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. 

REPORT OF THE HEARING RE: JOSIAH CUSTODY

Acknowledgement: Four individuals supplied me with accounts of Friday's court proceeding. Thank you.

Surrey Provincial Court Building Entrance

Preface: This was a hearing specific to Josiah Bayne, who is now several weeks old and who was removed from his parents' custody on the day of his birth February 10, 2011. His three siblings are the subject of a case that was decided on March 2, 2011 with an outcome that they remain in foster care for six months. The case files for all three Bayne children have been transferred from the Hope Team to the Guildford (Surrey) Team and Matthew Walker is now the primary caseworker with the Bayne family. On this day the court was to hear and make a ruling on MCFD's application for an Interim Custody Order for Josiah. Loren Humeny (Hope Office) has been the primary case worker for the past 3.5 years and he was present to give testimony. Paul Bayne whose failure to testify during the 2010 court case was noted by Judge Crabtree, did testify today, as did Zabeth. Doug Christie was present to represent the Bayne family.

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.

Court Hearing Postponed / Part 440 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

In a follow-up comment on my same blog post of a couple of days ago, confidant, advisor and advocate to the Baynes, Ray Ferris provided an update to the scheduled court hearing regarding Josiah. Please don't misunderstand but catch Ray's sardonic turns of phrase.

Ray Ferris said... "OOPS! OOPS! OOPS! TRIPLE OOPS!

HERE IS THE VERY LATEST ON THE BAYNE CASE'

"When the MCFD rushed in to snatch the Bayne baby on Feb 10th, they locked themselves into having to go to court and file presentation papers within one week. The case was set down for hearing this morning in the Surrey court. Conspicuous by his absence was the worker who swore the affidavit. This means that he could not be questioned on it.When the Baynes got to court they found that the director had already arranged to have the matter adjourned to Feb 24. The judge refused to let the Baynes speak, so once more the system is stacked against them. The judge did say that she recommended the case should be heard by Judge Crabtree, so someone is listening to me. Now I will tell you what is really happening here. The answer is simple DAMAGE CONTROL.

You see it goes something like this. When director Bruce McNeill spent months and years trying to decide whether to follow his lawyer's advice to return the Bayne kids, he painted himself into a corner. If he backed out after all that time he would look bad. No matter because the Baynes had no more money for lawyers and would be defenceless. Then that darned Doug Christie ruined all the plans and people were saying unkind things on the Ron Unruh blog. People are so heartless you know. Then that wretched Bayne woman makes life even more complicated by getting pregnant again in the middle of the trial. Not only that it was a planned pregnancy! How could she do that to him? In defence of Mrs.Bayne, she feels that she has a lot of mother love to give and she always wanted another child. Nobody could believe that the trial would go past September and she would be delivered long after it was over.

Anyway, this left poor Bruce McNeill with a terrible dilemma.How could he possibly rant on for three years that the Baynes were totally unfit parents and then ignore this new child. He must show stern resolve and remove it at birth. If he did not, he would look weak and nobody would respect him. However, he is of course a man of profound compassion and he sought a way out for himself and the baby. If the parents would would work diligently and sincerely with his staff and allow them to help her with her pregnancy, then they might be able to agree on a parenting plan which would avoid apprehension and also demonstrate his benevolence. This might have worked fine if that dreadful man Ray Ferris had not interfered and Ron Unruh had not backed him up. He actually told Mrs. Bayne to have no contact with him (the Director) or his staff because it would put too much stress on her during her pregnancy. What a terrible thing to say and that wounded him deeply. What choice did that leave the poor fellow but to apprehend at birth?

So he summoned his trusty obedient servant Mr. Darth Humeny and said "Go to that hospital, grab the Bayne baby and do not come home without him." So Humeny jumped onto his black stallion, and galloped off to the Royal Columbian Hospital. He stormed into the nursery, spurs jingling and loudly announced that he was apprehending the Bayne child and that from now on he was Josiah's daddy."
February 17, 2011 4:14 PM

"He paused only to drop by Zabeth's room and tell her what he had done.He asked her to understand that he was only obeying orders. Oddly enough, Zabeth was not in the mood for a chat.

He next went back to the nursing station and asked how soon he could come in with a foster mother to pick up the baby. It was only then that he found out that Josiah would take at least a couple of weeks to gain the necessary weight. OOPS! DARN. If only he had thought to ask on the way in. He could have phoned the boss for instructions, but now he had announced that Josiah was in care and he could not back out. The best that he and the boss could come up with was to try to see how they could restrict access to the Baynes in the special care nursery. Obviously the best thing for Josiah was mother's milk and the medical staff favoured breast feeding. Because he was so small Baby Bayne had to drink expressed milk for a few days. Bingo!

They put a ban on expressed milk. These dangerous parents would probably poison the bottle.

They seemed to be back in control, but all hell broke loose. Facebook news travels fast. Soon the Rep for children and youth was being swamped with letters. Members of the legislature were getting an earful and so was the minister and the deputy minister. I was writing to everyone pointing out that there had been no less disruptive plan explored as requred by law. The child would be perfectly safe until Judge Crabtree ruled at the end of the month and the parents had unrestricted access to their baby and he was bonding with his mum.

Humeny that he could salvage the situation, by simply withdrawing his complaint and making up the sort of feeble excuse that they do so well.

So this morning's court was an exercise in damage control. Everybody was saying to the director that he should get out of this before he did any more damage. Of course Bruce could not risk losing face by withdrawing the complaint, so he dashed off to his trusty lawyer, pleading for rescue. The lawyer did what all lawyers do when they are in a jam. You ask for an adjournment. So they got an adjournment with no change in the status quo. No interim custody order of any sort. Legal limbo. Judge Crabtree has given himself until the end of February to announce his ruling. There are only two more working days left after the scheduled court date, so it is virtually certain that the ruling will be out by then and all will be resolved. If the ruling is against the ministry there will be a media storm and this last piece of stupidity will be buried in the waves.

If only McNeill had listened to me in mid December when I urged him to be cautious and not to move before Judge Crabtree's ruling. If only Leslie Dutoit had followed my request to her to urge prudence on her director. As the due date drew nearer, I urged them again to be prudent. This reckless action gained them nothing and only added more difficulties for the Bayne parents When the Baynes are so distressed, all their supporters are also distressed."

February 17, 2011 4:19 PM 

I KNOW YOU CAN DO THIS/ Part 350 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I know foster parents personally. Over a period of many years I have watched these foster parents that I know do a praiseworthy job of raising someone else's children. I know adoptive parents whose families have been comprised of children born to someone else yet who were integrated with such love that it was seamless. I applaud excellent foster parents and superior adoptive parents. They transform unfortunate life events into redemptive rescues and recoveries.

This blogsite is not designed to castigate or demean foster or adoptive parents and families.

I know competent social workers who dedicate themselves to effective responsible work. Knowing them has caused me to conclude that the dominant motivation for people who embark upon a career in social work is the unmistakable desire to help people with social needs. They desire and they receive training to provide a variety of resources to people with social difficulties within the target population in which they work. They have access to and they may collaborate with other social care organizations and government institutions as mediators and consultants.

We are all proud of our province

This blogsite is not designed to rebuke or humiliate social workers whether at the front line or in a supervisory role.

Listen, I could do this all day. I know as friends, doctors and lawyers and people in law enforcement and I am certain that almost everyone who enters these professions do so with laudable intentions. This blog is not designed to reprimand or offend any who spend their lives in these fields.

However, it may sometimes appear that this blog is merely a vehicle for disseminating vitriol to scar people employed in positions to which I have alluded above, because child protection activities at the heart of these daily written communications have bred such wrath and anguish, not in me personally, but in those for whom and about whom I write. Further, my thoughts provide opportunity for the wounded to respond and they do, often with words directed like a scatter gun at everyone in the fields related to their damaged lives. Everyone who is suspected of being responsible for disrupting and interfering and even ruining a family becomes a target for a verbal blast.

You see, I also know personally, people whose children should never have been held from their parents for as long a period as has been the case. I know parents who have not received from social workers a respect and compassion we would associate with their professions. I know parents who have been handled with disinterest, discourtesy and cruelty by healthcare and legal and law enforcement persons.

So you will have to excuse what appears to be an occasional outburst or an overstep of civility because YOU HAVE NOT BEEN LISTENING. Ms. Polak, Ms. Du Toit, Ms. Turpel-Lafond, Mr. Campbell, Mr. de Jong, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Fitzimmons, Mr. Jensen, Mr. Gulbot, Mr. Humeny, there are parents and children who are not being heard. Attention must be paid to a countless number of parents who are powerless to recover their families because an entire ministry and legal system is charged with a mandate that can be deemed counter productive to the objectives of these disenfranchised parents. In so many of these cases, the best interests of the children is being misunderstood and misinterpreted. I am begging you to begin to listen to their heart cries. This province needs to become proactive, a trail blazer in reform of child protection policy and practice. I know that you can do this.

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.

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

CONTENDING FOR A CLIENT LIKE THIS / Part 176

And his client? Who is Finn Jensen’s client? ------------ The Ministry!

Well it is not so generic as the Ministry of Children and Family Development but is specifically the MCFD Fraser Regional team to the director of which I wrote an Open Letter this past Thursday. Perhaps you read that. I appealed to him to instruct his lawyer to come to court this coming Thursday the 29th, and to tell the Judge that the Ministry has chosen not to contest the application. This is the appropriate and right action.

By the way, yesterday's post was not up for very long so if you missed it, you should scroll back to read about Mr. Jensen's dilemma and some readers comments.

Mr. Bruce McNeill is a seasoned leader within this realm of social work and he has become aware of a lot of poverty, abuse, dishonesty and vindictiveness within homes and families. He has been authorized to lead his team to protect children in his geographical region. Under his watch the Baynes have experienced from this team unremitting resistance, accusation and determination to end their family? The Bayne file in the regional office must be tight with pages of condemnation. It is a file that points fingers of blame at Paul and Zabeth Bayne. It is a finger pointing file. As it has developed no one was aware how decidedly the fingers have pointed back at MCFD. Social Worker Loren Humeny wrote the most recent risk assessment of the Baynes. I heard his testimony in court some weeks ago. He was asked why one page of the report was left blank. We learned that according to the template, that page customarily contains positive remarks about the subject(s). When questioned why he couldn’t state one positive or redeeming quality about the Baynes I heard him say he didn’t know these people. However, under cross-examination he admitted meeting with the Baynes many times. I am sure some of those meetings were not ideal or friendly - perhaps even forgettable. The Baynes were not so concerned with whether Humeny liked them as much as they were concerned to obtain some answers about the care of their children. Guess what! These are stellar parents whose children have been taken because mom and dad have been wrongly impugned with liability for a crime for which RCMP said there is no evidence but only a medical insinuation based on questionable diagnostics. They are diligent in their campaign to recover their children. Yes they write letters and do research and acquire sympathizers and supporters. Yes, they love their children more than their own lives. Sure they are vocal. Why not praise them for dedication to a cause that matters? Give them something. Why not acknowledge that these two parents are deeply committed to their children and attend every visitation opportunity and anxiously ask for more time. That could have been in the assessment. What’s wrong with this social working team? Are they only interested in the contest? This has nothing to do with protecting children any longer. This is gamesmanship of the worst kind. A blank page speaks volumes about the process and the attitudes and the spirit of this so called ‘Ministry’ and informs us as to why the lawyer’s advice was ignored. Keeping the boys has nothing to do with evidence. Then what is it? You tell me.

For Love and For Justice / Part 123 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

COURT NEWS UPDATE

AN UNEXPECTED ADJOURNMENT, FRIDAY February 26, 2010
Proceedings were interrupted as counsel for MCFD, Mr. Finn Jensen received news and then asked the Defense and the Court to agree to an adjournment for the day because of a grave tragedy, the sudden death of one of Mr. Jensen’s clients. He desired to make himself available to tend the needs of the family of the deceased.

SYMPATHY

Some GPS readers may be familiar with this grieving family as you read this note. Paul and Zabeth Bayne wish to express their own deepest sympathy for the family’s loss and pain at this time of heartbreak. They say, “Our prayer and thoughts are with you.”

BRIEF FRIDAY COURT BUSINESS CONDUCTED BEFORE ADJOURNMENT
Kimberly Grey was called back to the stand regarding a disclosure item that she had to produce. The Baynes had expressed some concern to the Ministry about their two sons during care at one of the homes to which they were assigned. It was Ms. Grey’s responsibility to investigate this. She did visit the home, but was unable to interview the person directly named by their son and she was satisfied by information received from another person at the home. Ms. Grey made no further attempts to investigate the concern or to verify the information received. and noted in her completed file that she considered the matter closed. That was the end of that matter on Friday.

Loren Humeny was also brought to the stand in order to produce the document he received from a now disclosed collateral (formerly anonymous witness). The disclosed document had been addressed personally to Paul and Zabeth Bayne and was among documents they intended to send to MCFD. Loren Humeny claimed he received this document on a date that would appear to be two to three days prior to the Baynes trying to submit it to the Ministry. Nothing more is known or can be said about this now and the defense has not closed this matter.

FUTURE COURT DATES
Friday concluded with no dates set for continuation of this trial. Both sides wait for the Judicial Case Manager to contact the lawyers with a date for a conference with Judge Crabtree in order to select further trail dates. They may require two more weeks for further evidence presentation. It is the defence (Baynes) turn to present. This blog will notify readers of dates when they are certain.

BAYNES SAY THANK YOU

A special thank you to everyone that has been able to attend the hearing dates so far. Your presence has been a much appreciated support during this trying time.

For Love and For Justice / Part 111 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Best that Jensen Can Do
Part Two of Two Parts

Following the Hoffman testimonies, Finn Jensen called upon his heavyweights for testimony, Adrienne Glen and Dr. Margaret Colbourne. They represent the concern that arose within the child protection unit of Vancouver Children’s Hospital when Bethany was admitted, examined, tested and treated. Each of these women was doing a specific job to the best of her ability and each I must assume fulfilled her role with integrity. Adrienne, an intake social worker at the hospital, visited and conversed with the Bayne family and medical professionals and wrote timely reports and in the process expressed her opinions, sometimes about the Baynes. Dr. Colbourne, very connected to the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory through involvement with an international SBS organization and committed to the understanding that the presence of the diagnostic triad of (1) retinal bleeding, (2) bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and (3) brain swelling, is predictably indicative of SBS, made that SBS diagnosis with Bethany in 2007. The testimony of each woman in court affirmed her report from 2007 and each report potentially discredited Paul and Zabeth as normal, concerned and loving parents and implied their responsibility in harming their child and by which Finn Jensen hoped to convince the judge that MCFD has acted from the outset upon accurate and trustworthy data. The snag for Jensen is that Counsel Doug Christie was able to cross examine both witnesses and consequently weaken the import of their testimonies. Glen was compelled to admit that her recorded perceptions that the Baynes spent relatively little time with Bethany in hospital were inaccurate and that they had in fact spent many daily hours in hospital with Bethany. Colbourne’s qualifications as an expert were questioned with regard to an absence of biomechanical training needed to ascertain whether or not Bethany's injuries were accidental or non accidental. Theoretically, Colbourne's SBS diagnosis would benefit greatly from the next witness.

Now came Jensen’s super heavyweight Shaken Baby witness, Dr. Randall Alexander from Florida, who has testified in over 300 similar cases and who was here to assure the court that unquestionably, Bethany’s injuries were the result of shaking. His towering persona began to dissolve when he was forced to admit that he wrote his SBS report on Bethany months before seeing the actual film work on Bethany a day before entering the witness box. He had to admit that he had not read Bethany’s birth records, reports concerning Bethany from area hospitals, or any of the ten experts' reports on Bethany that countered his SBS claim. It was clear to the judge that Alexander’s report had been written with incomplete medical information. What kind of evidence is this?

Most recently Social Worker Loren Humeny testified and was cross examined for almost the equivalent of four days. Under cross-examination Humeny was asked whether the risk assessment was written when he was in an adversarial position with the Baynes, because the MCFD was already seeking a continuing care order on all three Bayne children which the parents opposed. He admitted that the risk assessment was highly subjective and primarily his opinion. Christie stated that it had a dearth of factual evidence. It essentially vilified the Baynes and on the one page customarily assigned to summarize strengths, Humeny noted no strengths for them as individuals, as a couple or as parents, saying he didn’t know them, yet admitted that he had spent many hours with them in meetings. The hundreds of letters of reference in support of the Baynes, he admitted he knew about but had not read. So perhaps he doesn’t know them. Judge Crabtree will have to settle for himself whether that constitutes evidence. And this thus far is the best that Jensen has been able to do with what he has. All of this exchange is in court transcripts.

What seemed so strong, so ominous, is paler now and fragile.

For Love and For Justice / Part 109 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This Trial Is Done With Loren Humeny, I Think
And this was another Huge Day

On Thursday, February 11, 2010, Doug Christie cross examined social worker Loren Humeny for one more day. I am sure Mr. Humeny was happy to step down from the witness box finally. This has been his third day of witness duty. He is also an observer for MCFD in court almost every day. He listened to all testimony preceding his own sworn testimony. Seems like a bit of a conflict but it wasn’t challenged.

During this cross examination, some progress was made for parents – not simply the Baynes, but parents like them who face allegations from anonymous callers. Now, don’t you want to keep reading? Yes, that’s correct. Presently, people can make calls to MCFD about you, your activities and your parenting or your children’s appearance or behaviour, and those callers can be classified as anonymous. Isn’t that convenient for them? Surreptitious, sneaky, clandestine callers. Mr. Humeny has referred to these anonymous callers as “collaterals,” since among other meanings the term designates those testimonies that serve to support or corroborate and are therefore collateral evidence.

Humeny said there were about six collaterals who communicated about the Baynes. Collaterals were very important to Mr. Humeny’s Risk Assessment document and to his testimony because he has placed more credence in this handful of collaterals who called him, than he did in the credibility of hundreds of people who called MCFD or sent emails or posted letters in support of the Baynes and their parenting and their characters. I know that because he acknowledged in court and it is in the transcripts that he had not read any of that latter correspondence. He did however take seriously the content of the collateral call-ins who cast doubt upon the Bayne’s fitness as parents and it had been expected by the MCFD that these collaterals could remain anonymous. However...........

Doug Christie had earlier requested that these collaterals should be identified in court. The Risk Assessment written by Humeny incorporated these call ins. Christie argued that without identification, reference to the content of the call ins is mere hearsay, rather than evidence. Their testimony is dangerous to the Baynes but the collaterals could not be known or challenged. "How can that be evidence," Christie demanded to know. On Thursday MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen began with arguments against Doug Christie’s request for disclosure of the several anonymous callers.

As he has done once before, Judge Crabtree took a brief intermission to deliberate and then returned with his ruling that this witness must identify the names of the anonymous callers. If you are at all sympathetic to the Baynes, you must agree that this is a good thing.

In fact, this may be precedent setting. This is repetitious but I must make the point. Previously, persons who called the MCFD with allegations of abuse or neglect have had their anonymity protected under the Act that governs MCFD. For the Baynes and for other parents in similar situations, this anonymity of complainants has posed an insurmountable challenge because false information cannot be challenged. Consequently anonymous callers are unaccountable for what they say. On Thursday, Judge Crabtree made a ruling that harmonizes with what fair-minded people have always known should happen. A court of law must make its decisions and judgements based upon fact and not hearsay. When a caller’s information is believed to be untrue there must be opportunity to cross examine these testimonies so the callers must be identified.

The identities and the credibility of the collaterals will be addressed later in this trial.

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.