Sunday, February 14, 2010

For Love and For Justice / Part 111 / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

The Best that Jensen Can Do
Part Two of Two Parts

Following the Hoffman testimonies, Finn Jensen called upon his heavyweights for testimony, Adrienne Glen and Dr. Margaret Colbourne. They represent the concern that arose within the child protection unit of Vancouver Children’s Hospital when Bethany was admitted, examined, tested and treated. Each of these women was doing a specific job to the best of her ability and each I must assume fulfilled her role with integrity. Adrienne, an intake social worker at the hospital, visited and conversed with the Bayne family and medical professionals and wrote timely reports and in the process expressed her opinions, sometimes about the Baynes. Dr. Colbourne, very connected to the Shaken Baby Syndrome theory through involvement with an international SBS organization and committed to the understanding that the presence of the diagnostic triad of (1) retinal bleeding, (2) bleeding in the protective layer of the brain, and (3) brain swelling, is predictably indicative of SBS, made that SBS diagnosis with Bethany in 2007. The testimony of each woman in court affirmed her report from 2007 and each report potentially discredited Paul and Zabeth as normal, concerned and loving parents and implied their responsibility in harming their child and by which Finn Jensen hoped to convince the judge that MCFD has acted from the outset upon accurate and trustworthy data. The snag for Jensen is that Counsel Doug Christie was able to cross examine both witnesses and consequently weaken the import of their testimonies. Glen was compelled to admit that her recorded perceptions that the Baynes spent relatively little time with Bethany in hospital were inaccurate and that they had in fact spent many daily hours in hospital with Bethany. Colbourne’s qualifications as an expert were questioned with regard to an absence of biomechanical training needed to ascertain whether or not Bethany's injuries were accidental or non accidental. Theoretically, Colbourne's SBS diagnosis would benefit greatly from the next witness.

Now came Jensen’s super heavyweight Shaken Baby witness, Dr. Randall Alexander from Florida, who has testified in over 300 similar cases and who was here to assure the court that unquestionably, Bethany’s injuries were the result of shaking. His towering persona began to dissolve when he was forced to admit that he wrote his SBS report on Bethany months before seeing the actual film work on Bethany a day before entering the witness box. He had to admit that he had not read Bethany’s birth records, reports concerning Bethany from area hospitals, or any of the ten experts' reports on Bethany that countered his SBS claim. It was clear to the judge that Alexander’s report had been written with incomplete medical information. What kind of evidence is this?

Most recently Social Worker Loren Humeny testified and was cross examined for almost the equivalent of four days. Under cross-examination Humeny was asked whether the risk assessment was written when he was in an adversarial position with the Baynes, because the MCFD was already seeking a continuing care order on all three Bayne children which the parents opposed. He admitted that the risk assessment was highly subjective and primarily his opinion. Christie stated that it had a dearth of factual evidence. It essentially vilified the Baynes and on the one page customarily assigned to summarize strengths, Humeny noted no strengths for them as individuals, as a couple or as parents, saying he didn’t know them, yet admitted that he had spent many hours with them in meetings. The hundreds of letters of reference in support of the Baynes, he admitted he knew about but had not read. So perhaps he doesn’t know them. Judge Crabtree will have to settle for himself whether that constitutes evidence. And this thus far is the best that Jensen has been able to do with what he has. All of this exchange is in court transcripts.
What seemed so strong, so ominous, is paler now and fragile.


  1. Thank you for being so thorough and dilligent in sharing the details of the Bayne Family's campaign for justice. I have been following Their story for about a year. They deserve every bit of positive press and support that they can get. You have helped educate the layman in the warped area of child protection. May we all come away from this wiser and may the Bayne family be blessed with the testimony of VICTORY!

  2. I am tired of seeing your scewed view of this case. Your view is so slanted that it borders on ignorance. Lets look at the facts. Zabeth discharged herself from the hospital the same day she gave birth and didn't return for several days. When the child was two months old she put her baby on the floor for 15 minutes and went to express milk while her boys supposedly were playing in the same area. Then she states that she came out and seen her two year old child fall on the infant causing a head fracture, bleeding in the brain, retinal bleeding and a broken femur. I defy you to find me a mother that would leave her child in the hospital for several days right after birth. I also defy you to find me a mother who would leave her infant child on the floor for 15 minutes while she was not in the room. In stating this you give your slanted view on how unjust this whole court case is. When other people write on your blog that disagree with your slanted view you make a comment to ban them or do away with the comment section of your blog. You state that you are a minister of god which would be in direct conflict with your perception of this case. You continue to tell half truths as you are obviously very scewed in your belief. How do you sleep at night. If you feel compelled to tell this story give the whole truth not just some selective parts that fit with your bias. I hope that one day you will have to answer for your comments in this case either to the court or a even higher power. If you can't tell the truth don't print nothing at all.

  3. Interesting observation by "T" all the while hiding behind a consonant? Who are you? Do you know Zabeth? Are you basing you observation ondo called "facts" gleaned from the media? It helps me to remember that there is more than one side to every story, and the most accurate facts are not usually found on television or in a newspaper. According to the court transcripts, I wonder what thoughts you gave to the part where government & pertinant professionals did not read all of the information or didn't complete all the paper work required in order to make a fully informed decision. God is the ultimate judge. In the end each of us will be held accountable for anything we have left unreconciled. Regarding the question of the baby being left on the floor... I have four children, by the time the third and fourth arrived I did not hesitate to do that. It is normal.

  4. ‘T’, I have allowed your comment to be printed because I concluded that your comments should be read by others, and also so that I can follow it up with necessary clarifications.
    1. The Comment Option: I said that I was dismayed by some comments of people who were supportive of the Baynes and overstepped a boundary in my mind. It was not a reference to commentators with opposing views. I did not threaten to remove the comment option. I said I was considering it if people would not observe simple courtesies in stating their arguments. Much in the way you have written to me just now.
    2. Biased or Skewed: I fully admit to having a bias in favour of the Bayne children being returned to them. That is precisely the reason I began writing on their behalf. Interestingly skew is a synonym for bias. Further, doesn’t your comment sound as though you also have a biased or a skewed view of this case as well or you wouldn’t be writing.
    3. Defiance to find a mother: Might another mother somewhere have had justifiable reason(s) for leaving her baby in hospital for several days post birth, or has there ever been another mother who has lain her child on the floor for 15 minutes within sight of her husband who prepared dinner while she attended to a necessary maternal task? If that is what you are asking me, then I guess the answer is yes.
    4. Truth: I do make an effort to ferret out the truth, to listen to the truth, to write the truth. Assumption is not equivalent to truth. To infer negligence or abandonment from the two examples you mentioned about Zabeth is exactly why so many readers feel an injustice has been done to the Baynes.

  5. I want to start this off by thanking you Ron for being open-minded enough to let this be shown. In looking at the facts I don't know what the ministry could have did different. They are getting a diagnosis from Children's Hospital of non accidential injury. They see thousands of kids from this province and other provinces and have a very high reputation. I realise that the Bayne's have doctors that are stating this could have been caused from the child falling on her but this is by know means anywhere near of how the majority of the medical profession feels. In your earlier blog you stated that there is no winner in this case and I believe that to be true. I am not a doctor so I don't know who is right in this case but given the facts I feel that the Ministry was appropriate in maintaining care of these children until this case can be resolved in court. If an error is made they need to side on the protection of the children. I have watched seminars on Shaken Baby and know that it is not always abusive parents who do this. We are all capable of this given the right circumstances. This does not make the Baynes bad people even if they did it. It just seems that this is taking a long time to finally come to a resolution.

  6. ‘T’, you have written a second time. I am wanting to address some comments you made in your first posting. ………

    As I read your comments I realized that while you were familiar with some elements of the Bayne story, you did not know some specifics. For the sake of other readers I will state here what I believe the Court has heard to date. Everything about which you have spoken has already been expressed in court by way of testimony and cross-examination and submitted reports.

    You said that “Zabeth discharged herself from the hospital the same day she gave birth and didn't return for several days.” That is false. Zabeth did not discharge herself from the hospital the same day and though she wanted to stay with her baby day and night following her birth the Baynes could not afford to pay for a room at the Langley Hospital and furthermore, the one family-room located near the special care nursery for premature babies was already in use by another new mother. After Zabeth did discharge herself she and Paul drove from Hope to Langley each day to spend the day with their baby. They would return to Hope for the night. The records also show that they called in the morning when they awoke and called again in the evening before retiring for the night. Their baby had to stay in hospital for two weeks due to slight prematurity and the inability to feed. She was tube-fed through her nose because she was unable to suck as yet. The Langley Hospital was also in touch with the Children's Hospital and on alert for transfer as she was losing weight and not feeding well. Furthermore, when their first-born Kent was born early, the Baynes spent two weeks with him in the hospital and then when Baden was born three months prematurely, they also spent every day with him in the hospital from early morning to evening calling when they awoke and before they went to bed. They have proven themselves to be devoted to their children this is recorded in the nurses notes which are filed and were spoken to in court already.

    You said, “When the child was two months old she put her baby on the floor for 15 minutes and went to express milk while her boys supposedly were playing in the same area….. I also defy you to find me a mother who would leave her infant child on the floor for 15 minutes while she was not in the room.” Zabeth did place Bethany on the floor and then leave to express milk, and her boys, were occupied in their rooms when she left the room even though they were free to move about the house. And because the house was a rather open floor plan, Paul was watching dinner in the kitchen and moving easily back and forth to check on Bethany. There is nothing about that description that seems out of the ordinary for parents looking after a family and multi-tasking.

  7. Hello:

    I just wanted to mention that I am a mother of two and there were many, many times that my second child was left on a play mat or blanket on the floor (before she was mobile) while I prepared supper, tidied up, what have you. Every parent I know has done this. Of course frequent checks are in order; however, it is simply impossible to monitor your children every moment of every day. I don't care who says otherwise - accidents do happen from time to time to the best of us.

  8. Ron said :
    Zabeth did place Bethany on the floor and then leave to express milk, and her boys, were occupied in their rooms when she left the room even though they were free to move about the house. And because the house was a rather open floor plan, Paul was watching dinner in the kitchen and moving easily back and forth to check on Bethany. There is nothing about that description that seems out of the ordinary for parents looking after a family and multi-tasking.
    As parents of 6 children ourselves, my husband and I both agree there isnt anything really unusual about this scenario.
    What is unsettling though and what I wonder about all the time is why did the story change so many times? This version is the latest version I have heard. The versions vary such as Baden fell down onto Bethany but neither parent saw the accident. Another was that Paul was there, Zabeth was not, and then finally this version. It was also said that the parents thought that because they ran quickly out of the house when Bethany had stopped breathing that her head flopped so hard as they carried her it may have caused the damage. This was all in the very beginning but its so different than what is told now. Its hard not to be suspicious when theres so much discrepancy.

  9. I am a mother of two premature boys who were born with low birth weights. I would appreciate my pastor and his wife's understanding that they were small and underweight because they were born premature. I would never appreciate their reporting to the Ministry that perhaps my babies were malnourished. This definitely is no help but harm to my children. The logic is not hard to understand.

    I don’t see any stone casting in Pastor Unruh’s blog writings. They are objective reporting which help those who cannot attend the hearing know what happens in court. To me, it is very valuable.

  10. Why do you feel the need to be anonymous "T"? Do you have something to hide? Based on your posts it seems clear you are somehow connected to the MCFD which does not have a good reputation unlike the Hospital. So "T" why not stick to fact rather than innuendo and how about revealing your true identity or would that violate your contract with MCFD? Oh, by the way the word you were looking for was "no" not "know".

  11. A response to what seems unsettling to emsiat………

    What appear as discrepancies cannot be satisfactorily clarified in this blog or among the comments. I recognize it is impractical or impossible for every reader to be in attendance at the court sessions. What I wish to convey to you is that the information that has been divulged in court comprises the information that is of consequence and that looks like this so far.

    Dr. Margaret Colbourne, Dr. Randall Alexander and Dr. Jane Gardiner all testified that the mother had not seen the accident. It is important to ask why each would say this. Dr. Colbourne may have formed her opinion by October 19th 2007 and called MCFD by October 21st, 2007. Doug Christie asked Alexander and Gardiner from whom they heard this. Alexander answered that it was from Jensen whereas Gardiner answered generically ‘the prosecution.’ Christie made it clear to the court that the mother did see the accident. Loren Humeny similarly testified that the mother did not see the accident and it was his recollection that this information was expressed at the Presentation Hearing. With Presentation Hearing Transcripts in hand Doug Christie, it was read aloud in court that the mother saw Baden fall on Bethany. Further, hospital records and doctors office visits have recorded the witnessed fall. From that record it appears that this has not changed.

    The inferred point is that there is no more to this story. It doesn’t matter what accounts are circulating. It matters what the Court has heard.

  12. then why dont you watch the cbc report from last year and then watch the global report that aron mcarthur did and explain why her story differs???????

  13. Bewildered...... Could you provide readers with the cbc and global links to which you refer and perhaps you can explain the discrepancies to which you would appreciate resolution.

  14. Thanks for that Ron but it still doesnt make sense. If Zabeth had not seen what happened then how does she know exactly how
    Baden fell on Bethany? I was involved in the beginning although I cannot say how I will say that Zabeth was telling everyone involved at the time that she was not in the room. I dont want to say who I think shook this child but there are some cases out there where the mother doesnt see what happens in the next room and psychologically she may not be able to go there. Scary and terrible thought I know. But it does happen and whether we like it or not its possible.

  15. From what you have just written, I think we will have to wait to hear what the Judge has picked up and accepted from all the testimony from this court case. In my note above I made the point that the Baynes clearly insist and have hospital records to support that they told the accident story from the start and that Zabeth had seen it. MCFD says something differently. It has been contested in court and it will continue to be until the Judge makes a decision.

  16. "T" said:

    "If an error is made they need to side on the protection of the children."

    What some people fail to appreciate is that when a child is ripped from their parents and sent to live with strangers who may or may not be doing foster work for the right reasons, this is horrifically traumatic to the children. It cannot therefore be concluded that this is "protecting" children.

    The government's record of protecting and nurturing children "in care" is not very good. That can be proven by statistics on what happens to children who age out of foster care. Too many of them end up incarcerated, addicted, suicidal, dead, and murdered. If we really want to protect children, let's keep them with their good families.

  17. Whats your answer if the family is truly an abusive family then? What if there is no good family for a child to be kept with? It does happen. We have 2 children in our care now that fit that scenario. They themselves disclosed the abuse they have suffered from their parents. These kids have no family that are willing to care for them although they have been asked. So, they are in our home. We love them, we treat them the same as we treat our biological children, we fight for them when they need us to, we advocate for them in school, in their extra curricular activities and we defend them when we have to. We also talk about their natural families, the good and the bad. They are happy, bright, and loving and dont hesitate to answer me with "I love you too"!! when I tuck them into bed and give them hugs and tell them I love them.
    Not all foster homes are bad, we try hard to do the best job we can.

  18. Tracy, you may be talking about someone else's remarks but for my part, I am pleased that you are doing a devoted service to these children. I also know other foster parents whose love and dedication are clearly the best thing that has happened to the children who are fortunate to enter their homes when their birth parents couldn't provide proper care.

  19. Tracnlenplus10 said:

    "What if there is no good family for a child to be kept with? It does happen."

    All over the world there are so many reports of heartbroken grandparents, uncles, aunts, friends, and others who have desperately tried to get custody of the children that have been taken by Child Protective Services. And look at the Bayne family - a perfect example of this supposed policy of placing with kith or kin, but yet we see that even though many people who were close to the Baynes offered and could have been foster parents, these children are with strangers, and have been bounced around to numerous foster houses, and from the sounds of it, are not very happy.

    What CPS says and what they do are two different things. That is the big problem. They don't follow the policy or the law in too many cases. This can be proven (I can get news stories to prove this).

    It is very easy for anyone to say they care about children and say they do this and do that, but the reality is, children in foster care are suffering, and always have suffered, greatly, and have been and are subject to much higher rates of abuse, and no one really, really cares, or if they do, nothing is being done. That's why there are lawsuits everywhere now - because there has been abuse, and people are getting fed up.

    As far as protecting children from real abuse, here's what I think should be done. First of all, we should agree that child abuse is a crime. Abuse, not this subjective "neglect," where if the kid looks listless for a few days they get ruthlessly ripped from all they love. If child abuse is a crime, treat it like a crime. The police handle crimes, not social workers.

    Now, as to the ever-popular question of what to do with the true cases of parental abuse, where kids are supposedly being starved, burned with cigarettes, subjected to satanic ritual abuse, etc., etc. Prove it. First, before you subject a parent and a child to what is tantamount to the death penalty. Prove it. Why is that so hard to stomach?

    Then, if you prove it, put them with relatives, friends, whomever you can put them with that will be the least disruptive. But don't put them with someone just because they SAY they care about children (and they are getting paid for it). The government has a pretty lousy record as a parent, so let's not try to paint them as something they are not.

    By the way, Tracy, how do you know that what the social workers tell you is true? How do you know that children aren't being taken from good, loving, competent parents? Do you just assume that MCFD is always honest, always right? Haven't you ever had qualms? Given the fact that corruption is so rampant these days, given the fact that the more an organization is shrouded in secrecy, the more they abuse their power, given the fact that social workers have more power than God (or some appear to think they do), haven't you ever, once, had qualms about the children you take into your home, and whether or not they really belong there? I'm not being rhetorical at all, I really would like to know.

  20. Actually I think I am lucky. I work with some wonderful dedicated people. Not only Social workers, but the RCMP, aboriginal support workers,public health nurses, infant development workers, occupational therapists, speech,and language therapists, numerous different Doctors, nurses and physiotherapists.
    And no, I havent had qualms about the children we take into our homes because the professionals I work with have done all they can do to find family or close friends in which to place those children with. Fostering is challenging and its challenging for us as Foster Parents and its challenging for the children. A good foster home will recognize this and do all they can do to alleviate the negative affects for the children. Everyone knows the system isnt perfect, and yes mistakes have happened and terrible things have happened. But that does not mean that ALL foster homes are bad. Its like saying that because one Minister sexually abused some children that ALL of them are now suspect. Thats not really fair to assume.
    And about our children in our home. There was an exhaustive search for family or friends and even though family was asked, they refused to get involved for the sake of these kids. Placing them in care was a last resort and We were happy to accept them. All removal cases must go before a judge in court. The judge has the say whether the ministry has the right to place the children, with who, and for how long and what will be done to rehabilitate the family so the child(ren) can return home. What supports will be in place for the family is also discussed.
    And yeah, the payment is for the care of the children, we actually have a budget we have to follow so any payment to us is spent directly on the kids, ie food, clothing, and shelter costs plus field trips for school etc, any lessons they enroll in, school supplies, and an allowance for older children for whatever they need it for. Lots of times the money runs out before the end of the month and we use our own funds to make ends meet. We do this job because we feel satisfied and rewarded to be able to offer a home when there isnt one. Loving them like your own and then being strong enough to let them go home when possible is very emotionally challenging. For us and for the children.
    And yes Ron I was answering for someone else that doesnt believe there are good homes out there. I thank you for your supportive comment back to me, its a tough job but we do truly love it and find it very rewarding.

  21. I didn't say there weren't any good homes. I said there are far too many bad ones, and that has been proven, time and again. I said that we shouldn't just accept what people say about the foster care system (especially when they profit by it), given the enormous power and potential for abuse, and given the horrendous track record.

    Everyone I have ever communicated with who has actually been raised in foster care (as opposed to the foster workers and social workers) has had problems, many of them devastating. There is one adult currently involved in a lawsuit who says that of all the people he knew growing up in the foster system, only a couple are still alive. He says the streets are full of former foster children; they are now drug addicts, prostitutes, and many are in prison.

    There has been far too much provable abuse in the system for me to automatically accept that we should just look at it as a few "mistakes." There needs to be more accountability.

  22. CPS, in your interaction with Tracy’s comments today, you use sweeping generalities that serve no useful purpose in this discussion. For one thing, wile some comments have tended now toward fostering care, the blog is not themed around that issue. But back to my point, if the everyone who have been raised in a foster home to whom you have ever spoken all had problems, it is obviously not everyone. Because you missed some of the people to whom I have spoken who are grateful for their foster parents. If one adult who is embroiled in a lawsuit says that all the people whom he knew while growing up in the foster care system are dead, how old is he, how old were they, and how many did he know? Two, three, one hundred? It makes a difference. And are the streets really full of troubled and unseemly people, all of whom have been foster children? No, none of this is provable. Writing requires some accountability too don’t you think? Exaggerations, sweeping all encompassing statements don’t help anyone’s argument no matter what side of the issue you are on.

  23. I should stop here but I feel so passionately and I guess defensive of what we do that I just want to say to CPS that maybe the people she/he knows that are troubled because of being fostered may have already been troubled by their history with the family they were born to. Most kids that come into care need an unbelievable amount of support, love, committment, consistency, and understanding. I have no qualms whatsoever to accept these children.

  24. I can give you specifics; I'm happy to do so. But I don't think you are going to want to post them, because they do not paint the rosy picture of foster care that Tracy is representing. And foster care is absolutely relevant to this issue, because that's where the Bayne children have been for the last two years. That's where most children end up when there is MCFD involvement. Any discussion of MCFD has to involve a discussion of foster care.

  25. cps says
    Any discussion of MCFD has to involve a discussion of foster care.
    Not true, thats another exageration on your part. You should do your homework before you comment on what goes on with the Ministry.
    The Ministry has intake workers to discern whether or not to investigate a complaint or concern about a child who may need help and decides how to go about it. Sometimes after investigation it is found to be something completely different than what was thought originally. Maybe the caller was angry at their neighbours who had lots of little kids and were noisy so they call the Ministry to complain theres lots of yelling etc. The Ministry would go and investigate and find out there are lots of little kids and its noisy, they wouldnt remove children for that and they wouldnt discuss Foster care.
    And we will continue to paint our rosy little picture of Foster Care because it has been great for us as a family and I know many other wonderful foster families that say the same thing. Its what we know,its our life and we love every minute of it.

  26. Remember CPS, when giving specifics - give the backgrounds that put those children in care - was there abuse? addiction? neglect? prostitution? sexual abuse? Those are the backgrounds of the children I know that are in care. Check out all the details of your examples. And quoting news stories, which seem to hold a lot of ground for you, are not reliable sources. Newspapers/radio/tv are just businesses, all looking to profit too ... they look for sensational stories or a sensational "bend" to a story to sell and grab an audience. Find more reliable statistics - but do it scientifically - get the background of the test subjects. Foster care is not the solution, I agree. However, your answers are over-simplistic. Abuse/neglect/addiction is systemic ... it often runs in families. For example, many, many children in care today are fetal alcohol. (I was told a few years ago, that approximately 70% of the children in care in BC were FAS. I'm not sure if that is still a current statistic - it would be worth checking out.) Their parents are fetal alcohol. That's brain damage. That lifestyle can go back generations. Where do those children go if aunty, uncle, and grandma are also addicts, or are the ones that abused their own children, who then learn to abuse their children. It is often cyclical. And by the way, I know from experience that the MCFD always tries to contact and place children with family first. However, there are background checks and those family members are also checked out thoroughly ... as the Bayne family was. They were placed with their grandparents immediately upon being removed (that was their FIRST "foster home") until the MCFD made the decision to remove them (I don't understand the details around that removal and that isn't part of my statement - just that they were initially placed with family members)Unfortunately, many times there are no family members available or suitable to place the children with.
    We could always transition to the ways of third world countries I guess, many of which I have been to and witnessed, where these children (also abused, abandoned or neglected) just live on the streets, in the gutters, beg for bread and water, or are sold into slavery. That would save on taxes, and at least then nobody would be "profiting" from child protection.

  27. I'm wondering how relevant it is to read about how (an anonymous person) who says they are a foster parent does such a wonderful job, and how MCFD and everyone associated with them does such a wonderful job. Of course, amidst all this self-praise is the constant remarks which are intended to cast suspicion on the Baynes, who already have the mighty power of the Ministry and all their virtually limitless resources against them.

    I suggest people just search out the truth for themselves. Because once you start digging, you'll find that the MCFD and the foster care system is not what it first appears to be, and it's definately not what those who are involved in it would have you believe.

  28. Here are some specifics which should make anyone concerned about the system:

    "CALGARY — The provincial minister promising a sweeping review of a Calgary foster home said she was “devastated” to learn a Calgary man who opened his home to dozens of troubled boys is now charged with sex crimes against three of them.

    Garry Prokopishin — once named foster parent of the year at his association, where he was also a director — is accused of offering the teens money in exchange for sexual acts.'

    This particular foster parent was named Foster Parent of the Year. In other words, he's the cream of the crop. Has to make you think twice.

  29. In British Columbia, there are approximately 901,000 children and youth under age 19. The number of children "in care" is approximately 10,000. Given the large number of children "in care," - TEN THOUSAND - it would seem that foster care is a very significant aspect of MCFD.

    Also, I have never yet heard of one single person in BC or Canada being prosecuted for making a false report to Child Protective Services, although even the biggest supporters of Child Protective Services admit this happens. The number of children who are taken "into care" because of false reports should be cause for concern. We need to start investigating and prosecuting these false reporters, because not only are they wasting resources, they are responsible for child abuse, as it is abundantly clear that just the act of a removal is highly traumatic to children, and has lifelong negative effects.

  30. tracnlenplus10 said:

    "... maybe the people [that (user name) "CPS Destroys Families"] knows that are troubled because of being fostered may have already been troubled by their history with the family they were born to."

    I don't think the children who were victims of "Foster Parent of the Year" (see recent news item) would agree with this assessment. Nor would countless others who have been abused and / or killed WHILE in foster care. I can give you specifics on those victims, if you wish.

  31. does cps have anything good to say about anyone? all negative,poor you. there are bad foster homes but, if there werent abusive parents mcfd wouldnt need to exist. you say the baynes are loving and caring people, wich i believe to be true, that doesnt mean that they are inocent does it? nor does it mean their guilty. if you feel so strongly about what your writing and the negative things your saying about foster homes and mcfd,dont waste your time here , go to the media and see how far you get. then youll get your moment in the sun and do some good with the slander that you say. insulting the foster homes and the mcfd on a blog doesnt do diddly for your cause. most of the people on this blog try to keep it civil, especially ron, but you are agressive and insulting. go to the media, make a difference. there are people that know more about this case than you.

  32. bewildered,etc.

    I have plenty of good to say about many people. Like Doug Christie, what a fine man, what a brave man he is for defending the Baynes, who are up against the terrifying power of the State, with its limitless resources and power to condemn these good parents to a hellish existence.

    I also have plenty of praise for the former foster children who fight to improve conditions for all future children, by courageously battling it out in lawsuits, my hat goes off to these people.

    I also applaud the lawyer in Alberta who is fighting against the government, trying to get justice for former foster children, even though the system has tried everything it can do to suppress the awful and very expensive truth (including attempting to have this brave lawyer disbarred).

    I admire anyone who dares to speak out against a system that has all the money, all the power, all the resources, a system that takes children from parents without even really proving that those parents are abusive.

    Finally, I have tremendous admiration and respect for the Baynes, who clearly have fought so hard to get their children back where they belong, when they must be so terrified, so tired, so utterly devastated by the events over the last two years, from the police interrogation that left Zabeth Bayne in tears, to the countless heartwrenching goodbyes, every time they must leave their precious children, covered in bruises and sadness, with strangers, and go back home to their lonely, empty home, without their dear children.

    So you can sarcastically say to me "poor me," and tell me that I'm "negative" or "aggressive" or that you are laughing at me, and that all your friends or vast network of foster parents are laughing at me, you can taunt me, and tell me to "go to the media and see how far you get." But I'm not the only one who is raising these concerns. Every day, more people become aware of the myriad problems in Child Protective Services.

    By the way, just because a government agency exists, that does not prove it should exist, or that it should exist to the degree it exists. Governments waste money all the time, and the bigger they get, the more they seem to waste.

    Also, you accuse me of slander. Slander isn't slander if it is true. Sorry to end on a "negative" note, but I can provide proof of rampant problems within MCFD and foster care. So it isn't slander. It's the truth.

  33. ENOUGH
    That’s the word that sums up my intellectual response to the diatribe passing as comments now. Haven’t some of the rest of you begun to think that this string of comments has deteriorated?

  34. For me, the ongoing concern that must be addressed is does this child Bethany have a health issue that needs to be addressed?
    Surely, we as a society can address that simple issues with an unbiased medical review. Without pitting one Doctor against another.
    The other issue is that the family mechanics have now changed. These are older children, what do they want? These children can now speak, and report. These children can attend school, doctors appointments, they can and will be seen regularly by an entire community. There is no fragile newborn to protect. Why cant these "potential risks" be managed with the children in their home?


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