HomeSearch for 'cases'

cases - Baby-sitting & Childcare

My opinion on the number of cases of autism increasing.?

Posted in Child Care on 11th March 2014

My opinion on the number of cases of autism increasing.?
A lot of doctors and scientists say that autism has been growing in children, some even saying that the environment or the water we drink may have something to do with it.

But couldn’t it also be that the number of cases is increasing simply because more and more doctors are willing to diagnose it to children? (good-old fashioned stupidity being diagnosed as autism).

Best answer(s):

Answer by Trixie
More and more children that are born end up being diagnosed with the brain disease every single day and every year. Autism is increasing bit by bit, and no one knows why. But what i want to know is what causes it so that perhaps we might be able to find a cure for it.

Answer by Joseph
The number of diagnoses of autism are increasing. It is important to distinguish this claim from one that says the number of _cases_ of autism are increasing. There is no good evidence to show that the true prevalence of the condition is actually increasing, but that’s possible.

The issue can be looked at in two ways: (1) What passive databases — e.g. special education counts and service-provision reports — show; (2) What prevalence studies show.

Passive (“you find us”) database counts are affected by awareness. People generally have to be aware about autism and seek diagnoses before they are counted.

Prevalence studies are different. Their results depend on the true prevalence of the condition, the diagnostic criteria/methods/tools, the screening methods, and case-finding methods.

Diagnostic criteria for autism is currently much broader than it was in the past. It also appears that case-finding methods have also improved over time.

Note that these issues could also, in principle, hide a true decline in the prevalence of autism.

Answer by Heidi N
I hate it when people say there is no evidence, no proof, no correlation. That can never be true ever. You can find reports that peanut butter causes cancer, or tomatoes, or whatever. And then you can find studies that say it prevents cancer. My point is that you can never say never because there is way too much research out there for you to have read it all. Thus, you can say I never saw it, but you can not say it doesn’t exist. Everyone over 40 with a decent memory knows that we did NOT have all this cancer, autism, Bipolar, ADHD, etc. We know we didn’t have it because we did NOT see any hyper people. You can say we are diagnosing ADHD more, but you can easily search your memory to see if there were hyper kids in your elementary classes. There were not. Although, I have heard that New York has some hyper ones first, but most states didn’t see hyperactivity until the 80’s, just a few, and the 90’s, all over the place. With cancer, it was very rare to hear about it. Now, one in three get it. Not only is autism an alarming epidemic, but so are thousands of other illnesses in epidemic proportions. In my neighborhood, one in three homes has someone diagnosed with a mental or developmental illness. I have gobs of disabled neighbors in their 40s and 50’s. Wake up world; things are bad. In my childhood, there were 5 people in the entire grade level that went for some assisted learning for English or Math. Now, there are entire classrooms of special needs children who can not do any regular education classes. Diagnosed or not, they have much more severe symptoms and are much more disabled.

Answer by Sunny
So, autism is just being diagnosed better to your mind, right? And the “experts” say it’s “incurable” and will require “lifetime care”. And current numbers indicate that 1 in 91 children (1 in 57 boys) have autism..

So, just WHERE are these autistic adults? You MUST know several. You must have several in your family. There must be WAREHOUSES of these folks, right?

You don’t know any, because they don’t EXIST. This is an EPIDEMIC–environmental, as they all are.

Answer by AnnaBelle
A friend of mine has a son who was diagnosed with Autism in 2007, when he was 3 years old. She has two other children, a girl and a boy. In the last 10 weeks, both of them have been diagnosed as well, the youngest being 2 years old. That’s 3 of her 3 children diagnosed with Autism. And you don’t think it’s an epidemic?! It’s growing all right. Totally out of control.

I am inclined to agree with Sunny, that Autism is reversable and preventable. To imply that Autism simply could have been masquerading as “stupidity” for all those years really speaks volumes about YOUR intellect. I believe that it is largely environmental and dietary. And I believe that the influx of toxic CRAP coming into our bodies every day is taking its toll on all of us…Some are affected by autism, some cancer, some alzheimers, etc…And while we are busy “fundraising” for a “cure”, relinquishing control of monetary resources to people who do NOT have ANYONE’s best interest at heart (Big Pharma) we waste time and energy that could be spent healing ourselves and our children. You can’t expect to continue taking in toxic crap from our water, food and air, and pop a magic “cure” pill.

But good on those doctors, eh? Pfft.

Answer by Jennifer L
Yes. That can be a factor. I’ve worked in child/adolescent psych for a few years and that was discussed at length by the psychiatrists. Also, some of the diagnostic criteria has changed over the years. I agree that over-diagnosis and misdiagnosis can contribute to the perception that autism incidents are increasing.

Same thing with ADHD. Yes, there are children with this diagnosis and they do need medications. But it wasn’t that long ago when doctors were slapping that ADHD diagnosis (without being tested by a qualified specialist) and handing out Ritalin like candy.

Another factor can be that the wrong doctors are making the diagnosis. Autism should be diagnosed by a child/adolescent psychiatrist. Not a pediatrician. Not a family doctor. Not even an adult psychiatrist. You wouldn’t expect your family doctor to do open heart surgery, so don’t expect them to diagnose severe mental illness.

I remember one instance where a parent got very angry with a doctor because he wouldn’t diagnose the child with autism. The reason the parent wanted the diagnosis was because being autistic meant more benefits.

Six Most Important Child Support Cases In Pennsylvania Since 2005

Posted in Child Support on 15th May 2011

Six Most Important Child Support Cases In Pennsylvania Since 2005

For several years, I have been privileged to teach lawyers about the latest developments in child support as one of the hosts of Family Law Update, a satellite broadcast presentation sponsored by the Pennsyvlania Bar Institute. Since I joined the panel in 2005, several important decisions have influenced the direction of Pennsylvania child support law. Here is my summary of the six most important cases (and one change in the law itself) since 2005:

#6 – Reinert v. Reinert, 926 A.2d 539 (Pa.Super.2007). The Superior Court in this case affirmed the continuing viability of the “nurturing parent doctrine,” a policy in which the courts may excuse the mother of a young child from working to contribute toward the support of the child. Prior to this decision, it was established that a mother may refrain from working even to raise the child of a subsequent relationship. Yet, in Reinert, the Superior Court took the policy to its extreme. The Court terminated the support obligation of a mother who did not have custody of her eldest child when she gave birth to twins by a subsequent relationship and elected to stay at home to raise them.

#5 – Murphy v. McDermott, 2009 WL 2365992 (2009). The question of whether a parent must pay private school tuition may be raised in child support proceedings, but it is also a legal custody issue. The problem is: the legal standards to answer that question are different in support and custody proceedings. The Murphy case demonstrates how important “status quo” can be, compelling a parent to pay tuition even if he or she objected at the time when the child was enrolled in private or parochial school. The lesson: parents must get involved in the choice of schooling before the question of paying comes up.

#4 – Berry v. Berry, 2006 Pa.Super. 98 (2006). When child support becomes an issue between divorcing parents, the courts must decide whether certain income sources – such as pensions, rental properties and businesses – should be considered as marital property or income for support purposes. Generally, they cannot be both. In Berry, the Superior Court held that severance pay would be counted as marital property if acquired before separation or income if acquired after separation.

#3 – Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433 (Pa.Super.2009). While this decision might be limited to its unique factual circumstances, the Superior Court certainly affected settlement practice by holding the estate of a deceased parent responsible for the payment of child support. The deceased parent had entered into a marital settlement agreement with his ex-wife, promising to pay child support until the youngest child was 18 years of age. The agreement did not specify whether the obligation would terminate upon the death of a parent, so

Children’s Aid Society wasting too much time on non emergency cases instead of real emergency cases.?

Posted in Child Care on 24th January 2011

Children’s Aid Society wasting too much time on non emergency cases instead of real emergency cases.?
A parent of 18yrs has 4 children one day this single parent who was 9 months pregnant high risk (bed rest order) sat down to rest after cleaning her home the only furntiure she was able to sit in was the large sturdy computer chair. For one minute the parent turned her back and thats when she heard her child cry. As she turned back around to see her child on floor crying not knowing why or what had happened. Parent trys to comfort child but senses something might be wrong maybe a sprain. Parent rushes child to hosptial the hosptial sends them home and tells the parent its nothing, that the child will be ok in a week it’s just a case of an impact from a fall. Child spends night over at grandparent home. The next day doctor calls tells parent to come back in with child so Parent goes picks up child from grandparents home. After arriving at hosptial the Child, Parent and grandparent are made to go through whole process again X-rays, doctors and etc. Now it’s discovered a hairline femur fracture with a spiral at the tip of the fracture. Now CAS is called and the parent is harrassed. CAS constantly accussing the Parent of abuse and emotionally traumtizing the parent into giving birth early (premature labour) which was caused by the stress of CAS almost costing the baby it’s life. CAS had no respect for the unborn child at the time and still after wards CAS had no regarding to the baby’s health. CAS tried to cause the Parent to fall into post partum depression by harassing her at the hosptial. CAS still after the doctor’s clearly stated it was not abuse and that the child’s fracture was plausiable a result of landing on the leg the wrong way. CAS targeted this Parent and has been taking this Parent to court all because this Parent didn’t see the child injure them self. How can CAS spend so much time and effort on harrassing Parents who did no harm to their child/ren. But yet CAS doesn’t go after or bother the Parents who really do cause physical harm. How is CAS so messed up with it’s priorities? It’s been 8 months CAS has been harassing this Parent who did NOT harm and did NOT abuse any child in their care and it was proven such. Our justice laws seriously need to be reviewed and changed CAS abuses the privillage of power that was given to them and should be held accountable for misusing this privillage. CAS caused emotional harm and traumaized this family without any evidence or any sort of merit. The justice system courts accomadate CAS and force these good people to suffer through an unnecessary process and all the parent that had been abused by CAS gets is sorry? How is this justifiable? CAS should quick harrassing people who do nothing and should only go after those who really do harm children. Stop wasting precious resources and time that could have been used to actually save a child in need instead of wasting time on a parent who done nothing wrong. Do you think CAS should be responsible and held accountable for harrassing people over nothing? Do you feel CAS doesn’t do its job that they claim “they there for the protection of children but yet so many children die in CAS care”.

Best answer(s):

Answer by Gunner