I want to show you all something

[Guest guest]

This is an update on the mother/teacher, who she and her child were made sick from mold in their school. An infectious disease doctor, who has bought the hype that mold cannot cause serious illness, called Child Protective Services on this poor woman. The doctor made a psychological diagnosis of Follie a Deux, meaning folly of two. There is no such medical diagnosis. No ICD Code for that one.

Within another jurisdiction of CPS where they now reside, the charges were deemed to be completely unfounded. She no longer has to fear that CPS will take her child, just because the physicians of America are being told that serious illness does not occur from mold.

The reason I want to show you what is to follow, is because I want you all to see what is the end result of what can happen when the false concept of implausibility - that is meant to limit financial liability within the courtroom - spills into all other areas of the mold issue.

When making his ruling in the jurisdiction that found the mother guilty, the Children's court judge relied on only two things:

1. An infectious disease doctor, who has been told mold illness is hype, making a psychological diagnosis that does not exist.

Pg 67. of trail transcript: Official charge of CPS is that mother has “Follie a Deux†mental illness. Court records show that NO ONE examined mother when making these charges. There is no such medical diagnosis as “Follie a Deuxâ€

2. A document from the school district (within the same country and where there is a worker's comp claim pending) saying "absolutely no mold"

Pg 70, line 23 CPS Attorney: “Okay. Your honor is indicating that the child does not have that?

Judge: Right

CPS Attorney: Okay, based on that the department’s view is – the department would be in the position that, it the condition does not exist, then the question becomes was the mother’s conduct in the face of that reasonable by an objective standard?

CPS attorney: “Dr. XXXX, child’s pediatrician, who’s seen him for a number of years says he has determined the child only has two conditions. But if your honor in determining that a condition does not exist then the question becomes was the mother’s conduct in the face of that reasonable by an objective standard? The department submits that it is not, that she has not been reasonable, that it places him at risk of harm, that the court should take jurisdiction with this child. Services are necessary so that the mother can obtain certain evaluations and the child can obtain certain evaluations so that the mother can reunify….†[Mother's only 'conduct' was to remove the child from the school and seek medical treatment for symptoms indicative of toxicity]

Pg 67. Says child is deprived of going to school. CPS did not follow up regarding child’s appropriate home schooling under state law.

Pg 70. CPS is arguing that mother’s conduct is not reasonable to remove child from school. THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE HARM TO CHILD.

Pg 87 line 11 Judge: “First of all, there was no mold. It was tested. All the sites where she says there was mold, that she ingested to cause all these problems there was no mold. The school district ran tests. There was none. And then all the symptoms she says she not only has but her son has, they didn’tâ€â€¦.â€and then tests are conducted and find out there is absolutely no mold there, they’re not suffering from symptoms.â€

[There was very high levels of mold in the air quality tests. I am not certain what document provided by the school district, the judge was reading from.]

Do you see the root cause and pervasive insidiousness of this situation?

Sharon