This post is a repeat. I was so pleased with the information packed into this format I believe it worth offering again. Each Doctor's full report is available by toggling the name. If you care to read medicalese that dissents from the diagnosis that has put the Baynes where they are today, this is it.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.
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.
Here is a summary of points made in your comments yesterday
ReplyDelete1. The extent of child removal authority must be modified because as it stands, it violates human rights.
2. MCFD is authorized to violate rights by spying, believing call-in information, refusing to disclose the personal information that it says justifies its actions.
3. We the people must shift our thinking about government from optimistic, unqualified trust to cynical suspicion that demands answers and changes.
4. Those responsible for the penile research should be charged with criminal offence.
5. NEWS: MCFD has the second highest compliance rate in answering requests for freedom of information delivering information on time in 97% of cases.
6. A one-time review is too expensive, takes too long and the outcome while revealing is usually disappointing in what it ultimately accomplishes.
7. MCFD is involved in family mischief not family development.
8. Examine this disparity: MCFD in BC receives 30,000 calls annually, has 1,300 workers and a budget of 1.4 billion, whereas RCMP receives 250,000 calls annually, has 1700 employees and a budget of only $290,000.
9. Each time a test case like the Baynes results in a judge's ruling to return the children to parents, there should be an automatic 'operational' review done by people entirely independent of MCFD and with power to subpoena people to testify and with power make change happen.
10. CFCSA might as well have been designed exclusively for lawyers' revenues because they stay busy since the document is so long and complicated. The old act moved cases according to statutory time limits.
11. The Gove Report fashioned by a commission of academics and theorists identified lack of knowledge and skills among workers, managers and supervisors but rendered a simplistic approach to the recommended core training needed to fix the mess.
12. It is too easy with cell phones and anonymity to call in a concern and created a world of grief for innocent people.
13. MCFD presented this person with a 2000 page intake file documenting its case and in order to “clean up” / refute and remove improper material is estimated to cost $20,000 to $60,000 in legal fees.
14. Information collection systems likely have to be cleaned up, so that the data that is collected is "clean".
15. Meetings with parents need to be recorded (without social workers knowing) and later cross-checked for accuracy. Interviews of social workers need to be conducted immediately after questionable risk assessments are recorded. This information needs to be recorded into record keeping systems, collated and analyzed.
16. Begin a new political party and simply outlaw child removals by civilians is one example.
17. Double the number of social workers is suggested by another.
18. Quite simply, there exists a problem that needs to be fixed.
19. the Native toddler in Ray Ferris' story was Sherry Charlie.
This comment by Anon yesterday saddened me...
ReplyDelete"I have just started reading 2000 pages of the most ridiculous lies about me which is called my file. Someone phoned in that they thought I was talking to myself and it is an 'intake' on my file. I asked a lawyer about the cost and process of cleaning up my 'file'. I was told it would cost me $20,000 to $60,000. Anyone have any experience with this type of thing?"
If you are someone who can advise this writer, please write.
TWO CORRECTIONS AND TWO POINTS.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the correction on Sherry Charlie.
The social worker in my story said he was NOT a lawyer and not qualified to interpret the act. I missed the not. The point was he thought this entitled him to ignore anything that was in the act. Having an MSW is not guarantee of a rational thought process, or a sense of responsibility.
Employing more social workers is useless, if they are untrained and running around ignorant of vital skills. Simply more opportunity for mayhem. In 1957 I was the district social worker for Smithers and Hazelton. I was responsible for all pension supplement work, social assistance, all child welfare work and miscellaneous services in Smithers, Hazelton and eight aboriginal communities. We did not cover social assistance on reserves. My weekly caseload journey was 250 miles or 400km. My supervisor also supervised the Burns Lake office and carried the Telkwa and Houston caseload. If I got letter by wednesday morning asking for help and giving directions for location, I would make a home call that day or the next and usually a cheque would be in the mail by Friday. I saw all my foster homes on a regular basis.
Today there are thirty people covering the work. The area population has about doubled. There are full time social assistance offices in Smithers and Hazelton and full time child welfare offices. People complain that it takes over two weeks to get emergency help and that social workers often do not return calls from foster parents. More staff, but worse service.
Point two. There is an anon who repeatedly calls for the scrapping of all child protection legislation. I can well understand his revulsion at the abuse of authority that takes place. True, if there is no law, there can be no abuse of that law. However, there is no point in throwing out the baby with the bath water. If you read social history, you can see that dreadful things happened to children before there were social services or child protection legislation. I for one would not want to see Dickensian conditions return. Frequent infanticide among poor families. Dead babies on the village dung heap. Pauper children slaving in workhouses. Homeless orphans scooped from the streets of London and sold into virtual slavery in Ontario and Quebec. One can go on. Just read the history of this province in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and then ask yourself if you want those conditions to be brought back.
Yes, that is true the unregulated times did create abuse of children. But now, children are abused through over regulation. I worked with children before I had children and of course I never dreamed I would one day know of car 86 and all the court processes of MCFD as I do now. I was not a person anyone would expect to have any involvement. My child is is a locked psychiatric ward right now. The kids in there are forced on meds and if they behave a little high-spiritedly, they go into a rubber room. I am serious. When I worked with kids 25 years ago, we had to learn techniques to get the kids on side, now it is forced medication for these youngsters. If the parents have MCFD involvement, they have to do whatever they are told, or lose their kids. I am serious. No wonder another annonymous is calling for complete scrapping of the system.
ReplyDeleteAnother point is that there is no incentive for the government to allow a release of power. MCFD has all the power. And they won't let it go. Look at how hard they fought poor Mary Ellen Turpel Lafonde. THey do not want to reform themselves at all. I disagreed with the papers handed me at the presentation hearing. In order to contest, I have had to go an extra month at least without my kids. I wanted to get them back in July. My SW laughed at me and said that they admire it that the parents fight, and they can fight all they want, but the ministry always wins. SHe said that and she laughed at me. NO compassion that I miss my kids terribly. AT the first presentation hearing before I ever had a supervision order and got into this whole mess in which everything is called a breach and is part of the removal process, I was told to just agree even though the report was not true. I was told to agree because 'you can't fight the ministry, they have all the power'. THey did all the dirty tricks on me, including file dumping during the day when we were in court. I did not even get the files for my lawyer the night before, so we had to adjourn, giving them more time to write more untrue stuff about me. What a system. And it is called justice.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am fighting and I did not acquiesse and I am glad the Baynes are fighting too. I am cheering for them.
Hearing a social worker laugh and state the "ministry always wins" would make a great youtube video on its own.
ReplyDeleteIt reveals the absolute arrogace and lack of compassion that exists uniformly at the level of the front line social worker. Even a cursory study that embedded social workers at every office to witness this sort of behaviour would be a fact that would enlighten the public as to the true nature of people that are supposed to be there looking after their best interests.
If a video of an officer beating up a helpless civilian has an impact on the public, the same sort of video of a disrespectful social worker responsible for tearing children away from their parents and later having them laugh about the pain the family endures would have a similar impact.
I read past blog submissions that a lot of blame is placed on the administration levels. However, few parents see these level. They deliberately isolate themselves from parents and their children.
Individual social workers are being allowed to run amuck, much like children in the Lord of the Flies who know there is no chance of discipline or accountability.
I personally only experienced "front line" workers and foster parents. The team leaders and supervisors had zero visibility for me.
Employees who are fully designated social workers and who have several years of university, a degree or two, and deal with many other clients simultaneously, so they have no excuse to laugh and deride parents and treat them as if they are guilty rather than focusing on reunification and productive application of services.
You can fight and "win" as I did in getting your children returned without strings, but it takes considerable fortitude in lasting up to the protection hearing trial and standing firm on your innocence.
Lawyers were no help and are a waste of money.
"A diagnosis of “non-accidental injury” or “abusive head trauma” is a legal, not a medical conclusion. If a physician states that abuse caused Bethany’s injury, he/she must specify how the injury occurred, and indicate the evidence to support the conclusion.
ReplyDeleteIt is insufficient to reiterate the radiographic and ophthalmologic findings, and state that abuse is the default diagnosis. The default diagnosis for signs and symptoms that a physician cannot explain with certainty is not “non-accidental injury”. It is “I don’t know”."
Words of wisdom and truth from the report of Dr. John Plunkett
More words of wisdom and truth, from Dr. Galaznik
ReplyDelete"On October 31, 2007, Dr. Colbourne boldly states, “The only explanation for this
possible combination of injuries would be a severe shaking type injury.”
...The assertion that this case represents injury from abusive shaking is not supportable.
---The retinal findings are entirely consistent with what is reported in the medial literature with crush type injury. Furthermore, the most recent medical literature severely undermines any claim that vitreous traction from an abusive shaking is even capable of causing any primary eye findings. [Binenbaum 2007, Emerson 2007]"
Ray Ferris above claims that without Child Protection Law, we would experience the following:
ReplyDelete"I for one would not want to see Dickensian conditions return. Frequent infanticide among poor families. Dead babies on the village dung heap. Pauper children slaving in workhouses. Homeless orphans scooped from the streets of London and sold into virtual slavery in Ontario and Quebec."
Child protection laws and social services are not keeping us from the conditions above, criminal law, and people's own conscience, is (note that this claim of Ray Ferris's is typical of those who work in child protection; that is, the claim that parents are always abuse time bombs, ready to go off, and only child protection agencies and legislation can prevent this).
It is criminal law that should deal with child abuse. More children are being harmed than helped by MCFD. If you abolished MCFD tomorrow, the rate of abuse would dramatically decline, despite what their PR would have you believe.
Child protection law should be scrapped because MCFD is corrupt to the core, as are all child protection agencies all over the world. It's like trying to salvage the Hells Angels. If there is child abuse, deal with it as a crime (unless you don't of course believe it is a crime).
And since Ray Ferris mentioned Quebec, and implied things are so much better there now that we have child protection, I thought it worthwhile to include this:
"A Children's Gulag
Corruption, Child Abuse & the Business of Children in Quebec
From a provincial population of 7.5 million, up to 30,000 children were seized from families by youth authorities in 2006, processed in secret trials, and placed in group homes, institutions or forced adoption programs.
The majority of warehoused children are cut off from parents and extended family, often physically, sexually and emotionally abused, and held until the age of 18 when they are dumped on city streets.
Years of secrecy and a total lack of accountability have created a culture of impunity and corruption among bureaucrats and the judiciary, and destroyed the lives of 100,000's of children and families.
Shattered survivors, forbidden from revealing corruption and abuse under threat of contempt of court charges and jail, create succeeding generations of angry and broken families, guaranteeing repeat business for the state.
The business of children in Quebec is now a growth industry, worth over one billion dollars (USD $1,000,0000,000) per year to bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, social workers, psychologists, pharmacists, institutions and contracted guardians.
No state in the western world removes, by force, as many children from parents as Quebec. Per capita, Quebec removes 2.5 times the number of children as Sweden, 6 times as many as Great Britain, and 17 times the number in Spain."
http://www.sosquebec.com/
www.SOSQUEBEC.com has a great deal more information to suggest that child protection has harmed, rather than helped, children and families.
"The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time."
- Ayn Rand
More info for Ray Ferris, who claims that without child protection, we'd be in such dire straights.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sosquebec.com/images/CAS_Canada_A_Monstrous_Institution.pdf
"...in-depth look at the tremendous power and
frequent unaccountability of Canada’s child welfare agencies has touched a nerve, and inspired an outpouring of response from parents, teachers and social workers across the country, many of them recounting the most harrowing experiences with what
they describe as abusive, incompetent, arrogant and unaccountable child welfare authorities.'
The above link is an article from the National Post, and is just a tiny glimpse into the monstrosity known as CAS, or the Children's Aid Society, Ontario's version of MCFD. So once again, I beg to differ with Ray Ferris re: his claim that without child protection we'd be living in some Dickensian nightmare, where babies are heaped on piles of dung or slaving away in workhouses. Actually what is happening now is worse.
===================
The one great principle of English law is to make business for itself.
- Charles Dickens
In the little world in which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt, as injustice.
- Charles Dickens
To Anon 11:02 regarding 'Life Without Child Protection Law.'
ReplyDeleteRay Ferris can ably defend his own position if he chooses too. Perhaps he should provide us the title of the book he wrote on the topic, which may be a corrective for many of the deficiencies our present system owns.
While I acknowledge that you have supported your argument with some strong quotations and intriguing links and while I want to commend you I also want to probe more deeply into your premise. If I have it right, your premise is CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD DEAL WITH CHILD ABUSE SO WE DON'T NEED CHILD PROTECTION LAW.
You say, “if child protection law were abolished... the rate of abuse would decline...” I believe your statement is correct if one considers that only a small percentage of cases presently reported by child protection are actually cases of abuse and therefore would not proceed to criminal court or conviction. Example: The Baynes. RCMP did not proceed.
You say, “MCFD is corrupt to the core...” I discern from our stories on this blog and numerous others that MCFD came off the rails at some point. Ferris might say the rails were never laid well and were lost in a fog of words and bureaucracy. Corrupt the core? I don't know. But perhaps if corruption is broadly defined as dishonesty and incompetence and ill-trained and self protective and mean spirited, then it is corrupt.
I want to explore your Quebec references before commenting.
Good input.
Holy Smoke! You think that what we are writing about on this blog site is alarming. When you check out Anon 11:02's link to QUEBEC data, you will gasp. Now to substantiate that info!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sosquebec.com/
On the site mentioned above, that is, http://www.sosquebec.com/
ReplyDeleteYou see a reference to Judge Ruffo. Here is a CBC story on her. She is now one of my new heroes.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/judgeruffo.html
Quebec parents are even in worst position when it comes to medical opinion. As doctors in the province would not contradict each other and mostly of medical files are in french so when parents try to find second medical opinion no-provincial doctors have difficulty understanding medical files; good luck looking for the experts outside country.
ReplyDeleteI am finally able to read my 2000 page files from MCFD's years of work! HA! I had a sincere risk assessment in 2003. THen another one in 2005, one in 2007 and one in 2009. The last three assessments took bits and pieces from the first one in 2003 and repeated the misinformation. SO there are things that were either not true to begin with or not meant that way repeated many times. In 2003, my husband yelled at our older kids (once). They were being interviewed as it was considered we lived in sub-standard housing. My husband is known as a very nice and gentle person. However, he did get mad at the kids that time. There was no violence and there has never been violence in our home. An incident that was written about in 2003 as being a no or low risk situation was written about later (the same incident!!!) repeating the story of the yelling but considering it of moderate risk, then finally of high risk in 2009. This is one incident of yelling that happened in 2003. How did it keep getting recycled and suddenly we are at high risk? Then it is written that my kids need counseling for their dad's 'violence'. There are no police reports, no incident reports, no reports from neighbours to state that my husband is violent.
ReplyDeleteAs for myself, I am considered too lenient toward my children by MCFD and it apparently causes them 'stress' that I do not discipline them enough. They interviewed my kids and I have copies, they did not once say anything about being under stress from me.
THey told me that there is something wrong with me and it must be from either drugs, alcohol or mental illness. I am not on drugs or alcohol so I must be mentally ill (according to them). In 2003, they mentioned to me in passing that I should have a mental health assessment. They did not try to ever set it up for me. They with each subsequent risk assessment, they mentioned that I was seriously unwilling to be assessed. I got assessed immediately when it was mentioned to me last month, and rather than being happy as it got done promptly and I have no mental illness according to a top psychiatrist, they seemed quite disappointed.
I wrote above and thought I would add this, I never was depressed according to any professionals, yet MCFD decided I was depressed, so all through my file there is one reference after another about my 'depression'. THat is how they pick and choose what medical opinions to listen to. I was in therapy that was part of my file and it was with a therapist paid by MCFD and sure enough, they got the records and it is public for nay social worker involved with me to read.
ReplyDeleteIf a person isn't depressed when they first encounter MCFD, MCFD will make darn good and sure that they are depressed by the time they are finished with them. And of course what would be more depressing than losing your children to these beastly types?
ReplyDelete