Hospital Mistake Triggers Family Nightmare

Doctors discussing chest X-ray results at a workstation.

A Florida family says the state is moving to permanently sever parental rights after doctors allegedly mistook a rare genetic disorder for child abuse.

Story Snapshot

Activist Spike Cohen publicly urged Gov. Ron DeSantis to intervene in the Broward County custody case of Michael and Tasha Patterson.
The Pattersons’ premature twins were removed in 2022 after hospital staff reported fractures and other injuries as suspected abuse.
Independent medical experts later attributed the injuries to hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and metabolic bone disease, according to the reporting.
The case now raises broader concerns about due process in family court, including limits on expert testimony and the state’s push to terminate parental rights.

How a Hospital Visit Turned Into a State Custody Fight

In 2022, Michael and Tasha Patterson brought their premature twin boys, Malachi and Micah, to Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital in Hollywood, Florida after months of health complications. Doctors found fractures and other serious injuries and reported the case as suspected abuse, triggering a rapid child-welfare response. Florida’s Department of Children and Families removed the twins and also removed Michael’s older son, MJ, from the home. The family says the initial abuse narrative stuck even as later medical reviews challenged it.

Medical details remain central to the dispute because the injuries cited as red flags can overlap with certain genetic disorders. According to the reporting, the twins’ case was later evaluated by multiple medical experts who concluded the injuries were consistent with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and metabolic bone disease. The article describes the bone condition as leaving the children’s bones unusually fragile and susceptible to fractures. The same reporting states the children continued suffering injuries after removal, which the parents argue supports a medical explanation rather than abuse.

Expert Findings vs. What the Court Will Hear

A major flashpoint is what evidence the family court has allowed into the record. The reporting identifies Broward County family court Judge Stacey Schulman as limiting the presentation of expert medical testimony and prohibiting additional specialists from testifying, even when their conclusions pointed to genetic causes. Those claims are serious because family court rulings can effectively decide a child’s future long before the public ever hears the details. The available research does not include the judge’s full reasoning or a complete docket.

The same reporting raises questions about the original medical reporting that triggered the removal, describing an ER “child abuse pediatrician” whose adherence to standards of care and certification in child protection were questioned. The evidence provided here is not the underlying medical record, and it does not include the hospital’s response, so readers should treat that credential dispute as unresolved based on the limited material available. Even so, the case highlights how quickly a single report can cascade into life-altering state action.

Why the Patterson Case Is Becoming a Due-Process Flashpoint

The parents’ situation underscores a constitutional tension conservatives have flagged for years: child-protection systems can be necessary, but they also wield enormous power with limited transparency. In this case, the Pattersons reportedly have only weekly supervised visits while the state continues seeking termination of parental rights and adoption placement. The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to review the case, according to the reporting, leaving the family with fewer appellate options. The research does not provide DCF’s detailed rationale for continuing the termination effort.

Spike Cohen’s Appeal to DeSantis and the Push for “Patterson’s Law”

In February 2026, activist Spike Cohen of “You Are The Power” released a direct video appeal to Gov. Ron DeSantis, framing it as a father-to-father request to look into what he calls a miscarriage of justice. The governor’s office could not be reached for comment in the reporting cited. Separately, the family is advocating “Patterson’s Law,” described as a proposal to guarantee families the right to a second medical opinion in suspected abuse cases. The research provided does not specify the bill text or legislative status.

Policy debates often get lost in slogans, but this case turns on practical safeguards: how agencies weigh competing medical opinions, how courts handle expert testimony, and what standards trigger the most severe state intervention—permanent termination of parental rights. Supporters of family autonomy argue that, at minimum, states should welcome independent medical review when a plausible genetic explanation exists. Critics will emphasize child safety and the risk of missing real abuse. With limited official documentation in the provided research, the public still lacks key answers from DCF and the court.