In the family courts, the central theme can change from case to case, but that doesn’t matter. Causing pain to someone is what they’re after, even when the central issue of the case is diametrically in opposition to what would theoretically be the position of the court.
The family courts stood up for the “right” of a six-year-old boy (Child A) to dress in women’s clothing, but that was never what this little boy wanted. He was caught in a life and death struggle with an insane mother who hated men and dressed him in high heels and dresses and women’s underwear. She sent him to school this way, where he was beaten up by other kids. When he became hostile and aggressive with his mother, she tried to strangle him and hang him with a rope.
They also said he has a very low IQ, which he does not.
This child was on Seroquel, a heavy anti-psychotic medication, which causes one to gain weight and has other side effects. It was antithetical to the welfare of this child.
So many programs and services should have been helping him, through DCF and school programs. He was in a private school, with what should have been great programs and supports. But they were completely off. Everything was wrong because they had no understanding and no interest in understanding, and so were causing the most anguish for everyone. Everything they did was the opposite of what the child needed and what was authentic to the child.
The father had kept trying to get someone to listen to the fact that this child didn’t want to dress like a woman. That he thoroughly identified as being a boy; there were no identity issues. The issue had squarely to do with his own need to protect his life with a mother who was hostile to his male identity. The father loved the child, whether he identified as male or female, and understood the dilemma of the child. But he was unable to get help from institution after institution that should have been coming to the child’s rescue.
The mother was enjoying the attention and was able to act out her own hatred of men.
The psychiatric staff were applauding themselves and educators for their liberal engagement in supporting the “rights” of Child A to express himself. But it was not correct; it was completely wrongheaded.
In the mother’s care this child has been miserable; in the father’s care he is doing extremely well. Images of the child dressed in female clothing indicated a child who was absolutely miserable, utterly defeated. Now, in many pictures of Child A properly dressed in boy’s clothing that he has picked for himself as a boy, one can see a bubbling, jubilant child, riding his bike, going fishing, playing baseball, and enjoying other childhood activities. A totally jubilant child.
In an ironic contrast, the father’s girlfriend had a son (Child B), also about six years old, who was very sick and clearly diagnosable as schizophrenic. The child was experiencing frightening audio and visual hallucinations, identified as coming from a deceased relative, a family member who was a source of family secrets from generations before. The institutions treating him were the same ones who were willing to put Child A, who is about the same age, on an antipsychotic. But in the case of Child B, they refused the same medication, which would have been relevant and appropriate in very small doses to treat his delusions.
Child B’s illness and the reason he heard the voices was fully explained to him so that he understood the nature of the audio and visual hallucinations as coming from him because of the way his brain was processing his thoughts. He knew he needed some medication to stop that. He also understood that we were seeking to get the medication he needed to help him get properly treated and the medical team that was treating him right now was about to be replaced. This explanation thoroughly relieved his fears and calmed him tremendously, changing his behavior and his relationship with the adults around him.
But Child B did not get the treatment he needed to contain the illness. When I came on the case, I attempted to get the child to a different psychiatrist who was going to put the child on Seroquel, but was stopped from doing it. The institution referred him back to the original doctor who had refused to treat him, even though in the same medical service, another child was being improperly treated with this same medication that should have been prescribed for this child.
In addition, Child B was diagnosed with tardive dyskinesia. But he did not have that; he had an infection called sydenham chorea, which manifests with a type of movement disorder different from that of tardive dyskinesia–rapid involuntary movement of the arms and legs. We requested that the child be removed from the doctor who had misdiagnosed him and refused to properly treat him. This completely different medical issue was quickly and easily diagnosed with a blood test given by the doctor we requested. Treated with an antibiotic, that problem went away within days.
And yet after the chorea problem was resolved, the institution referred Child B back to the doctor who refused to treat him with Seroquel in the first place and who continued to withhold this appropriate medication from him.
We continue to be appalled at the level of maliciousness on the part of this physician and the institution itself, which will be the subject of medical malpractice claims on behalf of the family. Ultimate psychiatric medical intervention is being sought for Child B at this time.
For the FCVFC, our desire is to help get the child out of pain by finding and solving the real problem. The more quickly we can do that, the better.
