Parents appeal child custody ruling

The very last paragraph that quotes the judge is in the parents favor, as it shows that there was no preponderance of evidence. And for those that don't already know, it is a family court and the rules are different. You are guilty until proven innocent. I would like to know how the judge establishes that one or both of the parents should have known more about the facts and circumstances surrounding the injuries. He knew that several mandatory medical staff saw this infant- "He also noted that staff who examined the infant at his "well-baby" examination, and his circumcision, did not observe any signs of trauma. Why did they not notice any signs of injury. The child was 5weeks old. How many well baby checks do infants have normally after they are born?
Did the states experts make their comments on the broken bones as if they were healthy bones? What if they were asked if the bones could have been broken during delivery if the bones were weak?
What was the babies vitamin "D" level after supplementation? It was not given in the article.

Ms. Montesano writes a very warped version of the facts of this case and reports inaccurately about nearly everything. I sat in on the last hearing of Judge Tichenor and it did not sound the same as was reported here. First off, the daughter of the parents is, and has been, in the home with her family since she was born and is a happy and thriving little girl, and has been reported as such by DHS. Next, the parents brought their infant son to the doctor because he had a fever and was not feeling well. There was not any reporting by the parents at any time, ever, of the infant having a problem with either of his legs. In fact, there is documented evidence from the admitting nurse that the baby was fine and moving normally in all limbs when he was brought in to the doctor. The baby was found to be Vitamin D deficient on more than one occasion, and DHS refused to give him the supplements the doctor said he needed. The so-called expert doctor for the state has a history of lying on the stand, and his testimonies have been called into question in other cases in other states.
End result here: if you're going to gather factual information to report the news to the public, please stick to the facts and make sure they're accurate before you go to print. With a background in journalism, I know what I'm talking about when I say that this article does much more harm than good to a family that has been treated horrendously by the state and DHS. The worst part of all of this is that an infant is being kept from his family where he belongs, and he's not getting the medical treatment that he needs because DHS won't admit that they made a mistake.

Truthsayer~ Thank you for what you have said. Did they only depend on one "expert" doctor?

I think the sad thing here is that a baby who may or may not need medical help is being denied because people who are in the position to be shown that they are wrong are to proud to do so. I would be interested in seeing what the same vitamin D tests would show now. Prove the parents wrong if the test comes back normal, prove them right if it doesn't. What is the best for the baby!

Well said Truthsayer! Its your turn Ms. Montesano, try and counter that.
The News Register needs to respond to Truthsayers comments. I know you read these. Go for it.

Maybe I'm wrong and the News Register staff doesn't read the comments. Clearly Truthsayer pointed out inaccuracies in the article. Apparently facts are not important in reporting.

I have personally seen DHS return a child to family who didn't want the child to begin with. A child was taken from his bio parents, and when family members were asked if they wanted to care for the child and explained that if they didn't the child would be thrust in to the foster system, the family, FAMILY denied the little 3 year old.
It wasn't until adoption was being considered by the foster family that suddenly the family who turned the child away suddenly wanted him, realizing he meant a paycheck- he of course, living in a stable home, had no real idea who they were.
The hopeful foster family lost the little boy to the family under protest, but later saw the new family in a restaurant. The mother of the family (adoptive mother to the child) was sitting and her bio son climbed up in her lap, when the adopted child attempted to do the same she shoved him aside and said there wasn't any room for the adopted child, this child who lost mother, father, and foster family- there was no room?
When DHS was notified of this behavior their response- "there is nothing we can do about how they raise their family..."
DHS was at fault- why did they never question why this family allowed this little child to go into the system to begin with- out of love? I don't know about this particular case (the article), but I know they will never admit to poor choices.

I know one hospital that wouldn't admit their doctor was in the wrong. I was kept from my own daughters for 4 months because CPS refused to listen to anything I had to say, nothing, I was the bad guy.

Only after I'd signed away any right to bring suit against that hospital, their doctor and a particular nurse that had kept the actual facts from coming to light was the investigation involving my case dropped by CPS. I settled for profuse and teary-eyed apologies from both the doctor, and the nurse. No repercussions for anyone involved in the action against me.

Not saying this is the case here, just say'n.

Truthsayer,

These are difficult stories because county, state and law enforcement officials in general cannot answer questions or provide specific information. That�s why the stories seldom draw coverage from news media. The public, by setting that in law, believe that it is a legal protection for minors, although I believe some minors would be better served if all the facts of such cases were public information.

In this case, our best current information is that the young daughter was taken into legal custody by the state, but then left in the physical custody of the parents. There was confusing language in the court document we saw, and again, public officials would not comment. We made this clarification in the News-Register issue published today.

Our source for the report about the baby�s leg was the judge�s statement from that court document, in which he stated: �The father told investigators that as he tried to clean the baby he tried not to upset the baby and that was when he noticed there was some problem with the baby's leg. In an attempt to comfort the baby, they drove the baby around for several hours that evening before the baby went to sleep. The next day the baby continued to be unusually fussy and they called a nurse for advice. The nurse advised them to take the child to the emergency room for medical attention.�

Jeb Bladine
News-Register

Jeb,
Your right on the nose about confusing language. Your reporter and apparently you are confusing facts with assumptions "The father told investigators that as he tried to clean the baby he tried not to upset the baby and that was when he noticed there was some problem with the baby's leg. In an attempt to comfort the baby, they drove the baby around for several hours that evening before the baby went to sleep" Maybe your reporter should have talked with the parents along with the document. I agree that the disclosure of information /facts would better serve the minor in this case.

Well, I for one think the NewsRegister does a good job, but we all have to remember that not everything can be published, and not everyone wants to talk, they have to write their story with the information they have.

Poor child, I hope he recovers completely and for his sake, I hope he really does have loving parents that get him and his sister back and they live as a happy family.

"What is truth"? ... Pontius Pilate

Truth is when you find out you have been lied to.