Ray Ferris is himself a former social worker and now an outspoken critic of the MCFD. He has not only carefully followed the inequities of the Bayne case but he has spoken to the matter in the media and is doing what he does best to help the Baynes to recover their children. He comments here about the MCFD case against the return of three children to their birth parents, Paul and Zabeth Bayne. He gave me permission to post this piece under his name.
“RAY FERRIS WRITES: When a child receives an injury, the only concern as far as child protection services are concerned is to determine if the injury is deliberate or accidental. There are of course numerous child injuries every year and the vast majority is accidental and those injuries are easy to explain. A doctor cannot determine whether an injury is deliberately or accidentally inflicted from medical evidence alone. This is decided by the combination of medical evidence and studying the profile of the parents. Most abusive injuries occur in families where there is a profile of abuse. A history of injuries, combined with low achievement and lack of life skills. When a family has an excellent social profile, abuse is very unlikely to occur. When a physician claims that the injury is due to shaking, there is an automatic accusation of deliberate injury. This is why a misdiagnosis is so pernicious.
In the Bayne case, it is obvious that an accusation of abusive injury is not supported by their profile. Their profile is of two parents with good life skills and good values. Two parents who managed to give a 25 week premature child exemplary care, winning strong endorsement from their family doctor. Two people with good education and work records, with strong religious and personal values.
This obviously creates a contradiction. With such a profile one must assume that if they state that an injury was accidental, they must be believed. Without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this case is unjustified.
Of course the ministry director must realize the contradiction, so they sought a solution. They attempt to re-invent the profile by bringing in a string of witnesses who offer nothing but smear, innuendo, hearsay, gossip and opinion. They introduce a "risk assessment" which is nothing but character assassination. They can find not one good thing to say about the family or their relatives. Not only do they run a smear campaign against the Baynes, they do it in such a stupid and clumsy fashion that it is self-defeating and can be discredited in cross-examination. They can only harm their own case by this tactic.
To separate children from their parents for two years requires compelling evidence. What they have is one highly controversial medical opinion and no other valid evidence at all. Character assassination is not valid evidence. There is no compelling evidence.”
