Thursday, May 6, 2010

MOTHER'S DAY / Part 182 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Normality is gone.

A normal Mother's Day for Zabeth Bayne in 2008, 2009 and again in 2010 is a visit with her three children.

Zabeth will not put her two year old daughter into a pretty dress and brush her hair to make her look pretty. She wants to do this. She lives for it. After birthing two boys, the arrival of a daughter two and one half years ago was an unsurpassed joy. We all understand that.

She will not lay out her sons' clothes for them to put on when it is time to go to church as a family or go to Grandma's and Grandpa's home for a family meal. Or perhaps I should not be so presumptuous. She might do this, but first let me say this.

She asked for a concession to a request to have her children with them at her parents' home for Mother's Day but it was denied this week. Not surprisingly mind you. A supervisory presence would have to be in attendance given the nature of the present court hearing. That complicates arrangements and it costs money. Paul and Zabeth could certainly not be permitted to have the children unsupervised because the allegation of the hearing is that these parents pose an ever present potential risk to their children.

But listen to this! Word has been sent to Zabeth that an attempt is being made to accommodate a visit with the children for Mother's Day. We have to wait to see whether this can be arranged. It will have to be workable with the agency that provides transportation for the children and supervision during the visit as well as making arrangements with the foster family.

Of course it must not be forgotten that on Friday afternoon at 1:30 PM this week, May 7th, Judge Crabtree will deliver his ruling on the Bayne application to have the two boys returned to Paul and Zabeth immediately. She may yet lay out the boys' clothing at the start of Mother's Day. That's correct, a return of the boys even before the hearing is completed – a hearing which was initiated for the Ministry to obtain continuing (permanent) custody of all three children. Expecting something better from the Ministry people who are involved in this court action, this legal action is condemnable.

This Ministry of Children and Family Development has never seen in its history, two innocent parents more viciously attacked for such a sustained time, but worse, is what this Ministry has done to three children who want their Mommy. It is time to make this right.


  1. "This Ministry of Children and Family Development has never seen in its history what this Ministry has done to three children" This sad case is unusual only because somebody else than parents really cares -you Mr.Unruh, God bless you. I very closely observe the MCFD for 15 years, 3 years as a foster parent & 12 years as (certainly) the most hated man by the govt. Countless lives of children and families have been not only senselessly, but INTENTIONALLY destroyed. You can read a bit about my case at

  2. A Mother's day visit would indeed be remarkable act of compassion by the Ministry. Holidays are double costs for supervision though and can be 'hard to get' if not planned sufficiently in advance.

    The Ministry again though, finds itself in a self-created rock and a hard place. As was pointed out, past holidays have been denied. Even to make themselves look good, and the Ministry is mindful of the public attention and wishes to look less heartless in the eyes of the public and the judge, permitting such visits on special days is still counter to the "best interests" of the children, especially at this late stage. After all, the argument for a CCO is that so much time has passed that children have lost their bonds to their parents and it becomes counter productive to continue to allow them to further connect with their parents.

    Such special consideration also undermines the Ministry position who "serve" hundreds of families in identical situations, where the children have formed bonds and attachments to their foster family. Maintaining, and even promoting special days between children and their parents runs counter to the children's best interests in light of a continuing custody order. Apparently this is position is legally defensable even before a protection hearing begins.

    With days special to parent and child, the typical tact of the Ministry so as not to appear heartless and blameless but who in fact find it stratigically useful to inflame parents, is to artificially restrict supervision services, so they can, with a clear conscience tell judges and parents their hands are tied, and it is up to the parents to plan weeks and months ahead of time to arrange with the visitation providers these holidays.

    A birthday party, however, for one boy was permitted some months back before the Bayne's trial began. Still and video camera's were allowed. I brought my child to a very nice church venue. It was a potluck affair where the many guests in attendance brought food. It was a well planned event, with children's games and balloons, and many, many presents for all the children present. This video, I'm sure will be part of the presentation for the judge.

    Surely this successful and safe birthday party serves as a suitable precedent for again allowing cameras, an extended visitation, relaxed line-of-sight-only, or no supervision, and include a visit to a beach or other outside location if it is sunny (the weather forecast says it will be sunny).

    Claims of excessive cost and resources is an artificial limitation and a poor excuse to limit visits in light of the far greater costs of several weeks of trial. The Ministry should not be permitted to use this as a defence as it typically does, to restrict the normal contact between parents and their children. After all, parents are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and their children should not be deprived of contact in the meantime.

    Convicted prisoners get rights to see their children, and they don't have to endure supervision personnel that have to remain in earshot, simple line of sight is sufficient. The Ministry deliberately uses supervision to drive up visitation costs, which then serves as a justification for arbitrarily limiting visits because the government is cash-strapped in these trying financial times.

    Since the vast bulk of business comes from the Ministry, supervision facilities are also easily used as weapons by MCFD against parents to artificially restrict visits or construct reports where "concerns" are written down serve as a basis for imposing some arbitrary restriction on future visits, or even used as evidence against the parents in court.

    In any event, best wishes for tomorrow's 1:30 decision by Judge Crabtree at the Chilliwack courthouse. I'm crossing my fingers for a successful mother's day for the Baynes and all other children in care to be with their family's that day.

  3. This case is like hundreds of thousands of case all over the world. Gross, brutal injustice, destroying innocent, defenceless children and their families.

    Let's hope and pray the judge does the right thing tomorrow.

  4. I hope and pray that this will be Zabeth's best Mother's Day yet,...that her precious boys will be returned to her by Judge Crabtree, and that this will be the beginning of amazing things to come.
    This family has suffered FAR TOO LONG!
    I know that MCFD will read this, they need to do the right thing,...give the Baynes back their lives!

  5. Mary HarringtonMay 7, 2010 at 9:05 PM

    This story is heart wrenching , I do not agree with the system removing the children , they are very quick to jump in before any clear evidence is given. Maybe it would be a good idea to improve the EDUCATION of those individual's who are doing social studie's and workijng in the field of social work . I sincerely hope that Judge Crabtree consider's the return of the children to their rightful parent's. Mary Harrington


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