The coverage by CBC of the Bayne Campaign for Justice already aired a couple of segments well over one year ago. You can be assured that when Judge Crabtree rules on this case within the next couple of months, it will be national news once again. Whichever way the ruling falls, it will be newsworthy. If, as I personally hope and as many observers believe, the ruling will restore the three small children to their biological parents, it is possible that their story will prompt not only journalistic investigation but also official investigation into Ministry of Children practice. It is now closing on three years that Paul and Zabeth Bayne's three children have been in the care of the B.C. Ministry of Children. No one alleges that Children's Hospital, medical professionals, MCFD and RCMP responded incorrectly when they were initially presented with concern that a child had been harmed by a parent or parents. There was cause for suspicion. RCMP dropped the case. MCFD has never changed its mind. For that matter neither has the doctor upon whose diagnosis the MCFD has rested its affidavit for Continuing Care of all three children.
The Ministry could have changed its mind however when numerous other medical experts disputed the original diagnosis and offered explanation for the child's injuries which are consistent with accident rather than inflicted injury, and consistent with existing conditions inherent with prematurity of birth. These opinions were not acquired by MCFD as a means of testing the accuracy of the original diagnosis. These were obtained by the Baynes who sought explanation themselves for the gravity of the injuries sustained by their child not through shaking by one of them but possibly by the accidental fall of a sibling on the child whose condition might already have been weakened by premature birth. Long ago the Baynes submitted these experts' reports to MCFD. The Ministry could have changed its mind by assessing risk based upon an unbiased but accurate appraisal of character, of history of parental performance, of attestations by hundreds of people who communicated with the Ministry on behalf of the Baynes. The Ministry could have changed its mind but instead regarded every effort by the Baynes to establish their innocence and to recover their children as further evidence of their guilt and liability.Here are links to previous and now dated CBC stories.
1. Story: Most recently at start of hearing in January Surrey Couple Challenge Shaken Baby Allegation
2. VIDEO: Kathy Tomlinson reports: Ministry disregarded advice to return seized children (Runs 2:36)
3. Kathy Tomlinson in a 3 min 27 sec video piece entitled “Surrey parents fight for return of 3 seized children.”
4. Printed Copy - “Surrey parents fight for return of 3 seized children.” Last Updated: Thursday, March 5, 2009 | 9:40 PM PT
5. VIDEO: Surrey parents talk about their seized children (Runs 7:15)
6. April 2 2009 article - Birth parents plead for medical treatment for baby girl in foster care
7. April 3 2009 Ministry disregarded legal advice to return seized children
The most recent story CBC did is missing. January 14, 2010 was the first day of the trial.
ReplyDeleteSurrey couple challenge shaken baby allegation
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/14/bc-shaken-baby-court-case-surrey-chilliwack.html
I note CBC showed up with a film crew the first day of the trial. I watched them as they did several on-camera interviews of the Baynes, Doug Christie and Ray Ferris, but they did not use the footage.
ReplyDeleteThe Baynes name is not mentioned in this print-only story because there is a reference to a court-ordered ban on publication. However, I know Judge Crabtree lifted the ban, and the Ministry decided not to contest it.
CBC included a linked a story to Dr. Charles Smith, one of the "four Canadians with the expertise" (1999 Fifth Estate story) that allows him to determine the difference between shaken baby syndrome and a fall from a high chair. I would imagine this would mean Dr. Margaret Colbourne is one of these four rare individuals that can discern from shaken baby and impact accidents. The parents affected in this case each could receive up to $250,000 for Dr. Smith's faulty diagnosis.
It is interesting to note Dr. Colbourne appears in only one CBC story in 2007, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/06/12/bc-inquest.html
By searching shaken baby and abusive head trauma, one can see numerous stories of child protection problems around the country that put people through hell. See one from Newfoundland, for example, a babysitter than had her children taken away, "Family torn apart by child abuse accusation seeks answers" http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/11/18/nl-duggan-child-181109.html
When you go through some of these stories, it becomes really apparent how far off the mark doctors and child protection authorities were in not considering the larger numbers of factors that should have caused at least one person to severely question the diagnosis and at least consider the Baynes explanation to be more appropriate.
See, for example, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/02/29/qc-shakenbabydeath0229.html ""Warrants issued for parents in shaken baby death" in February of 2008 in Montreal.
Near the bottom of the story are risk factors that help to profile those who shake babies. None of which fit the Baynes family.
"The head trauma triggered by shaken baby syndrome can cause brain damage, paralysis and sometimes death.
Dr. Gilles Fortin, a pediatrician and neurologist, said shaken baby syndrome is the most common cause of death among children under the age of one.
He estimates that about 115 cases are reported across Canada each year, with about 30 in Quebec.
"But there are many others that are never reported or diagnosed," Fortin cautioned.
Of the reported cases, one third die and a third will suffer long-term injuries such as blindness or seizures. The remaining children may show no symptoms until later in life.
"We find this more in younger, inexperienced parents, often with the first child," said Fortin.
"It's often isolated parents who have no family or anyone around them to support or help them."
As can be clearly seen, nothing adds up to support the extraordinary efforts of doctors and ministry employees to continue persecuting the Baynes family for this long.
My impression is that the the Ministry was working to return the children after RCMP failed to file charges. A single individual (is it John Fitzsimmons?) who made the decision to remove the boys after the first news story broke, obligated everyone involved (except the police) to support the shaken baby diagnosis simply in an attempt to save face.
There is no question an inquiry needs to be conducted, given the magnitude of malice that has emanated from the Ministry and the time and costs the government is clearly willing to expend to avoid culpability in this case.
Thanks for the additional link Anon 10:34 AM. It is first of the list now.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:52 I am finding your supplied links very helpful to me.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I believe that criminal charges are warranted for the actions of the MCFD. I don't say this an an enraged and irrational perspective but rather from a rational point of righteous indignation. Even the police cannot hide behind their shield if they act outside of the boundaries of the law while performing their jobs. The individual who committed the entire resources of the Ministry, and all of the people then forced to enforce their decision, should be held accountable for what they have done. It seems fairly obvious that someone avoided reason and facts when shaken baby syndrome was disproven - and by the simple fact that they chose to not seek a 2nd medical opinion.
ReplyDeleteIn one case that I was involved with the Ministry refused to return a child because it was not in their budget to get a psych evaluation for the parent. So the supporters of the parent raised the funds and paid for it. But the Ministry refused to accept it because they had not chosen the evaluator. So they paid for a Ministry approved evaluator to conduct another psych evaluation. Only for that to be ignored because they had not initiated it. Then, they refused to accept it because they didn't have the funds to get a similar evaluation done by the foster parents. When the court date rolled around, a new lawyer was assigned 2 hours before the court date and because she wasn't given an updated evaluation by the Ministry - even though a physical copy was handed to her by the opposing counsel - she was unable to use it because, again, she wasn't provided it by the Ministry. Stall tactics that are designed to make the parents give up hope and run out of time and money. I believe these actions warrant criminal actions as they equate to stealing children from their parents. The social worker in that particular case actually stated that it didn't matter what the judge said, they could make the transition back to the parents last 2 years if they wanted to. These actions that seem to inflate their position above the law and the courts are criminal.
When the RCMP dropped all charges and the shaken baby medical results were dis proven repeatedly, the case should have been dropped. Saving face is not a defense for the actions of the Ministry.
It is regretful that these types of actions are repeated over and over again without any consequences or implications. And the more it continues without being checked, the more flagrant the actions - or inactions - of the Ministry become. This is too bad because it reflects poorly on the people who genuinely do a good job and try to help families.
To be succinct - there is a criminal charge for assaulting an officer 'in the course of his duty'. If it's proven that the officer operated outside of their duty, the charge is reduced to plain assault. Nurses who have operated outside of the parameters of their job have been charged and sued. Doctors have malpractice insurance for this purpose. Why are social workers exempt? Given the parameters of this case, where the individuals involved refused to get a second medical opinion, which would have been prudent - and then when multiple contradictory opinions were introduced, they still refused to see logic and reason - why should they be exempt?
ReplyDeleteContinuing to continue with the removal of these children should result in criminal charges against the individuals from the Ministry who are responsible.
I suspect a criminal charge on anyone involved might be iffy. Charges would likely be stayed anyways, and MCFD would continue going about their business. If operatives were forging documents on a large scale, perhaps charges would be warranted.
ReplyDeleteMy impression of the approach the Ministry has used is that they have an eye on a longer term objective, and that is to discourge a civil lawsuit. Finn is using this trial as a mechanism to accomplish this.
Mr. Doug Christie's approach is simply to point to the illogic and rights-violation processs used by the Ministry's in order to obtain an immediate return of the children. There is no planning for a later lawsuit.
If a lawsuit lawyer similar in skill level to Mr. Christie were to come forward and offer their services to the Baynes, a jury trial targeting the overkill approach the Ministry has used against these citizens would be ideal. A ten million dollar award would certainly accomplish a deterrent effect.
If you will recall Berhe Gulbot's testimoney, I had the distinct impression he was being exceedingly careful to lay out a sequence of events that would make it appear that their involvment was to correctly follow the sequence of CFCSA in checking off each avenue to be used before 'last resort' removal was done, and to establish prior concern and profiling of this family that justified their actions. Therefore, there is nothing to sue against. The same deal with Dr. Colbourne, she just checked off the various boxes that constituted a shaken baby diagnosis. Considerable research would have to be done to examine how many shaken baby diagnosis' were made at the children's hospital, the disposition of the children and people involved over the past five to ten years.
Consider the Baynes case from an MCFD perspective:
- Prior protection concerns. (with one boy a year earlier)
- Another protection report from impeccable witness (Hoffman stating boys are thin and Bethany is listless)
- Services offerred and accepted.
- Implication: depite offering of services, a further protection report
- Protection report from Colbourne
- Removal
The kind and no-alternative approach of the Ministry:
- returned the boys as no evidence of harm exists
- Baynes betrayed Ministry trust with publicity and breach of privacy with children in custody of the Ministry,
- a full month allowed by MCFD before a no-other-alternative removal of the boys due to refusal of Baynes to move out of family home after privacy breach occurred.
- full array of services given to 3 children (far more than the Baynes could handle on their own)
- agreement for out-of-facility visitations
- agreement for expanded access
- Difficult, uncooperative and publicity hungry family makes poor Ministry's job much harder
- Children have to be moved often partly due to damaging publicity cause by the Baynes
In short, the Ministry is portraying themselves as just doing their job and continually being backed into a corner while doing it.
The job of publicity, should they rise to accept the challenge, is to try to set the stage to point out the faults of the Ministry with a thorough reporting of the judge's decision. This will help families in the future that encounter a similar situation.
As one person from the U.K. pointed out, many parents are waiting for the outcome of this case because it can be used as a precident to guide the outcome of future such cases in other areas of the world.
My friends who know what I have been through are outraged asked me if I will sue. I can not sue MCFD, it is not possible. They can not be sued. I looked up child protection in Alberta and it is much more progressive than B.C.
ReplyDeleteThe ministry has schooled their SW in tactics that they do not want anyone to know about. I was unaware of how bad it had gotten until it came to me. In the past services were given without it being a big deal. Now they want it to be a criminal thing every time. What an odd situation 'services being offered' involuntarily as a probation type of thing for parents. Are these real services or punishments???
ReplyDelete