By now, you’ve undoubtedly heard the story of Anna and Alex Nikolayev, the Sacramento parents of baby Sammy who were stunned when Child Protective Services (CPS) workers yanked the infant out of his mother’s arms – all because the parents had the temerity to request a second opinion from physicians.

But after some digging, I began to realize that while all the available facts have been reported by one outlet or another, no one article told the whole story.

Background: The Nikolayev Family

Alex and Anna Nikolayev, parents of 5-month-old infant Sammy, took their child to Sutter Memorial Hospital in Sacramento due to Sammy’s congenital heart murmur and the fact that the baby had developed flu-like symptoms.

It’s important to keep in mind that this wasn’t the first time they’d had to seek medical treatment for their child. In fact, they apparently had seen many doctors prior to this visit, at least one of whom had told the young parents that Sammy should not be given antibiotics.

So when Anna saw a Sutter nurse begin to administer antibiotics to her child, she spoke up and asked why. The nurse said “I don’t know.”

Then the attending physician told the worried parents that Sammy didn’t have the flu – but rather that the infant needed open-heart surgery immediately.

The parents made the (I believe quite understandably) decision to seek a second opinion elsewhere. Anna put Sammy in his stroller, and they traveled across town to Kaiser Permanente Medical Center to get that opinion.

At Kaiser Permanente, after the child was evaluated, physicians told the Nikolayevs that they could take Sammy home – a very different opinion than the one formed by the Sutter physician.

One fact that seems to be getting lost in the retelling of this tale is that the Nikolayevs were confronted twice by authorities. The first such occasion happened on the day they brought Sammy home from Kaiser Permanente. The police approached the parents, and with their permission, spoke with the KP physician who had treated Sammy. The KP doctor assured the police there was no danger to Sammy. The police indicated to the Nikolayevs that the staff at Sutter had led the police to believe Sammy was at death’s door, but that they could clearly see he was not.

The next day the nightmare truly began. The Nikolayevs were confronted again by the police – but this time, the police were escorting CPS workers who had one of the officers take Sammy right out of his mother’s arms. There’s very troubling video of this incident here.

For the following week, the distraught, confused parents were allowed only one-hour visits with their baby per day. CPS, meanwhile, had taken Sammy to Sutter, the very hospital that had made the parents so leery.

Finally, on April 29th, a judge yanked the reins on this runaway train returning medical decision-making authority to the Nikolayevs. However, the ordeal isn’t over for these parents: the judge also ordered the parents to allow home visits by CPS workers, to abide by medical care providers’ treatment orders, and to not remove Sammy from any hospital unless the infant was discharged by the hospital.

So, effectively this preliminary order puts Sammy’s medical care back in the hands of the medical profession instead of where it belongs – with his parents.

CPS Response

Initially, the agency circled the wagons and declined comment, citing privacy laws. However, eventually the agency released a statement, partially quoted in this Yahoo! article:

The law is clear. If there is imminent risk of serious physical harm to the child and there is insufficient time to obtain a court order to remove the child from the care of the parents… the social worker or law enforcement officer can remove the child.

That does seem pretty clear – except that judging solely by the facts currently available to the public, the “imminent risk” exception to the court order requirement doesn’t really apply in this case.

This is made manifestly apparent by the court’s subsequent order, in which the court returned medical decision-making authority to Sammy’s parents – which would not have happened had there been any evidence of an ongoing imminent risk.

What Next for the Nikolayev Family?

Sammy is now receiving care from another hospital (not Sutter). His parents have stated he probably will require surgery.

Understandably, the Nikolayevs are worried about future CPS visits. They report that many parents spoke up following this story’s first publication, stating that they had experienced similar questionable actions by CPS – which, of course, is no surprise to any reader of this blog.

The Nikolayevs are not alone in this fight, however. They are represented by Joseph Weinberger, a Sacramento attorney who appears to focus on personal injury cases.

Additionally, Tim Donnelly, a Republican California Assemblyman representing Twin Peaks, CA, has now called for an audit of the CPS agency’s actions in the Nikolayev case.

And they’ll need all the help they can get. While I certainly hope that the next court hearing (scheduled for later this month) will put an end to the entire matter for the Nikolayevs, that is far from a foregone conclusion.

Parents have a constitutional right to make healthcare decisions on behalf of their children. CPS trampled those rights in this instance. Basically, CPS took a child out of a home because the parents sought a second medical opinion for their child.

While there’s certainly enough blame to go around (to the overreaction of the medical care providers at Sutter, for instance, for the wholly unsupportable decision to report obviously caring parents as abusers simply because the parents questioned their conclusions), the Sacramento CPS bears the brunt of the responsibility for this ridiculous assertion of its powers.

This is yet another tragic example of CPS abusing its power in regards to our children. And if you think this can’t happen to you, think again. These parents acted completely within their rights, followed the advice given by the physician providing the second opinion, and still had their infant child taken from their home.

{ 0 comments }

I’ve written briefly before about collaborative divorce on this blog, but one misconception about this relatively new method of ending a marriage continues to pop up from time to time. That misconception is that collaborative divorce is just for the wealthy and those with significant net worth values.

Two studies conducted by the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, however, set the record straight.

The IACP conducted a four-year study (link: PDF of summary results) in which practitioners responded to a series of questions aimed at crafting a more detailed picture of who, exactly, uses collaborative divorce services instead of the traditional divorce litigation route.

The IACP also conducted a separate client survey, this one aimed at the actual participants in collaborative law processes. (Here’s the link to the PDF of those results.)

What the IACP found is that a significant percentage of individuals who choose the collaborative process earn less than $100,000 per year. From the IACP’s Client Experience Survey summary:

Fifty-four percent (54%) of respondents had estates valued at $500,000 or more …  [n]ineteen percent (19%) had estates valued at less than $200,000.

Clearly, then, collaborative divorce is not just for the super-wealthy.

Clients often choose the collaborative process for many reasons. For example, the collaborative process is perceived to be much less likely to turn highly adversarial and contentious.

But it is also true that clients often fear the litigation process may become protracted and eat up financial assets that could be better allocated to taking care of each partner’s fresh start. As Florida attorney Adam Cordover wrote recently:

Though it is true that the up front fees in collaborative family law may be more than the traditional trial divorce, the specialization of the collaborative attorneys, facilitator, and financial professional allow for tremendous cost (not to mention time and emotional) savings over the course of the divorce.

Collaborative divorce isn’t the right choice for every couple, of course. But it’s certainly worth exploring as an option. Fear of the cost should not keep you from asking your attorney about it and exploring the possibility.

{ 1 comment }

What Is Münchausen Syndrome By Proxy and Why Are Parents Losing Custody Because Of It?

April 29, 2013

Münchausen syndrome by proxy. It sounds dire. And for parents of sick children who have yet to receive a diagnosis from their medical care providers, it can be. But it’s not the illness their children have. It’s what their children’s doctors think the parents have.  And if the doctors and nurses in charge of your [...]

Read the full article →

How to Thoroughly Make a Mess of Your Custody Case

April 24, 2013

Pardon the tongue-in-cheek headline, but, as a divorce and custody attorney, I have to admit that sometimes it seems as if straightforward advice may not get through quite as clearly as satire does. So, in that slightly-satirical-but-completely-serious spirit, and in honor of the day (though I’m not fooling you here!),  here’s my own version of [...]

Read the full article →

Parental Abduction and the Hague Convention, Part 2: What to Do If It Happens to Your Family

April 22, 2013

In the previous post, I shared a little background on the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Convention” for short). This post, part 2 on “Parental Abduction and the Hague Convention,” will cover several concrete things you need to know and do in the event this happens to you and your family. [...]

Read the full article →

Parental Kidnapping and the Hague Convention, Part 1

April 19, 2013

As Joshua and Sharyn Hakken now sit in custody, awaiting trial on multiple felony counts, one thing has become abundantly clear: the Hakken family history is a troubled one. The Hakkens – parents of two young sons – lost custody of their children after Louisiana police found the young family ensconced in a motel room [...]

Read the full article →

Three Ways Child Welfare Agencies Could Improve Their Investigations

April 4, 2013

According to an old maxim, you should never raise your voice to complain about a problem unless you can offer a solution. I’m not sure how true that is – seems to me that there is value in merely pointing out that the house is on fire – but it does seem only fair that, [...]

Read the full article →

What Remedies Are Available After False Abuse Allegations Are Raised?

March 28, 2013

After you’ve successfully defended your client’s good name against false allegations of child abuse and somehow shepherded him safely through the quagmire of a horribly abusive investigation, what’s next? Is there any remedy for a parent who has been intentionally put through the grinder of a false abuse charge? There are remedies, of course, but [...]

Read the full article →

The Case Notebook in False Abuse Cases

March 25, 2013

One of the most helpful things my clients in false abuse cases can do to help me do my best work for them is to prepare and maintain a current case notebook. What’s a Case Notebook? Simply put, a case notebook is a collection of documents and notes relevant to the ongoing case that’s maintained [...]

Read the full article →

False Abuse Allegations: How Big a Problem Is It, Really?

March 21, 2013

How many innocent people in the U.S. are targeted in child abuse investigations? It’s a fair question, but it’s a hard one to answer. Let’s first start with a definition. A false abuse allegation is one that is made with knowledge that it is untrue. So, from the start, we know we are not talking [...]

Read the full article →