DeSantis Pressured After Kids TAKEN

Man speaking, wearing a blue Desantis for President shirt.

A single hospital visit can start a chain reaction that ends with the state trying to permanently erase a family.

Quick Take

Broward County parents Michael and Tasha Patterson say Florida removed their children after doctors mistook medical conditions for abuse.
Independent medical experts later identified hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and metabolic bone disease as explanations for fractures and injuries.
The family says the court restricted expert testimony, while the state continues moving toward terminating parental rights.
Activist Spike Cohen escalated the fight by appealing directly to Gov. Ron DeSantis in a public “man to man” message.

The Patterson case shows how fast “protect the child” can become “punish the innocent”

Michael and Tasha Patterson walked into Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital in Hollywood, Florida in 2022 looking for help for their premature twin boys, Malachi and Micah, after months of health problems. They walked out accused of child abuse. Doctors found fractures and other injuries and treated the case like non-accidental trauma. Florida’s Department of Children and Families then removed the twins and also took Michael’s older son, MJ, from the home.

Cases like this ignite because the initial allegation carries enormous weight, and families rarely get a clean reset once the “abuse” label lands. The most important detail is not the accusation; it’s what happened after. The Pattersons’ supporters say multiple medical experts later pointed to genetic and metabolic explanations for bone fragility, yet the machine kept moving. When the state aims for adoption, it isn’t a timeout—it’s a permanent rewrite.

Medical look-alikes: when rare conditions mimic the most feared crime

Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and metabolic bone disease sit in the uncomfortable category of “abuse mimics.” These conditions can involve connective-tissue issues and fragile bones that fracture with minimal trauma, especially in medically complex infants. Clinicians have a duty to report suspected abuse, but common sense demands humility when the body itself can generate the evidence that looks like violence. One misread scan can become the cornerstone of a legal narrative.

The Patterson case, as described by advocates, included a review by Dr. Michael Holick, a metabolic bone specialist, who concluded the twins likely inherited a condition from their mother, Tasha. Additional experts reportedly found metabolic bone disease consistent with the fractures. Those details matter because they shift the central question from “Who hurt these children?” to “Did the system misdiagnose the children?” That shift should trigger re-evaluation, not escalation.

Family court’s leverage point: who gets to speak, and what evidence gets heard

The most consequential battlefield isn’t social media or even the hospital; it’s the evidentiary gatekeeping inside family court. The reporting around this case says Judge Stacey Schulman limited testimony and did not allow the full lineup of medical specialists to testify, even as they supported genetic explanations. If accurate, that choice turns a complex medical dispute into a simplified morality play, where early assumptions harden into official “truth” without facing cross-examination from equally qualified experts.

Conservatives who value due process should pay attention here. Family courts can operate with looser procedures and fewer public safeguards than criminal courts, yet they can impose penalties that feel more final than a sentence: severing parental rights. If the state can restrict exculpatory expert testimony while pursuing termination, the imbalance becomes structural. The government’s power to remove children must come paired with the family’s real ability to challenge the premise.

Why this story reached the governor: exhausted appeals and a public-pressure end run

The Pattersons’ legal road appears narrow. The reporting says the Florida Supreme Court repeatedly refused to review the case, leaving the family with limited options as DCF continues moving toward terminating parental rights. That context explains why Spike Cohen, through his organization “You Are The Power,” released a video appeal titled “Man to Man” directed at Gov. Ron DeSantis. It’s a political move born from legal dead ends.

Cohen’s pitch targets a basic parental instinct: imagine supervised visits with your own children, then imagine a court preparing to make that separation permanent. DeSantis’ office reportedly could not be reached for comment, which leaves the public with silence rather than a clear yes, no, or explanation of authority. Governors rarely want to be seen meddling in active cases, but voters also expect executives to address systemic failures that agencies won’t correct.

“Patterson’s Law” and the conservative test: reform without weakening real child protection

The family is pushing “Patterson’s Law,” described as a guarantee that families can obtain a second medical opinion when allegations hinge on medical interpretation. That idea fits conservative instincts when crafted carefully: distrust concentrated institutional power, insist on competing expertise, and protect families from bureaucratic overreach. A second opinion requirement doesn’t excuse abuse; it reduces the odds that a shaky diagnosis becomes a life-altering government action without adequate review.

The unresolved tension is the one every serious voter should sit with: child welfare systems must act fast when danger is real, yet speed without accountability invites tragedy of a different kind. If the Pattersons’ account reflects what happened, Florida’s takeaway should be straightforward—build a process that can admit it was wrong, reverse course quickly, and make the family whole. The state should never find it easier to terminate rights than to reconsider a diagnosis.