EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE AND SOCIAL INVESTIGATION CONFERENCE AUG 22-23, 2014

Readers, please note below that if your family has been affected by one of issues cited within this document, your registration fee of $250 CA is waved but you need to register. Keep reading. Professionals, I urge you to gain the quality information offered at this Conference. I have attended each of the past three conferences. It is well worth your time and participation. Conference 2014 by EBMSI

Evidence Based Medicine and Social Investigation Conference

August 22-23,  2014, Vancouver, British Columbia

We are pleased to announce our fourth annual E.B.M.S.I. conference, designed for both families falsely accused of child abuse and professionals and paraprofessionals who work with child abuse cases. The faculty includes physicians and attorneys, expert witnesses and advocates, and social service professionals. These experts come ready to work with and learn from each other and the attendees.

The conference curriculum covers the fundamentals of evidence-based medicine and its role in improving how investigators and decision makers handle suspected abuse cases. The goal is to help child protection services truly meet the needs of children and their families and to help the legal system handle these difficult cases more justly.

Topics include:

• The evolving child abuse medical literature 
• Medical mimics of abuse 
• Defending against abuse allegations in both family and criminal court 
• The standards and guidelines for child protection investigations and process 
• The challenges of creating a bureaucracy to handle family matters

The faculty includes:

• Physicians from a variety of specialties: Neurosurgery, Pediatrics, Forensic pathology, Neuroradiology 
• Biomechanics experts
• Veteran defense attorneys
• Social services professionals
• Parents who have survived the system

• Please see the faculty 2014 page for more information about individual presentations.
• Professional registration fee is $250 Canadian.
• Registration fees for families affected by these issues are waved however we still need you to register.
• For the registration form, please go to the registration page.
• For more information about the conference site, please see the Venue page.
• For information about watching the conference on line, please see the Live Broadcast page.

CRIMINALS AND LAWBREAKERS

Today's post has been contributed by Ray Ferris who provides occasional and always informed and helpful counsel to parents who seek him out for advice to deal with the personal crises they are encountering when dealing with the social service agency known as the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Today he deals with the Justice/Law and this is worth the time to read it.

What is the difference between a criminal and a lawbreaker? Is it just a term, or is there a real difference? Well it seems to me that lawbreaker is a generic term, which applies to anyone who breaks any law, but a criminal must specifically break the criminal law. We know what happens to criminals, because they go to prison, or get fined, or put on probation. Some countries put them to death.

What about all the other laws which are not criminal. Civil law and administrative law? What happens to breakers of these laws and who are typical lawbreakers? Well we know all about speeding tickets and parking fines. We know all about income tax penalties and divorce and custody orders. There can be unpleasant consequences if you fail to pay maintenance or fail to return a child on a court ordered access visit.

Do we find lawbreakers in family court in child protection cases?

RESOLVING DILEMMAS / 603

Today Ray Ferris has written, "So the real problem is that the children's ministry keeps in step with the rest of the-English speaking world and manages to get it wrong 60% of the time." He is continuing a theme which he began last week on 'Family Court is not So Civil / 599.'

"Last week I wrote a piece about the problem that a protection complaint laid with an allegation of shaking, or any other non-accidental (i.e. deliberate injury ) is tantamount to an accusation of having committed a crime and a finding by the judge of deliberate injury is as good as convicting someone of a crime without the protection of criminal court. A shaking baby accusation is always an allegation of criminal behaviour. Criminal court provides these protections. 1. Presumption of innocence. 2. Right to remain silent without prejudice. 3. Rules of evidence and laws of evidence. 4. Proof required beyond a reasonable doubt.

FAMILY COURT IS NOT SO CIVIL. / 599

"It is interesting to see what would have happened in the Bayne case, had their case been in criminal instead of family court. Of course it did not get into criminal court because of lack of evidence. When the police investigate a case, they look at the evidence and by that they mean the hard, provable factual evidence. If when the case is reviewed, an investigating constable reviews the case together with a superior. They may decide, and I believe this happened in the Bayne case, that there is insufficient evidence to take to the prosecutor."

That paragraph and the rest of today's post is written by Ray Ferris, an occasional GPS post writer. Ray speaks from 31 years service in child welfare and protection as a social worker and district supervisor and family court coordinator. Ray is the author of 'The Art of Child Protection'. 

Does it need Reform you Ask? / Part 415 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

I know that I rarely write about positive achievements of the child protection sector of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Of course there are children that are secured from neglect and abuse. Sadly some parents are immature, reckless, substance addicted, or maladjusted and they are not properly caring for their children. MCFD steps in. Surely it is understandable if I do not mention these cases. That is after all what MCFD is mandated to do. When it is well done it doesn't need applause here. MCFD congratulates itself enough. Look at its web pages. This blog has focused upon that which is not working effectively in MCFD because that is what requires attention. That's what needs to be fixed so that is where I concentrate. Do I hit it right? I make no claim to thorough journalistic research. I am a listener. A host of similar stories inform me that MCFD is in trouble.

Much abuse goes unnoticed yet we are spending millions of dollars to keep children safe. Each year Ministry workers falsely accuse some parents and none of the money stems that transgression. Poverty is frequently and unjustifably equated with neglect, yet as one late night commenter stated yesterday, poor families do not equate to a higher incidence of child protection. The stories of how families are treated once they have come within the sweep of MCFD's radar are never happy. Some of the innocent families that have been victimized have hit the public news channels and front pages but not enough, because there are so many others.

A shift occurred in the 1960's when child abuse and neglect which were once treated as crimes began to be viewed as a treatable illness for which therapists, doctors and social workers were prepared to provide advice and to order help and resources. In conjunction with this diagnostic shift,  cases of abuse and neglect were no longer prosecuted but rather sent to family court which orders treatment. What I believe is forfeited is fairness and timeliness. So many of you readers have already told me that. Criminals are fully informed of their rights. They have an attorney to represent them even when they cannot afford one. The same is not true for accused parents. They do not get a jury of peers. They do not have the opportunity to face and to cross-examine their accusers. They do not even receive the right to insist that any evidence that is employed against them should meet the highest of standards. And we have underscored before the absence of presumption of innocence and the insistence of guilt being beyond all reasonable doubt? Or, what about not being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, because that is precisely what some clinical dispassionate MCFD operations look like. There is no protection for parents accused of maltreatment of a child. Oh, but here is the disparity. If the Baynes had been formally criminally charged and tried, they would have been afforded all sorts of protections and provisions. Oh, so that imbalance and disparity is not MCFD's responsibility? No, but MCFD certainly works it.

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 within the next eight days. Stay posted.

Connections and Comparisons/ Part 360 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

MCFD Connections and Comparisons with the Criminal Justice System

This page demonstrates the links and comparisons between the MCFD/Family Court System and the Criminal Justice and Provincial Court System and in particular the investigation practices.

Connections with the Police and Criminal Justice System

1. Many parents are suspected by MCFD of abuse of children but investigation by the police finds no reasonable grounds for continuing the investigation. However MCFD still treats the parent as if he or she is guilty of an alleged offence or minimally of being an unsafe parent and therefore subjects the parent to supervised access and other limitations which are tantamount to a sentence without trial.

2. Some parents are actually charged with an offence such as assault on a child but charges are subsequently dropped or if tried, are acquitted in the Provincial Court. In such cases, MCFD may still treat the parents as guilty or unsafe and continue to malign their character and competency in Custody/Care Court hearings. Every avenue is pursued by MCFD to prevent a previously acquitted parent from securing the return of a child.

Comparisons between the two Court systems

Both Criminal and Provincial/MCFD/Family Courts have an adversarial approach in that the frequently displayed primary motive is to win the case. Upholding truth and justice appears to be of secondary importance. It might be said that justice is a power game to be won or lost. The objective seems not the discovery of the truth but rather to case win. However, in the absence of truth there is no justice.

1. The Criminal Court, while adversarial, is typically open to the public and media to insure that justice is witnessed and affected, whereas the MCFD/Provincial/Family Court is often concealed.

2. The MCFD/Family Court system tends to be far less accountable than the Criminal Court, having a pervasive secrecy and privacy which tends to conceal practices which may be unprofessional. The MCFD/Provincial Court while technically open, permits few non-family supporters to attend defended hearings and the media is typically excluded.

3. In the Criminal Court a conviction must meet the burden of proof which is guilt beyond reasonable doubt while in the MCFD/Family Court a ruling is determined on the balance of probabilities which is a much lower standard.

4. The 'Child, Family and Community Services Act' for the sake of child protection, allows procedures and actions by social workers and police which would be fundamental breaches of human rights if conducted for any other purposes. Parental rights and responsibilities and children’s needs and wishes are often frequently disregarded when a child has not been harmed but is considered likely to be at risk and therefore is removed, often with force (police). Stated another way, freedom to live as a family unit has been destroyed when no parent has actually committed any crime.