I WILL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT / 584

We have celebrated the news that Paul and Zabeth will have their children returned to them in August, beginning with the Aug. 2nd homecoming of Josiah, the five month old boy who was removed from Zabeth four hours after he was born in February of this year. Then on August 25th the arrival of Kent, Baden and Bethany will represent the restoration of family life. That is what the case worker has promised Paul and Zabeth. He gave permission to the Baynes to inform their own children about this event and that was done last week. That was when we could cooperatively go public with this news. However, .................. forget the however, first of all ................

THE DIRECTOR’S CRITICAL ROLE / 554

The Regional Director in the Bayne Case is the final authority with respect to the work of the team of social workers assigned to this case. In 2010 he took the case to court to obtain a Continuing Care Order for three Bayne children. His position was clear. Because of the nature and extent of the injury sustained by the infant Bayne child (the Director would prefer to call it harm suffered by) and also because of the length of time that this matter has been outstanding, he wanted the children to be placed in his office’s continuing care.

As Judge Crabtree interpreted it, the Director argued that the time (in excess of three years) that these children have been in care was due to the parents’ position of innocence steadfastly maintained since the removal of the children. (That opinion is debatable. This CCO application was not presented by the Director until 2010 nor was there any court opportunity afforded to the Baynes prior to that to defend themselves against suspicion and allegation. And it may be argued, “well, that’s simply the way it is.” Then something within this system must be changed.)

WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD? / 525

The ‘interests of a child’, the very best interests of children should naturally be the concern of each one of us. Parents in particular are expected to care for their children according to this standard. In societies like ours, the collective, the people, citizens, have elected representatives to institutionalize this standard of care for children. When parents or other caregivers appear not to be acting in the best interests of a child, then government authorized social workers intervene.

Curiously, ‘the best interests of the child’ has become a virtual dogma within our courts and child protection systems, yet there is no standard definition of ‘best interests of the child.’ Notwithstanding, this phrase customarily refers to the court’s consideration of the kinds of orders, actions and services that will best serve a child, as well as taking into consideration the person(s) best suited to care for the child. The child’s fundamental safety and welfare is the principal concern.

JOSIAH RESTING BETWEEN DESTINATIONS / 517

Josiah tucked in the padding of his carseat

Cute little boy. Cuter each day. He should be in his parents' arms.

He was legally removed from the custody and care of his mom and dad on the day of his birth.

His three siblings were already in foster care as prescribed by the Ministry of Children during the past three years, pending the outcome of a judge's decision.

That decision came almost one month later after Josiah's birth when the Ministry's application for a Continuing Care Order was judiciously dismissed but the three children were retained in temporary care for three more months. That order is completed on June 2nd.

JUDGE CRABTREE CONCLUSION VERBATIM / 487

This entire post is the verbatim content of the concluding portion of Judge Thomas Crabtree's Ruling on the Bayne Case, which he released March 2, 2011. It is untouched with the exception that names of parents and children have been replaced with abbreviations. My paraphrased version  of the ruling was published on Friday March 25, 2011. This is a public document, the full disclosure of which has not yet appeared on an official site.

RISK RATIONALITIES IN CHILD PROTECTION / Part 413 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The risk paradigm significantly influences contemporary social work. Social work and risk are increasingly linked as we have seen in a case like Paul and Zabeth Bayne and the removal of their three children in October of 2007. On the one hand, risk is a factor in contemporary social policy and practice because it must be when a report is received that a child is injured and there is suspicion of abuse. On the other hand, the 'risk' concept in social work is not uniform or uncontested. There are different rationalities for risk within social work which result in differing policy responses and practices. What then is at issue is that different rationalities of risk, regard or assess a 'subject/client' differently and therefore respond in differing ways to the subject. We have heard commenters say that one team of SWs treated the client combatively and newer SW assigned to the task was understanding.

In the case of the Baynes, we have had a Director who believes that at the time of the infant daughter's injuries and diagnosis in September 2007, Paul and Zabeth were a risk to their daughter. Moreover, throughout these past three years and still today as evidenced in the most recent affidavit, the Director believes the parents are a risk to this child. They do not deserve ever to have custody of their children again. That's the essence of the Continuing Care application upon which the Judge is deliberating at this moment. So convinced is the Director about the risk that Paul and Zabeth pose to children that he directed the apprehension of the baby girl's two brothers. Those boys aged two and three in autumn 2007 are now five and six years old and have also been in care rather than at home.

Upon what was this risk based? Well no substantiated evidence exists. No evidence pointed to a criminal act by one or both of the parents. The Director moved initially to the apprehension of the couple's children because of their youngest child's injuries. Even the medical diagnosis by a hospital pediatrician was not evidence. The doctor who was part of the child protection unit of the hospital concluded that the injuries were consistent with something called shaken baby syndrome. The diagnosis is not evidence. It is a theory. It assumes that the only explanation for that set of medical findings is willful harm to the child. Because of its name, 'shaken baby,' this theory assumes more than it should. Its description correctly reveals the serious and sometimes life threatening medical condition of the child, but titling the condition this way, passes judgement on caregivers because the name itself imputes liability without verifiable proof. This has got to stop. The diagnosis is even more contestable today because so many medical and bio-mechanical professionals have been doing research and writing opinion papers that offer grounds for other explanations for the injuries that were sustained by the Bayne child. Many of these were presented to the Director first but when the CCO application was made, these facts were presented in court by the Baynes' lawyer. The Director has retained his risk persuasion because he has never accepted the Bayne explanation for their youngest child's injuries. He has never believed that they are innocent as they have insisted without cowering and with so much at stake. In his mind, they were and are and always will be a risk. Redemption is not in this MCFD team's vocabulary. For that reason as Zabeth has come almost to term with her fourth pregnancy, MCFD has made numerous overtures to discuss with the Baynes the care of the yet to be born child. It is to this that Ray Ferris' letter to Mr. McNeill spoke. A personal letter that illustrated the uncaring stress that this conduct placed upon Zabeth whom the entire local MCFD team knows is vulnerable to seriously premature deliveries. It is time that risk assessments are conducted upon MCFD managers and SWs.

What disturbs me is that another Director with different risk rationalities might have already demonstrated willingness to accept the parents' strengths as well as exercised leniency and compassion to them for the sake of the family.

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree within the next two weeks. Stay posted.

TERMS OF JUSTICE / Part 335 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Given our Canadian Rights and Freedoms, a miscarriage of justice within our Canadian legal and social context is essentially the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that he/she did not commit. Synonymous with miscarriage of justice is the term 'wrongful conviction' which refers to conviction reached in an unfair and disputed trial. Occasionally the biased term 'travesty of justice' is applied to an offensive and deliberate miscarriage of justice

There are avenues by which to quash or overturn a wrongful conviction but these are difficult to navigate and achieve. We all agree that the most grievous cases are wrongful convictions that are not overturned for many years or before the convicted but innocent person dies by execution or natural death while incarcerated.

But here we are discussing not a criminal but a civil matter, a child protection issue, where the suspicion card is played as strategically and effectively as the evidence card. The suspicion card is an incredible card because it permits the player to proceed directly to the goal without passing GO and yet collects thousands of dollars en route. That's what has happened to date. Now however, the court case required the player to present the suspicion so convincingly that suspicion should be regarded as equivalent to evidence. Circumstantial is to be regarded as actual. What a leap! What an hypothesis! What fertile ground for ---------MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

In the case of the Baynes what we have is not a conviction at all because there have been no legal criminal charges brought against the Baynes. So, no, they have not been wrongfully convicted. Yet a penalty has been imposed already, not only upon a mom and dad who are suspected by the Ministry of Children of harming their youngest child, but also upon the three children whom we all would concur are truly innocent. October 22^nd is quickly approaching, the date that marks the removal of the children in 2007. This family has been enduring this penalty, surviving somehow, for the past almost three years.

How Mss. Polak and Dutoit cannot be concerned, or troubled, perhaps appalled, intelligibly sickened by the injustice of this aspect of their Ministry operations I fail to understand. At least be attentive to it. Forget that this case has been before the court since January. There was ample time before the actual court date for a top level intervention, some kind of compassionate involvement to second-guess and inquire into the case handling by the Fraser Valley Region of the Provincial MCFD mandate.

Let's suppose that the Judge's ruling does not move in favour of the Baynes. The children remain in provincial foster care. Let's suppose it proceeds beyond that to the adoption of the children.

Years in care can have a substantial, irreversible effect on the maturing child becoming an adolescent and an adult. In a case such as the Baynes, a CCO (Continuing Care Order) with its potential for adopting the child to new adoptive parents, the child will never have cause to believe that one or more parent did not abuse her when she was an infant. Their reputations will never have been officially untarnished. She may want nothing to do with her birth parents when she is of age to find them. Her sibling brothers may or may not be adopted with her. The sibling relationship will be effectively severed. And the boys if they remain together may always wonder why the parents with whom they could not live for three years but who visited them faithfully during those three years dropped out of sight and didn't visit any longer. And Paul and Zabeth, fifteen and twenty years from now will be moving out of middle age with hearts wounded irreparably and with lives scarred deeply because the children who were their life, have never been a part of it. 

Judge Crabtree must decide against the Continuing Care Order, forget the Last Chance Order/Temporary Care Order, or any other option that credits the MCFD with any credibility whatsoever. Allow the children to return to their parents. It is the right thing to do. It is IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN!

A GRIEF OBSERVED / Part 332 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

A Grandmother and a grandfather sat helplessly. Yesterday I described the small court room in which Mr. Jensen delivered the final hours of his Summation. The judge's bench and the clerk's desk and the table and chairs of the legal staff and defendants comprised most of the space. Of the nine remaining chairs, two were occupied by these grandparents. Zabeth's parents they are. I paid attention to them because I too am a grandparent, proud of it, loving the relationships with little people that it provides to me. I am special because those grandchildren are extraordinary. I, however, have unfettered access to my grandchildren. These two people do not.

So I watched them as the Jensen words cut them deeply. They sat motionless, staring ahead, no longer shocked by what they were hearing because they have grown accustomed to their savage sound. They were grieving I thought, hardly bearing the insinuations against their daughter or her husband, perhaps imagining the worst possible outcome of this hearing.

Jensen pointedly directed Judge Crabtree that (1) his honour must find that there is need for protection, and that (2) he must therefore order the Continuing Care of the children. With such intense statement of objective, I found it interesting that Jensen then mentioned that contrary to what some people were saying, there are more than two possible rulings from which Judge Crabtree may select his verdict. In fact he said there is a host of alternative rulings beside either a CCO or giving the children back to the parents. Among these he suggested that Judge Crabtree might issue a Temporary Care Order, or a Period of Supervision, or place them in temporary care while the parents take further steps to satisfy the Ministry that they are indeed risk-free as it were. These were proffered to the Judge it appeared, as considerations should the judge come to the conclusion that the risk is still there but that the CCO is too final for this particular case. Who knows the precise motivation other than Jensen? But he did underscore that there should be no misunderstanding, that the Director's desired and appropriate ruling is a CCO. Yet Jensen implied that these other options might be considered. The Judge asked for some guidance on a Last Chance Order and that definition was discussed for a few moments.

Now all of this was at the conclusion of the first couple of hours during which Jensen reestablished Dr. Jane Gardner's paediatric ophthalmology qualifications and revisited her testimony concerning how she arrived at her diagnosis of the injuries, her opinion about extent of force needed to produce these injuries, her reactions to the hypotheses of the Baynes' experts. Then he focused upon Dr. Alexander's credentials and testimony, the foundation for his opinions being clinical records rather than information from Dr. Colbourne Jensen said. Alexander had disagreed with any theories that a short fall and particular that of a toddler upon the reclining infant could produce the extent of injuries Baby B sustained. Those injuries included subdural hemorrhages on both sides of the brain, retinal bleeding, a skull fracture and a chip off the long bone of the left femur. His testimony was that this was only due to a blunt force impact together with acceleration and deceleration. He even said that this force was the equivalent of that experienced in a car crash or a large fall from a great height, or child abuse. Well that's mighty frightening if it is to be believed. But that is precisely the obstacle. It does not have to be believed because it is still one man's theory against how many was it? Ten experts. Whose expertise Jensen discounted for numerous reasons stated in court. And that is his job. And the Judge's responsibility will be to conclude what and who is believable. What can be viewed as definitive?

Oh, I know, I know, Jensen would quickly respond to that. I will share again more of the Jensen summation tomorrow although I feel I have given him far too much air time or blog space. The transcript of these several days of Jensen are being prepared now.  

RAHMAN Family / Part 290 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

You who comment make it clear that the Baynes' experience with the child protection element of MCFD is not unique. This Bayne Campaign for Justice has not been precedent setting. Sure the Bayne case gained some public visibility via CBC and Global TV telecasts and online video links as well as this blog and others. Their campaign backed by a large cast of supporters has also used an online petition and promoted a Trust Fund to finance the incurred legal costs. But so have other complainants.

Rahman children

Consider the RAHMAN Family. On a well designed website with helpful tabs, friends of the family logged the ongoing struggle to establish innocence, acquittal, credibility and recovery.

 Here are details from that site.

One year ago some final web pages were published about their similar horrific experience. On April 9th, 2005, the Rahman children, then aged 2,3,4, and 5 years, were removed from their family after their two-year-old cousin died while in the mother's care.The child's loss was a terrible tragedy. The court documents explain that the niece, a two-year-old girl, fell from a chair while eating and hit her head on a concrete floor. The Rahman mother, Muzzammil Rahman was in the washroom and her own four young children witnessed the niece’s fall and alerted their mother. Finding that the child was unconscious and not breathing, Muzzammil who spoke limited English and had no transportation, took the child to a neighbour. The neighbour found pieces of waffle lodged in the child's throat, removed it and called 911. The 911 recording reveals sounds of the child choking. The story also indicates that the child had a pre-existing but undisclosed medical condition. Muzzammil was charged with manslaughter, (specifically, shaken baby syndrome).

It took three years for this case to come to trial and during that time, the children remained in care. Honourable, Mr. Justice. W.G. Grist B.C. Supreme Court May 21st, 2008 ruled “The Crown says the accused was overwhelmed and over-burdened by the care of her four children and Aisha. There is no direct evidence of this and there is evidence that she was taking proper care of the child.”... “I think it essential in this case to keep in mind the evidence of the events as they unfolded given by these various witnesses.”... “Accordingly, the accused should be discharged.” Muzzammil was acquitted.

Some birthdays later - Rahman children

Immediately Muzzammil and Muhammad Attiq-Ur-Rahman's lawyer began court proceedings to get their children back. Can you appreciate how devastated they must have been when in spite of the acquittal, Surrey Provincial Court Judge Marilynn Borowicz stated in her ruling that the child who died was a victim of "severe, sustained, and unexplained child abuse." She ruled the Rahman children should stay in foster care. Similar to the Baynes, in the Rahman case the MCFD filed for a Continuing Care Order. ( Details taken from Denise Ryan's, Vancouver Sun article of August 13, 2009)

Later, at the Rahmans' appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court, Justice Grant Burnyeat overturned Judge Borowicsz's judgement with a statement saying that Borowicz had made “a critical omission” in her ruling by not giving an explanation for how she arrived at her conclusions. He wrote, "There is a complete failure to either review or analyze any of the expert evidence." He ordered a new trial for Muzzammil and Muhammad Attiq-Ur-Rahman in their fight to regain custody of their children. Their legal costs have been estimated at $200,000.  ( Details taken from Denise Ryan's, Vancouver Sun article of August 13, 2009)

The family was reunited in 2009. A final online post on Thursday, 24 December 2009 11:31, announced that “all the kids have been returned to their parents by an official court order.... We would like to sincerely thank you from the bottom of our hearts for all the moral, financial, and generous support that everybody has provided throughout this ordeal!” The four Rahman children were 10, nine, seven and six when they were returned one year ago – having been for four years in the care of the Ministry and away from their parents. I am so glad for their happiness.

WHAT THIS POOR MOTHER HAS ENDURED/ Part 277 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

If Judge Crabtree's ruling grants the MCFD its Continuing Care Order, it will effectively become a wrongful conviction of Paul and Zabeth Bayne, 'guilty' of abusing their youngest child, a seven week old daughter.

What am I talking about? That's preposterous! Judge Crabtree is not going to let the State have these children. He has already seen through the Ministry veneer to the shoddy case work. He has recognized the wretched gamesmanship that motivated a CCO application to dismantle this family. He knows what is in the best interests of these children. He has seen that the shaken baby diagnosis of the Baynes' youngest child falls short of being a conclusive foundation upon which a Ministry should mount a continuing care order to take three children away from biological parents. On Tuesday he watched and listened to Dr. Patrick Barnes, in my opinion the most articulate medical expert witness to date. Barnes disputed the finality of an SBS diagnosis in this Bayne case because in his mind the 2007 studies of Baby B point to something else. Further, it is his claim that this kind of error in diagnosis is responsible for numerous miscarriages of justice in the USA and Canada.

He reported that the skeletal findings strongly indicated the presence of a metabolic or dysplastic bone condition (e.g. congenital rickets) in Baby B. Such a condition is particularly prevalent in North America and usually associated with vitamin D deficiency in pregnant and breast feeding mothers and their infants. Such bony abnormalities readily respond to vitamin D supplementation or therapy and often resolve without showing the usual evolution / healing changes of fractures (e.g. callous). Barnes made it clear that the fluid collections in the baby's brain were chronic and weeks to months old. Those findings therefore were consistent with both a trauma of a difficult birth and with the impact head trauma of an older sibling falling on the infant which is what Paul and Zabeth reported. SBS need not have been the only cause and the one on which MCFD built its case.

Tuesday afternoon and all of yesterday Doug Christie led Zabeth Bayne by questions through a painful recounting of her prematurely born children and her contacts with the Ministry of Children. Her second child, a son, was born at 25 weeks. She told how when the child came home she and Paul invited numerous services into their home to advise them about infant development, feeding, muscle toning, developmental assistance and therapies. In early weeks they took the child for medical reviews several times per week and later once each week. Six months later around February 2006 lightening struck and the Ministry became involved with them. The second child was crying relentlessly in the car. Attending to him they found that an arm hung limply and a hospital visit revealed a fracture. Both parents were questioned. Paul was asked to leave his house for two weeks. A study identified prematurity of bones in the child and Paul was permitted to resume his role at home. But MCFD had a foot inside the door of this home.

The complexities within this case history are extraordinary. The circumstances, the complications, the intersections of people and agencies, the bad fortune and the interruptions and the pressures are overwhelming for everyone involved.

The Baynes moved from townhouse in Langley to a property and home in Hope, B.C. They struck up a friendship with a husband and wife at a church which they began to attend, (a couple named in court and in the court transcript and in CBC News). This was the testimony: Within months the casual friendship declined and became strained. Why? Zabeth's testimony was that tension occurred because of business competition - both women ran music schools. Zabeth taught music for years and planned to start one in her new home. Her new friend wanted Zabeth to teach out of her music school located in the church. She would be paid $10 per hour minus $2 for use of church space. On her own Zabeth earned $40 per hour so she declined and that issued in this response from the woman. “I'm going to bury you.” Zabeth stated that under oath and it is in the court transcript. On another occasion when Zabeth and her mother and their children were shopping in Walmart, they found themselves behind this same lady. She accused Zabeth of following her and complained to the RCMP swearing out a restraining order. Nothing more came of that. This husband and wife became two of the collateral witnesses that MCFD used early in the hearing.

Zabeth was pregnant with Baby B in October 2006. Because of grave concerns about prematurity, Zabeth was given a surgical procedure that required many months until birth. This family spent little time in sunshine and had little money for supplements such as Vitamin D. Earlier Dr. Patrick Barnes pointed out that this was a significant factor in the Baby's pre-birth and post birth development. Then on Aug 3, 2007 Baby B was born at 34 weeks at 5 lbs. 3oz and spent two weeks in an incubator and was losing weight. Parents spent every day with her in hospital as Zabeth's mother took care of the boys. She came home on Aug 17th and weighed 5 lbs 1 oz. There was concern about her weight from the start. Initially she seemed normal, was sleeping and feeding every two hours. She was taken for medical weigh ins every few days. On Sept 23rd their middle son fell on Baby B. She whimpered but no marks and injuries were obvious until within hours the baby's feeding dropped off. After doing all they could to attend to this vomiting listless baby they took her to Hope Hospital on Sept 26. This began a harried series of doctors, medical opinions, treatments, hospital transfers – Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford. Everything that they were told to do for her, the Baynes did. At some point during this post birth frenzy, court testimony indicates that the couple mentioned above, informed MCFD that they thought the Bayne children were small for their ages, the new baby listless and that Zabeth may be suffering from Munchausen syndrome. MCFD investigated. Then after many weeks of repeated visits to doctors without resolution, on October 18th after another visit to the local hospital she was transferred to B.C. Children's Hospital. There within a short time Dr. Colborne made her diagnosis. By October 21st MCFD was involved, social workers picked up the two sons and a social worker from Vancouver picking up Baby B. There was much more but that was the start of the lengthy tale that has also been conveyed in earlier posts on this blog.

Zabeth's testimony continued Wednesday and will possibly continue today and will include cross examination by Finn Jensen. Judge Crabtree made it clear yesterday that this hearing is going to conclude on Friday. Whether or not he will rule then is unknown.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES / Part 248 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

At its website page entitled PERFORMANCE MEASURES, MCFD has placed a couple of paragraphs informing us of the performance measures in place within the ministry. I admit that my difficulty is to suppress my cynical filter sufficiently to read these words without a bias for children safely nurtured within the homes of biological parents. So, even as my mind processes this MCFD webpage I view its content as a protection, preservation and promotional piece.

“Performance Measures”
“The Ministry of Children and Family Development is accountable to our clients and the public. We continually monitor our performance to track our progress and use the information to improve outcomes for the children, youth and families we serve and our programs and services. Improved performance and enhanced quality assurance are at the centre of our commitment to ensure children and families are strong, safe and supported to reach their full potential.”
“This report documents, in one place, seventeen measures that the Ministry of Children and Family Development has committed to report publicly. This is a first step in implementing a commitment made by the Ministry in the 2010/11 – 2012/13 Service Plan. We will add additional performance measures each year that will monitor our progress and help us along the path of continual improvement.”

Public Reporting of Performance Measures – March 2010
This public reporting contains much that may be of interest to you. Here are a couple observations.

1. Of all the calls received by the Ministry each year regarding protection concerns, approximately 30,000 will lead to a protection report. Information about protection reports is available on the ministry’s website.
2. The percentage of children in ministry care under a Continuing Care Order that are expected to remain in Foster Care until age 19 rather than being adopted or living with relatives is 34.9 %.
3. The percentage of children who “aged-out” from Ministry care, (turned nineteen years of age), that applied for income assistance within six months is 44.1%.
4. The percentage of children in the long term care of the Ministry who are in the expected school grade for their age is 78.9%.
5. The percentage of children under a continuing custody order during their grade eight year who go on to complete the requirements for high school graduation within six years is an appalling 28.2% in 2009.
6. In 2009, of the 8908 children in care, seven children or youth died.

We are still waiting for August 8-13, 2010 when the hearing under Judge Crabtree resumes in Chilliwack Court House, for final presentations by MCFD and by Paul and Zabeth Bayne's counsel, Mr. Doug Christie. The Baynes are naturally contesting a Continuing Care Order application by MCFD. The outcome we hope for is the return of three children to Paul and Zabeth after this almost three year separation.

WRONGFUL CONVICTION / Part 246 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Let's be clear about what has been transpiring in Chilliwack court case File 10073 that presently sits on hold until August 9-13^th.  Judge Thomas Crabtree is hearing an application by the Ministry of Children and Family Development for a Continuing Care Order which will authorize the Director of the Fraser Region of the MCFD to permanently keep the three children of Paul and Zabeth Bayne in care until they are adopted by another family.

In order to win this ruling, MCFD is presenting a case that is nothing less than an attempt to wrongfully convict Paul and Zabeth of a criminal act. If you disagree with me, then tell me what I am missing in my appraisal. Please don't say, “the parents' guilt is missing from you assessment,” because guilt is the one thing for which neither you nor MCFD have evidence.

MCFD does not have a case because there is no proof that either Paul or Zabeth physically shook their youngest child, their infant daughter Baby B. If the contested shaken baby syndrome were an iron clad diagnosis, there would still be no evidence other than circumstantial that might implicate Paul or Zabeth. Nevertheless, in the autumn of 2007 following a frightening diagnosis by a reputable Vancouver pediatrician, MCFD was warranted to question the parents and others. The doctor notified MCFD that the baby's condition was consistent with being shaken. MCFD naturally assumed that a probable shaker was one or both parents. MCFD social workers were unconcerned when RCMP found insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge, since the social workers' responsibility was simply to assess risk, not establish guilt. Because MCFD workers did not accept the Baynes' explanation of an accidental impact collision between a toddler brother and the infant sister who lay on a blanketed section of the floor, they have remained suspicious that Paul and Zabeth had caused harm to their child. Suspicion is sufficient legal reason to remove the child for its protection. It's in the child's best interests. The assumption was also made that if the parents are a risk to one child they may be a risk to the other two children. So removing all three children was in their best interests. So goes the rationale and so went the children.

From the initial weeks of this case the MCFD Fraser Region team has maintained a discriminatory opinion about the Baynes. Its legal presentation reveals that all acquired information for the past two and one half years has been processed through a bias and interpreted as corroboration of the Baynes' untrustworthiness and unfitness to parent. The MCFD risk assessment that was entered as evidence is a premier example since the template section which allows for recording positive features or attributes about Paul and Zabeth, was noticeably blank. In the mind of the social worker writing the assessment and director who approved it, this respectable, decent, principled, serious minded, morally and ethically upright, polite and courteous couple, had nothing for which to be commended. Even the fact that Zabeth is an accomplished concert pianist didn't reap a comment as gratuitous as “she plays the piano very well.” In fact under cross examination, the social worker author of the risk assessment admitted that of the hundreds of pieces of correspondence that had been sent by friends and acquaintances over many months to affirm the Baynes as good people and good parents, he had read none.

Already convinced about parental liability, social workers failed to ask greater questions about the reliability not of the pediatrician but of the Shaken Baby assessment, the consistency of the baby's medical conditions with other causes, the credibility of the opinions of the concerned few collaterals whom they solicited, the mechanical medical reasonableness of a domestic accident between siblings, the weight of affirming testimonials by close family members and friends. AND IF THESE SOCIAL WORKERS HAVE NEITHER THE TIME, NOR THE TRAINING AND EXPERTISE TO RESEARCH SUCH MATTERS, THEY ALSO DO NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS ASSESSING RISK. Instead social workers sought to discover exculpatory connections of abuse within the extended families or of work related and medical stresses that would precipitate abusive behaviour. MCFD stretched whatever thin morsels there were into case content. Whether or not they harmed their child is of little importance when minds are already convinced that they are guilty.

MCFD lacks an evidentiary case against the Baynes. The MCFD attempts to pursue a wrongful conviction. Of course this is not a criminal case but MCFD is essentially seeking to prove that Paul and or Zabeth are criminally responsible for their baby's injuries. How could the parents otherwise be a risk to their children? MCFD must persuade the judge that founded on merely medical opinion, hearsay and suspicion but no evidence, a ruling is warranted that is tantamount to a guilty verdict against the Baynes. I don't think that they have succeeded. I pray that they have not succeeded.

CRABTREE RULES / Part 221 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Although the hearing with regard to the Ministry application for a Continuing Care Order is still not completed, the Judge has allowed the Baynes to proceed with an application not only for increased access time with their children but for unsupervised time. You must know that the Baynes have presently interim supervised access. Yesterday, Monday June 14th, the Judge ruled on this application.

The Baynes applied for this:
1.Increase in existing access from two times a week visits at three hours a visit to three times a week at four hours a visit.
2.Visitation to be arranged at the home of Marvin and Ruth Hunt (family friends)
3.Family occasions to be together on all special occasions
4.Mr. And Mrs Baynes attendance at preschool and kindergarten activities as well as to assist at them.
5.To be informed of doctors appointments and to attend
6.Weekends unsupervised access

The Judge gave them this:
1.That access shall be increased from two times a week for three hours each to three times a week for three hours.
2.Reasonable access on special occasions
3.The parents can attend preschool and kindergarten functions in the same manner that other parents do with their children.
4.All information for doctors appointments be sent by email to the parents and if the doctors consents in advance and in writing that the parents can attend.
5.The visitation request to be at the Hunts residence and overnight unsupervised access is denied.

In brief, Judge Crabtree gave them 50% more visitation time in addition to numerous other access opportunities. He also made it clear that distinct, written communication must be provided to the Baynes by the Ministry with regard to all such access opps and it affords them greater involvement in the details of their children's wellbeing.

I view this as a significant award by a judge who is not impressed with the Ministry's legal case to take the Bayne children away from their parents once and for ever. Clearly that is my personal opinion, my read of not only the lack of Ministry evidence in the case but also my interpretation of the meaning of this ruling itself. I am confident that the Judge would have given the Baynes unsupervised access now if not for the perception and the potential challenge that such a ruling would have furnished to the Ministry that the ruling was prejudicial and therefore detrimental to the Judge's final objective ruling on the unfinished hearing. What he granted today was within his power to do, that is, to encourage the Baynes and to mess with the Director's strict control of his interim order over these children. The Judge is the one with the ultimate power and doesn't that bite! Further, the Ministry was unable to make a case to convince Judge Crabtree that the Baynes are such high risk people that they should not have more time with their children but less, much less, in fact no time at all, example: a CCO. The Ministry's affidavit to counter this application was as weak as water and further underscored that when all is said and done in August, these children are coming home. That's because a circumspect Judge deems the Baynes to be good and fit and reliable parents and it is in the children's best interests that they come home, and social workers in the system should applaud – this is not a competition.