To the Internal Complaints Review Panel,
This letter serves as a formal request for a thorough review of our family’s file and the conduct of the child protection agency involved. We believe our family was subjected to unjustified intervention by the agency over several distinct periods spanning from late 2017 to mid-2019, again briefly in early 2021, and once more in June 2021. Our concerns are multifaceted, ranging from procedural errors and inappropriate conduct to breaches of privacy and denial of rights.
The initial involvement began in December 2017 when one of our premature twins suddenly collapsed at home. Emergency services were called, and he was taken to a local hospital. It is our position that the attending medical professional failed to properly address signs of infection and pneumonia, which led to a worsening condition—ultimately resulting in brain damage due to strokes from a complication called disseminated intravascular coagulation. However, during imaging, several healing fractures were identified. Though we had no knowledge of these injuries and there had been no prior concerns during medical check-ups, hospital staff concluded the injuries were signs of abuse and notified child protection services.
While one parent remained at the hospital with the infant, a caseworker arrived at our home to apprehend our other two children. The family maintains that immediate offers were made by trusted friends to provide a safe place for the children pending the outcome of the investigation, but these alternatives were ignored. The apprehension was communicated over the phone without providing clear explanations or exploring the less drastic options available. There was no history of abuse, neglect, police involvement, or previous contact with child protection authorities. The family was stable and nurturing, and both parents were present and engaged.
In the days that followed, a second child—twin sibling to the hospitalized infant—was also found to have healing fractures. Both had been under regular pediatric care, with no outward signs of injury, distress, or neglect. Despite this, a contracted specialist diagnosed child abuse without fully ruling out alternative medical explanations such as metabolic or genetic bone disorders. The parents requested access to their children’s medical records and imaging to pursue independent evaluations but were met with delays and restrictions. It took nearly three months before limited access was granted under strict supervision, with no copies or images allowed and with conditions preventing the use of those records for second opinions.
Despite repeated requests and professional advocacy, the agency delayed sharing diagnostic materials, which may have challenged the abuse diagnosis. This resistance is perceived as deliberate, as outside medical opinions could undermine the position taken by agency-contracted professionals. The agency’s decision to withhold records raises serious concerns about procedural fairness and transparency.
The family eventually connected with others who had undergone similar misdiagnoses. These families, too, had children with underlying health conditions misidentified as abuse. Their experiences echoed the same issues: hasty conclusions, resistance to second opinions, and a lack of willingness to reconsider initial findings even in light of exonerating evidence.
In addition to the diagnostic concerns, serious procedural failings were reported. For instance, one child was allegedly questioned by a caseworker during an unsupervised car ride in the middle of the night. The caseworker claimed the child spontaneously made a concerning statement about the father. This statement was neither recorded nor documented at the time and was later used to support intervention. The child has since recanted the statement multiple times, yet this retraction has not been accurately reflected in official records.
In another incident, the same child was interviewed at a family center by a worker and a police officer without parental notification or consent. The session involved leading questions and pressure to support the agency’s theory of abuse. Despite official complaints, no meaningful action was taken to address this breach of protocol.
As the infant’s condition improved, and the child was ready to be transferred from intensive care to a general ward, the mother was told she could no longer stay overnight unless she agreed to be interviewed again by the police. This was despite the fact that the parents had already cooperated with multiple interviews. The demand for an interview as a condition for hospital presence was coercive and created an impossible choice for a breastfeeding mother of a medically fragile child.
Eventually, testing for genetic bone conditions was conducted at the family’s insistence. Although the tests revealed concerning signs of a metabolic disorder in both twins, this information was neither disclosed promptly to the parents nor used to revise the original abuse diagnosis. The agency’s position remained unchanged, even in the face of medical reports that directly contradicted their original findings.
Later, the agency interpreted red marks on the infant’s skin—likely caused by skin sensitivity to new laundry detergent used by the temporary caregiver—as bruising and suspected renewed abuse. A caseworker reportedly told the mother she was “no longer the parent,” and forcibly took the child for additional testing. The incident contributed to the filing of criminal charges against the father, despite the absence of fresh injuries or corroborating evidence.
Ultimately, the father was exonerated at trial. The court found no grounds to support the agency’s theory of abuse. Nevertheless, agency files continued to reflect concerns based on now-discredited findings. Even after medical professionals unaffiliated with the agency issued reports explaining the injuries in medical terms, the agency failed to amend its records accordingly.
When the family regained custody of their children, the agency imposed a nine-month supervision order, followed by an additional six months, despite no new incidents or concerns. This extended oversight lacked justification and was perceived as punitive rather than protective. The family also believes they were treated with bias based on their cultural background and assumptions that they may leave the country.
After the agency’s involvement was formally concluded in 2019, a letter was sent suggesting re-engagement would occur following the father’s trial—without any stated basis for concern. When the father was acquitted in 2021, the agency reinitiated contact and requested a meeting to discuss “family life after exoneration.” The family declined these services and reiterated that if the agency had actual concerns, they should follow proper legal channels. The agency closed the file again shortly thereafter.
In June 2021, one child experienced a seizure and emergency services were called. The family cooperated fully. Nevertheless, the attending officer contacted child protection, reportedly making inaccurate statements about past abuse. The agency then initiated contact with healthcare providers without the family’s knowledge or consent. A review board has since found that this action occurred during an investigative stage, meaning the family should have been notified—a procedural safeguard that was disregarded.
The family maintains that they have been subjected to repeated unjustified scrutiny despite full exoneration and lack of any evidence of abuse or neglect. Furthermore, efforts to correct inaccurate records have been ignored or denied, perpetuating stigma and misinformation within the system. The continued presence of allegations in official records, despite legal and medical clearance, represents a failure of accountability and fairness.
In summary, we request the following actions:
-
A comprehensive review of the initial apprehension decision and whether less intrusive alternatives were considered.
-
An investigation into conduct by specific workers who failed to follow policy, acted coercively, or submitted questionable documentation.
-
Clarification as to why medical findings contradicting the agency’s narrative were not disclosed to the family or used to revise assessments.
-
A full explanation for the delay and restrictions placed on accessing medical records and diagnostic imaging.
-
An audit of the agency’s ongoing labeling of abuse in this case despite court rulings and medical evidence to the contrary.
-
An examination of systemic issues that allow prolonged oversight without current or specific risk indicators.
-
A policy-level review of how families seeking second medical opinions are treated by child protection agencies.
-
A review of all remaining flags or concerns maintained in the agency’s system to ensure compliance with factual findings and legal outcomes.
We submit this complaint with the hope that it will lead to a meaningful examination of agency practices and a commitment to ensuring procedural justice, transparency, and accountability in the future. No family should be subjected to such traumatic, invasive action without clear justification and due process.
Sincerely,
[Names Withheld]
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )