FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

NATIONAL CONTACT:  Shaun Monson   Nation Earth Organization
Tel:   818-843-6560    Email:   faustine@earthlink.net

LOCAL UTAH CONTACT: T Rodgers  LifeSave.org
Tel:  801-298-9095 LifeSave@LifeSave.org

INFANT REMOVED FROM VEGETARIAN HOUSEHOLD:
CHILD SERVICES CLAIM DIETARY ABUSE

SALT LAKE CITY, UT. On June 9, 2003, the State Department of Child and Family Services (DCFS) took a nursing, 12-month old boy named Matthew Thaxton from his parents and placed him in foster care.  Astonishingly, this was done for no other reason than the fact Matthew is being raised "vegan", as are his two older sisters, which means the Thaxton family does not eat meat or dairy products.

Can it be that a diet rich in organic foods, fruits and vegetables, and void of any animal proteins or acids has now actually become grounds for “Child Neglect” by Social Services?  Are we to infer from this case that a Happy Meal constitutes a well-balanced diet, or that the medical profession and social services are now in cahoots with the meat and dairy industry?  How many other vegetarian and vegan families could be at risk of losing their children; not because the parents are drug addicts, or display violent behavior, but because of what they don’t have in the refrigerator?  Because they don’t feed their kids meat?[1.]

The grounds for the Thaxton case were, according to social worker Laura Rowland, “parents do not seem to understand link [sic] between malnourishment due to vegan diet and sudden medical crisis.”[2.]  According to a report of Child Neglect by Bountiful City police Detective Julie Feigleson, Matthew’s parents “could not supplement his nutritional needs while using a vegan diet.”[3.]  And Medical Examiner Dr. Maureen Frikke even declared with nonobjective, unprofessional prejudice, “I hate vegetarians” to Matthew’s father.[4.]

(After purchasing and moving into a newly remodeled "dream" home and safe neighborhood for their children and themselves October 1999, two full winters prior to Dan Jr's death) Dan and Carolee Thaxton first came under fire (after an early cold weather spell) in October 2, 2001, when their two-and-a-half-year old son Dan Jr. died suddenly in the night.  The Medical Examiner’s diagnosis was Myocarditis, an inflammatory condition of the heart, and there was no indication of any wrongful death or criminal violence resulting in the death of Dan Jr.[5.]  At that time, Carolee was already pregnant with Matthew.  As indicated, she and Dan Sr. also have two other children, daughters Marylee and Sarah, ages 8 and 6, who are vigorous, healthy, intelligent children and have been vegans their entire life.  When Matthew was born the following spring, on May 22, 2002, he was examined and found to be a “fine and healthy baby.”[6.]

By January of 2003 (a year with a late cold winter weather onset), however, Matthew developed some health problems that seemed to baffle his doctors.  First he was diagnosed with “pallor and low blood counts,”[7.] then presumed "Leukemia", then a rare “Intrinsic Disease,”[8.] then by June he was given a hefty dose of Insulin and then fed and medicated through a tube in his neck because some doctor "thought" he might be Diabetic.  In January and June 2003, Matthew underwent extensive blood tests, two blood transfusions, a bone marrow biopsy, a B12 shot in the leg (Carolee was was later concerned and asked about the safety of a doctor’s first order to inject the shot directly into Matthew’s liver), and a Barium test, among other examinations and assessments.  It wasn’t until the doctors learned Matthew was vegan that they erroneously presumed his condition was due to “malnutrition.”  In lieu of the previous incident with Dan Jr., (even though there was no basis of malnutrition in his death) Child Services were quickly brought in, a police investigation commenced, and the State took custody of Matthew soon thereafter.

Two months later, on August 13, 2003, the Thaxton family received proposed terms of a dispositional "Dependency" order (which, even if agreed to, did not ever mention that it would reunite them with their little son) that sited the following: “Parents to develop a written nutritional plan for all of their children, to include written menu planning and schedules with caloric and nutritional tracking, and … all necessary supplementation, be it multivitamin, B12 injections, or animal products.”

The order even goes on to bring the parent’s mental stability into question (for being vegans) by requiring that, “The parents will each obtain a psychological evaluation.”  Furthermore, “The parents will commit to perpetually give their children a multivitamin which contains B12 and other essential nutrients which would not be provided by a vegan diet.”  The disposition concludes with: “In the event that the parents fail to properly supplement their children’s diets as memorialized in the final stipulated agreement, this will constitute grounds for removal of all the children as a significant risk to their health.”[9.]  So now DCFS is attempting to extend their influence over the Thaxton’s other two children.  According to a DCFS Functional Assessment: "The doctors and nurses at the hospital expressed great concern for the other siblings in the home to make sure that they were being fed properly and getting enough nutrition.  The doctors and staff of the hospital came to a concurrence that the dietary habits of the family were abusive."[10.]

There was no medical evidence from the testing done on Matthew, or his mother Carolee, proving that a vegan diet caused a low-normal B12 deficiency in a breast-fed baby.  In addition, no one has come forward with any medical literature, data or research to prove that a mother on a vegan diet can cause any malnutrition in a baby that is breast-fed.[11.] Have the doctors in this case made too many conclusions based on hearsay, anecdotal evidence, community standards or so-called “expert opinions?”  Though these points may be important in medicine, they are still not as significant as conclusive proof.  Therefore, should the State (in this instance, comprised of doctors, social workers, police officers and a judge -- none of whom are certified nutritionists, or vegetarians) be able to remove any child from any home they deem unfit?  According to Utah's flagship law of the DCFS, the answer is yes, and the following statute applies: “There is created the Division of Child and Family Services … The division is the child, youth, and family services authority of the state and has all functions, powers, duties, rights, and responsibilities [sic] created in accordance with this chapter, except those assumed by the board and the department.”

If vegetarians are going to be rounded up by Child Services for “malnutrition,” then why aren’t all the overweight children in this country being taken from their homes and placed in foster care for “dietary abuse?”  Talk about being unhealthy?  Heart disease is the number one killer in America, and vegetarians overall are 20% less likely to die from a heart attack than meat-eaters.  Animal products, such as meat, dairy and eggs, are the only dietary sources of cholesterol and the chief source of saturated fat, which is the main cause of heart disease.  Not eating these foods reduces the risk of a heart attack by 90%.[12.]

For all of the vegetarian/vegans in the United States, this case (and others like it), is not only unconstitutional, but an outrage.  Is veganism to be the new racism, or has this just become another form of discrimination, like most prejudices are, based on ignorance?

[1]  Shirley & James Dumas of Garry, Indiana. Social Services inspect fridge. 1997
[2]  Laura Rowland, Social Work Progress Notes, 6/3/03 page 1 of 2 (fax P32/34)
[3]  Bountiful City Police Investigation, Child Neglect, Det. Feigleson, 6/17/03 (fax P28/34)
[4]  Dr. Maureen Frikke to Matthew¹s father, Dan Thaxton.
[5]  Bountiful Police Department Medical Examiner¹s Report, 10/5/01 (fax P24/34)
[6]  Dr. Kamalu; Diane Christianson, Chronological History (fax P3/34)
[7]  Geoffrey Jackman, M.D., PCMC, Encounter Report, 1/2/03 (P15/34)
[8]  Diane Christianson Chronological History, 1/1 & 6/03, P4/34
[9]  Dispositional Order, 8/13/03, paragraphs 3, 9, 10, 12 (fax P12-13/34)
[10]  Functional Assessment, 1/14/02 (fax P34/34)
[11]  Dr. Todd Feinman, M.D, (Cedar Sinai, LA,) www.doctorevidence.com
[12]  Ecomall.com, ³10 Good Reasons to Go Vegetarian.²