THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN by Ray Ferris

A children’s minister once told me that 30% of cases are over-investigated and 30% under-investigated. Looks like he was unintentionally saying that his staff got it wrong 60% of the time. To anyone who has had dealings with that ministry, this will come as no surprise. This blog has been primarily concerned with the cases of over-investigation. Those cases where a family has been persistently pursued and harassed when there was no good reason to do so. I want to write about cases on the other side of the coin. Those cases where the social workers turned a blind eye to neglect and abuse and left children to live in misery for years.

FOR PARENTS: Info & Suggestions - EVIDENCE, MEDIATION, ACCOUNTABILITY & INTERNAL REVIEWS - part

INFORMATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR PARENTS WHO ARE INVOLVED WITH CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Written by Ray Ferris

Part Four of Four
EVIDENCE, MEDIATION, ACCOUNTABILITY & INTERNAL REVIEWS
Part 4of4

Evidence. 

Evidence:Dilate Peoples by Ezekiel Antoniewicz

The only really valid evidence is factual. Expert opinion is allowed on validation of expertise, but even expert opinion must state the facts on which it is based. You will note under sections 66 and 68 that the hearing may be as informal as the judge may allow, so it is not necessary to be as slavish to process as in criminal court. Section 68 allows a certain amount of hearsay evidence that the court considers reliable. The writers of the act did not intend this section to make the act into a free for all, with no regard for the rules of evidence, but that is what happens. Social workers generally get little training in the rules of evidence. They cannot distinguish between fact, opinion, hearsay and rumour.

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'. 

Fact and Evidence - Opinion and Probability / Part 327/ For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

The police need to operate from a fact base, evidence base.

Fact: Baby B was born healthy although somewhat premature August 2007 and she progressed well in following weeks.
Evidence: Baby B's development was charted and confirmed by weekly visits to the family doctor.

Fact: An event, a trauma, an impact, a significant physical experience occurred that dramatically affected Baby's B's well-being.
Evidence: In October 2007 Baby B was taken by parents to local hospitals, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford to discover why she began to exhibit listlessness, loss of appetite and feeding, chronic vomiting and resultant weight loss.

Fact: Over several days the area hospitals failed to adequately identify Baby B's issues but sent her home without remedy.
Evidence: The symptoms continued for several days, and hospital and doctors records disclose the days that several examinations took place until the final referral to Children's Hospital, Vancouver.

Fact: Extensive examinations at Children's Hospital Vancouver in October 2007 revealed Baby B had serious injuries, skull fracture, retinal hemorrhaging and brain hemorrhage and fractured femur.
Evidence: Hospital and Doctors' records contain the findings with dates and times.

Fact: Injuries required explanation and the Baynes' 2007 story of an accidental fall of a toddler sibling on the infant did not convince medical professionals.
Evidence: A couple of the doctors reports and the RCMP and MCFD 2007 reports contain the Baynes' story of a fall of one child on the infant.

Fact: The injuries were of a nature which the attending medical professionals customarily associate with abuse by care providers.
Evidence: The Child Protection department of the hospital notified RCMP and MCFD.

Fact: Paul and Zabeth in 2007 were horrified at the implication that they had harmed their infant and insisted that they were innocent of abuse to their child and their story has never changed.
Evidence: Their attested innocence has been recorded in every record that pertains to this case from 2007 to the present time 2010.

Fact: In spite of arresting and interrogating the Baynes, the RCMP dismissed the case as one for which there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge of abuse or assault.
Evidence: The Baynes were released in within hours in 2007, their fingerprints and photos were discarded and the case as an aggravated assault has never been revisited.

The expectation is that the Ministry of Children will also operate from a fact base, evidence base. MCFD is people. Did they? Have they? OR, is there a proclivity for opinion and probability when it suits them, that is, when the fact and evidence is absent.

INTERPRETING THE PRECEDING REPORTS / Part 237 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

So here comes the critical determination after four days of online medical reports.

• This child was in very serious medical crisis in September 2007.
• By reviewing the initial test results and medical reports these past four days, my purpose was to underscore Baby B's condition which resulted in the MCFD intervention in her life.
• What the original and vital diagnosis of shaken baby did not consider were the alternate explanations that were provided yesterday by the reports from ten other experts who reject the shaken baby diagnosis for this specific child.
• It was not the Children's Hospital or the Ministry of Children (MCFD) that sought any alternate opinions to insure that SBS was the accurate diagnosis. MCFD was content that the SBS verdict was the right one. It was content even in the face of conflicting expert opinions.
• An SBS conclusion is conjoined with a 'non accidental injury' designation and therefore responsibility for an inflicted injury must be assessed to the person(s) most likely implicated. In the Bayne case, probability pointed to Zabeth and/or Paul, the biological parents. This would need to be substantiated of course, but how and with what?
• While this was investigated, the children were removed from their parental home.
• The RCMP ruled that there was insufficient evidence to charge Paul and Zabeth.
• When the MCFD regional Director persisted in its custody and care of the children, his decisions were motivated by a child's injuries but they were not associated with evidence and proof of parental responsibility for the injury to the injured child and absolutely no evidence existed to support the continued custody of the two sibling brothers.
• Nevertheless on the strength of suspicion, MCFD continued to withhold the rights of three children to live with their birth parents. Maintaining suspicion, MCFD pressed the Baynes to admit to harming their child until it became evident that the Baynes would assert their innocence unconditionally. Without an admission of responsibility, the Director and his crew would not consider returning the children and further have in documents alleged that the Baynes are uncooperative.In fact that is untrue. They have instead been bravely assertive and understandably concerned that all of their personal and family rights and freedoms are not ignored.
• The shaken baby diagnosis is the substantive basis for MCFD action and now the Continuing Care Order application. A most recent MCFD affidavit states “The Director is seeking a Continuing Care Order, relying upon the diagnosis of the Children's Hospital that B.B. sustained a non-accidental trauma resulting in brain hemorrhaging, a unilateral retinal hemorrhage and a fractured femoral bone.” The hemorrhaging is understood. The reference to fractured femur is intended to infer an intentional injury. Even that was an inaccurate statement as Dr. Culman's report indicated that “The lateral view of the right elbow shows what appears as subperiostal new bone but is in fact cortical tunnelling because there is no new bone on the frontal view. “

THE CRITICAL DETERMINATION: NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT THIS CHILD WAS WILLFULLY HARMED BY AN ADULT AND SPECIFICALLY BY PAUL AND/OR ZABETH BAYNE. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER EXISTS THAT THIS CHILD'S SIBLING BROTHERS HAVE BEEN HARMED. THE ACKNOWLEDGED INJURIES TO THIS CHILD DO NOT INDICATE CATEGORICALLY A NON ACCIDENTAL ORIGIN. IF REASONABLE DOUBT PERMITS THE RELEASE OF SOMEONE ACCUSED OF AN AGREGIOUS CRIMINAL ACT, THE REASONABLE DOUBT CONCURRENT WITH NON-CONCLUSIVE GROUNDS IN THE BAYNE CASE DEMANDS THE RELEASE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TO THEIR BIRTH PARENTS.