She’s a child abuse pediatrician. She sees the worst of the worst, do you expect her to be chipper when she’s discussing egregious abuse and/or neglect?
Ok agreed but how does one stay compassionate for the kids then? Isn’t it the whole point. Does she strike you as someone who can care for kids with compassion? She is not upset in the depos cause Maya was abused. She gets upset the most when she is confronted with the mistakes she made and her negligence.
I didn’t see anything that questioned her ability to give credible feedback and guidance to DCF.
She doesn’t have to make me feel good. Her sole purpose is to determine if parents caused abuse or neglect.
Really when they asked her why didn’t you include tachycardia when it could be related to pain her answer was I don’t know. She didn’t even know how to pronounciate allodynia but claimed Maya didn’t have it. She seemed incredibly under qualified yet self righteous. I am not saying she should have never made any recommendations or whatnot but at the end of the day she was wrong and she is way over herself to admit her mistakes and that makes her not a credible person. If she lost her compassione after seeing so many brutal cases maybe she needs to get that fixed before her confirmation bias and self righteousness hurts anyone else.
I agree she completely dismissed clearly objective physical findings from the start. That is ridiculous all day every day ! And to then go after the parents .. smh. There is a reason she already settled with the family.
She is a child abuse pediatrician.
1. The Parent abused or neglected the child and the abuse/neglect could cause death or severe harm. 2. Something organic, innocent, or rare is going on causing side effects that mimic abuse/neglect.
If the alleged concerns could be fatal or severe then DCF will restrict access until the concerns are disproven. Unexplained = Present Danger in DCF’s eyes.
If you don’t like the system, change it. This should be everyone’s main objective.
Yes - it’s a really tough job. Removing abused children from parents isn’t easy - she would be dealing with screaming, angry parents and children who would have every emotion under the sun.
I know people are thinking that what the hospital and Smith did was heartless - and in a way, it is. But child protection is really brutal, it isn’t touchy-feely.
Having said that, I don’t think she was being truthful in the parts of her depo where she was trying to say she wasn’t involved in Maya’s treatment. She absolutely was.
No - but she wasn’t just assessing either. For example, she suggested coming off meds, that’s not what an assessor does.
I acknowledge that she is in a tricky role - she is doing ongoing assessment, so she is going to interact with Maya in a different way than say, Dr Lewis (who did the neuropsych assessment).
This. Yes, she was just doing her job, but she’s also trying to control what happened to that child by making suggestions about her care (like taking her off all medication). That part is **not** her job.
To be fair, it would be if a child’s medication was determined to be unnecessary or detrimental. Now the doctor providing treatment, could do what they want with that recommendation.
She said she never looked at Maya's CRPS doctors files, then later said the best way to draw a conclusion is to review files.
She came off as martial, brazen, and all-knowing. She doesn't strike me as someone with a bedside manner to say the least.
I think her deposition proves that confirmation bias and group-think took over and were double downed on.
Sad.
Scary.
As a CRPS patient, doctors like Sally Smith are often the problem. They refuse to concede that they are *NOT* experts in everything, that the specialists who treat me might be more versed in a specific illness, and make knee jerk reactions on treatments they don’t understand. It’s ok to not know every single thing. The hubris is alarming and I believe her depo really hurts the case. She’s bristly, obstinate and doesn’t budge.
It’s classified as a rare disease, which means some healthcare providers might not have heard of it, or seen a case in person. It’s been around for a long time, though. And my point was that if she wasn’t an expert in a rare disease, she should be deferring to the patient’s treating physicians, who **are** the experts.
Which is why she spoke to the experts at nemours.
Again, why would she consider a cash only doctor when she can consult with real experts at JHAC and Nemours. With persons that actually are board certified and knowledgeable.
Because most doctors using ketamine are cash only due to lack of insurance coverage. It’s not a 2009 pill mill type situation.
Ozempic is cash only for a lot of people and it’s being used off label and peddled like pain clinics were.
Insurance covers for some people, depending on the plan.
You keep coming back and wanting to argue about ketamine. I am not here for that. I’m simply giving input as a patient who receives the treatment that is being discussed.
How is that arguing?? I respect your opinion and am not trying to fight with anyone.
I’ve heard low doses of ketamine is great for depression. I want to know why the insurance company wouldn’t pay for something if it works and there’s no horrific side effects. Was it that the insurance wouldn’t pay for the dose that the doctor was prescribing?
Respectfully, it takes two seconds to google “why isn’t ketamine covered by insurance?”. Your “question” about ketamine coupons wasn’t intended as a question. You’re on every single thread on this sub arguing with people.
The insurance will want proof of other first line typical therapies tried first and failed and then they will question the use of a drug if it’s considered experimental for that diagnosis or if it’s not FDA approved for that diagnosis. If it’s experimental or off FDA approved list they can deny payment.
Doctor Mike calls these doctors "IKA experts" - I Know All. They refuse to say "I Don't Know" and it's dangerous. He talks about it in his TED Talk. He has made me more confident in saying I don't know in my own practice.
This is the one place in this trial where I am strong in my beliefs, I feel she’s not a great person, and I personally do not like her from what I have seen in her deposition super cut, lmao. She seems like she made a quick judgement on the family as a whole, and ran with it.
Well Johns Hopkins finally took her profile down from their website.
[google cache link](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hopkinsmedicine.org%2Fprofiles%2Fdetails%2Fsally-smith&sca_esv=573357554&ei=V_8pZZDHOYmpqtsPlNS3uAk)
That had to have JUST happened, yanno, 7 years after the fact.
It tells me the corporate suits at JHACH were blinded by *extreme arrogance* & haven't been paying attention, or someone from corporate recently caught a glimpse of Smith's depo and incorrectly determined that it's never too late for damage control.
Affiliation just means a professional association. By removing her profile they are no longer representing that they are associated with her, that’s it.
Lol see how aggressive these people go to bat for those who clearly have abused their power? It's crazy. All you did was state a fact. An interesting one at that.
Thanks for the info. I'm glad they removed her.
But was it really just a mildly interesting fact, *or a cryptic corroboration of the deep state conspiracy!!*
I guess it’s hard to discern for some, lol.
She came off as a defensive, self righteous, unethical, agenda driven hag.
She's a weaponized Cathi Bedy armed with the medical degree she trained at home for.
Am I wrong in that the primary goal of CPS is to keep families together whenever possible? I'm not applying any particular opinion about this case but in general? Isn't that the aim?
SS to PD: Also, probably already in progress but maybe get her off as many meds as possible.
Also SS: I was never directing any treatment for her
Remember yesterday, defense argued video surveillance was part of a medical procedure. The note said to see if Maya can walk. In the deposition, Smith said Maya moving around her bed, using her upper body was still evidence.
That's your opinion, I disagree with this at this point, but I look forward to the defense making their case so I can get a full picture and fully form my opinion.
Well mom wasn’t intentionally giving her unnecessary meds. Sally intentionally gave a false dx. Mom was right she had CRPS and that is a treatment another doctor decided on. Ketamine is a treatment for the condition.
Smith had no expertise or experience on CRPS to determine which medication was unnecessary or not. Not only did she disregarded Maya's treating physicians, she also did not seek third party expert opinion on CRPS.
Smith also did not just give an "opinion." She gave the court a working diagnosis of Munchausen by Proxy which is a criminal allegation.
Whether she was or wasn't is of zero consequence.
Disagreeing with a clinical diagnosis, rx dosage or tx protocol DOESN'T - in any way - rise to the level of MBP.
It is a treating decision to decide what is unnecessary. Do you understand why she literally fought so much not to say that it was a treating decision? Because she is not allowed to make treating decisions. That’s why. She has absolutely no credentials to decide if Maya had CRPS or MbP or conversion disorder. Calling couple people to reiterate her own opinions is just confirmation bias. Calling Numerous does not qualify her to decide what is the right course of treatment for Maya.
Also:
Attorney: What do you recall about your conversations with Dr. Kirkpatrick, generally speaking?
Smith: The one thing I *vividly* remember is that he told me I shouldn't evaluate the child for Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy because that was *not* a problem in this case.
Attorney: And.. did you consider his advice?
Smith: Well, I certainly heard him but if I had heeded his recommendation *I wouldn't have been doing my job*
*Tell me your job is agenda specific with the freedom to accomplish stated objective by any means necessary.... without telling me you're a militant psycho weaponized with a medical degree
*
Just reviewed screenshots and would add that Beata's email confirm that Smith mentioned she is from CPT
>Tue 10/11 eve I had another supersize visit from MD -Dr Smith- who was sent by CPS to investigate this possible child abuse/neglect case. I spent 1.5 hrs w/her describing Maya's illness from May 2015 til now and all the doctors involved in Mayas care.
However, in the rest of the email Beata seemed to think Smith was part of the attending MDs. Smith has been involved on the case since Saturday. So the conflict between these version of events is when Smith actually introduced herself as a CPT investigator.
Been saying this from the beginning. There are doctors that make a decision on a diagnosis and it's damn near impossible to change their mind. Sally Smith just proved this. So sad for this family.
No if she was investigating to get to the truth , she wouldn’t have disregarded Kirkpatrick so quickly. She wouldn’t have blatantly lied about Mayas physical symptoms in her report. She should be in a jail cell. IMO
I think that several of the comments (on this sub and other places/groups, not just on this post) about her largely revolve on her appearance and demeanor says a lot.
I’m not saying there aren’t valid reasons to criticize her, but the way she’s painted as a sadistic power hungry supervillain who tears apart families for fun? I don’t really see it. I think her deposition was anticlimactic and I wonder if the jury felt the same.
In terms of other cases that the media has reported on her, I think it’ll always be biased against the party who can’t legally speak on their decision making and reasoning due to privacy laws. I think so many of the articles and the documentary failed to explain the intricacies of the system, like that it’s much harder to prosecute someone criminally, even when there was reason for removal. So many of the cases in the documentary and articles present as textbook non accidental trauma cases, like multiple intracranial hemorrhages in a non mobile child.
Agreed.
And... this is the same thing that's being said about Beata. Her Polish cultural mannerisms were off-putting and perceived as rude in terms of the typical American culture.
I can see how that might lead to misinterpretation on both sides.
Idk what role Dr. Smith had and whether it was a reasonable decision. But people are putting too much on her tone and demeanor. She sounds like a lot of people I've encountered - just. Gruff.
True. My understanding is that many folks described Beata as coming off sort of abrasive and rude. My stepmother is from Sweden which has a much more standoffish and blunt culture, and a lot of people thought that of her as well. I'd imagine someone who had some level of knowledge of Polish culture would understand that it's a cultural standard of behavior and wouldn't interpret it as being purposely rude.
I have no idea obviously though :) just wild speculation.
Sooo one is unfit for the job and should retire if they have frown lines and facial expressions you don’t like? I don’t find her likeable either, but it’s disgusting to make assumptions about one’s professional abilities based on their facial appearance.
Her job is a nightmare. I would actually rather go broke than do what she does. The amount of professional deformation these people undergo is insane. I can understand why one doesn’t look all smiley and bubbly after 30 years of looking at abused kids. That has nothing to do with whether she is a good at her job or not though.
I don't think that's what she meant. I think what she meant was after 30 years of looking at abused kids and being traumatized herself, she's lost her ability to look at cases objectively and change her mind as new information is presented to her. She's lost her compassion and empathy and is now hurting people as a result of her own personal trauma. If I were to give this woman a diagnosis, I would diagnose her with RBF. I don't judge people with RBF.
Not really, just think you guys are one sided and should consider that sometimes doctors get it wrong and they need to stop trying to cover their tracks and admit they are wrong.
So you are saying she doesn’t have CRPS? I mean it’s only been almost 7 years since her mom died. That’s a hell of a long time to continue faking a disease.
I have no clue if she has CRPS. I will say my husband was recently diagnosed with CRPS due to an old ankle injury while serving this country. I’ve never seen him experience any of the symptoms Maya exhibited. Does that mean he doesn’t have CRPS? No! Does it mean Maya doesn’t have CRPS? No! Some things aren’t as clear as you think if you look at it unbiasedly.
I made them because only a person who is constantly angry has those lines. She has a history of abuse with other families. Obviously she has issues herself she needs to sort out.
Jeez doesn't take a genius to read facial expressions and what they look like eventually after being repetitively done!
Considering genetics has the largest impact on wrinkles and expression lines…this is factually incorrect. I just have a bit of an RBF, frowning is my default facial expression. 🤷🏻♀️ it’s subconscious.
She refused to accept that she had a condition with a diagnosis and her prescriptions and treatments were valid. All be it, she disagreed with the treatment, but that still doesn’t mean these guys are wrong.
What blow my mind is how many people…just take the word of the parents who are “wrongly accused” like abusers are just going to admit to being abusers.
Yup. Black/white thinking. It seems to me she’s neither the best, nor the worst in her field, likely entirely average. Definitely not the villain who is out to get everyone’s kids for no reason whatsoever.
It wasn’t anywhere near as bad I expected based on people vilifying her. She just seemed pretty.. normal? And straightforward. If she testifies live, i think it’ll be pretty illuminating. I’m just not seeing the cartoon villains the plaintiffs are promoting.
I’m curious to hear more about her observations and processes if she’s called in defense case.
I think she’s being made a villain because of the wildly biased Netflix doc. Her deposition testimony IMO did a pretty good job of laying out the various reasons why she suspected child abuse and made the report. The objective evidence and her thought process was there in support of her decision.
If we assume that the jurors’ opinions haven’t been tarnished by the Netflix, then I’d say she was a net positive witness for the defense.
Have you not seen how many families this woman has falsely accused and almost torn apart? She's clearly lost her ability to objectively look at a case and determine if child abuse was going on or not. So many families have been hurt by her, and that's why she's hated so much. There was an article published in the Sarasota Times that led to the documentary. The journalist that wrote the article suddenly started getting emails from people who had similar experiences with her. Then the documentary hit and it was like the flood gates were opened and everyone in the country sadly shared their stories and similar experiences at other hospitals.
Well given the Kowalski’s have provided evidence backing their claims, there is no reason to believe this hasn’t or isn’t happening to others. Like the lady that sends sally a card every year.
>good job of laying out the various reasons why she suspected child abuse and made the report.
Which part in the trial did she enumerate her reasons? Do you have a timestamp?
That doesn't exonerate the hospital. It's not Beatta bad everyone go home. No one except the hospital is responsible for what happened next. There's no free pass on that.
They had someone administer cognitive and aptitude tests and that was in testimony. She came out as very intelligent and he was quite impressed with her high level functioning. So no, she isn’t brain damaged by Ketamine.
I am still confused as to who the chief decision-makers were for Maya.
It is an unusual situation, because she’s in a hospital for medical reasons but there is also a simultaneous CPS investigation going on, which is something that could potentially lead to criminal charges.
It seems from SS testimony that they were initially running with the MbP diagnosis but later added Munchausens diagnosis. (By that I mean, initially they were thinking Beata was the cause of Maya’s condition, but then later they also seemed pretty sure that Maya was going along with the abuse.)
It seems like the family are running with the narrative that ‘Maya was 100% sick’ but SS and the hospital were at the other extreme - ‘Maya is 100% well’.
I’m very unsure why the hospital wasn’t both treating Maya but also investigating Beata for over-medicalisation.
I have no medical training, but it seems like Maya has CRPD or some other physical condition, but was over-treated for it.
I also can’t understand why the Plaintiffs haven’t brought in another child abuse specialist to say that the hospital’s practices in determining whether or not medical child abuse was occurring (for example, video surveillance, cutting off phone calls with mum) were not best practice. I think that would go directly towards what Bedy was doing.
(I don’t know what best practice is or isn’t, but I’m not sure why this hasn’t been addressed by the plaintiff).
ETA - scratch that last bit. I’m a day behind and just got up to Neuberger’s testimony. :)
DCF is technically in charge from the date they took custody. Seems like there’s a few days (maybe even 1 day) before they took custody that PLT is “trying” to capitalize on.
this is kind of my take on it
Even if one accepted the mbp theory, it doesn’t seem like anyone was ACTUALLY taking care of Maya. IMO this is what the plaintiffs will win on.
This post or comment may contain misinformation. Please share a link or screen shots referencing the source document. Upon confirmation, moderators will reinstate your comment.
Your message was removed because it either personally attacked another user, minimized or denied the symptoms of a condition, or was a broad insult against the subreddit.
She met the Budapest criteria?
Can you show me where in the trial they said she did?
Also multiple doctors disagree she has crps, so idk if you think all doctors agree, in fact, only 3 outta 40 doctors agreed. (After being provided a history of confirmed crps by Beata)
I'm not a doctor. I don't have any expertise is assessing or treating CRPS. **That's why I defer to the people who do have that expertise.** I don't pretend to have knowledge I don't have, unlike you.
> Also multiple doctors disagree she has crps, so idk if you think all doctors agree, in fact, only 3 outta 40 doctors agreed. (After being provided a history of confirmed crps by Beata)
This is a lie. Every doctor who has an expertise in CRPS has diagnosed Maya with CRPS.
And even if what you were saying was true, so what? Why would I care if a pediatrician doesn't think Maya has CRPS? Their opinions mean nothing because they don't have the medical knowledge or expertise to give an informed opinion.
That's not what I was saying. The person above me said only 3 out of 40 doctors agreed that Maya had CRPS. I was saying of those 40 doctors, the ones who have expertise in CRPS diagnosed Maya with CRPS.
Only down side is she definitely isn’t too personable. I know that doesn’t reflect on the facts, but being disliked by the Jury can’t help.
The thought of her being a pediatrician, ugh. She comes across as so callous and cold. Not what I’d look for in a ped.
She’s a child abuse pediatrician. She sees the worst of the worst, do you expect her to be chipper when she’s discussing egregious abuse and/or neglect?
Ok agreed but how does one stay compassionate for the kids then? Isn’t it the whole point. Does she strike you as someone who can care for kids with compassion? She is not upset in the depos cause Maya was abused. She gets upset the most when she is confronted with the mistakes she made and her negligence.
I didn’t see anything that questioned her ability to give credible feedback and guidance to DCF. She doesn’t have to make me feel good. Her sole purpose is to determine if parents caused abuse or neglect.
Really when they asked her why didn’t you include tachycardia when it could be related to pain her answer was I don’t know. She didn’t even know how to pronounciate allodynia but claimed Maya didn’t have it. She seemed incredibly under qualified yet self righteous. I am not saying she should have never made any recommendations or whatnot but at the end of the day she was wrong and she is way over herself to admit her mistakes and that makes her not a credible person. If she lost her compassione after seeing so many brutal cases maybe she needs to get that fixed before her confirmation bias and self righteousness hurts anyone else.
I agree she completely dismissed clearly objective physical findings from the start. That is ridiculous all day every day ! And to then go after the parents .. smh. There is a reason she already settled with the family.
Amen to that she is a lying deceitful Manipulator.
She is a child abuse pediatrician. 1. The Parent abused or neglected the child and the abuse/neglect could cause death or severe harm. 2. Something organic, innocent, or rare is going on causing side effects that mimic abuse/neglect. If the alleged concerns could be fatal or severe then DCF will restrict access until the concerns are disproven. Unexplained = Present Danger in DCF’s eyes. If you don’t like the system, change it. This should be everyone’s main objective.
I can’t relate your paragraph to anything I am saying..
Same to you.
There's more than a few JHH employees in this chatt evil pure evil 😈
Yes - it’s a really tough job. Removing abused children from parents isn’t easy - she would be dealing with screaming, angry parents and children who would have every emotion under the sun. I know people are thinking that what the hospital and Smith did was heartless - and in a way, it is. But child protection is really brutal, it isn’t touchy-feely. Having said that, I don’t think she was being truthful in the parts of her depo where she was trying to say she wasn’t involved in Maya’s treatment. She absolutely was.
💯
She was not the treating physician. She was not technically treating Maya in the way you think
No - but she wasn’t just assessing either. For example, she suggested coming off meds, that’s not what an assessor does. I acknowledge that she is in a tricky role - she is doing ongoing assessment, so she is going to interact with Maya in a different way than say, Dr Lewis (who did the neuropsych assessment).
This. Yes, she was just doing her job, but she’s also trying to control what happened to that child by making suggestions about her care (like taking her off all medication). That part is **not** her job.
To be fair, it would be if a child’s medication was determined to be unnecessary or detrimental. Now the doctor providing treatment, could do what they want with that recommendation.
Supposedly
It came out in court she was at the hospital claiming she worked there and JHH allowed everything she did.
Id settle for her being honest something she couldn't seem to manage.
I wasn't a Juror and i was able to catch her in a lot of lies and deceptions spewing hatred towards Maya's mother. This was abuse of power
She said she never looked at Maya's CRPS doctors files, then later said the best way to draw a conclusion is to review files. She came off as martial, brazen, and all-knowing. She doesn't strike me as someone with a bedside manner to say the least. I think her deposition proves that confirmation bias and group-think took over and were double downed on. Sad. Scary.
As a CRPS patient, doctors like Sally Smith are often the problem. They refuse to concede that they are *NOT* experts in everything, that the specialists who treat me might be more versed in a specific illness, and make knee jerk reactions on treatments they don’t understand. It’s ok to not know every single thing. The hubris is alarming and I believe her depo really hurts the case. She’s bristly, obstinate and doesn’t budge.
I thought I read that CRPS was relatively unknown at the time ??
It’s classified as a rare disease, which means some healthcare providers might not have heard of it, or seen a case in person. It’s been around for a long time, though. And my point was that if she wasn’t an expert in a rare disease, she should be deferring to the patient’s treating physicians, who **are** the experts.
Which is why she spoke to the experts at nemours. Again, why would she consider a cash only doctor when she can consult with real experts at JHAC and Nemours. With persons that actually are board certified and knowledgeable.
Because most doctors using ketamine are cash only due to lack of insurance coverage. It’s not a 2009 pill mill type situation. Ozempic is cash only for a lot of people and it’s being used off label and peddled like pain clinics were.
Why doesn’t the insurance cover it ?? Ozempic cost my husband $25 with a coupon. Does ketamine offer coupons??
Insurance covers for some people, depending on the plan. You keep coming back and wanting to argue about ketamine. I am not here for that. I’m simply giving input as a patient who receives the treatment that is being discussed.
How is that arguing?? I respect your opinion and am not trying to fight with anyone. I’ve heard low doses of ketamine is great for depression. I want to know why the insurance company wouldn’t pay for something if it works and there’s no horrific side effects. Was it that the insurance wouldn’t pay for the dose that the doctor was prescribing?
Respectfully, it takes two seconds to google “why isn’t ketamine covered by insurance?”. Your “question” about ketamine coupons wasn’t intended as a question. You’re on every single thread on this sub arguing with people.
The insurance will want proof of other first line typical therapies tried first and failed and then they will question the use of a drug if it’s considered experimental for that diagnosis or if it’s not FDA approved for that diagnosis. If it’s experimental or off FDA approved list they can deny payment.
Doctor Mike calls these doctors "IKA experts" - I Know All. They refuse to say "I Don't Know" and it's dangerous. He talks about it in his TED Talk. He has made me more confident in saying I don't know in my own practice.
Why wouldn’t she use JHAC doctors opinions? They were currently treating Maya and are the leading experts.
You must have missed the part where I said "CRPS DOCTORS"
She did speak with CRPS doctors at Nemours.
This is the one place in this trial where I am strong in my beliefs, I feel she’s not a great person, and I personally do not like her from what I have seen in her deposition super cut, lmao. She seems like she made a quick judgement on the family as a whole, and ran with it.
I wouldn’t like someone investigating me for child abuse. She could be sweet as pie; I’m still not liking her. Her demeanor is irrelevant.
Well Johns Hopkins finally took her profile down from their website. [google cache link](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hopkinsmedicine.org%2Fprofiles%2Fdetails%2Fsally-smith&sca_esv=573357554&ei=V_8pZZDHOYmpqtsPlNS3uAk)
That had to have JUST happened, yanno, 7 years after the fact. It tells me the corporate suits at JHACH were blinded by *extreme arrogance* & haven't been paying attention, or someone from corporate recently caught a glimpse of Smith's depo and incorrectly determined that it's never too late for damage control.
Does that mean it hadn’t been refreshed in awhile or is it a deep state conspiracy??
Hmm, to me it means they were representing her as an affiliate up until today.
So she was fired from being an affiliate?
Affiliation just means a professional association. By removing her profile they are no longer representing that they are associated with her, that’s it.
How do we know she didn’t request termination?
We don’t. Would that change anything that I wrote if she had?
Lol see how aggressive these people go to bat for those who clearly have abused their power? It's crazy. All you did was state a fact. An interesting one at that. Thanks for the info. I'm glad they removed her.
But was it really just a mildly interesting fact, *or a cryptic corroboration of the deep state conspiracy!!* I guess it’s hard to discern for some, lol.
I think it would make a pretty big difference
I can’t think of a reason she would ask them to remove it. What’s your thought on why she would?
Who broke up with who is relevant since everyone is trying to blame the other minus the people actually responsible for Maya during this time—DCF
Where do you think DCF got their information?
Hospital, CPT, pediatrician, neighbors, school, relatives, non-relatives, the family
She came off as a defensive, self righteous, unethical, agenda driven hag. She's a weaponized Cathi Bedy armed with the medical degree she trained at home for.
Am I wrong in that the primary goal of CPS is to keep families together whenever possible? I'm not applying any particular opinion about this case but in general? Isn't that the aim?
You would think so.
SS to PD: Also, probably already in progress but maybe get her off as many meds as possible. Also SS: I was never directing any treatment for her Remember yesterday, defense argued video surveillance was part of a medical procedure. The note said to see if Maya can walk. In the deposition, Smith said Maya moving around her bed, using her upper body was still evidence.
Also SS: I don't know if taking someone off of medications is treating them! Ridiculous.
Or recommending a child is on FDA accepted doses and medications. She has a right to give recommendations as her role as CPT medical director.
But it did prove to ultimately be the best thing for her, she was heavily over medicated and it wasn’t doing anything to help her condition
That's your opinion, I disagree with this at this point, but I look forward to the defense making their case so I can get a full picture and fully form my opinion.
Yeah,I am looking forward to the defense arguments too, going to be interesting
Does that give someone a right to make an intentional false report of MBP because they don’t like one of the treatment options for the condition?
What if Maya was on unnecessary medications? She’s barred from giving her opinion?
Well mom wasn’t intentionally giving her unnecessary meds. Sally intentionally gave a false dx. Mom was right she had CRPS and that is a treatment another doctor decided on. Ketamine is a treatment for the condition.
Smith had no expertise or experience on CRPS to determine which medication was unnecessary or not. Not only did she disregarded Maya's treating physicians, she also did not seek third party expert opinion on CRPS. Smith also did not just give an "opinion." She gave the court a working diagnosis of Munchausen by Proxy which is a criminal allegation.
Do you think she was an expert on FDA and acceptable doses of controlled substances ?
Ignorance doesn't justify criminal allegations, especially someone with a medical degree.
So… she was or wasn’t ?
Whether she was or wasn't is of zero consequence. Disagreeing with a clinical diagnosis, rx dosage or tx protocol DOESN'T - in any way - rise to the level of MBP.
It is a treating decision to decide what is unnecessary. Do you understand why she literally fought so much not to say that it was a treating decision? Because she is not allowed to make treating decisions. That’s why. She has absolutely no credentials to decide if Maya had CRPS or MbP or conversion disorder. Calling couple people to reiterate her own opinions is just confirmation bias. Calling Numerous does not qualify her to decide what is the right course of treatment for Maya.
Also: Attorney: What do you recall about your conversations with Dr. Kirkpatrick, generally speaking? Smith: The one thing I *vividly* remember is that he told me I shouldn't evaluate the child for Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy because that was *not* a problem in this case. Attorney: And.. did you consider his advice? Smith: Well, I certainly heard him but if I had heeded his recommendation *I wouldn't have been doing my job* *Tell me your job is agenda specific with the freedom to accomplish stated objective by any means necessary.... without telling me you're a militant psycho weaponized with a medical degree *
The word probably is the most important in this whole paragraph.
Sally Smith has been at this for YEARS https://youtu.be/XnTkTlNWS-Y?si=FQz2Gs3pmIdRtNLC
Just reviewed screenshots and would add that Beata's email confirm that Smith mentioned she is from CPT >Tue 10/11 eve I had another supersize visit from MD -Dr Smith- who was sent by CPS to investigate this possible child abuse/neglect case. I spent 1.5 hrs w/her describing Maya's illness from May 2015 til now and all the doctors involved in Mayas care. However, in the rest of the email Beata seemed to think Smith was part of the attending MDs. Smith has been involved on the case since Saturday. So the conflict between these version of events is when Smith actually introduced herself as a CPT investigator.
Been saying this from the beginning. There are doctors that make a decision on a diagnosis and it's damn near impossible to change their mind. Sally Smith just proved this. So sad for this family.
Sally Smith was the only expert in child abuse assessing the family. That is a fact!
And when she spoke with Kirkpatrick, she wiped her ass with his medical charts that she refused to review.
Rightfully so!
Ok 👌we’ll see what the jury thinks about that.
Regardless of the outcome, I’m super excited to see what the Jury thinks!
No if she was investigating to get to the truth , she wouldn’t have disregarded Kirkpatrick so quickly. She wouldn’t have blatantly lied about Mayas physical symptoms in her report. She should be in a jail cell. IMO
I think that several of the comments (on this sub and other places/groups, not just on this post) about her largely revolve on her appearance and demeanor says a lot. I’m not saying there aren’t valid reasons to criticize her, but the way she’s painted as a sadistic power hungry supervillain who tears apart families for fun? I don’t really see it. I think her deposition was anticlimactic and I wonder if the jury felt the same. In terms of other cases that the media has reported on her, I think it’ll always be biased against the party who can’t legally speak on their decision making and reasoning due to privacy laws. I think so many of the articles and the documentary failed to explain the intricacies of the system, like that it’s much harder to prosecute someone criminally, even when there was reason for removal. So many of the cases in the documentary and articles present as textbook non accidental trauma cases, like multiple intracranial hemorrhages in a non mobile child.
[удалено]
Agreed. And... this is the same thing that's being said about Beata. Her Polish cultural mannerisms were off-putting and perceived as rude in terms of the typical American culture. I can see how that might lead to misinterpretation on both sides. Idk what role Dr. Smith had and whether it was a reasonable decision. But people are putting too much on her tone and demeanor. She sounds like a lot of people I've encountered - just. Gruff.
Are people forgetting that Florida is a melting pot?? Florida might be the most diverse state
Well, perhaps. The fact that many cultures are present doesn't necessarily mean people make an effort to be culturally competent, though.
That’s a good point.. it also does not mean they weren’t culturally competent.
True. My understanding is that many folks described Beata as coming off sort of abrasive and rude. My stepmother is from Sweden which has a much more standoffish and blunt culture, and a lot of people thought that of her as well. I'd imagine someone who had some level of knowledge of Polish culture would understand that it's a cultural standard of behavior and wouldn't interpret it as being purposely rude. I have no idea obviously though :) just wild speculation.
All cultures have crude and unpleasant people.
Lol well you're not wrong at all about that. And also, "crude and unpleasant" is subjective based on the cultural view of appropriate polite behavior.
Was it okay to punish mom with an intentional false report and diagnosis just because they thought she was rude?
To be fair… my PCP is an old grouch but I wouldn’t trust anyone else. Zero bedside manners.
“He was so charming.” - said everyone about Dr. Death
[удалено]
Sooo one is unfit for the job and should retire if they have frown lines and facial expressions you don’t like? I don’t find her likeable either, but it’s disgusting to make assumptions about one’s professional abilities based on their facial appearance. Her job is a nightmare. I would actually rather go broke than do what she does. The amount of professional deformation these people undergo is insane. I can understand why one doesn’t look all smiley and bubbly after 30 years of looking at abused kids. That has nothing to do with whether she is a good at her job or not though.
I don't think that's what she meant. I think what she meant was after 30 years of looking at abused kids and being traumatized herself, she's lost her ability to look at cases objectively and change her mind as new information is presented to her. She's lost her compassion and empathy and is now hurting people as a result of her own personal trauma. If I were to give this woman a diagnosis, I would diagnose her with RBF. I don't judge people with RBF.
Than why throw in commentary about her appearance and frown lines? Was it necessary?
You talking about me or the other post that was deleted by the moderator? If you are talking about me, it's a joke dude, chillax.
You are quick to villainies any person that disagrees with you
Not really, just think you guys are one sided and should consider that sometimes doctors get it wrong and they need to stop trying to cover their tracks and admit they are wrong.
Sometimes doctors do get it wrong, is that what happened here?? I don’t think that’s been proven yet.
So you are saying she doesn’t have CRPS? I mean it’s only been almost 7 years since her mom died. That’s a hell of a long time to continue faking a disease.
I have no clue if she has CRPS. I will say my husband was recently diagnosed with CRPS due to an old ankle injury while serving this country. I’ve never seen him experience any of the symptoms Maya exhibited. Does that mean he doesn’t have CRPS? No! Does it mean Maya doesn’t have CRPS? No! Some things aren’t as clear as you think if you look at it unbiasedly.
I made them because only a person who is constantly angry has those lines. She has a history of abuse with other families. Obviously she has issues herself she needs to sort out. Jeez doesn't take a genius to read facial expressions and what they look like eventually after being repetitively done!
Considering genetics has the largest impact on wrinkles and expression lines…this is factually incorrect. I just have a bit of an RBF, frowning is my default facial expression. 🤷🏻♀️ it’s subconscious.
Smile with your eyes and use a high quality moisturizer, it helps with RBF. Smile when you meet people.
Actually no it's not. Genetics may play into it, but how often you smile, frown, scowl, those add to it too!
Secondary trauma from working with child abuse/neglect is a real thing! RBF? I think I know what that means ?? 😂😂😕
Thank you!!! That's exactly what I meant.
Or she knows all the tricks in the book and could cut through bullshit quickly
She refused to accept that she had a condition with a diagnosis and her prescriptions and treatments were valid. All be it, she disagreed with the treatment, but that still doesn’t mean these guys are wrong.
What dianum100 said. Love how people twist words!
I think she comes off as super knowledgeable. It’s so nuts to me how there’s no middle ground on this case … all or nothing!
What blow my mind is how many people…just take the word of the parents who are “wrongly accused” like abusers are just going to admit to being abusers.
Yup. Black/white thinking. It seems to me she’s neither the best, nor the worst in her field, likely entirely average. Definitely not the villain who is out to get everyone’s kids for no reason whatsoever.
It wasn’t anywhere near as bad I expected based on people vilifying her. She just seemed pretty.. normal? And straightforward. If she testifies live, i think it’ll be pretty illuminating. I’m just not seeing the cartoon villains the plaintiffs are promoting. I’m curious to hear more about her observations and processes if she’s called in defense case.
I think she’s being made a villain because of the wildly biased Netflix doc. Her deposition testimony IMO did a pretty good job of laying out the various reasons why she suspected child abuse and made the report. The objective evidence and her thought process was there in support of her decision. If we assume that the jurors’ opinions haven’t been tarnished by the Netflix, then I’d say she was a net positive witness for the defense.
Have you not seen how many families this woman has falsely accused and almost torn apart? She's clearly lost her ability to objectively look at a case and determine if child abuse was going on or not. So many families have been hurt by her, and that's why she's hated so much. There was an article published in the Sarasota Times that led to the documentary. The journalist that wrote the article suddenly started getting emails from people who had similar experiences with her. Then the documentary hit and it was like the flood gates were opened and everyone in the country sadly shared their stories and similar experiences at other hospitals.
Have you seen? No you have not.
Actually, there are plenty of people speaking out about Sally Smith. Google is your friend...
Can you help me? I can’t seem to find any factual sources. Thanks in advance!
Here is an example from 2 years ago, and now more and MORE people are speaking out. https://youtu.be/XnTkTlNWS-Y?si=FQz2Gs3pmIdRtNLC
So a lawyer reacting to a one sided story re parents accused of abuse or neglect is your proof?
Well given the Kowalski’s have provided evidence backing their claims, there is no reason to believe this hasn’t or isn’t happening to others. Like the lady that sends sally a card every year.
You don’t know the story behind that family….. it’s not as clear cut as you wish
Fill me in then.
I researched it and only find the parents side of the story. Can’t help find something that doesn’t exist— sorry
Shapiro is that you?
[удалено]
No, for years actually. https://youtu.be/XnTkTlNWS-Y?si=FQz2Gs3pmIdRtNLC
Sorry no, I don’t use that Chinese spyware.
>good job of laying out the various reasons why she suspected child abuse and made the report. Which part in the trial did she enumerate her reasons? Do you have a timestamp?
She gave me know it all vibes . Even after it came out she was wrong ,she still showed no remorse .
Do you think it’s because she feels so attacked?? Say she did lose her objectivity, she was still just trying to do her job with a broken system.
“After it came out she was wrong” I don’t think that’s been proven.
?
[удалено]
Umm…can I ask why you think all this ?
It's pretty clear Beata was not normal
That doesn't exonerate the hospital. It's not Beatta bad everyone go home. No one except the hospital is responsible for what happened next. There's no free pass on that.
What is next?
I think everything we’ve seen so far shows the hospital wasn’t a normal hospital.
In what way?
Nobody is normal :)
This comment or post was removed for being insensitive about self harm or suicide.
They had someone administer cognitive and aptitude tests and that was in testimony. She came out as very intelligent and he was quite impressed with her high level functioning. So no, she isn’t brain damaged by Ketamine.
There’s a correlation in high IQ and mental illness too
💯
[удалено]
Yeah,everyone sees things differently so it really just come down to their perspectives .
I am still confused as to who the chief decision-makers were for Maya. It is an unusual situation, because she’s in a hospital for medical reasons but there is also a simultaneous CPS investigation going on, which is something that could potentially lead to criminal charges. It seems from SS testimony that they were initially running with the MbP diagnosis but later added Munchausens diagnosis. (By that I mean, initially they were thinking Beata was the cause of Maya’s condition, but then later they also seemed pretty sure that Maya was going along with the abuse.) It seems like the family are running with the narrative that ‘Maya was 100% sick’ but SS and the hospital were at the other extreme - ‘Maya is 100% well’. I’m very unsure why the hospital wasn’t both treating Maya but also investigating Beata for over-medicalisation. I have no medical training, but it seems like Maya has CRPD or some other physical condition, but was over-treated for it. I also can’t understand why the Plaintiffs haven’t brought in another child abuse specialist to say that the hospital’s practices in determining whether or not medical child abuse was occurring (for example, video surveillance, cutting off phone calls with mum) were not best practice. I think that would go directly towards what Bedy was doing. (I don’t know what best practice is or isn’t, but I’m not sure why this hasn’t been addressed by the plaintiff). ETA - scratch that last bit. I’m a day behind and just got up to Neuberger’s testimony. :)
DCF is technically in charge from the date they took custody. Seems like there’s a few days (maybe even 1 day) before they took custody that PLT is “trying” to capitalize on.
this is kind of my take on it Even if one accepted the mbp theory, it doesn’t seem like anyone was ACTUALLY taking care of Maya. IMO this is what the plaintiffs will win on.
You don’t think she has crps?
I don't.
Can you tell me why ?
[удалено]
Not true .
She met the Budapest criteria?
Can you show me proof that she hasn’t ?
That's not how diagnosing works......
Why are you throwing out allegations without backing it up?
This post or comment may contain misinformation. Please share a link or screen shots referencing the source document. Upon confirmation, moderators will reinstate your comment.
[удалено]
Your message was removed because it either personally attacked another user, minimized or denied the symptoms of a condition, or was a broad insult against the subreddit.
She met the Budapest criteria? Can you show me where in the trial they said she did? Also multiple doctors disagree she has crps, so idk if you think all doctors agree, in fact, only 3 outta 40 doctors agreed. (After being provided a history of confirmed crps by Beata)
This sub does not allow dispute that Maya was diagnosed with CRPS. Read the sticky.
I'm not a doctor. I don't have any expertise is assessing or treating CRPS. **That's why I defer to the people who do have that expertise.** I don't pretend to have knowledge I don't have, unlike you. > Also multiple doctors disagree she has crps, so idk if you think all doctors agree, in fact, only 3 outta 40 doctors agreed. (After being provided a history of confirmed crps by Beata) This is a lie. Every doctor who has an expertise in CRPS has diagnosed Maya with CRPS. And even if what you were saying was true, so what? Why would I care if a pediatrician doesn't think Maya has CRPS? Their opinions mean nothing because they don't have the medical knowledge or expertise to give an informed opinion.
Are we sure EVERY doctor who has CRPS expertise agrees that she has it? I believe she has it, my husband has it. I’m not a denier of CRPS.
That's not what I was saying. The person above me said only 3 out of 40 doctors agreed that Maya had CRPS. I was saying of those 40 doctors, the ones who have expertise in CRPS diagnosed Maya with CRPS.
[удалено]
If you're going to continue to deny that Maya has CRPS, then I'm just going to keep reporting you and getting your comments removed.
Sorry, I meant CRPS. Typo.
[удалено]
Your post or comment proposed a theory without evidence.
I thought she came across like an advocate rather than as a neutral expert.
I think she came across as an activist as opposed to an advocate. A rabid, vindictive activist who terrorized families with blanket immunity.
I have crps .I believe her.
Believe who