Botox mom says she made claims up, will get daughter back

The mom who came under intense international scrutiny for telling British paper The Sun that she gave her daughter at-home Botox treatments and “virgin waxes” and later lost custody of her child has admitted the story was a fake, concocted for $200 in payment from the Sun and publicity on ABC.

Sheena Upton, who gave her name as “Kerry Campbell,” told state child services workers that the story was a sham concocted for publicity and cash, but it didn’t stop the agency for ripping the child from her home and placing her with strangers- an action that is supposed to be a last resort, only exercised when sufficient exigency exists. In this case, the shaky removal grounds- cosmetic procedures on a child- were easily provable as false.

Via TDW, TMZ breaks the story open with allegations that pretty much everyone involved knew the story was a fake from the get-go- but not only did the state’s child welfare agency run with it, the press did as well. Upton says:

“I was provided with the story, instructions and a script to follow for a recorded interview,” Upton says in the statement. She was later approached by Good Morning America and Inside Edition and offered “a large fee” to be interviewed about her allegedly fabricated story.

“The truth is I have never given my daughter Botox, nor allowed her to get any type of waxing, nor is she a beauty pageant contestant,” she says, adding that professionals at the UCLA Medical Center who have examined Upton’s daughter confirm that “she has not ever received treatments including Botox or other such injections.”

ABC denies they knew Upton’s story was false, but it seems they did a minimum of fact-checking before airing the tale. Child welfare officials have not commented on the decision to place the child in foster care, and it isn’t clear whether Upton’s daughter is back in her custody.

It would seem that California’s CPS could have gone to court, gotten an order, paid for foster care and then investigated the claims made against the mother- the action they actually took- or simply skipped to the simple task of doing the last step, avoiding trauma to the child by removing her from her mother. Why did they choose the latter?

Do you think this lady should have lost her child? Was any crime or neglect committed here?