zlacker

[return to "A journey into the shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma controversy"]
1. sneak+KD4[view] [source] 2023-09-27 00:56:34
>>rossan+(OP)
> I couldn’t live with this uncertainty any longer. But first, I had to get my son back. As a precautionary measure, the hospital followed mandatory reporting statutes and my wife and I temporarily lost custody of David. Thanks to our incredibly effective defense lawyer, we were cleared of all charges within two months, during which we stayed at the hospital 24/7 with David until we sorted out the legal procedures. I would discover much later that we actually had been lucky to be allowed to do this, as most parents are abruptly separated from their babies for months after reporting takes place.

This sounds very much like presumed guilt rather than presumed innocence.

◧◩
2. Seattl+s55[view] [source] 2023-09-27 04:06:56
>>sneak+KD4
Is the criminal justice system in France based on a presumption of innonce?
◧◩◪
3. kergon+tM5[view] [source] 2023-09-27 10:12:30
>>Seattl+s55
There are complications when immediate danger needs to be avoided. E.g., the system prefers to take away children preventively in serious cases rather than leaving them in a dangerous environment. Which is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. The idea in this case is that it is easier to correct a mistake by restoring custody than by reviving a dead child.

A bit like temporary restraining orders pending trial in the US.

[go to top]