potential for overdiagnosis/misdiagnosis. I know that diseases we now understand, such as ulcers, would once have been labeled as a somatoform disorder and improperly treated.

I think Boston Childrens overreached and DCF overreached. I think that refusing to allow a second opinion, which is what her parents allege Boston Childrens did from the start, borders on malpractice. I think the judge has favored them over the parents and Tufts because it is Harvard and DCF versus overwrought parents who behaved "badly" in his opinion.

Nothing they've reported shows ties between DCF and Children's. Nothing they've reported backs up the claims of the parents and the right wing rabble they've welcomed to champion their cause.

and the articles I read were pretty consistently, if not entirely, Boston Globe and other msm outlets. I remember at least one, if not two, DCF employees leading the DCF team had formerly worked for Childrens. I think it was in an extensive globe article on the case.

Imo, Children's, DCF and the judge effed up and now they are doing what people almost always do when they realize they effed up -- try to extricate with minimal damage to themselves. That inevitably involves pointing blame to the weakest involved.

I see it happen all the time in the hospital where I work, both between departments and within the lab. Somebody makes a mistake, and everybody immediately goes into "the best defense is a good offense" mode. I've seen it when a specimen falls through the cracks and suddenly a doctor is on the phone yelling for the results. The techs immediately point the finger at the lab assistant. I've seen it when a nurse doesn't order a test correctly, so we don't get the order and suddenly a doctor is on the phone yelling for results. The doctor and the nurse join forces and try to blame the lab. The more senior people involved immediately close ranks and point at the most junior. Or the long timers point at the newcomer. Or the 2 people that work together all the time point the finger at the odd one out. Hell, I've even had our lab supervisor blame me for a mistake when she wrongly overrode my decision and I followed her orders. But always it is a gang in positions of relative power against a less powerful individual.

Right. See, that's another reason why I'm skeptical, right there. It explains Glen Beck's involvement.

it's a conspiracy. Personally, I would call it more a coverup/snow job. I haven't read or watched anything of Glenn Beck. I don't care whether or not he's involved.

As I said, it is typical behavior. I see it all the time in the hospital where I work. I saw it all the time in my old corporate job. A mistake surfaces, and everybody scurries for cover.

I also happen to have a sister who works in family law, who used to be a judge, and before that an asst DA. So has forced children onto ritalin without a physician ever even seeing the child. As my sister, I know her history and have a good idea of her biases and motivations. That experience, frankly, doesn't give me a lot of faith in judges either.

What concerns me is the overreach by Children's, in the ED doctor refusing to consider or allow a 2nd opinion and refusing even to involve their own gastroenterologist. All of this could have been avoided had they shown the professional courtesy of talking to their own gastroenterologist and Dr. Korsen.

There's an arrogance that flourishes in certain professions, and one that certainly seems endemic to anything associated with Harvard University.

Your opinion that this is government overreach appears to me to be based on nothing but bias because your sister was a judge and you don't seem to like her. You don't care that Glen Beck is involved, and that's fine. But, see, I don't have a former judge sister that I dislike. I don't have that personal bias. So, I'm looking at the facts here. And since I realize that there's no actual evidence that a doctor refused to consider or allow a 2nd opinion, and I see that there's good old Glen Beck getting involved. Well, I can put two and two together.

"From there, Justina, against her strong objections, was moved into the hospital’s locked psychiatric ward. Children’s and the state had ignored Korson’s requests to be included in a roundtable meeting to discuss Justina’s care."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/16/month-medical-ordeal-conclusion-still-uncertain/Y7qvYTGsq8QklkxUZvuUgP/story.html

The March 4 article is the first I've seen that includes Dr. Korson in her treatment.

We take in information selectively because we can't pay attention to everything in front of us all the time. And how we make that selection depends on what we believe is important. That, in turn, depends on our past experience. Everybody comes at experience with some degree of bias, and the longer they've been alive, the more bias they bring.

I'm not specifically biased against judges; I just don't see them as automatically as impartial, or wise, or knowledgable about medicine. They bring their own pre-conceived ideas (this one considers swearing in front of a teenager as evidence of unfitness for parenting. How many parents on DU would pass that test?) They are human and as flawed as the rest of us.

I do have some prejudice against Harvard people, though, and I openly admit that. I have known a few socially and through work.

I also have some suspician of "somatoform disorder" which in some rare cases is true, but all too often is a catchall for "hysterical women" who actually do have a physically based disease (my mother's ulcers were not caused by "stress," but helicobacter pylori) that simpy is not yet understood.

The parents had originally been accused of, and lost custody due to, medical child neglect for getting too much treatment for their daughter. The treatment specifically referenced the gastrointestinal surgery that had been performed by Children's own gastroenterologist. That in itself is stunning to me.

I have read the judges 4-page decision. Now they have lost custody for swearing at hospital staff and threatening to sue various parties involved in taking their child away from them.

It's rare people will recognize it and admit it. My bias is for children's rights and there is little evidence in general that there is too much weight given to their consideration in our country and that there is too much government overreach. If anything it tends to be the opposite. So I am always skeptical of claims that the government is overreaching in that regard. Always. And if there is little to no evidence that backs up such a claim? I don't buy it.

None of what you have posted is evidence that doctor's have refused 2nd opinions. They refused to include Korson in her care. That could have been after they considered his opinion. We don't know. That's the problem with this case. We aren't privy to a whole lot of what happened at Children's. They are mandatory reporters. We don't know all the facts.

territorial dispute between two groups of competitive Boston doctors -- the Harvard psychiatrists vs. the Tufts metabolic specialists. Given two groups of respected specialists, the parents should have been able to choose their daughter's treatment. And over the course of more than a year, the girl's physical situation has done nothing but deteriorate. Why has it taken this long for a judge to allow her to be treated for her physical condition?

The court, indirectly, is finally admitting that the Harvard psychiatrists were wrong -- she should never have been deprived of the treatment for her physical condition. And yet he blames the parents for being beside themselves, watching their daughter go from a skating rink to a wheelchair.

Why should the Harvard psychiatrists be entitled to reject the opinion of the metabolic specialist who had been caring for the girl? Why were they ever allowed to take over her case in the first place? If this is what the law leads to, the law needs to be changed. The girl wasn't being treated by quacks, but by highly respected doctors at a highly respected hospital. The parents should have been allowed to send her back there.

Undermining the state's ability to protect children has everything to do with the rights of children. This isn't a territorial dispute between hospitals. It's only being presented that way by those with an agenda, and Children's can't do anything to counter it because of privacy laws.

The court is doing no such thing. The judge even reaffirmed its position that the diagnosis made by Children's was the correct one.

It has nothing to do with what Harvard psychiatrists are entitled to. Child abuse was reported, the state acted on that report and a ruling was ultimately handed down.

How does he know? Is he an MD? Did he examine Justina? Of course not.
So I fail to see how this judge would know that it's Children's and not Tufts that have a correct diagnosis for her.

and that the Tufts metabolic specialists were wrong. The judge sided with one side of the dispute.

And the judge's earlier ruling prevented the parents from going public -- otherwise no privacy law would have prevented them from releasing all the details of her treatment.

The judge has NOW put her back in the care of doctors who will treat her medically -- so he is NOW affirming the original diagnosis, while not admitting the harm the state has done. Previously, he had agreed to let the psychiatrists take over her care, and that was a huge mistake that he also hasn't admitted.

If the child abuse laws are frequently mis-applied like this, expect calls for them to be struck down or seriously weakened in the future. And not just from the right side of the political spectrum. This is a question of abuse of state power as much as it is of children's rights. The judge hasn't been protecting the child, or he would have ordered the psychiatrists to include the Tufts doctors in her care more than a year ago.

And that's all we basically get. Pretty convenient for that side. I expect calls for them to be struck down because that happens all the time. This is nothing new.

The parents following the doctors orders or the doctors themselves?

I would guess it's likely to be the parents.

Note what the sentences start with. Linda and her husband Lou say. They claim.

It's their story, what they claim happened.

link YOU provided me--those parents come off sounding like nut jobs. No "nonsense" about that.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/25/permanent-custody-justina-pelletier-awarded-state-massachusetts/puyPhesGkKE6rGLid2VM2L/story.html


The more you engage in "put downs" the less believable your arguments become. The Pelletiers might have learned that lesson a year and change ago, pity they didn't.

That judge made it pretty clear that they can yell all they want, they're not getting their way. They can re-argue their points this summer and not before.

Why don't you at least read the whole article? Parents have documentation proving they were forbidden from seeking second opinion.

"The letter, titled “Guidelines for Care of Justina Pelletier,” stated that several of Justina’s medications would be stopped, and that the parents would be forbidden from discussing medical matters in front of Justina, trying to dictate care, “or calling in consult teams or second opinions.”"

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/15/justina/vnwzbbNdiodSD7WDTh6xZI/story.html

I would bet this happened because of the very behavior that led them to report them for abuse. The stipulation that they not discuss things in front of Justina in particular makes me think so. This reaffirms my suspicions that this was a particular kind of abuse they were seeing.

I notice how conveniently you are ignoring that part.

They'd put a minder in their child's room by that point and filed a 51A. It's no surprise they were past the point of considering any second opinions the parents were seeking out.

She may have been hoping to avoid a major clash, but the hospital already had a minder in the room by that point. This isn't evidence the hospital flat out refused them second opinions.

DCF still hasn't send her to Tufts.

She is residing at a facility in Framingham, Mass. Her doctors will include specialists from various hospitals, including a neurologist and gastroenterologist at Children's, Dr. Korson and some unnamed others at Tufts, and other, unnamed (maybe undetermined?) hospitals.

From what I'd read before, Dr. Korson is known in particular for his ability to coordinate treatment across a range of specialists, as needed. by the individual situation.

located.

It's not an optimal place to "coordinate" treatment...which is why I think that Mar 4 interim ruling is no longer operative. It would have made more sense to leave her in the city in the psychiatric facility where she was living for over a year if she was going to be seen by a doctor from Tufts.

from a team led by her original doctor and a few weeks later he removes her from that doctor's care once again?

As bad as his decisions have been until now, I really doubt the judge would have been that stupid. And there's no evidence of it, either -- just your supposition.

She's already been going from CT to MA for her treatment. This trip won't be any farther.

Now, he's handed responsibility for the care of the teen over to DCF. He is out of the mix, now.

For his trouble, he, DCF and Children's Hospital are getting threats, some of them quite violent, and some loonies have threatened to kidnap the child.

She hasn't been doing much travelling for the past year--she's been residing at Childrens IN Boston for over a year before being shifted to the psych facility in Framingham.

The child, and her former doctor from Tufts, testified at the hearing. Their input was part and parcel of the judge's decision.

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

led by Dr. Korson, her original doctor, even though custody has been taken from her parents. So that is a tacit admission by the judge that he and the State were wrong to have kept her from her doctors at Tufts for more than a year.

And even if he had somehow changed his mind in the interim, based on his antagonism toward the parents, that wouldn't have changed the fact that he recognized three weeks ago that she needed the care of her original doctors -- a tacit admission that he and the state had been wrong all along.

This article was from March 28, after the Judge took custody from the parents.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/2014/03/28/state-police-investigating-threats-against-agency-involved-with-justina-pelletier/fTFflhP08JCyJwoWVCeZnO/story.html

As one compromise measure, DCF and the judge have agreed to allow Pelletier’s medical and psychiatric care to be handled by Tufts starting as soon as this week, an acknowledgement that this is the hospital that the parents preferred all along, and that it would be best to end the parents’ antagonistic relationship with Children’s

You'd think that would have tamped down some of the irritation on the part of her supporters.

Instead, the judge, the hospital and DCF are getting death threats.

Particularly unfair to the judge, who wanted to spike this case back to CT where it belongs:

Last edited Sat Mar 29, 2014, 07:43 PM - Edit history (2)

The reason the parents are beside themselves is because she has been denied necessary medical care for a year. Now the judge is tacitly admitting that they were right after all; but he's taken permanent custody away from them because of their poor attitude.

Should this girl -- who should have been allowed to transfer back to Tufts Hospital within days of her arrival at Children's -- have to lose her parents because they were upset that the state put her in a locked psychiatric ward for a year? Followed by the state putting her in foster care rather than admitting their mistake?

I think a lot of people have a knee-jerk response, defending the state because people like Glenn Beck took the family's side. If the Christians and Beck people hadn't gotten there first, I think progressives would be much more alarmed than they seem to be about this particular exercise of state power -- all still covered up by a gag order requested by the hospital.

ON EDIT:

Perhaps the reason CT won't agree to put this girl into their system is that they don't think she needs to be in any state's system.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-05/news/hc-pelletier-conference-0306-20140305_1_lou-pelletier-boston-children-custody

State Sen. Joe Markley said Wednesday that he's seeking support from fellow legislators to discourage the state from taking custody of Justina Pelletier, the 15-year-old West Hartford girl who has been the subject of a yearlong custody battle.

"My hope, as it often is when it comes to government, is that the government will not stand in the way of people doing the right thing," Markley said.

Markley, a Republican from Southington, said the letter had been signed by "a dozen" other legislators as of Wednesday morning.

In the letter, Markley wrote "we see no reason for the Connecticut Department of Children and Families to involve itself in a case which has been so thoroughly examined to so little effect."

The hospital is constrained from saying anything about her care over the last year. Patient privacy.

The young lady testified before the judge and he assigned her to the state for care.

CT has to do an "evaluation" of the parents in order to take the case. They'll also have to pay a grand a day for her care, and they probably don't want to take that on.

If CT took the case, they could just hand the child back to the parents. But they aren't doing that. Why? Those parents were involved with protective services in CT previously. They might know something.