Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken critic of the MCFD. He has not only carefully followed the inequities of the Bayne case but he has spoken to the matter in the media and is doing what he does best to help the Baynes to recover their children. He comments here about the MCFD case against the return of three children to their birth parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne. He gave me permission to post this piece under his name.
“RAY FERRIS WRITES: When a child receives an injury, the only concern as far as child protection services are concerned is to determine if the injury is deliberate or accidental. There are of course numerous child injuries every year and the vast majority is accidental and those injuries are easy to explain. A doctor cannot determine whether an injury is deliberately or accidentally inflicted from medical evidence alone. This is decided by the combination of medical evidence and studying the profile of the parents. Most abusive injuries occur in families where there is a profile of abuse. A history of injuries, combined with low achievement and lack of life skills. When a family has an excellent social profile, abuse is very unlikely to occur. When a physician claims that the injury is due to shaking, there is an automatic accusation of deliberate injury. This is why a misdiagnosis is so pernicious.
In the Bayne case, it is obvious that an accusation of abusive injury is not supported by their profile. Their profile is of two parents with good life skills and good values. Two parents who managed to give a 25 week premature child exemplary care, winning strong endorsement from their family doctor. Two people with good education and work records, with strong religious and personal values.
This obviously creates a contradiction. With such a profile one must assume that if they state that an injury was accidental, they must be believed. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this case is unjustified.
Of course the ministry director must realize the contradiction, so they sought a solution. They attempt to re-invent the profile by bringing in a string of witnesses who offer nothing but smear, innuendo, hearsay, gossip and opinion. They introduce a "risk assessment" which is nothing but character assassination. They can find not one good thing to say about the family or their relatives. Not only do they run a smear campaign against the Baynes, they do it in such a stupid and clumsy fashion that it is self-defeating and can be discredited in cross-examination. They can only harm their own case by this tactic.
To separate children from their parents for two years requires compelling evidence. What they have is one highly controversial medical opinion and no other valid evidence at all. Character assassination is not valid evidence. There is no compelling evidence.”
I have been following your blog. You sound like a thoughtful and intelligent man. I too pray every night that God will shine His light on the truth. I am concerned about the sarcasm I notice in today's post. I googled and researched this Dr. Randall. He has extremely good credentials and is supported by thousands of doctors world-wide. I have also followed your advice and read all the doctor reports on the Bayne website. On investigating them, I notice that as a group they continue to quote each other and denigrate anyone that disagrees with them. They also seem to have a history of testifying as experts at many, many court cases. Isn't it a bit dangerous, when we are looking for God's Truth, to have such a strong bias towards one side?
ReplyDeleteRegarding Linda's reply to the post today. Let me remind you that all that glitters is not gold.
ReplyDeleteThousands of doctors supported the expert in my daughters' case. Yes he was also a God-like expert spouting opinion above solid medical evaluation. I proved they framed my daughter for sbs. Yes framed, misdiagnosed whatever.
Her case was thrown out of court because I proved the cat scan was perfectly normal which they said had a subdural hematoma.
Perfectly normal, healthy brain.
Soon after the case was thrown out of court and the expert quietly left the prestigious position he held at a most prestigious hospital.
It was of this experts opinion that he could not say if it was SBS but because she was a single unwed mother the probability was she shook the baby.
Had this expert asked the mother for any history of her baby at any time he would have found the correct answers. Instead he relied on a bogus profile.
Thank you Lisa for responding. I'm sorry for your experience. I can understand your bitterness. If it were me, I'm sure I would be bitter also. I'm curious, due to the info on many websites, what all the injuries to baby Bayne were ... did she have this hematoma? Was there retinal damage? Broken bones? Etcetera, etcetera? I'm so happy for you that your daughter was well in the end ... is your story the same as the Baynes? We don't get very much info as to what led the doctors at Childrens to their conclusions ... I really don't care about whether the parents are "nice" or not ... as in your situation, circumstances of parents can lead to wrongful conclusions! I am also a Christian. I know how many times I have been frustrated with one of my children. I thank God I had the support/wherewithal to walk away when I thought I might "blow". If you read about numerous cases of CONFESSED admissions of shaking, there are many different profiles of people who have shaken their babies - from professionals (doctors) to single parents to immigrants - it is all over the spectrum, and unfortunately, can also include nice Christian families ... very, very sad story
ReplyDeleteSupport for the ‘accepted’ hypothesis is based on a number of
ReplyDeletesources, particularly the literature, well documented episodes,
witnessed shaking events, and confessions and convictions.8
‘The literature’ is fraught with problems,9 including poor
case ascertainment and circular logic. These problems were
well expressed by Hobbs et al. who said of their study of
infant SDH: ‘As the study was retrospective it was inappropriate
to apply specific and accepted criteria with which to
define non-accidental and accidental injury, the most contentious
area of diagnosis. Also there is no absolute or gold
standard by which to define NAHI.’10
Leestma reviewed the literature from 1969 to 2001 and
found 324 cases with detailed individual case information.11
Of 54 cases in which shaking was admitted, only 11 were
without evidence of impact and could, therefore, be considered
‘pure’ shakes. Independently witnessed shakings are
even more uncommon; only three cases appear to be recorded
in the world literature.11,12
Confessions and convictions are regarded as important in
supporting SBS, but confessions are unreliable unless the
circumstances in which they are made are known. Confessions
may be made by one parent to prevent the remaining children
from being taken from the other parent and put into
care. Such confessions can result from intense police interrogation
of distraught or frightened parents, or they may be
part of plea-bargaining. Convictions were demonstrated to
be unreliable by the UK Court of Appeal13 in 2005 where two
of the four cases before it had their convictions overturned
and one was reduced from murder to manslaughter. One
appeal was dismissed.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119389638/abstract
Just for the record I am not bitter, just a voice for the falsely accused of shaken baby! Linda do I detect that you may have a dog in this fight?
ReplyDeleteI would be remiss had I not included this last bit for you to ponder.
ReplyDeleteMost of the cases that engage numerous other experts are those in which a novel
or contentious cause of death is being considered. This is most often Shaken Baby
Syndrome. Given that the area being examined (Shaken Baby Syndrome) is contentious,
there are a number of dangers associated with allowing numerous non-forensic medical
experts to testify. By virtue of these medical experts bringing a ready-made diagnosis that
speaks to the ultimate issue to the case, they are effectively qualifying a novel science
without the science having to go through the legal test for qualification. In addition, this
ready-made diagnosis is presented in absolute terms, with the highest degree of
probability. Rarely is any other explanation for the observed pathological changes
entertained. Shaken Baby Syndrome signifies that someone shook the baby and that the
cause of death is therefore a culpable act. Culpability or blameworthiness is usually
reserved as an issue for the trier of fact to find. Utilizing other terms for this cause of
death such as “non-accidental head trauma,” “abusive head injury,” “inflicted head
trauma,” and other similar terms does not remove the element of culpability. Essentially,
when a clinician who is an expert in one area, for instance, ophthalmology, testifies that
the child exhibited Shaken Baby Syndrome, he or she is testifying outside of his or her
area of expertise. When many of these clinicians testify in a case, which is the norm, the
sheer number of opinions brings with it a danger of conviction by overwhelming
saturation.
http://www.fixcas.com/news/2008/Gruspier.pdf
Why would you ask me that? I've never commented before ... however, the story was brought to my attention some time ago and I have been following this blog ... I find it really interesting that if someone simply queries conclusions, and I mean both sides of the story, that an assumption such as yours might be made. I detest blind following ... I believe we were given brains to think and ponder. This is all new to me, I'm very curious about the absoluteness of both sides, and their reasons to support their positions.
ReplyDeleteFortunately for us all it's not against the law to be "not nice." The injuries are caused by many reasons and yet none of which are tested once they are proven to exist. Until there is differential diagnostic testing not a single person needs to have accusations tossed around recklessly, let alone have children removed from their homes. There were no criminal charges because they knew they had nothing on this couple. The civil and criminal justice systems are not linked in the U.S. either, therefore these people are fighting for years without a right to a speedy trial apparently. I've known families who have fought in the U.S. for over a year as well, so this is not a market cornered by Canada. Pleas are not scientific proof of existence of shaken baby syndrome. Parents should not be required to diagnosis their infants to a neurologist demanding a better reason for injuries because HE doesn't believe that was good enough, rather than test for a different reason. If I presented at an emergency department with a fever there is no way to clinically diagnose me based on the presence of a fever and yet that is precisely what doctors are doing when they find subdural hematoma with a ct or retinal hemorrhage with eye ultrasound. They proved injuries are present but nothing else. And yet these are used as scientific proof, both for prosecuting that parent and for furthering the propaganda about shaken baby. Unscientific opinions are compounded on and turn into fact for an unscientific study to base conclusions so far from being science it would be a joke if not for the fact babies ARE being injured and we can't find out why until we TEST FOR IT.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as shaken baby syndrome as it is purported. Shaking a baby would snap his/her neck long before brain swelling or diffuse axonal injury would cause bleeding under the dura for a subdural hematoma. There is no blind following if you research science behind shaken baby syndrome and use any amount of logic. Shaken baby syndrome is nothing more than an hypothesis, never proven - in fact, only disproven time and time again.
ReplyDeleteLinda, I appreciate that you notice my customarily sincere attempt at fairness and objectivity and I read that you found Ray Ferris sarcasm objectionable in the piece I quoted from him today. I don’t need to defend him but I do wish to assure you that his style of expression is his own and it is generated by his distaste for actions and decisions done badly when specially when they bring misery upon innocent people. Back on October 21st 2009 I quoted him as well. You can read it in Part Seven of this blog. There I say that I pay attention to his disapproval because Mr. Ferris worked as a social worker and supervisor for more than 30 years and since his retirement in 1988 he has been an advocate and an author. He has written a textbook on child protection. From his well written article I have quoted a large portion of the document that you can read in its entirety at this Canada Court Watch site. It’s worth a read. I have written in previous posts the answers to your more important questions about injuries and diagnosis and I will seek to identify their location for you and place that here as well or in a subsequent post. Tomorrow I have a piece on Dr. Alexander that you may find interesting. Thanks all of you for writing.
ReplyDeleteLinda, further to my reply and your query, and to help you understand why some will take issue with Alexander and SBS. Yes Alexander does have the support of many pediatricians and the organization fo which he is a director, but he does not have the support of the biomechanic experts or numerous other medical specialty experts. Science is changing and their is a shift away from the theories purported by Dr. Alexander.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that googling brings up much information. You will find court cases for which decisions were reversed; court transcripts that find him contradicting his own testimony in previous cases and several articles where other experts do not agree with his pediatric findings. His last peer reviewed publication was in 2001 and the current position paper for American Pediatrics did not include him since his views expired five years ago and due to the changing science they could not be republished.
Thank you. I will continue reading and researching. The worst part of this story is that somehow a precious little child was hurt very badly. It seems to be the only thing the experts agree on.
ReplyDeleteBlind following? I read that a hospital SW falsified her documents to match MCFD documents.What did you read? Did you also not read that the SW notified MCFD and the hospital doctor on the Child Abuse Team who, wait for it, "then" made the diagnosis of SBS. Looks to me like the cart was pulling the horse.
ReplyDeleteBlack, I don't know anything about that, but it doesn't surprise me. That is precisely how most of these cases operate.
ReplyDeleteAll over the world, there have been countless cases where it has been proven that Child Protective Services have lied, committed perjury, fabricated evidence, employed criminals (and we have recently seen, in the news, some very questionable, and criminal, people investigated at MCFD), and sent children to homes that they knew were abusive.
ReplyDeleteThe truth about BC's Child Protection System Part 1
ReplyDeleteThe number of children in care by 2001 was approximately 16, 800 since then, the number keeps rising it is report that today the number of children in care is 84,000. The spirit behind the principle “In the Child’s Best Interest” has become lost as the number of child in care keeps rising...
In the 1990’s, public attention was drawn to the shortcomings in the B.C.’s child protection services.
“In the Child’s Best Interest” is just another tactic the MCFD uses to enable them, to legally kidnap our innocent vulnerable Children in British Columbia and cause our children to suffer neglect or abuse when in their care;
Further more the principle that children are entitled to be protected from harm or threat of harm is another tactic the MCFD uses to lure children in their care, in other words make kidnapping them legalized.
The MCFD thrive on this principle and parents can do nothing! If there is a child protection concern that is all it takes and it doesn’t have to be true.
According the Minister of the Ministry for Children and Family Development she says as follows “in matters of the child welfare policy and practice MCFD has plagiarized documents (perjury) falsified accounts of their actions and stated the operations of the MCFD are generously in scandalous conditions.”
The reality is that the MCFD policy under the Child Community Services Act and principles has caused our children in BC to become victims to the evil mcfd child abusers!
The Truth about BC's Child Protection System
ReplyDeletePart 2
Further more the principle that children are entitled to be protected from harm or threat of harm is another tactic the MCFD uses to lure children in their care, in other words make kidnapping them legalized.
The MCFD thrive on this principle and parents can do nothing! If there is a child protection concern that is all it takes and it doesn’t have to be true.
According the Minister of the Ministry for Children and Family Development she says as follows “in matters of the child welfare policy and practice MCFD has plagiarized documents (perjury) falsified accounts of their actions and stated the operations of the MCFD are generously in scandalous conditions.”
The reality is that the MCFD policy under the Child Community Services Act and principles has caused our children in BC to become victims of child abuse. The horrors, of the reported numbers of deaths and critical injuries regarding children, in care of the MCFD were a wake up call, but the government isn’t waking up!
The truth about BC's Child Protectioin System
ReplyDeleteThe crisis the child protection system is in requires more than a defensive response from the government. The government needs to provide services for parents if there is a child protection concern! The problem is the MCFD is not providing them, and if the MCFD were, children wouldn’t be subject to child abuse who are in the care of the MCFD!
How many numbers of child deaths have to be reported and or critical injuries, until the government wakes up? The Fact that the Child Community Services act has inflicted on so many children is (Sic) the Child Family Community Services Act; allows children to be victims of child abuse!
In conclusion:
What is the MCFD trying to hide the fact that the Child welfare system is abusing children? I find it all really hard to swallow, that parents are left out of the Act; that the MCFD can take away their rights, because it is a cover up to the fact that they abuse our innocent children.
The Child, Family, Community Service Act make them accountable! The government must have known that there was no guarantee would prevent our vulnerable children from being victims of child abuse and went a head with the Act anyways and for that shame on the government it just is (Sic)
Emphasis Mine!
We need a reform to stop the MCFD from stealing our children and to stop them so our children are no longer victims of these evil child abusers!
I wonder when the government will ever wake up?
I pray for Zabeth Bayne and her familiy what happened to them is because of the MCFD using their TACTICS and MCFD falsifying reports and look at what these children have to suffer because a system that failed them and their parents God Bless the Baynes We want a reform!
WE WONT BACK DOWN UNLESS WE DIE UNTIL WE HAVE JUSTICE UNTIL THEIR IS A REFORM!
LISA ARLIN
Anon 6:48 and 6:56 PM Sunday, March 20,2011
ReplyDeleteHaving read both parts of your comment on The truth about BC's Child Protection System, I am convinced that your intentions are good and that you want to be supportive of the Baynes by pointing out the irregularities of the Bayne case and the unfairness and even the injustices. I take issue as I so often have to do with passionate commenters, that the rhetoric you use to make your points simply turns off all of the people who can make a difference. You cannot expect the very people who can make the necessary changes you advocate when you use phrases such as “legally kidnap our innocent vulnerable children”, or “cause our children to suffer neglect or abuse when in their care,” and “caused our children in BC to become victims to the evil mcfd child abuse.”
then you say “WE WONT BACK DOWN UNLESS WE DIE UNTIL WE HAVE JUSTICE UNTIL THEIR IS A REFORM!” ….... well don't back down but change the way you express your cause.