Fact: Baby B was born healthy although somewhat premature August 2007 and she progressed well in following weeks.
Evidence: Baby B's development was charted and confirmed by weekly visits to the family doctor.
Fact: An event, a trauma, an impact, a significant physical experience occurred that dramatically affected Baby's B's well-being.
Evidence: In October 2007 Baby B was taken by parents to local hospitals, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford to discover why she began to exhibit listlessness, loss of appetite and feeding, chronic vomiting and resultant weight loss.
Fact: Over several days the area hospitals failed to adequately identify Baby B's issues but sent her home without remedy.
Evidence: The symptoms continued for several days, and hospital and doctors records disclose the days that several examinations took place until the final referral to Children's Hospital, Vancouver.
Fact: Extensive examinations at Children's Hospital Vancouver in October 2007 revealed Baby B had serious injuries, skull fracture, retinal hemorrhaging and brain hemorrhage and fractured femur.
Evidence: Hospital and Doctors' records contain the findings with dates and times.
Fact: Injuries required explanation and the Baynes' 2007 story of an accidental fall of a toddler sibling on the infant did not convince medical professionals.
Evidence: A couple of the doctors reports and the RCMP and MCFD 2007 reports contain the Baynes' story of a fall of one child on the infant.
Fact: The injuries were of a nature which the attending medical professionals customarily associate with abuse by care providers.
Evidence: The Child Protection department of the hospital notified RCMP and MCFD.
Fact: Paul and Zabeth in 2007 were horrified at the implication that they had harmed their infant and insisted that they were innocent of abuse to their child and their story has never changed.
Evidence: Their attested innocence has been recorded in every record that pertains to this case from 2007 to the present time 2010.
Fact: In spite of arresting and interrogating the Baynes, the RCMP dismissed the case as one for which there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge of abuse or assault.
Evidence: The Baynes were released in within hours in 2007, their fingerprints and photos were discarded and the case as an aggravated assault has never been revisited.
The expectation is that the Ministry of Children will also operate from a fact base, evidence base. MCFD is people. Did they? Have they? OR, is there a proclivity for opinion and probability when it suits them, that is, when the fact and evidence is absent.
Looks like there was enough evidence to bring this former MCFD supervisor to trial:
ReplyDeleteTimes Colonist September 30, 2010
Richard Ernest Wainwright, a former supervisor in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, has elected to be tried by a provincial court judge.
Wainwright was fired from his job seven months after the personal information of government clients was found in his home. He has since been charged with fraud and forgery for allegedly getting his government job under false pretenses.
A pretrial conference has been set for Oct. 18, 2010.
Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Judge+former+official+fraud/3601807/story.html#ixzz11Iuj4ZdL
This earlier article explains how this former MCFD supervisor was caught:
ReplyDelete...on Feb. 13 (2009), Richard Ernest Wainwright walked into an ICBC customer centre to renew his licence and pose for a new photograph, according to the information police used to obtain a search warrant.
A short time later, ICBC's facial-recognition software matched his picture to an expired learner's licence in the name of Richard Ernest Perran, the documents say.
ICBC's special investigations unit was alerted and a special constable "physically compared the photographs of Richard Ernest Perran to Richard Ernest Wainwright and felt that both driver record photographs were of the same person," the search warrant documents show.
Investigators later discovered that Wainwright had a criminal record, and that he was working for the provincial government under the name Perran.
In April, the RCMP obtained a warrant to search Wainwright's house where, among other things, they discovered personal information on 1,400 income-assistance clients.
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=2301600
You have to wonder why and MCFD employee would have the records of welfare recipients IN HIS HOME.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's also worth noting that:
"... the case has embarrassed the government, in part because it took nearly seven months to fire Wainwright and alert the clients about the breach."
Ron; I should put some of my comments and that of other bloggers yesterday into perspective. It is an absolute atrocity that the Bayne children should be in care for three years. It is an atrocity that it took two and one half years to get their first meaningful day in court. It is an atrocity that they should be supervised at all for three years. So it is an atrocity that they should be supervised at home and you and all your other commentators were right. It is just a lesser atrocity than six hours on the street, or in church basements.
ReplyDeleteIf we look for intelligence, integrity, compassion or courage on the part of the ministry staff, we look in vain. What do we see?
How was the baby's leg broken?
ReplyDeleteYeah, how was Bethanys leg broken? Oh and her arm, but thats not documented and few people know about that. Oh and how about Baden, how come he had several broken bones? Osteopoenia? Maybe, but not confirmed. Argue if you must. Mom agrees her children were given vitamin D. Osteopoenia would be a slight possibilty for Baden but unlikely for Bethany. She wasnt born super preemie, 34 weeks gestation is a little early but many children are born early and they dont present with broken bones as well as skull fractures, retinal hemorhaging and brain hemorrage! And they arent blind from their injury for nearly 6 months. And they hold their head up by a few months old. Not Bethany, she was well into her 9th month before she could do that. And little Baden, so he fell on Bethany right? Thats the story. So let me get this straight, he fell and his head hit the babys head who was on the floor? So where were the bumps from that collision? Certainly there would be some sort of marks on at least one of the children, after all this baby was severely injured. We arent talking a normal bump on the head such as children get from playing etc. We are talking serious injuries that almost caused that baby death. Like the neurosurgeon said "One more night in this condition and this baby would likely not have survived" Do you not see how this story is unbelievable? But the SW's are enemies and MCFD is corrupt, and the Foster Parents are abusers. Good grief, NO system is perfect but those children were not physically injured by any of them! I know this is going to upset many of the Baynes supporters but you know what? The most important people in this whole thing are the kids, they deserve someone to look at BOTH sides. All of it, painful or not.
ReplyDeleteCW,
ReplyDeleteAren't you the same CW that has been posting all along, in which case this "broken leg" business has been covered for you, I would have thought.
You seem, from your comments, to be trying to cast doubt upon the Baynes, under the pretence of objectively searching for the truth. This "broken leg" issue was covered long ago, however; and I seem to remember you being in the loop at that time, so I wonder why you are bringing it up now.
CW:
ReplyDeleteYou once wrote that you will not comment anymore but now you do. When will people in your industry learn how to live up to your promises? I guess you are getting so itchy or your damage control job that compels you to cast doubt again, even on Sundays.
Doubt is the main product of the "child protection" industry. This is all they need to continue their hideous activities both in court and to deceive people to support retaining their child removal authority.
They are extremely tactful by posting short comments like WCB regulation to defend entering a clean family home with their street shoes, a baby's broken leg to suggest guilt. Have you heard about shoe sheath or cover that contractors use indoor? Is MCFD short of funds to buy these cheap items while there is funds to continue paying Finn $400 an hour to drag on the case at our expense? If there is enough evidence because of the baby's broken leg, lay a criminal charge on the parents. Does the police or the Crown approve this? If not, stop using this blog as a platform to cast doubt.
Supervised visits and home studies are absurd inventions used by social parasites to fish for information, intimidate and inconvenience parents. Parents under their scrutiny can forget about all their civil rights and liberty.
CFCSA allows SW to play god, abuse their power by using children as pawn. They act on their opinions, perception and feelings. "Facts" are often mixed with some truth, inconclusive information and sometimes outright lies, malice and fabrications. Yet, they could scoop up your children at will for a few years with little reliable evidence, continue to harm families and humiliate parents without any personal repercussion.
The WLKY Louisville TV news footages below confirm the foregoing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAnjp7OnxNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHw_kbsAZ6A
There is no way to protect families and children from abuses and atrocities of this nature without killing CFCSA and revoking general child removal authority. The world will be better, safer and fairer without this infamous industry. Let's get our head straight and get on with this.
Which break are you speaking of, the fracture on which baby, Bethany or Baden the year or so earlier?
ReplyDeleteThe question is clearly absolutely valid. What would the motive be for breaking your silence these many months and asking the question now rather than long before?
Another question I have that is equally valid is why MCFD would write a letter threatening to take away the Baynes as-yet unborn child, if indeed that information is correct, and legs have not yet been broken (but presumably, MCFD might assume this MIGHT happen.)
The better question might be why, even now, has the question of the bone break not been adequately answered by the medical community with their SBS theory.
Don't legs just dangle when parents are busy abusively shaking their child?
This would give rise to speculation of a second non-accidental injury event in order for MCFD to assign a higher probability of abuse. So, in the one month or so Bethany was home, this child has one, or two non-accidental injury events?
The next question is if the RCMP had all of this information, and the additional useful theory of Mike Hoffman's Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy explanation, why didn't they find enough evidence of abuse to charge the Baynes? Why not just do a secret investigation and plant bugs in the home, or plan a police informant to elicit a confession, just to be sure?
Why, if MCFD was convinced that Bethany was abused and, as they stated in court the boys were also at risk because of this, why would they allow the parents to move in with children's grandparents home where the boys were placed so that they had unsupervised access? Their bones would eventually be broken too, would they not?
With Bethany's regular checkups and constant visits to doctors, how did so many of these medical professionals MISS a femur fracture for so long? Wouldn't the baby be in extreme pain and the leg be bruised or painful to the touch at the time it occurred, and would not doctors have noticed this? Would a vitamin deficiency or some other explanation also suffice?
Is there an possibility the fracture happened in the hospital before being released? Or, is there a possibility Bethany sufferred the same conditions as Baden with his bone break?
If indeed MCFD has this great and irrefutable evidence, then their follow-up actions and delay then becomes the focal point. Shuffling the children from four foster homes and waiting 2-1/2 years for a trial date is a greater example of abuse and beaurocratic incompetance that far outweighs what MCFD is touting "may" have happened in the month period Bethany was at home with their parents, and what "may" happen in the future.
The next question would be, is the broken femur tied to the impact event (or Dr. Colbourne's claim of baby shaking). I read no information from biomechanical experts on what non-accidental action on the part of parents would be necessary to cause the fracture of just the leg.
Perhaps CW, you could theorize why the Baynes explanation should be discounted, having read through the various bits of evidence posted on this blog.
How about that story on Richard Ernest Wainwright? That is fascinating to see that just by changing my last name I can be a supervisor with access to the private information tens of thousands of citizens.
10:01 AM Sunday, I published your comment.
ReplyDeleteOthers may have wanted to voice similar questions. Other readers will take serious exception to what you say. As you say, it may upset supporters a good deal to hear your insinuations, but perhaps the qualification of knowing that you were one of the foster parents in this situation may help to explain your comment. Your comment is what it is because of that vested interest. This is the 327th blog post on this case and within that body of work are all the explanations you or any one else requires to answer your queries. I do not intend to be a question and answer machine. The medical reports of doctors have been openly and honestly presented. The contesting reports of experts who are experts in bio-mechanics and other disciplines have also been presented and they are satisfied to explain how impact collision can produce some injuries you have mentioned. There is no answer to give to your exaggerations, such as the boys' several broken bones, other than there never were several and the one problematic bone injury was explained by a neutral specialist as part of his congenital issues. You omit far too factors within those disputing reports in your rush to judgement. You have not heard me say foster parents are abusers as it relates to this case. I have not called the MCFD corrupt although some commenters certainly do. Nor have I called SWs enemies because I know that is not true in this complicated, sensitive, emotional protection system. And I have certainly not contended that any of these professionals have in any way been responsible for injury to one these three children.
Reality check. Bayne children were brought to the Doctors..how many times? None of them identified a serious critical illness in an infant? Read up on known side effects of prematurity and the medical interventions. Read also the actual films of broken bones...pathology in canada has been undefire for missing/misdiagnosing patients for years now. Was it Dr Charles Smith et al that was WRONG 40% of the time, in pediatric cases? Give your head a shake, there are humans involved here..humans make mistakes.
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:12 AM
ReplyDeleteThe two web links you have provided to us are images and stories that are positively frightening.
Please do not associate me with Anon 10:01.
ReplyDeleteI asked a question because I was wondering. No subtext. I truly don't know how her leg was broken. I did not read the comments some anon have posted toward me. I asked a simple question and request nothing more than a simple answer.
Two comments:
ReplyDeleteI played with and held Bethany when she was "blind" according to the MCFD. What a crock! She looked at me and smiled and she reached for toys that I put out in front of her while I was holding her. Interesting, huh?!
Also, it was said in court that Bethany while in the foster mothers care fell back and hit her head. Hmmmm....doesn't this just tell us that these things happen, even in foster care, wow!
Time for the MCFD to own up and stop twisting everything. MaryEllen
Further to Anon 10:01 AM BROKEN BONES
ReplyDeleteThe middle Boy whom you named did not have several broken bones...At his sixth month he was suddenly crying inconsolably and as he squirmed parents noticed his arm hung limply. Tests at hospital revealed a fracture. A subsequent study however identified prematurity of bones in the child. Nevertheless, a Bayne file had begun in the MCFD database.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFor anon 10.01, I would like to repeat something that I have said two or three times before. It was the ministry lawyer Finn Jensen himself who told the ministry that they did not have a case. In July 2008 he told the director that as there had been no criminal charges, they could not get an order with proper defense. The evidence would not sustain it. He advised them to return the two boys immediately and to return the girl if all went well. He had access to all records and if the evidence did not convince him, why is it that you no so much more?
ReplyDeleteCW of 7:58 AM and 3:42 PM
ReplyDeleteThere is no confusion.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteKD here. Can't believe I'm responding again, after I told myself not to bother - nobody listens anyway. I was the one holding Bethany. She fell backwards about six inches, landing on the floor (I was crouched down on the floor with her). The hood from her winter coat cushioned her fall. She didn't cry. There were no bruises, bumps, bleeds, redness, nothing. There was no doctors' visit, no emergency visit. There was nothing to investigate. If there were ever any serious injuries in my home, of course there would be an investigation. As there should be. I'm always puzzled and a little defensive listening to the level of animosity towards myself and other foster parents. Takes my breath away actually. I would be ashamed to be linked to any of the venomous bloggers on this site - sadly, many are Christians - how embarrassing as a fellow Christian to see such nastiness.
Hello KD - One person raised a recollection of a fall backward while in foster care, and that comment and commenter were not nasty as I read the comment. I can understand the defensiveness that you feel however, and the need for clarification. That's the nature of this uncomfortable situation for so many people - Statements made, Offence taken, Defense offered. Thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the Baynes have been innocent of any wrongdoing as they maintain, can you even imagine what it is like to sit for so many days and listen silently to the allegations made against you with ostensibly persausive arguments.
Ron,
ReplyDeleteTo your last point, no, I cannot imagine.
It leaves me wondering though, why, then, in their YouTube video and other times, they have done the same thing - accusing me or my family of things that are outrageously untrue - with absolutely NO evidence. The truth is, I had absolutely no opinion about their innocence or guilt until I watched the YouTube video, and saw them looking straight into the camera lens telling complete untruths. That moment gave me goosebumps, because they knew and I knew their allegations were completely unfounded, and yet they continued to repeat them.
The comment I was responding to was the one in which the blogger was suggesting that my children and the Bayne children should have been removed if I was so careless to let Bethany fall - sarcastic for sure, but completely nasty. I don't see the comment anymore - I notice you removed one - perhaps it was the one I'm referrinfg to?
KD
I just made a post (not long) and when I went to post it, it went to some strange webpage and did not, apparently, get posted. I think I lost my post, which is annoying. Just so you know.
ReplyDeleteKD,
ReplyDeleteHow come you get off scot free (except for a few posters on a blog), but if a real parent made the same claim, they'd lose their children? And how come - given the fact that parents have lost their children for doing less than you did to Bethany, you can't understand their animosity? I would have thought, as a foster parent, you'd be a sympathetic person, a person who can empathize with people. Why can't you get why these parents would be so hurt and angry? Why would you be so "puzzled" by their pain and angry. I am truly puzzled, by you.
KD 4:06 PM and Anon 5:08
ReplyDeleteFor you and other readers, I want to be understood. KD I will receive a response if you want to make one to the last comment. Anyone else, I will not be receiving any comments directed at KD because that is not where this blog is going.
And KD, you wondered about the comment to which you were responding. I can say that some comments have been removed as part of the editing process. While filtered before posting, if a later review reveals something distasteful by my subjective standard, I remove it - so be it.
ReplyDeleteThe comment I was responding to was the one in which the blogger was suggesting that my children and the Bayne children should have been removed if I was so careless to let Bethany fall - sarcastic for sure, but completely nasty. I don't see the comment anymore - I notice you removed one - perhaps it was the one I'm referring to?
KD 5:08
ReplyDeleteKD, please listen to this. Your sense of offense is misplaced. I have learned that the Youtube video about which you speak, consisted of recorded comments that Paul and Zabeth made about their concerns for their children at a time when none of them were in your care. You were not the caregiver then.
The author, Ron Unruh, does not give his definition of what is fact and what is evidence.
ReplyDeleteWhat he says as belonging to fact can belong to evidence and vice-versa.
And no one can be any wiser on what is the difference between fact and evidence.
Dear author, please think more precisely about what you know to be fact and and what you know to be evidence, and thus readers can know what precisely you mean by fact and what you mean by evidence, instead of seeing that in your words on each, they are interchangeable.
Thank you odrareg Feb 9
ReplyDeleteYour comment is respected.
If the blog post were not over one year old and the case was not already settled, I might redress the piece.