Two decades ago, Congress was abuzz over scandals involving indigent parents who fabricated behavioral problems in their children to get disability payments for mental disorders. Stunned by news of these so-called “crazy checks,’’ US lawmakers in 1996 enacted tougher standards for children to qualify for such benefits.
But in a highly unusual criminal trial set to start on Tuesday, prosecutors are expected to allege that stricter eligibility rules did not stop a financially strapped Hull couple, Carolyn and Michael Riley, from concocting an elaborate scheme involving powerful psychotropic drugs. By 2006, everyone in the family was on the federal disability rolls, except for the youngest child, 4-year-old Rebecca, whose application had been denied. As the parents were appealing that decision, Rebecca died in December 2006 of an alleged overdose of psychiatric drugs that she had been prescribed for bipolar and hyperactivity disorders.
The parents now face first-degree murder charges.
As I read this, I have to wonder whether the newspaper is accurately describing the case. First degree murder is normally something intended. Nothing about the story presented suggests that these parents were deliberately trying to kill their child. Felony murder is a death that may have been unintended but which happens during the commission of a felony. Are prosecutors saying the parents were trying to commit fraud on Social Security and their daughter died as a result of this fraud? That sounds like a stretch. How would you prove fraudulent intent by the parents? This sounds like a highly disordered family. It is not implausible to me that severe mental illness was rampant in the family. There is a significant genetic component to bipolar disorder.
I expect this newspaper is trying to make a political case using only a caricature of a criminal case. It makes me wonder about the validity of the political argument they are making.
By the way, I have a ready explanation for the increase in the number of children receiving SSI benefits on account of mental illness. Previously, it was believed that bipolar disorder was either rare or non-existent in children. Now child psychiatrists believe that bipolar disorder is not uncommon in children. This belief is bolstered by a National Institute of Mental Health study. Putting the label of such a severe disease on children leads to more of them receiving disability benefits. More children are being diagnosed with bipolar disorder not because of something to do with Social Security but because of research. If you want to blame a government agency for this, blame the National Institute of Mental Health but be prepared to argue with their rigorous scientific study.
I expect this newspaper is trying to make a political case using only a caricature of a criminal case. It makes me wonder about the validity of the political argument they are making.
By the way, I have a ready explanation for the increase in the number of children receiving SSI benefits on account of mental illness. Previously, it was believed that bipolar disorder was either rare or non-existent in children. Now child psychiatrists believe that bipolar disorder is not uncommon in children. This belief is bolstered by a National Institute of Mental Health study. Putting the label of such a severe disease on children leads to more of them receiving disability benefits. More children are being diagnosed with bipolar disorder not because of something to do with Social Security but because of research. If you want to blame a government agency for this, blame the National Institute of Mental Health but be prepared to argue with their rigorous scientific study.
It's my belief,no child should recieve social security cash benefits.Instead should recieve medical insurance(medicaid,medicare).As parents have the responsibility for there creation.
ReplyDeleteA brief history of stupidity. When the child died the Commonwealth attempted to charge the MD with over prescribing. Her license was temporarily suspended. After an investigation the license was restored and the MD is back at work. The parents attorneys have tried to get the charges dropped as there is some suspicion that the child died of Pneumonia. The trial Judge denied the motion and let the charge stand. This is the first time I've even seen a comment on SSI as being a cause.
ReplyDeleteIn MA the DA's usually over charge. A jury charge will determine what the Judge thinks the charge should have been and then the jury will decide.
When this happened, it was heavily discussed on another website I read. At the time, Social Security didn't really come up in the discussion, just the parents, the doctor, and the medications and refills. A few older articles about this, and articles about questions surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of bipolar in children:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/06/hull_parents_arrested_in_girls_poisoning_death/
http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/homepage/8998915841932132351
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/19/girls_death_puts_doctor_at_center_of_controversy/?page=full
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/02/pediatric_bipolar_yeah_okay.html
http://www.intueri.org/2007/02/17/the-question-of-bipolar-disorder-in-kids/
As to not giving cash benefits for childhood disability, what happens if the child's condition is so severe that a parent cannot work but has to stay home to be able to properly care for the kid?
ReplyDeleteIn response to #3,
ReplyDeleteThere are professional home nurses that could provide for the scenerio you describe.No need for a parent to quit work,if child have insurance.
Severe childhood sickness is a difficult thing.But minors should be the responsibility of the parent,primarily.
Sorry,
ReplyDeleteThe fifth comment is for #4
There are professional home nurses that could provide for the scenerio you describe.No need for a parent to quit work,if child have insurance.
ReplyDeleteI gotta ask, do you actually live in the U.S.? Because no, there are not. There are not even institutional placements available when needed - there are wait lists and the quality of care is often questionable. Even when there are home health aides available, it's cheaper to just pay the SSI and get round the clock care from a parent than to pay $7 an hour to get outside help.
The majority of childhood disabilities are mental/emotional/behavioral.I have seen some where the parents have had to quit jobs to stay home to care for them, but they are a very small minority. In many severe cases the child is placed in some kind of foster care or other group care setting. There many families in which all, or nearly all, receive SSI, due to the same or similar conditions. Their total SSI income is beyond what is reasonable, thus prompting many of us in FO's to support a family maximum for SSI.
ReplyDeleteI would modify the childhood 112.00 Listings to add a requirement that the child be at a residential school or instituion to qualify. No more bonus checks for the kids living at home with mom. BTW, few of these moms are working anyway. Picture two families side by side in apartments in a project -- both with a mom and two kids, both familes on AFDC. Why should the mom with a child with ADHD or oppositional defiant disorder get a bonus check of over $500.00 per month for screwing up their kid? It just pays for the kid's x-box and Grand Theft Auto game anyway, or mom's cigarettes and crack.
ReplyDeleteNevermind the Globe's shaky explanation of the prosecutor's strategy, or its politicized conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe reporter's point is 100% true: This couple was "disability benefits-minded."
Benefits-mindedness isn't the turning point of the murder charge, but it's an extremely persuasive piece of evidence. It paints this couple as more concerned with their daughter as a potential income source than as a living, breathing child.
In some circles, gaining knowledge of the SSI child benefits system is practically a rite of passage into womanhood.
ReplyDeleteIf SSA needs ALJ's with experience in disability adjudication, they should start recruiting single moms from the South Bronx.
If you've ever eavesdropped in the morning line outside the Bronx HO, or over lunch at the "Perp Court" next door, you know exactly where "Anon 12:27" and I are coming from.