A disturbing case out of Virginia has reignited fears about the vulnerability of premature infants in neonatal intensive care units—and raised fresh questions about accountability when hospitals investigate themselves. In an episode of Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, the host focuses on a former intensive care nurse accused of harming newborns, reacting with outrage as the case moves forward through a plea deal rather than a full trial.
The nurse at the center of the story, 27-year-old Erin Elizabeth Strahman, was accused of abusing babies in a NICU after multiple infants were discovered with unexplained fractures. She ultimately entered a no-contest plea to nine felony counts of child abuse. Grace sharply criticizes the no-contest resolution, arguing it allows the defendant to avoid a direct public admission of guilt. What angers her even more is the sentencing cap described on the show: a deal that limits prison time to no more than three years, paired with a condition that the nurse will never work in nursing again.
The episode lays out the allegations in grim detail. Investigators reportedly began looking closely after a baby in the NICU was found with a fractured left femur, additional fractures to the tibia, and multiple broken ribs. Detectives were told the injuries resembled harm seen in other infants from the previous summer, suggesting a pattern rather than an isolated accident. As concern escalated, the hospital shut down its NICU during the police investigation, and a broader list of suspected abuse cases began to emerge.
A key emotional anchor in the episode is the account of Dominic Hackey, the father of twins who were treated in the NICU. He describes arriving for what he expected to be a normal visit—hoping for a second “skin-to-skin” moment—only to be told staff had noticed discoloration in his baby’s leg and reduced movement. An X-ray revealed a tibia fracture. Hackey insists the injury could not have happened during birth, emphasizing that he watched an emergency C-section and saw the baby was not pulled by the legs. In the middle of overlapping crises—his other twin was critically ill on a ventilator—he recalls being overwhelmed, confused, and desperate for answers.
Hackey says the hospital’s explanations felt thin and evasive. He recalls being told the break might have resulted from an injection administered too roughly, and that staff would receive additional training. He emphasizes that causes like brittle bone disease or vitamin deficiency were never raised in his family’s case. Over time, his suspicion hardened into certainty that an employee caused the injury—especially because doctors could not provide clear answers and because he worried the parents might be blamed.
One of the most alarming developments discussed is that Hackey says he did not learn until later, through police, that other babies had suffered similar unexplained fractures around the same time. Families believed they were alone and stayed quiet, only to later discover multiple victims. The program suggests the hospital’s internal review produced no meaningful results, and that crucial information about the scope of injuries was not shared with parents in real time.
The show also describes what authorities said they found after surveillance cameras were installed: footage that appeared to show aggressive handling of an infant, including applying body weight to a baby’s legs and bending them beyond a normal range while the baby cried. Medical and legal guests underscore how suspicious such injuries are. A physician argues that leg fractures are not typical birth injuries, and that breaking ribs or long bones would require significant force—raising immediate red flags for abuse. Legal analysts and a former investigator point to the risk of institutions shielding themselves to reduce liability, leaving families without transparency.
The episode ultimately becomes both a case summary and a warning. Premature infants are uniquely defenseless, parents are exhausted and reliant on staff, and self-policing within hospitals can fail when reputational and financial stakes are high. The story ends with a sense of urgency and unresolved tension: more potential victims may exist, families are still seeking answers, and public anger remains intense over a plea deal many view as far too lenient for the alleged harm.
