Introducing: Nobody Should Believe Me — The Catalyst | EP 1

This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human. If you've tried everything to lose weight and still feel stuck, this summer can be different. Weight Loss by HERS is designed to support you in reaching your goals with access to an affordable range of FDA-approved GLP-1 medications, including the Wagovi pill and the Wagovi pen. With Wagovi at HERS, you can lose up to 20% of your body weight when combined with diet and exercise. It helps regulate appetite, eat less, and keep weight off. And the Wagovi pill means no needles needed. Everything is 100% online. Connect with a licensed provider, and if prescribed, your medication is delivered to your door. Plus, get 24-7 care team messaging and lifestyle and nutrition support in the app. Ready to reach your goals? Visit 4HERS.com slash betrayal to get personalized, affordable care that gets you. That's F-O-R-H-E-R-S dot com slash betrayal. 4HERS.com slash betrayal. Weight Loss by HERS is not available in all 50 states. Wagovi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS. To get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wagovi clinical study information, and restrictions, visit 4HERS.com. Amazon Health AI presents Painful Thoughts. I can't stop scratching my downtown. Yeah, but I'm not itching to go downtown and tell a receptionist I'm here to talk about my downtown. Some things you'd rather type than say out loud. There's no question too embarrassing for Amazon Health AI. Chat your symptoms and get virtual care 24-7. Healthcare just got less painful. This is Troy Millings from Earn Your Leisure. When traveling for events or festivals throughout the country, every dollar matters. We compare flights, prices, hotel rates, and restaurant options. So why wouldn't we compare rides? Personally, I always check Lyft before booking a ride. Prices can change throughout the day depending on traffic, weather, and what's happening in the city. If you're headed to a concert, out to dinner, or catching up with your friends on a Friday night, taking a few seconds to check Lyft could leave you with more money to enjoy the experience. Save money. Check Lyft. What it sounds like when you road trip to the iHeartRadio Music Festival in the all-new Hyundai Palisade Hybrid. Wow, this is really nice inside. The Palisade Hybrid has more luxury than ever. Whoa, this sound system is awesome. Turn it up. More tech than ever. Sweet, you got the available built-in dash cam. And more range than ever because the Palisade Hybrid gets up to 600 plus miles of range on a full tank. So do we ever have to stop for gas? Visit HyundaiUSA.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details. Please note that this show discusses child abuse, which may be difficult for some listeners. For resources about abusive head trauma, go to shakenbaby.org. Take care of Maya trial. New details as well. Now take care of Maya trial. Well, Maya Kowalski and her family have waited now five years to hear a verdict in their $220 million lawsuit against Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. These are the conduct of Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. In fact, we're going to hear from the judge. We'll be right back. understands what actually happened here. And then, of course, there was the Netflix film. No matter what we did, the court sided with the hospital staff. Judges don't care about evidence. You don't get to the truth by accepting what's in front of you without questioning it. And I realized that this was a lot bigger than just the Kowalskis. How many times are you allowed to be wrong and destroy lives before they say, okay, that's enough? These families walked in hoping for help for their child. And some of them walked out in handcuffs. And this was followed by a high-profile court battle. Nobody Should Believe Me had been on the air for about a year at this point. And this was the biggest story about Munchausen by proxy since Gypsy Rose Blanchard. So I felt like I needed to address it. I pulled in some experts for a roundtable discussion about the film. My impressions were it was a huge operation. The opportunity lost. What they could have done is looked at the actual issues in this abuse. They could have looked at, you know, in this case, there was a. And that was all I originally planned to do. But everyone else just kept getting it so wrong. But it is not the person who's doing the medical record review's job to interview every doctor. It's to look through those records. And that is how you put one of those. How do you get that? Why do you believe that that's the case? If she is making. If she is the sole person. Making the recommendation to the judge. The judge is relying on. But she was not the sole person. She was not the sole person. I'm sorry. There was affidavits and testimony from numerous other doctors at Johns Hopkins. Affidavits and testimony in the court. What actually happened to Maya Kowalski is that she was the victim of extremely well-documented Munchausen by proxy abuse. In the year preceding her fateful hospitalization at Johns Hopkins All Children's, Maya Kowalski was subjected to. 55 infusions of ketamine, a powerful drug that can cause hallucinations, memory loss, and bladder issues, among other side effects. Her treatment course also included a highly experimental five-day ketamine coma in Mexico. Dr. Fernando Cantu, who performed the treatment, told Maya's parents that the procedure had a 50% chance of death. Maya was pulled from school, wheelchair-bound, and dangerously underweight. Her mother. Another Beata Kowalski, an infusion nurse by trade, administered ketamine, Dilaudid, and other drugs orally, intramuscularly, and into Maya's port at home, often against doctor's orders. Beata talked online and elsewhere about Maya's impending death and pushed to get her daughter labeled as terminal and attempted to seek out hospice care, despite the fact that complex regional pain syndrome isn't a terminal diagnosis. And that diagnosis was handed out to Maya by a dubious doctor, after three world-class hospitals diagnosed her with conversion disorder. On October 7, 2016, when Maya was hospitalized with reports of excruciating pain, Beata told staff at Johns Hopkins All Children's that if they refused to administer the unheard-of amount of ketamine she was requesting, that they, quote, might as well consult hospice so she can finally get enough medication and just let her die. So how did such a clear and obviously life-threatening case of abuse get twisted into a mystery? How did it get twisted into a story about evil doctors kidnapping a child? What was going on here? Once I started pulling at this thread, I couldn't stop. The case and the civil trial consumed my life for months. We just recapped this case in a miniseries, by the way, if you don't have time to listen to the previous 18 episodes I made about this. I ended up covering the trial as it unfolded over eight weeks, ending in a jury, awarding the Kowalskis $261 million. And two years later, the story continues to unfold. Late last year, a Florida appeals court vacated the verdict, and the Kowalskis' request to reconsider the appeal decision was denied. And as all this has been playing out in court, the impact of Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins has been felt far and wide. Because as reporter Daphne Chen said in the trailer you just heard, this has always been bigger than just the Kowalskis. Kowalski lit the match. And no matter what ultimately happens in their court battle, the fire won't easily be contained. People believe their eyes. That's something that is so central to this topic because we do believe the people that we love when they're telling us something. If we didn't, you could never make it through your day. I'm Andrea Dunlop. Welcome to Season 7 of Nobody Should Believe Me. The Kowalskis' legal battle had already been going on for years by the time this story got traction in the media. Jack Kowalski filed his original lawsuit in October of 2018, two years almost to the day after Maya was originally hospitalized with the defendant, Johns Hopkins All Children's. So the original lawsuit, the lawsuit against Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital brought by the Kowalski family, alleged a lot of things, some of which were dismissed before trial. The original lawsuit brought claims for everything from malicious prosecution for the hospital and their health care providers calling the Department of Children and Family Services, reporting suspicions of medical child abuse and neglect. We spoke to Ethan Shapiro, an attorney for Johns Hopkins All Children's, about how this court case and its aftermath have played out. out. The counts that survived included everything from medical malpractice for the alleged misdiagnosis of medical child abuse, the alleged failure to give what we consider to be extreme doses of ketamine and other dangerous drugs. There were allegations of battery and there were allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress, some of which the family alleged caused the mother to commit suicide. As you saw from the appellate court ruling, the appellate court sided with my client, Johns Hopkins Old Children's Hospital, ultimately finding that the hospital complied in good faith with the mandatory protection statutes and were not liable for, as a matter of law or as a matter of fact, for the unfortunate death of Mrs. Kowalski. There were two possible far-reaching issues with the Kowalski verdict had it withstood appeal. One is the potential legal precedent set by allowing a family to claim damages against an institution for a suicide, and the other, of course, was holding the hospital liable for reporting abuse. The attempts to hold health care providers liable for mandatory reporting under Chapter 39 are rare but not unheard of. In fact, if you looked at the published decisions, a lot of them are for the flip side, where, you know, for example, a parent whose child was ultimately abused or harmed is suing a state agency or a mandatory reporter for failing to report suspected abuse. Think, for example, you know, in a case of a contested divorce where a child reports symptoms of sexual abuse to a teacher and the teacher doesn't bring that forward, you could see a situation where the other custodial parent finds out about that and then would have a lawsuit or potential prosecution against a mandatory reporter. Now, all of that being said, we've seen a spate of these lawsuits more in frequency since the Kowalski case, since the movie, and since the fact that it survived the initial motions to dismiss based on statutory immunity. How often do we see these types of cases go to trial? Incredibly rare, and I think they're going to become more rare now that the Second District Court of Appeal is going to be able to do that. The Kowalski lawsuit and its imitators position this legal battle very clearly as a parent's rights issue, claiming that, quote, Dr. Smith and Johns Hopkins All Children's knowingly and recklessly violated Jack and Beata's constitutional right to make medical decisions for their child by refusing to discharge Maya following repeated requests from Jack and Beata, and by conspiring to abuse a process and legislative provisions designed to protect children from imminent harm. And while some of the counts of the lawsuit, such as conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims were dismissed before trial, the spirit of these claims remained. The plaintiff's story was that the doctors had conspired to separate Maya from her mother. They'd known their abuse claims were fake, and they made them anyway. And their wanton disregard for this family had driven Beata Kowalski to take her own life. And these claims have served as inspiration for a number of other lawsuits around the country against child abuse pediatricians and hospitals, from San Diego to Minnesota to Pennsylvania. According to these lawsuits, doctors aren't just making mistakes. They're all powerful entities who are conspiring to remove children from their innocent parents for their own financial gain and career advancement. The terminology varies depending on the venue, but there is in fact a name for all of this: medical kidnapping. Like any other conspiracy theory, it's hard to trace the exact origins of the term "medical kidnapping," but it appears to have gained a foothold in parents' rights-focused internet spaces sometime in the 2010s and gained significant traction during the highly publicized Justina Pelletier case, a precursor lawsuit involving Munchausen by proxy. Medical kidnapping is deeply entwined with the idea that Munchausen by proxy isn't a real form of abuse, and that Munchausen allegation is necessarily false — a witch hunt against caring moms — and that CPS workers and physicians are hiding behind their legal immunity protections. This concept has even deeper internet origins than medical kidnapping itself, going back to the "Mothers Against Munchausen Allegations" website, which popped up in the late 90s. Medical kidnapping, like so many things, is a fringe idea that has migrated from the dark corners of the internet into mainstream publications, such as the New York Times and ProPublica. People magazine, where Take Care of Maya producer Caitlin Keating worked when she discovered this story, published an article in November of 2025 titled "Where is Maya Kowalski Now?" all about her life after getting medically kidnapped 10 years ago. This was weeks after the verdict was reversed. So how did we get here? And how did hospitals become such a target? So hospitals are in a very unique situation for children that are at risk for suspicions of neglect or abuse, because often healthcare workers are the front-line defense in being able to diagnose it and being able to report it. If you think of a situation where a child would come into a hospital with an unexplained fracture that couldn't be a result of anything other than trauma, and potentially trauma in an area that couldn't be explained in the absence of intentional abuse, the healthcare worker would be the one that would be in the best position to make that call of reasonable suspicion to the Department of Children and Families. Now in that unique situation where the child's an inpatient in the hospital already, the easiest thing for the courts to do to try to find an immediate safe placement for the child before the court can figure out whether one of the custodial parents or perhaps a grandparent or a relative could be filling in that role is to shelter the child immediately at the hospital. So hospitals are put in sort of a precarious position that other mandatory reporters don't have to deal with. Think firefighters, teachers, in some states journalists are never going to be in the situation that the person making the report may also be the person required by order of the court to provide safe shelter to the child in the short and the medium term. And does a hospital, once a child is sheltered there, does a hospital have any choice? About whether or not to keep that child there under the law? No. The hospital is required to follow the court order just as anyone would be required to follow the court order. Now the hospital can make recommendations as to what they believe is in the best interest of the child from a medical standpoint for whatever medical treatment is necessary. And if you remember back to the Kowalski case, once all children's reasonably believed that Maya would have benefited from intensive inpatient or outpatient psychotherapy to treat whatever her pain syndrome was, they made a recommendation to transfer to Nemours Hospital in Orlando, who are experts in that. So they can make recommendations, but absent an order from the court releasing the jurisdiction, the hospital has to keep the child in custody. If you've ever tried to find out whether or not a child is in the best interest of your family, or if you've ever tried to find out whether or not the child is in the best interest of your family, or if you've ever tried to find out whether or not a child is in the best interest of your family, a psychiatrist who takes your insurance, you know how frustrating it can be. Long wait lists, no availability, or finding out they don't accept your insurance at all. That's why I'm excited to tell you about Talkiatry. Talkiatry is a 100% online psychiatry practice that provides comprehensive evaluations, diagnoses, and ongoing medication management for conditions like ADHD, anxiety, depression, and more. Unlike therapy-only platforms, Talkiatry can help you get the most out of your life. You can get the most out of your life with Talkiatry. Talkiatry can help you get the most out of your life with Talkiatry. Talkiatry connects you with licensed medical providers who can diagnose mental health conditions and prescribe medication when it's appropriate. Their 800-plus clinicians are in network with major insurers, and getting started is simple. Just complete a short online assessment, get matched with a clinician who fits your needs, and you can schedule your first appointment in days, not months. Plus, you'll continue seeing the same provider so your treatment can grow with you over time. Head to talkiatry.com. To complete this short assessment and get matched with an in-network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. That's T-A-L-K-I-A-T-R-Y.com slash betrayal to get matched in minutes. Talkiatry.com slash betrayal. Amazon Pharmacy presents Painful Thoughts. It's been a long bumpy road dealing with yet another bladder infection and driving to the pharmacy to pick up meds. I went over a pothole and a little pee came out. So now I get to stand in line with pee pee pants. Next time, skip the pain and get fast free delivery with Amazon Pharmacy. What it sounds like when you road trip to the iHeartRadio Music Festival in the all new Hyundai Palisade Hybrid. Turn it up. More tech than ever. Sweet. You got the available built-in dash cam. more range than ever because the palisade hybrid gets up to 600 plus miles of range on a full tank so do we ever have to stop for gas visit hyundaiusa.com or call 562-314-4603 for more details we know kids don't hold back and i wouldn't want them to get in there make a mess slide for home bring on the stains i've got oxyclean versatile stain remover it works on over 100 stains and it's america's number one stain fighter additive brand it's color safe and chlorine free so i use it on whites colors and dark fabrics and oxyclean isn't just for laundry mix it with water for use all around the house kitchens bathrooms and even floors when my kids go all in i say go for it because i've got oxyclean to get the stains out it's not clean unless it's oxyclean there are many worthwhile critiques about how child protection is handled in the u.s and we're going to dig into those this season but and sorry if this is a spoiler there is no evidence that doctors are conspiring to kidnap children or even making a significant number of incorrect abuse diagnoses so why has this idea gotten so much traction what is this actually about i think what the plaintiff ultimately wanted to try was a civil rights case and andrea when you spoke earlier about this um you know influx of what's been called a generously appearance rights movement which is always in tension with what may be best for the child this case was in the plaintiff's mind one of those cases in the forefront they brought constitutional actions that were dismissed i mean you heard the backstory from the kowalskis escaping a communist system with the implication to only find themselves uh you know at the center of a deep state conspiracy amongst multiple actors to harm maya and target the mother for reasons that were never fully explained at least not with evidence and as the second district said there was no evidence of any intent directed at beata kowalski whatsoever but that was certainly what they wanted to put in front of the jury uh and that was certainly one of the things that they thought that they could exploit for the purpose and from my perspective of drumming up juror emotions the plaintiff's lawyers and the netflix film told an emotionally evocative story about a suffering family but by leaving out so much crucial information that story obscured a very big question what would have happened if there hadn't been a report what if beata had been allowed to carry on should parents just be allowed to give their children 50 to 100 times the recommended dose of ketamine and subject them to experimental procedures that carry a 50 percent risk of death according to jack kowalski's post-verdict comments in the press yes the parents have rights and they make the decision for their children ethan disagrees so hospitals are not burger king you can't walk into a hospital and have it your way uh and demand medical care that is wildly outside accepted medical standards you can't do it for yourself and it's going to draw extra scrutiny if you're going to demand it on behalf of a vulnerable child or vulnerable adult that truly cannot consent on their own behalf and that's fine our system is set up where we have parents be the natural guardians of the children who are empowered to make reasonable medical decisions just the same way that you can be appointed to be the medical guardian for somebody becomes golden and firm but it doesn't give the guardian the unfettered right to demand treatment that medical providers know to be dangerous you know there are protocols and pathways for the safe treatment of chronic regional pain syndrome for the safe treatment of conversion syndrome of factitious disorder and none of them call for doses of ketamine that i think the evidence showed were 23 milligrams per kilogram per hour which is more than what you need to anesthetize a 2 000 pound horse so the parents have rights to direct reasonable medical care but they don't have an unfettered right to do that so the parents have rights to direct reasonable unfettered right to direct and demand dangerous medical care the question of what rights children should have as human beings isn't a new one and the tension between children's rights to be safe and cared for and their parents rights to make decisions on their behalf is something that hospitals have always been caught in the middle of hospitals have been dealing with this for years there are religious sects that do not believe in blood transfusions so hospitals have attorneys on standby that they call it two in the morning to say we have a child here who's been in a horrific accident the child's bleeding out the only way to survive is to transfuse blood and the parents are saying that they're object on religious and moral grounds we file motions with the court we wake up the judge in the middle of the night we get an order from the judge for immediate blood transfusions and we transfuse the child to save the child's life above what the parents wishes are that that's the that's the tension in society where you know your religious rights and your rights to direct medical care we've decided as a society end when it's going to jeopardize the life of a child so it's not a new concept it's not a new concept in the law and it's not isolated to cases like this halfway through the trial just as the defense was going up judge hunter carroll ruled to dramatically limit testimony pertaining to munchausen by proxy abuse this was baffling given that the abuse was the reason maya had been separated from her parents in the first place not to mention the fact that the plaintiff had already been allowed to assert in their opening statement and had one witness testify that beata kowalski did not have munchausen by proxy which they framed as a psychological condition rather than a form of abuse so i'm certainly not here to you know criticize tough decisions made by the trial court on evidence but to your question about whether this particular issue is true or not the issue brought in the mother's psychological diagnosis there could be ways you could start the trial and go through the entire trial where that becomes less of an issue however if the plaintiffs are permitted to stand up an opening argument and talk about how the collective they set about to destroy this family with an erroneous diagnosis of munchausen by proxy or to talk about how even though johns hopkins all children's hospital made the reasonable medical choice to try to escalate my condition whatever it may be to the specialist at nemours that the family objected to that because of this erroneous diagnosis of medical child abuse from munchausen by proxy that from my perspective necessitates the defense to be able to justify to the jury that's now heard this testimony for several weeks to justify that that diagnosis or that working diagnosis whether it appears in the medical record or on medical billing was made reasonably and i think the question that you're getting to next is if that's true then why didn't we watching this trial get to see all of sally smith's detailed reports that the hospital relied on in part in arriving at similar diagnoses and i think you know importantly with the framing of this right the question is whether there was number one cause for concern to make that immediate call and then was there evidence of abuse uh that necessitated this separation period and her being sheltered in the hospital and in fact there was extensive evidence and so that's the the question however the plaintiff did have several witnesses testify that beata including dr chopra who is not an expert on this uh that beata kowalski did not have munchausen by proxy and so they were permitted to testify as you said like in the negative that this was an outrageous allegation and that you know beata was a caring mother who was making appropriate medical decisions so there was evidence allowed to be presented about munchausen by proxy by the plaintiff can you talk about the decision that the trial court made halfway through the trial uh when it was the defense's turn to present so from my perspective sitting at council table it appeared the court wanted to refocus the trial on the remaining allegations medical malpractice intentional infliction of emotional distress and i think there were some battery allegations in there as well and the court central question was what does the mother's state of mind or whether she suffers from the psychological diagnosis have to do with uh whether the hospital provided medically acceptable care to maya kowalski in the abstract that's a completely fair question right because if you take it one step back further my client's position from day one was whether this is crps or whether it's factitious disorder conversion disorder or a psychological pain response the treatment for this is still not wild doses of ketamine and it's still not wild doses of ketamine and it's still not wild doses of ketamine and it's still not wild doses of ketamine they're enough to anesthetize the horse now back to your question uh you know in real time from my perspective and it's just mine, at defense counsel table, we felt it necessary to paint the full picture for the jury so we didn't look like monsters that were coming up with this diagnosis to target the family. But in the abstract, that was the way the court was looking at the question in real time. And, you know, certainly that affected the presentation of evidence after that. Yeah, because while there was quite a lot of evidence that was admitted at trial and during the pretrial period, I mean, this has been one of the benefits as a journalist about reporting on this case is that we just have so much information to work with. There are only pieces of that that were actually presented at trial. I don't think Beata's blog was ever presented at trial, which was a pretty strong piece of evidence. And so this trial court decision, it made it so that certain things that even were available to the public were not available to the jury. And then it also meant that the one piece of documentation that really tied all of this together from the person who had, you know, the highest level of expertise about child abuse and who had reviewed thousands of pages of medical records, and that would be Dr. Sally Smith's report, and that was never admitted into evidence. That remains private and sealed to this day. It does. Yes, her report is confidential. I mean, the lawyers have seen it because we had the potential to introduce it in evidence. So I know what it says. Obviously, Dr. Smith knows what it says. The family knows what it says. The family did not want the jury to see it for understandable reasons. But ultimately, the court made the decision that the court made based on what I told you. That was what I understood to be the court's decision. And so I think that's a really important part of the court's logic. You know, the court certainly had their reasons for following it. They were understandable to me in a vacuum. You know, it was, but again, it was frustrating to some degree that that report felt necessary from the defense's perspective to rebut insinuations of these false allegations or that they came out of nowhere. They were introduced by the plaintiff. You know, as someone who tells stories for a living about abuse and specifically about this abuse, really tie it together. It's not, it's not well understood. It's not easy for your average juror to understand exactly what the harm was to this child and what the danger that she was in. But, you know, just in terms of like the asymmetry in the storytelling, that you have the plaintiff able to tell this very dramatic story, which they did with all kinds of tactics, right? They had a lot of pictures. They played the 911 call. They had videos of the family. They had videos of Maya in pain. You know, they used a lot of elements to tell this story. It's sort of, did that decision kind of hamstring the defense's ability to tell a story that actually put the focus back on Maya? Yeah, perhaps. So again, from the hospital's perspective, and maybe let me take a step back from that. And this is me talking right from my perspective, but it's based on a lot of conversations with healthcare providers. A parent coming in with a different belief of what their child has is not uncommon. And most healthcare providers are not offended by that. Like healthcare providers are human. Medicine is an art and a science. You have a constellation of symptoms and sometimes reasonable people can disagree. That's why they call it a standard of care, not necessarily one, you know, correct diagnosis in every circumstance. And where am I going with this, Andrea? So think about it this way. If somebody comes into a hospital or a doctor and says, I think my child's got irritable bowel syndrome. And what really helps them is if I give them, you know, an insurer and a two-time doctor, I'm going to give them an insurer and an insurer when they complain. The doctor could tell you based on my test and based on my clinical diagnosis and the symptoms, I don't think your child has that. But if that's the only treatment you're recommending for what you think the diagnosis is, we're not calling DCF on you because you're not putting the child in danger. So merely because the hospital has a difference that, you know, we don't think, and when I say we, I'm speaking on behalf of basically every certified medical professional with the exception of Kirkland. So I'm not calling DCF on you because you're not Patrick and Hannah. We don't think Maya has CRPS, says Lurie's Hospital in Chicago, says Tampa General Hospital, says All Children's Hospital, and says everyone else in between. They're not calling DCF. The call was based on the fact that you're hearing evidence of immediate threat to Maya's life, either from the drugs that are being given or what the mother is saying that she's going to do if you don't put my child in a propofol or a ketamine-induced coma. So, you know, going back to your initial question of, you know, how does this affect the presentation of evidence? I think it affects it to the degree that this is not just about a parent disagreeing with what the diagnosis is and, you know, portraying this as, oh, you Ivy League people up in your tower think you know what's best for my child. The imminent danger that a child could be and are disregarding medical advice from several world-class and local providers is where the context needs to come for the jury to understand ultimately why the hospital was making reasonable decisions, both in their medical care and their recommendations for future care. Yeah. So, take us to the verdict. What ultimately was the verdict and the award in this case? Gross verdict, I believe, was for $261 million that was set aside slightly by the trial court on some post-trial motions. That verdict has been completely vacated or erased by the Second District Court of Appeal, finding there were multiple errors in the way that the Chapter 39, the statutory immunity, was ultimately applied. So, right now, there is no verdict against my client and no judgment that we're liable for. I, um, I can't stop scratching my downtown. Mm-hmm. Health care just got less painful. Turn it up. More tech than ever. And more range than ever because the Palisade Hybrid gets up to 600-plus miles of range on a full tank. We know kids don't hold back. And I wouldn't want them to. Get in there, make a mess, slide for home. Bring on the stains. I've got OxyClean Versatile Stain Remover. It works on over 100 stains and it's America's number one stain fighter additive brand. It's color safe and chlorine free. So I use it on whites, colors, and dark fabrics. And OxyClean isn't just for laundry. Mix it with water for use all around the house, kitchens, bathrooms, and even floors. When my kids go all in, I say go for it. Because I've got OxyClean to get the stains out. It's not clean unless it's OxyClean. This is Jenny Garth from 9021OMG. We spend a lot of time talking about. But sexual health should be part of that conversation too. I know because I've experienced low libido myself. And it can leave you feeling frustrated and wondering what happened to that part of me. That's why I started taking Addi. Non-hormonal Addi is the only FDA approved treatment for both pre- and post-menopausal women under 65. Clinically proven to increase sexual desire. Addi helped me reconnect with my desire. And Addi is as little as $20 per month with commercials. Social insurance coverage. Addi, flibanserin, is a prescription medicine for women under 65 with low sexual desire that is distressing to them. Addi is for low desire that happens in all situations and is not caused by a medical condition, relationship issue, or medicines. Addi is not for men or to enhance sexual performance. Addi can cause severe low blood pressure and fainting. Your risk is higher if you drink alcohol close to your dose. Don't take Addi if you have liver problems, take certain medicines, or are allergic to any of its ingredients. Before taking Addi, tell your doctor about all the medicines you take. If you've had any mental health conditions. are pregnant, planning pregnancy, or breastfeeding. Side effects may include dizziness, nausea, tiredness, trouble sleeping, and dry mouth. Visit Addi.com. That's A-D-D-Y-I dot com to learn more. Includes. including important warnings. I've thought a lot about why the Kowalski story took off the way it did and how such a well-documented abuse case got laundered to the extent of a sympathetic Netflix documentary and a quarter-billion-dollar verdict in court. It certainly doesn't hurt that Maya is a beautiful white girl with a dead mother, a sort of true crime Disney princess. But I think Beata's absence from this story is what really allowed it to take off. Beata Kowalski was a complicated person in real life, someone capable of subjecting her daughter to unfathomable abuse. She said she would put her daughter on hospice and let her die. I have no reason to believe that she wasn't serious about that threat. But in the retelling, Beata is flattened into an archetypal, self-sacrificing, heroic mother, the one people want to believe in. And because she wasn't around to complicate this picture, the filmmakers and lawyers got to make her into whatever they wanted. And of course, Maya and her younger brother are incredibly sympathetic figures. They've lived through a multitude of traumas in their young lives. But the idea that the doctors were the cause of these traumas rather than the intervention that likely saved Maya Kowalski's life is counter to reality. But I have a strong sense that most people watching the film and cheering on the initial jury decision don't have any idea what this verdict actually meant. From my perspective, had this verdict remained, this would have continued to be a massive chilling effect on the ability of mandatory reporters to report their suspicions of medical child abuse, physical child abuse, mental child abuse or neglect without the fear of being prosecuted in a civil court, being prosecuted in a civil court, being prosecuted in the court of public opinion, and potentially having your life and your finances and your professional license ruined. And unless you're on the front lines of this, I represent hospitals for a living. So I have a lot of people call me with questions. What do you think in this scenario? And I remember one that really haunted me. It was about two weeks after the verdict. And I had a client, a doctor call me who was an ER physician and said, I have a child in here. She said, I have a child in here. She's an 11-year-old girl. She's got a severe vaginal infection. And the person who's posing as the parent doesn't seem to speak the same language as her, right? Flashing red lights for child trafficking and sexual abuse. And her question was, if I call this, do I have to attach my name to it, which in Florida you do if you're a healthcare provider. Can that be discoverable? And can that be discovered? Can I be sued? And the answer to all of those questions are yes, yes, and yes. And, you know, what I have to explain to them is, while you can be sued, one would hope that given the fact that you have what I think is more than a reasonable suspicion, that should you be sued, we'd be able to get the case dismissed right away. Which always leads to the next question, then what happened in Kowalski? Right? And I'm not trying to make it so simple to say that, you know, there's no scenario that any mandated reporter could step above or beyond the bounds of immunity, even though I believe in the second district seem to agree that the evidence was that all children's complied in good faith with their mandatory reporting obligations. But imagine if you're in that situation on the front line of protecting children and you are pausing. And that's what I'm talking about in terms of the chilling effect. If it happens in a case that's that obvious, then what happens on the cases that are more on the margins? And when the statute is written where these people can be prosecuted for failure to report a suspicion, not a substantiated belief, but a suspicion, then I think from my perspective, for those two years, the chilling effect was very real. Much of the media surrounding these cases emphasize the idea that doctors and child abuse pediatricians are rushing to judgment. Diane Neary, the journalist I mentioned up top, recently did a season of Serial called The Preventionist, where she hammered her argument against child abuse pediatricians with these words in the series finale. Quote, I'm saying even one pause, one wait a second, might be the difference between a family staying together or being broken apart. But as Ethan says, there's a very real cost to that pause, and children are the ones who pay it. We don't have to guess what happens when doctors start ignoring warning signs of abuse. The deaths of Olivia Gant and Colin McDaniel tell us how that story ends, how Maya's story could have ended. The fate of Justina Pelletier, whose parents' lawsuit was the precursor to the Kowalskis, shows yet another possible path. The Pelletiers lost their lives, but they did get their daughter back. Now in her 20s, she is deeply impacted by her ongoing health issues. It seems very unlikely that she will ever live an independent life. So the big question now is, did the appeal, which barely made a blip in the media, put us back on the right track? The second district's decision in favor of my client was, from my perspective, very well written, very lengthy, very thorough analysis of the way the law is right now. I believe that is going to be a vindication of the rights and duties of mandatory reporters, so long as they're staying within the law, complying in good faith with their rights and obligations under the law. So my optimistic view of this is that the decision in favor of my clients is going to vindicate the rights and responsibilities of all mandatory reporters. Now, the attack for which, you know, those of us, and I put myself in that camp, believe that the law should remain broad, that we would like to, you know, we would like the state to be aware of reasonable suspicions of abuse, the vast majority of which are screened out without any action or any interference of parents' rights. But I think if there's going to be an attack from the camp that believes these laws are too restrictive, that parents should have closer to unfettered rights to make decisions of their child, even if from the mind of a reasonable person that those decisions are harming a child, I think you're going to see the attacks at the legislative end. Because from the court's perspective, they're interpreting the law as it's written. You know, if you read the second district's opinion in favor of my clients, they're doing an excellent deep dive into here's what the statute says, here's what the entire statutory scheme is. And based on our interpretation of the statute, here's what the decision should ultimately be in favor of Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital. And if people want to undo that, it's not going to be by bringing case after case. It's going to be lobbying for legislators to roll this back. It could be rolled back with something as simple as changing the criteria of mandatory reporters have to report a reasonable suspicion. You could change that definition to say they're only reporting a reasonable suspicion or they're only required to report substantiated complaints that are verifiable through a panel of three medical experts that would make the standard for a report so infinitely high, it would only catch those that are so egregious. These are societal questions. And for the past 60 years, society has decided to cast this net very broadly. You're at the front line of this, Andrea. And if you're sensing a sea change, you should be alarmed. As Ethan indicates, I've been keeping an eye on the shifts in these conversations around doctors, abuse, and parental rights. In fact, it's baked into my origin story. My sister Megan Carter was covered in Mike Hickson-Bogg's series, Do No Harm, along with a whole host of other families who claim to have been falsely accused of abuse by doctors. And Hickson-Bogg isn't alone. Similar stories have made the pages of USA Today, The New York Times, Serial Podcast, New York Magazine, and this one really hurt. ProPublica. And as I've tracked these stories, I've noticed a trend. While cases of false accusations of Munchausen by proxy often make big headlines, as they did in the Justina Pelletier case and the Maya Kowalski case, there are a bunch of other cases being ushered in with them that are seemingly much more straightforward physical abuse cases. Munchausen by proxy cases are particularly easy to misrepresent in the media because of how misunderstood this form of abuse is. If you leave enough context out, you can frame a perpetrator as a heroic, embattled mom, especially because perpetrators themselves have often put in years of work to build that image by the time these false accusation stories end up in the press. The media coverage of their cases becomes another part of their whole grift, another opportunity to play both the victim and the martyr, to pull one over on not just the journalist, but their entire audience. And Munchausen by proxy stories are, by their very nature, difficult to unravel and get to the bottom of, It's also really important important for anyone reporting on child abuse to understand how these systems actually work. Because that pause that journalists like Neary are asking for, it's already happening. There already are systems in place to rule out abuse and protect families from being unduly separated from their children. But that part doesn't make such a juicy headline. So this is my personal opinion on this. It's the same when you watch Law & Order and they skip jury selection because it's boring and long and all of a sudden you've got a jury and you're starting. But that's kind of one of the most important elements of this. And until you do it, you don't really realize how much goes into that process. This is the same with the due process rights after a call is made. And there's this perception that a doctor or any mandatory reporter can pick up the phone and call the suspicion of abuse or neglect. And within moments, the child is taken away from the parents. That's not how it works. There are, as there were in Maya Kowalski's case, there's an investigation. There has to be a well-documented file that is brought before a judge who's going to look at that at multiple stages. The emergency stage, is this an emergency where the child's at imminent risk, where I have to put a shelter order in place because there's obvious signs of abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or someone wanting to take the child into hospice to put them under? Is this a situation where, you know, I can do something temporary by saying like, you know, here's an injunction against giving this medication, but everybody cool off and come back in a week and, you know, the child's going home with the parents. And so, your listeners have to remember that there's a lot of due process. And from my experience, and I will admit, I don't have a lot of experience in front of the penitency court, but from my, what I would admit to be somewhat limited experience, the judges are very reluctant to start interfering with parents' rights unless they have to. And the other thing I would tell you is, yes, I can completely understand a situation of a mandatory reporter thinking, okay, the child has confided in me that, you know, dad spanks them, right? Something that I think reasonable minds, in society can think there's degrees of that. And maybe I don't spank my kids, but we're not going to start separating every child from their parent who gets a swat on the butt, even if I don't think that's appropriate behavior. But if you don't call in something that's setting off your alarm bells, how do you know that's not the fourth or fifth time that child's confided in somebody? Why wouldn't you let the agencies that are, that are trained to track these think, huh, that's the fifth time now that I've got a call from five different teachers saying that that kid was subject to some type of corporal punishment at home that made the child uncomfortable. Maybe we should investigate this because the kids now come forward five times. And so, so that's the type of thing that when you get rid of the reasonable suspicion standard, you're also getting rid of the ability of trained professionals to track whether there's a pattern that may, in isolation, not seem to be threatening to the welfare of a child or a vulnerable adult, but over time lets them track potential problems. Do you think that medical professionals would still report if they weren't required by law, but they knew that they would be protected by the law? In my experience, having gone through this, perhaps the most heroic thing that I've heard from my clients that participated in Maya Kowalski's case, who were raked over the coals in the court of public opinion, raked over the coals in a biased movie that gave no effort to give context, intentionally concealed deposition testimony that would have put the hospital in a much more favorable light, were dragged into a forum and subject to intense public scrutiny. When you ask them, was this worth it? Their response is, if it helped a child get onto a road where they detox from drugs that could have potentially killed them, put a child on the road where they're running, where they're back in school, where they're able to maximize their potential, I would do it again. So, you know, when you say, "All healthcare providers," you know, of course there are some that are going to wash their hands of the situation, but when you really look at the people that have dedicated their lives to pediatrics, they're not in it for the money. There are much more lucrative areas of medicine that people could go into. I am optimistic that if you tweaked the law, you would still get a lot of people on the pediatric side that would err on doing what they needed to do to protect the child so long as they knew that they had statutory protections, should their reasonable suspicion be opposed by somebody. Sometimes Munchausen by proxy cases come to a head in a dramatic moment, the way that Maya's case did, but it's always preceded by a pattern of abuse over time. But so many cases in these compendiums of falsely accused parents are not Munchausen by proxy cases. But cases of abusive head trauma, a form of child abuse that, unlike Munchausen by proxy, involves a specific incident and about which there is a huge degree of medical and scientific consensus on how to diagnose. So how are these stories ending up in the same bucket as Munchausen by proxy? Though the Kowalski case is the main focus of Take Care of Maya, the film widens its lens to four other families who claim they've also been falsely accused of abuse by the child abuse pediatrician, Dr. Sally Smith. And as the credits roll, a montage of families from around the country plays. These parents also say they've been falsely accused by doctors. Here's reporter Daphne Chen in Take Care of Maya. It was January 2019 when I hit publish on that piece about the Kowalski family and I kind of thought I'd move on to the next thing. But that was when the call started coming in and the email started coming in and I realized that this was a lot bigger than just the Kowalskis. I'm sitting at my desk and I start hearing from more and more families. People who had gone to the doctor for help for their kids and then became the target of the system. These families walked in hoping for help for their child and some of them walked out in handcuffs. And this helps frame Jack Kowalski's legal crusade as addressing a systemic injustice. He's not just dragging his traumatized children through a highly publicized years-long legal battle for a payday. He's there on behalf of all falsely accused parents who've been victimized by the system. Here's Viviana Graham, one of the other parents featured in the film. This young girl, Maya, represents hope for all of us in bringing Sally Smith down, bringing the system down. This is the framing throughout the varied media stories and lawsuits around the country. Out of control child abuse pediatricians falsely accusing parents is a systemic issue that needs reform. I started off reporting on the Maya Kowalski case from the outside, following the trial and reading huge piles of legal documents. But then, midway through my reporting, I got a voicemail. Hi, Andrea. This is Patrick. I am Dr. Sally Smith's son. The media at this time was excoriating Dr. Sally Smith, the child abuse pediatrician in the Maya Kowalski case, calling her vile names and criticizing every minute of tape from her depositions. Seemingly, every family who'd ever been involved in a case that she'd provided an evaluation for sprang forth to claim that it was not their children who'd been the victims but they themselves, innocent parents who'd suffered at the hands of Dr. Smith. I was the lone voice in the media who seemed to understand that far from being the villain of the Maya Kowalski story, Sally Smith, along with the care team at Johns Hopkins All Children's, had been one of its heroes. People were not happy with me for this take. In fact, my reporting on Dr. Smith landed me my very first death threats. After the trial was over and the quarter billion dollar verdict rendered, I flew down to Florida to interview Dr. Smith. By the time I sat down with her, I knew the Kowalski case up, down, and sideways. And of course, this was Munchausen by proxy, my area of expertise. But I became curious about the other four families in Take Care of Maya who were alleging that they were victims of Dr. Smith. There was one story that really stuck with me in particular, that of the sole male voice in this cohort, a Florida man named John Stewart, who claims he was falsely accused of the murder of 15-month-old Nolan Kelly. Here he is in Take Care of Maya. "I spent over 300 days in jail before they finally dropped the charges. They ruined my life because of it." In addition to his fleeting soundbites in the film, John inserted himself into the courtroom drama by showing up on the from the day Dr. Sally Smith testified. He confronted her outside of the courthouse filmed the aftermath, which was shared on TikTok. She's evil. She's a liar. She's a malpractice Sally. She freaking charged me with a crime that I did not commit. The medical evidence clearly shows that I was innocent and she has never been held accountable. She's freaking medically kidnapped Maya Kowalski. She needs to be held accountable. The fact that you as a deputy are not arresting her disgusts me and disturbs me on every level. She has fucking killed people. She has literally killed people. She has freaking abused children. She has harmed children. I'm reporting this to you. I want her arrested for that. Please arrest her for that. She is illegally kidnapped numerous children. She has illegally imprisoned numerous parents without any medical evidence. And she has not been held accountable. And I'm begging anybody in law enforcement to do their job and hold that evil. There were almost no details in the film about what happened to Nolan Kelly or any of the other children. But on my way to interview Dr. Sally Smith two years ago, I read the media coverage of John's case. The most thoroughly reported account of John's case was in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. It featured four pictures of John, two of which showed him in his military uniform. There's only one picture of Nolan. He's standing outside with one of his siblings, Pantzler. He's as restless as one-year-olds often are. He has adorable tufts of curls and his big dark eyes look up into the camera. I had so many questions about what really happened to Nolan. I was overwhelmed by sadness reading about it. He'd been 15 months old when he died, a month younger than my own son was then. The part of me that was curious to know more was drowned out by the part of me that couldn't bear to. So I let it go. Until two years later, I got a message. Well, I was actually watching Dateline, and a show about Dr. Vega being involved came on. And I was like, you know, I started thinking about some things. So then I asked them, you know, about my case in particular, Catch EPT, and it brought up your podcast. So I looked at it, listened to it, and saw that I felt that you were basically defending Sally Smith erroneously. So yeah, so that's why I reached out to y'all, because I didn't feel that it was right that she basically got to lie again. Coming up this season on Nobody Should Believe Me. I think an inevitable conclusion that this is not accidental trauma in the child. The Emmy ruled this a homicide, right? Yes, correct. One of the main problems with the system is that it is focused so much on poor people that it ends up really missing serious cases of abuse. Then the question is, just because something makes sense, is it true? These things that they introduce as speculative is just to throw off the court. The court is not a medical arena. Arena. It's a legal arena. Reviewed thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of documents about this child and ended up producing a 45-page report delineating all of the different ways that there was evidence of medical child abuse in the case. The arguments were the exact same tactics. I had spent two years exploring with vaccines. I didn't have to go through the whole, let me look into this, because I recognized them. I think he knows exactly what happened. I think blacking out is just a cop-out excuse. He knows what he did is horrific. I mean, just watching him, I think he's a dangerous person. And I think, frankly, if you put this on the airwaves, you may escalate. Parents have extraordinarily strong rights in this country, and children are the ones that have very, very limited rights. Come on. I mean, if you can't get your mind around that, there's no point in even talking anymore, seriously. The assumption that being with a parent is always going to be the best solution, it will always feel wrong to me. I will always grieve that I didn't get those years in a situation away from my parents. Nobody Should Believe Me is written, reported, and executive produced by me, Andrea Dunlop. Our co-executive producer is Mariah Gossett. Our editor is Greta Stromquist. Story editing by Nicole Hill. Research and fact-checking by Erin Ajayi. Additional research by Jessa V. Randall. Mixing and engineering by Robin Edgar. Our production manager is Nola Karmouche. Music from Blue Dot Sessions, SoundSnap, and Slipstream. Special thanks this week to Ethan Shapiro. We'll see you next time. Deck outline, prototype, or workflow you can review and keep shaping. You stay in control, giving direction and choosing the final output. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting work mode. Available on Plus and Pro plans. Turn it up. More tech than ever. This is Tony Ayo from The Real Report with Tony Ayo and Uncle Murda. You haven't noticed how everything keeps going up? Rent, streaming, even extra salsa at your favorite burrito spot. But with Boost Mobile, you don't have to play the Willis Go Up Soon game. Boost Mobile offers an unlimited talk, text, and data plan at a price that'll never go up. It's the same price you'll pay for life. Switch now for unlimited wireless at a price that'll never go up, only at Boost Mobile. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan. We know kids don't hold back, and I wouldn't want them to. Get in there, make a mess, slide for home, bring on the stains. It works on over 100 stains. And it's America's number one stain-biter additive brand. It's color-safe and chlorine-free. So, I use it on whites, colors, and dark fabrics. Guaranteed human.