Serial – The Preventionist, Episode 2
Release Date: October 30, 2025
Host/Reporter: Diane Neary
Episode Title: The Preventionist – Ep. 2
Episode Overview
This episode dives into the rise and controversy surrounding Dr. Deborah Asernio Jensen, a child abuse pediatrician (CAP) whose diagnoses and testimony have led to dozens of family separations and lawsuits across three states. Reporter Diane Neary investigates how Dr. Jensen’s career reflects the growing power, and possible overreach, of child abuse specialists in America’s child welfare ecosystem. Through interviews with families, lawyers, doctors, social workers, and public officials, the episode asks: When a CAP’s certainty can mean the difference between justice or tragedy for a family, who checks their power?
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The Scope of the Problem: Dr. Jensen’s Repeated Allegations
[00:33–03:33]
- After an emotionally charged meeting in Lehigh County, PA—where Dr. Jensen’s name was cited 108 times—families accused her of misdiagnoses leading to forced separations.
- Dr. Jensen leads child advocacy teams at various hospitals, shaping outcomes for hundreds of families over decades.
- Despite numerous lawsuits and court criticisms, she continued to find new positions due to increased demand for CAPs.
Notable Quote:
“Deborah Jensen. Dr. Jensen. I'm gonna summarize. Get rid of Dr. Jensen and fix the system because it’s broken.”
— Meeting attendee (Diane Neary reading testimony) [01:11]
2. The Genesis of Modern Child Abuse Pediatrics
[03:33–07:48]
- Dr. Jensen began in New York City in a “better safe than sorry” era, catalyzed by the Elisa Isquierdo murder case (1995).
- City's child welfare agencies, under public and political pressure, adopted a “when in doubt, pull them out” approach.
- Dr. Jensen became known for “excessive vigilance,” often diagnosing abuse where other practitioners did not.
Notable Quote:
“She found child abuse where no other doctor found it, and she went way beyond what other doctors did.”
— David Lanzner, family lawyer [07:48]
3. Dr. Jensen’s Early Controversies and Reputation
[07:48–12:28]
- At least five New York families sued Dr. Jensen claiming misdiagnosis led to unnecessary separation.
- Court opinions repeatedly criticized her for overreach:
- Called “argumentative and defensive,” “unreasonably judgmental,” and her findings “overwhelmingly wrong.”
- Colleague Dr. Ram Khairam (pediatric neurologist) regrets not challenging her more forcefully in court.
Notable Quotes:
“She was confident of her judgment. She did not know how much science she did not know.”
— Dr. Ram Khairam [11:58]
“I think they went beyond because they wanted to warn other judges about it—about Dr. Jensen.”
— David Lanzner, on detailed judicial criticism [12:18]
4. Rise of the CAP: Institutionalizing Expert Power
[12:28–14:50]
- Mid-2000s: American Board of Pediatrics creates the CAP subspecialty, amplifying the authority and court weight of people like Dr. Jensen.
- Dr. Jensen among the first certified, moves to Florida to lead a child advocacy team at Shands Hospital.
5. A Florida Family’s Ordeal: From Sickness to Separation
[14:50–25:07]
- Jesse Santiago’s infant son’s medical crisis wrongly flagged as abuse; Dr. Jensen insists on abusive head trauma with certainty, despite:
- No full agreement among other specialists
- Medical records not supporting her conclusion
- Jesse and his wife, persuaded by problematic legal counsel, permanently relinquish parental rights, only to later find out about Dr. Jensen’s record of lawsuits and overturned diagnoses.
- Criminal charges against Jesse eventually dropped, but he permanently loses custody.
Notable Quote:
“Wasn’t just one or two. It was just so many… I’m like, wow, like how’s this, how’s this person keep going?”
— Jesse Santiago [21:42]
“The termination of a parent’s rights is what’s known in family court as the civil death penalty.”
— Diane Neary [20:38]
6. Divided Judgments: Inside the Field of Child Abuse Pediatrics
[25:07–29:16]
- Dr. Jensen’s supervisors defend her as rigorous and trustworthy. Dr. Randall Alexander claims he never disagreed with a single one of her findings.
- Field is small (~350 practicing CAPs) and feels embattled by frequent complaints and legal challenges.
- Dr. Alexander cites (questionable) statistics that “40%” of the U.S. population experienced child abuse—numbers not supported by primary studies.
- Other CAPs and legal advocates warn the field’s “cowboy” approach and dogmatism risks wrongful accusations.
Notable Quotes:
“I think she’s one of the best child abuse pediatricians in the country.”
— Dr. Randall Alexander [25:07]
“We’re looking at the tip of an iceberg… Child abuse is more common than ADHD or asthma.”
— Dr. Randall Alexander [28:21]
7. Ambiguity, Overconfidence, and Systemic Risk
[29:16–32:37]
- Medical literature increasingly shows injuries previously considered clear evidence of abuse may result from accidents or pre-existing conditions.
- Some CAPs acknowledge uncertainty and even regret past testimony; field divides over proper standards of certainty.
- Host notes medical certainty is often highest when diagnosing children from poor families and families of color.
8. Checks, Balances, and What Happens When They Fail
[32:37–47:28]
- Official narrative: CAP findings are just part of a multidisciplinary review; social services and courts make the true removal decisions.
- Real experience: Multiple caseworkers in Florida tell Neary that, in practice, challenging Dr. Jensen’s opinion was nearly impossible.
- One caseworker, Andrew Caswell, reports Dr. Jensen to the Inspector General for medical malpractice after she diagnoses Munchausen by proxy in a case he describes as normal teenage pain.
- Caswell is removed from the case; decision is overruled.
- Multiple former colleagues corroborate a recurring theme: caseworkers felt “terrorized” by Dr. Jensen and “powerless” to object to her findings.
Notable Quotes:
“It was almost as if I had no involvement in the case, like what I had to say didn’t matter.”
— Andrew Caswell, caseworker [42:05]
“Whenever someone has that level of power and there's no checks and balances… it made me feel as if she had free rein.”
— Cody Witham, child abuse investigator [44:04]
“We are abusing children.”
— Unnamed caseworker, echoing staff frustration [44:22]
9. Pushback Up the Chain: Top Officials & Prosecutors Weigh In
[46:19–47:41]
- Supervisors in the child welfare system recount frequent conflicts with Dr. Jensen’s recommendations and at times, having to block removals she sought.
- Local prosecutor Bill Servone describes Dr. Jensen as “black and white. Zero sum,” pushing cases he believed had insufficient evidence.
Notable Quotes:
“Her. I was just—every week someone was calling me up, 'Sir, she wants to remove this kid for this.' ... I'd go, ‘Don't remove them.’”
— David Abramowicz, regional child welfare director [46:19]
“She and her agency took a very aggressive stance… contrary to what we believed the evidence allowed us to prove.”
— Bill Servone, former prosecutor [47:28]
10. Pennsylvania: A New Crisis After Sandusky
[48:59–End]
- Post-Sandusky, Pennsylvania enacts strict new reporting laws, causing suspected child abuse referrals to spike.
- Dr. Jensen, newly hired, again makes extensive use of Munchausen by proxy diagnoses, leading to waves of family separations and now, major lawsuits.
- By episode close, at least 27 families are suing Dr. Jensen and her hospital; most have gotten their children back—eventually.
Notable Quotes (Chronological with Timestamps)
- “Get rid of Dr. Jensen and fix the system because it’s broken.” — Diane Neary reading public comment [01:11]
- “She found child abuse where no other doctor found it, and she went way beyond what other doctors did.” — David Lanzner, lawyer [07:48]
- “She was confident of her judgment. She did not know how much science she did not know.” — Dr. Ram Khairam, pediatric neurologist [11:58]
- “The termination of a parent’s rights is what’s known in family court as the civil death penalty.” — Diane Neary [20:38]
- “Wasn’t just one or two. It was just so many… I’m like, wow, like how’s this, how’s this person keep going?” — Jesse Santiago [21:42]
- “I think she’s one of the best child abuse pediatricians in the country.” — Dr. Randall Alexander [25:07]
- “It was almost as if I had no involvement in the case, like what I had to say didn’t matter.” — Andrew Caswell, caseworker [42:05]
- “She and her agency took a very aggressive stance on all but cases and that they should go forward. Contrary to what we believed the evidence allowed us to prove.” — Bill Servone, former prosecutor [47:28]
- “Her. I was just—every week someone was calling me up, ‘Sir, she wants to remove this kid for this…’” — David Abramowicz, regional director [46:19]
Major Segments & Timestamps (MM:SS)
- [00:33–03:33] – Introduction to Dr. Jensen, community outcry in Pennsylvania
- [03:33–07:48] – The climate in New York after Elisa Isquierdo, rise of “pull them out”
- [07:48–12:28] – Lawsuits, court criticisms, and Dr. Jensen’s reputation in NY
- [14:50–25:07] – The Florida case of Jesse Santiago; family dissolution, criminal charges
- [25:07–29:16] – Defenses of Dr. Jensen by supervisors; broader stats and opinions about CAPs
- [32:37–33:48] – Discussion of checks and balances in theory and practice
- [34:33–42:33] – Andrew Caswell caseworker challenge and Inspector General complaint
- [42:33–46:19] – Other caseworker experiences of feeling silenced or overridden
- [46:19–47:41] – Regional supervisors and prosecutors describe years of turmoil and overreach
- [48:59–End] – Dr. Jensen’s tenure in Pennsylvania; recent lawsuits and family separations
Tone & Approach
Throughout, Diane Neary’s tone is direct but thoughtful, consistently seeking clarity and corroboration from multiple sources, and frequently pausing to express humane skepticism ("I'm really still trying to wrap my head around that…"). The episode mixes clinical detail with raw emotion from those affected, lending the story both analytic rigor and deep empathy.
Summary Takeaway
Episode 2 of The Preventionist investigates not only one controversial doctor, but the system that allowed her unchecked influence—from the evolution of child abuse pediatrics to the fallibility of institutional checks and balances. At its core, the episode asks: When a system meant to protect children itself causes harm, how do we prevent, and who is truly accountable? The story remains unresolved, with lawsuits pending and the lives of dozens of families forever changed.