GUILTY BY SUSPICION / Part 286 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

This will never happen so I can conjecture with certainty while driving home a point. Don't become immediately alarmed but stay with my syllogistic reasoning long enough to hear the conclusion. Or you might call it silly thinking.

If Judge Crabtree eventually rules against the Baynes and does in fact grant to MCFD the Continuing Care Order for which it has applied, should the Baynes also then be arrested and charged with a criminal act? Wouldn't such a Crabtree ruling be tantamount to a guilty verdict? After all, the CCO application is pursued because MCFD considers the Baynes an ongoing risk to their children because they are suspected of having harmed a child.

I know what the easy legal answer is. The present case of MCFD versus Baynes is about the rights of three children to protection and security and not technically about the guilt or innocence of Paul and Zabeth Bayne with regard to physically harming one of the children.

I understand the import of the case and the distinction between these legal details. Yet logically, since the MCFD affidavit established that the entire CCO application is premised upon Dr. Colbourne's injuries assessment which she identified by the term 'shaken baby syndrome,' and by reason of which she or her medical colleagues notified MCFD and RCMP, doesn't the ruling to award the children to MCFD infer the guilt of one or both Bayne parents? And if it does, does it not make sense to hold them accountable by charging them with an offence?

Surely both parents did not gang up on the youngest of their three children and willfully hurt her. So one might say, we don't know which of the parents harmed the child and which one should be considered guilty of the suspected assault. Yes, but the non perpetrator parent is complicit in the crime by reason of silence, so both should be considered guilty by suspicion and receive the same penalty of childlessness. Equitable justice.

Ahh, but the cop-out argument can then be made that RCMP initially charged them with aggravated assault and investigated them and dismissed the charge for lack of evidence and that rather than pursuing that direction again, the Baynes can be made to pay through the removal of their children from them and the ending of their hopes for their family. That punishment will be accepted as a satisfactory payment. So, rather than charging them with an offence for which sufficient evidence must be garnered to support the charge, child protection services have been able to surmise violence and acquire enough suspicions to support the speculation. That is awkward to imagine but it is effectively a guilty verdict. It can be classified as guilty by inference rather than by evidence. That may not be on the books but it is the de facto feature of MCFD practice and interpretation of the mandate document called the Child, Family and Community Services Act.

After the first few weeks and definitely following the first few months that MCFD was involved with the Bayne children, MCFD justification for and management of the Bayne file became preposterous. This has been a comedy drama of MCFD incompetence mismanagement with tragic results for an entire family.

One commenter correctly suggests that 'incompetence' is not the appropriate word choice. Perhaps more suitable choices are malice, maliciousness, malevolence, spitefulness, venom, wrongful conduct, improperness, mismanagement, errors. I will substitute 'mismanagement' for 'incompetence.' Now I am thinking that 'comedy' is not apt either. I will substitute 'drama.'

MEDICAL HISTORY PART 2 of 3 / Part 234 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Providing it in several parts, this will be as definitive a medical history on the Bayne infant as you will read online.

At the start of the MCFD hearing for a continuing care order for all three Bayne children, Judge Tom Crabtree in his wisdom ruled that there would be no ban on information presented during the court proceedings. The medical reports are a component of the submissions presented during cross exmaination. I have access to this information. Medical testimonies have been heard although not all of them have been ruled as admissible by Judge Crabtree.

This is what I have read. I have chosen not to do a narrative but to cite the medical data factually. I RESTATE OR CAPITALIZE A FEW KEY OBSERVATIONS.

Dr. Anquist: Baby B remained at MSA Hospital from October 6-9 in the care of Dr. Warren Anquist, during which time tests were done and cultures remained negative so she was discharged. His note mentions that Baby B was okay until ten days prior when she was on the floor and seemed to whimper. THERE IS MENTION OF THE BROTHER STUMBLING UPON HER. She vomited and struggled to breath. He says her fontanelle was full but not bulging. He notes poor feeding and regurgitation. He notes some concern about POSSIBLE INTRACRANIAL BLEEDING and suggests observation of serial head circumference. Her overall tone was reasonable. CURIOUSLY (in this medical note) DR. ANQUIST MAKES A NOTE ABOUT PAUL BEING RECENTLY LAID OFF FROM HIS WORK IN A FOUNDRY BUT DOING WEB DESIGN NOW AND ZABETH TEACHING PIANO AT HOME. ( In fact he did not do web design but hand drawn sketches and was offering drawing classes.)

Dr. Ebesh: Dr. Ebesh followed up with Baby B on October 16^th. He noted that her HEAD CIRCUMFERENCE HAD INCREASED TO 40 CM. (up from 33 cm at birth). He made arrangements for a head ultrasound and a CT scan which revealed bilateral subdural hemorrhages and fluid collections.

Dr. Numweiler / CT Scan: On October 18, 2007 Baby B (2 mo and 15 days old) was admitted to Chilliwack General Hospital for a CT/Head scan conducted by Dr. Christine Numweiler. Prior to the scan the doctor was provided with a history of the child's trauma and sub-acute subdural hematomas. She found bilateral pan hemispheric subdural hypo attenuating fluid collections and a left extra-exial cerebellar hypo-attenuating fluid collection that she viewed as consistent with subdural hematomas.

Dr. Colbourne / Paediatrician / Child Protection Service Unit / BCCH

On October 18, 2007 Dr. Colbourne reported her findings to Loren Humeny (MCFD) and Hope RCMP Constable Taylor. She notes that the parents have recounted a mid September episode in which a sibling brother fell on Baby B with heads colliding. Baby B cried but had no signs of bruising or swelling. She was checked by a family doctor the following day. She appeared well. Colbourne records that the family estimated it was a few days later that Baby B vomited and developed an unusual cry. She even appeared to the parents to go limp and pale and in need of mouth to mouth breaths. (Dr. Colbournes summary missed the following detail perhaps because she was not informed about it: Paul performed CPR on Baby B at home and then Zabeth performed CPR in the van on route to the hospital.)  The family took the baby immediately to Hope Hospital. Although shortly she looked well and was discharged, the parents said she did not feed and so they returned with Baby B to the hospital. She was assessed and transferred to MSA Abbotsford. She notes that Paul's father had childhood epilepsy which resolved in adulthood. There's a suggestion of a venous bleeding disorder in the maternal grandfather. Colbourne herself found that Baby B did not follow with her eyes, the fontanelle was bulging and sutures splayed. Head circumference measured 41 cm. She handled well and all four limbs moved well. With the CT scan from MSA Hospital and the ophthalmologic results from Dr. Gardiner and the MRI from Dr Poskitt, Dr. Colbourne concluded that Baby B had VERY LARGE CHRONIC SUBDURAL HEMORRHAGES, EXTENSIVE UNILATERAL RETINAL HEMORRHAGES AND A FRACTURED PROXIMAL LEFT FEMUR. THESE SHE FOUND TO BE INDICATIVE OF INFLICTED TRAUMA AND CONSISTENT WITH A SHAKING TYPE OF INJURY. SHE SURMISES THAT THE COLLECTION OF FINDINGS POINT TO A TRAUMA PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 26^TH PRESENTATION. SHE REPORTED THIS TO MCFD AND THE POLICE.

Dr. Gardiner / Ophthalmology: Dr. Jane Gardiner, (paediatric ophthalmology) examined Baby B on October 19^th because, as she was informed, there was presumed non-accidental injury. She had retinal hemorrhages on the left side. Her visual attention was questionable. As she wrote this note to Dr. Cochrane on Nov 6, 2007 she had examined the child again that day and stated that she WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT THE CHILD COULD SEE, not responding to bright lights or follow the OKN drum reliably either horizontally or vertically. She still had a subhyaloid hemorrhage temporal to the macula and may have macula damage. There were faint deeper hemorrhages temporal to this. Most earlier hemorrhages had been resolved. SHE CONCLUDED THAT THE CHILD WAS INAPPROPRIATELY VISUALLY ATTENTIVE FOR HER AGE and referred Baby B to Dr. Carey Matsuba.

Part 3 of 3 tomorrow