This is a lightweight piece today. More meat perhaps later today.
Twenty pages of notes will not condense into a 600 word blog post. I describe selected impressions. I scribbled crazily as I listened in court with some Bayne supporters as well as Ministry of Children personnel. How many MCFD people did I hear you ask? One MCFD lawyer and four MCFD employees listened to Zabeth's testimony Tuesday afternoon. What does that tell you? Some of you will have something to say about that. The importance of this case outcome cannot be understated. Bruce McNeill might have been well advised to put the other four to work and come to court himself. On second thought, having the four in court meant that they were not involved with other families.
 |
| Dr. Patrick Barnes |
Yesterday Dr. Michael Sargent addressed the Bayne baby's autumn 2007 injuries from a radiologist's viewpoint. He tried to speak in support of Dr. Colbourne's shaken baby diagnosis. Judge Crabtree may not have regarded it as compelling. Today the Baynes presented Dr. Patrick David Barnes, Chief of Pediatric Neurology and Professor of Radiology at Stanford University School of Medicine. If his fifty-seven page CV was not impressive enough, his performance yesterday was. Granted, my appraisal of this engagement emerges from a bias. Further, this post has little to do with the substance of the exchange but rather the impression. We listened to Barnes' responses to MCFD counsel Finn Jensen via electronic camera link from his office in Palo Alto. This off-site witness experience was fascinating as I viewed Barnes instantly accessing hard copy files or computer data files. Jensen questioned him for three and one half hours. Barnes was confident and at no time uncomfortable. Jensen's assertive questions often begged a yes or no response yet Barnes diffused the Jensen eagerness to score points by his own passion for what he believed which spilled forth intelligible and sensible explanations. He has given testimony in numerous earlier cases. For years his testimony for Child Protective Services or for the defense was an even split. In recent years he has spoken primarily for the defense (i.e. caregivers). This is attributable to his fresh commitment to evidence based medicine and his determination to uncover and to educate regarding medical and accidental causations, the symptoms for which mimic the appearance of abuse.
Dr. Barnes and his team work within an inter-disciplinary cooperative in Palo Alto that protects children yet never permits suspected abuse to go unquestioned but rather works diligently to exhaust all possible causes for the observed injuries or abuse in order to protect caregivers from wrongful accusal and also to restore the family as soon as possible. This description of a genuine kinder and gentler society made me envious for our regions in B.C.
We don't own that here. Government spokespeople can vaunt the inter-disciplinary cooperation that is being attempted here but it cannot be accomplished when in protecting a child, the soul of a Ministry of Children is not wired or staffed by people who will do all that is possible to restore a family, but instead this MCFD repeatedly gives evidence that it spares no expense or manpower or violation of ethical principle in order to keep a family apart. I am so dismayed. You must first know the right thing before you can choose to do it.
Dr. Patrick Barnes was questioned from 9:30 am until almost 2:00 pm. Zabeth began her testimony at 3:00 pm and continued until adjournment at 4:30 pm. I will tell you more when Zabeth is once again on the stand today.
Do the right thing all the time, every time.
i can totally related to this post. After all the mud was spilled on the parents and children separation it is relieve to hear intelligent ethical professional to defend you. I am sure Baynes will get there children back, but do not relax yet. Fight for your life until the kids are in your hands.
ReplyDeleteAlso Baynes would need support (not from MCFD employees) after kids are back and all adrenaline runs out. It will be happy strangers leaving together for a while until they settle in and damages from MCFD involvement are faded (they never will be eraised) . (Ron, posting last paragraph is your call)
Merci Sainte Anne, PQ
ReplyDeleteI'm so thankful for this blog and the time you've invested to relay the latest events. I attended many of the spring court days but have a mobility issue right now, and haven't been able to come yet. I continue to pray for Paul and Zabeth and everyone else involved in revealing the truth and returning these children to their parents. May justice FINALLY prevail!
ReplyDeleteChris
It is good to hear what sounds like a much better demonstration of medical competance. Indeed, this stark contrast the MCFD "expert" Florida Pro-SBS doctor Dr. Randall Alexander who they flew in at great taxpayer expense to testify against the Baynes without even having reviewed their materials.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall blog 111 written Sunday February 14th, 2010:
"Now came Jensen’s super heavyweight Shaken Baby witness, Dr. Randall Alexander from Florida, who has testified in over 300 similar cases, and who was here to assure the court that unquestionably, Bethany’s injuries were the result of shaking. His towering persona began to dissolve when he was forced to admit that he wrote his SBS report on Bethany months before seeing the actual film work on Bethany a day before entering the witness box. He had to admit that he had not read Bethany’s birth records, reports concerning Bethany from area hospitals, or any of the ten experts' reports on Bethany that countered his SBS claim. It was clear to the judge that Alexander’s report had been written with incomplete medical information. What kind of evidence is this?"
The problem here is the local medical professionals involved in the Banyes case appear not to exhibit any such impartiality or acceptance of any opinions but their own.
We should fear for the parents and children of the other 15 or so cases diagnosed per year in B.C.
It sounds like the Baynes are in very good hands with Mr. Christie and the various experts. Lets hope the hourly countdown has begun for the return of Bethany, Kent and Baden to their parents.
Dr. Barnes' report was the only one not available from two past blogs listing all ten doctor reports, so the text of his report is posted here for the sake of relevance.
ReplyDelete---
Re: Bethany Bayne (DOB 8-3-07)
I have reviewed the brain MRI 10-19-07, skeletal survey & chest film 10-19-07, head US 10-22-07, and follow-up upper and lower extremity films 10-31-07, and chest films on the above child as well as the medical records.
The brain MRI shows marked craniocephalic disproportion with bilateral very large extracerebral collections, left more than right, that are T1 hypointense and T2 hyperintense (chronic subdural collections, either chronic hematomas or hygromas). Also, there are some asymmetric linear cerebral / extracerebral GRE hypointensities, especially posterior parietal and along the tentorium and falx (old blood products or mineralization, e.g. hemosiderin). No brain abnormality is demonstrated. Cervical spine artifacts appear to present.
The initial skeletal survey shows a large right parietal skull defect (diastatic, growing fracture) with marked widening of the sutures. Also, there is marked underossification of the facial and skull bones (osteopenia, e.g. craniotabes). There is marked anterior rib flaring bilaterally. There is a coarse trabecular pattern of the long bones, with metaphyseal irregularities and beaking involving the proximal and distal femurs, the proximal and distal tibias, and the proximal humeri. Bilateral distal ulmar metaphyseal cupping is also present. Bowing deformities are present particularly with regard to the femurs and tibias. There is a suggestion of diaphyseal periosteal reaction in some of the long bones.
The follow-up chest and extremity films 10-31-07 show no findings to suggest fracture evolution or healing (e.g. callous) regarding any of the metaphyseal changes.
Although imaging cannot distinguish accidental from nonaccidental injury (NAI), there is nothing about the brain or skeletal imaging findings (including in the presence of retinal hemorrhages) that is characteristic of, or specific for, NAI. The extracerebral collections are chronic and likely weeks to months old. The same can be stated for the diastatic (growing) fracture and widened sutures. Such findings are entirely consistent with the history of impact head trauma (and associated unilateral retinal hemorrhage) involving an older sibling as provided by the parents.
Furthermore, the skeletal findings strongly indicate the presence of a metabolic or dysplastic bone condition (e.g. congenital rickets). Such a condition is particularly prevalent in North America and usually associated with vitamin D deficiency in pregnant and breast feeding mothers and their infants. Such bony abnormalities readily respond to vitamin D supplementation or therapy and often resolve without showing the usual evolution / healing changes of fractures (e.g. callous).
My opinions in this case are held to a reasonable degree of medical certainty and based on my clinical, teaching, and research experience in Pediatric Neuroradiology over the past 30 years (CV, references available on request). Please notify me at any time if I may be of further assistance.
Patrick D. Barnes, MD (e-signature)
Chief, Pediatric Neuroradiology
Director, Pediatric MRI & CT Center
Professor of Radiology
Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
Stanford University Medical Center
pbarnes@stanford.edu
Thanks for the report
ReplyDeleteWhat I have fought in my files is the simple fact that some people do not like me. I had a neighbour who did not like me and she kept phoning in that I was doing things that made her think I am mentally ill. SHe said I was seen talking to myself, etc. It started with the fact that I had been given respite care by MCFD and they would not give it unless I was called 'depressed' by a doctor.
ReplyDeleteThen I got a social worker who did not like me. She wrote down that I talked too much and too quickly, another sign of 'mental illness'.
Pretty soon, they put down that I needed a mental health assessment. No one ever told me that or put in a referral. SO they wrote that I was against having one, that I was reluctant and anxious and unwilling to address my 'mental health needs'.
I had another social worker who did not like me either. I had many people in the system who like me a lot. THey wrote many compliments about my parenting. But the ones who did not like me wrote more, even if it was repeating old stuff over and over and over again.
They talked to my mom and she was outwardly good to me, but actually wants to have me give her my kids. I have been raising them and doing a good job and she was not even helping with them.
But she told the social worker I neglected my kids. THen the principle of the elementary school said that my daughters were unattended. It turned out to be some other kids entirely. I mentioned that and a small note of that nature was added to my file. Yet it is still repeated all through my file that I left my kids unattended at the school grounds. THis is used as a basis to say I am a bad parent.
THis is a true story and it is happening to me right now and I have had my children removed. Although there is no reason. After they removed my baby, typically they said she is 'filthy'. A typical ploy. I bathed her everyday. THen they said I had 'unresolved mental health issues'.
THis all happened because one of my children was/is seriously ill in hospital and because I already had an open file, they were writing lots of odd stuff about me.
SO you can see that if you are in the system and your child is also in the medical system, there is a lot of room for people who don't like you to write down the most terrible stuff. THen you lose your kids from innuendo.
A lot of people would not believe this can happen here in B.C. in 2010. But my story is real and I am a good, honest, hard working person who does not lose my temper and has never committed a crime. ANd I have also been found by a top psychiatrist to not be mentally ill. Yet MCFD still claims I am. Just based on hearsay.
There is no information in the trial proceedings this week regarding Baden and Kent.
ReplyDeleteIt is, or is it not standard MCFD procedure to remove all children from a family even if just one is suspected of "abuse?"
In my case, not all my children were removed, and they were eventually returned without restriction, ie. no supervision order and zero followup. It is like "oops, we took your kids, but it is just a precaution, and we paid foster care for you for a few years, so lets let bygones be bygones....no harm done."
In the case of Kent and Baden, and seeing that there is really no conversation or legal discussion about their removal, it seems only about Bethany and one doctor's questionable opinion.
Why have these two boys been removed and kept for so long? This is one big question I hope Judge Crabtree will fully address in his written reasons.
Given the length of the trial, the reasons should span at least 80 pages of text.
A note to yesterdays anon. Of course I think that staff with high personal qualities are important and I have said so many times. This does not diminish the value of training. I considered myself to be decent and intelligent when I started social work, but how I wish that I had got some good training and mentoring. As a supervisor I made sure that my staff never had to go what I had endured
ReplyDeleteContinuing today with core training, I realise that this might be a bit tedious for some bloggers, but I am not aiming at general public. I know many professionals are logging in. I am hoping I will enable a glimmer of understanding to take place. In my previous list, I neglected to mention three important points. Core training for supervisors. Teaching administrative skills to social workers, supervisors and even to managers. Thirdly training in the very important work with foster parents. I cannot cover all these topics in depth in the same way that I have done in my book, so I will be very sketchy.
Foster parents are a vital part of the child welfare system and so selection and training are very important. One must consider them to be valued colleagues and partners in the child welfare scheme. I go into detail in chapter 10 of my book.Early in the placement foster parents are junior partners with important input. When foster parents have made a commitment to a life plan for children, they should be considered as the senior partners.
Psychologists are licensed to do psychometric testing and certain other intellectual testing. Neuropsychology demands great rigour and time in training. Psychologists do not have any special training in child protection. What is junk psychology? The code of ethics of the American Psychologists Association (APA) demands that no therapy shall be vended that has not met the test of research and peer approval. Junk psychology is any theory that does not meet this test.
Sigmund Freud was the granddaddy of all junk psychology. The great research psychologist, H.J. Eysenck was debunking Freudian theory at London University in the early 1950s. It was not until nearly 50 years later that American insurers refused to continue coverage of psychoanalasys as a valid therapy. Two generations wasted their money on it. Until nearly 1970, Canadian social work training was almost entirely based on Freudian theory;junk.
Social work schools have always adored the latest junk psychology and the latest gurus. We have had destructive cults like recovered memory counselling (now illegal in some states) and recovering memories of Satanic ritual abuse. Vancouver city police used to employ an officer full time just to go around debunking Satanic abuse as merely non existent and merely the result of a counselling cult. Yet in BC protection cases were still resting on this myth. One of your bloggers recommended a good debunking book a while back. To this I add "Manufacturing Victims" by Dr. Tana Dineen.
Addictions chapter 7 in my book. Protection workers will always deal with a great deal of alcohol and drug addiction. There is no reason why they should not learn a great deal about the process of addiction and recovery and to learn about the various community resources like detox centres, residential treatment programmes and specialised counselling services. There is of course the oldest recovery resource--Alcoholics Anonymous. Protection workers are in an excellent position to be a referral point for entry into the treatment system. People are often most vulnerable and receptive to help when their addiction has created a crisis. When a mother gets thrown in the drunk tank and her children come into care, it is a very good time to get her to go to detox and a recovery programme. Alcohol and drug counsellors seldom see drunk people, because they are usually in counselling groups. Protecion workers have it much rougher.
I will continue with core training for supervisors. Chapter 12 in my book.
To Anon 4:09 PM re the two boys...
ReplyDeleteAll 276 posts of this blog site have told the Bayne family's full story and does contain information about the boys. Of course I don't expect you to go back to read all of them to bring you up to speed. So here is a thumbnail sketch. Three children were removed because of suspicion that the youngest child was injured by parent(s). The hearing rarely mentions the boys because the Ministry argument for final custody of all three is based only upon shaken baby diagnosis of the youngest. The boys should not be in custody because no evidence exists concerning them.
To Ray Ferris;
ReplyDeleteThe problem which keeps coming up is that child protective services keeps getting the kind of people who no amount of training would cure. When a case worker, for example, finds it humourous and even laughs out loud at a parent's distress, or when a case worker tells a parent, with a tone of glee, that the Ministry always wins, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that these people will never benefit from any amount of training.
MCFD needs to be held accountable. They need to feel a tiny bit of the fear that they have been instilling in children and parents for decades now. Judges, and lawyers who defend MCFD or prosecute their cases, need to - to be quite blunt - get a conscience. Since a conscience is not something you just acquire, the only solution is to get rid of the ones who do not have one. If a judge shows no compassion towards parents, if they only listen to social workers, then that judge needs to be replaced. They so quickly forget - if they ever even knew - they are our servants, not vice versa.
I am in a case of medical neglect. I could not figure out what MCFD thought I did wrong and I could not even fight properly until I finally through some miracle got some disclosure. It is a terrible system. How can so many decisions be based on untruths??? Then MCFD is so anxious to protect themselves legally, so it is likely they will slander you to keep in the right. I wish mainstream media would chase MCFD down and help the fight. I am also fighting MCFD false allegations. Today I felt really strong. My case is on this week and in another two weeks. I am grateful to the Baynes for doing this.
ReplyDeleteI cannot help but write another post. Yes, they also took a child I had with me at the time that they took my son away as they felt my children were all at risk since one was considered medically at risk. THis happened in the hospital and it has some parallels with the Baynes case. At the same time, I still have custody of my other kids so even though I must go through this, I am obviously a good enough parent for some of my kids. It is a ministry of convenience. They already knew there was no harm to the other kids, but they know they have all the power. (SO FAR, and I want that to change!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
ReplyDeleteI apologize for breaking the rule of using a specific name but think you will forgive me. God is the name I refer to. He is speaking thru people and working thru people and it is about to pay off for you soon. No one has an Army strong enough to defeat our God. Your life will be restored and may your blessings be as those of Job. Amen.
ReplyDeleteSubmitted by Dad and survivor of being falsely accused. An undeserved accussation ...It is like a slow painful death that last forever and I beg God in the name of Jesus to rectify this if it is in your will and I pray for someone other than I Lord and although am imperfect was also innocent and this family deserves to be united. I can feel the pain all over as I pray for them and if there was ever a prayer to be wished for this one is my greatest and I beg of you if in your will, Amen. I want to share a poem I wrote for my son's service:
The Reason Why
by:Dad
The Reason Why
I've asked for Days
The reason why
If there is a God
Why He let you die
Life always changes
Just like each season
God is mysterious
And He has His own reason
It can't be understood
By woman or man
Sometimes God's plan
We can't understand
You are way up there
Where angels fly
And this joyful thought
Holds back my cry
Maybe God's reason
Is to fill us with thought
To give to ones we love
Things that can't be bought
We think too often
Of things so small
Things that really
Don't matter at all
Let us start looking at
Friends, children, husband and wife
As what should to all
Really matter in life
"I love you" is what
We need to say
For you never know
When they may go away
Nothing is certain
But this I know
Everyone in life
Will have a day they go
You only stayed
For a short while
I hold back my cry
When I think of your smile
It's in God's plan
To tell our sweet boy bye
God understands His reason
So I no longer ask him why
SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME DOESN'T EXIST OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED IT TO A NEW NAME.
ReplyDeleteUSA
In a 1965 speech, Dr. John Caffey disagreed. He was
concerned about the possibility of wrongful accusations. “There
are many circumstances in which the parents are totally ignorant
of the cause of their child’s injury and in which they do not and
cannot give a history. The failure of the parents to give a history
of injury is, therefore, not necessarily proof that the parent has
willfully inflicted injury on the child.” Most trauma, he insisted,
was accidental and even short falls could lead to subdural
hematomas. “It cannot he emphasized too strongly,” he said,
“that [medical symptoms] tell nothing of the person who abused
the child or how it was abused.”
Dr. Caffey weighed in again in 1972, still concerned that
innocent persons might be erroneously convicted on the basis
of medical opinion alone. He complained that the media had
vigorously and repeatedly presented the more spectacular and
misleading aspects of battered child syndrome, and that very
name “battered child syndrome” sparked premature bias against
accused parents before adequate investigations were concluded.
Again, he stressed that medical findings can neither identify a
perpetrator nor his motive. He advocated abortion on demand
to reduce the problem of unwanted children and cautioned that
repeated minor shakings might be more dangerous than violent,
willful assault. He called metaphyseal fractures, small “bucket
handle” or “corner” fractures at the ends of growing bones of
children, especially at the knee, as characteristic of abuse.
This was one of the founders of the SBS theory just as Famous Dr. Uscinski's mentor and both of these experts have concerns of overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis.
This recent quote from an MCFD team leader:
ReplyDelete"When a child is removed we are at war with the parent. There is no support. It is a fight to the death."
First to anon 4.59 PM
ReplyDeleteI agree with you entirely. The first step would be to chuck out the whole, incompetent self-serving senior manaagement. How about having Leslie Dutoit and Turpel-Lafonde switch jobs? That would be very interesting. I have known many decent and humane social workers and supervisors. They seem to be a vanishing breed. In the old system most responsibility and authority was vested in the district supervisor. With a good supervisor the service worked much more often than not. Poor supervisors were a guarantee of repeated disaster.
I know that I am probably wasting virtual ink by writing about good core training. One has to try to stay as constructive as possible in this mess.
Anyway chapter 12. It is no more possible to ruin child protection services with a good supervisor than it is to provide good service with a poor one. Supervisors need to have all the skills of social worker. In addition they must assign and monitor caseloads, train and appraise staff and co-ordinate functions. They need to learn to teach, consult co-ordinate and discipline staff. It is a very difficult job and can only be done well with people of high calibre. Take appraisals. At a supervisors institute someone from personnel spoke thus. All you need do for appraisal is check the boxes that you think fit. Give it to the social worker to read over and if they are wiling to sign it, that is all you need to do. If they object to something, mark it up a shade, but do not mark too high, or you will no room for improvement. Great stuff!! Training, consultation, caseload monitoring and appraisal should be all part of a continuum of professional development and it should be a two way street. The appraised person should declare what training they feel they need and how effectively is it being provided. Is the supervisor listening and properly resourcing the worker. And so on. Of course this sort of concept is far too deep for most managers. Good heavens, if we all started to do that, where would it lead?
Ethics. Training in ethics could start with a stated code of ethics such as that of the BC association of social workers. Of course we could start with simple guidelines like don't tell lies, mislead or state half truths. Don't stonewall with dumb statements. Like "we snatched the children from home in order to protect their privacy." One of the most abused concepts in the ministry is confidentiality. It is usually interpreted as erecting an iron curtain of secrecy about everything. Confidentiality means that one only shares information constructively and purposefully and in the best interests of the person being served. For instance,if you are looking for a relative placement, you need to take the relative into your confidence. Yet many are told that cannot be done, so they have to take a child not knowing what is going on. Protecting the privacy of a child is often touted as being the paramount right. Of course it is not and nowhere is it stated as a paramount right. The CF&CSA states the rights. Rights to continuity of care, to speedy resolution of cases to kinship contact etc. Different rights can sometimes conflict with each other and what is needed is the wisdom and judgement to balance the rights. Unfortunately this sort of concept seems beyond the intellectual range of most senior bureaucrats. Rights of people can also conflict and usually these are very difficult to resolve unless there is awareness of what is happening. While we are on the topic of ethics, one can also consider dilemma resolution.
Dealing with dilemma requires special skills, which I will discuss tomorrow.
"Privacy" is a bit of a misnomer in MCFD land.
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed used as a remarkable offensive weapon and has a variety of uses, and disguises.
Recall the fellow last year or so who filed a 520 million dollar lawsuit against MCFD for privacy violation, giving his records that contained unproven allegations to third parties that ended up terminating all hopes of him getting a job working with children.
This is not unlike the Baynes, who I believe may also have been similarly affected by publicity.
If parents participate in a mediation, and invite friends, neighbors and family, privacy goes out the window as MCFD social workers discuss "concerns" (ie. unprove "abuse" allegations from unknown sources that are not even worthy of notifying police). This spreads out the information so the original source can be better hidden and kept anonymous.
Social workers itch in the worst way to tell your friends, co-workers, kids teachers, doctors and neighbors and aquaintences what you are accused of if they feel like disabling your support network in the guise of "investigation." This way they can "confirm" said allegations with anyone they choose, and then keep these people anonymouse to prevent cross examination.
Beware of mediation. To test this, say you will participate only with you, your children, social worker, mediator, and spouse (if you are on good terms). If the mediator refuses, state you are concerned discussion of "concerns" which are unproven abuse allegations, and that it becomes a liable issue. See what their reaction is.