THE TRIAL OF THE RADITAS

This news is now almost one-month-old, but it serves as a follow-up to the previous post that accents the need for interprovincial information links when cases of concern appear on two or more provinces.

Emil & Rodica Radita

ALEX DIED AT AGE 15, WEIGHING 37 POUNDS.

The defense position offered by the lawyer for Mrs. Radita was that Rodica and Emil Radita may be guilty of poor diabetes management for their son Alexandru, or even for failing to provide the necessities of life, but that is not murder. Both Radita, 53, and her 59-year-old husband, Emil, plead not guilty to a first-degree murder charge in the May 7, 2013, starvation death of the 15-year-old boy. In a body that was a skeletal horror that weighed only 37 pounds, Alexandru died of a bacterial infection secondary to his malnutrition and untreated diabetes Type 1.

FACING THE LAST GOODBYE / Part 142 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

THE FINAL GOODBYE WITH LIVING CHILDREN

I asked Zabeth how she and Paul were doing. She wrote to tell me and her sentiment touched me. With her permission I print it for you to read. A qualifier first: I have mentioned before that Paul and Zabeth have faith in a sovereign God and this faith relationship is important to them. It is evident in the way she deals with her feelings.

“How are we today? We have had a hard last few days. While we have been sick we are doing better in that area, but I have been feeling low emotionally. I miss my children daily, but sometimes when I realize the trial will be coming to an end eventually I start to fear that a decision will be made to permanently separate me from my children forever. How does a parent live through the final goodbye visit? If one was guilty then one could understand and feel the ruling was deserved and if one truly loved the children one might acknowledge that it would be better for the children, but when it is a wrong decision, when love is genuine and no harm done...Will God expect this of us? Would this bring Him Glory by sacrificing our children in order for us to take up a call of helping others and thereby bringing Glory to Him in the answers to prayers of other parents? Or will bringing our children home bring Him Glory? What is His will for our lives? Will we see earthly justice? I pray so, but these are some of the questions I fear to answer.”

Just imagine parents having to wrestle through possibilities like that simply to come to terms with an inconceivable outcome.

The options as Zabeth reviewed them were these. Perhaps in the permanent forfeiture of their children, God has a purpose to accomplish a glorious ending in some undisclosed way. Although she ventures down that dark road far enough to conjecture whether childless, she and Paul might be expected by God to be able to help other people with damaged lives. Or perhaps in returning their children to them, God will be glorified in this family, in their story of tenacity and faith, and their nurturing of these children into adulthood so that each walks an upright life or accomplishes something remarkable.

“What is his will for us? Will justice be done? I pray so, but these are some of the questions I fear to answer, she wrote.” What an honest response this was to my “how are you doing?” query. The legal and judicial sides not withstanding, this is the human side of this sad and in some ways merciless mess.

* Painting: 'Time to Say Goodbye' by Alfred Gockel, who creates powerfully distinctive abstracts which are alive with rich, primary colors, deep black accents, ebbing and flowing lines, and intensely kinetic motion. Toggle his name to see more works.

For Love and For Justice / Part 109 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

This Trial Is Done With Loren Humeny, I Think
And this was another Huge Day

On Thursday, February 11, 2010, Doug Christie cross examined social worker Loren Humeny for one more day. I am sure Mr. Humeny was happy to step down from the witness box finally. This has been his third day of witness duty. He is also an observer for MCFD in court almost every day. He listened to all testimony preceding his own sworn testimony. Seems like a bit of a conflict but it wasn’t challenged.

During this cross examination, some progress was made for parents – not simply the Baynes, but parents like them who face allegations from anonymous callers. Now, don’t you want to keep reading? Yes, that’s correct. Presently, people can make calls to MCFD about you, your activities and your parenting or your children’s appearance or behaviour, and those callers can be classified as anonymous. Isn’t that convenient for them? Surreptitious, sneaky, clandestine callers. Mr. Humeny has referred to these anonymous callers as “collaterals,” since among other meanings the term designates those testimonies that serve to support or corroborate and are therefore collateral evidence.

Humeny said there were about six collaterals who communicated about the Baynes. Collaterals were very important to Mr. Humeny’s Risk Assessment document and to his testimony because he has placed more credence in this handful of collaterals who called him, than he did in the credibility of hundreds of people who called MCFD or sent emails or posted letters in support of the Baynes and their parenting and their characters. I know that because he acknowledged in court and it is in the transcripts that he had not read any of that latter correspondence. He did however take seriously the content of the collateral call-ins who cast doubt upon the Bayne’s fitness as parents and it had been expected by the MCFD that these collaterals could remain anonymous. However...........

Doug Christie had earlier requested that these collaterals should be identified in court. The Risk Assessment written by Humeny incorporated these call ins. Christie argued that without identification, reference to the content of the call ins is mere hearsay, rather than evidence. Their testimony is dangerous to the Baynes but the collaterals could not be known or challenged. "How can that be evidence," Christie demanded to know. On Thursday MCFD lawyer Finn Jensen began with arguments against Doug Christie’s request for disclosure of the several anonymous callers.

As he has done once before, Judge Crabtree took a brief intermission to deliberate and then returned with his ruling that this witness must identify the names of the anonymous callers. If you are at all sympathetic to the Baynes, you must agree that this is a good thing.

In fact, this may be precedent setting. This is repetitious but I must make the point. Previously, persons who called the MCFD with allegations of abuse or neglect have had their anonymity protected under the Act that governs MCFD. For the Baynes and for other parents in similar situations, this anonymity of complainants has posed an insurmountable challenge because false information cannot be challenged. Consequently anonymous callers are unaccountable for what they say. On Thursday, Judge Crabtree made a ruling that harmonizes with what fair-minded people have always known should happen. A court of law must make its decisions and judgements based upon fact and not hearsay. When a caller’s information is believed to be untrue there must be opportunity to cross examine these testimonies so the callers must be identified.

The identities and the credibility of the collaterals will be addressed later in this trial.