Emily's Blindness Due to Medical Neglect

[KarlHindle]

6 months after Emily was born, we were referred to the eye hospital in the UK because Emily had a pronounced squint. 

Emily was diagnosed with amblyopia and esotropia. 

Esotropia is the inward turning of the eye which can easily be corrected, however the amblyopia was much more serious - without treatment the condition becomes permanent and blindness in the affected eye(s) is the result - treatment needs to be undertaken by age 3 (4 at a pinch) to be effective.

We started treatment which was the regular patching of Emily's eyes to train the brain to accept the nerve signals from the weak eye.



Upon taking Emily, Sheila stopped all treatment which, together with the efforts to sell/adopt Emily out in WI led to the British government formally requesting social services intervention: (I need to get this scanned and uploaded - to follow

In the US, numerous doctors examined Emily and agreed she should be treated but time had all but run out:





Social services in FL investigated three times - the first time, in 2004, Investigator Roberta Miranda ignored the British doctors and hospital reports, would not take note of Dr Coredero's initial report in DeLand and categorized Emily as not being neglected and Sheila allowing Emily into the care and contact of the pedophile in WI as, "child protective custody".  Miranda also falsified numerous witness statements and reports - for which I have some of the paperwork.

Finally, Investigator Dan Testaman investigated for a third time in 2006 and agreed Emily had been treatable but that no neglect had occurred because, "..in Florida the mother did not have to get treatment for the eye because it was not life threatening."  I taped this conversation.

The Florida courts have completely ignored the neglect and failed to enforce any treatment - there is no mention of this in either the Lower or Appellate Court rulings.

[UD_student]

In some states in the US parents have pushed for laws to mandate insurance companies covering assorted devices they state their children need. In NJ the cause most recently was hearing aids as parents wanted their children to hear and had been denied because the insurance company since 'hearing is not medically necessary'.

It seems to me as if CPS in Florida was applying similarly absurd criteria to indicate that just because a child can function without use of one eye no abuse occurred. By that same logic, parents could notice their kid broke his/her arm (something innocent-the kid fell off while jumping off a swing) and decline to take the child to the doctor because bones typically will (eventually) heal on their own if not displaced (i.e. bent at an odd angle or sticking out of the skin) and even if they don't, people can live without an arm or a leg if amputation was eventually necessary.

Karl, I'm glad you have that recorded because I doubt most people would believe you otherwise (although it seems some judges choose to only read/listen to certain evidence they feel like observing). You simply can't make up what you've been through much less what your daughter has been put through. I grew up knowing a working woman and married mom of 2 kids who was blind in one eye. She functioned extremely well, but I'm positive if given a choice she would have preferred to have sight in both eyes.