 |
| A difficult balance |
This blog and its accompanying comments archive have sounded a general note of caution about the family justice system, essentially expressing the that there is a "chronic weakness" in the system because of a shortage of resources in numerous areas.
We should be critical of a legal system that seems to make it impossible for the Baynes or anyone else to fully expunge their names from the MCFD files once they have been positioned there. Our judicial system should be capable of clearing the names of innocent people.
The Court would consider it improper to criticize Dr. Colbourne and other doctors in the case of the Baynes. The Court would deem that these acted properly in good faith in performing their duties. Therefore, a lesson learned from this case is that at the earliest opportunity there is an imperative need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children, specially in cases where the facts are unusual as they are with the Bayne case. A corollary lesson learned from this case is that even when provisos and revisions are placed into a system to reduce or eliminate mistakes, mistakes do occur in a system that is operated by human beings. The Baynes contended that Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis was mistaken and they still do. Following Dr. Colbourne's diagnosis, the Baynes asked MCFD for a second opinion but they were denied. MCFD was satisfied that Dr. Colbourne was accurate. Well, she was right about her medical findings, but the error occurred when she identified those findings with a label, namely Shaken Baby Syndrome, which by virtue of the name points to cause. But the cause has not been established. And further, if a baby had been shaken at some point what kind of a system is it that empowers a doctor and social workers to impute blame to a parent or parents by automatically taking children away from them? The Baynes themselves had to obtain the records and reports and send them to independent medical and scientific experts in order to get second opinions. Second opinions which in point of fact, disputed Dr. Colbourne's opinion making it clear that the MCFD erred to be satisfied so soon. For almost three years these three children have been denied the right of growing up together. Only in recent months were all three placed in the same foster home. That is a wonderful provision. A Continuing Care Order for which MCFD has applied, if granted, would permit the adoption of the children and the possibility that one or all would be separated from the others and denied that unique privilege of siblings to grow and bond together. With attitudes that prescribe this course of action, MCFD doesn't come close to touching the best interests of children so not to mention striking a balance between the interests of children and birth parents.
