Dr. Alice Newton, Medical Director of the Child Protection Program at Massachusetts General Hospital. Her testimony has wrongly convicted parents of Child Abuse. She is currently being sued for malpractice in the Justina Pelletier case. As these types of convictions are over-turned across the country, will other Child Abuse Pediatricians be held accountable in a court of law for their actions? Image Source.

Child Abuse Pediatrics: The “Science” of Arrogance

by Monica Mears
Health Impact News

I do not think that you can get a fair child abuse trial before a jury anywhere in the country… I do not care how sophisticated or law smart jurors are, when they hear that a child has been abused, a piece of their mind closes up, and this goes for the judge, the jurors, and all of us. …we do not care whether it is the right individual or not.

Somebody should be punished for this heinous crime. –Abner Mivka, Former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals/District of Columbia Circuit [1]

Judge Mikva’s assertion, that child abuse might affect jury verdicts, is used to illustrate “generic prejudice.”

But it’s not just judges and juries that are prejudiced. Child abuse pediatricians, doctors, their institutions, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the entire system of Child Protective Services (CPS) and law enforcement are all too often guilty of generic prejudice as well. As thousands of innocent families increasingly become subject to heinous accusations of child abuse by pediatricians and doctors, the tragedy of false accusations and convictions is increasing.

However, the medical and child protection system’s lack of impartiality is just the tip of the iceberg. More shocking are the many ways in which the medical profession and its child abuse pediatric specialty hide stereotyping, arrogance, abuse of authority and twisted “science” when it claims to “diagnose” child abuse – which is in fact a legal allegation, not truly a medical diagnosis.

With agonizing slowness, as families’ stories are told, some are finally beginning to look more closely and question the assumptions on which child abuse pediatrics are based.

High Risks for Hurting Families: Ambiguous Clinical Situations Lead to Accusations

The wrongful diagnosis of child abuse often occurs in clinical situations which might be described as ambiguous: [2]

  • Sudden infant death syndrome—SIDS remains the commonest cause of unexpected death in childhood, and despite much research, its causes are elusive.
  • Medically unexplained symptoms—all doctors have patients whose signs and symptoms are difficult to explain. Doctors are no different from anyone else in being reluctant to admit they “do not know.”
  • Childhood injuries—children are by nature accident-prone but sometimes the severity of their injuries might seem disproportionate to the explanation provided.

Additional areas of false accusations of child abuse include:

  • Rare or complex diseases – Families and patient advocacy groups representing rare diseases such as Mitochondrial disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS), rickets, rare genetic disorders, vitamin D deficiencies and dysautonomia, for example, report child abuse accusations from doctors in their communities.
  • “Shaken baby syndrome” – this highly controversial “diagnosis” is coming under fire across the country and many who were wrongly convicted and sent to jail are now having their cases overturned. (See more about SBS further down in this article.)

When doctors do not have ready explanations, or when there are many doctors and specialists involved who do not agree, many reports, studies and media stories demonstrate that families are at high risk of being accused of some form of child abuse.

Medical Child Abuse Numbers on the Rise

Accusations of medical child abuse (MCA), a form of abuse described as “a child receiving unnecessary and/or potentially harmful medical care at the instigation of a caretaker” are increasing rapidly.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), actual medical child abuse is extremely rare. In a 2013 clinical report, the organization estimated that health professionals will ‘likely encounter at least one case during their career,’ with a reported incidence of approximately 0.5 to 2.0 per 100,000 children younger than 16 years old. (By contrast, mitochondrial disease, which is considered a rare disease, is estimated to occur in approximately 1 in 4,000 people.)

The number of reported allegations starkly differ from the AAP’s numbers, however. Although most states do not track cases of medical child abuse separately from other types of child abuse, Michigan does…. If (Michigan’s reported) figures are indicative of national trends, they would suggest that more than 1,600 parents are accused of medical child abuse each year. [3]

While medical child abuse accusations rise, other wrongful child abuse allegations continue as well. The authority of those who practice medicine is based on science. Much of child abuse pediatrics, however, is predicated upon shaky, unproven science, faulty logic, methodologically flawed reporting and research, and biased clinical judgments. In the United States, various courts and have made it clear that uncertainty, doubt, and insufficiency of scientific evidence as to most aspects of child abuse pediatrics, describes the current state of things. [4] In fact, no less than three Supreme Court Justices have questioned the body of literature in child abuse pediatrics, calling it methodologically flawed in Justice Ginsberg’s Supreme Court dissent. [5]

The Family Defense Center in Illinois notes:

This system of child abuse investigation and medical assessment is failing the children and families…and that the failings are due at least in part to practices that are ethically questionable at best, or plainly unethical at worst. [6]

Child Abuse Pediatricians – Ethically Bankrupt

Arrogant Disregard for Specialists

Far too frequently, the child abuse pediatrician does not seek out appropriate consultations with other specialists, in particular neurosurgeons and orthopedists. Because the hallmark of many rare diseases are seemingly unconnected symptoms spread across multiple systems and organs, a physician who isn’t well-acquainted with their symptoms and diagnostic criteria might leap to a child abuse accusation instead.

Dr. Mark Korson, a metabolic geneticist, treated Justina Pelletier, the teenage girl who captured national attention last year when her parents were accused of medical child abuse; she was removed from her family for 15 months before legal action was dropped.

In the Pelletier case, he notes that his attempts to gather all of Justina’s physicians and caseworkers in a room to discuss the case were met with a “frank refusal.” This refusal, according to Dr. Korson, prevented open information sharing, and led to a situation where the doctor making the accusations of abuse was the “loudest one” in the room. The failure of the Pelletier case had “very little to do with diagnosis, and everything to do with a failure of process in how that case was managed,” Dr. Korson says.

This kind of communication lapse isn’t rare, according to Dr. Korson. He states:

If physicians communicated more, and honestly and extensively, there would be fewer accusations of medical child abuse. [7]

Multiple Conflicting Roles of CAPs Strain Objectivity

Child abuse physicians are generally affiliated with large research hospitals, and are often employed by the same hospital where the abuse allegations were initially made. While common, this housing of the accuser and the reviewer in the same hospital constitutes a conflict of interest. [8]

The child abuse pediatrician’s opinion cannot possibly be objective, yet the entire child protection system relies upon this one individual’s assessment.

…The child abuse pediatrician became the linchpin in a successful child abuse prosecution; in so doing they took on the conflicting roles of health care provider, investigator, medical expert, accuser, key prosecution witness, promoter of the prime hypothesis, and defender of their own past medical decision making regarding abuse.

Without their testimony regarding the prime hypothesis there could be no convictions. When caregivers provided other etiologies of the finding, which undermined the prime hypothesis, they would state or imply that these individuals were liars. [9]

Discounting Community Professionals Who Know the Family

Child abuse pediatricians commonly discount and ignore evaluations and information from colleagues who are treating physicians and who know the parents and family. While parents often provide caseworkers with statements of support from the child’s family and friends, and even community members with close ties to the child such as teachers, daycare providers, and therapists, Dr. Korson says that these community professionals’ opinions are often ignored.

There is an “impression within the ivory tower that observations within the ivory tower are more accurate or more reliable than observations from community professionals,” he notes.

Misplaced Trust: Other Professionals Abdicate Responsibility

The child’s treating physicians become passive observers, unwilling to question the opinions of the child abuse pediatrician.

The child abuse pediatricians have convinced the authorities that they, the child abuse specialists, should just be believed and charges filed. ..The legal system, under these circumstances, becomes the tool converting a child abuse pediatrician’s beliefs into convictions…. Many of the other doctors …were averse to participating in the legal system and readily deferred to the newly minted child abuse “specialists”….

The notion that doctors, often acting in concert and all misdiagnosing abuse, their institutions, and the AAP could all be wrong, was unfathomable. The child abuse pediatricians have been able to benefit from this misplaced trust to say what they please and to expect that whatever is said, will be given weight and believed, scientifically warranted or not… [10]

Pseudo-Science of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” Demonstrates Flaws in Child Abuse Pediatrics

Nowhere is the breakdown of the science of child abuse pediatrics more vividly displayed than in the instance of “Shaken Baby Syndrome” (SBS).

“An unproven primary hypothesis, crafted around 1975 by a small group of pediatricians with an interest in child abuse, lies at the foundation of child abuse pediatrics. With no scientific study, it was hypothesized that subdural hemorrhage (SDH) and retinal hemorrhage (RH) were diagnostic of shaking abuse. That hypothesis became the so-called “shaken baby syndrome.”

Through the period 1975–1985, in a coordinated manner, these child abuse specialists coalesced under the American Academy of Pediatrics and began working with district attorneys and social workers, informing them of the ways in which their hypothesis could be applied to prosecutions of child abuse and life-altering social service interventions. In a legal context, using then-prevailing evidentiary rules which treated scientific expert testimony as valid if it was “generally accepted” in the field, they represented falsely that there was general acceptance of their hypothesis and therefore it was valid science.” [11]

In the United States, 16 convictions of SBS have been overturned since 2001, including three last year. About 200 cases in 47 states that ended when charges were dropped or dismissed, defendants were found not guilty or convictions were overturned. The Innocence Network, a worldwide organization that works to exonerate defendants who say they were wrongly convicted, has affiliates currently working on at least 100 Shaken Baby cases. [12]

The devastating impact on families falsely accused has been immense. Innocent parents imprisoned. Families destroyed. Jobs lost, finances bankrupted. The anguish of hundreds, potentially thousands of lives shattered cannot be over-stated.

A case analysis issued in 2007 put the conviction rate of those accused of SBS at 95 percent, 90 percent of which resulted in life sentences, notes Deborah Tuerkheimer, a DePaul University law professor and author of  the book, Flawed Convictions: “Shaken Baby Syndrome” and the Inertia of Injustice.

Throughout the process—from prosecutorial decisions, to evidentiary rulings, to judicial review—we see a drive to push forward rather than revisit. A diagnosis of SBS sets in motion systemic confirmation, first in the clinical realm, and then the legal. The course of injustice is almost immovable.

Chicago neuropathologist Jan Leestma, was once so convinced that Shaken baby syndrome was a valid diagnosis that he wrote about it in the first edition of a 470-page textbook he authored on the brain. He recently told The Washington Post:

I was wrong. The original papers that espoused Shaken Baby were basically opinion papers with essentially no science applied to them. [13]

Child Abuse Pediatrics and SBS – Riddled with Biased Opinion, Flawed Science

In Illinois, a federal judge who recently freed a mother of two after nearly a decade in prison called Shaken baby syndrome “more an article of faith than a proposition of science.”

A research journal article “Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right” [14] examined flaws in the science and reasoning behind SBS. Many of the issues identified could equally be applied to child abuse pediatrics more generally:

Circular Reasoning — “This is no different than deciding, that all male teenagers with long hair are drug users, assigning all male teenagers into “drug” and “drug-free” groups based on the length of their hair, and announcing that you have established a 100% correlation between long hair and drug use (and a corresponding 100% correlation between short hair and no drug use), with no effort to determine whether this reflects reality.”

Rule-out diagnoses – This means a diagnosis that can be made only if all other possible causes have been “ruled out” or excluded. “Because “rule out” diagnoses cannot be confirmed, they run a significant risk of being wrong. For example, doctors believed for years that stomach (gastric) ulcers were caused by stress: when they could find no other cause, the default diagnosis was that it must be the patient’s fault. As it turned out, however, ulcers are predominantly caused by bacterial infections. Such misunderstandings of causation may do relatively little harm when there is no known treatment for the findings. In contrast, misdiagnoses of child abuse cause immediate and often irrevocable harm…”

But a rule-out diagnosis would be preferable to the advice given by the AAP with regard to rare disease patients. The AAP has encouraged doctors to consider medical child abuse alongside all other possible explanations for a child’s symptoms, rather than considering it only when other possibilities have been exhausted—which Dr. Sumit Parikh, a past president of the Mitochondrial Medicine Society, says would be the responsible method.

According to the AAP, even when a medical explanation is found that explains at least some of a child’s symptoms, medical child abuse should still be considered. Although 30% of children involved in medical child abuse cases have underlying medical problems, the AAP emphasized that these legitimate medical issues are not an excuse for what it perceives as harmful parental behaviors:

Some parents are overanxious or difficult, and others perceive their child as vulnerable because of some earlier traumatic event, such as extreme prematurity, and may ‘shop around’ for a physician. When parental behaviors result in harm to the child, the child has been maltreated, whatever the caregiver’s motivation. [15]

Clinical judgement — “SBS is not a medical diagnosis, but a legal conclusion…. Determining timing, causation and state of mind goes into areas that are more commonly reserved for pathologists, detectives, psychologists and juries…. Unlike a diagnosis of migraine, a diagnosis of intentional injury cannot be verified by response to a specific treatment or medication. With no history to correlate with the findings and no treatment that would confirm the diagnosis, the SBS/AHT diagnosis lacks the safeguards that gird most clinical diagnoses, including migraine. …even the most popular clinical judgments can be wrong, as evidenced by a long list of misguided clinical judgments, ranging from lobotomies to ulcers to hormone replacement therapy. …

Observer bias –“Considerable research confirms that police investigators, scientists, and physicians are all subject to cognitive errors that lead us to seek, recall, and interpret data in ways that support our initial judgments or hypotheses, and to disregard or minimize information that is inconsistent.”

Judge Mikva’s quote at the beginning of this article regarding juries and “generic prejudice” parallels this concept. “Stereotypes of a defendant – because of his race, religion, occupation, other personal characteristics or the type of crime for which he is charged – may affect the way jurors perceive the evidence in the case.” Judge Mikva’s assertion that child abuse might affect jury verdicts was supported in a study of actual jury trials. Knowing only the nature of the charges, on average 36 percent of jurors in these trials (of sexual abuse) stated (under oath) that they could not be impartial.” This study was done in Canada, and replicated with similar results in the U.S. [16] Multiple studies document that those in the child protection system are just as prone to this error.

Burden of Proof Reversal — Parents and care providers are “guilty until proven innocent.” The 2001 AAP Technical Report made the burden-shifting presumption explicit, stating that “data regarding the nature and frequency of head trauma consistently support the need for a presumption of child abuse when a child younger than [one] year has suffered an intracranial injury.” Once this presumption is in place, the burden is on the parents to “prove” an alternative explanation.

Since doctors cannot adequately or accurately confirm the causes of the child’s injuries, and since parents are put into a catch-22 where everything they say or don’t say will be assumed to demonstrate guilt, this standard virtually guarantees a guilty conviction, regardless of the facts.

Interpretive Error: statistical misunderstandings  – scientific literature in SBS has three different issues:

1) “Misperceiving the significance of the P-value” –estimates how strongly findings correlate (abuse vs. non-abuse)

2) The Prosecutor’s Fallacy – Explained as: “Because lawyers tend to be literate people, literate people tend to be lawyers.” It is one of many possible causes, without enough verifiable statistical correlation to reach the criminal standard “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

3) Improper classifications –“There is no valid statistical basis for estimating the incidence of abusive head trauma in general, let alone the likelihood that abusive head trauma has occurred in specific cases.”

This issue with improper classifications is echoed by another doctor who notes issues with flawed methodology –

 … even when legal conclusions are “not guilty,” hospital records maintain the case as abuse, and the legal conclusions and their implications are not documented in the records being used to gather “abused” subjects. Any real validation of abuse is impossible in (any) observational studies, because abuse was assumed to be present at the outset based on the prime hypothesis. Such a flawed methodology leads, of course, to unreliable output.

Yet that output can be repeated in court over and over, in a convincing fashion, to persuade individuals unversed in the analysis of scientific literature that the prime hypothesis and/or other unproven hypotheses are true….” [17]

“Religiously Fanatic” Pediatric Professionals Resist New Findings

In my view, the medical establishment has been not just tone deaf and brain dead about accepting new findings in the area; they have put up the deflector shields and aggressively resist it. The people who hold sway in pediatric medicine seem to have a religiously fanatic attachment to this 40 year old theory. And the prosecutors are more than happy to go along with the medical establishment, because strict adherence to the triad theory makes for easy convictions – even though they may be wrongful…… [18]

As Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize winning Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs at Princeton University, points out, this problem is not unique to medicine: history has shown that:

People can maintain an unshakeable faith in any proposition, however absurd, when they are sustained by a community of like-minded individuals.

Uneven Distribution of SBS Cases Nationwide Demonstrates Unequal Justice

SBS Convictions States

In 2013, the Medill Justice Project identified where higher rates of Shaken baby syndrome cases are occurring in the United States. A strange, collection of states and counties appears to place higher SBS cases not in urban areas or large population bases, but unevenly throughout the U.S. [19]

While no specific reasons for this distribution of “hot spots” is given,

“the states and counties with the highest concentrations, seem to this reader to correlate with regional child-protection strategies that encourage police and hospitals to work together”

speculates Sue Luttner, a blogger at “On Shaken Baby” blog. [20]

Accountable to No One – No Legal Recourse for Innocent Families

Although mandatory reporters of child abuse already have broad protection from liability in reporting abuse, in 2013, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended strengthening immunity from liability for physicians and other professionals who consult in child abuse cases. [21]

Many states also provide immunity for actions taken by medical practitioners in connection with making a report of suspected child maltreatment. These actions may include:

  • Taking any necessary photographs or x-rays.
  • Taking a child into emergency protective custody [7]
  • Disclosing medical records or other information pertinent to a case
  • Performing a medical exam on the child
  • Performing medically relevant tests [22]

If you are an innocent parent accused of child abuse, the law is not on your side. You have already been presumed guilty, the child protection system functions with built in biases and suing those who have wronged you will cost every penny you have and likely not be successful, given the legal protections already in place. This bleak outlook is only balanced by the growing outcry in various media and online news sources, where as a last resort families bare their heartbreak. The snowball effect of media attention is accelerating, though the medical establishment is slow to respond.

“I would contend the very existence of the child abuse pediatrician specialty becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy,” notes Phil Locke of the Duke Wrongful Convictions Clinic. “I’m here to diagnose child abuse, so that’s what I’m going to do.” [23]

Searchable Database of State Child Abuse Programs by State

Most of the U.S.’s children’s hospitals now have a child abuse pediatrician, and very often an accompanying team. The American Academy of Pediatrics offers a searchable database of State Child Abuse Programs which is searchable by state. 

About the Author

Monica Mears holds a Master’s in Journalism from Regent University and writes professionally in a broad variety of genres. She has worked as a senior manager in public relations and communications for major telecommunication companies, and is the former Deputy Director for Media Relations with the Christian Coalition

Medical Kidnap’s Wall of Shame: Child Abuse Doctors Used by CPS to Kidnap Children

Hospitals and doctors who have been responsible for medical kidnappings and reported on by Medical Kidnap. Those with more than one offense are noted.


St. Vincent’s Hospital in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Terry Bierd,


Providence Alaska Medical Center, Alaska


Kathryn Coffman, M.D., St. Joseph’s Hospital Crisis Center located at Child Help USA,

Banner Desert Medical Center, Mesa, Arizona

Phoenix Children’s Hospital, AZ

Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Phoenix Children’s Hospital

Banner Thunderbird Hospital, Glendale, AZ


Desert Regional Medical Center, Riverside County, California,

Children’s Hospital of California (CHOC) – Orange County

Sutter Memorial Hospital, Sacramento, CA

UCLA Children’s Hospital, Los Angeles

Miller Children’s Hospital, Long Beach, CA


Denver Hospital in Colorado

Colorado Springs Children’s Hospital


Connecticut Children’s Medical Center in Hartford

Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, SCAN (Child Abuse and Neglect) clinic

Connecticut hospital, un-named


Lurie’s Children’s Hospital, IL

Rush Copley Hospital, ALSO Loyola Children’s Hospital, Chicago


Hospital in Bath, Maine

Maine Medical Center (MMC)


MD Hospital, near Leonardtown, Maryland


Brookside Intensive Treatment Unit, Great Barrington, Massachusetts, ALSO – a VT hospital

Boston hospital –

Boston Children’s hospital –

Boston Children’s Hospital


Marquette, MI Hospital

New Oakland Child-Adolescent & Family Center, Detroit, MI

University of Michigan Mott’s Children’s Hospital, Anne Arbor, Michigan



Children’s Mercy Hospital



Akron Children’s Hospital, OH

St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, Cleveland, OH and Dr. Saraj Brar –


Oklahoma University Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City Children’s Hospital, Dr. John Stuemky


Hershey Children’s Hospital, Hersheys Child Abuse specialist

Penn State child abuse specialist, Dr. Kathryn Crowell

Dr. Crowell has been accused of falsely testifying against parents before. In a 2009 case she accused a parent of child abuse which led to a father spending over a year in jail. A jury later found him not guilty. and

Pediatrician, un-named, Centre County area of Pennsylvania



Sanford Hospital in Sioux Falls, South Dakota


Erlanger Hospital/Health System, Chattanooga, TN

Dr. Deborah Lowen, child abuse specialist and the head of the child abuse team at Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville


University Medical Center. Lubbock, TX

Houston hospital  –

Houston, Children’s Cancer Dept.


Seattle Children’s Hospital in Seattle Washington, Dr. Matthew Park, Dr. Maggie Likes, Dr. Roberta Stephenson, and Dr. Mason Oltman


[1] “Panel One: What Empirical Research Tells Us, and What We Need to Know about Juries and the Quest for Impartiality.” The American University Law Review. (p. 564-5)  (Winter, 1991)

[2] “Wrongful diagnosis of child abuse—a master theory.” James Le Fanu, MRCP, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2005 Jun; 98(6): 249–254.

[3] “The Controversial Child Abuse Epidemic Tearing Families Apart.” by Jody Allard. October 26, 2015.

[4] “Exploring the controversy in child abuse pediatrics and false accusations of abuse,” by Steven C. Gabaeff.  Science Direct. Jan. 2016.

[5] United States Supreme Court, JAVIER CAVAZOS, ACTING WARDEN v. SHIRLEY REE SMITH, No. 10-1115  Decided: October 31, 2011. Ginsberg, J., dissenting.

[6] “MEDICAL ETHICS CONCERNS IN PHYSICAL CHILD ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE,” By George J. Barry and Diane L. Redleaf, The Family Defense Center, March 14, 2014.

[7]  “The Controversial Child Abuse Epidemic Tearing Families Apart.” by Jody Allard. The Establishment. October 26, 2015.

[8] “The Controversial Child Abuse Epidemic Tearing Families Apart.” by Jody Allard. The Establishment. October 26, 2015.

[9] “Exploring the controversy in child abuse pediatrics and false accusations of abuse,” by Steven C. Gabaeff  Science Direct. Jan. 2016.

[10] “Exploring the controversy in child abuse pediatrics and false accusations of abuse,” by Steven C. Gabaeff  Science Direct. Jan. 2016.

[11]  Gabaeff.  Pediatric Radiology Dec 2015

[12] “Shaken Science – in-depth series on Shaken Baby Syndrome,” Washington Post. March 20, 2015.

[13] “Shaken Science – in-depth series on Shaken Baby Syndrome,” Washington Post. March 20, 2015.

[14] “Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, and Actual Innocence: Getting It Right,” by Keith A. Findley, Patrick D. Barnes, David A. Moran, and Waney Squier* Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy , Nov. 28, 2012

[15]  “The Controversial Child Abuse Epidemic Tearing Families Apart.” by Jody Allard. The Establishment. October 26, 2015.

[16] American Juries: The Verdict  By Neil Vidmar, Valerie P. Hans, pub. 2007, pp. 113-114.

[17] “Exploring the controversy in child abuse pediatrics and false accusations of abuse,” by Steven C. Gabaeff  Science Direct. Jan. 2016.

[18] Shaken Baby Syndrom… Progress for True Science?” by Phil LockeWrongful Convictions BlogJanuary 28, 2014.

[19] “Hot Spots:Pinpointing Shaken-Baby Syndrome Cases,” the Medill Justice Project, Dec. 2013.

[20] “Medill Database Opens With a Geography Lesson,” Sue Luttner, Dec.11, 2013.


[22] Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Immunity for reporters of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

[23] The Child Abuse Pediatrician (CAP) – Just Another Term for Medical “Cop,” by Phil Locke. March 20, 2014.


Medical Kidnapping: A Threat to Every Family in America T-Shirt

Medical Kidnap t-Shirt

100% Pre-shrunk Cotton!

Order Here

Medical Kidnapping is REAL!

See: Medical Kidnapping: A Threat to Every Family in America Today

Help spread the awareness of Medical Kidnapping by wearing the Medical Kidnapping t-shirt!

Support the cause of, which is part of the Health Impact News network.

Support the cause against Medical Kidnapping by purchasing our book!

If you know people who are skeptical and cannot believe that medical kidnapping happens in the U.S. today, this is the book for them! Backed with solid references and real life examples, they will not be able to deny the plain evidence before them, and will become better educated on this topic that is destroying the American family.

Medical Kidnapping final

1 Book - 228 pages
Retail: $24.99
FREE Shipping Available!
Now: $11.99
Order here!


2 Books
Retail: $49.98 (for 2 books)
FREE Shipping Available!
Now: $19.99 (for 2 books)

Order here!