CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 10 How do the Baynes Strike You? THE END / 500 !!!!!

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!

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 7of10 Berhe, Humeny, Glen / 495

New to this? Paul and Zabeth Bayne's 3 children have been in court ordered foster care since Oct 22, 2007. On March 2, 2011 a judge ruled ongoing care for 6 more months (recently altered to 3 months).
Lawyer Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation was delivered on behalf of the Baynes on November 4, 2010. Yesterday you read points 15-17 and today in Christie's own words, it is.... Submissions and Analysis, points 18-20 beginning, "First the testimony of team leader Mr. Berhe Gulbot." This is the seventh installment in a brief series of quotations from this public document. 

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 6of 10 Contesting Jensen's Summary / 494

If you are new to this, Paul's and Zabeth's 3 children have been in court ordered foster care since Oct 22, 2007. After a 2010 court case, they were told on Mar 2, 2011 it would be another 6 months of care (now corrected to three [3] months.)

Yesterday we published points 11-14 from the transcript of Doug Christie's final SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE to Finn Jensen's closing summation. This is a public document, delivered on behalf of Paul and Zabeth Bayne on November 4, 2010. This is the sixth installment in a brief series of quotations.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's Submissions and Analysis points 11-14. Today it is....
Submissions and Analysis,  ….points 15-17 beginning, "Mr. Jensen claims that the director’s medical witnesses are part of an unbiased team...This argument does not hold water."

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 5of10 Speaking to Jensen's Summation / 493

Paul and Zabeth Bayne were in court in 2010 defending against the Director of Family and Child Services application for a CCO, ongoing care of the Baynes' three children. This is the fifth 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 on court presented material.

Yesterday I quoted Mr. Christie's Submissions and Analysis points 8-10. Today it is....pts 11-14  beginning, "From the start of their experience with the Hope staff, the Baynes experienced aggressive behaviour."

CHRISTIE'S FINAL SUBMISSION installment 4of10 Options for the Judge / 492

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 fourth 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 on court presented material. The judge considered this submission in coming to his final conclusion presented on March 2, 2011.

On Friday I quoted Christie's Submissions and Analysis points 5-7.  Today it is... points 8-10 discussing possible options for the judge's ruling.

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

TOMORROW IS COURT DAY AGAIN / Part 448 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The court order hearing sought by the Ministry to take custody of then 14 day old Josiah, is scheduled for Thursday, February 24^th at 9:30 am at the Surrey Provincial Court. BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY REMOVED THE BABY FROM HOSPITAL AND PLACED HIM WITH FOSTER PARENTS. YESTERDAY WAS PAINFUL FOR THE BAYNES IN MEETING WITH PEDIATRICIAN ETC.

Daddy Paul and Josiah

The author of the supporting affidavit for the custody of Josiah is the same social worker, Loren Humeny, who has been charged with responsibility for this case for the past three and one half years. He was delegated by the Director last year to write the affidavit that reasoned for the continued care order for Josiah's three older siblings. We have an unconfirmed hint that this week Judge Crabtree who oversaw the trial will be hearing this one too. He has heard before, everything that is contained within the newest affidavit. He doesn't have to hear it again. However, if the forecasted snow doesn't stop Doug Christie, the presiding judge can expect to hear from Doug, who will unquestionably make it clear that there is no new evidence. Certainly none that pertains to Josiah.

Read my words. NO NEW EVIDENCE. Josiah will be 14 days old tomorrow. He was only seven days old last Thursday when the affidavit was scheduled to be ruled upon by another judge. It should be assumed that it was penned some hours/days before that. During that first week of the child's life there would have been little opportunity for contact between parents and child and whatever contact there was, occurred within the careful view of attendant hospital staff. There is no evidence that concerns Josiah that Mr. Humeny can present in support of this order. If in fact Judge Crabtree is presiding tomorrow, it will be most interesting to hear what he does with this order application. Will he grant the custody order based upon that affidavit information? If he does, should the MCFD assume that he will similarly rule in its favour concerning the other three children on Monday? Will he himself decide that the ruling concerning Josiah will be rolled into his ruling concerning the three children, since the supporting evidence is identical? Numerous spin-off questions come to mind, too many to cite here.

Zabeth and her new baby

On Mr. McNeill's behalf, Loren must rely upon the same supportive material used for the CCO case for the three siblings. Yes, that's correct. The 'stuff' upon which the judge is expected to rule on Thursday with respect to Josiah is the same 'stuff' upon which Judge Thomas Crabtree will rule no later than Monday, the 28^th, four days later with respect to the other three children. That's the substance of the MCFD allegation that Paul and/or Zabeth are a risk to their children. It is no surprise that the judge last week in adjourning the hearing for a week when MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen and social worker Loren Humeny did not make an appearance, said that the Josiah hearing should be heard by Judge Crabtree. And now we understand Judge Crabtree will be present. Well we hope that may be the case. Certainly no other judge would presume to rule on the same material upon which the Chief Justice of B.C. will rule days later (28th). Judge Crabtree has been deliberating for the past six months. In any case, what mysterious strategy it is to press forward with the order application for Josiah when the Chief Justice may make a landmark decision that explodes the CCO application and Shaken Baby Syndrome and MCFD practice concerning 'the Bayne Three' which will render irrelevant the affidavit concerning Josiah. The wisest course for MCFD would have been to posture for another adjournment tomorrow but instead they took the child and here we are. Perhaps Judge Crabtree will see through the legal devices and will make the Baynes and the children wait even longer for a ruling, but I doubt that. He is very sensitive to the hardship created for the Baynes by this tedious process.

Do you want to know what was going on at the hospital nursery these past few days? Do you wish to know what the hospital staff were witnessing? Josiah was doing very well. He fed well and he had regained weight to his birth weight. He responded to Zabeth's and Paul's voices, and to the sound of his daddy’s voice when he sang softly to him. Staff noticed that Zabeth and Paul were the only parents who remained all day to hold and to feed their baby boy. They saw Paul leave in order to attend to his evening work contracts. They saw two parents who enjoy every moment with their child, the way he smells, the way his tiny whimper sounds. They saw parents whose hearts rejoiced when Josiah looked up at them. And this loving care took place while the threat of his removal hung like a pall upon them. Then yesterday, someone was authorized to try fitting him into a car seat, to be ready for eventual transportation and at 2 PM Kim Tran, Surrey social worker, removed him from the hospital. This was done even though Josiah's tiny 4 pound form had to be stuffed round with filler material for him to be restrained within the car seat straps. Did you know that his ability to endure the car seat travel mode was tested, for  up to an hour and his responses monitored. Did you know that the hospital pediatrician who met with the Baynes and approved Josiah's readiness to be moved, is a colleague of Dr. Margaret Colbourne who diagnosed SBS in 2007. Don't know what if anything that indicates. It's just that the lower mainland is a virtual citadel of SBS proponents.

Oh, by the way, Judge Crabtree knows the outrageous action that took place on Thursday February 10^th. I surmise that Mr. Humeny stated in the new affidavit that the child was removed under the authority of the CFCSA because the Director had valid reason to believe the child needed protection.  That would be standard. And if as I suspect Mr. Humeny marked the box with an X that indicates that there was no less disruptive protective measure available, that could be regarded as not wholly true? The less disruptive measure was in his face on the 10th. As soon as he knew that due to Josiah's prematurity the baby had to stay in hospital for two weeks, that of itself was the less disruptive measure for protecting the child, don't you think? That is, unless Paul and Zabeth are psychopaths. Therefore when Mr. Humeny drafted the affidavit he did know that this less disruptive option of simply waiting for two weeks was available. We must conclude that the Director and the social worker were determined to hurry to seize the child, even though the latter could say, "I am only following orders." So, considering the larger MCFD entity rather than the Fraser Valley Region, it really was in MCFD's best interest to hold back on Josiah's custody order and forego tomorrow's hearing and simply wait for D-day on Monday, but again, here we are. Oh sure, because of that cute tactical manoeuvre, that is, two weeks have now passed because the MCFD team was a no-show in court, so of course, there is no less disruptive protection measure. 

As I have earlier pointed out, it won't matter whether Finn Jensen himself or a substitute counsel is present for the MCFD on Thursday, since the MCFD counsel will have to point out to Judge Crabtree or another judge,  everything that was earlier heard by Judge Crabtree over several weeks that spread over all of 2010. It is all the same. There is nothing new. I can't imagine how Judge Crabtree or another his/her honour will process this but even if the ruling concerning Josiah tomorrow is to grant MCFD the order, it may be obliterated within hours by the Crabtree decision when he rules on Monday.

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.  

THE LAST STAND / Part 331 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Call this installment One. The last day in Court was yesterday. Finally! I do not envy the Judge. Although perhaps he thinks he has an easy task on this one. 

Paul and Zabeth invited me so I was present at the home assessment session in Baynes' home on Tuesday afternoon when two social workers visited. They appeared to be satisfied with the place then and on Wednesday in court the assessment report was discussed. The children have their first six hour visit in the home on Saturday, supervised yet nonetheless, a wonderful opportunity to be a family in a home environment where the two boys will recognize so many familiar items.

I was also in attendance in court on Wednesday at the final episode of Finn Jensen's Summation for the Ministry application. We met in a small court room with nine chairs.

Jensen began at 9:30 and he concluded by 12:30 pm. He concluded with a statement to his honour Judge Crabtree, that the Director, meaning Bruce McNeill was asking for the Judge to rule that the children were still in need of protection and therefore to award a Continuing Care (Custody) Order for all three children.

First Afghan War, January 1842, 4500 British and Indian troops against 30,000 Afghans and Ghilzai tribesmen

He had built up to this of course over three days of Summary presentation and today, the last day, he put the finishing touches on a compendium of what he said was a large body of medical evidence that supports an acceleration/deceleration (Shaken Baby) non accidental cause for the sequence of serious injuries sustained by Baby B in autumn 2007. This is in contrast to what he terms a small body of response material from the Baynes.

This is the kind of case in which the injuries to the child are unexplained. He said that the Baynes' explanation for the injuries was unsatisfactory. He told the Judge that it was the Director's obligation in this kind of case to effectively demonstrate a balance of probabilities. He was fully confident that this had been convincingly conveyed, that is that the balance of probabilities fell to the Director's position that the risk has not been eliminated and that Zabeth's testimony should not be accepted. He asserted that the Baynes have not worked with the Director (eg. The social workers) or participated as parents in the risk assessment. He questioned their ability to sustain themselves financially and suggested that at the time of Baby B's injuries the parents had been stressed by joblessness and were isolating themselves and not accepting help and even suggested they are in a similar position today and that the potential risk remains.

I digress from the court report for the moment to say that some of what Jensen said here is not merely disputable, it is also inaccurate or incomplete. We are speaking about a three year period. During the past several weeks there have been overtures by the Ministry to talk with the Baynes (a little - too late) and the Baynes have declined during these final days before a case conclusion. In declining they knew they were opening themselves to this precise criticism of not working with the Ministry but they listened to their advisors. After three years MCFD is at the end of this long delayed hearing designed permanently to take from the Baynes, THEIR CHILDREN, and now mcfd wants to talk. During the first year and one half there were meetings and while the meeting invitations suggested an agreeable, even promising agenda, the meetings were invariably designed to elicit a confession from them. This persisted until the Baynes' trust in MCFD eroded and hope of cooperation by the Ministry evaporated too. Paul and Zabeth have been employed at menial labour to be sure, but adequately providing for their needs and confident to be able to support their family. They live in a comfortable family rental home with adequate facilities for all their children and large yard outside for the children to play. Please recognize once more that they work evenings doing custodial work, because visitation with children is scheduled for day hours and they have not missed one of those opportunities but even asked for more. If there was normalcy to their home lives, other job opportunities with better income would be considered. That is a reasonable expectation.  Further, there are many families who make a go of it on less than a professional's standard of living and have learned how to shop and to live with less. And to infer that joblessness for a term was sufficient to trigger violence against a baby is pure invention. That is a guess-assessment of a man and a woman who are unknown to the guess-assessor who certainly did not know them at all in 2007. They are certainly not in a similar position today. If job stress were sufficient reason to suspect risk, then no one in that court room would be risk-free. Nor were the Baynes isolating themselves back in 2007. That is a lawyer's statement based upon a social worker's report of a collateral witness' opinion. But the couple's own testimony counts as certainly as does such an hypothesis and they said they were disassociating merely from one couple for reasons that were stated in court as interpersonal issues and having nothing whatsoever to do with the nurture and well-being of the Bayne children, or desiring to withdraw from society. It makes a person think that everyone associated with MCFD would be better judges of character if they were employed as border guards. "And what was the purpose of your trip?"

I'll tell you more tomorrow.

THE CHILDREN MAY SEE THEIR HOME / Part 326/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Yesterday, Friday, Judge Crabtree delivered his video conferenced ruling on the MCFD application to adjust the earlier court ordered three day visitation schedule of three hours each, to a schedule of one three hour visit plus a six hour visit on Saturday and this to accommodate the children's school life, extra curricular activities and appointments. There was more to this application but this was the primary item. Dear brave Zabeth, spoke on behalf of her husband and herself and her three children while the MCFD Director had his counsel Finn Jensen representing MCFD interests when they made their brief 30 minute presentations on Thursday afternoon.

On Friday Judge Crabtree told the Baynes and the MCFD representatives that he had reviewed both submissions with regard to the application. He made it clear that his ruling Friday is based solely upon those submissions on Thursday and unrelated to the general court hearing. His ruling on Friday was not based upon an any assessment of the court evidence to date. He wanted that understood. He is very aware that Mr. Jensen has another half day of summary on October 6^th and no decision on the CCO has been made until the summary concludes and the Bayne counsel writes a closing statement in response to the Jensen summary.

Judge Crabtree recognizes that his previous visitation order was based upon a summer schedule and that now during the school year there has been an increase in the children's activities as well as social engagements and medical appointments. He notes that MCFD identifies some behavioral issues with a couple of the children and he acknowledges that some of this is plainly the result of being removed from their home for such a long period of time and this is being resolved by this hearing now.

Judge Crabtree therefore granted the MCFD request for two days access rather than three days, thus interfering with frequency. However, the total of nine hours of visitation remains intact. He did not grant the Bayne request for unsupervised visitation but what he did give the Baynes was the possibility of having those six hours on Saturday in their own home. That means supervised visits in their own home, of course contingent upon an in home assessment which means that two social workers will come to their home to inspect the facilities. Special family events and occasions are to be accommodated as visitation opps as well.

This in home inspection is to happen before October 6^th so that any resultant issues my be resolved by THE JUDGE on that day of THE CLOSING SUMMATION.

To the Blog Reader: Some serious reservations arise for me with regard to six hours of visitation time in your own home with a note taking supervisor sitting in your space the entire time. Do some concerns come to your mind as well? Zabeth alluded in court this week to the difficulty they experience during visitation, to know how to respond appropriately to child behaviour that requires some correction or discipline when a supervisor is observing and recording. Will they be deemed too lenient or too severe? And then I wonder what kind of reporting results from a supervisor compelled to put in six hours at one time, weekly. Do the comments become more critical and condemning at the fourth, fifth and sixth hours? How stressful will it be for Paul and Zabeth to put in this kind of time under such intense scrutiny. It is abnormal and uncomfortable. Within six hours there are many potty breaks, snacks, meals, naps perhaps, outside play, inside play, gabbing, talking story reading and who knows what else. Will the supervisor be scolding them and warning them again not to speak of the past or the future or giving children hope or escorting them to the john? The children will be living for six hours among the toys and familiar items of their past family life. It will be natural even instinctive for a mom to make sure her daughter is okay in the bathroom. Is the supervisor under instruction by the Ministry workers to give the parents trouble, badger them, intimidate them and be alert to situations that can be used to verify their unfitness. I don't know. I am asking.  

BUT BELIEVE ME I AM THRILLED THAT THE BAYNES HAVE THIS TIME WITH THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS VENUE.

A BASIS FOR DISCUSSION / Part 323 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

If we are to dialogue with people who can actually change the way things are, how can we best express what needs to be communicated? Here are some thoughts by which I meaningfully engage the subject of government involvement in child protection and specifically the removal of children from parents.

- As I think specifically of the British Columbia's Ministry of Children, there is a level of intervention that I recognize as being necessary to keep children safe in evidential cases of abuse or neglect by a parent or caregiver.
- I recognize the commitment and care provided by some MCFD social workers with high professional standards who ensure the protection of children in cases of abuse and neglect and those who work with families.
- Contrary to some who write comments here, given the two statements above, I cannot oppose all child removal situations by the MCFD.
- While the purpose of the Child and Family Community Services Act is to assist and support families and to remove children only as a last resort, I observe that child removals happen more frequently than that purpose would imply.
- MCFD child protection social workers do not consistently possess adequate investigative skills and some social workers exhibit callous attitudes toward parents with whom they deal. When parents feel that they are treated as criminals, which many do, that approach by a service provider is counter productive.
- MCFD regional office personnel and social workers at times display a judgmental and punitive attitude toward parents and caregivers. Unbalanced or biased investigations and risk assessments have distorted what is real and true. MCFD then persuades the court that intervention is essential for the child's immediate and ongoing safety. .
- The general population of B.C. expect that MCFD and the Family Court is acting in the best interests of the children but for many children removed and in care, their experience is unmistakeably damaging because they have been removed from their parents for months and sometimes for years. When removed from a loving and safe home, children suffer intense trauma and long term misery by being separated from their parents and siblings.

WHAT would you say?

By the way: Thursday Sept 30th, Finn Jensen resumes his case summation at 10AM to continue Ministry care of the Baynes' three children.

THE PARADIGM AND THE BAYNES / Part 315 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

The child-saving paradigm

Child welfare began in the last century as a sincere effort to rescue children from abusive or negligent parents and home situations. That was admirable then. Children were plucked from horrendous environments. Decades have passed and economies changed. Generations have come and gone and most parents manage parenting well and family life flourishes. A need still remains for resources targeted to children and families that experience difficulties. But what we seem to have perpetuated in our child welfare systems is the save the child paradigm. You rescue best if you remove the child. The child is hungry in the home? Take the child away. The child is inadequately clothed? Take the child away. For all the expertise and credentials and dollars we are throwing at child welfare, we remain anchored in this culture of salvation for the children by removing them from their homes and families. That is of itself so counter-cultural to ethnic groups who have come to Canada to live and thrive. It is counter-productive to homegrown citizens to whom life has dished out hardships and finding themselves unemployed or unhealthy or otherwise dysfunctional, instead of finding help from our heavy tax invested government ministries, find opposition and invasion of privacy and rights, and find harm that sends some over the edge. Aboriginal communities particularly have experienced the insidious results of child-saving philosophy. Not respecting First Nations families, our provincial governments in Canada have mistakenly removed many children on the premise of helping them, saving them. Is some of this being addressed now? Yes! But slowly and in small increments.

Child Welfare Enterprise in B.C.

Child welfare is not important to the general population. Young families live and love life and generally get on quite well. Why would they pay attention? It is only when one ordinary family ends up in the child welfare system that these few individuals learn how difficult life can become. Child welfare is also tough I believe for those who must work within it. The work load is increasing for each worker. From among B.C. children approximately 1 to 1.5 percent are in the care of the government. After years of leadership upheaval it may appear now that the Ministry has achieved a turn around. We are still waiting to see. After all, from 2004 to 2006 there were four different ministers. Four deputy or acting deputy ministers served during this same period. Then along came Ms. Dutoit and Ms. Polak and Ms.Turpel-Lafond and the system transformation plan.

Child Protection and the Bayne Family

Tomorrow counsel Finn Jensen will begin his summary statement to the Court. I intend to be there although I do not look forward to it. I wish to report to you the essence of this final day in court for this case. The treatment of this family over almost three years has been nothing short of an escalating disgrace. It has been a discredit to the good Transformation intentions that are birthed in Victoria's Ministry offices. I am convinced that the regional ministry suspects that they are losing this case. They have been scrambling. It's shameful and you may yet hear about it.

HERE IS MY IDEAL SCENARIO / Part 308 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Finn Jensen, counsel for the Ministry of Children (Fraser Region) in this case against Paul and Zabeth Bayne, and of course against their three children rather than in their best interests, will be presenting his summation on September 21st. In some ways the Ministry case is also against all of whom are in foster care under the auspices of the government of British Columbia.

Counsel for the Baynes, Doug Christie, said he needed one hour but he took only twenty minutes to make his summation statement which was impassioned and emphatic and authoritative. He needed no more time because he underscored the failure by the opposing counsel to present any actual evidence to warrant a continuing care order based upon demonstrable risk. At best there had been suspicion but that is not evidence! What kind of shelf life can suspicion reasonably have. It has lasted far too long already. It should have been discarded within weeks and months of the original removal of the children. Instead the Ministry continued with a care program for the children that has separated a family for almost three years. All that because of a presumptive insistence that two innocent parents confess to inflicting an unthinkable trauma to their child. And now we soon will listen to the presumptive call for permanent removal of these children from mommy and daddy. And Jensen said he needs a full day. Oh, I understand it.

It was precisely because of Doug Christie's reminder that no genuine evidence had been presented by MCFD counsel during the course of the hearing that now begs the question, why does Finn Jensen require an entire day to bring his summation on September 21, 2010. The answer I suppose is no more profound than this - when you have nothing to say, you snow job it, filibuster, pad it, so he will talk and talk and attempt to make it appear that the evidence is overwhelming that these children should never be returned to their biological parents. If the evidence was incontestable Jensen could restate it in fifteen minutes, sit down and be confident that the Judge will rule in his favour. To schedule an entire day in court to speak exclusively to the Judge is an insult – an assumption that his honour is so thick that he has not heard much of anything during all the days of court or he will miss it in reading the court transcripts and he now needs everything to be re-articulated in minute detail.

So hear is my ideal scenario.

• Jensen on the 21st September.
• Rapid written response from Doug Christie once he receives the transcript of the Jensen summary.
• Deliberation by the Judge and then his ruling so that on October 22nd, 2010, exactly three years from the date of removal of the children in 2007, those three children will run into the waiting arms of their mom and dad.
• And I trust that Judge Crabtree will find sufficient cause to recommend to the Ministry of Children an independent inquiry into this particular case for the purpose of improving the manner in which cases of this kind are conducted, with a view to working with parents, following prescribed time-lines and protocols, operating with greater transparency and disclosure with parents.
• And when the family of five soon to be six are together, and I provide a week of followup blog posts, I can close this down on October 29th, 2010, exactly one year since I began writing in support of Paul and Zabeth and the kids.

Random Selection from Your Comments / Part 296 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Random Selection from Your Comments: Scores of people have added personal comments to blog posts over the past weeks. Here are a few from recent days.

1. "This was not just about a protection hearing, Doug Christie put the ministry on trial and exposed its shoddy tactics and blundering incompetence for the world to see in an open court.

2. September 21st, 2010 has been set for Finn Jensen to sum up the case for the MCFD. All day.

3. Doug Christie made a succinct, articulate and convincing summation in one hour. Finn Jensen's insistence of having a full day for his summation shows his or MCFD's desperation.

4. The similarities between the Bayne case and ours in Ontario is amazing and on Sept 21, 2009 ours concluded with the return of our children.

5. Fighting for parental rights must become fashionable because of mismanagement of child protective services.

6. My experience is that "services" provided by MCFD are used to acquire more evidence that can be used against the parents to deprive them of parental rights.

7. It is crucial that we recognize child protection corruption to put a stop to more children and families being victims of an awful tyranny.

8. We must return to very simple laws dedicated to helping children truly in need or travesties of Justice will continue in the name of Child Protection.

9. I have seen children removed because parents rent a flea infested condo, or children went to school appearing sad or have a rash, or parents disagree with positions of a SW.

10. As long as a group of people are given such enormous God-like power - that is, the power to take a child from his parents with virtually no accountability, then there will be wrongful removals.

11. Help children who need help, i.e. if there are actual signs of abuse, do an investigation, then charge the perpetrator criminally.

12. Don't permit social workers to yank kids away from their family on the basis of some bogus subjective "neglect" accusation.

13. To revoke sweeping child removal authority does not compromise child protection but rather directs such a measure to truly vulnerable children.

14. Many Canadians, children included, have good reasons not to trust government, largely because of the government's damaging role in their lives.

15. Integral to the job of investigative social workers is use of surveillance and inquiry.

16. Some MCFD employees who read the blog must be dismayed by the Bayne case and we would benefit to hear from them, even if anonymously."

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.

SURPRISE REVEALED Part 281 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Well Paul and Zabeth have made it official now. They are expecting their fourth child. Zabeth is into her third month of pregnancy. She announced it on her Facebook page.

They had no other option but to go public now. This is the private and confidential information extracted under cross examination to which I discreetly referred in the last two posts. Someone with that private information, that secret, disclosed it mistakenly or intentionally. This is the news to which Finn Jensen became privy and used during his cross examination. He led Zabeth through a series of easily affirmed statements that approximated this, “You will agree that your two youngest children have many challenges? Boy B is developmentally behind and will require numerous therapies to assist him?” To these Zabeth responded by reciting a list of needs of which she is fully cognizant. Then he mentioned BabyGirl B and her deficit in movement and speech and Zabeth again responded with knowing affirmations. Jensen asked her whether she could sincerely believe that if the children were returned, Paul and Zabeth could look after them and meet all these needs. Then he asked her whether she would try to expand her family. When I heard that I knew exactly where he was going. She responded, “When Paul and I were married it was our intention to have a large family. We love children and we love our children and we want to nurture them.” Then with soft voice almost audible only to Zabeth to whom he was near, Jensen asked “Are you pregnant now?” She strongly and emotionally replied “Yes.” He whispered “how far along are you?” She said “two months,” and dissolved in tears. The room gasped. THE NEWS WAS OUT. The room gasped not because of the news but the insidious manner in which the news was broken. Christie strongly objected to this invasion of privacy.

Well Jensen's tactic was to infer that they cannot possibly look after three children when they have another one coming along. THAT IS NOT EVEN WHAT THIS TRIAL IS ABOUT. This is about whether either parent harmed their only daughter. They did not. This is about MCFD's failure to provide evidence for Jensen. The Baynes would be caring for their children if they had not been removed. They were diligently caring for the children before the removal. They would have made the adjustments that all good parents make when another child comes along. This case is not about whether they can care. It is about a Ministry taking three children, two of them certainly without cause, and the other for reason of suspicion minus evidence and therefore with no substantive reason for which to be granted continuing care.

Shortly after this, in what seemed like a dramatic moment, Christie announced to the Judge that he was ready to make his final submission. He and the Baynes wanted this done. This was absolutely enough. As far as Christie was concerned, the MCFD had proved nothing by what he called innuendo and smear and grossly distorted risk assessment statements and then this unnecessary, insidious attack upon an expectant mother, knowing she was pregnant and putting the baby at risk because she could lose the baby.

Christie said that MCFD and Jensen have suggested that the Baynes are without strength and are isolated. Bayne supporters filled one entire side of the room and surrounded the MCFD employees on the other. Then Christie turned around to look at the supporters and asked the Judge (paraphrased), “Does this look like they are isolated?" He continued. "It is suggested that the Baynes do not have the necessary network of assistance to care for their children. How many of these people will do all that they can to help Paul and Zabeth care for their children?" A room of supporters stood to their feet in an emotional demonstration of solidarity.

Be sure to read the previous two posts which retell other aspects of the closing of the court case.

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.