E-mail bulletin for November 7, 2005
_____________________________________________________________________
NEWS RELEASE
WERNECKES CONTEND PARENTAL RIGHTS ISSUES
STILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED
The following statement has been released by Edward and Michele Wernecke
following the return of their daughter Katie last week
My wife, Michele, and I publicly thank and praise almighty God for answering our prayers and returning Katie to us. Katie’s return is the Lords doing.
We also thank the many folks from Texas and beyond its borders who have supported us with their prayers and encouragement.
Katie’s return to my wife's and my care and possession will now allow us to get on with the business of being good parents.
Judge Jack Hunter did the right thing when he ordered the dismissal of Child Protective Service’s conservatorship of our daughter Katie. Judge Hunter did the right thing when he dismissed the Attorney and Guardian ad litems. Judge Hunter did the right thing when he ordered that my wife’s and my fundamental liberty right to make medical decisions for Katie be reinstated.
For these actions by the judge we are grateful, but he did not go far enough.
Judge Hunter failed to consider the earlier orders of Judge Carl Lewis as he was instructed to do by the Texas Supreme Court thus leaving the findings of medical neglect against my wife and me in place.
For this, Judge Hunter was wrong.
Judge Hunter should have addressed the July 8th and July 20th rulings of Judge Lewis, struck and vacated them. Instead, weighty issues of fundamental legal importance remain and linger.
Because we have not been exonerated from the prior unjust rulings of medical neglect, we have instructed our legal counsel to revisit our mandamus petition with the Texas Supreme Court.
There are proper ways to distinguish between cases of true neglect, and cases such as ours --- where my wife and I, as fit concerned parents, have simply been trying to intelligently exercise our judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the probably benefits of various treatments in order to determine the best medical treatment for our precious daughter, Katie.
Sadly, in our case, the state sanctioned "child protective services," the trial court, and the appellate court have been unwilling or unable to draw this distinction.
When a child's illness may cause death, with or without treatment, and modern medicine has not developed a "silver bullet" cure (such as antibiotics in the case of infections), the state cannot be allowed to arbitrarily usurp parental authority and subject one's child to experimental, uncertain, highly invasive, and potentially deadly treatments which happen to be in vogue with state-approved doctors.
Please let it be made very clear, my wife and I have never neglected treating Katie's cancer. On the contrary, we originally approved Katie undergoing 5 months of chemotherapy, and were in the process of pursuing alternatives to the dangerous, highly invasive "follow up treatments" of high-dosage chemo and very questionable radiation treatments when we found our parental rights ripped from us by powerful state authorities.
My wife and I are concerned parents. We have lovingly and actively involved ourselves in the process of caring for Katie’s well-being -- past, present, and future.
We are not, nor have we ever been, neglectful parents, under any definition of the term.
Since the state-recommended treatments involve significant health risks, while offering neither a certainty nor even a substantial likelihood of a genuine cure, it has been grossly improper for the state to have attempted to force Katie, my wife and me to approve and/or accept such treatments and risks.
The weighing of risks and benefits of such risky treatments should have always been left to us, Katie's parents, especially where there is a good probability that Katie is a candidate for effective, alternative treatments.
In order to accomplish Katie’s return, it was necessary that we involve a fine constitutional lawyer and national expert witness, both of which are highly qualified in their fields of expertise.
Mr. James A. Pikl, our constitutional lawyer, is of the opinion that my family’s fundamental (constitutionally protected) liberty rights have been grossly violated by state actions. Mr. Pikl’s briefs submitted at both the appellate and supreme court levels in Texas clearly espouse our position on the significant constitutional implications of our case.
Mr. Pikl will make himself available to answer any questions you may have.
Dr. R. Christopher Barden,Ph.D., JD, LP is our national expert witness. Dr. Barden is a Ph.D./psychologist and national expert in how families cope with difficult circumstances. He is also an honors graduate of Harvard Law School who has obtained world record jury verdicts against negligent health care providers and hospitals. Dr. Barden reviewed our lengthy case file, including hospital records, legal filings, court transcripts, research articles, correspondence, etc., and he has submitted an Expert Witness Affidavit which exposed serious misconduct by local officials and professionals.
More specifically, Dr. Barden found substantial evidence of misconduct, and ethics violations by local officials as well as improper, unnecessary and ongoing psychological trauma and injury to my daughter Katie and my entire family.
For example, Dr. Barden's Affidavit documents serious errors in the methods and procedures used by the local medical - legal - CPS systems to deal with such complex matters, including but not limited to:
(1) Failure to obey laws, rules, regulations and ethical restrictions regarding record keeping
(2) Failure to conduct minimal assessment of my daughter Katie's emotional status,
(3) Failure to protect Katie from the well documented dangers of coercive interviewing, and
(4) Failure to address the serious problem of conflicts of interest within the local medical -
CPS - law - and social work systems.
The court dismissed the case immediately after reviewing Dr. Barden's Affidavit. Although the court formally refused to admit Dr. Barden’s Affidavit into evidence this past Monday, it is our firm belief that the court’s review of Dr. Barden’s devastating Affidavit exposing serious misconduct and errors of the local CPS and medical systems precipitated the rapid dismissal of the case and the courts return of Katie. We believe the courts rapid dismissal was designed to protect the local system from public awareness of Dr. Barden's critical review rather than halt the unconstitutional abuses of Katie and my family.
Dr. Barden will also make himself available to answer any questions you may have and can be reached at 801-230-8328. Copies of Dr. Barden’s Affidavit will also be made available including through Texas Center for Family Rights.
In summary, my wife and I regretfully believe that the courts have been, and are currently-still, on a mission to cover up, preserve and protect the local system’s reckless practices rather than protect the well being and rights of Katie and my family.
Thank you for your consideration.
THIS CONCLUDES THE WERNECKE’S STATEMENT
