Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Time for another Global TV Story/ Part 362 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne
This Global news story was first aired on May 19th, 2008. In it Zabeth and her little daughter are spending some valuable time together during a visitation. The Baynes' family physician, Dr. Patricia Blackshaw is interviewed and speaks highly of the Baynes as principled people and very good parents. Quotations from several medical experts are displayed and read to the viewer contesting the initial diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome. The Baynes have vehemently denied harming their child, and yet all three of their children were taken. This was a very inferior investigative job by MCFD employees. When the news story aired, much time had already passed since the children were removed from their parental home on October 22, 2007. Two more years have come and gone and the Baynes and thousands of supporters in this region and across Canada and in several countries are trusting that by January 2011, this entire family will be together and re-establishing themselves in their own home. Judge Thomas Crabtree has received the Baynes' lawyer's final rebuttal of Ministry counsel Finn Jensen's court case summation and will render a ruling within several weeks. During this past year, Zabeth became pregnant with their fourth child. She is into her sixth month. And the primary social workers in this case are now trying to involve themselves in this yet unborn child's life. This is the stuff that makes the thousands of people suspicious and condemning of a Ministry that is mandated to care and to help. This is far beyond propriety by this regional MCFD staff. This is malicious tampering and interference. Right-minded people everywhere say this has gone on long enough. Judge Crabtree must instruct MCFD to get out of the Baynes' lives.
18 comments:
I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is no mention of the boys in this clip as it focuses on the Ministry's refusal to return Bethany.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the boys were place with the grandparents when Bethany was removed on October 22, 2007.
Bethany's "serious" injury could not be so serious since the released her the next day into the care of a foster home.
Today, we see through photos on the Bayne's facebook page all three children are smiling, happy and well bonded with the parents. Bethany is not "blind" as testified by social workers, neither does she wear glasses as one boy does, and she walks fine without braces. There is no mention of the cerebral palsy diagnosis from the social worker's recent affidavint in Finn's closing argument. Lack of any mention of brain injury is very curious.
I gather MCFD would have no way of policing whether or not the Baynes visited the home of the grandparnets where their boys were staying. A week later, a mediation agreement with the parents gave them permission to move in with the grandparents and the boys.
So, the parents had virtually unlimited and unrestricted access to the boys for months without problems.
It was Bethany that the parents had only supervised facility visits with for a paltry four hours weekly.
For the Ministry to be claiming a CCO is now in the best interests of the children is a massive violation of their rights against this magnitude of state intervention in their lives.
Finn Jensen, the lawyer for the Director puts IN WRITING there is was evidence concerning the boys safety, and he actually recommended returning them to their parents. It is very conspicuous he made no mention of his recommendation in his 3-day closing argument.
These same dangerous government employees would also remove the Baynes unborn child at birth. MCFD has already made this threat.
What has happened to the Baynes family is far beyond an outrage. The scandal is that this case is not an anomaly, but the normal way this Ministry conducts its affairs, and all families with young children are at risk.
The behaviour of this Ministry will not stop anytime soon, of course. However, the recipients of letters from citizens that are on file, the Ministers, RCY, Regional Directors, these people must at some point explain on camera why they are not doing anything about these atrocities committed on citizens that have no measurable benefit to the children they serve.
The challenge I see for the judge is not in simply returning the children and denying the Ministry their CCO, it will be in explaining his decision, and filling up the many dozens of pages Judge Crabtree has told us will take 8-12 weeks to write.
The 230+ pages of Finn's transcript is a dogs breakfast of conjecture and innuendo that is virtually bereft of facts and dignity.
I only hope that as part of news report on the Judge's decision, a full accounting of time and costs are included so the public becomes more aware of what goes on behind closed doors in child protection and how much it steals from the Education and Health ministries.
All this makes me wonder what is really being protected here. It reeks of corruption. And all paid for with our hard earned money.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Judge Crabtree is going to have some explaining to do.
November 9, 2010 9:18 AM "Quote"
ReplyDelete(Bethany's "serious" injury could not be so serious since the released her the next day into the care of a foster home.)
Please get your facts straight!
I was the foster mother that brought this injured child to my home a week after surgery to place a shunt in her head to drain fluid that was building up. This to most people is pretty serious!
She was underweight, floppy and weak and BLIND!
yes she regained her vision. How little babies can heal from such a traumatic injury is amazing and we should be thankful for such a recovery!
Ignorant comments such as you wrote do nothing to help the Baynes case at all.
At least stick to the facts.
Right now I bet Judge crabtree is racking his brains, trying to think of some way-any way-to get his ruling out sooner,without risking an appeal. He must be as frustrated as the rest of us. He may be even more frustrated because people think he has a lot more power than he actually does. Anyway here is another case from my advocacy files
ReplyDeleteA man was in a custody dispute with his separated wife over access with his three young children. In order to thwart him, she came up with an allegation of sexual abuse against him, which was investigated by the police and found to be groundless. Nevertheless, he was never allowed to get unsupervised access again. His case was severely injured by a custody and access report from a family court counsellor which was very prejudiced against him. I read the report and I read the guidelines set up by the Ministry of the Attorney General for completing such reports and it was obvious that the counsellor was in serious non-compliance. The rules were clear. It was the duty of the supervisor to order a new report to be done by a different counsellor. She declined to budge. Mr. C. then applied for an audit, as provided for in policy. After several months the auditor reported that the counsellor had failed to observe 7 out of 8 requirements in the report, but she forgave him because his heart was in the right place. "He only had the welfare of the children in mind." She suggested Mr. C. could hire a lawyer to dispute the report in court. Only problem was he had already gone broke paying maintenance and lawyers fees. The next step was to go to the standards branch, who were supposed to set and maintain the standards for court reporting. Mr. C. and I met with the high-priced head of the branch. He stalled considerably and obviously had no intention of changing anything. Eventually he came out with the following statement. "Well suppose the counsellor had interviewed Mr. C's references and they all supported him? That would have just confused the issue and made it hard for him to decide." He suggested the matter should be argued in court. Next a complaint was accepted by the Ombudsman, who took about a year to get back to Mr. C, but did advise that they had many meetings with the standards branch. They must have been concerned enough to do a systems audit. Mr. C. was advised that the audit was done correctly, but the Ministry was in error in not offering him redress. As he had long since lost access by this time, this was of little use. They had taken a year to decide what was obvious to me in one hour. One more item deserves mention on this case. The three children were still in sexual abuse counselling, paid for by M.C.F. a good three years after it had been found that no abuse existed. I was supervising an access visit and asked the oldest girl what she talked about in these sessions. She replied in a rather matter-of-fact way. "They keep trying to make me say that Daddy did things to me that he didn't do, but I won't do it. Years later the children sought out their father and left their mother.
3:43 ANON
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what you mean by your statement, and I quote... "I agree, Judge Crabtree is going to have some explaining to do." You are not agreeing. Neither I nor anyone else here said Judge Crabtree had anything for which to be accountable.
9:18 AM Anon,
ReplyDeleteAnother Anon 3:43 PM A Foster Mom responded to you. While you are sympathetic to the Baynes, I agree with the respondent, in your comments you should assert only the things that you know for sure. Good advice for us all.
I should have quoted the passage I was agreeing with, when I said Judge Crabtree will have some "explaining" to do. Here is the passage I was referring to:
ReplyDelete"The challenge I see for the judge is not in simply returning the children and denying the Ministry their CCO, it will be in explaining his decision, and filling up the many dozens of pages Judge Crabtree has told us will take 8-12 weeks to write." (found at November 9, 2010 9:18 AM)
6:35 PM Anon
ReplyDeleteOkay, I've got it!
In regards to "At least stick to the facts", it would help if 'facts' weren't presented out of context.
ReplyDelete"She was underweight, floppy and weak and BLIND!"
- Underweight: Very premature and documented failures by numerous Dr.'s to resolve severe chronic vomiting.
- Floppy and weak: Repeating the above seems redundant.
- Blind: Hmm, I wonder if the above could contribute to this. This does not discount the account of what happened as presented by the parents. It does make one wonder though. Was SBS diagnosed to cover up failings by medical professionals?
One note to the people who will undoubtedly take exception to my last hypothesis. Freud would be proud.
Finally, one fact others have not mentioned seems to be a blatant oversight. Regarding MCFD's threats to seize the Bayne's unborn child. MCFD is operating illegally in this area. Surely I am not the only person to realize that there are two reasons for this.
1/2 Medical Chronology
ReplyDeleteIn deriving dates, these are mostly from the online medical reports posted at http://apleaforjustice.org/Reports.aspx
The October 22nd date is when I believe the shunt operation occurred, and also the official MCFD removal date of Bethany by the various social workers at the Hope/Chilliwack MCFD office.
Mr. Finn Jensen indicates in his summation Bethany was released October 23rd (page 138 of 241 page transcript, line 33), hence the reference to the release of Bethany "the day after" the operation October 22nd, 2007.
A second look at the medical reports seem to suggest the October 23rd release date indicated by Mr. Jensen may be off by a couple of days, as it actually appears to me to be on October 25th, there is reference to discharge notes that are made this day.
So, Bethany was checked into BCCH on the 18th, had the shunt operation on the 22nd, and was discharged to the foster parent 3 days later on the 25th of October 2007. There is reference to the thickness of the fluid at 23cm before the operation, and 7-8cm afterwards, so I am guessing the operation was performed on this day.
The baby is seen on October 22nd as "eyes able to follow" meaning that no brain injury is evident. Brain injury is one of the three key requirements for an SBS diagnosis that was not present. Finn admts this in is summation, then moves to the femur break as suspicious and unexplained by the Baynes, and seems, in his mind to validate an SBS diagnosis.
My short notes from the 10 medical reports as follows:
2/2 Medical Chronology
ReplyDelete3 Aug – Birth, 4wks premature, 2319gm wt, head 33cm
17 Aug – Discharged, 2125gm wt, head 32cm
11 Sep – Vitamin D started, head 35cm
12 Sep – Well Child Care 5 weeks age (adjusted minus 1-week) 2960gm wt, head 35cm. Vit. D. start
22 Sep – Trauma date
26 Sep – Fraser Valley Hospital ER Visit
27 Sep – Canyon ER 2:11am return, vomited 2 more times, listless, Apnea
27 Sep – MSA 4am ambulance transfer. Discharged, “curious and interactive”
1 Oct – Child protection concern re: Hoffman / Patty Adams “services”
2 Oct – 3568gm weight
5 Oct – Crew report
6 Oct – Dr. Murakami, Vomiting, constipation, Chilliwack Hospital, 3195gm weight, head 34cm
7 Oct – head 38cm, heart rate alarm 30-50bpm, 11oz wt loss
8 Oct – head 38.25cm, Dr. Sorial domperidone & Zantac, vomiting 9 days
6-9 Oct – MSA 2 days then discharged without diagnosis
9 Oct – Discharge 3,271gm weight, no ultrasound, risk if eye and brain injury, increasing pressure
13 Oct – Dr. Pat Blackshaw, clean bill of health
16 Oct – Dr. Ebesh, no definitive diagnostic work-up until Oct16. Head cm marked increase
17 Oct – Letter Dr. Abell, head 40cm
18 Oct – Head 41cm Children’s Hospital, why delay in scans? Kent 3rd birthday, fluid compressing braing
19 Oct – Brain MRI, Opthamology exams, social worker gets info from Baynes re: accident
20 Oct – Chocking observed. Colbourne gets accident information from Baynes
21 Oct – SW Notes
22 Oct – Eyes able to follow. ie. no brain injury. Ultrasound, MRI pre-shunt 23cm, post-shunt 7-8cm
22 Oct – Bethany and boys officially removed by MCFD
23 Oct – Bone Flow, discharge date mentioned by Finn Jensen in his closing argument
23 Oct – Ms. Adrienne Glen 3:45 pm calling parents to stay with Bethany overnight, but no answer (?)
24 Oct – Reviewed radiology, femur does not require splinting
25 Oct – Discharge instructions. Released to foster parent ?
31 Oct – X-Ray follow-up. Colbourne: “…severe shaking type injury” Follow-up visit by SW
27 Nov – Dr. Ebesh follow-up
Compared to the two week period Bethany stayed in hospital after her birth, the three days elapsed time between the shunt operation and release to the foster parent would seem to indicate Bethany's condition was far less serious than Mr. Jensen and social workers would like us to believe.
What should be apparent, as observed by the doctors that vounteered their time to examine the BCCH records, none agree with the SBS diagnosis, but say it is the pressure build-up in the brain is due to fluid accumulation that was not dealt with for three weeks, is what is responsible for the pressure on the eye, and skull expansion, and is not due to the initial fall of a sibling or Dr. Colbourne's theorized "shaking" event.
I don't quite understand the "blind" reference by the foster parent in a previous comment. This "blind" observation is also indicated by a social worker on the stand, but I can find no medical reference to this so-called blindness.
The physician's notes indicate Bethany is alert and her eyes are able to follow. Based on this observation, brain injury is ruled out. SBS should also have been ruled out.
By simple deduction, "blind" would have been something that occurred later while the infant was in the care of the foster parent. I am not aware of cases where babies can be blind one week, and can later see with no corrective action.
I am of the opinion that social workers have a vested interest in making it appears as if Bethany's condition was far worse that it really was and is, so they can absolve themselves of guilt for the removal decision, and subsequent lack of investigative effort.
After all, the individuals who made the removal and retention decisions have a million dollar taxpayer bill to explain when all is said and done. Perhaps the bean counters in Victoria will recommend no more removals will occur from that office without their clearance first.
Child Protection Exposed at Nov. 9, 2010 10:40 PM,
ReplyDeleteRe: Your statement: "Was SBS diagnosed to cover up failings by medical professionals?"
I've wondered about this myself, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time this happenend (parents being blamed for what was in fact medical malpractice).
As far as your comment goes regarding "MCFD's threats to seize the Bayne's unborn child." This is truly horrifying, that our own government, that we elect (or some of elect), that we pay taxes to, that is only there because of the taxes we pay (i.e., OUR money, which gets paid to them), can threaten to steal our children who are not even born. What a sickening, evil, insane abuse of power.
There is no way to exaggerate or overstatement how wrong this is. This is truly a crime against humanity, because even if it only happened once (and it doesn't) it is an abomination. Imagine how a father, and especially the mother who carries the child within her, must feel, knowing that the government - with all its taxpayer funded resources (i.e., police, etc.) can swoop down, just after what should be the most happy moment in their lives, and steal their baby from their arms). Truly, truly evil. There is no other way to describe this. It's just pure evil.
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CrimesAgainstHumanity.aspx
Crimes Against Humanity:
"...Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law"
This is a clarification of perception.
ReplyDeleteWe will not call it an overt threat to seize the as yet unborn child of the Baynes. There have been overtures to invite discussion about the MCFD assistance. It is word play I know. And what you describe is positively evil when it is undeserved and unnecessary. I guarantee that MCFD will not want to proceed with a plan like that if people want to keep their jobs and their reputations. Immunity travels only so far.
To Anon who wrote Parts 1 & 2 early Wed AM
ReplyDeleteMy apologies for the delay in publishing your comments. Thanks for the supportive submissions.
Further for Anon Parts 1 & 2
ReplyDeleteFor all readers, this comment was made by an advisor to the Baynes, possessing factual documentation.
I make the following clarifications pertaining to parts 1 & 2:
Finn Jensen is wrong with the date of injury as I believe it was on Sept 23rd.
Your recounted analysis on Bethany's vision is correct. Leading up to her admission to Children's Hospital including the the initial examination there the reports state the baby was "tracking". Some reports later showed concern with her vision and you are correct that none of them cited “blindness.” The caregiver herself in follow-up exams is quoted by the doctor as saying the baby was tracking. Video evidence exists to show that she was tracking.
It may be inaccurate for you to say that Bethany's condition was not serious. Her parents would even challenge that because of the incessant vomiting three weeks earlier and the swelling of her head six centimeters which had that continued she would not have survived. She required immediate treatment and that was not delivered at the hospitals to which she was first taken.
Following the shunt placement she was immediately released from hospital and that may support your statement that once treated there was no longer a serious threat to the child's well-being.
Further to my comment at 6:56 AM
ReplyDeleteRecently a primary social worker when asked whether MCFD planned to remove the unborn child after the birth responded that they have a mandate to fulfill. I leave it to you to interpret what that infers. That intimation was reinforced by a superior's recent letter to the Baynes. That letter is in the posession of the Judge now in support of the Bayne's concern about a post-birth removal.
Pure evil. How on earth can we let them get away with this?
ReplyDeleteTo threaten, however subtly, to take the Baynes unborn child. These people are truly despicable. They need to be held accountable for the severe trauma they have caused, and are causing, this family. What kind of people are they, one really has to wonder. It's creepy. Really creepy.
What does that mean, they "have a mandate to fulfill" - ? That they have targets that they have to meet in terms of the number of children they take from good, loving parents like the Baynes? What a freakishly evil thing to say.
ReplyDeleteThese people act like other criminals throughout history, who also never thought they would be held accountable. They need to study history and see that the truth always outs, and they will have no sympathy from the masses once they are exposed for what they are. They are truly deluded if they think they can get away with this forever, just because they've gotten away with it this long.