Unabridged Conversation with Bea Yorker

True Story Media.

These are harrowing times in America, especially for our friends and neighbors in immigrant communities.

So, if you're looking for resources or ways to help, we wanted to let you know about a wonderful organization that we're partnering with this month.

The National Immigrant Justice Center has worked for more than 40 years to defend the rights of immigrants.

NIJC blends direct legal services, impact litigation, and policy advocacy to fight for due process for all and to hold the U.S.

government accountable to uphold human rights.

NIGC's experienced legal staff collaborate with a broad network of volunteer lawyers to provide legal counsel to more than 11,000 people each year, including people seeking asylum, people in ICE detention, LGBTQ immigrants, victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied immigrant children, and community members who are applying for citizenship and permanent residence.

NIJC continues to fight and win federal court cases that hold the U.S.

government accountable to follow U.S.

law and the Constitution.

In recent months, NIJC's litigation has challenged ICE's unlawful practice of arresting people without warrants and has successfully blocked President Trump's proclamation to shut down access to asylum at the border.

As ICE continues to abduct people from our communities and the U.S.

government deports thousands of people without a chance to have a judge consider their cases, it is more important than ever that we come together to defend due process.

All people in the United States have rights, regardless of immigration status.

You can donate and learn more about NIJC's work by visiting immigrantjustice.org.

That's immigrantjustice.org.

You can find that link and more information at our website.

This ad was provided pro bono.

Hey, it's Andrea.

It's come to my attention that some of you have been served programmatic ads for ICE on my show.

Now, podcasters don't get a lot of control over which individual ads play and for whom on our shows, but please know that we are trying everything we can to get rid of these by by tightening our filters.

And if you do continue to hear them, please do let us know.

In the meantime, I want it to be known that I do not support ICE.

I am the daughter of an immigrant.

I stand with immigrants.

Immigrants make this country great.

I think we got this.

Hello, hooray.

Sounds good.

All right.

Well, let's dive right in.

Hi, Bea.

Hi, Andrea.

Do you want to start off by giving us your full name and your description sort of of your title in regards to this work?

So whatever you would like to say about you have such an interesting background.

So.

Hi, I'm Beatrice Yorker.

I'm a child and adolescent psychiatric nurse,

and I also have a law degree.

And I've spent my career mostly teaching nursing and also doing research to become a nursing professor.

You have such a fascinating job.

You have such a fascinating background.

You are

semi-retired now,

right?

And you are teaching at Cal State LA, right?

So yes.

I taught for the last 15 years at California State University, Los Angeles,

and I'm currently a professor emerita, which means I'm a retired professor.

So mainly what I'm doing now is I am doing training and I'm consulting and I'm helping you, Andrea, with our website, munchhausensupport.com

and staying in touch with the field.

I'm also very active in the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, APSAC,

and contribute articles and review articles

and best practices for what we're doing in the field of medical child abuse, munchausen by proxy, fabricated illness, anxiety, factitious disorders, all the various terms that we call this.

I appreciate you so much, and you really are a mentor of mine.

So, we're happy to have you here with us.

Can you tell us about the role that you play when you are working as an expert on medical child abuse cases.

Well, I'd like to start with my very first case.

So, this was in 1983, only

six years

after Roy Meadow published his article, giving this a term.

His article was Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in the Lancet.

And I was working in Atlanta, Georgia, in a large pediatric healthcare system

on the child and adolescent psychiatric consultation service.

So I would see kids with all kinds of mental health issues and I would also attend weekly abuse rounds.

And one abuse rounds, our child abuse pediatrician assigned me to evaluate a case of possible Munchausen by proxy.

She gave me Roy Meadows' article.

And this was a little boy, 18 months old, who kept coming in because his ears were bleeding.

And most ear infections, the kid has pus coming out of their ears.

But this little boy had blood coming out of his ears

and he had a red flag.

His older brother had died at the age of two

and absolutely no idea why this child died.

So

I evaluated the mother the best that I could.

She was not medically fluent.

She was very simple.

She was concerned.

She was very sad.

She was still grieving the loss of her other child.

And the pediatrician said, well, maybe she's poking something in his ears to cause them to bleed.

So we went ahead and did the separation test.

And we put the child with his grandmother for a month.

Can you back up and can you explain what a separation test is?

So the least invasive way to determine whether or not a parent is fabricating or exaggerating or inducing an illness is to separate the child from the primary caregiver for a sufficient length of time.

So in the case of the little boy with bleeding ears, We had him live with his grandmother.

We ensured that the mother would not have any unsupervised physical contact and his ears kept bleeding.

So at that point, the pediatricians, the team, went deeper and they started running more tests.

And it was a very sad case.

It was not Munchausen by proxy.

It was a rare genetic disorder that caused bleeding out of orifices.

And it turns out the older sibling who had died

also had that rare genetic disorder.

So this is one of the cautionary notes.

That's why we have guidelines, because we don't want to

just assume that if there's no determinable medical cause, that we're at the end of the road.

Sometimes we really do need to do more tests.

Sometimes it's a disease that hasn't even been discovered yet.

I'm so glad you told that story because I think one of the things that I'm hyper-aware of as we talk through this is that there

are children that have inexplicable medical issues, and there are parents that get treated poorly by the medical system, and those things are real, and I don't want to dismiss them.

It's my feeling that legitimate cases

look overall very different

than abuse cases once you sort of peel back a layer or two, which is what you're talking about.

And now, of course, I don't want to say that doing a separation test, being separated from your child for any length of time is

very upsetting.

I don't want to say that that has no consequences, but usually

the cases I've seen, that happens pretty quickly, right?

It becomes pretty obvious whether the issues start to all resolve themselves in the absence of the parent or the issues continue.

That usually becomes apparent,

I mean, within how much time would you say?

Well, it depends on the disorder.

If it's autism or if it's hyperactivity or if it's a psychological or educational fabrication, it could take quite a while.

And I don't want to minimize the trauma that the separation test might cause.

For some children who have been infantilized, who've been kept in a very sick and dependent position, who may have been poisoned, who may have feeding tubes, when they're separated that could cause them to really go into a tailspin if they don't know that they don't have legitimate illnesses

and it can be traumatic by the same token case after case

those of us who do do the separation test we often find kids who embrace their health Once they're separated, all of a sudden they realize they can eat normally.

They realize they don't need those medicines and they feel so much better and they're in a nurturing environment where they can get therapy and so those are the ideal circumstances where fairly quickly within three weeks to a month you can determine But I have been involved in cases that are so complicated and the kids are so enmeshed that the separation test just compounds the whole picture.

I think that it's just worth talking about all the nuance and complexities here.

One of the things that drives me crazy about a lot of the media coverage of this topic, in particular on the subject of quote, false accusations, is that they leave out a lot of the nuance and complexities of these cases.

And so I don't want to do that.

We interviewed Jordan Hope, who you know well, and one of the things that they talked about was

how psychologically enmeshed they were with their mother and how they didn't understand for a long time into early adulthood that they were not sick.

They were having these somatizing behaviors or pretending to be sick, but they didn't even realize they were pretending because any parent can kind of understand that how much your reality is shaped by

your parents when you're a small child and how much you're just going to believe them and trust them automatically.

And so I think that makes a lot of sense that you say that these, it can take more time to resolve because of some of the psychiatric things that are going on with these kids.

You know, you shared that story about your first case, and that's so interesting that it was so close to that time when this term was even defined.

So obviously everyone was very new to this.

Now we've come a long way in the last 40 years on the issue.

I wonder if you can talk about how...

maybe give us a little compare and contrast with that case to a case that you worked on that did turn out to be a legitimate case of abuse.

One of the worst cases that I worked on was

when I was in law school.

I was working part-time on the child psychiatry service and I was also going part-time to law school and

Scottish Wright Children's Hospital in Atlanta had had three cases where they were apnea suffocation cases and they had read that in England they had put hidden cameras in the pediatric rooms and that was really good clear-cut evidence when they caught the mother smothering.

So they said to me, Bea, you're in law school.

Why don't you do the research to let us know, you know, is it violating the Fourth Amendment?

Is it violating a right to privacy to have these hidden cameras?

So I wrote a law review article and there is no legitimate right to privacy from being surveilled when you're in a pediatric hospital.

I I mean we have you cameras are ubiquitous and if it's for the purpose of diagnosis then it's really good to have cameras.

Parents should expect that there are eyes and monitors on their kids.

So a little boy again 18 months had been admitted to

the rural hospital with a temperature of 105 And when they drew a blood culture, they found E.

coli in his bloodstream.

And the doctor said there's only three ways that that could happen either he's got a leak in his bowels and E.

coli is leaking to his bloodstream or he has an immune deficiency like HIV and he can't fight off a few cells or somebody's deliberately putting it in there and all three possibilities are equally rare so the least invasive thing is to transfer him to the covert video surveillance over at Scottish Wright.

So within hours of arriving at Scottish Wright Hospital, the video shows mother taking a dirty diaper into the bathroom, filling a syringe that she pulled out of her pocket with murky liquid in the sink from the diaper,

going to the child's IV line, disconnecting the Stopcock, inserting the syringe, and injecting that murky fecal liquid into the child's IV line.

Now we had hospital security that was watching the video cameras immediately.

They walkie-talkied the nurse who was in charge and they said, you've got to go in there.

Mom is tampering with the IV line.

So the nurses went in.

Mom realized at that point that she had been seen.

Hospital security apprehended her in the stairwell.

as she was escaping the hospital with the syringe,

realizing she'd been caught.

So they called me in

to do an evaluation of the mother, of the father,

and they instantly separated the child from the mother because they had caught her in criminal behavior.

But then Child Protective Services came to me after they were into a few months of foster care and they said, Bea, this is a sick woman.

She was raped as an adolescent.

She only did it that once.

When can she be reunified?

And I was just, if that had been a father who had beaten his child to within an inch of their life, we would not be discussing reunification.

And I realized what a gender bias that we do have.

They were going, this poor mother, she knows that she shouldn't have done that.

But when I interviewed the mother,

Her biggest concern was how this had messed up her life, how she was the victim, how the nurses were out to get her.

She couldn't explain why this got caught the only time she ever had done this.

And we all knew that that wasn't the first time.

How did the E.

coli get in the blood?

So her inability to acknowledge what she had done,

I actually testified.

in her criminal case and she was sentenced to two years of probation,

which is, I think, very lenient given that the child would have died had he not been already in the hospital.

Then I testified in her termination of parental rights case,

and

she appealed the termination of parental rights based on the fact that I was a nurse and I could not diagnose Munchausen by proxy.

The Supreme Court of Georgia upheld my expert testimony and upheld the termination of parental rights.

Wow.

That story is about as dramatic and clear-cut of a story as I've ever heard in this, because I think what makes these cases so complicated is we're talking about some of these sort of methods for determining abuse, right?

So separation test is one, as you mentioned.

Video surveillance is another sort of gold standard one.

It's usually not quite that clear-cut as you have someone filling up a syringe with feces and going to inject it into their child, right?

Because there's a lot of other ways this abuse can be committed.

I mean, that's interesting that you brought that up because we are in this season discussing the Alyssa Phillips case, another one where there was a blood infection, a quote, mysterious blood infection that happened in the hospital.

Like that's a case where you have a quote smoking gun, right?

You have something where it's immediately obvious what she's doing to where you have hospital staff running in the room and she's running out the back door with like the weapon of choice.

That's a very, that's a very sort of straightforward.

And even to your point, even in that straightforward of a case, you still have people saying, but she's sick, she should be reunited with her child.

A lot of times it's more of this sort of pattern throughout the entirety of the medical records.

So

I think one of the trickiest things in this field is the question of

is there, are there any of these cases where it's appropriate to reunify the child if abuse has been determined?

And what are the circumstances under which a child can be safely reunified with their mother?

Yes,

there are cases where the child can be safely reunified.

I had a case, again, caught by video surveillance, where where the mother kept bringing the smaller of her two twins.

She had three children under three and six-month-old twins.

The smaller one, she kept presenting doctor shopping, urgent care, dock in the box.

Finally, she gets to Scottish Wright Hospital, and she said the baby's vomiting, the baby's throwing up, the baby has diarrhea, and the nurses said, the baby looks hydrated.

We're not seeing it, but we're going to admit the baby for a workup.

And they, at this point, with so much doctor shopping and not seeing any verified conditions to cause the vomiting, they put the baby in the video room.

And as the video slowly rolled for the next 48 hours, they saw a pattern where the mother would ignore the baby, be on her phone.

The baby was fine.

The baby would sleep.

The baby was drinking the bottle.

The baby was having normal amounts of stool.

Mom was on the phone, obviously talking to friends.

And as soon as the night shift came on, mom would leave the hospital.

You could hear her talking to her friends, arranging them to meet at a bar.

She was entering a wet t-shirt contest.

She said, If you can hear buzzers going off, it's because I work at Scottish Wright Hospital.

I'm at work right now.

So she was a fabricator.

She was using the hospital so she could step out on her husband and get a break from this needy six-month old.

And

so then the nurse said,

this is after two days in the hospital, and they're pretty sure mom is fabricating.

The nurse goes, look, we're going to have to weigh the diapers because the mom said, yeah, the baby continues to have diarrhea and the baby's vomiting.

And the nurse says, we have to do intake and output.

We know how much is going in from the bottle.

We need to weigh the vomit.

We need to weigh the diapers.

And if the baby is vomiting, which they had not seen on video, so mom goes into the bathroom with an emesis basin.

She puts her finger down her throat.

She throws up into the emesis basin.

She takes the vomit, pours it on the baby, rings the nurse, and says, get in here.

We've got to weigh the vomit.

So she had not induced illness in her child.

The child was actually doing pretty well.

She had fabricated in order to get the child medical care because she had another agenda.

So what we did in that case is we said, look, mom, you're overwhelmed with your kids.

Dad needs to be the one to make all the medical decisions.

We need you only go to your first pediatrician.

No more duck in a box, no more urgent care.

All three kids, dad needs to quit his second job.

Mom, you need to get a job.

And let's see how this goes for a few months and then maybe we can reunify.

And sure enough, mom cooperated.

She was doing it because she was overwhelmed and needed a break.

And once dad stepped up into doing a lot of the child care and we made it really clear.

You can only go to your primary care pediatrician and dad is the medical decision maker.

So those are the kinds of cases.

We have cases where it's malingering, where the parent is actually faking symptoms so that either they get SSI disability benefits or so that they get in-home care benefits.

If the motive is because the parent is really anxious, if it's malingering, it's a lot easier to reunify once you get to the root of the problem and you get the parent to sort out how to get their needs met more appropriately.

and you point out that it's abusing the child to over-medicalize them or to treat them as disabled when they're not.

If, on the other hand, the reason for the parent engaging in this behavior is because they want the medical attention.

It's an interesting nuance that we're talking about this mom who that sounds to me almost like it fits more in malingering, right?

Because she had this other agenda and

it wasn't just getting the attention.

So

you're talking about a case where the behavior is abusive, but it's not, it sounds like

there isn't the underlay of factitious disorder imposed on another, which is correct.

Yeah.

Because we've been talking about sort of the separation of medical child abuse as a behavior and that there can be these other reasons underlying it sometimes, but then factitious disorder imposed on another being the diagnosis of that disorder that makes someone do it specifically for attention, not so that they can go have an affair and go out with their friends, not so that they can get money from a GoFundMe, although that may be involved, but that's not seen as the primary reason and they'll do it in the absence of any material reward.

That's excellent, Andrea.

You definitely do understand the nuances between behavior that is abusive versus the primary dynamic of the parent is to get medical attention.

So if we sort of separate those two things, so for these cases where you see

it's not just fabrications, it's induction, it's making symptoms worse, it's giving kids medications they don't need, it's getting surgical interventions they don't need, where it really does more fit that pattern of factitious disorder imposed on another.

Do you think there are circumstances where when that is the case, a parent can be safely reunified with their children?

Yes.

And we have a few documented cases where parents, and sometimes it's parents who've been put in prison because it was that criminal behavior.

As long as they work the accepts model,

which is acknowledging the behaviors, first of all, the behaviors that got you caught, And second of all, all the behaviors you were doing that didn't get caught, then you are able to develop empathy for how that not only harmed your child, it harmed your whole family, it harmed the system,

it

harmed the medical providers that you tricked.

Then you develop better coping mechanisms.

We kind of treat it like a 12-step model, which is admit that you have a compulsion to do this and take it one day at a time like you do recovery.

It's like anorexia.

It's similar to other high shame, high denial disorders like substance abuse.

And so

the recovery model is really to stay

on top of recognizing when you're vulnerable to wanting to get your needs met through that abusive behavior and catching yourself and building yourself a support system where you can say to people, Look, I feel like I'm falling off the wagon here.

I feel like I'm reverting to needing my child to be presented to providers.

You're going to have to help me here.

Maybe take a bit of respite, take a break, get somebody else to be involved for a while.

Do you think

that

that kind of recovery can happen in the absence of a criminal conviction?

I haven't seen it myself.

I am hoping that sometimes it can happen

in the context of the child being removed and that reunification is dependent on the parent

genuinely and authentically working the steps of the accepts model and having a therapist who understands

what the indicators of authentic empathy are.

I'm optimistic that if we're able to put the children in a protective environment

to either the separation test or with another

non-custodial parent, we give them custody if it's a biological family member who would be the first resort when child protective services step in.

They want to try and keep the child with a biological relative.

But if once it's determined that yes, the child is thriving outside of the primary care of the offending parent, then I would say reunification should be contingent on the perpetrator working the accepts model.

And I will say, unfortunately, that I have lots of cases where they continue to fight it, they continue to litigate.

And I have just several sad cases where the moms are no longer having contacts with their kids because they're unwilling to admit to what they did, which is the first step.

Yeah.

And

we talked to Mary Sanders about the accepts model and that

opportunity for

rehabilitating the situation.

And she mentioned that it's probably a very small percentage of offenders that are going to take what we consider full accountability, which is not saying the only time I ever did it was the time I got caught.

Or one thing that Hopiubara says, and Jeff, she served a 10-year prison sentence.

And she says, I don't remember.

I had this diabetic coma and lost my memory, which is another factitious disorder thing.

But, you know, that's not what we consider full accountability, right?

Full accountability means I did this.

I accept that I did this.

I'm owning what I did, I'm not trying to obfuscate and continue to deceive around my behavior.

And because of all of the tricky factors that cause someone to do this behavior in the first place, it's a small percentage of offenders we're looking at that could take full accountability in that way.

Do you think that's, do you agree with that?

Yes, I do.

And from my experience, doing hundreds of these cases is that there's only been a handful that I would call successful reunification.

What do you think makes the difference in those cases?

Is it that the abuse was caught before it escalated to something so severe that it could have been deadly?

Is it the person themselves that just has the ability to heal?

Is it the support system around them?

What do you see being a factor in someone successfully recovering and reuniting with their child?

Well, the successful cases, it really has been the support system around them.

The more eyes there are on the child, the more it deters

people from engaging in the abuse.

So if you can get the kid into a school system where the teachers are aware and the teachers know the warning signs, if you've got a different family member doing the medical decision making, yes.

And

the sad thing is

in not reunifying is that all children want to be with their parents and they want their parents to

step up and fly right and do the right thing and be a good parent and that's ideal.

Every child wants that.

We recognize that in a lot of these cases that's too high a bar to set.

But if we can at least deter them from engaging in this behavior, I think it's great if the kids can at least have some kind of a relationship with a perpetrating parent.

Or as long as they have stopped the behavior, they don't have to fully admit to everything.

They can still say, well, I was confused or I lost my memory

and not do a full accounting.

But at least if they have stopped the behavior, then, you know,

that's what we want.

Yeah.

So

as you mentioned,

in some cases there's a criminal investigation.

And a lot of times these cases end up with CPS and in family court.

I'm assuming you've dealt a lot with family court.

Do you find them to be knowledgeable in general about this form of abuse?

What I find is that the family courts are designed to uphold

what we consider one of the most fundamental rights under the Constitution, which is the right to be a parent.

And the courts are driven to reunify and to do that first and foremost.

The courts also, whenever they appoint a guardian adolitem who's there for the best interests of the child, or they appoint a psychological evaluator.

And in California, it is the law.

You have to look at the strengths and the weaknesses of all custodial, all legally entitled parents.

And so,

unfortunately, in cases of medical child abuse, and particularly if it really is a factitious disorder on the part of the parent, is that when you look at the strengths, I'll read these psychological evaluations where I've seen that the mother has hemorrhaged blood out of the child at children's hospital and denied it.

And the mom's sitting there in court and yet the psychological evaluator will say, well, the mom's strengths are that she genuinely cares about this child, that she understands that the child does have some special needs.

The mom's strength is that she understands schooling.

Now, yes, there's this weakness.

She almost killed her child by hemorrhaging out a tube.

But they put it in this couch term of looking at strengths and weaknesses.

And

I sort of consider it along with sex abuse.

At some point, there's a zero tolerance.

And if you bleed your child out, they almost die from that,

then

we don't really look at the strengths of the parent.

Yeah, to your point, if a child ended up up in the hospital because their father had beat them almost to death, you would not have someone sitting up there saying,

Well, the dad does take him to baseball practice, and that's, I mean, you just, it's unfathomable, right?

And yet we put this in, somehow we just put this in a really different category.

And I think to your point, a lot of that does have to do with gender bias.

I mean,

what are your thoughts on that?

Because it is a high percentage of these offenders are mothers.

95%

of the perpetrators of this type of abuse are mothers.

So, yes, as a society, and I spent a lot of time thinking about this in law school, especially when I studied criminal law, is that as a society, we have a lot of laws that criminalize masculine forms of violence.

That is, bludgeoning, raping, strangling, gunshots, what garden variety serial killers do, stabbing.

We recognize it.

We are much more aware as a society that that is abhorrent.

We make laws against it and we put people in prison for it.

What we as a society are less aware of are feminine forms of violence, which is suffocating, poisoning, killing with kindness,

infantilizing,

and they're just as lethal as those other forms of violence.

Because of that,

the entire legal system tends to be sympathetic, especially towards articulate

and caring

parents.

Well, should we say like the appearance of caring

because I think like when you were talking about that psychological evaluator what I was thinking is this is a person who's been manipulated by this mother because I think like you can't I don't feel

and this is my opinion

it's hard for me to imagine how someone who could bleed their child almost to death feels any empathy for that child so I don't know how you can describe someone who would almost kill their child for the purposes of getting their own emotional needs met as a caring parent.

I believe someone who could do that could appear for a small period of time spent with a psychological evaluator to be a caring parent.

But I think that that sort of speaks to the problem with bringing in like the idea that you could diagnose factitious disorder imposed on another

in the course of a psychological evaluation rather than with a full investigation of the records.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

Yes.

That again and again, I have encountered in particularly the family and dependency courts where

the entire system really does not understand Munchausen by proxy.

Very often they have

been intimidated, threatened, or

reversed when they try to see it for what it is.

They're intimidated.

by Munchhausen by proxy and by factitious disorder imposed on another.

And so they defer to the psychological evaluators and

a psychological evaluator is no better than the average Joe Blow on the street at detecting lying

so the psychological evaluations are notoriously unable.

Sometimes they'll say something like, yeah, we saw a little bit of psychopathy or yeah we saw high score on the need to look good index,

but this person is not crazy.

This person doesn't have a disorder that would cause them to be a child abuser.

So

that is a real problem.

It's the medical record review.

Every time

I interview a new case and a new mother, I am just snookered.

I believe them.

I feel their sense of concern.

I feel how they haven't been heard by the medical system.

I believe that yes, other people are missing these signs and symptoms.

Then I do a record review and then I talk to other people.

That

is when I start going, oh my gosh, I was completely snookered by this.

So even you, even you, with all of your decades of experience, even you sitting in a room with one of these women, you're fooled, essentially?

Snookered?

Fooled?

Very many times.

My daughter Fiona just turned seven this month.

It is true what they say.

It just goes by in a blink.

But she is getting to be a grown-up girl.

I am so proud of her.

And she is learning grown-up things and getting some big kid responsibilities.

Right now, we are earning our way to getting a pet gecko.

And Project Gecko, as we're calling it in my house, is being powered by our sponsor, Acorns Early.

Acorns Early is the smart debit card and money app that grows kids' money skills as they grow up.

It comes with an in-app chores tracker that helps kids connect their responsibilities with the value of a dollar.

It also lets kids set their own savings goal for a get-go or anything else they want.

And kids can spend what they earned with their very own customizable debit card, giving them that extra sense of independence.

Plus, with Acorn Early spending limits and real-time spend notifications, parents always stay in control.

So if you want a fun way to teach your kids about money and keeping small lizards alive, you should give it a try.

Ready to teach your kids the smart way to earn, save, and spend?

Get your first month on us when you head to acornsearly.com backslash nobody or download the Acorns Early app.

That's one month free when you sign up at acornsearly.com backslash nobody.

And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

Acorns Early card is issued by Community Federal Savings Bank, member FDIC, pursuant to license by MasterCard International.

Free trial for new subscribers only, subscription fees starting from $5 per month unless canceled.

Terms apply at www.acorns.com backslash early terms.

It's officially fall and the world has officially gone completely bananas.

So I am looking for comfort and coziness wherever I can find it.

In Seattle this time of year, getting dressed is all about cozy layers.

The weather in October is like, it's warm, it's cold, it's going to rain.

Is it going to rain?

It's raining.

So I've been stocking up on comfy layers from my favorite brand, Quince.

Now, Quince is known for their sweaters, especially their Mongolian cashmere, but they have all hits, no misses when it comes to layers, from their super soft cotton tees to their fashionable and functional outerwear.

I just ordered the Responsible Down Puffer Jacket, which comes in 13 different colors, and bonus is made ethically to ensure best practices in animal welfare, hence the responsible part.

And in fact, one of the things that I love about Quince is that they partner exclusively with top-tier ethical factories, cutting out the middleman to deliver luxury pieces at half the price of similar brands, so you can feel good about shopping with them.

And I can assure you, given that at least half of my wardrobe is now from Quince, the quality really is top tier.

This stuff is made to last.

So find your fall staples at Quince.

Go to quince.com slash believe for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.

Now available in Canada too.

That's q-u-in-ce-e.com/slash believe to get free shipping and 365-day returns.

Quince.com slash believe.

And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

There are people in this life who can accomplish grown-up responsible tasks like buying life insurance without a lot of reminding and prompting.

My husband is one of those people.

I am not.

If you're like me, you dread doing things like buying life insurance because you think it's going to be expensive and complicated and you're going to have to do paperwork and make other appointments and it's just going to take forever.

Well, guess what?

I am here to remind you that it will actually be none of those things with our sponsor SelectQuote.

It will in fact be fast, easy, and less expensive than you think.

SelectQuote has been one of the most trusted companies in the game for over 40 years.

And unlike other one-size-fits-all life insurance companies, SelectQuote's licensed agents work for you.

In as little as 15 minutes, they'll compare policies from top-rated carriers to find you the best fit for your health and your budget.

And they work for you for free.

And you won't even need a medical exam as SelectQuote partners with providers offering same-day coverage of up to $2 million without even needing to visit your doctor.

And if you do have pre-existing conditions, don't worry, they also have partners with coverage designed for that as well.

Whatever the case, they'll get you the coverage you deserve for the best price.

Head to selectquote.com and a licensed insurance agent will call you right away with the right policy for your life and your budget.

Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at selectquote.com/slash nobody.

Save more than 50% on term life insurance at selectquote.com/slash nobody today to get started.

That's selectquote.com slash nobody.

And remember that shopping our sponsors is a great way to support the show.

Occasionally, I will interview a perpetrator or a questionable perpetrator and it will be quite apparent.

We had one mother who was taking too much of her Adderall and she was verging on psychosis.

And when this would happen, she'd bring her kid to the emergency room.

She would say things like, the kid was drinking lemonade from the Wendy's.

And the next thing you know, he must have swallowed something that implanted in his brain because he's acting outside of his head.

Look at him.

So sometimes we have parents who are clearly delusional.

Yes, they're abusing their child by taking them to the emergency room.

whatever is going on at home with a delusional mother, but this is easier to treat.

You know, we were easily able to let the kid go home with mom once we got her psychiatrist to to recognize the impending mania and the impending psychosis from taking too much Adderall.

Right.

So, that's not a person that has factitious disorder imposed on another.

That's someone who's having a psychotic episode.

If they really are doing this for the medical attention,

if they are meeting their psychological need to be in the healthcare arena and create crises,

then I don't think I've ever done an interview with one of these folks

where

the

it was obvious that they weren't really genuinely caring for their child.

Wow.

I mean they've been able to come across that way so well.

Right.

It's the manipulation.

And I think you said that when you were talking about the problem with psychological evaluations that they say, well, this mom's not crazy.

Right.

She's not.

Very organized, actually.

You're not sort of, quote, crazy and you're not suffering delusions and it doesn't meet the definition for criminal insanity.

It's a known behavior.

It's characterized by intentional deception.

And so that doesn't, that's not crazy in the way that we think of someone looking or seeming crazy and disorganized and all over the place.

It's the exact opposite, actually.

That reminds me of a conversation I just had with Randy Alexander and Kathy Ayub

about the fact that the DSM really needs to come up with a category for pathological lying because it is such a feature

of the real factitious disorder imposed on another.

They don't just lie about their child's illness.

They lie about all kinds of things.

Right.

We've seen this across all the cases we've looked at that there's you have these stories of really rampant infidelity that gets uncovered, financial fraud, lying at work, just all kinds of things.

It's not lying about their own health.

It's not isolated to the child's medical issues.

I want to talk about one of the trickiest cases, I feel like, for anybody around this issue, which is the Jennifer Bush case.

Can you tell us about that?

I was not involved in that case.

What I do know from following it is

that Jennifer is one of those children where the separation test was crystal clear.

She was separated from her mother.

They could remove the feeding tubes.

She ate fine.

She started to thrive.

She was embracing her wellness.

And this was a child who'd been subjected to numerous surgeries.

She was on a feeding tube.

Anyway, she was separated.

And

then

when she became an adult, I saw a videotape of her.

Basically,

I'm not sure if it was a press conference, but it's searchable on YouTube.

And Jennifer said that her mother never abused her.

And she said that

she is going to become a social worker because of how bad the system is and because she believes that what happened to her was not a good thing.

And she suffered.

as a result of being removed from her mother.

And this brings me to the realization that I have have whenever I work with kids who have been removed by CPS,

is that for many children being removed from an abusive home, it's the devil you don't know and the devil you know.

And a lot of these kids will recant, like in sex abuse situations.

We've learned for years now that when children do somehow disclose that they're being sexually abused and they get removed,

lot of them then say, oh, I lied about it.

It didn't really happen.

And we're seeing this because for some kids to remove them from their abusive mother who's perpetrating medical abuse on them, for some of them, it is a worse situation.

And it's more traumatic.

than just staying and going along with their mother.

Which is so complicated.

And when we talk to Jordan, Hope, they talk about being in their adulthood.

And obviously they are extremely knowledgeable about this abuse and

that they still have trouble feeling anger at their mother because of that attachment is still so powerful.

And I just think that sort of speaks to what you're saying of just that this is going to have a different effect on everyone who's been victimized.

And I've seen even the split within families where there's one child, we talked to a survivor, and their siblings were also abused, and their siblings absolutely refuse to.

acknowledge that that that abuse happened and they they can't accept it and they just seem like they can't go there.

And this is even in cases where there is so much documentation or there was a removal or it sort of doesn't matter what, like how strong the evidence is.

It's really not about the evidence.

I mean, I think this is what I've come to about how people just in general react to these cases, whether it's spouses or the victims themselves or family members.

It's not about the evidence.

It doesn't matter how strong the evidence is.

It's like an emotional belief of whether or not that person is capable of doing that.

And if someone refuses to believe it, it does not matter what evidence you put in front of that person.

Exactly.

And we don't have a perfect system.

So it's not like we can give the kids we remove a happy ending.

I do want to say, though, that we have some wonderful happy endings.

We do have kids where

their

mother's new husband who catches on and the mother's in jail.

The new dad adopts that child and the child starts.

opening up and saying, I'm so grateful to be with you.

Are you going to protect me?

And they just, they are just very, very grateful to be out of that situation.

So, we do have

some happy endings for these kids.

But, in general, what we really, really want is for parents

to

be able to put their kids' needs ahead of their own.

And this is often hard.

There are a lot of broken people out there.

There are a lot of people who don't have the capacity to put someone else's needs above their own.

They are just so broken and needy.

Yeah.

I mean, to your point, most of the cases that we've talked about on this show are cases with happy endings, where they either ended up with their father who was loving and who understood what was happening, or in the case of the Weyburns, where they were adopted by family members and had very good outcomes.

And I think it's important to me to acknowledge this uncomfortable side of those are the cases with happy outcomes.

Those are not the only cases, which I thought was important to talk about, Jennifer Bush.

So there is a lot of pushback in the media now.

There's been a couple of sort of spade of huge pieces in the last year about, quote, false accusations.

And really that often when I see this issue discussed in the media is described as

an exotic condition, Munchausen by proxy, extremely rare, basically painted as this is not something we need to watch out for because it's happening so rarely that we do not need to be, that doctors are just overdiagnosing this and they're raising the flag unnecessarily and they're separating all of these innocent parents from their kids.

And that is the prevailing narrative that I've seen in the media.

What do you have to say about that?

Well, I have to say that actually,

from all of our experience, that

medical child abuse, Munchausen by proxy, and FDIA are underdiagnosed, vastly, vastly underdiagnosed, especially when you start getting into the mental health and the educational arenas and you look at kids with complex IEPs and parents who are demanding.

And sorry, can you explain what an IEP is?

An individualized educational plan.

and accommodations for kids with special needs in the educational system.

So where it gets so complicated is that

the type of parent who would use their child to get their emotional needs met by over-medicalizing or over-pathologizing them is also the kind of parent to be extremely vocal when questioned.

And so

That makes it really difficult

because

like in the case of the bleeding years

that mother didn't go to the press she didn't question us she said you do whatever you need to do i lost one baby and i trust you doctors and so it's unfortunate because of the nature of this type of abuser we're going to have so much pushback right now of course i want to say that if someone felt as though they had been really mistreated by the system it's not wrong for them to raise the alarm to the media, right?

One of the functions that media is supposed to serve,

how well it does this is another question, but is to be a check on systems, right?

So if you were a parent who had a bad experience with the system,

you would be well within your rights to sort of go to the media about that.

What we're saying is that because of the nature of, because we feel this is underdiagnosed, meaning that most people who are doing it get away with it.

If someone has been through the system and has been through an an investigation and does not end up being held accountable, that person's desire for attention

to be seen as heroic and grandiose, all these things that go along with that actual disorder, that person is going to be the most likely to pursue media attention for how they were falsely accused and

go on a sort of vendetta in the media.

Not to say that every single parent that's ever talked to the media about being falsely accused is guilty, but we're saying that the nature of this and the way that it plays into things like social media and traditional media, right, is very complex because that need for attention sort of spreads its antenna everywhere.

Yes, I think you captured that.

And I do absolutely want to say, as a parent myself,

that

I never would fault a parent who kept pursuing medical attention because they genuinely

know they can feel that their child has something wrong and it's not all in their head.

And they get angry when they're told it's all in your head or all in your child's head.

The critical difference is the fabrication.

Parents who are genuinely

concerned and their child has genuine distress, those parents should not and would not

induce or fabricate

to cause more medical attention or diagnostics or treatments or medicines.

And that's why we do the record review, because if you see the difference between a mother who says, my child has stomach aches and they do all the workups and there's nothing found,

between that mother and the mother who says, and the mother says, well, I don't believe you.

I'm going to go on and go to another doctor.

Fine, go to another doctor.

It's when that mother crosses the line and is administering IPACAC or is administering milk of magnesia and not telling the doctor.

And when you get a toxicology screen that shows that the mother is doing things to make the child's stomach hurt,

that is when they cross the line.

Or even Jordan gave us that example of that

their mother claimed they had this rare blood disorder.

And when they were able to go through their medical records as an adult, they found that they had had multiple negative tests for that specific disorder.

So that's not saying we can't get to the bottom of it.

That's a doctor saying, this is not it.

And then it's not the mother going and saying, okay, if it's not that, what is it?

It's the mother lying and saying, my child has this thing that they have tested negative for.

It's things like that, where you have those those markers of, right, intentional deception, induction, and that's only going to be accessible in the medical records review.

That's right.

That's right.

So for the most part, sometimes we can get that from school records.

Sometimes we can get that from police records.

Because again, some of these perpetrators work in multiple venues.

So you said something about your

first or about one of your earlier cases where they had a blood infection and

where the perpetrator was was caught on camera and when she appealed the court's decision she said that you as a nurse were not qualified to diagnose munchhausen by proxy that's something that's come up a lot in the media of like who is and is not able to determine

whether abuse has happened so

who is who is

required to report and who is able to determine whether abuse actually happened.

Who is qualified to do those things in your opinion?

Well, that's a good question.

And it's more than just my opinion.

Every single state has a law that identifies mandated reporters.

And in most states, it is doctors, nurses, teachers, even veterinarians sometimes, because sometimes abuse of children and abuse of animals goes hand in hand.

Anyway, there's a list.

I'm a nurse.

I am a mandated reporter.

I am required to report suspected abuse.

I am not required to verify abuse.

That's the job of CPS, Child Protective Services, or law enforcement.

As a mandated reporter, I have immunity for reporting if it's done in good faith.

if I happen to make an error and it wasn't abuse.

On the other hand, to diagnose someone with a DSM-5

or an ICD-10 or 11 diagnosis,

I would need to be a physician, a psychiatrist, a PhD psychologist, or somebody within whose scope of practice it is to diagnose.

As an advanced practice nurse, I am,

it's my scope of practice to do nursing diagnoses.

But believe me factitious disorder imposed on another is not in the book of nursing diagnoses so I always say to the court I am a mandated reporter I am qualified to identify and to confirm because of my advanced practice training I am qualified to confirm whether abuse has occurred to this child or neglect or sex abuse

that i am qualified to do what i am not qualified to do is is to diagnose why the perpetrator is doing it.

And so I differ.

I say, yes, in this case, the child is being medically abused and over-medicalized, and the mother is fabricating and exaggerating.

And it's up to somebody else.

hopefully who understands that the record review that I performed is the most illuminating for diagnosing factitious disorder imposed on another and looking for fabrication.

But sometimes they need to determine: is it malingering?

Is it anxiety?

Is it delusion?

Is it factitious disorder imposed on another?

And FDIA

should only be diagnosed when you both interview the suspected perpetrator and review the medical records for fabrications.

Is it important to have that diagnosis in terms of dealing with the medical child abuse itself?

Or is that beside the point to the why?

Because when we talk to people, we talk to a prosecuting attorney, we talked obviously to Mike Weber,

they are less concerned with any kind of psychological diagnosis on the mom.

They're concerned with the behavior and finding, again, that pattern of deception, falsifying, inducing,

which is in a a different category to your point than someone having delusions or anxiety, right?

Those are not sort of,

those wouldn't be likely to be prosecuted in a criminal context in the same way, right?

So it does make a difference when you are going to determine reunification.

It does not make a difference when you need to protect the child.

The cause of the parent's abuse is irrelevant if they have not stopped and the child needs protection.

The cause of the parent's abuse is relevant when you go, is it safe to reunify this child with this parent?

Got it.

So it's relevant, but it's the second line of relevance.

And I think what we're all just talking about is you have to put that child first because this abuse can be

either extremely physically damaging, it's obviously extremely psychologically damaging, and it can be lethal.

Right.

Right.

So it doesn't matter what the reason is when you need to protect the child.

Over the last year or so, you and I have been doing some work with survivors.

This is work that hasn't really been done before, and I think it's been really

revelatory and hopeful.

Can you tell me what you, as someone who's been in the profession for so long, what has that shown you working with this population specifically?

It has been revelatory and it has been very powerful and

it has been hopeful.

So as we actually hear the lived experience of adult survivors who have endured this, who have figured this out, who have gotten themselves hopefully to a safer place, they don't always go no contact.

They are not always completely safe, safe.

But they are in a place to start processing it, to talk about it, and to get their lives on track.

And what we're finding is that this is

another form of complex trauma.

And it just speaks to the resilience of human beings and of the majority of children.

who can have horrible, life-threatening, mind-bending, mind-destroying things happen to them and somehow or other either just one safe person

or an encounter that gives them a dose of reality or something that they can connect to

that helps them overcome

all the

you know the it's disabling to have complex trauma for a lot of people but we are finding that adult survivors

are so much more capable

and are able to heal from this trauma.

It's an ongoing, probably a lifelong process, but it sure is making me hopeful.

Me too.

So lastly, we just thought we would get some sort of myth busting from you.

I'm going to say some statements and you can tell me whether or not you think they're true and you can give me a response.

Okay,

so first statement, you have to be a child abuse pediatrician to determine that a report of abuse should be made.

No, that is absolutely false because

all the list of professionals, teachers, child care providers, nurses, any kind of physician, all of us are mandated by the law that if we don't report suspected abuse, it is either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on your state.

It is easy to get a child removed from their home based on the suspicions of one doctor alone.

Absolutely not.

It is a very, very high threshold.

to get a child removed from their home.

In Los Angeles County alone, we have several huge

high-profile cases where the Department of Children and Family Services is being heavily blamed and scrutinized for not removing children who later died at the hands of their abusers.

Overall, child protection agencies would say

that

the

The hoops they have to go through, the safeguards, the procedures, the processes in order to remove a child are very onerous and they have to do everything right in order to do that.

Doctors tend to rush to judgment about Munchausen by proxy when a child presents a complex medical issue.

Absolutely not.

As a matter of fact, I continue to be amazed,

although I can relate to it because I said I am so easily snuckered when I meet one of these parents.

But I continue to be amazed that my colleagues who

understand this,

who have identified many, many cases, still miss them and still continue to prescribe based on nothing but what the mother tells them.

COVID has brought this out so much because of virtual medical and pediatric visits.

What we're finding is that this just is a breeding ground for parents who want to get prescriptions based on their report.

And as we know, pediatricians particularly, well, all doctors are trained to base diagnosis, treatment, and prescription of medications partly on the history provided by the person, the patient, or by the parent of the patient.

And then sometimes tests can verify that, but a whole lot of it is based on history.

And we're trained to rely on the history that people give us.

If a child turns out to be genuinely ill, that proves the parents are not abusing them.

Absolutely not.

If the child has a genuine illness, it might even be part of the dynamic that gets them to be a victim.

of fabricated or induced illness because that's often the gateway for the parent to recognize the thrill or the gain that they get from being in a medical environment with a sick child.

Thank you so much, B.

Start the season with Etsy and make your holiday traditions extra special.

On Etsy, you'll discover original pieces from small shops that will help you celebrate your way.

Shop Etsy for holiday decor that makes you feel seen.

Special starts on Etsy.

Tap the banner to shop now.

This Marshawn Beast Mode Lynch.

Prize Pick is making sports season even more fun.

On Prize Picks, whether you're a football fan, a basketball fan, it always feels good to be right.

And right now, new users get $50 instantly in lineups when you play your first $5.

The app is simple to use.

Pick two or more players.

Pick more or less on their stat projections.

Anything from touchdown to threes.

And if you write, you can win big mix and match players from any sport on Progs, America's number one daily fantasy sports app.

Prize Picks is available in 40 plus states, including California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

Most importantly, all the transactions on the app are fast, safe, and secure.

Download the PrizePicks app today and use code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

That's code Spotify to get $50 in lineups after you play your first $5 lineup.

PrizePicks, it's good to be right.

Must be present in certain six.

Visit PrizePicks.com for restrictions and details.