---
# System prepended metadata

title: 007 Chapter
tags: [DF]

---

# Chapter 7 the first legal punch

The acidic feedback from the legal department regarding my proposed attachments for the report felt like a harsh slap in the face: the dismissive tone and apparent disregard for the substantial issues I was addressing with supporting documents cut deep. As I reviewed their response, the sting of their words intensified, leaving me questioning their motives.

I was perched on the barstool at our kitchen counter, the smooth granite cool beneath my elbows. My hands in the shape of fists which my face rested upon. I was staring down at the letter from the legal department. The harsh, formal language on the page contrasted sharply with the warmth and familiarity of my kitchen, making the words feel even more jarring. It was as if the comfort of my home was being invaded by the cold, impersonal nature of legal response I received from the solicitors office.

My wife was on the other side of the counter starting to prepare something for dinner. She noticed that I was visibly upset.

"What's going on?" my wife Nina asked her hands pausing over the chopping board. We had been together for over 30 years. We had two kids—Jada, our eldest, was off at college, and Grant, our high school senior, was so busy with activities that we rarely saw him. We had been through enough for her to know when I was upset,

"I don't know where to start," I said seriously, the weight of the letter pressing down on me.

"Start at the beginning," she replied, equally serious. While I talked about work on occasion, I rarely delved into the details or the processes we had to navigate. Just explaining the letter I received was going to take a while, so she could understand why I was so perturbed.

"Okay, so as you know, we do audits all the time. In most cases, my office doesn't send the audit report to the legal department for review," I began, trying to organize my thoughts. "While I would like everyone to read our audits, the primary audience for the report's output is the head of the department under audit. For example, if we audit the Coroner's office, the Coroner and maybe some of his staff are the only ones who actually read the report. We do make the reports public by putting them on our website, but realistically, the primary reader is the auditee."

Nina nodded, understanding so far. She started chopping again, but her movements were slow and quiet. She was paying attention.

"However, this audit is different," I continued, swiveling back and forth in my chair. "The audit I'm doing right now on the cost of misdiagnosis involves sensitive documents. I've been reviewing court transcripts and medical records from the parents."

"Yes, you've mentioned that a few times over the last month. And I've seen you reading early in the morning and again late at night," she said with a knowing smile. I did tend to embrace my work. She would say I immersed myself in it. That felt pretty accurate.

"I want to ensure that court cases and transcripts, really anything that the parents gave me to help me understand their story  are included in my report, but only as attachments," I explained, leaning forward on the counter. "I want to put them in the back of the report. The gravity of the issues demands a thorough and transparent approach. I want to provide a comprehensive account, allowing for scrutiny and accountability."

Nina paused her chopping, looking up at me with a mix of concern and encouragement. She had some garlic and onions of the stove and the aroma  filled the kitchen, adding a comforting backdrop to our serious conversation.

"In the main body of the report, I'll have quotes and summaries of what I've read and the interviews I have done. I will also have financial information that you would expect from my office. That will allow the reader to quickly understand the situation, but I don't want the reader to feel like the report is slanted in any way. I want them to be able to go to the original documents and make their own determination," I continued, my voice steady with conviction. "In fact, I intend on including citations for all the external information I've gathered. Including these documents is crucial for painting the full picture and ensuring everyone understands the severity of the situation."

Nina nodded again, this time with tears in her eyes. It wasn’t my story that brought them on, but rather the onions she had started slicing. She must have wanted more than what was already on the stove. That was good by me; I loved sautéed onions.

"That sounds like the right thing to do," she said, wiping her eyes. "Are you being advised not to do that?"

"Something like that," I replied, glancing out our sliding glass door. It was late afternoon, and the sun was easing towards the horizon, its orange glow stretching across the sky. We lived at the top of a hill, and the view was the reason we bought the house. Days like today reminded me to be grateful for it. I felt exhausted. The early mornings and late nights were catching up to me. Since I had heard Kim's story I had a hard time sleeping, feeling a strong need to help these families break out of their turmoil.

"Most of my audits don’t involve medical records or this amount of external reading," I continued. "A lot of the documents are private, or they’ve been sealed by the courts because they involve minor children. I wanted to make sure I could legally include these documents since the parents provided them to me."

"So, what’s the problem?"

"In order to get a legal opinion, we have a process that involves submitting a 'legal services request'—an LSR—to our solicitors whenever we have legal questions," I explained. "The purpose of the LSR is to seek legal advice and guidance on specific issues. After they are submitted, the solicitor, Dave who you met at my mothers funeral, assigns an attorney to review the LSR and provide analysis and recommendations on how to proceed legally. This ensures that we are operating within the bounds of the law and mitigating any potential legal risks associated with our actions."

Nina nodded, understanding the complexity of the situation. "I liked Dave. But honestly you have a process for everything and there are a lot of acronyms as well."

"I like Dave too." I said and then jumped back into the body of my discussion "I  received all the sealed documents from the families. I assumed I could just get their written permission to include it in my report. After all, the original goal of sealing these documents was to protect the identity of the child involved," I explained.

Nina nodded, her hazel eyes attentive even as she made dinner.

"In all the reports and transcripts, the child's name is already redacted or altered. Honestly, I don't even understand why they're sealed. With that personal information already protected, I thought getting the families' approval to publish the materials could allow me to circumvent the sealed status. giving the public a full picture of what I was seeing"

"That seems like a reasonable assumption, but I assume you are getting ready to tell me that the lawyers said 'no'"

"Sort of... maybe I got  an answer that is worse than a no," I said,  as I fiddled with a pen on the counter. "When I submitted my LSR, Dave mentioned he might assign a lawyer named Mike Vargo. I asked him not to assign Mike because I’ve seen his name all over the documents the families gave me."  

Nina was now stirring a pot on the stove, the aroma of sautéed onions still tantalizing my senses. I noticed she was also preparing broccoli. While some may develop an appreciation for it later in life, my distaste for the green vegetable persisted. She paused and glanced over her shoulder, eyebrows raised in curiosity. "So, who did you get?"

"I got two lawyers, but one of them was Kerry Friedl. I don't know Kerry that well, but I spoke to him when I first started the investigation. He was very informative and forthcoming. I spoke to him and Dave at the same time."

Nina turned back to the stove, giving the pot a thoughtful stir. "That seems positive. Is he a good lawyer? Has he been helpful?"

"I felt anxiety when I first leanred that  Friedl was assigned," I replied. "I liked him but he also serves as the primary legal counsel for the Children and Youth Services department - the entity I am auditing."

Nina was stirring something pretty aggressively, then set the spoon down with a decisive clink. "That seems like a conflict of interest. Is that allowed? Can he be impartial?" She began chopping some fresh herbs, her movements quick and precise. "I assume Dave had a good reason to assign him, it is probably nothing to worry about." She glanced up at me.

I stood up abruptly, the barstool scraping against the floor. "Despite my reservations about Friedl's potential conflict of interest, I trusted he would recuse himself from the legal review if he genuinely felt conflicted." I picked up the letter from the counter and took a deep breath. "I'm looking at his response to my LSR now. He should have recused himself." I was shaking my head in disapointment.

Nina looked relieved. "Ah I see, so the scope was quite narrow - just about using sealed documents, not the entire audit itself. That makes Friedl's involvement a bit less precarious, since the legal opinion was specific rather than something that could sway the overall findings. Still, better to be cautious with potential conflicts."

"I haven’t even given him the audit report. They don’t have it because I haven’t finished it," I said, pacing the kitchen. "Right now, I wasn’t providing them with the entire report—it’s still a work in progress. I was only seeking their legal advice on including sealed case transcripts and documents as attachments. My request was about whether I had the proper permissions to publish those sealed materials. I wasn’t asking the legal department to review the full audit report, which, at this point, still isn’t done. Have I been clear that the report isn't done yet?" I said with a smile, aware that I was starting to repeat myself. I was incredulous at the memo I had received from Kerry and needed to emphasize the point. "The word flabbergast comes to mind"

Nina uncorked the bottle of red wine the rich crimson liquid glided into the glass, its inky hue sparkling. She sipped it delicately savoring the taste. On a normal day, when I am not talking her ear off, She would tuck her earbuds snugly into her ears drowning out all outside noise. She would listen to music or the news. I personally liked it better when she was listening to music. Her hips  would sway and I would be reminded how lucky I was that she is in my life. Her dance assured me that no matter what squalls raged inside and outside home - life was good.

"So his first significant contention was that my report is outside my authority. His is arguing that my requests did not ask about invoices, receipts, or anything monetarily related. I want bore you with the entire letter, I'll pick out the good parts. Here is the first thing that starts my blood boiling. He wrote"

> "...your requests, broadly construed, do not specifically relate to an audit that you are conducting, nor do they reference invoices, receipts, or anything monetarily related."

I start pacing, the frustration clear in my voice. "So, get this," I begin, waving my hands for emphasis. "Their assertion that my requests didn't 'relate to an audit' or 'reference invoices, receipts, or anything monetarily related'—it's baffling!"

I stop and look at her, shaking my head. "Why on earth would I ever submit an LSR to have them review invoices or monetary documents? That's my job! Examining financial records and spending falls squarely under my authority. I wouldn't need them to tell me that, why would I send anything about invoices."

I resume my pacing, trying to let off some steam. "To suggest I lack jurisdiction because I wasn't asking them about monetary matters—it's absurd!"

I pause again, looking at her with a mix of exasperation and disbelief. "I specifically submitted these LSRs because I needed guidance on whether I could include sealed court records and transcripts as attachments to my upcoming audit report. The whole point of my requests to the solicitors was to get a legal determination on my ability to publish these supporting documents. - I  think I may have mentioned this earlier."

I let out a deep breath, finally stopping my restless movement. "Can you believe this nonsense?"

She interjects, "Wait, so they’re basically saying you don’t have the right to do your job?"

"Absolutely!" I exclaim, throwing my hands up. "Or I should say that is what they are implying. They are acting as if the attachments were the entire report, ignoring the fact that they know I am still working on my audit report."

I stop and take a deep breath, my frustration growing. "In fact, when complete, my report—and I realize they don't know this yet because they haven't seen it—will highlight significant expenses related to misdiagnosis. For example, we know that it costs $25,000 to $30,000 for each child placed in foster care and about $20,000 to $25,000 in legal fees. If a child is wrongly diagnosed, we wouldn't have to pay these fees."

I pause and pace a few steps, trying to calm down. "Ten kids wrongly diagnosed would cost the county between $250,000 and $500,000."

She raises an eyebrow, clearly surprised. "That's a huge financial impact."

"Exactly!" I say, nodding emphatically. "These figures show how much misdiagnosis costs the county, which is my responsibility as Controller. Moreover, their response ignored the significant legal and financial risks the county could face from lawsuits."

I stop pacing and turn to her, my tone more serious. "They seemed to overlook recent cases where families who were misdiagnosed with child abuse sought large sums in compensation. Even though I specifically pointed that out to them. I have spoken to them about cases in New York and in Florida where the parents sued. In one case they were able to pierce government immunity and go after one of the commissioners."

I sit down, finally letting out a deep breath. "It's unbelievable, right? I feel like they are trying to bury this report."

The solicitors' myopic focus on whether my report specifically audited Children and Youth invoices and expenses was misguided. Even if my investigation did not scrutinize those departmental costs, the sheer potential for costly lawsuits stemming from mishandled abuse cases gave me full justification to probe this issue as the County Controller. Protecting taxpayer dollars means mitigating departmental overspending and multi-million dollar litigation costs that could shrink the county's coffers and cost taxpayer money. 

"Ok, quote number two and this one I love."

> "...the only obvious and immediate result of this report would be to impugn the personal and professional integrity of Dr. Jenssen."

I look at her. "That's so far from the truth. I don't care about Dr. Jenssen's integrity one way or another. This report highlights the facts we uncover during our investigation. We aren't making personal attacks; we are presenting evidence from court proceedings, sworn testimony, and official records."

I pause. "Dr. Jenssen's conduct is questioned because of the documented concerns and outcomes from her evaluations and diagnoses. Not just in one case, not in two cases but in many cases. If the evidence makes her look bad, it isn't because of anything we did. It's because of what the documents show about her actions."

I take a breath. "What I care about is making sure that we address address systemic issues that are allowing this to happen in the first place."

I look at her, waiting for her reaction. "Does that make sense?"

"Yup." she said. I knew she was starting to let me rant rather than adding any additional input she was really just letting me know that she was listening. The solicitor wasn't completely wrong. Dr. Jenssen's professional conduct and practices were called into question, but not because of any malicious intent on our part. It was based on court documents and what judges were saying about her.

I understand that you could look into anyone's life and find reasons to paint them as either good or bad. That wasn't my goal. I wasn't interested in picking apart Jenssen's life. In fact, I assumed she was a good person and that what was missing were processes to double-check her diagnoses. I didn't know her personally. But the facts spoke for themselves. There were cases in three different states where her diagnoses led to many children being removed from their homes. In hindsight, it seemed like these children should never have been taken away.

I sat down again, rubbing my temples. "Kerry didn't stop there. This document is like four pages of not answering my questions but just spewing. He continued by saying,"

> "Only one conclusion can be drawn from the object of all your LSRs in this regard: the undermining of Dr. Jenssen professionally and perhaps personally, no matter the language used."

"He's so focused on Jenssen, and I get it—because the documents I sent him are about her. These are court cases where judges were critical of her behavior. But all I want to know from him was if I can include these court cases as attachments."

I lean back, exasperated. "What he should be asking me for is my complete report when it's finished, so he can determine if I'm defaming her or the hospital in any way."

"Maybe he is just trying to let you know you need to be careful when writing the report to make sure you don't defame her"

"Maybe?? But it is weird because another paragraph he goes on to say:"

> "It is interesting to note that most of the information and documentation you seek to disclose is information that was and is readily available in any search of Dr. Jenssen's name on the internet. Thus, any concerned parent doing their homework would be able to pull up much of this information."

"If all of this is already on the internet why is he so worried?" my wife asked. The bold arrogance in those words made my head throb. His casual response carried the unmistakable odor of authority gone awry and triggered a deep-seated discomfort within me. There was no "homework" that parents could do. 

 "What he is implying is inccrrect. Parents had no say in choosing Dr. Jenssen as their doctor. They couldn't pick from a list or express any preferences."

She raises an eyebrow, "Really? They had no choice at all?"

"Jenssen is the only Child Abuse Pediatrician in the area with a set relationship with Lehigh County. Once parents get involved with her, there is no way out."

"Can't they just take the child back to their own doctor or ask for a different doctor?"

"No, once she is involved there is no getting her out of your life. There were two main ways that she ends up invovled. First, if Lehigh County's Children and Youth Services suspected medical child abuse, they bring her in. They may just tell parents that they need her do do an evaluation. Most parents will comply. Even without a court order, most parents don't want to seem like they are fighting the system. Second, she make get involed during an ER visit. Nurses and others are considered mandatory reporters. If they suspect child abuse they need to report it. The threshold is very low. They could see bruises that came from riding a bike or from a normal fall. Once that happens they required by law to report it to the state. Then, the state contacts CYS, and Dr. Jenssen got involved."

She shakes her head, "Ok but then I don't undersetand why is he talking about an internet search?"

"I don't know." In both circumstances, the families' interactions with Dr. Jenssen are  beyond their control. The county's reliance on her as the sole CAP meant that any official inquiry into medical child abuse would involve her expertise. Consequently, parents had to navigate her involvement, regardless of their preferences or comfort levels. This lack of choice added stress and complexity to already difficult situations, as families had to deal with the legal and medical aspects of their cases and the specific dynamics of working with Dr. Jenssen. "Parents the do their 'homework' become panicked because they see what she has done to other families."

The more parents learned about Dr. Jenssen, the more they realized she played by her own rules. She had a vision for how things should be and heaven help anyone who disagreed or got in her way. Despite the trail of problems she left behind, she somehow kept skating by unscathed. Probably because the cases were sealed.

A parent reading the internet would think that there was a nightmare ahead. Dr. Jenssen had them in her sights now, and they sensed she would prolong their anguish as much as possible. This wasn't just a tough situation; it was a gauntlet of torment stretching indefinitely into the future.

Families had no choice but to brace themselves, gathering whatever strength and perseverance they could muster. One thing was certain: dealing with the "good" doctor would push their willpower to the absolute limit.

Kerry's dismissive attitude towards the parents' distress, labeling it as neglected "homework," completely disregarded the turmoil tearing apart their lives. He implied that a simple internet search would allow families to switch doctors or find a better provider, but he knew that wasn't possible.

I've had conversations with numerous families who felt mistreated by this process. They often endured years of distress before their cases were finally dropped or their "indication" was reversed by the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. These families shared their frustrations and the emotional toll they experienced.

When I asked what they wanted, almost all expressed a desire for reimbursement. They felt the county should return the money they spent defending themselves against allegations but that wasn't the most important aspect what was most important was that they wanted Dr. Jenssen to be fired, holding her accountable for the anguish she had caused. Some families even went further, wishing to see Dr. Jenssen face legal consequences, including jail time.

Their calls for accountability highlighted a deep sense of injustice and a desire for significant change in how such cases were handled. These families weren't just seeking personal relief; they were hoping to prevent others from experiencing similar ordeals.

 "The part that I find most alarming is that he is saying that I could lose my qualified immunity."

She looks concerned. "Qualified immunity? Isn't that what protects us from being sued personally?"

I nod. "Yes, you hear it often right now becuase there are a group of people trying to get rid of Qualified immunity for the police, but Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held personally liable for their actions as long as they perform their duties within their job's scope and don't violate the law. So normally my reports are clearly withing my responsibility so individuals and companies can't sue me personally for what I write"

"That sounds serious," she says. "What exactly did they say?"

I pull out the letter and read the specific line, "...your report is outside the bounds of your authority and exposes you to personal liability."

"Wow," she whispers. "That's really alarming."

"Typically, a lawyer would never...never ever.. write this in an official correspondence. They would pick up the phone or come and see you in person and recommend a course of action. Now that course of action could be...don't put this report our. Or more likely they would tell you how to change the report sot that you are well withing the bounds of your authority. The fact that they documented it makes me think their main concern was protecting themselves rather than supporting me."

"But they're supposed to be your lawyers. Aren't they supposed to protect your office's interests?"

"Exactly," I say, sighing. "They're supposed to be on my side, but this letter makes it seem like they're more interested in covering their own backs than helping me."

I saw this correspondence as an attempt by the solicitors to intimidate me by claiming I didn't have jurisdiction and wouldn't receive legal protection from the county. I believed their goal was to scare me and dissuade me from submitting the report. 

The solicitor's letter was brimming with biting remarks. I wasn't easily shaken. My report wasn't some hastily assembled document—it was built on solid evidence from official court proceedings. Witnesses had testified under oath, meaning their statements were given under the penalty of perjury. This made the information not just reliable but rock-solid.

In addition to sworn testimonies, I had financial documents and national averages backing up my claims. Everything I presented was accurate and verified. Within the report, I pointed out any information from parents or other less reliable sources. Transparency was my shield, the truth, my defense.

My confidence stemmed from the authenticity and accuracy of the evidence I relied on. The truth was a formidable ally. It ensured that my actions were protected and that I wouldn't need to concern myself with the threat to my qualified immunity. The foundation of my report was unshakeable, and I was ready to stand by it, no matter how hard they tried to rattle me.

I told her what my suspicions were. "It seems to me that the solicitor's office wnats to keep this information from getting out. You see, three signatures are required before a judge can remove a child from their home: the case worker's, the case worker's supervisor's, and a solicitor's." She nods, following along. "So, Kerry or someone in his office had to sign off on every child's removal. Because the solicitor's office was involved and Kerry was the main solicitor for children and youth, I suspect their answer to my LSR wasn't honest."

I pause, letting it sink in. "The solicitor's office might be trying to  avoid responsibility. I don't mean they are trying not to be sued. I mean that simply may not be able to face the reality that they were a part of taking kids out of loving famlies. Maybe they smply don't didn't want to acknowledge their role. If Dr. Jenssen  misled them, it means they were responsible for wrongfully removing children."

She looks shocked, "So, you think Kerry couldn't face the possibility that they had been involved in such an injustice?"

"I don't know. Maybe," I say, sighing. "I can not understand any other reason to send me a letter like this. It seems like they can't face the idea that they might have been unknowingly part of something so terrible."

However, the evidence was clear. The process required three signatures. Every child removed had the endorsement of someone in David Backenstoe's employ, likely reporting to Kerry. This chain of approval implicated them directly in each decision made. Their reluctance to acknowledge any fault suggested a fear of facing the truth—that they may have been part of a flawed system that potentially harmed more than it helped.

The core concern for the county should be fixing any procedural problems that allow a child's removal from a loving family or procedures that halt the removal of a child from an abusive family. From a financial perspective, the county should be concerned about families affected by misdiagnosis who could seek redress in courts. However, the fear of this liability should not stop the county from taking responsibility; instead, it should cause the county to act and ensure it is doing the right thing for our children. 

My original goal was to work constructively with the Solicitor's Office to protect the county's interests. However, their response, filled with indifference and defensiveness, struck a deep chord of disappointment and frustration. Instead of finding allies, I encountered a wall of resistance.

The tone of their communication suggested a blatant lack of support, creating serious distrust and making me wonder if I needed to seek external representation to ensure my interests and those of the county were safeguarded.

Issuing the report was my responsibility, and I was determined to fulfill my duty to investigate and expose financial waste within the county. But I also felt a strong obligation to make sure the families stories were heard and to suggest further investigation take place. This would be an investigation that was an expert and could review and understand medical documents.  I had hoped for a cooperative approach, envisioning a shared commitment to rectifying systemic flaws. Yet, their dismissive attitude made it painfully clear that I would be standing alone in this fight.

These experiences served as a clear reminder of the significant challenges involved in navigating legal and bureaucratic obstacles while working to safeguard the county's assets. It made me consider what it would be like for the families affected by these struggles. They did not have the same knowledge or resources that I did. It appeared that if you were not part of the government, it would be unlikely to be heard or taken seriously.

The reaction from the solicitor's office strengthened my determination to persist in my efforts, even if it meant seeking external representation. The pursuit of justice and effective governance required chutzpah.  I felt ready to confront obstacles to guarantee that the county's resources were used responsibly and ethically and that the families had a chance to see justice.

