This is GPS Blog Post #500
The tenth and last installment in the series of ten quoted sections from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. It was delivered on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne on November 4, 2010. This is a public document.
Today it is.... Concluding statements …. and with this the submission ends. Here he states that "All the judge has to decide is whether there is clear and compelling evidence that a CCO is demanded. If he cannot find clear and compelling evidence, the default judgement is “return to parents.” Readers, no compelling evidence was found, and were the children returned? NO!
"30. A concluding miscellany. On page 39 of the Oct 6th transcript, Mr. Jensen tells the judge that he must decide the truth between the conflicting medical opinions. This is a fine-sounding argument, but fallacious. He has to decide no such thing. It looks as though Mr. Jensen is trying to steer the judge into a “default judgement”. He would like the default judgement to be a “Continuing Care Order.” The judge may not be able to make a firm decision about which medical opinion is most sound. The default opinion may have to be “I cannot tell.” All the judge has to decide is whether there is clear and compelling evidence that a CCO is demanded. If he cannot find clear and compelling evidence, the default judgement is “return to parents.” Mr. Jensen covers a number of points about which we have already responded. He steered Dr.Colbourne away from relying solely on the SBS theory, because to accept it would to be inferring NAI, which she is under caution not to do. He cannot get away from the fact that this was her firm opinion in her written submission and she only modified it on the witness stand. Looks like damage control. Mr. Jensen keeps on insisting that the sibling collision must be discounted, because there is no evidence of it before the court. Therefore the possibility of the damage because of a bump on the head must be ruled out. Zabeth has given the necessary evidence over and over again. He just does not want to accept it. Repeatedly calling her a liar on the witness stand does not make the evidence go away. Dr. Monson reminded us that Mrs. Baynes sworn testimony is evidence. Dr. Colbourne’s theory is only speculation. On page 2 of the Sept 30th transcript, Mr. Jensen says that the judge must decide whether the injury is accidental or non-accidental. He says that even if the court finds that the injury was accidental, then he must still make a protection finding. He argues that parents have a duty to protect their children at all times and all accidental injuries are a failure of parenting. This is absolute nonsense. Accidental injuries occur frequently, both in the home and out of it. Few families can have their children grow up without an accidental injury along the way. Fortunately, most of them are not life threatening. We warn that Mr. Jensen has also been trying to steer the court towards making a protection finding on the grounds that the Baynes will have their hands full if the children are returned, because they will have at least two special needs children and a new baby. He seems to forget that this case is about one issue only. Is Dr. Colbourne correct in claiming that this was a non-accidental injury or not? Only if the judge rules that the injury is non-accidental can a protection finding be made. How they will cope when the family rejoins is pure speculation and can only be judged when it happens. Unsupervised weekend access until final ruling could end any speculation. Mr. Jensen has accused Mrs. Bayne about not being forthright about her pregnancy. This is outrageous. Her pregnancy is an entirely private matter and none of his business. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether the injury to Bethany was accidental or not. What is of great concern to Mrs. Bayne and her close friends is how Mr. Jensen got hold of a piece of information that had only been told to two or three trusted relatives and supporters. This is the second time that a piece of privileged information got into the hands of the ministry. One was a confidential document that had not been released. It begs the question of computer hacking and so on. Once more Mr. Jensen seems to be trying to make one last desperate bid to discredit the Baynes. A final note of revision. It is interesting that all the biomechanical experts and some of the doctors state that it is impossible to cause serious brain injury through shaking without doing serious damage to the neck and vertebrae. Yet Dr. Colbourne had dealt with many so-called shaking cases and she has only seen one slight neck injury. That simply does not add up.
31. His Honour Judge Crabtree has sat through many days of hearings and has listened to lengthy arguments. He has seen all the social workers and he has heard all the doctors. He has seen Paul and Zabeth Bayne day in and day out. He has listened to all the points of view and he has seen all the documents and he has learned all the opinions. All these things must be taken into consideration. The last and final ingredient is that he has been able to look at all the individuals and to weigh them up. Who is convincing, not just because of the weight of their words, but who is honest and sincere, intelligent and honourable. Who is forthright and who quibbles and evades. Do the Baynes strike him as honest and decent people, who have suffered some terrible personal misfortunes? Or are they child abusers who are completely beyond redemption and absolutely dangerous to children? We do not think that the choice will really be that difficult."
All of which is respectfully submitted,Douglas H. Christie
Judge Thomas Crabtree considered this response as well as the summation of Finn Jensen, counsel for MCFD, together with the materials assembled during the course of a several week hearing in 2010, and delivered his decision which might in a way seem to have been against the Baynes. In fact, the ruling denied the MCFD's application for a Continuing Care Order, and rejected the MCFD claim that the infant girl had been shaken by a parent. However, the judge did not return the children to the Baynes but retained them in Ministry care for at least another six months (later corrected to three months) and urged the parents to view this as an opportunity. This meant that they must do all they can to cooperate with MCFD and meet expectations and hope that at the end of three months the Ministry will have changed its mind about them and give the children back. The default ruling was really, "Don't rock the MCFD boat."
"...all accidental injuries are a failure of parenting..." - Finn Jensen, Public Servant, paid for by YOU, the TAXPAYER.
ReplyDeleteWow, that is just a shocking claim. Wouldn't child protective services (in this case, MCFD) just love to have that made into a precedent. That way, ANY time a child has an accident - Boom! - into "care." Viciously ripped from their parents by the all-knowing, protecting State.
What a shocking, and revolting, thing for a servant of the People to state. This is where our hard earned tax dollars are going. To pay the salaries - and Finn Jensen's salary is paid by us - one hundred percent of it - is paid by us, he doesn't make a nickle that isn't paid for by us. What a shocking, offensive thing to claim.
"...all accidental injuries are a failure of parenting..."
We all need to think hard about that claim, and what the implications of it are.
I noticed in the Reasons for Decision of Crabtree - another public servant who doesn't get a nickle of his salary from anywhere except we the people - that Crabtree attacks Zabeth's credibility because he claims it isn't credible that Zabeth wouldn't find looking after all her children together stressful. What a creepy thing to state. So, as part of his "reasoning" he isn't giving back the children, because he doesn't believe the mother when she says it wouldn't be stressful. How stressful does Crabtree think it is to go through the hell that he and MCFD have put Zabeth through?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like Crabtree - like MCFD - will only be satisfied when Zabeth "confesses" to certain things. In this case, that it would be so stressful to have all her children back. If only she would do so, then they could believe her and start - start what? I guess it's okay for the foster parents to get stressed out and still keep children though. In fact, isn't that the reason they get the nanny, and isn't that the reason that we the taxpayer are paying for all the respite workers that all the foster parents in BC get, presumably cause they - the foster parents - need a break?
Some, and I won't dare say how many, of these government workers are so out of touch with reality. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. And what more power can anyone have than the power to take away what is most precious to someone - their own flesh and blood - with the stroke of a pen.
You are absolutely right Anon 7:17 AM,
ReplyDeleteZabeth stated it wouldn't be stressful to have her children back. That, for her at the moment she was asked, was the right answer. What is stressful is not having her children with her. And yet, even if having all four children in her home after four years away, turned out to be stressful, so what! Tell me what set of parents do not experience some degree of occasional or chronic stress when kids are quarreling and demanding and ill with coughs and all needing to be at different games or appointments within a few hours? The entire legal and protection system needs to give their heads a shake instead of seeking to win at the gamesmanship so prevalent in these cases that mess with people'lives.
And Anon 7:01 AM
ReplyDeleteYou certainly identified a glaring declaration of the kind of biased and frightening statement which when forged into law turns a country into a totalitarian Big Brother state. It's offensive and plainly stupid.
What keeps being driven home, again and again and again, is the absolute torture these parents are going through, and the superb dignity and grace with which they have conducted themselves. The singular control they exhibit is so extraordinary, it makes any claim of child abuse - the key feature of which is lack of control - completely lacking in credibility.
ReplyDeleteThe Provincial Court database has published Judge Crabtree's ruling April 1, 2011:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments/pc/2011/00/p11_0072.htm
A "Corrigendum" is added to the judgment. This means the originally release judgment contains two glaring errors of law.
ReplyDeleteParagraph 238 is deleted, which reads:
[238] The Director submits that the children be placed in the continuing care of the Director due to the nature and extent of the harm suffered and the length of time this matter has been outstanding. The fact that this matter has been outstanding for in excess of three years is a relevant factor in this case in view of the parents' position that has been maintained since the removal of the children. There has been considerable effort and involvement by many professionals in order to provide the opinions to the Court at great expense to the parties. There has been no evidence from family members and those persons in the community who are prepared to support the family should a temporary order be granted. Finally, there has been no effort by the parents to engage with social workers in a parental assessment or risk assessment which reports could have been beneficial as a planning tool in an effort to seek the return of the children.
Because of the removal of this paragraph, the following paragraphs are renumbered as a result.
The second change is the correction of 6 months to 3months, the old paragraph reads:
[257] In the circumstances of this case I conclude that an order pursuant to s. 41 (1 )(c) for a period of 6 months is warranted.
The replacement paragraph reads:
[256] In the circumstances of this case I conclude that an order pursuant to s. 41(1)(c) for a period of 3 months is warranted.
It is also interesting to note the public posting of the Bayne's ruling by Judge Crabtree was on April Fools day, April 1, 2011, which is also the very same day as Josiah's contested Presentation Hearing.
ReplyDeleteThank you Anon 10:57 / 11:11 AM for the updated online judgement by Judge Crabtree. Please give us the online url address if you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteIt is unfortunate both that the judge paid attention to Jensen's objections to the mountain of support letters presented by the Baynes, and it is unforunate that the defence team (Baynes) did not understand the protocol that would render as evidence their vast collection of letters of support from family and friends. These letters were all delivered to the Social Worker/Case Worker who said he had them but didn't read them, and they were in the possession of Jensen and the Judge but the judge couldn't consider them because Jensen said they might be fictitious, so for these people to go on record as evidentiary witness/supporters, they should have been called to testify. Of course the case could have gone on for weeks longer, and each could have been cross examined by Jensen further prolonging the case, and the Judge wanted this case over and said so, and Jensen took an inordinate amount of time, (he knows what he is doing), so the defence opted not to call anyone.
it's all water under the proverbial bridge now isn't it, even the claim that the Baynes made no effort to engage with social workers in a parental assessment or risk assessment as a planning tool in an effort to seek the return of the children. As anyone can recall, MCFD insured that all trust was lost by they Baynes toward the Director and his team, so any suggestion by MCFD was perceived with great skepticism, and perhaps justified, specially when Zabeth was pregnant and was advised not to engage in anything more that would unduly strain her or bring on a predictable premature birth.
Well there is a lot of cooperation going on now, parental assessment or risk assessment tests included. So perhaps this will eventuate in the return for which we are advocating on this blog.
The removed paragraph contains a false reference to a risk assessment and reference to a PCA "...there has been no effort by the parents to engage with social workers in a parental assessment or risk assessment which reports could have been beneficial as a planning tool in an effort to seek the return of the children..."
ReplyDeleteYet the very point of contention is the risk assessment that was unilaterally done by Loren Humeny immediately after the Baynes went public. Even if parents do not cooperate, it is the JOB of social workers to conduct an assessment to the best of their ability with the information given to them.
This is a clear cut case of watering down the ORIGINAL judgment and posting it AFTER the appeal date has passed so that there is much less to complain about.
Really, if a judge includes blatently false information on the privately released version of the ruling, then later removes it on the public version to reduce his own accountability, one has to wonder why.
To ensure less of a chance of success on an appeal, perhaps?
I was told I failed my validity tests as I also stated I did not find it stressful to be with my baby. The most stressful thing was to be without her. Therefore, it was told to me that I am self deluding. I was also told I am too optimistic and I have an unrealistically positive outlook. I was quite taken in by that and looking to improve by having a more negatinve outlook. Then when I got away from the ministry that day, I realised they are just gnashing their teeth like animals who thought they would get dinner and didn't.
ReplyDeleteOops, in error I stated that paragraph [238] not [248] was removed.
ReplyDelete[248] appears to be a duplicate of [247] which explains why it was removed.
[247] The parents of the mother did not testify, however there is evidence of their support to the family in numerous ways prior to the Director's involvement in October 2007, in caring for the two older children when the Director first became involved and in opening up their residence to the parents for a period of time. This is certainly an indication of extended family prepared to provide assistance to the family.
[248] Similarly the parents of the mother did not testify however there is evidence of their support to the family in numerous ways prior to the Director's involvement in October 2007, in caring for the two older children when the Director first became involved and in opening up their residence to the parents for a period of time. This is certainly an indication of extended family prepared to provide assistance to the family.
I am wondering what the damage to these small children will be? Surely some evidence of Seperation Syndome may rear its ugly head if this situation is not resolved. Children need to be able to trust and be cared for by those that truly love them. A back and forth relationship does not work. Please consider these little ones and let them home forever.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12:03 ....... "self-deluding, too optimistic, unrealistic positive outlook....." seems there's a term for everything isn't there? It's impossible to get it right or please them. Oops, that sounds overly negative and cynical.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at April 12, 2011 12:03 PM
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly put. Thank you so much for letting us know how MCFD operates. I hope very much that you are with your baby and he or she has not been taken by MCFD.
I am astonished to learn that you were also told you would have your baby taken from you because you supposedly "lied" by claiming it would not be stressful to be with your baby.
I can't imagine anything more stressful to a human being than having their child taken from them. I suspect that even a death would not be as stressful, as a death is a finite event, whereas MCFD torture can drag on, literally for years.
I never considered that MCFD could be pulling the same "Sophie's Choice" trick on parents that Crabtree pulled on Zabeth (damned if you do, damned if you don't). We really, really need a class action lawsuit to expose these atrocities and obtain some measure of justice.
Yes, I was told the above in my PCA. I feel that the PCA in my case was to more or less assert that MCFD was not wrong. It has been established that there was no reason to take my baby (who was returned to me after a few months). She was taken because I was suspected of haivng untreated mental illness. I was found to not be mentally ill, yet it is written and I was told over and over that I am 'unconventional' and that the strength of my beliefs shows rigidity which can be a percursor to psychosis. As I have my own opinions, I was considered 'dominant'. This was in an otherwise very favourable report. But it is the kind of thing written to build a bridge between some of the more extreme allegations made against me that were proven wrong. In this manner, MCFD does not appear to have been wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd, btw, I do not believe that people who have beliefs about raising children such as 'attachment parenting' or home schooling are crazy.
For Anon 12.11pm:
ReplyDeleteThe Human Rights tribunal has recently accepted a case with a parent whose children were briefly removed based on a concern of mental illness.
This was deemed discrimination, a denial of services based on a belief a certain class of individual did not deserve support because they were different. Not because of neglect, physical or mental danger from the parent.
Minimally, you have a case for a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal. Give it a shot. MCFD needs to learn their lessons one parent at a time.
Secondly, file a lawsuit and claim costs for needless removal. The CFCSA states services have to be offered first. Then a supervision order, and only after all that has failed is a removal warranted (an preferably, WITH the use of an actual warrant.)
Until people start fighting back against this injustice, it will continue.