The future of this blog is being reassessed now. An announcement will be made later this week. Until then, the synopses of Judge Thomas Crabtree's recent ruling on the Bayne Case will be completed here.
Debriefing Judge Crabtree's REASONS FOR JUDGMENT March 2, 2011
My Third of Numerous Synopses (Judge Crabtree's actual wording is in quotations. Everything else is my understanding of the statements in the ruling.)
I continue with Judge Crabtree's evaluation of the question, “Are the Children in Need of Protection?” and this time his Analysis, beginning with The Evidence of Mrs. Bayne. This is a critical area in his ruling, since there are two parents and the infant's injuries occurred while the child was in their care, and Mrs. Bayne was the only parent who took the stand. Her testimony was covered in points 173-198 of the ruling, a significant investment of time and prose.
Judge Crabtree assessed Zabeth as intelligent, industrious, organized.
Her testimony touched three domains, conditions leading to the baby's birth, during 2 ½ months after birth, and what transpired following apprehension of three children. He deemed her testimony sometimes problematic even contradictory with respect to explanations and details of events and sometimes overstatements to deflect concerns or to reflect positively on her and her husband.
He observed inconsistencies in her testimony during the CCO hearing with statements she made during the presentation hearing or prior statements. He found problematic her description of where her husband was relative to the baby on September 23, 2007, whether he was preparing dinner and walking in and out of the room where the baby was lying on the rug, when in fact Zabeth could not have seen Paul, given she was in a different room. He concluded that her testimony on the critical matter of the fall of one child on another was inconsistent, that is, details differed from her previous statements about the event. She noted that once she observed her toddler son's head upon the baby after a tumble yet in another testimony she said she didn't see the impact. He noted that no injuries were observed on either the baby or the toddler following the incident. Judge Crabtree's own words of summary with respect to her testimony are:  “In my view, Mrs. Bayne's explanation at trial is a reconstruction of events in an effort to explain a traumatic event which happened to her daughter. Such an approach is not uncommon in an effort to put the "best" explanation forward. I am unable place to any weight on the explanation of what the witness describes as having taken place on September 23, 2007. Any contact between the children on this occasion, was of such a trivial nature as to be of no consequence at all.”
Then Judge Crabtree covered the matter of the father's silence under a subheading entitled, The Failure of the Father to Testify. That will follow next, tomorrow.
Please pay attention to Ray Ferris' Comment today which speaks to whether or not the Judge actually granted a Continuing Care Order or rather a Temporary Care Order.