This
is what you get for questioning the "authority" and for having the
audacity to have your own voice in medical decisions for your children: a
social worker takes custody of an hours old newborn, while still in the
hospital, and prevents her mother from seeing her other than to nurse
her every 3 hours. All because she asked too many questions.
Yeah.
It happened. At Hershey Medical Center in Pennsylvania. Jodi Ferris had
planned a homebirth, but when things progressed too quickly for even
the midwife to arrive, her husband called an ambulance, and their
daughter was born on the way to the hospital.
Story link.
When
they arrived at the hospital, there was a lot of activity. Jodi asked a
lot of questions about the care and condition of her daughter. Part of
that was because she received conflicting answers. And then?
Angela
Lopez-Heagy arrived. The government social worker. She announced that
she was there to conduct an investigation, the allegations of which she
refused to divulge.
Jodi told the social worker
that she wasn't comfortable answering questions unless she knew what the
allegations were. (Go girl.) Jodi's husband was with their other
children back at home, arranging care for them so he could join her at
the hospital.
The social worker threatened Jodi
that if she didn't answer the questions, she would call the police and
take custody of the newborn, Annie. And then she grilled Jodi about why
she didn't consent to the Hepatitis B vaccination for Annie. This is
about a vaccination consent?!! There were other questions, too... They
were more generalized.
Periodically, the social
worker left the room during this interrogation. And when she did? A
hospital staff member blocked the door to prevent Jodi from leaving her
room. She was, for all purposes, held prisoner in her hospital room.
And
then? The social worker came back with a "safety plan." Jodi asked to
see it. It wasn't written on paper yet. It was a carte blanche verbal
consent to "whatever the hospital wants." And if she didn't? Angela
Lopez-Heagy would take custody of Annie.
Jodi
asked to wait for her husband. The social worker said no. A police
officer instructed Jodi to hand Annie to a nurse. Jodi begged the social
worker to allow her to sign the "safety plan." She would do whatever it
took to keep custody. But the social worker said, "That window has
closed." They took the baby. And the officer escorted Jodi out of the
hospital. And off the hospital's property.
WHAT THE HELL?!!!
Jodi
spent the night in the parking lot across the street, with her husband,
in their car. They were allowed, every 3 hours, to return in order to
breastfeed Annie (but they weren't allowed to linger).
The
next morning, a judge returned custody to Jodi and her husband. And two
weeks later, he dismissed the case against them that the social worker
had filed.
Now? The Ferris' are suing the social
worker and the medical staff who seized Annie. They filed in March. In
July, the defendants motioned to have the suit dismissed. Last week, the
judge denied the motion, and the suit will proceed. Good luck to them.
As far as I'm concerned, they're fighting for my rights, too.
What do you think about this case?
image source
December 10, 2012
Judge—Case of Seized Newborn May Now Proceed
By James R. Mason, III
HSLDA Director of Litigation
Senior
Counsel James R. Mason is a member of HSLDA’s
litigation team, which helps homeschool families who are facing legal
challenges. He and his wife homeschool.
Read more >>
When Jodi Ferris arrived at Hershey Medical Center after giving birth
in an ambulance, the last thing she and her husband, Scott, expected
was to lose custody of their newborn daughter, forcing them to spend the
first night of their daughter’s life sleeping in their car in the
parking lot across the street.
But that is exactly what happened after Jodi—like any concerned
mom—apparently asked hospital staff too many questions about the care
her baby daughter was receiving.
In March we told you about the civil rights case HSLDA filed against the Pennsylvania social worker and Hershey Medical Center staff who seized “Annie” shortly after she was born.
Several months later, in July, the social worker and the medical
defendants both asked the federal district court judge to dismiss the
lawsuit. If these motions had been granted, the case would have ended.
Now, we’re pleased to report a major victory in this case. Last week
the judge denied both motions to dismiss, allowing the Ferrises’ case to
proceed.
Case Recap
Scott and Jodi had planned on having a home birth, but when Jodi’s
labor progressed too quickly for the midwife to arrive, they called an
ambulance. Annie was born on the way to the hospital.
At the hospital, Jodi was met with a flurry of activity. Some of it
was what you would expect after delivering a baby in an ambulance. As
any concerned mom would do, Jodi asked about the condition of her child
and the care she was receiving.
Jodi received conflicting answers, ranging from a statement that
Annie was doing fine to one that she would need stay in the hospital for
three days. This understandably caused Jodi more concern and prompted
her to ask her questions with more urgency.
Not too long after Jodi and Annie arrived, it appeared that the
medical staff had had enough of Jodi questioning what they were doing. A
government social worker, Angela Lopez-Heagy, entered Jodi’s room and
announced that she was there to conduct an investigation of allegations
the nature of which she refused to divulge.
When Jodi told Lopez-Heagy that she wasn’t comfortable answering
questions without knowing what the allegations were, the social worker
told her that if Jodi wasn’t willing to cooperate she would call a
police officer to take custody of Annie.
The social worker grilled Jodi about why she had refused to allow the
hospital to give Annie the hepatitis B vaccine, and asked other
questions about Annie’s care that HSLDA believes fall within routine
parental decision making.
From time to time, the social worker would leave the room to confer
with hospital staff. A nurse physically blocked the door to prevent Jodi
from also leaving.
Eventually the social worker told Jodi that she would need to agree
to a “safety plan.’ When Jodi asked to see the plan, Lopez-Heagy told
her it wasn”t written down yet, but if she did not consent to the safety
plan and agree to “whatever the hospital wanted,” she would lose
custody of her newborn child.
Meanwhile, Scott had left to bring the Ferrises’ other children to a
friends’ home. Jodi told the social worker that she was not comfortable
signing a safety plan before Scott returned.
Lopez-Heagy responded that she was not waiting any longer. If Scott
returned by the time the safety plan was prepared, she said, he could
review it. Otherwise, if Jodi didn’t sign the safety plan, “I’m calling
the police and having them take custody of the baby.”
That is exactly what happened. Jodi was directed by a uniformed
police officer to hand her newborn daughter over to a nurse. Although
she begged to be allowed to sign the safety plan even though Scott
hadn’t returned, she was told, “That window has closed.”
Jodi was then escorted off the hospital premises. On the way out she
met Scott, who was just returning from dropping off the other children.
Jodi was allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby, but
she could not remain in the hospital. She and Scott slept in their car
in the parking lot across the street.
The next morning, a juvenile-court judge returned Annie to Scott and Jodi. Two weeks later he dismissed the case against them.
Why HSLDA Took This Case
You may be asking yourself what the Ferris case has to do with homeschooling.
Our hard-won homeschooling freedoms depend on parental rights. HSLDA
is concerned that those rights are being eroded in many areas of our law
and culture. Anytime and anywhere that parental rights are diminished,
it ultimately affects homeschooling.
One of the scenarios our lawyers hear about over and over again is similar to Scott and Jodi’s.
A homeschooling mom takes a child to the emergency room after an
injury on the soccer field. The admitting nurse asks mom about
immunizations and asks the child probing questions about guns in the
home and whether the child feels safe with mom and dad.
The homeschool mama-bear instincts kick in and she objects.
All too often, this innocent act of simply questioning medical
personnel in a hospital results in a visit from a social worker to
“encourage cooperation.”
Hospitals and doctor’s offices should not be hostile environments.
And asking doctors questions about the need for various treatments is
not abuse or neglect.
Yet, there appears to be a growing trend among doctors and nurses,
especially in hospitals, to quickly summon social workers to coerce
cooperation with their questions, tests, or recommendations—not to
investigate suspected abuse or neglect.
Some of those who read this will be surprised or even offended that
we are suing doctors and nurses. We are certainly grateful for the
expertise and skill that medical personnel employ to heal us and we are
not intending to indict the entire profession.
But many reading this will identify with Scott and Jodi. I know this because I have received dozens of emails from those folks.
One of the most important principles HSLDA is hoping to establish in
this case is that hospital staff who collaborate with government social
workers in situations like Scott and Jodi’s can be held liable for
violating federal constitutional rights to the same extent as a
government agent can be.
A favorable outcome in the Ferris case would act as a deterrent to this type of conduct by healthcare workers in the future.
The Decision
When the medical defendants at Hershey Medical Center moved to dismiss
our amended complaint,
they argued that because they are not state employees, they should not
be held liable for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
In rejecting their argument, the judge held that “[t]he Amended
Complaint thus establishes that the H[ershey] M[edical] C[enter]
defendants knowingly set into motion and participated in a chain of
events intending that a constitutional violation, namely the improper
removal of [Annie] from her parents’ custody, would occur.” You may
read the full decision here.
The judge’s decision allows HSLDA to proceed to the next phase of the
case. Now we will be able to depose all of the defendants and gain
access to their notes, records, and policies in preparation for trial.
We will also be engaging experts to testify that Annie faced no
immediate threat to her health or safety that would justify what the
defendants did here.
We Need Your Help
The homeschooling movement has grown and prospered over the past
three decades. At the same time, however, parental rights in other areas
of life are being nibbled away almost imperceptibly.
We don’t want to be like the proverbial frog that doesn’t feel the water heating up until it’s too late!
If we are going to stop this trend, we will need more people like
Scott and Jodi who are willing to take a stand. And we will need to
stand together with them in defense of parental rights as faithfully as
we have for homeschooling freedom.
If you are reading this and are not a member of HSLDA, won’t you consider
joining today?
Your membership dues will help support all the work we do to defend
and expand homeschooling freedom and parental rights. And by becoming a
member, you will be standing for freedom with tens of thousands of other
families.
If you are already a member or would like to help more, please consider making a tax-deductible gift to the
Homeschool Freedom Fund.
Your generous gift will make it possible for us to pursue this case and
others like it to establish precedents that will help protect all of
us.
HSLDA is currently considering two new complicated cases
involving homeschooled children who were seized by hospitals and a third
involving an infant. And we will also be pursuing two other cases
involving unconstitutional entry into the home, similar to the
Loudermilk case, which is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Please pray that we would have wisdom and discernment and that the
cases would protect and expand liberty. We thank you for your support.
