As a sequel to yesterday's post about injustice and wrongful allegation I am revisiting the true and fairly recent story of the Webster family. I told you about them earlier yet please digest this again. It is heart wrenching and maddening and terribly parallel to the family configuration of the Baynes.
It was in 2004 that a court ruled that the Websters had intentionally harmed one of their three children. They had two sons and a daughter. However, three years later, medical and scientific evidence validated that the bone fractures might have resulted from a rare case of scurvy. Scurvy? Yes scurvy. Do you think that might have been discovered if there had been one more medical opinion sought? MAYBE! Lord Justice Wall said: "For Mr and Mrs Webster, the case has been a disaster, quite apart from any breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. ...From their perspective they have been wrongly accused of physically abusing one of their children, and three of their children have been removed wrongly and permanently from their care....The only mitigation, from their point of view, is the local authority's belated recognition that they are fit and able to care for Brandon." But, he ruled, the social workers and medical staff involved in this "unhappy case" were only doing their best for the safety of the injured child. Sure and we admit that with regard to the Baynes in the early stages and weeks of this now three year old case. That Justice then said said that the type of fractures suffered by Child B were closely associated with abuse and non-accidental injuries were much more common than scurvy. And of course in a similar way Baby B Bayne's injuries appeared to be non accidental and to be explained as the result of abuse in the initial findings and diagnosis.
Then the Justice stated one the significant conclusions of that case. "If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual."
Really? How novel! And in the case of the injuries sustained by the Bayne's youngest child, how many opinions did the Ministry of Children's investigative team seek? Oh that's right, ONE - the original diagnosis that prompted the alert.
Then the Justice added: "The medical evidence (scurvy) obtained in 2007 could and should have been obtained by the parents in 2004.” Well blow me down. Here, with respect to the Baynes, the parents themselves have secured ten disputing medical experts and still the MCFD counsel representing the Director wants to discount all of these as hogwash.That is huge, yet why should the accused parents make that discovery rather than the investigators whose job it is to get to the bottom of these cases? Why do the logical aspects of these matters seem so evident to people who are lay to the particular discipline or profession? The last comment is an aside, a venting of an often recurring thought irrelevant to the issue today.
Mark and Nicky launched a legal attempt to regain custody of their children then aged eight, seven and six. The Court of Appeal in Britain ruled that while the removal of the children was possibly wrong, the adoption of those children was final. Their children were removed wrongly and permanently.
But despite an admission that the parents may have been wronged, the Court of Appeal ruled it was too late to turn back the clock because adoption was final.
"However heartbreaking it may be for Mr and Mrs Webster, those orders must stand."
And MCFD would like to say something similar to the Baynes it seems. Regardless of any errors in judgement that we may have made, we acted in good faith, and we still think you are a risk even though we have no real proof, and we know you would like your children back, but TOO BAD SO SAD! Okay, maybe the last bit is overstated.
MCFD and so-called child protection around the world love adoption precisely because it is final. This is what happened to the parents who were wrongly convicted of murdering their own children, and lost their freedom, and their other children (thanks in large part to the testimony of Charles Smith, long regarded as one of Canada's best in the field of forensic child pathology).
ReplyDeleteFor more info on Smith:
http://www.injusticebusters.com/05/Smith_Charles.shtml
It seems like hospitals can be dangerous places for families, and not just because of the risk of infection!
ReplyDeleteOne would concur that if social workers actually had a bachelor of science degree in their field and doctors especially experts actually knew what they were talking about(10%)perhaps we could have stopped this madness long ago. Our government does not protect Canadian children but goes out of their way protecting incompetent social workers, doctors, judges and lawyers. Disgusting.
ReplyDeleteHi Lisa, I understand the emotion that drives the categorical statements that you have just made. Others who leave comments say similar things. What I would like to ask is this. Can you separate yourself enough from the emotion to tell me whether your expression is an exaggerated burst or do you sincerely mean to say or believe that 10% of medical experts know what they are speaking about? And while you didn't say all or most social workers, doctors, judges and lawyers are incompetent, are you suggesting that, or a segment of them are and the government is not adequately protecting Canadians?
ReplyDeleteThis case now rests solely on the judge.
ReplyDeleteI have a concern about this judge coming up on his own with a "last chance" suggestion, which to me is telegraphing that he is thinking of making a finding of "in need of protection."
Is he trying to figure out how craft a judgment that would justify a finding of protection and allow MCFD to save face while still returning the children? I cannot imagine Judge Crabtree being immune to behind the scenes political discussions to convince him to tweak his decision.
I would estimate the ramifications for NOT finding a need of protection would be enourmous. This would mean everything MCFD did in the past three years is wrong. They cannot hide behind "precaution," not for three years.
I realize that there are banker boxes full of evidence, but is it complete? I still have a lot of unanswered questions that MCFD chose not to provide answers to, that would really help clarify motives of them providing so much partial information and then later not backing it up.
If I were the judge, I would not find a need of protection (then, or now) return the kids, request periodic tests to accurately track all aspects of the three children's progress in the Baynes exclusive care for the next year and report back to the judge every 3 months.
MCFD should be given a date by which to find LOCAL medical doctors and biomechanical experts NOT affiliated with child protection and preferably NOT located in the Children's Hospital to dispute, or agree with each and every one of the Bayne's experts.
The non-medical sources of the Glutaric Aciduria and Cerebral Palsy are examples of significant unknowns MCFD chose not to provide medical cooberation for. The judge can order these and other matters clarified (I'm not sure why he did not order this clarification during trial.)
Also, I would order MCFD to acquire further clarification of the bone breaks that MCFD is trying to associate with Bethany's head injuries. When exactly did they occur; during childbirth, in the hospital, at home? Is it due to brittle bones, inadequate feeding or vitamins, a genetic condition, the drugs that were prescribed to mom and child?
If there is sufficient DOUBT in these areas, the benefit should go to the Baynes, because there is no sufficient cooberating evidence that supports Doctor Colbourne's non-expert opinion. Probability and ongoing suspicion is inappropriate; it is "guilty" or "not guilty" period. There is no "maybe guilty" or "just in case guilty."
If years later, tests can be done that would serve to have changed the decision, it stands to reason that there should be an order to have these tests conducted FIRST, before making such drastic non-reversable orders.
Ron
ReplyDeleteI stand by my word emotional or not. Judge Crabapple should and could have put an end to this fiasco long ago!
Well Lisa, I think you know his name is Thomas Crabtree rather than Crabapple. And I published your comment this time only because I want to underscore that NO THIS JUDGE COULD NOT HAVE ENDED THIS FIASCO LONG AGO. If he had not permitted Jensen to play the Ministry cards for as long as he did, this case would be appealed until the children reached the age of majority. My own take is that this is a highly principled and astute judge and he is seeking to be fair. So you might say, will I still say that if he rules against the Baynes? Valid question. Only time will tell I guess.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances of getting MCFD to agree to a family member adopting a child? I am asking from my own situation. My child is with my mom but under guardianship of MCFD. I do not want to keep going with MCFD connected to us. Are they open to that? Or is it a point of theirs to put the child in a fmaily they do not know already. I find it strange how high handed they are in changing foster families with children. As if the parents treated the child so badly that whatever MCFD does has to be better. Since, it is obviously very damaging to go with so many strangers. My daughter had so many people taking care of her when she was in foster care. It was all to protect 'confidentiality' of foster parents, etc., but not in best interests of the child!!!!
ReplyDeleteI would like someone online with greater understanding of MCFD practice and policy to speak to your adoption question.
ReplyDelete"It doesn't matter if Milgaard is innocent. . . The whole judicial system is at issue - - it's worth more than one person." Serge Kujawa, Saskatchewan Crown Prosecutor speaking regarding a review of a wrongful conviction of murder against David Milgaard-- the conviction from which he was completely vindicated later.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, things are just astonishing in our legal and political systems. Everyone should read about this case on injusticebusters.com
How about an attitude change, please, guys!!!
I pray that Judge Crabtree is cut from a different piece of cloth than that prosecutor from Saskatchewan!!
Ron, WHOOPS... I think I said in my post a few min ago Sask Judge but it should have been prosecutor! If I did, would you change it for me. thanks! BERNICE
ReplyDeleteI heard something to the effect that 50% of people who walk out of doctor's offices are undiagnosed, so I do believe that diagnosis - or lack of it - is a huge problem.
ReplyDeletePeople who have had any experience with the medical system know how much of a problem diagnosis is - most people have had relatives die because of a misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose, so I think it is not that far off to say that only a small percentage of medical professionals really are very competent.
And after all, when we have someone who is considered to be a national expert on pediatric forensics, and he can't even tell the difference (supposedly) between a dog bite and scissor wounds, we shouldn't be so cynical about cynical statements about the medical profession. I refer of course the Charles Smith, (formerly Dr. Charles Smith), whose testimony led to many parents being falsely accused of murder, and losing their children.
The problem in Canada is that even if you do sue a doctor, the judgment is paltry. If you could really win a sizeable award, doctors would be more careful no doubt.
ReplyDeleteMost Medical Injuries Preventable
ReplyDeleteA famous study by Harvard Medical School determined that over half of all injuries caused by medical mismanagement (in other words, not caused by the patient’s initial injury or disease) were preventable, and another quarter of those incidents were caused by negligence.
Canadian Medical Association Report
A report published by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Journal confirmed the findings of similar studies in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Denmark and New Zealand.
The C.M.A. study concluded that:
1. As many as 24,000 patients die each year due to “adverse events” (doctor’s code word for a bad result or a mistake).
2. 87,500 patients admitted annually to Canadian acute care hospitals experience an adverse event.
3. 1 In 13 adult patients admitted to a Canadian hospital encounter an adverse event.
4. 1 in 19 adults will potentially be given the wrong medication or wrong medication dosage.
5. 37% of adverse events are “highly” preventable.
6. 24% of preventable adverse events are related to medication error.
People in posession of stolen property don't get to keep it once police have located it, so why should an adoption stand if it was illegally obtained? Also, don't the children still get the benefit of their birth family's estate?
ReplyDeleteIf the logic parents rights encompass children's rights when there is no abuse, this would appear to fall into the category of unreasonable search and seizure.
Children often seek out their parents when they grow up. These kids need to understand that they were stolen from their birth parents, and they should be able to claim damages from the government.
These parents know they and their children have been wronged and the law is wrong, the appeal court is wrong.
As with the Baynes, the Webster's children should not have been removed in the first place, and it was because child protection has an agenda to remove children, and they deliberately avoid avenues of investigation that would prove the removal is wrong.
Capitol punishment is now abolished in many areas of the world, so shoul termination of parental rights without consent.
If you buy a stolen car, no matter how much you pay, and no matter how ignorant or careful you were about its provenance, if it turns out to be stolen - too bad, so sad! - it gets returned to its rightful owner. Not so with children though, even though they are the most precious possession one could ever have.
ReplyDeleteAmazing...I have a similar battle with CFPS in Halifax, but I've flat out made it clear that they would have to take my children, I will never...ever concede to turning custody over to them.
ReplyDelete