Does this situation(dentist committing assault) make sense?

To summarize, a dental practice is being accused of assaulting a child physically. Okay, that much I get. But the police response baffles me, which makes me wonder if the police actually acted that way, or whether the reporting is just wrong:

Does the law handle sexual assault differently, because I’ve heard of people being jailed based on only the child’s testimony, in Florida. Do simple assault cases require a higher standard of evidence? and what’s this with the doctor not being a caregiver? Why does that matter? I would think that a girl missing seven teeth and all bruised up would make police want to know the reason why.

Here’s reporting on it from a local news site, drawn to the practice because of a protest in front of it:

Another story with more allegations:

Oh…Florida…now it all makes sense.

Sounds more like a civil case of malpractice, than a criminal matter. If all the stories are true, I’m sure there’s got to be some local Jacksonville attorney that would take them on to sue the dentist.

This bit, “the police can’t press charges because Dr. Schneider is not a care giver and her daughter is the only witness” can’t possibly be correct. Now of course IANAL but what is being described, if accurate, sounds like assault and battery and certainly the authorities can pursue a case against that?

The child may be too young to qualify as a competent witness. The dentist could have been charged with child abuse if he qualified as a caregiver, which would not necessarily require the child’s testimony.

Assuming the allegations are true, this is a case of aggravated battery (throwing and choking a child.) Or child abuse, which does not require intent in this state.

It sounds like he’s also been consistently violating regulations requiring parental consent to do procedures, and keeping the parents out of the exam room. Both alone should result in his license being revoked.

In cases like this though, we always find out that the appropriate board knew and did nothing.

Why the hell should it matter if the person who assaulted and injured a child is her caregiver or not?

You might want to read post 5.

Nice of the dolts to mention how old the kid is, but perhaps irrelevant. Also weird that someone will presume that testimony from the kid MUST happen for their to be a viable case (v. mother and others, who can testify that her kid didn’t have bruises and injuries … and had most of her teeth … before she entered that dentist’s treatment room).

At any rate, while police (as it relates to X level crimes) may file charges themselves v. prosecutor (depends on FL system), it is the prosecutor’s office who decides whether charges will be dropped or pursued.

I’m not terribly conversant in Florida court structure, but **mother may present information to a grand jury herself on behalf of her child. ** Ultimately, however, the prosecutor decides whether to proceed. And if the prosecutor has declined to file charges, the prosecutor may stubbornly refuse to proceed if the grand jury indicts. Hopefully, the embarrassment factor would prevent that kind of nonsense.

I’d recommend to the mother that she be telling the local prosecutor that if charges are not leveled, she will present the information to the sitting grand jury herself.

http://www.flcourts.org/resources-and-services/education-outreach/

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter30/flgrandjuryhandbook.rtf

THE GRAND JURY AS AN ACCUSING
AND INVESTIGATING BODY

  Our constitution provides that no person shall be brought to trial for a capital crime except upon indictment of a grand jury. This means that no one may be prosecuted for a capital crime except by a vote of the grand jury. Except for capital crimes, the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor) may initiate all other criminal charges. The grand jury of course may indict for any crime that the evidence justifies.

  The wisdom of leaving to the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor) the bringing of charges as to crimes less than capital crimes and traffic violations is readily apparent. If the grand jury was required to initiate the prosecution of less serious crimes through indictment, the grand jury would be so overwhelmed with complaints that it could not perform its more important duties.

  Charges of crime may be brought to your attention in several ways: by the court; by the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor); from personal knowledge brought to your body by any member of the grand jury; **and, lastly, by private citizens who have a right to be heard by a grand jury in formal session and with the grand jury's consent. **The bulk of the grand jury's work probably will be concerned with cases brought to its attention by the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor). In most instances a person being considered for indictment by the grand jury will have been held preliminarily on a charge brought before a judge sitting as a committing magistrate, who bound that person over for action by the grand jury. The accused will be either in custody or on bail. Your action, therefore, should be reasonably prompt in either voting an indictment as to the charge or returning a "no true bill."

  The grand jury should consult with the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor) or an assistant state attorney (or the assistant statewide prosecutor) in advance of undertaking a formal investigation on the grand jury's own initiative.

  A grand juror may not be subject to partisan secret influences. Consequently, no one has the right to approach a juror in order to persuade that juror that an indictment should or should not be found. Any individual who wishes to be heard by the grand jury should be referred to the state attorney (or the statewide prosecutor) or to the foreperson of the grand jury, and thereafter be heard only in formal session of the grand jury.

  It is imperative that you always keep in mind that as a grand juror you are a public official, with the duty of protecting the public by enforcing the law of the land. Therefore, even though you may think a certain law to be unduly harsh or illogical, that should not influence your judgment in carrying out your duties as a grand juror. A citizen has the right to endeavor to change the law. A grand juror, being a public official, has a duty to enforce the law as it exists despite any personal inclinations to the contrary.

  The grand jury in addition to the duty of formally indicting those charged with crime has the further important duty of making investigations on its own initiative, which it will report as a "presentment." This duty permits investigation of how public officials are conducting their offices and discharging their public trusts. The grand jury may investigate as to whether public institutions are being properly administered and conducted. It has the power to inspect those institutions and, if necessary, may call before the grand jury those in charge of the operations of public institutions as well as any other person who has information and can testify concerning them. If the grand jury finds that an unlawful, improper, or corrupt condition exists, it may recommend a remedy.

  The grand jury may not act arbitrarily. Investigations shall not be based upon street rumor, gossip, or whim, and the investigations cannot be the subject of a grand jury presentment. The grand jury can only investigate those matters that are within its jurisdiction, geographic and otherwise. The limitations of the grand jury's jurisdiction have been set forth for you by the court in its instructions.

  It is important to keep in mind that no individual should be unjustly criticized or held up to scorn or public resentment, particularly when it is remembered that the individuals who may be criticized had no opportunity to defend themselves or give reply to the charges. A grand juror must keep in mind that the grand jury is the ultimate instrument of justice and should never be subverted to become the vehicle for harassment or oppression.

She probably doesn’t even realize that what she already has is good enough for a slam dunk lawsuit. The practice broke at least two laws, possibly three, in their treatment of her child and the child as a direct result suffered serious injuries.

The reason Florida seems to show up in these stories a lot is because of their unique open Police records policy.

Papoose boards are actual medical devices. If he confined the kid like this without telling the parent then that’s insanely stupid and if they left the room with the kid trussed up like this without supervision that’s stupid too.

On the assault angle I can see that if you are removing 7 teeth from a struggling kid tied to a restraint board the doc or the assistant my have to hold her down or hold her mouth at a certain angle which a kid could see as being squashed and choked.

The unknown here is mom is acting like she was completely unaware of the procedures and restraint methods they had planned. If that’s the case then punishment of some sort is deserved.

They can testify about whatever they like. If they were suing the dentist, that would probably be sufficient. This is a (proposed) criminal case, and as such it probably wouldn’t. And the child’s age is certainly relevant. The child’s testimony is inadmissible unless she is competent, and the younger the child the less likely she is to qualify.

Did the mother even know that teeth were going to be extracted? Is a dentist required to inform parents of minors before extraction if that wasn’t the stated primary purpose going into the visit? I can’t imagine taking my kid for a routine cleaning and having them walk out with a bunch of holes in their smile. “Hi, Kid’sMom! We had to pull some teeth. Hope that’s OK!” doesn’t sound quite right to me. Well, I can’t imagine not staying in the room for the entirety of the child’s visit, either.

There’s a whole helluva lotta “smells fishy” about the story in the OP.

Creepy. I knew from the photo exactly where that office is. Hello, hometown.

Anyway, on to the doctor stuff – it doesn’t look good for the dentist. Lots of parents coming forward with some very strange stories.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/dental-practice-investigation/32629774

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/parents-allege-pediatric-dentist-hurt-kids/nk5P2/

Anyway…Was the child scratched and bruised when she went back? No? Did she have all of her teeth? Yes? Was the removal of the 7 teeth discussed with the parent? No?

Assault.

Battery. An assault is (to avoid getting overly technical) an attempted or threatened battery.

Which is kinda funny when you thing of being charged with assault AND battery.
Bad: You beat the guy up.

Worse. You threatened to beat the guy up and then beat him up. Or you attempted to beat the guy up, failed the first time, then successfully beat him up.

Moral of the story. Just beat the guy up without failing or warning him/her first.

How assault or battery (or an act where both are in play) are defined depends on state. Where I am, an “assault” encompasses the crimes of assault, battery, and assault and battery. Then there are a host of things that are still common law offenses that haven’t been codified by statute (like affray).

The dentist had better be able to show the consent form where the mother agreed to have as many extractions as the dentist thought necessary, or I suspect his license may be in jeopardy. Even if he can do this, I can’t think of a good reason for both he and his hygienist to leave the room when the child was strapped to the papoose board and, apparently, still struggling. He should also have been able to secure the child without bruising her neck.

Assuming that any or most of this is actually true, which at the least has not been established.

Regards,
Shodan

Ignorance fought, though I think I knew that on some level.

Given that this occurred in Jacksonville, the dentist is lucky that he hasn’t been shot.