Another CPS Kidnapping (For Seeking a Second Opinion)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

www.dailypaul.com/283643/cps-takes-baby-after-parents-seek-second-medical-opinion

CPS Takes Baby After Parents Seek Second Medical Opinion
Submitted by Sethster82 on Sat, 04/27/2013 - 11:46
in
Current Events
Quicklink
A Sacramento couple is without their 5 month old baby after Child Protective Services sent in the police to forcibly remove the child from their care.

A hearing is scheduled for Monday, April 29, 2013 on the incident which was triggered when Anna Nikolayev and her husband Alex took baby Sammy out of Sutter Memorial Hospital and sought a second opinion at Kaiser Permanente, a rival hospital, for Sammy’s flu-like symptoms.

Anna and Alex were concerned about the quality of care baby Sammy was receiving at Sutter where he was admitted nearly two weeks ago. At one point, Anna questioned the antibiotics Sammy was being given and was alarmed that the nurse administering the treatment didn’t know why the child was receiving them. Anna claims that a doctor later said that Sammy should not have been receiving the medication.

When doctors began discussing the possibility of heart surgery, the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge in order to have the child examined elsewhere.

Continued: www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/cps-takes-baby-after-...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I'm going to grab your baby, don't fight me, don't resist:

Shocking video of the state kidnapping...

[billisonboard]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 1, 2013 9:58:37 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The police investigated the initial claim, interviewing the doctors at the hospital where the second opinion was sought.  The medical doctors assured authorities at that time that everything was fine, there was no neglect or abuse- just a request for a second medical opinion.  At this point it's over.  Except it wasn't.  It wasn't good enough for the first hospital.  They escalated the issue calling state authorities.  A judge had to sort it out while a seriously ill child was in state custody.  This isn't just wildly irresponsible, this is dangerous.

[mmhmm]

Apparently, the baby is now at Stanford Medical Center:

Lansing State Journal Article

[billisonboard]

May 1, 2013 10:02:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... a seriously ill child was in state custody.  This isn't just wildly irresponsible, this is dangerous.

So "the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge" with "a seriously ill child" and CPS got involved? Good. It is comforting to know that the parents will not be able to again decide to take the child away from medical care at their whim.

[thyme4change]

Sounds like Kaiser gave some poor medical advice.  Not the first time I've heard that about Kaiser.

[Deleted]

weird story.  I hope everything works out in the end.

[thyme4change]

It seems like something else was going on.  They took the child home, but the courts ordered them to take the kid to yet a third hospital, and they ordered them to follow all medical advice.  So, it isn't as cut and dry as the parents were 100% right and the hospital was 100% wrong.  After only hearing one side of the story, I still don't know who to believe.

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2013 11:19:47 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Sounds like Kaiser gave some poor medical advice.  Not the first time I've heard that about Kaiser.

I wish we had access to a more complete explanation of the medical situation, thyme.  I feel as you do, based on what little information is given.  Sending the baby home doesn't sound like a good idea to me, either.  It sounds as though the parents took the child without signing an AMA (Against Medical Advice) document, and probably transported him in their own vehicle.  If the baby is actually suffering from a cardiac problem, that wasn't a good decision, at all.

At least, the child is now at Stanford Medical Center, an outstanding place for him to be.  We'll have to wait to see what their take is on this, and what's to be done about the little fellow.  I sure hope he's okay!

[thyme4change]

I'm not sure we will ever know the details of his medical situation, and therefore can't really be the judge and jury on this one.  I agree that it is good that he is getting good care now.  

The thing that terrifies me most from stories like this (and the one posted a few months ago about the parents taking the girl from Phoenix Children's and going to Mexico) is that I am so uneducated about medical procedures, I am at the mercy of my caregivers.  If something is very wrong, I have no idea if they are doing something right or wrong.  I can see how hospitals would use that power to bully patients or guardians, and I would forever doubt myself for any decision if the outcome was poor.  I'm a pretty smart cookie, but I can't learn about the complexities of heart murmurs fast enough to make a good decision about a child in this scenario. 

[EVT1]

As usual the story implies things that did not happen- CPS did 'kidnap' because they sought a second opinion- the acted in response to how the parents decided to seek that opinion- by grabbing the kid and leaving and obviously it concerned the doctors enough to make a call.  Would rather have them err on the side of caution if that turns out to be the case. 

Also- the OP said 'another CPS kidnapping'- so what are the other cases?

[mmhmm]

May 1, 2013 12:04:05 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I'm not sure we will ever know the details of his medical situation, and therefore can't really be the judge and jury on this one.  I agree that it is good that he is getting good care now.  

The thing that terrifies me most from stories like this (and the one posted a few months ago about the parents taking the girl from Phoenix Children's and going to Mexico) is that I am so uneducated about medical procedures, I am at the mercy of my caregivers.  If something is very wrong, I have no idea if they are doing something right or wrong.  I can see how hospitals would use that power to bully patients or guardians, and I would forever doubt myself for any decision if the outcome was poor.  I'm a pretty smart cookie, but I can't learn about the complexities of heart murmurs fast enough to make a good decision about a child in this scenario. 

The only way we'll know anything is if the parents decide to share it in the media.  The hospitals are hog-tied.  They can't talk about it (in their own defense, or otherwise).

Most folks don't know enough to make these decisions themselves.  That's why it wasn't a good decision for the parents to take that child out of the hospital and transport him to another hospital without making proper arrangements for safe transport.  They had every right to demand transfer, but that would require a hospital willing to take the child (Kaiser) and the parents' signatures on a transfer document that spelled out why the transfer was being made.  Had the parents acted with more constraint and thought for the true safety of the child, the child would have been transferred by ambulance complete with a crew trained in pediatric resuscitation, should that become necessary.  As it was, I imagine the parents just panicked, which is understandable, if not particularly smart.

I've got a feeling we're not hearing everything involved in this mess.  The hospitals can't talk about it, so all we're getting is the parents' word, and that's probably not the most reliable information due to the circumstances.  It's not easy to hear your child may require heart surgery, and people usually aren't thinking clearly when the do hear such a thing.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 1, 2013 11:10:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 1, 2013 10:02:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... a seriously ill child was in state custody.  This isn't just wildly irresponsible, this is dangerous.

So "the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge" with "a seriously ill child" and CPS got involved? Good. It is comforting to know that the parents will not be able to again decide to take the child away from medical care at their whim.

The child was being held for "observation".  There was actually zero risk in moving the child since "observation" isn't critical care.  They took their child- operative word THEIR- directly to another facility.  It wasn't until days later the second call was made by Sutter staff and the issue escalated after the fact.  I've already pointed out- they got the call, they investigated, medical doctors explained the child was not at risk.  And CPS still kidnapped their child.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 1, 2013 11:56:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

It seems like something else was going on.  They took the child home, but the courts ordered them to take the kid to yet a third hospital, and they ordered them to follow all medical advice.  So, it isn't as cut and dry as the parents were 100% right and the hospital was 100% wrong.  After only hearing one side of the story, I still don't know who to believe.

Enter the police state.  Child taken by authorities against the will of the parents: kidnapping.  "Ordered"?  The state has no legitimate authority to dictate medical care.  The police investigated this prior to the snatch and grab from the child's home and the matter was cleared up by doctors.

[Tennesseer]

May 1, 2013 15:37:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 1, 2013 11:10:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So "the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge" with "a seriously ill child" and CPS got involved? Good. It is comforting to know that the parents will not be able to again decide to take the child away from medical care at their whim.

The child was being held for "observation".  There was actually zero risk in moving the child since "observation" isn't critical care.  They took their child- operative word THEIR- directly to another facility.  It wasn't until days later the second call was made by Sutter staff and the issue escalated after the fact.  I've already pointed out- they got the call, they investigated, medical doctors explained the child was not at risk.  And CPS still kidnapped their child.

If the child was being held only for observation, why did you post a link which said:

Anna and Alex were concerned about the quality of care baby Sammy was receiving at Sutter where he was admitted nearly two weeks ago. At one point, Anna questioned the antibiotics Sammy was being given and was alarmed that the nurse administering the treatment didn’t know why the child was receiving them. Anna claims that a doctor later said that Sammy should not have been receiving the medication.

Some "observation".

[billisonboard]

May 1, 2013 15:37:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 1, 2013 11:10:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So "the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge" with "a seriously ill child" and CPS got involved? Good. It is comforting to know that the parents will not be able to again decide to take the child away from medical care at their whim.

The child was being held for "observation".  There was actually zero risk in moving the child since "observation" isn't critical care.  They took their child- operative word THEIR- directly to another facility.  It wasn't until days later the second call was made by Sutter staff and the issue escalated after the fact.  I've already pointed out- they got the call, they investigated, medical doctors explained the child was not at risk.  And CPS still kidnapped their child.

But the child is "seriously ill" according to you. What was to prevent the parents from walking out of another facility with that "seriously ill" child?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 1, 2013 11:20:54 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I was going to post this, Paul, as I've been watching it and it has me really upset.
CPS will leave children living in horrid conditions and then turn around and do something stupid like this.

I usually leave things like this to the conspiracy theorists, but it increasingly seems to me that the average family needs to be prepared to secure their property and belongings and repel invasion by the state.  

My initial concern about this kind of thing was ignited by the startling statistic that judges approve, and paramilitary police units execute over 100 no-knock raids a day.  

I've actually been working with some people in another state to get legislative action limiting police raids, and clarifying via statute the right of citizens to exercise their rights, up to and including resisting unlawful entry and false arrest.  The problem we're seeing is that the police do whatever they feel like doing, the prosecutors do whatever they feel like doing, the judges do whatever they feel like doing, and the citizens are left to defend themselves and clean up the mess.  Ideally, we'd like to see fewer raids more carefully executed; erroneous or unlawful raids carry with them penalties up to and including criminal repercussions for the responsible officers; and we would like to see citizens fully informed of their rights when officers stop them, or come to their door.  Take Boston for example- few people there understand that the shelter in place was not an order, but a request.  It's actually quite frightening- at least as frightening as the possibility of a similar bombing- that the police can lock down hundreds of thousands of people and hold a whole city hostage in order to conduct an investigation and manhunt.  So, we're working on what we hope will cascade once enacted where we have the best shot at getting it passed-- a clear and unambiguous requirement for police to obey citizen's assertion of their rights in those instances where there is no warrant, and they are not under arrest.  We want to drastically reduce what constitutes "probable" cause for searches, seizures, and arrests.  And as a last resort, we want to assert the citizen's right to defend themselves against violations of their rights- not just including by those with a badge, but especially those with a badge.

We are using as a model the Indiana law that provides residents the right to legally shoot the police: 
www.examiner.com/article/new-indiana-gun-law-allows-residents-to-shoot-police

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 1, 2013 15:42:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

May 1, 2013 15:37:56 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The child was being held for "observation".  There was actually zero risk in moving the child since "observation" isn't critical care.  They took their child- operative word THEIR- directly to another facility.  It wasn't until days later the second call was made by Sutter staff and the issue escalated after the fact.  I've already pointed out- they got the call, they investigated, medical doctors explained the child was not at risk.  And CPS still kidnapped their child.

If the child was being held only for observation, why did you post a link which said:

Anna and Alex were concerned about the quality of care baby Sammy was receiving at Sutter where he was admitted nearly two weeks ago. At one point, Anna questioned the antibiotics Sammy was being given and was alarmed that the nurse administering the treatment didn’t know why the child was receiving them. Anna claims that a doctor later said that Sammy should not have been receiving the medication.

Some "observation".

The child remained in the hospital AFTER the treatment for observation. It's in the article.  Read it.

[Tennesseer]

"The child remained in the hospital AFTER the treatment for observation. It's in the article. Read it."


I did.  The article states:

"hearing is scheduled for Monday, April 29, 2013 on the incident which was triggered when Anna Nikolayev and her husband Alex took baby Sammy out of Sutter Memorial Hospital and sought a second opinion at Kaiser Permanente, a rival hospital, for Sammy’s flu-like symptoms.


Anna and Alex were concerned about the quality of care baby Sammy was receiving at Sutter where he was admitted nearly two weeks ago. At one point, Anna questioned the antibiotics Sammy was being given and was alarmed that the nurse administering the treatment didn’t know why the child was receiving them. Anna claims that a doctor later said that Sammy should not have been receiving the medication.

When doctors began discussing the possibility of heart surgery, the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge in order to have the child examined elsewhere."

Clearly Sutter Hospital didn't think the child was in the hospital for "observation" as you state.  In fact I scanned your link and found no mention of the word "observation" within the article.

 

[Robert not Bobby]

Always get a second and possibly third, medical opinion.

But what is the point you are trying to make...the BIG, BIG BAD STATE?

So let the kids of Jehovah Witnesses who are adverse to blood transfusions die of a minor ailment?

The truth is always complicated.

I am always on the side of life...whatever shape or form that may take. We only do this merry go round once; everyone should have a fair shot (perhaps a bad word) at it, and to live it fully.

[Deleted]

www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-01/guest-post-what-it-means-be-free-america


This is what it means to be in the Land of the Free... where collecting rainwater, consuming raw milk, or seeking a second opinion on your child’s medical care is now criminalized.

When you don’t even have the basic right to make decisions about your own child... and when your own child can be forced from you at gunpoint in your own home that was entered illegally... you know that freedom has officially hit the waste bin of history.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that the parents are originally from Russia... but they had to come to the United States to find the Soviet Union.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2013 16:48:19 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

The truth is always complicated.

I am always on the side of life...whatever shape or form that may take. We only do this merry go round once; everyone should have a fair shot (perhaps a bad word) at it, and to live it fully.

[frankq]

May 1, 2013 11:10:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 1, 2013 10:02:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... a seriously ill child was in state custody.  This isn't just wildly irresponsible, this is dangerous.

So "the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge" with "a seriously ill child" and CPS got involved? Good. It is comforting to know that the parents will not be able to again decide to take the child away from medical care at their whim.

Did you actually read the op.....

[frankq]

It seems like something else was going on. They took the child home, but the courts ordered them to take the kid to yet a third hospital, and they ordered them to follow all medical advice. So, it isn't as cut and dry as the parents were 100% right and the hospital was 100% wrong. After only hearing one side of the story, I still don't know who to believe.

Funny thing is, if the parents were to say that the treatment was against their religious beliefs, no court would have ordered that kid anywhere.....

[Deleted]

May 2, 2013 6:10:42 GMT -5 frankq said:

May 1, 2013 11:10:04 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

So "the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge" with "a seriously ill child" and CPS got involved? Good. It is comforting to know that the parents will not be able to again decide to take the child away from medical care at their whim.

Did you actually read the op.....

Great question.

[billisonboard]

May 2, 2013 6:18:02 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 2, 2013 6:10:42 GMT -5 frankq said:

Did you actually read the op.....

Great question.

As a matter of fact, I did read it and Goggled a couple more versions of the story. I also have read the entire thread as it has unfolded. The posting that is quoted includes a quote from the OP as well as a quote from a subsequent reply from the individual who started the thread. In part I was poking a little at him for indicated that the child was "seriously ill" while "in state custody" but that there was no problem with the parents walking out of the hospital with it.

I will not accept a newspaper story such as the one in the OP to be "truth". As I indicated in reply #2, the CPS is damned when they do take a child away from parents and damned when they don't. It is a nearly impossible job made more difficult by the fact that they aren't able to release their side of the story while the other side is able to release their version of events. The press is more than willing to use such situations to increase their audience.

I am comfortable that this case has worked out well in the end:

A judge ordered the return of the couple’s infant on Monday on the condition that CPS be allowed to follow up with the family and check on Sammy’s well being. The judge is also requiring the Nikolayev’s to promise not to remove Sammy from medical treatment against future doctor’s recommendations.

Sammy is currently scheduled to undergo heart surgery in Stanford, within the next 48 hours. www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2013/05/01/calif-judge-overrules-cps-custody-of-baby-gives-baby-back-to-parents/

I am glad it isn't a baby died when CPS failed to follow through story.

[Deleted]

 Good day,billis.

[Tennesseer]

May 2, 2013 5:28:06 GMT -5 @snowbird said:

May 1, 2013 16:48:19 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

The truth is always complicated.

I am always on the side of life...whatever shape or form that may take. We only do this merry go round once; everyone should have a fair shot (perhaps a bad word) at it, and to live it fully.

Snowbird-do you believe the government should be involved in any way, shape or form in this latest incident with this couple:

Second child dies after parents use prayer, not medicine

PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

Prosecutors said Tuesday that a decision on charges will be made after they get the results of an autopsy.

Catherine Schaible's attorney, Mythri Jayaraman, cautioned against a rush to judgment, and said the couple are good parents deeply distraught over the loss of another child.

"There are way more questions than answers at this point. We haven't seen the autopsy report. We don't know the cause of death of this child," Jayaraman told The Associated Press. "What we do know is Mr. and Mrs. Schaible are distraught, they are grieving, they are tremendously sad about the loss of their most recent baby."

A man who answered the phone at a listing for Herbert Schaible declined to comment and hung up.

A jury convicted the Schaibles of involuntary manslaughter in the January 2009 death of their 2-year-old son, Kent. The boy's symptoms had included coughing, congestion, crankiness and a loss of appetite. His parents said he was eating and drinking until the last day, and they had thought he was getting better.

The Schaibles were sentenced to 10 years' probation.

At a hearing Monday, a judge told the couple they had violated the terms of their probation, noting the Schaibles had told investigators that they prayed to God to make Brandon well instead of seeking medical attention.

"You did that once, and the consequences were tragic," Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner said, according to the Philadelphia Daily News.

Prosecutors on Monday sought to have the couple jailed, but Lerner permitted them to remain free because their seven other children had been placed in foster care.

"He feels they are a danger to their children – not to the community, but to their own children," Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, who prosecuted the couple in 2010, said Tuesday.

Herbert Schaible, 44, and his 43-year-old wife grew up in the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia and have served as teachers there. The church's website has a sermon titled "Healing – From God or Medicine?" that quotes Bible verses purportedly forbidding Christians from visiting doctors or taking medicine.

"It is a definite sin to trust in medical help and pills; and it is real faith to trust on the Name of Jesus for healing," says the message, from last May.

A phone message left with the church on Tuesday was not immediately returned.

The church's pastor said in 2010 that the couple had never received medical care themselves beyond the help of a lay midwife who attends home births.

The Schaibles did take their children for medical checkups as required by their probation, according to Jayaraman, the defense attorney. Jayaraman said that Brandon was checked by a doctor when he was 10 days old, but she did not know whether the child had seen a doctor since.

"Nobody argues that these aren't very loving, nurturing parents," she said Tuesday. "Whether their religion had anything to do with the death of their baby, we don't know."

[billisonboard]

May 2, 2013 8:52:06 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I think that what bothers me the most about this whole thing, ... How do we protect our kids without infringing upon a parent's rights?

When doctors began discussing the possibility of heart surgery, the parents decided to leave without a proper discharge ... (from the OP)

Step one, get a proper discharge order before walking out of a hospital with your kid who has a heart condition.