Couple claim their sick five-month-old boy was taken away by police simply because...

[chinacat67]

We got all the information. Child was in the hospital, parents didn't like the hospital, took him out without medical discharge. Took him to another hospital. First hospital called CPS, CPS called police. I don't think anything suggests that there is more to this story. Now judge ordered child to be transferred to a third hospital. Parents can visit as much as they like.

I have a friend who is a journalist. I could tell her I am the Tooth Fairy and she could write it up as an article as long she says that I allege I am the Tooth Fairy. We got all the information that the parents wanted to supply. Period. End of sentence.

That says nothing of the facts of the situation or even the information the hospital, doctors, court, guardian ad litem for child, CPS and other would like to supply but cannot. The parents may choose to treat this as reality tv, but the other cannot by law.

We know nothing of what is the actual situation. We know the spin of the parents. Period.

Until I see the court records, which may be sealed but which would reflect fact and sworn truth rather than speculative spin and one-sided opinion, I don't think we have diddly squat, to put it bluntly.

And the fact that the judge says that they can visit, BUT that the child stays hospitalized AND the parents MUST follow the medical orders STRONGLY suggests that there is another side to this that is not being told.


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk HD

 

[mysteriew]

I can agree with being cautious about any outrage, because we are only hearing one side of the facts.

But here is another thing to consider. Possibly when the hospital called CPS, they probably said the child was in the PICU and the parents removed him against medical advice. How long did it take CPS to respond by making an investigation? What if they had taken the child home? What if the child's survival depended on hospital care? (Presumably why CPS was called) And how long did it take them to respond?

 

[EGirl]

I can agree with being cautious about any outrage, because we are only hearing one side of the facts.

But here is another thing to consider. Possibly when the hospital called CPS, they probably said the child was in the PICU and the parents removed him against medical advice. How long did it take CPS to respond by making an investigation? What if they had taken the child home? What if the child's survival depended on hospital care? (Presumably why CPS was called) And how long did it take them to respond?

The first hospital called the police as they took their child to the second hospital. They even knew WHICH hospital the parents were going to because the police showed up there while the second doctor was examining their child.

I'm going to be hard pressed to call them 'bad' parents when they too their child to TWO different hospitals.

 

[jjenny]

I have a friend who is a journalist. I could tell her I am the Tooth Fairy and she could write it up as an article as long she says that I allege I am the Tooth Fairy. We got all the information that the parents wanted to supply. Period. End of sentence.

That says nothing of the facts of the situation or even the information the hospital, doctors, court, guardian ad litem for child, CPS and other would like to supply but cannot. The parents may choose to treat this as reality tv, but the other cannot by law.

We know nothing of what is the actual situation. We know the spin of the parents. Period.

Until I see the court records, which may be sealed but which would reflect fact and sworn truth rather than speculative spin and one-sided opinion, I don't think we have diddly squat, to put it bluntly.

And the fact that the judge says that they can visit, BUT that the child stays hospitalized AND the parents MUST follow the medical orders STRONGLY suggests that there is another side to this that is not being told.


Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk HD

No, parents got the custody back as long as they agree not to remove him from the new hospital against medical advice.

"On Monday, a judge returned custody to the parents as long as they agreed not to remove Sammy again against medical advice. The boy is now set to move to the children's hospital at Stanford within the next 24 to 48 hours."
http://www.news10.net/news/article/...niting-with-baby?odyssey=tab|topnews|bc|large

 

[Charlie09]

I don't know about the Sacramento Sutter, but I know people in Modesto that will NEVER go back to Sutter...there may indeed be another side of the story...the side that Sutter doesn't want to get out.

 

[prima.facie]

Who on earth is behind The Blaze? Stories about raging Chechens, late term abortions and vilifying Muslims...

lol I don't know. I first saw the story on the Daily Mail (which I question its legitimacy often)....so I googled for an alternative source and that was the first one. lol now the story has made the MSM in various places.

Unless these parents are lying about something, I feel horrible for them.

 

[chinacat67]

No, parents got the custody back as long as they agree not to remove him from the new hospital against medical advice.

"On Monday, a judge returned custody to the parents as long as they agreed not to remove Sammy again against medical advice. The boy is now set to move to the children's hospital at Stanford within the next 24 to 48 hours."
http://www.news10.net/news/article/...niting-with-baby?odyssey=tab|topnews|bc|large

Again, that is what one article says.....here is what another says:

The court also ruled Monday the parents must following all medical advice from now on, including not taking their child from Stanford without proper discharge.

A county social worker will make regular house visits to check on Sammy once he is returned home.

http://www.news10.net/news/article/243286/2/Judge-orders-transport-of-Baby-Sammy-to-Stanford-Medical-Center

 

[jjenny]

Again, that is what one article says.....here is what another says:



http://www.news10.net/news/article/243286/2/Judge-orders-transport-of-Baby-Sammy-to-Stanford-Medical-Center

Both articles say the exact same thing. Parents got custody with several conditions. They have to allow CPS visits and not remove child from the hospital against medical advice.

 

[jjenny]

Baby Sammy had surgery and is back home.
http://www.news10.net/news/article/245428/2/Baby-Sammy-home-after-heart-surgery

 

[CHERIE.T]

SO glad to see that Sammy is doing well and is home with his mommy and daddy!

 

[jjenny]

SO glad to see that Sammy is doing well and is home with his mommy and daddy!

Me too.
:woohoo:

 

[csziggy]

Who on earth is behind The Blaze? Stories about raging Chechens, late term abortions and vilifying Muslims...

TheBlaze, formerly GBTV, is a conservative libertarian news, information, and entertainment television network (and affiliated properties) founded by talk radio personality Glenn Beck. The majority of its programming is broadcasted from its headquarters in Dallas, Texas at the historic Studios at Las Colinas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_blaze

I am not at all sure that would be considered "main stream media.":lol:

 

[Charlie09]

I am not at all sure that would be considered "main stream media.":lol:

Kind of interesting that there is mockery of it not being main stream media, instead of mocking the "main stream media" for not covering outside of the narrative they want to present.

Glad to see the baby is home, where he belongs.

 

[Donjeta]

I'm not sure if this is an acceptable source but they say they're quoting from actual court documents including medical records and there is an official looking court document linked below the post and the video.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/baby-sammy-court-documents-reveal-confli

When Reason TV interviewed the Nikolayevs in August, Alex Nikolayev told us, "They were coming up with some random stuff. Finding another thing just to keep us there."

This "random stuff" turned out to be concerns that Sammy was off his heart medication, according to medical records. Hospital staff wrote that Anna Nikolayev admitted to them that she had stopped giving Samuel his medications while on vacation in Colorado for three weeks, and they said Anna tried to treat a hernia Samuel had developed by taping coins to either side of it. The Nikolayevs' attorney has filed an objection to these details, saying they amount to hearsay and cannot be substantiated.

Hospital employees also wrote that Anna refused IVs and feeding tubes that doctors recommended in order to get Samuel the hydration and nutrition he needed, bringing the conflict to a head. On April 23, she left the hospital with Samuel, against the medical advice of the staff.

A social worker employed by the hospital reported Anna's behavior to California Child Protective Services, saying that the baby's life was in imminent danger.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/18...llow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

Quote:

The undersigned asked the mother why she stopped giving the baby his heart medication and she stated, "The doctors just want to pump my baby full of this ****." The mother stated that the doctors want to tell her what to feed the baby also, and it is her right as a parent to feed the baby what she wants and her right not to give the baby the medicine. The undersigned asked the mother if she was willing to allow the baby to have surgery and she replied, "It is my right to decide if my baby will have surgery now or later... this is none of your business." The mother stated that she doesn't need to talk to CPS and hung up on this social worker.

JMO but if I was a doctor presented with a failure-to-thrive, dehydrated baby with a heart defect and parents who seem to be more concerned about asserting their rights not to follow medical advice than what is best for their baby and refuse to allow the baby to have the medication, the hydration and the nutrition he needs in my opinion I would probably have been extremely worried about this child too. If the parents have an attitude, saying you want a second opinion and you want the baby to have the surgery later could be just an excuse to get away from all medical interference.

The document states that when in hospital, after being taken by the CPS, the nurses tried bottle feeding the baby but he was too weak to finish a bottle as the sucking took too much energy for him. The mother only wanted to give him pureed foods and refused to feed him formula. He was in respiratory distress and both sides of his heart had enlarged.
MOO, they may very well have saved his life by taking him into protective custody and getting the surgery done.

ETA: at least some of the original news articles and videos played his heart problems down stating his problem was "a heart murmur" but what he in fact had, according to the document, was a congenital heart defect (ventricular septal defect and atrial septal defect and a patent foramen ovale) and congestive heart failure that was affecting his lungs. The heart murmur was no doubt technically not a lie either as heart defects cause heart murmurs but it sounds so much more benign to tell the media that my baby has a heart murmur and is doing fine than saying that he has large holes in his heart that I'm not willing to let them fix.

ETA 2: people were wondering up thread why CPS didn't follow up with the second hospital. They did, or tried to. There is some info from the Kaiser medical staff but the social services at Kaiser said they were unable to provide any information citing privacy laws.

Kaiser records show the hospitals communicated with each other about Sammy's care, and a Kaiser doctor noted that, "I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents." However, the Sutter Memorial Hospital social worker told CPS she was unable to get "any treatment or discharge information from the child's Kaiser Emergency Room visit."

On April 24 CPS began a rapid investigation and received a letter from one of Sammy's cardiologists who wrote that, "the child remains at risk for failure to thrive, dehydration, developmental delay and death." CPS decided to place Sammy in protective custody and called police.

Here's a MSM link:
http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/262349/2/CPS-court-records-and-the-battle-for-baby-Sammy

ETA 3: the parents said they were going to sue the CPS.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/248770/476/CPS-case-against-Nikolayev-family-dismissed

However, the end of the Juvenile Dependency Court involvement gives way to the beginning of a civil case against CPS and the Sacramento Police Department.

Before moving to dismiss, the assistant county counsel wanted to make it clear that CPS does not recognize any wrongdoing on its part when social workers and police officers entered the Nikolayev home back in April and took the baby into protective custody. In fact ,they argue that it's because of these efforts that the boy is in good health today. The attorney said with that goal met, there's no longer a need to stay in the parents' lives.

"We will force them to compensate this family for the losses, for the harms, for the nightmare that they went through of 48 hours of not even knowing where their child was," Weinberger said. "We will take them to task for the police officers who attacked Alex, tackled him, handcuffed him, put him in a police car."

ETA 4: the claim about the doctors refusing to allow a second opinion about the surgery doesn't seem to be true. The cardiologist is named in the scribd document and says he gave the parents the contact information for other area cardiologists and advised them to get it quickly but instead of seeking a second opinion the family went on vacation without Sammy's medicines.

"2 weeks ago they went on vacation and forgot his medicines but since he seemed to be doing fine they left him off of them. The cardiologist did not tell them to stop the meds," doctors wrote.

Who are these doctors to tell these parents what to do...? They only studied, like, two decades, to get where they are now, so what do they know...?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I'm not sure if this is an acceptable source but they say they're quoting from actual court documents including medical records and there is an official looking court document linked below the post and the video.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/06/baby-sammy-court-documents-reveal-confli



http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/18...llow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

Quote:

JMO but if I was a doctor presented with a failure-to-thrive, dehydrated baby with a heart defect and parents who seem to be more concerned about asserting their rights not to follow medical advice than what is best for their baby and refuse to allow the baby to have the medication, the hydration and the nutrition he needs in my opinion I would probably have been extremely worried about this child too. If the parents have an attitude, saying you want a second opinion and you want the baby to have the surgery later could be just an excuse to get away from all medical interference.

The document states that when in hospital, after being taken by the CPS, the nurses tried bottle feeding the baby but he was too weak to finish a bottle as the sucking took too much energy for him. The mother only wanted to give him pureed foods and refused to feed him formula. He was in respiratory distress and both sides of his heart had enlarged.
MOO, they may very well have saved his life by taking him into protective custody and getting the surgery done.

ETA: at least some of the original news articles and videos played his heart problems down stating his problem was "a heart murmur" but what he in fact had, according to the document, was a congenital heart defect (ventricular septal defect and atrial septal defect and a patent foramen ovale) and congestive heart failure that was affecting his lungs. The heart murmur was no doubt technically not a lie either as heart defects cause heart murmurs but it sounds so much more benign to tell the media that my baby has a heart murmur and is doing fine than saying that he has large holes in his heart that I'm not willing to let them fix.

ETA 2: people were wondering up thread why CPS didn't follow up with the second hospital. They did, or tried to. There is some info from the Kaiser medical staff but the social services at Kaiser said they were unable to provide any information citing privacy laws.



Here's a MSM link:
http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/262349/2/CPS-court-records-and-the-battle-for-baby-Sammy

ETA 3: the parents said they were going to sue the CPS.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/article/248770/476/CPS-case-against-Nikolayev-family-dismissed





ETA 4: the claim about the doctors refusing to allow a second opinion about the surgery doesn't seem to be true. The cardiologist is named in the scribd document and says he gave the parents the contact information for other area cardiologists and advised them to get it quickly but instead of seeking a second opinion the family went on vacation without Sammy's medicines.



Who are these doctors to tell these parents what to do...? They only studied, like, two decades, to get where they are now, so what do they know...?

Well now...that's certainly a different scenario!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk