Tuesday, March 23, 2010

THE MINISTRY'S PREFERRED OUTCOME / Part 145 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

What is the Intended Outcome of Ministry Care of the Bayne Children?

That is a reasonable question?
What is the Ministry’s preferred outcome?
One must assume that the Ministry believes that the favored result is to keep these three children out of the parents’ home and custody – not just temporarily but irrevocably.

That is the purpose of CFCSA—Kent Bayne, Baden Bayne and Bethany Terzan Bayne F10073, a legal action initiated by MCFD.

They sit, the two of them, Paul and Zabeth, side by side in a court where testimonies by people who do not know them denigrate them as though they have peered more deeply inside than the couple themselves.

Not temporarily mind you, but irrevocably the order is sought to take the children forever, to cut them off from mommy and daddy.

Does that sound remotely like a service for which our provincial government wants to take credit?

If Paul and Zabeth are the most reprobate, unsalvageable humans among us and completely devoid of parental skills or any redeeming qualities.

Why does this protection order have all the appearances of punishment? Retribution loaded upon mom and dad, and son and second son and baby girl.

Is this the superior protection of children that will make our Ministry of Children stand tall among democratic nations of the earth?

Three small children who have been visited twice weekly by two adults whose love is unmistakably the love in which they long to stay. Yet twice each week because that is all that is permitted, they must say goodbye –again. It has been more goodbyes than any child should ever speak or hear. Two and one half years of goodbyes.

And now in grim moments unknown to tiny lives, mommy and daddy ponder darkly what a final goodbye will taste like through tears that don’t stop and a heart so broken that dying could not be worse.

Wait! When triumph speaks in Chilliwack the networks and citizen groups and judicial bodies will launch investigative explorations that will eventuate in probes that penetrate the disappointing collapse of wisdom, mercy and compassion within a ministry that has its purpose printed boldly on paper but whose implementation repeatedly does not correspond.


  1. Courtroom is a battlefield. Talking about love and plan of care in a courtroom is totally absurd. Modern "child protection" is absurd at the onset by removing children from their homes and compelling parents to fight for custody. CFCSA recognizes that a home (presumably not foster home) is the best place to nourish children. Yet, families and homes are often destroyed at the beginning of MCFD's involvement.

    Modern "child protection" law is the best example to illustrate that an elected assembly can trample a man's right as much as a tyranny. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unknown to most Canadians, this state-created atrocity is happening to a small number of families nationwide and worldwide in those so-called free and democratic countries.

    Speaking of final goodbye in the event of failing to defeat MCFD's CCO application, google Renee Terrell and Hong Kong couple arrested in Vancouver. The former allegedly killed the social worker in the final visit and the latter "kidnapped" their children and ran. In both cases, parents were caught and gave "child protection" agencies more weight to support their unfit parent theory. These crimes are induced by "child protection" regime. Don't fall into this trap. "Be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

    MCFD will fight this high profile case tooth and nail. These god-like creatures cannot afford to be proven wrong and run the risk of having their abusive and retaliatory acts further exposed.

  2. The problem really is not a government as I see this but, rather, that a gov't one day developed and passed such legislation to form MCFD. The MCFD was given power to operate outside of any gov't that would be elected thereafter. Elected gov't can affect this massive, bureaucracy by rewriting the legislation. MCFD has "god" status which requires reconsideration!! This becomes a massive battle requiring much political will and commitment.
    Power is what these bureaucracies thrive on. MCFD always begin parading the terrible horrors of some parenting situations. The horrors which sometimes happen in "care" have to be kept out of the media. Instead of balanced reasoning, lines are drawn in the interest of retaining power and not in the interest of children and families.
    Does anyone notice that these gov't bureaucracies all have powerful unions with strong political ties?? The political overtones are not difficult to hear.
    Do elected leaders have the heart of compassion for families or the conviction necessary to take on MCFD??? Do the people of our nation have the conviction to demand moral accountability from MCFD??? Do you???

  3. MCFD's intended outcome is to use its massive resources to get permanent custody of their children to punish the parents for being defiant and disagreeing with their position.

    Service providers in the "child protection" industry ruthlessly determine who need their "services", how much and what type of "services" are needed by their unwilling clients. They define the qualify of their "services" and suppress those who dare to speak against them.

    Elected leaders are more enthusiastic to get more funding to win their next election. Most of them view reforming "child protection" as politically suicidal and have no political will to confront powerful unions in which "child protection" social workers belong and other special interests. Their best strategy is not to talk about this and keep wasting more tax dollars in these counter productive and inhumane activities. If you find this too radical, try schedule an appointment with your MLA to raise your concerns on MCFD and oppressive "child protection" law. See how far you could get. This is a flaw in our beloved democracy.


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