Monday, March 15, 2010

Part 137 / Application to Return the Boys / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

There is a concern that this court case is in a holding pattern. Prior court days were occupied with the MCFD presentation of their case. What remains is the Baynes' presentation of evidence, testimony and experts' reports and perhaps two weeks of court time are required. Court time is backlogged and possibly the Baynes might have to wait until June for resumption of their case. The Case Manager for the Provincial Court of British Columbia is presently seeking to set dates for two this continuance. One date is for a one day hearing for the Crown to hear the Bayne motion for the return to the two boys to their parents. The second date is a multi-day series for the remainder of the Bayne evidence and testimony presentation. Of course the Baynes are anxious to proceed.

The delay is generating additional stress on them as well as hardship for their children. In view of this, before the last session concluded, Paul and Zabeth and their counsel Doug Christie raised the matter of the boys' return with Judge Thomas Crabtree.

Honourable Judge Thomas J. Crabtree expressed willingness to hear Paul and Zabeth Bayne's application for the return of their two oldest children, their boys. Their application is based in part on the earlier broken mediation agreement - broken by the MCFD not the Baynes, and in part based on the lack of evidence for the removal and retention of the boys. In fact, MCFD's counsel Finn Jensen communicated to MCFD in 2009 that the boys should be returned due to this lack of evidence. MCFD chose to ignore that advice. Before the final day in court recently, Lawyer Douglas Christie reopened this application. Judge Crabtree is prepared to hear arguments from both sides and has instructed the court clerk to find a date for this particular hearing, and the remaining days needed for the primary hearing of the Continuing Custody matter. Everyone waits to hear the schedule.


  1. MCFD often dragged on their presentation by examining issues that are not quite related to child protection in court. This may include character attacks resembling those found in witch hunt based on hearsay (which is explicitly allowed in CFCSA), opinions and fallacy of assumption expressed by shrinks paid by MCFD (be mindful that MCFD has an approved list of shrinks, if parents want to use shrinks outside this list, MCFD often either refuse to pay and/or disapprove their assessment be used in court).

    Their tactics are to lengthen the trial, hence the holding period of children, to exact more financial and emotional punishment on parents and to allow their lawyer (a true beneficiary in the "child protection" industry) to create more billable hours (at the expense of taxpayers of course, which will give the added benefit to get a larger budget next year, the recently released MCFD budget proves to this effect).

    Another hidden objective is to dominate a huge portion of allocated court time and leave parents little time to present their case, to create more scheduling difficulty, to indoctrinate the judge by calling many witnesses in support of their custody application (a longer sales pitch so to speak) and to make their application looks seemingly justified. That's why they pass a case to at least 2 social workers (usually one from the risk assessment team who laid the ax and one from "family support" team who is supposed to offer "service" to address MCFD's child protection concerns), move removed children to different foster homes (usually using lack of resources as an excuse), using different supervised visitation workers during supervised access. The purpose is to create more favorable "impartial" witnesses. Needless to say, most of the aforesaid special interests seldom bite the hands that feed them. When they have 10 fingers pointing at parents, their testimonies become more credible.

    This is just one of the least despicable tactics used in the "child protection" scam. Other tactics often used are using removed children as pawns to blackmail parents to admit guilt in court, threaten one spouse (usually the wife) to divorce the other, harm removed children (usually emotional, but sometimes physically as well) to beat their parents into submission, fabricating evidence, provoking parents to act out of their character, ... etc.

    Except those who experienced MCFD first hand, it is hard to believe the extent of oppression scrutinized parents and children suffered in 21st century Canada. Most Canadians are not aware that they are just one phone call away from losing their children to their government.

  2. Anonymous wrote this at 2 AM, sleepless somewhere. Anonymous has a lot to say. Of course, Anonymous may actually be several writers independent of one another but who can tell? I sometimes wish that a few of the authors who claim anonymity would adopt an alias. But I have allowed this option so I can only hold myself responsible. Nonetheless, this most recent comment by Anonymous illustrates my vexation. As this Comment began I thought this would be one that I would prevent from being published. It makes several unsupported accusations against MCFD. By the conclusion of the Comment I was persuaded that Anonymous may have enough personal involvement with the MCFD to make some of the alleged MCFD tactics plausible. Finally, I published the Comment because I have read numerous notes and messages from parents and or supporters of parents who have expressed their alarm over their factual knowledge of MCFD behaviour closely akin to what Anonymous describes.

  3. Sarah A'CourtMarch 15, 2010 at 7:53 AM

    This is just another tactic to wear the family down and it is disgusting. The way that this has been handled from start to finish is just unacceptable, yet its happening! I feel so frustrated as I watch this case and how the family are being messed about and played with. I can only pray that God's will is done; as it is perfect and God is bigger than any establishment!

  4. Ron, thank you for your trust by posting my comments. If you observed the Bayne's hearing closely, you will see that tactics mentioned in the first part of my comments. Tactics mentioned herein are frequently used by MCFD's lawyers, not just in the Bayne's case.

    I do not blame you for being skeptical. Frankly, expounding schemes in the "child protection" industry is like going public to tell that you have seen a ghost. People either think that you are insane, exaggerating or a disgruntled parent mudslinging the ministry. This is one reason why this industry continues to be powerful and oppressive, yet remains unchecked.

    Parents who had been scrutinized worldwide have similar accusations their local "child protection" agencies. Why parents tell more or less the same incredible stories? If they lie, why don't they choose something more believable? What is the probability that these parents, who do not know one another, lie about the same thing by chance? These are evidence that demands a verdict.

    If you think that my allegations are unsupported, please post your contact information and I will share recordings indicating social workers blackmailing parent to admit guilt in court after removing their children, photos of children traumatized in foster homes, ... etc. My allegations are supported by tangible evidence and credible testimonies.

  5. Ron said...
    Anonymous wrote this at 2 AM, sleepless somewhere. Anonymous has a lot to say. Of course, Anonymous may actually be several writers independent of one another but who can tell?


    Just so you know (because you also seem to have a slightly hostile tone towards my comments), I am not "Anonymous."

    Why on earth would you hesitate to publish Anonymous' extremely well written, compelling, and so obviously truthful comments. After all the MCFD has done. Their sickening cruelty. Their destruction of families - not just the Baynes, but so many others. Why would you even think about censoring Anonymous' comments? That is just shameful.

  6. This is a clarification for ‘CPS Destroys,’ since you wrote directly to me in your comment. Unfortunately you must have failed to read Anonymous’s follow up comment in which that writer did understand by hesitation. If you read to the end of my piece then you did hear me qualify my starting comment with a clear appreciation, from my experience with other people who have had run-ins with MCFD, that Anonymous was telling it the way it is from his/her experience. A better question is why you read an introductory remark and fire off a comment rather than affirming me in arriving at the right conclusion by the end of the piece. That is the reason I wrote it as I did. In the follow up Anonymous wrote, “Ron, thank you for your trust by posting my comments…. I do not blame you for being skeptical.” And to clarify the other point to which you allude. I have not shown ‘hostility’ to your comments in the past, merely disagreement with a communication style. The ideal in my estimation and it is hard for all of us to achieve, is to be angry, livid maybe, and yet to express this in a public forum with well crafted words that are factual, precise, persuasive, compelling. I want people to engage with facts rather than be turned away by diatribe. I am still convinced that is the only means to bring change among educated decision makers and civil and public servants and professionals. I think you have to do what you have to do but I have just stated from where I am coming.

  7. In my experience, the best route for getting a hearing date as quickly as possible is to first specifically apply at a family hearing day just to get the 1-day trial time, in order to separate this from the difficulty of obtaining the 2-week continuance.

    The "holding pattern" described is an artificial barrier that I have encountered many times As a parent with dealings with MCFD, and the solution for me was to make a specific application to get a date quickly. Don't forget, in the meantime, during this "holding pattern", that court clerk is busy scheduling time for dozens of other people, likely including the same seized judge.

    A 'hard working court clerk' can be blamed for this delay, but when pressed, they can magically produce a date.

    BC Supreme Court is much less problematic. The average time to obtain a 2-week date can be about 4 months. To obtain a 1-day hearing with a seized judge, the wait is usually around a month. On average, BCSC dates are easier to obtain by a factor of a half or a third the time of Provincial court dates.

    In my case, to get a trial date, it took 5 months to get to the point of actually getting a date. Note that is is two months after the temporary custody obtained from the presentation hearing has expired. One has to go through the presentation hearing (2-months), then go through the mandatory case conference (1 more month wait), then the attempt to get the court clerk to set a date (2 more months wait).

    When I finally did get a date, it was 9 months away, and this was for a 5-day trial. It took 5 months of that time to find out which judge was scheduled to hear the case. The trial was then postponed a further 4 months. By this time, 18 months passes.

    MCFD likes to avoid trials, so in non-continuing custody cases such as mine, they will then magically declare they are "satisfied" with your level of "cooperation" and will offer to return your children. Accepting the "generous offer" has the effect of canceling the hard-won trial date. Then, if you violate the terms of a 6-month supervision order, the children are removed again and the cycle begins anew -- only this time the parent is in a worse position as they have "violated" an agreement.

    Can anyone see a no-win situation exists with MCFD if parents choose to utilize their right to due process?

    The Baynes have gone public and are paying a monumental price for this decision. Unfortunately, this is practically irrelevant during these proceedings. There are a lot of us parents and many others on both sides of the child protection fence watching the outcome of this case, and hoping it will serve as a trigger, or at least the basis for some sort of reform to happen.

    Judge Crabtree is appointed the chief Provincial Court judge, and many of us will waiting to see how his written judgement will set the tone for his tenure. Will he toe the line to the Attorney General who is paying his salary as well as the lawyers for MCFD? Can he risk upsetting any portion of this lucrative and powerful ecosystem by giving the Baynes the slam-dunk win they deserve by returning all their children without strings attached? Will his decision be a focal point of change that sees fewer children removed from parents on equally questionable grounds?

    Oh, by the way, I'll stay anonymous too. No parent with children can afford to have their identities posted on the web for possible inclusion into damning intake reports by "child protection" social worker that would serve as a basis to remove my children again.

  8. Support for parents who are battling against the massive and quite frankly brutal state is very rare in the media. Even when there is support, there will always be simultaneous publishings of articles which support child removal (e.g., articles on how pediatricians are forming special educational units in order to apprehend more children in the hospital).

    Parents, and those who support parents, need to be able to have a place where they can discuss their concerns, air their opinions, and so on, without threat of censorship. And too many websites, blogs, etc. WILL censor parents and others - not for any other reason than they are telling the unwelcome truth.

    If the people who operated the blogs and websites had their children stolen by the state, they might finally see the truth. But too many are unwillingly to believe that the state could possibly be so harmful. This is surprising in a day and age when corruption and the abuse of power has been shown - time and again - to be pervasive and rampant.

    Power corrupts, and no one has more absolute power than MCFD.

  9. This is a clarification for ‘CPS Destroys,’ since you wrote directly to me in your comment. Unfortunately you must have failed to read Anonymous’s follow up comment in which that writer did understand by hesitation.


    I don't really care what Anonymous said to you - your conscience should be guided by what is right, not by Anonymous' obvious relief that you had decided not to censor him or her. Your tone towards some of these posters - parents who are suffering horrible pain - is really quite offensive and demeaning. You should go back and read your comments to Anonymous again - and forget about what Anonymous said - just judge them by themselves, for how they sound. That's no way to talk to a parent who has been and is going through hell. You obviously don't think it is anything to be ashamed about, but maybe you will if you think hard enough.

    It's thinking like this that has allowed the child protection industry to flourish. This mean-spirited denigration of parents who have endured pure hell. I am obviously not impressed. Feel free to publish my comments or not. I frankly don't care. But you should think twice about how you treat parents who have suffered immensely.

  10. I have just been speaking with someone today who has volumes of negative experience with MCFD, who is also erudite, eloquent, highly informed and I am certain that even as I write on behalf of the Baynes, I have much to learn and much that I will find incomprehensible because it seems so unbelievable in a free and democratic society. The fact is that a very small percentage of the population are truly aware of what is going on and a large percentage that do not care. That must change as you say CPS DF.

  11. Ron, thank you! And thank you to whomever spoke to Ron ("some who has volumes of negative experience with MCFD, who is also erudite, eloquent, highly informed and I am certain that even as I write on behalf of the Baynes"). Please continue helping the Baynes and other families. What you will learn will shock you, and distress you, but if enough people learn the truth, change WILL happen. I am certain of it.

  12. Well, CPS, your 3:13 PM comment took me by surprise. I certainly thought we were on the same support team. That was hard to read. I wonder whether you want to reconsider those remarks.

  13. Ron, after your comment of 3:17 PM, I can (as my post of 3:38 indicates) revise my opinion, as it seems that you have been enlightened by Anonymous. I am very thankful to Anonymous, and to you (to Anonymous for have the ability to persuade you, and to you for being persuaded).

    My apologies if I sounded overly harsh, but it is so frustrating sometimes seeing how parents are treated. It really seems as if you are trying to get at the truth, and for you this may be more difficult as you seem to trust authority (which may just be a result of you being a trusting soul).

  14. education is never harmful. Respectful discourse is needed. To think this was one case; one family,is what the child welfare industrial complex, WANTS many to think. There this goes on and on. I never had children protection history, nor children for that matter, when I saw it .
    It goes away back to the Battered child. It a system. That has more power then any other. It is not simply made a few error. There mass graves to show from such agencies, and very long history.
    It the children that are suffering the most, without the loving arms of the parent.God speed.
    for all .

  15. Exactly why I stopped posting any comments. Too judgmental and oppressive if my comments were not in a godlike manner. God never had anything to do with this mess. It's all MAN!

  16. Hi Lisa, with rare exception everyone's comments are posted here. The stated filter still applies and I don't think those are unreasonable. This is after all not a news media blog but a personal blog for which I feel accountable. So, reconsider.

  17. Ron, I do get the sense that you are more apt to "filter" parents' / critics of MCFD comments, than, say, comments that are critical of the Baynes. I have read comments that I consider highly defamatory of the Baynes, and very cruel, yet you have censored comments from parents. What gives? Is it because you still believe the MCFD is - overall - a fair and just organization?

  18. Hi CPS DF, thanks for the query. I can only answer from my heart’s commitment and my intellectual grasp of my developing cache of information. I am very pro Baynes’ rights to have their children back. I am confident that I know them and their case. I am deeply moved by numerous other case histories of what you and I perceive to be injustices by MCFD. I am positively convinced that MCFD needs to have many fixes and perhaps personnel removals. I am not persuaded that all social workers are sinister and bad at their jobs. I believe that most of MCFD’s problems and dysfunction originate at the management level. I guess I am saying that there are numerous situations in which I see MCFD having been patently unfair and unjust. If by ‘filter’ you mean actually refusing to publish comments, I can say that I have only withheld a couple, one of which was in Chinese which I asked someone to translate for me and it turned out to be porn. And another which I cannot recall but must have been convinced was overstatement or overkill or something. However, if by ‘filter’ you mean that you perceive me commenting more frequently to critics of MCFD rather than those who have commented critically of Baynes, I hope that your perception is not accurate but I don’t know. I do know that a flurry of incoming comments date back a few weeks when the exchange was heated, one side volleying at the other. I may have said things then to get everyone to stay on topic rather than aiming at the contributors. For a long while I have published everything that comes in when I see that they are reasonably following the simple filter code in the comment section.

  19. Ron and CPS DF: These messages posted explain why special interests in the "child protection" industry remain so powerful, despite so many oppressed parents voiced their grievance.

    Parents are fragmented and find immense difficulty to convince those who have not experienced "service" to believe that there is structural corruption. Special interests must be laughing when they watching people with a genuine motive to do good for our children are disagreeing with one another.

    Judging from your blog name CPS DF, you are probably from the U.S. CPS is no less oppressive than any other "child protection" agency worldwide. We need to form an united front. Give our common enemy organized and effective resistance.

    Oppressed parents must be patient and understanding when people are skeptical. Put yourself in their shoes. Before you experience your local "child protection" agency, if someone approach you and tell what you are preaching now, do you believe them? I don't, not 100% anyway. Who will believe such inhumane, barbaric and despicable acts happening daily to a small number of parents in a free and democratic society?

    Abraham Lincoln once said: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."

    Communication technology will shift the odds. Use it wisely to our advantage.

    Bringing reform in such a corrupted temple is a near mission impossible and is extremely dangerous. By God, we will take them down. For our children and our nation, all costs are worthy. He hopes for success should fight on principle, not chance.

  20. Anon, do you think we are using communication technology wisely? How better can we use it in your estimation?

  21. Ron:

    Your effort here is a start. Keep up your good work. Special interests need not to worry about public exposure of their hideous activities 20 years ago.

    We will further discuss this in due course.

  22. Ron:

    Your effort here is a start. Keep up your good work. Special interests need not to worry about public exposure of their hideous activities 20 years ago.

    We will further discuss this in due course.

  23. Anon, By special interests, to what do you refer?

  24. To answer your question, please view:

    I do not belong to Fighting 4 Families. Mr. Skinner (Ontario) gave a concise and precise summary of stakeholders in this industry.


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