Since then, the blogosphere has erupted in debate about whether drinking while breastfeeding is harmful or whether the police were right. Only one thing is clear – that there are no clear answers. In fact, we can’t really be sure the woman was drunk at the time. While she pleaded guilty to child neglect, police did not administer a blood-alcohol test because they aren’t necessary for child neglect charges. Police said they knew she was drunk from the way she was behaving, but reports say no more than that.

Some bloggers think the police abused their authority even if Anvarinia had been drunk. “Since when is breast-feeding while drunk a crime?” said Dr. Amy Tuteur, a retired obstetrician and gynecologist who writes the Skeptical OB. If Anvarinia had been feeding her baby formula, “no one would have bothered to check what was in the bottle,” Tuteur opined. “You can do a lot more damage by mixing formula wrong.”

The thing is that no one can know what effect drunken breast feeding has on babies. No one has ever studied it directly because of the eithical implications of conducting studies whereby researchers induce intoxication in breast feeding mothers. The only evidence we have on the subject is anecdotal, which does not allow conclusions to be drawn one way or the other.

Most interest groups advise against drinking and breastfeeding but others see no harm in limited alcohol consumption among breast feeding mothers. It has also been said that alcohol assists a woman with making milk. Doctors report that alcohol remains in the body for two to three hours after consumption. Other interesting posts can be found at http://ecochildsplay.com

Commentators who feel the police came down too hard on the mother argue that the child’s best interests were harmed when its mother was put in jail for 5 years. They argue that drunken breast feeding is the lesser of the two evils. Police, however, argue that Anvarinia was arrested for more than just drunken breast feeding. Police say nothing more than that it was the totality of the circumstances and that they would have arrested the woman on child neglect charges even if she had not been nursing her infant drunk.

This is an important policy statement because diagnostic imaging studies like x-rays, CAT scans and MRIs can provide documentation of injuries that will later be important in child protection proceedings.

Unfortunately, this type of evidence is not usually available in child abuse cases because doctors do not order the imaging studies. Insurance companies discourage medical practitioners from performing imaging studies to save money.

However, the insurance company’s savings comes at the patient’s cost. Not only is the quality of the medical care diminished, but legal evidence is missed out on.

Imaging studies are often the first sign of abuse in cases were children are initially diagnosed with natural illness.

Some of the new AAP polices are:

* When conducting global skeletal imaging, doctors should use radiographic skeletal surveys instead of other methods when they suspect child abuse

* Doctors must put in place precise protocols for skeletal imaging to assure quality consistency.

* If child abuse is suspected in a child older than 1, doctors may perform skeletal scintigraphies instead of radiographic skeletal surveys if their staff is experienced in pediatric nuclear imaging.

* Doctors MUST perform skeletal imaging surveys when they suspect child abuse of children older than 2

* Doctors MUST perform cranial CT or MRIs when they suspect intracranial injuries to an infant or child.

Do your part in protecting children from abuse. Know the signs of child abuse and report it.

In Rodriguez v. Favalora, the court ruled that Florida law does not allow victims who remember their childhood abuse later in life to file suit against those who negligently allowed the abuse if the statute of limitation has already run.

Now, Florida Statute section 95.11(7) does allow victims who recall their childhood abuse later in life to sue their abusers even if the statute of limitation has already run.

The intense trauma that results from childhood molestation can cause substantial psychological damage including the loss of all memories associated with the events. Demands of secrecy by an adult authority figure alone may cause a child to suppress his or her abuse.

To combat this effect and bring abusers to justice, Florida’s “delayed discovery doctrine” allows victims of childhood abuse to sue their abusers in civil court within four years from the time the victim discovers an injury that was caused by the past abuse. Normally, a victim must file suit before they turn 26 or within four years after they become independent of the abuser (whichever comes first).

Without the delayed discovery doctrine, victims of childhood abuse who only remembered their abuse after the standard statute of limitation had run would not be able to sue their abusers. Now, Florida’s Third Circuit has ruled that the delayed discovery doctrine is only available to victims who sue abusers who act with intent and not those who act only negligently.

The case involved a man who was molested while in a foster home operated by the Catholic Church. His claim against the church was that it acted negligently in not providing a safe foster home where he would be free of abuse. However, his claim was denied because he alleged the church acted negligently and not intentionally.

The effect of this ruling is that those organizations and institutions that fail to protect our children against molesters and abusers when the organizations and institutions had a legal duty to do so (as in this case) will often go unpunished in civil court in cases of delayed discovery.

The delayed discovery doctrine will not allow people who intentionally abuse children to escape liability in situations of delayed discovery because those abusers acted with intent. However, if the abuser’s employer shares in the fault through their negligence, then the Third Circuit just gave them a free pass in cases of delayed discovery.

This ruling defeates the purpose of tort law. Civil liability for wrongful behaviour is designed to serve two purposes: make the victim whole to the greatest extent that the law can, and to deter the harmful behaviour in the future.

If organizations and institutions are allowed to escape liability for their negligence just because they are lucky enough to have harmed a victim who does not remember his or her abuse until after the statute of limitations has run, then the institutions are not deterred as much as they should be.

Florida law should subject negligent child abusers to the same liability and deterrent effect that we subject intentional abusers to. That way, the businesses, churches and other organizations charged with protecting our children have the greatest number of incentives possible to act responsibly.

Each community recognizes Child Abuse Prevention Month a little differently, but it’s easy to find ways to join and show your support. Different ways to participate in Child Abuse Prevention month include participating in fundraisers to support prevention activities and treatment facilities for victims, and candlelight vigils held as a remembrance. Many child abuse prevention resources exist. Here is a listing of organizations for you to contact to get involved:

Childhelp

Childhelp provides assistance to victims of child abuse and neglect. The organization focuses its efforts on prevention, intervention and treatment of child abuse. The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline, 1-800-4-A-CHILD is a 24-hour hotline free to callers across the country. Childhelp’s also provides residential treatment services,  advocacy,  foster care,  group homes, and child abuse education and training.

Circle of Parents

Circle of Parents works to prevent child abuse and neglect and to strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups and children’s programs. This national network spans 26 statewide organizations including Florida.

National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome

Learn about shaken baby syndrome, shaken baby syndrome prevention programs, and training for professionals and parents nationwide.

National Exchange Club Child Abuse Prevention Services

Boasts a national network of child abuse prevention centers that helps at-risk parents replace patterns of abusive behavior with effective skills for nonviolent parenting.

Zero to Three

Promotes the healthy infant and toddler development by supporting and strengthening families, communities, and those who support them.

David Martin, a 40-year-old Rockledge man, was arrested and charged with sexual battery. Because the boys are 12 or older but less than 18 and Martin was a person in a position of authority, Martin will be charged with a first degree felony. Martin was also charged with lewd or lascivious molestation.

Two boys, ages 11 and 13, said that Martin molested them inside a cabin at the Life for Youth Church Camp in Vero Beach. The boys were visiting the camp as part of a church group from the Faith Fellowship Church in Melbourne.

Of course the perpetrator was “very well liked and someone who was very active with the kids and just had great relationships with the adults and children” the news report reads.

Martin attracted several hundred children to his congregation. At the time this blog was published, no other victims had come forward.

I would be quite surprised if a civil lawsuit did not arise from this in addition to the criminal charges. This type of behavior is dispicable. I wonder if there were warning signs from previous boys at previous camps.

This type of behavior is usually habitual and a 40-year-old has likely left signs that he had committed these acts previously. That is why I am going to lobby the Florida Legislature to enact a law providing for civil remedies against people who fail to report suspected child abuse of any kind,  sexual or otherwise.

Now, istitutions have no incentive to train employees to look for telltail signs of abuse and investigate them appropriately because the only punishment for remaining silent while a child is abused is criminal. The institutions can not be held liable under today’s law.

They should be liable. We entrust our children to them and they should be trained to detect abuse and required to report it. Stay tuned to this blog for further news on my lobbying efforts.