Saturday, April 10, 2010

PHOTO COLLAGE OF REASONS / Part 163 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Photo courtesy of Zabeth and Paul
Zabeth Kristensen and Paul Bayne were married on June 3, 2001.

As a dating couple intending to be married, they began attending the church that I pastored. As an accomplished pianist, Zabeth’s skills were soon contributing to the musical worship in the church. Zabeth and Paul asked me to officiate their wedding ceremony. During the premarriage counselling sessions I found them to be thoughtful, moderate, clear-headed people. Having counseled hundreds of young couples through the years, I found Paul and Zabeth to be comparatively serious about life, faith, choices and values. Because our church facility was a large one and their wedding party was small they made arrangements to be married in an historic and attractive local church.

I officiated the wedding of Zabeth Kristensen and Paul Bayne. They were married in the sanctuary of Cloverdale United Church, Surrey, B.C. on June 3, 2001.

In October 2001 I left my congregation to take other responsibilities elsewhere and my contact with the Baynes concluded until on September 2009 I learned that for almost two years they had been living without their children. Then I began to learn their heartrending story. That was seven months ago.

Their son Kent was born to them first. Then came Baden but far too early. He was so premature that he looked like a small toy inside his protective and life supportive incubator. No one needs to question their commitment as parents because they were daily for hours at a time attending in hospital to their needy, tiny boy. Finally he could come home. He came with the attendant concerns and complications of preemies. They nursed him well and consistently. At last came Bethany. They enjoyed her in their home for only weeks before the accident which caused her injuries which were diagnosed at Children’s Hospital, Vancouver, as resulting from being shaken. The diagnosis is much disputed. Ten experts disagree with it. RCMP dismissed this matter. The Ministry of Children took the three children into care, that is, removed them from their parents’ care. And that is where we are today, with a regional office insisting upon Paul’s and Zabeth’s culpability as abusers, and now seeking in court to have permanent responsibility for these three children.


Bethany at three months of age.

Bethany at two and one half years of age in mommy's arms.

Kent's kindergarten photo. What a great shot of a neat son, whom Paul and Zabeth were unable daily to watch grow up from a wee boy and then finally to take him to school.

Baden was one pound and fifteen ounces at birth three months earlier than expected. He was so small that a mom's hand seems enormous beside him.

Baden is a sweet fellow, not without some medical issues now and again from his premature birth - From a toddler into this playful son. That's what 2.5 years will do.

Mommy and her children - visiting always in a neutral location and never at their own home together where they belong.

Paul and his sons now. How much have they missed together? How much has he had to pack into brief 2-3 hour visits two times per week? How many weekends without them? How many years if the Ministry of Children has its way? BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Thanks to the TV and news journalists for paying attention to these posts. Perhaps soon you can resume to tell the story, glimpses of which you have shared before. Together we can make a change for this family and for others.


  1. Loose the chains of injustice, and set the oppressed free. These are some of the things mentioned in Isaiah fifty-eight as true fasting....well worth considering the points made there even if you are not a Bible reader. Rulers, historically, abuse their power. We, in this type of society, have the responsibility and privilege to make rulers accountable for their actions. Keep it in the front of your mind. Make this principle work for ordinary Canadians like the Baynes. We are not ruled by kings but by law through representation. Increase the pressure for justice. Don't let up when they draw up their "new" rules. They hope for that but it takes time to change habits of "abusers." MCFD needs to be monitored very intentionally. MCFD can elaborate fully on the principles necessary to govern "potential abusers."
    It is necessary to forgive those who do spitefully use us and who say all manner of evil against us falsely. It is necessary to pray compassionately and seriously for authorities. It is necessary to be merciful to everyone.
    It is also necessary to entreat authorities, and to use law to fight alongside those who are experiencing need, oppression and such outrageous injustice as Baynes and others are in this world. This is fasting in action. It is good citizenship. It is the heart of Almighty God, too.

  2. Parents who share the Christian faith may even be considered worse. You don't believe this, please watch what Reverend Steve Rudd from The Church of Christ said:

    Do terms like "positive parenting" sound similar in the CAPP document?

    This corruption is far too big to be solved by a few guys.

  3. To Bernice:

    Forgiveness requires repentance. Even God will not forgive if one refuses to repent.

    Yes, prayer is important. I believe that:

    "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain." (Psalms 127:1)

    Only God can triumph over such formidable power. That said, how far are you saints prepared to go other than saying a few prayers.

    Before you commit yourself, I caution those who openly support the Baynes. If you have children or grandchildren under 19 living in Canada, lay low. Many of you may think that I am paranoid, exaggerating, mudslinging or having a delusional disorder. Please watch this 2006 news footage:

    Children of parent's supporters are removed as reprisal. Do they need a complainant? No. Do they need to prove that children are in immediate danger? No. Do they need to prove that removal is in the best interests of the child? No.

    In Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651, HONOURABLE JUDGE B.K. DAVIS ruled that:

    [14] I am aware of counsel for the mother's arguments that the Director has no valid reason to remove this child, as there were no complaints. That is, any concerns were mere speculation. As well, the Director has not shown that the child is in immediate danger or that the removal is in the best interests of this child.

    In his infinite wisdom, this honorable judge ordered temporary order of custody in favour of the Director.

    Both statute and case law have gone so lopsided. Is this still salvageable?

    I don't want to see any of you saints turning into another victims. What you see from the Bayne's experience is just the tip of an iceberg.

  4. Great set of photos!
    It is really quite a remarkable example of what dedicated parents are capable of accomplishing with limited resources and overcome seemingly insurmountable odds. It is clear that the Baynes past challenges have really helped them face this current MCFD oppression.

    Perhaps the next blog can discuss how one quantifies the value of a parent child relationship. What is the cost to the parent, child, and society when this is disrupted?

    Apparently, taxpayers are being billed over $600 a week for 6 hours of visitation, or in 130 weeks (2-1/2 years) $78,000 costs for this type of visitation the Baynes are experiencing.

    In my case, I had exactly half this visitation time, 3 hours weekly for four children. Yes, I was internally angry at this insufferable treatment, but I chose to shut up and smile, didn't miss any visits, and I did get my kids back after 18 months of this cruel treatment.

    The worker was a staff employee paid $24 hourly, the visit occured in my home. The grand net cost, $5,616 for 1-1/2 or 78 weeks. Perhaps double that if you throw in travel time and after-visit note preparation.

    I discovered in my disclosures, the Ministry was paying the two working foster parents to hire a babysitter to watch and transport 4 kids $500 per month. The foster parents were paid close to $6,000 monthly tax free, while they were holding down full time jobs. The foster parents didn't see the kids depart or arrive from school, the babysitter did the transport.

    I would bet most parents with more than two kids would jump at any opportunity like this. Most parents have to face after school care, and pay anywhere from $300-500 per child monthly, and they have to do the transportation.

    If the 6 hours per week of visitation is deemed in the best interests of the children, would not the remaining 162 hours of the week, of 96.4% be even better? A measily 6 hours per week does not sound to me like the "best" interests of the children are being served, and for the parents, this sounds like cruel and unusual punishment. Oh, wait, this doesn't just SOUND like it, it IS cruel and unusual punishment, and I can speak of this first hand.

    If the government were obligated to maintain exactly the same time between parent and child as before the "precautionary" separation, supervised visitation would cost $2.18 million dollars for the 130 weeks the Baynes children were separated. Multiply by five when considering damages for each person involved.

    The Baynes have a clear case for a lawsuit for charter violations for section 7, 8, 11 and 12.

    s.8, "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.",

    s.7 "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

    s.12 "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment."

    While this is not considered proceedings in criminal and penal matters, s.11. has this: "Any person charged with an offence has the right, b) to be tried within a reasonable time, d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

    The Baynes have not been charged with an offense, but should have been in order to justify this 'trial'. Charter section 11, "within a reasonable time" should apply. MCFD pulled a trial date out of their hat on a moment's notice. Now they are dragging their feet in getting a continuation date.

    I think what we need next are a few youtube videos of the family.

  5. To Anon - Posted to GPS at April 11, 2010 11:00 AM
    You posted a comment about crimes against humanity. I will look into the details you have given but at this time I am not going to publish your 2 comments until I am convinced that your conclusion do not jeopardize the Baynes and their case which is my priority here.

  6. Yesterday this blog received two comment messages from Anonymous to which I refer above, and I assume by the content these were sent by the same person. I informed in yesterday’s post comment section that I had hesitated to print the comments because of their content. It is fear mongering at its best. That is not what my blog is about. It militates against tactful solution to sensitive issues. I am choosing to print them now with the proviso of this preface explanation from me. And this will be the last time something like this is printed here. Consider this notice served. It is preposterous to construe that in British Columbia the entire Ministry of Children is occupied by a conspiracy of criminals who are willing to even kill critics in order to promote the industry of child trafficking or to protect their government revenues. Yet that is what I read in so many online blogs and sites. Might there be a flaky individual inside the MCFD? Perhaps, as in just about any other social organization. The way to address the issues being expressed in this blog and other similar ones is through legitimate protest, exposure, discussion, dialogue, public presentation and statute changes. I am confident enough that there are elected officers who know, care, and will act in the best interests of all of us rather than themselves. Now I suppose I will be castigated as well.

    I will print their content here, so they do not get published at their date and time of submission and appear earlier without my explanation.

    From Anonymous, Dated April 11, 2010 11 AM
    Speaking of cruel and unusual punishment, Crimes against Humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c. 24 [Article 7 1 (I)] state the following prohibited acts:

    "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    (a) Murder;
    (b) Extermination;
    (c) Enslavement;
    (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
    (f) Torture;
    (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
    (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
    (j) The crime of apartheid;
    (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."

    Are (i) Enforced disappearance of persons and (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health applicable to families under scrutiny? Let your discernment and conscience answer this.

    Late Nancy Schaefer (a former state senator of Georgia) gave a clear picture of what "child protection" is at:

    Sadly, she and her husband were murdered recently:

    Who killed her and who has the incentive? God knows.

    Perhaps I should step up my warning that not only your children but also your life is at risk if you openly speak against "child protection".

    And, Posted by Anonymous to GPS at April 11, 2010 12:07 PM
    There is an allegation that Nancy Schaefer (an earnest Christian politician and anti-CPS crusader) committed suicide. To those who are interested to learn more about her and her recent death, please view:

  7. I am interested to know how I can get disclosure? Does anyone know?

  8. Jenny, can you please clarify the disclosure that you desire? Perhaps a bit more info will help someone to respond to you?

  9. To Anon who earlier wrote and asked me not to publish your comment. Accept my apology. I did not read your last line making that 'no print' comment until moments ago and I have promptly removed it. I didn't realize until now that you were merely trying to communicate with me.


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