Paul and Zabeth Bayne – Part Eleven – The Alarming Case of B.C. Government's Miscarriage of Justice

I understand that readers may not want to read my sympathetic treatment of the Bayne dilemma without knowing what the Ministry of Children and Family Development has in the Bayne Case File which MCFD is forbidden to make public ostensibly to protect the children. Zabeth and Paul Bayne however are under no such restriction and having gained those MCFD files they have submitted them to the media. Both Kathy Tomlinson from CBC ‘Go Public’ and Robert Freeman of the Chilliwack Progress have seen copies of those files.

Some readers may surmise that although the parents have stated that one of their small sons fell on the baby, we really don’t know what happened to baby Bethany back in September 2007. I answer that with Zabeth’s own testimony that she knows what happened and she has told us that she watched her second child Baden turn a corner running, then stumbling and falling on Bethany. This accident scenario was reported and recorded in all medical records at various hospitals and clinics over three weeks following the accident. A later CT scan of Bethany’s head confirmed internal bruising precisely at the spot on her head which Zabeth had identified as the area of contact between brother and sister. The attendant physician verified that this bruise was consistent with a contusion at that head location. That evidence is in hand and public.

I have earlier stated that Paul and Zabeth Bayne have been given no hearing and that statement has been challenged as inaccurate by someone who knows that BC law requires that when a child is removed from parents, social workers must appear before a judge within 10-12 days to explain why and justify the removal decision. Parents are permitted in the court together with a lawyer of choice or a legal aid lawyer and the assigned Judge determines whether the child or children will remain in Ministry care or be returned to the parents. This is what should ideally occur. In point of fact, after the children were removed on October 22, 2007, a presentation hearing did occur in December 2007 at which their lawyer was present. That is the only court hearing there has been. On that occasion, the MCFD which is required prior to the court date, to provide to parents a written copy of what MCFD intends to present, failed to do so, handing the affidavit to the birth parents as they entered the court, affording them and their legal counsel no time to process it. Moreover, the Baynes were not allowed to present any evidentiary information themselves. On that occasion the judge issued an ‘Interim Order’ because he wanted to first learn the outcome of the police investigation which as it turns out resulted in RCMP dropping all potential charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The aforementioned ‘Interim Order’ is what the title implies, a three month interim arrangement after which if the MCFD deems it necessary it can petition the judge for an extension of the ‘Interim Order’ or for a ‘Temporary Order.’ This formal request of which Baynes should certainly have been apprised has never happened although they have been told that MCFD is acting under a ‘Temporary Order.’ The Case files to which Baynes are entitled contain only the ‘Interim Order’ and perhaps more disturbing is the conflicting interaction between Baynes and MCFD representatives who have stated that MCFD is leaping from ‘Interim Order’ to ‘Continuing Order’ by which the children may be adopted out. If there is another order, the parents of these children have never been told. Here is the kicker. The inviolate law is that children under five years of age may not remain in the care of MCFD jurisdiction for a period over twelve months. This law is designed to limit the damage sustained by a child by removal from parents.

Someone has suggested to me that because the Ministry has had the care of the children since 2007 that this is indication it possesses sufficient evidence to convince a judge that the child should remain in care. The truth is MCFD has not been before a judge since December 2007 in order to present such convincing data. At that first presentation hearing MCFD stated it had no concerns and no evidence was presented. In the many months that have followed, MCFD’s own lawyer is on record as having told the Ministry that the Director does not have a compelling case and should at the very least return the boys to the parents. A quotation from a letter written by a community manager to the MCFD lawyer states, "Dr. Korn's medical report of November 2007 completed shortly after the two older children came into care indicates that there was no evidence of harm or injury to the children"… "At this point it is your belief that the Director should consider a return of the two older children to the parents."

Please consider writing a gracious letter to two important people who can make a difference. Forget writing anything inflammatory. A passionate civil letter of appeal is what I am asking.
1) Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Children and Family Development
LESLEY DU TOIT
PO BOX 9721 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9S2
E-mail: MCF.DeputyMinistersOffice@gov.bc.ca

2) Minister of Children and Family Development and Minister Responsible for Child Care.
HONOURABLE MARY POLAK
PO BOX 9057 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9E2
Email: mary.polak.mla@leg.bc.ca