Comments on: Schools and childhood roundup

By: robert

robert — Sun, 07 Apr 2019 20:24:53 +0000

In reply to SPO. I wonder if the Doctor / hospital felt constrained by vague laws requiring them to report "suspected child abuse" without much room for discretion or judgement. This could be a case of "sued if I do / sued if I don't"

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 07 Apr 2019 19:37:13 +0000

From the underlying story, it doesn’t appear that the investigation affected her legal custody and control of the child, so I’m not sure how far that would go. The concept that public entities have to either identify specific evidence or announce an end to a particular investigation within a certain period seems to have become popular but is not the law anywhere as far as I am aware. As to libel or slander, if they reported accurate information (like providing a copy of the test) that wouldn’t fly. Generally the report is immunized if there is even minimal evidence supporting the suspicion, as the general concept is that that the agency charged with investigating then determines whether there is sufficient information to justify further action. It just doesn’t seem likely that there is a cause of action here that would survive, unless the state has case law or specific statutes/regulations creating one.

By: SPO

SPO — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 12:23:12 +0000

In reply to jimc5499.

I doubt the doc and the hospital are off the hook. First off, I wonder if, in NYS, drug use while pregnant constitutes child abuse.

Second, and more importantly, doctors have to know about test thresholds for opiates. So it wouldn’t reasonable/good faith.

I hope she sues all involved into bankruptcy.

The other thing I’d love to know—when, exactly, did CPS know or have reason to know that its intervention was unfounded? If they kept her under a cloud for more than an hour, they should be criminally liable. In the Pennsylvania case, the woman was kept from her child because CPS waited for a court order. That was actionable, and it should have resulted in criminal interference with custody (or even criminal confinement) charges.

If these agencies are going to yank kids over these test results, they should be held to high standards already existing. If the agency knows there’s no cause, upon that knowledge, it has to act immediately (like within the hour). Bureaucratic process should not be the parent’s problem.

By: SPO

SPO — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 12:15:14 +0000

In reply to Richard.

I’d probably just get the complaint from Pennsylvania a few years back. The hospital patd up.

But to answer your question–I’d cite confidentiality laws–obviously, a positive test would be an exception to those laws–but here the test wasn’t positive, it was negative. (Or almost certainly so, as those tests all have thresholds specifically to deal with these sorts of issues.) Thus, by disclosing the results (even falsely), the hospital violated those laws.

Libel/Slander may also be a possibility.

I’d also consider suspending the doctor’s license.

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Sat, 06 Apr 2019 03:48:52 +0000

In reply to jimc5499.

Jim,

https://ocfs.ny.gov/main/publications/Pub1159.pdf

The State, in its public proclamations, seems to take a “broad view”.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 17:55:04 +0000

In reply to SPO. I'm curious as to what the causes of action would be in the lawsuit you envision?

By: jimc5499

jimc5499 — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 17:50:21 +0000

I couldn’t agree more SPO. What I want to know was there a “mandatory reporting” law in place that required the hospital to notify the authorities, a hospital rule or somebody acting on their own? Apparently it said on the test result form that the test result was for “treatment use only”. If it was mandatory reporting, this would let the hospital off the hook.

Children’s Service Departments have been given too much authority with little or no oversight. That’s something that needs to be resolved.

By: SPO

SPO — Fri, 05 Apr 2019 11:14:35 +0000

Re: poppy seeds. The article linked has a surreal feel to it. And I think that stems from a creeping acceptance of low-level tyranny in this country. The bottom line is that we have rights in this country, and there’s no “for the children” override. They went “easy” on this woman because she, understandably, knuckled under to these government thugs. Had she “resisted” (i.e., contested this nonsense) they would have ratcheted up the pressure and could possibly have yanked the kids away just to make a point. (No matter, of course, that the kids would have been permanently harmed.) And even if she had fought, there’s no guarantee that she wouldn’t have been in front of some statist judge whose reaction would have been either to let it all play out or to have some negative reaction to a woman fighting bureaucrats who are “just doing their job.”

The hospital’s statement is infuriating. And it should provoke a lawsuit that bankrupts it.