Advice to parents regarding allegations of SBS, or other abuse:
1 --- It has happened to many parents.
2 --- they are traceable to a vaccine or prescribed drug.
3 --- you should not appear uncertain about how the death occurred. If you have no solid evidence that you caused it, then you must firmly maintain that you did not cause the death. Period. Keep any personal doubts to yourselves, or you may find yourselves being tried for manslaughter and/or lose custody of your other children.
4 --- don't consent to an interview with the hospital, physician, police, cws, or prosecutors without an attorney or a vaccine advocate that knows the pitfalls for unsuspecting parents in these situations.
5 --- you must keep all evidence and be prepared to sue the doctor. Even if you don't sue, you should have an independent (no affiliations with health agency or DA) doctor or medical examiner autopsy your baby. Make the results available to a doctor familiar with drug or vaccine induced injuries.
6 --- there may be a point in these proceedings where you may have to go public with your case. I can't tell you if or when. But your shame (which is unwarranted) and wish to keep this incident private only gives the advantage to the other side. Even if you are found innocent, if you don't go on the offensive and charge that the vaccine was the cause of the death, then you will be under suspicion even more if a similar thing happens to any of your other children in the future. State and local child welfare agencies now have you on their list. Whenever you apply for an adoption, or a job involving children, you will likely be denied it. Also, there is no statute of limitations on homicide. At their discretion, the DA may file charges at any time, whether it is murder second degree, or manslaughter 1 or 2. Whatever they think they could prove.
7 --- do not vaccinate any of your other children. I can advise you how to exempt them for school vaccines.
"protect your rights! Become an advocate and inform others"
If you are accused make sure your child had been tested for the following: Family history of recurrent fractures with minor trauma, dislocations, hernia, early-onset deafness, dentinogenesis imperfecta (discoloured, translucent teeth, cracking or chipping of teeth), late walking in siblings, osteoporosis in older family members (especially when apparent before the age of 50 years), eye disease (retinopathy, early blindness) Pregnancy/delivery/neonatal course: prematurity, gestation, birth weight, necrotising enterocolitis, time to establish full enteral feeds, conjugated hyperbilirubinaemia, use of furosemide, chronic lung disease and metabolic bone disease of prematurity Brachycephaly/plagiocephaly/dolicocephaly Large anterior fontanelle/sutural diastasis without hydrocephalus Craniotabes Blue sclerae: scleral hue variable in infancy but blue sclerae persist in cases of mild osteogenesis imperfecta Harrison’s sulcus Translucent skin Ligamentous laxity: use the Beighton scale for children and adults. In infants, check whether the knees and elbows extend beyond 180° and whether the thumbs can be apposed to the forearm. Hernia(s) Bowing deformity of limbs Easy bruising is reported in some cases of osteogenesis imperfecta, but is not a universal finding Dentinogenesis imperfecta (translucent teeth that chip or crack easily, and may wear excessively, more so in primary dentition) may not be clinically apparent.
THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM
Parents that do not vaccinate their children sometimes have to deal with is the involvement of “children’s protective services” (CPS). That is usually the generic name of the investigative arm of Child Welfare agencies or administration (CWA). The state agency in New York is called, “NYS Office of Children’s and Family Services”. The NYC agency is called, “Administration For Children’s Services (ACS). In this section, I will use the generic term “CPS” when referring to investigative caseworkers, and I’ll use the generic term, “Child Welfare” when referring to the state or city agency.
A baby’s vaccination status might ultimately be discovered sooner or later by a caregiver from a daycare center, clinic, school, babysitting agency, a hospital emergency room, even a neighbor you thought you could trust. Various institutions—schools, clinics, police, etc.—are required by law to report suspected instances of neglect or abuse to CPS. They’re known as “mandatory reporters”. This in turn triggers a legal obligation on the part of CPS to conduct an investigation. Since schools are under increasing pressure—under threat of fines—by the DoH to aggressively enforce the “no shots, no school” policy, school officials will sometimes warn parents that they will be investigated for medical neglect.
The “Risk Assessment Instrument” (a checkoff list) of child welfare agencies includes vaccination status generally. But as a sole finding of alleged neglect, it’s rarely sufficient grounds for a family court judge to issue a petition for neglect/maltreatment. Then how are non-vaccinating parents affected?
From the standpoint of the caseworker, the incentive is always present to find indications of maltreatment/neglect, either for CYA reasons ("cover your ass"), or to maintain an unofficial quota to justify agency budgetary requests and assuring continued employment. So the caseworkers are tasked to find indications, and they inevitably find "additional things" to make a case a judge.
It is these "additional things" that can lead to a “finding", which may lead to the imposition of parenting classes, to the loss of custodialship in the extreme case. The outcome—no matter how minor the indication—places parents on a permanent watch list which is the equivalent of being on parole.
Thus, entaglement with CPS can be costly (forcing you to hire an attorney) and inconvenient at best, or if it progresses to a “1029 hearing”, the likely loss of custody to foster care. Once loss of custody occurs—even on some provisional basis during litigation—then vaccination status DOES become an issue. Because then the judge, or CPS, or the child’s law guardian can use vaccination as leverage by requiring that the child is vaccinated before agreeing to return custody to the parent.
General and Specific Recommendations
Prevention is obviously the best policy. Because parents that are referred to CPS for whatever reasons are placed at a severe disadvantage. They are not allowed the presumption of innocence, and social workers are bestowed with wide discretionary powers, including the right to take a child into protective custody immediately, if, in the social worker’s judgment, there is an emergency.
There are also built-in incentives for CPS to intervene aggressively. For example, social workers are completely open to civil lawsuits (by a guardian ad litem for the child), or even criminal charges, for failing to intervene sufficiently. But there are no sanctions if intervention proved to be unnecessary. Of course, there are the well-known financial incentives of the foster care industry, and how they encourage over-intervention by CPS. There are general and specific recommendations.
First, if someone threatens to report you to CW, inform them of the following law:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.vix.com/men/mitch/nysa/pl24055.html
Penal Law Section 240.55: Falsely reporting an incident in the second degree.
A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he or she:
3. Reports, by word or action, to the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment, as defined in title six of article six of the social services law, an alleged occurrence or condition of child abuse or maltreatment which did not in fact occur or exist.
Falsely reporting an incident in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For parents who do get reported, they should realize that they are in an adversarial position with CPS, and are at a significant disadvantage. The question is, how can they achieve a more equitable bargaining position?
The first recommendation for parents is similar to that which CFIC advises when dealing with the school involving exemptions: Try to shift as much of your transactions with CPS to written correspondence. When you’re the weaker party in a power relationship, this is your best protection.
Social workers, for example, will often interpret a parent’s simple verbal question as a challenge to their authority or judgment. Conversely they certainly wouldn’t acknowledge anything of an exculpatory nature if the parent uttered it in conversation. What is not written, with proof of deliver, cannot be proven to have occurred.
Since all of the parent’s verbal communications are filtered by the social worker before it is recorded in their reports, whatever letters, testimonials, or other documents the parents submit will represent the only written record that will likely reflect favorably upon the parent. Because the slant that comes from the caseworker will likely be unfavorable.
In letters, either to CPS or legislators, the parent can argue that the child is not in imminent danger (see sample letter below). This will support the parent’s contention that a “home visit” to interview the accused parent(s) is unwarranted. Technically, such a visit is a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Parents have the right to avoid self-incrimination, and to force the social worker to obtain a court order for the home visit. But social workers, like police, are not required to inform the accused of their right to refuse consent to a search. And remember, the social worker is not an impartial party. They are looking for any justification to take custody of your child—particularly if they strongly support vaccination.
Given the forces arrayed against parents and intact families, there many things that parents should do to protect themselves. For example, a very common route by which parents are reported to CPS is by doctors and hospitals. Therefore, it’s vital that parents have a regular family physician who respects your caution or rejection of vaccinations and drugs. It would also be good if there’s an element of personal friendship too. If you’re absolutely forced to go to an emergency room of a hospital, try to have your family physician meet you there, so that hospital personnel will not harrass you about your child’s vaccination status or your refusal to allow them to drug your child. If that is not possible, then tell them that your child is fully vaccinated (even if it’s not true) and that the drugs they wish to administer to your child cause allergic reactions, or have otherwise been contraindicated by your family physician. If they offer a prescription, just take it. Do not try to explain your objections to allopathic medicine to them. Do not use words like “holistic”; “natural healing”; “herbal remedies”; etc. etc.
Common sense is often the best guide. For example, if your infant or toddler becomes ill or shows undiagnosed symptoms, make sure your (friendly) family physician is notified about it, and also document it yourself with photos or video. Keep careful records of his medical history and treatments he may have received. This safeguard could mean the difference between being accused of abuse or neglect, and the ability to sue the hospital for malpractice.
My personal recommendation for parents is to refrain from a single doctrinaire dietary theory or medical treatment. Always seek advice or diagnosis from multiple sources and healing philosophies. Obtain a consensus where possible, or else use your most prudent judgment from among the differing medical opinions.
Allopathy’s mechanistic and aggressive approach to healing has yielded some benefits. Physicians are proficient diagnosticians. Some diagnostic tests are efficacious. Scanning technologies being developed are safer than x-rays. There have been unqualified advances in emergency medicine, skin grafting, treatments for burns, microsurgery, reconstructive surgery, and prosthetic devices. In cases of poisoning, various drugs are able to chelate or bind ingested or injected toxins, rendering them inert.
Where allopathic medicine fails miserably is in their understanding and treatments for acute, chronic, and inflammatory (“infectious”) illnesses. No amount of technology can make up for the misunderstanding in viewing the cessation of symptoms as equivalent to the termination of the cause of the illness.
Nevertheless, by adhering to “alternative”, non-mainstream medical treatments, sometimes parents can get their already sick children or babies into deeper trouble. And simply because it isn’t standard medical treatment, the parent will be help responsible for adverse outcomes. So be prepared to medically and scientifically defend your chosen course, or else lose your child.
The importance of having a pediatrician who supports you, and what to do once you find one:
A couple of things may help you, should Child Welfare inquire about your child’s vaccination status:
First, when looking for an pediatrician for your child, avoid any MD who is does not support a parents decision to avoid or delay vaccinations. An antagonistic doctor could be disastrous when you’re seeking testimonial support to rebut allegations of child neglect or maltreatment.
If your child is healthy and thriving in every respect, then ask an prospective MD—under those circumstances—would he be willing to certify in response to official inquiries from child welfare agencies that you the parent is both conscientious and responsible with regards to the health and wellbeing of you child—BECAUSE OF, OR EVEN DESPITE THE FACT THAT VACCINES WERE WITHHELD.
Second, if you find such a doctor, then after several months when he gets to know you better, do the following:
Draft this short note and ask your family doctor if he wouldn’t mind keeping it in his files, and to include it with any forms that Child Welfare asks him to complete about his service to you. Tell him he may alter it, but that it’s important to convey the message that you’re a responsible parent.
Here’s the note for the doctor to keep handy:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note to ACS: Just to add that Ms. Jones conscientiously weighed the risks and benefits of each recommended vaccination, and reviewed with me the potential and real contraindications based on her family’s medical history and predisposition for adverse effects, before deciding not to vaccinate her child at this point in time. She informed me at one point that she also examined a consensus of opinion from various sources in the medical literature. I’m satisfied that Ms. Jones did not take this matter lightly, adhered to mainstream medical opinion, and made her decisions in the best interest of her child.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
During an investigation, Child Welfare will supply a form to the doctor to complete. Often the form will have only a check box: “parent provided consent to vaccinate” or “parent refused consent to vaccinate”. Thus, including the above statement in the record will afford a parent greater protection and credibility.
[Many doctors are concerned not to be tagged an “anti-vaccine” doctor and risk professional sanctions (vaccinating according to the ACIP dose schedule is considered standard medical practice). So if you have a problem, ask CFIC if other parents in your area can refer a doctor to you.]
Protections from Hospitals for Expectant Mothers:
Expectant mothers should also inform the hospital administrator of the hospital where they plan to give birth and make sure that they will not be reported to Child Welfare for choosing not to vaccinate their newborn with the Hepatitis-B vaccine. The aim is to settle any potential problems BEFORE entering the hospital to give birth.
So for expectant mothers, it might be a good idea to find an MD willing to sign the following statement, or something like it, and to send it (via notarized and registered mail) to the hospital administrator (where you plan to give birth).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To Whom It May Concern:
This note is to certify the following:
1. Mr. and Mrs. Smith retained me as their family physician on [date].
2. Their aim was to have ready a clinician in private practice for the baby they’re expecting.
3. The consultations I had with the Smiths focused on proper pre and post-natal nutrition, and standard screenings for neonatal diseases.
4. In the area of medical prophylaxis, I learned that there has been a history of moderate to severe adverse reactions to childhood vaccinations from both sides of the immediate family, and which included Mrs. Smith herself. Based on this familial and parinatal susceptibility to reactions, I feel there exists a higher than normal probability of adverse reactions in the Smith’s newborn, and therefore I advised the Smiths that they may want to consider delaying vaccinations for their baby until his/her immune system is further developed. The Smiths did their own research on the matter and concurred.
5. Our next appointment is scheduled following the birth, upon which we’ll review an alternative schedule of childhood vaccinations that is more appropriate for their infant.
6. In summation, I found Mr. and Mrs. Smith had a genuine and commendable interest in the health and welfare of their expectant baby. Their review of the medical information I supplied, and their decision-making process appeared to me as prudent, conscientious, and above all, very appropriate for their baby.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And you cover letter should read: Dear [Hospital Administrator], Please read the attached letter. If you have no response to it within the next 2 weeks, I will assume you have no objections to our decision not to vaccinate my newborn at this time, and that you have no questions regarding our decision. Sincerely, [Parents]
Advice for Parents Under CPS Investigated:
Another thing you might do is send this short note to the Child Welfare caseworker investigating you:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear ________,
I just want to assure you that our family physician is aware of the vaccination status of our child, and is in accord with our decision not to vaccinate according to the ACIP recommended schedule. Our doctor is aware of our medical concerns, as well as our sincerely held religious opposition to vaccination.
I will also point out that the only mandate for childhood vaccinations in NYS pertains solely to children who attend school (PHL section 2164) for which the legal gatekeeper (regulating agency) is the Department of Education. By contrast, child welfare laws do not mandate specific vaccines or vaccine schedules, and thus family court judges and child protective services operate without a legal medical framework. In other words, just which vaccines would they order a child to receive?
Finally, whereas the fact that legal waivers (medical and religious) exist at all for immunizations (in all states, including NYS), a condition under which children are found to be unvaccinated or under-vaccinated, in and of itself, by self-evident logic, does not meet a threshold of “imminent danger”, as had been suggested by your agency.
Sincerely _________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Who To Contact For Help:
Fortunately, CFIC is associated with the Concerned Citizens For Family Preservation (CCFP)---a organization that intercedes on behalf of parents that decided not to vaccinate, of have chosen other holistic lifestyles and choices. CCFP is a recognized family court advocate in NYS, and also holds workshops for parents to prepare them should they become the subject of an inquiry by Child Welfare. Parents learn how to deal with CW in the proper way; when and how to deny CW agents a home inspection; how to avoid getting entangled with CW in the first place; etc. Thus, all parents are encouraged to contact:
Folasade Campbell, Executive Director
Concerned Citizens For Family Preservation (CCFP)
120 Stuyvesant Place, Suite 425
Staten Island, NY 10301
718-447-6788 phone
folasade6@aol.com
mamafola@yahoo.com
web address: www.ccfamilypreservation.org
If parents in the CFIC coalition do come under Child Welfare investigation, then CFIC and CCFP will come to their aid. CCFP is funded to help parents in NYC, but has helped parents across the state at very low cost---much lower than the price of an attorney. Sometimes we can make available to parents in trouble, other CFIC members with medical or legal backgrounds for pro bono assistance, or seek out other parents living in proximity that might provide local resources and support.
In some instances in which parents lived out of convenient reach of CCFP, some parents in our coalition have been tutored to be family court advocates or to perform home visits on behalf of other parents that haven’t vaccinated their children, and were reported to CPS. You might be asked to perform such a role.
Armed with this support network, parents have the knowledge and confidence to lobby their local legislators to support the exemption bills. They realize that ultimately, enactment of these bills will be the only sure safeguard they can rely upon.
———————————————————————————————————————————--
What to do if the School Rejects Your Exemption Letter and Excludes Your Child From School and informs Child Welfare
———————————————————————————————————————————--
The most common way parents become entangled with Child Welfare is after the school rejects an exemption application, and during the negotiating between school and parent, the schools issues an exclusion letter for the child and reports the consequent (possible) truency condition to Child Welfare.
The following sample letter may help to illustrate how the parents may demonstrate that:
1—they are conscientious and responsible.
2—they are in compliance with the law.
3—the child is not in imminent danger.
4—that the school is acting injudiciously.
5—and that a disposition of “unfounded” should be reached by CPS.
Also, in the following letter, there’s reference to the NYC regulation regarding the reporting of suspected neglect. But people in other school systems in NYS may compare their local regs with the State DoH Codes, Rules, and Regulations, in order to point out any possible inconsistencies and unauthorized reporting.
———————————————————————————--
Sample Letter From Parents To CPS Case Worker
———————————————————————————--
Child Welfare might be alerted that your child is not vaccinated or sufficiently vaccinated, from any number of scenarios irrespective of the school. The following sample letter is addressing a truancy situation. But the parent should be aware of certain arguments to use even if there’s no truancy situation, and Child Welfare is investigating the parent anyway, based on a complaint that didn’t come from the school. To wit:
FACT: There’s NO law that requires a child be vaccinated in NYS, unless that child is in school without an exemption. But it’s not the jurisdiction of Child Welfare to enforce it—it’s the jurisdiction of the school. The only way that child welfare may get involved is when the waiver is denied and your kid is excluded from school—because that gets into truancy.
SINCE child welfare has no jurisdiction on enforcement of the school mandates—which are VERY specific about getting xyz vaccine by age uvw—then they cannot badger you about specific vaccines specified in THAT law (the school vaccination law). Just consider: if your child was homeschooled, you would not be subject to the vaccine mandates any more than you would as a medically or religiously exempt parent.
Child Welfare does have a “risk assessment instrument”—which is their own internally formulated check list of items which may indicate neglect or maltreatment. Vaccination status is on that list. But it is NOT a list of specific vaccines, or any specifically recommended vaccination schedule from ACIP or DoH etc. THEREFORE, they cannot justifiably micro-examine why this or that vaccine was not given to your child.
What they can do is assess GENERALLY whether or not your child is getting the necessary immunization coverage THAT’S in her best interest. That’s where you family pediatrician comes in. He/she may certify that some or all vaccines were delayed or denied as they were contraindicated at that time—IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTEREST. If you cannot get the MD to state that, then YOU can state that YOU determined that, through your own independent research, with consultations with medical experts in the field, AND through discussions with your own child’s doctor (regardless of the doctor’s final opinion in those discussions, it wouldn’t be a lie to state that you HAD discussions with him, and that you arrived at different conclusions).
Child Welfare wants to be satisfied that the parent carefully deliberated over this issue, and consulted medically responsible and mainstream sources before deciding not to vaccinate—since vaccination is their default standard for proper and standard medical care.
Child welfare and family court will not get involved in detailed medical assessments about the efficacy of the schedule of vaccinations (and who’s schedule to use) appropriate for your child. Those are CLINICAL (doctor-patient) assessments. Not judicial assessments. Not assessments that the ACS case worker can or should make. And you can remind them of that should they inquire or investigate you.
Now, the sample letter if truancy is part of the issue:
Dear Ms. Jones,
I am in receipt of your notice to investigate the reasons our child is not attending school. My husband and I fully appreciate the position you’re in to investigate allegations of neglect against us. We hope to persuade you that they’re unfounded.
As the enclosed copies of our correspondence with the school indicates, We informed the school in a timely manner, my intention to claim an exemption legally provided in PHL 2164(9). Note that this statute does not mandate the school to make determinations about the validity of our religious beliefs. On that basis, we complied with the law and the letters should indicate that the school had no grounds to refuse my claim. But rather than allow my child to remain in class on a provisional basis until I could educate the school officials on the facts of this law, school officials had precipitously mailed to me a Notice Of Exclusion, barring my child from school.
As this action was unexpected and unjustified, we have only recently ordered from the DoE, the syllabus that’s required to homeschool a child in NYS. As you can see, our options have been restricted by the school’s immovable stance, and not by anything we had done. If we had our way, our child would still be in school. Therefore, the truancy notice that the school filed with your agency is the result of actions that they have taken; not us.
Furthermore, let us also note that a strict reading of the applicable regulations tells us that the school’s decision to report us to CPS was unwarranted. For example, the largest school system in NYS interprets PHL 2164 in conjunction with state child welfare statutes as follows:
The NYC Board of Education’s “Regulation of the Chancellor, Number A-710”, Section 3.2 NOTICE OF EXCLUSION, states:
“In the event the parent/guardian of the student after receiving a warning letter still does not provide documentation of the needed Immunization, the student must be excluded from school. The students should be marked “Absent Incomplete Immunization”. The Exclusion Letter must be sent to the parent/guardian and a copy should be attached to Form 407 and sent to the school/superintendence attendance teacher/supervisor.”
“The attendance teacher will take appropriate actions including home visits to assist the parent/guardian in obtaining immunization for the student. Every effort should be made on the part of the school to work with the family in procuring Immunization for the student. If all efforts are unsuccessful and the parent/guardian continues to be uncooperative, the attendance teacher will make a report of educational neglect to the Child Welfare Administration.”
Thus, the above two paragraphs clearly pertain to parents who are refusing, or are unable to comply with either Subsection 2 or 3 of PHL 2164. The above advisories are for school officials to attempt those measures that facilitate parental compliance SOLELY with the vaccination requirements. And the only possible interpretation is that it is based upon a willing compliance on the part of the parent. The references to, “assisting the parents to obtain the vaccinations”, obviously cannot apply to parents that provided declarations that vaccinations are inconsistent with their religious beliefs. The reference that expects the parent to “provide documentation of the needed Immunization”, else be excluded from school, also cannot apply to a religious exemption claimant, because “no certificate shall be required” of those parents (see Subsection 9).
Therefore, since the other compliance provision—Subsection 9—cannot pertain to this Regulation from the Chancellor (Section 3.2 NOTICE OF EXCLUSION), then the only reference contained therein that calls for the notification of Children’s Services alleging educational neglect, cannot possibly apply to my spouse and I. Therefore, there was no legal justification for the school to notify your agency to investigate us in the first place.
If you believe that there are grounds for medical neglect (i.e.: not related to truancy), then it follows that there are thousands of parents in NYS who are Christian Scientists who you must deem to be negligent on that same basis (Vaccination is inconsistent with the tenets of Christian Science.) Obviously, that is not the case. Therefore, your continued investigation of us based solely upon vaccination status is selective enforcement, and such enforcement is prohibited by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (the Equal Protections clause), as well as NYS regulations.
Furthermore, the NYS DoE website, Section D reads: “Although referral of families to child protective services (CPS) may sometimes be necessary, this should be used as a last resort and only after all other required and recommended activities have been completed.”
Clearly, the above advisory urges that schools take a somewhat forbearing approach towards parents regarding allegations of neglect. I don’t think anyone can claim that schools take that approach when they ignored letter after letter from us trying to obtain their response—any response—regarding the reason they rejected our exemption letter. Nor do they show forbearance when they comply with the recommendation of the DoH to exclude children from school during the appeals process, which is their intent regarding our child.
Finally, let me remind you that it’s within your authority to refer false neglect charges to the District Attorney, pursuant to NYS Penal Law, section 240.55 (Falsely Reporting An Incident In The Second Degree): “A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the second degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he or she: (3) Reports, by word or action, to the statewide central register of child abuse and maltreatment, as defined in title six of article six of the social services law, an alleged occurrence or condition of child abuse or maltreatment which did not in fact occur or exist. Falsely reporting an incident in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.”
We would like to be appraised of how you plan to proceed with this false allegation.
In summary, it appears self-evident from the facts and from a correct reading of the appropriate statutes and regulations, that my spouse and I are not negligent, and that a finding of “not indicated” may be appropriately entered. Short of any rebuttals in writing to our assessment of this case, we will assume that your agency concludes likewise.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation and understanding on this matter. We are eager to accelerate the communication process with your agency—preferably in writing. Please fax to us any questions or concerns you may have.
Sincerely Yours,
[The Parents]
cc: Assemblyman
State Senator
City Councilman
and also to any local community, organization, or college outreach programs established to assist parents in dealing with the child welfare system.
Protecting Yourself from Shaken Baby Syndrome and other allegations:
There is also a much larger issue that involves the ever increasing economic and career incentives to prosecute parents and take away their children. It involves the child welfare and foster care systems, as well as state and local prosecutors and the medical establishment.
There’s a growing and disturbing trend in the increase in prosecutions of parents and caregivers for Shaken Baby Syndrome. My letter in APPENDIX 18 of the Tactical Guide describes this trend, and the links (see below) provides more information.
Parents may also email CFIC and request our SBS Package, containing more information about how vaccination or other forms of iatrogenesis may sometimes be the cause of the underlying injury, and not SBS. In the meantime, parents should adhere to the following general advice to protect themselves from SBS prosecutions:
Advice To Parents Regarding Allegations Of SBS, Or Other Alleged Abuse:
1—Do not speak with the police or prosecutors without an attorney.
2—Get an attorney ASAP and get the appropriate medical evidence and prevent any of it from being lost or destroyed. There are experienced physicians and attorneys on SBS who can advise.
3—don’t consent to an interview with the hospital, physician, police, Child Welfare, or prosecutors without an attorney or a vaccine advocate that knows the pitfalls for unsuspecting parents in these situations. Also, do not demonstrate what happened with a toy doll they may hand you. Such dolls have loose necks and they videotape what you demonstrate for a jury to view later.
4—If you do say anything to the authorities, you should not appear uncertain about how the injury or death occurred. You should firmly maintain that you did not cause the death. Keep any personal doubts to yourself.
5—One thing you should do that might seem extraordinary now, is to make sure your baby is not registered as an organ donor. When mothers give birth, hospitals solicit them to sign a form that would authorize a hospital to harvest their baby’s organs in case your baby dies (for whatever unforeseen reasons). The hospital plays on feelings of guilt by saying that your baby’s death can save the life of another baby. I won’t get into all the reasons why organ transplantation is a medical sham, and a billion dollar business. Just in the context of SBS, parents should not authorize that the baby may be a donor. The reason is because the drugs that a hospital injects into a brain-dead baby to keep it alive for organ harvesting also destroys important exculpatory biological evidence for a parent accused of SBS. Obviously, a medical examiner you may want to hire for your defense will also not have access to the transplanted organs, to rebut the findings of the prosecutor’s medical examiner. This is partly how Alan Yurko was convicted of SBS and sentenced to a mandatory life sentence. (After serving several years, he won an appeal at tremendous cost to him and his family. He’s a free man as of August 28th, 2004. But you may not be so “lucky”.)
The following section discusses Shaken Baby Syndrome. You can also find many more organizations and websites by perhaps doing a “Google” search for “child welfare reform”.
http://firms.findlaw.com/rfb/
http://helfersociety.org/
http://www.2ndchairservices.com/
http://www.avoiceforchildren.com/
http://www.azquads.com/
http://www.cyberus.ca/~bhyde/nightc.html
http://www.doctorssecondopinion.com/
http://www.freeyurko.bizland.com/
http://www.icmj.org/
http://www.menweb.org/throop/mitch/vocal2.html
http://www.pacificjustice.org/
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/shaken_baby/sept08_Yazbak.html
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/shaken_baby_index.html
http://www.sbsdefense.com/
http://www.scoonjustice.com/index.html
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/v-coulter.htm
http://www.woodmed.com/ShakenBabyAlan.htm
This good advice is from the Home School Legal Defense Association
http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000070.asp
The Social Worker At Your Door: 10 Helpful Hints
By Christopher J. Klicka
Senior Counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association
April 19, 2006
More and more frequently, homeschoolers are turned in on child abuse hotlines to social service agencies. Families who do not like homeschoolers can make an anonymous phone call to the child abuse hotline and fabricate abuse stories about homeschoolers. The social worker then has an obligation to investigate. Each state has a different policy for social workers, but generally they want to come into the family's home and speak with the children separately. To allow either of these to occur involves great risk to the family.
The homeschool parent, however, should be very cautious when an individual identifies himself as a social worker. In fact, there are several tips that a family should follow:
1. Always get the business card of the social worker. This way, when you call the Home School Legal Defense Association, the HSLDA attorney will be able to contact the social worker on your behalf. If the situation is hostile, immediately call HSLDA and hand the phone out the door so an HSLDA lawyer can talk to the social worker. We have a 24 hour emergency number.
2. Find out the allegations. Do not fall for the frequently used tactic of the social worker who would tell the unsuspecting victim that they can only give you the allegations after they have come into your home and spoken to your child separately.
3. You do not have to let the social worker in your house without a warrant or court order, unless there is a true emergency in your home. All the cases that you have heard about where children are snatched from the home usually involve families waiving their Fourth Amendment right to be free from such searches and seizures by agreeing to allow the social worker to come inside the home. A warrant requires a probable cause which does not include an anonymous tip or a mere suspicion. This is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the courts.
4. It is difficult not to let the social worker talk to your children alone without a court order. On nearly every other incident, HSLDA has been able to keep the social worker away from the children. On a few occasions, social workers have been allowed to talk with children, particularly where severe allegations are involved. In these instances, an attorney, chosen by the parent, has been present. At other times, HSLDA had children stand by the door and greet the social worker, but not be subject to any questioning. Nevertheless, federal law requires all social workers to tell you the specific allegations at the "initial time of contact."
5. Tell the official that you will call back after you speak with your attorney. Call your attorney or HSLDA, if you are a member. In nearly 30 percent of the cases, the problem is solved immediately that day by HSLDA lawyers. Approximately 65 percent of the situations are resolved within the next two weeks. Of the remaining 5 percent, 1 percent goes to court and is handled by HSLDA. The 4 percent that cannot be resolved do not involve home schooling and are referred to other attorneys since they are not covered by HSLDA.
6. Ignore intimidations. Normally, social workers are trained to bluff. They will routinely threaten to acquire a court order, knowing full well that there is no evidence on which to secure an order. In 99 percent of the contacts that HSLDA handles, the threats turn out to be bluffs. However, it is always important to secure an attorney or HSLDA in these matters, since there are occasions where social workers are able to obtain a court order with flimsy evidence.
7. Offer to give the officials the following supporting evidence:
a. A statement from your doctor, after he has examined your children, if the allegations involve some type of physical abuse;
b. References from individuals who can vouch for your being good parents;
c. Evidence of the legality of your homeschool program. If your homeschool is an issue, HSLDA attorneys routinely convince social workers of this aspect of an investigation.
8. Bring a tape recorder and/or witnesses to any subsequent meeting. Often times HSLDA will arrange a meeting between the social worker and the parents after preparing the parents on what to discuss and what not to discuss. The discussion at the meeting should be limited to the specific allegations and you should avoid telling them about past events beyond what they know. Usually, anonymous tips are all they have to go on, which is not sufficient to take someone to court. What you give them can and will be used against you.
9. Inform your church, and put the investigation on your prayer chain. Over and over again, HSLDA has seen God deliver homeschoolers from this scary scenario.
10. Avoid potential situations which could lead to a child welfare investigation.
a. Do public relations with your immediate neighbors and acquaintances regarding the legality and success of homeschooling.
b. Do not spank children in public.
c. Do not spank someone else's child unless they are close Christian friends.
d. Avoid leaving young children at home alone, or in an automobile.
In order for a social worker to get a warrant to come and enter a home and interview children separately, he is normally required, by both statute and the U.S. Constitution, to prove that there is some cause. This is a term that is synonymous with the term probable cause. Probable cause or cause shown is reliable evidence which must be corroborated by other evidence if the tip is anonymous. In other words, an anonymous tip alone and mere suspicion is not enough for a social worker to obtain a warrant.
There have been some homeschooled families who have been faced with a warrant even though there was not probable cause. HSLDA has been able to overturn these in court so that the order to enter the home was never carried out. Home School Legal Defense Association is committed to guarantee legal defense for every homeschooler who is being investigated by social workers, provided the allegations involve homeschooling. In instances when the allegations have nothing to do with homeschooling, HSLDA will routinely counsel most families on how to meet with the social worker and will talk to the social worker to try to resolve the situation. If it cannot be resolved, which it normally can be in most instances by HSLDA's involvement, the family is responsible for hiring their own attorney.
HSLDA is beginning to work with states to reform the child welfare laws to guarantee more freedom for parents and better protection for their parental rights. HSLDA will be sending out Alerts to its members in various states where such legislation is drafted and submitted as a bill.
For further information on how to deal with social workers, HSLDA recommends The Right Choice: The Incredible Failure of Public Education and the Rising Hope of Home Schooling, which was written with the intention of informing home-school parents of their rights in order to prevent them from becoming a statistic. Federal statistics have shown that up to 60 percent of children removed from homes, upon later review, should never have been removed. The child welfare system is out of control and we need to be prepared.
Gary Krasner, Director
Coalition For Informed Choice
188-34 87th Drive, suite 4B
Holliswood, NY 11423
718-479-2939
CFIC@nyct.net
www.CFIC.us
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled" …Richard P. Feynman
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7451/1316?q=y
Donna Meada-Barlow makes a great post at the BMJ!
Shaken Baby Syndrome - We NEED a DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOL - WE NEED to get
it RIGHT! 5 August 2004
Donna L Meads-Barlow,
Mother and Company Director
Sydney, NSW 2113
Send response to journal:
Re: Shaken Baby Syndrome - We NEED a DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOL - WE NEED to
get it RIGHT!
As a mother who went through the agony of temporarily loosing
custody of my infant son, and nearly loosing custody of him forever,
because it was wrongly claimed, he had been shaken, I understand how
other similarly charged parents' feel and suffer. I am therefore
morally obliged to do whatever is possible to prevent this happening
to other parents and carers unnecessarily.
In Australia, health workers, and others, are legally compelled to
notify authorities, such as The Department of Youth and Community
Services and the police, when there is evidence or suspicion of
abuse – and this includes what has become known as `shaking'.
Unfortunately, few individuals understand the complexity of the
issues involved. Often, from the beginning, a decision is made that
the `cause' of the problem is `shaking', and there is no need to
proceed through what should be the routine of what is known as
a `differential diagnosis'. This involves a consideration of all
possible causes, the collection of evidence and the performance of an
array of special medical investigations.
Unfortunately this procedure is rarely followed. Worse still, as
recent cases demonstrate, prosecuting witnesses sometimes
deliberately withhold information, invent information, become
extremely careless, break many of the rules relating to the
collection and interpretation of evidence – and escape relatively
unharmed when one compares their fate with the sufferings of those
falsely, or wrongly, accused and charged.
In medical journals throughout the world the vastness of information
that is pertinent to the pathologies found in so-called `shaken
babies' is impressive. This should be collected, carefully
considered, and made `compulsory reading' for all those involved in
the investigation of cases. I have no doubt that, if this is done,
justice will be served, and we will emerge from one of the darkest
pages in the history of medicine into a better understanding of the
nature of infant illnesses.
To begin, I suggest that the following investigations be considered:
Case history - including family history, pregnancy, labour, birth,
and continue to the time of collapse, recovery or death.
The number of medical consultations, including those with nurses and
specialists.
Reasons for these consultations.
Feeding, and gastrointestinal problems, including diarrhea
Antibiotics administered and reasons for why
All medications administered, Reasons why. Were there side effects or
potential side effects? Were parents properly counselled about this?
All medications administered and reasons why. Was counselling about
side effects provided to the parents?
Vaccine history including batch numbers in case some were known to
be `hot' batches. That is known to have produced excessive side
effects.
Eardrums. Inspect on admission, and daily. If an infant dies both
middle ears should be inspected during the autopsy and swabs taken to
enable tests for bacteria and viruses. At the same time, if excessive
fluid is present some should be collected and tested for endotoxin
levels
Perform and record electroencephalogram, electrocardiogram, CT scan,
MRI, brain ultrasound, Ophthalmic investigations, including retina,
Retcam (retinal photographs), head circumference (repeat daily",
pupil size, record and repeat as necessary.
Neurological observations.
Skeletal survey – if possible.
Endotoxin levels in blood, and, if prudent, in the CSF.
Look for 'toxic' strains of gut bacteria. These produce excessive
amounts of endotoxin. If an autopsy is performed light and electron
microscope studied may reveal the presence of toxic strains and the
damage done to the gut.
Look for abnormal gut viruses
Genetic testing of patient, parents, and siblings.
When `fractures' exist, light and electron microscope studies of
bones, including epiphyseal and fracture areas. This is recommended
because, sometimes, fractures can be due to bone disorders related to
the effects of endotoxin and an increased utilization of Vitamin C.
Extensive coagulation/bleeding profiles, including (despite some
difficulties) platelet functions, capillary fragility, and bleeding
time.
Blood levels of Vitamin C and histamine
Von Willebrand factor
Factor x111
Vitamin K levels.
D-dimer levels – to the end-point.
Liver and kidney functions
Bruise should be carefully examined, during life and autopsies –
despite known difficulties. This includes (during autopsies, cutting
into the areas, and light and electron microscope examinations.
Glutaric acid levels.
Some of these tests are expensive and laboratories will need to
establish the necessary facilities. The alternative is to jail some
innocent individuals for long periods and destroy their families.
If the doctors involved in the investigation of cases do not agree to
do these tests, and satisfactory reasons for such actions are not
produced, charges of negligence should be set in motion.
Parents claiming to be innocent should be entitled to know why these
tests are not being done. During the 2001 International Conference on
the Shaken Baby Syndrome, in Sydney, I asked Dr Ryan, who often gave
evidence as an expert for the prosecution, why extensive tests were
not done and he answered, in a packed lecture theatre, `Its too
expensive'. My response was, `Then why are the parents and family not
offered the opportunity to have these tests performed at their own
costs?' There was no answer.
Clearly, if parents and carers are innocent, and doctors and authorities claim that the cause of the pathologies is `shaking', the only option available is to demand that tests be done. Furthermore, if tests are not done quickly, at the time of admission, as time goes by the presence of some causes may be absent or masked.
Despite the fact that retinal haemorrhages alone are not necessarily diagnostic of `shaking', experts have been allowed to offer the opposite opinion without demonstrating that all other possible causes have been eliminated. This is medical and legal lunacy. The claim that certain `types' of retinal haemorrhages are diagnostic is also a falsehood.
A PERSONAL NIGHTMARE
I was 5 months pregnant with my son, Codey, when our daughter developed diabetes.
At the 6 months stage I was found to have borderline gestational diabetes, and iron deficiency.
Codey's birth-date, after an induction, was on February 28, 2000. He was artificially fed, and then quickly developed gut problems. His paediatrician found it necessary to change the formula 3 times in the first 2 months.
Progress was not normal. May 5, 2000, developed cold/flu
May 8, 2000, vaccinations – DPT, Polio, and HIB
Mid May 2000, Nasal congestion, trouble breathing – chest checked.
Early June 2000, Bronchiolitis and productive cough.
Mid June 2000, Bronchiolitis, fever, productive cough.
Antibiotics administered
June 21, 2000, Back to GP, a level of distress, concern about cry – query pneumonia, inflamed eardrums.
June 21, 2000, attends paediatrician. No improvement on antibiotics. Chest X-ray, otitis media. For check with GP in 6 days.
Deteriorates, extremely high temperature, crying, and severe
coughing.
June 26,2000, Grand mal seizure. Admitted to hospital.
1st admission High temperature on arrival of ambulance.
Blood taken for tests on day of admission. These showed a leucocytosis, reactive thrombocytosis, high platelet count, high white cell count, and high glucose level. Intravenous drip. Antibiotics administered intravenously. Panadol and painstop administered frequently, alternatively.
Discharged June 30, 2000 – on augmentum for 8 days. Panadol and painstop continued.
Between June 30 and July 11, continues to have fevers, crying, back arching, little improvement. Antibiotics, panadol and painstop continued.
June 11, 2000, taken to GP. Given the `4 month' DPT/polio and HIB, DPT/polio and HIB boosters
High temperature followed, arched back, crying. Panadol and painstop prescribed by paediatrician.
July 12, second admission. Another seizure. Hospital records show `Post vaccination febrile convulsion'.
Managed with pulmonary resuscitation, and high flow oxygen. Likely cause for seizure was said to be fever - post vaccination.
At this point Codey was not weighed. An overdose of antibiotics was administered intravenously. Next morning the consulting physician stopped this medication.
24 hours after admission Codey was diagnosed as a `shaken baby'. Immediately, all tests were stopped. The authorities were called in, and we began a roller coaster ride that threatened to destroy our family.
Codey was removed to unknown foster care. – A day we will never forget!
August 4, similar presentation to that of July 12. Foster carer could not be located. Codey was hungry, and no formulae was available. Codey had a rash on his back, was unsettled, crying, and had loose, green and offensive stools.. A list of what was not done is as follows:
No blood tests
No liver tests
No ECG
No EEG
No MRI No CT scan
No brain ultrasound
No eye examination
No measurement of head circumference
No neurological monitoring
No pupil scale record
No skeletal survey
No intensive coagulation/bleeding studies.
13 months of court battles followed. Legal fees were $150,000. The
effort involved was huge. It was as if we spent 25 hours a day and 8
days every week researching the literature so that we would at least
understand what was going on in Codey's little body. What we found
was certainly not pretty. It was, in reality, a nightmare of
unbelievable proportions.
The cause of what happpened? It was not something that we had done.
It was not something that that was unknown. It was `the system' that
indoctrinated doctors, and others, in a way that closed all the doors
to understanding and fed poison into the minds of those who were
supposed, because of their special skills and training, to know
better.
We know that Codey was never shaken.
We know that statements like, `Codey was a previously well baby',
were ludicrous to the extreme.
We know that only standard coagulation/bleeding profiles were done at
admission, and never repeated.
We have reasons to believe that medical negligence contributed to the
pathologies.
We know that the diagnosing paediatrician (who provided the evidence
that was relied on for the diagnosis of `shaking') later admitted
that he should have carried out extensive coagulation tests,
inclusive of testing for Factor X111 abnormalities.
The Department of Youth and Community blamed the hospital for errors.
The hospital blamed that department.
Codey is now home and reunited with our family unit. He is safe,
well, and has never been vaccinated again or prescribed antibiotics.
Our family believes in, and praises, the immunization schedule.
However, we also believe that, for some children, immunizations can
cause a number of side effects, (as stated in the TGA records),
specifically when combined with other toxins and illnesses.
We also know that, today, as I write, sadly, there are innocent
Australian families currently caught in the system and while in the
system (ie, the Children's Court) no-one can, and will, assist or
intervene – even though those charged are innocent. The cry of HELP
falls on deaf ears. There is no support, nowhere to turn! Hundreds of
thousands of tax payer's dollars, could be saved if SBS diagnosing
physicians took greater care. I know. I have been there!
A few weeks ago in England, news-papers headlined, `Scotland Yard
changes tact over suspicious baby deaths' (Sandra Laville, Wednesday
July 14, 2004, The Guardian). I was delighted to read this, and learn
that UK authorities are progressing towards the reversal of unlawful
convictions for what was stated to be the ultimate crime – shaking a
baby to death.
Wrongly accused mother's like Angela Canning's, Sally Clark and
Trupti Patel, have, at last, through the efforts of a handful of
dedicated individuals, been freed, physically and mentally, from
terrible accusations.
The English authorities have stated, in response to criticism, that
they now intend to `get it absolutely right, and that these
investigations are something which need expertise and particular
skills'. I quite agree!
I believe that it is possible to shake a baby to death. I also know
that, often, there are causes for the pathologies that have nothing
to do with inflicted trauma.
BOTTOM LINE
We NEED a DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOL - WE NEED to get it RIGHT!
If authorities do not agree with what I have stated, particularly
because there is a huge amount of supporting literature, they could
be, and should be, regarded as being negligent. If they refuse to
perform adequate tests, not pay adequate attention to case histories,
and simply farm out the problem to individuals or organizations that
are not properly qualified to handle the issues, they should be
compelled to provide reasons for such actions – or face legal
actions. They should not be allowed to wash their hands and walk
away.
References:
1. Greenwald MJ, Weiss A, Oesterle CS, Friendly DS Traumatic
retinoschisis in battered babies. Ophthalmology 93(5):618-625, May
1986
2. Vanderlinden RG, Chisholm LD Vitreous hemorrhages and sudden
increased intracranial pressure. J Neurosurg. 1974 Aug;41(2):167-76
3. Tomasi LG, Rosman NP Purtscher retinopathy in the battered child
syndrome Am J Dis Child. 1975 Nov;129(11):1335-7
4. Pollack JS, Tychsen L Prevalence of retinal hemorrhages in infants
after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Am J Ophthalmol. 1996
Mar;121(3):297-303
5. Goetting MG, Sowa B Retinal hemorrhage after cardiopulmonary
resuscitation in children: an etiologic reevaluation. Pediatrics 85
(4):585 -588, April 1990
6. Weedn VW, Mansour AM, Nichols MM Retinal hemorrhage in an infant
after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1990
Mar;11(1):79-82
7. Adetona N, Kramarenko W, McGavin CR. Retinal changes in scurvy.
Eye. 1994;8 ( Pt 6):709-10
8. Bloxham CA, Clough C, Beevers DG. Retinal infarcts and
haemorrhages due to scurvy. Postgrad Med J. 1990 Aug;66(778):687
9. Biousse V, Mendicino ME, Simon DJ, Newman NJ The ophthalmology of
intracranial vascular abnormalities. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Apr;125
(4):527- 44.
10. Biousse V, Newman NJ. Intracranial vascular abnormalities.
Ophthalmol Clin North Am. 2001 Mar;14(1):243-64
11. Beratis NG, Varvarigou A, Katsibris J, Gartaganis SP Vascular
retinal abnormalities in neonates of mothers who smoked during
pregnancy. J Pediatr. 2000 Jun;136(6):760-6
12. Budenz DL, Farber MG, Mirchandani HG, Park H, Rorke LB Ocular and
optic nerve hemorrhages in abused infants with intracranial injuries.
Ophthalmology. 1994 Mar;101(3):559-65
13. Weissgold DJ, Budenz DL, Hood I, Rorke LB Ruptured vascular
malformation masquerading as battered/shaken baby syndrome: a nearly
tragic mistake. Survey of Ophthalmology 39(6):509-512, May-June 1995
14. Gutman FA Evaluation of a patient with central retinal vein
occlusion Ophthalmology. 1983 May;90(5):481-3
15. Iijima H Gohdo T Imai M Tsukahara S. Thrombin-antithrombin III
complex in acute retinal vein occlusion. Am J Ophthalmol. 1998 Nov;126
(5):677-82
16. Granel B Disdier P Devin F Swiader L Riss JM Coupier L Harle JR
Jouglard J Weiller PJ. Occlusion of the central retinal vein after
vaccination against viral hepatitis B with recombinant vaccines. 4
cases Presse Med. 1997 Feb 1;26(2):62-5
17. Fledelius HC. Unilateral papilloedema after hepatitis B
vaccination in a migraine patient. A case report including forensic
aspects. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999 Dec;77(6):722-4
18. Miller E Waight P Farrington CP Andrews N Stowe J Taylor B.
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine. Arch Dis Child.
2001 Mar;84(3):227-9
19. Kumagai K Nishiwaki K Sato K Kitamura H Yano K Komatsu T Shimada
Y. Perioperative management of a patient with purpura fulminans
syndrome due to protein C deficiency. Can J Anaesth. 2001 Dec;48
(11):1070-4
20. Russell-Eggitt IM Thompson DA Khair K Liesner R Hann IM
Hermansky -Pudlak syndrome presenting with subdural haematoma and
retinal haemorrhages in infancy. J R Soc Med. 2000 Nov;93(11):591-2
21. Marshman WE Adams GG Ohri R. Bilateral vitreous hemorrhages in an
infant with low fibrinogen levels. J AAPOS. 1999 Aug;3(4):255-6
22. Hattenbach LO Beeg T Kreuz W Zubcov A Ophthalmic manifestation of
congenital protein C deficiency. J AAPOS. 1999 Jun;3(3):188-90
23. Kaur B, Taylor D Fundus hemorrhages in infancy. Survey of
Ophthalmology 37(1):1-17, July-August 1992
24. Mei-Zahav M, Uziel Y, Raz J, Ginot N, Wolach B, Fainmesser P
Convulsions and retinal haemorrhage: should we look further? Arch Dis
Child. 2002 May;86(5):334-5
25. J. F. Geddes, R. C. Tasker, A. K. Hackshaw, C. D. Nickols, G. G.
W. Adams, H. L. Whitwell and I. Scheimberg (2003) Neuropathology and
Applied Neurobiology 29, 14-22 Dural haemorrhage in non-traumatic
infant deaths: does it explain the bleeding in 'shaken baby
syndrome'?
26. J. F. Geddes, J Plunkett. The evidence base for shaken baby
syndrome. We need to question the diagnostic criteria BMJ
2004;328:719- 720 (27 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7442.719
27. NH Thomas, JE Collins, SA Robb and RO Robinson Mycoplasma
pneumoniae infection and neurological disease Archives of Disease in
Childhood, Vol 69, 573-576
28. Caffey J. On The Theory and Practice of Shaking Infants. Its
Potential Residual Effects of Permanent Brain Damage and Mental
Retardation. Am J Dis Child 1972; 124:161-69.
29. Ganesh A, Jenny C, Geyer J, Shouldice M, Levin AV. Retinal
hemorrhages in type I osteogenesis imperfecta after minor trauma.
Ophthalmology. 2004 Jul;111(7):1428-31.
30. Berrocal AM Scott IU Flynn HW Jr Walker-Warburg syndrome:
congenital neurodysplasia and bilateral retinal folds. Ophthalmic
Surg Lasers Imaging. 2004 May-Jun;35(3):256-8.
31. Divizia MT, Priolo M, Priolo E, Ottonello G, Baban A, Rossi A, Silengo MC, Lerone M. How wide is the ocular spectrum of Delleman syndrome? Clin Dysmorphol. 2004 Jan;13(1):33-4.
32. Mosin IM Vasil'eva OIu Skripets PP Iaroslavtseva EV Avuchenkova TN Iziumova EB, Shakarova EA Shuleshko OV Neuro-ophthalmological and radiological signs of Aicardi syndrome Vestn Oftalmol. 2004 Mar- Apr;120(2):15-20.
33. Lee WB O'Halloran HS Grossfeld PD Scher C, Jockin YM Jones C. Ocular findings in Jacobsen syndrome. J AAPOS. 2004 Apr;8(2):141-5
34. Gardner HB. Hypoxia leading to intracranial problems may be a retinal haemorrhage. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;30(2):192
35. Ahmad OF Hirose T. Severe retinopathy in a child with hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Am J Ophthalmol. 2004 Mar;137(3):566-7
36. Pierre-Kahn V Roche O Dureau P Uteza Y Renier D Pierre-Kahn A Dufier JL. Ophthalmologic findings in suspected child abuse victims with subdural hematomas. Ophthalmology. 2003 Sep;110(9):1718-23
37. Gable EM Brandonisio TM Ocular manifestations of Donohue's syndrome. Optom Vis Sci. 2003 May;80(5):339-43 38. Donohoe M Evidence-based medicine and shaken baby syndrome: part I: literature review, 1966-1998 - Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003 Sep;24(3):239-42
39. Clemetson CA. Child abuse or Barlow's disease? Pediatr Int. 2003 Dec;45(6):758
40. Geier MR, Geier DA Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal- containing vaccines: a brief communication. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2003 Jun;228(6):660-4
41. Vahedi K, Massin P, Guichard JP, Miocque S, Polivka M, Goutieres F, Dress D, Chapon F, Ruchoux MM, Riant F, Joutel A, Gaudric A, Bousser MG, Tournier-Lasserve E Hereditary infantile hemiparesis retinal arteriolar tortuosity, and leukoencephalopathy Neurology. 2003 Jan 14;60(1):57-63
42. Gaetz M. The neurophysiology of brain injury Clinical Neurophysiology, January 2004, vol. 115, iss. 1, pp. 4-18(15)
Competing interests: None declared
Back to page
