DEREK HAS NOT VISITED HIS DAUGHTER

Derek has not visited Ayn since she was removed on June 16, 2011. The opportunity has been presented to him. He has chosen not to visit Ayn. Derek has been separated from his wife Amie for three years. During that time Amie and Ayn have become accustomed to Amie’s periodic visits. So, during the five months that Ayn has been in foster care, her mom Amie, has had regular visitations with Ayn and permission was given for these to be unsupervised visits. Ayn has not interpreted her mom’s coming and going as unusual. Derek, on the other hand has not visited his daughter but he misses her incredibly.

Derek is not a foolish father but rather someone who weighs consequences carefully. He has been Ayn’s primary caregiver. He is a full-time father to all three of his children. That has been an agreement that he and Amie have established. Amie has respect for Derek as a father. Then why would he not visit this sweetheart whom he loves. He knows that his decision not to visit is one that requires explanation and he has articulated this in a statement which I will share here today.

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.

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.'

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.

136 / MCFD BIRTHED A NEGATIVE OPINION EARLY / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

MCFD DEVELOPED A NEGATIVE OPINION ABOUT THE BAYNES EARLY IN THIS CASE

Here is a quote from the ideal, the expected method by which MCFD will facilitate child safety and protection with parents who are under suspicion of harming or abusing their children.

“Whenever possible, the ministry is supposed to work with parents or guardians rather than take a case to court. They are supposed to try to work with you to settle (negotiate) what is best for your child. If you are able to negotiate an agreement or a plan with the ministry, your case will end much faster than it would if you went to court. Working with the ministry could help you keep your child in your home, or at least make sure that your child can live with someone you know and trust until you are able to bring them back home.”

In the experience of Paul and Zabeth Bayne the above paragraph seems almost naïve because their outcome has been far from that projected result. The Ministry may insist that the Baynes prevented a smooth resolution of their investigation and decisions.

The Ministry has claimed that the Baynes would not cooperate with the Ministry and for that reason the Ministry could not and did not work with the Baynes. What must be understood is that the Ministry defined cooperation as confession to the Shaken Baby medical diagnosis. The Baynes have always maintained their innocence of such injurious conduct to their child. Following their prompt investigation, the RCMP almost immediately abandoned any legal charge against the Baynes with regard to this medical diagnosis. In the months that followed the removal of the children, in all subsequent mediations and all communications, MCFD predictably moved the discussion to the Baynes’ liability and the need for them to confess before the Ministry could consider returning the daughter.

Although theoretically the Ministry would see value in placing the girl with family members or close friends, the Ministry did not permit this to happen. In fact, when well known and respected Surrey Council member Marvin Hunt and his wife Ruth, themselves approved foster parents for many years, and close friends with the Bayne family, offered to care for the Bayne children, they were disallowed by the Ministry. This result, in spite of the Hunts’ full accommodation to all application prerequisites including a criminal records checks, speaks to a prejudgment that has characterized this twenty-five month old case. Other applications by friends and family for interim care of these Bayne children were similarly denied.

WHY?
Remove the Baynes from this critical issue for the moment. If another couple were suspected of injuring their child but they were innocent of the crime and if the injuries could potentially be explained as accidental although the MCFD did not acknowledge this possibility, would MCFD insist on an admission from the parents before negotiating an agreement? And would the MCFD allege that these parents refused to work with the Ministry and were uncooperative when the parents insisted upon their innocence with respect to hurting their child? Yes, I believe that the MCFD response in such cases is programmed and automatic because MCFD relies upon medical experts and when the experience and training of those medical experts interpret a specific set of symptoms as pointing to only one possible diagnosis, a confession by the parents is the only response that can pave the way to an agreement. So to the Court everyone goes.

For Love and For Justice / Part 131 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Continuing Care Order Before the Court in the Case of the Ministry of Children versus Paul and Zabeth Bayne to Insure that the Parents Never See their Children Again.

1. It Should be implicit that Compelling Evidence Must be Required to Separate Children from Parents
2. The Ministry Case Against the Baynes Was Founded Upon Dr. Colbourne’s Diagnosis that the Baby was Shaken and This Implies Non Accidental Injury
3. The Shaken Baby Diagnosis as Evidence is made vulnerable by Dissenting Medical Diagnostic Opinions and the Question to be ruled on by the Court of Dr. Colbourne’s Qualifications as an Expert
4. The Expert Medical Opinions by Ministry and Defence Witnesses Conflict and that Infers that the Initial Diagnosis of Non Accidental / Shaken Baby is not Compelling
5. Medical Opinion is Not Stand Alone Evidence in Child Protection Risk Assessment but Requires Other Undeniable Character, History, and Prior Behavioral Evidence.
6. The Baynes’ Personal Profiles and Proven Parenting Skills Contradict a Suspicion of Abuse
7. Instead of Being Pleased that the Baynes were Honourable Parents the Ministry Appears to Have Constructed a Case Based Upon Insinuation and Allegation.
8. The Ministry has disgraced Itself by Taking Parents to Court while Failing to Produce Compelling Evidence and Relying Upon Non Factual Unconfirmed reports

Summation: Without any compelling evidence it is apparent to all observers including the Ministry and its counsel that a continuing care order will not be granted and that the children will be returned to the parents and that the Ministry if it now acts with polite and gracious conduct toward the Baynes may be perceived well by the constituency.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne – Part 55 – The Bayne Campaign for Justice

WE ARE STALLED

503 people have signed the petition and that number was reached several days ago. If you haven't signed yet, would you please do so. Or, perhaps you can forward this invitation to some friends who may similarly assess the facts and conclude that the Bayne children should be returned to their parents. Like many of us you may acknowledge that the children were removed back in 2007 for the legitimate reason of investigation of a potential case of child abuse, but the suspicion can no longer hold up. All of the reasons for discounting the suspicion have been laid out in many previous daily posts on this blog. Paul and Zabeth are fit parents who deserve the right to raise their children and end this nightmare.

I want you to add more signatures to this petition. I am going to make sure that newspapers know the strength of this support.

Here is the Petition for the Bayne Campaign for Justice At the petition site, sign your name, when you move to the donation page, just exit the site. The donation request is not for the Baynes but for the site developers. Your name will still have been recorded for us, thanks.