Wednesday, June 9, 2010

#2 of THIS CASE IS A LAND MARK / Part 215 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/

Wednesday Entry Part 2, continued from the earlier post today

At the hearing yesterday for unsupervised access, in Doug Christie's presentation of the Bayne affidavit, Judge Crabtree was reminded that no evidence exists that Paul or Zabeth ever harmed one of their children. It didn't exist at the time of the children's removal and no evidence has been entered into court as evidentiary fact. Only suspicion survives and that does not qualify as evidence because it is subjective and willful. Medical reports on the two boys before the birth of their daughter indicate that the youngest boy's severe prematurity notwithstanding, both boys were well and had good connection with their parents. The eldest son was born at normal gestation and had no physical issues. The next son and the youngest child, a daughter, were born very prematurely. Paul and Zabeth could support their testimony with medical documentation that they took diligent care of these two youngest and needy children, providing them with consistent and regular doctors' reviews. The Baynes cited the numerous benefits that would accrue to the best interests of their children were they to be granted unsupervised access.

In contrast to the Bayne affidavit, another affidavit was presented by Ministry lawyer Finn Jensen. This document began with a list of the full schedule of activities in which each of the three children is occupied each day of the week. The inference was that additional visitation time was unthinkable because it complicates foster care and supervision arrangements. Then the document predictably spoke to those matters that imply the continuing risk that Paul and Zabeth pose in the Director's mind. It stated that the Director has relied upon the diagnosis of Children's Hospital that Bethany sustained a non accidental trauma resulting in brain hemorrhaging, a unilateral retinal hemorrhage and a fractured femoral bone. On that reliance the Director is seeking a Continuing Care Order the affidavit said, and increased access and certainly unsupervised access conflicts with the Director's proposed plan for the children, which is in his view to take them away permanently from their parents. While reference to Children's Hospital gave it punch, I suspect Children's Hospital will not be pleased to take ownership of this (non accidental) trauma diagnosis since it expressly belonged to one doctor and is disputed by a dozen other medical experts. The punch is lost. Now I want you to read the magnitude of this next assumption. Then the affidavit said that it is the Director's belief that Baby B sustained these injuries at the hands of one or both of her parents and that she and her siblings are consequently at risk of further injury if left unsupervised in their parents' care. I mentioned earlier that suspicion cannot be deemed to be evidence. Conjecture, speculation must not be deemed as cause for a CCO ruling. The affidavit even made quibbling reference to internet postings which convey specific details of the Bayne case and question the Ministry's motives (i.e. GPS). I make these points because someone must, in the best interest of the children as a matter of fact. News journalists would and could but it doesn't sustain readership each and every day. But I am getting the sense that there is coming a day when the details will be torrential.
Yesterday's Conclusion: At the end of the day, Judge Crabtree ordered access consistent with the request of Paul and Zabeth that the children attend a Birthday Party for one of the children to be held soon at a place of their choice and supervision was at the discretion of the Ministry. The children would also be permitted to attend an anniversary party at another date. Most importantly Justice Crabtree has called everyone back to the court next Monday when he will deliver a written ruling on the matter of unsupervised visitation.


  1. While the Children's Hospital might not be pleased with the affidavit, it seems that children's hospitals do have a lot to do with child "removals". In fact, doesn't the Children's Hospital have an entire department devoted to "child protection?"

    What was the purpose of mentioning the GPS blog in the affidavit? To intimidate its writer?

    Please, Mr. Unruh, keep up the good work here; this is an extremely important case, and you are doing a tremendous public service.

  2. CPS - GPS wasn't specifically mentioned in the Ministry affidavit. The context was actually "the Baynes have a large following of supporters, often having many of those supporters present during Court hearings and otherwise engaging the Ministry through letters, phone calls, emails, and internet postings which convey many specific details of the Baynes' case and question the Ministry's motives." To which I say "duhhh!" What does the ministry expect? And what was the point of that statement anyway? Is the Ministry motive beyond question? Of course not! Any time an authority's actions impinge upon the freedoms of friends and acquaintances and even strangers, there is room for question and there is space for replies.

  3. The Child Protection department at BC Children's is a medical team dedicated to confirming whether or not a child has been abused. They have no authority or desire to "remove" children from parents. The SW's on staff are not MCFD employees, but rather Vancouver Coastal Health.

  4. Thanks Anon 8:58 AM
    That is helpful info

  5. The child protection unit at the Vancouver Children's Hospitla may or may not have the authority to remove children, but they wouldn't exist if they weren't working with those who do. They must have some power, and some very great power, or they would not exist.

    And as with all agencies and individuals who work in the area of child protection, their reason for being is, they state, to protect children - if they don't appear to be doing that (and the best way they seem to prove they are doing that is by removing children) they no longer have a reason for being. So obviously they are going to be removing children, or suggesting that children be removed.

    To say that the child protection unit at the Vancouver Children's Hospital doesn't want to remove children sounds nice, but the fact remains, they wouldn't exist if they didn't believe in their role - protecting children - that is, removing children, or advising that they be removed.

    A very large number of removals seem to occur in hospital related circumstances, so we should not dismiss the role that these child protection units, and professionals and others who are working in hospitals, play.

    Like the former forensic "expert," Dr. Charles Smith, these professionals should never be above our scrunity. They are entrusted with the lives and wellbeing of our children, and we need to keep a very close eye on them. If they truly care about children, they will have no problem with being under scrutiny. It should only prove that they are doing a good job. Unless, of course, they are like Dr. Charles Smith.

    Power corrupts, and absolute power, well, that's what those in child protection have. Absolute power.

  6. Anon - I am sorry, but you are just being ridiculous. Do you not believe these folks couldn't get a job in the medical profession in another capacity? They do not work there to remove children!

    Give your head a shake.

  7. Yes, Anon, I am sure that is what people who might have questioned Dr. Charles Smith were told. After all, wasn't he at one time considered a most esteemed and respected professional? He probably could have obtained a job anywhere he wanted too.

    No one who holds such a powerful position should be above our scrutiny. In fact, the scrutiny should be intensified with respect to these powerful positions where vulnerable, innocent children's lives and wellbeing are at stake.

    Why would you have a problem with that?


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