There may be too much talk – too many words. People all over the world are now plugged in. People use words. I am responsible for a certain percentage of these words. Not all of them are helpful. Not all of them were worth the time I spent on them. Most of my words these days find their way online. The world is crowded with words, ideas and opinions. Opinions proliferate. One link leads to another and always we negotiate ideas and opinions. We must possess discernment to navigate our way through all this content. Judge Crabtree has been exercising such discretion as he listened to the words in court presented by Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen and Bayne family counsel Doug Christie. Finn Jensen delivered more words and consumed most of the court time. His word bombardment consisted of opinions. Did you hear that? Opinions! What weight have opinions? Little on their own. An opinion is a belief that upon introduction may not be backed with any type of evidence. An opinion is customarily a subjective statement that is the result of an individual interpretation of data. And that's what we had in Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome – a medical opinion based upon a personal interpretation of medical findings, the presence of a triad of symptoms which when reviewed by other medical experts became evidence pointing at other causes and put the Colbourne opinion into question. The RCMP dismissed the diagnosis as an opinion without evidence, or at least enough evidence with which to proceed. MCFD compelled Finn Jensen to carry the opinion right into a Continuing Care hearing before a provincial judge at the cost of three years of a family's life plus the less important costs of a home and a grand piano and careers to pay legal expenses and tens of thousands of dollars of tax payers money. That opinion had to be buoyed up with other opinions and that is the way Mr. Jensen will finish on the 21st when he takes the day to deliver his summary.
In contrast to an opinion lets look at the fact which is empirically true and which is supported by evidence. The fact is that Baby B sustained injuries that might have been life threatening at one dangerous juncture in time. It's a fact that medical professionals including Dr. Colbourne stepped in with their assorted skills to save her life. It is a fact that neither her mommy or her daddy harmed her by shaking or abusing her. To say otherwise is to state an opinion - that's all it can be, an opinion! Yet it is upon that opinion that the entire Ministry case against the Bayne parents as expressed in the Ministry affidavit is founded. An opinion! It is a fact that there was an unfortunate and not so uncommon household accident when a sibling brother fell on an infant sister and that fact was witnessed by the baby's mother. To state that her injuries were non accidental is merely an opinion. To claim that the baby's mother did not really see the son fall on the sister is an opinion. Neither opinion was or is supportable by evidence. Yet the fact of the unfortunate and life changing accident is supported by the evidence of a personal eye witness. It is a fact that the delay by medical examiners in local clinics and hospitals to properly assess the baby's condition exacerbated the condition which inevitably created her life threatening scenario. This baby's prematurity may have been overlooked as a factor but it ought to have been regarded as a fact which contributed to damage she sustained through an accident rather than an abusive act by a parent.Too many words focused upon opinions sums up the Ministry application for Continuing Care.
Convincing words presenting facts borne out by the incontrovertible evidence is what the Bayne defence summarized.
It's only my opinion. Five Baynes won. Evidence is coming. That's a fact.
You put it so well. People too often confuse opinion with fact and it is a dangerous and harmful thing to do. We need to stop, slow down and look at factual evidence before we start jumping to conclusions. I see it happen over and over and it is just so sad. :( I wish the Bayne family all the best in this, I hope and pray that the FACTS are examined closely and that the children are returned to their rightful place (their home with their loving parents).
ReplyDeleteWe have already seen how "facts" are used. Facts COMBINED with an expert opinion increases the value of those facts. How such facts are weighted, and the arbitrary nature of how this is done is the concern.
ReplyDeleteThe same facts weighed by an expert Dr. Colbourne in her opinion, were more important than the information provided by Paul and Zabeth, who in her mind, have motive to misrepresent their facts.
Perhaps RCMP took a wider view, having Dr. Colbourne's reports, and after extensiveley interviewing the Baynes family and the Hoffmans, weighed circumstantial facts differently.
I look today at the headlines in today's Vancouver Sun online:
"Blood agency can keep gay men from donating blood, judge finds"
and:
"World condemns U.S. Qur'an-burning plans"
In the former, the rights of gay men are deemed less important than the rights of recipients of donors from gay men who "might" be infected. There is a check-box on a Red Cross form, if you are gay, you mark it. If you lie, you can be sued by the Red Cross. Presumably, this releases the Red Cross from vigourous testing procedures of blood, so if someone lies on their form, they have someone to blame if a recipient gets bad blood. A black from Haiti or Africa might also warrant a checkbox in the future. This is how precedents are set.
In the latter story, even the President of the U.S. cannot stop the burning of the Qur'an if the Minister in the story chooses to do so, because this is a freedom of speech issue.
The potential consequences include setting back U.S. and Muslim relations and potentially creating more resentment against the U.S. and creating a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaida.
So, if Paul and Zabeth have their children returned, does this discredit just the doctor who diagnosed shaken baby syndrome, and/or does this put another nail in the coffin of SBS? Does a Provincial judge have this power? Would the ruling allow other parents in the world who did harm their baby and the findings are identical to the Baynes, could they then use this case to escape the consequences?
Conversely, if there is a ruling that validates MCFD's "erring on the side of caution," will it say the cautionary removal was acceptable (as has been previously accepted on this very blog), but the collection of evidence does not meet the higher standard of evidence required to award a CCO?
Meaning, is it perfectly ok to force parents to endure a costly 3-year wait before a trial occurs to so that a judge can rule on the merits of individual cases.
For me this matter is simple. The children should never have been removed in the first place. The RCMP should have interviewed the Baynes while Bethany as still being evaluated in the hospital, and while all three children were still in custody of her parents. The RCMP, in their declaration charges would not be laid, MCFD would be ordered not to intervene.
This business of first removing parents' custodial rights and then deciding it is ok to wait three years for a legal decision while children are busy growing up, is frankly, insane.
My idea of "erring on the side of caution" is letting 100 guilty people free to prevent the danger of convicting an innocent person. The thought is that guilty parties will repeat their crimes and be caught eventually.
Elements of the Baynes story can be seen in both above mentioned news headlines. What we have now is essentially a checkbox MCFD uses for SBS that prevents parents from raising their children.
Parents are rendered powerless to assert their rights to raise their children because MCFD says their children's rights to safety may have been violated. Becuase of this, MCFD then has the right to incur untold financial costs and human misery for years.
The judge surely has been made aware that he needs to consider the larger picture, and the effects of deciding one way or another. It sounds to me like a lot of pressure on this judge.
Is there a way to get ahold of the trascripts of Doug Christie's closing argument and have it posted? I recall the judge stated he would order transcripts of both sides. This would be useful to see online.
ReplyDeleteGee Ron; You make me wonder whether what I had planned to write today is really necessary,but I will have a go anyway.
ReplyDeleteIn less than two weeks Ministry counsel Mr. Finn Jensen must make his final address to the court in the Bayne case. He has a difficult task ahead of him. As he himself stated over two years ago, the ministry cannot succeed with proper defense. Your eloquent essay on facts and opinions today shows the Mr. Jensen must try to make bricks without straw. If we regard the facts as straw. I would prefer to think of the facts as the basis of truth and the truth as being gold. Continuing the theme of straw, the task of Mr. Jensen is to spin straw into gold. He is a very good spinner as we have often seen, but I do not think that spin will carry the day without facts. Maybe he is out searching for Rumpelstiltskin to help him out?
During the recent access hearings, the affidavit of Humeny and Grey re-confirmed that the ministry case rests on the opinion of Dr. Colbourne.That is it. That is the whole case. When numerous experts repudiated this opinion the only evidence the ministry had was rendered fragile. It was made unreliable, questionable doubtful,inadequate. A CCO demands clear and compelling evidence that the parents are beyond redemption. Knowing then that his only evidence would almost certainly fail, why did the director relentlessly pursue the case for three years? Most of you must have asked yourselves the question of what sort of people would do this. What has been the result?
1. He has completely destabilised the care of the Bayne children for three years. 2. He has ripped the boys from safe relative care in the most abrupt and brutal manner. 3. He moved the daughter from a stable home after 18 months and ensured that the children would be in lengthy limbo.4. He has rationalised that this was all in the best interests of the children. 5. He has bankrupted the parents and ensured that they could not afford a legal defense against his assaults. 6.He has treated them like dangerous criminals who would immediately assault their children without draconian supervision. They were constantly threatened with cancellation of visits for any perceived deviation from the stringent rules. 7.They have made gross invasions of privacy by accessing highly confidential information and using it offensively in court. The Baynes would like to know how they got the information and wouldn't we all.8.They have constantly tried to prolong the hearings to make them more difficult. I have already written about the last week of court as a week of dirty tricks when the director once more tried to block conclusion of the case. 9.For almost three years there has been a relentless persecution of the Baynes. Every possible device has been turned into a weapon. All the sections of the CF&CSA that urge timeliness and continuity of care are ignored and the act is used as a weapon. So is the risk assessment device and the mediation process.10 They have now suggested that the Baynes' unborn child is at risk of removal at birth. 11 At the end of it all they say to the Baynes "Trust us, work with us and come to meetings." Do they think the Baynes are stupid?
Anon 10:25 AM - Quick Answer to your Q re: transcripts, I don't know. I will however inquire. I remind you that a capsule of Christie's summation was in the August 13th post, http://ronunruhgps.blogspot.com/2010/08/its-not-over-til-its-over-part-279-for.html
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:24 AM
ReplyDeleteGood for you on this statement, "This business of first removing parents' custodial rights and then deciding it is ok to wait three years for a legal decision while children are busy growing up, is frankly, insane."
It sounds like a big fish little fish scenario, where MCFD is the big fish.
ReplyDeleteI bought a nice looking fish for our tank the other day, and me and my kids witnessed the new fish gobble up a smaller fish, head first. That apparently, was its nature, to acquire an easy meal.
The kids were horrified in winessing this and demanded that I either flush the big fish down the toilet or take it back to the story and get a different fish. Maybe I should have first done my research and first looked up the potential danger the newcomer might have posed to its neighbors, but I never had to do this before.
A second fish was being targeted by the newcomer, and it was clear the smaller had no protection or a hiding spot, so I created such a hiding spot the larger fish could not get into.
Now the fish tank, usually ignored by the kids, is now a source of intense interest, and possibly a source of education, as they kids count the fish each day to ensure no more have been eaten. The big fish has been allowed to live for the time being. The remaining fish have clearly become more vigilant and more active.
The fish were bought as pets, as entertainment, and this they certainly provided.
MCFD and child protection is not going away. It would appear likely it may not be possible to adjust their nature. "Facts" can be manipulated or created to support an objective, which is to remove and keep children for as long as possible.
In my view, the Baynes children appeared to be a valid target for MCFD to acquire, so facts were arranged to make this happen.
Bethany might be harder to see this with, but the two boys, it is more evident MCFD has used creative license to allow them to arrange facts to justify their re-removal and lengthy incarceration.
Isnt the court system partly to blame for the big long 3 year delay? I have done family court before to gain custody of my 3 children. It took forever to get court dates, meanwhile my ex husband who is an alcoholic was allowed visits and even drove while intoxicated with them. Believe me things could not happen fast enough. I felt my kids lives were at stake. and finally 3 years later, a date! And I was awarded full custody and guardianship and could finally be their mother and make safe decisions for them all the time! I know its not the same situation but doesnt anyone think the court system needs help as does MCFD?
ReplyDeleteAnon 7:05 PM, did you have to seek child custody too? Yes, I personally agree that the court is in part responsible for the state we are in. Ministry lawyers know all the angles for extending the cases and judges have little option but to comply.
ReplyDelete