Shaken Baby Syndrome
(SBS). There are distinct sides in the medical community, either for or
against the phrase SBS. Physicians in the pediatric field are slowly
shifting sides with the influx of new research. In 2009 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorsed the more accurate phrase, Abusive Head Truama (AHT).
AHT clearly identifies head trauma injuries. Both accidental and non
accidental are included. However, many Internet sites discussing AHT are
not excluding SBS. Most refer to the phrases as one in the same thing?
Babies are shaken by people, either parents, relatives or paid caregivers. Why? Most attribute it to a breakdown caused by intolerance for insistent crying and fussiness. It could be drugs, alcohol, depression, stress or lessened mental capacity. Whatever the reason, it is a reality. But, is it the only explanation for unexplained brain injuries?
Is loyalty to the phrase SBS declining or is the popularity of questioning its validity increasing?
1) In 1987 Research using dummies disproved that shaking could cause SBS injuries
2) In 1998 research by a forensic Pathologist contradicted the conventional belief that a child with traumatic head injuries would be immediately symptomatic.
3) In the last ten years other causes of the three key symptoms associated with SBS have been researched.
4) This past year at age 95 Dr. Guthkelch himself who originally coined the phrase SBS, denounced how it has been used out of context from his original findings.
5) Many cases from the past are being re-examined by innocence projects like the "Wisconsin Innocence Project" They have succeeded in opening cases that had ignored current medical science. Audrey Edmond's case brought forth credible experts like Dr. Plunkett a Minnesota Pathologist and Dr. Barnes a leading radiologist from Stanford. Dr. Barnes was the expert for the prosecution in the Woodward case (the British nanny) in the 90's. He has since regretted his testimony.
6) A Texas bill called SB 344, ("junk science") statute grants relief in cases where new scientific evidence is available, or where scientific evidence was used to convict a person which has been shown to be false, misleading or inaccurately applied.
Why is Shaken Baby Syndrome still associated primarily with child abuse? Is it possible that there could be a judicial influence? Prosecutors, Abuse experts and Dept of Human Services employees have relied on medical personnel's diagnosis of SBS to confirm abuse for years. Finding out that they were wrong in the past would imply they have been responsible for the destruction of thousands of families.
False accusations of abuse are linked by unexplained injuries. Once an infant presents with any injuries that can not be explained, mandatory reporters contact the Dept of Human Services or police authorities and an investigation begins. If that investigation relies on evidence using old SBS research, families are devastated. A case in 2007 concerning what has become "Amanda's Story" reflects on the controversy. False accusations by over zealous Child Protective Service workers relied heavily on medical records summarizing SBS as the cause of injuries in that case.
Shaken Baby is iconic. My 5 week old grandson presented with fractures unrelated to SBS in 2011. Yet prosecutors, DHS and an abuse expert were fixated on a mental image of an innocent baby being shaken. My grandson was diagnosed with neonatal rickets. Irregardless the system was unrelenting in its efforts to refute current medical research. Much the same way new research is challenged in courtrooms where unexplained head injuries are on trial.
Can non medical influences diminish updated research and affect true justice? Innocent families are riding on the correct diagnosis.
"FAMILY COURT"
Babies are shaken by people, either parents, relatives or paid caregivers. Why? Most attribute it to a breakdown caused by intolerance for insistent crying and fussiness. It could be drugs, alcohol, depression, stress or lessened mental capacity. Whatever the reason, it is a reality. But, is it the only explanation for unexplained brain injuries?
Is loyalty to the phrase SBS declining or is the popularity of questioning its validity increasing?
1) In 1987 Research using dummies disproved that shaking could cause SBS injuries
2) In 1998 research by a forensic Pathologist contradicted the conventional belief that a child with traumatic head injuries would be immediately symptomatic.
3) In the last ten years other causes of the three key symptoms associated with SBS have been researched.
4) This past year at age 95 Dr. Guthkelch himself who originally coined the phrase SBS, denounced how it has been used out of context from his original findings.
5) Many cases from the past are being re-examined by innocence projects like the "Wisconsin Innocence Project" They have succeeded in opening cases that had ignored current medical science. Audrey Edmond's case brought forth credible experts like Dr. Plunkett a Minnesota Pathologist and Dr. Barnes a leading radiologist from Stanford. Dr. Barnes was the expert for the prosecution in the Woodward case (the British nanny) in the 90's. He has since regretted his testimony.
6) A Texas bill called SB 344, ("junk science") statute grants relief in cases where new scientific evidence is available, or where scientific evidence was used to convict a person which has been shown to be false, misleading or inaccurately applied.
Why is Shaken Baby Syndrome still associated primarily with child abuse? Is it possible that there could be a judicial influence? Prosecutors, Abuse experts and Dept of Human Services employees have relied on medical personnel's diagnosis of SBS to confirm abuse for years. Finding out that they were wrong in the past would imply they have been responsible for the destruction of thousands of families.
False accusations of abuse are linked by unexplained injuries. Once an infant presents with any injuries that can not be explained, mandatory reporters contact the Dept of Human Services or police authorities and an investigation begins. If that investigation relies on evidence using old SBS research, families are devastated. A case in 2007 concerning what has become "Amanda's Story" reflects on the controversy. False accusations by over zealous Child Protective Service workers relied heavily on medical records summarizing SBS as the cause of injuries in that case.
Shaken Baby is iconic. My 5 week old grandson presented with fractures unrelated to SBS in 2011. Yet prosecutors, DHS and an abuse expert were fixated on a mental image of an innocent baby being shaken. My grandson was diagnosed with neonatal rickets. Irregardless the system was unrelenting in its efforts to refute current medical research. Much the same way new research is challenged in courtrooms where unexplained head injuries are on trial.
Can non medical influences diminish updated research and affect true justice? Innocent families are riding on the correct diagnosis.
"FAMILY COURT"
I had read about court proceedings on line, in news papers and on TV. The American people are unaware there are Family courts and Criminal courts with different rules for each. In family / juvenile court you are guilty until proven innocent.
I can not fathom how that came to be. Is it just me? Does the rest of
the country know this? I do not think so. I am pretty sure legislators / lawyers have over time crept this into law along with numerous other changes.
Not enough of the general public know about the inner workings of our
judicial system or care about how it functions. Basically, the attitude
is that so long as it does not affect us there is no need to understand
it. That is why we have attorneys, right? If reality becomes part of
your world, I hope you were able to glance at this first.
The state of Oregon like all states governs its courts through legislation. In cases such as ours where a child is removed by the Dept of Human Services (DHS), it becomes your worst nightmare! DHS is so consumed by their internal policies. Their existence is supported by their connection to the legal system. States have unlimited funds for legal representation and experts. Unless money is of no consequence to those challenging the state a public defender is the degree of legal help most receive. Money was of a consequence to us though we soon found out that a public defender is not the best option in today's court rooms. It in my opinion is impossible to fight the system if living in poverty. It takes thousands of dollars to even attempt to challenge the state with a privately retained attorney. There are countless uncontested cases where the case didn't get past an initial hearing. Innocent parents do whatever it takes to have their children returned. DHS Requires a safety assessment plan. That plans includes state payroll psychologists, state determined parenting classes, visitation through state run foster care programs and DHS certified observers. Is it just me or does it appear as though children within the system afford a certain level of job security?
Time is of no consequence to DHS. Once embroiled in a family court case they are exacting their job description. Opponents have to shift, maneuver and crunch their daily lives at the expense of the system. Court is only held during the work week and during normal working hours. The state has District Attorneys and Attorney Generals at their disposal. Money for witnesses is not a factor. The prosecutor determines what perjury is, if that comes into question. Seldom does a DA pursue charges on their own witnesses. Exculpatory evidence is irrelevant in family court. And though existing in both family and criminal courts, State employees have qualified immunity.
In Oregon, DHS primarily pursues court actions through the juvenile court system. The opposing party is put on the defense. There an opposing party is considered Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Preponderance of the Evidence is used rather than Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. At some point it was decided that having to prove someone guilty beyond a shadow of doubt was too lenient on child abusers. It became a hell on earth for innocent caregivers. The medical science concerning unresolved absolutes in how unexplained injuries occurred is damning. Cases involving the controversial and defunct Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), Infant vaccinations and metabolic conditions are too misunderstood. Judges are not experts. The weight of protecting the baby is ultimately on their shoulders. Beyond a shadow of doubt has no loop hole. Who, what, when, where, how and why have to leave no doubt as to guilt or innocence. With Preponderance of Evidence a judge can twist and write an opinion in such a way as to reflect guilt in cases of contested medical science. Why risk putting a child in a dangerous situation. Just rule so that DHS has control. Once DHS wins, they by order of the court and their own bureaucratic rules must oversee the return or continued separation of the child. Possibly, to the point of having the child adopted.
Lastly, once DHS even so much as suspect's child abuse. Those suspected are placed on a Child Abuse Registry. That is for life and does not require criminal charges. That is a violation of Due Process and is being contested nationwide. Ask yourself, when and how did all this happen?
In the medical field a "false negative"
is "a test result that is incorrect because the test failed to
recognize an existing condition or finding". Existing conditions such as
neonatal rickets are failed to be recognized each year. I am a
grandparent whose grandson had rickets. He was also wrongly diagnosed as
being physically abused. I have researched for over two years all that
is misunderstood and misrepresented in this area. I have conversed with
medical experts from UCLA, Stanford, Vanderbilt and Harvard. I
communicate regularly with attorneys and practicing physicians that
agree with my opinion (Or, I just agree with theirs?). Our expert
radiologist was just recently published on the subject of injuries
resembling abuse.
The very mention of child abuse conjures up mental images that stir our most primal of human instincts. Protect the species; protect the very essence of our nurturing instincts. Can those responsible for protecting our children separate their emotions from fact? Evaluating cases of suspected child abuse deserves the highest of standards. There is no place for biased opinions in this area.
Most people do not understand the intricacies of being accused of child abuse until it enters their world. Our judicial system has set policies and procedures that have evolved over many years. In Family Court you are guilty until proven innocent. Mistakes are often made and innocent caregivers are falsely accused. State workers that falsely accuse you of child abuse have Qualified immunity. There is a major need to educate the public. Well intentioned professionals make mistakes in the court system. In far too many instances, some are so focused on protecting the infant that the rights of the parents are ignored.
X-RAYS DO NOT REVEAL THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY
An X-ray can only create an image. Experts can only interpret that image. They are not psychic, and an X-ray image is not a crystal ball. It does not matter if it was a two story fall, an auto accident or blunt physical force by a person. The X-ray will only show it as broken and what type of fracture it is. In my opinion, detailing how a fracture occurred without compiling birth history, lab results and X-ray images will create a false negative. The science and technology are available for a correct diagnosis. There is no excuse for missing an existing metabolic condition. Multiple medical experts are joining forces to correct injustices. Years of accepted research that established that Classical Metaphyseal Lesions (CML) specifically for abuse is being questioned. According to an article in the American Journal of Roentgeneology, images thought to be caused by abuse may in fact be caused by metabolic conditions. Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society of Pediatric Radiologists are pursuing an active role in understanding the different ideologies. A false negative occurs (which in my opinion is a reflection of each expert's individual interpretation of an X-ray image) when a metabolic condition is missed. If a true metabolic condition is missed, a series of events take place that I would not wish on anyone.
When physical child abuse is suspected and the medical experts express that they believe it may be abuse, a child or children may be removed from a parent's custody. Once that happens, it becomes a battle in the court room. Both sides arguing that they have proof of the cause of the injuries. A court room is no place for this argument. The proper place is in a hospital using a precise Deferential Diagnosis.
A Differential Diagnosis allows for innocent children brought in for suspicion of abuse to be thoroughly evaluated. If the police and state are involved many people believe it must be abuse. The focus turns to confirmation bias. Well meaning individuals crisscross certain facts. Emotions can cause obvious evidence to be overlooked. The best way to describe confirmation bias is with the old adage "If your only tool is a hammer, everything is a nail".
In my opinion, people should ask themselves "Do I know the facts?" Whenever they read or hear about a case of child abuse. Before you cast stones at the suspected abuser/s do you know the whole story? Are you just abiding by your instincts to lash out at someone that would injure an innocent infant? Please understand that when you do that, you are ignoring the fact that removing an infant from loving parents is almost as devastating.
The state of Oregon like all states governs its courts through legislation. In cases such as ours where a child is removed by the Dept of Human Services (DHS), it becomes your worst nightmare! DHS is so consumed by their internal policies. Their existence is supported by their connection to the legal system. States have unlimited funds for legal representation and experts. Unless money is of no consequence to those challenging the state a public defender is the degree of legal help most receive. Money was of a consequence to us though we soon found out that a public defender is not the best option in today's court rooms. It in my opinion is impossible to fight the system if living in poverty. It takes thousands of dollars to even attempt to challenge the state with a privately retained attorney. There are countless uncontested cases where the case didn't get past an initial hearing. Innocent parents do whatever it takes to have their children returned. DHS Requires a safety assessment plan. That plans includes state payroll psychologists, state determined parenting classes, visitation through state run foster care programs and DHS certified observers. Is it just me or does it appear as though children within the system afford a certain level of job security?
Time is of no consequence to DHS. Once embroiled in a family court case they are exacting their job description. Opponents have to shift, maneuver and crunch their daily lives at the expense of the system. Court is only held during the work week and during normal working hours. The state has District Attorneys and Attorney Generals at their disposal. Money for witnesses is not a factor. The prosecutor determines what perjury is, if that comes into question. Seldom does a DA pursue charges on their own witnesses. Exculpatory evidence is irrelevant in family court. And though existing in both family and criminal courts, State employees have qualified immunity.
In Oregon, DHS primarily pursues court actions through the juvenile court system. The opposing party is put on the defense. There an opposing party is considered Guilty Until Proven Innocent. Preponderance of the Evidence is used rather than Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. At some point it was decided that having to prove someone guilty beyond a shadow of doubt was too lenient on child abusers. It became a hell on earth for innocent caregivers. The medical science concerning unresolved absolutes in how unexplained injuries occurred is damning. Cases involving the controversial and defunct Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), Infant vaccinations and metabolic conditions are too misunderstood. Judges are not experts. The weight of protecting the baby is ultimately on their shoulders. Beyond a shadow of doubt has no loop hole. Who, what, when, where, how and why have to leave no doubt as to guilt or innocence. With Preponderance of Evidence a judge can twist and write an opinion in such a way as to reflect guilt in cases of contested medical science. Why risk putting a child in a dangerous situation. Just rule so that DHS has control. Once DHS wins, they by order of the court and their own bureaucratic rules must oversee the return or continued separation of the child. Possibly, to the point of having the child adopted.
Lastly, once DHS even so much as suspect's child abuse. Those suspected are placed on a Child Abuse Registry. That is for life and does not require criminal charges. That is a violation of Due Process and is being contested nationwide. Ask yourself, when and how did all this happen?
"X-RAY IMAGES DETERMINING ABUSE IN DEBATE"
False child abuse allegations are occurring nation wide. When my grandson was falsely accused of being abused by his parents in Nov. 2011, I did what any concerned grand parent would do: I got involved! The controversy surrounding accidental trauma and unexplained injuries is in a critical stage. For years medical experts have relied on Dr. Paul Klienman's research asserting that Classic Metaphyseal Lesions (CMLs) are secondary to abuse. Dr. David Ayoub's research is in direct conflict of that hypothesis. Dr. Ayoub is joined by Dr Marvin Miller, Dr. Marta Cohen and Dr. Charles Hyman in an article submitted in the American Journal of Roentgeneology.
Dr. Ayoub is currently awaiting publication of another article that supports the hypothesis that X-ray images have been misdiagnosed as having been caused by abuse. Specifically CML's.
Since 1946, Dr. John Caffey has been a leader in identifying child abuse injuries connected to suspicion of Shaken Baby Syndrome. His research has spawned many other areas of research. Dr. Klienman branched out further from Dr. Caffey's research concerning Bucket Handle and Corner Fractures. My opinion is that since there was a need for evidence in cases where infants had unexplained injuries, Klienman and Caffey were looking for collective similarities among fractures that would help convict child abusers. Unfortunately, their research, as pointed out by Dr. Ayoub, was missing key elements. Nonetheless prosecutors, the Department of Human Services and many child abuse experts have joined forces utilizing Dr. Klienman's research as conclusive evidence that CML's are caused by abuse.
Our case was a classic example of how that hypothesis needs to be researched and evaluated more closely. My grandson was not abused. He had what is known as Neonatal Rickets. Most radiologists base their findings on research that does not separate the more common signs of rickets, such as bowing of the legs and thick wrists from the more subtle signs found in neonates. Classic rickets signs are seen only after 6 months, upon which time infants are crawling and walking. Infants are starting to apply weight to weak bones. My grandson was only 5 weeks old. He had what Dr. Klienman describes as CML's. A lot of emphasis is placed on CML's in court.
I refer you to a study by Dr. Dwek. Rickets can have images similar to those found in abuse victims. Dr. Dwek agrees with Dr. Klienman some what. His research is as a reference for a shared opinion of the two hypotheses. Had the State's expert utilized Dr. Dwek's or Ayoub's approach to unexplained injurie,s our case would have had a much better chance of being seen as a metabolic condition, rather than that of child abuse. My grandson had no swelling, no bruising, no retinal hemorrhaging, no internal injuries, and no head or neck injuries. There was no history of domestic violence. No criminal charges were filed. My grandson's birth history was available, yet the state's expert did not think it necessary to review it. My grandson was born weighing 9lbs 7oz and was 41 5/7 wks. He was Shoulder Dystocia. As Dr. Dwek pointed out, all were crucial to a correct diagnosis.
Our case was one of the battles in the war that has been waging in the medical community. It was either fueled by money, egos or ignorance (or all three). My grandson was not abused. Many families nationwide are realizing the consequences of courts using incomplete research. Here is an excellent review of the situation concerning misdiagnosis of abuse and its consequences in the courts.
I have talked with Dr. Ines Boechat, a past president of the Society for Pediatric Radiology. She is concerned about this area. In my opinion, her opinion was consistent with Dr. Dwek's. Radiologistss observations need to be combined with medical history and laboratory tests. This would ensure an accurate diagnosis is made. Recently the American Academy of Pediatrics published an article concerning fractures in infants. Hopefully medical experts will begin to differentiate between fact and fiction concerning unexplained fractures.
I have been in contact with several experts in this field of study to include Dr. David Ayoub, Dr. Marvin Miller, Dr. Steven Gaebeff, Dr. Bruce Hollis, Dr. Michael Laposata, Dr. Patrick Barnes, Dr. John Plunket, Dr. John Cannell, Dr Michael Holick.
The lack of media coverage is a continuing problem for so many. The misinformation, the secrecy within the Dept of Human Services and the controversial element are not politically correct news items. Hopefully that will change too. The public needs to know!
"CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS ARE NO PLACE FOR MISTAKES"
False child abuse allegations are occurring nation wide. When my grandson was falsely accused of being abused by his parents in Nov. 2011, I did what any concerned grand parent would do: I got involved! The controversy surrounding accidental trauma and unexplained injuries is in a critical stage. For years medical experts have relied on Dr. Paul Klienman's research asserting that Classic Metaphyseal Lesions (CMLs) are secondary to abuse. Dr. David Ayoub's research is in direct conflict of that hypothesis. Dr. Ayoub is joined by Dr Marvin Miller, Dr. Marta Cohen and Dr. Charles Hyman in an article submitted in the American Journal of Roentgeneology.
Dr. Ayoub is currently awaiting publication of another article that supports the hypothesis that X-ray images have been misdiagnosed as having been caused by abuse. Specifically CML's.
Since 1946, Dr. John Caffey has been a leader in identifying child abuse injuries connected to suspicion of Shaken Baby Syndrome. His research has spawned many other areas of research. Dr. Klienman branched out further from Dr. Caffey's research concerning Bucket Handle and Corner Fractures. My opinion is that since there was a need for evidence in cases where infants had unexplained injuries, Klienman and Caffey were looking for collective similarities among fractures that would help convict child abusers. Unfortunately, their research, as pointed out by Dr. Ayoub, was missing key elements. Nonetheless prosecutors, the Department of Human Services and many child abuse experts have joined forces utilizing Dr. Klienman's research as conclusive evidence that CML's are caused by abuse.
Our case was a classic example of how that hypothesis needs to be researched and evaluated more closely. My grandson was not abused. He had what is known as Neonatal Rickets. Most radiologists base their findings on research that does not separate the more common signs of rickets, such as bowing of the legs and thick wrists from the more subtle signs found in neonates. Classic rickets signs are seen only after 6 months, upon which time infants are crawling and walking. Infants are starting to apply weight to weak bones. My grandson was only 5 weeks old. He had what Dr. Klienman describes as CML's. A lot of emphasis is placed on CML's in court.
I refer you to a study by Dr. Dwek. Rickets can have images similar to those found in abuse victims. Dr. Dwek agrees with Dr. Klienman some what. His research is as a reference for a shared opinion of the two hypotheses. Had the State's expert utilized Dr. Dwek's or Ayoub's approach to unexplained injurie,s our case would have had a much better chance of being seen as a metabolic condition, rather than that of child abuse. My grandson had no swelling, no bruising, no retinal hemorrhaging, no internal injuries, and no head or neck injuries. There was no history of domestic violence. No criminal charges were filed. My grandson's birth history was available, yet the state's expert did not think it necessary to review it. My grandson was born weighing 9lbs 7oz and was 41 5/7 wks. He was Shoulder Dystocia. As Dr. Dwek pointed out, all were crucial to a correct diagnosis.
Our case was one of the battles in the war that has been waging in the medical community. It was either fueled by money, egos or ignorance (or all three). My grandson was not abused. Many families nationwide are realizing the consequences of courts using incomplete research. Here is an excellent review of the situation concerning misdiagnosis of abuse and its consequences in the courts.
I have talked with Dr. Ines Boechat, a past president of the Society for Pediatric Radiology. She is concerned about this area. In my opinion, her opinion was consistent with Dr. Dwek's. Radiologistss observations need to be combined with medical history and laboratory tests. This would ensure an accurate diagnosis is made. Recently the American Academy of Pediatrics published an article concerning fractures in infants. Hopefully medical experts will begin to differentiate between fact and fiction concerning unexplained fractures.
I have been in contact with several experts in this field of study to include Dr. David Ayoub, Dr. Marvin Miller, Dr. Steven Gaebeff, Dr. Bruce Hollis, Dr. Michael Laposata, Dr. Patrick Barnes, Dr. John Plunket, Dr. John Cannell, Dr Michael Holick.
The lack of media coverage is a continuing problem for so many. The misinformation, the secrecy within the Dept of Human Services and the controversial element are not politically correct news items. Hopefully that will change too. The public needs to know!
"CHILD ABUSE ACCUSATIONS ARE NO PLACE FOR MISTAKES"
The very mention of child abuse conjures up mental images that stir our most primal of human instincts. Protect the species; protect the very essence of our nurturing instincts. Can those responsible for protecting our children separate their emotions from fact? Evaluating cases of suspected child abuse deserves the highest of standards. There is no place for biased opinions in this area.
Most people do not understand the intricacies of being accused of child abuse until it enters their world. Our judicial system has set policies and procedures that have evolved over many years. In Family Court you are guilty until proven innocent. Mistakes are often made and innocent caregivers are falsely accused. State workers that falsely accuse you of child abuse have Qualified immunity. There is a major need to educate the public. Well intentioned professionals make mistakes in the court system. In far too many instances, some are so focused on protecting the infant that the rights of the parents are ignored.
X-RAYS DO NOT REVEAL THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY
An X-ray can only create an image. Experts can only interpret that image. They are not psychic, and an X-ray image is not a crystal ball. It does not matter if it was a two story fall, an auto accident or blunt physical force by a person. The X-ray will only show it as broken and what type of fracture it is. In my opinion, detailing how a fracture occurred without compiling birth history, lab results and X-ray images will create a false negative. The science and technology are available for a correct diagnosis. There is no excuse for missing an existing metabolic condition. Multiple medical experts are joining forces to correct injustices. Years of accepted research that established that Classical Metaphyseal Lesions (CML) specifically for abuse is being questioned. According to an article in the American Journal of Roentgeneology, images thought to be caused by abuse may in fact be caused by metabolic conditions. Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society of Pediatric Radiologists are pursuing an active role in understanding the different ideologies. A false negative occurs (which in my opinion is a reflection of each expert's individual interpretation of an X-ray image) when a metabolic condition is missed. If a true metabolic condition is missed, a series of events take place that I would not wish on anyone.
When physical child abuse is suspected and the medical experts express that they believe it may be abuse, a child or children may be removed from a parent's custody. Once that happens, it becomes a battle in the court room. Both sides arguing that they have proof of the cause of the injuries. A court room is no place for this argument. The proper place is in a hospital using a precise Deferential Diagnosis.
A Differential Diagnosis allows for innocent children brought in for suspicion of abuse to be thoroughly evaluated. If the police and state are involved many people believe it must be abuse. The focus turns to confirmation bias. Well meaning individuals crisscross certain facts. Emotions can cause obvious evidence to be overlooked. The best way to describe confirmation bias is with the old adage "If your only tool is a hammer, everything is a nail".
In my opinion, people should ask themselves "Do I know the facts?" Whenever they read or hear about a case of child abuse. Before you cast stones at the suspected abuser/s do you know the whole story? Are you just abiding by your instincts to lash out at someone that would injure an innocent infant? Please understand that when you do that, you are ignoring the fact that removing an infant from loving parents is almost as devastating.
