Sunday, March 7, 2010

For Love and For Justice / Part 131 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Continuing Care Order Before the Court in the Case of the Ministry of Children versus Paul and Zabeth Bayne to Insure that the Parents Never See their Children Again.

1. It Should be implicit that Compelling Evidence Must be Required to Separate Children from Parents
2. The Ministry Case Against the Baynes Was Founded Upon Dr. Colbourne’s Diagnosis that the Baby was Shaken and This Implies Non Accidental Injury
3. The Shaken Baby Diagnosis as Evidence is made vulnerable by Dissenting Medical Diagnostic Opinions and the Question to be ruled on by the Court of Dr. Colbourne’s Qualifications as an Expert
4. The Expert Medical Opinions by Ministry and Defence Witnesses Conflict and that Infers that the Initial Diagnosis of Non Accidental / Shaken Baby is not Compelling
5. Medical Opinion is Not Stand Alone Evidence in Child Protection Risk Assessment but Requires Other Undeniable Character, History, and Prior Behavioral Evidence.
6. The Baynes’ Personal Profiles and Proven Parenting Skills Contradict a Suspicion of Abuse
7. Instead of Being Pleased that the Baynes were Honourable Parents the Ministry Appears to Have Constructed a Case Based Upon Insinuation and Allegation.
8. The Ministry has disgraced Itself by Taking Parents to Court while Failing to Produce Compelling Evidence and Relying Upon Non Factual Unconfirmed reports

Summation: Without any compelling evidence it is apparent to all observers including the Ministry and its counsel that a continuing care order will not be granted and that the children will be returned to the parents and that the Ministry if it now acts with polite and gracious conduct toward the Baynes may be perceived well by the constituency.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise