California CPS kidnaps Russian baby

[BillyB]

If I remember the article, the cops frisked the father outside the house and found the house keys so they did use them to enter the house.....

I read the article again and that is what happened based off the husband's account.


I'm not sure the couple has much of a case against CPS after reading some more. They took their baby out of the hospital without a proper discharge and if a doctor calls CPS and says it's a matter of life and death, the CPS must react with the police to take the child away. I think the only person and organization the couple could sue is the doctor and hospital for over reacting but then again, the couple took their child from the hospital without a proper discharge alarming the medical personnel and they must follow the procedures in place to handle a situation like this. All though this situation ended bad and everybody made mistakes, in court everybody will claim they are looking out for the baby's welfare. What's a judge and jury to do? Hang everybody or nobody?

[Strider]

The problem with your argument is that there is a second doctor and hospital involved that had an opposite opinion from the first.  What this case boils down to is that the parents questioned the first doctor's opinion and removed their child to another hospital's care before the first doctor declared an emergency and performed unnecessary surgery.  That is what good parents do, and the hospital was relieved of liability when they did it.  Based upon a known conflict of opinion between two doctors and two hospitals, CPS sided with the first doctor.   Do we really want CPS involved every time two doctors have a difference of opinion?  CPS screwed up here.

Furthermore, why are the police assaulting the husband and seizing the keys to the house if this is a true emergency?  If there was a true emergency they should have forced entry into the house immediately.  The truth is that there was no emergency as the second doctor and hospital found when they released the baby from their hospital. 

My own experience with doctors and hospitals is that they sometimes do things for their own financial interest and not always what is best for the patient.  I had a family member with terminal cancer whom the doctor doped up and tried to get this relative to sign into hospital psych ward when the maximum medicare billing days had elapsed.  There is an old Irish saying about "Never trust the doctors" which I have learned to appreciate.

I read the article again and that is what happened based off the husband's account.


I'm not sure the couple has much of a case against CPS after reading some more. They took their baby out of the hospital without a proper discharge and if a doctor calls CPS and says it's a matter of life and death, the CPS must react with the police to take the child away. I think the only person and organization the couple could sue is the doctor and hospital for over reacting but then again, the couple took their child from the hospital without a proper discharge alarming the medical personnel and they must follow the procedures in place to handle a situation like this. All though this situation ended bad and everybody made mistakes, in court everybody will claim they are looking out for the baby's welfare. What's a judge and jury to do? Hang everybody or nobody?

[Muzh]

The problem with your argument is that there is a second doctor and hospital involved that had an opposite opinion from the first.  What this case boils down to is that the parents questioned the first doctor's opinion and removed their child to another hospital's care before the first doctor declared an emergency and performed unnecessary surgery.  That is what good parents do, and the hospital was relieved of liability when they did it.  Based upon a known conflict of opinion between two doctors and two hospitals, CPS sided with the first doctor.   Do we really want CPS involved every time two doctors have a difference of opinion?  CPS screwed up here.

Any civil servant will tell you that if they are going to err, they will err on the side of safety. Period

[Strider]

And if the parents are right in their charges against the first hospital, it had committed malpractice by administering unauthorized drugs to an infant and misdiagnosed the baby's condition.  Was it really safe to recommit that baby to that hospital? 

The other obvious point that you miss in your defense of the modern American police state is that CPS had an OBLIGATION to interview the parents before taking any action, since with a conflict of opinion between doctors it is assumed that the parents, not the police or CPS, are best suited to decide which doctor's opinion to follow.  Interviewing the parents was the required procedure, i.e. the due process of law, which CPS failed to do.

Like most supporters of the modern American police state, none of that matters to you in your defense of the indefensible.  Interviewing the parents to you is just a technicality that incompetent civil servants can ignore by claiming good intentions while depriving parents of their right to due process of law, their right to liberty, their right to be secure in their own home against an UNREASONABLE search and seizure.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The fact remains that CPS put the safety of the child at risk by returning him to a hospital which had committed malpractice, while at the same time provoking a needless confrontation in which someone could have gotten shot!  Exclamation point!

Any civil servant will tell you that if they are going to err, they will err on the side of safety. Period [sic]

[Muzh]

And if the parents are right in their charges against the first hospital, it had committed malpractice by administering unauthorized drugs to an infant and misdiagnosed the baby's condition.  Was it really safe to recommit that baby to that hospital? 

That is not the CPS field of expertise, is it?

The other obvious point that you miss in your defense of the modern American police state is that CPS had an OBLIGATION to interview the parents before taking any action, since with a conflict of opinion between doctors it is assumed that the parents, not the police or CPS, are best suited to decide which doctor's opinion to follow.  Interviewing the parents was the required procedure, i.e. the due process of law, which CPS failed to do.

Wrong, CPS has NO OBLIGATION to interview the parents during this procedure. They WILL interview the parents once the child has been determined to be out of danger.

You seem to like the rhetoric. First, I don't like the 'American Police State' anymore than you do. However, not following the rule of law, we delve into anarchism. THAT is all the excuse the 'American Police State' needs.

Like most supporters of the modern American police state, none of that matters to you in your defense of the indefensible.  Interviewing the parents to you is just a technicality that incompetent civil servants can ignore by claiming good intentions while depriving parents of their right to due process of law, their right to liberty, their right to be secure in their own home against an UNREASONABLE search and seizure.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  The fact remains that CPS put the safety of the child at risk by returning him to a hospital which had committed malpractice, while at the same time provoking a needless confrontation in which someone could have gotten shot!  Exclamation point!

Hate to tell you are in left field.

Don't like it? Run for office. Vote for some one who will make the changes. You options are there, use them.

[calmissile]

That is not the CPS field of expertise, is it?

Wrong, CPS has NO OBLIGATION to interview the parents during this procedure. They WILL interview the parents once the child has been determined to be out of danger.

You seem to like the rhetoric. First, I don't like the 'American Police State' anymore than you do. However, not following the rule of law, we delve into anarchism. THAT is all the excuse the 'American Police State' needs.

Hate to tell you are in left field.
Don't like it? Run for office. Vote for some one who will make the changes. You options are there, use them.

No, it is you that is left field.   CPS normally makes a determination on their own and moves ahead with or without a warrant.  You simply are mistaken.  As I had first hand experience is this field I can tell you that in Calif. CPS does what it wants.   Most of the CPS workers (all women) are men hating witches for whatever reasons.   We were very fortunate in dealing with a CPS young lady that had not been 'hardened' yet.  Typical scenario for single fathers, daughter shows up in public school with a black eye.  Teacher and principal call CPS accusing or suspecting the single dad of abuse.   CPS shows up at front door to talk to child.  School will not talk to parent(s).  It is a private matter and cannot discuss your daughter to you the parent.  Fortunately the CPS worker was young and fairly bright.  She interviewed my daughter in the privacy of her bedroom and discovered that my daughter had shot her mouth off to another girl and she popped my daughter in the eye.  She probably deserved it.  Case closed with CPS but school would not discuss her grades or anything else.  Stigma prevailed throughout high school.

[Strider]

Essentially, you have denied that CPS was obligated to undertake any kind of investigation as to why parents removed their baby from the care of one hospital to that of another.   Since the law presumes that parents will make the best medical choices for their children, something more was needed here.  When an adult is dissatisfied with his or her medical care he or she is free and at liberty to check out of the hospital and go somewhere else.  As the legal guardian of the child the parents exercise that the same right for the child.  It is bizarre to use that as a basis for taking custody of a child.

That is not the CPS field of expertise, is it?

The child was determined to be in no danger by Kaiser Hospital,  the police filed a report, and CPS still took action.  The parents relied upon a competent doctor and hospital and lost custody of their child until a judge restored their authority to make the child's medical decisions.  There is a huge problem here, and it all could have been avoided by simply interviewing the parents. 

Wrong, CPS has NO OBLIGATION to interview the parents during this procedure. They WILL interview the parents once the child has been determined to be out of danger.

If CPS can now legally seize children automatically when doctors have differing medical opinions, it is completely out of control and needs to be reined in by the courts, as was done here.  If there is a larger problem then legislation may be needed in California to reform the police state there, and no that is not rhetoric.  That is what we see there.

You seem to like the rhetoric. First, I don't like the 'American Police State' anymore than you do. However, not following the rule of law, we delve into anarchism. THAT is all the excuse the 'American Police State' needs.

Hate to tell you are in left field.

Don't like it? Run for office. Vote for some one who will make the changes. You options are there, use them.

[Muzh]

Since the law presumes that parents will make the best medical choices for their children, something more was needed here.  When an adult is dissatisfied with his or her medical care he or she is free and at liberty to check out of the hospital and go somewhere else. 

Exactly

They didn't do this

As I said, all you have to do is give the police state an excuse

[calmissile]

This leaving the hospital without a formal discharge is being overblown by the media.  In some cases it causes concerns such as mental patients or patients leaving with IV's still hooked up, etc.  In most other cases patients simply say screw it, I can't afford to stay here any longer.  When a patient decides to leave on their own account the hospital cannot force you to stay.  You will sign a waiver of liability and that is the end of it.

There are couple of motives for the hospitals to not want patients to leave.  One of course, is the liability issue as described above.   The other is money.  In addition in this case, the doctor probably knew that the parents were not happy with his diagnosis and did not want to be put in a position of having a different doctor reach a different conclusion.  Whether it is widely known or not, I am not sure, but typically when a doctor refers you for a second opinion, the doctors have already discussed your case between themselves.  Doctors are very proud and do not like being blindsided by someone that might disagree with them. 

I never had the occasion to experience this with a doctor but I did with a dentist many years ago.  A $20K implant exercise seemed off the wall expensive.  I paid for the examination and went to another dentist and for the same exact services were under $10K.  When the original dentist called to try and set up an appointment, I told him I went elsewhere for a second opinion.   Needless to say, he was a very pissed off dentist.  The point of this is that the media and the hospital #1 made a big deal about taking the child without a formal release.  We all know and the parents knew that the child was in no danger.  Hospital #2 confirmed this fact as well.  There was no emergency.

It seems to me that hospital #1, the police (since they verified by hospital #2 there was no emergency) and CPS are all culpable for the parents grief and the unnecessary trauma to the child and parents.  I just wish that those responsible would be paying the court awards rather than the taxpayers.

[GQBlues]

...After Sammy was treated for flu symptoms last week, doctors at Sutter admitted him to the pediatric ICU to monitor his condition....

That's Intensive Care Unit.
 
When a hospital or a physician have someone in an ICU, especially if it involves an infant/child, then it means they have taken full responsibility of that person's state and well being. Anyone who would like to take away a patient in that type of care, for whatever reason, they must first obtain a discharge (likely a waiver release) from the admnistering doctor/clinic/hospital. This absolves the hospital liability and the liability is then handed out to that entity's care.
 
Take that patient out without due procedure you then leave the hospital/physician responsible to whatever happens to that patient. So, they called the police and the CPS (since it's an infant) when the parents did just that.
 
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand with this....
 
I hope the parents get some form of settlement relief nonetheless for improper medicinal administration for the alleged careless misdiagnosing of the child so at least baby Sammy can get lot's of toys! 

[Shadow]

As I mentioned before, the court awards are not ever going to repair anything.

It concerns me much more that by this action the parents may be unwilling to even take their child to hospital, in fear of this being repeated. This means that it could cause a real emergency which might take a life.

As parent of young children I may be closer involved as those without or with gown children. Authorities like child care are there to help, and should not become mistrusted because of their overzealous actions.

 
Take that patient out without due procedure you then leave the hospital/physician responsible to whatever happens to that patient. So, they called the police and the CPS (since it's an infant) when the parents did just that.
 
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand with this....
 

Ah yes, procedures are always more important than people.
A doctor in the hospital can oppose against signing a release, then call the police if the parents still take a second opinion elsewhere.
Child is taken hostage by the hospital, backed by procedures.

[Strider]

Once the second hospital examined and treated the child, the first hospital has no legal liability since it was the right of the parents to seek a second opinion.  Since they had no way of checking that the parents in fact took the child to the second hospital, they called the cops to cover themselves.  Once the second hospital released the child, the matter should have been resolved without all of the unnecessary drama.  CPS might have demanded a third medical opinion, which is what the judge finally agreed with the parents should be done, but CPS erred badly by seizing the child and sending the child back to the first hospital.  (For the uninformed, giving a patient unauthorized medicine by injection is assault under the law.)

That's Intensive Care Unit.
 
When a hospital or a physician have someone in an ICU, especially if it involves an infant/child, then it means they have taken full responsibility of that person's state and well being. Anyone who would like to take away a patient in that type of care, for whatever reason, they must first obtain a discharge (likely a waiver release) from the admnistering doctor/clinic/hospital. This absolves the hospital liability and the liability is then handed out to that entity's care.
 
Take that patient out without due procedure you then leave the hospital/physician responsible to whatever happens to that patient. So, they called the police and the CPS (since it's an infant) when the parents did just that.
 
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand with this....
 
I hope the parents get some form of settlement relief nonetheless for improper medicinal administration for the alleged careless misdiagnosing of the child so at least baby Sammy can get lot's of toys! 

[Strider]

Checking out of the hospital doesn't require the hospital's consent.  I've known people who have done it.

Exactly

They didn't do this

As I said, all you have to do is give the police state an excuse

[mendeleyev]

California Assemblyman Tim Donnelly spoke to CPS during the weekend and was told that CPS did not suspect abuse and that is why the parents were allowed to visit the baby in the hospital. CPS apparently told the lawmaker that the parents had no right to remove the baby from the hospital without permission of doctors and filing of proper forms.

The couple however say that the doctor and other hospital staff members were yelling at them and refusing their wish to take the baby to another hospital--something the parents made clear they intended to do.

A police officer was dispatched soon thereafter to the second hospital to make certain that the parents had continued care for the baby. That police officer went so far to assure the parents that everything would be okay and that the report he would file would indicate that the baby was fine and in safe hands.

CPS waited a full day before barging in to seize the child.

CPS then took the baby back to the original hospital, despite being aware of the second doctor's opinion but they did allow limited visitation rights to the parents.

As I wrote in the Mendeleyev Journal on the story, the Russian government in Moscow instructed the San Francisco Consul to get involved and the Consul, in concert with the Russian Embassy in DC, dispatched Vice Consul Igor Shaktar-ool to Sacramento to assist the family. It became an international incident due to doctors yelling at the parents and allegedly refusing dismissal after the parents had stated their intent to take him to another hospital for a second opinion.

Assemblyman Donnelly seemed surprised that the Russians would take such an active interest. Apparently he hasn't been following the adoption wars between the USA and Russia recently. The story went viral on Facebook and VK, prompting the TV Network "TV Rain" to pick up the story and that was followed quickly by other Russian news media. All that got the Kremlin's attention.

[mendeleyev]

Footnote: It is Russian policy to investigate and if necessary to defend Russian citizens anywhere in the world. President Putin has stated many times during his first three terms (2+) and now in his new term that Russia reserves the right to defend and if necessary to intervene on behalf of it's citizens anywhere and at any time without regard to border restrictions.

This case may have turned out to be a "crisis too good to waste" in taking a jab at Washington, a subtle nudge about NATO encroachment and funding of certain NGOs within Russian borders.

[GQBlues]

...Assemblyman Donnelly seemed surprised that the Russians would take such an active interest. Apparently he hasn't been following the adoption wars between the USA and Russia recently. The story went viral on Facebook and VK, prompting the TV Network "TV Rain" to pick up the story and that was followed quickly by other Russian news media. All that got the Kremlin's attention...

Donnelly's reaction to the Russian posture is understandble, IMO. Although he shouldn't be surprised since there's enough history to know propaganda still lives despite it being 'one-sided'....Russia needs to do what Russia needs to do...
 
Anyway, considering the recent bashing of the silly American bride-hunter in Ukraine, these things happen.

[Shadow]

I would like to add here that the Russians in such cases have a victim mentality. Many will mention that if this had been a family of American citizens it would not have happened.

[mendeleyev]

I would like to add here that the Russians in such cases have a victim mentality. Many will mention that if this had been a family of American citizens it would not have happened.

Yes, and in fact Assemblyman Donnelly says that he has been swamped by Russians living in California making his office aware of their concerns over this incident.

[GQBlues]

Once the second hospital examined and treated the child,...

You don't get it. The parents can get a thousand opinions even millions or more if they want to. That wasn't the problem.

You cannot take a patient in an ICU state out of the hospital, especially when a child is involved, WITHOUT proper hospital discharge. Which is what the parents in this particular case did.

Did you even read the article?

[Strider]

They could and they did.  There was no need for the child to be in the ICU as found by the second doctor and hospital.

You don't get that CPS has caused an international incident and embarrassed the entire U.S. of A.  I remember when Russia was the police state and America was the land of freedom and liberty.  Maybe I am just showing my age, but America used to be the land of the free and home of the brave.

Please stop defending the quack doctor, the tyrannical CPS an the warrantless search and seizure of a police state.  You are embarrassing your country.

You don't get it. The parents can get a thousand opinions even millions or more if they want to. That wasn't the problem.

You cannot take a patient in an ICU state out of the hospital, especially when a child is involved, WITHOUT proper hospital discharge. Which is what the parents in this particular case did.

Did you even read the article?

[GQBlues]

They could and they did....

They did NOT get a discharge from Sutter. Read the darn article. That's what started the wheels in motion. Had they done so, there would not be any other activity thereafter.

...You don't get that CPS has caused an international incident and embarrassed the entire U.S. of A....

Do you actually believe this garbage? Just because you got laid in Ukraine/Russia doesn't mean you need to start dream walking your life these days.

My second opinion for you is, take a reality pill and you should be able to start putting things in proper perspective.

[Misha]

Footnote: It is Russian policy to investigate and if necessary to defend Russian citizens anywhere in the world.

A cynic might say that the Russian Federation should spend more time defending the rights and interests of its citizens at home

[Shadow]

They did NOT get a discharge from Sutter. Read the darn article. That's what started the wheels in motion. Had they done so, there would not be any other activity thereafter.

Then you agree the Sutter hospital was keeping the child hostage against the will of the parents? After all they refuse to give a discharge and call CPS if the parents do not agree....
Good commercial for their services.

[mendeleyev]

The fact that a police officer was dispatched to the second hospital where he found that the parents had indeed followed thru on getting a second opinion, that he spoke to the doctors there and they vouched for the parents and disputed the first diagnosis, then he filed a report which CPS read, is what makes this a police state action.

That CPS waited a full day, after confirmation from police and knowing that the child was not in danger, also contributed to this being a police state action.

CPS acknowledged to the Assemblyman investigating the issue that they understood that the child was not in danger. They were miffed that the parents had not obeyed the Sutter doctors who were insisting that the baby not be discharged on the original visit.

Knowing that the child was not in danger, CPS could have resolved this without kidnapping the child but apparently they either wanted to make an example of this case or decided to teach the parents a lesson. As questions starting flowing in from places like DC and Moscow, their tune quickly changed.

The only "lesson" learned by these young parents is not the take the baby back to Sutter.

[GQBlues]

Then you agree the Sutter hospital was keeping the child hostage against the will of the parents? After all they refuse to give a discharge and call CPS if the parents do not agree....
Good commercial for their services.

There was no hostage situation Shadow. Why do you guys get into all these dramatics is beyond me. Had the parents filed a hospital discharge, none of this would have ensued. Period. All other statement in this matter, as far as I'm concerned, is in the front page of this thread.