RAY FERRIS ABOUT DR. COLBOURNE AND SHAKEN BABIES

Ray Ferris is a retired child-protection worker and the author of The Art of Child Protection, and an occasional contributor here. 

When I say that Dr. Colbourne is on the warpath again, most of you will not know what I mean. So let me explain about the shaken baby syndrome.

Doctors who believe in the shaken baby syndrome hypothesis claim that when three medical symptoms are present, they can only be explained by a shaken baby opinion.  They claim that when these injuries occur to an infant that they can tell the cause of injury. They claim, they could only happen because the baby has been shaken. Hence the acronym of SBS syndrome. The reason why such an allegation is especially damaging is that it is an automatic allegation that an injury has been deliberately inflicted and is thus criminal and proof that the parent is unfit. Well you can see for yourselves that if the hypothesis is incorrect, that it can result in horrible wrongs being done to parents and other caregivers.

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 9 Sergent, Gardiner and Alexander / 499

On Friday we published points 21-26 from the transcript of 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. This is the ninth installment in a brief series of quotations.

Today in Christie's own words, here are... Submissions and Analysis, points 26-29 continued ….

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 8of10 Profiles of Paul and Zabeth / 496

Paul and Zabeth Bayne spent 2010 in court trying to prevent MCFD from taking forever, their three children who were removed on October 22, 2007. The judge did not return their children to them but let MCFD keep the children for 6 more months. Doug Christie is their legal counsel.

Yesterday you read points 18-20 from the transcript of Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation delivered on Nov 4, 2010. This is the eighth installment of quotations from this public document. Submissions and Analysis, points 21-26 in Christie's own words…. "Mr. Jensen tries to facilitate and to be conciliatory."

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 3of10 Evidence and Offender Profile / 491

The case is Paul and Zabeth Bayne in opposition to the application by the Director of Family and Child Services with respect to the ongoing care of the Baynes' three children. This is the third installment in a brief series of quotations from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. It was presented November 4, 2010 to the Court (Judge Crabtree) on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. This is a public document. No ban was placed court presented material. The judge considered this submission in coming to his final conclusion presented on March 2, 2011.

Yesterday it was Submissions and Analysis points1-4, Today it is points 5-7 ….

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 2of10 Medical Issues Priority / 490

The case is Paul and Zabeth Bayne in opposition to the application by the Director of Family and Child Services with respect to the ongoing care of the Baynes' three children. This is the second installment in a brief series of quotations from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. It was presented November 4, 2010 to the Court (Judge Crabtree) on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne. This is a public document having been submitted to the Court and Judge Crabtree did not place a ban on any of this material. He considered this submission in coming to his final conclusion presented on March 2, 2011.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's introduction. Today it is....Submissions and Analysis points 1-4

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 1of10 Introduction /489

I begin today a series of posts which are quotations from Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to MCFD Counsel Finn Jensen who concluded his three days of summation in October 2010. Judge Thomas Crabtree had to decide whether or not to grant the MCFD a CCO, Continuing Care Order for three children born to Paul and Zabeth Bayne. Christie's submission was delivered on the Baynes' behalf on November 4, 2010. Judge Crabtree released his final ruling on March 2, 2011. He ordered not a CCO but TCO (Temporary) for six months. In this submission Christie countered MCFD allegations and evidence.

In the introduction, Mr. Christie's remarks were these. "This has been a long and complicated case....."

FORMULAIC LEGAL REPRESENTATION / Part 291 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Mr. Finn Jensen sought to convincingly present to the Court the Ministry's case that one parent is or both parents are a continuing risk to their children for which reason, they should not be awarded custody of those children. Jensen's presentation was based upon the Director's affidavit that expressly based its case on Dr. Colbourne's medical diagnosis. As I interpret the court case development, when the shaken child insinuation became shaky because the diagnosis itself is controversial and the evidence against either Bayne is non existent, Jensen employed other approaches.

Zabeth, under cross-examination by Jensen was squeezed to extract information that might be construed as admission that Paul had alone time with his several week old infant and he might have hurt her. Zabeth gave Jensen nothing. Then, of course, Jensen did the unthinkable. What was a loving confidence between husband and wife and shared with only a few others, her new pregnancy, mistakenly disclosed or clandestinely pirated to Jensen became for him a cruel instrument. He knew the effect it could have. The method is formulaic. When a counsel can make a witness come unglued or display behaviour that casts doubt upon emotional control and stability, it is easier to assert incapacity to care for children. He posed questions that evoked from her, what else, truthful responses. Yes, she and Paul have always loved children. Yes they wanted a large family. Yes they had considered enlarging their family. And then, “Are you pregnant now?” “Yes,” she said. She cried. A young woman, happily pregnant, had been made to feel soiled, guilty. Caught in the act of being with child.

This is the adversarial nature of the Court Room. The weapon was dulled at the moment of impact by the unified abhorrence of a full court room.  So Jensen's propositions continued. Whether Zabeth agreed or not, Jensen expressed questions to the Court that inferred that after three years without children in her home, and with the significant demands of a newborn, she and Paul would surely not be able to adequately care for these children. If he thought that his sails filled just then with a desirable breeze, Zabeth closed her trial by shredding the sails with her valiant and forceful final words.

STRIKING THE BALANCE / Part 283 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

A difficult balance

Someone is going to argue that it is a very tricky administrative task to balance the best interests of the children and those of their birth parents. It's reasonable to entertain that statement yet even if we grant that, is it not appropriate to expect that the people trained to this work are going to be able to find the balance?

This blog and its accompanying comments archive have sounded a general note of caution about the family justice system, essentially expressing the that there is a "chronic weakness" in the system because of a shortage of resources in numerous areas.

We should be critical of a legal system that seems to make it impossible for the Baynes or anyone else to fully expunge their names from the MCFD files once they have been positioned there. Our judicial system should be capable of clearing the names of innocent people.

The Court would consider it improper to criticize Dr. Colbourne and other doctors in the case of the Baynes. The Court would deem that these acted properly in good faith in performing their duties. Therefore, a lesson learned from this case is that at the earliest opportunity there is an imperative need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children, specially in cases where the facts are unusual as they are with the Bayne case. A corollary lesson learned from this case is that even when provisos and revisions are placed into a system to reduce or eliminate mistakes, mistakes do occur in a system that is operated by human beings. The Baynes contended that Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis was mistaken and they still do. Following Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis, the Baynes asked MCFD for a second opinion but they were denied. MCFD was satisfied that Dr. Colbourne was accurate. Well, she was right about her medical findings, but the error occurred when she identified those findings with a label, namely Shaken Baby Syndrome, which by virtue of the name points to cause. But the cause has not been established. And further, if a baby had been shaken at some point what kind of a system is it that empowers a doctor and social workers to impute blame to a parent or parents by automatically taking children away from them? The Baynes themselves had to obtain the records and reports and send them to independent medical and scientific experts in order to get second opinions. Second opinions which in point of fact, disputed Dr. Colbourne's opinion making it clear that the MCFD erred to be satisfied so soon.

For almost three years these three children have been denied the right of growing up together. Only in recent months were all three placed in the same foster home. That is a wonderful provision. A Continuing Care Order for which MCFD has applied, if granted, would permit the adoption of the children and the possibility that one or all would be separated from the others and denied that unique privilege of siblings to grow and bond together. With attitudes that prescribe this course of action, MCFD doesn't come close to touching the best interests of children so not to mention striking a balance between the interests of children and birth parents. 

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.

MONDAY IN COURT, SARGENT & TRUTH / Part 275 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

He was MCFD's final witness. To tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Yesterday's witness did that I believe. His was a five page report that was thorough and well reported. I believe he told the truth in the report and under questioning by lawyer Finn Jensen and cross examination by Doug Christie yesterday.

Michael A. Sargent, is a full-time paediatric radiologist practicing in the Department of Radiology of the BC Children's Hospital for the past eighteen years. He carries the rank of Clinical Professor of Radiology with the University of British Columbia. He is presently the Acting Director in charge of the magnetic resonance imaging area at the Hospital. He is also a member of the American Society of Pediatric Neurology. He reviewed all radiological imaging studies done for Baby B that are on the PACS system of BCCH. And yesterday his testimony was decidedly not anti-Bayne.

To make a case in support of the Ministry claim that one or both of the parents was responsible for the baby's injuries, was the reason he was in court. It was at the request of Dr. Colbourne who told him “we need you.” The other radiologist on the case declined to testify. Dr. Sargent has testified in relation to Dr. Colbourne's diagnoses in other cases. The MCFD Director's case for a Continuing Care Order rests foundationally upon Dr. Colbourne's Shaken Baby diagnosis of Baby B's injuries dating to the autumn of 2007 and that diagnosis is not a stand alone call. If the diagnosis can be supported by the findings of another highly qualified expert, the case has legs. MCFD's case may be on life support now and running out of breath. When anyone tells the truth in this case it never reflects well on the MCFD. His opinions, Sargent admitted, were subjective opinions. Sargent reviewed the studies performed by other clinicians, just as ten other experts did, but each of the ten has disagreed with Colbourne's conclusion. Today, Tuesday August 10th, we hear from one of those ten, namely Dr. Barnes.

We cannot know whether Dr. Sargent's interpretations of the studies might have been different had they been influenced by information that he admittedly did not have, such as the knowledge of the reported accident between the two children or knowledge of the baby's birth history. He did not know that Zabeth spent three days in labour and fourteen hours and thirty five minutes in the final stage of delivery, (the trauma of which can can cause subdural bleeding in newborns.) He didn't know that Baby B was severely anaemic at birth. He did not know that the baby's head circumference grew by six centimeters in the three weeks following the fall that the parents reported. He did not know that she received two sets of steroid shots for lung development due to the mother's history of premature delivery (and this can predispose children to fractures or intracranial bleeding.) He did not know that the baby was on DomPeridone for reflux and that at the same time Baby B’s mother was on the same medication for milk production (and that this medication is considered unsafe because it can cause subdural bleeding.) In fact he did not seek a full history as is frequently recommended to radiologists, because he felt it might be inappropriate since the case was already before the court. He knew only that Colbourne suspected it was shaking.

But you see, in Judge Crabtree's court, Dr. Colbourne has not yet been recognized as qualified to state that it was shaking. She can and did state what she discovered upon examinations of Baby B. She was not permitted to state how the injuries were incurred or that they were non accidental injuries. That was ruled as being beyond the scope of her qualification. Dr. Sargent's testimony did not effectively help the MCFD cause because he was interested in telling the truth. In fact, Dr. Sargent suggested that the lengthy delay created by the failure of medical professionals in area hospitals to diagnose and to treat the cause prior to admission to BCCH made definitive determinations sketchy.

Today, more of the truth. Dr. Patrick Barnes in the morning and Zabeth Bayne in the afternoon.

MCFD HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN SBS / Part 267 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Before you begin, I apologize for the length of this piece.

Here is something to think about. As you know by now, the MCFD did not, and does not accept Paul's and Zabeth's denial of inflicting harm on their third child nor their explanation of a domestic accident that involved a toddler sibling and the infant daughter in an impact collision, one child falling on the other, head against head. Dr. Colbourne diagnosed a probable shaken baby syndrome origin for the child's injuries in 2007. She made that assessment based upon her knowledge and experience. She then did what she must do in the event of such a diagnosis and that was to notify the MCFD. The MCFD accepted her diagnosis not merely as probable cause but the definitive cause of the girl's injuries. Today, twenty eight months after removing all three children, MCFD cites in its affidavit in support of a Continuing Care Order that it rests its case soundly upon Dr. Colbourne's conclusion.

Social Worker Loren Humeny's recorded notes submitted in court indicate that in 2007 Dr. Colbourne was almost certain that this was a shaking 'type' of injury. Her own testimony clarifies that she believed that it was distinctly a shaking injury and her 2009 in court testimony expressed that it was an impact/shaking induced injury. During that two year interval the National Center for Shaken Baby added 'impact' as a causal link to shaking. Further, NCSBS changed the name from shaken baby syndrome to 'traumatic head injury', which implies impact. Ongoing research revealed that unless there is an underlying illness, impact is necessary to effect this type of injury. The organization that claimed this type of injury is caused by shaking now incorporated 'impact' into its definition. Even so, those making this diagnosis punctuate felony rather than accepting accidental cause. I am not saying that the linkage of shaking and impact are inaccurate. I am saying that it may be unwise to assume that a specific constellation of signs and symptoms are always the result of criminality rather than accident. See  White Paper: Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prevention

Neither Dr. Colbourne nor MCFD has accepted the association between the Baynes' impact accident story and the altered SBS causation which now accommodates to impact.

Dr. Colbourne was for some time listed on the international board of directors for the Center and that relationship was actual at the time that the Bayne children were apprehended. Dr. Colbourne's name was removed from the Center's web page some time in the past two years.

MCFD encourages training of caseworkers on the subject of SBS. MCFD's website states: "...Team members have completed a number of other MCFD sponsored educational and training courses, including sessions on Shaken Baby Syndrome, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Attachment Theory and Community Living Services." This is available in the report called Director's Case Practice Audit Report, Vancouver Coastal Region, Pemberton Integrated Family Services RYH 2009.

Berhe Gulbot has been a key MCFD figure associated with the apprehension and ongoing custody of the three Bayne children and he himself has testified that he was one of the Ministry personnel who attended the Shaken Baby Conference organized by the National Center For Shaken Baby in Oct 2007. The Ministry believes in and trusts this theory and has injected ??? dollars into the promotion of this theory. I have sought to read both sides of this controversial diagnosis and I surmise that it may be foolhardy to rest reputations on a theory with a growing discreditation. There is an avalanche of contradictory medical and expert opinions concerning the value and validity of SBS. That it can be disputed bothers me because hundreds of children have been removed from their parents on the basis of this theory with the resultant affects in some cases of criminal prosecution and conviction. Presently, 1500 people are serving sentences in the United States because they were convicted on the basis of this impugnable theory. How many have been convicted in Canada? And even if not convicted because there was insufficient evidence as far as the RCMP was concerned, how many children have been taken away forever? MCFD wants to do this with the Bayne children. That to me will be the ultimate injustice.

Be perfectly clear. I believe that people who shake, impact or harm a child are responsible before the law because this is a grievous act of violence against a vulnerable person. I approve and respect every program designed to prevent such abusive conduct. I believe that the MCFD must become more discerning about SBS diagnoses to consider the variant possibilities so that inaccurate accusations do not destroy innocent families.

10 EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE / Part 236 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Doctors' Reports on Baby B's Medical Case

I have provided a factual presentation of the medical reports by the physicians and medical experts related to the Baby B case in the early months of her medical crisis. Shaken Baby Diagnosis is a much disputed diagnosis within the medical community.

The MCFD case is relying almost exclusively upon an SBS diagnosis by a B.C. Children's Hospital Child Protection doctor. Other medical opinions were sought by the Bayne family following Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome. No other opinions were sought by MCFD. Each medical doctor cited below and each scientist below reviewed the case of Baby B. Bayne.  Each analyst arrived at an identical conclusion which is that Baby B was not willfully harmed by a person.  It was not inflicted injury. These are the reports that the Baynes have listed on their website and made available to MCFD, to the media and to me. These opinion reports have been ignored or dismissed by MCFD. (Toggle each expert's name and find a full report)

Dr. John Plunkett

---

John Plunkett, MD resides in Welch, Minnesota and is an expert in child forensic pathology. Dr. Plunkett has experience with many multiple SBS cases.

Dr. John Galaznik

---

John Galaznik, MD is an an Alabama, USA pediatrician.  Dr. Galaznik is a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Dr. Horrace Gardner

---

Horrace Gardner, MD practices in Colorado.  Dr. Gardner is an opthalmology expert in shaken baby syndrome and has a specific interest in the ophthalmologic aspects of the SBS.

Dr. Michael Innis

---

Michael Innis, MBBS, DTM&H, FRCPA, FRCPath is a doctor of medicine in Australia who specializes in forensic pathology. 

Dr. Peter Stephens

---

Peter Stephens, MD is a published pathologist born in England, graduated from medical school in Canada and resides in the U.S., and acted as senior medical advisor for the (U.S.) FAA.

Dr. Harry Bonnell

---

Harry Bonnell, MD is a forensic pathologist in San Diego, California.  Dr. Bonnell is a medical school graduate of Georgetown University with certification in anatomic and forensic pathology.

Dr. Kenneth Monson

---

Kenneth Monson, PhD, is assistant professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Utah.

Dr. John Butt

---

John Butt, MD is an anatomical and forensic pathologist, having graduated medical school in Alberta, Canada.  Dr. Butt holds a diploma in medical jurisprudence (pathology), London.

 Dr. Chris Van Ee

---

Chris Van Ee, PhD is an award winning published presenter and Duke grad with a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering.  Dr. Ven Ed has been a reviewer for many scientific organizations.

Dr. Patrick Barnes

---

Patrick Barnes, MD is chief of pediatric neuroradiology, director of pediatric MRI and CT, professor of radiology; Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Stanford Medical Center.

For Love and For Justice / Part 131 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Continuing Care Order Before the Court in the Case of the Ministry of Children versus Paul and Zabeth Bayne to Insure that the Parents Never See their Children Again.

1. It Should be implicit that Compelling Evidence Must be Required to Separate Children from Parents
2. The Ministry Case Against the Baynes Was Founded Upon Dr. Colbourne’s Diagnosis that the Baby was Shaken and This Implies Non Accidental Injury
3. The Shaken Baby Diagnosis as Evidence is made vulnerable by Dissenting Medical Diagnostic Opinions and the Question to be ruled on by the Court of Dr. Colbourne’s Qualifications as an Expert
4. The Expert Medical Opinions by Ministry and Defence Witnesses Conflict and that Infers that the Initial Diagnosis of Non Accidental / Shaken Baby is not Compelling
5. Medical Opinion is Not Stand Alone Evidence in Child Protection Risk Assessment but Requires Other Undeniable Character, History, and Prior Behavioral Evidence.
6. The Baynes’ Personal Profiles and Proven Parenting Skills Contradict a Suspicion of Abuse
7. Instead of Being Pleased that the Baynes were Honourable Parents the Ministry Appears to Have Constructed a Case Based Upon Insinuation and Allegation.
8. The Ministry has disgraced Itself by Taking Parents to Court while Failing to Produce Compelling Evidence and Relying Upon Non Factual Unconfirmed reports

Summation: Without any compelling evidence it is apparent to all observers including the Ministry and its counsel that a continuing care order will not be granted and that the children will be returned to the parents and that the Ministry if it now acts with polite and gracious conduct toward the Baynes may be perceived well by the constituency.

For Love and For Justice / Part 121 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

An expert witness is an authority, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have specialized knowledge and expertise in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others should legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his/her expertise, referred to as the expert opinion.

In this Bayne versus MCFD trial, Judge Crabtree will render a verdict. Leading to that anticipated and inevitable outcome each legal counsel calls witnesses some of whom are to be regarded as ‘expert.’ The contest is ongoing between the opposing sides, either to persuade the Judge that the witness is ‘expert’ or to discourage the claim to ‘expertise.’ Each lawyer is acquainted with the Canadian precedents that establish ‘expert’ definition. For testimony to be considered ‘expert’ its content must be the kind that informs the trier of the case, the jury or in this case, the judge, with facts that could not be discerned without the expert and without which the correct conclusion could not be reached. Expert evidence must be necessary or essential and relevant and reliable. To be reliable it must be able to withstand close scrutiny. A judge must then finally rule that the witness is entitled to testify by way of opinion or confirmation or otherwise. While several witnesses have already been presented, their admissability as experts and their 'expert' testimony has not yet been ruled upon by Judge Crabtree. That might be ruled today.

Well that’s what it was all about in court on Tuesday when Dr. Michael Sargent, a Pediatric Radiologist and part of the Children's Hospital physicians’ team was called as a witness for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Finn Jensen presented him as an expert and his written report as expert testimony. We didn’t get to his testimony yet. That will wait for a later day in the schedule. If he is recognized as an expert, the expectation of the MCFD and Mr. Jensen is that his report and testimony should reinforce the position that the Bayne baby’s physical condition upon admission to Children’s Hospital in October 2007 was consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. That's what he is there to do. Will that testimony withstand the heat of a Christie cross-examination may be the issue.

Perhaps Dr. Sargent was aware that his qualifications would be stoutly questioned by Mr. Doug Christie. The morning was spent examining his credentials. Christie’s resultant submission in the afternoon was that Dr. Sargent was not qualified to be the objective, independent expert, that he doesn't have the requisite expertise to speak to shaken baby causation from his examination of X-Ray film. Christie challenged Sargent's expertise to provide a forensic opinion. He should not be allowed to present as to cause. Christie calls this intrusion into areas for which the doctor is unqualified. As he conducted his examination of Dr. Sargent it was clear that Christie took issue with the collegial relationship Sargent has with Dr. Margaret Colbourne. Colbourne’s Shaken Baby diagnosis is a substantial founding block to the MCFD case against the Baynes having their children returned to them. It was Colbourne and Jensen who just a few weeks ago asked Sargent to stand as a witness in support of Colbourne's position. Sargent acknowledged that Colbourne had told him her opinion before she came to court to give testimony. The judge has yet to rule on Sargent's admissability as an 'expert.'

Why we didn't hear Dr. Sargent's testimony on Tuesday: The start of the court session proper, was delayed as both lawyers discussed new evidence that Finn Jensen wanted to present with respect to Dr. Sargent's testimony. Dr. Sargent's multi-page report was emailed to Doug Christie on Feb 22 2010. Sargent had written the report Feb 17, 2010. Doug Christie was prepared to cross examine Dr. Sargent with regard to his report until he learned that that it contained reference to two X-Rays that had only recently been located and were not delivered to the defence radiologist for review. Christie then requested an adjournment to this testimony until Bayne's expert, Dr. Barnes from Stanford would have an opportunity to review and to respond. The Judge would not hear the testimony that day in fairness to Mr. Christie. Cross-examination was limited to Dr. Sargent's qualifications.

For Love and For Justice / Part 107 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

LOREN HUMENY – THE MAN TASKED WITH THE BAYNE CASE

Testimony Phase - Graduating with a Bachelor in Social Work, Loren Humeny has been a social worker for ten years and is presently an Intake Investigative Social Worker for the Ministry of Children and Family Development based out of Chilliwack. The Bayne file was his responsibility in collaboration with his supervisor, so he was the author of the report presented to Court. Mr. Humeny was in court to give testimony one week ago on February 2, 2010. At the end of that Tuesday, the cross examination by Bayne lawyer Doug Christie was postponed until Tuesday, February 09, 2010, in order to accommodate the testimonies of Dr. Colbourne and Dr. Randall Alexander both of which took place last week. Yesterday, Tuesday February 9, 2010, Mr. Humeny was back in the witness box for the cross examination portion.

According to Mr. Humeny’s testimony, the child protection unit of VCH (possibly Ms. Glen and/or Dr. Colbourne) alerted his office concerning the injuries to Bethany Bayne in the autumn of 2007. His investigative process included reports by and/ or conversations with Dr. Colbourne; and Vancouver Children’s Hospital social worker, Adrienne Glen, who was a member of the child protection unit; and Pastor Michael Hoffman* and his wife Elizabeth; as well as members of the Bayne extended family and Zabeth and Paul. His primary information sources were Dr. Colbourne and Ms. Glen and he told the court Dr. Colbourne’s opinions, treatment and prognosis. In a meeting on October 31, 2007 Humeny and his supervisor met with Paul and Zabeth, Zabeth’s parents, Zabeth’s sister and her husband and Ruth Hunt (friend) to review what he termed non-accidental injuries based on the medical report. Humeny was assigned to author the application for the Court Order as well as the narrative that supported the application.

He was in attendance together with his supervisor when apprehending the three children initially. Bethany was in hospital from the 19th to the 25th of October 2007 and on October 25, 2007 Bethany was placed in a Chilliwack foster home. No visits to Bethany were allowed to the Baynes during those initial weeks. He spent time with Zabeth Bayne’s parents prior to leaving the boys there with the stipulation that Paul and Zabeth could not be alone with the children in that home. He had numerous conversations with Zabeth during these days and weeks. He looked into sources of ‘collateral’ information about the Baynes. In looking for potential foster/ care homes for the boys should the need arise, Marvin (Surrey Council member) and Ruth Hunt offered their home in August 2008. They are Bayne family friends.

Testimony under Cross Examination – There was discussion about the Risk Assessment of which he is the author. It includes statements against the Baynes by what Humeny calls half a dozen ‘collateral witnesses’ who cannot be disclosed presently. The Risk Assessment also included statements from caregivers of the three children, the medical history from Dr. Colbourne and Humeny’s own findings. When Doug Christie asked why page 35 of the Risk Assessment was left empty, it was learned that this page would have contained a summary of the parents’ strengths. Mr Christie made the point that Mr. Humeny chose not to include comments such as the parents’ dedication and love and commitment to their son Baden during his three month hospital stay due to premature birth; and the commendations from their family doctor on their superior care of the boy during the at home care phase. Mr. Christie asked why Mr. Humeny did not mention some of the 350 visits that the Baynes have made to their children, and that they ask for more visitation opportunity. Mr. Christie queried why Mr. Humeny did not include the mother’s piano teaching experience with children over several years. Still pressed about this omitted page, Mr. Humeny stated that he did not feel that he knew the parents. This didn't wash with Christie because it was pointed out that Humeny had many meetings with the Baynes. Mr. Humeny was reminded that countless letters were written to the Ministry by friends and family and professionals which spoke positively to Paul’s and Zabeth’s home, character, forms of discipline used, interactions with their children, their involvement with others socially and otherwise, and the perceptions of students about Zabeth’s professional instruction. Mr. Humeny acknowledged that he was aware of this mail but he did not read the correspondence saying he did not have the time for it. He had relied upon the ‘collateral witness’ data and when cross examined, it was pointed out by Mr. Christie that that the support letters could have provided at least a balanced view of the Baynes if not call the ‘collateral witness’ data into question. Christie stressed that Humeny's risk assessment was written so obviously from an adversarial position it might be deemed hostile. Mr. Humeny's testimony under cross-examination recommences on Thursday at 9:30 AM at the Chilliwack Court House.

*The CBC News article entitled ‘Surrey Couple Challenge Shaken Baby Allegation’ published Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 2:51 PM PT is found here.