SEASON 02 | EPISODE 05

Tangled

We take a deeper dive into the child welfare system, talking to Beatrice Yorker, a child and adolescent psychiatric nurse, law professor and MBP expert, who. reveals the disturbing extent to which this crime is overlooked in our society.

We also speak to a family law attorney who help illuminate the complexities of these cases.

Listen on: Apple | Spotify

Andrea: [00:00:00] Nobody should believe me is a production of large media. That’s l a r j media. Before we begin a quick warning that in this show we discuss child abuse and this content may be difficult for some listeners. If you or anyone you know is a victim or survivor of medical child abuse, please go to munchhausen support.com to connect with professionals who can help.

Laura Waybourn: It comes down to what a good friend of mine who was a judge says When the state steps in, you have to do it the government way, and the government is not a good parent. You know, a lot of the steps they take because they have to, because it’s according to the law or how they interpret the law or whatever, are not necessarily good for the child.

Andrea: People believe their eyes. That’s something that actually is so central to this whole issue and to people that experience this, is that we do believe the people that we love when they’re telling us something. I’m Andrea Dunlap. And this is, [00:01:00] nobody should believe me.

Andrea: In the last episode, we got to know the Wayburn family, and this is where Alyssa will eventually end up. But there was a period of time before she could be placed with them where she did spend some time in foster care. And I wanna talk about that today because the decisions that get made around where a child should be during an investigation can have a huge impact on these cases.

Andrea: We’ve discussed this before, but for family and juvenile courts, family reunification is the mandate, and that is mostly as it should be. But there are some special circumstances in medical child abuse cases that can make the decisions around custody really impactful for an investigation. And I wanted to talk about how that played out in Alyssa’s case.

Andrea: Here’s Detective Mike Weber to fill us in.

Detective Mike: Laura and Bill Waburn volunteered to take custody of Alyssa, uh, initially, but they had to go through a home study, which is required by cps. During that time period, Alyssa was [00:02:00] in foster care and thankfully she was placed with a nurse practitioner. In foster care, and this nurse practitioner took daily logs, which is what we do.

Detective Mike: We have ’em write down everything she eats, right? We’re documenting her recovery, her physical activity, everything. That foster parent

called me with a concern after the first visitation between Britney and Alyssa. But at this point, we’re still very early on in, in, in our process of understanding this.

Detective Mike: So we let Britney bring things into the visitation cardinal sin that you do not do. And this is a prime example why she had brought a backpack with some things in it. For Alyssa to take home. The foster parent put the backpack in the car, could not make it a block down the road before she was old. Come with the smell of cologne.

Detective Mike: She rolled down the windows, got home a teddy bearer that was in the backpack that Britney gave. Alyssa had been doused with cologne. You say, why cologne? Well, I didn’t know either until I later went to the allergist office and saw the sign there saying, please do not wear a heavy cologne for allergic reactions.

Detective Mike: She was [00:03:00] attempting to induce an allergic reaction, is my belief.

Andrea: And had Britney claimed that Alyssa had some respiratory issues? Uh, yes.

Detective Mike: I mean, it wasn’t just gastric, it was also respiratory. She ACC claimed asthma. She had her on numerous asthma drugs, which can stunt growth. And you know, Alyssa’s bone density at that point was a year behind.

Detective Mike: So there were numerous, numerous issues. The foster mom took the bear out, put it in the garage. Gave some of the other stuff to Alyssa. One of the things she gave her was a picture. And Alyssa takes the picture and all of a sudden she’s coming up going, look, look, I can jump. I can jump, I can jump. And the foster mom’s like, yeah, that’s great.

Detective Mike: And after about the third or fourth time, she’s like, what the heck? And she’s holding Alyssa’s, holding the picture, and the foster mom takes the picture back and looks at it again. And in that picture is a picture of Britney and Alyssa, but Alyssa has on leg braces that she doesn’t need again cuz mom had presented her with those issues also.

Detective Mike: And it just shows you the psychological manipulation right, of the victim. This is a three-year-old we’re talking about. [00:04:00] Interestingly enough, that picture that Britney gave Alyssa for the first visitation, she posted

that picture immediately on her Facebook account after she got outta jail as her profile picture.

Detective Mike: And that is a message to Alyssa.

Andrea: What do you think the message is?

Detective Mike: I’m here whenever you’re ready.

Andrea: Was there anything else in that bag?

Detective Mike: There was. There was a movie and the movie was Tangled. Again, I don’t have kids. I didn’t know what that movie was, so it had to be explained to me. But Tangled is the story of Rapunzel and the wicked stepmother.

Detective Mike: And there was, uh, particularly disturbing to the foster mom was the song in the movie, which was, mommy Knows Best, mommy Knows Best, repeat It Over and over

Andrea: again. I can’t watch that movie as anything other than a Munch housen by proxy parable now. Like my daughter likes that movie and I’m just like, I think it’s a me thing that I’m having this reaction.

Andrea: But yeah, it’s. It’s sort of striking actually. If you, if you didn’t watch to the, all the way to the end, you could just be like, right, what a good mom. Yeah. Yeah.

Detective Mike: I mean, you know, people say, [00:05:00] Britney’s stupid. Well, is she, because she’s smart enough to try to manipulate a three year old in that matter,

Andrea: it’s sort of a cunning, right?

Detective Mike: Right. I mean, she’s not, she probably doesn’t have the highest iq. But she’s very, very street smart. And again, that manipulativeness, it’s a different type in this situation.

Andrea: Yeah, so probably not convincing anyone. She was a PhD the way Hope was, but

Detective Mike: nonetheless, and nonetheless, the ability to get what she wants, especially she thinks from Alyssa.

Andrea: The way Burns. Also, remember these visitations, Britney had visitations with Alyssa for quite a while. Yes. What do you remember about those?

Bill Waybourn: Well, and I, I remember where, when, and where we cut it off too is that from 2011 to February of 2013, she had visitation and it was supervised. Fortunately,

Laura Waybourn: we kind got into a groove where I would make sure and have a snack for her because that was something that was so important to her.

Laura Waybourn: Is. To be able to eat because she couldn’t eat during the visits because you know, for safety reasons, they weren’t supposed to let her bring anything, [00:06:00] which was a whole other thing. They didn’t always follow the rules. She

Bill Waybourn: wasn’t supposed to bring anything to the visitation. She was not supposed to bring any toys, any gifts, those kind of things.

Bill Waybourn: She routinely violated that order. And what happened was is that on one occasion Laura and Alyssa were coming home and CPS had gave her all this stuff that she wasn’t supposed to bring. And you know, how do you take us something away from a child that’s been given to ’em? So Laura was coming home and both her and Alyssa get help.

Bill Waybourn: So there was something in the toys. We don’t know what, we had several tests run, but we don’t know what it was. We don’t know what reaction, but both of them kind of had a, an allergic reaction to whatever had been put in those toys. And, um, we handed it over. I think Weber was the one that processed it and sent it to the ME’S office, and there was, there was just no way to narrow it down what it was.

Bill Waybourn: But the fact was they did have a reaction.

Laura Waybourn: I made a lot of phone calls and wrote a lot of emails [00:07:00] and, uh, sometimes, sometimes was able to advocate for her effectively, not for lack of trying more, but the visits were just, Really, really difficult. Sometimes it would be a little bit less than neutral, but usually it was pretty rough for the rest of that day.

Bill Waybourn: Those visitations were bizarre. Britney was dramatic, was the things. I never was at ’em. You know, Laura was at all of them. And it was just awful. And it was awful for Alyssa because it, uh, you know, I mean, I think, I think there was a little bit of PTs d going on.

Laura Waybourn: If she knew that she was gonna go and see her, there was often a behavior change and she became, More difficult.

Laura Waybourn: I don’t wanna say she was terrible cuz she, she wasn’t, I mean, it was completely understandable. I mean, I would’ve lost my mind if I were her too. And so, but there was a clear behavior change, a clear change in her, you know, her whole affect would, would just change and, and be [00:08:00] more negative. And she would be clearly anxious and sometimes she would say she didn’t want to go.

Laura Waybourn: Sometimes she’d say, oh, whatever. But it was never, yay we get to go see Mommy. Never. It just, it just didn’t happen. Uh,

Bill Waybourn: I don’t remember a story of her being upset when she had to break contact and come home either, which would be normal for a child to do. So I never saw that. So there was never any, uh, bonding in my mind that went on.

Laura Waybourn: There was times when the visits would stop for a period of time, for one reason or another. Uh, there was, I can’t remember all of the timelines, but there was a time when she was. Britney was hospitalized. There was a time when she was in jail for something. There was just some legal stuff where we didn’t have to bring her every single week for the whole time before the CPS case was closed.

Bill Waybourn: So in, in, in 2013 when we figured out all this was going on and there was other issues happening and, and she wasn’t living up to the [00:09:00] requirements is, uh, we went to our attorney. Basically, are you ready to defend us cuz we’re not going back to any visitation saying that’s enough. And he said, let’s do it.

Bill Waybourn: And, uh, so it was 2013. That was the last time Alyssa saw Britney until the trial

Laura Waybourn: when we were able to finally stop the visits. It was a beautiful thing. What happened was CPS closed the case and left her in the legal

status of we were her permanent managing conservators. And so she wasn’t adopted, but she wasn’t Britney’s.

Andrea: You might wonder why Britney was still allowed to have access to Alyssa during this time. And the fact is that family and juvenile court do not have a good understanding of this abuse, and yet they play a huge role in these cases. So I wanted to get a better idea of how all of this works behind the scenes, because as you’ll see, family court also plays a huge part in my family’s story.

Leah Mcgowan: [00:10:00] My name is Leah McGowen, and I am a family law attorney in California. Due process is a, I mean, it’s a safeguard, but it’s, when it comes to child abuse, it has to happen before the court can protect the child. So due process, the concept is, you know, you can’t take away someone’s rights unless there’s been this process where it’s been proven with evidence that they’ve done something.

Leah Mcgowan: Wrong. And in a child abuse context, that means the child has to have been abused first before protective measures can be taken. And the abuse needs to be evident enough that it’s going to make a judge feel comfortable restricting a parent’s access or terminating a parent’s. Right. It’s a high bar. I mean, keeping families together, it is, it’s a priority.

Leah Mcgowan: And each judge kind of carries out that mandate differently. But the evidence of child abuse has to be proven at a pretty high level in order for something to [00:11:00] happen, which basically means a child is gonna have to be abused before it could be protected from that abuse.

Andrea: And if that isn’t all frustrating and confusing enough, there are also issues on the c p s level.

Andrea: I spoke some more with Tarran County C p s supervisor, Susan Ryle, to explain that side of things. They have a category that they can check off. Mm-hmm. For medical neglect. Right. Which describes someone who’s not taking their child, the doctor.

Susan Rial: Exactly. And it’s really hard to say she’s medically neglecting her daughter when she’s seeing umpteen, gazillion doctors.

Susan Rial: Right. How are you gonna get there? Right. She’s seeing all

Andrea: these doctors and this is really, I. A different thing. Medical abuse is a different, it’s using the medical

Susan Rial: to abuse the child as opposed to not getting medical care and neglect.

Andrea: And is that an official category that CPS looks for? No.

Susan Rial: There is no such thing as medical abuse in the state of Texas.

Susan Rial: No such thing. We’ve had to manufacture dispositions to [00:12:00] meet the categories that we have.

Andrea: So you’re trying to shoehorn it into a category? Yes. That it doesn’t, yes. That does not describe what’s really happening. Yes.

Susan Rial: And that’s makes it very difficult when you’re going to court, civil court or criminal court to say, you know, we want to do X, Y, and Z because.

Susan Rial: But you ruled it out or, but you didn’t. It’s not reason to believe. So it just makes it difficult depending on who you’re dealing with. If we’re dealing with some of the people we’ve worked with, judges, adas, et cetera, that we can work with and talk to and explain, that’s one thing. But most places in the state of Texas as well as if we get a family court judge.

Susan Rial: That knows nothing about it.

Andrea: You’re really having to start from scratch. Yes. Trying to explain the existence of a type of abuse that they may never have heard of. Exactly. Rather than, and not that it’s all about paperwork, but you don’t even have a box for this. If it’s real, why don’t, why isn’t there a category for it?

Andrea: Right.[00:13:00]

Andrea: As we’ve discussed, this form of abuse is widely misunderstood. So I talked to one of the top experts in the country to discuss the difficulty around the idea of diagnosing a perpetrator with a mental health condition as a way of determining whether or not abuse is happening.

Beatrice Yorker: I’m Beatrice Yorker. I’m a child and adolescent psychiatric nurse, and I also have a law degree, and I’ve spent my career mostly teaching nursing and also doing research.

Beatrice Yorker: I. To become a nursing professor.

Andrea: I don’t know how you can describe someone who would almost kill their child for the purposes of getting their own emotional needs met As a caring parent, I believe someone who could do that could appear for a small period of time spent with a psychological evaluator to be a caring parent.

Andrea: But I think that that sort of speaks to the problem with [00:14:00] bringing in like the idea that you could. Diagnose fictitious disorder imposed on another in the course of a psychological evaluation rather than with a full investigation of the records.

Beatrice Yorker: Again and again. I have encountered in particularly the family and dependency courts where, The entire system really does not understand mu chasm by proxy.

Beatrice Yorker: Very often they have been intimidated, threatened, or reversed. When they try to see it for what it is, they’re intimidated and so they defer to the psychological evaluators, and a psychological evaluator is no better. Then the average Joe Blow on the street at detecting lying. So the psychological evaluations are notoriously unable.

Beatrice Yorker: Sometimes they’ll say something like, yeah, we saw a little bit of psychopathy, or Yeah, we saw high score on the need to look good index, but [00:15:00] this person is not crazy. This person doesn’t have a disorder that would cause them to be a child abuser. So that is a real problem. It’s. The medical record review.

Beatrice Yorker: Every time I interview a new case and a new mother, I am just snuckered. I believe them. I feel their sense of concern. I feel how they haven’t been heard by the medical system. I believe that, yes. Other people are missing these signs and symptoms. Then I do a record review and then I talk to other people.

Beatrice Yorker: That is when I start going, oh my gosh, I was completely snuckered.

Andrea: Even you, with all of your decades of experience, even you sitting in a room with one of these women, you’re fooled, essentially snuckered

Beatrice Yorker: very many times. If they really are. Doing this for the medical attention, if they are meeting their psychological need to be in the healthcare arena and create crises, then [00:16:00] I don’t think I’ve ever done an interview with one of these folks where it was obvious that they.

Beatrice Yorker: Weren’t really genuinely caring for their child.

Andrea: This morass of cps, s family court, the legal system, and all of the confusion about this form of abuse is what the way burns were up against, but they were not giving up. You hadn’t officially adopted Alyssa, but Britney’s parental rights had been terminated.

Laura Waybourn: No, her rights had not gotten terminated yet. When CPS closed the case, they left her rights intact, and for lack of a better term, the only way I can describe this is that they just decided that it was gonna be too hard for them to terminate. And so they just decided to close the case and leave her with us, and so then it was up to us to terminate, which we did.

Andrea: So then that’s incumbent upon you to pursue a legal case and take it to family court, I’m assuming? Yes. Okay. Yes. Did Britney ever fight you on [00:17:00] this process and try to get custody of Alyssa back?

Laura Waybourn: What Brittany did during the entire CPS s case was follow their plans. Sort of as far as doing a little bit of the service plan, a little bit of what they asked her to do, and then not all of it.

Laura Waybourn: So the official answer would be no, she didn’t, like, for example, she had been ordered to see a psychiatrist. She wouldn’t, she had said she didn’t wanna be on meds, and so she wouldn’t follow. All of the plans. And so officially that’s how CPS was able to say, well, we can’t give her back to you cuz you haven’t, you know, you haven’t done what you’re supposed to do.

Laura Waybourn: But at the point where we terminated on her, she didn’t fight it. Interestingly enough, because that’s when the criminal case was getting really hot at that point. I mean, the criminal case had been going on all along, but it, you know, it just took forever because it did. Um, so many [00:18:00] records, so many, everything.

Laura Waybourn: Of course, it, it feels like it was 150 years, even though I understand what happened and why, and I respect it, it just still was, huh? It was so long. What happened was, I’m not a lawyer, but the best I can explain it is. In order for her to fight us on terminating her, she would have had to answer a lot of questions even previous to a court, uh, hearing in the, in the family court part.

Laura Waybourn: So I think they’re called interrogatories. I’m not even positive about that, but she would’ve had to fill out documents and answer questions. Which would have incriminated her in her criminal case. And so then she just didn’t, she didn’t respond. And so it actually turned out to be kind of a nothing simple thing, even though it was heart-wrenching and forever in the process to actually terminate her because she didn’t fight.

Laura Waybourn: And we believe that’s why, because I mean any, I can’t imagine that a [00:19:00] lawyer would’ve. Told her that she should have answered those questions because it would’ve incriminated her. And if we’d have known then what we know now, we would’ve done some things different. The biggest thing we would’ve done is hire a lawyer early on because we didn’t have a voice in court.

Laura Waybourn: But we didn’t. We didn’t know. We knew a lot, but we didn’t know that. And. That’s important. We sort of trusted the system more than what I wish we would have. But what ended up happening is whenever the case was closed and CPS was no longer involved, we had a set of guidelines. It was a legal document, so it wasn’t, you know, we didn’t have a choice about it, but it was the outline of visitation and such, and it was written in such a way.

Laura Waybourn: Thankfully, we did consult an attorney. It was written in such a way that if Britney didn’t do this or this, then we could stop the visits, which we were able to do pretty soon thereafter. But the neatest thing that happened from that is, let’s see, she [00:20:00] was removed in 2011, and so then it would’ve been 2012 that the case was closed.

Laura Waybourn: Um, in June. The CPS case was closed. Yeah, that the CPS case was closed in July of 2000. 12. And one of the biggest things about that court document that was the coolest thing, was her name got changed. To Wayburn. And so we sat her down. I remember we sat her down in the backyard and because how weird is it to have a, at this time she’s four, to have a four year old saying, we’re not teaching her how to say her name.

Laura Waybourn: We’re not teaching her her whole name. And we were just staying away from it cuz we knew that it was gonna change. And so, you know, we, we just didn’t. And so then whenever we sat her down, You know, we told her that we had gone and talked to some really important people and, and they found out that they agreed with us that she should stay with us forever.

Laura Waybourn: And I asked her, I said, and what is your name? And she said, Alyssa Wayburn. [00:21:00] She just said it right then. She already felt it. And, which is great because all of the court documents didn’t mean anything to her at that time. It just, you know, that’s who she was. That was precious.

Andrea: Even with all the complications, this process went about as well as possible under the circumstances.

Andrea: Here again is Detective Mike Webber.

Detective Mike: This was the case that the most things went right on. Yeah, I mean, this is the best example of what should happen in these cases that I have. It’s not perfect by these stretch of the imagination. She shouldn’t have had visitation. We shouldn’t have let Britney bring things in to see Alyssa Sheriff and Laura shouldn’t have had to pay $30,000 to family court.

Detective Mike: It’s the same story over and over, but. A lot of things went right

Andrea: next time we’ll take a closer look at some of the intricacies of family Court and I have some updates for you. I’ve uncovered a lot about what went on in my sister’s case and I’m gonna spend some time unpacking that with Detective Mike.

Andrea: That’s next time on. Nobody should believe me.[00:22:00]

Andrea: If you would like to support the show, you can join us over on Patreon or subscribe on Apple Plus, and you will get all episodes early and ad free as well as lots of exclusive bonus content if monetary support is not an option. Rating and reviewing the show is a tremendous help as well as sharing the show with friends on social media and elsewhere.

Andrea: Nobody should believe me is produced by large media. Our music is by Johnny Nicholson and Joel Schock. Special thanks to our lead producer, Tina Noel and our editor Travis Clark.