NJ mother loses baby for 3 years for not consenting to c-section (child still in custody)

[nashville_brook]

It's a contemporary Handmaid' Tale.

Imagine your child is taken away from you on the day s/he is born on the accusation that you're an unfit mother b/c you refuse to "pre-authorize" a c-section. You've been fighting for THREE YEARS to regain custody. Imagine being robbed of your child's first years...hell, they might not ever get the child back. So, imagine just having your child taken away at the fiat of a for-profit hospital that is fighting for their right to profit most from every birth.

This case is about money, and they've stolen a child for ransom.

A few things need to be pointed out about this case.
1. The birth was not in crisis and no c-section was "on the table."
2. This New Jersey hospital had a 50% c-section rate — which can bis likely a profit center for the facility.
3. C-sections can have its own complications and pose issues for future pregnancies.
4. “Pre-consent” with no signs of needing the procedure would seem to any half-awake person as a wedge to make the birth more convenient/profitable for the doc/facility.



http://news.change.org/stories/mother-loses-baby-for-three-years-due-to-refusing-c-section-pre-consent
http://sayencrowolf.net/2011/03/woman-refuses-preapproved-c-section-the-state-comes-in-and-takes-the-child-away/

(snip)

V.M. has been separated from her baby for three years in the name of “child welfare.” All because she didn’t want to pre-authorize a cesarean section that neither she nor the hospital had any reason to believe would be medically necessary, and wasn’t.

When V.M. showed up at the hospital planning to give birth vaginally, she was asked to sign a pre-consent form permitting a c-section should it become necessary. She refused. Had there been an unexpected complication with the pregnancy, V.M. could have consented to the procedure at that time, but she didn’t want to sign away her ability to make decisions about whether or not her baby would be sliced out of her belly. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

The hospital, however, disagreed. After giving birth, without complications, V.M.’s newborn was taken away from her on charges of endangering child welfare. She and her husband have been fighting for three years now to get their child back.

(snip)

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. That is horrifying...

I cannot even imagine what those parents must be going through.

Their child will not know them.

:(

[nashville_brook]

12. so true, you don't get those bonding years back.

[shanti]

2. terrible

:( you can't get those early bonding years back either. i hope she has lawyered-up!

[nashville_brook]

11. my guess is if she were the kind of woman who could get lawyered up, she wouldn't have

had to endure so much abuse in the first place. it just seems this has a class element.

but hell, i've had some pretty horrific hospital experiences, and i'm a well educated, almost able to get lawyered-up woman.

[Maru Kitteh]

3. Women are becoming mere breeding stock in service of the state :-(

How long till we wake up again?

[ecstatic]

4. A nurse told me that they took away a baby because the mom didn't want to

change the baby's diaper while in the hospital. She said they look for clues that the mom is unfit and then call DFACS if they suspect the mom can't handle the baby. It's an unfair policy since it's easy for a new mom to feel overwhelmed in the first few days. By the way, I think there is more to this story than the parents state.

[pinkkillersheep]

7. Agreed, there has to be more to it.

It's entirely possible that the parents are the victims, but there just has to be more going on. Otherwise I imagine this would happen on a near weekly basis.

[demodonkey]

59. Oh yes, the hospital is always right.

My family has an ongoing horror story with a hospital. I am not going into details here, but I will say that it is hard enough to go through the loss of trust that happens when a so-called "care provider" blatantly betrays you. There is not just the threat to your family as a unit, but your rights, your finances, your peace of mind, and a whole host of other issues come under attack.

When other people, outsiders, hear what happened and then say things like, "oh there must be more; we're not getting the whole story; etc," implying they believe the hospital is probably somehow right and you the patient/family must have somehow done something to 'deserve' what was done to you..... well, it is like an knife going into a very raw wound and getting twisted. Hard.

And I say this from first-hand experience.

[Brickbat]

9. Good God. I would guess class has a lot to do with it.

I called the nurse because I didn't want to burp my baby when I had to pee. I figured, hell, I've got the help, I'm going to use it! But what if I were poor and black and single? What then?

[mntleo2]

69. CPS is beyond class war today

...they used the poor to set court precedence in order to simply point the finger, accuse you of having the potential to put the child in "imminent danger" and that it is in the "best interest of the child" (never really defined in court what that means) and then they can take any child. However if it gets too expensive for them, then suddenly those accusations are a "mistake".

Today, the only difference between the poor and others is that SOME "others" can afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves.

It is because of the Title IV funding now going to CPS, and their minions such as the family courts and their CASAs. The more kids they take, the more funding they get. At this time they take around $8-10,000 per month per child. They then go in and also take an additional 1/3 of the TANF funding (the old welfare) and also food stamp and Medicare money literally "out of the mouths of babes" to pay themselves and their minions.

In my state, according to an FOIA request in over 30 years not ONE Title IV/TANF/Food stamp/Medicaid- paid social worker, counselor, judge, or Title IV paid (rubber stamp) consultant or (rubber stamp CASA have so much as been disciplined even after having been proven to have lied in court. Indeed many of them have been promoted. If a kid recants and wavers and they report it as they are legally required to do then they make waves, so they are often fired and accused of child abuse themselves.

Just say the name "Martha Coakley" who ran against Scott Brown in Massachusetts to take Teddy Kennedy's place. She was in the forefront of the biggest and most expensive CPS witch hunt later proven to have been just that, an empty, hysterical witch hunt. This case imprisoned dozens of innocents in sex offender prison for decades, scattered hundred of children who had been forced to lie against their own parents, and decimated entire communities. But unless you lived in the state, none of you heard so much as a whisper about that while she was running for the Senate. Now she has risen from an obscure assistant atty to the State's Atty General ~ all from a case that was later proven as nothing but a bunch of lies.

The 9th Circuit Court in CA have admitted in their rulings that CPS accusations are not true in over 70% of their case. Not enough of a credibility gap to do anything about it though. They said they have no confidence in these accusations because from the way CPS accusations are investigated is in reality when there is any questions to their accusations, there is nobody independent and outside their departments who are looking, CPS will simply "investigate" themselves and then say they are not wrong. Humphreys vs County of Los Angeles

Just know if it is happening in CA it is happening in your state. In essence all a CPS worker has to do is point their finger and say you are abusive and BOOOM! Without any due process your childlren and any future children are taken, you are on their abuse list for the rest of your life with no way to get off it unless you are a millionaire and can spend all your money defending yourself. Oh and ONLY if you are fast enough to respond within the 20 days after the CPS worker has pointed her finger at you, otherwise even the Supreme Court will say you have to live with your name on that list for the rest of your life and your kid will never see you again.

Not making any of this up and it would take a billionaire to change it who would never do so because they can defend themselves and win, even if they leave their dead kid in a dumpster somewhere. '

Cat in Seattle

[tsuki]

17. That is barbaric. nt

[Lyric]

22. I was pushed to give my baby formula when I had chosen to breastfeed.

He was born with a slight case of jaundice. They told me that getting him to eat was "medically necessary" to clear up the jaundice, and that if I wasn't capable of producing enough breastmilk RIGHT AWAY to fill his stomach, then I needed to give him formula. Or else.

I didn't push back because they scared me. I was afraid I'd hurt him or something, or that if I opposed them they'd take him from me, so I let them give him bottles of formula. Even the supposed "lactation consultant" didn't help me or advocate for me. It was only later that I found out that (1) his jaundice wasn't severe enough to warrant that kind of ultimatum, and (2) first-time mothers rarely produce more than a bit of colostrum until a couple of days AFTER the baby is born. Medical professionals KNOW this, and yet they persisted in treating me like the fact that I didn't have gallons of milk pouring out of my boobs less than 7 hours after my c-section was a dire emergency.

They also acted like him having a slight case of jaundice was a MEDICAL EMERGENCY and that my decision to breastfeed was hampering their valiant efforts to save his little life. Nevermind the fact that he probably only had jaundice at ALL because his blood type is different from mine, and that a few days of spending time every day in the sunshine would have cleared it right up with no problems.

We went through a week of nipple-confused hell after I brought him home from the hospital because of that crap. But you know they sent me home with a complimentary can of Similac in a brand-logoed diaper bag.

:eyes:

[louis-t]

39. You should have put "complimentary" in quotes.

My guess is you were charged quite a bit for it. Amazing how much power corporations have over our lives.

[ecstatic]

71. I had the opposite experience

They were a little too supportive of my decision to breastfeed, and by the time I left the hospital my baby had lost a lot of weight. I was traumatized, and then he got jaundice too. It took 6 days for my milk to come in, but by then I was already supplementing with formula and unable to catch up. They sent me home with the Similac bag too (sigh).

[Lyric]

78. I was lucky that LyricBaby got over his nipple confusion pretty quickly.

Some babies don't, unfortunately. I managed to nurse him for about 6 months before I wound up with an ear infection so severe that it turned into a brain abscess and I had to be hospitalized and put on IV antibiotics. He couldn't have my milk because of the medications, and I was on those meds for weeks. I tried to pump, but I only had a little plastic hand-pump that didn't work very well and I couldn't afford an electric one. By the time it was safe to nurse him again, my milk production had dropped too far to support him on that alone, so we had to keep giving him formula for his main feedings and only nurse as a comfort and a supplement.

But I look at it this way: he got 6 solid months of breastmilk, and if I ever have another baby, my milk will come in much faster and I'll do whatever I have to do to make sure I have access to an electric pump...just in case.

[Horse with no Name]

72. Bizarre.

First of all, what a terrible ordeal for you.

A couple of things you may or may not know. Outside of a metabolic reason, a normal baby will NOT get jaundiced in the first 48 hours and the physiologic jaundice will not resolve with formula if it is present. This type of jaundice takes intervention from bili lights to exchange transfusions. Simple jaundice of the newborn can also end up needing these interventions, but it does not occur until around 48 hours.

This naturally coincides with the lactating mothers milk coming in. While it is true that formula fed infants get jaundiced less and recover faster if they do, it is still not an indicator to feed formula to these infants even if they exhibit jaundice. Regular and frequent (every 3 hours) breastfeeding is indicated with these infants. It WILL resolve. IF there is a reason that the baby must be fed formula, it is ALWAYS done after the baby breasts first.

In all of the glory of nature, babies are born "fluffy" with a little extra fluid in their tissues to compensate for mother getting her milk. This is what accounts for the drop in birth weight before the baby is taken home and this is why babies born in the wilderness to pioneer women didn't die--because certainly there wasn't similac or enfamil available to supplement nature.

I don't know why these people did this to you. It is NOT the standard of practice in the care of newborns and they certainly didn't understand the physiology of breast feeding and newborns. I can only guess that their overzealous pushing of formula has to do with bonuses given to them by the formula companies. Do you wonder why the formula companies are so interested in getting the WIC contracts? Because they don't get reimbursed top dollar for that formula BUT they do get put in every single hospital and given to the Wic and non-Wic infants.

However, when you are put in the position that you were put in, you reacted appropriately. There is a very good chance that they would have brought CPS in if you had refused. I am sorry you had to go through this...but if it is any consolation--YOU were in the right, if it matters. I am speaking from over 20 years of experience in nursing, FWIW.

[cui bono]

35. That's incredible. I had a friend who married a man who had already had five kids and

he was much more comfortable with the newborn than she was. Many times she would pass the crying baby to him and he would get him to stop crying immediately where as my friend was not getting the same result. I suppose they would have taken her baby away from her if all they had seen was that she had trouble getting the baby to stop crying and handed it to someone else?

[Iris]

61. Good God!If that's how the hospitals make decisions, how could you EVER question the parents' story?

I mean, these people are supposed to be health professionals. Wouldn't thy know about hormone fluctuation, postpartum depression, etc. Why would they subject a family to that kind of separation based on a diaper change.

And if there were something THAT wrong with the parents SURELY they would say it and not drum up some bullshit not consenting to MAJOR SURGERY that was unnecessary.

[demigoddess]

63. Oh, you would be surprised how drs react in the OB ward

I have a daughter born with birth defects, retardation, but she looked normal to most people.. Before they even told me they thought she was handicapped, they treated me so weird!! Doctor came into my room and asked "what side of the family does she look like??" I said my side, he said" hrruumph, that's how much you know!"" She looked normal to me, and looked like my sister and aunt, still does.

[ecstatic]

70. I was extremely offended when she told me the story

She came in the room making a lot of assumptions about me because my fiance was doing a lot with our baby because I was recovering from a c-section. She assumed that if he was doing something, that meant I did not want or know how to do it. So then she went into the story--it was almost like a threat. In a weird way, I was grateful to her for at least warning me of how they operate.

[NashVegas]

73. A Nurse Told You. Wow!

If a nurse told you the mother didn't want to change a diaper, then the hospital must have been justified!

That probably looks a little harsher than it should, but yes. There is more to the story.

See page 21 to find out what went down with the diaper. http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/FGopinion.pdf

Actually, it's the baby's father. It also comes up on page 40 or 41.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/11/refusingcsection-child-abuse
http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/2010/08/post.php


I don't know what the status of the case is, right now, but there's a certain portion of it that reads like the hospital pissed all over this woman because she wouldn't give blanket consent to their profit model and then called Child Services and said "It's raining!"

Everything since then has been one expert's disagreement with another about how normal it is for this woman to be pissed off and upset about their situation and whether that stress - which, at its root, is being caused by the state trying to justify kidnapping her child - precludes her from being a decent parent.

Then there's this:

"We can't remove the baby from her foster home, she's bonding with her foster parents more than she's bonding with her bio parents, who get to see her once every two weeks."

Utter bullshit and anyone involved in this ought to be stripped of their professional credentials.

[struggle4progress]

5. The summary, of course, is misleading, but the woman did win partial victory on appeal,

case being remanded last August to the lower courts for further proceedings

The case seems to involve a woman with a history of psychiatric problems who behaved bizarrely:

... In the hospital records, V.M. is described as "combative," "uncooperative," "erratic," "noncompliant," "irrational" and "inappropriate." She ordered the attending obstetrician, Dr. Shetal Mansuria, to leave the room and told her if she did not do what V.M. said, she would be off the case. V.M. then threatened to report the doctor to the police. In fact, at one point V.M. did call the Livingston Police to report that she was being abused and denied treatment. She told a nurse that "no one is going to touch my baby." She continuously refused to wear the face mask that provided her with oxygen and also refused to remain still in order to allow for fetal heart monitoring. She thrashed about to the extent that it was unsafe for the anesthesiologist to administer an epidural. She would not allow Dr. Mansuria to touch the baby or perform an ultrasound examination. . . . V.M. "was very boisterous and yelling and screaming at the top of her lungs."

... The hospital responded appropriately to confront V.M.'s mental state and her refusal to consent to the c-section. After considering V.M.'s "extreme behavior" and signs of developing fetal distress, the hospital staff requested an emergency psychiatric evaluation to determine V.M.'s competency. Dr. Devendra Kurani responded to the delivery room and spoke to V.M. for approximately one hour. While Dr. Kurani was there, the anesthesiologist was able to administer an epidural. V.M. informed Dr. Kurani that she had a psychiatric history and had been on medication prior to getting pregnant. B.G. confirmed that V.M. had been treated by a psychiatrist for post-traumatic stress disorder and had been prescribed Zoloft, Prozac and Seroquel. When Dr. Mansuria stressed the need for V.M. to consent to a c-section, V.M. stated that she understood the risks, but she did not want
the procedure. Dr. Kurani then made a critical finding. Although he acknowledged that V.M. was very anxious, Dr. Kurani concluded that V.M. was not psychotic and had the capacity for informed consent with regard to the c-section. At no time did anyone seek judicial intervention or the appointment of a special medical guardian.

After Dr. Kurani left, the staff requested a second psychiatric opinion from Dr. Jacob Jacoby ...

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/11/refusingcsection-child-abuse
http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/2010/08/post.php
http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/FGopinion.pdf

[WolverineDG]

10. Wouldn't you be combative if someone was trying to cut you open

without your consent?

I threatened to call the cops on an ER nurse who tried to give me a penicillin shot. She refused to take me seriously when I told her I was allergic to the stuff & had been since childhood. She got huffy & ran to tell on me, so when the doctor came in, he asked why I was refusing treatment. :eyes: "I am not refusing treatment; I am refusing to get a penicillin shot because I am allergic to it."

dg

[struggle4progress]

13. I wasn't present, know nothing about the case, so have no view about the appropriateness

or inappropriateness of the woman's behavior. I gave a link to the opinion remanding the case

[lostnfound]

52. I know someone who died because the hospital gave him a penicillin shot

even though it was on his records that he was allergic to it.

[xphile]

16. I'd be damn combative too if I had a doctor trying to force me to "pre-consent" to a procedure

before anything even happened to determine if one would be needed. These people want to cut her open, they probably constantly shoved the papers in her face while she's in labor and knowing how hospitals are, they did it constantly. I'd have the doctor out of the damn room too.

Of course it's in the hospital's interest to make the woman seem as unreasonable as possible to cover their asses for their attempts to ram an unneeded procedure down the woman's throat so I'm not at all inclined to believe them.

[struggle4progress]

18. If you're really interested in the case, you should carefully read the opinion I linked

As I read the opinion, any question about a c-section is rather tangential to the issues

[xphile]

19. I did read it. And frankly based on what I read the hospital was out of line.

How many women do you think wouldn't be combative when being told that their child was being taken from the because they refused the C-section. The doctor attending wasn't her OB-GYN and considering the doctor was pushing a C-section I'd have tossed the doctor out too since they can't be trusted to pay attention to your wishes as to treatment and care. I don't find it irrational at all to not want to consent to a c-section before you've even determined if it's necessary. She signed up for the epidural, the fetal monitoring and other labor and delivery related care so she clearly made a choice. The hospital didn't like her choice and now they're coming up with some reason to take the child. While the woman clearly made a choice to not endanger her child by taking psychiatric meds during her pregnancy she was found to not be a danger to herself or anyone else. There is no reason for that woman to have to fight for over 3 years for custody of her child this is a clear overreach and an abuse.

[struggle4progress]

44. ... V.M. testified at the guardianship trial that she fully cooperated with the health care

professionals, including signing the form giving the doctors permission to perform a csection ... During his evaluation, B.G. denied that V.M. had refused "medication or medical treatment, including denying refusing consent for a C-section, while in the hospital" ... Although there was evidence presented at the guardianship trial regarding V.M.'s refusal to consent to a c-section, the judge did not rely on that evidence in finding that DYFS had established prong one. In contrast to the Title 9 trial, V.M.'s failure to consent to a c-section did not form a major portion of the evidence presented in the guardianship trial, nor was it a "major consideration" in the court's decision. V.M., supra, 408 N.J. Super. at 249. Moreover, despite the Title 9 court's reliance on V.M.'s conduct in refusing the procedure, on appeal the majority determined that it need not address this issue because there was sufficient other evidence to support the trial court's finding of abuse and neglect as to V.M. Id. at 224. We need not address this issue here except to note that to the extent the judge considered the issue, it has no place in this termination proceeding ...


So, in various contexts, both parents have sometimes testified the woman consented to a c-section, though the medical personnel disagree, and the issue was not central to any of the proceedings

[TheMadMonk]

57. Have you ever tried reading something from the BEGINING in its ENTIRITY?

The c-section and consent portion of the business came towards the end AFTER a considerable period of erratic misbehaviour on the woman's part.

The hospital covered its arse. She escalated. They escalated. She pitched a pink fit. They escalated again and found themselves in a position where they couldn't back down without exposing the hospital to a lawsuit.

Involuntary or otherwise, it appears that she contributed to her own misery.

The hospital may well have been in the wrong, but FFS when you have an adult in front of you behaving like a spoiled 2 year old (even if it is due to a mental defect) it is danmed tempting to treat them like a 2 year old.

[Iris]

64. Oh, yes. That uppity woman. Pitching a "pink" fit. She deserved everything she got. And so did

her kid.

:sarcasm:


jesus god

[TheMadMonk]

68. Nowhere. NOWHERE did I say anything like what you are accusing me...

...of saying.

All I was saying is that there was an extended sequence of events including a lot of erratic behaviour on the part of the woman which eventually led to a final confrontation over the preconsent for a c-section.

The OP presented it in stark black and white terms, which bore little resemblance to actual events.

I can also, after the earlier events damned well understand exactly why they would want that preconsent from this patient in particular, because by this time, there is no way in hell they would want to risk a (let us be charitable and call it a major argument) in the midst of preparing for a crash c-section.

Right up until the point of the removal of the child, there was nothing particularly unreasonable in the hospital's actions or requests.

From that point on it does appear that the hospital screwed up big time somewhere. Badly enough, that they saw themselves facing a large damages claim. It got dropped on the lawyers, who set about pulling every gods bedamned trick in the book to avoid that claim.

I DO NOT defend the way the hospital has behaved. I find it to be absolutely disgusting. However, that does not preclude me from understanding why the hospital is doing this to a mother and child. And in understanding, I do have to acknowledge that the woman's behaviour was a contributory factor, without necessarily assigning her any portion of the blame.

[Iris]

74. I'm sorry but asking someone for permission to do something that may or may not be necessary in the

near future, to basically give you your rights as you are about to go into labor, is just wrong, wrong,wrong. I'd say it's even MORE wrong if they were doing it just to cover their own asses.

[TheMadMonk]

81. No, they should have just waited for complications to set in.

And then spent the next hour in a screaming match while she bled out, the kid choked itself to death with the cord, or puts a foot through the placenta.

They had a very good idea of what they were facing with this patient by this time and it was not just their own arses they were trying to cover, but the patient's and her unborn baby's as well.


Wrong, wrong, wrong? Oh really? So it's wrong, wrong, wrong for schools to seek and obtain pre-consent for authorising medical procedures? Ditto sporting clubs? Ditto Boy Scouts and affiliates? etc? etc?


What would be wrong, wrong, wrong is taking that pre-consent and using it as an excuse to perform an unnecessary, but profitable, medical procedure. However, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in seeking that pre-consent against actual emergency.

Now this hospital has indeed been accused of such malpractice. However, the wrongful uses to which a permissiom slip may be put is an entirely separate issue from the need to have such permission slips in the first place.

In this case, I do not think this lady was in any danger of undergoing any medical procedures that were not 100% necessary. They would have wanted her gone, gone, gone ASAP.


Hell this could be down to some idiot setting the "Children's Protective Services ball" rolling out of pique. Ultimately taking the child was their call, not the hospital's. And once that mob is involved all bets are off.

Once CPS has made that call, the hospital's only roll is as a defendant in court. Like it or lump it, they ARE going to do whatever it takes to defend themselves.

While the hospital keeps fighting, CPS has reason to hang onto the kid. While CPS has the kid, the hospital can continue to argue it'a done no wrong. And round and round and round it goes.

It's now gone on long enough that someone's probably tossed the old "unfair to the kid, to disrupt their life now" argument into the mix.

It's a fucking great tragic comedy of errors which has now taken on a life of its own.


But no matter how you want to dance around it, without the woman's irrational behaviour to trigger everything else, everything else would not have happened.

She may well have been subject to an unnecessary medical procedure. That is a different issue, a different fight for a different time.

If she turns into this slavering beast when "cornered" off her meds, then why the hell didn't she assign medical power of atorney to a trusted third party whilst still rational?

I really do have a major problem with the idea that a "defect" in an individual gives them leave to trample all over others without fear of sanction. Push comes to shove, if her behaviour was excusable, she was not fit to withhold consent. If she was fit to withhold consent, her behaviour is not excusable.

I very strongly suspect that the ONLY party in this entire debacle worthy of a more than a moment's pity is the child in the middle. Everyone else is brat, bitchy, self serving, selfish, profiteering, need I go on? One victim. The child. Everyone else had the power of choice, including the choice 41 + n weeks earlier to foregoe medication in the presumed best interests of that then future child. All else stemmed from that single "rational" choice.

[vim876]

24. How can they tell...

if she's a fit mother based on her behavior when she is off her meds? Especially since it sounds like she got off of them in order to protect her child, and would in all likelihood get back on them after the birth? Sounds fishy to me.

[struggle4progress]

48. ... On April 18, 2006, a social worker at St. Barnabas contacted DYFS reporting concerns about

releasing J.M.G. to defendants' care. DYFS caseworker Heather Frommer spoke to defendants later that day. As she indicated at the guardianship trial, V.M. and B.G. denied that V.M. had ever received psychiatric treatment, denied knowing Seltzer, and claimed that V.M. had requested a psychiatric consultation at the hospital because she was being mistreated by the staff who refused to place her request for an epidural. However, V.M. countered by noting that she gave Frommer, who was "very combative" and was "yelling" questions at her, Seltzer's phone number, and said that she had taken the medication prescribed by Kurani. Frommer also spoke to Kurani, who told her that he had prescribed Zyprexa, a mood stabilizing medication, for V.M. on April 17 and 18, 2006, but she had refused to take it, and said that V.M. "distorts everything that is told to her." V.M. refused to participate in an outpatient psychiatric care program following her discharge. Frommer also spoke to the social worker, who confirmed that V.M. had been "noncompliant with recommendations from a psychiatrist for medication before her pregnancy," and had been "uncooperative" with the hospital psychiatrists.
After consulting with her superiors, Frommer informed defendants that J.M.G. would not be discharged to their care and that DYFS would file a motion for custody. She told defendants that there would be a court hearing on April 20, 2006, and wrote down the relevant information ... That evening, Frommer and Ketleen Israel, another DYFS worker, went to defendants' apartment in Short Hills to complete a home assessment ... Frommer reminded defendants about the court hearing on April 20, 2006, and told them that if they did not provide relative resources J.M.G. would be placed in a foster home ... Defendants did not appear at the hearing on April 20, 2006 ... The judge found that removal of J.M.G. was required based on V.M.'s psychiatric condition, her refusal to cooperate with DYFS in disclosing medical information, her refusal to take the medication prescribed by the hospital, and her failure to be forthcoming with information ...

[quakerboy]

32. from the first link

"Her "combative" and "non-compliant" actions, then, were in response to being told by the hospital that the baby she had just given birth to would be taken from her."

[struggle4progress]

45. Read the opinion: professional psychiatric intervention prior to delivery

[bengalherder]

36. I remember being in full labor with my twins and

squirming around from the pain and contractions. This seemed to irritate the hospital staff who thought I should remain stock still so all their equipment would work like they wanted it to. At least I didn't yell AT anybody. I also turned down an epidural because I wanted to decrease the chances of a caesarian which go up after your pelvis is 'numbed'. It is not stated whether she wanted the epidural, the fact she was 'thrashing around' indicates maybe she didn't.

Delivering mothers are notorious for not sitting still and yelling at people...and some hospitals are notorious for C-sections performed despite the mother's wishes or lack of any realistic emergency. Europe has a C-section rate that hovers around 30%, yet in some places ours in the US are over 50%. Guess that when the insurance companies are not involved surgery is less indicated.

I hope they can get their kid back- and they might want to birth in another place next time.

[tpsbmam]

37. The hospital personnel didn't adequately operationalize her behavior. Very unprofessional.

VERY early in my training I made the mistake of putting objective impressions in my notes. I was called on that by my supervisor who told me that descriptions like "combative" and "uncooperative" and "noncompliant" and "irrational" had to be clearly operationalized, i.e., report at least one clear example of her behaviors/statements that led to the conclusion that she was, e.g., "combative." By "combative" do they mean refusing to sign the c-section consent and throwing the doctor who was insisting on it out of the room? I'd likely have done the same thing -- with NO indication that a c-section might be necessary, why the hell would I consent to it? In an emergency that made me unable to consent due to some medical crisis, I guarantee they'd go ahead with the c-section to save the lives of the mother and baby. In any other case, she/I could sign as needed -- takes 2 seconds. As a judge I'd want to know specifically what they meant by each objective description. It simply isn't clear.

The mom showed she was being responsible by going off her meds. Did that affect her behavior? Maybe. A capable group of professionals would have recognized that, would have lauded her choice to stop her meds while she was pregnant, and they'd have done something like refer her to a local program to get help for a month or two after the baby's birth. Or referred her to a previously treating mental health professional with treatment a condition of her release WITH the baby. The latter suggestion is the MOST extreme this should have gotten.

It's not at all uncommon for hospital professionals to screw up in a number of ways (e.g, the way they spoke to the parents, the quality & content of their communications regarding the c-sections, their attitudes toward the parents, etc). They instantly attribute 100% of the interactions to the patient -- interactions are NEVER 100% one-sided.

Finally, I'm going to guess that this was a poor(ish) woman of any color or a poor(ish) woman of color. This smells to high heaven of a few different types of discrimination.

(Edit -- stupid tpyos.)

[jemelanson]

6. This was all done in the name of making a profit by this hospital.

I am sure that this type of action is used to pressure women to sign this pre-consent form. Then it is up to the hospital, based upon the kind of insurance that the woman has, and the hospital's need to take care of their bottom line (profit) and what they can get the insurance to pay for. Also, most insurance does not pay 100% of any procedure so the hospital can then go after the patient for the unpaid 20% or so. In order to make this process easier on the bottom line of the hospital the women when she is admitted to the hospital is pressured to sign this form, just in case.

There used to be non-profit county hospital or city hospitals. Those hospitals did not turn anyone away because they had no insurance or means to pay. So many of those hospitals have been privatized and the "corporation" that owns and operates that now for profit hospital is more concerned about making a profit for the share holders than any thing else.


This is along the same vein as all of the GOP's push to privatize everything from Social Security, to Medicare, to Public Utilities, to Fire Departments, to Public Schools. That way some corporation can make money off of it. Remember that story a while back about the family in I think it was Tenn. That forgot to pay they annual fee to the new privatized Fire Department, so when their was a fire, the new privately owned fire department dispatched a fire truck, but because of the Lack of the Fee, $75.00 I think, the fire truck and the crew on board had to sit and watch that home burn to the ground. they had to stay and make sure that the house next door which had paid the fee did not catch fire. It is all a part of the same agenda.

I am heart broken for that poor family that after three years are still fighting to get their child back. This is horrible. It needs to be brought into the light and exposed for the criminal act that it is.



Rant OFF

[nashville_brook]

14. For-profit hospitals perform nearly 20% more c-sections...

this is horrible...

http://californiawatch.org/health-and-welfare/profit-hospitals-performing-more-c-sections-4069

A database compiled from state birthing records revealed that, all factors considered, women are at least 17 percent more likely to have a cesarean section at a for-profit hospital than at one that operates as a non-profit. A surgical birth can bring in twice the revenue of a vaginal delivery.

In addition, some hospitals appear to be performing more C-sections for non-medical reasons – including an individual doctor’s level of patience and the staffing schedules in maternity wards, according to interviews with health professionals.

(snip)

“This data is compelling and strongly suggests, as many childbirth advocates currently suspect, that there may be a provable connection between profit and the cesarean rate," said Desirre Andrews, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, a nonprofit group that would like to see C-sections only in cases of medical need.

[DirkGently]

38. That's sure what it sounds like. Absolutely insane. I cannot believe any court upheld such garbage.

[WolverineDG]

8. I can't begin to tell you how much I hate CPS

they can't seem to hold on to the really good caseworkers (ie, the ones who have common sense), instead preferring caseworkers who demand that every parent provide every child with their version of an "ideal" childhood. I've seen caseworkers argue that children should not be returned for the following reasons (after the parents have jumped through all the hoops & gotten their certificates & gold stars) :

1. The dad has a machete (in the garage, hung up on a pegboard waaay out of reach of the children)
2. The mom, who is in the middle of quitting smoking, needs "counseling" on the dangers of smoking & the effects of 2nd hand smoke on children.
3. It is "against the law" for children (of the same gender) to share a bedroom. ( :wtf: )
4. It is "against the law" for children (of the same gender & close in age) to share a bed.
5. The parents only have 1 TV :gasp:
6. The dad owns a gun (which is kept in a gun safe). :gasp: In South Texas? :eyes:

Good luck to these folks getting their baby back. Children of that age are in hot demand on the child selling adoption racket market.

dg

[ret5hd]

15. link to any of those cases?

[Tsiyu]

23. I would think those records are sealed

Not sure, but I believe most cases where DCS is involved are not open to public scrutiny.

I won't say more, but I can say I sometimes work for a Juvenile court attorney, and I have seen DCS get way too damned "ambitious" over very minor issues.

But I can't link you to those cases or even give specifics because I must protect the integrity of the attorney and the privacy of the families.

Still, I, too, have seen DCS act irresponsibly and can believe what that poster says.

[WolverineDG]

25. ???

:eyes:

Oh, I see. I get it. I'm only an attorney who handles CPS cases, so I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

:eyes:

dg

[14thColony]

51. Preach it!

I love the "link please?" crowd SO MUCH -- you should of course be ready at a moment's notice to provide a verified, footnoted link to your own personal experiences here at DU. I think you can plug the USB cable into your ear for easier downloading...

[mwooldri]

29. IMO CPS == Child Police Squad.

I am not going to depict my experience as I am not ready to talk about it. Suffice to say, we do have both of our children, and it took an army of doctors and other people with influence in the county to persuade the Kiddie Police that the accusations made by an unknown party were without grounds and baseless.

[WolverineDG]

34. It's amazing how many people here

who otherwise whine about the loss of our constitutional rights are ready, willing, & able to throw them under the bus in order to "protect the children."

Let's just say that if Assange & Manning were accused of abusing children, they wouldn't have a fan club on DU.

dg

[krabigirl]

46. I agree. So many ridiculous things they take kids for, and ignore true abuse cases.

It is true at many case workers want nothing less than a "perfect" ( in their eyes) childhood. It makes me sick that kids are taken away from loving parents for very minor things.

[JoeyT]

20. Unnecessary C-sections are becoming a bit of a problem.

And right on time, if they can't convince you to consent to surgery by scaring you, they can use the force of really bad laws.

[Iris]

65. "becoming" "a bit"? This has been going on for more than 20 years

[JoeyT]

75. Oops.

Really poor choice of words on my part.

I knew it had been happening for a while, but I didn't know it went back 20 years. Yeesh. :/

[Iris]

76. yep. I think the problem is that the age group that is affected

is only in childbearing mode for a small window in their lives so it becomes less important as people age out of the problem. If that makes sense.

[defendandprotect]

21. How do we react to this INSANITY which is so prevalent these days ... in all issues?

[The Backlash Cometh]

26. We need Gloria Allreds in every state.

[BlueIris]

27. Gross.

That poor woman and her child.

[barbtries]

28. this is unbelievable.

i can still be shocked. i have not seen or heard everything. all the ways we humans find to hurt each other.

[uberblonde]

30. This is why I had my second kid at home.

After a series of crazy things that happened in the hospital with my first-born.

[MadMaddie]

31. I wonder what the womens social status is

if she is poor this tells us something. I don't think this would happen to someone well off.

Where are the pro-lifers? Where are the Libertarians? Where are you?

[caseymoz]

33. That hospital should be sued into a crater. nt

[DirkGently]

40. Of all the insanity we've seen lately, this still stands out. Wouldn't have known w/o this. Thanks.

[neoralme]

41. My wife and I cannot believe this. What in the hell is going on?

[lsewpershad]

42. Please, pretty please

remind me that this is still america.

[krabigirl]

47. It isn't.

[lonestarnot]

43. Excercise in dominion.

[Lucky Luciano]

49. speechless

:wow:

[pam4water]

50. That's so awful. I bet the hospital makes more money form the c-section.

[defendandprotect]

53. My personal advice to women given birth is to stay the hell out of hospitals ....

however, much to the contrary, young females now seem to be making appointments for

Cesarean deliveries -- sold as convience for the female/family -- !!!

The idea that childbirth should be transferred routinely to hospitals is nuts!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. I and my child would be DEAD without a c-section.

Sorry. I had to have a C section because I have a narrow wheelbase. It's that simple.
I knew ahead of time that I needed a C section so I had one the day my water broke, with spinal anesthesia.

[mntleo2]

54. Delete Dual Posting

[mntleo2]

55. Thank Title IV and AFSA

...then read what I wrote here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/13/883930/-Thanks-to-CPS,-Robin-Committed-Suicide-Last-Week-

I wish I were making it up to say they are taking kids for money, but with the deep cuts being made for DSHS agencies and the massive amounts of money the courts, agencies, and non-profits can make by taking children through Social Security Title IV and the taking of low income funding for desperate families through The American Safe Families Act, which unlike its name has created anything BUT safety for families. The corruption that is happening in all state family courts is rampant. This is combined with the fact that when anyone is accused of child abuse or unproven "imminent danger" (meaning any future possibilities of abuse) it happens with *no* due process and a complete ignoring of all Constitutional rights.

All law affects other law and this is also why they can "legally" now accuse and take people with no proof or reasons of any sort and why they can now torture Mr Manning ...because the government has set "legal precedence" with child abuse cases and their argument is, "If we can do it there, we can do it here ..."

Nope, by completely ignoring the Constitutional right to be, "Innocent until proven guilty," in family court you are automatically "guilty until proven innocent" ~ especially when unproven "guilt" means lots of money in DSHS, family court, foster care, CASA and all their consultant's pockets.

Cat in Seattle <---Thank-you nashville_brook ...for being a Progessive with a conscience like me. I have been writing about this for a l-o-o-n-g time and usually it is the Conservatives who have taken notice, few Progressives get it.

[nashville_brook]

58. holy cow -- you should repost that as an OP!

thankfully I haven't had any experience with DSHS, but i have friends who, b/c they were good people with big consciences, went into social work, hoping to help people. And, i only know one person who is still with it -- and her job was redefined from helping people to investigating fraud. sigh.

there's always been the potential for corruption in the system - it sounds like now there's an incentive.

when i read this story, i imagined that the family must feel like they're in a 1984 nightmare that won't stop. we've all had smallish instances of feeling that way -- imagining it on this level is truly terrifying.

[mntleo2]

62. Sadly I have posted it ...crickets

Besides the thousands of tragedies that are played out every year because of these practices, another reason this story is a such a sleeper is because of the legal precedence that is being used for other case types. This is a reason why our government can use this legal precedence to take people and accuse them of terrorism without having to prove a thing, can make accusations and imprison people never having to so much as appear in a court of law, how they are able to ignore the Constitution.

Robin who was mentioned in my link above, was my friend and I grieve her because besides being a wonderful women, she and her children did not deserve this treatment. But as with many low income families, Robin was poor and had no way to really defend herself. The State even admitted they had nothing against her, yet they still went ahead and took her kids. While family court is not the same court as a real court of law such as your county courts, it still sets precedence and they have been doing these practices for decades, so the corruption is already quite entrenched.

This is because all they have to do is stand before their family court buddies and say, "It is in this child's best interest ..." or "We believe this child is in imminent danger..." without even so much as a record of any abuse and without so much as showing why. It may be noted here that many family court judges are proudly board members for adoption agencies, so every child they take is another CA-CHING in the bank accounts of whom they represent.

Many of us are trying to make it a criminal matter when there are accusations of child abuse. This would take their accusations out of their family court buddies environment and put them into real courts of law where they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Worse, while parents have a right to their "public pretenders" (what we often call their Title IV paid public defenders), at this time any other accused person have no rights to any defense lawyer in family court. A very realistic scenario: Someone who wants your job can simply pick up the phone and anonymously accuse you that you abuse your niece or nephew or the neighbor kid down the street. Boom! You are guilty automatically.

False accusations are happening with grandparents and relatives where the State "parks" the children and promise adoption when in reality they have no such plans because while these children are cared for for free or at most a few hundred dollars a month, DSHS, CPS and CASAs are collecting thousands monthly and will reap tens of thousands after the child is adopted. Workers even get adoption bonuses every time they adopt out a child. Then after they've terminated the parent's rights, where in essence they, not the relatives, actually "own" the child, they accuse the grandparents of abuse, take them and "sell" them to the highest bidder. If after losing their loved ones forever the child never finds a permanent home, no problem because CPS still collects those thousands every month for owning them.

While you are allowed to hire a lawyer, most accused cannot afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves. You are put on a registry for the rest of your life if you can't defend yourself and if you can legally win, you will still be on this list for usually 7-10 years. Even though you are innocent, the imposed CPS process will in over 90% of the cases, cause you to lose your marriage, your home and your job without so much as a court trial. Anyone can access these files so even renting a home or seeking employment is no longer a possibility.

This is a very sick and corrupted system where states receive millions of dollars every year to destroy families because the more kids they take, the more money they get, and if they return kids home, they actually not only lose the money they've gotten, they will also lose it in the next funding cycle.

So essentially destroying a child and their family's lives "in the best interest of the child" is in fact, "in the best interest of my wallet ..."

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle

[nashville_brook]

80. this is heartbreaking -- all of it. but i really do love the idea of "criminal" offense

as opposed to the family court system. this makes a lot of sense to me. make so that the "offense" must rise to the level of a crime, and use the justice system that's already in place to judge the crime.

this gives me a lot to think about. thank you for sharing!

btw, i was an adopted...kind of a special situation. grandparents adopted me, by birth mother really was "unfit" b/c of addiction. the grandmother knew what that if child protective services got involved...even back in the late 60s...that it wouldn't end well. so, she fought to adopt me. it took 6 years. i have the feeling that nowadays i might not have landed with family. terrifying.

[varelse]

56. This is truly horrifying

:(

[alp227]

60. such a compelling story it was covered TWICE on TYT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzPEVVCvRpc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgas4EOlE-M

Wow. She better get her kid back...the kid has been in foster care for 3 years and is very young and must be in a traumatic experience.

[mntleo2]

66. They do it all the time

...as a matter of fact they will probably say now that the child and mother are not bonded and therefore it is a legal reason to terminate the mother's rights.

They are harvesting children from low income families all the time while cutting services that would keep these kids in their homes. Hundreds of thousands of children are taken every year even though they know for a fact that children will thrive better even with a mom who is drug addicted, than being taken. http://nccpr.info/the-evidence-is-in-foster-care-vs-keeping-families-together-the-definitive-studies/

Children have a 5-7 X more likely chance to be abused in foster care than if returned home and the family given services. They know that it is literally 1000% less to return a child home but they will lose all their funding if they do. Scroll down to see page 13 of this Annie E. Casey study done 2 years ago to show this 1000% higher cost to take kids than to send them home: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.childtrends.org%2FFiles%2F%2FChild_Trends-2009_02_17_FR_CWFinancePaper.pdf

The reason we spend so much more to take kids than to return them home? Because if CPS returns this child home, not only will they lose the $8-10,000 a month they collect for keeping this child, they will lose any future funding as well. This is thanks to the conditions under Title IV, and the taking of about 1/3 of the TANF, food stamps and Medicaid for low income families where they accuse these families of neglect and maltreatment because they cannot afford housing, adequate food, medical for themselves (where the parent gets sick or hurt on the job), or childcare.

I am not making this up.

Oh and many say, "Well there are laws in most states against taking children because the families are poor ..." Yes there are, but the conditions of poverty ARE quite legal reason to take kids at the drop of a hat. Then spend all that money on themselves, to hell with the kid's family because Family Preservation is not even a blip on their conscience.

Sadly,
Cat in Seattle

[ismnotwasm]

77. This article states

that the reason she hasn't had her child returned was a prior 12 year history of mental illness. Which makes this story no less horrific. As is pointed out, if she hadn't refused the surgery, her baby wouldn't have been taken away simply from her mental history. I

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/refusing-a-c-section-losing-custody-of-a-baby/

Looks like the mother won her case;


Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of VM
We are happy to report that the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey has ruled in favor of VM in New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services vs. V.M. and B.G.. In the Matter of J.M.G.

In this case, a VM's refusal to sign a consent form for cesarean surgery led to hospital interventions and a report of abuse to child welfare authorities.


Even though Ms. M delivered a healthy baby vaginally, and would have consented to a cesarean if it ever became necessary, this resulted in a child welfare investigation, the state's decision to remove the child from her parent's custody at birth, and termination of parental rights. In the decision published today (PDF), the Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s termination of Ms. M’s parental rights and ruled that the child protective authority had failed to meet its burden of showing that Ms. M was “unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child” and that “termination of parental rights will not do more harm than good.” Although the case now goes back to the lower court, the decision appears to be a step towards Ms. M’s reunification with her child.


http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/blog/2010/08/post.php

On edit, I see this is upthread, I didn't read the entire thread, sorry

[mntleo2]

79. Not surprised at this "miraculous" decision

...because the shock and outrage at what happened to this woman is their fear you will see that what happened to this woman is common practice and done all the time to little kids and their families.

Whenever the public sees a thin ray of light penetrating what is really going on in family court, then suddenly the courts see the light. It happened here in my state with a case about a little girl we call "Poco". They had yanked the child from the grandparents after the mother had "voluntarily" (yeah right) terminated her rights so her parents could adopt her daughter. When the Press got hold of the story and it got a lot of airplay well ...suddenly the courts "saw the light" and the kid is returned to the only home she knew. This is also commonly done where they park a kid at a relative's home until the State legally "owns" the child and then they find some "abuse" that they never have to back up in family court.

They pretend that cases should be held in secret to "protect the child" when in fact if the cases get out of family court and into regular court such as with this woman and Poco's, they publically tell the whole story and God forbid if you saw the details of hundreds of any other cases! This secret court is in reality *not* to protect the child but to protect themselves. Because then public court becomes, well ...public ...and everyone will know what is going on, anyone can read the details of the case online if they want. They (family court and CPS) depend on their work being done in the dark with nobody watching so you will never know how unconstitutional their practices truly are.

They do not want anyone to notice that they are railroading kids from their families in order to collect Title IV money where the more kids they take, the more money they make and if they return the kid home they lose that money and the next funding cycle's money too. A case like this mother's who is gathering steam so that the public begins to see what is really going on with CPS and family courts and their rubber stamp CASAs, this is worth giving up the $8-10,000 a month they had been receiving and the $50-100,000 they would get for adopting the child out ~ in addition to the adoption bonuses a case worker will get for this child if they are successful.

This is money no family member or the child would ever see, but you can bet your bottom dollar the judge, case managers, CASAs and their consultants will be lining up for their paychecks because they have no fear that they will even be held accountable.

Most of the time they ARE successful at taking these kids and adopting them out ~ just as long as you do not know how they do it or more importantly WHY they do it... (hint: it is not done to protect children).

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle