Thursday, July 1, 2010

10 EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE / Part 236 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Doctors' Reports on Baby B's Medical Case

I have provided a factual presentation of the medical reports by the physicians and medical experts related to the Baby B case in the early months of her medical crisis. Shaken Baby Diagnosis is a much disputed diagnosis within the medical community.

The MCFD case is relying almost exclusively upon an SBS diagnosis by a B.C. Children's Hospital Child Protection doctor. Other medical opinions were sought by the Bayne family following Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. No other opinions were sought by MCFD. Each medical doctor cited below and each scientist below reviewed the case of Baby B. Bayne.  Each analyst arrived at an identical conclusion which is that Baby B was not willfully harmed by a person.  It was not inflicted injury. These are the reports that the Baynes have listed on their website and made available to MCFD, to the media and to me. These opinion reports have been ignored or dismissed by MCFD. (Toggle each expert's name and find a full report)

John Plunkett, MD resides in Welch, Minnesota and is an expert in child forensic pathology. Dr. Plunkett has experience with many multiple SBS cases.

John Galaznik, MD is an an Alabama, USA pediatrician.  Dr. Galaznik is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Horrace Gardner, MD practices in Colorado.  Dr. Gardner is an opthalmology expert in shaken baby syndrome and has a specific interest in the ophthalmologic aspects of the SBS.

Michael Innis, MBBS, DTM&H, FRCPA, FRCPath is a doctor of medicine in Australia who specializes in forensic pathology. 

Peter Stephens, MD is a published pathologist born in England, graduated from medical school in Canada and resides in the U.S., and acted as senior medical advisor for the (U.S.) FAA.

Harry Bonnell, MD is a forensic pathologist in San Diego, California.  Dr. Bonnell is a medical school graduate of Georgetown University with certification in anatomic and forensic pathology.

Kenneth Monson, PhD, is assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Utah.

John Butt, MD is an anatomical and forensic pathologist, having graduated medical school in Alberta, Canada.  Dr. Butt holds a diploma in medical jurisprudence (pathology), London.
 Dr. Chris Van Ee

Chris Van Ee, PhD is an award winning published presenter and Duke grad with a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering.  Dr. Ven Ed has been a reviewer for many scientific organizations.

Patrick Barnes, MD is chief of pediatric neuroradiology, director of pediatric MRI and CT, professor of radiology; Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford Medical Center.


  1. Excellent work, Ron.

    It would be of interest to know what the nature of the relationship is between the BC Children's Hospital and MCFD. That is, how often are reports made from the BC Children's Hospital to MCFD.

    The BC Children's Hospital has a specially dedicated Child Protection Unit that staffs doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and so on. They obviously have some kind of funding (it would be interesting to know how much). Their job is to find child abuse. They, or at least one of the people in that department, are responsible - in large part - for the situation that the Baynes and their children are now in, are they not?

    This is what people mean when they refer to the "child protection industry." There's too many people, and too much money, devoted to "finding" abuse. And not nearly enough, in fact, not really any, devoted to helping defenceless families who can be ripped apart as easily as a baby seal in a pod of killer whales.

  2. To: Josef Fisher (July 1, 2010 7:25 AM)

    I understand your difficulty to raise awareness of this injustice and atrocities against families and children. Although they correctly and precisely describe the extreme situation in the “child protection” industry, strong statements will turn those who have no experience with MCFD away or to make them even more skeptical. Do you believe what you preach if you have not experienced this atrocity yourself? I believe you because I have encountered similar persecution before. I have also seen many parents, who are as normal as most people I met, being oppressed under the pretext of “child protection”. The tactics used against them are more or less the same.

    I can see that you speak with inspiration, empathy and desire to build a safer future for our children. Be mindful that there are special interests using this blog as a platform to cast doubt, to portray oppressed parents as radical and the minority, to undermine the seriousness of the atrocities they create, and above all, tell how great they are to preserve their power and financial well being.

    Don’t fight them alone. Join force and lock arms with other oppressed parents. Give them organized and effective resistance. Given the gullibility and the apathy of people on this issue, it will take a long time to succeed. But eventually justice will prevail.

    On this 143rd Canada Day, I declare that no oppressive regime will last forever without having their real face unveiled and despised by humanity. Residential school is a good example to prove the foregoing. But the ghost of residential school has re-emerged as “child protection” and returned to haunt a much bigger victim.

    Shrewd political and propaganda skills may delay their demise but will not change truth and the end result one bit.

  3. The evidence that P&Z are the best parents possible for own children is overwhelming. If more public servants protect innocent children from horrors of abuse like my hero, then only children who certainly benefited from being taken would have been raised in State Custody.

    Ruffo stands ground

    True to form, maverick Quebec Court Justice Andree Ruffo remained defiant yesterday even as a scathing report by a panel of her peers recommended that she be removed from the bench for breaking almost every rule in the book in her two decades as a judge.

    The outspoken critic of inadequate social policy and unwavering champion of children's rights vowed to fight all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada while categorically refusing to be silenced.

    "It's not going to change me. I will not change," said Ruffo, enunciating each syllable for emphasis, minutes after the report was made public

    "My duties, my values, my whole life for the last 20 years has been dedicated to protecting children."

    A five-judge panel of the Quebec Court of Appeal was unanimous in dealing a stinging rebuke to 63-year-old Ruffo, saying she is hiding behind her advocacy work to deflect blame for her failings on the job, which included 12 reprimands in 15 years.

    The panel was convened to investigate the litany of allegations against Ruffo and make a recommendation on her future tenure to the Quebec justice minister.

    "We must not confuse the causes Judge Ruffo has defended for more than 20 years with her disciplinary file," the report states.

    The report is signed by justices Paul-Arthur Gendreau, Therese Rousseau-Houle, Jacques Chamberland, France Thibault and Pierrette Rayle.

    "As valiant and popular as the former is, it does not allow us to ignore - nor to justify or excuse - the latter," it continues.

    "Judge Ruffo could both support the cause of children and conscientiously fulfill her functions as a judge. The two are not incompatible. Far from it. But she must exercise her judicial duties with discretion and competence."

    Only the Quebec justice minister has the power to fire her - but not while her case is still before the courts.

    Removing a judge from the bench has been done only once before in Quebec, when Richard Therrien fought all the way to the highest court and lost after failing to disclose his past with the terrorist group Front de liberation du Quebec.

    "It's an exceptional procedure," said Louis Masson, Ruffo's lawyer.

    Ruffo was a controversial figure on the youth court circuit in St. Jerome and Longueuil.

    Supporters praised her passion, dedication and drive to help troubled children and their parents, even if her solutions were unorthodox.

    Detractors saw her as a thorn in the side of the child welfare system, disrespectful of bureaucratic process, unfairly tough on burned-out social workers and unreasonable in commandeering of limited resources.

    Others questioned her impartiality and her credibility.

    Ruffo was the subject of hundreds of complaints to the oversight body for judges resulting in 12 reprimands.

    She also spent $1 million of taxpayer money to fight her transfer to another jurisdiction, as well as defend herself from disciplinary action and now removal.

    "If they continue accusing me, I'll continue fighting," she said of her pricey legal bills.


  4. In 2004, the Quebec Judicial Council undertook its own investigation of her record and strongly recommended that she be defrocked.

    The appeals court report noted that Ruffo has been remorseless in the face of repeated censure for breaches of every principle judges are sworn to uphold.

    "The reprimands have had no affect on her behaviour," it said.

    Ruffo lent her name to petitions destined for the legislatures, was paid more than 100 times to speak at conferences - including $1,500 to talk about new age medicine - and was featured in a Via Rail TV ad.

    On the bench, she commented publicly about cases under her charge, failed to disclose the personal relationships with witnesses testifying in her courtroom and met privately with a psychologist friend in her chambers to discuss a case both were involved in - the error that was to be her undoing.

    Ruffo famously sent two teenagers to the health and social services minister's office in 1988 because there was no place for them in foster care.

    She has always insisted she acted with the best interests of children at heart in taking aim at the system that failed them.

    But the appeals panel report argued she sometimes did more harm than good.

    "Many of her errors hurt the children Judge Ruffo had the responsibility of protecting," it said.

    "Ordering children to be driven to a minister's office is spectacular, certainly, but it does nothing to help the children who were the object of the these illegal rulings because they were inevitably returned to where they came from.

    "Putting public administration on trial instead of concentrating on the case of the child before the court doesn't contribute to resolving the case of that child."

    Ruffo was unequivocal that she intends to fight to the highest court in a battle she says is also about judicial independence and freedom of speech.

    "I believe in this," she said.

    "I would like to one day hear the Supreme Court say that we need independent judges to protect children."

  5. Just curious Ron - where did the Baynes find all these doctors? Why so far away? Did they try any other doctors in BC - we have many, many care units/hospitals ... were there any reports more local?

  6. Today I want to continue with assessment and evaluation. Yesterday I emphasised that the integrity of the staff is the only real safeguard for the public. Today I want to write about another important topic which is anothere integral part of assessment.
    Social workers and related workers really need to understand what is meant by evidence. Evidence is all about facts and is necessary in all walks of life. We go to work because there is good evidence to believe that we will get paid.When we go to the doctor we believe that she will treat us according to the best evidence available. Through evidence we have come to rely on many things having reliable outcomes. Process and outcomes again. Remember this one, because many processes do not have reliable outcomes, but that does not stop them from being used.
    One of the first things that Mr.Justice Goudge reminded us of in the Goudge report was that a judge is a trier of fact. Not a trier of opinion, hearsay and rumour, but a trier of fact. Opinion can be acceptable if you can show the facts to back it up, but in court you cannot pull an opinon out of a hat like a rabbit. Goudge also defined how to qualify as a medical expert and he warned that the shaken baby syndrome hypothesis was too unreliable to be used as evidence. This news may reach British Columbia one day.
    A great deal of popular counselling theory is not based on good evidence. If it does no harm it can be tolerated and if people feel helped thatis some sort of validation. When we are dealing with assessment and evaluation, we should not be satisfied with less than a rigorous approach. People's lived depend on it. We need to be open mindes and without pre-judgement and we need to gather all the facts, both positive and negative. I think that it is a mistake to think in terms of investigation. Investigation implys right away that there is something wrong. When a crime is committed, there is usually little doubt about it and the police investigation is to find the culprit. An assessment is an inquiry to discover the child care standards in the home.The term risk assessment biases the whole process and encourages staff to only look for risk. When we are assessing a home for adoption or fostering, we just call it an assessment. Once more I stress that all these tools are only as good as the people using them.
    Now all this is rather abstract and I want to put things in a more practical context. I want to show the many different ways in which children actually come into care and what protection workers really have to deal with. This does not fit many popular concepts.
    The bulk of protection cases come in a few categories. Many children come from homes of chronic severe neglect, or chronic borderline neglect. The latter often have flare-ups at times of crisis. Most of these people are poor and lacking in life skills. Most are chronic multiproblem families, but not all chronic multiproblem parents neglect their children.Many children come into care because of abnormal behaviour, or because of mental and physical handicaps. Children come into care because of family conflict during adolescence. Middle class families may find it hard to tolerate a child failing to live up to family achievement expectations. It may be that the adolescent's drug of choice is different from the parents'.
    To be continued

  7. Thank you, Anon 10:45 AM for your kind words and for your Canada Day declaration! I cannot have allies, not knowing anyone who prefers to rot in prisons and lunatic asylums, rather than give up moral parental and legal duty to speak up against grossly violated human and constitutional rights of own child and family.

    Thank you, Ron, for your very time-consuming great work, in truly children and the public interest!

    And many thanks to everyone for comments, Big Brother loves to know what we read, think and write :-)


  8. I want to comment on some points raised.
    Relationship of legal pediatric clinics and CPS.
    This clinics are the main and sure supply of clients to CPS. This is the highest instance and a win case for CPS. Report from this clinic will almost certainly result in child removal from the family. Here is an extract from description of what this kind of clinic does.
    "The Socio-Legal Pediatric Clinic offers expertise in order to DETERMINE ELEMENTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT ANY PRESUMPTION OF physical, mental, sexual or developmental abuse. This mandate is executed by the following activities:
    - Assessment of the child’s health and developmental needs;
    - Identification of clinical indicators of physical and sexual abuse;
    - Participation in establishing leading to a compromising diagnosis;
    - Identification of additional and treatment evaluation measures to be taken regarding the health and developmental problems identified;
    - Facilitating the exchange of information and communication with social, community, judicial and law enforcement entities.

    The work of this is interdisciplinary in nature. The team provides specialised services to both hospitalised and walk-in patients, as well as forensic and social expertise following a child’s evaluation and a meeting with his or her parents. The clinic is a complement to, and bears the same social and legal obligations as, organizations such as Youth Protection Directorate, the Police, the Courts and the service for Compensation for Victims of Crime. While the Socio-Legal Paediatric Clinic does not replace the Youth Protection Directorate, it does cooperate with the governmental body. "

    WOULD SUPPORT ANY PRESUMPTION of.... abuse - anything and presumption - never mind facts.
    Still can not believe it is on official hospital website, and nobody raising any flags.

    2. Medical contre-expetise.
    The medical opinion is given free to the CPS services. I did not see any clinics and places that provide contre-expertise for the parents. Would not you think that CPS should see second opinion? Well they don't, unless this is opinion is the same as first. Another question, why with medical care parents have to pay for the legal opinion of the doctor. If first is provided for free, then second should be also. Parents did not asked for the first opinion. Also, if parents abuse their child they most likely would not look for second opinion, if they know that abuse occurred and doctor is right. Also doctors would not most likely testify against the doctor of the same hospital or province as they more likely know each other. Doctors-experts involved in child protection go the same conferences, read the same books, in one word know each other and support each other. From our own experience, we had to call across all Canada to find experts, probably contacted more than 100 + doctors. It is HUGE unbalance in defense for parent. There no resources to turn when need arise. It takes months to find a expert, few month for expert to wright expertise, time to set court date...this all while child is removed from parental care because of false diagnostic. Doctors know that when they make diagnostic of child abuse there most likely would not be a contre-expertise. So knows CPS. Doctor's report of child abuse is 98% sure ticket for child to be put in foster care and became legal orphan.
    The same doctor can suggest that parent has psychological problem (any suggestion goes - even if it is pediatrician and not psychologist)and this is a free ticket for CPS to start character assassination of the parent. And lets not forget that during all this ordeal child is sick.

  9. I did not abuse my children. In fact I was very concerned how my one child was not getting proper medical care at hospital. I brought him in 3 times. THen because I questioned some of the different,conflicting diagnosis, the repeating of difficult tests that can be harmful when they were already done at another hospital... the hospital called MCFD. THey came and believe it or not, took my son and my other child who was with me. I can't give all details as it is before the courts. I do not agree with what the MCFD came up with and I could not get timely court dates. It is hard to miss my kids but I am also mad about being treated so unfairly. Even criminals have right of full disclosure. But not parents. My lawyer contested it as it is not true what I am accused of!!!! I then am told by my social worker, "The ministry always wins. I think it is fine for parents to fight if they want, but you should just forget about it, since the ministry always wins " It is very chilling and I can see why they think so when they can present blatant lies and get away with it without the parents even able to say anything. I am feeling quite alone right now as I am sure I am alienating my friends because I miss my kids and I am dealing with such an evil thing and just talking about it makes my family down. But I also think it needs more people like Paul and Zabeth who fight. SInce it is such a corrupt system. At expense of my privacy I let all my friends know what MCFD did to me and my kids and it is rough. I think that if they go after innocent people so often and so viciously, they get no credibility and there is no support or money there for the kids who really need it.

  10. To Anon 1:26 AM -------------- The Baynes requested Dr. Colbourne's colleague Dr. Hlady to review their daughter's case within the first week of the allegations. They have a record of the exact date of that request. Dr. Hlady declined stating "I can't step on my colleagues toes."

    Through their second legal counsel they asked Dr. Ronald Barr (SBS expert). On record is a response letter from Dr. Ronald Barr declining this request due to a conflict of interest. He is from Vancouver's UBC and is an expert and advocate of shaken baby syndrome.

    The Baynes do have a local expert in Dr. John Butt to which they refer to speak to their case. From Vancouver BC, he is a forensic specialist and owner of Pathfinder Forum often used by the RCMP in homicide investigations. He was one of experts for the review panel for the Goudge Inquiry in Ontario that was directed by Justice Goudge to review shaken baby convictions in that province.

    Perhaps one way to answer the question about why the Baynes consulted so many American experts is found in a comment by Dr. Pollanen, chief pathologist of Ontario who was quoted to say that Canada is 40 years behind the United States when it comes to medical research and pathology.

    In fact the Baynes corresponded with more than forty experts for reviews and most responded with willingness to review their daughter's medical records. Some of these professionals expressed this proviso. If in reviewing the girl's records they felt there was any possibility of abuse, that they would refuse to provide a review because they will not excuse abuse. The Baynes went forward with these reviews because they too despise abuse of children and were also certain that there was a medical explanation for their child's injury that did not connect to shaking or abuse. They have believed that the ten experts they have secured is adequate to consolidate an accurate and true medical account of their daughter's injuries. Some of these experts were outraged at the misdiagnosis and chose not to charge for their services.

  11. Happy July 1st Canada Day!

    Was access time arranged for Baynes family for today?


    I've nine the ten reports (the last name has no link and the website link doesn't work).

    Some reports are quite heavy with medical jargan, but it appears the common theme is that several expert's observation of the parents explanation of a single impact injury is more in line with the provided medical documentation than the lone Doctor Colbourne's belated diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. The experts do not deride SBS outright as a methedology, rather they offer carfully deliberated citation of facts that support why they believe SBS is unlikely and why the parents explanation is more likely.

    There is a statement in one report that Doctor Colbourn's diagnosis is more of a legal determination of guilt rather than a balanced clinical medical opinion.

    If hers was an impartial medical opinion would state something to the effect that the "impact injury explanation given by the parents is not supported by evidence."

    One biomechanical expert stood out from the rest, Chris Van Ee, a Ph.D. I was impressed with the logic and readability of the document.

    Are there no biomechanical experts in the BC Children's hospital? I find it rather odd that a child protection unit as described would not have such an expert on referral.

    With auto accidents and insurance lawsuits there should be an abundance of such people.

    It certainly would not hurt to bring forward a motion before Judge Crabtree to rule the on admissibility of SBS, arguing that the expert’s “underlying methodology and science are so flawed that the evidence (does not meet the legal test for admissibility)” Doctor Colbourne clearly does not have the credentials to even speak to the matter of shaken baby syndrome even it was a universally recognized diagnosis.

    As there are precedents that exist in other Provinces, the onus would be on Judge Crabtree to give a legal decision that went against judgments made back East, against SBS.

    One item I find missing is psychological profiling. Obviously only a very small subset of the population would be capable of shaking a very tiny premature 6-week baby (age adjusted to minus one week, I note from one doctor's report).

    From the trial, MCFD has attempted to address this psychological component by bringing up irrelevant 35 year old family history and including it in the risk assessment.

    Some questions NOT being asked:
    1. How many times did the "abuse" occur? The answer universally accepted by both sides is "once". One legal definition of abuse is its recurring nature.

    2. What is the level and the ongoing risk? The Answer here is low risk, given the lack of history, and little chance of ongoing risk given the length of time that has passed without any problems given the very close observation over 2-1/2 years.

    2. What were the psychosocial circumstances of the injury or injuries - parental substance abuse, personality disorder, impulse control problems, attachment issues, antisociality? The answer is none of the above.

    3. What did MCFD suggest in the way of services given they solidly believe that both Baynes are guilty and all their friends are collaborators?

    4. What are the parenting competencies assessed to do with empathy, problem-solving, attributions, parenting judgment, behavior management, stress management and social supports. The answer is in the visitation reports, no derogative information exists.


    It may be useful to do some counterpoint reading from the Pro-SBS side of the SBS fence. This exists on the National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome points out the extensive list of tactis defence experts use to thwart the government evidence of SBS.

  12. It is interesting to see this Hlady's name in the Baynes case. She is a very well known figure in BC child abuse cases. Eleven years ago, she wrote letters examining my children when they were babies. An expert finally resolved the matter as an effect of premature birth, definitively discounting abuse.

    In my more recent risk assessment used against me in court, these ancient allegations appeared, WITHOUT the conclusions.

    My kids were removed, and finaally returned long ago. However, the case file is STILL not closed as yet ANOTHER risk assessment is supposed to be done. They are just SO busy though. The file is kept open, meaning they can continue editing, waiting for more information.

    It is most unfortunate, but lawyers appear to be of little assistance.

  13. Conflict of interest.
    We were looking for legal psychological evaluation done. After many calls found one expert, made appointment, made money order in order to pay him. We send CPS reports to this expert in preparation for the appointment. The night before this expert cancels the expertise stating that he saw the name of one CPS supervisors and that he is in conflict of interests. So here questions about CPS experts and their neutrality.
    On different occasion CPS lawyer tried to undermine the testimony of our experts saying that they are payed by parents, so they are not neutral. Was he talking about reality of CPS experts?

  14. Anon 11:04 - Your story is absolutely heart wrenching. I am so so sorry you are going through this. I am so glad you are wrapping yourself in family and friends.

    They are accusing you of denying medical care, right? Probably because you don't have a medical degree, so what authority do you have to challenge a physician?

    I can't stand that sort of thing. People are not stupid because they don't work in a specific field - be it medical, legal, construction ... whatever field it is.

    Keep on going.

  15. 1/2 Psychologists

    In my case, the social worker was absolutely insistent that I use a specific psychologist. I looked up that person's name in child protection court cases and it appeared in several, in support of of the government, all against the parents.

    So I suggested an alternate name to the social worker. It was someone with impeccable credentials who was an accepted Ministry psychologist. The social worker and on the advice of their lawyer refused to use this person, and stalled for several months. They threatened a s.59 (court-ordered forced assessment) so they could use "their" psychologist.

    What I did to pre-empt any S.59 attempt was to apply to court to force MCFD to go ahead with the assessment THEY requested. The catch was that judge said I would have to pay it, even though it states clearly in the CFCSA the requestor, the government, pays. In the middle of the assessment, the Ministry "offered" to pay, which I of course accepted.

    However the conditions for MCFD paying was for them to take over the direction of the psychologist, pay him directly, I would get a refund from him, and they would decide what documentation would be provided. I did not let them redirect the assessment against the standards of the psychologist's PCA requirements.

    Later, I found out the social worker intended to remove all my documentation (sworn affidavits and other court materials) so they could restrict the information the psychologist saw, and replace it with their own. In effect, hugely slanting the picture in their favour, and against me. Even a completely impartial psychologist with plenty of integrity who is facing the possibility of being blacklisted from government contracts could be swayed.

    The social worker also refused the psychologist free access to the children when they were with me. The supervision worker "had" to be present, ignoring the psychologists requests otherwise. This restricted what the children felt free in saying, as they knew the supervisor would report it to the social worker and they would be punished later if anything they said upset the social worker.

    When it came to seeing the children and how they behaved with the foster parents, a very rosy picture was painted and the psychologist reflect this in the report. The visit of the children with me was viewed as more strained, and unnatural.

    Fortunately the report reflected the extended supervision as counterproductive to the objective of reunification and the report emphasized completion of "services," which in my case was the parenting counsellor.

    This counsellor was corrupt as all hell as well, and kept trying to elicit stories from the children in her presence about the "abuse" they suffered while in my care so it could be written into the reports. Since there were no such disclosures, the parenting counsellor reports overall were fairly benign. This counsellor persisted until the very end, right up to the protection hearing court date date, that "things would go easier on me" if I admitted responsibility for my actions, expressed remorse, regret over my abusive parenting ways. I just looked at this person and was happy I had my hidden tape recorder running.

  16. 2/2 Psychologist

    A month later after the PCA report was completed and delivered, the children were forcefully separated from each other and moved to different homes and schools. I acquired some of the black book notes, which revealed the Ministry was looking to separate and move my children immediately after the report was done stating the children were unmanageable in the foster home and beyond the capabilities of the caregivers, which is the exact opposite of the picture they presented to the psychologist, that they were well placed and settled in their current foster home and had grown attached to the foster parents.

    As it was, I merely "survived" the psychologist report, as it was fairly balanced despite the attempt by the social workers and foster parents to slant it against me. The psychologist was skilled enough to write the report in a manner that would not result in him from being blacklisted from other Ministry consultations, as has happened with other psychologists. The end result was the report was of no use to the Ministry in painting a negative picture of me as a parent.

    Involvement of experts is a very scary proposition for parents. MCFD/CPS clearly will stop at nothing to secure an unfair advantage over parents. Being balanced and fair and impartial simply is not in their vocabulary.

    The Baynes have taken the logical approach in acquiring contrasting expert opinions. Doctors in a local area are a tight knit bunch and will cover for each other to avoid lawsuits.

    Normally, contracting just one expert alone can cost thousands of dollars. Getting them to appear in court, hotel, flights etc. costs several more thousands of dollars parents must pay or face the prospect of losing their children.

    These expert costs are justified in insurance cases because there is a financial outcome that benefits the plaintiff and pays for all these costs. In child protection cases, there is virtually no chance of financial recovery.

    For innocent parents, the process becomes the punishment of parents by child protection authorities in the false name of protecting children. It almost becomes irrelevant if MCFD "loses" they have still cost the parents years of unrecoverable memories and attachment loss and have incurred tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs

    It appears some social workers do appear to derive a visceral pleasure in exercising this enormous power in bullying parents and become "lifers" in this industry.

    I would imagine there must be a psychological profile for such people who thrive in this kind of environment as perhaps the odd police officer joins the service for other than altruistic reasons. On the surface, it appears there very little financial or advancement incentives available. One can work 20 years in the Ministry and not break the $75,000 income barrier that gets their name published in salary databases.

    I think all social workers should submit to polygraph tests and complete MMPI psychological tests to verify they are "normal."

    The Baynes have been fortunate in being able to avoid having to deal with psychologist testing of them and their children, as this would have afforded the Ministry yet another opportunity to get a leg up on this family.

  17. I would suspect billings for expensive MCFD medical fishing expeditions would be attached to the parents medical numbers and children as dependants.

    I would doubt very much there would be specific funding needed from MCFD to operate a protection team in any hospital. It would show up someplace as a significant figure in their Ministry budget. I would wonder if a category of MCFD child protection related activities would be broken out separately as a category in the Health Ministry.

    There would certainly need to be an organizational structure to handle referrals from regular physicians to protection specialists. After all, doctors would want to be viewed as doing their job in quickly getting off their plate a potential protection concern and have someone else run with it.

    Perhaps the parents would not be told the experts helping their family were in fact child protection experts looking to hang them for abuse.

    Knowing what I do now, this would be the stage that I as a parent would want to know when child protection experts were being consulted. I would then want to look around for alternate experts that do not have a vested interest in a finding of a need of protection. I could well imagine this would be difficult, as the parents would appear to be wanting to hide abuse by not agreeing to use an "impartial" doctor who is an MCFD cheerleader and gets regular protection examination referrals.

    When children are transferred to the Ministry care, the medical numbers are also transferred, and all such billings for future care are simply attached. The Ministry pays for the premiums, the children are deleted as dependants on the parents medical billings.

    Once the children are back in the care of the parents, it would indeed be instructive to file a freedom of information request to retrieve the entire medical billings.


    Perhaps a footnote on Ray Ferris' article above. This blog entry mentions MCFD accreditation and discusses service quality.

  19. July 2, 2010 6:40 PM said:

    "It appears some social workers do appear to derive a visceral pleasure in exercising this enormous power in bullying parents and become "lifers" in this industry."

    I keep hearing the same thing, said in different ways, over and over and over.


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