When I began my GPS blog site it was with the intention of expressing my interpretations of ordinary life and world occurrences. I decided that a biblical theology had informed my worldview for decades and this would doubtless be reflected in my blog posts. It never occurred to me that I would ride one theme for as long as I have written about Paul and Zabeth Bayne and their quest for family redemption. Now I have written 200 daily posts related to them. Having been a clergyman for over forty years you know I do not casually use 'redemption' in the above context as a reference to salvation. Rather, it is 'rescue', from an entrapment that is as riveting a story as the LOST television drama that aired its final segment on Sunday.
For Paul and Zabeth the redemption issue is a settled matter for they devoutly believe in the Saviour of the Bible – Jesus, the incarnate God-man, Son of God who came into the world to lay his life down as a ransom for soiled humanity. Soiled in the sense that, if God is God, perfect in all that pertains to deity, humanity cannot approach him for relationship apart from Christ's substitutionary sacrifice. Paul and Zabeth have placed their faith and their hope of personal redemption exclusively in the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Their family redemption/rescue is still undecided, at least as far as we know. Will the children be released to return to their mother's and father's house? This makes the story so compelling. 
As with the extended fictional drama of LOST, viewers are waiting – waiting for the Judge to make a ruling. No one knows whether any of us who love the primary characters, will be as content with the conclusion as most people are content today with the final episode of LOST. You may think that the identity of the protagonists in this story is a matter of interpretation, that is, whether they are the MCFD social workers and managers or the parents of the three children. As an author I write the story with Paul and Zabeth being the principal protagonists. But this is not a fabricated script. This is reality. When journalists record the news, most of us want it up straight. We don't want a journalistic slant, a leftist or rightist or moralistic pitch. The reason why in my account Paul and Zabeth are the good guys is because I believe their story. If these two people were child abusers and refused to admit their criminality, an outcome that places the three children in another family home where they will be reared with security and opportunity for advancement, would translate into the MCFD team being the good guys and everything they have done would be viewed as good and the final result would be good. Yea team. However, if these parents did not harm their child and have never harmed their children, and have been maintaining their innocence in the face of allegations and court orders; if the medical examinations were correct but the conclusions were in error and; if all the medical data applicable to these children was complex enough to have been misjudged by the professional experts to whom the MCFD listened, then the parents are the good guys and when they are vindicated all the fans will cheer. Yea redemption. 
But if despite their innocence, and despite the misrepresentation of their characters and conduct, their children are not returned to them, then this is nothing short of a Stephen King horror. I can't believe it, 200 and still counting.
This is Part 200. Consider this! Two hundred days, 200 blog posts. And the Baynes have been (952) 946 days without their children. I stand corrected as per comment below.
Images:
Lost logo - ABC
Call to Repentance by Stephen Sawyer
Ron, I have been posting the last little while - and I couldn't agree more with ya. Blessings.
ReplyDeleteThe LOST show (gotta love that series) is an appropriate mention for today for another reason, as today is the 24th annual National Missing Children's Day.
ReplyDeleteSee: http://www.industrymailout.com/Industry/View.aspx?id=206211&q=209332223&qz=d3f435
This LOST theme would is indeed relevant for children inappropriately removed as a result of government intervention, which is the primary subject of this blog. Heartbroken parents and extended family members in government removal situations go through similar angst as parents whose children have gone missing for unknown reasons.
The Calgary based missing children's society assists and augments police efforts through fundraising from corporate and personal donations, and they also utilize large numbers of volunteers, typically parents who have been affected by a missing child.
Let's see, 492 days passed without my children before they were returned to me with no strings attached. MCFD values each hour of supervised access at about $100/hr, so MCFD owes me $1,180,800 for each removed child for this absence of love and affection over this period of time. Multiply by ten for deterrent effect and deliberate violation of me and my children's charter rights, the CFCSA and Criminal Code for fraudulent records manipulation and perjury.
ReplyDeleteUsing the nifty online date calculator at http://www.timeanddate.com/date/duration.html, 946 days has passed since Paul and Zabeth's three children were removed October 22, 2007.
MCFD owes Paul and Zabeth $6,811,200 for the inappropriate removal of their three children for 946 days. Add that to the approximate $1,000,000 of MCFD involvment has cost taxpayers to date.
Taxpayers in Canada would win in the long run because then MCFD would be far more careful in their questionable removal activities, and untold millions would be saved in foster care and legal fees, supervision costs, psychologists and other health practitioners, needless social worker paper-pushing and other useless administrative tasks.
Unless some forumula is devised to deter child protection authorities from keeping children for so long in a limbo that everyone agrees is not in the best interests of the children involved, this worldwide problem will continue.
Thank you, Ron, for working so hard on this blog, which is so important no only to the Baynes but to all who are affected by child protective services (and that would, I would think, be all of us).
ReplyDeleteThere is no way that the pain and suffering of this family, and all families who have been destroyed by CPS (or the MCFD or CAS or whatever they call themselves) - there is no way that the pain and suffering can be represented in terms that exaggerate that pain and suffering. There really are no words to articulate what child protective services puts parents and children through. It is indeed a horror story.
CPS may not destroy all families, but it destroys enough that we all should be outraged and demand change. And accountability.
TO: CPS 1:24
ReplyDeleteYour words made me cry. For years, I too "call on all law-abiding citizens: work together to erase the corruption!" Thank you and Ron and every reader with clear conscience!
The comments here are so interesting to read and often, very informative. So, also, is the blog, Ron.
ReplyDeletePeople understand if you will "admit" guilt to a crime you did not commit when it helps your goals to be reached. By contrast, it may not be so easy to understand when people have the courage and morals to continue on insisting that the truth be held to, even in the face of possibly losing everything.
Apparently the MCFD is staffed with people who aren't used to having parents and families stand up to their mean, bullying, dishonorable, abusive tactics.
I sincerely applaud the Baynes and all other parents with such intestinal fortitude and high purpose who won't cave in!! We continue to keep face to face with the King of kings on this matter and it will be resolved.
Nobody said the Baynes have to admit false guilt. Simply put - if they are guilty of abuse they should do programs to correct it in the best interest of their children. If they did commit abuse and will not admit it then a therapeutic service would not be appropriate, nor would most allow them entry. Goes without saying if they are innocent then no services necessary re: child abuse.
ReplyDeleteTo: Anonymous said... on May 25, 2010 11:18 AM
ReplyDeleteLawsuit is what the government fears after their running dogs create atrocities of this magnitude and this nature to the people of British Columbia. This partially explains why bureaucrats and politicians refuse to admit wrongdoings despite so much irrefutable evidence.
Like victims of residential schools, you may have to wait 50 years after government abolished such hideous system before you will get an apology. This is to ensure that those who can be held accountable are all dead or no longer be an embarrassment to the government should court finds them liable.
Enough is enough. The first thing parents must do is to stop this state-sponsored atrocities by revoking child removal authority. All these are possible because SW have the power, the resources, the incentive and the cruelty to remove children from home.
Did you really just say child-removal authority should be removed? You believe no child has ever justly been removed from a family? You wish for who to have the authority? The RCMP/City Police?
ReplyDeleteCW, you are bewildered by Anon's desire to withdraw all child removal capacity. I have come to understand that people coming to Canada from some other cultures and countries find it abhorrent that the State has this authority in this free land. They seem not to be able to discern that some family situations are so disgusting and some parents so short on skills that the children are safer somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteTo CW and Ron:
ReplyDeleteIn no uncertain term, I am convinced beyond any doubt that the state's child removal authority should be and must be revoked. Such barbaric act has no place in a civilized society.
This is not to say that the state should not separate vulnerable children from their abusive parents if there is good evidence suggesting that abuse does occur. I am sure that there are situations in which children are safer elsewhere, at least for the time being.
Due process, like the Criminal Code and Mental Health Act have already given authorities sufficient power to separate abusive or unfit parents and their children. CFCSA is redundant, oppressive and counter productive. Atrocities the Baynes and other oppressed parents will never happen if this hideous law does not exist.
In view of the negative impacts of state-sponsored child removals on families and ironically children, no responsible government would insist on such authority and continue to fund such an oppressive regime under the pretext of "child protection".
It does not matter what one's cultural origin is. I am talking about an issue of humanity, natural justice, corruption and national security.
Ron - you wrote: CW, you are bewildered by Anon's desire to withdraw all child removal capacity. I have come to understand that people coming to Canada from some other cultures and countries find it abhorrent that the State has this authority in this free land. They seem not to be able to discern that some family situations are so disgusting and some parents so short on skills that the children are safer somewhere else.
ReplyDelete...
You are quite right, Ron. Thank you for reminding me of this.