I am Concerned That Pedophiles are Being Taken Priority Over Children.

[u/Wise-Milk-604]

!Trigger Warning!

This post contains sensitive content, which includes child and sexual abuse. I also want to include the number for the suicide crisis helpline for those who require additional support: 988. To protect the minor's identity, no identifying information will be provided, including my own; no names or dates will be shared. The events described herein are well documented, and there is both audio and legal documentation to substantiate the concerns presented. I will carefully consider the legal implications before sharing any supporting information to ensure my protection. It is my belief that the public needs to be made aware of these matters, as I am advocating for adjustments to policies that will enhance child safety. Additionally, I hope to identify avenues of support for the mother. Prior to sharing this information, I obtained the mother’s consent. I am dedicated to advocating for children and social justice; therefore, if anyone wishes to share their experiences and contribute to raising awareness about the need for changes in child protection laws, I encourage you to do so in the comments if you are comfortable.

The mother took her child to the Calgary Children's Hospital following a visit with the father. Upon placing the child in the car seat, the child exhibited significant distress, crying in pain. She kept close observation of her child. During a bath, it became apparent that the child had concerning symptoms, including dilation of both orifices resembling the size of a loonie, a slight tear and evidence of a prolapsed anus. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the mother contacted support for assistance in taking the child to the hospital.

At the hospital, the child displayed considerable pain, requiring her to be swaddled in a blanket for vital sign assessments and necessitating sedation for a medical examination. Initial evaluations included meetings with a physician and a social worker. Upon viewing the child’s genitalia, the doctor informed the mother that they would perform DNA testing, blood work, take photographs, and notify law enforcement. With the social worker, the mother disclosed finding child pornography in her ex’s possession. The doctor left the room to make calls and had a changed demeanour upon return. He subsequently stated that they would refrain from the aforementioned actions and redirected the mother to a facility named Luna, which was purportedly better equipped for such evaluations (rape kit) but advised her to go the following day.

Upon contacting Luna the next day, the mother was informed that they could not perform evaluations without a physician's referral. This led to distress when the mother later discovered that the attending physician at the Children's Hospital had minimized his findings in the medical report. The documentation minimized the conditions, reporting laxity and redness, stating the mother overreacted over a previously unnoticed skin tag. It was also recorded that the child did not appear to be in pain, despite observable evidence to the contrary, and multiple witnesses confirmed that the child faced difficulties even sitting for an extended period thereafter.

Follow the mother accommodated her child’s hygiene by performing peri-care. The child displayed defensiveness when her genital area was touched, displaying signs of fear. Mother worked with the police, who instructed her to photograph the incident. Eight days post-incident, the mother photographed the affected area, which she presented to law enforcement. It is noteworthy that pediatric healing can occur rapidly, potentially complicating the confirmation of sexual abuse. Nevertheless, the condition observed after eight days prompted police recommendations for a second opinion. I want to mention that this opinion would be based on images as the time period was too far between for a genital examination.

After consulting with a nearby health center, another doctor reviewed the image and requested the mother return the following day for a pediatric evaluation, during which police would also be present. Upon returning, the mother found no pediatrician or law enforcement available. Another physician assessed the child’s vitals and abdominal area and verbally expressed concern over the image taken of the child eight days post-incident. He subsequently contacted the Children’s Hospital, which dismissed abnormalities as likely constipation, despite the mother asserting the child had soft stools and the doctor not detecting obstructions.

It is essential to highlight that during the initial and subsequent visits to the health center, physicians neither directly examined the child's genitalia. The health assessments were limited to vital signs and abdominal palpation. As the child sat on the hospital bed of the health centre, she repeatedly expressed discomfort, verbally, saying, “Owe, owe, owe.” Again, this has been almost two weeks since the Children’s Hospital.

In response to the mother pursuing a second opinion, the Children’s Hospital reported her to Child and Family Services (CFS) on the grounds of purported emotional abuse. CFS was directed to inform the mother she was prohibited from seeking further medical intervention for her daughter.

Two weeks following the initial incident, the child exhibited persistent itching in the genital area, prompting the mother to return to the hospital after being prompted by three different supporters. During this visit, a different doctor undertook a comprehensive examination. The child was again sedated to verify the integrity of her hymen, which thankfully was confirmed as intact.

Treatment included a prescription for medication targeting potential parasitic infections to treat itchiness despite no evidence confirming worms. During this evaluation, the mother disclosed that a police investigation related to child pornography had concluded, proceeding to the King's Bench regarding what charges to be placed on her ex.

However, complications arose when the doctor, in poor taste, documented that the mother expressed concerns regarding the ex awaiting charges that he was unaware of, despite the mother telling the doctor in confidence. This allowed the father to see what was discussed in private. The doctor articulated that if these concerns had been substantiated, they would not be in this current situation, indicating that child protection measures would have been enacted. I want to note that this particular pediatrician had previously received communication from the health center physician and had initially reported the mother to CFS without seeing the child until this point. This interaction with the pediatrician led to further complications with the child protection agency and other emergency professionals.

As the mother previously mentioned, the father was eventually charged with 4 different counts relating to sexual crimes against children. Law enforcement referred to the Children's Hospital’s physician's report to support and advocate for the father in maintaining parental rights over his child. Currently, the father remains prohibited from contact with minors under the age of 16, with the exception of his daughter, who exhibited ongoing signs of potential sexual abuse.

The documented evidence demonstrates that the Children's Hospital’s actions created significant barriers for the mother to secure necessary medical interventions for her daughter during emergencies. The authorities ceased to assist, and CFS treated the mother’s actions with skepticism, leading to concerns about the child being further subjected to abuse.

Faced with these challenges, the mother sought assistance from non-emergency services but was further condemned. I desperately sought assistance and called many local support services to see if they could provide the mother and child with any type of assistance. Due to the complexities, they were unable to assist but did attempt to report stated concerns to CFS, who never followed up.

The child repeatedly returned with noticeably altered genitalia with consistent swelling and dilation and notable behavioural changes. CFS ordered the mother not to take her child for medical intervention relating to the abuse, and despite her attempts to reach out for their assistance to maintain their demands she was met with no response. She was met with similar experiences when reaching out to law enforcement. At this point, she was unaware of what she was to do and concerned if she took any action, it would be met with repercussions.

After a particularly distressing episode, I provided encouraging support to the mother, who hesitantly agreed to seek hospital assistance once more for her child.

During this visit, the mother met with a physician who made a note of whatever flag she was under. He appeared irritated and sighed audibly while saying, “This again?” The mother acknowledged his irritation by expressing she knew he did not see her as credible but to please assist her child. After she presented the physician with images, without saying another word, he respectfully excused himself promptly to seek additional assistance from a pediatrician. To me, this incident confirmed that the discrimination exhibited by the Children’s Hospital contributed to biased perceptions, causing a child to be previously denied care and affecting the overall quality of care amongst different areas of services.

Fortunately, the child was seen by an exceptionally professional pediatrician who addressed the child with compassion. Before examining the child, she analyzed the images of the previous incident and expressed deep concern. She proceeded to educate the mother on the difficulty of confirming sexual abuse, particularly in children. She highlighted and emphasized the importance of ensuring that children are presented for medical evaluation immediately following any potential abuse, regardless of the challenges in confirming such incidents. Timely medical documentation and evaluation is crucial, as it can play a vital role in assessing and managing the child's care.

She continued to educate that medical is unable to confirm sexual abuse unless there are visible tears or semen present that can be collected. She instructed the mother to seek immediate medical attention during any future occurrences of suspected abuse and even behaviour changes. She assured the mother that she would make a note for other medical professionals to see with instructions to document their observations thoroughly.

Despite the comprehensive nature of these accounts, the mother continues to face scrutiny and barriers within child welfare systems. While no definitive conclusion can be drawn regarding the allegations of abuse, the prevailing circumstances indicate that the child remains vulnerable, as the mother finds herself navigating the failing systems as she supports her daughter’s needs.

Shortly thereafter, the mother was visited by CFS, who informed her that she was once again under investigation for emotional abuse. They stated, “There has been direction historically from medical professionals that you are not supposed to take her in again because nothing has been found in the regards of those concerns.” Consequently, she was once again subjected to an investigation due to her decision to take her child to the hospital following another incident of potential assault.

The pediatrician had concerns but was limited to help based on set policies that failed to protect children. This investigation occurred despite the fact that a medical professional had advised her to seek care. The Children’s Hospital's previous directives implied that she could not bring her child to the hospital, even in light of documented discrepancies noted by a pediatrician and specific instructions indicating the necessity for further evaluation when confronted with similar concerns.

They seemed to prioritize concerns regarding the mother's decision to seek medical attention for her daughter in relation to potential emotional abuse rather than addressing the more pressing issue of the child’s exposure to an individual who had been charged with four counts related to harm against children, thereby potentially subjecting a child to further abuse and removing protective barriers which maintain a vulnerable child’s safety. They also ignore signs of child returning with bruising, without items of clothing, lethargic, disoriented, and among other concerns which are minimized or disregarded.

I want to emphasize that in accordance with the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the standards of practice set forth by the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Alberta, as well as the Alberta College of Social Workers, professionals are prohibited from denying or restricting care to patients, particularly within vulnerable populations such as children. These professionals are responsible for adhering to the laws, advocating for children's rights, and working toward reforming injustice policies. What I have observed in my perception constitutes a direct violation of both the child's and the guardian's human rights. Furthermore, the Provincial Policing Standards state, "No one is above the law," underscoring the obligation to uphold justice and accountability.

[u/Mathers401]

This relates to confidence , how?