- Providing it in several parts, this will be as definitive a medical history on the Bayne infant as you will read online.
- At the start of the MCFD hearing for a continuing care order for all three Bayne children, Judge Tom Crabtree in his wisdom ruled that there would be no ban on information presented during the court proceedings. The medical reports are a component of the submissions made under cross examination. I have access to this information. Medical testimonies have been heard although not all of them have been ruled as admissible by Judge Crabtree.
- This is what I have read. I have chosen to keep narrative to a minimum and to cite the medical data factually. I RESTATE OR CAPITALIZE A FEW KEY OBSERVATIONS.
Baby B's Birth: Baby B was born on August 2, 2007. She was born in her 34th week. Her two older siblings were high risk premature births at 34 weeks and 25 weeks. Baby B's birth weight was 5 lb 3 oz and no forceps were required nor did she need oxygen. She fed slowly and remained in hospital until August 17th, 2007. Head circumference at birth was 33 cm. Family Doc: The family doctor is Cloverdale MD Dr. Patricia Blackshaw. While the Baynes lived in Hope, B.C. they consulted with Dr. Louis Fourier at the Hope Clinic when there were immediate questions. Weight gain was problematic from birth. Because of her prematurity, the parents took Baby B to the local clinic every few days for a weigh-in. Zabeth had in-home assistance with breast feeding. They maintained weekend visits to Dr. Blackshaw.
Dr. Ebesh: Dr. Ebesh saw Baby B in his clinic on September 11th at Chilliwack General Hospital. Head circumference was 35 cm (up from 33 cm at birth). He expressed no concern then. Baby fed well and looked active, playful and healthy. Her fontanelle was soft.
Accident & Injury: It is the Baynes' best estimate that September 23rd was the date of Boy2's tumble into Baby B when their heads bumped. There was no prior or succeeding incident that could account for the symptoms which developed after this domestic incident. The Baynes informed medical personnel of this. The first noticeable features was vomiting and loss of appetite to feed.
Vomiting and Respiration: Vomiting began on the 26th. She still didn't want to feed. On September 26th the Baynes took Baby B to the Hope (Fraser Canyon Hospital) Emergency because Baby B was vomiting and had severe breathing difficulty. Dr. Fournie was the on-call doctor and he gave the infant oxygen and placed her on some monitors. They sought to establish normalcy to pulse and breathing. Without a pediatric ward in the facility, the Baynes and the child were sent home after one hour.
They were compelled to return within a few hours that same evening because Baby B was limp, not crying nor feeding. She was not responsive. Baby B was transferred to Abbotsford Hospital.
Dr. Sorial: Dr. Sorial examined Baby B on that same evening September 27th at MSA Hospital where she stayed for two days. She was presented because of apnoea and lethargy associated with decreased feeding. He remarked that she looked well and vigorous and interactive, moving all her limbs, chest is clear, heart sounds normal, normal bowel sounds. A weight gain to 3.3 kg. He too noted her fontanelle was soft and flat. A low haemoglobin reading of 77 was recorded that might indicate enemia related to prematurity and small size. His suggestion was that feeding issues might relate to gastrosophageal reflux. He found it difficult to explain the lethargy and lack of interest in feeding. He said Baby B might be sent home the next day after they have watched her for a day. The report shows a discharge day as the 27th. Dr. Sorial saw Baby B once again in his office on October 3rd and NOTED A WEIGHT LOSS to 3.1 kg (but as he noted, this was measured on a different scale then earlier). Zabeth reported persistent reflux so Dr. Sorial began a course of Ranitidine and Domperidone.
Dr. Ebesh: Dr. Ebesh saw Baby B again on October 6th when she was presented to Chilliwack General Hospital with complaints of vomiting, decreased activity and decreased urine output. She was lethargic and pale with poor perfusion and cold extremities. The anterior fontanelle was 'full' he wrote (Colbourne instead later supplied the term 'bulging'). A full septic work-up was done including a spinal tap. This LUMBAR SPINAL TAP PUNCTURE REVEALED BLOODY CSF NOTED TO BE XANTHOCHROMATIC. Baby B was started on ampicilin and gentamicin. Peripheral Haemoglobin had improved to 95 (from 77). HIS ASSESSMENT WAS TO RULE OUT SEPSIS AND CITE THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBARACHNOID HEMORRHAGE. Baby B was discharged the same day. Dr. Ebesh transferred her to Dr. Anquist at MSA Hospital on October 6th, 2007.
Part 2 of 3 tomorrow.
Part 2 of 3 tomorrow.
Ron, please understand what I am about to post is for the purpose of strengthening the Bayne's position.
ReplyDeletePlease post the opposing medical statements as provided by the MCFD (note: I ask for the medical opinions presented by MCFD, not the subjective ones) and even some of the comments posted on this web page by the foster parents themselves. With a note that those may also be subjective?
Providing this can only lend credibility to what you are trying to achieve.
Ron, thank you for posting the medical facts.
CW 8:56 AM – please clarify what you mean by “opposing medical statements provided by the MCFD.” The Director's position is clear in the most recent affidavit that his case rests upon the sole medical opinion of one diagnosis. MCFD sought no alternative explanations of the presenting symptoms and observations. Following the third post in this mini-series, a post mentioning the names of ten medical experts who disagree with the MCFD diagnosis, will be placed online. A link to the medical opinion of each expert will be provided. Presently, Parts 1,2,3 contain not subjective but often verbatim wording by the physicians themselves. That was made clear in my intro. I will not relocate and reprint foster parent comments during this series since they are as you note, subjective interpretations. My intention here is to relate the documented medical findings.
ReplyDeleteVery well said Ron. The ministry affidavit was very important, because this is the first time that they have explicitly stated that their case rests solely on the opinion of Dr. Colbourne. This must mean that every non-medical witness was irrelevant. Yet they consumed days of precious court time at public expense and prolonged this case without reason.
ReplyDeleteContinuing my topic of those who actively or passively aid and abet directors who abuse authority. I have written about lax defense lawers, indifferent judges and ineffective internal review systems. Today I want to write about external review systems. This will be a short blog, because there are not many.
There were once more watchdog agencies, who would review client concerns. There was a children's commissioner. The last commissioner was Paul Paulen and he was a conscientious public servant, who tried to tackle ministry abuses. He had a few blunt teeth, which he was not afraid to use when the situation demanded it. Mostly his office tried to work with negotiation and persuasion. When he disagreed with the ministry and asked them to change a decision, they usually ignored him. One of the reasons that his position was terribly important was because he could look into the concerns of foster parents. Foster parents have absolutely no legal rights and the director can abuse them at will. Indeed it was the Draayer foster home appeal that created such a furore that the Premier had to settle it witn an order in council.
There was also an advocate for children and youth and that position was filled by another fine person called Joyce Prescott. She had limited powers. An important one was that a child care plan could not be altered without letting the child know his/her right to appeal to the advocate. Of course they were never told and eventually this part of the act was repealed. EVery year her annual report was a litany of abuses by the ministry and their determined resistance to reason and negotiation. There was also the office of the Ombudsman. Child welfare and social assistance were once in the same ministry of social services and other titles. I remember the second Ombudsman saying at a meeting. My three main concerns are the ministry of social services, the ministry of social services and the ministry of social services. Every year the annual report commented on the lack of co-operation from the ministry and how common sense was never used.
When the liberals got elected, one of the first things they did was to do away with the offices of youth advocate and children's commissioner.
So that just leaves the Office of the Ombudsman and the new advocate for children and youth, headed by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafonde. The office of the Ombudsbody is not specifically a child welfare watchdog agency and they have many more things on their plate. In passing I should also mention the office of the Privacy Commissioner. This is not a watchdog agency as such, but on occasion they do give us a peep at the secret doings of the ministry and this can be quite revealing.
In general I have found that the Ombudsman has become less effective over the years. The organisation has become increasingly legally driven and has fallen into the legal cultural mode. It is very much directed by process and has become about as cumbersome as the agencies it monitors. First of all it is sometimes difficult to persuade them that the concerns fall within their mandate and it takes some skill to do this. They are reluctant to touch anything that is before court. Although they will check into abuses of administrative law, they still see this as part of the court function. The main reason why I advise parents and foster parents against going to the ombudsman is that the office takes a very long time to do anything and is powerless. It just raises false hopes and adds to the frustration.
This leaves us with the office of the YCR.
To be continued
Interlude from one recipient of public services. I personally know Ms. T-L's two Child & Youth Advocates. They are former MCFD senior staffers. Both authorized illegal acts and decisions what ruined the health and life of my child. Both are perjurers. I assure you that the RCY Office is as useless to persecuted children and families as all other agencies obscenely paid to serve and protect them.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm reading in the timeline is that a month and a bit passed before the event of one of the boys falling on Bethany, (or the Ministry position, a shaking event occurred) then there were many subsequent trips back and forth to the hospital and that there were many doctors involved.
ReplyDeleteSo, this one injury event is diagnosed within the month of October 2007 by the Dr. Colbourne lady, not as a fall and impact related injury as explained by the Baynes, but as a shaken baby issue the Baynes are to be blamed for.
In this one month period, none of these other doctors diagnosed or considered a shaken baby alternative to the Baynes explanation of accidential injury as a possible cause of Bethany's illness until the MCFD child abuse expert Dr. Colbourne provided her definitive explanation of the Baynes guilt in causing the injury. I think I've got that part of the explanation.
---
I recall the observation by another poster who commented that the "CW" person who identifies himself as "just a dude" with just a peripheral interest in the case is in fact a Ministry-assigned damage control person intended to mute, or otherwise sew seeds of doubt in the minds of the public or anyone else involved in the case that can read the blog.
That earlier 'damage control' comment seems to be more relevant now. Curiouser and curiouser.
The next question would be how would CW, (aka "just a dude") be in a position to acquire specific medical information and request a rebuttal audience to view officially supplied Ministry evidence?
Is he a public servant, an employee of MCFD, a legal assistant? Is he really allowed to make public, the information of children who are in the care of the Ministry? This is outside publication of court proceedings.
I ask this because of the extraordinary difficulty with which I encountered in trying to get "any" medical information about my children while in care, due to "privacy concerns," and that includes medical records prior to the removal.
I certainly have no objections for CW revealing his identity as the Baynes have done, in the process of posting materials and stating how he came by the information.
Clearly if the information already exists online in another location and he is simply directing readers to review that to complete a picture that is being presented indirectly by the Baynes, this works for me, and he can keep his anonymity.
I can well understand the Baynes giving up their privacy rights and publishing materials they have as long as no one is liabled in the process. It is exceedly valuable to me as a parent to understand the process and get as complete a picture as possible the evidence and processes.
As Ron pointed out their is no ban of publication of court proceedings, and there is no "jury" to corrupt by premature viewing of information not yet presented to them. This is my understanding of the benefits of the transparency of Canadian courts.
RCY comment, although slightly off topic
ReplyDeleteI can unfortunately attest to the lack of use of the front line staff of the RCY office.
According to an RCY front line staff member, a parent is not allowed to report concerns of children while in care. Only children can call RCY, or, I gather, MCFD can call on their behalf. I see a bit of a conflict of interest here.
The problem is MCFD completely controls and monitors children's communications. Kids are basically afraid to voice concerns that they be later punished for, although the punishment may appear to be unrelated to any past calls to RCY. My children experience many examples of wrath from foster parents that social workers can claim to have no knowledge of.
The cover story of the front line staff is RCY's power has been severely restricted and they can't do much.
I have heard one other parents that there are some really die-hard front line staff that do believe in their work and have gone far above and beyond what would normally be expected of them to try to help children, but neither I or my children were fortunate to encounter such individuals.
My interest would be knowing if there is any RCY involvment in the Baynes matter. Is a file open to review things like the injuries the children have suffered in care over the past 2-1/2 years?
CW aka "just some dude" aka ???, I see you are again playing, as you would put it "devil's advocate."
ReplyDeleteWhat injuries have the Bayne children suffered over the past 2 1/2 years? Court already heard testimony with regards to the bruise, the scraped finger, and the absolutely attended-to ear infection! Is there anything else??? As the foster parent I would really like to know what I am being accused of! I can certainly attest that the children have never been to the hospital or doctors for any unexplained injuries - whether the parents like it or not - they also know - in their hearts - that their children are very well looked after, are loved, and are in excellent health - just look at the pictures that have been posted - the children are flourishing. I know it doesn't fit with the idea that their children are suffering and are being tortured - but, before God, it is the truth. KD
ReplyDeleteChild protection agencies all over the world use the "shaken baby syndrome," with remarkable success, to apprehend babies. A big part of the reason for the success, for child protection agencies, with this now discredited diagnosis, must be attributed to the image it elicits: ferocious, out of control parents, brutally shaking their baby. Child protection agencies are very aware that this term, "shaken baby syndrome" evokes outrage, and contributes to the destruction of the presumption of innocence.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are experiencing is a war against families, like never before in history.
On the basis of this discredited diagnosis, how many children have been wrongfully removed from their loving parents, all over the world, one has to wonder.
Free IP Tracker found some dude at work in Victoria, using IP address assigned to the MCFD. He does what he does in the best interest of children, of course.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I meant, Ron. Post the info the MCFD is putting forth. It really can only help.
ReplyDeleteI do recall the foster parent (subjective as it is not medical documentation) posting something a while back with some medical info as well.
I was referring to subjective "evidence" such as the risk assessment. Please read my post again as you will see I did not state the medical evidence you posted was "subjective."
Damage control?
Please note above "It can only help the Baynes" & "...for the purpose of strengthening the Bayne's position."
Honestly people.
KD 5:24 PM – The chronological dating within my post was precise and it specified 2007 and the medical data that I shared refers only to the injuries of the infant girl and the assessments made by doctors at that time. Unless you spotted something in one of the commenter's remarks today which I cannot see, I want to assure you that you were not on my mind nor was any part of these past two and one half years since the children were apprehended. Your comment today has puzzled me. No accusations were forthcoming from here.
ReplyDeleteRon,
ReplyDeleteI was responding to 1:59pm. I started reading this blog when you were covering the trial because it was the only way to get a day-to-day on what was happening, which, although extraordinarily different from what the Baynes are experiencing, also affects the lives of my family too. In all the years of fostering I have done, I have never felt so much acrimony coming my way - not from yourself, but from the readers of this blog, and the Baynes themselves. I foster with the concept of "harm reduction" - we have nothing to do with child removals; however, these traumatized children are placed in our care, and we have to take the "place" of the parents until decisions are made. Our family has a history of being an inclusive family - it is not to disregard or disrespect the bonds of the birth family - only to have the children feel accepted, loved, and secure, until, hopefully, they can return. But rather than feeling confident that the children are deeply cared for, there have been untold accusations, defamations of character, and constant complaints on YouTube, letters to MCFD, etc. that these children are being abused. Any acts of love that are seen have been twisted into proof that we are trying to create bonds as a means to destroy familial roots. Which is complete crap. As a previous foster child myself (raised in four foster homes) I know how traumatizing it is to be removed from family and to live amongst "strangers". That is why I do it. It is a job/vocation I take very seriously and I am very proud of the work I do. I would like the Baynes to know and to trust that perhaps, just perhaps, God IS watching, and has placed their children in a loving home until this horrible situation can be resolved. KD
With respect to injuries mentioned by the foster parent's post 5:24 that the children suffered while in care over the past 2-1/2 years, I attended a few days of the hearings. I don't recall mention of which of the three foster homes the injuries occurred in, but the ones I do remember I am listing here, and I'm sure Ron could likely bolster my memory on this and attach dates and times. Simply by searching this blog for the word "injuries" pulls up some examples:
ReplyDelete1. Photo of adult hand prints on child's arm
2. Untreated Ear infection lasting several days/weeks on one boy
3. Deep finger cut on one boy without stitches or attention
4. Cold showers for not eating food
5. Children thinner after two years than at the time they were removed
6. CBC story about Bethany not getting prompt medical attention for one foster parent's observation of glutaria aciduria condition (is there an issue of gluten intolerance for Bethany?)
7. Fall on stairs resulting in bump, no babygate
8. Caregiver dropped child, slipped from grasp
9. Unlicensed/not-on-contract relative without special needs caring experience, foster care orientation training or sufficient life experience to be left with children while caregiver on holidays.
The first item alone would be basis for MCFD to remove a child immediately from a parent's home during investigation. Downplaying injuries and misrepresenting causes to minimize accountability concerns me.
There are simply too many items listing injuries that suggests to me, questionable supervision.
MCFD's own intensive investigation reveal no such equivalent substandard care of any of the Baynes children over their entire lives while they were with their parents. One MCFD witness testified seeing an appropriate spank on the bottom of one child, and that is about it, as far as I recall.
I am still waiting to read something that convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that proves to me that MCFD did not FIRST make a decision to remove the child, and THEN arrange the necessary support information that would provide the prima facia case to win at the Presentation Hearing.
KD - I will answer you further tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteTo 10:26pm
ReplyDelete1. How do you know it was an adult hand? Proof? I saw a bruise - it was investigated - were you there that day in trial to hear about the investigation?
2. Ear infection - WAS TREATED - if you were in court you would have heard that too - little boy had tubes in his ear - infections DRAIN WITH TUBES!
3. Finger cut - stitches!!! It received polysporin and a kiss - it didn't even bleed! A bandaid was applied for overnight to help the "owie"!
4. Cold showers???!!! WHAT???
5. Thin? I'm sick of this. Oldest child has gained 10 lbs in last year; Second child has gained 8 lbs; and baby B has gained 10 lbs since October - from my recall parents were questioned as to boys weights long before they ever came into care ... what has changed???
6. CBC Story - great media attention. There IS NO GLUTARIC ACIDURIA - NO GLUTEN issues
7. Fall on stairs - YES - second child fell ON a stair - no bump, no bruise, a few tears.
8. Dropped child - I was bending over with 2 year old in my arms and underestimated the last six inches - she didn't even cry - again, no bumps, no marks, no tears.
9. Caregiver was APPROVED by MCFD, and had all the necessary supports/legal in place.
What else????? The above has all been covered and completely explained - no questionable outcomes, no misdiagnosis, nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing. It continues to stun me the emphasis placed on a bruise, a cut, and an ear infection, and yet brutal injuries so minimized.
Just a note re. baby gate - child was 4 1/2 years old - he doesn't require a baby gate. KD
ReplyDeleteAnon KD 10:01 PM
ReplyDeleteYou may be aware that I am a visual arts painter. It affords a metaphor. As I write I am passionate about what I perceive to be injustice and yet I maintain the importance of objectivity and truthfulness. I have learned that there are areas and subjects on my canvas on which I must use a small brush for details. I believe that one of the benefits of the blog forum is the opportunity readers have to make comments. One of the concerns I still have is the predictable use of broad brush strokes by writers who are so enraged, so devastated, so traumatized by personal grief and helplessness that the details are lost. I can appreciate and I also sympathize with you that when you have committed yourself to the care of children from other families and are a principled caregiver, it is hurtful to hear that your efforts are unappreciated. At the same time, I seek to understand and be sensitive to the ongoing wretchedness of living without your own children and having every decision concerning their upbringing made by other people. I can only speak for myself that I am pleased that all three children can be together and are found in a place where as you have said, you value the “bonds of the birth family” even as you seek to make “the children feel accepted, loved, and secure, until, hopefully, they can return.” Thank you for your efforts.
I've noticed that the tone of the foster parents posting on this blog is inordinately angry.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit scary, frankly.
Not many foster parents have commented that I can tell. The explanation for foster upset is likely the same burden that the Baynes have struggled with - misrepresentation. Convinced opinions based upon partial facts are inadequate portrayals of the actual. The scary thing to me is how wrong each of us can be about our reading of situations because we are satisfied with a portion of the whole story.
ReplyDeleteIn looking up Ray Ferris' mention of the Draayer foster family case of the caregivers being too old and had their charges removed at Christmas:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2000/000607appendixa.pdf
With the foster parent response at 10:01 PM, I would have to agree with Anon 9:43 AM, that there is just a tad too much defensive anger being displayed by this foster parent.
ReplyDeleteI am under the presumption that in publicloy posting personal information about children that are not yours, that you have consulted your MCFD handlers and verified that the Privacy Act permits posting details of injuries or other information for the purposes of providing balanced view, or pointing out errors of what may be erroneously posted by others.
If you state something like "In Court, I testified that so and so...." or you provide a link to a public online source, I would think your bases are covered.
I know in the past, one foster parent posted photos of the Baynes' children on facebook and MCFD ordered the images to be taken down, so they were very concerned about the Children's privacy.
In my case, all of my children were allowed to each start their own facebook accounts by falsifying their age while in care and subsequently freely posted whatever they wanted online. This activities did not appear to be moderated or monitored by either the foster parent or social worker, meaning the kids were exposed to the type of online predators that vigilant parents watch out for. They were also free to talk to anyone through real-time chat message boards More challenges for foster parents to watch out for.
By MCFD's definition of abuse, an injury inflicted on a child by an adult resulting in lasting marks unquestionably qualifies as such. See blog #16 for more details on Bethany's arm injury.
Regardless of anyone's definiton of abuse or severity of injuries while in care, there should be a protocol and consistant manner of handling injuries of children in care that goes far beyond what would be expected from natural parents. This is what foster parents are very well paid to do.
Again, the MCFD mindset of reactive ad hoc response as opposed to prevention, proper documentation and analysis (ie. the proverbial "red tape") seems to be lacking in some areas, while in the legal end of things, deference to procedure and red tape is responsible for keeping children in care longer is a clear systemic problem Ray Ferris point out.
If I hear in court this one foster parent recieves something on the order of $6,000 tax free dollars monthly ($72,000 yearly, or the equivalent of a $100,000 salary before income taxes are deducted), and only needs a week orientation course to qualify for these funds, I expect a far higher standard of care and attention by this person taking care of my children than would ever be expected of me.
Again, not being personally involved in the case or being in direct contact with the Baynes, if I'm wrong in my facts, I certainly welcome correction as most of what I cite comes from other sources.
Re: Payment to foster workers (see June 29, 2010 12:31 PM posting) -
ReplyDelete"$6,000 tax free dollars monthly ($72,000 yearly, or the equivalent of a $100,000 salary before income taxes are deducted)"
And someone said there is "no money" in child protection? Excuse me, but $6,000 tax free dollars a month is a LOT of money!!!
Everyone is complaining about all these CEO's who are making like bandits, but what about these outrageous payments to foster workers - they should be doing it because they love children. A payment like that is only going to encourage greedy people to apply.
Isn't it funny how nobody says that daycare workers should do their jobs just because they love children? Teachers should do their jobs just because they love children? Preschool teachers should do their jobs just because they love children? TA's should do their jobs just because they love children? Parks and Rec employees should do their jobs just because they love children? Music teachers should do their jobs just because they love children? Etcetera, etcetera ... and none of those few examples work 24/7, change their entire family structure to include traumatized children into their lives, deal with all the personal attacks by angry parents/friends on a regular basis, be available for "anything" constantly ... I agree that the monies should be taxable - perhaps there would be slightly more respect for the WORK that foster parents do. I would also suggest that most foster parents don't make anywhere near that amount of money - that range is for Level 3 foster parents with years and years of experience caring for children with FAS / Addictions / Special Needs, etc. and many of them have backgrounds in nursing, special education, and what have you. I don't have the stats but I'm sure they're very available ... as a former facilitator for Foster Parent support groups, I find it amazing how undervalued the work that foster parents do is. I don't think a single reader here would be comfortable with leaving their children for even a few hours/day with a daycare service for free because they just love children - it's an outrageous idea. And even the best Daycares don't attend to sick, angry, scared, fetal alcohol, confused, delayed, abused, neglected ... children day and night, weekdays and weekends, without breaks.
ReplyDeleteJust worked it out - for the most experienced of foster parents - $6,000 (your figures) = $3.33/hour - far from even minimum wage - and from that deduct all the needs of the children (how many children?) - not much money as far as income goes - lot better jobs out there if money is what you are looking for ...
ReplyDeletePlease show us how you arrived at $3.33 / hour.
ReplyDelete