Here is something to think about. As you know by now, the MCFD did not, and does not accept Paul's and Zabeth's denial of inflicting harm on their third child nor their explanation of a domestic accident that involved a toddler sibling and the infant daughter in an impact collision, one child falling on the other, head against head. Dr. Colbourne diagnosed a probable shaken baby syndrome origin for the child's injuries in 2007. She made that assessment based upon her knowledge and experience. She then did what she must do in the event of such a diagnosis and that was to notify the MCFD. The MCFD accepted her diagnosis not merely as probable cause but the definitive cause of the girl's injuries. Today, twenty eight months after removing all three children, MCFD cites in its affidavit in support of a Continuing Care Order that it rests its case soundly upon Dr. Colbourne's conclusion.
Social Worker Loren Humeny's recorded notes submitted in court indicate that in 2007 Dr. Colbourne was almost certain that this was a shaking 'type' of injury. Her own testimony clarifies that she believed that it was distinctly a shaking injury and her 2009 in court testimony expressed that it was an impact/shaking induced injury. During that two year interval the National Center for Shaken Baby added 'impact' as a causal link to shaking. Further, NCSBS changed the name from shaken baby syndrome to 'traumatic head injury', which implies impact. Ongoing research revealed that unless there is an underlying illness, impact is necessary to effect this type of injury. The organization that claimed this type of injury is caused by shaking now incorporated 'impact' into its definition. Even so, those making this diagnosis punctuate felony rather than accepting accidental cause. I am not saying that the linkage of shaking and impact are inaccurate. I am saying that it may be unwise to assume that a specific constellation of signs and symptoms are always the result of criminality rather than accident. See White Paper: Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prevention
Neither Dr. Colbourne nor MCFD has accepted the association between the Baynes' impact accident story and the altered SBS causation which now accommodates to impact.
Dr. Colbourne was for some time listed on the international board of directors for the Center and that relationship was actual at the time that the Bayne children were apprehended. Dr. Colbourne's name was removed from the Center's web page some time in the past two years.
MCFD encourages training of caseworkers on the subject of SBS. MCFD's website states: "...Team members have completed a number of other MCFD sponsored educational and training courses, including sessions on Shaken Baby Syndrome, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Attachment Theory and Community Living Services." This is available in the report called Director's Case Practice Audit Report, Vancouver Coastal Region, Pemberton Integrated Family Services RYH 2009.
Berhe Gulbot has been a key MCFD figure associated with the apprehension and ongoing custody of the three Bayne children and he himself has testified that he was one of the Ministry personnel who attended the Shaken Baby Conference organized by the National Center For Shaken Baby in Oct 2007. The Ministry believes in and trusts this theory and has injected ??? dollars into the promotion of this theory. I have sought to read both sides of this controversial diagnosis and I surmise that it may be foolhardy to rest reputations on a theory with a growing discreditation. There is an avalanche of contradictory medical and expert opinions concerning the value and validity of SBS. That it can be disputed bothers me because hundreds of children have been removed from their parents on the basis of this theory with the resultant affects in some cases of criminal prosecution and conviction. Presently, 1500 people are serving sentences in the United States because they were convicted on the basis of this impugnable theory. How many have been convicted in Canada? And even if not convicted because there was insufficient evidence as far as the RCMP was concerned, how many children have been taken away forever? MCFD wants to do this with the Bayne children. That to me will be the ultimate injustice.
Be perfectly clear. I believe that people who shake, impact or harm a child are responsible before the law because this is a grievous act of violence against a vulnerable person. I approve and respect every program designed to prevent such abusive conduct. I believe that the MCFD must become more discerning about SBS diagnoses to consider the variant possibilities so that inaccurate accusations do not destroy innocent families.
Very well expressed Ron.
ReplyDeleteTwo comments. First, I believe a watchword among doctors is that the worst diagnosis is a pre-diagnosis. Could not be more apt than in this case.
Second; the ministry has a history of spending money on having workshops teaching the latest theory of the month. Some past junk psychology issues have been on recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse. Recovering memories of Satanic ritual abuse. Condoning counsellors who use coercive interviewing of children and allowing such counsellors to give "training". Some of these practices are now actually illegal in some of the united states. Meanwhile core training as a whole package is neither conceived nor implemented. I do not recall anyone having workshops on such a disciplined practice as the forensic interviewing of children as spelled out in the interministry guidelines. Most of these debunked destructive theories faded quietly away and workers soon forgot that they were eager participants. I predict that SBS theory is bound to do likewise.
MCFD and other child protection agencies around the world must have jumped for joy when Shaken Baby Syndrome was invented. Why? Because it is the perfect "diagnosis" to do the following:
ReplyDelete1) Just reading or hearing the words alone - "shaken baby syndrome" paint parents as montrously abusive; as soon as someone hears that accusation, the accused is forever tainted, prejudiced;
2) MCFD and other child protection agencies can claim - and have claimed - that a baby that is displaying what they call symptoms of Shaken Baby Syndrome IS A VICTIM of Shaken Baby Syndrome. So, for example, if they say that a baby is "brain damaged" then can then say that the baby is brain damaged BECAUSE the baby was shaken. They then only have to "prove" that the baby has some - any - kind of abnormality. And since they get to define what abnormal means, good luck to the parents;
3) Shaken Baby Syndrome is LOVED by the media. It makes for sensational headlines (because, once again, it conjures up images of ghastly, brutal, and beastly parents), and therefore increases circulation. Editors care about the bottom line, and will print what sells. Shaken Baby Syndrome sells; and,
4) Shaken Baby Syndrome has armies of supporters (all of whom are making livings / reputations from SBS), and therefore there is never any shortage of support for this bogus diagnosis.
I've probably missed a few points, but the idea should be clear.
The only up side to all this is that while MCFD, the child protection industry, and SBS are big, very big, they cannot and will not escape from the reality that the bigger they are the harder they fall. All the cliches apply here, including that "the truth will out." When it does - and it already is - I certainly wouldn't want to be one of those people who had made my living ripping apart innocent children and families. People don't take kindly to that sort of thing, especially when they discover they've been conned into believing the good guys are the bad guys, and vice versa.
================================
Ron, could you possibly keep reminding everyone (even on a daily basis) to come out and support the Baynes when the trial resumes, ONE WEEK FROM NOW, on Monday, August 9, 2010?)
It seems like attendance at this trial would be a good way to support justice, the Baynes, families everywhere, and children, all over the world, who are longing to come home.
The stats in the SBS white paper are enlightening.
ReplyDeleteOn page 4 of the white paper it states a rate of 41.6 SBS per 100,000 live births in one study area.
BC has such a small population compared to the very large populations of New York where SBS incidences can be measured, as it is something like 9.7 per 1000, which translates to about 40,000 babies born per year in all of B.C. So, according to these statistics, at most, one baby per year will be diagnosed.
SBS diagnosis does not differentiate between WHO "shakes" the baby, whether it be the parent or another caregiver such as a babysitter. This further reduces the incidents of parents labelled responsible for SBS. Let's say one every two years for B.C.
Several risk factors for parents are listed, such as single parents, young parents, people with impulse control problems, drug and alcohol dependant parents, poverty stricken and isolated parents, those who have previously abused their children.
The Baynes fit in none of these categories, so lets knock back the occurrence to one in every 5 years. Not only does the profile of SBS not match, the statistical likelihood of this happening in B.C. becomes extremely low.
Statistics become more interesting and relevant when you continue to break down the information into subcategories. Such as what age was the baby at the time of shaking, did the baby die or have certain injuries, long term outcomes etc.
They Baynes have successfully raised two children without incident prior; one who was far more premature than Bethany, 25 weeks if I recall correctly, while Bethany was 34 weeks instead of the usual 38 or 40.
Given these statistics, there simply cannot exist that many qualified doctors who have personally diagnosed SBS in BC over the past 10 years.
If it turns out statistics reveal that the rates in SBS are far higher, questions need to be asked.
The white paper says training materials as far back as 1993 were produced. I would like to know from child protection entities how many interventions occur in such cases. It would also be an exceptionally strong "educational" item to include the fact that all SBS-diagnosed babies AS WELL AS ALL OF THEIR SIBLINGS will be permanently removed from their parents. Period. In witnessing the progress of this case, this would have to be MCFD's policy, remove, not educate.
I have searched a digital download for the training video without success, an 11 minute DVD titled "Portrait of Promise." These training materials are supposed to be given to all parents of newborns in B.C., I believe, as of 2008. BC is a bit behind the curve.
At a cost of about $10 per handout, this would be about $400,000 to $500,000 in B.C. yearly. Former MCFD head Tom Christensen gave 1.4 million I think, over a 4-year period. A single SBS infant care cost would likely exceed several million dollars over their lifetime.
Let me repeat the $10 cost of the training materials that are touted as being responsible for a 50% drop in SBS incidents. So, TRAINING is capable of educating parents. We hear of social worker Gulbot completing is training in the same year as he removes the Bayne's children due to SBS.
Did he not have a personal conversation with the Baynes about the subject and provide them with pamphlets or training materials?
Given this information, it makes the judge's decision considerably easier, given the statistical rarity of such an occurrence.
This puts the spotlight squarely back on the Ministry's court in the extraordinary level of unlikelihood of the Baynes abusing their child in the manner described, and making it abundantly clear there is simply no way the accident as described by the parents could have occurred.
In light of the statistics, progressing to the next week of trial starting with the testimony of the radiologist, it would appear that an important line of questioning would be how much personal experience he has with SBS, his training, predisposition to such diagnosis.
Yes, I agree that MCFD has people without proper medical training and the most loose understanding of health issues injecting a lot of energy into the wrong diagnosis. I am only saying part of what I am basing my opinion on as my case is before the courts atm, but later I will add more to this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think MCFD or the health industry can afford to lose this case, financially, or in terms of public mindshare.
ReplyDeleteMCFD clearly just wants to remove all children from families, and their training teaches them how to best accomplish such a removal and get away with it. If they can say parents received the $10 training materials, yet the STILL the parents “abused” their child, they have even more of a mandate to remove without question.
With the Baynes case, MCFD has demonstrated a clear policy of permanently removing all children from a family if one child has been diagnosed with SBS. So, if their 15-cases per year is true (see Foster Care Training link below), several families each year must undergo what the Baynes are encountering now.
The published U.S. rate of SBS is apparently double that of B.C.'s. The Purple Info crying page http://www.purplecrying.info/ says the rate of SBS in the U.S. is between 1200 to 1400 yearly, which would translates to 31 cases per year in B.C.'s lower population. The previous comment mentions an SBS white paper that cites much lower SBS diagnosis at 1 per 40,000 or so births, so I suspect their exists a wider diagnostic uncertainty for what meets SBS criteria.
Imagine the doctors being sued for malpractice and the Ministry being sued for incompetence and causing deliberate and malicious pain and suffering on each misdiagnosed case. It must be a large concern for the Health, Attorney General and Children’s Ministry to be able to diagnose SBS without fear of dispute, and therefore without fear of lawsuit.
You would think doctors would take more care with such diagnosis rather than using their current approach of ramming their diagnosis down the throat of judges and parents. What a waste of money.
The 53-hour Foster care training now includes SBS http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009CFD0010-000516.htm
http://www.purplecrying.info/
The aspect of training is interesting.
ReplyDeleteSocial workers, doctors, hospitals, foster home received training in the form of courses, seminars. These are short affairs, an evening, an hour or two, perhaps an all-day conference, a week or two for foster parents.
Imagine if someone told you you could make the equivalent of 100,000 year income as a foster care by just taking a 53-hour course, would not you not get large numbers of foster parent applications?
In contrast, when parents are asked to take remedial courses to "correct" their parenting even before there is an official finding of abuse that agrees with social workers, the same number of hours of education, 50 or so, is deliberately spread out over as long a period of time as possible, months and years, and is also deliberately set at a time that maximizes the inconvenience to parents.
The prevention, the SBS example given that includes reading materials and a 10-minute video, costs $10 and is perused over the period of, perhaps an hour, resulting in a 50% reduction of the problem. Imagine, for a cost of $150, the materials given to the people that need it would prevent a cost to the Province of about $45 million (3 million per child lifetime care for 15 children) per year.
I still wonder if Bethany in fact received the injuries that she did from the accident at home (when the other child apparently collided with her). Perhaps these injuries occured when Bethany was in the care of hospital staff, or somewhere else. I seem to recall that there were a lot of visits to hospitals, and perhaps on one of those visits, something occured - perhaps Bethany was accidentally injured at the hospital. Also, I wonder if the injuries weren't possibly the result of some sort of medication or treatment that Bethany received.
ReplyDeleteWHETHER OR NOT INJURY WAS DONE IN HOSPITAL.
ReplyDeleteClearly going down the path of suggesting that Baby B's injury occurred in hospital rather than accidentally at home, would be newsworthy but will never be proven. It has not even been seriously considered. Paul and Zabeth brought Baby B to hospitals for consultation about a number of symptoms all of which might be subsidiary to the primary injury symptoms of retinal bleeding and bleeding in the protective layer of the brain. My blog Part 259 describes a Triad of symptoms that advocates say point to Shaken Baby Syndrome. Her presenting symptoms and the more serious ones would not be associated with medicine or treatment per se. Don't know where you go from there.
I do not know how much influence it has that many MCFD services are now contracted out. I met a CPS worker after I was caught with a crying child who the police had already determined was not being mistreated. I have a very long history with MCFD as I had many voluntary files going back 13 years and I have a large # of kids and I am on welfare. It seemed that these 'risk' factors were the reason that MCFD wanted involvement. They set up a supervision order that was quite easy to follow. I treat my kids well and most people know that except a couple of weird neighbours who call on me all the time. However, after almost completing my supervision term, I found that MCFD wanted to extend my order in court. I asked to be served right away. I was told that they have no obligation to serve me until 10 days before the court date. An obvious fishing trip. It is a bit of a long story, but they did take my kids. I have still never done anything wrong, they have no injuries, we are under housed and the housing is not well maintained. That is it. In the meantime however, MCFD has amassed a huge file of critical information against me that my lawyer is letting me see tomorrow. There have been 4 court dates, supervisors paid to watch me visit my kids, foster families paid, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteBy going to court and becoming familiar with the system, I can see that welfare housing complexes are a magnet for MCFD and it does not mean there is any abuse of the kids, the circumstances are an easy one for them to get involved in. Also the people in court who are having their kids taken are 90% First Nations people. MCFD alludes to length of involvement as a justification for further involvement. And so the world goes round.
It is a waste. I knew the woman who lost her kids to her husband killing them. That was not the recent case, but one about 5 years ago. I would have loved it if MCFD could have helped them. But they didn't. I think there is a laziness in the system since they prefer to make new files from old files and stay with the same families even if those families are relatively stable. Naturally if you stay with a family long enough, things will happen that require MCFD support, but they are not emergencies and MCFD needs to cut the apron strings, for their own sake and the families need to learn coping mechanisms without the routine of continually losing their kids, getting supports, getting them back. It takes courage to cut the strings as MCFD is quite addicted to this process.
The goings on within the hospital during the month leading up to the removal of Bethany would likely need to be a separate inquiry after the CFCSA proceedings are complete.
ReplyDeleteThe Baynes won't have a voice to ask questions about the substandard care Bethany received until after they are first cleared of wrongdoing and they have their children returned to them.
I certainly hope at minimum, Dr. Colbourne's record of child injury diagnosis is thoroughly examined so other parents with children with injuries at the BCCH are forwarned.
Personally, I am appalled at the delays and substandard treatment Bethany received after reading through the various doctor reports and seeing how many times Bethany was discharged from various hospitals throughout October 2007,
I have no trouble believing that delays in scanning Bethany's head, until finally a shunt was performed, further complicated whatever condition this infant originally sufferred from.
I also have no problem believing that the dozen or so doctors involved are quite happy to stay quiet and let Dr. Colbourne and her supporters cover for them with her shaken baby syndrome theory.
----
That emergency shunt procedure Bethany underwent late October apparently fixed the problem enough that I understand she was released from hospital within days of the operation. I note one of the foster parents who posted briefly alluded to more problems that occurred shortly after.
It appears now, during various trial proceedings and even through some blog entries, the Ministry is attempting to portray Bethany as suffering from a variety of symptoms consistent with published long term effects of survivors of shaken baby syndrome.
Me being the nosy and curious type, I would like to see the Ministry update its disclosures to the parents by releasing current medical reports, school and acitivity information and any other (independant) progress information so we can get a better understanding of Bethany's current state of health.
What I suspect we see now is a filtered view of Bethany's condition from social workers and foster parents that have a vested interest in portraying only the view of Bethany's health that supports shaken baby syndrome symptoms.
I am very sorry for you and your family as I have read the story of your ordeal. Many readers will identify with what you have said.
ReplyDeleteIt is also worth investigating how hospitals work hand and hand with MCFD. That is another story I guess, but it is part of the whole picture. Parents under investigation are not even allowed to question why their children are not well cared for at hospital. Instead they have to be defending themselves.
ReplyDeleteStatistics calculation correction in my August 2, 1:36pm post:
ReplyDeleteThe MCFD publishes a rate of 15 SBS diagnosis per year in B.C. in their foster care promotional literature.
From the white paper link published, using these figures would approximate to about 19 SBS cases in B.C. per year (4.5 million population, 9.7 births per 1,000 people, 43,755 births per year).
The U.S. national rates at 1200 to 1400 SBS per year for the U.S. population (using the 1400 figure) comes out to 1 SBS for every 219,290 people, so for B.C. this works out to 21 SBS per year.
From a freedom of information perspective, it would appear MCFD is in close connection with the statistics on SBS babies, so it should be easy to get the current total number of such diagnosed children in care, those who have aged out of the system, those adopted, whether or not any have been returned to parents, children who were diagnosed but not removed (BC Health Ministry) the yearly care cost, false diagnosis, the names of the doctors that made the diagnosis etc.