Powered by TypePad

« Sunday Morning | Main | We Shoulda Hired The Smart Regulators »

March 31, 2014


Danube on iPad

"I didn't take him/her to be discounting the non clinical advantages of home care."

I did. But he can resolve the question in a trice by acknowledging those advantages. He has certainly neglected to do so thus far.

("He" is a synecdoche. Any uncertainty about gender can immediately be dispelled by the author.)


Apart from the value of being at home with family, there ought to be a strong presumption that the parents have the best interests of the child at heart. Of course there are exceptions, but I've seen nothing to suggest this is one of those exceptions, and much to suggest that this is an egregious overreach by the state. It's not as though the parents did not have the child in a competent doctor's care prior to the seizure by DCF.

Danube on iPad

I note that late March has expired without our universe being shattered. I know we are all relieved.



You missed it?


i seem to have. shattered universe...still going strong at 1:41 in the morning here ... some places are still the 31st though.


Happy Birthday to Mel R -

Hope you had a great day !
Still missing you here, though.

(Sneaking in while it's still March 31 out west)

It's Mitt Romney's fault.

Sans maudlin acknowledgement of the value of family and home, DoT is gonna call me names? Objection, your Honor.

Just suppose this family were Witnesses,

Does anybody wonder what the child has to say about this?

Lies, lies, lies.  When do we listen?

It's well established in law that the State can transfuse blood into a child of a family for whom such transfusion would have dire and permanent consequences.

It's simple minded to believe that the family always has the best interests of the child at heart, and even worse to believe that the State can always correctly identify the child's best interests. Guidance for these problems cannot be found in law books or in maudlin belief that the family knows best.

My hunch here is that patient confidentiality is preventing the release of some piece of information that would make the hospital's course seem less mad.



IMO, as they are getting nowhere in MA the family should assert pressure on their local agencies to take control of the case. I know that the agency has refused or something like that but, if they are successful at the very least she will be transferred back to CT and a local Judge who will have to face his voters will be in charge of the case.

As a out-of-towner that pressure is not there, they can claim that they can't talk about the case and cover it up. So far, it seems that they have spent most of their time fighting the MA DFCS, they need to put some effort to get the CT DFCS to take over and bring her back to CT.

So, was that Hilary's call or what?

If we still had Waco Janet around we could use stormtroopers to send her back to the bosom of her family.

As in Hell.



NSA, IRS, local police on a wrong address raid in MO, and the Pellestaire kidnapping. In each case bureaucrats use secrecy / privacy laws to hide from responsibility rather than protect citizens. DoJ and judges leap to aid the bureaucrats.


I know this will sound like a stupid question, but how did 1 Million ObamaCare enrollees enroll on a day that the enrolling Website was inop?

I agree, this case is a mess.  And the patient dwindles, slip slidin'.

Dangit, now you've made me glance at the decision. I am not a lawyer, and I glance, often.

The judge has been trying to get this case to Connecticut. He says that Connecticut has substantiated Pelletier family neglect(where's that determination?). He seems to believe that the Pelletiers will only accept her at home, and not into a Connecticut institution.

Cherchez la femme, in this case, l'enfant. Is it beyond the realm of rational consideration that an adolescent might denounce her parents?

Jane on Ipad

I don't believe the issue with Justina going home is treatment. According to her dad they have stopped all medical treatment, because they contend this is a mental issue. He believes she has gone so far down hill because she is not being medically treated.



State exchanges. At least that's the Dem apologists (I.e. MSNBC/NYT, etc.) rationale.


Rich, I'm not sure how old you are, so you may have already figured this out--but truer words have never been written--and they came to me via email l today! Franciscan monk, Richard Rohr:

Stumbling and Falling
Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Sooner or later, if you are on any classic “spiritual schedule,” some event, person, death, idea, or relationship will enter your life that you simply cannot deal with, using your present skill set, your acquired knowledge, or your strong willpower. Spiritually speaking, you will be, you must be, led to the edge of your own private resources. At that point, you will stumble over a necessary stumbling stone, as Isaiah calls it (Isaiah 8:14). You will and you must “lose” at something. This is the only way that Life-Fate-God-Grace-Mystery can get you to change, let go of your egocentric preoccupations, and go on the further and larger journey.

We must stumble and fall, I am sorry to say. We must be out of the driver’s seat for a while, or we will never learn how to give up control to the Real Guide. It is the necessary pattern. Until we are led to the limits of our present game plan, and find it to be insufficient, we will not search out or find the real source, the deep well, or the constantly flowing stream. Alcoholics Anonymous calls it the Higher Power. Jesus calls this Ultimate Source the “living water” at the bottom of the well (John 4:10-14).

The Gospel was able to accept that life is tragic, but then graciously added that we can survive and will even grow from this tragedy. This is the great turnaround! It all depends on whether we are willing to see down as up; or as Jung put it, that “where you stumble and fall, there you find pure gold.” Lady Julian of Norwich said it even more poetically: “First there is the fall, and then we recover from the fall. Both are the mercy of God!”


Nice shot

How one shot from British sniper took out 6 Talibunnies.

Open discourse generally helps, except when it doesn't.

Jane, that is some of the mishigas, here. Psychiatrists are well aware that patients can have medical problems. How was it determined, and by whom, that she had no medical problems?

I smell a big rat in that family. I could be way wrong.


CT has not substantiated family neglect--they substantiated that they once had a claim of neglect, which was not substantiated.

They decline to investigate now as they find nothing to warrant an investigation.

The judge founds his decision in expert medical opinion.

You see, a psychiatrist would not dare determine that she had no medical problems. Who is the internist, and what did that internist say?

Also, what do you make of the judge's suggestion that Connecticut established Pelletier family neglect?

Is Connecticut's evaluation in the public record?  Must be if Johnston used it in the decision.

anonamom, read point 7 of Justice Johnston's decision, which reads in part '...., this court was informed by the CT DCF that it recently "substantiated the parents for neglect" of Justina and that return of Justina to her parents was not in her best interests'.

Well, leaving aside just how you go about 'substantiating parents' that seems fairly plain.

Well, after 35 years experience, I should hope so.

I followed narciso's link to one of the suspects and was amused that he was expert in cardiology, hematology, adolescent psychiatry and plastic surgery.


Do you have a link to the pdf of the judge's decision?
Boston Globe won't let me have free access, even though it's a new month!

What does Connecticut know and when did they know it?

Well, I found it through Yahoo at first effort, and couldn't find it the second.

As you know, if you haven't figured out the diagnosis, go ask the patient some more questions, and re-examine, re-examine, re-examine. The most important part is re-examining your own mind.

Clarice Feldman

How can Mass justify the Boston hospital's refusal to allow her doctor to see her or even0--IIRC--the specialist in Mass she went there originally to be examined by?

Now that's a guarantee of 100% accuracy, especially bein' as it's Hahverd.

c., the judge depended upon expert medical opinion.


"I smell a big rat in that family"

I think you are wrong.

When she was brought to Children's a resident decided Tufts had the wrong diagnosis, called DHS (or whatever the current initials are) and had her removed from her family instantly. The following day her father wanted to bring her back to Tufts and Children's would not let her go because this resident had an idea and wanted to play with it.

DHS and Childrens are joined at the hip. The judge relied solely on Children's opinion (which knows if they are wrong the are facing a huge malpractice suit) and refused to let an independent party examine Justina.

I have seen exactly the opposite about CT. They said there was no reason for them to be involved because they saw no evidence of neglect.

IMO this is a hospital trying to cover a doc's ass, which is trying to cover DHS's ass and in turn the judge's ass. The latter 2 are democrat wings - I have no idea about the doc.

But let's just say there is a legitimate issue: What is the point of not making it public? If nothing else it will stop the outrage. I contend there is no issue but rather a party that puts politics over parenting, because it thinks it knows best.


So I say, declassify the whole report;


it's very convenient they would make this claim, which safeguards their own malpractice,
(note this applies to both stories)


Newton, Cleveland and co, they sound like a law firm, seem to be so confident of their diagnosis, which strikes me like Yorick the Barber, that they will throw any flak in the way of the Pelletiers,


Here is the decision. Part 7 says what the anonymous commenter says it says.


There are two things it seems easy to clear up.

Well, Jane, what about point 7 in Johnston's decision?

Also, a resident doesn't get this kind of back-up. If someone erred, it's higher than that.


where is the evidence, the footnotes therein, I smell a skunk,

What are the odds?

Heh, Jane, COBRA privacy protection at least tries to keep somethings from the public eye.

I agree, more full public disclosure might well resolve the outrage, and may ultimately be necessary.

It is not hard, however, to imagine scenarios in which full public exposure is not in Justina's best interest.

There is no happy resolution of this unless Justina improves.


To my untrained Peter Venkman eye, this seems like a total fustercluck, abetted all the way up the foodchain, where is the evidence,

Clarice Feldman

On my new Mac I don't have adobe reader so I can't read Jane's link to the opinion,

The law is an ass, and brays.

Thanks, Jane. I'm reminded of another old doctor joke about idiopathic illness; the doctor is an idiot and the patient is pathetic.


this is the same legal system that railroaded the Amiraults, that covered up Amy Bishop's murder, drove that hacker to his death, yet seems all too willing to cover for the T Dawgs,


ROFWL over the two hats :)


HIPPA, not COBRA (which is for continuity of insurance after job termination). The ACA gutted HIPPA anyway -- non encrypted medical records required, free access by Zeke Mendele's panels, etc. The only people protected anymore are the bureaucrats at DHS.


Kim, just consider how the IPCC diagnosed that 'the planet had a fever' in Al Gore's turn of phrase, how Mann hid 'the decline'
and avoids scrutiny, like a certain Saudi financier,


You know Carlos Slim's chimps are whip smart, how else do they figure out something we've known for the better part of a year;



See when they don't present evidence, and ignore contrary indications;



Point 7 makes no sense whatsoever in light of the CT DCF continuing refusal to take any action---they obviously do NOT share the MA DCF or judge's concerns about this child being maltreated, or they would take custody of this citizen of their state, no?

Could their finding of "parental neglect" in early January mean that they documented Dad swearing --OMG!--at hospital personnel in front of his daughter. And calling them Nazis too.
Anybody know what social workers determine is parental neglect?

Has this judge taken testimony from the Tufts doctors?


"this is the same legal system that railroaded the Amiraults, that covered up Amy Bishop's murder, drove that hacker to his death, yet seems all too willing to cover for the T Dawgs"

And has lost over 100 children this year in DSS custody. At least 1 died.


in this bearded spock universe, who knows anonamom, what we do know is they were loath to keep her out of the reach of her family doctor.


One more thing, re Psychiatric "diseases" and disorders and the "evidence"--remember, this is a field of medicine that VOTES on what goes in to their DSM every decade or so, to be things they treat.
This is a field that found autism to be caused by "refrigerator mothers," homosexuality to be a disease until less than two decades ago, and dreamed up the Oedipal complex to cover the rampant sexual abuse of Sigmond Freud's patients. That treated almost everything short of schizophrenia with talk therapy until everything got treated with drugs, until they realized most of what they treated gets better with more exercise, better food, and sleep. They are the people who drug busy little boys whose teachers want them to sit still for six hours a day at six years old.

A quick re-read of a Blaze article had the three psychiatrists who testified disagreeing as to what is wrong with Justina---Childrens guy number one says somatoform (which didn't even exist four years ago!), Childrens number two says no, she has a conversion disorder, and the person who has known and treated her since 2006 says she is depressed---like who wouldn't be living with a chronic, unpredictable disease like mito?

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

anonamom @ 6:51...lovely!

Makes me mindful of the 2nd verse of Amazing Grace -

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Captain Hate

Levin had Justina's attorney from the Liberty Council on last night in his third hour and was incredulous at the details of the case. Coupe Deval has the power to make this end immediately but needs to, you know, do his job.

The attorney made the point that this is not an isolated case, either in Mass or elsewhere. The word needs to get out about this.

Who blew that call?

Yep, huge malpractice settlement if BCH is wrong. I wonder what the insurance companies medical experts think. Don't tell me they are not involved yet.

Sorry, Ma.

'insurance company's medical experts'


I just read all the comments about Justina and I've been thinking about a family we know in northern Maine. anonamom's comment @ 8:40 about the father could be relevant. Our former neighbors have a severely disabled child.He is now a young man. During a hospital stay when he was a little boy,the father "had words" with the nursing staff.This incident followed the father for years,especially since the director of nurses was also a neighbor. They didn't speak to each other after that incident. (gotta love small towns) Yes,the parents are difficult,to the point of being obnoxious.But there is no question they love their son and have devoted their lives to his well-being. Justina's parents might have provoked the wrong person at some point.


Jane,if there is a court hearing,will her medical records be opened?

Also,you mentioned Deval never being in the state,I just read he is giving the commencement speech at Colby later this spring.

Man, I'm tellin' ya, that family portrait of the Pelletiers speaks volumes.

anonamom, psychiatrists get stuck with what medical science hasn't yet figured out. Have a little charity for them.

If she has a medical illness, the liability will lie with whoever decided she didn't.

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

"~As to the upcoming trial of the century, over the weekend Mann Tweeted:

"Climate Science Deniers Wrap Themselves in the First Amendment"

As Max Waters helpfully Tweeted back:

Dude, EVERYONE is wrapped in the 1st Amendment. Even people who lie about having a Nobel Prize."


More state issued collars.

Yah, CH, these abuses are widespread. What if the Pelletiers are an ugly test case?

Oh, yeah, his pen and phone.

Wait, how can Deval Patrick resolve this by doing his job?


So that's how Mann will spin losing his libel case-- I was right, but the damned 1st Amendment makes me a loser. What a scum bucket he is; AND on the public payroll at PSU and various taxpayer paid grants.

Happy, happy, joy, joy Ignatz

--Here is the decision. Part 7 says what the anonymous commenter says it says.--

Considering some of the things I've seen judges say about the law, something they're actually supposed to know, the margin for error and/or corruption in what a judge says about what some other state's agency said about some obscure medical problem relating to whether some parents "neglected" their child is beyond even that for projecting climate 100 years from now.

Account Deleted

"had the three psychiatrists who testified disagreeing as to what is wrong with Justina"

Expert liars convened from different sects of vodun will tend to do that. Have there been any reports of admissions to BCH dropping as a result of lack of confidence in the brand of credentialed morony displayed there or are parents in the area receptive to just a bit of Blue Hell child sacrifice?

jimmyk on iPad

"It's simple minded to believe that the family always has the best interests of the child at heart, "

Of course no one has said this, so why do you raise this straw man? Makes me wonder what your real agenda is here. It seems to me that cases of abuse of power by the state are not so unusual that the presumption, which you seem to be making, should be on the side of the state. The bottom line that none of your comments address is that a child whose problems are supposedly psychological has deteriorated physically while under the "care" of the state. Nor do they address the fact the parents had a medical diagnosis from a doctor at a respected hospital. Address that or stop with the innuendo.

These are the easy questions.

What is the substance of Connecticut's 'substantiation' of neglect. Is it public record?

And what is the rationale for stopping treatment of her 'mito'?


But I thought the judges are to be trusted. I guess that only applies when our DNA is coerced from us.

Glad you asked that one.

My agenda, jk, is asking inconvenient questions.

Too bad she got a cold-hearted bot.

I'm Jane's Red Team.

jimmyk on iPad

Your questions ignore inconvenient facts.

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

Another very good Prager University clip -


Get that one right first.

jk, is it fact that her condition has deteriorated physically from lack of medication for 'mito'?

jimmyk on iPad

I only claimed that her condition had deteriorated. Obviously I don't know the reason.


I think DoT raised the issue, Jimmy.

The author of those words attaches no importance at all to a child's being with her family in their home, as opposed to being in an institution and separated from her family. The sole determinant, in his mind, is the clinical outcome. If it does not depend on where she is, then there is no basis to prefer one situation over the other.
Must I read up on 'mito'?

jk, I don't think anyone knows why she has deteriorated. Some may know in what manner and to what extent, but I don't.

But obviously, was bothered.

Thanks, Tk, I couldn't be bothered.

Janet - the districts lie fallow, while the Capitol gorges itself

Jung, Lady Julian of Norwich....or Carrie Underwood - "Jesus Take the Wheel"

Happy, happy, joy, joy Ignatz

--I guess that only applies when our DNA is coerced from us.--

The only position I ever took on that was that if the cops could establish probable cause, as with a search warrant, a sample should be obtainable.


I had a long conversation with Amy about this case this morning and she thinks I'm nuts. Her response: Why would a doctor whose job is to help people, and an agency whose job is to help kids and a judge whose job is to help kids get together to hurt this child?

She has a point - altho I am not convinced.

"Also,you mentioned Deval never being in the state,I just read he is giving the commencement speech at Colby later this spring."

Marlene, my mother grew up in Winslow, and was the first woman to attend Colby. My grandfather, a farmer with a 6th grade education made the very first electric scoreboard in Maine and gave it to Colby.

Old Lurker

If CT substantiated neglect, how come they let them keep the other kid? Huh? Huh?


I wasn't slamming you, Ig. I just used your comment to slam the notion.

I should have been more clear. Sorry.

Old Lurker

Amy needs to get out more if she thinks the system does what its charter requires it to do.


I think DoT raised the issue

No, I was the one who came closest to the straw man. At 12:29am I wrote:

"there ought to be a strong presumption that the parents have the best interests of the child at heart. Of course there are exceptions..."

Not exactly the same as "the family always has the best interests of the child at heart."

Everybody's trapped, Justina most of all.

Yes, Jane, this is mysterious, and I suspect the mystery hangs on something undisclosable, at least in law.


How did the previous judge discount the findings found so relevant,

Jim Eagle

When I first read about Justina here, my heart hurt, especially since a professional medico like anonamom was so concerned. Then the more Jane and the JOM legal team began discussion wtih forms of dissent from others, my head hurt.

Now considering all the various scenarios, parties, legalities, diagnosis and politics - my soul hurts for this child.

Reminds me of Psalm 147.3 "He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their wounds."

Time to turn to prayer, IMO.


we have seen down here, with the Elian case, with Schiavo, how the law seems silent on occasion, you could ask the Fusters about that as well,

I'll huff and I'll puff.

Your well-reasoned comment needed no response, jk; my straw was engaged with DoT's straw.

Caught in 22 by 22.

Possibly, OL, it had to do with interference with placement in Connecticut for Justina, which would not apply with her sister. Just guessin' since I'm not privy to that 'substantiation'.


Something very wrong has happened, the details are not clear, but this is why one does do a lawsuit,

Happy, happy, joy, joy Ignatz

Speculating on anyone's motives or misbehavior seems like a fool's errand considering how little info anyone has.

However seems to me the point at which someone outside the judicial system needs to resolve the public's questions and concerns has long since passed.
If the concern is some disclosure that will implicate the parents, seems to me that concern expired with the father taking his case to the public against a judge's orders. That action would also seem to argue against the parents having something to hide, but who knows?
Nobody, except the parties.


the first step seems to be to get her out of the clutches of Boston Children's, and back to her doctor, then other legal strategies can be pursued,


Jane,Colby's tuition is $44k and the graduates get to listen to Deval. :)

Just a thought...when a Maine child is sent to BCH,it is usually an immediate,life-threatening case.Terrible accident,brain surgery,organ transplant. Emotionally distraught parents have to trust the doctors and other medical professionals. A parent in a Life Flight helicopter or an ambulance screaming down 95 South has one concern: their precious child.



Reading the rest of the Judge's order it appears that CT DCF does not want anything to do with the case, not that I blame them.

The order also tries to blame the family for not transferring the case to CT, because they are fighting to get her home. They are using the families fight to return Justina as justification and evidence of unfitness, ironic.

Either way, from my reading of the order and the circumstances presented by the judge, it seems clear that CT DCF will not get involved and it is leaving the MA DCF and the judge hanging. Their only option is to release Justina to their parents because of this.

One other thing, if CT DCF had "substantiated" child abuse as stated, it is not what the judge is trying to imply since, her sister which is still in the care of her parents and CT DCF has not action against them.

jimmyk on iPhone

"my straw was engaged with DoT's straw."

Fair enough. I didn't read DoT's comment that way (an implied 'always') but I can see how one might. So when you quoted me word for word (out of context) I assumed you were responding to me.


"Time to turn to prayer, IMO."

Not Christian prayer!
Not in the modern USAF!



I love this place!

Happy, happy, joy, joy Ignatz

Comments like this

That is someone with a cold, malignant heart.

or this
Dr. Emengele couldn't have said it better. This is the face of government as caregiver. Aided, of course, by useful idiots.

will generally move a discussion in a less than productive direction, IMO.


I'm with Ignatz on this, imputing any motive on the part of Drs and hospitals and Judges without knowing details is just so wrong. Imputing a 'political' agenda is more wrong still. Something terrible has happened here, and I would speculate someone is trying to cover their tracks; but who? Is it 'abusive or neglectful' parents-- and what defines that when you're talking about a teenage girl? malpractice by Tufts' physician or BCH? incompetence by Ct or Ma. bureaucrats? How does one know that at this point? There is a very sick and possibly dying girl, that's all I can see here, and personally all I care about is that she's helped, whatever that is. This is beyond tragic.


Well given her ever-declining condition, and the refusal to give her medical attention, I think we can agree she is not being helped.


Take her out of Boston Children's, to a neutral party, why are they so insistent in preventing this,


Jane, is Michael Graham still on this case? He wrote a great column last week. Is anyone else in the Boston media speaking up?

Happy, happy, joy, joy Ignatz

A glimmer of hope the anti gluten craze is waning.



"That larger problem includes a man named Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, a virulent anti-Semite whose job includes vetting Muslim chaplains for the U.S. Military"

:"there is plenty of evidence linking Al-Alwani to the Muslim Brotherhood and to his having a role in fostering a jihadist mentality in the U.S. Military, which seems to be all too willing to ignore his influence."

Unbelievable that the Muslim Brotherhood has been allowed to have more influence in the YS military than Christianity.

The comments to this entry are closed.