Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’!
It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some than others. I love kids and care deeply about their welfare, but people sometimes try to make me feel bad or that I’m the weird one for being able to think (I believe) fairly rationally about the risks and dangers that they face, instead of massively over-exaggerating!
Or of course the opposite, keeping an appropriate eye on relations and acquaintances when people assume they’re totally safe but it’s actually somebody with that level of relation who’s likely to be a danger than a stranger.
> Amazing that bit about child welfare organisations fighting against the science, when clearly taking children away based on false accusations is clearly far worse for the child’s welfare, not to mention the parents’!
This is just speculation, but I bet those groups (or their members) aren't always calmly and coolly trying to find the best policies protect the welfare of children. Instead they feel themselves on a kind of righteous moral crusade, and what's more heroic than swooping in to take the child away from the clutches of the villain? The feelings of heroism could obscure understanding the harm the "heroic act" could cause.
My theory is that emotionally charged issues seem like a haven for people not thinking clearly and cover for hand waving or opposing any thoughtful analysis.
I think there are people drawn to the absolutes. I can maybe see how it can be comforting to have a black and white issue to try to solve / help. A good side to be a part of in a world that to some seems very bad or confusing.
Some old friends of mine are very much into these kinds of children’s issues. But when they talk to you about it it’s all emotion, it’s not even clear to me that they know much at all other than a sense that the bad guys are out there, maybe some strange legislation they support and so on. They’re not interested in justice, just this absolute sorta cause.
My sense is it's important to keep in back-of-mind that there is a massive selection effect involved in terms of which people chose to enter these fields and what sorts of personal life events (trauma, abuse, witnessing of abuse etc) motives choosing to make this a career. These are not well-paid careers (nor are they high-status) so money and status are typically not motivations (in fact a relative of an in-law works in a closely-related field and we talk at Thanksgiving-type family events about work and their employers often seem to me to be exploiting their investment in the field). I think it's why it can be so difficult to discuss it with them, it is deeply personal and they feel the "system" failed in the past and they want it fixed.
Anyway, it's not meant as an ad hom, but it helps to step back and think why people are involved with certain roles.
To be clear: here the author only bothered look with his well-trained eyes because he was sucked in after the law intruded into his life. It's easy to assume that everyone is highly-skilled. But... highly-skilled people don't usually choose to work for peanuts without other reasons. Fields like this are neglected.
It seems like there is still significant disagreement with this guy's argument in "the science", at least as best as any individual child welfare employee would understand it. There are no doubt specialist doctors, general practitioners, etc. telling the child welfare folks that it's as clear cut a diagnosis as you could get.
The fact of the matter is, the article here is a brief overview describing none of the actual scientific literature at a level that should be convincing to a medical practitioner. But you read it and are apparently convinced of the author's point. So, a layperson (I assume, in your case) is presented with some well-written evidence from an authoritative perspective, alongside broad contours of the actual medical evidence but no details, and is convinced that it's true. Is it so hard to believe that a child welfare worker would be equally convinced under the same circumstances when talking to a doctor, neurologist, trauma surgeon, etc. who believes the opposite as this author?
The “passion” goes beyond this specific issue. Child abuse specialist doctors have come to some sketchy conclusions, only to have the system cover for them.
Part of the issue is they exist in several systems simultaneously: medical system, child-welfare system, and criminal justice system.
Are they there to cure disease, ensure the child had a safe home environment, or put an abuser in prison. Answer: all of the above.
There's a bias in favor of action, especially among the social workers that I have known. The worst possible sin is to do nothing at all.
In cases like this, in the moment, it may be impossible to tell what is actually best for the child. Since removing the child is a form of remediation, it can easily seem to be less harmful than leaving them in a situation that might be actively harming them.
> It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some than others. I love kids and care deeply about their welfare, but people sometimes try to make me feel bad or that I’m the weird one for being able to think (I believe) fairly rationally about the risks and dangers that they face, instead of massively over-exaggerating!
Everyone cares about kids, so THINK OF THE CHILDREN is an easy way to both create false urgency to cover totalitarianism and also an excellent shame-generator to suppress protest. C.f. "Drag shows"; "digital privacy"
It's part of the contract cult mechanism. Human tribes for a early version of law by forming contract cults aka religions. For that sexual deviants are hearded into a group to which the family is then ritualistically exposed as a sort of hostage situation that upholds basic providing and welfare contracts. The hysteria is a social fitness signal: "I'm reliably retarded and can be used as a social building block". This is pretty cultural universal, though the cultural baggage with the contact cult may produce different outcomes.
This concept of "the science" we've converged on a culture really doesn't make a ton of sense. What does it mean to say "the science" is against a position that many relevant experts hold? To the extent that there is such a thing as "the science", the book the author is advertising (https://shakenbaby.science/) is pretty frank that its goal is to argue against it: there's a traditional medical consensus in favor of SBS/AHT, but it's become more controversial, and if you read this book you too will be convinced that it's wrong.
1. Premise: Organizations always try to stay alive.
2. To stay alive you have to be active and doing things which is rewarded by future money.
3. If your organizational role is "protect children" but who's functional mechanism is to take them away will look for ways to do that.
Similar things happen when policing seems to go awry, if they confuse "protect the public" (goal) with "arrest people for stuff" (doing something)
I have some inside information on how this plays out in Ontario, Canada, at least. One of my family members was a lawyer for the regional Children's Aid, and I worked for him for a few years. Another family member was a child protection social worker for two decades, but retired early because they felt the organization didn't prioritize the welfare of children (as is their mandate) but rather the needs of the organization or (perhaps more realistically) the needs of their own careers.
MANY social workers feel this way. They got into the field out of a genuine concern for the well-being of the most vulnerable members of our society, and instead found themselves dealing with politics (both real and office).
I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but in my region, they actually appoint a lawyer for the child. This is great, but it also tells you a lot about what everyone else's priorities are that children need their own lawyers:
(1) Parents want their kids back, of course. Not all parents are fit to get them back. But their lawyers fight for the return of their kids regardless of circumstances or reasons for their removal.
(2) Child protection agencies are under constant attack, so at the executive level, they lose sight of the individual kids and are instead worried about the needs of the organization and public relations.
(3) The social workers themselves are handcuffed to do anything about it and have to follow procedure, even if they can see it plainly that the procedure is not in the best interests of the child.
(4) Police want nothing to do with any of it and are quick to wash their hands of these situations.
(5) The children's lawyer somehow has to represent the needs of the child, which may place them at odds with their own clients (the kids).
(6) Activist groups will generally support the parents blindly, because by law, for the privacy of the children, the only parties listed above who can publicly speak about any given case are the parents themselves. So you can only ever hear one side of the argument. That's right: If a father, for example, sexually abuses his kids and as a result has them removed, he's free to say just about anything he likes about the matter, without ever acknowledging that he's a child molester. The other parties can't say a thing about this.
As a result, it's impossible, as a member of the public, to ever know whether it was appropriate or not that the children were removed from the care of their parents. I happen to know, from first-hand experience, that it's a mixed bag: Some parents shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any child ever, much less their own. Others are victims of a system gone haywire. And we, the concerned public, can't have an informed discussion about any of it.
All in all, it transforms child protection into a game of who-has-the-best-lawyers rather than trying to do what's right for the kids. Is it any wonder so many kids end up traumatized by this system?
>I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some than others.
CPS is a human organization. There are no algorithms and the guidelines rarely perfectly fit the situation a case worker is given. Keep this in mind. CPS is horrifically under funded meaning that intelligent and competent staff readily leave the field for better paying gigs.
The biggest problem I see with foster care at large is the rampant classism, sexism, racism, and other isms. The providers tend to be solidly middle class degree bearing people who have no personal connection to primary instigating factors of foster care involvement. Namely and typically presenting cross generationally: poverty, crimes of despair or desperation, and trauma whether that be internal or external to the family unit or community such as neighborhood violence, caregiver assault, or tragic loss.
It easy for providers to casually profile incoming children and their families as poor uneducated violent predacious drug dealing junkies. Providers are given extreme control over the entire family and their extended relations and use this power to coerce whatever behavior they desire out of the people. If the provider dislikes the family they have a lot of tools to inflict suffering on them and oppositely they have a lot of tools to assist families and keep them together.
Honestly, the entire system is such a god damn mess that it should be rebuilt with the same level of distrust of staff that they can exercise against families.
Perhaps the most pressing single metric to focus may be the foster to prison pipeline.
Sorry for the meandering post, bookcases could be filled with anecdotes and descriptions of the flaws in these systems. In general, I think the failure of child protection agencies reflects the decay in America at large. I could point to stuff like broken family units or loss of religions community but I’m not dog whistling here. Stable healthy nurturing familial units of any relation are obviously better but man in the house rules and other racist/classist measures caused more harm. I’m also vehemently opposed to all major organized religions that are regularly used to justify war and protect child sex predators. Perhaps the collapse of American industry and slow erosion of social safety nets has hastened the social collapse. Perhaps the internet had instigated the collapse of communal organizations. Perhaps winner take all government enforced monopoly capitalism is the cause. Perhaps it was the theft of 50,000,000,000.00 from the bottom 99 by the 1% that lead to this. Regardless, the solution is not going to be found in rebuilding foster care when our social fabric is rotten.
The worst part here is: He spent months researching 500 medical papers to even realize this was a problem. No way in hell will a single defense lawyer get someone to be able to research enough to figure this out. As stated, how many people are in jail or lost their kids due to something that didn't actually happen. And how many people don't know that a minor bump in the head for a baby could be life threatening, but we just mark it as SIDS. And even worse, no medical doctor will go this hard trying to figure out how to defend a person they believe murdered a baby.
It is the perfect combination of crap.
Cyrille Rossant may save a lot of lives, in both parents and children, if this becomes common knowledge.
The ironic thing here is that these sorts of innocuous bumps and minor traumas regularly lead to severe medical complications and deaths in older children & adults, too. The only difference here is that babies & toddlers are too young to be able to verbalize and advocate for themselves in ways that most adults recognize & respect.
Since having a kid and reading a lot I've been bothered by how clearly a lot of what is labeled as "SIDS" is pretty clearly accidental suffocation. The conclusion is impossible to escape when you begin reading about measures that have "reduced SIDS." Yet I also wonder if continuing to observe this social fiction is just a way of keeping overzealous prosecutors and other crusaders from locking up and treating as depraved murderers grieving families for accidental deaths.
Similar case in Denmark/Romania where a baby was taken from his romanian parents because of the shaken baby syndrome, parents spent time in jail, but the hemorage continued over time so they had to concede it wasn't the shaken baby syndromd.
> As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David. Thanks to our incredibly effective defense lawyer, we were cleared of all charges within two months, during which we stayed at the hospital 24/7 with David until we sorted out the legal procedures.
Holy shit. Parents bring baby to ER ... results reveal that baby was shaken (article later confirms this was not the case) ... parents lose custody for 2 months. Horror story.
> Very often, abuse is diagnosed “by default”, because no known alternative explanation was found (or even actively sought). This is extremely dangerous, as it seems to indicate that no further medical discovery need ever be made in the future.
Well, "dangerous" for who? For a lot of people involved in "child abuse" – from medical professionals to child services to the police – a false positive carries basically no consequences: you report it, or follow up, or do whatever your task is, "to be sure", and that's it.
But a false negative can have a lot more consequences, including losing your job, lawsuits, becoming the centre of a media circus, becoming the target of an investigation yourself, etc. etc.
Also see: most Amber Alerts should not have been sent, and are just simple cases of runaways, miscommunications, or family drama. But the official "pushing the button" to send out an alert has the same incentives as above.
This doesn’t surprise me. We have massive systemic issues in medical science and care delivery.
- Medical science handles variation by simply assuming that large enough samples will average out variation. This loses a ton of information as the “average person” is a construct that almost certainly doesn’t exist.
- news media on medical science glosses over all uncertainties in the name of clickbaity sensationalism.
- lawyers are the incentivized by our adversarial legal system to adopt aggressively hyperbolic interpretations of the science to sue people and extract money.
- medical associations then tweak policies to protect against malpractice
Run this loop enough times and lots of noise gets amplified.
My hope is the AI+sensors ushers in the era of truely personalized medicine.
When I was 14 or so I fell off my dirt bike and broke my arm, both bones in my forearm.
Went to the hospital. About 5 people asked me how it happened taking about an hour, while I was WRITHING in pain.
Finally, I complained to the right nurse and she got me something for the pain. It was just enough to stop crying, not enough to stop feeling it.
I later found out that the intake nurse was concerned about abuse.
I was dressed head to toe in dirtbike gear.
I was a 150lb 14 yr old.
my mother was 110 lbs.
They delayed treatment so multiple people, nurses, doctors, and hospital staff could all ask me what happened and compare if I told them the same thing.
THIS. It very often seems as if the medical/social system has "barricaded itself" inside it own ideological/psychiatric obsessions with the idea of child abuse, and is blind to reality. Let alone the actual welfare of the child.
While I certainly don't agree with delaying your treatment....your size/weight vs your mother's is irrelevant - just because she's who brought you in doesn't mean that she's the only person who could have abused you.
For all they know you've got a father or uncle or whoever that's huge and has anger problems who broke it.
One abusive family member and a partner who's covering for/trying to make up for their behavior (and may be being abused themselves) is a pretty common type of abusive situation.
They may delay treatment for reasons other than just asking; my son was in the ER for 4 hours with a significant laceration (it resulted in two layers of over 2 dozen sutures each) before he was given anything as the nurses were not allowed to administer an analgesic (much less pain killers) until a doctor had examined him, and it took 4 hours for the doctor to get to him.
At no point was there any sign of the staff acting like there might be abuse or neglect involved.
Once my kid cut his butt cheek falling off his bike (to this day I don't know how). I brought him to the hospital for sutures, and was asked to live the room while he was questioned. I felt very uncomfortable, and almost guilty, while this lasted for all of 5 minutes.
I cannot imagine losing custody of your child while he's in an emergency situation for a couple months. This must be a nightmare.
In the anglosphere (or may be just america) "think of the children" has lead to a lot of these sorts of issues. Child abuse is the worst thing anyone could imagine, and so, how could anyone over-react? How can any action be enough? May be some figures or entities take advantage of this, but there is some sincere motivation in these drives too. And now, we have issues like this article, children not being allowed unattended in most public places, children unallowed to walk on their own without adult supervision, and it goes on and on.
The thing is there is no needed ill intent, all parents can be sincere, and yet create a society and culture that stunts their very childrens' growth and lives. In the article, as the author said, how many thousands of parents have been separated from their child, and the infant, now parent-less, will be shuffled from foster home to foster home, all in the name of ending abuse based on filmsy evidence and poor science? It's depressing.
The very desire to protect and love leads to hurting those we intend to help.
This also reminds me a lot of the indoctrination we went through at the hospital when my daughter was born.
Despite being a high risk pregnancy we were railroaded into a natural birth. After nearly 24 hours of horrific labor she spiked an extremely high fever and they had to do a c-section, making us feel like failures. They found that our daughter wouldn’t have made it otherwise.
We were castigated because my wife took medicines that entered her milk and were made to feel like failures for considering not breast feeding. She had to pump milk at five AM before she took any medicine to minimize the exposure to the extremely toxic medicine that would be present in her milk. She didn’t produce enough milk and we were at wits end. The nurses and doctors at the hospital were unhelpful and treated us like abusers. When we went to our local pediatrician he laughed and said entire generations were raised on formula and to stop killing ourselves. It was the best advice we were ever given.
Likewise my daughter couldn’t sleep on her back. She wailed every night. I read everything I could find on SIDS and I realized the correlation for back sleeping was very weak - almost statistically irrelevant - and even then the prevalence of SIDS was very low. Yet I knew for 100% my daughter wasn’t sleeping. I knew if I told anyone I would be lectured, and I worried might even be reported. The after nearly a week of not sleeping I flipped her over one night with my heart pounding. She fell asleep immediately. She didn’t die.
She’s nine now and an incredible athlete and has a sharp and brilliant mind. None of the doomsday stuff occurred. No autism, no weak immune system, no weight problems, intellectual deficiency, or all the other warnings we were given about c-section, formula, or belly sleeping. Over the years I continued to read the research and there’s basically nothing compelling about any of this advice, at least not at the level of stridency parents experience.
It's interesting the instance cited about authors of a scientific paper being compelled to remove a reference because a peer reviewer alleged that the researcher behind it is "a lousy and dishonest researcher". What's more interesting is that PLOS ONE repeated the allegation. I am curious whether there is a case for defamation for the publication of such an allegation.
I've certainly had peer reviewers trying to get me to cite their own papers in my articles, however I've never seen an instance where a peer reviewer alleged that an article I've cited was by someone disreputable.
i’ve interacted with the author, who wrote a very nice spike sorting package called `phy` that i used several years back (and iirc turned me off using hdf5 as a result), and came away very impressed with what was so obviously a sharp mind. very odd to recognize the name in a totally other context. Not very pleasant to hear about such a rough time either!
My oldest son has special needs. He's 2e -- gifted and learning disabled -- and has a serious medical condition associated with being very underweight.
I put him in preschool to get him to talk. He could use sentences but wasn't.
At the start of kindergarten, first, second and third grade, I spoke with the teacher, explained he was difficult, let them know I welcomed communication on any issue. They were thrilled and relieved. Parents are often part of the problem.
By fourth grade, my son was no longer obviously "the weird kid." That teacher reported me to the social worker for letting him know up front my child was difficult and please don't hesitate to discuss things with me.
The social worker called me, we talked for a bit. She knew both my kids. Laughed it off as a silly misunderstanding. Months later, his teacher let me know he did eventually get the memo that my child had quirky interpretations of social things.
After my son finally got a proper diagnosis for his medical issue, he gained twenty pounds in one year and this did wonders for his social skills. Then he lost five pounds.
He still felt better than he ever had and neither of us were concerned. His medical team implied I was in danger of being reported to children's services as an abusive mother.
Because his condition predisposes people to being very underweight, pediatric clinics for the condition routinely include a dietitian and yet the standard recommended diet is "junk food" because it's high salt, high fat, high calorie and cheap.
I had not been feeding him junk food, but I dutifully put a big bowl of snacks in the middle of the coffee table. He regained 2.5 pounds, they decided that was adequate and didn't need more follow up visits.
We got home and, with no longer being under threat of being turned in as a neglectful or abusive parent, the first thing he did was hand me the bowl and tell me "We are never doing this again. I feel terrible!"
We resumed feeding him a high quality diet in line with the high fat, high salt, high calorie recommendations.
It's awful to be so protective of your children and be accused of abusing them based on no real evidence. I wish this project well.
This always scared me because I don't even know what counts as shaking.
Can you accidentally shake a baby? Can my 2 year old daughter get shaken baby syndrome when older children on an inflatable castle with her jump and bounce too wild around her (she can't jump yet but loves the bouncing)? I've also often seen parents throw their children a bit in the air and then catch them. The children like it and laugh.
I'm not even speaking of law and police but medically. Can this seriously hurt my daughter?
Generally throwing kids around (within reason) is absolutely safe, specially at +2yrs. Rough play is very much part of development for all mammals including us.
Perhaps something to help you cope with this is that our brain although fragile has a lot of redundancy around it.
On a fall or bounce our neck will decelerate our fall/bounce, there is no need to be an athlete, our muscles have a contraction reflex if they are violently streched (myotatic reflex), less so for very young babies with weak neck muscles (think less than 6/9 months).
Then our skull is filled with fluid which has inertia so the force on the skull is not directly transmitted to the brain. You have to slush the liquid around quite a bit before your brain experiences any meaningful force.
Effectively it is only with some extreme force or internal bleeding compressing the brain that brain damage would occur.
A) No, but no one can tell that you’re a dog on the internet. Further, dogs do not dispense reliable medical advice. The op is a press release for a textbook covering this topic in what looks like excruciating detail from a wide variety of angles. I doubt a superior citation exists.
B) Beyond that, my understanding is that once a child is past the infant phase where they cannot support their own head, they’re fine. Humans are not all that delicate. Bumps and falls are inevitable, I don’t see how we would have seen success as a species if the risk were outsized. And I guess we’ve been around for a while by now.
C) TFA does mention this a little but it is split across a wide gap and is not the focus. I pulled the two quotes I think are relevant below.
> And yet, although subdural and retinal hemorrhage may be caused by non-accidental trauma, especially when impact is involved, they simply are not specific for it: indeed, it has been demonstrated that a wide range of accidental events and medical conditions are plausible alternative causes. Particularly fragile infants may sustain severe head injuries following minor household falls. Others may suffer from genetic conditions, metabolic disorders, blood clotting abnormalities, or infections.
> On the other hand, there exist dozens of documented cases of witness reports of shaking, videotaped shakings, and spontaneous admissions of shaking, but without subdural and retinal hemorrhage. In fact, there is virtually no known case of a reliably-documented event of violent shaking without impact of a healthy baby resulting in isolated subdural and retinal hemorrhage (additional markers of trauma would be expected in such cases). In contrast, there have been numerous cases of videotaped or witnessed short falls resulting in these very medical findings, considered “impossible” by the shaking hypothesis.
So it’s like they say: it’s not the fall that gets you, it’s when you land.
I don't think you should worry too much. Abusive shaking really involves extreme forces. "Routine shaking" occurring during play is not expected to be harmful to healthy children. Games should be adapted to the age of children according to common sense.
The takeaway of biomechanics studies is basically that you should be much more careful about accidental head impacts on hard surfaces.
The article as I interpreted says that there is no recorded case where you can get shaken baby syndrome and the sharking was recorded on tape or declared in front of the police, that being said, if your child has some pathology, they might be at risk with even a minor fall
Here in Sweden I had to watch a video warning against baby shaking when my wife was pregnant with my first child. After seeing this horrible video, I waited a few hours to tell my wife that this entire thing was total bunk, and we've known it's been bunk for many years.
Here in Sweden this child abduction idiocy is upheld by three doctors who all refer to each other as the experts proving baby shaking is real. It's a disgrace.
I've been made to watch a similar video here in The Netherlands. It's not bunk though. Violently shaking a baby will lead to trauma which can cause death. What this book is about is that there are other causes that can lead to the same symptoms. The video is right. Shaking a baby leads to AHT. But the reverse isn't. AHT does not mean that the baby has been shaken. There are many other causes for AHT.
“ Let there be no misunderstanding on the point that shaking is an absolutely real and dramatic form of child abuse. Inflicted head trauma is a devastating condition and a definite cause of traumatic brain injuries, including intracranial hemorrhage. Many medical determinations of SBS/AHT are made on children who have effectively been victims of violent intentional trauma. Prevention efforts against all forms of child abuse are totally warranted.”
A lot of the comments here are missing this key statement. While there can be medical explanations for things that look like SBS, it’s exceedingly rare
> I couldn’t live with this uncertainty any longer. But first, I had to get my son back. As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David. Thanks to our incredibly effective defense lawyer, we were cleared of all charges within two months, during which we stayed at the hospital 24/7 with David until we sorted out the legal procedures. I would discover much later that we actually had been lucky to be allowed to do this, as most parents are abruptly separated from their babies for months after reporting takes place.
This sounds very much like presumed guilt rather than presumed innocence.
> As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David.
Are people absolutely nuts? Is this just a thing in France or is this elsewhere in Europe or even the US? You're actively encouraging people to not bring their children to the ER by doing this crazy nonsense.
This is a thing in most Western countries! Especially in the US. It dates back to the 1960s [1].
Most parents don't realize that anytime they interact with a medical doctor (or another professional), they interact with someone who was trained to detect "signs of abuse", which basically can be anything out of the ordinary. They are required by law to report any suspicion of abuse, and they can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. The incentives are pretty clear. Unfortunately, while this obviously protects some children, there are adverse effects such as an enormous waste of human and financial resources to unsubstantiated reports [2].
To quote Wikipedia (this is more generally about hotline calls but this also affects healthcare professionals):
"There are approximately 3.6 million calls each year nationwide (..) affecting on average 1 out of 10 U.S. families with children under the age of 18 each year (there are 32.2 million such families). (...) Of those substantiated, over half are minor situations and many are situations where the worker thinks something may happen in the future.
Each year, approximately 85% of hotline calls either do not warrant investigation or are not substantiated. Approximately 78% of all investigations are unsubstantiated and approximately 22% are substantiated, with around 9% where "alternative responses" are offered in some states, which have a focus on working with the family to address issues rather than confirming maltreatment."
On this topic, I highly recommend "Take Care of Maya" on Netflix.
Definitely a UK thing too. If you take your kid to A&E you can guarantee every person who interacts with you is required to be on the lookout for abuse. You get probing questions by the doctors as veiled accusations and you may get protection services knocking on your door the next day.
> . As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David. Thanks to our incredibly effective defense lawyer, we were cleared of all charges within two months, during which we stayed at the hospital 24/7 with David until we sorted out the legal procedures.
[+] [-] stephen_g|2 years ago|reply
It’s just incredible the injustice that can be done in the name of protecting children. I really do wonder if it’s cultural or some kind of innate psychological irrarionality that seems stronger in some than others. I love kids and care deeply about their welfare, but people sometimes try to make me feel bad or that I’m the weird one for being able to think (I believe) fairly rationally about the risks and dangers that they face, instead of massively over-exaggerating!
Or of course the opposite, keeping an appropriate eye on relations and acquaintances when people assume they’re totally safe but it’s actually somebody with that level of relation who’s likely to be a danger than a stranger.
[+] [-] tivert|2 years ago|reply
This is just speculation, but I bet those groups (or their members) aren't always calmly and coolly trying to find the best policies protect the welfare of children. Instead they feel themselves on a kind of righteous moral crusade, and what's more heroic than swooping in to take the child away from the clutches of the villain? The feelings of heroism could obscure understanding the harm the "heroic act" could cause.
[+] [-] duxup|2 years ago|reply
I think there are people drawn to the absolutes. I can maybe see how it can be comforting to have a black and white issue to try to solve / help. A good side to be a part of in a world that to some seems very bad or confusing.
Some old friends of mine are very much into these kinds of children’s issues. But when they talk to you about it it’s all emotion, it’s not even clear to me that they know much at all other than a sense that the bad guys are out there, maybe some strange legislation they support and so on. They’re not interested in justice, just this absolute sorta cause.
[+] [-] fluidcruft|2 years ago|reply
Anyway, it's not meant as an ad hom, but it helps to step back and think why people are involved with certain roles.
To be clear: here the author only bothered look with his well-trained eyes because he was sucked in after the law intruded into his life. It's easy to assume that everyone is highly-skilled. But... highly-skilled people don't usually choose to work for peanuts without other reasons. Fields like this are neglected.
[+] [-] cool_dude85|2 years ago|reply
The fact of the matter is, the article here is a brief overview describing none of the actual scientific literature at a level that should be convincing to a medical practitioner. But you read it and are apparently convinced of the author's point. So, a layperson (I assume, in your case) is presented with some well-written evidence from an authoritative perspective, alongside broad contours of the actual medical evidence but no details, and is convinced that it's true. Is it so hard to believe that a child welfare worker would be equally convinced under the same circumstances when talking to a doctor, neurologist, trauma surgeon, etc. who believes the opposite as this author?
[+] [-] pyuser583|2 years ago|reply
Part of the issue is they exist in several systems simultaneously: medical system, child-welfare system, and criminal justice system.
Are they there to cure disease, ensure the child had a safe home environment, or put an abuser in prison. Answer: all of the above.
Here’s a good example:
https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/01/alaska-couple-loses-custo...
[+] [-] zdragnar|2 years ago|reply
In cases like this, in the moment, it may be impossible to tell what is actually best for the child. Since removing the child is a form of remediation, it can easily seem to be less harmful than leaving them in a situation that might be actively harming them.
[+] [-] postmodest|2 years ago|reply
Everyone cares about kids, so THINK OF THE CHILDREN is an easy way to both create false urgency to cover totalitarianism and also an excellent shame-generator to suppress protest. C.f. "Drag shows"; "digital privacy"
[+] [-] 3seashells|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sam_goody|2 years ago|reply
Whatever it is:
- If it's in the name of protecting the children, odds are it is not justice.
- If it is not justice, at some point the excuse will be to protect the children
[+] [-] ekanes|2 years ago|reply
1. Premise: Organizations always try to stay alive. 2. To stay alive you have to be active and doing things which is rewarded by future money. 3. If your organizational role is "protect children" but who's functional mechanism is to take them away will look for ways to do that.
Similar things happen when policing seems to go awry, if they confuse "protect the public" (goal) with "arrest people for stuff" (doing something)
[+] [-] nickelcitymario|2 years ago|reply
MANY social workers feel this way. They got into the field out of a genuine concern for the well-being of the most vulnerable members of our society, and instead found themselves dealing with politics (both real and office).
I'm not sure how it is in other countries, but in my region, they actually appoint a lawyer for the child. This is great, but it also tells you a lot about what everyone else's priorities are that children need their own lawyers:
(1) Parents want their kids back, of course. Not all parents are fit to get them back. But their lawyers fight for the return of their kids regardless of circumstances or reasons for their removal.
(2) Child protection agencies are under constant attack, so at the executive level, they lose sight of the individual kids and are instead worried about the needs of the organization and public relations.
(3) The social workers themselves are handcuffed to do anything about it and have to follow procedure, even if they can see it plainly that the procedure is not in the best interests of the child.
(4) Police want nothing to do with any of it and are quick to wash their hands of these situations.
(5) The children's lawyer somehow has to represent the needs of the child, which may place them at odds with their own clients (the kids).
(6) Activist groups will generally support the parents blindly, because by law, for the privacy of the children, the only parties listed above who can publicly speak about any given case are the parents themselves. So you can only ever hear one side of the argument. That's right: If a father, for example, sexually abuses his kids and as a result has them removed, he's free to say just about anything he likes about the matter, without ever acknowledging that he's a child molester. The other parties can't say a thing about this.
As a result, it's impossible, as a member of the public, to ever know whether it was appropriate or not that the children were removed from the care of their parents. I happen to know, from first-hand experience, that it's a mixed bag: Some parents shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any child ever, much less their own. Others are victims of a system gone haywire. And we, the concerned public, can't have an informed discussion about any of it.
All in all, it transforms child protection into a game of who-has-the-best-lawyers rather than trying to do what's right for the kids. Is it any wonder so many kids end up traumatized by this system?
[+] [-] michael1999|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Red_Leaves_Flyy|2 years ago|reply
CPS is a human organization. There are no algorithms and the guidelines rarely perfectly fit the situation a case worker is given. Keep this in mind. CPS is horrifically under funded meaning that intelligent and competent staff readily leave the field for better paying gigs.
The biggest problem I see with foster care at large is the rampant classism, sexism, racism, and other isms. The providers tend to be solidly middle class degree bearing people who have no personal connection to primary instigating factors of foster care involvement. Namely and typically presenting cross generationally: poverty, crimes of despair or desperation, and trauma whether that be internal or external to the family unit or community such as neighborhood violence, caregiver assault, or tragic loss.
It easy for providers to casually profile incoming children and their families as poor uneducated violent predacious drug dealing junkies. Providers are given extreme control over the entire family and their extended relations and use this power to coerce whatever behavior they desire out of the people. If the provider dislikes the family they have a lot of tools to inflict suffering on them and oppositely they have a lot of tools to assist families and keep them together.
Honestly, the entire system is such a god damn mess that it should be rebuilt with the same level of distrust of staff that they can exercise against families.
Perhaps the most pressing single metric to focus may be the foster to prison pipeline.
Sorry for the meandering post, bookcases could be filled with anecdotes and descriptions of the flaws in these systems. In general, I think the failure of child protection agencies reflects the decay in America at large. I could point to stuff like broken family units or loss of religions community but I’m not dog whistling here. Stable healthy nurturing familial units of any relation are obviously better but man in the house rules and other racist/classist measures caused more harm. I’m also vehemently opposed to all major organized religions that are regularly used to justify war and protect child sex predators. Perhaps the collapse of American industry and slow erosion of social safety nets has hastened the social collapse. Perhaps the internet had instigated the collapse of communal organizations. Perhaps winner take all government enforced monopoly capitalism is the cause. Perhaps it was the theft of 50,000,000,000.00 from the bottom 99 by the 1% that lead to this. Regardless, the solution is not going to be found in rebuilding foster care when our social fabric is rotten.
0. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sop2.10
1. https://www.crimlawpractitioner.org/post/the-foster-care-to-....
3. https://nlihc.org/resource/study-examines-man-house-rules-vo...
4. https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri...
[+] [-] Justsignedup|2 years ago|reply
It is the perfect combination of crap.
Cyrille Rossant may save a lot of lives, in both parents and children, if this becomes common knowledge.
[+] [-] eitally|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emodendroket|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] singleshot_|2 years ago|reply
Why would we have to? We can just hire M. Rossant.
[+] [-] nelox|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raducu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bombcar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] itsmemattchung|2 years ago|reply
Holy shit. Parents bring baby to ER ... results reveal that baby was shaken (article later confirms this was not the case) ... parents lose custody for 2 months. Horror story.
[+] [-] arp242|2 years ago|reply
Well, "dangerous" for who? For a lot of people involved in "child abuse" – from medical professionals to child services to the police – a false positive carries basically no consequences: you report it, or follow up, or do whatever your task is, "to be sure", and that's it.
But a false negative can have a lot more consequences, including losing your job, lawsuits, becoming the centre of a media circus, becoming the target of an investigation yourself, etc. etc.
Also see: most Amber Alerts should not have been sent, and are just simple cases of runaways, miscommunications, or family drama. But the official "pushing the button" to send out an alert has the same incentives as above.
The incentives are pretty obvious.
[+] [-] rapatel0|2 years ago|reply
- Medical science handles variation by simply assuming that large enough samples will average out variation. This loses a ton of information as the “average person” is a construct that almost certainly doesn’t exist.
- news media on medical science glosses over all uncertainties in the name of clickbaity sensationalism.
- lawyers are the incentivized by our adversarial legal system to adopt aggressively hyperbolic interpretations of the science to sue people and extract money.
- medical associations then tweak policies to protect against malpractice
Run this loop enough times and lots of noise gets amplified.
My hope is the AI+sensors ushers in the era of truely personalized medicine.
[+] [-] fusslo|2 years ago|reply
When I was 14 or so I fell off my dirt bike and broke my arm, both bones in my forearm.
Went to the hospital. About 5 people asked me how it happened taking about an hour, while I was WRITHING in pain.
Finally, I complained to the right nurse and she got me something for the pain. It was just enough to stop crying, not enough to stop feeling it.
I later found out that the intake nurse was concerned about abuse.
I was dressed head to toe in dirtbike gear. I was a 150lb 14 yr old. my mother was 110 lbs.
They delayed treatment so multiple people, nurses, doctors, and hospital staff could all ask me what happened and compare if I told them the same thing.
[+] [-] bell-cot|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] volkl48|2 years ago|reply
For all they know you've got a father or uncle or whoever that's huge and has anger problems who broke it.
One abusive family member and a partner who's covering for/trying to make up for their behavior (and may be being abused themselves) is a pretty common type of abusive situation.
[+] [-] aidenn0|2 years ago|reply
At no point was there any sign of the staff acting like there might be abuse or neglect involved.
[+] [-] charles_f|2 years ago|reply
I cannot imagine losing custody of your child while he's in an emergency situation for a couple months. This must be a nightmare.
[+] [-] Apocryphon|2 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37632122
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/09/15/texas-shaken-b...
[+] [-] noobermin|2 years ago|reply
The thing is there is no needed ill intent, all parents can be sincere, and yet create a society and culture that stunts their very childrens' growth and lives. In the article, as the author said, how many thousands of parents have been separated from their child, and the infant, now parent-less, will be shuffled from foster home to foster home, all in the name of ending abuse based on filmsy evidence and poor science? It's depressing.
The very desire to protect and love leads to hurting those we intend to help.
[+] [-] fnordpiglet|2 years ago|reply
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/child-abuse-or-med...
This also reminds me a lot of the indoctrination we went through at the hospital when my daughter was born.
Despite being a high risk pregnancy we were railroaded into a natural birth. After nearly 24 hours of horrific labor she spiked an extremely high fever and they had to do a c-section, making us feel like failures. They found that our daughter wouldn’t have made it otherwise.
We were castigated because my wife took medicines that entered her milk and were made to feel like failures for considering not breast feeding. She had to pump milk at five AM before she took any medicine to minimize the exposure to the extremely toxic medicine that would be present in her milk. She didn’t produce enough milk and we were at wits end. The nurses and doctors at the hospital were unhelpful and treated us like abusers. When we went to our local pediatrician he laughed and said entire generations were raised on formula and to stop killing ourselves. It was the best advice we were ever given.
Likewise my daughter couldn’t sleep on her back. She wailed every night. I read everything I could find on SIDS and I realized the correlation for back sleeping was very weak - almost statistically irrelevant - and even then the prevalence of SIDS was very low. Yet I knew for 100% my daughter wasn’t sleeping. I knew if I told anyone I would be lectured, and I worried might even be reported. The after nearly a week of not sleeping I flipped her over one night with my heart pounding. She fell asleep immediately. She didn’t die.
She’s nine now and an incredible athlete and has a sharp and brilliant mind. None of the doomsday stuff occurred. No autism, no weak immune system, no weight problems, intellectual deficiency, or all the other warnings we were given about c-section, formula, or belly sleeping. Over the years I continued to read the research and there’s basically nothing compelling about any of this advice, at least not at the level of stridency parents experience.
[+] [-] murphyslab|2 years ago|reply
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/peerReview?id=10.1...
I've certainly had peer reviewers trying to get me to cite their own papers in my articles, however I've never seen an instance where a peer reviewer alleged that an article I've cited was by someone disreputable.
[+] [-] hprotagonist|2 years ago|reply
i’ve interacted with the author, who wrote a very nice spike sorting package called `phy` that i used several years back (and iirc turned me off using hdf5 as a result), and came away very impressed with what was so obviously a sharp mind. very odd to recognize the name in a totally other context. Not very pleasant to hear about such a rough time either!
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|2 years ago|reply
I put him in preschool to get him to talk. He could use sentences but wasn't.
At the start of kindergarten, first, second and third grade, I spoke with the teacher, explained he was difficult, let them know I welcomed communication on any issue. They were thrilled and relieved. Parents are often part of the problem.
By fourth grade, my son was no longer obviously "the weird kid." That teacher reported me to the social worker for letting him know up front my child was difficult and please don't hesitate to discuss things with me.
The social worker called me, we talked for a bit. She knew both my kids. Laughed it off as a silly misunderstanding. Months later, his teacher let me know he did eventually get the memo that my child had quirky interpretations of social things.
After my son finally got a proper diagnosis for his medical issue, he gained twenty pounds in one year and this did wonders for his social skills. Then he lost five pounds.
He still felt better than he ever had and neither of us were concerned. His medical team implied I was in danger of being reported to children's services as an abusive mother.
Because his condition predisposes people to being very underweight, pediatric clinics for the condition routinely include a dietitian and yet the standard recommended diet is "junk food" because it's high salt, high fat, high calorie and cheap.
I had not been feeding him junk food, but I dutifully put a big bowl of snacks in the middle of the coffee table. He regained 2.5 pounds, they decided that was adequate and didn't need more follow up visits.
We got home and, with no longer being under threat of being turned in as a neglectful or abusive parent, the first thing he did was hand me the bowl and tell me "We are never doing this again. I feel terrible!"
We resumed feeding him a high quality diet in line with the high fat, high salt, high calorie recommendations.
It's awful to be so protective of your children and be accused of abusing them based on no real evidence. I wish this project well.
[+] [-] katzenversteher|2 years ago|reply
Can you accidentally shake a baby? Can my 2 year old daughter get shaken baby syndrome when older children on an inflatable castle with her jump and bounce too wild around her (she can't jump yet but loves the bouncing)? I've also often seen parents throw their children a bit in the air and then catch them. The children like it and laugh.
I'm not even speaking of law and police but medically. Can this seriously hurt my daughter?
[+] [-] DoingIsLearning|2 years ago|reply
Perhaps something to help you cope with this is that our brain although fragile has a lot of redundancy around it.
On a fall or bounce our neck will decelerate our fall/bounce, there is no need to be an athlete, our muscles have a contraction reflex if they are violently streched (myotatic reflex), less so for very young babies with weak neck muscles (think less than 6/9 months).
Then our skull is filled with fluid which has inertia so the force on the skull is not directly transmitted to the brain. You have to slush the liquid around quite a bit before your brain experiences any meaningful force.
Effectively it is only with some extreme force or internal bleeding compressing the brain that brain damage would occur.
[+] [-] eep_social|2 years ago|reply
B) Beyond that, my understanding is that once a child is past the infant phase where they cannot support their own head, they’re fine. Humans are not all that delicate. Bumps and falls are inevitable, I don’t see how we would have seen success as a species if the risk were outsized. And I guess we’ve been around for a while by now.
C) TFA does mention this a little but it is split across a wide gap and is not the focus. I pulled the two quotes I think are relevant below.
> And yet, although subdural and retinal hemorrhage may be caused by non-accidental trauma, especially when impact is involved, they simply are not specific for it: indeed, it has been demonstrated that a wide range of accidental events and medical conditions are plausible alternative causes. Particularly fragile infants may sustain severe head injuries following minor household falls. Others may suffer from genetic conditions, metabolic disorders, blood clotting abnormalities, or infections.
> On the other hand, there exist dozens of documented cases of witness reports of shaking, videotaped shakings, and spontaneous admissions of shaking, but without subdural and retinal hemorrhage. In fact, there is virtually no known case of a reliably-documented event of violent shaking without impact of a healthy baby resulting in isolated subdural and retinal hemorrhage (additional markers of trauma would be expected in such cases). In contrast, there have been numerous cases of videotaped or witnessed short falls resulting in these very medical findings, considered “impossible” by the shaking hypothesis.
So it’s like they say: it’s not the fall that gets you, it’s when you land.
[+] [-] rossant|2 years ago|reply
The takeaway of biomechanics studies is basically that you should be much more careful about accidental head impacts on hard surfaces.
[+] [-] Fire-Dragon-DoL|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e40|2 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-ro...
[+] [-] boxed|2 years ago|reply
Here in Sweden this child abduction idiocy is upheld by three doctors who all refer to each other as the experts proving baby shaking is real. It's a disgrace.
[+] [-] Sander_Marechal|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] firesteelrain|2 years ago|reply
A lot of the comments here are missing this key statement. While there can be medical explanations for things that look like SBS, it’s exceedingly rare
[+] [-] sneak|2 years ago|reply
This sounds very much like presumed guilt rather than presumed innocence.
[+] [-] mlindner|2 years ago|reply
Are people absolutely nuts? Is this just a thing in France or is this elsewhere in Europe or even the US? You're actively encouraging people to not bring their children to the ER by doing this crazy nonsense.
[+] [-] rossant|2 years ago|reply
Most parents don't realize that anytime they interact with a medical doctor (or another professional), they interact with someone who was trained to detect "signs of abuse", which basically can be anything out of the ordinary. They are required by law to report any suspicion of abuse, and they can be prosecuted if they fail to do so. The incentives are pretty clear. Unfortunately, while this obviously protects some children, there are adverse effects such as an enormous waste of human and financial resources to unsubstantiated reports [2].
To quote Wikipedia (this is more generally about hotline calls but this also affects healthcare professionals):
"There are approximately 3.6 million calls each year nationwide (..) affecting on average 1 out of 10 U.S. families with children under the age of 18 each year (there are 32.2 million such families). (...) Of those substantiated, over half are minor situations and many are situations where the worker thinks something may happen in the future.
Each year, approximately 85% of hotline calls either do not warrant investigation or are not substantiated. Approximately 78% of all investigations are unsubstantiated and approximately 22% are substantiated, with around 9% where "alternative responses" are offered in some states, which have a focus on working with the family to address issues rather than confirming maltreatment."
On this topic, I highly recommend "Take Care of Maya" on Netflix.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_reporting_in_the_Uni...
[2] https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/50/1/Articles/50-1_...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on...
[+] [-] switch007|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackernewds|2 years ago|reply
Woah