Beverly Hutchings-Watts - Charged With Shoving Socks Into Boy’s Mouth, Taping His Mouth Closed During Extension Cord Beatings
Port St. Lucie, Florida (The Weekly Vice) - Beverly Jean Hutchings-Watts, a 52-year-old Port St. Lucie woman, was jailed Wednesday after she allegedly beat her 12-year-old adopted son with an extension cord before shoving socks into his mouth and then taping his mouth closed.
According to Port St. Lucie police, the boy was found by officers Sunday around midnight walking alone, dressed in pajamas, and no shoes, about a mile and a half from his home.
He told police that he had been "whooped" by his foster father, and that he was running away to his aunt's house. He described the attack, stating that his foster parents beat him with an extension cord because he had food and something to drink in his room. The boy also said that he was often forced to sleep on a concrete floor in the garage.
Investigators believe the boy exaggerated his story a little, but did find numerous lineal bruises on his back, legs, and buttocks and what looked to be “pick marks” on his abdomen. Documents show the boy has a history of manipulation, defiance, lying, aggression, and other behavior problems.
Mrs. Watts admitted to detectives that she beat him with a belt, not an extension cord, and showed police the belts she used. The injuries the boy sustained were not believed to be from the belts she showed.
The boy also claims that Watts put socks in his mouth and covered it with tape during times he was being "disciplined."
Watts was booked into jail and charged with felony aggravated child abuse.
His father, 48-year-old Walter Watts, could also face charges for reportedly physically abusing him.
Mandi Milenko
The Weekly Vice
http://www.theweeklyvice.com/2010/07/beverly-hutchings-watts-charged-with.html
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Friday, July 2, 2010
Ex-foster dad faces felony sex counts
Ex-foster dad faces felony sex counts
BY SOPHIA VORAVONG • SVORAVONG@JCONLINE.COM • JULY 2, 2010
A foster parent and former youth minister from West Lafayette is accused of forcing sexual contact on a teenager who was in his care.
William "Lee" Porter, 53, was charged Thursday in Tippecanoe Superior Court 1 with criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony, and five counts of child seduction, a Class D felony.
Porter had been arrested last November, shortly after the investigation began, said Detective Sgt. Cindy Marion of the West Lafayette Police Department. He was released from the Tippecanoe County Jail after posting a $505 cash bond.
He was arrested again Thursday night on a warrant issued with the criminal charges. His new bond was set at $25,000 surety.
Porter was the alleged victim's foster father and youth minister, Marion said. At the time the teenager lived with Porter and his wife, Porter was youth minister at Elmwood Church of Christ in Lafayette.
He has since resigned from that position, Marion said.
On Thursday afternoon, Porter's name was still included on a telephone staff directory for the church. A message was left for pulpit minister Gilbert Kerrigan seeking comment.
The charges stem from allegations that the teenager told investigators occurred sometime after April 2007, the month she was placed at Porter's West Lafayette home.
The girl moved back with her father in November 2008.
She was between 16 and 17 years old at the time.
According to a probable cause affidavit filed with the charges, the girl alleges that the sexual contact began with fondling that occurred 15 to 20 times. She allowed the alleged touching to continue because Porter reportedly threatened to otherwise cheat on his wife.
The investigation began that month when the 17-year-old stopped a West Lafayette police officer who was working as a school resource officer at West Lafayette Jr.-Sr. High School.
While Sgt. David Lord was taking the teenager's report, she allegedly received a text message on her cell phone from Porter -- asking that she not cut off their relationship.
The criminal deviate conduct charge is based on sexual contact the girl said she was forced into by Porter in November 2009, when Porter's wife was out of town. The girl told investigators that she visited Porter to do laundry and watch cable television -- things she did not have access to at her father's home.
According to Journal & Courier archives, Porter joined Elmwood Church in 1998. Before that, he spent 18 years as a youth minister at four churches in Texas.
Marion said she was not aware of any other alleged victims.
In Indiana, 16 is the age of sexual consent. However, a person can be charged with child seduction if the victim is between the ages of 16 and 18 and the suspect is a guardian.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20100702/NEWS03/7020337/1001/news
BY SOPHIA VORAVONG • SVORAVONG@JCONLINE.COM • JULY 2, 2010
A foster parent and former youth minister from West Lafayette is accused of forcing sexual contact on a teenager who was in his care.
William "Lee" Porter, 53, was charged Thursday in Tippecanoe Superior Court 1 with criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony, and five counts of child seduction, a Class D felony.
Porter had been arrested last November, shortly after the investigation began, said Detective Sgt. Cindy Marion of the West Lafayette Police Department. He was released from the Tippecanoe County Jail after posting a $505 cash bond.
He was arrested again Thursday night on a warrant issued with the criminal charges. His new bond was set at $25,000 surety.
Porter was the alleged victim's foster father and youth minister, Marion said. At the time the teenager lived with Porter and his wife, Porter was youth minister at Elmwood Church of Christ in Lafayette.
He has since resigned from that position, Marion said.
On Thursday afternoon, Porter's name was still included on a telephone staff directory for the church. A message was left for pulpit minister Gilbert Kerrigan seeking comment.
The charges stem from allegations that the teenager told investigators occurred sometime after April 2007, the month she was placed at Porter's West Lafayette home.
The girl moved back with her father in November 2008.
She was between 16 and 17 years old at the time.
According to a probable cause affidavit filed with the charges, the girl alleges that the sexual contact began with fondling that occurred 15 to 20 times. She allowed the alleged touching to continue because Porter reportedly threatened to otherwise cheat on his wife.
The investigation began that month when the 17-year-old stopped a West Lafayette police officer who was working as a school resource officer at West Lafayette Jr.-Sr. High School.
While Sgt. David Lord was taking the teenager's report, she allegedly received a text message on her cell phone from Porter -- asking that she not cut off their relationship.
The criminal deviate conduct charge is based on sexual contact the girl said she was forced into by Porter in November 2009, when Porter's wife was out of town. The girl told investigators that she visited Porter to do laundry and watch cable television -- things she did not have access to at her father's home.
According to Journal & Courier archives, Porter joined Elmwood Church in 1998. Before that, he spent 18 years as a youth minister at four churches in Texas.
Marion said she was not aware of any other alleged victims.
In Indiana, 16 is the age of sexual consent. However, a person can be charged with child seduction if the victim is between the ages of 16 and 18 and the suspect is a guardian.
http://www.jconline.com/article/20100702/NEWS03/7020337/1001/news
Obama and Dems want to censor AFA and other pro-family groups at election time
Obama and Dems want to censor AFA and other pro-family groups at election time
URGENT: Contact your senators today - tell them to protect the Constitution and vote “NO” on the DISCLOSE Act
The badly misnamed campaign finance bill, the DISCLOSE Act, will strangle the voice of the AFA and other pro-life and pro-family organizations during election campaigns, right at the time our voices most need to be heard.
President Obama and the Democrats have already pushed this bill through the House, and will push it through the Senate in the next few days unless we intervene.
Although the bill will muzzle the voice of pro-family groups, Democrats carved out a special exemption for unions, the Sierra Club and the AARP, so the rules won't apply to them.
And the bill will go into effect just 30 days after it is signed by President Obama, just in time to silence our message before the fall elections.
To make sure it can't be challenged in court prior to November, the bill expressly prohibits expedited judicial review.
The Democrats know this bill is unconstitutional and will eventually be overturned by the courts. They don't care as long as it will help them this November.
In fact, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) admitted on the House floor that the purpose of the bill is explicitly partisan (video here). He said that unless the DISCLOSE Act passes, "we'll see more Republicans getting elected."
The president and the Democrats don't want a level playing field this fall; they want one tilted steeply in their favor.
But when the Founders gave us the First Amendment, they prohibited Congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech," by which they meant freedom of political speech. They knew that a representative democracy can only thrive if it protects vigorous and robust public debate during election seasons.
This bill is so bad that even the ACLU has come out against it.
We believe this bill can be defeated in the Senate, but in order for that to happen, your senators need to hear from you today.
Take Action
Enter your ZIP CODE and click "Go" to send an email to your Senators today and urge them to vote "No" on [S.3295] the DISCLOSE Act.
It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you find our efforts worth supporting, would you consider making a small tax-deductible donation to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association
Additional resources:
The Free Speech Coalition's analysis of the initial version of the bill
A broad Coalition letter against DISCLOSE Act
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=15192516
URGENT: Contact your senators today - tell them to protect the Constitution and vote “NO” on the DISCLOSE Act
The badly misnamed campaign finance bill, the DISCLOSE Act, will strangle the voice of the AFA and other pro-life and pro-family organizations during election campaigns, right at the time our voices most need to be heard.
President Obama and the Democrats have already pushed this bill through the House, and will push it through the Senate in the next few days unless we intervene.
Although the bill will muzzle the voice of pro-family groups, Democrats carved out a special exemption for unions, the Sierra Club and the AARP, so the rules won't apply to them.
And the bill will go into effect just 30 days after it is signed by President Obama, just in time to silence our message before the fall elections.
To make sure it can't be challenged in court prior to November, the bill expressly prohibits expedited judicial review.
The Democrats know this bill is unconstitutional and will eventually be overturned by the courts. They don't care as long as it will help them this November.
In fact, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) admitted on the House floor that the purpose of the bill is explicitly partisan (video here). He said that unless the DISCLOSE Act passes, "we'll see more Republicans getting elected."
The president and the Democrats don't want a level playing field this fall; they want one tilted steeply in their favor.
But when the Founders gave us the First Amendment, they prohibited Congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech," by which they meant freedom of political speech. They knew that a representative democracy can only thrive if it protects vigorous and robust public debate during election seasons.
This bill is so bad that even the ACLU has come out against it.
We believe this bill can be defeated in the Senate, but in order for that to happen, your senators need to hear from you today.
Take Action
Enter your ZIP CODE and click "Go" to send an email to your Senators today and urge them to vote "No" on [S.3295] the DISCLOSE Act.
It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you find our efforts worth supporting, would you consider making a small tax-deductible donation to help us continue?
Sincerely,
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association
Additional resources:
The Free Speech Coalition's analysis of the initial version of the bill
A broad Coalition letter against DISCLOSE Act
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=15192516
Pregnant Women must Stay Away from Psychiatric Medication
Pregnant Women must Stay Away from Psychiatric Medication
By MHSAdmin on July 1, 2010
In order not to put their unborn-baby in health-risk, pregnant women must stay away from taking psychiatric medicines, a recently concluded biomedical study has warned. These medicines, if taken during pregnancy, may cause serious side effects in kids, the study finds.
“A range of serious side effects such as birth deformities, low birth weight,
premature birth, and development of neonatal withdrawal syndrome were reported in children under two years of age, most likely because of the mother’s intake of psychotropic medication during pregnancy,” says Lisa Aagard, Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen. Aagard and Professor Ebbe Holme Hansard have jointly undertaken the study in which they examined a wide data collected from the Danish Medicines Agency.
The study-researchers had scrutinized all reports of adverse drug reactions of the Danish National database for the period from 1998 to 2007. Children up to the age 17 from birth were included in the study. Out of 2437 adverse reports, 429 were caused due to usage of psychiatric medications. 56% of these psychiatric-medication related cases were serious.
“Psychotropic medications should not be prescribed in ordinary circumstances because this medication has a long half-life. If people take their medication as prescribed it will be a constantly high dosage and it could take weeks for one single tablet to exit the body’s system. Three out of four pregnancies are planned, and therefore society must take responsibility for informing women about the serious risks of transferring side effects to their unborn child,” advocates Aagard.
http://mentalhealthsocial.com/blog/2010/07/01/pregnant-women-must-stay-away-from-psychiatric-medication/
By MHSAdmin on July 1, 2010
In order not to put their unborn-baby in health-risk, pregnant women must stay away from taking psychiatric medicines, a recently concluded biomedical study has warned. These medicines, if taken during pregnancy, may cause serious side effects in kids, the study finds.
“A range of serious side effects such as birth deformities, low birth weight,
premature birth, and development of neonatal withdrawal syndrome were reported in children under two years of age, most likely because of the mother’s intake of psychotropic medication during pregnancy,” says Lisa Aagard, Associate Professor of the University of Copenhagen. Aagard and Professor Ebbe Holme Hansard have jointly undertaken the study in which they examined a wide data collected from the Danish Medicines Agency.
The study-researchers had scrutinized all reports of adverse drug reactions of the Danish National database for the period from 1998 to 2007. Children up to the age 17 from birth were included in the study. Out of 2437 adverse reports, 429 were caused due to usage of psychiatric medications. 56% of these psychiatric-medication related cases were serious.
“Psychotropic medications should not be prescribed in ordinary circumstances because this medication has a long half-life. If people take their medication as prescribed it will be a constantly high dosage and it could take weeks for one single tablet to exit the body’s system. Three out of four pregnancies are planned, and therefore society must take responsibility for informing women about the serious risks of transferring side effects to their unborn child,” advocates Aagard.
http://mentalhealthsocial.com/blog/2010/07/01/pregnant-women-must-stay-away-from-psychiatric-medication/
California Court of Appeal Affirms Mom's $4.9 Million Award Against Social Services Agency
California Court of Appeal Affirms Mom's $4.9 Million Award Against Social Services Agency
RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al. Superior Court of California, County of Orange Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103) In 2007 an Orange County jury returned a $4.9 million verdict in favor of Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick finding that county social workers had lied to the juvenile court in order to cause the removal of Fogarty-Hardwick's young children - 6 and 9 years old at the time. In a unanimous scathing opinion issued Monday, June 14, 2010, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted that the evidence presented at trial led both the judge and jury to conclude that "something seriously wrong had been done to Fogarty-Hardwick" and that the conduct of the social workers was not "an isolated incident." The Court of Appeal went on to chastise the County saying "This conclusion is something that should be taken very seriously.
In this case, the jury specifically concluded that Vreeken and Dwojak lied, falsified evidence, and suppressed exculpatory evidence...There was no error in rejecting qualified immunity in this case.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2010 -- A California Appellate Court found this week against Orange County and its Social Services Agency, and Affirmed what is called a “Substantial” damages award arising from a Civil Rights Verdict obtained in May 2007.
After in depth review of extensive briefs and a complex record, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issues its opinion today affirming an Orange County jury’s verdict awarding Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick approximately $4.9 million against the County of Orange, and two of its social workers.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: “Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously.”
The underlying case was filed by Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick against the County of Orange in February 2001. The suit alleged that Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken and her supervisor Helen Dwojak violated Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick’s constitutional rights to raise and associate with her children free from governmental interference.
On March 23,2007 an Orange County Jury found against Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken, and social worker supervisor Helen Dwojak and awarded monetary damages of $4.9 million. A third social worker, Elaine Wilkins was found not liable.
Lead attorney Shawn A. McMillan states: “Ms. Fogarty is very pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the verdict. This case encompasses extremely important issues for the people of Orange County, and the People of the State of California. Allegations of social worker misconduct of the type proven in this case is "ubiquitous" as admitted in an Amicus Brief filed by the California Association of Counties. Hopefully, the 52 counties that belong to the association will take note of the outcome of this case and promulgate policies to prevent their social workers from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.”
San Diego Lawyer Shawn A. McMillan, of the Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan, was lead trial counsel in the case, and the lead
appellate attorney. Attorney Sondra Sutherland was co-counsel at trial and assisted on the appeal.
RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103)
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogarty-Hardwick/social_services/prweb4157254.htm
RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al. Superior Court of California, County of Orange Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103) In 2007 an Orange County jury returned a $4.9 million verdict in favor of Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick finding that county social workers had lied to the juvenile court in order to cause the removal of Fogarty-Hardwick's young children - 6 and 9 years old at the time. In a unanimous scathing opinion issued Monday, June 14, 2010, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal noted that the evidence presented at trial led both the judge and jury to conclude that "something seriously wrong had been done to Fogarty-Hardwick" and that the conduct of the social workers was not "an isolated incident." The Court of Appeal went on to chastise the County saying "This conclusion is something that should be taken very seriously.
In this case, the jury specifically concluded that Vreeken and Dwojak lied, falsified evidence, and suppressed exculpatory evidence...There was no error in rejecting qualified immunity in this case.
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) June 18, 2010 -- A California Appellate Court found this week against Orange County and its Social Services Agency, and Affirmed what is called a “Substantial” damages award arising from a Civil Rights Verdict obtained in May 2007.
After in depth review of extensive briefs and a complex record, Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal for the State of California issues its opinion today affirming an Orange County jury’s verdict awarding Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick approximately $4.9 million against the County of Orange, and two of its social workers.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeal voiced its concerns over what happened to Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick: “Stated plainly, the outcome of this case cannot be dismissed as merely the unfortunate product of a runaway jury. The evidence adduced at trial obviously caused both the jury and the judge to conclude not only that something seriously wrong was done to Fogarty-Hardwick in this case, but also that the wrongful conduct was not an isolated incident. That conclusion is something the County should be taking very seriously.”
The underlying case was filed by Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick against the County of Orange in February 2001. The suit alleged that Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken and her supervisor Helen Dwojak violated Ms. Fogarty-Hardwick’s constitutional rights to raise and associate with her children free from governmental interference.
On March 23,2007 an Orange County Jury found against Orange County, social worker Marcia Vreeken, and social worker supervisor Helen Dwojak and awarded monetary damages of $4.9 million. A third social worker, Elaine Wilkins was found not liable.
Lead attorney Shawn A. McMillan states: “Ms. Fogarty is very pleased with the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold the verdict. This case encompasses extremely important issues for the people of Orange County, and the People of the State of California. Allegations of social worker misconduct of the type proven in this case is "ubiquitous" as admitted in an Amicus Brief filed by the California Association of Counties. Hopefully, the 52 counties that belong to the association will take note of the outcome of this case and promulgate policies to prevent their social workers from engaging in this type of conduct in the future.”
San Diego Lawyer Shawn A. McMillan, of the Law Offices of Shawn A.
McMillan, was lead trial counsel in the case, and the lead
appellate attorney. Attorney Sondra Sutherland was co-counsel at trial and assisted on the appeal.
RE: Fogarty-Hardwick v. County of Orange, et al.
Superior Court of California, County of Orange
Case No. 01CC02379 (Trial before Hon. Ronald L. Bauer, Dept. CX103)
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Fogarty-Hardwick/social_services/prweb4157254.htm
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Psychiatric Medication Risk in Children
Home » News » Schizophrenia News » Psychiatric Medication Risk in Children
Psychiatric Medication Risk in Children
By JESSICA WARD JONES, MD, MPH Associate News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on June 30, 2010
Psychiatric medicines can have serious side effects in children, including birth defects resulting from their mother’s use of the medication during pregnancy.
A new study of adverse drug reactions in children showed that not only were a large percentage of reactions due to psychiatric medications, but that maternal use of some commonly used medicines resulted in some birth defects.
“A range of serious side effects such as birth deformities, low birth weight, premature birth, and development of neonatal withdrawal syndrome were reported in children under two years of age, most likely because of the mother’s intake of psychotropic medication during pregnancy,” associate professor Lisa Aagard of the University of Copenhagen told ScienceDaily. Aagard and Professor Ebbe Holme Hansard collaborated in studying data from Danish Medicines Agency.
With the dramatic rise of psychiatric diagnoses in children and the resulting increased use of psychiatric medications, some regulatory agencies have issued warnings about the risks associated with use of these medications in children. There is little data documenting the safety or effectiveness of many such medications in children, nor is there clear information about the specific risks. Most data about the potential risks in children comes from anecdotes and single case reports.
Aagard and Hansard analyzed all reports to the Danish National database of adverse drug reactions from 1998 to 2007 for children from birth to age 17. A total of 2,437 reports regarding 4,500 serious drug reactions were filed during this time period. 429 of these reactions were due to drugs classified as psychiatric medications.
Of the 429 reactions due to psychiatric medications, 56 percent were classified as serious.
Half of the psychiatric medication reactions were in adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17, and 45 percent of these were serious.
20 percent of the reactions were in children under the age of 2. All but one of these reactions were categorized as serious, and two of these reactions were fatal. The fatalities were both in newborns caused by rare birth defects thought to be related to maternal use of SSRI antidepressants.
While seven serious adverse drug reactions in the very young children were reported as due to maternal use during pregnancy, Aagard and Hansard suspect other reactions were also due to maternal use.
When the severe side effects were broken down by medication class, the most frequent culprits were psychostimulants in 42 percent of the cases (medications like Ritalin, used most often for conditions such as ADD and ADHD), antidepressants (31 percent), and antipsychotics (24 percent). A smaller number (2.5 percent) were due to sedatives; these reactions were mostly in infants, and all were serious.
Maternal use of psychiatric medication during pregnancy, while often necessary for the health of the mother, is known to have some potential risks. In addition to documented reports of birth defects from certain medications, other complications can occur, including withdrawal syndrome of the newborn, obstetric complications, and long-term neurocognitive or behavioral sequelae.
“Psychotropic medications should not be prescribed in ordinary circumstances because this medication has a long half-life. If people take their medication as prescribed it will be a constantly high dosage and it could take weeks for one single tablet to exit the body’s system. Three out of four pregnancies are planned, and therefore society must take responsibility for informing women about the serious risks of transferring side effects to their unborn child,” suggests Aagard.
Women of childbearing age with mental illness and their physicians face a frustrating lack of information regarding the precise level of risk from specific medications. Most medical literature on the subject concludes with a recommendation for each woman and her physician to carefully consider the risk to the unborn baby of continuing a potentially dangerous medication vs. the risk to the mother of going without a medication that may be critical for her own health.
Depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia not only sometimes present for the first time in pregnancy, but pregnancy often can exacerbate these psychiatric illnesses. Untreated mental illness can not only be dangerous to the health of the mother, but can result in poor prenatal health care, poor nutrition, increased substance use, low birth weight, and other risks to the unborn child.
Aagaard’s findings will help provide further information to women who are pregnant or planning a family and parents of children with mental health issues in weighing the risks and benefits of psychiatric medications.
It is very important to consult your own physician before making decisions about changing or stopping any medication.
Aagard and Hansard’s results are published in the June issue of the journal BMC Research Notes.
Source: BMC Research Notes
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/06/27/psychiatric-medication-risk-in-children/15109.html
Psychiatric Medication Risk in Children
By JESSICA WARD JONES, MD, MPH Associate News Editor
Reviewed by John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on June 30, 2010
Psychiatric medicines can have serious side effects in children, including birth defects resulting from their mother’s use of the medication during pregnancy.
A new study of adverse drug reactions in children showed that not only were a large percentage of reactions due to psychiatric medications, but that maternal use of some commonly used medicines resulted in some birth defects.
“A range of serious side effects such as birth deformities, low birth weight, premature birth, and development of neonatal withdrawal syndrome were reported in children under two years of age, most likely because of the mother’s intake of psychotropic medication during pregnancy,” associate professor Lisa Aagard of the University of Copenhagen told ScienceDaily. Aagard and Professor Ebbe Holme Hansard collaborated in studying data from Danish Medicines Agency.
With the dramatic rise of psychiatric diagnoses in children and the resulting increased use of psychiatric medications, some regulatory agencies have issued warnings about the risks associated with use of these medications in children. There is little data documenting the safety or effectiveness of many such medications in children, nor is there clear information about the specific risks. Most data about the potential risks in children comes from anecdotes and single case reports.
Aagard and Hansard analyzed all reports to the Danish National database of adverse drug reactions from 1998 to 2007 for children from birth to age 17. A total of 2,437 reports regarding 4,500 serious drug reactions were filed during this time period. 429 of these reactions were due to drugs classified as psychiatric medications.
Of the 429 reactions due to psychiatric medications, 56 percent were classified as serious.
Half of the psychiatric medication reactions were in adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17, and 45 percent of these were serious.
20 percent of the reactions were in children under the age of 2. All but one of these reactions were categorized as serious, and two of these reactions were fatal. The fatalities were both in newborns caused by rare birth defects thought to be related to maternal use of SSRI antidepressants.
While seven serious adverse drug reactions in the very young children were reported as due to maternal use during pregnancy, Aagard and Hansard suspect other reactions were also due to maternal use.
When the severe side effects were broken down by medication class, the most frequent culprits were psychostimulants in 42 percent of the cases (medications like Ritalin, used most often for conditions such as ADD and ADHD), antidepressants (31 percent), and antipsychotics (24 percent). A smaller number (2.5 percent) were due to sedatives; these reactions were mostly in infants, and all were serious.
Maternal use of psychiatric medication during pregnancy, while often necessary for the health of the mother, is known to have some potential risks. In addition to documented reports of birth defects from certain medications, other complications can occur, including withdrawal syndrome of the newborn, obstetric complications, and long-term neurocognitive or behavioral sequelae.
“Psychotropic medications should not be prescribed in ordinary circumstances because this medication has a long half-life. If people take their medication as prescribed it will be a constantly high dosage and it could take weeks for one single tablet to exit the body’s system. Three out of four pregnancies are planned, and therefore society must take responsibility for informing women about the serious risks of transferring side effects to their unborn child,” suggests Aagard.
Women of childbearing age with mental illness and their physicians face a frustrating lack of information regarding the precise level of risk from specific medications. Most medical literature on the subject concludes with a recommendation for each woman and her physician to carefully consider the risk to the unborn baby of continuing a potentially dangerous medication vs. the risk to the mother of going without a medication that may be critical for her own health.
Depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia not only sometimes present for the first time in pregnancy, but pregnancy often can exacerbate these psychiatric illnesses. Untreated mental illness can not only be dangerous to the health of the mother, but can result in poor prenatal health care, poor nutrition, increased substance use, low birth weight, and other risks to the unborn child.
Aagaard’s findings will help provide further information to women who are pregnant or planning a family and parents of children with mental health issues in weighing the risks and benefits of psychiatric medications.
It is very important to consult your own physician before making decisions about changing or stopping any medication.
Aagard and Hansard’s results are published in the June issue of the journal BMC Research Notes.
Source: BMC Research Notes
http://psychcentral.com/news/2010/06/27/psychiatric-medication-risk-in-children/15109.html
Change the culture of the foster care system
Change the culture of the foster care system
Vivek S. Sankaran
Wayne County recently joined cities across the country and celebrated the first national Reunification Day to recognize the accomplishments of those who help parents regain custody of children lost to the foster care system.
For years, the goal of reunifying children in foster care with their families has received short shrift. Even though most children come to the attention of child protective services for allegations of neglect, far too many are removed abruptly from their homes and placed with strangers.
Once in foster care, they see their parents and siblings infrequently, change placements too often and receive inadequate medical and mental health treatment. Their parents rarely receive the help they need and they lack a meaningful voice in court.
All of this does enormous harm to the children. Foster care is a toxic intervention that must be used sparingly. An MIT study revealed that outcomes for children in foster care were far worse than similarly maltreated children who remained at home. Not surprisingly, numerous child welfare systems, including Michigan's, are under the oversight of federal courts for failing to meet the basic needs of foster children. Additionally, no state system passed recent federal audits evaluating the treatment of foster children in state custody.
These problems are particularly troublesome in Michigan. In 2008, only a third of children who exited foster care were returned to their parents, nearly 20 percentage points below the national average. And the time it takes for Michigan to reunify those families is double the national average.
In contrast, Michigan is swift and efficient at separating children from their parents forever. Our state has the seventh highest rate of terminating parental rights in the country. Michigan has the second largest population of "legal orphans" -- children whose only parent is the state.
Reunification Day is an important step toward changing our culture in child welfare. But other steps must be taken.
First, we must improve efforts to keep children out of foster care. Parents must be given access to social work and legal services prior to a child's removal from the home.
Second, we must strengthen the decision-making process when the Department of Human Services is contemplating removing a child from the home. Legislation is pending to clarify that children should only be removed when there is evidence of "serious harm" or "an imminent risk of harm" and to ensure that court review of this life-altering decision is meaningful. The Legislature should swiftly adopt these measures.
Third, the Legislature must improve the legal representation that parents receive after children are removed.
Finally, caseworkers, lawyers and judges need to recognize the importance of viewing family members as collaborators instead of enemies.
Let's honor achievements in the system., but also acknowledge that there is much to be done.
Vivek S. Sankaran is clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100701/OPINION01/7010343/1008/Change-the-culture-of-the-foster-care-system#ixzz0sQT8iP8o
Vivek S. Sankaran
Wayne County recently joined cities across the country and celebrated the first national Reunification Day to recognize the accomplishments of those who help parents regain custody of children lost to the foster care system.
For years, the goal of reunifying children in foster care with their families has received short shrift. Even though most children come to the attention of child protective services for allegations of neglect, far too many are removed abruptly from their homes and placed with strangers.
Once in foster care, they see their parents and siblings infrequently, change placements too often and receive inadequate medical and mental health treatment. Their parents rarely receive the help they need and they lack a meaningful voice in court.
All of this does enormous harm to the children. Foster care is a toxic intervention that must be used sparingly. An MIT study revealed that outcomes for children in foster care were far worse than similarly maltreated children who remained at home. Not surprisingly, numerous child welfare systems, including Michigan's, are under the oversight of federal courts for failing to meet the basic needs of foster children. Additionally, no state system passed recent federal audits evaluating the treatment of foster children in state custody.
These problems are particularly troublesome in Michigan. In 2008, only a third of children who exited foster care were returned to their parents, nearly 20 percentage points below the national average. And the time it takes for Michigan to reunify those families is double the national average.
In contrast, Michigan is swift and efficient at separating children from their parents forever. Our state has the seventh highest rate of terminating parental rights in the country. Michigan has the second largest population of "legal orphans" -- children whose only parent is the state.
Reunification Day is an important step toward changing our culture in child welfare. But other steps must be taken.
First, we must improve efforts to keep children out of foster care. Parents must be given access to social work and legal services prior to a child's removal from the home.
Second, we must strengthen the decision-making process when the Department of Human Services is contemplating removing a child from the home. Legislation is pending to clarify that children should only be removed when there is evidence of "serious harm" or "an imminent risk of harm" and to ensure that court review of this life-altering decision is meaningful. The Legislature should swiftly adopt these measures.
Third, the Legislature must improve the legal representation that parents receive after children are removed.
Finally, caseworkers, lawyers and judges need to recognize the importance of viewing family members as collaborators instead of enemies.
Let's honor achievements in the system., but also acknowledge that there is much to be done.
Vivek S. Sankaran is clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.
From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100701/OPINION01/7010343/1008/Change-the-culture-of-the-foster-care-system#ixzz0sQT8iP8o
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)