Saturday, May 8, 2010

APPLICATION WAS DENIED / Part 184 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/


We are in the midst of a Continuing Custody hearing which according to Section 50 of the 'Child, Family and community Services Act' is the ruling by which the Court may make an order placing all three Bayne children in the continuing custody of a director. The director then becomes the sole guardian of the persons of those three children and the director may consent to the adoption of these children. Defending against this is a very serious even desperate endeavour.

Fifteen days of evidence and testimony by the Ministry counsel has already been conducted and transcribed. Then we went into a delay in late February and ever since we have been waiting for a new dates in which to conclude the hearing. We learned that August 9-13, 2010 have been reserved. Judge Crabtree expressed his desire to locate earlier dates if possible.

On the last day of the primary hearing on February 24th, Judge Crabtree permitted Baynes' attorney Doug Christie to present an application to have the boys returned to Paul and Zabeth under a supervision care order persuent to the terns by written document produced during the trial and marked exhibit 3. It is the mediation agreement from May 16, 2008 which the Ministry claimed was breached when Global TV ran a story. It was an unusual step in the midst of a Continuing Custody hearing. Mr. Christie provided several salient reasons for this action.

Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen had his opportunity to oppose this application on April 29th, 2010 essentially arguing that Judge Crabtree was not in a position to make a ruling on a matter of this nature at this juncture in the CC hearing. .

Yesterday, May 7th was the scheduled day for Justice Thomas Crabtree to deliver his ruling on this application for custody of the boys. I was there. Ministry personnel Berhe Gulbot and Loren Humeny were observers. Mr. Christie was listening via telephone connection. The Baynes had a few supporters present in the court room. As a matter of fact this same application for the return of the boys has been presented by the Baynes on two previous occasions, once before Judge Crabtree and another time before Judge Maltby and in both instances the application was denied. Judge Crabtree informatively provided a background of the case, time lines, key events and decisions. He then recited Doug Christie's grounds for granting this petition as well Finn Jensen's objections. Judge Crabtree demonstrated that he had studiously processed Mr. Christie's points and one by one he was compelled to decide that to issue a ruling on this application in the middle of the CC hearing would be an error in law. In making this response he was very careful about his remarks lest there be any hint of bias in one direction or the other.

The judge then permitted the Bayne's to introduce their application for increased visitation privileges. The papers were received and the matter will be heard on some time between May 25th to 28th.
Zabeth' and Paul's faith, composure and courage continues to amaze me.

7 comments:

  1. Social workers very often do the exact opposite of their duties, of what is right and just and ruin lives of innocent children and families while countless equally innocent children must suffer in dysfunctional families without any help. The majority of them, plus majority of children raised in absolutely unnecessary,horrible inhuman foster "care" will inevitably become drug addict and criminals, giving unjust society back a little of what they received. It is real Canadian tragedy. Please, please, save Paul and Zabeth's and countless other children from similar fate!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel I have no good comment. I just wanted to connect. It is a moment of reflection, if I feel this disheartened and sick to my core and wanting to lash out and just cry, cry, cry.....what more must Paul and Zabeth be feeling.

    Oh God, we cry out to you. We know you are in control, please let the breakthrough happen now in this diligent, faithful, faith filled family. We pound the ground, we pound the ground, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

    Although it changes nothing, my heart is wrenched on behalf of the Bayne family.This is not a statement of defeat but of disappointment.

    A declaration: In the strong name of Jesus, we shall not stop. Believing,praying, standing.....with the Baynes.

    Thank you once again Ron. You are a mighty conduit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What shocking, absolutely abominable legislation!! One person, without a charge against the parents, can have such power against any parents of a province....SHOCKING REVELATION of the legislation behind the MCFD. Who is safe from the director's power? Even the most well intentioned individual should not have this power--EVER-- in a Canadian province. Would thinking people ever call the "anonymous" hotline if they knew where this imbalance of power could lead? How do I express my outrage.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Diane and Murray UnruhMay 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM

    Such sad news. Judge Crabtree's comment that to rule in favor at this point would be an error in law...such sad news.
    Makes me thankful to live under grace - and that we have an Advocate with the Father - Jesus presents our case to God....and we experience dynamic grace. We do not need to fear the law as it relates to our relationship with God.
    We continue to pray for peace for you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The good judge has no power to return the children before the CCO hearing is completed. He is right that returning the children amounts to an error in law. Case law and statute are so lopsided that the whole system is irreparable.

    This further suggests that CFCSA must be repealed and child removal authority be revoked. They are creating thousand of cases like this every year to substantiate an industry at taxpayer's expense.

    Pounding on the ground, expressing your anger won't help one bit. I hope that your folks will translate your anger and disappointment into political power to protect our children and build a safer, fairer and better future.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All hope is not lost. We had our oldest daughter returned to us via extended visit prior to trial..ie an access visit that never ends..there are still other means to achieve the same end.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous said: "This further suggests that CFCSA must be repealed and child removal authority be revoked."

    Absolutely.

    ReplyDelete

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