CPS Takes Baby After Parents Seek Second Opinion

[redheadbaker]

SACRAMENTO, CA - A Sacramento family was torn apart after a 5-month-old baby boy was taken from his parents following a visit to the doctor.

The young couple thought their problems were behind them after their son had a scare at the hospital, but once they got home their problems got even worse.

It all began nearly two weeks ago, when Anna Nikolayev and her husband Alex took their 5-month-old boy Sammy to Sutter Memorial Hospital to be treated for flu symptoms, but they didn't like the care Sammy was getting.

For example, one day Anna asked why a nurse was giving her son antibiotics.

"I asked her, for what is that? And she's like, 'I don't know.' I'm like, 'you're working as a nurse, and you don't even know what to give to my baby for what,'" Anna explained.

According to Anna, a doctor later said Sammy shouldn't have been on the antibiotics.

Anna said Sammy suffers from a heart murmur and had been seeing a doctor at Sutter for regular treatment since he was born. After Sammy was treated for flu symptoms last week, doctors at Sutter admitted him to the pediatric ICU to monitor his condition. After a few days, Anna said doctors began talking about heart surgery.

"If we got the one mistake after another, I don't want to have my baby have surgery in the hospital where I don't feel safe," Anna said.

Anna argued with doctors about getting a second opinion. Without a proper discharge, she finally took Sammy out of the hospital to get a second opinion at Kaiser Permanente.

"The police showed up there. They saw that the baby was fine," Anna said. "They told us that Sutter was telling them so much bad stuff that they thought that this baby is dying on our arms."

Medical records from the doctor treating Sammy at Kaiser Permanente said the baby as clinically safe to go home with his parents. The doctor added, "I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents."

"So police saw the report from the doctors, said, 'okay guys, you have a good day,' and they walked away," Anna said.

Anna said the next day police and child protective services showed up on her doorstep. Alex Nikolayev said he met them outside a short time after they arrived.

"I was pushed against the building, smacked down. I said, 'am I being placed under arrest?' He smacked me down onto the ground, yelled out, 'I think I got the keys to the house,'" Alex said.

Then police let themselves inside.

On home video shot with a camera Anna set up herself, police can be seen entering her front door on Wednesday.

"I'm going to grab your baby, and don't resist, and don't fight me ok?" a Sacramento police officer said in the video.

"He's like, 'okay let your son go,' so I had to let him go, and he grabbed my arm, so I couldn't take Sammy. And they took Sammy, and they just walked away," Anna said.

When News10 spoke with police, they said talk to CPS; CPS did not say much about the case. Just before 6 p.m. Thursday, Anna said that a CPS social worker told her, the reason they took Sammy is because of severe neglect; however, the social worker didn't elaborate on that neglect.

Sutter Memorial was asked to comment on the story, but the hospital said the case was with CPS and law enforcement and they would have to comment on the case. CPS said they can't specifically comment on this case because of privacy law, but CPS spokesperson Laura McCasland said, "We conduct a risk assessment of the child's safety and rely heavily on the direction of health care providers."

"It seems like parents have no right whatsoever," Alex said.

On Thursday, Anna and Alex were allowed a one hour visitation with Sammy; he's currently in protective custody at Sutter Memorial Hospital.

"His smile, it's everything for me," Anna said. "I was so happy to see him."

Anna and Alex have a court hearing scheduled for Monday.

"We did everything," Anna said. "We went from one hospital to another. We just wanted to be safe, that he is in good hands."

www.news10.net/news/article/242734/2/Couple-fights-to-get-baby-back-from-CPS-police

[UMaineTeach]

CPS never seems to remove the kids who need removing. They give actual abusers a million chances to turn around and people like this couple no chances.

[Deleted]

I have no opinion, seeing as obviously CPS can't comment on an investigation and we just have one wide of the story.

[overture]

I was born at Sutter Memorial!

Anyway, this all sounds like a pile of bullshit.

[Deleted]

It's soooo hard to form an opinion on CPS stories because the only people who are permitted to discuss the case are the parents. I agree CPS can be jacked. But I just don't know that anyone can tell from this story.

[rugbywife]

Apr 27, 2013 15:16:37 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

It's soooo hard to form an opinion on CPS stories because the only people who are permitted to discuss the case are the parents. I agree CPS can be jacked. But I just don't know that anyone can tell from this story.

I agree.  I would like to think the parent's story is true and the the child was wrongly removed, but really, this is SO one-sided. The parents could have left out any number of things.  Let's be honest, a parent who has done something to warrant a removal isn't going to admit to it.

And I say this knowing that CPS fucks up, they fucked up the life of one of my friends. 

[Deleted]

Wait, so the police accepted the report from the child's attending physician stating that he has no concerns about the child's safety with the parents - which was documented on his chart -  walked away saying "have a nice day"  - and the couple is arrested? On what grounds?? Something very bizarre is going on here.

And this is just plain inexcusable: 

For example, one day Anna asked why a nurse was giving her son antibiotics.

"I asked her, for what is that? And she's like, 'I don't know.' I'm like, 'you're working as a nurse, and you don't even know what to give to my baby for what,'" Anna explained.

Um, when a patient (or parent when patient is a minor) asks the nurse why s/he's doing anything, they're entitled to an answer. If the nurse didn't have one, s/he should have said "I'll find out from the doctor". But 

According to Anna, a doctor later said Sammy shouldn't have been on the antibiotics.

This doesn't surprise me since the symptoms were indicative of the flu according to the article. I'd be interested to know what the final diagnosis was, and if there was a misdiagnosis somewhere in the course of his hospitalization. Again, this is bizarre.

This is very unnerving to read for me personally because, when my DD was admitted to the hospital after presenting in acute respiratory distress, she got two different diagnoses. One was from the pediatrics resident around 3:00 AM who said that she had bacterial pneumonia, and that she would have to discontinue getting the amoxicillin she was getting for an ear infection diagnosed two days earlier because it wouldn't adequately treat bacterial pneumonia; they'd have to upgrade to a more potent antibiotic. We had the amox with us because we were advised to bring it. By the time we got this diagnosis it had been out of the fridge for several hours, and because we were told she shouldn't have any more of it, I saw no reason to keep it so I threw it out.

The next day the attending pediatrician told us she diagnosed viral - not bacterial  - pneumonia. She said to continue the amox for the ear infection, so I had to ask her to write a new Rx and explain what the resident said. She was like "yeah, well, I'm the attending physician" and I had to tell her "I understand, but we had no way of knowing that the resident was giving us an incorrect diagnosis". 

[Deleted]

I would assume the new doctor/hospital didn't know the history of the patient. There wasn't even enough time it sounds like to get the records from the other doctor, if the parents even told the new hospital that the child had been a patient at the other one.

And again, all we know is what the parents said. We don't know how this child was treated or how the nurses treated the family.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 15:31:00 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

I would assume the new doctor/hospital didn't know the history of the patient. There wasn't even enough time it sounds like to get the records from the other doctor, if the parents even told the new hospital that the child had been a patient at the other one.

And again, all we know is what the parents said. We don't know how this child was treated or how the nurses treated the family.

Well, not all - there's also this: 

Medical records from the doctor treating Sammy at Kaiser Permanente said the baby as clinically safe to go home with his parents. The doctor added, "I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents."

[heyjude]

Apr 27, 2013 15:37:38 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

Apr 27, 2013 15:31:00 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

I would assume the new doctor/hospital didn't know the history of the patient. There wasn't even enough time it sounds like to get the records from the other doctor, if the parents even told the new hospital that the child had been a patient at the other one.

And again, all we know is what the parents said. We don't know how this child was treated or how the nurses treated the family.

Well, not all - there's also this: 

Medical records from the doctor treating Sammy at Kaiser Permanente said the baby as clinically safe to go home with his parents. The doctor added, "I do not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents."

I think Habs point is that this wasn't the child's regular doctor nor hospital so they don't have any substantial history with this child or his parents.

Sad story all around. But yes. The article is one sided.

[Deleted]

Yes, heyjude. You're right. It's possible that had the doctor at Kaiser known the child's history, he may have thought differently. My child abuse degree from Lifetime Movie Network has taught me that it's common for abusive parents to doctor/hospital shop.

That being said, again, the old hospital could just be dicks and/or covering up for being idiots.

[heyjude]

Also one doesn't just go to Kaiser. You need Kaiser insurance to go there. And if you have kaiser insurance you wouldn't go to a different hospital because it wouldn't be covered, unless it's an emergency. And also, why did she happen to have the camera on when the cops came?

[redheadbaker]

Apr 27, 2013 15:53:00 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Also one doesn't just go to Kaiser. You need Kaiser insurance to go there. And if you have kaiser insurance you wouldn't go to a different hospital because it wouldn't be covered, unless it's an emergency. And also, why did she happen to have the camera on when the cops came?

It doesn't take that long to whip out a cell phone and turn the video camera on. 

[heyjude]

Apr 27, 2013 15:55:41 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Apr 27, 2013 15:53:00 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Also one doesn't just go to Kaiser. You need Kaiser insurance to go there. And if you have kaiser insurance you wouldn't go to a different hospital because it wouldn't be covered, unless it's an emergency. And also, why did she happen to have the camera on when the cops came?

It doesn't take that long to whip out a cell phone and turn the video camera on. 

I guess that's not the first thing I would think of doing if someone unexpectedly showed up at my door to take my child away. Not saying it's a bad idea.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 15:49:12 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Yes, heyjude. You're right. It's possible that had the doctor at Kaiser known the child's history, he may have thought differently. My child abuse degree from Lifetime Movie Network has taught me that it's common for abusive parents to doctor/hospital shop.

That being said, again, the old hospital could just be dicks and/or covering up for being idiots.

Seeking a second opinion does not = doctor/hospital shopping.  And yeah, maybe you're taking the Lifetime Movie Network just a bit too seriously.

Your last sentence is a lot more plausible.

[kmpls]

I hope there is more to the story otherwise this is absolutely appalling.

[redheadbaker]

Apr 27, 2013 15:49:12 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Yes, heyjude. You're right. It's possible that had the doctor at Kaiser known the child's history, he may have thought differently. My child abuse degree from Lifetime Movie Network has taught me that it's common for abusive parents to doctor/hospital shop.

That being said, again, the old hospital could just be dicks and/or covering up for being idiots.

If the child were there for an injury, I can see suspecting child abuse. But flu-like symptoms? 

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 16:02:49 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

Apr 27, 2013 15:49:12 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Yes, heyjude. You're right. It's possible that had the doctor at Kaiser known the child's history, he may have thought differently. My child abuse degree from Lifetime Movie Network has taught me that it's common for abusive parents to doctor/hospital shop.

That being said, again, the old hospital could just be dicks and/or covering up for being idiots.

Seeking a second opinion does not = doctor/hospital shopping.  And yeah, maybe you're taking the Lifetime Movie Network just a bit too seriously.

Your last sentence is a lot more plausible.

I didn't say that it was. My point is that because the records aren't immediately available/checked to the new doctor, it's quite possible the new doctor didn't have information from the old doctor and if he had, he might not have cleared the patient for release, not necessarily that these patients were doctor shopping to avoid an abuse charge.

[ttt]

Apr 27, 2013 15:16:37 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

It's soooo hard to form an opinion on CPS stories because the only people who are permitted to discuss the case are the parents. I agree CPS can be jacked. But I just don't know that anyone can tell from this story.

This is where I am. If the story as told is true, then I'm completely appalled and horrified. But I feel like there is probably more to it.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 16:05:53 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

If the child were there for an injury, I can see suspecting child abuse. But flu-like symptoms? 

There is more to child abuse than just injury. Neglect, unsafe living conditions, Munchhausen's. I'm not convinced any of that is going on here. But I'm not convinced CPS just showed up on their doorstep for funsies either, kwim? Without further information, no argument is more compelling than another at this point.

ETA: Especially considering we're dealing with seemingly white, middle class parents who live in a nice home in what looks like a nice neighborhood.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 16:05:54 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Apr 27, 2013 16:02:49 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

Seeking a second opinion does not = doctor/hospital shopping.  And yeah, maybe you're taking the Lifetime Movie Network just a bit too seriously.

Your last sentence is a lot more plausible.

I didn't say that it was. My point is that because the records aren't immediately available/checked to the new doctor, it's quite possible the new doctor didn't have information from the old doctor and if he had, he might not have cleared the patient for release, not necessarily that these patients were doctor shopping to avoid an abuse charge.

But see, I don't find this relevant because the parents aren't hiding the fact that the docs at Sutter wanted him to have heart surgery. It's right there in the article. The mother is quoted as saying she was told her baby needed surgery.

If they were going to hide this from the new doc and hospital, why would they openly discuss it with the media? 

[rugbywife]

Apr 27, 2013 16:11:02 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Apr 27, 2013 16:05:53 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

If the child were there for an injury, I can see suspecting child abuse. But flu-like symptoms? 

There is more to child abuse than just injury. Neglect, unsafe living conditions, Munchhausen's. I'm not convinced any of that is going on here. But I'm not convinced CPS just showed up on their doorstep for funsies either, kwim? Without further information, no argument is more compelling than another at this point.

Yes to all of this.  It could have taken just a couple of 'off comments' for a doctor to suspect something. And frankly, their duty to report is huge.  It's part of what I hate in some ways when it comes to teaching. A kid can say something, that I *know* is a joke or whatever, but I still have to report it, because that's the law and it is my job to look out for their best interest regardless of what I *think* might have happened or not happened.  The same goes for a doctor - even more so really. 

Now, for CPS to actually pull the child, that's another thing, but clearly something happened that caused the hospital to put forth a report. 

[redheadbaker]

Apr 27, 2013 16:11:02 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Apr 27, 2013 16:05:53 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

If the child were there for an injury, I can see suspecting child abuse. But flu-like symptoms? 

There is more to child abuse than just injury. Neglect, unsafe living conditions, Munchhausen's. I'm not convinced any of that is going on here. But I'm not convinced CPS just showed up on their doorstep for funsies either, kwim? Without further information, no argument is more compelling than another at this point.

I see what you're saying.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 16:11:02 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Apr 27, 2013 16:05:53 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

If the child were there for an injury, I can see suspecting child abuse. But flu-like symptoms? 

There is more to child abuse than just injury. Neglect, unsafe living conditions, Munchhausen's. I'm not convinced any of that is going on here. But I'm not convinced CPS just showed up on their doorstep for funsies either, kwim? Without further information, no argument is more compelling than another at this point.

Oh, I don't think CPS just showed up for funsies. I think they were grossly misinformed by someone at Sutter.

[heyjude]

They didn't even investigate the home. They just took the kid. And the fact that they don't even have the kid back yet? There has to be more to this story.

[ttt]

More

www.news10.net/news/article/242914/2/Couple-still-unclear-why-CPS-took-their-baby-


SACRAMENTO, CA - When Alex and Anna Nikolayev learned they would have a second one-hour visit Friday at the hospital with their baby boy Sammy, the news came as the one happy moment to cap off a difficult day.

"It's like everything in your stomach is turning and then you see his toothless smile and it kills everything in you ," Anna said, "It was nice. At least for one hour."

Little Sammy has been in protective custody since Wednesday, when police and Child Protective Services took the baby from his mother's arms. The move came a day after the family thought a dispute with Sammy's doctors had been resolved.

Alex and Anna said they've known about Sammy's heart murmur since he was born, and he was regularly seeing a Sutter cardiologist every two to three weeks. Also, the couple reiterated on Friday, that even when doctors at Sutter began talking about surgery, this was not a surgery to take place immediately. This was something the parents understood would be scheduled two weeks later, and no one ever gave them any reason to believe Sammy's health was in any imminent danger.

The couple admitted they left Sutter Memorial without a proper discharge on Tuesday, but they said it was only because they were unhappy with Sammy's care, and they took the 5-month-old to Kaiser Permanente to get a second opinion.

PREVIOUS STORY: Couple fights to get baby back from CPS, police

On Thursday, the family met with leaders of Sacramento's Slavic community hoping to get help. That resulted in a one-hour visit with Sammy, but the couple's attorney said they were not allowed to see the boy's medical chart. The parents said they did not have a chance to talk to doctors about Sammy's health either.

Then on Friday, the couple and their attorney managed to secure a second one-hour visit with Sammy, but only if they agreed to much stricter pre-conditions.

"She called us back and said we can have this visit at 6 o'clock without any video camera in the room, without taking any pictures," Anna said, describing her conversation with CPS. "My whole family is waiting for pictures in Germany, and you know if they cannot see him either, that's the only thing that we can send after saying, how is he doing? At least pictures, videos. They've been texting me the whole day, calling me the whole day, how is Sammy doing, and I just cannot answer back because I don't even know."

Anna and Alex Nikolayev agreed to everything Child Protective Services asked of them in order to see Sammy Friday night. However, they said they don't know when they'll be able to see him again after Friday.

It is unclear to Anna why Sammy was taken by CPS. CPS policies prevent them from commenting directly on the case. However, they did release the following statement:

"We are sensitive to the pain that such crises cause for families and aware of the complexity of the evaluations made by the social work, medical and court professionals involved. The laws and policies that guide agency practice are designed to ensure that there are adequate protections for the rights of everyone involved, while placing priority on children's health, safety, and well-being."

RELATED STORY: How does CPS decide when to remove a child from his parents?

Anna said CPS told her the reason they took the boy was severe neglect. Anna explained that growing up in Germany, and English not being her native language, she wasn't clear what that meant, so she asked the CPS worker to elaborate.

"She told me that these words mean that we took Sammy from an emergency, that he was dying, and we just left without giving him the right treatment," Anna said.

The parents kept claiming a police officer visited them at Kaiser Morse Hospital and determined no neglect. On Friday, News10 confirmed her claim was true - a Sacramento police officer met with the parents, as well as Sammy's nurses and doctor at the hospital. A Sacramento police spokesperson said what's unclear is whether an official recommendation was made. It's possible additional tests were being done to rule-out neglect.

The Kaiser doctor later wrote in his report that he, "does not have concern for the safety of the child at home with his parents as they appear competent and concerned (for) the child's best care..."

What's also unclear it why CPS a day later took custody of Sammy. Social workers went to the home, along with police officers (which CPS requested), claiming severe neglect.

It is plausible that CPS did not know the baby was treated at Kaiser, therefore treating the case as one of a child needing medical treatment and the parents refusing that treatment, which would put the child in danger.

But most importantly, it's taking much longer for this wrong to be righted. An attorney for the family said CPS directed him to a county lawyer Friday night, who had already left for the evening.

It appears Sammy will not be reunited with his parents until a court hearing is held Monday morning, if the judge agrees that the child is safe at home.

In the meantime, Anna and Alex have been granted additional visitation with Sammy this weekend. They will be allowed to feed Sammy three times a day on Saturday and Sunday. While it's good news, they just wish they could bring Sammy home.

"You're sitting there like in prison, they're watching you not to do anything wrong," Anna explained. "Holding your child in your hands being safe but you just feel like you're not yourself."

"You're being watched over by a lot of people actually," Alex added. "It's not that comforting."

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 16:13:22 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

But see, I don't find this relevant because the parents aren't hiding the fact that the docs at Sutter wanted him to have heart surgery. It's right there in the article. The mother is quoted as saying she was told her baby needed surgery.

If they were going to hide this from the new doc and hospital, why would they openly discuss it with the media? 

Okay, one more time although I'm convinced I'm repeated myself and to little good. God only knows what happened and I'm not convinced one way or another but to this point, the new doctor likely didn't have the entirety of this child's medical record, only what the parents relayed. Now they may not have lied. They might have only passed on what they thought relevant. They may not even be aware of what gave the other doctors cause to be concerned, may not have fully understood what the previous doctor had said.

But it's not outside of the realm of possibility that the old hospital/doctors were privy to information that for any number of reasons was not provided to or readily available to the new doctor/hospital.

[ttt]

From the info in the second article, I might even guess that an angry person at the first hospital reported them to CPS out of spite. And CPS didn't bother to investigate whether they had taken him to another hospital or not.

Again, still want to hear the other side, but it's sounding more like a bureaucratic cluster to me.

[Deleted]

It should also be noted that there often aren't a lot of openings for CPS to place a child so I'm not necessarily convinced that they have the time and resources to remove the child without there being concerns.

Honestly, given TTT's additional information and after watching the video, I'd put good money on a serious language barrier resulting in miscommunication between everyone. I wonder if the hospital gave them a translator and how well the translator was able to communicate with everyone.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2013 16:18:51 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Apr 27, 2013 16:13:22 GMT -5 sunmoonstars said:

But see, I don't find this relevant because the parents aren't hiding the fact that the docs at Sutter wanted him to have heart surgery. It's right there in the article. The mother is quoted as saying she was told her baby needed surgery.

If they were going to hide this from the new doc and hospital, why would they openly discuss it with the media? 

Okay, one more time although I'm convinced I'm repeated myself and to little good. God only knows what happened and I'm not convinced one way or another but to this point, the new doctor likely didn't have the entirety of this child's medical record, only what the parents relayed. Now they may not have lied. They might have only passed on what they thought relevant. They may not even be aware of what gave the other doctors cause to be concerned, may not have fully understood what the previous doctor had said.

But it's not outside of the realm of possibility that the old hospital/doctors were privy to information that for any number of reasons was not provided to or readily available to the new doctor/hospital.

I understood what you said the first time you said it.