Tuesday, June 15, 2010

CRABTREE RULES / Part 221 / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne/


Although the hearing with regard to the Ministry application for a Continuing Care Order is still not completed, the Judge has allowed the Baynes to proceed with an application not only for increased access time with their children but for unsupervised time. You must know that the Baynes have presently interim supervised access. Yesterday, Monday June 14th, the Judge ruled on this application.

The Baynes applied for this:
1.Increase in existing access from two times a week visits at three hours a visit to three times a week at four hours a visit.
2.Visitation to be arranged at the home of Marvin and Ruth Hunt (family friends)
3.Family occasions to be together on all special occasions
4.Mr. And Mrs Baynes attendance at preschool and kindergarten activities as well as to assist at them.
5.To be informed of doctors appointments and to attend
6.Weekends unsupervised access

The Judge gave them this:
1.That access shall be increased from two times a week for three hours each to three times a week for three hours.
2.Reasonable access on special occasions
3.The parents can attend preschool and kindergarten functions in the same manner that other parents do with their children.
4.All information for doctors appointments be sent by email to the parents and if the doctors consents in advance and in writing that the parents can attend.
5.The visitation request to be at the Hunts residence and overnight unsupervised access is denied.

In brief, Judge Crabtree gave them 50% more visitation time in addition to numerous other access opportunities. He also made it clear that distinct, written communication must be provided to the Baynes by the Ministry with regard to all such access opps and it affords them greater involvement in the details of their children's wellbeing.

I view this as a significant award by a judge who is not impressed with the Ministry's legal case to take the Bayne children away from their parents once and for ever. Clearly that is my personal opinion, my read of not only the lack of Ministry evidence in the case but also my interpretation of the meaning of this ruling itself. I am confident that the Judge would have given the Baynes unsupervised access now if not for the perception and the potential challenge that such a ruling would have furnished to the Ministry that the ruling was prejudicial and therefore detrimental to the Judge's final objective ruling on the unfinished hearing. What he granted today was within his power to do, that is, to encourage the Baynes and to mess with the Director's strict control of his interim order over these children. The Judge is the one with the ultimate power and doesn't that bite! Further, the Ministry was unable to make a case to convince Judge Crabtree that the Baynes are such high risk people that they should not have more time with their children but less, much less, in fact no time at all, example: a CCO. The Ministry's affidavit to counter this application was as weak as water and further underscored that when all is said and done in August, these children are coming home. That's because a circumspect Judge deems the Baynes to be good and fit and reliable parents and it is in the children's best interests that they come home, and social workers in the system should applaud – this is not a competition.

23 comments:

  1. To: Anon Long Weekend (posting sent on June 14, 2010 5:16 PM in June 12, 2010 Part 218 of this blog)

    "Loyalty to one's parents is called family bond. This is a natural human behavior that perhaps only "child protection" SW would try to change."

    So you are saying if a child is being severely (note the use of the word "severe") they should be left in their home?

    You folks are missing the point - there are at least two sides to every story. Too many posters on this web page see just one.

    "Our Criminal Code, a due process based on good evidence, has already provided sufficient protection."

    Based on?
    ------------

    Please organize your thoughts and help me to understand what you are trying to say. I do not understand.

    Your comments are typical of SW: getting defensive easily when others disagree or uncover their wrongdoings, taking words out of context, jump to absurd subjective conclusions and missing the point. Really, Anon Long Weekend, you miss the point. There is NO two sides in getting rid of corruption, abuse of authority, jeopardizing public safety and using children for financial exploitation.

    CPS Destroys Families cited the following site in Quebec on June 6, 2010 (Part 211 of this blog):

    http://www.sosquebec.com/

    This may answer your question on:

    "A good comparison would be to study Quebec's child protection - all child abuse reports must go to Quebec Police. I have not studied how effective/efficient/appropriate etc this pathway/organization has addressed child abuse. Anyone?"

    Wherever government has the power to remove children from their parents, similar problems occur. Is it incidental? Absolutely not. Do oppressed parents, advocates, non-profit groups all over the world gang up, lie together and raise implausible accusations of CPS?

    To those who are new in learning the "child protection" industry, the foregoing are food for thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To: Mr. Ray Ferris

    I sent the message below on 08-Jun-2010 (Part 213 of this blog). I do not appear to have heard your response.

    Do you have a solution for the problems raised below? I would like to hear your answers before reading further on your criticism on the flaws of MCFD's "child protection" activities.

    Thank you.
    -----------
    To Ray Ferris:

    Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions given on June 4, 2010 to rectify the flaws of our "child protection" system.

    In view of the surrounding circumstances in our current system, your suggestions are too idealistic to be practical. You mentioned secrecy, which of course is very necessary to prevent the public and the media from learning the truth. Privacy, confidentiality and matters are in court’s hand are often used as excuses to avoid answering questions. Yet, MCFD tries sharply and vigorously to project an illusion of openness, transparency and accountability by alleging that there is no “no recording” policy, no surveillance, ... etc.

    Being an experienced veteran in this industry, what practical steps would you propose to implement your changes in a system so corrupted?

    Furthermore, your suggestions do not appear to have dealt with the fundamental issue of child removal itself. The act of child removal alone, against the will of parents and their children in most cases, is oppressive, inhumane and barbaric. Another Anonymous writer brought to my attention of the impacts on removed children in:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care

    Section 4 of this document discussed the negative effects of foster care. Notably and ironically, removed children suffer a much higher chance of physical and emotional abuse in foster homes, suicide, mortality (due to attributed to substance abuse, accidents, illness and occasionally homocide). They also suffer increased incidence of acute and chronic medical conditions and developmental delays among children in foster care. Many of them end up being homeless and living in poverty when they reach adulthood. Perhaps, you should speak to those homeless people, junkies and prostitutes in Victoria Downtown and find out how many of them have been removed by MCFD in their childhood.

    To give readers a visual view of what supervised visits are and how children and families (MCFD’s “clients” so to speak) suffer, please view:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tgf8nSkOKQo

    How do your suggestions address this basic issue?

    June 8, 2010 2:48 PM

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon 3:04 - read Anon Long Weekends post again, it's pretty concise and not defensive at all. Try not reading these ideas at 3am.

    ALW was remarking on someone else's posts. I don't think they were commenting on "corruption".

    Pointing out alternative views is not defensiveness - it's open mindedness.

    RON - This blog post is awesome! They must be so happy!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I seem to have generated some heat. To anon june 8. Reforming MCF is complex and I wrote a long position paper on it two elections ago. Email me at rtferris@telus.net and I will send you the works, including my fully documented litany of horror stories in the appendix.
    People who claim that all removals are abusive have not seen the horrible scenes of neglect and abuse that I have. Nor have they read my blog on neglect and foster parents carefully. Did you not understand that leaving children in severe deprivation for years only postpones the time when they must enter care, by which time the damage is done and remedy is hard to find. I agree that standards of foster care have deteriorated, because too many good foster homes are abused. When you really work with foster homes as respected partners you get to know them and you can weed out the unsuitable ones early in the process. If you look at the past reports of the child and youth rep, you can see that many children, or youth come into care because they are already living high risk life styles, or because they have existing life-threatening illnesses.It is among this group that the deaths and suicides occur. Foster parents are asked to take children who really cannot function in an open setting. Then of course the statistics seem to condemn fostering. My study of seven hundred children in long term foster care showed that children removed from unfit parents at an early age, generally enjoyed normal lives. Children left in unfit homes became so damaged that many could not be salvaged. However ther were significant numbers who enjoyed loving care in some awesome foster homes and got their lives together. Too bad some of these are not writing in.
    Of course one should offer every help to families who just need a helping hand. I used to administer both social assistance and child welfare and I regarded financial assistance as a primary child welfare tool. No child came into care where extra financial help could prevent it. Sometimes it had to be done on a temporary basis during a crisis, but usually on a voluntary agreement that left control with the parent. Oh, if you really want to get the picture, just read my book.
    One final word of cheer. The children's ministry does not discriminate. They are adversarial to everyone, families, foster homes and to their own staff. When social workers dissent on ethical grounds, they do so at their own peril. Trust me-I have documents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good for the Baynes, they now have more time with their precious children.

    Thank you for this blog, Ron.

    And a special thank you to Doug Christie for epitomizing what a good, honest, just, and highly competent lawyer can and should be. What a credit to his profession, is Mr. Christie. He will go down in history as a brilliant, compassionate lawyer, and seeker of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To: CW said... (June 15, 2010 8:23 AM)

    I am reading Anon Long Weekends again at 10:45 a.m. Forgive my inability to understand his/her postings. I am sorry. I still do not understand what Anon Long Weekends wanted to say. Perhaps SW talks in a language that only special interests could understand.

    In my humble opinion, one must consider the notion of corruption in evaluating the propriety of public policies and services. If there is no corruption, you need not to worry. If there is, then corruption should be linked as the accrual of power, money and fame becomes the driving force and motive under the pretext of a noble cause.

    Speaking of alternative views and open mindedness, I hope that SW would have the same attitude before removing children or forcing parents to accept their supervision orders.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ray Ferris said:

    "If you look at the past reports of the child and youth rep, you can see that many children, or youth come into care because they are already living high risk life styles, or because they have existing life-threatening illnesses.It is among this group that the deaths and suicides occur."

    Where are these reports? I want to see for myself. Children who are taken from their parents - at any age - regardless of how bad or great their situation was - are going to suffer. That is just common sense. You can't bust into someone's home with cops and pepper spray and rip someone from all they love and then throw them into a succession of foster placements and say it doesn't have a profoundly detrimental effect on them. That's just common sense. Anyone, with any understanding of the human heart, would see this.

    And just seeing how the Bayne case has progressed would show anyone how incredibly harmful, corrupt and abusive the MCFD is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am happy to hear visitation time is increased by 3 hours per week to 9 hours! Persistance and competant logical and legal argument by the parents does pay off, and there is no downside to the parents for the judge not granting everything that was requested.

    The judge di threw MCFD a bone, knocking back the Baynes very modest 12-hours per week and not dropping supervision.

    Had the Baynes been granted no-supervision or to use the Hunts as supervisors, the judge could have risked being removed by MCFD for bias.

    MCFD's defence of limited resources and childre's busy schedules didn't fly, a measly three hours is not hard for MCFD to schedule. This ruling emphasises that parents are innocent until proven guilty, and as such, recognition of them as parents to their children must be respected regarless of MCFD's position and application for CCO.

    I wish I had this ruling in my hands when I applied twice for more access with my kids. I had only 3 weekly hours, and the same "limited resources" "scheduling" and "cutbacks" was cited as excuses rather than the many dozens of vistiation reports that recorded no concerns. I was told by multiple judges if I wanted more time, I has to pay for it. My kids were returned with no supervision order, and MCFD lost at the protection hearing.

    The Baynes did exactly what caring parents are supposed to do. First try to reason with social workers, and when that fails, apply to court and use legal logic to justify requests for more access. The judge then has to justify his reasons for rejecting or granting the requests.

    The judgment gets published, other parents and lawyers read it, and then they can apply it to their case. MCFD has to be considered as a single entity, a single parent that must apply equal parenting to all its "clients" (an odd term to use that suggests parents and children are a source of revenue.)

    Other parents wishing to increase their access time can then simply show Judge Crabtree's decision to their social worker and tell them if they do not similarly grant the same visitation time, they will apply in court to get it.

    The difficult circumstances of granting further time in the midst of a trial and with a pending CCO further widens the range of afflicted parents qualified to make a similar application.

    The judge that reads Judge Crabtree's case example will have to agree with it in order to avoid making an error in law (ie. best interests of the children, no new derogatory evidence to prevent granting the request).

    If that judge chooses not to grant the request, the parents can pay $300 or so and appeal the matter to BC Supreme Court. A BC Supreme Court the decides if an error in law exists and which judge is right, the new chief justice of B.C. or the judge behind door number 2.

    This is again an example of a remarkable waste of legal resources when the social workers involved refuse to discuss day to day issues and have to be dragged into court in order to be taught a lesson on treating their "clients" more appropriately.

    The Ministry made it clear a safety issue did not exist given the 2-1/2 years of trouble-free access, they declared it was a "resource" and "scheduling" issue and a "mid-trial" issue, only the latter item was agreed to by the judge.

    If safety of the children is not at issue, hire more supervision staff you MCFD idiots! Save the $300 per hour legal fees taxpayers are forced to pay. Better yet, allow the Baynes unpaid supervisors. If supervision was not dropped, why didn't MCFD address the "limited resources" and "scheduling" issue addressed before allowing the matter to proceed to court?

    Now MCFD has egg on their face and the Baynes have more time with their children.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon 12:15 PM
    Thank you for your insightful comment above.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ron; I am sorry that some readers do not seem to grasp the fact that the social value in British Columbia is that we do not tolerate abuse and cruelty to children. Abuse by action and neglect. Certainly children suffer anxiety and fear when removed from parents, however abusive the home. They suffer far more trauma if left there. Many children come into care precisely because they have been left here there and everywhere, sometimes with drunks and addicts. How is placement in a loving family more abusive? Or what about abandoned babies. They suffer no trauma by being placed in good care until the legal process can free them for adoption. Please readers. Let me emphasise again that this is not a field with simple and easy solutions and that is why it should only be done by people of high personal qualities. The dummies who gave evidence in the Bayne case fall far short of this standard.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No one in their right mind would tolerate child abuse or neglect. I don't think anyone would agree to leave a child in a home that was abusive. The whole actual point is being overlooked here. Children are being removed from parents when they don't need to be. Have you ever had to deal with MCFD? Have you ever been lied about, humiliated in front of your friends, family and children? Have you ever had to defend yourself against ridiculous lies that you thought no one would ever believe but they did? Have you ever had to fight for every second you had with your children? I did. I defended myself against every silly allegation that MCFD made against me while they worked very closely with my ex-husband to make me look like something I never was. I have felt the sting of humiliation while sitting in an office with a social worker writing notes so I could see my children once a week for one hour. I lost my job, my friends, even family sided with MCFD. I know what MCFD is capable of. I know how they conduct business: not providing disclosure until the very day of court; re-removing children 15 minutes after a judge ordered otherwise; giving false testimony on the stand. How do I know it was false? Because I'm the one they were lying about and they had no problem saying things that weren't true. My children are still paying the price for all the unfair time spent in court. They may never get over the damage done. I am not an isolated case. The Bayne's are not an isolated case. The problem is that people tend only to learn by experience and cannot grasp the truth of other people's experiences. I am sick of people saying, 'well you must have done something to deserve having your children removed'. I am an average mother. I love my children more than anything. During my nasty divorce, my ex stooped lower than I ever could and I will live with that for the rest of my life. So will my kids thanks to the fact that MCFD will say dishonest things in court, doesn't have to provide proof and doesn't mind doing what's not right for the children. Allegations were made about me, the children were taken and I never even got a chance to tell a judge my side of the story. No protection hearing, no nothing. Just guilty. Munchausins disease, permiscuous,emotionally unstable...all of which are very hard to DISprove.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ray Ferris said:

    "Certainly children suffer anxiety and fear when removed from parents, however abusive the home. They suffer far more trauma if left there."

    The problem is, Ray Ferris, is that even if one agrees that removal is better for the child, it should, as you seem to suggest, "only be done by people of high personal qualities."

    My point is that there are far too many people in the MCFD who don't have these "high personal qualities." As you yourself state, "The dummies who gave evidence in the Bayne case fall far short of this standard."

    It seems apparent that there are far too many dummies, or whatever you want to call them, in the MCFD, and child protection agencies all over the world. And even if there is only one dummy with this kind of power, that is one dummy too many.

    As long as there are dummies out there (and I believe they are more than just stupid, I believe that many of them are just cruel bullies who are on a power trip), I am going to complain about the unjust nature of removals, and point out how incredibly damaging they are. But what is probably most damaging of all (and I have heard this from a former foster child who was, he himself states, taken from good, loving parents and placed with a succession of child abusers, including sexual abusers), what is probably most damaging is the foster care experience that these children go through. Too many children are beaten, raped, abused and drugged while in foster care - their subsequent depression, addiction, homelessness incarceration, and suicide can not be blamed on their biological parents. To do so is brutally unjust.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To Ray Ferris said... (June 15, 2010 1:58 PM)

    As one of the many pro-family writers in this blog, I have zero tolerance on abuse and cruelty to children. Child abuse is a serious accusation and an unthinkable crime on one's own children (as in most of the MCFD's cases). It must be tried in a criminal court based on good evidence and due process. Once convicted, SW will then have the chance to do what they are trained to do, namely take care of children in need.

    One needs not to have 30-year experience in social work, as you have repeatedly emphasized, to realize the atrocities children suffered in the hands of abusive parents.

    I also have zero tolerance on corruption, abuse of authority and using children for financial exploitation under the pretext of "protecting" them. Your criticisms suggested that you agree at least some of the foregoing do exist. Your solutions are nothing more than bandage solutions that only treat the symptom but not the root problem. With due respect, they are grossly insufficient to solve the serious problem at hand.

    You also grossly over-estimate the quality of foster parents. This is not to say that there aren't any. Although I know none personally, I am sure there are noble foster parents who truly care about children and not for money. However, like other special interests in the "child protection" industry, many foster parents who warehouse removed children are doing this entirely for money. This is a very lucrative business.

    To substantiate my claim, Teresa Iezzi, a foster mother in Burnaby, went public and sued the BC Government for damages of contracting Hepatitis C from a removed child under her "care". She shrewdly timed her lawsuit one day before the provincial election in 2009. She alleged that she earned $7,500 per month in the last 22 years before she was dumped by MCFD. This implies that she had earned $1,980,000 (probably tax-free income) from taxpayers and she was suing for more.

    If there is no money in this, MCFD's lawyers will be the first to walk, followed by most of your love-abundant foster parents.

    Foster parents are instrumental to the "child protection" industry as SW do not take removed children home.

    Ray, please stop calling SW dummies. Most of those making decisions behind the curtain are not dumb. Although they fail society's expectation of protecting children and developing families in need, they have been very successful in aggrandizing power, keeping their jobs and milking more fundings from taxpayers to continue their hideous operations. Few people could do this and yet continue to occupy a high moral ground.

    I respect even the most despicable enemy as a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cheers and bravo, Ray!

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my opinion I think it SUCKS big! Sorry. On the other hand it is a very meager step in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Grad Week AnonymousJune 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM

    Anon 3:42 - it wasn't "MCFD" that lied. It was those specific SW's.

    I will ask - were the lies reported in court by the SW created by the SW or was the SW reciting information given to them by your family/friends/co-workers? In which case it wasn't the SW that was lying, it was the SW being duped into believing false-testimony of others. A pretty big difference....

    but shocking considering if they were lies the SW had no evidence to support the statements.

    ReplyDelete
  17. To Grad week anon: Considering the area manager, assistant deputy minister, complaints consultants and everyone else I spoke to did nothing about the incorrect and false information reported and documented by social workers and team leaders on my case, they are responsible for the damage my children are suffering. I was told by the deputy minister that even though I could prove the information was false, it would be on my record forever. She could do nothing but place a note in the file 'noting' that the information was incorrect. It was several individual social workers who gave false information to the courts and MCFD obviously supports that kind of behavior because they allowed it to affect the future of my children.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You didn't answer the question. Did the SW's lie, or was the SW duped by other people who lies? In which the SW is at fault for stating something is true, which wasn't, not for "lying".

    MCFD may have documented the false info as well, but did they actually create the false info.

    It's a pretty important distinction. Be mad at them for being duped, but if they didn't actually create the lies themselves...

    ReplyDelete
  19. SW's flat out lied in my case. Individual social workers, more than one, gave false testimony and recorded false information in risk assessments that was provided to court. In some cases it was false information passed on by other people but social workers actually made up information and reported it in court. For example, it was written in a risk assessment and reported in court that I had been attending a 'psychiatric' program, taking psychiatric meds and seeing a psychiatrist. None of it was true and I had letters from my family doctor stating it wasn't true but that didn't matter. I was given 12 hours notice of the hearing, I wasn't given disclosure until the very day of court and I had no idea any of those allegations were going to made. How could I know? How could I have guessed at what false allegations would be made against me? How do you prepare for court, have all the necessary documents/witnesses to defend yourself when the allegations are false and you aren't given proper notice?
    How is that in the best interest of the children?

    ReplyDelete
  20. To: Ray Ferris -

    Please tell us, what constitutes "neglect?" Since you seem to believe that this is grounds for taking a child from his / her parents, please let us know what "neglect" is.

    I have heard of cases where a family just narrowly missed being ripped apart, ONLY because they weren't living in a large enough home. The family got some money, just in time, and the judge said, in effect, okay, now you get to stay together. If that family was ripped apart (and who knows, they may be now, as MCFD doesn't like to let anyone go), it would have cost much, MUCH more financially than it would have to give them the money to live in a house that the judge deemed large enough. There was, by the way, no accusations whatsoever regarding abuse, it was merely a case of the accommodations not being deemed suitable.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have read the court (BC Court of Appeal, perhaps, but I'm not sure) case where a man appeals the decision to rid his record of false allegations. He lost. The system is overwhelmingly biased against parents. The Charter of Rights is violated 24/7 by MCFD. You are always presumed guilty, and will never be exonerated. The false accusations, etc., stay on your file - FOREVER - and can come back to haunt you at any time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ray Ferris, please let us know what you think constitutes "neglect" - since you seem to indicate that this is a justifiable reason for MCFD taking children from their parents, and that whatever abuse is inherent in a removal is justified.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon 12:56 - here you go:

    http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child_protection/pdf/handbook_action_child_abuse.pdf

    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