Jim Hamilton (10:14)

My name is Jim Hamilton and I have a PhD in clinical psychology, and I worked for many years as a psychology professor.

Andrea Dunlop (10:22)

As someone who has dedicated his career to studying this abuse, Jim had also never seen anything quite like these journals. And we talked about Sophie's recounting of her own history with medical deception.

Jim Hamilton (10:34)

People who have engaged in medical child abuse, some significant percentage of perpetrators, have a fairly clear history in their own medical records of exaggeration, fabrication, exploitation of illness to meet their psychological needs. As I looked over the snippets that you gave me to read, I was Struck by exactly that thing, that she made some sort of comment about having to be needy in order to be needed. You know, this is something we try to get courts to understand when we present cases of medical child abuse. And this is the part that I think is hardest for them to understand and that she articulated it so beautifully. I mean, I could just take the quote from the snippet you gave me and read that in court the next time I have to, because it's so exactly what we think is going on in these cases we always talk about. Once we find evidence that abusive behavior has occurred, we want to think about, all right, we're not so much interested in diagnosing something like factitious disorder imposed on another or malingering by proxy or anything like that. But we do need to sort of articulate what the psychological need is that's being met by this behavior. She speaks directly to the issue of need.

Andrea Dunlop (11:58)

Jim and I work closely together. We're colleagues on the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children's Munchausen by Proxy committee and also at the nonprofit Munchausen Support, where we both serve on the board. We spend no small amount of time in this group discussing the utility of the psychiatric diagnosis of factitious disorder imposed on another, which, again, is the official name for the disorder underpinning Munchausen by proxy. The notion of this being primarily a mental illness often does more harm than good in court, where it tends to either create confusion about a perpetrator's culpability or just add one more complicated diagnosis to the mix for the two sides to fight over. But as Jim says, it's really impossible to tell the story of what's happening in these cases, either in court or anywhere else, without explaining why someone would ever engage in this behavior that seems so ghastly to most people. It establishes a motive.

Jim Hamilton (12:51)

One of the things I thought about as I was reading all this is that I. I was trying to make sense of the fact that all of that is laid out so clearly in a case of a problem medical child abuse, where the perpetrators are usually very fastidious about controlling information, keeping their. Keeping the deceptions up, keeping their secrets. To commit this to writing, I was. I'm wondering what her thinking was in actually, you know, in actually doing that. Did she think no one was ever going to see it? Or did she have maybe a more complex plan in mind?

Andrea Dunlop (13:31)

So why write all this down? Was she trying to soothe her own internal conflict? Was she really asking God for help? Did she really believe God was Answering.

Jim Hamilton (13:41)

The idea that these folks try to deceive themselves. That's true. Then you wouldn't want to put it in, in writing that. That you sort of have yourself figured out for why you're doing the things that you are denying to others that you're doing, which is making up all of these fabrications and exaggerations about your child's illness. I don't know if you saw this. I don't know if anybody but me saw this, but in the snippets that you gave me to read at some point, it said capital D. Capital I, capital D. Yes. Which is an abbreviation for Dissociative Identity Disorder. And I noted that somebody mentioned that these things were in different handwritings. The notations that she herself made were in different handwriting, depending on what the topic was, et cetera. Two possibilities about that. Maybe she didn't mean anything by writing. Did. That's one. I guess that's three possibilities. Another is that she has something like Dissociative Identity Disorder. And a third is that this is the reason she's writing all this stuff down in this peculiar way. Is she's preparing kind of a defense or an explanation for why she's done what she's done.

Andrea Dunlop (15:07)

This is an interesting theory that the discovery of these diaries was part of some master plan on Sophie's part. And frankly, I'm not going to put anything past her at this point. But I've spent no small amount of time reading through and digesting these journals. And they often sound like Sophie is writing herself a very grandiose and fanciful story about what she's doing. That this is an elaborate justification to herself about what she's putting her daughters through. That Sophie actually is the hero of.

Jim Hamilton (15:36)

This story laid bare in these diaries. The selfishness of it all. This is not about CH this is about Ms. Hartman, in this case. In a lot of the documents that. That I've read, the mom seems to have this sense of entitlement, like they have to treat me, they have to care for me, they have to do this, they have to do that. Because that's what I want and that's what my child needs. Very unselfconscious about how entitled and selfish she is. And those things in the diary, I don't know that she was as self aware about the selfishness as she was in other parts where she was self aware about her neediness. But of course they're related.

Andrea Dunlop (16:27)

What we learn from these diary entries about her dynamics with her children and in this section where she's being very honest and straightforward. You know, she has this quote that I'm so angry with my children. Abusive, even hitting and pinching and yelling, oh, Lord, what have I become? Who is this bad soul? It's me, filth, you know, and I. It says, like, I want to be abused. I crave pain. And obviously, this is just, you know, disturbing to read. And I think there's a through line here, actually, for, you know, I think one of the things that I didn't realize about this abuse when I was going in right before I. When I. When I just had my n of 1, that was my personal experience was. And that we have learned is not the case from so many survivors, including, you know, Joe, who is. Who we both know who is on our fourth season, is that this abuse is not confined to the medical arena. There's this profound lack of empathy for the children. And I think, like, that journal entry from Sophie really expresses that. And then the other thing that really stuck out to me was these journal entries. You know, there are some journal entries from her older daughter, Em that were just really, really heartbreaking. The investigative summary includes many journal entries from Sophie, but also some from Sophie's older daughter, Em, as well as letters that she wrote to her, her mom. And these were so sad to read. While Em wasn't the main subject of this investigation, she was also obviously deeply affected by what was happening in the household. And while there is less in here about M's medical history than C's, we do know that she'd been prescribed antidepressants and ADHD medications. And she writes in her journals about her brain feeling fuzzy and confused and heartbreakingly, her journals also include include reflections on her being a freak and Zambians being freaky people. And to the extent that Em was, to borrow Jim's metaphor, a prop in Sophie's play, her role seems to have been gymnastics star. You can see her straining for her mother's approval. In one letter to Sophie, she writes about feeling like she's just a gymnast and that she has to be a perfect one. A reflection we also heard about from the moms at the gym. And Sophie's neighbor Em writes that she only wants to make her mom happy, but she feels like if she makes a mistake, her mom will be angry and yell. And she clearly blames herself for her mom's anger. The report also includes one of Sophie's responses where she writes, I'm sorry I put all my anger on you when you make a mistake. I'm sorry for screaming. I'm sorry for saying that you were being a shit show.

Jim Hamilton (19:07)

The comments she makes about being emotionally abusive to her kids and being cruel to them. I've seen that in other cases as well. I had a case down south when I lived there. The babysitter was available as a collateral informant. And the babysitter commented on how inattentive, unrealistically demanding of like the child. When the child was too young to be expected to do this or that or the other thing, the mob was expecting it. Quick to anger, not warm, you know, not loving. And the contrast between the gushy, wonderful mom, loving, caring mom would do anything for their kid would make you think that when you saw them at home and they weren't being washed by anybody, you'd see the same amount of gushing over the child. But it really, you know, it, it's all a play. And you and I recently had the opportunity to speak to some forensic psychiatrists about this. And I sort of previewed my developing view that this is much more like a kind of exploitation abuse than it is an event related abuse. And I talked about the idea that in this play, in this drama, that these perpetrators create where they are both the director and the main character, the most important character, the child is not really even a character. The child's a prop. And so it, it's consistent with that formulation that, you know, at home the mother's selfish. And if it's between her needs and the kids needs, it's going to be her needs. I'm pretty sure Em probably just felt ignored by this. She wasn't, she wasn't apparently used as a prop. She wasn't getting any of this attention that's associated with the circumstance that Sophie created for Sia and, and, and that's, you know, that's terribly sad.

Andrea Dunlop (21:22)

But the most disturbing narrative in these pages is the one about Cee's death. And these reflections are not isolated. Sophie was telling many people c would die young. And the forensic examination of her devices revealed a number of chilling searches.

Jim Hamilton (21:37)

The fact that the. The topic came up of songs associated with cancer, I thought that was interesting. That was among the search history terms that, that were in the documents that you shared with me. And that made me wonder if she was thinking through season two or maybe it was season three. At this point, starting to put together the storyboard for the next chapter. I forget the abbreviation for the. For the illness that she claimed that CM had as that chapter was drawing to a close. What else was she going to do? And the idea that that could Include something like cancer. It could also include something like expecting her death or who knows. So, yeah, that was a. That was a bit chilling and it really sort of speaks to the idea that this. There might be self deception involved. But this is often very, very planful.

Andrea Dunlop (22:35)

In the spring of 2019, the day after Seattle Children's denies one of her requests to place a central line in her daughter and put her on tpn, which is intravenous nutrition, Sophie writes this. How is it that doctors who had never heard of AHC before they came to work today get to make decisions regarding her care? I will absolutely fail C if I fight for the duration of her life rather than the quality of it. The best decisions that have been made for C in the past have been big ones that I suggested far before any member of her team was ready to do it. Stalling those decisions only let doctors check off their boxes while her suffering was prolonged. Is this what it will always be like? Or are there doctors willing to take risks for the sake of her quality of life? In another entry that is undated, but presumably from around the same time, Sophie writes, I know, Lord, I know this fear in ever increasing measure. I do not want to live in fear, but fear overseas life grips me at times I wonder, how would I ever go on if you brought her home? Later in this entry, God. Or again, Sophie, as God responds, saying, give C to me. Sophie. She had been starting to talk, even in this journal entries and elsewhere, about quality of life over length of life and, you know, had sent messages to friends saying, oh, well, when, you know, I was just thinking, if See dies, I'll call Cassie and make her come lie in bed with me while I cry. I mean, it just really, it seems like she was.

Jim Hamilton (24:17)

That's a good example of this idea that she's storyboarding.

Andrea Dunlop (24:20)

I sort of wanted to run that theory by you, you know, not. We can only speculate in this case or in any given case. But I sort of wonder if there is some point where the death of the child actually becomes more useful to the perpetrator.

Jim Hamilton (24:37)

I think it's all a matter of the specific tastes of the perpetrator, what kind of sympathy thereafter. I think you referred to, and I think we were more and more in this conversation referring to this idea of a narrative, that this kind of abuse, again, is a prolonged abuse. It's a storytelling abuse. And this particular feature that you're talking about of the death of the child, in some way, you know, it fixes the story. Like the story can't have a surprise ending where the kid goes on the Dr. Phil show in five years or 10 years and says, I had this mom who did all these terrible things to me. I realized more than she knew and I knew that I was being medically abused. Nothing could happen to the story if the child dies. So there's a sense of narrative control. It's very poignant, as you say. It opens up. I use the analogy of planning for season two or season three. It opens up a whole new season, a whole new sort of chapter of Sophie's story or the portrait, her story, whoever it might be.

Andrea Dunlop (25:57)

Sophie as narrator in this particular case is especially compelling because she is literally narrating this imaginary world that she's building for herself. And as a writer, you can see in some of these entries that she's actively planning out her next book. You can also see in her writing how she is tying this all in to the grandest narrative of all, the notion that Sophie is on a divine mission. She frequently refers to Sea as her quote harvest, which is biblically loaded language that speaks to this idea that SEA and her suffering and of course Sophie's suffering as her mother will bring souls to God, that there is a higher purpose for she's pain. Sophie talks about how suffering is holy and elsewhere asks God how he could bear to sacrifice his only son. Sophie is heroine and martyr all at once. The sacrifice of her daughter is positioned as divine and in a very real way. When you look at the search terms from the forensic examination of Sophie's devices, you can see her storyboarding her next season. In the first year of the pandemic, Sophie starts weaving a new plot for C. Now, in addition to the age C diagnosis, she adds in the precocious puberty storyline. So to ground us here is what happened in reality. Sophie brings C to an endocrinologist at Seattle Children's in July of 2020, reporting a bunch of symptoms that she says have her concerned for precocious puberty. In this exam there are modest clinical findings, but these are discordant with lab results and a bone scan that shows no signs of precocious puberty. C also has an MRI to rule out any brain mass that might be causing the symptoms. Sofia's reporting and this comes back clear and a follow up examination of C shows her to be completely normal. Sophie then continues to push for a surgical hormone implant against doctors recommendations, insisting that these cycles that C is experiencing are exacerbating her AHC episodes. And during this time she also tells friends and providers that C is in full blown puberty and that the likely cause is a brain mass. So what do we know about what Sofie was up to on her devices during this time? Her search history shows numerous telling entries, including precocious puberty, pituitary tumor symptoms and pituitary adenoma surgery. She also searches Supra catheter, which is a surgically placed catheter for people who cannot urinate on their own, which is one of the symptoms that Sophie was reporting to the endocrinologist. Sophie also looks up a foundation that is dedicated to children with endocrine disorders. So it's not just the next diagnosis she's pursuing. She's also looking for the worst possible reason for this diagnosis, a brain tumor, which she reported to sees doctors and teachers, as well as a possible surgery for that tumor to pursue and additional surgical interventions for the symptoms she's reporting. And she's looking for the next foundation to support all of these efforts. It's honestly diabolical. There are also, as Jim mentions, a few searches around cancer, as well as searches related to leukemia. At first I assumed this had to do with another possible storyline for C, but then I saw that one of the searches was down syndrome and leukemia. And I remembered that during the investigation, Sophie was actively attempting to adopt a child from China with Down syndrome. She also looked up infusion center, Valley Medical. Now, infusion care can be used for a number of things, but it's best known for chemotherapy treatments. So again, this looks like part of a plan. And Valley Medical, by the way, this is a brand new hospital in the area that she can try out after ostensibly having worn out her welcome at Marybridge and Seattle Children's. Sure seems like she has her sights set on a whole new spin off series. And while her daughters are the primary victims in all of this, they are far from the only people who got hurt.

Jim Hamilton (30:03)

The terrible thing about all of this really is that people who have genuinely ill children and who are genuinely, you know, grieving and in need of support and coalescing with others around that experience are harmed by this rare disease, groups, rare disease advocacy groups, researchers and parents and such are really harmed by. When a situation where somebody sort of co ops this rare disease, perhaps spoiling research data, perhaps, as I said, casting suspicion upon everybody else who's who says they have it, it's awful. It's the depth of the thoughtlessness and selfishness really expressed, I think, in some of his most depressing ways.

Andrea Dunlop (30:53)

Groups dedicated to HC didn't just support Sophie emotionally, they supported her financially, Helping Pay to send her and see out to duke to see Dr. Mikati. And as for the research, Sophie was reporting things way outside the norm for AHC, like severe gastrointestinal issues and 32 day long episodes. It's easy to see how a case like this in such a small sample set of real cases could really throw off the data so far from Sofie's efforts with C helping the cause. As Sofie wrote about or quote, leading to a scientific breakthrough, they're messing with that progress and taking resources that should be going to children who desperately need them. Back in the spring of 2021, C&M are living with Sophie's sister Sam and her mother Ann. Sophie is charged in May of 2021, but her parents quickly secure a bond to bail her out. She is granted supervised visitation with the girls. And while Sophie at first claims she is staying with a friend quite a ways away in Mercer island, it comes out later that she is in fact staying very close to the house where the girls are. This whole thing is an epic failure, just an absolute disaster from a protocol standpoint. As we outline in our American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children guidelines for these investigations, it is crucial that children are not placed with a family member who does not believe the abuse is happening. The guidelines also recommend against visitation because of the intense psychological manipulation involved in this abuse. And certainly allowing a suspected perpetrator to bring the children food and drink as soon Sophie did should never be allowed. No one doubts that separating a child from their parent is very hard on everyone. But when the safety of the child is in question, we have to take that seriously. Detective Lee explains why it's necessary to be vigilant around custody placements in any abuse case.

Detective Mike Weber (32:49)

The fundamental aspect of that that we really have to consider is in a case like this one where the only other family members that maybe could take them just happen to be people that you can reasonably expect are going to align with the perpetrator and her narrative. And they're like, well, we need to put the child somewhere else. Well, they're going to start asking the family again, right? And then maybe they go and they ask dad's mom, like, hey, so this is paternal grandmother. This is the mother of the accused individual. Hey, can you watch her so that we can keep this separation during this time? Sure, I can do it. They sure, she passes the home test. Everything's good to go. The child goes over there. During the entire time she's there, she's being told, how could you ever say something like that about your Father, he has done all these things for you. You know what? Santa Claus doesn't come around and give presents to little kids that tell lies like that. You know, Jesus is watching. He's not happy with you either. X, Y, and Z. So they get told all of these things, and it creates this, an additional barrier for them. This. This manipulation is being applied across all forms of abuse, but especially in these areas where, like, mom and aunt are going to have a vested interest in controlling this narrative. And if it's not in manipulating the child to do something, it is absolutely, it tracks that they would say, okay, we're still going to take her to the hospital. We still believe that she has all these conditions. We still think Seattle Children's is the devil because mom said that they are.

Andrea Dunlop (34:15)

Sophie's family has never given any indication now or then that they believe anything other than that Sophie is a wrongly accused mother, meaning they cannot be counted on to protect the girls from her. Dr. Mikati himself, who both Sophie and her attorneys insisted was the one who really understood Cee's health, told the police that Cee needed to be with an objective observer and that if grandmother is going to be a bias observer, that is going to be a big, big problem. Throughout the investigation, Ann and Sam consistently reported behavioral issues in C, which, again, they appear to be interpreting as evidence of her having HC episodes. And they also report one very strange detail. That C Is trying to eat grass and paper. The only other place a mention of such behavior shows up is in a report that Sophie made to a representative from the Developmental Disabilities Administration. Now, there are several possibilities here, the least likely being that Cee, out of nowhere, started trying to eat grass. The other two options are that Sam and Ann knowingly lied to the police or that Sophie's influence on them during this time was so strong that they believed the behavioral issues they were witnessing in C Were really symptoms. Even then, this particular detail, detail about her eating paper and grass, is tough to get past. Oh, yes, and by the way, the supervision of Sophie with the girls, this was provided by a private company. Sophie was also allowed to bring food and drinks for the girls to these visits. And this whole situation just sounds incredibly lax, but these are the kinds of accommodations that money can buy you. And that's not all it can do. In April of 2022, a family court judge returned c. M. To Sophie's care, and the criminal charges were dismissed. The following summer, a local headline read, renton Mother cleared in medical Child abuse case. My household includes two busy working parents plus a two year old and a six year old who are both the world's slowest and the world's pickiest eaters. We run on snacks around here so I want to make sure we're stocked with good ones which is why I'm so glad we have Thrive Market. Thrive Market has an incredible selection of healthy snacks to keep us going like their Chomps Beef Sticks which are my husband Derek's favorite their Bear snacks organic Apple chips which both my kids love and my new favorite from the ground UPS Cauliflower stalks. I tend to get very distracted when grocery shopping and sometimes make questionable choices, which is why I also love Thrive Market's Smart Cart feature. When you create an account, Thrive Market asks the right questions and automatically builds a grocery cart tailored to your needs filled with healthier alternatives to your favorite brands. From there you can adjust, add or remove items before checking out and then everything just shows up at your door like magic. It's so great. They also have a subscribe and save option so you don't have to remember to restock. Ready for a junk free start to 2025? Head to thrivemarket.com nobody and get 30% off your first order plus a free $60 gift. That's T H R-I V market.com nobody thrivemarket.com nobody and remember that using our offer codes is a great way to support the show. I am doing a ton of press and events right now because of my new book and one thing I do not want to be worried about is whether I am going to have pit stains when I'm on television or be stinky when I'm meeting fans. I have very sensitive skin so I am extremely picky about deodorant and Lume's products have been such a find. All of Lume's products are baking soda and paraben free and clinically proven to control odor for up to 72 hours. They have delightful scents like clean tangerine, lavender, sage and toasted coconut and they're formulated for use anywhere on your body. Lume's Starter Pack is perfect for new customers. It comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorant and two free products of your choice such as their deodorant wipes which are a favorite of mine for travel and you get free shipping as a special offer for listeners. New customers get 15% off all Lume products with our exclusive code and if you combine the 15% off with the already discounted starter pack that equals 40% off of the starter package. Use code NOBODY for 15% off your first purchase at lumideodorant.com that's code NOBODY at L U M E D E o d o R-A-N-T.com and please support our show by telling them that we sent you Smell fresher, stay drier and boost your confidence from head to toe with Lum. So in the summer of 2022, the criminal case against Sophie is dismissed. And because this all took place in family court rather than criminal, we were not able to obtain records to tell us what happened during the dependency trial, which is the DCF side of the equation. To try to make sense of these events, we spoke to Olivia Lavoise, the journalist who originally broke the story of this case.

Olivia Lavoise (39:33)

A case like this, particularly when there is so much media attention, you know it, when the case is dismissed, it sends the message of, okay, well I guess the person didn't do it to the general person.

Andrea Dunlop (39:47)

Right.

Olivia Lavoise (39:48)

If you're hearing that the case is dismissed, the average person is going to say, oh, well, there obviously wasn't evidence then. So, you know, knowing all that was in that search warrant, I was really interested in trying to understand what had happened in the last two years to then get to that point.

Andrea Dunlop (40:08)

Yeah. And were you able to discover anything about why that got dismissed?

Olivia Lavoise (40:12)

What I found was that initially the case was dropped down from felony court to misdemeanor court. So just thinking about it being dropped from a felony to a misdemeanor, that in itself was really surprising. I never was able to understand why that happened. Prosecutor. No one from the prosecutor's office was ever able to say. I mean, of course they had their reasons, but they just didn't feel like sharing. Didn't feel like sharing, I guess. But the implication is, well, obviously new information must have came up that made the case not as strong or, you know, some.

Andrea Dunlop (41:00)

Right.

Olivia Lavoise (41:00)

I mean to think of it going from a felony like an anti nerd.

Andrea Dunlop (41:03)

Smoking gun appeared sort of type thing like.

Olivia Lavoise (41:06)

Yeah, yeah. I mean it makes it, it means that the crime is less serious in the eyes of the law. So what happened to make this crime less serious legally? And so, yeah, I never was really able to get a clear understanding on that, which was frustrating. But what I thought was really interesting about the case being dismissed was it was a conditional thing. It was like, okay, we're both sides and the judge were all agreeing to these conditions. And if these conditions are met, then the case will be dismissed.

Andrea Dunlop (41:52)

Here are those conditions. CH shall enroll in in person education school and will notify the state of the school school district. Upon enrollment prior to September of 2022, the defendant shall have CH continue to participate with the same CARE medical team and her primary pediatrician, Dr. Nauert. The defendant will comply with the CARE team's recommendations. Specifically, the defendant shall comply with the CARE medical team's Recommendations related to CH's ingestion of food and water and use of her sarcostomy tube. The defendant shall not have CH use a wheelchair unless recommended by the CARE team. The defendant shall not make any medical decisions for ch. Ann Hartman or Samantha Ferris will have medical decision making authority for check. The defendant may attend CH's medical appointments and interestingly this last one, the defendant shall comply with an order to surrender weapons. Because the relevant back and forth happened in Family Court, we can't say for sure why Sophie's children were returned or why exactly the charges got dropped. But I can offer some insight. This is the exact path my sister's case went down. And unfortunately, the way many of them play out, for the most part, family court judges just don't understand what this abuse is or how to handle it as evidenced by their truly bananas placement and supervision decisions. In this case, if family court gives the kids back, it means that DCF has failed to establish dependency, for which you only need a preponderance of evidence, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, it's not impossible to prevail in criminal court in such a scenario. That Danita Tuck came case in Texas is one example. But it's definitely an uphill battle and it's not a chance that many prosecutors want to take.

Olivia Lavoise (43:37)

Prosecutors are not going to file charges if they don't think they have a really strong case. That was something that I, I keep in mind always, but particularly with a case like this. They knew that this case was going to be a big media story and they also knew that this case was complicated and, and not something that their prosecutors, I think had a ton of experience in and she had good lawyers. So it's a big deal to file charges. Like you're not gonna do that if you don't think that case is really strong. But on the other hand, I also feel that with the case that has gotten media attention that people care about, they know about, to dismiss that case is also a really, really big deal. And if I'm prosecutors, I'm not going to dismiss that case unless I really think the case sucks and has no shot. And you know, did they dismiss it because they thought, well, at least we could get her to agree to These conditions, I don't know. It's a pretty crazy situation. And I think it's also a really unpleasant scenario for anyone to think about any case in general. We know this happens, but it's unpleasant to think of a case where prosecutors dismiss it even though they believe that the person is guilty of the allegations, but they just can't prove it.

Andrea Dunlop (45:03)

So this case did get media attention, but this happened in the summer of 2021. There was a lot going on. So I don't know if there was much outrage left in folks for this case getting dismissed. I mean, I certainly found some to spare, but, you know, that's me. And I think Olivia is right that most people see a headline that says mom Cleared and assume, okay, these accusations must have been wrong. And Sophie's well off parents appear to have circled the wagons. They reportedly spent millions of dollars on her defense and this didn't even go to criminal trial. So what did they spend that money on? Well, for one thing, hiring Experts such as Dr. Eli Neuberger, whose name you may recognize as he pops up in just about every high profile Munchausen by proxy case, including the Maya Kowalski case, where he was paid $160,000 for his deposition on behalf of the Kowalskis. Dr. Eli Neuberger, who passed away this year, was himself a fascinating character and I will certainly devote an episode to him at some point. But needless to say, I was not surprised that he showed up in this case. They also likely spent a good portion of this money on their top shelf lawyers. Their lead attorney, Adam Shapiro, I happen to know, is very expensive, but because he also represented my sister Megan in both of her investigations. And Sophie didn't just have Megan's lawyers, she had Megan herself, who actually worked on this case and reportedly became quite close with the Hartmans. If you've been listening to this show for a while, you know that I have very strong feelings about what is and is not from responsible true crime content. Maybe you've heard me make some pointed comments about the producers of a certain film. Or perhaps you've heard one of my dozen or so rants about a certain journalist whose name rhymes with Schmike Schmixenbach. And if you've been with me for a while, you'll also know that getting Nobody Should Believe me on the air was quite the roller coaster. Podcasting is just the Wild west, y'all. And these experiences are what led me to launch my new network, True Story Story Media, where we are all about uplifting true crime creators doing the work and making thoughtful Survivor centric shows. And I could not be more thrilled to announce our very first creator partner. You probably think this Story's about you the first season of this enthralling show from Breakout creator Brittany Ard took podcasting by storm in 2024, zooming to the number one spot in the charts on Apple and Spotify as Brittany revealed the captivating story of a romantic deception that upended her life and traced the roots of her own complicated personal history that led her there. Britney is back in 2025 with brand new episodes, this time helping others tell their own stories of betrayal, heartache and resilience. If you love, nobody should believe me. I think you will also love. You probably think this story is about you for its themes of deception, complex family intrigue, and its raw, vulnerable storytelling. You can binge the full first season and listen to brand new episodes each week by following the show on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find it at the link in our show notes. The evidence that I've seen in this case seems overwhelming, and even though the case was dismissed, the court appears to know that something was wrong. Otherwise, why tell Sophie that she needs to put her daughter in school, comply with the doctor's feeding recommendations, and, you know, not put her in a wheelchair? And with all of this, why would her parents continue to support her? What were they thinking? We did reach out to the Hartmans as well as Sophie's sister, Sam Ferriss, but we never heard back from any of them about doing an interview. So I did the next best, best thing. I asked my own dad, Mike Dunlop, why he hired Adam Shapiro.

Mike Dunlop (48:55)

I'm Andrea Dunlop's father. Been her father for a long time. In fact, ever since she was born. And so that's who I am.

Andrea Dunlop (49:06)

I walked my dad through all of the many parallels with this case and the one in our family. And now my parents never thought Megan was innocent, as Sophie's parents appear to. But. But they did make the very same phone call to Adam Shapiro that the Hartmans did.

Mike Dunlop (49:20)

Well, what I told the attorney, I told Shapiro, this is what I want. You know, I want Megan to get treatment. There's no doubt in my mind she's seriously ill and his job is to make sure that she gets treatment. And unfortunately, he went completely against my. My wishes. And he sort of claimed that he's representing Megan even though I was paying the bills.

Andrea Dunlop (49:48)

Right. And I think they have to do that. I mean, I don't think you can, but he should have. I Suppose, I mean, if he gave you the impression in your first conversations with him that he could do that, that he could, like because you were paying the bills, sort of act on your behalf, I mean, I don't think that would be legal or ethical.

Mike Dunlop (50:05)

It's not. It wasn't. It was what I wanted him to create as an outcome and to first, you know, this was an incident that we could utilize to help Megan and that was.

Andrea Dunlop (50:19)

Right. Sort of things have come to a head now.

Mike Dunlop (50:21)

Yes. And you know, she needs legal representation because, you know, it's in the hands of the state. And he. One of the things I've compartmentalized is the horror that this man, in my opinion, could, you know, not only not represent her best interests, in my opinion, but actually defend her against something that she did and then has now tried to make a career out of it.

Andrea Dunlop (50:53)

If it sounds like we were woefully naive about all of this, we were. We had never had any interactions with DCF before the first investigation into my sister 14 years ago. And though I disagreed with my dad's decision to hire attorneys for Megan and her husband Andy in the beginning, all these years later, now that I'm a parent myself, I understand he wanted to protect his child and his grandchild. He thought he could influence the outcome. And when he realized he couldn't, he stopped paying Adam Shapiro's bills. But Shapiro has stuck around and he's done a lot of work on my sister's behalf. He also defended her in the second investigation over my niece, and he's sent me various cease and desist letters over the years. I suspect it's likely that some of this work has been pro bono. And he and Megan obviously became close, which could explain how she got hired on the Hartman case despite having, to my knowledge, no legal training. I can understand Sophie's family being in shock when this all came up and for doing what people with means usually do in a legal lawyering up. It's really difficult to accept that some someone you love could be capable of this. And I understand parents wanting to protect their daughter so I can forgive them for not knowing what to do right away. Just as I can forgive my brother in law and his parents for not seeing what we saw right from the beginning. What I can't forgive is staying in denial and letting the children suffer while you're presented with more and more evidence that something is wrong. The first investigation into Megan, prompted by her push for the G tube surgery, came to, well, not much after an eight month investigation. DCF declined to file dependency, meaning that Megan would regain full custody of her son. There was no criminal investigation this first time, though there should have been. Whether it would have made a difference is another question altogether. My parents and I had been thoroughly iced out by the end of the first investigation. We were the enemy who'd accused Megan of abuse. But from what the social worker was able to share with us, it sounds like the court essentially told Megan that she needed some therapy. Megan frames this first investigation as going nowhere because DCF found no evidence of abuse. But a great many DCF investigations end this way with a parenting plan and nothing further. And given how prevalent the idea of medical child abuse being a matter of a mom's mental health is, I can't say I'm surprised with this outcome. My parents and I were bereft when DCF didn't file for dependency. They'd revealed to Megan and her husband early on that my mom had told the doctors about her concerns, and this revelation had blown up my family. And then they hadn't done anything to protect the kids. But then, not long after this all happened, my father got a message from my sister's husband, Andy. He'd been on his own journey of revelation with Megan, Completely, completely separate from the abuse investigation. Megan's crippling debt, much of this from unpaid medical bills, had come to light, and there were threats. Andy told my dad to garnish his wages. This was bizarre because my dad had asked Megan many times to send him all of her remaining bills, and he'd pay them, but of course, then he'd see them. So maybe not such a mystery why she didn't share. And it wasn't just the money. It was in a detail that I thought was a bizarre outlier to Megan's story, until I heard it from multiple other fathers who'd been married to perpetrators. Andy had discovered evidence of numerous affairs. We were honestly relieved when this all came out because Megan couldn't blame any of this on us. And now that Andy had seen how deceptive she could be with his own eyes, he'd come around, right. In a lengthy series of of emails between him and my father, Andy tells him that he wants to help us reconcile with Megan. He said he knows Megan needs help, but he continues to insist that she'd never lie about her child's health, that their son really does have all of these issues. In that case, my dad writes to him, Please send us his medical records so we can see for ourselves and put our concerns to rest. He refuses, telling my dad that it's quote, not appropriate to share them with him. Which is pretty rich coming from someone who is hitting up his estranged father in law for money. The back and forth continues until Andy arranges a meeting with him. My father and Megan, their whole motivation.

Mike Dunlop (55:12)

Was how can we sue the hospital.

Andrea Dunlop (55:14)

Yeah, I mean, were you surprised at the gall of that they were in a. It's not surprising in the context of, of Megan and her behavior, but like it's a, it's a sort of a shocking move in some ways.

Mike Dunlop (55:34)

You know, Andy saw it as a, as a ticket out of their financial problems.

Andrea Dunlop (55:39)

So they wanted you to fund their legal pursuit of suing Children's Hospital for falsely accusing her?

Detective Mike Weber (55:46)

Yes.

Andrea Dunlop (55:46)

And what did you have to say to that?

Mike Dunlop (55:48)

I said no, I believe that what they said is correct and I have no intention of doing that. And I think that is. That's extortion. That's not just. That's suing, that's extortion. You're trying to get money out of them when you have no rationale for it whatsoever.

Andrea Dunlop (56:07)

I believe. But I mean, was that your last conversation with Megan?

Mike Dunlop (56:10)

Yep. I said goodbye and I, to be honest, I didn't expect to see her again.

Andrea Dunlop (56:19)

Any family member who finds themselves in this situation faces a horrible do the right thing to protect the children and risk your relationship with the perpetrator or look the other way and become an enabler of the abuse. And if the state doesn't do anything or if they're not successful in court, you lose both your family member and their children forever. And as the children's aunt and grandparents, we don't have any rights. So speak up or don't. It's a hard choice, but to me it's a clear choice. You don't ignore it when children are being harmed. Megan's husband and his parents chose denial and I will never forgive them. But Sophie's parents were in a different position than mine. For one thing, there was no partner and no in laws who could provide support if they didn't. And they were paying Sophie's legal bills, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to afford Shapiro or Megan to come in and bend the system to her will. So while I can afford them their initial shock, they were sitting in these hearings. They've seen everything I've presented to you in this series and likely much more because nothing from the actual dependency proceedings is in the public record. And when you keep supporting someone long past when you should have known better, as I discussed with my mom, Karen, you're no longer just enabling abuse, you're participating in it. You've been presented with so much evidence about the abuse, so much evidence about the, about her deception, and you have chosen to disregard all of that and give her the ability to keep doing this. I mean somebody, it's like, that's the thing is like, and you know, it's come down to the same thing with Sophie. Somebody has to keep paying the bills. Like eventually if you run out of people who are supporting you, if you get to the end of the line. So it's like the people who are like the people who are doing that, like you are supporting an abuser, you're giving them, you might as well be handing them the weapon. You know, it's sort of like that is the weapon.

Karen Dunlop (58:21)

I have mixed feelings about Andy's parents frequently and I sometimes I feel really sorry for them because oh my gosh, what did they get into? On the other hand, I'm really angry because they were and are in a position to protect the kids and they wouldn't step up.

Andrea Dunlop (58:43)

So But I think for like grandparents and aunts, like even, you know, if they're listening, like, I hope that they are telling those kids that they have attributes other than being sick, that they are capable, that they are whole people who deserve love and recognition and they've failed them in so many ways. But I hope that they are still because we didn't get that chance. We didn't get that chance to like love them and care for them. And like I, we were so villainized and like really watching from watching you and dad be villainized when like I know what good parents you were and grew up in the same house and like I know how much we would have loved to be in those kids lives.

Karen Dunlop (59:29)

Oh, we would have loved it.

Andrea Dunlop (59:31)

And they missed out on so much.

Karen Dunlop (59:33)

Yeah, I feel like we had so much love to give and didn't have the opportunity, so. And I think about how much we love your kids now and how much we enjoy spending time with them and it's such a special relationship and you know, and it's, it's just a shame that Megan's children have missed out on that and we've missed out on that.

Andrea Dunlop (60:00)

The son is a teenager. He has access to the Internet. Like he could be listening and figuring things out and like, what would you, what would you want to tell them now and then? What do you hope for them in the future? Future?

Karen Dunlop (60:12)

I hope for good health, mental and physical. I think they have to be so traumatized and I hope they are able to see the situation at some point for what it really is and was. Maybe they'll listen to your podcast and realize that people, people did see, people did care, and we did all we could do. I hope that someday they realize that.

Andrea Dunlop (60:43)

At the heart of this work that has become so central to my life, it has always been this A message to my niece and nephew, a way back if they should ever be looking for it, and a message to those who are still in their lives to keep eyes on them and to reinforce that they are whole people, not just the story their mother wrote for them. I felt a bit conflicted about covering this season's story because I don't have the cooperation of the family, but I ended up feeling that it was all the more important because I believe the Hartmans have turned their back on these children. Ann and Sam eventually went back to Michigan. The conditions we explained earlier in this episode stayed in place for some period of time, but were ultimately lifted and the case was affected, officially dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be brought back to court. In November of 2023, the children are back with Sophie, more isolated now than they were before. And Sophie didn't just follow my sister's footsteps in her battle to get her children back, she kept on with the Megan Carter playbook. Next step, sue everyone next time.

Detective Mike Weber (61:52)

So her attorneys are definitely going to and they did. In their documentation, they use very inflammatory language. They make it seem like it's a conspiracy that on an absolute lack of evidence.

Andrea Dunlop (62:10)

Nobody Should Believe Me is written, hosted and executive produced by me, Andrea Dunlop. Our Senior producer is Mariah Gossett. Story editing by Nicole Hill, research and fact checking by Erin Ajayi and our Associate producer is Greta Stromquist. Mixing and engineering by Robin Edgar Administrative support from Nola Carmouche. Special thanks to my APPSAC committee colleagues, Dr. Jim Hamilton and Detective Michael Lee. Thank you also to Olivia Lavoise and to my mom and dad. It was very special to be able to sit down with them for the show and we will be releasing those full conversations in a future episode. If you or anyone you know is a victim or survivor of medical child abuse, Please go to munchausensupport.com to connect with professionals who can help. If you've been listening to this show for a while, you know that I have very strong feelings about what is and is not responsible true crime content. Maybe you've heard me make some pointed comments about the producers of a certain film. Or perhaps you've heard one of my dozen or so rants about a certain journalist whose name rhymes with Schmeik Schmixenbach. And if you've been with me for a while, you'll also know that getting Nobody Should Believe Me on the air was quite the roller coaster. Podcasting is just the Wild west, y'all, and these experiences are what led me to to launch my new network, True Story Media, where we are all about uplifting true crime creators doing the work and making thoughtful Survivor centric shows. And I could not be more thrilled to announce our very first creator Partner. You probably think this story's about you the first season of this enthralling show from Breakout creator Brittany Ard took podcasting by storm in 2024, zooming to the number one spot in the charts on out, Apple and Spotify as Britney revealed the captivating story of a romantic deception that upended her life and traced the roots of her own complicated personal history that led her there. Britney is back in 2025 with brand new episodes, this time helping others tell their own stories of betrayal, heartache and resilience. If you love, nobody should believe me. I think you will also love. You probably think this story is about you for its themes of decision, deception, complex family intrigue, and it's raw, vulnerable storytelling. You can binge the full first season and listen to brand new episodes each week by following the show on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also find it at the link in our show Notes.