Parents’ age at the time of events: 24 and 25 years old.
Mother with a disability (arthrogryposis), cashier, adopted from Cambodia by a single mother (me). She also has an older sister who was adopted from Cambodia. The father is a truck driver and had not informed his family about having a partner and child in his life. They reside in Étoile-sur-Rhône (Drôme).
Pregnancy and Delivery
The pregnancy went without any issues. The initial obstetrician recommended a cesarean section, but the gynecologist-obstetrician at Bron hospital insisted on a vaginal birth. A lack of engagement was noted as early as the 10th hour, but they persisted. An orange code cesarean section was finally initiated during the 17th hour due to fetal distress. Our child was born on Thursday, April 28 around noon with an Apgar score of 1. He required resuscitation for eight minutes. The father took photos showing several bruises on the baby’s body and head.
No explanation of the birth circumstances was given to us. We discovered all this by obtaining, after multiple requests, the child’s medical file. No cranial perimeter measurement was taken before his discharge from the maternity ward.
An incorrect discharge report was handed over to the parents (12-hour error on the time of hospital admission)… giving a normal appearance to the circumstances of delivery.
The Day Everything Changed
The baby never developed normally. He had feeding difficulties right from the start.
His mother took him to Valence Hospital three weeks later, where she was advised to completely stop breastfeeding and switch to bottle-feeding. Several changes in formula occurred, which he tolerated more or less well. Vomiting did not cease entirely. By the end of the second month, he was a very underweight infant, which did not alert his treating physician who still administered vaccines. Additionally, his skull began to swell above the eyebrows. A month later, concerned friends who are doctors convinced the parents to take him back to the hospital (Valence), but they refused to admit him because he had not been referred by a general practitioner. The next morning (Monday, July 25, 2022), his mother took him to Montélimar’s emergency room where he was admitted. He was then transported by helicopter to Bron Hospital where he was born three months earlier. Admitted under Professor Di Rocco’s care, a shunt was placed which quickly improved his condition. He is stabilized and the family feels relieved.
When the Diagnosis Was Made
The next day, tests were conducted: scans and MRI revealed subdural hematomas (SDH), retinal hemorrhages (RH), and bridging vein thrombosis. The parents were questioned by doctors and denied any involvement. A report was made to the prosecutor of Drôme. They were then brought back to Drôme for a police custody (GAV) while gendarmes searched their home, where their two dogs had been left alone for 48 hours. The parents were unanimously considered guilty of abuse as their apartment was deemed unsanitary and the dogs had partially trashed it. Furthermore, the gendarmes claimed that nothing had been done to welcome a child despite there being many baby items in the apartment. The parents were very depressed, especially the mother.
In the Judicial System
Immediate separation from the child who remained hospitalized. Visitation rights of half an hour per week. A few days later, the baby was transferred back to Montélimar, his original hospital. This is where the parents saw him again a few days later, accompanied by the director (?) of Drôme’s child welfare services (ASE), before their first appearance before the children’s judge who ordered the placement of the child in an infant care facility pending investigations with the grandparents. On the day of the first judgment, the baby’s condition worsened and he was taken back to Bron because his shunt had become blocked. He was finally hospitalized in Valence until November before being placed in the infant care facility. The investigation into the maternal grandmother was very thorough (about 10 hours of interviews)… and almost non-existent for the paternal grandparents, where the children’s judge from Valence planned to place the child. The director of Valence’s Interministerial Mission for Educational Justice (MIJE) followed orders.
Living Under Suspicion
I am facing significant financial difficulties. As the maternal grandmother, I bear the costs of the legal proceedings. My visitation rights are limited to six hours on the first Saturday of each month. I manage my budget precisely and no longer have any money for leisure activities.
The child has been placed with his paternal grandparents, and his mother only sees him for two hours a month due to an unenforceable judgment. The parents always had a tense relationship with the paternal grandparents, who recently sought custody of the child. This tension led to impossible meetings between the parents and the baby. Eventually, the parents separated, and my daughter moved to Bron.
The child is under the exclusive care of his paternal grandparents. He continues to be followed at CAMESOP for psychomotor skills and speech therapy and has started school in the Petite Section. My daughter alone was put on trial because she had stated during a police custody that she “maybe” dropped the baby in the crib, which could have caused a fall of 10 to 15 cm at most. Doctors Adamsbaum and Rey Salmon diagnosed abuse, although one of them previously asserted that a low-height fall could not have serious consequences.
A counter-expertise conducted in Montpellier by Dr. Rejoux, designated by the administrative court, concluded that it was impossible to establish with certainty the abuse because no fractures, even microscopic ones, had been detected. However, this report did not change the situation. The main reason is my daughter’s disability, which is systematically used to justify her deprivation of her son “because she always needs help,” although she receives no assistance.
My daughter only sees her son for two hours a month at the ANEF headquarters in Glun, Ardèche, which is inhumane. As for me, I have visitation rights of eight hours on the first Saturday of each month, with my daughter by my side. We await progress in the criminal case while fearing that the Investigative Judge will maintain a consistent attitude with the Children’s Judge to avoid a reversal of the situation.
Despite this, the bond between the child and us remains strong. He is always delighted to see us, and the separations are difficult. However, this affection is not understood by the Children’s Judge, ANEF, and the paternal grandparents, with whom our relations are limited to the bare minimum.
Financially, our situation is catastrophic. My assets have decreased by nearly 50,000 euros in three years. My daughter has found a more reliable and respectful partner than her son’s father and is trying to rebuild her life. She remains determined but is in a waiting position, which is her way of surviving. For my part, I vacillate between combativeness and discouragement. It seems that from a judicial perspective, we are facing one of the most backward corners of France (Valence for the first instance and Grenoble for appeal), where there is no possible listening.
For consistency across testimonies, this text may have been slightly edited or translated by artificial intelligence. If you notice any error or inconsistency, please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Together, we can make a difference. Every donation and every membership strengthens our work — offering support, creating dialogue and advancing scientific progress.