| − | '''Shaken Baby Syndrome''' (SBS) was defined by Dr. John Caffey in 1972.<ref>Caffey J: On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases in Children 124(2):161-169, August 1972, cited in [http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/SBS/sbsres.html Shaken Baby Syndrome Resources] by Susan C. Anthony</ref> | + | '''Shaken Baby Syndrome''' (SBS) was defined by Dr. John Caffey in 1972.<ref>Caffey J: On the theory and practice of shaking infants. American Journal of Diseases in Children 124(2):161-169, August 1972, cited in [http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/SBS/sbsres.html Shaken Baby Syndrome Resources] by Susan C. Anthony</ref> It is widely viewed today as "[[junk science]]," yet prosecutions persist (see also the note below): |
| | + | {{cquote|But the science behind it has increasingly come under suspicion, especially when there’s no obvious physical evidence of assault. A New Jersey appellate court Wednesday added to the growing resistance, siding with a lower court judge who declared shaken baby syndrome “junk science,” a ruling that barred prosecutors from bringing it up in the Middlesex County cases of two fathers who challenged their child abuse indictments.<ref>https://newjerseymonitor.com/2023/09/13/appeals-court-agrees-shaken-baby-syndrome-is-junk-science-in-some-cases/</ref>}} |
| | It is used as a theory of [[prosecution]] promoted by [[government]] child protective services, which claims that thousands of infant [[death]]s each year are caused by the shaking of babies by parents, daycare workers, babysitters and other caregivers. This theory has resulted in many convictions of caregivers of [[murder]] or [[manslaughter]]. Prosecutors rarely attempt to convict a mother of SBS, because juries are most skeptical about accusations that a mother killed her own infant. But if the caregiver was a father or anyone other than the mother and an infant unexpectedly dies, then prosecutors will often convict the caregiver of manslaughter or murder despite a lack of any outward sign of injury.<ref>One of thousands of examples of such prosecutions is described [http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/SBS/sbsres.html here].</ref> | | It is used as a theory of [[prosecution]] promoted by [[government]] child protective services, which claims that thousands of infant [[death]]s each year are caused by the shaking of babies by parents, daycare workers, babysitters and other caregivers. This theory has resulted in many convictions of caregivers of [[murder]] or [[manslaughter]]. Prosecutors rarely attempt to convict a mother of SBS, because juries are most skeptical about accusations that a mother killed her own infant. But if the caregiver was a father or anyone other than the mother and an infant unexpectedly dies, then prosecutors will often convict the caregiver of manslaughter or murder despite a lack of any outward sign of injury.<ref>One of thousands of examples of such prosecutions is described [http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/SBS/sbsres.html here].</ref> |
| | The theory of prosecutors in SBS cases is that brain injuries similar to whiplash can occur in a shaken infant. Because infants and toddlers possess proportionately larger heads than adults and weaker neck muscles, they are unable to restrain the movement of their heads when shaken. Under this theory, the brain is more mobile within the cranium in infants than in adults, and that shaking causes the brain to bounce within the skull. Shaken baby syndrome will be alleged whenever a subdural hemorrhages (bleeding in the brain), retinal hemorrhages (bleeding in the retina) and fractures of the ribs and bones occur, even though there are many innocent causes of such conditions. The claimed symptoms of shaken baby syndrome are vague and common, including extreme irritability, lethargy, poor feeding, breathing problems, convulsions, vomiting, and pale or bluish skin. Shaken baby injuries are typically claimed about children younger than 2 years old, but sometimes as old as 5 years.<ref>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/shakenbaby/shakenbaby.htm</ref> | | The theory of prosecutors in SBS cases is that brain injuries similar to whiplash can occur in a shaken infant. Because infants and toddlers possess proportionately larger heads than adults and weaker neck muscles, they are unable to restrain the movement of their heads when shaken. Under this theory, the brain is more mobile within the cranium in infants than in adults, and that shaking causes the brain to bounce within the skull. Shaken baby syndrome will be alleged whenever a subdural hemorrhages (bleeding in the brain), retinal hemorrhages (bleeding in the retina) and fractures of the ribs and bones occur, even though there are many innocent causes of such conditions. The claimed symptoms of shaken baby syndrome are vague and common, including extreme irritability, lethargy, poor feeding, breathing problems, convulsions, vomiting, and pale or bluish skin. Shaken baby injuries are typically claimed about children younger than 2 years old, but sometimes as old as 5 years.<ref>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/shakenbaby/shakenbaby.htm</ref> |
| − | I just want to say thank you to Conservapedia for this, as there was a high-profile case here in Canada. The Bain family lost their 2 children for 2 years to the custody of Child Services in British Columbia over them alleging SBS. The Child Services here are so fascist the Bain family did not go to the media because they feared punishment if they did. Child Services would not even place the children with relatives of the Bain family. Finally, after testimony from a US expert, the family had there children returned. | + | I just want to say thank you to Conservapedia for this, as there was a high-profile case here in Canada. The Bain family lost their 2 children for 2 years to the custody of Child Services in British Columbia over them alleging SBS. The Child Services here are so fascist the Bain family did not go to the media because they feared punishment if they did. Child Services would not even place the children with relatives of the Bain family. Finally, after testimony from a US expert, the family had their children returned. |