Saturday, February 13, 2010

For Love and For Justice / Part 110 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Best that Jensen Can Do
Part One of Two parts

Even a thin case can have the appearance of overwhelming and intimidating evidentiary value when it has been back lighted by a legislated power to remove children and hold on to them until a judicial ruling comes down. It has a perception of strength.

In the case of Paul and Zabeth Bayne and three children, Kent, Baden and Bethany, that darkly sinister evidence becomes smaller and smaller as the lumens of the spotlight of truth and justice are ever intensified.

Finn Jensen may have developed his case believing that it was strong. He is certainly a competent lawyer. Even this far into the trial he may be convinced that he can win this. Sadly, that’s what litigation aims at, winning! If he is successful, what will MCFD win? It will win the entitlement to keep the children from Paul and Zabeth permanently. It will win the right to force each of these three children to live throughout their remaining childhood and youth with adoptive parents and never to see their birth parents again, until perhaps one day as adults they opt to make a connection that was severed willfully not by their parents or themselves but by a judge and a ministry of a government under which they live.

Here is the best that Finn Jensen, counsel for the Ministry of Children can do in court.

What kind of evidence do you consider the following testimony to be? Jensen called Mike and Elizabeth Hoffman, a pastor and wife from Hope, B.C. where the Baynes resided at the time that this story began. These couples were friends, sharing faith and worship. The Hoffmans reported their concerns to authorities in 2007 and confirmed that report with testimony in the current hearing in January 2010. Based upon what he had learned in seminary psychology classes Michael Hoffman wondered whether Zabeth was suffering from post-partum depression and that she may have Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, an uncommon condition in which a person harms another in order to gain attention. Consider the nature of this hypothesis that would imply she might do harm to her children. Is that evidence? Hoffman is not a medical or psychiatric doctor. He is not an expert nor does he purport to be. I too have taken seminary psychology. Seminary pysch informs you enough to state an opinion but doesn’t qualify you to make an assessment that is entered as evidence that a woman is a risk to her children. This is specially true now that medical professionals were told in court that they could not state an opinion as to whether the Bayne baby's injuries were accidental or non-accidental. It is Jensen's folly not Hoffman's that this was entered as evidence in a court of law. Hoffman surmised, speculated or supposed that Zabeth might be suffering from this condition, that's all and that is not evidence. Combine that with his wife's testimony and what does Jensen have? Elizabeth gave testimony that the two boys seemed small for their age and that the little girl started looking increasingly listless. That may be concern but is that evidence? The children’s doctor was more aware than they and was satisfied with the children’s health status. This testimony is in the court transcript and in a CBC online story.


  1. Thanks for the updates, Ron. The view into what has been going on in court is most encouraging.

  2. "Seminary pysch informs you enough to state an opinion" (in your own words) I am very well
    acquainted with the Hoffman's and trust them explicitly as Godly and moral Pastors and people. What has been going on in the media and on this web site is absolutely unacceptable and the fact that they have not slapped a law suit for defamation of character shows how very gracious they have been through all of this. Your own statement " Seminary pysch informs you enough to state an opinion" I would remind you that that is exactly what Mike Hoffman offered, an opinion. At no time has Mike Hoffman ever "diagnosed" Zabeth with any condition, he simply stated that the circumstances appeared as MBP or a ppd. Mike is not a foolish man, he knows he doesn't hold a medical degree and would never presume to pretend he does. But do you think the media cares about that? Obviously not. For the record, Mike and Elizabeth Hoffman were not the first people to raise concerns to the MCFD about the Baynes, not the second not the third, not the tenth, and yet everyone has concentrated on berating these people for doing what was morally and biblically required of them. Obviously consider that the stories you are hearing are very one sided, the Baynes obviously want their children back, The media wants a great heart wrenching story that makes the government look like a villain and you as a former pastor should be slightly ashamed of yourself for your condemning nature without knowing any of the facts. Maybe you should take a deep look inside your soul, do some praying down on your knees and ask forgiveness for what you have done to Mike and Elizabeth Hoffman in the time this trial has run, maybe, just maybe then you may find the need to stop casting stones. In addition, consider this, what would Mike and Elizabeth Hoffman have to gain by doing this to the Baynes? The whole ridicules music school accusation which Zabeth lied about? I know for a fact that Elizabeth Hoffman provided proof about all of Zabeths lies for the court. I know for a fact that the Hoffman's don't even teach Piano and therefore it wouldn't have been a "rival" business. I know these people so personally that I know they don't have a malicious bone in their body. They were deeply hurt by the many lies spewed about them in court but realize that the children's safety is worth the pain they are feeling. Consider that Mike and Elizabeth Hoffman have nothing to gain and everything to lose by trying to help these kids and then, only then continue casting your stones and see if your insinuations and false truths will sustain you in the knowledge of your deception.

  3. ‘M,’ in your sound rebuke to me, I am sure you are correct that I must look deeply into my heart while penitent on my knees. That is the posture requisite when talking about other people in such a tension ridden disagreement.

    It does not surprise me to read that you and numerous others know Mr. and Mrs. Hoffman as people of integrity and righteous motivation. I believe you and I believe Mike and Elizabeth are what you say they are.

    My issue is with opinion being presented as evidence by the MCFD counsel. I did not say that the Hoffmans did that. I did not say that the Hoffmans were passing themselves off as experts. The two occasions upon which I have referenced the Hoffmans are in Post 107 on Wednesday, February 10, 2010, and Post 110 on Saturday, February 13, 2010. In the former I simply quoted a CBC paragraph already online and made no personal comment. In the latter post I have taken the liberty of venturing a personal comment. I have not implied that the Hoffmans were insincere in the course of action they chose nor insinuated that the Hoffmans’ were dishonest in stating their perceptions. I am sure that they never dreamed of giving witness in a court of law. I am saying that MCFD has erred in using the Hoffman concern as an evidence to support its claim that the Baynes are threats to their children either in terms of being abusive or negligent.

    Clearly I am sorry that the Hoffmans are hurt by the attention they have received. I am also sorry for the injury the Baynes are suffering.

  4. THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IS FROM RAY FERRIS,former social worker and now an outspoken critic of the MCFD.

    "Please do not be too hard on Finn Jensen. He has an unenviable task in view of the documentary evidence.
    In January of 2008, he wrote to the director telling him that without criminality, the case against the Baynes could not succeed in getting an order. Shortly afterwards the police investigation completely cleared the Baynes, confirming that there was no criminality. The director forged ahead regardless. In July 2008, there were many expert medical reports dissenting from Colbourne's opinion. Finn Jensen pointed out that there was no evidence as far as the boys were concerned. He expressed the opinion that they would be quite safe if replaced with the parents and he recommended to the director that he do so. The director made feeble excuses for not doing it and stalled for time. He stalled so long that he could no longer back out. The Bayne boys are the sacrificial lambs on the altar of the director's stupidity. I hate to think what turmoil must be in Finn Jensen's breast at the moment. No wonder he seems to be getting testy."

  5. To M and to the Hoffmanns:
    Thank you M for blogging. Thank you for your support of the Hoffmanns, and honouring their courage. Of course, the only information we have rec'd is what is blogged, and so have no idea outside of this website what is presented or what is true. I am grateful that the Hoffmanns stepped forward, and believe they had responsibility to do so on many levels. I just want to acknowledge the courage that it took to do so. I can't see what they could possible "gain" from it, but I'm sure some bitter blogger will create something ... so again, thank you. There are a lot of us out here that pray for you, and encourage you ... keep your chins up. Regardless of outcome, you did the right thing.

  6. Ray Ferris stated:

    "...I hate to think what turmoil must be in Finn Jensen's breast at the moment. No wonder he seems to be getting testy."

    I think I'd rather do just about anything for a job that what Finn Jensen is doing. If he truly has qualms about what he is doing, he should quit. I think he probably does know that the MCFD is in the wrong, and that he is helping them by acting as their lawyer. What a horrible job it must be, to help the government take children from good parents. This isn't the first time a lawyer has done such a job, and it won't be the last. There are worse things than being without a job temporarily.

  7. "I hate to think what turmoil must be in Finn Jensen's breast at the moment."

    Me too.


I encourage your comments using this filter.
1. Write politely with a sincere statement, valid question, justifiable comment.
2. Engage with the blog post or a previous comment whether you agree or disagree.
3. Avoid hate, profanity, name calling, character attack, slander and threats, particularly when using specific names.
4. Do not advertise