wavePod

The Preventionist - Ep. 3 - Serial | Wave AI Podcast Notes

The Preventionist - Ep. 3

Thu Oct 30 2025

What’s the harm of “better safe than sorry” in cases where abuse is ambiguous? One mother’s story is our answer to that question.

Summary

Podcast Summary: Serial – The Preventionist, Ep. 3 (Oct 30, 2025)

Main Theme

This episode, hosted by Diane Neary, explores the profound and lasting impact the child protection system can have on families, focusing on the story of Amanda Saranovsky. After Amanda’s infant son was injured in a household accident, her entire family was drawn into a years-long ordeal with police, medical professionals, child protective services, criminal prosecution, and ultimately, family separation. The episode interrogates the “better safe than sorry” philosophy underlying many child welfare decisions and critically examines the consequences when medical expertise is, or might be, mistaken.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Backdrop: Lawsuits and Institutional Confidence

Multiple families (27) have sued Lehigh Valley Health Network and Dr. Deborah Jensen, alleging medical malpractice and malicious prosecution.
The hospital, unable to comment due to litigation, publicly defends Dr. Jensen’s reputation, stating, “child abuse is actually underreported and that the spurious claims made by the plaintiffs represent a danger to children in the community” (01:25).
Local officials, such as Lehigh County Executive Phil Armstrong, stand by a cautious approach:

“If there is going to be an error, it’s going to be to help the children stay safe. That was our number one concern.” – Phil Armstrong (03:18)

2. The 'Better Safe Than Sorry' Approach

Exploring the logic: child welfare systems err on the side of caution, often removing children preemptively.
Diane Neary probes the risks of this approach, especially in ambiguous cases: “What’s the harm of better safe than sorry in cases like that?” (04:14)

3. Amanda’s Story: The Incident

Amanda, a mother of five, is awakened at 5:30 a.m. by a thud and finds her newborn on the floor, her toddler in the bassinet (07:14).
Immediate responses: Amanda calls 911, then endures hours of hospital assessments leading to a diagnosis of a “brain bleed” and later, fractures (08:54).
In the face of escalating fear, Amanda texts friends:

“I feel like I’m going to puke. I’ll die if they take my babies.” (09:55)

4. Child Welfare History and Suspicion

A background of repeated child welfare investigations: earlier incidents involving Amanda’s partners and prior perceived mishandlings.
Amanda distrusts Dr. Jensen, perceiving bias from child abuse pediatricians against her due to her history (11:07).

5. Medical Judgment and Its Power

Amanda requests not to be seen by Dr. Jensen, but Dr. Doshi, Jensen’s colleague, takes over.
Dr. Doshi concludes the injuries could only have been caused by “violent shaking with impact,” not a toddler’s actions (13:35–14:02).
Child protective services remove Amanda’s children. For Amanda, the system’s preemptive steps feel like a pattern:

“They’ll say I’m unstable...they’ll use it against me.” (15:27)

6. The Fallout of Family Separation

Amanda’s children are placed in foster care or with relatives, many facing trauma, instability, and suspected abuse—some bouncing between numerous homes (17:54).
Amanda maintains as best she can, attending visits often in costume to keep her children’s spirits up:

“It doesn’t matter what we’re going through, Mommy’s not going to change.” (18:13)
Legal stakes escalate: Amanda faces serious criminal charges, including aggravated assault, and jail time (20:01).
She ultimately agrees to a plea for “reckless endangerment of a person,” not a child—a technical win, but not a true exoneration.

“Nothing she’d said or her defenders had said...had made a difference. Instead, the only thing that seemed to matter was what the doctors said.” (21:17)

7. Questioning the Medical Consensus

Three independent pediatricians review the records; none agree with Dr. Jensen/Doshi’s finding of abusive head trauma or near fatality (21:55).
They argue that the removal and family separation were not medically necessary, recommending monitoring/support instead.

8. Trying to Repair a Family

Once legal restrictions are lifted, Amanda starts to bring her children home, but the psychological toll is heavy. She installs cameras at home out of fear of future accusations (25:38).
The trauma of separation is explored (“ambiguous loss”):

“Ambiguous loss can traumatize children because they are grieving the loss of a family member who is not dead but is out there somewhere.” (27:26)
The effects on Amanda’s children manifest as behavioral problems, self-blame, and ongoing anxiety.

9. The Obstacles of Reunification

Amanda struggles to regain custody of her youngest son, who is now in a permanent arrangement with his foster family; the legal route is harder, as the child's “best interest” standard is complex and subjective (36:28; 38:07).
Amanda’s emotions are raw and layered:

“My heart is full when I’m with him...He’s like the missing piece.” (46:28)
She acknowledges her son’s deep bond with his foster family, complicating her desire to bring him home:

“Parts of me think...do I leave him where he’s at or do I bring him home?” (47:44)

10. The Broader System: Accountability and Reform

Local officials and Lehigh Valley Health Network remain largely defensive.
Fallout continues: Dr. Jensen is eventually removed from her post and retires, but continues to work as a consultant (52:24).
Policies are changing in some places—more states allow for second opinions in cases of suspected abuse, addressing the power of individual doctors to determine family fate.
Data point: Nearly 40% of American children (higher for Black children) will be subject to child abuse investigations by age 18 (53:29).

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

On Child Welfare System’s Priorities
- “If there is going to be an error, it’s going to be to help the children stay safe.” – Phil Armstrong (03:18)
On the Pain of Separation
- “I feel like I’m going to puke. I’ll die if they take my babies.” – Amanda (09:55)
- “Ambiguous loss can traumatize children because they are grieving the loss of a family member who is not dead but is out there somewhere.” – Diane (27:26)
On the Power of Medical Testimony
- “Nothing she’d said or her defenders had said or her children had said had made a difference. Instead, the only thing that seemed to matter was what the doctors said.” – Diane (21:17)
On the Aftermath for Amanda
- “I’m scared. I’m not doing anything wrong, but I’m scared. And I see how twisted this system is and it sucks.” – Amanda (26:59)
- “I love my kids, and I just want my kids. Like I want the best for them. And parts of me think...do I leave where he’s at or do I bring him home?” – Amanda (47:44)
On the Child’s Best Interest
- “With how severe the trauma was for the other four children, traumatizing him and taking him away from everything he knows, I don’t want that for him. I want him to be brought home slowly because that’s in his best interest.” – Amanda (51:18)
On the Need for Systemic Caution
- “It seems to me that everyone involved...should take into account the real possibility that the cap (child abuse pediatrician) might be mistaken...Even one pause, one ‘wait a second’ might be the difference between a family staying together or being broken apart.” – Diane (52:24)

Important Segments & Timestamps

Hospital and County Response to Lawsuits (00:30–04:14)
Amanda’s Family and the Incident (07:14–14:51)
Removal and Amanda’s Isolation (15:03–17:54)
Impact of Foster Care and Family Separation (17:54–21:17)
Medical Disagreement and Systemic Consequences (21:55–24:35)
Amanda’s Fight to Reunify (25:17–36:08)
Legal and Emotional Challenges of Custody (36:28–51:18)
Wider Reflection on the System and Calls for Reform (52:08–End)

Memorable Moments

Amanda dressing up as a unicorn for her first supervised visit to make her children laugh (18:07).
Amanda’s anxiety about every step being interpreted as suspicious, leading her to self-impose stricter routines (25:52).
Amanda’s youngest daughter blaming herself for the family’s trauma and Amanda working hard to reassure her (50:22).
The bittersweet victory when Amanda finally files for shared custody, but chooses a cautious, gradual approach (52:08).
The episode’s final indictment: the system’s own version of “better safe than sorry” can inflict serious, enduring harm.

Tone

The episode is careful, empathetic, and intensely personal, often using Amanda’s own words to carry the story’s emotional weight. Host Diane Neary is probing but compassionate, using rigorous reporting to contextualize Amanda’s story within broader systemic issues. The style is narrative and reflective, never sensationalized but deeply affecting.

Conclusion

This episode reveals the harrowing complexity of child protection cases where medical ambiguity, institutional caution, and the stakes of family separation collide. Amanda’s saga exemplifies how the very mechanisms designed to protect children can sometimes perpetuate harm. With reform efforts underway in some states, the episode leaves listeners questioning how many families could be spared devastating consequences if the system slowed down—just enough—to consider a second opinion.

Loading summary...

Transcript

A (0:00)

Hi, it's Alexa Weibel from New York Times Cooking. We've got tons of easy weeknight recipes and today I'm making my five ingredient creamy miso pasta. You just take your starchy pasta water, whisk it together with a little bit of miso and butter until it's creamy, add your noodles and a little bit of cheese. Hmm. It's like a grown up box of Mac and cheese that feels like a restaurant quality dish. New York Times Cooking has you covered with easy dishes for busy weeknights. You can find more@nytcooking.com it's been two years since all those people showed up at the Lehigh County Commissioner's meeting to tell their stories. Now 27 families are suing Lehigh Valley Health Network. Dr. Jensen and members of the child protection team she led the lawsuits make several claims, including medical malpractice, negligence and malicious prosecution. Again, I wanted to talk to Dr. Jensen and to decision makers at the hospital where she worked. But in an email, a spokesperson for the hospital wrote that while they had a lot to say about the family's allegations and they very much wanted to speak with us, they couldn't because of the pending litigation. Instead, they pointed us to a court filing, a lengthy response to the claims in one of the lawsuits. That filing, they said, was a good representation of their position. In that response, the hospital unequivocally defends the reputation and expertise of Dr. Jensen. They call her dedicated, passionate, and eminently qualified. Heroic, even. The filing argues that child abuse is actually underreported and that the spurious claims made by the plaintiffs represent a danger to children in the community. Unfortunately, they write, child abuse pediatricians are often attacked by parents seeking retribution and quote, parents accused of abuse often have a history of embracing a the best defense is a strong offense mindset, frequently lodging complaints against those who identify mistreatment in an effort to deflect blame. Unquote. The hospital was implying that these families hadn't really been harmed. Instead, they'd hurt their own children and were only suing to hide that fact as a kind of smokescreen. In other words, let these parents complain. That's fine. We can take it because we know what we're doing is right. That's pretty much what the Lehigh county executive Phil Armstrong said to me, too. He's the county's highest elected official.

B (2:36)

I'm very, very confident in our youth program and what they've been doing. I really think all along we've been following the correct steps, the correct procedures and doing what we think is best.

A (2:51)

Pennsylvania is actually one of a handful of states where child welfare isn't state run, it's county run. So Armstrong oversees the system's funding, policymaking, caseworker training, et cetera. He wasn't Dr. Jensen's boss. She worked for the hospital. But he was as close as I could get. Armstrong couldn't discuss any specific cases, but he did talk generally about the county's approach to child welfare and to complaints from parents.

A (11:07)

Amanda lives in a rural area north of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Growing up, she saw her own mom scrutinized by child welfare. And since she herself had become a mother, children and youth caseworkers had scrutinized Amanda, too. When her first child, her daughter, was only a month old, she got a head injury. Amanda's boyfriend said she'd fallen out of her car seat, which he'd been swinging to calm her. Doctors were suspicious of that story. Eventually, Amanda was, too. Child welfare indicated the father for abuse. Amanda separated from him and kept custody of their daughter. Children and youth kept tabs on them for a while. Later on, Amanda met Janio Castillo, who would become her partner. They had three children together, a boy and two more girls. When Janio was accused of harming their youngest daughter, she was also tiny at the time, just two months old. Yanio lied at first, but finally admitted that he'd been changing the baby's diaper when her arm got caught behind her. As he rolled her from one side to the other, an X ray showed a fracture, which can happen like that by accident. But a child abuse pediatrician believed the injury was indicative of abuse. Yannio denied he'd hurt her on purpose, but eventually pled no contest to aggravated assault. During all this, Amanda was pregnant with her fifth child, her fourth with Janio. The two of them didn't live together anymore, and she was working full time at the Crayola factory and raising her growing family alone. Caseworkers from children and youth once again coming around, knocking on her door, which of course, was stressful. But also this time around, Amanda thought it was unjust because she absolutely believed Janio's story. She still does. She told me he would never hurt the kids intentionally. Janio told us the same, that it was an accident. The pediatrician who made that finding of abuse In Janio's case, Dr. Deborah Asernio Jensen, Amanda didn't trust her. And so now here Amanda was, back in the Lehigh Valley Hospital with another injured newborn about to be assessed by the child protection team. It didn't look good, and Amanda knew it. Amanda says she asked for a different doctor. Anyone but Dr. Jensen. So another member of Dr. Jensen's team took the case. Dr. Rashida Doshi.

A (15:27)

Amanda read that move as a tactic. They'll say I'm unstable, that I have postpartum depression. They'll call the cops on me. Somehow they'll use it against me. So she dodged their calls and visits. When they finally did make contact, she told them she was fine. All five of Amanda's children were sent to live elsewhere while the county investigated the suspected child abuse. Amanda's youngest, the newborn with the brain bleed and fractures, ended up being fostered by a young couple with no other kids. Her oldest child, a daughter, ended up staying with Amanda's sister for the duration. The middle three bounced around more, sometimes with family, sometimes with strangers. Amanda's contact with her children was restricted, so she couldn't and still can't know exactly what happened to them in foster care. Her information is based on what the kids and caseworkers told her and what she observed while she was able to visit with them. We also have caseworker notes regarding the two younger girls, though not for their brother, who was with them for a time. And those notes do track with Amanda's chronology. And that chronology. It's pretty grim. If it were a movie plot, I might even think it was histrionic, A cliched portrait of every imaginable danger of foster care. But it really happened. In one placement, they witnessed domestic violence. I've read the police report, and it sounds pretty dramatic. Amanda says the kids still talk about it. One parent punching the other blood. An ambulance showing up, another placement. Apparently the House was never clean. In yet another placement, Amanda's daughters landed in the ER with pelvic pain and visible vaginal irritation and inflammation. Doctors found no signs of sexual abuse, but Amanda was frantic. She was sure her daughters had been molested. As for Amanda's youngest daughter, the toddler, she was struggling so much, was so hard to handle. She was moved something like ten times, at least. Amanda started to lose count this first stretch of separation. Amanda said it was agonizing. For most of it, she couldn't see her children in person, initially because of COVID then for legal reasons. So months passed before she was finally allowed to visit them in September of 2020.

A (21:17)

People were protesting in front of the hospital, demanding Dr. Jensen's resignation. Now, the DA's office seemed only too eager to get rid of Amanda's case. They gave her a remarkable offer. If she'd agree to plead no contest to reckless endangerment of a person, not of a child, but of a person, her sentence would be nothing. No probation, not even court fees. A trial is always risky. So Amanda pled. No contests, and it was over. But it wasn't vindication. And it wasn't like she and her children could suddenly go back to normal, she said, just breezily pick up where they left off. None of this was normal. This whole thing had strangled her life, nearly obliterated her family for almost four years, and then just fizzled. Nothing she'd said or her defenders had said or her children had said had made a difference. Instead, the only thing that seemed to matter was what the doctors said. And this is where Amanda's case gets perplexing. Because we showed the baby's anonymized medical records to three other child abuse experts, including two child abuse pediatricians, and asked them what they made of the case. None of them agreed with Dr. Doshi and Dr. Jensen's assessment that the baby's injury could only have been caused by an adult. They did not agree with that level of certainty. The two caps said they could see cause for concern. But judging from the scans and the medical narrative, in their view, this case did not bear the classic signs of abusive head trauma, no hallmarks of rotational injury, no severe retinal hemorrhages, no injury to the neck. And all three doctors independently puzzled over the fact that Dr. Doshi and Dr. Jensen had certified the case as A quote, near fatality, meaning the baby was in serious or critical condition. They pointed out that according to the records, Amanda's son never lost consciousness, was alert and was discharged without needing any life saving medical interventions. Perhaps most striking, none of them would have recommended that the baby, let alone any of the other children, be separated from Amanda. Instead it would have been, let's monitor the family and offer resources that might be helpful. Have a caseworker investigate further and see how it goes. The third expert, a pediatrician who specialized in child abuse medicine, went even further. She didn't have concerns about abuse at all and said if she'd been the doctor on this case, she would have called child services and told them this was an accident. And that's it. Based on what these doctors said, you can almost imagine on that awful December morning in 2019, maybe things could have gone differently and Amanda's life and her kids lives could have gone back to normal. Instead, she was steeling herself for a whole new struggle to get her children back home. All five of them. That's after the break.

A (27:26)

And then within weeks, they start to come home, all the kids, except for the baby. Getting him back would be a whole lot more complicated. Before I get to the family reunion, I want to talk for a minute about the family separation. Because the effects of that don't just disappear, they can linger, sometimes for a lifetime. Removing a child from their parents is the most drastic intervention the system can invoke. So there's a lot of data about the consequences of doing so. How traumatic it can be every which way, how foster and group homes themselves can be sources of fresh abuse to the children they take in. How outcomes for children in foster care are often dismal for their physical health, brain development, mental health, emotional health, every bad thing we try to protect children from. If they're separated from their families, they're susceptible. But there's this one law review paper that brought home to me the feeling of removal from the child's point of view. The papers from 2019 out of the University of Michigan. The lead author is director of the Child Advocacy Law Clinic there. When a child is removed and placed in foster care, it says, familiarity is replaced by a pervasive sense of ambiguity, an inherent confusion about what is happening and why and when it will end. The paper defines six different kinds of ambiguity, Basically a set of frightening, unanswered questions about what connects you to the world around you. But in this situation, you're not the you listening to this. You're little maybe really little, 2 or 5 or 10, asking, why am I here in this strange house? Is this my bed? Are these my toys? How long do I stay here? And who makes that decision? Who are these people? Who are they to me? Who am I to them? If I'm their child now, am I still someone else's daughter? Someone else's sister? Where are my friends and my teachers and my siblings? Where is my mother? Why can I not talk to my mother? The paper calls this ambiguous loss, a lack of clarity about where your real family is. Ambiguous loss can traumatize children because they are grieving the loss of a family member who is not dead but is out there somewhere. Parents, too, experience ambiguous loss of their children. They might feel grief, confusion, despair. From what she's told me, Amanda certainly did and still does. All five of Amanda's children went through this system. Statistically speaking, the ones who stayed with relatives or were moved the least or were placed with siblings, they're likely to fare the best. The ones who weren't as lucky. One of her kids, remember, was moved at least 10 times, they'll likely have it harder now. All five of Amanda's children are about to bring their piled up trauma home, where it'll be Amanda's job to figure out how to help them. The next time I see Amanda, her house has transformed. Three months have passed. Her children are back home. All except the baby. Their stuff is arranged neatly around the living room and bedrooms. There's a tall plastic shelving unit in the kitchen with drawers full of their favorite snacks. Amanda's a little on edge. A children and youth caseworker, a young woman named Joanique, is coming over today for what Amanda hopes will be a final visit. Her three oldest children are clear of social services, but her youngest daughter still has an open case with children and youth, and they need to sign off on her return home. Amanda's concerns for the day are twofold. First, the kids sleeping arrangements. Amanda says according to Children and Youth, her son isn't technically supposed to be sleeping in the same room as his sisters. But the three like to sleep together, especially after being separated for so long. So Amanda allows it. She's hoping her kids won't rat her out. And second, she doesn't want Jonique talking to her other kids. She can talk to Amanda's youngest daughter. That's her job. But the other kids? No.

A (52:08)

The next week, Amanda filed for custody. Her demands were measured. Like she said, she didn't want to rip him away. She asked for shared legal custody of her son, therapy to help them bond after such a long separation and partial physical custody on a gradual schedule. Amanda wrote to the court, I just want to build a relationship with my son. My older four children have also stated they miss their brother and want to see him. As Amanda predicted, her son's foster parents are fighting her hard to keep him, attacking her fitness as a mother in all the ways she feared. The case is scheduled for trial this fall. The first time Amanda spoke publicly about what happened to her and her family was at that Lehigh county commissioners meeting back in 2023, the same day County Comptroller Mark Pensley released his controversial report. A report which, when I've asked officials about it, they're dismissive. The Lehigh county executive Phil Armstrong. He told me he didn't even read it. Instead, he asked his child welfare folks whether there was anything to worry about and the answers they gave him. He wouldn't tell me exactly what they were, but he says they were great and that he was happy and satisfied. In the neighboring county, Northampton, where Amanda lives, officials told me Mark's report was misleading and harmful. They worried it would further erode people's trust in the child welfare system. But the shakeup Mark caused with his supposedly wrongheaded report, it's had a remarkably fruitful afterlife. Since the report came out, the Lehigh County District Attorney's office has reviewed every case in which Dr. Jensen testified as a central witness. As a result, one father's 20 to 40 year prison sentence was just reduced by at least half. He's eligible for release this year. Then there are all the lawsuits against Dr. Jensen and Lehigh Valley Health Network. It'll likely take years for those to sort themselves out. As for Dr. Jensen, two weeks after Mark Pinsley's report, she was replaced as medical director of its child Advocacy center. And six months after that, she retired from lvhn. She's still speaking at conferences, though. I watched a virtual one where she diagnosed a case on the fly. During a Q and A based on a short description of symptoms and without seeing any records, she declared, you are dealing with abusive head trauma. Here's my diagnosis. It seems to me that everyone involved in child welfare cases that include a child abuse pediatrician. I mean caseworkers, doctors, hospital administrators, cops, prosecutors, judges, should take into account the real possibility that the cap might be mistaken. I don't mean theoretically mistaken. I mean actually mistaken. I don't say that with hostility. I'm saying it because to me, it seems reasonable for everyone in the system to acknowledge that science and evidence often aren't clear cut. Reporting this story, I've seen it again and again. Different doctors looking at the exact same information and coming to different conclusions about what that information means. I'm saying even One pause, one, wait a second. Might be the difference between a family staying together or being broken apart. I'm saying what Mark Pinsley was saying. When it comes to caps and the power they wield, families, families deserve a second opinion. In recent years, three statestexas, Washington and now Georgia have written that option into law. The other 47 could think about doing this too. There's this phrase in child welfare circles, the removal calculus. The authors of that Michigan Law Review paper I talked about earlier, they say you have to get that calculus just right. And only remove a child when absolutely necessary to protect children from serious, imminent harm. What they do not advise is better safe than sorry. That approach, they warn, can cause its own serious, imminent harm. And more people than you might think are drawn into this system. One study using federal data estimated that nearly 40% of children in the United States will be subject to a child abuse investigation, nearly 40%. For black children specifically, it's even higher at 53%. A bright spot is that some jurisdictions are rethinking better safe than sorry. One of those places, Northampton, where Amanda's abuse cases played out, the Children Youth and Families administrator there, who grew up in foster care herself, told me their focus is now about prevention and trying to keep families intact by offering them help. It seems to be working. Four years ago, the county had 319 children in foster care. Now that number has been cut in half. One last thing I thought I'd mention. Not long ago, Dr. Jensen got hired as a consultant to review evidence and investigations of violent crimes against children. The agency she's working for is evidently untroubled by the many lawsuits and allegations of misdiagnosis she faces. Dr. Jensen is now a consultant for the FBI. The Preventionist is hosted, written and reported by me, Diane Neary additional reporting by Ben Phelan and Janelle Pifer. It's produced by Janelle Pifer and edited by Jen Guerra. Additional editing by Sarah Koenig and Danita Batijo Fact checking by Elizabeth Barber and Ben Phelan Additional fact checking by Caitlin Love. For more reporting from the show, sign up for our newsletter@nytimes.com serialnewsletter music supervision and mixing by Phoebe Wang Additional mixing by Katherine Anderson Sound design by Jonathan Menhivar and Phoebe Wang Original music by Martin D. Fowler, Dan Powell and Marian Lozano Additional music for this episode by the Blasting Company. Martin D. Fowler composed our theme song. Our Standards editor is Susan Westling. Legal review from Dana Greene. The art for our show comes from A May Hunt and Pablo Delcon. The supervising producer for Serial Productions is Ende Chubu. Julie Snyder is Serial's executive editor. Our associate producer is Mac Miller. Additional producing comes from Nina Lawson and Corey beach at the New York Times, and Sam Dolnick is the New York Times deputy managing editor. Special thanks to the parents in Pennsylvania who we interviewed and to the dozens of people across the country who spoke with us about their own experiences of being separated from their families as children and whose stories informed this episode. We'd also like to thank Jason Addy, Susan Anthony, Olivia Carzo, Maddie Day, and Emma Hogan for help with our reporting. Thanks to Dr. Stanley Blondech, Dr. Nadine Burke Harris, Dr. Martha Burt, Dr. Charles Nelson, Dr. Maya Oberlin Dock, and retired Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell. Thanks also to attorneys Kathleen Creamer and Mark Freeman in Pennsylvania, Rosemary Peoples in Florida, and Chris Gottlieb in New York City. Thanks too, to Anthony Chiarito and Emma Ketteringham with the Bronx Defenders in Northampton County. Thank you to Maria Torres, Susan Wandolowski, and County Executive Lamont McClure for sitting down with us and talking through the CH Children and Youth procedures there. And finally to attorneys Allie Krothammel and Tom Bosworth and their law offices. Thank you so much for your time and for all the medical records and documentation you provided for this episode. The Preventionist is a production of Serial Productions and the New York Times.