My mom was having no problems with my little brother and he was ready to be born natural cuz she was allergic to the epidural and the made him breach just to do a emergency c-section just for her to wait 2 hours for them to take her in to get the emergency c-section and they almost lost my mom for giving medicine she was allergic to. Its bull give her back her kid she did nothing wrong the hospital did. they need to quite and give her back her baby she did nothing wrong
My mom was having no problems with my little brother and he was ready to be born natural cuz she was allergic to the epidural and the made him breach just to do a emergency c-section just for her to wait 2 hours for them to take her in to get the emergency c-section and they almost lost my mom for giving medicine she was allergic to. Its bull give her back her kid she did nothing wrong the hospital did.
Oh a woman was being difficult during labour? NO SHIT! It hurts like a bitch. These people are low lives. Sons a bitches shouldn't rip a baby away from her mother just because she has had issues. Unless she is a harm to the baby I don't see why she should do that.
The massive (criminally high) rate of C-sections is all about the bottom line. Hippocrates be damned. Think money. Only a bunch of arrogant men would try to sell women the idea that they are incapable of giving birth. And I don't think it's a coincidence that as midwives become more popular, doctors find more reason to recommend C-section -- so they can reap the profits while raping women and children.
By the way I have PTSD, and I raised two children who grew up to be productive adults.
My mom had an emergency c-section for my sister, her firstborn. It was needed, my sister was in a bad position and started to strangle. But they told my mom she had to have c-sections from now on. I was 3 months premature by a c-section (my mom never went into labor; she had me on doctor insisted appointment) because my mother's doctor insisted my own mother didn't know when she conceived me. Afterwards when I was barely 5lbs. and having a lot of health problems, no one apologized to my mom.
Hospitals push c-sections far to often, far to quickly. Because it's easier for the doctor, and it makes them more money. I've seen them go straight to the scalpel so quickly, without even giving things time to work out. It's ridiculous. And whether she consented earlier, it's her right to change her mind. Doctors start to think they are god -- and get pissed when a patient confronts them. They forget it is OUR body. It is OUR right to decide.
@RFouts0 Very correct. I have 2 toddlers and many friends with babies, hospitals are always so quick with the scalpel. They make a lot more for a c-section and it takes a lot less time to deliver the baby that way so they can get more people in an out of the rooms. I have rarely felt that much like a piece of meat except in a hospital where you are just a number that is tracked with charts and statistics. And daring to question a doctor's methods or treatment is always a big no-no.
Hospitals push c-sections far to often, far to quickly. Because it's easier for the doctor, and it makes them more money. I've seen them go straight to the scalpel so quickly, without even giving things time to work out. It's ridiculous. And whether she consented earlier, it's her right to change her mind.
WTF doctors in America can charge double for C-Section? Doctors always have something gibberish to say about the implications exaggeratively to those lesser people. They are more likes demons of Satan, just bcos she cant afford to go under the knife.
You're basing your assumption on that one piece of the ruling at the exclusion of everything else. Neither the hospital nor V.M.'s statements back up your claim. You already posted what the hospital staff said was the reason why they didn't do the epidural at first, but you forget that V.M. herself said that the reason why they couldn't do the epidural was because the other staff were being too rough on her and not allowing the anesthesiologist the chance to do the procedure.
Dont call it post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Euphemistic Language doesnt help the cause. Back in WW1 i was called Shell Shock. Thats a good name for it. George Carlin makes my point for better then I ever could. Just watch this video /watch?v=CNk_kzQCclo
Why is Ana confusing PTST (post traumatic stress disorder) with PPD (post partum depression)? They are NOT the same thing, by a long shot. Please, I beg you, research before you open your mouth.
I think, though, that the significance of this ruling hinges on WHY she wouldn't sign the form. It's easy to say, "Oh. C-sections have potential consequences, she's obviously right for not signing." But we don't know if she knew about the consequences or even why she refused to sign. We don't know what role the PTSD actually played. Maybe she's obsessed with vanity was willing to risk baby dying to prevent a scar on her tummy. We don't really know..
since there were no kids when she refused to sign the consent form it could have been either suicide or abortion. how would the question of child abuse come up when there were NO KIDS. rubbish. she had the right to do whatever she wanted with her body! this mother should file for kidnapping her child. wth
@drrx8 Over 200 women have been arrested in the US for "fetal abuse" on the grounds of life style choices such as drug use. Court persistently refuse to convict on these charges. The few charges that have been successfull have been overturned on appeal. Social services agencies routinely punish women for these choices. They get away with it because they are not challenged by the mostly poor women they pick on.
I call bullshit. This case has been drawn out for years, there is a lot of documentation which lay out clear and logical arguments by the courts. I'm not saying that the woman should lose the kid, but Anna needs to make a more in-depth argument.
The premise that Doctors do C-Sections only so they can charge more money is pretty far fetched. I'm not saying that out of every OB doctor in the country there isn't one crazy guy/girl who is actually motivated to do that but I can tell you that as a physician that it is extremely rare.
The reasons women get c-sections are broad and I'm not going to take the time to explain them all, but I can tell you that the number one priority is always the babies / mothers safety.
Just expanding on this briefly - I want to say that in training the typical mentality is as follows: Mom or Baby is in trouble !! What are you waiting on ?? Get them in the OR. - Rationale is seconds count. All it takes is one bad outcome and you will spend the rest of your life wishing you wouldn't have waited around.
@dclopton145 Research shows that c-sections are ordered most frequently around 4 pm, so the doctor can go home for supper, and at 10 pm, so the doctor can go home to bed. In most cases, labour is induced if the labour lasts more than 12 hours. The Pitocin causes fetal distress, which is then used as an excuse for the c-section. Have a look at the documentary "The Business of Being Born". Hospitals want those beds emptied and refilled as soon as possible - for the money, Lebowski.
@pirbird14 Apparently, after one psychologist found the parents to be in “desperate” need of psychiatric care, the court was required to issue a restraining order to protect his safety. Another psychologist, who was assaulted in the parents' home, also obtained a restraining order. the judge said DYFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and adoption was an appropriate plan because of V.M.’s psychiatric condition and non-compliance with treatment
@pirbird14 It is explicitly stated by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that the decision to refuse the C-Section did not make the case for neglect and abuse. The three judge panel agreed that the child should be kept from the parents for numerous other reasons
@dclopton145 bull, i know many doctors who will tell you that most u.s. doctors are soulless monsters who put profit above the health and safety of their patients. my mother was fooled by a doctor when i was a kid into thinking i had every made up thing in the book,a.d.d.,a.d.h.d, o.c.d.,you name it. all because when i was you i like most kids didn't like school. i almost died when i o.d.ed on all those pills they shoved down my throat,what was the doctors answer?"he should take 3 more kinds"wtf
It's just all screwy. If she had mental problems but said, "Okay, gimme the ol' c-section" they would have said, "here's your beautiful baby boy." But if she didn't have mental problems and said, "Um, nnnno, I'll have it natural birth thanks." They'd still say, "here's your beautiful baby boy."
100 years ago, almost no one had a baby in a hospital; they had midwives. Today, when a doctor's shift is over and your baby isn't ready to come out, guess what? "Your baby's life is in danger. We have to perform an emergency C-section or else I'll be later for dinn- I mean, you and the baby will die."
Yeah... the reason is that more and more women WANT to have elective c-section because of their aversion to the painful vaginal child birth. C-section is particularly predominant in women in the higher social class, due to the same reason. It's not simply because of doctors trying to make more buck out of it. Not a thorough "research" by Ana on this one.
@Sammysam2863 "noninvasive"???? they cut your stomach open. Both the UK National Health Service and the Canadian Medical Association have determined that c-section is always riskier for the prospective mother. No patient can be legally required to submit to an invasive medical procedure.
Also, many obstetricians are using the C-section as the easy option rather than relying on the excellence in vaginal delivery techniques. It can be a lazy option on behalf of the obstetrician.
The main reason that obstetricians want to do C-sections is because of their fear of being sued if the baby has a birth injury from a vaginal delivery.
It is defensive medicine in action. A woman who has a baby born with a brain injury due to perinatal distress will by almost by default sue the obstetrician because a baby with anoxic brain injury may be a life-long dependent. Women are probably less likely to sue becasue they have reduced child-bearing capacity due to C-sections.
@unabomberman It actually happens a lot. If you go to the web site for national Advocates for Pregnant Women, you will see many similar stories. Laura Pemberton was arrested while she was in labour and forced to undergo an unwanted C-section. There were no "mental health issues" involve in that case.
@unabomberman In other industrialized nations, midwives deliver around 90% of all babies. In the US, midwives deliver about 9%. The US has the highest infant mortality rate and the highest maternal mortality rate in the industrialized world. Go figure. Look at the documentary "The Business of Being Born".
@zmo272 C-section is always 3 times riskier for the prospective mother. No patient can legally be required to submit to an invasive medical procedure under any circumstances.
Ana is saying that the doctors were annoyed by a patient who refused to consent to a C-section so they conspired to punish her by taking her baby away. I smell bullshit.
@badger5079 This happens in the US more frequently than you might imagine. You can find more information at the web site of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Also, try to find the documentary "The Business of Being Born". Look up "The New “Fetal Protection”: The Wrong Answer to the Crisis of Inadequate Health Care for Women and Children," Linda C. Fentiman
Laura Pemberton was arrested while she was in labour and forced to undergo an unwanted c-section.
Laura Pemberton was told by all medical experts that she could not delivery her baby naturally. That means, the medical experts said that the baby would die if she did not have a C-section. Laura Pemberton did not have the right to kill her full term baby in an effort to assert her right to attempt natural delivery.
Without state intervention, the baby would likely have died according to all medical experts. The baby has the right to life which outweighs the mother's stupidity.
@badger5079 " Laura Pemberton did not have the right to kill her full term baby"
The law disagrees with you on that point. In case after case, courts have ruled that refusing a c-section is not child abuse; because, a fetus is not a child and because no patient can be compelled to submit to any invasive medical procedure -even to save the life of another human being.
@badger5079 Every patient has the right to refuse life saving treatment. In this case, the c-section was not recommended to save the life of the mother or the fetus. It was merely a pre-consent form "just in case". V.M. said she would sign if necessary. They did not say it was necessary.
I guess, since the patient was schizophrenic, the doctors assessed her as not competent to decide to refuse treatment. I am not sure of this story. There seems to be a lot of hearsay flying around.
@badger5079 Actually, the psychiatrists all had different opinions as to what was "wrong" with her and how severe the disorders might be. most were "concerned" about her parenting skills, but not concerned enough to recommend taking the child away. Those concerns may have been met by assigning a live in supervisor to assist. I did that for a few months for a family in which the father worked in a lumber camp, the mother went off on drug binges, and there were no relatives to take the children.
@badger5079 There were 4 court cases. One was a finding of fact in the child abuse charges. A 2nd was an appeal of those findings. A third was a guardianship permanency hearing. The fourth was an appeal of the third. Court records of the 2 appeals have been published. lawlibrary . rutgers . edu/courts/wordperfect/appellate/A4627-06.DOC
the judge did not flatly reject B.G.'s(THE FATHER) suggestion that he assume sole custody of J.M.G. Rather, the judge was quite sympathetic to B.G. and said he hoped to reunite him with his daughter as soon as possible. He set forth three conditions that needed to be met before reunification could be achieved and clearly explained each to B.G. He did not require that B.G. undergo a psychiatric evaluation, but only that B.G. receive a favorable report from a psychologist.
@TruthAndMoreTruth The judge entered an order reflecting his findings that it was not and will not be safe to return [J.M.G.] home in the foreseeable future because of mother’s … psychiatric condition and father’s unwillingness to accept mother’s psychiatric condition
The group contracted to provide parenting classes stated that it could not provide V.M. with services absent a psychological evaluation due to her disruptive and uncontrollable behavior.(AKA CRAZY)
@TruthAndMoreTruth Ya i know i think there in competition with fox news to see who is more out of control the sad thing is TYT are starting to pull ahead
@TruthAndMoreTruth relliknomlas didn't give you all the facts. He didn't mention that none of the psychiatrists recommended removing the child from the parents. Or that the foster parent thinks the natural parents would be good parents. Or that they went to a different parenting class and had no problems with them. Or that the judge acknowledged that V.M.'s problems "cannot be defined". "Combativeness" is not a mental disorder.
this is just fucking sick!! give the poor lady her baby! the baby that she carried for 9 months and dreamed about!!! what is wrong with this fucking stupid country!?
@kong19hong Apparently, after one psychologist found the parents to be in “desperate” need of psychiatric care, the court was required to issue a restraining order to protect his safety. Another psychologist, who was assaulted in the parents' home, also obtained a restraining order. the judge said DYFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (3) adoption was an appropriate plan because of V.M.’s psychiatric condition and non-compliance with treatment
The thing that's most questionable about the hospital is it's C-section rate which is 50% which is more than 3 times that of the normal rate. And the fact that there is an incentive in the form of extra insurance claim for the hospitals should have been considered by the court. But ofcourse the courts might have been bought out too. With all these wars carried on against the american middle class by the rich...this doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
The woman should claim that she didn't want the C-section for religious reasons. Then they would have to "respect" the decision and she could get her child back and do with it whatever she wants.
Yeah Ana I Ahabe to agree with you here. She having a child .. somtimes yhings r to much 4 ppl. Anyway i was in foster care...shady system it can be. The foster parents can get a case worker to lie. Its more like the lottery u just get lucky. Either way that court is corrupted.
how can they say the doctors know best when the r all in "practice" meaning they arnt God and dont know everything. There are many Doctors that make decisions that end up really wrong and killing ppl. Taking this baby away was way out of bounds, if they were concerned why not have a worker come out and watch her and her child to see if she was a danger? Then they would have proof that she was totally unstable and shouldn't be a parent.
Wait isn't "baby C section" a conflict in terms for the liberal belief that a baby is not a baby until it comes out of the woman. Or maybe they still believe that it comes from the stork?
@CHAOSoriginal I agree. But a lot of women don't have a psychiatrist call their former psychiatrist and both of them agree that they're concerned with that woman being alone with her newborn. Which is what happened before the hospital called social services.
Dr. Jacoby had a "conversation with Dr. Seltzer [her former psychiatrist]. Dr. Seltzer related that she initially treated V.M. for PTSD but later began to appreciate that V.M. suffered from either schizoaffective disorder or a bipolar disorder. . . [he] was concerned about V.M.'s 'abilty to care for her child in a responsible manner. . .' Dr. Jacoby concluded that V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child 'needs to be more fully evaluated by state social services.'"
@shalcall Yes, really. The words "remove the child" do not appear in the quote you have cited. Nowhere did this doctor recommend removing the child from V.M.'s care. He recommended supervision. The phrase "concern about V.M.'s ability to care for her child" is very general and can be interpreted in a number of different ways, reflective of the fact that the hospital was on a fishing expedition to find anything that cold make V.M. look bad.
@pirbird14 I'm sorry, when 2 psychiatrists, including one that treated V.M. for years, express concern for her ability to care for the child, what exactly do you think they should do? Send the baby home with her and pray? Dr. Jacoby called DYFS. If he hadn't and something had happened to that child, he would be culpable.
To say that this was a "fishing expedition" based on her refusal to sign a pre-consent form is extremely speculative. You need to provide proof of that.
@shalcall I'm not saying the hospital's action was based on the c-section refusal. The court record says that. I quoted it to you. Obviously, you don't understand the meaning of the word "speculative".
@pirbird14 The court record doesn't say that, no matter how often you say it, the trial judge did not base his decision, solely on her decision not to sign a pre-consent form. Moreover, the hospital was not the one that took her baby away or "threatened to take her baby away" as you stated earlier.
@shalcall Are you on drugs? Where did I say that the trial judge based his decision on the c-section refusal? I have repeatedly quoted his words which show that he based it on V.M.'s "undefined" mental problems and her "problems with authorities". I have repeatedly asked you how he knew these problems could be a danger to the child if he couldn't even define them and whether "problems with authorities" is a mental disease. You refuse to answer because there is no answer.
@pirbird14 Do you have short term memory loss? You can't have it both ways here pirbird14. Either the hospital took her baby away because she refused a c-section (they didn't), or the court took her baby away because she refused a c-section (they didn't). If no one took her baby away because she refused a c-section and all of this was for OTHER reasons, then the reporting done by TYT was false, and my point is made.
1. The hospital initiated the removal procedings by calling DYFS. Their stated reasons were V.M.'s "erratic" and "combative" behaviour during delivery. Their evidence was the c-section refusal.
2. Family court made a finding of child abuse based on that same evidence.
3 The 2nd appeals court threw out the c-section evidence and substituted vague mumblings about "problems with authorities" and "mental problems that haven't been defined".
"My majority colleagues conclude that irrespective of whether or not V.M. consented to the c-section, there was sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of abuse and neglect as to V.M. The majority therefore eschews any discussion of the issue of c-section. "
@shalcall "The unique problem here is that much of V.M.'s erratic behavior occurred before J.M.G.'s birth, while V.M. was still pregnant."
The "sufficient credible evidence" Carchman was talking about was in the same vein as the refusal of the c-section. She refused to consent to invasive medical procedures that she did not want - and that she had every legal right to refuse. "Erratic behaviour" and "combativeness" are just euphemisms for "problems with authority".
@shalcall "At the fact-finding hearing, the trial judge found that J.M.G. was an abused and neglected child due in part to her parents' failure to cooperate with medical personnel at the time of her birth. V.M.'s refusal to consent to a c-section factored heavily into this decision. "
-From the 2009 trial record lawlibrary . rutgers . edu/decisions/appellate/a4627-06.opn.html. The decision of the original Family Court was "heavily" based on the c-section refusal. TYT was right.
@pirbird14 "While we acknowledge that the judge, in fact, did rely, in part, on such refusal in his findings of abuse and neglect, we are of the view that there was SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE [my emphasis] of abuse and neglect that supported the ultimate findings."
Clearly the c-section was NOT the only evidence used to make the decision.
@shalcall Why did the DYFS have to lie in order to make their case? When offering her hospitalization for depression as evidence, they submitted the records of a patient with an entirely different history. When B.G. petitioned to have his name removed from the state's list of child abusers, they claimed it wasn't on the list. Why couldn't they find a psychiatrist who would declare V.N. incompetent and recommend removing the child.
@relliknomlas Oh, I don't know - maybe she was tired of being harassed by people trying to take her baby away? Maybe because she had already submitted to 4 different psychiatric exams that she was not legally required to? Maybe she really does have a problem with authority figures as the appeals court claimed.
None of this shows she was a danger to her child. The foster mother said she would make a good parent.
@pirbird14 You see here, you're arguing that the psychiatrists are all wrong about their diagnoses. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT. I don't CARE if they were wrong, that's a different argument that neither I nor you (unless you are a credentialed psychiatrist that has treated V.M.) is qualified to answer.
This argument is whether the c-section refusal was the SOLE reason DYFS took away V.M.'s child. IT WAS NOT.
@shalcall "You see here, you're arguing that the psychiatrists are all wrong about their diagnoses. "
Really? Where did I say that? I am presenting the actual evidence, which is that all the psychiatrists who examined her judged her mentally competent. None of them considered her a danger to her child. Therefore, the psychiatric evidence was not a factor in the decision to remove the child. The only other evidence that was presented was her "combativeness" in the delivery room.
@pirbird14 You're kidding right? A psychiatrist calls DYFS because he and her former psychiatrist are concerned about her ability to care for the child and you're saying that psychiatric evidence was not a factor in the decision to remove the child? You don't know what logic is, do you? You have another doc stating "that irrational desperate response [by V.M.] where there's nobody to call, there's nobody can [sic] come right over if [B.G.] is not available."
@shalcall The medical experts did not recommend removing the child. The judge is not a medical expert. He relied on his own subjective opinion, not on medical expertise, when he decided to continue the state guardianship.
@pirbird14 Now you're saying that the judge did not rely on medical expertise in order to continue keeping the child under foster care? Really? He asked for medical opinions and then he didn't rely on them at all? Is that what you're saying? Please show me a quote where the judge states that he will disregard all medical expertise in his decision.
I seriously wonder about your primary school education. You're lack of logic is truly disturbing at this point.
@shalcall Let's see, 3 out of 4 psychiatrists do not recommend removal of the child from her mother. None of them say she is a danger to her child. The judge recommends continuing the separation because of psychiatric problems "that have not been defined". Nonetheless, he is convinced that she would be a danger because she "has problems with authorities" - a condition not even discussed by the medical experts. In other words, he made up his own psychiatric recommendation.
@pirbird14 4 out of 4 psychiatrist will not recommend immediate reunification with the child. . . hmmm. . .
Again, you're reaching whenever you assume that you know exactly what the judge was thinking. You must take the court documents statements as true unless you have EVIDENCE that they are not. If the judge says he used psychiatric expertise, then unless you have the transcripts of the trials in front of you, that's what he used.
@shalcall Actually, I have been quoting the reasosn for the judgement as stated in the trial records. They do not match the advice given by the medical experts. None of them cited Her "problems with authorities" as posing any "future danger" to the child. The judge just pulled that out of his ass. 3 of the 4 psychiatrists, including the one who had treated her for 12 years, failed to find evidence that the child should be removed from the parents. The judge just made that part up, too.
@pirbird14 He just made that part up, huh? I assume you're basing this on reading the trial transcripts. Because the court documents you're reading are summaries of the trial and the judgement by the court. Unless you have the transcripts showing every word that was uttered in the trial, you have no idea exactly what the psychiatrists said apart from what is quoted in the judgements.
@shalcall "4 out of 4 psychiatrist will not recommend immediate reunification with the child. . . hmmm. . ."
In law, a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty. They should also be judged sane until proven insane. 3 of 4 did not suggest any reason why the child should not be re-united.
@pirbird14 So now you're accusing DYFS of lying. Do you have evidence to back up this accusation? or is this more speculation from you that you are defining as fact?
@shalcall So, you didn't read the courts records as closely as you've claimed. In the 2010 proceedings. "A hospital form, under the caption "History of Present Illness," indicated that the patient had complained of worsening depression ...This history was obviously inaccurate ...The judge in the guardianship action relied on this report and found that the history "evidences" the "serious nature" of V.M.'s "mental health stability." . it lists different treating physicians ..,"
@pirbird14 And you didn't read closely at all. You're talking about her hospitalization in 2007 at Overlook Hospital. That was over a year after the accident and was not used in determining whether the child would be taken away from her in 2006. OBVIOUSLY something that happened in 2007 had no bearing on something that happened in 2006. Unless you think the court owns a time machine.
@shalcall You obviously didn't take your meds today. You are once again having problems with reading comprehension. Taken with your continued combativeness with me, your child should be removed from your custody, according to your "logic" in this case. I never said that this hospitalization was part of the original proceedings. I presented this as evidence that DYFS has been less than honest in these proceedings. You asked if I had evidence that DYFS was "lying".
@pirbird14 DYFS was less than honest in these proceedings? DYFS didn't hospitalize her, and DYFS didn't write up the inaccurate history, Overlook hospital did that. So please, explain where DYFS is lying.
You really don't pay attention when you read, do you? You form your opinion first and then you read only the things that conform to that opinion, don't you? Because that's what it seems like you're doing.
@shalcall Did Overlook Hospital enter the false hospital records? No, that was DYFS. yet, their veracity is not in question. But V.M.'s veracity is questioned because she disagreed with them. You really do need to learn to read the entire record. And comprehend it.
@pirbird14 I have read the entire record. The argument we're having is because you don't UNDERSTAND what you read, and/or you form your opinions BEFORE you read a case.
DYFS was probably the one that sited her having been treated at Overlook Hospital. Why would they not enter that into the case. It would be irresponsible of the court not to consider that in with regard to guardianship. It wouldn't matter if the hospital form was inaccurate, the fact she was hospitalized was very accurate.
@shalcall "DYFS was probably the one that sited her having been treated at Overlook Hospital. Why would they not enter that into the case." They didn't enter "that" into the record. They entered some other patient's record. They also claimed that B.G.'s name was not on the child abuse registry. Since most of the evidence for "abuse" came from DYFS's opinion of V.M.'s mental state - an opinion not in accord with 3 out of 4 psychiatrists who examined her - There really is no case.
@pirbird14 God, you really don't pay attention when you read, do you?
"A HOSPITAL FORM, under the caption "History of Present Illness," indicated that the patient had complained of worsening depression . . . However, although the form contains V.M.'s correct name, patient number and birth date, it may have been erroneously assigned to her, because it lists different treating physicians "
They entered the record that the HOSPITAL created. Overlook HOSPITAL fucked up. Read it again.
@shalcall Actually, it is DYFS who don't pay attention when they read. in this case, they possibly didn't even read the document at all. Falsification of documents is a crime. yet they entered this falsified document into court as evidence.
@shalcall Where did I say they committed a crime? I said they were less than honest and that it calls there veracity into question. Since the heart of this case rests on their claims of child abuse, this alone should end the whole matter.
@shalcall I'm implying that they evidently don't understand the seriousness of court proceedings enough to verify the accuracy of the evidence they are entering. They were incredibly irresponsible in this situation. I am also stating outright that their veracity is in question. Especially since this i not the only instance in which they were less than honest. Remember, I also noted that they claimed B.G.'s name was not on the child abuse registry.
@pirbird14 uhh, it would have been incredibly irresponsible for them to not let the judge know that she was hospitalized. . . At that point, they would need to prove that she was hospitalized primarily by providing documents (inaccurately filled out or not) showing that she was actually hospitalized.
Have you ever been to a trial? It doesn't sound like it.
Dr. Jacoby: V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child needs to be more fully evaluated.
Dr. Selzter: concerned about V.M.'s ability to care for her child in a responsible manner
Dr. Singer: It would not be recommended to place a child with any individual who has not been compliant with medication, has significant mental health issues that are not being treated.
Dr. Baker: V.M. who appeared delusional and paranoid, would not be appropriate for their program
@shalcall Do go on. "Dr. Jacoby: V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child needs to be more fully evaluated.
Dr. Selzter: concerned about V.M.'s ability to care for her child in a responsible manner" Neither of these opinions constitutes a recommendation to remove the child. Dr. Singer was the expert who was brought in for the sole purpose of providing evidence in accord with what the court wanted, and can be ignored. Dr. Baker had a vested interest in a commercial treatment centre.
@pirbird14 So you feel that a reasonable judge would have ignored all of these doctors then? And that's not even all of them. And by the way, even if you don't consider that a recommendation to remove the child, it doesn't sound like they're recommending that the child should spend time alone with her either.
@shalcall A reasonable judge would have realized that when even his own experts can't bring themselves to recommend child removal, child removal is not medically recommended, and would not have claimed that there are medical grounds to remove the child.
Dr. Nadelman: In addition to her delusional thinking that everyone is against her, V.M. has psychological problems in the affective realm. . . Of even greater concern, if [J.M.G.] did not respond to her as she wanted, [V.M.] could begin to view her child as being against her and could lash out against the child.
@shalcall "Nadelman opined that in addition "to her delusional thinking that everyone is against her," - maybe because DYFS and the courts are against her. I've shown you 2 occasions where DYFS lied in court. "Of even greater concern, if [J.M.G.] did not respond to her as she wanted, [V.M.] could begin to view her child as being against her and could lash out against the child." - mere speculation. her psychiatrist of 12 years made no such evaluation.
@pirbird14 Mere speculation? HAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, are you a psychiatrist that has treated V.M.? Because if you aren't, you are in no position to question her diagnosis. You can use the diagnosis of another psychiatrist, but YOU are not an expert on V.M.. It is YOUR speculation that "maybe DYFS and the courts are against her."
In either case, it seems clear that there was more to this case (at least according to the court ) than not signing a pre-consent form. You should acknowledge that.
@shall "It is YOUR speculation that "maybe DYFS and the courts are against her." I proved to you from the court documents that DYFS lied about V.M. on 2 occasions in open court. It is also a matter of court record that the hospital fished around for a psychiatrist who would render a diagnosis favourable to their version of events. The first 2 psychiatrists would not declare V.M. to be mentally incompetent or a danger to her child. The first court appointed psychiatrist also failed to co-operate.
@pirbird14 No, you did not prove that DYFS lied about V.M. at any time. Again, they did not lie on a hospital form as they did not hospitalize V.M., nor fill out the form. And getting a second opinion is only considered "fishing around" in the mind of a paranoid person. And please read it again, it wasn't the 3rd psychiatrist that called DYFS, it was the second. And the first court appointed psychiatrist (Dr. Singer) didn't disagree with the judge.
@shalcall §319. Uttering a false document. Every person who knowingly executes or utters a false instrument or document, with purpose that another person will rely upon the document, shall be guilty of uttering a false document, and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than three years, or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.
@pirbird14 I'm glad that micronesia has that law. Unfortunately that's a bit out of the jurisdiction of the N.J. DA. Honestly, the document was not written by DYFS, they didn't "lie" about it. So regardless of whether or not the hospital filled it out incorrectly, DYFS didn't commit a crime.
If you don't believe me, CALL THE New Jersey DISTRICT ATTORNEY and ASK.
@shalcall "In the law of countries whose legal systems derive from English common law, uttering is a crime similar to forgery. Uttering and forgery were originally common law offences, both misdemeanours. Forgery was the creation of a forged document, with the intent to defraud; whereas uttering was merely use — the passing — of a forged document, that someone else had made, with the intent to defraud. In law, uttering is synonymous with publication,"
@shalcall "offering a forged document to another when the offeror has knowledge that the document is forged. Uttering does not require that the person who presented the document actually forged or altered the document...."
My mom was having no problems with my little brother and he was ready to be born natural cuz she was allergic to the epidural and the made him breach just to do a emergency c-section just for her to wait 2 hours for them to take her in to get the emergency c-section and they almost lost my mom for giving medicine she was allergic to. Its bull give her back her kid she did nothing wrong the hospital did. they need to quite and give her back her baby she did nothing wrong
SexyNeshie 5 months ago
My mom was having no problems with my little brother and he was ready to be born natural cuz she was allergic to the epidural and the made him breach just to do a emergency c-section just for her to wait 2 hours for them to take her in to get the emergency c-section and they almost lost my mom for giving medicine she was allergic to. Its bull give her back her kid she did nothing wrong the hospital did.
SexyNeshie 5 months ago
A lady is in labor and she behaves irrationally and erratically. WOW. And PTSD TWELVE YEARS AGO? WOOOW. All babies in america need to be taken away.
darkprincess1012 6 months ago 2
She DID do something to abuse the child but the idea that the child that should be taken away from her is ridiculous!
1Vella 6 months ago
Oh a woman was being difficult during labour? NO SHIT! It hurts like a bitch. These people are low lives. Sons a bitches shouldn't rip a baby away from her mother just because she has had issues. Unless she is a harm to the baby I don't see why she should do that.
CanadianLulz 7 months ago
The massive (criminally high) rate of C-sections is all about the bottom line. Hippocrates be damned. Think money. Only a bunch of arrogant men would try to sell women the idea that they are incapable of giving birth. And I don't think it's a coincidence that as midwives become more popular, doctors find more reason to recommend C-section -- so they can reap the profits while raping women and children.
By the way I have PTSD, and I raised two children who grew up to be productive adults.
lyricarol 7 months ago 3
My mom had an emergency c-section for my sister, her firstborn. It was needed, my sister was in a bad position and started to strangle. But they told my mom she had to have c-sections from now on. I was 3 months premature by a c-section (my mom never went into labor; she had me on doctor insisted appointment) because my mother's doctor insisted my own mother didn't know when she conceived me. Afterwards when I was barely 5lbs. and having a lot of health problems, no one apologized to my mom.
IrishMorgenstern 10 months ago 17
@IrishMorgenstern I hope you aare okay now god bless and good luck to you
maddog78611 2 months ago
Hospitals push c-sections far to often, far to quickly. Because it's easier for the doctor, and it makes them more money. I've seen them go straight to the scalpel so quickly, without even giving things time to work out. It's ridiculous. And whether she consented earlier, it's her right to change her mind. Doctors start to think they are god -- and get pissed when a patient confronts them. They forget it is OUR body. It is OUR right to decide.
RFouts0 10 months ago 13
@RFouts0 Very correct. I have 2 toddlers and many friends with babies, hospitals are always so quick with the scalpel. They make a lot more for a c-section and it takes a lot less time to deliver the baby that way so they can get more people in an out of the rooms. I have rarely felt that much like a piece of meat except in a hospital where you are just a number that is tracked with charts and statistics. And daring to question a doctor's methods or treatment is always a big no-no.
Nebbyker 10 months ago
Hospitals push c-sections far to often, far to quickly. Because it's easier for the doctor, and it makes them more money. I've seen them go straight to the scalpel so quickly, without even giving things time to work out. It's ridiculous. And whether she consented earlier, it's her right to change her mind.
RFouts0 10 months ago
WTF doctors in America can charge double for C-Section? Doctors always have something gibberish to say about the implications exaggeratively to those lesser people. They are more likes demons of Satan, just bcos she cant afford to go under the knife.
lakc24 11 months ago
You're basing your assumption on that one piece of the ruling at the exclusion of everything else. Neither the hospital nor V.M.'s statements back up your claim. You already posted what the hospital staff said was the reason why they didn't do the epidural at first, but you forget that V.M. herself said that the reason why they couldn't do the epidural was because the other staff were being too rough on her and not allowing the anesthesiologist the chance to do the procedure.
ramius525 11 months ago
youtube comments is bugging like crazy had my comment posted like 10 times :S
timh1982 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dont call it post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Euphemistic Language doesnt help the cause. Back in WW1 i was called Shell Shock. Thats a good name for it. George Carlin makes my point for better then I ever could. Just watch this video /watch?v=CNk_kzQCclo
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
Comment removed
timh1982 11 months ago
"A lot of women suffer that after giving birth"
Why is Ana confusing PTST (post traumatic stress disorder) with PPD (post partum depression)? They are NOT the same thing, by a long shot. Please, I beg you, research before you open your mouth.
ciniful 11 months ago
@ciniful
no she's not and it's ptsd
you might do some research on your own and you'll find out that child birth can cause ptsd
ptsdafterchildbirth[dot]org
SoneGurke 11 months ago
Ana's hair was really cute today :)
I think, though, that the significance of this ruling hinges on WHY she wouldn't sign the form. It's easy to say, "Oh. C-sections have potential consequences, she's obviously right for not signing." But we don't know if she knew about the consequences or even why she refused to sign. We don't know what role the PTSD actually played. Maybe she's obsessed with vanity was willing to risk baby dying to prevent a scar on her tummy. We don't really know..
53prime 11 months ago
since there were no kids when she refused to sign the consent form it could have been either suicide or abortion. how would the question of child abuse come up when there were NO KIDS. rubbish. she had the right to do whatever she wanted with her body! this mother should file for kidnapping her child. wth
devilndisguise666 11 months ago
the mother should file for kidnapping!
devilndisguise666 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROTFLMAO no i dont... But Storks really do eat babies :)
relliknomlas 11 months ago
Isn't child birth wonderful. But couldn't god have designed a better system?
Nexius8 11 months ago
@drrx8 Over 200 women have been arrested in the US for "fetal abuse" on the grounds of life style choices such as drug use. Court persistently refuse to convict on these charges. The few charges that have been successfull have been overturned on appeal. Social services agencies routinely punish women for these choices. They get away with it because they are not challenged by the mostly poor women they pick on.
pirbird14 11 months ago
I call bullshit. This case has been drawn out for years, there is a lot of documentation which lay out clear and logical arguments by the courts. I'm not saying that the woman should lose the kid, but Anna needs to make a more in-depth argument.
psyjax2 11 months ago 2
@psyjax2 Ana needs to get her head out of her ass
relliknomlas 11 months ago
Fucking fascist doctors and courts can go to hell
mrcoder 11 months ago
I doubt this judge was a female.
studpuppy69 11 months ago 8
No that child wasn't abused - it was BORN.
Hypurman1 11 months ago 9
The premise that Doctors do C-Sections only so they can charge more money is pretty far fetched. I'm not saying that out of every OB doctor in the country there isn't one crazy guy/girl who is actually motivated to do that but I can tell you that as a physician that it is extremely rare.
The reasons women get c-sections are broad and I'm not going to take the time to explain them all, but I can tell you that the number one priority is always the babies / mothers safety.
dclopton145 11 months ago
@dclopton145 J
Just expanding on this briefly - I want to say that in training the typical mentality is as follows: Mom or Baby is in trouble !! What are you waiting on ?? Get them in the OR. - Rationale is seconds count. All it takes is one bad outcome and you will spend the rest of your life wishing you wouldn't have waited around.
dclopton145 11 months ago
@dclopton145 Research shows that c-sections are ordered most frequently around 4 pm, so the doctor can go home for supper, and at 10 pm, so the doctor can go home to bed. In most cases, labour is induced if the labour lasts more than 12 hours. The Pitocin causes fetal distress, which is then used as an excuse for the c-section. Have a look at the documentary "The Business of Being Born". Hospitals want those beds emptied and refilled as soon as possible - for the money, Lebowski.
pirbird14 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pirbird14 Apparently, after one psychologist found the parents to be in “desperate” need of psychiatric care, the court was required to issue a restraining order to protect his safety. Another psychologist, who was assaulted in the parents' home, also obtained a restraining order. the judge said DYFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and adoption was an appropriate plan because of V.M.’s psychiatric condition and non-compliance with treatment
relliknomlas 11 months ago
@pirbird14 It is explicitly stated by the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey that the decision to refuse the C-Section did not make the case for neglect and abuse. The three judge panel agreed that the child should be kept from the parents for numerous other reasons
relliknomlas 11 months ago
@dclopton145 bull, i know many doctors who will tell you that most u.s. doctors are soulless monsters who put profit above the health and safety of their patients. my mother was fooled by a doctor when i was a kid into thinking i had every made up thing in the book,a.d.d.,a.d.h.d, o.c.d.,you name it. all because when i was you i like most kids didn't like school. i almost died when i o.d.ed on all those pills they shoved down my throat,what was the doctors answer?"he should take 3 more kinds"wtf
chakra25king 11 months ago
It's just all screwy. If she had mental problems but said, "Okay, gimme the ol' c-section" they would have said, "here's your beautiful baby boy." But if she didn't have mental problems and said, "Um, nnnno, I'll have it natural birth thanks." They'd still say, "here's your beautiful baby boy."
arthereld 11 months ago
I hear more bad things about america than any other place.
spaik007 11 months ago
100 years ago, almost no one had a baby in a hospital; they had midwives. Today, when a doctor's shift is over and your baby isn't ready to come out, guess what? "Your baby's life is in danger. We have to perform an emergency C-section or else I'll be later for dinn- I mean, you and the baby will die."
ToTheConquered 11 months ago 2
Comment removed
ToTheConquered 11 months ago
Yeah... the reason is that more and more women WANT to have elective c-section because of their aversion to the painful vaginal child birth. C-section is particularly predominant in women in the higher social class, due to the same reason. It's not simply because of doctors trying to make more buck out of it. Not a thorough "research" by Ana on this one.
houmanator 11 months ago
i had to have a C section but my son was breach after 12 hours of labor ... not cool
elizabethhagar 11 months ago
1:41 SARAH PALIN!
InfamousArmstrong 11 months ago
@Sammysam2863 "noninvasive"???? they cut your stomach open. Both the UK National Health Service and the Canadian Medical Association have determined that c-section is always riskier for the prospective mother. No patient can be legally required to submit to an invasive medical procedure.
pirbird14 11 months ago
Also, many obstetricians are using the C-section as the easy option rather than relying on the excellence in vaginal delivery techniques. It can be a lazy option on behalf of the obstetrician.
badger5079 11 months ago
The main reason that obstetricians want to do C-sections is because of their fear of being sued if the baby has a birth injury from a vaginal delivery.
It is defensive medicine in action. A woman who has a baby born with a brain injury due to perinatal distress will by almost by default sue the obstetrician because a baby with anoxic brain injury may be a life-long dependent. Women are probably less likely to sue becasue they have reduced child-bearing capacity due to C-sections.
badger5079 11 months ago
@unabomberman It actually happens a lot. If you go to the web site for national Advocates for Pregnant Women, you will see many similar stories. Laura Pemberton was arrested while she was in labour and forced to undergo an unwanted C-section. There were no "mental health issues" involve in that case.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
That spells disaster. Odd practice for a first world industrialized nation, but well...
unabomberman 11 months ago
@unabomberman In other industrialized nations, midwives deliver around 90% of all babies. In the US, midwives deliver about 9%. The US has the highest infant mortality rate and the highest maternal mortality rate in the industrialized world. Go figure. Look at the documentary "The Business of Being Born".
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
That blows. Thanks for the info.
unabomberman 11 months ago
Bring in a medical expert - that would help to stop you guys from talking crap on a topic you don't really understand.
badger5079 11 months ago
@zmo272 C-section is always 3 times riskier for the prospective mother. No patient can legally be required to submit to an invasive medical procedure under any circumstances.
pirbird14 11 months ago
Ana is saying that the doctors were annoyed by a patient who refused to consent to a C-section so they conspired to punish her by taking her baby away. I smell bullshit.
badger5079 11 months ago
@badger5079 This happens in the US more frequently than you might imagine. You can find more information at the web site of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. Also, try to find the documentary "The Business of Being Born". Look up "The New “Fetal Protection”: The Wrong Answer to the Crisis of Inadequate Health Care for Women and Children," Linda C. Fentiman
Laura Pemberton was arrested while she was in labour and forced to undergo an unwanted c-section.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
Laura Pemberton was told by all medical experts that she could not delivery her baby naturally. That means, the medical experts said that the baby would die if she did not have a C-section. Laura Pemberton did not have the right to kill her full term baby in an effort to assert her right to attempt natural delivery.
Without state intervention, the baby would likely have died according to all medical experts. The baby has the right to life which outweighs the mother's stupidity.
badger5079 11 months ago
@badger5079 " Laura Pemberton did not have the right to kill her full term baby"
The law disagrees with you on that point. In case after case, courts have ruled that refusing a c-section is not child abuse; because, a fetus is not a child and because no patient can be compelled to submit to any invasive medical procedure -even to save the life of another human being.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
A failed vaginal delivery often kills the mother as well.
badger5079 11 months ago
@badger5079 Every patient has the right to refuse life saving treatment. In this case, the c-section was not recommended to save the life of the mother or the fetus. It was merely a pre-consent form "just in case". V.M. said she would sign if necessary. They did not say it was necessary.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
I guess, since the patient was schizophrenic, the doctors assessed her as not competent to decide to refuse treatment. I am not sure of this story. There seems to be a lot of hearsay flying around.
badger5079 11 months ago
@badger5079 Actually, the psychiatrists all had different opinions as to what was "wrong" with her and how severe the disorders might be. most were "concerned" about her parenting skills, but not concerned enough to recommend taking the child away. Those concerns may have been met by assigning a live in supervisor to assist. I did that for a few months for a family in which the father worked in a lumber camp, the mother went off on drug binges, and there were no relatives to take the children.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@badger5079 There were 4 court cases. One was a finding of fact in the child abuse charges. A 2nd was an appeal of those findings. A third was a guardianship permanency hearing. The fourth was an appeal of the third. Court records of the 2 appeals have been published. lawlibrary . rutgers . edu/courts/wordperfect/appellate/A4627-06.DOC
and
advocatesforpregnantwomen . org /blog/FGopinion.pdf
pirbird14 11 months ago
@badger5079 No, it's not hearsay, it's complete speculation flying around in the paranoid head of pirbird14.
shalcall 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shalcall "No, it's not hearsay, it's complete speculation flying around in the paranoid head of pirbird14."
Adn in the minds of whoever uttered the court documents I've been citing.
pirbird14 11 months ago
the judge did not flatly reject B.G.'s(THE FATHER) suggestion that he assume sole custody of J.M.G. Rather, the judge was quite sympathetic to B.G. and said he hoped to reunite him with his daughter as soon as possible. He set forth three conditions that needed to be met before reunification could be achieved and clearly explained each to B.G. He did not require that B.G. undergo a psychiatric evaluation, but only that B.G. receive a favorable report from a psychologist.
relliknomlas 11 months ago
Who had a problem with how the story was covered?
thehobbsguy 11 months ago
HMM, a liberal saying C-Section of a baby. Is that a freudian slip? I thought that according to liberals they weren't "babies" until they came out.
beamakernotataker 11 months ago
Get the C-section, nobody wants to see a flappy huge pussy...
chrisknows 11 months ago
I'm still not convinced that there isn't more to this story. Ana just repeated the same argument as yesterday.
More then one court upheld the decision to remove the child?
She had two evaluations? Other then the prior mental condition, what were the results?
"The consent form played a HUGE roll". Is there direct evidence of this?
TruthAndMoreTruth 11 months ago
@TruthAndMoreTruth The judge entered an order reflecting his findings that it was not and will not be safe to return [J.M.G.] home in the foreseeable future because of mother’s … psychiatric condition and father’s unwillingness to accept mother’s psychiatric condition
The group contracted to provide parenting classes stated that it could not provide V.M. with services absent a psychological evaluation due to her disruptive and uncontrollable behavior.(AKA CRAZY)
relliknomlas 11 months ago
@relliknomlas Don't you hate it when TYT doesn't do their homework? I like TYT, but this isn't the first time they failed a story for lack of facts.
Good info, thanks for the clarification!
TruthAndMoreTruth 11 months ago
@TruthAndMoreTruth Ya i know i think there in competition with fox news to see who is more out of control the sad thing is TYT are starting to pull ahead
relliknomlas 11 months ago
@TruthAndMoreTruth relliknomlas didn't give you all the facts. He didn't mention that none of the psychiatrists recommended removing the child from the parents. Or that the foster parent thinks the natural parents would be good parents. Or that they went to a different parenting class and had no problems with them. Or that the judge acknowledged that V.M.'s problems "cannot be defined". "Combativeness" is not a mental disorder.
pirbird14 11 months ago
this is just fucking sick!! give the poor lady her baby! the baby that she carried for 9 months and dreamed about!!! what is wrong with this fucking stupid country!?
kong19hong 11 months ago
@kong19hong Apparently, after one psychologist found the parents to be in “desperate” need of psychiatric care, the court was required to issue a restraining order to protect his safety. Another psychologist, who was assaulted in the parents' home, also obtained a restraining order. the judge said DYFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; and (3) adoption was an appropriate plan because of V.M.’s psychiatric condition and non-compliance with treatment
relliknomlas 11 months ago
The thing that's most questionable about the hospital is it's C-section rate which is 50% which is more than 3 times that of the normal rate. And the fact that there is an incentive in the form of extra insurance claim for the hospitals should have been considered by the court. But ofcourse the courts might have been bought out too. With all these wars carried on against the american middle class by the rich...this doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
lasku0007 11 months ago
FUCK THIS IS SUCH A HARD TOPIC!
missbreeza 11 months ago
The woman should claim that she didn't want the C-section for religious reasons. Then they would have to "respect" the decision and she could get her child back and do with it whatever she wants.
P1ranh4 11 months ago
Yeah Ana I Ahabe to agree with you here. She having a child .. somtimes yhings r to much 4 ppl. Anyway i was in foster care...shady system it can be. The foster parents can get a case worker to lie. Its more like the lottery u just get lucky. Either way that court is corrupted.
Sicj 11 months ago
There should be no updates because of factual errors, but here it is.
Joxman2k 11 months ago
how can they say the doctors know best when the r all in "practice" meaning they arnt God and dont know everything. There are many Doctors that make decisions that end up really wrong and killing ppl. Taking this baby away was way out of bounds, if they were concerned why not have a worker come out and watch her and her child to see if she was a danger? Then they would have proof that she was totally unstable and shouldn't be a parent.
jlair 11 months ago
Wait isn't "baby C section" a conflict in terms for the liberal belief that a baby is not a baby until it comes out of the woman. Or maybe they still believe that it comes from the stork?
beamakernotataker 11 months ago
@beamakernotataker
I doubt many people actually believe that it suddenly becomes a baby when it comes out.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 11 months ago
@beamakernotataker "Unborn Fetus C-Section" is too long winded. C'mon now.
CrackeTheSkull 11 months ago
Good research work Ana.
CHAOSoriginal 11 months ago
Ben, can you please speak up a little.
CHAOSoriginal 11 months ago
The woman didn't want them to cut her open and take the baby out? Gosh, she was obviously crazy.
CHAOSoriginal 11 months ago 8
@CHAOSoriginal Shooting a baby though the vagina is worse.
Zeelxx 11 months ago
this is just stupid and a pathetic attempt to make all women be afraid of losing their children and just agree to have c-section.
cuteNADA1992 11 months ago 3
During the delivery, I''m sure a lot of women would be a little stressed and uncooperative.
CHAOSoriginal 11 months ago 3
@CHAOSoriginal I agree. But a lot of women don't have a psychiatrist call their former psychiatrist and both of them agree that they're concerned with that woman being alone with her newborn. Which is what happened before the hospital called social services.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Neither of them recommended removing the child,
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Really?
Dr. Jacoby had a "conversation with Dr. Seltzer [her former psychiatrist]. Dr. Seltzer related that she initially treated V.M. for PTSD but later began to appreciate that V.M. suffered from either schizoaffective disorder or a bipolar disorder. . . [he] was concerned about V.M.'s 'abilty to care for her child in a responsible manner. . .' Dr. Jacoby concluded that V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child 'needs to be more fully evaluated by state social services.'"
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Yes, really. The words "remove the child" do not appear in the quote you have cited. Nowhere did this doctor recommend removing the child from V.M.'s care. He recommended supervision. The phrase "concern about V.M.'s ability to care for her child" is very general and can be interpreted in a number of different ways, reflective of the fact that the hospital was on a fishing expedition to find anything that cold make V.M. look bad.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 I'm sorry, when 2 psychiatrists, including one that treated V.M. for years, express concern for her ability to care for the child, what exactly do you think they should do? Send the baby home with her and pray? Dr. Jacoby called DYFS. If he hadn't and something had happened to that child, he would be culpable.
To say that this was a "fishing expedition" based on her refusal to sign a pre-consent form is extremely speculative. You need to provide proof of that.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall I'm not saying the hospital's action was based on the c-section refusal. The court record says that. I quoted it to you. Obviously, you don't understand the meaning of the word "speculative".
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 The court record doesn't say that, no matter how often you say it, the trial judge did not base his decision, solely on her decision not to sign a pre-consent form. Moreover, the hospital was not the one that took her baby away or "threatened to take her baby away" as you stated earlier.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Are you on drugs? Where did I say that the trial judge based his decision on the c-section refusal? I have repeatedly quoted his words which show that he based it on V.M.'s "undefined" mental problems and her "problems with authorities". I have repeatedly asked you how he knew these problems could be a danger to the child if he couldn't even define them and whether "problems with authorities" is a mental disease. You refuse to answer because there is no answer.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Do you have short term memory loss? You can't have it both ways here pirbird14. Either the hospital took her baby away because she refused a c-section (they didn't), or the court took her baby away because she refused a c-section (they didn't). If no one took her baby away because she refused a c-section and all of this was for OTHER reasons, then the reporting done by TYT was false, and my point is made.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall The court records show:
1. The hospital initiated the removal procedings by calling DYFS. Their stated reasons were V.M.'s "erratic" and "combative" behaviour during delivery. Their evidence was the c-section refusal.
2. Family court made a finding of child abuse based on that same evidence.
3 The 2nd appeals court threw out the c-section evidence and substituted vague mumblings about "problems with authorities" and "mental problems that haven't been defined".
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Oh yeah, you also missed,
"My majority colleagues conclude that irrespective of whether or not V.M. consented to the c-section, there was sufficient credible evidence to support a finding of abuse and neglect as to V.M. The majority therefore eschews any discussion of the issue of c-section. "
- from Carchman, P.J.A.D. (concurring)
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Why is it that neither you nor the court record can actually list what this "credible evidence" actually was?
pirbird14 11 months ago
@shalcall "The unique problem here is that much of V.M.'s erratic behavior occurred before J.M.G.'s birth, while V.M. was still pregnant."
The "sufficient credible evidence" Carchman was talking about was in the same vein as the refusal of the c-section. She refused to consent to invasive medical procedures that she did not want - and that she had every legal right to refuse. "Erratic behaviour" and "combativeness" are just euphemisms for "problems with authority".
pirbird14 11 months ago
@shalcall "At the fact-finding hearing, the trial judge found that J.M.G. was an abused and neglected child due in part to her parents' failure to cooperate with medical personnel at the time of her birth. V.M.'s refusal to consent to a c-section factored heavily into this decision. "
-From the 2009 trial record lawlibrary . rutgers . edu/decisions/appellate/a4627-06.opn.html. The decision of the original Family Court was "heavily" based on the c-section refusal. TYT was right.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 "While we acknowledge that the judge, in fact, did rely, in part, on such refusal in his findings of abuse and neglect, we are of the view that there was SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE [my emphasis] of abuse and neglect that supported the ultimate findings."
Clearly the c-section was NOT the only evidence used to make the decision.
Why must lie in order to support your argument?
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Why did the DYFS have to lie in order to make their case? When offering her hospitalization for depression as evidence, they submitted the records of a patient with an entirely different history. When B.G. petitioned to have his name removed from the state's list of child abusers, they claimed it wasn't on the list. Why couldn't they find a psychiatrist who would declare V.N. incompetent and recommend removing the child.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 why couldnt she see a psychiatrist without kicking his ass ?
relliknomlas 11 months ago
@relliknomlas Oh, I don't know - maybe she was tired of being harassed by people trying to take her baby away? Maybe because she had already submitted to 4 different psychiatric exams that she was not legally required to? Maybe she really does have a problem with authority figures as the appeals court claimed.
None of this shows she was a danger to her child. The foster mother said she would make a good parent.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 You see here, you're arguing that the psychiatrists are all wrong about their diagnoses. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT. I don't CARE if they were wrong, that's a different argument that neither I nor you (unless you are a credentialed psychiatrist that has treated V.M.) is qualified to answer.
This argument is whether the c-section refusal was the SOLE reason DYFS took away V.M.'s child. IT WAS NOT.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall "You see here, you're arguing that the psychiatrists are all wrong about their diagnoses. "
Really? Where did I say that? I am presenting the actual evidence, which is that all the psychiatrists who examined her judged her mentally competent. None of them considered her a danger to her child. Therefore, the psychiatric evidence was not a factor in the decision to remove the child. The only other evidence that was presented was her "combativeness" in the delivery room.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 You're kidding right? A psychiatrist calls DYFS because he and her former psychiatrist are concerned about her ability to care for the child and you're saying that psychiatric evidence was not a factor in the decision to remove the child? You don't know what logic is, do you? You have another doc stating "that irrational desperate response [by V.M.] where there's nobody to call, there's nobody can [sic] come right over if [B.G.] is not available."
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall The medical experts did not recommend removing the child. The judge is not a medical expert. He relied on his own subjective opinion, not on medical expertise, when he decided to continue the state guardianship.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Now you're saying that the judge did not rely on medical expertise in order to continue keeping the child under foster care? Really? He asked for medical opinions and then he didn't rely on them at all? Is that what you're saying? Please show me a quote where the judge states that he will disregard all medical expertise in his decision.
I seriously wonder about your primary school education. You're lack of logic is truly disturbing at this point.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Let's see, 3 out of 4 psychiatrists do not recommend removal of the child from her mother. None of them say she is a danger to her child. The judge recommends continuing the separation because of psychiatric problems "that have not been defined". Nonetheless, he is convinced that she would be a danger because she "has problems with authorities" - a condition not even discussed by the medical experts. In other words, he made up his own psychiatric recommendation.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 4 out of 4 psychiatrist will not recommend immediate reunification with the child. . . hmmm. . .
Again, you're reaching whenever you assume that you know exactly what the judge was thinking. You must take the court documents statements as true unless you have EVIDENCE that they are not. If the judge says he used psychiatric expertise, then unless you have the transcripts of the trials in front of you, that's what he used.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Actually, I have been quoting the reasosn for the judgement as stated in the trial records. They do not match the advice given by the medical experts. None of them cited Her "problems with authorities" as posing any "future danger" to the child. The judge just pulled that out of his ass. 3 of the 4 psychiatrists, including the one who had treated her for 12 years, failed to find evidence that the child should be removed from the parents. The judge just made that part up, too.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 He just made that part up, huh? I assume you're basing this on reading the trial transcripts. Because the court documents you're reading are summaries of the trial and the judgement by the court. Unless you have the transcripts showing every word that was uttered in the trial, you have no idea exactly what the psychiatrists said apart from what is quoted in the judgements.
shalcall 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shalcall " you have no idea exactly what the psychiatrists said apart from what is quoted in the judgements"
Well, if you've been reading the transcripts, you should quote them.
pirbird14 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shalcall "4 out of 4 psychiatrist will not recommend immediate reunification with the child. . . hmmm. . ."
In law, a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty. They should also be judged sane until proven insane. 3 of 4 did not suggest any reason why the child should not be re-united.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 So now you're accusing DYFS of lying. Do you have evidence to back up this accusation? or is this more speculation from you that you are defining as fact?
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall So, you didn't read the courts records as closely as you've claimed. In the 2010 proceedings. "A hospital form, under the caption "History of Present Illness," indicated that the patient had complained of worsening depression ...This history was obviously inaccurate ...The judge in the guardianship action relied on this report and found that the history "evidences" the "serious nature" of V.M.'s "mental health stability." . it lists different treating physicians ..,"
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 And you didn't read closely at all. You're talking about her hospitalization in 2007 at Overlook Hospital. That was over a year after the accident and was not used in determining whether the child would be taken away from her in 2006. OBVIOUSLY something that happened in 2007 had no bearing on something that happened in 2006. Unless you think the court owns a time machine.
Have you taken your meds today?
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall You obviously didn't take your meds today. You are once again having problems with reading comprehension. Taken with your continued combativeness with me, your child should be removed from your custody, according to your "logic" in this case. I never said that this hospitalization was part of the original proceedings. I presented this as evidence that DYFS has been less than honest in these proceedings. You asked if I had evidence that DYFS was "lying".
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 DYFS was less than honest in these proceedings? DYFS didn't hospitalize her, and DYFS didn't write up the inaccurate history, Overlook hospital did that. So please, explain where DYFS is lying.
You really don't pay attention when you read, do you? You form your opinion first and then you read only the things that conform to that opinion, don't you? Because that's what it seems like you're doing.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Did Overlook Hospital enter the false hospital records? No, that was DYFS. yet, their veracity is not in question. But V.M.'s veracity is questioned because she disagreed with them. You really do need to learn to read the entire record. And comprehend it.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 I have read the entire record. The argument we're having is because you don't UNDERSTAND what you read, and/or you form your opinions BEFORE you read a case.
DYFS was probably the one that sited her having been treated at Overlook Hospital. Why would they not enter that into the case. It would be irresponsible of the court not to consider that in with regard to guardianship. It wouldn't matter if the hospital form was inaccurate, the fact she was hospitalized was very accurate.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall "DYFS was probably the one that sited her having been treated at Overlook Hospital. Why would they not enter that into the case." They didn't enter "that" into the record. They entered some other patient's record. They also claimed that B.G.'s name was not on the child abuse registry. Since most of the evidence for "abuse" came from DYFS's opinion of V.M.'s mental state - an opinion not in accord with 3 out of 4 psychiatrists who examined her - There really is no case.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 God, you really don't pay attention when you read, do you?
"A HOSPITAL FORM, under the caption "History of Present Illness," indicated that the patient had complained of worsening depression . . . However, although the form contains V.M.'s correct name, patient number and birth date, it may have been erroneously assigned to her, because it lists different treating physicians "
They entered the record that the HOSPITAL created. Overlook HOSPITAL fucked up. Read it again.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Actually, it is DYFS who don't pay attention when they read. in this case, they possibly didn't even read the document at all. Falsification of documents is a crime. yet they entered this falsified document into court as evidence.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Considering that it wasn't DYFS that falsified the document, they committed no crime, unless you have further proof.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Where did I say they committed a crime? I said they were less than honest and that it calls there veracity into question. Since the heart of this case rests on their claims of child abuse, this alone should end the whole matter.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 "Where did I say they committed a crime?"
"Falsification of documents is a crime. yet they entered this falsified document into court as evidence."
Sounds like you're implying something.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall I'm implying that they evidently don't understand the seriousness of court proceedings enough to verify the accuracy of the evidence they are entering. They were incredibly irresponsible in this situation. I am also stating outright that their veracity is in question. Especially since this i not the only instance in which they were less than honest. Remember, I also noted that they claimed B.G.'s name was not on the child abuse registry.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 uhh, it would have been incredibly irresponsible for them to not let the judge know that she was hospitalized. . . At that point, they would need to prove that she was hospitalized primarily by providing documents (inaccurately filled out or not) showing that she was actually hospitalized.
Have you ever been to a trial? It doesn't sound like it.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall I worked in a law office as a legal secretary. It is a criminal offence to enter false documentation into a court proceeding.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 So you are saying that DYFS committed a crime?
Maybe you should call the N.J. Attorney General and report them. Let me know if they laugh at you.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Not being an American citizen, I wouldn't have standing in the New Jersey court.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
Dr. Jacoby: V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child needs to be more fully evaluated.
Dr. Selzter: concerned about V.M.'s ability to care for her child in a responsible manner
Dr. Singer: It would not be recommended to place a child with any individual who has not been compliant with medication, has significant mental health issues that are not being treated.
Dr. Baker: V.M. who appeared delusional and paranoid, would not be appropriate for their program
I can go on.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Do go on. "Dr. Jacoby: V.M.'s and B.G.'s ability to parent the child needs to be more fully evaluated.
Dr. Selzter: concerned about V.M.'s ability to care for her child in a responsible manner" Neither of these opinions constitutes a recommendation to remove the child. Dr. Singer was the expert who was brought in for the sole purpose of providing evidence in accord with what the court wanted, and can be ignored. Dr. Baker had a vested interest in a commercial treatment centre.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 So you feel that a reasonable judge would have ignored all of these doctors then? And that's not even all of them. And by the way, even if you don't consider that a recommendation to remove the child, it doesn't sound like they're recommending that the child should spend time alone with her either.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall A reasonable judge would have realized that when even his own experts can't bring themselves to recommend child removal, child removal is not medically recommended, and would not have claimed that there are medical grounds to remove the child.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14
Dr. Nadelman: In addition to her delusional thinking that everyone is against her, V.M. has psychological problems in the affective realm. . . Of even greater concern, if [J.M.G.] did not respond to her as she wanted, [V.M.] could begin to view her child as being against her and could lash out against the child.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall "Nadelman opined that in addition "to her delusional thinking that everyone is against her," - maybe because DYFS and the courts are against her. I've shown you 2 occasions where DYFS lied in court. "Of even greater concern, if [J.M.G.] did not respond to her as she wanted, [V.M.] could begin to view her child as being against her and could lash out against the child." - mere speculation. her psychiatrist of 12 years made no such evaluation.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Mere speculation? HAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, are you a psychiatrist that has treated V.M.? Because if you aren't, you are in no position to question her diagnosis. You can use the diagnosis of another psychiatrist, but YOU are not an expert on V.M.. It is YOUR speculation that "maybe DYFS and the courts are against her."
In either case, it seems clear that there was more to this case (at least according to the court ) than not signing a pre-consent form. You should acknowledge that.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shall "It is YOUR speculation that "maybe DYFS and the courts are against her." I proved to you from the court documents that DYFS lied about V.M. on 2 occasions in open court. It is also a matter of court record that the hospital fished around for a psychiatrist who would render a diagnosis favourable to their version of events. The first 2 psychiatrists would not declare V.M. to be mentally incompetent or a danger to her child. The first court appointed psychiatrist also failed to co-operate.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 No, you did not prove that DYFS lied about V.M. at any time. Again, they did not lie on a hospital form as they did not hospitalize V.M., nor fill out the form. And getting a second opinion is only considered "fishing around" in the mind of a paranoid person. And please read it again, it wasn't the 3rd psychiatrist that called DYFS, it was the second. And the first court appointed psychiatrist (Dr. Singer) didn't disagree with the judge.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall They entered a false document. That is a form of lying. In court.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 No, it is not. You really don't know what you're talking about.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall Entering a false document into the court record is a false utterance, which is a crime.
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 Well, like I said, call the N.J. Attorney General. You don't need standing in the case in order to report a crime.
And again, let me know if they laugh at you.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall §319. Uttering a false document. Every person who knowingly executes or utters a false instrument or document, with purpose that another person will rely upon the document, shall be guilty of uttering a false document, and upon conviction thereof shall be imprisoned for a period of not more than three years, or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both.
fsmlaw . org/yap/code/title11/T11_Ch03.htm#319
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 I'm glad that micronesia has that law. Unfortunately that's a bit out of the jurisdiction of the N.J. DA. Honestly, the document was not written by DYFS, they didn't "lie" about it. So regardless of whether or not the hospital filled it out incorrectly, DYFS didn't commit a crime.
If you don't believe me, CALL THE New Jersey DISTRICT ATTORNEY and ASK.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall "In the law of countries whose legal systems derive from English common law, uttering is a crime similar to forgery. Uttering and forgery were originally common law offences, both misdemeanours. Forgery was the creation of a forged document, with the intent to defraud; whereas uttering was merely use — the passing — of a forged document, that someone else had made, with the intent to defraud. In law, uttering is synonymous with publication,"
pirbird14 11 months ago
@pirbird14 So, you're saying that DYFS forged this document? I assume you have proof of this, or this another of your paranoid delusions.
shalcall 11 months ago
@shalcall "offering a forged document to another when the offeror has knowledge that the document is forged. Uttering does not require that the person who presented the document actually forged or altered the document...."
pirbird14 11 months ago