Robert Roberson came within 90 minutes of being executed yesterday. Roberson would have become the first person in the U.S. put to death for a murder conviction tied to a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. As the bipartisan fight to spare his life continues, it’s crucial to examine the systemic issues that led to his wrongful conviction and death penalty sentence.
The implications of Robert's case extend far beyond one man's life, revealing a chilling truth about the intersection of medicine and the criminal justice system. The startling reality is that the state of Texas relied solely on one doctor—Dr. Janet Squires, a child abuse pediatrician from Dallas Children’s Medical Center—to declare that Robert’s daughter, Nikki, was the victim of shaken baby syndrome, also known as abusive head trauma. This diagnosis depends on subjective interpretations of medical findings, making it particularly vulnerable to error, especially since many medical conditions—such as birth injuries, metabolic disorders, infections, and accidental injuries—can mimic its symptoms.
This reliance on Dr. Squires’ assessment, along with flawed medical and legal paradigms that permit claims lacking scientific grounding to be presented through child abuse pediatrician testimony, has led to Robert spending more than 20 years in solitary confinement, despite ample medical evidence of his innocence.
Cops in White Coats
Through its case assistance program and policy research, the Family Justice Resource Center (FJRC) has found that child abuse pediatricians frequently operate like cops in white coats, presenting themselves to parents as part of a child’s treatment team while covertly collaborating with child protective services, law enforcement, and prosecutors. Many of them rely on state contracts, allowing them to embed themselves deeply within the operations of law enforcement and child protection systems.
Without disclosing their forensic roles, child abuse pediatricians conduct physical examinations of children, question parents in the absence of legal representation, and draft reports for CPS, police, and prosecutors. They then testify as expert witnesses at trial and, often, even during sentencing. In most media coverage, it's noted that Dr. Squire worked for Dallas Children's Medical Center. However, a deeper look reveals that she worked for the hospital's Referral and Evaluation of At Risk Children (REACH) team. REACH's website states directly that they work in partnership with the Dallas Police Department, Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center (read more about CACs here), the District Attorney’s Office, and Child Protective Services (CPS). Once she conducted her evaluation on behalf of these partner agencies, Dr. Squire's opinion effectively became the state's unquestioned position. This confirmation bias significantly influenced the case's trajectory, ultimately leading to a death sentence.
Connecting the Dots Between Roberson and Kowalski Another child abuse pediatrician who has been in the news recently is Dr. Sally Smith, who played a key role in the landmark $213.5 million Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict, highlighted in the Netflix documentary, Take Care of Maya. Dr. Smith accused Beata Kowalski of medical child abuse when she sought treatment for her daughter's rare medical condition. Her accusation led to Maya’s forced separation from her family. During the separation, Beata Kowalski tragically died by suicide, raising serious concerns about Dr. Smith’s practices and the influence of child abuse pediatricians in these cases. (To read more, see our published online toolkit calling for specific reforms in medically-based child welfare investigations).
While the Roberson and Kowalski cases have unique differences, both cases occurred because of medical and legal institutions that allow child abuse pediatricians to rely on policies and practices that violate evidence-based medicine and due process. In the Kowalski case, the allegation led to the mother's death by suicide. In the Roberson case, the state of Texas seems determined to kill an innocent man. Child Abuse Pediatricians Resisting Change
The lack of transparency in child abuse pediatrics prompted the Family Justice Resource Center (FJRC) to introduce Illinois Senate Bill 378, known as the Protecting Innocent Families Act. This essential bipartisan legislation requires child abuse pediatricians and their teams to inform parents about their investigative roles and requires the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to inform parents of their right to seek a second opinion. The bill is similar to Texas Senate Bill 1578 and New York Senate Bill S901A, both of which seek to establish basic due process protections for accused parents. Significantly, a recent article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which references SB 378, co-authored by Dr. Andrea Asnes (Yale School of Medicine), Dr. Mical Raz (University of Rochester Medical Center), and Josh Gupta-Kagan (Columbia Law), reinforces the need for transparency, stating, "CAPs have an ethical and professional duty to disclose their role within and outside the medical center and to inform families how their opinion might be used outside of the direct patient care team." After passing unanimously in the Senate under the strong leadership of Senate Majority Leader Kimberly Lightford, SB 378 is now championed in the House by House Assistant Majority Leader Kam Buckner. However, the bill faces resistance from Illinois child abuse pediatricians and leaders of the Illinois Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, who resist these modest due process protections. Their opposition raises questions about whether their priority is truly protecting children, or maintaining policies, practices, and contracts that allow them to operate behind the scenes with government agencies.
What's Next for Roberson
Robert is scheduled to testify in front of a Texas House committee on Monday. After the hearing, the district attorney may request a new execution date. Under Texas law, a new execution can only occur about 90 days after a judge sets the date, meaning the earliest it could happen is in 2025. We urgently call on Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to act now and end this ongoing miscarriage of justice. It is imperative that they review the new evidence and grant Robert a new trial without delay.
Comments