We were allowed into the court room at 9:30 am. We easily filled the seats on either side of this smaller court room. As we waited for his Honour to enter I viewed the surroundings. On a large desk accessible to the Clerk were numerous boxes of filed exhibits and reports. On their side was marked F10073 CFCSA & Bayne.
This was September 21st, expected to be the Ministry summation by Finn Jensen and the final day in court for this case. Not so, it turned out. Jensen worked until 12:30 PM when Judge Crabtree recessed for lunch. We were back at 2:00 PM. By 3 PM we took an afternoon recess and for the second time that afternoon Mr. Jensen said he would move forward, skipping something in order to be done within an hour. At 4:00 PM Judge Crabtree asked Jensen how much more time he would require. Jensen replied, “two and one half hours.” The Judge withdrew for several minutes to discover when his schedule allowed him time to meet again and when a court room might be available. Mr. Jensen will complete his final summation on September 30th beginning at 10:00 AM.
In addition on the 30th, Judge Crabtree will hear the Ministry's affidavit for a change of visitation times for the Baynes with their children. That was served to the Baynes and to the Judge upon arrival today. The Baynes need to consult their lawyer and prepare an affidavit as well as be prepared to speak to this application. The Ministry Director has concerns that the children's schedules are very full now and three weekly visits of three hours each is difficult to arrange and hard on them. The proposal is one 3 hour visit and then 6 hrs on Saturday. The Judge had earlier increased to three visit days rather than two and for that reason the Ministry is seeking the Judge's ruling on this suggested change. The Judge may listen to this final summation and to the responses regarding the affidavit by video to accommodate his own schedule.
Little will be gained by me making strongly biased statements so will simply relate my court observations.
“Court is in session, all rise,” the clerk says as Judge Thomas Crabtree enters, laptop in hand and takes his seat. The Judge began by drawing attention to a list of nine items, unresolved issues which still required attention. Mr. Jensen's day might be tidily segmented into two portions, the first walking the Judge through those nine items to get them all out of the way, and then getting to his submission proper.
Finn Jensen demonstrated today that he earns his pay. He was good. I am not saying that I accept all that he says. With reference to exhibits and testimonies and reports and submissions made to the court so far, Jensen gave a well articulated, understandable, plausible and logical presentation of what the judge should permit as evidence and what he should reject. He carefully, no, make that artfully sought to distance the Ministry position from the much maligned Shaken Baby Syndrome (now called Non Accidental Brain Injury), to focus attention on the gravity of a couple of the medical findings with respect to Baby B in October 2007. Those injuries were extremely severe, he told us, and consistent only with non accidental injury. He sought to deflect attention away from Dr. Colbourne as sole proponent of the SBS diagnosis to tell the judge that this was a hospital team effort, a collaboration of expert assessments that resulted in a conclusion that the body of evidence pointed to abuse. At this point, knowing that earlier in the hearing, the CCO affidavit had rested fundamentally upon the SBS diagnosis of Dr. Margaret Colbourne, and listening to him wanting to divest the Ministry of this attachment now, I was struck with the possibility that Mr. Jensen was using word play or creative concepts to say virtually, “okay forget SBS because the injury factors alone are sufficient to convince you that this was not an accident.”
 |
| Beach Bikes, 9X11 oil on canvas, Ron Unruh |
More tomorrow. I would rather have been painting.
"The Ministry Director has concerns that the children's schedules are very full now and three weekly visits of three hours each is difficult to arrange and hard on them."
ReplyDeleteWhat is hard on them is the fact that they have been taken from everything they know and love and forced to live apart from their parents. It's a kind of prison, though they have not done anything wrong, and the parents have - as determined by the police, done nothing wrong. This Ministry does not care. It's truly obscene.
Ron; you say that Finn Jensen QC serves the ministry well. That may or may not be true, but one thing is certain and that is that he serves himself even better. Serving is the right word--serving himself to large helpings of money. He is doing exactly what lawyers are supposed to do and it is the yardstick by which they work.How do they maximise income for themselve and their partners. The QC after his name does not stand for Quakerly Convictions. More like Quick Cash, Quality Clothing or Quantum Cruises. There is a pattern through the whole thing. They rejected his advice to drop the case two years ago and in the process they presented themselves as a cash cow waiing to be milked. Well, moo, moo,moo.
ReplyDeleteI thought at first that all those non-medical witnesses with not a shred of factual evidence to offer must be appearing against the advice of the lawyer. All they did was make the director look bad. Did it worry Jensen that Doug Christie would savage them and then call them back for more. Not a bit. Oh frabjous day; calloo callay! Take all the time you want Doug.Moo, moo, moo.
Did I not tell you that lacking factual evidence, Jensen had little to work with;that he could not make bricks without straw and that he could not spin straw into gold. Well, I was wrong he has proved that he can spin straw into gold. Maybe Rumpelstiltskin was a lawyer? Yes, he can spin straw into gold, but I doubt very much that he can get a continuing care order. From your blog and a conversation with another who attended, I would say that the tactics he is using are very precarious for him. The fabric of his argument may seem brilliant, but the fabric is thin and can easily be torn. Great blog. Keep it up.
In my humble opinion, much of what transpired may have transpired for several reasons and at several levels.
ReplyDeleteThe fact should remain (at least in the US it does). Did abuse occur? And, if it did, who was responsible for same.
Again, was it abuse? Or was it not? That would be the first issue in a US court of law. I would venture to say that Canadian law must read the same, but not being schooled in your country's laws, I don't know.
It goes without saying that it is imperative that all remain calm and focused. It ain't over yet.
Godspeed to the Baynes.
Reader from NYC
to NYC 5:06 PM
ReplyDeleteI am sure our systems are not that unlike one another. What you must understand here is that the current hearing while it certainly is adversarial, is not a criminal case but a civil case. Abuse does not have to be proven. A case does not need to be made beyond all reasonable doubt that this was non accidental. The judge must simply be convinced that the preponderance of evidence suggests that it is more probable than not that there was abuse and therefore that there is risk for the child or children with these parents. Whose story will the judge believe? It comes down to that.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteSame in the US, criminal or civil. In fact, I don't know a whole lot about criminal law as I mostly worked in the civil arena.
And, yes, oddly enough the preponderance of evidence is the same yardstick used in Social Services cases in civil court here in NY.
But, it still comes down to this; was there any abuse to begin with?
It all comes back to that starting point.
As to preponderence of evidence; that doesn't mean the greater amount of evidence (at least not here in the States)what it means is the more viable evidence--quality not quantity.
Don't let the waters get too muddy. Keep it simple.
Very best regards from your Reader in NYC
I have seen CPS make a mountain out of nothing, the amount they are trying to prove their case is a lot like my case. It is a system wherein they try to win the case more than they try to do what is right for the children. I did get my kids back however. I still have not really celebrated because I am still under supervision with many conditions. I am happy however that you have done this blog. At first I could find nothing from anyone who has had trouble from their children being removed, but I think that the more it is shared, it can really help people
ReplyDelete10:57 AM anon
ReplyDeleteYour appreciation is an encouraging incentive. Among the hundreds of comments there are actually a quite a number of writers who write from personal experience. It may not be apparent from a specific message, but over some time I can pick up the cues even with an Anon that tells me enough to identify a familiar story line.