4

Ayn and Mommy within the past three years

Ayn and Daddy when she was a small girl 

4 days remain for the current TCO, Temporary Court Order by which the Ministry of Children and Family Development hold Ayn Van Dyk, in foster care in her 12th year of life. She was nine years of age when she was removed from her father's custody.

DAY FOUR IN THE SURREY SIX MURDER CASE

Day Four, Thursday Oct 3rd, 2013 in the Surrey Six Murder trial is accounted by journalist Kim Bolan in an article entitled, 'Landlord inspected 1505 six days before the Surrey Six murders'. The suite was a rental and prosecution submits it was a stash house for a drug gang.

She writes: The owner of suite 1505 in Surrey’s Balmoral Tower testified Thursday that he kicked out a suspected drug dealer but then let the tenant’s friend and her boyfriend move in. Ceasar Tiojanco told Justice Catherine Wedge that he evicted tenant Sean Corbett in early 2007 after the building managers told him Corbett had a grow-op in another apartment. “Since the manager notified me about the involvement in illegal activity, I told him he has to move out,” Tiojanco testified on day four of the Surrey Six murder trial. “And then he introduced me to Desiree who he said is a good person and would be good to take over the tenancy and I agreed.” Six people, including innocent bystanders Ed Schellenberg and Chris Mohan, were shot to death in Tiojanco’s suite on Oct. 19, 2007."

RAY FERRIS TO TIMES COLONIST AND MPPs

A letter from Ray Ferris - Written to the Times Colonist  

Ray Ferris is a retired child-protection worker and the author ofThe Art of Child Protection.

"You report another child welfare horror story. Such professional incompetence is entrenched and institutionalized in British Columbia and many other child welfare jurisdictions. The Internet is rife with horror stories. Ian Mulgrew of the Vancouver Sun recently covered a case that cost an estimated two to three million dollars before the children’s ministry withdrew from the case and returned the children to the mother. Anyone can read the scathing judgement here.

WHAT WE GET FOR WHAT WE GIVE

We pay good money to operate a government for the people.

We pay our taxes, all of us do, as citizens of the commonwealth, the federal government of Canada, and the British Columbia government for a province that we call home. We love it here and together we are the people.

Our expectations are routine enough. We want reliable representation by ordinary people standing in on our behalf to create and manage respectable law and policy to service people and the communities in which we live.

We value statements by government agencies that have the sound of credibility such as “In the best interests of children.” We believe innocently, naively that all agencies mean what they say, or that all employees within them, operate with authenticity.

Then something like this happens.

THE WAY I SEE AYN VAN DYK'S CASE

We are all waiting for her return, none more apprehensively than Amie Van Dyk and her ex husband Derek Hoare. They are the parents of Ayn Van Dyk, the twelve-year old autistic child who innocently meandered from her family back yard in 2011. Ayn was ten years old at that time. Even Ayn with imperfect cognitive capability would have reasoned to stay in her own back yard had she known that the consequence would be her removal from her family for over two years.

Amie and Derek have been informed some months ago that they can expect Ayn to be returned to them some time during the month of September 2013.

Ayn was ten years old when she scaled a fence that surrounded the back yard. She was not affecting a prison break. She was not violating a community standard. She was not disrupting anyone’s peace, although she did cost the taxpayer some money because of the urgently placed 911 call from her father summoning the help of RCMP who sent a helicopter into the Abbotsford skies to locate his child. Even Derek with his anxious parental response would have reasoned to summon friends instead of RCMP had he known that the outcome would be the agony of separation from his daughter for most of these past two years.

AYN'S APPREHENSION WAS UNREASONABLE - WILL THE MINISTER LISTEN?

In June 2011, MCFD’s decision to apprehend Ayn was the result of under-investigation. I believe it was over-reaction rather than over-investigation. Sending out the child protection team was standard procedure following an RCMP involvement in a child-search. However, when social workers arrive unannounced with document in hand, requesting a parent’s signature to a voluntary surrender of a child, without engaging in a sincere discussion of the challenges of parenting an autistic child, and in this specific case, the reasonable explanation for the child’s wandering from home, and possibly as well, asking how the Ministry could actually facilitate Derek’s job of caring for three children, two of whom are autistic, then the MCFD action was flagrantly unreasonable, illogical, unfounded, groundless, senseless and irrational.

CONGRATS FIFTH ESTATE - WELL DONE SBS DOCUMENTARY

I waited, I watched, I am Pleased

You should check this link to see when the show is repeated. It will also be archived at the CBC TV site. (Repeat airtimes)

DIAGNOSIS MURDER

This long awaited documentary was better than I had hoped! This has been the most significant public awareness vehicle to date, to alert Canada to the possibilities of unjust allegations and convictions with regard to Shaken Baby Syndrome.

The Fifth Estate investigative team, the production crew, and Gillian Findlay are a class act. They researched both sides of this controversial issue and they allowed both sides to speak. Yet it was clear enough on which side of the diagnostic/judicial conundrum Fifth Estate stood.

Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is a medical diagnosis based on the presence of a diagnostic triad: (1) retinal bleeding, (2) bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and (3) brain swelling. During the past twenty years this has been the preferred diagnosis. It was formulaic. These injuries in a child were considered conclusive evidence of a shaken baby. Every shaken baby has a shaker. A shaker has committed a criminal offence punishable upon conviction.  But WAIT!

In Toronto, one of Jeffrey Smith’s twin daughters, born very prematurely and struggling to live in their early months, died while in his sole care one day eighteen years ago. He went to prison after being tried for murder but sentenced for manslaughter. This was one of two heart-wrenching stories featured last night. Recently he was exonerated.That little girl died of natural causes. Jeff's life has changed forever. His other daughter is eighteen years of age now and he has never seen her. She was raised by her mom who although she was not present when the little girl died, was convinced by the police that the father was responsible. She did not appear on air.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne of Surrey, BC, had charges dropped in 2007 but their three children were removed from them because of suspicion that one of them had injured their youngest child. She did not die. She was gravely ill for a long while. She too had been born with some prematurity but in a household accident at seven weeks of age she had also been struck by a sibling as he fell on her while running. That explanation did not wash with authorities, both law enforcement and medical. A pediatrician diagnosed her as a ‘Shaken Baby.’ RCMP dropped initial charges due to insufficient evidence but the Ministry of Children understandably continued to consider the parents a risk. Not understandable was the Ministry’s unwillingness to ask for a second opinion - a disinclination to entertain the possibility there may be another explanation for her injuries. It took four (4) years and everything that this determined couple could give in order to win a verdict that they were not responsible for the child’s injuries and to have their children returned to them this past year, four years after the saga began.

Fifth Estate considerately, wisely held off the broadcast of this show until the Bayne family was no longer under the review period assigned for the first three months that the children were back with their parents. The Baynes were not vindictive in the interview. They plainly expressed how the ordeal had affected them personally and how helpless they had been within a child protection system that assumes guilt until proven innocent. Last night’s show may become a resource to prevent other innocent and grieving parents from being presumed guilty.

'DIAGNOSIS MURDER' ON FIFTH ESTATE FRI JAN 13

FIFTH ESTATE is an award winning CBC television program known for its quality investigative journalism. This coming week, on Friday January 13th at 9 PM Pacific Time, it will air a show to which many of us have looked forward. The show is entitled tile ‘DIAGNOSIS MURDER’ and it is a documentary on the questionable science of Shaken Baby Syndrome. Paul and Zabeth Bayne will be involved in this expose. You will recall that this couple lost custody of their three children with an event that began in September 2007. For two years this blog chronicled their story – the medical diagnosis of their youngest child’s injuries as SBS and the subsequent establishment of a Ministry of Children’s case that one or both of the parents were responsible for those injuries. That unchanging conviction directed the Ministry’s actions for the next four years. RCMP had dropped charges due to insufficient evidence. That did not stop MCFD. We can understand the need to be cautious, even suspicious, and therefore exercise due diligence to ascertain whether these parents are a risk or not, and further whether they deserve and can manage three children if they are returned to them.

Will this be a good documentary? Will it affect any benefits for the Baynes, or for other parents who have been suspected of shaking a child? I have great expectations for this approaching show. My confidence comes from the record of archived Fifth Estate shows and most recently the success of this past week’s show entitled ESCAPE FROM JUSTICE.

I MAY BE WRONG BUT I DOUBT IT / 588

I have written about the Baynes for two years. I will stop soon. I only recently wrote several posts about Derek Hoare and his daughter Ayn. I won't need to write for him because he has an army at work for him.

The Bayne case differs remarkably from that of Derek Hoare and daughter Ayn. Bethany Bayne was removed from parental custody when she was seven weeks old. She had been injured. Her two sibling brothers were removed at the same time. Because of Bethany's injuries the Bayne case launched amid solemn suspicion that one of the parents was a child abuser. That Ministry suspicion was generated and fueled by medical opinion. RCMP investigated but dismissed the matter. MCFD's suspicion was unrelenting. Derek's daughter, nine-year old Ayn is autistic and upon her removal the hospital examination reported no evidence of harm or abuse but rather good health. Her two sibling brothers have been permitted to remain with their father. Ayn was removed from her father’s care and custody when she wandered away from her home one day as many autistic children are prone to do.

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."

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.

MAKING IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE / Part 472 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Bayne family is a prime example of the way by which the Ministry of Children and Family Development (“Ministry”) fails to follow the principles outlined for it in the Child, Family, and Community Service Act (“CFCSA”). Unless Leslie duToit and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond give attention here, there will be other cases like this one that become public knowledge. I must compliment Paul and Zabeth for the tenacity with which they have brought their heartache to the public. What else were they to do when the agency that should be helping them shut its ears to them because the Baynes would not admit to a criminal act.

EXONERATED / Part 427 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

PostMedia News Photo of Dinesh Kumar

The National Post ran this story on Thursday. Mr. Dinesh Kumar is now 44 years old but twenty years ago he was accused of killing his five week old son. It was the now notoriously inaccurate Ontario pathologist, Dr. Charles Smith, who concluded that the infant named Gaurov died as a result of shaken baby syndrome. On Thursday the Ontario Court of Appeal cleared this poor suffering man of all liability in his son's death. Of course, his case was compounded by the fact that 20 years ago he was subjected to such intense investigatory pressure that he could no longer take it, so he confessed to taking his son's life. He was initially charged with second degree murder but when he pleased guilty , it was to a lesser charge of criminal negligence causing death. For two decades he has lived with the shame, the sentence, the ostracism, the record of being a baby killer, when in fact he was innocent.

Confession is precisely what the MCFD Team here in B.C. has expected and initially sought to extract from the Baynes with regard to injuries sustained by their several week old infant daughter over three years ago. When that confession was not offered but rather a resounding declaration of innocence in every early meeting with them, the MCFD became entrenched in a combative posture that has been well demonstrated by the wording of risk assessments and affidavits and cross examinations.

Now listen to an extract of the Kumar case as it is reported by Linda Nguyen of the National Post. She writes, “Dr. Smith concluded Gaurov died of shaken-baby syndrome. But in new material filed with the appeal court, new opinions from various medical experts have found that Smith’s conclusion is no longer scientifically valid.” Lawyer James Lockyer took on Mr. Kumar's case three years ago,. Mr. Lockyer is the founding director for the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. He said, “... 20 years ago, the theory offered to explain shaken-baby syndrome was “en vogue... The trouble was that the attempt of an explanation somehow became fact, became science — when it wasn’t... Smith’s reputation went beyond police and Crown and judges, it seemed to have affected defence lawyers of the day. If Smith said something, it was almost bound to be right.”

The Baynes' child did not die. They are so thankful for that yet nonetheless, in their case parents have again borne blame for conditions of injury to their child because the title of the diagnosis itself implicates non accidental injury. MCFD practitioners have been willing to depend exclusively on a doctor's SBS diagnosis, well in fact, the Director himself said that his affidavit in support of the Continuing Care Application rested solely upon the pediatrician's SBS diagnosis. Apparently in B.C. there is a medical consensus that SBS is still 'en vogue.” No one within MCFD sought to think outside this strict designation by seeking other opinions. It was left to Zabeth and Paul themselves to uncover medical experts who disagree with the blanket SBS diagnosis and certainly disagree that it should apply in this case.That contradictory evidence by the way is building daily and annually in the medical arena and appears only appropriate that this well publicized Bayne Case shall conclude with a Judge dismissing the validity of SBS as a justification for the treatment of this entire family.

Not for a moment is anyone saying that to question SBS is to turn on a green light for child abusers and shakers. Rather the opposition is to the use of a triad of injuries as an automatic guilty conviction if not criminally then certainly practically within the framework of a child protection system with the legal interruptive, invasionary power like that bestowed upon MCFD through the CFCSA. Any way one slices this kind of case, the RCMP could find no substantive evidence that warranted a charge of any kind, and the medical diagnosis also came without actual evidence of culpability. The suspicion that arises from the grave physical conditions of an injured child is not the equivalent of evidence, and even the suspicion must be set aside when the resultant diagnosis is one which is increasingly disputed because the injuries may be consistent with accident or one of various other conditions or diseases.

WHAT DOES AN IMPROVED OUTCOME LOOK LIKE? / Part 421 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

logo design for business logic by james wenzel

Yesterday I wrote two posts and in the first entry I said that we need a model of casework that ensures consistent practices which support improved outcomes for children, youth and families. I am going to give MCFD an example of what a good outcome looks like. I will use the Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their three children as an example because even this difficult case could have been addressed with an improved outcome provision.

There is no question that this has been a complicated case. It is complicated by the nature of their youngest child's injuries, by the initial medical diagnosis of those injuries using a term that immediately insinuates parental liability, by the controversy in the medical sciences arena about the legitimacy of the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, by the early and continued denial by the parents of any harm done by them to their child, by the early RCMP arrest and charges against the parents prior to an investigation and then the subsequent release and dropping of charges for lack of evidence, by the immediate apprehension of the two older syblings, by the failure of MCFD to follow prescribed time-line guidelines within its own authorizing ACT, by the MCFD refusal to accept the Bayne explanation of accidental injury, by the MCFD refusal to give credence or even read the hundreds of letters of support for the Baynes, by the unjustified retention of the two boys without cause and against their own counsel's advice, by the adversarial treatment MCFD administered to the Baynes at every level including intensely rigid instruction about visitation, by the financial losses of the family in properties to pay legal fees, by the unduly long three years that MCFD has withheld the children from their parents, by the publicity that has been garnered by public protests, by online blogs and news media venues suggesting MCFD blundering, and by the lengthy court case in which the bulk of the time was spent by MCFD counsel. That is complicated!

If an improved outcome had been the focus of MCFD for the Bayne family, the Director and his team would have considered that in spite of a suspicious injury and a medical opinion, there was no verifiable specific evidence. It would have understood the significance of the RCMP dropping of charges. It would have viewed the medical diagnosis as an opinion rather than a verdict. It would have dug deeply enough to recognize even three years ago the controversy revolving around the SBS diagnosis. It may still not have believed the Baynes' story of accidental injury or believe that either one of them was innocent of wrongdoing. However, MCFD would have acknowledged that it did not have proof against the Baynes. It merely had suspicion of them and MCFD would have understood the significant difference between evidence and suspicion. MCFD would have viewed this now as an opportunity – an opportunity to help this family. It would have recognized that the best interests of the children was unquestionably to be with their parents and it would have considered how that can best be effected. It would have provided to the Baynes a compassionate plan whereby the parents were not made to feel like criminals always under suspicion but rather as clients being helped by a caring social agency, whereby the well-being of the children in the family home could be monitored each week for a specified time period, whereby the parents could have attended any agreed upon course for parents of small children to improve understanding, coping skills and patience and whereby the concerns of MCFD could be met and the dignity of two respected people could be retained.

Please send this to news media people you know with a courteous two sentence intro inviting them to read this link. Example: "Please read today's GPS blog post. The Bayne Family will hear Judge Crabtree's ruling by January 19th. Thank you. The Link is: GPS"

This Blog has been advocating the return of three children to their biological parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne, for which a ruling is expected from Judge Crabtree by January 19th. Three days. Stay posted.

COMPARATIVES BETWEEN RCMP & MCFD / Part 363 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

Let's Compare the investigative practices of MCFD and RCMP

None of this affords me pleasure. I have all of my life held our governments and their agencies and law enforcement in high esteem. I have had little reason to question their integrity and uprightness. This past year because of my introduction to the injustice suffered by one family I have been exposed to the scores of other stories close to home and I have grown apprehensive and dismayed. My research suggests that child protection has lost its way in every province and if that was not startling enough in every civilized society. What is equably written here in this blog is blasted out with vehement rhetoric in newspapers, magazines, online websites and blogs all over the world. I have developed a unpleasant case of cynicism over these months. I am unsure whether it is a treatable condition. For the short term, I know I will have relief when the Baynes get their children back. But what about the thousands of other children who must stay in care away from the parents with whom they desire to live and who love them.

RCMP Coat of Arms

Similarities between MCFD operations and the deficiencies in RCMP investigations

A pattern of deficiencies in RCMP investigative processes have been uncovered in recent well publicized cases and we recognize some parallels in the way MCFD is processing child protection cases. These are deficiencies have been mentioned:

a. A preset mentality that someone is guilty - MCFD is similarly inclined to form an attitude that the parent(s) is guilty of some kind of abuse or neglect and so does all in their power to produce evidence however insubstantial.

b. Ignoring available evidence or actual evidence that contradicts the preset - Similarly MCFD predictably filters acquired evidence in order to promote that evidence which supports its view of the situation and it has failed to interview available and potential witnesses who would not support the preset mindset.

c. Pressing forward with the prosecution process by laying charges anyway – Similarly MCFD in the Family Court will continue their prosecution or persecution of parents involved to deny them justice and convince the Court of the charges they have against the family. I have witnessed this myself.

Factors in MCFD investigations of families:

a) MCFD says that it takes a forensic approach. This is acceptable provided that a balanced and thorough investigation is conducted in response to allegations, but often allegations have little substance.

b) Typically MCFD looks only for that which is wrong or deficient in a family scenario and places the parenting in the worst possible light ignoring all their admirable points.

c) Often investigators accept the views of those who support allegations while ignoring the advocacy of those who support the family.

d) Interviewing children who are considered at risk often is inferior, while parents may not be interviewed at all prior to the removal of children.

e) Many notifications of concern about children and false allegations against parents are found by MCFD investigation to require no further action.

f) Nevertheless, many investigations are pursued with a purpose to find something significantly wrong in order to justify the previous over-reactive removal of a child or to justify a subsequent removal.

g) The agenda may involve a vindictive attitude against a parent or social engineering bent designed to put the children with more suitable caregivers, (as with the removal of aboriginal children in BC and other provinces).

h) If the initial allegation of abuse proves empty, MCFD will stretch other matters in order to come up with other problematic suggestions like neglect or lack of control.

This is inevitable and healthy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 132 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Bayne Case fills pages of reports and the hard copy reports fill file drawers and boxes. I know this is a complex case, involving more convoluted details than I will ever know even as a sympathizer of the Baynes. Yet essentially the story is that a baby suffered retinal hemorrhaging which is sometimes a sign of child abuse. Together with other medical observations at the time of baby Bayne’s hospital admission the diagnosis was made and the Ministry intervened a long time ago, twenty–eight months ago, October 22, 2007. The Ministry removed three children from the Bayne home.


The Baynes would concur with the rest of us that the hospital staff, the medical professionals, and the Ministry were not just within their rights, but were actually right to suspect child abuse and to run tests and to investigate. That is how the system must work if all the necessary tests are conducted and a thorough investigation is completed. It is designed to affect its purpose for the sake of our society and our children. But the process derailed when the Ministry insisted that a suspicion of abuse that ratcheted up the risk monitor was more significant than the RCMP investigative conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge the Baynes with abuse. Left to the RCMP alone, the children would never have been removed from the Bayne parents.

As far as the Ministry was concerned there was sufficient suspicion to remove three children from Paul and Zabeth, even though only the youngest was the one with the injuries from which the altercation stemmed. I said ‘sufficient suspicion’ rather than ‘sufficient evidence.’ The Ministry has had to maintain that suspicion for two and one half years. The ministry might insist that has not been difficult because the risk is so obvious. I claim that maintaining suspicion of the Baynes has not been easy to do because there is no evidence. In fact evidence that Paul and Zabeth are good parents and respected people had to be ignored in order to preserve the suspicion of risk. Only suspicion existed initially and only suspicion remains today. Yet the suspicion has become the equivalent of evidence in the Ministry’s mind. Now the Ministry has proceeded all the way to the Court still insisting that the Baynes pose a high enough risk to warrant the continued care/custody of the three children by the government Ministry. More than that, these children must be protected from their birth parents until they reach adulthood. The Ministry has come to Court needing to convince a judge that its suspicions are synonymous with evidence. This is just my take on it but I don’t think that the judge is convinced. Oh and of course the Ministry’s lawyer advised the Ministry months ago that a case could not be made to continue holding the two older boys, but the Ministry ignored that counsel, presumably because their suspicions are still defensible. Well they’re not.

For Love and For Justice / Part 113 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

What I am hearing from court proceedings …

This present case against the Baynes maintaining custody of their daughter proceeded from injuries for which they brought her to Vancouver Children’s Hospital and which were diagnosed there as indicators of a Shaken Baby Syndrome and only that. That diagnosis presumed a non accidental injury. Any story that the parent or caregiver offered with regard to an accident had to be categorically mistrusted. The hospital had no option and it had protocol which required staff to notify MCFD and/or RCMP. That was done. The RCMP found insufficient evidence to proceed with charges. From the RCMP standpoint the Baynes were exonerated. MCFD now involved in a child protective scenario looked at the Baynes differently because MCFD had more confidence in the medical diagnosis than they had in the Bayne parents’ story of accident. The only long term resolution that MCFD could foresee was an admission by one or both Bayne parents that in fact the baby had been shaken and that they were sorry and would be willing to take any classes that teach them to manage frustration and annoying baby behaviour. Then perhaps the family could be reunited, albeit with some monitoring provisos but such reunion was not assured.

Of course we now know that the Baynes have for well over two years refused to admit to something for which they still maintain their innocence.

The shortcoming in medical procedure that the Bayne camp has argued in court was a failure at that early investigative stage to systematically eliminate all other possible causes for the injuries. This is called a differential diagnosis.

The MCFD camp maintains through the attending health professional who made the initial diagnosis, that SBS was most consistent with the injury details. Bayne’s counsel Doug Christie questioned Dr. Colbourne’s credentials sufficiently that Judge Crabtree ruled that she would not be allowed to offer an opinion as to whether this was an accident or a non accident, or even to state her opinion that it was SBS. Finn Jensen ducked that ruling a following day by having Dr. Margaret Colbourne recite all the alternative causes with which in her opinion, the indicators were not consistent, and she finally landed on the one remaining cause, SBS. Why Judge Crabtree didn’t insist upon his prior ruling remains unanswered.

The differential diagnosis for Subdural Hematoma (SDH) in an infant includes impact trauma; a variety of natural diseases; and hypoxia/anoxia, either as a primary event or as a complication of impact or natural disease. A physician investigates, explicitly considers, and eliminates each before he/she attributes these signs and symptoms to a specific mechanical or physiological cause. The question remains. Will the judge conclude that Dr. Colbourne was qualified to conduct an explicit differential consideration of the numerous potential causes for subdural hematoma and retinal bleeding? That will certainly affect the outcome. The judge will have to determine based upon evidence, whether the Baynes are a risk to their children or was the baby's medical story the result of a family accident, or the baby's pre-existing condition exacerbated by an accidental impact?

For Love and For Justice / Part 80 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Countdown is on - January 6 and Seven Days before Court


Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is one of the few instances in the criminal justice system that a medical diagnosis stands as the basis for a prosecution. The SBS diagnosis is based on findings of what is known as the triad—retinal hemorrhage, bleeding in the brain and brain swelling. That there are other explanations for these three findings to combine simultaneously in a child is undeniable. Nevertheless SBS has become the go to diagnosis or default verdict for many doctors in emergency and pediatric admitting. As a result of this diagnosis many parents and other care-givers have been arrested and many have been successfully prosecuted for crimes ranging from assault to manslaughter and murder.

Unquestionably, it is a great concern that some children are abused by parents and care givers. There is also a growing concern that the science of SBS does not have sufficient empirical data to justify it as the sole basis for conviction based on a doctor’s diagnosis. Wrongful convictions, of which there have been too many to count is worthy of investigation and does not for a moment diminish the concern for abused children and the determination to stop abusers. When the pragmatic information is missing then too much is left to a doctor's determination in SBS cases and as is often the case when defendants do not have the financial or other resources to challenge prosecution experts, they are more predictably going to be convicted.

The Baynes finally get their day in court starting on January 13th. Oh, not to defend themselves against a Shaken Baby Charge. No, no, they aren’t guilty of anything. There is no outstanding charge. The police are not interested in them. The police have no reason to be concerned about them. No, this is a case to determine whether they can have their children back after two years in foster homes.

In the case of Paul and Zabeth Bayne, their baby was initially diagnosed as a Shaken Baby and they were subsequently arrested for aggravated assault, fingerprinted, photographed, interrogated and then the police concluded there was insufficient evidence to proceed with such a charge and issues an apology to the Baynes and correspondingly destroyed their file. All three children were removed from the Baynes. Why? Because in the eyes of the child protection agency however, which in British Columbia is the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Baynes were and are still under suspicion because of that initial doctor’s diagnosis. This doctor saw the triad of medical indicators and made the only judgement that seemed plausible given the information at hand. That SBS diagnosis has never been substantiated. In fact, a wave of medical experts stands ready to testify for the Baynes that the diagnosis was wrong, and that the triad of indicators point to other causes than SBS. Further, the Ministry’s lawyer advised it nine months ago to give the boys back because there is no evidence of harm or abuse connected with them and they are healthy boys.

The Ministry has ignored their own legal counsel’s advice. Frankly the Ministry of Children and Family Development has this time made such a monumental bungle that the result will be a full scale inquiry far more penetrating than even the scrupulous Hughes Inquiry of a few years.