Nancy Hey, vegan mother - pediatrics issues and custody

[Guest guest]

I worked with Nancy at FARM in the early 1990s.

 

Here's her story:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/978924093

Petition to Return Sabrina to her Natural Parents

 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/978924093

 

Peacefully yours,

Sabrina's Mom

 

On April 3, 2005, Sabrina was born to Nancy Hey. She weighed 7 lb. 4 oz.

Mother and baby were released from the hospital on April 5, 2005. On April 8,

2005, Ms. Hey took Sabrina to the pediatrician for a regular post-birth

follow-up. The baby had lost weight (from 7lb. 4oz. to 6lb. 12oz.) so the

pediatrician recommended supplementation with formula (Ms. Hey was nursing) and

a follow-up visit several days later. Ms. Hey saw the pediatrician three more

times after that initial visit. Although Sabrina's weight only dropped to 6 lb.

10 oz., she did not exhibit a sustained weight gain. As a result, on that third

visit, the doctor who saw Ms. Hey and Sabrina indicated that Sabrina%u2019s

weight loss and lack of sustained weight gain was more significant than Ms. Hey

had been led to believe and he instructed Ms. Hey to admit Sabrina to the

hospital. So, on April 16, 2005, Sabrina and Ms. Hey were admitted

to Virginia Hospital Center. Sabrina was admitted with

a failure to thrive diagnosis. After increasing the amount of formula used to

supplement Ms. Hey's breast feeding, Sabrina gained weight. On April 19, Ms. Hey

was visited by a social worker from the Arlington County Child Protective

Services. On April 20, Ms. Hey and her live-in companion, Kit Slitor, (not the

biological father of the baby) were compelled to sign a 'Safety Plan' presented

to them by the Arlington County CPS social worker. They were informed a refusal

to sign would prevent the baby from being discharged. The following day, Ms.

Hey and Sabrina were released from the hospital. On the date of release,

Sabrina weighed 7 lb. 5 oz.

On April 22, the social worker and one or more home nurses visited

the family. The social worker returned the next day, Saturday, April 23;

however, Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor refused her entry, stating they wanted a 'time

out' while they retained legal counsel (a letter to that effect was handed to

the social worker). Over the weekend they sought, and by Monday morning they

retained, an attorney who immediately attempted to contact the social worker.

(Another attorney who is a friend had attempted to contact the social worker

over the weekend.) Notwithstanding the fact that counsel managed to speak to

the social worker sometime late Monday morning, the social worker went forward

with a request for an Emergency Removal Order which was granted. The Order was

executed that day, April 25, and Sabrina was placed in foster care. At the time

of removal, Sabrina weighed 8 lb. 1 oz., a 12 oz. gain from April 21 the day on

which Sabrina was released from the hospital.

On May 2, the Court made a finding of abuse and neglect and ordered

psychological evaluations for both Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor. Those evaluations,

which were performed by individuals hired by the County, occurred over the

course of the next two weeks. Following those evaluations, a Foster Care

Service Plan was developed by the County. The Plan's stated goal was 'return

home' and it imposed several obligations on the parents, all of which they have

complied with. On July 5, the Foster Care Service Plan was presented to the

Court and accepted.

Although visits were occurring between Sabrina and Ms. Hey and Mr.

Slitor, they did not occur on a set, regular schedule. The visits that did take

place, took place at the County offices and were only approximately one hour in

duration and usually no more than twice a week, although some weeks there was

only one visit. By early September, for all intents and purposes, the visits

had ceased, because Sabrina had exhibited increasing signs of distress. At a

follow-up hearing on October 25, the Court ordered that a home visit occur.

That visit occurred three days later, on October 28, after which both sides

submitted to the Court memoranda summarizing the visit. On November 14, the

Court issued a letter ordering that visits continue to occur in the parents'

home. One such additional visit occurred, on November 23, approximately a month

after the previous in-home visit. Those two visits are the only visits Ms. Hey

had been able to participate in since late

August/early September. Mr. Slitor, whom the County wanted to evaluate as the

potential primary caretaker since Ms. Hey had been ruled out by the County as

such, did have several short visits on his own in October and one in December.

(It should be noted that Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor got married in October.)

At a follow-up hearing in late November, the Court ordered both

sides to submit a plan for facilitating the goal of return home, which both

sides did. In mid-December, the Court informed both sides that it had accepted

the plan submitted on behalf of Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor, which contemplated

regular, frequent visits with increasing duration accompanied by instruction

from a qualified home-based services provider. The Court ordered that all

visitation cease until the new reunification process could begin with the new

service providers. The Court also ordered that Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor be

financially responsible for the services to be provided.

Starting in January, that plan was implemented and the reunification

process got underway. Initially, the service providers familiarized themselves

with Sabrina and Sabrina with them. They then slowly and carefully reintroduced

the parents to Sabrina in an effort to properly restart the attachment process.

The visits occurred on a set schedule (3 days a week) in the parents%u2019 home

and, as time went on, the duration of the visits steadily increased. During

these visits, the parents received parenting instruction and once a week they

participated in a parent-infant therapy session. The amount of instruction

provided by the home-based workers decreased as time went on.

This process continued until approximately June 15, by which time

Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor were spending more than 20 hours a week with Sabrina and

even had had two supervised overnight visits with Sabrina. Notably, throughout

this process, Sabrina did not exhibit any of the distress she previously

exhibited which had led the County to essentially terminate visits. However, on

June 15, the Court accepted the County's proposed change in goal, put forth in

March, from 'return home' to 'adoption'. This occurred notwithstanding the

Court's acknowledgment that significant progress had been made in the

reunification process and that the parents had maintained consistent contact

with Sabrina.

A hearing on the County%u2019s petition for termination of parental

rights was scheduled for September 20, 21, and 22. However, on September 20,

the parties agreed to the entry of an involuntary termination order. They also

agreed upon continued visitation, albeit on a truncated scale (Ms. Hey and Mr.

Slitor now see Sabrina only every other week for three hours which primarily is

the result of the foster parents having moved to North Carolina), pending an

appeal of both the change of goal and the termination to the Circuit Court for

Arlington County. That appeal got underway in December 2006 and is scheduled to

continue at least through April 24, 2007.

In addition to the judicial action, the County issued, on June 20,

2005, an administrative finding against Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor of physical

neglect and failure to thrive, assigning the highest possible level to its

finding. As a result of this finding, Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor currently are

subject to having their names appear on the Virginia Department of Social

Services Child Abuse/Neglect Central Registry for a period of 18 years.

Upon a request for an appeal, a local conference was held on

November 30, 2005. The presiding official was the Deputy Director of Social

Services for Arlington County. On December 6, 2005, the Deputy Director issued

her decision which was to uphold the initial finding. Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor

appealed this decision and, on June 21, 2006, that appeal was heard by a hearing

officer designated by the Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Social

Services. On September 1, 2006, the hearing officer issued his decision.

In short, the hearing officer determined that the Agency (i.e., the

County) failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence its contention that

Sabrina met the criteria for a finding of physical neglect-failure to thrive

and, accordingly, reversed the decision. As a result, Ms. Hey and Mr. Slitor

are no longer subject to appearing on the Child Abuse/Neglect Central Registry.

Despite having been exonerated in the administrative proceeding, the

judicial action continues unresolved. On June 1st, 2007, Judge James Almand of

the Fourth Circuit Court of Arlington County ruled to uphold the lower court's

ruling to terminate the parental rights of Nancy Hey, and to deny the petitions

for custody filed by Sabrina's stepfather Kit Slitor and maternal grandmother

Louise Hey.

 

Target: Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine

 

Created by: Kit and Nancy, Sabrina's parents