Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 54 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

A BARRELL FULL OF SAWDUST

Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken advocate for reform of the MCFD as well as a critic of present procedure. He has not only carefully followed the injustices of the Bayne case and is assisting them in their case to recover their children, but he comments here to the Baynes on Tuesday’s Pre-Trial court proceedings. This is his note in its entirety and the bold lines are his. With Mr. Ferris' permission Zabeth forwarded this to every MLA, MP, the RCY office, Gordon Campbell, Attorney General, Mary Polak and the Prime Ministers office. They have received other mailings before as well.

"Thank you for the information on the court pretrial conference of Dec 8th.

I understand the following points. 1. The Ministry of Children and Family development, through counsel admits that there is no evidence at all of physical or emotional abuse to the boys. 2. The Ministry through counsel acknowledges that their whole case rests on the opinion of Dr. Colbourne that Bethany was shaken. 3.Thus it follows that the only relevant evidence is that which tests the validity of Dr. Colbourne's opinion.

We can also note that it is now approximately 18 months since contrary expert opinions were submitted to the Ministry for presentation to Dr. Colbourne and since they were discussing her reaction and the possibility of finding an independant expert. During that time the director has failed to produce a written response from Dr. Colbourne to the experts' reports and he has failed to produce the independant report so long under discussion.

You express perplexity that the director proposes to call so many witnesses who have no relevant evidence to give on the main contention that Bethany was shaken. You also cannot understand why they would not put on the main witness (Colborne) first. It would after all seem to be the obvious and responsible thing to put on their key witness at the start. Then if examination and cross-examination show that her evidence is not convincing, it might seem to the judge to be redundant to call other witnesses who really have no relevant evidence to give.

There is a very simple answer to this. The director's lawyer told him in January 2008 and again in July 2008 that the case was weak and unlikely to succeed with proper defense. The lawyer at that time advised the director to return the two boys as there was no evidence of risk. The director did not follow his lawyer's advice, nor did he rebut the advice. What seems to have happened is that the director was unable to make up his mind what to do and as the months slipped by in indecision his position became increasingly untenable. It became too late to return the boys without looking quite foolish. It would by this time be incongruous to ask for a temporary order. So the only way to save face was to go ahead and ask for a continuing care order. Knowing the case was weak, he hoped to bolster his slender evidence by throwing in a lot of witnesses as a show of force.

Put in the most simple and blunt terms, this case is no longer about child welfare, or the best interests of your children, but it is about saving the bureaucrats from embarrassment.

All the additional witnesses have no substantive evidence and they are a smokescreen to conceal the weakness of the case. Another way to put it would be that the barrel has been filled with sawdust to conceal the fact that only one small grain of opinion evidence is all that really lies there. This tactic is very costly. It is emotionally draining for you and your family, it prolongs the stay in care without good cause and extends the court time in such a way as to cost taxpayers like myself (and John Fitzsimmons and Andrew Robinson) a bundle.

I would imagine that after yesterday's hearing that Judge Crabtree has a very good idea what is going on and that is why he is keen to get another conference going between him and lawyers only."