To Whom It May Concern,
This letter serves as a formal request for the review of a complaint initially dismissed following an internal investigation by a local law enforcement agency. The complaint pertains to the conduct of multiple officers during a medical emergency involving our young child and outlines a series of procedural failures, factual misrepresentations, and biased actions that caused significant distress to our family. Despite the internal decision finding the complaint unsubstantiated, we respectfully request a full independent review of the events in question and the conclusions that followed.
Several years ago, our infant child experienced a sudden medical collapse at home. Emergency medical services were immediately summoned, and the child was hospitalized. Subsequent evaluations later identified rare but legitimate medical conditions, including clotting disorders and bone demineralization, that led to misinterpretations of injury as potential signs of abuse. At the time, charges were brought against one parent. After a lengthy court process that included multiple expert medical testimonies, all charges were dismissed. The individual was found not guilty, and no further legal action remained pending.
Following the conclusion of that case, legal counsel submitted a request to the relevant law enforcement agency to formally close the investigative file associated with those earlier allegations. Although an internal decision to close the case was eventually made, delays in updating the records meant the file remained technically open for several additional months. This administrative oversight became critically relevant during a subsequent emergency.
On a night in mid-2021, our child experienced a seizure—a known medical complication in his history. One parent was administering prescribed emergency medication, while the other contacted emergency services. The child remained conscious and responsive throughout, albeit with labored breathing patterns that were consistent with past seizure presentations. The emergency dispatcher was informed of the child’s neurological history, his prescription medications, and that he had not lost consciousness or ceased breathing. Nevertheless, the dispatcher instructed that chest compressions begin. The parent complied, though the appropriateness of this advice remains questionable in hindsight.
Shortly thereafter, multiple officers arrived at our residence along with medical responders. The front door had been left open for paramedics. Without seeking consent or providing an explanation, the officers entered our home, treating it as a potential crime scene. No warrant was produced, and no clear basis for their presence was offered at the time. One parent remained at the home, while the other accompanied the child to the hospital in a separate ambulance. Communication between the two was not permitted; the parent at home was not allowed to use their phone and was unable to obtain any updates on the child’s medical condition.
During this time, law enforcement officers seized the child’s clothing and restricted the use of private space and personal items. The home was effectively frozen without explanation. Despite the medical nature of the emergency, officers conducted themselves as if a criminal investigation was underway. One of the attending officers later stated that their records had flagged a prior concern involving the family, thus justifying the current suspicion of neglect or abuse. However, that historical information had been disproven and should have been removed or amended in the agency’s records months earlier.
At the hospital, further troubling conduct occurred. The parent who arrived with the child was repeatedly asked to step away from the medical team during a critical moment of care. Attempts to stay present were met with insistence by one of the officers, who eventually forced the parent to move aside and answer questions that had already been addressed. When the parent hesitated, this behavior was later characterized as “aggressive,” though no aggressive language or physical actions were used. The documentation of this interaction completely misrepresents the behavior of a concerned, emotionally distressed parent.
More egregiously, the officers who arrived at the hospital communicated misleading and factually incorrect information to medical personnel. Specifically, one officer informed emergency staff that the parent previously accused had been convicted of harming the child. This was not true. The parent in question had been acquitted of all charges in a court of law following expert testimony. This misrepresentation was documented in medical records by the attending physician, who noted the false claim and appeared to factor it into treatment decisions. It is highly unlikely that such specific and damaging statements originated from anyone other than the officer in question.
The result was the immediate initiation of a child maltreatment examination, which included medical imaging and other procedures, none of which had been previously authorized or consented to by the parents. These assessments were not based on physician concerns; the emergency doctor had noted no signs of trauma and attributed the symptoms to an ongoing neurological condition. Nevertheless, the misleading statements by law enforcement triggered an unnecessary and invasive review.
Despite requests, officers did not explain the rationale for their continued presence in the hospital or clarify why investigative measures were being taken. The parent was left to manage both the stress of the child’s medical episode and the emotional burden of being treated as a suspect, with no evidence of wrongdoing or concern raised by any attending medical professional.
Eventually, information surfaced confirming that the officers had contacted local child protection authorities during or shortly after the hospital visit. Despite there being no medical findings indicating harm, abuse, or neglect, the officers relayed the same outdated narrative that had already been legally disproven. This resulted in a new file being opened by child welfare authorities—adding another layer of unwarranted surveillance to a family already traumatized by years of misjudgment and litigation.
Furthermore, internal documentation and witness statements submitted by officers present at the scene contained multiple inaccuracies. These include claims that the child lost consciousness (he did not), that CPR was required (the child remained responsive and breathing), and that one parent initiated the emergency call (when, in fact, the other parent did). These inconsistencies reflect either poor note-taking or deliberate distortion—both of which undermine the reliability of the report.
The internal response to our complaint, reviewed and dismissed months later, failed to address these core issues. The summary conclusion was that the officers were acting within their duty to preserve child safety and investigate possible abuse. This oversimplification ignores the fact that the officers had no new or credible basis to suspect neglect or abuse. The call to emergency services was made in good faith during a known medical emergency, supported by prescription records and expert documentation of a long-standing condition.
Moreover, the invocation of child protection protocols by the officers was not based on present observations, but on past allegations that had already been disproven. The fact that those records remained active in the agency’s database months after being legally dismissed indicates a systemic failure to maintain accurate and up-to-date information. The consequences of that failure were acutely felt by our family, who were subjected to intrusive questioning, medical assessments, and the re-opening of an unnecessary child protection file.
The incident raises fundamental questions about how law enforcement agencies handle cases involving families with medical histories that resemble, but are not, evidence of abuse. There is no question that police must act swiftly and decisively when credible evidence of harm is present. However, that responsibility does not justify acting on false, outdated, or incomplete information. Nor does it excuse entering a private residence without explanation or initiating investigations without evidence.
We are not asking that emergency responders avoid caution or ignore legitimate signs of concern. What we ask is that they exercise judgment grounded in current facts, that they communicate openly with families in crisis, and that they honor the legal outcomes of cases that have already been resolved in the court system. Our family cooperated fully with all requests and took no action that could have been construed as obstructive or hostile. Despite this, we were treated as potential criminals during a moment that demanded empathy and professionalism.
In light of these events, we request the following actions be taken as part of this review:
-
A formal investigation into why law enforcement officers entered a private residence during a medical call without consent, a warrant, or an articulated justification.
-
A review of statements made by officers to hospital staff and an inquiry into whether false information was knowingly or negligently provided.
-
An audit of procedures used by the agency to update or close historical investigative records, particularly following court rulings.
-
An evaluation of the criteria under which child protection authorities are contacted by law enforcement in medical-only situations involving known health conditions.
-
Clarification of the legal and procedural grounds used to justify property seizure, communication restrictions, and investigative detainment in the absence of a criminal complaint.
-
A policy review addressing how agencies distinguish between medical distress and potential criminal activity, with specific guidance for families with chronic pediatric health needs.
-
A formal acknowledgment and correction of the errors documented in the officers’ reports, and the mischaracterization of the parents’ actions during the incident.
Our family has endured years of emotional and legal hardship due to an initial misdiagnosis that was later fully addressed through medical science and legal due process. That hardship was compounded by the failure of public authorities to properly update and manage the records they rely upon when making critical decisions. We have cooperated with every investigation, complied with every requirement, and worked diligently to ensure our child receives appropriate care. What we seek now is closure and assurance that this will not happen again.
It is our sincere hope that a thorough and unbiased review will lead to meaningful corrective action—not only for our family but for any other family that might one day face similar circumstances. Families with medically complex children deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Emergency responders must be empowered to differentiate between legitimate medical crises and potential criminal behavior, and they must be held accountable when they fail to do so.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We trust that your office will exercise its independent oversight responsibilities to ensure fairness, accountability, and the protection of all families in similar situations.
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 )