County seizes son for medical care

N

nobody_special

New member
I cleared this with Antipitas... he suggested I open a new thread.

http://www.postindependent.com/article/20080108/VALLEYNEWS/248366321

NEW CASTLE - The Garfield County All Hazards Response Team broke down Tom Shiflett's door Friday night and, following a court order, took his son for medical treatment.

The doctor's recommendation: Take Tylenol and apply ice to the bruises. The boy was back home a few hours later.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer that the discussion avoid the religious aspects that surfaced in the previous thread... religion really isn't relevant. Let's ignore that, and just consider that the man is a former medic and did not believe his son's injury warranted a visit to the ER.

I'm interested in discussion of the following points:

1. At what point does the state have the right to intervene when it comes to medical decisions for a child? Note in this particular case, there appears to be no allegation of systematic abuse, only "mistreatment" for failure "to provide him proper medical care for a head injury." Was this a civil rights violation? Why / why not?

2. I'll offer the opinion that the use of a SWAT team was unwarranted and excessive force. However, the article indicates that the father was uncooperative when he was notified of the court order. What would have been the proper response or course of action from the authorities?
 
This is a tough one to balance rights on.

The authorities not in the know i.e. the Sheriff's department, were presented with a situation: Court order says child is to be examined. Father is not interested in what the authorities have to say. He knows better and, as it turns out, he is right.

Sheriff's office were wrong, but they did not create the wrongness, if you know what I mean.

One would imagine that the path of least resistance would be to have a doctor call to his home under the auspices of child welfare and if necessary have the child monitored for a couple of hours.

While this might stray dangerously close to the concept of free health care seemingly so despised by you Americans at least it would have been cheaper than calls by social services, paramedics and a full SWAT team. Not to mention the attendant danger of somebody getting killed in an adrenalin filled situation. Thirdly avoiding the situation where a home full of innocent people had guns shoved in their faces and a generation of children who, no doubt, despise the police as paramilitary fascists.

Mountain out of a molehill springs to mind.

There's a thought lingering at the back of my mind that macho paramilitary police types would prefer to storm a house full of children than a house full of heavily armed crack dealers. The dogs in the street know where these places are so you would imagine the cops would. Or maybe I'm being unkind. Anyway, total over-reaction.

In Europe we're anti-gun (even though I'm waiting for my first licence, ten weeks and counting) and we have a lot of freedoms subsumed into the collective conscience, we wouldn't stand for this type of behaviour, somebody's head would be on a plate.

By head on a plate I mean they would have to resign on full pension, but you can't win them all.
 
dresden8, that's a thoughtful post.

Court order says child is to be examined. Father is not interested in what the authorities have to say. He knows better and, as it turns out, he is right.
Click to expand...

But did the father really know better? Certainly he thought so. He happened to be right, but it seems to me that he could well have been wrong. That said, kids hit their heads all the time.

Busting down the front door and pointing guns at family members is utterly ridiculous, reckless endangerment.
 
All the "public servants" were completely wrong. The paramedic got upset because this father didn't think he was god's gift to mankind. The social worker thought he was god. The father believes in the Consistution and the country should be run by the Consistution and that makes him a threat. The father should sue every one involved until they are broke for the next 100 years.
 
Ugly, ugly story. it all comes down to which world this actually happened in.

The world where the father politely but firmly told the beligerant paramedics to leave?

Or the world where the father was beligerant and told them to "bring an army?"

I don't blame a cop for not wanting to politely knock on the door of a man who threatened to use force. But maybe a polite phone call first to figure out the situation? Force is always an option.

I don't know. Which world are we living in? The one with abusive authority figures or an abusive citizen.

Both and either, I'm afraid, depending on the time and place.
 
Just a note about this particular story. I liked the idea that the reporter actually got both sides of the issue and reported them. No editorializing was done. Just reporting the "facts" as the reporter gathered them.

We now have much more information than we had before... From both sides.

Having said that, it is both a legal and a political issue and most definately not a general guns issue (shoulda mentioned that to nobody_special, in my PM).... Hang on, we're moving.
 
Garand Illusion do you know something we don't? Over my way in Mlps Mn one of their swat teams broke into the wrong guy's home and actually ended with one of the stormtroopers taking a round for his trouble. Yes there's much we don't know but I for one think we have no need for all this para-military nonsense. I can understand why they didn't notify the family before hand once it had escalated to the level of forced entry as they anticipated disagreement and perhaps resistence to their little raid, what I have a hard time with is how they arrived at that decision in the first place. There's more to this one then reported, perhaps some ongoing discord with the local PD or "Mon dieu" the Earth Mother worshipping local chapter of Social services...:barf:
 
It does seem just a bit heavy handed to me. In the "do unto others" way of thinking, I wonder if all involved would want SWAT team participation in all of their disagreements? I am sure the father in this case has about a 99% chance of caring more about his son than the gubernuts!
 
Part of what this thread is about is possibly hidden from many of you.

Social Services in many states are given almost god-like powers and authorities. What they say is literally law. When it comes to child welfare, they are the first and last word.

Having Mr. Shiflett oppose the good social workers was, in my estimation, what started this whole thing. In the article, it was mentioned that when Shiflett refused the social services folks, they told him they would get a warrant. Guess What?

If you think that it is only the ATF that abuses its power, you may need to look at what is happening just about everywhere in America, under the guise of Child Protective Services.

People are generally quiet about these things, as when you tick off these people, you don't simply loose your guns or go to jail, you loose your entire family. And your guns. And possibly go to jail.

Of course, I could be all wet here. Maybe....
 
As I mentioned before it boiled down to what we call a whizzing contest in the military. The paramedic, the social workers and the sheriff's department wanted to show him that they were in charge and who made the rules.

It doesnt matter what you think or what your experience is we know what is best. Somewhere the meaning of public sevant has gotten misdefined.

Common sense be damned in government.
 
Anipitas, I don't think you're "all wet" -- I think you're exactly right. I remember hearing about the power of child protective services where I grew up in Arizona.

Here's where I run into trouble with this story... the story indicates that the social services people thought the boy had a sluggish pupil response, which I believe suggests some impact on neurological function, i.e. concussion, or pressure on the brain -- potentially temporary, but serious or life-threatening nonetheless. And this was probably a pretty bad-looking injury, since the story reports a lot of bruising.

But the doctor's examination apparently showed no serious problem. Why the discrepancy?

That said, if a head injury causes a really bad bruise, as is indicated here, why wouldn't the father get the child checked out? Religious reasons aside (again, we don't know that this is the case, so let's assume it isn't), it may be some anti-establishment belief, but I expect the reasons may have been financial.

Herein lies another issue: the financial responsibility to raising a child. You're expected to provide for your children; food, clothing, shelter -- and medical expenses. But modern medical advances have come with a large price tag, which is essentially prohibitive for those without insurance. At what point does it become unreasonable for CPS (or government and society in general) to require for poor parents to pay for expensive medical care?

This illustrates why Democrats want universal health insurance. (And yes, I confess to being a registered Democrat. :o Hey, wait... put away the torches and pitchforks!) If you argue against universal insurance, then it's hardly fair to expect parents to provide more than basic, inexpensive medical care for children.

"Do it for the children" is an oft-used and effective appeal to emotion. It has been used to garner support for anti-gun laws, the "wars" on drugs and "terror," etc. I'm sure many TFL members dislike the idea of CPS interference and universal insurance coverage, but I think that constitutes a small political minority in this case. It's an uphill argument when you're advocating less health care availability for children.

I'm not sure that the social services people really mis-handled this situation. I do believe that the police badly mishandled it by sending in a SWAT team, to the point where someone's head should roll. And while I don't necessarily endorse any Democrat's proposal for universal health care (I need to educate myself more on this issue, actually), I do think this case demonstrates the problems with modern American health care.

EDITED to clarify: I do NOT mean that I support CPS interference in parenting, aside from, e.g., cases of child abuse.
 
Definition.

Somewhere the meaning of public sevant has gotten misdefined.
Click to expand...

Not misdefined, just ignored. No one likes the idea of being a "servant", so they choose to project themselves as authority figures instead, feeding the massive ego boost. Not all are like this, and I have no beef with cops, parameds, or anyone else in particular, just that it's pretty obvious that this has increased a lot lately.

I do have a beef with the way CPS operates. They are under the assumption that all parents are evil and abusive, and all the "poor little children" are on the verge of death because they just can't take it anymore. It doesn't help that they have virtually no screening practice regarding their hiring procedures. I'm not talking about discrimination mind you, just that there should be someone on the lookout for the deep-end kooks who think they are on a crusade to save the world from evil parents. It really irks me they choose to respond like this, when it was obviously excessive.

More reasonable idea if they really needed to go in the first place:
Obtain a warrant.
Get a doctor from the health department or other state med. agency.
Go the house in a CPS MARKED vehicle, with UNIFORMED escort to serve the warrant.
If the father refuses the warrant, becomes belligerent/violent, or goes bonkers, then it may be time for the type of force described here. Until it gets to that point however, what they did was excessive.


This is a case of abuse of power by the person who ordered in SWAT (not the team themselves), unwarranted involvment by CPS, and privacy/rights violation of just enormous proportions. :barf:
 
If those who are alarmist about "loss of rights" focused on the big problems of infringement like this, instead of the fear of being mistaken for a terrorist, we would have much more freedom.
 
The "for the children" is an emotional tug to let your rights, money, proprty, and way of life be taken from people, it is a lie. I raised 4 children yes each one got hurt from time to time, I checked them out and if I saw they were okay then no trip to the ER or Doctors office. The Paramedics want the ER trips for 2 reasons 1 limit thier libity 2 cost of trip to ER. D."SS" has trample parents rights for years and if you speak out against them they make up ways to make your life living hell. I helped a family burn a counties D"SS" by recording several visits to a persons home. The raid was uncalled for, tatics way beyond reasonalbe. Did any one here go to the ER or doctor each time they bumped thier head or cut thier finger or fell down on thier knee? What medical training did the D"SS" worker have? I would trust a medic much more than a paramedic or a social worker any day.
 
Just wanted to throw out another story -- the one that these various agencies were afraid of, at least officially (not that all of the other factors above weren't involved as well, of course):

Authorities today removed the body of 11 year old Jon Shifflet from his home. He died after being hurt in a car accident and receiving no medical care.

The boy had suffered a traumatic head injury after being dragged by a moving vehicle several days earlier. Neighbors who witnessed the accident described it as "horrific" and reported it to child protection authorities.

Authorities were refused access to the child by the father, a long bearded vietnam vet who referred often to the "Tet" offensive, said prayer was enough, and threatened them if they returned.

Child protection authorities dropped the case, a decision resulting in the 11 year old's death.

State Sen. Johnson has ordered a full investigation of the agency, promising that "heads will roll" when we find who was responsible for allowing young Jon to suffer and die without any health care.
Click to expand...
 
This is one of those stories that spins me in circles.

On one hand, I hate government intervention in people's private lives.

On the other, as a former child safety advocate, I realize the reality of a lot of children being neglected, mistreated, and endangered by their parent's lack of concern or reluctance to violate radical religous beliefs.

I have seen so many reports of neglect that appear to be nothing but turn out to be horrid stories of abuse (physical, mental, sexual) on the parts of the apparent loving and upstanding parent.

In one case I remember a child reported at school that his dad will withhold food if he opens his eyes during prayer. An investigation was eventually launched. The local churches lept to defend this good and "sprirtual" husband and father. Even paying for his legal costs to sue the state agency. His wife also strongly defended him.

After a period of time it appeared the man was going to be cleared because no physical problems could be found with the children and no real evidence of wrong doing could be found.

During a final visit to the home by a county health official and a deputy sheriff to make sure conditions were appropriate to return the the children the deputy notice a box of videos in a storage building at the outskirts of their property. Both the man and his wife denied knowledge or ownership of the tapes. The deputy took appropriate measures and legally aquired the box.

The tapes in the box were videos of the husband sexually abusing two of the daughters and one of his sons and of the youngest son and his sisters engaging in sexual acts.

The wife finally admitted everything in a trial and turned on her husband.

Sometimes where the safety of children is concerned it pays to be a bit too careful.
 
Did any one here go to the ER or doctor each time they bumped thier head or cut thier finger or fell down on thier knee?
Click to expand...

If it was just a little bump on the head, then I'm in complete agreement with you. But in this particular case:

Caseworkers who later visited the family reported seeing injuries that included a "huge hematoma" and a sluggish pupil.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a little bump on the head (especially the "sluggish pupil" part). My guess is that they misread the pupil response, but the child had a large, ugly-looking bruise. I'm not sure I can completely fault social services here. I'm a little confused as to why social servies people were performing the evaluation, rather than the EMTs that were present earlier.

Also, upon first reading the article I had missed the fact that the social services people offered to pay for the treatment. So the financial aspect is apparently a moot point here.
 
"I'm a little confused as to why social servies people were performing the evaluation, rather than the EMTs that were present earlier."

Because the paramedics had been turned away by the father and there is probably a rule that the paramedics have to report injured children to Social Services and that they must follow up with a visit. I think pretty much every local employee has to report injured or abused children to Social Services.

I know it always makes the headlines when Social Services doesn't follow up.

So the judge hears the paramedics' report(s) and recommendation, the caseworkers' report(s) and recommendation, and may or may not know that the child's father was a trained medical professional in 1968. Dang, was the Tet offensive really 40 years ago? I feel old.

What does a military medic know about pediatrics? I wonder if he's kept up with the state of the art? ;)

John
 
If I could interject here, and point out how EMS does it where I live:

1 First, the man in question was a medic in Vietnam. That particular conflict ended 35 years ago. Unless he has remained current, his knowledge is mostly long forgotten.

2 In the ensuing 35 years, much has changed in the field of EMS. Heck, when I started in EMS in the 1980's, we were still driving the old hearse type ambulances. The CT scan had not even been invented when this man was a medic.

3 Even so, he most likely has never received training in pediatric care. Pediatrics are not just small adults, they are different in many crucial ways from adults.

4 As a paramedic, I make the decision every day to transport people against their will. I did so just last night. A signed refusal is even worthless, if it can be established that the person signing did not truly comprehend what he was signing, or the likely consequences of not receiving medical care. A person with a brain injury is often noncompliant to the point of being physically combative, and will refuse care even when it is potentially fatal to do so.

5 In the case of a parent refusing care for an injured child, this is a tough call. If the child has a visible injury, especially a head injury, complications can and often do arise. The only way to conclusively rule out a closed brain injury is with a CT scan. Since those are only done at the hospital, the child must be evaluated there. Signs like bruising, mental status changes, and other visible criteria are late stage signs. People who do not receive treatment until those signs appear have a high mortality rate.

6 In such cases, the paramedic is legally obligated to seek appropriate care for the patient. Sometimes this means the person is taken into the hospital against their will. If this law were to be changed, the result would be far more deaths due to undiagnosed head injury, due to patients refusing care when they are incapable of making a decision due to the medical condition that is killing them.

7 Reports say that the child had a sluggish pupil. This is often a sign of increasing intercranial pressure, which is caused by bleeding in the brain. Possibly fatal, a medic who does not transport such a child to a trauma center in my area will be seeking employment elsewhere.

8 Since this statement was made: "Shiflett shouted at this worker and advised this worker that if he obtained a court order, he better 'bring an army,'" and considering that he refused entry to the other two deputies who went to see him, I would say that the SWAT team was appropriate.

9 Remember that people who abuse their children often refuse medical care for them, so they do not get caught.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top