DR. JONES' HEARING SYNOPSIS
(DAY EIGHT)
April 19, 2007
This 8th day of the hearing took place in a stuffy room, where there was
inadequate space for the 75 people in attendance. Given that this was a
public hearing, there was concern among the audience that the public was
not provided adequate space to witness the proceedings.
Many of us were aware that Dr. Jones had spent countless hours preparing
information on Mycoplasma fermentans, at the request of the health
department attorney. As the hearing began, the attorney withdrew his
request for this information.
The first witness called was JS, the father of the two children from
Nevada that Dr. Jones had successfully treated for Lyme and
co-infections. Mr. S indicated that he had been divorced from the
children's mother in 2003, and he saw the children on weekends (from
Sunday to Monday), and on school vacations. By 2004, it was changed to
every other weekend. Although Mr. S shared legal custody, the
children.s mother was granted physical custody.
Mr. S has since moved to California, and is now planning to see the
children on school vacations. Mr. S stated that his ex-wife had file
complaints against him with the police, but that he was never arrested,
and all charges were dismissed. The divorce was finalized in February
of 2006.
Mr. S characterized his ex-wife as a hysterical woman, and alleged that
she claimed to have various illnesses, as well as concerns (implications
being that they were false) about their children's health. At one
point, he stated that he had told a doctor that "we got divorced because
my wife can't stop lying."
Mr. S indicated that he had had no knowledge that his son was out of
school (see prior synopses) until told by his son, and when he learned
that an IEP meeting was scheduled, he went to school. He did
acknowledge later in the testimony that he had not attended
parent-teacher conferences.
Mr. S denied that he saw any indication of illness when his children
visited with him. Although he denied problems with his son, he did
acknowledge that S was in a special education class, and stated that a
special arrangement needed to be made, with parental involvement in the
classroom for a month, when there were behavioral problems.
(Note: For background, read the synopsis of the testimony given on Day
5 by the children's mother)
When Mr. S discussed the feedback he had gotten from the children,
regarding their visit to Dr. Jones' for their first appointment, he
claimed that the children told him Dr. Jones had spent 5 to 10 minutes
with them. Mr. S's claim that he had repeatedly requested medical
information from Dr. Jones' office and had not received the information
was refuted by Dr. Jones, who said he released the records once he had
the proper documentation confirming Mr. S right to the records. Dr.
Jones also stated that he had had 2 or 3 conversations with Mr. S, after
his right to information had been properly established.
Dr. Jones' attorney brought up issues regarding Mr. S -- His objection
to
home schooling, yet his denying the behavior problems his son was having
in school was one issue. Also presented was the TRO (temporary
restraining order) Mr. S's ex-wife had against him for stalking. Also
brought into evidence was a report by the school psychologist indicating
behavior problems at "home", with Mr. S stating "What is home -- his
mother's home or my home?", a statement that appears to be misleading,
given that his ex-wife had sole physical custody. Mr. S continued to
deny his son's social isolation issues, as well as health problems both
children were having.
Upon cross-examination, Mr. S acknowledged that he had bitten the
children, and that he'd acknowledged that to the police. (The biting
had been a source of a complaint filed by his ex-wife, as she had
testified previously -- see Synopsis of Day 5) Mr. S implied that his
ex-wife had mental problems. He contended that a CPS worker had
recommended that he file charges against her for "Munchausen's by
Proxy". He testified that his attorney advised him against that action.
Mr. S acknowledged that there had been custody issues discussed in the
courts for 5 years, and that his ex-wife retained physical custody of
the children. His testimony clearly implied that he believed that she
had mental problems, and that these were major concerns of his.
Following Mr. S's testimony, the school psychologist from Nevada
testified. She confirmed that the son was seen by the teachers as
having problems with behavior and inattention. He was withdrawn, and
the teachers had "social concerns."
There was also telephone testimony from two physicians in Nevada, who
had briefly treated the children. Both acknowledged that they did not
know much about Lyme disease.
Editorial comment: In summary, the testimony of the father alleged that
medical problems were not an issue with his children, except as seen by
his ex-wife. Mr. S appears to have become involved with the school
only when there was a chance that his son would be home schooled, or
placed on homebound instruction. In the end, Mr. S moved to another
state, over 300 miles away, despite his expressions of concerns for his
children's welfare.
Sandy Berenbaum, LCSW, BCD
Family Connections Center for Counseling
Brewster, New York
(845) 259-9838 ***
Next Day...