THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP IS EXTENDED For Love and For Justice/Part 128

A few days ago after speaking with the Trustees of the 'Bayne Trust Fund,' I published an invitation similar to this one. Paul and Zabeth don't need sympathy. They need compassion. While they endure these difficult weeks and months, they are making themselves available to other struggling people by listening, walking with, being friends. In the past two and one half years they have spent tens of thousands of dollars in this effort to regain custody of their three children. Some of you may be in a position to help them financially.

The Joint Trustees of the Bayne Trust Fund have notified me today that the funds, several thousand dollars that were acquired primarily from a January Piano Concert by Zabeth Bayne, have been exhausted through court costs to date. The Campaign for Love and for Justice is in immediate need of further funding from compassionate partners. Their defence is contingent upon additional funding.

Three Joint Trustees were appointed to set up and to manage a Bayne Trust Fund with a Chartered Bank, and the Fund is compliant with all legal requirements of Canada Revenue Agency and is governed in accordance with the law of the Province of British Columbia.


Donations will be accepted by deposit to this trust account at any branch of TD Canada Trust.

TD Canada Trust [bank # 004]
Continental Centre Branch [branch # 9713]
Account Number [6415554]
Cheque or Money Order should be made payable to: "Charter Lau, Kenny Chiu, Marvin Hunt In Trust For Paul and Zabeth Bayne" ; OR "Lau, Chiu, Hunt ITF Bayne"

Cheque or Money Order can also be posted to:

Lau, Chiu, Hunt in trust for Bayne
9406 Pauleshin Cres, Richmond, BC V7E 6P2

Thank you on behalf of Paul and Zabeth and their children,
Dr. Ron Unruh

For Love and For Justice / Part 127 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Honourable Judge Thomas J. Crabtree, Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia is presiding in this case which is essentially the Ministry of Children and Family Development versus Paul and Zabeth Bayne.

By an order in council, effective February 15, 1999 Thomas J. Crabtree was appointed a Provincial Court judge. He graduated with a B.A. from the University of British Columbia and with an LL.B. from the Law School of Victoria University and was admitted to the Bar in 1984.

As a community member, in his practice of law, and in his judgement he has earned respect. He serves as a valued member of the Board of Directors of the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia.
The Board is appointed by the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, the Law Society of BC, and the BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association. This Society provides professional news, instruction, courses, and resources to the legal community in B.C.

Each lawyer before the court case began had himself answered basic questions like “What do I have to prove?” and “how do I prove it,” and the responses guided the preparation for the case. In Judge Crabtree’s court room, each lawyer, Finn Jensen and Doug Christie is seeking to ask questions of his witnesses in a way that is direct and non-leading. Each seeks to extract everything that a witness knows in his client’s favour. Each wants to present a clear, concise and credible body of evidence. Each lawyer is challenging the admissibility of certain of the opposing evidence. Each is cross examining as thoroughly as possible. From the mountain of trial transcript documentation Judge Crabtree must uncover that which best informs him for the course of action he must take in formulating his judgment.

I can convey my sentiments here with an emotional and relational slant. In fact I can hardly help myself. As readers of this post you read through a filter too, informed by your own impressions of the Ministry or the Baynes or the snatches of the family, medical, legal and social work data that you understand. Judge Crabtree is not listening to information with partiality, or looking at papers with a predisposition or reading blog posts with a bias like this one. We are trusting on this judge’s dispassionate and open-minded administration of justice. What an imposing and honourable obligation His Honour has.

For Love and For Justice / Part 126 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

AN ARCHIVED PERSONAL STATEMENT FROM THE BAYNES
This entire statement was one composed by Paul and Zabeth Bayne in February 2009 to describe to anyone who would listen or read their story, what their family has experienced. As you read, keep in mind that it is a personalized account and that all the timelines have now extended twelve more months. At this moment a Provincial Court Judge is hearing evidence from a Ministry of Children lawyer and the evidence of the Baynes and their lawyer. It is his unenviable responsibility to classify fact and fallacy in his own mind and render a life altering ruling.

Statement
“During these past sixteen months our family has endured one of the most traumatic experiences as a result of a medical misdiagnosis and the consequent involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I wish to outline some of the injustices and hardships that have resulted as well as the damage that has been inflicted on our children as a result of this.

Due to the removal process our children have been submitted to experiencing the emotional trauma associated with the invasive and violent manner in which removal occurs. They have had a negative first hand experience with the RCMP and its subjection to the wishes of the Ministry to remove children right in the middle of their birthday party. They have lived through the pain of being separated from their parents and placed in an unfamiliar environment with strangers at a young and vulnerable age. This removal was the first time that our children had witnessed violence and emotional abuse. It was the first time that they experienced their parents unable to protect and assist them as they reached out for help to us.
The RCMP interrogated us an entire day resulting in an ambulance being called to the station to take me to the emergency room for a body that had completely seized from the brutal interrogation that an innocent mother had to endure.

The Ministry of Children and Family has denied our premature son the needed Infant Development Programs for many months when first in care. This delay will now affect his ability to adjust in school with his peers. The emotional damages also incurred with removal from a safe and loving environment has also caused delay in his development as well as in the development of our other children who were also premature infants.

The Ministry has sought to undermine the bond that we have developed with our children, has verbally admitted this in phone conversations, and now has evidenced this through limiting and cutting back our access times. Our children are suffering as a result from this.

This wrongful removal has resulted in damaging the trust relationship we have had with our children, their sense of security and stability and their ability to form meaningful attachments due to continued bouncing from one foster home to another and then to times of respite in relief homes. . . . .

Our family has also suffered financially from this injustice. I had taught piano to children for many years and had to auction off my grand piano to pay for lawyers fees, my husband was laid off one of his positions due to too many missed days for court, visitations and meetings with the Ministry. We had to place a second mortgage on our home to also pay for lawyers’ fees and medical experts and now have lost our home to bankruptcy because of this. Family and friends have also given much to cover the costs incurred. The expenses now are well over $80,000 to date and the Ministry wishes to draw this over a fifteen to twenty day trial and wish us to fly our experts in for the purpose of cross examination. We now have to self represent ourselves in court.

The emotional trauma of having your children removed is unspeakable. They have torn our very heart and soul out when they took our treasures. Enduring day after day wondering if they are being cared for properly and knowing they need you and miss you and do not understand. Knowing they think you don’t want them and you have placed them with strangers is another unbearable thought as we had wanted them to know they could rely on us for everything, that they could trust us and they were loved unconditionally. Coming home to empty beds at night brings tears as we go into their rooms and pray for them one by one and blow them a kiss to wherever they are. The pain is unbearable. Putting on a brave smile at the end of a visitation as you wave goodbye to your crying child that is begging you not to leave him is barbaric.
We have been robbed of our parenthood. We have had our children stolen on false allegations and have missed the whole first year and a half of our first little girl. We are enduring what no parent should ever have to.

Due to the removal process our children have been submitted to experiencing the emotional trauma associated with the invasive and violent manner in which removal occurs. They have had a negative first hand experience with the RCMP and its subjection to the wishes of the Ministry to remove children right in the middle of their birthday party. They have lived through the pain of being separated from their parents and placed in an unfamiliar environment with strangers at a young and vulnerable age. This removal was the first time that our children had witnessed violence and emotional abuse. It was the first time that they experienced their parents unable to protect and assist them as they reached out for help to us.”

For Love and For Justice / Part 125 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There is no scheduled court session today, Monday, March 1, 2010. I will post the new schedule as soon as it is available.

RECAP OF THURSDAY’S COURT SESSION Part 2 of 2

Yesterday I mentioned that a woman whom I have named KD, the present caregiver for all three Bayne children was in the witness box on Thursday, February 25, 2010.

During her testimony she acknowledged that even with concerted efforts, not everything is perfect in the care home. She mentioned there have often been tears shed by the children as they miss their parents. (I originally wrote that KD mentioned accidents that happened in the home as in any home and that she cited two examples. i.e. The middle boy falling down stairs resulting in a substantial bruise on his forehead and the youngest child slipping from the caregiver’s arms and bumping her head on the bathroom floor. KD has corrected me on this testimony making it clear that there were no injuries. The boy's fall was ON a stair rather than down the stairs, and his bruise was a tiny one while the girl's incident produced no bruise or behavioural response and neither incident required a doctor or a report. )

The Bayne parents had expressed concern about replacement care on one occasion when caregivers went on vacation for three weeks. They learned in court that the caregivers’ twenty three year old son, whom his mother considers competent to look after children but who had not previously cared for young children for any extended time, was the person who substituted for the caregivers. The young adult is a responsible musician as a DJ and as a composer with a band known as `Whiskey Jack`. Readers should note that KD has actually written a comment to this post in which she informs us about her son and the respect that he rightfully deserves in addition to the healthy relationship he has with the children that warranted the decision for him to provide this service. Among the things she says is this. Her son was "interviewed and approved by her social worker in Human Resources. They expressed no concerns about him. He also had two criminal record checks, Canadian and International, Why International? Because he spent his own money to join me on a trip to four countries in Africa so that we could go visit our foster children with World Vision."

As the day concluded Doug Christie asked the witness about an email she had sent to a resource worker concerning the placement request for the children. She had referred in this email to a condition with which the baby was apparently diagnosed, namely Glutaric Aciduria Type III. She said that children with Glutaric Aciduria are often misdiagnosed with shaken baby syndrome. She was wondering if this was ruled out as having an effect on the little girl’s shaken baby diagnosis. Doug Christie asked to see the placement forms and found that it stated `sister was born with a very rare medical condition Glutaric Aciduria type 3. He asked that it be submitted as an exhibit to the court. The witness further commented that later she had received a telephone call from the Ministry expressing that the baby had been tested and the conclusion was that the baby did not have this rare disease. KD said that she herself had never seen the test results. (The parents have also not seen the test results nor did they receive a phone call. It has been expected that they should rely upon this reported phone call rather than the placement form information.)

Bayne sympathizers certainly trust Judge Crabtree is able to discern that all the discrepancies do not point to Bayne unfitness as parents.

ANNOUNCEMENT

There is no scheduled court session tomorrow, Monday, March 1, 2010. I will post the new schedule as soon as it is available.

For Love and For Justice / Part 124 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

RECAP OF THURSDAY’S COURT SESSION Part 1 of 2

Perhaps Thursday was the hardest day in court so far for the Baynes as intimate details of their children’s lives were discussed. I will call her KD. She is the caregiver for all three of the Bayne children. By all that is known she is a conscientious and effective foster parent. She herself was a foster child and she has now had thirteen years experience in fostering children.

Finn Jensen led her through her testimony. She stated that there are currently five children and a nanny living in the KD home. Upon accepting the Bayne’s third child she employed a full time Nanny from the Philippines to help with the care of the children. KD said that with the special needs among the five it is more than one person can manage. KD is also available as an on call foster contact for children and occasionally provides respite for a personal friend. The two Bayne boys came to her home in a hasty move since the first placement was temporary. She arranged for a sleepover for the boys to make the transition smoother.

KD’s testimony included the histories of all three children and her observations of them from the time they entered her care. She provided personal opinions about the children's mannerisms, behaviors, preferences and dislikes, favourite foods, speech skills, socialization and interaction with others, whether they could dress themselves, feed themselves, attend to their own bathroom needs, brush their teeth and wash their own hands. She commented how they received correction, how they felt towards their parents, with what kind of therapists she is working, and what steps she has taken in response to the advice given by professionals.

The testimony also outlined KD’s attempts to provide for the religious needs of the family by ensuring they had attended church during the Christmas Season and though she had registered the children for Sunday School, they did not attend because she was concerned that the parents had too great a presence in the community and the children might be recognized.

KD asserted that in her care the children have flourished. Under Doug Christie’s cross examination the court learned that the middle boy who weighed 26 lbs prior to his removal in 2007, weighed 25 lbs in 2009 according to her log notes disclosed in court Thursday. Today he weighs 32 lbs. (In two and one half years he has gained six pounds. He is a micro preemie, born very early and will expectedly weigh less than other boys his age. Yet his weight gain is extremely low for the amount of time he has been in care.) KD may justifiably feel he has made progress while in her care because he weighed considerably less when he arrived at her door, having lost weight during the first eighteen months. KD works with the Infant Development Program in which there is a variety of specialists such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists and feeding specialists. KD believes the children have made progress with the assistance of this program.

KD has enrolled the oldest boy in kindergarten and the middle child in preschool five days a week.

I mentioned at the top that this was perhaps the hardest day for the Baynes. Perhaps you appreciate their agony as they realize that they didn’t have the opportunity to enroll their own children in day school, or walk them to school, or pick them up from school or attend to their personal needs, their appointments at a specialist’s office, or taking them to Sunday School each Sunday. Instead, they have even had to ask for special consideration from the Judge to direct the Ministry to grant more visitation time and time outside the customary visitation location, perhaps in a park or somewhere else. And please understand that always during this visitation whether indoors of out of doors, a Ministry representative is present as an observer/reporter. It has been and is a difficult way to live and remain in control of emotions.

For Love and For Justice / Part 123 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

COURT NEWS UPDATE

AN UNEXPECTED ADJOURNMENT, FRIDAY February 26, 2010
Proceedings were interrupted as counsel for MCFD, Mr. Finn Jensen received news and then asked the Defense and the Court to agree to an adjournment for the day because of a grave tragedy, the sudden death of one of Mr. Jensen’s clients. He desired to make himself available to tend the needs of the family of the deceased.

SYMPATHY

Some GPS readers may be familiar with this grieving family as you read this note. Paul and Zabeth Bayne wish to express their own deepest sympathy for the family’s loss and pain at this time of heartbreak. They say, “Our prayer and thoughts are with you.”

BRIEF FRIDAY COURT BUSINESS CONDUCTED BEFORE ADJOURNMENT
Kimberly Grey was called back to the stand regarding a disclosure item that she had to produce. The Baynes had expressed some concern to the Ministry about their two sons during care at one of the homes to which they were assigned. It was Ms. Grey’s responsibility to investigate this. She did visit the home, but was unable to interview the person directly named by their son and she was satisfied by information received from another person at the home. Ms. Grey made no further attempts to investigate the concern or to verify the information received. and noted in her completed file that she considered the matter closed. That was the end of that matter on Friday.

Loren Humeny was also brought to the stand in order to produce the document he received from a now disclosed collateral (formerly anonymous witness). The disclosed document had been addressed personally to Paul and Zabeth Bayne and was among documents they intended to send to MCFD. Loren Humeny claimed he received this document on a date that would appear to be two to three days prior to the Baynes trying to submit it to the Ministry. Nothing more is known or can be said about this now and the defense has not closed this matter.

FUTURE COURT DATES
Friday concluded with no dates set for continuation of this trial. Both sides wait for the Judicial Case Manager to contact the lawyers with a date for a conference with Judge Crabtree in order to select further trail dates. They may require two more weeks for further evidence presentation. It is the defence (Baynes) turn to present. This blog will notify readers of dates when they are certain.

BAYNES SAY THANK YOU

A special thank you to everyone that has been able to attend the hearing dates so far. Your presence has been a much appreciated support during this trying time.

An Appeal on Behalf of the Baynes / Part 122

Dear Friends of Paul and Zabeth. As you read this posting perhaps you feel that you can become involved at another level.

The Joint Trustees of the Bayne Trust Fund have notified me today that the funds, several thousand dollars that were acquired primarily from a January Piano Concert by Zabeth Bayne, have been exhausted through court costs to date. The Campaign for Love and for Justice is in immediate need of further funding from compassionate partners. Their defence is contingent upon additional funding. Can you help the Baynes with a financial donation?

Three Joint Trustees were appointed to set up and to manage a Bayne Trust Fund with a Chartered Bank, and the Fund is compliant with all legal requirements of Canada Revenue Agency and is governed in accordance with the law of the Province of British Columbia.

Donations will be accepted by deposit to this trust account at any branch of TD Canada Trust.

TD Canada Trust [bank # 004]
Continental Centre Branch [branch # 9713]
Account Number [6415554]
Cheque should be made payable to: "Charter Lau, Kenny Chiu, Marvin Hunt In Trust For Paul and Zabeth Bayne" ; OR "Lau, Chiu, Hunt ITF Bayne"

Cheques can also be posted to

Lau, Chiu, Hunt in trust for Bayne
9406 Pauleshin Cres, Richmond, BC V7E 6P2

Thank you on behalf of Paul and Zabeth and their children,
Dr. Ron Unruh

ANOUNCEMENT

Zabeth will be called to give testimony Friday Feb 26th, and possibly over a three day period which is then followed by cross examination. If you live locally, you may want to be present to give her your moral support. While the day begins at 9:30 am, Zabeth may give testimony later in the morning.

For Love and For Justice / Part 121 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

An expert witness is an authority, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have specialized knowledge and expertise in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others should legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his/her expertise, referred to as the expert opinion.

In this Bayne versus MCFD trial, Judge Crabtree will render a verdict. Leading to that anticipated and inevitable outcome each legal counsel calls witnesses some of whom are to be regarded as ‘expert.’ The contest is ongoing between the opposing sides, either to persuade the Judge that the witness is ‘expert’ or to discourage the claim to ‘expertise.’ Each lawyer is acquainted with the Canadian precedents that establish ‘expert’ definition. For testimony to be considered ‘expert’ its content must be the kind that informs the trier of the case, the jury or in this case, the judge, with facts that could not be discerned without the expert and without which the correct conclusion could not be reached. Expert evidence must be necessary or essential and relevant and reliable. To be reliable it must be able to withstand close scrutiny. A judge must then finally rule that the witness is entitled to testify by way of opinion or confirmation or otherwise. While several witnesses have already been presented, their admissability as experts and their 'expert' testimony has not yet been ruled upon by Judge Crabtree. That might be ruled today.

Well that’s what it was all about in court on Tuesday when Dr. Michael Sargent, a Pediatric Radiologist and part of the Children's Hospital physicians’ team was called as a witness for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Finn Jensen presented him as an expert and his written report as expert testimony. We didn’t get to his testimony yet. That will wait for a later day in the schedule. If he is recognized as an expert, the expectation of the MCFD and Mr. Jensen is that his report and testimony should reinforce the position that the Bayne baby’s physical condition upon admission to Children’s Hospital in October 2007 was consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. That's what he is there to do. Will that testimony withstand the heat of a Christie cross-examination may be the issue.

Perhaps Dr. Sargent was aware that his qualifications would be stoutly questioned by Mr. Doug Christie. The morning was spent examining his credentials. Christie’s resultant submission in the afternoon was that Dr. Sargent was not qualified to be the objective, independent expert, that he doesn't have the requisite expertise to speak to shaken baby causation from his examination of X-Ray film. Christie challenged Sargent's expertise to provide a forensic opinion. He should not be allowed to present as to cause. Christie calls this intrusion into areas for which the doctor is unqualified. As he conducted his examination of Dr. Sargent it was clear that Christie took issue with the collegial relationship Sargent has with Dr. Margaret Colbourne. Colbourne’s Shaken Baby diagnosis is a substantial founding block to the MCFD case against the Baynes having their children returned to them. It was Colbourne and Jensen who just a few weeks ago asked Sargent to stand as a witness in support of Colbourne's position. Sargent acknowledged that Colbourne had told him her opinion before she came to court to give testimony. The judge has yet to rule on Sargent's admissability as an 'expert.'

Why we didn't hear Dr. Sargent's testimony on Tuesday: The start of the court session proper, was delayed as both lawyers discussed new evidence that Finn Jensen wanted to present with respect to Dr. Sargent's testimony. Dr. Sargent's multi-page report was emailed to Doug Christie on Feb 22 2010. Sargent had written the report Feb 17, 2010. Doug Christie was prepared to cross examine Dr. Sargent with regard to his report until he learned that that it contained reference to two X-Rays that had only recently been located and were not delivered to the defence radiologist for review. Christie then requested an adjournment to this testimony until Bayne's expert, Dr. Barnes from Stanford would have an opportunity to review and to respond. The Judge would not hear the testimony that day in fairness to Mr. Christie. Cross-examination was limited to Dr. Sargent's qualifications.